Roll-playing, is it utterly condemnatory?

[Alzrius]

I just recently got Goodman Games's new product Power Gamer's 3.5 Warrior Strategy Guide, and I am very much floored by how great of a product it is. The book basically introduces no new material at all (0 new spells, magic items, PrCs, base classes, races, monsters, skills, feats, etc), and instead uses math and number-crunching to analyze everything in the PHB to determine what ability scores, races, classes, skills, feats, equipment, and combat tactics are used to make the deadliest possible character (within certain archetypes, such as archer, heavy infantry, etc).

I seriously enjoyed the book, as it has quite a few new insights to the PHB material I've been looking at for a while now, not to mention some great tips on what to do to prepare for combat, and when in combat. That said, when I mentioned the book to a friend of mine, his reaction was visceral, calling it "everything he hated about D&D" when I explained what the book was to him...apparently he felt that making a character for anything less than story reasons un-made it as part of a game.

I know that it's vogue to bash "roll-playing", but honestly, isn't that going a bit too far? There's no reason that you can't both roll-play and role-play; I don't see why you can't be very much in-character during a game, and still want feats and skills that'll maximize combat potential when designing your character out of game. Likewise, people say you should tailor your levels, feats, etc to your character concept...but doesn't the reverse work just as easily? If I have a character who is mostly a distance fighter, and then I choose Power Attack, it doesn't seem that hard to come up with an in-game reason for it. Likewise, if what I want is a character that's extremely good at melee combat, does it necessarily detract from the game if I look at the various feats in terms of which will let me deal out the most damage?

I think there's nothing with looking at things from a numerical/mechanical perspective sometimes (particularly when you do that out-of-game), the same way there's nothing wrong with doing something in-character that doesn't make the most sense from the persepctive of what'll get the highest numbers. Does this make me a bad gamer or what?

 

[sparxmith]

Roleplay a Farmer!

Actually, I think you're right. In the free market of ideas, popularity is not the mark of clear thinking. V:tM and the whole WoD have taught the gaming world a whole lot about the importance of Story for story's sake. In the mean time, we're losing sight of the fact that D&D is as much Warhammer 40k as it is an excercise in group legend-making. (I avoided using story-telling because of it's associated ideas.)

In my signature, I list roleplaying as the art of creating verisimilitude. I also list rollplaying as making D&D a tabletop videogame. I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with wanting to play D&D as a tabletop strategy game. It's useful, relaxing, strategically challenging, and fun in it's own right. It's far more complicated than Risk, and nobody complains that Risk is detrimental to the gaming industry.

To sum it all up, people who denigrate the strategic aspect of combat are forgetting that D&D is really about survival in a place where only the Strong survive and the Strongest and Smartest prosper. I say, if you NEED TOHAVE NO combat to tell yourself you're a good roleplayer, I say go for it. However, don't forget, that you're not roleplaying a farmer. Don't forget that your character actually understands the complexity of battle far more than you, as the player, ever will. Cut yourself some slack, make intelligent decisions, or go ROLEPLAY a farmer trying to defend his herd of swine from an orc horde.

 

[Umbran]

I know that it's vogue to bash "roll-playing", but honestly, isn't that going a bit too far?

Yep. If you and your friends have fun with roll-play, there's nothign at all wrong with it.

There's no reason that you can't both roll-play and role-play; I don't see why you can't be very much in-character during a game, and still want feats and skills that'll maximize combat potential when designing your character out of game.

If and when you are playing a character who wants to maximize combat potential, then such is fine. But not all characters are such people.

Roll-play does occasionally get in the way of role-play, however. Number crunching at the table takes up time, and tends to make combat take longer, and renders combat more mathematical and less cinematic.

When you are making decisions based only upon what maximizes potential, you tend to leave out the character's emotional state. I've seen a great many characters attack an optimal target in an optimal manner, rather than attacking the target they're actually angry at in a viscerally satisfying manner.

That being said, though, it is whatever floats your particular boat. So long as your game is fun for all your people, then whatever you are doing is okay. The problems only arise when there's a stylistic mismatch between people in a group.

 

[Henry]

As I said in the "Whatever happened to the transylvania twist..." er, I mean, "...role-playing" thread, Role-playing should NOT be assumed to be the end-all and be-all goal of ALL RPG gamers.

It's a little pretentious IMHO to assume that someone whose goal is NOT immersion is inferior, playing it wrong, stupid, call it what you will. Instead, the goal should be how well you get along with these people, and how much fun you have with them. Until people start Roleplaying for money, the goal should be fun, and more power to people who don't game with friendly faces, though I'll never understand 'em. :\

Me, I do it for the role-play to a degree, but mostly for the fun. If I wanted to LARP as immersively as possible, I wouldn't travel 150 miles every three months to do it, for the NC Gamedays; the reason I go is because I get to meet people I correspond with daily or weekly, put names to faces, share a dinner and a good story or two, and make friends with people. I wouldn't travel to GenCon to meet people for this same reason. I don't meet Monte Cook, SKip Williams, Gary Gygax or Eric Noah just to get roleplaying secrets from them; I met 'em to thank 'em for contributing to the hobby, to kick back and party with these stalwart souls, and maybe to game with some really cool people. Never gamed with Monte or Skip yet, but maybe one day...

----------------

DO I min-max? Of course! Can't help it! I don't do it as well as some others, but I also dislike a character that con't pull their own weight, in or out of combat. I don't like wringing every last skill point out of a PC, but I also won't take 3 feats of Skill Focus just to be a "darned good Bakery Store Owner."

-----------------

DO I Role-play? Hells, yes! I've played my own PC's with relish, and I've played Pre-gens; During the 2000 RPGA events at Gencon, I played Robilar with a haughty swagger, a ready insult, and a barked command for my underling Quij (the woman who played Quij BTW was one of the best RP'ers I've ever seen). During a recent F'n Realms game, my bard jumped to the defense of his lord before even the fighters did; he did it out of loyalty. I don't know my character's 5th cousin's dog's name, but I try to do my part to bring them to life.

SO in summary, I'm in it for all three. Sorry for the ramble.

 

[Gizzard]

...and instead uses math and number-crunching to analyze everything in the PHB to determine what ability scores, races, classes, skills, feats, equipment, and combat tactics are used to make the deadliest possible character...

I have a lot of sympathy for the roll-playing perspective, but I can understand what your friend is saying. This book sounds like it would suck all the fun out of the game; making it somehow robotic. I guess I've used math to think about an existing character (to Flurry or not as a Monk for instance) but is there anything interesting to do with the PowerGamers Handbook other than cookie-cutter out a character to play with?

This leads into a digression: There is a difference in my mind between roll-play and power gaming. To "roll-play" is simply to enjoy exploring dungeons and smashing monsters rather than politics and PC interactions. You can do this with mediocre PCs or even bad PCs. To "power game" is to try and maximize the power of your PC. This is easiest with a great PC build, but it can also be done by rules lawyering etc.

Does this make me a bad gamer or what?

Of course! Using math means that you are far gone to the dark side, away from *true* role-play. Why, even dice are suspect to *true* role-players. (Perhaps because they have numbers on them, which are, in turn, mathematical!)

 

[Psion]

I do look at the degree of optimization you speak of with certain disdain, yes.

Not that I'm a plot nazi. I am into a good "character challenging" session as much as anyone else.

And I do expect players to optimize their characters a certain amount.

But when you write a whole book with the intent of maximum smackdown, that does not sound to me like something that I would really want my players reading. It narrows the options taken by players to only the most optimal ones, or creates jealousy from the players who aren't into that level of farming out the best combination on everything.

 

[Galethorn]

The one and only problem I can see with pure roll-playing is that it interferes with other player's role-playing in a way that doesn't really go the other direction...for example...

Role-Player: I approach the guard.
DM: The guard greets you. "Hello there, travelers! What brings you to Thumbleton?"
Role-Player: We seek the tutelage of Flondor, the local Wise-Man.
DM: The guard nods, and points towards a tower at the edge of town.

*****

Roll-Player: I ask the guard about that mage that you said could teach me fireball.
DM: Then ask him!
Roll-Player: I did!
DM: No, no, ask him in character.
Roll-Player: Uhhh...hello Mr. Guard. Where's that mage that the DM told me I could learn Fireball from?
DM: <sigh> Roll a reflex save vs. a bolt of lightning.
Roll-Player: 94.
DM: :\...
Roll-Player: What happens?
DM: :\...
Roll-Player:.....?
DM: You die.
*****

So, you see, not roleplaying at all is a problem when the other characters are roleplaying. I'm fine with roll-playing, so long as you actually try to stay in character...in fact, you could say I'm a bit of a power gamer when I'm not DMing (albeit only to keep up with the rest of the group). The problem is the roll-playing too much is worse for the role-players than too much role-playing is for the roll-players.

 

[Henry]

The one and only problem I can see with pure roll-playing is that it interferes with other player's role-playing in a way that doesn't really go the other direction...

I have to disagree, and I see the example as a bit skewed... consider the following:

Player1:"Hail, fine shopkeeper! How goes your business to-day?"
Player2:"I want to purchase the following items..." <hands DM a list>
Player1:"..And your family, good sirrah? How fare they?"
DM:" He replies "very well, sir. What may I get you this day?"
Player1:"Oh, some supplies, most are mundane, though it may be very hard to get good wolfsbane this year. Abominable crop weather, I say."
DM:"He asks you for your list"
Player1:"I tell him 'I shall require some wolfsbane, two sprigs, though more if you have a line on a fresh supply. Second, I shall require a fresh travel blanket, though lined with down would be preferable, I am fine with mere cotton..."
Player2:...
Player 2: (minutes later) "...DM, my list? did I get the stuff?"
DM: Hmh? Oh, I'll get to you in a second. "Yes, good sirrah, the down blanket shall cost you 20 gold."
Player1: "Twenty Gold? you slight me, sir, I see no recourse but to look for a lesser blanket."
Player2: "Guys? Are you two done yet? I'd like to finish this before Monday."


----------------

A little skewed, too, to be sure, but also to prove a point. I've seen as many people trying to monopolize a game through role-play as through sheer "gamism."

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I agree with Psion here,

By making "Premium Archetypes", you are effectively saying "anything else but this archetype is sub-optimal". This is not a message I would want to give my players nor one I would particularly appreciate myself as a player. In addition, it seems to take out some of the fun and mystery in the game.

I simply just prefer to fit feats and abilities to a concept rather than bend and manipulate a concept into the most optimised series of feats. A subtle difference but one that changes around some of the basic precepts and enjoyments of the game for me.

I, like Umbran would say however that if this type of thing is what you're after and you enjoy it - and yes I think there is a power gamer in all of us - then who am I to tell you not to?

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[takyris]

I have a middle-of-road perspective, which likely comes, at least in part, from having computer-geek players who, no matter what, are gonna look at the numbers. Here's my feeling:

1. Come up with a character concept. It's important to me that this come first. Maybe it changes, maybe it shifts, but come up with this.

2. Then do everything in your power to make this work, and minmax to your heart's content in order to do so.

There's nothing holy about building an underpowered character. If my character concept is "A witty, droll, lighthearted guy who isn't much for violence but who can pick any lock on the planet," and then all I do is max out his ranks and call it a day, I have done a lousy job of making my character mesh with the rules. He's going to be good at lockpicking, sure, but only as good as any other lockpicker of his level. In d20 Modern I can build him with Smart levels and take Savantisable Device, which adds a bonus equal to my level. I can take whatever feat gives me the +2 to Disable Device (or open lock, depending on whether you're in D&D or d20Modern). I can take a level of Dedicated in order to get Skill Focusisable Device.

So let's take a look:

"A witty, droll, lighthearted guy who isn't much for violence but who can pick any lock on the planet"

Build one, 6th level, and Int16 in either case.

9 ranks in Disable Device, +3 Int = +12. Not bad.

Build two, 6th level, Smart5(Savantisable Device), Ded1(Skill Focus), with the lockpicking feat as well:

9 ranks +3 Int +5 Savant +3 Focus +2 feat = +22. Um, significantly better.

If I also take 5+ ranks in Knowledge skills, I can help the party in fact-finding, and I can also get a Synergy bonus ("Oh, this is a T-47 Duralock -- I've read about this one. Should turn over real easy if I just... yeah, there we go.")

Now, of course, play whichever one is fun for you, but there's nothing inherently holy about the other guy. Would I play the minmaxed guy? Not sure. I might not, at least not completely. I might ditch that Dedicated level and go with Charismatic, because I want him to start using that witty drollness I mentioned to good effect. But the fact that I maxed out his ability in something for which his character concept was "Is totally rocking at this particular thing" is not bad.

As a GM, I hate having players feel frustrated because their character can't do what they imagine him as being able to do. Sometimes, that's because they're thinking of a higher-level character, and sometimes it's because they were unwilling to focus that deeply in something (Note that my lock-god doesn't have a ton of other abilities to buy -- he can be okay at a few other things, but he'll only be great at that. And that was my concept.), but sometimes it's because they didn't build their character very well. Didn't realize that their character, as envisioned, should have had a lot more Craft ranks if he was the kind of guy who could MacGuyver up a minor chemical explosive in the blink of an eye, or that they really should have built up more combat feats if they'd envisioned a martial arts expert who can take down professional boxers without trouble.

So no, I don't think that minmaxing is bad, as long as you do it in such a way that it's faithful to your character ideal. Giving your hotheaded anger-management-issues gunfighter a Wisdom of 13 just so that he can get Far Shot is bad. Giving him a high Dex so that he can take Double Tap is peachy. In-game, same rules apply. There's an expression of blissful glee that comes over one of my player's faces as he says "Skull has the Intelligence to know that single shots are better than double taps right now, but he doesn't have the Wisdom to know that running away would be the best idea." His character might get nailed a round or two later, but he's playing his character both intelligently and faithfully -- an high-Intelligence gunman with good combat tactics and a lousy Wisdom.

The only time that I think minmaxing is bad is when it's done in the absence of character. And heck, even then, it's okay if you can get a character out of it. Once, in a one-shot, I just wanted to see how cool a grappler I could make. I had no character, but I slapped all those feats on there and ended up with a dwarf with spiked armor and a whole lot of Grapple-y goodness. He was one of the best roleplaying experiences of my life, because the numbers ended up giving me great ideas for the character (based on his Int and Cha dump-stats, I gave him a three-phrase vocabulary -- and all three phrases were in Dwarven. The party's other dwarf translated for me... loosely. But I got to say the same three phrases for four straight sessions with varying inflection, and by the end of it, people were singing along with me. It was awesome. I believe I stole the original "three-phrase vocabulary" idea from someone here on the boards, too.)

"So, Gordarin, you think we should expect trouble at the Duke's speech?"

"Gar'harda Moradin!"

"Yeah, me too."

The fact that he successfully killed a bone devil by grappling doesn't make him invalid as a character.