PDA

View Full Version : Weak Characters.



Pages : [1] 2

Thefurmonger
2010-03-11, 02:40 PM
So over the last few days I have been posting in This thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=144794). It is about a mostly 1st level party whos DM put them up against an Owlbear (They lost).

The OP of the thread asked if most first level parties (mostly 1st, some 2nd) could take it.

Durring the disscusion I said that yes I felt that it should be no problem for most well made parties.

The issue came up with what a typical well made party actually is?

I suggested that given access to the rules MOST (Yes I know not all groups do these things) Groups use, Flaws, Retraining, all WOTC etc there should be no reason to make a "weak" character.

I have had MANY PMs telling me that "Weak" characters are better to Roleplay and that there is no reason to make a optimised character. Some went on to tell me that "Judging by how you build a Character, it is clear that you don't know the first thing about roleplaying":smallconfused:


So here are the questions

What level of optimisation is acceptable?
"You play a fighter and put your highest stat in strength?!?! Freakin powergamer"

Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

When did it become a sin to make a character that is good at what he is made to do?


Just so you know the examples I gave was a WaterOrc/Fighter Tripper build, (The OP said fighter or I would have gone differently).

And a DMM Cleric (Yes you can do it easily at 1st).

Caphi
2010-03-11, 02:46 PM
I like roleplaying characters who do a thing and are good at what they do. If not being good at anything is good roleplay, I don't want to be good.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-11, 02:56 PM
I like roleplaying characters who do a thing and are good at what they do. If not being good at anything is good roleplay, I don't want to be good.

Yeah.


I have had MANY PMs telling me that "Weak" characters are better to Roleplay and that there is no reason to make a optimised character. Some went on to tell me that "Judging by how you build a Character, it is clear that you don't know the first thing about roleplaying

This reeks of Stormwind Fallacy. I don't know about you, but I don't want my characters to be as effective as a conscious Shinji Hikari.

Mongoose87
2010-03-11, 03:01 PM
I find it easier to roleplay a stronger character, since I won't die before I can hit my roleplaying stride.

That being said, one should strive to avoid outclassing one's party.

Thefurmonger
2010-03-11, 03:01 PM
**From one of my other awsome PMs**


I can't beleive you told that guy's sorc to take spells like Color Spray! Don't you understand that REAL tactics can only come out when combat lasts more then one round?
It's people like you with your "Save or Die" Spells and Valorus Chargers of death that ruin the game for REAL roleplayers like me. I hope we never share a table at a convention

Me to.

Starscream
2010-03-11, 03:02 PM
What level of optimisation is acceptable?
"You play a fighter and put your highest stat in strength?!?! Freakin powergamer"

Well, a bit of optimization is just common sense. You don't get any stupid wizards because being a wizard requires years of study, and stupid people can't be wizards. It makes sense both from a fluff and crunch perspective.

When I DM, I find that optimization isn't bad if everyone does it. If the whole party is more powerful than usual, I can just ramp up the Encounter Levels until I find something that is both fun and challenging for them.

Likewise, if no one is optimized, I can just run a typical level game and it will still work well.

The problem is if some players are optimized and others are not. I can't raise the difficulty too much without endangering the weaker characters, effectively punishing them for their lack of min/maxing, which is wrong. And if I make things too easy the stronger characters will mop the floor with every monster I throw at them. Things like the Tier system and a few sensible house rules can be a huge help in narrowing the gap.


Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

Yes and no. A badly made character does not necessarily mean an interesting one, but it can mean there is an interesting backstory. This is particularly true in the case of odd multiclassing.

For instance, one of my favorite characters was a druid/renegade mastermaker. He hated all civilization and machinery, and was a brilliant craftsman with natural materials such as wood. Because of his skill, some Inevitables asked for his help repairing one of the gears of Mechanus, which was damaged in an attack by Slaad. Unlike most of the gears, this one was wooden, and they couldn't fix it themselves.

He grudgingly agreed because they promised that no harm would come to him. When fixing it, the Slaad attacked again and he was crushed between gears. True to their word, the Inevitables saved him; by incorporating mechanical parts into him, severing his connection to nature. He was horrified, and swore revenge, actually joining up with the Slaad. But the tragic irony is that he had to continue to advance as a Mastermaker, losing more and more of his humanity; only by becoming mostly machine could he survive the process of having the metal removed from him and replaced with wood (the warforged feat you get at level ten), giving him back his magical abilities.

This was a terribly unoptimized character. He lost three caster levels, stopped advancing his Wild Shape and Animal Companion, and all he got in return were the warforged immunities that are available at level one. And it's debatable whether or not losing his magic was even necessary by RAW. But man was his story cool.

By the same token, it can be hard to explain why a wizard has four different prestige classes in character. Not impossible, but hard. If you are not careful in coming up with a reason for doing this, it really seems like you assembled him out of a kit.

Dogmantra
2010-03-11, 03:02 PM
Roleplaying a character with a weakness is easier. Roleplaying a sucky character is much much harder.

Morty
2010-03-11, 03:02 PM
That PM sounds like it's sarcastic.

Thefurmonger
2010-03-11, 03:03 PM
That PM sounds like it's sarcastic.

I wish, that was not the whole thing, I can assure you he was serious.

Trouvere
2010-03-11, 03:03 PM
Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?To a small extent, yes, sometimes, for some people. I'm not saying it's a good idea, but you can't deny that their shortcomings provide a RPing crutch or a convenient coathook.... Conversely, there's at least some degree of constraint if every fighter is a feral mineral warrior half-minotaur, or whatever, and every cleric is an anthropomorphic bat, and every bard takes the maxed inspire courage/Dragonfire Inspiration route.

"Happy PCs are all alike; every unhappy PC is unhappy in its own way", as Tolstoy didn't say.

Vizzerdrix
2010-03-11, 03:07 PM
I have had MANY PMs telling me that "Weak" characters are better to Roleplay and that there is no reason to make a optimized character. Some went on to tell me that "Judging by how you build a Character, it is clear that you don't know the first thing about roleplaying":smallconfused:


PM me a list of names please? These people obviously haven't a clue and I'd like to add them to my ignore list. Thanks! :smallbiggrin:

That, and I may send them some info about the Stormwind fallacy.



So here are the questions

1-What level of optimisation is acceptable?
"You play a fighter and put your highest stat in strength?!?! Freakin powergamer"

2-Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

3-When did it become a sin to make a character that is good at what he is made to do?


4-Just so you know the examples I gave was a WaterOrc/Fighter Tripper build, (The OP said fighter or I would have gone differently).

And a DMM Cleric (Yes you can do it easily at 1st).

1-as much as you want. Making a functional character, or even a mechanically strong one has nothing to do with your ability to roleplay.

2-no, it is not. If that was the case, the allow me to propose that anyone who isn't playing a quadriplegic half blind goblin fighter with penalties to all stats is a piss poor roleplayer and a definite munchkin.

3-When people started getting jealous that another persons big bad dude was able to back up their hype, while they couldn't.

Nothing wrong with either build. Fluff wise, orcs like fighting so fighter is all good, and knocking people down is funny.

DMM Clerics are less stressful on players. They let the player have some fun without worrying about the group complaining that the band aid is doing something other than healing.

Lysander
2010-03-11, 03:07 PM
I think a character shouldn't be optimized for combat but for gameplay. By that I mean they should be powerful enough to survive and contribute to the party, but not so powerful that the player can ever stop thinking on their toes. A too weak character means the game is a Kobayashi Maru, an over optimized character means you're not playing a game anymore.

Using STR as your highest stat for a fighter just makes sense. What makes less sense are some of the ridiculous class combos and layered races and templates. "I'm a fiendish half human, half dinosaur necropolitan who worships Lloth, studied martial arts only practiced in a country on the other side of the world for a year, made a blood pact with the fey to gain flight, was reborn as a dragon, my arms are animated mithril, and I'm a variant of wizard who can turn fruit into explosions at will. I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."

Admiral Squish
2010-03-11, 03:10 PM
There are extremes of both ends, I think. It's a matter of priorities. If I wanted to, I could, theoretically, justify most cheesed-out builds in RP. It might be a stretch for some, like pun-pun, but it could be done. But that assumes you're prioritizing your build first. You're layering a character on top of a preset structure. I personally prefer to prioritize the other way. I come up with a character first, then I tweak and fiddle the build to be as strong as possible without compromising the character's design.

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-11, 03:11 PM
"I'm a fiendish half human, half dinosaur necropolitan who worships Lloth, studied martial arts only practiced in a country on the other side of the world for a year, made a blood pact with the fey to gain flight, was reborn as a dragon, my arms are animated mithril, and I'm a variant of wizard who can turn fruit into explosions at will. I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."


Look, I'm pretty sure that's all RAW, so it's totally legit.

BenTheJester
2010-03-11, 03:12 PM
I really like Tier 3, and while I build quite optimized characters, they are almost never 100% optimized.

It annoys me how one character(wizards, etc) can be better at EVERYTHING than a character specialized in one thing.



Using STR as your highest stat for a fighter just makes sense. What makes less sense are some of the ridiculous class combos and layered races and templates. "I'm a fiendish half human, half dinosaur necropolitan who worships Lloth, studied martial arts only practiced in a country on the other side of the world for a year, made a blood pact with the fey to gain flight, was reborn as a dragon, my arms are animated mithril, and I'm a variant of wizard who can turn fruit into explosions at will. I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Thefurmonger
2010-03-11, 03:12 PM
I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."

Freakin awsome.

Radiun
2010-03-11, 03:14 PM
What level of optimisation is acceptable?
You have to be able to help your teammates. You have to be a realiable <CLASS> Otherwise you're a liability and negatively impacting other people's roleplaying because (most) people who fight for their lives day-in and day-out will not want to haul dead weight around. That being said, you don't need to wipe out all encounters with a flick of the wrist. All things in moderation after all.


Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?
No. Why the he...ck would I be adventuring if I was incompetent? That being said, yes I can see how some characters would be pressed into adventuring, but it is a profession that is known for high risk and unreliable rewards. Worth it if you're the creme-de-la-creme, but for Thog the <All Abilities> 10 Fighter?


When did it become a sin to make a character that is good at what he is made to do?
It never was. You're buying the hype is all.

Eldonauran
2010-03-11, 03:15 PM
I can see where this kind of stuff comes from. To me, its similar to the alignment axis. Some people lean heavily to one side or another. Others sit in the middle with only slight tendencies to shift either way.

1) Some players are only focused on the characters they create. To them, the character is not the sum of its abilities but the life they breathe into them. The mechanics are only a means to an end and are not very high on the list of priorites.

2) Some players are all about mechanics. They generally have a very simple idea of what their character will be and usually flesh out the character after all the abilities and mechanics have been dealt with. 'cookie-cutter' is a common term for these type of characters.

3) In the middle ground is everyone else. We have a developed idea of what our characters are and search through the books to find ways to make our ideas work, changing only minor details about the character in order to bring it to life.

I generally only powergame when everyone else is doing it. If they like that and have fun, I can do it too. However, I still roleplay the character as if he is a real person. He's just very good at what he does. I do tend to get more satisfaction out of very detailed characters when compared to very powerful characters. Mortality is a big part of D&D and feeling mortal is a powerful incentive to staying alive.

Frosty
2010-03-11, 03:16 PM
I roleplay what I want to rp. If the concept I want to rp has some weaknesses, then so be it. If my concept is an uber power omniscient Dr. Doom type, then I'll optimize to match that. I pick a concept I want to rp first, then build to the power level.

Coidzor
2010-03-11, 03:17 PM
Personally, I prefer it with wizards who mostly do battlefield control, but aren't so obsessive that they'll never blast.

Because it's nice to have some blasting every now and then. Dunno why, feels cathartic.

But, as was said, you really have to be in tune with the rest of the group and the DM about how much they know/can/do optimize.

Which is unfortunate because I don't think there's really well established ranks of optimization.



...And only someone who isn't very good at roleplaying would be dependent upon some kind of mechanical-level crippling weakness or inconsistency of the character's existence in order to role play them. :smallconfused:

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-11, 03:21 PM
I have had MANY PMs telling me that "Weak" characters are better to Roleplay and that there is no reason to make a optimised character. Some went on to tell me that "Judging by how you build a Character, it is clear that you don't know the first thing about roleplaying":smallconfused:

Unfortunately, this issue will take just as long to solve as any other idealogical conflict in the world, and some of those have been raging for millenia. :smallsigh:

Lysander
2010-03-11, 03:21 PM
You know, I think OP asked the wrong question. It's not whether you should be weak or strong. You should be strong in some things and weak in others, so that your party's talents don't overlap and you need to work together.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-11, 03:23 PM
i think its hugely group dependent. Some groups are huge optimizers by nature and don't really relise there doing it others not so much.

Though fluff can justify almost anything there is a few things that i would stop though its my opinion rather then the rules. the nature of RP is mutable so the rules can do all kinds of crazy things with and RP can handle it, hence the stormwind fallacy.

HOWEVER, I do think that there is a certian amount of absurd fluff that can be attached to some mechanical characters that it breaks versimilitude.
which i belive is paramount to all else.

I have also noticed that atleast the groups i've been with tend to roleplay more with weaker characters then with stronger ones. Mabye its because they feal week mabye its they like that style not realy sure but its what i've noticed.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-11, 03:31 PM
**From one of my other awsome PMs**



Me to.

Wait, But I told them to take Colorspray!
It isn't a Save or die, since it only makes them lose 1 turn (sneak attackable too). It wasn't like I said use Hold Person, Tasha's Hidious Laughter, etc that lasts multiple rounds.

It was basically a stay alive spell. Since any action Owlbear can act: it kills 1 of the party.

lsfreak
2010-03-11, 03:32 PM
Poor optimization is generally poor roleplaying, in my mind. You can pull off a poorly optimized character in roleplaying, but it's much more difficult. If you character is unable to contribute to the party, why would the party keep them about? Screw that, throw them out. Likewise, if a character trains with swords, they're going to know enough during training that 'warblades' are the way to go (keeping in mind that the classes themselves aren't known to the characters, but they could and should know that certain styles of fighting and the like are better for what they want to do).

That's not to say you can't have weaknesses. You optimize within your character concept, and if that concept means your character thinks he's charismatic when he's not, or abhors ranged attacks for reasons of honor, so be it. You optimize the areas he is good at. But let's be perfectly honest - someone with low Str, low Con and the Noncombatant flaw won't make it. You can roll up a character like that - and I would wager many an 'optimization is bad roleplaying!' person even has - but it's breaking suspension of disbelief to do so. That kind of person simply wouldn't make it. Might even be killed in training. Playing one probably isn't good roleplaying.

I believe a well-optimized (but not min/maxed) character is easier to roleplay than an unoptimized character, and often becomes a more interesting and unique addition to the party. If for no other reason, they'll last longer than than the first encounter.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-11, 03:39 PM
Poor optimization is generally poor roleplaying, in my mind. You can pull off a poorly optimized character in roleplaying, but it's much more difficult. If you character is unable to contribute to the party, why would the party keep them about? Screw that, throw them out. Likewise, if a character trains with swords, they're going to know enough during training that 'warblades' are the way to go (keeping in mind that the classes themselves aren't known to the characters, but they could and should know that certain styles of fighting and the like are better for what they want to do).

That's not to say you can't have weaknesses. You optimize within your character concept, and if that concept means your character thinks he's charismatic when he's not, or abhors ranged attacks for reasons of honor, so be it. You optimize the areas he is good at. But let's be perfectly honest - someone with low Str, low Con and the Noncombatant flaw won't make it. You can roll up a character like that - and I would wager many an 'optimization is bad roleplaying!' person even has - but it's breaking suspension of disbelief to do so. That kind of person simply wouldn't make it. Might even be killed in training. Playing one probably isn't good roleplaying.

I believe a well-optimized (but not min/maxed) character is easier to roleplay than an unoptimized character, and often becomes a more interesting and unique addition to the party. If for no other reason, they'll last longer than than the first encounter.


See i can kinda agree on this aspec about why would a group keep a character around if hes week...
which i can agree with in most sandbox or dungion crawl esc games.
but it is all dependent on the gm...

Good examples of week characters doing important things in campains:
hobbits in lord of the rings.
3cpo in starwars.
etc

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-11, 03:45 PM
See i can kinda agree on this aspec about why would a group keep a character around if hes week...
which i can agree with in most sandbox or dungion crawl esc games.
but it is all dependent on the gm...

Good examples of week characters doing important things in campains:
hobbits in lord of the rings.
3cpo in starwars.
etc

Frodo was an optimized sneaker with a cohort that was a decent fighter. He also had the equivalent of a +5 Orcbane Shortsword in a world where everything counts as an orc.

C-3PO was an optimized party face/knowledge monkey.

Quirky? Sure. Weak? No.

onthetown
2010-03-11, 03:45 PM
I would think the character itself would be easy or not to roleplay, and it shouldn't be based on weakness or strength. A weaker character just makes it harder to win battles, which has to do with rolling the dice and adding numbers... not roleplaying. You could have an incredibly weak-statted character that you enjoy roleplaying as opposed to your omfgdestroytheworld wizard who you find difficult to roleplay as, or vice versa, but at the end of the day that omfgdestroytheworld wizard is going to be doing more damage than the weak-statted guy no matter how much you like rping as him.

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-11, 03:48 PM
Good examples of week characters doing important things in campains:
hobbits in lord of the rings.
3cpo in starwars.
etc

I object! C-3PO never actually DID anything (beyond translating alien languages and getting blasted or falling down). Certainly nothing terribly important. He's basically like a Bard who spent all his skill points on Speak Language, has horrible physical stats, and can't even cast spells. In other words, the worst Bard ever. (He was slightly helpful with the Ewoks, but still mostly as a translator.)

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-11, 03:48 PM
Frodo was an optimized sneaker with a cohort that was a decent fighter. He also had the equivalent of a +5 Orcbane Shortsword in a world where everything counts as an orc.

C-3PO was an optimized party face/knowledge monkey.

Quirky? Sure. Weak? No.

I disagree on both.

Yes frodo's hide was through the roof. so is all halflings at level 1-5.
sam didn't realy have any thing going for him mabye some bard abilitys but other wise no.
merry?
pippen?

and C-3PO isn't realy optimised he did what that a commoner couldn't do... speak language? highly optimised.

lsfreak
2010-03-11, 03:49 PM
Good examples of week characters doing important things in campains:
hobbits in lord of the rings.
3cpo in starwars.
etc

They mostly did important things by Power of Plot, which shouldn't be the reason any PC is kept around in a D&D campaign. Unless maybe every character has Power of Plot.

In a campaign, group, or even individual that stresses story more than mechanics, I can see under-optimization being prevalent. But I think if those people learned to optimize, that would lend itself to better roleplaying as well. As for weaker characters tending to be better roleplayed, I have a feeling that's more of the way the game is handled; if the game was focused heavily on both roleplay and mechanics, everyone should be similarly roleplayed, but a mechanics-heavy game with a weaker character means the weaker character has to 'make up' for it somehow.

Fiery Diamond
2010-03-11, 03:51 PM
Optimizing and Roleplaying are, in my opinion, not in conflict with one another. It is the mindset of the person that matters. If Person A optimizes because he wants a character good at what he does, he can easily roleplay well. If Person B optimizes because "optimizing is fun!" then it is usually (*important* NOT ALWAYS *important*) the case that they have roleplaying lower on their list of priorities. If Person C optimizes because "Duh, of course I want a godlike character in a standard non-epic game! Why would I not want to always be able to be the best at everything?!" then they are a jerk-a** and will most likely be horrible roleplayers and should be kicked out of any gaming group that does not have the same mindset as them.

RagnaroksChosen
2010-03-11, 03:52 PM
They mostly did important things by Power of Plot, which shouldn't be the reason any PC is kept around in a D&D campaign. Unless maybe every character has Power of Plot.


thats what im getting at the power of plot was there RP value. ALL players should have the power of plot in non sandbox games. thats the point they are the plot.


But in alot of fantasy settings and stories theres the "weaker" guy that the "stronger" guys need to protect due to some plot that there all entangled with.

most of the "weaker guys" arn't mechanicaly strong. yet they are an they seem to progress fine within the story.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-11, 03:53 PM
They mostly did important things by Power of Plot, which shouldn't be the reason any PC is kept around in a D&D campaign. Unless maybe every character has Power of Plot.

In a campaign, group, or even individual that stresses story more than mechanics, I can see under-optimization being prevalent. But I think if those people learned to optimize, that would lend itself to better roleplaying as well. As for weaker characters tending to be better roleplayed, I have a feeling that's more of the way the game is handled; if the game was focused heavily on both roleplay and mechanics, everyone should be similarly roleplayed, but a mechanics-heavy game with a weaker character means the weaker character has to 'make up' for it somehow.

Right. Why bother writing the character into the plot when anyone could do what they did? Frodo and Sam? Maybe. But C-3PO? At least R2 helped pilot. 3PO did something they could have justified with an advanced hearing aid.

Fiery Diamond
2010-03-11, 03:54 PM
Right. Why bother writing the character into the plot when anyone could do what they did? Frodo and Sam? Maybe. But C-3PO? At least R2 helped pilot. 3PO did something they could have justified with an advanced hearing aid.

But C3PO was funny...:smallfrown:

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-11, 03:55 PM
But C3PO was funny...:smallfrown:

So is Jack Rakkan. The difference? One is useful, the other is garbage.

Tackyhillbillu
2010-03-11, 03:56 PM
Answering OP questions in order.

What level of optimisation is acceptable?
"You play a fighter and put your highest stat in strength?!?! Freakin powergamer"

The same amount of optimization as the rest of your party. If the other members of your group are pulling out Planar Shepherd and the Incantrix, go whole hog. If not, throttle it back a little.

Optimization means a lot of different things to different people. It doesn't always mean building a character that cannot be beaten. It can just mean building a character that it is good at something. It depends on what you are optimizing for.

Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

Gimped? No. Frankly, if the character has no use in the combat zone, what the hell is he doing as an adventurer? However, is it easier to roleplay a Well-built Rogue then some Tainted Scholar/Beholder Mage monstrosity? Yes.

When did it become a sin to make a character that is good at what he is made to do?

Depends on what you made him to do. If it was say "being a skill monkey" it is not. If it is, "defeat the BBEG in one round, by himself, then go on to rule the world at level 7" then yeah, yeah it is. It always has been, and always will be.

Just so you know the examples I gave was a WaterOrc/Fighter Tripper build, (The OP said fighter or I would have gone differently).

I dislike the UA Element races, and I agree with the DM that they shouldn't be allowed, or should be given some kind of LA. But there isn't anything wrong with a Tripping Fighter (except it being boring, and a Fighter. *Mandatory plug for TOB.*)

Thefurmonger
2010-03-11, 03:56 PM
C3PO, Neelix and Jar Jar.....

Really there is nothing to say about this list that you all arnt already thinking..

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-11, 03:56 PM
The problem with C-3PO is that if everybody just spoke the same language, there'd be no reason to have him around. You could completely delete him from the story of all six movies and there'd hardly be any difference. Thus, useless and not important.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-11, 04:01 PM
C3PO, Neelix and Jar Jar.....

Really there is nothing to say about this list that you all arnt already thinking..

I'm going to contest Jar-Jar: He was good for something. Something very important to the movies he was featured in.




Ruining them.

Radiun
2010-03-11, 04:03 PM
I'm going to contest Jar-Jar: He was good for something. Something very important to the movies he was featured in.

Ruining them.

Hayden Christensen

KillianHawkeye
2010-03-11, 04:11 PM
I'm going to contest Jar-Jar: He was good for something. Something very important to the movies he was featured in.

Ruining them.

Hayden Christensen

It's more like Jar-Jar in Episode I, Hayden Christensen in Episode II, and Natalie Portman in Episode III. Man, was she horrible in the last one! :smallmad::smallsigh:

Starscream
2010-03-11, 04:12 PM
Hayden Christensen

Agreed. Portman would have been better off talking to one of those foam balls on a stick they use so actors can make eye contact with CGI. Not that it would have improved the dialog at all.

I think George Lucas is a poorly optimized writer/director. His early success is because he was using a loaded die. The DM caught him with it halfway through production of Howard the Duck.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-11, 04:23 PM
I'm going to contest Jar-Jar: He was good for something. Something very important to the movies he was featured in.




Ruining them.

Mesa Like Jar Jar. Jar Jar maja Hero.

Telonius
2010-03-11, 04:24 PM
If you're thinking of playing a mechanically weak character, ask yourself: given the sort of campaign this is likely to be, will doing this be fun for both myself and the group?

If you're DMming a player who's thinking of playing a mechanically weak character, tell them what sort of campaign it's going to be. Ask them if they think playing their planned character will be fun for both them and the rest of the group.

Rule one-before-zero: Have fun. If everybody's idea of fun is one guy playing Pippin when the guy next to him pulls Gandalf out of three splatbooks and an issue of Dragon, go for it! If not, don't!

AtwasAwamps
2010-03-11, 04:45 PM
I disagree on both.

Yes frodo's hide was through the roof. so is all halflings at level 1-5.
sam didn't realy have any thing going for him mabye some bard abilitys but other wise no.
merry?
pippen?

and C-3PO isn't realy optimised he did what that a commoner couldn't do... speak language? highly optimised.

Frodo and Sam were able to hide at point blank range from a huge chunk of the orcish army. Sam was strong enough to take down a serious number of orcs and bring down Shelob. I was just going along with the flow, but if you wanna get serious...

Really? Useless? Weak? There’s absolutely no evidence for those characters being weak in any way whatsoever at any point. Frodo right from the start is described as generally being stronger and smarter than other hobbits. Sam obviously is packing an enormous amount of muscle on his frame, which makes sense. And again, let’s not forget their ridiculous gear. If they’re not “optimized”, then they’re not really “weak” characters either.

Regarding aMerry and Pippin? All they did was get in trouble and cause trouble right up until they met treebeard. After which…well, this is in the books, not the movies, but they were drinking and eating the food of an ent, which has a physical affect on you. They were descended from the equivalent of hobbit warriors (the Tooks!) and then were basically shoved full of potions and armed well and sent into battle.

Weak nothing. The four hobbits of LOTR were Grade A Numero Uno Bad-Ass Mofos.

I’ll give you C-3PO. He was just a punk.

Overall, though, this irrelevant. In many ways, you can't compare movies and literature to DND. It just doesn't work.

Optimystik
2010-03-11, 04:45 PM
I'm going to contest Jar-Jar: He was good for something. Something very important to the movies he was featured in.




Ruining them.

Yousa so meanie!!!

Poison_Fish
2010-03-11, 04:55 PM
Right. Why bother writing the character into the plot when anyone could do what they did? Frodo and Sam? Maybe. But C-3PO? At least R2 helped pilot. 3PO did something they could have justified with an advanced hearing aid.

C3PO was not useless in terms of the story. Along with being comic relief, he is functionally a Greek Chorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Chorus).

Bibliomancer
2010-03-11, 04:59 PM
It's more like Jar-Jar in Episode I, Hayden Christensen in Episode II, and Natalie Portman in Episode III. Man, was she horrible in the last one! :smallmad::smallsigh:

...for the five minutes when she was onscreen. I'm still blaming that one on Hayden Christensen (although the logic holes were clearly George Lucas' fault).

Personally, I like Episode I (perhaps because it was the first STAR WARS movie that I got to watch), and Jar-Jar still seems OK to me (probably because I first saw him in the movie when I was ten). However, he should have been omitted from Episodes II and III (not that this would have saved them).


But in alot of fantasy settings and stories theres the "weaker" guy that the "stronger" guys need to protect due to some plot that there all entangled with.

most of the "weaker guys" arn't mechanicaly strong. yet they are an they seem to progress fine within the story.

Correct. Most of the weaker guys, however, are blaming the part of Damsel in Distress (constantly) and are thus best suited to be NPCs.

Using the above logic to support weak characters is like saying that commoner is a valid and important PC role because someone has to do the farming (even though wizards are better at that). There is a reason why certain roles are for NPCs.

Optimystik
2010-03-11, 05:05 PM
I think the thread will be moved to Media if we keep up the Star Wars bashing.

So back to the (Stormwind-ish) original topic, I will say that a flawed character offers as many opportunities for roleplay as a streamlined one. It depends on the roleplayer in question.

Ravens_cry
2010-03-11, 05:09 PM
Yousa so meanie!!!
Jar Jar, You're a Genius!
(http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0122.html)
Yeah, Stormwind Fallacy.I agree with it immensely. I have seen weakly built characters who just sit at the table, and I've seen tweaked out minmaxing with excellent role play. I would like to make an addendum though, '. . .unless you WANT to play a weak character'. Maybe you want to play something really different in a more social heavy campaign where combat skills are less needed and even a diplomacy roll will only be most likely be made after intense and lengthily negotiations. A clubfooted jester may be a perfect addition top such a game.
Or maybe you want to play a nonstandard combination. After all, every culture and race has it's warriors, religious leaders, skilled folk and, in fantasy, magic users. A halfling may make a better sneaky rogue then a dwarf, but dwarven culture would still have people who skulk dank caves, striking from out of sight.
The point I am trying to make here is that the level of optimization varies , depending on the way your group is playing and personal comfort level.

AslanCross
2010-03-11, 05:09 PM
Again repeating the Stormwind Fallacy.

I would like a character to be good at SOMETHING. He/she IS a hero, after all. I think it's counterintuitive that people who assign their ability scores to the stats their characters depend on in a system where ability scores CAN be assigned by default are called powergamers.

If you read my RHOD thread (Most of you would probably be tired of me referencing it in every other post I make, but it's a ready source of examples, so please bear with me), the party is quite optimized, and I help them optimize.

1. Do my PCs go around just killing stuff? Well, sometimes. In the heat of battle you can't continue saying "HAVE AT THEE, FOUL SCUM! I SHALL DANCE UPON THY INTESTINES!" every time you make an AOO.

2. Do they completely forget about their backstories? Heck no. In fact Lyka, the most badass character in the party, sometimes chooses not to Rage or Shift for story reasons. Does that make her slightly less optimal? Maybe--but really, when you do 6d6 damage on a Soaring Raptor Strike, that +2 damage from increased strength is negligible. Does that make her suck? Tell that to the red dragon, wyrmlord and countless grunts she killed.

3. Do they have fun with noncombat encounters? Ask them.

4. Do we have fun, period? Heck yes.

Bibliomancer
2010-03-11, 05:19 PM
I would agree that Roleplaying and optimization are not directly linked, but it seems that a character who spends an excessive amount of time optimizing tends to be less involved in roleplaying (in general). They aren't mutually exclusive, but there is a significant margin where they do not overlap. It seems that the more powerful a player is, the less likely there are to attempt to find out of combat solutions, or even to build out of combat advantages when they have the chance.

However, my experience as a DM and a player is (relatively) limited, and my view on the matter is biased by the fact that the main optimizer in my campaign primarily thinks of DnD as an exercise in character build optimization. He's been getting into roleplaying slowly, following several PvP incidents and some creative template building on my part.*

*Since he likes building characters, I created a morphic template that allows him to store up to four different personas (gear remains the same, race is always changeling**, level is constant, and transferring takes 24 hours and a small amount of xp) that he can periodically swap out, allowing him to build up in character alliances and NPC contacts without feeling restricted to one build. No, the other players don't knoe yet.***

**He suggested this detail himself, indicating that his roleplaying skills actually are improving.

***As a bonus, he's working for an out of party patron (evil, unfortunately), which will provide quite a few plot hooks in coming sessions.

Eorran
2010-03-11, 05:21 PM
to the OP's question, I'd say that an appropriate level of optimising is the lesser of three levels:
1. The level the other players are comfortable with and/or enjoy.
2. The level the player is comfortable with and/or enjoys.
3. The level the DM can handle.

That last one doesn't get mentioned often, perhaps because of the expectation the DM will ban anything he isn't comfortable with or the DM knows the rules better than anyone else at the table.

I think it's worth mentioning though; the DM has the biggest workload, so while it may be simple for someone to come up with brilliant builds/strategies, the DM might not be able to come up with counterstrategies, since he's responsible for building challenges in the elusive range between cakewalk and curbstomp.

Caphi
2010-03-11, 05:48 PM
The "weak useful" characters from fiction mentioned are important insofar as the plot wraps around them and makes them important. If a GM deliberately makes the story about the weakest members of the party, then it's painfully obvious that the weak but plot-central will get more meaningful roleplay, because they're central to the plot! But that's not the fault of the stronger characters. Nothing inherent about being better at what they do made them "worse" at roleplaying. They haven't been given a chance to roleplay - because they're strong. It's a circular argument.

What actually happens when all units are given equal opportunity to step up is that the person who has either specialized for situation X will use his powers to solve it, or the person who has versatile or practical abilities will help solve X somehow. Either way, the roleplay goes to the effective, because the incompetent (or someone whose class simply is not applicable in X) can do nothing but sit back and talk. If that's their cup of tea, fine for them.

mikej
2010-03-11, 05:49 PM
Hooray Stormwind Fallacy thread!

I really don't care much for "weak" characters. I tend to optimized my characters to be strong but within the limits of the game. It's just my ideal that my character is surposed to be the hero of a dangerous fantasy adventure. Not absolutely broken but good enough to survive and be usefull. Well, at least in my view. Many things can kill my character in that particular setting and that's the drive to be stronger. It's sort of like that " survival of the fitess" deal. I enjoy optimizing my character but also equaling enjoy the writing of the backstory of how and why that character does what he/she do.

Of course I haven't seen a fellow player intentionally write up an weak character just for the role-player purpose.

JaronK
2010-03-11, 06:20 PM
A character being strong or weak by itself says nothing about roleplay one way or the other. However, for what it's worth a character that's so weak he can't keep up with the story is going to have nothing to do but roleplay in the corner, so there's that. And a character too powerful for the story will destroy the story, which makes it hard to deal with as well.

JaronK

ryzouken
2010-03-11, 06:22 PM
background: My group plays epic D&D with the highest level folks being around lv 38 or so and allow all books and materials with powerful stat rolls. Campaign Smashing is frowned upon and there's a sort of gentleman's agreement not to bring the most broken constructs imaginable, but otherwise we run a fairly high power game fed by the nightmare fuel of three to four contributing GMs. I took a break from this for two years, and recently returned.

That out of the way, I opted to play something that was considered weak in my group for RP purposes. I built a fairly solid Frenzied Berserker. 50+ strength when frenzied and raging, occult slayer levels for spell deflection, full uber charger feat chain and an epic bludgeoning weapon with Greater Mighty Wallop as an inherent continual enchantment. She did great, hitting critters for upwards of 500 damage, non crit on a standard attack routine. The rest of the party was unseeable rogues (ring of sequester and void incarnate), full casters, and some other charging folks. RP was terrific, as my character wormed her way into the group dynamic, the normally sweet, enthusiastic naive girl that tried desperately to help (and screwed everything up) until she got hit or got angry, then it was "kill, maim, burn".

Except that the kill maim burn part only worked on mooks or my own party. The major epic threats at our party levels were mostly immune to even the most cheesed out and borked berserker, having AC's of over 100, fast healing 50, or contingencies layered on contingencies. It got old, very quickly, having virtually no noncombat skills and an ineffectiveness in combat. It didn't help that I died every session, and occasionally twice or even thrice each night.

Fast forward three months, to where we've hit a point in the RP where I can rebuild my character using epic magic and 5 months of training time. Now the frenzied berserker occult slayer is becoming a dispel and counterspell focused gish, with an epic spell that allows her to remember some of her berserk rage, gaining a massive bonus to strength (for when she wants to use her club). She should end up effective (I'll know more Monday) and I get to keep the rp we've done so far, but ultimately it required the DM to adjudicate an epic spell that breaks a lot of fundamental rules of the game, cost our main caster 900,000gp and time, and me a few hours of reworking her stats and a few months of being a piss poor party contributor.

In retrospect, I should've just built the effective choice first, but I wanted to see just how bad off epic level fighter types are. Turns out my initial assessments weren't far off.

TL;DR version: building a weak character for RP reasons just means you'll get tired of playing your weak character or lose said character. RP isn't good if you're bored, frustrated, or have a dead character.

Skeppio
2010-03-11, 06:31 PM
"I'm a fiendish half human, half dinosaur necropolitan who worships Lloth, studied martial arts only practiced in a country on the other side of the world for a year, made a blood pact with the fey to gain flight, was reborn as a dragon, my arms are animated mithril, and I'm a variant of wizard who can turn fruit into explosions at will. I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."

I...I have to make this!

JoshuaZ
2010-03-11, 07:30 PM
It is possible for someone to focus too much on optimization to the detriment of RP. Moreover, if someone has a ridiculously optimized build (say a centaur war hull/hulking hurler or something ridiculous) it is extremely probable that they won't RP at all. But there's nothing wrong with mild optimization. Especially when it fits in with RP.

To use the example given above of the person complaining about Color Spray- I don't know in your universe how much control sorcerers have over what spells they take (I could see fluff wise having very little) but if they do have control, and they aren't idiots whose name starts with X, then off course they'll take Color Spray. Why wouldn't they? It would be bad roleplaying to deliberately take weak spells. And this applies even more so for int based casters. A wizard better damn well take lots of save or dies. Because they are smart enough to know that that's their best tactics.

If someone really believes that weaker means better roleplayer, then that person should just spend the time playing a commoner.

Math_Mage
2010-03-11, 10:37 PM
I disagree on both.

Yes frodo's hide was through the roof. so is all halflings at level 1-5.
sam didn't realy have any thing going for him mabye some bard abilitys but other wise no.
merry?
pippen?

and C-3PO isn't realy optimised he did what that a commoner couldn't do... speak language? highly optimised.

I contend that you are drawing too much on the movie-version hobbits. The book versions are generally portrayed much more favorably, especially Frodo (who is, I grant, a complete load in the movies).


C3PO was not useless in terms of the story. Along with being comic relief, he is functionally a Greek Chorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Chorus).

DMPC? :smallbiggrin:

As for the original topic, as long as the characters fit the party and the 'plot', it doesn't matter what power level they are. But it is easier to make this happen for medium-powered characters than for either low- or high-powered ones.

Poison_Fish
2010-03-11, 10:41 PM
DMPC? :smallbiggrin:

As for the original topic, as long as the characters fit the party and the 'plot', it doesn't matter what power level they are. But it is easier to make this happen for medium-powered characters than for either low- or high-powered ones.

Nah, the closest he is is the hireling who carries your loot and comments about all the wacky dungeons you adventurers go to.

Stubbed Tongue
2010-03-11, 11:35 PM
ooooooops, ignore this. Or unread it if you prefer.

Stubbed Tongue
2010-03-11, 11:44 PM
Mesa Like Jar Jar. Jar Jar maja Hero.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHA.

jguy
2010-03-12, 12:07 AM
Hmm, I'll pitch into this conversation.

My first character was made for me by my playing group because I was new. They made me a cleric, I didn't even pick my god, and was essentially a healbot. He was incredibly underpowered for our group or any group for that matter. He had toughness at level 9! Not only did all he do was heal, the DM held back no punches with me either, as I got kidnapped within the first 30 minutes of playing and throw into an Antimagic prison. After much abuse which ended with my cleric hogtied and thrown into a large hole that ended in a portal to the shadow plane, we had a 2 month hiatus.

I learned the rules, I read forums, I read books, and came back. I asked the DM if I could reboot my character, as a cleric still, since I knew the game better. He said yes. My halfling cleric started worshiping Hoar, God of Revenge after everything that happened to him. I went the DMM Persist route and my DM said Persist only needed 4 turns to copy since that is how it read in the faerun book. In a team of Super-Chargers, a gished out Sorcerer, a DMPC wizard, a weird psionist/wilder, and a house-ruled 4 armed Guro character, MY character absolutely dominated, literally destroying nearly every encounter from the beginning by having everyone immune to virtually everything (we were lvl 17 by now). Me and my character have since then been named Batman Cleric.

Now if you say that I didn't roleplay, you'd be wrong. My happy little halfling really did become the midget of vengeance. The players were still iffy on him, still thinking they could push him around, until after the psionist chick made some very unveiled threats to him about healing. When she was sleeping he put a Mark of Justice on her with the stipulation that if she make a hostile action against him, or he said the code word she'd go into epileptic shock. After that, every one backed off.

When we ended the campaign, my halfling opened up a Church of Hoar in Calimport (where he originally got kidnapped). Over the years he ended up being the sole ruler of the city, making it one of the most law-abiding places in the land.

Now that is how your role play OP'd characters!

Crow
2010-03-12, 12:10 AM
Nah, the closest he is is the hireling who carries your loot and comments about all the wacky dungeons you adventurers go to.

Why does everyone assume C3PO is a PC anyways?

Mongoose87
2010-03-12, 12:14 AM
Why does everyone assume C3PO is a PC anyways?

Because that's the only reason they'd tolerate his presence - if they had to.

Either that, or I think Darth and Droids made him a PC.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 12:19 AM
I suggested that given access to the rules MOST (Yes I know not all groups do these things) Groups use, Flaws, Retraining, all WOTC etc there should be no reason to make a "weak" character.
I would contend that MOST DMs ban the hell out of most of these...

Flaws = almost always banned
Group use = what is that? if you mean having one item and passing it around between players... this is more of an after combat thing. doesn't really help in the heat of combat
retraining = banned
all wotc = banned... SRD only. Some DMs allow spell compendium and a few other weak sources... no savage species, no tome of battle, etc.

Also you make the assumption that the average gamer makes this as a conscious choice. People need to have a natural knack for min maxing, years of experience, and lots of discourse (such as on these forums) to even conceive most of the broken min maxed characters...
So the vast majority of level 1 characters are VERY weak... Everyone's first wizard is a random "cool" race with 8 con and evocation specialization throwing CL1 magic missiles at enemies. A sword and board fighter, a rogue with a knife, etc...

Caphi
2010-03-12, 12:30 AM
taltamir: I think he meant "the rules which most groups use", with a parenthetical inexplicably inserted between "most" and "groups".

Flickerdart
2010-03-12, 12:31 AM
I would contend that MOST DMs ban the hell out of most of these...

Flaws = almost always banned
Group use = what is that? if you mean having one item and passing it around between players... this is more of an after combat thing. doesn't really help in the heat of combat
retraining = banned
all wotc = banned... SRD only. Some DMs allow spell compendium and a few other weak sources... no savage species, no tome of battle, etc.

Funny. I've never seen any such "Core only, no items, Final Destination" games.

jguy
2010-03-12, 12:33 AM
See, I allow flaws but they have to make sense and be an actual flaw. Retraining is allowed if either we take 1.) a long break and people want to take their characters a different directions or 2.) go through a lot of stuff for it to happens.

I don't see why people hate ToB so much. I just force the person to keep damn good track of their maneuvers and when they get them. I've known some people who try to get more maneuvers by preying on DM's who are unfamiliar with the book.

mikej
2010-03-12, 12:40 AM
I can understand not allowing flaws. Most select the ones that have little effect on the character and most of the time just neglect it's purpose. However, not allowing retraining is dumb. Even before our group had the PHBII with those rule. we had a method to retrain feats. It's just another blow to any Melee character while most Casters can switch up thier spells with ease.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 12:42 AM
I don't see why people hate ToB so much. I just force the person to keep damn good track of their maneuvers and when they get them. I've known some people who try to get more maneuvers by preying on DM's who are unfamiliar with the book.

TOB is basically "almost 4e"... i like it very much, but I also like 4e... it also lets fighters not utterly suck.
People hate it very much either because they have a scathing hatred of 4e for some reason or another, or they have a scathing hatred of fighters (aka: dumb jock fighters should be put in their place by nerdy wizards)

Question: Why do they call them flaws if they make you so much more powerful?

mikej
2010-03-12, 12:56 AM
Question: Why do they call them flaws if they make you so much more powerful?

You're correct, in a sense. Most DM's should review what flaws certain players choose for thier character. I go with one that's not too effecting ( situational ) and another that would be pretty harsh.

It's like what I said, " Most select the ones that have little effect on the character." I have not yet met a player that would intentionally nerf themselves for any various reason.

I'm sure any Wizard that takes Murkey Eye/None-Combatant isn't going to feel the pinch. It's just "Hooray, free feats!" to that particular player.

Godskook
2010-03-12, 01:01 AM
So here are the questions

What level of optimisation is acceptable?
"You play a fighter and put your highest stat in strength?!?! Freakin powergamer"

Depends. With some DMs, the only way to survive long enough to roleplay is to powergame abusively. Ironically, the few of these guys I've seen also tend to be roleplay snobs who have yet to appreciate the stormwind fallacy.

With more normal DMs(Steele, from the AGC webcomic being a good online example), I'd say that optimization possibly stops being okay in one of two situations. One, your build starts registering above a tier 2 on the ToS (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=135097) tier system, or two, your build starts making your party negligible.


Do you guys think that it is easier to Roleplay a gimped character?

Only if you're intending to build a gimped character to roleplay. Ussopp, for instance, from One Piece. But typically, I want to roleplay someone powerful, which requires a powerful crunch to go along with it.


When did it become a sin to make a character that is good at what he is made to do?

It never did.

randomhero00
2010-03-12, 01:01 AM
I think weak characters are easier to roleplay, but hardly better. Some of the best roleplayers (like literally had our group hanging on his every word) have also been some of the best optimizers.

A half-orc wizard that only casts enchantment spells might be more interesting on the surface, but its not like it will make you a better roleplayer just because you limited yourself. And it's hardly creative just cause you're not optimizing. Making a well rounded optimized character, and then adding depth to that character is a lot more rewarding than picking some random un-optimized combo from the book and roleplaying the obvious.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 01:13 AM
It's like what I said, " Most select the ones that have little effect on the character." I have not yet met a player that would intentionally nerf themselves for any various reason.

I tried that a couple of times... turned out to be a disaster...
I tried a mute wizard (whose muteness requires a casting of heal to cure. He learned wizardry and adventures to acquire the funds to pay for one).
I asked for nothing in return, but the DM insisted to give me a +2 bonus to move silently.
One of his level 1 feats was silent spell, I used that on all my spells.

The biggest problem was actually that most other players didn't take sign language, and that the DM and other players were split on when I was ALLOWED to speak (in or out of character)...
PC1: Sure I can see him
PC2: Nuh uh, its way too dark
DM: besides you are looking the other way
PC3: What are you guys talking about, this is way unfair!
ME: what if I clap my hands to make noise to draw his attention
etc

the group literally broke up over fighting over this issue. And it was not even CLOSE to being fun to play. I learned my lesson and have avoided falling into the stormwind fallacy since. I build powerful characters and PLAY them weaker then they could be most of the time (to avoid overshadowing the other guys).

Fiery Diamond
2010-03-12, 01:14 AM
I DM with the standard of "Core only except by permission; feel free to ask permission all the time, because I will be using plenty of non-core and homebrewed stuff as DM. Also, no ToB and no Psionics." (I don't like ToB - I feel non-magic people should be smacking or shooting or stabbing or slicing, but not blasting. And psionics are banned for flavor reasons and because I don't feel like learning the rules.)

taltamir
2010-03-12, 01:16 AM
the funny thing is, 90% of most broken stuff is core... psionics is actually very well balanced... you are better off banning divine and arcane magic and having ONLY psionics. You can refluff psionics slightly to make it "wizards" and maintain the quality and balance of the psionics system.

mikej
2010-03-12, 01:24 AM
@ taltamir

tough luck, eh

I also subscribe the school of thought about optimizing myself to a certain good level. Then play them down a bit, unless I need to put all my cards on the table. Also I play my character how It should ethically. Often getting into fights with my fellow players as they seem to enjoy pushing my buttons. Like trying to cut down a healthy tree for no purpose other than to annoy my Druid.

Edit: Lol'd at core is balanced.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 01:27 AM
I also subscribe the school of thought about optimizing myself to a certain good level. Then play them down a bit, unless I need to put all my cards on the table. Also I play my character how It should ethically. Often getting into fights with my fellow players as they seem to enjoy pushing my buttons. Like trying to cut down a healthy tree for no purpose other than to annoy me Druid.

that is a big one for me... being a good guy who helps the innocents for free and doesn't steal and lets the party have choice loot really REALLY hurts... while the theif takes "side qusts" of robbing the richest guy in every town... and the entire party chips in to buy that holy avenger...
you can really compensate for being a moral character by min maxing just a bit more.

misterk
2010-03-12, 05:18 AM
It is possible for someone to focus too much on optimization to the detriment of RP. Moreover, if someone has a ridiculously optimized build (say a centaur war hull/hulking hurler or something ridiculous) it is extremely probable that they won't RP at all. But there's nothing wrong with mild optimization. Especially when it fits in with RP.

To use the example given above of the person complaining about Color Spray- I don't know in your universe how much control sorcerers have over what spells they take (I could see fluff wise having very little) but if they do have control, and they aren't idiots whose name starts with X, then off course they'll take Color Spray. Why wouldn't they? It would be bad roleplaying to deliberately take weak spells. And this applies even more so for int based casters. A wizard better damn well take lots of save or dies. Because they are smart enough to know that that's their best tactics.

If someone really believes that weaker means better roleplayer, then that person should just spend the time playing a commoner.

This is EXACTLY my frustration with optimisation. How does my magic user know that colour spray is the best? Is he living in a world in which magic has been carefully quantified? Is he aware of statistics? This is how I might imagine a wizards knowledge of colour spray would go

"Colour spray distorts the light, sending out a dazzling array which can stun my enemies"

That certainly sounds good, but I may not have advanced combat knowledge to be able to put two and two together and decide thats the most optimal spell (yes I know I'm smart, but without a deep knowledge of strategy and tactics that smartness is going to waste). I might have seen my mentor use a different spell to great effect, or simply liked the sound of another spell.

Theres nothing to stop me taking colour spray, and its not a bad choice, certainly, but to imply that is compulsary is to forget that your character doesn't live in a world of floating rule books.

Kaiyanwang
2010-03-12, 05:40 AM
OP, this all feel strange to me, because in the thread we discussed mainly about tactics and numbers, and raised the point that initiative and the way you approach the beast is very important in the randomness of levels 1-2.

Said this, no, IMHO roleplay and character power are not related.

I can go further, and say that sometimes a well built PC can help your RPG, because, say, If I focus my fighter on Char and Charges, I have a dreadful, impetuos warrior, if I specialize on AOOs and Comb Expertise, I see a smart, quick person, and I could reflect his behaviour in battle with his mental stats, because are prereqs for things he uses in combat.

Speaking for myself, I find fun a PC with flaws, but mainly because they make his strong points shine more, or lead to fun situations. But this is subjective, because FUN is subjective.

It's true that are gamers that point more to oprimization and don't care with RPG, but I'm tempted to think that they will not RP so much even with a sucky PC.

The only important thing is to keep an eye on the general power of the party, and the coherency of the campaign, as a DM. As long as everybody is having fun, is ok. The other things,are just too subjective.

Just one thing: does not seems to me so elegant start a thread about a PM. Just to say.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 05:55 AM
It is possible for someone to focus too much on optimization to the detriment of RP. Moreover, if someone has a ridiculously optimized build (say a centaur war hull/hulking hurler or something ridiculous) it is extremely probable that they won't RP at all. But there's nothing wrong with mild optimization. Especially when it fits in with RP.

To use the example given above of the person complaining about Color Spray- I don't know in your universe how much control sorcerers have over what spells they take (I could see fluff wise having very little) but if they do have control, and they aren't idiots whose name starts with X, then off course they'll take Color Spray. Why wouldn't they? It would be bad roleplaying to deliberately take weak spells. And this applies even more so for int based casters. A wizard better damn well take lots of save or dies. Because they are smart enough to know that that's their best tactics.

If someone really believes that weaker means better roleplayer, then that person should just spend the time playing a commoner.

To make an IRL analogy, a wizard not taking color spray, is like applying to med school with a bachelors in art.
Last I checked you plan the courses you will take, your graduate studying, and hopefully (if you are smart) the types of jobs you can get with the degree you are aiming for.
Sure you can be just aimlessly studying, you could play a wizard who is the son of a noble, doesn't care much for the trade, and has maxed out profession (gambling) and studies random spells with no combat use. But if you are playing an intelligent and dedicated individual (who expects to face life threatening challenges) then intelligent choice of spells is paramount.

JaronK
2010-03-12, 07:00 AM
This is EXACTLY my frustration with optimisation. How does my magic user know that colour spray is the best? Is he living in a world in which magic has been carefully quantified? Is he aware of statistics?

Yes, he's a Wizard and he has Spellcraft as a skill. Also, he's got a pumped up Int score (he's a genius in fact) and he's been studying magic for years. Seriously, that's what he does. A D&D Wizard is to magic as a PhD level scientist is to science. Of COURSE it's been quantified and of course he knows the statistics involved. It's his thing. It's what he does.

A Sorcerer might not, but a Wizard absolutely will.

JaronK

misterk
2010-03-12, 07:47 AM
Yes, he's a Wizard and he has Spellcraft as a skill. Also, he's got a pumped up Int score (he's a genius in fact) and he's been studying magic for years. Seriously, that's what he does. A D&D Wizard is to magic as a PhD level scientist is to science. Of COURSE it's been quantified and of course he knows the statistics involved. It's his thing. It's what he does.

A Sorcerer might not, but a Wizard absolutely will.

JaronK

I'm not convinced that thats true at all. D&D is a medieval fantasy world, and universities then may well have been full of supersition. To quantify the probability that colour spray would be successful, one needs an understanding of the scientific method, and that really doesn't exist. My understanding of spellcraft is knowing how to distort reality, to discover exactly how to produce a particular effect, being able to recognise when others are attempting to produce the same effect, excetera.

Even if I know exactly what colour spray does, being very smart doesn't make me a tactician, and I may not realise that colour spray is that good.

Look at V. V is very intelligent, but his/her spell choices aren't necessarily terrific. Some of that is due to specialization, but also to an obsession with destruction- being the blaster caster that is so frowned at. V lives in a world where the rules pretty much ARE known, but still doesn't take the "optimum" spells. V does have some good spells, because he/she isn't an idiot, but doesn't necessarily take them all.

So yeah, what I'm trying to get at is that, yes, you can most certainly justify in rp terms a wizard taking the "best" spell, but to insist that a wizard must have a lobotomy if they don't know the rules and the best way to game them, and live their LIVES as if their goal is to best these rules, is just not good.

Optimystik
2010-03-12, 08:27 AM
This is EXACTLY my frustration with optimisation. How does my magic user know that colour spray is the best? Is he living in a world in which magic has been carefully quantified? Is he aware of statistics? This is how I might imagine a wizards knowledge of colour spray would go

"Colour spray distorts the light, sending out a dazzling array which can stun my enemies"

That certainly sounds good, but I may not have advanced combat knowledge to be able to put two and two together and decide thats the most optimal spell (yes I know I'm smart, but without a deep knowledge of strategy and tactics that smartness is going to waste). I might have seen my mentor use a different spell to great effect, or simply liked the sound of another spell.

Theres nothing to stop me taking colour spray, and its not a bad choice, certainly, but to imply that is compulsary is to forget that your character doesn't live in a world of floating rule books.

Knowledge (Arcana) means he should be aware, if not of statistics, then at least lore on the effectiveness of various spells over others. If it really bothers you, sink points into Knowledge (History) as well.

Fitz
2010-03-12, 08:52 AM
the problem as i see it is differeing opinion on what is weak and what isn't. similarly roleplaying.
the optimisation comes out clearly with the example of superman: pretty optimised in teh universe he inhabits, but everyone seems to be able to get hold of kryptonite. this is because it is a weakness. powerful character is fine but invulnerable is boring (my view here)
hence i prefer say daredevil. lots of cool powers but a clear weakness to roleplay round and hang plot off, while not being useless.
so first : work out the level of optimisation the group is happy using (i have played in a group where 2 out of 6 characters were roleplayed as combat averse so ran away from fights and only did talking roles, this made things tough for the 3 of us normally contributing to main combat , and the support bard) second check the kind of game being run. invulnerable characters make for poor plot. complete no-hopers make for poor plot. something in between is good.
finally see what you are happy with.
I tend to run and enjoy plot based games, so the water-orc tripper might be over the top (if the other players are not at a similar level) but what are his weaknesses, poor mental stats ? not good in social situations, then expect at least some interaction at the noble ball, as well as the fighting. no plot game should let the characters have it all easy but nor should it be impossible for them.
sandbox games are a little different

Fitz

Indon
2010-03-12, 09:09 AM
I'm an old-timer on this forum, and I'm quite familiar with optimization and have optimized characters before. I played 3.5 for years (not so much anymore, honestly, pretty much play Exalted now), in a party with three other old-timers on this forum who are fairly knowledgable about character optimization and such.

I can confidently state that I have never been in a 1st level party that could take out an Owlbear without a high chance of character death (not even the one where I was a DMM cleric - I'd chosen DMM Quicken, specifically). In fact if I had to say, I'd say our parties landed between tiers 3 and 4. No doubt, if me and my friends optimized as I know we can, we could overcome an Owlbear or much more frightening things at low level, but we have never done so, and will never do so, simply because we did not play D&D as a tactical wargame focusing on mechanical power. The game isn't about creating a set of high numbers and tactical capabilities and then building a character to justify it, for us - it's about storytelling and organic character growth, with character mechanics designed to accompany that.

That's probably part of the reason why we aren't playing D&D anymore.

Yes, yes, stormwind fallacy and all that. It is, indeed, theoretically possible to roleplay an optimized character well, or to roleplay an unoptimized character poorly. But if you're good with the game, as I think most of us on this forum are, eventually it's going to become a question of your priorities contributing to quality. No, not every time necessarily, just on the average. If you work to play powerful characters, then you're going to have to bend over backwards in order to incorporate that into a coherent character, or maybe the DM will have to work with you to incorporate that into the collective story. If you work to have a character interact in an imaginary world, sooner or later you're going to have to put extra effort into designing that character to be mechanically effective, or maybe ask the DM to run less challenging encounters.

Where it becomes unfun is when players in the same group play at radically different power levels - and that's not a problem for our group really. We just chose to play weaker.


So is Jack Rakkan. The difference? One is useful, the other is garbage.

Rakan's an Exalt with a lot of experience. Optimization doesn't really come into play with him, or in that universe really. Also, you could compare with many members of Ala Alba, who aren't mechanically effective in the campaign but are still interesting characters.

Amusingly enough, in that universe, almost all the good wizards are blasters, and the bad guys are the ones using save-or-dies.

misterk
2010-03-12, 09:55 AM
Knowledge (Arcana) means he should be aware, if not of statistics, then at least lore on the effectiveness of various spells over others. If it really bothers you, sink points into Knowledge (History) as well.

It doesn't bother me that a mage might choose optimal spells, provided the player is happy with justifying it. It bothers me that the poster I was responding to claimed that it was bad roleplaying to NOT choose colour spray. Its not that clear cut, it never is.

Simply put: people don't make optimum combat choices all the time, because they are people. Yes, its pretty rare to find a fighter who's not strong, or a wizard who's not intelligent- that defines who that character is, and people who aren't particularly strong probably aren't as inclined to hit people in the face (equally if you are inclined to hit people in the face you're probably goingt o get stronger faster). But the notion that a character must be the best version of that character is just far too meta for me- the character, for me, should be a human, and thus will probably make some bad choices because of who he is. Theres absolutely nothing wrong with the person who always makes the optimum choices- they're clearly someone who is utterly dedicated to being whatever it is they have chosen to be, but not everyone is.

For example, I am a statistican who has wasted time in knowledge:politics, and, indeed, knowledge:general geekery. For that matter, I'm a roleplayer who rarely plays D&D and yet has an absurd amount of skill ranks in it for someone who prefers WFRP....

Kesnit
2010-03-12, 09:55 AM
Yes, yes, stormwind fallacy and all that. It is, indeed, theoretically possible to roleplay an optimized character well, or to roleplay an unoptimized character poorly.

Very true. About a year ago, my 3.5 group decided to try out Vampire: the Requiem. Only 1 of the 4 of us had played nWoD, and he was the ST. (He brought in 2 other experienced WoD players to round out the group.) One of the others without nWoD experience is a major munchkin in D&D. (He goes WAY past power-gamer. Playing in a high-level campaign he ran meant the 2 DMPC's did pretty much everything and the PC's just mopped up.)

The ST runs WoD very RP-heavy. While there is combat, we were much more likely to roll for skills or using Disciplines out-of-combat than we were for fighting. We all came up with character concepts and built our PC's. The two non-experienced WoD players who aren't munchkins asked for help and asked how the game would be run, then built our characters with a mix of "combat" and social abilities. ("Combat" is in quotes, since by the end of the game, my character was statted out purely for combat support. I had points in Firearms, but was much better at debuffing enemies.) The munchkin was built purely for combat. (Badly, I might add. He was a Gangrel who used a sword rather than claws.) He had poor socials, and even worse mentals. As a player, he could not come up with anything to do when the party was not in combat. Eventually, he just followed the other Gangrel (played by the other WoD-newbie) and tried whatever he did.

Ormagoden
2010-03-12, 10:00 AM
This is really just a silly question one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

If I'm a bad roleplayer and I create a weak character does that make me better at roleplaying?

If I'm a great roleplayer and I create an optimized character does that make me and awful roleplayer?

I honestly expect different levels of character building in every group I'm in. As I DM and play in a few groups I have a wide variety of players to choose from as examples. Since I feel specific examples will help prove my end point let me list them.

My girlfriend, she is a writer, she enjoys fantasy novels and roleplaying video games. When we first met she was introduced to Dnd type table top roleplaying games. She is a great roleplayer. At first she had no idea how to create a character so feat selection and building towards PRCs and even multiclassing never entered the picture. Did that ever decrease the amount of fun she had? No, it never did. As she grasped the rules and grew with the game and built things like swift-hunters did her grasp of the rules some how make her a worse roleplayer? No, it didn't.

My friend "Lorebot", he likes math, he enjoys video games and is a movie hound. He's played many versions of dungeons and dragons and is a great roleplayer. He loves rules, he loves to memorize things and building a character for a mathematical advantage challenges his knowledge of the rules. Did that ever decrease the amount of fun he had? No, it never did. As he found new and interesting combinations to play or test did that some how make him worse at roleplaying? No, it didn't

My friend "The funk", he is quiet and polite and is mostly a wallflower at a game table. He likes all things fantasy and hanging with his friends. Surprisingly he absolutely loves putting together incredibly nasty character combinations. He's played gnome illusionists that makes people's heads spin, uber charger druids riding dire tigers, and abjurists who completely shut down enemy spell casting. Mostly shy he doesn't really get alot of spotlight time in gaming sessions Someone who didn't know him might only consider him an "Ok" roleplayer. Every once and a while he really shines and has some awesome in character moments. Does being a wallflower and building crunchy characters decrease the amount of fun he has? No, it doesn't. Does making a mechanically strong character make him less shy and roleplay more. No no it doesn't.

Optimization and roleplay are separate subjects in DnD. If you are good at one it doesn't neccesarily mean you are good or bad at the other.

Indon
2010-03-12, 10:06 AM
If I'm a bad roleplayer and I create a weak character does that make me better at roleplaying?
No, but if you're a bad roleplayer and you create an interesting character, it may turn out weak - not all interesting characters are powerful ones.


If I'm a great roleplayer and I create an optimized character does that make me and awful roleplayer?
No, but if you're a great roleplayer and you create an optimized character, it can be more difficult to make that character interesting or believable as a direct result of the steps you took to optimize the character - not all optimal choices are intuitive or consistent with character concepts.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-12, 01:23 PM
Wall o' text incoming. You've been warned.

First, a rant on the whole "optimized build = weird templates" stuff:


Using STR as your highest stat for a fighter just makes sense. What makes less sense are some of the ridiculous class combos and layered races and templates. "I'm a fiendish half human, half dinosaur necropolitan who worships Lloth, studied martial arts only practiced in a country on the other side of the world for a year, made a blood pact with the fey to gain flight, was reborn as a dragon, my arms are animated mithril, and I'm a variant of wizard who can turn fruit into explosions at will. I had a raven familiar once but I traded it for a flying frying pan that can shoot lasers and boosts my will save."


But if you're good with the game, as I think most of us on this forum are, eventually it's going to become a question of your priorities contributing to quality. No, not every time necessarily, just on the average. If you work to play powerful characters, then you're going to have to bend over backwards in order to incorporate that into a coherent character, or maybe the DM will have to work with you to incorporate that into the collective story.

It seems like whenever people discuss optimization vs. roleplaying, they trot out these ridiculous examples and say it's hard to make powerful characters work because they're too weird. I frankly think this is just as bad as those who say "If you pick your sorcerer's spells you're ROLLplaying!"

Power does not mean ridiculous templated creatures; as most here know, a vanilla human wizard is better than most freaky creatures you'll come across. Power does not mean plot-wrecking convoluted backgrounds; unless you take flavor text as holy writ and say you have to play a Knight to play a knight, most crazy characters aren't nearly as insane in-game as you'd think.

The character Lysander describes above has the following qualities:
--is part evil outsider
--is part reptilian beast
--is undead
--worships a spider goddess
--knows an obscure martial art
--can fly
--is draconic
--has metal arms
--makes things explode
--has a flying laser-shooting familiar.

Now, you could describe that as a drow with mithril arms, bat wings, dragon wings, a dinosaur tail, zombie legs, a dragon mouth, and a flying laser-shooting frying pan who kicks people while shouting "Evildoer, feel the wrath of my Exploding Watermelon In Your Face Technique!!!!" Or, you could describe it as a pale, scaled drow who is attempting a transformation to a dracolich along with his familiar in order to better serve Lolth for many eons to come, and has developed a unique fighting style so he has a hidden weapon against any drow who might not like what he's doing.

Is the latter option still very different from your standard drow BDSM priestess/backstabby wizard/dual-scimitar-wielding ranger? Definitely. Is it still completely playable and plenty flavorful? Also definitely. Your templates, classes, feats, etc. define what your character can do, they don't define what he is.

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

On the issue of weak characters: There are two kinds of weak characters, gimped characters and comparatively weak characters.

Intentionally gimped characters simply do not have to exist, and really shouldn't exist. If you go out to slay the dragon and save the world as a commoner 1 with Skill Focus (Craft: Basketweaving) all of your skill points in Profession skills in a party of 3 normal PCs, you're not an amazing roleplayer, you're dead weight that any PC with an Int score above 3 is going to remove from the party as quickly as possible. There are ways to represent "country bumpkin forced into adventuring" that won't make you useless and get your party members killed.

Comparatively weak characters are fine as long as they can still contribute; you don't need power as long as you do something the party needs. Case in point: I'm currently playing a factotum/chameleon in a party with a God/counterspell wizard, a wild shape-focused druid, and a bard/sublime chord. When it comes to overall power, I'm definitely dead last; however, I have high skill modifiers in the skills our party face can't afford to boost, I can do damage to critters outside of the CoDzilla's range, add I can grab once-in-a-blue-moon spells the wizard doesn't have. I'm outclassed in many areas by my party but I'm useful, I'm needed, and I'm having fun.

As long as you know that you're going to be less powerful than the rest of your party and they're okay with that (and it's not a huge disparity like CoDzilla/God/CoDzilla/monk) it's fine to not have the most optimal build or to deliberately make yourself weaker. If your "ROLEplaying, not ROLLplaying!" focus gets you killed and stops your roleplaying or starts impacting everyone else's fun, however, that's when you need to draw the line.

JaronK
2010-03-12, 02:17 PM
I'm not convinced that thats true at all. D&D is a medieval fantasy world, and universities then may well have been full of supersition.

Why on earth would there be superstition in a world where you can just ask the gods stuff? "Hey, I hear throwing salt over your shoulder prevents bad luck." "Oh yeah? I'll ask the god of luck, brb." Magic in D&D really is at the level science is in the real world.


To quantify the probability that colour spray would be successful, one needs an understanding of the scientific method, and that really doesn't exist.

Why wouldn't it? You've got Wizards who are magically enhanced to be far more intelligent than humanly possible, who then can have items that boost their knowledge of magic even higher still. And they do hard core magi-scientific research to create new spells.


My understanding of spellcraft is knowing how to distort reality, to discover exactly how to produce a particular effect, being able to recognise when others are attempting to produce the same effect, excetera.

Right... understanding the fundamentals of magic so you can even identify spells you haven't seen before. It's knowing everything about spellcasting.


Even if I know exactly what colour spray does, being very smart doesn't make me a tactician, and I may not realise that colour spray is that good.

Why not? That's like saying a rocket scientist doesn't know how fast a rocket goes or whether rockets are better than zeppelins for going to the moon. Why wouldn't he, it's what he does! Understanding something as basic as "this spell is best for taking out large numbers of enemies" is trivial. How could an expert on spells not know such basic trivia as that? I know D&D pretty well, and could easily quote which classes are best at combat. I imagine you might be able to as well. Why shouldn't a Wizard understand simple rankings, if he's a genius? He'd have to be incompetent.

JaronK

Gametime
2010-03-12, 02:37 PM
Why on earth would there be superstition in a world where you can just ask the gods stuff? "Hey, I hear throwing salt over your shoulder prevents bad luck." "Oh yeah? I'll ask the god of luck, brb."

Can I sig this?

JaronK
2010-03-12, 02:49 PM
Go for it.

JaronK

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-12, 02:49 PM
C3PO was not useless in terms of the story. Along with being comic relief, he is functionally a Greek Chorus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Chorus).

Except that an actual Greek Chorus is not restrained by the fourth wall, and is not actually directly involved with the Storyline. They are more a narrator. C3PO was an actual character in the series who functioned as an Exposition Fairy (and if Navi taught us anything, these were always bad prior to 2005).


In a team of Super-Chargers, a gished out Sorcerer, a DMPC wizard, a weird psionist/wilder, and a house-ruled 4 armed Guro character,

Please, for the love of sanity, tell me you meant Goro!


I don't like ToB - I feel non-magic people should be smacking or shooting or stabbing or slicing, but not blasting

But that's what a Warblade and Crusader do best (minus shooting)! The Swordsage is explicitly supposed to be a minor-magical Martial Artist.

You know what? I'm upping my Head Desk count. Twice.


Rakan's an Exalt with a lot of experience. Optimization doesn't really come into play with him, or in that universe really. Also, you could compare with many members of Ala Alba, who aren't mechanically effective in the campaign but are still interesting characters.

Well, a better example would be Nodoka (especially in recent chapters). Though I agree that Tertium and company use too many SoDs (which is why Konoka is so valuable to the party).


Amusingly enough, in that universe, almost all the good wizards are blasters, and the bad guys are the ones using save-or-dies.

Wait... Eva rarely ever uses those. The only one she's been shown to actually use is when she froze Asuna, and she got better (much faster than Eva said it would take). Now she's even more confusing!


Even if I know exactly what colour spray does, being very smart doesn't make me a tactician, and I may not realise that colour spray is that good.

Being smart means you know how to do things. You know how to figure out a solution to damn near any linear question (riddles may give you trouble if your Wis is low). Tactics are a subset of intellect. Why do you think Roy and V actually know decent tactics (an example for each would be the fight at the wall of Azure City for V, and the fight against the Chain Tripper for Roy).

Saying Int doesn't determine tactics is flat-out wrong. Even official splatbooks (as notorious as WotC is) have stated this (Heroes of Battle in one of the Knowledge Skills, Complete Champion's Knowledge Devotion feat).

Yukitsu
2010-03-12, 03:14 PM
Well, I've been explicitly told that I'm a very good practical optimizer, so I'll take that as a relative given. I've also been told that I'm good at RP, despite being a power gamer. I'd have to say that they aren't mutually exclusive then.

What I have found, is that a lot of people who don't fully understand the rules, or who don't understand how they best synergize to create strong effects are poor optimizers, and they often seem to justify it by saying that their weak build makes for better RP. When they claim that, ask them if by chance, they can make an optimized character. Often, they can't.

Our resident individual who makes that claim hasn't even read the rules necessary to run the characters he plays. (I won't say hasn't read all the rules, because I myself haven't read bullrush or grapple, because I don't use them) The problem is though, it is universal among the DMs that he's also a poor RPer, because he's too used to freeform. The rest are all at various levels of optimization and RP, with a few wonderful examples of poor optimizers that are great at RP. It doesn't seem to come about at all that they are even related from what I've seen.

Good RP isn't just talking and doing whatever and expecting certain results because you're a certain sort of character. It's rolling the dice and running with the result. It's being creative, but doing so within the constraints of the rules, and if the rules say unoptimized, non-buffed Todd the commoner gets eaten undramatically by a housecat, then that's what happens. Real great story there Todd.

Even assuming slightly more competence and a grittier story, it doesn't follow that having the weaker character automatically makes you a better character story wise. Those characters in literature are often brushed to the side for a reason.

DragoonWraith
2010-03-12, 03:22 PM
I feel non-magic people should be smacking or shooting or stabbing or slicing, but not blasting.
Oh, then it's a good thing that Warblades don't do any blasting and all they do are smacking, stabbing, and slicing, and that Crusaders and Swordsages are explicitly magical.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-12, 03:47 PM
Also, no ToB and no Psionics." (I don't like ToB - I feel non-magic people should be smacking or shooting or stabbing or slicing, but not blasting. And psionics are banned for flavor reasons and because I don't feel like learning the rules.)

Okay, what does that to do with ToB? It would like asking "if you want ice cream" and you said: "I don't like carrots."
What does that have to do anything?

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 04:05 PM
I find it vaguely amusing that people who only learned about the awesomeness of crowd control through the magic of knowledge osmosis are acting as if their characters would already, always, and automatically know those wonderful object lessons. Especially since that osmosis was learned over thousands, potentially millions, of simulated deaths in thousands of varying simulated games that carried no actual external toll on either the players, or each other.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-12, 04:17 PM
I find it vaguely amusing that people who only learned about the awesomeness of crowd control through the magic of knowledge osmosis are acting as if their characters would already, always, and automatically know those wonderful object lessons. Especially since that osmosis was learned over thousands, potentially millions, of simulated deaths in thousands of varying simulated games that carried no actual external toll on either the players, or each other.



It doesn't take much to figure out that keeping enemies away from you is more important than being able to hurt them when you have a Fighter in the party.

Caphi
2010-03-12, 04:20 PM
I find it vaguely amusing that people who only learned about the awesomeness of crowd control through the magic of knowledge osmosis are acting as if their characters would already, always, and automatically know those wonderful object lessons. Especially since that osmosis was learned over thousands, potentially millions, of simulated deaths in thousands of varying simulated games that carried no actual external toll on either the players, or each other.

Wizards spend ages studying what magic is and how best to use it. It may have taken a lot of rigorous mathematical proof and testing to design some of the algorithms and structures I use as a programmer, but they teach me and I study it, so I know it. It's the trade.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-12, 04:22 PM
I find it vaguely amusing that people who only learned about the awesomeness of crowd control through the magic of knowledge osmosis are acting as if their characters would already, always, and automatically know those wonderful object lessons. Especially since that osmosis was learned over thousands, potentially millions, of simulated deaths in thousands of varying simulated games that carried no actual external toll on either the players, or each other.

You're assuming that everyone here only learned it through osmosis. Much as some might like to claim that you only figure out all this optimizing stuff once you start to frequent forums, it's not really all that hard to figure out on your own. I mean, even just looking over the spell lists at character creation it's kind of obvious--do I want to make several people stunned for 4+ rounds on a failed save, or do I want to do 1d4 damage on a failed save?

Granted, not everyone thinks tactically like that or can see it right away, but over the course of just playing the game chances are good that people will pick these things up without any knowledge osmosis being required.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 04:43 PM
It doesn't take much to figure out that keeping enemies away from you is more important than being able to hurt them when you have a Fighter in the party.
This doesn't square with the apparent majority of players having blasters, at all. Perhaps BECAUSE that Fighter is there, keeping enemies away from you, and you therefore do not have to learn the value of crowd control. It is a lesson of necessity, and due to Dungeons and Dragons game mechanics, not one I think most people can learn when they need it (No real flaw in DnD there, just that you either prepare your spells ahead of time, or had to choose spells learned well before things actually happened).


Wizards spend ages studying what magic is and how best to use it. It may have taken a lot of rigorous mathematical proof and testing to design some of the algorithms and structures I use as a programmer, but they teach me and I study it, so I know it. It's the trade.
Theoretical study of magic vs. practical application are not necessarily the same thing; Your logic is roughly similar to saying "This person is a physicist; Therefore, they know how to blow you up." Nonetheless, I don't say it's impossible to know without the character learning it themselves. A magicians' college in a very martial country, for instance, is very likely to teach it, while the rough equivalent of a magical research institute is much less so. It is, however, amusing that one expects every single magician to know it already without learning the object value of it themselves.


You're assuming that everyone here only learned it through osmosis. Much as some might like to claim that you only figure out all this optimizing stuff once you start to frequent forums, it's not really all that hard to figure out on your own. I mean, even just looking over the spell lists at character creation it's kind of obvious--do I want to make several people stunned for 4+ rounds on a failed save, or do I want to do 1d4 damage on a failed save?
Not necessarily everyone here. I learned it through observation in a variety of games, with very minimal forum visiting; Observation, not participation, because like what I imagine is an incredibly overwhelming majority of all humans, I did not immediately appreciate the possibilities. For that matter, in those situations, the observed either learned it or died. But in my experience, very few really notice prior to suffering it, or being told it repeatedly. And those lessons typically occur during a character death (Inability to apply knowledge in character) or in a different game (Once again, inability to apply that knowledge in character.) Which is a part of my point; It shouldn't be accepted as such a blase, basic fact a first level character would always know. I imagine some, by which I mean "Not every first level PC with the ability to abuse it" would know without previous experience, but it'd be much more of a minority than the chorus claims.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-12, 04:50 PM
This doesn't square with the apparent majority of players having blasters, at all. Perhaps BECAUSE that Fighter is there, keeping enemies away from you, and you therefore do not have to learn the value of crowd control. It is a lesson of necessity, and due to Dungeons and Dragons game mechanics, not one I think most people can learn when they need it (No real flaw in DnD there, just that you either prepare your spells ahead of time, or had to choose spells learned well before things actually happened).

In all honesty, I've seen more blasters kill their party Fighter by accident by assuming they can make a saving throw and soak the damage, or by assuming that the caster himself will fail to overcome the Fighter's SR (obtained in some way).

When this happens, it's very likely that the blaster is going to die. Hell, I've also seen combats where the Fighter can't physically keep the enemies away from the rest of the party, be it with sheer numbers or poor feat selection. In either situation, guess who gets to die when one of them gets into the danger zone?


Look at all of the examples of Friendly Fire there are on these forums. Tales of TPKs caused by the player blasting when a BC or SoD spell was the superior choice. Now look at the friendly fire caused by a Cloudkill spell. Or Solid Fog. Or Freezing Fog. Or Black Tentacles.

Wanna know the difference? The BC spells aren't as likely to cause serious friendly fire damage, while the blasting spells are. If the 15 Int Wizard can't figure that out IC, then the problem is OOC.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 09:06 PM
Tales of TPKs caused by the player blasting when a BC or SoD spell was the superior choice


It shouldn't be accepted as such a blase, basic fact a first level character would always know. I imagine some, by which I mean "Not every first level PC with the ability to abuse it" would know without previous experience, but it'd be much more of a minority than the chorus claims.
I was going to be dry about this, but to hammer the point home: If the party dies, there's no one (Friendly) around, IC, to learn anything from it. Therefore, it has no bearing on future characters, from an IC perspective. Why do you think I said it's a lesson driven home among thousands or millions of simulated deaths?


Wanna know the difference? The BC spells aren't as likely to cause serious friendly fire damage, while the blasting spells are. If the 15 Int Wizard can't figure that out IC, then the problem is OOC.

Or the 15 int Wizard doesn't care, or actually thinks the fighter can stomach it, etc etc etc. Notwithstanding that just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you have data; You might abstractly be aware that the Fighter can die, but he's always handled everything ELSE. That's why an earlier poster pointed out that these are supposed to be human, and have flaws and gaps in their thinking, which you're illustrating now by failing to account for non-rational thinking.

You've got some room to talk about this sort of thing in systems where a starting PC is NOT a noob to their job, but first levels in DnD are typically treated as neophytes. It can also be explained away, if you wish, but what I'm specifically objecting to is the idea that every, or even most, first level characters will know the lessons that have been imparted to everyone (Or everyone else, if you absolutely must be some sort of special snowflake who towers above us plebes) over time and experience, not simply from looking at spell effects in a book.

Gametime
2010-03-12, 09:09 PM
Oh, then it's a good thing that Warblades don't do any blasting and all they do are smacking, stabbing, and slicing, and that Crusaders and Swordsages are explicitly magical.

And Crusaders still don't do any blasting. Even Swordsages only have only school that does any blasting, and that's only about half the maneuvers.

Swordsages still mostly smack, stab, and slice. They just might do it with a sword that's on fire - which, honestly, isn't all that out of place in D&D even if you aren't using ToB.

Gametime
2010-03-12, 09:12 PM
Or the 15 int Wizard doesn't care, or actually thinks the fighter can stomach it, etc etc etc. Notwithstanding that just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you have data; You might abstractly be aware that the Fighter can die, but he's always handled everything ELSE. That's why an earlier poster pointed out that these are supposed to be human, and have flaws and gaps in their thinking, which you're illustrating now by failing to account for non-rational thinking.

You've got some room to talk about this sort of thing in systems where a starting PC is NOT a noob to their job, but first levels in DnD are typically treated as neophytes. It can also be explained away, if you wish, but what I'm specifically objecting to is the idea that every, or even most, first level characters will know the lessons that have been imparted to everyone (Or everyone else, if you absolutely must be some sort of special snowflake who towers above us plebes) over time and experience, not simply from looking at spell effects in a book.

Presumably, if the blaster wizards die, they don't level up and become master wizards. Thus, they don't train new generations of wizards. Thus, modern wizards would have mostly been trained by wizards specializing in controlling schools, like Conjuration, Illusion, and Enchantment, or buffing schools, like Transmutation, or extremely paranoid schools like Divination.

Also, why exactly do the choices other player's PCs in completely different game worlds impact the validity of my choices in my own game world?

Eldariel
2010-03-12, 09:14 PM
And Crusaders still don't do any blasting. Even Swordsages only have only school that does any blasting, and that's only about half the maneuvers.

Swordsages still mostly smack, stab, and slice. They just might do it with a sword that's on fire - which, honestly, isn't all that out of place in D&D even if you aren't using ToB.

And non-magical Swordsage is perfectly fine as an archetype and isn't really even gimped; there are no must-have Su maneuvers or stances and you don't weaken yourself by skipping the Su maneuvers simply thanks to the maximum number of maneuvers known.

The Su maneuvers are there just for the people who want a Sword Magician after a fashion. And it's true, none in Warblade's schools and...very few if any in Crusader's. It's really a matter of how you fluff the Crusader healing, and that's all.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 09:18 PM
you know, to be fair I NEVER take color spray.
I fill my low level slots with sleep, grease, and glitterdust.
Sleep and color spray are both will save or lose.
Color spray can affect 5HD+ creatures (for 1 round), but requires you to be within 15 feet of them (15 foot cone). I am not getting this close to a 5HD+ creature at this level...
sleep lets me hit something at medium range with a burst at a spot I choose.
Sleep also lasts longer.

mmm, although... sleep is the normal banned school of enchantment, so if you ban it color spray makes an acceptable alternative. (I haven't had a DM that allowed wizards or sorcerers since I have learned the value of specializing)

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 09:20 PM
Presumably, if the blaster wizards die, they don't level up and become master wizards. Thus, they don't train new generations of wizards. Thus, modern wizards would have mostly been trained by wizards specializing in controlling schools, like Conjuration, Illusion, and Enchantment, or buffing schools, like Transmutation, or extremely paranoid schools like Divination.
No, for any of a number of reasons. Not the least of which being "Since the players are not every important being in the game universe since the beginning of its time, there were probably successful blasters in time past. Why? DM Fiat, if nothing else." Good thinking, though.


Also, why exactly do the choices other player's PCs in completely different game worlds impact the validity of my choices in my own game world?
Good question! Why does your PC happen to know about what's gotten so many PCs killed when they tried it in the same or different systems? My entire point is that the importance of Crowd Control is drilled home after what very well may be boatloads of deaths. Why does your character get the benefit of that data, exactly?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-03-12, 09:29 PM
On the topic of the Stormwind Fallacy:

I feel that, in my experience, the time I spend thinking about optimization is time that could have been spent thinking about roleplaying. Therefore, by focusing on optimization, my quality of roleplaying decreases.
HOWEVER...
I am naturally inclined to think about optimization. Doing so brings me pleasure. Fighting my inclinations and forcibly focusing more on roleplaying would deprive me of that pleasure, as well as tasking a section of my mind with maintaining an unnatural focus. This extra mental work would more than outweigh the extra time given to roleplaying. Therefore, by not focusing on optimization, my quality of roleplaying decreases even more. Also, I have less fun

This is probably not extrapolatable to anyone else. Just giving my personal two cents on Roleplaying v. Optimization in my life.

Pluto
2010-03-12, 09:32 PM
Out of about six groups I've played in, none used Flaws: the ones who min/maxed called them abusive and I don't think the groups who didn't min/max even knew about them.
ToB, ToM, MoI and Psionics rarely see play - not for balance reasons, but because more rules typically slow the game and give the DM's even more homework.
Traits are usually fine, as are rebuilding and fractional saves (though never as written: the +2 only ever applies once).



The assumption that a character has to be powerful to be a member of the party is ridiculous (mercenary campaigns aside).
A character becomes a hero by standing up to the task. Being the best suited character for the job is not necessary and, frankly, is a boring way to go about a game.

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


Powergaming is problematic, IMO:

Min/Maxing is a Red Queen - if I make a more powerful character, the DM gives the monsters extra levels, so I make my character more powerful and so on.

But on top of this, if I make my character end combat in a round, I rob the Fighter and any other combat-focused characters of the game they were built to play. And unless they rebuild/reconceive to match my optimization level, they are apt to become collateral damage for the power-boosted monsters.

It takes less time to grab a couple thematic spells every level for a Sorcerer than it does to skim every book for a class and spell combination that might keep it contributing alongside an Incantatrix/SCM.

By upping the ante with min/maxing, a player forces the rest of the group to dedicate what is frankly an unreasonable amount of out-of-game time to character building just to keep playing the same game they would be if they hadn't started min/maxing at all.



Basically, I think it's easier for other players to build and play the characters they want alongside unoptimized characters.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-12, 09:34 PM
That does not change that people are not perfectly rational, nor does being smart necessarily make you good at applying that intelligence in all the varied topics. Just because you are a highly gifted engineer doesn't mean you could necessarily create a compelling sociological analysis. Similarly there is no reason to assume that a wizard who has not primarily studied magic for a combat application would know the most efficient ways of employing magic for combat.

Similarly there is no reason to assume that wizards are anymore likely than others to completely avoid weird, irrational quirks of personality. It is not like university professors are known to be the least strange people around. I am sure wizards have their intramural disputes, faction struggles and plain old personal preferences making them just as likely to ignore facts at times.

Honestly the assumption that every wizard would know the best application of their magic hinges on a faulty understanding of both what intelligence is and how human psychology works. By and large intelligence just means you are better at remembering things and making connections, it does not actually make you know anything more than you otherwise would have. And depending on your personal interests the connections you make might be staggeringly irrelevant to the primary task at hand. As for human rationality, research seems to indicate that by and large the addition of facts make humans more likely to believe what they want to believe, as opposed to what is actually true. That applies to smart people as much as to stupid ones. It is not like humans, even smart ones, always take the most efficient path to what they want, in fact it is quite rare to see people do that.

Why should wizards be any different from other people?

Foryn Gilnith
2010-03-12, 09:43 PM
By upping the ante with min/maxing, a player forces the rest of the group to dedicate what is frankly an unreasonable amount of out-of-game time to character building just to keep playing the same game they would be if they hadn't started min/maxing at all.
When I optimize, the single biggest timesink is equipment buying. Second biggest is skill point distribution. Feats and classes, the primary source of optimization power, are perhaps the part of the character I spend the least time on. Just go to a handbook, pick things, and go. I play noncasters, though, so optimization is easier. But then again, in hypothetical ruined-by-powergaming group, the powergamer is playing the caster, so the ones that have to catch up don't have to worry about playing Batman.
This reflects the sort of characters I like to play. Powerful enough that I can get kicks out of winning the little minigame known as combat, with enough psychological handicaps that I don't dominate the group and have more textured roleplay.

Gametime
2010-03-12, 09:46 PM
Good question! Why does your PC happen to know about what's gotten so many PCs killed when they tried it in the same or different systems? My entire point is that the importance of Crowd Control is drilled home after what very well may be boatloads of deaths. Why does your character get the benefit of that data, exactly?

But you can't just be complaining about my PC. Some wizards presumably specialize in Illusion or Enchantment, and favor Sleep or Color Spray accordingly. You're not complaining about that, but about the fact that a disproportionately large number of them seem to, right?

Well, in my game world, there aren't a disproportionately large number. There's only a lot of us if you consider other players' games. Again, I put it to you - why are their decisions impacting mine when we aren't playing the same game?

Or maybe I'm wrong, and no wizard should ever take Sleep or Color Spray on principle, but I doubt that's your point.

Pluto
2010-03-12, 09:51 PM
But then again, in hypothetical ruined-by-powergaming group, the powergamer is playing the caster, so the ones that have to catch up don't have to worry about playing Batman.
"Ruined" is a stronger word than I meant to imply.

I think there are very different assumptions on internet forums than IRL.
Most people I play with own one-three books and aren't even fully familiar with the material contained in them.

Look at any optimized Fighter and the different resources it uses. Odds are it involves: Dungeonscape, Expanded Psionics, Races of Stone, Complete Warrior, Complete Adventurer, Complete Arcane, Complete Champion, a specific web enhancement, the MIC, the PHB and the PHB2.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 09:55 PM
But you can't just be complaining about my PC. Some wizards presumably specialize in Illusion or Enchantment, and favor Sleep or Color Spray accordingly. You're not complaining about that, but about the fact that a disproportionately large number of them seem to, right?
I'm attacking this assumption that every PC will behave in a perfectly rational manner, with Rational dictated by doing what is optimum in abstract game mechanics that would drive someone mad if they thought their lives actually operated on those principles. As a side bar, I am also pointing out that indeed, too many experienced minmaxers in this thread are assuming that every single PC they make should automatically get the fruits of knowledge harvested from other PCs.


Well, in my game world, there aren't a disproportionately large number. There's only a lot of us if you consider other players' games. Again, I put it to you - why are their decisions impacting mine when we aren't playing the same game?
To repeat myself, my entire point is that you, the player, have built up this knowledge of optimization through conversation, observation, and trial and error, over hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other PCs. If you optimize, the decisions of thousands of other characters are already impacting the decisions of your current character. Why should that always happen? Why would it in fact be the basis for good roleplay?

Or maybe I'm wrong, and no wizard should ever take Sleep or Color Spray on principle, but I doubt that's your point.
Indeed, it is not.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 09:56 PM
On the topic of the Stormwind Fallacy:

I feel that, in my experience, the time I spend thinking about optimization is time that could have been spent thinking about roleplaying. Therefore, by focusing on optimization, my quality of roleplaying decreases.
HOWEVER...

incorrect, a weak character is far more likely to:
1. die, therefore you wasted every single hour spent building him, developing him, etc...
2. not be able to roleplay its designated role. (aka, if the only thing he can do is lockpick, and you never come across a lock that needs picking... you are a 5th wheel and do nothing).

by allowing it to perform more roles and more importantly survive longer, you are saving a lot of time "that could be spent thinking about roleplaying"
optimizing is a method to ensure your roleplaying effort doesn't go to waste. A non min maxed character? don't even bother writing him a backstory, he would be dead within the first session.

cfalcon
2010-03-12, 09:56 PM
Ok, this sounds like a thread I want to be in, because I kinda get both sides.

Truly optimized characters offend my sense of "realism". Or whatever. If every fighter, every monk, looks the same way, with very similar stats, then the stats cease to be part of the roleplaying, and the intention is that they *are*.

That being said, in my years as DM (and my occasional forays into being a player, one of which is working super well right now), our solution has always been simple: extra stats. We have copious extra stats, we still assign a max you can put into one score, and we have a sliding scale, just like the normal point builds- except we end up with a lot MORE. Since the relative value of the stats is still the SAME, you end up with fighters who can put some points into INT without being yelled at, if their guy is smart. The mechanics don't reward pumping the power stats, and at some point you are like, yes, +4 Int is actually more worthwhile than +1 to will saves, or whatever.

We also tend to ban outright most +stat items, or make them extremely rare, but to increase the stats you gain while levelling a bit.

This also tends to increase save rates across the board, hit points across the board, and that in turn tends to swing the power a bit away from casters (who still rock and are #1 no problem). But it helps.

My current 11th level wizard (Eron Valence) has the following stats:

Str 11 (started at 9, but "gambled" it up through a ghostly game of blackjack where the stakes were random)
Dex 12 (it started there)
Con 20 (it started at 18, but the same blackjack game increased it)
Int 25 (started at 23, put my stat ups to it)
Wis 14 (started there)
Cha 15 (started there)

I looked in my old stuff and found something from a previous campaign, a level 12 psion named Lia.

Str 14
Dex 17
Con 18
Int 22
Wis 15
Cha 13


I think this helps people have characters without unlikeable average stats, while still being good at their jobs. Been playing this way for like fifteen years, wouldn't change it.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 09:58 PM
Let me make this statement... Min maxing is the ONLY reason I have resumed bothering about writing a backstory for my character.
When I started roleplaying, I wrote elaborate stories, drew pictures, and had selected abilities etc that all fit a very specific character concept.

Constant death has caused me to stop bothering, every adventurer was now a nameless thug with no backstory whatsoever.

Min-Maxing has made the backstory relevant again, because they actually survive long enough for me to give a whiff.


The assumption that a character has to be powerful to be a member of the party is ridiculous (mercenary campaigns aside).
A character becomes a hero by standing up to the task. Being the best suited character for the job is not necessary and, frankly, is a boring way to go about a game.
Completely and utterly wrong... a character becomes a hero by standing up to the task and SURVIVING and SUCCEEDING.

Countless people stand up to evil and wrong only to be cut down. A hero is the one in a million that stands up to evil and wrong and actually manages to fight back.


I'm attacking this assumption that every PC will behave in a perfectly rational manner, with Rational dictated by doing what is optimum in abstract game mechanics that would drive someone mad if they thought their lives actually operated on those principles. As a side bar, I am also pointing out that indeed, too many experienced minmaxers in this thread are assuming that every single PC they make should automatically get the fruits of knowledge harvested from other PCs.
Sanity Has Advantages (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SanityHasAdvantages)

To wit, not every NPC will be acting in a perfectly rational manner... an adventurer who will SURVIVE difficult and horrifying ordeals to become a hero rather then a statistic (you know the old "90+% of adventurers die before first level") has to be sane and rational.

Pluto
2010-03-12, 10:06 PM
Completely and utterly wrong... a character becomes a hero by standing up to the task and SURVIVING and SUCCEEDING.
Um, bull****?

I'd count Boromir as one of the heroes.

Just sayin'.

Caphi
2010-03-12, 10:09 PM
Um, bull****?

I'd count Boromir as one of the heroes.

Just sayin'.

Boromir was also pretty good in combat. Terrible will save, though.

The question isn't whether you'd like to play him, but whether you'd like to play Lotho instead.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 10:10 PM
Um, bull****?

I'd count Boromir as one of the heroes.

Just sayin'.

Sometimes you can trade survival for success, but you still have to survive until the critical point to be a hero rather then a redshirt.

he survived first level, he overcame many challanges, he became a powerful and respected hero due to his
Boromir's great stamina and physical strength, together with a forceful and commanding personality, made him a widely-admired commander in Gondor's army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boromir

Dying a "heroic" death is different then being immediately cut down before you achieve anything. And requires a certain minimum of skill and capability. Boromir could achieve a heroic death by surviving and succeeding up to that point, and then sacrificing his heroic life to achieve greater success.


Boromir was also pretty good in combat. Terrible will save, though.

The question isn't whether you'd like to play him, but whether you'd like to play Lotho instead.

exactly. actually, take it one step further... would you call "random victim #57" a hero? even if he fought back?

Terraoblivion
2010-03-12, 10:10 PM
I am not talking about insanity. I am saying that every human who has ever been alive are not only in part irrational, they also don't possess complete knowledge of themselves or their abilities. They might also panic. Humans are not perfectly rational, humans do stupid things they should know better than doing. It happens all the time, i am sure you are doing something you should know better than doing at this very moment. I know i do. It is unavoidable. It is further compounded by the fact that they lack perfect knowledge of what is going on when they are in battle. Furthermore combat is a chaotic situation in which you have a split second to act and come up with a solution, you don't have time to plan something carefully under such conditions.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 10:13 PM
Sanity Has Advantages (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SanityHasAdvantages)

To wit, not every NPC will be acting in a perfectly rational manner... an adventurer who will SURVIVE difficult and horrifying ordeals to become a hero rather then a statistic (you know the old "90+% of adventurers die before first level") has to be sane and rational.

Ah, of course, a trope in favor of understanding.

I'm not sure you have a handle on the sheer number of cognitive biases that impede humans from attaining true rational thought*. Ironically, your certainty in the face of apparent poor understanding constitutes another bias, known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. I invite you to gaze upon that list, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) as it's quite long. I don't know if it counts as a bias, but it's certainly a flaw in your analysis to fail to recognize that incredibly irrational people can still achieve success beyond your wildest dreams, even in the real world, where there is nothing to aid them except the irrationality of everyone else. Now imagine if there are actual supernatural forces that, god forbid, might actually be powered by our subconscious stupid, or that LIKE that stuff.

*For all intents and purposes, all DnD races in the material plane follow the same thought, because they're never demonstrated as thinking in an alien fashion.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 10:17 PM
I am familiar with Dunning-Kruger:
1. By the very definition of Dunning-Kruger effect, anyone will believe that Dunning-Kruger is talking about other people and that they themselves are perfectly justified in throwing it on others. (with the exception of the most talented in a field having a constructive argument with another of great talent, in which case both recognize each other's worth and capability and are willing to exempt each other from such an inclusion.
2. Invoking Dunning-Kruger at someone is a grave insult to their intelligence, knowledge, and character. Please don't insult me if you disagree with my opinions.


I am not talking about insanity. I am saying that every human who has ever been alive are not only in part irrational, they also don't possess complete knowledge of themselves or their abilities. They might also panic. Humans are not perfectly rational, humans do stupid things they should know better than doing. It happens all the time, i am sure you are doing something you should know better than doing at this very moment. I know i do. It is unavoidable. It is further compounded by the fact that they lack perfect knowledge of what is going on when they are in battle. Furthermore combat is a chaotic situation in which you have a split second to act and come up with a solution, you don't have time to plan something carefully under such conditions.

that is certainly true.
But I thought we were talking about fundamental and obvious out of combat decision done with plenty of time, study, and advice from others. Not split second decisions in combat. Maybe I am misunderstanding your position here.

Pluto
2010-03-12, 10:23 PM
exactly. actually, take it one step further... would you call "random victim #57" a hero? even if he fought back?
Sure.

The only difference between him and the protagonist is screen time.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-12, 10:24 PM
And that out-of-combat planning might still be scrapped in the heat of battle.

However, more importantly, analysis based on experiences in data is likely to be hugely distorted because of the chaotic nature of said battle. It is hard to tell what works well and what doesn't in a chaotic bustle you are standing in the middle of. That is further compounded by the fact that human memory is ultimately not very accurate, making you likely to remember some things wrong and distort the focus. And this comes in addition to any personal quirks and hang-ups, that might further cloud your judgement. Unless people are trained in tactics there is no reason to assume that they really know them, no matter how smart they are. Humans are too irrational for that. And even with training irrationality might ruin it or might even infect the training itself.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 10:29 PM
And that out-of-combat planning might still be scrapped in the heat of battle.

However, more importantly, analysis based on experiences in data is likely to be hugely distorted because of the chaotic nature of said battle. It is hard to tell what works well and what doesn't in a chaotic bustle you are standing in the middle of. That is further compounded by the fact that human memory is ultimately not very accurate, making you likely to remember some things wrong and distort the focus. And this comes in addition to any personal quirks and hang-ups, that might further cloud your judgement. Unless people are trained in tactics there is no reason to assume that they really know them, no matter how smart they are. Humans are too irrational for that. And even with training irrationality might ruin it or might even infect the training itself.

all very true. But you can get the right tactic even without logical analysis via simple evolution of combat.
If tactic A is effective while tactic B leads to death, then as combat occurs practitioners of tactic A will survive, practitioners of tactic B will die. And only tactic A practitioners will teach / write / be listened to about tactics.

However, this does not occur instantly and automatically, nor does it occur in a vacuum. Historically, many failed tactics (ex: phalanx formation gun fights on an open plain) took time to die out due to the rarity of war (we aren't in a perpetual war).

so in game its a question of how organized mages are, how many years have spells been as they are today, and how often combat occurs.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 10:30 PM
1. By the very definition of Dunning-Kruger effect, anyone will believe that Dunning-Kruger is talking about other people and that they themselves are perfectly justified in throwing it on others. (with the exception of the most talented in a field having a constructive argument with another of great talent, in which case both recognize each other's worth and capability and are willing to exempt each other from such an inclusion.
Actually, that's a different bias, known as the Bias Blind Spot. The Dunning Kruger only states that the less you know about a topic, the more likely you are to not be aware of your shortcomings in that topic. Best summed up with something I heard while watching the Olympics; "<Curling> looks easy!" Which it does, if you've never played it, and are watching at home for the first time.


2. Invoking Dunning-Kruger at someone is a grave insult to their intelligence, knowledge, and character. Please don't insult me if you disagree with my opinions.
"You don't understand this topic nearly as much as you think you do" is not a grave insult to your intelligence, unless you were claiming omniscience with seriousness. And you simply don't understand Psychology, if you think perfect rationality is somehow easy to attain, or necessary to succeed. You're sort of proving my point for me, by interpreting a standard cognitive biases as some sort of insult.*

*For the sake of some disclosure, I do know I suffer from this same as everyone else. In watching Street Fighter 4 videos of a friend of mine, I felt that he was playing sloppily; Note that I do not play SF4, whilst my friend is apparently well respected as an good player within lower ranking tournaments. Upon calling out what I felt was a gross error, my friend informed me why he did what he did, and why it was such a good move (Albeit one that failed to work in that specific circumstance), based on an advanced understanding of the metagame. I then had to recount that very bias to myself and apologize to him for my error. Let me be clear when I say "Everyone does it, no exceptions."

taltamir
2010-03-12, 10:36 PM
Actually, that's a different bias, known as the Bias Blind Spot. The Dunning Kruger only states that the less you know about a topic, the more likely you are to not be aware of your shortcomings in that topic.
I know that is why dunning kruger states, that is exactly why I said what I said.
The less you know/less capable you are about debate/logic, the less likely you are to even grasp your shortcoming in debate and logic. Hence anyone who hears such a statement who has highly developed logic and debate skills will realize that is is true from his debates with unskilled and incapable people. AND any incapable person who hears it will ALSO think that it applies to all the capable people he disagreed with.


"You don't understand this topic nearly as much as you think you do" is not a grave insult to your intelligence
correct, but "you aren't capable of logical arguments as you think you are" is. it is a matter of which of those two you intended when invoking the dunning kruger effect.

there is a secondary issue that a sufficiently intelligent/experienced person would be able to recognize that even if "curling looks easy on TV" it probably isn't, and their lack of experience shouldn't be used as an indication of it being easy.

finally, even if you meant it in terms of specific knowledge to a specific subject; you are still insinuating that I am ignorant on the subject and that you are an expert or at least of significantly higher knowledge and understanding. (which is not technically an insult, but a very arrogant point of view which some mind find offensive)


Note that I do not play SF4, whilst my friend is apparently well respected as an good player within lower ranking tournaments. Upon calling out what I felt was a gross error, my friend informed me why he did what he did, and why it was such a good move (Albeit one that failed to work in that specific circumstance), based on an advanced understanding of the metagame. I then had to recount that very bias to myself and apologize to him for my error. Let me be clear when I say "Everyone does it, no exceptions."
But those with the knowledge, experience, and intelligence try to avoid doing that. Which is why you should actually explain what is wrong with my actual argument and reasoning so that I might (should you be correct) adjust my thinking and admit you are right, rather then throwing dunning-kruger at me.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-12, 10:41 PM
However, this does not occur instantly and automatically, nor does it occur in a vacuum. Historically, many failed tactics (ex: phalanx formation gun fights on an open plain) took time to die out due to the rarity of war (we aren't in a perpetual war).

You mean the dominant tactic during one of the most warlike periods of European history? It was developed during the thirty years war and used all the way up through the British retreat from Afghanistan. That is almost two hundred years and covering two of the four largest wars in European history. Not really a very good example of a failed tactic.

The evolution in tactics does not happen until someone tries something new and that can take a very long time indeed. Especially when technological and social organization is relatively stable like it is in the default assumptions of D&D. Also as long as something suboptimal works, even without working perfectly, people are unlikely to abandon it due to things like force of habit and the risks inherent in abandoning it. You know that what you have works, but you don't know for certain that what you can get will work, there is a clear risk there and when you are out killing monsters that is a risk that can get you killed.

taltamir
2010-03-12, 10:46 PM
You mean the dominant tactic during one of the most warlike periods of European history? It was developed during the thirty years war and used all the way up through the British retreat from Afghanistan. That is almost two hundred years and covering two of the four largest wars in European history. Not really a very good example of a failed tactic.
Sure it is an example of a failed tactic, it is a terrible tactic that is now COMPLETELY dead, nobody uses it today, and armies that used it repeatedly lost to armies that didn't.
The fact it lasted so long is my actual point. It took 200 years for that tactic to die out in a warlike period. It should take a similar period of time through similar amounts of use for other failed tactics to die. Hence the "it doesn't happen overnight" issue.


The evolution in tactics does not happen until someone tries something new and that can take a very long time indeed. Especially when technological and social organization is relatively stable like it is in the default assumptions of D&D. Also as long as something suboptimal works, even without working perfectly, people are unlikely to abandon it due to things like force of habit and the risks inherent in abandoning it. You know that what you have works, but you don't know for certain that what you can get will work, there is a clear risk there and when you are out killing monsters that is a risk that can get you killed.
But the very existence of the various school specialties in DnD indicates that the strategy of using spell X over spell Y does exist in DnD.
You can't say "nobody in DnD thought to use color spray, only magic missile", because the spell exist and illusionist exist, therefore they must have done so... and in every encounter the color spray using wizard 1 beats the magic missile using wizard 1

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-12, 10:47 PM
Or the 15 int Wizard doesn't care, or actually thinks the fighter can stomach it, etc etc etc. Notwithstanding that just because you're intelligent doesn't mean you have data; You might abstractly be aware that the Fighter can die, but he's always handled everything ELSE. That's why an earlier poster pointed out that these are supposed to be human, and have flaws and gaps in their thinking, which you're illustrating now by failing to account for non-rational thinking.

In which case it's entirely luck that the party dies. Unless the Wizard can plainly see that the Fighter is struggling (read: 30hp out of 80), in which case the Wizard deserves his untimely end.


You've got some room to talk about this sort of thing in systems where a starting PC is NOT a noob to their job, but first levels in DnD are typically treated as neophytes. It can also be explained away, if you wish, but what I'm specifically objecting to is the idea that every, or even most, first level characters will know the lessons that have been imparted to everyone (Or everyone else, if you absolutely must be some sort of special snowflake who towers above us plebes) over time and experience, not simply from looking at spell effects in a book.

Let me lay something down for you:

Lower than 1st level: Apprentice
1st Level-6th level: Journeyman
7th+: Master
15th+: Legendary
21+: Epic (duh), or demiGOD (kinda insulting seeing as Epic PCs can massacre deities).

This stance is based off of two things: WotC's stance on mid-level PCs in the Eberron Campaign Setting (which, BTW, there are only a dozen or so stated NPCs who's level exceeds 5th, one of which is circumstantial), and a feat tree in the DMG2.

Since this thread is about optimization, it's safe to assume any Wizard is going to have an Int of 16, at least. Also, if the PCs are allies, the Wizard should know by simple logic that hurting the Fighter makes it easier for the Fighter's enemy to kill said Fighter. It may go both ways, but here is something else the Wizard knows by sheer virtue of his Int score:

People are weaker than the environment around them.

This holds true in every campaign thanks to the mere existence of a CR system. Hell, even some of the weakest enemies can be a major threat if played intelligently (Tucker's Kobolds).

Knowing this, and assuming no IC grudge or Evil motivation, why the **** would the Wizard risk catching the Fighter in a Fireball when he could very possibly aim it so that it doesn't cause friendly fire? And, in case the Wizard has it, why wouldn't he cast something like Glitterdust to cripple the Fighter's target without harming the Fighter at all?



Incidentally, this is the concept behind both the Batman and GOD Wizards. They exist to alter reality in favor of the party's survival by nerfing their enemies and bringing in the re-enforcements (be it a summoned creature or a simple Grease spell). If it hits the fan, they bust out the big guns (Gate) and tell everyone to fall back. If that fails, flee and live to see another day.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-12, 10:56 PM
And the fact that it takes a long time for a suboptimal tactic to die out serves your point in what way exactly? It shows that people are conservative and stick to what they know rather than what might be potentially useful. Had the period been less dynamic and not featured the great technological changes it did, it is unlikely that the tactic would ever have died out. Conservatism is one of the great forces of human psychology after all.

And yes other tactics exist, however, except in direct conflict between the two they can coexist as long as both work. And quite a few people seem to agree that blasting does work, given how they use it without feeling underpowered, despite the proven suboptimal nature of it. Seeing as this is the case those wizards have no real reason to risk trying to use crowd control. Furthermore the power imbalance between the two seems to be quite unintended on the part of the developers, meaning that it is not supposed to be visible ICly. In the game as written there is no imbalance ICly, that is something that only happens when you sensibly adjust the IC portrayal to fit the rules in order to reduce the disconnect between the two.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 11:00 PM
I know that is why dunning kruger states, that is exactly why I said what I said.
No, you did not properly remember it prior to this conversation (Which I suspect is simply a case of appending the wrong name to a bias you're familiar with). That's why in describing it, you recounted a near-completely unrelated cognitive bias and backhandedly attributed it to me.

The less you know/less capable you are about debate/logic, the less likely you are to even grasp your shortcoming in debate and logic. Hence anyone who hears such a statement who has highly developed logic and debate skills will realize that is is true from his debates with unskilled and incapable people. AND any incapable person who hears it will ALSO think that it applies to all the capable people he disagreed with.
This is why I think you merely attributed the wrong bias to the right name, yes.


correct, but "you aren't capable of logical arguments as you think you are" is.
Well, no. Not only is that not what I said, but even if it were, intelligence isn't directly correlated with making properly Logical (in the mathematic sense) arguments. Taking a Logic course is, though.


it is a matter of which of those two you intended when invoking the dunning kruger effect.
Spoiler alert: Since I was highlighting your shortfalls in psychological knowledge, while you defended the ease of Perfectly Rational Thought and how others could easily attain it, which is itself a psychology issue, it's that one.


there is a secondary issue that a sufficiently intelligent/experienced person would be able to recognize that even if "curling looks easy on TV" it probably isn't, and their lack of experience shouldn't be used as an indication of it being easy.
No. No that isn't something an intelligent person will immediately recognize. As a matter of fact, "That looks easy", in the experience I was recounting, was stated by an intelligent person. That's why I said "Cognitive biases affect everyone, no exceptions."


But those with the knowledge, experience, and intelligence try to avoid doing that. Which is why you should actually explain what is wrong with my actual argument and reasoning so that I might (should you be correct) adjust my thinking and admit you are right, rather then throwing dunning-kruger at me.
I did. Several times, actually, which you've never really bothered properly replying to. To reiterate:
Perfectly Rational THought is nearly impossible, and certainly never observed in either real life or fiction. It's a pretty epic goal, so it might actually be achievable by a DnD character. But not only would that be an epic introspective quest unto itself (Which likely falls under similar rules as 'You shouldn't write your character into being something you'll be expected to show' but anyway), it would be a terrible default assumption for a first level DnD character, and not something people should act as if they're justified in claiming for every DnD character.

The best part is that even with a perfectly rational character, you won't necessarily have data on the effectiveness of various control spells. At least, not empirical data. Of course, a perfectly rational being would have the sense to run various 'clinical' tests.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 11:26 PM
In which case it's entirely luck that the party dies. Unless the Wizard can plainly see that the Fighter is struggling (read: 30hp out of 80), in which case the Wizard deserves his untimely end.
I like how you keep assuming Fireball. Blaster also refers to ST Nukes, you know.


Let me lay something down for you:
Lower than 1st level: Apprentice
1st Level-6th level: Journeyman
7th+: Master
15th+: Legendary
21+: Epic (duh), or demiGOD (kinda insulting seeing as Epic PCs can massacre deities).
So a first level has just finished apprenticehood. And this is somehow proof that they are wise and well traveled. And aware of 2000 lives of simulated data. I fail to see the logic.


This stance is based off of two things: WotC's stance on mid-level PCs in the Eberron Campaign Setting (which, BTW, there are only a dozen or so stated NPCs who's level exceeds 5th, one of which is circumstantial), and a feat tree in the DMG2.
Well it's nice of you to admit that it's as much inferred bull**** as my assumption that a first level is a noob.



People are weaker than the environment around them.
I don't think this says what you're trying to say. Which makes twice that I've had to infer your thesis from the rest of your argument. The first could peripherally be attributed to my not knowing era specific, system specific jargon, but I think you could word this better as "People are only as strong as their circumstances", or perhaps using "The whole is more then the sum of its statistical parts". Perhaps "Battlefield control wins battles". I'll get to the argument itself later.


Since this thread is about optimization, it's safe to assume any Wizard is going to have an Int of 16, at least. Also, if the PCs are allies, the Wizard should know by simple logic that hurting the Fighter makes it easier for the Fighter's enemy to kill said Fighter. It may go both ways, but here is something else the Wizard knows by sheer virtue of his Int score:

People are weaker than the environment around them.
No. Actually, his 16 int does not guarantee that. That merely means he's a very bright person. It means that, if you were to begin schooling him in tactics, he would understand the lessons well, and that in general he picks things up faster then most. That does not mean he automatically knows those lessons without spending time doing so.

Put another way, 16 int is still (Probably) dumber then Einstein, and if FDR had asked Einstein for his help planning a military campaign, Einstein would likely have done Spock's Eyebrow.


This holds true in every campaign thanks to the mere existence of a CR system. Hell, even some of the weakest enemies can be a major threat if played intelligently (Tucker's Kobolds).
This is what let me figure out what you were trying to say with the whole 'people are weaker then their environment' thing.


Knowing this, and assuming no IC grudge or Evil motivation, why the **** would the Wizard risk catching the Fighter in a Fireball when he could very possibly aim it so that it doesn't cause friendly fire?
Is there some unwritten rule that DnD Blasters only have AoE nukes? Because they have single target ones, yanno. Putting that aside, you're the one who assumed that the Wizard would nuke his friend. I rolled with your assumption, but it was still the assumption you laid out, so I don't actually have to defend it. I would frankly assume an ST Nuke first.


And, in case the Wizard has it, why wouldn't he cast something like Glitterdust to cripple the Fighter's target without harming the Fighter at all?
Because he's suffering from the same cognitive biases as the rest of humanity? Terraoblivion has very good posts regarding those as well, you should look into them too.

How about you answer my question?
"Why does the wizard get the benefit of millions of simulations that he could never possibly know about?"


Incidentally, this is the concept behind both the Batman and GOD Wizards. They exist to alter reality in favor of the party's survival by nerfing their enemies and bringing in the re-enforcements (be it a summoned creature or a simple Grease spell). If it hits the fan, they bust out the big guns (Gate) and tell everyone to fall back. If that fails, flee and live to see another day.
Okay. You haven't explained to me why I should expect every PC to be entitled to that level of pure rationality.

Gametime
2010-03-12, 11:29 PM
To repeat myself, my entire point is that you, the player, have built up this knowledge of optimization through conversation, observation, and trial and error, over hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other PCs. If you optimize, the decisions of thousands of other characters are already impacting the decisions of your current character. Why should that always happen? Why would it in fact be the basis for good roleplay?



So basically, you don't think out of game knowledge should be permissible in building my character? I'm not really sure how one would avoid doing something like that. I mean, I could purposefully avoid interacting with players who share my hobby, but that seems like it would defeat the purpose of what is largely a social game.

I don't think players who always choose strong spells are better roleplayers than players who always (or sometimes) choose weak spells, whether out of ignorance or intention. I don't generally think choices about the power level of your character have much impact on the roleplay. So while I don't think Color Spray and Sleep are a basis for good roleplay, I don't think they impede it either.

Do you think that someone who chooses Color Spray and Sleep is a necessarily inferior roleplayer than someone who does not? If you don't, then why does it matter that I chose those spells? If having a competent character is no worse, from a roleplaying perspective, than having an incompetent character, why would I be lambasted for choosing competence?

I guess I just don't see the points you're trying to make. Of course the decisions I make for my character are influenced by out-of-game knowledge. It would be impossible for them not to be, and I'm not sure it would enhance my experience. Maybe I want to play a barbarian because I enjoy the Conan books. Does that make me a bad roleplayer? It's certainly more likely to pigeonhole my actions and responses more than spell choice, but it has an infinitely smaller mechanical impact. They're both derived from external knowledge, though. You could just as easily ask why every Barbarian tends to be savage and rampaging as why so many wizards choose specific spells.

I don't think there's a particularly good in-game reason for why all wizards would choose Color Spray and Sleep. Again, though, the NPC wizards don't have to. Thousands of in-game wizards I'll never meet don't have to. If my character does, that's one wizard, but I don't see why I should be prohibited from choosing certain spells just because lots of players pick them. You've already said you don't think they should be banned, so why does it matter if my wizard - not every wizard, not most wizards, just my wizard - takes those spells?

Does it make me a bad roleplayer?
Does it affect your suspension of disbelief?
Or do you just object based on some nebulous principle that holds we shouldn't use our knowledge of good spells and abilities to influence our character's actions, even when those actions are perfectly reasonable in context?

If my wizard is supposed to be a master of fire spells, but I only ever learn illusions and enchantments, then yeah, it would seem that choosing the most powerful option is directly opposing my roleplaying. But I think that's a corner case, and far from the norm.

Gametime
2010-03-12, 11:31 PM
Okay. You haven't explained to me why I should expect every PC to be entitled to that level of pure rationality.

Because it's unfair to expect characters to construct their individual characters such that they conform to a standard deviation spread of traits and characteristics when compared with every other character anyone has ever played?

Because that's what you're doing, by looking at PCs as a whole rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Sinfire Titan
2010-03-12, 11:37 PM
Because it's unfair to expect characters to construct their individual characters such that they conform to a standard deviation spread of traits and characteristics when compared with every other character anyone has ever played?

Because that's what you're doing, by looking at PCs as a whole rather than on a case-by-case basis.

Right. We try to build characters towards a common archetype or to emulate a well-known/obscure character.

How we actually do that will vary, but in general it is best to do so with the amount of optimization required to prevent your concept from harming the party more than you help it. This means regulating choices to the ones proven to be effective, or the next best thing if the actual option doesn't fit the idea (IE: Using Archmage over Shadowcraft Mage because you want to play a master Wizard, even though Shadowcraft Mage is immeasurably more powerful).

Yukitsu
2010-03-12, 11:52 PM
I find it vaguely amusing that people who only learned about the awesomeness of crowd control through the magic of knowledge osmosis are acting as if their characters would already, always, and automatically know those wonderful object lessons. Especially since that osmosis was learned over thousands, potentially millions, of simulated deaths in thousands of varying simulated games that carried no actual external toll on either the players, or each other.

Some people determined it on their own. My first character was a wizard/druid, and my slots were all filled with either summon giant spiders, or web, or entangle prior to my internet experience. Coincidently, I tend to do better, even when I'm not using internet advice, because I can improvise new ideas when the standard conventions fail.

The people who did not take on to that mentality died off quickly, to be replaced with ones that gradually moved towards what I used. Evolution in action, and rather rapid action too.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-12, 11:55 PM
So basically, you don't think out of game knowledge should be permissible in building my character? I'm not really sure how one would avoid doing something like that. I mean, I could purposefully avoid interacting with players who share my hobby, but that seems like it would defeat the purpose of what is largely a social game.
No. Actually, asking you to shut out OOC knowledge altogether is likely to be problematic, not the least of which because you should probably avoid some overlap. But that isn't what I said. I said your character isn't entitled to know the outcomes of hundreds or thousands of battles he hasn't participated in. If you'd like to optimize, fine; But do not do so on the grounds that "Well my character is smart", because your character does not have data. Intelligence is insufficient justification; Either do it, and don't pretend to the rest of us, or put some actual thought into it and tell me why he knows so much about battle as a total noob.


I don't think players who always choose strong spells are better roleplayers than players who always (or sometimes) choose weak spells, whether out of ignorance or intention.
Then you're not making the argument I find most ridiculous in this thread.


I don't generally think choices about the power level of your character have much impact on the roleplay.
This is false, but not because "Higher power = worse/better roleplay", it just leads to different roleplays (Epic of Hercules vs. The Illiad.)


Do you think that someone who chooses Color Spray and Sleep is a necessarily inferior roleplayer than someone who does not?
Not if they have a real character, no.


If having a competent character is no worse, from a roleplaying perspective, than having an incompetent character, why would I be lambasted for choosing competence?
You're not choosing competence over incompetence. You're choosing optimum efficiency over realistic competence. That's where your analogy breaks down. That said, I don't really care if everyone's at about the same level of power. It's a slight break from reality, but spells prepared is a far less important deal then the character's thoughts, feelings, and the like. I suppose if I nitpick, the reason it matters at all is that the character's thoughts are unrealistically mechanical, likely.


I guess I just don't see the points you're trying to make. Of course the decisions I make for my character are influenced by out-of-game knowledge. It would be impossible for them not to be, and I'm not sure it would enhance my experience.
You don't appear to understand which argument I object strenuously to. It's best exemplified here;

To use the example given above of the person complaining about Color Spray- I don't know in your universe how much control sorcerers have over what spells they take (I could see fluff wise having very little) but if they do have control, and they aren't idiots whose name starts with X, then off course they'll take Color Spray. Why wouldn't they? It would be bad roleplaying to deliberately take weak spells. And this applies even more so for int based casters. A wizard better damn well take lots of save or dies. Because they are smart enough to know that that's their best tactics.
This person isn't merely saying that they should be permitted to optimize; They are claiming that not being optimized is in fact poor role play. It's a ridiculous argument for any of a large number of reasons I can give.


Maybe I want to play a barbarian because I enjoy the Conan books. Does that make me a bad roleplayer?
Do you understand the difference between acting as though your character has access to vast quantities of strategic data, and basing your design decisions prior to the IC knowledge stage on an OOC desire?


I don't think there's a particularly good in-game reason for why all wizards would choose Color Spray and Sleep. Again, though, the NPC wizards don't have to. Thousands of in-game wizards I'll never meet don't have to. If my character does, that's one wizard, but I don't see why I should be prohibited from choosing certain spells just because lots of players pick them. You've already said you don't think they should be banned, so why does it matter if my wizard - not every wizard, not most wizards, just my wizard - takes those spells?
Do you understand why one might object to acting as though your character has access to vast quantities of strategic data?


Does it make me a bad roleplayer?
If it happens every time, with nary a thought to the whys of why your character thinks that way? Yeah, actually it does make you a worse roleplayer, compared to spending time justifying that thought. If your character always knew what the most effective action was, every time, as a newbie, it does in fact lessen the roleplay.

Now, if you put time into justifying it, and it always turns out the same justification, then you might be like... oh who the devil is a famous character actor. You might be typecast, but not necessarily a worse roleplayer for it. It's not the result, it's the process.


Or do you just object based on some nebulous principle that holds we shouldn't use our knowledge of good spells and abilities to influence our character's actions, even when those actions are perfectly reasonable in context?
If they were reasonable in context ("My character is in the military of Magetopia, in officer training") from the character's perspective, then no, I don't object. If you're just taking them because Int = Tactical Knowledge, then see above.


If my wizard is supposed to be a master of fire spells, but I only ever learn illusions and enchantments, then yeah, it would seem that choosing the most powerful option is directly opposing my roleplaying. But I think that's a corner case, and far from the norm.
No, but everyone choosing to make an illusionist, without giving much a thought to why, seems to be the norm in this thread.

Gametime
2010-03-13, 12:10 AM
Do you understand the difference between acting as though your character has access to vast quantities of strategic data, and basing your design decisions prior to the IC knowledge stage on an OOC desire?

Do you understand why one might object to acting as though your character has access to vast quantities of strategic data?



Quite. I don't agree with people who think it is logical that their wizard would take certain spells; I simply don't think it is illogical, and at times your counterarguments appeared to be nearing that conclusion.

I think that spells tend to be roleplay-neutral decisions (give or take a few obvious exceptions; a cold spell on a pyromancer, a binding spell on a champion of freedom, a Mind Rape spell on someone who isn't a complete monster). To that end, I don't think I have to justify taking something like Color Spray. Does it enhance my character to take it? Not really. Does it detract? Not really. Will I have more fun if I'm more effective in combat? Probably.

If there is a compelling alternative to the most effective spells from a roleplaying perspective (or from a "having fun" perspective), I am likely to choose those. But I don't think that taking good spells is something that needs justifying, in general; I think it only requires explanation when it would seem contrary to what your character would do. Even if taking spells like Color Spray doesn't seem obvious for an in-character wizard, it certainly doesn't seem odd.

I do, however, think that there is more to the argument of "tactical knowledge" than you credit. It depends severely upon campaign and backstory, obviously, but a D&D spell described specifically enough might lend itself to obvious choices. It only becomes really obvious at higher levels, but if your mentor tells you that one spell is likely to singe the fur of your mighty foes, while the other will render helpless all but the most strong-willed, I wouldn't blame the apprentice who tended towards the latter.

It's a flimsy justification, but it isn't no justification.

misterk
2010-03-13, 06:55 AM
And no-one is saying that taking colour spray is bad roleplaying necessarily. Of course not, that would be absurd! If you're happy that your wizard is one who focuses on the tactics of battle, and is meticulous as such, then take the optimal spell choices. Or just take colour spray because the colours are pretty.

The point both myself and rpgguru are arguing against strenuosly is the absurd notion that bad optimisation is bad roleplaying. Thats demonstrably not true, thanks to the squillion arguments given in this thread.

I've made this argument in another thread. I don't think optimisation is bad roleplaying, but I do think its limiting roleplaying. Only certain types of people are optimised in the way you describe.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-13, 11:12 AM
Quite. I don't agree with people who think it is logical that their wizard would take certain spells; I simply don't think it is illogical, and at times your counterarguments appeared to be nearing that conclusion.
No, it's very logical. That's my entire point. It's too surgical for a world populated by humans, and fails to account for luck and basic human irrationality.


I think that spells tend to be roleplay-neutral decisions (give or take a few obvious exceptions; a cold spell on a pyromancer, a binding spell on a champion of freedom, a Mind Rape spell on someone who isn't a complete monster). To that end, I don't think I have to justify taking something like Color Spray.
The difference between focus and specialization, and individual preparations, is noteworthy. This argument, like many of the others you've made, looks at a theoretical position I haven't even made. You're not just talking about learning the spell, which in my opinion doesn't require particular justification. You're talking about relying on it and others like it, already knowing their effectiveness because you have access to data your character does not. This is not the same as merely taking the spell, or even preparing it.


Does it detract? Not really
On what grounds do you base this claim? Unjustified utter rationality is in fact going to detract. Unless you're playing... those recently made robots, it's not remotely at cause.


If there is a compelling alternative to the most effective spells from a roleplaying perspective (or from a "having fun" perspective)
Putting aside the in character objections, which are legion for very nearly every single character, including those robots (Data, and the lack of it), there is one, if you're not in a group of same. Several actually, including that a difficult battle is more entertaining then a curbstomp, and that you'll restrict the fun of others.


But I don't think that taking good spells is something that needs justifying,
You don't think you need to justify perfect tactical knowledge from a noob?


I do, however, think that there is more to the argument of "tactical knowledge" than you credit.
This is going to be good.


It depends severely upon campaign and backstory, obviously, but a D&D spell described specifically enough might lend itself to obvious choices. It only becomes really obvious at higher levels, but if your mentor tells you that one spell is likely to singe the fur of your mighty foes, while the other will render helpless all but the most strong-willed, I wouldn't blame the apprentice who tended towards the latter.
I stand corrected. In what sense is a DC 14 or 15 Will save "All but the most strong willed"? Why is a d6+1 of fire damage at level 1 "Singing the fur"? If you're going to lie, why don't I just say your master said "That one will burninate all that can be burnt, while even minor foes can shrug aside that enchantment"? It's exactly as true as what you said, IE not at all.


It's a flimsy justification, but it isn't no justification.
YEah, and it makes you a terrible roleplayer to rely on THAT (flimsy justification) constantly, and use something that simple, especially since it merely foists the rationality back a level (Note that it excuses data). I'd say the same thing to someone who relied on Dead Parents or Rape for backstories. You'd need something a little more in depth to justify that sort of rationality and data. And as long as you're going to postulate freeing yourself from this objection forevermore, you might as well put a little effort into it and come up with something good.


I've made this argument in another thread. I don't think optimisation is bad roleplaying, but I do think its limiting roleplaying. Only certain types of people are optimised in the way you describe.
And frankly, that optimization is going to come at a cost of some sort. This kind of detached, inhuman logic will at the least mean alienation from normal society.

Sliver
2010-03-13, 11:25 AM
The fact that you don't see it works means it won't work in your world, and has nothing to do with other games. Most people see wizards as those that don't just know spells, but study them. You know, actually understanding the thing. Not being sorcerers slinging spells intuitively, but actually using rational behind them. Don't bring V to this, it is well known that the OotS party isn't exactly optimized, it's because it won't be as funny as watching the great successful party demolish all enemies.

A wizard got his knowledge from his mentor. His mentor, an experienced wizard, got his knowledge from his mentor and other wizards that he traded spells with. You see, it's like a pyramid of knowledge, and each new generation of wizards will have a better base. Maybe in your campaign every wizard learns his spells without any base of understanding and rational and basic tactics and knowledge of the rules of the world they live in isn't tied in to basic logic that most characters will have, so they don't know that burning an enemy won't cause him to be less effective until he dies, while other spells can lower his effectiveness and by such less resource expendable. Doesn't mean that every other player and DM agree with that approach, and heck doesn't make anyone less of a roleplayer or anything more flimsy.

How do you treat knowledge skills then? Do they even exist or you require extensive background justification? Because there is no way to get actual knowledge..

Edit:

Detachment you say? I wonder what that low Cha and Str mean? Maybe neglecting society and their physical strength to actually train and be competent at their field compared to the average wizard NPC?

taltamir
2010-03-13, 11:29 AM
The fact that you don't see it works means it won't work in your world, and has nothing to do with other games. Most people see wizards as those that don't just know spells, but study them. You know, actually understanding the thing. Not being sorcerers slinging spells intuitively, but actually using rational behind them. Don't bring V to this, it is well known that the OotS party isn't exactly optimized, it's because it won't be as funny as watching the great successful party demolish all enemies.

also, remember they underwent conversion... V lampshades it when they complain about him not being able to teleport, he comments about the laws of reality changing so that teleport is now conjuration (a banned school for him).
Also OOTS is strictly NON RAW

Terraoblivion
2010-03-13, 11:34 AM
Researching the metaphysical, theoretical aspects of something doesn't really lend itself much to understand its practical applications.

Also you are forgetting something, Sliver. The more accomplished someone gets at something and the older they get, the more set in their ways they become. Rather than creating a pyramid of distilled knowledge, the mentoring system means that every wizard educated in it is at the mercy of his own creativity, hang-ups and the whims of an old coot who thinks he has it all figured out. That doesn't really lend itself well to refining knowledge. Like at all.

Caphi
2010-03-13, 11:39 AM
No GM in the world will tell you "you can't pick color spray because your character thinks fireball is better". It's sabotaging the character's mechanics for a very small, shakily justified RP decision, and frankly, bull****e.

Sliver
2010-03-13, 11:40 AM
So basically, every wizard gets the knowledge of his mentor and never tries to refine his knowledge, not trying to question anything he was told, and never trying to approach a subject with reason? Knowledge isn't just passed, it gets better and more accurate. How would the world advance if the best minds were just accepting of the existing knowledge and not trying to get better?


Intelligence (Int)

Intelligence determines how well your character learns and reasons. This ability is important for wizards because it affects how many spells they can cast, how hard their spells are to resist, and how powerful their spells can be. It’s also important for any character who wants to have a wide assortment of skills.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-13, 12:22 PM
Most people see wizards as those that don't just know spells, but study them. You know, actually understanding the thing.
Physicists understand the theory behind a bomb, but it's weapons designers who know how to actually make and improve them. You're still confusing understanding the science with understanding the application.


Don't bring V to this, it is well known that the OotS party isn't exactly optimized, it's because it won't be as funny as watching the great successful party demolish all enemies.
Well, I wasn't. I hadn't thought to (Surprise, a human being overlooking something. Just like a Wizard would.). But since you have, I will point out that he's got human flaws, and presumably Knowledge (Whatever the hell you call the Knowledge of Magic in DnD again), and still doesn't know the exact solutions to every problem. Because he's a character, not a robot who exists to act on mechanical desires.


A wizard got his knowledge from his mentor. His mentor, an experienced wizard, got his knowledge from his mentor and other wizards that he traded spells with.
Yes, and they generally have few failures. That's why they're successful, in a fantasy world. Failure often means death. If you ever hung out with Strategy or Fighting Game adepts, you learn that successes alone will never give a proper insight into theoretical aspects on how to play. A string of victories might improve your implementation, but very little of your understanding of alternative tactics. That's why great players watch replays of EVERYTHING. I'm pretty sure this extends to the world of sports too. Some settings and characters actually are going to get the benefit of that kind of analysis. Someone with access to the Realm Military Histories of Cathak Garal, in Exalted, is going to have a vast repository of good, real world data available to them, successes and failures alike. In fact, pretty much every Realm Dragonblooded with a casual interest can get their hands on them. Most settings will not; I don't think even the Red Wizards of Thay relentlessly monitor every single one of their operatives, and can't examine every battle carried out under their auspices. Or won't, for any of a number of very human reasons.

Add to this that blasting's inferiority is only a mechanical reality, not (generally) a setting one, and you have to contend with very famous evokers in times past. Their success causes inferior, but still successful, paradigms to become common, as Terraoblivion has noted.


You see, it's like a pyramid of knowledge, and each new generation of wizards will have a better base.
Which is why the dark ages are noted for their scholarship and use of reason.

Actually, it takes an outside impetus and a revolution in the manner of thought. And wizards are unlikely to be at the forefront of such a revolution, because they cheat to understand the human mind (IE they don't. They use magic that tricks it because it's magic, not because it capitalizes on inherent human flaws besides having a weakness to things that require a will save). I might guess Psionic Folks might reach that level of understanding, but I'd still chalk it up to the philosophers first.


Maybe in your campaign every wizard learns his spells without any base of understanding and rational
Maybe in your campaign, every wizard has access to vast histories of humanity, including literally exhaustive mountains of battle data, both successes and failures, on exhaustively detailed scale.
I'm being serious; Maybe they do. That does actually change things to a degree.


basic tactics
Because when I think of a Wizard in an Ivory Tower, I think of them as a warrior devoted to war, focusing their training on it. And that wizard is obviously a totally rational being dedicated to the clinical testing of methods that have served him well for 40 (or 400, if he's elven) years, even though he has no obvious reason to clinically test. That's why wizards in fiction are so often portrayed as capricious or obsessed, yupparoo.


and knowledge of the rules of the world they live in isn't tied in to basic logic that most characters will have
No, actually, a Wizard is not going to think that unless you either suck at world construction (Game rules followed strictly do not generally yield a rational world. That's why we have Peasant Rail Guns that deal 1d4 of damage, therefore those rules can't be known perfectly by people who live within them) or is the functional equivalent of Deadpool (And is commensurately treated as insane, because it's not a rational viewpoint to anyone within that world).


I appreciate your need to preserve your self esteem, but if you're not going to treat these fake people as anything other then numbers to be maxed out, no matter the circumstances, rather then characters with their own outlook, story role or similar, you really aren't a very good roleplayer. If this bothers you, you can justify what you do better (Perhaps he focuses on Illusions and Sleep because he's an operative for a state, working on its behalf, well schooled in how to end things ASAP to ensure a quick insertion and extraction), or you can choose to actually think about it from the character's perspective.

[quote]How do you treat knowledge skills then? Do they even exist or you require extensive background justification? Because there is no way to get actual knowledge..
Leave the poor strawman alone. I said there was no reason to feel entitled to the data for thousands upon thousands of battles that turned out every which a way, not that there was no way to learn.

But as a matter of fact, in systems that aren't dungeons and dragons, that have more expansive skill lists, I do sort of expect players to have a reason for those skills. I won't expect them to be justified to me out of hand, but if I find something curious or particularly interesting, I will ask. In DnD terms, if a commoner Fighter has ranks in Knowledge (Nobility), I'm going to feel compelled to ask about that, because it's unusual. Or heck, Knowledge (Spellcraft). This isn't because I'm going to automatically strike it from his sheet if there isn't a page of backstory, but because the Fighter has a reason to know these things, it's probably a hook of some sort.


Detachment you say? I wonder what that low Cha and Str mean? Maybe neglecting society and their physical strength to actually train and be competent at their field compared to the average wizard NPC?
My my, I should have expected this! Low charisma doesn't mean you're detached and some sort of inhuman being who understands the flaws of those around you. It means you're stupid at people and socially cramped. Frankly, in DnD terms, since Charisma also affects force of personality and your strength of ego (Not egotism, just ego), I would frankly expect someone to need a high Charisma score to achieve that. High Wisdom too. WIth a Flaw that still impairs their attempts to relate to humanity (And elfanity, etc).

Frankly, low Charisma as its' usually portrayed for wizards (Relative lack of human contact) is even more of a death knell for detecting cognitive bias! It means you don't have the chance to analyze the shortcomings of others, which is the only way most people can learn this stuff (If you'd asked the psychologists to learn anything only using each other, you'd get.. well, Freud, who was incredibly WRONG about how the human mind worked, because he had an incredibly small number of different types of people.) People don't analyze an obviously working system apropos of nothing, and they are obviously perfectly working systems. It's OTHER PEOPLE who are flawed.


No GM in the world will tell you "you can't pick color spray because your character thinks fireball is better". It's sabotaging the character's mechanics for a very small, shakily justified RP decision, and frankly, bull****e.
Which would be why I objected to untoward, instant reliance, not simply taking or preparing the spells. I suggest you look back at what I said on the matter.


So basically, every wizard gets the knowledge of his mentor and never tries to refine his knowledge, not trying to question anything he was told, and never trying to approach a subject with reason?
He's probably not, as a neophyte, and not as long as his mentor's tactics work. I have much less objection to a storied, experienced adventurer actually having data then a noob.


Knowledge isn't just passed, it gets better and more accurate
Only with a great deal of effort and self awareness. You would need the perspective of a god, or a revolution of reason, to properly justify either happening in DnD, and the gods don't generally have a reason to do this.


How would the world advance if the best minds were just accepting of the existing knowledge and not trying to get better?
Well, it's a dungeons and dragons world. It doesn't. That's why it's still in a medieval stasis.

As to Int, the Statistic, I will again point out that Bertrand Russel and Albert Einstein were not military geniuses.

This isn't to say they COULDN'T be. But being intelligent doesn't mean they applied their analysis to combat purposes, which is the assumption YOU'RE making.

Gametime
2010-03-13, 12:29 PM
Which is why the dark ages are noted for their scholarship and use of reason.



Actually, the so-called "Dark Ages" were a time of great academic progress in Europe. The myth of the Middle Ages being a time of ignorance stemmed from false ideas spread during the "Enlightened" period that followed. While it is true that medieval scholars lacked many of the Greek texts that would later be rediscovered and refine their views, some of the most renowned European philosophers of history existed during those times; Thomas Aquinas, for one, and Peter Abelard for another. Theology and philosophy made great strides, based mostly on the work of...Plato, I think?

Not that this has anything to do with the topic at hand. [/historyrant]

RPGuru1331
2010-03-13, 12:41 PM
Actually, the so-called "Dark Ages" were a time of great academic progress in Europe. The myth of the Middle Ages being a time of ignorance stemmed from false ideas spread during the "Enlightened" period that followed. While it is true that medieval scholars lacked many of the Greek texts that would later be rediscovered and refine their views, some of the most renowned European philosophers of history existed during those times; Thomas Aquinas, for one, and Peter Abelard for another. Theology and philosophy made great strides, based mostly on the work of...Plato, I think?
Ahahahaha. I'm sorry, let me use this to highlight a case in point. Thomas Aquinas, the Christian Scholar. The man who's entire worldview was distorted by his culture, and his inability to think perfectly rationally. Spoiler Alert: Theology is an interesting thought experiment, but it's all hinged on presuppositions, and while it can be an interesting read, it's generally an attempt to justify a conclusion already reached, not actual reason. That's why Aquinas is interesting, but not correct. He didn't actually use strict empiricism and reason.

I'm actually aware that it wasn't an endless sea of dumb, and that the knowledge wasn't completely lost. But it was not a revolution in thought that really lead to proper experimentation and rational thought. I'm not even sure it highlighted a "We might be flawed" feeling in any way besides "We're sinners".

Gametime
2010-03-13, 12:51 PM
Perhaps I was wrong to try and keep this discussion civil. If you could refrain from passive-aggressively mocking me while responding to my arguments, I would very much appreciate it.


No, it's very logical. That's my entire point. It's too surgical for a world populated by humans, and fails to account for luck and basic human irrationality.

So, essentially, because people aren't perfectly rational, we should employ some sort of rationality index to ensure that not all our spell choices are good ones? Maybe roll a d% for each spell learned to see whether we're allowed to use reason?

Or perhaps we could just take the spells that we like, since presumably that's what an actual wizard would do, and what I have been advocating this whole time.


The difference between focus and specialization, and individual preparations, is noteworthy. This argument, like many of the others you've made, looks at a theoretical position I haven't even made. You're not just talking about learning the spell, which in my opinion doesn't require particular justification. You're talking about relying on it and others like it, already knowing their effectiveness because you have access to data your character does not. This is not the same as merely taking the spell, or even preparing it.

Ah. So we can take the spell, now, but not use it, because we don't know how good it is. Despite knowing what it does, and how it does it, and how often per day we can use it.

I'm pretty sure a wizard could at least make an educated guess as to how effective it would be.


On what grounds do you base this claim? Unjustified utter rationality is in fact going to detract. Unless you're playing... those recently made robots, it's not remotely at cause.

I suppose it's a good thing I'm not advocating characters motivated by sheer rationality, then. You don't seem to like it when other people employ strawmen against you; I'd appreciate it if you didn't turn my argument of "Players should be allowed to choose the spells they want, where it does not contradict other choices their character makes" into "Wizard are always perfectly rational and should choose the best spells and know everything."


Putting aside the in character objections, which are legion for very nearly every single character, including those robots (Data, and the lack of it), there is one, if you're not in a group of same. Several actually, including that a difficult battle is more entertaining then a curbstomp, and that you'll restrict the fun of others.

So now I should take bad spells because they're more fun? This is certainly true in some cases. I don't think it's true universally, and it's not a claim I'd support.

Of course, since this whole time I've been arguing for the player's right to choose the spells that he or she would most enjoy, I assume a player whose group does not like Color Spray would make a different choice.


You don't think you need to justify perfect tactical knowledge from a noob?

I don't think "knock the orcs unconscious" or "blind the orcs" is "perfect tactical knowledge."


This is going to be good.

That's more than a little condescending, don't you think?


I stand corrected. In what sense is a DC 14 or 15 Will save "All but the most strong willed"? Why is a d6+1 of fire damage at level 1 "Singing the fur"? If you're going to lie, why don't I just say your master said "That one will burninate all that can be burnt, while even minor foes can shrug aside that enchantment"? It's exactly as true as what you said, IE not at all.

Which is why I said it only becomes obvious at higher levels. At low levels, enemies and allies alike fall over from a stiff breeze. Blasting someone is likely to take out a large chunk of their health. At high levels, blasting spells become less and less effective, while a save-or-die still ruins them if they fail the save. It's not directly relevant to the Color Spray discussion, but I assume that you're willing to extend your argument into higher level spells as well.

Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to what I actually say.


YEah, and it makes you a terrible roleplayer to rely on THAT (flimsy justification) constantly, and use something that simple, especially since it merely foists the rationality back a level (Note that it excuses data). I'd say the same thing to someone who relied on Dead Parents or Rape for backstories. You'd need something a little more in depth to justify that sort of rationality and data. And as long as you're going to postulate freeing yourself from this objection forevermore, you might as well put a little effort into it and come up with something good.

It is a flimsy justification, but as I've noted I don't think this sort of thing needs a justification at all. In my games, players choose the spells they like and have fun. I don't grill the fighter on why he chooses Power Attack and a Greatsword, either.


And frankly, that optimization is going to come at a cost of some sort. This kind of detached, inhuman logic will at the least mean alienation from normal society.

Again, I suppose we disagree about what constitutes "detached, inhuman logic." I don't think being able to say that I CASTS THE SPELLS THAT MAKES THE PEOPLES FALL DOWN (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/05/03/episode-024-shes-a-white-magic-woman/) makes you a robot. I don't think it's reasonable to deny players their choice of customization when it so barely impacts roleplaying. We're not talking about making Pun-Pun, here. It's a first level spell, and some player wants to learn it. It's all well and good to say "WHY would your wizard pick that?", but he could just as easily ask "Why WOULDN'T my wizard pick that?" It's at least as useful, from description alone, as anything else.

Gametime
2010-03-13, 12:54 PM
Ahahahaha. I'm sorry, let me use this to highlight a case in point. Thomas Aquinas, the Christian Scholar. The man who's entire worldview was distorted by his culture, and his inability to think perfectly rationally. Spoiler Alert: Theology is an interesting thought experiment, but it's all hinged on presuppositions, and while it can be an interesting read, it's generally an attempt to justify a conclusion already reached, not actual reason. That's why Aquinas is interesting, but not correct. He didn't actually use strict empiricism and reason.

I'm actually aware that it wasn't an endless sea of dumb, and that the knowledge wasn't completely lost. But it was not a revolution in thought that really lead to proper experimentation and rational thought. I'm not even sure it highlighted a "We might be flawed" feeling in any way besides "We're sinners".

Wait, you're criticizing Thomas Aquinas for not thinking perfectly rationally when throughout this entire thread you've been making the argument that people as a whole can't think perfectly rationally?

DOES NOT COMPUTE.

Thomas Aquinas and his contemporaries made huge strides in reasoning and philosophy in the Christian world. They built upon and integrated the works of Greek philosophers into their culture. Without them, there would have been no Enlightenment, and no Scientific Revolution.

Criticizing someone for not inventing the scientific method hundreds of years before it would come about is pretty harsh. The man was still brilliant, and he still revolutionized Christian academia. You might as well criticize Newton for not foreseeing that his model of physics would be untenable on a very large or very small scale.

Caphi
2010-03-13, 12:58 PM
Just so I'm perfectly clear:

Is RPGuru's thesis that characters should not take good spells because they are good and characters don't know they're good?

Yora
2010-03-13, 01:09 PM
Also you are forgetting something, Sliver. The more accomplished someone gets at something and the older they get, the more set in their ways they become. Rather than creating a pyramid of distilled knowledge, the mentoring system means that every wizard educated in it is at the mercy of his own creativity, hang-ups and the whims of an old coot who thinks he has it all figured out. That doesn't really lend itself well to refining knowledge. Like at all.
I've seen some professors at university who are like that. But in least in the fields I study, the great majority of professors is very interested in hearing the students oppinions and are constantly meeting with scientists from other universities and countries to learn about new approaches to old problems. And some of them constantly encourage us to not believe what we are told if it doesn't convince us, because they are getting old and used to do things like they always did.
So if a wizard apprentice gets a bad master, that's just too bad. But the institution is not neccessarily an obstacle here.

Tackyhillbillu
2010-03-13, 01:11 PM
However, this does not occur instantly and automatically, nor does it occur in a vacuum. Historically, many failed tactics (ex: phalanx formation gun fights on an open plain) took time to die out due to the rarity of war (we aren't in a perpetual war).

...you have no idea what you are talking about, if you think either the Phalanx or the Formation Gun Fight were 'failed tactics.'

The Phalanx was actually terrifyingly effective. Look at the Campaigns of Alexander the Great. It's direct successor, the Pike Formation, was one of the few ways a man on foot could harm a mounted combatant. The Phalanx only died out truly when its weapon ceased to be used.

Formation Gun Fights, again, were incredibly effective. They maximized the fire rate of a unit, and compensated for the inaccuracy of the weapons. While formation gun fights perhaps remained part of military doctrine beyond where they were needed, they were not a 'failed tactic' by any means.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-13, 01:43 PM
Perhaps I was wrong to try and keep this discussion civil. If you could refrain from passive-aggressively mocking me while responding to my arguments, I would very much appreciate it.
Not only was I not aware that you identified yourself with dead scholars, but it wouldn't be a good assumption out of hand anyway, even using Abelard and Aquinas.


So, essentially, because people aren't perfectly rational, we should employ some sort of rationality index to ensure that not all our spell choices are good ones? Maybe roll a d% for each spell learned to see whether we're allowed to use reason?
You could try having the character actually experiment, and operate on empirical data, if you insist on it. This isn't necessarily going to result in an optimized character either, though; The character is going strictly from their own experiments, which means that random chance will play a role, and it's entirely possible that it won't be a role you like. Or maybe it will. Remember, even if you have a rational character, you still probably don't have data.


Or perhaps we could just take the spells that we like, since presumably that's what an actual wizard would do, and what I have been advocating this whole time.
You like them based on abstract analysis of mechanical effectiveness according to mechanics that don't necessarily translate to the fake world's representation. If you were talking about say, a Carnival illusionist taking color spray, or even just a theoretical magician on his first lark preparing color spray to try it out, that'd be one thing. You're talking about a first level mage preparing primarily disable and control spells without ever testing them or having any real reason to assume them to rock besides you the player.



Ah. So we can take the spell, now, but not use it, because we don't know how good it is. Despite knowing what it does, and how it does it, and how often per day we can use it.
Do you understand the difference between primarily relying on it, and just preparing it?


I suppose it's a good thing I'm not advocating characters motivated by sheer rationality, then. You don't seem to like it when other people employ strawmen against you; I'd appreciate it if you didn't turn my argument of "Players should be allowed to choose the spells they want, where it does not contradict other choices their character makes" into "Wizard are always perfectly rational and should choose the best spells and know everything."
Unfortunately for you, I'm replying to about 4 different people who all have different arguments. I apologize for my error, and will work to correct it in the future, though.

However, again, you're still arguing in favor of the perfect data access, and in practice have been arguing for perfect rationality.


So now I should take bad spells because they're more fun? This is certainly true in some cases. I don't think it's true universally, and it's not a claim I'd support.
Mm, I'm pretty sure an actual fight will always be more entertaining then ending a fight in 2 spells, with no other actions really mattering. I'm willing to hold to that. I'm not going to defend "All inferior spells always make it more interesting", because it's not true, but it's also not what I said. I said that between a curbstomp and a real battle, the real battle will be more interesting.


I don't think "knock the orcs unconscious" or "blind the orcs" is "perfect tactical knowledge."
I think knowing ahead of time that KO and Blind, which only work so atypically well because of general weaknesses in the CR system's monsters (Typically lower Will and Ref then Fort, plus elemental resistances) qualifies. Especially "This is almost always more effective then a fireball," especially since if they can dramatically fail and fail utterly.



That's more than a little condescending, don't you think?
No, not really.


Which is why I said it only becomes obvious at higher levels.
Well, no, it doesn't necessarily become more obvious. If you've spent your career as an evoker, and you're high level, you're probably pretty sure in your evocations. That's why they're still so common among the playerbase.



It's not directly relevant to the Color Spray discussion, but I assume that you're willing to extend your argument into higher level spells as well.
You're really missing the point if you think this is just about color spray. If, theoretically, control was way less effective at higher levels then nuking, as it was in ADnD, I would expect the wizard to generally behave the same until he has failed in battle. Only then would I expect a change.


Again, I'd appreciate it if you'd respond to what I actually say.
The irony is staggering.


In my games, players choose the spells they like and have fun. I don't grill the fighter on why he chooses Power Attack and a Greatsword, either.
Another false equivalence. Power Attack and Greatsword is two choices, with the former a relatively natural progression from the latter. I'd question a Shock Trooper, however, exactly as I question the first level wizard who so intuitively understands the nature of Control Magic's effectiveness. It's not any one choice, as I've said, it's both the process and the extent it's made.



Again, I suppose we disagree about what constitutes "detached, inhuman logic." I don't think being able to say that I CASTS THE SPELLS THAT MAKES THE PEOPLES FALL DOWN (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/05/03/episode-024-shes-a-white-magic-woman/) makes you a robot.[/quote]
Neither do I. It's the intuitive understanding of perfect tactics without data that makes you a robot. Do you not understand this core point I've been making?


I don't think it's reasonable to deny players their choice of customization when it so barely impacts roleplaying.
If it didn't impact roleplaying, I wouldn't actually say anything. This sort of mechanization DOES.


It's all well and good to say "WHY would your wizard pick that?", but he could just as easily ask "Why WOULDN'T my wizard pick that?" It's at least as useful, from description alone, as anything else.
As I've said, it's the intuitive understanding and instant reliance I question, not simply preparation. If you only prepared Color Spray once, in a while or if you were a Carnie and used it as a first defense (Even when suboptimal), or hell, if you USED to only prepare it once, but it so consistently worked that you're doing it more (IE based it on empirical happenings in the current game), then that'd be a very different thing from a recently finished apprentice who always knew both that it was useful, howso, how best to use it, etc.


Wait, you're criticizing Thomas Aquinas for not thinking perfectly rationally when throughout this entire thread you've been making the argument that people as a whole can't think perfectly rationally?
Interesting question. Am I criticizing it as a somehow unique flaw? Not really. Given his culture, he was unlikely to both be educated and not start with those flaws in thinking, and he did well given those flaws. But you're the one who offered it as an example of scholarship and, and this is key, empirical reason in the Dark Ages, as proof that your DnD character was justified in behaving more empirically, more mechanically, less prone to human error, and he's just not a good example of that. That's why it made me laugh.

His thinking was flawed, based on his culture and equally flawed education, but I'm not going to crucify the guy for it. I might praise folks who do revolutionize thinking, but I'm not going to really have anything bad to say about the folks who didn't, or at least not on those grounds.


Is RPGuru's thesis that characters should not take good spells because they are good and characters don't know they're good?
No, as a matter, and as I've said repeatedly that isn't quite it.

Characters should not intuitively, and automatically, always know which spells are good based on the vast data you as a player have accumulated. Some characters actually are going to have data. Of that subset, only some will have exceptional, good, unbiased data. Of THAT subset, only the few who are willing and able to overcome their biases, their human flaws, will properly have exacting, optimized spell lists. And they're probably going to have flawed feats no matter what, because you can't change those in 3.5.


I've seen some professors at university who are like that. But in least in the fields I study, the great majority of professors is very interested in hearing the students oppinions and are constantly meeting with scientists from other universities and countries to learn about new approaches to old problems.
We also have the benefit of things like a century of study of the mind, 4 or 5 centuries where we base our knowledge on empirical results, and a laundry list of other differences between the real world's professors and most fictional ones.

Caphi
2010-03-13, 02:03 PM
So you're saying I need to justify, through my character's backstory and history, every feat and spell pick and every spell prep decision every morning, and you won't accept "it seemed useful" or "it's good for how my character fights"?

No.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-13, 02:11 PM
So you're saying I need to justify, through my character's backstory and history, every feat and spell pick and every spell prep decision every morning, and you won't accept "it seemed useful" or "it's good for how my character fights"?



No.

How convenient, you answered your own question, that is not what I am saying. Congratulations. I said you have to justify your utterly optimal tactical knowledge, or just not act like she has it. Not that you have to justify every little thing, only the aberrant behavior; And in THAT, it's generally because I want to use it, not because I'm going to veto it.

Gametime
2010-03-13, 02:18 PM
Not only was I not aware that you identified yourself with dead scholars, but it wouldn't be a good assumption out of hand anyway, even using Abelard and Aquinas.

I don't. I was talking about your last response to my topical post, which persisted in talking down to me and acting as though your opinions were the natural evolution of a rational mind. They aren't. It is, in fact, possible for me to understand the basis for your points without agreeing with your conclusion. It is, in fact, possible for me to disagree with you while still entertaining the idea that you might have a point. It would be lovely if you could extend me the same basic level of courtesy.

I'm only going to respond to parts of your last post, because I've already said all that would be relevant on certain topics.


You like them based on abstract analysis of mechanical effectiveness according to mechanics that don't necessarily translate to the fake world's representation. If you were talking about say, a Carnival illusionist taking color spray, or even just a theoretical magician on his first lark preparing color spray to try it out, that'd be one thing. You're talking about a first level mage preparing primarily disable and control spells without ever testing them or having any real reason to assume them to rock besides you the player.

Or his master telling him they were awesome, but you've already dismissed that. So let's assume the wizard has no reason to think that any first level spells are better than any other. We have two extremes here: one, I take the spells I, as the player, want to use and have fun with; or two, I choose spells utterly at random because my wizard has no basis to judge the effectiveness of the spells, given his lack of field experience.

Or, three, I take the spells I want to use and then build a convincing character concept around that, but I guess that would be cheating.


Do you understand the difference between primarily relying on it, and just preparing it?

Obviously. Does it have any real relevance to your argument, beyond fitting in a little more condescension? If a wizard learns a spell, he is likely to use the spell. If he learns it because he thinks it will be especially useful, he is likely to use it a lot. If his experiences using it back up this assumption, he is likely to rely on it.

Whether he relies on it or simply prepares it is tangential to your argument. Either it's okay for him to learn it, in which case it would be absurd for him to not use it however often he wishes; or it's not okay for him to learn it, in which case he obviously can't use it at all. I fail to see how it is good roleplaying to say "Okay, my wizard scribes Color Spray into his spellbook, but to keep him in character he'll only cast it 1/3 of the time when it would be relevant!"


However, again, you're still arguing in favor of the perfect data access, and in practice have been arguing for perfect rationality.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that arbitrarily injecting irrationality into your character doesn't enhance your gaming experience in any appreciable way.

Now, carefully injecting irrationality into your character can be a great way to add dramatic tension, through some sort of character flaw or misguided decision. I don't think having a wizard who picks his spells via dartboard is an interesting character flaw. Your mileage may vary.


Mm, I'm pretty sure an actual fight will always be more entertaining then ending a fight in 2 spells, with no other actions really mattering. I'm willing to hold to that. I'm not going to defend "All inferior spells always make it more interesting", because it's not true, but it's also not what I said. I said that between a curbstomp and a real battle, the real battle will be more interesting.

I agree - but if we're not talking about the difference between more and less powerful spells, what relevance does this have to the discussion?


I think knowing ahead of time that KO and Blind, which only work so atypically well because of general weaknesses in the CR system's monsters (Typically lower Will and Ref then Fort, plus elemental resistances) qualifies. Especially "This is almost always more effective then a fireball," especially since if they can dramatically fail and fail utterly.

Possibly. I think you'd be hard-pressed to offer a convincing analysis of how apprentice wizards view the world, and what they would see as the most effective way to dispose of enemies.


Well, no, it doesn't necessarily become more obvious. If you've spent your career as an evoker, and you're high level, you're probably pretty sure in your evocations. That's why they're still so common among the playerbase.

Yes, of course. If, on the other hand, you are apprenticed to a wizard who tells you as early as first level how great control spells become as your foes gain in strength, you might choose to pursue the path of battlefield control instead of evocation. I doubt anyone would switch mid-life, but it could certainly inform your starting decisions.

There are other high level wizards in the world, presumably. I'm willing to bet at least some of them have published books.


You're really missing the point if you think this is just about color spray. If, theoretically, control was way less effective at higher levels then nuking, as it was in ADnD, I would expect the wizard to generally behave the same until he has failed in battle. Only then would I expect a change.

But I don't think this is just about Color Spray. That was the entire point of my saying what you responded to in the first place.

A wizard who starts off along a given path is probably going to stick with it. What starts him on a given path? Could be any number of things. For my money, the most likely influence is his teacher. If the teacher is high level, and has thus experienced fights with high level monsters, and found control spells to be more effective, what is he going to tell his apprentice?


Another false equivalence. Power Attack and Greatsword is two choices, with the former a relatively natural progression from the latter. I'd question a Shock Trooper, however, exactly as I question the first level wizard who so intuitively understands the nature of Control Magic's effectiveness. It's not any one choice, as I've said, it's both the process and the extent it's made.

Ah. So Power Attack, which has nothing to do with Greatswords in particular, is a natural progression from using a Greatsword.

I'm not really following that logic. Power Attack is good with a Greatsword, certainly, in much the same way that Sleep and Color Spray are good with a spellbook and a component pouch. It isn't Weapon Focus: Greatsword, or anything like that. It's just a good weapon and a good melee feat. How exactly does this differ from picking good spells?


Neither do I. It's the intuitive understanding of perfect tactics without data that makes you a robot. Do you not understand this core point I've been making?

I do. I just don't agree with it, and I don't think picking a given 1st level spell, lacking any particular impetus not to pick it, is evidence of perfect tactical knowledge. It could be any of a number of things, up to and including perfect tactical knowledge, but it certainly doesn't imply that on it's own.

I don't know if it's intentional on your part, but repeatedly asking me if I understand what you are saying comes off as more than a little rude.



As I've said, it's the intuitive understanding and instant reliance I question, not simply preparation. If you only prepared Color Spray once, in a while or if you were a Carnie and used it as a first defense (Even when suboptimal), or hell, if you USED to only prepare it once, but it so consistently worked that you're doing it more (IE based it on empirical happenings in the current game), then that'd be a very different thing from a recently finished apprentice who always knew both that it was useful, howso, how best to use it, etc.

I disagree for the simple reason that I expect even a fresh neophyte to have had some practical training. A 1st level fighter has practiced swinging a sword, and a 1st level wizard has practiced casting spells. Even a 1st level wizard is likely to have some go-to spell; indeed, such a low level wizard is more likely to have one than a higher level wizard, if only because his spell selection and uses per day are so limited.

I don't think every wizard would choose something like Color Spray, but I think it is a perfectly reasonable choice for any given wizard. He's decided that he will defeat his opponents by incapacitating them, and has learned the according spell. He only gets a few 1st level spells, after all; he doesn't have a wide variety of combat tactics to choose from.

So my wizard uses Color Spray, a lot. I find this line of reasoning perfectly plausible. I don't think it would hold up if every neophyte came to the same conclusion and used Color Spray, but we're not talking about everyone. Just my character.

Your mileage may vary.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-13, 02:52 PM
It would be lovely if you could extend me the same basic level of courtesy.
I'd like to point out that I've not stated you should never be permitted to use your data. Merely that I have to say that always using your data does constitute a flaw in the roleplay. I've also said I don't consider it a horrid problem or a very important flaw in that roleplay, or a problem that you absolutely must correct, because I'm aware different playstyles will want it there for other reasons.


Or his master telling him they were awesome, but you've already dismissed that.
Technically I didn't dismiss the possibility of him saying they're awesome. I dismissed him as being unlikely to have a completely reasoned, statistical analysis of why they are. He can be irrational and still correct. Either way, it's at least a justification. Not a very good one, but sometimes that's all you need. But you know, I'm going to have to doubt your skill as a roleplayer if you only ever have "not very good ones".


So let's assume the wizard has no reason to think that any first level spells are better than any other. We have two extremes here: one, I take the spells I, as the player, want to use and have fun with; or two, I choose spells utterly at random because my wizard has no basis to judge the effectiveness of the spells, given his lack of field experience.
Well, that against presents a false dichotomy. You could pick a spell or two that you like,a nd spells you don't like,a nd prepare both as a mix, for instance. Well, ctually, no, I wouldn't necessarily suggest you pick spells you don't LIKE. But spells you don't think are TEH SUPAR AWESOMEZ. I like plenty of things without finding them particularly effective. Don't you?


Or, three, I take the spells I want to use and then build a convincing character concept around that, but I guess that would be cheating.
Well, no, it's not cheating. It's obviously going out of your way to be broken, but that's not the same thing.




Obviously. Does it have any real relevance to your argument, beyond fitting in a little more condescension? If a wizard learns a spell, he is likely to use the spell.
Indeed. And he learned more spells than he has slots. Combining A with..


If he learns it because he thinks it will be especially useful, he is likely to use it a lot.
Sort of implies he thinks ALL his spells are useful, and is not necessarily inclined to automatically rely on one or two spells immediately.


If his experiences using it back up this assumption, he is likely to rely on it.
Indeed. Of course, in his experience, he may have found they DON'T, which is a possibility you haven't addressed on this.


Whether he relies on it or simply prepares it is tangential to your argument.
No, it's tangential to YOUR argument. It is the center of mine, because that reliance speaks to an insane amount of OOC knowledge, and does actually need aj ustification because default assumptions aren't sufficient to cover that level of effectiveness based on specific choices.


No, I'm not. I'm arguing that arbitrarily injecting irrationality into your character doesn't enhance your gaming experience in any appreciable way.
I suppose it's totally arbitrary to use actual human irrationality as the basis, isn't it?


Now, carefully injecting irrationality into your character can be a great way to add dramatic tension, through some sort of character flaw or misguided decision. I don't think having a wizard who picks his spells via dartboard is an interesting character flaw. Your mileage may vary.
Well, it's a good thing I didn't advocate the dartboard, isn't it? You did.


I agree - but if we're not talking about the difference between more and less powerful spells, what relevance does this have to the discussion?
Well, that's the trick, isn't it? That IS the difference between more and less powerful spells. That means the less powerful probably ARE going to be more interesting. But not quite until later in the game. It's not quite so problematic early on.


Possibly. I think you'd be hard-pressed to offer a convincing analysis of how apprentice wizards view the world, and what they would see as the most effective way to dispose of enemies.
Well, since you still haven't offered a convincing reason to allow tactical omniscience, I'd say your bar is higher then mine.

You explicitly don't care, which is fine, but it isn't hte same as offering that reason.



Yes, of course. If, on the other hand, you are apprenticed to a wizard who tells you as early as first level how great control spells become as your foes gain in strength, you might choose to pursue the path of battlefield control instead of evocation.
You might, I agree. I didn't say it was unjustifiable to begin as a minmaxed jackass. But I also pointed out that it isn't very likely, and it's still difficult to justify perfect data, and an apprentice is still probably going to screw something up.


There are other high level wizards in the world, presumably. I'm willing to bet at least some of them have published books.
Of course. Because a book that says "Dogs Rule, Cats Drool" is an effective argument when you've spent your life demonstrating the effectiveness of Cats.


If the teacher is high level, and has thus experienced fights with high level monsters, and found control spells to be more effective, what is he going to tell his apprentice?
I've never denied it can be justified.


Ah. So Power Attack, which has nothing to do with Greatswords in particular, is a natural progression from using a Greatsword.
"I'm inaccurate, but hit hard" is a natural progression from using a BFS, yes.


I'm not really following that logic. Power Attack is good with a Greatsword, certainly
Indeed, and it's a single choice, in the sense that just color spray, or just sleep, are good. You're not following the logic because you're not actually distinguishing that preparing the same two spells 4 times is not the same thing as preparing one spell once. I already said that I'd look at the shock trooper cleave or whatever the hell it is you plop on a Fighter to let them do massive damage on a Charge EXACTLY AS FUNNY as the first level wizard who specialized in Color Spray and Sleep. I also said I wouldn't bat an eye at a Wizard who only prepared it once or twice, and not as a general failsafe.


How exactly does this differ from picking good spells?
Because you're talking about 1/3 of a fighter's feats, and 4 or 5 out of the wizard's 5 spell preparations.


I do. I just don't agree with it, and I don't think picking a given 1st level spell, lacking any particular impetus not to pick it, is evidence of perfect tactical knowledge.
At some point, I look at the player as well, and you're not giving me a reason to think it's anything else in a realistic sense.


I disagree for the simple reason that I expect even a fresh neophyte to have had some practical training. A 1st level fighter has practiced swinging a sword, and a 1st level wizard has practiced casting spells.
This isn't the same as an advanced understanding of tactics.


Even a 1st level wizard is likely to have some go-to spell; indeed, such a low level wizard is more likely to have one than a higher level wizard, if only because his spell selection and uses per day are so limited.
Isn't it CONVENIENT that it's the best one for his level, first try?


I don't think every wizard would choose something like Color Spray, but I think it is a perfectly reasonable choice for any given wizard.
Yeah, because you have data it rocks. Again, we're not talking about preparing it, or learning it, we're talking about relying on it as a mainstay as a level 1 noob.


So my wizard uses Color Spray, a lot. I find this line of reasoning perfectly plausible
It's plausible in that it could happen, sure.



I don't think it would hold up if every neophyte came to the same conclusion and used Color Spray, but we're not talking about everyone. Just my character.
It is sufficient for every Neophyte YOU make to be suspicious of YOU, and YOUR Neophytes.

Edit: As long as I'm going to edit the last few for clarity, I can edit one of the first ones for better placement.

Yukitsu
2010-03-13, 03:22 PM
Ahahahaha. I'm sorry, let me use this to highlight a case in point. Thomas Aquinas, the Christian Scholar. The man who's entire worldview was distorted by his culture, and his inability to think perfectly rationally. Spoiler Alert: Theology is an interesting thought experiment, but it's all hinged on presuppositions, and while it can be an interesting read, it's generally an attempt to justify a conclusion already reached, not actual reason. That's why Aquinas is interesting, but not correct. He didn't actually use strict empiricism and reason.


Despite that, Aquinas had some very interesting and logical articles on the nature and ways in which time worked. His views on infinite and continuous time were particularly advanced for the time.

Besides, most doctors of philosophy would argue that it's not in the realm of the philosophers to argue against the generally accepted truisms. For instance, modern philosphers don't argue against evolution, and when they argue it in their papers, they should not alter it to their own purpose. (nor should they argue against it.)

Gametime
2010-03-13, 03:41 PM
Technically I didn't dismiss the possibility of him saying they're awesome. I dismissed him as being unlikely to have a completely reasoned, statistical analysis of why they are. He can be irrational and still correct. Either way, it's at least a justification. Not a very good one, but sometimes that's all you need. But you know, I'm going to have to doubt your skill as a roleplayer if you only ever have "not very good ones".

"My master likes these spells" isn't a good justification for why I take spells? It's hardly the stuff of legends, but it's better than "I like swords."


Well, that against presents a false dichotomy. You could pick a spell or two that you like,a nd spells you don't like,a nd prepare both as a mix, for instance. Well, ctually, no, I wouldn't necessarily suggest you pick spells you don't LIKE. But spells you don't think are TEH SUPAR AWESOMEZ. I like plenty of things without finding them particularly effective. Don't you?

Sure. I also like plenty of things that I do find particularly effective, and I don't like the idea of being forced to not enjoy things that are strong just because they are strong.


Well, no, it's not cheating. It's obviously going out of your way to be broken, but that's not the same thing.

Picking spells that I like and then developing a coherent character around them is going out of my way to be broken? I thought it was called "good roleplaying within a character concept."

I'm not advocating picking the best spells every time just because they're the best. I'm saying that your position, which implies that a character is less well roleplayed if his choices are strong, is untenable.


Sort of implies he thinks ALL his spells are useful, and is not necessarily inclined to automatically rely on one or two spells immediately.

Quite. Of course, since the wizard starts with 6 or 7 first level spells, I wouldn't expect him to devote more than about half of those slots to combat spells; why would he, when one combat spell is much the same as another?

So assuming 3 spells to be used in combat, he's likely to choose ones with different applications. One for groups, one for long range, and so on. In this case, it is perfectly reasonable that he'd rely on one or two spells the majority of the time, because the majority of the time he'll be in simple combat situations and that's what he chose those spells for.


Indeed. Of course, in his experience, he may have found they DON'T, which is a possibility you haven't addressed on this.

It would be bad roleplaying if a wizard who had never once succeeded in blinding orcs with Color Spray went around extolling its virtues. I don't think it would be bad roleplaying if the wizard used the tactic several more times after failing, assuming he understands that opponents can shake off spells from time to time. Where exactly that line is drawn is a fine point, but ultimately not a very important one; if Color Spray didn't work most of the time, we wouldn't be having this discussion at all.


I suppose it's totally arbitrary to use actual human irrationality as the basis, isn't it?

I don't think we've modeled human irrationality well enough for you to judge what does and does not constitute a sufficient level of it.


Well, it's a good thing I didn't advocate the dartboard, isn't it? You did.

I hardly advocated a dartboard; I presented it as the hyperbolic conclusion of what I felt was an unreasonable part of your argument.


Well, that's the trick, isn't it? That IS the difference between more and less powerful spells. That means the less powerful probably ARE going to be more interesting. But not quite until later in the game. It's not quite so problematic early on.

So the more powerful spells are always more fun, except when they aren't. And except when the less powerful spells are so weak that you fail to contribute anything meaningful to the combat at all, obviously.

I'm not advocating GOD MODE wizards, here. Personally, I find save-or-dies to be boring most of the time. But though I may disagree with what they cast, I will defend to the death their right to cast it.


Well, since you still haven't offered a convincing reason to allow tactical omniscience, I'd say your bar is higher then mine.

Since you haven't offered a convincing explanation of why scribing one 1st level spell into my spellbook based upon the fairly explanatory description of exactly what it does constitutes "tactical omniscience," I'd say you haven't made any attempt to grab your bar.


You might, I agree. I didn't say it was unjustifiable to begin as a minmaxed jackass. But I also pointed out that it isn't very likely, and it's still difficult to justify perfect data, and an apprentice is still probably going to screw something up.

Again, how "likely" it is that my character has any given trait doesn't seem particularly relevant. We don't exactly have statistical spreads detailing the average distribution of different classes. Even if we did, likelihood of possessing any given trait is not a compelling reason to make decisions about character creation. Our characters tend towards the exceptional. It is hardly outlandish if they are, themselves, outlandish.


Of course. Because a book that says "Dogs Rule, Cats Drool" is an effective argument when you've spent your life demonstrating the effectiveness of Cats.

Since I was talking about apprentices being influenced by scholarly texts on the applications of different schools of magic, I don't think anyone involved would have spent his life demonstrating the effectiveness of cats.

Further, I don't think such a text would necessarily belittle the use of other schools; it would merely demonstrate the advantages of the author's preferred school. Of course, this is all just conjecture as to how worldbuilding could explain any number of character choices, but your example hardly seem representational of the basic idea or capable of discrediting my basic point.


Indeed, and it's a single choice, in the sense that just color spray, or just sleep, are good. You're not following the logic because you're not actually distinguishing that preparing the same two spells 4 times is not the same thing as preparing one spell once. I already said that I'd look at the shock trooper cleave or whatever the hell it is you plop on a Fighter to let them do massive damage on a Charge EXACTLY AS FUNNY as the first level wizard who specialized in Color Spray and Sleep. I also said I wouldn't bat an eye at a Wizard who only prepared it once or twice, and not as a general failsafe.

So a wizard who uses spells often is suspect. A fighter who uses feats often is not.


Because you're talking about 1/3 of a fighter's feats, and 4 or 5 out of the wizard's 5 spell preparations.

I don't recall ever saying this hypothetical wizard prepared nothing but Sleep and Color Spray, nor do I remember defending the idea of doing so.


Isn't it CONVENIENT that it's the best one for his level, first try?

I'm not pretending that my choices aren't informed by out-of-character knowledge, but since you already acknowledged that it's impractical to expect people to not apply external knowledge, I'm not sure what the point you're making here is. Are we returning to the idea that characters should be deliberately gimped because it's "cheating" to use strong choices that you know are strong because I've read things on a forum?

It's sort of distressing to think that the only circumstances under which you'd be allowed to build a competent character are when you have no idea that the choices you're making are good ones. I assume you aren't advocating this.


Yeah, because you have data it rocks. Again, we're not talking about preparing it, or learning it, we're talking about relying on it as a mainstay as a level 1 noob.

Again, given the fairly limited selection of spells known to a low level wizard, he's unlikely to have more than a few combat spells. If he expects mostly combat for the day, it would be irresponsible not to focus his preparations on his combat spells.

If we accept that, then the only issue becomes whether a player who knows Sleep and Color Spray to be good is allowed to use them.

Coidzor
2010-03-13, 03:51 PM
No player can have tactical omniscience without also being the DM, in which case we usually stop calling him a player. And even that omniscience... isn't really, since the players can always do SOMETHING to surprise the DM. It's like, part of the contract or something.

Seriously, you two are arguing over whether someone should be allowed to build a character based on what the player, who doesn't exist, read in the PHB, which also doesn't exist in the game world, and since neither of those exist in the game world, then they are somehow illegal metrics by which to make decisions.

Which then makes one wonder how it's possible to make any decisions if the player is banned from making decisions, since without the player, there is no character.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-13, 04:01 PM
So a wizard who uses spells often is suspect. A fighter who uses feats often is not.
I got down to here before realizing I was tired of dealing with people who to say the very least make no concession to degree. Peace.


Despite that, Aquinas had some very interesting and logical articles on the nature and ways in which time worked. His views on infinite and continuous time were particularly advanced for the time.
Sure, that's why I pointed out he did well for where he was.


Besides, most doctors of philosophy would argue that it's not in the realm of the philosophers to argue against the generally accepted truisms. For instance, modern philosphers don't argue against evolution, and when they argue it in their papers, they should not alter it to their own purpose. (nor should they argue against it.)
Would they? It seems like it's the sort of thing in their purview when it's not empirical reality, since they always seem to. Evolution is a matter for the biologists, but what it MIGHT mean for society seems like something they can handle. But hey, if that's what they say, then they're probably right. Philosophy wasn't the center of my studies.

JoshuaZ
2010-03-13, 06:58 PM
The so called dark ages also saw much progress in areas of science. Astronomy progressed quite a bit as did physics. We think of those subjects as coming to a head in the late middle ages or early renaissance but a lot of progress that allowed Copernicus and Netwon and others to do their work was completed in the centuries before hand. The only time period where any strong argument can be made for a true dark age is from about 900-1000 which is only a century. Not very impressive.

Edit: For more info on this topic, one excellent book is Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution." It is very readable and doesn't focus on this issue in particular but incidentally makes clear how much was going on in the so-called dark ages.

krossbow
2010-03-13, 07:03 PM
Here's the thing. If i want to play a savant style character, he HAS to be good at what he specializes in. Why the hell would i play a dumb muscle character if he wasn't able to fight his way out of a wet paper bag?

instead of being what i wanted him to be, he'd end up looking like a completely out of touch, possibly arrogant moron, way out of his depth.




It reminds me of a campaign I DM'd with a person who rolled a monk, was horribly built, and couldn't do crap. When your party is made up of grizzled chaotic neutral mercenaries fighting demon hordes in a life or death struggle against faceless horrors, you DON'T put up with the weak link, you feed him to the monsters and run; which they more or less did.


When your running a happy, frolicking Lawful good/chaotic good party who are lifelong friends, they won't do that; They'll tell you stay at home.

The evil/neutral people will kill off the dead weight; the Good people will try to protect them by making sure they don't come along.

Tackyhillbillu
2010-03-13, 07:19 PM
The so called dark ages also saw much progress in areas of science. Astronomy progressed quite a bit as did physics. We think of those subjects as coming to a head in the late middle ages or early renaissance but a lot of progress that allowed Copernicus and Netwon and others to do their work was completed in the centuries before hand. The only time period where any strong argument can be made for a true dark age is from about 900-1000 which is only a century. Not very impressive.

Edit: For more info on this topic, one excellent book is Kuhn's "The Copernican Revolution." It is very readable and doesn't focus on this issue in particular but incidentally makes clear how much was going on in the so-called dark ages.

"Progress" is debatable. Alot of it was simply rediscovery of things they had already known. Indeed, it was discovery of things that the Arabs knew at the same time.

Gametime
2010-03-13, 07:23 PM
I got down to here before realizing I was tired of dealing with people who to say the very least make no concession to degree. Peace.


That's a shame. Perhaps, in future, you will consider the utility to be found in explaining the degrees you are considering and why they matter, instead of claiming that a feat which is likely to be used on the vast majority of a fighter's attacks is somehow less ubiquitous than a spell which is likely to be cast in the vast majority of a wizard's encounters. It would, no doubt, do wonders to clear up misconceptions with the people with whom you discuss.

At any rate, it was an interesting discussion. Good day.

Gametime
2010-03-13, 07:25 PM
"Progress" is debatable. Alot of it was simply rediscovery of things they had already known. Indeed, it was discovery of things that the Arabs knew at the same time.

It's still progress. Figuring out something your society doesn't know is generally a big deal, even if other people already knew about it. Very little of what was accomplished in the Middle Ages was rediscovery of anything that had been widespread in Europe; the Arabs beat them to most of it, but that doesn't make it less important for Europe's development.

Their biggest strides were in theology and philosophy, though, rather than the "hard" sciences. Some of the ideas expressed at the time are still influential today.

JoshuaZ
2010-03-13, 07:42 PM
"Progress" is debatable. Alot of it was simply rediscovery of things they had already known. Indeed, it was discovery of things that the Arabs knew at the same time.

That's true, but a lot also wasn't. For example, Oresme came up with the basic ideas of gravity and inertia but didn't express them in a mathematical fashion. A lot of progress happened in basic chemistry (Roger Bacon for example is writing in the 1200s). And as time progressed the Europeans made much more accurate measurements of observed positions of stars and planets than that of the ancients(although the same was happening in the Middle East).

Part of this comes down to exactly what time period we are talking about. A case can be made for there being a dark age in about 800-1000 or maybe 900-1000 but that's really it.

Frosty
2010-03-13, 10:12 PM
Look, it be SIMPLE, people.

All RPGuru1331 is saying is that you should ro your character's weaknessess as well as their strengths. If your character might not know that X spell is THE BEST option in this circumstance, then perhaps don't rp him as automatically using that spell the very first time your character is in that situation. Now, if your character has heard about it from his mentor, or if your character has studied a lot in that area, then perhaps it would justified even the first time. This can be represented with various knowledge skills.

Do you want to have your Wizard know that in general, using Sleep on that Orc with a Greataxe is a great idea? Perhaps if you had a few ranks in Knowledge (Local) it'd be enough justification, since Local gives you info on Humanoids.

Also,m this pretty much only applies at like level 1 and 2 really, at least this level of knowledge. I started a campaign at level 8, for example, and I didn't question it at all when one of my players gave advice (in-character) to an NPC cohort Sorceress. The advice is paraphrased as such:

"You know the big, burly enemies wearing heavy armor and holding large, scary weapons? Yeah, ignore them if you can. Go for the people wearing cloth...CLOTH first. Like we are. They're the dangerous ones. Or the ones waving around Holy Symbols. They're dangerous too. Go for the armored, weaponed enemies last unless you can eliminate them from the fight right away. I know they don't LOOK as scary, but kill the clothies first."

A level 8 Wizard with 24 Int knows this. He had to explain it this way to the sorceress cohort because she had 8 Int and 8 Wis.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-13, 10:45 PM
Neither Roger Bacon or Thomas Aquinas were from the dark ages and Copernicus certainly wasn't. The period most commonly called the dark ages by scholars, when they even use that term, was the span of time stretching from the fall of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fall_of_rome) to the great schism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Schism). Which is to say, depending on whether you accept Odoacar deposing Romulus Augustus as the fall of Rome, from 476 to the mutual excommunications of 1054. And while there was the Carolingian renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_renaissance) during this period, it is still not fair to call it a time of great scientific or philosophical progress in Europe. Incidentally this was also the period of European history before any of the great monastic orders, except for the very loosely organized Benedictines, and the universities became centers of learning, making the dark ages the actual period of knowledge being diffused through mentorship. The early middle ages on the other hand brought both the Cistercian Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistercians#Architecture), known for its entrepreneurial spirit and great efforts at copying rare texts, and the Augustine Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Augustine) known for learning. It was also the period of the founding of the first university, the University of Bologna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_bologna). So i honestly think that none of the people mentioned are useful for discussion of dark age educational techniques.

And Yora, university professors exist in a world of constant interaction with their academic peers, ultimately having to constantly defend their positions. They also don't truthfully possess a lot of power over their students and they know their students have other teachers who influence them as well. Then comes the great strides in scientific theory made over the course of the last two centuries, theory that most university professors have been taught. These go quite far to show the temporary, tentative nature of knowledge and the degree to which the bias of the researcher plays into it. That there are still old coots who present their own bias as fact goes a long way to show how bad it would be in a tradition based on mentoring.

As for whether your master liking some spell is a good justification. It isn't without some more effort detailing said master and your relationship with him. As it stands it is just ass-coverage to avoid having to deal with explaining why your character knows the tactically optimal choices. For that matter it does not explain why he he is also able to pull off his master's teachings flawlessly, most newly graduated apprentices shouldn't know that.

Tackyhillbillu
2010-03-13, 11:00 PM
It's still progress. Figuring out something your society doesn't know is generally a big deal, even if other people already knew about it. Very little of what was accomplished in the Middle Ages was rediscovery of anything that had been widespread in Europe; the Arabs beat them to most of it, but that doesn't make it less important for Europe's development.

Their biggest strides were in theology and philosophy, though, rather than the "hard" sciences. Some of the ideas expressed at the time are still influential today.

Progress is a dicey notion, especially in the fields of theology and philosophy. Any time you say you 'progressed' in those fields, you are on shaky ground. Without a definitive way to check, progress becomes an aesthetic judgment, and your progress is anothers backsliding.


That's true, but a lot also wasn't. For example, Oresme came up with the basic ideas of gravity and inertia but didn't express them in a mathematical fashion. A lot of progress happened in basic chemistry (Roger Bacon for example is writing in the 1200s). And as time progressed the Europeans made much more accurate measurements of observed positions of stars and planets than that of the ancients(although the same was happening in the Middle East).

Part of this comes down to exactly what time period we are talking about. A case can be made for there being a dark age in about 800-1000 or maybe 900-1000 but that's really it.

The Dark Ages lasted for varying times, depending on where you were. They started differently, dependent upon when the Roman Empire gave up on your little piece of land, and ended at different times, usually because of the fortunes of government.

As far as Science, yes, there was a little bit of forward movement in some fields, but frankly, guessing what the ancient Greeks and Romans may have known is difficult. They were likely a lot more advanced then we guess. Things like the Antikythera Mechanism indicate for instance that they understood things like clockwork, mechanics, and many other things. So much has been lost, especially with events like the burning of the Great Library, that pinning down exactly what the Greeks in particular knew is impossible.

Gametime
2010-03-14, 12:40 AM
Neither Roger Bacon or Thomas Aquinas were from the dark ages and Copernicus certainly wasn't. The period most commonly called the dark ages by scholars, when they even use that term, was the span of time stretching from the fall of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_fall_of_rome) to the great schism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Schism). Which is to say, depending on whether you accept Odoacar deposing Romulus Augustus as the fall of Rome, from 476 to the mutual excommunications of 1054. And while there was the Carolingian renaissance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_renaissance) during this period, it is still not fair to call it a time of great scientific or philosophical progress in Europe. Incidentally this was also the period of European history before any of the great monastic orders, except for the very loosely organized Benedictines, and the universities became centers of learning, making the dark ages the actual period of knowledge being diffused through mentorship. The early middle ages on the other hand brought both the Cistercian Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cistercians#Architecture), known for its entrepreneurial spirit and great efforts at copying rare texts, and the Augustine Order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Saint_Augustine) known for learning. It was also the period of the founding of the first university, the University of Bologna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_bologna). So i honestly think that none of the people mentioned are useful for discussion of dark age educational techniques.



That's far from the only period of time identified with the term "Dark Ages." It's been used to exclusively refer to the Early Middle Ages only in relatively recent years (and more recently, the term has been avoided altogether); originally, and still commonly colloquially, it referred to all of the Middle Ages.

Gametime
2010-03-14, 12:41 AM
Progress is a dicey notion, especially in the fields of theology and philosophy. Any time you say you 'progressed' in those fields, you are on shaky ground. Without a definitive way to check, progress becomes an aesthetic judgment, and your progress is anothers backsliding.



It was certainly progress for most of Europe, compared to the near complete lack of academia outside of Roman areas.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-14, 01:21 AM
Two points on the "how much and what statistical data do wizards have?" debate.

First, RPGuru et al. are arguing that the wizards don't have all of this tactical data to correlate. Keep in mind a few factors: One, wizards have been doing magic for a loooong time, so even if a given wizard is only familiar with the tips and tricks of his master, that represents his master's knowledge and his master's master's knowledge and his master's master's master's knowledge and so forth. Two, wizards have divination--they can scry on battles, they can augury what spells would work on what creatures, they can communicate with other wizards over long distances, etc. Three, you "ivory tower" wizards may be shut-ins at the moment, but that doesn't mean they're ignorant of combat; chances are that they got to high levels by killing things and taking their stuff, and even if that's not the route everyone takes, it's the fastest route and so there should be a sizable fraction of wizards who have combat experience. Don't assume that in-game information won't show the same conclusions as out-of-game information.

Second, Sinfire et al. are arguing that the tactical information the wizards may have will show the same conclusions that OOC optimization does. This isn't necessarily the case, for the simple reason that the wizard isn't the only independent variable. The enemies can make a difference, in that a wizard who starts off his adventuring career fighting a lot of undead is going to find a lot of mind-affecting spells to be ineffective. The party can make a difference, in that a wizard in a party with an ubercharger and two CoDzillas may very well find that stacking on as much HP damage as possible actually kills things faster than control spells do. The environment can make a difference, in that control spells are much less effective in wide open fields than cramped subterranean corridors. Under these conditions, even if the common wizardly consensus is that control > blasting, a particular wizard may find that not to be the case and choose something else. Don't assume that in-game information will show the same conclusions as out-of-game information.

Math_Mage
2010-03-14, 01:28 AM
RPGuru1331: Without entering the entire, extremely lengthy debate over how spell selection enters into roleplay, I want to offer a simple argument.

I didn't read every spell in the PHB and SpC and analyze their combat effectiveness before making my first wizard. I don't have that kind of time or energy, and neither would my character. However, I did go to look at fora to look at what previous players, previous characters had found to be effective. There are going to be wizard nerds who copy those past lessons word-for-word, evokers who like to blow things up, Bixby worshipers who take all of his Hands because he's famous, and so on. Other justifications can be made. My sorcerer's got Sleep, Grease, and Silent Image as his 1st-level spells, and this is based entirely off of optimization fora, but I'm planning for him to have a roguish background of running from the law, which makes those choices good for roleplay as well (though many others would be as well, like Charm Person). From my admittedly limited past experience, it's possible to create a good roleplaying justification for just about any spell selection, including optimized spell selection.

What, if anything, is the problem with this attitude RP-wise?

Yukitsu
2010-03-14, 01:34 AM
Sure, that's why I pointed out he did well for where he was.

Technically, he did well even by todays standard. Most people today who are fairly well versed in mathematics can't even concieve as to why continuous lines with infinite division having discrete beginnings is a problem, let alone to resolve that problem.


Would they? It seems like it's the sort of thing in their purview when it's not empirical reality, since they always seem to. Evolution is a matter for the biologists, but what it MIGHT mean for society seems like something they can handle. But hey, if that's what they say, then they're probably right. Philosophy wasn't the center of my studies.

Yes, they can argue what it means for society. They cannot, however, argue against evolution, even though it is still a theory in its current state, they cannot suggest that it is wrong in some way or another, and if they do, they should be disregarded, unless they also happen to be equal in credibility in the field of biology as a typical biologist. The dogma of the day, no matter what the day or how accurate the dogma is the framework from which philosophers have generally been told to work from.

For Thomas, this meant assuming God does exist and that the angels exist and that the cohesiveness of the world does not contradict this.

However, if you read the Suma, none of his articles presuppose God in their deductive proofs when he is referring to some other phenomina. He is rather clever in that he will debate the issue, and come to a conclusion, and then tie it into God, rather than the other way around. Remember though, Thomas is an Aristilian, and Aristotle was not a Christian, so he didn't discuss God in his arguments at all. Since Aristotle was the other framework for Thomas, it's no surprise that his work need not be about God, but rather on certain fundamental concepts in the world.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-14, 01:49 AM
Honestly never seen anybody who would be able to pass a high school history class use it about any period following the onset of the crusades before. The typical division of the middle ages seen in works such as A History of World Societies 6th edition and most pop culture that tries even just a little bit to be accurate is: Dark Ages roughly covering the period i mentioned, the early middle ages covering the first few crusades and the expansion of Christianity around the Baltic Sea, the high middle ages lasting until the plague and the late middle ages from the plague to the reformation. That is when the term is used at all. When it is not this period is known as the early middle ages. With what is otherwise considered the early middle ages get wrapped into the high middle ages and each of the three rough periods of the middle ages become gradually shorter.

Other usages of the dark ages do exist. There is the specific British usage which refers to the period during which literacy and any kind of effective governance of even smaller parts of the isles was almost extinct, ending much earlier than the broader European period, but referring to something else, specifically how little illumination we have about the period. This was over by the time the Mercian kings started minting coins and Northumbria had become the scholastic center of Europe in the eighth century. Similar examples can be found for other countries that have gone for times without literary sources. There is also the original definition of the dark ages which ended somewhere around the turn of the 13th and 14th centuries, for the simple reason that was the bad old days that the 14th century Italians who coined the term was referring to. Ironically enough they also coined the term renaissance, yet has been excluded from that period by later scholarship. And when you say "originally" i take it you mean during the 19th century, with some dissent even during that period. That is far from originally, it is also a long enough time ago for that usage to hardly be valid today.

A look at what wikipedia says about the dark ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages), which it appears you have done from your curiously specific phrasing strongly reminiscent of the one on wikipedia, gives five options. One, which i consider the best one, is to not use it, which is not really relevant here given that it had already been used in the discussion when i tried to quantify it. The other is to use it to refer to very specific periods of lacking data about a given country, but that is by no means useful to the very general usage of the word in this context. The third is to use it about all of the middle ages which indicates a sufficient lack of knowledge about the period for it to be unlikely that you have the understanding needed to make a valid argument of the social organization of the times. The fourth is when discussion late medieval philosophy and especially that of Petrarch, which we weren't. The fifth is to use it about roughly the period i mentioned and especially about the areas on the periphery of Europe, like Scandinavia, eastern Europe and the northern reaches of the British Isles.

As you will note even a sensationalist History Channel program features the last usage, just like if you played that game the opening text of Medieval: Total War does as well. Also a look at entertainment using the term dark ages will reveal a period vastly more reminiscent of the isolated hamlets and weak central authority of dubious legitimacy of Anglo-Saxon Britain, as opposed to the complex, trade-based urban cultures of late medieval Germany and Italy. So honestly no matter how you look at it, saying that Thomas Aquinas lived in the dark ages is a great misunderstanding of his times. Placing Roger Bacon there can only be done by either going by Petrarch's usage or using the same misconceptions of the middle ages that you would need to place Aquinas in that period. Because ultimately the image conjured by the term dark ages is that of Anglo-Saxon Britain attacked by vikings, not the image of the later parts of the middle ages in which their scientific achievements took place.

misterk
2010-03-14, 07:14 AM
RPGuru1331: Without entering the entire, extremely lengthy debate over how spell selection enters into roleplay, I want to offer a simple argument.

I didn't read every spell in the PHB and SpC and analyze their combat effectiveness before making my first wizard. I don't have that kind of time or energy, and neither would my character. However, I did go to look at fora to look at what previous players, previous characters had found to be effective. There are going to be wizard nerds who copy those past lessons word-for-word, evokers who like to blow things up, Bixby worshipers who take all of his Hands because he's famous, and so on. Other justifications can be made. My sorcerer's got Sleep, Grease, and Silent Image as his 1st-level spells, and this is based entirely off of optimization fora, but I'm planning for him to have a roguish background of running from the law, which makes those choices good for roleplay as well (though many others would be as well, like Charm Person). From my admittedly limited past experience, it's possible to create a good roleplaying justification for just about any spell selection, including optimized spell selection.

What, if anything, is the problem with this attitude RP-wise?

From a pure rp perspective, I would argue that you are approaching the problem in the wrong direction. You are picking spells, then justifying them. Ideally one would start with a character, and then pick spells that are suitable for them. There is a world of difference between

"I want to take optimal spells, how can I justify that using rp?"

and

"I've created a meticulous strategist caster, who always takes the best spells. What would those be?"

(yes I know that character is wafer thin, but meh). Note theres nothing WRONG with any approach. RPGs do not have a wrong or right way to play them. I would argue that ones goal should be to maximise your and everyone else's fun. If everyone else is optimising, it may well make sense to keep up. If everyone else isn't, it may make sense to stick with character concepts first.

One can justify any particular optimal choices through roleplaying, certainly, but its the wrong order for me. I would argue that it makes you a "worse" roleplayer, but not a worse player.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 12:52 PM
First, RPGuru et al. are arguing that the wizards don't have all of this tactical data to correlate. Keep in mind a few factors: One, wizards have been doing magic for a loooong time, so even if a given wizard is only familiar with the tips and tricks of his master, that represents his master's knowledge and his master's master's knowledge and his master's master's master's knowledge and so forth. Two, wizards have divination--they can scry on battles, they can augury what spells would work on what creatures, they can communicate with other wizards over long distances, etc. Three, you "ivory tower" wizards may be shut-ins at the moment, but that doesn't mean they're ignorant of combat; chances are that they got to high levels by killing things and taking their stuff, and even if that's not the route everyone takes, it's the fastest route and so there should be a sizable fraction of wizards who have combat experience. Don't assume that in-game information won't show the same conclusions as out-of-game information.
That's why it's possible for a given setting to HAVE that kind of battle data, in DnD, a claim I did not contest. Of course, you're the player, not the DM. It isn't actually up to you whether or not Wizards spend their time collecting, collating, and storing battle data. Frankly, most settings don't do this. It's possible, but they don't do it. I wonder why? Maybe it's because they're spending their time doing magical research, teaching, arguing and the like, that they don't have the energy to spare to double check on what worked for them? What I said, specifically, was "I can see how this can happen in a setting, but it has to be there first", offering the example of Cathak Garal's battle histories in Exalted, which have pretty much ever Realm Legion's battle since the birth of Garal. Spoiler Alert: Because they're actually human, with human flaws, Realm Officers, even with that background data, experienced teachers, and their generally high intelligence, are not perfect strategists. They're just better then most of their enemies, usually.


What, if anything, is the problem with this attitude RP-wise?
First things first: As misterk says, you're doing it backwards. While I offered a few ideas on how a wizard might justify those spells, the truth is that if you're starting with the numbers themselves, you're just not roleplaying very well. It's one thing to put the numbers up first (That is, to have finalized your character sheet before your backstory and the like), but it's rather another to actually begin with the statistics. As a note, I'm not saying that isn't adequate for your group, as it's frankly all I ever found in Dungeons and Dragons.

Second, the truth is you actually have a decent justification; While you're doing it wrong to begin with (Since we're talking about good roleplay), you have a decent result (Not a great one, but it could become a lot better if you look at it more). The last guy who proffered that argument considered "My master said so" to be a good justification. Well, surprise, it's not. It's a bare bones one that is a transparent attempt to justify battle data, and it's plausible, but it isn't GOOD. A good reason to pick say, Color Spray and Silent Image might be "I'm a carnie, and I've heard of a little thing called showmanship. Any two bit sword-arm can win; The important thing is to win BIG. Big, and Loud." That's just a start on the character, and will probably mean a lot of other things. It might even mean that they're loath to use the same tricks twice, if they can help it. There will be more work to do on the character as well, since that's a very bare bones character background, and needs fleshing out, but it's a start. Similarly, you have a decent start, and can work on it.


Also, I noticed you lack Expeditious Retreat. For a guy who's spell selections (I don't know how conscious Sorceror spells are supposed to be) are based on what he does, that's a pretty conspicuous lack. It also doesn't seem to indicate whyyy he'd have to run from the law. If he's a pickpocket or whatnot, why not spells good for that?

One other note:

There are going to be wizard nerds who copy those past lessons word-for-word,
The entire problem with this is the incomplete data and imperfect teachers. I mean, it'll happen, but it won't generally yield statistically sound, reasoned advice. If you can get around incomplete data, it'll at least yield better advice on average, but that's, again, not up to you.

Caphi
2010-03-14, 01:01 PM
I'm playing a wizard at first level. The way my wizard does combat revolves around disabling enemies and weakening them so that I can go past them, escape, or let my allies move in for the kill.

As a player, I look at this and go "the spells that execute this concept best here would be color spray and sleep."

Are you saying that making my concept as good as possible is bad roleplaying?

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 01:05 PM
I'm playing a wizard at first level. The way my wizard does combat revolves around disabling enemies and weakening them so that I can go past them, escape, or let my allies move in for the kill.

As a player, I look at this and go "the spells that execute this concept best here would be color spray and sleep."

Are you saying that making my concept as good as possible is bad roleplaying?

Um, no, I'm not. The problem is that that isn't a good concept for a character. A concept might be "Retired Carnie", "Down on his luck rogue", "Small Town Guardswoman", "Bored Noble" and the like. You're starting from the mechanics, even more blatantly, by choosing how the character goes about battles in an incredibly specific sense. Then you're calling it a concept. That's not good roleplay.

Volkov
2010-03-14, 01:11 PM
On the star wars debate: C-3PO somehow had six million+ skill points to spend, and he wasted the lot of them on Speak language, now had he used them on diplomacy, he would be the emperor for the rest of eternity. Heck with that many ranks in diplomacy, he could have asked the force to make him omnipotent and omniscient.

Caphi
2010-03-14, 01:14 PM
Um, no, I'm not. The problem is that that isn't a good concept for a character. A concept might be "Retired Carnie", "Down on his luck rogue", "Small Town Guardswoman", "Bored Noble" and the like. You're starting from the mechanics, even more blatantly, by choosing how the character goes about battles in an incredibly specific sense. Then you're calling it a concept. That's not good roleplay.

Says you. When I design characters, I start with what they're good at. It might have nothing to do with combat. Might be movement, sneaking, or manipulation, or illusions. Then I make them good at that.

So this dude's combat style isn't his entire concept. But it's part of it. There's a reason he's a control wizard. Let's say he was a gangster who was sent to Wizard College by overbearing parents ("We saved up this money so you could learn, and you're going to learn and like it.") Now his concept includes debuff and screw spells, because it's the best way (other than gishing, I guess) to help his buddies. As this man's player, why would I not choose the best options to help this character do what he does?

Sliver
2010-03-14, 01:27 PM
RPGuru, I can see your point. But it is plausible that in the many years of study it takes to make one a good wizard, he will try to understand more then just what the spell does, but when is it effective to be used and prepare his mind for future independent research he will have to do while he is traveling. Flawed teaching might occur, but the teacher might not be that close minded and with enough study of a spell, a student might ask a question that his master will approve and change his attitude towards.

My point is, even without massive teaching institutions, exchanges between a teacher and a master will lead to better results, and flawed teaching can be a great hook for a character, but it doesn't have to be there a really intense, well written and thought through for a character to have a plausible reason to choose the best spells and rely on them often.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 01:51 PM
RPGuru, I can see your point. But it is plausible that in the many years of study it takes to make one a good wizard, he will try to understand more then just what the spell does, but when is it effective to be used and prepare his mind for future independent research he will have to do while he is traveling. Flawed teaching might occur, but the teacher might not be that close minded and with enough study of a spell, a student might ask a question that his master will approve and change his attitude towards.[quote]
Why does a mage concerned with independent magical research give that much of a damn about combat application? That's a primary problem you guys keep running back into; Why is everyone only concerned with combat application, exactly?

[quote]My point is, even without massive teaching institutions, exchanges between a teacher and a master will lead to better results, and flawed teaching can be a great hook for a character, but it doesn't have to be there a really intense, well written and thought through for a character to have a plausible reason to choose the best spells and rely on them often.

I highlighted the part I'm having trouble making sense of. Can you phrase that differently? It doesn't seem to make sense in context.

That said, there never HAS to be a reason to be TEH UBARZ. It's just not good roleplay for there not to be a reason.


Says you. When I design characters, I start with what they're good at. It might have nothing to do with combat. Might be movement, sneaking, or manipulation, or illusions. Then I make them good at that.
Yes, because your only apparent concern is the minmaxing, which you've made abundantly clear. And frankly, that's a fine way to go about that goal.

Gametime
2010-03-14, 01:56 PM
Honestly never seen anybody who would be able to pass a high school history class use it about any period following the onset of the crusades before. The typical division of the middle ages seen in works such as A History of World Societies 6th edition and most pop culture that tries even just a little bit to be accurate is: Dark Ages roughly covering the period i mentioned, the early middle ages covering the first few crusades and the expansion of Christianity around the Baltic Sea, the high middle ages lasting until the plague and the late middle ages from the plague to the reformation. That is when the term is used at all. When it is not this period is known as the early middle ages. With what is otherwise considered the early middle ages get wrapped into the high middle ages and each of the three rough periods of the middle ages become gradually shorter.

Other usages of the dark ages do exist. There is the specific British usage which refers to the period during which literacy and any kind of effective governance of even smaller parts of the isles was almost extinct, ending much earlier than the broader European period, but referring to something else, specifically how little illumination we have about the period. This was over by the time the Mercian kings started minting coins and Northumbria had become the scholastic center of Europe in the eighth century. Similar examples can be found for other countries that have gone for times without literary sources. There is also the original definition of the dark ages which ended somewhere around the turn of the 13th and 14th centuries, for the simple reason that was the bad old days that the 14th century Italians who coined the term was referring to. Ironically enough they also coined the term renaissance, yet has been excluded from that period by later scholarship. And when you say "originally" i take it you mean during the 19th century, with some dissent even during that period. That is far from originally, it is also a long enough time ago for that usage to hardly be valid today.

A look at what wikipedia says about the dark ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_ages), which it appears you have done from your curiously specific phrasing strongly reminiscent of the one on wikipedia, gives five options. One, which i consider the best one, is to not use it, which is not really relevant here given that it had already been used in the discussion when i tried to quantify it. The other is to use it to refer to very specific periods of lacking data about a given country, but that is by no means useful to the very general usage of the word in this context. The third is to use it about all of the middle ages which indicates a sufficient lack of knowledge about the period for it to be unlikely that you have the understanding needed to make a valid argument of the social organization of the times. The fourth is when discussion late medieval philosophy and especially that of Petrarch, which we weren't. The fifth is to use it about roughly the period i mentioned and especially about the areas on the periphery of Europe, like Scandinavia, eastern Europe and the northern reaches of the British Isles.

As you will note even a sensationalist History Channel program features the last usage, just like if you played that game the opening text of Medieval: Total War does as well. Also a look at entertainment using the term dark ages will reveal a period vastly more reminiscent of the isolated hamlets and weak central authority of dubious legitimacy of Anglo-Saxon Britain, as opposed to the complex, trade-based urban cultures of late medieval Germany and Italy. So honestly no matter how you look at it, saying that Thomas Aquinas lived in the dark ages is a great misunderstanding of his times. Placing Roger Bacon there can only be done by either going by Petrarch's usage or using the same misconceptions of the middle ages that you would need to place Aquinas in that period. Because ultimately the image conjured by the term dark ages is that of Anglo-Saxon Britain attacked by vikings, not the image of the later parts of the middle ages in which their scientific achievements took place.

So, basically, you admit that it's a vague term which shouldn't really be employed at all, but still insist that no one ever uses it to include the 13th century even though that's totally the way it was used for hundreds of years and the way it is still used colloquially.

I'm not arguing for the use of the term at all. My response to the term was to say that it's misleading and outmoded, and there is no period in history properly categorized as "Dark Ages." I backed this up by pointing out, offhand, a few scholars who fell into the colloquial definition of the "Dark Ages," which I felt was safe to assume since hardly anyone uses it in a scholarly sense anyway.

So, basically, you're trying to convince me that I'm wrong about what the Dark Ages actually were when we both agree that the term is silly and shouldn't be used in the first place.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-14, 02:06 PM
That's why it's possible for a given setting to HAVE that kind of battle data, in DnD, a claim I did not contest. Of course, you're the player, not the DM. It isn't actually up to you whether or not Wizards spend their time collecting, collating, and storing battle data. Frankly, most settings don't do this. It's possible, but they don't do it.

I know you didn't contest the fact that it's possible; I take issue with your claim that most settings don't do it.

Look at Dark Sun, where every single wizard has to stick together and share what they know lest the Dragon Kings wipe them out.
Look at Eberron, where you have literal universities and a Renaissance-era flair, so a wizard professor teaching wizard students in Magic 101 wouldn't be at all out of place.
Look at Dragonlance, where every single wizard is required to undergo a lethal test, ensuring that every single wizard has at least some battle experience--and usually puzzling/tricky combat, not just blow-em-up stuff.
Look at Planescape, where zipping off to far corners of the multiverse is routine and esoteric knowledge can be bought with any currency you care to name in a planar metropolis.
Look at Forgotten Realms, where you can't walk 10 feet without tripping over ancient spellbooks and epic wizards.

Sure, it doesn't directly state "Oh by the way, every second Tuesday of the month wizards get together to chat" but while it's possible for a DM to rule that there's no connection between wizards and every wizard only knows a handful of others, that makes very little sense in the context of most published campaign settings. The Master of the Black Robes teaching your wizard hasn't been watching every wizard to take the Test in the last few dozen years since he made Master? The Red Wizard of Thay teaching you and your fellow apprentices hasn't been meticulously studying the strengths and weaknesses of his rival wizards?

Once again, I'm not saying that such data inevitably supports one style of play--in Planescape it would overwhelmingly show that summoning is bad because you'd piss off potential allies, and in Eberron everyone is low enough level that the data would probably show most schools to be basically equivalent--but throwing out the possibility of any data at all is, I feel, the wrong approach.

Sliver
2010-03-14, 02:07 PM
I highlighted the part I'm having trouble making sense of. Can you phrase that differently? It doesn't seem to make sense in context.

That said, there never HAS to be a reason to be TEH UBARZ. It's just not good roleplay for there not to be a reason.

I mean, you don't really need to have an awesome reason for your character to have solid and based understanding on what spell you use, how and when, and you aren't less of a roleplayer if that is not a point you wanted to focus on, or even explain at all, in your background.

Sure, if you want to be "TEH UBARZ" then you should have invested some of your background to explaining it, either by researching that, and then the skill points for relevant knowledge skills (arcana, history..), or some other reason (high relevance to living environment or some such) but if you just aim for competence, then the years of study to become a wizard are enough to explain that.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 02:08 PM
I know you didn't contest the fact that it's possible; I take issue with your claim that most settings don't do it.

Look at Dark Sun, where every single wizard has to stick together and share what they know lest the Dragon Kings wipe them out.
Look at Eberron, where you have literal universities and a Renaissance-era flair, so a wizard professor teaching wizard students in Magic 101 wouldn't be at all out of place.
Look at Dragonlance, where every single wizard is required to undergo a lethal test, ensuring that every single wizard has at least some battle experience--and usually puzzling/tricky combat, not just blow-em-up stuff.
Look at Planescape, where zipping off to far corners of the multiverse is routine and esoteric knowledge can be bought with any currency you care to name in a planar metropolis.
Look at Forgotten Realms, where you can't walk 10 feet without tripping over ancient spellbooks and epic wizards.
Yeaaaaaah, that's not the same as dedicated scrying over thousands of battles to learn what does and does not work. And since we're looking at what MAGIC works, you're trying to scry on the people best able to defeat the scrying. I didn't say it's impossible, I said it didn't happen. I don't disagree that wizards get together and talk. I disagree that they have mountains of data, and you keep apparently missing that point in the end.


but if you just aim for competence, then the years of study to become a wizard are enough to explain that.
You've never actually tried to become good at anything competitively, have you? And god forbid you tried to do so in a thing that penalized you for every failure. Or that KILLED YOU when you lost.

If simple 'years of study' were sufficient, we would not HAVE evokers and the like running around to begin with. Simple study is only sufficient if you build the world to follow the game rules (CC is always and completely better), not if you build the world without following the rules. And even then, only if you assume wizards keep exhaustive tabs on each other.

Gametime
2010-03-14, 02:10 PM
Look at Dragonlance, where every single wizard is required to undergo a lethal test, ensuring that every single wizard has at least some battle experience--and usually puzzling/tricky combat, not just blow-em-up stuff.


...Didn't Raistlin's test consist mostly of a dark elf shooting him with a fireball?

I mean, sure, the real test was the whole "secret test of character" thing, but it's not like he faced tricksy opponents in a literal sense. :smalltongue:

Caphi
2010-03-14, 02:12 PM
Yes, because your only apparent concern is the minmaxing, which you've made abundantly clear. And frankly, that's a fine way to go about that goal.

Wanting to make the characters I play have a talent, something they're good at, some style or theme, and then building that talent into the sheet, that's only being concerned with min/maxing?

What, should I just build a character by making arbitrary choices with no concern for how they'll affect the game I'm trying to play? Should I declare I'm building an illusionist/enchanter who operates by manipulating people and then take spell focus (evocation) and buzzing bee?

Gametime
2010-03-14, 02:15 PM
I don't disagree that wizards get together and talk. I disagree that they have mountains of data, and you keep apparently missing that point in the end.

I'm curious as to what wizards are getting together and talking about, if not what their spells do.

How combat-oriented their spells are is certainly very campaign-specific, but even a mildly militant melange of magic-users would undoubtedly share experiences and theories regarding spells in combat. Over time, that data is bound to add up and be absorbed by new wizards.

Terraoblivion
2010-03-14, 02:18 PM
But if it is used you either know enough to not include the thirteenth century in which case you actually possess knowledge about the middle ages. Or you don't know that in which case the chances you have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion is unlikely.

My point is this. The term is being used and it conjures up clear images to a lot of people. There really are good reasons to place a distinction between Europe before the 11th century and Europe after, especially in terms of academic learning, one big enough for employment in dividing history into periods to be easier to keep track of. So a lot of people who do know about the middle ages has taken to call the first long period the dark ages, since that is the period that has some kind of correlation with what people are thinking about when they use the term. Furthermore you don't see learned people calling the entire middle ages by the term dark ages and you haven't for decades or a century even. The only way the term is used by people who have even a modicum of understanding of the middle ages is to cover roughly the period i described, though somewhat fuzzily in both ends, unless they are using it in much more specific ways than the colloquial term. Also despite what you claim, i have genuinely never heard anybody use the term dark ages to cover the entire period from the fall of Rome to the renaissance before you did. That seems to indicate to me that it is not very commonly used that way.

tyckspoon
2010-03-14, 02:23 PM
I'm curious as to what wizards are getting together and talking about, if not what their spells do.


Doesn't even have to be the Wizards talking about it directly; this kind of information will get shared in any setting where adventurers gather, especially if the world is one where 'adventurer' is a recognized thing. Imagine a couple of fighters chatting about their adventures:

F1: "And then Tim steps up and starts with his spells. I always have to clean up after him- those little blue darts he casts just annoy the orcs!"
F2: "Really? I just put away my sword when I see Tom casting. He does this thing with a flashy rainbow kind of spray.. looks silly, but when I can see what's happening again there's nothing but stunned bodies."

Gametime
2010-03-14, 02:25 PM
But if it is used you either know enough to not include the thirteenth century in which case you actually possess knowledge about the middle ages. Or you don't know that in which case the chances you have anything worthwhile to add to the discussion is unlikely.

My point is this. The term is being used and it conjures up clear images to a lot of people. There really are good reasons to place a distinction between Europe before the 11th century and Europe after, especially in terms of academic learning, one big enough for employment in dividing history into periods to be easier to keep track of. So a lot of people who do know about the middle ages has taken to call the first long period the dark ages, since that is the period that has some kind of correlation with what people are thinking about when they use the term. Furthermore you don't see learned people calling the entire middle ages by the term dark ages and you haven't for decades or a century even. The only way the term is used by people who have even a modicum of understanding of the middle ages is to cover roughly the period i described, though somewhat fuzzily in both ends, unless they are using it in much more specific ways than the colloquial term. Also despite what you claim, i have genuinely never heard anybody use the term dark ages to cover the entire period from the fall of Rome to the renaissance before you did. That seems to indicate to me that it is not very commonly used that way.

I certainly can't provide statistical analyses regarding how many people use the term, but in my experience it's had a variety of meanings.

If someone uses the term Dark Ages, and it isn't clear that they mean prior to the 13th century, then it may be the case that they don't know much about the period, in which case it seems very reasonable to me to point out that part of that era included scholars (like Aquinas) and thus the term "Dark Ages" is not appropriate. This is, you may note, exactly what happened, so I'm still not sure why you're trying to convince me to change my own definition of the "Dark Ages" when I've already made clear I don't like the term at all.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 02:29 PM
I'm curious as to what wizards are getting together and talking about, if not what their spells do.
Magical theory, whether or not Harry is in fact meeting Sally, politics, their students, drama, The Dramas, their research, books, any latest adventures, alcohol, coffee, tea you gauche bastards, etc etc etc.
Why do you keep assuming they only have the practical applications of their magic in combat to discuss?


How combat-oriented their spells are is certainly very campaign-specific, but even a mildly militant melange of magic-users would undoubtedly share experiences and theories regarding spells in combat. Over time, that data is bound to add up and be absorbed by new wizards.
Golly Gosh Darn, I never considered that.

Oh, wait, yes, I did. I pointed out that properly learning using data requires failures.* Failures are generally deaths, especially on the small scale DnD operates on. This is fine for us, the players, because we can die all we want in Starcraft, Dawn of War, Dungeons and Dragons and the like without a damn scratch on us, and will have ample data on failures. Unfortunately for a DnD world, most failures are NOT recorded, therefore, they DON'T have that data! That's why it has to be an institution going WELL out of their way to learn tactics by observing thousands of battles, collating that data, and making sure it's properly analyzed (For instance, a Diviner with a grudge against a Transmuter actually analyzing it properly, not taking out his grudge against the transmuter by being overly harsh). Then those analyses have to be taught objectively by the professors, which is a plain old laugh anyway.

*If you need that explained again, I can. It's both psychological and analytical.

Sliver
2010-03-14, 02:40 PM
You've never actually tried to become good at anything competitively, have you? And god forbid you tried to do so in a thing that penalized you for every failure. Or that KILLED YOU when you lost.

If simple 'years of study' were sufficient, we would not HAVE evokers and the like running around to begin with. Simple study is only sufficient if you build the world to follow the game rules (CC is always and completely better), not if you build the world without following the rules. And even then, only if you assume wizards keep exhaustive tabs on each other.

I was talking from a PC standpoint. You don't have to specify that your study wasn't flawed. PCs can make evokers and often give it a reason, unless they think it is the best and in that world, it might actually be considered as such and then yes, the teaching was flawed, but nobody realized that and again, no need to specify it, and the DM can make an NPC evoker for w/e reason he wants, and it has nothing to do with his roleplaying.

Not all practices of the craft involve a combat to the death. If you actually wanted to test your magic before needing to use it in a life threatening situation, you more likely to use a spell like color spray or sleep, rather then a damaging spell, and you might actually get out of your house and think of adventuring and still don't want to go on killing, maybe you aren't comfortable with that yet, and later realize that they are still awesome even when you do need to kill the enemy.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 02:44 PM
Not all practices of the craft involve a combat to the death. If you actually wanted to test your magic before needing to use it in a life threatening situation, you more likely to use a spell like color spray or sleep, rather then a damaging spell, and you might actually get out of your house and think of adventuring and still don't want to go on killing, maybe you aren't comfortable with that yet, and later realize that they are still awesome even when you do need to kill the enemy.

Two things.

1: You're starting with the statistics. You're messing up to start with.
2: I didn't say it can't be justified. I didn't even say it can't be the natural result. And that's still not a very good story. It's a good start, though.

Yukitsu
2010-03-14, 02:45 PM
Oh, wait, yes, I did. I pointed out that properly learning using data requires failures.* Failures are generally deaths, especially on the small scale DnD operates on. This is fine for us, the players, because we can die all we want in Starcraft, Dawn of War, Dungeons and Dragons and the like without a damn scratch on us, and will have ample data on failures. Unfortunately for a DnD world, most failures are NOT recorded, therefore, they DON'T have that data!

This argument only works without magic, where raise dead is a strong counter, and data collecting spells such as speak with dead render the argument null.

As it stands, your conclusion is based on the false premise that one can't get information by dying and use it later, nor that you can gain information from the dead. Both are false premises.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 02:47 PM
This argument only works without magic, where raise dead is a strong counter, and data collecting spells such as speak with dead render the argument null.
Um, Cleric Spells. Cleric Spells that don't always get cast on every yahoo who loses. We're talking about Wizards, no?

To expound on this, Raise Dead is a pretty sporty thing to be casting on folks. No one is likely to shell out on a noob, only on their own friends. MAybe. They also need to find and get their body; This is doable, but difficult. Potentially very difficult. Potentially impossible. I expect some effort to be taken, but I also suspect most friends can't be found to raise, or the resources can't be spared to go save them, etc. Heaven forbid a rival go well out of their way to KEEP you dead using magic, or that whoever killed you do similar (Burning your body and shattering your bones is sufficient for the overwhelming majority of possible foes).

Speak with Dead might be easier on newbies, but it's still going to seem a gross waste of resources. What do apprentices have to teach us?

All of this assumes friendly with each other wizards. This is not the only possibility in a setting. Many settings have wizards who are ANTAGONISTIC to each other. They're more likely to engage in sabotage of their enemies, and go well out of their way to prove their own theorems superior. They can even be mistrustful of apprentices, purposefully obscuring the teaching given to ensure fewer rivals. This also better fits the aesthetic of DnD better, although it isn't how every setting will handle it.

Yukitsu
2010-03-14, 02:55 PM
Um, Cleric Spells. Cleric Spells that don't always get cast on every yahoo who loses. We're talking about Wizards, no?

Yes, however a wizard is not by necessity some poor hermit who lives in a mountain cave. If the data is important to one of them, it is possible and likely that he has the means to attain that data. As well, data collection spells are not cleric only. Notably, this is one of the few proper uses of legend lore.

Less likely, it is also possible for wizards to bring people back from the dead, to speak with the dead and etc. That takes some fiddling though.

Either way, it is not necessary for me to demonstrate that the wizards themselves can counter death as a deterent to data collection, but rather that death is no argument against data collection where and when it is relevant. And since neither are permanent roadblocks where crucial or desired data is lacking, neither of your premises are true.

On the other premise, no, it will not be used on everyone that loses, but it will often be used on everyone that wins. Whether they are alive or not. Incidently, that often is rather revealing as to the state of the losing side as well.

Sliver
2010-03-14, 02:56 PM
1: You're starting with the statistics. You're messing up to start with.
By who's standards? Yours? Even if I was starting with the crunch and basing the fluff around it, I don't recall it being wrong or messed up, or worse then the other way around. What is exactly wrong with having a rough draft of what you want to play, crunch wise, and then thinking of the story and background to flesh it out?


2: I didn't say it can't be justified. I didn't even say it can't be the natural result. And that's still not a very good story. It's a good start, though.

What exactly makes it not very good? The fact that I'm not making a story out of it, but just writing something I thought of in a moment ago? Wow, it won't make an amazing story. Shocking.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 03:11 PM
By who's standards? Yours? Even if I was starting with the crunch and basing the fluff around it, I don't recall it being wrong or messed up, or worse then the other way around. What is exactly wrong with having a rough draft of what you want to play, crunch wise, and then thinking of the story and background to flesh it out?
Because it makes the focus of your efforts the mechanics, with the roleplay secondary. The roleplay is going to be worse for it. If you don't like it, make the roleplay your primary focus. I don't actually care what you spend your time doing, but if you want to make it better, make it your focus.

Honestly, do people really think that making something your second priority doesn't actually detract from the attention paid to it in even the tiniest way? It's no wonder you guys think it'd be easy to set up a data collection, collation, and dissemination center that'd function perfectly and without mishap.


What exactly makes it not very good? The fact that I'm not making a story out of it, but just writing something I thought of in a moment ago? Wow, it won't make an amazing story. Shocking.

Yeah, actually, that's why. I don't know why you're getting sarcastic when you agree with me, but whatever.


Either way, it is not necessary for me to demonstrate that the wizards themselves can counter death as a deterent to data collection, but rather that death is no argument against data collection where and when it is relevant. And since neither are permanent roadblocks where crucial or desired data is lacking, neither of your premises are true.
Yes, with a reasoned start, properly convincing others of your correct rationale (To the point where htey are willing to dedicate time and resources to it), with sufficient cooperation, and going to great pains to confirm things with actual use of empirical data and reason, it can be done. I didn't say it couldn't, I said it generally wasn't, for a wide variety of reasons including irrationality, bullheadedness, money, and the like. Not to mention that a focus on empirical data and reason is well outside the general philosophy seen in most settings. If it's there, fine. If it's not, that's sort of what I'd expect, but it's also fine. But you can't argue that just because the tools are there to be had means that they're being used correctly, and that the proper trains of thought are being followed, and that everyone's cooperating, etc etc etc.


On the other premise, no, it will not be used on everyone that loses, but it will often be used on everyone that wins. Whether they are alive or not. Incidently, that often is rather revealing as to the state of the losing side as well.
I have no idea what you mean with that last line, at all.

Yukitsu
2010-03-14, 03:16 PM
BYes, with a reasoned start, properly convincing others of your correct rationale (To the point where htey are willing to dedicate time and resources to it), with sufficient cooperation, and going to great pains to confirm things with actual use of empirical data and reason, it can be done. I didn't say it couldn't, I said it generally wasn't, for a wide variety of reasons including irrationality, bullheadedness, money, and the like. Not to mention that a focus on empirical data and reason is well outside the general philosophy seen in most settings. If it's there, fine. If it's not, that's sort of what I'd expect, but it's also fine. But you can't argue that just because the tools are there to be had means that they're being used correctly, and that the proper trains of thought are being followed, and that everyone's cooperating, etc etc etc.

They don't need to cooperate. 10 minutes of independant research by any of them magically will discern most of what is needed to know.

In terms of the other arguments, that's simple supposition. And at any rate, you must concede that you are arguing that wizards are not in fact knowledge seeking individuals.


I have no idea what you mean with that last line, at all.

I can't know how Wellington won Waterloo without knowing how Napolean lost. And people do indeed want to know how Wellington won, if they are in the business of tactics and strategy.

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 03:24 PM
They don't need to cooperate. 10 minutes of independant research by any of them magically will discern most of what is needed to know.
You really think 10 minutes of study is sufficient to properly absorb and analyze hundreds of thousands of fights, don't you?


In terms of the other arguments, that's simple supposition. And at any rate, you must concede that you are arguing that wizards are not in fact knowledge seeking individuals.
No, I'm arguing that they're FLAWED knowledge seeking individuals. You're just not bother to look at those flaws.



I can't know how Wellington won Waterloo without knowing how Napolean lost. And people do indeed want to know how Wellington won, if they are in the business of tactics and strategy.
Ah hah, that's what you meant. Funny choice, given the circumstances of napoleon's loss; It's a lot closer to the luck I've argued can and will ruin transmuters who should have won on paper ;)

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that that was a recent deduction, and that for decades it was assumed that Napoleon's tactics were flawed, and that Wellington's were superior, when the opposite was true.

For similar reasons, that doesn't cut it, because you get the successful evokers correctly pointing out that their methods work (Heaven forbid, they work on enemy transmuters), and the like.

Yukitsu
2010-03-14, 03:38 PM
You really think 10 minutes of study is sufficient to properly absorb and analyze hundreds of thousands of fights, don't you?

To get an answer indeed it is. Analysis is not always necessary when you have the answer. In the cases where it is, I don't see the resolution of hundreds of thousands of fights as necessary. That is more data than char op has, and it's their opinions that you are arguing would not be common knowledge. Assuming that the absurdity of requiring hundreds of thousands of data points aside, if, for some reason, you doubt your deus ex anwerna, you can commit yourself to standard data collection.


No, I'm arguing that they're FLAWED knowledge seeking individuals. You're just not bother to look at those flaws.

That's because standard assumptions of flaws in knowledge seeking are confused when you recieve absolute answers without any form of analysis. (is this test data statistically significant universe? It is? Does it avoid type 1 and type 2 errors? It does? Thanks.)


Ah hah, that's what you meant. Funny choice, given the circumstances of napoleon's loss; It's a lot closer to the luck I've argued can and will ruin transmuters who should have won on paper ;)

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure that that was a recent deduction, and that for decades it was assumed that Napoleon's tactics were flawed, and that Wellington's were superior, when the opposite was true.

Napolean's tactics were flawed. He should have seeked to defeat Bluchers force, because they knew Wellesley was a superior defensive general. He should have put Murat in charge of the main assault instead of Ney, and when Ney was assaulting the Dutch line, Napoleon should have conceded his request to mobilize the guard. To Wellington's merrit, the chosen battlefield was excellently chosen to repel the French columns, to negate the grand battery, and to secure both flanks. Luck had very little to do with the battle, but rather, the differences in military objectives (one required the defeat of the latter, who required merely a stalemate until Blucher could arrive.)


For similar reasons, that doesn't cut it, because you get the successful evokers correctly pointing out that their methods work (Heaven forbid, they work on enemy transmuters), and the like.

Well, I wouldn't know how Wellesley won Waterloo without knowing the above about Napoleonic tactics. Inversely, I'd not know how battlefield control wizards have beaten other wizards without knowing how they typically beat evokers.

Thefurmonger
2010-03-14, 03:40 PM
Guys, do either of the two sides really think that the other is going to say "Wow, what a good point. You sure are right"?

Seriously, both sides have stated what they think, and why they think the other side is wrong.

Not to mention that this has almost nothing to do with my question in the first place.

At what point do we decide to agree to disagree before the petty insults start flying?

RPGuru1331
2010-03-14, 03:42 PM
To get an answer indeed it is. Analysis is not always necessary when you have the answer.
I'm forced to conclude that you're just not familiar with analysis of battles in any context, and that further discussion is fruitless with you.

Spoiler Alert: Analyzing battles as if you already know 'the answer' to the question of why they won is one of the first mistakes you can make in attempting to make an objective analysis. Everything becomes filtered through that lens, through the magic of confirmation and disconfirmation bias.

Yukitsu
2010-03-14, 03:43 PM
I'm forced to conclude that you're just not familiar with analysis of battles in any context, and that further discussion is fruitless with you.

I certainly am. However, when you can ask, instead of the data points the result, why bother? We can't do so in real life, but you can with magic.

You assume to get a valid answer, the real world methods are required, but they aren't. The methods they have are more suitable to what they have.


Spoiler Alert: Analyzing battles as if you already know 'the answer' to the question of why they won is one of the first mistakes you can make in attempting to make an objective analysis. Everything becomes filtered through that lens, through the magic of confirmation and disconfirmation bias.

That only applies to taking a theory, assuming it's true, and working towards it. I'm arguing, that they can arbitrarily and magically know the answer, without any analysis or theory whatsoever. Confirmation doesn't come into it, because those biases require analysis, even if flawed. What I'm saying is, magic does not require analysis.

If you need to confirm the answer afterwards, that's fine, but in that case it's no more an issue of confirmation as you would get when redoing a test to measure repeatability in the case of say Milgram's oil drop experiment.

Caphi
2010-03-14, 04:26 PM
I'm still waiting for Guru to tell me, when my concept includes a certain skill, I should not make what I know are good picks for that skill. Color spray is merely an example.

Gametime
2010-03-14, 04:34 PM
Magical theory, whether or not Harry is in fact meeting Sally, politics, their students, drama, The Dramas, their research, books, any latest adventures, alcohol, coffee, tea you gauche bastards, etc etc etc.
Why do you keep assuming they only have the practical applications of their magic in combat to discuss?

I don't believe I ever put forward the position that they would only discuss the practical applications of their magic. I do think, however, that the topic would dominate a not insignificant portion of their discussion. I don't think that's an unreasonable assumption, but you seem to vary between agreeing that wizards will sometimes compare and experiences and denying that this comparison will ever yield any sort of results, ever.



Golly Gosh Darn, I never considered that.

Oh, wait, yes, I did. I pointed out that properly learning using data requires failures.* Failures are generally deaths, especially on the small scale DnD operates on. This is fine for us, the players, because we can die all we want in Starcraft, Dawn of War, Dungeons and Dragons and the like without a damn scratch on us, and will have ample data on failures. Unfortunately for a DnD world, most failures are NOT recorded, therefore, they DON'T have that data! That's why it has to be an institution going WELL out of their way to learn tactics by observing thousands of battles, collating that data, and making sure it's properly analyzed (For instance, a Diviner with a grudge against a Transmuter actually analyzing it properly, not taking out his grudge against the transmuter by being overly harsh). Then those analyses have to be taught objectively by the professors, which is a plain old laugh anyway.

*If you need that explained again, I can. It's both psychological and analytical.

Fair point, albeit cut into significantly by the prevalence of resurrections at even moderate levels and the ease with which one can communicate with the dead. And, for that matter, with gods. (I wonder if anyone's ever asked Boccob what the best schools of magic are?)

That said, please explain to me again why, in a world where failure correlates with death, the weaker (and thus more prone to failure) schools of magic wouldn't be gradually pruned out of a majority of the wizarding populace? Not completely eliminated, certainly, but at least reduced significantly in number?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-14, 04:39 PM
Yeaaaaaah, that's not the same as dedicated scrying over thousands of battles to learn what does and does not work. And since we're looking at what MAGIC works, you're trying to scry on the people best able to defeat the scrying.

You'll notice that "wizards use divinations" was one of three points I raised, the other two of which were "wizards share information" and "most wizards have combat experience." The post to which you responded addressed the sharing of information, so I don't know where you're getting divinations from that.


I didn't say it's impossible, I said it didn't happen. I don't disagree that wizards get together and talk. I disagree that they have mountains of data, and you keep apparently missing that point in the end.

I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that the point is incorrect. I and others have provided reasons as to why and how wizards would obtain and share data, and you have thus far ignored them; unless you're arguing that we've merely provided for hills or ridges of data instead of mountains of data, I think you're just trying to handwave away the point.

Weimann
2010-03-14, 04:42 PM
This is how I go about creating a character:

First I think of a character concept.

Second I assess what class/caste/other applicable sorting mechanism my concept fits best into, from a mechanical and thematic standpoint both. If it's a good system, you shouldn't have to choose between those.

Third I simultaneously create a backstory and flesh out the stats. The two interweave; if a value of a stat is extreme, it will show in my characters backstory or personality, and will be something I play against.

I find it becomes very usable in most situations.

I will not compromise on my characters abilities unless a style for the game has been explicitly agreed on. If we say we are going to have a fighting-heavy game, I will build a fighter. Otherwise, I will assume that the GM will give me opportunity to use my social or crafting or athletic prowess in situations of importance.

I feel that a GM should build the story around the characters, and not that the characters should have to try to guess what the GM will throw at them. Indeed, asking your players what they wish to see in a campaign is a wonderful way to make it funnier and easier on both parts.

krossbow
2010-03-14, 06:49 PM
Why should i use colorspray? how about why would i EVER use evocation?

My character is a genius, a prodigy, with an intellect rivaling that of the worlds greatest genius's TODAY. he is not just some buffoon who likes to adventure for fun; his intellect is far greater than most mortal men, and he would know it.


my character, with magic, can rewrite reality, control minds, make matter itself, so why would he ever turn himself into a glorified flamethrower?

Brute force is the purview of the simpleton; evocation is simply the magical version of that. why would my character, with his incredible intellect and potential, ever lower himself to the level of a barbarian, a brute, a simpering monkey.

My wizard are highly intelligent individuals, and they know it; why would they doubt that magical brute force would be any more sophisticated than physical brute force?

Frosty
2010-03-14, 06:55 PM
And that is the beginning of a very flavorful wizard. See, you injected CHARACTER into it.

Forever Curious
2010-03-14, 06:57 PM
Why should i use colorspray? how about why would i EVER use evocation?

My character is a genius, a prodigy, with an intellect rivaling that of the worlds greatest genius's TODAY. he is not just some buffoon who likes to adventure for fun; his intellect is far greater than most mortal men, and he would know it.


my character, with magic, can rewrite reality, control minds, make matter itself, so why would he ever turn himself into a glorified flamethrower?

Brute force is the purview of the simpleton; evocation is simply the magical version of that. why would my character, with his incredible intellect and potential, ever lower himself to the level of a barbarian, a brute, a simpering monkey.

My wizard are highly intelligent individuals, and they know it; why would they doubt that magical brute force would be any more sophisticated than physical brute force?

I approve of this post.

Icewraith
2010-03-15, 03:35 AM
And that is the beginning of a very flavorful wizard. See, you injected CHARACTER into it.

I approve of THAT post. Some Wizards ARE buffoons that adventure for fun. It does help to have some response in mind when your character is asked why he casts the spells he does.

Examples:
"From an early age I displayed extra ability with offensive spells, and have a talent for fire spells" (PHB Spell Focus: Evo at 1st level, other splatbook feats I am sure fit this better but that's a core example)

"Why risk getting in trouble with the constabulary when you can just knock all your attackers for a loop and run for it?" (Justify any perma-death or damage spell under color spray/glitterdust, indicates character's childhood in Lawful area or Lawful mindset)

"I love the smell of bat guano in the morning" (I like to blast. Deal with it.)

"If I can see it, I can damage it if I can hit it. Ghost, Dragon, some wacky ten-armed crawling thingy... Always nice to have something guaranteed if the Illusion breaks." (Prepping a Force Orb 'just in case')

The point of character creation is you're usually creating a unique individual, albiet one you want to have fun playing. You don't want your character to die or suck, but you're also aiming for a certain degree of versimilitude in terms of making something that makes sense in both an in-character and out-of character perspective.

So I'll argue that since the point of the game is to have fun, and for the most part a large part of that involves avoiding death, picking spells from a mechanical standpoint first and then working out personality reasons to take them is probably the sanest way to go about the process of creation. Just make sure the second half happens and if your character does die or the campaign ends, don't show up at the new session with the same character! That a particular individual has a certain spell list cannot be argued against mathematically (the Law of averages being inapplicable to individuals), but if a series of wizards are introduced to the party, die after two sessions, and are replaced by that wizard's cousin with the same abilities and spell list, belief begins to be suspended and fun impacted.

Do note that after creation, if your character does take on a life of its own and you feel that maybe your character should take a different set of spells due to all the filthy undead that seem to be popping up lately (story-mechanics reason), this one spell really worked well and you'd rather get the larger, nastier version of it (in-game experience reason), or your character has developed a daredevil streak and likes to cast spell with random variables (mechanics/character, suggests wild mage as an interesting prestige class) well then the roleplay has started to affect the character, and most people consider this to be a good thing.

Just don't gimp yourself like one guy I knew who insisted on playing a rogue with no disable device skill and put all his skill points in open lock, and justified doing so with a character background where he was imprisoned by an evil wizard. ><

Yes, he pulled the roleplaying vs optimization argument on me too. Competent evil wizards don't use locks, they know all about knock!

Indon
2010-03-15, 07:46 AM
I find it vaguely amusing that people who only learned about the awesomeness of crowd control through the magic of knowledge osmosis are acting as if their characters would already, always, and automatically know those wonderful object lessons.

Didn't you know? We all figured it out for ourselves. All the people who play D&D without reading about it on the internet just aren't as smart as we are. :P

But on a serious note, if you're a normal person trying to roleplay an individual of exceptional or superhuman intelligence and capability, some help might be warranted. Arguably, the people trying to roleplay supergeniuses without the benefit of the internet hivemind are doing so less accurately than those who are.

That said, "Of course the highly intelligent wizard acts exactly like how I learned optimized D&D characters act," can still sound like an immersion-breaking excuse instead of legitimate characterization. That doesn't mean it can't be legitimate characterization, but it still might take some fast talking, krossbow-style (very nice btw) to make it sound like you're actually making a character instead of a series of excuses for powergaming.


I invite you to gaze upon that list, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases) as it's quite long.

<3


This is how I go about creating a character:

First I think of a character concept.

Second I assess what class/caste/other applicable sorting mechanism my concept fits best into, from a mechanical and thematic standpoint both. If it's a good system, you shouldn't have to choose between those.

Third I simultaneously create a backstory and flesh out the stats. The two interweave; if a value of a stat is extreme, it will show in my characters backstory or personality, and will be something I play against.

This is a better starting point than discussing justifications for optimization at all, if you ask me - comparative character creation approaches can be analyzed to demonstrate much more clearly where and how characterization priorities come into play.

For example, I feel this is an approach that can generate characters you can optimize somewhat, but not something that necessarily generates optimized characters. If a player using this approach thinks up a concept that can't be optimized in a given system, they're faced with a choice between implementing the concept and not being powerful, or scrapping the concept and picking a more powerful one. That makes for a direct example of how characterization and optimization might conflict.

While sometimes I use a process like Weimann's, I frequently use a more optimization-friendly character creation method.

First I start with a mechanical capability that I want to explore in-game.

Second I fashion a character mechanically that supports this capability.

Third I create characterization for the character based on the character's capabilities and what they imply about the characters' personality, backstory, etc.

Frosty
2010-03-15, 12:51 PM
I ome up with a very general capabilities theme at first in addition to a very general personality idea. For example:

"I want to play a warrior that can totally protect and shield my allies. I think for this campaign I might have fun trying to roleplay a tough and serious character."

Then my thought process usually goes to dig deeper into both aspect simultaneously:

"How do I want to protect my allies? Hmm, I think I want a *devout* protector...or at least one that has a lot of conviction. It could be fun to roleplay having those convictions challenged in-game."

Going further...

"Well, the obvious choice is cleric. Clerics make mighty fine warriors, and can certainly use a lot of great magics to protect allies in a myriad of ways. But no...I've played too many casters lately. Besides, I think I want my character to REALLY be in the thick of things andusing the character's BODY and SHIELD and ARMOR to physically protect the others. I like the feel of that this campaign. Magic is good and more efficient certainly, but this character doesn't do that really. I think I'm beginning to see this character as a knight-templar type."

"After talking to the other players, who definitely have the casting roles filled, I think I'll definitely go with a martial, Full BAB class. Eh, unless the DM allows the Pathfinder Paladin, I'm going with Crusader all the way. The Knight is alright, but I think I want the paladin's spiritual and philosophical flavor...just without the suck. Crusader fits the bill just right."

"Now to get down to the nitty gritty of the details of the backstory. WHY is my character so determined and MOTIVATED to fight and protect? What happened in the past that made my character this way? Oh I know...my character WAS a mother of two. WAS being emphasized...because her two young children were killed in horrific circumstances. That sounds just *slightly* cliche, but I think I can really rp her sadness. I know! The killer is her ex-husband, who turned out to be a cultist. He sacrificed their children to the dark gods or maybe a devil archduke to gain some favor or power. That man might now have Hellfire at his fingertips...a Hellfire Warlock perhaps who worships Mephistopheles? I can work with my DM on that as a campaign villain. I can also rp her as having issues trusting others thanks to her experience with betrayal. <And this portion goes on for a long time>"

Does this sound like anything you guys do?

Gametime
2010-03-15, 01:06 PM
I ome up with a very general capabilities theme at first in addition to a very general personality idea. For example:

"I want to play a warrior that can totally protect and shield my allies. I think for this campaign I might have fun trying to roleplay a tough and serious character."

Then my thought process usually goes to dig deeper into both aspect simultaneously:

"How do I want to protect my allies? Hmm, I think I want a *devout* protector...or at least one that has a lot of conviction. It could be fun to roleplay having those convictions challenged in-game."

Going further...

"Well, the obvious choice is cleric. Clerics make mighty fine warriors, and can certainly use a lot of great magics to protect allies in a myriad of ways. But no...I've played too many casters lately. Besides, I think I want my character to REALLY be in the thick of things andusing the character's BODY and SHIELD and ARMOR to physically protect the others. I like the feel of that this campaign. Magic is good and more efficient certainly, but this character doesn't do that really. I think I'm beginning to see this character as a knight-templar type."

"After talking to the other players, who definitely have the casting roles filled, I think I'll definitely go with a martial, Full BAB class. Eh, unless the DM allows the Pathfinder Paladin, I'm going with Crusader all the way. The Knight is alright, but I think I want the paladin's spiritual and philosophical flavor...just without the suck. Crusader fits the bill just right."

"Now to get down to the nitty gritty of the details of the backstory. WHY is my character so determined and MOTIVATED to fight and protect? What happened in the past that made my character this way? Oh I know...my character WAS a mother of two. WAS being emphasized...because her two young children were killed in horrific circumstances. That sounds just *slightly* cliche, but I think I can really rp her sadness. I know! The killer is her ex-husband, who turned out to be a cultist. He sacrificed their children to the dark gods or maybe a devil archduke to gain some favor or power. That man might now have Hellfire at his fingertips...a Hellfire Warlock perhaps who worships Mephistopheles? I can work with my DM on that as a campaign villain. I can also rp her as having issues trusting others thanks to her experience with betrayal. <And this portion goes on for a long time>"

Does this sound like anything you guys do?

That's roughly the path I take. I don't think many players start with who their character is; it's doable, certainly, but requires a lot more abstraction to begin with.

I think (and this is obviously not backed up by any real data) that most characters want to play an archetype of some sort. Once you decide on the sort of character you want to play - a sneaky trickster, a troubled protector, a loyal soldier* - you figure out the best combination of classes, feats, and abilities to make that character a reality. Then you figure out backstory and other purely flavorful considerations.

Done poorly, this can be a thinly veiled justification to play some sort of ubermensch, but in general I think it's just a way for players to know they'll have fun in a game.

*Has anyone else noticed that the huge number of D&D classes makes it really difficult to describe an archetype without referring to a specific class? "Well, this guy is a mighty warrior - no, not the NPC class, I mean generically. No, not the GENERIC warrior, I mean he fights for a living. He's a fighter, I guess you'd - no, wait, let's start over. He was once a loyal servant to his lord, a knight of his house - no, not the PHBII knight! Look, the point is, his lord was killed, and now he's on a quest to redeem himself. He's crusading against the forces of evil, and - NO, HE'S NOT A -ING CRUSADER!"

misterk
2010-03-15, 01:19 PM
This is really for another thread, but in class based systems I tend to pick a class, then think of a character (in l5r, often I get inspiration by looking at weaknesses, which helps me decide what I want my character to be- for example my water tensai who was utterly uninterested in fighting, and wanted nothing more to go back to Pheonix lands. The only reason he was stuck in Scorpion lands was because his wife became jealous when he kept sleeping with other women.. for some reason... This character almost ended up sleeping with the antagonist for the campaign...).

In class based systems its quite hard to think of a character without at least having thought of a class first, I have to admit. However, I almost always have an idea about who the character is before making the choices for skills and abilities.

Indon
2010-03-16, 07:54 AM
Does this sound like anything you guys do?

That sounds a lot like a more in-depth explanation of the method I described.

taltamir
2010-03-16, 09:04 AM
...you have no idea what you are talking about, if you think either the Phalanx or the Formation Gun Fight were 'failed tactics.'

The Phalanx was actually terrifyingly effective. Look at the Campaigns of Alexander the Great. It's direct successor, the Pike Formation, was one of the few ways a man on foot could harm a mounted combatant. The Phalanx only died out truly when its weapon ceased to be used.

Formation Gun Fights, again, were incredibly effective. They maximized the fire rate of a unit, and compensated for the inaccuracy of the weapons. While formation gun fights perhaps remained part of military doctrine beyond where they were needed, they were not a 'failed tactic' by any means.

Ugh... Phalanx Gun Formation, not Phalanx AND Gun Formation.
I know that the Phalanx (with melee weapons) was amazingly effective. I was never talking about that.

Formation gun fight as in "stand in the open in a line and fire all at once"; was always a retarded tactic. and it does nothing to improve your accuracy or rate of fire. You could have advantages to having a formation of some sort, but not phalanx type formation gun fights... For example, a good formation tactic would be where on command the entire unit pops out of cover, fires, and pops back behind cover. Even then, it might negatively affect your rate of fire, and individual bullets are not any more accurate when used in such a manner. the only advantage would be that if individual enemies are waiting to pick off people who pop out of cover, they would only be able to hit a few before being fired back at.
this is still probably a bad idea though, you want to be behind cover and suppress your enemy with continual fire.

But I have no idea how you saw "phalanx formation gunfight" and deduced I meant "phalanx formation, and formation gunfight".

Indon
2010-03-16, 09:20 AM
Formation gun fight as in "stand in the open in a line and fire all at once"; was always a retarded tactic.
Against non-firearm formations, it was devastating. You could produce a very high rate of fire from a few ranks (part of the formation's strategy involves only one rank standing and firing at once, and cycling through your ranks so that you have a constant rate of fire even with a troop using weapons that take a minute+ to load), and while your weapons are horribly inaccurate (it's a musket formation, really), you're throwing enough projectiles downrange to cause casualties.

The concept that the individual, rather than the unit, could move independently in order to fight better (i.e. taking cover) didn't happen until a weapon was invented that obsoleted the major benefit of the gun formation (compensating for inaccuracy with volume of fire), being the rifled firearm. And honestly, attempts to use modern fire team tactics with primitive firearms would have just allowed for traditional formations to overrun you.

Weimann
2010-03-16, 10:06 AM
Why should i use colorspray? how about why would i EVER use evocation?

My character is a genius, a prodigy, with an intellect rivaling that of the worlds greatest genius's TODAY. he is not just some buffoon who likes to adventure for fun; his intellect is far greater than most mortal men, and he would know it.


my character, with magic, can rewrite reality, control minds, make matter itself, so why would he ever turn himself into a glorified flamethrower?

Brute force is the purview of the simpleton; evocation is simply the magical version of that. why would my character, with his incredible intellect and potential, ever lower himself to the level of a barbarian, a brute, a simpering monkey.

My wizard are highly intelligent individuals, and they know it; why would they doubt that magical brute force would be any more sophisticated than physical brute force?


And that is the beginning of a very flavorful wizard. See, you injected CHARACTER into it.
That is undoubtedly so, however it should be said that the post approaches the problem from a narrow angle. It basically argues that a character can be in-depth and flavourful despite being completely optimized for battle. This, I have no problem with.

However, it also conveys the point that not optimizing for battle is frowned upon, which is a mechanical argument at best, and not a very convincing one at that. Speaking of D&D 3.5, there can be any number of reasons to play a "blaster", as many as there could be to play a controlling and buffing style of wizard. Naturally, every stage in between the extreme points of complete blaster and focused buffer-controller can also be easily justified.

It can be as easy as a wizard who had just started on his path when he got attacked one evening in an alley. Having only learnt Magic Missile, he managed to fend off the aggressors, and since then, he has held an intimacy towards damaging spells, since they are straight-forward and to the point when you are in that kind of trouble.
This is a better starting point than discussing justifications for optimization at all, if you ask me - comparative character creation approaches can be analyzed to demonstrate much more clearly where and how characterization priorities come into play.Maybe that's a discussion worth another thread? :)
For example, I feel this is an approach that can generate characters you can optimize somewhat, but not something that necessarily generates optimized characters. If a player using this approach thinks up a concept that can't be optimized in a given system, they're faced with a choice between implementing the concept and not being powerful, or scrapping the concept and picking a more powerful one. That makes for a direct example of how characterization and optimization might conflict.I think you confuse the meaning of "optimized" here, because you say it's a choice between implementing a concept and being powerful. I think of it as a choice between implementing a concept and being the most powerful, which is something else.

Of course, it depends on what system we are referring to. In D&D, I understand that character creation is all but a winnable mini-game, where it's highly possible to create a "bad" character if you take the wrong turns a few times, and it therefore becomes relevant to think mechanically to a greater degree. In less rigid systems, my approach may become more viable.
While sometimes I use a process like Weimann's, I frequently use a more optimization-friendly character creation method.

First I start with a mechanical capability that I want to explore in-game.

Second I fashion a character mechanically that supports this capability.

Third I create characterization for the character based on the character's capabilities and what they imply about the characters' personality, backstory, etc.Character creation is often a very back-and-forth affair for me, and it's often a great source for a a character concept to read through the relevant books and get inspiration. It's not like I refuse to open a book before I figure out a concept, but I can easily be intrigued by some particular mechanic and want to build a concept that allows me to use it.

Your approach is a valid one, for sure. I sometimes tend towards it as well.

Frosty
2010-03-16, 03:40 PM
However, it also conveys the point that not optimizing for battle is frowned upon
Actually, that point is only conveyed IN-character. That particular wizard feels that way in-character.

Flickerdart
2010-03-16, 05:08 PM
I think you confuse the meaning of "optimized" here, because you say it's a choice between implementing a concept and being powerful. I think of it as a choice between implementing a concept and being the most powerful, which is something else.

For me, optimizing is implementing a concept in a way that makes you powerful. You can play a reclusive warrior that fights unarmed and gains powers through intense spiritual training, and be a whole number of things (from a Barbarian to a Monk to a Swordsage to a Cleric to some kind of Warhulk monster), but some of those choices will allow you to contribute meaningfully to the party, and others will leave you bleeding out in the dirt. Optimizing and roleplaying aren't opposites; if anything, they go hand in hand. The better you are at optimizing, the more archetypes and variations you can pull off without dropping below the effectiveness mark. Playing a blaster is a suboptimal choice compared to a BC Wizard, but if you can optimize that blaster, you can still be feared far and wide, because instead of doing the same thing that the Fighter does but less often, you reduce enemies to ash with a wave of your hand. It's harder to roleplay a whole slew of characters when you can't contribute meaningfully to the party, but it doesn't make any concept easier.

Megaduck
2010-03-16, 05:29 PM
Formation gun fight as in "stand in the open in a line and fire all at once"; was always a retarded tactic.

No, no it wasn't. At one point it was one of the best tactics of the day, back when they used smoothbore muskets.


You could have advantages to having a formation of some sort, but not phalanx type formation gun fights... For example, a good formation tactic would be where on command the entire unit pops out of cover, fires, and pops back behind cover.

You are seriously underestimating the problems of battle field command and control. Especially in a preradio society. Remember, they're relying on voice command, messengers, and visual signals.

One person can only really execute close command of about 10 other people in combat. So you MIGHT be able to do the pop up pop down idea with ten. For every additional person you add the chances of something going wrong go up drastically. There is no way you could get a 100 man unit to do that, much less a 10,000 man army.

Remember, KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid.

The advantage of the Gun Phalanx is that it puts everyone's gun pointing the same direction at the same time.

Indon
2010-03-17, 08:19 AM
Maybe that's a discussion worth another thread? :)
That should be the discussion for this thread, but yeah, you rather do have a point. Probably not many people reading this far.


I think you confuse the meaning of "optimized" here, because you say it's a choice between implementing a concept and being powerful. I think of it as a choice between implementing a concept and being the most powerful, which is something else.
No.

It's not a binary choice - neither characterization nor optimization. Both are continuums. The more powerful you want your character, the fewer character concepts you are limited to as a direct result of the fact that some mechanical configuraitons are more powerful than others. Yes, you can work with the DM to reflavor configurations to different concepts than they were made for, but that involves extra effort to do what a person making a less powerful character does without trying.

Similarly, any character concept you select has a chance of not having a mechanical configuration of sufficient power associated with it. You can discard the concept entirely, instead opting for an optimizable concept, or you can work with the DM to create or modify a character that is of sufficient power for your concept - but doing so entails extra effort that someone playing a concept with a more optimal character does not need to invest.

So it's not a matter of most powerful. Just more or less powerful. Characters in different games have wildly distinct levels of power, and that helps to dictate the style of play - from characters who consider dogs or other housepets potent and fearful enemies, to characters who reshape entire universes through their power - roleplaying can include it all.

To try and recast the continuum of character power as a matter of 'winning' or 'losing' at character creation, or a matter of being useful or not useful (basically the same claim), is to refuse to acknowledge this versatility inherent not only in individual games but in the entire genre of roleplaying games.

Starbuck_II
2010-03-17, 09:02 AM
Formation gun fight as in "stand in the open in a line and fire all at once"; was always a retarded tactic. and it does nothing to improve your accuracy or rate of fire.


Than why did Oda Nobunaga do so awesme when he did that same thing?

taltamir
2010-03-17, 09:08 AM
Against non-firearm formations, it was devastating
now you are mixing superior tactics with superior weaponry. sure, swordsmen vs a gun formation the gun formation wins. But gun formation vs gun formation? not pretty.

I don't know where people get the idea that having a formation somehow improves your accuracy, each individual is just as inaccurate. If you are firing on more closely grouped enemies you are likely to hit someone, if you have a group of your own firing together at one target one is likely to hit...
there are certainly advantages to the gun formation compared to total random chaos (for example, less friendly fire) but not being the worst tactic isn't the same as being a good tactic..

While its true only 10 people can hear you, you could just split 100 marksmen into 10 units of 10 people each, each person in a unit fires at once, but the 10 units are separate.

Indon
2010-03-17, 09:28 AM
now you are mixing superior tactics with superior weaponry. sure, swordsmen vs a gun formation the gun formation wins. But gun formation vs gun formation? not pretty.
Thanks to the bayonet, gun formations were also non-gun formations, and any use of firearms needed to not only be effective against firearms, they also needed to be able to prevent a charge into melee and overrun - thus, a formation to provide volume of fire. It's not about being accurate. It's about throwing more bullets downrange because you're not accurate. If a gun formation can't provide a credible threat, then the enemy will just send swordsmen against you and they'll win, with minimal losses, because you didn't throw enough pellets at them.


While its true only 10 people can hear you, you could just split 100 marksmen into 10 units of 10 people each, each person in a unit fires at once, but the 10 units are separate.

If you had command of a unit like that, attacked by a single opposing formation of 100, they wouldn't bother to fire at you. They'd let you fire, and while your guys were taking a minute to reload their weapons, theyd run into melee and overwhelm one or two of your 10-man subunits because they're in a tighter and stronger formation than you are, and you can't throw enough bullets downrange to intimidate them into stopping and firing back.

Edit: You may go, "Well, I'll just fire from farther back! They're guns, after all." That totally won't work. The effective range of muskets suck. It is entirely possible to sprint from _outside_ the effective range of a musket to kick a musketeer in the face before they can reload their weapon from having fired it at you.

Then, once they're in ur base, killing ur dudes, using your primitive firearms is a waste of time. Your troops are now melee troops, and in a horrible formation that will get them killed against a larger, cohesive formation.

Until the invention of the rifle, there was no such thing as a marksman. No 'one shot, one kill'.

Weimann
2010-03-17, 09:28 AM
Actually, that point is only conveyed IN-character. That particular wizard feels that way in-character.If the character reasons like that, I agree it's a well-developed character trait that opens many possibilities.

If it is instead the reasoning of the player, it's a line of thought that closes possibilities, since it diminishes the number of different concepts.

I read it more as the opinion of the player than the character; but I might be wrong.
For me, optimizing is implementing a concept in a way that makes you powerful. You can play a reclusive warrior that fights unarmed and gains powers through intense spiritual training, and be a whole number of things (from a Barbarian to a Monk to a Swordsage to a Cleric to some kind of Warhulk monster), but some of those choices will allow you to contribute meaningfully to the party, and others will leave you bleeding out in the dirt. Optimizing and roleplaying aren't opposites; if anything, they go hand in hand. The better you are at optimizing, the more archetypes and variations you can pull off without dropping below the effectiveness mark. Playing a blaster is a suboptimal choice compared to a BC Wizard, but if you can optimize that blaster, you can still be feared far and wide, because instead of doing the same thing that the Fighter does but less often, you reduce enemies to ash with a wave of your hand. It's harder to roleplay a whole slew of characters when you can't contribute meaningfully to the party, but it doesn't make any concept easier.For me, optimizing means implementing a concept in a way that makes you the most powerful. That's what "optimal" actually means; "the most effective" or "the best".

Naturally, you can impose conditions on the procedure, just as you describe.Your unarmed warrior can be any of the classes you mention, but in the end, one combination of these will serve your purposes better than every other combination. That is the optimized choice; the rest are not optimized.

My point is that it's okay to be optimized, and it's also okay to not be, since even a choice that is not optimal can still be quite useful.


No.

It's not a binary choice - neither characterization nor optimization. Both are continuums. The more powerful you want your character, the fewer character concepts you are limited to as a direct result of the fact that some mechanical configuraitons are more powerful than others. Yes, you can work with the DM to reflavor configurations to different concepts than they were made for, but that involves extra effort to do what a person making a less powerful character does without trying.

Similarly, any character concept you select has a chance of not having a mechanical configuration of sufficient power associated with it. You can discard the concept entirely, instead opting for an optimizable concept, or you can work with the DM to create or modify a character that is of sufficient power for your concept - but doing so entails extra effort that someone playing a concept with a more optimal character does not need to invest.

So it's not a matter of most powerful. Just more or less powerful. Characters in different games have wildly distinct levels of power, and that helps to dictate the style of play - from characters who consider dogs or other housepets potent and fearful enemies, to characters who reshape entire universes through their power - roleplaying can include it all.

To try and recast the continuum of character power as a matter of 'winning' or 'losing' at character creation, or a matter of being useful or not useful (basically the same claim), is to refuse to acknowledge this versatility inherent not only in individual games but in the entire genre of roleplaying games.Huh. This is in fact kind of what I was saying in my post, with one important difference; you say that "optimization" is a scale, whereas I view it as a fixed point, as I've described earlier in the post.

The fact that one character is not optimized does not have to imply that it's weak; neither does a strong character have to be optimized. None of that necessarily has any implication on role-playing either.

taltamir
2010-03-17, 09:48 AM
If you had command of a unit like that, attacked by a single opposing formation of 100, they wouldn't bother to fire at you. They'd let you fire, and while your guys were taking a minute to reload their weapons, theyd run into melee and overwhelm one or two of your 10-man subunits because they're in a tighter and stronger formation than you are, and you can't throw enough bullets downrange to intimidate them into stopping and firing back.

now you are throwing in vastly superior numbers... why is it 100 of them vs 10 of mine? it should be 10 vs 10... or 100 vs 100 to measure the usefulness of a tactic. (superior numbers or superior weapons is not a tactic)

You can have multiple of your units of 10 working together as well.

you seem to say formation to mean "not total chaos". I originally referred to "standing in a row on an open field" instead of "taking cover, ambushing, and using intelligent tactics". part of why I said phalanx gun formation rather then just "any formation at all"... having some form of organization helps

Yukitsu
2010-03-17, 10:22 AM
now you are mixing superior tactics with superior weaponry. sure, swordsmen vs a gun formation the gun formation wins. But gun formation vs gun formation? not pretty.

The musket was an inferior weapon to a longbow. Less accurate, couldn't be fired in deep ranks, couldn't be fired indirectly at all, wasn't as accurate, much slower reload time. It was used over other weapons because it was easy to use, cheaper and faster to make, and because the sound and smoke were demoralizing.

Besides, old school archers formed up in long lines and ranks to volume fire as well.


I don't know where people get the idea that having a formation somehow improves your accuracy, each individual is just as inaccurate. If you are firing on more closely grouped enemies you are likely to hit someone, if you have a group of your own firing together at one target one is likely to hit...
there are certainly advantages to the gun formation compared to total random chaos (for example, less friendly fire) but not being the worst tactic isn't the same as being a good tactic..

The advantage wasn't accuracy, it was because it won battles. Fights aren't determined by the army that kills the most due to accurate independant fire and skirmish tactics, it's based on who runs away first. Volume of fire and simultaneous deaths lead to routing formations faster than a few deaths here and there.


While its true only 10 people can hear you, you could just split 100 marksmen into 10 units of 10 people each, each person in a unit fires at once, but the 10 units are separate.

You'd get too dispersed fire, and as you took losses, you'd wind up with completely ineffective fire teams.

What happens in small groups against large groups in that era of war, is that your 10 groups of 10 would sporadically kill about 10 men. The line would retalliate with the decimation of a full group of 10. From that point on, no group of 10 will want to be in their line of fire, and if they see the formation presenting in their direction, they may flee. If this happens to enough small groups, they lose the battle.

Edit: Oh right. It also takes 500 men in a single group to repel cavalry charges.

Indon
2010-03-17, 10:39 AM
You can have multiple of your units of 10 working together as well.
Oh, that's what I was talking about. They'd just charge into the middle of your dudes, skewer the teams you have in the middle, then hunt down and kill your other fire teams essentially at their leisure.


you seem to say formation to mean "not total chaos". I originally referred to "standing in a row on an open field" instead of "taking cover, ambushing, and using intelligent tactics".
Those are the same thing.

Gun formations can't reliably take cover without a constructed emplacement (because if you even do so much as hit the deck, the already lengthy reload time you're working with becomes even longer, and now you can't be ready to fire by the time you're expected to. The formation thus no longer produces a meaningful volume of fire, so your opponent runs up and skewers your guys while they're trying to reload) - and such an emplacement just means the opposing gun formation executes a melee charge instead. Muskets - and, in fact, non-auto rifles - aren't devastating enough to function as a deterrent to that tactic. It's not until the gatling gun that it stopped being a good idea to charge emplacements.

Ambushing a gun formation is not feasible with gun troops. Either you have ground gun troops, which aren't intimidating in small number and can't ambush in large number, or you have mounted troops, who can't use guns while moving anyway so if they used guns it would be the equivalent of showing up nearby and opening fire anyway, which is exactly what ground troops did. Cavalry used melee weapons to ambush.

Until the invention of the rifle, the gun-phalanx was intelligent tactics. It was basically the only way to effectively apply personal firearms on the field of war until they invented firearms you could actually aim. It was used in a combined arms paradigm with cavalry and artillery to cover its' glaring weaknesses.

Gametime
2010-03-17, 12:05 PM
It's not a binary choice - neither characterization nor optimization. Both are continuums. The more powerful you want your character, the fewer character concepts you are limited to as a direct result of the fact that some mechanical configuraitons are more powerful than others.

This is true - past a certain point - but below a certain threshold of power I think you actually start to lose more character concepts than you gain. A sickly little goblin with all 6's for stats is severely limited in what sort of character concept he can embody, for example.

I don't have any evidence to back this up, and the real numbers are probably much more complicated, but I suspect the power-character concept ratio more or less fits a bell curve. I'm not sure where the average sits, though.

Indon
2010-03-17, 12:10 PM
This is true - past a certain point - but below a certain threshold of power I think you actually start to lose more character concepts than you gain. A sickly little goblin with all 6's for stats is severely limited in what sort of character concept he can embody, for example.
Certainly, but if you optimize to a power level higher than that, you probably can't access any of them.

Emphasizing characterization doesn't keep you from playing characters that naturally gravitate towards being more powerful (like, say, Exalts). It can, however, dictate the rough power level of your character concept - you can't be all, "I want to make an Exalt!" and then go run in a campaign inspired by Kobolds Ate My Baby. Not without extensively working with the DM, anyway, to ensure your character is in-line for the campaign.

Frosty
2010-03-17, 01:16 PM
I just don't see what the fuss is about. Power and good roleplaying are two different things. You ALWAYS need good roleplaying and a well-developed character. This point is fixed. And the power issue is something you work out with your DM. If the DM feels that a weak character will work fine in his campaign, then by all means feel free to play one!

Yukitsu
2010-03-17, 01:19 PM
I just don't see what the fuss is about. Power and good roleplaying are two different things. You ALWAYS need good roleplaying and a well-developed character. This point is fixed. And the power issue is something you work out with your DM. If the DM feels that a weak character will work fine in his campaign, then by all means feel free to play one!

I'd add to this, if the DM isn't careful, and the character or characters keep dying, a long running and cohesive story becomes rather difficult.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-03-17, 01:25 PM
For me, optimizing means implementing a concept in a way that makes you the most powerful. That's what "optimal" actually means; "the most effective" or "the best".

Naturally, you can impose conditions on the procedure, just as you describe.Your unarmed warrior can be any of the classes you mention, but in the end, one combination of these will serve your purposes better than every other combination. That is the optimized choice; the rest are not optimized.

Generally, optimizing is making you the best possible within a certain set of constraints; the set of conditions isn't an optional addition, it's the whole point, or every single optimizer would simply play Pun-Pun. The point of optimization is to take a concept and realize that in the best way mechanically--you don't necessarily have to optimize for "most powerful wizard," you can go for "most powerful arcane blaster," and while you wouldn't be the most powerful wizard possible, in the subset of blaster wizards you would be the most powerful.

Where roleplaying comes in is setting those constraints. You decide on a concept you want and make that work as best you can. I disagree with Indon's characterization on this point--you're not really limited conceptually by the power level you want, you're limited power-wise by the concept you're going for. If you say "I want to be the most powerful wizard ever!" your concept is a powerful wizard, and there are a certain quantity of builds that can qualify as "most powerful wizard." In contrast, if you say "I want to be the most powerful [blaster|face|buffer|etc.] ever!" there are more concepts that work for you, because you open up the possibilities of other classes, other measures of power, and so forth. While there are definitely roleplaying limits on optimization, I don't think overall power level is among them.

Caphi
2010-03-17, 01:30 PM
You can define more than that. My character's have what I think of as a "style". It's not always easy to define in words, but I can usually see whether something goes with the character's style, totally goes against it, or is style-neutral. Within the style, I optimize. I turn down as many weak but on-style options as I do powerful off-style ones for any given character, because my goal is to play the style as well as I can with my abilities.

Secondarily, I have the ability to cap the power level of what I pick for the sake of the group. No point redundating the rest of the party when I could be diverting energy to being better at my specialty, more helpful in other situations, or a fluffier character sheet.