"Optimized" characters or parties?

[Ulzgoroth]

Dasuul says everything I would want to, only better and more concisely.

[Bouldering Jove]

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?

There's a reason I was talking about the HP of a twig rather than ease of hitting. In high-pressure situations, the ability to reliably hit a small target is modeled by D&D's mechanical concerns. Infinitesimal levels of damage absorption are not among those concerns (should you check to see if the plant is in a "dying" state?). I'm really not talking about any physical case, I'm talking about principles for handling subjects and items that simply aren't modelled by the D&D mechanical system and have no relevance to it.

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.

I already said that it's the business of the player to justify to the DM why their flavor doesn't have anything in the way of mechanical influence (and I even gave specific examples for the "uber-baker", such as massive time/ingredient cost or even the lack of desire on the character's part to actually perform the baking he's capable of). If you as a DM would reject this particular bit of flavor as being too implausible or difficult to keep away from intruding on mechanical issues, go ahead, you don't have to allow flavor that doesn't make much sense. But certainly something more in the line of an amateur baker who makes the odd cake or pastry for the party and doesn't make any profit off of it doesn't strike me as something that needs to be cracked down on.

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.

What mechanical effect do blue eyes potentially have? There are certainly some types of flavor that lean closer towards mechanical influence than others, but asserting that every described element of a character must have some potential mechanical influence (and thus must be quantified and accounted for) is bunk.

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.

Default hostility or friendliness towards a character based on their appearance is a story and/or setting component and thus an element of flavor, not mechanics.

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.

*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.

By the SRD, drow don't suffer diplomacy penalties. If you give them the Forgotten Realms flavor, then sure, they're going to run into a lot of hostile people. If you're running a different campaign setting with entirely different flavor, then their SRD rules still work just fine, and don't suffer from any sudden imbalance. If a certain type of flavor creates more favorable story situations in the campaign you're running than you want them to have, that's fine, restrict it. But that has nothing at all to do with the inherent and definitional separation of flavor from mechanics.

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.

Being the best baker in the world under specific conditions that prevent them from getting any mechanical benefit from it? No, that really doesn't open up any mechanical advantage for a player character.

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!

And that is... exactly the kind of flavor I'm talking about. You could cry out "Hey, that's still an advantage, because surely they can use hirelings to do all the physical work for them and dictate instructions and blah blah blah etc.," but that would be ignoring the player's responsibility to keep their flavor out of the mechanical realm if they want non-mechanical flavor in the first place.

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

Both your terrified baker and an extremely apathetic baker (who's still physically and mentally capable of doing the work but now finds it as enjoyable as pulling teeth) are functionally identical. Their still-existent baking skills will have no mechanical impact on the game, only some potential influence on roleplaying and story. The only difference is their motivations. You're free to find one more allowable than the other, but both are still matters of flavor.

[Dhavaer]

Infinitesimal levels of damage absorption are not among those concerns (should you check to see if the plant is in a "dying" state?).

I fairly sure that plants are considered objects (they don't have Wisdom and Charisma scores) and so would be destroyed on reaching 0hp.

[Zincorium]

I've just gotta ask, since the baker thing has gone round and round and round:

Does anyone actually play with (meaning, has not kicked out or otherwise shunned) a player who does something analogous to claiming their character is the greatest baker, puts no points into craft or profession in those areas, and absolutely refuses to alter either of them?

Seriously, on the surface this guy appears to be the most battered straw man I've ever seen. If it's not a bizarre theoretical situation gone horribly wrong, and instead represents an actual subset of people who play, then I'll recant. I do, however, reserve the right to make fun of them if that's the case.

[Saph]

Does anyone actually play with (meaning, has not kicked out or otherwise shunned) a player who does something analogous to claiming their character is the greatest baker, puts no points into craft or profession in those areas, and absolutely refuses to alter either of them?

Seriously, on the surface this guy appears to be the most battered straw man I've ever seen. If it's not a bizarre theoretical situation gone horribly wrong, and instead represents an actual subset of people who play, then I'll recant. I do, however, reserve the right to make fun of them if that's the case.

I think it's just that several people are saying that you should be allowed to play like that, ie that crunch and fluff should be completely divorceable.

It's not as much of a straw man as it looks, because how you answer that is going to determine how you resolve any situation where a player wants to do something mechanically that makes no sense story- and flavour-wise.

And I think Dausuul put it pretty well. It makes absolutely no sense to decide that the D&D rules should apply to stuff like combat, but shouldn't apply to flavour stuff, because there's no way to separate the two. Unless you're playing Diablo, story and flavour will have a real big impact on the kind of combats you get into.

- Saph

[PnP Fan]

Zinc,
I think we had a kid who did something like that once, and we didn't boot him over it. He eventually left because, well he was 17, and the next youngest person was 23-ish. The kid just didn't fit in well with the rest of us, mostly because of maturity level. I know, I know, it seems a bit silly to bring up "maturity" when one is essentially talking about a complex game of pretend, but it's the truth.

[Dhavaer]

Unless you're playing Diablo, story and flavour will have a real big impact on the kind of combats you get into.

I don't know. Some of the monster in Diablo 2 are quite well integrated into the story of the area they appear in. (example: Corrupted Rogues in Act 1)

I know, I know, it seems a bit silly to bring up "maturity" when one is essentially talking about a complex game of pretend, but it's the truth.

I would submit that maturity is more important in a game of Let's Pretend than in most other games.

[Saph]

I would submit that maturity is more important in a game of Let's Pretend than in most other games.

Seconded. :)

- Saph

[Sir Giacomo]

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.

Completely in agreement with PnP Fan here (and the following analysis)!
Optimisation=knowledge of rules is there to get a character concept through in the best way you would want to; in the framework of a) the rules (could be also a different system than DD3.5) and b) in agreement with everyone else at the table. It's quite simple, really.
This covers the purely fluff/DM on the wing-group having fun as well as the number-crunching/dungeoncrawl/combat group with RAW DM having fun. And everything in between.*

- Giacomo

*Actually "Munchkinism" can exist in both extreme worlds, since it means nothing but "trying to win the game" with whatever means were agreed to beforehand, which is against the spirit of both games above.
In a numbercrunching game, it is the obvious, more known concept of a Munchkin with uber character builds dealing 1,000 damage/round at 10th level and having "auto-win" wizards etc. AND this resulting in a character by far better than everyone else's (stealing their fun, since they "lose").
In a fluff game, it is the player trying to capture the attention of the DM with an effort to catch the spotlight and tries to win this way at the expense of everyone else's fun.

[Dausuul]

There's a reason I was talking about the HP of a twig rather than ease of hitting. In high-pressure situations, the ability to reliably hit a small target is modeled by D&D's mechanical concerns. Infinitesimal levels of damage absorption are not among those concerns (should you check to see if the plant is in a "dying" state?). I'm really not talking about any physical case, I'm talking about principles for handling subjects and items that simply aren't modelled by the D&D mechanical system and have no relevance to it.

Just because it's not explicitly modelled in the D&D mechanics doesn't mean no mechanics are possible for it. The D&D system is open-ended; part of DMing is figuring out how to extend the rules on the fly to cover these odd situations. In the case of the twig, it's a simple extension: If you make your attack roll to hit the twig, then the twig breaks, no matter what you get on your damage roll. Theoretically, somebody might cast a spell on the twig to give it hardness 10, in which case you'd have to do 10 points of damage to break it.

I already said that it's the business of the player to justify to the DM why their flavor doesn't have anything in the way of mechanical influence (and I even gave specific examples for the "uber-baker", such as massive time/ingredient cost or even the lack of desire on the character's part to actually perform the baking he's capable of). If you as a DM would reject this particular bit of flavor as being too implausible or difficult to keep away from intruding on mechanical issues, go ahead, you don't have to allow flavor that doesn't make much sense. But certainly something more in the line of an amateur baker who makes the odd cake or pastry for the party and doesn't make any profit off of it doesn't strike me as something that needs to be cracked down on.

Then perhaps this is a bad example. If a character wants to be an amateur baker, that's fine; nobody says you have to be good at something to be an amateur at it. And even a lousy baker's efforts might seem pretty good after a month in the wilderness living off wild herbs and half-raw deer meat.

What I'm saying, I guess, is that I can't see any reasonable way to explain how a character can make pastries that are good when the party eats them, but suddenly go horribly bad whenever money or NPC gourmands are involved.

What mechanical effect do blue eyes potentially have? There are certainly some types of flavor that lean closer towards mechanical influence than others, but asserting that every described element of a character must have some potential mechanical influence (and thus must be quantified and accounted for) is bunk.

Of course I'm not saying every described element must be quantified and accounted for. What I am saying is that if something is going to give a character a significant in-game advantage, that needs to be considered and the character shouldn't get it free of charge. For blue eyes: Say there's a major NPC who has a thing for blue-eyed women. Any female PC with blue eyes should then get a circumstance bonus on her Diplomacy checks when dealing with that NPC. But because that's a very rare situation, it's not worth putting a price on it.

I think where we differ is that you're arguing there are some aspects of the game that are pure fluff, and others that are pure crunch, whereas I believe there is no such distinction. Everything in the game is both fluff and crunch. Whenever a character tries to do something and the outcome is in doubt, the DM applies the rules to determine what happens. If the rules do not explicitly cover this situation, the DM extrapolates from the existing rules--circumstance bonuses, related skills, modified saving throws, ability checks, whatever.

Of course, in some cases the DM might override the rules entirely in the interests of story, but that's a different question and not at issue here.

Default hostility or friendliness towards a character based on their appearance is a story and/or setting component and thus an element of flavor, not mechanics.

Again--no such distinction. If you look like a drow, lots of NPCs are going to be Hostile when you meet them. If you don't, they won't. Hostility is in the rules. Hence, there is a mechanical consequence to looking like a drow, even if it's not explicitly spelled out in the race's stats.

By the SRD, drow don't suffer diplomacy penalties. If you give them the Forgotten Realms flavor, then sure, they're going to run into a lot of hostile people. If you're running a different campaign setting with entirely different flavor, then their SRD rules still work just fine, and don't suffer from any sudden imbalance.

Actually, that's a flaw in the rules and a significant balancing factor. If everybody hates drow, then a PC drow is going to have to adopt disguises and illusions in order to take part in any adventure that happens in a city or town. I'd probably give the drow some small benefit to make up for that.

Of course, drow need a huge mechanical boost anyhow.

[SpiderBrigade]

I think it's just that several people are saying that you should be allowed to play like that, ie that crunch and fluff should be completely divorceable.

It's not as much of a straw man as it looks, because how you answer that is going to determine how you resolve any situation where a player wants to do something mechanically that makes no sense story- and flavour-wise.

It's not so much the "flavor and crunch should be divorcable" part of that example that's a straw man. It's the "Be the best baker in the world" part. When someone says you don't need ranks in Craft: Tasty Pies to bake a tasty pie, they're not talking about epic god-enticing superpies. They're talking about the kind of pie *I* could bake, in my kitchen, right now, if I wanted to. I can take 10 and bake a pie that people would enjoy eating. Could I win a pie-baking competition? Probably not unless I "rolled well" and outdid my usual level of skill.

Similarly, the point is not that the rules on skills should be disregarded all the time. They should be used when they are relevant. When you're in a pie-baking competition, you need to refer to the skill ranks. Mr. Baker NPC with 6 ranks will probably beat you. BUT, if you're entertaining your fellow PCS in your private stronghold and decide to make a pie for them, there is no point in saying "you cannot bake a tasty pie, you have no ranks in piecrafting."

The question of "dramatic weight" is also vital here. Is baking pies really more important to your character concept than your newfound calling as a warrior monk seeking to drive out the forces of darkness? Really? Then why aren't you taking levels in Expert so you can really boost those skill ranks? Again, we're not talking about a backstory that says "I am the world's greatest baker!" That would require some crunch backup because you'd have to prove you were better than any other baker. What is meant is a backstory more like "before I took up the blade, I liked to bake a tasty pie. I probably still could bake one."

Furthermore, why is this entire argument getting bogged down on "I put skill ranks in this fluff-centered profession skill," anyway? Except for one or two specific cases (diplomancers, certain rogue concepts) skill ranks are NOT a central ingredient for making your character good at things. You don't realy sacrifice much by putting ranks in Craft: Whittling instead of Use Rope, when you're a fighter with 2+INT skills per level. You're not going to be a Use Rope Master anyway.

If you're a rogue, and instead of boosting up Search and Disable Device you put ranks in Craft: Scrimshaw and Profession: Sailor, you'll never be a good trapfinder. Which is FINE, but your character concept of "I am a master seaman, skilled at delicate carving" is not somehow superior to "I am a master trapfinder, skilled at deft disarming." Similarly "I am the master baker, with 16 ranks in Craft: Pies" is in no way superior to "I am the shrewd liar, with 16 ranks in Bluff," as far as character concepts go.

And this is where we run right into the Storwind Fallacy again. Taking a bunch of skills that make you a really crappy rogue (because you haven't invested any ranks in your class skills) doesn't make you a better roleplayer. You're just playing a different character concept, one that is really good at a bunch of things that are basically useless in any normal D&D game. If all that matters to your character is being awesome at scrimshaw, sailing, and brewing grog, why are you adventuring again? If you're caught up in a quest to rid the world of evil or whatever, wouldn't you, completely in character, think of getting better at some skills to help you do that? You know, get past the arch-villain's evil traps and put a stop to him, instead of being KILLED by the traps, because you have spent all your skill points since level 1 on arts and crafts?

Aaaaand we're back to the "real" example as opposed to the strawman. NO skill-based-class player is going to put 18 ranks in nothing but Profession: and Craft: skills. That's the strawman. Meanwhile, a character with, say, 2 ranks in a few crafts and professions is not "anti-optimized."

On another note (and I realize this post is going to be so long that no one will read it) why do the same people yelling about "roleplay is more important than mechanics" get so hung up on the idea that certain class equals a certain archetype? How many times have we seen the "well, I'm a basic Fighter but because of my backstory I'm really very weak, so I rely on my agility and cunning to succeed in combat" model of character building? At some point, guess what, a Fighter-the-class might not be the best choice for representing that concept. How about picking a class that actually works better if you're dextrous? Similarly, "I am a righteous warrior of good!" does not mean you have to be a Paladin. It really doesn't. Just about ANY class could fit that concept. As you flesh out the personality, you'll see which classes let you be good at what you want to be good at. That's NOT bad role-playing. Because I said so.

[Saph]

And this is where we run right into the Storwind Fallacy again. Taking a bunch of skills that make you a really crappy rogue (because you haven't invested any ranks in your class skills) doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

But it does mean that you're willing to make an effort to make your character's stats match his background, at least to some degree. And it means that you have some concept of the character that goes beyond 'rogue'. You see, one of the defining traits of munchkins and combat wombats is that they're unwilling to sacrifice any degree of mechanical effectiveness, no matter how small the cost.

So while having non-combat skills doesn't make you a better roleplayer, on simple statistical probabilities it does mean you're more likely to be a better roleplayer. This is why I've always thought the 'Stormwind Fallacy' is a bit dishonest.

- Saph

[Vyker]

And this is where we run right into the Stormwind Fallacy again. Taking a bunch of skills that make you a really crappy rogue (because you haven't invested any ranks in your class skills) doesn't make you a better roleplayer.

But it does mean that you're willing to make an effort to make your character's stats match his background, at least to some degree.

Doesn't that presume that there exists a mismatch between stats and background in the first place? Isn't it possible to have an interesting character with no "dump skills" whose player is a good roleplayer? Say, a monk who never saw the outside world, and was trained only to fight. You could play them as very naive and unable to deal with cities or large crowds, or maybe very unconcerned for the thoughts of others who behaves like a bull in a china shop because he doesn't know any better, or something. That strikes me as a perfectly legitimate character concept.

Does tossing one skill point at a "dump skill" make for a better roleplayer? Two? Three?

The answer: There is no magic threshold.

Now, to be fair, you do touch on this by saying "So while having non-combat skills doesn't make you a better roleplayer, on simple statistical probabilities it does mean you're more likely to be a better roleplayer." You admit that there is a difference. I recognize that. I disagree with the statistical bit, largely because it's a reference to evidence which neither you nor I nor anyone here (I presume) can actually prove, but I still recognize that you admit the difference.

However, I think we can all conjure up the horror story example. The roleplayer who's so self-absorbed in his intricately-craft backstory that he hogs the limelight or can't accomodate the needs and goals of the party. The twink who constantly harangues the other players about how terrible their characters are.

But we should really steer clear of that sort of thing. We've all seen bad gamers (and if you haven't, hats off to you!). We know they're bad. And let's face it, for whatever reason they're bad, I don't think anyone has any desire to play with them one moment longer than is necessary. So what does it prove to use them as examples?

Moreover, equating character build with player skill, ability, or inclination isn't going to get anybody anywhere. At best, you might get lucky. On the other hand, you might be wrong. An RP-optimized character (full ranks in decorative cake frosting!) does not mean that the player will be good at roleplaying. A combat-optimized character can still have a player who roleplays well. Where you put your skills, stats, feats, gear, and spells is less important -- in terms of roleplaying -- than what you do with your character and how you, the player, behave.

I like dump skills. I find them fun and flavorful, and to me, they're not dump skills at all, even if I can never find an in-game use for them which contributes to The Problem facing the party. But it is neither proof nor indicative of a "better roleplayer" to start throwing skills, feats, spells, money, or anything else at something which has no bearing on the game. It can help. It is not guaranteed. And, like most things in D&D, it can also hinder. It's all in how you use it.

You can synergize both roleplaying and optimizing. It is not bad. It does not make you a worse person to be good at something, just as it does not make you a worse person to explain why you're good at it. It is my opinion, personal and subject to failure and ridicule though it may be, that games are best when they feature both and feature both well.

--

P.S. Does anyone else find it amusing that we have people trying to twink out a twinkie?

[PnP Fan]

Twink a twinkie :-) . . lol.

Just a minor point, the origin, as I recall, of the whole baker example was that the character concept included (not restricted to) that the character was a baker, as in a professional baker who made his living that way. Not the gawds Gift to the Pastry, nor Some Guy That Likes to Bake at Home. It's in between, neither twinked, nor twiddled. The idea is that you are claiming proficiency in something, so the character sheet should reflect this. And the logic should be applicable to any skill, not just the RP skills, last time I checked they all cost the same, and so should have equal value in game. Yet, I think everyone on this thread would balk if I said my character is a skilled rider (note: not a Great Rider, nor unskilled), but didn't put points in the Ride skill. Why should Craft: Tasty Stuff be treated differently? Is there a double standard? The rules don't indicate this.
I fail to see what any of this has to do with the stormwind fallacy (which, I understand to mean the idea that number crunchers are bad RP'ers, and good RP'ers don't number crunch). It has more to do with the character sheet matching the words coming out of the player's mouth.

[JaronK]

Here's what's being missed in the baker example, which is a complete derail and not relevant at all (and Spider noticed this too):

A character who is a baker is not necessarily better roleplayed than a character who is not. The baker character simply doesn't fit as well within the goals of a standard D&D game. A different character, who perhaps spent his time as a lumberjack and thus is good with an axe, could be just as interesting a character, if played by a decent player, and his skills would likely be more relevant (good skills with an axe, for example).

The fact that you put some skill points into baking does not make you a good roleplayer. In fact, all it says is that you made a character who, in some way, likely does not fit in the campaign as well as another character you could have made. Unless of course the campaign somehow requires baking, in which case you have in fact optomized him (oh no, the world is going to end... we need a pie, stat!)

Imagine, if you will, a play. The play is Romeo and Juliet. Since Shakespeare does not normally discuss the background of his characters, the actors in question must come up with appropriate backstories. The actor playing Romeo decides to exactly match the play with his thoughts about Romeo. He decides that Romeo had an older brother who died in a duel, which makes Romeo very sensitive about swordplay. He also decides that he is somewhat lonely, due to his mother not paying attention to him, so he has a subconscious need to be attached to a woman, any woman. He then lets these little things about his life guide his playing of the role. It puts a little more emotion and need in his attempts to woo Juliet, for example, and makes Mercutio's death that much more tragic.

The actress who plays Juliet, meanwhile, decides that Juliet is alergic to shellfish. Deathly so. She's absolutely terrified of shellfish. This of course has little to no impact on the main storyline of the play, which is about duels and romance and death. However, she recoils away from a table of food that the audience can't see during the party scene.

Juliet thinks that because she put something in the backstory which was totally different from anything in the play, that she is a better actor. Shellfish alergies really have little to do with plots about death and romance (unless someone dies of shellfish poisoning, but that doesn't happen in Romeo and Juliet). Her choice, in fact, is not fitting. Perhaps it's fine for her to decide to have that little quirk in her thoughts about Juliet, but having her get scared by a plate of food at a party, with no other relevance to the plot, actually distracts the audience and damages the telling of the play.

This is the situation at hand here. D&D games are sometimes about high fantasy, or world saving heroics. Sometimes, horror and survival. Perhaps they're about a quest for meaning. Who knows. It depends on the DM. But a Fighter is advancing the story when he's fighting. A wizard is advancing the story when he's casting his spells. If the fighter is messing about cooking when the rest of the party is trying to come up with a plan to stop the rampaging dragon, that's actually a problem.

The point here is that optomizing a character to fit within the story, which is really what powergaming is, can often be helpful. Randomly throwing in skill points in Profession: Pastry Chef is a distraction at best and a liability at worst. If your rogue, who was expected to deal with the traps, took a bunch of points in various baking skills instead of search, he's not moving the story along in a productive way.

And in either case, it doesn't make the rogue's player a better roleplayer.

JaronK

[Saph]

The point here is that optomizing a character to fit within the story, which is really what powergaming is, can often be helpful.

Yes.

Randomly throwing in skill points in Profession: Pastry Chef is a distraction at best and a liability at worst.

No it isn't. It's simply false to say that any character who isn't 100% uber-combat-optimised is a 'distraction' or a 'liability' to the party. By your standards, just about every one of the ordinary D&D characters I see in my groups would be a 'distraction' or 'liability', because they're half-optimised at best. And yet, it doesn't spoil the game or our combats. Why do you think that is?

If your rogue, who was expected to deal with the traps, took a bunch of points in various baking skills instead of search, he's not moving the story along in a productive way.

This is a real straw man that you guys are setting up here. When did I, or anyone else, say that the best way to make a good character is to gimp them as completely as possible? I suggested that you sink a few skill points in your background, if you have it. Rogues have a minimum starting total of THIRTY-TWO skill points, for crying out loud. You're seriously telling me sparing two or three of those is going to make your character ineffective? No? Then why does the 'totally ineffective character' keep getting brought up, when no-one's advocating it?

And in either case, it doesn't make the rogue's player a better roleplayer.

Straw man again. It doesn't make you a better roleplayer, it's the kind of thing that good roleplayers do, because good roleplayers usually try and come up with some kind of distinctive personality and story for their characters, and usually try and reflect it to some degree in their character sheet. Without making their characters totally ineffective.

- Saph

[The Glyphstone]

[quote=Saph;2428749]Yes.

No it isn't. It's simply false to say that any character who isn't 100% uber-combat-optimised is a 'distraction' or a 'liability' to the party. By your standards, just about every one of the ordinary D&D characters I see in my groups would be a 'distraction' or 'liability', because they're half-optimised at best. And yet, it doesn't spoil the game or our combats. Why do you think that is?

Because when everyone is "non-optimized", then the problem is removed. Everyone is equally "distracting" or "liable", thus there's still balance, everyone's important, and necessary for success. The spoiling problem comes when 5 of them are cool, balanced, interesting, fun characters but not "optimized", while #6 is a cool, interesting, fun Batman McWizard who renders the entire remaining party redundant because he was optimized out the ***.

This is a real straw man that you guys are setting up here. When did I, or anyone else, say that the best way to make a good character is to gimp them as completely as possible? I suggested that you sink a few skill points in your background, if you have it. Rogues have a minimum starting total of THIRTY-TWO skill points, for crying out loud. You're seriously telling me sparing two or three of those is going to make your character ineffective? No? Then why does the 'totally ineffective character' keep getting brought up, when no-one's advocating it?

Two or three of them, no...but if that 1st lvl rogue has 4 ranks in Craft(Whittling), 4 in Craft (Furniture), 4 in Profession (Lumberjack), 4 in Profession (Storekeep), 4 in Diplomacy, 4 in Craft (Construction Materials) and 2 (cross-class) in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering, then yes, he's a totally ineffective character. Though he may be a terrific builder, capable of crafting an entire house very quickly and cheaply, he's going to be almost useless in a dungeon.

"The best way to make a character is to gimp them as completely as Possible" - is the Stormwind Fallacy. The "character" above (who is ridiculous, and would never be played by anyone with even a fragment of sense), under the SF, would be vastly superior to the 1st lvl Rogue with ranks in UMD/Open Lock/Disable Device/Etc.

[Zincorium]

No it isn't. It's simply false to say that any character who isn't 100% uber-combat-optimised is a 'distraction' or a 'liability' to the party. By your standards, just about every one of the ordinary D&D characters I see in my groups would be a 'distraction' or 'liability', because they're half-optimised at best. And yet, it doesn't spoil the game or our combats. Why do you think that is?

You're swinging it around 180 degrees and charging off in the opposite direction with a full head of steam.

What use is profession: baker in a life-threatening conflict with armed opponents? None. Seriously. Only with characters who have the leeway and opportunity to develop those skills without fear of death would reasonably do so as the campaign progressed.

For a modern example: you are lost in the woods with a few other hikers, miles from civilization, and must work quickly to ensure your mutual survival. Even if you are a world-famous painter, continuing to improve your skills when there is so much left to be done might very well get you killed, possibly by the other people who's survival is threatened by your use of time and materials that could be used better elsewhere. Being an adept painter may well make you a better member of society in the larger world, but in that microcosm it makes you a liability unless you rapidly shift your priorities.

Any of the profession or craft skills can be like that, and it all depends on the campaign. Taking craft: woodcarving as a skill is almost never a bad thing unless it's at the expense of more commonly used skills (such as concentration for a wizard). It may provide a hook that you use to develop your character's personality (although in my book that's not a very interesting trait to base a character off of). However, in a campaign where your survival is repeatedly threatened by, say, traps, and you know that no one else has the skills to deal with them, your character would be very stupid to not maximize those skills which will let him survive over those which will earn him a bit of silver and provide recreation once the adventure is over. Not to say you can't play a stupid character, but the rest should rightly replace you for someone who can help their survival better.

[Saph]

Two or three of them, no...but if that 1st lvl rogue has 4 ranks in Craft(Whittling), 4 in Craft (Furniture), 4 in Profession (Lumberjack), 4 in Profession (Storekeep), 4 in Diplomacy, 4 in Craft (Construction Materials) and 2 (cross-class) in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering, then yes, he's a totally ineffective character. Though he may be a terrific builder, capable of crafting an entire house very quickly and cheaply, he's going to be almost useless in a dungeon.

No-one is doing this. No-one is advocating doing this. No-one is even talking about doing this, except for the people making these ridiculous straw man arguments. I suggested sinking two or three skill points. TWO OR THREE.

This is getting tedious. Every time I enter one of these optimisation debates and come down even the tiniest bit on the side of non-optimisation, then without fail, within a page or two I'll re-open the thread to find someone telling me that what I'm really saying is that you should all be playing comatose, retarded, paraplegic kobolds and that anyone who doesn't gimp their character is a bad RPer.

"The best way to make a character is to gimp them as completely as Possible" - is the Stormwind Fallacy. The "character" above (who is ridiculous, and would never be played by anyone with even a fragment of sense), under the SF, would be vastly superior to the 1st lvl Rogue with ranks in UMD/Open Lock/Disable Device/Etc.

I'm getting sick to the back teeth of this 'Stormwind Fallacy'. It's become a mantra that's repeated even when it has no relevance to the discussion. I'm seriously starting to think about writing a post on everything that's wrong with the 'Stormwind Fallacy', just to shake up the people who keep quoting it at me and expecting me to take it as absolute truth.

- Saph

PS, Zinc - yes. If your campaign is pure combat, then it does make no sense to be improving your non-combat skills. But most campaigns aren't pure combat, and it's not much of a stretch to say that your character might have spent a while as something other than an adventurer/soldier. Either way, though, it generally makes sense to improve the skills you're using, not the ones you're not.

[Zincorium]

No-one is doing this. No-one is advocating doing this. No-one is even talking about doing this, except for the people making these ridiculous straw man arguments. I suggested sinking two or three skill points. TWO OR THREE.

And two or three of them was a flat 'no, it would not be a problem'. It's in his post, trust me.

This is getting tedious. Every time I enter one of these optimisation debates and come down even the tiniest bit on the side of non-optimisation, then without fail, within a page or two I'll re-open the thread to find someone telling me that what I'm really saying is that you should all be playing comatose, retarded, paraplegic kobolds and that anyone who doesn't gimp their character is a bad RPer.

I have not seen this. Except as a clearly labeled joke. The point is, you are optimizing if you do not play those characters. You have decided that those are not something you want to play because they are, simply put, too pathetic to be in a dungeon at all. You are not completely optimizing, or even going very far, but you are to some extent, because you have taken the bad options, the paraplegic kobolds to use your example, compared it to a character with some use, and chosen the useful one that is in fact more optimized.

You can't be truly anti-optimization without saying everyone should play characters with no utility, no purpose, and no reason to live. The presence of any of those gets a character much closer to optimal. That you restrict the level of optimization that you feel is appropriate does not make you non-optimalist (yes, I'm just making up words here). No one I've ever seen is truly anti-optimization, although some like Grr are incredibly antagonistic and bigoted about what degree of optimization is acceptable and labels anyone beyond his as munchkins.

I'm getting sick to the back teeth of this 'Stormwind Fallacy'. It's become a mantra that's repeated even when it has no relevance to the discussion. I'm seriously starting to think about writing a post on everything that's wrong with the 'Stormwind Fallacy', just to shake up the people who keep quoting it at me and expecting me to take it as absolute truth.

Because it doesn't mean what you think it means. I am a person who does optimize. I make fighters who can fight well, wizards who have a good selection of spells, optimized.

If the stormwind fallacy was not a fallacy, I would have to be a bad roleplayer for this to be true. Now, am I? My group certainly doesn't think so. I've gotten compliments on a character idea on these boards.

The other side of it is just as easy to understand if you don't freak out and misconstrue it.

Do you not like over-optimizing (which is always subjective)? Fine. You have a preference. But tell me this, straight and true, is it because you have that preference that you have the roleplaying skill you do?

Or is it completely independent?

I think it's the latter. Unless you have a mental block on it all, I'd guess that if you were handed a character sheet that was optimized, you'd still be able to figure out a way to create a colorful backstory and interesting personality that you could have fun with. If the character's build being good makes the game less fun for you, that would be sad. It really would.

If it isn't that way, the stormwind fallacy remains unchallenged. You, me, anyone on this board, has an ability to roleplay. It's not a derivative of whether or not we optimize to the same extent. It just is. That's all the stormwind fallacy is really talking about.

[Artemician]

@Saph, I agree mostly with what you are saying, but I'm a little confused about your beef with the Stormwind Fallacy.

In my understanding, the Stormwind Fallacy simply states that comatose, retarded, paraplegic kobolds are not better RPers than well-played wizards. I do not see anything wrong with that statement.

[Saph]

And two or three of them was a flat 'no, it would not be a problem'. It's in his post, trust me.

But then he segued straight into this ridiculous example of the woodcarver-shopkeeper, and presented it as a counter-example. So:

I have not seen this. Except as a clearly labeled joke.

If that wasn't what he was saying, what was he saying? Why have you written a long post justifying optimisation when I wasn't saying that optimisation was a bad thing in the first place?

The reason I'm irritated is that I started off this argument saying that if a character is supposed to have a background skill, then they should have a few skill points in it. That was it. Nothing else. And yet, now we're talking about 'Woody the Unable-To-Dungeon-Crawl Woodcarver'. Right in the very first post I made I said that I would never ask a player to do anything that would actually gimp their character - yet, the argument's now revolving around having to gimp your characters. It's really annoying. If you want to defend optimisation, find someone who's anti-optimisation to argue against!

- Saph

[Zincorium]

If that wasn't what he was saying, what was he saying? Why have you written a long post justifying optimisation when I wasn't saying that optimisation was a bad thing in the first place?

He was probably saying that it's a bad idea to go that far, and anything that doesn't go anywhere near that far is good.

Him: A few skillpoints in non-combat stuff is fine, don't go beyond that. That would suck

You: A few skillpoints in non-combat stuff is fine, why is everyone saying anything about anything else?

I was defending the use of the stormwind fallacy in my last post, since you seem to have a severe, and as far as I can see, unjustified hatred of it's mention.

Bad arguments are endemic in this thread, on BOTH sides. I've called this out already. The bad arguments are actually products of people committing this stormwind fallacy you rant against, I find it ironic that you simultaneously condemn people who claim that roleplayers want everyone to suck and a school of thought which says they're wrong in the same manner you do.

[Saph]

I was defending the use of the stormwind fallacy in my last post, since you seem to have a severe, and as far as I can see, unjustified hatred of it's mention.

Because this is the second time within three days that I've had it quoted against me when it had little to no relevance to what I was talking about (check out Scorpina's thread for the first one). Maybe that's unjustified, maybe not, but I'm certainly getting sick of the way it's used.

- Saph

[Dausuul]

Because this is the second time within three days that I've had it quoted against me when it had little to no relevance to what I was talking about (check out Scorpina's thread for the first one). Maybe that's unjustified, maybe not, but I'm certainly getting sick of the way it's used.

- Saph

I agree with Saph. It's irritating when someone responds to a post saying, in short, "Two or three ranks in background skills is often a good thing, and a willingness to spare a few ranks for background skills is often a sign of a good RPer" by saying:

Two or three of them, no...but if that 1st lvl rogue has 4 ranks in Craft(Whittling), 4 in Craft (Furniture), 4 in Profession (Lumberjack), 4 in Profession (Storekeep), 4 in Diplomacy, 4 in Craft (Construction Materials) and 2 (cross-class) in Knowledge: Architecture and Engineering, then yes, he's a totally ineffective character. Though he may be a terrific builder, capable of crafting an entire house very quickly and cheaply, he's going to be almost useless in a dungeon.

No one had brought up Architect-Boy here, so why are we talking about him? Sure, he's a total loss as an adventurer. Sure, it's not fair to the other PCs to play such a character in a dungeon crawl, nor does it make any sense that such a character would be dungeon crawling to begin with. But nobody was arguing this point, not even Grr.

Thus, Architect-Boy is a straw man, and the Stormwind Fallacy is not relevant in this particular spin-off discussion. It is relevant to what Grr was saying a few pages back, but that debate seems to have died down.

[Indon]

@Saph, I agree mostly with what you are saying, but I'm a little confused about your beef with the Stormwind Fallacy.

In my understanding, the Stormwind Fallacy simply states that comatose, retarded, paraplegic kobolds are not better RPers than well-played wizards. I do not see anything wrong with that statement.

I think I know, I have a similar problem with people who cite it.

The Stormwind Fallacy means that powergaming, munchkining, min-maxing, whatever you like to call it, does not neccessarily decrease the quality of roleplaying for that character or campaign. This is perfectly sensible, a case of correlation =/= causation.

The problem is when you take it to mean that it doesn't decrease the quality of roleplaying for any characters or campaigns. It can and does, it just doesn't always do so. Bad roleplaying is not neccessarily CAUSED by powergaming, but it is strongly LINKED to powergaming, and powergaming has the POTENTIAL to cause bad roleplaying.

Or, in other words, there are many people who can't roleplay and powergame at once. I'd go so far as to say the people who can create a mechanically powerful AND interesting character are far less common than those who can't, though of course there is no meaningful data on the subject. To commit the Stormwind Fallacy is simply to say that such people don't exist at all.

[Dausuul]

I think I know, I have a similar problem with people who cite it.

The Stormwind Fallacy means that powergaming, munchkining, min-maxing, whatever you like to call it, does not neccessarily decrease the quality of roleplaying for that character or campaign. This is perfectly sensible, a case of correlation =/= causation.

The problem is when you take it to mean that it doesn't decrease the quality of roleplaying for any characters or campaigns. It can and does, it just doesn't always do so. Bad roleplaying is not neccessarily CAUSED by powergaming, but it is strongly LINKED to powergaming, and powergaming has the POTENTIAL to cause bad roleplaying.

Or, in other words, there are many people who can't roleplay and powergame at once. I'd go so far as to say the people who can create a mechanically powerful AND interesting character are far less common than those who can't, though of course there is no meaningful data on the subject. To commit the Stormwind Fallacy is simply to say that such people don't exist at all.

Actually, the Stormwind Fallacy does not mention powergaming or munchkining, except in a parenthetical side comment. It does speak to optimization, which is a different issue. Putting points in background skills is not a non-optimal choice, because part of your objective in creating the character is to be good at those background skills and putting ranks in them is generally the best way to do that (compared to, say, blowing a feat on Skill Focus). It is a non-munchkin choice, because munchkins don't have background skills.

This is not to imply that anyone who does not put points in non-adventuring background skills is a munchkin; only that anyone who does put points in such skills is probably not a munchkin.

The original "Stormwind Fallacy" post:

The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.

Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.

Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.

(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')

Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.

Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.

[TRM]

I generally make my character concept (including background, etc..). Then give it the game mechanics, and I don't actively try to make a bad character, but neither do I attempt to be the most powerful character in the universe.
But it's not like I'm going to be a shurikan weilding Barbarian with a 6 dex just because I would be "role-playing more" by being completely inferior. Of course neither will I use 28 splatbooks in order to be invincible.

Not angry,
Not dead,

--Me

[spotmarkedx]

Saph, I think what got everyone's (or at least my own) hackles up in this thread was this:

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.

Guess what my warrior does in between adventures... he whittles. He sells those figurines. It's a paltry sum compared to what can be acquired adventuring, but it makes me feel better about the character's personality / work ethic / etc.

Yup. Has 10 ranks in craft: woodworking and 10 ranks, profession: carpenter.

emphasis all my own.

So what we have here is was someone advocating having a warrior that makes most of his money adventuring (by admission) with what is probably the majority of his skill points in a craft and profession that have nothing to do with his primary role in the group, i.e. the physical strength-based character in the group.

See on the one hand our warrior has A> the majority of his income, and B> chance of death if his skills are subpar.

On the other hand we have A> something to do while between adventures. B> the chance of someone not buying his work if his skills are subpar. Note that even subconsciosly Grr admitted that this was something done only when he wasn't adventuring, which indicates that he visualized the character focused on the adventure, not the woodworking.

And yet how do we see the skill points spent on leveling? This side job for something to keep busy when there isn't a job in the adventuring life.

This is what we (or at least myself, I cant speak to the others) are calling Stormwind fallacy. Grr was pretty much shoving not "one or two", but 20 skill ranks (for a fighter!) in our face, saying "See! This subobtimal choice is what makes my character a better character!", when in truth, I would hope that the fighter might have a little concern for the typical dangers found in dungeoneering (and thus take jump/climb/swim), or on watch (painfully buy spot/listen crossclass), or other dependant on the storyline. Having such a prime example of it in this thread makes swallowing complaints about the use of the term "Stormwind Fallacy" hard to do.

I personally agree that a skill rank here or there on background skills will have little effect in the long run of a character, and thus is not a horrible optimizaton "never do this". Similarly, though, I would have to say that having taken those background points does not necessarily make the player that has done so the better roleplayer over, say, the wizard who has devoted all his early years to his apprenticeship and thus only has wizard skills (or who relied on his natural ability int bonus to bake bread instead of skill ranks or whatever)

[Leush]

Okay, lets pick at the stormwind fallacy post, because we feel like it.For the most part it is correct. One thing does not neccessitate the other, however there is a mistake...

Mistake: " Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game."

"A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other."

Emphasis mine. Indol has really adressed it pre-emptively, but here it goes again with a different spin: Someone who focuses on role-playing aspect, may be in such a frame of mind that they do not manage to optimise (and optimising is very strongly related to powergaming). Someone who focuses on optimising a character, for combat or something else, may well get carried away and not focus on the role playing because they get 'too' caught up in the numbers. It, in a way, has nothing to do with the game (so the fallacy may be right from that point of view), but rather with the way the mind works- ie it is difficult to focus on two things at a time. A psychologist may even start babbling on about left/right side brain dominance which determines whether you're more concerned with emotions or numbers(and hence roleplaying and numbercrunching), but that would be a stretch with my very limited knowledge of the subject. It is, however, unfair to say that someone who focuses on optimising will likely focus on roleplaying just as much, and visa versa.
-----------------------
As for my view on the matter of craft related skills: a) If you have games with long stretches of downtime- which are damn rare- they can become useful.
b)Whether you connect fluff and crunch is really a measure of how freeform your game is, to a limit. Obviously if you say "it doesn't matter if he has ranks in craft or not, if it's in the backstory, he can have it", then your game is simply leaning towards freeform outside of combat. If, however, you actually use and possibly extend the crafting and profession rules, then you are simply leading a more rule bound game- I personally prefer the latter, because ya know, there is more to d&d than killing them and taking their stuff... Or so they say....