PDA

View Full Version : Form over Function?



PangolinPie
2012-05-02, 02:12 AM
Just curious about this...I always tend to see people emphasizing optimization of character builds and trying to max out abilities...but does anyone ever sacrifice the best stats for more flare and substance of character?

For instance I'm currently considering playing a Sorcerer and prestiging as the Alienist PRSC, focused on a mad man who worships "The Patient One" (BoVD), an eldritch god of madness and destruction. Now I know the Alienist PRSC, even the Pathfinder variant is summoning based but greatly limits your options, barring both Celestial and Infernal options but in this case its more the overall theme and "flare" that appeals to me.

The idea of roleplaying this lunatic who slowly descends into madness as the game progresses, working to become closer to his deity and transcend the mortal coil appeals to me on so many levels.

I always tend to emphasize the actual roleplaying and characterization aspect over stat building...or at least try to find a good balance. Plus having major flaws and shortcomings always makes the character more well rounded even at high levels where you really have to think on your feet. If your GM/DM is worth his weight in dice he'll always have ways for you to survive most certain doom if you're clever enough.

PersonMan
2012-05-02, 04:22 AM
Just curious about this...I always tend to see people emphasizing optimization of character builds and trying to max out abilities...but does anyone ever sacrifice the best stats for more flare and substance of character?

-snip-

I always tend to emphasize the actual roleplaying and characterization aspect over stat building...or at least try to find a good balance. Plus having major flaws and shortcomings always makes the character more well rounded even at high levels where you really have to think on your feet.

The main reason one sees optimization and character builds being discussed more than roleplaying is that...well, 'help me roleplay my X' isn't something normally asked. If I want to roleplay a warrior mage but didn't know how to build one, I can ask for help. But few people will ask for help roleplaying their character.

The bolded part is what most people do. Ignoring optimization means you can end up with an utterly useless character, who can't even fulfill the goals of the concept (a master swordsman who can't hit anything, for example). Ignoring roleplaying leads to...well, a lack of roleplaying.

As for the personal question, I often make not-entirely-optimal decisions when making a character, which is one reason why I enjoy playing Tier 1 classes. If I'm building on one of the the best chassi in the game, I can afford to choose some roleplaying things that are bad mechanically and still contribute to the party.

Jeff the Green
2012-05-02, 04:49 AM
I think most people do. I mean, I'm adept enough at optimization to make a caster strong enough to break most campaigns, but I really prefer tier-3-ish characters. As a minor example, for a quest my group is currently on, alchemist's fire would have been ideal, but my character is afraid of fire and using it as a weapon disgusts her, so she went for the more expensive and less effective alchemical items. Likewise, another character would have really benefited from Vow of Nonviolence, but, well, she's not exactly what you'd call a nice person.

And building off of PersonMan's reply, another reason people offer the really powerful stuff when asked for advice is that it's a lot easier to tune down than tune up. So if you want to play a blaster wizard, it's a lot easier to take a mailman build and then scale down the carnage than to start with just the class and build up to the appropriate power level.

W3bDragon
2012-05-02, 05:09 AM
Just curious about this...I always tend to see people emphasizing optimization of character builds and trying to max out abilities...but does anyone ever sacrifice the best stats for more flare and substance of character?

Indeed. My last character in pathfinder, a paladin/oracle gish who needed high stats in str, con, cha and decent dex, had his human +2 stat boost placed on wisdom, just because I don't like roleplaying low wisdom characters.

Knight13
2012-05-02, 11:29 AM
My characters tend to be mid-op at the highest specifically because I prefer flavor over function. I also despise dips and refuse to use any build that doesn't make sense in-universe. Even if a DM allowed it, I would never make one of those stacked template monstrosities I've seen on here, because it's silly and makes no sense.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-02, 12:05 PM
"Stooooooooormwiiiiiiiiiiind!" *shakes fist at the sky* "Infamous wretch! When shall we put you down for good?! When shall you cease inflicting your curse of ignorance on the innocents?! Curse you, Stormwind! Curse you to the depths of the endless void!"

Now, seriously: Stormwind Fallacy. Look it up, it's basic roleplayer's knowledge. People recommend high-OP builds because they know that you don't need to make optimisation sacrifices for roleplaying. You can have exactly the character you want to roleplay while still having a sky-high OP. And sky-high OP is usually recommended because optimisation is not about power, it's about options. It's better to be a wizard with a hundred different spells to choose from and willingly restrain oneself from overshadowing the party than being an unoptimised fighter or paladin who has no options but "I full attack" or "I smite evil."

Shadowknight12
2012-05-02, 12:06 PM
"Stooooooooormwiiiiiiiiiiind!" *shakes fist at the sky* "Infamous wretch! When shall we put you down for good?! When shall you cease inflicting your curse of ignorance on the innocents?! Curse you, Stormwind! Curse you to the depths of the endless void!"

Now, seriously: Stormwind Fallacy. Look it up, it's basic roleplayer's knowledge. People recommend high-OP builds because they know that you don't need to make optimisation sacrifices for roleplaying. You can have exactly the character you want to roleplay while still having a sky-high OP. And sky-high OP is usually recommended because optimisation is not about power, it's about options. It's better to be a wizard with a hundred different spells to choose from and willingly restrain oneself from overshadowing the party than being an unoptimised fighter or paladin who has no options but "I full attack" or "I smite evil."

prufock
2012-05-02, 12:54 PM
you don't need to make optimisation sacrifices for roleplaying.

While I agree with the basic premise, character design options certainly do influence roleplay. For instance, if I want to roleplay a character that, before adventuring, designed, built, and sold ships, and was a trained sailor, it would make little sense for my character to have no ranks in craft: ship and profession: sailor. The ranks might be better spent in Use Magic Device, but a character that is thematically trained at what you could call "life skills" (like profession, knowledge, and craft that don't have much in-game benefit for an adventurer) SHOULD have ranks in those skills, despite it being sub-optimal.

It would be difficult to role-play a character who is a trained sailor if he can't succeed on basic profession: sailor checks.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-02, 01:36 PM
While I agree with the basic premise, character design options certainly do influence roleplay. For instance, if I want to roleplay a character that, before adventuring, designed, built, and sold ships, and was a trained sailor, it would make little sense for my character to have no ranks in craft: ship and profession: sailor. The ranks might be better spent in Use Magic Device, but a character that is thematically trained at what you could call "life skills" (like profession, knowledge, and craft that don't have much in-game benefit for an adventurer) SHOULD have ranks in those skills, despite it being sub-optimal.

It would be difficult to role-play a character who is a trained sailor if he can't succeed on basic profession: sailor checks.

The problem with Stormwind's Fallacy is born from simulationist games. A simulationist games restricts freedom for the sake of simulation accuracy. A sailor needs ranks in Profession: Sailor because that's the way the system simulates reality. You cannot have a sailor without ranks in that skill because the game needs mechanics for absolutely everything. The problem with that is, as you say, that you are forced to waste character resources to accurately simulate the character you want to play.

A jury-rigged solution to that problem is asking your DM to give you free character resources specifically to devote to suboptimal areas (in this case, free skill points just for Profession: Sailor). This obviously necessitates maturity on the part of everyone involved to avoid abusing the DM's generosity.

A true fix for that would be to make it so that a character's resources are not all born of the same pool. As is, a character has the same pool of skill points for combat skills, life skills, knowledge, social skills and so on. They have to sacrifice some for others because their resources are limited and are all drawn from the same pool. A way to fix the system would be to separate the skills into categories and assign each class different skill points for each category (presumably leaving some skills, such as Life Skills, exclusively under the province of DM-player agreement).

But this is only solving one small part of the greater problem. The problem is that, under a simulationist game, a sorcerer is a sorcerer and a wizard is a wizard, and they cannot be in any other way (and let's take PF, under a simulationist approach, no character can be an oracle without the Oracle class). You cannot have a character with a sorcerer chassis carrying around a (purely for fluff) spellbook and looking/acting like a typical wizard because he doesn't have the wizard class. This is the main line of division between the people who can divorce crunch from fluff and those who can't. People who can't divide them are strict adherents of the simulationist approach, and they sacrifice the freedom to play the character they want for maximum simulation accuracy. The people who can perform that division get to play the character they want at the expense of an inaccurate simulation.

That's not something with an easy fix. There are only two ways you can satisfy both camps. If we stick to the simulationists' approach, we must create an ungodly amount of new content in order to satisfy every possible build and character concept, because we are sacrificing flexibility and versatility, so we need to compensate that with more options. If we stick to the versatile approach, we need to rework the system from scratch so that whatever is chosen can be applied flexibly rather than having to refluff them (which is what I seek in game design: a game that does not tell a player/DM what to do, but that offers as wide an array of options as possible) in order to enhance the deficient simulation.

Knight13
2012-05-02, 02:37 PM
You cannot have a character with a sorcerer chassis carrying around a (purely for fluff) spellbook and looking/acting like a typical wizard because he doesn't have the wizard class.
Actually, you can do that. S5 even specifically recommends doing precisely that to throw your enemies off. Your sorcerer will still be a sorcerer and won't need the spellbook, but you can certainly carry it around, pretend to use it and wear a pointy hat with stars on it.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-02, 02:43 PM
Actually, you can do that. S5 even specifically recommends doing precisely that to throw your enemies off. Your sorcerer will still be a sorcerer and won't need the spellbook, but you can certainly carry it around, pretend to use it and wear a pointy hat with stars on it.

I did not make that statement lightly. We had an enormous thread a few months ago about the division between crunch and fluff. There is a very large number of people that will tell you that your character is not a wizard. He is a sorcerer. He might bluff people into thinking he's a wizard, but he is actually a sorcerer pretending to be a wizard, not an actual wizard (meaning, you cannot say your character went to wizard college and got a degree in wizardry and has all the wizard's fluff with the sorcerer mechanics). For those people, you cannot play a wizard with a sorcerer chassis.

Man on Fire
2012-05-02, 03:25 PM
While I agree with the basic premise, character design options certainly do influence roleplay. For instance, if I want to roleplay a character that, before adventuring, designed, built, and sold ships, and was a trained sailor, it would make little sense for my character to have no ranks in craft: ship and profession: sailor. The ranks might be better spent in Use Magic Device, but a character that is thematically trained at what you could call "life skills" (like profession, knowledge, and craft that don't have much in-game benefit for an adventurer) SHOULD have ranks in those skills, despite it being sub-optimal.

It would be difficult to role-play a character who is a trained sailor if he can't succeed on basic profession: sailor checks.

I seen once GM who had a certain case - his players were chasing somebody on a pirate ship, they had entire campaing about sailing in pursuit, landing on different islands, facing the storm and sea monsters. At the end did any of them invested even a single point into sailing skill? No. Which is why that GM recommend that in case of such players who care more about optimization than adventure, to give them special points they can ivest in those skills without losing from their usual pool. Of course the same GM was happy when one of his player said "I go to the store and buy myself an apple" because somebody in his game finally spend money on normal things, instead of saving it on sword +3.

As for Optimization vs Roleplay, I'm in for roleplay but during my freeform days I learned that making character with cool and original powers who is useless is pretty bad. In my first game I made character who could drain emotions from people and use them to send as a powerful blast. I also added retrictions to using this power one time per day, which let me pretty useless - while everybody were fighting the boss with their powers I tried to climb to his leg and biet him in the balls (my greatest moment was when I succeded). I'm not used to systems so I preffer to find optimized character build on dandwiki that fits concept of my character and use it that create a character who is interesting but also isn't a hidrance. And sometimes it may have interesting infulence on my character. For example I was looking for build for Orc Berserker character I wanted to play and found one using Tribal Protector Prestige Class which infulenced my character and made it much more interesting - in order to reflect that class choice I came with a concept of chief's daughter who is determined to be strong leader her tribe deserves, which ha more depth than ust raging berserker who likes fighting.

What I don't like is munchkinism, optimizing for the sake of it and not caring about anything bt showing that your character is the best. I hate people who try to steal entire spotlight for themselves and care only about mechancs, not if the game is climatic or not. For example, Emperor Tippy - who read tread about warfare in fantasy setting on 3.5 rules knows how totally berserk I went seeing his idea of clone wizard army or beating entire army with one spell. That was munchkinism - not carying about the climate, about players, just wanting to show that wizards are the best, destroying everything magic is in good fantasy and what magic should be in in a good game, bringing it down to just handful set of spell slots and casting rules. I respect him for his dedication to the game, but I sure as hell won't be every playing with him. Because for me he might understand the rules, but he doesn't understand the game.

EDIT:
Some people found what I said about Tippy above to be rude, so to clarify - I don't really hate him. I didn't had much contact with him and what I had is enough for me, but I mean him no offense. And I'm not calling him a munchkin - I don't know him, I don't know how he plays, he may actually be a good player. But, that one talk was an example of pure muchkinism, even if at heart he would find it wrong. It was enough for me to know I don't want to play with him, because I just don't like to play with people who can abuse rulesystem to do such insane stuff, but I don't know him enough to call him a munchkin. I'm not attacking him and what he respresents and/or stands for, I'm attacking his opinion and what it stands for. I would attack it regardless of who said it.

Ellye
2012-05-02, 05:12 PM
Just curious about this...I always tend to see people emphasizing optimization of character builds and trying to max out abilities...but does anyone ever sacrifice the best stats for more flare and substance of character?That's what the vast majority of players actually do.

The min/max stuff is just a small minority, if you consider all RPG players (or even just all D&D players). It just so happen that they are somewhat common in this forum (it's unsurprising that min/max players are also often the same type of player interested in discussing character builds in a forum).

Yukitsu
2012-05-02, 05:22 PM
In my view of things, there are enough options out there that I can play a concept exactly as I want it without sacrificing any of the power that a high functioning adventurer should be expected to have. I generally see people taking the low power options to fit a concept as being either a bit lazy when it comes to character creation or too busy or they just don't care about that. It's fine to play it that way, but if I spent 2 hours and you spent 30 minutes to rule out a concept, why shouldn't mine be mechanically superior?

Lately, the group I play with have been getting me to help them with the mechanics of their builds, so even if they only have 30 minutes to spare, everyone usually is pretty effective, even if they fall strictly within a sort of "this is my backstory, don't touch it" kind of thing.

Kerrin
2012-05-02, 05:26 PM
I also despise dips and refuse to use any build that doesn't make sense in-universe. Even if a DM allowed it, I would never make one of those stacked template monstrosities I've seen on here, because it's silly and makes no sense.

Woah, this is how I feel about these things and I've posted something similar elsewhere. It's nice to see it stated in a straightfroward manner.

Also, kudos Knight13 for being from the same part of the world as myself!

jackattack
2012-05-02, 05:31 PM
All the time. I like to figure out a good background story, then base my scores and point expenditures to that.

So my fighter who is actually an engineer with combat skills has multiple crafts that most fighters wouldn't. My wizard with a low-noble background has skills and feats for riding and swordplay. And so on.

It really annoys me when other players complain that I've "wasted" a feat or skill points that "should" have gone into optimizing the build.

Averis Vol
2012-05-02, 05:49 PM
i have the pleasure of being in a low op group, where i am our best optimizer, so i can play something like a paladin and still contribute more then the wizard, cleric, crusader, warblade what have you. (obligatory link to "high op paladin"here) (http://www.dndonlinegames.com/profiler/view.php?id=30303) so i have free reign to mix in as much fluff as i want while still being useful. so yea i take a fine mix of both form AND function while i play.

KnightDisciple
2012-05-02, 06:21 PM
What does Profession: Sailor get you that stuff like Climb, Jump, Use Rope, and such on won't?

This is a serious question. Substitute appropriate Pathfinder skills if you feel like it.

But my point is that I'm not sure Profession is good for actually doing anything you can't do with other, more useful-outside-of-sailing skills.

Sith_Happens
2012-05-02, 10:50 PM
What does Profession: Sailor get you that stuff like Climb, Jump, Use Rope, and such on won't?

This is a serious question. Substitute appropriate Pathfinder skills if you feel like it.

But my point is that I'm not sure Profession is good for actually doing anything you can't do with other, more useful-outside-of-sailing skills.

Well, going by 3.5, Stormwrack has rules for using Profession: Sailor as the skill to steer the ship, which is something that I can't think of another skill that easily translates to doing.

Anyways, my preferred approach to building characters is as follows:
1. Decide on my character concept.
2. Determine what, if any character options are required to make that concept work mechanically without too much refluffing.*
Tab2a. If presented a choice between multiple options that reasonably fit both the flavor and function of my concept, pick the most optimal one.
3. Optimize the character as much as possible within the above framework.

* I guess the important point of disagreement here is how much refluffing is "too much." For me, that means maintaining at least the spirit of the original fluff. So (using 3.5 as an example since that where this conflict seems to come up most often) refluffing a Sorcerer as a Wizard or vice-versa is outside the bounds of what I would do, but something like using Unarmed Swordsage instead of Monk or mixing-and-matching levels of various martial classes on a general "warrior"-ish character is fine.

DigoDragon
2012-05-03, 07:28 AM
In my group, I've found that 2/3rd of the players will skimp on optomizing in order to get some good "flair" and personality for their characters. They know how to maximize their characters, but simply choose that balance effect mentioned earlier.

Oddly, the 1/3rd of the group that does optomize tend to be least interested in the game when there's a combat going on. And honestly they're no more effective than the non-optomizers in my games.

Mnemnosyne
2012-05-03, 07:55 AM
When creating a character, eventually I come to the point where I have a pretty good idea of what sort of things I want my character to do. The inspiration can come from various places (including just happening to see a class that can do X cool thing) but in the end, I'm working with a concept of a set of core abilities, and some additional abilities that I'd like to represent in-game.

At that point, I start looking through the rules to find classes, feats, ACF's, and whatever else I might need to match up to the idea I have built. I completely disregard all fluff attached to any of those classes or feats. The only thing that matters at this stage is, mechanically, what can they do for me? Because all that fluff? I'm going to write my own, specific solely to my character, to precisely match the idea I have in mind. I'm not going to pay attention to anything other than the mechanics. If I take a level of Barbarian for rage and pounce from Lion Totem, it doesn't mean I'm a savage warrior who gets really angry sometimes. It means I have a very specific set of mechanical abilities, which I will explain in whatever manner I choose to that fits my character. I'm perfectly comfortable stripping out every bit of fluff from a class and completely rewriting it, because all the mechanical abilities are precisely what I need in order to make my concept work.

Therefore, I rarely sacrifice stats and abilities for fluff. It is very rare for it to be necessary to do so in order to achieve my desired character concept.

prufock
2012-05-03, 08:08 AM
There is a very large number of people that will tell you that your character is not a wizard. He is a sorcerer. He might bluff people into thinking he's a wizard, but he is actually a sorcerer pretending to be a wizard, not an actual wizard (meaning, you cannot say your character went to wizard college and got a degree in wizardry and has all the wizard's fluff with the sorcerer mechanics). For those people, you cannot play a wizard with a sorcerer chassis.

I agree that there are people who may feel that way, but I'm not sure it's a simulation issue... after all, what are you simulating? There's no way to simulate being a sorcerer or wizard. I don't want to get into another drawn-out discussion about the fluff/crunch issue, but I don't think "simulation" is the right term for this.

Of course, this also assumes things about the campaign setting. Are the wizard colleges? Is wizard college a requirement to be a wizard? Can sorcerers not attend wizard college? I think these are all questions that aren't covered by the rule system, only the setting, so as a general rule, having a sorcerer who carries a spellbook and spends time in preparation in the morning and calls himself a wizard is effectively a wizard. Unless there is some sort of "detect class levels" ability (and maybe there is, though I've never seen it) the people that populate the world wouldn't necessarily know the difference.


I seen once GM who had a certain case - his players were chasing somebody on a pirate ship, they had entire campaing about sailing in pursuit, landing on different islands, facing the storm and sea monsters. At the end did any of them invested even a single point into sailing skill? No. Which is why that GM recommend that in case of such players who care more about optimization than adventure, to give them special points they can ivest in those skills without losing from their usual pool.

The GM is certainly free to make all the allowances he wants, I'm not disputing that. But the GM is also free to give characters bonus 9th-level spells, even if they're first-level fighters. These are exceptions to the rules. If the system itself allows for this distinction, so much the better, but it's not a system with which I'm familiar.


What does Profession: Sailor get you that stuff like Climb, Jump, Use Rope, and such on won't?

Naval combat, maneuvering a ship, getting into the Dread Pirate or Legendary Captain prestige class, knowledge of parts of the ship, how to properly secure a jib, demanding a higher price for your services, etc. In short, sailing.

One other thing occurs to me on the topic of sacrificing optimization for flavour: "optimizing" needs an object. Unless you're building a Pun-Pun, you are focusing on some aspect of your character. For instance, even an optimized grappler is not an optimal character. Optimizing has to have a goal. Generally, my character goals are driven by character concept - I've built grapplers, I've built sailors with ridiculous bonuses to profession (sailor).

Malachei
2012-05-03, 09:22 AM
I'm playing a generalist wizard who refuses to learn a single necromancy spell.

Incanus Kindler
2012-05-03, 09:53 AM
I ran a game for a new group once where one guy made everyone else's character. My girlfriend, who wasn't new to roleplaying, was not impressed by the spellcaster that she was handed. Completely optimized, could do a few things impossibly well and nothing else.

She ended up rewriting her character to better suit what she wanted. Put most of her points into charisma, didn't take a single damaging spell, and basically drove the optimizers insane.

Just gonna say, they changed their attitude when she managed to take out a high level dragon with nothing but her words and some flashy uses of prestidigitation...

Just kidding. The optimizers ended up attacking it anyways... Guess which character walked away from that fight unscathed? (Hint: The one that made friends with the dragon.)

Morithias
2012-05-03, 10:11 AM
I did not make that statement lightly. We had an enormous thread a few months ago about the division between crunch and fluff. There is a very large number of people that will tell you that your character is not a wizard. He is a sorcerer. He might bluff people into thinking he's a wizard, but he is actually a sorcerer pretending to be a wizard, not an actual wizard (meaning, you cannot say your character went to wizard college and got a degree in wizardry and has all the wizard's fluff with the sorcerer mechanics). For those people, you cannot play a wizard with a sorcerer chassis.

I fail to see why a sorcerer couldn't have gone to an arcanist academy? Wouldn't it still be easier to master your sorcerer powers if you were taught by someone who had already done it?

Maybe they carry the spellbook in memory of a friend who lost her life to a summoned demon, vowing that even though they're just a sorcerer and not a wizard they'll dedicate their life to fighting demons in her memory, and he carries this spellbook partly to trick their enemies, but also to remind himself daily of her death.

As for the "form over function". I just posted a question about making a mute wizard. I can't think of something more "Form over function" then that, giving up your ability to talk for a class whose core feature basically requires it.

Usually my builds come up as "what do I want to make" (wizard), "what is special about her and her roleplaying quirks" (she's mute), "how do I make this as strong as possible so I'm not holding down the party" (non-verbal spell feat).

I admit I hate stormwind, but I can see why people think it exists, but it's called a fallacy for a reason. Not all optimizers hate roleplaying.

PersonMan
2012-05-03, 10:34 AM
I ran a game for a new group once where one guy made everyone else's character. My girlfriend, who wasn't new to roleplaying, was not impressed by the spellcaster that she was handed. Completely optimized, could do a few things impossibly well and nothing else.

Well, I wouldn't like it if I got an "optimized" completely specialized caster, myself. I think the problem here is that the character-maker didn't communicate with the people they were making the characters for.


She ended up rewriting her character to better suit what she wanted. Put most of her points into charisma, didn't take a single damaging spell, and basically drove the optimizers insane.

If she would do that, why get a pre-made character in the first place? Oh, and "didn't take a single damaging spell" doesn't mean "not optimized". In fact, a lot of higher-op wizards use almost exclusively battlefield control spells, rather than blasting.


Just gonna say, they changed their attitude when she managed to take out a high level dragon with nothing but her words and some flashy uses of prestidigitation...

Unless you're referring to Power Word X, I don't really see how you could kill a dragon by-


Just kidding. The optimizers ended up attacking it anyways... Guess which character walked away from that fight unscathed? (Hint: The one that made friends with the dragon.)

Ah, so when you said 'take out' you meant 'befriend'. That's...an unusual way to say that. I'm not seeing how Prestidigitation would help befriending a dragon, though. I imagine it might even anger it ("You think you can impress me, a master of the arcane, with your flashy child's magic?!"), although you could use it for a better appearance of similar (dramatic wind).

---

Although, I do admit that 'optimizers' who don't actually have the system mastery they think they do and have a one-track mind ("I need to be good at fighting. Nothing else is important. Fighting is always the answer!") are one of the worst groups to be introduced to optimization by. It tends to create the 'Stormwind Association' i.e. the groups that make people think Stormwind Fallacy is true are what you immediately think of when you think 'optimizer'.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-03, 12:55 PM
I agree that there are people who may feel that way, but I'm not sure it's a simulation issue... after all, what are you simulating? There's no way to simulate being a sorcerer or wizard. I don't want to get into another drawn-out discussion about the fluff/crunch issue, but I don't think "simulation" is the right term for this.

It's very much a simulation issue if you look past the superficial differences. The sorcerer class is meant to simulate the sorcerer archetype, therefore a simulationist cannot abide by a sorcerer class simulating another archetype BUT the sorcerer's.


Of course, this also assumes things about the campaign setting. Are the wizard colleges? Is wizard college a requirement to be a wizard? Can sorcerers not attend wizard college? I think these are all questions that aren't covered by the rule system, only the setting, so as a general rule, having a sorcerer who carries a spellbook and spends time in preparation in the morning and calls himself a wizard is effectively a wizard. Unless there is some sort of "detect class levels" ability (and maybe there is, though I've never seen it) the people that populate the world wouldn't necessarily know the difference.

Splitting hairs over particular campaign fluff aside, some people have said very much what you are saying, that if you make a sorcerer talk like a wizard, act like a wizard and look like a wizard, they are still a sorcerer (albeit one pretending to be a wizard). I am very much of the "you can refluff anything" mind, but I am strictly in a minority here. D&D has a huge draw because of its simulationist approach, and that's why a lot of people like it. Removing the simulation for any reason diminishes their enjoyment of the game, so while they can be flexible regarding some interpretations of the fluff, they are not inclined to blur the lines between mechanics and what they simulate.


I fail to see why a sorcerer couldn't have gone to an arcanist academy? Wouldn't it still be easier to master your sorcerer powers if you were taught by someone who had already done it?

Maybe they carry the spellbook in memory of a friend who lost her life to a summoned demon, vowing that even though they're just a sorcerer and not a wizard they'll dedicate their life to fighting demons in her memory, and he carries this spellbook partly to trick their enemies, but also to remind himself daily of her death.

I am afraid you missed my point completely. The point is not that a sorcerer cannot pretend to be a wizard or carry a spellbook or go to a wizard's academy. Of course they can. My point is that, for a simulationist, a character with the sorcerer class cannot be a wizard in everything but mechanics. If that makes you go "Of course they can't! They're a sorcerer!" then congratulations, you're a simulationist.

What my example was trying to showcase was that, if you are a simulationist, you can't have two characters, both of which are called "wizards" by everyone, who have the exact same background, carry a spellbook, look the same and cast the exact same spells, only one of them has the wizard class and the other one has the sorcerer class, because the PHB specifies a distinct fluff associated with the crunch, and simulationists do not make such divorces. The intention here is to remove the sorcerer fluff from the sorcerer class and graft the wizard's fluff on it, and simulationism precludes doing that.

prufock
2012-05-03, 01:11 PM
It's very much a simulation issue if you look past the superficial differences. The sorcerer class is meant to simulate the sorcerer archetype, therefore a simulationist cannot abide by a sorcerer class simulating another archetype BUT the sorcerer's.
But a "sorcerer archetype" outside of the mechanics is not really distinct from a wizard archetype. The words are interchangeable in literature and common usage (and even warlock, witch, mage, etc), it's only within the game that a sorcerer is a spontaneous, natural-born spellcaster with a limited list of spells, as distinct from a wizard as a prepared, learned spellcaster with a spellbook full of spells. It can't be simulating the sorcerer archetype and simultaneously defining that sorcerer archetype.


Splitting hairs over particular campaign fluff aside, some people have said very much what you are saying, that if you make a sorcerer talk like a wizard, act like a wizard and look like a wizard, they are still a sorcerer (albeit one pretending to be a wizard). I am very much of the "you can refluff anything" mind, but I am strictly in a minority here.
We're basically in agreement on this, then. "Wizard" or "sorcerer" to me are really just descriptors, not definitions.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-03, 01:32 PM
But a "sorcerer archetype" outside of the mechanics is not really distinct from a wizard archetype. The words are interchangeable in literature and common usage (and even warlock, witch, mage, etc), it's only within the game that a sorcerer is a spontaneous, natural-born spellcaster with a limited list of spells, as distinct from a wizard as a prepared, learned spellcaster with a spellbook full of spells. It can't be simulating the sorcerer archetype and simultaneously defining that sorcerer archetype.

Yes, but in 3e, the sorcerer archetype is distinct from the wizard archetype. It certainly can indeed simultaneously define and simulate an archetype. What you don't get is that when a simulationist system defines something (and gives you the tools to simulate it), then you can no longer blur the lines between it and something similar to it. The moment 3e defined the sorcerer as being distinct to the wizard the simulationists stopped seeing them as interchangeable synonyms.


We're basically in agreement on this, then. "Wizard" or "sorcerer" to me are really just descriptors, not definitions.

Yes, but people think differently, and this thread proves that for some people, the simulationist urge drives them to make unoptimised decisions for the sake of accurately simulate the character they want. See: the whole spiel about Profession: sailor.

eggs
2012-05-03, 02:10 PM
I will build after form, but when the function is broken (in either sense), I just change it.

Just jumping off the OP's Alienist example, I also like the Alienist. I think it's a cool concept, but I think it's ridiculous that a character would get worse at their defining ability by taking levels in the class. So when I used it on a PC, I negotiated some Aberrations to add to the Summon Monster list in place of the Outsiders the class gives up (Gibbering Mouthers, Phasms, a variety of LoM monsters with decent PLAs).

For another example, one of my players liked the Bladesinger class, which is absolute rubbish compared to even the Eldritch Knight, so we modified it into an 8/10 casting class with some abilities pirated from elsewhere, like Spell Reflection, a greatly accelerated version of the Scout's Riposte, and the Magus's Spell Combat.

And on the other end of the spectrum, I haven't ever been inclined to use one of the overtly overpowered PrCs like Incantatrix, Spell Dancer or Planar Shepherd, but I tend to tone down overly versatile classes with things like Spontaneous Divine casting variants.

So I agree that it can be cool to build from concept first, but I think it's silly to have that require crippling the character during D&D's wargame.

Man on Fire
2012-05-03, 03:18 PM
Yes, but in 3e, the sorcerer archetype is distinct from the wizard archetype. It certainly can indeed simultaneously define and simulate an archetype. What you don't get is that when a simulationist system defines something (and gives you the tools to simulate it), then you can no longer blur the lines between it and something similar to it. The moment 3e defined the sorcerer as being distinct to the wizard the simulationists stopped seeing them as interchangeable synonyms.

D&D makes up a lot of things out of their buttlocks that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, like entire races being evil, it were they who invented that distinction between sorcerer and wizard*, if somebody wants to stick on it he isn't stimulating any sort of archetype, because every fantasy defines magic on it's own terms, but slaves themselves to the ruleset. If people are mad about it, you may tell them just that. And if they're still mad tell them you're playing wizard from Harry Potter.

* - Or stolen it from some fantasy book I don't know about, in which case they popularized it.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-03, 03:30 PM
D&D makes up a lot of things out of their buttlocks that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, like entire races being evil, it were they who invented that distinction between sorcerer and wizard*, if somebody wants to stick on it he isn't stimulating any sort of archetype, because every fantasy defines magic on it's own terms, but slaves themselves to the ruleset. If people are mad about it, you may tell them just that. And if they're still mad tell them you're playing wizard from Harry Potter.

* - Or stolen it from some fantasy book I don't know about, in which case they popularized it.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. Simulationist games like D&D are bound by their own rules. That's the price you pay for accurate simulation. You cannot have Ruleset A represent the same thing as Ruleset B because then neither of them are correctly simulating what they intend to simulate. In a proper simulationist game, Ruleset A simulates Situation A and Ruleset B simulates Situation B. People like it that way because it helps them immerse in the world and all that.

Whether you (or I) like it or not, those people are the majority and they are the main reason the Stormwind Fallacy lives on, because to them, if you want to play a monk, you have to take levels in the monk class, and then they will complain that whoever tells you to play a swordsage is a poor roleplayer because they're optimising.

Man on Fire
2012-05-03, 05:25 PM
Talk to them, maybe some polite explanation may help.

Objection
2012-05-03, 06:26 PM
Yes, that's exactly the problem. Simulationist games like D&D are bound by their own rules. That's the price you pay for accurate simulation. You cannot have Ruleset A represent the same thing as Ruleset B because then neither of them are correctly simulating what they intend to simulate. In a proper simulationist game, Ruleset A simulates Situation A and Ruleset B simulates Situation B. People like it that way because it helps them immerse in the world and all that.

Whether you (or I) like it or not, those people are the majority and they are the main reason the Stormwind Fallacy lives on, because to them, if you want to play a monk, you have to take levels in the monk class, and then they will complain that whoever tells you to play a swordsage is a poor roleplayer because they're optimising.

I can't help but feel this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) is relevant.

Emmerask
2012-05-03, 07:14 PM
Now, seriously: Stormwind Fallacy. Look it up, it's basic roleplayer's knowledge. People recommend high-OP builds because they know that you don't need to make optimisation sacrifices for roleplaying. You can have exactly the character you want to roleplay while still having a sky-high OP. And sky-high OP is usually recommended because optimisation is not about power, it's about options. It's better to be a wizard with a hundred different spells to choose from and willingly restrain oneself from overshadowing the party than being an unoptimised fighter or paladin who has no options but "I full attack" or "I smite evil."

While I agree I also disagree :smallbiggrin:
Mostly you hold back because of ooc reasons (not wanting to destroy the others fun) but that is not really good roleplaying.
Yes there could be the odd mentor personality but mostly that is not the case and you put your friends in mortal danger because of metagaming.

For that reason I try to stay in the t3 range of power, this means you have planty of options while not having to hold back and with some ingenuity you can have even more options (marbles to detect illusions etcetc).

eggs
2012-05-03, 08:41 PM
I can't help but feel this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html) is relevant.
Believe it or not, there exist people who give the rulebooks more credence than a comic somebody posted on the internet.

prufock
2012-05-03, 09:37 PM
It certainly can indeed simultaneously define and simulate an archetype. What you don't get is that when a simulationist system defines something (and gives you the tools to simulate it), then you can no longer blur the lines between it and something similar to it. The moment 3e defined the sorcerer as being distinct to the wizard the simulationists stopped seeing them as interchangeable synonyms.
I think you might be using some different definition of "simulationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory#Simulationism)" than I am (link provided for reference of what I refer to when I use the term). Saying that a class both defines and simulates an archetype is self-referential - to say that the class is a recreation of itself isn't meaningful.

A player concerned with simulation doesn't necessarily hold to the mechanics/flavour rigidity; in fact I would be inclined to think the opposite. A player inclined to simulation would use whatever mechanical means necessary to reach that goal. Simulationism is more about using mechanics to match concept. The only time I would think the two would cross is if the concept IS "the sorcerer class."

Shadowknight12
2012-05-03, 10:06 PM
I think you might be using some different definition of "simulationist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNS_Theory#Simulationism)" than I am (link provided for reference of what I refer to when I use the term). Saying that a class both defines and simulates an archetype is self-referential - to say that the class is a recreation of itself isn't meaningful.

A player concerned with simulation doesn't necessarily hold to the mechanics/flavour rigidity; in fact I would be inclined to think the opposite. A player inclined to simulation would use whatever mechanical means necessary to reach that goal. Simulationism is more about using mechanics to match concept. The only time I would think the two would cross is if the concept IS "the sorcerer class."

No, I am not using the same definition of simulation that you are using. As I understand it, simulation refers to the system's ability to use mechanics to emulate reality or its fantasy facsimile. It is the opposite of simulation to use mechanics liberally in order to represent a concept. A simulationist believes that Ruleset A exists to mechanically simulate Situation A. Using another Ruleset to simulate the same Situation destroys the game's simulation accuracy because it removes "realism" or "verisimilitude." If the swordsage and the monk class can both be used to simulate the monk archetype, then the monk class loses its ability to simulate the monk archetype, since it is no longer exclusive (conversely, the swordsage loses its ability to simulate the swordsage archetype, whatever that archetype is, because it can now simulate it and the monk archetype as well).

This dilution and blurring is the opposite of simulation. A simulation requires exclusivity and strict adherence. You cannot allow the monk archetype to be emulated with anything other than a monk because it loses its meaning. "What's the point of the monk class if it cannot simulate a monk?" asks the simulationist.

My point when it comes to the sorcerer can also be explained with the swordsage. WotC invented the word (as far as I know) and invented the archetype associated with it. To a simulationist, it doesn't matter what the sorcerer or swordsage archetype is, what matters is that it has been given rules to simulate those and no other ruleset can simulate it. Conversely, the ruleset they have been given cannot be used to simulate anything other than the archetypes for which they have been created.

It is much like having a varied set of eating utensils. The simulationist will never use a fish fork to eat salad, even if he could, because that's not its purpose. They will use the salad fork to eat the salad even if the fish fork does the salad fork's job better than the salad fork itself. That's why you have people who insist on asking for optimisation help for monks and refuse to play swordsages, or for fighters (and refuse to play warblades) or for paladins (and refuse to play crusaders). For a lot of people, Ruleset A is for Situation A, Ruleset B is for Situation B and never the twain shall meet.

Slipperychicken
2012-05-05, 11:35 PM
but does anyone ever sacrifice the best stats for more flare and substance of character?


Absolutely. I've recently started considering fun-potential as a supremely-important statistic (albeit a very subjective, qualitative, and unwritten one) to optimize, since it heavily impacts my enjoyment of the game. In that way, I either create a fun role and optimize to make it work, or take a strong piece of mechanics and build fun things around it, and the two compliment and support one another.

Fun is the ultimate goal of playing any game. Optimization is only effective when it increases enjoyment from the game. Whether enjoyment comes from roleplay, or being passably-effective, or building a strong character, or ROFLstomping every obstacle in your way- it doesn't matter, as long as one achieves the ultimate objective: fun.

Because it's the objective (fun) that really matters, and not the path toward it (roleplay, optimization, or some combination), I've found it mostly futile to say someone else, who is having fun without harming others' fun, is "doing it wrong". Having fun is the defining mark of Doing It Right in a game.

Spider_Jerusalem
2012-05-07, 10:17 PM
Well, I'm one of those people who try to picture the character concept first, then make it work mechanically. For instance, there is a group of hexblades in the campaign I DM. Some of them don't have a single level of the hexblade class, but, despite using different game mechanics, they do, in-game, work perfectly as the concept says. So, I don't really see a problem with trying to make the character you imagined actually do well compared to the others.

What I think it's a pity, however, is seeing how many people get so paranoid at making unkillable characters that they lose great opportunities at roleplaying. In the same campaign I just told about, for example, one of the characters, a cleric of Thor, found out that his own father, a barbarian warchief, was dominated and forced to retrieve an item in a mine from which a great evil power could be felt. From what he heard, it was a suicide mission. The rest of the group was in another city, and there was no-one else who would risk trying to retrieve the warchief from the mines. The cleric entered the mines, and was confronted by the villain who had dominated his father. Said villain, who was extremely arrogant and overconfident, challenged the cleric to try saving his "pitiful progenitor"... or avenging him. The player's response? "Oh, well, without the rest of the group this is certainly not an encounter appropriate to my level. I walk away."

Since then, the cleric has been uninterruptly tested by Thor, who appears on his dreams sending him on missions that appear to be more than he can handle. I don't think the player has actually noticed that the guardians from Thor's Hall are actually trying to spank the cowardice out of his character, though. Most of the time, that character acts like a robot, unfortunately...

Bit Fiend
2012-05-08, 05:49 AM
I find it hilarious how quickly people tend to drop the label "Stormwind Fallacy" on someone (like me btw) who LIKES to, say, have some ranks in Profession: Farmer when he is playing a cliché farmer's-boy-turned-hero. To be honest, it usually invokes the picture of a medieval preacher shouting "heretic!" in me - no offense, really, but it kinda rubs me the wrong way. Well, I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: Most people I know who feel this way about fluff vs. mechanics ARE WELL AWARE that you can e.g. have Assassin class levels without actually being a professional assassin just for the mechanical benefits, they just CHOOSE to do it the other way because it feels better to them. I honestly can't see any fallacy in that. Of course this approach usually only works in low op games (which I prefer), but were I to attend a high op game, where the general consensus is "do what you like and refluff if necessary" I'd have no problem with coming up with a mix 'n' match monstrosity that defies all FAW (Fluff As Written) logic.

PersonMan
2012-05-08, 06:00 AM
I find it hilarious how quickly people tend to drop the label "Stormwind Fallacy" on someone (like me btw) who LIKES to, say, have some ranks in Profession: Farmer when he is playing a cliché farmer's-boy-turned-hero.

Well, to be honest, the response to a post is dependant on the tone it's written in. If someone 'hears' a hostile, accusative tone in such a post, they may think that the writer is unaware of Stormwind and believes the fallacy, rather than accepting that one can optimize without roleplaying and playing low-op because they enjoy the fluff as written.

I doubt anyone will say 'Stormwind!' if a post says 'I like the default fluff and prefer low-op games, so I take ranks in Profession:Farmer and similar when I make characters'.

Bit Fiend
2012-05-08, 06:15 AM
I doubt anyone will say 'Stormwind!' if a post says 'I like the default fluff and prefer low-op games, so I take ranks in Profession:Farmer and similar when I make characters'.


"Stooooooooormwiiiiiiiiiiind!" *shakes fist at the sky*

You sure? :smalltongue:

(Nah, I know that was more tongue in cheek. Still fun to watch.)

Spider_Jerusalem
2012-05-08, 11:23 AM
I think one of the biggest problems with roleplaying games is that people keep worrying about RAWs and RAIs, when we should actually worry about RAIF (that is, Rules As Is Fun)... and maybe some FAIF, too.

Shadowknight12
2012-05-08, 11:34 AM
I find it hilarious how quickly people tend to drop the label "Stormwind Fallacy" on someone (like me btw) who LIKES to, say, have some ranks in Profession: Farmer when he is playing a cliché farmer's-boy-turned-hero. To be honest, it usually invokes the picture of a medieval preacher shouting "heretic!" in me - no offense, really, but it kinda rubs me the wrong way. Well, I'll let you in on a dirty little secret: Most people I know who feel this way about fluff vs. mechanics ARE WELL AWARE that you can e.g. have Assassin class levels without actually being a professional assassin just for the mechanical benefits, they just CHOOSE to do it the other way because it feels better to them. I honestly can't see any fallacy in that.

Actually, Stormwind doesn't get invoked at you for making poor optimisation decisions. It gets invoked at you when you state that you must make poor optimisation decisions in order to better roleplay your character. That is a fallacy, like it or not. If you enjoy wasting your character resources on things that will almost never come up in a game, rather than in useful things, then by all means, go ahead and knock yourself out. It's when you say that you must do such a thing for the sake of roleplaying that you get Stormwind invoked.

Also, it's the other way around. You don't take Assassin levels for the mechanics, you take levels in something else and then call yourself an assassin. :smalltongue:


Of course this approach usually only works in low op games (which I prefer), but were I to attend a high op game, where the general consensus is "do what you like and refluff if necessary" I'd have no problem with coming up with a mix 'n' match monstrosity that defies all FAW (Fluff As Written) logic.

See, you complain about people sounding like a priest who screams "HERETIC!" when you go right ahead and label something other people like as a "monstrosity that defies (what you interpret as) FAW." Something tells me you don't have much of a footing to complain when you do that. :smallwink:

bokodasu
2012-05-08, 11:37 AM
Just curious about this...I always tend to see people emphasizing optimization of character builds and trying to max out abilities...but does anyone ever sacrifice the best stats for more flare and substance of character?

Flare is suboptimal, you should go with Prestidigitation. (Kidding!)

The thing is, roleplaying is generally a cooperative exercise. I used to play with a guy who would take stupid options "because it fit his character" and then, in cases when his few useful abilities might help, refuse to use them "because it wouldn't be in character." Every game, every system, every character; "roleplaying" to him meant Being True to His Ideal - and that ideal was someone who was utterly useless. Finally the majority of us realized that if any of us were actually roleplaying a character with a Wisdom above 3, we'd leave his butt on the side of the road, and we don't play with him any more. And he's not alone; Stormwind is a cliche for a reason.

Playing within a framework is interesting; that's why RPGs have rules, after all. Artificial limitations can be interesting - that's why you get people writing books without the letter 'e' or painting only in blue for a year - but they're not inherently interesting in themselves, it's what you do within them that makes them interesting. I think that's where the "optimizers don't roleplay" camp stumbles. I mean, I can make a mechanically useless "generic hooded orphan loner"; does putting ranks in "profession: street rat" make him a more interesting character than a fully-fleshed out guy who grew up on the mean streets of Icecity and took the only way out open to him - breakdancing - because snowflake wardance is more "optimized"? Which is not to say the opposite is necessarily true - you can also make the generic hooded loner mechanically optimized and the dancer a fighter with cross-class ranks in "perform: dance". The two have no causal relation.

Loxagn
2012-05-08, 12:22 PM
Hey. I had a sorcerer once with ranks (plural) in Profession: Tailor.

Other people in the party commented that they literally could not think of a more useless skill.

But, his family owned a clothes shop, which he worked in before his powers manifested. It made perfect sense for him to know how to make and repair clothing, although now he could do repairs with Mending. I was also the only person who put ranks in Speak Language, because the guy liked to study a lot.

The DM was, thankfully, a very cool one who liked to give every aspect of every character a chance in the limelight. We ended up having to pass ourselves off as nobility to infiltrate a ball, and guess who ended up saving the party's ass? :P

Bit Fiend
2012-05-08, 01:40 PM
See, you complain about people sounding like a priest who screams "HERETIC!" when you go right ahead and label something other people like as a "monstrosity that defies (what you interpret as) FAW." Something tells me you don't have much of a footing to complain when you do that. :smallwink:

Nah, "monstrosity" here was to illustrate power rather than "fluffwise-ugliness", as in "a monster of a charger". Poor wording on my part, I guess. As for defying FAW, some builds I saw require a training program that would - going by pure background fluff of the individual classes - put The Goddamn Batman to shame.

I think I'm gonna go with the FAIF-concept above, it's just that for me FAIF is really close to (my reading of) FAW...

Shadowknight12
2012-05-08, 01:49 PM
Nah, "monstrosity" here was to illustrate power rather than "fluffwise-ugliness", as in "a monster of a charger". Poor wording on my part, I guess. As for defying FAW, some builds I saw require a training program that would - going by pure background fluff of the individual classes - put The Goddamn Batman to shame.

You do realise refluffing exists, right? Not every barbarian comes from a tribe of nomadic brutes. Sometimes taking a level in barbarian interspersed with other military training simply means "learning to let go in the battlefield and use anger as fuel to do extraordinary things." It doesn't mean that the character literally stopped their military training to spend a year with the Garrak-Thrak tribe, then came back and resumed their training.

Some flexibility is a good thing.


I think I'm gonna go with the FAIF-concept above, it's just that for me FAIF is really close to (my reading of) FAW...

...

Sigh. You do realise that it goes literally against human nature to interpret something in an unfavourable way? That is to say, of course FAIF will be close to your reading of FAW. That's human nature at work. We all interpret things in the way that will be the most beneficial, unless we're forced to do otherwise due to societal pressures or the like. If nobody's forcing you to interpret FAW in a way that's detrimental to you, you will interpret it in the most favourable way possible because that's how all our brains work.

Clawhound
2012-05-08, 02:02 PM
I find that game "power" greatly influences form and function.

If I am playing in a high-power game, then choosing sub-optimal choices rather hinders my effectiveness, and I already know that my effectiveness will get pushed to the max.

If I am in a low-powered game, I have considerably more leeway in where I put the emphasis on my character. I can sacrifice a +1 for character flavor. I'm not going to live and die on character choices.

And in heavy-RP games, those character choices can mean more than optimizing. They become the springboard for the game itself.

I think that most players optimize for the type of game that they are playing in. Sometimes that makes the most of a character, and sometimes that means that the character actually is made to be average.

Bit Fiend
2012-05-08, 08:24 PM
You do realise refluffing exists, right? Not every barbarian comes from a tribe of nomadic brutes. Sometimes taking a level in barbarian interspersed with other military training simply means "learning to let go in the battlefield and use anger as fuel to do extraordinary things." It doesn't mean that the character literally stopped their military training to spend a year with the Garrak-Thrak tribe, then came back and resumed their training.

Some flexibility is a good thing.

Yes, I know. That was kinda the point of my first post. It's exactly the reason why I included "by (given) background fluff" (ok, I failed to include the "given" or "FAW", my bad). Refluffing is in a sense the fluff equivalent to houserules. Can be a nice thing, sure, but it's not the default state. Just as I can, say, give a Monk free ToB maneuvers in an attempt to fix his mechanical weakness i can refluff my Barbarian as a specially trained soldier who learned to harness his spirit into a rage by meditation in order to "fix the problem" that by default fluff I cannot play a Barbarian from a highly developed civilized society. Note that I don't say anything about objective quality of default fluff here, all I say is there is a default fluff the books give us and some of us prefer to play along just that - others don't, no problem with that.


Sigh. You do realise that it goes literally against human nature to interpret something in an unfavourable way? That is to say, of course FAIF will be close to your reading of FAW. That's human nature at work. We all interpret things in the way that will be the most beneficial, unless we're forced to do otherwise due to societal pressures or the like. If nobody's forcing you to interpret FAW in a way that's detrimental to you, you will interpret it in the most favourable way possible because that's how all our brains work.

Erm, not exactly. For instance I could like the mechanics of the Sorcerer but dislike the fluff that their magic is inborn or inherited by some draconic or other ancestors. I could refluff them to be something closer to psions who earned their power by relentless training of their mind without any inborn talent. Thus FAIF for me would be my "Psi-Sorc" but FAW would still be plain old "Dragon's-Your-Daddy-Sorc".

Shadowknight12
2012-05-08, 11:00 PM
Yes, I know. That was kinda the point of my first post. It's exactly the reason why I included "by (given) background fluff" (ok, I failed to include the "given" or "FAW", my bad). Refluffing is in a sense the fluff equivalent to houserules. Can be a nice thing, sure, but it's not the default state. Just as I can, say, give a Monk free ToB maneuvers in an attempt to fix his mechanical weakness i can refluff my Barbarian as a specially trained soldier who learned to harness his spirit into a rage by meditation in order to "fix the problem" that by default fluff I cannot play a Barbarian from a highly developed civilized society. Note that I don't say anything about objective quality of default fluff here, all I say is there is a default fluff the books give us and some of us prefer to play along just that - others don't, no problem with that.

True, but refluffing is risk-free, while houseruling is not. Houserule something thoughtlessly and you can end up breaking the game (even more). Say you want to power down casters and you heap a ton of problems upon them every time they cast a spell. Congratulations, you've made casters unplayable, which is actually worse than outright banning them, because now you've condemned a potential player to a character made of suckitude. Or powering up the fighter so much that they become effectively Tier 0 and outshine the druid, cleric and wizard in the party.

Refluffing, on the other hand, carries no negative consequences. The only possible conflict that might happen is if you refluff something and it's not to your players' tastes, but that's the same problem as doing anything that's not to your players' tastes, it's not a problem inherent to refluffing in the slightest.


Erm, not exactly. For instance I could like the mechanics of the Sorcerer but dislike the fluff that their magic is inborn or inherited by some draconic or other ancestors. I could refluff them to be something closer to psions who earned their power by relentless training of their mind without any inborn talent. Thus FAIF for me would be my "Psi-Sorc" but FAW would still be plain old "Dragon's-Your-Daddy-Sorc".

That's not interpreting, that's refluffing. Interpreting is something like taking all the vagueness in the sorcerer entry and using that to justify that not all sorcerers have dragon blood, that you're perfectly entitled to have your sorc be of celestial or fiendish blood, for example.

Bit Fiend
2012-05-09, 05:37 AM
True, but refluffing is risk-free, while houseruling is not. Houserule something thoughtlessly and you can end up breaking the game (even more). Say you want to power down casters and you heap a ton of problems upon them every time they cast a spell. Congratulations, you've made casters unplayable, which is actually worse than outright banning them, because now you've condemned a potential player to a character made of suckitude. Or powering up the fighter so much that they become effectively Tier 0 and outshine the druid, cleric and wizard in the party.

Refluffing, on the other hand, carries no negative consequences. The only possible conflict that might happen is if you refluff something and it's not to your players' tastes, but that's the same problem as doing anything that's not to your players' tastes, it's not a problem inherent to refluffing in the slightest.

Hm, the only negative consequence that ever occurs in a game is someone not having fun. We both know this can have all kinds of reasons, from a character not being able to contribute (and the inverse) to fluff being not what you like in a class, to reasons completely unrelated to this discussion. I don't think you can objectively measure which unfun thing sucks more, subjectively of course you can. Some players just won't care that in your world Clerics recieve their powers from tiny leprechauns sitting on their shoulders and making witty puns, others wont care if their Paladin is just a spectator to the Wizard in fights as long as they can roleplay the dilemmas of their code of conduct.


That's not interpreting, that's refluffing. Interpreting is something like taking all the vagueness in the sorcerer entry and using that to justify that not all sorcerers have dragon blood, that you're perfectly entitled to have your sorc be of celestial or fiendish blood, for example.

Ah, now I see what you meant, but that was not my point in the post you quoted. I wrote that for me FAIF is close to FAW, which of course that it's my reading of FAW because, you know, I only have that one. Close to FAW in contrast to not close to FAW which is refluffing - some people just prefer it that way.

(Slightly off topic: How do you make the Fighter Tier 0 without refluffing him to being something other than a guy who learned to hit things with sharp objects really well? Will he hit things so hard that the gods grant him his own personal demiplanes and send a bunch of solars to fight his enemies just to appease him so he won't use his mighty slash again? :smallbiggrin:)

Emmerask
2012-05-09, 09:47 AM
(Slightly off topic: How do you make the Fighter Tier 0 without refluffing him to being something other than a guy who learned to hit things with sharp objects really well? Will he hit things so hard that the gods grant him his own personal demiplanes and send a bunch of solars to fight his enemies just to appease him so he won't use his mighty slash again? :smallbiggrin:)

Take Chuck Norris, replace fists with sword, done

Clawhound
2012-05-09, 11:16 AM
Do you mean the "bad-ass" power source?

You're a fighter. Everyone else has magic. All you have is a tough-ass attitude and a metal stick, and some days, you don't even have the stick. Do you let that stop you? No! Why? Because you're a bad-ass that doesn't give a flying *** what the magic-types think of you. You have a metal stick and you're gonna stick it where the sun-don't-shine and you're doing it on your own terms.

Bit Fiend
2012-05-09, 01:10 PM
Do you mean the "bad-ass" power source?

You're a fighter. Everyone else has magic. All you have is a tough-ass attitude and a metal stick, and some days, you don't even have the stick. Do you let that stop you? No! Why? Because you're a bad-ass that doesn't give a flying *** what the magic-types think of you. You have a metal stick and you're gonna stick it where the sun-don't-shine and you're doing it on your own terms.

So basically Korg, the Magical (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049) on steroids?

Shadowknight12
2012-05-09, 05:59 PM
Hm, the only negative consequence that ever occurs in a game is someone not having fun. We both know this can have all kinds of reasons, from a character not being able to contribute (and the inverse) to fluff being not what you like in a class, to reasons completely unrelated to this discussion. I don't think you can objectively measure which unfun thing sucks more, subjectively of course you can. Some players just won't care that in your world Clerics recieve their powers from tiny leprechauns sitting on their shoulders and making witty puns, others wont care if their Paladin is just a spectator to the Wizard in fights as long as they can roleplay the dilemmas of their code of conduct.

No, you misunderstood. What I said was that there is no inherent risk in refluffing. Anything that can go wrong by refluffing is exactly the same as anything else going wrong (that is, that the players do not like something you've done). Houseruling has an extra risk, which is breaking the game. Breaking the game is not merely "something the players do not like." It's outright "the game is no longer playable on any meaningful level." That's an extra risk that refluffing simply doesn't have.


Ah, now I see what you meant, but that was not my point in the post you quoted. I wrote that for me FAIF is close to FAW, which of course that it's my reading of FAW because, you know, I only have that one. Close to FAW in contrast to not close to FAW which is refluffing - some people just prefer it that way.

Yes, but that just means that you've found a way to interpret FAW to your liking and you stick with that. It's not a positive thing. It could well mean you've moulded your own tastes and preferences to suit FAW and not the other way around. Books and systems, fluff and crunch, are your tools. They are things for which you've paid money to use. If you wouldn't hesitate to use a hammer to keep a door open (or to weigh papers), why would you hesitate to refluff something you dislike?


(Slightly off topic: How do you make the Fighter Tier 0 without refluffing him to being something other than a guy who learned to hit things with sharp objects really well? Will he hit things so hard that the gods grant him his own personal demiplanes and send a bunch of solars to fight his enemies just to appease him so he won't use his mighty slash again? :smallbiggrin:)

Pretty much. Give him the wizard, cleric and druid list as "known spells" and a handful of "spells" per day, only they're not spells, they are favours that he calls upon or feats of swordsmanship so great that they cause the intended effect. Gate? He slashes his sword so hard he rips a hole in reality, and he's so awesome that anything that comes through it instantly obeys his every word. Dominate Monster? He just tells you to obey and you do it, because he's the goddamn fighter. Also, since they are not spells per se, all the fighter's "favours" or "gifts" or "awesomeness" are (Ex), of course.

There we go, Tier 0 fighter.

Bit Fiend
2012-05-09, 07:03 PM
No, you misunderstood. What I said was that there is no inherent risk in refluffing. Anything that can go wrong by refluffing is exactly the same as anything else going wrong (that is, that the players do not like something you've done). Houseruling has an extra risk, which is breaking the game. Breaking the game is not merely "something the players do not like." It's outright "the game is no longer playable on any meaningful level." That's an extra risk that refluffing simply doesn't have.

Oh, I understood, and I don't even disagree. I mean, my point still stands, the only "real" problem is that the game is no more fun, but houseruling adds an extra level beyond that. If the fluff sucks, well, the fluff sucks. But if the crunch sucks it raises the question why you use the crunch (i.e. the system in general in the first place). Mechanics that don't support the game you want to play are literally useless, whereas fluff you don't like is more like an inconvenience you get over - or don't.


Yes, but that just means that you've found a way to interpret FAW to your liking and you stick with that. It's not a positive thing. It could well mean you've moulded your own tastes and preferences to suit FAW and not the other way around. Books and systems, fluff and crunch, are your tools. They are things for which you've paid money to use. If you wouldn't hesitate to use a hammer to keep a door open (or to weigh papers), why would you hesitate to refluff something you dislike?

Heh, honestly: I don't know. Must be my lawful streak. It's kinda like for the same reason I'm bored of Rock music and love Trance. I can't explain (actually I could try but it wouldn't make more sense). I just like the concept that the results, i.e. the abilities of a class, are achieved by a specific form of background/training. And, well, call me unimaginative but I like to stick with the published material presented to me. I suck at creating my own settings and frameworks, I work better within a given frame.

Edit: But is it a negative thing? I freely admit that I'm not one of those who like to shape their surroundings ( in this simple case fluff) to their imagination but rather like to adapt to things given to me. Some call it weak willed and submissive, I call it flexible and resourceful. *shrug*


Pretty much. Give him the wizard, cleric and druid list as "known spells" and a handful of "spells" per day, only they're not spells, they are favours that he calls upon or feats of swordsmanship so great that they cause the intended effect. Gate? He slashes his sword so hard he rips a hole in reality, and he's so awesome that anything that comes through it instantly obeys his every word. Dominate Monster? He just tells you to obey and you do it, because he's the goddamn fighter. Also, since they are not spells per se, all the fighter's "favours" or "gifts" or "awesomeness" are (Ex), of course.

There we go, Tier 0 fighter.

Still, I would SO love to play this Fighter. :smallwink:

Shadowknight12
2012-05-09, 07:12 PM
Oh, I understood, and I don't even disagree. I mean, my point still stands, the only "real" problem is that the game is no more fun, but houseruling adds an extra level beyond that. If the fluff sucks, well, the fluff sucks. But if the crunch sucks it raises the question why you use the crunch (i.e. the system in general in the first place). Mechanics that don't support the game you want to play are literally useless, whereas fluff you don't like is more like an inconvenience you get over - or don't.

Oh, then I agree. To me, fluff is a total non-issue. Some people get uppity about it, though.


Heh, honestly: I don't know. Must be my lawful streak. It's kinda like for the same reason I'm bored of Rock music and love Trance. I can't explain (actually I could try but it wouldn't make more sense). I just like the concept that the results, i.e. the abilities of a class, are achieved by a specific form of background/training. And, well, call me unimaginative but I like to stick with the published material presented to me. I suck at creating my own settings and frameworks, I work better within a given frame.

I... frankly, I have no idea what that has to do with Rock or Trance. :smalleek:

Hah, but I understand the rest, I have a friend who is my complete opposite and says that exactly. He's a very flexible and laid-back person who needs external restrictions to flourish and be creative, while I'm a very independent, free-spirited person with very tight self-restrictions, so I cannot abide by anyone's restrictions but my own.


Still, I would SO love to play this Fighter. :smallwink:

I've let players play this fighter before. They loved it. In a high-op crowd where everyone's playing T1 casters, the T0 fighter doesn't really do anything too terrible. They are just more versatile and slightly better at combat than the rest, which tends to matter little when everyone can Wish or Miracle anything into or out of existence.

Bit Fiend
2012-05-09, 07:20 PM
I... frankly, I have no idea what that has to do with Rock or Trance. :smalleek:


Simple, do you have an explaination for your taste in music that meets the academic standard for logic? I don't. For exactly the same reason I don't have an explaination why I like given the fluff better than the changed one. It just is that way, I don't know why, I don't care why. :smallwink:

Shadowknight12
2012-05-09, 07:22 PM
Simple, do you have an explaination for your taste in music that meets the academic standard for logic? I don't. For exactly the same reason I don't have an explaination why I like given the fluff better than the changed one. It just is that way, I don't know why, I don't care why. :smallwink:

Ahhhhh, that makes perfect sense.

Bit Fiend
2012-05-09, 07:27 PM
Ahhhhh, that makes perfect sense.

Does it? I honestly didn't expect it to...

Shadowknight12
2012-05-09, 07:34 PM
Does it? I honestly didn't expect it to...

No, I get it. People have their own personal reasons for liking and disliking things, and those are often irrational and rooted in strong personal experiences. Who knows what made you like that? But we all have that sort of thing in the twisting maze that is our mind, so I can understand it.

Sith_Happens
2012-05-10, 06:53 PM
Pretty much. Give him the wizard, cleric and druid list as "known spells" and a handful of "spells" per day, only they're not spells, they are favours that he calls upon or feats of swordsmanship so great that they cause the intended effect. Gate? He slashes his sword so hard he rips a hole in reality, and he's so awesome that anything that comes through it instantly obeys his every word. Dominate Monster? He just tells you to obey and you do it, because he's the goddamn fighter. Also, since they are not spells per se, all the fighter's "favours" or "gifts" or "awesomeness" are (Ex), of course.

There we go, Tier 0 fighter.

Don't forget the part where he does all that from inside a giant robot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn_3xJrTZdU).:smallcool:

Shadowknight12
2012-05-10, 08:24 PM
Don't forget the part where he does all that from inside a giant robot (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kn_3xJrTZdU).:smallcool:

Oh, you mean (Ex) Shapechange? Of course.