PDA

View Full Version : Minimizing and Maximizing



slexlollar89
2007-10-10, 11:05 AM
As I read these foruma, and bask in the collective knowledge of what I consider a great game (DnD, yay! ) I see many, in fact most forum goers to imply maximizing character power over RPing, while disaproving of mnimizing and great RPing. I therefore ask: Why?

Do most f you guy consider power/effectiveness more important than the role playing/fluff? This also bring s in a question of usefullness, in that a character can be useful, but "weak", and powerful, but selectively usefull.

Copper peice for your thoughts?

Tormsskull
2007-10-10, 11:11 AM
OOo, I'd better loan you my Cloak of Fire Resistance, because you are about to be set aflame. You're probably going to see several mentions of a named fallacy, and people telling you that you don't know what you're talking about.

cupkeyk
2007-10-10, 11:13 AM
We had this player who thought that weak characters make a character a great role playing experience. We watched him die several horrible deaths.

It just a wrong assumption that power is inversely proportional to roleplaying.

I like great power with great roleplaying.

Why would anyone minimize their character? In real life and definitely in role playing, one only ever wants to be better.

Tyger
2007-10-10, 11:16 AM
Well, before the beasts tear you apart (and that sound you hear is them coming) let me ask you two questions.

1) Where does it say that a more powerful character can't be roleplayed well?

2) Where does it say that a weak character is going to be roleplayed well?

If the answer to the above is "nowhere" then you already have the answer to your original question.

Kurald Galain
2007-10-10, 11:16 AM
It's simply that asking which character people like best is a matter of opinion and there really isn't much to talk about beyond that, whereas asking which character is strongest is a matter of fact, math, and finding combos. Thus the latter sees more debate.

If I claim that "I like class X best because he can do Y", people can go "yeah, me too", or "I disagree" and that's about it. If I say that "class X is obviously the strongest because of Y", then people usually have a thing or two to say to that.

Flawless
2007-10-10, 11:16 AM
Yeah, there seems to be a post about every week or so about how much min/maxing sucks and that real roleplayers just play sucky characters and own at roleplaying because of this. <sigh>

BRC
2007-10-10, 11:20 AM
Personally I prefer Fun over both. For example, right now in an oriental adventures campaign I play a cleric who keeps a cannon with a tower sheild bolted to each side in a bag of holding, and uses it quite often, I don't have many feats, but they are all to help using this cannon. He also has a hatred for the Walton-Gnomish mercentile group, AkA Walgnome.

Is this character Min/Maxxed, nope.
Is this character the greatest character to roleplay, proably not.
Is this character fun, Yes.

Swordguy
2007-10-10, 11:21 AM
Okay, doing it nicely:

The Stormwind fallacy states that just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean he cannot also roleplay well. Just because a character plays his character well does not mean he cannot be optimized.

The corellary is that characters who are min/maxed are not automatically played worse than those who are not, and characters who are deliberately handicapped are not automatically played better than those who are not.

Fax Celestis
2007-10-10, 11:21 AM
Most people also seem to overlook that there is an in-character reason to be powerful. D&D is a dangerous world, and being weak means you're probably going to die the next time a worg pack decides its hungry and attacks your village.

If you're strong, you'll survive, and there's no reason that can't be a both in and out of character decision.

Person_Man
2007-10-10, 11:50 AM
Actually, most of the min-maxing I post about is just a thought experiment. My gaming group is a mix of newer players and veterans. Although we use pretty much every supplement, we use them mostly for variety, not demi-godhood. But that doesn't mean that it isn't fun to talk about all the various combos and tricks that you could potentially pull off.

And if a player does want to play a super powered PC, that's fine too. We make our PCs collectively at the beginning of the campaign, so PCs almost always end up roughly balanced compared to each other. So as a DM, its pretty easy to scale the encounters up or down accordingly.

Finally, I'd add that "weak" builds with limited options, and "strong" builds an every egg in one basket super-combo that deals 10,000 charge damage, both tend to be really boring for a veteran gamer to play. You do the same repetitive task over and over again. If I want to do that, I can go to work. Increasing the power level of a build often increases its versatility. This increases your options during gameplay, making D&D more interesting and fun, assuming that you play with a mature group of players.

DruchiiConversion
2007-10-10, 11:57 AM
In a fairly humourous game I'm playing in currently (this is important! This character would NOT be good for roleplaying in a serious game!), I made my character a Teenage Mutated ninja Anthropomorphic Turtle who used two Katanas and spoke like a character in a bad cartoon. No prizes for guessing the name.

TWFing Katanas with a -4 Strength penalty and few feats thanks to the Ninja class is -hard-, but this character is clearly a melee-only one, since he follows the principles of 'Bushido' and won't be trying to 'skill-monkey' or sneak-attack his way through fights.(I know ninjas don't. The cartoon character -does-.)


Therefore, in order to roleplay properly and PLAY the ROLE in the party I was assigned - tank - it was imperitive that I maximise my ability to do so. Using a weak race and a poor combination of weapons meant that if I chose feats or classes poorly, I would be unable to fulfill this role, I would be unable to roleplay properly, and the game would become less fun for everyone as we'd all die. I'd be an Ewok.

Sometimes, decent min-maxing is vital to good roleplaying.

Another example: You're playing a druid. You've met other druids with Natural Spell who can cast while wild-shaped.

It's simply -not good roleplaying- for your ambitious character to not want to learn how. Yet Natural Spell is often considered the best feat in the game. Min-maxing, or roleplaying? Clearly: Both.

The Mormegil
2007-10-10, 12:05 PM
I personally hate maximizing characters (too many bad thoughts linked to that, like my great and cool PC be killed by a random CE player with power attack tree...), but I don't think it's wrong. I don't think it's right either. The uber-character can be fun, but it ruins gaming experience of other players that are less efficient but maybe have different alignments (it's not fun playing a CN beguiler in a party with an ubercharging paladin with true seeing...).

Thus, I'd say:
1) Don't minimize, you'll die and you'll won't have fun at all, death is horrible.
2) Don't maximize, you'll ruin other's game experiences.
3) What you must DO is build together you characters, so that they are balanced and maybe they work well together.

valadil
2007-10-10, 12:08 PM
I too have gamed with a player that believed you had to gimp your characters to make them roleplayable. I'll agree that there are optimizations that don't make sense and would never exist in a real character, but he took it too far. I realize that our characters don't know about game mechanics, but don't you think they'd want to be as effective as possible in whatever they decide to do? The player I mentioned earlier once had a cleric who took skill focus diplomacy (while having low charisma and no ranks in charisma) over augment healing. It doesn't make sense to me that a dedicated healer wouldn't want to be better at his craft. Skill focus healing would have made sense, even if it's nigh useless in terms of optimization. Augment healing would have also made sense AND made the character more effective.

As far as my own min maxing goes, I'm a little weird. I'm perfectly competent at it. I used to bring my DnD books to my job to work on builds during downtime. But I rarely see the need to test a build in an actual game. In a game I want to play a character with a personality instead of a build with a stat-block. I end up powergaming my characters just enough to keep up with the other players (since nobody likes being the weak link) but never into absurdity.

Raolin_Fenix
2007-10-10, 12:08 PM
I think the essence of it is that here, on this board, we're not all involved in one another's games.

Here, we just throw around a whole bunch of minmaxing because there's a fair amount of fun to be had in the mathematics of it. Tweaking everything to the highest advantage, seeing just how powerful a character you can make with a set of given restrictions, innovation, knowledge and understanding of the rules... these are the things we can do here. We can't actually play the D&D campaigns others are involved in, so we have our fun this way.

There are a lot of disclaimers you'll see, actually, if you look hard enough: "Don't ever actually do this," "CHEESE," "I know this is metagaming but," and "This spell is ridiculously broken if used to its full potential, HERE'S HOW," that sort of thing. Basically, it's an exercise in "Here's what NOT to do."

And again, yes, you can have a great deal of fun while playing a powerful character, and your character can be mechanically optimized while also played to the fullest. D&D is about having fun. And personally, I've never had fun watching my characters get cut down. (And I've watched a lot of my characters get cut down.) Conversely, I have had a great deal of fun mowing down hordes of enemies, showing my awesomeness, having a Rock-Star Moment or two.

So this is a forum that shows how to minmax characters, if that's what you want to do. If you want to have a little more fluff, well, ditch the Shock Trooper feat, take two levels of Fighter after your one level in Lion Totem Barbarian for the bonus feats, and take three of the Combat Focus feats (probably Combat Focus, Combat Vigor, and Combat Awareness). Bam. You've got a character who's still very powerful and pretty well optimized, who can still obliterate a lot of enemies on the battlefield with his Power Attack, Leap Attack, Pounce, Spirited Charge, and lance, but still has the roleplay flavor of the wise savage, who combines ferocity with the intellectual.

Or any number of other things, sacrificing one feat (and still being extremely powerful) for another "fluff" feat. (And in the case given above, the Combat Focus feats are far more than just fluff; they're pretty powerful in their own right.)

That's what this forum is all about: people throwing out ideas as to how to maximize, and the actual players deciding what they want to do with those ideas.

Yeril
2007-10-10, 12:09 PM
I Min-Max generaly alot of the time, If Im playing a grappler, I will give him Classes/Feats that optimise his Grappling, If Im playing a Camel riding desert orc, Im gonner take mounted combat feats that allow him to stack for very high damage, because that is what the character is, A charging mounted orc who scores for huge damage.

Although playing weak characters doesnt make good roleplay, playing -intrestingly- weak characters is.

I'd play a Anthropomorphic Rat Rogue over a halfling rogue, even though the halfling is a much better rouge than the rat, Being a rat is more fun..

I'd much rather play a Dwarf bard than a Half-elf bard, even with the -2 Cha penalty the sheer awesomeness of a bagpipe playing dwarf is too priceless.

and my funnest barbarian ever? a Kobold. I had to apply the Feral template to make him even slightly playable, but since hes a kobold it made him about as good as a Average barbarian.

but playing a slightly niave, bloodthirsty kobold who likes collecting bones as trophys (regardless of wether the creature is still alive or not) is very very fun.

Im playing a Half-Ogre wizard (heading towards Spellsword) to be a chainmail wearing glaive wielding Melee masher, with alittle spellcasting to boot.. shame about the hitpoints, however 20ft reach and 2d6+8 damage made him a decent secondary combatant, and the playing on "Me smash good!" is fun, especialy when you realy have 22 Intelligence and are getting ready to set off a 4th level spell in their eyes.

psychoticbarber
2007-10-10, 12:12 PM
For me, the important part is not that a character be weak, but that a character have at least one exploitable weakness.

Party of Mary Sues and Marty Stus is not at all interesting, because drama and roleplaying comes from conflict, and there can't really be much conflict if the characters will do everything wonderfully.

That said, it's not exciting if your characters have such great weaknesses that they can't win the day either.

Indon
2007-10-10, 12:13 PM
Actually, most of the min-maxing I post about is just a thought experiment. My gaming group is a mix of newer players and veterans. Although we use pretty much every supplement, we use them mostly for variety, not demi-godhood. But that doesn't mean that it isn't fun to talk about all the various combos and tricks that you could potentially pull off.

This is a fairly good description for my group, as well.

When it comes down to it, so long as the members of your group are at about the same level of power, it doesn't matter what that level is. There is no in-character justification to be more powerful since the DM can (and probably should) adjust challenges to be possible for your group to overcome.

And if you want a powerful character, don't make excuses for it. Just have one. If you try to justify your power with your character ("Yeah, since he's a wizard he's a supergenius who flawlessly analyzes every problem and emotionlessly calculates the perfect response"), you just limit your characterization options (namely, to characters who would intentionally seek that level of power) which really _can_ make for bad roleplaying.

hippie_dwarf
2007-10-10, 12:23 PM
I have a plan for a minimised character,not for the roleplay but becuase it'd be down-right hilarious. Imagine a fighter, who in his day was as not half bad. But thats was years ago, now he's in the venerable age catagory. That ould be so funny to see him charging into melee, 4 on all physical stats, with a greataxe. If he lasted more than 3 rounds i'd consider it a success.

Indon
2007-10-10, 12:30 PM
I have a plan for a minimised character,not for the roleplay but becuase it'd be down-right hilarious. Imagine a fighter, who in his day was as not half bad. But thats was years ago, now he's in the venerable age catagory. That ould be so funny to see him charging into melee, 4 on all physical stats, with a greataxe. If he lasted more than 3 rounds i'd consider it a success.

All you need to make him a solid damage-dealer is enough magic to get him up to 13 strength.

Starbuck_II
2007-10-10, 12:38 PM
Personally I prefer Fun over both. For example, right now in an oriental adventures campaign I play a cleric who keeps a cannon with a tower sheild bolted to each side in a bag of holding, and uses it quite often, I don't have many feats, but they are all to help using this cannon. He also has a hatred for the Walton-Gnomish mercentile group, AkA Walgnome.

Is this character Min/Maxxed, nope.
Is this character the greatest character to roleplay, proably not.
Is this character fun, Yes.

Since I've never seen a cannon in a book: it may be very optimized.
If explain how it works it may make more sense.
Plus, if you are optimizing the cannon than you aren't being that bad. not like you took Skill Focus underwater basketweaving.

BRC
2007-10-10, 01:01 PM
Well the cannon fires rockets, which have varying costs for varying power levels, the ones I use cost about 150g a pop for decent AoE Damage. But it's preety innacurate, said damage hits anything in the radius, which can be a problem with our mostly meele-based group. if I roll a 1 on my attack roll it blows up in my face.

slexlollar89
2007-10-10, 01:17 PM
I think I may have unintentionally struck a collective forum nerve with his thread, so allow me to clarify :smallsmile: .

I did not mean to imply that minimizing makes better roleplaying, or the opposite. Rather I was asking at what cost is maximizing worth better roleplaying, or indeed if this is a factor. Additionally, is usefulness important to min/maxing a character? and can one RP while being useless or the proverbial show stealer?

For example, I constantly find myself asking internally wheather or not to make a fighter venerable age, (yes I made a knight who was venerable, sue me...)because it would be a great RPing experience, but he would not be useful or powerful. Conversly, the goliath charge monger is powerful, semi-usefull, but RP lacking without great effort on my and the DM's part. I ended up with a Venerable Goliath Marshal who charged mounted with a lance (named Caladbolg the Cranky :smallbiggrin: ).

The first post didn't properly articulate what I wished to say, and for that I am sorry. I am in no way advocating game breaking tactics, or min/maxing or even good RPing. Thanx for the posts...er evryone who posted :smallsmile: .

leperkhaun
2007-10-10, 01:25 PM
i would rather play a powerful character AND rp, than play a weak on and rp.

Those two things are not mutually exclusive

Mr. Friendly
2007-10-10, 01:47 PM
To me a character is based on a variety of factors including, but not limited to:

Fun, usefulness, uniqueness, playability and roleplayability

Fun means just that: fun. Fun for me is being able to roll the dice and in an average situation and have a 50% chance of success at whatever my character is supposed to do. So, if I am party face or skill monkey, against Ted the first level commoner, I want to be able to Bluff him with at least a 50% chance. Failing every time you attempt to do something is not fun to me. Neither is always succeeding.

Usefulness: The character needs to do something for the party, preferably something the party needs. So if we already have a fighter and mage and a thief, guess who needs to be a healer?

Uniqueness: How recently has someone in our group made a very similar/identical character? If fairly recent, then I shop around for other ideas.

Playability: This ties into fun. If I play a fighter and I make him an elf with with an 8 STR and a 6 CON then I am really not playable. It's fine if that's how your stats look after fighting some Lich or something, but to start your career off like that? Why?

Roleplayability: I have a very difficult time roleplaying stupid characters. It's not impossible, just difficult and I find it unpleasant. Thus I tend to assign stats based around having at least a 10 INT. I usually choose a race/class combination that makes sense for the setting, then I optimize it to point where it will be enjoyable, useful and playable, without being so illogical that it breaks character.

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-10, 01:51 PM
I did not mean to imply that minimizing makes better roleplaying, or the opposite. Rather I was asking at what cost is maximizing worth better roleplaying, or indeed if this is a factor.

It almost never is a factor, though it can be beneficial to newer players. Playing a concept (the old retired warrior) can easily be optimized (taking Bard/Rogue/Scout/Swordsage levels instead of Fighter levels) without the slightest impact to the charater IC beside being useful to the party. If the concept is to be useless to a party, it would be best to check with them to see if their okay with the idea first, but usually people don't like dragging each others' dead weight.

slexlollar89
2007-10-10, 01:52 PM
In regards to playability, <10 int doesn't mean you have to be retarded. For example, the 8 int fighter wouldn't cause chaos and be stupid stupid, just a little slow to do plans (the party wizard would have to explain things twice, or draw cartoons for the poor guy) or not understanding of certain ideas or customs, not a complete retard.

And this illustrates my point: you can have fun with sub-optimal int., but you would'nt be as good a class (nescsarily) than if you had better int. So is there a line? Perhaps a point of mutual RPower?

tainsouvra
2007-10-10, 01:59 PM
For example, I constantly find myself asking internally wheather or not to make a fighter venerable age, (yes I made a knight who was venerable, sue me...)because it would be a great RPing experience, but he would not be useful or powerful. Nonsense. In fact, I invite you to start a thread on this topic so you can see some of the ways in which a venerable fighter can be worth a party slot. Sure, it's not the most powerful choice, but part of the fun of optimization is in taking something that's not inherently powerful and making it impressive.

Machete
2007-10-10, 01:59 PM
You can't roleplay a dead character.

Well, not in most settings anyways or without certain prestige classes.


That said, I have indeed played 'squishy' non casting characters who are great fun but still focused on survival. Said campaign is mostly non-combat and the other PC in the team is a Medium Tarresque(sp?) who is a lot better at combat than my character.

Sources: Cogs of an Unknown World

Dr. Weasel
2007-10-10, 02:57 PM
There's no problem at all with playing a commoner and you might roleplay it well. The problem is that your group will very often want you to be a contributing member (beyond just being another body), which is aided immensely by a bit of optimization.

horseboy
2007-10-10, 03:20 PM
Originally Posted by slexlollar89
I did not mean to imply that minimizing makes better roleplaying, or the opposite. Rather I was asking at what cost is maximizing worth better roleplaying, or indeed if this is a factor.So far not a factor that in my 20+ years of playing with scores of people it's never come up until I started hanging out here.
Sure, I've played the old man antiquarian in a horror game. He had an antique Colt Peacemaker that he could hit bottles with and a sword cane he didn't hurt himself with. When we inevitably got stuck in the house with zombies surrounding it with no escape. The mercs shot a lot of them. I used my character's strengths (or in that case I think it was Science skill) to make some firebombs out of common house hold substances. End of the night, I took the DM by such complete surprise I managed to save the entire party.

Yes, you can start out as the peasant hero, but if it's a long running campaign Darwinism is going to take it's tole on a party. And to be honest, I (like my character) want my character to live.

bignate
2007-10-10, 04:33 PM
just to throw in my 2c...

you character mechanics should be defined by your concept, not the other way around.

i have no problem with optimising characters, but i do think that it should be done only within the confines of a solid character concept...in other words, dont make a choice for optimization if it doesnt fit the concept/background/personality of your character. like when you think of a PRC you want you shouldnt be think about it for the mechanical advantage it gives you but whether or not the class description fits your character concept.

Reel On, Love
2007-10-10, 04:49 PM
just to throw in my 2c...

you character mechanics should be defined by your concept, not the other way around.

i have no problem with optimising characters, but i do think that it should be done only within the confines of a solid character concept...in other words, dont make a choice for optimization if it doesnt fit the concept/background/personality of your character. like when you think of a PRC you want you shouldnt be think about it for the mechanical advantage it gives you but whether or not the class description fits your character concept.

Why?

filler text

Kaelik
2007-10-10, 08:53 PM
just to throw in my 2c...

you character mechanics should be defined by your concept, not the other way around.

i have no problem with optimising characters, but i do think that it should be done only within the confines of a solid character concept...in other words, dont make a choice for optimization if it doesnt fit the concept/background/personality of your character. like when you think of a PRC you want you shouldnt be think about it for the mechanical advantage it gives you but whether or not the class description fits your character concept.

The class description rarely has anything to do with what someone who takes levels in the class can actually do. As such it makes more sense to judge if the abilities gained fit your concept, not the class description.

Chronos
2007-10-10, 09:15 PM
There are two different ways to handicap a character. The first is to say "I want this character to be less powerful so my roleplaying will be better", and to then deliberately gimp the character somehow. This is a bad idea, and hampers your roleplaying more than it helps it. The second way is to say "Such-and-such a choice fits the character profile I've developed, so I'm going to choose it even though something else would be more powerful". This is good roleplaying, or at least, one example of it.

On the question of how much this is worth, I would say that any choice is worthwhile if it increases the fun of the campaign. The purpose of the game is to have fun; rolling dice and fighting monsters and such is just the means towards that end. If your character dies irrevokably, but in such a way that everyone around the table looks at each other and says "That was so cool!", then the character was a success. It should be noted that good roleplaying and fun often go hand in hand, but not always: If you do a great job of roleplaying an annoying twerp that nobody can stand to be around, it's not going to make things very fun for the rest of the group.

Jannex
2007-10-10, 10:03 PM
There are two different ways to handicap a character. The first is to say "I want this character to be less powerful so my roleplaying will be better", and to then deliberately gimp the character somehow. This is a bad idea, and hampers your roleplaying more than it helps it. The second way is to say "Such-and-such a choice fits the character profile I've developed, so I'm going to choose it even though something else would be more powerful". This is good roleplaying, or at least, one example of it.

It could be that my D&D experience is somewhat limited, but I've never encountered anyone who took the first approach described here. From what I've seen on this forum, whenever the topic of optimization vs. roleplaying comes up, inevitably the stereotype of the "so-called roleplayer" who wants to play the blind, quadripelegic Venerable kobold commoner gets trotted out to be vilified. The implication that seems to be made (and I'm not claiming that you're saying this, Chronos; I'm speaking generally here) is that non-optimizing self-identified roleplayers play characters that are gimped to the point of uselessness, and there also tends to be a bit of the claim that, since optimizers can roleplay well with optimized characters, they're actually better at roleplaying than the "roleplayers." This is just as false as the Stormwind Fallacy. It's possible to make a character that isn't super-optimized and still contribute materially to the actions and goals of a party. "Heavily-optimized character or dyslexic kobold CW-samurai" is a false dilemma.

Letting roleplaying concerns guide one's build choices != gimping one's character. It just means that if, for instance, you've established from first level that your character has a terrible phobia of heights, you should probably not go for the super-mounted-charger-on-a-griffon build. There are other effective options available. Also, putting one feat or a few skill points toward flavor choices != building a kobold samurai.

So, once again, enjoying (and focusing on) roleplaying more than optimizing does not mean a person's character sucks or can't contribute.

</rant>

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread.

Chronos
2007-10-11, 12:13 AM
I think we're agreeing here, Jannex.

Jannex
2007-10-11, 12:25 AM
I think we're agreeing here, Jannex.

Fair enough. :smallsmile: Like I tried (and probably failed; my fault) to say, most of that wasn't directed at what you said. Mostly what happened was something in your post sparked off the thought of the trend I talked about in my last post, something I think I saw starting to creep into this thread on the first page, and I was responding to that, with a brief detour to touch on what you'd said.

It's true, though; I really never have seen anyone deliberately handicap his character in order to roleplay better. I have, however, seen someone completely break characterization to go for the potential for gain (in this case, he was a LN character who was effectively part of the local military/law enforcement, and he decided to break into a non-evil, non-enemy NPC's house and start looting, because the player wanted his character to be able to afford a weapon enhancement), so I get kind of twitchy when people (not you, but generally) start to get close to "Inverse Stormwind" territory. :smallredface:

kamikasei
2007-10-11, 01:17 AM
Slexlollar, the problem I had with your initial post was here:


I see many, in fact most forum goers to imply maximizing character power over RPing, while disaproving of mnimizing and great RPing. I therefore ask: Why?

Now, I'll be honest, the sentence is a little mangled so perhaps I'm misunderstanding you... but it seems you're saying that you've seen people disapproving of "great roleplaying". I would be very interested to see an example of where you've seen this, because it sounds very unlikely to me. If you mean merely that people have expressed disapproval of mechanical choices that you see as tied to "great roleplaying", then it comes off as a little arrogant.

I also have no idea what the "minimizing" that people have disapproved of is supposed to be. Commoner 1 with all 1's, and a 3 in Int. You're more or less minimized.


just to throw in my 2c...

you character mechanics should be defined by your concept, not the other way around.

i have no problem with optimising characters, but i do think that it should be done only within the confines of a solid character concept...in other words, dont make a choice for optimization if it doesnt fit the concept/background/personality of your character. like when you think of a PRC you want you shouldnt be think about it for the mechanical advantage it gives you but whether or not the class description fits your character concept.

I'm currently playing a Warblade on these boards who is Lawful Neutral, not out for glory or looking for fame, and received no very formal training in any particular martial school. These are all at odds with the fluff of the Warblade. It doesn't matter, because the mechanics of the class add up to a canny and skilled warrior who can fight very well and has a thorough understanding of weapons and warfare, which is what I want for my character. There is or can be a tension between the mechanically best allocation of abilities and what makes sense for the character's personality or concept, but it's a more dynamic tension than you suggest.

Stormcrow
2007-10-11, 01:24 AM
I may have misinterpreted but I believe the question was more directed at characters/players who don't care about the story aspect, just the power aspect. Any character can be roleplayed well if the player _wants_ to.

Some people don't. *shrugs*
It's their choice, they are looking for something else from the game.
I choose not to game with those people, also a choice.

slexlollar89
2007-10-11, 01:55 AM
Well, kamikasei the sentance was badly written. I mean to say that I have seen quite a few people that optimize characters without any IC reason to support RPing, or people favor maximizing characters over RPing. This is not to say that they do not RP, but they simply take power over character. I am not saying it is bad or good, but wondering whether or not most people do this. When I refer to usefulness, I mean the ability to support the group and oneself, which is not always part of optimizing a character or role playing. I am atempting to gauge how most people feel about optimization, usefulness, and roleplaying, and the balancing act that is the DnD character (in respect to these 3 things).

My intention is not to be arrogant (though I often am), but rather to figure out a problem I have balancing these three things within a character. The question is directed towards anyone who cares about the issue, but is not attempting to impose playstyles on others.

I hope this clears things up, as I was writting the first post at 3:00 AM without cafine, and the first "clarification" hurriedly, though that is no excuse for poor writing :smallsmile: .

Indon
2007-10-11, 08:59 AM
"Heavily-optimized character or dyslexic kobold CW-samurai" is a false dilemma...

...building a kobold samurai.


Hmm... I wonder how Dragonwrought feats could be used to make a powerful kobold samurai...

Perhaps serving a dragon, in fact, as his lord?

Bosh
2007-10-11, 09:42 AM
In a good D&D group each player gets about the same amout of the spotlight on them. If a player min-maxes the hell out of their character so that most fights are about them destroying everything while the rest of the party cowers behind them, that's spotlight hogging. If someone RPs in such a way that the story must always be about them then that's just as bad. In my experience some of the worst munchkins are also very into RPing since the character's stats and the character's personality are both designed to focus as much of the session's attention as possible on them.

Now there are a lot of ways aside from combat power that can allow a player to get some of the campaign's spotlight but in a combat-heavy game like D&D its certainly the easiest way. In most D&D campaigns everyone tends to have the most fun if everyone's power is roughly equal to everyone else's.

bignate
2007-10-11, 10:08 AM
The class description rarely has anything to do with what someone who takes levels in the class can actually do. As such it makes more sense to judge if the abilities gained fit your concept, not the class description.

for base classes i agree with you but when i comes to PRCs it is different. they are called "prestige" classes for a reason. there should be some kind of RP attachment to them which most of the time involves joining a group of some kind or a teacher and that group or teacher should choose you(or you them)for matching ideals...not just mechanical requirements.

why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.

that being said there is no reason to purposly gimp yourself either...if there is some feat or class or something that is good and makes sense with your concept by all mean go for it, i just dont think you should maximise at the expense of your concept.

Dausuul
2007-10-11, 11:05 AM
for base classes i agree with you but when i comes to PRCs it is different. they are called "prestige" classes for a reason. there should be some kind of RP attachment to them which most of the time involves joining a group of some kind or a teacher and that group or teacher should choose you(or you them)for matching ideals...not just mechanical requirements.

why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.

that being said there is no reason to purposly gimp yourself either...if there is some feat or class or something that is good and makes sense with your concept by all mean go for it, i just dont think you should maximise at the expense of your concept.

As far as I'm concerned, if the mechanics of a PrC fit your concept better than the base class, and the DM thinks it's okay, then go for it, even if the description of the PrC is totally different from what you're playing.

The thing is that WotC built Third Edition with the concept of fluff and crunch as two discrete, disconnected elements. I'm not sure I agree with this approach, I think it leads to a lot of problems, but it's how WotC decided to do it.

Therefore, D&D works best if you come at it from the same direction. Crunch can be separated from its default fluff and connected to new fluff with a minimum of fuss. PrCs are mainly just fresh sources of crunch to hook onto the fluff of your character concept.

Starbuck_II
2007-10-11, 11:20 AM
In regards to playability, <10 int doesn't mean you have to be retarded. For example, the 8 int fighter wouldn't cause chaos and be stupid stupid, just a little slow to do plans (the party wizard would have to explain things twice, or draw cartoons for the poor guy) or not understanding of certain ideas or customs, not a complete retard.


Depends on how you view Int.
If you rate it ona IQ scale. 8 Int is 80 IQ, can be considered mildly retarded. They aren't stupid stupid; just slow.

horseboy
2007-10-11, 11:21 AM
why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.
That's debatable in D&D.

sikyon
2007-10-11, 11:36 AM
why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.


Actually, you're missing the forest for the trees.

See, it's a roleplaying game, game being the operative word. People play games for fun. Thus, people will play those games and do what makes them have the most fun. Some people derive this feeling of fun from winning/killing monsters, and less (though not none) from RP'ing, and that's what they do. They play this game because for some people, it's more satisfying to win withe dice and other players and a DM, and roleplay abit, and that's why they're not off playing Wold of Warcraft instead.

So it depends on the person. If the person considers winning more fun than roleplaying, they will play to win. If a person considers role playing more fun than winning, they will roleplay instead of optimizing.

valadil
2007-10-11, 12:03 PM
I was asking at what cost is maximizing worth better roleplaying, or indeed if this is a factor.

This is a personal question that's going to vary from gamer to gamer. I get a lot more out of roleplaying than out of powergaming so I try to focus on the RP. But, I get bored of a character who either has nothing to do or can't hold his own in combat. I'll sacrifice bits of character in favor of optimization until the character is on par with the rest of the party. I don't need to be the best combatant there, but I do need to feel that I have something to do every turn and that it will make a difference.

I have the advantage of playing in groups that I've known for a while. When I run with new groups I don't have a good idea of how they powergame so I'll aim too high or too low for a couple characters until I figure out how that group plays.

--

To the people who are debating if D&D is strategy or RP, D&D itself supports both. Certain games run by certain GMs will favor one or the other. Just because the name of the game is Dungeons and Dragons does not mean there will be dungeons or dragons involved. A group full of roleplayers don't appreciate that one guy who powergames everything, and likewise a group who is in it just for combat wouldn't like a player who made them talk to an innkeeper for 20 minutes. The game goes where the GM takes it and can be strategy, story, or both, but you should be aware of what type of game you're getting into whenever you start a new game.

Kaelik
2007-10-11, 01:43 PM
for base classes i agree with you but when i comes to PRCs it is different. they are called "prestige" classes for a reason. there should be some kind of RP attachment to them which most of the time involves joining a group of some kind or a teacher and that group or teacher should choose you(or you them)for matching ideals...not just mechanical requirements.

why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.

that being said there is no reason to purposly gimp yourself either...if there is some feat or class or something that is good and makes sense with your concept by all mean go for it, i just dont think you should maximise at the expense of your concept.

Not so. Most PrCs have nothing to do with an organization to begin with. Secondly, you completely missed my point.

My point is that if your character is likely to, as a sorcerer, have put a great deal of effort into learning about all sorts of spell, and worked at learning more spells then the average sorcerer because he never wants to rely on anyone else, he could take levels in Mage of the Arcane Order. The spellpool could reflect that he has learned to manipulate magic in a special way that allows him to be more versatile, as long as he pays it back. All you need to do is change the fluff to say that he is tapping into the Arcane Energies of the Universe instead of borrowing from a guild. Thus he gains abilities that make sense for his character, and he fits the concept.

Something would have to be done about the Pre-reqs, not that the money matters much, just say something about arcane components and a ritual, or drop that pre-req completely. But if he never wants to rely on others maybe the pre-req feat should be changed from Cooperative Spell to Versatile Spellcaster.

Quietus
2007-10-11, 02:27 PM
As far as I'm concerned, if the mechanics of a PrC fit your concept better than the base class, and the DM thinks it's okay, then go for it, even if the description of the PrC is totally different from what you're playing.

The thing is that WotC built Third Edition with the concept of fluff and crunch as two discrete, disconnected elements. I'm not sure I agree with this approach, I think it leads to a lot of problems, but it's how WotC decided to do it.

Therefore, D&D works best if you come at it from the same direction. Crunch can be separated from its default fluff and connected to new fluff with a minimum of fuss. PrCs are mainly just fresh sources of crunch to hook onto the fluff of your character concept.

I actually like how WotC did that. The ability to separate fluff and crunch is useful, because that way when (for example) a particular prestige class's abilities completely match what you describe your character as trying to do, but their fluff happens to not match even in the slightest, you can change it. I find that this facilitates a greater range of roleplaying possibilities, rather than limiting them in any way.

cupkeyk
2007-10-11, 02:41 PM
It could be that my D&D experience is somewhat limited, but I've never encountered anyone who took the first approach described here.

Actually, we had this player who played a cleric who got disillusioned with his god and lost all his domain abilities and spellcasting ability and turning abilities. We were like oh, okay... are you going into UR-Priest? He said, What's that?

It was like one of us was a commoner, but he insisted he wanted the drama. So we gave him a dramatic death.

Lord Tataraus
2007-10-11, 03:02 PM
This is a little late, but...


...I really never have seen anyone deliberately handicap his character in order to roleplay better. I have, however, seen someone completely break characterization to go for the potential for gain...

Be glad that first statement is true. From experience, those people exist and I ran multiple games with one. He once said "But, I want this handicap because it will make my character more interesting." In a mutants and masterminds 2e game his character had 10 Con, 0 defence, 0 fort, 1 toughness and focused completely on telekinesis with one rank of flight. He always wondered why he was unconscious so much and didn't do anything. In a cyberpunk 2020 game where the party was a group of mercs/assassins, he built a Fixer based around "blending into a crowd at a party hosted by some big corporate guy" even though we tried to explain to him before that he will likely never get into one and that was not the direction the game was going to go. He had a number of other builds like those that their really was no way to incorporate his character enough without screwing everyone else. Luckily, I have not had your experience where the player breaks the characterization though I could handle that.

Dausuul
2007-10-11, 03:40 PM
I actually like how WotC did that. The ability to separate fluff and crunch is useful, because that way when (for example) a particular prestige class's abilities completely match what you describe your character as trying to do, but their fluff happens to not match even in the slightest, you can change it. I find that this facilitates a greater range of roleplaying possibilities, rather than limiting them in any way.

It does. I think my main problem is that having this conceptual separation has made WotC excessively cavalier about making sure the two sync up; they don't put enough effort into making sure that the crunch reflects the fluff in a reasonable way.


This is a little late, but...

Be glad that first statement is true. From experience, those people exist and I ran multiple games with one. He once said "But, I want this handicap because it will make my character more interesting." In a mutants and masterminds 2e game his character had 10 Con, 0 defence, 0 fort, 1 toughness and focused completely on telekinesis with one rank of flight. He always wondered why he was unconscious so much and didn't do anything. In a cyberpunk 2020 game where the party was a group of mercs/assassins, he built a Fixer based around "blending into a crowd at a party hosted by some big corporate guy" even though we tried to explain to him before that he will likely never get into one and that was not the direction the game was going to go. He had a number of other builds like those that their really was no way to incorporate his character enough without screwing everyone else. Luckily, I have not had your experience where the player breaks the characterization though I could handle that.

I think my reaction to players like that is to say, "Okay, if you really really want to roleplay this character, that's fine, but I'm going to suggest that the other players roleplay their characters as well. Guys, would your characters let this guy tag along after them while they venture into dangerous situations where everyone on the team has to pull his own weight? ...Okay, then. Better make up a new character if you want to be in this party."

Fawsto
2007-10-11, 03:53 PM
I think I was able to understand the main question. Whether a optimized character would or not geopardize roleplaying?

I've seen many players building, for example, "perfect killing machines" fighters, but they had mostly 2 types.

The Perfect Killing Machine with personality and MinMax (see Goblins when you have the chance). What makes them diferent? Well the first one is build over the personality and story developed by the player in order to roleplay a good character, the second one is created with the "DM - You see the Barman, what you do? MinMax Player - EXPERIENCE!!! *hack n' slash*" idea in mind. Can you tell the diference?

I am not saying that Pillage and Burning can't be fun, I am saying that some campaings need characters with, at least, appearant personalities.

axraelshelm
2007-10-11, 04:01 PM
okay here's something we play heroes! heroes have quirks and certain behavior patterns that is fun to act out.
Having a powerful character is no means wrong but rping is not about power if so every party out there is going to play druids and clerics.
Does batman feel gimped compared to the other justice league members?

Although i do have a problem when a person takes more than one prc it just feels like the character isn't focused in learning that path that s/he took ages to qualify for feels very uncinematic

trainer343
2007-10-11, 04:04 PM
Well, kamikasei the sentance was badly written. I mean to say that I have seen quite a few people that optimize characters without any IC reason to support RPing, or people favor maximizing characters over RPing. This is not to say that they do not RP, but they simply take power over character. I am not saying it is bad or good, but wondering whether or not most people do this. When I refer to usefulness, I mean the ability to support the group and oneself, which is not always part of optimizing a character or role playing. I am atempting to gauge how most people feel about optimization, usefulness, and roleplaying, and the balancing act that is the DnD character (in respect to these 3 things).


Optimization: I do the best I can to be as bad @$$ as I can within the limits of what everyone else in my group will allow. (Apperently the Sand Giant Were-T. Rex is out.:smallmad:)

Usefulness: I try to help the party as much as possible anyway I can...Meatsheild, door maker, melee god of death. Whatever needs done.

Roleplaying: This is where I have trouble. Most of the time, I'm not even sure if I said something in or out of the game. It just dosn't come naturally. Luckly, I usally play slightly unstable, evil characters, so it's rarely a problem.

All in all, it tends to work out.

Kaelik
2007-10-11, 04:52 PM
okay here's something we play heroes! heroes have quirks and certain behavior patterns that is fun to act out.
Having a powerful character is no means wrong but rping is not about power if so every party out there is going to play druids and clerics.
Does batman feel gimped compared to the other justice league members?

Although i do have a problem when a person takes more than one prc it just feels like the character isn't focused in learning that path that s/he took ages to qualify for feels very uncinematic

The biggest problem with your post is that Batman is the best Justice League member. Batman>All.

The second problem is that no one ever claimed that Rping was about power (though depending on your character, it could be.) Some people pointed out that RPing an Power are separate concerns in response to some other people claiming that they are mutually exclusive.

slexlollar89
2007-10-11, 04:59 PM
Another thing I happen to notice, especially in this thread, is that weak characters (more specifically minimized characters like the cleric who lost his casting/domains due to a tiff with his god) are simply killed off, or not valued. The cleric may have been roleplaying his character, and though no fault of his own was killed. Now, I'm not saying that RPing should make you immune to death, or that weak characters should never die, simply that a weaker character should still be seen as a asset to the party.

For example, I was a LE palladin who traveled to Celestia to convince a celestial paragon to give me some of his blood (for ritual purposes). He of course refused, and asked me to leave. So, I gave sly hints about a plot to destroy the heavens (which was true), but still no. Later, I was redeemed, and gave the paragon his blood back. As a NG "risen" palladin, I was near worthless, and had to often run or seek aid during battles. It was only after helping the paragon that I became a NG palladin (I used Fax's variant which is awesome). During my "risen" stage, I was weak, and largely useless, but the party didn't abandon my character and the DM didn't kill me graciously. That was part of the reason I was truly redeemed actually.

SO why do people see deliberatly gimping thyself as a bad thing?

horseboy
2007-10-11, 05:55 PM
Does batman feel gimped compared to the other justice league members?


Why do you think he's being all dark and brooding about? Of course he resents the rest of them. They come to his satelite, eat his food (and can the Flash eat), mooch his cable and the rat bastards won't take their shoes off when they're walking on his carpet. Personally, I wonder why he keeps them around. :smallwink:



SO why do people see deliberatly gimping thyself as a bad thing?
That depends on how much your group likes angstburgers. Personally, at this time I'll point to how Shinji ruined Evangelon for me because of his constant deliberate self gimping.

Starbuck_II
2007-10-11, 07:13 PM
okay here's something we play heroes! heroes have quirks and certain behavior patterns that is fun to act out.
Having a powerful character is no means wrong but rping is not about power if so every party out there is going to play druids and clerics.
Does batman feel gimped compared to the other justice league members?

Although i do have a problem when a person takes more than one prc it just feels like the character isn't focused in learning that path that s/he took ages to qualify for feels very uncinematic

Only if you view Prc class as a focus instead of a set of capabilities that need to be unlocked.
Similiar to a feat.
Example, my Wu Jen has capabilty to reroll stuff from watchful spirit so Fatespinner is just naturally evolved from that. But due to my character's vow of no alcohol (Wu Jen have to get Taboos): spend most of time in Library when rest of party in bar. So LoreMaster fits pursuit of knowledge aspect.
I can't fulfill both with just 1 Prc.

So it depends on view of Prc.
1) Some see them as flavor must = class.
2) Some see them as organizations all of them (though many Classes saw otherwise)
3) Some see them as I do feat like abilities waiting to be unlocked to better fulfill a character concept.

cupkeyk
2007-10-11, 07:34 PM
And there are plot hogs too.

You don't have to gimp yourself to be a plot hog but ts a good starting point. Basically you derail your DM's campaign and push your own personal plot. f that cleric decided he was on a quest to find his faith again, okay? that will be something in the backburners. I hope you survive the way. But if the DM will have to rewrite his campaign to accommodate you, it's better off to kill you.

Honestly, plot hogs derail the campaign. Weak FLUFFY characters are the worst plot hogs.

Roog
2007-10-11, 07:55 PM
It's true, though; I really never have seen anyone deliberately handicap his character in order to roleplay better.

Players in my group do this every so often, but in a non-disruptive way.

We generally play characters with reasonable levels of power/competence but sometimes a player will take a break by playing a weak character. This character is usually only played for a week or two; to add something extra to the story, as a comedy break, or to simply give the player a chance to have fun being useless for a while.

For example, if a player had a 8th level character die and would normally start a new 7th level character, they may ask the GM if they can play a low level Expert (say a guide) for a while before starting to play their new 7th level character.

kamikasei
2007-10-11, 09:41 PM
For example, I was a LE palladin who traveled to Celestia to convince a celestial paragon to give me some of his blood (for ritual purposes). He of course refused, and asked me to leave. So, I gave sly hints about a plot to destroy the heavens (which was true), but still no. Later, I was redeemed, and gave the paragon his blood back. As a NG "risen" palladin, I was near worthless, and had to often run or seek aid during battles. It was only after helping the paragon that I became a NG palladin (I used Fax's variant which is awesome). During my "risen" stage, I was weak, and largely useless, but the party didn't abandon my character and the DM didn't kill me graciously. That was part of the reason I was truly redeemed actually.

SO why do people see deliberatly gimping thyself as a bad thing?

Well, that's not really a player gimping his character; that's a (presumably) decent character who suffered misfortune during the game and was weakened temporarily. It's no different really to a character getting cursed and the party sticking with him to help get it lifted. It's quite different to a player coming to the table at the start of a game with a character that just plain can't pull its weight in any regard (and being a nigh-useless combatant who has extremely useful out-of-combat abilities that will actually see the light of day during the campaign is pulling your weight, just to clarify), or having his wizard with 8 strength take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Bastard Sword and Monkey Grip halfway through the campaign.


I've seen many players building, for example, "perfect killing machines" fighters, but they had mostly 2 types.

The Perfect Killing Machine with personality and MinMax (see Goblins when you have the chance). What makes them diferent? Well the first one is build over the personality and story developed by the player in order to roleplay a good character, the second one is created with the "DM - You see the Barman, what you do? MinMax Player - EXPERIENCE!!! *hack n' slash*" idea in mind. Can you tell the diference?

What always gets to me is the idea of playing one of those ridiculously focused charge-on-gryphon-back-for-MASSIVE-DAMAGE types, the (presumably) theoretical exercises who don't actually have near-infinite power, just an extraordinarily limited build that does precisely one thing well. Roleplaying a Batman wizard isn't that hard because it jibes with how you'd see a highly-intelligent, learned magic-user operating, but what realistic fighter would rely so much on one single tactic? I do wonder whether anyone actually tries to use those builds, misled by the fact that none of their stats read "high as you like".

slexlollar89
2007-10-11, 10:18 PM
kamikasei, you are probably going to laugh a lot, but I have played a sorcerer with a monkey gripped sword (fullblade!) halfway through a campaign because the goliath fighter used one and slew a dragon (a weak one, but still, it was awesome) in a single hit. My character was impressed and decided to focus on his "elegant swordsmanship". He stayed a sorcerer, (I though about Eldritch Knight) for the remainder of the campaign, and refused to use his magic unless it was to boost his stats and swing his sword. I even had Tenser's Transformation cast on the sword so He could use his Cha modifier instead of Str for damage, but he was never able to hit anything exept a dire wolf and a bandit's horse. He was a great character, but nigh worthles in terms of power.

Also, the character in my sig (he's a homebrew warlock class I use) is a great RP character, but he can't do much unless it i for himself, and he is very weak even at low levels because of his vows.

Bosh
2007-10-12, 01:59 AM
And there are plot hogs too.

You don't have to gimp yourself to be a plot hog but ts a good starting point. Basically you derail your DM's campaign and push your own personal plot. f that cleric decided he was on a quest to find his faith again, okay? that will be something in the backburners. I hope you survive the way. But if the DM will have to rewrite his campaign to accommodate you, it's better off to kill you.

Honestly, plot hogs derail the campaign. Weak FLUFFY characters are the worst plot hogs.

You obviously haven't seen the horror that is the munchkin plot hog, especially those with insanely high bluff and/or stealth skills.

Arbitrarity
2007-10-12, 06:27 AM
You obviously haven't seen the horror that is the munchkin plot hog, especially those with insanely high bluff and/or stealth skills.

Munchkins: Whatever you can do, we can do better. It's a science!
:smallbiggrin: