Dealing with the stormwind fallacy [Archive] - Page 2

Psyx

2011-01-02, 02:32 PM

If that's your definition of a psychopath, fine.

No: It's psychology's. Psychopaths are not required to kill people. It's just easy for them and often rather tempting. Likewise they often consider themselves unlikely to be caught and are poor at personal risk-assessment.

They're pretty common then, no? So the players playing one should be fine.
They can be one of the so-called psychopaths if those are common enough.

All mental illness is measured on a spectrum. There's no simple 'on' and 'off' - we all exist on a number of scales. But no: abnormal levels of psychopathy is not common. It's just proportionally much more common in the top end of business, because psychopathic behaviour is beneficial in that arena, in the same manner that models are often narcissists and elite athletes often have OCD. Psychopathy is likewise rather high in those who become mercenaries - a fairly close real-world comparison to the adventuring life.

Adventuring favours psychopathic behaviour to an even greater degree than the competitive world of business; partly for the obvious reason that killing people for profit and not getting too worried about it is kind of part of the job description. Most sane people would quit ten seconds after they made enough money to live in the lap of luxury for eternity, for example.

The very point of my original line of thought was that those who insist on roleplaying people who are 'perfect' and don't want to roleplay someone who is less than perfect - both on-paper and in-character - are roleplaying insane characters in a selective manner without actually exploring it. The 'I want to have a character who optimised because they want to be the best and its good roleplaying' line is only true when those characters are roleplayed with the flaws of the insanities that they must have in order to have become that person. Otherwise it's most certainly not 'good roleplaying', and is simply a justification for wanting the best list of numbers on a piece of paper.

I thought you meant that optimized characters aren't interested in the world and seemingly wander around looking for bigger things to kill. You certainly gave that impression earlier.

I'm not sure which post gave you that impression, but no. That's not my point at all. I think you're maybe being slightly steered in interpretation by your existing personal definition of 'psychopath' as someone who just wants to kill things.

The point that I was trying to get across is that someone who has 'optimised' their life is clinically insane. You can't really play what must be an obsessive psychopath [in order to have 'optimised' their entire life and succeeded as an adventurer] and then say 'but I'm normal'. One doesn't get to be 'the best' at killing things and taking their stuff by being well-adjusted and normal.

I'm saying that that playstyle is not optimal. Your character has to take an interest in the world or you're not playing the character optimally.

I'm not seeing how being a psychopath isn't highly optimal. I didn't say that a psychopath isn't interested in the world. Psychopaths in our world who rise to the top don't do it by being unaware of their surroundings. Obviously it's an advantage to be aware of your surroundings. So playing someone with Asperger's Syndrome in a political game is very sub-optimal, but playing a psychopath in dungeon-crawl-land-with-some-politics-thrown-in is very beneficial.

they qualify as psychopaths by your definition.

Seriously: It's not my definition. It's what 'psychopath' actually means. I'm not making this up.

My point was once you start getting up a decent backstory those one skill point here and there adds up real fast.

It does, but once again this is a failing of the system. Most reasonable systems provide characters with more options for -basically- being more 'real' people. As I said: Give more skill points and soem people will flesh out their backgrounds, while some will simply insist on making their vat-grown ninja more vat-grown-and-ninja-like.

I still suck at it.

But at least you can do it. Stepping away from D&D as a system, at least that level one skill means -in lots of games- that you can do it and pick the dice up without a horrible penalty.

To be honest, I'm a fan of non-core abilities being one-off purchases for a nominal amount. You want to dance: Buy the 'dance' talent, and you can do it every time: No dice requires. Same for farming, origami, basket weaving. It's pointless to roll on these skills and they aren't 'useful' often. So make them a nominal one-off expense. Again: This is a failure of the system though.

Having no ranks only means you have the basic knowledge and training

That's true. It would be better to use a skill that can't be used untrained as an example... although in D&D everyone apparently has 'basic training' in every craft ever... a failure of the system again, in many ways.

Is your imagination so limited...

We'll simply have to agree to disagree. You are obviously a big fan of min-maxxing, so will obviously defend and justify that option and play-style to the hilt.

D&D has a 'profession: farming' skill [or knowledge: nature, or survival if you want to put the point to more use while justifying the background via skill selection]. Not spending even a single point on it and then saying 'but I can farm, I just didn't want to not spend a point more on Move Silently because I use the skill more' is not an indicator that you have a better imagination than I do.

Psyx

2011-01-02, 02:36 PM

I would call it more of a justification then an excuse

Potato/potato

:smallwink:

WarKitty

2011-01-02, 02:43 PM

My point was more that, if you're going to go that way, my none-too-bright farmer turned monk needs to spend some points in handle animal, some points in Profession (farmer), and probably a few in knowledge (nature). If I'm supposed to have made a living off of this, I should be able to hit a DC 10 handle animal check reliably, and a DC 8 or so for profession. I probably have around a 10 in charisma and intelligence, maybe a 14 in wisdom. There went my skill points!

Psyx

2011-01-02, 02:47 PM

WarKitty

2011-01-02, 02:49 PM

It's a matter of compromise and balance. We want to be decent at 'adventuring' and to build a flavourful character. You shouldn't be too extreme either way, to my mind.

Some players are unwilling to compromise ANY effectiveness as an adventurer for the sake of characterisation. For me that's a step too far.

That's what I've been saying this entire thread - you have to compromise. We just have different experiences with where the line is and with what error is commonly made. In my experience, the player that refuses to put his feats and skill points into something useful and then complains when he can't do the cool stuff that he thinks he ought to be doing is far more prevalent.

Togo

2011-01-02, 05:23 PM

No. The Stormwind Fallacy is the idea that min-maxing and role-playing are mutually exclusive.

I'll same the same thing I said to Stormwind when he proposed it. A Min-maxed character may not necessarily be a poorly role-played character, but the process of min-maxing will certainly limit your options for development. To the extent that your character follows an optimum path, rather than one suggested by his character development, situation, enviroment and story, then yes of course you are limiting your scope for roleplay.

I note in passing that optimising your character's stats and character sheet is a sub-optimal playstyle in any case. Unless you play an unusually deadly campaign, your character's survival and prosperity could in practice depend far more on how well he is integrated into the overall story and backgorund to the game, than on his ability to win fights. Beyond a certain point, min-maxing discourages people from helping you, increases the deadliness of encounters, encourages the DM to counter you specifically and generally limits the survivability and success of your character, not to mention the sucess of the game.

The paper capabilities of your character are not the most vital thing to his success or failure.

Heliomance

2011-01-02, 05:59 PM

So what build would you propose for the glory hound seeking to become the deadliest blade in Christendom? I submit that it would be a highly optimised one, otherwise he's not really going about his goal terribly well.

You can optimise for any concept. Min-maxing does not inherently limit your options. In fact, decent optimisation skills actually expand your options. Many concepts simply aren't feasible to build unless you optimise them well. The idea of a melee fighter who can throw a bit of magic around to help in combat is simple and pervasive. But gishes are hard to build well. Yes, min-maxing causes you to follow an optimal path. But you follow an optimal path towards the goal that you set, which can be any goal. I don't think that's a bad thing, not at all.

WarKitty

2011-01-02, 06:00 PM

Stormwind fallacy, corollary:

A character that is sub-optimal or flawed in some way does not equate to a well roleplayed character.

Tvtyrant

2011-01-02, 06:49 PM

Potato/potato

:smallwink:

:smallcool:

Anyway, I personally feel the minmaxing and rollplaying are separate issues altogether. I have had players who couldn't build their way out of a monk and still ran around attacking important NPC's "for the lulz" and I had one memorable player who played a Wizard that used Janni's to Planeshift early and spent his hours rollplaying being extremely eccentric about colors; everything he owned had to be blue so he ended up giving other people his "clashing" loot. Good times.

The Big Dice

2011-01-02, 10:05 PM

Yes, min-maxing causes you to follow an optimal path. But you follow an optimal path towards the goal that you set, which can be any goal. I don't think that's a bad thing, not at all.
An optimal path is by definition a narrow one. The more optimal the path you follow, the less choice you have at each step of the way. Eventually, you reach a point where you only have one choice at each level, because anything else is notoptimal.

Stormwind fallacy, corollary:

A character that is sub-optimal or flawed in some way does not equate to a well roleplayed character.
Nor does a heavily optimaised character mean a badly played one.

However, the character should always come before the build. Assuming you want a well played character rather than a build designed to fulfil certain requirements. Play the role and everything should flow naturally from there.

Then it doesn't matter if you're optimising, being a munchkin, minmaxing, being a drama llama or whatever. If you can answer why you made a choice in the voice of your character, then it's a good choice. If you have to take things into the metagame, that is the mechanics and numbers that allow a character to interface with the game system, then you're just playing the system.

At least that's how I feel about things. And yes, that has sometimes meant that not taking a Flight spell was the right choice for my character. Or that using a Bastard Sword, or that taking the TWF feat path have been the right choices. Because that's where the character needed to go to remain true to the character, rather than the build.

WarKitty

2011-01-02, 10:31 PM

An optimal path is by definition a narrow one. The more optimal the path you follow, the less choice you have at each step of the way. Eventually, you reach a point where you only have one choice at each level, because anything else is notoptimal.

Nor does a heavily optimaised character mean a badly played one.

However, the character should always come before the build. Assuming you want a well played character rather than a build designed to fulfil certain requirements. Play the role and everything should flow naturally from there.

Then it doesn't matter if you're optimising, being a munchkin, minmaxing, being a drama llama or whatever. If you can answer why you made a choice in the voice of your character, then it's a good choice. If you have to take things into the metagame, that is the mechanics and numbers that allow a character to interface with the game system, then you're just playing the system.

At least that's how I feel about things. And yes, that has sometimes meant that not taking a Flight spell was the right choice for my character. Or that using a Bastard Sword, or that taking the TWF feat path have been the right choices. Because that's where the character needed to go to remain true to the character, rather than the build.

To a point. One of the realities of the system is that if you can't do it mechanically, you can't do it. I have memories of a fighter character that said she was doing a dex build, but used a non-finessable weapon, stuck with a low strength score, and took power attack and cleave over dodge and spring attack, but insisted on wearing only light armor so she didn't lose any speed. All because of her roleplaying concept - and then wondered why she was useless in combat.

The Big Dice

2011-01-02, 10:47 PM

To a point. One of the realities of the system is that if you can't do it mechanically, you can't do it. I have memories of a fighter character that said she was doing a dex build, but used a non-finessable weapon, stuck with a low strength score, and took power attack and cleave over dodge and spring attack, but insisted on wearing only light armor so she didn't lose any speed. All because of her roleplaying concept - and then wondered why she was useless in combat.
Useless is always relative to the rest of the people in the room. I'd say that the GM should remember that you're playing a ROLEPLAYING game, not a tactical combat simulator.

But then again, I'd say that D&D is possibly not the best system to use for unconventional ideas. Certainly I can think of other games where a character in light armour using a big heavy sword is a much more plauisible option than it would be in D&D.

Druss the Legend is an awesome character in the book, but I really don't think his style of combat nor his choices of equipment would work too well in D&D.

WarKitty

2011-01-02, 10:58 PM

Useless is always relative to the rest of the people in the room. I'd say that the GM should remember that you're playing a ROLEPLAYING game, not a tactical combat simulator.

But then again, I'd say that D&D is possibly not the best system to use for unconventional ideas. Certainly I can think of other games where a character in light armour using a big heavy sword is a much more plauisible option than it would be in D&D.

Druss the Legend is an awesome character in the book, but I really don't think his style of combat nor his choices of equipment would work too well in D&D.

True. The problem here was the rest of the characters were a lot more powerful than she was. We have a crit-focused ranger, an alchemist with a lot of bombs and some extra damage components, my casting-focused druid, and a sorc/fighter gish with some good touch spells. Plus a pair of barbarians, not super-optimized but at least with 20 strength, rage, and good weapons.

Course, this is also biased because this is the same player that is always after me for not "roleplaying enough." Usually because I don't react quickly enough with what my character is doing - it takes me a minute to process everything and get my character's action back out. I roleplay more laid-back quiet characters for this reason.

quiet1mi

2011-01-03, 02:20 AM

Rule -1: Don't play with known expletives. And someone who belittles and insults you to your face....

It is a source of continual consternation and confusion how content people are to give DMs special privileges to abuse, insult, and mistreat other people. Like they have some right to insult people to their face without being called on their BS.

+1 sir... +1.

Yora

2011-01-03, 07:28 AM

Useless is always relative to the rest of the people in the room. I'd say that the GM should remember that you're playing a ROLEPLAYING game, not a tactical combat simulator.
You're sure? Most systems allow for both.

Callista

2011-01-03, 08:41 AM

WarKitty

2011-01-03, 09:07 AM

Regarding people who have horrible builds because it fits a character concept: Often times these can be solved by re-flavoring existing classes and thinking out of the box when it comes to your build. The girl with the DEX-focused fighter probably could have gone with a rogue and had a mechanically better character that still fit the concept. There really are options, if you don't insist on playing a particular class.

We weren't even quite sure why she insisted on power attack instead of dodge and spring attack. But there was a lot of other stuff going on at the time, and she's improved greatly with the resolution of some family issues.

Psyx

2011-01-04, 07:13 AM

However, the character should always come before the build.

Bingo. Hammering a background into place to legitimise optimisation choices is kinda roleplay-after-the-fact.

One of the realities of the system is that if you can't do it mechanically, you can't do it.

Which is another reason why D&D is a poor system: It's quite limiting in flexibility. 'Fortunately' that flexibility has been regained via the sheer number of splat-books out there. Unfortunately that means that if you like to characterise and then find mechanics to support that, one has to become quite a rules expert.

Regarding people who have horrible builds because it fits a character concept

It can usually be fixed by knowing the rules well enough to find a way to make it work. This is 'using optimisation for good'. As opposed to simply sitting down and creating the best list of numbers possible, which is not a good use of optimisation to my mind.

The paper capabilities of your character are not the most vital thing to his success or failure.

Viola. Min-maxxing is laughably absurd in a human-moderated RPG. Sure: It might make sense in a PC game, but in reality the only thing keeping you alive is the GM. If the GM loves your character, you'll get lucky breaks at times. If the GM hates your character, he can drop proverbial rocks on them. If all you care about is actually 'winning', then you need to optimise the character's personality and traits so that the GM loves them. The difficulty level of the game is set by the GM to be proportionate to the characters. Building an over-powered PC just ensures your foes will be over-powered.

olentu

2011-01-04, 07:59 AM

Bingo. Hammering a background into place to legitimise optimisation choices is kinda roleplay-after-the-fact.

At first consideration I would say that making the character is not what I would consider role playing but rather setup to allow for playing the role of the character later.

Which is another reason why D&D is a poor system: It's quite limiting in flexibility. 'Fortunately' that flexibility has been regained via the sheer number of splat-books out there. Unfortunately that means that if you like to characterise and then find mechanics to support that, one has to become quite a rules expert.

It can usually be fixed by knowing the rules well enough to find a way to make it work. This is 'using optimisation for good'. As opposed to simply sitting down and creating the best list of numbers possible, which is not a good use of optimisation to my mind.

Viola. Min-maxxing is laughably absurd in a human-moderated RPG. Sure: It might make sense in a PC game, but in reality the only thing keeping you alive is the GM. If the GM loves your character, you'll get lucky breaks at times. If the GM hates your character, he can drop proverbial rocks on them. If all you care about is actually 'winning', then you need to optimise the character's personality and traits so that the GM loves them. The difficulty level of the game is set by the GM to be proportionate to the characters. Building an over-powered PC just ensures your foes will be over-powered.

I am going to have to disagree on this last point as it is very DM dependent. I have played with DMs where the abilities of the character are the deciding factor between success and failure. Sometimes everyone died sometimes the party won and sometimes it came down to one or two characters being just a bit better built mechanically staving off a tpk.

But sure there are DMs that show favoritism and will not let the characters they prefer ever fail but that is not something I would want in a DM especially if applied in my favor.

WarKitty

2011-01-04, 08:34 AM

The problem is more that you have to build a character that's of a suitable power level for the game. The problem with the fighter I described wasn't simply that she was underpowered, it's that she was bringing a character in at a much lower power level than the rest of the group. That functions in either direction; there's going to be issues when one character is severely off in power level.

I have to say though, I've had a lot of fun looking at theoretical builds and figuring out a character that fits the build. Usually it doesn't end up *quite* the way originally planned, but it's still fun. I've learned to love having my anthrobat druid because it's fun playing an off-beat race.

Psyx

2011-01-04, 08:48 AM

At first consideration I would say that making the character is not what I would consider role playing but rather setup to allow for playing the role of the character later.

It's also partly a matter of intent.

Someone who thinks of what character to play and then makes it work mechanically is concerned with the characterisation. Someone who makes a list of optimal numbers and then comes up with a character concept afterwards is probably more interested in those numbers than characterisation.

WarKitty

2011-01-04, 08:52 AM

It's also partly a matter of intent.

Someone who thinks of what character to play and then makes it work mechanically is concerned with the characterisation. Someone who makes a list of optimal numbers and then comes up with a character concept afterwards is probably more interested in those numbers than characterisation.

See, I start with "what do I want to do in the game." In this particular case, I wanted a druid and we were starting at low level, and I didn't want to run out of spells all the time (I hate sitting back with my sling). So I picked up an anthrobat for the wisdom bonus. The character would obviously have been magically created for that to work, which fit perfectly with my last druid's heir. Obviously then she'd want to wear his armor as well, which required taking heavy armor proficency.

It's not a matter of characterisation or numbers first, for me. They're sort of both there at once.

Gullintanni

2011-01-04, 10:24 AM

It's also partly a matter of intent.

Someone who thinks of what character to play and then makes it work mechanically is concerned with the characterisation. Someone who makes a list of optimal numbers and then comes up with a character concept afterwards is probably more interested in those numbers than characterisation.

I don't see what the problem with this is really, as long as the player is not breaking too far from reality. I know I don't have fun unless I'm playing an effective character. I design a character I'd like to play and then look at the fluff required by the PrC's of feats or class choices and if they don't mesh, then I reconcile and modify as necessary.

Sometimes this reconciliation means sacrificing the peak of optimization; and that's okay. My starting point though, is almost never fluff related. If you're playing in the Greyhawk setting and porting in PrCs belonging to the Forgotten Realms, then you're abusing the system, but as long as the character you end up with is logically consistent within the setting and with all the associated fluff, then I don't see any problem.

PersonMan

2011-01-04, 10:26 AM

It's also partly a matter of intent.

Someone who thinks of what character to play and then makes it work mechanically is concerned with the characterisation. Someone who makes a list of optimal numbers and then comes up with a character concept afterwards is probably more interested in those numbers than characterisation.

Not always.

I, for example, occasionally have ideas for good builds and then build characters around them. One of my more recent(although unused) characters was constructed mechanically and all but finished before I even decided upon a name(although I do often leave names for last), but I certainly consider him one of my more interesting characters. One way of looking at it is creating a character mechanically, then taking those abilities and the setting info and considering what kind of person would have those abilities.

A build that starts out fairly weak and then suddenly gets stronger in later levels can be used for several different concepts.

The Glyphstone

2011-01-04, 10:39 AM

Great Modthulhu: Just a friendly reminder - all of the following, among others, are considered Flaming:

Belittling people who care more about roleplaying than mechanics.
Belittling people who care more about mechanics than roleplaying.
Putting down or insulting ANY play preference, including (but not explicitly limited to) choice of game system, choice of preferred levels, classes, or races, choice of setting, choice of power level, etc. You cannot call another poster a munchkin or make any other disparaging remarks about how they like to play the game. You can express your own preference, you can express why you don't care for their preference, but you can't put someone down for feeling differently.

No one has outright violated this yet, but it's drifting in that general direction, and it would behoove people to type carefully.

Psyx

2011-01-04, 12:14 PM

I don't see what the problem with this is really

I'm not saying that it is. I'm just stating that whichever facet comes first is generally the facet that the player is going to be most focused on. Kind of like deciding you want a car to have certain performance requirements before settling on a marque, or deciding what 'badge' you want on the front before looking at models.

It helps if it meshes with your group. We've seen on the thread quite a few players unhappy with overly characterful PCs who are below the curve in performance and just as many unhappy with overly min-maxxed characters who then eclipse others or are played only as a list of numbers. As long as it fits with the group, it's not really a problem. Friction happens when it's out of synch with everyone else around the table.

My starting point though, is almost never fluff related.

Mine is normally in terms of 'what base niche am I going to fill' (wizard, tank, stealther or whatever). then I move to characterisation, then I try to beat the stupid system into submission so I can create the character I want.

Gullintanni

2011-01-04, 12:27 PM

It helps if it meshes with your group. Friction happens when it's out of synch with everyone else around the table.

Absolutely. Ultimately it doesn't really matter how over the top your character is (or style of play for that matter), if you're contributing to everyone at the table having fun.

Mine is normally in terms of 'what base niche am I going to fill' (wizard, tank, stealther or whatever). then I move to characterisation, then I try to beat the stupid system into submission so I can create the character I want.

And at the end of the day, isn't that what everyone wants? 3.5, pulpy and beaten. :smallbiggrin:

The Glyphstone

2011-01-04, 12:36 PM

And at the end of the day, isn't that what everyone wants? 3.5, pulpy and beaten. :smallbiggrin:

Feebly moaning, clutching at your ankles and begging for mercy, cringing whenever you glance towards the pneumatic jackhammer...

Where was I going with this? I forget.

Gullintanni

2011-01-04, 12:56 PM

Feebly moaning, clutching at your ankles and begging for mercy, cringing whenever you glance towards the pneumatic jackhammer...

Where was I going with this?

Therapy. :smalltongue:

Psyx

2011-01-04, 01:41 PM

And at the end of the day, isn't that what everyone wants? 3.5, pulpy and beaten. :smallbiggrin:

You forgot 'removed from the timeline and mankind's noosphere, so people can play decent games instead'

Thiyr

2011-01-04, 02:16 PM

Bingo. Hammering a background into place to legitimise optimisation choices is kinda roleplay-after-the-fact.

And trying to fit mechanics to a pre-existing story is just tacking mechanics after the fact as a "requirement". And honestly, both have their downsides. Character should then, in my opinion, never come before build. Nor should build ever come before character. They should (ideally) be created simultaneously. That way, character influences, but does not dominate, mechanics, allowing for both to inspire rather than constrict the other.

Which is another reason why D&D is a poor system: It's quite limiting in flexibility. 'Fortunately' that flexibility has been regained via the sheer number of splat-books out there. Unfortunately that means that if you like to characterise and then find mechanics to support that, one has to become quite a rules expert.

Strangely, it's that limitation that I think makes 3.5 as fun of a system for me. I shall quote Mark Rosewater on the design of MtG cards for my thought: "Limitation breeds creativity". When I look through classes, I find that with more open-ended systems, I just sorta...get lost. I don't know what I want to do when I can do anything. When I play D&D, though, I can look and say "well, this class can do this thing. Let's see how I can make use of it". I find that I get more character concepts by doing that than, say, my foray into Hero system, where I had to resort to "What character from fiction do I feel like trying to build and roleplay", something less fun or creative for me.

Viola. Min-maxxing is laughably absurd in a human-moderated RPG. Sure: It might make sense in a PC game, but in reality the only thing keeping you alive is the GM. If the GM loves your character, you'll get lucky breaks at times. If the GM hates your character, he can drop proverbial rocks on them. If all you care about is actually 'winning', then you need to optimise the character's personality and traits so that the GM loves them. The difficulty level of the game is set by the GM to be proportionate to the characters. Building an over-powered PC just ensures your foes will be over-powered.

I...disagree with this wholeheartedly. Min-maxing, the process of minimizing drawbacks while maximizing benefits, is absurd when taken to its furthest extremes. But beyond that, our playgroup (who all at least seem to be fleshy and human) all go with the idea of "sometimes you need to pay for something. Let's figure out how to get the most something for the least pay". If we assume you intended to mean the furthest limits of min-max, then yes, that tends to (but not always) be disallowed. But where you are wrong is that the only thing keeping you alive is the GM. I've had characters the GM loved die to functionally random encounters. I've seen hated characters catch lucky breaks. But we've got a (for the most part) mature playgroup which tries to avoid letting things like that influence how the character preforms. The universe won't like you more than the next guy just because you've got a well-planned history while he's simply a muffin-obsessed baker (yes, that was a character in one of our parties). Muffin-guy retired the character, but the character never had anything bad happen to him, because otherwise it turns into a popularity contest, and we just don't enjoy that. Heck, when I was running a bit more sandbox-y game, encounters were explicitly not tailored to the party. If they went someplace and fought a bunch of goblins today, or if they went there in 10 levels, they'd still be fighting mostly same goblins, because -the goblins aren't expecting to fight the PCs-. If its a recurring villain who hounds the PCs, yea, he'll grow, but otherwise the world doesn't revolve around them. Building "over-powered" (though I contend there really is no objective scale to what power ought be, making such a term less than helpful) PCs, then, simply means that they can do more things. Just because we've got a strong party doesn't mean faceless mooks stop showing up, it just means we really don't get concerned by them. It also means that we can go up against something harder than them and not have to run away in fear.

tl;dr, mechanics and character are equals, neither above the other, and at no point during creation or play should they really be treated as separately in many situations. D&D can be quite a good system compared to others depending on how you make use of it, and what you're looking to do. DMs ought not favor characters based on how much they personally like them, as that turns the game into a popularity contest.

Callista

2011-01-04, 04:09 PM

Ehh... doesn't matter what you start with, so long as you create a character that will fit into the game and be a three-dimensional person you can RP decently. It takes both things to make the game fun.

If you're going to min-max anything, then min-max enjoyment--yours and your friends'. That takes both a character with a power level that fits into the game, and a character with a personality that fits into the game. Just like when you're balancing stats against each other, you have to balance RP value and appropriate power level.

Earthwalker

2011-01-04, 04:22 PM

Character creation for me has always been working out what my character has done in life to the point of starting playing and make sure he gets the skills that seem usful for that past.

I think it comes from starting roleplaying with runequest 3 which basically did just that for character creation, your background gave you skills then you just headed out from there.

Same with shadowrun, if I am a former FBI from the department of paranormal affairs I am going to have a skill set that would have grown in that line of work. Of course it always seems to go that skills you have are the ones you use. For two years we played shadowrun and never used the Psychology skill once. As soon as I play a character with the skill, then it gets used. Used more then his gun skill, as it was more usful and more how he played.

Of course all this is a question of play styles and game systems.

I do find myself agreeing with Pysx a lot in this thread.

For how I create character DnD is just a horrible system. Of course I can still use it and again in my group it works.

Yora

2011-01-04, 05:05 PM

Once I started to really look at other systems, I realized D&D (3rd and 4th Ed.) really is not meant for role-play. It's a fantasy themed tactical wargame. You can roleplay in a D&D game, but there are lots of other systems that are much more comfortable for this.

Popertop

2011-01-04, 10:18 PM

Yeah, OP is really ingrained with the idea that 3.5 is perfect and without any flaws. Willing to try other systems though.

Tvtyrant

2011-01-04, 10:21 PM

Yeah, OP is really ingrained with the idea that 3.5 is perfect and without any flaws. Willing to try other systems though.

...I thought you were the original poster...

I am now so confused!

The Glyphstone

2011-01-04, 10:22 PM

...I thought you were the original poster...

I am now so confused!

Maybe he's confused what OP means.

Grelna the Blue

2011-01-04, 10:30 PM

Maybe he's confused what OP means.

Contrariwise, we could consider the possibility of this thing some people call sarcasm. Because I've never encountered anybody who thought any edition of D&D was perfect.

Tvtyrant

2011-01-04, 10:31 PM

Maybe he's confused what OP means.

Or he is using a really clever version of the third person! "What OP wants, OP gets yo!"

Popertop

2011-01-05, 02:28 AM

I ... actually meant to say "DM mentioned in original post"

Sorry to destroy the mystery lol.

I personally feel that D&D is a terrible system,
and that it's horribly flawed by its basic
building block of modifying a d20 roll.

DM thinks Core is balanced,
and that the game as a whole
is perfect the way it is.

*frustrate*

I know that it comes down to preference,
different people want different things out
of the game, I can understand that.
The most irritating part is where he contradicts himself.

Tytalus

2011-01-05, 05:49 AM

However, the character should always come before the build.

Why? You can perfectly well start with a build an create an interesting character from there.

As Callista has aptly put it: "...doesn't matter what you start with, so long as you create a character that will fit into the game and be a three-dimensional person you can RP decently. It takes both things to make the game fun."

In my experience, the results are best if you approach this iteratively, i.e., you start with one, make the other, and then go back and forth adjusting both sides until they match.

I'd say that the GM should remember that you're playing a ROLEPLAYING game, not a tactical combat simulator.

That's a common sentiment, but D&D is both. If you actually consider the average published adventure (i.e., something that's primarily a dungeon crawl) and compare the amount of rule book space devoted to combat vs. roleplaying tips, it would in fact appear that it's much less of a roleplaying game than a combat simulator.

Psyx

2011-01-05, 06:28 AM

Strangely, it's that limitation that I think makes 3.5 as fun of a system for me.

For you: Yes. For a new player with a bewildering number of bizarre options spread over twenty books: Not so much. The fact that a player's sheer aptitude for fiddling with numbers and gaining an encyclopaedic knowledge of all those tomes results in their characters always being remarkably 'better' than anyone else's in intrinsically bad design and implementation.

Options in splat books should be consistent and simply add more options; rather than more options that are better.

I just sorta...get lost. I don't know what I want to do when I can do anything. When I play D&D, though, I can look and say "well, this class can do this thing. Let's see how I can make use of it".

To me, that's a good reason to come up with a concept first and then mechanically replicate it. I appreciate you don't see it that way and that's obviously fine.

I...disagree with this wholeheartedly. Min-maxing

Ok: I meant to say OVER-optimising. We all min-max to a degree. It's when it impacts on character [ie no effort towards background skills or playing anything but a cardboard cutout], the other players [in that they are marginalised by it and feel overshadowed] or the GM [in that you either break the game over your knee, or in that anything the GM puts in to threaten your PC will vaporise anyone else with minimum damage] that it becomes a problem.

You speak of favouritism, but it does play a part. A character who is mechanically over-strong is not going to be given the benefit of the doubt in games that I've run, or under most GMs that I know: They've made their own luck by playing the system and so can live and die by it.

Whereas the character who is more realistic who is in the same party might catch a lucky break.

It's simply positive reinforcement. If characterful characters have the same life expectancy as over-optimised ones, then there is additional motivation to play them. If however anyone not playing a batman Incantrix gets killed with regularity, you end up negatively reinforcing the group, and everyone simply rolls up increasingly absurd players in some kind of arms race.

Cyberpunk was particularly bad for it. It was easy to build dirt-hard characters, even though this was implicitly discouraged. But once your 'normal' PCs all get killed four times over while Mr. Cyberwear strides invulnerably through everything, people start reacting and raising the bar with characters, which frankly rather spoils the game.

Building "over-powered" (though I contend there really is no objective scale to what power ought be, making such a term less than helpful) PCs, then, simply means that they can do more things. Just because we've got a strong party doesn't mean faceless mooks stop showing up, it just means we really don't get concerned by them. It also means that we can go up against something harder than them and not have to run away in fear.

No; it just means the GM raises the difficulty level. If he wants you to run away, he'll put something in to make you run away, still. That's the way it works. And the problem with players raising that bar and 'forcing' the GM to raise the difficulty is that it becomes harder to assess lethality and balance, making an 'accidental' kill a lot more likely. It's far easier to balance encounters to be a challenge with 'average' PCs than over-powered ones.

Once I started to really look at other systems, I realized D&D (3rd and 4th Ed.) really is not meant for role-play.

I've been frustrated with D&D ever since playing it the first time and being 'unable' to sneak past a guard because I was a fighter. D&D was always limiting. Runequest (2) was a revelation for me in that now my character could fight AND sneak AND make baskets or whatever.

DM thinks Core is balanced,
and that the game as a whole
is perfect the way it is.

D&D is the bicycle with stabilisers of the roleplaying world. It's fine at first, but there comes a time to move on to a 'big boys bike'.

Run a one-shot of something else for him, or invest in a rulebook for something else. I'd recommend a fast-and-loose game of Feng Shui or similar, for sheer action packed lunacy.

Coidzor

2011-01-05, 06:33 AM

Ok: I meant to say OVER-optimising. We all min-max to a degree. It's when it impacts on character [ie no effort towards background skills or playing anything but a cardboard cutout]

And your premise is still flawed. The crunch and fluff of creating a character are not competing for resources in any meaningful way. There's no single sliding scale in one's head. If one insisted on such metaphors being continued, it'd be two separate sliders in regards to amount of thought and time for each.

Psyx

2011-01-05, 07:10 AM

Coidzor

2011-01-05, 07:18 AM

over-optimising limits characterisations choices,

Any decision one makes at all in the character creation process limits characterization choices, so saying that something does so is meaningless in and of itself.

And, again, your choice of term inhibits your ability to discuss it meaningfully with anyone but yourself.

can create dull characterless clones

That is a separate factor, independent of the amount of effort put into a character's crunch. After all, there are many, many examples of drizzt clones. And these are not the result of an overemphasis of crunch in character development by any stretch of the imagination.

Hypothesis tested and found to be falsifiable.

and prevents players from putting skills points and resources into areas that the character should have.

As was discussed earlier, and you agreed at the time, this is actually a facet of the particular game system we were discussing creating the situation out of scarcity and flawed design rather than something purely resulting from the player.

Earthwalker

2011-01-05, 07:28 AM

olentu

2011-01-05, 07:34 AM

Generally it is a sliding scale, but for the reasons discussed in prior pages -which I'm not going to repeat- over-optimising limits characterisations choices, can create dull characterless clones and prevents players from putting skills points and resources into areas that the character should have.

Er when you say over optimizing it seems like you are describing instead setting the optimization measure to the same thing every time since optimization must have a scale.

So it seems to me to be more that some people chose to set the build goal the same every time and thus make basically the same character. This would be quite related to choosing the same major story and personality requirements every time and thus getting duplicates of a character in the non mechanical parts. In either case the problem seem to be that the player is just not being original in their design and so cranks out the same character each time with only minor differences.

I mean I have seen basically the same character with only superfluous differences (ones that from what I recall were not strictly more or less optimal due to the particular houserules) played by several different people (in the same game no less) and they were all vastly different.

Psyx

2011-01-05, 08:14 AM

As was discussed earlier, and you agreed at the time, this is actually a facet of the particular game system we were discussing creating the situation out of scarcity and flawed design rather than something purely resulting from the player.

And as we also stated earlier: Not always. You can give a player a hundred skill points, and some will still refuse to buy anything that's not 'optimal' for their build, ignoring even skills that would logically have to have developed in their environment. A Solo in Cyberpunk could bung background points into General Knowledge but some players will insist on instead spending those points on skill considered more optimal for combat, somehow going through life without proverbially knowing who the President is or who won last year's Superbowl. THAT is over-optimisation: when a player's insistence in optimising for some imagined role starts to seriously devalue the character as a believable entity. Sure: You can roll out the 'I'm a vat-grown ninja' thing, but that's normally a justification for numbers, rather than actual characterisation.

Er when you say over optimizing it seems like you are describing instead setting the optimization measure to the same thing every time since optimization must have a scale.

Erm... I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by that.

That is a separate factor, independent of the amount of effort put into a character's crunch. After all, there are many, many examples of drizzt clones. And these are not the result of an overemphasis of crunch in character development by any stretch of the imagination.

By card-board cut-out clones, I was not referring to Drizzt-a-likes. I was referring to bland psychopaths who are nothing but 'the best' and who have no depth of background skills or knowledge nor make choices that are sub-optimal in play, as discussed at length in prior pages. Drizzt is a dull, dull character, but at least he has some.

I wouldn't mind so much if everyone who insisted on playing uber characters whose entire goal in life was to be uber bothered thinking about their PCs enough to equip them with the various mental illnesses that such a mind-state would inevitably be indicative of (as detailed previously), but some people don't even think or bother caring even that much about their character.

Hypothesis tested and found to be falsifiable

{Scrubbed}

It would be better if we actually had a meaningful discussion, rather than you simply treating the matter as an argument of logic to be won, with points to be chalked up. You are missing the point of having a discussion if you merely test for fallibility in a statement, pick apart the minutae of comments and discard or don't bother attempting to recognise the intent of the words. You are not 'right' and I am not 'wrong'.

olentu

2011-01-05, 08:42 AM

Erm... I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by that.

Well allow me to try and explain. Optimal is not something that is a universal constant but rather requires a measure or a set of criteria chosen by a person to determine if something is optimal or not. This set of criteria can depending on the circumstances at the time of choosing spit out any sort of build that one wants. But in the case of the cookie cutter characters it seems that the player is just choosing the exact same criteria each time.

Additionally since the personality of the character is the same each time it also seems that the player is choosing to set the criteria for acceptable background and personality the same as well.

With the combination of those two one basically gets clones of the same character as would be expected when all the criteria for acceptability is almost exactly the same.

Psyx

2011-01-05, 09:20 AM

Right. Gotcha. I just couldn't follow that sentence first time around!

Cookie-cutter builds don't strictly need to be identical or even the same class though. I think we all know people who constantly create characters who are mechanically different, yet whose input perimeters are always something like 'I will be uber'. It becomes truly soulless.

Psyx

2011-01-05, 09:21 AM

Edit: Curse you forum. /shakes fist.

Coidzor

2011-01-05, 09:25 AM

And as we also stated earlier: Not always. You can give a player a hundred skill points, and some will still refuse to buy anything that's not 'optimal' for their build, ignoring even skills that would logically have to have developed in their environment.

And yet nothing about that cries frothing at the mouth psychopathic kill-machine. Nor does it necessarily follow that such is the natural and only right result.

A Solo in Cyberpunk could bung background points into General Knowledge but some players will insist on instead spending those points on skill considered more optimal for combat, somehow going through life without proverbially knowing who the President is or who won last year's Superbowl.

I might just not be familiar with the term "bung," but you just came off here as describing it as wasting the points while also decrying an observed general unwillingness to spend points in this way. This still seems more like a dissatisfaction with extant skill systems being mixed in or even conflated with the optimization and roleplaying issue.

THAT is over-optimisation: when a player's insistence in optimising for some imagined role starts to seriously devalue the character as a believable entity. Sure: You can roll out the 'I'm a vat-grown ninja' thing, but that's normally a justification for numbers, rather than actual characterisation.

For some imagined role? The entire game is imagined. The roles may or may not be necessary to be filled in any given game, but they exist in so far as the game itself exists in the minds and lexicon of those who play it.

Alternatively, the role, as you put it, is what the person wants their character to be in the game world, which is what both fluff and crunch ultimately are for, best representing the character as the player desires it in the game world.

It is not necessary to have an intentionally mechanically hampered character in order to have a believable character. That, more than anything else, is ephemeral and difficult to be meaningfully discussed here due to it only mattering to the audience of any given character whether the character is believable. Case in point, this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=181913), where many people reacted incredulously to what they considered unbelievable behavior on the part of the thieves who killed valuable horses rather than take them along with what the horses were carrying, the players of the game and the DM who orchestrated the scenario didn't bat an eyelash.

By that same token, a mechanically strong character does not have it necessary to lack a back story or characterization.

What you describe is not necessarily even optimization overpowering roleplaying if taken exactly as you state it, it as easily could translate into one disliking someone else's character concept regardless of the amount of technical skill in putting it together or how good any other individual or individuals find it to be.

Further, a disregard for character back story and verisimilitude with the given setting does not necessarily follow as a result of optimizing crunch. There are bland, characterless PCs of all levels of mechanical understanding and use. Just as there are flavorful, well-written and well-roleplayed characters at all points on the power spectrum. And characters that, while the people who created them will never wow anyone with their literary talents, had effort put into their fluff with varying degrees of crunch mastery and application.

By card-board cut-out clones, I was not referring to Drizzt-a-likes. I was referring to bland psychopaths who are nothing but 'the best' and who have no depth of background skills or knowledge nor make choices that are sub-optimal in play, as discussed at length in prior pages. Drizzt is a dull, dull character, but at least he has some.

Well, we'll just have to disagree on the definition of Drizzt clone then, as I've always seen it used to refer to a character without any actual character merely aping the facsimile of Drizzt rather than actually being Drizzt.

And drizzt clones can definitely be pretty bland psychopaths when they're not trying to be clever and flowery and failing, though the latter ones do at least try, which must count for something despite so many considering what is being attempted to be unsavory. Though when they're both bland psychopaths and trying to be clever and flowery is probably the perfect storm of drizzt cloneness.

Though, really, why you only list these frothing psychopaths as examples of over-optimizing when you also label using a standard skill point load out (as endorsed by WOTC in their sample 1st level character builds for 3.5, even) as over-optimized, considering they're as much outliers (if not more so) as someone who only has 5 hours of advance warning to know that there's a game coming up and that has a library of 24 books that they're more than passingly familiar with and who are without any kind of idea as to what to make the character crunchwise or fluffwise.

A ridiculous extreme which occurs in a minority of games is not a very good basis for arguing that optimization kills roleplaying. It could just as easily be said that there was no roleplaying to be killed and that the game was being played purely for other reasons and thus falls outside of the purview of the set of experiences that those who are concerned about roleplaying and gaming.

Which if either of those statements is right though, is an entirely subjective matter. This touches upon part of my objection to your assertions of individual taste and opinion as objective facts.

It would be better if we actually had a meaningful discussion, rather than you simply treating the matter as an argument of logic to be won, with points to be chalked up. You are missing the point of having a discussion if you merely test for fallibility in a statement, pick apart the minutae of comments and discard or don't bother attempting to recognise the intent of the words. You are not 'right' and I am not 'wrong'.

And we can't really have a meaningful discussion because you deal completely in absolutes, that characters must have bad or nonexistent fluff in order to have powerful build choices being made mechanically, that choosing to invest skill points in disable device and search as a rogue is "overoptimizing" because it is necessary to put skill points there in order to fulfill a party role that the players and DM agree to be necessary for the kind of game they're going to play, and the character isn't investing in one trade or another instead with those skill points.

Further, you have demonstrated a refusal to believe that your blanket assertions do not cover every situation, hence my pointing out that your hypothesis that you hold instead as fact, indeed, dogma, and mock others for disagreeing with you about as pulling up tired old yarns and cliches, was falsifiable and does not hold sway over all situations.

If someone says X is always the case and then someone else brings up that, no, sometimes Y is the case, it's generally necessary to qualify one's initial stance to clarify or refine the point rather than mock the person that brought up the counter point.

You appear to be arguing for close-mindedness and an open conflict between roleplaying and the mechanics of character creation. And I see this as unnecessary and damaging to a broader variety of ways to enjoy gaming.

So, what is your intent if I'm so grossly misinterpreting it?

olentu

2011-01-05, 10:03 AM

Psyx

2011-01-05, 10:08 AM

And yet nothing about that cries frothing at the mouth psychopathic kill-machine. Nor does it necessarily follow that such is the natural and only right result.

It cries obsessive-compulsive disorder.

And for about the fifth time, psychopathic does not mean 'kill machine'. Psychopathic behaviour is not simply killing things.

'Bung' = 'put' in this case.

It is not necessary to have an intentionally mechanically hampered character in order to have a believable character.

That depends on your definition of mechanically hampered, of course. There's mechanically hampered in not being able to automatically tumble through a creature's square, or defensively cast a 7th level spell on a 1+ roll, or there's mechanically hampered in not actually able to function as a member of society thanks to an inability to tie their shoelaces, say 'please', drive a car, know where the nearest supermarket is, or do pretty much anything that doesn't involve gunning people down.

The later is far more mechanically hampered than the former in real terms, of course.

By that same token, a mechanically strong character does not have it necessary to lack a back story or characterization.

No. I realise that. But mechanically strong (in the 'best at killing stuff way' most certainly can impinge on being capable of operating in society in a 'can't tie their own shoelaces because they didn't have enough points for it' way.

it as easily could translate into one disliking someone else's character concept regardless of the amount of technical skill in putting it together

I am never impressed with anyone's 'technical skill' in putting a character together beyond them managing to add up correctly and create basic functionality. I can build characters too. It just requires a good knowledge of the rules, a head for a bit of maths and an eye for game design and balance. But then: I game with people who are VERY good at building characters, and we can cheerfully snap most systems over our knees, should we decide to.

Further, a disregard for character back story and verisimilitude with the given setting does not necessarily follow as a result of optimizing crunch.

Anyone can carve a back-story to fit the crunch. Believable back-stories are a bit more of a reach of course. Believable back-stories for the forth 'I am uber' character in a row do really tend to push credibility, and I start to ask myself 'why does this person always insist on wanting to be 'best' every time, even at the detriment of others?' Likewise, if someone plays an incompetent clown constantly I ask myself why they feel the need to constantly derail the game with deliberate ineptitude. Variety is the spice of gaming.

Though when they're both bland psychopaths and trying to be clever and flowery is probably the perfect storm of drizzt cloneness.

I tend to see that as a complete lack of character coupled with an ego trying to shine through. As I said: I hate Drizzt, but at least he has a shred of personality buried in the 'I am uber' back-story.

Though, really, why you only list these frothing psychopaths as examples of over-optimizing

Again: Quit it with the frothing psychopath thing, please. Go back and read the indicative behaviours of psychopathy. Obsessive compulsive spectrum disorders were also mentioned.

when you also label using a standard skill point load out (as endorsed by WOTC in their sample 1st level character builds for 3.5, even) as over-optimized.

I've already said that I despise 3.5 and the way it's impossible to create a believable background skill-set for low skill point characters at start-up.
Can you stop crowbarring words into my mouth too, please.

A ridiculous extreme which occurs in a minority of games

Which particular ridiculous extreme?

And we can't really have a meaningful discussion because you deal completely in absolutes, that characters must have bad or nonexistent fluff in order to have powerful build choices being made mechanically, that choosing to invest skill points in disable device and search as a rogue is "overoptimizing"

I thought it was more because you like to head straight towards reductio ad absurdum based on statements that I've never made. At what point did I state that putting points into disable device was over-optimised? I think I've stated at least three times on the thread that I min-max and like competent characters, so your statement is clearly fictitious. I've also repeatedly inferred that I'd have no problem with over-optimised 'I am uber' characters being played with the accompanying mental issues resulting from that frame of mind and a bit of thought actually put into that factor.

Blahblah

Once again you are discussing the discussion and its components, rather than the subject. We're discussing gaming philosophies and characters here. It's not a debating society or an exercise in splitting hairs.

jseah

2011-01-05, 10:28 AM

The Big Dice

2011-01-05, 10:38 AM

Ahem.

I don't know who the president is almost anywhere apart from three countries (US, UK and singapore) and I don't know who won last year's *insert ANY sport, music, literature, art, fashion or film* *insert relevant top award*.
I even manage to miss out on alot of internet memes despite the inordinate amount of time I spend on the net.

It's very easy to go around not knowing most of the details of the pasttimes of society. Especially if you're an adventurer or a geeky college student who likes nothing but his science fiction and fantasy stories.
Or anyone who's focused on a goal of some sort.

Don't say it like you have to spend points on knowledge (local) or not be normal.

The UK doesn't have a president. And I'd bet you have enough ponts invested in Knowledge (Local) to be able to find your way around wherever you live. I'd say I do. I can get to where I want to go without a satnav and I know where the places that sell things I like and that I like the food are.

That said, I know less than nothing about most sports and I too miss out on 99% of internet memes.

jseah

2011-01-05, 10:45 AM

Sorry, replace president with Prime Minister. Yes, I do know who he is.

^^ I do use a satnav almost everywhere. Google maps is your friend. Would have missed important stuff, like my lectures, without it.
From the local pizza place my friends arranged a party at, to the first club meeting of X society. (yes, yes, using google maps to find a pizza joint is sad, I know)
EDIT: went two years without knowing the name of the big church next to the market square. -.-"
I usually don't have to use the map twice though.
Unless you mean driving, I don't have a license.

But yes, just saying that knowing "what everyone should know" isn't a requirement for being a person.

Tvtyrant

2011-01-05, 10:52 AM

But yes, just saying that knowing "what everyone should know" isn't a requirement for being a person.

You use google to find your way around; there is no google in medieval times; you would not be able to find your way around; you starve.

Tiki Snakes

2011-01-05, 10:58 AM

Up to DC 10, you get to make Knowledge (Local) checks untrained. Should be enough to get from the shops to the pub, I'd say. :smallsmile:

The Glyphstone

2011-01-05, 10:59 AM

You use google to find your way around; there is no google in medieval times; you would not be able to find your way around; you starve.

Does Shadowrun not have a 'general general knowledge' clause? Even in D&D, you can make any Knowledge check of DC10 or less without ranks in the skill. I'd call being able to navigate the village you were born and grew up in DC10 or less - actual ranks in Knowledge (local) might be taken by people who'd extensively explored the area, or made regular trips to other towns.

EDIT: Time for me to make a Knowledge(Ninjas) check.

WarKitty

2011-01-05, 11:02 AM

Just had a nice practical run-in here. Built a bard character, backstory and personality, and picked the bard variant and spells that seemed to fit best, along with feats. So what happens? I talked to the DM last night. It's apparently going to be a pretty undead heavy campaign. Now, here's what I have:

A variant that replaces inspire courage with an offensive use of bardic music. Mind-affecting

A list of entirely mind-affecting spells

And a set of feats (weapon focus/dazzling display) that require a single weapon that deals piercing damage

Now, what do I do? I don't really have time to write up a new character. So do I pick new spells and abilities that don't fit as well, or do I put up with a character that is useless for half the game? Or, as you're saying is bad, pick some new spells and abilities and re-write my backstory so they fit in?

Psyx

2011-01-05, 12:49 PM

Does Shadowrun not have a 'general general knowledge' clause? Even in D&D, you can make any Knowledge check of DC10 or less without ranks in the skill. I

Kinda splitting hairs a little again, aren't we?

There are lots of skills in various games that either can't be rolled on unskilled or suffer heavy penalties under the circumstance. Some of these skills are 'vital' for the vast majority of people growing up. Some games outright force PCs to take some of these skills, some don't, and some probably should do.
Some players will gladly take such skills, some will under protest, and some never will...

Anyhew: A little pet peeve of mine are games where skill purchase at start-up is linear (level 1=1pt, level 5 =5pts), whereas as soon as you go 'time in' the cost to increase becomes exponential. I have a massive dislike for this as it really encourages anyone who can do maths to max out 'crunch' skills and not bother buying anything at rank 1 or 2, which often puts players off buying 'smattering' and 'life' skills. It's poor game design practically encouraging min-maxing.

Just had a nice practical run-in here

If the GM told you about the campaign specifics, then I guess he's expecting you to build according to that. I'd personally probably change about half of the spells. After all 'heavy' on undead probably doesn't mean more than 50% of encounters, at the most. That way you've followed the GM hint, made the character more useful without either being ridiculous nor needing a re-write of backstory.

WarKitty

2011-01-05, 12:56 PM

If the GM told you about the campaign specifics, then I guess he's expecting you to build according to that. I'd personally probably change about half of the spells. After all 'heavy' on undead probably doesn't mean more than 50% of encounters, at the most. That way you've followed the GM hint, made the character more useful without either being ridiculous nor needing a re-write of backstory.

I have reason to suspect "heavy" means more like 80-90%. The DM didn't tell me; I specifically asked based on an educated guess. Unfortunately I'm also in a position where the bard variant I took is pretty much useless when undead are around, as far as bardic music goes. That was actually more the issue than the spells, since we don't have that many spell slots right now. Plus the character was written around a specific weapon focus - rapier.

To be fair this character is also falling victim to another issue of RPG's - the party role that no one wants to play. We needed a stealth and trapfinding character, and I ended up being it this time. Sometimes getting the abilities for the character you want to play and getting the abilities for the character you don't want to play but the party needs just don't work together well.

Popertop

2011-01-05, 01:49 PM

A Solo in Cyberpunk could bung background points into General Knowledge but some players will insist on instead spending those points on skill considered more optimal for combat, somehow going through life without proverbially knowing who the President is or who won last year's Superbowl. THAT is over-optimisation: when a player's insistence in optimising for some imagined role starts to seriously devalue the character as a believable entity. Sure: You can roll out the 'I'm a vat-grown ninja' thing, but that's normally a justification for numbers, rather than actual characterisation.

There are people that don't know who the president is, and there are people who don't follow sports at all, even the Superbowl.

And believable is a subjective term. What a believable character to you is not the same as a believable character to me. We all have different standards for how much of a characters personality should be fleshed out, just like we all have different skills at roleplaying and optimization.

Over optimization is also very subjective and doesn't lend much authority or clarity to your argument.

People can be "right" or "wrong" in that Coidzor here is applying rhetorical logic to his argument, whereas you are not. You have to follow the conventions of argumentative logic in order to really get anywhere.
Otherwise we get caught up in rhetorical fallacies.

I have reason to suspect "heavy" means more like 80-90%. The DM didn't tell me; I specifically asked based on an educated guess. Unfortunately I'm also in a position where the bard variant I took is pretty much useless when undead are around, as far as bardic music goes. That was actually more the issue than the spells, since we don't have that many spell slots right now. Plus the character was written around a specific weapon focus - rapier.

To be fair this character is also falling victim to another issue of RPG's - the party role that no one wants to play. We needed a stealth and trapfinding character, and I ended up being it this time. Sometimes getting the abilities for the character you want to play and getting the abilities for the character you don't want to play but the party needs just don't work together well.

I think this involves a GM not devoting time to help that role feel valued, not necessarily a problem with the role itself. You can have stealth fit into another role, and trapfinding in a completely different one.
I actually love playing bards and rogues, but the people I play
with never/usually don't play one, so the GM is not used to
valuing characters skilled in that particular set.
Things were better with a Modern campaign,
but it died a horrible, silent, unappreciated death.
All my conclusions keep coming back to the flaws with the system.
If you are unwilling to admit those flaws,
then there can be no meaningful conversation.
I personally think that we should not limit the way you can play the game, that depends upon taste. We should limit what is possible by the system, within reason, and leave the rest up to the GM. Provide a safe framework that is relatively stable, and everything else should fall into place.

Thiyr

2011-01-05, 01:57 PM

You speak of favouritism, but it does play a part. A character who is mechanically over-strong is not going to be given the benefit of the doubt in games that I've run, or under most GMs that I know: They've made their own luck by playing the system and so can live and die by it.

Whereas the character who is more realistic who is in the same party might catch a lucky break.

It's simply positive reinforcement. If characterful characters have the same life expectancy as over-optimised ones, then there is additional motivation to play them. If however anyone not playing a batman Incantrix gets killed with regularity, you end up negatively reinforcing the group, and everyone simply rolls up increasingly absurd players in some kind of arms race.

So...favoritism is a good thing because it encourages playing in character? By that logic, having harder encounters without showing favoritism is good as it encourages optimization. And a character which has excellent characterization -and- optimization should be catching breaks while...not catching breaks. Which shows the flaw: Favoritism isn't tied in the way you seem to be trying to say it is. Increased realism in character does little to guarantee a DM will like the character (and can at times, as we have previously discussed, disrupt gameplay and cause active dislike), and optimization does not mean the DM will dislike it (and can, I pose, cause for greater enjoyment and add potential facets to the skeleton, fleshing it out further) . And for that reason is why in every game I've played in, and especially the game I ran, we've all tried to avoid favoritism in any way. We go with "the dice fall where they may' for everyone, simply because if we don't, there isn't consistency. Without that, the game can start to turn into the whole high school popularity contest again, which really takes the fun out of it.

Anyone can carve a back-story to fit the crunch. Believable back-stories are a bit more of a reach of course. Believable back-stories for the forth 'I am uber' character in a row do really tend to push credibility, and I start to ask myself 'why does this person always insist on wanting to be 'best' every time, even at the detriment of others?' Likewise, if someone plays an incompetent clown constantly I ask myself why they feel the need to constantly derail the game with deliberate ineptitude. Variety is the spice of gaming.

I find it quite easy to make believable backstories for my characters. They work out quite well typically, and I routinely have characters that are fairly memorable for their personalities and choices as well as their contributions to the party mechanically. Beguiler into shadowcraft mage did nothing to hamper my capacity to make a believable reason as to why I was doing what I was doing, why I am where I am, etc. It placed only one limitation on me, in fact: That I was a spellcaster. This came as a definite case of backstory coming after crunch. I optimized, but it hampers character in no way.

I agree, however, on the point that the same character constantly is going to be irksome. But...honestly? That still has little to do with build. I have a friend who -only- plays the melee beatstick. He just enjoys it. Big swords (or axes or w/e) are just what he enjoys. mechanically, they're very similar. But his characterizations are routinely different, and so it doesn't irk me too much. In the same vein, while I would be irked by someone who's backstory was simply "I'm a wizard let's rewrite reality"...there's nothing saying "You made a highly optimized wizard, you must use the same backstory each time". There is plenty of variety that can come in there, and there's no reason you can't have, or care about, both.

And as for the whole "smattering of life skills" thing, I'd like to comment that the big reason I don't agree with you too much is that I find it more irksome that general skills are something that you need to put effort into knowing. I don't want to have to put skill points into skills in order for my character to "tie their shoelaces, say 'please', drive a car, know where the nearest supermarket is, or do pretty much anything that doesn't involve gunning people down", as you put it. If I put skill points into something, it's because the character has put effort into knowing that thing very well, same with everything else. My character may have been a farmer, but that doesn't even guarantee he was a good one, or he put effort into it. If taking 10 covers it, and my character wasn't trying to be, say, an excellent farmhand, then I'm not investing points. You say that some of these skills aren't usable untrained, but...I can't think of any offhand in 3.5. As for heavy penalties, well, those make sense. If situation makes sense for a lower modifier, then something that's easy to do under normal situations (say, climbing a ladder) becomes difficult under stressful situations unless you're used to it (climbing up a ladder during a seige while people are shooting at you, climbing up a ladder into a burning building). That these skills can normally be done with no difficulty under calm situations is what allows you to not -need- smatterings of life skills. It's why you don't have a "dental hygene" skill, because that's not something you -focus on-. If investment of skill points represents a focused attempt to be good at something (Either by training, natural aptitude advancing growing over time, or otherwise), then the skill system as it stands doesn't really need said smatterings unless you decided to add in a bit about your character being a master farmer.

Psyx

2011-01-05, 02:09 PM

There are people that don't know who the president is, and there are people who don't follow sports at all, even the Superbowl.

This is once again splitting hairs. I'm pretty sure you understand my point, so why attack the metaphor? There are people who don't know that. Maybe there are people who don't know that AND don't know their way around their hometown, can't tie their shoelaces, can't drive, can't vault a fence, can't start a fire in the woods, can't go to a posh dinner without offending people AND are awesome elite killing machines and black-belts in 5 martial arts who optimised their life and are perfectly well-adjusted. But I kinda doubt it. It destroys my believability in them as characters.

Over optimization is also very subjective and doesn't lend much authority or clarity to your argument.

Which is why I've cited examples; in order to give my own partial definition of it.

You have to follow the conventions of argumentative logic in order to really get anywhere.
Otherwise we get caught up in rhetorical fallacies.

Only if we're having an argument. There was a fairly open discussion in progress. Now it's scattered with nit-picking, and attacks on the fabric of statements - rather than open discussion - and that's devaluing it as a tool for mental exploration, which is a shame.

Provide a safe framework that is relatively stable, and everything else should fall into place.

And a safe framework to me is a balanced system that doesn't create massive inequality between players based on character generation. No asymmetric game is ever balanced, but it's nice when designers actually bother trying.

To be fair this character is also falling victim to another issue of RPG's - the party role that no one wants to play. We needed a stealth and trapfinding character, and I ended up being it this time. Sometimes getting the abilities for the character you want to play and getting the abilities for the character you don't want to play but the party needs just don't work together well.

I quite like sometimes playing 'ghetto' groups, where one role has been completely missed. It's quite fun. I'm a co-operative player, which is why I make the choice of 'class'[or more specifically role] prior to any others and even usually characterisation: In order to mesh with the group. On the other hand I know a guy who insists on always playing what he wants to play, regardless of the rest of the group, which tends to cause conflict on a startlingly regular basis, and is easily as detrimental as any 'overly characterful' or 'overly optimised' character.

WarKitty

2011-01-05, 02:12 PM

I think this involves a GM not devoting time to help that role feel valued, not necessarily a problem with the role itself. You can have stealth fit into another role, and trapfinding in a completely different one.
I actually love playing bards and rogues, but the people I play
with never/usually don't play one, so the GM is not used to
valuing characters skilled in that particular set.
Things were better with a Modern campaign,
but it died a horrible, silent, unappreciated death.
All my conclusions keep coming back to the flaws with the system.
If you are unwilling to admit those flaws,
then there can be no meaningful conversation.
I personally think that we should not limit the way you can play the game, that depends upon taste. We should limit what is possible by the system, within reason, and leave the rest up to the GM. Provide a safe framework that is relatively stable, and everything else should fall into place.

Eh split this one off into a new thread. I think it's a deeper problem than the DM though. We'd rather play a game where everyone can contribute in some manner all the time than a game where you have a character that can contribute in steal situations, a character that can deal with traps, etc. That may be realistic, but it's not much fun with a large group.

The Glyphstone

2011-01-05, 02:37 PM

This is once again splitting hairs. I'm pretty sure you understand my point, so why attack the metaphor? There are people who don't know that. Maybe there are people who don't know that AND don't know their way around their hometown, can't tie their shoelaces, can't drive, can't vault a fence, can't start a fire in the woods, can't go to a posh dinner without offending people AND are awesome elite killing machines and black-belts in 5 martial arts who optimised their life and are perfectly well-adjusted. But I kinda doubt it. It destroys my believability in them as characters.
.

Far from it being hair-splitting...these aren't examples of people who didn't spend points in the relevant skills. To draw from numerous RPGs now, to try and illustrate my point:
-Finding your way around your hometown: As I said, in D&D this would probably be a DC10 or less Knowledge (Local) check.
-Driving: D&D doesn't have a Drive skill or equivalent (Ride?), but in the nWoD book, it mentions that dots in Drive should only be needed when you're doing risky things or stunt driving. Most people can get by driving to work every day without actual dots/points in the Drive skill.
-Starting a fire in the woods: Wilderness survival is something that you need training to do reliably. It's possible to do untrained, but difficult (a good reflection of skill ranks...most modern people who don't live in rural areas won't have said ranks).
-Vaulting a fence: Depends on how high the fence is.
-Attending a posh dinner: Diplomacy or Charm or Empathy or raw Charisma, but something you'd want ranks in, yes.

So your example would indeed be an unrealistic character - because in a realistic world (or even an unrealistic one), almost everything you described the elite killing machine as being incapable of would be things that they could be capable of doing without impairing their ability to become EKMs(i.e. spending skill points/dots on them)*. So if they can't do such things, it has nothing to do with their theoretical mini-maxing, and more with them being functionally disabled in some key fashion (i.e., having took a flaw).

*save the posh dinner (and Charisma is most beatsticks' dump stat, so it'd be unrealistic for them to be capable of doing so without impairing their EKMness)

Popertop

2011-01-05, 02:48 PM

Only if we're having an argument. There was a fairly open discussion in progress. Now it's scattered with nit-picking, and attacks on the fabric of statements - rather than open discussion - and that's devaluing it as a tool for mental exploration, which is a shame.

On the other hand I know a guy who insists on always playing what he wants to play, regardless of the rest of the group, which tends to cause conflict on a startlingly regular basis, and is easily as detrimental as any 'overly characterful' or 'overly optimised' character.

Defintion of argument, from Wikipedia. The merriam webster definition
is shorter, but similar.

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.

Seems like a tool for mental exploration to me.

We are using different definitions it seems. I am using the rhetorical logic definition of argument, more formalized argument, and you are using the angry disagreement definition of argument, more informalized argument.

To me an argument is, and has to be, an open discussion. Otherwise no progress can be made anywhere as you are just throwing around opinions or stats without any justification for any of them. A rhetorical argument is transparent, honest, and supported by evidence, testable evidence.

People might get heated in argument, but that can happen in any given discussion.

Eh split this one off into a new thread. I think it's a deeper problem than the DM though. We'd rather play a game where everyone can contribute in some manner all the time than a game where you have a character that can contribute in steal situations, a character that can deal with traps, etc. That may be realistic, but it's not much fun with a large group.

true.

Psyx

2011-01-06, 08:05 AM

So your example would indeed be an unrealistic character - because in a realistic world (or even an unrealistic one), almost everything you described the elite killing machine as being incapable of would be things that they could be capable of doing without impairing their ability to become EKMs(i.e. spending skill points/dots on them)*. So if they can't do such things, it has nothing to do with their theoretical mini-maxing, and more with them being functionally disabled in some key fashion (i.e., having took a flaw).

It's partly system-dependant, though. There are systems that don't allow that basic level of usage to be assumed. I'm actually quite surprised that nWoD doesn't require a single dot of ability in order to be a competent driver. Although thinking about it, it's an American game, and -having driven on US roads- I can see that it could easily be envisaged that the majoity of drivers don't have a dot in the skill. :smallbiggrin:

We're talking around the point still a little, though. Which to me is that most games benefit from either a pool of 'background skill points', or a freebie skill package (perhaps a choice of 'urban, rural, and cloistered/academic' packages). Most players are happy to create realistic and believable characters, but some need a bit more motivation to do so.
Where there is no motivation to do so or -worse- doing so actively hampers the character during play (as they don't have enough skill points to be believable AND functional in their primary role) there will be situations where characters are created who are nothing more than 'adventuring machines' that couldn't survive well in daily life, or lack believability due to glaring omissions. It's also possible in many games for characters to have the skills of 'higher knowledge' without having the basics. A hypothetical example would be a character who has 15 ranks in the mechanically useful 'jury-rig' skill, while buying no ranks in 'operate technology'. Or a wizard who insisted on going to the finest arcane college who lacks ranks in the 'research/library use' skill.

Some games address the situation, whereas others simply don't try. I personally like to min-max to a degree, but there are times where this does heavily conflict with characterisation. And being someone who strives for both, it niggles me at times.

Another way around it - which I use in home-brew (non d20) - is to appeal to the min-maxxer by way of economy: Offer set packages for a reduced cost. Say - hypothetically in d20 parlance - Knowledge (local) 1, Survival 1, knowledge (nature) 1, profession (any applicable rural employment) 2, all for a mere 2 points.

I'm also a BIG fan of 'less useful' skills being downgraded in cost in some manner. Either straight-out cheaper (as in the half skill cost for 'hobby' skills in SLA), or in a flat 'we never need to roll dice on this, it's not mechanically important very often, you can just do it' manner. For example, we can all shuffle around the dance floor at a formal dinner. However, given 10 hours of dance lessons (ie about 1 rank in d20 terms!) we would horrifically show up all those shufflers, far more than a 1 point modifier on a d20 roll represents. So why not just charge a player a blanket cost (say 2 points), and they can simply dance well and will clearly be a bit of a diva on the dance floor. Again, this is something I use in homebrew, and it encourages even the min-maxxiest of players to branch out and spend XP in 'non killy' things. If it only costs half a session's worth of xp to be able to make a bunch of cool origami animals with no dice roll required, it suddenly becomes tempting. Rather than 'well, I'd have to put 5 ranks in it to be good... or I could put those into Notice, which I roll ten times per session'.

Earthwalker

2011-01-06, 08:16 AM

Where there is no motivation to do so or -worse- doing so actively hampers the character during play (as they don't have enough skill points to be believable AND functional in their primary role) there will be situations where characters are created who are nothing more than 'adventuring machines' that couldn't survive well in daily life, or lack believability due to glaring omissions.

Oddly it only hampers your character in game if not everyone is doing it. Thats one thing that always gets me confused over the trips around this debate, characters can be built to be as strong or as weak as they like, the world will change to meet thier strength.

The Glyphstone

2011-01-06, 10:07 AM

It's partly system-dependant, though. There are systems that don't allow that basic level of usage to be assumed. I'm actually quite surprised that nWoD doesn't require a single dot of ability in order to be a competent driver. Although thinking about it, it's an American game, and -having driven on US roads- I can see that it could easily be envisaged that the majoity of drivers don't have a dot in the skill. :smallbiggrin:

Burn. There's a reason I prefer public transit.:smallwink: Though WoD's approach is really the same thing as d20's "take ten" rule...when you're not under stress or in danger, you can just relax and accomplish a routine task like driving to work. If you're doing the aforementioned stunt driving or dangerous driving, you're at your base stat (Wits or Dex, usually) -1 for not having ranks, and then the ST gets to assign difficulty penalties to the pool.

We're talking around the point still a little, though. Which to me is that most games benefit from either a pool of 'background skill points', or a freebie skill package (perhaps a choice of 'urban, rural, and cloistered/academic' packages). Most players are happy to create realistic and believable characters, but some need a bit more motivation to do so.
Where there is no motivation to do so or -worse- doing so actively hampers the character during play (as they don't have enough skill points to be believable AND functional in their primary role) there will be situations where characters are created who are nothing more than 'adventuring machines' that couldn't survive well in daily life, or lack believability due to glaring omissions. It's also possible in many games for characters to have the skills of 'higher knowledge' without having the basics. A hypothetical example would be a character who has 15 ranks in the mechanically useful 'jury-rig' skill, while buying no ranks in 'operate technology'. Or a wizard who insisted on going to the finest arcane college who lacks ranks in the 'research/library use' skill.

Some games address the situation, whereas others simply don't try. I personally like to min-max to a degree, but there are times where this does heavily conflict with characterisation. And being someone who strives for both, it niggles me at times.

Another way around it - which I use in home-brew (non d20) - is to appeal to the min-maxxer by way of economy: Offer set packages for a reduced cost. Say - hypothetically in d20 parlance - Knowledge (local) 1, Survival 1, knowledge (nature) 1, profession (any applicable rural employment) 2, all for a mere 2 points.

I'm also a BIG fan of 'less useful' skills being downgraded in cost in some manner. Either straight-out cheaper (as in the half skill cost for 'hobby' skills in SLA), or in a flat 'we never need to roll dice on this, it's not mechanically important very often, you can just do it' manner. For example, we can all shuffle around the dance floor at a formal dinner. However, given 10 hours of dance lessons (ie about 1 rank in d20 terms!) we would horrifically show up all those shufflers, far more than a 1 point modifier on a d20 roll represents. So why not just charge a player a blanket cost (say 2 points), and they can simply dance well and will clearly be a bit of a diva on the dance floor. Again, this is something I use in homebrew, and it encourages even the min-maxxiest of players to branch out and spend XP in 'non killy' things. If it only costs half a session's worth of xp to be able to make a bunch of cool origami animals with no dice roll required, it suddenly becomes tempting. Rather than 'well, I'd have to put 5 ranks in it to be good... or I could put those into Notice, which I roll ten times per session'.

That's something similar to what I tend to do in my D&D games, actually - award 5-10 'freebie' skill points that can only be spent in a small list of skills - usually Craft, Profession, and things like Forgery or Appraise that never get any love.

Jayabalard

2011-01-06, 10:31 AM

And your premise is still flawed. The crunch and fluff of creating a character are not competing for resources in any meaningful way. There's no single sliding scale in one's head. If one insisted on such metaphors being continued, it'd be two separate sliders in regards to amount of thought and time for each.Not so.

They compete for time: I only have a certain amount of time to prepare for games, and every minute (and minutes is an appropriate unit of measure for me) I spend on refining a build takes away from time I could be using the prepare to roleplay (coming up with character history, researching the role I intent to play, etc) and vice versa. I have personally been in games where I've felt that I spent too much time on the build and didn't have enough time to get into the role properly, and games where I spent too much time on the RP and didn't have any time to make a meaningful build and as a result wound up with an incredibly weak character.
Depending on the system, they compete for character resources; it's commonly cited as a problem in D&D, since picking roleplaying appropriate skills can significantly lower your character's effectiveness.
Crunch choices can have effects on what is valid fluff and vice versa. For example, if you chose (picking an optimal choice in order to be more powerful) to be a spellcaster in D&D, that can have some rather significant effects on what fluff makes sense for the character. Choosing to play a sidekick to another player's character (a fluff choice) in a super's game should have crunch implications, or it's simply not believable. Playing a character like Sun Wolf in D&D, is a pretty suboptimal choice.

It's partly system-dependant, though. There are systems that don't allow that basic level of usage to be assumed. I'm actually quite surprised that nWoD doesn't require a single dot of ability in order to be a competent driver. Although thinking about it, it's an American game, and -having driven on US roads- I can see that it could easily be envisaged that the majoity of drivers don't have a dot in the skill. :smallbiggrin:I dunno, it seems likely that US drivers generally would have a dot in the skill .... but there are a lot of places where that might not be the case, say Eritrea, Cook Islands, Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Angola, ***** (that's an African country spelled almost exactly like Tiger), United Arab Emirates, The Gambia, Iran, Mauritania, Ethiopia, Mozambique, Sudan, Tunisia, Guinea-Bissau, Kenya, Chad, United Republic of Tanzania, Jordan, Botswana, Madagascar, South Africa, Sao Tome and Principe, Liberia, Syrian Arab Republic, Senegal, Nigeria, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Rwanda, Benin, Burkina Faso, Kazakhstan, Comoros, Ghana, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Republic of the Congo, Namibia, Lebanon, Morocco, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Togo, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Swaziland, Malawi, Zambia, Pakistan, Russia, Cape Verde, Uganda, Malaysia, Qatar, Burundi, Myanmar, Kyrgyzstan, Lithuania, Venezuela, British Virgin Islands, Peru, Ukraine, Oman, World, Mexico, Montenegro, Philippines, Guyana, Paraguay, Thailand, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, Vanuatu, Seychelles, Brazil, Laos, Maldives, Suriname, Latvia, Saint Lucia, Dominican Republic, Kuwait, Solomon Islands, Georgia, India, Bolivia, China, Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Vietnam, Belarus, Belize, Trinidad and Tobago, Costa Rica, Estonia, Slovakia, Nepal, Republic of Moldova, Palau, Poland, Guatemala, Bahamas, Greece, Bhutan, Federated States of Micronesia, Nicaragua, Papua New Guinea, Tajikistan, Albania, Armenia, Brunei Darussalam, Argentina, Chile, Croatia, Bulgaria, Honduras, Sri Lanka, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Puerto Rico, Samoa, Uruguay, Romania, Republic of Korea, Panama, Bangladesh, and El Salvador
(all of which have more vehicular fatalities per 100k people than the US does).

Looks like a lot of africa, the middle east, aisa, and eastern europe.

Hypothesis tested and found to be falsifiable.You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means ... it just means that the statement can be shown by observation to be false, and is therefore testable; it does not say anything about whether the statement is in fact true or false.

Now in this particular case, he said "can create dull characterless clones"
now... if Over-optimising has or will EVER "create dull characterless clones" and he has a single example of it being true, then the statement "over-optimising limits can create dull characterless clones" is not falsifiable, since it is always a true statement. This is due to the inclusion of the word "can", which makes it equivalent to a statement of the form "there exist X such that Y" where you have an example.

Yora

2011-01-06, 10:35 AM

I didn't believe it myself for as long as I only played D&D. But I have gone through character creation with one group in BESM and one in Shadowrun, and with skill based systems people put that much more creativity into making characters.
The BESM group even just converted their old D&D characters to the new system, and just this rebuild process had them come up with much more background than the characters had before. In D&D, they just were a Barbarian woodsman, a vagabond thief, and a sorcerer living on the outside the village. Admitedly, most good ideas came from finding justifications for defects which would give them more character points, but the payout was really marginal compared to the richness their characters now have. (We started at 200 character points and their defects got them additional 4 or 5 at the most.)

Psyx

2011-01-06, 01:08 PM

I have personally been in games where I've felt that I spent too much time on the build and didn't have enough time to get into the role properly

I've done this too: Too much min-maxxing has left me with a character that -though powerful - isn't what I want to play.

and with skill based systems people put that much more creativity into making characters.

I do agree. Though I like random stat rolls still. On the basis that points-buy characters always seem like honed tools, built for a purpose, while random ones... you work with what you get, and I feel that gives me a more organic character.

Does anyone else here (who plays a variety of systems) find themselves shelving character ideas for use in systems where they wouldn't mechanically work, or are poor, and save the concepts for games in which they are better mechanically suited?

I dunno, it seems likely that US drivers generally would have a dot in the skill

Even though the vast majority can't use a manual gearbox? :smallwink:

(all of which have more vehicular fatalities per 100k people than the US does).

Aside and OT [Sorry: driving is my passion]:

Much of that is situational, and not due to driver skill, though.
US cars have airbags and safety tests and are MASSIVE, resulting in better safety standards. Cars in the third world are a lot older, with poor crash protection and may be poorly maintained.
Passenger laws too play a part, with loading a pick-up bed with passengers or cramming more people into a vehicle than it has seats very common elsewhere in the world.
The US also has advanced medical care and well-trained ambulance crews. what is fatal elsewhere is not in the US.
Additionally: Seatbelts. They are not a legal requirement in many countries. They are also culturally alien in many countries. Go to the Middle East and nobody wears them.
How about law enforcement: In some countries the police don't dish out tickets, increasing speed-related incidents. In others drink-driving is legal.
Oh: And motorbike accidents... they kill a lot more often than car crashes, and [scooters at least] are a lot more common in other parts of the world.
Finally, road quality and weather also plays a major part in the matter.

Botswana -for example (it's on your list)- has some of the most polite, sensible and law-abiding drivers I've seen. Although I'm not disagreeing with all your list's contents. Saudi is the most frighting place I've ever driven due in part to the laughable driving test (100m in a straight line and reverse into a parking space. And do a theory test. Done job) and in part to the sheer variety of driving cultures on the road: Every culture drives differently and as default 'expects' other drivers to act in a certain way. Mix ten nationalities on a road system and there WILL be a lot more accidents because of it.

The Glyphstone

2011-01-06, 01:17 PM

Great Modthulhu: Ware the politics...

WarKitty

2011-01-06, 02:47 PM

I *do* have one pet peeve with D&D optimization. No matter what role I say I want to do, some smartmouth will say "wizard 20" or "cleric 20."

Earthwalker

2011-01-06, 02:55 PM

Does anyone else here (who plays a variety of systems) find themselves shelving character ideas for use in systems where they wouldn't mechanically work, or are poor, and save the concepts for games in which they are better mechanically suited?

Usually the character ideas I come up with are from some element of the background of the world. So I rarly make a character and think this would be better in X system, tho it has happened. I also get to thinking what would this be in X system. Like my shadowrun private detective being a Lankor my initiate in rune quest for example.

Jayabalard

2011-01-06, 04:14 PM

Does anyone else here (who plays a variety of systems) find themselves shelving character ideas for use in systems where they wouldn't mechanically work, or are poor, and save the concepts for games in which they are better mechanically suited? Yes, I ditched a couple of ideas that I had for characters because they just didn't suite D&D well, with the idea that I'd use them in a GURPS game.

Even though the vast majority can't use a manual gearbox? :smallwink:Eh... that does not match my experience, but my experience is probably not statistically representative. I'm not sure I know very many people who can't drive a stick, other than my wife (and she has on occasion, she just does it really poorly).

I was more thinking the fact that a substantial portion of US drivers have taken some sort of Driver's education class, with required hours varying from 30-50 hours depending on stat, and that that training along with the amount of driving people do would = a dot.

As for your list ... You forgot lanes. :smallbiggrin: we have them here, and use them. In Aisa, not so much... at least, from talking with my coworker from India, and from video I've seen, not from personal experience. There are probably other things like that which factor in.

I *do* have one pet peeve with D&D optimization. No matter what role I say I want to do, some smartmouth will say "wizard 20" or "cleric 20."There's also variations like "just play a swordsage" ... which I think is related. But those 2 in particualr are quite a bit worse.

Mystic Muse

2011-01-06, 05:29 PM

There's also variations like "just play a swordsage" ... which I think is related. But those 2 in particualr are quite a bit worse.

To be fair, unless the OP specifies ToB isn't allowed or that he doesn't want to play one, it's a fair comment. Although, simply saying that and adding jack squat to the discussion, or saying that after the OP has specified he doesn't want to play one, or the DM won't let him, is extremely irritating.

I think JayaBallard* is right. There are some concepts D&D doesn't do well. That's why there's homebrew.:smallbiggrin:

*Apologies if you're not the one making this argument. I seem to recall that you did, but I'm human and I make mistakes.

WarKitty

2011-01-06, 05:35 PM

To be fair, unless the OP specifies ToB isn't allowed or that he doesn't want to play one, it's a fair comment. Although, simply saying that and adding jack squat to the discussion, or saying that after the OP has specified he doesn't want to play one, or the DM won't let him, is extremely irritating.

I think JayaBallard* is right. There are some concepts D&D doesn't do well. That's why there's homebrew.:smallbiggrin:

*Apologies if you're not the one making this argument. I seem to recall that you did, but I'm human and I make mistakes.

There's a difference between "this class is meant to do something similar to what you want and is mechanically more effective" and "this class is built for something totally different but can be cheesed up to be more effective."

kc0bbq

2011-01-06, 07:14 PM

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more meaningful declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another meaningful declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.

Seems like a tool for mental exploration to me.
In defense of logic, it doesn't do that. Logic has nothing to do with truth, it can't (except in one single case) prove truth or falsehood. It only proves validity, as in 'I use arguments A to D to get to conclusion E. Is there really a path through there?' The arguments can all be known or unknown lies. That's all logic does. It benefits you in know way other than knowing if you are allowed to make your conclusion from your statements.

It doesn't indicate validity of the statements, either, just the conclusions. If I could be bothered to find my books I could write up an ontological proof that the sky is green. It might take me a while to find the right arguments to make that declaration, but there are times when the sky *is* green, so it wouldn't be that difficult, just annoying. :)

There's a difference between "this class is meant to do something similar to what you want and is mechanically more effective" and "this class is built for something totally different but can be cheesed up to be more effective."In the end, assuming equal effectiveness, it doesn't matter whether the source is cheese or not. What matters is if you can justify that mess of possibly-not-what-you-wanted into something that actually has character or not.

It's really rare to find someone who can rationalize their cheese into something that fits a good character story, and depending on the world and the other players that may not be acceptable. In 3.5 the finer you sharpen the concept the shallower the characterization and the more that has to come from outside the character sheet. Good - or perhaps more accurately, memorable - literature doesn't usually involve characters that are flawless, either. Why does everyone know who Achilles was? It's certainly not because he gave Telephus an unhealable wound.

Rixx

2011-01-06, 07:49 PM

I'm just gonna pop in here and say that it wasn't people who were unconcerned with having mechanically effective characters who coined the term "stormwind fallacy" in the first place.

The Glyphstone

2011-01-06, 08:24 PM

It's really rare to find someone who can rationalize their cheese into something that fits a good character story, and depending on the world and the other players that may not be acceptable. In 3.5 the finer you sharpen the concept the shallower the characterization and the more that has to come from outside the character sheet. Good - or perhaps more accurately, memorable - literature doesn't usually involve characters that are flawless, either. Why does everyone know who Achilles was? It's certainly not because he gave Telephus an unhealable wound.

Because Achilles was clearly min-maxed out the wazoo with no points in social skills like Diplomacy or Sense Motive and killed by DM fiat, right?:smallbiggrin:

Tavar

2011-01-06, 08:42 PM

I'm just gonna pop in here and say that it wasn't people who were unconcerned with having mechanically effective characters who coined the term "stormwind fallacy" in the first place.
And your point is....?

In the end, assuming equal effectiveness, it doesn't matter whether the source is cheese or not. What matters is if you can justify that mess of possibly-not-what-you-wanted into something that actually has character or not.

It's really rare to find someone who can rationalize their cheese into something that fits a good character story, and depending on the world and the other players that may not be acceptable. In 3.5 the finer you sharpen the concept the shallower the characterization and the more that has to come from outside the character sheet. Good - or perhaps more accurately, memorable - literature doesn't usually involve characters that are flawless, either. Why does everyone know who Achilles was? It's certainly not because he gave Telephus an unhealable wound.

What do you even mean by this?

Callista

2011-01-06, 08:52 PM

I can spend my 5 hours thumbing through 24 seperate splat books making a strong build. I can spend my time reading information on the game world and trying to create a background to fit into this environment, in this case I am choosing between optimization or creating a more believeable character.Really? Personally, I find that the personality of the character I have in mind becomes more well-defined as I find ways to define them mechanically. Both happen simultaneously for me--I'll think about who the character is, and find good options for their class and their stats, and then that'll suggest refinements on what they're like. It's not like you have to take the absolute most powerful option; you just have to take things that will work. And there are enough things that do work that you can pretty much stat out whatever concept you want.

So say you have an idea in your mind, and you decide that the wizard class works best for it. You see that being a transmuter is a useful choice for the wizard, and you ask yourself, okay, why would my character choose this branch of magic? Why is this so interesting to him? So you learn more about the character; and then you pick some more stats. Let's say you dumped strength down to a 6 due to a bad roll. You've got a really weak guy who's really, really smart. How does that affect who he is? Did he grow up somewhere where strength is valued, and feel like he had to make up for it? Or was it never much of an issue? Maybe his focus on his magic is the direct cause because he's spent his days sitting and studying since he was a boy. Maybe he's a transmuter because he doesn't like things the way they are and wants to change them. There are so many possibilities suggested by the mechanics as you work them out... I don't really see a disconnect between mechanics and RP. They really work together.

Coidzor

2011-01-06, 08:53 PM

Because Achilles was clearly min-maxed out the wazoo with no points in social skills like Diplomacy or Sense Motive and killed by DM fiat, right?:smallbiggrin:

Definitely as whiny and capricious as the stereotypical PC people like to complain about.

Popertop

2011-01-06, 09:19 PM

Really? Personally, I find that the personality of the character I have in mind becomes more well-defined as I find ways to define them mechanically. Both happen simultaneously for me--I'll think about who the character is, and find good options for their class and their stats, and then that'll suggest refinements on what they're like. It's not like you have to take the absolute most powerful option; you just have to take things that will work. And there are enough things that do work that you can pretty much stat out whatever concept you want.

This is true, however some concepts take a little more work and refinement to find something that works mechanically.

So say you have an idea in your mind, and you decide that the wizard class works best for it. You see that being a transmuter is a useful choice for the wizard, and you ask yourself, okay, why would my character choose this branch of magic? Why is this so interesting to him? So you learn more about the character; and then you pick some more stats. Let's say you dumped strength down to a 6 due to a bad roll. You've got a really weak guy who's really, really smart. How does that affect who he is? Did he grow up somewhere where strength is valued, and feel like he had to make up for it? Or was it never much of an issue? Maybe his focus on his magic is the direct cause because he's spent his days sitting and studying since he was a boy. Maybe he's a transmuter because he doesn't like things the way they are and wants to change them. There are so many possibilities suggested by the mechanics as you work them out... I don't really see a disconnect between mechanics and RP. They really work together.

I agree wholeheartedly. This is also what influences my characters.