Why D&D is like pr0n

[Nifft]

The roleplaying adds to the game for everyone, everyone can enjoy content. Min-maxing is more selfish, it's about power, really. Power over the gamespace.

I've seen way more selfish behavior out of spotlight-hogging drama-bunnies than I have seen "gamespace power" hogging by min-maxers.

Bad roleplayers do NOT add to everyone's fun. (Except in retrospect.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dausuul]

I draw a distinction between players who just aren't into optimization and clever tactics, and players who think optimization and clever tactics are the Mark of Bad Roleplayers and actively avoid them. The former are often very nice people and fun to have at the table, and if I have to bail them out of a jam more often than I would with a more heavily optimized PC, so be it. The latter, well... I prefer to ease them out as soon as possible. Failing that, I let them reap the consequences of their actions.

As far as spotlight hogging by optimizers, I find it's usually pretty easy to deal with. You give some powerful magic items to the non-optimizers so they aren't completely overshadowed. Be sure not to close the gap completely, just enough that nobody feels useless. Then take the optimizer aside and explain what you're doing and why, in a way that flatters the optimizer's grasp of the rules--"You're so good that these guys need special help to keep up with you. But don't tell them that."

Spotlight hogging by drama-bunnies is a lot more difficult.

 

[demetri0us]

Bad roleplayers do NOT add to everyone's fun. (Except in retrospect.)

To be fair, I'm sure, that others have had the opposite experience. But I hear your sentiment. If only because the hyperboly points out how absurdly one sided this issue really is (in my estimation).

When was the last time someone said (out loud), "Boy, those pure role players got it all wrong, why do they waste their time? Min-maxing (optimizing, munchkin, whatever) is the real game!"

As I've mentioned above it really burns me when a particular play style gets portrayed as preferable. Again, not that everyone does it, but clearly, it does happen.

I get that all the time as a musician, from other musicians... "Oh, so-and-so famous musician is terrible, not near as good as not-quite-as-famous what's-her-name." I wanna be like, "Who cares? Isn't it just good their both making music?"

 

[demetri0us]

I draw a distinction between players who just aren't into optimization and clever tactics, and players who think optimization and clever tactics are the Mark of Bad Roleplayers and actively avoid them.

Totally, I agree 100% MOST of the people I have encountered are the former.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

And this is where I start wanting to drown "ROLE-players". My PC lives in a dangerous world and regularly fights for his life. He thinks about how he fights, what he fights, and what equipment he carries. To do anything else is a short way to a Darwin Award. (That doesn't mean that he makes the "right" decisions mechanically - he might want that big sword because it looks cool and he therefore thinks it's good). To not at least try to min-max your in character choices is to reject the premise of the game and as such is bad role-playing.

[snip]

And an anti-minmaxed character is one of two things that tempts me to PVP (the second being rogues who steal from the party and other griefing characters). I have on one occasion come very close to saying in character "I have risked my neck to save your incompetent ass for the last time. If you insist on endangering the rest of us by joining us hunting this dragon, I'm going to make sure you, for the first time in your miserable life, do something useful. I'm going to cast sleep on you, paint you in barbeque sauce, and then use you as bait. You'll need no more rescuing than you would normally, and we'll at least know when and be able to prepare for it. If you don't want that then stay at home and leave the job to the professionals."

So, when I first read this, I was thinking like Hobo that it was very antisocial behavior, but then as I thought about it more, I realized that it isn't. It is roleplaying that happens to reflect your own feelings, not just your character's. For you to hold back from saying this in character is a different form of metagaming where you know it is the other player's PC, and you don't want to offend the other player, so you hold back a reaction that would make perfectly good sense outside of a game situation. The simple fact is that everybody's character needs to provide something useful to the party. If not, why would a group of adventurers keep them around?

 

[Dausuul]

For you to hold back from saying this in character is a different form of metagaming where you know it is the other player's PC, and you don't want to offend the other player, so you hold back a reaction that would make perfectly good sense outside of a game situation. The simple fact is that everybody's character needs to provide something useful to the party. If not, why would a group of adventurers keep them around?

Very true. Realistically, nobody would take the klutzy useless character on a life-or-death mission. If he's your friend, you ease him out because you don't want him to get himself killed. If he's not your friend, you boot him out because you don't want him getting you killed.

This fact is often ignored in the name of maintaining amity among players, who don't have as much on the line as their characters. But when the player is being wantonly obnoxious, that amity is being spoiled anyway.

 

[Umbran]

When was the last time someone said (out loud), "Boy, those pure role players got it all wrong, why do they waste their time? Min-maxing (optimizing, munchkin, whatever) is the real game!"

Roughly the last time Optimization got brought up as a topic.

If you think that this is one-sided, you may not have been watching long or closely enough. There are plenty of folks who look down their noses at players who aren't tactically inclined. I have seen folks told that if they aren't willing or able to optimize, they shouldn't bother playing the game.

The newest variation of the argument is a big guilt-trip: if you aren't optimized, then you're "not an asset to the party" - you're dragging everyone else down with you with your less-than-maximum performance. Other people's characters will get killed because of it, so what you're doing isn't fair to other players, and being unfair to other players is badwrongfun!

 

[Umbran]

For you to hold back from saying this in character is a different form of metagaming where you know it is the other player's PC, and you don't want to offend the other player, so you hold back a reaction that would make perfectly good sense outside of a game situation.

And thus we come to the, "not all metagaming is evil," argument.

When you play D&D, you're in a real-life social situation. Real people, real friendships, real feelings. If those don't trump the fiction, you've got a major problem. Only sociopaths don't take other people's needs into account.

Any social situation implies some compromises, preferably on both sides.

 

[Nifft]

To be fair, I'm sure, that others have had the opposite experience.

The experience that BAD roleplayers do add to everyone's fun?!

I'm part of "everyone", and your assertion is just plain wrong.

When was the last time someone said (out loud), "Boy, those pure role players got it all wrong, why do they waste their time? Min-maxing (optimizing, munchkin, whatever) is the real game!"

I do hear "man would you HURRY UP with your turn already?"

The issue I'm raising isn't "why do they waste their time?", it's rather "why won't they stop wasting OUR time?" with their demands for attention.

As I've mentioned above it really burns me when a particular play style gets portrayed as preferable.

Who said anything about preferable? I'm saying that in my experience a BAD roleplayer -- one who is a roleplayer, and who is also a BAD player -- takes up more time, hogs more attention, and is more selfish than someone who is merely a BAD min-maxer.

The BAD min-maxer may succeed more often, may rack up more kills in combat, may survive with less help -- but so what? The ones I've seen generally get their actions done quickly, and don't particularly hog the spotlight -- we don't linger over confirmed kills or DPR or whatever after a fight.

- - -

The WORST players I've seen were never min-maxers. They were of the "LOOK HOW DISRUPTIVE I'M BEING!!!!" variety. I wouldn't particularly call them roleplayers either. They're the sort who use "just playing my character" as an excuse to be disruptive, and give that phrase a bad reputation.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Dausuul]

The newest variation of the argument is a big guilt-trip: if you aren't optimized, then you're "not an asset to the party" - you're dragging everyone else down with you with your less-than-maximum performance. Other people's characters will get killed because of it, so what you're doing isn't fair to other players, and being unfair to other players is badwrongfun!

Yup, I've seen this one around.

Honestly, though, my experience is that it takes more than a sub-optimal build and poor tactical skills to be a non-asset. I mean, no matter how sucky your character is, you're still a bag of hit points. If you divert even one attack that would otherwise have hit a more powerful and effective character--you've contributed. If the other PCs are devoting excessive effort and resources to pulling your fat out of the fire, that's their decision and they are free to choose otherwise.

To be a detriment to the party, you generally have to go beyond poor tactics and do things that are actively stupid and destructive.