Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever. But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?
I enjoy varied characters. So I guess so. As much as I'm a huge GURPS Geek, I get tired of the IQ14 / Magery 3 wizards and similar optimal builds. Even so the character with nothing over 5 is just as common as the character with nothing under 16 and not nearly as much fun.
Definitely. The challenge and fun of D&D (for me that's 1st edition AD&D) is in the way in which several non-optimal characters can work together and succeed despite the odds.
I don't really care for either extreme, and if at all possible I avoid character generation that includes randomly rolled anything. I want a character who's not perfect -- not by a long-shot -- but who's quite competent in a role that benefits the party.
Enjoyment derived from a character depends on circumstances beyond stats. Events of the game itself determine how much fun I have.
That said, I prefer random chargen over point buy or predetermination. Growing a character organically from a given set of stats and a cursory knowledge of the gameworld is preferable to shoehorning a pre-conceived concept into a world that might not support the stories I've already imagined for him.
I don't think I've ever played a truly suboptimal character, with at least half the stats below 9 and no stat above 12. I've only played one character with more than one stat above 14. So, most of the characters I played were either mostly average or one significantly high score. I enjoyed myself pretty well.
I don't have much interest at all in playing in the 'special forces' sort of groups made up of uber-capable specialists perfectly balanced against each other... I much prefer the "random collection of flawed characters thrown together by fate" sort of thing.
So yeah, I favor playing the less-than-optimal PCs... as long as that fits with what the rest of the group and GM are up to.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822536Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever. But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?
It depends on the campaign being run and the game system being used.
Variety is always a good thing to have. I do like the occasional 3d6 in order and make from that what you can. To me there is a significant investment in making that character work despite all the odds and it also forces me into classes, races, and styles that often fall out of my comfort zone.
Certain campaigns work exceptionally well with this and as a DM it's a style I'd love to give a try. However I know this is something that you don't force on your players. Not everyone wants to do the gritty thing and their mood might run more fantasy - heroic or high leveled or they might love point buy. The key is to know your group and ask in advance if this is something they're interested in running.
Optimized characters are boring and they change the tone of the game significantly, so I want them kept as far away from me as possible.
I don't particularly care for the opposite either, but there's lots of room for variety within the averageish range.
Oh gods, yes. I like being Rumplestiltskin spinning hay into gold. I know very well that my choices are what carry the day and the character sheet is mere chronicle of a pretend 'life'.
I run PCs (campaign worlds) as trying on different masks, and each one is a universe of experiences unto themselves. To step into the shoes of another, with new joys and pains, and get lost. Saving the day is not special to me, being present in a new face and creating meaning is. So my goals often follow these ideas instead of mere "victory":
You are not the only hero, your antics mean nothing, and all is castles of sand (naturally so as it is all imaginary).
A 'hero' is what you do in the face of adversity, not in how capable you are; to choose despite circumstance.
Meaning is derived in the face of this oblivion, and the sweetest victories are often the smallest.
As I noted in an older thread here. Most of my characters would be considered sub-optimal. Most of my magic users had INT of 16 or less. A few with pretty abysmal CON to boot.
What I do like though is how 5e handles stats in that you have the option to gradually improve the characters stats. I like that because you can then have a character that starts out weak and through experience and travel, betters themselves.
I don't think I've ever played a character in any game that a min-maxer/optimizer would consider anything close to "optimal" so I guess the answer is yes.
I like to develop something about the character that makes them interesting to play regardless of stat values. Being super competent is fun, and so is being completely average and needing to try extra hard to achieve your goals.
I like focusing on things other than general competency level to provide a good hook for role playing. Personality quirks and minor details are a lot more fun for me to play with than mechanical abilities.
A couple years ago, I was playing in a HERO campaign and we were assembling our team, creating characters and deciding on cover identities. One player announced that his character was done and didn't even have a name. I had way more fun detailing my character's personality and cover identity than building the actual super powers. He was a young musician, lead guitarist in an AC/DC tribute band called Thunderstruck. I had fun creating the other band members and their personalities too.
Well...do not enjoy playing PCs that have 16s or better in everything. Not a fan of Superheroes unless I am playing a Superhero game. Most of the time, though, it doesn't matter.
No, not "more." Sometimes tho
Some characters provide good handle to play them and some just don't. Ability scores are one handle on the characters, but they're not the only one.
At the moment I'm enjoying playing a hobbit fighting-man with a WIS of 4, a CON of 4, and one hit point. (She also has exceptional intelligence and charisma.) The WIS 4 gave me the handle I needed to run with her.
i dont need a character to be optimal but i cant enjoy one that is gimped
I see the question in the thread title and the question asked by Pundit as two very different questions.
Optimization is not about whether the stats are high or low it is about min/maxing what stats (skills, spells, etc.) that the PC does have and about making optimal choices tactical, diplomatic, etc. in the game.
- Does the fighter use the most favorable selection of weapons and armor available or do they use a less favorable selection for reasons?
- Does the fighter use the most favorable tactics to defeat their foes or do they use less favorable tactics for reasons?
- Does the player have their character say the clever thing to persuade, coerce, intimidate, or bribe the NPC to do what the player wants or does the player intentionally say something less clever?
These are questions to ask to determine if someone likes playing a sub-optimal character.
Asking do you enjoy playing a character with some stats that are below average or below expectation is a different question. Long term in an RPG, optimal tools, tactics, and words will make a character more successful than will above average stats. For some players running a character with low stats is like a handicap in golf. They want to see if they can keep their PC alive and succeed in the game by making clever decisions despite the low stats?. But to do this they will frequently optimize the hell out of the character and the character's actions.
I enjoy playing characters who I have intentionally chosen not to optimize because that is part of their personality. I had a ton of fun playing a naïve, somewhat too trusting young Jedi in Star Wars. I could have chosen more optimal actions, tactics, etc. but that wouldn't have been nearly as much fun. If I want to focus on tactical optimization I go play a war game, when I play an RPG I want to play the character like a person - and real people, by and large, are sub-optimal in their choices and actions.
As far as stats go, I prefer a contrast in stats. A character who is good in one or more stats and bad in others is more interesting to play than a character who is average or above in all stats. I want to know what the character's strengths are, but also what their weaknesses are.
I enjoy playing suboptimal characters as much as optimized, but not more. I enjoy playing whatever I have unless it doesn't fit the theme of the game.
Almost all the games I work with are hard to create optimized characters, though there are always those who try.
And to your point, all the really legendary PCs were...Well, Sob-optimal would work for a term. 'Broken' is a better term. But some, like Bard Cucino, lasted for years of real time.
So true.
That was pretty much the story as me, Kefra and Jan went through the playtest of Caves of Chaos several times. We knew the Ogre was in that cave. But our characters didnt and a few times we walked in at low levels and got pounded.
Echoing Bren's response, I generally prefer characters who are competent within their area of expertise but middling-to-weak in other areas. The most fun I've had in a game to date was playing a rogue with a 6 wisdom; the fact he was exceptionally good at being a rogue was often the only reason he was able to get out of the many precarious positions he found himself in (at least half of which were of his own making).
I enjoy playing all sorts of characters, including ones with low scores. Not a fan of the trend towards characters having no weaknesses.
Quote from: cranebump;822617I enjoy playing all sorts of characters, including ones with low scores. Not a fan of the trend towards characters having no weaknesses.
I'm not entirely sure I see a trend where characters don't have weaknesses. I think that it's more likely a trend of DMs specifically not exploiting their PCs weaknesses. I really don't know why considering any selr-proclai bad guy is going to do homework to find out the group's weak spots.
Not a fan of max/min. Except when playing in a superhero game, I don't want to play in the all 16+ game.
Gritty is good, but close to high fantasy is okay as well. Nice to be competent of better at some things.
Quote from: Batman;822619I'm not entirely sure I see a trend where characters don't have weaknesses.
I do. It's usually phrased in terms of "competence" rather than "lacking weaknesses", but it's definitely there and it's coming from game designers, not from negligent GMs. Things like "fail forward" (even if you fail, the GM will throw you a bone that moves you closer to your goal, so you didn't really fail after all!) or the idea that, because PCs are "competent", a blown skill roll has to represent some external factor blocking their success rather than the PC's skill being insufficient for the task.
Quote from: nDervish;822644I do. It's usually phrased in terms of "competence" rather than "lacking weaknesses", but it's definitely there and it's coming from game designers, not from negligent GMs.
Except the designers aren't there, running your games or forcing you to adhere strictly to the rules. I've never come across a character that didn't have at least a few areas of incompetence and that's both mechanics and player alike. And just because they have good competence doesn't necessar mean the dice will always work in their favor too.
Quote from: nDervish;822644Things like "fail forward" (even if you fail, the GM will throw you a bone that moves you closer to your goal, so you didn't really fail after all!) or the idea that, because PCs are "competent", a blown skill roll has to represent some external factor blocking their success rather than the PC's skill being insufficient for the task.
First, fail forward is merely a tool for DMs to use. It's not an always on sort of thing that's used 100% of the time (at least, that's the way it's always come across to me). Second, it's an alternative to failure= death. For some, TPKs ruin the game and if a DM doesn't want the game to come to a screeching halt, you fail forward. The consequences don't always have to be death.
Quote from: Raven;822548Enjoyment derived from a character depends on circumstances beyond stats. Events of the game itself determine how much fun I have.
That said, I prefer random chargen over point buy or predetermination. Growing a character organically from a given set of stats and a cursory knowledge of the gameworld is preferable to shoehorning a pre-conceived concept into a world that might not support the stories I've already imagined for him.
Strongly agree
=
Curious. For those playing 5E, how many of the characters have a single stat under 10? How about 2 stats? 3?
We're running BFRPG and every character has at least one stat below the norm. Half the characters have 3 stats that are 10 or less. Pretty sure the same numbers would cause them to be thrown away in 5E.
I'm not sure if I enjoy playing characters like that more but I definitely enjoy experimenting with sub-optimal choices. A wizard with an 18 Strength and 9 Intelligence? Interesting. As I did this, I also found that different for difference sake was also just as cliche and somewhat annoying to fellow players.
This is why I run OD&D. The -3 to +3 of Red Book meant that you didn't need a 16. A 13 gave you +1. Depending on which version of S&W you use, the range is -1 to +1 so having a +0 isn't a big deal.
The 4e Gamma World had a nice compromise. Put 18 in one stat, put 16 in another and roll 3D6 for the rest. You got your superhero competency for your core and then who knows what happened next which added some variety.
Quote from: cranebump;822658Curious. For those playing 5E, how many of the characters have a single stat under 10? How about 2 stats? 3?
We're running BFRPG and every character has at least one stat below the norm. Half the characters have 3 stats that are 10 or less. Pretty sure the same numbers would cause them to be thrown away in 5E.
My Warlock I am playing is Str 10, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 16 Human(took the +1 to all stats). In the same group the Rogue/Monk player has no stat below 16. We rolled stats. He rolled very well, with my dice no less.
I find it odd that here(for the most part) the concept of optimization starts and stops with stats.
Quote from: Sommerjon;822683I find it odd that here the concept of optimization starts and stops with stats.
That's been the trend of the thread thus far, but not everyone has agreed with it.
I think I like the surprise of the die. I like seeing a character take shape that I wouldn't naturally create if I were doing point buy. So I do like that low stat that forces me to deal with a 6 CON or STR. That challenge can be a lot of fun. But I'll happily take those 18s when I roll them.
Quote from: Bren;822684That's been the trend of the thread thus far, but not everyone has agreed with it.
Well, since our game has rolled stats and rolled race,
the best use of optimization comes from picking the right combination of guilds. So we have some guys who pick the guilds that would be the right mesh and fit for the character they are trying to create, and then we have this one guy who thinks he's hit on the perfect combat/bow monster set of guilds....
Yes.
I would ruminate further, but others above have explained it pretty damn well already.
Quote from: Sommerjon;822683My Warlock I am playing is Str 10, Dex 14, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 11, Cha 16 Human(took the +1 to all stats). In the same group the Rogue/Monk player has no stat below 16. We rolled stats. He rolled very well, with my dice no less.
I find it odd that here(for the most part) the concept of optimization starts and stops with stats.
Ooh, that's another matter entirely, isn't it? Of course, you get a ton of min-maxing when you have more widgets (more races, feats, skills, etc.).
Quote from: cranebump;822706Ooh, that's another matter entirely, isn't it? Of course, you get a ton of min-maxing when you have more widgets (more races, feats, skills, etc.).
With my 5e Warlock Im using shield as my weapon. Not much damage, but fit the idea I wanted to play with.
Quote from: cranebump;822658Curious. For those playing 5E, how many of the characters have a single stat under 10? How about 2 stats? 3?
Two of the players in my game have one stat under ten, the other two players have two stats under 10. All four randomly rolled although I offered them standard array and point buy as options as well.
Quote from: cranebump;822658Curious. For those playing 5E, how many of the characters have a single stat under 10? How about 2 stats? 3?
We're running BFRPG and every character has at least one stat below the norm. Half the characters have 3 stats that are 10 or less. Pretty sure the same numbers would cause them to be thrown away in 5E.
Depends on your stat generation method. Even in Point Buy it is not uncommon to see at least one or two stats below ten. I've seen my share of three stats below 10 in point buy as everything else went into buying up 15s and stacking racial bonuses atop.
Also in Standard Array people don't often bother using racial bonuses to erase that 8. (Standard Array being 15,14,13,12,10,8.) They stack up to get another +3 or +2. With that almost everyone has at least one stat below 10.
Rolling is actually the most exciting one because you get those moments of nothing below 10, or 3+ stats below 10. But in terms of reliably providing at least one stat under 10 I would, interestingly, put it last of the three methods. Most people can mitigate around average, it is only the outer range of rolls that gets too many below 10 stats. By far, you'll see the other stat methods generate more "under 10" stat presence.
I'm currently playing a 5E warlock without the "agonizing blast" invocation. I'm pretty sure that counts as a "sub optimal" character, but I don't really care.
I care more about competency than if they are optimal. I want my character to contribute, but I'm not interested in spending a lot of time on it.
If I happen to get the short end of the stick on part of char gen, again, as long as I come out the other side with a competent character, I'm good.
Quote from: cranebump;822706Ooh, that's another matter entirely, isn't it? Of course, you get a ton of min-maxing when you have more widgets (more races, feats, skills, etc.).
Kinda sorta. Important stats for a Rogue is Dex and Wisdom, important stats for a Monk is....Dex and Wisdom.
Could do the same thing with Paladin and Warlock if you were so inclined.
Quote from: Batman;822653Except the designers aren't there, running your games or forcing you to adhere strictly to the rules.
No, of course they're not. But if the rules say "assume characters are competent and will never fail without an outside factor interfering", then that assumption is originating with the designer, even if it's the GM or other players who enforce (or ignore) it.
Quote from: Batman;822653First, fail forward is merely a tool for DMs to use. It's not an always on sort of thing that's used 100% of the time (at least, that's the way it's always come across to me).
Your experience differs from mine, then. From what I've seen of the "fail forward" crowd, they preach that you are absolutely never, ever,
ever allowed to tell a player "you flat-out failed".
Quote from: Batman;822653Second, it's an alternative to failure= death. For some, TPKs ruin the game and if a DM doesn't want the game to come to a screeching halt, you fail forward. The consequences don't always have to be death.
I don't think I've ever seen potential character death used as an example of when to use fail-forward. Picking locks seems to be the canonical case. "Saying the PC failed to pick a lock is BAD! It makes him look incompetent! Instead, if the player rolls a critical failure, tell him he succeeded in picking the lock, but the guards arrived just as he finished."
Now, yes, that example is often justified with an assertion that the story (always "story"! never "game"!) comes to a screeching halt if they can't pass the locked door, but my position on that is that, if you set things up so that there is only one path that the PCs must follow, then you're Doing It Wrong from the start, regardless of whether they successfully pick the lock or not.
Quote from: Sommerjon;822777Kinda sorta. Important stats for a Rogue is Dex and Wisdom, important stats for a Monk is....Dex and Wisdom.
Could do the same thing with Paladin and Warlock if you were so inclined.
...Dex and what now? I'd honestly put Wis dead last in order of importance for rogues (yes, even behind Cha). Granted, I'm of the opinion virtually all adventurers should necessarily have low Wis scores. People with high Wis open a shop to sell gear and supplies to stupid adventurers. :p
I like to have 1 fairly crappy stat and another fairly low stat.
It gives colour to the character and helps visualise what it's going to be like in various ways.
Still, I'm not opposed to nice high stats as well, which also helps fill out the characters.
Quote from: woodsmoke;822914...Dex and what now? I'd honestly put Wis dead last in order of importance for rogues (yes, even behind Cha). Granted, I'm of the opinion virtually all adventurers should necessarily have low Wis scores. People with high Wis open a shop to sell gear and supplies to stupid adventurers. :p
Guess it depends on how you like to play Rogues.
Quote from: woodsmoke;822914...Dex and what now? I'd honestly put Wis dead last in order of importance for rogues (yes, even behind Cha). Granted, I'm of the opinion virtually all adventurers should necessarily have low Wis scores. People with high Wis open a shop to sell gear and supplies to stupid adventurers. :p
If the game didn't tie basic observational skills to WIS then I would agree. There isn't a way in game to model a character who is very aware of their surroundings without a connection to having common sense.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;823035If the game didn't tie basic observational skills to WIS then I would agree. There isn't a way in game to model a character who is very aware of their surroundings without a connection to having common sense.
Yet another reason I like Earthdawn: it subs out Wisdom as a stat for Willpower and just lets perception be its own thing. So I can have an adept who's fairly perceptive and will generally see surreptitious actions but doesn't necessarily think to put 2 and 2 together.
With D&D I generally just do my best to ignore the fact Wisdom is supposed to dictate common sense and perception, slot in the available number I want for the skill bonus and play my character as senseless or savvy as I think s/he should be. It's far from perfect, but what are you gonna' do?
Quote from: Exploderwizard;823035If the game didn't tie basic observational skills to WIS then I would agree. There isn't a way in game to model a character who is very aware of their surroundings without a connection to having common sense.
Except that alot of animals in 5e have some pretty good WIS scores.
Yes, was never fond of the "wise bears" trope. Mercifully they created a special effect template that helps mitigate it somewhat with Keen Senses. That says the creature has Adv on Perception (WIS) checks about XYZ (usually hearing and smell). Basically ups their Passive Perception +5 for such senses without having to make animals too wise.
If I were to house rule it I am thinking I would invoke both Keen Senses (Adv on XYZ senses) and Expertise (double Proficiency Bonus) for the perception of beasts. Should be a +9 start to Passive Perception (+5 from Adv and +4 from PB (PB starts at +2, times 2 for Expertise)). Challenge is then now shape-changing druids have access to ridiculous levels of perception, but it caps soon enough. And thankfully Perception is not Investigation, sensing something present is not the same as making sense of it.
Quote from: Opaopajr;823206Yes, was never fond of the "wise bears" trope. Mercifully they created a special effect template that helps mitigate it somewhat with Keen Senses. That says the creature has Adv on Perception (WIS) checks about XYZ (usually hearing and smell). Basically ups their Passive Perception +5 for such senses without having to make animals too wise.
I just view it as how versatile the stat is and how you can play it different ways. Same as the other stats really. Wisdom could be just keen senses, could be common sense, could be worldly knowledge, whatever.
And honestly most real animals are the equivalent of wise. Often moreso than humans. Unless its a fish or a crawdad... Just in a very different manner and geared to the environment and survival. Combined with senses far advanced to what we have.
Y'know, it's odd. I've played point-buy systems exclusively for many years. A majority of the other campaigns in my gaming circles over the years have been point-buy of one flavor or another.
Very, very, very seldom have I ever seen a player deliberately choose a sub-optimal character in a point-buy system.
The most I've ever seen are the characters who are seriously impaired in one way or another but who otherwise have uses -- the IQ 8 dumb-as-a-post dwarf who can nonetheless kick ass in battle, the stereotypical wizard who can't walk a straight line without stumbling, that sort of thing.
If playing a sub-optimal character is as great as all of that, why is it that the vast majority seem to come out of those random gen campaigns which force folks to do so?
Quote from: Ravenswing;823378Very, very, very seldom have I ever seen a player deliberately choose a sub-optimal character in a point-buy system.
What definition/connotation of sub-optimal are you using?
Quote from: RPGPundit;822536Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever. But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?
I enjoy all the characters I play, be them rolled randomly (with hogh or low scores) or created by point-buy.
Certainly, low - stat PCs tend to be more memorable because survival is harder. Over time, though, those handicaps tend to disappear.
Quote from: Bren;823381What definition/connotation of sub-optimal are you using?
I was curious about that, too. The OP was pretty clear. All 16s+ vs. rolling low, crappy stats, excluding the huge overlooked middle area that a lot of people in this thread seem to enjoy
Ravens thing . . . um, in point buy, you literally can't get an optimal(all 16s+ in D&D) because you simply don't have enough points to do so. Even the powerful heroes amount of points won't get you there. But you also can't be sub-optimal by Pundit's definition either. Too
many points for that. You'll likely fall somewhere in that middle area.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;823611I was curious about that, too. The OP was pretty clear. All 16s+ vs. rolling low, crappy stats, excluding the huge overlooked middle area that a lot of people in this thread seem to enjoy
I think "sub-optimal character" is a poorly chosen phrase to describe a "character with low stats." Some of the people who say they like low stats characters really mean they like the challenge of optimally playing (i.e. selecting optimal tactics, spells, equipment, etc.) characters who have low stats. Some of the people who like high stats, like having their character use suboptimal tactics. The lack of distinction has dogged the thread.
I too wondered how one would design a mechanically suboptimal character in point buy - other than buying things with a relatively low utility but without a correspondingly low point cost.
Not in the least. I don't even want to play a character with randomly generated statistics. As a player I get to do one thing, run my character. I want to run the character I design, not the one the gaming system hands me. Random may have been entertaining back in 1978 but it isn't any longer.
Quote from: Bren;822589I see the question in the thread title and the question asked by Pundit as two very different questions.
Optimization is not about whether the stats are high or low it is about min/maxing what stats (skills, spells, etc.) that the PC does have and about making optimal choices tactical, diplomatic, etc. in the game.
- Does the fighter use the most favorable selection of weapons and armor available or do they use a less favorable selection for reasons?
- Does the fighter use the most favorable tactics to defeat their foes or do they use less favorable tactics for reasons?
- Does the player have their character say the clever thing to persuade, coerce, intimidate, or bribe the NPC to do what the player wants or does the player intentionally say something less clever?
These are questions to ask to determine if someone likes playing a sub-optimal character.
Asking do you enjoy playing a character with some stats that are below average or below expectation is a different question. Long term in an RPG, optimal tools, tactics, and words will make a character more successful than will above average stats. For some players running a character with low stats is like a handicap in golf. They want to see if they can keep their PC alive and succeed in the game by making clever decisions despite the low stats?. But to do this they will frequently optimize the hell out of the character and the character's actions.
I enjoy playing characters who I have intentionally chosen not to optimize because that is part of their personality. I had a ton of fun playing a naïve, somewhat too trusting young Jedi in Star Wars. I could have chosen more optimal actions, tactics, etc. but that wouldn't have been nearly as much fun. If I want to focus on tactical optimization I go play a war game, when I play an RPG I want to play the character like a person - and real people, by and large, are sub-optimal in their choices and actions.
As far as stats go, I prefer a contrast in stats. A character who is good in one or more stats and bad in others is more interesting to play than a character who is average or above in all stats. I want to know what the character's strengths are, but also what their weaknesses are.
This entirely.
A character with no stat above a 12 and 2 below 7 can be played entirely optimally. Back in the day it felt like every pc was played uber optimally. Same tactics, same SOP. 10 foot poles to the fore....
Sometime you just want to be Leroy Wilkins .... or the cowardly fighter that hides in the corner, the wizard who only has divination spells... none of these have anything to do with the stats you rolled.
Quote from: Bren;823622I think "sub-optimal character" is a poorly chosen phrase to describe a "character with low stats." Some of the people who say they like low stats characters really mean they like the challenge of optimally playing (i.e. selecting optimal tactics, spells, equipment, etc.) characters who have low stats. Some of the people who like high stats, like having their character use suboptimal tactics. The lack of distinction has dogged the thread.
I too wondered how one would design a mechanically suboptimal character in point buy - other than buying things with a relatively low utility but without a correspondingly low point cost.
In 5e's point buy you can get a spread of 13, 13, 13, 12, 12,12. Min is 8, Max is 15. With that you could have three 15s and three 8s before racial mods.
With that you could start off with a Fighter whos not very strong, agile or hearty. But is relatively smart, canny, and persuasive. Like a scholarly or courtly student who takes up arms. Plenty of room to grow the character, showing how through hard work they gradually improve physically.
Quote from: GeekEclectic;823611But you also can't be sub-optimal by Pundit's definition either. Too many points for that. You'll likely fall somewhere in that middle area.
I don't agree.
For one thing, I've yet to see a point-buy system -- although for all I know there are some out there -- that
compels a player to spend all of his or her points.
For another, I've yet to see a point-buy system that didn't allow you to sink most of your points into anti-minimaxing options. If I'm playing a 100-pt GURPS character and I sink 50 pts into HT and a few dozen into Appearance and Charisma, great: I'm a hardy fellow, and the bad guys are more likely to capture me than hack me down. Doesn't mean I'm going to be a material asset to the group.
Quote from: Omega;823902In 5e's point buy you can get a spread of 13, 13, 13, 12, 12,12. Min is 8, Max is 15. With that you could have three 15s and three 8s before racial mods.
With that you could start off with a Fighter whos not very strong, agile or hearty. But is relatively smart, canny, and persuasive. Like a scholarly or courtly student who takes up arms. Plenty of room to grow the character, showing how through hard work they gradually improve physically.
An interesting example. Presumably this PC is worse at fighting than one focused on STR, DEX, and CON, but clearly this PC is better at banter, persuasion, assessing motivations, and other activities suitable to a courtly setting. Is the courtly version really suboptimal or are is the courtly version merely differently optimized than the combat version?
Quote from: Ravenswing;823916For one thing, I've yet to see a point-buy system -- although for all I know there are some out there -- that compels a player to spend all of his or her points.
But aren't GURPS games frequently arranged with set point numbers for all characters, e.g. 50-point heroes, 100 pt-heroes, etc. Not spending the points is the player intentionally not following through on the agreed level of play. I think we should ignore examples built on the player not playing the game they agreed to play.
QuoteFor another, I've yet to see a point-buy system that didn't allow you to sink most of your points into anti-minimaxing options. If I'm playing a 100-pt GURPS character and I sink 50 pts into HT and a few dozen into Appearance and Charisma, great: I'm a hardy fellow, and the bad guys are more likely to capture me than hack me down. Doesn't mean I'm going to be a material asset to the group.
Unless the system makes those stats noticeably less useful over all while charging the same cost in point buy, the tough, cute, and persuasive character is differently optimized not suboptimized. They may be a much better choice for a courtly setting where appearance and flair are important and poisoning is frequent - hence a high Health would be an advantage.
Serious question. I don't play GURPS, so I have to ask, does GURPS charge the same point cost for noticeably less useful (in every circumstance) stats? I would find that surprising given the longevity, popularity, and origins of GURPS, but as I said I don't play GURPS so I don't really know.
Saving your charg-gen freebie points in old WW Storyteller generally wasn't worth it. XP point-buy ended up being higher than Char-gen point-buy, as I recall. Rather compelling motivation, that.
In In Nomine saving char-gen points from point-buy generally was for saving up for spare vessels. Otherwise, you should've spent them all. That and buying up just 1 point in Skills ended up wiping out unskilled roll negatives, so GMs were recommended to keep an eye on "random Chem skill here, random Explosives skill there..." Sure, you're playing angels and demons, but if your game involves discreet infiltration in kindergartens or human resource depts. it is rather questionable to spread points to null unskilled penalties. Which would be a counter to the claim of anti-min/maxing.
And then in D&D 5e point-buy, you are compelled to spend all points, and there's really little to no bad choices (no real anti-min/maxing). You often just become well-rounded or well-focused.
Ravenswing, have you been keeping up with other point buy games besides GURPS? Nothing hostile, just curious.
Its rare to see a RPG with point buy where unspent points carried over into the gameplay.
As for deliberately not spending all the alotted points when they do not carry over? I could see someone foregoing any point spending in 5e and just going all 8s. I am not sure why you would want to? To be a millstone for the group?
A minorly crippled snowflake? For the challenge? For some character background reason? To recreate some character that you rolled really badly for but lived to immense power?
One of the interesting things about 5e is that you can play with stats that low and still be viable in some role. A druid who focuses on wildshapes for example. In fact that is a pretty interesting concept of this below average person who all but lives in their beast forms because that is when they are strong, fast, harder to kill, etc.
I personally love playing characters that are "sub-optimal". The D&D character with low stats. The 1st-level guy with 1hp. Hell, in RIFTS two of my most memorable players ever were a Vagabond and a Rogue Scholar.
But I have some players who absolutely despise it. They can't stand having PCs who don't start out strong.
Quote from: RPGPundit;824579I personally love playing characters that are "sub-optimal".
But do you play and enjoy playing characters sub-optimally?
I think the fun in playing a sub-optimal character comes from succeeding in spite of the odds - your victories taste more sweet if they are hard won. Even if you're playing a truly stunted character, small victories can seem huge.
It's certainly not for everyone though, and for me, it's a time and place thing. It's fun to be the juggernaut every now and then too.
Quote from: Bren;824597But do you play and enjoy playing characters sub-optimally?
Depends what you mean by this; I want to include what makes them sub-optimal in the roleplay of their characters, yes. But I want to see if they can succeed in spite of this.
Quote from: RPGPundit;824842Depends what you mean by this; I want to include what makes them sub-optimal in the roleplay of their characters, yes. But I want to see if they can succeed in spite of this.
It sounds to me like you enjoy playing a character with below average or below expectation stats for the challenge of trying to succeed despite having lower stats. But in overcoming the challenge you will, to the best of your ability, make optimal decisions for the character, choose optimal tactics, make optimal selections of equipment, and have your character use optimal wording in speeches to influence or persuade others in the game world. Do I understand you correctly?
My take on suboptimal characters is a bit different. I explained what I meant here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=822589&postcount=18) and here (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=823622&postcount=57).
Quote from: Bren;824597But do you play and enjoy playing characters sub-optimally?
I do. Its how most of the DMs I know who are also players play as well. They make so called "sub optimal" decisions based on what the character knows and would do. Rather than the oft vaster knowledge of the player.
I know a few who are the exact opposite and treat it as their god given right to act upon knowledge that their character should not have.
And everything in between or even further out on the edges.
As noted in a older simmilar discussion. As a DM though I just have the players roll some sort of lore equivalent check to see if they know of or have met some monster if its not a local common type.
No character is sub-optimal, unless your idea of the game is as an exercise in efficiency. The very idea of optimization assumes a "right" way to play. I'm not sure that's the point of the game. Is it?
I'll make suboptimal choices if it contributes to a concept I find interesting.
But within that concept, I like the character to be as competent as possible and get sort of vexed if external factors (e.g., GM house rulings, etc.) further nerf my self-gimped character.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822536Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever. But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?
I play whatever is rolled. I don't play characters that are built.
Quote from: Bren;824903It sounds to me like you enjoy playing a character with below average or below expectation stats for the challenge of trying to succeed despite having lower stats. But in overcoming the challenge you will, to the best of your ability, make optimal decisions for the character, choose optimal tactics, make optimal selections of equipment, and have your character use optimal wording in speeches to influence or persuade others in the game world. Do I understand you correctly?
Optimal decisions based on what the CHARACTER would consider optimal, within his roleplaying context.
Quote from: RPGPundit;822536Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever. But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?
NOPE. Given I'm already on leg braces and specialized crutches and unable to drive among other things in real life. Suboptimal anything in my rpgs and characters can take a flying leap in the Lake of Fire. I play rpgs to escape the physical prison life has dealt me.
Regardless and separate from that I play what's rolled or I'm given. My preferences aren't usually a factor, but like in life I usually roll low (which is awesome in roll under games like GURPS and many other D100 games) but detracts from my friends enjoyment in games like DnD or Shadowrun where you're supposed to be a bad ass motherfucker.
Quote from: Bren;824903It sounds to me like you enjoy playing a character with below average or below expectation stats for the challenge of trying to succeed despite having lower stats. But in overcoming the challenge you will, to the best of your ability, make optimal decisions for the character, choose optimal tactics, make optimal selections of equipment, and have your character use optimal wording in speeches to influence or persuade others in the game world. Do I understand you correctly?
Sounds like a boardgame rather than role-playing an interesting character.
Quote from: RPGPundit;825231Optimal decisions based on what the CHARACTER would consider optimal, within his roleplaying context.
I'm not sure what you see as the difference between the two. Do you have an example or two? I think that would help, especially an example(s) where a player doing what I said would result in a different action or speech than would you doing what you said.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;825254Sounds like a boardgame rather than role-playing an interesting character.
To me it sounds like a roleplaying game. Because...well because it is a roleplaying game. Specifically it is OD&D as it was played by quite a few people back in the mid 1970s.
Quote from: Bren;825256To me it sounds like a roleplaying game. Because...well because it is a roleplaying game. Specifically it is OD&D as it was played by quite a few people back in the mid 1970s.
Correct. A lot of people play D&D like it is CLUE or Battleship. More adventure gaming than role-play gaming. There is no optimal gaming in role-play if you think about it. How many people do you know that do everything in life optimally?
Quote from: Bren;825256To me it sounds like a roleplaying game. Because...well because it is a roleplaying game. Specifically it is OD&D as it was played by quite a few people back in the mid 1970s.
Just because they played that way doesnt make it automatically right or good. I think it was Geezer who complained that at some point what sounded like nearly all the players were using door spikes as their weapons because they were the cheapest weapon on the list.
Simmilar discussion came up on RPGG about why anyone would use a club when for 1sp more you can use a great club? Why use a sling when you can buy a crossbow? And deriding someone for choosing "sub-optimal" gear because it fit their character or their personal preferences or style.
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;825261Correct. A lot of people play D&D like it is CLUE or Battleship. More adventure gaming than role-play gaming. There is no optimal gaming in role-play if you think about it. How many people do you know that do everything in life optimally?
You seem to be arguing that many (probably most) people who played D&D circa 1974-6 were not actually roleplaying. This would require either that OD&D is not actually a roleplaying game (which on the face of it is ludicrous) or that the way that many people played OD&D was and is bad-wrong-fun (which is stupid). I am entirely uninterested in having that sort of conversation about role play vs. roll play today.
Quote from: Omega;825262Just because they played that way doesnt make it automatically right or good.
No it doesn't. Which is why I didn't say that it did.
As regards a "right" way to play, the game rules specifically told one to make the game their own. Outside of some really odd edge cases or bizarre constructions possibly involving real loaded shotguns and working chainsaws, there isn't a right or wrong way to play OD&D.
Similarly "good" is a subjective descriptor, which doesn't and can't universally apply to how anyone plays. Either the way they are playing is enjoyable for the people playing -- in which case that is a good way to play for them -- though possibly there might be a more fun or better way for them to play. Or the way they are playing is unenjoyable -- in which case that is a bad way for them to play and of course there may be a worse way for them to play -- say anything involving juggling live grenades.
QuoteAnd deriding someone for choosing "sub-optimal" gear because it fit their character or their personal preferences or style.
I wasn't deriding anyone for how they play. I was describing a difference I see between playing a character with below expected or below average stats while making sound or optimal tactical choices in a wide range of areas (e.g. combat actions, persuasion, selection of equipment, etc.) and playing a character (with whatever stats) where the player intentionally (for whatever reason) makes less than sound tactical choices in one or more areas.
I did not intend to, and I don't think I did, describe making optimal choices as a better way to play than intentionally making less than optimal choices.
If it matters, personally I prefer playing characters who make choices that are in keeping with their personalities and abilities, which includes me intentionally making suboptimal decisions for the character because that is in character for that PC.
Quote from: Bren;825265You seem to be arguing that many (probably most) people who played D&D circa 1974-6 were not actually roleplaying. This would require either that OD&D is not actually a roleplaying game (which on the face of it is ludicrous) or that the way that many people played OD&D was and is bad-wrong-fun (which is stupid). I am entirely uninterested in having that sort of conversation about role play vs. roll play today.
A lot of how people play D&D today is really just adventure gaming where there is no role-playing really being done. The play style has been passed on by those that adventure gamed in the '70s when role-playing actually was a scarce thing compared to when later generations of RPGs were published.
Quote from: Bren;825256I'm not sure what you see as the difference between the two. Do you have an example or two? I think that would help, especially an example(s) where a player doing what I said would result in a different action or speech than would you doing what you said.
Well, I'd say for example if you got a guy with ridiculously low Wisdom. He'd be sub-optimal in that sense. Now it sounds to me like you were suggesting that you'd go "ok, so he has low wis but I'm going to try to get him through as best as possible making choices I, the player, know to be the safest".
But a Low-Wis character being roleplayed that way would always try to make the best choices, but would have, let's say, very poor impulse control. My idea of playing a sub-optimal character as optimally as possible would be to play him that way, doing the best he can but actually reflecting the character and his abilities.
Quote from: RPGPundit;825275Well, I'd say for example if you got a guy with ridiculously low Wisdom. He'd be sub-optimal in that sense. Now it sounds to me like you were suggesting that you'd go "ok, so he has low wis but I'm going to try to get him through as best as possible making choices I, the player, know to be the safest".
But a Low-Wis character being roleplayed that way would always try to make the best choices, but would have, let's say, very poor impulse control. My idea of playing a sub-optimal character as optimally as possible would be to play him that way, doing the best he can but actually reflecting the character and his abilities.
That helps. Thanks for clarifying. Looks like I misunderstood how you played. In part this was based on how I interpreted what you have said in posts where you described you opposition to social mechanics.
I don't actually play in the style I was describing so it would be more correct to say:
QuoteNow it sounds to me like you were suggesting that [strike]you'd[/strike] one would go "ok, so he has low wis but I'm going to try to get him through as best as possible making choices I, the player, know to be the safest".
Again, thanks for clarifying your perspective.for me. :)
Quote from: RPGPundit;825275Well, I'd say for example if you got a guy with ridiculously low Wisdom. He'd be sub-optimal in that sense. Now it sounds to me like you were suggesting that you'd go "ok, so he has low wis but I'm going to try to get him through as best as possible making choices I, the player, know to be the safest".
But a Low-Wis character being roleplayed that way would always try to make the best choices, but would have, let's say, very poor impulse control. My idea of playing a sub-optimal character as optimally as possible would be to play him that way, doing the best he can but actually reflecting the character and his abilities.
thats some wisdom right there
Quote from: Bren;825305That helps. Thanks for clarifying. Looks like I misunderstood how you played. In part this was based on how I interpreted what you have said in posts where you described you opposition to social mechanics.
Well, I'm specifically opposed to social mechanics BECAUSE I think it should be roleplayed, not because I think roleplay shouldn't happen!
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;825268A lot of how people play D&D today is really just adventure gaming where there is no role-playing really being done. The play style has been passed on by those that adventure gamed in the '70s when role-playing actually was a scarce thing compared to when later generations of RPGs were published.
What are you basing this observation on and what criteria are you using to verify if Role-Playing has been achieved or not?
It's never been my experience. I've been gaming since AD&D 1e was the current edition, and we've ALWAYS roleplayed. Always.
Quote from: RPGPundit;826246It's never been my experience. I've been gaming since AD&D 1e was the current edition, and we've ALWAYS roleplayed. Always.
Different people are into different kinds of role-playing. More than in the '70s, I think, some folks like to define as not-rp the kinds other than their own preference.
For me, what's most important is acting from a first-person "you are there" perspective. So, in computer games, the Adventure kind is closer to the mark than most CRPGS. I like to deal with affairs in natural language rather than "stats" and menus, not get information to which I would not be privy, and actually make decisions and solve problems when that's what my role is supposed to be doing instead of having a mechanical abstraction do it for me - although there's certainly room for simulating abilities or handicaps that I don't have.
What I call "thespian" types put more emphasis on depicting a fictional character. They tend to call it "not role-playing" to the extent that a figure is a persona for the player. Nowadays, this is often associated with using statistical modeling to cut the player's intelligence, knowledge and skill out of the loop. (It used to be "roles vs. rolls," but they're likely to be joined today.)
At the same time, "acting" in the stage sense is very important to them. They might reserve the term "role-playing" for speech in the character's voice. Actions in for instance exploration and combat are therefore counted as non-rp activity. Taken to an extreme, this tends in my experience to become actually more of a drama-play thing: theatricality and what each player thinks makes for an entertaining scene really counts for more than acting as if one were in the character's position.
It can get pretty dull for someone more or less reduced to playing audience to what seems trite from that perspective (however thrilling it may be to the players involved in the scene). The "game" aspect can be hard to find. Some groups thrive on it, though.