Optimising versus Roleplaying

[maddman75]

Roleplaying and optimization are not connected. Trying to claim one reduces the other is a false dilemma.
​

I do believe it to be false, I believe that you have a false dichotomy. A good roleplayer needs to be able to optimize, because the unspoken question is, optimize for what?

Lets say that my character concept is that of Inigo Montoya. A six fingered man killed my father and left me scarred. I've spent my life becoming a champion fencer, and will one day have my revenge. Lots of roleplay-oriented hooks in there, but being really awesome at swordfighting is part of the character.

It doesn't even have to be combat. If I'm supposed to be really good at baking pies, or whatever, I need to know how to use the system to make it reflect my choices.

I think D&D is vulnerable to these kinds of beliefs for a couple of reasons. One, it doesn't tend to model much for roleplaying purposes. Take the Inigo Montoya example. I can make him fight with a sword, and perhaps skilled as a swordsmith depending on edition. But I can't make him hate the six-fingered man, have scars on his face, or be motivated by revenge the way I can in most other games. And starting with 3.0, the complexity of the rules to make someone really good at fighting are so in depth that they attract a lot of attention.

 

[Crothian]

3.5E might not have created the problem or have been the sole source, but its where the Stormwind Fallacy was coined. I still say a lot of the fault falls on the system when the system rewards that sort of behavior to a large degree.

I find made up jargon like the Stormwind Fallacy silly, but I was also in banking for a long time and found much of that jargon silly too. A system that can not be abused or optimized is a fairly boring system because all characters end up looking a lot a like. And systems do not reward people, DMs do. A DM has far more control over their game then a system ever will. You can blame the system all you want but it's the people playing making the choice to play that way. I played 3e constantly since it was released and the only place I've ever seen these problems are on line.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It is much older then 3.5 old World of Darkness had this problem and many point buy systems I've ran into it as well.

Build talk still bothers me as does optimization. But in my mind any character can be role played. It might not be fun or useful to the game but it can be role played.

Well, maybe most people talk about "can't be roleplayed" with the meaning "can't be roleplayed in a fun or useful way". Otherwise, the expression might be useless - I can roleplay a stone. It wouldn't be fun or useful. I'd just have a character that doesn't talk and does nothing on its own, and can do nothing on its own.

But most characters that are optimized probably can also be roleplayed. Pun-Pun certainly would have an interesting story and personality to roleplay.

 

[Klaus]

Sometimes posters say that you should always optimise because optimising is never incompatible with roleplaying. They will say things like

Roleplaying and optimization are not connected. Trying to claim one interferes with the other is a false dilemma.
​

It appears possible to show that their argument is mistaken as follows (using D&D as the example).

Let's take as a premise that every possible character in D&D can be roleplayed.

Let's say that some possible characters in D&D are optimised, and some are not optimised.

Since every character in D&D is roleplayable, and some are not optimised, then it is possible to roleplay a character that is not optimised.

In that case, to optimise would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character. A true dilemma occurs.
​

Essentially, the possibility to do something is not the same as the skill at doing it. Skill at optimising is unconnected to skill at roleplaying, but doing one can interfere with the possibility of doing the other: in such cases a genuine dilemma occurs.

vk

Every roleplayable character can be optimized.

Not every roleplayable character is fun to have at the table.

Not every optimized character is fun to have at the table.

Fun should always come first.

 

[Crothian]

Well, maybe most people talk about "can't be roleplayed" with the meaning "can't be roleplayed in a fun or useful way". Otherwise, the expression might be useless - I can roleplay a stone. It wouldn't be fun or useful. I'd just have a character that doesn't talk and does nothing on its own, and can do nothing on its own.

Then you get into the argument of what is fun and useful? In your mind role playing stone might not be fun or useful. But for me playing a pet rock using the often ignored third party book that offers rules for elemental intelligence into anything I find it is both fun and useful.

That also becomes useless because different options, play styles, and mind sets will make different characters fun and useful

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Then you get into the argument of what is fun and useful? In your mind role playing stone might not be fun or useful. But for me playing a pet rock using the often ignored third party book that offers rules for elemental intelligence into anything I find it is both fun and useful.

That also becomes useless because different options, play styles, and mind sets will make different characters fun and useful

Hey, I did roleplay that stone without that overpowered elemental intelligence third party book, and I liked it.

Spoiler

There was a reason I used stone, and it was not because of a hypothetical sourcebook on elemental intelligence. Of course fun or usefulness is subjective. Most of stuff involving our hobby is.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Sometimes posters say that you should always optimise because optimising is never incompatible with roleplaying. They will say things like

Roleplaying and optimization are not connected. Trying to claim one interferes with the other is a false dilemma.
​

The indented statement I would agree with but the initial "some posters" premise I do not accept. This is because I presume that optimisation refers to combat optimsation, because there are character concepts that demand sub optimal (or at least no better than average) combat performance. That said there is nothing inherently wrong or unrole-playable about an optimised character.

It appears possible to show that their argument is mistaken as follows (using D&D as the example).

Let's take as a premise that every possible character in D&D can be roleplayed.

Let's say that some possible characters in D&D are optimised, and some are not optimised.

Since every character in D&D is roleplayable, and some are not optimised, then it is possible to roleplay a character that is not optimised.

In that case, to optimise would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character. A true dilemma occurs.​

Why? What is the dilemma, if that is the character you want to play what is stopping you playing it? There is only an isssue if you want to play (to choose an example) a version of Long John Silver that can out fight Jackie Chan. But in that case you are no longer playing Long John Silver, you are playing some a one legged guy who kicks ass.

Essentially, the possibility to do something is not the same as the skill at doing it. Skill at optimising is unconnected to skill at roleplaying, but doing one can interfere with the possibility of doing the other: in such cases a genuine dilemma occurs.

vk

With regard to this, I would state that roleplaying has no bearing on the optimisation of the character. I can roleplay a character with a 3 line description, no mechanics required. Its the way I played AD&D 20+ years ago (no claim is being made about the quality of my roleplay)
Players needing to know the mechanics is ok too (and essential in modern crunch heavy games).
There is only an issue if one wishes to play a character concept that is not combat optimised. This is not a dilemma but a trade off, how much not good at combat are you willing to put up with to keep fidelity to the character concept. It is no different to anyother tradeoff, so I really do not see the issue you are claiming.

 

[kitsune9]

Sometimes posters say that you should always optimise because optimising is never incompatible with roleplaying. They will say things like

Roleplaying and optimization are not connected. Trying to claim one interferes with the other is a false dilemma.
​

It appears possible to show that their argument is mistaken as follows (using D&D as the example).

Let's take as a premise that every possible character in D&D can be roleplayed.

Let's say that some possible characters in D&D are optimised, and some are not optimised.

Since every character in D&D is roleplayable, and some are not optimised, then it is possible to roleplay a character that is not optimised.

In that case, to optimise would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character. A true dilemma occurs.
​

Essentially, the possibility to do something is not the same as the skill at doing it. Skill at optimising is unconnected to skill at roleplaying, but doing one can interfere with the possibility of doing the other: in such cases a genuine dilemma occurs.

vk

I would think that in terms of roleplaying, any character can be roleplayed, but whether they would survive mechanically is a different matter.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I still say a lot of the fault falls on the system when the system rewards that sort of behavior to a large degree.

You think 3.5 rewards optimization, you should look at point based systems like GURPS or HERO.

And yet you still get "suboptimal" PCs even in those systems.

Heck, I might take days squeezing points for a PC in HERO- my favorite system- and the only thing that would be optimal about it would be that the mechanics really reflect the way the PC is supposed to work. And that may mean he's the best damn gardener in the galaxy...and can't hit the broad side of a barn in combat.

This is because I presume that optimisation refers to combat optimsation, because there are be character concepts that demand sub optimal (or at least no better than average) combat performance. That said there is nothing inherently wrong or unrole playable about an optimised character.

Agreed, 100%.

There is also nothing wrong with being the party's weakest combatant, although for fun's sake, I would expect the Player & PC to contribute meaningfully in other ways. Even if its just as comic relief.

Let's take as a premise that every possible character in D&D can be roleplayed.

Let's say that some possible characters in D&D are optimised, and some are not optimised.

Since every character in D&D is roleplayable, and some are not optimised, then it is possible to roleplay a character that is not optimised.

In that case, to optimise would conflict with a desire to roleplay the character. A true dilemma occurs.

How you get to a dilemma after the first parts of this is a mystery to me...it doesn't follow.

"Optimization" as ardoughter implies, doesn't have to mean "perfectly geared for combat." It can also mean, as I illustrated earlier, that the player has worked to model the PC concept as fully as possible.

The last PC I played in 3.5 was a straight-up PHB Sorcerer (w/2 level Ftr dip* for feats) who wore Scale Mail & Shield and swung a Maul. His out? He used spells without somatic components and used the Draconic Breath Heritage feat. Its hardly a combat optimized build...and yet it was effective, evocative, and a blast to play.

* And even that would have been a dip into Marshall had the class been allowed.

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

What about a situation that I, as a powergamer/rules lawyer, and many others (from my views of the char op boards) often take on: optimizing a generally "underpowered" class or concept to make it awesome. For example, Mistwell's excellent Inspire Courage optimization thread, proving that bards can in fact be scary. Or one of my favorite characters that actually broke Bull Rush (!) I find while partly for the challenge, often the reason we bother is to fit some flavor or character concept. In the case of my bull rusher (who used Knockback, mostly), I wanted to make a melee specialist that worshipped a homebrew god of martial arts, the performing arts, and flashiness in general, whom we named Chan in honor of the inspiration. In short, I wanted him to fight like a Tome of Battle character, without the maneuvers. I wanted him to also be a skilled rogue. So I made a martial rogue with some barbarian, and with the right feats had him tumbling around, sweeping enemies prone, smashing them literally 30+ ft back, into allies, and knocking them down like bowling pins. I could have accomplished that easier, but wanted a certain route and optimized to make it work.

I found that the Stormwind Fallacy loses its lustre once you realize that the dilemma that created it in 3.5E wasn't the fault of the players but of the system. I was in the trenches for the the Stormwind Fallacy crap over the WotC boards(I will say I joined them late), generally on the side of people who were criticizing optimizers. I was of the opinion that these optimizers were "doing it wrong" and going against good gaming etiquette. The whole "build" instead of character thing rubbed me the wrong way. In hindsight, though, 3.5E's system is what produces this dilemma, by rewarding this sort of optimization.

3E was the first edition of D&D to have coherent rules for most topics that players could understand and use. That would be the only reason the system itself led to more optimizing. It's hard to optimize when there's less player choice and more DM fiat. Even so, I'd be shocked if in previous editions, on smaller scales, whenever a rule/houserule was established, players didn't try and use it to their benefit as much as possible. I recall a thread from a few months ago where a DM mentioned allowing a sack full of alchemist's fire to have the damage of each vial stack...and then the players wanted to take advantage of that constantly. To give an example of what I mean.
Nice try at an edition war, though. What you lack in reasoning ability and knowledge you certainly make up for with passion.