Minimizing and Maximizing

[bignate]

just to throw in my 2c...

you character mechanics should be defined by your concept, not the other way around.

i have no problem with optimising characters, but i do think that it should be done only within the confines of a solid character concept...in other words, dont make a choice for optimization if it doesnt fit the concept/background/personality of your character. like when you think of a PRC you want you shouldnt be think about it for the mechanical advantage it gives you but whether or not the class description fits your character concept.

[Reel On, Love]

just to throw in my 2c...

you character mechanics should be defined by your concept, not the other way around.

i have no problem with optimising characters, but i do think that it should be done only within the confines of a solid character concept...in other words, dont make a choice for optimization if it doesnt fit the concept/background/personality of your character. like when you think of a PRC you want you shouldnt be think about it for the mechanical advantage it gives you but whether or not the class description fits your character concept.

Why?

filler text

[Kaelik]

just to throw in my 2c...

you character mechanics should be defined by your concept, not the other way around.

i have no problem with optimising characters, but i do think that it should be done only within the confines of a solid character concept...in other words, dont make a choice for optimization if it doesnt fit the concept/background/personality of your character. like when you think of a PRC you want you shouldnt be think about it for the mechanical advantage it gives you but whether or not the class description fits your character concept.

The class description rarely has anything to do with what someone who takes levels in the class can actually do. As such it makes more sense to judge if the abilities gained fit your concept, not the class description.

[Chronos]

There are two different ways to handicap a character. The first is to say "I want this character to be less powerful so my roleplaying will be better", and to then deliberately gimp the character somehow. This is a bad idea, and hampers your roleplaying more than it helps it. The second way is to say "Such-and-such a choice fits the character profile I've developed, so I'm going to choose it even though something else would be more powerful". This is good roleplaying, or at least, one example of it.

On the question of how much this is worth, I would say that any choice is worthwhile if it increases the fun of the campaign. The purpose of the game is to have fun; rolling dice and fighting monsters and such is just the means towards that end. If your character dies irrevokably, but in such a way that everyone around the table looks at each other and says "That was so cool!", then the character was a success. It should be noted that good roleplaying and fun often go hand in hand, but not always: If you do a great job of roleplaying an annoying twerp that nobody can stand to be around, it's not going to make things very fun for the rest of the group.

[Jannex]

There are two different ways to handicap a character. The first is to say "I want this character to be less powerful so my roleplaying will be better", and to then deliberately gimp the character somehow. This is a bad idea, and hampers your roleplaying more than it helps it. The second way is to say "Such-and-such a choice fits the character profile I've developed, so I'm going to choose it even though something else would be more powerful". This is good roleplaying, or at least, one example of it.

It could be that my D&D experience is somewhat limited, but I've never encountered anyone who took the first approach described here. From what I've seen on this forum, whenever the topic of optimization vs. roleplaying comes up, inevitably the stereotype of the "so-called roleplayer" who wants to play the blind, quadripelegic Venerable kobold commoner gets trotted out to be vilified. The implication that seems to be made (and I'm not claiming that you're saying this, Chronos; I'm speaking generally here) is that non-optimizing self-identified roleplayers play characters that are gimped to the point of uselessness, and there also tends to be a bit of the claim that, since optimizers can roleplay well with optimized characters, they're actually better at roleplaying than the "roleplayers." This is just as false as the Stormwind Fallacy. It's possible to make a character that isn't super-optimized and still contribute materially to the actions and goals of a party. "Heavily-optimized character or dyslexic kobold CW-samurai" is a false dilemma.

Letting roleplaying concerns guide one's build choices != gimping one's character. It just means that if, for instance, you've established from first level that your character has a terrible phobia of heights, you should probably not go for the super-mounted-charger-on-a-griffon build. There are other effective options available. Also, putting one feat or a few skill points toward flavor choices != building a kobold samurai.

So, once again, enjoying (and focusing on) roleplaying more than optimizing does not mean a person's character sucks or can't contribute.

</rant>

We now return you to your regularly-scheduled thread.

[Chronos]

I think we're agreeing here, Jannex.

[Jannex]

I think we're agreeing here, Jannex.

Fair enough. Like I tried (and probably failed; my fault) to say, most of that wasn't directed at what you said. Mostly what happened was something in your post sparked off the thought of the trend I talked about in my last post, something I think I saw starting to creep into this thread on the first page, and I was responding to that, with a brief detour to touch on what you'd said.

It's true, though; I really never have seen anyone deliberately handicap his character in order to roleplay better. I have, however, seen someone completely break characterization to go for the potential for gain (in this case, he was a LN character who was effectively part of the local military/law enforcement, and he decided to break into a non-evil, non-enemy NPC's house and start looting, because the player wanted his character to be able to afford a weapon enhancement), so I get kind of twitchy when people (not you, but generally) start to get close to "Inverse Stormwind" territory.

[kamikasei]

Slexlollar, the problem I had with your initial post was here:

I see many, in fact most forum goers to imply maximizing character power over RPing, while disaproving of mnimizing and great RPing. I therefore ask: Why?

Now, I'll be honest, the sentence is a little mangled so perhaps I'm misunderstanding you... but it seems you're saying that you've seen people disapproving of "great roleplaying". I would be very interested to see an example of where you've seen this, because it sounds very unlikely to me. If you mean merely that people have expressed disapproval of mechanical choices that you see as tied to "great roleplaying", then it comes off as a little arrogant.

I also have no idea what the "minimizing" that people have disapproved of is supposed to be. Commoner 1 with all 1's, and a 3 in Int. You're more or less minimized.

just to throw in my 2c...

you character mechanics should be defined by your concept, not the other way around.

i have no problem with optimising characters, but i do think that it should be done only within the confines of a solid character concept...in other words, dont make a choice for optimization if it doesnt fit the concept/background/personality of your character. like when you think of a PRC you want you shouldnt be think about it for the mechanical advantage it gives you but whether or not the class description fits your character concept.

I'm currently playing a Warblade on these boards who is Lawful Neutral, not out for glory or looking for fame, and received no very formal training in any particular martial school. These are all at odds with the fluff of the Warblade. It doesn't matter, because the mechanics of the class add up to a canny and skilled warrior who can fight very well and has a thorough understanding of weapons and warfare, which is what I want for my character. There is or can be a tension between the mechanically best allocation of abilities and what makes sense for the character's personality or concept, but it's a more dynamic tension than you suggest.

[Stormcrow]

I may have misinterpreted but I believe the question was more directed at characters/players who don't care about the story aspect, just the power aspect. Any character can be roleplayed well if the player _wants_ to.

Some people don't. *shrugs*
It's their choice, they are looking for something else from the game.
I choose not to game with those people, also a choice.

[slexlollar89]

Well, kamikasei the sentance was badly written. I mean to say that I have seen quite a few people that optimize characters without any IC reason to support RPing, or people favor maximizing characters over RPing. This is not to say that they do not RP, but they simply take power over character. I am not saying it is bad or good, but wondering whether or not most people do this. When I refer to usefulness, I mean the ability to support the group and oneself, which is not always part of optimizing a character or role playing. I am atempting to gauge how most people feel about optimization, usefulness, and roleplaying, and the balancing act that is the DnD character (in respect to these 3 things).

My intention is not to be arrogant (though I often am), but rather to figure out a problem I have balancing these three things within a character. The question is directed towards anyone who cares about the issue, but is not attempting to impose playstyles on others.

I hope this clears things up, as I was writting the first post at 3:00 AM without cafine, and the first "clarification" hurriedly, though that is no excuse for poor writing .

[Indon]

"Heavily-optimized character or dyslexic kobold CW-samurai" is a false dilemma...

...building a kobold samurai.

Hmm... I wonder how Dragonwrought feats could be used to make a powerful kobold samurai...

Perhaps serving a dragon, in fact, as his lord?

[Bosh]

In a good D&D group each player gets about the same amout of the spotlight on them. If a player min-maxes the hell out of their character so that most fights are about them destroying everything while the rest of the party cowers behind them, that's spotlight hogging. If someone RPs in such a way that the story must always be about them then that's just as bad. In my experience some of the worst munchkins are also very into RPing since the character's stats and the character's personality are both designed to focus as much of the session's attention as possible on them.

Now there are a lot of ways aside from combat power that can allow a player to get some of the campaign's spotlight but in a combat-heavy game like D&D its certainly the easiest way. In most D&D campaigns everyone tends to have the most fun if everyone's power is roughly equal to everyone else's.

[bignate]

The class description rarely has anything to do with what someone who takes levels in the class can actually do. As such it makes more sense to judge if the abilities gained fit your concept, not the class description.

for base classes i agree with you but when i comes to PRCs it is different. they are called "prestige" classes for a reason. there should be some kind of RP attachment to them which most of the time involves joining a group of some kind or a teacher and that group or teacher should choose you(or you them)for matching ideals...not just mechanical requirements.

why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.

that being said there is no reason to purposly gimp yourself either...if there is some feat or class or something that is good and makes sense with your concept by all mean go for it, i just dont think you should maximise at the expense of your concept.

[Dausuul]

for base classes i agree with you but when i comes to PRCs it is different. they are called "prestige" classes for a reason. there should be some kind of RP attachment to them which most of the time involves joining a group of some kind or a teacher and that group or teacher should choose you(or you them)for matching ideals...not just mechanical requirements.

why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.

that being said there is no reason to purposly gimp yourself either...if there is some feat or class or something that is good and makes sense with your concept by all mean go for it, i just dont think you should maximise at the expense of your concept.

As far as I'm concerned, if the mechanics of a PrC fit your concept better than the base class, and the DM thinks it's okay, then go for it, even if the description of the PrC is totally different from what you're playing.

The thing is that WotC built Third Edition with the concept of fluff and crunch as two discrete, disconnected elements. I'm not sure I agree with this approach, I think it leads to a lot of problems, but it's how WotC decided to do it.

Therefore, D&D works best if you come at it from the same direction. Crunch can be separated from its default fluff and connected to new fluff with a minimum of fuss. PrCs are mainly just fresh sources of crunch to hook onto the fluff of your character concept.

[Starbuck_II]

In regards to playability, <10 int doesn't mean you have to be retarded. For example, the 8 int fighter wouldn't cause chaos and be stupid stupid, just a little slow to do plans (the party wizard would have to explain things twice, or draw cartoons for the poor guy) or not understanding of certain ideas or customs, not a complete retard.

Depends on how you view Int.
If you rate it ona IQ scale. 8 Int is 80 IQ, can be considered mildly retarded. They aren't stupid stupid; just slow.

[horseboy]

why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.

That's debatable in D&D.

[sikyon]

why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.

Actually, you're missing the forest for the trees.

See, it's a roleplaying game, game being the operative word. People play games for fun. Thus, people will play those games and do what makes them have the most fun. Some people derive this feeling of fun from winning/killing monsters, and less (though not none) from RP'ing, and that's what they do. They play this game because for some people, it's more satisfying to win withe dice and other players and a DM, and roleplay abit, and that's why they're not off playing Wold of Warcraft instead.

So it depends on the person. If the person considers winning more fun than roleplaying, they will play to win. If a person considers role playing more fun than winning, they will roleplay instead of optimizing.

[valadil]

I was asking at what cost is maximizing worth better roleplaying, or indeed if this is a factor.

This is a personal question that's going to vary from gamer to gamer. I get a lot more out of roleplaying than out of powergaming so I try to focus on the RP. But, I get bored of a character who either has nothing to do or can't hold his own in combat. I'll sacrifice bits of character in favor of optimization until the character is on par with the rest of the party. I don't need to be the best combatant there, but I do need to feel that I have something to do every turn and that it will make a difference.

I have the advantage of playing in groups that I've known for a while. When I run with new groups I don't have a good idea of how they powergame so I'll aim too high or too low for a couple characters until I figure out how that group plays.

--

To the people who are debating if D&D is strategy or RP, D&D itself supports both. Certain games run by certain GMs will favor one or the other. Just because the name of the game is Dungeons and Dragons does not mean there will be dungeons or dragons involved. A group full of roleplayers don't appreciate that one guy who powergames everything, and likewise a group who is in it just for combat wouldn't like a player who made them talk to an innkeeper for 20 minutes. The game goes where the GM takes it and can be strategy, story, or both, but you should be aware of what type of game you're getting into whenever you start a new game.

[Kaelik]

for base classes i agree with you but when i comes to PRCs it is different. they are called "prestige" classes for a reason. there should be some kind of RP attachment to them which most of the time involves joining a group of some kind or a teacher and that group or teacher should choose you(or you them)for matching ideals...not just mechanical requirements.

why? because it is a roleplaying game not a combat strategy game, your character concept should come first and your combat mechanics second.

that being said there is no reason to purposly gimp yourself either...if there is some feat or class or something that is good and makes sense with your concept by all mean go for it, i just dont think you should maximise at the expense of your concept.

Not so. Most PrCs have nothing to do with an organization to begin with. Secondly, you completely missed my point.

My point is that if your character is likely to, as a sorcerer, have put a great deal of effort into learning about all sorts of spell, and worked at learning more spells then the average sorcerer because he never wants to rely on anyone else, he could take levels in Mage of the Arcane Order. The spellpool could reflect that he has learned to manipulate magic in a special way that allows him to be more versatile, as long as he pays it back. All you need to do is change the fluff to say that he is tapping into the Arcane Energies of the Universe instead of borrowing from a guild. Thus he gains abilities that make sense for his character, and he fits the concept.

Something would have to be done about the Pre-reqs, not that the money matters much, just say something about arcane components and a ritual, or drop that pre-req completely. But if he never wants to rely on others maybe the pre-req feat should be changed from Cooperative Spell to Versatile Spellcaster.

[Quietus]

As far as I'm concerned, if the mechanics of a PrC fit your concept better than the base class, and the DM thinks it's okay, then go for it, even if the description of the PrC is totally different from what you're playing.

The thing is that WotC built Third Edition with the concept of fluff and crunch as two discrete, disconnected elements. I'm not sure I agree with this approach, I think it leads to a lot of problems, but it's how WotC decided to do it.

Therefore, D&D works best if you come at it from the same direction. Crunch can be separated from its default fluff and connected to new fluff with a minimum of fuss. PrCs are mainly just fresh sources of crunch to hook onto the fluff of your character concept.

I actually like how WotC did that. The ability to separate fluff and crunch is useful, because that way when (for example) a particular prestige class's abilities completely match what you describe your character as trying to do, but their fluff happens to not match even in the slightest, you can change it. I find that this facilitates a greater range of roleplaying possibilities, rather than limiting them in any way.

[cupkeyk]

It could be that my D&D experience is somewhat limited, but I've never encountered anyone who took the first approach described here.

Actually, we had this player who played a cleric who got disillusioned with his god and lost all his domain abilities and spellcasting ability and turning abilities. We were like oh, okay... are you going into UR-Priest? He said, What's that?

It was like one of us was a commoner, but he insisted he wanted the drama. So we gave him a dramatic death.

[Lord Tataraus]

This is a little late, but...

...I really never have seen anyone deliberately handicap his character in order to roleplay better. I have, however, seen someone completely break characterization to go for the potential for gain...

Be glad that first statement is true. From experience, those people exist and I ran multiple games with one. He once said "But, I want this handicap because it will make my character more interesting." In a mutants and masterminds 2e game his character had 10 Con, 0 defence, 0 fort, 1 toughness and focused completely on telekinesis with one rank of flight. He always wondered why he was unconscious so much and didn't do anything. In a cyberpunk 2020 game where the party was a group of mercs/assassins, he built a Fixer based around "blending into a crowd at a party hosted by some big corporate guy" even though we tried to explain to him before that he will likely never get into one and that was not the direction the game was going to go. He had a number of other builds like those that their really was no way to incorporate his character enough without screwing everyone else. Luckily, I have not had your experience where the player breaks the characterization though I could handle that.

[Dausuul]

I actually like how WotC did that. The ability to separate fluff and crunch is useful, because that way when (for example) a particular prestige class's abilities completely match what you describe your character as trying to do, but their fluff happens to not match even in the slightest, you can change it. I find that this facilitates a greater range of roleplaying possibilities, rather than limiting them in any way.

It does. I think my main problem is that having this conceptual separation has made WotC excessively cavalier about making sure the two sync up; they don't put enough effort into making sure that the crunch reflects the fluff in a reasonable way.

This is a little late, but...

Be glad that first statement is true. From experience, those people exist and I ran multiple games with one. He once said "But, I want this handicap because it will make my character more interesting." In a mutants and masterminds 2e game his character had 10 Con, 0 defence, 0 fort, 1 toughness and focused completely on telekinesis with one rank of flight. He always wondered why he was unconscious so much and didn't do anything. In a cyberpunk 2020 game where the party was a group of mercs/assassins, he built a Fixer based around "blending into a crowd at a party hosted by some big corporate guy" even though we tried to explain to him before that he will likely never get into one and that was not the direction the game was going to go. He had a number of other builds like those that their really was no way to incorporate his character enough without screwing everyone else. Luckily, I have not had your experience where the player breaks the characterization though I could handle that.

I think my reaction to players like that is to say, "Okay, if you really really want to roleplay this character, that's fine, but I'm going to suggest that the other players roleplay their characters as well. Guys, would your characters let this guy tag along after them while they venture into dangerous situations where everyone on the team has to pull his own weight? ...Okay, then. Better make up a new character if you want to be in this party."

[Fawsto]

I think I was able to understand the main question. Whether a optimized character would or not geopardize roleplaying?

I've seen many players building, for example, "perfect killing machines" fighters, but they had mostly 2 types.

The Perfect Killing Machine with personality and MinMax (see Goblins when you have the chance). What makes them diferent? Well the first one is build over the personality and story developed by the player in order to roleplay a good character, the second one is created with the "DM - You see the Barman, what you do? MinMax Player - EXPERIENCE!!! *hack n' slash*" idea in mind. Can you tell the diference?

I am not saying that Pillage and Burning can't be fun, I am saying that some campaings need characters with, at least, appearant personalities.

[axraelshelm]

okay here's something we play heroes! heroes have quirks and certain behavior patterns that is fun to act out.
Having a powerful character is no means wrong but rping is not about power if so every party out there is going to play druids and clerics.
Does batman feel gimped compared to the other justice league members?

Although i do have a problem when a person takes more than one prc it just feels like the character isn't focused in learning that path that s/he took ages to qualify for feels very uncinematic

[trainer343]

Well, kamikasei the sentance was badly written. I mean to say that I have seen quite a few people that optimize characters without any IC reason to support RPing, or people favor maximizing characters over RPing. This is not to say that they do not RP, but they simply take power over character. I am not saying it is bad or good, but wondering whether or not most people do this. When I refer to usefulness, I mean the ability to support the group and oneself, which is not always part of optimizing a character or role playing. I am atempting to gauge how most people feel about optimization, usefulness, and roleplaying, and the balancing act that is the DnD character (in respect to these 3 things).

Optimization: I do the best I can to be as bad @$$ as I can within the limits of what everyone else in my group will allow. (Apperently the Sand Giant Were-T. Rex is out.)

Usefulness: I try to help the party as much as possible anyway I can...Meatsheild, door maker, melee god of death. Whatever needs done.

Roleplaying: This is where I have trouble. Most of the time, I'm not even sure if I said something in or out of the game. It just dosn't come naturally. Luckly, I usally play slightly unstable, evil characters, so it's rarely a problem.

All in all, it tends to work out.

[Kaelik]

okay here's something we play heroes! heroes have quirks and certain behavior patterns that is fun to act out.
Having a powerful character is no means wrong but rping is not about power if so every party out there is going to play druids and clerics.
Does batman feel gimped compared to the other justice league members?

Although i do have a problem when a person takes more than one prc it just feels like the character isn't focused in learning that path that s/he took ages to qualify for feels very uncinematic

The biggest problem with your post is that Batman is the best Justice League member. Batman>All.

The second problem is that no one ever claimed that Rping was about power (though depending on your character, it could be.) Some people pointed out that RPing an Power are separate concerns in response to some other people claiming that they are mutually exclusive.

[slexlollar89]

Another thing I happen to notice, especially in this thread, is that weak characters (more specifically minimized characters like the cleric who lost his casting/domains due to a tiff with his god) are simply killed off, or not valued. The cleric may have been roleplaying his character, and though no fault of his own was killed. Now, I'm not saying that RPing should make you immune to death, or that weak characters should never die, simply that a weaker character should still be seen as a asset to the party.

For example, I was a LE palladin who traveled to Celestia to convince a celestial paragon to give me some of his blood (for ritual purposes). He of course refused, and asked me to leave. So, I gave sly hints about a plot to destroy the heavens (which was true), but still no. Later, I was redeemed, and gave the paragon his blood back. As a NG "risen" palladin, I was near worthless, and had to often run or seek aid during battles. It was only after helping the paragon that I became a NG palladin (I used Fax's variant which is awesome). During my "risen" stage, I was weak, and largely useless, but the party didn't abandon my character and the DM didn't kill me graciously. That was part of the reason I was truly redeemed actually.

SO why do people see deliberatly gimping thyself as a bad thing?

[horseboy]

Does batman feel gimped compared to the other justice league members?

Why do you think he's being all dark and brooding about? Of course he resents the rest of them. They come to his satelite, eat his food (and can the Flash eat), mooch his cable and the rat bastards won't take their shoes off when they're walking on his carpet. Personally, I wonder why he keeps them around.

SO why do people see deliberatly gimping thyself as a bad thing?

That depends on how much your group likes angstburgers. Personally, at this time I'll point to how Shinji ruined Evangelon for me because of his constant deliberate self gimping.

[Starbuck_II]

okay here's something we play heroes! heroes have quirks and certain behavior patterns that is fun to act out.
Having a powerful character is no means wrong but rping is not about power if so every party out there is going to play druids and clerics.
Does batman feel gimped compared to the other justice league members?

Although i do have a problem when a person takes more than one prc it just feels like the character isn't focused in learning that path that s/he took ages to qualify for feels very uncinematic

Only if you view Prc class as a focus instead of a set of capabilities that need to be unlocked.
Similiar to a feat.
Example, my Wu Jen has capabilty to reroll stuff from watchful spirit so Fatespinner is just naturally evolved from that. But due to my character's vow of no alcohol (Wu Jen have to get Taboos): spend most of time in Library when rest of party in bar. So LoreMaster fits pursuit of knowledge aspect.
I can't fulfill both with just 1 Prc.

So it depends on view of Prc.
1) Some see them as flavor must = class.
2) Some see them as organizations all of them (though many Classes saw otherwise)
3) Some see them as I do feat like abilities waiting to be unlocked to better fulfill a character concept.