Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6933781" data-attributes="member: 7006">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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; That you CAN bring a poor character statistically to the table and have it be fine, because again... statistics do not matter.&nbsp; And the rest of the table should be fine with a character with bad statistics, because again... statistics do not matter.&nbsp; 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 &quot;roleplayer&quot; should always be the one to compromise, rather than the &quot;optimizer&quot;.The &quot;roleplayer&quot; should be capable of RPing their character regardless of the statistics, so bring a powerful character to make the rest of the table happy.&nbsp; However, why isn't the reverse also true?&nbsp; Why can't the &quot;optimizer&quot; optimize the combat strategy and tactics of the PCs the table has, rather than the table they wish they had instead?&nbsp; Isn't that just as valid a point?You do your very best with what you have available.&nbsp; And your strategy and tactics should always be geared towards optimizing that which you have.&nbsp; And thus... it doesn't matter (as One-Shots has said)... what the stats are of the PCs at the table.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; It's how the game has always been played, and always will be.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6933781, member: 7006"] 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 [i]do not matter[/i] in how you play your character, then you might as well bring a [b]stronger[/b] 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 [b]fine[/b] 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 [i]has[/i], rather than the table they [i]wish[/i] 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 [b]even if[/b] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification