2) There's the role player. They build their character to fulfill some concept that they visualize. Skill challenges become a place to act out what their character will do in a specific situation, regardless of what the dice come out as. Combat becomes a time to be a hero, or a coward, depending on the role. The goal of the module is to further the character's backstory.
[snip]
(I will admit to having destroyed any hope of winning a skill challenge because I acted in a way consistent with my character, without regard for the consequences to the group. Two other members of the group took it in stride and enjoyed the role playing aspect. Three members were quite upset at the loss of xp for the night. In retrospect, I'm quite certain that I would do exactly the same things over again.)
Depending on the actual context of the game--and note that I am not singling you or what happened in your game out specifically, but rather the definition of "role playing" you've put forth, which is acting "without regard for the consequences to the group"--I would actually call this selfish playing, not role playing. LFR isn't a home game. Putting your own personal "character" above and beyond the goals of the adventure regardless of the other members of your table is completely self-centered, and justifying it as "role playing" is just making excuses for the behavior.
LFR is still a cooperative, team game, much more than a home game is. Each adventure has a finite time to complete it, and each adventure does have an ultimate goal, whether it be to slay the BBEG, rescue the children, find an artifiact, recover a stolen item, or solve a mystery. IMHO, it is entirely possible to role play a character in accordance with those goals, and still be true to who that character is. If for some reason you feel it isn't possible for a given situation, then I'd suggest having your character act in such a way that does not jepordize the skill challenge or combat for the rest of the table.
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ====== level 1 Dwarf, Fighter Build: Battlerager Fighter Fighter Talents: Battlerager Vigor Background: Aglarond
Actually, that character wouldn't be too bad. Well played, sir.
Depending on the actual context of the game--and note that I am not singling you or what happened in your game out specifically, but rather the definition of "role playing" you've put forth, which is acting "without regard for the consequences to the group"--I would actually call this selfish playing, not role playing. LFR isn't a home game. Putting your own personal "character" above and beyond the goals of the adventure regardless of the other members of your table is completely self-centered, and justifying it as "role playing" is just making excuses for the behavior.
LFR is still a cooperative, team game, much more than a home game is. Each adventure has a finite time to complete it, and each adventure does have an ultimate goal, whether it be to slay the BBEG, rescue the children, find an artifiact, recover a stolen item, or solve a mystery. IMHO, it is entirely possible to role play a character in accordance with those goals, and still be true to who that character is. If for some reason you feel it isn't possible for a given situation, then I'd suggest having your character act in such a way that does not jepordize the skill challenge or combat for the rest of the table.
I guess I should expand.
Module had character hired to protect X. NPC attempts to threaten X. Module is written that PC's should use diplomacy to mitigate threat. Dwarf Battlerager (me) interposes self between X and NPC and actively prevents NPC from threatening X. DM rules that this results in auto-fail of diplomacy to mitigate threat. No xp from skill challenge.
Personally, I feel that the module in question provided a poor set up for the NPC encounter, as PC's role was clear, and encounter should have taken this into account. As stated previously, two other players at table felt that this action while rash, was an appropriate response.
I'll accept your admonishment that I perhaps should have sought a compromise that allowed my PC to be true to character while not losing skill challenge, but will counter that losing the skill challenge will be something long remembered, while winning it would have been just another encounter.
"At Gencon 2010, WOTC will announce a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons." - crm(1/2010)
Module had character hired to protect X. NPC attempts to threaten X. Module is written that PC's should use diplomacy to mitigate threat. Dwarf Battlerager (me) interposes self between X and NPC and actively prevents NPC from threatening X. DM rules that this results in auto-fail of diplomacy to mitigate threat. No xp from skill challenge.
Personally, I feel that the module in question provided a poor set up for the NPC encounter, as PC's role was clear, and encounter should have taken this into account. As stated previously, two other players at table felt that this action while rash, was an appropriate response.
I'll accept your admonishment that I perhaps should have sought a compromise that allowed my PC to be true to character while not losing skill challenge, but will counter that losing the skill challenge will be something long remembered, while winning it would have been just another encounter.
In that situation, I'd actually agree that was an appropriate response, and say that your DM was a bit unfair in giving you an auto failure for that. He could have DME'd the skill challenge differently, and still made it work for the rest of the table.
LIke I said, I wasn't singling you or your game out specifically, but the idea that role playing is acting "without regard for the consequences to the group." Personally, I don't see that approach as any different from the OP's statement that all LFR characters and actions should be fully optimized regardless of any role playing decisions. They're both extremes of playing which, IMHO, ultimately results in unhappy players and DMs.
I'd really like to play a non-traditional orc. If I can make Bard work, I'd love to try it.
Hmmm. You could run with something like:
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast D&D Character Builder ====== One-Note Rat-Squeezer, level 1 Orc, Bard Build: Valorous Bard Bardic Virtue: Virtue of Valor Pact Initiate: Pact Initiate (infernal pact)
FINAL ABILITY SCORES Str 16, Con 16, Dex 13, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 16.
STARTING ABILITY SCORES Str 14, Con 14, Dex 13, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 16.
POWERS Bard at-will 1: War Song Strike Bard at-will 1: Guiding Strike Bard encounter 1: Inspiring Refrain Bard daily 1: Slayer's Song
ITEMS Ritual Book, Chainmail, Adventurer's Kit, Longsword, Light Shield, Implement, Wand RITUALS Glib Limerick, Comprehend Language ====== Copy to Clipboard and Press the Import Button on the Summary Tab ======
That might make an interesting, non-traditional Orc that may work.
Actually, I rather like that character. I might have to play him myself.
Characters don't really have to be optimized, but it is the rare player who won't be frustrated with the repeated missing of a character who doesn't start with an 18 in his primary stat. So some basic optimization is highly encouraged for maximum fun.
Perhaps the only exception would be a preplanned group of PCs, say everyone being of one race, which leads to no good way to cover one of the basic roles with an optimized character. Other characters would be much better optimized, so as a whole it would balance out.
While it is clear that the OP is just trolling (do stop replying directly to him folks, he's clearly left), there could be a debate here.
As has been pointed out, it's hard to build a really useless character, and I'm not demanding any CharOp madness (I hate most of those builds). Just a 16-18 (post racial) in your primary, 14+ in your secondary and choice of feats and powers that you can use effectively (e.g. don't pick backstabber as a feat in you're a multiclass rogue and only get sneak attack once per encounter, or a Cha paladin power when you've got 18 Str and 12 Cha).
Huh? What's wrong with a low CHA STRaladin picking Radiant Delirium as a Lvl 1 Daily? Daze (and 1/2 damage) on a miss...even my CHAladin didn't care if she hit. The full damage is nice, and the -2 to hit cute, but I took the power b/c it's (a) ranged and (b) did I mention guaranteed Daze at Level 1?
This only applies to RPGA games. It does not apply to home games; people may play home games however they like.
....
In order to avoid this waste of time, always build an optimized character... or just don't play at all.
At first, I thought like many others have said above, that this was a troll post. Looking at the OP's other posts in other forums, though, I don't get this feeling. I think he honestly feels this way. Perhaps he had a bad experience at a table with a few un-optimized characters. If he is a troll, this seems to be his first attempt at trolling under this forum name.
Regardless, he is completely wrong.
It is the RPGA, not the COGA. If all we were doing was making optimized characters and rolling dice, we might as well be playing Warhammer or some other tactical minis game or just straight up playing a boardgame like Descent or Heroquest. To tell people that in a home game they can play how they want, but in an RPGA game they must meet your criteria is pure arrogance.
So players should pick the race, class, stats, etc. that best optimizes their character.
Complete bull. I'd use stronger language, were it allowed.
Should players build effective characters? Yes. This is a team game and you should be able to pull the weight of your role. Do you have to optimize every aspect? Not at all. Bring on the Dwarven Swordmage or Half-orc Bard. I personally have an Eladrin Barbarian. My characters are effective in their role and have support skills to add to the the group. If someone were to tell me that I should've written my character differently, just to optimize, I'll ignore them and keep playing. If someone were to make the OP's statement at a table I was at, I'd outright laugh in their face.
You should feel free to offer suggestions, but to throw out a blanket statement like "or just don't play at all" is arrogant, egotistical and incorrect. If anything, I'd feel the exact opposite to the OP's statement. If you aren't roleplaying, why are you here? But, unlike the OP, I recognize that there are other styles of play and that they are just as valid as mine.
Roleplaying does not increase your chances of winning, it does not grant you bonuses to rolls, and will not save your character from death.
Then your DM is not doing a very good job. Roleplaying is a part of the game and should have an effect on the outcome. Only if the entire table prefers not to roleplay should it have no effect at all.
In order to tailor to lots of players, RPGA games and what determines success must be very simple, structured, and mainstream. As a result, these adventures play out like a boardgame, where success is determined by numbers and not roleplaying.
If I wanted to play a boardgame, I'd play a boardgame. Success is determined by all of the elements of a game, not just the easily quantifiable ones. More importantly, as others have stated, success in RPGA is primarily determined by fun. If everyone else at your LFGS is having a good time, but you are not because they aren't as optimized as you, then you should probably find another place to game.
If you do not optimize your numbers, you increase your chances of failing encounters, which increases your chances of dying. I don't know about you, but I hate dying. When you die you lose potential experience, gold, items, and most importantly, time. It takes so many adventures and so much time to level your character, so increasing that amount of time is just frustrating.
I hate failing. To me, failing is not having fun. Dying is okay. Experience, gold, and items can all be gotten later. I'm only worried about the loss of time if it means I didn't have fun for the last four hours. I'd rather have fun with a party that amuses itself roleplaying and ends up dying (or failing per the OP) than a party that succeeds but has one player constantly complaining, insulting other people's builds, or trying to backseat run everyone else's characters. I've played enough LFR to have an 11th, 9th, 8th, 6th, 5th, 4th, and two 3rd level characters, as well as a smattering of single played level 1s at current time. In my experience so far, however, I've yet to encounter a table that failed (in the OP's sense) because people were roleplaying.
You also seem to complete ignore the Stormwind Fallacy. Just because someone's roleplaying does not mean they can't have a very well-built character and vice-versa. I strive to do both in every character I make. If I were to make a blanket statement, it would be "build an effective character with one or two interesting roleplay quirks or don't play at all." But some people don't like roleplay, so I wouldn't suggest forcing them to. Some people don't want to optimize, so they shouldn't be forced to either.
In order to avoid this waste of time, always build an optimized character... or just don't play at all.
No. Just plain no. The only blanket statement that should be made in the RPGA is "have fun or just don't play at all."
Huh? What's wrong with a low CHA STRaladin picking Radiant Delirium as a Lvl 1 Daily? Daze (and 1/2 damage) on a miss...even my CHAladin didn't care if she hit. The full damage is nice, and the -2 to hit cute, but I took the power b/c it's (a) ranged and (b) did I mention guaranteed Daze at Level 1?
Yes, fine.
Bigfluffylemon wrote:
As has been pointed out, it's hard to build a really useless character, and I'm not demanding any CharOp madness (I hate most of those builds). Just a 16-18 (post racial) in your primary, 14+ in your secondary and choice of feats and powers that you can use effectively (e.g. don't pick backstabber as a feat in you're a multiclass rogue and only get sneak attack once per encounter, or a Cha paladin power when you've got 18 Str and 12 Cha).
You've picked a power that you can indeed use effectively, because it's got a great 'miss' effect. No problem there at all.
It was just a general 'off the top of my head' example.
