Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 2414320" data-attributes="member: 22779">I have pretty much the exact same experience.&nbsp; My best role players are the ones who take the time outside of the game to contemplate where they want their characters to go and how they want to get there.&nbsp; They have clear goals and benchmarks and pick and choose the feats and classes that best arrive at that goal.The so-called &quot;High RP&quot; players that I've seen are far more disruptive at the table than any decent optimizer or powergamer.&nbsp; They're the ones who figure that it's okay to play that &quot;special needs&quot; character all in the name of RP.&nbsp; They're the ones who seem to think that a character is defined by his or her flaws.&nbsp; Sure, flaws are great.&nbsp; They ADD to the character.&nbsp; However, when the flaws ARE the character, then they're no use to anyone.&nbsp; I minimize power creep by keeping my game to the core rules.&nbsp; I'm very, very leery of adding in new classes or PrC's or feats.&nbsp; I take my time to really figure out whether or not something will unbalance my game and frequently I'll err on the side of caution.That being said, I also expect my players to create characters who are the best at whatever concept they choose.&nbsp; I expect my players to think tactically if they are going into a dungeon crawl.&nbsp; Non-tactical thinkers have the life expectancy usually reserved for small buzzing insects lingering near the top of still water.&nbsp; If the situation calls for lots of talking and interaction with NPC's, then I expect them to act appropriately - not spitting on the Baron and things like that.It's interesting.&nbsp; If I made a character that walked up and spit on the king for no reason other than &quot;it would be fun&quot;, I would be a bad role player.&nbsp; I'm not acting appropriately for the situation.&nbsp; But, if a player decides to take a character who is deliberately weaker into a dangerous combat situation, he's rewarded as a &quot;good roleplayer&quot; despite the fact that the character is inappropriate for the situation.When did playing a wimp become equated with &quot;good roleplaying&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 2414320, member: 22779"] I have pretty much the exact same experience. My best role players are the ones who take the time outside of the game to contemplate where they want their characters to go and how they want to get there. They have clear goals and benchmarks and pick and choose the feats and classes that best arrive at that goal. The so-called "High RP" players that I've seen are far more disruptive at the table than any decent optimizer or powergamer. They're the ones who figure that it's okay to play that "special needs" character all in the name of RP. They're the ones who seem to think that a character is defined by his or her flaws. Sure, flaws are great. They ADD to the character. However, when the flaws ARE the character, then they're no use to anyone. I minimize power creep by keeping my game to the core rules. I'm very, very leery of adding in new classes or PrC's or feats. I take my time to really figure out whether or not something will unbalance my game and frequently I'll err on the side of caution. That being said, I also expect my players to create characters who are the best at whatever concept they choose. I expect my players to think tactically if they are going into a dungeon crawl. Non-tactical thinkers have the life expectancy usually reserved for small buzzing insects lingering near the top of still water. If the situation calls for lots of talking and interaction with NPC's, then I expect them to act appropriately - not spitting on the Baron and things like that. It's interesting. If I made a character that walked up and spit on the king for no reason other than "it would be fun", I would be a bad role player. I'm not acting appropriately for the situation. But, if a player decides to take a character who is deliberately weaker into a dangerous combat situation, he's rewarded as a "good roleplayer" despite the fact that the character is inappropriate for the situation. When did playing a wimp become equated with "good roleplaying"? [/QUOTE]

Verification