>>43453874 I have only met one of these people in person. He is known for having no friends, not showering and having aspergers. The ones I have seen online seem to think a character is not good unless they have a tragic back story and have no particular strengths or specialties.
>>43453874 Honestly, you can't tell which a person is thinking of unless you observe their writing. Verbally, Role, and Roll are homonyms so there isn't any difference when you say it. In truth, there is only one spelling, Roleplayer, unless someone is playing as a ball, then it would be Rollplayer.
>>43453874 >Wait? did you put your best stat into your main class's stat? that's minmaxing!! >Your character is good at what he's supposed to be? that's powergaming!! I love this kind of people, they're incredible hilarious
>>43453874 I game with people like this. It's not so bad, until the one dickhead dungeoncrawler DM considers a character is munchin material for being built decently and tries killing him/her. He one time told the group. "If you make my job as a DM hard, I'll kill your character." It's balanced out because we cycle through DMs, and the one that focuses on roleplaying knows how to handle bullshit characters without it being a blatant attack on one person. He'll add things in anticipation for him so it will still be a challenge for the group. Not too bad.
>>43456831 There's a difference between making your character good at what they do, versus having them do everything better than everyone else and stealing the spotlight. Most groups are mature enough to avoid that behavior, but the ones that don't end up memed up here as rollplayers.
Strangely, one of the most twinked out groups of players I ever rolled with introduced themselves by saying this. Once I caught on, I started reading optimization guides and learning D&D inside and out so I could perform as well as they did in combat. It was a fun metagame, but I guess my point is that this statement is very much YMMV - to them, munchkining and minmaxing didn't real until you started relying on a questionable interpretation of the rules or something that was clearly RAW but not RAI
>>43456881 >...but the ones that don't end up memed up here as rollplayers. Which would be fine, if there weren't people who decide to lump anybody with even the most basic of system mastery with those people.
>>43456831 There's a difference between building an effective character and squeezing for every point allocation and loophole to the point that the fiction/play experience suffers.
It's fine if your Fighting Guy is kinda dumb and rude because those points are more useful to you in his physical attributes. It's downright obnoxious when someone builds their character so stupid and socially inept that it actively disrupts the rest of the party's attempts to do anything noncombat just so they could put a few more points in Fist, and then when combat comes around he renders the rest of them irrelvant.
People don't care about your build until it starts inconveniencing them in play or making them feel useless, really.
>>43453874 sadly i fell out with a long time friend over it. He insisted that roleplaying was an artform and not "fun", and any level of things such as combat, and trivial metagaming (such as not killing another party member for the sake of the game) was not roleplaying.
>>43457847 Then that's the system's fault. If you're playing say FFG's star wars, you're going to have a character with modest capabilities in any respect bar perhaps your race's weak point (drall aren't beefy, for instance), doesn't matter how much you specialise.
If in the process of making a character with as much fist as possible you end up with a mentally incapable character that's the SYSTEM's fault, play a better fucking game.
>>43453874 They should go play a system where minmaxing is easy. This does two things: - The roleplayers will find their characters are really close to being minmaxed without them even trying. - Minmaxers who care only about the rollplay happen less. Probably because they can't put hours into minmaxing so they either stick with a system where they can, or they spend the time on the roleplay.
>>43453874 There's great games out there for them. The thing that people have a hard time understanding is that DnD is not the system for that. DnD has shitty options for roleplaying. The game encourages roleplaying as much as say Cosmic Encounter does. What you're there to do ultimately is kill monsters and traverse a dungeon and there's only a handful of skills that involve interactions with NPCs in a non combat way with absolutely shit tier mechanics in the books for even handling those skills. That's why so many people are breaking away from DnD finally.
Give them a Fate system or a Gumshoe system or hell, give them some of the Fantasy Flight Star Wars systems. They'll feel right at home and the power gamers can be the ones left complaining about how the rules don't accompany their style for once.
>>43458967 >There's great games out there for them. The thing that people have a hard time understanding is that DnD is not the system for that. DnD has shitty options for roleplaying. The game encourages roleplaying as much as say Cosmic Encounter does. What you're there to do ultimately is kill monsters and traverse a dungeon and there's only a handful of skills that involve interactions with NPCs in a non combat way with absolutely shit tier mechanics in the books for even handling those skills. That's why so many people are breaking away from DnD finally. >Give them a Fate system or a Gumshoe system or hell, give them some of the Fantasy Flight Star Wars systems. They'll feel right at home and the power gamers can be the ones left complaining about how the rules don't accompany their style for once.
>>43458993 >>43458997 >>43459013 And here we have the powergamers confused by the very idea of mechanically encouraged roleplaying. It's not just about encompassing a wide variety of out of combat skills, it's also about their implementation outside of a pass or fail d20 roll. It's about skills that can influence those abilities, that say how they interact with NPCs, that make them more interesting.
Take the Fantasy Flight Star Wars dice for instance. Do you realize just how much you can add to a simple negotiation with an NPC thanks to the advantages/threat system?
>>43454028 this but powergaming and optimization is something different
a powergamer creates a character so this char is good above all, optimization is something different - you have a cool idea for a char and then you create him after this idea in a way that works good in a rule system
It's amazing how some people don't realise that you're always roleplaying in a game. When you're in combat, you're still roleplaying your character. When I'm rolling to climb a wall, I'm roleplaying my character climbing up a wall.
As for power-gaming: if one player put in the effort to make an effective character, good for them. It's not their fault if their fellow players aren't interested enough in the game to learn to play it. And if your game breaks so easily with one person just trying a little bit, it's a shitty game.
>>43459219 with idea for a char i didnt mean something abstract like "the best" i meant something specific like a arabian bard with a whip and a flute or a viking in medium-heavy armor with a sword and a throwing axe that loves sweet food
>>43459227 Roleplaying is narrative you dip. That's what every roleplayer is out to improve that war gamers are not. To argue anything less is retarded level of semantics that have nothing to do with the OP's post.
Here's a nice small example even you might understand. A roleplayer is ok with failure because failure happens in proper stories and can push the plot forward often times in even more interesting ways than success can. A power gamer needs to build to overcome that challenge or they might as well consider it game over. That's the difference between these 2 groups of people and these 2 kinds of systems.
>>43459239 If a game has abusable rules then it's a pretty shit game. Why would I play it unless I had no other choice?
It's not my fault if my friends are choosing to play a shit game instead of a well-designed one. They're the ones that didn't read the rules enough to see, for example, that the best way to be a cool spellsword is by being a Valor Bard, not an Eldritch Knight.
>>43459318 I play RPGs because I enjoy collaboratively telling stories with my friends, and I also enjoy engaging with mechanics that help with that. For example, most fantasy games help with the storytelling part of "the heroes have a tactical combat against their foes that they overcome with skill and valor", but they're not very good at helping with the "dinner with the prince" part of the story.
Since I want to play a heroic character in a fantasy RPG, I should strive to make my character as heroic and capable as possible. Otherwise they wouldn't be appropriate for the story being told.
>>43453874 If they have to emphasize, they're just as bad as highscore players. >useless dwarf fighter with all of his points in int that uses a slingshot with pebbles because he was a bookworm while growing up and he liked playing with slingshots with his brothers in a combat oriented RPG is just as bad as >the socially inept magefighterbard that is built to only kill the bad guys in a narrative RPG
>>43459424 That's why I said DnD just isn't a very good kind of system for roleplaying. If you don't optimize, you're being a shitter to the team in what will inevitably take up most of your time. Is this a mark of shame to DnD? No. It has it's audience and it does still offer a lot to do. It's just making a character outside of a heroic figure of power isn't welcome and there are plenty of other games for making interestingly flawed individuals outside of the description "sometimes is a douche"
No, you don't get it. Roleplaying is playing a role. Narrative is working with a story. The two things interact, but are in no way the same. You can work with a story without immersing in a role, and you can immerse in a role while doing things other than interacting with the narrative. You should really try to play more games, before coming here and spout bullshit.
>>43459122 You had me right up until you introduced the shitfest that is FFG star wars as a viable option.
I'll take unisystem's oh so terribly binary mechanic over that any day. Why? Because Pulling Strings actually lets me influence things through roleplay instead of tea leaf interpretations of a dice toss.
>>43459528 You and I aren't even arguing the same thing. You're arguing an ultra literally dissected version of the word that has nothing to do with anything and I'm talking about what the OP was talking about.
>>43459549 I like the system and you clearly have your grudge against it so I won't go far into that, but what it does at the very least is add at least a simple amount more thought to the process than pass or fail and generally treats it with the same level of investment as you would have to combat as to what you need to think about when building a character. There's better systems for raw roleplaying, but I like this system for at least mixing the two. I could tell you I like 13th Age as well and use that as an example but I feel like I'm walking on a minefield here trying not to mention a game I like that someone else doesn't.
>>43459395 >>43459439 I don't actually minmax very often, and try to confine it so that it scratches the appropriate itch while still serving the story.
For example, DnD 5th edition is a bad edition following a good one. Caster supremacy is back in full force. Therefore, I generally try to avoid playing full caster, and instead I minmax the hell out of a fighter or similar multiclass (current character is a Fighter1/Warlock3). This way, I'm still effective without taking over the campaign like a wizard or druid can.
But I'd be a bad player and an idiot if I played a straight fighter. You can tell just from reading the book that it's a shit class - anyone who actually paid attention to the game would realise they should play something else, e.g. a Paladin or Valor Bard refluffed to seem 'mundane'.
If the GM and group as a whole had sense, they'd play a balanced, well-designed system. Since they don't, you work with what you have.
>>43459659 >there are specific mechanics for bartender description
And this is why I won't GM either of those games. That sounds like a terrible hassle to go through for every single fucking NPC.
>>43459600 You can put the same amount of thought process into any diceroll without a system that goes completely overboard and decides it relevant for every single dice toss. It's nice for important rolls, but for piddly little stuff it's just obnoxious and slow. No thank you. Narrative dice have been done before, and done far better, by other games.
>>43459600 You and I aren't even arguing the same thing. You're arguing an ultra literally dissected version of the word that has nothing to do with anything and I'm talking about what the OP was talking about.
No, you mong. You posted a false dychotomy and then called everyone that disagreed with you a powerplayer. I'm trying to explain why you are wrong.
>>43459622 >As a player how do you influence the narrative outside of what you perform in the actions of your role?
Well, as you have mentioned, there are several games where you as a player can exert narrative control directly. Sometimes it's explicit, other times it's more subtle (for example. some of the more "gamey" mechanics form D&D 4e can be seen as this).
>>43459675 It only happens when it's brought up, really. For example if the fate guy has an aspect "I know a guy" or something, or DW brainstorming mechanics come into play. Not for every single character.
>>43459687 Pretty sure your picture is meant to have no opinion either way, not to share both extremes. I agree with the point though, people will disagree with how you like playing regardless of what you're interested in.
>>43453874 If the whole group WANTS to Rollplay, thats fine. If the whole group wants to roleplay, thats even better. The problem comes up if people wanna roleplay and some asshat just minmaxes the shit out of his character. We play pathfinder as a rollplaying game and it's fun. We play TBE as a roleplaying game and thats more my fortee. The problem I have is when I want to roleplay (because we pretty much said, jup, we gonna roleplay this) and everyone is just powerplaying the shit out of the game. i.e., we also play shadowrun. It was the first game I played in this group. We started with 4 players (everyone with one character) and one GM. It was really fun and I fell in love with the setting. It was a little roll heavy (because our GM loved dice-orgies) but he made us write up backstories for our characters (which I did, gladly) and we had some really nice sessions. It was great. I loved that game. After one year or so, we suddenly had about 10 players. There were two shadowrun groups on campus and we kinda merged because our GM wanted to play as well. Suddenly, everyone who wanted could GM. Everyone had atleast 2 characters and everything was suddenly extremly focused on powerplay. My first character became useless in the group and since roleplaying was obsolete at this point anyways, there was no reason to play her anymore. It became less of the kinda-lighthearted yet dark cyberpunk adventure we were having and become more of a run-and-gun free-for-all. Everyone was okay with it, except for me. I left after a couple of months because I just couldn't take it anymore. Now, the group pretty much has fallen apart. They are still playing, alright, but nowhere active as they once have. There is even talk about just restarting, but I have no hope that it will turn out to be Shadowrun and not Shadow-Run-and-Gun again... tl;dr: If everyone agrees on a playstyle, either way is fine. If you are the odd-one-out, deal with it or leave
>>43459779 Why are you making any kind of distinction?
There is learning the rules to make an effective character, and there is not putting effort into learning the rules. There is roleplaying your character to meet the needs of the story, pacing and game, and there is not putting effort into roleplaying your character.
The two have no distinction. I can be at any point along both axes.
In my personal case, I'm on the extreme end of both of them.
>>43459860 I think he's complaining that they went so far to the extremes that their characters aren't interesting outside of just being min maxed combat junkies instead of actually putting in the effort to make a flavorful character, where they end up just fighting all the time instead of exploring t he setting or a story
>>43459860 I don't know what you mean. (At least in Shadowrun), your characters stats translate into the realworld. For instance a skill of 3 is normal skillvalue for something you do in your everyday job, 4 is the skill of a veteran in the field, 5 is that of an expert and 6 is legendary. They give examples for all kinds of fields. Attributes translate directly as well. 3 is the normal average of a human being. This is the system. And (at least in my opinion) if you want to keep some form of realism in your game, use these guidelines. They are great for roleplaying. So, now when your whole group consists of people who are legendary in multiple fields, have attributes ranging from just plain not normal for a human being and over the top superhuman, you kinda feel just not up-to-parr. It's like you have a project and work together with Albert Einstein and Steven Hawkins. You just can't keep up and get left behind. Is that realistic? Who cares, right? On top of that, the GM needs to make adventures that feel challanging to them, so you are getting your ass kicked, just because you followed the rules the system gave you. The others didn't cheat, they just abused the system. There are no mechanics that punish you for building characters like that. I'm bitter, I know, but this really pissed me off. If you min/max your characters so they are basicly legends in their field and super-humans at the very least, and you don't put any effort into explaining it AND your GM lets it happen, roleplaying is over and we enter the territory of who gives a shit. I got told that my skill of 3 is too weak and you at least need a 5 or 4 at the very least in everything. I also got told that 3 is low and I should at least have a 6 in all my main attributes. Is this your Idea of roleplaying? MinMaxing everything and trying to explain why your character still makes sense?
>>43459917 Thank you, that was exactly what I meaned.. Thats why I called it a run-and-gun free-for-all because nobody gave a shit about the setting or the roleplaying anymore and everyone just tried to be the strongest motherfucker who could gets the most kills.
>>43459675 I have been listening to a podcast of people playing edge and do understand how that can be annoying from that having people think of stupidly complicated and irrelevant shit to spend their advantages and threats on, but my group never had that issue. We're pretty liberal with the by the book uses of simply resolving those by taking out healing stress and it just assisting others with bonus die. Does things up of we're not able to come up with anything reasonable, and makes thinking of reasonable things a way to reduce stress we take.
>>43459983 My idea of roleplaying is playing a roleplaying game.
If you try to play Shadowrun and find that the rules can be abused, then you have two options: 1. Discuss options to appropriately house rule Shadowrun. Research suggestions on the internet. 2. Play a game that isn't as broken as Shadowrun.
It's not the minmaxer's fault if the system can be abused. It's the fault of a shitty system and shitty playtesting.
I don't know why some groups are so weird about trying other games and finding those that aren't as breakable.
Hell, you want to play Shadowrun? Just play 13th Age or DnD4e, and rename 'sword' to 'cybersword' or whatever. Rename 'dungeon' to 'corporate complex'. Magic item? I think you mean "cyberware".
Quest to get +2 weapons for the party? I think you mean "raid on the new Aztechnology shipment of weapons."
I guarantee you that this will both be more balanced than Shadowrun, and also more fun.
>OptiFag creates arcane strike gish able to one-shot all of NPCs >Ignores the story, always on his iphone >Group grows unhappy >Suffer this for three sessions >I crack open Draconomicon >Gish is splattered by optimized Blue dragon >Much rage ensues, OptiFag leaves
>>43453874 To OP and so many idiots in this thread: >pic related There is playing a game and there is playing a role.
On to another issue: I actually find that systems that have less rules for playing a role actually make for better roleplaying. You should only be rolling dice or consulting rules when there is a conflict or challenge. Not all roleplaying involves conflict or challenge, so not all roleplaying should involve dice or rules. Ideally, you would be constantly playing a role and only rolling when there was a conflict or challenge. I find that D&D works fine for this.
Other systems might encourage roleplaying better, but anyone who has put more than a moment's thought into this could tell you the truth: The system matters far less as to the quantity and quality of roleplaying than how much the players and GM are willing to put into it and what they expect out of it. In short, it's not the game, it's the group.
My best party was min-maxed team of samurai, ninjas, and one deception based party face(also - a ninja).
3 out of 4 people knew how to roleplay well. One person was meh, but our GM was a greatest gm I've ever played with.
I've played autistic, socially inept but intelligent(played go in his head) dexterous samurai who always brought trouble upon party when he had to do the talking. That was a running gag of the campaign.
>>43459631 >For example, DnD 5th edition is a bad edition following a good one. Caster supremacy is back in full force Thanks for that. We now know we can ignore everything that comes out of your mouth.
>>43460690 Prove it, nigger. How about that? Let's see your 'facts'. Come on, should be easy. Show me how a wizard/druid can totally shut down an encounter totally on it's own. I'm sure the people in the General would looove to hear about it.
>>43453874 My guts turn around as soon as the words are spoken. Not that I condone people that powergame and come to throw the dice around, but anyone that makes such a big fuss about it...
Lets just say that my worst experience as a player that almost turned me away from the hobby, was a guy that kept repeating the OP with the fanaticism of a head-chopping religious fanatic. His idea of what is "Roleplaying" and when it becomes "Rollplaying" was so fucking specific, that he decided to ruin the game for all the players instead of sitting down and discussing his issues with the guy that angered him.
Point is: Stay away from idiots that get in your face just to tell you "have I mentioned today that I don't like ROLLplaying?"
I have a fine example of the difference between an optimum build and a powergamer. (or whatever terms you prefer)
>Running fantasy game years back >One player is much better at building characters than the others >That player loves wizards >Builds OP wizard >Group is now essentially Fell's Five being accompanied by Gandalf the White. >It works because he *plays* it like Gandalf the White >Mysterious and holding back his power >Not soloing encounters >Instead favoring teaching others, giving advice, and saving the day when absolutely needed.
>>43453874 I generally advocate against any game with strong emphasis on character generation. It's okay for a player to want an optimal character, it's not okay for the system to punish a player who doesn't particularly care about drawing out every single bonus they can.
>>43453874 This is me by comparison. The only people I've been able to get consistent games going with are just in it to see their dice come up with 20s/loads of hits/1s. I don't complain about it, but I definitely feel like it'd be better with roleplayers instead of roll-players.
>>43459644 This. My last game had me design a bar with the DM for the players to visit since it was a town I had spent 3 months in.
>>43459659 The "Mechanics" here are just the books actively encouraging actions that good GMs have *consistently taken* and codifying them as part of the game. These systems aren't "good for roleplay" they're fully illustrated instruction books for people too socially retarded to figure it out themselves. They're not for some upper crust of the roleplaying art, they're for shitters who literally would play lolrandum games or straight railroads. These people need that "mechanic" because they won't even *think* about "lol maybe the player should define his own hometown since it's critical to his fucking PC".
Shit son you got a damn death grip on them dice. If you seriously thing strangling the life out of social interaction with mechanical effects is a -good- thing for role-playing you're either a power gamer in denial or simply retarded
>>43459495 In any game only have to optimize as much as the DM does. If the game is a highly optimized hack and slash, then you need to make highly optimized hack and slashers, if it's a more casual Story Oriented game, then by all means drop some skill points into cooking, hell in 3.0's Deities and Demigods book Vecna himself "wasted" a feat on Ambidexterity because he lost his primary hand in a game system that doesn't account for left or right handedness
>>43460336 >unless you want to play perfect version of you in class of xyz.
it is worth pointing out that many stories are about characters striving to do just that. If your character aspires to be the greatest (insert thing here) but you never take the skills/feats/perks/edges/whatever that make them better at the skill in question then your breaking character just as much as the minmaxer, unless of course the concept is actually "I wanna be the best, but I suck at it" but that's a whole other can of worms.
>>43464093 The thing is that your character doesn't know the system that you're playing. There's no in-universe statblock to tell your character which weapon is objectively best, they simply have to take whatever they're most confident in using/ what works for other people and hope for the best. Not to mention the fact that PCs are human and are perfectly capable of misjudging the usefulness of abilities. For example, a believable 3.5 Fighter PC might pick up Toughness, since he has done training to make himself hardier and more durable in order to be the best fighter out there. Just because the player knows the objectively best decision doesn't mean the character does. Besides, making "mistakes" like that make for more rounded, personal, and detailed characters than if you were to just build for optimization. Also friendly reminder that the Stormwind fallacy is a fallacy in the same way that saying "If I flip 1000 coins at the same time then they will never turn up all heads" is a fallacy. The statement itself is false, but good fucking luck seeing it actually demonstrated to be false.
question, I'm playing 5e with some friends, I'm playing the witch hunter class that Vin diesel made up, and I took variant human so I could have a feat, I didn't want to get too crazy so I didn't take the anti magic feat where you get combat bonuses and AOO on casters, but I did take heavily armored, and with my bonus stats I had 19 str, with a longsword, and my proficiency with it, I have a lot of bonuses at level one, that seem very powerful combat-wise, we rolled for stats, and the other players are a warforged monk with really high stats across the board, and a dwarf barbarian who also has stats that are pretty good. I feel a bit bad because the DR is kinda new, but he said he could handle it, but I'm worried.
These people are 9/10 the shittiest players imagineable. The 'I was doing what my character would do' guys. The people who can't play a character worth a damn and are too dumb to read the rules, so they have to drag down anyone who is actually literate.
>>43464353 >believable 3.5 Fighter PC might pick up Toughness You lost me. This is horseshit. Toughness is an objectively bad feat even for the lowest HP classes. The opportunity cost is far too high. To suggest that characters in a game world are wandering through it oblivious to the choices around them is a specious argument. People in the real world have a strong tendency to look for the most effective thing in any given situation.
Look at it like this, if I want to play a super suave charmer, I either need to be one in real life and have a dm willing to accept my arguments, or tell my dm my character is super suave and have them personally tint all my social interaction through that lens.
Basically, if a pasty fucking nerd can play a demigod destroying people in game when they would have no ability to do that in real life, they should have the ability to do social manipulations and interactions at level they would never be able to hit in real life as well, because it's a game and if we're only letting people do what they can do in real life the game is probably gonna suck
>>43464649 Is it not believable that a Fighter would take the time in his training to make himself more durable? Keep in mind that he doesn't know what "HP" is, or even how much of it this training will give him.
>>43465061 My bad, I should clarify. The fighter doesn't pick up Toughness as in one day he says "I WANT THIS FEAT." The feat is a culmination of training that a believable Fighter would go through, and a player might choose Toughness to represent this.
>>43464353 >There's no in-universe statblock to tell your character which weapon is objectively best, they simply have to take whatever they're most confident in using/ what works for other people and hope for the best.
Except that "what works for other people" is still based on weapon stats, even if people don't know what those stats are. You don't have to know that a greatsword deals 2d6 damage to know that it hurts more than a longsword. You don't have to know that full plate is a +9 bonus to AC and a -6 armor check penalty to understand that plate is the best protection, but also the most limiting to mobility.
Yeah, sure, your character shouldn't be running around talking about how their 2d6+(Str. x1.5) damage is the best around, but that doesn't mean they should somehow be entirely unaware of how their own reality works.
>>43459983 >The others didn't cheat, they just abused the system. There are no mechanics that punish you for building characters like that. I'm bitter, I know, but this really pissed me off. You're talking as if blame should be on one of the players. The blame should be with the system. For some reason the designer chose to make a game with abusable rules. Get mad at the system and the designer, or perhaps at your friends' decision to play that system. Don't get mad at people who are playing the roleplaying GAME what how it's written.
>>43465243 RPGs are not life simulators. They are games. Social games at that. An important aspect of social games is social interaction, including talking to other people, talking in bad accents, and "roleplaying" characters. The fighting, killing, etc. is part of the game. The talking and social interaction are part of the meta-game, the interaction of players in a game.
>>43465061 >I'm a wizard >I don't know that I'm smarter than other people. >I don't know to raise my intelligence at every opportunity. >I don't know what spells to learn. vs >I'm a wizard. >I'm smarter than you. >I study to get even smarter. >I learn spells that will be effective.
Which of these makes more sense? Moreover, which of these leads to a better play experience?
>>43465345 Yes, and sometimes, just sometimes, I want my games where I can do fucking anything to involve more than killing things to be part of the game. If I want to be a character super good at tricking people into trusting me and revealing their own plot's, helping me solve mysteries that's part of the game. I'm not saying reduce it down to a die roll, people still gotta play it out, but if your game has no way of building characters able to be amazing at social skills your game is restricting it's character creation to only one possible aspect of gameplay
>>43465263 >My bad, I should clarify. The fighter doesn't pick up Toughness as in one day he says "I WANT THIS FEAT." The feat is a culmination of training that a believable Fighter would go through, and a player might choose Toughness to represent this.
And that fighter would look around at other in universe fighters, see that spending time to train up durability grants a marginal benefit, since training as a fighter already grants a significant boost to toughness, and would be better off training to effectively dodge blows, or swing harder with slightly less accuracy.
>>43453874 If you're choosing a category of game that runs on cooperation, imagination, and where the guy controling the entire world wants you to succeed as your outlet for highly competitive effort, you're a fucking retard.
It's like training all year to dominate at the parents vs kid softball game. If you want to powergame and focus on WINNING there are bajillions of better outlets for it, so doing it in D&D or whatever is a sign of some kind of retardation.
If you think you're "good" at D&D because you can do second grade math, pick the best skills and disconnect your humanity while designing your combatmonster, encounterwarping character, you're like a person who jumps into a sandbox, aggressively builds the tallest sandcastle and screams SUCK IT NERDS at the toddlers. Yes, congratulations, you won at sandcastle, but you're missing the point and you clearly hang out with other retards so much that you don't notice how silly you are.
On top of that you have that whole mentality of people who think that any kind of effort at immersion or role-playing is for faggots and that role-playing should be like world of warcraft without graphics, and I just feel like they have some kind of condition.
If you want to WIN, just play some videogame online against other people who are trying to win so there's an actual competition, don't inflict it on your happy fun time friends who want to roll dice and experience cool stories.
The fiction is the whole point of pen and paper role-playing, because that's it's strength, you can do ANYTHING. But it's a terrible outlet for competitive urges and the people who use it for that are clearly scared of actual competition and just use it to feel better at something irrelevant than their friends are. Like, congrats, you're slightly more effective at killing orcs fast than everyone else, we're so psyched to have you.
>>43465446 No, no he wouldn't. To start with, he probably doesn't even KNOW all that many other fighters. And even if he does, he won't all of a sudden become aware that those who are tougher are suboptimal, and even distinguishing higher constitution from toughness is a non-trivial task. In-universe, figuring out what's clearly "optimal" from OOC perspective would take extensive statistical research and be virtually impossible.
>>43465345 Retard detected. The game rules are there to resolve the conflicts that arise from the role-playing and the story, they're not the goal of the game. You have fighting mechanics so that fights can be resolved in another way than the GM just saying what happens, not because it's a fighting game. The fact that people who never read a book in their life pick it up and go "hey this game is easy, I made the sickest character" is just a kind of sad thing that happens.
>>43465477 >On top of that you have that whole mentality of people who think that any kind of effort at immersion or role-playing is for faggots and that role-playing should be like world of warcraft without graphics, and I just feel like they have some kind of condition.
And then there's the mentality of people who think any kind of effort at building a character or being effective is for faggots and you can't effectively character build and roleplay at the same time.
Not saying you're one of those people, I just think its important to remind people you need to do BOTH. You need to roleplay and you need to know the rules.
>>43465633 I completely agree with you, my stance on the issue however is that as soon as building the character gets complex enough that it's effectively a game in itself, it's inevitably going to attract munchkins and powergamers who really should just use it as some kind of arena game and duke it out with other munchkins.
>if your game has no way of building characters able to be amazing at social skills your game is restricting it's character creation to only one possible aspect of gameplay This is a fine argument. Where your argument breaks down is that it follows this post >>43458967 Which suggests that DnD has shitty options for roleplaying, and if you are the same anon, your argument falls flat. You can still be amazing in D&D.
DnD might not be the "best" game for roleplaying social skill, but the bare bones skeleton is there and it works great. The player adds the flesh. It's the difference between playing the role of a charismatic bard and rolling dice for a charisma check. Which is the same as the difference between slashing your sword across an orc's chest, leaving an angry line of blood or rolling 1d8 damage. A person can roleplay with D&D just fine.
It does not *need* "mechanically encouraged roleplaying" to have roleplaying. Having a complex social skill system that can be gamed and twisted is actually more favorable to "powergamers" than "roleplayers." And that won't lead to roleplaying, it will lead to rules lawyering.
As long as there is a way to resolve social challenges in a way that the noble bard would be better than the uncouth barbarian, it's fine. And it can be glorious.
>your game is restricting it's character creation to only one possible aspect of gameplay Technically, the less rules involved in roleplay, the less restrained a character is in it's creation. The sky is the limit.
>>43465832 Not that anon, but you HAVE to realize that what proportion of the rules are devoted to combat vs social mechanics will inevitably have an impact on the gameplay experience though, right?
If you give players one gorillion tools that lets them, in detail, resolve conflict through combat, but basically goes "roll diplomacy and do some roleplaying" about the social encounters, they will inevitably default to one more than the other.
At it's most basic a roleplaying game can just have 1 single conflict resolution mechanic that reads "roll the dice to see how successful you are, role-play what it looks like through the party" no matter if it's a snappy argument or a sharp sword being used, so when you add a ton of detail to the combat side of things without giving as much attention to nonviolent interaction, you're making a choice about what your game will revolve around.
>>43453874 I don't really mind them unless they're just shit players/people in general. Then it doesn't matter if they're powergamers or not.
Personally, I prefer to just think up a random concept and design a character around that, regardless of whether it's sub-optimal or not. At the same time, however, I abuse ability/item fluff to get away with things not priorly considered by the system/GM, so I never really get left behind by the other players.
>>43464599 >>43463811 It's simple. Why should combat have 50 pages dedicated to stats and special abilities and equipment and special classes and the like when a dialog with someone has 1 sentence in the book or that the GM often has to make up on the spot and all it says is "pass or fail"?
Call of Cthulu sold me on introducing me to roleplaying vs a wargame like DnD. There combat stuff is a couple of skills, but that's it. It has about as much rules for it as any of the other dosens of other skills and won't push the plot forward anymore than other actions your character might be able to take. Did my friend who built a character who was a gangster and carried a lot of firepower help? Sure. About as much as the character who was a journalist and did all of his work in investigation, or me who played a rich philanthropist that owned this town.
>>43465983 It's not about picking the good stuff and avoiding the bad stuff. The fact that you think about it like that demonstrates that really don't get it. Like for example, I'm playing in an Edge of the Empire/Age of Rebellion campaign right now. My original concept was to be a support politico buffing the party dealing out extra actions and such, but someone else wanted to do that so I decided I'd build a healing character.
I took a look at Doctor, and found the talent that allows you to bypass soak and deal strain damage with an unarmed attack. So I thought, ok, what's the potential of this in this game? Unarmed attacks are pretty weak compared to a vibro axe, and suffers from the same limitations of range, would it be possible to take unarmed attack and make it badass while still being a good healer?
And that's what I did. My character is a frontline healer, able to neutralize targets, tank (thanks to high brawn), and heal. I'm playing a fun, effective character that the rest of the players are glad to have, and I don't have to be a dick about it.
>>43466208 I am not saying that you are a dick about it, I'm just not sure where in all of that you actually accomplished anything to pat yourself on the back about while picking the character.
"I wanted to make a character that could do thing X, so I picked the skills that let me do thing X"
I mean, I'm glad that it worked out, but if you think that's any kind of accomplishment it's not something to pat yourself on the back about, it's more like a criticism of a dense character creation process.
>>43466283 Well, I guess I look at complex rules systems as a puzzle. I'm a little different from other powergamers I've met, in that I like to take option that are, on the surface, subpar and through stringing together multiple mechanics in perhaps a way that the game designers didn't intend, make the subpar option really effective.
>MFW i run a melee character >MFW the party munchkin looked at my build and went 'wow, that's a lot of damage output' >MFW he built a character to match mine >MFW he didn't realize i've been holding back and not making full use of my strength because it would break the campaign >MFW he doesn't hold back and breaks the campaign >MFW the GM kills his character to preserve campaign balance >MFW I am still fighting at about 1/2 strength
>>43466352 Which still just amounts to stacking the good stuff for what you're trying to accomplish and avoiding the not useful stuff. You're just doing it with a slightly different goal, it's still not difficult.
So yes the the character dosn't know the system, but you the player do, unless in your world the Fighter literally takes a 3 week community college course on "Toughness" or "Improved Initiative" or whatever when he gets feats it's still an out of game decision what you write on the sheet, and there are plenty of ways to represent IC things in the mechanics, the fighter in question could represent his desire to get tougher in ways other than the Toughness feat, stuff like passive AC bonuses that are fluffed as the fighter being so tough as nails that he shrugs off hits that would wound a lesser man or whatever could be used for an off the top of the head example. It doesn't even need to be represented by a choice at all, Fighters all ready get a high HD so his HP gain per level can be all he needs reflect that.
As for the player OOC misjudging how good a feat is that goes back to >>43463961 If you're playing a more character focused narrative driven game then it probably won't matter since the DM in presumably tailoring the encounters to fit the party. If it's a more lethal "let the dice fall as they may" type of game, then making mistakes are just part of the game, OOC you picked a less than great choice and IC the fighter trained in a way that by the laws of physics of the game's world gives subpar results and now both of you have to deal with the consequences of that.There's nothing inherently wrong with that of course, people make mistakes IRL like that all the time, people spend years hitting the gym and don't get the results they want only to find out they should have been doing a different set of exercises for example.
The thing is though that you can make a set of character consisting of a bar wench, a street urchin, a senile scholar and club footed stablehand and still have an amazing story.
It's not a fucking rollercoaster, you don't get stopped at the entrance because you're not tall enough, there is absolutely nothing that says you need to be at least X killy or there won't be a game.
So even if I agree with you on some level, "I have to make a competent character" is just not a universal truth at all. All you HAVE to do that people sadly don't do enough is be on the same page as the rest of the group about what type of campaign you're hoping for.
>>43466096 >Not that anon, but you HAVE to realize that what proportion of the rules are devoted to combat vs social mechanics will inevitably have an impact on the gameplay experience though, right? Not necessarily. Well, at least not necessarily a relevant impact. If your game is about the story and the characters, as mine have usually been, and not focused on exploring the quirks of the system, than no, the proportion of game mechanics available does not have impact the game. The system is the soil and seed, the flower is roleplaying. More options means more seeds, but the focus is left up to the players.
Yes, those players that focus on finding out what the system will let them do and explore the different options will be more combat oriented if most of the options are combat related. But those players are already focused on the game aspects, not the character aspects. If a roleplayer sees a system with mostly combat, he will use those options, but still add and have social aspects to the character because he is playing a character, not just a game piece.
>>43467115 Sure, but if you're playing a bar wench while everyone else is playing a knight or a wizard or a master thief, you'll probably have a bad time. So you have to be competitive relative to the other PCs.
>>43467167 >The system doesn't impact the playing experience if the players don't care about using the system very much, dude.
No shit, that's so deep.
Also why the fuck would you use a system with more combat than social mechanics to play a mainly social campaign, that's like painting with a bar of soap instead of a brush. Like, yes, you can, but it doesn't mean it's a good idea or a meaningful comment about brushes.
I'm being a bit of a dick but "any system works if you just focus on the role-playing and not the system" is just an incredibly unhelpful and nonconstructive comment.
>>43467167 The system is amazingly important man. Saying you can roleplay with any roleplaying game system is true, but that's like praising transformers for having sound and moving pictures. Having roleplaying is an inherent aspect of the medium, but different systems help players and dms simulate certain types of experiences, and systems with poor rules for social situations either require a lot of going outside the rules, which can be perfectly fine but discouraging for people who want to be able to explore those aspects that aren't there, or encourage focusing on different aspects and leaving the neglected ways of play behind.
>>43467401 >No shit, that's so deep. Word. Not trying to reinvent the wheel here. Just pointing out the obvious to those who are trying to say you need more complex social rules to roleplay.
>Also why the fuck would you use a system with more combat than social mechanics to play a mainly social campaign, Who said anything about a mainly social campaign? I'm just saying that as long as you have a mechanism to resolve social challenges, you can roleplay without extensive social rules.
It's less like painting with a bar of soap, and more like digging a hole. You can use a shovel or a backhoe. If you are digging a lot, the backhoe is better, but you can still make the shovel work. But those insisting that whenever you need to dig a hole, your need a backhoe or that a backhoe is needed to mechanically encourage digging is just silly. Can you dig it?
>>43468231 >The system is amazingly important man. I agree with your intelligent and well written post.
>encourage focusing on different aspects and leaving the neglected ways of play behind. This is the part that disconnects with me. The idea of leaving social aspects of the game behind because there aren't sufficient rules for it seems antithetical to ttrpg. The whole point of playing these games to me is that what you can attempt is only limited by your imagination. Being limited to only what the rules allow for is no different than playing a video game. Which is fine, but I want to be able to fully interact with the world as my character.
>inb4 another anon implies I'm suggesting ignoring the system and rules altogether.
>>43468975 >Being limited to only what the rules allow for is no different than playing a video game. >Which is fine, but I want to be able to fully interact with the world as my character. It leaves it behind not in the fact that those forms of play would stop happening, just that those forms of play would have less mechanical depth and thus less ability to focus on them in play/character creation. They'll never get left behind, because as I said they are pretty much inherent to the medium of table top roleplaying, but a game with poor social rules would be a lot more difficult to run from a dms perspective and less rewarding to players when they have no good ways of investing in increasing their characters skill and focusing in those areas.
The ways that systems are design encourages different play styles. D&D works well as a dungeon crawling game, but try and play it with a social focus just ends in tears because after spending 2 hours building a character you drop 4 skill points in diplomacy and maybe pick up one of the few social feats and that's the best you can do. Likewise in something like WoD building a combat beast means that at most you can deal twice the damage, and have 1.5x times the health making every fight scary in and of itself (unless you're playing werewolf but fck those guys). A system with poor social rules just really puts a dent in social based play, because freeform roleplaying is an extremely hard thing to get into and do well which is why rules systems are pretty much omnipresent.
Only reason our group spends so much time optimising is because our GMs are very, VERY fast and loose with encounter building. Last time we played we went up against a challenge rating 9 encounter, a handful of animated swords and armors, at level 3. Oh, and they automatically ambushed and surrounded us. GM's answer? "I thought it would be a CR 4 lol".
>>43469470 I see your point and the following is a comment not a disagreement.
I just have never encountered this as an issue. When you sit down to play a game, you know what your'e playing. You are absolutely right that the system matters. If the group wants to play a mainly social game, D&D is a poor choice. And a game with poor combat mechanics would be a poor choice for a dungeon crawl. I suppose the critique would be that playing a system that can't do everything is pointless if there is a system that can do everything perfectly. >inb4 GURPS
I have never seen an issue where the players wanted to do something and couldn't because the game wasn't designed that way. It might be because of the way we play. Or, it might be because we play the system for what we want to do.
>>43470160 I think my main issue is honestly being in a really shitty D&D game that has turned me off the game pretty much forever honestly. My DM was afraid to put us in social situations because I tried to focus on being a con artist and it was pretty annoying.
Surprisingly good discussion for a bait thread though.
>>43471036 >Surprisingly good discussion for a bait thread though. Indeed. I found considering D&D's worth in resolving social scenarios a more interesting subject than "Roll vs. Role!"
Sorry to hear about your burn out. That's just bad GMing. That's just as bad as only using things immune to one form of attack in response to a player develops a strong such attack. (sneak attack vs. undead) Raising the challenge level to meet strength by negating that strength is simply shitty. I resolved the diplomancer I encountered by using common sense (the best con man is still not Mentok the Mindtaker) and by letting them hit the "Easy" button until they realized it wasn't as much fun as actually playing against challenges. They ended up being rich ass nobles, but still had to defend the land. It might not have been the best solution, but it worked without crushing their character idea.
I've never been burned out on a game I like, but I never got into WoD due to the first time I played it. I was sold on a light combat game centered around politics and got a supernatural slice of life sandbox with a subtle hint of erp.
Thread replies: 196 Thread images: 18
Thread DB ID: 75060
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the content originated from them. If you need IP information for a Poster - you need to contact them. This website shows only archived content.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content you can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with that post and thread number and it will be removed as soon as possible.