Roll-playing, is it utterly condemnatory?

[MaxKaladin]

I believe I know why power-gamers are continually at odds with role-players.

If you have a group of role-players, their characters will not be "maxed out" for fighting only - they will usually have attempted to duplicate a "real" person. Some fighty, some knowledge, some resources just spent on character "flavor". If you then add a power-gamer to that mix, he almost instantly takes over the game on whatever aspect he's maxed out. That causes problems for the role-players.

I find that it's almost always combat that the power gamer concentrates on. The net effect of this in a group of people who are not power gamers is that the power gamer dominates combat, often to the extent that anything that is a challenge to the power gamer is going to wipe out everyone else. Likewise, anything that's an appropriate challenge for the rest of the party is a walk-over for the power gamer, which cheapens any sense of accomplishment the rest of the group would get from beating such a monster. Someone provided a great example of this above describing the campaign where someone had a third of the BAB the power gamer did and found a combat horribly difficult where the power gamer was taunting the enemies to come back so he could keep thrashing them.

This also causes problems for the DM who has to try to challenged a group with such widely varying combat abilities.

Basically, its very easy for one power gamer to ruin things for a whole group of non-power gamers while one non-power gamer in a power gaming group is pretty much going to be the only one who is unhappy -- unless the power gamers are occasionally annoyed that he isn't "pulling his weight" in combat or "wastes time" trying to talk to people. I think this is the root of the problem. It's just so easy for one person doing power gaming to screw things up for a whole group of non-power gamers while the reverse doesn't hold true. Is it really any wonder that some people react badly to even the first hint of powergaming?

Note that I'm not saying that power gamers are deliberately trying to ruin things for anyone, just that the mix of powergamers and non powergamers has an unintended result.

 

[mafisto]

Group balance

So the problem is obviously the mix of players. However, power-gamers are predisposed to take over the game - while role-players are not. It's not that one is better than the other - they can both be fun to play. The problem is that a single power-gamer can ruin the fun for a group of role-players, while the opposite is not true.

I think rushlight has finally hit the nail on the head. I've seen in this thread a lot of dancing around the core issue of power-gaming vs. role-gaming; ultimately, it's about game balance.

There are countless threads on this board about balanced feats, skills, PrCs and variant rules, all with meticulous attention ot the details. However, isn't is a prime consideration that a character could be inherently unbalancing? If a character is a round balance of good combat and flavor design, it will inherently be less effective in combat. That is a foregone conclusion - you must sacrifice one for the other. When a character is designed exclusively to maximise effectiveness in dice-rolling contests, that conflict no longer exists. You will always have the most effective character if you put no consideration into 'useless' flavor skills and feats.

So unbalance is the principle issue. If this thread were about someone who had designed an uber-class and played it in a campaign with comparatively weaker characters, everyone would be hopping all over the place shouting 'balance!'. But when a powergamer upsets the balance of an otherwise non-power-gaming party, it's about 'earning it' and 'having the better design'? Hardly.

If you want to min-max or powergame, make it clear up front. See if others are willing to accomodate the fact that when the dice hit the table, you will almost always be the 'winner'. If the other players are not willing to deal with your min-maxed character, then don't play it. Conversely, if you're planning on playing a flavor character in a min-maxed party, don't expect to have a whole lot of fun with dice rolls. Adjust your style of play to the group - that's just common sense.

 

[Quasqueton]

I wonder what would happen if a "min-maxer/number-cruncher" made a character for a "real role player" to play?

Would it be like matter/antimatter colliding? Or could the "real role player" role play the character just fine?

It's like most "real role players" actively dislike a game-mechanicaly efficient and effective character. But from my experience, I haven't met any good "min-maxer players" who disliked or couldn't role play an interesting character personality. Odd.


I had a Player who created a fighter character with the Improved Disarm feat and wielded a bastard sword in two hands. He also began every combat by locking on his locked gauntlet, and he liked disarming his opponents. As the DM, I pointed out to him that his feat pretty much covered the need of a locked gauntlet (he didn't need to waste the first round of every battle locking up), and if he was going to use a two-handed sword, why not use a greatsword. I was just telling him this in case he misunderstood the rules; I was not telling him what I wanted him to do. He dropped the locked gauntlet and sold his bastard sword to buy a greatsword. But I think he lost interest in the character after that. He eventually dropped the character and brought in another.

That was a shame, because the character was interesting and fun in the campaign. And I don't see how or why the character would suddently become boring or less fun to play just because he became a little more efficient in combat.

Quasqueton

 

[Fenes]

I think the biggest problem is, as was mentioned, when you mix playstyles. In my campaign I had to disallow a minmaxed character (celric) since it would have rendered the fighters obsolete. In my opinion, a party should be balanced. If you have three roleplayers playing non-minmaxed fighter characters - a knight, a barbarian and a duellist and they are supposed to be among the best in their field, fighting - then there simply is no place for a cleric optimised for fighting who would overshadow them in their fields while retaining full spellcasting abilities.

In such cases the "max" in "minmaxing" is not defined by the core rules, but by the other characters' power level, and you either build a character that adheres to that, or don't play with us. You do not expect us to minmax to the same degree.

Another point is that it is simply too much of a chore to balance opponents for an unbalanced party. Not much fun for the rest of the party either, if their combat characters can't hit the challenge for the minmaxed combat characters.

 

[randomling]

Hmm. I consider myself a "real role player", in that I really role play. Part of my enjoyment from playing RPGs comes from playing a character and telling that character's story (or helping my PCs to tell their story, if I'm the DM). But I'm definitely not allergic to playing characters who are effective at what they do (and that requires a certain amount of min-maxing). If I'm playing a big hulking fighter, I want her to do lots of damage. If I'm playing a scout, I want her to be a good scout (and hit lots with her bow).

Unlike Quas, I've never met a good role player who disliked playing effective characters, but I have met min-maxers who genuinely disliked in-character role playing.

I guess that's just different experience.

 

[Umbran]

Far too many people these days play D&D as though it were Final Fantasy or some other videogame, and thats not how the game is meant to be played.

What, you claim to know what was going on in the mind of the designers, such that you know the One True Way the game was meant to be played? You a telepath, or something? Beware your presumption. Some of those designers read these boards on occasion, and one of them may well decide to contradict you.

Especially when it does not seem you've read the 3.x DMG (around and about page 8 of either edition) where it explicitly points out that there are many different valid styles of play.

 

[Turanil]

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?

I will have to get a look at that book. It sounds good!

Well, I AM ONE OF THOSE GMs WHO DETRACTS ROLL-PLAY IN FAVOR OF ROLE-PLAY.

However, since I am now going to play rather than DM, I had to create my character. Now since the other players are keeping their PCs from my finished campaign, I converted an old 12th level 2e houseruled PC to 3e. To have it feel like the 2e version, I searched for a prestige class. I searched all the books I have, but eventually selected one from Ultimate Prestige Classes vol.1 by Moongoose Pub. Mmmmh... Now I am in the sin of ROLL-play. I guess that what can do a Fighter 6 / Cleric 1 / Knight_of_the_Left_Hand 5 will probably scare the DM who is making his first try at DMing 3e...

Anyway, my opinion is that it is okay to create the best roll-play character, but then you should envellop all of these numbers into fluff descriptions and appropriate in-character behavior; i.e.: role-play. Otherwise, I personnaly don't see the point (I never liked wargames anyway).

 

[rushlight]

I wonder what would happen if a "min-maxer/number-cruncher" made a character for a "real role player" to play?

From my experience, he would probably not use the killer combos to their most effective. Not intentionally, mind you - he would most likely "do what the character would do". If that means bashing the guy who swung at you last (even if there is a more effective method or jucier target) then so be it, because that is how the player feels the character would react. He's role playing.

A power-gamer wouldn't even consider what the character would do. He'd look over the battlefield, ponder for a moment on the most effective target and combo, and them methodically implement it. Is that what his character would do? Would he really stop in the middle of a vicious melee (while being attacked by other people!) and figure, "hey, I could trip that mage and get an AoO - that's like a free hit!" and then run over and do it? Most likely not. Anyone who's done any swordplay in real life can tell you that your thought processes don't function like that in a real melee. This player is roll-playing.

It's like most "real role players" actively dislike a game-mechanicaly efficient and effective character. But from my experience, I haven't met any good "min-maxer players" who disliked or couldn't role play an interesting character personality. Odd.

I don't think it's that the dislike it exactly. It just doesn't suit them. For instance: I'm going to be playing in a new game a friend is starting. I've decided to be a sorcerer. I'm going to focus in ray spells only. I'll be taking the feat Weapon Focus: Ray. Is it effective? Probably not - it's only +1. It would be more effective to take a level of fighter, get the +1 and a feat. But that's not what my character would do. Besides the fact that I won't be taking a single area-effect spell. Will I be the most effective mage ever? Of course not - but that's not my goal. My goal is to play the role I've chosen - a mage who likes to shoot things.

In other words, a role player derives pleasure from chosing a role and playing it, both it's successes and it's faults - he embraces and enjoys it all. A roll-player generally has the objective of "winning the game" i.e., being the most effective smasher / shooter there is. Sure, some probably add a veneer of personality ("My guy is the toughest guy around!") along with their desire to be the most effective smasher ever. But if you suggest that he take the Endurance feat instead of Power Attack to show his toughness, he'll act like you asked him to cut off a leg.

That was a shame, because the character was interesting and fun in the campaign. And I don't see how or why the character would suddently become boring or less fun to play just because he became a little more efficient in combat.

That's probably because the character lost his "flavor". To a role-player, flavor and style usually are more important that rules-based effectiveness.

I'd like to say again that I don't think one style is better than the other - clearly the objective here is to have fun and both styles can be fun. The problems only arrise when you've got a party with:

Dozar "The Elf from the nether regions seeking to destroy evil!"
Hazkak "The Dwarf child, eager to explore the world and bring glory to his family!"
Three-Finger Eddie "The sneakiest theif with a heart of gold you'll ever lose your coin to!"
and
Fighter "Let's see, 3 points of power attack for +6 damage because i'm using my sword 2-handed combined with my bonuses from..."

That last guy will just really put a hurt on the game of the other three players. Now if everyone is approaching the game as a tactical exercise, then there won't be any problems...

 

[Kemrain]

...
rollplaying plays the G flat....and roleplaying plays the G sharp ...

... you need some of both to play the G at the correct pitch.

Wow...

Diaglo's a genius.

I'll never doubt you again, Pkitty.

- Kemrain the Concurring.

 

[Belen]

Unlike Quas, I've never met a good role player who disliked playing effective characters, but I have met min-maxers who genuinely disliked in-character role playing.

I have to agree with you here. I have met bad role players who did not like to play effective characters though.

In any event, I tend to lay blame for the current trends at the feet of WOTC. They have consistently published books that have highlighted took box approach to the game, without balancing it with the RP aspects of the game, instead, they decide to leave that to the GMs.

For instance, it seems that DnD gaming is slowly devolving into real time Neverwinter Nights, sacrificing depth of RP with kewl "builds." Story has become frosting rather than any real impetus to the game. The "complete" books resemble a video game "expansion pack" rather than any real discussion of the how and whys of playing a class. I find that I still go back and read the old TSR complete books for that stuff!

Heck, I'd be happier if the "Complete" books focused on how to use the core books rather than adding more "Kewl Tools" to the game. In that, the Powergamer books are more useful!

The current gaming trends take a lot from anime and video game influences where combat strategy and kewl abilities are more important than social interaction. WOTC has embraced that trend in order to sell to a larger audience.

I mean, if a newbie experiences the game first through Neverwinter or Everquest, then they will expect to play tabletop like neverwinter or everquest. The newbie will expect to take anything that is available in the released tool box books while expecting the GM to create combat encounters with a story. Heck, even the RPGA has embraced this trend. It is very close, if not identical, to a MMORPG.

MMORPGs and game like Neverwinters are created to serve players. These games are also created so that players are optimized for combat etc because that is the focus of their games. Obviously, you cannot interact with NPCs other than through scripted lines etc. Thus, many new players have no idea there would be a need for this. They understand social skills like diplomacy, but again, this is an area to max out in order to roll for the scripted plotline etc.

GMs have no place in this scheme. Thus, WOTC offers no support for them and no material to show the newbies that tabletop can be different from MMORPG.

Dave