Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kannik" data-source="post: 9697183" data-attributes="member: 984">I enjoy playing tabletop tactical games. BattleTech, Renegade Legion, Car Wars, etc.I enjoy making units in those games, with spreadsheets and design tables.I also enjoy tactical map-based encounters in RPGs, whether D&D or otherwise.I enjoy making strong character concepts. I enjoy looking through the rules and abilities in order to craft those characters so that they reflect and are able to solidly showcase that concept.I enjoy having very competent characters. I dislike (unless that is the theme/tone of the campaign/world) having characters that are constantly or often incapable of achieving things.I enjoy crafting rich characters. I enjoy crafting rich stories and narratives with all of the characters involved.I enjoy game sessions where we don’t touch the dice at all, and it’s all RP. (As I recently shared in my recent <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/describe-your-last-rpg-session-in-5-words.679952/page-230#post-9695361" target="_blank">“5 Word” post here</a>.)And for sure, this has confused some people.Because I am what can be termed an optimizer – I can and do work to have my character be competent and successful in the fictional milieu. And I as the player like to use my character abilities well, including rich tactical thought. Including, as I like to call it, “We’re going to 1e this!” (Which is to set things up prior to an encounter – or to avoid the encounter altogether! – through clever character plans and action as to ensure we succeed.)And, apparently and simultaneously, I am also a deep roleplayer. I have on occasion even asked the GM a game question in the manner my character speaks, because I can very much disappear into my character. (Call it method acting RP?) I love Cortex Prime, Mouse Guard, and love love love Wanderhome. I have written in-character journals/diaries after each session.But this confusion can be quickly overcome (and to be clear, it’s only confusion on anyone’s part due to their previous experiences where these two might not have coexisted) by recognizing that not only are Optimizer and Roleplayer not a false dichotomy, and not only that are they not even on a gradient line between them, but that they are each on their own gradients between productive and unproductive. As <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKP1I7IocYU" target="_blank">Dan Olsen could note</a>, while they may be in tension with each other they are not necessarily in opposition to or are destructive to each other.I’d put it this way: “optimization” is only a problem when it becomes a problem. And that is going to vary greatly on the game/table with each’s unique combination of players, style, tone, campaign, etc. Someone who constantly steps on other players or causes disruption is, as others have noted, a social issue, not necessarily one of mechanics or optimization. Someone playing a totally ineffective character (whether intentionally built this way or not) can still disrupt or talk over others or try to hog the spotlight or tell others what to do, etc. Someone playing a super killer build character can be the most supportive character and help everyone else and be a total team player. Maybe everyone at the table is playing the equivalent of kobold-railgun type character builds – but if that’s their vibe, then it can be great for them with no issues.  There are also players who, even if playing in a big optimized character type group, are totally fine being outshone and love contributing in their own ways. There are those who also may simply enjoy watching things unfold much like a novel or TV show.So even though there may be “optimizers” in some groups, and/or wide gulfs between character builds, that isn’t necessarily a problem unless or until it becomes an issue. And then it’s a social matter to be worked out. Which could include the group splitting apart – unfortunate, but it does happen and can sometimes be the healthiest course of action.And just to be clear: not saying that the first inkling should be to split up the group or let things go, or that it is the only possible outcome. There are conversations to be had, including on tone and playstyle and seeing if there is enough common ground. We can share what we love about other playstyles and invite them to give it a go, while also recognizing that people want different things out of different games at different times. (The great thing about sharing too is that they may never have been exposed to other options and they may get excited about it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />)(Brief aside here, but I also recognize and agree that game rules also can and do play a role in this, as ones that allow for vast differences in builds, and/or don’t take into account “power differences” between character concepts, and/or are more focused on certain aspects (like combat), all give more space for this kind of friction to arise. BattleTech and Renegade Legion (both FASA games, amusingly) have this as well, for once you delve into their construction rules you see just how ‘bad’ many of the default units in the game are. And so if you start introducing your own designed units against the standard you’ll likely have one heck of an advantage. The intent here was that the base units are designed and balanced via lore-driven ‘reasons’ which, fair… procurement and supply lines and preferences and grift and etc will keep things from being perfect all the time. But sometimes (often?) the designs go so far that it presses up against logic and against even in-universe would make sense. But that’s against the logic of what the design system allows – with different design rules it wouldn’t need to artificially rely on lore as much.)</blockquote>

Verification