Class build vs role play.

[KyleG]

I've been coming up with a few characters if late and it was pointed out to me that instead of trying to Multiclass or even reflavour I should use roleplay and skills to reflect the character I was trying to create. In that case it was a sorcerer raised in the forest by a ranger.
So when do you use rp to get the character you envisage vs using class?

[Honest Tiefling]

There's no reason the two have to be separate, you can roleplay an optimized build as well as someone can utterly **** up an optimized build.

If you have to do one OR the other, in my opinion, is when something has gone horribly wrong either in house rules, the system, the character sheet, or the backstory and something needs to change. But a good character should be complimented by a build that suits the group at hand and a good backstory should lend itself to taking mechanically interesting and fun options.

[Man_Over_Game]

I've been coming up with a few characters if late and it was pointed out to me that instead of trying to Multiclass or even reflavour I should use roleplay and skills to reflect the character I was trying to create. In that case it was a sorcerer raised in the forest by a ranger.
So when do you use rp to get the character you envisage vs using class?

For me, it depends on how lucrative the DM is. For example, say I'm a combat medic in 5e. I might want to use Medicine in place of a Survival check to determine how long someone has been dead, and maybe determine clues as to what they were killed by. Some DMs might say that I'd only be able to use Survival for that kind of check, and others wouldn't. But either way, it plays a part in what my character is allowed to do.

Personally, I try to find a bundle of mechanics that suit what my character is. I find it a lot easier to not assume the roleplaying aspects of the mechanics I'm choosing. After all, just because a Sorcerer is a naturally born caster doesn't necessarily mean that you have to BE a Sorcerer to be a natural born caster. 5e Sorcerers often have spells targeted for destruction, which doesn't make much sense if you're aiming for a "natural born healer" kind of vibe. Eventually, your narrative is going to be limited by the mechanics you have available, so I try to come up with the mechanics first, and then work around the rest.

For example, if you randomly rolled stats, and had an 18, a 16, and the rest all 10's or less, you wouldn't be eligible to be a Sorcerer AND a Ranger, yet the same concept could be done by replacing Sorcerer with Druid or Cleric. At some point, mechanics matter, and it could matter as soon as level 2.

----------------------

There is one time when RP is the only deciding factor for classes/features, and that's when something specific in the campaign called for it. For example, choosing not to use my dark powers that come from a demon, and instead choosing to fight with my own two hands (no longer taking Warlock levels to instead take Fighter levels). But that's mostly to represent a change, rather than a goal or to flesh out the archetype. If I wanted to go for "Guy with dark powers that avoids using it in lieu of physical combat", it could be better done through other means (Like being an Eldritch Knight or Conquest Paladin).


You could say it's the same difference between making a meal designed for 5 people, and adapting a meal made for 3 people to serve 5 people. When you can, you want to focus on making it perfect and the most accurate to what you want, the first time around. If you need to adjust later on (and force a change to the concept), then do so then. A meal designed for 4 people has to go through less of a change to serve 5 than a meal designed to serve 3 scaled up to 5.

Put another way, Sorcerer + Fighter makes a poorer magic warrior than a straight Eldritch Knight, who incorporates both parts of him (casting, fighting) more fluidly. You could say that multiclassing in unfavorable ways (like with Sorcerer + Fighter) would be good to represent a disconnect. That is, the reason you don't use them fluidly is because you can't, where an Eldritch Knight can.

[JNAProductions]

I've been coming up with a few characters if late and it was pointed out to me that instead of trying to Multiclass or even reflavour I should use roleplay and skills to reflect the character I was trying to create. In that case it was a sorcerer raised in the forest by a ranger.
So when do you use rp to get the character you envisage vs using class?

Why not do both?

In 5E D&D, I would achieve this with an Outlander background Sorcerer-they get wilderness skills from Outlander, and then the meat is Sorcerer.

But really, you SHOULD be using both. If your character is supposed to be an expert swordsman, they should have good skills with a blade. A cowardly character might not need mechanical reinforcements on that, but certainly should avoid "Immunity to fear" type abilities, as well as being played as a coward.

[ExLibrisMortis]

What you are able to do mechanically should evoke whatever you are trying to role-play, to the extent that it is possible/you care to do so within the system; you make up the difference by role-playing. Note that the name of your mechanic abilities (or class, background, etcetera) has no bearing on what you are able to do.

[KyleG]

Maybe my own problem comes from planning out the characters future (on paper at least) before their character is discovered in actual play.
My death cleric rogue idea might just be religious rogue.
The bookish introvert hexblade could be rp as not very charismatic but becomes empowered by his patron in battle, instead of not optimizing him.

[OldTrees1]

Maybe my own problem comes from planning out the characters future (on paper at least) before their character is discovered in actual play.

Well, if you are discovering the character during actual play then I predict 2 things:
1) Initially, you should not plan out the class build too far in advance. You have yet to learn who they are.
2) A character discovered during play is likely to already be partially mechanically supported. Future choices can be used.

[Honest Tiefling]

Maybe my own problem comes from planning out the characters future (on paper at least) before their character is discovered in actual play.

Maybe, but maybe the problem is more in your approach to the character and the game. You seem to have more of what I call a 'bard' approach than a 'wizard' approach to the character. This can have several strengths, as you are more flexible and probably quite comfortable with improv. Downside? Yeah, prepwork, probably not your strong point. The issue isn't roleplay versus optimization, but that by not having a good feel for the character you're kinda putting the cart before the horse.

I think you need to talk to your DM about this, and see how comfortable they are with giving you ONE and ONLY ONE free character tweak after you've found your footing. Or ask how flexible you can be with certain bits of the build, like feats and such that you can just handwave away from a roleplaying perspective without going overboard.

[Spore]

I've been coming up with a few characters if late and it was pointed out to me that instead of trying to Multiclass or even reflavour I should use roleplay and skills to reflect the character I was trying to create. In that case it was a sorcerer raised in the forest by a ranger.
So when do you use rp to get the character you envisage vs using class?

I am always of the opinion,

1) Create a character idea that can be simplified to 4-5 words (without using class names). If you are a swordsman, then pick a class accordingly. It doesn't NEED to be a fighter, or even a martial (though someone using a 1/2 BAB class or magic user is stretching this).

2) Build a strong core character around the concept. Not necessarily optimized in every minor way. Let your noble Swordsman of average intelligence have a few ranks/proficiency with History.

3) Optimize a few things. Be generally decent at "your thing". Build in a few weaknesses; not crippling ones, a mobile fighter should not have 20 ft. of speed per turn, but an agile swordsman could have trouble RPing in situations.

4) The MOST important of all: Everyone wants their character to shine. And usually a D&D group consists of specialists. But occasionally the Cha 8 fighter is forced to talk for the group, or should force himself. Just because you dumped social skills does not give you a free pass on every social encounter. You're needed as the backdrop for others to shine.

I even advise to normalize your character's abilities if they become to detached from reality. Half-Angel Tiefling warlock pacting with Cthulhu for power? No amount of humanizing that thing is gonna get people engaged. Tiefling warlock pacting with Cthulhu to talk to their lover one last time before they die? Yup, understandable, and a cool backstory.

And yes, in several cases, you SHOULD switch up your backstory to fit your class or switch your class to fit your backstory. If you want to play a wandering wizard you simply can't be a human raised by wolves for the first two decades of his life and expect to start the game as Wizard 1 at age 20.

[HamsterKun]

Personally, I prioritize role-playing over optimization. Sure, a class might not need certain ability scores as much as others, and certain spells and feats are strictly better than others, but having a slightly sub-optimal build can be useful for RPing.

For example, in one campaign I had a 17-year-old variant human noblegirl who was a Life Domain cleric. The free feat I gave her was Weapon Master, which increases your STR or DEX by one and gives you proficiency in four weapons of choice. On top of the simple weapon proficiency all clerics get, the four weapons she could also use were rapiers, whips, shortswords, and longswords. The former two fit her noble status best, with the latter two being sort of throwaways.

[Max_Killjoy]

Assuming this topic is mainly focused on D&D/D&D-like systems.

Part of the problem here is the long-standing disconnect between various players regarding the real purpose/meaning of the Classes.

Take for example the 5e Warlock. Some really flexible and useful mechanics there. Some players look at it as a tool in the toolbox, readily reskinned to remove the patron entirely and simply use the mechanics. Other players respond that this is breaking the spirit of the Class, and that no, taking a level in Warlock means you must have a patron and most have made a pact -- that each Class represents a distinct and concrete "archetype" that must be followed by the characters built using that class.

[MeimuHakurei]

Assuming this topic is mainly focused on D&D/D&D-like systems.

Part of the problem here is the long-standing disconnect between various players regarding the real purpose/meaning of the Classes.

Take for example the 5e Warlock. Some really flexible and useful mechanics there. Some players look at it as a tool in the toolbox, readily reskinned to remove the patron entirely and simply use the mechanics. Other players respond that this is breaking the spirit of the Class, and that no, taking a level in Warlock means you must have a patron and most have made a pact -- that each Class represents a distinct and concrete "archetype" that must be followed by the characters built using that class.

Requiring the flavor of a class to be attached to its mechanics notably makes a few storytelling issues about a character's personality and skillsets:

-Why does a character devoted to a cause/order have to be a frontline melee combatant?
-Why is the unarmed expert one of the worst at grappling enemies?
-Why is the musician the best at grappling enemies?
-Why do I need to worship a god to get good healing magic?
-Why can't I use my battle trance/strength surge/etc. without having to constantly attack?

Some of it is on the player perception, others are on faulty class design that are too restrictive/open on several things.

[Ventruenox]

Treantmonk put together an interesting video on this subject that is worth a watch. The short of it is that he identifies class abilities as tools to justify a character concept rather than viewing the class itself as an identity.

[Max_Killjoy]

Requiring the flavor of a class to be attached to its mechanics notably makes a few storytelling issues about a character's personality and skillsets:

-Why does a character devoted to a cause/order have to be a frontline melee combatant?
-Why is the unarmed expert one of the worst at grappling enemies?
-Why is the musician the best at grappling enemies?
-Why do I need to worship a god to get good healing magic?
-Why can't I use my battle trance/strength surge/etc. without having to constantly attack?

Some of it is on the player perception, others are on faulty class design that are too restrictive/open on several things.

-Why is being widely skilled locked behind being a musician or a sneak-thief?
-Why are so many class concepts linked with being charming?

[NorthernPhoenix]

I generally find this comes up most with multi classing (in DnD!). If you want to be a straight wizard or straight fighter or Paladin, sure you can make them strong without it influencing roleplay (a lot, at least). But when you start wanting to "dip 2X for Y, then 1Z for XY" red flags instantly shoot up and tell me your character is more of a board piece in a game to be won than a character in a story to you.

[Max_Killjoy]

I generally find this comes up most with multi classing (in DnD!). If you want to be a straight wizard or straight fighter or Paladin, sure you can make them strong without it influencing roleplay (a lot, at least). But when you start wanting to "dip 2X for Y, then 1Z for XY" red flags instantly shoot up and tell me your character is more of a board piece in a game to be won than a character in a story to you.

Multiclassing isn't inherently about power, it can just as easily be about trying to find the mechanics that most closely represent the character.

[Man_Over_Game]

Multiclassing isn't inherently about power, it can just as easily be about trying to find the mechanics that most closely represent the character.

Agreed. If you don't like the idea of relying on a bow/crossbow early on as a Wizard in 3.5, you can either suck it up or play another class. Sometimes, the mechanics are ugly or they don't fit in what you're looking for.

Since the mechanics are the limiting factor (you can roleplay a strong person, but not without mechanics that reflect as such), I find it's best to focus on mechanics first and then work backwards. That is, figure out how you want to play, then how to make that happen, then make that happen. Because TTRPGs out there focus more on how you're going to play, not how you played in the past.

[Jay R]

I have the role and the build in mind when I write backstory and when I create mechanics.

My most recent Ranger was a bully as a child, grew out of it, and now hates bullies. He always attacks the largest enemy. Therefore he is built around being able to defeat large creatures.

My gnome illusionist was built to be a jokester with a gnome's prankish sense of humor. So his Ancestral Relic is built around a big joke, both in the game (he's on a quest, but doesn't know who sent him on it or what he's supposed to do) and in the metagame. [Unknown to him, his hooked hammer (the Relic) was once owned by his ancestor Grabthar, who used it in an alliance with the dwarven king Warvan and his sons. Someday, when he finds out its history, I plan to find an opportunity to say, "By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Warvan, you shall be avenged!"]

The role should be intrinsic to the build. The build should be intrinsic to the role.

[Quebbster]

I have the role and the build in mind when I write backstory and when I create mechanics.

My most recent Ranger was a bully as a child, grew out of it, and now hates bullies. He always attacks the largest enemy. Therefore he is built around being able to defeat large creatures.

My gnome illusionist was built to be a jokester with a gnome's prankish sense of humor. So his Ancestral Relic is built around a big joke, both in the game (he's on a quest, but doesn't know who sent him on it or what he's supposed to do) and in the metagame. [Unknown to him, his hooked hammer (the Relic) was once owned by his ancestor Grabthar, who used it in an alliance with the dwarven king Warvan and his sons. Someday, when he finds out its history, I plan to find an opportunity to say, "By Grabthar's hammer, bu the sons of Warvan, you shall be avenged!"]

The role should be intrinsic to the build. The build should be intrinsic to the role.

Maybe afterwards you can do "by Grabthar's Hammer, what a saving" too?

[Jay R]

Maybe afterwards you can do "by Grabthar's Hammer, what a saving" too?

That's appalling. Yes, I have to find an opportunity to do that.

[Guizonde]

in dnd and pathfinder, i find the use i have to have for the group, and then build my character around it. for my latest, i wanted to play a halfling nomadic barbarian and the group needed a cleric first and foremost, and a horde-killer second.

the concept of my character was a boisterous bruiser from a nomadic tribe riding around on a giant ram. yeah, and i'm meant to play cleric. right, so here goes! two levels of ranger for the riding and animal handling (plus the two-hander fighting style), and 7 levels of cleric in the luck and strength domains. luck for the crit-fishing and the thematically lucky halflings, strength because for a boisterous halfling it fit thematically as well as mechanically. to represent even more the horde-killing, i buy great cleave and some mounted combat as feats which are frankly unoptimized for a full-fledged cleric, but hey. i'm going for a barbarian vibe.

so i end up with a character that looks, talks, and fights like a divinely-blessed barbarian. in practice, the character charges into combat, dismounts and fights on foot right in the thick of it where all of my aoe spells can do the most impact. i've got survivability thanks to the gear and the ranger levels, but those are secondary. i picked and chose what i wanted to create the character i wanted while ignoring the common archetypes of both ranger (aragorn in all but name) and cleric (some kind of ecclesiast). the character works, no matter how unconventional it is.

i try to avoid the "classic" vibe of dnd classes, they're too cliché for my tastes. this character was a challenge, though, and i enjoyed building it as much as i enjoy playing it. i'd never played mounted support before, and i'm finding it's surprisingly effective. as long as you find something fun, there's no wrong way of playing.

[Psyren]

In 3e and older, this sort of concept would only be possible mechanically through a series of inelegant dips; take a look at Elminster's wonky statblock in FRCS for example.

Newer editions/games have more lightweight constructs to allow you to represent a dabbler or a varied history without diluting your build quite as much. For example, 5e and Starfinder have "Backgrounds" that let you apply a unique slant that separates your version of a particular class from the norm, like a spellcaster who starts with some rogueish tendencies from having grown up on the streets. Pathfinder has Traits which perform a similar function, and also has some dabbler feats and even a whole system called Variant Multiclassing that let you add some secondary class features without hurting any of your primary class progress.

[Tanarii]

So when do you use rp to get the character you envisage vs using class?

When I want to make decisions for my character that doesn't involve class features.

Similarly, if you want to "roleplaying" someone that doesn't have an appropriate skill or ability score or feature, or whatever, just make decisions that don't result in checks or require use of features or spells, but still can succeed

Almost all GMs have things that can be done that don't result in a check, under practically every system. Your character knows how to do those things, if you the player decides they do. Make the decision your character will attempt to do the thing, then declare they will attempt to do the in-game. If it's beyond their capabilities, they will either have to make a check and likely fail, or just fail automatically without the feature/spell.

Example: your sorcerer raised by the ranger in the local forest probably knows the local forest paths, can extrapolate (possibly incorrectly) the basics of how Rangers operate from the way his stepdad did, and likely can do any basic camping tasks: build a basic shelter, start a fire under non-adverse conditions, cook food over an open fire, etc. the momen your DM calls for a Wis (Survival) check or whatever, that's something possibly beyond his learning.

The key difference is when you choose to back up knowledge beyond the simple by selecting ability scores, features, spells, etc, you are in effect saying "my character is actually pretty good at advanced stuff that requires special training".

If you run into a DM (or worse system) that calls for checks very frequently for basic stuff, you've got a whole set of problems, not just being forced to multiclass for esoteric abilities.

[False God]

UGH, that argument.

Most role-play comes at no expense to the actual build. In the same way that having a really cool paint-job on your car has no effect on how fast it goes. (unless it's flames, flames make things go faster) You might change out a feat here or there or spend some points in a skill you normally wouldn't have, but these have minimal impact on your build.

The role-play is just built on top of it, a colorful icing atop your min/maxed ice-cream-cake of doom.

[Max_Killjoy]

When I want to make decisions for my character that doesn't involve class features.

Similarly, if you want to "roleplaying" someone that doesn't have an appropriate skill or ability score or feature, or whatever, just make decisions that don't result in checks or require use of features or spells, but still can succeed

Almost all GMs have things that can be done that don't result in a check, under practically every system. Your character knows how to do those things, if you the player decides they do. Make the decision your character will attempt to do the thing, then declare they will attempt to do the in-game. If it's beyond their capabilities, they will either have to make a check and likely fail, or just fail automatically without the feature/spell.

Example: your sorcerer raised by the ranger in the local forest probably knows the local forest paths, can extrapolate (possibly incorrectly) the basics of how Rangers operate from the way his stepdad did, and likely can do any basic camping tasks: build a basic shelter, start a fire under non-adverse conditions, cook food over an open fire, etc. the momen your DM calls for a Wis (Survival) check or whatever, that's something possibly beyond his learning.

The key difference is when you choose to back up knowledge beyond the simple by selecting ability scores, features, spells, etc, you are in effect saying "my character is actually pretty good at advanced stuff that requires special training".

If you run into a DM (or worse system) that calls for checks very frequently for basic stuff, you've got a whole set of problems, not just being forced to multiclass for esoteric abilities.

In 5e, at least, that's what the Backgrounds are for, isn't it? Sorcerer with, um, Outlander Background?

In other systems further afield from "D&D orthodoxy", you can take Skills or something to reflect that character history, you don't have basic character build elements largely gated behind Class, Race, etc.

What I am not a fan of is the "my character can be whatever I want them to be for as long as I can finagle and contrive ways to avoid rolling"... and then when you finally have to roll, it falls apart.

UGH, that argument.

Most role-play comes at no expense to the actual build. In the same way that having a really cool paint-job on your car has no effect on how fast it goes. (unless it's flames, flames make things go faster) You might change out a feat here or there or spend some points in a skill you normally wouldn't have, but these have minimal impact on your build.

The role-play is just built on top of it, a colorful icing atop your min/maxed ice-cream-cake of doom.

That's not some sort of universal truth of gaming -- it's just one approach, out of many, and the specific approach depends on the player, the table, and the system in question.

For quite a few of us, the character comes first, and the build is based on the character. "Optimization" isn't used to min-max the build, it's used to make the build as close to the character as possible. Roleplaying in the broad sense, the character and the setting and so on, is not "icing on the cake" or "just a pretty paint job", it's the core of why we're gaming and how we enjoy RPGs.

One of the things I give 5e credit for over past editions of D&D is the Backgrounds, which put into the system this idea that the character is more than just a cookie-cutter race-class-level combo tweaked up for maximum mechanical impact.

[Telok]

What you are able to do mechanically should evoke whatever you are trying to role-play, to the extent that it is possible/you care to do so within the system; you make up the difference by role-playing. Note that the name of your mechanic abilities (or class, background, etcetera) has no bearing on what you are able to do.

You might want to make sure that everyone you're playing with and/or talking to has the same point of view. For some DMs I've labored under the difference between a fighter/rogue/sorcerer multiclass character and a bard class character is "Because you're a bard you went to bard school so you know that...". Even though such a statement contradicts all three sentences of the character background you wrote and ignores your past three weeks of role playing.

[False God]

That's not some sort of universal truth of gaming -- it's just one approach, out of many, and the specific approach depends on the player, the table, and the system in question.

As is any argument to the alternative. I can just as easily turn around and repeat "That's just one way of doing things bro." to everything you say below.

Which is to say: that's not really an argument.

For quite a few of us, the character comes first, and the build is based on the character. "Optimization" isn't used to min-max the build, it's used to make the build as close to the character as possible. Roleplaying in the broad sense, the character and the setting and so on, is not "icing on the cake" or "just a pretty paint job", it's the core of why we're gaming and how we enjoy RPGs.

But remains tangential to the mathematics. You don't need the rules or the system or mathematics to role-play. You can build literally anything and role-play it however you want.

The problem with using the rules to replicate the character is that the rules are pretty terrible at actually doing that. It's the "ideal chair" problem. We all know what the chair should look like and how the chair should function, but when we translate it into real-world materials, made by real-world hands, we end up with something less. Something imperfect.

In more fantasy terms, it's the "elder horrors" problem. They come from a reality where things are different where the very rules of their existence are different and that just doesn't translate to our universe, hence they appear as monstrous nightmares of flesh and mouths and flailing limbs.

One of the things I give 5e credit for over past editions of D&D is the Backgrounds, which put into the system this idea that the character is more than just a cookie-cutter race-class-level combo tweaked up for maximum mechanical impact.

I disagree. First, these were in 4E, second, the fact that they add mathematical elements to the character sheet (in skill and tool proficiency) means that, when you get right down to it, all they're really added is another mechanical element to optimize with.

Now, if backgrounds held no mechanical elements, I'd give you that 5E added something truly unique to game....but if they did, then it would also be demonstrative of my point that you don't need the rules to role-play. Since they'd essentially just be guidelines for role-play.

And yes, I do realize that my approach to character building is not the universal answer, but I will say I have tried it you way, creating a character and then translating it into D&D rules, even attempting to create a character on D&D terms before translating it into the rules. Sadly, my efforts more often than not result in eldritch horrors, rather than characters.

Because the rules to create characters in your head, in a book, in a story, on paper; and the rules to create a character in D&D are two totally different universes.

[Max_Killjoy]

As is any argument to the alternative. I can just as easily turn around and repeat "That's just one way of doing things bro." to everything you say below.

Which is to say: that's not really an argument.

You made an absolute statement, and I pointed out that the reality was not as absolute as your statement.

You appear to have mistaken that as an attempt to invalidate your preference, rather than a refutation of your statement of that preference as an absolute truth.

But remains tangential to the mathematics. You don't need the rules or the system or mathematics to role-play. You can build literally anything and role-play it however you want.

Again, that's fine, if you view the RP as "just icing", and you're fine with disassociated mechanics and aren't bothered by high dissonance / low synchronicity.

It doesn't work nearly as well if you disassociated mechanics, high dissonance, and low synchronicity are detrimental to your gaming experience.

[False God]

You made an absolute statement, and I pointed out that the reality was not as absolute as your statement.

You appear to have mistaken that as an attempt to invalidate your preference, rather than a refutation of your statement of that preference as an absolute truth.

But I never framed my statement as the absolute truth, and I even accepted your argument that indeed it is just one of many ways to play, and your burning focus on your interpretation of my post as absolutist is missing the overwhelming majority of the meat of my followup post in response to you.

I'm not really interested in arguing over if it's my way or the highway. I know it isn't. My post was responding to the comments of the OP, which himself seemed to be in response to someone who told him that he should focus on building things a specific sort of way. To which I was replying that it was a silly argument and building another way was perfectly valid.

So, again, while it should always be assumed that every post on an internet messageboard is preceeded with "IMO" my comment was only ever framed in the context of responding to someone else being told that they're building things the wrong way.

Again, that's fine, if you view the RP as "just icing", and you're fine with disassociated mechanics and aren't bothered by high dissonance / low synchronicity.

It doesn't work nearly as well if you disassociated mechanics, high dissonance, and low synchronicity are detrimental to your gaming experience.

I don't, actually, which was explained rather in-depth in my comparisons to "characters in your head" and "characters by the rules" being two different universes and that characters ought to be built with the rules of the system in mind, rather than build without them and them translating them into the rules in question.

But I do fundamentally view a game as a game. The math is there to serve a specific gamist purpose, a purpose that poorly serves role-play. The reverse is also true, role-play poorly translates into mechanics.

They are two related, but also distinct elements that are not wholly parallel in nature.

[Max_Killjoy]

But I never framed my statement as the absolute truth,

That is, however, how the following statement comes across -- as an absolute statement:

Spoiler

Show

UGH, that argument.

Most role-play comes at no expense to the actual build. In the same way that having a really cool paint-job on your car has no effect on how fast it goes. (unless it's flames, flames make things go faster) You might change out a feat here or there or spend some points in a skill you normally wouldn't have, but these have minimal impact on your build.

The role-play is just built on top of it, a colorful icing atop your min/maxed ice-cream-cake of doom.

If you didn't mean it to come across as such, and only meant it as a statement of your own preference, then most of that disagreement goes away.

I don't, actually, which was explained rather in-depth in my comparisons to "characters in your head" and "characters by the rules" being two different universes and that characters ought to be built with the rules of the system in mind, rather than build without them and them translating them into the rules in question.

But I do fundamentally view a game as a game. The math is there to serve a specific gamist purpose, a purpose that poorly serves role-play. The reverse is also true, role-play poorly translates into mechanics.

They are two related, but also distinct elements that are not wholly parallel in nature.

What I'm trying to explain is that for some other gamers (myself included) that split, that disconnect, that you seem to be presenting as absolutely normal and non-problematic, that idea of "two universes", that idea of "rules first", is actively and extremely detrimental to their enjoyment of RPGs.

That is, for us, the "fiction layer", all the imaginary stuff, is the actual territory, whereas the mechanics and rules are the map of that territory, and exist as a neutral means of helping everyone at the table establish a common frame of reference and navigate that territory together.

Your approach seems to be that the rules are the ends, my approach is that the rules are the means.