"Optimized" characters or parties?

[clarkvalentine]

There's no multiple ways about it. Same thing with the Dragonlance PrC's for wizards based upon the moons. It's that way or no way. Duh....

(snip)

I don't know... maybe because it might be a crime to impersonate the station and honors accord of being a Knight of Solamnia?

It's expressly allowable to be a Knight of Solamnia or a Wizard of High Sorcery in the Dragonlance setting without taking levels of the prestige class - Membership in the order/organization is a prerequisite to take the PrC, not the other way around.

[Grr]

Neat. And since you used an illusion, presumably none of those 20 ranks made a difference.

They did. The illusion was visual only. Didn't provide any feel of weight or touch to it.

[ImperiousLeader]

I think background fluff and backstories are a dime a dozen. Feats are limited, stories of my character's childhood are not. I prefer to start a character from an optimization standpoint first, because the first question I ask about a new character is "what do I want this character to do"? The personality and backstory flow from that first question.

[Grr]

Optimizers worry about what they can do.
Role players wonder what they did.

Big difference in how you build a character at that point. One is obviously better for the consistency and story. That's the one I prefer.

[Vyker]

Not... true.

Not all optimizers worry about what they can do. Some of us wonder how we can do it.

Nor are all role players wondering about what they did yesterday. Some of us enjoy going somewhere and moving forward, contemplating what we can do today or -- for the real dreamer -- tomorrow.

Attaching such blanket statements to two very, very broad and diverse groups is only gonna end up with you overlooking some very good players.

[Bears With Lasers]

Overly Developed Backstories don't good roleplayers make. You could be stuck in your character's past and refuse to have them adapt because of attachment, or the backstory may simply never really come up. D&D characters generally evolve in play, especially since they often go from "incompetent bunglers" (level 1) to "masters of the universe" (level 20).

Compare D&D to, say, Spirit of the Century, where your character is a Pulp Hero, and is therefore already at the top of his game--there is next to no advancement, but your Aspects all depend on your character and his past. There, "what you did" is a good way to define your character. In D&D, "what you want to do" is probably better.

[Grr]

In D&D, "what you want to do" is probably better.

Maybe if everyone started off as an infant and had to roleplay up from age 0 to age whatever age you finish your training or whatever to become a level one something.

[Rigeld2]

Maybe if everyone started off as an infant and had to roleplay up from age 0 to age whatever age you finish your training or whatever to become a level one something.

So when you were 18, you based everything on how you acted in the past, not at all looking at where you wanted to be in your life in the future?

[Bears With Lasers]

Maybe if everyone started off as an infant and had to roleplay up from age 0 to age whatever age you finish your training or whatever to become a level one something.

I'm sure I've said this before: you may see D&D as a simulation, but that's not the only or the right way to play. Your character's background (except when it comes back to haunt him) is, dramatically and narraratively, less important than his current adventures. Sure, maybe you used to be a baker. You also liked yellow flowers better than all the others, your mother died when you were ten, and those things partially shaped your character's personality. But what really matters is what your character is like now. The details can help you shape that, but filling in every detail isn't necessary or automatically good. Your character will be interacting with others. His current adventures are the dramatic bit--the past is just context.

Edit: I am currently optimizing myself by working towards a degree and skillset I know will get me more GP, rather than towards one that follows the things I enjoyed most as a kid.

[Grr]

If I were to make a character of myself, I would look at where I've been, what I've done, what I've learned. Not what I plan on doing. Where the character goes from there is left to fate.

Your character's background (except when it comes back to haunt him) is, dramatically and narraratively, less important than his current adventures.

You're wrong. People like you are why WotC keeps churning out splatbook after splatbook full of number crunching bullcrap. Money money money. It's no longer about the quality of the game or the fun. It's all about the money and you people are buying right into it.

[Bears With Lasers]

So, you... don't have goals?

[Grr]

Long term and short term goals are part of the character concept, but they're not based on game mechanics.

[Rigeld2]

If I were to make a character of myself, I would look at where I've been, what I've done, what I've learned. Not what I plan on doing. Where the character goes from there is left to fate.

So... none of your characters make any plans for the future?

Thats... sad. Like, clubbing baby seals sad.

"Lets see... today I woke up. I'm going to sit in the street and see who or what comes by today! I shouldnt bother planning what I'm doing tomorrow, because fate may change my plans!"

You're wrong. People like you are why WotC keeps churning out splatbook after splatbook full of number crunching bullcrap. Money money money. It's no longer about the quality of the game or the fun. It's all about the money and you people are buying right into it.

Thats... not snarky at all.

edit:

Long term and short term goals are part of the character concept, but they're not based on game mechanics.

So a Fighters long term goal to be a master of the Bastard Sword (IE fighter going to exotic weapon master) has nothing to do with game mechanics? Or is that not something that any of your characters would aspire to (a prestige class)?

[ImperiousLeader]

Optimizers worry about what they can do.
Role players wonder what they did.

As a roleplayer, I'd sooner worry about what my character does in the game, and that is a combination of mechanics deciding what the PC is capable of and backstory deciding how the PC thinks. If I was so worried about what my character did, I'm not playing the game, I'm writing a novel.

To be honest, an overfluffed character seems to be more hazardous to story and to consistency than an optimized one because that character gets too rigid and inflexible. You end up with in a game without players, having instead actors all working off their own scripts.

[Bouldering Jove]

Your character's background (except when it comes back to haunt him) is, dramatically and narraratively, less important than his current adventures.

You're wrong. People like you are why WotC keeps churning out splatbook after splatbook full of number crunching bullcrap. Money money money. It's no longer about the quality of the game or the fun. It's all about the money and you people are buying right into it.

Wow. Simply stating that the current adventures of a character, the ones a game group is actively playing, have more dramatic and narrative importance than backstory is enough to provoke all that from you? I can't even fathom how you drew those frankly bizarre assertions out of his statement, let alone how you'd begin to make a convincing argument that his (rather common sense) position is wrong.

[JaronK]

True enough, Imperious. The best roleplayers I've worked with have very simple backstories. Complicated backstories may not mesh with the other characters. Roleplay is what happens during the game. Backstories are just the novel writing that happens before hand.

A backstory is not roleplay. Sometimes, it can even get in the way, such as a character who has to be a cook, even when it's really not appropriate to the campaign or the party.

JaronK

[Bears With Lasers]

You're wrong. People like you are why WotC keeps churning out splatbook after splatbook full of number crunching bullcrap. Money money money. It's no longer about the quality of the game or the fun. It's all about the money and you people are buying right into it.

1) Cut it out with the insults. It is an unnaceptable way to discuss things.
First of all, ALL splatbooks have crunch and fluff. Why? BECAUSE D&D IS A HIGH-CRUNCH GAME. You can't change that. D&D splats have crunch and fluff. The PHB II is one of the best splatbooks released--the crunch is almost entirely balanced (the Celerity line, the conjurer Immediate Magic variant are the most glaring exceptions)--the book is certainly better-balanced than the PHB--and the book has a lot more fluff on building your character than the PHB.
The Tome of Battle has great crunch, and awesome fluff about the Nine Swords, how to integrate them into your game, and the like.
Meanwhile, the Complete Psionic had lame crunch and lame fluff.

As for money, GASP! A company wants to make money! Gee, who'd've thought! If they were releasing crappy products, they wouldn't be making as much money. Complete Psionic is crappy, and it sold much worse than, say, the PHB II or Tome of Battle.
WotC is a company. The purpose of companies is to profit. If they didn't turn a steady profit, they couldn't keep producing and supporting D&D.

As a side note, "it's no longer about the fun"? Do you REALLY think that everyone who plays different from you doesn't actually have any fun and is just, what, lying to themselves? WotC is very successful, so obviously, somebody--or rather, lots of somebodies--is having fun with their books.

2) You're wrong IS NOT AN ARGUMENT. If you think I'm wrong, prove it. You can't just say "you're wrong" and expect that to be the end of the line. You seem to like trying, though. Saying "you're wrong" doesn't make you right. It does nothing other than making it look like you don't have any way of backing up your point. I have explained to you that drama and the narrative can be just as important as realistic representation--or more. There are entire games, good games, based on that premise. That doesn't change just because you say "you're wrong", and if you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to learn to back up your points.

Long term and short term goals are part of the character concept, but they're not based on game mechanics.

Wait... why not? A goal to master the Dervish Dance (hit Dervish 10), or learn the most powerful spells in existence as soon as possible (9th level spells), et cetera are perfectly viable goals.
Weren't you talking about how characters should back their fluff up with mechanics, no matter what!? Well, why are their goals exempt from this?

[EvilElitest]

I don't need to optimize, though I often do to a certain extent
My group knows i the smartest guy their, i'm valulble no matter what happens
from,
EE

[Grr]

A backstory is not roleplay. Sometimes, it can even get in the way, such as a character who has to be a cook, even when it's really not appropriate to the campaign or the party.

A background story is only part of the overall character concept which in turn is merely a tool used to better understand why the character would be motivated to do what they do. If the concept gets in the way, it gets in the way and you deal with it. It's part of making tough decisions and dealing with the consequences.

Like the riddle example. I knew the answer. The others players didn't and there was no way my character would know the answer, so I didn't tell them. We paid a heavy price for that choice, but I'd make that same decision again and again, because it was staying true to the character's concept.

As a side note, "it's no longer about the fun"? Do you REALLY think that everyone who plays different from you doesn't actually have any fun and is just, what, lying to themselves?

I was talking about the people making the product, not the consumers... The suits don't care if the game's fun anymore. All they care about is making as many splatbooks as they can get away with before they bring out a new edition and start the process all over again. And you people are lapping it up like manna from the sky.

[Bears With Lasers]

So why didn't you, as a PLAYER, tell one of the other players the answer, so their (smarter) character could come up with it?

[JaronK]

1) Wait... why not? A goal to master the Dervish Dance (hit Dervish 10), or learn the most powerful spells in existence as soon as possible (9th level spells), et cetera are perfectly viable goals.
Weren't you talking about how characters should back their fluff up with mechanics, no matter what!? Well, why are their goals exempt from this?

Because, you foolish little man, Grr is such a great roleplayer. He gets so in touch with his characters that he knows his fighter, when confronted with a world ending threat of daemonic invasion, would realistically spend his time practicing cooking instead of making darn sure he has a reasonable chance of taking out said world ending menace.

After all, cooking was in the backstory. So you're wrong.



JaronK

[Vyker]

Folks, when you get right down to it, taking enough ranks in both Game (Roll Playing) and Game (Role Playing) gives you a synergy bonus in Game (Having Fun).

Your beautiful snowflake is only improved by being a beautiful snowflake who can act within the story of the game. Being the beautiful snowflake in the corner who sulks (beautifully) because if he even looks at the encounters he dies is probably gonna get old real fast. He is not less of a beautiful snowflake for being doing cool things (beautifully).

And likewise, that opti-meatgrinder becomes even cooler when he's got some personality behind him -- imagine the stench of a barbarian/frenzied berzerker sitting atop a pile of corpses, drinking the blood of the slain from a cup made from the skull of that evil cleric you just spitted.

And while it's easier for a stat-line to function in D&D over a character with a novel of backstory but no real in-game abilities, neither is truly superior. Both help. Both have their place. Both enhance the game. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with doing either (or both!) well. If you enjoy one over the other, that's great. But if you like one to the exclusion of the other, you may be missing out. Your mileage may vary.

[Ulzgoroth]

"The simulated world" doesn't exist unless you conflate mechanics and flavor (which, as I explained before, is misguided). There's a sort of abstract world that's governed by explicit and strictly codified rules, and there's the flavorful realm where players actually visualize their characters and actions. There are all kinds of details in the latter realm that have no bearing on the former, such as the colors of objects. Making a pastry without mechanical properties doesn't have any more mechanical impact than choosing to have blue eyes or a suspicious personality. All can influence the events of the story, of course: a beggar helps the players after getting a pastry, eye color is related to mythological heritage, the character refuses to accept a job that was offered by a shady character. The story will change by the outcome, but they just don't influence anything that D&D's game mechanics actually track.

My first reaction is, if there is no simulated world, what is it that all these rules, combat or otherwise, govern? No, the written rules don't govern it in infinite detail, because if they did you'd just have a computer simulation with neither DM nor players. This doesn't make it not exist.

Now, going further...Color of objects, your mechanically irrelevant feature of choice. Right off, there's a core spell (prestidigitation) that explicitly influences color of objects. And for that matter the Rod of Wonders has some color-influencing effects. So it's most certainly the case that the mechanics can directly govern that bit of fluff. Also, would you say that being covered in mirrors and bright colors is functionally the same as being painted a uniform, nonreflective black, with regard to spotting an object in a dimly lit room? Admittedly, the rules say nothing of any difference...but I'd hope there would be one all the same. Or the props and makeup noted in the disguise description...clearly, it shouldn't be in any way more demanding to disguise yourself as someone with a different skin, hair and eye color than someone who corresponds well in all those regards, as color is mechanically irrelevant. Right.

Our pastry has mass, it has ingredients, it has a taste, And it presumably has some market value if the hypothetical great market, though it may be less than a copper. Other than the mass, which is most assuredly part of the rules, none of these necessarily factor into any specific part of the PHB. But they all still have to exist in some form to define the item.

It doesn't say in the SRD that they're pre-prepared meals, just the cost of meals for a day. Of course, the same SRD doesn't require any specific amount of food to avoid starvation effects in the environment section.

The meals, however, are defined in terms of cooked food and grouped with rooms in the inn. Furthermore, those are the only prices on 'meals' offered, so if you want to assume it's the price of inn food that isn't defined anywhere, go right ahead.

And there actually is such information in the DMG, p304. Though some care is suggested, since the rules given indicate that eating one 'adequate' meal every 3 days will prevent all effects beyond general discomfort.

How are they trying to extract a mechanical ability for their character? It's purely flavor. There IS no mechanical ability. If they want a mechanical ability that isn't pure fluff, they have to invest ranks in Craft (whatever). The only way it can possibly have any crunchy application is if you're confusing a "crunchy" application to mean any way whatsoever of influencing the game being played.

Other than objecting to the word 'confusing' that's almost exactly what I mean. If you do something for which no crunch exists (homebrew spur-of-the-moment crunch included) there is no way to:
Conduct opposed checks in whatever-it-is.
Determine how successful it is.
Control when it can be done or how long it takes.
Bring the mechanic-less object into contact with any object or action with clear mechanics.

Would you continue to consider it 'harmless fluff' if rather than merely making pastry we were making (by player fiat) the most delicious pastry in the world? If not, why is it less bad when we simply have no way to compare it to any other pastry in the world?

There's an implicit assertion here that player-created flavor beyond personality isn't allowed to influence the game in any fashion, or at least that every flavor decision must be represented by mechanics. I think that it's a fallacy and a very restrictive way to play the game.

Over stretching the fallacy. Certainly, there can be facets of life not governed by class. No problem. Can there be facets of life not governed by anything that can be quantified? Yes. Can their be facets of interaction with the material (including arcane, ethereal, or otherwise fantastic) world not governed by any quantifiable? Not so much. Because anything may need to be quantified at some point.

If it's quantifiable, the problem goes away. My favored quantification is a skill rank. Yours seems to be 'promise you'll never make me quantify this'.

[JaronK]

And likewise, thatopti-meatgrinder becomes even cooler when he's got some personality behind him -- imagine the stench of a barbarian/frenzied berzerker sitting atop a pile of corpses, drinking the blood of the slain from a cup made from the skull of that evil cleric you just spitted.

Wow, you just described one of my characters. And yes, he is an absolutely awesome character, with a nice backstory that gives him plenty of motivation, as well as flexibility to deal with developing events. Having played him in multiple games, I actually just carry over his story from one to the other. And he's damned hilarious when he's not taking over the world one cleaving target at a time.

JaronK

[Dausuul]

Overly Developed Backstories don't good roleplayers make. You could be stuck in your character's past and refuse to have them adapt because of attachment, or the backstory may simply never really come up. D&D characters generally evolve in play, especially since they often go from "incompetent bunglers" (level 1) to "masters of the universe" (level 20).

I agree wholeheartedly with this. I know a guy who comes up with incredibly elaborate backstories for his characters... but those same characters are often a pain to play with, because they don't work well as part of a group. They're too caught up in their elaborate, self-involved backstory motivations. From both the DM and player perspective, I'd much rather have a character with no backstory who worked well with the rest of the group.

Obviously, if you can get backstory and plays-well-with-others, that's great. But the one is not a prerequisite for the other. Of the coolest characters I've played and played with, many had sketchy backstories or no backstories at all, and their personae only developed in-game.

For instance, there was the elf druid I played in an Arthurian campaign. No backstory whatsoever. I just figured we ought to have a divine caster in the party, and an elf seemed appropriate for druidic magic. But as the game progressed, the character became really interesting; as she witnessed the withdrawal of magic from the world and the rise of religion, she became more and more concerned about her own soul or lack thereof, to the point that she finally converted to Christianity. Some very fond memories of that character.

Compare D&D to, say, Spirit of the Century, where your character is a Pulp Hero, and is therefore already at the top of his game--there is next to no advancement, but your Aspects all depend on your character and his past. There, "what you did" is a good way to define your character. In D&D, "what you want to do" is probably better.

That's... a very interesting way to think about it. That hadn't really occurred to me until just now. I'm going to keep that in mind for future characters.

[Bouldering Jove]

My first reaction is, if there is no simulated world, what is it that all these rules, combat or otherwise, govern? No, the written rules don't govern it in infinite detail, because if they did you'd just have a computer simulation with neither DM nor players. This doesn't make it not exist.

There's the imagined world, which is essentially a version of "let's pretend," where most players actively think about their actions. Then there's the mechanical system, where most details in the imagined world are irrelevant compared to cold, hard figures. You roleplay in the former and the things that the system models, like combat, are covered in the latter. You can say that they're the same game, but it isn't particularly meaningful to do so, because you can bring any imagined world setting into a different mechanical rules systems. How things are modeled changes, but the described world doesn't.

Now, going further...Color of objects, your mechanically irrelevant feature of choice. Right off, there's a core spell (prestidigitation) that explicitly influences color of objects. And for that matter the Rod of Wonders has some color-influencing effects. So it's most certainly the case that the mechanics can directly govern that bit of fluff.

Of course. Mechanics can certainly influence fluff components. But the color of an object doesn't affect its system-relevant mechanical properties, such as the bonuses it gives or the damage it can deal. Changing something's color doesn't mean anything by the SRD; the only influence it can have on its game is on the story components.

Also, would you say that being covered in mirrors and bright colors is functionally the same as being painted a uniform, nonreflective black, with regard to spotting an object in a dimly lit room? Admittedly, the rules say nothing of any difference...but I'd hope there would be one all the same. Or the props and makeup noted in the disguise description...clearly, it shouldn't be in any way more demanding to disguise yourself as someone with a different skin, hair and eye color than someone who corresponds well in all those regards, as color is mechanically irrelevant. Right.

By the RAW, the color of your garb makes absolutely no difference to a "hide" skill check, and a disguise check to appear as an entirely different race (which will sometimes include color changes) is only a -2. Those are the mechanics for you. Houserule as you will.

Our pastry has mass, it has ingredients, it has a taste, And it presumably has some market value if the hypothetical great market, though it may be less than a copper. Other than the mass, which is most assuredly part of the rules, none of these necessarily factor into any specific part of the PHB. But they all still have to exist in some form to define the item.

As fluff, it has whatever components the DM allows players to ascribe to it. Ascribing qualities to a fluff item is just about pointless; by definition, its qualities don't include any relevant qualities that the D&D system mechanically models. Remember here that our hypothetical baker is baking for flavor purposes, not trying to jury-rig stale pastries into free sling ammunition or sell them for gold. Of course a pliant DM may allow jury-rigged mechanical uses, just as they may allow players to pick flavorful stones off the ground to suit the mechanical role of sling bullets, but they don't have to.

The meals, however, are defined in terms of cooked food and grouped with rooms in the inn. Furthermore, those are the only prices on 'meals' offered, so if you want to assume it's the price of inn food that isn't defined anywhere, go right ahead.

They're not really defined in terms of any type of food; each description is what the meal "might consist of," and the meal prices aren't grouped with inn prices any more closely than the prices for a loaf of bread or hunk of cheese are.

And there actually is such information in the DMG, p304. Though some care is suggested, since the rules given indicate that eating one 'adequate' meal every 3 days will prevent all effects beyond general discomfort.

You're right, and it's in the SRD too. For some reason I read the water requirement but skipped over the "pound of decent food" part and didn't really see it.

Other than objecting to the word 'confusing' that's almost exactly what I mean. If you do something for which no crunch exists (homebrew spur-of-the-moment crunch included) there is no way to:
Conduct opposed checks in whatever-it-is.
Determine how successful it is.
Control when it can be done or how long it takes.
Bring the mechanic-less object into contact with any object or action with clear mechanics.

You're quite right, there's no way to reconcile fluff items with mechanical ones, and there's absolutely no need to. If a player says they always keep a comb in their hair, that comb doesn't need to have any mechanical properties attached to it, because the character is never going to be able to have that comb affect any of D&D's mechanical factors. That's the entire point of flavor. None of it matters in the language of hit points and saving throws, but people can enjoy roleplaying with flavorful items and qualities without trying to find some way to describe their exact effects in a system that simply does not care about such things as combs unless they can be sold for money.

Would you continue to consider it 'harmless fluff' if rather than merely making pastry we were making (by player fiat) the most delicious pastry in the world? If not, why is it less bad when we simply have no way to compare it to any other pastry in the world?

Why not? That could lead to some fantastically amusing story and roleplaying possibilities. Obviously, the player would need to justify why they aren't able to make any significant money off of it, like Profession and Craft allow. Maybe their explanation would be that their potent family recipe requires so much time investment and so many expensive ingredients that, despite being the most delicious pastry of its kind in the world, they can only make a single silver of profit off a day's baking. Maybe it's such a pain in the ass to make that the character became a wizard and just doesn't want to bake any more, but the land's elite pastry connosieurs recognize him on sight and desperately try to convince him to make more. Why should Craft or Profession ranks enter into any of this? These concepts are story hooks and roleplaying fodder, and they're not about making gold or gaining abilities relevant to D&D mechanics. So why force skill point investment, which is relevant to D&D mechanics like combat and thus punishes a player for giving their characters interesting talents, rather than just letting such things exist as flavor?

Over stretching the fallacy. Certainly, there can be facets of life not governed by class. No problem. Can there be facets of life not governed by anything that can be quantified? Yes. Can their be facets of interaction with the material (including arcane, ethereal, or otherwise fantastic) world not governed by any quantifiable? Not so much. Because anything may need to be quantified at some point.

No, it really doesn't. If you're using D&D's system, you don't need to quantify blue eyes, you don't need to quantify a comb, and you don't need to quantify our hypothetical baker's pastries, because none of them affect anything mechanical. What would you do with quantified information about how good a pastry tastes? None of the D&D rules have anything to do with how good food tastes, so you're just creating phantom statistics that aren't actually bound to the rules.

If it's quantifiable, the problem goes away. My favored quantification is a skill rank. Yours seems to be 'promise you'll never make me quantify this'.

There's a problem if you don't quantify things that are relevant to D&D, such as swords and the damage they deal. There's no problem at all if you don't quantify the things that aren't relevant to D&D's mechanics, such as an amateur baker's pastries and how good they taste. "If it can be interacted with, it must be quantified" just isn't a necessary or even useful principle. Do you model the HP of twigs that a fighter takes a chop at? Or do you just let the fighter bisect them without rolling anything?

[Grr]

Most vehicles of the Evil Sunz are painted red with flames down the side to tie in with their main belief that "Da red wunz go fasta!".

Colour has an effect on the rules. Ork vehicles painted red get 1" extra movement. Is it such a stretch that in some planar situation, that colors could suddenly have meaningful consequences and benefits?

[PnP Fan]

For the OP: I usually decide, in general terms, the type of character I want to play (for example: Battle Priest, human). I then sit down and talk with my GM about the setting, particularly if it's a setting I'm unfamiliar with (say. . Mystara). Once I have a handle of my limits (things I'm not allowed to do) and the eventual results (things I must do in order for the character to be part of the party, such as "make sure your character is loyal to the Thyatian Empire"), I start weaving the character's background (say a priest of a military order that was involved in hunting down an Alphatian lich and his armies during the last Alphatian/Thyatian war). Then I sit down and look at crunch. Obviously for the character described, Cleric is one option, Paladin is another, however, the party was lacking in primary divine spellcasting, so I chose cleric, followed by battle priest PrC. Lots of undead hunting and leadership in the background, so I loaded up on Leadership style feats (we use 3rd party material sometimes) and undead dealing stuff, as well as group buffs, and things to improve my turning ability. I mostly optimize because a number of people in my group do, but also, it's nice to be a functional character in a niche. I don't obsess over things like CoDzilla or anything (I've never actually seen the build, and I don't really care to), but I try to make sure that my character is effective at whatever he's supposed to be good at (i.e. crunch matches the fluff).

For the Bears-Grr discussion (and let me tell you how funny that looks on my screen ;-):
I'm not entirely sure that I agree with either position entirely, and quite frankly, I got tired of reading around page 2 or 3, and wanted to go ahead and put up my own 2cp. So I apologize if I'm restating previous material.
1. As far as ALL min-maxers being bad RPers, yeah, that sounds like a logical falacy. However, in my experience frequently (NOT ALWAYS!) the folks who are interested in numbers, and focus the numbers alone, will come up with any old concept to back up their numbers, and are often not "in" to character development/heavy/deep/etc. . . RP. They tend to be more interested in the "video game" experience of pounding the bad guys, rather than some of the other options out there. Is this "wrong"? No of course not. Does it ruin the fun for other folks sometimes? Clearly it ruins Grr's fun, so that's a yes for at least one person out there, and I'm guessing he's not the only one. And if he doesn't want those sort of players around, well, that's his prerogative. And honestly, since he seems to feel so strongly, it's probably a good thing that he doesn't allow them to play, because I suspect that it would just be misery all around.
2. Form and Function: I don't quite understand how folks get the idea that fluff and crunch are unrelated. If I say that my concept is "an elegant swordsman who participates in duels of both wit and dexterity (think Cyrano de Bergerac w.o. the nose)", and then creat a Fighter, with a high strength, low wisdom, int, and Cha, give him a 2-Handed sword, and the feat "Power Attack", well clearly the fluff and crunch don't match at all, and you'd tell me to revise either fluff or crunch, I hope. Is there more than one crunch way to meet the fluff? Of course. I can think of at least 3 ways off the top of my head to start this character, some may be better than others, and I might explore all three during character creation, to see which way had the best feel. For example, Swashbuckler is the obvious choice, Fighter/Rogue being another option, and someone will say look at the Sword Sage. Undoubtedly, from a mechanics standpoint, the Sword Sage probably is the best mechanical option, except for one thing. Nothing in my character concept indicates that his abilities are supernatural in origin. That sort of takes most of the reasons for going Sword Sage out of the picture, even though it might be the "optimal" mechanic, the crunch doesn't match the fluff. (This is actually my only gripe with ToB, it makes mellee a better option than in the past, but you've got to have these bizarre supernatural things going on. If you want to play an ex-townguardsman, you're still stuck with Fighter as being the only crunch that matches the fluff. <insert fighter's suck at high levels commentary>)
3. Similarly, the sheet should match the concept. If you say your character is a cook/baker/candlestick maker in his off time, then he should have at least a few ranks in Craft:cooking/baking/candlestick making to represent this. As far as taking 10/20, well . . . okay, but that's the equivalent of being the donut fryer at the local donut shop. You aren't really a baker, you know how to follow a recipe/instructions, barely. Taking 20 means that the task takes longer, which can be quite a big deal in the food industry (typical meal might take 30 minutes to prep, taking 20 means 600 minutes, or 10 hours, you're restaurant would go out of business, or you'd get fired). So representing this in any sort of meaningful way requires skill points. Why would you do this? In some campaigns these sorts of skills can make the difference in a social environment. Perhaps these points of baking/candlestick making give you the edge in currying favor with someone (a gift of master crafted gourmet dessert rolls for the king, who knows?). This is largely dependent upon GM though.
umm. . I'm longwinded, so I'll stop now. I've more to add to this, but it's 1:30 here, and I've got to go to work in the morning.

[Dausuul]

[

There's a problem if you don't quantify things that are relevant to D&D, such as swords and the damage they deal. There's no problem at all if you don't quantify the things that aren't relevant to D&D's mechanics, such as an amateur baker's pastries and how good they taste. "If it can be interacted with, it must be quantified" just isn't a necessary or even useful principle. Do you model the HP of twigs that a fighter takes a chop at? Or do you just let the fighter bisect them without rolling anything?

If it's important to know whether the fighter did in fact bisect the twig in one chop, I'd require an attack roll versus AC 9 (base AC 10, -5 Dex, +4 size modifier). I'd house-rule that the twig had zero hardness and one hit point, so if he hit it at all he'd bisect it.

If it's not important, sure, I'd hand-wave it away... but the reason I'd hand-wave it away is that the fighter has the crunch to back up the fluff. He's a fighter, he's got a good BAB and a high Strength, bisecting things with a greatsword is what he does. If I actually did make him roll for it, he'd almost certainly succeed.

If it were the grey elf wizard with a Strength of 6 trying to hack the twig apart with the fighter's greatsword, I'd make him roll for it, because the wizard actually has a fair chance of missing the twig. To do otherwise brings up the question: How come the wizard can reliably hit an object the size of a twig when it doesn't affect anything, yet as soon as it matters (even if the wizard doesn't know it) he becomes a total klutz with the blade?

That's where I have a problem with our hypothetical baker. You're the best baker in the world, yet you can't make any money by selling your pies? How the hell does that work? What if someone with more business savvy goes out and sells your pies for you, how come your pies don't sell any better than anyone else's? Suppose you try to ingratiate yourself with the blind king by baking him a wonderful pie, how come you don't get a bonus on your Diplomacy check?

If there's a baking contest and you take part, what determines whether you win or lose? If you lose, why, since yours are the best pies in the world? If you win, what if another PC has (unknown to you) bet money on your winning? If I were in a party with this self-proclaimed uber-baker, I'd damn well bet money on him in a baking contest, and if he lost I'd want to know how the hell that happened.

Your approach is based on the faulty assumption that the baker's skill will never have any impact on any crunch-related aspect of the game, and that just isn't so. Everything has potential to affect the crunch. If you play a high elf and declare that you've got black skin, white hair, and red eyes, you're going to be facing a lot more Hostile NPCs and a lot fewer Friendly and Helpful ones. You just got what amounts to a massive Diplomacy penalty, based purely on "fluff" details. Conversely, a drow with pale skin, black hair, and blue eyes would get what amounted to a huge Diplomacy bonus.

The reason I don't make players justify their characters' hair, skin, and eye color with some kind of mechanic is that in most cases, hair, skin, and eye color are "neutral" modifiers. A character with green eyes does not have a substantial advantage over a character with blue. In the case of the high elf with the black skin and white hair, I'd still allow that because being a drow look-alike is more of a disadvantage than it is an advantage. However, if somebody wanted to play a drow who looked like a high elf, I'd require some sort of game-mechanical price for that*, since looking like a drow is one of the built-in drawbacks of being a drow.

Now, being the best baker in the world? That's a significant advantage. It opens up a whole lot of options for your character. If you want that advantage, I'm going to require you to pay something for it, unless you can come up with a very convincing in-game explanation for how you can never derive any mechanical benefit whatsoever from this wondrous talent.

You could say that you were the best baker in the world, but someone slipped poison into the pie you made for the king and you nearly got executed for regicide. Now you can't so much as knead dough without messing it up, and the smell of flour makes you break out in a cold sweat. I'd be fine with that; it'd be a cool bit of backstory, and it doesn't provide you with a substantial in-game advantage. And if you someday decide to dump 20 ranks into Craft (Baker)--hey, the baker's got his groove back!

But if you actually are the best baker in the world, that's too big an advantage to just hand-wave it.

*Actually, I'd probably house-rule that the game-mechanical price is "You paid 2 character levels for a net +4 stats and a little SR, you sorry bastard." But that's just because drow are horribly underpowered.

[Hallavast]

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.

Actually, you have to take the prestige class to join the Order of High Sorcery. If you refuse to join the order, you're hunted down like a dog and killed. So there is a certain fluff factor that puts a restraint on your crunch options.

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.

what if this friend wants his character to wear heavy armor? What if he wants his build to reflect something that can't really be represented well with mechanics? Will he choose to follow the mandates of fluff or those of crunch?

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.

Lets say this is a fighter. And lets say it isn't one who is very interested in diplomacy. His high charisma doesn't do much for him mechanically, and his low wisdom actually further exploits his weakness of a low will save. I wouldn't call this optimized.

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.

I'm not arguing that there is any reason to take the Samurai class. Ever. However, I'd like to think that I've given examples of fluff that hinders crunch options.

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.

I'm not saying that mechanics by necessity get in the way of fluff or vice versa. I'm saying it's plausible. It can happen, and it does happen sometimes. For example, what if your fighter-turned-swordsage wants to wear heavy armor, is turned off by the style of martial maneuvers, and has no mention of any kind of training in the sublime way in his background? What if the player wants to be a half-elf for roleplaying reasons? Half-elves are nowhere near optimal. Will some of his decisions cause conflict involving fluff vs. crunch? Not necessarily, but it very well could happen. There may come a time when crunch gets in the way of fluff. What happens then?