Separating Crunch and Fluff at Character Creation

[MadMaxim]

I've been in a somewhat heated discussion with one of my fellow players concerning crunch and fluff at character creation. Hopefully, the D&D 3.5 game her fiancé is going to run will start in the beginning of February. However, we've been discussing whether or not I'm too much of a shallow power gamer or she's just too deeply engaged with her background story to make optimal decisions for her character.

I'll be playing a Cleric/Radiant Servant of Pelor and she will be playing a Beguiler (from Player's Handbook 2). I'm making all my skill points count towards getting into the prestige class and looking for the best feats for my character (focusing on healing and divine feats) while making a background story that roughly fits these choices but is also a "real" story about how he grew up and became a cleric.

She is seemingly making her character based more or less entirely around her background story which I haven't seen and she chooses flaws like Meager Fortitude (-3 on Fortitude saves) and Vulnerable (-1 AC) to take feats like Obtain Familiar and Spell Focus feats. Her Fortitude save is already bad due to poor progression from the class and she further hammers it through the floor with the flaw for a total starting Fortitude save of -2! I asked her if she shouldn't pick something else, because things requiring Fortitude saves are the things that kill you like poison, save-or-die spells and the like. I told her there were better things to do than get the Fortitude-penalizing flaw, but she just told me it was in character and that there are no optimal choices other than what the player thinks (where I strongly disagree).

Now, I'm wondering, does one require the other? To me it doesn't. I can easily make an optimized character with just as well-written a background and personality as her while still staying competitve or useful to the party whereas she seemingly thinks that an optimized character is just what you make of it. I'd rather have a well-built character with a story attached than a well-written story with a character attached (and possibly not be of very much help to the group). What are your thoughts?

 

[EroGaki]

It sounds to me like this other player suffers from the Stormwind Fallacy, which goes something like: I am a roleplayer; thus I do not min-max.
I purposely make all my characters weak in at least some ways; that makes them better roleplayed.
You're dishing out thousands of damage per hit! You're not roleplaying, you're min/maxing!...And so on and so forth. If those things come up, then they are committing the Stormwind Fallacy: Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean he cannot also roleplay well. Just because a character plays his character well does not mean he cannot be optimized. As a corrollary, characters who are min/maxed are not automatically played worse than those who are not, and characters who are deliberately handicapped are not automatically played better than those who are not. It's easy to imagine players who are good at either one of those things, or bad at both, or good at both.

Essentially, roleplaying and min/maxing can easily coexist since they are independent of each other.

The Stormwind Fallacy originally game up on the Wizards boards. I'll try and find a link to it, if you care to read it.

 

[maddman75]

Sorry, but I'm with her. Fluff should come first, then the mechanics should support that. If her concept is a frail, unhealthy character then she's absolutely correct in taking that feat. The fact that it might get her killed - well that's part of playing a frail character. Conversely though, if your concept is that of a holy knight who stomps evil into the ground, then you're right to follow that concept.

She may have played a lot of other games that don't have niche protection, and there's much less focus on teamwork and tactics. I'd suggest talking to your DM about what kind of game he plans to run. If its a lot of combat, she may need to adjust. If it more story and roleplay, you might consider working some more depth into your character, or else be left with little to do much of the time.

 

[Wik]

Yeah, I'm with Madd on this one. Let her play her frail character - personally, I think it sounds like a fun character. I'd much rather see a character in game who is played around a good flaw than a character who takes a flaw just to get another kewl power.

(One of the reasons I like Savage Worlds...)

That being said, it doesn't really matter - you create the character you want, and she can create the character she wants. If you're stronger than her, oh well. Sit back and enjoy the game, I say.

 

[Weregrognard]

I asked her if she shouldn't pick something else, because things requiring Fortitude saves are the things that kill you like poison, save-or-die spells and the like. I told her there were better things to do than get the Fortitude-penalizing flaw, but she just told me it was in character and that there are no optimal choices other than what the player thinks (where I strongly disagree).

I think the underlying problem here is the unwanted character creation advice. It's just bad form, no matter how well-intentioned.

 

[roguerouge]

The AC flaw is not a big deal, especially for something like Spell Focus. If she bluffs people into failing their save vs. enchantment or illusion, she won't need AC against them most of the time. The -3 Fort save flaw depends on the DM. Some don't care for save or die spells, which makes Fort the worst save in the game with them. If they consistently forget the second Fort save for poison 1 minute later, that makes for an even less necessary save. And if the DM doesn't use disease before you get to fifth level, she has even less to worry about with Fort saves.

So, in short, it depends on the DM.

 

[Timeboxer]

I have to admit that I actually thought: Hey, clever idea. If you're very likely to fail your Fort saves anyway, going into negatives might not be a horrible idea for a mechanical benefit.

The trick of course is to find some way to avoid Fort saves, or at least avoid the conditions that generate Fort saves.

 

[Jack Colby]

I think she's in the right, too. As long as she's not making a character that is actually unplayable, it's fine that she will have a serious flaw. Flaws make characters interesting, especially when the player is willing to accept it and use it in play. If her character's weakness affects the group, you will have to compensate in some way. Just imagine these people have a weak friend... they might act more protective of her, etc. It will all work out. And if her character dies, at least she will be remembered as someone interesting and a bit different. Raistlin from Dragonlance was also physically weak and look how many people think he was cool!

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, I think it's good for people to make the characters they want to play. If she's interested in playing a particularly weak character--fine.

However, when she dies more often, and needs to be raised more often--whoever is playing the cleric--wait, *you* are!--simply charge her some extra gold for your necessary expenses and ritual costs/whatever.

Players that make especially gimped or dysfunctional or disadvantaged character will have plenty of occasions where they suffer the consequences.

I should note that I see the above building of a distinctly flawed character as something different from simply making a more or less standard kind of character that is not *optimized*

But, hey--even in groups where you have some characters that are severely flawed--it can still be hilarious and lots of fun!

I can also appreciate someone's desire to make characters with distinct flaws. Honestly, making endless characters that are uber-optimized and constantly twinked to get the ultimate Darwinian performance out of them can become boring in itself. It's actually strangely refreshing to play some messed up, sub-par character that has one or more distinct flaws and perhaps a whole pack of problems!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Aus_Snow]

fluff -> crunch; concept -> character. It's also my preferred way.

It's actually strangely refreshing to play some messed up, sub-par character that has one or more distinct flaws and perhaps a whole pack of problems!

Yep. I've discovered this, again and again. In the past, particularly with 3d6, roll in order systems (or equivalents). These days, I can gimp stuff just fine with point buy, thanks.

The extra challenge can be nearly as much fun as anything, the feeling that your character is really up against it. . . just by being the way they are! Good stuff.