Community

Nautilus wrote:

Whatever the SF's precise definition is, it's usually invoked to support the claim that an efficiently optimised character doesn't have to be run as a "nothing". This makes sense. Optimisation only kills roleplaying if you consider roleplaying has to involve penalisation at some point.

I don't think anyone here is saying that optimization kills roleplaying. We're discussing whether or not you can always optimize or pick the optimal choice and be consistent with your character's roleplay, and I say no. There are just too many things that will conflict with your chosen roleplay if you always optimize.

Truth is, when creating a character, most of us gravitate towards a compromise between concept and mechanics. Take our bookish warlock. The player running her has choices as to how she'll be made 'bookish'. She could just be declared to be that way, without mechanical support. She could be given the Linguist feat; any of the Arcana, Nature or Religion skills; a high Intelligence, possibly with an Int-boosting race; or even a wizard multiclass.

Just as the concept influences the mechanics, the mechanics can influence the concept. If the warlock has the Linguist feat, it would make sense for her to have high Charisma, so she can negotiate with monsters. The warlock's now not only bookish, but skilled at getting her own way in parleys. Different players developing a bookish warlock will each come up with a different character, all of them perfectly valid and roleplayable.

Several good points here.

As for the sword-wielder swearing an oath to use nothing but a longsword, it will be obvious to any character with the slightest knowledge of the world that this is colossally stupid. Conceivably, this PC might let his friends die because he refused to pick up a bow and shoot a dragon that was flying out of reach. A player who insists that his PC uses nothing but the family longsword, regardless of consequences, is actually doing a far worse job of roleplaying than one whose PC sees the consequences and is convinced to change his mind. Again, PC behaviour involves a compromise between their personality & goals, and what's good for their party's survival.

And this is just flat out wrong. Such oaths are part and parcel of fantasy and roleplay. Will people always take an oath like that? No. Perhaps even rarely, but it absolutely is not a worse job or roleplay than one who changes his mind. Especially when the oath is one that he believes will cost him his very soul if he breaks it.

Maxperson wrote:

And this is just flat out wrong. Such oaths are part and parcel of fantasy and roleplay. Will people always take an oath like that? No. Perhaps even rarely, but it absolutely is not a worse job or roleplay than one who changes his mind. Especially when the oath is one that he believes will cost him his very soul if he breaks it.

In that same vein, however, the breaking of oaths is also part and parcel to fantasy and roleplay. Moreover, it serves to potentially extend roleplaying options if the character chooses to break his oath. How does he make amends? Does he decide to take back up the oath? Does the breaking of the oath haunt him?

In that sense, even if it seems like the choice isn't roleplay, it can be depending on how the player wishes to develop his character.

Cartigan wrote:

Then she wouldn't be foolish enough to learn things that arn't beneficial to her actual task.

Uh, yeah, she would. Adventure isn't everything, and while she might or might not learn combat things, she would definately still learn bookish things.

Asserting that a "bookish" character forced into traveling would take a suboptimal feat to be true to roleplaying would inherently not be true to roleplaying because a bookish character either (a) wouldn't be adventuring or (b) would decide to learn something useful.

Absolutely wrong.

vonklaude wrote:

Maxperson addresses this and I agree with him. No one here is saying that it isn't possible to optimise and roleplay. Some (like me!) are saying that if you put roleplay first then you will at times hit conflicts between optimisation and roleplaying that have to be resolved one way or the other. Few, maybe none, are denying that when it comes down to it, each player is allowed to roleplay their character in whatever way they are happy with.

There's even a line of thought (you can blame Solik for this) that says that if I choose a bookish character, then Linguist is actually an optimal choice!

-vk

Sure it is. Anytime you focus your character toward some concept, it's optimization... whether that's to get the highest attack bonus for combat, or getting to the ability to speak every language of game. Even taking prerequisite feats and such so you can get a specific feat/paragon path/epic destiny is optimizing.

I think the problem with the idea that roleplay and optimization will sometimes contrast is the fact that you could potentially roleplay just about any character decision. We humans are such tempestuous and flighty beings, and fantasy renditions thereof (or even of similar races) cannot be expected to be less so. When we in the real world are so capable of breaking oaths and doing things that technically go against our nature, why should we believe that fictional renditions of us would do less than the same.

If you think about it, the 3.5 blackguard prestige class is a perfect example of why optimization and roleplay are never against one another. A character who transitions from paladin to blackguard literally has to completely swap his alignment from one side of the coin to the other in the course of a single level (lest he take some intermediary class). By the idea that a contrary decision isn't roleplay, you can never become a blackguard and roleplay the whole time. You theoretically have to "break roleplay" to become one.

What seems like a decision made without roleplay may in fact be a decision that goes with roleplay. It's through these sorts of decisions that Anakin Skywalker murdered Mace Windu and became Darth Vader... or Yusuke Yurimeshi jumped out in front of a car to save a child's life. Real people often do things that go against everything they stand for... that's often the reason people who continue to stand for something seem so grand to us.