What if the envision their characters to be skilled fighters?
Siloing: Good or Bad?
- Thread starter the Jester
- Start date
What if the envision their characters to be skilled fighters?
Starfox
Hero
Very true. Players tend to envision characters that do the kind of things they as players find fun. If the player likes combat, the character is likely to be good at it. Is this good or bad role-playing? Does it matter?
There is one kind of optimization that is always good - optimizing for fun. Preferably everyone's fun, but its far easier to optimize for your own fun.
Picking +1 to combat when your character is a good fighter -> role playing
Picking +1 to talking when your character is a diplomat -> role playing
Picking +1 to combat because you assume this will net you the most benefit in the game -> metagaming.
keterys
First Post
This is fairly shortsighted, unfortunately.
1) If the mechanics of a game encourage one behavior over another, they might from the very beginning envision characters that best fit those mechanics. For example, if the system makes it costly to be a master brewer, they might choose not to be one in the first place.
2) They might invest in both fighting and talking, or some other mix, to match their character concept, then as they gain xp advance in whatever seems most convenient and useful as their character concept has been served.
3) Regardless of how well they RP, they are still playing a game with game benefits and penalties, so they should obviously create their character knowing about those benefits to at least a certain extent. It's flatly ludicrous to expect someone to ignore how a game works when playing that game and those who do can create situations in which they are potentially a detriment to their party. Depending mostly on the type of campaign, system, and skill of the DM, but a 'good RPer' who is far below average in effectiveness because they are choosing to RP an ineffective combatant or spent all their points on maximizing their backstory skills of being a master carpenter, juggler, and flutist, might in turn make the difference between a TPK or not when running a predone module (which many good DMs do, to pre-empt that objection)
Playing a good fighter because your assume that this will net you the most benefit in the game -> Metagaming or not?
Picking +1 to combat because your diplomat has been involved in lots of fights -> Metagaming or not?
keterys
First Post
Elizabeth Swann is a horrible metagamer for spending a bunch of xp on combat skills after she spent that first adventure really needing them!
Hussar
Legend
Let's be honest here, and IMO, this is not edition specific - choosing bonuses to combat in D&D is pretty much par for the course. D&D is a combat heavy RPG. It always has been and always will be. Yes, you can choose to not use it that way, but, the base assumption is that you will be getting into fights. Goes all the way back to the wargaming roots of the game.
Complaining that players choose combat advantages in D&D is just silly IMO, when the overwhelming majority of the rules center around killing stuff.
As far as tying flavour to mechanics, 4e took that idea behind the barn and put a bullet in its ear. Considering that you can move a given creature about 4 or 5 CR's up or down with a minimum of change, the idea that a monster manual listing of a creature is any sort of standard is ridiculous.
Being a Dusk Elf is a player choice. You can play one with or without the feat. The feat just adds to things, but is by no means required to play a Dusk Elf.
4e, much more than earlier editions requires the players to actually play their character to portray their choices. They are not forced into narrow conceptions by the mechanics. It's simply an extention of the 3e idea of any race any class. How do you differentiate your dusk elf from another elf? A stealth bonus is hardly good enough. No, you differentiate it by actually PLAYING that character, not just the stats on the sheet.
Complaining that players choose combat advantages in D&D is just silly IMO, when the overwhelming majority of the rules center around killing stuff.
As far as tying flavour to mechanics, 4e took that idea behind the barn and put a bullet in its ear. Considering that you can move a given creature about 4 or 5 CR's up or down with a minimum of change, the idea that a monster manual listing of a creature is any sort of standard is ridiculous.
Being a Dusk Elf is a player choice. You can play one with or without the feat. The feat just adds to things, but is by no means required to play a Dusk Elf.
4e, much more than earlier editions requires the players to actually play their character to portray their choices. They are not forced into narrow conceptions by the mechanics. It's simply an extention of the 3e idea of any race any class. How do you differentiate your dusk elf from another elf? A stealth bonus is hardly good enough. No, you differentiate it by actually PLAYING that character, not just the stats on the sheet.
