Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Zaruthustran" data-source="post: 963415" data-attributes="member: 1457">Roleplaying appeal and game efficacy are not mutually exclusiveThat's not technically true, if the word "strong" is to mean "capable of surviving/finishing a module."Example: two characters. Bob, who has 3s in all stats, and Joe, who has 18 in all stats. It doesn't matter if Bob's player is a super-capable role-player. Bob will likely die before Joe. Put another way: a pit trap doesn't care if Bob's player put all of Bob's skill ranks into Craft: Basket Weaving instead of Find Traps because it fit Bob's character concept. This statement has nothing to do with the first quoted statement. First you argued that roleplaying = strength. That's not true.Here you argue that roleplaying = fun. Thats true for many people, including me, and apparently including you. But it's not true for all people. And it doesn't have anything to do with your first argument. Or are you saying that strength = fun? I'm confused.Yes--in that kind of campaign, a strong character would be a character min maxed for Diplomacy, Disguise, and stealth. Min/maxing for social skills does not = roleplaying, at least not in my book.Most campaigns and modules, especially "official" campaigns and modules, are oriented toward combat. All of the RPGA modules I've ever played have heavily skewed toward combat, and since they have a 4 or 8 hour time limit, there's simply and literally no time for roleplaying.Sure, but those actions certainly aren't "strong". They're quirky, they can be fun, but it's silly to argue that such actions are "strong" actions. Min/maxers are the norm--D&D is a min/max game. Read the rules--they're written with Min/maxers in mind. If you want deep roleplaying, try a system that's designed with roleplaying in mind. D&D is really a tactical combat game; if you can fit in roleplaying, that's great--but it's a bonus. I mean, think about it: would a real roleplaying game have a skill called Diplomacy? No way! You'd just roleplay-out verbal encounters, and the DM would decide what happens. Instead, D&D gives us skill ratings and charts of Difficulty Classes. Under such a system, the best characters are indeed those that are composed of the best stats. Your Rogue with a 6 Dex and a long backstory of how he lost a leg to a crocodile is all fine and dandy, but when it comes time to clean out a tomb, the min/maxed rogue with an 18 Dex is the better choice for a companion. That's the rogue that can get the job done, and can help the party succeed at its mission.And that's what this game called D&D is all about.Note that roleplaying appeal and game efficacy are not mutually exclusive. Check out Piratecat's Story Hour, or Contact's Story Hour, or Sagiro's Story Hour. All those characters are very effective, very strong, very min/maxed. And they're all very deep, very interesting, very fun. I'd say you're wrong, *and* that it's a gripe that'll never be resolved. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But don't worry, I for one can feel your pain. Most people don't enjoy roleplaying, or are incapable of it, and I think they're missing out on a lot of really good fun.-z, who really enjoys roleplaying his min/maxed characters.PS: Welcome to the boards!</blockquote>

Verification