PDA

View Full Version : Fluff Over Power? [3.5]



Volos
2010-08-28, 01:05 PM
I would make this a topic for any style of game, but being that my experience is limited and my knowledge deals mostly with 3.5 D&D, that is where I would like to keep it.

I personally am the type of gamer who will choose a progression of character levels that are more effective towards roleplay rather then just pure power. I don't stack levels and obsure rules to obtain the most powerful character. But at the same time, I don't take levels in a class that make my character less powerful just for the fluff.

I'm curious, how do you see yourself as a gamer? Do you tend to make decisions based on what makes more sense in character or what makes a more powerful character? Somewhere inbetween? Then I ask this; if a given plot hook would satify a desire of the character but keep you from obtaining a powerful item/class/ability, would you go with the story or the power? Which is more important to you, and which is more fun for you; story or power play? I know that every game is a mix of both, so I present the scale!

Story----------------Mix------------------Power
~~~0 - 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8 - 9 - 10~~~

Where on this scale do you rate yourself?

EDIT: Alot of people are saying that they are both Story gamers and Power gamers, but noone seems to realize that you can just say that you are a "5" and that would count as both. Hence the word "Mix" above the number 5 on the scale.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 01:22 PM
I enjoy both, but I don't see it as a linear tradeoff. How do your class levels make you effective at roleplaying? Roleplaying is a skill that people develop, not characters. You and I could be handed the same character sheet, and would undoubtedly roleplay it differently.

The Rose Dragon
2010-08-28, 01:23 PM
I am both 2 and 8. At the same time.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 01:25 PM
Ever heard of something called the Stormwind Fallacy? This thread is covered in it. :)

tl,dr/can't find it on Google: Roleplaying and character effectiveness are not mutually exclusive. Having one does not mean giving up the other.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-08-28, 01:26 PM
I see game mastery as a way of eliminating the scale you proposed. If I have a character concept I want to play, I can optimize within the bounds of that concept. It might help the crunch to "stack levels and obscure rules," but that has nothing to do with the fluff at all.

Xefas
2010-08-28, 01:33 PM
Honestly, the only system and group of fans based around a system I've even seen this problem in is D&D. In my experience, once you get outside D&D, the notion of someone being worried about figuring out how to boost their fictional character's fictional power level is ludicrous.

For instance, if you want to make a dual-wielding character in D&D, the conversation usually goes like this:
Person A: I want to play a competent dual-wielding martial character without using magic. How do I do it?
Person B: Well, use these 4-6 classes, take these feats scattered across a dozen books that'd cost you a few hundred dollars to pick up at the store, make sure to grab two flaws, and get these exact skill points at these exact levels. If you don't, you'll be worthless and won't contribute to the party at all! Also, you're a weird obscure subrace of psychopathic cannibals. Hope that's okay.

And here's how you play a duel-wielding character in Primetime Adventures:
Person A: I want to play a competent dual-wielding martial character without using magic.
Person B: Okay. You are.
Person A: But how do I become as strong as the spellcasters? I don't want to be worthless to the party!
Person B: Worthless to the-?...BAHAHAHAHA

Callos_DeTerran
2010-08-28, 01:36 PM
I'm of the opinion there is a bit of trade-off between the two, but not a particularly large one in my group. And I always go towards fluff. It's far more important then power.

Greyfeld
2010-08-28, 01:41 PM
For instance, if you want to make a dual-wielding character in D&D, the conversation usually goes like this:
Person A: I want to play a competent dual-wielding martial character without using magic. How do I do it?
Person B: Well, use these 4-6 classes, take these feats scattered across a dozen books that'd cost you a few hundred dollars to pick up at the store, make sure to grab two flaws, and get these exact skill points at these exact levels. If you don't, you'll be worthless and won't contribute to the party at all! Also, you're a weird obscure subrace of psychopathic cannibals. Hope that's okay.


For all the theorycraft I see regarding character builds, I have never EVER seen this conversation take place during/while preparing for an actual game.
{Scrubbed}

Gorgondantess
2010-08-28, 01:44 PM
Then I ask this; if a given plot hook would satify a desire of the character but keep you from obtaining a powerful item/class/ability, would you go with the story or the power?

Is there any difference? I've played a lot of powerhungry sorcerers who would kill some babies at the prospect of greater power.

Also, yeah- stormwind fallacy./thread

Flail_master
2010-08-28, 01:44 PM
i really enjoy fluff for characters, to the point ill happily write a page or two for my character each time, however, i find that class doesn't tend to contribute to roleplay, though it can :smalltongue:
i enjoy having an effective character, and of course they need some power to be able to survive long enough for fluff to take effect or be important
so in my honest opinion i find myself torn, if anything id call myself a 4 or 5 more leaned towards roleplay but i would want a good amount of power to survive and be effective. :smallbiggrin:

ok im done :smalltongue:

Xefas
2010-08-28, 01:45 PM
For all the theorycraft I see regarding character builds, I have never EVER seen this conversation take place during/while preparing for an actual game.
{Scrubbed}

It was hyperbole. I guess something more realistically sounding would be "I want to be a good melee character", "Play a goliath", or "I want to be a powerful spellcaster", "take these 2 prestige classes" or something.

Plenty of other games go "I want to be a good melee character", "Okay" or "I want to be a powerful spellcaster", "Okay"

Gorgondantess
2010-08-28, 01:49 PM
It was hyperbole. I guess something more realistically sounding would be "I want to be a good melee character", "Play a goliath", or "I want to be a powerful spellcaster", "take these 2 prestige classes" or something.

I've made dozens of different good melee characters, all of different races and classes. Bastardized bard/warlock/duskblade gish thing, with a -2 con race? Yeah, I could dish out some pretty massive damage. There's a difference between being an ubercharger and being helpful to the party. Some builds are bad, some are good, but I think that's what makes D&D fun- there's some skill & artistry involved in building a cool character, one that is both powerful and matches the fluff you're going for, and there are, *gasp!*, many ways to do so. And that does not in any way mean I sacrifice my roleplaying integrity for it.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 01:50 PM
I build for both. Sometimes I've passed up better options for flavor (for example: a warblade has two of her feats dedicated to crafting, because she's a master smith), while other times I've made small concessions for functionality. There's no contradiction between the two, however, unless one's concept is explicitly low power.

Like, say, a Fighter who throws daisies at people.


...I want to build that now.

Siosilvar
2010-08-28, 01:54 PM
This is a two-dimensional plane, not a scale as given in the OP.

And anyone can be anywhere in the plane at any given time; I move around quite a bit depending on purpose.

Elfin
2010-08-28, 01:56 PM
If I have to get all Stormwind-y, I'd say I average at about 7...but really, I'll echo Tyndmyr/Glyphstone/Everyone else who says that roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive.

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 01:56 PM
I've seen people break GURPS and BESM's power levels relative to their party; might not be as easy but it happens. If I tried when playing with my friends I could break either because I will look at the books and notice which powers are cost effective... actually make that if I didn't consciously hold back from doing so.

That said even in D&D during character creation there isn't a necessary trade-off. Some concepts just don't work, many times these also are concepts with bad fluff. In high level D&D saying I want to dual wield scimitars and have an aversion to anything supernatural including magic gear, isn't a tradeoff between power and fluff, it's playing a suicidal lemming.

My strongest characters have the most fluff attached to them. My weakest tend to be fluffed as quickly to. Game mastery is about destroying the costs to make your concept work, and I'll admit I have it easy since I like the idea behind Vancian casting and don't try to play suicidal lemmings (okay... well there was the first time I got accused of power gaming for a multiclass fighter/barbarian which specialized in the mercurial greatsword; he hated magic with a passion).

For the question about plot hooks. Depends upon character. I've had some that would themselves choose power. I've had some that I never really got into so I would choose power with. My favorite characters? The ones I like to play and give a full story too? The ones that I made after I learned to optimize? Those would probably go after the plot hook, they tend to have all the power they need already.

For your final question? A character has to be a mix. One with no power can't fill the role his story decrees for him; if I want to play the Bad Ass Warrior who is feared across the land and I can't fight then I'm not playing the Bad Ass Warrior. At the same time if I only make choices for power then I probably won't enjoy the character. I know I can make stronger characters than my friends, I know I can make characters that can blow them up in one round, that's why I hold back (even when told by the DM to make an OP character).

Greyfeld
2010-08-28, 01:57 PM
I build for both. Sometimes I've passed up better options for flavor (for example: a warblade has two of her feats dedicated to crafting, because she's a master smith), while other times I've made small concessions for functionality. There's no contradiction between the two, however, unless one's concept is explicitly low power.

Like, say, a Fighter who throws daisies at people.


...I want to build that now.

I once played with a guy who played a kobold wizard. He had a horrible Int score and thus could only cast something like level 0 or level 1 spells. But that didn't stop him from pretending to cast spells, then while the enemy was focused on his hand gestures, kicking them in the shins.

Greenish
2010-08-28, 02:03 PM
Ugly quick table.

Story| | | | | |
5| | | | | |
4| | | |X| |
3| | | | | |
2| | | | | |
1| | | | | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |Power

kyoryu
2010-08-28, 02:09 PM
Ever heard of something called the Stormwind Fallacy? This thread is covered in it. :)

tl,dr/can't find it on Google: Roleplaying and character effectiveness are not mutually exclusive. Having one does not mean giving up the other.

It's only a fallacy at moderate levels. If you were "rate" both RP and power on a 1-10 scale, you probably have 15 total points to work with.

At some point, something has to give. If Power Attack is so good it should be mandatory, but it's out of my character to do a power attack, what gives? RP or power?

Yes, I could refluff it, and you can divorce fluff from crunch. If I wanted to completely separate fluff and crunch I'd play Champions. That's what Champions *does*.

kyoryu
2010-08-28, 02:10 PM
I've seen people break GURPS and BESM's power levels relative to their party; might not be as easy but it happens. If I tried when playing with my friends I could break either because I will look at the books and notice which powers are cost effective... actually make that if I didn't consciously hold back from doing so.


You can *easily* break GURPS' power curve. Any GURPS campaign I've ever run has had GM-character-approval as a requirement, and I've usually had point limits on stat allocations, etc., as well as lists of approved and unapproved splats.

Xefas
2010-08-28, 02:13 PM
I've made dozens of different good melee characters, all of different races and classes. Bastardized bard/warlock/duskblade gish thing, with a -2 con race? Yeah, I could dish out some pretty massive damage. There's a difference between being an ubercharger and being helpful to the party. Some builds are bad, some are good, but I think that's what makes D&D fun- there's some skill & artistry involved in building a cool character, one that is both powerful and matches the fluff you're going for, and there are, *gasp!*, many ways to do so. And that does not in any way mean I sacrifice my roleplaying integrity for it.

The point is that absolutely none of that matters to telling a good story. A good story is built of emotion and drama, of philosophy and suspense. "-2 CON" does not make an interesting character. Nor does "Bard/Warlock/Duskblade", nor does "massive damage".

Can your character slay a wolf? A bear? A master swordsman? A god? Then does it matter how much "damage" he deals?

I'll admit that the mathematics of the system can be fun to toy around with (a game in and of itself), but don't insinuate that it somehow improves your story that your character is a Bard/Warlock/Duskblade, when you could otherwise tell the same story by saying "My character has musical talents. He has a lot of esoteric knowledge. He sold his soul to the devil. He wears armor and can cast a few minor spells."

How does your character feel? How does he think? What does he believe? These matter more than "I contribute to the party" and "massive damage".

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 02:13 PM
You can *easily* break GURPS' power curve. Any GURPS campaign I've ever run has had GM-character-approval as a requirement, and I've usually had point limits on stat allocations, etc., as well as lists of approved and unapproved splats.

Splats? GURPS I mostly have experience with the Core book, or when I was 9 (I didn't know how to optimize then; although I did know Power Armor = Cool; why my scientist was wearing power armor... I don't know).

Math_Mage
2010-08-28, 02:15 PM
It's only a fallacy at moderate levels. If you were "rate" both RP and power on a 1-10 scale, you probably have 15 total points to work with.

At some point, something has to give. If Power Attack is so good it should be mandatory, but it's out of my character to do a power attack, what gives? RP or power?

Yes, I could refluff it, and you can divorce fluff from crunch. If I wanted to completely separate fluff and crunch I'd play Champions. That's what Champions *does*.

I...um...being able to take a big swing at someone is so contrary to your character concept that you must make a binary choice between flavor and power? :smallconfused:

I mean, I'm sure there are examples that require such a choice, but this is characterizing the problem a little overbroadly, no?

EDIT:

The point is that absolutely none of that matters to telling a good story. A good story is built of emotion and drama, of philosophy and suspense. "-2 CON" does not make an interesting character. Nor does "Bard/Warlock/Duskblade", nor does "massive damage".

Can your character slay a wolf? A bear? A master swordsman? A god? Then does it matter how much "damage" he deals?

I'll admit that the mathematics of the system can be fun to toy around with (a game in and of itself), but don't insinuate that it somehow improves your story that your character is a Bard/Warlock/Duskblade, when you could otherwise tell the same story by saying "My character has musical talents. He has a lot of esoteric knowledge. He sold his soul to the devil. He wears armor and can cast a few minor spells."

How does your character feel? How does he think? What does he believe? These matter more than "I contribute to the party" and "massive damage".

Erm, he was countering the point that optimization requires specific bizarre race/class conglomerations to work. He wasn't saying that he's a good roleplayer because he can optimize with a variety of race/class combinations. Give the man a little credit. :smallsigh:

Bhu
2010-08-28, 02:16 PM
My rl gaming group is largely composed of people who wish to avoid 'power gaming' and to ensure this they adequately sabotage their characters when building them (i.e. they do goofy stuff like playing a sorcerer with a 12 Cha because "it's a challenge to roleplay"). Problem is it's not a challenge. They quickly find out their characters are so weak they can't effectively do anything even if I fudge the rolls in their favor. The last time I ran for them the party was nearly TPK'd by a challenge 3 levels below their CR. If people are power gaming it's a hell of a lot easier to adjust encounters to their current power level than it is if they're deliberately making their characters weaker than they should be. The problems come when one or more people are min maxing while the rest aren't, or the party actively makes itself as weak as it can to facilitate 'roleplaying'. Making your character weak doesn't make him easier to roleplay, it just makes for a boring game as you limit your options in what you can do, and it also makes for short game because you die so much easier. I'd rather have people optimize. That at least is something I can handle. But when the party consists of a group of incompetents and cripples, thats a pain. The system isn't really made to simulate that well. 3.5 design kind of expects players to optimize at least a little, and is set up in a way that lets me adjust for that.

Reis Tahlen
2010-08-28, 02:20 PM
In short: 5

I play fun, thematic, but at least efficient characters.

Yora
2010-08-28, 02:22 PM
That's what I love about BESM, it's all fluff without much concerns for power. All weapons or magical attacks are the same, it all depends on how many character points you put into the skill. If it's a dagger possesed by a demon, a huge axe, a fireball, or a gatling-arm-canon, if you put the same amount of character points into it, it gets the enemies down at the same speed.

In 3.5e, I usually go "fluff first". To have my character sound cool when described is always my first concern. How I get that into a reasonably powerful build always comes second. I want a cleric in chain shirt with two light hammers, then I will sure gonna play it! It's not a competition who gets the monsters dead the fastest.
It's a competetion who gets the monsters down and looking the best while doing it. :smallbiggrin:

kyoryu
2010-08-28, 02:24 PM
I...um...being able to take a big swing at someone is so contrary to your character concept that you must make a binary choice between flavor and power? :smallconfused:

I mean, I'm sure there are examples that require such a choice, but this is characterizing the problem a little overbroadly, no?


I think I even said that it wasn't a binary choice, and it only really became a conflict if you try to push both to the extreme - as in, you can get to around 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale in both simultaneously.

That's pretty far from binary. It kind of suggests that, in reality, most groups should never actually see a realistic conflict between the two.

kyoryu
2010-08-28, 02:27 PM
Splats? GURPS I mostly have experience with the Core book, or when I was 9 (I didn't know how to optimize then; although I did know Power Armor = Cool; why my scientist was wearing power armor... I don't know).

Oh, yeah, GURPS had a ton of sourcebooks available for it. One of the worst broken characters I ever had to deal with was when I let a guy bring in some of the Celtic book into a mostly mainstream game - he ended up playing an insane shaman that fought naked.

He was also a bit of a Loony, as per the recent thread.

Wings of Peace
2010-08-28, 02:37 PM
It's only a fallacy at moderate levels. If you were "rate" both RP and power on a 1-10 scale, you probably have 15 total points to work with.

At some point, something has to give. If Power Attack is so good it should be mandatory, but it's out of my character to do a power attack, what gives? RP or power?

Yes, I could refluff it, and you can divorce fluff from crunch. If I wanted to completely separate fluff and crunch I'd play Champions. That's what Champions *does*.

You're twisting what the Stormwind Fallacy says. It merely states that power and role playability are not mutually exclusive as others have said. It does not state that the strongest character is the best character nor does it advocate ideas like:

Bill: I want to make a rogue who uses stealth and Hide in Plain Sight to Sneak Attack his enemies.

Joe the DM: Let me see that.

Bill: *Hands over his character sheet.*

Joe the DM: *Crumbles Bill's character sheet into a ball and sets it ablaze with his Zippo.* Make something with Power Attack. If it doesn't use a two handed weapon you will be flogged.

kyoryu
2010-08-28, 02:49 PM
Joe the DM: *Crumbles Bill's character sheet into a ball and sets it ablaze with his Zippo.* Make something with Power Attack. If it doesn't use a two handed weapon you will be flogged.

Wow, I've never claimed that.

All I've said is that at typically extreme levels of RP and optimization, you have to make a choice. Power A is more 'in character'. Power B is more powerful. A is still powerful, and B is somewhat in character. Which do you choose?

For most people, either power would be fine. Both are reasonably in-character, and both are reasonably effective. If you try to push up the level of both optimization and staying in character, one has to give.

erikun
2010-08-28, 02:57 PM
I find it difficult to apply fluff to a mechanically-poor character, as being unable to do what I (fluff-wise) assume can be done is rather disruptive. On the other hand, all but the greatest limits of Theoretical Optimization will fit well into a fluff or backstory of a character. I'm not talking Incantrix Tainted Scholar Initiates of the Sevenfold Veil, which would be easy enough to explain why a character would pursue those choices. I'm talking Jumpodiplomancers. There isn't much logical reason why someone would take up pole-vaulting in order to convince enemies to work for them, after all.

People who are interesting in playing such radical builds aren't really putting power before fluff as much as extremely bizarre builds over fluff. After all, if your blind lame mute one-armed three-legged sniper can only hit something under the light of the full moon while smoking cigars on a slightly windy day, you're not exactly going for the power department.

Or to answer the question:

Do you tend to make decisions based on what makes more sense in character or what makes a more powerful character?
Yes, I do.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 03:04 PM
I once played with a guy who played a kobold wizard. He had a horrible Int score and thus could only cast something like level 0 or level 1 spells. But that didn't stop him from pretending to cast spells, then while the enemy was focused on his hand gestures, kicking them in the shins.
Very nice. A campaign where that works would be very fun to play in!

Wings of Peace
2010-08-28, 03:17 PM
Wow, I've never claimed that.

All I've said is that at typically extreme levels of RP and optimization, you have to make a choice. Power A is more 'in character'. Power B is more powerful. A is still powerful, and B is somewhat in character. Which do you choose?

For most people, either power would be fine. Both are reasonably in-character, and both are reasonably effective. If you try to push up the level of both optimization and staying in character, one has to give.

My example was extreme but accurate for the most part as I was addressing your claim that the Stormwind Fallacy is only accurate up to moderate power levels.

Your example being that if Power Attack is so good why take it over other things? The reason this doesn't apply to the Stormwind Fallacy is that the Stormwind Fallacy doesn't advocate that one should choose the best feats over roleplayability. It advocates that power and the ability to role play are seperate from each other.

If I make Pun Pun, that doesn't mean that my ability to role play is negligable. I could role play Pun Pun any way I perceived an omnipotent entity might act.

To take your example of choosing Power Attack over something weaker like lets say... Sneak Attack. Yes you'll do more damage if you optimize for Power Attack than Sneak Attack. But that's not affecting your ability to role play either a character who uses Sneak Attack nor is it impact your ability to role play the optimized Power Attack character should you choose to play that instead.

darkpuppy
2010-08-28, 04:02 PM
Yeah, I'm definitely with the "not mutually exclusive" crowd. It's usually only people's perceptions that lean toward one or the other, the rules themselves have very little bias on this score.

Someone did mention earlier the idea that dual wielding scimitars while avoiding using magic items was a "lemming" build... Theoretically, there's several different ways to do that and thrive all the way to level 12 (possibly above), including the "acro-monkey" build, which emphasises spring attacks and speed (also known among one of my old groups as "combat a la drizzt") , but still...

...Anyways, my priorities vary, but generally, it only goes one of two ways... have a concept, build stats around it, or have a bunch of stats, fill in concept later. Have to say the first is easier, but second is a good challenge to my skills.

Math_Mage
2010-08-28, 04:04 PM
I think I even said that it wasn't a binary choice, and it only really became a conflict if you try to push both to the extreme - as in, you can get to around 7 or 8 on a 1-10 scale in both simultaneously.

That's pretty far from binary. It kind of suggests that, in reality, most groups should never actually see a realistic conflict between the two.

I got that part. But you also presented the Power Attack example as a binary choice between RP and power, because it's out of character to be able to hit things harder with a bigger swing...somehow. You were saying that eventually something's gotta give, and this was an example of a breaking point. I'm saying that surely the breaking point is much higher than this. If you cannot reconcile a character concept with Power Attack of all things without "divorcing fluff from crunch", I think you have maybe 5 or 6 points on your scale, not 15.

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 04:09 PM
Yeah, I'm definitely with the "not mutually exclusive" crowd. It's usually only people's perceptions that lean toward one or the other, the rules themselves have very little bias on this score.

Someone did mention earlier the idea that dual wielding scimitars while avoiding using magic items was a "lemming" build... Theoretically, there's several different ways to do that and thrive all the way to level 12 (possibly above), including the "acro-monkey" build, which emphasises spring attacks and speed (also known among one of my old groups as "combat a la drizzt") , but still...

...Anyways, my priorities vary, but generally, it only goes one of two ways... have a concept, build stats around it, or have a bunch of stats, fill in concept later. Have to say the first is easier, but second is a good challenge to my skills.

I specified at high levels (which in my mind is beyond 12th but it ranges down to what 7th?) for a reason. I actually first got called a power gamer for building an exoticist (variant fighter, Dragon 310)/barbarian that specialized in the Mercurial Greatsword (the Sword and Fist version, 2d8 damage/hit), had Weapon Focus, and hated magic refusing to have anything to do with it (including breaking a magic wand that a mage he just killed had).

Edit:
Power Attack is a called shot; accuracy penalty for a more deadly blow.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 04:25 PM
I specified at high levels (which in my mind is beyond 12th but it ranges down to what 7th?) for a reason. I actually first got called a power gamer for building an exoticist (variant fighter, Dragon 310)/barbarian that specialized in the Mercurial Greatsword (the Sword and Fist version, 2d8 damage/hit), had Weapon Focus, and hated magic refusing to have anything to do with it (including breaking a magic wand that a mage he just killed had).

Edit:
Power Attack is a called shot; accuracy penalty for a more deadly blow.

Whoever called you that had no clue what they were talking about - aside from the Mercurial sword (which are unbalanced, pun intended), that's not a terribly powerful character at all.

As for Power Attack - it can be a called shot, or it can just be a wild, reckless blow...again, sacrificing accuracy for damage, but completely in-character for someone who'd never do a 'called shot'.

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 04:29 PM
Whoever called you that had no clue what they were talking about - aside from the Mercurial sword (which are unbalanced, pun intended), that's not a terribly powerful character at all.

As for Power Attack - it can be a called shot, or it can just be a wild, reckless blow...again, sacrificing accuracy for damage, but completely in-character for someone who'd never do a 'called shot'.

He was still the most powerful character there... although that might be because the others were rogues who didn't use skills, wizards who thought using a bow was the best route (they also didn't understand how Vancian casting worked, or a spellbook, and cast everything from the PHB that was appropriate level at will... they still failed), and a monk turned sorcerer turned druid... so for the game he was relatively optimized. There was also a paladin (I'm surprised the DM didn't make him fall since he was morally ambiguous at best).

And the power attack that's exactly what I meant, I should have phrased it better.

darkpuppy
2010-08-28, 04:40 PM
I specified at high levels (which in my mind is beyond 12th but it ranges down to what 7th?) for a reason. I actually first got called a power gamer for building an exoticist (variant fighter, Dragon 310)/barbarian that specialized in the Mercurial Greatsword (the Sword and Fist version, 2d8 damage/hit), had Weapon Focus, and hated magic refusing to have anything to do with it (including breaking a magic wand that a mage he just killed had).

Edit:
Power Attack is a called shot; accuracy penalty for a more deadly blow.

True, but nonetheless, I do maintain it's possible to get beyond 12th level as a fighter without using more than masterwork kit (which is not, in and of itself, magical) ... I'll have to look at the Exoticist, sounds like an interesting idea (even though I have no intention of running DnD for a long time, I do like to go through the splat, especially Dragon's splat for fun ideas... And, as a final note, you broke a magic wand and it didn't explode? Man, you lucky burger!

Moriato
2010-08-28, 04:41 PM
I've seen more than my share of "power gamers" with tricked out characters whose players never open their mouths during game except to say what spell they're casting.

I've also seen plenty of drama queens/kings who could tell you the history of their family line going back to the time of ancient war of such and such in the land of whatchamacalit, but wouldn't know which end of a dragon the fire comes out of.

Then there's the 90% of the rest of us, I think, who believe that only being interested in one aspect of the game means you're missing half the fun.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-28, 04:48 PM
True, but nonetheless, I do maintain it's possible to get beyond 12th level as a fighter without using more than masterwork kit (which is not, in and of itself, magical) ... I'll have to look at the Exoticist, sounds like an interesting idea (even though I have no intention of running DnD for a long time, I do like to go through the splat, especially Dragon's splat for fun ideas... And, as a final note, you broke a magic wand and it didn't explode? Man, you lucky burger!

Possible, sure...but only with the DM's cooperation in giving you monsters lower than your equivalent ECL, or arranging situations to give you an overwhelming tactical advantage. 3.5's mathematics depend on characters having magical plusses to their AC and attack bonus, but unlike 4E, there's no codified system to replace magical items with 'inherent awesome'.

Milskidasith
2010-08-28, 04:51 PM
Possible, sure...but only with the DM's cooperation in giving you monsters lower than your equivalent ECL, or arranging situations to give you an overwhelming tactical advantage. 3.5's mathematics depend on characters having magical plusses to their AC and attack bonus, but unlike 4E, there's no codified system to replace magical items with 'inherent awesome'.

Well, VoP tried, and, as I've said before, I'd have no problem refluffing your "magical" gear to being magic because of your inherent awesome, but many people do, so whatever.*

*Yes, if it's magic due to your inherent awesome, it can still be dispelled and/or sold.

In general, I find refluffing to be tremendously easy, even for really big gaps, and the RP and crunch are pretty much separate. I mean, yeah, there may be situations where it would be really weird to do something due to fluff, and I don't deny that, but that doesn't mean the guy with fluff that constricts him (only uses mundane [not refluffed, simply mundane] gear) is any better RP'd than the guy who's optimized; likewise, a horribly suboptimal character with feats picked for flavor isn't necessarily a compelling character.

Tyndmyr
2010-08-28, 04:54 PM
Joe the DM: *Crumbles Bill's character sheet into a ball and sets it ablaze with his Zippo.* Make something with Power Attack. If it doesn't use a two handed weapon you will be flogged.

Is it bad that this made me chuckle, and consider doing this next time someone makes a character?

Otodetu
2010-08-28, 04:57 PM
{Scrubbed}

This is true, even when said with not quite so rude wording.

Zaydos
2010-08-28, 05:02 PM
True, but nonetheless, I do maintain it's possible to get beyond 12th level as a fighter without using more than masterwork kit (which is not, in and of itself, magical) ... I'll have to look at the Exoticist, sounds like an interesting idea (even though I have no intention of running DnD for a long time, I do like to go through the splat, especially Dragon's splat for fun ideas... And, as a final note, you broke a magic wand and it didn't explode? Man, you lucky burger!

It started glowing and I threw it into the woods. I forget if the forest caught on fire or not, but there was a crater.

EdroGrimshell
2010-08-28, 05:39 PM
I seriously prefer fluff over power, i'd say i was a 3 or 4 by your scale. I even played a VoP Paladin/Monk before and played well because i was able to get the balance of mechanics and flavor.

Greyfeld
2010-08-28, 05:43 PM
This is true, even when said with not quite so rude wording.

Rude is how I greet the world every morning ;)

oxybe
2010-08-28, 06:24 PM
i rarely ever have a character 100% fleshed out by the first session.

my current PF character creation went approximately like this:

step 1: "hmm... what do i want to play?" page flip - page flip - page flip

step 2: "doesn't look like they did much to make non-casters interesting. i guess i'm going wizard... hey, PF made half-orcs playable! aight, half-orc wizard. man that sounds weird"

step 3: "hey cool, guns! i could be a wizard who shoots magic from a gun!... wow guns are weaksauce... still, it's cooler then shooting magic from a wand. hey GM, can my wizard be bonded with a gun? it's like a suckier crossbow, only like, 500 times more expensive. "

step 4: "hm... so where did he get this gun... well guns are from alkenstar... which is a dead magic zone... um... he was a gunsmith/engineer/chemist/whatnot, stole the weapon, ran away to Cheliax (starting area of the campaign) and learned magic under a hedge wizard he's living with and helping out?"

step 5: "hm... kinda convoluted, i'll see about iron out the details later"

step 6: "alright what kind of wizard is he gonna be anyways? eh, i'll put evoker, it'll fit fit thematically when i pew pew pew magic missiles. wait, restricted schools... not banned schools?!"

step 7: "oh... urban campaign. evoker. uh... i don't think fireballing the town square will help us out much... so more illusion/enchant & conjurations while using evocation as backup. hey GM, there's a spell that forces a disarm or take fire damage and a subdual version of scorching ray in these sourcebooks you passed around. grabbing those when possible."

step 8: "you know what? i'll keep the kinda-convoluted backstory. i've seen worse and done worse. plus, it's a level 1 wizard with like, 6 HP. i'm not expecting to survive past the first hit. we'll see how he plays out."

step 9: "hm... personality. he's a scientist by trade, so very rational & practical. this will transfer to his views on magic as a tool. probably lots of low level fix-it/utility spells."

step 10: "ok, i've got a good framework to start. we'll see how the personality plays out in the first few sessions"

and that's how most of my characters get created. usually with a weird idea like a gun-toting, alchemist-wizard, half-orc bandito. or a die-cast bible throwing templar. or a crazed hobo wielding the power of demons.

or something.

note that i will optimize within the concept. Carlos is all about having the right tool for the job. rather then having but a hammer and treating every problem like a nail, he's more at ease with a toolbelt full of utility and uses the proper spell as the situation dictates if possible. he's also very much unwilling to bend his principals unless absolutely necessary. to use an example, the group our PCs work for are trying to create a change in society, one that was highly influenced by infernal dealings. when our party met up with an imprisoned demon, he fought tooth and nail to not barter with the creature, even if it would make the trek in the dungeon much easier and later again, when we met an imp, i wanted to destroy it rather then chat and bargain with it, as it suggested we did.

how can you change a society by following the path that lead to the condition we wish to change? he's frustrated with the group, but still willing to work with them. he's not good, but he's not willing to throw his principals for the sake of an easier time.

Shump, the crazed hobo from the previous campaign, was the exact opposite. he had a hammer. a big hammer. made of raw magical energy, tempered by hellfire & enhanced by pure madness. he didn't rationalize every problem as a nail, for him every problem was a nail. period. if he couldn't obliterate it to kingdom come, he ignored it. why waste time on this thing when there's something over there that's probably more interesting. right, Mr.ChimChim?

Shump as proved to take the easy way out whenever possible, dealing with liches, making pacts with demon queens and using the gordian method of problem solving (whether the problem is inanimate or alive is unimportant).

both PCs are powerful in their own right: Carlos has ended fights before they began due to a wide array of spells he can prepare any given day, and the one "floating" slot the item familiar provides is VERY nice. Shump would fly above the battlefield and pump out big numbers worth of damage like no tomorrow, all while invisibly cackling like a madman and the weak ran in terror.

both are very fun to play too.

Esser-Z
2010-08-28, 06:29 PM
That wizard is AWESOME.

Greenish
2010-08-28, 06:35 PM
he's also very much unwilling to bend his principals unless absolutely necessary.I'm sure the local schools are all grateful. :smallcool:

shadow_archmagi
2010-08-28, 06:36 PM
There isn't much logical reason why someone would take up pole-vaulting in order to convince enemies to work for them, after all.



More likely than you think (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN8kAjbuCIA)

oxybe
2010-08-28, 06:40 PM
I'm sure the local schools are all grateful. :smallcool:

:smalltongue:

Devils_Advocate
2010-08-28, 06:51 PM
A similar question recently came up in another thread, where I basically said that your character's personality is how you try to play your character. 'Cuz what does it even mean to give your character a given personality if not to try to roleplay that personality? My answer here is much the same: The abilities that you give your character should match as closely as possible what you want your character to be able to do.

"Power" isn't generic. There isn't a single Power stat that you roll against to determine your character's success at whatever he attempts; to be good at one thing (e.g. sword-fighting) is not to be good at another, different thing (e.g. stealth). But even beyond that, you may not want your character to be good at everything. A character who can easily do whatever he wants to do isn't just likely to attract the ire of the DM; he's also quite possibly boring to play, since there's no challenge to it.

Honestly, I think that there's some disguised question-begging going on here, with it being assumed that the most "powerful" or "advantageous" or "practical" or however-you-wanna-phrase-it option is the one that lets your character kill monsters and take their stuff most efficiently. But the game doesn't have a win condition; it's up to you to decide what you want to accomplish with your character.

If we define "power" as the ability to accomplish one's goals, then pragmatism is probably the most powerful approach to pretty much anything. But it's important to understand that e.g. if you value something more than your own survival, then it may be pragmatic to sacrifice your own life. The point is: Keep your eyes on the prize!

Also of note is that being a powerful player need not be the same thing as playing a powerful character.


If Power Attack is so good it should be mandatory, but it's out of my character to do a power attack, what gives? RP or power?
Saying that your character isn't the sort of character who power attacks and not having him power attack is roleplaying a relatively weak character. Power gives.

Saying that your character isn't the sort of character who power attacks but having him power attack isn't even roleplaying your character poorly, really. In that case, you're just roleplaying a different character than you claim to be roleplaying (for some reason), so it's your sincerity that gives.

Saying that your character is the sort of character who power attacks and having him power attack is roleplaying a relatively strong character and not being peculiarly disingenuous about it. None of roleplaying, power, and sincerity are sacrificed.

This is part of the point of the Stormwind Fallacy: Making a weaker character doesn't make you a better roleplayer!

Eldariel
2010-08-28, 07:06 PM
Saying that your character isn't the sort of character who power attacks and not having him power attack is roleplaying a relatively weak character. Power gives.

You can focus on one of the dozen other means to get relevant damage output; it isn't a problem really, except in Core, which as everyone knows is horribly limited in terms of viable character builds (especially ones that don't rely on billions tons of magic items).

icefractal
2010-08-29, 01:17 AM
I once played with a guy who played a kobold wizard. He had a horrible Int score and thus could only cast something like level 0 or level 1 spells. But that didn't stop him from pretending to cast spells, then while the enemy was focused on his hand gestures, kicking them in the shins.That's a fun concept. I'll note though, that it doesn't require being mechanically ineffective. Given that people can't see your class and level floating above your head, the known facts about this guy were:
A) He has a spellbook and claims to be a mage.
B) He sometimes casts low-level spells.
C) He often kicks people in the shins, using surprise.
So being a Wizard 1/Rogue X would fit the bill, and would qualify as 'effective' in most campaigns.

Serpentine
2010-08-29, 01:28 AM
Crunch (in my mind/games) exists to serve fluff. Fluff always takes precedence. I am willing to work anything in, if it improves the character concept. Character concept is king.
Now, that said, "character concept" almost always incorporates "good at something". For example: I have a character concept which is a Warforged sniper, built as a hunting golem that happened to gain sentience beyond the expectations of its creator.* For this concept to work, it needs to be good at hunting with a bow. As it turns out, this is quite hard to pull off effectively, but I'm working on it - that is, I'm working on getting good power in a particular area, so that my fluff is properly expressed (blame the thread title for my awkward wording, trying to fit it back to the OP...).
So... yeah. Rollplaying serves roleplaying.


*I don't have much more personality than that, but for the simple reason that it doesn't have that much more personality. It's brand new, and hasn't really decided what it is yet.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-29, 04:53 AM
Ugly quick table.

Story| | | | | |
5| | | | | |
4| | | |X| |
3| | | | | |
2| | | | | |
1| | | | | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |Power

I like Greenish's table, for DnD at least, where a certain amount of system mastery is required. For games like this, I'm around

Story| | | | | |
5| | | |X| |
4| | | | | |
3| | | | | |
2| | | | | |
1| | | | | |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |Power

For less 'tactical battley' stuff, I'm, pushing


Story| | | | | | |
5|X | | | | | |
4| | | | | | |
3| | | | | | |
2| | | | | | |
1| | | | | | |
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |Power

I refer to metagame mechanical power. 'I have +6 BAB' is a metagame concept. I'm a damn good swordsman isn't.

Caphi
2010-08-29, 11:30 AM
That's a fun concept. I'll note though, that it doesn't require being mechanically ineffective. Given that people can't see your class and level floating above your head, the known facts about this guy were:
A) He has a spellbook and claims to be a mage.
B) He sometimes casts low-level spells.
C) He often kicks people in the shins, using surprise.
So being a Wizard 1/Rogue X would fit the bill, and would qualify as 'effective' in most campaigns.

Or just a straight rogue. You don't have to have a level of wizard to carry a book around.

kyoryu
2010-08-29, 02:49 PM
Or just a straight rogue. You don't have to have a level of wizard to carry a book around.

And that's actually a good example of how to make a good RP character without sacrificing character power.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-29, 03:09 PM
And that's actually a good example of how to make a good RP character without sacrificing character power.

Well, you''d need a way to cast those low-level spells. Could be done with a feat, or by taking levels in Chameleon.

kyoryu
2010-08-29, 03:14 PM
Well, you''d need a way to cast those low-level spells. Could be done with a feat, or by taking levels in Chameleon.

Do you? Or would a couple of low level wands do the trick?

Greenish
2010-08-29, 03:17 PM
Do you? Or would a couple of low level wands do the trick?Maybe, depending on what you'd want. A staff with two wand chambers would be pretty good for that, too.

The Glyphstone
2010-08-29, 03:26 PM
Do you? Or would a couple of low level wands do the trick?

Those would also work.

El Dorado
2010-08-29, 04:15 PM
These days I have to be able to balance mechanics and flavor. I used to not care if mechanics supported my concept but I've grown to dislike playing ineffective characters (especially in a group where you're expected to fulfill a particular role).

ericgrau
2010-08-29, 04:30 PM
Usually you can do both. There are a lot of different kinds of builds out there. That plus if you aren't fearing for your life and struggling just to make your character good enough , your DM is doing something wrong. That's not an exciting adventure at all.

I try to vary up the mechanics, find a fluff I like too, and then make them mesh.

If people start saying such and such build is the only optimal way to do it, then ya that kills your options a bit and ruins fluff. I mean that you can still do very well with a wide variety of options.

Zaq
2010-08-29, 11:58 PM
My experience with 3.5 (and indeed roleplaying in general, since it was my first "real" system outside silly but fun stuff like KAMB! and so on) started with me finding out how much fun the rules were. I'm a pretty detail-oriented kind of guy, so being told that there was this big hobby full of books to page through and weird esoteric combinations to make and people to talk to about this stuff made me very happy. After a while of that, though, I started to get really frustrated with the fluff aspects of it all. There's a lot of average-to-good fluff in D&D, but there's a lot of bad stuff as well, and it was honestly kind of annoying, because sometimes the fluff got in the way of the fun things I wanted to do. Somewhere around that time, though, I realized that I didn't have to stick to the fluff that the books gave me. If something was stupid, or pointless, or just not interesting, I could say that it looked like whatever I wanted it to. This, I believe, has allowed me to keep my interest in the hobby even after I finished reading all the books. I could keep making my fun and powerful combinations... and then actually play them the way I wanted to, with all the fluff that I felt was appropriate. Realizing that fluff and crunch are totally separate let the game keep my interest after I felt that the fluff had become boring.

To use a concrete example, I'll bring out the character I always use to illustrate this concept. I thought that it would be hilarious to play a Warforged who was a ripoff of Inspector Gadget. Now, I could have gone and spent hours and hours looking for everything I could do to get stuff to come out of my body, looking at weird-ass grafts and embedded components and things like that (and, to some extent, I did do that, but later). Or, I could do what I ended up doing, and just say "ok, I'm a DFA, but my breath weapon isn't me breathing like a dragon; it's actually a flamethrower that pops out of my wrists or a pair of speakers that pop out of my chest. My flight invocation isn't wings, but instead the Gadget Copter that pops out of my hat. All of my abilities are just Go Go Gadget whatever, rather than TEH POWAR OF MY DWACONIC SOUL or whatever the hell WotC wants it to be. Done!" Then I got to play Inspector Gadget without a flimsy foundation of mechanics. I just ignored the really stupid fluff, replaced it with my own, and had a fluffy and useful character.

Honestly, I think that people who fall prey to the Stormwind Fallacy or otherwise try to link mechanics and roleplay have a relatively juvenile understanding of the game, and don't understand that the fluff is whatever you want it to be. It just shows a lack of creativity, or at least a lack of realization that you're allowed to be creative. Stormwind was right; the two really aren't related at all.

Lord_Gareth
2010-08-30, 12:09 AM
You are aware that the whole point of the Stormwind Fallacy is that fluff and mechanics are, indeed, not related? Which is why you can have both? Your character is an excellent illustration of someone who had both good fluff and decent mechanics, thus proving Mr. Stormwind right.

Zaq
2010-08-30, 12:17 AM
You are aware that the whole point of the Stormwind Fallacy is that fluff and mechanics are, indeed, not related? Which is why you can have both? Your character is an excellent illustration of someone who had both good fluff and decent mechanics, thus proving Mr. Stormwind right.

Was this directed at me? Because I believe that we are in complete agreement. Did I not make my position clear?

Lord_Gareth
2010-08-30, 12:42 AM
Indeed not, my friend. You'd sounded like you were dissing on Mr. Stormwind.

Zaq
2010-08-30, 01:02 AM
Indeed not, my friend. You'd sounded like you were dissing on Mr. Stormwind.

That's a bit worrisome. I've made a few small edits which will hopefully make my position more clear. For the record, I believe that optimization and roleplaying are totally unrelated, and that being constrained by either is a problem which is usually easily solved.

2xMachina
2010-08-30, 01:18 AM
I focus on power quite some, but some classes/feats... I just hate them and don't use them (like the vile feats. They're just vile).

Swordguy
2010-08-30, 03:31 AM
I'm confused. I see a lot of people saying that choosing fluff over power is, essentially, a false dilemma. How is this situation NOT a choice between fluff and power?


.................
Marty is playing a character, Bob the Imapler. He's done his research and he has a 20-level build planned. His character, while not game-breaking, is undeniably effective at what he does. It is, however, a heavily feat-intensive build. He can do what he wants, but over 20 levels he doesn't have a feat to spare.

However, in the course of gameplay (say, after 6 levels or so), Marty realizes that Bob has been horrifically prone to ambushes and just flat-out missing important details. In fact, it's nearly killed him on multiple occasions. Marty is quite tired of Bob getting jumped all the time. The DM suggests that Marty take the Alertness Feat to improve his Listen and Spot checks (the DM is trying to run the game without undue reliance on customized/broken magic items, and getting "custom items of +X toSpot/Listen" is going to be a serious problem, if not impossible...something I suspect is relatively common in D&D games). Unfortunately, the Alertness Feat is by no means part of Bob's build, and nowhere in the build does it seem that he can find something to substitute for it, gain the bonuses to Listen and Spot, and still get his build to work.
......................

Now, it seems to me Marty is faced with a very clear choice. He can either take the Alertness Feat and compromise his character's power level somewhat due to events in-game (ie, fluff reasons - it totally fits the character to take Alertness since he's gotten burnt for not taking it on several occasions)...or he can ignore the fact that his character has gotten tooled as a direct result of having poor Listen/Spot scores and take the Feats that he knows are going to lead to an overall higher power level in Bob's field of choice.

Can someone enlighten me as to how, exactly, this is NOT a choice between power and fluff? How, if he takes Alertness, is he not giving up the power of his build in exchange for a character need that has arisen as a result of gameplay?

Dubious Pie
2010-08-30, 03:41 AM
I once made an effective melee character in 3.5 that was a Dwarf/Bear hybrid that summined and threw dire bears. He was able to do 600 damage, and that was before the bear attacked the guy. He was also the best RPed charachter I have ever made. I miss him... he got killed in a tragic bearthrowing acci

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-30, 04:12 AM
I'm confused. I see a lot of people saying that choosing fluff over power is, essentially, a false dilemma. How is this situation NOT a choice between fluff and power?


.................
Marty is playing a character, Bob the Imapler. He's done his research and he has a 20-level build planned. His character, while not game-breaking, is undeniably effective at what he does. It is, however, a heavily feat-intensive build. He can do what he wants, but over 20 levels he doesn't have a feat to spare.

However, in the course of gameplay (say, after 6 levels or so), Marty realizes that Bob has been horrifically prone to ambushes and just flat-out missing important details. In fact, it's nearly killed him on multiple occasions. Marty is quite tired of Bob getting jumped all the time. The DM suggests that Marty take the Alertness Feat to improve his Listen and Spot checks (the DM is trying to run the game without undue reliance on customized/broken magic items, and getting "custom items of +X toSpot/Listen" is going to be a serious problem, if not impossible...something I suspect is relatively common in D&D games). Unfortunately, the Alertness Feat is by no means part of Bob's build, and nowhere in the build does it seem that he can find something to substitute for it, gain the bonuses to Listen and Spot, and still get his build to work.
......................

Now, it seems to me Marty is faced with a very clear choice. He can either take the Alertness Feat and compromise his character's power level somewhat due to events in-game (ie, fluff reasons - it totally fits the character to take Alertness since he's gotten burnt for not taking it on several occasions)...or he can ignore the fact that his character has gotten tooled as a direct result of having poor Listen/Spot scores and take the Feats that he knows are going to lead to an overall higher power level in Bob's field of choice.

Can someone enlighten me as to how, exactly, this is NOT a choice between power and fluff? How, if he takes Alertness, is he not giving up the power of his build in exchange for a character need that has arisen as a result of gameplay?

Feats are a metagame concept. Bob the Imapler has never heard of 'taking the feat awareness'. Yes he could focus on being more alert, at the expense of being more combat focused, but he could easily decide, screw that, its boring and hard, I'd rather practice imapling things.

I'm not saying I one hundred percent agree with the idea of the stormwind fallacy, but it does have some ground to hold.

darkpuppy
2010-08-30, 04:20 AM
I'm confused. I see a lot of people saying that choosing fluff over power is, essentially, a false dilemma. How is this situation NOT a choice between fluff and power?

.................
(Long ass Bob The Impaler Example.)
......................

Now, it seems to me Marty is faced with a very clear choice. He can either take the Alertness Feat and compromise his character's power level somewhat due to events in-game (ie, fluff reasons - it totally fits the character to take Alertness since he's gotten burnt for not taking it on several occasions)...or he can ignore the fact that his character has gotten tooled as a direct result of having poor Listen/Spot scores and take the Feats that he knows are going to lead to an overall higher power level in Bob's field of choice.

Can someone enlighten me as to how, exactly, this is NOT a choice between power and fluff? How, if he takes Alertness, is he not giving up the power of his build in exchange for a character need that has arisen as a result of gameplay?

What people are saying, Mayhem, is that you can have a character that is both Crunchy and Fluffy, without sacrificing either. In your example, he has the choice of "ignore his character flaw in favour of killing stuff", which would still be able to be rationalised in character, or take Alertness and account for it with guilt over screwing up so badly, and practising extra hard at keeping an eye out, which still involves fluff. Either way, somebody gains power in some form, and fluff holds too. Either way, he has the choices of:

a) Moan about how he's no longer uber.
b) Rationalise "Alertness" in character by asking people for hints on keeping watch, spotting things, practicing, while already having the in-game benefit.
c) Rationalise why he decided to completely ignore the cries of his party members to "keep a sodding eye out!"... an example of this would be "Okay, so they get the first hit in... but El Ravager gets the last!"

Jeff the Green
2010-08-30, 04:43 AM
Long example

Alertness and [whatever he was planning on taking] are both taken for crunch reasons. Alertness because he keeps getting almost-killed in ambushes, [whatever] because it makes him better at killing things.

Now, if the choice were between taking Alertness because his father took him hunting and taught him to always be on the lookout for rabbits before being killed by the rare saber-toothed rabbit and that's why Bob has made it his life-goal to drive rabbits to extinction or taking [whatever] because it makes him do more damage on a charge then we'd be talking about a conflict between fluff and crunch.

Math_Mage
2010-08-30, 05:20 AM
I'm confused. I see a lot of people saying that choosing fluff over power is, essentially, a false dilemma. How is this situation NOT a choice between fluff and power?

Because it is--surprise--a false dilemma. If Bob is terribly vulnerable to getting ganked and unable to notice important details, this is a mechanical weakness as well as a character flaw. How Marty weighs the mechanical weakness against his planned build OOC may not be totally unrelated to how Bob weighs his character flaw against his strengths IC, but that doesn't make one choice "Marty making his character stronger" and the other "Marty giving his character better fluff". Marty is toning down one facet of his character in order to improve another facet--or maybe he isn't. Either one could be good optimization and roleplaying, or bad.

And besides, think of the other options available. Items that improve Spot/Listen are all over the place, without even considering custom items. Teammates can take the Point it Out skill trick to give him another shot at making the check--which is a great roleplaying opportunity as well as a mechanical benefit to the party, at the cost of a couple measly skill points. Heck, the cleric/druid/whatever could give him Owl's Wisdom if this is really a problem. Like the guy who used Power Attack as an example, you are artificially eliminating possibilities in order to illustrate the existence of a binary choice between fluff and power--which is true, but it doesn't happen so abruptly if you know how to utilize the options.

Project_Mayhem
2010-08-30, 09:10 AM
What people are saying, Mayhem, is that you can have a character that is both Crunchy and Fluffy, without sacrificing either. In your example, he has the choice of "ignore his character flaw in favour of killing stuff", which would still be able to be rationalised in character, or take Alertness and account for it with guilt over screwing up so badly, and practising extra hard at keeping an eye out, which still involves fluff. Either way, somebody gains power in some form, and fluff holds too. Either way, he has the choices of:

a) Moan about how he's no longer uber.
b) Rationalise "Alertness" in character by asking people for hints on keeping watch, spotting things, practicing, while already having the in-game benefit.
c) Rationalise why he decided to completely ignore the cries of his party members to "keep a sodding eye out!"... an example of this would be "Okay, so they get the first hit in... but El Ravager gets the last!"

Are you perchance talking to Swordguy, rather than me?

Tyndmyr
2010-08-30, 09:16 AM
or he can ignore the fact that his character has gotten tooled as a direct result of having poor Listen/Spot scores and take the Feats that he knows are going to lead to an overall higher power level in Bob's field of choice.

Can someone enlighten me as to how, exactly, this is NOT a choice between power and fluff? How, if he takes Alertness, is he not giving up the power of his build in exchange for a character need that has arisen as a result of gameplay?

Very simple. If you die horribly to an ambush, you don't get power. This isn't a roleplaying choice, this is a mechanical choice.

Roleplaying wise, he might do things like ask his more watchful buddies to keep an eye out, cause he's worried about an ambush. He might be more cautious about wandering around solo. Those are roleplaying responses. Taking the feat "alertness" is not roleplaying.

Ormur
2010-08-30, 10:18 AM
I guess the question could have been worded so as to ask how much power or effectiveness you'd be willing to sacrifice for fluff. I certainly won't claim optimization precludes role playing but most of the time I imagine people play characters that don't always take the most optimal route. A wizard picking some spells thematically and such.

I've never really come up with concepts that required my character to deliberately sacrifice much power. The worst is probably the gestalt beguiler/daring outlaw that prefers to go into melee with his rapier as opposed to just casting spells from a distance (although he certainly casts) or using two weapons (more due to feat shortage). Still the build has considerable synergy by allowing feint as a swift action and lots of abilities keyed of int.

I usually want to play concepts that don't hamper effectiveness much. I see no reason to play characters like casters with low casting stats or someone that mush be a fighter or a monk, refluffing be damned. Unless you're deliberately minimizing effectiveness to fit some tier-5 group power level that just seems like it also sacrifices role playing for mechanics, only in the opposite direction to power gamers, not for power but lack of it.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-30, 10:36 AM
I guess the question could have been worded so as to ask how much power or effectiveness you'd be willing to sacrifice for fluff.

I sacrifice none of it. If I don't like the fluff, I make a new fluff. This is a roleplaying game, not a videogame. We abide to the rules to have a common ground, and guess what, fluff is not rules. We don't have to abide by the fluff on the classes.

Take my gloryhound as an example. Her body is mutable. Her powers are mutable. The world around her is mutable. The only constant she has in her eternal life is her own mind. Her mind defines what she is, what she wants to be and what she will do with the world around her (Solipsism-lite!). As she shifts her priorities, she can choose to be more perceptive, more agile, stronger, faster, or tougher, and sometimes all at once for short periods.

The rules behind it? Wedded to History Changeling Incarnate/Psychic Warrior gestalt.
Does any fluff match it? Only the alignment aura from the incarnate. She doesn't use magic items. She doesn't use "soulmelds". Her soulbound scythe is the materialization of her violence, not a standalone weapon. It's all the light of her soul and how she chooses to affect the world around her.

Caphi
2010-08-30, 10:52 AM
story

a) It's not a choice between fluff and power, it's a choice between a little bit of power and a lot of power, neither of which significantly impact the character itself. If the Imapler stops being good at imapling, that hurts the fluff.

b) If he's already getting arsed over by not having good Spot and Listen scores, +2 to them isn't going to help at all, so you're essentially advocating throwing away the build for the sake of writing something down on the sheet that vaguely fits with the campaign's events. Even if you consider having the word "Alertness" on your character sheet to be serving the fluff (which I don't), it's a very small fluff gain for a very large power kick. It would take some incredibly imbalanced priorities to make that trade, and at that point you're probably playing the 12-cha sorceror, not Bob the Imapler.

Susil
2010-08-30, 11:48 AM
I suppose some of the problems that people find are compounded by the fact that DnD (well, 3.5, not played any other versions) tends to be combat heavy, but that its combat system tends to favour beating things into submission. HP is a pretty abstract way of doing things. For instance, there's not a lot of scope for aiming for the hands of a caster to stop them casting spells* (or at least losing their highest level ones) which, arguably, wouldn't be high damage at all. The point is, it can be hard to work with a character who might, for perfectly valid RP reasons be a poor combatant, forced to rely on tactics like that. Though of course, if you'd rather play a diplomatic envoy, DnD probably isn't the system for you...


In terms of the original question, I'm more fluff than mechanics. The point has been made that its not a total binary - bear in mind that during character creation, the two can inform each other. One question that I might ask myself is "well, where did they learn to do that?" For instance, you give a rogue a high forge skill - perhaps he once worked as a recorder in a city library where he became very good at quickly producing duplicate documents? If he worked there, he might have a good knowledge (history). Might he have stumbled upon a dusty old spellbook, prompting an interest in magic that might to lead to a multiclass forray into wizadry..? You get the idea.

Typing that, it occurs to me that backstory might actually be a big deciding factor in how optimised a character is. Someone who has been thrown into adventuring for whatever story reason might have all sorts of skills that are a throwback to their 'old life'. I played a 7th Sea game where my character was a cabaret musician who was also an informant for a secret society, who'd ended up in the party to look for a missing friend. The skill points I'd invested in singing and dancing were a hideous waste, in game terms, but were a part of the character concept and I'd have been daft not to include them. Of course, as the campaign went on, I had to put more into combat and physical skills - in character this could be seen as reflecting the results of his changing circumstances.


Wow, that was more than I expected to type.




* cue someone quoting a feat I don't know.

Devils_Advocate
2010-08-30, 12:26 PM
Can someone enlighten me as to how, exactly, this is NOT a choice between power and fluff?
OY! First off, taking the Alertness feat is far from the only way to defend against unexpected surprises! You said that Marty is short on feats for Bob, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't expend other resources to raise his Spot and Listen modifiers. Spending skill points, even cross-class, is an obvious possibility, and also corresponds to the fluff of the character attempting to become more aware of his surroundings. Eyes of the eagle are a relatively cheap core magic item that grant a +5 competence bonus on Spot checks. Levels in Barbarian could provide Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense; those don't improve the character's skill checks, but they do address a major problem caused by poor skill checks. And Barbarian has Listen as a class skill. All of these are likely to be more effective than Alertness.

But maybe the build that Marty has planned eats up all of Bob's skill points and class levels and character wealth, too. Or maybe it doesn't, but being surprised is such a problem for Bob that he would still be well-advised to take the Alertness feat in addition to other measures. Maybe the DM has deemed eyes of the eagle "broken" because of how valuable she has made the Spot skill in her campaign.

Maybe the DM has some sort of bone to pick and is determined to stick it to characters with low Spot and Listen modifiers. Maybe the purpose of taking Alertness is really to cause the DM to stop ambushing Bob because she will then smugly feel that she's made some point that she wanted to make about the necessity of sacrificing combat effectiveness to achieve competence in other areas. Of course, in this scenario, what she has probably actually done is make the perceptual skills vital for success in combat, but whatevs.

Even then, this isn't a choice between fluff and power. Rather, there is a choice between different sorts of power, and a related choice between different sorts of fluff. There are several possibilities:

(1) Marty could describe Bob taking time to train in alertness instead of combat, and alter his build to reflect this.
(2) Marty could describe Bob taking time to improve his alertness in addition to combat training, as discussed above, and alter his build to reflect that.
(3) Marty could describe Bob trying to improve his alertness but failing, because it turns out that Bob just isn't any good at that sort of thing, and keep his build the same.
(4) Marty could describe Bob considering improving his alertness and then deciding not to, because Bob feels that this would take away time that he needs for his combat training.
(5) Marty could describe Bob improving his alertness but stick to his planned build.

It's only in the last case that there's a conflict between the player's description of his character and the character's stats, and the problem is entirely player-created. Given that the stats on Bob's character sheet reflect his actual abilities, Marty has basically chosen to lie about his character's development in case #5. Which seems pretty pointless since, precisely because Bob's abilities are dictated by what his character sheet says, Marty will derive no mechanical benefit from this duplicity. Maybe Marty is trying to fool himself, because he wants to maintain now-conflicting ideas about how Bob reacts to the circumstances he encounters and about what Bob will be able to do in the future? Who knows? Sometimes people are weird.


How, if he takes Alertness, is he not giving up the power of his build in exchange for a character need that has arisen as a result of gameplay?
Yes, he's giving up something that he had planned for his character to be able to do because he's adjusting his plans based on play experience. After all, blindly ignoring new evidence about which choices will be most useful will likely result in his character being less capable than he could have been, not more capable.


How, if he takes Alertness, is he not giving up the power of his build in exchange for a character need that has arisen as a result of gameplay?
How, if he takes Alertness, is he not compromising his highly combat-focused character concept in order to improve his character's effectiveness?

In conclusion: Options beyond the binary choice you give are not ruled out by the scenario as you present it; and to actually get down to that sort of binary choice requires a far more specific and also rather unlikely sort of scenario. (In other words, you're helping to illustrate that this usually is a false dilemma.) Furthermore, either of the options you present could be in character, depending on the character.

As I mentioned earlier, power isn't generic. There may be trade-offs between different varieties of power. Also, in this case, you really haven't even constructed a scenario where the player necessarily needs to make his character worse at killing things and taking their stuff in order to further his character's other goals! You've constructed a scenario in which the player may need to deviate from his planned build in order to make his character as good as possible at killing things and taking their stuff, such that even the most kick-in-the-door powergamer might choose to scrap his original plans!

And, in addition to each choice having a different sort of power associated with it, each choice has viable fluff associated with it. So it's not a choice between power and fluff. It's a choice between one sort of power and one sort of fluff and another sort of power and a different sort of fluff. And the player might decide that he wants either sort of power or either sort of fluff. The issue that you're presenting is being wedded to specific plans for a character (maybe due to what a particular build needs in order to work) and maintaining flexibility in how one's character develops (possibly by using a build with less specific needs). That's not really the same thing as fluff vs. power.


You can focus on one of the dozen other means to get relevant damage output; it isn't a problem really, except in Core, which as everyone knows is horribly limited in terms of viable character builds (especially ones that don't rely on billions tons of magic items).
Well, kyoryu said "If Power Attack is so good it should be mandatory", and I was responding in the context of that hypothetical. But yes, it's worth pointing out there usually isn't only one mechanically effective option, and indeed, the whole point of character optimization is finding the best mechanical representation of a given character concept. Before you can optimize, you need to pick something to optimize.

Nevertheless, in some cases, "What if the more effective option doesn't fit with my character concept?" may be a valid question. I see three basic sorts of cases here:

(1) You want your character to do something that isn't as effective as it should be within the available game rules. In this event, talk to your GM about developing some house rules / homebrew material to make your character concept work better. But first, search a bit to check whether it really isn't covered well already in the material available to you. No need to reinvent the proverbial wheel!

(2) You want your character to do something that by all rights should be horribly ineffective. In this event, you can either play in the sort of game where smacking your foes with trout can be a perfectly viable and deadly fighting style, or you play a comically insane and inept character, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, because that sort of character can be fun. Or else you can abandon your idea for something less ridiculous, which also isn't necessarily a bad thing, because ridiculous characters can be annoying.

(3) What you want your character to do is plenty effective, but there are other things that are way more effective. In this event, you may need to decide whether you want to give up the flavor you had in mind in exchange for power, because the most powerful flavor is always Extra Cheesy.

Of course, you could try to persuade your GM to buff the character archetype you want up to an acceptable level of overpoweredness, effectively spreading cheese onto appropriately-flavored fluff.

Let us call such buffs Cheez Whiz.

Swordguy
2010-08-30, 01:20 PM
OK, so what I'm getting here is that reason I would consider "fluff" (in-game events) are largely considered to fall under the "mechanics" classification by the playground at large (he has insufficient bonuses to Spot/Listen). So we're just not all using the same words to mean the same things.

That makes more sense. Objection withdrawn, and thanks for the clarification.

Greenish
2010-08-30, 01:28 PM
For instance, there's not a lot of scope for aiming for the hands of a caster to stop them casting spells* (or at least losing their highest level ones) which, arguably, wouldn't be high damage at all.

* cue someone quoting a feat I don't know.Not a feat, but that's essentially what you do when you ready an action to try to disturb spellcasting.

Devils_Advocate
2010-08-30, 02:24 PM
Swordguy, could you explain why you considered one of the options that you presented to be "power" and the other to be "fluff"? I'm still wondering why you wouldn't consider each one to be both. To illustrate:

Originally planned build:
Power: Whatever the build was designed to do*
Disadvantage: Vulnerability to surprise
Fluff: Pursuit of and/or skill at whatever the build was designed to do rather than awareness of Bob's environment

New, modified build:
Power: Avoiding getting ganked
Disadvantage: Can't do original build (Realistically: Get benefits of original build a few levels later than originally planned)
Fluff: Bob pursues and/or more quickly develops awareness of his environment rather than whatever the build was designed to do

*Based on his appellation, I would hazard a guess that Bob specializes in spear-like weapons.

Swordguy
2010-08-30, 02:59 PM
Swordguy, could you explain why you considered one of the options that you presented to be "power" and the other to be "fluff"? I'm still wondering why you wouldn't consider each one to be both. To illustrate:

<snip>

*Based on his appellation, I would hazard a guess that Bob specializes in spear-like weapons.


Naw - Bob the Impaler is the "generic character name" I use for all my examples.

Now, to explain my thought process:

Why I felt it was fluff-based is because I felt it was an issue coming up from an in-character rationalization. That is, Bob is tired of being ambushed, therefore he's going to go out of his way to learn how to detect said ambushes more efficiently. That is the motivation. Once the motivation is established, then the DM suggests a mechanical solution (take Awareness) that helps solve the problem. Thusly, the decision to take Awareness is a fluff-based one.

However, while Bob is not aware of metagame conceits such as feats, Marty is aware that he wants to, over the course of a 20-level campaign, achieve a certain level of character/mechanical power (in, say, killing things)...one that requires all of Bob's available feats to achieve. Thus Marty is faced with a choice, does he give up some of the power of Bob's build (an ability to kill things - say, for the sake of a totally made-up example, losing this feat slot will drop his damage potential from 200 average damage on a charge to 150) in order to meet a perceived in-character (read: fluff-based) need?

Leaving aside for a moment all the other ways to improve Listen/Spot, I can completely see this choice happening at an actual game table, especially one that doesn't do much in the way of optimization or serious breakdowns of the mechanics. Say, a table that actually listens to WotC's advice on how to do characters and follows said advice ("Want to be better at something? Take a feat for it!").


Please note: I am NOT restarting the argument - I'm just explaining my though process behind the initial example. I've already conceded the point, and future posts on how this is "thinking wrongly" will be ignored and/or met with derision and scorn.

Greenish
2010-08-30, 03:12 PM
Say, a table that actually listens to WotC's advice on how to do characters and follows said advice ("Want to be better at something? Take a feat for it!").I'm going to comment on your post regardless of threats of derision and scorn: I see no virtue in following poor advice.

Boci
2010-08-30, 03:15 PM
Please note: I am NOT restarting the argument - I'm just explaining my though process behind the initial example. I've already conceded the point, and future posts on how this is "thinking wrongly" will be ignored and/or met with derision and scorn.

But that doesn't change the fact that the choice between power and fluff is false choice because there are so many more ways to get better at spotting ambushes. You may not want to optimize, but that doesn't mean the option does not exist.

dsmiles
2010-08-30, 03:15 PM
("Want to be better at something? Take a feat for it!").

Once again, I seem unable to help myself:

"Want to be better at Spot and Listen checks? There's a feat for that!"

erikun
2010-08-30, 06:26 PM
Please note: I am NOT restarting the argument - I'm just explaining my though process behind the initial example. I've already conceded the point, and future posts on how this is "thinking wrongly" will be ignored and/or met with derision and scorn.
Well, I could see perfectly in-character reasons for not taking the feat and remaining with the build. Specifically, Bob feals than his impalermanship is important enough that, even if ambushed, he would be in a superior position by impaling people after the surprise rather than spotting them first with lesser impalermanship skills.

Although yeah, I would say creating a 20-level build and sticking to it no matter what would cause a problem. There should be some flex, to accommodate for surprises in the campaign or a DMing style you didn't expect.

Then again, I can see builds may not be worth deviating from. For D&D specifically, giving up levels in a spellcasting class for a skill-based or melee class will quickly begin killing your spellcasting ability, unless you have planned on dealing with it somehow.

Ajadea
2010-08-30, 06:34 PM
?? Do you have to cut corners on either side? But occasionally, in minor ways, yes. Not enough to cripple a character. Just little random things like chainmail instead of a breastplate because it looks better in my mental image. More Strength than Dexterity on a sorcerer build, despite pathetic AC, with Charisma still being highest, or dumping Constitution on my rogue in favor of high mental stats (14/12/12) in addition to the 18 Dex.

A 12-Cha sorcerer is stupid. The 9 Con/18 Dex/Quick rogue was fun, even if she had no hit points to speak of, just for the 'Wait-what-hey-you-come back-with-my-*falls over*' effect I kept inspiring with my whip-dagger wielding 40 foot base land speed rogue/eventually assassin. Bonus for the death attacks from 15 feet away!

Ormur
2010-08-30, 06:56 PM
I sacrifice none of it. If I don't like the fluff, I make a new fluff. This is a roleplaying game, not a videogame. We abide to the rules to have a common ground, and guess what, fluff is not rules. We don't have to abide by the fluff on the classes.

Maybe my terminology is incorrect but I didn't just mean the fluff attached to classes but the fluff you create yourself.

I agree you don't have to play a paladin to be a holy champion of good and you can be a sorcerer and call the stuff you're doing something else than spells. I just meant that sometimes the characters you're playing don't take the build options the player might think are the most effective. A wizard might not always specialize in conjuration or take the most effective spells, that kind of stuff.

erikun
2010-08-30, 07:02 PM
Just as a side note, the conjuration-optimized wizard is generally geared towards battlefield control in a four-fights-equal-CR-per-day situation. If you are putting priority on something else, such as damage or social situations, being a Conjurer - heck, even being a Wizard - may not be the most optimal choice for you.

And yes, there are times when you intentionally take a poor choice for various reasons. I wouldn't say that the character is making the choice for you, though.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-31, 05:55 AM
Maybe my terminology is incorrect but I didn't just mean the fluff attached to classes but the fluff you create yourself.

I agree you don't have to play a paladin to be a holy champion of good and you can be a sorcerer and call the stuff you're doing something else than spells. I just meant that sometimes the characters you're playing don't take the build options the player might think are the most effective. A wizard might not always specialize in conjuration or take the most effective spells, that kind of stuff.

That has no bearing in the fluff-power false dichotomy either. If your power is not enough, and you want more power, you go and get more power. Fluff doesn't get involved.

Serpentine
2010-08-31, 06:39 AM
What about a character whose driving goal is to obtain ultimate power, but the character's idea of ultimate power is different to the player's?

Greenish
2010-08-31, 06:41 AM
What about a character whose driving goal is to obtain ultimate power, but the character's idea of ultimate power is different to the player's?Then you squeeze as much power as you need from the route the character aims for.

Snake-Aes
2010-08-31, 07:17 AM
What about a character whose driving goal is to obtain ultimate power, but the character's idea of ultimate power is different to the player's?

I don't see how that harms fluff. Your character is achieving what he believes to be ultimate power. If you conceived the character having an idea that isn't true out of the game, then you are creating such conflict on purpose.