D&D 5E Characters are not their statistics and abilities

[WarpedAcorn]

I would rather sit down at the table with an ineffectual character than someone who is just playing a statblock. People who come up with weird or interesting characters make the game more fun. They are the characters that push the red button, look behind the curtain, and open Pandora's Box without checking with the group. They make decisions based on their character and not what they themselves perceive to be the "right" thing. Conversely, people playing statblocks sit down at the table and wait until they are told to make an ability check or to roll for damage in combat. They may be mechanically effective, but I will remember the frail old Cleric who was losing his memory and meandered off like Mr. Magoo much more than I remember anything about the Lance wielding Paladin who could dish out ridiculous damage each round...except that he could deal a lot of damage.

Over the years I've noticed that this game can accommodate both types of players. Personally, I would consider myself a powergamer because I want to min-max my character and squeeze every ounce of potential out of him. However, more important to me is the character. For instance, my current character would get a lot out of taking a few levels in Barbarian, but that class would make no sense for the character so I wouldn't do that. One of my favorite and most memorable characters was an effeminate Elven Fighter/Mage who spoke with a lisp. He could hold his own at the table (this was in 3.0/3.5 Living Greyhawk), but most characters in Living Greyhawk were just statblocks. For Living Greyhawk though, I think it would be hard to have intentionally "gimped" characters due to its Standardized nature. For home games though, I think any DM can accommodate for an entire table of weirdo characters.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To me, it's rude and inconsiderate to bring a character into a game that is incompetent and doesn't pull their weight as a team player.

Further, I think it takes a distinct lack of creativity and imagination to be beholden to statistics and abilities so much that they dictate the form and shape of the character.

And this, I believe, is because the character, whilst it may be informed by the statistics and abilities it has, is specifically not the sum total of those statistics and abilities. It is a character, not an algorithm.

Here are the two parts of the original post that show the OP doesn't even agree with their own premise.

With the former point, they feel bringing a character of a certain set of statistics is inconsiderate to others.

With the latter point, they admit that the statistics are not the sum total of the character and that you shouldn't be beholden to them.

Now admittedly, I do believe One-Shots is referring to bad statistics in their first point and good statistics in their second point. The idea being that if statistics do not matter in how you play your character, then you might as well bring a stronger character statistically to the table to make everyone else feel better, then play your character however you want.

But that also has to mean the reverse is true. That you CAN bring a poor character statistically to the table and have it be fine, because again... statistics do not matter. And the rest of the table should be fine with a character with bad statistics, because again... statistics do not matter. It's how the player plays the character that matters.

What I think One_Shots is trying to get across is the idea that the "roleplayer" should always be the one to compromise, rather than the "optimizer".

The "roleplayer" should be capable of RPing their character regardless of the statistics, so bring a powerful character to make the rest of the table happy. However, why isn't the reverse also true? Why can't the "optimizer" optimize the combat strategy and tactics of the PCs the table has, rather than the table they wish they had instead? Isn't that just as valid a point?

You do your very best with what you have available. And your strategy and tactics should always be geared towards optimizing that which you have. And thus... it doesn't matter (as One-Shots has said)... what the stats are of the PCs at the table. You don't HAVE to have a table of optimized characters, because the table's strategy and tactics can be run and made as best as possible even if some characters are merely mediocre (if not outright poor).

In the end, neither side gets to dictate how the table should be played. Everyone can bring that PC which they want (usually an agreed-upon compromise between all players and the DM), and everyone then can work and play with what they have in front of them. It's how the game has always been played, and always will be.

 

[Corwin]

We need to coin a catchy term for OneTrueWay threads like this. Something that can be tossed in early to identify the futility and wrongheadedness of such blanket proclamations.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

When we go to conventions, most DMs won’t remember that min-maxed, level-dipped whatever from session to session. But they sure as heck remember my brother’s Halfling fighter with the French accent. Interesting characters make DMing much more fun.

Though at this point, I’m not sure the ineffectual character trope is much more than a straw man, especially when it reduces the game to solely combat. In 5e, pretty much everyone is good at something. My bard will never be a melee monster, but between bardic inspiration and his persuasion abilities, he more than pulls his weight.

I would rather sit down at the table with an ineffectual character than someone who is just playing a statblock. People who come up with weird or interesting characters make the game more fun.

 

[Corwin]

Back in the 4e RPGA heyday, my friend and I played a pair of dwarven brothers. I played a melee ranger, he a maul fighter. They were a lot of fun to play. We went out of our way to inject a lot of quirky personality and roleplaying interactions into the sessions. Often people would ask if we were going to play our dwarves because they enjoyed having them along. I don't think they really cared all that much about our particular classes or roles so much as wanting to participate in the memorable moments we'd strive to create in game. One of my favorite examples, at one point the RPGA rules stated that if your mount died it was returned for the next session. So one session we decided to host a huge celebration for our cast of successful hero companions and roast our riding boars in a big barbecue feast. Much fun was had by all.

 

[iserith]

"Purposefully inept" characters tend not to be a problem for long in my experience - they die. Usually in some predictable and/or hilarious way. Adventuring isn't a good career path for the inept.

At my games, optimized characters tend to do well but only slightly better than the vast swath of un-optimized but still viable characters that I see who also survive if not thrive. The optimized character might have a few resources left at the end of the adventuring day, but that's about it. In terms of meaningful contribution to the game experience, everyone does their part. The players of the optimized characters and the players of the un-optimized characters engage with the same level of description and enthusiasm. You could never say, for example, that the players of the un-optimized characters are "better roleplayers" than the players of the optimized characters.

The key point I think is not to confuse "un-optimized but still viable" with "purposefully inept." As well, player skill matters, so an un-optimized character in the hands of a skilled player can still be very effective. And, for my part, fun because I like the challenge.

 

[cmad1977]

Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Fleetwood C. DeVille]

I am reading this thread and all I can think of is the Twilight Zone episode where Burgess Merideth was found obsolete by a futuristic court.

"Your honor this fighter has a 13 strength and a 16 charisma."

"UNOPTIMIZED! CREATE A NEW CHARACTER!"

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[cmad1977]

Nobody remembers that your fighter had teh 18 strngths.

Everyone remembers when they vaulted over the coffins to kick the magic macguffin out of the hands of the bad guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk