PDA

View Full Version : Power players



TheWarBlade
2007-07-03, 03:24 PM
There is one in every group. We know and hate them. What do you do with your power-players?

Yuki Akuma
2007-07-03, 03:31 PM
You first.

TheAlmightyOne
2007-07-03, 03:33 PM
Is it power playing if my first choice of action when confronted with anything is to blow it up? I nearly killed our party cos I set fire to our guide through the mountains. Good times.

horseboy
2007-07-03, 03:38 PM
Well, that depends on your definition of "power players". I don't consider any of my current players "power players". WotC, of course, would consider (at least) 2 of them "abusive".

Khantalas
2007-07-03, 03:39 PM
No, I don't have a power player in my group. Everyone tends to make characters that supplement, no one-up, each other that waste about 30% of their resources when faced with an encounter that has an EL equal to their average level.

Secretly, you want my group.

lord_khaine
2007-07-03, 03:44 PM
i dont hate them, i encurage people to take an actual interest in the game, and that kinda include making sure you can fill your role in the party.

Spiryt
2007-07-03, 03:47 PM
I ussualy try to convice them that they are playing some, you know, character, person.

So he can't have just pure battle power abilities, composed to make good built not character. Especially if it makes no sense/ is completely climate/atmosphere screwing. Like rope trick or something. Something rather, rt isn't so good example, but i can't imagine something else at the moment.

But i have low charisma so I will probably fail. :smallwink:

LotharBot
2007-07-03, 03:52 PM
My group doesn't have any true munchkins, but we do have a player who likes to have a powerful character, and knows just enough to be dangerous (but not enough to realize when he's crossed the line into cheese.) I just tell him "no" a lot.

I established guidelines when I formed this group: whoever is DM'ing gets to select the books that are available, and can veto things from outside books (or veto entire outside books.) The DM can also remove or rework certain spells etc. that are overpowered or just plain cheesy. It's expected that players and the DM will keep each other informed so that if the DM is planning to weaken something the player is planning to use, neither one gets surprised by it.

Mr. Moogle
2007-07-03, 03:54 PM
*Gasps* This looks like a job for Jack-George, the Dragon-Bard!!!.
He is a gestalt Bard//Sorcerer who spevializes in Evocation spells, he and his +3 shocking Greatsword have killed many an enemy* and he has Fireballs to spare loced away in his mind

*(no joke, he was our Tank untill our cleric//druid reroled a warblade//dragon-shaman)

draca
2007-07-03, 03:54 PM
Depends what you mean really.

One type of "power player" is just trying to maximize their fun by prescribing to the "more the merrier" theory of optimal role-play in regards to what they can do, and what they have.

Another type tries to use an overpowered character in order to monopolize the gaming session into their own personal glory-fest, relegating the rest of the players to side-kicks and groupies.

They both tend to churn out some pretty broken characters, (not always in a bad way) but the latter is a tad more annoying if everyone else in the group isn't having fun because they are taking up all the air int he room, so to speak.

If it's the latter, then I've found the best way to handle it is to tell them "Ok, you do that" whenever they try to take over the game with what their characters actions are. And then, immediately re-focus attention to the rest of the group. Don't go into detail; say that you are sure that Heverile the Babarian is quite capable of wrestling that terrasque all by himself, and let the action happen offstage. Give the other players time to play, and let him bask in his offstage glory.


*** Ok maybe that's a tad rude, but in the right circumstances it's a good compromise. ;)

Dairun Cates
2007-07-03, 04:32 PM
It's really quite simple. Power players aren't necessarily bad if they know to keep it in some limits. The bad ones want all the attention on themselves. In this case, I simply choose to keep DM'ing things in a normal fashion and tend to throw in scenarios where they won't be as useful. At this point, they either get bored and leave, or realize that playing that character isn't fun and ask to make some more balanced changes.

The good power gamers, on the other hand, are an excellent tool for uniting a party, driving the plot, and keeping things focused.

PinkysBrain
2007-07-03, 04:32 PM
Especially if it makes no sense/ is completely climate/atmosphere screwing. Like rope trick or something.
If you don't like ropetrick, teleportation, resurrection or whatever else usually comes up in these discussions just take it out ... it's really as simple as that.

Rasumichin
2007-07-03, 05:26 PM
It's really quite simple. Power players aren't necessarily bad if they know to keep it in some limits. The bad ones want all the attention on themselves. In this case, I simply choose to keep DM'ing things in a normal fashion and tend to throw in scenarios where they won't be as useful. At this point, they either get bored and leave, or realize that playing that character isn't fun and ask to make some more balanced changes.

The good power gamers, on the other hand, are an excellent tool for uniting a party, driving the plot, and keeping things focused.

QFT.

Furthermore, wanting all the attention for yourself does not require an optimized build.
You can do this in a "roleplay-heavy" way, too, and with a character that is stats-wise complete crap.

It is not a PC's power that matters, it's wether his player is a socially incompetent jerk who does not understand that roleplaying is a group activity, not a one-man show.

Oh, and please spare the "i want characters, not builds" rhethoric, it's just plain wrong.
Stormwind fallacy and all that.

Tellah
2007-07-03, 05:30 PM
There is one in every group. We know and hate them. What do you do with your power-players?

Maybe you hate them, but as a DM, I sure don't. I enjoy the process of optimizing characters, defining a character and building the strongest character I can within the limitations of his core concept. In fact, I do my best to encourage my players to use effective builds, because that means I can have fun building interesting and well-constructed NPCs.

What's so bad about enjoying the numerical, rules-intensive aspects of a game?

Dr. Jones
2007-07-03, 06:32 PM
From the campaign I play in:

All of us are, to some degree or another, power players. We work together and roll up builds that complement each other, so that the party is very well rounded, and during character generation try to help each other maximize the potential of the characters we're working on. Certainly, no "real" (in the roleplay sense) party would just happen to form with a fighter, a cleric, a wizard, a rogue, and a ranger - and there was no recruiting done in the story, we just all "happened" to encounter one another. However, we (and our characters) accepted this occurrence as fiat, and our DM did his best to work these "chance encounters" into his story so as to avoid the clichéd tavern gathering.

However, this combination of characters indubitably leads to a challenge for our DM... even moreso since this is a gestalt campaign... as he has to throw increasingly difficult encounters and challenges at us to keep us from mowing down the opposition, without coming up with something so overpowered it simply mows us down in the process. As of yet though, none of us has escaped a battle unscathed, but thus far we've only had one party member die. This death was retconned out as we decided Save or Die sucks whether used by the DM or by players (the load-bearing boss used phantasmal killer and killed a perfectly healthy dwarven fighter in one shot, and then our wizard returned the favor, leaving nothing for the rest of us to fight).

I think the moral of my story is that if the DM understands how the players like to play, and the players are all mutually compatible, there isn't much of a problem, assuming the DM has the competence to adjust his campaign accordingly. We all have fun, and look forward to the next session, especially now that we don't have SoD spells to face - of course, this makes our combat all the more challenging, since we don't have SoD spells to whack bosses in a single shot either. It also helps that we all know it's just a game, and can laugh when the DM rolls three or four 1's in a row (such as "disposable enemies" trying to make the reflex save against a fatal fireball), or the gnome with the abnormally high reflex saves rolls a 1 on hers too.

Miles Invictus
2007-07-03, 06:48 PM
There's nothing inherently wrong with powergaming. It's just another style of play, every bit as valid as roleplaying.

There is no problem until your particular style of play is disruptive to the game, and that problem is not exclusive to powergaming. Munchkins who build PCs that completely overshadow the party need to be reigned in, but so do the dramatists whose refusal to make effective characters screws the party over.

Players and DMs alike are responsible for making the game fun for everyone.

LotharBot
2007-07-03, 06:49 PM
Just to be extra clear:

The issue is not with "power players". The issue is with players who are significantly more power-focused than the others in the group... the guys who, in a group with a healbot cleric, a blaster sorcerer, a TWF ranger, and a rogue/fighter, decide to play an IotSV from an off-race with a big INT bonus but they use LA buyoff and take irrelevant flaws to gain useful feats. Oh, and they own 3x more books than the rest of the players combined, and they're using all the best equipment from those books, and they have Leadership and their cohort is a master craftsman so everything costs half as much, but their cohort is also a cleric who uses divine metamagic persist and such.

If the whole group powergames to the same degree, there's no problem. The DM can adjust the game accordingly. But if one player's (expected or actual) power level is way out of line with the others, the DM has to be willing to step in and say "no, not allowed".

EDIT: Miles Invictus makes a great point: in a group with a divine metacheese user, an IotSV, a diplomancer bard, and a super-reach spiked chain tripmonkey, the guy who comes in and insists on playing an emo rogue who describes the color of his bootlaces in excruciating detail and took a bunch of ineffective feats and multiclassed and took cross-class skills "for flavor reasons" is just as much of a problem.

horseboy
2007-07-03, 06:53 PM
There's nothing inherently wrong with powergaming. It's just another style of play, every bit as valid as roleplaying.

There is no problem until your particular style of play is disruptive to the game, and that problem is not exclusive to powergaming. Munchkins who build PCs that completely overshadow the party need to be reigned in, but so do the dramatists whose refusal to make effective characters screws the party over.

Players and DMs alike are responsible for making the game fun for everyone.

OMG! Like those bards that take puppetry for their performance and flap their hands like a sock puppet constantly in your face so they can keep their song bonus going. Those guy REALLY aggravate me.

Gygaxphobia
2007-07-03, 06:57 PM
Frankly I always feel that characters disadvantages are more interesting than abilities and far better role-play hooks.
I very rarely want to game with super-heroes, but at least 'realistic' if not 'normal' people (and yes for this purpose my definition of realistic does include elves and wizards etc.).
I subscribe to the notion that role-playing is about putting yourself at a disadvantage to gain a character's perspective. But hey, whatever floats your airship.

nerulean
2007-07-03, 07:11 PM
We have two different kinds of power player in our group, both differently annoying.

One is a min-maxer. Now, I have nothing whatsoever wrong with that in and of itself, and in fact occasionally claim the title myself, but this chap apparently defines his own personal worth on how good his character is and stomps and whines and complains when he isn't the most powerful character in the group. He often is far more powerful than anyone else, which leads to the DM throwing something into every encounter deliberately to stop him wasting everything by himself, which causes him to stomp and whine and complain because he isn't waltzing through everything as quickly as his broken build ought to let him.

He makes the game less pleasant for everything else mechanically, because he isn't happy unless he's statistically the best. No one likes being consistently outshone in every single situation, but he doesn't like being outshone ever by anyone at anything. Clearly, either he's happy or everyone else is, and in a group of six players it's fairly easy to guess which of those two options the DM will go for.

Our other power player fits the description without ever having a better-than-average character. Heck, she's played a pacifist in a battle-heavy game before. What she needs to be happy is to always be the centre of attention, which naturally doesn't gel well with everyone else. When faced with a plot, a plan or a puzzle that is clearly meant to challenge the whole group, she goes away and comes up with a scheme involving only herself that might just lead to success if she was the sole important character in an anime aimed at nine year old girls, but that any amount of common sense can obliterate into tiny shreds.

She causes problems by ruining everyone else's good ideas through sheer force of stupidity. If stealth is called for, she'll show herself and make a song and dance about it. If careful planning is the order of the day, she'll rush right into something. I've seen her characters die more than anyone else's, because eventually even our kind DMs couldn't come up with any more excuses to save her rear.

Matthew
2007-07-03, 08:09 PM
Lack of definition making no sense. Um, some 'Power Players' are good and some are bad. The bad ones are generally the ones who sacrifice established facts about their Character for more pluses for no reason other than the Player wants more pluses. They are the sort who view D&D as a competition between them and everybody else and are in it to win it. Chances are they are bordering on being a Munchkin (cheating). Good 'Power Players' seek to make the game more fun for everyone by understanding the capabilities of their Character (and other Characters) and using them to create a good play experience agreeable to the play style of the group.

What do I do about them? Well, the first kind of person is usually spotable from a mile away, so I don't invite them to the game (usually they are not the sort of people I want to be friends with anyway). The second kind of person I welcome to the game.

Damionte
2007-07-03, 08:14 PM
There's nothing inherently wrong with powergaming. It's just another style of play, every bit as valid as roleplaying.

There is no problem until your particular style of play is disruptive to the game, and that problem is not exclusive to powergaming. Munchkins who build PCs that completely overshadow the party need to be reigned in, but so do the dramatists whose refusal to make effective characters screws the party over.

Players and DMs alike are responsible for making the game fun for everyone.

Bravo !

I am the 'power gamer" in our group. Or at least as far as our group is concerned. That being I am an optimizer. I am just as annoyed.. hell I am even more annoyed with the "character actor" in our group. Who has a ton of fun playing fatally flawed characters.

Where we come into conflict is that he doesn't think i can roleplay because I like to be effective. He feels the only way to do it is to be the suffering hero. The problem he has with me is that I am much more effective than he is. to the point that many times he doesn't really need to be there.

At the same time my problem is that he makes his characters so hero challenged that they're a detriment to the group.

He wants to play the challenged everyman hero, who despite the odds overcomes challenges anyway. Unfortunately he can't always do that with me there overcoming my half of the challenge as well as taking up his side of the slack. He ends up being my sidekick. Which really isn't fun for him.

I like super heroic heroes. The herculean forgotten realms type heroes. The ones who take on world shattering baddies before breakfast.

We sometimes have trouble meeting in the middle. I tend to win out simply because we're not the only ones in the party. It's a 7 man party, so even those who are not pimped out are still out shining him. He's just lost in the background.

fortebraccio
2007-07-03, 08:24 PM
You should not judge a player by the numbers written on his character's sheet.

Quietus
2007-07-03, 08:32 PM
For those of you who consider yourselves "Power gamers", but in the good way - have any of you considered sitting down with these "Method gamers" who insist on playing a gimped version of something in a game where that clearly isn't going to pass? If their problem is in covering their end of the shtick, then maybe if you speak to them privately and work with them to make their fluff and crunch both compatible AND usable, it might turn out a better game overall?

Just my 2 coppers.

0oo0
2007-07-03, 08:32 PM
Lothabot, what does IotSV stand for?
There should be a dictionary for all the acronyms and the like that get thrown around these boards :tongue:

Just Alex
2007-07-03, 08:34 PM
I do it simply. I ban the uber-cheese like Planar Shepard wish tricks, the infinity gate, celerity/timestop, Pun-Pun, etc. Then let the game start flying. I can fairly easily set up situations that let any player shine, regardless of other players skills. Drama queens (or another, less pc word) can take a hike, as far as I'm concerned. If someone intends to disrupt the game, then rocks fall, they die. If someone insists on pulling celerity/timestop tricks, fine, all monsters start showing up with Ride Along Timestops, Plane Shifts, and Greater Teleports. There's a line in the BS, and I don't put up with players that feel some sort of indignant right to cross.

Raum
2007-07-03, 08:38 PM
what does IotSV stand for?
There should be a dictionary for all the acronyms and the like that get thrown around these boards :tongue:Initiate of the Seven Veils. There is a Common Acronyms thread...have no idea if the PrCs are listed in it though.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-03, 08:40 PM
I'm our resisdent powergamer. I may not have as many books as is usable, but I make do with excerpts, borrowing, and other methods.

Sometimes I need it, sometimes I don't. In one adventure I ran a 1'st level warforged artificer with adamantine body. I tried for flaws, but couldn't get them past. 21 AC at level one is t3h funny. Then we did something involving a homebrewed railgun, large quantities of metal bolts, and Bane: Humanoid (human). The railgun disappeared due to quantumn mechanics.

Another game (longer), I'm playing a bard. Going into the 3.0 Virtuoso, as none of use have CAdv, and the excerpt is on the WoTC site. My bard is actually handy, as this game involves quite a bit of social interaction. While a beguiler would be better, it doesn't fit very well. Clerics are totally out, as all the clerics in town died early on. After negotiating with a major enemy, actually using countersong and fascinate, and a few skills (no cheesed out diplomacy here :smalltongue: ), the bard's been pretty good, although so-so in combat. He's using a dagger-whip :smallbiggrin: . I tried to go for Sublime Chord, but it was disallowed :smallyuk: . This game, the DM mixed in some IH aspects. Everyone gets to use skill groups, as related to class (as a bard, I'm using Thief groups. I could try to argue for a few more, but that's silly). One of the players is using a Hunter.

Now, on relative cheese, a new DM tried to run a 16'th level arcane caster only campaign. Bad things happened. (What!?! That's CR 21! How'd you...?!).

Actually, what's annoying is probably the most optimized non full caster I played was a fighter. But I have ToB now :smallbiggrin: . Karmic strike, combat reflexes, leap attack, shock trooper.... spiked chain. That fighter.

For the most part, we're pretty moderate in power terms. At one point, I got banned from using books outside core (No. Your lvl 8 fighter is NOT supposed to defeat a CR 15 sorceress. Even if her CON is low, and you got a surprise round.)

MeklorIlavator
2007-07-03, 08:47 PM
Well, if you asked my group, they would most-likely say that i am the "power player", because I often give optimizing advise, and my characters are generally effective, and can be more effective than anyone of the other character. For instance, I dealt more average damage than the Primary tank. I was a Warlock/Cleric/Theruge, and my attack was dealing 3d6 normally, but with eldrich glaive it rose to 6d6(I could attack twice using the essence), and I could heal with the Healing blast(a special ability of the class). This is without a good choice of feats(Imp. Initiative, Point Blank Shot, Precise Shot, Practiced Spellcater, Weapon Finess), or use of items. Yet, I shown because of the sub-optimal builds( the primary tank, an Incarnate, had a d6 HD and 1/2 BAB), which were chosen largely for what I like to call the "Ohh!!! Shiney" factor. It like when someone is given a choice between 2 things and choses one over the other based on a prominent, but largely irrelevant feature. I'm not saying flavor doesn't matter, as I count that among the relavant features, more like the monks immunity to disease.

0oo0
2007-07-03, 08:53 PM
Initiate of the Seven Veils. There is a Common Acronyms thread...have no idea if the PrCs are listed in it though.

Why so there is, I should look harder (in an obvious spot too) before I say anything. Thanks though

Damionte
2007-07-03, 09:13 PM
Hey Meklor I'm playing that Warlock/Cleric/Theurg combo too. :) Just hit 15th and all is well. Except now I have to figure out what to do with the last 5 lvls.

Lord Tataraus
2007-07-03, 09:14 PM
It seems most of you agree on the issue of "good" and "bad" power-gamers so I would like to include the situation in my group.

first of all most of the group of four (used to be five) are power-gamers to some degree. The most munchkin one is somewhat dysfunctional, but because of him I have to keep updated on the current "cheese of the week" which I would rather not do. I also have to watch to see what messed up plan he has. However, it seems he has calmed down after he realized how boring it was to play a certain uber-wizard in one campaign. The second most notable seems very munchkin-y but usually do something he likes and takes on a more moderate build, though he does have a bad habit of fudging his dice. The third in power-level has only one quirk, he must use some figure from music, adult swim, horror movies, or some other media to based his roleplaying (in the very least) on such as his Japanese necromancer based off Toki from Metalocalypse. And the last thinks he is an adept optimizer (he challenged #3 to an ECL40 dual and built a barbarian) but he is not.

In short, the only power-gaming problem is the "cheese of the week" guy, but that seems fixed.

Oh, and that fifth player was a german exchange student who perfered the high charisma, ineffective type character. His highlight was a Jean Grey-type character in Mutants and Masterminds with a 10 constitution, 1 toughness (not a typo it was ONE only after I convinced him to put SOMETHING in toughness and then gave up), and 1 defense (same story as above). And he wondered why he spent most of the game unconscious and hardly got to use his powers.

Bassetking
2007-07-03, 10:57 PM
A shocking surprise... I'm one of my group's "Power Gamers".

I know, I know... Startling.

The issue arises that... Our group NEEDS our two power gamers. In a six person group, we have two that are entirely clueless in any combat or tactical capacity. We have one who has learned, over the space of three years, to be a competent Blaster-Mage. We have one who will, 50% of the time, make something that will fail at tying its own shoelaces, and 50% of the time, outperform the Blaster Mage...

And then you have myself, and my Co-Power-Gamer... Who take two different approaches to our builds.

He will start with a character, and design a highly-optimized and effective build around that theme.

I will design a highly-optimized and effective build, and create a character around it.

Last time out, he played as a Dwarven Fighter with six charisma, and Roleplayed it out perfectly. He was abrasive, curt, rude, and insulting. His character(This is IC, not the player) was possessed of a rank body odor. I have never seen someone actually portray a staggeringly low charisma character so well. This Dwarf was a bull-rushing Trip-machine.

My character, on the other hand, was an Orcish Monk, named Vishspar. Vishspar's monastic order was devoted to a doctrine that could best be described as "The Zen of Combat." To be an Orc, their doctrine stressed, was to War. To War was to Suffer. The only ways to end your suffering were death, or utter and total domination in the field of combat. Vishspar used a combination of Monk abilities, and levels of Psychic Warrior to exert a rapid-response command of the battlefield, an ability to refocus his psionic focus as a move action, and the use of psionic augmentation to his unarmed attacks that allowed him to deal Power-Attack levels of damage per round.

The reason we need our Power-Gamers? Our DM doesn't often throw at-level CR's at us. Three CR's above party level is average, but we see +5 pretty regularly. The two of us Cannot NOT powergame. To do so would damn our party to a rapid death, and a ruined campaign. We are regularly and frequently pulling our party's asses out of the fire, both in and out of combat.

Oh yes, don't think our Power-gaming ends in combat, folks. I am, usually, the party's face, due to my willingness to actually engage with the NPC's, and also due to a competence and ability to manipulate and manage my choice of words, and speech patterns. My co-PG is, usually, the Party Leader, as people are too wary of my fast-talking to let me be the one calling the shots.

So, yes. This is why my group needs Power Gamers. We have a Power DM, and a group that rarely covers the slack.

Kjata
2007-07-04, 12:52 AM
but u are also kickass roleplayers, so its all good dude. its the people who are incableof roleplaying that arent cool.

Jannex
2007-07-04, 03:15 AM
Can we come up with a term for the "Inverse Stormwind Fallacy"? You know, the mistaken assumption that players who choose their characters' abilities based on character concept, or who don't uber-optimize to the nth degree, end up with characters that are "ineffective," "hopelessly gimped," or otherwise "don't pull their own weight"? Because the assumption that players who enjoy the roleplaying aspect of the game more than the number-crunching aspect can only make characters that "can't tie their own shoelaces" gets irritating after a while, and is utterly false.

I haven't DMed for a while (I don't run D&D well; other games, I have no problem with, but D&D eludes me), so mostly I see this issue from the perspective of a PC. In several of the past campaigns I've played, there has been one PC that was so obscenely twinked that any encounter the DM could come up with that this PC wouldn't splatter in two rounds, would utterly maul the rest of the party. And yeah, it gets kind of frustrating after a while. I don't really have a solid solution to suggest, though; as I said, I don't DM much.

Bassetking
2007-07-04, 10:43 AM
Can we come up with a term for the "Inverse Stormwind Fallacy"? You know, the mistaken assumption that players who choose their characters' abilities based on character concept, or who don't uber-optimize to the nth degree, end up with characters that are "ineffective," "hopelessly gimped," or otherwise "don't pull their own weight"? Because the assumption that players who enjoy the roleplaying aspect of the game more than the number-crunching aspect can only make characters that "can't tie their own shoelaces" gets irritating after a while, and is utterly false.

I haven't DMed for a while (I don't run D&D well; other games, I have no problem with, but D&D eludes me), so mostly I see this issue from the perspective of a PC. In several of the past campaigns I've played, there has been one PC that was so obscenely twinked that any encounter the DM could come up with that this PC wouldn't splatter in two rounds, would utterly maul the rest of the party. And yeah, it gets kind of frustrating after a while. I don't really have a solid solution to suggest, though; as I said, I don't DM much.

Somehow... Somehow I sense that you may be referring to my last post, Jannex, so, allow me to elaborate on several points I feel brought forth in your statement.

1. People who enjoy roleplaying more than combat are not, by their enjoyment of roleplaying, precluded from creating mechanically competent characters.

Yes. 100%, I agree.


You know, the mistaken assumption that players who choose their characters' abilities based on character concept, or who don't uber-optimize to the nth degree, end up with characters that are "ineffective," "hopelessly gimped," or otherwise "don't pull their own weight"?

Again, Not always the case. But, let's take the case of the 50%/50% character I referenced. He sat down, and built a highly competent, dedicated, well engineered Ranger, with a Favorite Enemy focus on Evil Outsiders. Invested in an Evil Outsider Bane Bow, and Arrows of Evil Outsider Slaying. Pinned his character concept around someone who was Death On Toast for Evil Outsiders...

In a campaign without planar travel.

So, as he was a bow-focused ranger, who had invested his character entirely into fighting Evil Outsiders, and we never ran into Evil Outsiders.... Yes, Yes I WILL say that that character is ineffective. He was told before the game started that this was a highly plane-restricted game, and that his character concept would not really fit the theme of the game. He chose to play his concept, and could not contribute in any meaningful manner to the combat portion of the game.

There is, I feel, and please, correct me if I am wrong, but there is an understood comment inherent in your "Anti-Stormwind Fallacy" That goes along these lines: "Sub-optimal builds are alright, so long as it's for Roleplaying purposes."

First, let us discuss "Optimal". My previously mentioned character, Vishpar, the Psionic Orcish Monk, had a good number of skill-points in Perform(Koan), Craft (Carpentry) and Craft (Tailoring). Why? Vishspar was a wandering Aesthetic. What items he did not gain through glorious combat were never purchased, he either made them himself, or made due without them. As his code said, To be an orc is to Suffer. He used a Begging Bowl, would not accept anything other than raw materials or food-stuffs, and fended for himself.

He also routinely did 60-70 damage per round of combat, as a Monk, and had a 60' per round movement speed. He covered the entire field, and ran a defense screen for everyone that wasn't the dwarf. I consider this an Optimized Build. He was effective on both sides of the RP/Combat divide.

Let us now speak of one of the individuals I said was Clueless. Our Cleric. Last worshiper of a supremely powerful Deity known only as "The Light". This individual had been tasked with a quest from her God, and further, felt it was her duty to "Heal The World." Rubbish in Combat. Couldn't place her spells, couldn't adapt, spent most of the time she was in combat using Searing Light, and spent most combat frustrated that we either 1) Weren't this moment furthering her god's quest or 2) Weren't this moment "Healing The World." Out of Combat, she alternated between obsessive, intricate detail wrenched from NPC's, and blowing them off entirely; based upon how pertinent she felt they were to 1) Her God's Quest or 2) "Healing the World". If she thought there might POSSIBLY be some information that an NPC had regarding either of these, we could and did lose up to three hours of game-time, as she hounded and ferreted for any possible new information.

One of her favorite things to do was to Roleplay "Research". By which, I mean, Roleplay out her searching through Library Stacks and Archives, and her interaction with the Librarians.

She did not, though, have ranks in Search, Gather Information, Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, Knowledge(Local) or any of the skills that would have actually reflected a deep, abiding interest in the ability to find stuff out.

I'll call That build "Sub-optimal".

To Reiterate, I don't hold with "Sub-optimal builds are alright, so long as it's for Roleplaying purposes." any more than I hold with "Poor Roleplaying is acceptable, so long as you utterly dominate in combat."

SpiderBrigade
2007-07-04, 11:01 AM
Can we come up with a term for the "Inverse Stormwind Fallacy"? You know, the mistaken assumption that players who choose their characters' abilities based on character concept, or who don't uber-optimize to the nth degree, end up with characters that are "ineffective," "hopelessly gimped," or otherwise "don't pull their own weight"? Because the assumption that players who enjoy the roleplaying aspect of the game more than the number-crunching aspect can only make characters that "can't tie their own shoelaces" gets irritating after a while, and is utterly false.Well, it's certainly utterly false that those two things have any causal relationship, just as in the Stormwind Fallacy. You are correct. Being interested in character development more than character power does NOT inevitably mean you have a completely inept character in mechanical terms.

The fact of the matter is, though, that there ARE a not-insignificant number of people who really feel that taking a bunch of flaws or 50 ranks in completely useless skills will "make for a better character." They're probably a vocal minority, but in any large discussion of optimization you will hear that argument at least once. That sense of superiority is why the Stormwind Fallacy was written in the first place.

Morty
2007-07-04, 11:11 AM
Well, it's certainly utterly false that those two things have any causal relationship, just as in the Stormwind Fallacy. You are correct. Being interested in character development more than character power does NOT inevitably mean you have a completely inept character in mechanical terms.

The fact of the matter is, though, that there ARE a not-insignificant number of people who really feel that taking a bunch of flaws or 50 ranks in completely useless skills will "make for a better character." They're probably a vocal minority, but in any large discussion of optimization you will hear that argument at least once. That sense of superiority is why the Stormwind Fallacy was written in the first place.

I belive that Jannex' point -that I agree with- was that there are number of people who belive that if character isn't haevily optimized combat-wise, but instead is build to cover player's character concept(or is unoptimized simply because player don't like to optimize), will be gimped and unable to contribute in fight. Which is not true.

SpiderBrigade
2007-07-04, 11:24 AM
Yeah, I was trying to get across that I agree with that point, too!

The rest of my post was to acknowledge the reasons that people make that assumption.

Jannex
2007-07-04, 05:09 PM
There is, I feel, and please, correct me if I am wrong, but there is an understood comment inherent in your "Anti-Stormwind Fallacy" That goes along these lines: "Sub-optimal builds are alright, so long as it's for Roleplaying purposes."

Not quite. In fact, your attempt to summarize my position highlights exactly what I see as the problem here: that some people make the assumption of a dichotomy between "optimal" and "utter suck," when in fact there's a broad spectrum of "reasonably good" in between the two extremes. Your options aren't just "can solo half the Epic-Level Handbook by 15th level" and "can't tie his own shoelaces." It's entirely possible to create a character that contributes meaningfully and usefully to combat without utterly dominating the battlefield. THAT is what I am getting at with the "Anti-Stormwind Fallacy."

And I wasn't only referencing your post; there had been several remarks along the same lines that prompted my response. Yours was just the most quotable.


The fact of the matter is, though, that there ARE a not-insignificant number of people who really feel that taking a bunch of flaws or 50 ranks in completely useless skills will "make for a better character." They're probably a vocal minority, but in any large discussion of optimization you will hear that argument at least once. That sense of superiority is why the Stormwind Fallacy was written in the first place.

By the same token, though, there are a not-insignificant number of people who really seem to feel that any build choice that isn't the most optimal one possible will make for a "completely useless" or "gimped" character who cannot contribute meaningfully to combat. They're probably likewise a vocal minority, but the assumption definitely happens. Just like people who enjoy optimization don't like it assumed that they can't roleplay (because that certainly isn't necessarily the case), people who make build choices based on character concept don't like it assumed that their characters are useless and liabilities to the party (because this is an equally unfounded assumption). It's that sense of sneering disdain that prompted me to look for an Anti-Stormwind.

M0rt: Precisely. :smallsmile:

Deepblue706
2007-07-04, 05:59 PM
This isn't veered towards any individual - it's just my thoughts.

I find that many "Power Players" (who I will define as "Those who refuse to play characters with significant weaknesses/sub optimal builds" for purposes of eliminating ambiguity) are preoccupied with making their characters so effective, that the personalities of their characters are somewhat neglected and suffer from a lack of development. This is not true in all cases, as those more experienced with optimization will sooner be able to determine how to make their characters strong, giving them additional time to think out their personalities and background. Less experienced optimizers can also accomplish this if they simply have enough time, anyway.

It would be my opinion that "Power Players" never like to be bad at anything, unless what they're doing is meant to be bad at that one thing that doesn't actually impede them in any significant way. And, because they are always so pristine, they throw away the roleplaying opportunities that weakness grant a person.

Not all characters need major flaws. Some may see such things as crutches. But, in any case, it does add to the depth of the game. It may be minor, or it may pack a huge whallop - but this game IS about the players. If one of them is playing as a seasoned battle-veteran with a single eye, if another is a scholarly Wizard with a neurological disoder, if another is a cunning Rogue who never speaks, and if one is a devout Cleric who suffers from a dreaded curse, then you have a group with some depth, and thus a game with more depth. Sure, you could put all positive remarks about them, and have equal depth. But, a balance of good and bad traits is what makes them seem less like machines and more like people.

The characters in the game of D&D are meant to be heroes, but has any hero ever been so perfect? I'm quite sure this is a no, simply because in literature, all heroes show some weakness, at some point, which makes them appear to be more human. This is what encourages people to think that they too, could be heroes. Connection between the reader and the hero in the story very often lies in overt weaknesses, and other times in ideals which villains often describe as weaknesses as well.

Heroes in real-world history had even more weaknesses, but as they are immortalized, those weaknesses are often forgotten. Their strengths are also said to be exponentially greater than they really were in life. This creates a poor view of what heroes really are - people. And, people always have strengths and weaknesses. Some have more of one than the other - but the chances of someone being "fully optimized" is highly unlikely, and ruins the feel of the game for some of those who wish to be heroes because of their deeds, not the invincibility that can be read on their sheet, and translates them to being as "powerful" as heroes.

Though "Einstein" is a name universally associated with "genius", was he really that smart a man? My sources say he actually had a different brain from most humans, which allowed for neurons to fire a bit faster. But, this caused him to suffer slower development of speech, making his family to believe he was retarded. I'm also quite sure he was the first man to be seen as the "absent-minded professor", as there have been stories of him getting so involved in thoughts he'd show up hours late for important meetings, other times calling his wife at home saying he got lost, and doesn't remember where he was supposed to be going. He was certainly a highly intelligent man, but he was not without some flaws. And what did he end up accomplishing? I believe Time magazine had declared him "Man of the Century".

So, my point is that flaws add to a hero's flavor. It's not necessary, but it makes things more believable. I also feel consistency of the background, personality, and character sheet is vital to believability. I think the idea of taking up skills that don't fit the normal meld of the build you're making, because that's what the hero knows should be more encouraged. As should swapping out the ability to do massive damage every turn with your Heedless Charge / Leap Attack combo to instead have the meager ability of Combat Expertise because your character is actually concerned about having superior defensive ability, and wants to be able to keep themselves from getting hurt, and not just going to say this in-character but ignore it on the sheet.

horseboy
2007-07-04, 06:33 PM
So, my point is that flaws add to a hero's flavor. It's not necessary, but it makes things more believable. I also feel consistency of the background, personality, and character sheet is vital to believability. I think the idea of taking up skills that don't fit the normal meld of the build you're making, because that's what the hero knows should be more encouraged. As should swapping out the ability to do massive damage every turn with your Heedless Charge / Leap Attack combo to instead have the meager ability of Combat Expertise because your character is actually concerned about having superior defensive ability, and wants to be able to keep themselves from getting hurt, and not just going to say this in-character but ignore it on the sheet.

What I'm reading here is if my character isn't chewing an angstburger then I'm a bad player. Well, I'm sorry, I'm a fairly well adjusted person, I tend to play well adjusted characters. Sure, I'll take a quirk here and there (giving my fighter skill in kazoo or what have you). I just don't like dealing with "drama" in the real world. It's not pleasant. Why would I want to have to put up with it in an environment where I'm trying to relax?

Deepblue706
2007-07-04, 08:04 PM
What I'm reading here is if my character isn't chewing an angstburger then I'm a bad player. Well, I'm sorry, I'm a fairly well adjusted person, I tend to play well adjusted characters. Sure, I'll take a quirk here and there (giving my fighter skill in kazoo or what have you). I just don't like dealing with "drama" in the real world. It's not pleasant. Why would I want to have to put up with it in an environment where I'm trying to relax?

What?

The part you quoted was about consistency of character.

What I was saying there was, if a player told me, "My Wizard was once a soldier" he should PROBABLY have a level in a Fighter-type class. Consistency of the character shows a desire to play a RPG, not a dice game. If you're going to ignore the "drama" and consistency of the character, I suggest trying games like Chainmail or Warhammer, rather than D&D.

But, back to flaws, I specifically noted that not everyone who decides against having any kind of flaw is not inherently a "bad player". Do what you want, but I have more fun with people who desire to play the role of a character, not those who desire nothing but awesome abilities.

Remus of Rome
2007-07-04, 08:11 PM
There is one in every group. We know and hate them. What do you do with your power-players?

What are you talking about though I'm not a DM everyone but my brother and me are Munchins in the group I play with, I mean really even th DM is one he always likes to have his own NPCs in the group which are like 5 lvls higher than the rest of the group and are a completely overpowered race like stonekin.

but the other game group I'm in all sorts of nasty things happen to others like having powers taken away lvl loss until they stop munchkining

Deepblue706
2007-07-04, 08:52 PM
Now, I'll actually answer the OP.


There is one in every group. We know and hate them. What do you do with your power-players?

Try to instill ideas of a non-power-based approach to the game through in-character discussion and situations.

horseboy
2007-07-04, 09:07 PM
What?

The part you quoted was about consistency of character.

What I was saying there was, if a player told me, "My Wizard was once a soldier" he should PROBABLY have a level in a Fighter-type class. Consistency of the character shows a desire to play a RPG, not a dice game. If you're going to ignore the "drama" and consistency of the character, I suggest trying games like Chainmail or Warhammer, rather than D&D.

But, back to flaws, I specifically noted that not everyone who decides against having any kind of flaw is not inherently a "bad player". Do what you want, but I have more fun with people who desire to play the role of a character, not those who desire nothing but awesome abilities.

(The quoting this was cause I was going to say something about actually taking Combat Expertise, but forgot)

There's nothing wrong with consistency, the "problem" is, according to you, I should either be Quasimodo or I'm a power gamer. What's wrong with just playing a happy, well adjusted person who one day was smart enough to ask his DI "Hey, what's this hook on the end of my spear here for?" Found out a really good way to keep from getting himself and his squaddies hurt. Then realize there's more money to be made as part of an adventuring party than in the military?

Bosh
2007-07-04, 09:24 PM
In my experience I think that people exaggerate how many RPers ignore optimization and how many "roll" players look for cheese.

In my group the person who RPs the least pretty much only uses SRD stuff and the person who RPs the most is the one who comes up with the most outrageous cheese-builds. Often the people who RP a lot and the pepople who powergame a lot both want to be the center of attention and because of this they're often the same person.

Argent
2007-07-05, 09:25 AM
I think the response to the OP really depends on how you define a "power player". In my eyes, a power player is one who designs their characters to exploit every flaw and squeeze every last little bit of damage/BAB/sneak attack potential out of their character. I don't have a problem with characters being well-designed and intelligent and optimized for what they do -- but at some point, if the character is designed only for combat effectiveness at the expense of playability/believability, that lessens the fun of the game for me.

On the topic of optimization, it makes sense for an individual in a magic- and danger-rich world to become the best at what they do, bub. When your life may depend on your strength, your ability with a blade, your knowledge of spellcraft, et cetera, it behooves you to become really, really good with those things. However, a lot of character designs I see just don't make a lot of sense story-wise (how do you design a good and believable backstory for some of these sorcerer/wizard/barbarian/spellthief/paladin-type characters out there?). A lot of these designs seem so planned that, at 1st level, the character already is aimed at what they're going to be at 20th. I don't know that that makes a lot of sense.

To me, a character is much more about their growth and progress in the world, which may not be predictable at 1st level. F'rinstance, I was playing a bard in one of our campaigns and just figured he'd stay your average happy, lute-playing, party-inspiring bard. But campaign occurrences convinced him that he had a lot of latent anger and rage, which ended up manifesting itself as a prestige class (I don't recall the title, but I believe it's the lightning-throwing bard from Stormwrack). At 1st level, I'd never have predicted that path, but that's how it ended up at 8th level. Was he optimized? Probably not. But his ultimate path ended up being a lot more organic, coming from the progress of the campaign rather than being predestined at 1st level.

Another issue with optimized characters is that they can be so specialized that if they're taken out of their element, they're useless (or at least less-useful). In our current campaign, one character is a half-orc gladiator-type who's built around a spiked chain. He's all about hitting stuff really hard and battlefield control. However, he's so specialized with his spiked chain that when it was eventually destroyed, he was nerfed for a few weeks of campaign time until he could get a new chain and do his weird bonding process with it again.

Sorry for the ramble, just my (verbose) thoughts on power players and optimizing.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-05, 09:53 AM
What?

The part you quoted was about consistency of character.

It was about consistency of character, but carried with it a bunch of assumptions about what makes a character "consistent".

For example:


What I was saying there was, if a player told me, "My Wizard was once a soldier" he should PROBABLY have a level in a Fighter-type class. Consistency of the character shows a desire to play a RPG, not a dice game. If you're going to ignore the "drama" and consistency of the character, I suggest trying games like Chainmail or Warhammer, rather than D&D.

The thing is, what you're doing here is you are *penalizing* people for having a non-standard personal history.

If I say "my wizard was a solder" and another person says "my wizard has always been a wizard", and you make me take a level of Fighter to "represent" my character's history, all you are doing is punishing me for not saying "my wizard has always been a wizard."

This is exactly where the "Stormwind Fallacy" comes from: players come up with interesting character concepts, DMs insist that said character concept has to make mechanical concessions which make it less powerful (and which, frequently, do not actually reflect the concept terribly well anyway). Then people either say "screw that" or they say "yes, I shall suffer for the art that is *roleplaying*."

Suggesting that a character who used to be a soldier should take a level of Fighter (or equivalent) is like suggesting that a character who used to be a peasant should have to take a level of Commoner. If you want to encourage roleplaying, don't make your players pay to do it.


But, back to flaws, I specifically noted that not everyone who decides against having any kind of flaw is not inherently a "bad player". Do what you want, but I have more fun with people who desire to play the role of a character, not those who desire nothing but awesome abilities.

Why does playing the role of a character require levels, classes, and experience points?

lord_khaine
2007-07-05, 10:23 AM
Why does playing the role of a character require levels, classes, and experience points?

i guess because people like to know what exatly their characters are able to do, its kinda hard to play the role of a archmage if you only have the skills of a 1 lv wizard fx.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-05, 10:26 AM
i guess because people like to know what exatly their characters are able to do, its kinda hard to play the role of a archmage if you only have the skills of a 1 lv wizard fx.

I know it's an old observation, but it worked okay for Gandalf.

The point is that if you want to play "the role of a character" then you presumably care about issues of personality, not about issues of "who can kill what in a fight."

That being the case, why play in a system which goes into great detail to quantify who can kill what in a fight?

Tormsskull
2007-07-05, 11:01 AM
This is exactly where the "Stormwind Fallacy" comes from: players come up with interesting character concepts, DMs insist that said character concept has to make mechanical concessions which make it less powerful (and which, frequently, do not actually reflect the concept terribly well anyway).

Not quite. The Stormwind Fallacy tries to show that there is no correlation between power players/optimiziers and bad roleplayers.

I personally feel that there is a correlation, as in, it isn't 99% or even 90% of optimiziers that are bad roleplayers, but if you compare the number of bad role players in a group of 100 D&D players who are not optimiziers versus 100 D&D players who are optimiziers, you will find a higher number of bad role players in the second group.

But, everyone has their own definitions, and what constitutes "role playing" to one person might be "drama-ladden acting" to another. In addition, what one person considers optimizing, another will call "making smart choices."

Tellah
2007-07-05, 11:36 AM
I personally feel that there is a correlation, as in, it isn't 99% or even 90% of optimiziers that are bad roleplayers, but if you compare the number of bad role players in a group of 100 D&D players who are not optimiziers versus 100 D&D players who are optimiziers, you will find a higher number of bad role players in the second group.

I find the opposite to be true. Players who are deeply interested in their characters often roleplay effectively and optimize effectively. Players who don't associate strongly with their characters do neither.

Furthermore, optimizing is, in a certain sense, roleplaying. Others have said as much before, but it bears repeating: if a person finds himself in deadly combat on a daily basis, he will quickly find the best methods of defending himself possible. Making choices based on "character concept," on the other hand, is nonsensical from an in-character perspective. When a Texan gets shipped off to Iraq, he doesn't bring a six-shooter and a ten-gallon hat, just because it fits his personality. He takes the M16 and flak jacket, because they're optimal.

(Props to whoever originally came up with that example)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-05, 11:46 AM
Not quite. The Stormwind Fallacy tries to show that there is no correlation between power players/optimiziers and bad roleplayers.

I personally feel that there is a correlation, as in, it isn't 99% or even 90% of optimiziers that are bad roleplayers, but if you compare the number of bad role players in a group of 100 D&D players who are not optimiziers versus 100 D&D players who are optimiziers, you will find a higher number of bad role players in the second group.

If there is such a correlation, it arises in part because of GMs who force players to make the choice.

Suppose I am playing a Sorcerer, I have two skill points per level, plus one for being human (if I am one).

Suppose I describe my character as "devoutly religious."

According to some peoples' logic, I would be obliged to reflect this by spending some of my already scarce skill points in order to buy cross-class ranks in Knowledge: Religion.

Now okay, that isn't much of a sacrifice, if I buy one rank it only costs me two points out of the twelve I get at character creation, but it leaves me with fewer points to spend on all the other things my character should *also* be good at.

Not only that, but that rank of Knowledge: Religion implies things about my character that simply don't fit my character concept. They imply that he has made a broad study of all faiths, gods, and pantheons, that he has a working knowledge of the undead, that he recognizes a variety of holy symbols and is versed in mythic history. That's not what I signed up for.

All because I wanted to describe my character as being "devoutly religious".

A number of DMs seem to want to make their players *pay* to roleplay well, so is it any surprise that a lot of their players stick to roleplaying badly?

lord_khaine
2007-07-05, 11:49 AM
I know it's an old observation, but it worked okay for Gandalf

but gandalf had more than the powers of a archmage at his disposal, he was very suble about using them, but the power was there.

oh and btw tormsskull, my experience has been the reverse of this, the best roleplayers was also more often than not pretty good powergamers.

and with powergamers i mean they are able to make characters who can fill their chosen role, and hold their own in a encounter.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-05, 11:51 AM
but gandalf had more than the powers of a archmage at his disposal, he was very suble about using them, but the power was there.

But the point is that to actually *play* Gandalf, you wouldn't need to quantify his "powers." Indeed you couldn't. It's not like you can say "Gandalf gets Cure Light Wounds five times a day as a Spell Like Ability".

If you wanted to play Gandalf, you'd need to know what his motivations were, how he acted and what he did. You wouldn't need to know his "stats".

Deepblue706
2007-07-05, 11:52 AM
(The quoting this was cause I was going to say something about actually taking Combat Expertise, but forgot)

There's nothing wrong with consistency, the "problem" is, according to you, I should either be Quasimodo or I'm a power gamer. What's wrong with just playing a happy, well adjusted person who one day was smart enough to ask his DI "Hey, what's this hook on the end of my spear here for?" Found out a really good way to keep from getting himself and his squaddies hurt. Then realize there's more money to be made as part of an adventuring party than in the military?

Again, you're taking an extreme side on this. I was simply saying that sometimes flaws are nice because they add things. THAT'S ALL. It was meant to be a simple statement, but you appear to have blown it own of proportion.

I was avoiding being one-sided on this, again, specifically noting that a character without flaws is NOT inherently uninteresting.

The ONLY thing I dislike in some players I see, is what I deem a childish pursuit of nothing but power. I cannot respect that. I try to avoid playing with those people.

I find that in the "Power Player" category, there are more of these individuals than those who fit into the "Quasimodo" category (When I say that, I mean a Fighter that "wasted" ONE feat, maybe, because that's what he wanted his character to have, because it goes with his character concept, and apparently that's all it takes for you to give them that title).

Tellah
2007-07-05, 11:59 AM
But the point is that to actually *play* Gandalf, you wouldn't need to quantify his "powers." Indeed you couldn't. It's not like you can say "Gandalf gets Cure Light Wounds five times a day as a Spell Like Ability".

If you wanted to play Gandalf, you'd need to know what his motivations were, how he acted and what he did. You wouldn't need to know his "stats".

I don't know how you're playing D&D, but I generally use a character sheet full of statistics to play a character. In a crunch-heavy game, you do need to know a character's stats. Diceless, not so much.

lord_khaine
2007-07-05, 12:01 PM
But the point is that to actually *play* Gandalf, you wouldn't need to quantify his "powers." Indeed you couldn't. It's not like you can say "Gandalf gets Cure Light Wounds five times a day as a Spell Like Ability".

If you wanted to play Gandalf, you'd need to know what his motivations were, how he acted and what he did. You wouldn't need to know his "stats".

i disagree about this, first of all gandalfs powers have allready been Quantifyed in the rolemaster system who was build upon LoTR.

for the second, if im suposed to play someone who has so much control over his power as gandalf has, then it really wouldnt do if i personaly had no actual idea about what i was able to do.

Deepblue706
2007-07-05, 12:14 PM
It was about consistency of character, but carried with it a bunch of assumptions about what makes a character "consistent".

For example:



The thing is, what you're doing here is you are *penalizing* people for having a non-standard personal history.

If I say "my wizard was a solder" and another person says "my wizard has always been a wizard", and you make me take a level of Fighter to "represent" my character's history, all you are doing is punishing me for not saying "my wizard has always been a wizard."

This is exactly where the "Stormwind Fallacy" comes from: players come up with interesting character concepts, DMs insist that said character concept has to make mechanical concessions which make it less powerful (and which, frequently, do not actually reflect the concept terribly well anyway). Then people either say "screw that" or they say "yes, I shall suffer for the art that is *roleplaying*."

Suggesting that a character who used to be a soldier should take a level of Fighter (or equivalent) is like suggesting that a character who used to be a peasant should have to take a level of Commoner. If you want to encourage roleplaying, don't make your players pay to do it.



Why does playing the role of a character require levels, classes, and experience points?

Penalizing? Yes, consider it a penalty to multiclass into a class that you SHOULD have, according to your background, if you're really that concerned with the numbers.

I guess it's also a penalty to ask PCs to come up with a reason how they just multiclassed from Barbarian to Bard after fighting a dragon (which gave the xps for level-up) without making retroactive justifications. But, that's simply my preference.

Because this is D&D, the game revolves around the class levels as much as it does the roleplaying. Your level, stats, and experience are signifiers of your abilities.

It's the same way with me and GURPS, too. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that system, but: If you claim to be a scientist, or a professor, or a race-car driver, or whatever, you should PROBABLY have spend character points in relevant skills. If you didn't, it'd probably look like you want all the good without claiming the bad.

And that's what I've been steering this towards.

While everyone wants a useful character, a player should not have the motivation to only have "the best of this and that", and ignore what penalties come with it.

"My Wizard was once a soldier - he's trained in warfare and tactics and strategy. And he's really good with swords and other weapons, too." Obviously this character has spent more time doing things other than wizardry.

"My Wizard has been studying arcane magic all his life. He can't do much other than cast spells, but he's really good at it."

Now, the first above example could say "I had some combat training" and I'd have to view it in a new light, and reconsider what is appropriate. But, if he can use a weapon according to his background, he should probably know how to use it in-game. If not, okay, that's kinda lame to me.

This is exactly where the "Stormwind Fallacy" comes from: players come up with interesting character concepts, DMs insist that said character concept has to make mechanical concessions which make it less powerful (and which, frequently, do not actually reflect the concept terribly well anyway). Then people either say "screw that" or they say "yes, I shall suffer for the art that is *roleplaying*."

I don't force it, but yes, I do insist that players at least aim for consistency. If the player of a level one character says in his character's background "Oh, I'm a legendary dragon slayer", I'm going to insist they tell me how it is they're at level one, and how it is they slew a dragon. If they don't address it, and simply say "It's a cool concept, so it should be OK", I'll have to disagree. If he got magical aid, fine. If it was a very young dragon and he got lucky, ok. If he lost his memory and somehow that ruined his level progression, and restarted him at level one, whatever. As long as it is addressed, I'm satisfied.

Tormsskull
2007-07-05, 12:14 PM
Furthermore, optimizing is, in a certain sense, roleplaying.


Right, that's what I meant by what 1 person calls roleplaying will not always jive with what someone else calls roleplaying.

From a certain perspective, Final Fantasy is a roleplaying game where you take on the role of Cecil, or Terra, or Cloud, and by controlling that character on the screen and choosing which weapons they will use, you roleplay as them. But that's not what I would consider roleplaying.



Others have said as much before, but it bears repeating: if a person finds himself in deadly combat on a daily basis, he will quickly find the best methods of defending himself possible. Making choices based on "character concept," on the other hand, is nonsensical from an in-character perspective. When a Texan gets shipped off to Iraq, he doesn't bring a six-shooter and a ten-gallon hat, just because it fits his personality. He takes the M16 and flak jacket, because they're optimal.


Agreed. But that would be an example of optimizing in-character. The character is choosing to take what he believes is the most effective equipment with him into a dangerous situation. When a group of characters are dividing up loot, it could be said that they are optimizing their characters by giving the fighter the sword, the wizard the wand, etc.

That's why there are different definitions of optimizing. The type of optimizing to me that tend to hurt roleplaying is something like:

A player knows he is going to be in a campaign. He comes on to the forums and says "I want a character who can get the most attacks possible and do the most melee damage possible at level 6. Books allowed are blah, blah, and blah." Then people post these abberations of characters with mutliclass this and that, and this obscure item and that obscure item from this and that book. That is an example of out-of-character optimizing, which is usually just referred to as "optimizing".



According to some peoples' logic, I would be obliged to reflect this by spending some of my already scarce skill points in order to buy cross-class ranks in Knowledge: Religion.


Your sorceror example is not necessarily true though. If you want to describe your character as devoutly religious I don't think that requires any ranks in Knowledge (Religion). However, if you wanted to utilizie some of the mechanical benefits that Knowledge (Religion) gives you, you'd need to have those ranks.



A number of DMs seem to want to make their players *pay* to roleplay well, so is it any surprise that a lot of their players stick to roleplaying badly?


You are totally right that some DMs often want to see player's use some of their character's resources reflect what their characters roleplay reinforces. And that's one of the main problems of optimizers; they don't want to. If your character's story revolves around him being a master violinist, but your character doesn't have any ranks in Perform, things don't add up.

So the choice to the player is: Be slightly worse mechanically but have the character's integrity intact, or kick character integrity to the side of the road and maximize the character mechanically. I am one of the DMs that pushes for players to take the first option.

Tellah
2007-07-05, 12:26 PM
That's why there are different definitions of optimizing. The type of optimizing to me that tend to hurt roleplaying is something like:

A player knows he is going to be in a campaign. He comes on to the forums and says "I want a character who can get the most attacks possible and do the most melee damage possible at level 6. Books allowed are blah, blah, and blah." Then people post these abberations of characters with mutliclass this and that, and this obscure item and that obscure item from this and that book. That is an example of out-of-character optimizing, which is usually just referred to as "optimizing".

That optimization could be done just as easily in character. John, the son of a poor blacksmith with a heart of gold, sets out to find his fortune in the caves and dungeons surrounding his hometown of Hamletville. After a few nasty scrapes with bugbears, he takes a keen interest in the fighting styles being taught around Hamletville and, like a medieval Bruce Lee, learns a smattering of skills from four different disciplines. Out of character, he's a Fighter/Duskblade/Swordsage/Lion-Totem Barbarian, optimized for huge damage and preposterous trip checks. In-character, he's developed from those four fighting styles his own brand of martial arts, which he calls "Spiked Chain Kun Do," the way of the intercepting spiked chain.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-05, 12:32 PM
Penalizing? Yes, consider it a penalty to multiclass into a class that you SHOULD have, according to your background, if you're really that concerned with the numbers.

How does "I was a soldier" translate to "I must have at least one level of Fighter"?

At second level, a Wizard has the same BAB and better Hit Points than a first level Warrior (since NPCs don't get max HP at first level). They also have proficiency with crossbows, daggers, clubs and quaterstaves, all of which are perfectly usable weapons of war.


I guess it's also a penalty to ask PCs to come up with a reason how they just multiclassed from Barbarian to Bard after fighting a dragon (which gave the xps for level-up) without making retroactive justifications. But, that's simply my preference.

Yes, it's a penalty. Here, though, you're penalizing people for not playing single-class builds.

Do you insist that the Wizard justifies the fact that he suddenly learned two spells he couldn't cast before? Or that the Fighter justify his new Feat? Or that anybody justify the fact that they've learned more in six months of bashing monsters than most people learn in a lifetime of dedicated study?

So why does the Barbarian have to justify his multiclassing?


Because this is D&D, the game revolves around the class levels as much as it does the roleplaying.

Bingo. And if you don't like it, you should play a different game.


It's very unfortunate, and why I often try to look to GURPS. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that system, but it's the same deal with me in that game as well: If you claim to be a scientist, or a professor, or a race-car driver, or whatever, you should PROBABLY have spend character points in relevant skills. If you didn't, it'd probably look like you want all the good without claiming the bad.

There's a world of difference between "I am a scientist" and "I was a soldier."

First, one is present tense, the other is past tense. Second, D&D characters get all of the skills a soldier needs for free anyway.


And that's what I've been steering this towards.

While everyone wants a useful character, a player should not only have the motivation to have "the best of this and that" and ignore what penalties come with it.

You're confusing "the penalties that come with it" with "the penalties my DM chooses to assign me as a test of my 'role playing'"


"My Wizard was once a soldier - he's trained in warfare and tactics and strategy. And he's really good with swords and other weapons, too." Obviously this character has spent more time doing other things that wizardry.

And if he wants to be *good* at them, he'll need to spend points.

But now you've moved the goalposts, from "my character was a soldier" to "my character has abilities which cost points."


"My Wizard has been studying arcane magic all his life. He can't do much other than cast spells, but he's really good at it."

Where is the "bad" in this character?


Now, the above example could say "I had some combat training" and it'd probably be very different. But, if he can use a weapon according to his background, he should probably know how to use it in-game. If not, okay, that's kinda lame to me.

A weapon like, say, the crossbow? Or the quarterstaff?


This is exactly where the "Stormwind Fallacy" comes from: players come up with interesting character concepts, DMs insist that said character concept has to make mechanical concessions which make it less powerful (and which, frequently, do not actually reflect the concept terribly well anyway). Then people either say "screw that" or they say "yes, I shall suffer for the art that is *roleplaying*."

I don't force it, but yes, I do insist that players at least aim for consistency. If the player of a level one character says in his character's background "Oh, I'm a legendary dragon slayer", I'm going to insist they tell me how it is they're at level one, and how it is they slew a dragon. If they don't address it, and simply say "It's a cool concept, so it should be OK", I'll have to disagree. If he got magical aid, fine. If it was a very young dragon and he got lucky, ok. If he lost his memory and somehow that ruined his level progression, and restarted him at level one, whatever. As long as it is addressed, I'm satisfied.

And again, we're moving into "player claims IC abilities which he does not possess".

There's an important difference between a player claiming that his character has specific, game mechanical abilities that he does not (like weapon proficiencies) and a player just not taking the feats or classes the DM thinks he should take.

Tormsskull
2007-07-05, 12:40 PM
That optimization could be done just as easily in character. John, the son of a poor blacksmith with a heart of gold, sets out to find his fortune in the caves and dungeons surrounding his hometown of Hamletville. After a few nasty scrapes with bugbears, he takes a keen interest in the fighting styles being taught around Hamletville and, like a medieval Bruce Lee, learns a smattering of skills from four different disciplines.


It could, but what you are doing is taking all of the things that you want, and then crafting an in-character rationale for why it all makes sense. If the DM describes to you that Hamletville is a place where martial masters of different disciplines frequent often, your concept would have more legitamacy. But if the DM tells you that your character grew up in Hamletville, which is a tiny Hamlet (shockingly) with nothing at all interesting going on there, until now, your concept would start to sink.

I know some players think that anything that happens before game start that has to do with their characters is totally left to their discretion, but we've never played that way.



Out of character, he's a Fighter/Duskblade/Swordsage/Lion-Totem Barbarian, optimized for huge damage and preposterous trip checks. In-character, he's developed from those four fighting styles his own brand of martial arts, which he calls "Spiked Chain Kun Do," the way of the intercepting spiked chain.

I can't comment on the 3 classes after Fighter, I only know what I have been able to piece together about them from online posts, which frankly isn't much.

In my group we've always played that you cannot simply multi-class freely, you have to meet certain requirements (like finding a trainer for most classes). I know the more common view point now-a-days is that a class is simply a collection of skills that has fluff forced on it and you can change the fluff if you want because it isn't really important, but we still play that a class is a way of life.

Deepblue706
2007-07-05, 12:48 PM
How does "I was a soldier" translate to "I must have at least one level of Fighter"?

It explains proficiency with armor and martial weapons, I guess. It's not the only option, but given certain information, I expect a player to follow through with it.



At second level, a Wizard has the same BAB and better Hit Points than a first level Warrior (since NPCs don't get max HP at first level). They also have proficiency with crossbows, daggers, clubs and quaterstaves, all of which are perfectly usable weapons of war.

Armor was used in war, I'm sure. Maybe this guy did something different - I'd need more specific information to judge this right.




Yes, it's a penalty. Here, though, you're penalizing people for not playing single-class builds.
Or, maybe I'm just asking for a difference to be explained. "Wait, when did you decide you were trying to become a...(insert blank here). I was working under the assumption you spent so much time each day with weapons training, etc."



Do you insist that the Wizard justifies the fact that he suddenly learned two spells he couldn't cast before? Or that the Fighter justify his new Feat? Or that anybody justify the fact that they've learned more in six months of bashing monsters than most people learn in a lifetime of dedicated study?
No, because I readily assume that a player is going to remain consistent with what they've declared their character to be, unless they say otherwise. A Fighter trains regularly, a Wizard studies regularly. If a Fighter suddenly jumps to being a Wizard without noting he's doing something other than weapons-training, it seems off.



So why does the Barbarian have to justify his multiclassing?

It's significantly different from his base class, and it should be noted that different training is underway.



There's a world of difference between "I am a scientist" and "I was a soldier."

Yes, there's a difference in that one still continues their profession, while the other does not. That doesn't mean that the past may as well be ignored.



First, one is present tense, the other is past tense. Second, D&D characters get all of the skills a soldier needs for free anyway.
"free"? What?



You're confusing "the penalties that come with it" with "the penalties my DM chooses to assign me as a test of my 'role playing'" It really seems to me like you're taking this a bit personally.

It's not a test, is asking a player to play the character they said they wanted.



And if he wants to be *good* at them, he'll need to spend points.

But now you've moved the goalposts, from "my character was a soldier" to "my character has abilities which cost points."

I'm still addressing my very plain point, though. Consistency.



Where is the "bad" in this character?


There is none, I was simply making a comparison. One is likely a Multiclassed Wizard, the other a Plain Wizard. Sorry for not being too thorough, I have a hangover.



A weapon like, say, the crossbow? Or the quarterstaff?
No, I mean things like Greatswords need to be thought about, and explained if they're in a character's past.



And again, we're moving into "player claims IC abilities which he does not possess".

There's an important difference between a player claiming that his character has specific, game mechanical abilities that he does not (like weapon proficiencies) and a player just not taking the feats or classes the DM thinks he should take.

I didn't say "YOUR DEFENSIVE CHARACTER MUST ALWAYS FIGHT DEFENSIVELY AND GRAB THE COMBAT EXPERTISE FEAT IMMEDIATELY"

I said I insist players match up their ideas. Shock Trooper is so good because an ability called "Heedless Charge". It lowers your AC with your Power Attack instead of damage. I would hope that someone performing a "Heedless Charge" has a reason to be "Heedless", is all.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-05, 12:51 PM
Your sorceror example is not necessarily true though. If you want to describe your character as devoutly religious I don't think that requires any ranks in Knowledge (Religion). However, if you wanted to utilizie some of the mechanical benefits that Knowledge (Religion) gives you, you'd need to have those ranks.

What do you mean by "some of the benefits"? Knowing the major feast-days of my religion? Knowing the doctrine of my religion? Knowing stories relevant to my religion?


You are totally right that some DMs often want to see player's use some of their character's resources reflect what their characters roleplay reinforces. And that's one of the main problems of optimizers; they don't want to. If your character's story revolves around him being a master violinist, but your character doesn't have any ranks in Perform, things don't add up.

Again, we're now talking about players who are claiming that their characters currently possess abilities which are mechanically codified. That's a whole different ball game.

If a character claimed, in their background, that they once murdered somebody with a knife, would you insist that they take levels of Rogue?


So the choice to the player is: Be slightly worse mechanically but have the character's integrity intact, or kick character integrity to the side of the road and maximize the character mechanically. I am one of the DMs that pushes for players to take the first option.

Ah, whereas I just never put them in the position where they have to make the choice.

Tormsskull
2007-07-05, 12:58 PM
What do you mean by "some of the benefits"? Knowing the major feast-days of my religion? Knowing the doctrine of my religion? Knowing stories relevant to my religion?


I don't think any of the things you listed would be completely out of line. I don't have the book in front of me, but if the Knowledge (Religion) skill allows you to identify undead monsters, and you want to be able to identify undead monsters using that mechanic, then you need to have actual ranks in Knowledge (Religion).



If a character claimed, in their background, that they once murdered somebody with a knife, would you insist that they take levels of Rogue?


No. I'm not sure how a master violinist being required to take ranks in Perform compares to someone killing someone else with a knife and being required to be a rogue.



Ah, whereas I just never put them in the position where they have to make the choice.

If that's what works for your group, I suggest you keep on doing that.

Dausuul
2007-07-05, 01:05 PM
The main problem, as Dan_Hemmens points out, is that the DM who requires such "background abilities" is forcing the player to choose between a mechanically effective character and a character with an interesting background. You're encouraging everyone to come up with boring cookie-cutter backgrounds. Under your approach, the guy whose wizard was always a wizard is highly effective in-game, while the guy whose wizard started out as a soldier, then got in trouble with his commanding officer and spent three years as a gutter thief before discovering his talent for magic, is going to suffer significant in-game penalties.

I can think of a few solutions to this problem, most of them revolving around giving everybody some character resources to be spent on background stuff. Perhaps everybody's first level is a gestalt level, but the second class has to be an NPC class.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-05, 01:06 PM
It explains proficiency with armor and weapons, I guess.

You mean like the crossbow proficiency the wizard gets at character creation. Or do wizards learn to use crossbows as part of their arcane training?


Armor was used in war, I'm sure. Maybe this guy did something different - I'd need more specific information to judge this right.

Armour was used in war, but it was expensive, and not for the common soldiery.


Or, maybe I'm just asking for a difference to be explained. "Wait, when did you decide you were trying to become a..."

So in your games, somebody who starts out as a level one Barbarian is just a Barbarian, that is the totality of their identity?


No, because I readily assume that a player is going to remain consistent with what they've declared their character to be, unless they say otherwise. A Fighter trains regularly, a Wizard studies regularly. If a Fighter suddenly jumps to being a Wizard without noting he's doing something other than weapons-training, it seems off.

So actually you're saying you assume that a player is going to remain consistent with the assumptions you make about their class, which may have nothing to do with the player's actual character.


It's significantly different from his base class, and it should be noted that different training is underway.

Perhaps, to the player, there's no difference in his character's training. Perhaps he feels that Barbarian Rage and Bardic Music are two sides of the same coin.


Yes, there's a difference in that one still continues their profession, while the other does not. That doesn't mean that the past may as well be ignored.

But nor does it mean that it has to be mechanically quantified in the way the GM wants it to be.


"free"? What?

All classes get BAB and Weapon Proficiencies. That's all it takes to be a soldier. Heck, commoners can be soldiers.


It really seems to me like you're taking this a bit personally.

Not at all.


It's not a test, is asking a player to play the character they said they wanted.

It's not the character they said they wanted, though, it's the character you decided in your head that they wanted. If somebody wants their Barbarian to multiclass to Bard, it's probably because they always saw their character as being a Bard/Barbarian, but the system was too rigid to allow it.

What you're asking the players to play is *stereotypes*.


I'm still addressing my very plain point, though. Consistency.

But consistency with your preconceptions, not the actual character.


It explains proficiency with armor and martial weapons, I guess.

Because clearly all soldiers learn to fight with all weapons, and wearing all armours?


There is none, I was simply making a comparison. One is likely a Multiclassed Wizard, the other a Plain Wizard. Sorry for not being too thorough, I have a hangover.

One is a multiclass wizard who has an interesting backstory but sucks and isn't the character the player actually wants, the other is a plain wizard who kicks ass and has a dull backstory but *is* the character the player wants.


I didn't say "YOUR DEFENSIVE CHARACTER MUST ALWAYS FIGHT DEFENSIVELY AND GRAB THE COMBAT EXPERTISE FEAT IMMEDIATELY"

I said I insist players match up their ideas. Shock Trooper is so good because an ability called "Heedless Charge". It lowers your AC with your Power Attack instead of damage. I would hope that someone performing a "Heedless Charge" has a reason to be "Heedless", is all.

What's "a reason to be heedless"?

Are you saying that people can't train in a specific combat technique unless it fits their personality?

Tellah
2007-07-05, 01:19 PM
It could, but what you are doing is taking all of the things that you want, and then crafting an in-character rationale for why it all makes sense. If the DM describes to you that Hamletville is a place where martial masters of different disciplines frequent often, your concept would have more legitamacy. But if the DM tells you that your character grew up in Hamletville, which is a tiny Hamlet (shockingly) with nothing at all interesting going on there, until now, your concept would start to sink.

I know some players think that anything that happens before game start that has to do with their characters is totally left to their discretion, but we've never played that way.



I can't comment on the 3 classes after Fighter, I only know what I have been able to piece together about them from online posts, which frankly isn't much.

In my group we've always played that you cannot simply multi-class freely, you have to meet certain requirements (like finding a trainer for most classes). I know the more common view point now-a-days is that a class is simply a collection of skills that has fluff forced on it and you can change the fluff if you want because it isn't really important, but we still play that a class is a way of life.

Okay, so John's from Fighterheim, the traditional home to martial tournaments for the last 500 years. Or he's done a lot of traveling. Or he's been reading an awful lot of books on ancient fighting techniques. My point is that there are plenty of justifications for multi-classing from an in-character perspective, not least of which is the fact that performing certain combinations of techniques nearly requires it. In my example, classes could easily be separate ways of life--in fact, the concept of a broadly-studied martial artist is strengthened by that sort of perspective. It's even better if he has to go to the effort of finding a trainer, because it fits with the idea of a warrior on a quest to learn and develop himself.

Dang, now I kind of want to play that character.

SolkaTruesilver
2007-07-05, 01:21 PM
But the point is that to actually *play* Gandalf, you wouldn't need to quantify his "powers." Indeed you couldn't. It's not like you can say "Gandalf gets Cure Light Wounds five times a day as a Spell Like Ability".

If you wanted to play Gandalf, you'd need to know what his motivations were, how he acted and what he did. You wouldn't need to know his "stats".

I consider Gandalf to be a character extremely more fit for Warhammer Fantasy Role Playing than D&D. He is... a thematic wizard, which all WFRP Wizards are.

Tormsskull
2007-07-05, 01:33 PM
The main problem, as Dan_Hemmens points out, is that the DM who requires such "background abilities" is forcing the player to choose between a mechanically effective character and a character with an interesting background.


I don't think so. Every character can have an interesting background, it just that the background should align with what that character can do mechanically. If a character's background pegs them as an archer that traveled the land and won trophies, you could probably get away with a level 1 ranger or so with say a 16 or 18 Dex depending on the power level of the world.

But if a character has that background and is a level 1 fighter with a 10 dexterity, it doesn't really make much sense.



I can think of a few solutions to this problem, most of them revolving around giving everybody some character resources to be spent on background stuff. Perhaps everybody's first level is a gestalt level, but the second class has to be an NPC class.

That's possible, but from my point of view you are working backwards. Your premise is that your players are more concerned with character power, and thus you are trying to make sure they do not have to sacrifice character power in order to have a background that they like.

I'm more concerned with background/history/story, etc, and as such I'd say that as players they should be willing to sacrifice character power in order to get a background that they like.

In one of the campaigns we had, there was a Druid PC in the group. When the group found a magical ring, which was described as being made of metal, the Druid PC said he wasn't interested in it because he did not want the metal touching his skin.

Now, one player might say that the player of the druid is intentionally gimping his character, while another might say that the player was playing his character really well. It all depends on your group and what is considered good roleplaying.

I think some players have the attitude of "I'll roleplay 8 days a week, as long as the roleplaying doesn't effect my character's equipment, skills, abilities, feats, spells, etc." Which to me just shows that that particular player is making only a cursory attempt at roleplaying.



Okay, so John's from Fighterheim, the traditional home to martial tournaments for the last 500 years. Or he's done a lot of traveling. Or he's been reading an awful lot of books on ancient fighting techniques. My point is that there are plenty of justifications for multi-classing from an in-character perspective, not least of which is the fact that performing certain combinations of techniques nearly requires it.


I know that there are plenty of justifications, but that doesn't make the concept better because you justified it. If you throw 6 classes and 3 templates onto a character, you can STILL justify it, but it will probably be really lame (IMO).



In my example, classes could easily be separate ways of life--in fact, the concept of a broadly-studied martial artist is strengthened by that sort of perspective. It's even better if he has to go to the effort of finding a trainer, because it fits with the idea of a warrior on a quest to learn and develop himself.


To be fair, if you created your character past level 1, then you would be able to do most of that stuff you talked about. Your character could have visited all of these different martial artists and such. But if you begin play at level 1 with John the blacksmith's son, then he isn't going to be some expert martial artist. Half the fun of the game is going to be watching your character develop from blacksmith's son to Bruce Leeish martial artist.



Dang, now I kind of want to play that character.


That's how I get after I write up a good story. Other people get that way from building a character. Whatever works for you, IMO.

Deepblue706
2007-07-05, 01:34 PM
You mean like the crossbow proficiency the wizard gets at character creation. Or do wizards learn to use crossbows as part of their arcane training?
Alright, I guess I deserved to be "poked at" for not being so thorough. I mean, if someone says they were on the front lines for five years and found themselves in many battles in which they used pikes, swords, and shields, they shouldn't simply claim to be a plain ol' wizard.




Armour was used in war, but it was expensive, and not for the common soldiery. Well, this could differ in certain campaign settings. I admit I know very little about historical warfare, but as I stated above, if a person declares one things and goes with another, it diminishes the experience for players such as myself. I'm not going to slam down any iron fists, but I'll try to persuade the player who claims to have been in a scenario as the one above to present their characters in a way that would express their abilities in terms of their experiences.




So in your games, somebody who starts out as a level one Barbarian is just a Barbarian, that is the totality of their identity? Yes, unless they actually give me a more thorough explanation.



So actually you're saying you assume that a player is going to remain consistent with the assumptions you make about their class, which may have nothing to do with the player's actual character. May, but I think my understanding of the classes is okay enough. I'm willing to discuss this all with my players, and it's not impossible to persuade me.

But, yes, if someone makes absolutely no specification of what they do, I don't have much to work with. I'll simply assume they continue their appropriate training on down-time. But, I don't want someone to say upon level-up, "Oh yeah, I wanna change to this class." I'm not going to refuse to play with this person, nor am I going to yell at them, or anything. But, I do like it when they take the time to note they're peeking at the party Wizard's notes, or asking how the Druid draws his power from nature, or asking the Fighter how he uses a sword so well.



Perhaps, to the player, there's no difference in his character's training. Perhaps he feels that Barbarian Rage and Bardic Music are two sides of the same coin.

At that, I'd scratch my head, say "uh, whatever", and continue playing.



But nor does it mean that it has to be mechanically quantified in the way the GM wants it to be. No, but I feel it's nice to show a person is willing to actual play as the character they said they were, rather than coming up with a "cool backstory" and then ignoring it because he wants to be more powerful, and that "cool backstory" doesn't actually warrant that, if you view it as something to be interpretted in abilities.



All classes get BAB and Weapon Proficiencies. That's all it takes to be a soldier. Heck, commoners can be soldiers. Well, yeah, but I believe HP says something about your ability to defend yourself, and isn't just raw toughness (though that might be true when considering the Barbarian). Low HP signifies low combat training to me. Even though the Wizard can shoot a bow or swing a staff with efficiency, they can't match others for long in physical combat.




It's not the character they said they wanted, though, it's the character you decided in your head that they wanted. If somebody wants their Barbarian to multiclass to Bard, it's probably because they always saw their character as being a Bard/Barbarian, but the system was too rigid to allow it. No, it's the character I decided in my head that they should have when considering their background. I'm not going to play for the players - but I expect them to stick to what they tell me they are, unless they're going for some in-character changes. I just think it's more fun to play with those who try to work things out in-character rather than saying "Oh yeah, I'm a Bard now, too."



But consistency with your preconceptions, not the actual character.
"Preconceptions" derived from the information provided to me by the player, about the character. I don't want someone claiming to be a bookworm while they're a Barbarian and decided that buying-off "Illiteracy" was too crippling.



Because clearly all soldiers learn to fight with all weapons, and wearing all armours?

I accidentally repeated that twice. But no, I thought I was quite clear in explaining it's a means to an end - you were the one that decided I thought Fighter was the only way. But, I should have been more clear: A Militia is perfectly fine. My example was meant to be taken in terms of something much larger, like participating in a main-army composed of heavy infantry, and for a number of years. It's not taboo to do something the class might not suggest, I just want to know where the boundaries are.



One is a multiclass wizard who has an interesting backstory but sucks and isn't the character the player actually wants, the other is a plain wizard who kicks ass and has a dull backstory but *is* the character the player wants.
The only way that the first character ISNT what the first player wants is if they don't want to be a Wizard with great amounts of experience in warfare.



What's "a reason to be heedless"?

Are you saying that people can't train in a specific combat technique unless it fits their personality?

No, but again, it's nice when the character said to be an "always-cautious Fighter" is actually cautious. Heedless Charge isn't very cautious. Okay, there are reasons for anyone to do it, but I don't expect a character's persona to go out-the-door when combat starts.

Dausuul
2007-07-05, 01:41 PM
That's possible, but from my point of view you are working backwards. Your premise is that your players are more concerned with character power, and thus you are trying to make sure they do not have to sacrifice character power in order to have a background that they like.

No, my premise is that many players are concerned with both character power and background; and both of those are perfectly legitimate concerns. Therefore, asking players to choose one or the other is a bad idea. Some will choose the background, and then have less fun because their characters can't contribute as much in-game. Others will choose the power, and then have less fun because they're not excited by their backgrounds.

I would rather try for a system in which the most mechanically effective character also has an interesting background. Then there's no need to pick one or the other, and everybody wins. The powergamers are encouraged to develop an interesting backstory, and the theatrical types get a chance to shine in the mechanical areas of the game.

Corolinth
2007-07-05, 02:47 PM
We have one guy who tries to powergame, and fails miserably. We deal with it a number of ways.

Online, I deal with him by designing encounters that he could turn the tables in if he knew how to play something other than Bashy McCleric. Then I feed the party information about the story and watch them draw all of the wrong conclusions.

At the table, I deal with him by just not worrying about him. I have three other players who always come up with and execute all of the plans, so the poor attempts at powergaming are a nonissue. The guy who runs Deadlands has set up his campaign to be more story-driven so powergaming doesn't really effect that much at all. The foiled attempt at a munchkin gunslinger doesn't help in the talking situations.

Diggorian
2007-07-05, 03:02 PM
Regarding the original topic, power gamers of the "Good" kind are big in my group.

New players to join, unfamiliar with 3.5, are taken under wing and given tips to optimize their characters so they can hold their own in combat and earn their proper XP share. I dont give uniform XP to PCs just for being in the vicinity of combat. A character that spends most of the combat moving into flank position, and nothing else, is getting a fraction of the their recommended XP share. That's how we roll.

As to the current topic:


No, it's the character I decided in my head that they should have when considering their background. I'm not going to play for the players - but I expect them to stick to what they tell me they are, unless they're going for some in-character changes. I just think it's more fun to play with those who try to work things out in-character rather than saying "Oh yeah, I'm a Bard now, too."

I used to require backstories as the final part of character creation. I no longer do for reasons brought up by other posters. Background forged before the story actually begins causes problems in the collaborative process that is a good roleplaying game. In fiction it works fine since there's only one author. In games, the player's creations (PCs) have to interact with the DM's world, in effect multiple authors.

Playing based on their PC stats primarily, and the interactions they have with the world, characterization is crafted on the spot. We learn who these characters are as the story unfolds.

If a wizard is asked about, or offers, their "military experience" it's because the topic has come up and is about to be tested. Demonstration of these skills shows the statement true, failure shows them a fibber.

Rasumichin
2007-07-05, 03:29 PM
I mean, if someone says they were on the front lines for five years and found themselves in many battles in which they used pikes, swords, and shields, they shouldn't simply claim to be a plain ol' wizard.

Wait, wasn't the concept that the wizard used to be a soldier?
So, why does he automatically have to go and use pikes, swords and shields?
The concept was just plain soldier (meaning : a person serving in an army in a combat position), not light infanterist.
Why can't he just be a wizard that got drafted by the local baron and had to use his magics in combat?
D&D party wizards do combat relevant stuff all the time, and are terribly good at it.

Every D&D army needs spellcasters, so why shouldn't somebody play a wizard with a military background?

If anybody wants a wizard that used to be a common footsoldier, he'll come up with something multiclassed, going for some kind of gish build which works together smoothly with your required backstory.

If he doesn't want a gish, but a pure caster with some army fluff, he can stick to wizard using the aforementioned explanation.


What's the problem?

Frankly, i don't get all this fuss about "optimizers not making up proper backstories".
Have you all been playing with retarded munchkins who claimed that their PCs posess DR 20/cheese because their backstory says they're Achilles or what?

Or are you just not comfortable with handling certain power levels and are looking for an excuse to gimp your players' concepts?

Deepblue706
2007-07-05, 03:30 PM
I don't require backstories, but on PbP it provides a writing sample, which is what determines who gets in my games.

But, if somebody tells me they want X but instead coming out to be more like Y, I'm going to point out what I see as an inconsistency. While I try to be lenient, I feel there should be limits. These limits are supposed to be reasonable, and I try to make sure all of my players understand and agree to these limits prior to the start play.

I have no problem with mid-game development. I encourage players to keep more information coming, but I'd like them to have reasonable means to make their changes, is all. On-the-spot mutliclassing isn't something I really like.

Character changes, however, are acceptable, because a lot of a character is internal. If the cowardly rogue suddenly becomes honorable and brave, charging into the forefront of combat, sure, I'll be confused. But, maybe the player decided his character had been thinking a lot and changed his perspective. I'd prefer if there was a real moment in-game to make this change come about, but it's not necessary, because people sometimes grow slowly over time, not always so abruptly because of some major incident. These grounds I can't really tread into, because of how internal this can be.

Class experience, however, is something I see as external. Something more than thought has to be involved - actions need to take place. And because I can only recognize actions to be valid, I cannot assume someone is readily taking the steps to multiclass without actions being formally declared.

Deepblue706
2007-07-05, 03:44 PM
Wait, wasn't the concept that the wizard used to be a soldier?
So, why does he automatically have to go and use pikes, swords and shields?
The concept was just plain soldier (meaning : a person serving in an army in a combat position), not light infanterist.
Why can't he just be a wizard that got drafted by the local baron and had to use his magics in combat?
D&D party wizards do combat relevant stuff all the time, and are terribly good at it.

Every D&D army needs spellcasters, so why shouldn't somebody play a wizard with a military background?

If anybody wants a wizard that used to be a common footsoldier, he'll come up with something multiclassed, going for some kind of gish build which works together smoothly with your required backstory.

If he doesn't want a gish, but a pure caster with some army fluff, he can stick to wizard using the aforementioned explanation.


What's the problem?

Frankly, i don't get all this fuss about "optimizers not making up proper backstories".
Have you all been playing with retarded munchkins who claimed that their PCs posess DR 20/cheese because their backstory says they're Achilles or what?

Or are you just not comfortable with handling certain power levels and are looking for an excuse to gimp your players' concepts?

Obviously, I was using the term "soldier" loosely. I was trying to clean up what I had meant to say, because my meaning went misinterpretted, which I admitted was my fault. For purposes of my argument, the Wizard-playing character wants to have served as an Infantryman, and fought in battles with the mentioned equipment. If you read the entirety of my post, instead of skimming it, you'd have noticed I said "militia is okay", etc. I was saying in some circumstances it was okay, but in some, it's not.

AGAIN, I didn't say optimizers can't make good backstories. That's a misquote, I'm sure, because I'm pretty sure NOBODY IN THIS THREAD said that.

I said that I believe there are more of those I deem "Power Players" in the category of Optimizers than those who make their characters soley based upon the concept. There's no real correlation, just something I noticed.

I don't look to gimp people, I look to simply hold people to the ideas that they want to present, simply because I find the idea of "I want all the good without the bad" to be childish.

Ever have a player want to be a Crossbowman with one eye? Gee, I guess we'll forget about depth-perception, even though the game actually mentions in Complete Warrior that the only reason why the Eyes of Gruumsh don't suffer any penalties for having a single eye is because of the magic in the rituals they perform upon joining their ranks.

No magical rituals? No attempt at reasoning? Maybe I could help homebrew a feat that allows for special training under circumstances like that, simply because D&D is a "heroic" game. But, I'm going to try to keep some ideas close to how they are in real life. For instance, breathing air is also important in my D&D games.

If this player cannot find an excuse for his serious disadvantage to not actually be a disadvantage, then I'm not going to approve it.

As for multiclassing into "gimped" builds, I only ask that a player keeps their abilities consistent with what the rules state they have. If someone declares proficiency with a list of equipment, they will not be granted merit of their declarations without using the rules to obtain those proficiencies.

Diggorian
2007-07-05, 04:04 PM
I don't require backstories, but on PbP it provides a writing sample, which is what determines who gets in my games.

If it determines who get's into the game, isnt that a requirement then? Or can the sample be unrelated to their current character? When I ran PbP in a large forum, I'd ask for other-game post links as a portfolio of their writing. Like that?


But, if somebody tells me they want X but instead coming out to be more like Y, I'm going to point out what I see as an inconsistency. While I try to be lenient, I feel there should be limits. These limits are supposed to be reasonable, and I try to make sure all of my players understand and agree to these limits prior to the start play.

Please give an example of wanting X but turning out Y, this doesnt make sense.


I have no problem with mid-game development. I encourage players to keep more information coming, but I'd like them to have reasonable means to make their changes, is all. On-the-spot mutliclassing isn't something I really like.

I dont like it either. Barbarian picking up a lute and suddenly playing so well it effects the minds of others aint good stroy telling IMHO. :smallwink: I require downtime in my game along with a NPC master before new classes can be taken.


Character changes, however, are acceptable, because a lot of a character is internal.

Sure, that's the idea my last post was about. Cowardly rogue becoming brave in one instance need not be a character change. The PC is showing the limits of his cowardice.


Class experience, however, is something I see as external. Something more than thought has to be involved - actions need to take place. And because I can only recognize actions to be valid, I cannot assume someone is readily taking the steps to multiclass without actions being formally declared.

Agreed, as above. I dont even allow leveling up during an adventure, unless they are using the abilities they wish to increase currently.

PinkysBrain
2007-07-05, 04:19 PM
Ever have a player want to be a Crossbowman with one eye? Gee, I guess we'll forget about depth-perception
Why would you not forget? Ranged weapons are generally not used in the range where stereo depth perception is all that relevant. You would suffer a whole lot more in melee than you ever would with a crossbow.

Deepblue706
2007-07-05, 04:21 PM
If it determines who get's into the game, isnt that a requirement then? Or can the sample be unrelated to their current character? When I ran PbP in a large forum, I'd ask for other-game post links as a portfolio of their writing. Like that? Yes, like that. I like to know what I can about the character itself though, too.




Please give an example of wanting X but turning out Y, this doesnt make sense. Sorry, I was just reverting back to something earlier discussed in the conversation. I could have worded it better. I was simply saying that if a character wants to involve something in their background or personality but completely ignores it when it has negative effects in-character, I speak up. My example was a Wizard who has experience as a heavy infantryman before the start of play (and perhaps connections with other soldiers, and has deep knowledge of combat), but does not want to waste skills, feats, or class levels representing that.




I dont like it either. Barbarian picking up a lute and suddenly playing so well it effects the minds of others aint good stroy telling IMHO. :smallwink: I require downtime in my game along with a NPC master before new classes can be taken. That's all I was trying to say above, but it seems the light I said it in made me seem somewhat of a bastard or a jackass. Or maybe a Bast-ass. :smalleek:

Deepblue706
2007-07-05, 04:23 PM
Why would you not forget? Ranged weapons are generally not used in the range where stereo depth perception is all that relevant. You would suffer a whole lot more in melee than you ever would with a crossbow.

Well, I can't claim to have much knowledge about the lack of an eye other than it'd be cumbersome. I figured it'd be bad for ranged attacks, at the very least. But, if the rules specifically state an instance in where it doesn't cause penalties, I'm going to assume that in normal circumstances, it'll cause penalties.

What would occur would be discussed with the player, if they were willing to use this idea as a mechanically usable "flaw".

Diggorian
2007-07-05, 05:56 PM
Sorry, I was just reverting back to something earlier discussed in the conversation. I could have worded it better. I was simply saying that if a character wants to involve something in their background or personality but completely ignores it when it has negative effects in-character, I speak up. My example was a Wizard who has experience as a heavy infantryman before the start of play (and perhaps connections with other soldiers, and has deep knowledge of combat), but does not want to waste skills, feats, or class levels representing that.

I see, and speak up you should. Character inconsistencies like this are as silly as Varsuuvius' raven fading in and out of reality as needed, but you may not be running a humor angle like Burlew. :smallamused:

Damionte
2007-07-05, 07:16 PM
Many people seem to be getting optomisers confused with someone else.

Back before the term optomiser started floating around, those folks were all considered min-maxers.

Optimisers as a term started floating around to distinguish those who did pure min-max from those who min-maxed while staying within the confines of a role playable character.

Someone who has a character based on a role play concept but is still doing thier best to make the character as functional as they can, within that character concept.

An optimiser is essentially a Min-maxer with boundries. Or some might say a Min maxer who can role play.

The guy who is going purely off the numbers, without real accoutning for the story elements is not an optomiser. That's a min maxer.

Power Players though can coem from the far end of the scale as well. There are Roel Play power gamers as well. Not just optomiser or min max, or munchkin power gamers.

Deepblue706
2007-07-05, 07:21 PM
I'm not too keen on a lot of these terms, so I try to give my own definitions for them, when I discuss them, to minimize the chances of me coming off as saying something like "People who make effective characters are bad roleplayers".

By those definitions, my idea of a "Power Player" would be more appropriately called a Min-Maxer.

Damionte
2007-07-05, 07:40 PM
Obviously, I was using the term "soldier" loosely. I was trying to clean up what I had meant to say, because my meaning went misinterpretted, which I admitted was my fault. For purposes of my argument, the Wizard-playing character wants to have served as an Infantryman, and fought in battles with the mentioned equipment. If you read the entirety of my post, instead of skimming it, you'd have noticed I said "militia is okay", etc. I was saying in some circumstances it was okay, but in some, it's not.

AGAIN, I didn't say optimizers can't make good backstories. That's a misquote, I'm sure, because I'm pretty sure NOBODY IN THIS THREAD said that.

I said that I believe there are more of those I deem "Power Players" in the category of Optimizers than those who make their characters soley based upon the concept. There's no real correlation, just something I noticed.

I don't look to gimp people, I look to simply hold people to the ideas that they want to present, simply because I find the idea of "I want all the good without the bad" to be childish.

Ever have a player want to be a Crossbowman with one eye? Gee, I guess we'll forget about depth-perception, even though the game actually mentions in Complete Warrior that the only reason why the Eyes of Gruumsh don't suffer any penalties for having a single eye is because of the magic in the rituals they perform upon joining their ranks.

No magical rituals? No attempt at reasoning? Maybe I could help homebrew a feat that allows for special training under circumstances like that, simply because D&D is a "heroic" game. But, I'm going to try to keep some ideas close to how they are in real life. For instance, breathing air is also important in my D&D games.

If this player cannot find an excuse for his serious disadvantage to not actually be a disadvantage, then I'm not going to approve it.

As for multiclassing into "gimped" builds, I only ask that a player keeps their abilities consistent with what the rules state they have. If someone declares proficiency with a list of equipment, they will not be granted merit of their declarations without using the rules to obtain those proficiencies.

I pretty much agree with this idea as well. I feel that if you put it in your background and feel you should have some kind of benifits for having said background then you shoudl spend the resources onit.

For instance in our current game, my character grew up in the area. His family is prosperouse. And owns or runs many of the local industries. his particular branch of the family are ranchers. in particular he gre up on a horse ranch. His cousins who live on the ranch next to thier raise cattle, and there is a tannery just down the lane run by another cousin.

At character creation i took a few ranks in some of these related skills. I took Ranks in Ride, I took ranks in profession rancher and knowledge local, to represent these things. as well as a couple of ranks in handle animal. I also took ranks in diplomacy to represent his horse dealing lifestyle before the game started. Even a rank of Profession sailor for the 1 summer he spent in his uncles merchant sailing ship.

This character is a Cleric/Warlocke of the Chaotic Good Dragon goddes Hlal.

The character has pages of backstory. All fleshed out in his character. This backstory also has a large impact on the way I play him, and the decisions I make.

On the flip side he's optomised for the party role of primary healer. While still keeping to his background story and draconic heritage. He's an optomised character but is not min-maxed. he could be mechanically better for his party roll if I were to give up some of the character traits that I put into him. He then wouldn't be the same character.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-06, 05:28 AM
Alright, I guess I deserved to be "poked at" for not being so thorough. I mean, if someone says they were on the front lines for five years and found themselves in many battles in which they used pikes, swords, and shields, they shouldn't simply claim to be a plain ol' wizard.

Even with those additional details, there's dozens of ways you can explain their no longer having the proficiencies. "I haven't lifted a sword in ten years" being the most obvious one.


Well, this could differ in certain campaign settings. I admit I know very little about historical warfare, but as I stated above, if a person declares one things and goes with another, it diminishes the experience for players such as myself. I'm not going to slam down any iron fists, but I'll try to persuade the player who claims to have been in a scenario as the one above to present their characters in a way that would express their abilities in terms of their experiences.

Fair enough. The thing is, it's totally possible to have a character who has done things in his background that they can't do any more. I used to play guitar, but I gave up nearly ten years ago, and now I can't.


Yes, unless they actually give me a more thorough explanation.

The problem is that communication between player and GM is always, by necessity, patchy.

Suppose I was playing the aforesaid Barbarian, and I included in my background "his tribe has a strong oral tradition, their history is passed down in stories and songs which the whole tribe shares in."

Suppose I regularly charged into battle singing the war-songs of my people, and told the history of my tribe around the camp-fire late into the night.

Would I still be "just a Barbarian"?


May, but I think my understanding of the classes is okay enough. I'm willing to discuss this all with my players, and it's not impossible to persuade me.

But, yes, if someone makes absolutely no specification of what they do, I don't have much to work with. I'll simply assume they continue their appropriate training on down-time. But, I don't want someone to say upon level-up, "Oh yeah, I wanna change to this class." I'm not going to refuse to play with this person, nor am I going to yell at them, or anything. But, I do like it when they take the time to note they're peeking at the party Wizard's notes, or asking how the Druid draws his power from nature, or asking the Fighter how he uses a sword so well.

I think this is where we differ. I don't consider "training" to be part of D&D. When a character gains a new level, that isn't something they've "just learned", it's just an increase in the mechanical effectiveness of the abilities they already possess. Even if they multiclass, that's still the case. A Barbarian who picks up a level of Bard is still exactly the same character, it's just that now his tribal war-songs inspire the whole party.


At that, I'd scratch my head, say "uh, whatever", and continue playing.

Is "uh, whatever" a yes or a no?


No, but I feel it's nice to show a person is willing to actual play as the character they said they were, rather than coming up with a "cool backstory" and then ignoring it because he wants to be more powerful, and that "cool backstory" doesn't actually warrant that, if you view it as something to be interpretted in abilities.

But why should it be? Why should "I fought with spear and shield against the armies of the North before my arcane studies began" imply that you have to take Simple Weapon proficiency and Shield Proficiency?

Who your character *was* and who your character *is* are two different things.


Well, yeah, but I believe HP says something about your ability to defend yourself, and isn't just raw toughness (though that might be true when considering the Barbarian). Low HP signifies low combat training to me. Even though the Wizard can shoot a bow or swing a staff with efficiency, they can't match others for long in physical combat.

Except that they can.

A Wizard with a +2 Con modifier (and most of them take a +2 Con modifier in my experience) has 6HP at first level.

This is more than many first level Warriors (since NPCs don't benefit from the "max HP at first level" rule.

And as they level up, they're going to get more and more powerful. A tenth level wizard will whip a first level warrior in a straight fight, even without the use of magic.


No, it's the character I decided in my head that they should have when considering their background. I'm not going to play for the players - but I expect them to stick to what they tell me they are, unless they're going for some in-character changes. I just think it's more fun to play with those who try to work things out in-character rather than saying "Oh yeah, I'm a Bard now, too."

But they're not saying "I'm a Bard now, too" they're saying "my character is a Bard/Barbarian, because I feel that better reflects the character."

The way Classes work, they *have* to be taken one at a time. This is a highly granular system. When a character picks up a new class, it doesn't represent their character *changing*, it represents their character getting mechanical representation of how they have always been.

Ulfgar the Barbarian is "a warrior of the northern steppes, whose people carry their legends in songs". Ulfgar the Barbarian-Bard is still "a warrior of the northern steppes, whose people carry their legends in songs."

Picking up a new class doesn't change your character, it just changes the way they are described by the game mechanics.


"Preconceptions" derived from the information provided to me by the player, about the character. I don't want someone claiming to be a bookworm while they're a Barbarian and decided that buying-off "Illiteracy" was too crippling.

If they were planning on multiclassing anyway, what would be the point in buying off Illiteracy?


I accidentally repeated that twice. But no, I thought I was quite clear in explaining it's a means to an end - you were the one that decided I thought Fighter was the only way. But, I should have been more clear: A Militia is perfectly fine. My example was meant to be taken in terms of something much larger, like participating in a main-army composed of heavy infantry, and for a number of years. It's not taboo to do something the class might not suggest, I just want to know where the boundaries are.

It sounds like you don't want to *know* where the boundaries are so much as *decide* where they are.


The only way that the first character ISNT what the first player wants is if they don't want to be a Wizard with great amounts of experience in warfare.

No, it still isn't the character they want, because they want to play a Wizard not a gish.

If I want to play a Wizard with a military background, and you tell me that I can't have a military background and still play a straight Wizard, I'll ditch the background, simple as that.


No, but again, it's nice when the character said to be an "always-cautious Fighter" is actually cautious. Heedless Charge isn't very cautious. Okay, there are reasons for anyone to do it, but I don't expect a character's persona to go out-the-door when combat starts.

Heedless charge can be extremely cautious if you want it to be. It's about eliminating potential threats as soon as possible, a very sensible precaution.

Again, what you're really saying is that Heedless Charge doesn't fit your preconceptions about how a "cautious fighter" would behave.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-06, 05:41 AM
I don't think so. Every character can have an interesting background, it just that the background should align with what that character can do mechanically. If a character's background pegs them as an archer that traveled the land and won trophies, you could probably get away with a level 1 ranger or so with say a 16 or 18 Dex depending on the power level of the world.

But if a character has that background and is a level 1 fighter with a 10 dexterity, it doesn't really make much sense.

All the character backgrounds you describe are of the form "zomg I am teh winnzor!"

What if the character's background was just that they wandered the land competing in archery tournaments?


That's possible, but from my point of view you are working backwards. Your premise is that your players are more concerned with character power, and thus you are trying to make sure they do not have to sacrifice character power in order to have a background that they like.

Character power is the only thing that D&D recognizes. D&D is wholly and entirely about the acquisition of character power. That's what levelling is about, that's what looting is about, that's what the entire *game* is about.


I'm more concerned with background/history/story, etc, and as such I'd say that as players they should be willing to sacrifice character power in order to get a background that they like.

But, as Dasuul says, wouldn't it be better if the system didn't have that requirement?


In one of the campaigns we had, there was a Druid PC in the group. When the group found a magical ring, which was described as being made of metal, the Druid PC said he wasn't interested in it because he did not want the metal touching his skin.

Now, one player might say that the player of the druid is intentionally gimping his character, while another might say that the player was playing his character really well. It all depends on your group and what is considered good roleplaying.

I wouldn't define it as either. I'd define "not taking the ring" as no mechanical sacrifice whatsoever, since loot gets divvied up by the party *anyway*. And I'd define "my character doesn't want metal touching his skin" as rather shallow "roleplaying". Presumably this guy fights with metal weapons, buys his goods with metal coins, and so on.

Now if the druid actively refused to have anything to do with the trappings of civilization, including - say - money, then I'd be more inclined to see this as an example of "somebody sacrificing character power for good roleplaying."


I think some players have the attitude of "I'll roleplay 8 days a week, as long as the roleplaying doesn't effect my character's equipment, skills, abilities, feats, spells, etc." Which to me just shows that that particular player is making only a cursory attempt at roleplaying.

I will not sacrifice, or ask my players to sacrifice, character effectiveness for the sake of this thing you describe as "roleplaying".

I achieve this by the simple expedient of not playing games which penalize players for making sub optimal decisions.

Tormsskull
2007-07-06, 06:27 AM
I think this is where we differ. I don't consider "training" to be part of D&D. When a character gains a new level, that isn't something they've "just learned", it's just an increase in the mechanical effectiveness of the abilities they already possess. Even if they multiclass, that's still the case. A Barbarian who picks up a level of Bard is still exactly the same character, it's just that now his tribal war-songs inspire the whole party.


That's possible for 1 or maybe 2 multiclasses, but when you see someone who has 10 different classes, it is hard to imagine them as the same as they were before. Also, just because you don't consider training to be apart of D&D doesn't change the fact that training exists in D&D, albeit most DMs handle it in the background. (It is spelled out in the DMG)

Its the same old story of the barbarian who is out in the middle of the desert, thousands of miles from any civilization, levels up, and then takes a level in Wizard. *poof* a spellbook appears in his hands. A lot of DMs won't want that kind of incredibly unrealistic event occuring in their campaigns.



But they're not saying "I'm a Bard now, too" they're saying "my character is a Bard/Barbarian, because I feel that better reflects the character."


Which is all good and great for the player, but if it doesn't make sense in the gameworld, then the DM says "Sure you are. Soon as you find a trainer. Until then you can be just as much of a bard as you were last level."



The way Classes work, they *have* to be taken one at a time. This is a highly granular system. When a character picks up a new class, it doesn't represent their character *changing*, it represents their character getting mechanical representation of how they have always been.


emphasis mine.

That is your opinion, and I don't think you will find it supported in any core book. Some people view classes as a collection of skills, others view them as a way of life. Traditionally in D&D class was much more static than it is in 3.5. Personally I think it is a way of justifying the player's desires for specific mechanical benefits.



Ulfgar the Barbarian is "a warrior of the northern steppes, whose people carry their legends in songs". Ulfgar the Barbarian-Bard is still "a warrior of the northern steppes, whose people carry their legends in songs."


And I am going out on a limb here, but if you STARTED play describing your character as such, I don't think any DM would have a hard time allowing you to multiclass into bard. However, in the event of the barbarian who has nothing in his backstory about being a bard, has never said anything about being a bard, then levels up and claims a level of bard, the DM has every right to step in and say "No" if that doesn't make sense to their game world.



Picking up a new class doesn't change your character, it just changes the way they are described by the game mechanics.


I highly disagree. I think this attitude comes from the fact that a lot of players have a hard time starting at level 1 and not being already accomplished in whatever it is that they want their character to be. Everyone in the D&D world starts at level 1, regardless of when you started playing the character. If your character is currently a Fighter2/Rogue3/Cleric1/Wizard4/Bard5, when he was level 1 he clearly wasn't "the same character". Assuming he started off as a Fighter, something changed in his life that allowed him to draw upon the powers of the gods, something changed him that made the music he played affect other people as if magic.



It sounds like you don't want to *know* where the boundaries are so much as *decide* where they are.


Just as any DM has the right to do in their campaign.



No, it still isn't the character they want, because they want to play a Wizard not a gish.

If I want to play a Wizard with a military background, and you tell me that I can't have a military background and still play a straight Wizard, I'll ditch the background, simple as that.


I think you have taken this example way out of context. The premise that I am getting from it is that a character should not claim any special knowledge that they generally would not have, i.e. a level 1 Wizard should not claim to be a weaponmaster in their background.



All the character backgrounds you describe are of the form "zomg I am teh winnzor!"

What if the character's background was just that they wandered the land competing in archery tournaments?


Yeah, that's because the only times a problem occurs is when a player is trying to claim a special position or recognition in their backstory. If a character simply wandered the land competing in archery tournaments I would say that would work for almost every character (assuming you aren't a KoS race), or there isn't a specific world issue that would prevent it.



Character power is the only thing that D&D recognizes. D&D is wholly and entirely about the acquisition of character power. That's what levelling is about, that's what looting is about, that's what the entire *game* is about.


That's why mechanics and roleplaying are a separate thing. When I sit down to play D&D I don't play to aquire the most character power. I play to craft an interesting story with the other players in the game. The difference between freeform and D&D to me is that D&D has (for the most part) clearly defined rules that both the participants and the Storyteller are willing to follow, and then rather than sitting around and creating a story by committee, we all agree to follow those rules and then craft and story on that foundation.



But, as Dasuul says, wouldn't it be better if the system didn't have that requirement?


I'm not sure to be honest with you. As long as I have ever played D&D there has always been times when it would be a more optimal to go with Choice A, but in my head I knew that my character would go with Choice B. I can't imagine a system where you could make the player and the character essentially the same exact person, which is what a system would require to avoid this issue.



Now if the druid actively refused to have anything to do with the trappings of civilization, including - say - money, then I'd be more inclined to see this as an example of "somebody sacrificing character power for good roleplaying."


Right, so to YOU it would make more sense if the Druid's "point", "thing", or whatever in the heck you want to call it for making the decision that he did was that he had sworn off civilization. But to the player of the Druid, he felt his character, who didn't like metal, would be uncomfortably wearing the ring as the metal of the ring would be in constant contact with his skin.



I will not sacrifice, or ask my players to sacrifice, character effectiveness for the sake of this thing you describe as "roleplaying".


Which, again, you have every right as the DM to do. If that's the style you and your group are more comfortable with, that's what you should stick with.



I achieve this by the simple expedient of not playing games which penalize players for making sub optimal decisions.


Huh? You lost me. Did you mean not penalizing players for making optimal decisions?

Raum
2007-07-06, 07:19 AM
I think this is where we differ. I don't consider "training" to be part of D&D. When a character gains a new level, that isn't something they've "just learned", it's just an increase in the mechanical effectiveness of the abilities they already possess. Even if they multiclass, that's still the case. A Barbarian who picks up a level of Bard is still exactly the same character, it's just that now his tribal war-songs inspire the whole party. That's possible for 1 or maybe 2 multiclasses, but when you see someone who has 10 different classes, it is hard to imagine them as the same as they were before. Also, just because you don't consider training to be apart of D&D doesn't change the fact that training exists in D&D, albeit most DMs handle it in the background. (It is spelled out in the DMG)Whether using the training rules or not (they're optional) Dan is correct. Your character doesn't know he's multiclassed between bard and barbarian. The entire concept of class is out of character. Said barbarian / bard thinks of himself as a charismatic but somewhat undisciplined warrior. If he trained to get where he is it was probably training with his tribal hunters and skalds.

Even a character taking a one level dip in every base class there is will probably consider himself a jack of all trades or simply by his most recent interest rather than a barbarian / bard / cleric / druid / fighter / etc. Observers may consider him a dilettante or class him based on how he acts as a fighter, caster, or expert. Consider real life - my degree is in business, I spent several years working in telemetry and electronics, more years working in information security, and am currently a manager. Ask me what I do for a living and I'll mention either of the last two. The entire list is generally reserved for the resume.

Tormsskull
2007-07-06, 07:49 AM
Whether using the training rules or not (they're optional) Dan is correct. Your character doesn't know he's multiclassed between bard and barbarian.


First, the training "rules" may be optional, but leveling up is assumed to include some type of training (I don't have my books on me ATM but if you like I will give you specfic excerpts tomorrow), which as I said, is often held in the background.



The entire concept of class is out of character. Said barbarian / bard thinks of himself as a charismatic but somewhat undisciplined warrior. If he trained to get where he is it was probably training with his tribal hunters and skalds.


Once again, your opinion. I know that you and Dan and several others hold this opinion, and I am not telling you that you are playing the game wrong, but I am telling you that you won't find this opinion supported in the core rulebooks. It is left up to the DM (as are many other things) to decide exactly how class is handeled.

As I said before, I believe a class is a way of life. Some classes share a lot in common with one another, and as such it makes sense to me to allow players to freely mutli class between them. Others not so much.



Even a character taking a one level dip in every base class there is will probably consider himself a jack of all trades or simply by his most recent interest rather than a barbarian / bard / cleric / druid / fighter / etc.

Regardless of what the character considers himself, he still would have had to make some special connection to a deity or whatnot to cast clerical spells, made some kind of a connection to nature or a nature deity or whatnot to cast druid spells, etc.

The character can think he has a special connection with nature at 1st level if he likes. But if he is a level 1 Barbarian and his friend is a level 1 Druid, the Druid is able to do something that the Barbarian cannot (many things, but for this example, cast divine spells).

In my campaigns, when the Barbarian wants to take a level of druid he'll have to study with a druid (which is supported by the PHB when it stakes that Lidda the rogue wanting to learn magic studies with Mialee and observes her as she casts spells, etc.)

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-06, 08:26 AM
That's possible for 1 or maybe 2 multiclasses, but when you see someone who has 10 different classes, it is hard to imagine them as the same as they were before. Also, just because you don't consider training to be apart of D&D doesn't change the fact that training exists in D&D, albeit most DMs handle it in the background. (It is spelled out in the DMG)

Whether "training" exists in D&D or not, it feels, to me, farcical for somebody who really *has* wholly devoted their life to a particular "class" to suddenly decide to "train" into a different "class".


Its the same old story of the barbarian who is out in the middle of the desert, thousands of miles from any civilization, levels up, and then takes a level in Wizard. *poof* a spellbook appears in his hands. A lot of DMs won't want that kind of incredibly unrealistic event occuring in their campaigns.

Scribe it on animal skins. Or whatever. The reason that example is so absurd is because "classes" are an abstract concept.

What about a barbarian, heavily in tune with the mystical forces of nature, who decides to take a level of Wizard to represent this (although tbh he'd probably go Druid or Sorcerer)?


Which is all good and great for the player, but if it doesn't make sense in the gameworld, then the DM says "Sure you are. Soon as you find a trainer. Until then you can be just as much of a bard as you were last level."

What makes more sense: I, Ulfgar, Barbarian of the north, a people who value the arts of war and the art of poetry with equal esteem, gain the skills of a Bard by practicing the war-verses of my people, and charging into battle with the songs of my clan on my lips.

Or.

I, Ulfgar, Barbarian of the north, a people who value the arts of war and the art of poetry with equal esteem, gain the skills of a Bard by meeting a wandering minstrel from Waterdeep who can "train" me in the ways of the "Bard" a concept which apparently has a concrete meaning in the game.


emphasis mine.

That is your opinion, and I don't think you will find it supported in any core book. Some people view classes as a collection of skills, others view them as a way of life. Traditionally in D&D class was much more static than it is in 3.5. Personally I think it is a way of justifying the player's desires for specific mechanical benefits.

I don't think you'll find your opinion supported by any core book either.

D&D 3.5 is *not* like earlier editions of D&D. The class system is quite frankly a relic of older editions, which is why they are making every attempt they can to make it as flexible as possible.


And I am going out on a limb here, but if you STARTED play describing your character as such, I don't think any DM would have a hard time allowing you to multiclass into bard. However, in the event of the barbarian who has nothing in his backstory about being a bard, has never said anything about being a bard, then levels up and claims a level of bard, the DM has every right to step in and say "No" if that doesn't make sense to their game world.

Okay, so what if the backstory I gave you was three pages long, had stuff about the importance of song and story in my culture halfway down the second page, and you missed it? What if every time I'd said "my character charges into battle chanting the war-chant of the North" you'd assumed it was "just flavour text."

But ultimately this gets back to our old argument about whether the player or the GM is assumed to know most about a character.


I highly disagree. I think this attitude comes from the fact that a lot of players have a hard time starting at level 1 and not being already accomplished in whatever it is that they want their character to be. Everyone in the D&D world starts at level 1, regardless of when you started playing the character. If your character is currently a Fighter2/Rogue3/Cleric1/Wizard4/Bard5, when he was level 1 he clearly wasn't "the same character". Assuming he started off as a Fighter, something changed in his life that allowed him to draw upon the powers of the gods, something changed him that made the music he played affect other people as if magic.

I highly disagree with this.

By your logic, pretty much every D&D character should have at least one level in an NPC class, usually Commoner.

I see a Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Cleric 1/Wizard 5/Bard 5 as a character who is an ordained priest who has studied the occult, and has tremendous powers of persuasion and performance, but is not above the occasional piece of skulduggery.

Absolutely nothing about this character implies to me that they had to "start off" as just being a Fighter. In fact, the only thing which implies that is the arbitrary limitations of the Class system.


Just as any DM has the right to do in their campaign.

In your opinion.


I think you have taken this example way out of context. The premise that I am getting from it is that a character should not claim any special knowledge that they generally would not have, i.e. a level 1 Wizard should not claim to be a weaponmaster in their background.

Obviously you shouldn't describe your character in a manner which claims they have abilities which they do not.

But there is a world of difference between saying "my character is proficient with all martial weapons" and saying "my character has, in the past, fought with many weapons."


Yeah, that's because the only times a problem occurs is when a player is trying to claim a special position or recognition in their backstory. If a character simply wandered the land competing in archery tournaments I would say that would work for almost every character (assuming you aren't a KoS race), or there isn't a specific world issue that would prevent it.

KoS race?


That's why mechanics and roleplaying are a separate thing. When I sit down to play D&D I don't play to aquire the most character power. I play to craft an interesting story with the other players in the game. The difference between freeform and D&D to me is that D&D has (for the most part) clearly defined rules that both the participants and the Storyteller are willing to follow, and then rather than sitting around and creating a story by committee, we all agree to follow those rules and then craft and story on that foundation.

Name me one thing in the D&D mechanics which actually allows the players to "craft an interesting story".

I can see a lot of things which allow them to kill monsters and take their stuff, but nothing that lets them "craft a story".


I'm not sure to be honest with you. As long as I have ever played D&D there has always been times when it would be a more optimal to go with Choice A, but in my head I knew that my character would go with Choice B. I can't imagine a system where you could make the player and the character essentially the same exact person, which is what a system would require to avoid this issue.

Ah, whereas I absolutely can imagine such a system. Because lots of them exist. Like, for example, pretty much every system that isn't D&D.

For example: most non-D&D games don't measure your character's wealth directly, so PCs aren't penalized for not going after all the gold they can get their grubby mits on.

In a game where characters aren't *expected* to acquire a certain amount of magical treasure, deciding "do I take this magical ring or not" becomes a pure character decision, not a choice between mechanical effectiveness and "roleplaying".


Right, so to YOU it would make more sense if the Druid's "point", "thing", or whatever in the heck you want to call it for making the decision that he did was that he had sworn off civilization. But to the player of the Druid, he felt his character, who didn't like metal, would be uncomfortably wearing the ring as the metal of the ring would be in constant contact with his skin.

Yet he doesn't mind spending metal coins, hanging around with people in metal armour, or anything like that.

So what he really did was pass over a magic item he probably didn't want anyway, and throw in a bit of "roleplaying" on the side.


Huh? You lost me. Did you mean not penalizing players for making optimal decisions?

No, I mean not penalizing the players for making sub-optimal decisions.

If I play a Fighter in D&D, and take Strength 8 Charisma 18, the system penalizes me, because having low strength makes me a less effective fighter, while having Charisma 18 doesn't get me anything at all. As a Fighter, my job is to fight, not to be charming.

In a skills-based game, having a character who has both combat skills and social skills is entirely possible. A character which is horribly underpowered in D&D, because it goes against what the system "expects" a Fighter to look like, is totally supported in many other games.

Tormsskull
2007-07-06, 09:22 AM
Scribe it on animal skins. Or whatever. The reason that example is so absurd is because "classes" are an abstract concept.


Because he doesn't know how to scribe it on animal skins, he is not a wizard. Using your logic every character is every class just waiting to unlock those powers from within. To me that is what is absurd.



What about a barbarian, heavily in tune with the mystical forces of nature, who decides to take a level of Wizard to represent this (although tbh he'd probably go Druid or Sorcerer)?


That depends how arcane magic works in your world, more specifically how Wizards use arcane magic in your world. In my world a level of wizard can't 'represent' suddenly developing a connection with the forces of nature. A level of wizard very specifically means studying magical scripture at a wizard college, or with a wizard mentor, or (and this I rarely allow) a very long time dedicated to self-study of magical tomes, a library, etc, etc.



What makes more sense: I, Ulfgar, Barbarian of the north, a people who value the arts of war and the art of poetry with equal esteem, gain the skills of a Bard by practicing the war-verses of my people, and charging into battle with the songs of my clan on my lips.

Or.

I, Ulfgar, Barbarian of the north, a people who value the arts of war and the art of poetry with equal esteem, gain the skills of a Bard by meeting a wandering minstrel from Waterdeep who can "train" me in the ways of the "Bard" a concept which apparently has a concrete meaning in the game.


The first, and that is not under dispute. I am assuming that Ulfgar's tribe or people have some kind of bardic tradition based on what you told me (I think Raum's explanation of a skald was pretty much what I was picturing) and as such he learns to be a bard by studying with the skalds in some form or another.



Okay, so what if the backstory I gave you was three pages long, had stuff about the importance of song and story in my culture halfway down the second page, and you missed it? What if every time I'd said "my character charges into battle chanting the war-chant of the North" you'd assumed it was "just flavour text."


There is very little that I assume is "just flavor text". A character's actions define the character, IMO.



But ultimately this gets back to our old argument about whether the player or the GM is assumed to know most about a character.


Agreed.



Absolutely nothing about this character implies to me that they had to "start off" as just being a Fighter. In fact, the only thing which implies that is the arbitrary limitations of the Class system.


Yeah, and since the arbitrary limitations of the class system is one of the main building blocks of a D&D character, you should be working with the system, not against it. To summarize a line from you, D&D is a class-based system. If you don't want to play in a class-based system there are plenty of other systems that will work better for you.



Obviously you shouldn't describe your character in a manner which claims they have abilities which they do not.


That's not necessarily so obvious to different players.



But there is a world of difference between saying "my character is proficient with all martial weapons" and saying "my character has, in the past, fought with many weapons."


Agreed. But since the D&D system is based around experience points, and experience points = gain a level, and gain a level = more power, attributing facts or events to your character that by game rules would have rewarded them experience points doesn't make sense when you start at level 1. If a wizard's background stated that they "fought with many weapons", I as the DM would question them in what context they had fought with those weapons.

If the events that they describe would have definitely gained them experience (I fought with the first brigade of the army infantry, taking out the orc skirmishers, blah, blah) then I'd ask them to explain how it is that they have 0 experience (assuming we are starting at level 1).



KoS race?


My bad, KoS = Kill on Sight.



Name me one thing in the D&D mechanics which actually allows the players to "craft an interesting story".

I can see a lot of things which allow them to kill monsters and take their stuff, but nothing that lets them "craft a story".


I think a lot of the skills can assist a player is crafting a really good story. If a character has ranks in say Perform (Dancing), he likely has a very specific reason for taking that skill. I'd be willing to bet he'd have a story behind it, which is reinforced by the mechanic.

One of my favorite characters was a Fighter who had ranks in Perform (Violin). He was a gruff, unforgiving, no mercy type fighter by day, and then at night when everyone else went to bed he would sit on a tree stump and play his violin under the moonlight. The imagery was very evocative IMO. I could have said that the character was exactly the same and not put any ranks in Perform, but that would mean that he didn't have any kind of training or even any practice in the violin at all.



Ah, whereas I absolutely can imagine such a system. Because lots of them exist. Like, for example, pretty much every system that isn't D&D.

For example: most non-D&D games don't measure your character's wealth directly, so PCs aren't penalized for not going after all the gold they can get their grubby mits on.


Right, so for you and your group D&D does not work. That's fine, play what does work.



Yet he doesn't mind spending metal coins, hanging around with people in metal armour, or anything like that.

So what he really did was pass over a magic item he probably didn't want anyway, and throw in a bit of "roleplaying" on the side.


That's your extrapolation. But what I find so interesting is that you are all about a player's right to decide everything about their character and that a DM should be pretty much hands off of the character, but then you minimize the Druid player's interpretation of what his character would do and why. Don't you think that is a bit two-sided?



No, I mean not penalizing the players for making sub-optimal decisions.

If I play a Fighter in D&D, and take Strength 8 Charisma 18, the system penalizes me, because having low strength makes me a less effective fighter, while having Charisma 18 doesn't get me anything at all. As a Fighter, my job is to fight, not to be charming.


So what you're saying is you don't play D&D. Ok.



In a skills-based game, having a character who has both combat skills and social skills is entirely possible. A character which is horribly underpowered in D&D, because it goes against what the system "expects" a Fighter to look like, is totally supported in many other games.

Ok. I'm not super familiar with other systems, but if they work better for you I'm not sure what the issue is. Are you campaigning for other people to stop playing D&D?

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-06, 09:52 AM
Because he doesn't know how to scribe it on animal skins, he is not a wizard. Using your logic every character is every class just waiting to unlock those powers from within. To me that is what is absurd.

To me it is no more absurd than the idea that anybody can be anything as long as they are "trained".


That depends how arcane magic works in your world, more specifically how Wizards use arcane magic in your world. In my world a level of wizard can't 'represent' suddenly developing a connection with the forces of nature. A level of wizard very specifically means studying magical scripture at a wizard college, or with a wizard mentor, or (and this I rarely allow) a very long time dedicated to self-study of magical tomes, a library, etc, etc.

That's because you interpret Classes as being literal, in-character concepts. I and many other people find this absurd. The idea of somebody saying to themselves "gosh, it would be useful if I could inspire courage in my companions the way that traveling players often do. Clearly I should go to Bard School to learn Barding. But first I must kill more monsters, thereby increasing my capacity to learn or something."


The first, and that is not under dispute. I am assuming that Ulfgar's tribe or people have some kind of bardic tradition based on what you told me (I think Raum's explanation of a skald was pretty much what I was picturing) and as such he learns to be a bard by studying with the skalds in some form or another.

Why does he have to "study" at all? Why does it take training for him to learn to "inspire courage" but not for him to learn to "evade" traps?


Yeah, and since the arbitrary limitations of the class system is one of the main building blocks of a D&D character, you should be working with the system, not against it. To summarize a line from you, D&D is a class-based system. If you don't want to play in a class-based system there are plenty of other systems that will work better for you.

I'm aware of that. It's why I tend to play those other systems.


Agreed. But since the D&D system is based around experience points, and experience points = gain a level, and gain a level = more power, attributing facts or events to your character that by game rules would have rewarded them experience points doesn't make sense when you start at level 1. If a wizard's background stated that they "fought with many weapons", I as the DM would question them in what context they had fought with those weapons.

Experience points are an abstract reward for playing the game. You don't get XP for things you do in downtime, or for things you did in your background.


If the events that they describe would have definitely gained them experience (I fought with the first brigade of the army infantry, taking out the orc skirmishers, blah, blah) then I'd ask them to explain how it is that they have 0 experience (assuming we are starting at level 1).

Because experience points are an abstraction, not a literal representation of the learning process in D&D.


I think a lot of the skills can assist a player is crafting a really good story. If a character has ranks in say Perform (Dancing), he likely has a very specific reason for taking that skill. I'd be willing to bet he'd have a story behind it, which is reinforced by the mechanic.

That's not a mechanic reinforcing a story. In fact, that's the mechanic *undermining* the story. Because those points spent on Perform (Dancing) are wasted. So I *only* get to tell the story I want to tell if I use up some of my limited resources, which I would otherwise use to keep my character alive, allowing me to tell his story in the first place.


One of my favorite characters was a Fighter who had ranks in Perform (Violin). He was a gruff, unforgiving, no mercy type fighter by day, and then at night when everyone else went to bed he would sit on a tree stump and play his violin under the moonlight. The imagery was very evocative IMO. I could have said that the character was exactly the same and not put any ranks in Perform, but that would mean that he didn't have any kind of training or even any practice in the violin at all.

So again, the mechanics are restricting your ability to tell the story you want, not supporting it. They are forcing you to spend your limited character resources, which you are *supposed* to spend on stuff that will make your character effective (that's *why* you get a limited amount) on stuff that's completely useless, just so you can get the imagery you like.

That isn't supporting Storytelling. It's actively undermining it. It's the equivalent of docking XP for good roleplaying.


Right, so for you and your group D&D does not work. That's fine, play what does work.

I do. The point is not just that D&D does not work for me, though, it is that D&D does not work the way you claim it does.


That's your extrapolation. But what I find so interesting is that you are all about a player's right to decide everything about their character and that a DM should be pretty much hands off of the character, but then you minimize the Druid player's interpretation of what his character would do and why. Don't you think that is a bit two-sided?

Oh absolutely. All I'm doing is pointing out that your paragon of Good Roleplaying actually looks a whole heck of a lot like your inconsistent Barbarian/Bard.


So what you're saying is you don't play D&D. Ok.

I don't play D&D, so I know that it is possible for a system to work in ways other than the way in which D&D works. Which is sort of my point.


Ok. I'm not super familiar with other systems, but if they work better for you I'm not sure what the issue is. Are you campaigning for other people to stop playing D&D?

Not exactly, I'm campaigning for people to recognize that D&D has its limitations as a system, and that suffering under those limitations is not a badge of honour.

If you're really serious about "working together to tell a story" you should, in fact, probably stop playing D&D, because it directly undermines attempts to do so.

Tormsskull
2007-07-06, 10:14 AM
That's not a mechanic reinforcing a story. In fact, that's the mechanic *undermining* the story. Because those points spent on Perform (Dancing) are wasted. So I *only* get to tell the story I want to tell if I use up some of my limited resources, which I would otherwise use to keep my character alive, allowing me to tell his story in the first place.


What you call "wasting" skill points on Perform I call "Making an interesting character that isn't just about being the most effective." If the character dies in the campaign it won't be because he took Perform (dancing) instead of Craft (whatever).



So again, the mechanics are restricting your ability to tell the story you want, not supporting it. They are forcing you to spend your limited character resources, which you are *supposed* to spend on stuff that will make your character effective (that's *why* you get a limited amount) on stuff that's completely useless, just so you can get the imagery you like.


This just doesn't make any sense. If the story I want to tell of my character is a gruff fighter who players the violin at night, how is putting points in Perform restricting my ability to tell the story I want? I don't recall reading anything in the book that said "Useless skills, don't take any of these because you are *supposed* to take the more effective ones on the other page."

In addition, the perform is not completely useless. That particular character was able to pacify a sylvan that didn't speak common (and we didn't speak sylvan). The sylvan had apparently thought that all humans were brutal killers and tree-destroyers that had no souls. When she heard my character playing the violin she knew that he had to have some type of culture about him rather than just being a mindless killer. So that Perform check (IIRC I rolled a 13 and with mods had 17 total or something) actually came in handy.



I do. The point is not just that D&D does not work for me, though, it is that D&D does not work the way you claim it does.


That's the equivalent of saying "You might be thinking you are having fun but you really aren't." If the D&D system works for my group in the way that we play it, how can you, an uninformed 3rd party, claim that it doesn't? Your reasoning just doesn't hold water I'm afraid.



Oh absolutely. All I'm doing is pointing out that your paragon of Good Roleplaying actually looks a whole heck of a lot like your inconsistent Barbarian/Bard.


The barbarian/bard isn't "mine" that was Deepblues example originally I believe. But since you are agreeing that you are being two-sided I guess that means I don't need to explain further here.



Not exactly, I'm campaigning for people to recognize that D&D has its limitations as a system, and that suffering under those limitations is not a badge of honour.


Every system has its limitations. Some people like a lot of rules, some people like a little bit of rules, and some people like no rules at all. For someone to admit to suffering under limitations they would have to first agree with what you consider suffering, and I know I don't.



If you're really serious about "working together to tell a story" you should, in fact, probably stop playing D&D, because it directly undermines attempts to do so.

In you opinion, which is quite obvious not in fact. What you consider "working together to tell a story" and I do are quite obviously different. But the difference between our two arguments is that I am telling you that if you find a system that works better for you, you should use it, while you're telling me that with your vast experience with various systems you can unconditionally tell me that D&D does not work for what I have been making it work for a long time. That I consider to be pretty haughty.

I'm da Rogue!
2007-07-06, 10:34 AM
Power players? :smallfurious:
WHERE????????

As a band of very wise men once said:

Kill'em All!!! :smallamused:

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-06, 10:38 AM
What you call "wasting" skill points on Perform I call "Making an interesting character that isn't just about being the most effective." If the character dies in the campaign it won't be because he took Perform (dancing) instead of Craft (whatever).

The point is that in order to "create an interesting character" you had to use a limited resource. That's completely topsy-turvy. That's saying that your character can be as interesting as you like, but you have to *pay* for it.

Does that not strike you as a *tiny* bit counter-intuitive?


This just doesn't make any sense. If the story I want to tell of my character is a gruff fighter who players the violin at night, how is putting points in Perform restricting my ability to tell the story I want? I don't recall reading anything in the book that said "Useless skills, don't take any of these because you are *supposed* to take the more effective ones on the other page."

It's restricting your ability to tell the story you want because it's requiring you to justify personality traits with the expenditure of limited resources.

Perform is for Bards. Hell, the rules even explicitly state that you can have "flavour skills" that aren't modelled by skill ranks.


In addition, the perform is not completely useless. That particular character was able to pacify a sylvan that didn't speak common (and we didn't speak sylvan). The sylvan had apparently thought that all humans were brutal killers and tree-destroyers that had no souls. When she heard my character playing the violin she knew that he had to have some type of culture about him rather than just being a mindless killer. So that Perform check (IIRC I rolled a 13 and with mods had 17 total or something) actually came in handy.

But that's once in the whole campaign. And the GM clearly only did it *because* you'd put the points into Perform. I'd put money on the sylvan responding favourably whatever you rolled as well.


That's the equivalent of saying "You might be thinking you are having fun but you really aren't." If the D&D system works for my group in the way that we play it, how can you, an uninformed 3rd party, claim that it doesn't? Your reasoning just doesn't hold water I'm afraid.

On the contrary, it's the equivalent of saying "you may be having fun, but you would probably have more fun if you weren't fighting against the system the whole time."


The barbarian/bard isn't "mine" that was Deepblues example originally I believe. But since you are agreeing that you are being two-sided I guess that means I don't need to explain further here.

Oh I agree that it's two-sided. But the point is that I, as a GM, would be quite happy for the Druid to take or leave the ring, for whatever reasons he specified. In my game, the ring would be a complete non-issue.


Every system has its limitations. Some people like a lot of rules, some people like a little bit of rules, and some people like no rules at all. For someone to admit to suffering under limitations they would have to first agree with what you consider suffering, and I know I don't.

Every system has limitations, but the specific limitation of "regularly requiring you to choose between the integrity of your character and your mechanical effectiveness" is almost unique to D&D.


In you opinion, which is quite obvious not in fact. What you consider "working together to tell a story" and I do are quite obviously different. But the difference between our two arguments is that I am telling you that if you find a system that works better for you, you should use it, while you're telling me that with your vast experience with various systems you can unconditionally tell me that D&D does not work for what I have been making it work for a long time. That I consider to be pretty haughty.

So what do you consider "working together to tell a story"?

Saph
2007-07-06, 10:56 AM
I don't play D&D, so I know that it is possible for a system to work in ways other than the way in which D&D works. Which is sort of my point.

. . .

Not exactly, I'm campaigning for people to recognize that D&D has its limitations as a system, and that suffering under those limitations is not a badge of honour.

Dan, this whole "I know more about your games than you do!" line is getting ridiculous. Exactly how many times are you going to have to be told "we're not suffering" before you accept it?

A poster for you (http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target57.html).

- Saph

Dausuul
2007-07-06, 11:00 AM
Dan, this whole "I know more about your games than you do!" line is getting ridiculous. Exactly how many times are you going to have to be told "we're not suffering" before you accept it?

A poster for you (http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target57.html).

- Saph

While I tend toward Dan's side of the argument, I have to say... for that poster, you win this thread. :smallsmile:

Artemician
2007-07-06, 11:07 AM
The point is that in order to "create an interesting character" you had to use a limited resource. That's completely topsy-turvy. That's saying that your character can be as interesting as you like, but you have to *pay* for it.

Does that not strike you as a *tiny* bit counter-intuitive?



Ask your DM for some bonus skill points, or circumstance bonuses. It's not that hard.



On the contrary, it's the equivalent of saying "you may be having fun, but you would probably have more fun if you weren't fighting against the system the whole time."


I disagree. You seem to be suggesting, that even the slightest bit of using character resources in a non-effective way is not fun. Let's say you find a funny item. It has no practical use in combat. You are aware that it takes up WBL. Yet, does it make it any less funny? Yes, you can make do without those skill ranks, and RP it nicely. However, this does not mean that people who choose not to do so are doing anything wrong.



Oh I agree that it's two-sided. But the point is that I, as a GM, would be quite happy for the Druid to take or leave the ring, for whatever reasons he specified. In my game, the ring would be a complete non-issue.


So why are you making such a big fuss about it?



Every system has limitations, but the specific limitation of "regularly requiring you to choose between the integrity of your character and your mechanical effectiveness" is almost unique to D&D.


Lets say you build an incredibly optimized, powerful character. At level 5, he can easily defeat monsters above his CR. DM sends a CR 7 monsters at your party, everyone's happy.

You could also build a not-so optimized character. He's quite weak, and finds it hard to defeat monsters equal to or greater than his CR. DM sends CR4 monsters at your party, everyone's happy.

Given that the DM determines what sort of challenges your character will face (which include difficulty), I find it laughable that people would go to such lengths to squeeze out every single drop of effectiveness from their character.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-06, 11:11 AM
Dan, this whole "I know more about your games than you do!" line is getting ridiculous. Exactly how many times are you going to have to be told "we're not suffering" before you accept it?

A poster for you (http://llbbl.com/data/RPG-motivational/target57.html).

- Saph

Ironically, I don't *dislike* D&D. In fact, I really like it, I think it's extremely well designed, and extremely well structured. Heck, I even think it's extremely well balanced as long as it's played in the right spirit.

What I object to is the idea that if you don't want to be game mechanically penalized for making a legitimate character decision you're some kind of powergamer who is "only interested in character power."

Bassetking
2007-07-06, 11:20 AM
What you call "wasting" skill points on Perform I call "Making an interesting character that isn't just about being the most effective." If the character dies in the campaign it won't be because he took Perform (dancing) instead of Craft (whatever).

It might, though, be because he took Perform(Dancing) instead of Spot. Or Listen. Or Climb. Or Swim. Or Jump. Or Heal.

If, Torm, you say "What you call "wasting" skill points on Perform I call "Making an interesting character that isn't just about being the most effective." " I then ask: "Why do I have to buy off interesting with effectiveness?"

Tormsskull
2007-07-06, 11:27 AM
The point is that in order to "create an interesting character" you had to use a limited resource. That's completely topsy-turvy. That's saying that your character can be as interesting as you like, but you have to *pay* for it.


Not at all. I could have made a character that didn't use Perform. I just tend to utilize the skills of the character to represent what they have learned throughout their life rather than always assuming that little Bobby the 4 year old was conditioning himself for a life of adventuring.



Does that not strike you as a *tiny* bit counter-intuitive?


No, it honestly does not. Oh, I see where you are coming from, but don't view the game in the same way that you do. My opinion of how you view the game is that you are viewing the game inside of the game. You are focusing on combat mostly, and wanting to make sure you have as much resources to spend to make your character as effective as possible. That's fine.

I'm looking at the game as a whole. Rather than worrying if those 4 skills points in Perform are going to make me a horrible fighter in combat, I am trying to see through the eyes of my character. What does he like? What does he hate? What are his goals? Did he have a crush on some girl when he was 13? Does he play any instruments? Does he speak any other languages? How does he get along with members of other races? Was he ever married? Does he have any kids? Etc, etc, etc. So when I liked the idea of a fighter that played the violin I knew that in order to give him some actual skill to represent his dedication to the violin, I'd put 4 points in Perform.

And you know what? I had a blast with that character. It was hilarious the first time the DM told one of the PCs that they were awoken by this music floating from down by the water. When the PC sneak down he sees my character playing the violin.

Some groups could care less about that kind of stuff. And that's ok. But roleplaying is 90% of the fun of D&D to me.



It's restricting your ability to tell the story you want because it's requiring you to justify personality traits with the expenditure of limited resources.


No, it doesn't require it. Playing the violin is not a personality trait. I could have just as easily given my warrior a "soft-side" without spending skill points on perform. But that didn't represent the character I wanted to play.



But that's once in the whole campaign. And the GM clearly only did it *because* you'd put the points into Perform. I'd put money on the sylvan responding favourably whatever you rolled as well.


Maybe, I don't know to be honest. But isn't that what a good DM is supposed to do anyway? Craft adventures where the PCs are going to have fun and have a chance to use the skills/abilities that they have?



On the contrary, it's the equivalent of saying "you may be having fun, but you would probably have more fun if you weren't fighting against the system the whole time."


To you I am fighting against the system, to me I am utilizing it and having a lot of fun. I think I'll keep continuing on with my way. If I ever end up in a situation where D&D starts being less fun because I have to pay for skills that I want my character to have, I'll try it your way.



Every system has limitations, but the specific limitation of "regularly requiring you to choose between the integrity of your character and your mechanical effectiveness" is almost unique to D&D.


Maybe that's because what you think of as the integrity of your character cannot be accurately encapsulated by D&D's rules? I personally have no problem working within parameters. I have no problem being allotted x amount of this and that and then picking and choosing what I want to make a character that I am going to have a lot of fun playing.



So what do you consider "working together to tell a story"?

That's incredibly subjective and I don't think I could really define it in any objective sense. Regardless of what examples I could give I am sure you could pick it apart and tell me where I am wrong, so I don't really see the point in trying.



If, Torm, you say "What you call "wasting" skill points on Perform I call "Making an interesting character that isn't just about being the most effective." " I then ask: "Why do I have to buy off interesting with effectiveness?"


You don't have to. The only time it would be a problem is when you try to give your character skills that he does not have ranks in. If I put 4 ranks in perform for my character and you simply write into your backstory "Knows how to play violin" then we're going to come to a problem.

Once again, you are choosing to view it like "I have x amount of resources to make my character as effective as possible." I am choosing to view it as "I have x amount of resources to build a detailed character in this fantasy world that I am going to have fun playing."

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-06, 11:30 AM
Ask your DM for some bonus skill points, or circumstance bonuses. It's not that hard.

And the DM says "no, what kind of powergamer are you? You think you can get skill points for free? I only want roleplayers in my group."


I disagree. You seem to be suggesting, that even the slightest bit of using character resources in a non-effective way is not fun. Let's say you find a funny item. It has no practical use in combat. You are aware that it takes up WBL. Yet, does it make it any less funny? Yes, you can make do without those skill ranks, and RP it nicely. However, this does not mean that people who choose not to do so are doing anything wrong.

Like most disagreements, it isn't the marginal issues that cause problems. Two wasted skill points here or there is no problem for anybody. A single comedy item, a couple of skill points on "flavour" skills: a lot of DMs would give it for free, a lot of players would spend points on it.

It's when things get more extreme that it becomes a problem.

Take the example upthread about the "Wizard who used to be a solider".

If you insist that the "wizard who used to be a soldier" take a level of Fighter to "represent their military experience" you are essentially forcing that player to waste a whole level. You are putting them a level behind all the other characters. For a lot of people, that would be an unacceptable compromise.

Most people are willing to spend a small number of points on "flavour" skills. Most GMs are willing to let players have abilities they haven't strictly paid for if it makes sense (nobody asks for a Knowledge: Dungeoneering roll before they let the party buy a ten foot pole).

It's when you start getting stricter that you start *forcing* people to make this artificial choice between "optimization and roleplaying." When you start to say "sorry, your character can only be a full Wizard if he's spent his entire life doing nothing else but being a Wizard" it's only natural that people will respond by saying "well in that case my character has spent his entire life being a Wizard."

It wouldn't bother me so much if people didn't always *complain* about their players always having samey character backgrounds, or not giving their character enough flaws and weaknesses. When you make people pay to play interesting characters, is it any wonder they wind up playing dull characters?


So why are you making such a big fuss about it?

Because it was being held up as a grand example of the triumph of Roleplaying over Optimization, when it was actually just a player deciding he didn't want a particular bit of loot. If it had been a Ring Of Total Druidic Power, I'd have found the example more compelling.


Lets say you build an incredibly optimized, powerful character. At level 5, he can easily defeat monsters above his CR. DM sends a CR 7 monsters at your party, everyone's happy.

You could also build a not-so optimized character. He's quite weak, and finds it hard to defeat monsters equal to or greater than his CR. DM sends CR4 monsters at your party, everyone's happy.

Given that the DM determines what sort of challenges your character will face (which include difficulty), I find it laughable that people would go to such lengths to squeeze out every single drop of effectiveness from their character.

On the flip side, if the DM determines which sorts of challenges a character will face, why do people get so upset about "powergamers"?

Artemician
2007-07-06, 11:30 AM
It might, though, be because he took Perform(Dancing) instead of Spot. Or Listen. Or Climb. Or Swim. Or Jump. Or Heal.

If, Torm, you say "What you call "wasting" skill points on Perform I call "Making an interesting character that isn't just about being the most effective." " I then ask: "Why do I have to buy off interesting with effectiveness?"

Because effectiveness isn't at all very important? I can build an insanely effective character and have fun with it. I can also build a fairly inefficient, bumbling character, and have fun with it.

Effectiveness is even less important in a game, than those stray skillpoints that you have mentioned. It just simply determines the timing at which the DM will decide to throw a particular challenge at you.


And the DM says "no, what kind of powergamer are you? You think you can get skill points for free? I only want roleplayers in my group."


It depends on what kind of DM you get, I guess. Some DMs will allow it, some don't. If, however, you have a reputation as a person who cares deeply about having fun as a character, and not simply trying to squeeze every single drop of power from a build, your DM will be more likely to agree.



It's when things get more extreme that it becomes a problem.

Take the example upthread about the "Wizard who used to be a solider".

If you insist that the "wizard who used to be a soldier" take a level of Fighter to "represent their military experience" you are essentially forcing that player to waste a whole level. You are putting them a level behind all the other characters. For a lot of people, that would be an unacceptable compromise.

Most people are willing to spend a small number of points on "flavour" skills. Most GMs are willing to let players have abilities they haven't strictly paid for if it makes sense (nobody asks for a Knowledge: Dungeoneering roll before they let the party buy a ten foot pole).

It's when you start getting stricter that you start *forcing* people to make this artificial choice between "optimization and roleplaying." When you start to say "sorry, your character can only be a full Wizard if he's spent his entire life doing nothing else but being a Wizard" it's only natural that people will respond by saying "well in that case my character has spent his entire life being a Wizard."


I agree. If a player wishes to Roleplay his Wizard as a Soldier, I personally feel that you should not force him to take a level in Fighter, justifying under Consistent Roleplay. You could hint strongly at him to do it, or talk to him about it, but you should never force him into doing it, especially if he has already stated his objections.



On the flip side, if the DM determines which sorts of challenges a character will face, why do people get so upset about "powergamers"?
[/quote]

Personally, I feel that there is no problem in people wanting to optimize their builds to a reasonable extent. People like whupping ass, and no-one wants to feel that they are not contributing to the party or being ridiculously weak. However, when people start to place Character Power over everything else, to the point where it starts affecting the enjoyment of the game (needless nitpicking over details, lengthly formulae for calculating maximum-possible-damage, one-shotting monsters and making other party members feel usless) then it becomes a problem.
As you have said before, It's when things get more extreme that it becomes a problem.

Tormsskull
2007-07-06, 11:41 AM
Ironically, I don't *dislike* D&D. In fact, I really like it, I think it's extremely well designed, and extremely well structured. Heck, I even think it's extremely well balanced as long as it's played in the right spirit.


And who defines "right spirit"?



What I object to is the idea that if you don't want to be game mechanically penalized for making a legitimate character decision you're some kind of powergamer who is "only interested in character power."

Once again, you're viewing this from a "D&D is all about combat, I want to make my character as effective as possible at combat. I have x amount of resources to spend on combat." Therefore you'd view it as a 'penalty' to take a skill that doesn't somehow contribute to your combat effectiveness.


Here's an example scenario for you. You're a player in a group, your group of PCs defeats some evil and frees a race of imprisoned people. These people are so greatful that they give you rewards and such, and your group hangs out at their home for a few weeks or a month or whatever. Your group really likes these people. The DM informs your group that the members of this race are willing to teach you their language so it will be easier to communicate with them. It costs 2 skill points for Speak Language (this race).

Assuming your character is genuinely interested in learning the language, and assuming you don't have the ability to cast a spell or have a magic item that allows you to understand them, what do you do?



Because it was being held up as a grand example of the triumph of Roleplaying over Optimization, when it was actually just a player deciding he didn't want a particular bit of loot. If it had been a Ring Of Total Druidic Power, I'd have found the example more compelling.


Your interpretation is flawed. I think you are too married to the concept of the eternal struggle between roleplaying and optimization that you feel you are somehow being a soldier in the righteous battle or something.

Once again, how in the world do I give an example of people I am sitting with and you tell me what really happened? You seriously are straining into the realm of some kind of complex.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-06, 11:56 AM
Not at all. I could have made a character that didn't use Perform. I just tend to utilize the skills of the character to represent what they have learned throughout their life rather than always assuming that little Bobby the 4 year old was conditioning himself for a life of adventuring.

But the skills list is specifically limited to skills that are useful for adventurers. That's why virtually every field of human endeavour which *isn't* useful to adventurers is rolled into the Craft and Profession skills.


No, it honestly does not. Oh, I see where you are coming from, but don't view the game in the same way that you do. My opinion of how you view the game is that you are viewing the game inside of the game. You are focusing on combat mostly, and wanting to make sure you have as much resources to spend to make your character as effective as possible. That's fine.

You see you say "that's fine" but one gets the distinct impression that you actually mean "you're a powergamer."


I'm looking at the game as a whole. Rather than worrying if those 4 skills points in Perform are going to make me a horrible fighter in combat, I am trying to see through the eyes of my character. What does he like? What does he hate? What are his goals? Did he have a crush on some girl when he was 13? Does he play any instruments? Does he speak any other languages? How does he get along with members of other races? Was he ever married? Does he have any kids? Etc, etc, etc. So when I liked the idea of a fighter that played the violin I knew that in order to give him some actual skill to represent his dedication to the violin, I'd put 4 points in Perform.

Here's the thing, though.

Nothing in D&D encourages you to think about those questions. In fact, the answers to those questions are meaningless within D&D.

What does he like? What does he hate? What are his goals? Does it matter if he is going to have no way of expressing that? What if he *was* married, it isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference when he's stuck underground surrounded by orcs.

So you've got a fighter who plays the violin, and you put four points in perform. Great.

But what if your fighter was married? Well then he must have had some way to pay the rent, so you need to put some points into a Profession or Craft skill. And if he did odd jobs around the house, he'd need to have a rank in Profession: Carpenter, if he ever fixed the roof he'd need a rank of Profession: Thatcher as well.

Now what about his kid. Did he read him stories about far off lands and times long ago? If so that's Knowledge: Geography and Knowledge: Religion you have to invest in, as well as Perform: Storytelling. And child-rearing takes a fair bit of patience, so he needs a rank of Diplomacy, and maybe a rank of Bluff as well ("If you don't eat all your swedes, the *goblins* will get you!").

Did he ever have a pet? Better take a rank of Handle Animal then.

And so on.

D&D doesn't give you enough skill points to create a well-rounded human being. It gives you enough skill points to create a stereotype.


And you know what? I had a blast with that character. It was hilarious the first time the DM told one of the PCs that they were awoken by this music floating from down by the water. When the PC sneak down he sees my character playing the violin.

But you would have had a blast with the character just as much if the DM had let you have the skill points for free.


Some groups could care less about that kind of stuff. And that's ok. But roleplaying is 90% of the fun of D&D to me.

It's 100% of the fun for me. Which is why I intensely dislike being discouraged from doing it.


No, it doesn't require it. Playing the violin is not a personality trait. I could have just as easily given my warrior a "soft-side" without spending skill points on perform. But that didn't represent the character I wanted to play.

The character you wound up creating, however, was essentially a classically trained violinist. Somebody who could actually have made a living at it.


Maybe, I don't know to be honest. But isn't that what a good DM is supposed to do anyway? Craft adventures where the PCs are going to have fun and have a chance to use the skills/abilities that they have?

Of course they are, but the point is that the scene came from DM fiat, not from the actual system.


To you I am fighting against the system, to me I am utilizing it and having a lot of fun. I think I'll keep continuing on with my way. If I ever end up in a situation where D&D starts being less fun because I have to pay for skills that I want my character to have, I'll try it your way.

Maybe that's because what you think of as the integrity of your character cannot be accurately encapsulated by D&D's rules? I personally have no problem working within parameters. I have no problem being allotted x amount of this and that and then picking and choosing what I want to make a character that I am going to have a lot of fun playing.

That's fine. I prefer freedom.


That's incredibly subjective and I don't think I could really define it in any objective sense. Regardless of what examples I could give I am sure you could pick it apart and tell me where I am wrong, so I don't really see the point in trying.

Fair enough.


You don't have to. The only time it would be a problem is when you try to give your character skills that he does not have ranks in. If I put 4 ranks in perform for my character and you simply write into your backstory "Knows how to play violin" then we're going to come to a problem.

Why do we come to a problem.

Your character is a professional-standard violinist. My character is a competent amateur violinist.

How is it different to me writing "fighter" on my character sheet, you writing "wizard" and then me finding that you can handle a crossbow nearly as well as I can?


Once again, you are choosing to view it like "I have x amount of resources to make my character as effective as possible." I am choosing to view it as "I have x amount of resources to build a detailed character in this fantasy world that I am going to have fun playing."

I'm viewing it like: "I have x amount of resources with which to build a character that I will enjoy playing in a game which I know to be about overcoming challenges, many of which will involve combat, which will be unavoidable. This system contains no means of protecting player characters from death other than literal in-character power, therefore if I wish to have any investment at all in this character, I should make it a priority to ensure that they have a chance of surviving the combat encounters of which I can expect four in any given day."

Tormsskull
2007-07-06, 12:25 PM
Here's the thing, though.

Nothing in D&D encourages you to think about those questions. In fact, the answers to those questions are meaningless within D&D.

What does he like? What does he hate? What are his goals? Does it matter if he is going to have no way of expressing that? What if he *was* married, it isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference when he's stuck underground surrounded by orcs.


It matters to me. It matters to how I roleplay the character. It provides the character with drive, motivation. It explains why the character does what he does, why he chooses what he chooses.



But what if your fighter was married? *snip*


Just because you can do something, does not mean you are necessarily any good at it. Roofing a house doesn't take expert laborers. Telling your children a story doesn't take expert oratory skills.

But being skilled at the violin to represent a character's fascination with the instrument does.



D&D doesn't give you enough skill points to create a well-rounded human being. It gives you enough skill points to create a stereotype.


I disagree. Some classes have few skill points to represent their lack of training in skills. Other classes like the Rogue have loads of skill points. Even if there are 4 or 5 skills that basically every Rogue takes, I wouldn't say that makes them a stereotype. When you roll your stats/use point-buy you can give yourself more skill points by simply bumping up your intelligence.



Your character is a professional-standard violinist. My character is a competent amateur violinist.


I can't recall, Perform isn't trained only is it? If it isn't, then yeah that would work just fine.



I'm viewing it like: "I have x amount of resources with which to build a character that I will enjoy playing in a game which I know to be about overcoming challenges, many of which will involve combat, which will be unavoidable. This system contains no means of protecting player characters from death other than literal in-character power,


Up until this point, ok.



therefore if I wish to have any investment at all in this character, I should make it a priority to ensure that they have a chance of surviving the combat encounters of which I can expect four in any given day."

This seems to me that you are saying you aren't going to care about the character until you see if he can hold his own in combat, and if he can then you'll develop a personality for him.

I just develop all of that stuff before he is even in his first adventure. I know why my character is going on that adventure and such.

Quietus
2007-07-06, 12:27 PM
Guys, look at things this way :

Dan : You want to make an amateur violinist, and don't feel the need to put any ranks in Perform (Violin). That's fine; You enjoy playing, clearly, but you aren't going to be able to provide the same haunting melody that Torm can. You've spent more time focussing on the adventuring side of things, Torm has sacrificed his ability to Climb by spending the time that you were at the rock wall practicing Bach. Neither of you are playing wrong.

Likewise with the wizard-fighter deal. You want to say that you've practiced with multiple weapons? Awesome. Go for it. That doesn't mean you're proficient, and it doesn't mean you're GOOD with those weapons, though you might have swung them around a little. A wizard who's spent time as a soldier didn't necessarily make a GOOD soldier. If you have high dex and mainly focus on your crossbow as your proof of your soldierhood, then you could easily come across as a competent soldier, but when you start picking up the swords and everything you supposedly practiced with, it isn't your backstory that determines how good you are with them - it's your die rolls and modifiers. Which that Fighter/Wizard will naturally be better at. He'll be, on average, 5 points better at swinging any martial weapon, and many simple ones, than you are.

As far as multiclassing goes, sometimes it just makes sense to require training to enter a class. Training as a Wizard, for example - the entire fluff of the class shows lengthy periods of training. In my games, you can't spontaneously take a level of Wizard unless you've been training for it in-character. Or rather, you CAN take a level of Wizard, but you only get the BAB and save bonuses immediately. After you spend a period of time studying at a college somewhere, you can learn the basics of magic (cantrips) and some more advanced tricks (1-level spells), thereby providing you with your ability to cast. You aren't "Learning to become a <class>", you're getting someone to teach you basic magical theory, giving you training in how to warp the very fabric of reality. Now, if you had a wizard in the party, then they might be willing to do this training for you on the fly, which is fine. But without one, you'll need to spend some downtime studying.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-06, 12:28 PM
****. Just lost a long post.

Anyways, let's try to exlain this, as you two have been doing.

D&D gives you a limited selection of resources, which for non-challenge purposes, can be assumed to be at any reasonable level. Therefore, skills which have the greatest use for challenge purposes are prefered to be picked. Same with feats.

However, it is felt that mechanics should follow the character to some extent. An example of this is found in the selection of the Agile feat in the Goblins comic. The amount to which this can be considered valid relates to personal prefrence, from none whatsoever, to entirely.

Generally, interesting characters, and well rounded characters, have a wide variety of skills. However, this often requires the expenditure of many skill points to explain thereoetical proficiency which relates not at all mechanically. The issue with this of course, is the reduction of the effectiveness of the character. An important point to remember here is the sidebar on the skills section relating to the "lack" of skill points. Specifically, it states that most checks have low DC's (i.e. take ten), and that one can assume proficiency in skills beyond what one has ranks in. This is essentially permission to allow leniency for the purposes of character behaviour. Mechanically, this may have no effect, but it adds flavor. Like your character personality.

Some may ask why they should make mechanical concessions to their character personality, when those could be duplicated by leniency. A lack of leniency to such results in generally stereotypical characters. While making a mechanically suboptimal, or optimal character has little effect with adjustable challenges, some may find it logically abhorrent to systematically weaken themselves.

Accepting this argument, however, leads to a power disparity between the two personal opinions. Optimizers will have more effective characters. Both will have equally flavourful characters. This is the Stormwind Fallacy, and why it was written. The players who make mechanical concessions to their characters may deride the others as not "hard-core" (or somesuch term) roleplayers, and muchkins, but since both can now have equally interesting characters, and one set is mechanically superior, which is preferable?

EDIT: Furthermore, either character concept or statistics can be come up with first in this instance, either can follow the other.

Fawsto
2007-07-06, 12:41 PM
Well... I do try to figure out how my characters will become at lvl 20, but just to take the proper feats and understand what I want for them. When the synergy works, it is ok, But I never power played. I merely like some interesting combos, but they are far from broken or invincible ones.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-06, 12:59 PM
Well... I do try to figure out how my characters will become at lvl 20, but just to take the proper feats and understand what I want for them. When the synergy works, it is ok, But I never power played. I merely like some interesting combos, but they are far from broken or invincible ones.

Well yeah, there are limits set by a combination of your opinion of optimal power (not necessarily maximised) in terms of fun. Which is why all optimisers don't play pun-pun. And many consider IOTSOV and Incantatrix bad form. At a guss, this may be mixed into the problem, wherein a argument combining claims of excessive power, in tandem with an argument about a lack of commitment of your character (mechanically), are mixed together into one, wherein a build based on your character interests is considered to be properly powered, "what was intended" etc. Thus, the stormwind fallacy was created.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-06, 01:03 PM
It matters to me. It matters to how I roleplay the character. It provides the character with drive, motivation. It explains why the character does what he does, why he chooses what he chooses.

Oh absolutely. But none of that is supported by the system. D&D, as a system, does not ask you "was your character married", it *does* ask you "is your character better at aiming their bow at targets who are within thirty feet". The decisions the *system* cares about are the ones which are to do with combat.


Just because you can do something, does not mean you are necessarily any good at it. Roofing a house doesn't take expert laborers. Telling your children a story doesn't take expert oratory skills.

And playing the violin doesn't take performance-level ability.


But being skilled at the violin to represent a character's fascination with the instrument does.

Since when does fascination translate to ability?


I disagree. Some classes have few skill points to represent their lack of training in skills. Other classes like the Rogue have loads of skill points. Even if there are 4 or 5 skills that basically every Rogue takes, I wouldn't say that makes them a stereotype. When you roll your stats/use point-buy you can give yourself more skill points by simply bumping up your intelligence.

Some classes have few skill points for game balance. Does it actually make sense for a Fighter to have so few skills? Is "professional soldier" really a less demanding profession than "wandering minstrel"?


I can't recall, Perform isn't trained only is it? If it isn't, then yeah that would work just fine.

It's not trained only as far as I recall.


Up until this point, ok.

This seems to me that you are saying you aren't going to care about the character until you see if he can hold his own in combat, and if he can then you'll develop a personality for him.

What I'm saying is that if I put effort into designing a character, I won't want them to get killed in combat. Especially not in a random encounter. This means that I'll be more likely to invest in Constitution than Charisma, more likely to play a straight Wizard than a multiclass Wizard/Fighter and so on.

In a challenge based game, I'm going to design characters who can overcome the challenges.

If the GM then insists that I choose between "a character who can overcome the challenges I expect to be presented" and "a character with an interesting background" I will choose the former over the latter. I would rather not be put in the position at all, however.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-06, 01:09 PM
Preform is not trained only.

Note Dan's wording. He mentions specifically "challenge based game", and "insists that I choose". Both of these are not necessarily true, and in an optimial situation, #2 is untrue.

Quietus
2007-07-06, 01:16 PM
If the GM then insists that I choose between "a character who can overcome the challenges I expect to be presented" and "a character with an interesting background" I will choose the former over the latter. I would rather not be put in the position at all, however.

This is the problem, right here. No GM should be insisting you make choices of that sort. A passing interest in the violin can be accurately modeled by owning a violin and using it from time to time. If, however, your background includes playing it well enough to move people on a regular basis, then you better be able to back that up in-character, either by consistently rolling high enough to do so, or by having the ranks and charisma to pull it off. Otherwise, no one is going to believe your character, and when you try to insist "But I'm a violin master!", they'll laugh you off.

Jayabalard
2007-07-06, 01:21 PM
The point is that in order to "create an interesting character" you had to use a limited resource. That's completely topsy-turvy. That's saying that your character can be as interesting as you like, but you have to *pay* for it.

Does that not strike you as a *tiny* bit counter-intuitive?Not in the slightest.

A warrior who spends a little bit of his time learning how to dance, sing and play the violin (or whatever) is not going to be as effective as one who spends every waking moment learning how to more efficiently kill things.

It mirrors the real world, modeling the same finite resource that everyone has: Time.

The counter intuitive notion is the one you're suggesting, where a warrior that has branched out and has studied non-martial skills (knowledge, perform, crafting, professions ,etc) is just as effective as a warrior who hasn't.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-06, 01:30 PM
This is the problem, right here. No GM should be insisting you make choices of that sort. A passing interest in the violin can be accurately modeled by owning a violin and using it from time to time. If, however, your background includes playing it well enough to move people on a regular basis, then you better be able to back that up in-character, either by consistently rolling high enough to do so, or by having the ranks and charisma to pull it off. Otherwise, no one is going to believe your character, and when you try to insist "But I'm a violin master!", they'll laugh you off.

That's the point.


Not in the slightest.

A warrior who spends a little bit of his time learning how to dance, sing and play the violin (or whatever) is not going to be as effective as one who spends every waking moment learning how to more efficiently kill things.

It mirrors the real world, modeling the same finite resource that everyone has: Time.

The counter intuitive notion is the one you're suggesting, where a warrior that has branched out and has studied non-martial skills (knowledge, perform, crafting, professions ,etc) is just as effective as a warrior who hasn't.

Yeah, OK. When I was young mommy, I hit things with swords, and climbed all over the place! Totally! And rolled around. And learned to farm.

Furthermore, claiming a minor interest = large time consumption is silly. Particularly since one can assume that you don't stand and swing a sword all day. I.e. time in which you don't practice very specific skills. I.e. resting time. I.e. possible to play an instrument to relax without using up the time allotted by others to training. You train the same. You just play in your spare time. Not like taking violin lessons.

Jayabalard
2007-07-06, 01:49 PM
Yeah, OK. When I was young mommy, I hit things with swords, and climbed all over the place! Totally! And rolled around. And learned to farm.If you had spent that time that you used learning to farm on something more martially inclined, you'd be better at that. So, instead of having 4 ranks in tumble, you take less in tumble (or something else), and 1 each in a couple of non-martial skills.

That's intuitive.

Counter intuitive is the notion that fighter A who can dance, sing, play the violin, knows rare knowledge, and has worked in 5 different professions is going to be just as good at martial skills as fighter B, who has trained for 16+ hours a day until they reached adulthood.

Tormsskull
2007-07-06, 01:57 PM
Some may ask why they should make mechanical concessions to their character personality, when those could be duplicated by leniency. A lack of leniency to such results in generally stereotypical characters. While making a mechanically suboptimal, or optimal character has little effect with adjustable challenges, some may find it logically abhorrent to systematically weaken themselves.


Since you laid out your argument pretty well, let me show the line of thought that I believe takes place here.

1. I want to be as mechanically effective as possible.
2. If the DM is lenient and allows me to enchance my character's personality or flavor without suffering any unmaximized mechanical benefits I will take advantage of it.
3. If the DM it not lenient then I will build a stereotypical character in order to not sacrifice mechanical efficiency.

Would you say that is a fair breakdown of what you are stating in the above paragraph?



In a challenge based game, I'm going to design characters who can overcome the challenges.


In a roleplaying game I am going to design a believeable character who is going to be fun for me to roleplay.

Deepblue706
2007-07-06, 02:06 PM
Even with those additional details, there's dozens of ways you can explain their no longer having the proficiencies. "I haven't lifted a sword in ten years" being the most obvious one. I think after ten years without practice will definitely make you rusty...but honestly, I don't think you'll suddenly forget everything, either. Technique would be minimal, but still existant - and if at all used, it'd probably come back once they got back into fighting.



Fair enough. The thing is, it's totally possible to have a character who has done things in his background that they can't do any more. I used to play guitar, but I gave up nearly ten years ago, and now I can't.

You can't play anything? How long did you play? How often? How much did you try to develop it? You don't believe you could get it back faster than someone who's never played before?



The problem is that communication between player and GM is always, by necessity, patchy.

Suppose I was playing the aforesaid Barbarian, and I included in my background "his tribe has a strong oral tradition, their history is passed down in stories and songs which the whole tribe shares in."

Suppose I regularly charged into battle singing the war-songs of my people, and told the history of my tribe around the camp-fire late into the night.

Would I still be "just a Barbarian"?

No, because you actually specified more about your character. I was saying if you hadn't mentioned any of that, I'd probably give you an awkward look when you decided to throw Bard into the mix.



I think this is where we differ. I don't consider "training" to be part of D&D. When a character gains a new level, that isn't something they've "just learned", it's just an increase in the mechanical effectiveness of the abilities they already possess. Even if they multiclass, that's still the case. A Barbarian who picks up a level of Bard is still exactly the same character, it's just that now his tribal war-songs inspire the whole party. I don't see it as a real change in character, but what if you fail to mention that the Barbarian ever sang war songs? I don't have a problem with change, I have a problem with abrupt change that cannot be explained by the player in an in-character form.




Is "uh, whatever" a yes or a no?
It's "do what you like."



But why should it be? Why should "I fought with spear and shield against the armies of the North before my arcane studies began" imply that you have to take Simple Weapon proficiency and Shield Proficiency? Well, honestly I don't know, now, considering the situation you listed above. Really, I thought after 10 years of letting something rest, one could just spend a week fully training and get a fair amount of it back - far more than any regular joe would get in the same time.

I think continuous training is what would explain why people keep their skills top-notch, not suffering from "off-days" unless they have some kind of status affect on them. While if someone really wanted to do this, I'd probably give in eventually...I don't think an absense from a certain field is the same as never having been there. But maybe time is a good argument. I can't even recall not doing something after 10 years - let alone identify I'd be bad at it.



Who your character *was* and who your character *is* are two different things. Yes, but you can't deny you've had a past. Again, I'll just have to say a reasonable amount of time should pass if you're going to "forget" it, variably based on how much time was spent on that thing, and what it is. 10 years of not being an assassin doesn't wash away 20 years of experience.





A Wizard with a +2 Con modifier (and most of them take a +2 Con modifier in my experience) has 6HP at first level.

This is more than many first level Warriors (since NPCs don't benefit from the "max HP at first level" rule. Well, yeah, if we make the non-elite array not have any CON bonus for the Warrior. But now you're talking about stamina, not training.



And as they level up, they're going to get more and more powerful. A tenth level wizard will whip a first level warrior in a straight fight, even without the use of magic. I won't deny that, and Wizards get that strong (I believe) because they are doing combat training on the side. If they were fully immersed in spellbooks, there'd be no reason to increase BAB at all. But, they grow their BAB at a poor rate. Really, I think why an equal level-Wizard could beat a Warrior in melee combat is because he's a PC class, and therefore a "Hero" not because he's actually "trained" in fighting.



But they're not saying "I'm a Bard now, too" they're saying "my character is a Bard/Barbarian, because I feel that better reflects the character." Reflect the character? My complaint was there was no character to be seen, other than a sheet - and then suddenly there's more on the sheet, and the player didn't bother to explain why.



The way Classes work, they *have* to be taken one at a time. This is a highly granular system. When a character picks up a new class, it doesn't represent their character *changing*, it represents their character getting mechanical representation of how they have always been. Well, I don't think the character is inherently "always" adding what has already been. My point was that a player should declare interest in multiclassing and make it a point to show that the new class is actually part of their character, rather than simply saying it. I'm not rebutting a statement of "but they ARENT simply saying it", I'm expressing my disdain for the players that don't give me any information, and make an abrupt change which they never addressed prior to this point.



If they were planning on multiclassing anyway, what would be the point in buying off Illiteracy? It's so the character who is currently being described as a bookworm can...read books.



It sounds like you don't want to *know* where the boundaries are so much as *decide* where they are.
Decide with my players. What, do you think I'm going to slap down a hammer, and say "This is this, forget about discussion."? If there's something I don't like, I'll speak up, and try to get everyone talking about it. If everyone can agree to something, then I'm for it. But, I'm not going to ignore something that I see as "off", when it is a DMs duty to make sure things run well for everyone playing - and one person doing something I see as "wrong" should be addressed.

Note my statements earlier were using the word "Probably". Sure, it was in all-caps, but while I was putting a strong emphasis on it being likely, I didn't rule out other possibilities. I never rule out possibilities and I am open to discussion. My primary point was, and has been, simply hearing from the player, why it makes sense.




If I want to play a Wizard with a military background, and you tell me that I can't have a military background and still play a straight Wizard, I'll ditch the background, simple as that. A straight wizard can have a military background just fine. They should probably note all differences in time, what kind of unit they served in, and their involvement in it, though.




Heedless charge can be extremely cautious if you want it to be. It's about eliminating potential threats as soon as possible, a very sensible precaution.

Again, what you're really saying is that Heedless Charge doesn't fit your preconceptions about how a "cautious fighter" would behave.

Note, I specifically said that anyone can find a reason to do it. Now you seem to be having preconceptions about what's really a preconception and what is someone implying "under many circumstances, that isn't a sensible thing to do, and someone who is normally very sensible might be reluctant to perform it". I didn't say never. It's possible. There are sometimes reasons. I don't believe I expressed many of my statements in absolutes - and this certainly wasn't meant to be taken as such.

Counterpower
2007-07-06, 02:29 PM
What I'm saying is that if I put effort into designing a character, I won't want them to get killed in combat. Especially not in a random encounter. This means that I'll be more likely to invest in Constitution than Charisma, more likely to play a straight Wizard than a multiclass Wizard/Fighter and so on.

In a challenge based game, I'm going to design characters who can overcome the challenges.

If the GM then insists that I choose between "a character who can overcome the challenges I expect to be presented" and "a character with an interesting background" I will choose the former over the latter. I would rather not be put in the position at all, however.

Unless the DM is a total jerk, no one should have to worry about not being as effective for the sake of an interesting skill set. One of my players is breaking all of the rules for making effective wizards. He's lost four caster levels already, and his plan for the future has him seven caster levels behind overall. And yes, there was an encounter where he faced the consequences of that decision. That's what happens in real life, after all. There are always consequences when you make a decision. Just because the consequences on one side of the ledger are severe doesn't mean you're forced to a certain decision. The consequences shouldn't be game-ending, but with a good DM, they won't be.

Diggorian
2007-07-06, 02:50 PM
Unless the DM is a total jerk, no one should have to worry about not being as effective for the sake of an interesting skill set.

Agreed.

Dan, I get the feeling that you played with one ... atrocious DM that took all your choices away, railroaded the game to a TPK, then physically beat you with his DMG for daring to question him.

D&D has alot of rules on combat because combat is complex. The social aspects are covered in the skill descriptions. XP is given for overcoming encounters, which may be combat, natural hazard, trap, puzzle, or social interaction; awarded by CR not monster.

[Edit to address the true topic] Power gamers, who are not synonymous with munchkins, focus more on building the skill to overcome those encounter types that their class is geared to be especially good at tackling. That's all.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-06, 04:07 PM
Since you laid out your argument pretty well, let me show the line of thought that I believe takes place here.

1. I want to be as mechanically effective as possible.
2. If the DM is lenient and allows me to enchance my character's personality or flavor without suffering any unmaximized mechanical benefits I will take advantage of it.
3. If the DM it not lenient then I will build a stereotypical character in order to not sacrifice mechanical efficiency.

Would you say that is a fair breakdown of what you are stating in the above paragraph?



It was intended to be more of a general statement, but that is one way of looking at it, yes :smallsmile:

1 is an asumption, 2 is an optimal situation, and 3 is dependant on your initial assumption 1.

When 2 is available, it is the best solution, unless you actually overshadow the party. 3 isn't true if 1 isn't true, and if you focus on being of an even power level with the party, then 3 may or may not be true, depending on how much optimization is necessary. If you have an incantatrix, a planar shepard, and an artficer, you may have some difficulty.

Furthermore, even when 2 is not available, a degree of variety is possible, even within the confines of 1.

Jayabalard
2007-07-06, 04:17 PM
1 is an asumption, 2 is an optimal situation, and 3 is dependant on your initial assumption 1. Actually, if you read back over it, I'm pretty sure that all of them are an assumption... he's suggesting that this your line of thought, and asking for confirmation, or denial and reasons... that #1 is YOUR assumption, that #2 is what you want, and that #3 is what you'd prefer if you can't have #2.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-06, 04:29 PM
Mmm. Applying it to me specifically by way of noting specific bias isn't necessarily accurate.

1 is probably true for me. To some degree.
2 is what I consider to be a logically optimal situation, as it combines both aspects of optimal, in both terms of play (mechanical and non-mechanical).
3 is dependant on 1 nonethless, and I don't really endorse it. It's an extreme (relatively), just as playing a psion who's a sandwich is extreme.

Furthermore, 1 is subjective in terms of degree. How much is enough? Following that, 2 can be subjective as well, not being required in some instances, depending on willingness to sacrifice to accomodate the group power level, and other factors.
3, finally, is not a necessary consequence of 1, as mentioned.

If you approach this with a build of roughly equal power to the average group power level, depending on what that is, 2 may not be necessary. On the other hand, 1 can lead to 2/3 if the group power level is relatively high (or if you just play really good characters, which is generally poor form, as you overpower the party)

its_all_ogre
2007-07-06, 05:10 PM
okay having read through this thread from work over the last two days and now able to actually reply i've got a bit lost.
starting point (and probably most useful observation here) is that phb2 solves the 'wizard with battlefield experience' dilemma.
in 'mechanical terms' the character was a fighter who later retrained to become a wizard, why is left open to player/dm interpretation. but that is what happened. simple!
as dan has pointed out dnd is not a very good system to openly create characters you might want to portray, there are better systems for that.
the idea that your 'class' is something you will stick at is absurd i'm afraid, i played dnd 2nd ed and was so glad when they kicked out the older multiclass and dual class rules and brought in the new multiclass rules, they are so much better.
ok so some may work for hours to scrape every bit of bonus they can from these rules, fine for them if that is what they enjoy. lets not forget that LOTR was a story attached to tolkiens actual hobby; inventing languages.

i personally find it frustrating when people are all about roleplaying their character until they realise that it could have bad side-effects, like death, and then stop playing the character that way. but IC this just means the character has become scared! i mean we must all know someone in real life who acts in a certain way and then changes suddenly when challenged?
a macho guy throwing his weight around until a bigger/more intimidating guy does it back, then backs down remarkably quickly?

anyway i am rambling so am off. but retraining answers most of these issues of background not fitting and is a worthwhile addition for that reason alone.:smallsmile:

Arbitrarity
2007-07-06, 05:25 PM
Ok, let's try this in an unbiased, somewhat logical fashion.

Assume: 1: Mechanical optimization is desireable.
Assume: 2: Roleplaying an interesting character (i.e. flavourful, etc.) is desirable (not a stereotype).
Therefore 3: An interesting character with no mechanical concessions is optimal.
Also 4: When such a combination is impossible, one or the other of the desired options must be sacrificed.
Thus 5: Varying on individual preference and the group, one or both of the desirable options becomes less.

I.e. a powergames plays a boring character, some freakish character concept results in a blind paraplegic kobold with the intelligence of a taco, etc.

Optimally, 3.
5 is a compromise, but in some instances, a degree of mechanical optimisation can be sacrificed to match group power level.

Winterwind
2007-07-06, 07:10 PM
I'll have to side with Tormskull here.

To me, there is no 'being punished'-part in taking whatever skills I deem fitting for any character, because the goal is not to create the most powerful killing machine, but to replicate the character as it exists in my mind using the rules. If I want the character to be powerful in terms of combat, and I deem this combat-strength to be a more defining part of who the character is than him being able to play an instrument, then I will chose his abilities accordingly. If being able to play the instrument is more significant to expressing the character's personality, then the combat-relevant skills will have to wait until later.

Admittedly, I have played D&D only once in my life; but the way we played it back then it did not seem to me the system forced one to optimise or even gear the character towards combat whatsoever in order to ensure survivability (then again, of course, the adventure contained only one combat encounter, which was put in rather to give the warrior characters an opportunity to shine than anything else - which is the way I am used RPGs to work anyway. With four encounters per session this might look quite different, but then, who forces one to play that way?)

I am willing to admit that level-based systems, like D&D, invite a lot more to optimise a character in some way or the other, instead of spending skill points on some random stuff on the whim, because when one has to wait a long time for the next level one really should not waste the little points one gains, as opposed to a system where XP can be spent anytime directly to buy skill points on a whim.
However, the only way I see one could "waste" skill points would be, if one put them into skills which do not reflect perfectly who or what the character is supposed to be. Which has nothing to do with combat proficiency. Unless, of course, the character's premise is that he is the most powerful warrior out there - but then, of course, optimising the character would just be the best use of skill points in roleplaying terms anyway.

I'd like to illustrate how "min-maxing" is working in my group. Since I don't play D&D though I'll go with the next best example of RPG I presume at least some of you might be familiar with: ShadowRun.
Generally, all skills are chosen to reflect how the character is supposed to look like: my shaman has about half of his skill points allocated in stuff like Dancing (Disco style), Art (Grapphiti), Computers (Matrix Games), and so on - skills which do not enhance his combat prowess and, in fact, did not leave me with enough points for maximising Sorcery or Conjuring (I hope I get the English skill names right). Which I probably would not have done anyway, because I don't picture him as a that masterful wizard anyway. He doesn't have max values in Willpower or Intelligence either; he does have a 6 in Charisma, but not because it is relevant to Conjuring but because I imagine him as being extremely charismatic.
All this I do not conceive as a punishment - it's all about creating the character as he is. No more.
On the other hand, he is following Cat, instead of Adversary, even though in my initial understanding of who the character is I thought Adversary might fit his personality better. But Adversary gives bonus Combat spell dice, and the character was supposed to be pretty much a pacifist, so I went with the next best choice instead. Which, ultimately, turned out to fit better anyway; the point is, here a clash between mechanics and character happened, which lead to a compromise. I believe that much min-maxing to be okay.
We also tend to make characters XP-efficient; since in SR a character who has a few skills with high values will need a lot less XP to catch up skillwise to a character with a lot skills with few points in them than the other way round, we tend to go for few strong skills, if the character is supposed to have all of those skills in the end. We do so because I have yet to find a game where a starting character has enough skill points to reflect exactly who the character is supposed to be.

Which would also be my answer to the Barbarian/Bard-question: We usually see a new character as not yet fully represented by the skills on his character sheet, therefore allow the player to do with the character pretty much whatever he wants without justification at the beginning, and switch later to assuming the character already being represented well by the rules and getting better with time.
That is, if the Barbarian reached level 2 or 3 and wanted to multiclass to Bard, it would be allowed in my group without any training whatsoever - it would be assumed the character was meant to be a Barbarian/Bard all the time anyway, and wasn't only because the rules don't allow it.
On the other hand, if he reached level 12, he would need to find somebody to teach him, or any other way to justify why he turned Bard suddenly.

And finally, about powergamers:
To me, powergamers are people who actively try to break the system. Stuff like Pun-Pun (just read about it. Simply insane). Who attempt to disrupt story and play, just so that everyone can look in awe at their über-character.
Short, people I don't play with.

Min-maxers, on the other hand, I would say are just foolish.
Because, min-maxing means by definition to sacrifice one area in order to shine in another, right? Like neglecting skills in social areas, playing the violin, and so on, in order to make a combat-optimised character? But the min-maxers don't know what the campaign will put them up against. What if there will be no combat whatsoever for the first four sessions? Will they just get bored, because they can't contribute?
And, even more so, what would be the point? I mean, ok, if the character they wanted to play was supposed to be the most powerful slaughtering machine out there, they might do so, but usually players try to bring a bit more depth into the person they want to roleplay as than that. And then they will use their points in a way that would reflect that instead.

Geez, why do I always get so wordy in this forum? :smalleek:

Bassetking
2007-07-06, 07:56 PM
And finally, about powergamers:
To me, powergamers are people who actively try to break the system. Stuff like Pun-Pun (just read about it. Simply insane). Who attempt to disrupt story and play, just so that everyone can look in awe at their über-character.
Short, people I don't play with.

There is a reason that Pun-Pun, the Omnificer, The Diplomancer, and the 1d2 Crusader are on the WotC Theoretical Optimization boards... :smallbiggrin:

Damionte
2007-07-06, 08:14 PM
Good thread. It's taken a while to read through it all and catch up.

I agree with Tormskull. Though the opposition has made some decent points, they seem to be the points of a less experienced gamer. Yes I have seen many of the things he speaks of, but only in certain groups with certain GM's many of who'm I would not consider to be that great at RPG's.

In my expereince that attitude is more of a begginers mindset. Seasoned players get beyond that stuff pretty quickly.

Many of the issues he's brought up are not the result of the game, or the game mechanics but are results of how those players are using it.

I've seen the same problems crop up in every single RPG I've played, and I've played most of the major ones out there, and even a few of the not so famouse ones. RP is RP no matter what game system you play.

The things that screw with my ability to make a good character are usually the theme of the game. The story elemetns involved.

Here's an example. actually I think this may help with the oppositions point as well but here it goes.

I have been playing D&D for a loooong time. Thus I am familiar with the archetyical roles played in it. Also there is a ton of Fantasy fiction based in the D&D multiverse. Thus Many of my concepts of what a fantasy hero are or can be are easily reproduced in D&D. Thus the rules are no hinderance to me at all when it coems to making interestign characters.

On the other hand, Shadowrun and pretty much all of the white wolf products. I am less familiar with thier worlds. As such my concepts of what would make a cool hero in Shadowrun tend to grate against what you can or can not do within the rules.

Also because I find the world of darkness to be a horrible well for my particular imagination, I can't play the white wolf games at all. I can't get into thier story, and I can't use thier rules. (Though the white wolf mechanics in my opinion are the worst I've encoutnered in all of RPGdom. Except maybe palladium system.)

Winterwind
2007-07-06, 08:40 PM
There is a reason that Pun-Pun, the Omnificer, The Diplomancer, and the 1d2 Crusader are on the WotC Theoretical Optimization boards... :smallbiggrin:Guess so... and I do understand that Pun-Pun was created as a theoretical exercise, not something actually meant to be played.
But I also know people who would so attempt to play such a thing - if they were smart enough to design it and we were playing D&D, that is.

However, in my experience, munchkins generally lose interest in RPGs rather quickly. Therefore, after one or two years, all people left should be fine to play with. :smallwink:

LotharBot
2007-07-06, 09:02 PM
To me, there is no 'being punished'-part in taking whatever skills I deem fitting for any character, because the goal is not to create the most powerful killing machine, but to replicate the character as it exists in my mind using the rules.

This is, of course, assuming you have a good DM and a good party with similar goals.

If you have a bad DM, you might find that the character you so painstakingly replicated keeps getting killed because the DM was expecting you to create the most powerful killing machine and refuses to change his encounters to suit you. And if you have a bad party or a party that doesn't see eye-to-eye with you, you might find your carefully-replicated character never has the opportunity to do anything interesting. You might find your character completely unplayable because the rest of the party and the DM have combined to create an environment in which your character simply doesn't fit.

The Shadowrun character you described is a great example of what you can do with a good DM and a good party. The main problem with powergaming is when you want to build your character that way, and the rest of the party wants to optimize... or when one player wants to optimize, and the rest of the party wants to build characters like yours.


min-maxing means by definition to sacrifice one area in order to shine in another, right?

Typically, min-maxing means creating a character whose weaknesses are irrelevant. A character with 3 CHA in a game where you can pick up a ring that gives you 18 CHA after the first encounter (Baldur's Gate 2, for example) is min-maxed. So is a wizard with a flaw of "noncombatant" (-2 to melee attack rolls.) He's gained "weaknesses" that don't matter in order to increase his other powers.

Raum
2007-07-06, 09:12 PM
I agree with Tormskull. Though the opposition has made some decent points, they seem to be the points of a less experienced gamer. Yes I have seen many of the things he speaks of, but only in certain groups with certain GM's many of who'm I would not consider to be that great at RPG's.

In my expereince that attitude is more of a begginers mindset. Seasoned players get beyond that stuff pretty quickly.

Many of the issues he's brought up are not the result of the game, or the game mechanics but are results of how those players are using it. Just curious, but how are unfounded allegations of "begginner's mindset" related to the discussion at hand? Might want to check this link. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html)


I've seen the same problems crop up in every single RPG I've played, and I've played most of the major ones out there, and even a few of the not so famouse ones. RP is RP no matter what game system you play. Yet some game systems do more to encourage playing a role than others. That, I think, is the point Dan is trying to get across.


The things that screw with my ability to make a good character are usually the theme of the game. The story elemetns involved.

Here's an example. actually I think this may help with the oppositions point as well but here it goes.

I have been playing D&D for a loooong time. Thus I am familiar with the archetyical roles played in it. Also there is a ton of Fantasy fiction based in the D&D multiverse. Thus Many of my concepts of what a fantasy hero are or can be are easily reproduced in D&D. Thus the rules are no hinderance to me at all when it coems to making interestign characters.Not sure I agree, look at all the different revisions long term characters such as Elminster or others have gone through when "official" stats have been printed. I don't know if it's happened in third edition yet, but second edition had two or even three different versons of main characters. But even allowing it for the sake of discussion, almost all of such official stats are very unidimensional. Seldom do they truly represent a well rounded individual.

The point isn't characters can't be made or even can't be role played within the d20 (or any other) system. It's simply that differing systems do different things well. Just as I could play a cyberpunk campaign in d20 but Shadowrun lends itself to the genre easier, systems like Wushu or Over the Edge lend themselves to telling a cooperative story or acting out an action game better than d20. I'm not badmouthing D20 or D&D either, it's a great system for abstracting a wide variety of challenges from combat to traps.

I've never seen one system able to do everything well. The trick is in picking a system which supports and encourages the style of play you enjoy.


On the other hand, Shadowrun and pretty much all of the white wolf products. I am less familiar with thier worlds. As such my concepts of what would make a cool hero in Shadowrun tend to grate against what you can or can not do within the rules.

Also because I find the world of darkness to be a horrible well for my particular imagination, I can't play the white wolf games at all. I can't get into thier story, and I can't use thier rules. (Though the white wolf mechanics in my opinion are the worst I've encoutnered in all of RPGdom. Except maybe palladium system.)I'm not sure if you meant to equate Shadowrun with White Wolf or not, but the current publisher of SR is WizKids. It was originally written by FASA along with the Earthdawn and Mechwarrior RPGs.

Damionte
2007-07-06, 09:42 PM
Just curious, but how are unfounded allegations of "begginner's mindset" related to the discussion at hand? Might want to check this link. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html)


I was simply expressing the point that his opinion has less to do with any reality of the game system as it does with his experience (short as he admits it is) with the system. My point being that I have seen the interaction that he mentions. That many of those who have this problem in my own personal experience are newer players. Or older power gamers. :p

To put it in terms base on your example. His Claim of X is actually false. Because he's shaping it as the final resolution. Without taking any other experiences into account. Particularly when it's clear that others using X have had different experiences due to thier circumstances.

His argumenttive stance is that his conclusions are true for everyone. His resolution that the problem is the game system alone and not the combination of the game system with his type of player is what's wrong.





Yet some game systems do more to encourage playing a role than others. That, I think, is the point Dan is trying to get across.


I've not seen this. Every game system encourages you to play a role. Some offer you a role you like, others may not. The story elements and feel of the game though tend to offer more than the mechanics do. Unless the mechanics just don't let you be who you want to be. Usually though this happens because the designers idea of what role you should play doesn't mesh with your own. That's not usually a mechanical problem of the rules, but of the difference in opinion on the games flavor. due to it's large variety in class options D&D doesn't have as much trouble with this as most other games on the market. Especially the other class based games.



Not sure I agree, look at all the different revisions long term characters such as Elminster or others have gone through when "official" stats have been printed. I don't know if it's happened in third edition yet, but second edition had two or even three different versons of main characters. But even allowing it for the sake of discussion, almost all of such official stats are very unidimensional. Seldom do they truly represent a well rounded individual.


Those are not themes for characters. Those are specific characters. Many of who'm where not written with the game mechanics in mind. Most characters though based on D&D fare we can usually quantify within the game system. I even like that we can't all agree on what classes and abilities represent these characters. it speaks to the variety possible within the system. Eleminster and any character done by Salvatore though are very bad examples. By thier authors own admision neither were doen with the game system in mind. Eleminster is a god mode house rules character. and Salavatore doesn't even really look at the rule books when he makes characters. He looks at the story, then leaves it to us to worry about how to make his characters mechanically.

As I said though those are not archetypes. Yuo can make an a-typical Eleminster like character easily in D&D. You can make a typical Dritzz or Cadderly "type" character in D&D. You may not be able to completely re-create that particular character though as it was not designed in the D&D system. You can come pretty close though.




I've never seen one system able to do everything well. The trick is in picking a system which supports and encourages the style of play you enjoy.


I have. For my money Hero system did just about everything well. Other systems may have done 1 or 2 things a little better but always had some glaring fault somewhere else. Only problem with Hero system is that it's like LINUX. It's powerful and it can do anything but you have to make it work on your own. :)



I'm not sure if you meant to equate Shadowrun with White Wolf or not, but the current publisher of SR is WizKids. It was originally written by FASA along with the Earthdawn and Mechwarrior RPGs.


No I did not, that's just badly placed punctuation. I meant that as shadowrun. As well as the White Wolf products.

Speaking of White Wolf I can give an exampel of a game that definately limits you. "Street Fighter The RPG" This was done by white Wolf with the same game mechanics as old Vampire & Warewolf. The old mechanics for those games were horrible. They didn't do anythign well, particularly hand to hand combat.

So you take something like Street Fighter II which is pretty much all about hand to hand combat, then try to wrap it around blood dice mechanics. OMG it was horrible! I'm still mad about having spent money on that back in the day.

Matthew
2007-07-06, 09:56 PM
I feel like we're having the same debate again and again. What is the point of all this? Are we coming closer to an agreement? Are we understanding the different positions better?

Damionte
2007-07-06, 11:03 PM
Beat's me. I'm not even sure what the point is we're currently on.

On a side note.... aren't we overdue for a couple of comics? What time is it on the east coast anyway?

calebcom
2007-07-07, 12:02 AM
whether the character is "Power Char" or not is merely in the DM and PC's viewpoint.

I set out to make an eberron baddass, someone famous for his battlefield techniques, a mercenary feared for his ability to slay 5-6 mages at a time with raw power.

I came out with a shifter Fighter/weretouched master(bear)
I rode a huge catagory worg and used harpoons tied to the worgs saddle.

I'd charge into combat dual throwing harpoons into any casters in range and then having my mount charge off, no wizard at level 10 could make a reflex in the upper 20's decently. I speared them, took off running and hauled them across the rocky ground until they died.

This may be considered "Power Gaming" to someone.

My DM and I considered it an intelligent fighter who used his head to target Wizards and Sorcerers classic weakness. Their Strength, and their reflex.

I summarily disabled enemy ranged units and killed them. I was a merc, I was pleasant.

My background was that of a farmer. I didn't have any ranks in profession (farmer) I wasn't a particularly good farmer. I didn't feel the need to take any levels in Commoner to justify my time as a farmer. I didn't feel the need to take ranks in craft(carving up a cow) to justify the times I slaughtered an animal for food.


Don't over complicate things in the name of roleplaying.

Asking your players to justify every little thing they claim to have done in their past is silly.

If you claim to be a master archer, you should have the skills to back it up.
If you claim to have been a soldier, there are MANY ways to accomplish that within ANY character class.

Don't force the players to take ranks in profession(farmer) to justify their upbringing as such. They don't have to have necessarily been a GOOD farmer.

Claiming to be a master = take some damn ranks.
Claiming minor background = it doens't matter.

If I claim to have been a wizards apprentice, I'm not claiming to be gandalf.
There's a reason I don't have levels as a wizard and I took fighter levels instead.
Look at roy from OOTS, his father was a wizard, his sister is a wizard he has a wizarding background. But he's a Fighter.

Deepblue706
2007-07-07, 01:57 AM
okay having read through this thread from work over the last two days and now able to actually reply i've got a bit lost.
starting point (and probably most useful observation here) is that phb2 solves the 'wizard with battlefield experience' dilemma.
in 'mechanical terms' the character was a fighter who later retrained to become a wizard, why is left open to player/dm interpretation. but that is what happened. simple!


What's "retraining"? Is it an actual mechanic? I don't have the PHB2.

its_all_ogre
2007-07-07, 03:47 AM
yay a reply!

yes retraining signifies a character learning to do something and later deciding they should not have done it. maybe picking up a feat or a level or two aiming for a prestige class, just for the dm to say 'that does not exist in my game'
there is also some adventures for those that want to totally rebuild their character from the start, advised not to use them at a whim though.
the basic premise though is that if in your background you were a soldier of many years experience then decided to learn wizardry you could re-train those levels rather than having a few levels of fighter or even warrior around slowing you down.
i like the idea myself.
on another note i wish my players would power play more as well as do more actual RP. this enables me to use tougher challenges.
RP wise i had a goblin lair a few years back in a ruined stronghold. they used one room as their toilet, dumping left over food in there and crapping in their and all that. it was a 20 by 30 foot room and was knee-deep in.....stuff...so i anticipated players taking one look and going 'yeuch'.
no. they decided that this must be there to put them off searching it! made them take Fort saves or become nauseated, sickened and all that, then make saves to avoid filth fever. they took 20 searching that room, all heaved themselves empty everywhere, contracted filth fever and did not understand why there was no treasure, so i asked them 'how much money do you hide in your toilet?'
they never got it!:smallsmile:

Winterwind
2007-07-07, 04:40 AM
This is, of course, assuming you have a good DM and a good party with similar goals.

If you have a bad DM, you might find that the character you so painstakingly replicated keeps getting killed because the DM was expecting you to create the most powerful killing machine and refuses to change his encounters to suit you. And if you have a bad party or a party that doesn't see eye-to-eye with you, you might find your carefully-replicated character never has the opportunity to do anything interesting. You might find your character completely unplayable because the rest of the party and the DM have combined to create an environment in which your character simply doesn't fit.

The Shadowrun character you described is a great example of what you can do with a good DM and a good party. The main problem with powergaming is when you want to build your character that way, and the rest of the party wants to optimize... or when one player wants to optimize, and the rest of the party wants to build characters like yours.Hmmm, not entirely sure about that. With a poor DM, or one presuming a power-level strongly differing from that of one of the group's members, sure, agreed, that would not work. On the other hand, a good DM should be able to give every character enough opportunity to shine, and try to keep the time of any character taking the spotlight roughly the same. Even if there would be some hardcore powergamers and some characters highly inefficient in some manner, so what? The powergamers might shine in combat, but surely there would be some sort of challenge where only the other characters could outshine them. Even if not, they still could even shine in combat, by being seperated from the powergamers' characters and then confronted with opponents just weak enough to be defeated by them as well. It wouldn't matter the PGs could reduce the same monsters to ash within half a round if they were not around to overshadow the weaker characters.

And so on - the local lord choses to address one of the weaker characters (opportunity for social interactions), the bards are impressed by one of the weaker character's prowess with his instrument and invite him to their tournament, the thieves' guild asks one of them whether (s)he could steal some artifact.
It's the DM who provides the characters with opportunities to shine; with equal opportunities diverging statistics don't matter anymore.

With a bad DM this wouldn't work, of course.
I am fortunate enough to be able to chose who I play with (usually I am the DM anyway, whether I qualify as 'bad' or not is for my players to decide), for people who cannot this would be a much more pressing issue. I'm not sure what I would do then.
However, I was under the impression, gained from other discussions, that Dan had a group at least as good as mine, and that he was not inclined to be discussing from the worst-scenario-possible-perspective, either.


Typically, min-maxing means creating a character whose weaknesses are irrelevant. A character with 3 CHA in a game where you can pick up a ring that gives you 18 CHA after the first encounter (Baldur's Gate 2, for example) is min-maxed. So is a wizard with a flaw of "noncombatant" (-2 to melee attack rolls.) He's gained "weaknesses" that don't matter in order to increase his other powers.Well, okay. I guess if a game offered lots of opportunities for that I would just consider it not exactly well balanced. It is also the reason why we don't use the flaw-mechanics from the ShadowRun Compendium.
The only real way to deal with that is to talk with the players and get onto the same page regarding the group's policy on that.


I've not seen this. Every game system encourages you to play a role. Some offer you a role you like, others may not. The story elements and feel of the game though tend to offer more than the mechanics do. Unless the mechanics just don't let you be who you want to be. Usually though this happens because the designers idea of what role you should play doesn't mesh with your own. That's not usually a mechanical problem of the rules, but of the difference in opinion on the games flavor. due to it's large variety in class options D&D doesn't have as much trouble with this as most other games on the market. Especially the other class based games. But there can be a very obvious focus in the way the game is being presented. For example, the ShadowRun core rules (3rd edition, don't know how it is in the 4th) contain tons of weapons, cyberware, magic and even more rules for every area of gameplay. Magic has, what, 50 pages? Matrix has, what, 50 further pages? And the world's background has no more than 50 pages either. Where is the 1st-person-story demonstrating the "human-to-machine"-dehumanisation of a Street Samurai? Where are the in-game descriptions of the inhuman conditions in the slums of the Sprawl? Why is so little of the races descriptions devoted to the racial tensions, and so much to "oh-look-how-cool-we-are"? After all, that's what would be much more useful for showing the game's feel, for supporting the player's creativity, for getting in touch with the setting. (just so you understand me, I love ShadowRun. But I detest the way it is being presented in the books)
My RPG of choice, DeGenesis (German postapocalyptic RPG, currently being translated (http://www.degenesis.com/)into English), on the other hand, contains more like 50 pages of rules and 250 pages of background. Both objective OOC-background and highly subjective and mystifying IC-stories, with lots of secrets and foretelling, highly suggestive to the imagination. (actually, I'm somewhat involved in this RPG, so please forgive the shameless advertisement ;) )
The first would, to me, be the example of a RPG which encourages powerplay more, the second, of a RPG with much more emphasis on characters.
Both can be played in the other vein, of course, but the tendencies are obvious.


I feel like we're having the same debate again and again. What is the point of all this? Are we coming closer to an agreement? Are we understanding the different positions better?Well, I'm new to the forums, of course, but to me this discussion doesn't feel stale at all.
Then again, I enjoy a discussion, even if it gets really, really long - I always hope that something - possibly as minor as a different wording - may finally make the other side understand my point of view. At any rate, sooner or later I come to understand (not necessarily agree with, but understand) the other side, which can be quite insightful on its right. Not to mention all the inspirations which arise during the discussion.
So, in my humble opinion, the debate absolutely does have a point.

@calebcom: Fully agreed. Nothing to comment upon here.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-07, 05:33 AM
Good thread. It's taken a while to read through it all and catch up.

I agree with Tormskull. Though the opposition has made some decent points, they seem to be the points of a less experienced gamer. Yes I have seen many of the things he speaks of, but only in certain groups with certain GM's many of who'm I would not consider to be that great at RPG's.

On the contrary, they're the points of a *highly* experienced gamer. One so experienced, in fact, that he has played games which *never* require you to sacrifice mechanical effectiveness in order to play the character you want.


In my expereince that attitude is more of a begginers mindset. Seasoned players get beyond that stuff pretty quickly.

Seasoned players get suckered into the "RP is more important than power" mentality pretty quickly. *Really* seasoned players realize that this is a false distinction enforced on you by game systems which prioritize wargaming above characterization.


Many of the issues he's brought up are not the result of the game, or the game mechanics but are results of how those players are using it.

No, they're issues of the system. If I want to play a non-stereotypical character in D&D, I have to sacrifice effectiveness to do it.


I've seen the same problems crop up in every single RPG I've played, and I've played most of the major ones out there, and even a few of the not so famouse ones. RP is RP no matter what game system you play.

It isn't, actually. In D&D "RP" means "pretending to be your character while you follow a largely linear, encounters-based plot". In Shadowrun RP means "pretending to be your character while undertaking missions." In The Burning Wheel RP means "Exploring your character's beliefs and using those beliefs to drive them towards conflict."


The things that screw with my ability to make a good character are usually the theme of the game. The story elemetns involved.

Here's an example. actually I think this may help with the oppositions point as well but here it goes.

I have been playing D&D for a loooong time. Thus I am familiar with the archetyical roles played in it. Also there is a ton of Fantasy fiction based in the D&D multiverse. Thus Many of my concepts of what a fantasy hero are or can be are easily reproduced in D&D. Thus the rules are no hinderance to me at all when it coems to making interestign characters.

And that, as you freely admit, is because your idea of what a "fantasy hero" is are derived from D&D. So of course D&D can create your idea of a fantasy hero. My idea of a fantasy hero is significantly more complex, and might include such concepts as "man who can handle a sword, but also possesses decent social skills" or "thief who dabbles in magic" or "Barbarian poet".

D&D is great if you want to play a D&D archetype. It's crap if you don't.


On the other hand, Shadowrun and pretty much all of the white wolf products. I am less familiar with thier worlds. As such my concepts of what would make a cool hero in Shadowrun tend to grate against what you can or can not do within the rules.

Such as?


Also because I find the world of darkness to be a horrible well for my particular imagination, I can't play the white wolf games at all. I can't get into thier story, and I can't use thier rules. (Though the white wolf mechanics in my opinion are the worst I've encoutnered in all of RPGdom. Except maybe palladium system.)

What's wrong with the White Wolf rules? They're nothing special, they're a perfectly standard Stat + Skill system. Certainly I wouldn't call them "the worst mechanics in all of RPGdom".

Mind you, I can't stand their settings either.

Matthew
2007-07-07, 05:46 AM
Well, I'm new to the forums, of course, but to me this discussion doesn't feel stale at all.
Then again, I enjoy a discussion, even if it gets really, really long - I always hope that something - possibly as minor as a different wording - may finally make the other side understand my point of view. At any rate, sooner or later I come to understand (not necessarily agree with, but understand) the other side, which can be quite insightful on its right. Not to mention all the inspirations which arise during the discussion.
So, in my humble opinion, the debate absolutely does have a point.

Heh, I'm not talking weeks ago, I'm talking two days ago. The protagonists remain largely the same.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-07, 06:06 AM
I'll have to side with Tormskull here.

To me, there is no 'being punished'-part in taking whatever skills I deem fitting for any character, because the goal is not to create the most powerful killing machine, but to replicate the character as it exists in my mind using the rules. If I want the character to be powerful in terms of combat, and I deem this combat-strength to be a more defining part of who the character is than him being able to play an instrument, then I will chose his abilities accordingly. If being able to play the instrument is more significant to expressing the character's personality, then the combat-relevant skills will have to wait until later.

But you aren't playing D&D.

D&D is a combat based game. That's why everybody gets an increasing Base Attack Bonus, that's why hit points ramp up with level.

D&D does not support characters who are bad in a fight.


Admittedly, I have played D&D only once in my life; but the way we played it back then it did not seem to me the system forced one to optimise or even gear the character towards combat whatsoever in order to ensure survivability (then again, of course, the adventure contained only one combat encounter, which was put in rather to give the warrior characters an opportunity to shine than anything else - which is the way I am used RPGs to work anyway. With four encounters per session this might look quite different, but then, who forces one to play that way?)

The system is designed with the assumption that one will play that way. What's the point in keeping track of one's Armour Class, Base Attack, Grapple Modifier and so on, if one is not expecting combat.


I am willing to admit that level-based systems, like D&D, invite a lot more to optimise a character in some way or the other, instead of spending skill points on some random stuff on the whim, because when one has to wait a long time for the next level one really should not waste the little points one gains, as opposed to a system where XP can be spent anytime directly to buy skill points on a whim.

Precisely so. And it's not just skill points. Whole *levels* can be wasted in the pursuit of unusual or interesting character concepts.


However, the only way I see one could "waste" skill points would be, if one put them into skills which do not reflect perfectly who or what the character is supposed to be. Which has nothing to do with combat proficiency. Unless, of course, the character's premise is that he is the most powerful warrior out there - but then, of course, optimising the character would just be the best use of skill points in roleplaying terms anyway.

That's the thing, though. D&D is a grainy system. Nothing is ever going to reflect perfectly what the character is supposed to be. You can't dabble in magic, you can either be a Wizard, or not be a Wizard.


I'd like to illustrate how "min-maxing" is working in my group. Since I don't play D&D though I'll go with the next best example of RPG I presume at least some of you might be familiar with: ShadowRun.
Generally, all skills are chosen to reflect how the character is supposed to look like: my shaman has about half of his skill points allocated in stuff like Dancing (Disco style), Art (Grapphiti), Computers (Matrix Games), and so on - skills which do not enhance his combat prowess and, in fact, did not leave me with enough points for maximising Sorcery or Conjuring (I hope I get the English skill names right). Which I probably would not have done anyway, because I don't picture him as a that masterful wizard anyway. He doesn't have max values in Willpower or Intelligence either; he does have a 6 in Charisma, but not because it is relevant to Conjuring but because I imagine him as being extremely charismatic.
All this I do not conceive as a punishment - it's all about creating the character as he is. No more.

Exactly, because you're creating a character in a skills-based system, which does not punish you for character choices.

Class-based systems do.

Try doing the same thing in D&D and you wind up with a Sorcerer with skill points in Perform: Dance, Craft (Artist), Knowledge: Strategy games and no points left over for things like Spellcraft, Concentration, and Knowledge: Arcana.


On the other hand, he is following Cat, instead of Adversary, even though in my initial understanding of who the character is I thought Adversary might fit his personality better. But Adversary gives bonus Combat spell dice, and the character was supposed to be pretty much a pacifist, so I went with the next best choice instead. Which, ultimately, turned out to fit better anyway; the point is, here a clash between mechanics and character happened, which lead to a compromise. I believe that much min-maxing to be okay.
We also tend to make characters XP-efficient; since in SR a character who has a few skills with high values will need a lot less XP to catch up skillwise to a character with a lot skills with few points in them than the other way round, we tend to go for few strong skills, if the character is supposed to have all of those skills in the end. We do so because I have yet to find a game where a starting character has enough skill points to reflect exactly who the character is supposed to be.

This (bolded), in essence, is my source of disagreement with Tormsskull and others. I, like you, find that most of my character's early expenditures of experience go on stuff that they *should* have had from the start of play.

This is a bit of a side rant, but I hate hate hate this phenomenon. It's the ludicrous assumption that you can't be allowed to *start* the game playing the character you *want* to play because then there'd be nothing to "aim for."

Grr.

On a side note: you admit yourself that you invest in a few big skills, rather than a lot of small skills. The reason you do this is because it makes your characters "XP-efficient". This is *exactly* what I'm talking about when I talk about the game system "punishing" particular character concepts. If you have two Shadowrun characters, one of whom starts off with a few high skills, and the other of whom starts off with lots of low skills, the one who started off with a few high skills will be better at everything than the one who started with a lot of low skills after a few weeks of playtime.


Which would also be my answer to the Barbarian/Bard-question: We usually see a new character as not yet fully represented by the skills on his character sheet, therefore allow the player to do with the character pretty much whatever he wants without justification at the beginning, and switch later to assuming the character already being represented well by the rules and getting better with time.
That is, if the Barbarian reached level 2 or 3 and wanted to multiclass to Bard, it would be allowed in my group without any training whatsoever - it would be assumed the character was meant to be a Barbarian/Bard all the time anyway, and wasn't only because the rules don't allow it.
On the other hand, if he reached level 12, he would need to find somebody to teach him, or any other way to justify why he turned Bard suddenly.

That's more or less how I see it.


And finally, about powergamers:
To me, powergamers are people who actively try to break the system. Stuff like Pun-Pun (just read about it. Simply insane). Who attempt to disrupt story and play, just so that everyone can look in awe at their über-character.
Short, people I don't play with.

Ah, you see I call those people "*******s."

I view powergamers as people who take pride in building powerful characters. Ironically most of the powergamers I know tend to go for highly *sub* optimal builds. There's no challenge in playing a powerful Wizard or Spiked-Chain fighter. There *is* a challenge in creating a fighter who can kick ass with a pair of daggers.


Min-maxers, on the other hand, I would say are just foolish.
Because, min-maxing means by definition to sacrifice one area in order to shine in another, right? Like neglecting skills in social areas, playing the violin, and so on, in order to make a combat-optimised character? But the min-maxers don't know what the campaign will put them up against. What if there will be no combat whatsoever for the first four sessions? Will they just get bored, because they can't contribute?

Ah, you see I actually *like* min-maxing for precisely the same reason.

To my mind a character who is rocking in combat and rubbish in social situations (or vice versa) is a lot more interesting than one who is average in both.

I always find it amusing when people say things like "I hate min-maxers because they want to play characters who don't have any weaknesses!" It sort of misses the whole point of min-maxing.


And, even more so, what would be the point? I mean, ok, if the character they wanted to play was supposed to be the most powerful slaughtering machine out there, they might do so, but usually players try to bring a bit more depth into the person they want to roleplay as than that. And then they will use their points in a way that would reflect that instead.

Geez, why do I always get so wordy in this forum? :smalleek:

The point is that sometimes it's fun to roleplay somebody who is socially awkward, or crap in a fight.

What isn't fun is roleplaying somebody who is *supposed* to be socially adept, or good in a fight, and finding that you can't do it because even though you're playing a Fighter (good in a fight) with maxed Charisma (socially Adept) and the Persuasive and Negotiator feats, your poor feat choices make you suck in a fight, while your lack of in-class social skills make you crap in social situations as well.

Damionte
2007-07-07, 06:35 AM
Dan I am having trouble grasping the crux of your main complaint. I don't see the problem you're having here.

I mean these so called romantic characters you've stated all "to me" seem so easy and simple to create within the game system. I can even make them without giving anything up,

You say the system doesn't allow you to make a character like a warrior who dabbles in magic. I point to Fighter/Wizards or Hybrid Casting Warrior classes. What's wrong with those options?

You say the syetm can't make your barbarion poet... I say "WHAT?" You could just play a Barbarion, toss a couple of throw away skill points in perfom. That's assuming you want him to actually be an good poet. or if you want mechanical aspects you dip a level or two of bard. A Barbarion wouldn't lose power from that. They'd gain power.

I mean... I could understand your argument better if you could actually give us an example of a character you've wanted to make, that you can't make in D&D.

The response you're gettign from many of us seems to be along the lines of. "What the boop is he talking about, I just made that character in my last game and he rocked!"

Also my reference to less experienced gamers was in reference to the system we were talking about. D&D. By your own admission you havn't played much D&D.

Winterwind
2007-07-07, 07:27 AM
But you aren't playing D&D.

D&D is a combat based game. That's why everybody gets an increasing Base Attack Bonus, that's why hit points ramp up with level.

D&D does not support characters who are bad in a fight.Well, in the little time I played it it did not seem that much different from most other games, which allow for both a combat and a roleplaying approach. Though I'm the first one to admit my experience is far too small to be truly meaningful.

The system is designed with the assumption that one will play that way. What's the point in keeping track of one's Armour Class, Base Attack, Grapple Modifier and so on, if one is not expecting combat.I would say, so that one knows what to roll against if combat should occur; this does not neccesitate there will be combat though. Just because the system supports combat, amongst other things, it doesn't mean combat is unavoidable. At least, I would believe so.
Of course, if pretty much all feats and character advancement statistics-wise would be geared towards combat it would be a strong indication what sort of game the designers had in mind. But even this does not force one to play that way; like I said, I enjoy ShadowRun very much, even though the books seem to go primarily for a much more challenge, and less story-telling based game than what we aim for in our group. That's the advantage of being a story-teller: all one needs is a setting one enjoys. A friend of mine, who is much more on the challenge/statistics side of roleplaying, instead of storytelling, admires ShadowRun for its myriads of character optimisation possibilities, and greatly dislikes DeGenesis for its lack of rules and the sheer amount of its background. I admire DeGenesis, but can tell my stories in the ShadowRun world nevertheless.

As I understand your point is that the D&D system not only does not actively encourage the storytelling approach, but actively disrupts it. About that, I can say nothing; I don't have enough knowledge about the system to judge whether this assesment of yours is right or not.


Precisely so. And it's not just skill points. Whole *levels* can be wasted in the pursuit of unusual or interesting character concepts.That's why I generally prefer systems without levels.
Still, assuming the DM does not turn the game into a non-stop slaughterfest, what would make levels taken "in the pursuit of unusual or interesting character concepts" a waste?


That's the thing, though. D&D is a grainy system. Nothing is ever going to reflect perfectly what the character is supposed to be. You can't dabble in magic, you can either be a Wizard, or not be a Wizard.My impression was that was the point of multiclassing?


Exactly, because you're creating a character in a skills-based system, which does not punish you for character choices.

Class-based systems do.

Try doing the same thing in D&D and you wind up with a Sorcerer with skill points in Perform: Dance, Craft (Artist), Knowledge: Strategy games and no points left over for things like Spellcraft, Concentration, and Knowledge: Arcana.Why would such a Sorcerer be inherently inferior to the one with the skills you name? Of course, he wouldn't be quite as effective in slaughtering monsters (at least, I presume these skills serve to increase the Sorcerer's combat efficiency?), but in our group the session would not primarily revolve around this theme anyway, so where is the harm?


This (bolded), in essence, is my source of disagreement with Tormsskull and others. I, like you, find that most of my character's early expenditures of experience go on stuff that they *should* have had from the start of play.

This is a bit of a side rant, but I hate hate hate this phenomenon. It's the ludicrous assumption that you can't be allowed to *start* the game playing the character you *want* to play because then there'd be nothing to "aim for."

Grr.

On a side note: you admit yourself that you invest in a few big skills, rather than a lot of small skills. The reason you do this is because it makes your characters "XP-efficient". This is *exactly* what I'm talking about when I talk about the game system "punishing" particular character concepts. If you have two Shadowrun characters, one of whom starts off with a few high skills, and the other of whom starts off with lots of low skills, the one who started off with a few high skills will be better at everything than the one who started with a lot of low skills after a few weeks of playtime.Here, I fully agree.
That the system does not allow to create the character as (s)he is supposed to be from the start is a minor problem to me - this makes gaining experience more rewarding. It is not perfect, but I can live with that.
That two characters can be of vastly different power level depending on their initial skill point distribution, on the other hand, I find both extremely annoying and unfair. It is a result of a quicker character creation (for this problem would not occur if one bought the initial skills with the same mechanics as the ones used later on for upgrading with experience points, which would require much more calculations during character creation though), which is a worthy aspect on its own, but still a perfect system should not contain such a thing.


Ah, you see I call those people "*******s."

I view powergamers as people who take pride in building powerful characters. Ironically most of the powergamers I know tend to go for highly *sub* optimal builds. There's no challenge in playing a powerful Wizard or Spiked-Chain fighter. There *is* a challenge in creating a fighter who can kick ass with a pair of daggers.Agreed.


Ah, you see I actually *like* min-maxing for precisely the same reason.

To my mind a character who is rocking in combat and rubbish in social situations (or vice versa) is a lot more interesting than one who is average in both.

I always find it amusing when people say things like "I hate min-maxers because they want to play characters who don't have any weaknesses!" It sort of misses the whole point of min-maxing.Yes, that's pretty much as I see it as well. However, there is a difference between a character created specifically with "rocks in combat, is rubbish in social situations" and a character created with only min-maxing in mind. The first one will lead to potentially interesting (and very often, funny) situations, because the player is aware of the character's awkwardness in social situations (actually, specifically built it in) and will roleplay accordingly; the other may not even have enough personality to use this potential. Not to say a min-maxed character can't have a shining personality; but then I would not presume the character to be min-maxed beyond "this is how good the character is supposed to be" and the character would very likely have some areas where (s)he would be just average or outright bad in. Whereas at least some definitions of min-maxing run more along "good in everything, bad only in areas which will never matter anyway".


The point is that sometimes it's fun to roleplay somebody who is socially awkward, or crap in a fight.

What isn't fun is roleplaying somebody who is *supposed* to be socially adept, or good in a fight, and finding that you can't do it because even though you're playing a Fighter (good in a fight) with maxed Charisma (socially Adept) and the Persuasive and Negotiator feats, your poor feat choices make you suck in a fight, while your lack of in-class social skills make you crap in social situations as well.Okay. I get that.
If the system does not offer enough freedom to do that it is, indeed, not suited for roleplaying anything other than stereotypes, and therefore not my choice. Whether D&D suffers from this or not I will not comment upon, for obvious reasons.

Winterwind
2007-07-07, 07:54 AM
Heh, I'm not talking weeks ago, I'm talking two days ago. The protagonists remain largely the same.Like the Metagaming-thread, for example? :smallbiggrin:

Well, I, for instance, did not find that discussion to be entirely stuck yet (just check who made the last post in said discussion back then ;) ) and was rather disappointed it suddenly died away. I don't think the differences were irreconcilable back then, and I don't think they are now; it was just a vastly different point of view, which could be understood. Not necessarily made into one's own point of view, but understood and accepted as equally good. And I find different points of view very fascinating, for they give me new insights about the nature of a thing, new approaches which can be chosen, and a chance to understand other people in discussions much faster.

Of course, it's easy for me to say that, because, for some reason, I always seem to find myself pretty much in the middle between both sides in the discussions on this forum. :smallwink:
Also, I know I tend to keep discussing much longer than most other people. Guess I'm not wise enough to recognise when the discussion has hit a dead end. :smallcool:

Matthew
2007-07-07, 09:26 AM
Indeed. I just think these discussions all have a common root cause that is at the heart of the differences of opinion, but we continually dance around them.

Some people like systems to be complete and playable out of the box, some systems are designed to be customised. The RAW is just the rules without a DM. It's common ground for discussion, but it's not common ground for play experience.

For instance, the Base Classes are just guidelines themselves. They are examples of what can be created. Creating a Barbarian with Perform (X) as a Class Skill is perfectly fine and hardly unbalancing. It isn't RAW, but it is expected that a reasonable DM will allow it (that's why the DMG talks about modifying the Races and Classes available).

Circumstance Modifiers are how 'unpracticed' Skills are most commonly handled, as far as I am aware.

There are plenty of glaring problems with D&D, but most of them are easily solved.

Tormsskull
2007-07-07, 11:31 AM
Indeed. I just think these discussions all have a common root cause that is at the heart of the differences of opinion, but we continually dance around them.


That's true, for the most part, but what I was setting out from the beginning was to show that to someone who is a "power player", character effectiveness is the goal, or "point" of D&D.

That's why when I spelled out the line of thought:

1. I want to be as mechanically effective as possible.
2. If the DM is lenient and allows me to enchance my character's personality or flavor without suffering any unmaximized mechanical benefits I will take advantage of it.
3. If the DM it not lenient then I will build a stereotypical character in order to not sacrifice mechanical efficiency.


And so far 1 person said "That's one way of saying it." I have been trying to get people on the 'other' side of the debate to admit that this is their pattern of thought, but they rarely do.

In my group, and the way I have played since OD&D, a character's personality & flavor are more important than the character's mechanical effectiveness. And a player who pursues mechanical effectiveness without taking their character's personality & flavor into consideration would be penalized in our games (if they did it repeatably they'd be kicked out).

The reason for that is we view that the entire point of D&D as being to roleplay a character, not roleplay yourself in the world. And if a player goes for only mechanical effectiveness, it 99% of the time shows that they are not playing a character, they are simply trying to 'win' D&D.

Other groups play that defeating encounters is the "point" of D&D, and thus being the most mechanically powerful is a obvious goal of the game.

And once again, that's fine. However your group wants to play is up to your group, but knowing what one person considers the point of D&D makes it much easier to discuss things with them.

Take the metagaming thread. Had I known that Dan and a few others view the game in the way that they do, I'd had agreed with them. In their types of games, it only makes sense to utilize the information that you have, because the point of the game is defeating encounters and that information helps you do just that.

So this thread wasn't entirely pointless, not to me at least.

Matthew
2007-07-07, 11:52 AM
Sure, and I'm not having a go at anyone. I just think five pages of this is the result of the (purposefully?) incendiary remarks of the Original Poster and a failure of subsequent Posters to define their terms (which is the natural result of such a loaded question). Everybody seems at loggerheads over the same old issues that have dominated theoretical RPG discussion here for the last month or so.

To be clear, I don't think the Thread is useless, people are free to discuss whatever they like. I was just wondering if anybody felt like anything had been resolved any differently to usual.

Quietus
2007-07-07, 11:56 AM
But you aren't playing D&D.

Well, I'm glad someone cleared that up for us. If you aren't playing it a certain way, you aren't playing D&D. I guess all of us who use houserules, or have games that extend to social situations instead of as a wargame sim can go cry in a corner now.

Winterwind
2007-07-07, 12:13 PM
That's true, for the most part, but what I was setting out from the beginning was to show that to someone who is a "power player", character effectiveness is the goal, or "point" of D&D.

That's why when I spelled out the line of thought:

1. I want to be as mechanically effective as possible.
2. If the DM is lenient and allows me to enchance my character's personality or flavor without suffering any unmaximized mechanical benefits I will take advantage of it.
3. If the DM it not lenient then I will build a stereotypical character in order to not sacrifice mechanical efficiency.


And so far 1 person said "That's one way of saying it." I have been trying to get people on the 'other' side of the debate to admit that this is their pattern of thought, but they rarely do.Well, it certainly sounds like a possible line of thought for a powergamer.
However, if you are referring to Dan, then you seem to be sort of missing the point he's trying to make (as far as I understand him). Which is that a good system should not force you to sacrifice character for mechanical efficiency to begin with. So far I fully agree with him.
The problem I have with this statement though is how to define "mechanical efficiency". I would not equate it with combat prowess, that's for sure.


In my group, and the way I have played since OD&D, a character's personality & flavor are more important than the character's mechanical effectiveness. And a player who pursues mechanical effectiveness without taking their character's personality & flavor into consideration would be penalized in our games (if they did it repeatably they'd be kicked out).Yeah, that's how we play as well.
Except for us "mechanical effectiveness" means how well the mechanics can reflect who the character is supposed to be. So there can never be a clash between effectiveness and personality/flavour - effectiveness is determined solely how well the mechanics allow the character to do what he is supposed to be doing according to his personality/flavour.


The reason for that is we view that the entire point of D&D as being to roleplay a character, not roleplay yourself in the world. And if a player goes for only mechanical effectiveness, it 99% of the time shows that they are not playing a character, they are simply trying to 'win' D&D.

Other groups play that defeating encounters is the "point" of D&D, and thus being the most mechanically powerful is a obvious goal of the game.Fine. I basically agree, though I'm using a much different definition of "mechanically powerful" (see above).


And once again, that's fine. However your group wants to play is up to your group, but knowing what one person considers the point of D&D makes it much easier to discuss things with them.Agreed.


Take the metagaming thread. Had I known that Dan and a few others view the game in the way that they do, I'd had agreed with them. In their types of games, it only makes sense to utilize the information that you have, because the point of the game is defeating encounters and that information helps you do just that.

So this thread wasn't entirely pointless, not to me at least.I found the point about giving more freedom to the players to enhance their ability in presenting their character to be far more interesting, though. As I recall, Dan stated this use of OOC-knowledge to combat encounters occured only because he considered encounters a nuisance. So, I don't get the impression his games are about defeating encounters. On the contrary.



I'd like to put forward a new idea:
Powergaming is an attitude, rather than a way of putting the statistics together.
Two characters can have exactly the same statistics; one of them was created the way he was to make him the über-super-hypergod-of-killing-all-there-is, the other was supposed to be a socially awkward warrior, who is exceptionally competent in combat. The difference? From the player who followed the first approach I'd expect to be generally desinterested in roleplaying whatsoever, only waiting impatiently for the next battle (possibly starting it without reason himself, if he has to wait too long), and merely interested in acquiring more gold and magical weapons, the other player has created a specific character and will roleplay accordingly. That is, he will not not roleplay social situations, like the first player might - he will do so, and willingly. His character just will not be good in it (which may result in pretty interesting roleplaying situations all on its own).
Thoughts?

Winterwind
2007-07-07, 12:16 PM
Well, I'm glad someone cleared that up for us. If you aren't playing it a certain way, you aren't playing D&D. I guess all of us who use houserules, or have games that extend to social situations instead of as a wargame sim can go cry in a corner now.Actually, I think he was rather referring to the fact that I, personally, am indeed not playing D&D (not as in "not playing the game as it is supposed to be" but as in "playing different games alltogether"), which I have stated in the post he was replying to.

Quietus
2007-07-07, 12:54 PM
Actually, I think he was rather referring to the fact that I, personally, am indeed not playing D&D (not as in "not playing the game as it is supposed to be" but as in "playing different games alltogether"), which I have stated in the post he was replying to.

I see.

*Dips a finger into the pie filling now on his face, licks it off*

Mmm, banana cream.

Raum
2007-07-07, 12:58 PM
I'd like to put forward a new idea:
Powergaming is an attitude, rather than a way of putting the statistics together.
Two characters can have exactly the same statistics; one of them was created the way he was to make him the über-super-hypergod-of-killing-all-there-is, the other was supposed to be a socially awkward warrior, who is exceptionally competent in combat. The difference? From the player who followed the first approach I'd expect to be generally desinterested in roleplaying whatsoever, only waiting impatiently for the next battle (possibly starting it without reason himself, if he has to wait too long), and merely interested in acquiring more gold and magical weapons, the other player has created a specific character and will roleplay accordingly. That is, he will not not roleplay social situations, like the first player might - he will do so, and willingly. His character just will not be good in it (which may result in pretty interesting roleplaying situations all on its own).
Thoughts?I think you're correct, power gaming is an attitude. My corollary is: Game systems encourage the attitudes and types of play associated with succeeding at mechanical tasks or conflicts posed within the game.

For example, a game whose mechanics provide significant advantages to group melee combat over solo melee combat will encourage players to work as teams in combat. Similarly, a game provide advantages to players providing detailed narrative descriptions of their actions encourages a (potentially verbose) style of storytelling. I'm avoiding using d20 as an example, it seems to evoke overly sensitive reactions all too often. The first example describes melee combat in Shadowrun* while the second describes one of Wushu's central mechanics.

*Pre-SR4

calebcom
2007-07-07, 01:09 PM
Actually, I think he was rather referring to the fact that I, personally, am indeed not playing D&D (not as in "not playing the game as it is supposed to be" but as in "playing different games alltogether"), which I have stated in the post he was replying to.

D&D tends to lend itself more to combat, as the classes aren't set up for non combat terms. All of their abilities are based around combat actions.

If you want a system more set up for social and mental manipulation, I suggest checking out White Wolfs line of games. Combat is cumbersome and annoying in that system, while political maneuvering is grand. The various denizens of the world are set up well for social maneuvering with smatterings of combat.


The biggest thing we need to acknowledge is though the game can be played without the slightest bit of combat, it will leave MANY D&D classes outclassed. Try beating a bard in a non combat situation, it isn't going to work, he'll walk circles around you with his massive diplomacy and bluff. His abilities far exceed other standard classes in a social situation.

Aquillion
2007-07-07, 01:15 PM
The biggest thing we need to acknowledge is though the game can be played without the slightest bit of combat, it will leave MANY D&D classes outclassed. Try beating a bard in a non combat situation, it isn't going to work, he'll walk circles around you with his massive diplomacy and bluff. His abilities far exceed other standard classes in a social situation.Oh, I have an easy answer to that.

Disintegrate. And he'll never see it coming, since it's a non-combat situation. :smallbiggrin:

Arbitrarity
2007-07-07, 01:20 PM
Actually, I'm betting that that line of thought is a reference to me, seeing as my post prompted it. Maybe that's my ego talking :smalltongue:

I'm really not experienced enough at this.


To me, there is no 'being punished'-part in taking whatever skills I deem fitting for any character, because the goal is not to create the most powerful killing machine, but to replicate the character as it exists in my mind using the rules

The way I attempt to function, at this point, is to design a character with the party in mind. A character should be roughly equal to the party, in terms of power. An exception is made for expected "killer adventures" and level 1. As such, a good deal of resources can be expended frivolously. My bard, for example, took a few feats designed purely to emphasize his proficiency with a variety of musical styles, and ability to steer conversations. Combat wise, these are nearly useless. However, he is now only somewhat useful in combat. His ability in damage dealing terms is minimal, his accuracy is subpar, and the only two things he is really useful for are social situations and healing. He synergizes well.

I suppose this is an excessively metagame way of looking at this, but more fun is had (generally) when everyone is roughly equal power levels, which is what the class system, ECL, CR, and so forth is designed to replicate. Equal characters are less work for the DM, and less work for your player. And it avoids neurotic breakdowns of your character with an inferiority complex. Directly replicating character concepts leads to often varying power levels. This depends on the degree to which other players optimize, and so forth.

Interesting. Is it a roleplaying game, or a roleplaying game?

Winterwind
2007-07-07, 01:59 PM
I think you're correct, power gaming is an attitude. My corollary is: Game systems encourage the attitudes and types of play associated with succeeding at mechanical tasks or conflicts posed within the game. Agreed, 100%. I'd only like to emphasise the word 'encourage'. As opposed to 'enforce'.


D&D tends to lend itself more to combat, as the classes aren't set up for non combat terms. All of their abilities are based around combat actions.

If you want a system more set up for social and mental manipulation, I suggest checking out White Wolfs line of games. Combat is cumbersome and annoying in that system, while political maneuvering is grand. The various denizens of the world are set up well for social maneuvering with smatterings of combat.Which pretty much gives evidence to Raum's corollary.


Actually, I'm betting that that line of thought is a reference to me, seeing as my post prompted it. Maybe that's my ego talking :smalltongue: In that case, I won't even think about being nasty to your ego by claiming otherwise. :smallsmile:

The way I attempt to function, at this point, is to design a character with the party in mind. A character should be roughly equal to the party, in terms of power. An exception is made for expected "killer adventures" and level 1. As such, a good deal of resources can be expended frivolously. My bard, for example, took a few feats designed purely to emphasize his proficiency with a variety of musical styles, and ability to steer conversations. Combat wise, these are nearly useless. However, he is now only somewhat useful in combat. His ability in damage dealing terms is minimal, his accuracy is subpar, and the only two things he is really useful for are social situations and healing. He synergizes well.

I suppose this is an excessively metagame way of looking at this, but more fun is had (generally) when everyone is roughly equal power levels, which is what the class system, ECL, CR, and so forth is designed to replicate. Equal characters are less work for the DM, and less work for your player. And it avoids neurotic breakdowns of your character with an inferiority complex. Directly replicating character concepts leads to often varying power levels. This depends on the degree to which other players optimize, and so forth. I agree with you that differring power levels are harmful for the fun. However, I am not sure whether we agree upon what constitutes an "equal power level". To me, this means more or less that every character has an equal chance for getting his time in the spotlight, not, that he is equally competent in killing monsters or even being able to contribute to that specific aspect of the game.
Having connections and knowing people might, in this context, contribute just as much to "power level" as the character's level and ability scores.
Something would be seriously wrong, on the other hand, when one character would outshine another character in this other character's chosen field, with the other character not having any other field where he could turn the tables for the first character. Basically, when one character is capable of completely stealing the spotlight from another character.
Fortunately, I have encountered such a thing only once in my entire roleplaying career - and that was not even due to one player powergaming, but due to the DM not knowing how to present the other character with a worthy way to show her skills. (Though, in all honesty, I should probably admit my outlook on said situation might be biased, for I was the evil player stealing the spotlight back then).


Interesting. Is it a roleplaying game, or a roleplaying game?I've met both sorts of pronounciations so far. Personally, I tend towards the first one, as long as one does not forget that fun is the only primary objective. :smallcool:

Deepblue706
2007-07-07, 10:16 PM
Stop hogging Mr. Hemmens. He was supposed to reply to ME. Sheesh.

Winterwind
2007-07-08, 05:24 AM
Am I?
Umm, sorry 'bout that. No intent to steal debate partners here. ;)

Saph
2007-07-08, 09:33 AM
I feel like we're having the same debate again and again. What is the point of all this? Are we coming closer to an agreement? Are we understanding the different positions better?

Not exactly. The debate between Dan and other players hit a brick wall a while ago.

Dan: "D&D is all about combat. Playing D&D means playing like X."
Others: "No it's not, we play it differently."
Dan: "You can't play it differently because the system discourages it."
Others: "We do."
Dan: "No you don't, you just think you do."
Others: "We play D&D with a role-playing aspect as well, and we don't find the system discourages it."
Dan: "D&D is all about combat. Playing D&D means . . . (goto start)."

And the same cycle's been repeating for a couple of weeks now.

Dan will never accept that other players' experience is more valid than his theories, and the other players will never accept that Dan's theories are more valid than their experience, so the debate can never be resolved. I think it's just going to continue until enough people get sick enough of it.

It's reminding me a lot of the arguments I and others used to have with BWL. I'm actually starting to miss him. I disagreed with him on almost everything, but at least he was direct.

- Saph

Diggorian
2007-07-08, 11:16 AM
@Saph

I've seen that pattern as well but was reluctant to further inflame things with accusations of trolling (if I'm using the term properly).

Raum
2007-07-08, 11:51 AM
Dan will never accept that other players' experience is more valid than his theories, and the other players will never accept that Dan's theories are more valid than their experience, so the debate can never be resolved. I think it's just going to continue until enough people get sick enough of it. You could also have said those nebulous "Others" were unable or unwilling to step back from personal experience and look at the mechanics objectively.

Frankly, I found the discussion interesting. Reading the slanted rhetoric gives a view into how people see the game. Looking past the rhetoric shows some insights into how the games are played. Winterwind's comments on "attitude" for example.

Tormsskull
2007-07-08, 11:58 AM
You could also have said those nebulous "Others" were unable or unwilling to step back from personal experience and look at the mechanics objectively.


I don't think anyone has a problem looking at the mechanics objectively. Objectively, Out of Character, it is very easy to understand that if the goal is to have a character that is the most effective, then you use all of your resources to make the most mechanically effective character.

However, when someone says that the goal is to make a realistic character, and that they feel that a realistic character isn't always mechanically optimized as is possible, some people jump in and say "No, you're looking at it the wrong way." Isn't it possible that different groups play D&D different? Is my way of looking at D&D less valid than yours?

I'm not trying to tell you, Dan, or anyone else that they are interpretting D&D wrong, or playing wrong. I know I wouldn't enjoy playing in your groups because I don't enjoy playing D&D in that way. And you all probably would not enjoy playing with my group, which is fine, we're all allowed to play the game how we want.

Quietus
2007-07-08, 12:02 PM
@Saph

I've seen that pattern as well but was reluctant to further inflame things with accusations of trolling (if I'm using the term properly).

I think trolling is incorrect in this instance; People aren't making inflammatory remarks solely to get extreme responses from people who read. Those who are debating simply see their way of looking at D&D as correct, and refuse to back down - that's stubbornness, not trolling.

I think Saph's pretty much nailed this one down.

Saph
2007-07-08, 12:16 PM
You could also have said those nebulous "Others" were unable or unwilling to step back from personal experience and look at the mechanics objectively.

If I'd wanted to imply that they were wrong and you were right, then yes, that would have been a way to say it.

As for them being 'nebulous', I didn't list them by name because I didn't feel like going through several hundred posts to make a list. If you have a problem with the term 'others', substitute 'Saph, Jannex, Tormsskull, Damionte, Diggorian, & more who should probably be on the list but whose positions I don't remember with enough accuracy to speak for them'.

- Saph

Diggorian
2007-07-08, 12:45 PM
I think trolling is incorrect in this instance; People aren't making inflammatory remarks solely to get extreme responses from people who read. Those who are debating simply see their way of looking at D&D as correct, and refuse to back down - that's stubbornness, not trolling.

So the general exchange summary that Saph makes above in post #162, which is a good boiling down of the argument earlier in this thread IMO, is not in fact trolling?

(I'm not about to nor trying to make a "Define Trolling" thread, just curious)

Winterwind
2007-07-08, 01:08 PM
Now, I really don't want to enter this discussion, as I have no way whatsoever to decide whose assessment what D&D is suited for is right or wrong, but I have the feeling there is a misunderstanding here. I don't want to speak for Dan, it's rude and I have no right to, not to mention I might be completely off, but I would hate to see a discussion go into the completely wrong direction because of a misunderstanding.

I believe this:

Dan: "D&D is all about combat. Playing D&D means playing like X."
Others: "No it's not, we play it differently."
Dan: "You can't play it differently because the system discourages it."
Others: "We do."
Dan: "No you don't, you just think you do."
Others: "We play D&D with a role-playing aspect as well, and we don't find the system discourages it."
Dan: "D&D is all about combat. Playing D&D means . . . (goto start)."
is not a correct representation of what Dan is saying. What he is rather saying is:

Dan: "D&D is all about combat. Playing D&D means playing like X."
Others: "No it's not, we play it differently."
Dan: "Well, you can do so, but in that case you might be better off playing not D&D but XXX instead, since it is better suited to your style of playing, as far as you present it here."
Others (misunderstanding him as saying "No you don't, you just think you do."): "We do."
...and then the discussion goes completely off track.

If that is a misrepresentation of anyone, I apologise. But that's my impression of what's going on here.

Other than that, I find the discussion quite insightful as well. (and thank you, Raum, for your kind view on my wild ideas :smallsmile: )

Diggorian
2007-07-08, 02:22 PM
I'd like to agree with you Winterwind, but I can not given the arguments as they appear.

Examples of how other systems deal with characterization arent made. Refutations of D&D being played as anything other than a combat-based wargame ("We play it this way") are countered with descriptions of D&D mechanics as "undermining" or "discouraging" characterization.

Raum
2007-07-08, 02:45 PM
I don't think anyone has a problem looking at the mechanics objectively. Objectively, Out of Character, it is very easy to understand that if the goal is to have a character that is the most effective, then you use all of your resources to make the most mechanically effective character.Actually, that's not what I meant. You seem to be describing looking at the character in terms of mechanics - I meant looking at mechanics in terms of how they affect play. Take two board games as an example, Monopoly and Risk - both have the goal of gaining property and resouces in competition with your opponents. But game play is significantly different between the two - all because of mechanics. Similarly, game play differs between RPGs when the mechanics are significantly divergent. Even though both are RPGs with potentially similar goals.


However, when someone says that the goal is to make a realistic character, and that they feel that a realistic character isn't always mechanically optimized as is possible, some people jump in and say "No, you're looking at it the wrong way." Isn't it possible that different groups play D&D different? Is my way of looking at D&D less valid than yours?

I'm not trying to tell you, Dan, or anyone else that they are interpretting D&D wrong, or playing wrong. I know I wouldn't enjoy playing in your groups because I don't enjoy playing D&D in that way. And you all probably would not enjoy playing with my group, which is fine, we're all allowed to play the game how we want.I don't believe I've said much about how I play, nor am I sure I wouldn't enjoy your games. I enjoy playing both Risk and Monopoly after all - why not multiple types of RPGs?


If I'd wanted to imply that they were wrong and you were right, then yes, that would have been a way to say it. Why must it be one or the other? For that matter, I object to terming it as "right" or "wrong." There are only two ways to play "wrong." The first is to not have fun. The second is to negatively impact another's fun.

----------
The jump to stating our games are mutually exclusive is what I meant about stepping back and looking at the games objectively though.

Winterwind
2007-07-08, 03:14 PM
Examples of how other systems deal with characterization arent made. Refutations of D&D being played as anything other than a combat-based wargame ("We play it this way") are countered with descriptions of D&D mechanics as "undermining" or "discouraging" characterization.I can't speak about D&D, but I do know that Dan and Raum are, in the very least, right about there being games which tend more towards characterisation and roleplay, and games which tend more towards overcoming challenges.

For example, a roleplay-oriented game's core book will spent most of its pages on building atmosphere, presenting the world, telling stories of people who live therein - possibly in the form of short stories telling the fate of some inhabitants of the world - show the reader what people in this world might think, feel, want, fight about, and so on - and do so in a manner which does not restrict the reader's fantasy to these examples, but only inspires her/him to thinking of stories taking place in this world on his own.
A challenge-oriented game will place much more emphasis on combat rules, general rules, equipment and other gimmicks (like magic) the characters can obtain to get more options on how to overcome the challenges, and things/creatures which can be presented to them as challenges.
I would name ShadowRun as a game I consider representative for a heavily challenge-oriented system. Call of Cthulhu rather on the roleplay-oriented side (though it spends a lot of its volume on challenges and magic as well).

Also, in my experience class-systems restrict how well the character's statistics represent how the character is really supposed to be. They may not prevent to construct a character concept, but it can get a lot more awkward mechanically. If a character is supposed to fight really well and sing really well from the beginning, then this is fully supported - just give him a lot of points in the skills Swords and Singing and you are set. In a class-based system a Fighter will never sing as well as a Bard from the beginning. In a skill-based system there is no such distinction - any combination goes (note that all I'm saying here is based on the experience from class-based systems I have played sufficiently to be able to estimate how well the system works for what - which does not include D&D).

And finally, of course it is possible to play a gamestyle much different from what the game itself promotes. I play ShadowRun because of the setting and the characters, not to drool over the list of cyberware in my character (well, I prefer magic-users anyway, but you get the point ;) ). Heck, one can even throw the rules out of the window and play diceless, just for the sake of the setting, if the rules restrict roleplaying/DMing possibilities too much (diceless combat is soooo much more interesting anyway).

I'm da Rogue!
2007-07-08, 05:13 PM
:elan: Wow! This thread became something like "a mirror within a mirror" thing!

horseboy
2007-07-08, 05:24 PM
And finally, of course it is possible to play a gamestyle much different from what the game itself promotes. I play ShadowRun because of the setting and the characters, not to drool over the list of cyberware in my character (well, I prefer magic-users anyway, but you get the point ;) ). Heck, one can even throw the rules out of the window and play diceless, just for the sake of the setting, if the rules restrict roleplaying/DMing possibilities too much (diceless combat is soooo much more interesting anyway).

Total agreement with you Winter. Hurry up and translate your website so I can find out more about your system. :smallwink:
Out of curiosity, you were talking about Shadowrun 3rd edition, did you ever play back in 2nd when FASA still controlled it. By your description Earthdawn (1st edition) would have been (and was) good for roleplaying. Every book was written (except for the core mechanics) from an In character respective.

Yeah, you CAN roleplay in D&D, but that's like finger painting the Mona Lisa. There's so many things out there you can use that work so much better.

Diggorian
2007-07-08, 05:28 PM
I can't speak about D&D, but I do know that Dan and Raum are, in the very least, right about there being games which tend more towards characterisation and roleplay, and games which tend more towards overcoming challenges.

They're right too; other games do foster characterization more than D&D.

However, it is dimisive to say a D&D character with a few cross class skills is gimped/penalized or that collaborative story-telling is impossible in D&D as Dan believes:



If you're really serious about "working together to tell a story" you should, in fact, probably stop playing D&D, because it directly undermines attempts to do so.

Winterwind
2007-07-08, 06:02 PM
Total agreement with you Winter. Hurry up and translate your website so I can find out more about your system. :smallwink: :smallredface:
I didn't even remember I ever mentioned around here I had a system of my own.
Well, your interest honours me (as does your assumption I'd be able to do the translation on my own :smallbiggrin: ), but honestly, I don't think it's any better most of the people here could come up with. Just a joint project between a few friends who thought they could do something better suited to their tastes than what the market had to offer. Plus, it's work in progress; we're doing a major rules revision currently.
Besides, I hardly would have the time to do so - what between me writing my diploma thesis and me writing for the DeGenesis RPG at the same time, I have trouble to find any spare time for my own projects.

Out of curiosity, you were talking about Shadowrun 3rd edition, did you ever play back in 2nd when FASA still controlled it. By your description Earthdawn (1st edition) would have been (and was) good for roleplaying. Every book was written (except for the core mechanics) from an In character respective. No, I started playing ShadowRun with the 3rd edition. I played Earthdawn once, at the precisely same convention where I played my single session of D&D as a matter of fact; it's been a while, and I only skimmed through the core book back then, but from what I can recall it seemed like a fairly roleplaying-geared system to me. (unless I'm confusing systems)


Yeah, you CAN roleplay in D&D, but that's like finger painting the Mona Lisa. There's so many things out there you can use that work so much better.That single D&D session I played put fairly much emphasis on roleplaying (especially considering on said convention I had, so far, encountered a rather high density of players of the more mechanics-oriented variation); then again, the DM specifically mentioned the adventure was untypically heavy on social interactions and roleplaying, instead of dungeon-crawling, and to me it felt more like a fairly typical adventure...


They're right too; other games do foster characterization more than D&D.

However, it is dimisive to say a D&D character with a few cross class skills is gimped/penalized or that collaborative story-telling is impossible in D&D as Dan believes:If collaborative story-telling was not possible it would hardly qualify as roleplaying game anymore. My little experience with D&D says otherwise as well.


@All:
However, I'm going to specifically keep out of a debate how well or bad D&D is suited for any style of playing. I'm not qualified to participate in such a debate.

A general discussion on what qualifies as powergaming or how to cope with it, on the other hand, would interest me very much (and, I believe, stick closer to the topic of this thread). For example, I'd still like to hear more voices on my proposal of "powergaming being an attitude, rather than a power-level" (explained in more detail in some other post above). Does this seem compatible with your experiences/your outlook on playing?

Diggorian
2007-07-08, 06:55 PM
Quoted for Ease of Perusal:



I'd like to put forward a new idea:
Powergaming is an attitude, rather than a way of putting the statistics together.
Two characters can have exactly the same statistics; one of them was created the way he was to make him the über-super-hypergod-of-killing-all-there-is, the other was supposed to be a socially awkward warrior, who is exceptionally competent in combat. The difference? From the player who followed the first approach I'd expect to be generally desinterested in roleplaying whatsoever, only waiting impatiently for the next battle (possibly starting it without reason himself, if he has to wait too long), and merely interested in acquiring more gold and magical weapons, the other player has created a specific character and will roleplay accordingly. That is, he will not not roleplay social situations, like the first player might - he will do so, and willingly. His character just will not be good in it (which may result in pretty interesting roleplaying situations all on its own).
Thoughts?

I agree with the premise, and further it seems to me that the Powergaming (PG) attitude leads to the optimization.

The example you give I have seen in powergaming friends of mine, but have not seen in players like myself who merely optimize. This refusal to portray characters as more than hyper-flexible chess pieces likely leads to the PG stigma.

Deepblue706
2007-07-08, 07:10 PM
Seriously. Where the eff is Dan. You people scared him away. I was enjoying our discussion.

I don't think Dan_Hemmens was using any circular logic, or anything like that...and think I fully understood the aim of his statements. However, I don't think he was viewing what I declared in the way I attempted to present them in, which I would say is largely my fault.

I don't feel superior to those who only play optimized characters - I actually respect those who can put what material they find together to make good combinations. I will continue to say, though, that I more respect those who observe an idea of balance in gaming, and I say that in all ways applicable. Static masses of flaws is just as bad as static masses of optimization, in my opinion. I firmly believe that things need to be "changed up" once in a while, because too much of anything gets stale. The elements I dislike, that I was expressing, lie in those who refuse to change things up because it'd mean their character has gone from "amazing" in ability to "fairly good" in ability. If your group can still fight appropriate encounters of your CR, I'd say the group works. As long as the DM does their job to ensure that encounters follow the standard CR, I find worrying about achieving ultimate power to be trivial. But then, that may only be because I simply enjoy the idea of heroics, not quite so much "cinematic" ability.

So, D&D probably is a poor choice of games for me. Actually, I readily acknowledge that. GURPS is by far my prefered system - the only problem is that not enough people play. D&D, on the other hand, is a simple system, which therefore, in my opinion, allows its players to be more numerous.

horseboy
2007-07-08, 08:00 PM
So, D&D probably is a poor choice of games for me. Actually, I readily acknowledge that. GURPS is by far my prefered system - the only problem is that not enough people play. D&D, on the other hand, is a simple system, which therefore, in my opinion, allows its players to be more numerous.

You know, this is really (I know from me) the crux of the "hate" on d20. For what it is, it does pretty good. (Even if a lot of liquour is required) The problem is that they've got a strangle hold on the market. You walk into a gaming store and with three walls of games, you're lucky to find three non d20 titles. This tends to build up a level of aggravation (faster in some, slower in others). People that want to play in ways that aren't particularly well suited for d20 are forced (if they want to play) into games that they don't like. This makes them more upset. Add to this the amenity of the internet and we get to vent.

How do I apply this directly to the thread? Hmmm, give me a min to make a bluff check.

Well, if you suspect someone of just building a character for the mechanical, you may want to talk to them and see what kind of Character they'd like to play. (Make sure he understands that by "Character" you mean more than just a Fighter/Assassin/Monk/Ranger) He may be ready for a change, and you never know, it might do the rest of the party some good, too.

Damionte
2007-07-08, 08:08 PM
Going back to the power gaming thing.

The past few theory threads have really gotten me thinking about D&D as a whole and the interaction i have with the other players in my group. I wish they'd take the time to swing by here and get involved in the conversation.

This thread for instance. I've been able to get a better grasp on some of thier views on this particular issue.

I am our groups 'power gamer" you could say. Although I am a strong role player, I am also an optomiser. I twink and trick out my characters though never at the expense of story. I am also a stickler on party balance as well. I've nagged the rest of the group so much about party balance and some of thier gimp builds that it's now an inside joke. I'm sure it's the aspect of my gameplay they talk about when I'm "not around".

To be honest I didn't really understand some of thier gripes. I've seen some of those gripes mirrored here in the thread and now am starting to see some of them in game.

Our GM for instance, is NOT an optomiser. As such he has trouble keepingp with me. Thus at times we have trouble with the Arms Race, between challenging the optomiser and not killing the gimps. Now that we're getting to the higher levels, 15 last night, woohoo. :) He's having even more trouble challenging us.

He's always complained about the high level game. I really didn't realise until lately though just how much trouble it was for him. I mean he is doing a decent job, but he always seems so dissapointed if we get through certain things to quickly. There's always some new ability one of us, "usually myself or one of the other players" has that easily circumvents the encounter.

I always thank and congradulate him though when he comes up with those encounters. I mean it's not really suppose to be about beating the PC's it's about challenging them. giving them opportunity to use those abilities they planed out.

This week for instance. Our group was down a couple of players. so we were missing both warriors and our sorc. In theory this shoudl have meant we were in trouble. Left with two rogues a bard and a cleric. But the big monsters we were fighting this week were living creatures. our rogues went to town on them. The GM seemed a little dissapointed only because it had been a long while, maybe months since we'd fought anythign challenging that was susceptable to crit damage. We have been fighting a long series of constructs and undead. So the rogues hadn't had anythign to do in a while. This week they were tearing through everything. I was a good time.

How to heal some of the problems we have.

Hmm I can use this current campagin as an example. I have previously noticed I was optomising too much. This current character I put story before optomisation at each point where I could. Thus he's not as strong as he could be. he is though still as strong as I coudl make him. which is still a bit stronger than a coupel of the other guys in the group when we started.

My idea for a solution was to try and help those guys get a better feel for what they could do to pump up thier own abilities while staying within the character concept they had in mind.

Fr instance, one of you guys had raised his hand at during character creation to play our fighter. He didn't want the classic heavy armor big sword fighter. he wanted a lighter fighter, but one who could sneak attack, and was more swashbucklee. He didn't like the actual swashbuckler class.

So instead he took a rogue, and maximised his bluff and fient abilities. To make matters a bit worse he also sacrificed hit points in order to get mroe base movement, and also had a low con score. So he had about the same HP's as our wizard.

Now that's not really a problem except that he was the one who raised his hand and said he would make a fighter, so the rest of the party couldn't really support him at first. He was a liability in our earlier fights. That was fun to role play though. we gave him a hard time and we all played along with it. By level 3-4 or though we'd all had had enough, including him. We re-specced him out when complete scoundrel came out. dual classed him with swashbuckler and rogue. This gave him a bit more survivability without sacrificing the sneack attack that he really wanted. (Sadly that character died this week to an invisible stalker. We're hoping to get him rezzed soon.)

My point in this post was that the healing point, is to talk it out. You won't know you're having issues unless soemone speaks up and says so.

Dausuul
2007-07-08, 10:13 PM
Speaking as an optimizer who plays with people who are decidedly less skilled at optimization... I find the best solution is to come up with a non-optimal concept, such as "blaster sorceror." Then optimize within that concept; make your sorc the most devastatingly blasty blaster sorc there ever was. You still get the satisfaction and fun of optimizing, and your character doesn't horribly outperform everyone else.

Damionte
2007-07-08, 10:38 PM
Speaking as an optimizer who plays with people who are decidedly less skilled at optimization... I find the best solution is to come up with a non-optimal concept, such as "blaster sorceror." Then optimize within that concept; make your sorc the most devastatingly blasty blaster sorc there ever was. You still get the satisfaction and fun of optimizing, and your character doesn't horribly outperform everyone else.

You know what. That's what I tried to do with this current character. I tried to come up with a concept with little synergy. Something that I couldnt really make powerful. And I still end up as Captain Kickass.

Diggorian
2007-07-08, 10:47 PM
Could it be a lack of tactics your party members are suffering from? Do they not know ways of getting the most out their characters?

I've never been in a group where most of them were sub-par, and I've never been sub-par myself (at least in 3.x, in Rifts ... well :smallbiggrin: ).

EDIT: I did play a warlock for a while, but the blasty and face niches were empty so he didnt feel subpar.

Thrawn183
2007-07-09, 12:07 AM
I think everyone here is missing the point. :smallwink:

People have fun playing weak charcters. People have fun playing strong characters. The problem seems to occur when the two are combined. How does a DM throw encounters that challenge the strong characters that don't wipe the weak ones? There's being a good DM that has an immersive world and strives for versimilitude and then there's being a miracle worker.

That said, there are problems for the players. The players of powerful characters can have their characters act in a manner that is less effective (which I feel is generally, though not always, not good roleplaying) or they can make less powerful characters. The problem is that they are thereby being restricted in the characters they can play even though their character on their own is in no way game breaking and the player themselves is potentially an excellent roleplayer who wants everyone to have a good time.

I'd like to turn this on its head. The problem isn't responsible powergamers. Its irresponsible weakgamers. When someone joins a group, it is there responsibility to learn at least the foundation of the game they are playing. They are obligating other players to listen to their ideas and put their own character development on hold. The least they can do is learn why taking power attack, improved trip and using a reach weapon is an effective option for a fighter. If they still choose to play weak characters... than they have no right to complain when they are utterly ineffective.

I hear people complaining left and right about players that would jump at the chance to play some hyper-powerful character, but I'd say there are a heck of a lot more players out there who derive some sort of sick satisfaction of playing crap characters that drag everyone elses down with them. And people are defending this!? Mindboggling.

Yes, things usually work best when all characters are in the same general vicinity in terms of power, but I like coming to that point from both directions, not just chopping down the tallest tree.

Edit: And yes, I am the king of mixed metaphors.

Diggorian
2007-07-09, 12:45 AM
Thrawn I wonder how weak is the "weak" you're refering to.

Usually weak to me means "not a strong fighter". Many characters I've seen fit this. Combat not being the sole purpose of my games, it's fairly simple to create an encounter that let's those types shine: a negotiation with the old king, whom depsite his decrepidness, is wise enough to employ highly trained warriors as his palace guard, disguised rogues amongst his household servants, and his court caster not far from his wrinkled side. Bard goes to center stage, the violin playing fighter can give you a synergy bonus too :smallamused: .

Do you mean "weak" like, "Wow! Can I play a Half-elf Commoner with the One-eyed and Peg-leg Flaws to gain Skill Focus: Craft (Hoe) and Skill Focus: Knowledge (Turnips)?!? ... 28 point buy? No thanks. Can I roll 3d6, no rerolls, and no placement!?!"

I dont think I've ever met a player that wanted to play a completely sub-par character.

Jannex
2007-07-09, 02:36 AM
I'd like to turn this on its head. The problem isn't responsible powergamers. Its irresponsible weakgamers. When someone joins a group, it is there responsibility to learn at least the foundation of the game they are playing. They are obligating other players to listen to their ideas and put their own character development on hold. The least they can do is learn why taking power attack, improved trip and using a reach weapon is an effective option for a fighter. If they still choose to play weak characters... than they have no right to complain when they are utterly ineffective.

I hear people complaining left and right about players that would jump at the chance to play some hyper-powerful character, but I'd say there are a heck of a lot more players out there who derive some sort of sick satisfaction of playing crap characters that drag everyone elses down with them. And people are defending this!? Mindboggling.

This sort of thing is what actually motivated my request for an "Inverse Stormwind Fallacy." Players who don't powergame, by and large, don't set out deliberately to create a character that is "crap," nor do they actively try to "drag everyone else down." There's no "sick satisfaction" going on; merely an attempt to play an enjoyable character. Nor is it a matter of not "learning the foundation of the game they are playing." A player can understand all the rules of the game and still not have the powergame-fu that other members of their group possess.

As dangerous as this is, I'll use myself as an example. It's a running joke with my gaming friends that I have "Balanced Character Syndrome"--that is, the complete and utter inability to powergame, in pretty much any system. Even if I try. This isn't to say that I don't know how to make effective characters--because my characters are usually quite effective--or that I deliberately make weak or incapable characters--because that's really not the sort of thing I enjoy. It's just that my characters have an overwhelming tendency toward... balance. They tend to be fairly good in a number of areas, rather than utterly awesome at one thing and abysmally inept in others. They tend to be the sort of character that is able to approach a problem from a number of different angles, coming up with a variety of possible solutions, rather than being a one-trick uber-pony. They tend to be cautious, often favoring defense over offense, or subtlety over directness.

In D&D, this often means that I'm not at the top of the optimization heap. Because, regardless of what the statistics say, precision damage just makes more sense to me than Power Attack. Maybe it's a mental block, but Rogues and Bards are just more fun for me to play than Barbarians and Wizards. I'll never do eight billion damage in one hit with a Rogue, or be Batman with a Bard, but really? I'd probably suck at trying to do those things anyway. When I look at rulebooks, I literally do not see cheese. I know it's there, I understand that it's there, but I can't FIND it. And I'm not saying this because I'm particularly proud of it; it's really inconvenient sometimes. But I just don't think that way.

This is true in more than just D&D. The best example of it was in a Vampire game a few years ago. My existing PC had to leave the game (the ST had unwisely allowed a mixed Camarilla/Sabbat party, which had grown increasingly Sabbat over the course of the game, and eventually things just got bad) and I made a new character to join the party. The ST gave me about the group's average amount of extra XP at character creation so that I'd be on roughly the same power level as the rest of them. I spent all that XP, and showed the ST my character sheet. Then he took it away and added more Discipline dots, because I didn't have any 5's yet. And I was TRYING to be powerful; it's just that my idea of "powerful" apparently doesn't quite mesh with other people's.

That doesn't mean that all my characters suck. On the contrary; I build solid, useful, flexible characters. They're just never going to be "teh ubarxxorz." My entire point in this thread has been that there's an entire SPECTRUM between "utter suck" and "über-optimized." And accusing people who don't fall squarely into the latter category of deliberately playing paraplegic half-elf CW samurai with dyslexia JUST to ruin your day, doesn't accomplish any more than claiming that all optimizers are just a bunch of twinks who can't roleplay.

Winterwind
2007-07-09, 07:01 AM
I'll second Diggorian on this one. What precisely do you mean by "powerful" and "effective"? If a player A assumes one particular definition of "power", for example, being good in killing stuff, a difference in power level between player A and a second player B can arise simply due to player B running under a completely different definition of power.

If, for instance, a player joined a Call of Cthulhu game where I was the Keeper (=DM), and went all 100% on guns, Dodge and other stuff significant for combat, with no skills points at all in Spot Hidden, Library Use, Listen, Psychology, Occult, Anthropology, Fast Talk or Credit Rating *, he would definately be much better in combat than a character with those skills and no points in weapons and Dodge. Still, I would probably point out to him his character was a horribly powerless and inefficient investigator (even more so, since a character trained in combat will be much more likely to try to solve a crisis with combat, which would usually be suicidal in CoC as we play it). Not to make the player shift his points, of course - if that's what (s)he wants to play, fine with me. Just to make clear that this is not what constitutes power in this setting in my group's interpretation of it.

Basically, I would call a character inefficient if, and only if, his skills were so poor I, as DM, could not find a satisfactory story for this character to star in. And I have never encountered such a pitiful creation yet, because no player I know would want to play such a thing.

Therefore, in our style of playing, the "anti-powergamers" Thrawn proposes can not be a problem of any sorts; in fact, I don't even believe they exist.
If the group's premise is more combat, less storytelling-oriented, of course, an unfitting level of combat-prowess might prove much more disrupting, of course. But I agree with Jannex - I see no reason for killing-capacity to be correlated somehow to how much of a roleplayer some person is.


* I mean any of those, not all of them, obviously.

Winterwind
2007-07-09, 07:07 AM
You know, this is really (I know from me) the crux of the "hate" on d20. For what it is, it does pretty good. (Even if a lot of liquour is required) The problem is that they've got a strangle hold on the market. You walk into a gaming store and with three walls of games, you're lucky to find three non d20 titles. This tends to build up a level of aggravation (faster in some, slower in others). People that want to play in ways that aren't particularly well suited for d20 are forced (if they want to play) into games that they don't like. This makes them more upset. Add to this the amenity of the internet and we get to vent.Consider moving to Europe, then. D&D is nowhere near as popular here (except for Britain and Scandinavia, I've been told; I can only speak for Germany really). As a matter of fact, I have never met anybody who played D&D so far, except for aforementioned convention. Though this is probably coincidence; in my favorite gaming store there is quite a lot D&D material, so I guess it can't be that unpopular.
Let me estimate. I guess it's about one sixth of the titles which is d20 related. :smallwink:

Raum
2007-07-09, 07:51 AM
People have fun playing weak charcters. People have fun playing strong characters. The problem seems to occur when the two are combined. How does a DM throw encounters that challenge the strong characters that don't wipe the weak ones? There's being a good DM that has an immersive world and strives for versimilitude and then there's being a miracle worker.I'm not sure there is such a dichotomy, at least I haven't seen it. Personally, I prefer to play reasonably strong characters with a flaw or weakness. But flawed heroes have always seemed more interesting to me than Superman.

Thrawn183
2007-07-09, 03:39 PM
I played in an Arcana Evolved campaign (which is very similar to D&D) as a character that could basically only make knowledge checks. I only had like 2d6 sneak attack at around level 15. I sucked in combat, and to be honest wasn't all that good in social situations either (having taken every single knowledge skill in the game.) The key here, is that I used character's knowledge checks to tell the rest of the party (of which there were about 7, so all party bases were covered) the abilities, strengths and weaknesses of enemies we encountered. My character was weak, but he fit into a role that helped the party. I didn't complain that he couldn't do any real damage. Hence, I was no burden to the DM or other players who were using powerful characters/encounters. They didn't have to do anything different to accomodate my character. I believe that weak as my character was, he allowed everyone to have more fun through his very presence.

On the other hand,
I DM'd an evil campaign for D&D that was meant to be especially powerful (I inherited it from another DM, who became a player.) Characters were rolling 5d6, throwing out anything under 10 and getting to reroll the lowest after that. There were some truly powerful characters. A robilar's gambit using fighter that held its own, an ur priest, a wilder with a sorceror cohort. The Wilder in particular was the most powerful, using metamorphosis and some crazy feat choices to become a choker and get two standard actions a round. Very powerful.
The last character was a lurk, pyrokineticist. She was terribly weak. I spent months trying to give her a moment to shine. I thought of encounter after encounter that she might be particularly effective at, but every time all I could think of was how all the other characters would be even better. She had no niche. The other characters weren't stepping on her toes, she didn't even have toes to be stepped on.
As a result, she was disinterested. She had nothing to make the game enjoyable for her.

Now who was to blame here, the three power gamers or the one weak gamer? I had a system to handle the powergaming. I just subtracted 1 from the CR of an encounter while determining experience. To be honest, the player of the wilder had his sorceror cohort baleful polymorph enemies into small fluffy animals so that the weakgamer wouldn't get too unhappy. The problem was that I had to go to great lengths to accomodate this player. The other players had to try to accomodate this player. What did this player do in return?

I talked to the player of the wilder and he was fine with playing a character that was weaker(though losing the cohort was out because it was a huge part of roleplaying his character). The weakgamer? I offered to teach her how to build a more powerful character. She didn't take me up on the offer. Now do you see what I mean? What right did she have to complain about being too weak and not doing anything useful in combat?

The point is for everyone to have fun. You can do that with weak or powerful characters. When done properly, you can do it even combining the two. The problem is when a disparity in power strains the game and in my experience that happens a heck of a lot more often with weak characters rather than strong ones.

Part 2)
I personally enjoy playing character that have a weakness. That's my personal style. When playing with people who usually play weaker characters, I am also a fan of picking something sub-optimal and then optimizing as much as I can within that artificial limit. It makes me feel true to the character concept of someone realistically trying they're best to survive horrifically difficult situations with what they've been given. I see this as related to playing a character with a weakness: its playing a character with no amazing weaknesses but no amazing strengths either. I like seeing characters struggle to overcome their foes. I just want it to be because their foes are actually formidable rather than run of the mill enemies.

This is my style. This is what works for me, not necessarily what works for anybody else. I'm not trying to force it upon anyone else as "better" than what they play. I'm trying to show that I'm speaking from a perspective of a gamer who tries to make sure that everyone has fun. You know, plays a GAME and enjoys it.

People on either side of the power gap who stand in the way of other player's enjoyment are a problem. While I always advocate communication in such situations, I admit that it is not always successful. I've simply found in my experience that it is the underside of the powergap that is the problem, not somebody trying to play pun-pun (I've literally never heard of anyone even consider playing something like that.)

Respectfully,
Thrawn.

Jayabalard
2007-07-09, 03:55 PM
As a result, she was disinterested. She had nothing to make the game enjoyable for her.

<snip>

What right did she have to complain about being too weak and not doing anything useful in combat? perhaps I missed it in an earlier post, but I don't see anything about her actually complaining about not being useful in combat... perhaps that's not what she needed to make the game enjoyable for her.


I dont think I've ever met a player that wanted to play a completely sub-par character.We exist though.

I'd agree that I don't know anyone who only wants to play completely sub-par characters

LotharBot
2007-07-09, 04:23 PM
Damionte,

it sounds like part of your problem might be the size of your party. It's difficult for a DM to challenge a 7-player party with level-appropriate combats. Either he puts in one monster that all 7 of you mob on, or he puts in several slightly weaker monsters that all get killed with one spell. Even if none of you are particularly optimized, it's really hard to challenge a party of that size. It's possible, but it will likely take your DM a while to find a good balance... to figure out how to mix in just enough mooks, bad-guy cohorts, and environmental effects that he can challenge the party without being too ridiculous.

Suggest to him the idea of a paced large-scale encounter... like, you're fighting stuff in one room, and the DM keeps having stuff arrive from nearby rooms on a particular schedule (2 rounds later, these guys come in... round 3, these guys come in... round 5, this guy casts a spell from the end of the hallway, oh and he has his own bodyguards hanging back with him.) That way, the wizard can't kill the whole encounter with one spell, the party can't completely focus on one guy, and there's always something for each party member to be working on.

-----

@ Thrawn: I was recently designing a character who I hoped would never deal a single point of damage through a whole campaign. I might not get to play him since another player just changed character concepts and left a gaping hole to fill (*grumble*), but it was kind of a fun challenge to develop.

Even in a party full of heavily optimized characters, there are gaps to fill in. Being a superb illusionist, or being a super-mobile character who can always provide flanking, or even just being Mr. Knowledge Skills, can make you highly effective without being particularly "optimal".

Thrawn183
2007-07-09, 04:47 PM
LotharBot,

The key point that I'm trying to make is that it doesn't matter if your character is too weak or too powerful, what matters is an honest hearted attempt to make something that won't make the game less fun for everyone else. I'm not saying you can't have a character that can't throw out huge numbers. I'm saying that if you choose to play a character that throws out consistantly smaller numbers than the rest of the party you don't have the right to complain about it; and should probably do one of the following (which is not a comprehensive list):

A) Play something that can throw out higher numbers.
B) Talk to the DM about encounters designed to let your character, and by proxy you, shine.
C) Talk to the other players about not playing quite so powerful characters and try to find a common ground.
D) Play what you want to play, and not complain.

I argue for mutual rationality. You shouldn't be able to just dictate what everyone else can do. They shouldn't be able to dictate what you do. But everyone's decisions and choices are going to impact everyone else, so agreeing to at least TRY and work out a compromise... seems fair.

This goes for DM/player interractions as well as player/player ones. Its one of those situations where I want to get up behind a podium, grab the mic and say, "Can't we all just get along?" I don't because I already know the answer. We can. We just have to be willing to try.

Diggorian
2007-07-09, 04:51 PM
Thrawn,

Sounds like you did everything a DM should to encourage enjoyment but the player had an attitude problem: a Puritan when in Rome. You and your other players cant be responsible for someone determined to not matter.

I usually weed out players like this, that refuse the spotlight and constructive advice, with lowered XP for lower encounter contribution. Even that may not have worked for her.



We exist though.

I'd agree that I don't know anyone who only wants to play completely sub-par characters

Well, nice to meet you. :smallbiggrin:

Do you really sometimes prefer to play Joe "Handi-capable" Commoner? Or are you usually just not as optimized as the other PCs? The latter I've played often, especially as comic relief.

Winterwind
2007-07-10, 09:41 AM
I'd say the problem here was a vast difference in playstyle between one player and the rest of the group, combined with stubborn refusal to either compromise or accommodate to the group's playstyle by said player.
That is, in my opinion, a general problem, not linked to power level. If there is a major disagreement between group members how to play this will often be detrimental to their fun, but the disagreement can be over any aspect, not necessarily mechanical efficiency.

It includes both players who play characters too weak overall to suit the group's playstyle, and those who play characters much too strong; it also includes players who want to play evil characters when nobody else around is comfortable with that idea, players who want to play a character actively incompatible with the rest of the characters (and go out of their way to roleplay this incompatibility too), players who wish to play for comedy, when the rest of the group is out for drama and tragedy, players who stick to tragedy when all others are out for a game right out of Terry Pratchett's imagination, and so on.

What I'm saying basically is that the problem is not about power level. Not at all. It's about colliding definitions of fun and lack of either communication or (as sounds more likely from your description) cooperation.

In all cases the only solution I see is to talk it through and either find a compromise, find one can live with said differences, or split up.

LotharBot
2007-07-10, 02:58 PM
I'm actually a bit worried about my upcoming game for just that reason.

I've got a group of mature adult gamers (the youngest is 25; half of us have masters degrees; all are either married or in a serious relationship.) We played a 1-20 campaign together with no flakiness, no inter-party conflict, nothing. We're getting ready for a campaign starting at level 6 that will be "special ops" style -- some assaults, but lots of information gathering, trickery, sneaking and spying, captures and rescues, sabotage, and intrigue.

One of our players is bringing his 14-year-old daughter with ADD. I think the only thing she wants out of her character is the ability to fly. She's looking at a half-celestial cleric. That doesn't sound too bad until you realize... with a +4 LA, we're talking about a level 2 cleric in a level 6 game. She'll get maybe 5 level-1 spells and 2 SLA's per day, have virtually no HP or skill points, and be generally ineffective. And this for a player who gets bored easily.

Hopefully I can convince her to try a different build. A half-celestial paladin, maybe, or even something simple like a dwarven fighter. If not, we might be in for an ugly few weeks before she finally calls it quits.

Diggorian
2007-07-10, 03:17 PM
Maybe prpose a compramise if she's dead set on the concept: cleric with a major celestial bloodline. That'll only eat up two levels.

Dausuul
2007-07-10, 03:48 PM
I'm actually a bit worried about my upcoming game for just that reason.

I've got a group of mature adult gamers (the youngest is 25; half of us have masters degrees; all are either married or in a serious relationship.) We played a 1-20 campaign together with no flakiness, no inter-party conflict, nothing. We're getting ready for a campaign starting at level 6 that will be "special ops" style -- some assaults, but lots of information gathering, trickery, sneaking and spying, captures and rescues, sabotage, and intrigue.

One of our players is bringing his 14-year-old daughter with ADD. I think the only thing she wants out of her character is the ability to fly. She's looking at a half-celestial cleric. That doesn't sound too bad until you realize... with a +4 LA, we're talking about a level 2 cleric in a level 6 game. She'll get maybe 5 level-1 spells and 2 SLA's per day, have virtually no HP or skill points, and be generally ineffective. And this for a player who gets bored easily.

Hopefully I can convince her to try a different build. A half-celestial paladin, maybe, or even something simple like a dwarven fighter. If not, we might be in for an ugly few weeks before she finally calls it quits.

She could play a raptoran from Races of the Wild. At 5th level, she'd be able to fly for short durations, for no level adjustment.

Alternatively, you could just give her some wings with Average maneuverability and a fly speed of 40, apply a +1 LA, and call it good. Maybe have the wings improve to 60/Good at 10th, 80/Good at 15th, and 100/Good at 20th if you plan to run the game that long.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-10, 04:52 PM
Half-Fey template gives wings, at +2 LA. Fiend Folio.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-11, 03:39 AM
Seriously. Where the eff is Dan. You people scared him away. I was enjoying our discussion.

Sorry. I sometimes like to take a break from internet discussions. Otherwise I get too wound up.

Plus I've just rediscovered Heroes of Might and Magic Three.


I don't think Dan_Hemmens was using any circular logic, or anything like that...and think I fully understood the aim of his statements. However, I don't think he was viewing what I declared in the way I attempted to present them in, which I would say is largely my fault.

I don't feel superior to those who only play optimized characters - I actually respect those who can put what material they find together to make good combinations. I will continue to say, though, that I more respect those who observe an idea of balance in gaming, and I say that in all ways applicable. Static masses of flaws is just as bad as static masses of optimization, in my opinion. I firmly believe that things need to be "changed up" once in a while, because too much of anything gets stale. The elements I dislike, that I was expressing, lie in those who refuse to change things up because it'd mean their character has gone from "amazing" in ability to "fairly good" in ability. If your group can still fight appropriate encounters of your CR, I'd say the group works. As long as the DM does their job to ensure that encounters follow the standard CR, I find worrying about achieving ultimate power to be trivial. But then, that may only be because I simply enjoy the idea of heroics, not quite so much "cinematic" ability.

That's all fair and reasonable.


So, D&D probably is a poor choice of games for me. Actually, I readily acknowledge that. GURPS is by far my prefered system - the only problem is that not enough people play. D&D, on the other hand, is a simple system, which therefore, in my opinion, allows its players to be more numerous.

As I think I've said before, I'm lucky in that around my way most people play most systems. In fact D&D is about the last thing you can get people to play. Ironically part of the reason for that is that the system isn't simple enough for most people round here.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-11, 03:53 AM
However, if you are referring to Dan, then you seem to be sort of missing the point he's trying to make (as far as I understand him). Which is that a good system should not force you to sacrifice character for mechanical efficiency to begin with. So far I fully agree with him.
The problem I have with this statement though is how to define "mechanical efficiency". I would not equate it with combat prowess, that's for sure.


I think it depends very much on the game.

In - say - Vampire or Shadowrun, mechanical efficiency can mean a whole number of things. In D&D it pretty much *does* boil down to combat prowess. The reason for this is simply that roughly ninety percent of the things the system models are directly related to combat.

Past about level three, combat is pretty much the only thing which is going to pose a serious mechanical challenge to you, unless you have one of those DMs who always sets his DCs at 10 + Your Skill Ranks. Otherwise you can probably take ten or twenty and succeed at most of the things you've specialized in.

To put it another way: combat tasks scale with level, non-combat tasks don't. D&D was built with the expectation that, on some level, your characters were adventuring to gain experience that would allow them to fight tougher monsters.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-11, 04:04 AM
Not exactly. The debate between Dan and other players hit a brick wall a while ago.

Dan: "D&D is all about combat. Playing D&D means playing like X."
Others: "No it's not, we play it differently."
Dan: "You can't play it differently because the system discourages it."
Others: "We do."
Dan: "No you don't, you just think you do."
Others: "We play D&D with a role-playing aspect as well, and we don't find the system discourages it."
Dan: "D&D is all about combat. Playing D&D means . . . (goto start)."

Actually, Winterwind summed up the way things are going from my perspective pretty well.

Although actually I'd suggest it goes more like this.

Me: "D&D is all about combat. Playing D&D means playing like X."
Others: "No it's not, we play it differently."
Me: "Please describe how you play it differently."
Others: [Describes something which sounds, to me, exactly like X]
Me: "Please explain to me how that is not exactly like X."
Others: "It isn't, because we play it differently."


And the same cycle's been repeating for a couple of weeks now.

Dan will never accept that other players' experience is more valid than his theories, and the other players will never accept that Dan's theories are more valid than their experience, so the debate can never be resolved. I think it's just going to continue until enough people get sick enough of it.

Except that your experience of D&D, insofar as you have described it to me, is exactly what I expect a D&D game to be like. Insanely frequent combat. Unavoidable fights. Frequent arbitrary character deaths. You can keep on saying "it's all about the *roleplaying*" until the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that, in the games which you have described what you are primarily "roleplaying" is fights.

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-11, 04:19 AM
That's true, for the most part, but what I was setting out from the beginning was to show that to someone who is a "power player", character effectiveness is the goal, or "point" of D&D.

And that's exactly where I disagree with you.

You say "to somebody who is a 'power player' character effectiveness is the point of D&D."

This is equivalent to saying "if you think character effectiveness is the point of D&D, you are a powergamer."

Which is equivalent to saying "if you accept that D&D rewards character effectiveness, you are a powergamer."

My point is somewhat different. It is that character effectiveness is the point of D&D, just like the acquisition of money is the point of monopoly and checkmate is the point of chess.

What's the point of gaining experience and going up levels, what's the point of classes and feats and spells and skill ranks and everything else in the game if it *isn't* about character effectiveness?


That's why when I spelled out the line of thought:

1. I want to be as mechanically effective as possible.
2. If the DM is lenient and allows me to enchance my character's personality or flavor without suffering any unmaximized mechanical benefits I will take advantage of it.
3. If the DM it not lenient then I will build a stereotypical character in order to not sacrifice mechanical efficiency.


And so far 1 person said "That's one way of saying it." I have been trying to get people on the 'other' side of the debate to admit that this is their pattern of thought, but they rarely do.

My pattern of thought actually goes.

1. When I play a game, I want to play the actual game, not something I have made up in my head that has nothing to do with the game.
2. Games have mechanics, which allow the player to influence the game.
2a. The game obviously expects you to build a mechanically effective character, or else those mechanics would not be in place.
3. Therefore I will create the kind of character which is mechanically supported by the game.
4. D&D supports stereotypical fantasy cliches: fighters, wizards, clerics. I shall play one of those stereotypical fantasy cliches, because that is what the game expects of me.
5. If the DM complains, I shall humbly suggest that he switch to a different system.


In my group, and the way I have played since OD&D, a character's personality & flavor are more important than the character's mechanical effectiveness. And a player who pursues mechanical effectiveness without taking their character's personality & flavor into consideration would be penalized in our games (if they did it repeatably they'd be kicked out).

"Penalized" in what way?

Would you dock them XP?

If so, do you genuinely not see the irony in saying "mechanical effectiveness is not the point of D&D, and to prove it we are going to punish you by reducing your mechanical effectiveness!"?


The reason for that is we view that the entire point of D&D as being to roleplay a character, not roleplay yourself in the world. And if a player goes for only mechanical effectiveness, it 99% of the time shows that they are not playing a character, they are simply trying to 'win' D&D.

You can "roleplay a character" with no system whatsoever. If you decide to play a game using a set of mechanics, you are agreeing to play the game described by those mechanics.


Other groups play that defeating encounters is the "point" of D&D, and thus being the most mechanically powerful is a obvious goal of the game.

So your group doesn't have encounters, then? They never fight monsters, PCs never run the risk of getting killed by a group of creatures they just met in their travels?


And once again, that's fine. However your group wants to play is up to your group, but knowing what one person considers the point of D&D makes it much easier to discuss things with them.

Take the metagaming thread. Had I known that Dan and a few others view the game in the way that they do, I'd had agreed with them. In their types of games, it only makes sense to utilize the information that you have, because the point of the game is defeating encounters and that information helps you do just that.

Again, I think you're unfairly characterizing my position.

I'd me more inclined to say "the point of the game is to roleplay your character, your ability to roleplay your character is predicated on their survival, overcoming encounters allows you to make sure your character will survive."

Dan_Hemmens
2007-07-11, 05:10 AM
Dan I am having trouble grasping the crux of your main complaint. I don't see the problem you're having here.

I mean these so called romantic characters you've stated all "to me" seem so easy and simple to create within the game system. I can even make them without giving anything up,

The general problem with class-based systems is that you usually can't get the actual character you *want*. Just an approximation to it. Which is why I'll tend to create D&D characters mechanics-first.


You say the system doesn't allow you to make a character like a warrior who dabbles in magic. I point to Fighter/Wizards or Hybrid Casting Warrior classes. What's wrong with those options?

A Fighter/Wizard is neither a good fighter nor a good wizard. Hybrid Casting Warrior Classes aren't "fighters who dabble in magic", they're something else entirely, usually with a lot of fluff baggage attached.


You say the syetm can't make your barbarion poet... I say "WHAT?" You could just play a Barbarion, toss a couple of throw away skill points in perfom. That's assuming you want him to actually be an good poet. or if you want mechanical aspects you dip a level or two of bard. A Barbarion wouldn't lose power from that. They'd gain power.

Tossing a couple of skill points on Perform makes you, in practice, a mediocre poet, particularly if you don't invest heavily in Charisma. You're in no way guaranteed to roll well on the few occasions it comes up in play.

And how does dipping a couple of levels in Bard make you more powerful?


I mean... I could understand your argument better if you could actually give us an example of a character you've wanted to make, that you can't make in D&D.

The problem is not so much that you can't make the aforesaid characters, but that you can make them, and they will wind up working extremely differently.

For example, one of my more recent fantasy characters was a transvestite spy in the service of a kingdom which was not dissimilar to post-revolutionary France. He was a master of disguise, and all-round good at his job, but he relied on deceit and guile almost exclusively. He eventually learned to fight moderately well with a dagger, but he was basically boned if anybody actually attacked him.

Now you *could* model that character as a D&D rogue, but they would wind up working completely differently.

They'd probably wear leather armour, instead of a ballgown, and carry a shortsword, instead of going unarmed. If they were high enough level to actually *be* a master of disguise, they'd be high enough level to be doing decent Sneak Attack damage.

The original character hung back during the fights (of which there were approximately three in about six months), the D&D character would have got stuck in because they would have had a whole load of skills which were designed for it.

So the system would influence the character, necessarily. The Republican Spy becomes a D&D rogue. The "mercenary who dabbles in magic" becomes a Fighter-Wizard.


The response you're gettign from many of us seems to be along the lines of. "What the boop is he talking about, I just made that character in my last game and he rocked!"

To which my response is usually "actually, it sounds like you've played a character who is vaguely similar, but not at all the same."

The system influences the character dramatically. The same character, created under two different systems, will no longer *be* the same character.


Also my reference to less experienced gamers was in reference to the system we were talking about. D&D. By your own admission you havn't played much D&D.

Ah, sorry, misunderstood.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-11, 05:31 AM
Now you *could* model that character as a D&D rogue, but they would wind up working completely differently.

They'd probably wear leather armour, instead of a ballgown, and carry a shortsword, instead of going unarmed. If they were high enough level to actually *be* a master of disguise, they'd be high enough level to be doing decent Sneak Attack damage.

The original character hung back during the fights (of which there were approximately three in about six months), the D&D character would have got stuck in because they would have had a whole load of skills which were designed for it.
Um. You do get sneak attack and 3/4 BaB inevitably, if you build a rogue. And d6 Hit Dice, trap sense, and various evasive abilities. But if you have your abilities concentrated in Cha, Int, and Wis, with poor Strength and Con and mediocre Dex, and never spend a feat on combat, you will in fact be pretty boned if anything attacks you. But a much better social spy than a more typical dex-18 rogue. And would attain mastery of disguise pretty quick with a +4 ability mod and +5 from relevant feats...

Why don't you have leather and a shortsword? Because you can't hide either, and someone would notice if you came to the ball claiming to be a lady, but wearing weapons and armor. If, for flavor reasons, you wanted to lose the armor proficiency, maybe you could extract some ad-hoc bonus in return.

Mostly, though, it sounds as if your character probably wasn't a rogue at all. He was an expert. With poor physical stats.

Roog
2007-07-11, 06:15 AM
Mostly, though, it sounds as if your character probably wasn't a rogue at all. He was an expert. With poor physical stats.

What do poor physical stats have to do with the character concept?

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-11, 06:25 AM
What do poor physical stats have to do with the character concept?
Quite a bit, in some cases. Not every character concept places demands on level of ability to resist disease and injury, or ability to pick up heavy objects, or ability to leap out of the way of falling objects. Some do, however, and these demands may be positive or negative. While not explicitly stated, I certainly got the impression that some of those not being high was a part of this character's concept.

Roog
2007-07-11, 06:48 AM
Quite a bit, in some cases. Not every character concept places demands on level of ability to resist disease and injury, or ability to pick up heavy objects, or ability to leap out of the way of falling objects. Some do, however, and these demands may be positive or negative. While not explicitly stated, I certainly got the impression that some of those not being high was a part of this character's concept.

I did not get that impression at all. I did get the impression that some of the characters physical stats were not exceptionally high, but I saw nothing to indicate that they would be below average. Maybe you could point out to me what drew you to that impression?

Tormsskull
2007-07-11, 07:14 AM
You say "to somebody who is a 'power player' character effectiveness is the point of D&D."

This is equivalent to saying "if you think character effectiveness is the point of D&D, you are a powergamer."


I agree with these two.



Which is equivalent to saying "if you accept that D&D rewards character effectiveness, you are a powergamer."


I disagree. If your character makes decisions (i.e. in-character) that prove to be mechanically effective, that is fine. If you the player makes mechanically effective decisions without regards to the character's personality, story, history, etc, then that would be a problem in a group such as mine.



My point is somewhat different. It is that character effectiveness is the point of D&D, just like the acquisition of money is the point of monopoly and checkmate is the point of chess.


The win condition for monopoly is to eliminate the other players. In order to eliminate the other players, you must deprive them of their money. Ergo, obtaining money in monopoly is the path to victory.

Now here is the important part: In D&D there is no mechanical win condition. There is nothing that you do that equals "win". If you enjoy powergaming, it might be that for YOU to "win" means to have a completely optimizied character.



What's the point of gaining experience and going up levels, what's the point of classes and feats and spells and skill ranks and everything else in the game if it *isn't* about character effectiveness?


To me all of those things reflect a character's development over the course of the story.



My pattern of thought actually goes.

1. When I play a game, I want to play the actual game, not something I have made up in my head that has nothing to do with the game.


Which means you want to play a game without roleplaying. Which you are free to do. To me, playing a Role Playing Game without Role Playing is odd, but that's ok because I don't have to play in your games.



2. Games have mechanics, which allow the player to influence the game.
2a. The game obviously expects you to build a mechanically effective character, or else those mechanics would not be in place.
3. Therefore I will create the kind of character which is mechanically supported by the game.
4. D&D supports stereotypical fantasy cliches: fighters, wizards, clerics. I shall play one of those stereotypical fantasy cliches, because that is what the game expects of me.


Which all make sense when viewed in the eyes of "The win condition for D&D is making a mechanically optimizied character".



5. If the DM complains, I shall humbly suggest that he switch to a different system.


Which shows that you believe that your way of interpretting D&D is the only way of interpretting it. Which is probably why your arguments meet a lot of resistance on the forums.



If so, do you genuinely not see the irony in saying "mechanical effectiveness is not the point of D&D, and to prove it we are going to punish you by reducing your mechanical effectiveness!"?


Not at all. Its like this:

1. The point of D&D is to craft a collective story.
2. Role playing is how each player participates in crafting the story.
3. In the story there will be mechanical challenges.

If you as a player are focused on defeating mechanical challenges, you've completely missed 1. and 2. You've essentially told me and the rest of the group "I don't care about the collective story, I just want to move on to 3."

If that's your playstyle, then you should get with other individuals who also don't care about 1. and 2. and you're all set. However, at my table we focus on 1. and 2. 3. only exists to move the story along.

As far as penalizing a character's mechanics for the player ignoring 1. and 2., I believe it is completely justified. If I invite you over to play in a role playing game, and explain to you that the main purpose is crafting a collective story, then if you choose to play you are agreeing to follow the rules. If you break the rules by focusing on 3., it makes complete sense for me to reduce your effectiveness at 3. in the hopes that you'll realize that this is not a campaign that focuses on 3.



I'd me more inclined to say "the point of the game is to roleplay your character, your ability to roleplay your character is predicated on their survival, overcoming encounters allows you to make sure your character will survive."

Which doesn't align at all with:



My pattern of thought actually goes.

1. When I play a game, I want to play the actual game, not something I have made up in my head that has nothing to do with the game.

Roog
2007-07-11, 07:54 AM
Dan_Hemmens
What's the point of gaining experience and going up levels, what's the point of classes and feats and spells and skill ranks and everything else in the game if it *isn't* about character effectiveness?
To me all of those things reflect a character's development over the course of the story.

I see that some character development can be reflected by the effects of going up levels. But if the game is not about mechanical effectiveness, then most character development won't be reflected by these things, will it?

Its easy to see mechanical effectiveness as a goal for the game, because the game mechanical reward for the players is mechanical effectiveness.

For some campaigns, I would almost be happy with no "experience and going up levels" if the game is about character's development and/or story. (Only almost because some improvement may be necessary for character's development). Just pick a power level to play the game at and go from there. However whenever I suggest to my group that we play a game like this it is not something they want to do; and I would expect the majority of players to feel the same way as they do.

I would not call most of the players in my group power players, but this leads me to conclude that mechanical effectiveness is one goal when they play D&D. Also, if I was to play a game with no XP, it would probably be better not to play D&D because the ideas of advancement and levels are built solidly into the system.

Winterwind
2007-07-11, 08:03 AM
I think it depends very much on the game.

In - say - Vampire or Shadowrun, mechanical efficiency can mean a whole number of things. In D&D it pretty much *does* boil down to combat prowess. The reason for this is simply that roughly ninety percent of the things the system models are directly related to combat.

Past about level three, combat is pretty much the only thing which is going to pose a serious mechanical challenge to you, unless you have one of those DMs who always sets his DCs at 10 + Your Skill Ranks. Otherwise you can probably take ten or twenty and succeed at most of the things you've specialized in.

To put it another way: combat tasks scale with level, non-combat tasks don't. D&D was built with the expectation that, on some level, your characters were adventuring to gain experience that would allow them to fight tougher monsters.Like I said, I'm not going to comment on what D&D is suited for or not. But still I'm left wondering what exactly should prevent the group from crafting a story not reliant on mechanics and not caring about combat efficiency. After all, it's pretty much the DM who decides when battle occurs - now, if (s)he just decided not to include battle at all? (I understand the group might be better off playing a different fantasy RPG then - I'm not about to judge on that - but they could still have a plot without combat, now, couldn't they?)

For instance, I consider ShadowRun a fairly challenge-focussed game. The vast majority of the core book is usurped by mechanics, equipment and other stuff to overcome challenges. The character-creation-system quite obviously favours powerful characters - powerful in IC-terms, I mean. They are usually capable of casting magic (according to Magic in the Shadows, that would make them a valuable ressource to the cons), or possess equipment equivalent to large sums of money, and usually combined with skills and attributes well above average for their given race. It's not that it's impossible to create a weak character, but the system quite clearly was not made with such a character in mind. Plus, there's the general assumption the character is going to be a ShadowRunner (ideas for alternative campaigns appear only in supplementary books).

Nevertheless, I got the idea of playing a completely normal human, a faceless drone working in one of the myriad cubicles for a megacon, who is cast down into the shadows by some unfortunate events. No cyberware. No magic. No combat skills to speak of. I am absolutely sure (in fact, that's the idea) that the character will end up as dead meat after just a few sessions, having died a dirty and tragic death in some dark alley.

That's quite clearly not the way SR was meant to be played. I want to do it anyway, just to see this short and tragic story be told. It's not about playing a weak character - most of my favorite characters in various systems excel at their given area (combat or otherwise) - it's about the story. To me, it always is. I frankly don't care much about how strong or weak a character is, as long as it is just as strong or weak as I want it to be in order to tell my story. And since above example is still confined in the SR setting and using SR rules, I would still consider this playing SR. I leave it up to the GM to make the system not kill the character before his story was told, and to kill him, when the story is ready for that.

So, what I am saying is, I can hardly imagine how much a system would have to go out of it's way to force the group to play some certain style. There might be a better suited system, of course, but in most cases I would expect it to be possible to play as one wishes to, while still staying within the confines of the system.

(before one asks, no, I haven't gotten to playing this working drone yet, and likely a lot of time will pass before I will, since usually I get DM duty in our group, and on the highly rare occassions I don't I usually go for the chance to finally play one of my old favorite characters again)

Sir_Banjo
2007-07-11, 08:17 AM
i dont hate them, i encurage people to take an actual interest in the game, and that kinda include making sure you can fill your role in the party.

I agree. So long as everybodies having a good time and able to use their character, wgaf?

Raum
2007-07-11, 08:29 AM
I agree with these two.

I disagree. The statement you disagree with is simply a restatement of the ones with which you agreed.


Not at all. Its like this:

1. The point of D&D is to craft a collective story.
2. Role playing is how each player participates in crafting the story.This is often the desire of people playing an RPG, but how does the D&D system support or encourage "telling a collective story"? In fact, given rule 0 and all the repetitive comments on forums over how it's "the DM's game" I'd say the mechanics work directly against telling a "collective" story. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it does mean it's not the point of D&D, it's the desires of players overriding D&D.

3. In the story there will be mechanical challenges.Looking at the D&D system, the major thing you get rewarded for (i.e. receive XP) is surmounting challenges. Even when XP is used to reward good roleplaying, I'd bet it's a much smaller amount than the XP rewarded for challenges.


If you as a player are focused on defeating mechanical challenges, you've completely missed 1. and 2. You've essentially told me and the rest of the group "I don't care about the collective story, I just want to move on to 3."

If that's your playstyle, then you should get with other individuals who also don't care about 1. and 2. and you're all set. However, at my table we focus on 1. and 2. 3. only exists to move the story along.The premise has little to do with play styles. The premise is simply D&D encourages focusing on challenges by rewarding those able to meet challenges.

Sure, your group can change that. Many do add rewards for role playing - or, in some cases, penalties for not role playing. But that's not the focus of D&D as written.


As far as penalizing a character's mechanics for the player ignoring 1. and 2., I believe it is completely justified. If I invite you over to play in a role playing game, and explain to you that the main purpose is crafting a collective story, then if you choose to play you are agreeing to follow the rules. If you break the rules by focusing on 3., it makes complete sense for me to reduce your effectiveness at 3. in the hopes that you'll realize that this is not a campaign that focuses on 3.As long as you ensure your players are aware of said house requirements there shouldn't be an issue. But, is that really the focus of D&D rules? Or of your house rules?

Saph
2007-07-11, 08:55 AM
Except that your experience of D&D, insofar as you have described it to me, is exactly what I expect a D&D game to be like. Insanely frequent combat. Unavoidable fights. Frequent arbitrary character deaths. You can keep on saying "it's all about the *roleplaying*" until the cows come home, but that doesn't change the fact that, in the games which you have described what you are primarily "roleplaying" is fights.

Uh, so what? Most of the things I've taken issue with in your posts aren't about frequency of combat. We do frequently roleplay fights, yes. And? 'Contains combat' does not mean 'contains only combat'.


My pattern of thought actually goes.
. . .
4. D&D supports stereotypical fantasy cliches: fighters, wizards, clerics. I shall play one of those stereotypical fantasy cliches, because that is what the game expects of me.
5. If the DM complains, I shall humbly suggest that he switch to a different system.

Humbly?

Look, Dan, the point that I'm trying to make is that if you tried to run a D&D game based on these assumptions for our group - that a 'real' D&D game is pure tactical combat, with characters as cliched and stereotypical as possible - we'd be bored out of our minds. I've played in sessions like that, which were just a sequence of 'Fight Monster A, fight Monster B, go up a level, repeat.' They sucked. So, quite obviously, your idea of what D&D must be does not describe every other player out there, and it's pretty arrogant of you to insist that it does.

- Saph

Jayabalard
2007-07-11, 09:06 AM
saying "if you think character effectiveness is the point of D&D, you are a powergamer."

Which is equivalent to saying "if you accept that D&D rewards character effectiveness, you are a powergamer."False

Thinking that character effectiveness is the point of D&D does mean that you accept that the mechanics of D&D reward character effectiveness. I doubt anyone would debate it.

Accepting that the mechanics of D&D rewards character effectiveness does not mean that someone thinks that is the point of D&D. There are several examples of people who state this in this thread.

Since it doesn't work in both directions, the statements are not equivalent.

Hallavast
2007-07-11, 09:33 AM
I played in an Arcana Evolved campaign (which is very similar to D&D) as a character that could basically only make knowledge checks. I only had like 2d6 sneak attack at around level 15. I sucked in combat, and to be honest wasn't all that good in social situations either (having taken every single knowledge skill in the game.) The key here, is that I used character's knowledge checks to tell the rest of the party (of which there were about 7, so all party bases were covered) the abilities, strengths and weaknesses of enemies we encountered. My character was weak, but he fit into a role that helped the party. I didn't complain that he couldn't do any real damage. Hence, I was no burden to the DM or other players who were using powerful characters/encounters. They didn't have to do anything different to accomodate my character. I believe that weak as my character was, he allowed everyone to have more fun through his very presence.


Let's put this in a different light. Lets say this character of yours is adventuring with a wizard who takes 3 or 4 knowledge skills based on what the party has fought against mostly so far. I would argue that he also fills the role of a scholar that proclaims the weaknesses of his foes to all that will hear him, and on top of that, he's Batman. Your character looks pretty pathetic and unneeded at just about every level now. Whose fault was it? The wizard player's fault or yours?

Indon
2007-07-11, 11:06 AM
I'll contribute my personal story, and then jump into the argument. (And I apologize for the hugeness of my post, I'm commenting on the key points of like 8 pages worth of stuff)

My group is, arguably, pretty much entirely made up of 'powergamers'. I name the power level I think would be appropriate for the campaign, and they can all come up with a concept that fits it. The newer player with less experience gets build advice from all of us, and generally keeps up with us.

In campaigns I've played with the group, the last character I played was a rogue/ranger/scout (he described himself as a "security consultant") optimized towards UMD sneak attack/skirmish with eternal wands. You couldn't exactly call me an optimized combatant, though I still contributed through skills and being the party-fast-talker. He was an awfully flavorful individual, of course, and one of the few CN characters I've had the pleasure of playing.

The character I currently play is the power-attacking combat monster of the group; it's a low-magic campaign, so I'm very much effective in combat. This does not make my character a soulless orcish (yeah, he's an orc, you got a problem with that?) meat-slab. Instead, he's an individual highly respectful of personal strength, who travels with the party largely because he lost to one of the other characters in a boxing match. Even in combat, he shows personality, and has a tendency to improvise interesting weapons at a moments' notice to do things that make the entire group say, "That was awesome".


Now, as for the characterization/optimization debate currently in this thread:

I'm pretty sure everyone can agree that there must be some correlation between background and description and actual character abilities. Example:

Say I have a character who was a sorceror/king of a mighty empire. He decided to retire, release the hundreds of dragons he'd personally enslaved, go incognito, and take up adventuring. He's a level 1 Wizard.

It's all just a matter of where you draw the line as a believable, well-written character. There's no accounting for taste, as they say, and the reason is everyone has different tastes and tolerances for this kind of thing.

But if you're in my campaign and you play a straight Wizard who used to be a soldier, expect to be jovially made fun of should you ever go back home and talk with your old soldier friends, because you were never actually good at it, being completely incompetent with swords, spears, or the armor issued to you. Chances are most of the work you did was cleaning or carrying things, and probably not very well even then since your Wizard at most has 10 strength.

You should make a realistic character, not some mary-sue who was magically competent at things _before_ they were a PC bound by non-narrative laws, or somehow competent at things they really aren't competent at. If you want to have a character who can dance, sure, they can dance. If you want to have a character who can dance, for money, you better take ranks in Perform 'cause I'll pull a Traveller and kill you during character creation if you try to tell me you lived off of dancing for audiences when you're absolutely worthless at it. That is bad writing, well beyond my tolerance for it.

Another thing: The Stormwind Fallacy is about how there is no causation between playing an effective character and not roleplaying. It is most definitely not saying there is no correlation. I'd say there is clearly a correlation, though it is not an extreme one and it plagues inexperienced roleplayers far more than experienced ones.

One thing that I particularly noted is when Dan Hemmens claimed that D&D didn't provide enough to make a well-rounded character. I immediately wondered, why say that? If you had more skill points, then reasonably optimizing your character would _still_ involve not making a well-rounded character, and just becoming that much better at adventuring! If you don't want to sacrifice character effectiveness to make a believable character, your character won't be believable unless and until you are forced to do so, either by the game system or by your DM.

A system that does not force people to make believable characters is no different than one that does, to someone whose intention it is to make a believable character. As such, D&D is just as good as any other system.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-11, 11:51 AM
I did not get that impression at all. I did get the impression that some of the characters physical stats were not exceptionally high, but I saw nothing to indicate that they would be below average. Maybe you could point out to me what drew you to that impression?
Pardon, I believe we may be talking at cross-purposes.

When I say 'poor physical stats' I mean probably 10 or less strength, perhaps 12 dex, maybe 12 con. Or if using an array, sticking your bottom 3 values in the physical stats. Because those more than suffice to be awful for any general-run D&D character who intends to physically interact with things. They're still a bit better than Joe No-array the commoner gets, because you usually build on a better basis than that.

Dausuul
2007-07-11, 01:45 PM
One thing that I particularly noted is when Dan Hemmens claimed that D&D didn't provide enough to make a well-rounded character. I immediately wondered, why say that? If you had more skill points, then reasonably optimizing your character would _still_ involve not making a well-rounded character, and just becoming that much better at adventuring! If you don't want to sacrifice character effectiveness to make a believable character, your character won't be believable unless and until you are forced to do so, either by the game system or by your DM.

There are certain skills in D&D that you pretty much have to take in order to fulfill your role in the party. For example, let's say you're playing a 1st-level sorceror. If you don't put the maximum possible ranks in Concentration, you might as well give up adventuring now, because you'll never get a spell off after the enemy closes to melee range. Unless you're human or have an Intelligence bonus, D&D only gives you 8 skill points to start with; you just had to spend 4 of them simply to be a sorceror. What does that leave you with, in terms of making your character a well-rounded individual? Not a lot.

Likewise, say you're the rogue. In a "classic" fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue party, you're the only one who gets Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen as class skills. The party needs somebody who can sneak, and it also needs somebody who can spot the incoming threats; so, once again, there go half of your skill points, just to fulfill the basic functions of your class. Toss in Search, Disable Device, Open Locks, and Use Magic Device, and that's it--you're flat out, and you haven't even got Tumble or Escape Artist. Better hope you never have to move through an enemy's threatened area to reach a flanking position, or wriggle free from a grappling foe...

If D&D gave out more skill points, people could buy the basic necessities and still have enough left over to round out their backgrounds and personalities.

LotharBot
2007-07-11, 02:02 PM
you're the only one who gets [insert list here] as class skills

You can always have an INT bonus, or be a human... or keep one or two of your skills a couple ranks below max so you can spend a few skill points in unusual skills. Or you can have a houserule that gives out a small number of "bonus" skill points specifically for flavor.

I wonder if anyone will accuse me of "not playing D&D" if I describe my houserules regarding bonus skill points for character flavor.

Indon
2007-07-11, 02:06 PM
There are certain skills in D&D that you pretty much have to take in order to fulfill your role in the party. For example, let's say you're playing a 1st-level sorceror. If you don't put the maximum possible ranks in Concentration, you might as well give up adventuring now, because you'll never get a spell off after the enemy closes to melee range. Unless you're human or have an Intelligence bonus, D&D only gives you 8 skill points to start with; you just had to spend 4 of them simply to be a sorceror. What does that leave you with, in terms of making your character a well-rounded individual? Not a lot.

-Unless you're fighting creatures with reach at level 1, a 5-foot step requires no skill points. But that isn't my point.

-Now say we gave the Sorceror twice as many skill points, 16 to start. Concentration is maxed. Now, you _could_ give him 4 points in Profession: Being Interesting, or you could max out UMD and Diplomacy, give him one cross-class rank of Tumble so he can make Tumble checks, and drop the remainder into knowledge skills so you can identify monster weaknesses in-character.



Likewise, say you're the rogue. In a "classic" fighter/cleric/wizard/rogue party, you're the only one who gets Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen as class skills. The party needs somebody who can sneak, and it also needs somebody who can spot the incoming threats... so, once again, there go half of your skill points, just to fulfill the basic functions of your class.

-Leaving 16 skill points. Is spending 4 on a fluff skill really more important than maxing out Disable Device, UMD, Open Lock, and Escape Artist? If you're really concerned, have the party arcanist take Knock. He just freed you up a fluff skill.

-Alternately, let's give the Rogue another 16 skill points! Surely with this you'll run out of things to optimize and not have to exchange effectiveness for good description, right?

We have a total of 12 skills to max. Hide, Move Silently, Spot, and Listen are our first four. Then we need Tumble, Bluff (for feint), UMD (of course!) and Escape Artist. Use Rope helps you get out of pit traps, Search is of course vital, you max out Balance for the Tumble synergy, and I'm sure there's four or five other skills that you'd want at _least_ for synergy bonuses, and that's not even touching knowledges.




If D&D gave out more skill points, people could buy the basic necessities and still have enough left over to round out their backgrounds and personalities.

If D&D gave out more skill points, people who are uninterested in making well-rounded characters would make more powerful characters instead, which would neccessitate more difficult challenges, which would make those new skill points 'basic neccessities' just as much as the ones you get now.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-11, 02:09 PM
Or, your DM can only give out such skill points on flavor dispensation. No UMD for you, but if you want preform (dance)... sure.

Indon
2007-07-11, 02:11 PM
Or, your DM can only give out such skill points on flavor dispensation. No UMD for you, but if you want preform (dance)... sure.

Which is the DM forcing players to make their characters more interesting.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-11, 02:16 PM
Possibly so. I'm not calling a forced usage of preform (dance), I'm calling it an in character justification for a skill which has no mechanical basis.

It makes sense for your character, but you used the points you had on other things. You don't have to suffer for that either way, seeing as one way, you can role-play it, and the other way, you can claim to have a demi-mechanical basis. Either way, it makes little to no difference, and makes your character more interesting. Adding the skill points is just for those who say they need a mechanical basis for their roleplaying. Which is ironic, in many respects.

Indon
2007-07-11, 02:25 PM
Adding the skill points is just for those who say they need a mechanical basis for their roleplaying. Which is ironic, in many respects.

There are very many possible characters whom should have a mechanical basis, without being unrealistic (or, if you prefer, suspension of disbelief-stretching) or inconsistent and thus poorly-written or concieved.

A Wizard who was a former competent soldier is an example. Not having proficiency with the sword or the polearm, that wizard would require a strength 8 points higher than those of his companions to keep up, assuming he doesn't even wear armor... unless he has proficiency from something.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-11, 02:33 PM
Very true, in some respects.

Of course, I still can't figure out how one conscripts commoners for an army. Proficient in no armour, and one simple weapon?
:smallwink:

Diggorian
2007-07-11, 02:35 PM
This is often the desire of people playing an RPG, but how does the D&D system support or encourage "telling a collective story"? In fact, given rule 0 and all the repetitive comments on forums over how it's "the DM's game" I'd say the mechanics work directly against telling a "collective" story. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it does mean it's not the point of D&D, it's the desires of players overriding D&D.

At it's heart a D&D adventure is player controlled protagonists overcoming obstacles in a DM run world, both DM and player co-author a collectively created story of these heroes trials. Rule Zero simply designates the DM as the decider of what is "realistic" in his/her world. Those that call it a "DMs game" are mistaken or have run into overly authoritative gamemaster IMHO.


Looking at the D&D system, the major thing you get rewarded for (i.e. receive XP) is surmounting challenges. Even when XP is used to reward good roleplaying, I'd bet it's a much smaller amount than the XP rewarded for challenges.

I dont think this is specific to D&D at all. RPGs in general are about overcoming challenges, it's just some games may focus on different types of challenges over others. A transvestite spy in D&D using skill to get closer to a NPC VIP may face big challenges and will, by RAW, receive XP for accomplishing that. A Brujah in VtM tearing through a gang of Gangrel to gain dominance of a territory will gain their character developement equivalent as well.

EDIT additonal point: XP reward size is directly proportional to risk. So whereas speaking with a background appropriate accent or reciting the tale of some Salvatore hero may not reap you much XP, any that successful skill usage that performed under great strain to accomplish some grand goal does.

Indon
2007-07-11, 02:46 PM
Of course, I still can't figure out how one conscripts commoners for an army. Proficient in no armour, and one simple weapon?
:smallwink:

Just as in reality, untrained militia is throwaway troops.

Arbitrarity
2007-07-11, 02:48 PM
Very true :smallsmile:

But, you have a real meatshield!

See, meatshields can be effective! You just need enough of them!

EDIT: And a lack of AOE spells.

Indon
2007-07-11, 02:55 PM
EDIT: And a lack of AOE spells.

And now we know why the fellow retired to become a Wizard!

mudbunny
2007-07-11, 03:13 PM
Of course, I still can't figure out how one conscripts commoners for an army. Proficient in no armour, and one simple weapon?

Cannon fodder to soak up the enemy fire and engage their cannon fodder.

Raum
2007-07-11, 04:49 PM
At it's heart a D&D adventure is player controlled protagonists overcoming obstacles in a DM run world, both DM and player co-author a collectively created story of these heroes trials. Rule Zero simply designates the DM as the decider of what is "realistic" in his/her world. Those that call it a "DMs game" are mistaken or have run into overly authoritative gamemaster IMHO. Even you are using similar terminology – ” DM as the decider of what is "realistic" in his/her world” it’s endemic to d20. It’s also largely true, after all how much input to the world do the players have during game play? In more story-oriented games control of what happens may pass from player to player based on resources. In others a consensus must be reached.

Don’t misunderstand; I’m not assigning a value judgment to it. Fun is what matters. I’m simply calling d20 what it is – a hierarchically structured game which limits the input by all except the DM and rewards the mechanical ability to overcome challenges.


I dont think this is specific to D&D at all. RPGs in general are about overcoming challenges, it's just some games may focus on different types of challenges over others. A transvestite spy in D&D using skill to get closer to a NPC VIP may face big challenges and will, by RAW, receive XP for accomplishing that. A Brujah in VtM tearing through a gang of Gangrel to gain dominance of a territory will gain their character developement equivalent as well.For an example of an RPG emphasizing story over challenges look up Wushu. Mind, I don’t know that I’d like Wushu as much as more task oriented games such as Shadowrun or D&D – mostly because its mechanics seem to reward verbosity. Who knows though, I might.


EDIT additonal point: XP reward size is directly proportional to risk. So whereas speaking with a background appropriate accent or reciting the tale of some Salvatore hero may not reap you much XP, any that successful skill usage that performed under great strain to accomplish some grand goal does.I don’t equate speaking in accents with role playing, that’s acting. But you are correct. You’ve restated my position – D&D rewards for challenges surmounted not for role playing.

Diggorian
2007-07-11, 05:57 PM
Even you are using similar terminology – ” DM as the decider of what is "realistic" in his/her world” it’s endemic to d20. It’s also largely true, after all how much input to the world do the players have during game play? In more story-oriented games control of what happens may pass from player to player based on resources. In others a consensus must be reached.

Juuuust missed it (the point). :smallamused:

As DM, I decide the shape of my world (houserules and divergences from published D&D), I inform the players of this and then they make PCs that would come from this world. The story is composed of their PC's reactions to things going on in my world, which they are a big part of. Without them, I'm writing a novel; without me, they're just floating in a void: mutual need.



Don’t misunderstand; I’m not assigning a value judgment to it. Fun is what matters. I’m simply calling d20 what it is – a hierarchically structured game which limits the input by all except the DM and rewards the mechanical ability to overcome challenges.

It depends on the DM, Judge, Storyteller, Narrator, GM (which Wushu has), or Referee how much imput the players have. It's not a D20 phenomenon, it's the play style of a group of gamers that determines hiercharchical structure.


For an example of an RPG emphasizing story over challenges look up Wushu. Mind, I don’t know that I’d like Wushu as much as more task oriented games such as Shadowrun or D&D – mostly because its mechanics seem to reward verbosity. Who knows though, I might.

Never played it but I read up a bit on it. Pretty novel, may give it a spin. As I said, different games simply focus on different challenges, Wushu does cinematic description as a challenge for that game. Challenge is essential to the definiton of a "game", hence its kinda odd to decry a game's emphasis on challenge.


I don’t equate speaking in accents with role playing, that’s acting. But you are correct. You’ve restated my position – D&D rewards for challenges surmounted not for role playing.

Accents were an example, not an accusation. Delivering a stirring speach that sways the king to arms instead of submitting to a foreign evil power is roleplaying, surmounts a challenge being the king's reluctance thefore rewards XP, and is definately D&D. :smallbiggrin:

Roog
2007-07-11, 11:49 PM
When I say 'poor physical stats' I mean probably 10 or less strength, perhaps 12 dex, maybe 12 con. Or if using an array, sticking your bottom 3 values in the physical stats. Because those more than suffice to be awful for any general-run D&D character who intends to physically interact with things. They're still a bit better than Joe No-array the commoner gets, because you usually build on a better basis than that.

That was my point. The character concept could have (in D&D terms) up to say 15 DEX, 14 STR, and 14 CON without contradicting the character concept (just imagine the character in a movie version).

A possible consistent imagining of the character without D&D mechanics could be an all round generic hero stat block (the D&D equivalent being 14/14/14/14/14/14), with exceptional disguise skill, a range of good social skills, good social and possibly general awareness skills, probably good general knowledge, some useful urban stealth skills, some useful physical activity skills, and very basic combat skills.
Another possible consistent imagining of the character without D&D mechanics could be a poor physical stat block (the D&D equivalent being STR 8/CON 10/DEX 12). He could have very good mental stats or more normal mental stats and just a whole load of skill.

It is the process of converting the concept to a stated D&D character that forces the character to to have 'poor physical stats'.