Optimising versus Roleplaying

[Marius Delphus]

[R]eally, my argument is extremely narrow. It is a simple defence against being bludgeoned with the idea that you must optimise your character since any conceivable rp you have can't possibly be impaired by doing so. That's simply not true: conceivable rp you have can be impaired by doing so.

I don't agree, because you still haven't explained why "optimized" is opposed to "roleplayable."

Now if the point you want to make is that the demands of having an effective character (within the context of a game) sometimes work to violate, or at least alter, a player's character concept (within the context of the player's mind), I can get on board with that.

[EDIT] I might even be persuaded to go farther and agree that the more effective the character is in the context of the game, the more detrimental that can be to certain character concepts in the context of the player's mind. An example that springs to mind is using Daredevil as a player character. Suppose all I said at character creation (for a street-level supers game) was that I wanted a blind character.... [/EDIT]

But if that's the case, what's with the proper name and the philosophical and logical rigamarole? It's just common sense.

 

[clearstream]

Now if the point you want to make is that the demands of having an effective character (within the context of a game) sometimes work to violate, or at least alter, a player's character concept (within the context of the player's mind), I can get on board with that.

[EDIT] I might even be persuaded to go farther and agree that the more effective the character is in the context of the game, the more detrimental that can be to certain character concepts in the context of the player's mind. [/EDIT]

But if that's the case, what's with the proper name and the philosophical and logical rigamarole? It's just common sense.

Hmm. Here we kind of seem to be agreeing

Where you say 'work to violate, or at least alter' that's about right. Of course, sometimes I won't mind the alteration, or feel the violation is bearable. Othertimes I won't have such a firm view in the first place, or even feel like my rp can be transferred intact...

...but not always.

[EDIT I wouldn't myself use the word 'effective' there, as the egregious cases tend to be to do with 'better' or 'maximally effective'.]

The philosphical etc was really to do with Stormwind. It says a certain thing a certain way (referring specifically to false dilemmas) and I wanted to show that it should not be adduced in support of an argument that... well, you probably get the picture. Did the pie analogy help or hinder?

-vk

 

[Marius Delphus]

Well, I don't know who or what a "Stormwind" is, as I said earlier, so I'm just going to say I think your point got lost. The pie analogy didn't work for me at all, sorry.

Common sense dictates that some character concepts just don't make effective (or "maximally effective," or "optimized," I guess) characters in some contexts. If "Stormwind" disagrees, well, that's just too bad. In cases where there's a bit of a tug-of-war between the character concept and the character sheet, I suppose that might be called a dilemma. But it's a bit overwrought for my taste.

It's starting to dawn on me what you're ultimately getting at, I hope. Choosing to assign your character a Speed of 1 (let's further assume no ability to teleport) in D&D 4E "because the character concept demands it" is just going to impair that character's effectiveness in combat, plain and simple. In a game where that's somehow unacceptable, well, strike one for concept; I'd rather game than hew scrupulously to some ideal notion of what my character's like. (I'll note that it could be a perfectly valid choice at some game tables.)

In that situation, I'd immediately think that maybe a compromise could be reached: the character really has a Speed of 1 but wears a minor magic item (occupying the boots slot, can't be sold, etc.) that has to be tended to every night.

Sorry if I've been difficult.

 

[MerricB]

"My answer in answering the question: "What does the red spectrum tell us about quasars?" Write bigger. There are various words that need to be defined: what is a spectrum, what is a red one, why is it red, and why is it so frequently linked with quasars? What the hell is a quasar?"

Honestly, I'm not so sure what is being talked about here. I'm not sure why it's an issue. And I really don't know why it's being talked about on EN World, where discussions saying that you can't roleplay optimized (or non-optimized) characters are far and few between.

If I were to try and render the argument into terms that make some sort of sense - that is, take the conclusion from the modified OP - and try and get some spurious logic that support it, I would try:

You have a limited amount of time to play the game.
Time spent optimizing your character is time spent not roleplaying your character.
Therefore, optimizing your character detracts from roleplaying!

All logical, but, alas, spurious.

Making more sense is the following statement:

There are potential characters that would be fun to roleplay, but, due to their non-optimized status, detract from the game as a whole.

(Translation: If your PC makes the other players at the table have less fun, then you've got a problem.)

Of course, that statement can be turned around:

There are potential characters that would be fun to roleplay, but, due to their optimized status, detract from the game as a whole.

Did I see that in 3.5e? Without a doubt. Watching PCs with an armour class in the high 20s by level 5 was a very depressing sight: some PCs couldn't be hit in combat, others went down at the mere sign of a greataxe-wielding orc.

(The conclusion: Balance matters).

Cheers!

 

[Pseudonym]

I'm not sure why it's an issue. And I really don't know why it's being talked about on EN World, where discussions saying that you can't roleplay optimized (or non-optimized) characters are far and few between.

Perhaps he thought he'd try a different audience after the original thread on the WotC boards, before the revision, didn't go the way he wanted?

 

[MarkB]

In that case [in that case, i.e. the case where chosen roleplay maps for you to a character that happens to be one that is not optimised]

to optimise [e.g. if another player starts telling you how to play, and says you have to optimise your character]

would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character. [the character that matches your desired roleplay happens to be one that is not optimised, to optimise will mean that you are not roleplaying the character that matched your desired roleplay]

A true dilemma occurs. [being forced to choose between roleplaying as you desire or optimising, i.e. changing or setting aside your desire, is a dilemma].

Ahh, finally we hit the nub of your contention. You're saying that no player should be forced to make an optimised character, because the resulting character might not match the parameters of a character they desire to role-play.

Now, if you'd just said that in the first place, things would've been much easier. Please note that at no point did you actually talk about optimisation as something a player was being forced into, and in fact, the Stormwind Fallacy is not in any way intended to enforce such an approach. It is, and alway has been, an argument validating the desires of individual players who want to optimise their own characters.

Note also that those who have disagreed with you have not, at any point, done so on the grounds of external pressures or limitations on character concepts - the limitations we have generally been talking about are self-imposed ones.

In other words, we have been talking at cross purposes.

Now, if I have interpreted your viewpoint correctly, then I believe it is entirely reasonable and needs no mathematical proof behind it. Any time a player finds himself forced to work within externally-applied restrictions as to what character he can create, there is a chance that those restrictions will result in him being unable to create the perfect visualisation of the character he wishes to play - which may well reduce the pleasure of his role-playing experience.

However, you seem to be countering a viewpoint which, in my experience, has rarely if ever been expressed, and certainly not on these boards. I can't recall the last time I saw someone, in the context of general discussion, suggest that you must optimise your characters. I could imagine it being a recommendation in, say, a hardcore difficulty dungeon-delve, but that's not going to be a roleplay-heavy game in any case. I can't see it being a commonly-used restriction in any normal campaign.

 

[aurance]

Time, both to design a char and at the table, is finite. Mental resources are finite. Time spent optimising means less time for researching your character's name, writing his back story, etc. So, yeah, optimisation can definitely detract from other aspects of the game, such as roleplaying. Ofc it is possible to do both.

I've noticed that rules heavy systems can lead to more time at the table being taken up with 'rules talk'. Such systems also allow the players to go further with optimisation. The gulf between optimised chars and non-optimised chars is bigger, and it takes more char build time to reach the 'pinnacle' of optimisation.

Time is finite, true, but in many cases there's a natural saturation point for optimization and role-play development, where you no longer can or have the desire to squeeze out more optimization or add more RP. In other words, at some point characters will feel "done," stats and personality wise, outside of what happens at the game table. At that point, time spent on one does not detract from the other.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Time is finite, true, but in many cases there's a natural saturation point for optimization and role-play development, where you no longer can or have the desire to squeeze out more optimization or add more RP. In other words, at some point characters will feel "done," stats and personality wise, outside of what happens at the game table. At that point, time spent on one does not detract from the other.

Agreed. But in rules heavy systems I think the 'saturation point' takes longer to reach.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

In that case [in that case, i.e. the case where chosen roleplay maps for you to a character that happens to be one that is not optimised]

to optimise [e.g. if another player starts telling you how to play, and says you have to optimise your character]

would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character.

snip
-vk

If someone attempts to force me to optimise my character because he wants a party of whatever, I would tell him to go boil his head in a bog. If he persisted then one of us would walk from that game. Now while I do not go out of my way to optimise in combat I also usually create characters that pull their weight. That said, no external party is going to dictate my fun and if I am not having fun then there is little point in playing.

That is not to say I am immune to the needs of the group but part of the fun is playing my character. If things stop being fun then I miight as well do something I find fun. So again there is no dilemma. Go with the fun.

 

[Engilbrand]

I think a point got lost. Stormwind was on the WotC boards. When someone would call someone a rollplayer instead of a roleplayer, he would say that it isn't impossible to roleplay an optimized character. The idea that optimized characters can't be roleplayed became known as the Stormwind Fallacy, specifically because Stormwind called it out as the stupid idea that it is.