Roll-playing, is it utterly condemnatory?

[Ant]

Min-max away, my friend.

Rules are the core of the d20 mechanics. If there are rules then DMs should expect that some people to want to work them to their advantage.

Two points:
1) If more than a few players do this then, as the DM, make sure that this is the way you want the game to go.

2) A player that picks a "weaker" feat to tie in to his character purely for roleplaying value scores big points with me. Big, big points.

 

[DragonLancer]

I am dead set against Roll-Playing/Power-Gaming/Whatever-you-call-it. Its an Anathema to the game. Its called Role-Playing for a reason.

When a player (and I have a roll-player in my group) creates such a character it overpowers the game and spoils the fun for both the DM and the other players.

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.

 

[Psion]

Roleplaying is orthogonal to min-maxing

Not strictly, no.

You can roleplay an effective character who is interesting and believable, yes.

You can also take it to the extreme and emphasize one to the expense of the other when you make your decisions solely based on one or the other.

 

[Psion]

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.

Just what's wrong with Final Fantasy, pray tell?

If I come away from a game having told a story as rich and compelling as FFVI or FFVII, I would feel I have accomplished something.

 

[diaglo]

Of course you do. And you only read Playboy for the articles.

the Jimmy Hoffa one was good.

so was the one with Jimmy Carter lusting in his heart.

 

[diaglo]

Just what's wrong with Final Fantasy, pray tell?

everything is wrong with it from my point of view.

 

[hong]

the Jimmy Hoffa one was good.

so was the one with Jimmy Carter lusting in his heart.

I think I've gone blind again.

 

[Piratecat]

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.

I sure disagree. That's not how you play the game -- or me, for that matter. But it smacks of pretension to announce that this style is wrong for everybody. D&D came from wargaming, remember, and it's really no insult to you if some people prefer to play it that way.

 

[diaglo]

I sure disagree. That's not how you play the game -- or me, for that matter. But it smacks of pretension to announce that this style is wrong for everybody. D&D came from wargaming, remember, and it's really no insult to you if some people prefer to play it that way.

while i agree with the first part of your statement.

i completely must protest your second assertion.

wargaming is not FF.

i came from the wargaming side.

 

[rushlight]

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.

If you have a group of power-gamers and you add a role-player, then the role-player really doesn't usually have much chance of affecting the other players' enjoyment of the game. He won't be the best at diplomasizing (is that a word?) or the best at fighting. He won't step on anyones toes. No problems for the power-gamers.

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.

For what it's worth, my biggest problem with the book at hand is that it actively discourages less effective (but potentially more flavorful) skill and feat selections. It also encourages identical characters (for "max" effectiveness). Neither of those belong in my game world. I'm trying to craft a world with realism, and this book discourages it. I should add that this is my personal tastes for my game. For another person, these conditions may not even register on his / her radar.