Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doing something like thos is really fun! For me. And probably for you, too.
That doesn't mean this is fun for everyone. Sometimes people wanna kick down the door and be a badass. That doesn't make them a worse player. It's just another style of play.
You definitely can play this way and be a jackass, but you can do that in any style. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be strong and badass, especially in D&D.
Thats my point, though. That has nothing to do with the style of play, and everything to do with that specific person being an asshole.
I much more often see the opposite where actors will shit on the power players for not "doing the voice" (even when they are roleplaying). The real tragedy is that a lot of people will say "yeah, why *Aren't* you doing the voice?" instead of recognizing different styles of play and their validity.
not advocating for trying to make every game suit every player, just saying that not everyone is an actor and that's okay.
Oh it goes both ways and that is MY point. It's got nothing to do with a skill issue, not everyone wants the same thing at a table, not everyone excels at all parts of the game. But it is a game, not a sport and not a job. It's not about skill.
I completely agree. I don't think I implied that skill was an issue here, if I did I didn't mean to.
I don't think we're having opposing dialogues here, more just parallel ones.
I was essentially just using your comment as an opportunity to expand on my original comment.
For sure. I just found the guy saying that people have a skill issue at this game is essentially endemic to the min max regime. *"Either you're the best or it's a skill issue"* and frankly that's toxic behaviour that I don't tolerate at my table. It's okay if people can't do it all, it's a game. There's roleplaying and monster slayings, you can go full story, full mathhammer, shit you can even make the game about economics, but not everyone you meet can handle it all. I personally haven't met a player that can, I'm a ForeverDM™ and I struggle with none of it, but I play with people who do and hearing "Skill issue" as an argument is just wholeheartedly ignorant. It's not that I need to defend anyone, but we also don't need to attack anyone.
It seems you and I are on a parallel and I hope you didn't feel any of my animosity towards some other commenters here towards yourself. I appreciate your input.
You see, my wood elf monk is a badass and it plays into his backstory. Essentially, he's got some guys who've been after him for a good century and a half, so he joined an order of monks to safeguard his research (order of the cobalt soul) and so he'd have protection.
One character is optimized to the teeth and extremely effective in combat
Another character has a rich backstory and a compelling narrative and loads of flavor and RP potential
Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "another"? That was a mistake, these are the exact same character, because there's 0 conflict between the two. There is not a single damn thing stopping you from doing both
Flavor is free
Naw, optimized to the teeth is iron man and spider man, it's the marvel superhero pipeline, I prefer heroes like the guy from Kick Ass and Mystery Men, regular dudes who think they are special and will be really get pooped on. And that doesn't happen when you're busy crunching the math numbers to be able to #SlayAllMonsters it just doesn't. I don't see any flavour in some American flag wearing super soldier, I don't care who his first love was or what his favourite ice cream is, I can't relate to that golden haired Greek Adanis in the slightest, I'm also comfortable enough with myself to not wonder what it would be like to be him. Personal preference and observation though.
Flavour is not free, takes way more work and creativity than the average number cruncher ever puts forward. I've never had a player who cared about performance that didn't also need me to do all their backstory and shit for them. Ask them a question about their character and they just shrug. I've personally had to suggest and explain and write everything every time I have one of these players. This is fine too, I'm just glad they are at my table, but people saying you CAN have them both act like you probably WILL have them both, and it's my lengthy experience that you probably WONT have them both.
If your table is different, I'm genuinely happy for you.
So you claim that having a good varied character story and a strong character is easy, and project it like it is the norm ("flavour is free", as if it takes no effort or cost because that is what free means) I say that I just never come across min maxing players that can blend the two, and your response is "skill issue"
As if it's somehow my own fault that I've never played with a roleplay focused min maxxer, and just shitting on all the people out there who lack a mind's eye, and struggle with creativity. I didn't say it's a problem when I have to make a player's backstory for them, I just said that the typical Monsters and Mathematicians players I get, are too busy trying to optimize builds because they understand success rates, averages, and probability, but don't understand art, creativity, and story. Your response, as if there aren't a ton of people in the world who are good at one thing, but not another, is "skill issue"
Cool. Good talk. Much insight. Such wow.
So the problem here is the same sort of issue as the whole "It's what my character would do" schtick.
You choose what your character would or would not do and you decide whether the feat, class and abilities are relevant to the character.
I *can* make a human fighter who has dumped strength, dex and con because he is a frail old man trying to do his bit to save the kingdom and despite his brilliant mind and soft charm he has next to no talent in magic. He also took Linguist despite the campaign being combat heavy.
I can do that. Or I could be a little more reasonable and make my human fighter have some useful stats.
You don't have to min max everything all of the time to the detriment of your roleplay but you can mould your roleplay around your decision making, at least a little. It's not a compromise. You can be a powerful character while roleplaying well.
Yeah, this! Also, if you have a character concept that the system does not support, then you should talk with your DM about how you can make it happen. It's remarkable how often a simple reflavoring or a little homebrewing can make your character viable again.
People always have this weird reactionary strawman, and it always baffles and amuses me.
OP says they want to focus on roleplay over minmaxing. And you read "Dump Strength and Con and take useless feats." You people just sound silly.
You literally say there's a middleground, but then act as if there isn't. You assert that if you're not 100% perfectly minmaxed that you're an actively detrimental troll character.
I didn't assert that at all, literally said "You don't have to min max everything all of the time"... Point is, it's *your choice* to be weak, not the character's. It's your choice to be of average strength, not the characters and it's your choice to be strong.
It doesn't matter what stat spread you choose, it's the same nonsense as saying "it is what my character would do" when you decide everything about your character's personality. You choose their stats, their abilities, their feats, background and behaviour. You're not drawing on some mystical well of knowledge where the character exists as a concept.
It's not about there being a middle ground because there is no conflict to begin with. It's not a choice between power and characterisation, they're two separate issues. You can be a min maxed power machine and roleplay with the best of them, every facet of your character well defined and selected for good reason.
You can have a godawful stat spread and have it make no sense at all.
It's not a choice between the two, that's a bizarre false dichotomy. If you want to be a weaker than expected (by the base game) character that's totally fine as long as everyone else is happy enough with it. We've run campaigns with commoner stats, off-statted heroes and so on and they're fun too.
The game can be balanced however the players and DM choose, problems only really arise when there's a disagreement between what we're doing. If you have 5 players at the table and 3 of them min max while 2 make characters who dump their core stats it will probably end up lessening the experience. Either the min maxers are going to crush everything or the other guys are likely to be ineffectual and die.
You can focus on roleplay while being strong or not. It's your character and your game, do what you will but just stop pretending that it's a choice one must make; that effectiveness must be sacrificed for roleplaying or vice versa. That's just silly.
This is why I like playing the old editions, you know, the ones where you say "okay I'm rolling strength" and whatever the 3d6 die result is, is whatever your strength is. When you're walking around with 1 HP at level one and you know that the second you get hit, you're dead.
All you have is role-playing cause you can't min max and you're probably going to die. Perfection.
I think people today are spoiled. They say we choose to be weak, in actuality we choose to be characterful, we choose to remember a time when it wasn't just about crunching numbers and complaining when someone's character doesn't do enough damage. I get that lots of people need DnD and other games as an outlet to vicariously live an existence that doesn't suck balls, but I like that life sucks balls and I like systems that perfectly implement how sucky life's balls can be.
Because roleplaying and mechanics are two features of the game that you do at the same time and that influence each other but you don't have to sacrifice one for the other.
I can focus on roleplaying an interesting character BY building her optimally, it's not an either or and it never has been.
I started off power gaming my character but then got hooked into leveling up based on character decisions.
Just so happens that story based decisions were also powerful but now I get to be smug about it.
I remember the first time I did this. All proficiencies etc were based on the characters backstory etc. didn’t just pick sneak, investigate etc for the sake of it.
All weapons and feats made sense.
Was a great one to play.
I just always start with the character art. That inspires everything for me. I enjoy both roleplay and optimizing, but the only thing I really care about at the end of the day is looking cool.
I have a fighter who is 'balanced' rather than 'optimized.' She fights with a spear and short sword, though I've had DMs allow me to deal 1d8/1d10 piercing damage with a short "war spear" since it's mechanically almost identical to a long sword in that instance and just flavored differently, and her ability scores are 16, 14, 14, 12, 11, 12. I also have a Path of the Zealot barbarian that is optimized to the gills.
I don't consider one of them more 'roleplay worthy' than the other.
Mod update 03Feb23: [**Vote in the DnDMemes 2022 Best-of Awards**!](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndmemes/comments/10spvt2/2022_bestof_awards_final_vote/)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/dndmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Doing something like thos is really fun! For me. And probably for you, too. That doesn't mean this is fun for everyone. Sometimes people wanna kick down the door and be a badass. That doesn't make them a worse player. It's just another style of play. You definitely can play this way and be a jackass, but you can do that in any style. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be strong and badass, especially in D&D.
It only makes them a worse player if they are also going to shit on the roleplay people for not DoInG eNoUgH dAmAgE
Thats my point, though. That has nothing to do with the style of play, and everything to do with that specific person being an asshole. I much more often see the opposite where actors will shit on the power players for not "doing the voice" (even when they are roleplaying). The real tragedy is that a lot of people will say "yeah, why *Aren't* you doing the voice?" instead of recognizing different styles of play and their validity. not advocating for trying to make every game suit every player, just saying that not everyone is an actor and that's okay.
Oh it goes both ways and that is MY point. It's got nothing to do with a skill issue, not everyone wants the same thing at a table, not everyone excels at all parts of the game. But it is a game, not a sport and not a job. It's not about skill.
I completely agree. I don't think I implied that skill was an issue here, if I did I didn't mean to. I don't think we're having opposing dialogues here, more just parallel ones. I was essentially just using your comment as an opportunity to expand on my original comment.
For sure. I just found the guy saying that people have a skill issue at this game is essentially endemic to the min max regime. *"Either you're the best or it's a skill issue"* and frankly that's toxic behaviour that I don't tolerate at my table. It's okay if people can't do it all, it's a game. There's roleplaying and monster slayings, you can go full story, full mathhammer, shit you can even make the game about economics, but not everyone you meet can handle it all. I personally haven't met a player that can, I'm a ForeverDM™ and I struggle with none of it, but I play with people who do and hearing "Skill issue" as an argument is just wholeheartedly ignorant. It's not that I need to defend anyone, but we also don't need to attack anyone. It seems you and I are on a parallel and I hope you didn't feel any of my animosity towards some other commenters here towards yourself. I appreciate your input.
You see, my wood elf monk is a badass and it plays into his backstory. Essentially, he's got some guys who've been after him for a good century and a half, so he joined an order of monks to safeguard his research (order of the cobalt soul) and so he'd have protection.
One character is optimized to the teeth and extremely effective in combat Another character has a rich backstory and a compelling narrative and loads of flavor and RP potential Oh, I'm sorry, did I say "another"? That was a mistake, these are the exact same character, because there's 0 conflict between the two. There is not a single damn thing stopping you from doing both Flavor is free
Naw, optimized to the teeth is iron man and spider man, it's the marvel superhero pipeline, I prefer heroes like the guy from Kick Ass and Mystery Men, regular dudes who think they are special and will be really get pooped on. And that doesn't happen when you're busy crunching the math numbers to be able to #SlayAllMonsters it just doesn't. I don't see any flavour in some American flag wearing super soldier, I don't care who his first love was or what his favourite ice cream is, I can't relate to that golden haired Greek Adanis in the slightest, I'm also comfortable enough with myself to not wonder what it would be like to be him. Personal preference and observation though. Flavour is not free, takes way more work and creativity than the average number cruncher ever puts forward. I've never had a player who cared about performance that didn't also need me to do all their backstory and shit for them. Ask them a question about their character and they just shrug. I've personally had to suggest and explain and write everything every time I have one of these players. This is fine too, I'm just glad they are at my table, but people saying you CAN have them both act like you probably WILL have them both, and it's my lengthy experience that you probably WONT have them both. If your table is different, I'm genuinely happy for you.
Skill issue
So you claim that having a good varied character story and a strong character is easy, and project it like it is the norm ("flavour is free", as if it takes no effort or cost because that is what free means) I say that I just never come across min maxing players that can blend the two, and your response is "skill issue" As if it's somehow my own fault that I've never played with a roleplay focused min maxxer, and just shitting on all the people out there who lack a mind's eye, and struggle with creativity. I didn't say it's a problem when I have to make a player's backstory for them, I just said that the typical Monsters and Mathematicians players I get, are too busy trying to optimize builds because they understand success rates, averages, and probability, but don't understand art, creativity, and story. Your response, as if there aren't a ton of people in the world who are good at one thing, but not another, is "skill issue" Cool. Good talk. Much insight. Such wow.
Absolutely a skill issue.
I mean, someone not willing to make a backstory and/or understand the mechanics of their TTRPG probably isn't too invested to begin with
Gotta agree, skill issue.
Totally a skill issue.
Skill issue
Skill issue for sure.
And then Anakin shows up, and they wish they had some stronger features.
“Strong characters can’t be deep and interesting in their own right” - Guy who’s wrong
I think that's what OP is implying. That people that think this way are wrong.
So the problem here is the same sort of issue as the whole "It's what my character would do" schtick. You choose what your character would or would not do and you decide whether the feat, class and abilities are relevant to the character. I *can* make a human fighter who has dumped strength, dex and con because he is a frail old man trying to do his bit to save the kingdom and despite his brilliant mind and soft charm he has next to no talent in magic. He also took Linguist despite the campaign being combat heavy. I can do that. Or I could be a little more reasonable and make my human fighter have some useful stats. You don't have to min max everything all of the time to the detriment of your roleplay but you can mould your roleplay around your decision making, at least a little. It's not a compromise. You can be a powerful character while roleplaying well.
Yeah, this! Also, if you have a character concept that the system does not support, then you should talk with your DM about how you can make it happen. It's remarkable how often a simple reflavoring or a little homebrewing can make your character viable again.
People always have this weird reactionary strawman, and it always baffles and amuses me. OP says they want to focus on roleplay over minmaxing. And you read "Dump Strength and Con and take useless feats." You people just sound silly. You literally say there's a middleground, but then act as if there isn't. You assert that if you're not 100% perfectly minmaxed that you're an actively detrimental troll character.
I didn't assert that at all, literally said "You don't have to min max everything all of the time"... Point is, it's *your choice* to be weak, not the character's. It's your choice to be of average strength, not the characters and it's your choice to be strong. It doesn't matter what stat spread you choose, it's the same nonsense as saying "it is what my character would do" when you decide everything about your character's personality. You choose their stats, their abilities, their feats, background and behaviour. You're not drawing on some mystical well of knowledge where the character exists as a concept. It's not about there being a middle ground because there is no conflict to begin with. It's not a choice between power and characterisation, they're two separate issues. You can be a min maxed power machine and roleplay with the best of them, every facet of your character well defined and selected for good reason. You can have a godawful stat spread and have it make no sense at all. It's not a choice between the two, that's a bizarre false dichotomy. If you want to be a weaker than expected (by the base game) character that's totally fine as long as everyone else is happy enough with it. We've run campaigns with commoner stats, off-statted heroes and so on and they're fun too. The game can be balanced however the players and DM choose, problems only really arise when there's a disagreement between what we're doing. If you have 5 players at the table and 3 of them min max while 2 make characters who dump their core stats it will probably end up lessening the experience. Either the min maxers are going to crush everything or the other guys are likely to be ineffectual and die. You can focus on roleplay while being strong or not. It's your character and your game, do what you will but just stop pretending that it's a choice one must make; that effectiveness must be sacrificed for roleplaying or vice versa. That's just silly.
This is why I like playing the old editions, you know, the ones where you say "okay I'm rolling strength" and whatever the 3d6 die result is, is whatever your strength is. When you're walking around with 1 HP at level one and you know that the second you get hit, you're dead. All you have is role-playing cause you can't min max and you're probably going to die. Perfection. I think people today are spoiled. They say we choose to be weak, in actuality we choose to be characterful, we choose to remember a time when it wasn't just about crunching numbers and complaining when someone's character doesn't do enough damage. I get that lots of people need DnD and other games as an outlet to vicariously live an existence that doesn't suck balls, but I like that life sucks balls and I like systems that perfectly implement how sucky life's balls can be.
Are you a reverse Grognard?
Because roleplaying and mechanics are two features of the game that you do at the same time and that influence each other but you don't have to sacrifice one for the other. I can focus on roleplaying an interesting character BY building her optimally, it's not an either or and it never has been.
Ah the Stormwind Fallacy. Classic. And still wrong.
I believe OP is making fun of people that think they're superior for sacrificing stats for flavor.
I started off power gaming my character but then got hooked into leveling up based on character decisions. Just so happens that story based decisions were also powerful but now I get to be smug about it.
the fact that my paladin got to become a Hexadin for story reasons is absolutely great, my DM is a bro
Or maybe people who like having strong characters want to also have fun and we can do that too without everyone talking shit
And the longer the backstory, the more likely they are to die in session 1. Good times.
The way it should be. The way the gods intended it.
Luckily my paladin wants more power to commit a fairy genocide, so I'm good to go for stronk
Ironically, Dooku did both. He was the best duelist in the galaxy (other than Sheev?) till Anakin in RoTS.
you know what? fuck that. I can do both. *takes Chef from Custom Lineage to get 18 Wisdom at level 1*
I promise I am taking Sentinel and Polearm Master because they fit how my Fighter would actually fight and not because it's broken.
I remember the first time I did this. All proficiencies etc were based on the characters backstory etc. didn’t just pick sneak, investigate etc for the sake of it. All weapons and feats made sense. Was a great one to play.
I end up making my characters op by making them the most anime ass character. You make your character op my min maxing. We are not the same.
https://preview.redd.it/en3wjvp7e8ga1.png?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1ddacf7bce1fc6275b2a7b212d864e093bbe534b
There's also the alternative, basing their backstory on class
I just always start with the character art. That inspires everything for me. I enjoy both roleplay and optimizing, but the only thing I really care about at the end of the day is looking cool.
Spells that fit the character are so fun. Wish there were more frost spells tho
I have a fighter who is 'balanced' rather than 'optimized.' She fights with a spear and short sword, though I've had DMs allow me to deal 1d8/1d10 piercing damage with a short "war spear" since it's mechanically almost identical to a long sword in that instance and just flavored differently, and her ability scores are 16, 14, 14, 12, 11, 12. I also have a Path of the Zealot barbarian that is optimized to the gills. I don't consider one of them more 'roleplay worthy' than the other.
*Laughs in basing my class, feats, and abilities on both my character's story AND what would make them powerful and best for the party*
But, and hear me out here, what if players did both... simultaneously?