I've noticed a link to the "Stormwind Fallacy" in several users' signatures. I followed the link, and skimmed the article, paying special attention to the posts by Tempest Stormwind. However, I was not able to glean anything of significance from the thread. Can someone tell me A) What the big idea is and B) Why so many people are compelled enough by it to put it in thier signatures?

(Perhaps both questions could be answered by a single statement, I'm not sure)

-3.14159rate

I've noticed a link to the "Stormwind Fallacy" in sevarl users' signatures. I followed the link, and skimmed the article, paying special attention to the posts by Tempest Stormwind. However, I was not able to glean anything of significance from the thread. Can someone tell me A) What the big idea is and B) Why so many people are compelled enough by it to put it in thier signatures?

(Perhaps both questions could be answered by a single statement, I'm not sure)

-3.14159rate
Here's the new definition I use, since the old one got pruned.If someone says something to the extent of any of the following: 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.

For instance, in one of my current games, we've got three of the CO board regulars playing along with two others, with a cast of a pair of high-power swordsages, a CHAMELEON (widely held as one of the strongest PrCs ever published), and my Shadowcraft Mage (you know, as in "I can cast any spell from two different schools spontaneously, even if I don't know them"?)... and yet each character is deep enough to cause moral problems, interconnected enough to work as a team, and compelling enough to be an interesting character in their own right. The existence of a single case like this game is more than enough to debunk "Optimizers cannot roleplay" under any scientific or logical reasoning base. Now, it isn't enough to say that it's rare or common, but it is enough to demonstrate existence.




For those of you following logically, you may recognize this: It's the False Dilemma fallacy, actually, just expressed in terms of D&D. False Dilemma is a fallacy that in which one sets up a dichotomy when in truth there is a continuum or independent axes. An common example of a False Dilemma is "You're either for us or against us." It's possible to support neither cause whatsoever and abstain from helping either side, but the statement is set up in such a way to suggest that this is not a choice -- thus it presents you with a false dilemma. Here's a few more "false dilemma" examples, and a proof. (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html)

The Stormwind Fallacy is a special case of this applied to roleplaying; a faulty argument in the following fashion:

1. Either you roleplay your character well or you have min/maxed that character.
2. This character is not min/maxed.
3. Therefore he must be roleplayed well.
Conclusion: All good roleplayed characters are not min/maxed, and all min/maxed characters are poorly roleplayed.

The faulty assumption comes at 1 -- I provided an example of one of my games above which demonstrates that you can optimize your characters and roleplay them at the same time. ONE counterexample is all that's needed -- and I KNOW I'm not the only one (I should show you the Real Adventures games the CO boards hold -- several stellar roleplayers there and they're all CO board regulars, in other words min/maxers).

Unless you can either:
1) Demonstrate that this is not a mapping to the False Dilemma Fallacy OR
2) Demonstrate that the False Dilemma Fallacy does not hold,
then the Stormwind Fallacy holds.




For the record, it's named what it is because of an old debate on the DM boards. I (and others) thought that this idea was mind-numbingly obvious, while others thought that it was a logical impossibility. I snapped at one point and decided to formalize it under a handy shorthand name so people could spread it and learn about it a bit more. I was arrogant (still am), and chose my own name.
To this day I still don't think we need it, but since it's commonly cited (and misused), it stays. I do regret naming it after myself, though.

The original thread it's from is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-624756). It's fairly representative of what things were like before the fallacy was formalized (i.e. before simple logic was shown in terms relevant to D&D).

People carry it in their sigs to say things. Some people use it incorrectly to say that "Because I'm a min-maxer, I'm a good roleplayer". Others use it correctly and say "Just because I play good characters doesn't mean I can't min/max" or "just because I min/max doesn't mean my character isn't deep".

It's a good message, I feel.



EDIT: To put it clearer, I should say it with graphics.

The people who commit the fallacy left, right, and center are almost always "I'm a ROLEPLAYER and I don't min/max" people who treat min/maxing as the DARK SIDE. They present you with this (http://www.telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/StormwindFalse.gif) type of argument. Your character and game have to fall somewhere on that line, they say.

In truth, it's something far closer to this (http://www.telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/StormwindTrue.gif). It's easy to imagine a character at each of the four corners: A Faerun fighter who speaks like he's from the ghetto and took Weapon Specialization (Gravel) on the low/low side, the archetypal munchkin on the low RP / high min/max corner, the drama queen on the low min/max / high RP corner, and the kind of players I describe above (in my game) towards the high/high corner.

What the Stormwind Fallacy does NOT say, though, is that one of these is inherently superior to the others. I fully subscribe to the Jell_Moo Principle: Do not tell other people how to play the game. If you're having fun with poorly-min/maxed characters, fine, more power to you! No problems here! ...Unless you start asserting that yours is the ONLY way to play and people who make effective characters are somehow automatically worse at roleplaying than you are.

Thanks. I feel better about it now.

-3.14159rate

How's that, to have a question about a "product" and have it answered by the creator himself!
:D

Here's the new definition I use, since the old one got pruned.

The original thread it's from is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-624756). It's fairly representative of what things were like before the fallacy was formalized (i.e. before simple logic was shown in terms relevant to D&D).

People carry it in their sigs to say things. Some people use it incorrectly to say that "Because I'm a min-maxer, I'm a good roleplayer". Others use it correctly and say "Just because I play good characters doesn't mean I can't min/max" or "just because I min/max doesn't mean my character isn't deep".

It's a good message, I feel.



EDIT: To put it clearer, I should say it with graphics.

The people who commit the fallacy left, right, and center are almost always "I'm a ROLEPLAYER and I don't min/max" people who treat min/maxing as the DARK SIDE. They present you with this (http://www.telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/StormwindFalse.gif) type of argument. Your character and game have to fall somewhere on that line, they say.

In truth, it's something far closer to this (http://www.telusplanet.net/~sdupuis/Tempest/StormwindTrue.gif). It's easy to imagine a character at each of the four corners: A Faerun fighter who speaks like he's from the ghetto and took Weapon Specialization (Gravel) on the low/low side, the archetypal munchkin on the low RP / high min/max corner, the drama queen on the low min/max / high RP corner, and the kind of players I describe above (in my game) towards the high/high corner.

What the Stormwind Fallacy does NOT say, though, is that one of these is inherently superior to the others. I fully subscribe to the Jell_Moo Principle: Do not tell other people how to play the game. If you're having fun with poorly-min/maxed characters, fine, more power to you! No problems here! ...Unless you start asserting that yours is the ONLY way to play and people who make effective characters are somehow automatically worse at roleplaying than you are.

Now here is a question for you. If you give a child a toy gun, will he whine and complain all the while that he doesn't have BB gun. Now, what happens when you give that child a BB gun?

He shoots someones eyes out because he wasn't looking.

The various thoughts, threats, and arguments to the nature of character optimization should be directed not at the CO regular's but at the players who run in for the sole fact of looking for something to "win" their session.

In that their lies the problem.

Now here is a question for you. If you give a child a toy gun, will he whine and complain all the while that he doesn't have BB gun. Now, what happens when you give that child a BB gun?

He shoots someones eyes out because he wasn't looking.

The various thoughts, threats, and arguments to the nature of character optimization should be directed not at the CO regular's but at the players who run in for the sole fact of looking for something to "win" their session.

In that their lies the problem.

Wow, way to necro an old thread. Oh well, i guess I'll add my response.

The Stormwind Fallacy does not tell us that all optimizers are fantastic roleplayers. Some of the people who ask for help on the CO Boards are not fantastic roleplayers. Its the job of the group as the whole and the DM in particular, to confront, and sometimes kick out players that are detracting from the overall experience. The attitude the Stormwind Fallacy tries to combat is a sort of prejudice, that biases a group against an optimizer, who may be the best roleplayer of them all, but is chastised for building stronger characters.

In your BB gun analogy, Tempest, and other supporters of his Fallacy might be seen as enthusiasts who are telling the parents of the whiny child not to blindly allow their kids a BB gun, but to use their own logical discretion in the situation, rather than prejudice.

I believe your theory whole-heartedly.

I also believe that when a person developes and obsession, he will satify that obsession first and formost to the exclusion of all other things not absolutely neccessary.

Character optimzation is often an obsession...an obsession made more common via excessive WoW playing in the gaming community.

Quality roleplaying is not absolutely neccessary in most cases.


It's kinda like this... if a person is outside your house hiding in the bushes, that doesn't mean he's a stalker...but it's definitely a warning flag. :D

Now here is a question for you. If you give a child a toy gun, will he whine and complain all the while that he doesn't have BB gun. Now, what happens when you give that child a BB gun?

He shoots someones eyes out because he wasn't looking.

The various thoughts, threats, and arguments to the nature of character optimization should be directed not at the CO regular's but at the players who run in for the sole fact of looking for something to "win" their session.

In that their lies the problem.

You seem to equate optimization with whining and complaining, subjugating a DM until he gives in. This is incorrect.

You also seem to think that the SWF tells people how to play the game when it explicitly doesn't. (It tells people that there are different ways of playing the game.)

What I would do in such a situation is say "earn it". To blindly give in to every single player demand is to be a spineless DM, which leads to many problems, as you illustrate. I say this despite my reputation as a permissive DM.

Also note that the SWF says *nothing* about DM techniques. Thus, I find it odd that you'd voice your concern here. The SWF speaks about the ability to roleplay and optimize at the same time. I fail to see how your analogy fits at all.

Stormwind Fallacy for Core '08
>.>
<.<
*Flees*

*Note: As of yet, I'm not impressed by 4E, but since its Core Books are coming out then...

I believe your theory whole-heartedly.

I also believe that when a person developes and obsession, he will satify that obsession first and formost to the exclusion of all other things not absolutely neccessary.

Character optimzation is often an obsession...an obsession made more common via excessive WoW playing in the gaming community.

Quality roleplaying is not absolutely neccessary in most cases.


It's kinda like this... if a person is outside your house hiding in the bushes, that doesn't mean he's a stalker...but it's definitely a warning flag. :D
Well, I think the biggest point of the fallacy is to show that RP and optimization are measured on two independent axes. In some cases, there may be (or seem to be) a correlation, but this is not inherent to either axis.

We have to be careful not to confuse cause and effect. Does a person become a optimizer because he plays WoW? Are people who are optimizers more attracted to games like WoW? I don't think there's a single answer to questions like these. In some cases, it might appear this way, but all in all I wouldn't go so far as to call optimization an obession, or to try and infer cause and effect from a few cases.

Optimizing and what rules are allowed are two separate but related issues. You can't really call it optimizing if you are trying to use rules that are not allowed for your particular game, that is either cheating (if you actually try to sneak it in) or a mental exercise (if you realize it is not allowed). True optimizing is based on the limits set by the group, you can optimize for whatever you want, within those limits.

Yes, it's perfectly true that minimaxing your character does not make you automatically a bad player.

It's also perfectly true that


being short does not automatially make you a bad basketball player
being a musical genius doesn't automatically make you a bad football player


Essentially this thread is not about any logical issues. It really says "any absolute statement is probably wrong". Yes, there are good roleplaying players who minimax all the time (at least I assume so. I've never actually met one, but there have been enough reports in the group that I assume some exist). There have been a very few good short basketball players.

The bottom line is that if you have a system that limits your choices, and there are choices that are more roleplaying-based and some that are more minimax-based, then if you choose one, you are doing less of the other. That's why you cannot be a musical genius and a great football player. You simply don't have the time to do both.

In core D&D there are very few pure roleplaying mechanics around. 90% of everything is combat-focused, so it's actually pretty easy to make a variety of choices and be not much less roleplaying-focused than other characters.

However it is very easy to present an optimized minimax character and say "hey, those were all roleplaying choices". My orc chain fighter made roleplaying choices to use a spiked chain, flurry with exotic weapon master and max out strength. Its the CONCEPT, dude, not the minimaxing!

The main way you can tell a character has been minimaxed is the Charisma stat. In virtually EVERY SINGLE genre (anime, fantasy, horror, spy...) all heroes have high charisma. They may be ugly ... but they are charismatic. In Living Greyhawk minimaxed characters that doesn't use CHA for combat have an 8 in it. If you see an 8, it is a minimax choice almost invariably. All fighters SHOULD have a high CHA to be correct in-genre, yet few do. This is a pure minimax, anti-roleplaying choice.

The second way is skill choice. Now D&D lets you away to a large extent, since virtually all skills are used in 'adventure' situations. But you should be able to look at skills and see what a character does when not in mini-max combat mode. Any professions? Any perform? Craft toys? anything?

The third way is PrC classes. Levels in classes are a very precious resource and it is almost impossible to reconcile roleplaying and mini-maxing.

A fourth way is items. Look at your possessions in real life -- do you spend 99% of your money on items to make you do your job better? Nope. But do your minimaxed characters? Damn right they do. I played a mod a short while ago with a character who was delighted with access to everlasting rations. He bought 4 of them because his character was always hungry. THAT is a roleplaying choice. Making sure you play mod X to get mithril access so your Barb1/Fighter4/PrcN can wear mithril full plate and still moce at 40' is not.

Three cheers for those of you who have pure monks, level 10+ pure rogues, or pure fighters. You have characters who are not minimaxed.

If you look at a character's PrCs you should ask yourself if they actually behave like the flavor description. Does the Pious Templar quite traveling and only play mods based near their temple? Is the Radiant Servant that devoted? Does the Exotic Weapon Master devote their life (e.g. all money and feats/skills) to their weapon?

Yes, you CAN do it all. But most of the time, it's a choice. I have one very close to minimaxed character (and yes, I can *justify* the choices ... but they were still minimax choices). He is definitely fun to play with, but he is still obviously minimaxed. I have a monk who started out fairly mini-maxed but then drifted off into roleplaying and managed to roleplay his way out of the game (because of his roleplaying hook, a certain mod more or less required him to remove himself from the campaign. All praise Al'Akbar). I have another character who was 80% minimaxed (a warmage .. but one who really wanted followers, so took a familiar feat and leadership ... not more combat-useful feats). But since he wants to rule the word, be became a marshal, which is not too bad a choice, but it does make him way less effective in combat than new spells + sudden empower would ...

So, like most people, I split the difference. Some people purely mini-max, and a percentage of them roleplay decently. Most don't and are just less fun to be with. A very few people purely roleplay, and LG makes them a massive pain at the table, since 95% of mods reward mini-max over roleplaying, and so the pure roleplayers are a hazard. Most people realize that there is a continuum.

The best players, I find, are ones who take a SOLID, GENRE-CORRECT CONCEPT and build a character on it, minimaxed as much as possible given the constraints of their concept. In D&D, which is pretty much all about combat, this usually ends up with a character 80% mini-maxed and 20% RP, which means that they are effective in combat, but also have enough roundness to feel real and therefore fun to play with.

The bottom line is that if you have a system that limits your choices, and there are choices that are more roleplaying-based and some that are more minimax-based, then if you choose one, you are doing less of the other. That's why you cannot be a musical genius and a great football player. You simply don't have the time to do both.
Who says you can't be a good football player and a musical genius. Some people are willing to put forth more effort than others, and some have more natural raw talant. If you have both talant and the desire to excel, then you can accomplish a lot. Furthermore, I'm not convinced there's anything keeping an optimized character from being RPed well, or to keep a good RP character concept from being optimized mechanically. I'm not sure that this is a very valid comparison.

Yes, you CAN do it all. But most of the time, it's a choice. I have one very close to minimaxed character (and yes, I can *justify* the choices ... but they were still minimax choices). He is definitely fun to play with, but he is still obviously minimaxed. I have a monk who started out fairly mini-maxed but then drifted off into roleplaying and managed to roleplay his way out of the game (because of his roleplaying hook, a certain mod more or less required him to remove himself from the campaign. All praise Al'Akbar). I have another character who was 80% minimaxed (a warmage .. but one who really wanted followers, so took a familiar feat and leadership ... not more combat-useful feats). But since he wants to rule the word, be became a marshal, which is not too bad a choice, but it does make him way less effective in combat than new spells + sudden empower would ...
I guess I see your point in that you can try to justify a powerful build with RP fluff after the fact, but I don't think it's that hard to do. If you decide you want to play a TWF rogue to get more sneak attack damage, I don't see why you can't just give him the same back story as a single-weapon wielding rogue and be done with it. If you want to play a Divine Metamagic Persist spell wielding cleric, I don't see why he can't simply be a champion of his deity. If you want to play an illumian beguiller/conjurer/ultimate magus with Practiced Spellcaster, I don't see why he can't simply be a single-minded, devoted illumian (like they all are ;)) who wants to fully excel at arcane magic.

My point being that it's not that hard to either have RP justification for your race/class/feat selection, or for that matter to optimize a particular RP idea.

Yes, it's perfectly true that minimaxing your character does not make you automatically a bad player.

It's also perfectly true that


being short does not automatially make you a bad basketball player
being a musical genius doesn't automatically make you a bad football player


Essentially this thread is not about any logical issues. It really says "any absolute statement is probably wrong". Yes, there are good roleplaying players who minimax all the time (at least I assume so. I've never actually met one, but there have been enough reports in the group that I assume some exist). There have been a very few good short basketball players.

The bottom line is that if you have a system that limits your choices, and there are choices that are more roleplaying-based and some that are more minimax-based, then if you choose one, you are doing less of the other. That's why you cannot be a musical genius and a great football player. You simply don't have the time to do both.
This is only as true as the personal power within a game; the personal power characters are allowed to have (ie:25 point buy, versus 5d6 each stat, dropping the two lowest, re-roll 1's once). Though in a low-powered game, a character CAN be a good football player and a musical genious in terms of the level of the game; that is he'll have a couple low stats, but the needed ones will still provide a bonus, and the skills required have the ranks to say that he is as good as both a musician and a football player.

In core D&D there are very few pure roleplaying mechanics around. 90% of everything is combat-focused, so it's actually pretty easy to make a variety of choices and be not much less roleplaying-focused than other characters.

However it is very easy to present an optimized minimax character and say "hey, those were all roleplaying choices". My orc chain fighter made roleplaying choices to use a spiked chain, flurry with exotic weapon master and max out strength. Its the CONCEPT, dude, not the minimaxing!
90% of things are not combat; you just don't consider going to the general store to stock up on supplies RPing. Combat (in a well-run game) should only account for about 45-65% of it; any more or less and you lean into the heavies; heavy RP and hack-n-slash. Using a particular weapon may also be both RP or min/maxing; the thing is, at the RP end the choice is more excepted by a larger group of people. Look at Conan; he's a warrior with high strength. Why? cause he was a slave and made to use this strength every day. This is both good for min/maxing and good for RP; it lends insight into what his view is on strength. If it was there because his greatsword required a high strength, so he went and worked out to become stronger, then that's kinda weak.

The main way you can tell a character has been minimaxed is the Charisma stat. In virtually EVERY SINGLE genre (anime, fantasy, horror, spy...) all heroes have high charisma. They may be ugly ... but they are charismatic. In Living Greyhawk minimaxed characters that doesn't use CHA for combat have an 8 in it. If you see an 8, it is a minimax choice almost invariably. All fighters SHOULD have a high CHA to be correct in-genre, yet few do. This is a pure minimax, anti-roleplaying choice.
This is just a big lie. The fighters in the genre that don't have high charismas usually earned their reputations and prestige through other means; skill, cunning, and credibility. Because they had an 8 charisma hardly belies an once of min/maxing on the above, it just shows that with station comes prestige. There are plenty of reasons to not have a high charisma as a fighter; for one, you FIGHT as a profession, and generally speaking that would indicate a lack of social graces; if you do both, it could mean that you have been raised well, but were required/interested in the art of combat. To have a charisma of 12 means that you would most likely want to get involved in social situations, and that people would talk to you first before the ones with 10's and 8's. To have a charisma of 18 and play your character like a wallflower is min/maxing.

The second way is skill choice. Now D&D lets you away to a large extent, since virtually all skills are used in 'adventure' situations. But you should be able to look at skills and see what a character does when not in mini-max combat mode. Any professions? Any perform? Craft toys? anything?
I agree with you on this one, to an extent. I wouldn't expect the barbarian to have skills beyond climb, jump, swim, and survival. Skills IMO represent what your character has learned through RP; be it situation, or interest, and should be reflected as such. Every "noble" fighter should probably have at least a rank in perform(dance), diplomacy, or knowledge(nobility/royalty).

The third way is PrC classes. Levels in classes are a very precious resource and it is almost impossible to reconcile roleplaying and mini-maxing.
Here though, to the RP side of the game your class(es) do not flash in big bright letters above your head, so what classes you take and how you get there simply do not matter. Describing yourself as a cleric/wizard who has moved on to become a mystic thurge reaks of min/maxing, while that same statement could be described simply as "I am <blank>, mystic mage of the gods!"

A fourth way is items. Look at your possessions in real life -- do you spend 99% of your money on items to make you do your job better? Nope. But do your minimaxed characters? Damn right they do. I played a mod a short while ago with a character who was delighted with access to everlasting rations. He bought 4 of them because his character was always hungry. THAT is a roleplaying choice. Making sure you play mod X to get mithril access so your Barb1/Fighter4/PrcN can wear mithril full plate and still moce at 40' is not.
Taking an item that allows you to better reclaim a class ability is hardly min/maxing; you don't continue to fight with a bone knife when better options are clearly presented. To do so is anti-efficient, and counter to out own nature. Buying lots of un-ending rations is not a role-playing choice because rations taste gross. It was a poor expendature of one's character wealth (or a clever ploy to be able to feed four people when things get tight; also not role-playing). Paying a hireling cooking troupe that travels ahead on a wagon or something with a ton of food for you to have prepared when you camp is an RP choice. Getting fullplate that is light and allows you to move well is only a min/maxing choice as much as it is a RP choice; "I'm tired of this heavy, slow armour all the time. I think I should open up the purse-strings here and dish out for some mithral" is an acceptable RP choice.

Three cheers for those of you who have pure monks, level 10+ pure rogues, or pure fighters. You have characters who are not minimaxed.
Some of the worst offenders are pure fighters and monks.

If you look at a character's PrCs you should ask yourself if they actually behave like the flavor description. Does the Pious Templar quite traveling and only play mods based near their temple? Is the Radiant Servant that devoted? Does the Exotic Weapon Master devote their life (e.g. all money and feats/skills) to their weapon?
I totally, 100% agree with you on this one.

Yes, you CAN do it all. But most of the time, it's a choice. I have one very close to minimaxed character (and yes, I can *justify* the choices ... but they were still minimax choices). He is definitely fun to play with, but he is still obviously minimaxed. I have a monk who started out fairly mini-maxed but then drifted off into roleplaying and managed to roleplay his way out of the game (because of his roleplaying hook, a certain mod more or less required him to remove himself from the campaign. All praise Al'Akbar). I have another character who was 80% minimaxed (a warmage .. but one who really wanted followers, so took a familiar feat and leadership ... not more combat-useful feats). But since he wants to rule the word, be became a marshal, which is not too bad a choice, but it does make him way less effective in combat than new spells + sudden empower would ...
Actually, I have a much, much harder time justifying non-efficient choices; they are the ones that step against logic. They are the ones that do not make sense.

So, like most people, I split the difference. Some people purely mini-max, and a percentage of them roleplay decently. Most don't and are just less fun to be with. A very few people purely roleplay, and LG makes them a massive pain at the table, since 95% of mods reward mini-max over roleplaying, and so the pure roleplayers are a hazard. Most people realize that there is a continuum.
Actually the "mods" do offer RPing solutions to many of the encounters, you just need to be more creative than, "I attack him with diplomacy, and finish him off with a bluff - ooh, a critical! He now believes I'm god!" Yeah, this is hyperbole, but not that far off from what I'm used to seeing player try and do. I have seen a single mage with an average charisma bluff 10 orcs into running away with a single illusion; the whole thing nearly went to sh!t when the thief attempted to initiate combat and threw a dagger (accidentally) into the mage, ending the illusion.

The best players, I find, are ones who take a SOLID, GENRE-CORRECT CONCEPT and build a character on it, minimaxed as much as possible given the constraints of their concept. In D&D, which is pretty much all about combat, this usually ends up with a character 80% mini-maxed and 20% RP, which means that they are effective in combat, but also have enough roundness to feel real and therefore fun to play with.
I could agree with those percentages, though I will add that is is hard to min/max "RP", because putting in skillpoints to deplomacy still won't mean yer good at negotiating.

The Stormwind fallaccy basically proves you can do anything you want as long as you're willing to change names and twist definitions.

Just pause for a moment:what is roleplaying, and what is optimization in D&D?
Because Stormwind blatantly refuses to define the words himself. After I throwing this question at him several times he blocked me if I'm not in mistake.

Actually his suporters started a thread claiming the definition of roleplaying and optimization are irrelevant to the fallaccy.

Wich leads me to the question on how you can create a logical fallaccy based in undefined arguments. Of course nobody can prove that it is wrong, because nobody knows what optimization and roleplaying are about. Whenever someone throws an argument at the SW fallaccy all the suporters need to do it's twist the definition of the arguments a little more to their side. It changes in every thread, and even inside the same thread it will change from poster to poster.

The Sw fallaccy is indeed correct. The only problem it proves nothing because it can be used to prove anything. Just choose the definitions for optimization and roleplaying that suit your needs better and go for it.

The Stormwind fallaccy basically proves you can do anything you want as long as you're willing to change names and twist definitions.

Just pause for a moment:what is roleplaying, and what is optimization in D&D?
Because Stormwind blatantly refuses to define the words himself. After I throwing this question at him several times he blocked me if I'm not in mistake.
That's because the question you asked him was bait
Originally posted by General Akbar
"It's a trap!"
You are asking him to define blue; to define something that has a different meaning for evryone. I'd block you too if you were being a troll.
He's throwing out a very true definition that applies to the broadest and most narrow terms of R.P.G.

Actually his suporters started a thread claiming the definition of roleplaying and optimization are irrelevant to the fallaccy.
It's cause they are. You can optimize a car to run more efficiently, you can't RP a car 'better'. You can be Bob Noone, yet everyone in hollywood could know you as Harrison Ford, because you play roles contrary to what you actually are well. You can't optimize in this situation; there litterally is no "bluff skill" that you can pump all your points and feats into. To better put it in game terms, there are diceless RP games where there is no such thing as optimization. And there are table-top games like warhammer, where you have an army list that you work around to crush your opponent with. No RPing there. Because this particular game involves both RPing and a strategy game is irrelivant on one's ability to role-play and win at combat games.

Wich leads me to the question on how you can create a logical fallaccy based in undefined arguments. Of course nobody can prove that it is wrong, because nobody knows what optimization and roleplaying are about. Whenever someone throws an argument at the SW fallaccy all the suporters need to do it's twist the definition of the arguments a little more to their side. It changes in every thread, and even inside the same thread it will change from poster to poster.
Well, just you do not see the logic, nor the fallacy in the statement "optimizing is bad role-playing" is not really our problem. Maybe you should optimize yourself a few more points in wis to better understand the stormwind fallacy.

The Sw fallaccy is indeed correct. The only problem it proves nothing because it can be used to prove anything. Just choose the definitions for optimization and roleplaying that suit your needs better and go for it.
Just 'cause it doesn't say "use with caution" right on a car door doesn't deny the fact that common sense should be applied.
What I mean here is that while he doesn't say, "you can justify anything through roleplaying" doesn't mean you should, or that it will always be right due to the general-ness of the fallacy.
Creating Jack-be-quick, or the gatling tripper may be totally justifiable, but they are hardly what a logical person would strive for, so using the fallacy for those "builds" is like hiding behind the RAW; legit, but dirty, and reaking of poor taste.

The fallacy was laid out with the best of intentions, not for min/maxers to hide behind.

The Stormwind fallaccy basically proves you can do anything you want as long as you're willing to change names and twist definitions.

No not really, I'll explain below.

Just pause for a moment:what is roleplaying, and what is optimization in D&D?
Because Stormwind blatantly refuses to define the words himself. After I throwing this question at him several times he blocked me if I'm not in mistake.

It doesn't really matter. Explanation below.

Also see the thread Competing Theories: The Evolution of the Stormwind Fallacy Debate

Definitions are near the end of the thread.

Actually his suporters started a thread claiming the definition of roleplaying and optimization are irrelevant to the fallaccy.

They are, explanation below.

Wich leads me to the question on how you can create a logical fallaccy based in undefined arguments. Of course nobody can prove that it is wrong, because nobody knows what optimization and roleplaying are about. Whenever someone throws an argument at the SW fallaccy all the suporters need to do it's twist the definition of the arguments a little more to their side. It changes in every thread, and even inside the same thread it will change from poster to poster.

The explanation. The Stormwind Fallacy is an either/or fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma). The logic itself is flawed in the argument.

The basics of such a fallacy are as follows Either A or B. A therefor not B. Either A or B. Not A therefor B.

The logic leaves out the possibility for C, D, or E possibly being correct, or any combination of the above being true.

The Sw fallaccy is indeed correct. The only problem it proves nothing because it can be used to prove anything. Just choose the definitions for optimization and roleplaying that suit your needs better and go for it.

It's a rebuttal, and as such refutes a statement instead of proving one.

So, Leo, I assume you are capable of giving good definitions of powergaming/min-maxing and roleplaying so that they are mutually exclusive, and in a non-trivial way. I am very interested in hearing those.

Yes, it's perfectly true that minimaxing your character does not make you automatically a bad player.

I won't quote the entire post, but I pretty much agree with you. I find min-maxing limits my RP choices, and I'd rather RP an effective character that I enjoy connecting to than a min/maxed character I struggle with. One reason I don't like min/maxing is because it implies a level of specialization that makes you awesome at one thing, but rubbish at others.

Just because a player CAN optimise, does not mean to say that they SHOULD.

When you join or form a group, you should discuss the kind of game you want to play and reach agreement on it. Far to many threads on these boards can be caricatured as follows:

A) "I joined a fifth-level campaign and created a level 3 commoner / level 2 expert flower-arranger and the other players are complaining that I'm useless ..." or

B) "I joined a group recently that all complain I'm min-maxing too much, as I single-handedly beat the BBEG in two rounds last session. It was easy as he started talking with the party face I got surprise, then finished him next round before his initiative turn, but they complain I spoiled it! It's not my fault I can play the game better than them! I have offered to help them rebuild their characters using the retraining rules but they don't want to know ... they just want to sit around talking all evening!"

Bottom line is no style of play is wrong, but some styles don't go in the same group. If you are the odd-one out, it's up to you to make most of the compromises.

Just because a player CAN optimise, does not mean to say that they SHOULD.

I think your mixing something up here. In your second example it mentions nothing about how min/maxed the character was, rather that the player was far more hack-n-slash and far less diplomatic. Even if you are the most 'optimized' character there, that doesn't mean you have to steal the spotlight or not be a team player.
You can't just bluntly optimize. Many of the builds on the CO forums (mostly in TO) try to optimize for one thing (AC, number of attacks, Diplomacy) and forgo everything else. If you try to optimize a character, you try to make the best mechanical choices for what you want to play. If you want to be a swordsman you don't pick Wizard and grab Martial Weapon Proficiency. Obviously that is hyperbole, but the point still stands. If you want your character to be really good with a spear, never mind that it isn't a great choice, you design your character with that in mind. Take Weapon Focus (spear), grab the Changling enchantment, etc. That's the whole point in optimizing; to make sure that the character you want to play has the stats that he needs.

I agree with the Stormwind Fallacy 100%. It's a simple, no nonsense truth that seems like it should not need to be stated, and yet somehow it DOES need to be stated.

However, Tempest himself pointed out that some people missuse or missrepresent the Stormwind Fallacy.

To me, the facts of the Stormwind Fallacy are not in dispute. However, that does not change the fact than in over 15 years of gaming, almost everyone I have played with who was interisted in min-maxing or optimizing was NOT very interisted in roleplaying, and many were even turned off annoyed or disgusted with roleplaying.

I prefer immersive RP heavy games. I do NOT assume that anyone that optimizes can not roleplay, becuase I know thats bullsh**. I myself have optimized more then a few characters and still roleplayed them to the hilt.

I can not, however, ignore my own experinces... and the years have tought me that while one CAN be both an optimizer and a roleplayer, such players are hard to find.

One reason I don't like min/maxing is because it implies a level of specialization that makes you awesome at one thing, but rubbish at others.

Does anyone ever wonder why this definition of min/max is the one used by those implying that min/max is bad, while the more reasonable definition gets ignored?

You know, this one...

Min/max: Minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths.

I know, it's because it's the antithesis of one of the reasons they dislike it.

Sort of like ignoring the fact that everyone min/maxes to some degree. Unless all choices made by the player for that character are completely random.

Does anyone ever wonder why this definition of min/max is the one used by those implying that min/max is bad, while the more reasonable definition gets ignored?

You know, this one...

Min/max: Minimizing weaknesses while maximizing strengths.

I know, it's because it's the antithesis of one of the reasons they dislike it.

Sort of like ignoring the fact that everyone min/maxes to some degree. Unless all choices made by the player for that character are completely random.
QFT.

A fourth way is items. Look at your possessions in real life -- do you spend 99% of your money on items to make you do your job better? Nope. But do your minimaxed characters? Damn right they do. I played a mod a short while ago with a character who was delighted with access to everlasting rations. He bought 4 of them because his character was always hungry. THAT is a roleplaying choice. Making sure you play mod X to get mithril access so your Barb1/Fighter4/PrcN can wear mithril full plate and still moce at 40' is not.


Well, if my job/lifestyle was risking my life fighting unknown and powerful beings of evil on a regular basis, then yes, I would spend 90% of my money on doing it better. You know, being an "adventurer" pretty much means you LIKE risking your butt doing this stuff. That is the basis of DnD, all the way from 1st Edition. When 1% of my earnings let me live 10 times as well as most of the people in the world, I think I'll spend plenty making sure I don't get eaten by the purple worm, thanks. I'd call dropping several thousand gold on a gilt carriage "because I always wanted one" all the while knowing that I was about to venture off to fight an undead army lead by a Lich poor roleplaying.

These economic principles are foundational to DnD. Adventurers take greater risks even than soldiers in standing armies. Thus, they make more money. If you have a problem with that particular principle then I suggest you start writing letters to everyone who ever designed an edition of DnD. The game ASSUMES you will be spending your hard-earned dough making yourself more survivable. The CR system itself assumes you actually spend your money on items. That is why there is a character wealth by level chart.

As for IRL, there are a great many people in this world who willingly throw their money away and live poor to do something they enjoy doing. Plenty of artists end up living on bologna-on-hand sandwiches because they don't make much money and what they do make goes straight to buying more supplies. Are those people somehow less "realistic" than your character? I've got an even better basis for comparison. A charitable organization in the US raised tons of money to purchase silly string to send over to Iraq. Why you ask? Because one of the soldiers told his mother they were using it to detect the tripwires for IED's. She started a group that raised over $250,000 to buy silly string. Yes, silly string. Sounds to me like people will spend lots of money to come home safe from a hot zone. Once again I ask, is that unrealistic?

All in all, class and PrC names are just that: names. I completely agree with the notion that roleplaying and optimization don't compete much, if at all. Optimization ultimately means making the best of what you got. If you want to play an Evoker, it's a subpar choice. But, if you know that, play it anyway, and make other choices that don't affect your concept to compensate and have a good time. Better yet, call yourself "Bob Flamestrike the Evoker" and be a Sun Elf Elven Generalist Wizard 2/Elven Paragon 3/Incantatrix 10/Archmage 5. Nobody in DnD is going to look at the little build stub above your head and say "Hey, he's not an Evoker!" Well, not if you really believe in roleplaying anyway. :D

I can not, however, ignore my own experinces... and the years have tought me that while one CAN be both an optimizer and a roleplayer, such players are hard to find.Which proves nothing. It is also hard to find people who are both great athletes and geniuses, but they exist. They are both two uncommon traits. To find them both in one individual is much more unlikely than finding either by itself, due to how statistics works, even if the two things are wholly unrelated (not correlated).

Posting to test something...

Which proves nothing. It is also hard to find people who are both great athletes and geniuses, but they exist. They are both two uncommon traits. To find them both in one individual is much more unlikely than finding either by itself, due to how statistics works, even if the two things are wholly unrelated (not correlated).

I was not atempting to *PROVE* anything. I alread spoke of my support of the Stormwind Fallacy.

I was only pointing out what my experince has been... take it or leave if for what it is, YMMV.

There's also a corollary fallacy of high ability scores means bad roleplaying. It's the same thing as Stormwind Fallacy just for a specific issue. It is the belief that because a character has a "natural" 18, even at 1st level, it means the player is a munchkin or otherwise is only interested in "rollplaying". You often see it point buy discussions by those who advocate the most heavily that point buy balances everyone while using a small point buy. Those who would use 32+ points where an 18 at first level is purchased more easily, or at least two 17's, could just as well use dice rolling for character generation. (thread derail alert :) )

A "demand" for a low score is made to show character disadvantage to be overcome as if that's the only way a character can have a disadvantage. It's the same 2E admonishment of a player playing a ranger because he didn't roll well enough despite a DM allowing for adjustments, encouraging he play a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees. "Inspire roleplaying!"

A character does not need to have a score below 10 in order to be roleplayed.

Obligatory: Yes, he doesn't need an 18 either to be "effective". You don't demand an 8; I won't demand an 18.

I think your mixing something up here. In your second example it mentions nothing about how min/maxed the character was, rather that the player was far more hack-n-slash and far less diplomatic. Even if you are the most 'optimized' character there, that doesn't mean you have to steal the spotlight or not be a team player.
You can't just bluntly optimize. Many of the builds on the CO forums (mostly in TO) try to optimize for one thing (AC, number of attacks, Diplomacy) and forgo everything else. If you try to optimize a character, you try to make the best mechanical choices for what you want to play. If you want to be a swordsman you don't pick Wizard and grab Martial Weapon Proficiency. Obviously that is hyperbole, but the point still stands. If you want your character to be really good with a spear, never mind that it isn't a great choice, you design your character with that in mind. Take Weapon Focus (spear), grab the Changling enchantment, etc. That's the whole point in optimizing; to make sure that the character you want to play has the stats that he needs.

It then depends on your definition of optimizing - usually it is taken to mean making your character really good at something, often combat or spellcasting. I prefer generalist characters to specialists, so you can argue that I optimize for generalization sometimes.

There's also a corollary fallacy of high ability scores means bad roleplaying. It's the same thing as Stormwind Fallacy just for a specific issue. It is the belief that because a character has a "natural" 18, even at 1st level, it means the player is a munchkin or otherwise is only interested in "rollplaying". You often see it point buy discussions by those who advocate the most heavily that point buy balances everyone while using a small point buy. Those who would use 32+ points where an 18 at first level is purchased more easily, or at least two 17's, could just as well use dice rolling for character generation. (thread derail alert :) )

A "demand" for a low score is made to show character disadvantage to be overcome as if that's the only way a character can have a disadvantage. It's the same 2E admonishment of a player playing a ranger because he didn't roll well enough despite a DM allowing for adjustments, encouraging he play a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees. "Inspire roleplaying!"

A character does not need to have a score below 10 in order to be roleplayed.

Obligatory: Yes, he doesn't need an 18 either to be "effective". You don't demand an 8; I won't demand an 18.

I don't find this all that true. I find people that use points buy are doing so for one reason; cheaters. I've played with cheats, back when I was new to the whole RPG thing. I never thought about cheating, yet I found that in every group I play in, there is always one person that just has to have the dice land in their favor all the time. This is why I myself use points buy. I don't care if a person has two 18's to start with a 32pts buy (actually, I have a person that did this; but I use 36 - cause I like heroes, not commoner +1's); I find that a pair of 18's is as common as a pair of 3's; and you don't see people ragging on the guy with two threes.

I'd personally like to use rolled stats, but I can't find a group that lacks cheaters for the DM to use it. I would like to add that I roll like crap; I'm used to 16 being the best stat I could hope for, followed by a slew of awesome 9-12's.

es, it's perfectly true that minimaxing your character does not make you automatically a bad player.

It's also perfectly true that

* being short does not automatially make you a bad basketball player
* being a musical genius doesn't automatically make you a bad football player


Essentially this thread is not about any logical issues. It really says "any absolute statement is probably wrong". Yes, there are good roleplaying players who minimax all the time (at least I assume so. I've never actually met one, but there have been enough reports in the group that I assume some exist). There have been a very few good short basketball players.

I think this needs to be read over and over again until everyone understands it. It seems like every ten posts, someone brings up the defense 'But wait! There are exceptions to your analogy, therefore it cannot be categorically true!"

I don't think most of the 'anti-minmaxers' are demanding that every character out there with a good base attack bonus and a complementary selection of skills are necessarily bad roleplayers. They are only saying that, as a trend, it seems to be that people who dedicate a lot of their resources to determining the best way to build a warmage tend to not spend a lot of time working out the internal motivations or personality of that warmage.

There are a lot of reasons for this, and again there are exceptions (which I'll keep saying so that no one quotes me out of context in order to make an off-point point), and when a character is optimized choices have been made by the player to create a fictional being that is (except in rare circumstances) at worst divorced from events in the game, and at best roleplayed as one dimensional.

A spiked chain tripper build requires a collection of feats and levels, not all of which flow from one another naturally- there aren't many up-and-coming fighters that I can imagine that think to themselves "Someday when I grow up, I'll be the best damn trip-attacker out there! I'll be a little barbarian, and a little bit of a fighter, and then I'll train for a while as a weapon master to max out my tripperocity!" Sure, there might be some nutjob out there who has a vast knowledge of the complicated way different in-character training regimes blend so as to make him able to exploit a game mechanic optimally. But people like that don't really exist in real life (yes, there might be a couple, but such people generally seem crazy to the rest of us).

Such a character may find a magical longsword of awesomeness, and despite it being the sensical thing to use at this level, he won't. Or if he does, he certainly won't get any better at it (through feats) because he's not going to give up his build. D&D allows characters to increase skills in things that they never or rarely practice with, and to get better at things they have no experience with (For example, the system does not consider if your sorcerer solves every problem with a spear and not a spell- he's going to get better at spellcasting whether he uses it or not). In real life that is nearly unheard of. 'Builds' rely almost exclusively on this schism between the mechanics and real life, and this is why players who rely on builds will always be forced to play their characters as somewhat unrealistic. (The exception is if there is a particularly friendly DM who works out with the player ahead of time to incorporate all of the story elements needed to guide the PC down a certain path- A spiked chain tripper meets and befriends early on someone who specializes in training with the spiked chain, and the level prior to the build-character needing a level in Barbarian a barbarian tribe is introduced. Every so often events are included to further the build in a fashion that is believable. Obviously this is rare, but there's certainly nothing wrong with it.)

I've seen players spend three adventures straight on horseback riding around and sometimes fighting from their horses, only to not put any points in horseback riding when they leveled because they needed the skill points for prestige classes or for their build even though they hadn't used the skills more than once in game. I've seen characters fight through dungeons or adventures without ever saying a word put points in diplomacy, or their stat point in charisma. Likewise I've seen people barely swing a sword once and solve every problem with reasoning, only to level up in Barbarian. I've seen players who level up in the wilderness take prestige classes that suddenly afford them a complicated backstory or link them into courtly intrigues without any justification. I've seen players warp classes and prestige classes so as to ignore the splat-text and only get the in game benefits. Is this bad? I don't know. It certainly breaks the fourth wall for me, and I bet it does for a lot of others. But these choices are necessary if a character is min-maxing- they cannot consider the believability of taking a level in barbarian despite only ever roleplaying with courtly types. They need that level for their build, and that's that.

I've roleplayed with a lot of groups, and met a lot of gamers in my life. Is anecdotal evidence enough? I think so- the argument I make is not one of pure logic (as shown above, I'm not interested in the categorical, and the indeterminate proof is pointless), but rather of empirical evidence. I have a theory, and a sample group which I am drawing conclusions from. Some are atrocious roleplayers. Some are really good. Some min/max. Some don't. The only thing I can say with certainty is that I've never met one who thinks he's a bad roleplayer.

Which is really what this thread is about. It's a bunch of people who min/max (or want to min/max) who want desperately to refute the perception that they are poor roleplayers. Maybe they are. Maybe they aren't. But if as a player they are spending more time thinking about what their character is going to look like 6 levels from now than how he's going to react to the NPC in front of him, then they're probably not the world's best roleplayers. They might be. They might be a genius and a football star. They might be a short basketball player.

Odds are against them, though. And we're talking about is odds.

That's alot to think about, Jasallen. I don't find any flaw to your arguement or your thinking here. While I still stand by my previous statements, I never really thought about what I do per level; what you said here is usually an optimal choice for me. I know I will be on horseback, so I put ranks into it. I have played characters with low charisma, and put points into it in order to minimize the weakness. Why? cause I use (or have used) skills linked to the stat.

Actually, what you posted is why I hate builds, but endorse min/maxing; because builds are absolutes, while min/maxing is about minimizing weaknesses, and maximizing strengths. The thing of it is though, people lump min/maxing with builders, who only know what to roll for punches, but not how to role with punches.

Why? cause I use (or have used) skills linked to the stat.

This, to my mind and I think 'common sentiment' (whatever that may be) is contrary to min-maxing and is an element of good roleplaying. It's not something that creates disbelief that a person would say 'you know, people react poorly to the way my character acts (low diplomacy/charisma). I'm going to try to be more personable, and speak up more so I can learn how to communicate effectively'.

Ten games later, after you've gained a bunch of levels and have been talking to people and interacting the PCs and NPCs alike, the gaming group can then reflect back when your character was the isolated and quite loner, and they can talk about how he's really come into his own. One might even say he's become more experienced? We use that language in the real world, and when we can relate to what is happening to our characters they often become more real and believable.

The issue centers around the players who ride a horse for ten adventures, but when it comes time to divvy up skill points say "I know I've been riding a horse a lot, but I need another rank in Tumble, Swim, Jump and Climb in order to get this prestige class I want, so I'm not going to spend anything on riding'.

This smacks of poor roleplaying (as the character that is being created on paper bears little resemblance to the character that is being created in the game), but it's not -necessarily- damning. After all, it might be a character quirk that the player has developed over time- this character is horrible around horses. Every time the party needs to ride places he and his horse are off running in circles, or he's yelling 'mush!' as the horse grazes. That's not bad roleplaying, but that is because it is keeping in game reality in sync with the papers that govern it (the character sheets).

The reason min-maxers get tagged so often as divorcing themselves from in-game reality and concentrating on just the sheets is because it's hard to maintain cohesion between the two - The player is in charge of the sheet (mostly, anyway), but the DM and other players control a massive portion of the in game reality. You might -really- want to get that courtly spymaster prestige class, but the adventure (and other PCs) are going to take you to the wilderness or some cave somewhere.

Unless everyone is on the same page (so to speak), there's going to be fractures. I think 'Good roleplayers' try to work with the DM and players by adapting their character to the game as it progresses, whereas bad ones tend to attempt to force their character into the game world with little concern for the tapestry that is being woven.

I'm obviously taking the extreme examples because they are the most glaring-

King- Thank you, brave hero, for negotiating this peace treaty with mine enemies! Though art truly wise and artful in your words! OOC- that gives you enough XP for third level.
Player- Sweet! I'm gonna take a level of Barbarian! Rage on!

DM- congratulations, you've successfully slain the orc king after trudging through all ten levels of his dungeon of despair! You have enough XP for 5th level now.
Player- I'm taking a level in spymaster (or whatever). I get 1d4 contacts in the king's court now.

Both of those examples would make the DM and everyone at the table go 'Whaaaa?'. The player has a concept, however, and at 10th level he'll be superkickass! It's just in that moment when the player makes his character into something that makes no in-game sense, everyone at the table is pulled away from the story and immersion, and into the world of charts, tables, and numbers.

Roleplaying lives in the stories (either personal or plot). Min-maxing lives in the numbers. There doesn't need to be conflict, but all too often they do.

I don't find this all that true. I find people that use points buy are doing so for one reason; cheaters. I've played with cheats, back when I was new to the whole RPG thing. I never thought about cheating, yet I found that in every group I play in, there is always one person that just has to have the dice land in their favor all the time. This is why I myself use points buy. I don't care if a person has two 18's to start with a 32pts buy (actually, I have a person that did this; but I use 36 - cause I like heroes, not commoner +1's); I find that a pair of 18's is as common as a pair of 3's; and you don't see people ragging on the guy with two threes.

I'd personally like to use rolled stats, but I can't find a group that lacks cheaters for the DM to use it. I would like to add that I roll like crap; I'm used to 16 being the best stat I could hope for, followed by a slew of awesome 9-12's.

I like point buy because I can build the character I want to play (and because dice hate me and I am honest about my rolls). I consider the facts that you can let players design at home and eliminate cheating as bonus points.

There's a long-neglected thread might interest you folks. Says a bit on why there's such a perception of distance between playstyles.

This, to my mind and I think 'common sentiment' (whatever that may be) is contrary to min-maxing and is an element of good roleplaying. It's not something that creates disbelief that a person would say 'you know, people react poorly to the way my character acts (low diplomacy/charisma). I'm going to try to be more personable, and speak up more so I can learn how to communicate effectively'.

Ten games later, after you've gained a bunch of levels and have been talking to people and interacting the PCs and NPCs alike, the gaming group can then reflect back when your character was the isolated and quite loner, and they can talk about how he's really come into his own. One might even say he's become more experienced? We use that language in the real world, and when we can relate to what is happening to our characters they often become more real and believable.

The issue centers around the players who ride a horse for ten adventures, but when it comes time to divvy up skill points say "I know I've been riding a horse a lot, but I need another rank in Tumble, Swim, Jump and Climb in order to get this prestige class I want, so I'm not going to spend anything on riding'.

This smacks of poor roleplaying (as the character that is being created on paper bears little resemblance to the character that is being created in the game), but it's not -necessarily- damning. After all, it might be a character quirk that the player has developed over time- this character is horrible around horses. Every time the party needs to ride places he and his horse are off running in circles, or he's yelling 'mush!' as the horse grazes. That's not bad roleplaying, but that is because it is keeping in game reality in sync with the papers that govern it (the character sheets).

The reason min-maxers get tagged so often as divorcing themselves from in-game reality and concentrating on just the sheets is because it's hard to maintain cohesion between the two - The player is in charge of the sheet (mostly, anyway), but the DM and other players control a massive portion of the in game reality. You might -really- want to get that courtly spymaster prestige class, but the adventure (and other PCs) are going to take you to the wilderness or some cave somewhere.

Unless everyone is on the same page (so to speak), there's going to be fractures. I think 'Good roleplayers' try to work with the DM and players by adapting their character to the game as it progresses, whereas bad ones tend to attempt to force their character into the game world with little concern for the tapestry that is being woven.

I'm obviously taking the extreme examples because they are the most glaring-

King- Thank you, brave hero, for negotiating this peace treaty with mine enemies! Though art truly wise and artful in your words! OOC- that gives you enough XP for third level.
Player- Sweet! I'm gonna take a level of Barbarian! Rage on!

DM- congratulations, you've successfully slain the orc king after trudging through all ten levels of his dungeon of despair! You have enough XP for 5th level now.
Player- I'm taking a level in spymaster (or whatever). I get 1d4 contacts in the king's court now.

Both of those examples would make the DM and everyone at the table go 'Whaaaa?'. The player has a concept, however, and at 10th level he'll be superkickass! It's just in that moment when the player makes his character into something that makes no in-game sense, everyone at the table is pulled away from the story and immersion, and into the world of charts, tables, and numbers.

Roleplaying lives in the stories (either personal or plot). Min-maxing lives in the numbers. There doesn't need to be conflict, but all too often they do.

Ya know, I've never actually encountered anyone who has done the above (of the example you've laid out), but I have run across many players who plan out an entire progression, expecting to be spoon-fed their personal path to glory. Before I was not conciously aware of such wrongful transgressions, but I will be from now-on.

Ofcourse, your first analysis of my "I use(d) the stat, therefore I put points into it" is (to me) a form of min/maxing; it is optimizing for an unseen turn-of-events within a champaign. I didn't know at the time I was going to have to play the diplomat (that's why I put a 9 on charisma), but instead of resisting, I went full-bore into the role I knew would come up again.

I've also played fighters (I play alot of fighters, actually) that have changed focus mid-game to better achieve a prestige class. What I mean here is, "a new book just came out. let's see; hey this class perfectly represents what I've been striving for! Guess I'll start putting ranks into this skill". Where, if I had been aware of it before-hand, I could've qualified three levels earlier than normal. I don't know what to call this beyond adapting to a new situation. To me this is min/maxing; working towards a goal, and working with what you've got to achieve it.

That's why I seperate build and min/max.

There's also a corollary fallacy of high ability scores means bad roleplaying. It's the same thing as Stormwind Fallacy just for a specific issue. It is the belief that because a character has a "natural" 18, even at 1st level, it means the player is a munchkin or otherwise is only interested in "rollplaying". You often see it point buy discussions by those who advocate the most heavily that point buy balances everyone while using a small point buy. Those who would use 32+ points where an 18 at first level is purchased more easily, or at least two 17's, could just as well use dice rolling for character generation. (thread derail alert :) )

A "demand" for a low score is made to show character disadvantage to be overcome as if that's the only way a character can have a disadvantage. It's the same 2E admonishment of a player playing a ranger because he didn't roll well enough despite a DM allowing for adjustments, encouraging he play a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees. "Inspire roleplaying!"

A character does not need to have a score below 10 in order to be roleplayed.

Obligatory: Yes, he doesn't need an 18 either to be "effective". You don't demand an 8; I won't demand an 18.



Heh...

Under this fallacy, I would be the bigest twink the world has ever known. :P

I enjoy epic fantasy... where the PC's are something very, VERY special. Thus... plays in my games have huge stats. My characters tend to have huge stats.

This in NO WAY conflicts with my love of deep, immersive roleplaying... or story and substance over hack and slash.

However, someone who subscribes to the fallacy you mentioned would take one look at my character binder, see all the ungodly stats, and instantly peg me as a powergamer.

:weep:

Heh...

Under this fallacy, I would be the bigest twink the world has ever known. :P

I enjoy epic fantasy... where the PC's are something very, VERY special. Thus... plays in my games have huge stats. My characters tend to have huge stats.

This in NO WAY conflicts with my love of deep, immersive roleplaying... or story and substance over hack and slash.

However, someone who subscribes to the fallacy you mentioned would take one look at my character binder, see all the ungodly stats, and instantly peg me as a powergamer.

:weep:
That's cause you're confusing high stats with epic fantasy. The real question is; do you have the desire to play low-powered games with stats that are 25 points buy or less? If you answer "no", then you, like most people, desire power with the play, and seem to think high stats will get you there. This is not wrong though, as people always desire to be better than they are; I like high-stated games because of the feeling success brings. But I like a challenge as well, and will nerf my own character if I feel he is too powerful.

High stats usually mean that a character nearly always succeeds at a given task, and that to lose or to be weak is so undesired that only the most powerful representation of a persona will be playable.

Nothing wrong with having high stats, especially in a limited environment, but having all high stats in an unlimited environment is synonymous with bad RPing. This may seem contradictory, but given that a limited environment defines what "high" could be (ie: 16 being high in a 25 points buy game), it gives us a "human" limit. Having all 18's, even if you "rolled" it will bring about bad RPing based solely human arrogance; no one is perfect, and to assume you can RP Mr. perfect is to invite disaster. Characters have dimensions and flaws, and the stats within an RPG (now I emphasize the RP here) help represent this. You can't play a character as a wall-flower if your cha is 18; it just doesn't work that way, and when you have all high stats inevitably you will make the mistake of under-judging one and play it as a "weakness".

Basically I'm saying that D&D is like a water glass; different sizes for different games. If you're always taking the big glass though, even for small amounts of water, people get sick of your predictability, as you will come to assume that the glass is not half full unless you get more water than everyone else.

That's cause you're confusing high stats with epic fantasy.

I don't belive so. I belive I am corectly connecting High Stats with exceptional people. In my epic Fantasy, I like the story to be about exceptional people. (the adventures)


High stats usually mean that a character nearly always succeeds at a given task, and that to lose or to be weak is so undesired that only the most powerful representation of a persona will be playable.


I don't agree. High Stats do NOT mean a character nearly always succeeds at a given task. It means he is more likely to succeede then someone with crap stats... and likely to CRUSH any simple tasks that avarge people might consider laborous. However, when you face unbelivable odds and amazingly powerful opposing forces, High stats don't give you ANY promise of sucsess.




Basically I'm saying that D&D is like a water glass; different sizes for different games. If you're always taking the big glass though, even for small amounts of water, people get sick of your predictability, as you will come to assume that the glass is not half full unless you get more water than everyone else.


I don't always run or play powerful, epic games... however, those are my favorite style of games when it comes to D&D. People have prefrences, those are mine.

However, I ALWAYS put story and roleplaying first, above all eles. I have not been able to find a game where I moved to this past year and a half... becuase I can't find a group that even remotely comes near to the level of roleplaying I am looking for. Everyone talks OOC all the time, metagames the hell out of every situation... and look at me really funny when I speak 'in character' to them. How dare I get in the way of the killing and looting with my annoying roleplaying. I must be a Drama Queen.

Ugh.

I'm not sure if I'm reading to much into your statments... but to me your post comes across as almost as a lecture. After over 15 years of DMing and playing... I'm not sure I really need or want a lecture.

If I'm reading it wrong tho, by all means, set me stright.

:confused:

I don't find this all that true. I find people that use points buy are doing so for one reason; cheaters. I've played with cheats, back when I was new to the whole RPG thing. I never thought about cheating, yet I found that in every group I play in, there is always one person that just has to have the dice land in their favor all the time. This is why I myself use points buy. I don't care if a person has two 18's to start with a 32pts buy (actually, I have a person that did this; but I use 36 - cause I like heroes, not commoner +1's); I find that a pair of 18's is as common as a pair of 3's; and you don't see people ragging on the guy with two threes.

I'd personally like to use rolled stats, but I can't find a group that lacks cheaters for the DM to use it. I would like to add that I roll like crap; I'm used to 16 being the best stat I could hope for, followed by a slew of awesome 9-12's.

If they cheat, you shouldn't play with them. If you have no choice but to play with them, they'll cheat in other ways.

However, back to topic ...:P

That's cause you're confusing high stats with epic fantasy. The real question is; do you have the desire to play low-powered games with stats that are 25 points buy or less? If you answer "no", then you, like most people, desire power with the play, and seem to think high stats will get you there. This is not wrong though, as people always desire to be better than they are; I like high-stated games because of the feeling success brings. But I like a challenge as well, and will nerf my own character if I feel he is too powerful.

High stats usually mean that a character nearly always succeeds at a given task, and that to lose or to be weak is so undesired that only the most powerful representation of a persona will be playable.

Nothing wrong with having high stats, especially in a limited environment, but having all high stats in an unlimited environment is synonymous with bad RPing. This may seem contradictory, but given that a limited environment defines what "high" could be (ie: 16 being high in a 25 points buy game), it gives us a "human" limit. Having all 18's, even if you "rolled" it will bring about bad RPing based solely human arrogance; no one is perfect, and to assume you can RP Mr. perfect is to invite disaster. Characters have dimensions and flaws, and the stats within an RPG (now I emphasize the RP here) help represent this. You can't play a character as a wall-flower if your cha is 18; it just doesn't work that way, and when you have all high stats inevitably you will make the mistake of under-judging one and play it as a "weakness".

Basically I'm saying that D&D is like a water glass; different sizes for different games. If you're always taking the big glass though, even for small amounts of water, people get sick of your predictability, as you will come to assume that the glass is not half full unless you get more water than everyone else.

My DM runs a high powered game. You can sarcastically say "What's a negative ability modifier"?

First campaign, 3.0. I play a cleric. All I ever wanted to play was a cleric. No prestige class. No multi-class. Just cleric. I play the cleric very well. I take Dodge because I want every AC point I can get. I take Combat Casting and Skill Focus Concentration for always statsitically succeed on defensive casting rolls. I take Lightning Reflex because I'm sick of taking full damage. During game play, I discover my character's father committed treason and framed a well-liked noble. I expose the truth, father goes to prison, Noble restored to power. I become a Knight (the title, not class which hadn't existed yet.) I'm reading Defenders of the Faith. I see Church Inquisitor. I coincidentally meet its mechanics preprequisites. I then look at the special requirement. There's my character, right there! Natural course, I just *have* to go into Church Inquisitor now. My cleric just became CoDzilla. Fun moment: I convert some medusae.

Second campaign 3.5, also a cleric. This time I go for Persistent spell. It was still +4 spell levels at the time. When it changed to +6 levels, DM let it stay at +4 levels with the option of changing it later. I only asked if he does he allow me to change the feat to Quicken Spell since I get the same effect, and I don't care for the +6 levels. I eventually get DMM Persistent Spell. I'm CoDzilla's CoDzilla. Campaign points: I turn down the Throne of the kingdom to avoid civil war. The world literally goes through Armageddon. At the end, interloper gods leave so that only native gods remain, i.e. home-brew pantheon. Cleric of Heironeous I am no more. Having just been through literally Hell on earth, I become a cleric of the War goddess. Heironeous is a war god so it was a relatively easy transfer. However, the pantheon isn't quite finished. A new god eventually emerges, one about Chivarly and Honor. This god, unlike any of the others, most closely resembled Heironeous. With War goddess' blessing, I become the first cleric for this new god. One cleric, one campaign, three gods as campaign plot happens, and I make choices. How to explain a cleric so easily changing gods? It's not so easily. A philosophy is needed. "It's not the name of the god that matters. It's your faith and you living up to it." All the drama of epic fantasy roleplay while dallying about in DMM Persistent Greater Visage of the Deity.

Yes, you can have your cake (high scores, high power) and eat it (roleplaying) too.

My DM runs a high powered game. You can sarcastically say "What's a negative ability modifier"?
*snip*
Yes, you can have your cake (high scores, high power) and eat it (roleplaying) too.

That's fine; like I said there is nothing wrong with having high ability scores; it's when you begin to expect to have them that it becomes a problem. This is where the "stereotype" of "people with high ability scores are bad roleplayers" comes from. You'll find that the guy (in your position) left to play a cleric in a 25 points buy game will invariably opt for an 18, just to maintain some semblence of power. Hell I'd bet that person would also play a druid just so he could wild shape and eliminate his (likely) low physical scores, without even considering what the "druid" is all about.

That is the view from the other side of the fence; this is the type of min/maxer they get -(tis no man... tis ) a remorseless, eatin' machine. It's most certainly not always true, but young people (which are the usual "new" players) desire to be far more powerful than they actually are, and will sacrifice the role for the play to begin with. These people change, but unfortunately the labels stick.

Here's a subject that some have covered but I want to reiterate it. There was a little debate on whether or not it was realistic for a character to spend 90% (or whatever) of his/her income on "work-related" goods and services. My view is, if you want to play a character who adventures to put rations on the table and who really lives for the weekend, by all means buy him an Arcano-Jetski for those couple weeks of vacation. But a) most don't want to play this character--we role-play to be someone else in a completely different world, not ourselves (I generalize; I'm sure some people want to play themselves going about their normal lives), and b) I don't think it's realistic (if that's what we're shooting for--another big caveat) that your fighter says, "Hm. I could purchase this mystical amulet that the wizard says will protect me from dragon's breath when we go treasurehunting on Thursday...or I could buy this lovely new set of bath towels. Yes, I do like me a luxurious spa-like setting when I'm in the bathroom!" That's not good roleplaying, that's arbitrary, illogical decision making. A fighter who thought like that wouldn't advance in level--he'd get killed by the dragon. He's an NPC. It makes sense for a character to start out thinking like that, but when you're level 15? You're a vastly-experienced, world-hardened, serious professional adventurer, and you had better think like it if what you're going for is realism.

To put it another way: Gandalf is an adventuring PC. Does he send rent money back home to pay for his little cottage and sheep? No, he doesn't need to, he lives on the road and his money goes to boots that will keep his feet dry. Saruman has a house and minions; does this make his player a better roleplayer? No, it makes him bored crazy (or an NPC) because he's sitting around Isengard while Gandalf lives up to the title "adventurer." And by way of a transition: Do you think the two wizards are vastly different in ability?

In the same way, here's an important concept:

Everything you do, every choice you make, every stat you roll or place, every skill point you allocate, tells your character's story.

If he has enormous ability scores because you and your DM like high-powered games, what really happens is that you're playing a fantastically talented person united with other fantastically talented people to save the world, or some other appropriately large-scale work. If you devote all your character's time to training and acquiring items to increase his power, you're not necessarily min-maxing--you're playing a character wholly devoted to supplementing his own ability. That's not even weird, a character who rises so high above normal folks (normal meaning commoners) has to be dedicated to it or it wouldn't happen. It isn't wrong or even bad roleplaying to play a very powerful character who seeks first his own advancement and more power. Look at the players who play these characters--aren't they evidence enough that it's human and realistic to be interested in and seek greater and greater power?


So I think the real difference here is between players who want to tell stories about characters who act and are like the people they know, and players who want to tell stories about characters who act and are far out of the ordinary.

In the same way, here's an important concept:

Everything you do, every choice you make, every stat you roll or place, every skill point you allocate, tells your character's story.

If he has enormous ability scores because you and your DM like high-powered games, what really happens is that you're playing a fantastically talented person united with other fantastically talented people to save the world, or some other appropriately large-scale work. If you devote all your character's time to training and acquiring items to increase his power, you're not necessarily min-maxing--you're playing a character wholly devoted to supplementing his own ability. That's not even weird, a character who rises so high above normal folks (normal meaning commoners) has to be dedicated to it or it wouldn't happen. It isn't wrong or even bad roleplaying to play a very powerful character who seeks first his own advancement and more power. Look at the players who play these characters--aren't they evidence enough that it's human and realistic to be interested in and seek greater and greater power?


So I think the real difference here is between players who want to tell stories about characters who act and are like the people they know, and players who want to tell stories about characters who act and are far out of the ordinary.

Thats been my view. I could be accused of Min/Maxing and have it proved. Yes, I use dump stats. Yes, I prefer point buy. Do I consider myself bad at roleplaying? Yes. I am not very good at roleplaying maybe because of all those character deaths-made me never try anymore to get into the characters had, inspired the justification that 'They all are going to die anyway so why should I worry about their background?'

I had a dwarf with a low charisma, so I decide to give him dreadlocks and an afro. It seemed to fit. I gave my half-orc a funny look-green skin, red eyes. (Yes I love Warcraft) A fighter I had with low charisma wore a bear head on his head (like the Wendol in 13th warrior movie). It was interesting. The main thing is that almost all of them could be considered min/maxing. I had a dm who could roleplay very well and there were a few other I knew who were good at it too. But I am not so much. Does that mean it is because I min/max? No.

Min/Maxing should have nothing to do with how well someone can roleplay. I am sure that people who can roleplay well could also min/max just as well. Thank you for your time.

A spiked chain tripper build requires a collection of feats and levels, not all of which flow from one another naturally- there aren't many up-and-coming fighters that I can imagine that think to themselves "Someday when I grow up, I'll be the best damn trip-attacker out there! I'll be a little barbarian, and a little bit of a fighter, and then I'll train for a while as a weapon master to max out my tripperocity!" Sure, there might be some nutjob out there who has a vast knowledge of the complicated way different in-character training regimes blend so as to make him able to exploit a game mechanic optimally. But people like that don't really exist in real life (yes, there might be a couple, but such people generally seem crazy to the rest of us).

You are forgetting that class levels are a completely metagame concept. The character has absolutely no idea what so ever that he has levels in Fighter, Barbarian, Warblade and Rogue or what have you. He also doesn't know he has Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes. All he knows is that he's good with a chain.

You are forgetting that class levels are a completely metagame concept. The character has absolutely no idea what so ever that he has levels in Fighter, Barbarian, Warblade and Rogue or what have you. He also doesn't know he has Improved Trip and Combat Reflexes. All he knows is that he's good with a chain.

No they aren't. The LG paladin will never be able to become a barbarian. The monk who leaves his path of training can never go back. And then there's still exp penalty for taking classes willy nilly. If you pursue a path(class) most of your life and sudenly change it(take another base class) you pay for it.

Except the LG paladin may dress himself in furs, uphold a clan-based honor system, be the only member of his tribe who can read, roar battle cries in combat, and proudly count himself among 'barbarian' warriors. And the illiterate hedge knight who doesn't know how to follow the rules can still protect the weak, follow his own code of justice, ride a mount, and call himself a paladin. Take a look at the Scottish Highland warriors of the late Middle Ages and early Renaissance for a look at how the "honorable knight" and "screaming berserker" archetypes may not be as clearly separated as you think.

Leo, you continue to ignore that mechanics can be reflavored (renaming a class ≠ changing a definition, before you repeat that mantra again) and you have not responded to the others responding to you in this thread.

Crap, multiposting has failed me.

Guys in favor of the SW Fallacy: the definitions are important, because it depends on them whether an Either/Or fallacy is true from a theoretical stance. "Either you're with us or against us" is fallacious because the terms involved in the false dichotemy actually allow for at least one other possibility. However, "Either '1+1=2' in our number system is true or it's false" has no conceiviable third option, not without dropping the law of noncontradiction (which you don't want to do; trust me, it gets messy).

Now, the reason it's said that the definitions don't matter is because we have empirical evidence that shows the fallacy is correct. We have examples of characters who are both min/maxed are well roleplayed. Anecdotal evidence isn't enough to prove a positive statement, but it is enough to prove a negative one, which is what fallacies are.

"All houses are blue.
But I saw a house yesterday that was yellow.
Therefore, the statement 'All houses are blue' is false."


However, while the Stormwind Fallacy disproves a necessary causative relation between roleplaying and min/maxing, does not speak to the perceived inverse corrolation between them, though many supporters of the fallacy try to use it as such. This is a legitimate, nonfallacious question.

"All Dentists like to hurt people.
But I know a dentist who hates hurting people.
Therefore, not all dentists love to hurt people."

In other words, "sadist" isn't part of the definition of "Dentist." That said, it is very possible that dentists are more likely to gain the "sadist" predicate that the average population. Let's say 99% of Dentists are Sadists: the statement "all dentists like to hurt people" is just as untrue as if only 1% of dentists were sadists. However, the statement "Dentists have a predeliction for being Sadists" is certainly correct if 99% of Dentists are Sadists because they are Dentists (they might be Sadists for other reasons and only cooincidentally Dentists, like if 99% of the population were Sadists, but at least from a statistical standpoint, it is a pretty good bet that a given Dentist will be a Sadist).

(Oh, and no offense to Dentists, or Sadists for that matter, if you'd take offense. I'm just using a mildly silly example).

That said, none of this speaks to the matter at hand. You need definitions of the terms before you can answer the side of the question related to probabilities. We know that the two do not share definitions in a sort of reverse tautology, but they may be related through corrolation (perhaps being one makes it less likely that you'll be the other). So here, let me throw out some neutral definitions:

Roleplaying: the act of playing your character as a person. "Good roleplaying" requires two things: that your character's actions match their stated personality, and that the character is fundamentally interesting. You can set Ugg the Barbarian's personality to be totally vanilla and play him perfectly vanilla, but you don't have what people mean by "good roleplaying." Alternatelly, you play a very compelling character, but your actions express a completelly different character from the one that your character sheet says you have.

Min/Maxing: strictly speaking, this is simply maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses while staying within the rules, and preferably within the intent of the rules. However, many people mean "powergaming" when they say "min/maxing," and "powergaming" is defined as "building and playing a character with the primary/exclusive goal of maximizing the character's power, usually, but not always, combat ability."

Ok, there are our definitions. I think they are pretty complete and pretty neutral. If anyone has any objections, state them and we'll try to figure out a better solution.

Now, on to the real matter at hand: can these two be done simultaneously and in equal degrees? If not, then there is a measure of causation between the two and the statement "min/maxing causes a predeliction for bad roleplaying" is at least true to a degree (it may be a very very small degree such that it really isn't an issue at all).

Powergaming, as I've defined it, could clearly conceiviably preclude good roleplaying. Once you've set mechanical power as your primary/exclusive goal, it is very likely that you will roleplay poorly, if not 100% certain. Ugg the Barbarian may want very much to be the best spiked-chain wielder in the world, and he may very well become just that, but by setting the spiked chain as his exclusive goal, he becomes a boring character. If you balance out the desire to roleplay with the desire to min/max, however, he could be an *extremely* interesting character. Every seen Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon? The characters were all clearly min/maxed, but they had personality on top of the numbers, and are therefore fascinating.

This doesn't mean Ugg has to spend some skillpoints on Craft (Basketweaving). Maybe he really has devoted his life to the spiked chain, and wasting mechanic juice on stuff that he's not really interested in would make him poorly roleplayed because his actions (of which his character sheet is representative) don't reflect what the character is supposed to be. However, "what the character is supposed to be" might be more interesting if "what the character is" is a guy who learned basketweaving from his mother before she lapsed into Alzheimer's, so he makes little baskets for her in his off-time and sends them home in the hopes that she'll remember. And that's an interesting character concept, but the concept, the actions, and the character sheet all have to match; after all, if he didn't have ranks in Craft (Basketweaving), the player is essentially lying. In fact, any time you make your character stronger or weaker than the character's concept says he should be, you're effectivelly lying, to yourself, to the DM, to the other players.

So, to roleplay well, you need min/maxing, in the sense that your character sheet needs to match your character concept as closely as the rules allow. To min/max at all, you need a role to play, necessarily, since by making your character capeable of doing anything at all, you automatically give them a role. Good roleplaying requires fertile ground from which to roleplay, which powergaming can limit (after all, Basketweaving gets in the way of whacking orcs to pieces).

So, why, then, do so many people think that min/maxing and roleplaying are polar opposites, that doing one better means doing another worse? Well, I have an analogy. Anyone here play Guild Wars? Well, it's an MMO, and one of the professions is Warrior. Warriors are melee fighters (they can use either the sword, the hammer, or the axe), and they're pretty tough guys, sporting the best armor in the game. However, new players tend to hear this and assume that if the warrior isn't invincible, it's at least close, and that pairing it with Monk (the healer profession) as its seconday profession made it utterly impossible to kill. This was especially true when the game first came out, so you would regularly run into situations where the warrior/monk (or "wammo" as they became known as) would use a speed-boosing skill to sprint ahead of the party into a large group of enemies. Often, he would end up dead, because the party healer was too far behind to stop it. In worse-case scenarioes, the W/Mo might even draw the attention of other groups of monsters in the area, making a relativelly easy encounter a TPK. As a result, the Warrior profession, especially in its "wammo" incarnation, got the unfortunate distinction of being extremely stupid and extremely useless (the Assasin profession has a similar stigma to this day). Guild Wars is a number of years old now, and it is only in more recent times that Warriors have become respected again, and you still can't play a wammo without getting massive flak.

This, I believe, is analagous to the current situation. New players tend to define their D&D experience by the combat. Generally, combat is the most novel part of D&D for the new player (I certainly don't know anyone who goes out and tries to kill dragons with bat guano, do you?), and it's also the one where they get to use all their neat-o class abilities and spells and such. As a consequence, new players usually go through a stage where they powergame, albeit clumsily due to their lack of knowledge of the rules. Many (I would like to hope) eventually get bored of one-dimensional characters and try to flesh them out, make them interesting. Some, however, have no problem treating D&D like a tactics game, and come up with guys like Ugg the Barbarian, Haznor the Fireball-casting, Lightning-spewing, Phantasmal-Terror-tossing Wizard, or Claud the Wonder CoD. In any case, other players see people start out with low-level powergaming and assume that:

a) roleplaying is an advanced trait,
b) if those first characters were powergamed, how much more powergamed must their new character be, given how much more powerful they are,
c) powergaming is the same as min/maxing,
d) since their roleplaying went up as their powergaming went down, power and roleplaying are inversly related, and
e) any interest in power slowly and increasingly poison's the player's desire to roleplay.

Some of these are fallacious, and some of them are contradictory, and some of them may not even be relevant to the discussion, but I was trying to be exhaustive.




In summary, I think you need min/maxing to roleplay well, but you also need a good, interesting character to roleplay well, and while setting power over roleplaying clearly harms roleplaying, power in what the character is supposed to be good at does not. Finally, some of these issues are so closely related that they can sometimes be understandably difficult to discern.

Thank you.

I would like to add something to the definitions:

Done in game: Roleplaying, Powergaming
Done out of game: Min/Maxing, Character Building (background)
This is mostly for any arguments about the time constraints.

Writing up your character's background is not roleplaying. It may aid in roleplaying by giving you a better idea of your character's motives and such, but it is actually not roleplaying. I can roleplay without making a character's background. I can also powergame without min/maxing (though it will be harder).
In a sense Powergaming:Min/maxing::Roleplaying:Character Building in that doing the second aids the first. This leads to the idea that they have some direct causation, but they in fact do not.


Also BlaineTog, for your definition of roleplaying (the act of playing your character as a person), I'd say that that is not true. Roleplaying is, by the strictest definition, playing a role (you've touched on this latter though). Good roleplaying is merely being consistent. Having an interesting character, while good for roleplaying, isn't always true (as what is interesting is different for people).

Two bards, 18 Charisma, max Diplomacy skill.

Bard 1 player gives an eloquent speech to convince the king to send troops to a village to defend it against orcs.

Bard 2 player says "I use diplomacy to convince the king to send troops to defend the village."

Who roleplayed?

I'm going to use a character I've played as an example of both styles of play.

Arathalia Drow'sbane
Ghost Elf Warlock/Hexblade.

Str 16
Dex 18
Con 12 (Racial -4)
Wis 8
Int 14
Cha 22 (Racial +2)

The Character weilds a Greataxe and makes continuous use of Hideous Blow.

Now many would say that playing these 2 classes is min maxing since they both have Charisma as a major stat, both can wear medium armor, and the Warlock's UMD allows for a melee character with eventual full Caster abilities.

However obviously for a melee character she has a low Con. This is somewhat offset by a host of SLA's that come from the Racial LA+1 that scale with HD, many of which make her increasingly harder to hit (eventually she can blink as a SLA).

Now an elf weilding a greataxe? Well no racial penaly to STR, and a melee class, mechanically good choices, but the choice was actually influenced by flavor. The Ghost elf description essentially makes them act like Spartans among elves. Roleplay-wise axe sounds like a good idea. The text also gives a long history in the 1st layer of the 9 Hells. Now the Hex-Lock concept works storywise as well as mechanically with a strong tendency towards the super natural.

Force of Personalty uses Charisma for will saves, to which Hexblades add their Charisma as well. Min-Maxing? Think about a race who refused to be subjugated through sheer Cultural Identity. Doesn't seem aout of place now does it?

Maximize SLA. Good move mechanically, get the most out of the Hideous Blow with a few maximized d6's tacked on. Max ranks in Concentration to allow for excellent melee casting. Of course it makes the character more dangerous, but at the same time this is a member of a race that requires a concentation check to stop glowing in the dark. Of course she's gotten really good at it.

I could go on but the point is that these decisions weren't simply made to create a mathematical winner. Nor were they arbitrarily story ideas that barely worked as soon as the first combat started.

They were chosen as part of a concept. A thematic design of an individual who is effective in the path they've chosen in life. You don't play D&D to be a turnip farmer, so why play a turnip farmer with a Longsword and D10's for Hit Dice?

I submit that there are the Roll Player's, The Roll Players (who really aren't since they minimize the effects of the dice as mich as humanly possible) and the Character Conceptualizers. Their math has a back story, they can give great flavor to every +/- on their sheet.

It is the ignorance of those silly dreamers who have decided that their characters have to be witless Hobbits tossed into the big bad adventuring world that leads them to believe that only ineffectiveness can be considered role playing.

Honestly being the guy who's the absolute best at what he does is rich with roleplay. Why has he worked so hard for this? What drives him? What did he go through before developing DieHard?

Two bards, 18 Charisma, max Diplomacy skill.

Bard 1 player gives an eloquent speech to convince the king to send troops to a village to defend it against orcs.

Bard 2 player says "I use diplomacy to convince the king to send troops to defend the village."

Who roleplayed?

Can you really sit at the table and say anything that would even come close to coming out of the mouth of a Wizard with a 26 Int?

Players have limits their Characters can exceed. I've been quite entertained to see people roleplay a Charisma of 8, but it was painful to watch a quiet shy timid person forced to play out a scene of her Cha 20 Bard. Is she less of a player?

Two bards, 18 Charisma, max Diplomacy skill.

Bard 1 player gives an eloquent speech to convince the king to send troops to a village to defend it against orcs.

Bard 2 player says "I use diplomacy to convince the king to send troops to defend the village."

Who roleplayed?

Though the first is better, not all people are silver tongued devils. :schemes:

The second is an out of character statement that should be followed with an in game attempt at such, however, if the player is simply not good at making speeches you shouldn't old that against them.

If you do it will actually discourage attempts to roleplay.

I would like to add something to the definitions:

Done in game: Roleplaying, Powergaming
Done out of game: Min/Maxing, Character Building (background)
This is mostly for any arguments about the time constraints.

Writing up your character's background is not roleplaying. It may aid in roleplaying by giving you a better idea of your character's motives and such, but it is actually not roleplaying. I can roleplay without making a character's background. I can also powergame without min/maxing (though it will be harder).
In a sense Powergaming:Min/maxing::Roleplaying:Character Building in that doing the second aids the first. This leads to the idea that they have some direct causation, but they in fact do not.First, I'm not sure how these distinctions are relevant. Second, writing up your character's background is part of "roleplaying" in the fullest sense of the word. "Roleplaying" can be as simple as "playing a role," but that misses secondary and tertiary definitions, which I was lumping together.

Also BlaineTog, for your definition of roleplaying (the act of playing your character as a person), I'd say that that is not true. Roleplaying is, by the strictest definition, playing a role (you've touched on this latter though). Good roleplaying is merely being consistent. Having an interesting character, while good for roleplaying, isn't always true (as what is interesting is different for people).No. If you have a bland character that you roleplay perfectly, no one will call it "Good roleplaying," because it will be boring. Good roleplaying requires interesting characters. I'm drawing a distinction between "roleplaying well" and "good roleplaying." You can roleplay a one-dimensional character very well, but you can't do any good roleplaying. I think what I'm getting at is pretty clear. I'm also a little unsure as to what your objection has to do with the thread.

Can you really sit at the table and say anything that would even come close to coming out of the mouth of a Wizard with a 26 Int?

Players have limits their Characters can exceed. I've been quite entertained to see people roleplay a Charisma of 8, but it was painful to watch a quiet shy timid person forced to play out a scene of her Cha 20 Bard. Is she less of a player?Not at all. Both characters roleplayed their bards in the situation well. That is, both of them had their bard do what the bard should have done. The first one, however, did what is called "good roleplaying." They really got into their character and tried to bring them to life as strongly as possible. This isn't a mark against the second player, only a mark for the first.

First, I'm not sure how these distinctions are relevant.
This is mostly for any arguments about the time constraints.
Those arguments happened in the other thread that RadicalTaoist linked to (I kinda mixed up this thread and that). My point was that, because min/maxing takes place out of game, there does not exist a scenario where a person must focus on one because he is short on time (also, considering all that the CO boards have to offer (handbooks, build compendiums, etc), it is not difficult to be able to effectively min/max).
The distinction is that they are different activities.

Second, writing up your character's background is part of "roleplaying" in the fullest sense of the word. "Roleplaying" can be as simple as "playing a role," but that misses secondary and tertiary definitions, which I was lumping together.
I've never written up my character's background and mostly just have them memorized. In fact I could have a character's entire history in complete shadows (not made up) and during the campaign his history is revealed. Or I could have no history but have his complete personality and motives down to a tee. Having a history certainly helps, but I don't think is necessary for 'roleplaying'. Similarly I don't think that you need to 'act' in order to roleplay (I'm not saying that you do).

No. If you have a bland character that you roleplay perfectly, no one will call it "Good roleplaying," because it will be boring. Good roleplaying requires interesting characters.
And what constitutes "interesting"? Since what is interesting is very much personal opinion, your definition of 'roleplaying' depends greatly on personal opinion. This leads to more confusion as to the correlation between min/maxing and roleplaying.

I'm drawing a distinction between "roleplaying well" and "good roleplaying." You can roleplay a one-dimensional character very well, but you can't do any good roleplaying. I think what I'm getting at is pretty clear.
I think I understand what you mean. When you say "roleplaying well" you mean actions taken during the game to accurately represent your character, and "good roleplaying" includes that and an interesting history/character.

The thing is what you say is 'roleplaying well' I think is 'good roleplaying', and that a character's history is separate and sometimes unneeded to be good at roleplaying. What you say is 'good roleplaying' is above and beyond roleplaying in my mind.
I'm also a little unsure as to what your objection has to do with the thread.
I disagree with your definition on what constitutes Roleplaying and "Good" Roleplaying.

I believe that Roleplaying is nothing more than accurately portraying your character in game by way of his actions. Powergaming is trying to become more powerful by your character's actions in game. Min/maxing is minimizing your weaknesses and maximizing your strengths in your character's stats.
These are very broad definitions, but I think that is necessary in order to include many people's definitions on these words.

Those arguments happened in the other thread that RadicalTaoist linked to (I kinda mixed up this thread and that).Ah. I was not aware of preexisting arguments along that line.

I've never written up my character's background and mostly just have them memorized.I'm sorry, I was being careless: the use of the word "written" was overly specific.

Having a history certainly helps, but I don't think is necessary for 'roleplaying'.No, but it's a part of it.

And what constitutes "interesting"? Since what is interesting is very much personal opinion, your definition of 'roleplaying' depends greatly on personal opinion. This leads to more confusion as to the correlation between min/maxing and roleplaying.Absolutelly, unequivocally not. While what is interesting varies from player to player, the definition remains clear, and it is not completelly subjective. Ugg the Barbarian is an objectivelly boring character. An Ugg who's been given some personality isn't.

I think I understand what you mean. When you say "roleplaying well" you mean actions taken during the game to accurately represent your character, and "good roleplaying" includes that and an interesting history/character.Not quite. I don't see the need to draw the distinction in when these things take place, especially since, as you pointed out, they can overlap (the history can be made clear over the course of the campaign, for example). More to the point, "roleplaying well" is merely adequate; your character is who he says he is. "Good roleplaying," on the other hand, enhances the game over and beyond simply playing a part. In fact, let's use the analogy of a play: roleplaying well would be getting your lines right, whereas good roleplaying would be making the audience feel the character through the strength of your performance, and you can't do that with one-dimensional characters. You can give a one-dimensional character more dimensions, but then he's not one-dimensional anymore.

The thing is what you say is 'roleplaying well' I think is 'good roleplaying', and that a character's history is separate and sometimes unneeded to be good at roleplaying. What you say is 'good roleplaying' is above and beyond roleplaying in my mind.That's because you're only operating under definition 1 of roleplaying, ie "to play a role." But if you throw that at people who argue against the Stormwind Fallacy insofar as it implies that roleplaying and min/maxing have no correlation, you're dodging the issue semantically. That isn't what they're talking about when they say min/maxing gets in the way of roleplaying. Obviously, if I were to bring out Pun-Pun and say "My character started out humbly, but now he's the most powerful being in the universe with the exception of the Lady of Pain and the DM, and that's my personality," they wouldn't say "As long as you roleplay it correctly." They'd call shenanigans.

It's clear that you can set up your character such that being a disruptive powergamer with no personality outside of dominating in combat fits him or her perfectly. What's not clear, what the debate centers around (or should), is whether or not you can have an interesting, realistic, three-dimensional character who contributes positivelly to the gaming experience for the group. I think you can, they think you can't, but it isn't quite so cut-and-dry, and disregarding their conception of "roleplaying" cuts the discussion off without profit.

Gentlement (and ladies, if there are any reading/debating this issue) I think you've lost focus here.

Stormwind's Fallacy is ideally correct, just as Nemo's Law is correct in practicum.

The problem here is that people will twist everything (both RP and mechanics) to their advantage, as long as it continues to provide a percieved advantage.

Stormwind's Fallacy is not wrong based on the fact that roleplaying and min/maxing are mutually exclusive and can be done seperately to a great effect. The fallacy is correct because it provides an absolute that shows people can do both; they can have their cake and eat it too.

The definition of roleplay does not mention or include min/maxing, power-gaming, or munchkinism, just as those three do not include roleplaying in theirs'.

Unfortunately, RPG combines the two, and since people more often than not desire personal power over being thematically creative, Nemo's law applies to the game. It is a stereotype (and should be treated as such), but it has a great basis within the genre.

The real problem is the stereotype; it is like saying all Mexicans are lazy (sorry to Mexicans here), or all First Nations (that's natives for the uninitiated, or indians for the simple) are drunken bums. I'm sure if you lived in certain areas of Canada, you'd find alot of drunken, jobless natives (like many parts of Saskatchewan, or even in my city Calgary), but those in view are not all there is.

We never hear good press on all of the employed, sober First Nations people, but they exist and in good numbers. Just as we never hear any good press (and by any I mean mostly) on how this roleplayer min/maxes well, or how that min/maxer RPs well. Bad news is 100 times as prevailant as good news, even when they are in equal numbers.

So what I as you to do is to cast aside the stereotype (however true it may be for you), and accept that not every choice is RP, just as every choice is not mechanics. We've all... well I've seen a "good" roleplayer make mechanically foolish choices, that don't make much sense in game either, but you don't see me going around calling all RPers crap roll-players. And at the end of the day, you'll want a roll-player playing the game more-so than an RPer; this is true because you (the reader) have as much a survival instinct as the rest of us.

And man cannot subsist on RP alone.

Of course, if that's the case, then why not set an example?

If you can make effective, successful characters mechanically *and* roleplay then with depth and realism, why not encourage both in others by doing both at the same time?

Implicitly, by running a "you're a filthy min-maxer, start roleplaying" or a "hack-em-all" game, you're biasing everyone else toward that view, depriving them of the other type of experience. Then, when they go on to other tables, they'll be known as "the guy who gimps his characters in the name of RP" or "the min/max munchkin", regardless of how good his RP or optimization-fu are.

Instead, by cultivating a table friendly to *both*, with players who learn to RP well AND to improve mechanically, the players you train will be effective gamers no matter what table they end up at. They, in turn, will inspire others to create effective characters (imagine that, a fantasy adventurer who is *good* at his job!) and to act out their roles believably (the benefits of which should be self-evident).

I've seen this happen firsthand: At one of my tables, four of the people involved, including the DM, all are high-RP/high-minmax people. We picked up a relatively inexperienced player right from the get-go who created a bit of a blank-slate character (amnesia-case, actually, but that worked out: He learned about the world as his character did). Over time, he learned from all of us how fulfilling a full character personality could be, and began to have his character "recover" past memories, shaping who he was. Similarly, he began to see mechancial synergy, and (with the aid of a plot-relevant discovery) made a few tweaks to his character mechanically to become a critical lynchpin in how our party worked. He also timed the two of these together: his mechanical improvements and RP discoveries happened in synch, allowing our DM to draw upon his past as a mighty warrior to give us our fair share of interesting, and challenging, encounters.

I fail to see *any* drawback to this whatsoever. It all happened "for free" with leading by example.

We're a niche enough hobby as it is; we don't need a schism over something this petty.

Instead, by cultivating a table friendly to *both*, with players who learn to RP well AND to improve mechanically, the players you train will be effective gamers no matter what table they end up at.

Player Mindy Maxwell: Sweet. Now that I've leveled up I can put points into my jump skill so I'll finally qualify for that awesome prestige class. Not only will my new jump skill help me in battle as I use fancy battle techniques, but the prestige class has some awesome bonuses for the weapons I use and my style of fighting!

Player Ralph Playa: Sure, but your character hasn't used jump for the last six gaming sessions? All we've been doing is talking to NPCs, and we figured out a way to make it so that the princess doesn't have to marry Sir Hedgwig Evildood with our leet investigation and talky skills? So suddenly you're better at jumping?

Mindy Maxwell: Sure, why not? I mean, I'm not a bard. I don't want to put points in Diplomacy or search or gather information- they are cross class and I don't want to spend points inefficiently. I don't get enough skill points to spend them on all those skills anyway. Why would I gimp my character?

Ralph: It's your character- I guess it's just weird to think that after all that roleplay your character is getting better at a skill she never used, but isn't any better at the skills she did. I know I'm playing a rogue and I'd like to bump my move silently and hide skills- that's what I was focusing on for the last while and I was thinking about branching out to a prestige class that sounded up my character's alley, but really I feel like I used my social and searching skills more this last adventure. I'll bump those skills up, and put off on the prestige class for now. If this trend keeps up, I might consider finding a new path for my character that better fits who he seems to be becoming. It's going to be sub-optimal, I know, but at least his sheet will represent who he is.

Mindy: Whatever. If I don't spend these points on jump I'll be set back in my progression, which I've been building to for a while. I can't afford to both be true to the way I've played my character and be the best I can be at smacking things. I'm not going to lose a level of progression just so that I can make my character represent what I've been doing- we'll just add that to the backstory. It's just a strategy game anyway, and it's not a good strategy to weaken my sheet mathematically. It's not like we always roll dice for every social encounter anyway- I'll can just rely on my out of character skill at talking for most situations anyway.

DM: Gosh, I wish I could agree with both of you- Mindy's style of play is necessary for certain types of games, and there are some tables that almost require a powerful build to play at. But at the same time, Ralph's idea that the history of the game and organic character building should take precedence over purely mechanical character creation methods does seem to be the heart of good collective narrativism and story telling. If Mindy sits down at a roleplaying-heavy table, she certainly won't fit in. But then if Ralph tries to play with RPGA folks, he's going to get laughed out of the room after his character dies. Unfortunately, these two forces in this incredibly common situation are at odds and cannot easily be reconciled.

----

I think that the comparisons on both sides get off track honestly when they use the word roleplay because I think it gets people in a subjectivist mindset. Everyone expects different amounts of roleplay from their party, from high-drama to basic characterization (My dwarf likes beer!).

A decent way to define roleplay that encompasses all play styles might be this- Roleplaying can be defined as a character's in game adherence to out of game mechanics, and the player's out of game adherence to in game consequences.

Simply put, roleplaying is representing your character's skills and abilities in game as they appear on the sheet during play, and during leveling up, it is the player paying attention to what has happened in game when making choices as to how levels/points/feats/etc. are selected. This is a broad definition, because everyone has a different style of play. But at the end of the day players who follow these two rules have character sheets that represent an actual character, whereas players who don't just have pieces of paper that was created with some math and splat books.

It is "Bad" roleplaying to break the first rule- my charisma 8 fighter is the de factor party spokesman because I, the player, happen to be eloquent. This isn't necessarily powergaming. It's just portraying a different character than the one on the sheet (even if generally this does result in a more 'powerful' character. Just because a character has no points in Int based skills and made it his dump stat doesn't stop him from being OOCly an amazing problem and puzzle solver, or from knowing the MM inside and out.)

It is also "bad" roleplaying to break the second rule (which is where the min/max and powergaming elements enter in)- the above example represents this situation, where a player is forced to choose about creating a character that is in harmony with the game and his character's history, or by creating an optimized piece of paper that is not at all representative of what is happening in game.

You forget though that just because a character isn't "jumping" all the time during play doesn't mean she isn't training to level. Why if that were the case, we'd have a dozen rogues through out the years with no chance to put a point into disable device; this will get the party killed in the name of roleplaying, and since there is another word attached to RPing as far as D&D is concerned (ie: Game), it makes the whole experience run short (and you thought min/maxing was bad for the game).

Also, just because a character has role-played a negotiation in the past doesn't neccesarily qualify them for uping the skill. While that player may speak their peice, the actual negotiation is often left to the person most suited for the skill; the bard, the paladin, the sorcerer, etc...

These are usually the guys making the rolls; just because you speak in game in a pleasant manner towards an NPC, getting what you want out of them doesn't mean you should put points into a skill. Skills indicate training; RP is often left to a person's stats; that is while Mindy there may have done some talking, she certainly isn't practiced at it (diplomacy) as she spends not time training it; she may have gotten by on her natural charm.

Training for a class is one thing, especially in he case of Mindy there; she has spent multiple levels stirving for her goal, which could be considered a character goal (and thus role-playing). She clearly doesn't want to put points into the skill, and probably doesn't train towards that in her "downtime" either. While you may not use a skill during an adventure, you most certainly practice it while camping, resting, etc... (adventurers travel for 8 hours a day, and rest for another 8; that still leaves 8 hours for something to be done. Re: training, hobbies, etc...).

Skills are somewhat of a special case here (IMO) as they are much smaller a representitive of the character as a whole; now if she were going to class into, say Purple Dragon Knight but had no one to train her in the ways of PDK, then I would flat out deny the request. A class (for me) is more representative of a character than we choose to believe; that class is more than abilities, skills, and spells. That it is the adventurer's profession, social status, etc...

Skills indicate training

I disagree with this premise, or perhaps more accurately I find training one subset of 'Use', which is to say that one trains in a skill by performing a skill (or set of skills) under guided tutelage. You can learn how to tumble just fine by going out into a grassy field and rolling around. Most PCs do not, as a rule, make time for 'training', and to claim that it is a de facto part of adventuring life seems ill supported.

Also, just because a character has role-played a negotiation in the past doesn't neccesarily qualify them for uping the skill. While that player may speak their peice, the actual negotiation is often left to the person most suited for the skill

Words like 'neccesarily' get us into trouble- no. Nothing is necessarily true. But given no special facts or information...

In your situation that's true. In my situation it's not. In games where all the players are interested only in participating within the confines of their stereotypical class description, it may be true that the fighter doesn't say anything of importance when talking to NPCs, and the bard does all the face work. I don't believe, whatever people may say, that this comes close to representing what most people do at their dinner tables on game night. If my fighter has something poignant to say in negotiations then I say it, and if my DM is doing his job he'll have the NPC react.

If I say something that makes an amazing amount of sense, is eloquently and politely expressed, and compelling, yet my character has no diplomacy or charisma to speak of, the DM is in an unfortunate bind. Either the NPC can say 'Despite that being amazingly reasonable, and no sane person would disagree or take offense, because your stats are so low I will ignore it!', in which case everyone at the table is reminded in a vulgar fashion that D&D is a glorified probability game in which all the characterization in the world is pointless if it contradicts the dice, or the DM can have the NPC respond as he would to the argument, and when it comes time for that player to level up, the DM would expect the player to adjust his character's sheet to better match in game reality.

RP is often left to a person's stats; that is while Mindy there may have done some talking, she certainly isn't practiced at it

You and I have different definitions of practice, then. :)

she has spent multiple levels stirving for her goal

She's certainly, in my hypo, spent several levels spending points and feats in a manner incongruous with the way she's playing her character. Her intention certainly was to make her sheet look mathematically ideal. It is not really clear that the other players or DM, in their understanding of the character, have an idea who she is.

adventurers travel for 8 hours a day, and rest for another 8; that still leaves 8 hours for something to be done.

I'm not sure where you get those numbers. In my games adventurers seem to spend 16 hours a day engaged in 'traveling' when we need to travel, and as much time as we can engaging in RP or fighting monsters or talkin' to folks when not. I don't think I've ever had a party member say 'Time for my 8 hours worth of skill training!'

Skills are somewhat of a special case here (IMO) as they are much smaller a representitive of the character as a whole

Feats and skills fall into vaguely the same category. And once they are removed from the equation you end up with class levels, which it's hard to min/max. Most 10th level fighters, once stripped of skills and feats, look identical. Same with 10th level clerics, rogues, and most other classes. Sorcerers, bards, and TOB classes might be the only exceptions.

Player Mindy Maxwell: Sweet. Now that I've leveled up I can put points into my jump skill so I'll finally qualify for that awesome prestige class. Not only will my new jump skill help me in battle as I use fancy battle techniques, but the prestige class has some awesome bonuses for the weapons I use and my style of fighting!

Player Ralph Playa: Sure, but your character hasn't used jump for the last six gaming sessions? All we've been doing is talking to NPCs, and we figured out a way to make it so that the princess doesn't have to marry Sir Hedgwig Evildood with our leet investigation and talky skills? So suddenly you're better at jumping?

Mindy Maxwell: Sure, why not? I mean, I'm not a bard. I don't want to put points in Diplomacy or search or gather information- they are cross class and I don't want to spend points inefficiently. I don't get enough skill points to spend them on all those skills anyway. Why would I gimp my character?

Ralph: It's your character- I guess it's just weird to think that after all that roleplay your character is getting better at a skill she never used, but isn't any better at the skills she did. I know I'm playing a rogue and I'd like to bump my move silently and hide skills- that's what I was focusing on for the last while and I was thinking about branching out to a prestige class that sounded up my character's alley, but really I feel like I used my social and searching skills more this last adventure. I'll bump those skills up, and put off on the prestige class for now. If this trend keeps up, I might consider finding a new path for my character that better fits who he seems to be becoming. It's going to be sub-optimal, I know, but at least his sheet will represent who he is.

Mindy: Whatever.
Here's the issue.
DM: Unfortunately, these two forces in this incredibly common situation are at odds and cannot easily be reconciled.

Make it a habit and it's a lot easier. Specifically, in the first post, go to Builds and Metagaming > The Four Techniques. Mindy had a lot of options.

Make it a habit and it's a lot easier

I feel like your post there is a perfect example of circular logic.

"If a player works hard to make sure that his in game actions closely resemble his out-of-game design choices, then there will be no conflict between his out of game design and in game actions".

I also think you are idealizing your optimizer and his situation so much that to use it as a test-bed for your approaches is insufficient to show what you want. If at 1st level I have a build I want and it requires that I spend no extra skill points on 'ride' for the next 10 levels, and the DM has an entire series of adventurers that spans 5 levels that involve the party riding around, that player has a much harder time creating a believable character. Can he do it? Sure. Will he? Possibly, but fundamentally the 'ride' example is merely a microcasm of a broader issue- at some point there will be a number of skills that that character -should- have, but doesn't because he wanted to build to a specific idea. Excuse after excuse, after strange coincidence will be required to explain how, despite riding on horseback for 3 months, and climbing up the side of mount Pointitop, then sneaking through the catacombs of under-top, your character has no ride, climb, move silently or hide skills. But he's got 15 ranks in spellcraft! Sure, not a lot spells have been cast at him, but hey, he can make up a long and complicated explanation that the rest of the party realizes pretty earliy on is what we in the biz call 'a elephant sized pile of bull-poo'.

Of course that's just the 'Long term' solution you propose. The 'Sudden mutation' approach suffers from the problem of lucky breaks- one is fine, two is stretching it, but does it seem like your character suddenly develops awesome and strange new powers at an alarming rate? Yeah, about once every couple levels...

Your 'fortuitous coincidence' example is exactly what I mentioned above, which is a PC and DM working toward the same goal so that the story incorporates the build- this frankly isn't always possible, and also suffers from the above 'one too many lucky breaks...' problem. Why is it that every tenth monster we find has a book talking about the principles of arcane magic? I dunno, but it's sure helping my Knowledge(arcance) skill!

The 'what new ability' example, as you point out, is of limited use, though with certain 'feat chains' I imagine it works fine, provided the feat gets used. Aside from the "I just happened to suddenly know it!" example you give, nothing really explains how a fighter can get a series of archery related feats if he hasn't used a bow for the last three levels.

All in all, I think your examples are fine if they work. I think you're relying on some pretty fortuitous situations for them to apply, however, and some players who aren't interested in whether a story seems staggeringly far fetched.

...though, you know, wizards and dragons and all that, so maybe no one cares.

You forget though that just because a character isn't "jumping" all the time during play doesn't mean she isn't training to level.This is both true and false. False in the sense that she might not have been training, and true in the sense that taking ranks means that she was doing just that.

Let me explain, because that's very unclear: if the player wants, they can push the training that went on into the margins of gameplay. Like going to the bathroom and eating supper, it all happened when the players wern't looking. Maybe the character spent a lot of time stretching, or hoping around, or even studying his leg muscles in an attempt to learn how to jump better. You can almost always justify choices like this, though it can get dubious around the edges.

However, it is conceiviable that no such outside training took place, but the character is still suddenly better at jumping, or Knowledge (Nobility) or whatever it is. Heck, there's nothing mechanical preventing a wizard from running around in fullplate and swinging a greatsword for whole levels at a time without casting even a single spell and yet still leveling up in Wizard; the character could be explicitelly turning his back on spellcasting, and yet still level up in Wizard, and the rules don't have a thing to say about this.

Why if that were the case, we'd have a dozen rogues through out the years with no chance to put a point into disable device; this will get the party killed in the name of roleplaying, and since there is another word attached to RPing as far as D&D is concerned (ie: Game), it makes the whole experience run short (and you thought min/maxing was bad for the game).Er, no. If the party can't handle deadly traps, the DM is wildly at fault for throwing them at them. Oh sure, you should still throw in the odd trap from time to time, just to remind the players that rogues still have a niche, but it would be just a big a mistake to hit them with traps that inject multiple doses of deadly poison as it would be to send some high-level golems after a team of spellcasters. It is the DM's responsibility to challenge the party appropriatelly. So, if the rogue has a crappy disable device because of roleplaying, the DM should roll with it.

Also, just because a character has role-played a negotiation in the past doesn't neccesarily qualify them for uping the skill. While that player may speak their peice, the actual negotiation is often left to the person most suited for the skill; the bard, the paladin, the sorcerer, etc...This is true. I suck very hard at learning foreign languages, and my roommate couldn't do multivariable calculus if you stuck her in a room and wouldn't let her out until she could. Maybe your character just doesn't have a head for negotiation. Just because you, the player, contributed doesn't mean your character should have. And even if they did, situations which would basically necessitate you to learn something long-lasting from the encounter are difficult to imagine; maybe you weren't very interested in the talking, so even though you contributed to get through, you didn't bother paying too much attention.

I disagree with this premise, or perhaps more accurately I find training one subset of 'Use', which is to say that one trains in a skill by performing a skill (or set of skills) under guided tutelage. You can learn how to tumble just fine by going out into a grassy field and rolling around. Most PCs do not, as a rule, make time for 'training', and to claim that it is a de facto part of adventuring life seems ill supported.You're strawmanning him a little. As far as I saw, I didn't spot one instance in which Dog claimed you had to get professional training. It is, in fact, thinks like tumbling around in fields that makes it possible to justify, say, a wizard taking ranks in it after the party's been trudging around dungeons for months.

If I say something that makes an amazing amount of sense, is eloquently and politely expressed, and compelling, yet my character has no diplomacy or charisma to speak of, the DM is in an unfortunate bind.Yes. Poor roleplaying does that to DMs sometimes. You misplayed your character. This is why, especially in social situations, I prefer to role (and hear the result) before I make my pitch.

Also, what and how I say something isn't what or how my character is going to say it. If he's better than me, he'll say it better, and if he's worse, he'll say it worse. The stats are supposed to get in the way of your own talents; otherwise, you'd be playing yourself intead of a role.

Additionally, even if your, say, Cha 8 fighter manages to pull off a good speach, there's nothing to say that he necessarily learned from it. This becomes a less and less feasible response as the duration between combats and the length of time spent talking lengthens, but you can either take a charitable attitude towards the whole thing and give the fighter the benefit of the doubt, barring incontravertible evidence, or you can harry every single character choice, most likely deeming most of them in error. I prefer the former.

I feel like your post there is a perfect example of circular logic.
It would be if I was arguing there is not conflict. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the practice of certain skills can prevent any conflict altogether.
"If a player works hard to make sure that his in game actions closely resemble his out-of-game design choices, then there will be no conflict between his out of game design and in game actions".
Yup. S'about right.
I also think you are idealizing your optimizer and his situation so much that to use it as a test-bed for your approaches is insufficient to show what you want. If at 1st level I have a build I want and it requires that I spend no extra skill points on 'ride' for the next 10 levels, and the DM has an entire series of adventurers that spans 5 levels that involve the party riding around, that player has a much harder time creating a believable character. Can he do it? Sure. Will he? Possibly, but fundamentally the 'ride' example is merely a microcasm of a broader issue- at some point there will be a number of skills that that character -should- have, but doesn't because he wanted to build to a specific idea.
Easy as pie - Toran doesn't like riding. It's odd, as he doesn't dislike horses, but he just can't stand riding. He will share a horse with someone else better at riding any chance he gets, and you can't get him into a saddle for practice at spearpoint.

There's no way to decide what a character "should" have without interpreting how the rules should lead to the concept, an entirely subjective process up to the player anyways.
Excuse after excuse, after strange coincidence will be required to explain how, despite riding on horseback for 3 months, and climbing up the side of mount Pointitop, then sneaking through the catacombs of under-top, your character has no ride, climb, move silently or hide skills. But he's got 15 ranks in spellcraft! Sure, not a lot spells have been cast at him, but hey, he can make up a long and complicated explanation that the rest of the party realizes pretty earliy on is what we in the biz call 'a elephant sized pile of bull-poo'.
Now here I must accuse you of idealizing the powergamer into a caricature with no details. A series of strange unrelated coincidences means that he's not reconciling the play with the mechanics well enough for it to feel transparent - in short, he's not successfully using the techniques I'm arguing are vital. In all these examples you're describing someone who has made no attempt to reconcile mechanics with concept nor seems interested in reconciling mechanics with concept, and well then, that's the real problem isn't it?
Of course that's just the 'Long term' solution you propose. The 'Sudden mutation' approach suffers from the problem of lucky breaks- one is fine, two is stretching it, but does it seem like your character suddenly develops awesome and strange new powers at an alarming rate? Yeah, about once every couple levels...

Your 'fortuitous coincidence' example is exactly what I mentioned above, which is a PC and DM working toward the same goal so that the story incorporates the build- this frankly isn't always possible, and also suffers from the above 'one too many lucky breaks...' problem. Why is it that every tenth monster we find has a book talking about the principles of arcane magic? I dunno, but it's sure helping my Knowledge(arcance) skill!

The 'what new ability' example, as you point out, is of limited use, though with certain 'feat chains' I imagine it works fine, provided the feat gets used. Aside from the "I just happened to suddenly know it!" example you give, nothing really explains how a fighter can get a series of archery related feats if he hasn't used a bow for the last three levels.

All in all, I think your examples are fine if they work. I think you're relying on some pretty fortuitous situations for them to apply, however, and some players who aren't interested in whether a story seems staggeringly far fetched.Each one of them, on their own, are limited.
But all four? Applied at different times? Do you really think that it's impossible to make characters who don't appear far fetched out of a build when you're paying attention to what opportunities may arise and you are proficient with so many different ways of creatively tying in your mechanics?
Think about it. I know it's possible, but then again I've been playing in a group where this is the regular modus operandi for over a year.

Easy as pie - Toran doesn't like riding. It's odd, as he doesn't dislike horses, but he just can't stand riding. He will share a horse with someone else better at riding any chance he gets, and you can't get him into a saddle for practice at spearpoint.

That's not the scenario I described. If it was, I'm sure your position would have a great deal of merit. I described a character who rode around on horses for a series of adventures (not sharing the saddle, not choosing not to ride). That character spending no points on ride raises my eyebrows.

It won't raise everyone's. Not everyone approaches the game from a mechanics=reality approach.

In all these examples you're describing someone who has made no attempt to reconcile mechanics with concept nor seems interested in reconciling mechanics with concept, and well then, that's the real problem isn't it?

No, the real problem is that the other players and DM aren't morons (ideally speaking). One excuse seems fine. Toran doesn't like horses. Another excuse seems weird, but okay. Toran...didn't learn anything about climbing mountains, because he was...er...always on the lookout for bad guys while climbing and wasn't paying attention. More excuses just seem like Toran is a caricature of a man- "Why is it that for the last 2 years of game time, Toran has only ever learned a very specific set of skills when we've been doing all sorts of different things?" Can players keep accepting Toran's excuses as to why tumble, jump, hide and balance are the only skills he's ever been able to learn? Maybe. But they will eventually do so by treating Toran as a character sheet and not a character.

Essentially all of the examples except the feat-chain one (which I agree, can make perfect sense in many situations, though obviously there's the 'Player does not use the prerequisite feat ever' situation that can cause strife) rely on coincidences or the other players to ignore inconsistent behavior. The DM moves the story in a direction that coincidentally helps your character's design choices. The other players accept that you suddenly develop a skill without explanation- which is actually the problem rephrased to sound like a solution. The long term solution requires players to accept that what they see you doing in game can be ignored for what you tell them is happening off-camera.

Mind you, I have no problem with Toran in the above example roleplaying being miserable on a horse. For all the riding he does, if all the other players grasp from the way the story is told that they shouldn't expect Toran to be able to get from point A to point B on horseback without help, then that's fine. My issue (I won't even say it's a problem), is representing every character with a build as an idiot savant, incapable of developing beyond their mold. Toran can't learn any skills besides those needed for his build- no matter what excuses he makes, whatever in game explanation, that's the truth. Maybe the occasional idiot savant can be fine, but a party of them is stretching credulity (for me, anyway- obviously it is clear in your gaming group that your ability to ignore improbabilities is greater than mine).

My issue (I won't even say it's a problem), is representing every character with a build as an idiot savant, incapable of developing beyond their mold. Toran can't learn any skills besides those needed for his build- no matter what excuses he makes, whatever in game explanation, that's the truth.No no, that's not it at all. First, "Idiot savant" is wildly innacurate for what we're describing. Almost everyone has a few things that they just suck hard at, no matter how much training they put into it. I mentioned foreign language as being my bane, IIRC, but I'm also terrible at Chemistry. Or maybe it isn't that they can't do it, but that they don't want to do it. I'm not bad at math, not at all, but it bores me, so I don't remember much of Calc AB, and I wouldn't have ranks in Knowledge: Math, at least certainly not more than 1 (Knowledge: Liberal Arts, of which math would be a part, yes, but not specifically Math).

You have to explain each character individually, and there are a myriad of ways to do so. I see no reason not to be charitable about this sort of thing.

That's not the scenario I described. If it was, I'm sure your position would have a great deal of merit. I described a character who rode around on horses for a series of adventures (not sharing the saddle, not choosing not to ride). That character spending no points on ride raises my eyebrows.
Well, the problem here is that these are two different scenarios all together.

RT suggested that one should use the four techinques to explain the mechanics of the character.
You then posted a scenario where someone did not use said mechanics. Your scenario has the person performing a skill and putting no ranks in it.
RT then shows how it can be done, if you apply a technique (meaning, the PC wouldn't have been riding in the saddle; it's not his style).

The problem here is you created a scenario outside of the four techniques to show how they don't work. Obviously, if someone did what you posted, you could call shenanigans on them. However, if they did what RT posted, then I feel it'd be fine.

I agree with Jarsallen on what is proper for a game; not riding because it "ruins" your 20 level progression is a poor choice for the game; justifying it as "you don't like horses" is kinda weak. I mean, Flint in Dragonlance was alergic to horses, so he always complained when he was forced to ride one; I doubt he had any ranks in ride, which is acceptable. The point Here though is not affording a rank in ride because it ruins a progression and being alergic (and thus never putting a rank in ride no matter what) are two different things.

This is one thing players forget; practical gameplay. A "build" should not rule your progression; what if you wanted to be a Thayan Knight, but ended up in a place that had no practical trainers? This completely ruins a build plan, which will make a character seem pointless to some people. This form of absolute character is better for a novel than a game; in games circumstances arrise that must be molded with, as not everything can and will go right for a character.


[off topic] What is "strawmanning, or 'to strawman'?" what does this term mean?[/off topic]

How you play a character should be based off of statistics; this can be handled two ways (which I think some of you don't realize).

You can play the stats, or you can assign stats to how you play. venturing beyond this would indicate growth; growth that a person should show (statistically) if they wish for it to be a true representative of how their character is played. This is something I tell all the players when they begin to describe their characters to me, "don't say another thing. There will be how you want to play your character; how you see your character. Then there is what happens in game. This (what happens in game) will be the only thing that matters. So show me that way".

You can call your character a, "dark loner, with an aire of mystery about him", but if you end up being the comedic relief all the time, that is who the character is.

One thing about this is partly due to the fault of the DM; if he's turning to one player over another for conversations with NPC's, while another player clearly has a higher charisma (stat), then he is forcing two people to play contrary to their characters. Not the players' faults, but the one (the guy not being talked to) would probably be called a min/maxer for it even though he did nothing to deserve the title (this was quite literally how I earned the title).

As RPing is appearently viewed in extremes here, as well as what occurs "off screen" (I think that stuff is being done during downtime, others think the characters sit like your 4th grade teacher; quietly in the dark once school is over awaiting a new day), we'll probably never agree on what is and is not RPing.

I don't think that you should have to RP your training in skills to justify ranks in them; this would be boring and time-consuming ("I jump. I jump again!")

I think that if you're constantly using a skill, you should put points into it; if you're helping out once in a while, or just chiming in on a negotiation (no matter how important what you said was - importance of speech has little to do with the art of diplomacy), you don't need to.

If you're a wizard galavanting around in fullplate and not casting spells, then RPing aside, as a DM I would block your level progression in wizard until you suffered a 20% exp. penalty for that level (that is, you need a good solid 20% more exp. doing wizard stuff in order to advance), but this is more for being stupid than for not role-playing.

It is hard to forget experience (ie: I know pretty much what every monster in the MM can do), so I try not to penalize for subconcious seepings; I only ask that said knowledge is not shared amoungst the group unless a knowledge check is performed.

Really all you can ask for is moderation. You can hope for a "true" roleplayer, but I would like to remind you that it is still a game, so the pure min/maxer is no more out of place than the pure roleplayer.

I agree with Jarsallen on what is proper for a game; not riding because it "ruins" your 20 level progression is a poor choice for the game; justifying it as "you don't like horses" is kinda weak.Sure, but not implausible. As I said, charity.

[off topic] What is "strawmanning, or 'to strawman'?" what does this term mean?[/off topic]It's a verbization of the Strawman Fallacy, wherein you attack a weakened version of your opponent's argument rather than the real deal which makes it look like you've refuted them when you haven't. A blatant example might be "Killing innocents is evil." "Oh yeah? But it's not evil to kill someone who's coming to kill you, so you're wrong."

I agree with Jarsallen on what is proper for a game; not riding because it "ruins" your 20 level progression is a poor choice for the game; justifying it as "you don't like horses" is kinda weak. I mean, Flint in Dragonlance was alergic to horses, so he always complained when he was forced to ride one; I doubt he had any ranks in ride, which is acceptable. The point Here though is not affording a rank in ride because it ruins a progression and being alergic (and thus never putting a rank in ride no matter what) are two different things.
I don't know. When I first got my learner's permit (precursor to the driver's license), I wasn't in a big hurry to drive everywhere. Now, that was mostly because I had to have a parent in the front seat, so where ever we were going, either one of us could drive. I guess after 15 years, I was just used to being schaufered around. When I got my license, that was a different story. ;)

Was I holding out ranks in Drive to further my build? No. It was just plain and simple who I was based on what I'd grown accustomed to. This really boils down to very simple factors in my environment that shaped me. When we play D&D characters, it's too hard to cram every single moment of a PC's life into a gaming session. Most of that has to come from a good back story.

I don't see any reason what so ever why a character couldn't have an aversion to or dislike of riding horses. It's no different than a PC that perfers ale over wine, or the color blue over red. If you examine a backstory as a tool for justifying a build, then you've probably already formed your opinion of it, regardless of its content. I fail to see why it matters whether the build or story came first, so long as they both mesh well in the end.

No no, that's not it at all. First, "Idiot savant" is wildly innacurate for what we're describing.

I'm describing a character who is capable of learning 4 or 5 skills our of the 30ish that core D&D offers, and makes excuses that he is just inherently not good at the 25 or 26 remaining skills. A person who is only capable of learning a small subset of skills at the expense of everything else feels like an idiot savant to me.

# RT suggested that one should use the four techinques to explain the mechanics of the character.
# You then posted a scenario where someone did not use said mechanics. Your scenario has the person performing a skill and putting no ranks in it.

Not that order should matter, but I've been positing the 'I ride in character, but my sheet has no points in ride' situation for a while. RT talked about that other stuff on a differnent thread, and used it to jump into this conversation. It doesn't apply perfectly, and I pointed that out.

I don't see any reason what so ever why a character couldn't have an aversion to or dislike of riding horses.

Nor do I, though I do think that a character who spends a lot of time in the saddle ought to get better at riding.

Nor do I, though I do think that a character who spends a lot of time in the saddle ought to get better at riding.
You can ride a horse with no ranks fairly reliably. Most of the simple tasks (guide with knees, stay in saddle) have a 5 DC, meaning that a bit of natural talent (Dex score), you will seldom fail. Even still, merely riding doesn't even require a check or a single rank or a skill check! 100% success! Of course, you might not want to get into combat. ;)

A lot of people do the same thing over and over again in the real world and don't get any better at it because they don't apply themselves. It seems perfectly feasible for someone to begrudgingly jump in the saddle, ride the horse from A to B for weeks, and not get any better. With zero ranks and no skill checks, a person can ride with absolutely no problem. If he has no desire to improve, then I don't see how he would.

Now, if said character kept getting ambushed in the saddle, and decided to start fighting from horseback, now he has a mechanical and flavor reason to put ranks in. Now he wants to do more than passibly ride his mount. He might put in ranks to better control his mount. He may even invest in feats to keep his mount safe or charge more effectively.

Perhaps I'm arguing a contrived example a little to far. Maybe the same point could be made with another scenario. I just fail to see how riding a horse for months necesitates putting ranks in Ride.

I don't see any reason what so ever why a character couldn't have an aversion to or dislike of riding horses. It's no different than a PC that perfers ale over wine, or the color blue over red. If you examine a backstory as a tool for justifying a build, then you've probably already formed your opinion of it, regardless of its content. I fail to see why it matters whether the build or story came first, so long as they both mesh well in the end.

You're avoiding the situation here; if buddy won't put ranks into ride until 11th level because it would otherwise ruin his build, justifying it with "I just don't lik horses" is weak.

That is what I'm getting at; people are building and not playing. Having a progression planned is one thing, expecting it to be spoon-fed to you is another. What I'm saying here is people seem to think that if they cannot get all their abilities right away then their character is ruined. This way of thinking is counter to reality; you said that with your driver's license you were putting it off because of a forseen snag; you were right that this didn't ruin your "build", but to many others it would've.

In Mindy's case, not boosting diplomacy in favor of jump is just fine; she doesn't see herself as a diplomat, and did not want to spend time training to do so, despite roleplaying out one negotiation (I would've given the guy rolling that diplomacy check a circumstance bonus or something). In the case of the 5 levels of adventure on horse-back, you really don't have a choice; you either counter prolonged experience in favor of building, or you adapt and wait one level in favor of RP and optimization; being good at riding is clearly the best choice for those levels, and to do otherwise is again counter to logic.

It's been referenced, but to put it more clearly, if you add together the ingame time spent by your character in any given session, it rarely adds up to significant amounts of time.

For example, in a diplomatic session where the party has to smooth talk past guards and other such obstacles. While out of game this may take 4-6 hours or even multiple sessions to work your way through. in Game this may take 2-3 hours, tops. Similarly while you may spend hours of real time on combat, the actual rounds of combat might be something like 5-10 rounds, anywhere from 30 seconds to a minute of time.

Most of the time what your characters do during a session represents an extremely small portion of the day, about an hour or two.

But otherwise for the purpose of this "argument" of skills i'll just repost the sidebar on page 62 of the phb

CHARACTER SKILLS
When you create your character, you will probably only be able to purchase ranks in a handful of skills. It may not seem as though you have as many skills as real people do—but the skills on your character sheet don’t actually define everything your character can do. Your character may have solid familiarity with many skills, without having the actual training that grants skill ranks. Knowing how to strum a few chords on a lute or clamber over a low fence doesn’t really mean you have ranks in Perform or Climb. Ranks in those skills represent training beyond everyday use—the ability to impress an audience with a wide repertoire of songs on the lute, or to successfully scale a 100-foot-high cliff face.
So how do normal people get through life without ranks in a lot of skills? For starters, remember that not every use a skill requires a skill check. Performing routine tasks in normal situations is generally so easy that no check is required. And when a check might be called for, the DC of most mundane tasks rarely exceeds 10, let alone 15. In day-to-day life, when you don’t have enemies breathing down your neck and your life depending on success, you can take your time and do things right making it easy, even without any ranks in the requisite skill, to succeed (see Checks without Rolls, page 65).
You’re always welcome to assume that your character is familiar with—even good at, as far as everyday tasks go—many skills beyond those for which you actually gain ranks. The skills you buy ranks in, however, are those with which you have truly heroic potential.

I don't need ranks in diplomacy to talk smoothly, i don't need ranks in ride to ride a horse, i need ranks in those skills to represent specific practice or training on truly extraordinary applications of such skills. I need no ranks to bide a horse from point A to Point B a lot, or even ride a furious chase, i do however need ranks to work together as a well oiled war machine with my horse in the hustle and bustle of combat. i've played a sturdy dwarf wizard who (as a result of his trait) had a move speed of 10 feet, and thus rode a horse for better speed. On the other hand he had no ranks in the skill because he could care less about fancy riding, the horse got him from point a to b. other than that who cared? Ride the horse cast from the back, don't move so no need for ride checks, and if the fight got bad enough get off the horse, (or cast fly)

no ranks needed

You're avoiding the situation here; if buddy won't put ranks into ride until 11th level because it would otherwise ruin his build, justifying it with "I just don't lik horses" is weak.
I see what you're getting at there. I agree that would be a hard one to justify. It can be done but after a while, it gets a bit contrived.

I think there is definitely a happy medium where you can come up with a reasonable set of circumstances to explain why you did what you did with your PC. Still, I guess while I might make various multi-classed PCs, I've never gone to that extent with my skill points. Any skill that's important simply gets maxed out because it makes sense.

Maybe I am not reading this right, but it seems to me that almost everybody here is forgetting one important thing:

Stats

This is not just some numbers on a sheet of paper. This is you who are, what you do, what you are good at and bad at, your talents, abilities, etc. The choices made in just creating a character and filling in the blanks on a character sheet make the character more than any real role-playing. You can't roleplay a char with a 18 charisma as a loner that never talks to anybody. The char is going to attract attention no matter what. Likewise, you can't run a 8 charisma char as a rockstar. It doesn't make any sense. No matter how you do it, roleplaying has to make sense regarding the characters stats. A barbarian with a 8 int is not going to be talking or thinking like the equalvent of a professor with a master's degree. By the same token, a wizard with a 18 int is not going to have bad grammer. Roleplaying it otherwise makes absolutely no sense. It scretches credilibility(sp?).

All the choices made regarding a character's stats is roleplaying in that you are choosing their life's course. Just wanted to get this off my chest.

Now here is a question for you. If you give a child a toy gun, will he whine and complain all the while that he doesn't have BB gun. Now, what happens when you give that child a BB gun?

He shoots someones eyes out because he wasn't looking.

Y'know, I've known 11 other kids with spring powered BB guns. We used to dress up in thick clothes and shoot each other in the nearby woods. Not flipping once did we put an eye out. Mind you, the one kid managed to break his arm cause he tripped over a tree root and landed poorly, but not a single BB related injury.

You can't roleplay a char with a 18 charisma as a loner that never talks to anybody.Actually, you could. It just means that when he did talk, people listened. Perfect example, Conan. Didn't talk much, but when he did, you listened or died.Now, as for the other stats, what you say is true, except for CON.

I'm describing a character who is capable of learning 4 or 5 skills our of the 30ish that core D&D offers, and makes excuses that he is just inherently not good at the 25 or 26 remaining skills. A person who is only capable of learning a small subset of skills at the expense of everything else feels like an idiot savant to me.Why he doesn't have ranks in those other skills is a composite of reasons, one of which might be "this skill is one of those things I'm not good at." Usually, there's even an underlying factor: the reason I suck at both foreign language and chemistry is because I have a poor memory for things like that. On top of this, there is simply lack of interest; you do thins thing, but you don't bother to work at it, so you don't get any better. In d20 Modern, for example, everyone can drive, but you'd only use the Drive skill if you planned on pulling crazy moves. You can drive a car all your life and spend twenty or more years at roughly the same level of competency because you never bothered to learn how to drive better. The same holds in D&D.

It's the DM's campaign, but it's the players' game too. If a player just does not want to put any ranks in ride, then tough noogies. A player is entitled to play the character he wants to play, not what you think he should play.

No, the real problem is that the other players and DM aren't morons (ideally speaking). One excuse seems fine. Toran doesn't like horses. Another excuse seems weird, but okay. Toran...didn't learn anything about climbing mountains, because he was...er...always on the lookout for bad guys while climbing and wasn't paying attention. More excuses just seem like Toran is a caricature of a man- "Why is it that for the last 2 years of game time, Toran has only ever learned a very specific set of skills when we've been doing all sorts of different things?" Can players keep accepting Toran's excuses as to why tumble, jump, hide and balance are the only skills he's ever been able to learn? Maybe. But they will eventually do so by treating Toran as a character sheet and not a character.

From the Player's Handbook page 62 Ranks in those skills represent training beyond everyday use

[snip]

You’re always welcome to assume that your character is familiar with—even good at, as far as everyday tasks go—many skills beyond those for which you actually gain ranks. The skills you buy ranks in, however, are those with which you have truly heroic potential.

So you basic argument here doesn't fly by the Rules As Written.

Also part roleplaying is the ""suspension of disbelief" (Dungeon Master's Guide page 11).

It's the DM's campaign, but it's the players' game too. If a player just does not want to put any ranks in ride, then tough noogies. A player is entitled to play the character he wants to play, not what you think he should play.

That goes to stay then that if he was travelling to prevent his family from being killed, I think he'd find one dead family when he walked in. Assuming it would require ride-checks to get there in time of course.

That goes to stay then that if he was travelling to prevent his family from being killed, I think he'd find one dead family when he walked in. Assuming it would require ride-checks to get there in time of course.So you'd blackmail your characters into taking ride by killing off their families if they didn't?

That goes to stay then that if he was travelling to prevent his family from being killed, I think he'd find one dead family when he walked in. Assuming it would require ride-checks to get there in time of course.
Well, normal riding doesn't require a check. So, if you were requiring them to ride at such a fast and strenuous pace as to require checks, then I would assume time is off the essence. Now, if time is short, how are they suposed to put ranks in a skill? Unless they level part way there, they're already screwed. Either they had the ranks or they didn't. It seems kind of cruel to punish someone for having no ranks in ride like this.

So you basic argument here doesn't fly by the Rules As Written.


My argument is not, nor never will be, that the D20 system in any incarnation is written to support roleplaying. 3.5 has been written so that people can move pieces around a grid board and use a set of combat rules to kill enemies that are selected from supplementary books and indexed by challenge rating. Aside from promoting the sale of expensive splat books, which usually are purchased in order to increase the killing potential of characters (these are the same people that brought us 'Magic: The Financing"), the move toward a miniature-necessary game allows WotC to expand into the lucrative market of pewter and plastic gamer-toys.

Hundreds if not thousands of pages have been written in D&D about spells, maneuvers, combat related feats, and core and expanded rules of combat. Then there are the hundreds of pages written about loot, dungeon creation, trap making, and encounter preparation.

By contrast the amount of time dedicated to explaining the principles of good story telling are given relatively short shrift. A group of new players have all of the tools necessary to create a party of 'adventurers' and send them into a dungeon. They have almost none of the tools needed to characterize their PCs, to create engaging and interesting group stories, or form truly cohesive and compelling worlds. The dozen or so pages on world building, and dozen or so pages on character development in the PHB and DMG are laughable compared to the hundreds dedicated to combat rules. Where other systems attempt to mechanically enforce roleplaying (either through some form of Merit/Flaw system, or Advantages/Disadvantages), D&D tosses concepts like creating individualized characters into secondary source books as "options".

So yeah, I'm not arguing that the 'Rules as Written' support my position, because my position is that fundamentally for players to appreciate that they are part of a vibrant and developing story their characters should grow inside of the story as it is unraveling. By playing to builds, the character is not growing into the story so much as (at best) forcing the story to conform to him or (at worst) ignoring the story altogether. Because D&D isn't played in a vacuum, and there are other people at the table, their experience and immersion into the story will be lessened when they are forced to watch one of the individuals they are sharing the story with ignore in game reality. That dissonant behavior is considered by many to be bad roleplaying, and one of its causes can be 'optimizing'.

...and a fig for the rules.

A player is entitled to play the character he wants to play, not what you think he should play.

A player is entitled to role play well or poorly as well. The argument here is not whether it does or doesn't occur. It's whether such behavior is properly categorized as 'poor roleplaying'. The "It's my character and I'll do what I want to!" argument doesn't really support any image of the build-player other than as an inconsiderate individual interested in himself more than the shared experience.

So you'd blackmail your characters into taking ride by killing off their families if they didn't?

Hehehe.... I mean, of course not!

The "It's my character and I'll do what I want to!" argument doesn't really support any image of the build-player other than as an inconsiderate individual interested in himself more than the shared experience.

What a charitable view you have of your fellow role-players.

"You didn't pour skill points into Ride even though I've been tossing horses at you all night? Obviously you care nothing about MY feelings! Your stubborn ambition to play and portray your character according to YOUR preferences causes me pain and also you cannot be very good at this."

First of all, I agree with what you said about the disproportionate amount of rules compared to character building in the books. I feel that some of this is due to character development being a somewhat personal, and very subjective and mutable thing. I don't think WotC could do much more than post broad guildlines and a few examples.

So yeah, I'm not arguing that the 'Rules as Written' support my position, because my position is that fundamentally for players to appreciate that they are part of a vibrant and developing story their characters should grow inside of the story as it is unraveling. By playing to builds, the character is not growing into the story so much as (at best) forcing the story to conform to him or (at worst) ignoring the story altogether. Because D&D isn't played in a vacuum, and there are other people at the table, their experience and immersion into the story will be lessened when they are forced to watch one of the individuals they are sharing the story with ignore in game reality. That dissonant behavior is considered by many to be bad roleplaying, and one of its causes can be 'optimizing'.

...and a fig for the rules.
I might be missing the point of what you're saying here, and if I am, then I appoligize. So are you saying that by RAW a character can ride for months with no increase in the skill, but that doesn't make sense to you?

If so, I feel in the real world, there are pleanty of things where someone learns to do the basics, and never excels beyond that, even after repeated use. Driving is a (IMO) good example of this. Picture all the people who drive a car on a daily basis, but still aren't very good at it. Compared to the Ride skill, I'd say that simply driving a car from point A to point B day in and day out would require no ranks or a skill check. You need the check to do things like maintain control when something bad happens (hopefully a fairly rare event).

People who want to perform at a professional level need to put ranks in, as they demand more from their vehicles. Still, someone with maxed ranks in Drive would get fairly little benifit simply driving from point A to B. They would just hopefully get in fewer accidents when cut off.

So, comparing it to Ride, from both an RP and a mechanical stand point, I don't see why riding around (and doing nothing more than that) should necessitate putting ranks into the skill. It seems quite feasible that the person lacks the drive, interest, or ambition to excel at it. Perhaps they feel riding on a horse is somehow meanial or beneath them. Picture the wizard who refuses to put ranks in Ride, while pumping Spellcraft, Concentration, and various Knowledge skills:
Fighter: "Hey phil, why don't you learn to ride your horse better? You keep getting knocked off your saddle!"

Wizard: "Because Steve, I feel I'm mere days from being able to fly. I'll never have to climb into a saddle again!"

So you'd blackmail your characters into taking ride by killing off their families if they didn't?

Yes, and their little dogs too :evillaugh

If so, I feel in the real world, there are pleanty of things where someone learns to do the basics, and never excels beyond that,

I agree. The problem with the 'skills represent heroic ability' argument is that it is internally inconsistent. Look at the list of 'trained only' skills. Let's step outside of the ride skill for a second, because apparently a lot of people out there think they have no points in the drive skill and they see a parallel.

In the example of the character roaming around on horseback across the countryside, he will put no points in knowledge (geography), nor knowledge (local). He cannot use these skill checks- no matter how many towns the party has come across, no matter how many local customs are RPed through, or whether the player remembers in detail the vibrant world and landmarks the DM described, the character has not internalized any of this until he has put points in knowledge (something). Because until he does, he can't make any sort of check- knowledge is 'trained only'.

We don't apply this standard to ride, however, because...well, who knows. Because while horseback riding can be done intuitively, it isn't intuitive to pick up local customs? Well, the RAW suggests that. Of course anyone who has traveled knows the ridiculousness of this.

So reliance on the RAW line about how people can do everyday things without need for skill points breaks down right about where people are trying to know everyday things about, say, where they live. How many PCs dump points at 1st level in Knowledge (Local/My home town)? My guess is that it's not a big ticket skill spend, and if we follow the RAW, those PCs couldn't answer basic questions about where they grew up.

Incidentally, driving does require special training and practice, and to assume that the baseline level is '0 skill points' would suggest that a person without that training is just as competent a driver as one with it. Of course, this is the same system in which only the most physically infirm ever drown, as an untrained swimmer in calm water needs to repeatedly roll under 5 to drown.

In the example of the character roaming around on horseback across the countryside, he will put no points in knowledge (geography), nor knowledge (local). He cannot use these skill checks- no matter how many towns the party has come across, no matter how many local customs are RPed through, or whether the player remembers in detail the vibrant world and landmarks the DM described, the character has not internalized any of this until he has put points in knowledge (something). Because until he does, he can't make any sort of check- knowledge is 'trained only'.
Knowledge is just a bad skill to use as a comparison in general. The rules behind it make little sense. It seems to work okay to have someone roll a Knowledge(dungeoneering) check the first time they see a rust monster, but every time after that, you'd assume everyone in the party knows full well what a rust monster can do. Does that mean they suddenly gained enough ranks to score a 20 or a 25 everytime? No.

You can try to use Knowledge skills to represent what your character has studied or done in the past, and this is an okay representation, but the rate at which characters acquire "knowledge" from adventuring far exceeds what the rules say they should get in terms of ranks. And for that matter, if a wizard and a fighter of equal Int (not likely, but play along :P) both go through the same dungeon, will the wizard retain twice as much (having Knowledge as a class skill)?

I think Ride may be a faulty skill to argue as you mentioned, because it's such a simple untrained skill. Conversly, I feel Knowledge is about on the opposite end of the spectrum, because what you can learn from experience and what you can know in advance by virtue of skill ranks does not match up at all.

The only way I can get the Knowledge skills to make sense is if I think about the skill representing "knowledge before the fact", and knowledge acquired through experience as "memories", which you should (hopefully) retain, skill check or not.

Knowledge is just a bad skill to use as a comparison in general. The rules behind it make little sense.

Yeah, I know. But then I wasn't the one who first introduced sidebars from the rules as a defense of the reasonableness of a particular argument. The fact that the response to my rebuttal is "Well sure, but -those- RAW don't make sense" suggests that the rules are hardly the sacrosanct things suggested earlier.

Untrained: An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).

Sorry, but the rules, again, fail to support your argument. Characters don't need ranks in knowledge to learn the basics of a given skill, they need ranks to learn detailed answers or tricky relatively unknown responses but they don't need actual ranks for basic common knowledge.

"Well i know you take the kings road north from shepherd's mill to get to the town of Petersburg, just follow the signs"

or

"well every year round this time the people of shepherd's mill have a festival where they wear these silly fur hats and balance beer mugs on shepherd's crooks, no idea why but if you're in the area enjoy it"

all examples of common simple things the character could know without ranks. more detailed information such as why the festival occurs or how to get to petersburg cross country is another story

Ah, I did not see that in the knowledge skill, and my comfort is only that I wasn't the only one.

One of the common things here is some ordering issues.

Some players play their character like this

Session + Roleplay = Character sheets

Where thier character's mechanics constantly change as a response to the combination of the player's reactions to the sessions.

Other play thier characters such that

Session + Character sheets = Roleplay

Where their characters reactions to the in session events is limited to their character sheet's mechanics.

For example, in the above situation with the character who rides for multiple session, you have the initial response where, because the sessions involved riding and the character wound up riding allot in the "action" portion of the characters life (out of the 16 hours of the day the character is active rarely does a session cover more than 2-3 hours of that in detail) because in that small window of detail the character did "x" while not "y" they change their character sheet to reflect "x" even if they were already advancing "y" even though the situation is past and they may have already acted as if they had the skills without it.

in the case of the latter the player takes the sheet looks at his or her skill set/ class/feats/etc and then responds to the situation (horse riding) appropriately this could range from buying a single horse cart to be pulled to in character complaining constantly about these filthy beasts, to complaining about allergies, or any other such response. As a result he does not spend time learning to better ride, as a result he uses the 12-14 hours not actively detailed by an individual game session to cover the 1-2 hours of active off screen training required to pick up skills.

One of the common things here is some ordering issues.

Some players play their character like this

Session + Roleplay = Character sheets

Where thier character's mechanics constantly change as a response to the combination of the player's reactions to the sessions.

Other play thier characters such that

Session + Character sheets = Roleplay

Where their characters reactions to the in session events is limited to their character sheet's mechanics.I think that sums things up very nicely. Bravo, good sir.

I haven't seen it here yet, but I have seen something elsewhere that I would like to articulate here.

Roleplaying/Powergaming Trap
Noun
A situation designed to force a choice between powergaming and roleplaying.


My argument is not, nor never will be, that the D20 system in any incarnation is written to support roleplaying.

[snipped a lot]

The roleplaying that you wanted could be used within the rule set without taking the skills that you wanted to and still make sense.

It seems that you just have a problem with it not being roleplayed the way that you wanted it to be.

I agree. The problem with the 'skills represent heroic ability' argument is that it is internally inconsistent. Look at the list of 'trained only' skills. Let's step outside of the ride skill for a second, because apparently a lot of people out there think they have no points in the drive skill and they see a parallel.

[snip again]

Lets see what skills need training to use
Autohypnosis
Decipher Script
Disable Device
Handel Animal, Cha check is allowed untrained to push and handle domestic animals.
Knowledge X, for checks above common knowledge (DC 10)
Open Lock
Psicraft
Profession
Sleight of Hand
Speak Language
Spellcaft
Tumble
Use Magic Device
Use Psionic Device

Except for maybe tumble it doesn't seem to be any that shouldn't require special training to use. Also these are not something that a normal person should expected to have, except for knowledge skills.

Yeah, I know. But then I wasn't the one who first introduced sidebars from the rules as a defense of the reasonableness of a particular argument. The fact that the response to my rebuttal is "Well sure, but -those- RAW don't make sense" suggests that the rules are hardly the sacrosanct things suggested earlier.

The rules do have problems, but in the case of the argument that you made they do make sense.

I see no good roleplaying reason for gaining ranks in skills that you might use only in special situations. Beyond that the problem that was brought up actually is a blow against the argument that you put forth.

Also I never said that the rules are sacrosanct. When they make sense you shouldn't change them in a way that harms players because they are playing in a form that you do not like.

And with that in mind, here are the things anyone can do reliably without skill ranks or ability modifiers, discounting opposed skills:

APPRAISE
You can appraise common or well-known objects with a DC 12 Appraise check.
(You need a +2 bonus here to get it done, but three simple ways of doing this are with a magnifying glass, if it's small, with a merchant's scale, if it's valued by weight, or by having 5 ranks in a related Craft skill, which only makes sense).

BALANCE
At half speed: 7–12 inches wide surface, Uneven flagstone, Hewn stone floor, Sloped or angled floor. Granted, this isn't very impressive, but it's still something.

CLIMB
A slope too steep to walk up, or a knotted rope with a wall to brace against; a rope with a wall to brace against, or a knotted rope, or a rope affected by the rope trick spell; or a surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship’s rigging.

CONCENTRATION
Vigorous motion (on a moving mount, taking a bouncy wagon ride, in a small boat in rough water, belowdecks in a stormtossed ship); During weather with wind-driven hail, dust, or debris.

CRAFT
Very simple item (wooden spoon), typical item (iron pot).

GATHER INFORMATION
A general idea of a city’s major news items, assuming there are no obvious reasons why the information would be withheld. You gain +2 to this check if you have Knowledge (local).

HANDLE ANIMAL
A Charisma check allows you to handle and push domestic animals, though you can’t teach, rear, or train them.

JUMP
Long Jump up to ten feet, or high jump up to 2.

KNOWLEDGE
Only common knowledge.

LISTEN
A battle, People talking, A person in medium armor walking at a slow pace (10 ft./round) trying not to make any noise, An unarmored person walking at a slow pace (15 ft./round) trying not to make any noise.

PERFORM
Routine performance. Trying to earn money by playing in public is essentially begging. You can earn 1d10 cp/day.

RIDE
Guide with knees, Stay in saddle, Fight with warhorse.

SEARCH
Ransack a chest full of junk to find a certain item.

SLEIGHT OF HAND
Palm a coin-sized object, make a coin disappear.

SURVIVAL
Get along in the wild. Move up to one-half your overland speed while hunting and foraging (no food or water supplies needed). You can provide food and water for one other person for every 2 points by which your check result exceeds 10.

SWIM
Swim in calm water.

USE ROPE
Tie a firm knot, Secure a grappling hook within 10 feet.

Moral of the story: there's a fair bit you can do reliably even without learning how to do things all that much.

Untrained: An untrained Knowledge check is simply an Intelligence check. Without actual training, you know only common knowledge (DC 10 or lower).
I remember reading that a while back. Well, that certainly helps to get the rules to work well with common sense.

I think that sums things up very nicely. Bravo, good sir.

Seconded. Thank you, Lokiyn.
I feel that arguing that the second case can still provide fine roleplaying is my ultimate aim. A more extensive response will come later.

The roleplaying that you wanted could be used within the rule set without taking the skills that you wanted to and still make sense.

Keep in mind that that line is part of a larger and tangential position that D&D spends comparatively little time talking about how to make good stories or the elements of good stories, and focuses almost all of its energies on telling players who to kill, how to kill, and what one gets for killing.

Compared to other mainstream RPGs (which its hard to do, given the market saturation of D&D, but bear with me...) like any of the white wolf games (with their 'storyteller system') or GURPS (with its setting books), D&D is primarily a mechanic, and secondarily a storytelling platform. That was my only point there.

I'm not saying that people can't use it to wrap good stories around. I think, however, that if a player is left to chose between roleplaying problem solution and a mechanical problem solution, they will tend to chose the one that will provide the most reliable results. Consequently, if a system informs players that they can roll a bluff check to confuse and evade arrest or they can come up with a clever lie and the DM will assign some bonus or penalty based on the quality of the lie, the trend will be for players to do mental math and choose the path that is most likely to succeed.

D&D promotes characters finding mechanical solutions to problems over roleplaying solutions and it takes diligence to not fall into this hole. If you doubt this, compare how many threads on this board have suggestions on ways to increase bluff skills, and how many responses advise on how to craft a compelling lie. I think you'll find more advice on what magic items boost charisma or bluff by +2 and stack than tailoring an obfuscation to an audience.

Tangential, but there it is.

While I am forced to concede the default knowledge point, I do think it is ignoring some of the text of the rules- for example "basic questions" require a DC 15 check. The only thing a DC 10 check gives you is 'really easy questions'. The untrained section further states that a 10 means 'common knowledge'.

Now granting that the distinction between the three is blurry at best I would be surprised if the average 18 year old soon-to-be adventurer couldn't answer 'basic' questions about where he is from. He might be able to only answer 'common' questions, but I think it's fair to assume that the trained user shouldn't be disadvantaged over the untrained, so DC 10 must mean 'really easy common questions'. Moreover, he can only answer 'really easy common' questions about or a little more than half the time.

Getting off the sidebar rules, I think knowledge skills give a great example of the problem I've been talking about.

Imagine if you will, a scenario where the PCs, while searching for information on an ancient Macguffin, end up talking with a wizened old librarian who relates to them in a Q&A session the history and secrets of a particular region. Now all the players and the characters have the equivalent information that the typical history 15 check would give them, because the DM wrote a lot of backstory that he wanted to share.

This isn't, you know, uncommon. Now the characters all have knowledge (History) 15 (provided they have a good memory) without paying a point for it. In this situation the players clearly have access to a skill (since knowledge is shared between player and character in a way that, say, the ride skill is not), yet the character sheet does not reference this.

How does one reconcile this? The characters are capable now of answering questions on history that normally requires several points in the knowledge skill, yet they have none. The character interested in building his character into the world then puts points in knowledge (history) and whenever he is called on to use the information he has learned he points to the skill points and says "that's where I got that information from".

The Build-centric player puts points in whatever he was going to put points in- he seems to either have the choice of saying "dude, I totally forgot what that old man was saying. I was thinking about sword-chucks the entire time", which is cool. Or he can say "I know about history, but information gleaned in the game is of substantially different character than information gleaned from spending skill points. Thus I can use in game acquired knowledge without spending points."

I have no problem with the first approach, save that if the build-player keeps behaving that way the other players are going to think he's a moron (or an idiot savant). I feel like the second approach causes some serious problems, however.

Keep in mind that that line is part of a larger and tangential position that D&D spends comparatively little time talking about how to make good stories or the elements of good stories, and focuses almost all of its energies on telling players who to kill, how to kill, and what one gets for killing.I have always been of the opinion that the game should focus on "story" as little as possible; though a campaign should usually have one, it is a means to an end rather than something important in itself. You have a story so that you can tie the gaming sessions together into a coherent whole, because that usually makes for a much more fun game, but the game and the fun of the game always come first. After all, this isn't collaborative storytelling we're doing; dice are a pretty terrible way to do collaborative storytelling at all, much less dice supporting distinct characters played by distinct players using systematic rules. If you want to tell a story using several authors, you sit down at a keyboard and write the thing, with everyone offering input on every character and plot point.

Now the characters all have knowledge (History) 15 (provided they have a good memory) without paying a point for it.No, they have one piece of knowledge that would require a DC 15 knowledge (History) check if they were trying to pick it out of the ether. The old man hardly imbued them with potentially all information of the DC 15 level, he just gave them that one story. If my character comes from a long line of adventurers and he happens to know, through family stories, that his great great great great ancestor who is very famous actually chickened out during his big moment but got credit for it anyway, he doesn't need enough ranks in Knowledge (History) to beat a DC 30+ check, he just knows that one bit of information which probably wouldn't even require one rank (otherwise, almost no one would know anything about their families, and most people know at least a little about their grandparent's stories, which are probably not common knowledge outside the family).

Basically, Knowledge ranks represent the probability that you know a random given bit of information, not which information you possibly can know. One lecture isn't going to equal one rank, even if the bit of knowledge is very obscure, because you still don't have a chance of knowing the other knowledge surrounding it. In game terms, I'd say that someone telling your character something like that drops the DC for that one piece of information to 5, because you have to be downright stupid to not know it after they told it specifically to you. What's hard for one character in one circumstance could be easy for another in another. For me to know anything about your family would be a ridiculously high DC, but I know plently of things about my own just off the top of my head.

Imagine if you will, a scenario where the PCs, while searching for information on an ancient Macguffin, end up talking with a wizened old librarian who relates to them in a Q&A session the history and secrets of a particular region. Now all the players and the characters have the equivalent information that the typical history 15 check would give them, because the DM wrote a lot of backstory that he wanted to share.

This isn't, you know, uncommon. Now the characters all have knowledge (History) 15 (provided they have a good memory) without paying a point for it. In this situation the players clearly have access to a skill (since knowledge is shared between player and character in a way that, say, the ride skill is not), yet the character sheet does not reference this.

How does one reconcile this? The characters are capable now of answering questions on history that normally requires several points in the knowledge skill, yet they have none. The character interested in building his character into the world then puts points in knowledge (history) and whenever he is called on to use the information he has learned he points to the skill points and says "that's where I got that information from".
Realistically, there's nothing to stop other PCs from having a Q&A session with the one PC in the group with a particular Knowledge skill either. I think ranks in a Knowledge skill represend a broad knowledge on a particular subject; something that partains to about anything in said subject. If the PCs are told DC 15 information on a very specific subject, they do not suddenly know DC 15 information on the subject as a whole. Thus, if the PCs are told who the Duke's second cousin is, they don't know his entire family tree.

Memroizing a few simple facts is far different than learning broad information on a subject. It's sort of like cheating on a test. You'll do really well on the test (knowing the answers in advance), but good luck applying the subject to much of anything else. I think that's the heart and soul of <= DC 10 checks and > DC 10 checks.

That's not really the scenario I'm describing. I'm more interested in the RP session where some sage talks about the history of X to some level of detail. Recall, in order to have DC 15 knowledge in something, the sage need only go over the basics. It isn't hard to go over the basics of, say, every religion in Greyhawk, or the basics of the culture and history of a region.

I'm not really interested in "Bob said that in the past there was a kingdom called Farnsworthia." I'm more interested in ten minutes of sagely "Farnsworthia was ruled by a king Farnsworth the first, who did X Y AND Z, which ****** off his neighbors and this war occurred, during which Farnsworth the II usurped his father...etc etc."

10 minutes of that, along with a few tidbits of information about different cities and their history in the region ought to serve as a solid foundation for adventurers, and God knows some DMs love to exposit. It just doesn't take that long to read all of the DC-15 'basic' information about some things.

That's not really the scenario I'm describing. I'm more interested in the RP session where some sage talks about the history of X to some level of detail. Recall, in order to have DC 15 knowledge in something, the sage need only go over the basics. It isn't hard to go over the basics of, say, every religion in Greyhawk, or the basics of the culture and history of a region.
Maybe it's my opinion, but that doesn't seem like enough to represent broad DC 15 knowledge.

I'm not really interested in "Bob said that in the past there was a kingdom called Farnsworthia." I'm more interested in ten minutes of sagely "Farnsworthia was ruled by a king Farnsworth the first, who did X Y AND Z, which ****** off his neighbors and this war occurred, during which Farnsworth the II usurped his father...etc etc."

10 minutes of that, along with a few tidbits of information about different cities and their history in the region ought to serve as a solid foundation for adventurers, and God knows some DMs love to exposit. It just doesn't take that long to read all of the DC-15 'basic' information about some things.
Well, again, I feel that's still a very focused bit of knowledge. "all of the CD-15 'basic' information about some things" to me represents a lot of small focused things, not a broad understanding. Again, I feel it's sort of like the cheating on the test analogy I used. I think where the problem lies is more in the scope of the game.

How often do the PCs take a week or more of downtime, only to have it condensed into a few minutes at the table? Now, whatever the DM takes time to describe during that time is likely to be seen as important in the eyes of the players, and by extention the PCs. Really, they actually absorbed a lot in that time period, but what's going to stick with them is what the DM explicitly said.

Effectively, it's a lot easier for the PCs to "cheat on the test" in that by metagaming, they have a good idea what's going to be on the test. So, the problem's not so much with the Knowledge skill, but rather with the fact that when role-playing, we have a tendancy to gloss over the unimportant details and focus on the important. That's how PCs can effectively bolster their knowledge so fast without actual ranks.

It seems like we disagree over whether a PC can, in the course of gameplay, be sufficiently educated by in game events so as to warrant the equivalent general knowledge in a broad topic (say, religion) usually requiring a DC 15 knowledge check.

I believe that they can and often are, and you seem to believe that they can't or at least rarely are. It has been my experience that the information listed as DC 15 in many of the books is often produced in game, and history and backstory tend to come out in sometimes greater detail than DC 15 during the course of a game. I recognize not all games are played that way, but surely we can both agree that some games are (whether that's most, some, or few is debateable).

If we can agree that the issue does come up, what then is the appropriate way to approach it?

It seems like we disagree over whether a PC can, in the course of gameplay, be sufficiently educated by in game events so as to warrant the equivalent general knowledge in a broad topic (say, religion) usually requiring a DC 15 knowledge check.

I believe that they can and often are, and you seem to believe that they can't or at least rarely are. It has been my experience that the information listed as DC 15 in many of the books is often produced in game, and history and backstory tend to come out in sometimes greater detail than DC 15 during the course of a game. I recognize not all games are played that way, but surely we can both agree that some games are (whether that's most, some, or few is debateable).
I do agree that given enough time, and enough ambition, a PC (or player) could absorb enough to reliably make DC 15 checks on the entire subject. I think you're right that we disagree about how often it happens, and maybe it's because we run/play in different types of games.

And perhaps I'm limiting my definition of a DC 15 check to support my claims. Who knows?

If we can agree that the issue does come up, what then is the appropriate way to approach it?
Well, that's really a tough one. I think it's partially a chicken and the egg problem. With a skill like Jump, a PC can practice jumping as much as he wants, but it's understood that he only gets better by putting in ranks, and he only puts in ranks when he levels. Thus, if he doesn't put in any ranks, he doesn't get better, and it's assumed he just didn't practice well enough.

With something like Knowledge, as you mentioned, the PC can listen and listen and listen, learning more (especially if the player or PC is smart enough to write things down for later use), without having to put a single rank in the stat. If it gets extreme enough, both the player and DM might want to call shenanigans on the other for forcing them to take a rank or not taking a rank respectively.

Maybe this whole thing can be mitigated by looking at it a different way. Take libraries for example: you want to know more about X (a DC 15 check, lets say), so you go, look up the books, read a while, and learn X. You successfully made a DC 15 check without having any ranks, because you had a tangible form of the knowledge handy. Perhaps listening (and maybe jotting down notes) turns your memory (and the notes if any) into the tool needed to reliably make the check without a rank.

To me that makes enough sense, but it might not to you. Perhaps the definition of what one rank is compared to simply listening a while is a problem too. I guess, what is the difference of sitting and listening to the old man for several nights (merely gleaning specific info) and going to a class and listening to an instructor (supposedly gaining ranks)? I guess enough of one or not enough of the other could mean the difference of gaining and not gaining a rank.

On a personal level, I'd feel cruel as a DM for forcing a player to take a rank in Knowledge if they listened to enough info throughout game play. That probably has a lot to do with my stance as well.

And perhaps I'm limiting my definition of a DC 15 check to support my claims. Who knows?

I think some of the books have knowledge about certain things broken down into DCs, and if I recall the DC 10/15 descriptions are often like two lines. "Bob is the God of biscuits and warm breads. He is worshipped in the morning by baking a scone and eating it." I feel like one could go through an entire pantheon pretty quickly at that level, and since that information is definitionally DC 15, it would require ranks in knowledge (religion) to know.

On a personal level, I'd feel cruel as a DM for forcing a player to take a rank in Knowledge if they listened to enough info throughout game play.

Because it would F-up their build? Or because players shouldn't be forced to put points places they don't want?

My personal approach is that TT is not MMORPG- the scope is limited to the people at the table. If all the people at the table are equally advantaged or disadvantaged, then there is no harm or benefit given. The tasks required and challenges faced are tailored to the group anyway. Forcing players to spend a few skill points doesn't seem cruel to me since it burdens all the players equally.

Because it would F-up their build? Or because players shouldn't be forced to put points places they don't want?

My personal approach is that TT is not MMORPG- the scope is limited to the people at the table. If all the people at the table are equally advantaged or disadvantaged, then there is no harm or benefit given. The tasks required and challenges faced are tailored to the group anyway. Forcing players to spend a few skill points doesn't seem cruel to me since it burdens all the players equally.
Perhaps it's because I don't want to F-up the build, but I also see some potential unrealistic issues with this approach as well.

Picture the fighter who only gets two skill points per level. He's been spending lots of time jumping and climbing both in and out of combat. Let's say at a particular level, he climbed several cave walls in a dungeon, as well as used his Leap Attack feat most fights. Now that level, he also happened to spend an evening along with the rest of the party listening to some wise old sage. Can I really tell the player that he needs to spend both points on Knowledge (because it's cross classed)? He clearly used the other skills. Which take presidence?

I can see you arguing it to someone either with more skill points or who hadn't used certain skills that level, but I still wouldn't do it myself.

That may very well be. However, I think it goes far beyond that to say that managing to tailor your point expenditure to suit the circumstances imposed by the GM and/or by happenstance is good role-playing, and that the supposed failure to do so is bad role-playing. Let alone that either is more or less indicative of good nature and friendliness.

Edit: This was in response to Jarsallen's last post.

I can see you arguing it to someone either with more skill points or who hadn't used certain skills that level, but I still wouldn't do it myself.

Yeah, the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation is unfortunate, and I suppose every system has limitations. It is worth noting, however, that what you've done in your situation is create a situation where the character who is representing their character by events in game is pulled in opposite directions.

The Build-player puts his build over events that happen in the game, and therefore is never in this situation. If he reaches this decision following the reasoning you're applying, then he is essentially saying "I can't do it perfectly your way, so I'll ignore the gameworld altogether and do it my way." This kind of all or nothing, baby with the bathwater style seems out of left field.

However, I think it goes far beyond that to say that managing to tailor your point expenditure to suit the circumstances imposed by the GM and/or by happenstance is good role-playing

I think 'Good' roleplaying is hard to define. I do feel that if the sheet your are playing to doesn't represent your character's behavior and capabilities then there's an issue.

Whether a player looks at their sheet and plays their character accordingly, or plays their character and changes their sheet accordingly, both styles recognize that the way a character acts should be governed by what's on the paper. As I mentioned, I have no problem with the character saying "I know you dumped learnin' on me last game, but my character simply isn't going to pay attention- that talk is for girly wizards, and not for manly men like me." I just don't think players do that often, and I think it leads to the weird caricatures of fighters or 'builds', because when one optimizes they necessarily have to ignore almost everything around them above and beyond 'common' levels of skills or knowledge save for their specialty.

D&D promotes characters finding mechanical solutions to problems over roleplaying solutions and it takes diligence to not fall into this hole. If you doubt this, compare how many threads on this board have suggestions on ways to increase bluff skills, and how many responses advise on how to craft a compelling lie. I think you'll find more advice on what magic items boost charisma or bluff by +2 and stack than tailoring an obfuscation to an audience.

Have you ever tried to come up with a convincing lie on the fly? It's something you either have talent for, or don't. An advisement thread would not help unless the DM gives the players about 20 minutes to craft their lie, which would sort of defeat the purpose.

Have you ever tried to come up with a convincing lie on the fly?

Yes. I prefer to think of it as a skill, which some people do with ease naturally, but which can be cultivated, such as by a stint in Congress.

Yeah, the 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation is unfortunate, and I suppose every system has limitations. It is worth noting, however, that what you've done in your situation is create a situation where the character who is representing their character by events in game is pulled in opposite directions.
I'll admit that the situation was 100% contrived, but I wanted to use it as an example. The reason I would avoid forcing players to put ranks in certain skills like that is in case the situation came up. Then I have to figure out how to be fair and consistant. Also, where do I draw the line? What about feat choices? Typically speaking, a feat is an either-you-can-or-can't type thing, but some are improvements over various actions. Do I force the Power Attacking fighter who sundered a few hydra's heads to take Improved Sunder? Again, this may be extreme, but my point is I want to take the simple stance of letting my players choose.

Now, I do try to be realistic in restricting them somewhat. I've had numerous times when a player wants to take a new language suddenly on the fly. Unless they state their intentions before they level (with sufficient time), there's no way I simply give them the language. They'd have to spend time learinging it, and they can either invest the skill points up front, in the middle, or at the end, but regardless, I think they need to take the time to learn it. The principle is similar to what we'd talked about earlier, with the difference of using mechanics to force in-game behavior or in-game behavior to force mechanics. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here... ;)

The Build-player puts his build over events that happen in the game, and therefore is never in this situation. If he reaches this decision following the reasoning you're applying, then he is essentially saying "I can't do it perfectly your way, so I'll ignore the gameworld altogether and do it my way." This kind of all or nothing, baby with the bathwater style seems out of left field.
Well, as I mentioned earlier, my personal goal in the game is to take a stance where I don't feel I'll have to make a tough call that might cause hard feelings or be inconsistant. Maybe I'm tip-toing around the issue, but I feel that this is the best solution for me, given that we're all playing a game.

It seems like we disagree over whether a PC can, in the course of gameplay, be sufficiently educated by in game events so as to warrant the equivalent general knowledge in a broad topic (say, religion) usually requiring a DC 15 knowledge check.

Remembering things from personal experience shouldn't require a check to do.

Because it would F-up their build? Or because players shouldn't be forced to put points places they don't want?

I vote for the second. Take the paladin for example. They usually take Int as a dump stat, so if you force a point expenditure they might not get any skills they want at that level.

If you really think they have learned enough to warrant a skill point in knowledge, why can't you just give them the extra skill point?

That may very well be. However, I think it goes far beyond that to say that managing to tailor your point expenditure to suit the circumstances imposed by the GM and/or by happenstance is good role-playing, and that the supposed failure to do so is bad role-playing. Let alone that either is more or less indicative of good nature and friendliness.

Edit: This was in response to Jarsallen's last post.

Not quite. Characters don't sit on their butts while not adventuring. They can easily spend some of this time training to improve themselves. Adventuring is inherently dangerous and NOT seeking to increase you survival chances to above the norm doesn't make sense.

The principle is similar to what we'd talked about earlier, with the difference of using mechanics to force in-game behavior or in-game behavior to force mechanics.

I don't think you're splitting hairs here. I think you're showing that there's a continuum of behavior. On the one hand you don't want to strictly limit players in their choices, because as you point out feats tend to be all or nothing, and some players don't have a lot of skills to throw around. On the other, randomly picking up skills that you really shouldn't have is weird and hard to explain to the other players and the DM's own sense of realism.

It seems, though, that when erring on the side of the latter where you restrict player choice you are doing so to avoid unrealistic character choices based on the in game reality. When choosing to not restrict, and allow players to spend as they wish, you are making a choice based on out of game considerations.

D&D is a social community game, so both are damn important. Happy players are required to have a good game.

That said, if all your players want to play with builds then there's never going to be a way to reconcile the 'realism' that you want with the player whose build requires him to take 'speak languages' (if there is such a build) yet never talks with anyone who speaks the language he is required to learn. It makes the player happy to have his sheet a certain way, and it offends your sense of realism to allow him to buy speak language, but you find some compromise and keep rolling.

Ideally there doesn't need to a be a compromise, because all the players and DM are on the same page.

Remembering things from personal experience shouldn't require a check to do.

That's the land mine issue. If remembering the equivalent of a knowledge (religion) 15 check doesn't require a check because previously in the game I was told everything there was to know about religion at a 'basic' level, why can't I then claim that earlier in the game I leaned out of my saddle in my horse in order for the horse to give me cover, so I should be able to do it again without a check?

Is there some fundamental difference between ride and knowledge? Do I pay fewer points for knowledge skills- after all, they can be given to anyone in the course of play just by paying attention, yet ride I apparently can only improve by spending points?

If skills are going to remain at the same value as each other, then one cannot give one player access to a skill at no cost because of 'previous experience' while never allowing a player access to another skill because of previous experience. They have to cost the same.

Because it would F-up their build? Or because players shouldn't be forced to put points places they don't want?Because it's not the DM's character. He simply doesn't have the right.

In the situation described, it is entierly possible that the character might just not retain any of the information, or at least any of the information beyind the immediatelly useful.

Gentlemen, Ladies, and those beyond and between

I Present to you Exhibit A: The College Student

On a more serious note, there are two things that are bothering me

This repeated use of the term "Builds" as a pejorative There is nothing wrong with a build, period. A build is no more anything bad than a class. Builds are nothing more than a custom created class formed from the parts of other classes to produce an end result that meets the characters mechanical requirements for the desired avatar, which as a benefit, allows the character to role-play his character using the mechanics, rather than hand waving and "cheating". And yes I view that players that attempt to weasel out "extras" through role-play as horrid cheaters (Extras as in Mechanical advantages gained through player role-play that is not paid for with mechanical currency, not extras as in further role-playing aspect, for example saying your character has blue hair and speaks broken common does not grant him circle kick unless he also has the feat, circle kick Skills are being misrepresented, this shows up in two ways First Knowledge, When I talk to an npc and obtain knowledge about "X" I’m not obtaining the over category Knowledge(_Blank_), I'm obtaining information about "X". For example if I talk to Steve the sage about this monster pelt we brought in, he may say "its from a displacer beast", "Displacers have six legs", "The skins are often used to make cloaks of weaponry", etc. However I am not learning about Arcane as a whole so no matter how much I learn about Displacer beasts I need all the rest of Arcane to count as a rank not just extremely specific tidbit "a", That is what the notes section is for, or even an in character notebook. Second, all skills are not equal and can not be treated the same, there are two basic types of skills, trained & untrained, furthermore individual skills have special exceptions for certain case, as we've shown knowledge is one of those. Furthermore in the case of information provided to the character they still have to make a check to see if they assimilated and remember the information given. Of course this is where the ubiquitous circumstance bonus kicks in. The character will have a tool that provides him a bonus to his check regarding that specific piece of information, be it a sage on hand, or a notebook.Mainly the problem here is that people are taking the rules for acquiring blocks of knowledge A->B (Rank = Block of Knowledge) and trying to do the same in reverse. To use a stupid analogy, Ranks are Rectangles they contain pieces of knowledge these pieces are spheres, Spheres cannot make rectangles, but the rectangle can contain many spheres with unknown areas that quantumly hold the possibility of more spheres as a result of a check.

Lets put it this way, anti build people tend to (in my experince) claim that thier "organic characters" are more "proper" than "builds". Claiming that sure i have a hodge podge of classes becuase i keep changing with the winds to keep "Greg, the Dashing Sword of Basket Weaving and love" "real" (defined as changing constantly as a result of a miniscule % of the characters actual life represented by the session)

I on the other hand design my character from the ground up say

Dwarf Wizard 5/Runesmith 5/Geometer 5/Archmage 5

Except do i call it that?

No, on my sheet you will see

Dwarf Scrivener "#"

I took every class, every feat, and every Prc. Ripped out all the flavor text, and without changing a single mechanic rewrite the whole character up as a base class just for that one character to produce a unified seemless character rich with cohesive flavor and sound unchanged mechanics

"I am the Scrivener, Master of the written word, Seeker of the Symbols, Forger of contracts... and currently out ink because my familiar has yet to learn that the stuff is toxic no matter how good it tastes"

At each level i don't gain skill points a-la (2+int) or feats (as in 1/3levels)

I gain Scriviner skills and have a variable amount of Free floating skill points, sometimes none, sometimes a lot, avalible for use at each level to represent things outside the characters chosen field of study, For example at level 5 (say) i had no free skill points, yes i may have done things in the session not in the skills advanced, but didn't you see me roleplay the 12 hours a day or so he was studying to get his certifications? No? Thats probably because that makes a dull and boring game and is the reason the "fade in/out" was invented.

I don't gain feats, or rather i do, but rather than feats, the feats that are prerequisites are now "class features" while feats that are not necessary are still as normal

That's the land mine issue. If remembering the equivalent of a knowledge (religion) 15 check doesn't require a check because previously in the game I was told everything there was to know about religion at a 'basic' level, why can't I then claim that earlier in the game I leaned out of my saddle in my horse in order for the horse to give me cover, so I should be able to do it again without a check?

You're character shouldn't require a check to remember something that they experienced in game. The hundredth time they see a kobold they shouldn't be required to make a check to remember what exactly it is.

Also performing a psychical action is different from remembering. You argument assumes because they have some similarities that they share more important details.

Is there some fundamental difference between ride and knowledge?

Yes.

Do I pay fewer points for knowledge skills- after all, they can be given to anyone in the course of play just by paying attention, yet ride I apparently can only improve by spending points?

You offered a situation that didn't follow the Rules As Written, so I offered a solution that also is outside the rules.

If skills are going to remain at the same value as each other, then one cannot give one player access to a skill at no cost because of 'previous experience' while never allowing a player access to another skill because of previous experience. They have to cost the same.

A character should not require a skill check to remember something that they learned in game. if the argument that you presented is followed to its logic conclusion you would require an excessive number of knowledge check to make it though and situation.

Ironically, that argument never used to make an impression on people who were in other threads complaining that no one takes 20 straight levels of fighter.

Edit: That was in response to Lokiyn's post above.

Gentlemen, Ladies, and those beyond and between

I Present to you Exhibit A: The College Student

On a more serious note, there are two things that are bothering me

This repeated use of the term "Builds" as a pejorative There is nothing wrong with a build, period. A build is no more anything bad than a class. Builds are nothing more than a custom created class formed from the parts of other classes to produce an end result that meets the characters mechanical requirements for the desired avatar, which as a benefit, allows the character to role-play his character using the mechanics, rather than hand waving and "cheating". And yes I view that players that attempt to weasel out "extras" through role-play as horrid cheaters (Extras as in Mechanical advantages gained through player role-play that is not paid for with mechanical currency, not extras as in further role-playing aspect, for example saying your character has blue hair and speaks broken common does not grant him circle kick unless he also has the feat, circle kick Skills are being misrepresented, this shows up in two ways First Knowledge, When I talk to an npc and obtain knowledge about "X" I’m not obtaining the over category Knowledge(_Blank_), I'm obtaining information about "X". For example if I talk to Steve the sage about this monster pelt we brought in, he may say "its from a displacer beast", "Displacers have six legs", "The skins are often used to make cloaks of weaponry", etc. However I am not learning about Arcane as a whole so no matter how much I learn about Displacer beasts I need all the rest of Arcane to count as a rank not just extremely specific tidbit "a", That is what the notes section is for, or even an in character notebook. Second, all skills are not equal and can not be treated the same, there are two basic types of skills, trained & untrained, furthermore individual skills have special exceptions for certain case, as we've shown knowledge is one of those. Furthermore in the case of information provided to the character they still have to make a check to see if they assimilated and remember the information given. Of course this is where the ubiquitous circumstance bonus kicks in. The character will have a tool that provides him a bonus to his check regarding that specific piece of information, be it a sage on hand, or a notebook.Mainly the problem here is that people are taking the rules for acquiring blocks of knowledge A->B (Rank = Block of Knowledge) and trying to do the same in reverse. To use a stupid analogy, Ranks are Rectangles they contain pieces of knowledge these pieces are spheres, Spheres cannot make rectangles, but the rectangle can contain many spheres with unknown areas that quantumly hold the possibility of more spheres as a result of a check.
I see a problem with builds; they are usually unrealistic to the circumstances around with a character is to evolve. But this requires other knowledge on classes that I will go into later*.

Lets put it this way, anti build people tend to (in my experince) claim that thier "organic characters" are more "proper" than "builds". Claiming that sure i have a hodge podge of classes becuase i keep changing with the winds to keep "Greg, the Dashing Sword of Basket Weaving and love" "real" (defined as changing constantly as a result of a miniscule % of the characters actual life represented by the session)

I on the other hand design my character from the ground up say

Dwarf Wizard 5/Runesmith 5/Geometer 5/Archmage 5

Except do i call it that?

No, on my sheet you will see

Dwarf Scrivener "#"

I took every class, every feat, and every Prc. Ripped out all the flavor text, and without changing a single mechanic rewrite the whole character up as a base class just for that one character to produce a unified seemless character rich with cohesive flavor and sound unchanged mechanics

"I am the Scrivener, Master of the written word, Seeker of the Symbols, Forger of contracts... and currently out ink because my familiar has yet to learn that the stuff is toxic no matter how good it tastes"

At each level i don't gain skill points a-la (2+int) or feats (as in 1/3levels)

I gain Scriviner skills and have a variable amount of Free floating skill points, sometimes none, sometimes a lot, avalible for use at each level to represent things outside the characters chosen field of study, For example at level 5 (say) i had no free skill points, yes i may have done things in the session not in the skills advanced, but didn't you see me roleplay the 12 hours a day or so he was studying to get his certifications? No? Thats probably because that makes a dull and boring game and is the reason the "fade in/out" was invented.
This is where your arguement breaks down. D&D is a class game, and must be treated as such. While it may not be floating above your head in neon lights, it still has an effect on every aspect of your character and its design. Also, "builders" such as yourself commit the one act that I see as unforgiveable; disgarding fluff in favor of mechanics - and this is where "builds" are bad.

People don't take wizard or barbarian to become knights, they become fighters, paladins, or knights (now that there is a class) with a generally lawful alignment to emulate this ideal. Fluff should never be mutable, and this is why; (to use an analogy) you do not eat chocolate ice-cream because you enjoy freeze-dried stuff, you do it because chocolate tastes good. You will eat a chocolate bar because you enjoy chocolate, not bar-like foods. Chocolate is the "fluff". How you get your fluff is not important (the mechanics) what is important is that it tastes the same.

By gutting the fluff out of the mechanics, you remove the chocolate, so to speak. This has always been the foley of people wanting a class-less game in D&D. When you choose a class, that class represents something; this "something" is tied heavily into a world, even if you do not see it. Basically wizards did not develop yesterday because someone wanted to use magic from a book; it took eons of study, gifts from the gods, stolen knowledge, etc... to get the wizard we know today - and what you just said is that you wish to just throw all that away because you wanted ability X.

People did not fear and respect samurais in Japan for hundreds of years because they were alchemists of terrible knowledge, who could shapeshift and throw fireballs all the while syphoning your soul into hell. People respected and feared them because they adopted a way of living, training, and swordsmanship unequaled throughout the land. They also were dedicated to a cause; all of which represent the samurai. These same priciples go for the nobility of europe; they weren't special because they could fight well, or were highly respected, they were "a cut above" because their social status brought about great political influence and power. How much they had was determined on how long they dedicated their efforts to these endevours.

A class in D&D is more than just mechanics; it was fluff that certain mechanics were drawn to. To disregard that fluff is to lose the mechanics of the class; without "fluff" there can be no mechanics for a game like this, and that is where builders go wrong.

Also, "builders" such as yourself commit the one act that I see as unforgiveable; disgarding fluff in favor of mechanics - and this is where "builds" are bad.Why is ths bad, at all? Bruce Cordell is on record as saying he's been playing a psion in 4e tests that's really a wizard with reworked flavor, because there isn't anything yet that lets him model what he wants to play. I don't see any problem with this. It's not that he's disregarding the flavor, he's just changing it. To use the ice cream, the wizard is vanilla ice cream, which is totally fine, but I really want chocolate (the psion). I don't have chocolate, but I have vanilla, so I melt down a Hersheys bar, mix it up with the vanilla ice cream, and leave it in the freezer to set. I don't see any way in which this is bad, much less any of your business.

EDIT: Other analogy: you seem angry that I bought a broom from a hardware store and am using it for my daughter's witch costume, or am using vinegar and baking soda as a science experiment, or an AOL CD as a coaster, or a phone book to level a table.

EDITEDIT: Why is this even a moral issue at all?

But fluff is not the base element of the game, mechanics are.

Chocolate comes in a bar, however i can freeze it, melt it, mold it into little swans put it on smores form it into a drink, bake it into a cake, or snort it like coke once i've dried it and ground it up.

I'm still consuming chocolate, Chocolate is the mechanics, the form is the fluff

When i look at the Wizard 5/ geometer 5/ runesmith 5/ archmage 5

and then call it a Scrivener (a term for a special type of scribe) its still a Wizard 5/ geometer 5/ runesmith 5/ archmage 5.

Its still a (Arcane Scholor who cast magic through study) / (An arcane scholor who studies the effects and enhancements of magical symbols and runes) / (An arcane scholar who ostudies the application of Symbols and Runes) / (An Arcane Scholar who boils his studies down into the application of such to magic as a whole rather than just runes)

Just because i took 4 different sources of fluff and smelted down the fluff into a single cohesive character before the game Doesn't make it any different than these "organic" characters who call themselves knights or defenders or dashing swordsmen and have a convoluted mix of classes, feats, skills, and prestige classes to fit thier concept.

I just did the work in advance, and forged it into a single cohesive game element that doesn't strain reality.

Why is ths bad, at all? Bruce Cordell is on record as saying he's been playing a psion in 4e tests that's really a wizard with reworked flavor, because there isn't anything yet that lets him model what he wants to play. I don't see any problem with this. It's not that he's disregarding the flavor, he's just changing it. To use the ice cream, the wizard is vanilla ice cream, which is totally fine, but I really want chocolate (the psion). I don't have chocolate, but I have vanilla, so I melt down a Hersheys bar, mix it up with the vanilla ice cream, and leave it in the freezer to set. I don't see any way in which this is bad, much less any of your business.

EDIT: Other analogy: you seem angry that I bought a broom from a hardware store and am using it for my daughter's witch costume, or am using vinegar and baking soda as a science experiment, or an AOL CD as a coaster, or a phone book to level a table.

EDITEDIT: Why is this even a moral issue at all?

Have you ever let ice-cream melt, and then re-froze it? It's just not the same; when the new psion class comes out for 4th ED, it will be much different than his re-worked wizard - this is because he wanted to play the psion class when there was none.

As for your "EDIT" comment; AOL CD's are coasters, witches use brooms, and science has a class of it's own. Those things you described were tools, not mechanics; mechanics are the sweeping motion of the broom, the experiment of vinegar and baking soda itself, and the table protection of the CD.

Your "EDITEDIT" comment; Stormwind's fallacy represents that min/maxing and RPing are mutually exclusive, and should not be convoluted as being symbiotic. Nemo's Law states that mechanics will often rule over RP; both of these statements are true; and it is Nemo's law that builders break; they let mechanics break RP. Class is part of RP, as no one calls himself 'the greatest swordsman to have ever lived' (other than in jest) when they play a physically weak sorcerer who is not even proficient in the sword.

Originally posted by Lokiyn
But fluff is not the base element of the game, mechanics are.
You are incorrect, as before the game comes the role-playing; the fluff. It is called a role-playing game (in that order) for a reason; not game-playing role. To even consider the game first hand, you need fluff; otherwise without the thought (ie: the fluff) of casting spells, there could be no mechanics for it.

Chocolate comes in a bar, however i can freeze it, melt it, mold it into little swans put it on smores form it into a drink, bake it into a cake, or snort it like coke once i've dried it and ground it up.

I'm still consuming chocolate, Chocolate is the mechanics, the form is the fluff
Tell me, does a frozen chocolate bar taste the same as a melty one? Does sniffing it offer the same cascade of flavor across your tongue? Or when whipped, does the texture remain the same as when it was solid? The answer to these questions are no. Chocolate is the fluff; when you change the fluff, it is no longer the same, offering different (and often undesired) changes.

When i look at the Wizard 5/ geometer 5/ runesmith 5/ archmage 5

and then call it a Scrivener (a term for a special type of scribe) its still a Wizard 5/ geometer 5/ runesmith 5/ archmage 5.
And if there were already a "scrivener" class? perhaps you are confusing profession with class. A class needn't be your title, but your class represents who you are. While a name might be convoluted as fluff, it is rarely so. Remember, a scimitar is a sword, and so is a katana; but a katana is not a scimitar despite them both being swords.

Its still a (Arcane Scholor who cast magic through study) / (An arcane scholor who studies the effects and enhancements of magical symbols and runes) / (An arcane scholar who ostudies the application of Symbols and Runes) / (An Arcane Scholar who boils his studies down into the application of such to magic as a whole rather than just runes)

Just because i took 4 different sources of fluff and smelted down the fluff into a single cohesive character before the game Doesn't make it any different than these "organic" characters who call themselves knights or defenders or dashing swordsmen and have a convoluted mix of classes, feats, skills, and prestige classes to fit thier concept.

I just did the work in advance, and forged it into a single cohesive game element that doesn't strain reality.
Like said with the sword comment; a wizard is a class, and so is a fighter, but a fighter is not a wizard.

You've even given your mechanics fluff; you've taken Scrivener (a term for a special type of scribe), and turned it into fluff. Would it be a proper representative if I played an 8 int fighter with no knowledge skills/ spellcraft what so ever and called him a scrivener as well? No, because the mechanics do not match the fluff.

And again, this is where builders go wrong; they pick and choose mechanics from classes without consideration for the fluff. Then they mask these choices with their own fluff.

Here's a better question; would your DM allow you to play a "scrivener" as a base class, with all those class abilities (as you advanced from one level to the next) in his campaign? Probably not as you've just stripped and ruined the fluff for 1 class, and 3 prestige classes. Basically you've made a class that people of those other classes will take instead, because it gives them the same abilities and renders their choices non-unique and pointless.

I've followed this with some amusement here ... and a few things strike me that are worth saying:

1) You cannot force a player to roleplay or powergame, it really is their decision where they place their experience, skill points, next level etc.

2) But you can Encourage the type of game you want to run. Remember Rule 0? Using it does not have to be a bad thing: "Guys, as you've leveled I'd like to add that as a one-time offer, seeing as you have been flogging your horses back and forth across the great plains for the last three weeks, anyone wanting to put points in Ride can treat it as a class skill. If you already have it as a class skill you can add one to any points you do allocate to it!" Not all players will want to do this, of course, but suddenly it's a lot more likely that they will. Will one skill point derail a build? Unlikely. One thing a group I played with used to do was assign freebie skill-points to assign to 'flavour' skills - things that had little serious in-game use, but added three dimensions to your character. Hence one character became a master chef, another knew the history and legends of the Wijibi tribe backwards, and so on and so forth. It allowed players to extend RP into the character sheet without sacrificing power in a high-powered, high pressure game.

3) If a player is desperate to RP a character concept that has no equivalent class, and mish-mashing several together will make them accurate to the concept but weak mechanically, why not create a class, if they know what they want? PrCs are not hard to create and justify, so do it. In the example above, create a 'litaricist' PrC that works around the written word, taking elements of the classes that are highlighted and blending them together.

4) By the same token, players have a responsibility to tailor their initial concepts into the world the DM is presenting. Just because you feel a given concept is 'cool' does not mean it has to be included. In my early days I lost count of the number of players who decided that their character would invent GUNS in D&D :banghead: :noway:

Wait, what???Your "EDITEDIT" comment; Stormwind's fallacy represents that min/maxing and RPing are mutually exclusive, and should not be convoluted as being symbiotic.
Incorrect. It states a disassociation. The strong form of a disassociation is total unrelated exclusion. The theory I proposed follows a weak disassociation, and posits that the nature and strength of the effect they have on each other is dependent on the ability of the player and character in question, not a fixed fact about mechanical optimization.
Nemo's Law states that mechanics will often rule over RP; both of these statements are true; and it is Nemo's law that builders break; they let mechanics break RP.Now the part that amazes me is how anyone could consider reflavoring to be bad RP. Isn't describing and choosing your player's abilities so that they reflect a unique and individual role you chose to play good roleplaying? If two people in a party, say Joe and I, both want to play samurai, and Joe builds a warblade where I build a psychic warrior, and we both give our characters the richest descriptions, deepest backgrounds, and most individual personalities we can, where are we breaking RP? What could possibly be the problem? So an 8 int illiterate Barbarian is a bad Scrivener concept. And? Demonstration that reflavoring does not come automatically is not proof that it does not work.

How easy is it to mix ice cream and other ingredients to make new flavors or simulate old ones? Depends on the flavor and ingredients. But it also depends on my skill with ice cream. And if I'm really good, and you can't tell my chocolate came from powdered Hershey's bars, what's the big deal? This is really a debate that should have been taken to the other thread.

Jarsallen, I'll respond, I promise.

Here's a better question; would your DM allow you to play a "scrivener" as a base class, with all those class abilities (as you advanced from one level to the next) in his campaign? Probably not as you've just stripped and ruined the fluff for 1 class, and 3 prestige classes. Basically you've made a class that people of those other classes will take instead, because it gives them the same abilities and renders their choices non-unique and pointless.

Yes, i have to date created 7 different fusion classes. Of those 7 i have actually played, from level 1, 4 of them with out a single issue with the dm. I produce packets of data, the first three pages are usually the character written up like a base class in PHB format using setting neutral material as much as possible. (with the exception of the Special: Section of prerequisites for prc's) The rest of the pagers are a detailed write up of the character using the original mechanics and fluff, followed by a few more pages explaining each change to the flavor to make the whole mesh, then followed by a request for campaign information for more meshing.

The other three charactets have yet to be used.

The problem here is that wizards are like engineers

Why like engineers?

Because Engineer covers, mechanical, industrial, biological, social, civil, etc

All of these are Engineers, but each are different.

Similarly Just the Wizard class can be so different as to be unique with respect to other wizards. Wizard is a Super Category that covers a multitude of different playstyles and characters.

Basically what you are saying is that with a bakers dozen of wizard 20 characters every single one must be played the exact same way, because not a single one can ever deviate from the fluff.


Again this is an issue i will not change on, i don't expect everyone to follow me but i believe that Roleplay is the result of a Player's respons to a enviroment (Sessions) filtered through the limitations of thier Character Sheets Mechanics

In Pseudo-Science terms, Mechanics are elements Roleplay and fluff are molecules. The Game Mechanics are Elements, Primal items that cannot be changed. The Products of mechanics are roleplay and fluff, as products roleplay and fluff are eminently mutable as the mix of mechanical elements differs from character to character and game to game.

Guess what? Renaming the character a Scrivener on paper, is no different than taking the original mash of Wiz5/Rune5/Geo5/Arc5 and declaring that you are a Wizard seeking an understanding of magic through study of the inherent power of symbols and languages that are used to manipulate magic, ending in the culmination of studies in the alteration of magic on a fundemental level.

However because i like to formalize my roleplaying into a easy to read text format that a dm can use to gauge how my character would react to situations and know in advance how i plan on roleplaying my wizard it is somehow "worse" that people who chaotically stumble from one situation to the next with little or no consitancy.

It feels like you are missing the entire point of character flavoring.


Roleplay and Fluff are products, Mechanics and Players are Reagents. The Former is altered by the latter, while the latter are not changed by the former.

I believe it is far harder, far far harder to systematically design a character to fit your concept using mechanics (legally choosing classes to fit your desired concept character adding and subtracting different classes and feats until the character matches the avatar in your head) then to take that result and carefully merge all the many classes into a single cohesive game element custom crafted and carefully designed to fit seemlessly into the campaigns game world.

Try it, it take incredible amounts of time, and incredible amounts of frustatration as you tease dozens upon dozens of game elements into a single whole.

That, in my opion is a much much higher level of roleplaying than "i wanted to be a wizard that can take a punch so i took a level of fighter"

I see a problem with builds; they are usually unrealistic to the circumstances around with a character is to evolve. But this requires other knowledge on classes that I will go into later*.


This is where your arguement breaks down. D&D is a class game, and must be treated as such. While it may not be floating above your head in neon lights, it still has an effect on every aspect of your character and its design. Also, "builders" such as yourself commit the one act that I see as unforgiveable; disgarding fluff in favor of mechanics - and this is where "builds" are bad.

People don't take wizard or barbarian to become knights, they become fighters, paladins, or knights (now that there is a class) with a generally lawful alignment to emulate this ideal. Fluff should never be mutable, and this is why; (to use an analogy) you do not eat chocolate ice-cream because you enjoy freeze-dried stuff, you do it because chocolate tastes good. You will eat a chocolate bar because you enjoy chocolate, not bar-like foods. Chocolate is the "fluff". How you get your fluff is not important (the mechanics) what is important is that it tastes the same.

By gutting the fluff out of the mechanics, you remove the chocolate, so to speak. This has always been the foley of people wanting a class-less game in D&D. When you choose a class, that class represents something; this "something" is tied heavily into a world, even if you do not see it. Basically wizards did not develop yesterday because someone wanted to use magic from a book; it took eons of study, gifts from the gods, stolen knowledge, etc... to get the wizard we know today - and what you just said is that you wish to just throw all that away because you wanted ability X.

People did not fear and respect samurais in Japan for hundreds of years because they were alchemists of terrible knowledge, who could shapeshift and throw fireballs all the while syphoning your soul into hell. People respected and feared them because they adopted a way of living, training, and swordsmanship unequaled throughout the land. They also were dedicated to a cause; all of which represent the samurai. These same priciples go for the nobility of europe; they weren't special because they could fight well, or were highly respected, they were "a cut above" because their social status brought about great political influence and power. How much they had was determined on how long they dedicated their efforts to these endevours.

A class in D&D is more than just mechanics; it was fluff that certain mechanics were drawn to. To disregard that fluff is to lose the mechanics of the class; without "fluff" there can be no mechanics for a game like this, and that is where builders go wrong.

So all warlocks must be demon/devil spawn/descendants?

There can never be a rogue class constable who knows who to contact in the black market for leads against the real threats, know how to break into strongholds of the most evil villains, use sleight of hand to pickpocket the wand from the evil necromancer, and will otherwise never lie, cheat, or steal, and often called upon to give a morale speech to paladins in the Church of Heironeous?

A druid can never live in the city and be the patron for the parks and pigeons?

There can never be "The White Necromancer" on a crusade against the undead who even prepares Animate Dead just so he can use it as a counterpsell?

A bard can never be a professional comedian and not be able to sing a tune if his life depended on it?

A sorcerer cannot just consider himself being able to pick up spells on the fly and hates dragons with a passion?

Hint: It is not the job of Wizards of the Coast to tell me what my character is supposed to be. Flavor text is just that; flavor as an example.

That's not the scenario I described. If it was, I'm sure your position would have a great deal of merit. I described a character who rode around on horses for a series of adventures (not sharing the saddle, not choosing not to ride). That character spending no points on ride raises my eyebrows.
And out of curiosity, if a character made it very vocal that they couldn't stand riding, and used every tumble out of the saddle as an opportunity to curse all horses, and couldn't be made to practice riding at spearpoint, would it raise your eyebrows if his player put ranks into Ride? Or what about a total bookworm character who spends all his time on horseback with his nose in a tome (or two...at the same time...), only views spills as unfortunate yet inevitable distractions from reading, and can't practice riding because he's busy cooking up arcane formulae as usual, would it raise your eyebrows if that player put ranks in Ride?
It'd raise my eyebrows. That's not, realistically, how their characters' development would grow.
It won't raise everyone's. Not everyone approaches the game from a mechanics=reality approach.
They might not raise the eyebrows even if they do.
No, the real problem is that the other players and DM aren't morons (ideally speaking). One excuse seems fine. Toran doesn't like horses. Another excuse seems weird, but okay. Toran...didn't learn anything about climbing mountains, because he was...er...always on the lookout for bad guys while climbing and wasn't paying attention. More excuses just seem like Toran is a caricature of a man- "Why is it that for the last 2 years of game time, Toran has only ever learned a very specific set of skills when we've been doing all sorts of different things?" Can players keep accepting Toran's excuses as to why tumble, jump, hide and balance are the only skills he's ever been able to learn? Maybe. But they will eventually do so by treating Toran as a character sheet and not a character.
You're abstracting it away from real play into an example where the techniques can't be used plausibly. If the techniques can be used plausibly, the other players don't notice the 'excuses' because there are no excuses, simply realistic reactions given how the character was envisioned. If you're doing it well, verisimilitude is never compromised.

To be frank, I'd argue it's unlikely that every element and event in a character's story will perfectly and irreconcilably conflict with their planned build. In fact, I'd say it's impossible unless the DM is setting it up to be, in which case the problem doesn't originate with the build. It can't be argued that just because not everyone integrates builds with character concept well, it's impossible to do so. Have you seen anyone integrate the two well, out of curiousity?
Essentially all of the examples except the feat-chain one (which I agree, can make perfect sense in many situations, though obviously there's the 'Player does not use the prerequisite feat ever' situation that can cause strife) rely on coincidences or the other players to ignore inconsistent behavior.
No, they don't.
Getting something because you have been practicing and practicing and it finally 'clicks' isn't coincidental, unrealistic, or inconsistent.
Developing a weird new ability is only as coincidental, unrealistic, or inconsistent as the genre of fantasy itself. Have you ever read The Baker's Boy by J. V. Jones (first in the Book of Words trilogy)? Arguably, it's coincidental, unrealistic, and inconsistent to expect an individual to identify new skills or procedural expertise we've acquired - a lot of us in real life don't.
Noticing a situation that inspires or motivates you to direct your training and pick up something real quick is a staple of heroic fiction, and not unrealistic or inconsistent with expectable behaviour. It's only coincidental if the player wasn't aware of the various ways his build could be represented and didn't catch the cues and opportunities ahead of time.
Do it right and there's no inconsistent behavior to ignore.
Mind you, I have no problem with Toran in the above example roleplaying being miserable on a horse.
You don't mind Toran roleplaying. Nobody should
If he actually roleplays the reason his character will never have ranks in Ride well enough to convince the playgroup, there's no problem.
For all the riding he does, if all the other players grasp from the way the story is told that they shouldn't expect Toran to be able to get from point A to point B on horseback without help, then that's fine. My issue (I won't even say it's a problem), is representing every character with a build as an idiot savant, incapable of developing beyond their mold.
Oh, agreed. Fortunately, there are four techniques with potentially infinite expressions so that a character with a build doesn't have to be an idiot savant if the player doesn't want to play one.
Toran can't learn any skills besides those needed for his build- no matter what excuses he makes, whatever in game explanation, that's the truth. Maybe the occasional idiot savant can be fine, but a party of them is stretching credulity (for me, anyway- obviously it is clear in your gaming group that your ability to ignore improbabilities is greater than mine).Would you like to see the examples of characters in my groups and how 'improbable' they are?



That goes to stay then that if he was travelling to prevent his family from being killed, I think he'd find one dead family when he walked in. Assuming it would require ride-checks to get there in time of course.So Toran swears revenge, blames horses, and works hard to develop Teleport so that he'll always be where he needs to be.
Thanks for passing the easy roleplay opportunity! :D

Why oh why is it vitally important that there must only be a 'one true way' of playing D&D, and that 'one true way' somehow must mean that the characters are nothing more than leaves in the wind of a game. That they are nothing more than unmolded clay waiting for the experences of the game (and only those experences) are the only things worthy of molding that clay. That, a character must and always change direction, and that somehow, that a character cannot have a long term goal that they want to achive, nay, that the very concept of such is considered such a vile vile thing that it must be expunged from the very minds of those who dare to play such a holy and sacred game, and that any such deviantcies from the holy and sacred game must be punished!!

Basicly: If I want chocolate ice cream, and you instead tell me I must choose between having vanilla ice cream or a chocolate bar, but the very idea of mixing the two is wrong, and that if I even dared of trying to do so, will result in me being punished in ways that are better left to the imagination...

But: when did this idea that the fluff that is published with a class is the only allowed version of the said fluff? Especially when it states in the DMG that *gasp* you can change it (and they go a step further in Complete Arcane and *show* you how to change the fluff without changing the mechanics (spell tiles anyone?)).

(as a side not lokiyn, you are the type of player I prefer in my games. I would so allow you to play your scrivener in any of the games I run, if you are ever near where I am :))

Have you ever let ice-cream melt, and then re-froze it?But if I don' care, why should you?

It's just not the same; when the new psion class comes out for 4th ED, it will be much different than his re-worked wizard - this is because he wanted to play the psion class when there was none.Right. And there's also no "scivener" class for Lokiyn, at least not one that does what he thinks a scribner should do. He can't do what he wants without reflavoring the classes, just like Bruce Cordell can't do what he wants without "filling the serial numbers" off the 4e wizard.

As for your "EDIT" comment; AOL CD's are coasters,No, they clearly aren't. They are promotional devices intended to get more people to use AOL. Using it as a coaster is still using it within its physical capabilities while disregarding what it was intended for.

witches use brooms,You're using a functional device as a costuming prop.

and science has a class of it's own.If we were doing an experiment on vinegar, I would agree with you. However, what I was reffering to was using vinegar and baking soda to simulate a volcano (sorry, I would have been more clear). You're using food to make a science experiment work.

Those things you described were tools, not mechanics; mechanics are the sweeping motion of the broom, the experiment of vinegar and baking soda itself, and the table protection of the CD.I honestly don't have any idea what you're saying. And even if I did, I don't have any idea how you could deduce "Therefore, reflavoring is bad." So what if I want to use an AOL CD to protect my table from my cold soda cans instead of a wood-and-cork coaster? It probably doesn't do the job quite as well, but maybe I don't have any wood-and-cork coasters, or maybe I like the irony or aesthetics of using AOL CDs more than I'd like the superior protection. In any case, why shouldn't I use the AOL CDs?

Your "EDITEDIT" comment; Stormwind's fallacy represents that min/maxing and RPing are mutually exclusive, and should not be convoluted as being symbiotic. Nemo's Law states that mechanics will often rule over RP; both of these statements are true; and it is Nemo's law that builders break; they let mechanics break RP. Class is part of RP, as no one calls himself 'the greatest swordsman to have ever lived' (other than in jest) when they play a physically weak sorcerer who is not even proficient in the sword.This seems to imply that all reflavorings are lies, ie they say something which doesn't fit with reality. But Lokiyn's character clearly is what he's going for. The clothes do not fit poorly; perhaps they arn't tailored, but they're at least the right size, and the cut looks good on him. So what's the big deal? Why can't I play a Sorcerer who gets his power from the stars? Why can't I decide my monk has a Str of 18 even though he's scragly? He's not weak, he just doesn't look like a body builder.

You are incorrect, as before the game comes the role-playing; the fluff.WotC sells us crunch, not fluff, because we don't need to buy fluff in game format. Generally, the crunch is made to support fluff, because it's more fun that way, but it's the crunch we're paying for. I could write a story about a warrior, a wizard, a rogue, and a cleric taking down dragons without the PHB, DMG, and MM; what I'd have a harder time doing is making characters which are roughly equal and objective.

It is called a role-playing game (in that order) for a reason; not game-playing role. To even consider the game first hand, you need fluff; otherwise without the thought (ie: the fluff) of casting spells, there could be no mechanics for it."role playing" is the adjective in that phrase, and thus secondary. I mean, I'm not trying to make a semantic point or anything, but if one were to try to make one, that would be the coherrent one to make.

Wow, I didn't know that flame-thrower still had fuel in it....

Okay I was going to write out this huge post on why I think class is not mutable, and even had 3 paragraphs before I decided that having another dissection would be unpleasing.

Anyways, this is a class game; Prestige classes are unique because of flavor, not mechanics (look at the Yakuza from OA for an example). People that become Radiant Servants of Pelor, or Purple Dragon Knights, or Kensai often do not fully realize what those classes represent. Radiant Servants are something above and beyond a normal worshipper; even a normal cleric. They have a dedication that goes beyond just Pelor (or whatever god you use to represent this in your game), and begins to dip into the sun itself. PDK's are a campaign-specific class; to re-work the fluff (or even the focus) is to re-work the class itself. Kensai are more than "X abilities", they represent a dedication to your weapon and your lord that dips into the supernatural. Clearly fighters are not all Kensai; most can qualify, but unless they take that class they are saying that these abilities do not best represent me; that this class does not best represent me.

Also, detailing a "scrivener" as Lokiyn has would lead me to believe that all "scriveners" of a given level could teach me to be a Wizard / geometer / runesmith / archmage. I doubt this is true, and yet he's trying to say that "people of this title are this". To me, this is a class all its own.

Disagree all you want with my words here, but class (for me) has an unmutable flavor.

Especially in a class-based game.

EDIT: to my position;

Unless someone has another source for the term min/maxing, powergamer, or munchkin, at this time I would like to withdraw my position (which was currently backing Stormwind's fallacy) and move to an undecided, neutral point.

This is based off of these definitions found on wikipedia;
(search: min-maxing)
Min-maxing is the practice of playing a role-playing game for the intent of creating the "best" character by means of minimizing undesired traits and maximizing desired ones. This is usually accomplished by improving one specific trait or ability by sacrificing ability in all other fields. This is easier to accomplish in games where attributes are generated from a certain number of points rather than in ones where they are randomly generated. Min-maxing is particularly common in games where the cost of traits does not reflect their expected usefulness; for instance, in a combat-heavy game a player may focus on physical traits, giving a character abnormally low mental and social skills so that the remaining points can all be channeled to physical statistics that are more likely to come into play.
(search: powergamer)
In role-playing games, powergaming (pg) is a particular way of playing in which the emphasis lies on developing a player character that is as powerful as possible, usually to the detriment of other aspects of the game, such as character interaction.
(search: munchkin)
In gaming, a Munchkin is a player who plays what is intended to be a non-competitive game (usually a role-playing game) in an aggressively competitive manner. A munchkin seeks within the context of the game to amass the greatest power, score the most "kills," and grab the most loot, no matter how deleterious their actions are to role-playing, the storyline, fairness, logic, or the other players' fun. The term is used almost exclusively as a pejorative and frequently is used in reference to powergamers and to immature players in general.

Yeah, I decided to actually look up what I have been defending.

I don't agree with the definition they have of min/maxing, but this is the only reference I can find; it has to do with role-playing.

Maybe I'll write up my own thoughts on what all of these things mean; a kind of medium (it won't be a happy one, as I tend to see things black and white, with no area of gray).

I still stand by my position on what class means in a class-based game though, as well as my thoughts on mechanics and flavor.

This is all for now.

Also, detailing a "scrivener" as Lokiyn has would lead me to believe that all "scriveners" of a given level could teach me to be a Wizard / geometer / runesmith / archmage. I doubt this is true, and yet he's trying to say that "people of this title are this". To me, this is a class all its own.

First off, no one has, yet reached the level of flamming, unless disagreement followed by fairly rational discussion is flamming, in which case we have

Secondly not all classes and not all prestige classes, in fact very very few are tied to a specific organization or campaign specific. Flavor alteration is a zero sum application, it neither enhances or detracts from a class, in many ways it's similar to a substitution level.

Take for example, Radiant Servants of Pelor, Purple Dragon Knights, or Kensai. Each of these three class is made up of two main parts. Form FunctionThe classes' form is its flavor, flavor explains how a class/feat/skill/etc fits into a campaign, usually a very specific campaign setting lets look at that and divorce the class from its mechanics temporarily Radiant Servants of PelorThe Radiant Servant of Pelor is a specfic prestige class designed to represent the active arm of the clergy of Pelor, While Pelors Dogma focuses mostly on the practice of good deeds, emphasising that like light each act of good draws a little more strength away from evil as a whole, much as the light of the sun drives forth the darkness of the night. The Radiant Servent of Pelor on the other hand is an Active force a Branch of clerics devoted to the active elemination of the darkness, torchbearers of Pelor the radiant Servents strive to bring the light of pelor into the shadowed places of the world.That is the classes flavor, however by your stance i can Never play this class in a world without Pelor, such as Eberron or Ravenloft, or any other campaign world which does not include Pelor. This is where flavoring comes in.The Class Radiant Servent of Pelor is Not about Pelor. The class is about a Branch of Clerics/God Worshipers activly devoted to the spread of Goodness and Light into areas that are dark by actively opposing the dark directly rather than through indirect bolstering of good in general. As such i don't need the class to be about pelor, i can choose any god or any philosiphy that holds true to the same principles without changing the fundemental nature of the class. In fact what does the class itself have to say about all this? As mentioned in the introduction to the chapter, this prestige class doesn’t have to be about Pelor. It works just as well with any god of the sun whose clerics often turn undead, and given the Sun domain’s granted power, it’d be a strange sun-god that didn’t want his clerics turning undead. In text proof that the class flavor is less important to the nature of the class than the mechanics. When the game tells you that the flavor is mutable its much harder to support the position that it's not. As long as you stay true to the class (Healing and Smiting the undead) it makes no difference whether you are a "Radiant Servant" a "Sunborn Philosopher" a "Channeler of Life" or a "Balancer of Souls", All of those are mere titles Mechanics It hardly needs to be said that the mechanics (Bab/Will/Ref/Fort/Special/Casting) Are the elements that make up this class. Similar to a chemical formula the class is this specific mixture of elements just as water is always One Oxygen and Two Hydrogen atoms bonded together in a unit. What form water takes is irrelevent as its fundemental nature is defined not by its container, Water from a glass, water in a saucer, water from a hose, and water from a pitcher are all water. As long as you don't alter the chemical compostion of the water from its basic components (H2O) then its still water.


I think i can best quote the Complete divine (as its the source i have for a direct quote, but hardly the only source for this quote)

When in doubt, tie a prestige class as tightly as you can to the campaign world you’re using. We’ve deliberately left some campaign specific flavor out of these prestige classes so they would be broadly applicable to many players’ campaigns. However, the best prestige classes are ones that you integrate with the rest of the campaign world, so connect them with specific deities, organizations, and locations whenever you can.

Or perusing Complete arcane i see that the Acolyte of the Skin, Alienest, Argent Savant, Blood Magus, Elemental Savant, Enligtened Fists, Fatespinner, Geometer, and many other classes all call out possible other ways to flavor the class without altering its basic matrix.

In the example of Acolyte of the Skin, Don't like Demons? Want something more Vicious and Dark? Well you could be a human that researches humanoid interspecies blending.

Nearly every book i have on hand contains not only adaptations for classes for people who either don't like the flavor or can't fit it into thier world but also a statment that you can and should change the flavor to match your world as closely as possible.

For example

FlavorCha Lv Real L Bab Fort Ref Will Special
Scrivener 01 Wiz 01 0 0 0 0 Scribe Scroll, Summon Familiar, Material Armor Studies
Scrivener 02 Wiz 02 0 0 0 2
Scrivener 03 Wiz 03 1 0 0 3 Secrets of Iron
Scrivener 04 Wiz 04 1 1 1 3
Scrivener 05 Wiz 05 2 1 1 4 Bonus Feat
Scrivener 06 Geo 01 2 1 1 4 Glyph of Warding, Draw Spell glyph
Scrivener 07 Run 01 2 1 1 6 Rune Magic
Scrivener 08 Geo 02 2 3 1 8 Book of Geometry
Scrivener 09 Run 02 3 3 1 9 Stonecraft Expertise, Trancendent Expertise
Scrivener 10 Geo 03 4 4 1 10 Sigilsight
Scrivener 11 Run 03 4 5 2 10 Share Runes
Scrivener 12 Run 04 4 5 3 10 Paths of Creation
Scrivener 13 Geo 04 5 6 3 11 Pass Sigil
Scrivener 14 Geo 05 6 6 3 12 Powerful Spellglyph, Greater Glyph of Warding
Scrivener 15 Run 05 6 6 3 12 Permenant Runes, Secrets of Unseen Forms
Scrivener 16 Arch 01 6 6 3 12 High Arcana
Scrivener 17 Arch 02 6 6 3 14 High Arcana
Scrivener 18 Arch 03 7 6 3 15 High Arcana
Scrivener 19 Arch 04 7 7 4 15 High Arcana
Scrivener 20 Arch 05 8 7 4 16 High Arcana


Huma 01 Light Armor Proficiency
Base 01 Medium Armor Proficienct
Wiza 01 Scribe Scroll
Base 03 Heavy Armor Proficiency
Wiza 05 Open Feat Slot
Base 06 Open Feat Slot
Base 09 Skill Focus (Spellcraft)
Base 12 Spell Focus (Conjuration)
Base 15 Spell Focus (Transmutation)
Base 18 Open Feat Slot


This is just roughly pieced together from memory. For example you might notice some unusual entries in the "Special collum. These aren't typos but rather prerequisite feats reflavored and integrated into the class itself. So in a more formal write up you would see something like this

Because of the intense amount of research that a scrivener develes into he does not gain feats at the normal one per level that most classes recieve, instead the Scrivener recieves feats at the following levels, 5/6/18.

Of these feats the Scrivener may choose any feat he or she qualifies for with the following stipulation.

The 5th level feat is the culmination of the Scriveners Standard Studies before begining his study of more specialized magics thus they are restricted to metamagic feats and item creation feats for this one feat.


Wiza 05 Open Feat Slot
Base 06 Open Feat Slot
Base 18 Open Feat Slot


Instead of normal feats the scrivener learns special abilites as listed.

Material Armor Studies: The Scrivener's first independant studies after leaving his master delves into understanding the effects of materials on the flow of magic through the body. As a result the Scrivener learns the proper methods for donning and effective use of light and medium armors.{it goes without saying that this ability is Light armor proficienct and Heavy armor proficiency feat, just flavored into the class as part of it rather than separate}

Secrets of Iron:Although a long process the Scrivener has finally mastered the heaviest forms of armor allowing him to wear and use them with proficiency, once the Scrivener has mastered the use of such armors they are finally ready to begin working on developing techniques and skills to channel magic unhindered by the dampening properties of the armors {Heavy Armor Proficiency}[/I]

Trancendent Expertise:As the Scriveners mastery of the fundemental linguisic and symbolic tools of magic increases his increased aptitude with them allows the scrivener to take shortcuts as well as provide the Scrivener with a ready knowledge of magic as a whole. This ability corresponds to a bonus to spellcraft checks equal to a +3
Paths of Creation: Blah blah blah [indent]Spell Focus Conjuration
Secrets of Unseen Forms:more Scrivener specific fluff about languages symbols and nature of tranformationsSpell focus Transmutation

I have more detail on the original but this gets the point across.

Without touching the mechanics or altering the fundementals of the classes involved i can seemlessly work a character concept into a campaign setting that is coherent and cohesivly created that can be roleplayed from the very start without ever needing to make forced alterations to the roleplay of the character as you would with the unaltered classes.

And look how it flows seemlessly

You start out a normal wizard interested in the hows and whys of Arcane spell failure who studies armors and thier effects on magic users, then as a result of this you branch from regular wizards into a specific field of study researching the nature of magic and runes alternating with research into the application of your studies. (roughly each level of Geometer is "Nature", each level of runesmith is "Application" thus the alternating levels) Which culminates into the study and manipulation of raw magic itself.

And thats optimization to me

Taking the game, deciding what you want to be and making the choices to fit as closely to your concept as you can without changing the rules of the game.

I Could simply go Wizard 20, pick up the Symbol line of spells, pick up Craft (Calligraphy), scribe an use a bunch of scrolls and talk loudly about the superiority of runes and symbols. But that barely fits the concept at all except in the most rough of approximations.

It is far better, both mechanically and from a role playing perspective when a player can take his sheet and think, yes, this is exactly the character i want to represent in this game, this is the perfect representation of my avatar with everything fitting together. to be able to say "This is Who I [the character] am[b] Not a wizard, not a geometer, not a runesmith, not an archmage, but a Scrivener: Master of the Primal Runes, the Savant of Symbols, Artisan of the Arcane Arts" makes a character far more alive, far more than just a piece of paper, far far more a living breathing creature than any amount of costuming or funny voices.

Only when you know Who and What your character Is, deep within its heart of hearts can you truely begin to roleplay it fully.

That is why builds are, to me, far [b]far more important than any amount of chaotic willy nilly assignments.

I've said it before and i'll say it again. You interact with your character for about 2-4 hours of in game time per session. Who is your characer in the 12-14 hours you don't cover?

I Know my Character, I know his hopes, i know his dreams, i know his goals and drives, Since i know these it is child's play to do exactly what my character would do in those brief snippits of time covered in a session.

And i learn all of this through optimization, not roleplay.

For me Roleplay is the end result of proper optimization.

Roleplay is an End not a means.

The operative words from Wikipedia were USUALLY and SUCH AS. A person comitting the fallacy would have omitted the former and definitvely linked poor roleplaying with powergaming.

Furthermore, character interaction isn't the same thing as roleplaying (as the earlier joke of "I make a Bluff check" illustrates; that's interaction without roleplaying).

Likewise, powergaming and optimization are not the same goal. You can optimize a character's performance in multiple areas, for instance (a jack-of-all-trades comes to mind) WITHOUT being as powerful as he could be (for instance, I would argue that Roy Greenhilt of Order of the Stick fame is built this way as a concept: An intelligent, tactical warrior and leader. He's not terribly optimal (pure-class fighter...) but nor is he one-dimensional relating to battle capability (that is, since the concept was an intelligent, tactical fighter, he fills that role nicely. If his concept had been "raw damage", then he was not optimized, but that wasn't his character type). In fact, another OotS example I like to cite is Thog himself: Incredibly one-dimensional mechanically (he is The Half-Orc BarbarianTM), but that's not what people remember him for (Thog Like Puppies). He's not terribly deep, but he is consistently written and has a distinct, if deliberately shallow, personality.)

Since I seem to be on an OotS role, I should probably bring it up as a pretty decent example of class reflavoring. I mean, paladins as samurai (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html)? That's hardly PHB flavor for the class, and it's in a webcomic founded around following D&D cliches (and thus staying so very close to the trope that being genre savvy is a very handy skill).

Theoretically, if class flavor is immutable, then I should be able to hand you the fluff behind a character and you'd be able to tell me what class (classes?) they belong to, right?

One of my favorite long-term characters is Rachel Snowborn, a merchant. That's what she describes herself as, that's what she's primarily known for in the game, and that's what she does in between adventures. What class is she?

Say, something mechanical? Okay, how about a fluff description of some of her mechanics: She deliberately spreads (mostly true) stories of her exploits under the name "Rache the Magnificent", she's earned a reputation for daring escapades of both the acrobatic and deceptive kind, usually recovering old artifacts (how else would she get rare things to sell?); she is capable of holding her own in armorless dueling, both with single sword and twin blades (in a game world where professional duelists are almost exclusively male; she's also notorious for reversing traditional sword roles: her bastard sword style is defensive (particularly against magic), while her twin blades are offensive (capable of knocking knights out of the saddle and skewering them through armor)), and being familiar enough with the ways of magic to enhance herself, disguise herself (nigh-perfectly, I might add; one particularly notorious caper involved her masquerading, successfully, as a wealthy heiress' male lover -- overnight!), and intercept enemy spells as her means of acquiring some of her wares.

Got a class yet? (Hint: It isn't Bard or Rogue, and there's no Wizard or Sorcerer either. While she's of high enough level to be an Arcane Trickster, she has no levels in that class, and in fact lacks every defining mechanical element of that class.)

None of the above.

Rache is actually the cover identity of Soren, a Nimblewright (a type of humanoid infiltration/assassination construct in the Monster Manual 2) with no class levels whatsoever (though admittedly, when I used her as a high-level NPC once, she had a couple levels in Spymaster). A single houserule was present at character creation, giving me 0+Int skill points per Construct Hit Die and normal PC feats to play with, which were invested mostly in Bluff, Disguise, Tumble, and scattered throughout other Trained-Only skills, plus a few in Profession (Merchant) for good measure.


Backstory: Nimblewrights are intelligent and self-aware constructs; Soren had been freed from its master by a band of PCs. Deciding they were its surrogate masters, it joined up with them, and (at the suggestion of the party's married wizard/cleric couple) it created Rache as a proxy to explore the nature of human identity. A lot of Rache's characteristics were designed to keep humans interested in her (and thus interacting with Soren) but to prevent them from getting too close and finding the truth -- for instance, Rache claimed to be a widow (complete with diamond ring on a chain around her neck), and acted extremely fatalistic to the point of refusing healing magic, claiming that if she got hit, she deserved it. Some of the other characteristics defined above -- for instance, spreading her stories -- developed later, as the party and the rest of the world kept interacting with 'her' and Soren settled into the identity a bit more.

All of the above is totally accurate of a Nimblewright, too:
Acrobatic escapades: Nimblewrights have incredible Dexterity scores, and she was trained in the right skills.
Dueling strengths: She's proficient with martial weapons and has natural armor; due to her incredible Dexterity regular armor would be a burden. The bit on her bastard sword is admittedly a red herring (it really is just a regular magical weapon); her twin blades are actually the nimblewright's rapier-hand natural weapons (17-20 plus free Trip on hit), and she has Weapon Finesse.
Magic: Nimblewrights have Cat's Grace, Feather Fall, Haste, and Alter Self as at-will spell-like abilities. (The particular disguise escapade I mention involved taking 20 on Disguise using Alter Self.)
Defending against magic: Nimblewright spell resistance + a Spell Turning bastard sword (I said it was defensive; it would keep a Spell Turning effect on her if she acted in total defense.)



The reason I split it up like this is because if character identity was so totally linked to class, you would have been able to ID her from "merchant". However, that's not enough (especially since fluff can be changed), so I provided fluff descriptions of her mechanics. Of course, that fails, because while the flavor is perfectly Rogue (or perhaps Bard), the abilities don't match up (suggesting either that the character is some ludicrous multiclass that could never be as effective as the stories suggest... or that the abilities have been reflavored to match Bard/Rogue fluff).

This is an extreme example, I admit (I mean, seriously, I didn't even use a class!), but it is a true one from my own direct experience. I created Rache/Soren as a two-part experiment: Rache was the first believable female character I'd roleplayed (the ones before were all... less than successful), and Soren was an excuse to explore my options in optimizing monsters instead of classes. I should also note that despite being devastatingly effective (for something without spellcaster levels), she's best-known for her RP: when I used her as an NPC, that group, to this day, hasn't figured out her true nature and still sees her just as a human merchant.

Similarly, I have played alongside a brigand. What class was he?

My brother's most recent character was a Viking-style marauder. What class was he? (Hint: Not Barbarian or Fighter; he was far too educated (in the equivalent of oral histories) and too adept at the seas for those. Hint 2: The class he used for this could also just as easily be used for a barbarian, a fighter, a samurai, a warlord, or more, even before you alter the default flavor.)

As you're probably beginning to see, the thought of class-as-fixed-flavor is incredibly restrictive. It isn't wrong, of course (there are no wrong ways to play D&D), but it certainly limits options, and it's certainly not directly implied by the rules.

Disagree all you want with my words here, but class (for me) has an unmutable flavor.[/i]Give me one good reason to agree with you.

I find it strange that the anti-powergamer arguments restrict the roleplaying potential by claiming that the fluff of a class is immutable.

I remember a reference in one of the core books that has a monk with "rice paper walk" is place of the move silently skill.

I also remember the Player's Handbook II pages 50-51 suggesting things like renaming the staff and calling a monk's attacks other than what the they are called in the Player's Handbook.

The Tome of Battle on page 40 suggesting the renaming the names of maneuvers.

So by the Rules As Written fluff is mutable.



As for definitions, try these,

From Dictionary of Terminology

Min/Maxer (noun), 1: A player who designs her character, usually within the basic parameters of the rules, to maximize that character’s advantages and minimize its disadvantages. 2: A Power Gamer.

Munchkin (noun), 1: (considered derogatory) A player who creates an extremely unbalanced and over-powered character by using ludicrous loopholes in the rules or by outright breaking them. 2: (considered derogatory) A player whose gaming style the user of the term disapproves of; often including, but not limited to, power gamers, min/maxers, Monty Haulers, hack’n slashers, metagamers, rules lawyers and/or twinks. 3: A young gamer. Etymology: Modern American, refers to a race of midgets in The Wizard of Oz.

Power Gamer (noun), 1: A player whose primary focus in a RPG is the increase of his character’s power, usually defined in combat terms. 2: A Min/Maxer.

Ummm. I am new to the forums (obviously) but I have been reading here for a bit. I have until now staved off any urge to post but I think one very obvious issue is being missed in this thread (re: builders hinder RP).

Have those of you who argue against using builds never heard of someone having a single-minded approach to a goal? What about the people that go to college with the goal of becoming doctors? The courseloads of these individuals are tailored to achieve this goal and this goal alone. For a more personal example we can take a hobby of mine: hunting. I prefer to use a recurve bow over a compound and hanguns over rifles. Could I have bought a compound bow? Yes. Could I use a rifle instead of a handgun? Yes. What I did, however, was buy a recurve and practice with it exclusively. I spend much more time practicing with handguns than I do rifles. Why? This is my build for Hunter Me. Have I used compound bows/rifles/muzzleloaders? Yes. The point (convoluted as it may be) is that I set goals for myself as Hunter Me and worked solely to achieve them. If I can specialize in real life (think Radiologist over General Practicioner if you like the doctor example better) then why can't my character?

The Scrivener example showed this well. The player had an idea for a specialized character that was not supported by the existing structure. The character used a focused and disciplined approach to become a Scrivener while the player used the available system to facilitate it. This is not against RP. This is still viable through "realism" as evidenced by my doctor/Hunter Me examples.

I have a question to pose as well: If class flavor is immutable (though RAW states otherwise- Radiant Servant of ___ insert Sun God here, for example) then is race also? Should RAS be banned from writing since Drizzt is an anti-flavor Drow? The type of argument being presented here is a hard line affair and therefore cannot be placed in one area of the game alone. If class fluff is paramount then race, gender, etc fluff should be as well. So I am curious to the answer here . . .

All in all I guess I am simply stating that building a character to be what the player wants instead of having the game (and therefore DM) dictate it become is "OK" for RP. Those who want to force players to take skills that they feel the character used should also consider before using the "heavy hand of justice" that the player only has control over one thing: his character. By changing it for them you will lessen the experience for the player. The solution for those of you who need that control has already been stated: freebie skill points. If you need my character to be more "realistic" in your eyes help me out- don't punish me.

All in all I guess I am simply stating that building a character to be what the player wants instead of having the game (and therefore DM) dictate it become is "OK" for RP. Those who want to force players to take skills that they feel the character used should also consider before using the "heavy hand of justice" that the player only has control over one thing: his character. By changing it for them you will lessen the experience for the player. The solution for those of you who need that control has already been stated: freebie skill points. If you need my character to be more "realistic" in your eyes help me out- don't punish me.

I agree. Forcing people to change their characters around based on one session deals smacks of DMD-Dungeon Master Domination. I like the doctor example-you can become a brain surgeon or a hip surgeon. One requires different instruction further than what is need to become a doctor and along different lines.

Builds are for people who think like those who become doctors. These people maximize their classes to become doctors by not adding every last class they can take for improvement. They focus on a number of classes to achieve the goal they want. This is what builds do.

About Knowledge skills; almost anyone can tell you what the countries in europe are, fewer can tell the names of all the cities or the countries' histories. Knowledge is more specialized knowledge in my opinion. A surgeon like Hawkeye from mash knows how to cut into a patient and do whatever he has to. But when presented with mental problems requires hawkeye to call sidney freedmen who has taken ranks in knowledge (mind/pyschocogical(sp?)) which Hawkeye has not. Its in the knowledge skill section in the phb, 'Knowledge represents a study of some body of lore, possibly an academic or even scientific discipline'.

But why call it "Stormwind"?
Where does that come from?

But why call it "Stormwind"?
Where does that come from?

Tempest Stormwind named the fallacy so people could understand what he was saying better.

But why call it "Stormwind"?
Where does that come from?

See Post #2. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=11990222&postcount=2)

I named it after myself because I realized I needed a handy shorthand for this (utterly obvious to me and others but apparently not to a few) idea to spread. I chose "fallacy" because it's a classic application of the False Dilemma fallacy to roleplaying, and the "Stormwind" part after me, because my name was handy, I was formalizing it, and I'm arrogant.

I regret naming it after myself and maintain that as a self-evident idea it shouldn't even need to be formalized at all, but the link remains in my sig because people STILL make that common misconception.

The original thread is here (http://forums.gleemax.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-624756); page 2 is the one where the argument reached its ugly head. The definition in this thread is far clearer, though, so please use that.




What really bugs me is that people often think I named it after WoW's Stormwind Keep or similar. That's blatantly false: I've used this name online since before Warcraft 2's full release (and I might add, in the original, half the time it was called Stonewind), and I haven't played WoW. (Honestly, Tyrian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrian_(computer_game)) had a much stronger influence on the name than Warcraft, but I think I'm the only guy here who remembers that one...)

Give me one good reason to agree with you.

Would you re-write the campaign to include a class? Or throw away a class option because it did not fit the campaign? For instance, in a medival game, no spellcasters (or spellcaster-like classes such as the warlock and psion) are allowed to be played (spell-less variants are offered for various classes), as these are reserved for the DM for cultural purposes. This means no Wizard, no cleric, no sorcerer; how then will you justify re-writing a class for this? You cannot; the only thing you can do is whine about being limited, or re-write the campaign.

Re-writing a class is (for me) doing just this; including something that does not fit the predescribed flavor of a class that has been inserted into a campaign.

Basically when it comes down to it a class is tied to arganizations, and organizations to the campaign; re-writing the campaign is far too much work and effort to have one guy "get his way".
You don't see dragonlance players re-writing any of the Knights, as when they choose that class it is to be a Knight of the Rose, or Sword, or Crown, not to get ability X, Y, or Z.

That is why classes are unmutable to me, as the class is the flavor, and the flavor is what you should be seeking when playing the game. To do otherwise is powergaming.

I find it strange that the anti-powergamer arguments restrict the roleplaying potential by claiming that the fluff of a class is immutable.

I remember a reference in one of the core books that has a monk with "rice paper walk" is place of the move silently skill.

I also remember the Player's Handbook II pages 50-51 suggesting things like renaming the staff and calling a monk's attacks other than what the they are called in the Player's Handbook.

The Tome of Battle on page 40 suggesting the renaming the names of maneuvers.

So by the Rules As Written fluff is mutable.



As for definitions, try these,

From Dictionary of Terminology

This is because stuff like, "rice paper walk" is flavor. "+20 to MS" is not. Move silently is the basic title; the title is not important, only the desire to be the title or emulate what the title infers is. The actual "fluff" of MS is that you move quietly so no one can hear you. The mechanics of it are "this skill opposes this skill."

Just as the fluff of a Dwarven defender (and its requirement) is dwarf. No one cares if you call it "hall monitor", or "Supreme Guardian of the Narrow Mountain Pass". If it is written that this is dwarven only, then so shall it be. If, on the other hand the requirements would be removed, then anyone could be one, it loses its prestige, and the flavor becomes bland; common. The point of the class is to get away from common.

Would you re-write the campaign to include a class? Or throw away a class option because it did not fit the campaign? For instance, in a medival game, no spellcasters (or spellcaster-like classes such as the warlock and psion) are allowed to be played (spell-less variants are offered for various classes), as these are reserved for the DM for cultural purposes. This means no Wizard, no cleric, no sorcerer; how then will you justify re-writing a class for this? You cannot; the only thing you can do is whine about being limited, or re-write the campaign.
To a certain degree, you are right. However it only matters what the class does, not what it's called. A Psion doesn't have to be exactly the flavor as written; he could easily be changed into a sorcerer. Of course the Psion couldn't be called a fighter, because there is nothing mechanically to represent him as such. I could easily play a Psychic Warrior in the game you mentioned and just describe most of what I do by luck or skill (in fact I think that's mentioned in Expanded Psionics Handbook).

For a minute here, let's assume that you're right. In that case I can almost guarantee that you are playing the Fighter wrong. Unless your Fighter is either a questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot soldier, the hardened mercenary, or the bandit king you are playing him wrong. To the degree that he can't be a 'soft' mercenary or an elite hand soldier (yes, that's a bit silly). But he couldn't be a Samurai, or an outlaw, or a Praetorian, or any number of things I could think of that by the strictest definition aren't part of the Fighter class. If you accept that a Fighter can be one of those things, than you do believe that flavor can be changed and we are only in disagreement as to the degree.

This is because stuff like, "rice paper walk" is flavor. "+20 to MS" is not. Move silently is the basic title; the title is not important, only the desire to be the title or emulate what the title infers is. The actual "fluff" of MS is that you move quietly so no one can hear you. The mechanics of it are "this skill opposes this skill."

Just as the fluff of a Dwarven defender (and its requirement) is dwarf. No one cares if you call it "hall monitor", or "Supreme Guardian of the Narrow Mountain Pass". If it is written that this is dwarven only, then so shall it be. If, on the other hand the requirements would be removed, then anyone could be one, it loses its prestige, and the flavor becomes bland; common. The point of the class is to get away from common.

A DM who gets rid of the dwarf requirement so that there is a special acadamey that teaches the Defender Way to one and all, of which non-dwarves are students, is thus committing a sin?

Suppose there are no dwarves in the gameworld. That prestige class is now verboten? Are you really giving that much power to Wizards of the Coast for what DMs and players are allowed to do?

Would you re-write the campaign to include a class? Or throw away a class option because it did not fit the campaign?

How about rewriting the class so it fits?

For instance, in a medival game, no spellcasters (or spellcaster-like classes such as the warlock and psion) are allowed to be played (spell-less variants are offered for various classes), as these are reserved for the DM for cultural purposes. This means no Wizard, no cleric, no sorcerer; how then will you justify re-writing a class for this? You cannot; the only thing you can do is whine about being limited, or re-write the campaign.

Just because it cannot always be done doesn't mean that it is never an option. Rules almost always have exception and yet still exist and work fine, as long as common sense is used.

Re-writing a class is (for me) doing just this; including something that does not fit the predescribed flavor of a class that has been inserted into a campaign.

As have assumed that just because your example shares some basic similarities with more general reflavoring that they share more important similarities..

A class that is already allowed can be reflavored to fit a basic character concept.

Basically when it comes down to it a class is tied to arganizations, and organizations to the campaign; re-writing the campaign is far too much work and effort to have one guy "get his way".

Tell the player if they want that class they should rewrite it to fit in your campaign and submit it for your approval.

:bored: Man, that took allot of work.

Also the majority of classes are not heavily tied to organizations so, this shouldn't happen often.

You don't see dragonlance players re-writing any of the Knights, as when they choose that class it is to be a Knight of the Rose, or Sword, or Crown, not to get ability X, Y, or Z.

So, your are saying that the way it is, so that it the way it should be done?

That is why classes are unmutable to me, as the class is the flavor, and the flavor is what you should be seeking when playing the game.

:gah: Your class does not define your character. The player chooses the class that represents the concept that they are trying to play.

Anyway you just said that for A you must have B and the two cannot be separated. That is just plain false.
To do otherwise is powergaming.

You can change the fluff to better suit roleplaying without increasing the power of your character at all.

This is because stuff like, "rice paper walk" is flavor. "+20 to MS" is not. Move silently is the basic title; the title is not important, only the desire to be the title or emulate what the title infers is. The actual "fluff" of MS is that you move quietly so no one can hear you. The mechanics of it are "this skill opposes this skill."

And. I was responding to the argument that fluff is immutable. Whether you believe that powergaming is contrary to roleplaying or not. Making fluff immutable restricts roleplaying.

Just as the fluff of a Dwarven defender (and its requirement) is dwarf.

This is a case where fluff and rules overlap. It should not be taken as a representative of all fluff or rules.

No one cares if you call it "hall monitor", or "Supreme Guardian of the Narrow Mountain Pass".

Really, I got the opposite impression from this quote.

Disagree all you want with my words here, but class (for me) has an unmutable flavor.

Especially in a class-based game.

If it is written that this is dwarven only, then so shall it be. If, on the other hand the requirements would be removed, then anyone could be one, it loses its prestige, and the flavor becomes bland; common. The point of the class is to get away from common.

Unless you changed the requirement to something else. Rule 0 is always an option by the Rules As Written, but not all uses of it are equal.

Reflavoring something so that it becomes more unique and flavorful makes sense and can encourage roleplaying. Especially when it better suits a concept.

I disagree with the Stormwind Fallacy...

I believe that you can role-play your character, and min/max it at the same time.

My entire group, including myself, do this for almost all of our characters.

The problem with the Stormwind Fallacy is that it makes things black and white.

Your ability to role-play isn't based off of what build you're using. Builds are only mechanical bonuses that change your combat abilities.

The ability to role-play is 100% in the person making the character. If that person writes a background for this character, really fleshes out the character to find out who he is.... I see no reason why he can't role-play it, even though it dips into many different base classes and than into a broken PrC.

Just my thoughts...

*blinks at metal*

you basically agreed with it.

Read at what the fallacy actually states. It states that one can BOTH RP well AND optimize/power-game well. They are NOT mutually exclusive (ie. if you RP well then by default you cannot optimize or power-game well, and vice versa).

The only reason it was even created/used was because there was this idea for the longest time on these boards that power-gaming or optimizing was 'a bad thing' because if one engaged in those activties, one was playing D&D 'wrong' because D&D played properly was all about the 'role-play' and that 'role-play' was the holiest of all holies when it comes to D&D.

(This led to many people deliberately creating characters that can only survive the adventuring life by heavy handed DM fiat and claming those characters are 'better' than ones that acctually have a chance at survival.)

I agree totally with the idea behind the fallacy. I have the hardest time trying to wrap my head around this idea that there is this idea that there is a 'wrong' way to play D&D, and that people who engage in the 'wrong' way are somehow profaning the very idea of D&D and what D&D truly is. I am stupified every time I come to these boards and run across such blowhards declaring that thier way of playing is the true way and that anyone who even dares to think otherwise gets (or deserves to be) severely punished.

Would you re-write the campaign to include a class? Or throw away a class option because it did not fit the campaign?Non sequitur, or possibly strawman. We're talking about rewriting the class, not the campaign.

For instance, in a medival game, no spellcasters (or spellcaster-like classes such as the warlock and psion) are allowed to be played (spell-less variants are offered for various classes), as these are reserved for the DM for cultural purposes. This means no Wizard, no cleric, no sorcerer; how then will you justify re-writing a class for this? You cannot; the only thing you can do is whine about being limited, or re-write the campaign.You're basically saying because one sort of class rewrite doesn't work in one specific situation, class rewriting never works, which is clearly absurd. We can give you a million examples of class rewrites that work just fine.

Basically when it comes down to it a class is tied to arganizations,Whoa whoa whoa, slow down there partner. False premise. First, the majority of classes aren't tied to any specific organizations. Second, because we're talking about rewriting the flavor, even classes that are can generally be rewritten to work with different organizations, or to not work with organizations at all.

and organizations to the campaign; re-writing the campaign is far too much work and effort to have one guy "get his way".That's a truly terrible reason to not allow the players to change the flavor. First of all, it almost never comes up, as most classes can have their flavor changed to fit the campaign.

Second, what you're basically saying is you won't allow your players to play what they want because you're too lazy. You'd rather they had less fun than for you to do a little more work during the pre-game to make their character work. You can almost always reconcile any given character with any given campaign somehow satisfactorily.

But this isn't really relevant anyway, because what you're saying is the flavor doesn't fit, which is begging the question since we're talking about changing the flavor.

Basically, I reject your reason on the grounds of it being very illogical (I counted Non Seqitur, Strawman, False Premise, and Begging the Question. Did I miss any?).

*blinks at metal*

you basically agreed with it.

No, he agrees that it is a fallacy, and thus we shouldn't agree with it. It gets a bit confusing.

Okay, you guys are just missing what I'm saying about class; classes in the book are one thing, but when you choose (for example) the "Fighter class" in a given campaign, it represents one (or given the genericy that follows the fighter, a few different aspects of the campaign world); not "take this class for a feat". To take a class is to take what it represents in a game. It may be crucial for your "build" to take a level in barbarian, or paladin, or what ever, but it makes no sense that you disregard the fluff that follows. You can play a character how you like, but you must realize that a class represents more than just abilities; it speaks about that character as a whole. It says "I am a fighter!" and I can do these things because of that fact, not the reverse (I can do these things so that makes me a fighter).

We know that a rogue can "cast" spells from scrolls, but this does not make him a wizard; the wizard class makes you a wizard. Having to study for your arcane power, practice, and dedication make you a wizard, not "1 hour per day to mem. these spells". These are the mechanics, and does not a wizard make. You can call your wizard whatever you like as there is no neon light screaming your class title above your head, but taking a level in wizard to cast true strike so you can be a better fighter isn't really being a wizard.

As for re-writing the class, and not the campaign; how will you do this with the "no spellcasters" campaign, if you wanted to play a wizard? While a class may be re-wrote, it changes the class into something else; it is no longer the original class. it has new flavor, and new mechanics to follow it.

As for "being lazy"; the DM's character is the campaign; what you are asking to be done is that he change his character because there is something in it you do not like (say for instance you wanted to be a gun-wielding psychopath from a future realm, and he said no because the flavor doesn't fit). Obivously this is the most extreme of examples, but what you are implying (BlaineTog) is that it should be allowed because any flavor can fit. What class then, would you represent this character with? In the end it does not matter as you'd be taking a bunch of stuff that comes with a class that would not suit a "future man" (ie: who wears heavy armour now a days?), or you'd be changing the class to something that is almost unrecognizeable. Why should I (or anyone) allow this character in a game?

What if you wanted to change the fighter to a full spell progression and keep his full BAB at the sacrifice of hit points, skills, and saves? What do you call this class? It most certainly isn't a fighter anymore, as no other fighter within the classification will have those; it is something else entirely. When you chose a class (and a title to accompany it) your character becomes a member of that class. He doesn't get pure fighter training when he joins a wizards' guild; he gets wizards' training. While abilities and class features may share commonality with others, a fighter at its base is still a fighter; he is not a paladin, or a barbarian, as they have different unique abilities that make them stand apart. When a class is chosen and given its definition, changing it is changing the class. You can't call a paladin a barbarian, as they represent two different things, abilities, ideals, etc. While there is nothing saying you can't play a "barbarian" paladin (that is, a 'primitive' paladin), you still hold what the class represents at its base (fighting evil, that sort of jazz), and that is the flavor.

The flavor helps build the labels that ensue, and the labels gain solidarity the more defined a class becomes. With this solidarity there is now a framework to add mechanics to, and these mechanics help best represent this framework, which is the best representative of the fluff, which becomes immutable as it is the basis for everything. Another way of thinking about this is with cars; you can't apply mechanics to one without first knowing the design, and what it is to represent. It starts as a concept, and from there it is modified and refined; from that refinement it is given practicality so that it may work in a given field (ie: driving). from here the mechanics are installed; the shape and specs of this car are what makes it so; old cars become classics, and classics have these specifications to them. To install a modern engine (even if it fits) is to make the car different; it is no longer the classic that you've sought out. It may look the same, but the mechanics no longer fit the fluff.

My view on classes and flavor make more sense now?

Okay, you guys are just missing what I'm saying about class; classes in the book are one thing, but when you choose (for example) the "Fighter class" in a given campaign, it represents one (or given the genericy that follows the fighter, a few different aspects of the campaign world); not "take this class for a feat". To take a class is to take what it represents in a game. It may be crucial for your "build" to take a level in barbarian, or paladin, or what ever, but it makes no sense that you disregard the fluff that follows. You can play a character how you like, but you must realize that a class represents more than just abilities; it speaks about that character as a whole. It says "I am a fighter!" and I can do these things because of that fact, not the reverse (I can do these things so that makes me a fighter).
The catch, and what we are saying, is that we decide what a class represents in our games, not WotC. We also happen to be cool with it representing different things, even in the same game.
We know that a rogue can "cast" spells from scrolls, but this does not make him a wizard; the wizard class makes you a wizard. Having to study for your arcane power, practice, and dedication make you a wizard, not "1 hour per day to mem. these spells". These are the mechanics, and does not a wizard make.
Low-magic no-spellcaster campaign. UMD is the only way to use magic and cast spells at all. Thus, any character with high UMD is considered a 'wizard'.
You can call your wizard whatever you like as there is no neon light screaming your class title above your head, but taking a level in wizard to cast true strike so you can be a better fighter isn't really being a wizard.
It may not be too much of a wizard (the class in the PHB), but it may be much more of a Wizard (magical person as he is recognized in the game world).
As for re-writing the class, and not the campaign; how will you do this with the "no spellcasters" campaign, if you wanted to play a wizard? While a class may be re-wrote, it changes the class into something else; it is no longer the original class. it has new flavor, and new mechanics to follow it.
Play a rogue and max UMD, as I've said above. No change in mechanics is necessary. You're more of a trickster-con-man-wizard-charlatan, but that may be the highest level of magic available to anyone.
As for "being lazy"; the DM's character is the campaign; what you are asking to be done is that he change his character because there is something in it you do not like (say for instance you wanted to be a gun-wielding psychopath from a future realm, and he said no because the flavor doesn't fit).
If he asks the player to do the rewriting work, as was suggested, then the DM doesn't have to do much work at all.
Seriously, everyone is (or should be) okay with minor rewrites to a character's background and personality ahead of time so that he can play well with the other players ("No, we don't want you to kill each other, please drop or tone down the murderous ancestral hatred between your two orders"). Why should the DM be different?
Obviously this is the most extreme of examples, but what you are implying (BlaineTog) is that it should be allowed because any flavor can fit. What class then, would you represent this character with?
Depends. Name your example.
In the end it does not matter as you'd be taking a bunch of stuff that comes with a class that would not suit a "future man" (ie: who wears heavy armour now a days?), or you'd be changing the class to something that is almost unrecognizeable. Why should I (or anyone) allow this character in a game?
Because it will be fun when he is played?
What if you wanted to change the fighter to a full spell progression and keep his full BAB at the sacrifice of hit points, skills, and saves? What do you call this class? It most certainly isn't a fighter anymore, as no other fighter within the classification will have those; it is something else entirely.
Indeed, because you started changing the mechanics, and we're only talking about flavor. Thus, irrelevant.
When you chose a class (and a title to accompany it) your character becomes a member of that class. He doesn't get pure fighter training when he joins a wizards' guild; he gets wizards' training.
That doesn't determine levels of class. Training in a wizards' guild, in my campaign, could be used as justification for Beguiler or Factotum levels.
While abilities and class features may share commonality with others, a fighter at its base is still a fighter; he is not a paladin, or a barbarian, as they have different unique abilities that make them stand apart.
Uh-uh. We decide how different or dissimilar members of a class are, not WotC. If I want to dress my paladin in furs and play him as the honorable, holy warrior chief of a savage tribe, there's no reason I shouldn't.
When a class is chosen and given its definition, changing it is changing the class. You can't call a paladin a barbarian, as they represent two different things, abilities, ideals, etc.
Bull. What's wrong with my honorable tribal chief?
While there is nothing saying you can't play a "barbarian" paladin (that is, a 'primitive' paladin), you still hold what the class represents at its base (fighting evil, that sort of jazz), and that is the flavor.
The class doesn't represent itself.
We represent the class. And we can fool with the representation if we want.

The flavor helps build the labels that ensue, and the labels gain solidarity the more defined a class becomes. With this solidarity there is now a framework to add mechanics to, and these mechanics help best represent this framework, which is the best representative of the fluff, which becomes immutable as it is the basis for everything. Another way of thinking about this is with cars; you can't apply mechanics to one without first knowing the design, and what it is to represent. It starts as a concept, and from there it is modified and refined; from that refinement it is given practicality so that it may work in a given field (ie: driving). from here the mechanics are installed; the shape and specs of this car are what makes it so; old cars become classics, and classics have these specifications to them. To install a modern engine (even if it fits) is to make the car different; it is no longer the classic that you've sought out. It may look the same, but the mechanics no longer fit the fluff.
You are only arguing that it is possible to create new fluff that does not match the mechanics. It is also possible to create new fluff that does.
My view on classes and flavor make more sense now?
I still think you are confounding a few things, but thank you for the clarification at length.
An attempt to summarize the points of disagreement:
1) Proving that sometimes reflavoring doesn't work is not proof that it can't. The better you get at reflavoring, the more difficult the reflavoring you can pull off.
2) We're not abandoning a class' flavor. We're replacing it. Possibly entirely. But it's assumed the replacement is going well and we've got our eyes open to avoid glaring inconsistencies, which can be widely avoided.

I see a new issue. While stating that rolepaying is the main goal the arguments presented for it are actually having a negative impact. If we are to take the classes as is and should not modify the flavor text for our character concept RP will suffer.

What I see being stated here now is that WoTC has written classes and the only way to RP (not powergame, min-max, etc) is to take the class-flavor as written as the word of god. Changing it to better suit your character's backstory and progression is tantamount to munchkinry. The eviliness of builds felt by some is manufactured by this hard core RAW mentality. If I can't modify flavor just a bit how can I differentiate myself from the rest of the herd? How could I ever make it into any prestige class? We are butting heads here because some see the act of modifying flavor for the sake of a build to BE POWERGAMING (and therefore anti-RP) and some see it as the way to MARRY POWERGAMING WITH RP. I am of the latter opinion but I do see where the other side is coming from. That said, I do not agree. What we have here are two fundamentally different gaming philosophies and I fear that the two will never be reconciled. Though it does make for some entertaining reading ;)

I'm largely confused here by two points

There seems to be a disconnect between the the Title of a class the Concept of the class and the Mechanics of the class Reflavoring is not about selecting class features and jamming them into a whole new class, reflavoring is about taking existing classes and then once selecting them for your character, changing the flavor, and only the flavor (Flavor is not mechanics in any way shape or form and can not be misconstrued as such) to function as a cohesive whole And/Or fit better into a specific campaign world.


Take the previous example.

When I enter the campaign I choose the concept Fighter, To help represent my characters role in the game world I give him a Title say Master of the Deadly blow. My Concept is a weapons based combatant who as described by the title specializes in dealing damage by precision based strikes on vital portions of the opponents anatomy, as compared to another combatant who chooses to deal damage through physical strength or increased numbers of attacks (Power attack or Two weapon fighting)

Now we move on to phase Two, Class selection and reflavoring something that all players participate in.

In Phase Two we’ve settled on our concept, and now we need to make it work. Going from the core classes we see there are several possible options

Barbarian Bard Fighter Monk Paladin Ranger Rogue

All of these classes, in different mechanical and flavor ways represent different forms of combatants. All are essentially fighters, differentiating from the class title “Fighter” of course, so now it’s a matter of deciding which set of mechanics bests supports the desired concept and play style.

Now First of we go through the classes and remove all the classes that do not have some sort of way to add precision to our attacks, this removes strength based classes and classes who’s primary personal combat relies on power attack (which sacrifices attack for damage) or Two weapon Fighting (which uses multiple attacks for more damage rather than a single more precise attack) OR who’s mechanics don’t fit the concept, Thus Barbarian, and Paladin are off the list. Barbarian because the mechanic *Rage* does not fit Precision Dex based damage, and Paladin because the Mechanic *Code of Conduct*

Bard Fighter Monk Ranger Rogue

So we pick through this list again.

We remove bard, because although its spells could be used to enhance its melee its primary class feature (Performance based specials) and, more importantly, its spell lists does not contain spells thematically appropriate to the idea of precision based damage fighter. Next we pick of Fighter, Surprised? Don’t be. Fighter has no mechanic that supports the concept Precision damage based combatant.

This leaves us with

Monk Ranger Rogue

All three of these classes have a mechanic that represents the concept so let’s list these mechanics

Monk, Unarmed Bonus Damage
Ranger, Favored Enemy
Rogue, Sneak Attack

Of these we can use Monk (dexterous warrior strikes with precision hitting vital areas with his fist which by virtue of his knowledge of anatomy and stress points deals more damage than a normal punch) or Ranger (Training to fight specific foes has allowed this character to compensate for the different body types and strike portions of the Types anatomy that deal damage more often than a normal attack.) or at last Rogue (Trained in the art of the blades the character strikes out against his opponent to slide his blade into unguarded vitals.)

Now we go back to the concepts

weapons based combatant who as described by the title specializes in dealing damage by precision based strikes on vital portions of the opponents anatomy.

So since we are using weapons that removes monk, Which leaves us with,

Ranger Rogue

So now we have two classes that fit the concept.

Now we go look at each class in detail and see what doesn’t fit.

On the Ranger, we find Animal Companion, Spellcasting, Wild Empathy, Camouflage, Hide in Plain Sight

On Rogue, we find Trapfinding, the Special Slippery Mind and Trap Sense

The rogue contains less conflicting mechanical elements to the concept so we go with Rogue.
So we look at rogue’s mechanics, see what needs to be done to engender flat footed-ness pump bluff, pick up improved feint pick out eight skills that fit say,

Balance (Dex), Bluff (Cha), Escape Artist (Dex), Gather Information (Cha), Listen (Wis), Sense Motive (Wis), Spot (Wis), Tumble (Dex)

Max those out and voila.

We have a Precision based fighter who uses his dexterous devices and nimble nature to distract and confuse his opponent while striking at vital points.

He’s not a rogue, he may be a Rogue but he’s not a rogue, he doesn’t steal, disarm traps, or sneak around. He gets into fights and with fancy foot and handwork usually takes out his opponents and can nimbly slip from the scene if the fight goes poorly.

You might have been able to represent this with the class fighter, but the Concept thus the very source of Roleplaying is better represented with the class Rogue.

So we now have

Title: Master of the Deadly Blow
Concept: Fighter, Precision
Class: Rogue


*edit*

Just as a reference, this an actual example of talking to a frustrated player who couldn't get a fighter[class] to fit his concept of how a fighter[concept] should be, and the resulting walk through the base classes.

Okay, you guys are just missing what I'm saying about class; classes in the book are one thing, but when you choose (for example) the "Fighter class" in a given campaign, it represents one (or given the genericy that follows the fighter, a few different aspects of the campaign world); not "take this class for a feat". To take a class is to take what it represents in a game. It may be crucial for your "build" to take a level in barbarian, or paladin, or what ever, but it makes no sense that you disregard the fluff that follows. You can play a character how you like, but you must realize that a class represents more than just abilities; it speaks about that character as a whole. It says "I am a fighter!" and I can do these things because of that fact, not the reverse (I can do these things so that makes me a fighter).
I can agree with you to a point on particular classes (mostly prestige classes), but those really are classes tied to a particular guild. I see absolutely no core identity for a fighter, rogue, barbarian, ranger, or any of the other core classes for that matter. I can see you trying to argue the point for cleric (as they might have to belong to an orgainization), but there are plenty of good RP reasons to play a "churchless" cleric.

Starting as a fighter simply means that you have received some level of martial training; nothing more. You are not necessarily part of a guild or orgainization. Picking up a level of fighter along the road (multiclassing) represents learning some level of martial training (possibly gaining proficiencies, and learning a new feat off a specific list). I see absolutely no reason why that training has to identify the character as a "fighter".

Perhaps a rogue wanted to pick up longbow proficiency as well as Precise Shot. This lightly armored skirmisher may see himself as that and that alone. The level of fighter simply got him closer to his goal: successfully sniping foes on the run.

With the exception of guild/orgainization-based classes, I think you're view on this is more restirctive than it needs to be. Feel free to run your games that way, but there's no way I would do that in mine.

I agree with everything RadicalTaoist said. I'll simply ellaborate on one or two points.

Okay, you guys are just missing what I'm saying about class; classes in the book are one thing, but when you choose (for example) the "Fighter class" in a given campaign, it represents one (or given the genericy that follows the fighter, a few different aspects of the campaign world); not "take this class for a feat".So all bards in a given campaign setting have to be exactly the same? All rogues? All fighters? All paladins *have* to be of the same God? Clearly not. If nothing else, you can have rogues that stress sneak attack and rogues that stress skill usage, and right there you have someone doing something very different under the same mechanics, effectivelly reflavoring them slightly.

We know that a rogue can "cast" spells from scrolls, but this does not make him a wizard; the wizard class makes you a wizard.As RT said, just because you can fit the wrong flavor to mechanics doesn't mean there's only one right flavor. Obviously, a wizard in full plate who goes into battle swinging a greatsword is... misguided. However, there's nothing wrong with one wizard playing his casting as if he's hitting switches in the universe that cause things to happen, almost as if the casting is the activation of a cosmic computer, whereas another decides that he works magic by directly altering the laws of physics for a moment. Different flavors, each equally supported by the mechanics, and I see no reason why the difference should be discouraged; even if the DM knows which one is correct, there's no reason it can't be a point of contention amongst scholars of the world.

The sorcerer might be another good example. The base flavor is that sorcerers have dragonic ancestors. What if I wanted my sorcerer to be the result of magic experimentation gone wrong? Perhaps I can pretend my sorcerer is actually a normal guy who's been possessed by some sort of being of pure magic working effects through him? I'm positive I could make that explaination work, and actually it would be a fascinating character to play.

Basically, what we're saying is that a reflavoring can fit the mechanics just as well as the base flavor, possibly even better, even if it can sometimes be downright contradictory. We're not arguing total laissez-faire to flavor, just that there is a middle ground in which reasonable changes can often/usually be made.

As for re-writing the class, and not the campaign; how will you do this with the "no spellcasters" campaign, if you wanted to play a wizard? While a class may be re-wrote, it changes the class into something else; it is no longer the original class. it has new flavor, and new mechanics to follow it.Possibly the character has obscure technology at his beck and call. Perhaps he's the only spellcaster in existence. But I can certainly imagine a situation in which spellcasting is wrong for the campaign; I'm currently running a d20 Dark*Matter campaign, and though spellcasters and psions exist, the players can't play either. That said, the players also didn't want to play them (one guy wanted to play someone with small psionic ability, so I worked with him to find a middle ground that worked well for the game). It is certainly possible to want to play a character that conflicts with the game: not the campaign world, the game. The campaign world can, and should, be altered, tweaked, bent, and fixed such that the players can play what they want. It's the DM's baby, but the DM has to put the players ahead of himself; he's gonna run a massivly unfun game if he doesn't. After all, the DM exists primarily to keep things fair; otherwise, we could just do it collaborativelly. But, the fundamental core of the game is something that the players have to bow down to, to a certain extent, because if they don't, why are they playing the game? If you want to run a campaign with all Exalted characters trying to save the world with a high-heroism and optimistic feel, someone who comes to you with a CE assasin who plans on backstabbing the party at their moment of glory simply cannot play that character because that character is meant for another game. However, now we've gotten into something other than reflavoring: we're talking about grossly incompatible flavors. Wasabi is fine, just fine, and I don't have any problem with people who like to eat wasabi. But if we've decided to get a pint of peppermint ice cream and eat that, we obviously can't eat wasabi at the same time (or maybe we do, but then we're eating an admixture instead of just peppermint ice cream).

Obivously this is the most extreme of examples, but what you are implying (BlaineTog) is that it should be allowed because any flavor can fit.Strawman, on two counts. First, I said most of the time, you can get the reflavoring to stick (greatsword-weilding fullplate-wearing fighter concept to wizard mechanics, for example, is an obvious no-no). Second, you're merging my arguments. Most of the time, you can fit different flavors to different classes, and most of the time, you can fit most characters into most campaigns, but these are two different lines of argumentation, and neither holds in all cases.

It may look the same, but the mechanics no longer fit the fluff.Begging the question. Unless no class can ever have its flavor altered successfully (an impossible position, as I can and have given counter examples, and you only need one to disprove that position), you could only say this about specific examples, and you haven't chosen one to discuss.

Don't forget that the flavor for the classes are more suggestions than rules. Flavor is what we add in. You can play a paladin that comes a savage tribe of barbarians. It will work. Flavor only doesn't work when it goes agaisnt basic assumptions of the class. What I mean is that you can't really have a platemail wearing wizard with a greatsword. It does not fit the basic assumption of the class. Wizards use magic to fight their enemies and sacrified learning to wear armor in order to learn to use their spells. So sometimes the flavor will not fit no matter how you try. Now, if you take the proper feats you can make a platemail wearing greatsword wielding wizard. It will be strange but believable if that is your concept.

So now we move into the main important aspect regarding classes and prestige classes: Concept. Concept defines the classes more than flavor does. In cooking you add spices/herbs to improve the flavor or change it. Flavor in D&D functions the same way. In every prestige class section there is a paragraph about adapting the class to fit your concept. This involves changing the flavor in almost every case. Remember that flavor is a guideline not rules set in stone. You can change flavor around if you wish.

A concept to make a spellcaster that deals with illusion spells and fear effects involving dreams was made. It then became the "Nightmare Spinner" prestige class in 'Complete Mage'. The flavor is that the PrC combines Illusions and Fear Effects to affect people. The flavor is made to connect the mechanics to the concept.

This is what the essence of flavor is.

The flavor is made to connect the mechanics to the concept.

Okay, you guys are just missing what I'm saying about class;

I think that I got what you are saying. As I understand it you are saying that the mechanics and flavor of a class cannot be divorced.

classes in the book are one thing, but when you choose (for example) the "Fighter class" in a given campaign, it represents one (or given the genericy that follows the fighter, a few different aspects of the campaign world); not "take this class for a feat".

That wouldn't be reflavoring it at all, thus you are arguing a point that no one has made, but I will refute it anyway.

Say a character is tired of getting is but kicked in a combat. They then focus a while on their combat skill. What classes can be taken to represent that.

1. Fighter
2.Barbarian
3. Monk (not as good, but can be done)
4. Warblade

I'm sure their are more, but all go with what I have stated.

To take a class is to take what it represents in a game.

Except each class can represent multiple things is game. A rogue can be a criminal, detective, diplomat, assassin, thug, or mastermind. Notice how many of these role are opposites of each other yet still fit the role. I'm sure that there are many more and that is just one class.

It may be crucial for your "build" to take a level in barbarian, or paladin, or what ever, but it makes no sense that you disregard the fluff that follows.

It may be critical to your "roleplaying" to take the same levels. It makes no sense to type cast each class in stereotyped roles.

Anyway once again you have not refuted a position given. The fluff isn't disregarded it is changed within the limits of that class and your imagination to match you concept.

You can play a character how you like, but you must realize that a class represents more than just abilities; it speaks about that character as a whole.

The abilities given by that class and the fluff represents your character. the fluff can be changed within limits to other that the default. That allows richer roleplaying by making different characters with the same class levels from being cookie cutter versions of each other.

It says "I am a fighter!" and I can do these things because of that fact, not the reverse (I can do these things so that makes me a fighter).

Its a chicken and the egg thing, but basically you just took a position that has less support than the other side.

What exactly defines a class, the flavor as you say or the abilities? From a purely mechanical standpoint is is the abilities. From a roleplaying standpoint the warblade can all themselves a fighter. So can a psychic warrior, monk, and half a dozen other classes.

We know that a rogue can "cast" spells from scrolls, but this does not make him a wizard; the wizard class makes you a wizard. Having to study for your arcane power, practice, and dedication make you a wizard, not "1 hour per day to mem. these spells". These are the mechanics, and does not a wizard make. You can call your wizard whatever you like as there is no neon light screaming your class title above your head, but taking a level in wizard to cast true strike so you can be a better fighter isn't really being a wizard.

Yes, yes this is a unrepresentative sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresentative_sample) and as you are stating that a exception to a premise exists the premise it wrong it is also a Misuse of a Principle.

So, instead of just dismissing this fallacy I will try to give a counter example. What if you call yourself a mage or mystic? What class could represent that?

wizard
sorcerer
rogue (with Use Magic Device such as The Wizard of Oz)
warlock
savant
factotum
duskblade
warmage
wu jen
dragonfire adapt
adept
dread necromancer

As for re-writing the class, and not the campaign; how will you do this with the "no spellcasters" campaign, if you wanted to play a wizard? While a class may be re-wrote, it changes the class into something else; it is no longer the original class. it has new flavor, and new mechanics to follow it.

Once again a unrepresentative sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresentative_sample). One instance does not prove the whole.

Anyway how about playing a psion, psychic warrior, wilder, ardent, or lurk that believes what they are doing is magical. They can even do little hand signs and come up with chants to go with each power.

As for "being lazy"; the DM's character is the campaign;

The "campaign" is defined by all in it.

what you are asking to be done is that he change his character because there is something in it you do not like (say for instance you wanted to be a gun-wielding psychopath from a future realm, and he said no because the flavor doesn't fit).

Nope, no one took that stance so you are for the third time refuting something that wasn't said instead of refuting the argument given.

Obivously this is the most extreme of examples, but what you are implying (BlaineTog) is that it should be allowed because any flavor can fit.

Fourth straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman).

What class then, would you represent this character with?

Artificer, or savant, but the flavor I would give it would be different from what you have posted. Macguyver for instance could represent what I wanted for that character. :thinks: I even remember an episode that has Macguyver in a medieval setting and the "wizard" there had no real magic. In all Macguyver came closer through chemistry.

In the end it does not matter as you'd be taking a bunch of stuff that comes with a class that would not suit a "future man" (ie: who wears heavy armour now a days?), or you'd be changing the class to something that is almost unrecognizeable.

The mechanics should still be their, but the fluff will be different. Basically you are saying the fluff shouldn't be changed because it will be different.

Your basic argument is that it is that way so that is the way that it ought to be. That is the is-ought fallacy. The only link I could find on the subject is below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is/ought

Why should I (or anyone) allow this character in a game?

because it might be fun? Other that that there is no reason to even play the game.

What if you wanted to change the fighter to a full spell progression and keep his full BAB at the sacrifice of hit points, skills, and saves?

Then you have changed the mechanics instead of just the fluff. I believe this is the 6th straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman).

What do you call this class? It most certainly isn't a fighter anymore,

Duskblade

as no other fighter within the classification will have those; it is something else entirely. When you chose a class (and a title to accompany it) your character becomes a member of that class. He doesn't get pure fighter training when he joins a wizards' guild; he gets wizards' training. While abilities and class features may share commonality with others, a fighter at its base is still a fighter; he is not a paladin, or a barbarian, as they have different unique abilities that make them stand apart.

We speak not of changing the abilities, but the fluff that accompanies these abilities.

When a class is chosen and given its definition, changing it is changing the class.

Alright, prove this. I don't mean proving that the flavor cannot be changed into anything, but it is static and cannot be changed.

You can't call a paladin a barbarian, as they represent two different things, abilities, ideals, etc. While there is nothing saying you can't play a "barbarian" paladin (that is, a 'primitive' paladin), you still hold what the class represents at its base (fighting evil, that sort of jazz), and that is the flavor.

So barbarians cannot fight evil. What if they took levels in favored soul and fought evil with divine power?

The flavor helps build the labels that ensue, and the labels gain solidarity the more defined a class becomes. With this solidarity there is now a framework to add mechanics to, and these mechanics help best represent this framework, which is the best representative of the fluff, which becomes immutable as it is the basis for everything.

Ah... begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).

The monk has some nice fluff, but that fluff is better represented by a swordsage. Esspecially if you use the variant listed in the book and give them the monks unarmed strike.

Another way of thinking about this is with cars; you can't apply mechanics to one without first knowing the design, and what it is to represent.

[:rolleyes:]Cannot duck tape the hose to the radiator without being a mechanic. Got it.[/:rolleyes:]

It starts as a concept, and from there it is modified and refined; from that refinement it is given practicality so that it may work in a given field (ie: driving). from here the mechanics are installed; the shape and specs of this car are what makes it so; old cars become classics, and classics have these specifications to them. To install a modern engine (even if it fits) is to make the car different; it is no longer the classic that you've sought out. It may look the same, but the mechanics no longer fit the fluff.

This in all is a false analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). because some of the basics are the same doesn't mean that the more important details are.

Anyway we are saying that you can chance the fluff to represent something else, and you are responding with "Then it isn't what is was." and the is the point. Each class can represent more than the standard. They will not be the same as they will be roleplayed differnt.

My view on classes and flavor make more sense now?

Not really.

I think that I got what you are saying. As I understand it you are saying that the mechanics and flavor of a class cannot be divorced.



That wouldn't be reflavoring it at all, thus you are arguing a point that no one has made, but I will refute it anyway.

Say a character is tired of getting is but kicked in a combat. They then focus a while on their combat skill. What classes can be taken to represent that.

1. Fighter
2.Barbarian
3. Monk (not as good, but can be done)
4. Warblade

I'm sure their are more, but all go with what I have stated.



Except each class can represent multiple things is game. A rogue can be a criminal, detective, diplomat, assassin, thug, or mastermind. Notice how many of these role are opposites of each other yet still fit the role. I'm sure that there are many more and that is just one class.



It may be critical to your "roleplaying" to take the same levels. It makes no sense to type cast each class in stereotyped roles.

Anyway once again you have not refuted a position given. The fluff isn't disregarded it is changed within the limits of that class and your imagination to match you concept.



The abilities given by that class and the fluff represents your character. the fluff can be changed within limits to other that the default. That allows richer roleplaying by making different characters with the same class levels from being cookie cutter versions of each other.



Its a chicken and the egg thing, but basically you just took a position that has less support than the other side.

What exactly defines a class, the flavor as you say or the abilities? From a purely mechanical standpoint is is the abilities. From a roleplaying standpoint the warblade can all themselves a fighter. So can a psychic warrior, monk, and half a dozen other classes.



Yes, yes this is a unrepresentative sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresentative_sample) and as you are stating that a exception to a premise exists the premise it wrong it is also a Misuse of a Principle.

So, instead of just dismissing this fallacy I will try to give a counter example. What if you call yourself a mage or mystic? What class could represent that?

wizard
sorcerer
rogue (with Use Magic Device such as The Wizard of Oz)
warlock
savant
factotum
duskblade
warmage
wu jen
dragonfire adapt
adept
dread necromancer



Once again a unrepresentative sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresentative_sample). One instance does not prove the whole.

Anyway how about playing a psion, psychic warrior, wilder, ardent, or lurk that believes what they are doing is magical. They can even do little hand signs and come up with chants to go with each power.



The "campaign" is defined by all in it.



Nope, no one took that stance so you are for the third time refuting something that wasn't said instead of refuting the argument given.



Fourth straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman).



Artificer, or savant, but the flavor I would give it would be different from what you have posted. Macguyver for instance could represent what I wanted for that character. :thinks: I even remember an episode that has Macguyver in a medieval setting and the "wizard" there had no real magic. In all Macguyver came closer through chemistry.



The mechanics should still be their, but the fluff will be different. Basically you are saying the fluff shouldn't be changed because it will be different.

Your basic argument is that it is that way so that is the way that it ought to be. That is the is-ought fallacy. The only link I could find on the subject is below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is/ought



because it might be fun? Other that that there is no reason to even play the game.



Then you have changed the mechanics instead of just the fluff. I believe this is the 6th straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman).



Duskblade



We speak not of changing the abilities, but the fluff that accompanies these abilities.



Alright, prove this. I don't mean proving that the flavor cannot be changed into anything, but it is static and cannot be changed.



So barbarians cannot fight evil. What if they took levels in favored soul and fought evil with divine power?



Ah... begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).

The monk has some nice fluff, but that fluff is better represented by a swordsage. Esspecially if you use the variant listed in the book and give them the monks unarmed strike.



[:rolleyes:]Cannot duck tape the hose to the radiator without being a mechanic. Got it.[/:rolleyes:]



This in all is a false analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy). because some of the basics are the same doesn't mean that the more important details are.

Anyway we are saying that you can chance the fluff to represent something else, and you are responding with "Then it isn't what is was." and the is the point. Each class can represent more than the standard. They will not be the same as they will be roleplayed differnt.



Not really.

Beyond pointing out what I'm guilty of (even though I had no intention of straw-manning you, I simply like to use hyperbole to accentuate what certain choices may lead to), and calling what I say is wrong without actually saying why, you care to elaborate on why the car-thing is a false analogy, or why you too would straw-man me with comments like,
So barbarians cannot fight evil. What if they took levels in favored soul and fought evil with divine power?
:confused:
Clearly this is a loaded response. I had listed the most common thing paladins are dedicated to, and then inferred that there is more to them. Paladins are very "fluff" oriented, but at no time did I say that little changes could not be allowed. Everything has room to move, and I have acknowledged this; what I had said is that major changes, such as giving fighters sneak attack instead of bonus feats (from CA) makes this class no longer represent all the other "basic" fighters out there - they are just not the same. To call a wizard a wizard because they can cast spells is fine; but to call the fighter class a wizard because you can is again not representative of the wizard. When you re-write the flavor of the class, you've changed it - it is now representing what you wrote. When you do this you now have two "Fighters", but which is which? You now have to name one differently because they can't both be the same class. You've created a new class, even though the mechanics for both are the same.

If the paladins in my campaign represent holy warriors dedicated to serving one particular god, then this is what a paladin is. If you wanted to be a paladin of a different god, then you'd be undoing my work.

What I ask you is what makes your desires more valued above my own, let alone my work?
This is a rhetorical question; one you don't need to answer, just think about.

This is why I take a class to mean one thing, and not a dozen different concepts. When I design a game; a campaign world, I take into account how each class interacts with the world around it. When a player comes in and says that he wishes for "X" as a concept, I tell him where that could fit, or deny it as it isn't appropriate for a particular game.
Some people do not go to the lengths I go to with class division - I've gone so far as to rename them when they choose alternate class features. This is because they represent something different with every change, and deserve a different title to accompany the new fluff and mechanics. It should be noted that I only change that fluff when I change the mechanics; that this is what I consider a radical enough change to warrant one. When you change a classes' fluff though without some type of mechanical change you run into the conundrum I've been talking about here; two different concepts with the same mechanics.

A good game has strong flavor, and a class is very representative of that flavor. I don't change the flavor of a class for this reason, and because I find mechanics too often strongly tied in with the class as a whole, I tend not to change the mechanics either.

I will elaborate more in another post; right now I do not have the time.

Don't forget that the flavor for the classes are more suggestions than rules. Flavor is what we add in. You can play a paladin that comes a savage tribe of barbarians. It will work. Flavor only doesn't work when it goes agaisnt basic assumptions of the class. What I mean is that you can't really have a platemail wearing wizard with a greatsword. It does not fit the basic assumption of the class. Wizards use magic to fight their enemies and sacrified learning to wear armor in order to learn to use their spells. So sometimes the flavor will not fit no matter how you try. Now, if you take the proper feats you can make a platemail wearing greatsword wielding wizard. It will be strange but believable if that is your concept.


Nitpick: The Spellsword Prestige Class are for those who want to play a wizard in full plate wielding a greatsword. Some people may be satisfied with Duskblade. :P

You can Skip to the end for the main point of the argument rather than the specific refutations. Then main thrust is basically at the end, the middle is simply a lot of specific quotes and refutations.

http://forums.gleemax.com/images/gradients/dreamblade/bottom.jpg


Paladins are very "fluff" oriented, but at no time did I say that little changes could not be allowed. Everything has room to move, and I have acknowledged this

Which is the Sole purpose of Reflavoring

]; what I had said is that major changes, such as giving fighters sneak attack instead of bonus feats (from CA) makes this class no longer represent all the other "basic" fighters out there - they are just not the same.

No one is doing this

To call a wizard a wizard because they can cast spells is fine; but to call the fighter class a wizard because you can is again not representative of the wizard.

Or this

When you do this you now have two "Fighters", but which is which? You now have to name one differently because they can't both be the same class. You've created a new class, even though the mechanics for both are the same.

No, i have one Fighter class, two fighters. These are no more unique classes than fighters following, say different roles;

Here is an example of fighters that are extremely different in flavor yet use all the same mechanics

Archer Tripper Two Weapons Two Handed Sword and Board Grappler Sunder Brute (intimidation Specialist) Lancer and thats just off the top of my head with just the phb feat selections.

If the paladins in my campaign represent holy warriors dedicated to serving one particular god, then this is what a paladin is. If you wanted to be a paladin of a different god, then you'd be undoing my work.
Congratulations, you just reflavored the class, thus invalidating your entire argument, by core flavor, ANY god could have a paladin (barring alignment) furthermore unless your god is one of the core gods, you have, once again rewritten the immutable flavor. Besides you have altered mechanics (Special Prerequisite: Must worship god X) which forced a change in flavor to fit

However the Reverse is not true, you can change flavor without mechanic alteration

What I ask you is what makes your desires more valued above my own, let alone my work?

I'll answer your question with an even better one.

If a player has bent over backwards carefully analyzed every aspect of his desired concept NOT CLASS, FEATS, SKILLS, or other MECHANICAL aspects then carefully went through the materials and designed a character from the ground up carefully choosing each class with careLet me break here, either you are being deliberately obtuse here or you truly don't understand how you design a class from the ground up, what you do is create a 1st level character as normal, then add a single level, then add another level, then add another level, each one carefully selected from the totality of available classes to best fit the desired concept another aside, concept isn't mechanic based, concept is purely based on the players desire, examples Master of Fire Master of Ice Archer unmatched Axe wielding Combatant Axe thrower Smooth talking infiltrator Cold blooded executioner any one of those concepts could be built with literally dozens of possible builds depending on each players view of what that concept entailsEach choice is made exactly as if the character where to be normally leveling up, but the player specifically keeps the entire character in mind and makes sure that at each level 1-20~ or more the character best fits the desired concept
Then Analyzing the existing world carefully rewrites the flavor not the mechanics to that the players chosen avatar not only matches 100% of the players cursed concept for the character, but matches the thrice accursed setting in every detail why shouldn't it be used, it is likely infinitely more detail and intricate than anything anyone not the player could ever develop to match the characters concept and will promote far more roleplaying than a generic cookie cutter, players will care about their characters



Now to address the larger argument rather than a single post.


Fluff should never be mutable

To disregard that fluff is to lose the mechanics of the class

they pick and choose mechanics from classes without consideration for the fluff. Then they mask these choices with their own fluff.

Prestige classes are unique because of flavor, not mechanics

To re-work the fluff (or even the focus) is to re-work the class itself.

Disagree all you want with my words here, but class (for me) has an immutable flavor.

This has been the main thrust of your argument

This is because stuff like, "rice paper walk" is flavor. "+20 to MS" is not. Move silently is the basic title; the title is not important, only the desire to be the title or emulate what the title infers is. The actual "fluff" of MS is that you move quietly so no one can hear you. The mechanics of it are "this skill opposes this skill."

Here I thought you finally understood

http://forums.gleemax.com/images/gradients/dreamblade/bottom.jpg

Now i have three basic questions.

Do you understand what the roleplaying technique Reflavoring consists of? If the answer is Yes; then please provide us an example of what you believe I/We mean when we use the term If the Answer is No; I or another will be glad to provide and even more detailed example than already provided (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14651520&postcount=134) Are you aware that the rules themselves contradict the essential thrust of your argument? in particular The Rules text, both in general and specific explicitly call out that classes can and should be reflavored to match the campaign If the rules text changes the flavor, constantly, then the implicit result is that what defines the class is, in fact, not the flavor text, else calling for adaptation would necessitate entire new classes, but instead the mechanics of the class. That Class and Concept are two distinct entities? in other words fighter a concept is not synonymous with Fighter the Class

If the paladins in my campaign represent holy warriors dedicated to serving one particular god, then this is what a paladin is. If you wanted to be a paladin of a different god, then you'd be undoing my work.But if it isn't central to the game, if it wouldn't fundamentally change how the game played, why should your little toy trump the player's fun?

What I ask you is what makes your desires more valued above my own, let alone my work?I (the player) only get to make decisions regarding my own character. Over the course of the game, which could be years long, I will spend practically every second with my character, thinking as my character, acting as my character, playing my character. You, on the other hand, spent perhaps a few minutes deciding arbitrarily that paladins can only have one god, a decision that is not fundamental to anything else in the campaign setting. However, my paladin needs to be of a different god; it is integral to the character that I want to play. Therefore, because it is more important to my character that he be this way than to the game at large that he not be this way, because it inconvieniences you less than it inconvieniences me, because it affects me far more than it affects you, because I as a player have the right to decide who my character is and what my character does within the confines of the fundamentals of the game, and because the DM's job is to run the game specifically for the players, you should allow me to be the paladin of a different god.

Now, obviously, this presupposes that it isn't intregral to the campaign that all paladins be of the same god. As I said, it is certainly possible to play the wrong character for a game; no energy-gun-toting aliens in a low-magic campaign, no evil backstabbers in an exalted campaign, no yada yadas in a campaign about nada nadas. But barring such a fundamentally infinitelly large contradiction, the player comes first, if for no other reason than it's selfish to put your caprices over the player's happiness.

When you change a classes' fluff though without some type of mechanical change you run into the conundrum I've been talking about here; two different concepts with the same mechanics.And yet, you haven't offered one iota of evidence that this is impossible, much less bad. You've ignored strong arguments to the contrary wholesale.

Beyond pointing out what I'm guilty of (even though I had no intention of straw-manning you, I simply like to use hyperbole to accentuate what certain choices may lead to), and calling what I say is wrong without actually saying why, you care to elaborate on why the car-thing is a false analogy, or why you too would straw-man me with comments like, So barbarians cannot fight evil. What if they took levels in favored soul and fought evil with divine power?

:confused:
Clearly this is a loaded response. I had listed the most common thing paladins are dedicated to, and then inferred that there is more to them. Paladins are very "fluff" oriented, but at no time did I say that little changes could not be allowed.

Sorry if I miss represented your argument. A barbarian/favored soul combination can replicate many of the mechanics of a paladin. Smiting, healing, removing disease, fighting evil with holy power. The combination of the two meets the general "holy warrior" type.

As a rebuttal I know they cannot do all the paladin can do, but still the archetype of a holy warrior (90% the fluffy part of a paladin). Even more so if played at an exalted level with exalted feats.

Oh, and you just admitted to using the slippery slope fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fal lacy).

Everything has room to move, and I have acknowledged this;

Except for here I fail to see that.

what I had said is that major changes, such as giving fighters sneak attack instead of bonus feats (from CA) makes this class no longer represent all the other "basic" fighters out there - they are just not the same.

That isn't reflavoring, so you missed the point entirely.

To call a wizard a wizard because they can cast spells is fine;

That is changing the fluff.

but to call the fighter class a wizard because you can is again not representative of the wizard.

Again you are sighting something that really cannot be done once again and trying to pass it off as being representative of the whole. I pointed this out more than once in the last post.

When you re-write the flavor of the class, you've changed it - it is now representing what you wrote.

When you take a feat you're changed your character and therefor changed the representation of that characters class(es).

When you do this you now have two "Fighters", but which is which? You now have to name one differently because they can't both be the same class. You've created a new class, even though the mechanics for both are the same.

If you want to call them something else that is fine. Examples would be a fighter focusing in archery and one focusing in two-weapon fighting. Each are mechanically allowed by the classes mechanics.

Also calling it something else is big part of reflavoring.

If the paladins in my campaign represent holy warriors dedicated to serving one particular god, then this is what a paladin is. If you wanted to be a paladin of a different god, then you'd be undoing my work.

By the Rules As Written paladins do not follow Deities. Therefor you just mechanically changed a class.

What I ask you is what makes your desires more valued above my own, let alone my work?
This is a rhetorical question; one you don't need to answer, just think about.

I'll answer it anyway. What makes your work more valued than the player's? I know that dungeon masters have allot more work, bu the value isn't based on bulk.

So, how about calling it something other than a paladin? Holy warrior maybe. That would be reflavoring rather than just the mechanically change that you put forth.

This is why I take a class to mean one thing, and not a dozen different concepts.

Except by the Rules As Written a class can represent a dozen different concepts without even reflavoring. Like the fighter example in a post above the page. Or my rogue example that you ignored.

When I design a game; a campaign world, I take into account how each class interacts with the world around it. When a player comes in and says that he wishes for "X" as a concept, I tell him where that could fit, or deny it as it isn't appropriate for a particular game.

That's fine. However if you go a step beyond and stop them from making it fit then a problem occurs.

Some people do not go to the lengths I go to with class division - I've gone so far as to rename them when they choose alternate class features.

Congratulations, you helped reflavor a class to better fit in you campaign. In Essenes you just have admitted to doing what your are arguing against.

This is because they represent something different with every change, and deserve a different title to accompany the new fluff and mechanics.

That is reflavoring.

It should be noted that I only change that fluff when I change the mechanics; that this is what I consider a radical enough change to warrant one.

:tantrum:

When you change a classes' fluff though without some type of mechanical change you run into the conundrum I've been talking about here; two different concepts with the same mechanics.

Actually they are less likely to work the same way if they are roleplayed to the concept.

A good game has strong flavor, and a class is very representative of that flavor. I don't change the flavor of a class for this reason, and because I find mechanics too often strongly tied in with the class as a whole, I tend not to change the mechanics either.

So, you are saying that fluff is immutable, because you cannot change it well.

If you take fluff as immutable you will end up with less diversity and therefor reduce the variety of flavor of your game.

Also your game is an unrepresentative sample (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unrepresentative_sample) and in no way should be consider true of every way that Dungeons & Dragons can be played.

I will elaborate more in another post; right now I do not have the time.

Ok, I'll try to restate what I am saying is a clear way.

Each concept can be represented in multiple ways. Each way need not be more valid than another. They can be, but in most cases this doesn't happen.

The representation of a fighter concept need not be of that class. The barbarian, crusader, fighter, knight, monk, paladin, paladin of freedom, paladin of slaughter, paladin of tyranny, psychic warrior, ranger, samurai, sohei, swashbuckler, thug, warblade, and warrior can all do this. Each does it is a different way. Heck many of these can even do it in several different ways.

By allowing the reflavoring of classes you allow more richness in the game. The diversity and depth provided by good reflavoring promotes roleplaying and character depth. A fighter (or whatever) can then more easily become more than the mechanics of that class and be more like an actual person.

@ Dog:

"A good game has strong flavor, and a class is very representative of that flavor. I don't change the flavor of a class for this reason, and because I find mechanics too often strongly tied in with the class as a whole, I tend not to change the mechanics either. " Emphasis mine

I believe this is something you have stated. However you have also stated that you completely reflavored and changed a mechanical requirement of the Paladin class in your game (other posters have pointed this out but I believe I am being a bit more blunt about it). This is a large part of the continued debate. You state flavor is immutable but in the same breath tell us of reflavoring you have done. Are we arguing just to arugue here or is this something that you truly do not see?

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?p=14679907#post14679907

This link here will take you to the thread I created over in the classes section of the forums.

It details my thoughts on the subject, and asks for your opinions on the matter. I did this because I derailed this thread for too long. It also cleans up position so as to be better understood.

Please post and continue replies there.

Also, I posted a few definitions on the original topic (stormwind fallacy) I think a page or two ago, and may have missed an answer to it. Are those definitions the ones considered most appropriate? Because they all speak about the RP genre almost exclusively. I pulled them off of wikipedia, but I am wondering if there is another source covering them.

Also, I posted a few definitions on the original topic (stormwind fallacy) I think a page or two ago, and may have missed an answer to it.

You did miss it. I posted definitions from Trollbill's Dictionary of Terminology. They are more on point that wikipedia.

Are those definitions the ones considered most appropriate? Because they all speak about the RP genre almost exclusively. I pulled them off of wikipedia, but I am wondering if there is another source covering them.

The problem with wikipedia is that a popular myth will have precedence over the unpopular reality. One example would be the mini/maxing. The definition contradicts itself.

DO NOT TRIM: Dictionary of Terminology