Role/Roll Playing

[xigbar]

I think this brings up another problem; Encounters are made for a fourman group, assuming standard/elite array stats. Not only do most games (that I know of) use 32 Point Buy, and some that I've heard of go beyond that. Not only does this give better scores in the immediate sense, but long term, it allows them to qualify for more powerful feats, and other useful tricks, offsetting encounters even further. A player who is used to making self-sufficient characters will take yet even more advantage, but it WAS there to take advantage of to begin with.

 

[Rhun]

I think this brings up another problem; Encounters are made for a fourman group, assuming standard/elite array stats. Not only do most games (that I know of) use 32 Point Buy, and some that I've heard of go beyond that.

Absolutely. We've talked about it in other threads, but if your PCs are being built with anything about about 24-25 point buy, you will likely need to up the ECL of encounters.

 

[Jacob Marley]

I tend to be an optimize-to-concept player; therefore, I'd vote both if I could. As both is not an option, I choose to abstain from the poll.

 

[xigbar]

I tend to be an optimize-to-concept player; therefore, I'd vote both if I could. As both is not an option, I choose to abstain from the poll.

You may specify both in a post, but for the purposes of encouraging people to type up a logical reason for their decision, I'm forcing the choice. You're welcome to abstain from voting.

 

[Vespucci]

I guess I'll answer "rollplayer", in that I am happy to roll dice to find out what my character is like, rather than crafting them to fit some pre-ordained role. But that seems to put the hardcore optimizer who insists on a point-buy or elite array into the roleplayer camp! I also don't know where to fit "beer & pretzels" gamers.

It's not a clear distinction. It may not be a helpful one, either.

 

[Water Bob]

I guess I'll answer "rollplayer", in that I am happy to roll dice to find out what my character is like, rather than crafting them to fit some pre-ordained role.

Would you play a 1st level Fighter with just 1 HP? If "yes", then you're a roleplayer. If "no", then you're a rollplayer.

It really is the test that separates the men from the boys.

 

[Vespucci]

Would you play a 1st level Fighter with just 1 HP? If "yes", then you're a roleplayer. If "no", then you're a rollplayer.

It really is the test that separates the men from the boys.

Why does the character have 1hp? Is it because they were rolled that way? Am I refusing to play them because they're mechanically incapable of performing their ordained game or story role? (i.e. the mechanics make a mockery of the story as described) In this case, I'm perplexed as to which answer the roleplayer would give.

Or is this the "storyteller" giving me the character as a "test" of my roleplaying "ability"? Anyone who does that is clearly on an ego trip. That's not my preferred company for playing games! Same goes for the "roleplayer" who pulls this kind of stunt to "prove" their roleplaying "ability". They're an obvious prima donna looking to hog attention with their special snowflake character. So, if the definition of "roleplayer" is what we more commonly refer to as a problem player - I'm a rollplayer, I swear!

 

[Water Bob]

Why does the character have 1hp? Is it because they were rolled that way?

Yes. I think it's the ultimate test for the roleplayer and the rollplayer.

I believe a real roleplayer will take that 1 HP character, embrace it, and turn the list of stats into a real, memorable "character". He'll try to survive 1st level and hopefully get more HP on level 2.

I think the rollplayer will complain that he can't have fun with a fighter that only has 1 HP.





(The example worked better before 3E came out and giving max hit points at 1st level became a core rule instead of a house rule or variant. I know someone is likely to chime in and say, "But it's impossible to get only 1 HP at 1st level." LOL. It is with 3E+, but it didn't used to be.)

Am I refusing to play them because they're mechanically incapable of performing their ordained game or story role? (i.e. the mechanics make a mockery of the story as described) In this case, I'm perplexed as to which answer the roleplayer would give.

There is no pre-ordained story. A new campaign has begun. You're using 2E AD&D rules. You rolled stats and decided to play a fighter. Then, you rolled your HP, got a "1", and you do not have a CON bonus.

Will you embrace the character or refuse to play him?

 

[Vespucci]

I'm taking the middle ground. Play - but don't get too attached. And if the ref says, "Would you like to re-roll your hp?" I'm not gonna reply, "No, I prefer it this way." (I take it as stipulated that such re-rolling results in 1s as well, so God is my jerk ref in the thought experiment.)

Admittedly, "Play - but don't get too attached," is a good mantra for most RPG characters.

 

[Water Bob]

And if the ref says, "Would you like to re-roll your hp?"

Who wouldn't?

I'm just saying that, if everybody agreed to play RAW, there are many players out there who might consider themselves roleplayers who would balk at playing a 1st level fighter with 1 HP, probably citing that they can't have fun with such a character.

I think the roleplayer, who would probably prefer to have more HP, would take on the challenge of playing the character as he was rolled and have a good chance of making him a memorable character--maybe even a great personality in the game.

To me, that's the difference in a roleplayer and a rollplayer.

Everybody likes good stats. The mechanical benefits in the game are obvious. I am always suspicious of those that can't seem to have fun, though, unless they have superior stats. You know who I'm talking about: The player who rolls 9-12-11-10-13-10 for stats then whines about it.

Forget the stats. Play a character.

Admittedly, "Play - but don't get too attached," is a good mantra for most RPG characters.

Players who gert "too attached" to their characters is, indeed, a double edged sword.

I love it when players love their characters. It shows they're involved. They care. They play the character with more "character" because they do, indeed, care if the character succeeds or fails.

The other edge of the sword is that the player who cares a great deal can sometimes be argumentative because he's so protective of his character.

That's a hard line to enforce, sometimes, I think as a DM. I want my players to be extremely involved in the game. But, I also don't want arguments and moments that drag the game and make it unpleasant.

The ultimate player, in my book, is one that roleplays, no matter his stats "good" or "bad" (opinionated terms), deeply cares about his character, but also realizes that the game needs an ultimate authority (the GM) in order for the game to flow and that arguments hurt everybody's experience.