"Optimized" characters or parties?

[Gralamin]

The point of playing an RPG is to play a role. Not be the best at rolling some dice because you "optimized" the best. I never min-max or cheese and I'm pretty sure I have the most fun when it comes to playing my character. I don't need to be in combat to have my "fun".

Emphasis mine. Most fun out of who?
For that matter why do you think that their is only combat cheese?
Also, have you ever played a Video game RPG? If you have, you know that some characters never see much use. Most of the time, this is because they are inept. Making a competent character is not a bad thing. Making a strong character may be a bad thing if you hog the glory. Making Pun-Pun is a bad thing. Making an Inept character, and claiming it is truer to playing the game, and therefore more fun, I find that more ignorant.

[JaronK]

So much Stormwind Fallacy in here...

Just because you play a wizard with low intelligence, or a core only fighter, does not mean you can roleplay. You can have no personality with your samurai. Likewise, you can play a druid with plenty of character.

Roleplay has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with your mechanics. You can be a bad roleplayer or a good one. You can play optomized characters or characters who can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

In fact, very often I've found that powergamers are better roleplayers. They care a lot about their characters, and they don't tend to think that by giving their fighter a high wisdom score that they've somehow satisfied their roleplaying duties.

JaronK

[Deel]

The point of playing an RPG is to play a role. Not be the best at rolling some dice because you "optimized" the best. I never min-max or cheese and I'm pretty sure I have the most fun when it comes to playing my character. I don't need to be in combat to have my "fun".

And you think people that do optimize can't do that too? You can have a character that is good in combat and a character that is good outside of combat. You choose what you want your character to be and build around that, you can still optimize like that. The example I posted above(catfolk ranger/scout archer) is an optimized build that I have tons of fun with in and out of combat, I made it the best I could in combat, but also has a good backstory and has a lot of personality when not in combat.

I could kind of agree with people who never do anything outside of combat being munchkins as they are pretty much doing nothing besides seeing how much they can do in battle, but there is nothing wrong with building a character that is both good in combat, and has a good backstory/personality outside of combat, despite popular belief, you can have both sides.

Also, I hate the Stormwind Fallacy, it just breeds more elitism to counter the elitism that seems so common among the roll vs role playing debates, which gets either side no where. Plus, it's so common sense, it really doesn't need a name, much less named after one particular poster at one particular message board.

[Tor the Fallen]

Because there is only ONE TRUE WAY to play, and anyone who does it differently is having BADWRONGFUN.

Your fun is doubleplusungood.


But, eh, it usually goes cool concept -> optimization. TWF sounds cool, looks cool, IS cool, but requires far more finnagling to make it work than the straight-forwardness that is THF.

[Jannex]

I'm hearing a lot of what I would describe as the Reverse Stormwind Fallacy at work here. Just because a person doesn't like obscenely twinked-out characters, doesn't mean he wants to play blind, deaf, and comatose goblin apprentice-commoners. And it certainly doesn't mean he's using a "non-optimized" build as an excuse not to think deeply about his character or roleplay well.

To answer the OP, my priorities are character concept first, player amusement second, optimizing third. (Though admittedly, most of the time 1 and 2 go hand-in-hand.) What that means is, most decisions will be made based on what makes the most sense for the character I'm playing, given his/her personality, background, and style. Any decision not adequately determined by that will be made based on what amuses me the most--like taking Improved Critical rather than a more "optimal" feat, just because I like Improved Critical, or continuing to put skill points into a +23 Listen modifier, because I enjoy seeing it climb even higher. After that, if there are decisions to be made that have not been determined by either of these factors, I refer to what's most "optimal" (usually asking someone else's opinion, because my brain doesn't really work that way). This way, I usually end up with reasonably effective, fun, and vivid characters.

[JaronK]

I'm hearing a lot of what I would describe as the Reverse Stormwind Fallacy at work here. Just because a person doesn't like obscenely twinked-out characters, doesn't mean he wants to play blind, deaf, and comatose goblin apprentice-commoners. And it certainly doesn't mean he's using a "non-optimized" build as an excuse not to think deeply about his character or roleplay well.

Actually no. The assumption here is that people who believe in the Stormwind Fallacy, who believe that optomizing a character makes it less roleplayable, therefor believe that making characters less optimal makes them better roleplayers. Thus, such people are indeed making their characters weaker in an attempt to roleplay better, which of course doesn't work.

This is not a comentary on people who simply chose not to optomize their characters, or people who take some feats because they find them amusing, entertaining, or fitting to their characters.

JaronK

[Grr]

Stormwind Fallacy. Haha, what a fuggin' joke. Go ahead and think that two word phrase makes your arguments somehow valid. Think it if you want to, but you're wrong.

I've never once said that choosing to specifically gimp a character makes for good roleplaying, nor have I said choosing to optimize a character makes for bad roleplaying. It is however, my experience that the number crunchers spend more time worrying about how their character does in combat than about how their character grows and matures over the course of the campaign.

I start with a concept, based partly on the level the campaign starts at. I choose skills and class based on that concept. *gasp* I even spend my oh so precious skill points on Profession and Craft! OMG! Minmaxxing number crunchers would never do that. No matter how much it adds to the character's overall concept. I'll even spend points in Profession while leveling if it makes sense that that is what the character would do.

I realize that doesn't make me a better roleplayer, but they are tools that I can use to better portray that character true to the concept.

[Deel]

That's fine if that's what you want to do, just don't rag on people who do maximize on what their character concept is. Your character calls for those kind of things? Go for it. Don't complain that other people put what they think fits their character, even if it seems to be the best option. I mean, most groups are adventurers anyway, so it's quite likely for them to want to maximize what they can do, well, adventuring, which in itself leads to... what's the word... optimizing! Optimizing your abilities for what you plan to do!

There really is no reason to think that you can't have a good character in concept and in mechanics. The only time I'd ever consider that is if you tried to make a knight in shining armor concept under a druid class, because combinations like that are just silly. Your concept should have connection to your class, but that doesn't mean you can't optimize that class for what you want to do.

[Maryring]

I want my characters to survive. Unfortunately, with my RL group, it often forces me to "optimize" as best I can. Still, I never optimize against the function of the character. I won't choose a different alternative if it breaks the character's type and/or style, but I will do my best to create a surviving character within the limits of the character's theme.

[Grr]

The problem with the number crunchers, is that they make the rest of the party feel like they have to "optimize" their character to just keep up.

[Tellah]

I've never once said that choosing to specifically gimp a character makes for good roleplaying...

I even spend my oh so precious skill points on Profession and Craft! OMG! Minmaxxing number crunchers would never do that.

Nice high horse, Grr. Can I ride?

[Deel]

Well, that's half the fun of DnD for some people. Others should try it too, I even give advice to the newer people I play with on making a good character around their concept, and they like it when they can do more, as I got advice from more experienced players in the same way when I played.

When people start bending rules and such to outshine everyone, that's where the problem begins, simply doing the best you can with what you're given is a perfectly acceptable thing.

[Bears With Lasers]

Stormwind Fallacy. Haha, what a fuggin' joke. Go ahead and think that two word phrase makes your arguments somehow valid. Think it if you want to, but you're wrong.

Why do you think that stating how right you are is a valid substitute for an actual argument?

I've never once said that choosing to specifically gimp a character makes for good roleplaying, nor have I said choosing to optimize a character makes for bad roleplaying. It is however, my experience that the number crunchers spend more time worrying about how their character does in combat than about how their character grows and matures over the course of the campaign.

First of all: not all games are about characters that grow and mature. Pulp-style games, for example, have characters that are at the top of their game and don't improve significantly from there. It's about how the character deals with things, not how he grows.
That aside--"your experience" is a tiny sample. When you've gamed regularly with a thousand people, maybe an argument from experience will be viable. Until then, sorry.
Number-crunching a character is mechanics. It has no effect on the roleplaying or the character concept. What you mean is "I hate poor roleplayers", not "I hate min-maxers", because plenty of min-maxers can roleplay just fine, portray a character growing and maturing just fine, et cetera. The two are unrelated. Assuming they are related is the stormwind Fallacy.

I start with a concept, based partly on the level the campaign starts at. I choose skills and class based on that concept. *gasp* I even spend my oh so precious skill points on Profession and Craft! OMG! Minmaxxing number crunchers would never do that. No matter how much it adds to the character's overall concept. I'll even spend points in Profession while leveling if it makes sense that that is what the character would do.

First of all, there's "what would the character do?"--something that, in part, you decide on a personal level, since your character won't be as developed as a real person--and then there's examining dramatic effect and narrative weight. Sometimes, doing whatever your character can do can be bad. If your character would kill the rest of the party in their sleep, it's still a poor decision. Immersing yourself in your character isn't the only or the best way to roleplay. It's usually not the best way to shape a cohesive narrative.

I realize that doesn't make me a better roleplayer, but they are tools that I can use to better portray that character true to the concept.

No, they're not. "Profession: Baker" is just some words and a number. That number is used mechanically. If you want your character to be a baker, have him bake things occasionally. You can do that without a Profession: Baker check (especially since you'd use craft anyway--Profession is strictly for making a living with it).

If you want to protray the character, then portray him. Roleplay. Scribbling down "Profession: Baker - 4" doesn't make you portray him better. You could have those numbers written down and never have that reflected in the character.

The things that make the character are how you play him, not what numbers are on his character sheet.

[asqwasqw]

The problem with optimization and roleplay is that sometimes it doesn't work. I may min/max my stats to be all strength and no int, but what if I want to be intelligent? What if I want to be a sailor but can't because my skill points are used up? If you are a good roleplayer, then you can adapt your character to fit the concept. But what I seen of min/max, they fit the concept to the character. Just my 2 cp.

Edit: What if I forgot to add question marks?

[Bears With Lasers]

If you want to play an intelligent character, you either separate the stats and the roleplaying a little further, or you optimize within constraints. No one optimizes 100%, or all optimizers would play Pun-Pun.

[Artemician]

In whatever games I play, I usually play characters that are built around a concept. While a few of the newer players will do otherwise, I have otherwise seen no reason to go for really cheesy optimization.

I also follow BWL's way of separating fluff and mechanics, for the most part. For example, I'm currently playing a Bard/Assassin. It may not be insanely optimal, but I have fun with it.

However, I also created an uber-optimized Ego Whip Psion build called Psymon Cowell. I have as much fun playing him as I do from the sub-optimal Bard/Assassin.

The fun in playing characters does not come from his competency, or lack thereof. The fun is from the concept, the character interactions, overcoming challenges.

That said, completely dominating a party or being the useless McJoe is not very fun. However, you can have just as much fun playing an optimized character in an optimized party as you do playing an unoptimized one in an unoptimized party.

[Hallavast]

So much Stormwind Fallacy in here...

Just because you play a wizard with low intelligence, or a core only fighter, does not mean you can roleplay. You can have no personality with your samurai. Likewise, you can play a druid with plenty of character.

Roleplay has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with your mechanics. You can be a bad roleplayer or a good one. You can play optomized characters or characters who can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. Those two things have nothing to do with each other.

In fact, very often I've found that powergamers are better roleplayers. They care a lot about their characters, and they don't tend to think that by giving their fighter a high wisdom score that they've somehow satisfied their roleplaying duties.

JaronK

Did you know that there is a wizard prestige class in the Dragonlance Campaign setting that makes you prohibit three schools of magic in order to take it. Furthermore, you can only pick these prohibited from a chosen list. It is very sub-optimal. The reason you must specialize so profusely is because certain schools of magic are the exclusive domains of certain orders of magic. Do you know why my character took the prestige class? Fluff. I gimped myself in the name of fluff. This decision affected the character's life. It confines you to an order of magic whose laws must be obeyed upon penalty of death. So, saying fluff and crunch are mutually exclusive isn't really true.

If the fighter you depicted above had a personality that dicated a high wisdom score, but your powergaming friend dumped wisdom so his con could be higher, then yes, he is favoring crunch at the expense of fluff. It would be especially bad if this person roleplayed the fighter as being exceptionally wise regardless of his wisdom score. That's not being true to the spirit of roleplaying.

I have another example for you. I made a character concept and fleshed him out. I gave him a background and personality (along with an accent and a sketch of his physical appearance). He was particularly dashing, charming, flirtatious, and had table manners any English Queen would admire. However, he was a bit absentminded at times, he wasn't very perceptive to people's feelings, and he frequently made careless mistakes.

I had all his abilities assigned but two: wisdom and charisma. The two scores i was left with were 16 and 9. Charisma would have been a much better dump stat for him mechanically. After all, it's nice to have spot checks and high will saves, and his party role wasn't going to call for too many charisma based checks in his career. However, I couldn't in good conscience give him a 9 charisma with a 16 wisdom. It didn't fit his personality. It didn't fit his fluff. So I gave him a 9 wisom and 16 charisma. He has been charmed and dominated on more than one occasion, but my friends and I had a blast roleplaying the situations. He contributes heartily to the parties endeavors, and we generally meet with success on our endeavors.

How would you defend your opinion in light of these points?

[JaronK]

Did you know that there is a wizard prestige class in the Dragonlance Campaign setting that makes you prohibit three schools of magic in order to take it. Furthermore, you can only pick these prohibited from a chosen list. It is very sub-optimal. The reason you must specialize so profusely is because certain schools of magic are the exclusive domains of certain orders of magic. Do you know why my character took the prestige class? Fluff. I gimped myself in the name of fluff. This decision affected the character's life. It confines you to an order of magic whose laws must be obeyed upon penalty of death. So, saying fluff and crunch are mutually exclusive isn't really true.

And yet you could have taken the Incantrix PrC, dropping the same schools of magic, and gotten more power out of the trade. Could you not have had the same RP? I don't know your character's, well, character, so I can't say much on this. But the point is, you could probably roleplay the same character by being an Incantrix, or by taking whatever this PrC you took was, or by just not using spells from that school. Either way, you could have had the same personality, and a similar character feel. The mechanics simply define what your character can do in combat, which spells he can cast, and the save DCs for those spells. It does not determine whether your character has issues with authority, or his sense of humor, or his feelings towards his friends.

If the fighter you depicted above had a personality that dicated a high wisdom score, but your powergaming friend dumped wisdom so his con could be higher, then yes, he is favoring crunch at the expense of fluff. It would be especially bad if this person roleplayed the fighter as being exceptionally wise regardless of his wisdom score. That's not being true to the spirit of roleplaying.

Or my power gaming friend, deciding he wants to play a wise melee character, could have taken levels of Swordsage instead. Now his character is more optimal. He took a character concept ("wise fighter") and optomized it. He can roleplay just fine. The fact that he took levels of Swordsage, in no way changes the character... it can still be roleplayed exactly the same. However, that character will now take fewer hits due to higher AC.

I have another example for you. I made a character concept and fleshed him out. I gave him a background and personality (along with an accent and a sketch of his physical appearance). He was particularly dashing, charming, flirtatious, and had table manners any English Queen would admire. However, he was a bit absentminded at times, he wasn't very perceptive to people's feelings, and he frequently made careless mistakes.

I had all his abilities assigned but two: wisdom and charisma. The two scores i was left with were 16 and 9. Charisma would have been a much better dump stat for him mechanically. After all, it's nice to have spot checks and high will saves, and his party role wasn't going to call for too many charisma based checks in his career. However, I couldn't in good conscience give him a 9 charisma with a 16 wisdom. It didn't fit his personality. It didn't fit his fluff. So I gave him a 9 wisom and 16 charisma. He has been charmed and dominated on more than one occasion, but my friends and I had a blast roleplaying the situations. He contributes heartily to the parties endeavors, and we generally meet with success on our endeavors.

So? The character in mind gets lower will saves and higher diplomacy checks. Without knowing the rest of the character, I can't say much.

How would you defend your opinion in light of these points?

As shown, any one of the characters could be optomized further, easily, and would in no way change the roleplay of the characters. Yes, it's possible to mess with your roleplay by making contrasting mechanics. Taking the Samurai class when you want to be a Katana wielding Samurai character, for example, would get in the way, since that class requires you to dual wield a katana with a wakasashi. Likewise, taking levels of Wizard when the character you had in mind was a dumb melee brute would get in the way. That's not the point.

The point is that taking a character and optomizing the mechanics of that character does not get in the way of roleplay. Such is the case with your high wisdom Fighter being turned into a high wisdom Swordsage, who now can actually use his high wisdom in combat. The character is roleplayed the same, but now he can contribute more in the mechanics of combat.

JaronK

[Sir Giacomo]

Hi everyone,

it may come as a bit of surprise from me (if some of you have read my other posts on game balance), but I think optimisation (to varying degrees) is ABSOLUTELY necessary for having a good roleplaying experience in DD3.5.

The point is that eventually, optimisation is nothing but a deep knowledge of the rules. And the rules are out there to balance what you imagine, into something that everyone at the table can found a common ground in.

Everyone starts out with a character concept. There may be some "munchkins" who just get sort of "inspired" by what the rules appear to give: frenzied beserkers allowing stellar damage, cleric prestige classes that offer great abilities with no caster level loss etc., ur-priests that give 9th level divine spells in 9 levels to anyone making a fort +3 save entry requirement etc...But even that may lead to roleplaying inspiration. However, most of the time it can lead to the fallacy that you want to be mechanically the best in everything there is and/or compete vs the other players, which is against the spirit of a group-game. But I digress...

Anyhow, you NEED optimisation to transfer your character concept with the rules.
Say, you want to play an old paladin who is still quite strong in combat. Now "still quite strong in combat" would imply that you somehow have to maximise his combat prowess given your (self-inflicted) restriction that he is old, has age penalties in physical stats. So basically: you want to have an experienced fighter fighting more with tactical feats than mere damage output.
If you just happily go and pick power attack (despite having only STR 13), weapon focus, weapon specialisation and a big weapon, you are going to end up being quite depressed that your character concept will not work our as you imagined. It is CRUCIAL that you optimise the rules to do what you imagine your character to be.
If you pick up a harem girl as background with high skills in entertainment (not just superficially, as in "cross-class" proficient), but wish to make her into a sorceress later, it is CRUCIAL that you "optimise" it in such a way that you pick a class first that allows entertainment skills without cross-classing (like rogue or bard), rather than just get a sorceress at first level and put cross-class ranks into perform; although it contradicts a more general optimisation rule "thou shalst not give up caster levels".

Now one thing that needs to be co-ordinated is how your rules/optimisation/kung-fu performs relative to that of your DM and the other players. This is key because if, say, you wish to make the above old paladin and still achieve something like combat effectiveness to prevent him from becoming ridiculous in combat, it would not be so great of you played alongside players eager to maximise their combat prowes to such an extent that their combat ability is double that of the paladin. He should be weaker, yes (so it is shown that the paladin is not as strong as his younger comrades), but not to the extent that he is completely unnecessary in his core role of the party: contributing in combat. Additionally, it would be great if he had a focus on some stuff that the others do not (which is the normal result if everyone has the same start): say, he has higher mental stats, could function as the party face, and provide tactical benefits to the party (there are plenty of feats for that kind of thing).

- Giacomo

[Grr]

When you've gamed regularly with a thousand people, maybe an argument from experience will be viable.

I've gamed with enough people to see that the min-maxxing munchkins are generally poor roleplayers. All they're interested in, is killing stuff and making big numbers get bigger.

Number-crunching a character is mechanics. It has no effect on the roleplaying or the character concept. What you mean is "I hate poor roleplayers", not "I hate min-maxers", because plenty of min-maxers can roleplay just fine, portray a character growing and maturing just fine, et cetera.

Oh no... I hate min-maxxers. Has nothing to do whether they're a poor roleplayer or not. Poor roleplaying can be fixed. Munchkins are a lost cause. If it doesn't have numbers or lots of combat, they get bored and whine.

If you want to protray the character, then portray him. Roleplay. Scribbling down "Profession: Baker - 4" doesn't make you portray him better. You could have those numbers written down and never have that reflected in the character.

I said it was a TOOL to better portray my character. Also, let's go back to the RAW crap you keep spewing everywhere else. It would be unfair to the other players if I were allowed to roleplay as a Baker and make a living in game doing it between adventures, even though I didn't have the profession skill. Since that would violate RAW. :insertrolleyeyessmiley:

Same thing for dump stats. I guarantee every single, min-maxxing munchkin never roleplays their character properly when they have a six charisma. I had some player in an RPGA event try to be a smooth talking, swashbuckling fighter/rogue with a charisma in the dungheaps so he could have a high strength and dex. He got pissed and left after I forced him to roll a charisma check.

And yet you could have taken the Incantrix PrC, dropping the same schools of magic, and gotten more power out of the trade.

You obviously don't get why concept and staying true to that concept is important for some people. It doesn't matter that someone could choose a different PrC and be more "optimized". What matters to them is staying true to the concept and being consistent in the campaign setting. The fluff and flavor are more important than maxxing out some sterile statistic.

[Emperor Tippy]

I've gamed with enough people to see that the min-maxxing munchkins are generally poor roleplayers. All they're interested in, is killing stuff and making big numbers get bigger.

Then you game with generally poor roleplayers. Roleplaying has nothing to do with optimization at all.

Oh no... I hate min-maxxers. Has nothing to do whether they're a poor roleplayer or not. Poor roleplaying can be fixed. Munchkins are a lost cause. If it doesn't have numbers or lots of combat, they get bored and whine.

This is an utterly asinine statement. You seem to hate people who are effective. I'm guessing that it is because you can't DM outside of your own little box and throw a tantrum if the players beat your challenges to easily.

I said it was a TOOL to better portray my character. Also, let's go back to the RAW crap you keep spewing everywhere else. It would be unfair to the other players if I were allowed to roleplay as a Baker and make a living in game doing it between adventures, even though I didn't have the profession skill. Since that would violate RAW. :insertrolleyeyessmiley:

Craft checks can be done untrained and are intelligence checks. You can also take 10 or 20 on them if you are so inclined.

Same thing for dump stats. I guarantee every single, min-maxxing munchkin never roleplays their character properly when they have a six charisma. I had some player in an RPGA event try to be a smooth talking, swashbuckling fighter/rogue with a charisma in the dungheaps so he could have a high strength and dex. He got pissed and left after I forced him to roll a charisma check.

That guy can't roleplay. It doesn't mean that every person or even most people who optimize their characters can't roleplay.

And have you ever played a 10 or lower Int character and had them solve a difficult puzzle? If you ahve you aren't roleplaying. Your cheating.

You obviously don't get why concept and staying true to that concept is important for some people. It doesn't matter that someone could choose a different PrC and be more "optimized". What matters to them is staying true to the concept and being consistent in the campaign setting. The fluff and flavor are more important than maxxing out some sterile statistic.

You can't get the concept through your head that fluff and flavor have absolutely nothing to do with mechanics at all.

[Zincorium]

I've gamed with enough people to see that the min-maxxing munchkins are generally poor roleplayers. All they're interested in, is killing stuff and making big numbers get bigger.

Right, so of all the people you've ever gamed with, those who build mechanically effective characters who can successfully fulfill their role in the party (which is what everyone else means when they say 'optimized') can never immerse themselves in their characters, come up with interesting hooks, or create a complex narrative through their actions?

Just trying to reconcile what you mean with what I think you're saying, here.

Oh no... I hate min-maxxers. Has nothing to do whether they're a poor roleplayer or not. Poor roleplaying can be fixed. Munchkins are a lost cause. If it doesn't have numbers or lots of combat, they get bored and whine.

Whining because a game does not fit what they want to play is what any immature person will do, it has nothing to do with optimizing as most people practice it. D&D is a game with numbers and lots of combat, you wouldn't have one of the larger chapters of the PHB if that wasn't the case. If that's all they want, and they don't care about the other aspects of the game, they are poor roleplayers, and you claim that can be fixed, while munchkins can't. Assuming of course that they do in fact need 'fixing' in some manner.

I'm sure by your definitions, you aren't contradicting yourself, but by mine you are. I'm sure you can see that's a barrier to understanding.

I said it was a TOOL to better portray my character. Also, let's go back to the RAW crap you keep spewing everywhere else. It would be unfair to the other players if I were allowed to roleplay as a Baker and make a living in game doing it between adventures, even though I didn't have the profession skill. Since that would violate RAW. :insertrolleyeyessmiley:

If you were receiving game benefits, in your example gaining wealth during down time, yes, you would need to have a mechanical way of doing so to keep the game fair. Otherwise, fairness doesn't enter into it, and you wouldn't need to put points in.

If you do not craft things, and you do not gain money from it, by RAW you don't need the skill to be a baker. Heck, with a high enough wisdom you can be a reasonable baker, mechanically if not rp-wise, without a single skill point by RAW. I'm pretty sure that's what BWL was talking about.

Same thing for dump stats. I guarantee every single, min-maxxing munchkin never roleplays their character properly when they have a six charisma. I had some player in an RPGA event try to be a smooth talking, swashbuckling fighter/rogue with a charisma in the dungheaps so he could have a high strength and dex. He got pissed and left after I forced him to roll a charisma check.

That reaction is either pure immaturity or misunderstanding of how the game is played. What you've cited just now is the polar opposite of what has been stated, that you should have stats which fit the concept. Playing a smooth talking swashbuckler with a low charisma is as unoptimized as playing a smooth talking swashbuckler who has the druid class.

You obviously don't get why concept and staying true to that concept is important for some people. It doesn't matter that someone could choose a different PrC and be more "optimized". What matters to them is staying true to the concept and being consistent in the campaign setting. The fluff and flavor are more important than maxxing out some sterile statistic.

You can, in D&D, have your cake and eat it too.

Everyone has character concepts, many of them good. By your stated way of thinking, if you make that character then mechanically effective, it somehow erases the fact that it's a good concept.

If I decide to play a swashbuckling Warforged, Jeeves who I've stated the backstory of in several other threads, and take things like Mithril Body at first level and go into the Invisible Blade prestige class to enhance the traits he has to the level that I imagine them to be at, I'm then happy with my character. He's complete. I have an interesting personality and I fulfill my party role with distinction.

Fluff and Crunch. Yin and Yang. You separate the two, or act like one doesn't matter, the fun of the game is diminished overall.

[Reinboom]

Hmmn, I thought a game was to have fun and to each his own, oh, and to make WotC or WW or similar money.
Given that, let's say there are alot of people that enjoy making and playing optimized builds and lacking on roleplaying - which there are - numerously. Now, given that there is a significant population that thinks this way, why would a game company directly "intend" for a product to not appeal to this group? Wouldn't that be losing money? There's Free Form and then there's competitive math, D&D, as well as most 'RPGs' sit in the middle and being able to apply to the strongest deviation from the middle is what sells so I won't take "intent" ever as just for people to role play from these games for to me, this is clearly not the intent.

Personally I love see things work in numbers, that's how I think, and for that I tend to lack in role-playing even though I try. Even when I draw or paint I'm still thinking in numbers, always trying to make sure things are appropriately in perspective and proportion via equations or techniques I have memorized - in high contrast to most artists.
I would hate for someone to tell me that I can't have fun in the way I do, then what would be the point of playing?

Seriously, if everybody is having fun, even if you have an army of kobolds, who cares?

So to respond to the original question:
I generally play characters that are optimized but I always try to restrict myself in some way. If I'm playing a spellcaster I will normally take 1 to 2 levels in another minor class that appeals to that characters personality for example and try to roleplay it, this helps me try to roleplay better and at the same time make not steal glory from my fellow party members through overoptimization. Other times if I know a concept is just very weak I will overoptimize it just to make it playable without restrictions.

[Grr]

Then you game with generally poor roleplayers. Roleplaying has nothing to do with optimization at all.

Actually, I game with some very intelligent people that are excellent

roleplayers. I don't game with min-maxxing munchkins.
This is an utterly asinine statement. You seem to hate people who are effective. I'm guessing that it is because you can't DM outside of your own little box and throw a tantrum if the players beat your challenges to easily.

:rofl: You don't have to be min-maxxed to be effective. I DM quite well outside of my "box" because I don't have a box. I make up everything on the spot pretty much. Remember?

Craft checks can be done untrained and are intelligence checks. You can also take 10 or 20 on them if you are so inclined.

Yeah, because my character's going to make a great living as a baker untrained. Again, you're sacrificing fluff so you can "optimize" your character better for combat or utility. People like you just don't get it and never will, which is why I said munchkins were a lost cause.

And have you ever played a 10 or lower Int character and had them solve a difficult puzzle? If you ahve you aren't roleplaying. Your cheating.

Nope, never have. There's been times where I was playing a dumb fighter or barbarian or whatever and I knew the answer, but I knew that my character wouldn't. So I kept quiet. Didn't even offer any hints to other members of the party. We suffered for it because the wrong answer was guessed and we had to fight the sphinx or whatever species of monster it is that gives out the riddles. Cost us some valuable resources to heal up from that fight.

You can't get the concept through your head that fluff and flavor have absolutely nothing to do with mechanics at all.

You're the one that can't understand that mechanics have absolutely everything to do with the concept... the fluff and flavor of your character. You can't just say you're a baker. You can't just say you're a blacksmith. There are skills for that. It's called staying true to the concept and being fair to the other players. You can't say you've got keen eyesight and expect bonuses to spot and search. You can't just say you've got great hearing and expect to have a good listen check.

It doesn't work that way. If you want to be a baker, you take the profession: baker skill. It's that simple. You're sacrificing something to meet the concept of the character you want to make.

[Reinboom]

You're the one that can't understand that mechanics have absolutely everything to do with the concept... the fluff and flavor of your character. You can't just say you're a baker. You can't just say you're a blacksmith. There are skills for that. It's called staying true to the concept and being fair to the other players. You can't say you've got keen eyesight and expect bonuses to spot and search. You can't just say you've got great hearing and expect to have a good listen check.

It doesn't work that way. If you want to be a baker, you take the profession: baker skill. It's that simple. You're sacrificing something to meet the concept of the character you want to make.

What if a person's concept is a paranoid wizard due to constant threats that he keeps for some reason encountering (as in many games) who, because of so, prepares each day equivalent to batman? Letsay he doesn't even trust people making his food anymore so he took a few points in baker for that "sacrifice". From my understandings, you would allow this.

[Bears With Lasers]

I've gamed with enough people to see that the min-maxxing munchkins are generally poor roleplayers. All they're interested in, is killing stuff and making big numbers get bigger.

No, you haven't. There's this thing called statistics. Until you've games with hundreds of people, your sample size is statistically insignificant.

Furthermore, correlation does not equal causation. If you know min-maxers who don't roleplay well, that doesn't mean min-maxing causes poor roleplay.

You're also conflating min-maxing (or optimizing) with "munchkins". The two are different.

Oh no... I hate min-maxxers. Has nothing to do whether they're a poor roleplayer or not. Poor roleplaying can be fixed. Munchkins are a lost cause. If it doesn't have numbers or lots of combat, they get bored and whine.

I am an optimizer, i.e. a min-maxer. I prefer roleplay-heavy games, for the most part, although in D&D combat is part of What It's About. Still--my favorite tabletop D&D game I was in, we had combat once every few sessions (rather than, say, four times a session). I was, I'll note, playing a fighter. And yes, I was playing my 8 CHA.

I said it was a TOOL to better portray my character. Also, let's go back to the RAW crap you keep spewing everywhere else. It would be unfair to the other players if I were allowed to roleplay as a Baker and make a living in game doing it between adventures, even though I didn't have the profession skill. Since that would violate RAW. :insertrolleyeyessmiley:

How is it a tool? Does having that "4" instead of a "0" on your character sheet somehow make you able to roleplay better?

Why would it be unfair to the other players if you were allowed to roleplay as a baker? The rules just say you use profession to make a little money. You can roleplay whatever you want, just don't make that check...

...not that I actually play by the rules as written. They need heavy editing, and lots of house-ruling.

Same thing for dump stats. I guarantee every single, min-maxxing munchkin never roleplays their character properly when they have a six charisma. I had some player in an RPGA event try to be a smooth talking, swashbuckling fighter/rogue with a charisma in the dungheaps so he could have a high strength and dex. He got pissed and left after I forced him to roll a charisma check.

Great. And I've known people with completely unoptimized characters who were equally poor roleplayers.

You obviously don't get why concept and staying true to that concept is important for some people. It doesn't matter that someone could choose a different PrC and be more "optimized". What matters to them is staying true to the concept and being consistent in the campaign setting. The fluff and flavor are more important than maxxing out some sterile statistic.

No, you don't get it. The point is that for any given concept/piece of fluff, there are multiple ways to implement it mechanically. Some of those ways are better than others. You can pick the best way without giving up your character concept.



As for "if you want to be a baker, you have to take profession: baker"... that's crap. You could just describe your character baking. If it has no mechanical effect, why would you need mechanics for it?
When you say "you can't be a baker without ranks in profession: baker", you are saying that the mechanics are more important to you than the flavor.
Incidentally, there is no mechanic for "baking". Profession: Baker is a check you can make to see how much money you make in a week when you are selling your baking services.

Letting your party suffer an IC consequence because your character can't solve a riddle is lame, unless everyone in the group was low-intelligence. If you knew the answer, you, as a player, could easily have told it to the player of a high-INT character, since their character would know it.


Furthermore, you're fine with breaking the rules and making things up as you go. For some reason, however, you don't seem to give players that luxury. "No Craft: Woodcarving? Then no, you CAN'T whittle pretty figurines in your downtime!"

[argentsaber]

The problem with optimization and roleplay is that sometimes it doesn't work. I may min/max my stats to be all strength and no int, but what if I want to be intelligent? What if I want to be a sailor but can't because my skill points are used up? If you are a good roleplayer, then you can adapt your character to fit the concept. But what I seen of min/max, they fit the concept to the character. Just my 2 cp.

Edit: What if I forgot to add question marks?

I often find that in the course of optimizing, I add depth to a character's background. Recently, I was working on a level 10 bardic gish, and found the dragonslayer PRC. At this point, the character's background has changed considerably, and I think for the better. If my DM bars the class, I will still use the background even though I would have never thought of it without trying to optimize.

[Sir Giacomo]

OK, I have to jump here in opposition to what Grr posts...

:rofl: You don't have to be min-maxxed to be effective.

But you have to, if you want to transfer your idea of the character in the best way possible with the DD rules.
Note: min/maxing is not "getting the lowest/highest number", but it is exactly trying to get the rules to back up what you want to do, if you say: "I would like to play an often absent-minded illiterate kitchen maid who cannot cook- but still does so- and is subject to violent madnesses sometimes, which she is ashamed of, since she is otherwise a sweet person. As a vague idea I'd like to develop into the role of the group's fighter and/or skilled fighter (probabe development: fighter, rogue levels, acrobat prestige class? Who knows...)"
So, at 1st level you could get an INT 8, WIS 6 (therefore blah cooking skill even with some ranks put into it), quite low STR, but charmingly cute (high CHR), very resilient and dextrous (high DEX, CON).
Class: Barbarian, 1st level. You do not even need to take all the wilderness skills, since you have a city background.

This way, you are not "maxed" in the standard munchkin sense of trying to be the best/best everyone at the table, but have "maxed" your very own character concept.

I DM quite well outside of my "box" because I don't have a box. I make up everything on the spot pretty much. Remember?

Hmm yes, I also confess doing that from time to time. The problem is: it is a narrow way between getting into (suspense-reducing) rules inconsistencies and (supsense-enhancing) speed/ease of play.
"Making up everything on the spot" does not sound like a good idea to me (as is the reverse extreme of doing EVERYthing by the RAW). It also depends on the improvisation talent/mental endurance of the DM, so it's at best highly group/campaign-specific.

Yeah, because my character's going to make a great living as a baker untrained. Again, you're sacrificing fluff so you can "optimize" your character better for combat or utility.

You can have both fluff and utility.
If the same character concept can get you more utility with the same fluff in one version than in the other, that is efficient and you should go for it (also the other way round!)
If you want your character to be not that -mechanically- useful to the adventuring group, optimise (as in reach it with the best possible approach given by the rules) that concept to get as many of the fluff aspects you wish to have!

People like you just don't get it and never will, which is why I said munchkins were a lost cause.

But BWL and all other posters have repeatedly said that they, almost 100% (that is, except in mental game statistic excercises/fun sessions) of the time, play very role-playing-heavy, non-munchkined (as in playervsplayervsDM) games. Why do you not believe them?

Nope, never have. There's been times where I was playing a dumb fighter or barbarian or whatever and I knew the answer, but I knew that my character wouldn't. So I kept quiet. Didn't even offer any hints to other members of the party. We suffered for it because the wrong answer was guessed and we had to fight the sphinx or whatever species of monster it is that gives out the riddles. Cost us some valuable resources to heal up from that fight.

This is a good point.
However, how can people actually ever ROLEplay characters with high mental stats? The rules only go so far to support it (say, in-game mechanics like skill checks). It is a group/team game, and as such, you should help the DM and the other players as much as possible out of character/metagaming to get the best roleplaying experience for everyone. If the answer to the riddle is obvious to a high-INT-guy but your party wizard does not get it, and by any chance you know it (playing the stupid babarian), you could even hint it IN PLAY by making a barabarian-typical statement that will give that wizard's player to pick up the clue and the opportunity to shine (and roleplay his character). The game is not a competition. Withholding such information actually is closer to munchkinism than getting good combat statistics to fill a role as a strong fighter.

You're the one that can't understand that mechanics have absolutely everything to do with the concept... the fluff and flavor of your character. You can't just say you're a baker. You can't just say you're a blacksmith. There are skills for that. It's called staying true to the concept and being fair to the other players. You can't say you've got keen eyesight and expect bonuses to spot and search. You can't just say you've got great hearing and expect to have a good listen check.
(....)
It doesn't work that way. If you want to be a baker, you take the profession: baker skill. It's that simple. You're sacrificing something to meet the concept of the character you want to make.

I absolutely agree here. The rules actually are quite balanced in this way, in that, if you want to have special abilities for your characters, you will fall short in other aspects automatically (no wizard with barbarian rage at 1st level, for instance). If you want to be the most charismatic guy there is already at 1st level (CHR 18), then you have to pay for it with the point-buy-system with much lower stats elsewhere.

- Giacomo

EDIT (after seeing argentsaber's post): argentsaber makes a very good point there: the rules may even give you inspiration what to play; in particular when you are new to the game and say: I would like to be some kind of knight....
...look at paladin class or knight class and see what fits you best. For instance, you may as a player not have thought about a mount before looking at the paladin abilities, but then come up with the idea that the character should revolve around a very strong bonding between that character and the mount from an early age...etc.

[Saph]

As for "if you want to be a baker, you have to take profession: baker"... that's crap. You could just describe your character baking. If it has no mechanical effect, why would you need mechanics for it?
When you say "you can't be a baker without ranks in profession: baker", you are saying that the mechanics are more important to you than the flavor.

Mmm . . . no. I see where you're coming from, and I agree that the profession skill isn't a good example, but I can't agree with this. If your character's background is supposed to be that you spent 90% of your adult life as a baker, and 1% as a wizard, then for me, it really strains credibility when you spend all your skill points on wizard skills and don't have a single point in anything else. "Sure, I'll roleplay a character, just as long as I don't have to give up even the tiniest bit of mechanical effectiveness to do it." I don't particularly want to play in the kind of game that Tippy seems to like, where a player's character sheet tells you absolutely nothing about their character.

I'd never demand that someone took the Commoner or Expert class, or anything that would really gimp them, as part of a background, but a guy who's unwilling to pay even a few skill points? That's like someone who claims to be generous and open-handed, but won't leave a shop until he's gotten his 1 cent change from his $10 bill.

- Saph

[Vyker]

Early on in my gaming days, I had a character. He was an interesting character, very fleshed out, in depth, detailed. But all that fascinating background, complete ancestory chart, and favorite color couldn't hide the fact that he sucked.

Was that bad? Well... yeah. I could never do anything with him in game, so it rapidly made the whole session something of a waste of time for me, and my turns a waste of time for everyone else. Honestly, it would have been better for all involved if I'd just sat out and watched.

In the next game, I made another character. This one was brutally effective, and could easily have blasted his way through every encounter the DM threw at us and trumped the rest of the party at the same time. But he was horribly one-sided and dull.

Was that bad? Well... yeah. I ended up sitting around waiting for The Problem to show up so I could smash it. Then everyone else sat around waiting for me to finish smashing it. More with the time wasting and the boredom.

Both of these characters I abandoned. I didn't enjoy them, my DM didn't enjoy them, and my party didn't enjoy them. Since then, I'd like to think I've learned my lesson and tried to avoid either extreme, and I always caution others in my gaming group to try and find a concept which matches their build and a build which matches their concept.

In my eyes, role playing and roll playing each work best when they compliment each other. Leastwise, I can't seem to care about any character who doesn't have both of 'em, 'cause it'll either be totally ineffectual or insufferably boring. All of my best characters, the ones I've enjoyed and my gaming groups have told stories about later, were neither "unique snowflakes" who melted at the first sign of trouble nor nameless stats roving in search of "phat lewts." They were successful blends of both role/roll playing schools of thought, who had good backstories and motiviation as well as the ability to back up their reputation.

So what's the optimal build for me? A character whose in-game mechanical stats align properly with his out of game concept. One who both role plays and roll plays.

Oh, and one who looks cool while doing so!

-----

Grr, let me ask you this. What difference, if any, exists between the following two people:
- A character with a given selection of stats, feats, skills, spells, and equipment which makes him really good.
- A character with a given selection of stats, feats, skills, spells, and equipment which makes him really good and a satisfactory backstory which explains it all.

I'm asking because I understand many points being made from many folks, but I don't understand yours. What makes a minmaxxer worse than someone who creates the exact same character but has a fluff concept for that character?

-----

*Note: Don't get me wrong, I love a good mindless dungeon crawl now and then, and a one off hack'n'slash is a great way to test out new classes and ideas. In the above, I'm referring entirely to characters in campaigns with at least a modicum of balance between role/roll playing.