PDA

View Full Version : Character creation as simulation: does anyone do that any more?



HeadlessMermaid
2011-05-14, 11:26 AM
Note: My experience with this if from D&D, but I suppose that it applies to all RPGs with mental and physical stats.

Many years ago, when I started playing, character creation usually happened like this: The player would say something like "I imagine a wizard who is very smart, but gets distracted easily and his eyesight is a bit poor from years of reading. He likes to share what he knows and he's a good teacher, talkative and quite charming. He is moderately dexterous and not completely weak, but he has poor health, he coughs all the time and gets tired easily."

And from there, he'd proceed assigning stats. In the above case, he would say: "So, we have INT > CHA > DEX > STR > WIS > CON."

In short, players could very well choose to assign stats "the wrong way", having a mental image of their character in mind and trying to represent it mechanically. The method was simulation. Key word: "imagine".

Nowadays, I don't see that happen a lot, and I don't do it myself a lot (if at all). Instead, the norm is something like this:

"I'm taking a wizard, so I have INT > CON > DEX > WIS > CHA > STR. Therefore, my wizard is very smart, healthy and sturdy, quite dexterous, somewhat perspective, hardly charismatic, and very weak."

In short, players pick stats first, addressing mechanical concerns, and from there proceed to interpret these numbers as their character's strengths and weaknesses. The method isn't simulation any more, it's... I don't know how to call it, really. I hesitate to call it "optimization", because I'm not talking about fancy stuff here, I'm talking about very basic things, as in "thou shall not dump Constitution."

I should note that completely irrational choices, like dumping your casting stat, were never an option. Even in the old days, no one ever did that. And I guess the distinction between the simulation method and whatever it is we're doing now applies not only to allocating stats, but also choosing feats and generally customizing your build.

So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

Some examples:


Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

(All of the above assuming everyone in the group does the same, of course, no one aims for proper optimization, and the DM is aware of the arrangement.)


P.S. I have no value judgments whatsoever for either method, both are entirely valid if they suit your group's style. But you know what? I realized that I have missed simulation. I have some memorable characters from that era that I couldn't possibly build now. [Or, I'm just getting old and succumbing to nostalgia. :smalltongue:]

Fiery Diamond
2011-05-14, 11:46 AM
I actually dump Con sometimes, both as a player and when creating NPCs. Reason being: I enforce roleplay of poor mental stats, and as a player I roleplay poor mental stats. I also don't like having to roleplay poor mental stats because from a non-game perspective, I value mental ability more than physical ability. I've created Barbarian NPCs with dumped Con before, simply because it's the only stat I CAN dump for the character concept: the character is at least moderately intelligent, reasonably perceptive, attractive and diplomatic, two-weapon fighting, and obviously needs some strength.

So... I basically do a mixture of the two methods that you describe.

Edit: To answer the questionnaire:

1. Probably not, but that's only because Skill Focus doesn't provide enough of a mechanical bonus to make it worth taking on a PC, though I would definitely do it for an NPC. However, I'd be perfectly willing to forgo Natural Spell for other feats that better suited my character.

2. I think this is a rather obnoxious feat in the first place, as it encourages this kind of "build your non-mechanical character concept around whatever benefits you get from fluff-heavy feats" nonsense.

3. Absolutely.

4. I despise the benefits/penalties thing from aging, as I think the simulation it provides is unnecessary for verisimilitude and only encourages things like "My wizard is venerable because I want that casting stat boost" and discourages things like "I want a badass grandpa martial arts character." That said, even if I couldn't convince the DM to get rid of them, the answer is yes.

5. Absolutely.

6. Yes, and I'll dump constitution to enable other scores that fit my character to be higher as well, as mentioned above.

7. Yes, as my opener makes pretty clear.

valadil
2011-05-14, 12:07 PM
I try to imagine a character before a build. But if the build doesn't work out, I save the character for another system that might support the character better. I also imagine my characters as people who want to be competent, which justifies skipping out on trap feats that may represent the character better.

Reluctance
2011-05-14, 12:21 PM
Keep in mind that on an internet forum, practical effectiveness is much easier to discuss objectively than roleplaying skill. So you're going to see certain levels of op assumed, simply because otherwise nobody has any baseline to work with.

Otherwise, you have to ask to what degree certain concepts are, in practice, punished. If my badass martial artist works out completely different in play than he did in my head, I'm going to be disinclined to play another one. If my first frail, sickly wizard or two end up falling in combat, I'm going to be disinclined to try something similar unless something changes significantly.

PersonMan
2011-05-14, 12:48 PM
Well, I do a bit of both. A large portion of my characters are simply spontaneously generated and I decide that it would be fun to play them, so I consider what ability scores, classes, etc. they would have.

Sometimes, however, I have an idea for a build or find a game I want to join, at which point I make the character mechanically, then make the fluff.

Questions:
1. No. Skill Focus is a bad enough feat that I'd essentially feel like I had wasted it. Additionally, any Druid concept I come up with will probably be so feat-starved he'll barely be able to take Natural Spell, due to Aberrant Feats.
2. I've never actually read the text of Craven, but if it didn't fit the concept I'd just refluff it.
3. Yes, although I would try to put the Charisma to use.
4. No. On the rare occasions that my characters aren't young(5 out of...30+ concepts, 4 of which are in young bodies, so...) I'd just ask the DM to let me ignore the penalties/bonuses. If I couldn't, I'd probably move on to another concept. I have a fairly high character turnover rate anyways(seriously, many of my IRL characters are replaced after a handful of sessions).
5. Sorcerer probably not, but Bards yes. Partially because any Bards I make go into Dirgesinger/Seeker of the Song for the buff/debuff/blast combos and I pick spells up as an afterthought.
6. No. I'd certainly fluff them as being frail-sort-of(a bit like Raistlin from Dragonlance), they get sick easily, can't do physical stuff for long, but eat swords to the face like it's nothing("Hah! Compared to stubbing my toe, this is nothing!")
7. Maybe. I'd certainly look for a way to use the high mental stats, but I've done that sort of thing before.

Essentially, I've found that I can afford to take bad options that are great for a concept precisely because I optimize-if I can make up for having few spells and low DCs as a Bard by owning with Agony Reborn and buffing everyone into absurdity, low Charisma is fine. If my Barbarian doesn't rage after two large fights and is doing almost better than the other fighter-person because he only rages when his opponents are very rude, it's only because I can make him good enough to be able to fight without rage.

oxybe
2011-05-14, 01:37 PM
as much as you want something 100% RP based, what you really should be aiming for is something that is consistently functional within the boundaries of the game first and foremost. i've seen plenty of well rp'ed characters retire prematurely because mechanically, quite frankly, they sucked.

these are characters who were a burden on the party: they ate up a proper share of the treasure/resources and offered little in return either in combat, out of combat or both... so we always had to save his arse in one way or another. they added a lot to the game... as long as they didn't have to roll any dice.

now if Canada's Worst Handyman is of any indication, you CAN use a hammer to put a screw into a piece of wood, but a screwdriver would really be the best tool to use.

following this line of thinking, build my characters to match the themes of the system rather then force a character into a system.

if i play D&D, i don't build Joe Carpenter, a guy who's really skilled at building stuff but not much else. i build Joe Carpenter, a guy who's an adventurer, skilled at such, and builds stuff during downtime (because your ability to make a cabinet probably won't be of much use against the Fanged Claw-Beast of Urx).

even if i'm playing a game like GURPS (that doesn't have any real themes inherent to system), if we're playing a game that will focus on intrigue, i won't make Vorpal Von Hackenslash, a guy who's only strong point is that he knows about a hundred different ways to dismember a person.

as such i never really fall into the line of thinking that creates generally penalizing/unplayable characters unless i'm an absolute newbie and the system doesn't give good guidelines.

and if, a BIG if, i REALLY just have to play this one specific character i simply say "**** the default fluff", use the mechanics i want and reskin everything so my John Deer looks like a 'Vette.

Jude_H
2011-05-14, 01:38 PM
I've done 1-7 (the mental stats on 7, not the comic character), but it's really not a hallmark of old-school gaming to imagine before building.

When I play d20, I still prefer to carry over the "3d6 in order" stat method, which was a staple of the old D&D. It doesn't have the intent of "make a build, assign stats accordingly," but it's very harsh on trying to play with a preconceived character.

It also depends a lot on game. D&D is a game about fighting. That's where it puts its stakes. I'm not going to play a blind, washed out alcoholic dancer, unless I'm just trying to fight the system itself to see if I can make the character somehow survive.

Kobold Esq
2011-05-14, 03:08 PM
Part of the problem is the impact that stats have.

In older editions of the game, frankly your stats didn't matter much except at the extremes. In newer editions, all of your stats are used to some degree for every character type (saves, skill points, skill checks etc).

dps
2011-05-14, 03:12 PM
I'm real old school. I believe in rolling 3D6, in order, to generate stats. So my method would be to roll the stats first, then figure out what type of character would have those stats.

Prime32
2011-05-14, 03:17 PM
Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?If I don't see the druid using Wild Shape much (maybe because he's multiclassed), yes. Otherwise no, it's too inconvenient when wild shape has a daily limit of uses. I would happily take the Shapeshifter druid ACF though (weaker than Wild Shape and no Natural Spell equivalent, but unlimited uses).

Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?Yes.

Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?The way I see it, it would be weird for a barbarian chieftain with tremendous force of personality not to be good at fear tactics. So no.

Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?Yes, but not any further because then he would be too gimped to actually steal anything.

Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?Fortunately there is a sorcerer ACF which alleviates this. But yes. I might use a subrace which doesn't have a Cha penalty though.

Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?Yes. In fact, I once built a character with 0 Dex who had to use control body on himself to move, though this was partly because physical stats were less important for such a character. However, spellcasters' d4 HD and poor Fort saves already represent fragility, so I wouldn't see a 16 Con wizard as particularly jarring.

Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?No, because I see abilities with mental stat synergies as something any intelligent fighter would develop naturally - Roy's situation is purely a result of game mechanics. If I wanted to build a character with his concept, I'd use a warblade.

Greenish
2011-05-14, 03:48 PM
The method isn't simulation any more, it's... I don't know how to call it, really. I hesitate to call it "optimization", because I'm not talking about fancy stuff here, I'm talking about very basic things, as in "thou shall not dump Constitution."It's optimization. It's not particularly high optimization, but still. :smallcool:

So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character?Varies. I usually develop the crunch and the fluff in parallel, with both sides effecting the other as my "vision" evolves.



Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?
Skill Focus? No, I don't see three points making a great difference IC. I might take Gatekeeper Initiate or something that actually has some bearing with the character's development, but probably not Skill Focus.
I might, though I might not go for Sneak Attack on a daring outlaw (archetype, not build) anyhow. Probably, though, I'd just counteract it with something like Uncanny Bravery.
If the character is a leader with strong personality, I'd give them a decent/good charisma, but then I would also wrung some mechanical synergy out from that. Or the other way around.
Probably not, but my characters tend to be young anyhow.
I'd probably use some trickery or subrace to counteract the penalty.
If I imagined my character as dead (or undead), yes. Sickly people of poor health aren't cut out for rough adventuring.
As above, I'd built him a warblade.



(All of the above assuming everyone in the group does the same, of course, no one aims for proper optimization, and the DM is aware of the arrangement.)I always aim for proper optimization, to have a character who fits into the game. :smallamused:

Arachu
2011-05-14, 04:00 PM
I usually think of something I want my character to do (like know obscure things or shoot fire out of his hands) and then build him accordingly.

I usually have a personality in mind (around the formula "acts decent, but he's a ******* sociopath that [insert crazy-ass ability]), and this allows me to build him with other properties in mind (like my psychotic Bard with medical skill).

Though, I admit that whatever class best fits my chosen skill-set, tends to have a heavy influence on ability allocation (and even when it doesn't, the character fits another class' chosen archetype anyway and I think of them as that class on some level).

I once took this to the extreme optimizing my aforementioned Bard, who (as a Bardic Sage with a headband and historic knowledge) only had to roll about 16 or so to make a DC 30 BK check. I made up for it by making him soft and cowardly.

The thought? "I want to make him so useful the other characters will hesitate to accuse him of murdering them". :smallcool:

Partysan
2011-05-14, 04:03 PM
[SIZE="1"]Many years ago, when I started playing, character creation usually happened like this: The player would say something like "I imagine a wizard who is very smart, but gets distracted easily and his eyesight is a bit poor from years of reading. He likes to share what he knows and he's a good teacher, talkative and quite charming. He is moderately dexterous and not completely weak, but he has poor health, he coughs all the time and gets tired easily."

*snip*

So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

This is in fact the method I commonly use and I encourage my players to do the same. However the "optimizing" method is something that's a problem in games like D&D that are designed in a stupid way and make representing certain character concepts rather difficult.



Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?]

1. I might refrain from taking Natural Spell and take a fluff feat instead, but Skill Focus is an extremely dumb feat and I wouldn't take it. If I want a character to be good at a certain skill I dump skillpoints into it or take a feat that lets me do cool stuff with the skill.
2. Yes, although I think the fluff part of Craven is needlessly restrictive, even stupidly so.
3. Anytime, yes.
4. Again, yes.
5. Sure.
6. Of course, although I guess I'd have him pick up Combat Expertise and Knowledge Devotion on the way.

Xefas
2011-05-14, 04:11 PM
This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend?

No, this is a product of D&D's design, and the behaviors that it rewards. If the only game you've ever played is D&D, then most of the problems you associate with roleplaying games in general, or social problems with your group, are probably products of D&D's design philosophy.

Play something else and see the difference. Easy answer is Burning Wheel.

Talakeal
2011-05-14, 05:23 PM
[SIZE="1"]

Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?


1: Yes, I take skill focus over mechanical advantages all the time.
2: I would not take it
3: I am Currently playing a barbarian with charisma as primary stat
4: I would not play an old character
5: Yes, although thats not a character concept that I would be likely to envision
6: I actually dumb con on almost all of my characters as it forced me to play smart and fast
7: Usually I do.

I find one of the big changes betwee third edition and fourth edition is that doing these things is a much bigger sacrifice than it used to be. Back in the old days of rolling stats and higher than 22 point buys you would have some extra points to go around while still keeping your mechanical attributes high, not so much anymore, nor is there as much encouragement to do so.

squeekenator
2011-05-14, 06:06 PM
No to all. Well, actually the character I'm playing right now has low Con, but that's because he's an archer who needs other stats more, not because I wanted to fit a theme. One of the strengths of D&D 3.5 is the ability of a player to optimise their character, and while some people may not enjoy delving through every book ever written in search of some way to squeeze out an extra +1 to hit I find it almost as much fun as actually playing the game. Actually, now that I think about it it might be fun to try to make an effective fighter with 10 strength, but since I'd never really thought about it that way before I've always tried to make my characters as efficient as possible in the past. I prefer to build a cool character (in this case, an elven archer mounted on a griffin), make it useful so he can be credit to team and then figure out what his personality would be from the stats, feats, etc I gave him.

Aron Times
2011-05-14, 06:37 PM
Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. Skill Focus is useless unless you need it for a good prestige class. It doesn't really make enough of a difference to justify the feat expenditure. However, I won't be taking Natural Spell because I prefer the nerfed druid variant from the PHB2, which doesn't get Wildshape and gets at-will Shapeshifting instead.

2. I avoid most feats that force me to roleplay in a certain way.

3. A barbarian warchief is better represented by the Leadership feat than by pumping a dump stat, although having a good charisma does make Leadership better.

4. Yes, if I'm roleplaying a middle-aged character. In 4e, I can just give him a lower than usual Constitution score to represent his age since 4e doesn't have an aging mechanic.

5. One of my recurring characters in 4e is Nurzhan of the Oasis, a half-orc swordmage. Half-orcs don't get a bonus to intelligence in 4e, but they do get a bonus to strength, a swordmage secondary stat for some builds.

6. No. I am of the opinion that low con characters have no business being adventurers.

7. No.

As further clarification, I come up with characters by describing them without using game mechanics. For example, my recurring sorcerer, Aron Times, is a privileged member of the Evil Empire (or similar organization) who is a good person deep inside. Note that this does not pigeonhole him into a specific race or class, nor does it dictate his personality (Good does not have to be nice), nor his stats.

The Forgotten Realms version of Aron Times is a Netherese sorcerer who is a genuinely good person that treats everyone, Netherese or not, with respect. However, he is ultimately loyal to the Netherese Empire, which he hopes to change for the better from the inside.

Another version of Aron Times is a member of a greedy merchant cartel that has a monopoly of the region. This version of Aron tries to balance his duties to the group with his compassion for the people. If he is too generous, he will be disowned by his family and lose standing with the cartel. If he is too ruthless, he abandons his morals and becomes a worse person for it. He needs to balance generosity and ruthlessness to maintain standing in the cartel so he can change it from within.

Once I decide on my character's mechanics (class, race, stats, items, etc.), I integrate those mechanics into his background and his personality. For example, the Netherese Aron Times would be a human dragon sorcerer with the following stats:

Strength 16 - Secondary stat.
Constitution 10 - Dump stat.
Dexterity 12 - Needed for Dual Implement Spellcaster feat.
Intelligence 12 - Needed for Jack of All Trades and Linguist at Paragon tier.
Wisdom 8 - Dump stat.
Charisma 18 - Primary stat.

In addition to being a good person with good standing in the evil empire, Aron is a charming, smart, and athletic person. He is a sorcerer who wields staff and dagger to channel his Dragon Magic, and he speaks five languages and knows a little bit of everything.

Sometimes I start with the stats and then figure out my character's background and personality, but the abovementioned process is my default methodology for creating characters.

Ajadea
2011-05-14, 07:06 PM
Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?


There is no character concept that requires Skill Focus that badly. Ever. But I have at least one concept that involves a lot of Wild Feats and no actual wildshaping.
Yes.
The idea of a barbarian chieftain who doesn't have at least a basic grasp of fear tactics is amusing. So, no, technically.
Yes, in theory. In practice, I find myself playing young characters because I'm a kid.
Yep.
A character with Constitution lower than 8 has no business adventuring. The only time I've done that, it was 4d6b3 in order, so it wasn't really my choice.
I tend to grab Combat Expertise or a monk dip, but I do this a lot, because I have a hard time tolerating extending roleplaying of characters with Int lower than 13.

Atcote
2011-05-14, 07:10 PM
I usually encourage my players (I seem to have landed in the 'DM' bubble for a while now) to imagine their character before they start, and then, when they roll up their stats, adjust if need be (for example, you planned for your Wizard to be absent-minded, but your lowest roll is actually still an okay Wisdom score - just re-imagine a little to suit his new decent skills).

However, for my partner, who's somewhat judgmental of her own creative abilities when it comes to characters, first we roll up stats and THEN she creates a character around them - essentially using them stats as an initial canvas, which can work as a good booster.

As for not choosing something because it'd be 'out of character', or choosing a less than optimal feature because it fits character?
I do it all the time. It can lead to some great jokes if it all works out well (in 3.5 I played a character who was basically Aquaman... By accident. Oh, the hilarity).
On the otherhand, it may have led to the various deaths of those characters, but oh well, that's part of their story.
The risk here is pissing off your party for being 'sub-optimal', but in that, just try to be as useful as possible (I mean, your hero doesn't WANT to be useless, does he?) and not get in other people's ways, and usually you'll be able to have all the character-based creation fun you want.

Incanur
2011-05-14, 07:33 PM
Certain concepts have an inherent difficulty. For example, under any reasonable system, a weak and uncoordinated warrior would be a significant disadvantage. Others simply don't mesh with 3.x rules. I find the mechanical emphasis on Con especially annoying. Within the human range, greater toughness won't do much to protect you against a sword stroke or raging flames. Without the silliness of hit points, a mage would need magic for protection and natural difference wouldn't matter much.

Now, I have had plenty of players who've knowingly chosen suboptimal ability arrangements for roleplaying reasons. In moderate, this isn't a big deal. But be careful playing any sort of character with a Con penalty.

Bobby Archer
2011-05-15, 01:01 AM
I land very much on the side of simulation. Recently, the ST of an Exalted game I'm playing in figured out how optimized our characters were. Mine was dead last with a bullet.

Honestly, I find the urge to make uber-optimized characters a little annoying. I understand that it's some people's playstyle and it's fun for them, but I have no interest in it. I don't get to play D&D as much as I might otherwise because most of the people I know who play D&D are more on the optimization side.

Goober4473
2011-05-15, 01:19 AM
In D&D, I actually like that I can make stats first, then imagine why a character would be that way. It's one of the things D&D does quite well.

It's not something I always do, and it usually ends up as a back-and-forth, where I have a character idea, then I see a cool feat or class or whatever that would work well for that concept, and that gives me more ideas for the character's personality, backstory, etc.

I find this improves the creative process. I end up with characters I never would have imagined on my own.

In other systems, it's harder to do that. In GURPS, for instance, it's very difficult to statistically build a charater without first knowing almost everything about them as a person. On the otherhand, in GURPS, it's much easier to make a character that you already have a really good picture of in your mind.

Tvtyrant
2011-05-15, 01:38 AM
[SIZE="1"]
1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. Yes. However this would rarely happen as I feel my characters image is as much about what they can do as what they look like. I made a Cleric/Monk that used the Destruction Domain and War Domain to allow it to fly through the air while firing Disintegrates as a wizard would. Why? Because that is what I wanted to do.
2. I would never use it anyway, so yes. Fear doesn't make you better at stabbing people usually; if I was playing a terrified Rogue it would be an archer like Hailey.
3. I would say yes, though I would probably take the fear effects to match. Afterall, Charismatic people in a tribal society=terrifying.
4. Yup. I also have played an alcoholic Cleric with levels in Drunken Master, which is much weaker then taking more Cleric levels.
5. No, because that couldn't possibly match my image of a Dwarf. But if it did, yes.
6. Have done so before, probably will do so in the future (On a Fighter no less; I wanted to fight without armor and needed to pump dex. It actually worked out weirdly enough.)
7. Yup, if I felt there was a reason for it.

Viktyr Gehrig
2011-05-15, 05:55 AM
I have somewhat of a reputation as an optimizer in my groups, but I do think of a character first and then apply the mechanics. I don't take feats or abilities that don't fit with how I imagine the character.

On the other hand, I want to play a big damn hero when I play, so I don't dream up incompetent character concepts in the first place. I refuse to play a character that is not good at what he does best.

dsmiles
2011-05-15, 06:14 AM
Note: My experience with this if from D&D, but I suppose that it applies to all RPGs with mental and physical stats.

Many years ago, when I started playing, character creation usually happened like this: The player would say something like "I imagine a wizard who is very smart, but gets distracted easily and his eyesight is a bit poor from years of reading. He likes to share what he knows and he's a good teacher, talkative and quite charming. He is moderately dexterous and not completely weak, but he has poor health, he coughs all the time and gets tired easily."

And from there, he'd proceed assigning stats. In the above case, he would say: "So, we have INT > CHA > DEX > STR > WIS > CON."

In short, players could very well choose to assign stats "the wrong way", having a mental image of their character in mind and trying to represent it mechanically. The method was simulation. Key word: "imagine".

Nowadays, I don't see that happen a lot, and I don't do it myself a lot (if at all). Instead, the norm is something like this:

"I'm taking a wizard, so I have INT > CON > DEX > WIS > CHA > STR. Therefore, my wizard is very smart, healthy and sturdy, quite dexterous, somewhat perspective, hardly charismatic, and very weak."

In short, players pick stats first, addressing mechanical concerns, and from there proceed to interpret these numbers as their character's strengths and weaknesses. The method isn't simulation any more, it's... I don't know how to call it, really. I hesitate to call it "optimization", because I'm not talking about fancy stuff here, I'm talking about very basic things, as in "thou shall not dump Constitution."

I should note that completely irrational choices, like dumping your casting stat, were never an option. Even in the old days, no one ever did that. And I guess the distinction between the simulation method and whatever it is we're doing now applies not only to allocating stats, but also choosing feats and generally customizing your build.
So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good? Yes. I've been playing a long time, and I still do it. I really don't feel the need to optimize very much at all. I play in a low-op group, and I love it.

Some examples:


Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?Not that I play druids all that often, but yes.

Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?Absolutely.

Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?Yep.

Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?Probably, I'm a bigger fan of the random starting age table, but I'd probably give it a shot.

Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?I've done that. Dwarven Sorcerer in da house! :smallbiggrin:

Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?Yes, I have and I will.

Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?Absolutely. I've played the tactical genius fighter before.


(All of the above assuming everyone in the group does the same, of course, no one aims for proper optimization, and the DM is aware of the arrangement.)


P.S. I have no value judgments whatsoever for either method, both are entirely valid if they suit your group's style. But you know what? I realized that I have missed simulation. I have some memorable characters from that era that I couldn't possibly build now. [Or, I'm just getting old and succumbing to nostalgia. :smalltongue:]Meh, it's not really nostalgia. It's the realization that not everyone likes optimizing. I was a heavy optimizer for a couple of years, and it got boring. All my characters felt the same. I stopped thinking about stats, and started feeling the characters again, and DnD became fun again.

Incanur
2011-05-15, 09:44 AM
It's frustrating that 3.x D&D creates such a difference between optimized and non-optimized characters.

Mastikator
2011-05-15, 09:56 AM
In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

I do, if I wanted to play a min-maxed character with fluff to justify stats (rather than the other way around) I'd play a computer RPG.
Which I do.

I don't get to play pen & paper as often as I get to play on the computer so I divvy up the playstyles on the respective platforms that performs best for given task. Pen and paper is freer and more open than CRPG, it allows real roleplaying. I savor the moments I have.

Edit- it should be noted I don't play D&D, or any other game that demands minmaxing to be a priority.

Captain Six
2011-05-15, 09:05 PM
Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. I was about to say no but then I realized I already did. My barbarian already had power attack so I was pretty much set in terms of feats, so I picked up Skill Focus: Craft Cooking. He had a passion for killing and cooking monstrosities that no one has ever eaten before.

2. Probably, although I've never run into that feat before.

3. Yes-ish. I go back and forth between character and effectiveness when creating characters. If I had a barbarian the highest goes into Strength. Then I look at the character, in this case putting charisma as second.

4. Middle aged yes. But after that the stat penalties start to grow to heavy for the character to be justified in the game world itself; an old fighter is going to be a bad fighter. There is a line between playing a unoptimized character and playing a gimped one.

5. Change it to a Half-Orc Wizard or a Halfing Barbarian and yes, I would. Dwarves aren't my thing.

6. I prefer dodge-tanks to HP tanks so I normally dump con. I'll also look to stock up on DR anywhere I can. My philosophy is if something manages to hit me I deserve to die. HP is so abstract that constitution doesn't mean much to the characters for me. Even the most sickly wizard is going to eventually out-HP and elephant.

7. That's more complicated. I have never played a game where characters are aware of their own class so I really can't say, the closest I've gotten was playing a Monk and refusing to multiclass or prestige class. Roy is a Fighter out of pride, he has the meta-awareness of his own class and sticks with it stubbornly just to prove a point. And I always assumed Roy just happened to roll straight 16's anyway, the man is way to well rounded AND effective to have an array or point-buy.


p.s.
D&D 3.5 I think had this whole problem in mind when it was made. All the stats and all the alignments are so vague that they justify anything. The surplus of alignment arguments proves that just about any act can be viewed as just about any alignment.

As for stats having low wisdom can mean that a character isn't very rational so they often throw themselves needlessly into the middle of danger, while having high wisdom can mean that a character is so well aware of their surroundings and skilled at thinking on the spot that they don't bother planning ahead and often throw themselves needlessly into the middle of danger. Interpretations for high strength can range from how big your muscles are to how knowledgeable you are on leverage and maximizing the potential of the muscles you have, a godsend for anyone who wants to swing a sword well without being a barrel. And don't get me started on the mess of barely-related traits that is Charisma: Force of personality, social wit, musical talent, good looking, leadership skills, etc..

Lord.Sorasen
2011-05-15, 10:04 PM
Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. I am having a lot of trouble imagining where skill focus would really be a thing for a character I'd make. If my character is a druid, chances are I imagine that his "magical bear" aspect is a big one. So probably not. I guess it could happen, though.

2. I don't know what craven is. But I would basically never take a class feature that goes directly against my character concept.

3. I guess I would, but I think if I was playing a chieftan, I would have fear tactics.

4. Yes, and no. Middle aged would give me what... -1 to physical and mental stats? If I'm playing an older rogue I think I would focus on int, because in my mind, any rogue who is still in the limelight at an older age manages do to his mind rather than his physique. I have tried to play a fighter at the old age, but I never got a chance to do it.

5. In a heartbeat. On the other hand, I never really cared for the idea of bard sorcerers or bards, because I feel the stats mean they would be naturally bad at it as a species and would avoid it. Still, I'd do it if it's what I wanted to do.

6. I dump constitution all the time.

7. For Roy's improved skillpoints and knowledge, perhaps. But no advantage? No way. I can't imagine in the real world anybody going entirely against their stat array. If I have something others around me don't, I'm going to take advantage of it. So I would play a straight fighter with high intelligence, but I'm picking up the improved X line, and I'm taking advantage of my skill points.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-15, 11:12 PM
So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

There's a Bardbarian in my 3.5 group who has a crazy high STR and CHA stat (the key stats of Barbarian and Bard, respectively), but dumped CON. I don't know if it was from a role-playing perspective or not, because he always plays the tough-guy persona.

As a Wizard, I assigned my stats the way I wanted to (high INT, WIS, and DEX; decent CON; poor STR and CHA), but that in itself made sense for metagame purposes as well as for player purposes. My character is the bookish type, spending his childhood years reading and practicing in the arcane arts under the tutelage of a powerful master; physically frail, but otherwise hale and healthy; is fleet of foot, partially because of cowardice and partially because he's just very light and moves about easily; and is socially awkward and unremarkable looks-wise. High INT and WIS make sense for the large amount of time spent both learning from books and under the wise teachings of the master; low STR and high DEX make sense for being physically weak, and learning to avoid fights and run instead; and low CHA makes sense for being awkward and uncomfortable in social situations. The only thing that you could argue doesn't make sense is the decent CON stat, but I had the good fortune of rolling four fairly good stats, and STR and CHA were weaker fits.

Would I keep these stats the way they were if I was playing a Barbarian or Paladin? No, but a Barbarian doesn't commit their early years to book-learning (in fact, most are illiterate) and Paladins are, by their nature, strong of body and mind, are paragons of virtue, and are chivalrous in nature, meaning they tend toward high STR and CHA by virtue of their character development as well as from a metagame perspective.


Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?

I have Skill Focus (Spellcraft) on my Wizard. Does that count?


Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?

I've already done this. My Rogue wouldn't take Craven, because he is a daredevil who's not afraid to take chances to advance his own ends.

Then again, it's a Pathfinder game, and I'm pretty sure non-SRD material is out.


Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?

I've done this for Barbarian NPCs (a Half-Orc leading an Orc tribe), but I probably wouldn't as a character, because I imagine most Barbarian chieftains rising to power by display of force.


Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?

Perhaps. I tend to roleplay younger characters, though (and I myself am in my early twenties).


Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?

Sorcerer, no; I imagine Dwarves as being distrustful of that sort of magic.

Bard, yes.


Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?

Not as a matter of character development, but perhaps as a plot point; for example, I wouldn't make an otherwise normal character who just dumps CON (because most people of the adventuring sort are generally healthy), but as a character who has set out to try and find a cure for the mysterious, long-standing curse that has plagued him (and perhaps his village), or a venerable (cough) old Sorcerer who, in his last throes of life, is trying desperately to cheat death by any means possible, yes. The former may find it cured and the latter may turn to lichdom, however, rendering the whole issue null.

The fact of the matter is, most people aren't in poor health, and those that are don't want to be.


Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

Not likely. Again, this harkens down to the fact that somebody who is physically weak or average, but mentally strong, would never take sword over spell; they'd play to their natural strengths in their pursuit of survival. A character that is physically weak or average will inevitably turn to the arcane arts to circumvent their own weakness as is, even from a role-playing perspective, especially if they're naturally intelligent.

It should be noted, though, that I HAVE played a Rogue that was naturally intelligent and charismatic, but not very strong (this is the same Rogue that is mentioned above, regarding Craven; incidentally, he also has a miserable WIS). I think that, if it came down to it, if somebody took to the sword, and they weren't particularly strong in their own right, this is the direction they'd inevitably take on their own; surviving by wits and skill, and resorting to every dirty trick in the book if need be.

So no, I'd probably never make a tactical Fighter or Barbarian, but I would (and have) made a tactical melee character.

EDIT:


4. Yes, and no. Middle aged would give me what... -1 to physical and mental stats? If I'm playing an older rogue I think I would focus on int, because in my mind, any rogue who is still in the limelight at an older age manages do to his mind rather than his physique. I have tried to play a fighter at the old age, but I never got a chance to do it.

You get -1 to physical stats, and +1 to mental stats. The INT-based Rogue would benefit from this (at least outside of combat).

Bobby Archer
2011-05-16, 12:22 AM
Not likely. Again, this harkens down to the fact that somebody who is physically weak or average, but mentally strong, would never take sword over spell; they'd play to their natural strengths in their pursuit of survival. A character that is physically weak or average will inevitably turn to the arcane arts to circumvent their own weakness as is, even from a role-playing perspective, especially if they're naturally intelligent.

A number of people have put forward this argument or one similar to it and I staunchly disagree. Plenty of people in the real world perform jobs that don't conform to their most prominent abilities. Whether because they discount their true gifts, or because they don't have the opportunity, or simply out of a kind of rebellion, they do something they are less ideally suited for. And there are plenty of reasons why a character would or could do the same thing.

The argument of "an optimized build is what a smart adventurer would want anyway so it's in character" assumes that the characters have knowledge of the systems of the world they live in. People do sub-optimal things all the time because of misinformation, superstition, assumptions, or simple preference.

If you want to make an optimal (or somewhat optimal) build, that's fine. If you want to build a character around that build or tweak a character to justify a more optimal build, that's fine. But there are plenty of good, character-based reasons to have a sub-optimal build.

The-Mage-King
2011-05-16, 01:03 AM
So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

I, personally, think that it's gone, and it's a good thing, too.

Note that I'm pretty much the opposite of that style as well, though I do sometimes start with a concept for my character, just for teh lulz. I tend to choose my build based on what would be fun, mechanically, to play, then build a character around that.


Replies in Bold

Some examples:


Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)? No way in hell. Though I wouldn't be playing a druid...
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?Nope. Because, if "By the gods! This foe has struck true terror into my heart! It must be a worthy foe indeed! En Guard!" Is a perfectly valid reaction from that character concept with that feat.
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality? Maybe. If I had points/a decent score to spare, definitely. Though that could proabably be better represented by Leadership...
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old? Yeah, I would. More focused on the mental attributes, though. Got a problem with that?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer? Sounds lulz worthy. Sure.
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character? Done it. Mostly on Necropolitans/people who will become undead, but yeah...
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever? No. That is one of the worst crimes possible for rolling good stats. If you want a smart warrior, play a Warblade. A charismatic one, play a Crusader. A wise one... A Swordsage. Hell, a combination of those would be pretty effective.

(All of the above assuming everyone in the group does the same, of course, no one aims for proper optimization, and the DM is aware of the arrangement.)


Yeah. Nothing else to say.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-16, 01:23 AM
A number of people have put forward this argument or one similar to it and I staunchly disagree. Plenty of people in the real world perform jobs that don't conform to their most prominent abilities. Whether because they discount their true gifts, or because they don't have the opportunity, or simply out of a kind of rebellion, they do something they are less ideally suited for. And there are plenty of reasons why a character would or could do the same thing.

I think there's a big difference between the decision between being an accountant or a waitress and, say, the decision between cleaving your enemies in two or setting them on fire with your mind.

In the real world, people perform jobs that don't conform to their most prominent abilities because in most cases, these jobs don't hinge on being dependent on how you are with any individual characteristic of your lifestyle.

In D&D, not only is this usually the case, but it's also such that a character has often devoted much time and effort to performing a certain function in his life before the character even reaches the pivotal starting point in the adventure. Few adventures begin with "a bunch of random kids picked up swords and sticks and sought to take over the world," and usually, when they do, they're JRPG-based. Instead, they begin with "over the course of years in apprenticeship/living on the streets/martial training/etc, our intrepid adventurers are finally capable of striking out and making a name for themselves."

If you adopt the latter mindset (rather than "my character picked up a spellbook and, in thirty seconds, was capable of casting Magic Missile"), then most (if not all) who don't have the intelligence to cast even a basic cantrip would have given up wizardry outright, and most (if not all) who are too weak or clumsy to effectively swing or even lift a sword would have decided to pursue other interests. After all, they've had years to do so.

While a character may decide to use their talents for unconventional means (a smart-but-weak Rogue using their intellectual abilities to outsmart opponents in combat), you wouldn't endeavor to see a character, as a person, spend years specializing in a way of doing things that is counter-intuitive to their natural strengths when their very life will depend on them being capable at what they do every day they remain alive. To that end, I can see a smart-but-weak melee character easily being a Rogue, where cunning, guile, and "dirty trick" fighting allows them to outwit their opponents, or a Scout or Ranger, where tactical knowledge and strategy complement your martial abilities, but not a Fighter, whose skills are based on talent with a blade (which is something that hinges on being strong, dextrous, and capable, but not necessarily intelligent), or a Barbarian, whose skills are based on sheer brute strength.

So in fact, even the initial analogy I gave is bad, because one of the options I gave at least requires some degree of specialization. It's more like choosing between working at Dairy Queen or Taco Bell.


The argument of "an optimized build is what a smart adventurer would want anyway so it's in character" assumes that the characters have knowledge of the systems of the world they live in. People do sub-optimal things all the time because of misinformation, superstition, assumptions, or simple preference.

What would you do if your lawyer showed up late to your hearing, fumbled with his speech, demonstrated a lack of basic knowledge of law procedures and court precedent, and failed to set up an adequate defense?

What would you do if, while on the operating table, your surgeon dropped the knife, apologized profusely, bumped his head on the way down, winced, and said, "sorry, I have a tendency to slip and drop things"?

What would you do if, while staring out the second-story window of your burning house, you saw the firemen get out, but struggle (or fail) to set up and then control the rush of water as they tried to set about saving you and your house, or weren't able to throw enough weight behind your locked door to break it open?

There's a reason there aren't very many stupid and uncharismatic lawyers, clumsy surgeons, or weak firemen, and that's because lawyers are paid to be knowledgeable and charismatic, surgeons are paid to be precise, and firemen are paid to be strong and capable. In fact, we go so far to make sure that our lawyers, doctors, and firemen are capable in their respective fields as to have them spend years training or learning their crafts before they're ever even allowed to begin day one of their chosen profession, and are paid handsomely for having made it that far. Those lucky few that make it through these preliminary years without any talent or practiced application for the craft are usually weeded out by the competitive nature of their fields.

Game-wise, this isn't a matter of optimization; it's a matter of basic common sense. If you, the wizard, are standing in the back, casting spells, and you are physically stronger than the guy in the front with the sword, you're going to do one of two things: You're going to take the scrawny guy's armor and sword and do the job of defending yourself (being personally more capable than the guy with the sword), or you're going to fire the weak guy and find yourself someone bigger and stronger to accompany you. You're not going to continue to trust your life in the hands of someone who can't use them to defend you, because that's counter-intuitive to your survival instincts, even if that person didn't think to choose a more fulfilling profession before risking his life and limb doing what he's doing, which is counter-intuitive to his survival instincts.


If you want to make an optimal (or somewhat optimal) build, that's fine. If you want to build a character around that build or tweak a character to justify a more optimal build, that's fine. But there are plenty of good, character-based reasons to have a sub-optimal build.

Again, it's not a matter of optimization--it's a matter of stopping just once over the course of years and thinking, "you know, my eyesight's bad and I can't seem to line up this shot to hit that target--maybe dedicating my life to archery just isn't my thing."

If your critical life decision is a matter of whether or not you're going to bake or work a cash register, not choosing the one that caters to your personal talents is fine--mostly because they're learned professions that don't require a tremendous amount of specialized knowledge to make yourself capable at, you can make a living either way, and unless you're really incapable of performing very basic tasks (or have an unfortunate habit of sticking your head in things with slamming doors, like an oven or a cash register), you're not very likely to die for having chosen the wrong thing.

If it's something that can, on any given day, be the difference between whether or not you're going to go to sleep of your own accord and wake up another day, best that you put your best foot forward.

Optimator
2011-05-16, 02:49 AM
Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?

No way. As a PC, that'd be ridiculous.


Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?

Yeah, if I had the brave thing as a real driving force in his personality. I would find ways to keep up without Craven. But if Craven's a good feat for a build I want to play I would have little qualms about changing the character's personality to match. I do, however feel that Craven is a feat in which the fluff part should come in to play. I don't normally think role-play restrictions are a good way to balance or price mechanical benefits but Craven is that good plus most feats don't have penalties. Just makes sense to me.


Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?

High charisma? Maybe. Maybe 14 tops. 14 is high enough for me to imagine a stat as "high" if I want to back it up mechanically. My group usually uses 32-36 point buy, or equivalent, for reference. When I think of "tremendous force of personality" I would think higher than 14 in most cases, but any more than that would be too much for a barbarian, to me.


Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?

Hell yeah.


Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?

Sure would. Done it many times before.


Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?

Dump? No. I probably wouldn't ever even want to play a character so unsuited for adventuring.


Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

No mental stat synergy whatsoever? No, but my standards aren't too high for what qualifies as synergy. I'm a real sucker for skill points so it wouldn't be so bad for Int. This also depends on what counts as high mental stats. If a stat is unimportant for a character I give some slack in terms of imagining my character's capabilities and how he is perceived.

HeadlessMermaid
2011-05-16, 09:55 AM
Again, it's not a matter of optimization--it's a matter of stopping just once over the course of years and thinking, "you know, my eyesight's bad and I can't seem to line up this shot to hit that target--maybe dedicating my life to archery just isn't my thing."
All the examples you give are the equivalent of "I dump my most important stat", and at least for my part, I've already said that this practically never happens, not even with the simulation method. No one plays an archer with a Dex of 8 (unless they go for Zen Archery or something).

I understand your point that, from an "in game perspective", the character would try his hardest to survive. But I disagree that this pursuit equals "the player chooses the most optimized build he can think of". I mean, if that were the case, Factotums wouldn't exist because everyone with high intelligence would go for Batman Wizard.

So why shouldn't someone become a Wizard, but become a Factotum instead? I'm not wondering about the player (that's very simple: it's a matter of preference), I'm wondering about the character. From an "in game perspective". What is it with that guy? Doesn't he want to survive? Does he have a death wish? Is he daft? Doesn't he understand that a Wizard is "better"?

Let's imagine a few reasons.

1) Perhaps the world is not a meritocracy
Wizards are trained in Magic Academies, and these are (surprise!) for the rich. There is some talent-scouting, but it doesn't reach everyone in the empire. Our factotum was lowborn and never had access to such fancy stuff. He had to rely on his wits, because that's all he had.

2) Perhaps our factotum lacks patience
My, it takes a lot of patience to become a wizard. Our factotum would be bored to tears. He doesn't suffer from a death wish, he suffers from a short attention span. So he decides to rely on his wits, because it suits best his abilities. And if his "stats" say otherwise, they lie. (Imagine a super clever, super dexterous surgeon, but with a horrible temper, no patience at all, and the tendency to punch things when he's angry. Would you give him a scalpel?)

3) Perhaps our factotum vehemently hates wizards
Maybe a wizard killed his family, or insulted his mom or fireballed his village. Maybe he just can't stand these arrogant pricks. For whatever reason, he is biased. And bias beats survival instinct common sense every time.

4) Perhaps our factotum grew up like this
He was the son of a wandering minstrel, accompanying his dad on his travels ever since he was a wee lad, and learning to rely on his wits - though he did it his way. That's what he is. Doing anything else would shatter his sense of identity. And our sense of identity can definitely beat our survival instinct common sense.

My point is that suboptimal choices of any kind can certainly be justified in game. You say that being an adventurer is completely different and spectacularly more dangerous from leading a normal life, therefore these folks would do whatever it takes to survive.

But I say that if survival instinct common sense was so strong, there wouldn't BE any adventurers. People would stay home and bar the door, because that's the safe thing to do. Getting out there means that your survival instinct common sense isn't so good in the first place. That it can be overcome by other needs: glory, gold, power, self-fulfillment, fighting for a cause, defending an ideal, being admired by your peers etc. And if these needs are so strong that they can remove you from your cosy home and put you in front of a man-eating monster, they they are certainly strong enough to make you make "suboptimal choices" along the way.


EDIT - Lonely Tylenol used the term "survival instinct" first, and I went with it. Neither of us should have used it in the first place. :smalltongue:

Survival instinct isn't something that affects our conscious decisions all day long. It's the exact opposite of rational decision-making, and it triggers on life-threatening situations. In the heat of the battle, when you're on fire or drowning, that sort of thing. Not when you're idly wondering how to train from now on ("player levels up and picks class, a feat and skill points").

Now, common sense does indeed function all day long - but it isn't always... sensible. Emotions can circumvent it in a heartbeat. And that's enough to justify any "less than optimized" build from an in game perspective, I believe. (Actually, anything can circumvent common sense. A research showed recently that, when having two choices presented to them visually on opposite sides, people tend to pick the one on their right, regardless of content. Go figure.)

Bobby Archer
2011-05-16, 11:06 AM
Thank you, HeadlessMermaid, for saying what I was trying to say so much better than I said it.

Talakeal
2011-05-16, 04:03 PM
I, personally, think that it's gone, and it's a good thing, too.


I have seen a lot of power gamers around over the years, but they were never all inclusive. Never before have I seen the claim that they are omnipresent, or that they somehow look down on the few "role players" that remain. If this view point really is the norm these days it makes me sad. I don't think it is though, as while it seems to be the majority oppinion around here it is quite the opposite on other forums such as feartheboot.com

Personally I have never made a character based on mechanics, although I did, particularly when I was younger, tend to make characters who were the best possible X that I could.

I rarely play level based systems anymore, instead playing skill or trait based gamed like World of Darkness, Shadow Run, Riddle of Steel, or usually my own homebrew system. The trap I have in those systems is getting so into character that I power game for RP reasons.

What I mean to say is that my characters are usually very driven people who want to be the best in their field. As a player I get so caught up in this mood that I am always wanting to increase their abilities in their field, even beyond what they realistically should have at that point in their careers.

On the point of people always selecting the class that their stats are best for, that does not seem to jive with my image of the real world. There are a lot of incompetent people in any field, and I perceive that Tradition and Motivation are far larger factors in what career people go into than their abilities. Now people who are outright "bad" at the primary attribute for their career probably won't last long, but those who are only average or slightly below it can usually get by, especially if they are good at using their other attributes to get by "playing the game"; I am sure most of you have seen coworkers or team mates who are obviously less skilled that still get all the credit because they are good at social politics.

dsmiles
2011-05-16, 04:22 PM
I have seen a lot of power gamers around over the years, but they were never all inclusive. Never before have I seen the claim that they are omnipresent, or that they somehow look down on the few "role players" that remain. If this view point really is the norm these days it makes me sad. I don't think it is though, as while it seems to be the majority oppinion around here it is quite the opposite on other forums such as feartheboot.com
It isn't the norm. Not one person in my RL group, or that want to join my RL group (which already has almost too many peeps in it), are powergamers. There are plenty of people who want to play in low-op groups so that they can concentrate less on the mechanics and more on the story. There a ton of people who don't want to go searching through a crapton of books to make the supposedly "best" character. I'm one of them, and so are the guys (and gal) I game with.

Prime32
2011-05-16, 04:56 PM
On the point of people always selecting the class that their stats are best for, that does not seem to jive with my image of the real world. There are a lot of incompetent people in any field, and I perceive that Tradition and Motivation are far larger factors in what career people go into than their abilities. Now people who are outright "bad" at the primary attribute for their career probably won't last long, but those who are only average or slightly below it can usually get by, especially if they are good at using their other attributes to get by "playing the game"; I am sure most of you have seen coworkers or team mates who are obviously less skilled that still get all the credit because they are good at social politics.The problem with this is that while you can have an accountant who is better at art than maths, his class is artist. Accountant is not a class, just a job. In D&D it would be represented by ranks in Profession (accountant), which is a class skill for mathematicians but not artists.

Wizards tend to confuse the issue since they are a class and a job in most cases.

Bobby Archer
2011-05-16, 05:26 PM
The problem with this is that while you can have an accountant who is better at art than maths, his class is artist. Accountant is not a class, just a job. In D&D it would be represented by ranks in Profession (accountant), which is a class skill for mathematicians but not artists.

Wizards tend to confuse the issue since they are a class and a job in most cases.

We're using real world professions is an analogy (and yes, not a perfect one) to the "class" system, which does not exist in real life. Yes, a class is not necessarily a job, but does represent the trained skills and capabilities you use in your life.

If the accountant in your example thinks of himself as an artist, comports himself as an artist, and acts as an artist in the balance of his life, knowing and doing just enough accountancy to get by, then yes, him being of the "artist" class with ranks in Profession (accountant) is appropriate. If instead, it's someone who had the base abilities necessary to be an artist, but gave up on that to become an accountant and hasn't picked up a paintbrush in years, then he would be of the class "accountant" with with ranks in Profession (artist) or Craft (painting).

If I create a character who, despite having the intelligence necessary to become a Wizard, decides to train to become a knight and learn to fight in the front row with a sword, then I'm going to make a Fighter. I'll probably pick different feats for a high-INT, average-STR Fighter than I would for a more common high-STR, average-INT Fighter, and he'll likely act differently in battle and almost certainly won't be as optimal, but he'll be a Fighter.

I don't see any reason why these types of characters can't exist. If you don't want to play one, fine. If the game you're running requires that all the PCs be optimized, fine. I'm less interested in those games and those characters and I can and do seek out games that are welcoming to these types of characters (and I don't have much trouble).

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-16, 06:36 PM
All the examples you give are the equivalent of "I dump my most important stat", and at least for my part, I've already said that this practically never happens, not even with the simulation method. No one plays an archer with a Dex of 8 (unless they go for Zen Archery or something).

I'm sorry, you lost me.

What's the point of the seventh question, then? Am I really being asked to choose between "strong" and "strong and also smart"? I don't even have to think hard about it to realize that the latter option gets me more for no additional cost. If it's not a matter of sacrificing strength (the fighter's cardinal ability) for the purposes of being smarter, then you're basically telling me that I'm getting something for nothing, and everybody is going to take that option.

I guess it gains some marginal degree of relevance in a point-buy system, where you're asking if people would ever think to not dump Intelligence as quickly as possible, but for those of us who make random rolls, it's simply a matter of how the dice fall; you can just as easily roll five great stats and one dump stat as you can one great stat and five dump stats (although they're more likely to fall within the curve). If I am tasked with playing a Fighter, and I have the good fortune of rolling decent-to-high stats across the board, then yeah, I'm going to play a Roy Greenhilt character; if I roll only one good stat, though, you bet it's going to be Strength.


I understand your point that, from an "in game perspective", the character would try his hardest to survive. But I disagree that this pursuit equals "the player chooses the most optimized build he can think of". I mean, if that were the case, Factotums wouldn't exist because everyone with high intelligence would go for Batman Wizard.

So why shouldn't someone become a Wizard, but become a Factotum instead? I'm not wondering about the player (that's very simple: it's a matter of preference), I'm wondering about the character. From an "in game perspective". What is it with that guy? Doesn't he want to survive? Does he have a death wish? Is he daft? Doesn't he understand that a Wizard is "better"?

I'm sorry, but that's such an absurd hyper-extension of my original argument that it bordered on insulting. What I essentially said is that somebody who is bookish or intelligent wouldn't devote their life to being a Fighter or a Barbarian, where being bookish and intelligent does them nothing and squanders their talents; with that in mind, an intelligent person would make a better Wizard, or Factotum. To abridge that, I basically said "no stupid character could be a good Factotum, because it's a blatant misapplication of their natural abilities" to which your response, apparently, seems to be "no smart 'character' could be a good Factotum, because they're not 'optimized'!"

You remember that part where I said, three or four times, that it wasn't about "optimization", but rather a simple application of common sense? Playing to your strengths and natural talents instead of blindly leaping into a given career choice, regardless of whether you were remotely competent in it? That thing you quoted prior to this exact paragraph I am quoting now?

Yeah, I meant that, and precisely that; none of this "every character is Batman" nonsense. I never once said that you had to "optimize"; in fact, I have said as many times times as there are posts that it's not about optimization.

Allow me to restate:

You, as a character, are quiet (and awkward with people), have an unimpressive physique, are dextrous, relatively healthy, and, while you've lots of learned intellect, you're not exceptionally wise (possibly because you spent your time learning indoors, shut away from the rest of the world). This translates, metagame, to good INT and DEX stats, decent CON and perhaps WIS, and weak CHA, STR, and perhaps WIS. You've been practicing at [class of choice] for years now, and, between your hard-earned study and your natural talent for the art, you're starting to get really good.

What are you?

Your natural abilities tend towards learned abilities, so odds are you're going to choose a life skill that plays to your intellectual talents (metagame, your INT stat). Wizard is a natural choice both for background and statistic purposes; the best of the Wizards are naturally intelligent and also devoted to the craft, but aren't inclined to being particularly wise or charismatic. They're also not very strong, which is possibly why they turn to the books as opposed to the bardiche. They might, however, be dextrous and nimble (years of practice mastering the somatic components of spells?), and there's no reason a character can't be healthy.

But--and here's the kicker--you're also naturally inclined to becoming a Factotum. Perhaps, instead of devoting your intellectual abilities to mastering a single craft, you used it to become the "Mr. Fix-It" of your town, learning a trick for every situation to keep in your bag of... Er... Tricks. Being nimble also helps you in your versatility, because you are more adept in tasks that require precision. Wu-Jen is also among the classes you could be very proficient in; perhaps your training took place in a monastery, which focused on mastery of the elements.

Remember, though, that intellect is not your only strength; you're also quite dextrous. This makes being a Ranger or Scout a distinct possibility, since you are likely to be good with a bow, and further, you can use your natural intellect to learn a diverse range of skills. You aren't very wise, however, so your intuition may occasionally fail you while performing certain tasks (such as tracking). You may also make a good Rogue, with the caveat that you use "street smarts" to your advantage rather than book-smarts; however, you may not be great in combat due to being naturally weak, which forces you to apply your natural skill over strength in battle (meta-game, this equates to taking the Weapon Finesse feat).

It is likely, however, that you are not a Barbarian, who has little need for advanced intelligence; nor is it likely that you're a Sorcerer or Bard, since your talents come from careful practice and forethought (as opposed to natural talent). I'd say that you're even less likely to be a Paladin or a Cleric, whose skills come mainly from worldly wisdom, but also from the power to affect people.

And that's where the "common sense" ends. Your natural abilities dictate the range of applicable classes that suit your skill set; which class you choose from there is entirely up to you, and it can be every bit as much a metagame decision (being Batman for Wizards; an all-purpose "fifth wheel" for Factotums) as it can be character-based (studying the arcane arts to learn mastery of undeath in an attempt to bring your father back for Wizards; growing up as a clinical "Mr. Fix-It" type who your town comes to when they want a problem solved for Factotums).

Beyond saying that an INT-based character chooses an INT-based class, a DEX-based character chooses a DEX-based class, and so on (basically, a character plays to their natural strengths, whatever they may be), there's no reason that a player can't choose Factotum over Wizard, regardless of their reasoning.

The reasons you gave are fluff; I'll skip them.


My point is that suboptimal choices of any kind can certainly be justified in game. You say that being an adventurer is completely different and spectacularly more dangerous from leading a normal life, therefore these folks would do whatever it takes to survive.

But I say that if survival instinct common sense was so strong, there wouldn't BE any adventurers. People would stay home and bar the door, because that's the safe thing to do. Getting out there means that your survival instinct common sense isn't so good in the first place. That it can be overcome by other needs: glory, gold, power, self-fulfillment, fighting for a cause, defending an ideal, being admired by your peers etc. And if these needs are so strong that they can remove you from your cosy home and put you in front of a man-eating monster, they they are certainly strong enough to make you make "suboptimal choices" along the way.

I can suspend belief long enough to presume that a person would be willing to go to unreasonable measures to procure an unreasonable amount of wealth, or for a higher cause, or whatever it may be; however, I cannot suspend belief long enough, or thoroughly enough, to presume that a person who would do so, even those inclined to rush headlong into danger (by virtue of low WIS score, metagame-wise, or just reckless character) would do so using a method that is counter-intuitive to their own talents.

So sue me.

Again, this doesn't mean the unreasonable extreme of "every 'character' must optimize, every time"; it just means not doing something that is, to the core of your being, counter-intuitive to who you are.


EDIT - Lonely Tylenol used the term "survival instinct" first, and I went with it. Neither of us should have used it in the first place. :smalltongue:

Survival instinct isn't something that affects our conscious decisions all day long. It's the exact opposite of rational decision-making, and it triggers on life-threatening situations. In the heat of the battle, when you're on fire or drowning, that sort of thing. Not when you're idly wondering how to train from now on ("player levels up and picks class, a feat and skill points").

Like many other terms, "survival instinct" has more than one meaning. (http://www.ahalmaas.com/Glossary/s/survival_instinct.htm)


If I create a character who, despite having the intelligence necessary to become a Wizard, decides to train to become a knight and learn to fight in the front row with a sword, then I'm going to make a Fighter. I'll probably pick different feats for a high-INT, average-STR Fighter than I would for a more common high-STR, average-INT Fighter, and he'll likely act differently in battle and almost certainly won't be as optimal, but he'll be a Fighter.

I don't see any reason why these types of characters can't exist. If you don't want to play one, fine. If the game you're running requires that all the PCs be optimized, fine. I'm less interested in those games and those characters and I can and do seek out games that are welcoming to these types of characters (and I don't have much trouble).

See, I can respect the idea of making an INT-based fighter, but for me, this almost irrevocably means somebody who learns to fight by means of intelligence rather than sheer force, which typically means either mastery of the "dirty trick" (Rogue) or some other form of fighter class that uses intellect to compensate for their lack of physical strength (such as the Swordsage). It can even mean gishing it up at times (I did make a character for my girlfriend, who started as a Sorceress but changed her mind because the character was too frail and derailed her current advancement and planned on advancing her into Paladin with only 10 STR, before she changed her mind and went back to being a Sorceress).

It's not that an INT-based fighter-type can't exist, it's just that I wouldn't choose Fighter specifically for it, because there are already classes that fit the concept of a fighter who survives on intellect (Rogue and Swordsage as mentioned above, but Factotum will do as well), so why not use them?

Ormur
2011-05-16, 06:46 PM
So, my question. This change of style is from my personal experience, but is it a universal trend? In fact, does anyone use the simulation method any more when creating a character? Have you used it recently (or ever)? Have you seen it? Would you use it? Or is it an old thing that died for good?

Very often I decide what kind of a character I want to roleplay and what kind of mechanics I want to model him with at the same time, usually because I start with some quirk or stereotype that I (hopefully) later flesh out. It's not a separate process at least. I try to pick the choices that optimally represent my concept and character and I've been brought up to regard fluff and mechanics as separate, up to a point. I'd say ability scores should affect role playing for example and the coward flaw should mean you're a coward (in some circumstances at least). I don't think anything about character should require you to take weapon focus though.

I also agree with the situations determining a character's class and abilities, that they are not entirely their choice and that not every character would make the optimal choice. Those things are however all controlled by the player but it explains why power isn't the only metric. I also think people should aim for a power level that neither overshadows or burdens the group as a whole. A monk that put all his skillpoints and feats in his downtime hobbies would be just as out of place in tier three party as a tier one mismatch of ridiculously inappropriate and mismatched class abilities.

I also like rolling for stats so I'll have an excuse for putting a 12 or 13 (or 6 or 7) in mental scores not central to the class, but the character.


Some examples:


Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

1. Wasting a feat, no, for a standard druid I'd probably want to take natural spell but I can imagine concepts that included druid but didn't emphasize wildeshape. Other feats might fit that concept better and work. I wouldn't take skill focus unless I really had to. I imagine a druid of that level would be familiar enough with danger to realize that casting spells while in animal form is a better idea than suddenly taking up dentistry or something. I'd let regular or cross class skill points suffice for fluff.

2. Yes, the mechanical effect makes re-fluffing harder so I'd try to find some other good feat that fit better. I might consider playing someone that's outwardly full of bravado but prone to freaking out when actually engaged in battle.

3. Playing a charismatic leader type I would put more in charisma than necessarily optimal but then I'd seek ways to capitalize on that choice so I'd probably pursue fear tactics for a barbarian. I'd also pick a class that fit the leader concept mechanically (orc chieftain is pretty barbarian though) and not all leaders are necessarily very charismatic, there are dull but effective or manipulative leaders.

4. I don't like the aging penalties because I think they're a bit unbalanced but primarily because they might interfere with my roleplaying ideas (and NPC builds also).

5. Yes, but I might look at subraces or templates that didn't seem too ridiculous to compensate. Otherwise I'd just put 18 in charisma and suck up the -2, it's not a build breaker.

6. That's pretty risky, I'd hesitate but I've seen it done (albeit with 12 as the lowest stat (which still made us joke about him constantly coughing blood)) and work. I'd try to mitigate it at least as I'd imagine a frail adventurer would do but it kind of defeats the purpose.

7. No, because that's not only stupid and thus out of character (why isn't Roy at least a Warblade) it's probably going to result in a character so ineffective it would be boring to play. I don't really see any kind of a fluff reason for picking a melee class that doesn't build on your strengths since they mostly just revolve around hitting things. Not using your mental stats in a fight is like saying your character is smart/wise/charismatic at all times except when he's doing what he dedicated his life to.

Shade Kerrin
2011-05-16, 07:48 PM
My case is not so much "Won't play that" as it is "Won't play that in that particular manner." Case by case answer to questions:

1. Never really been a fan of Wildshaping, but I wouldn't exchange it for Skill Focus. If my druid would indeed be better represented with higher than normal skills, I would dip into one of the many skill-based PrCs(which do tend to require Skill focus, but that's a technicality), since the gain is better. I am a druid, I can afford to play for style
2. Actually, I've never taken Craven, nor do I plan to in the future
3. If my barbarian is a chieften with a high force of personality, then I'll take leadership to represent it as such. Leadership is based on charisma....
4. A middle-aged rogue for no real benifit? No, that makes me an incompetent character. A middle-aged factotum, Roleplayed as a rogue, getting the benefits of his extra years of experience to his capacity? Sounds like a plan.
5. I believe a friend of mine mentioned the dream dwarf varient, which gets con to various aspects of cha-based spellcasting, so I'd go that approach.
6. Can. Would. Did, on several occasions
7. No stat synergy is a bit of a misnomer, as others have mentioned. Many fighter feats require minimums on various stats to take, and as a straight fighter that is most likely core-based, Roy probably has taken at least one. so while high in isn't directly helping him, a shot of Combat Expertise would help in the battle he's found himself in

Bobby Archer
2011-05-16, 08:08 PM
It's not that an INT-based fighter-type can't exist, it's just that I wouldn't choose Fighter specifically for it, because there are already classes that fit the concept of a fighter who survives on intellect (Rogue and Swordsage as mentioned above, but Factotum will do as well), so why not use them?

Because that's not how I envisioned the character and that's not the character I want to play. I understand that you wouldn't choose the same abilities or classes I would but I'm not asking you to play this character. And if I'm okay with it and no one else at the table is rending their garments because of my unoptimization, why shouldn't I play it?

Maybe I just want to do something different without having to know what's in half a dozen supplements. For most games I play, I only own the core book and maybe one or two supplements. Digging through books and optimizing character builds are not fun for me. I pick a character's stats and abilities based on the character concept I've come up with. Sometimes they wind up powerful, sometimes not. I care far less about that than about the roleplaying. I'd rather get through character creation and start playing.

dsmiles
2011-05-16, 08:21 PM
You know, there's no reason to argue about it. Optimization ability isn't mutually exclusive of roleplaying ability. (I'm not sure the grammar's correct, there, but I've had a very long day, and I'm fairly certain you get the point.)

As I stated earlier, it's a matter of taste. I choose not to optimize, after having done it heavily for a couple of years. I felt that all my characters played the same, so I chose to go back to low-op games. The characters in these games flow better for me.

Neither way is "right." Neither way is "wrong." Neither way is unfun for everybody. Both ways are unfun for somebody, though. If you don't like plodding through a thousand and one books to make a character, join a low-op group, and stay away from high-op groups. If you do like it, join a high-op group, and stay away from low-op groups. High-op characters in low-op groups (and, equally, low-op characters in high-op groups) make the game less fun for everybody.

[/$0.02]

Bobby Archer
2011-05-16, 08:25 PM
You know, there's no reason to argue about it. Optimization ability isn't mutually exclusive of roleplaying ability. (I'm not sure the grammar's correct, there, but I've had a very long day, and I'm fairly certain you get the point.)

As I stated earlier, it's a matter of taste. I choose not to optimize, after having done it heavily for a couple of years. I felt that all my characters played the same, so I chose to go back to low-op games. The characters in these games flow better for me.

Neither way is "right." Neither way is "wrong." Neither way is unfun for everybody. Both ways are unfun for somebody, though. If you don't like plodding through a thousand and one books to make a character, join a low-op group, and stay away from high-op groups. If you do like it, join a high-op group, and stay away from low-op groups. High-op characters in low-op groups (and, equally, low-op characters in high-op groups) make the game less fun for everybody.

[/$0.02]

Agreed, agreed, a thousand times agreed.

dsmiles
2011-05-16, 08:27 PM
Agreed, agreed, a thousand times agreed.I didn't feel that way before, to be fair, but there are a couple of people here in the Playground that helped me over that syndrome.

Lord Loss
2011-05-16, 08:37 PM
1. No. Skill Focus is meh, and feats don't have that much of an impact on role-playing (as opposed to stats and skillpoints)

2.Maybe, maybe not. Feats have never meant much to me roleplaying wise, so I'm leaning towards no.

3.Totally. I've done similar thing si nthe past.

4.I've done so, not with a rogue, but still a character that needed high physical stats (a ranger)

5. I'm playing one at the moment, so yes, definitely.

6. Yes, I do so frequently.

7. I'd build something with no stat synergy for roleplay reasons. Probably not roy, though, as I don't enjoy playing fighters (usually, anyway).

Cadian 9th
2011-05-16, 08:43 PM
Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?
Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?
Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?
Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?
Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?
Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?
Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?


1. Yes. I rarely play druid, however, because I can't deal with the limits of the class (I often take ranger and master of many forms). In high opt, I rarely go druid because the power level is fixed once you get all the feats, when compared to for example, a wizard or cleric. Skill Focus, not unless I'm trying to get it as a pre-req, and if I do, I'll get it by visiting a magical location (such as the Frog's fane in CSco).

2. Daring Outlaw's pretty good anyway. I rarely find room for either.

3. If I could afford it. I dislike the fluff of barbarians in general and concept.

4. I'd play a Beguiler or Factotum, actually. More on this later.

5. I've done so before, and actually have the flaw of neglecting con and selecting flaws like Weak. It makes me more cautious :smallwink:

6. Yes. But I rarely take many levels in fighter, so yeah.

Overral, I tend to conceptualize first. I think about what and who my character is, and then move on to build it. Half of the reason is because I can't finalize what I want to build, so I decide who the character is first. The other half of the reason is because I have the ability to optimize to a character concept and make it work.

I tend, also, to never look at the fluff that accompanies mechanical elements - such as who fighters are, druids are, " like all rogues, you are a coward ", and so when I build to my concept, I select things which allow me to fuffil the concept.

For example, your " Dwarven Sorcerer/Bard " concept. I'll extend it to bard, because I like bard as a concept, and he'll be a leader of a squad of dwarven praetorians who sings ballads of the great deeds. His songs in battle add power to his allies and he's a great leader. For that, I'd take levels in Harmonious Knight (CoV), Warblade (taking White Raven stances and maneuvers), Initiate of Milil (Getting the fluff waived), Bard for 1 level, perhaps Words of Creation, then Song of the White Raven and possibly move into Sublime Chord to get stuff like Mass Bull's Strength and what have you. So I took only one level in bard, but he can inspire effectively, fight pretty well, and lead a group to battle. His -2 to Charisma (I'd likely select a subrace that'd not penalize charisma) wouldn't matter too much.

However, the other, mechanics first approach is fine. The mechanics first is excellent if you're joining an existing game and/or need to fill a prescribed role.

Finally, I don't think Roy is that intelligent. He's like, int 12, 14 at a stretch. Remember, 20 intelligence is superhuman intellect, a genius, and 12/14 is really quite smart.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-16, 08:48 PM
Because that's not how I envisioned the character and that's not the character I want to play. I understand that you wouldn't choose the same abilities or classes I would but I'm not asking you to play this character. And if I'm okay with it and no one else at the table is rending their garments because of my unoptimization, why shouldn't I play it?

Maybe I just want to do something different without having to know what's in half a dozen supplements. For most games I play, I only own the core book and maybe one or two supplements. Digging through books and optimizing character builds are not fun for me. I pick a character's stats and abilities based on the character concept I've come up with. Sometimes they wind up powerful, sometimes not. I care far less about that than about the roleplaying. I'd rather get through character creation and start playing.

Maybe I'm not explaining this right. I'm not talking about tearing through the whole Complete series and most of Forgotten Realms/Eberron for that one obscure feat that gives you that extra +1 to damage that nobody ever thought possible; what I'm talking about is basically, at heart, "if you want an arcane-user that doesn't rely on intellect, but instead uses natural talent and their ability to affect people, well... That's what a Sorcerer is for."

I don't see why there can't be a happy middle-ground here.

Bobby Archer
2011-05-16, 09:25 PM
Maybe I'm not explaining this right. I'm not talking about tearing through the whole Complete series and most of Forgotten Realms/Eberron for that one obscure feat that gives you that extra +1 to damage that nobody ever thought possible; what I'm talking about is basically, at heart, "if you want an arcane-user that doesn't rely on intellect, but instead uses natural talent and their ability to affect people, well... That's what a Sorcerer is for."

I don't see why there can't be a happy middle-ground here.

In that example sure. "An arcane-user that doesn't rely on intellect, but instead uses natural talent and their ability to affect people" is the definition of Sorcerer. But if I want to play a highly intelligent, not terribly strong melee combatant who finds sneak attacks dishonorable and has no interest or exposure to the wilderness, then a Fighter fits best.

In this case, I don't think we're necessarily on different pages. All I'm saying is that I'm more interested in picking whatever classes/abilities/whatever fit the character I've envisioned. I'm not specifically setting out to create an optimized or unoptimized character build.

To make that point, I was trying to pick a specific example of a character that leads to an unoptimized build. So, to make the example, I had to start with the unoptimized build from above and then come up with a character concept that would fit it. I'm guessing this is where the mis-communication's coming from.

Normally, I'd start with a character in mind and build from there based on what that character would be. And if that wound up with a high-int, low-str unoptimized Fighter, I'm happy with that.

Mastikator
2011-05-16, 11:21 PM
Am I really being asked to choose between "strong" and "strong and also smart"? [snip]

The question is simple: When creating a character, do you a) decide the fluff first and mold the stats around that. Or b) decide on the stats first and mold the fluff around that.
And a follow up, when and if you come to an impasse between stat and fluff, which takes priority?

Jay R
2011-05-16, 11:23 PM
Your questions seem to assume that I have to start either with an imagined character separate from competence or a mechanical set of skill levels devoid of personality. I can't work either of those ways. My goal is a character defined by his personality, whose build is effective enough to allow him to succeed within his personality.



1. Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?

I've certainly taken spells based on character conception, but they've been based on what would make that variety of character good at what he does. My current mage/thief has spells aimed at being a thief, not at combat.


2. Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?

Yes, of course. I built a super-hero in Champions with exactly this characteristic - but a lot of defenses to go with it.


3. Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?

It's not possible to not have mechanical reasons to do it, as well as RP reasons. The chieftain will need and use that force of personality.


4. Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?

What does "without serious benefits" mean? I will not deliberately build a ineffective character, but I have built two middle-aged super-heroes, with low physical abilities, along with the increased mental abilities.


5. Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?

I don't imagine characters that are poor to play. But I'm currently playing an elven thief/mage who can't use a longbow.


6. Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?

Yes, but how I imagine the character would include staying out of the line of fire. My current elf has a CON of 11, which is his lowest stat. But he stays behind the Paladin, Fighter and Ranger. CON bonuses are for the meat-shields.


7. Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

Nope. I'm a Ph.D. in Operations Research (Mathematical Optimization). I can't imagine no mental stat synergy, so I wouldn't succeed in playing him.

As I said, my goal is a character defined by his personality, whose build is effective enough to allow him to succeed within his personality. I tell my fencing students in the SCA that if they want to role-play during a fencing bout, step one is to improve their fencing, because you can't role-play unless you can stay alive.

I have succeeded in composing a poem while fighting my opponent, and killing him on the final line. That cannot be done by putting fighting optimization above personality and role-playing, or by putting role-playing above fighting optimization.

Jay R
2011-05-16, 11:27 PM
The question is simple: When creating a character, do you a) decide the fluff first and mold the stats around that.

Neither. I try to come up with an interesting character who is competent at a clearly useful set of things. Trying to put either one first messes that up.


And a follow up, when and if you come to an impasse between stat and fluff, which takes priority?

If I reach an impasse between the characterization and the build, then the character is wrong, and I start over. An ineffective character is as uninteresting to play as a characterless bundle of stats and skills.

Mastikator
2011-05-17, 12:03 AM
"Being competent at task X" is fluff. Fluff isn't just "my characters favorite color is green".

If you go with "I want a human who is competent at sword fighting so fighter class with weapon focus in swords is what I'll take" then that's the fluff approach.
The stat approach is "I want to play a barbarian with 18 str and 16 dex and whirling frenzy variant so I'll play a fast and angry half orc".

Maybe I'm biased because I'm a fluff kind of guy, but the way I see it, fluff is everything before it's abstracted into mechanics and numbers.

The-Mage-King
2011-05-17, 12:08 AM
If you go with "I want a human who is competent at sword fighting so fighter class with weapon focus in swords is what I'll take" then that's the fluff approach.


If, by competent, you mean "able to swing one without a penalty", then that works. If you mean otherwise, stop playing a fighter. The wizard can do better than you! Play a Warblade instead.

Lonely Tylenol
2011-05-17, 04:52 AM
The question is simple: When creating a character, do you a) decide the fluff first and mold the stats around that. Or b) decide on the stats first and mold the fluff around that.
And a follow up, when and if you come to an impasse between stat and fluff, which takes priority?

Well, I start with fluff and mold the stats around that. My stat choices for the Wizard were dictated by features of his character, as outlined in my first post. The features themselves seem very meta-minded, but it was my first character, and I didn't really know INT, CON and DEX were the three primary stat features of the Wizard (I was fortunate enough to get four good stats, so I dumped STR and CHA, since my character was weak and had a biting, sarcastic personality/was short with people).

When I rolled up my Rogue, I did so with the mindset that he was a charming, charismatic man, with much drive and ambition, and the intellect and skills to back it up--but a tendency to foolishly leap into dangerous situations or take unnecessarily risky moves to advance his agenda. His physique wasn't remarkable, so he often got by on his wits, and learned to run fast and far when things weren't going his way.

When I rolled his stats, I got three good stats--which I devoted to CHA, DEX and INT, in order of importance. I got one decent stat, which went to CON. STR and WIS were my dump stats.

What I will often do, in these situations, is decide my stats based on how I developed the character--but decide a class based on what these attributes, strengths and weaknesses entail. Usually this is just a common-sense application of what the stats already lead toward. I mean, in the former example, I wanted a character that was bookish and intellectual, and, lo and behold--the Wizard. In the latter, I wanted a cunning, charismatic character, who was more the "roguish" sort of evil (not necessarily doing evil for the sake of evil, but more for the sake of climbing the social ladder and living the "good life")... And, lo and behold--the Rogue. The fact that these features make a good Rogue (a specific subset of Rogue, mind you) are just extending what my character is to apply his strengths and weaknesses to his skill set.

dsmiles
2011-05-17, 05:01 AM
If, by competent, you mean "able to swing one without a penalty", then that works. If you mean otherwise, stop playing a fighter. The wizard can do better than you! Play a Warblade instead.Here's a crazy thought: What if they don't want to play a warblade?

Not everybody plays by the same standards here. In a low-op group, a fighter can certainly keep up. Hell, a monk can keep up in a low op group. There's no need to force your standard of play on anyone, let alone everyone.

Not everyone is as interested in the tactical wargame as you seem to be, some (probably many) are more interested in the cooperative storytelling aspect of DnD. And before you ask, "Why play DnD at all, then?" Not everyone wants to learn a new system, some people play DnD more out of tradition than a desire to play DnD, and some people can only afford to invest in one system and they've already invested in DnD.

J.Gellert
2011-05-17, 05:42 AM
Note: My experience with this if from D&D, but I suppose that it applies to all RPGs with mental and physical stats.

This is the standard character creation process for Mutants & Masterminds. It's point-buy, and acquiring power is really easy - so one tends to focus on how one pictures the character.

It helps that there are no races/classes, so if I want to play a specific character that's on my mind, I needn't worry what race/class combination works best. I just pick the stats and make sure I hit the PL.

Knaight
2011-05-17, 06:25 AM
This is the standard character creation process for Mutants & Masterminds. It's point-buy, and acquiring power is really easy - so one tends to focus on how one pictures the character.

It helps that there are no races/classes, so if I want to play a specific character that's on my mind, I needn't worry what race/class combination works best. I just pick the stats and make sure I hit the PL.

In general if there are no classes, one builds from concept. M&M, GURPS, Savage Worlds, Fudge, whatever, one has to operate from concept onward. Fudge is particularly good about this, as attributes and skills are not by default linked, which means that if one wants to have, for instance, a talented swordsman who isn't necessarily all that strong or agile, but merely knows what they are doing they don't have to pay a huge amount for it.

potatocubed
2011-05-17, 09:09 AM
1. No. Natural Spell is just too useful to pass up.

2. I have no idea what Craven is. I suspect it's a flaw, so yes I would refrain from taking it: I disapprove of merits and flaws in non-point-based systems on principle.

3. I always give my characters high Charisma. I have no interest in playing a nobody.

4. Yes. If my concept was 'middle-aged rogue' then I'd see what that gave me in terms of bonuses and penalties, and build around that.

5. I have played a dwarf bard. He was awesome.

6. No, for the same reason as Natural Spell. Con is just too useful to dump. I did play a Str 4 goblin for a while, though, and he was also awesome.

7. Yup. I mean, not in 3.5, but that's because fighters in 3.5 are boring. I'd do it in 4e though, or other systems where being brainy has no effect on your fighting ability.

Broadly speaking, when I design a character I come up with the concept first and then attach mechanics to that. I try to avoid obviously bad ideas (Con 3) and things I don't like (flaws, elves) but I don't object to a character having a weakness or two and I don't strive to wring every drop of power from a build.

It's the 'voluntary weakness' aspect that I see less of these days. I think playing someone who has a glaring flaw (like a stat at 6 or lower) can generate some great characters and some fun play, but all I see is '32 point buy'.

Incanur
2011-05-17, 09:52 AM
The 3.x model that makes smart warriors necessarily worse in combat drives me crazy. Why not separate the two spheres?

PersonMan
2011-05-17, 10:07 AM
The 3.x model that makes smart warriors necessarily worse in combat drives me crazy. Why not separate the two spheres?

It doesn't necessarily make them worse-it's just that, unless you're, say, rolling for stats and get enough high scores to put one in Int, you'll be diverting resources into "being smart" that could have gone to "hit better" or "take more hits". So, to compare to others, you either need to make your Int another resource(Int-to-damage, etc.), get more resources(higher point buy, etc.) or use your other resources more efficiently(optimize).

I've found that optimizing actually allows me to make my characters more diverse and choose things that aren't all that great. If you're above average already, then spending resources on stuff that doesn't help you get ahead doesn't hurt you as much, but if you need all of your resources to keep up, then you have problems if you want to divert them to other things.

Incanur
2011-05-17, 10:22 AM
It doesn't necessarily make them worse-it's just that, unless you're, say, rolling for stats and get enough high scores to put one in Int, you'll be diverting resources into "being smart" that could have gone to "hit better" or "take more hits".

Yeah, so it makes them relatively worse and forces players to choose between combat effectiveness and everything else. Classes such as the warblade do reduce this problem, but I would prefer a system in which everyone had similar access to social and knowledge skills.


If you're above average already, then spending resources on stuff that doesn't help you get ahead doesn't hurt you as much, but if you need all of your resources to keep up, then you have problems if you want to divert them to other things.

But no firm standards of comparison exist in 3.x D&D. The designers assume a power level so low that any experienced gamer can easily raise the bar. At the same time, the theoretical limit of optimization spirals upward into infinity. As such, levels alone don't do what they're supposed to and let you handily determine a character's strength. Only a careful social contract prevents players from breaking the game, which can even happen by accident.

Bobby Archer
2011-05-17, 10:25 AM
It's the 'voluntary weakness' aspect that I see less of these days. I think playing someone who has a glaring flaw (like a stat at 6 or lower) can generate some great characters and some fun play, but all I see is '32 point buy'.

See, that's what I love to do. I once played in a V:tM MET LARP where I took the maximum amount of Flaws...and then also bought the custom 5-point "ST Special" Flaw (basically a mystery flaw assigned by the STs). I got nothing in exchange for that last flaw, just the fun of having a high-point flaw dropped in my lap. I just have this attraction to defining characters by their failings.

Yukitsu
2011-05-17, 01:50 PM
Would you refrain from taking Natural Spell as your 6th level spell, because the druid you imagine would be represented better with Skill Focus (whatever)?

No, since I should always keep in mind I'm playing an adventurer, not a tradesperson who happens to be on an adventure. If I want to play as dead weight, I can RP it for a session, die horribly as is appropriate, and play something that can contribute.


Would you refrain from taking Craven, because the daring outlaw you imagine is indeed a daredevil who's not afraid of anything?

Yes, because I could then take a different feat that increases my damage instead of craven without making me a coward. In fact, I'd only take craven if I wanted to play a nervous, backstabbing weasel.


Would you give high Charisma to your barbarian not because you have any mechanical reason (like fear tactics) to do so, but because the barbarian you imagine is a chieftain with a tremendous force of personality?

No, because I don't view barbarians in that positive pseudo Rousseau manner.


Would you play a middle-aged Rogue, sucking up the penalties and without serious benefits, because the thief you imagine happens to be 40 years old?

Yes, though partly because a rogue doesn't get notably worse with inferior stats, and since I generally play skill focused rogues.


Would you play a dwarf bard or sorcerer (charisma hit applies), because you happened to imagine a dwarf bard or sorcerer?

I don't play races with charisma penalties for any class, except for Elan.


Would you ever dump Constitution, because that's how you imagine your character?

Yes, but only because I know that hit points are generally spurious when a character is played tactically. In other words, HPs are for sissies.


Would you build Roy Greenhilt (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html)? High mental stats, no mental stat synergy whatsoever?

No, though I would take mechanical abilities that synergies with those stats. Playing a smart character that is utterly incompetent, then having them expose themselves to dangers for which they are completely unprepared is poor RP (a smart yet incompetent person would hire someone else. Roy gets by in that he seems to have all high stats). The inverse, playing a stupid wizard however, would be appropriate, but I would get killed off immediately, since I'm useless baggage who wouldn't survive a fight regardless.

I have my stats simulate something, and I stick very close to the archetype, but all characters have to be adventurers. Part of being an adventurer, is being competent when dealing with dangerous situations. If they aren't, they should die or be forcefully retired, as if you're in this group, you certainly don't want to be paying dead weight like that.

Nerd-o-rama
2011-05-17, 02:32 PM
90% of the discussion you're going to find about Dungeons & Dragons on an internet forum is mechanics-based, and the other 10% is amusing gazebo anecdotes and Edition sniping. It's not so much that no one assigns stats based on roleplaying anymore as that no one talks about roleplaying on the internet. They just do it, and maybe tell a story about something funny that happened later when they're not trying to optimize Monks into something useful.

That said, I do sometimes have a problem with this because I want characters who are good at everything. For example, I wanted a Warblade with a larger-than-life personality for my most recent character, but I went ahead and left him with merely above-average Charisma in favor of boosting intelligence, the concept morphing in my mind to more of a person whose loudness is matched by his natural abrasiveness, and who's a whole lot smarter than he lets on because he likes giving his opponents (and allies) a nice surprise in combat. He's still "leadery" in his abilities, having good Diplomacy and Intimidate and taking a number of White Raven maneuvers for the sake of leading his comrades from the front. I also made Constitution only a mid-tier stat because I figured he was more focused on flashy swordsmanship than endurance, and I feel he does things appropriately to his dumped Wisdom.

"Bring a backup ranged weapon? Pah! I'll just jump and hit them!"

And then he can do that because he's a Warblade.

HeadlessMermaid
2011-05-17, 05:14 PM
I've been reading everyone's replies with great interest, finding them very illuminating.


No, since I should always keep in mind I'm playing an adventurer, not a tradesperson who happens to be on an adventure. If I want to play as dead weight, I can RP it for a session, die horribly as is appropriate, and play something that can contribute.
Wow. Just... wow. Let's take one step back here.

The question was "would you take Skill Focus (X) instead of Natural Spell". And wondering whether you'll take Natural Spell or not means that you simply cannot be a "tradesperson who happens to be on an adventure". It means you are a Wildshaping Druid. A full caster. Who can wild shape. And who has an animal companion. Shiny Tier 1 Class. How can you possibly be "dead weight"? :smalleek:


I don't view barbarians in that positive pseudo Rousseau manner.
Being able to imagine a barbarian with high charisma once in a while is hardly an indication of viewing barbarians in an a priori positive light, and has nothing to do with Rousseau.

Now, being unable to imagine a barbarian with high charisma, yes, that is indeed an indication. Of something.

Yukitsu
2011-05-17, 07:29 PM
I've been reading everyone's replies with great interest, finding them very illuminating.


Wow. Just... wow. Let's take one step back here.

The question was "would you take Skill Focus (X) instead of Natural Spell". And wondering whether you'll take Natural Spell or not means that you simply cannot be a "tradesperson who happens to be on an adventure". It means you are a Wildshaping Druid. A full caster. Who can wild shape. And who has an animal companion. Shiny Tier 1 Class. How can you possibly be "dead weight"? :smalleek:

You know all those stories where there is someone arguing monks are better than druids? The ones that don't take natural spell, have a wolf companion, and either wildshape into something like a hawk, or don't cast spells? And then argue that clearly druids being uber is an exaggeration, or that monks are in fact good? Yeah.

Basically, they're tier 1 because they have a lot of potential, and can fulfill a wide variety of roles all at the same time. It's easily tapped potential, but when you go out of your way to not take it, it's very easy for even the druid to be very sub-optimal. Not taking natural spell isn't indicative in and of itself that you'll be crippled, nor is taking skill focus, but they're definitely a huge leap in the direction.


Being able to imagine a barbarian with high charisma once in a while is hardly an indication of viewing barbarians in an a priori positive light, and has nothing to do with Rousseau.

Now, being unable to imagine a barbarian with high charisma, yes, that is indeed an indication. Of something.

Yes, I'm a snooty aristocrat, that hears everything they say as "Bar bar bar bar" like the Greeks did when they made up the word. :smalltongue: I also view the charismatic leaders of germanic tribes, the celts and the vikings more as fighters, since barely controlled rage weren't the hallmarks of the leaders of those people, it was a specialty of certain shock troops. If someone else wants to play a horn helmeted shirtless axe wielding angry guy as the leader of some sort of anachronistic barbarian tribe, I'm fine with it, but I'll be snickering behind their back at that.

rayne_dragon
2011-05-17, 07:54 PM
When I first started D&D stats were rolled 3d6 in order, so we actually spent our time explaining why our characters had such stats.

Since then, in D&D I've come to prefer to optimize my character to some degree and justify it after the fact, but in other systems I still make characters using the "simulation" method. Especially in a system like Ars Magica where the character creation encourages such a method.


[SIZE="1"]
I should note that completely irrational choices, like dumping your casting stat, were never an option. Even in the old days, no one ever did that.

Uhm... like my WIS 10 Cleric? Be careful what you suggest people would never do, because some people like to play against type regardless of the consequence (or dice rolls in this case).

Cadian 9th
2011-05-17, 08:29 PM
When I first started D&D stats were rolled 3d6 in order, so we actually spent our time explaining why our characters had such stats.

Uhm... like my WIS 10 Cleric? Be careful what you suggest people would never do, because some people like to play against type regardless of the consequence (or dice rolls in this case).

Your Wis 10 cleric is still actually pretty good. Domains, turn undead, maybe lore and 6 skill points, pretty good base attack and good saves. Regardless, unless the rest of your group does that kind of... intentional limiting, you're being a hindrance, and if you're supposed to be a caster, you're letting the DM down as well as the party. The balance is, I believe, being able to fuffil your role while making yourself and the others enjoy the game.

The overrall power level shouldn't matter, even if you've got one character hideously more powerful than another, as long as you and the others are enjoying the game.

onthetown
2011-05-17, 09:03 PM
I know I do it... I rarely create a character before I have an actual concept in my head, and even at the start of a new campaign I'll spend my prep time thinking up the character. I dumped Wisdom in favor of Intelligence for one of my Ranger characters; she was a notably bright girl who was supposed to have been trained into a Wizard for her family's "clan" sort of thing, but various circumstances led her to taking up Ranger. So her high Int and lack of Wis is just a part of her character, and it doesn't bother me that my epic level Ranger can barely cast Entangle. Not that I'd go out of my way to get Ranger spells anyway, but you see what I mean.

Recently, with a Runequest campaign, we rolled our stats in order because of the way the system works (I guess; I don't quite understand it yet). I've got a very small (size 8, which I think is just about the lowest number I could roll for it), very agile, averagely strong and really ugly character out of it. We also rolled for parent occupation (what you're doing before you start the adventure) and the type of civilization you're from, which made her a herder in a barbarian tribe. I've spent the last few weeks trying to come up with how a short, ugly barbarian shepherdess managed to become the rogue of the party (when somebody says barbarian, goat herding and rogue skills don't exactly come to mind). It's refreshing, but it might not work in D&D; there aren't any classes in Runequest, whereas in D&D you would say, "Short and agile? Rogue class. Don't worry about her face, we'll get a good looking Bard," as opposed to Runequest's, "Short and agile? She's definitely sneaky, but maybe I'll have her be good at magic and swordsmanship too."

I'm rambling, I guess. Yes, I do still do what you asked in the OP.

HeadlessMermaid
2011-05-18, 08:02 AM
Yes, I'm a snooty aristocrat, that hears everything they say as "Bar bar bar bar" like the Greeks did when they made up the word. :smalltongue: I also view the charismatic leaders of germanic tribes, the celts and the vikings more as fighters, since barely controlled rage weren't the hallmarks of the leaders of those people, it was a specialty of certain shock troops. If someone else wants to play a horn helmeted shirtless axe wielding angry guy as the leader of some sort of anachronistic barbarian tribe, I'm fine with it, but I'll be snickering behind their back at that.
Ah. Fair enough, then. :)
(For a minute there, I got the entirely wrong impression. :smalltongue:)

Roderick_BR
2011-05-20, 07:36 AM
Yes. I develop a character concept first, THEN I bother with trying to build it mechanically, with proper adjust according to limits in what I can use.

Greenish
2011-05-21, 10:50 AM
But if I want to play a highly intelligent, not terribly strong melee combatant who finds sneak attacks dishonorable and has no interest or exposure to the wilderness, then a Fighter fits best.It doesn't. Warblade, factotum, swashbuckler and a dozen other classes, variants and combos fit much better. After all, if you decide to live and die by the sword, you aren't too smart if you aren't using your smarts for it.

"Being competent at task X" is fluff.Yeah, but if your crunch can't back that up, well, your character is bad (or delusional), not as a build but as a character.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but if the characters fluff and crunch don't match, you're (in my opinion) doing it wrong.

If you lose to a random goblin with a sharp stick, your character concept can't be "Master Swordsman", it's "someone who thinks he's a master swordsman". :smallamused:

I have no idea what Craven is. I suspect it's a flaw, so yes I would refrain from taking it: I disapprove of merits and flaws in non-point-based systems on principle.It's a feat. Gain extra SA damage, can't be immune to fear, small penalty on saves vs. fear.

90% of the discussion you're going to find about Dungeons & Dragons on an internet forum is mechanics-based, and the other 10% is amusing gazebo anecdotes and Edition sniping. It's not so much that no one assigns stats based on roleplaying anymore as that no one talks about roleplaying on the internet.Well, there are also campaign journals.

Jubal_Barca
2011-05-21, 11:34 AM
I love playing naff characters. I know that sounds weird, but the fewer tools you have to solve a problem, the more fun it is trying to find ways around your own limitations. So I always simulate rather than optimise.

The last 3 RPGs I've played:
- Shadowrun, a dwarf private investigator. I kept bringing axes to gunfights.
- WHFRP, a halfling political agitator. I had a bow and arrow, but most of what I did usefully was planning on behalf of the characters who could fight and wheedling information out of the NPCs. That wasn't really the point though, the point was that I was comedy gold, I threw a bagel at a beastman and tried to convert an Imperial captain to Communism for goodness' sake.
- Currently DnD 1st, a half-elf wizard. I have 4HP, my only spells are sleep and charm person (and it turns out those are useless since most of the campaign involves fighting undead). A problem? Of course not, I've been doing my best taking opportunities to run in and help out some friends with my crappy sword, have done some unbelievably stupid heroic moves, and have mostly been useful in using my brain to solve problems (an old ghoul-infested wine cellar may just be a combat ground to some roleplayers, but when there's a barrel of lantern oil around it can also be a very good molotov cocktail factory.

So yeah, I make the characters I want to play, and roleplay them to their untimely deaths. And it's great fun. :smallbiggrin:

Incanur
2011-05-21, 01:07 PM
I don't mean to offend anyone, but if the characters fluff and crunch don't match, you're (in my opinion) doing it wrong.

By this standard, 3.x does it wrong professionally. Fluff and crunch only match by accident as far as I can tell.


If you lose to a random goblin with a sharp stick, your character concept can't be "Master Swordsman", it's "someone who thinks he's a master swordsman".

Indeed. While that could be a fun character to roleplay, the opaqueness and arbitrariness of what actually constitutes prowess proves frustrating. Even a moderately well-built warrior archetype based on popular fantasy works will get shown up by bizarre combinations stitched together from a score of splatbooks.

oxybe
2011-05-21, 01:18 PM
thankfully, since fluff is mutable i've yet to have a problem with my fluff and crunch mixing up correctly.

Greenish
2011-05-21, 01:58 PM
By this standard, 3.x does it wrong professionally. Fluff and crunch only match by accident as far as I can tell.True enough.

Indeed. While that could be a fun character to roleplay, the opaqueness and arbitrariness of what actually constitutes prowess proves frustrating. Even a moderately well-built warrior archetype based on popular fantasy works will get shown up by bizarre combinations stitched together from a score of splatbooks.Well, then the problem is having both in the same campaign. My rule of thumb is that a character should fit in the world, the party, and the power level of the campaign.

Besides, a "bizarre combination stiched together from a score of splatbooks" may well be a "moderately well-built warrior archetype based on popular fantasy works". :smallamused: