DreamQuestin:
engine:
Min/Maxing and "roleplaying" are not mutually exclusive.
No, but they -=can=- be exclusive.
I'm sorry, but that's misusing the sense of the phrase. I suppose the phrase itself is a little dated, which doesn't help. At the risk of over-explaining let me be clear what I mean: while the different types of extreme players might exist, the fact that there are people in between means that players can be both, which means that one trait does not
necessarily exclude the other. While one may prefer to be one type and not the other, it's only their preference that keeps them from being both.
DreamQuestin:
But the first two of those have trouble playing together, I suspect.
Unfortunately, this is likely to be true, but I firmly believe it's a matter of getting everyone on the same page about what each individual wants from the game. The 4th Edition DMG offers some good advice on how to accommodate different kinds of players in the same game.
DreamQuestin:
I don't like to sound like sour grapes, but five years of feeling largely decorative in battle (I do buff the others fairly nicely) and skill checks has led to a bit of frustration on my part, so I am now looking at trying to rebuild her from the ground up and boost her. I honestly don't care that my character is not as tough as the others but it would be nice to have a chance to do her best. Sadly, I really suck as a min/Maxer lol.
The usual advice I see in these situations is to ask the other players for help, on the understanding that you want the character's more powerful abilities, feats and items to be relevant and not just tacked on because they're "better." I find that many min/maxers are just as creative as anyone else and are often willing to reflavor liberally. Maybe a character would benefit from some better armor, but the player doesn't see their character in that kind of armor; well, keep the mechanics the same and reflavor it. I once had a player with a paladin who walked around in layers of foppish clothes rather than plate armor. We played the stats as identical to plate and just went with it.
DreamQuestin:
I am not saying either way is better or worse.
OK, just be aware that implying someone is "rollplaying" and not "roleplaying" implies none too subtly that they're playing their "roleplaying game" incorrectly.
DreamQuestin:
It is quite fascinating really :).
I agree. Thanks for being willing to discuss it, and asking honest questions.
DreamQuestin:
engine:
I'm not too interested in relating to my character, though. I like accents and attitudes, because I like to act, but I don't care about my characters. I don't want to know exactly what my character would do in a situation, because I want to be flexible and have a range of flexible responses that let me as a player back up the other players in what they want to do.
I find that an interesting viewpoint. I read that and wonder what that would be like? I am very invested in my character's personality and moral codes and creeds. I certainly will work to help characters work together and it is never 'all about my character' in game by any means, but I wont play something out contrary to what she believes to help another character without that (inner?) conflict playing out in character. Perhaps quite vocally.
I don't enjoy scenes like that, so I don't play for them. Conflict is interesting, but argument and angst quickly become boring for me. I'm rarely in games in which strong moral choices are required, and I don't make characters that are likely to bring them about.
When I GM, I hope for some reasonably tough decision points and even a bitter (though non-lethal) loss or two, but nothing anyone is likely to get bent out of shape over, in or out of character. I encourage my players to contribute directly to situations their characters get in, so they can make things as angsty as they want, though they tend not to.
DreamQuestin:
What kind of characters do you play? Could you give me an example?
As much as possible, I play characters who go along, support the other players and generally keep things moving. I recently played a human paladin of St. Cuthbert. I tend to hate how others play paladins because they tend to be really cautious and act like they need to police the other PCs. I guess it's so they aren't tricked into doing something or condoning something evil. My character wouldn't have willingly done something evil, but he generally just did was what suggested, by NPCs or fellow PCs, without a lot of discussion or questioning. This was a choice by me in order to keep the game moving and it worked out fine for the short time the game lasted.
Which is also a factor that should be mentioned: I never have any expectation that a game I'm in will last for a significant length of time, so there's never any reason for me to devote much thought to a character, or get very attached to them. But even in longer games I've played, it's mostly been about the character's personality rather than the lines they won't cross, and about keeping things moving, so the momentum and interest stay high and the game doesn't fizzle.
DreamQuestin:
So Mercia (my halfling) is a freed slave. She abhors slavery in any form she has encountered and is currently working with the Bell Network (tangentially atm)to free other slaves at any turn. With your philosophy, if she was your character, you could/would help another character say buy/sell/move a slave because the character edicts don't matter? No animosity in the inquiry, I am just interested in a very new (to me) idea of playing. :)
I trust that the question is meant honestly, that you're not trying to trip me up or anything.
One way of looking at it is that Mercia would never be my character, because I would tend not to make a character who had strong objections about things likely to occur in the game. If PCs buying and selling slaves was likely to occur, making a character with strong objections to it would be likely to put my character at odds with the party and bring the action and adventure to a halt.
If she
were my character, I'd still want to go along with the other players and other PCs. I'd find a way to do that, and if I couldn't I'd ask the other players for ideas, rather than telling them not to do the thing. I might describe her as being very upset and argumentative, but I probably wouldn't play that out or try to have an argument scene with the other players. Improvised arguments, like improvised haggling, tend to be excruciating. Even most scripted arguments are usually pretty bad. But if the other player and I saw a cool way for our PCs to confront each other, with my PC being put in her place and being forced to go along, I'd be up for that.
In short, I am very "Yes, and..." focused. I look for reasons why the thing that's happening in the game and to my character
can and do happen, instead of reasons why they can't. So, if it's more plausible for my character to object to a situation, then I would feel obligated to also find ways that my character's hands would be tied or their efforts to hinder it would fail.
DreamQuestin:
I am not judgmental. If it floats your boat and isn't hurting anyone else - play how you wanna play. I will admit that this game has really frustrated me to the point of quitting because it has, at times, felt that if my little halfling wasn't there, the outcome would be the same. I adore my fellow players (which is why I played in frustration mutely for four years before finally saying something - of course being Canadian could be a factor there too lol) but am trying to see and come to terms with a side of RPG I have never been part of.
I think that will be a good experience for you, but I also think that if your other players care about you, they'll find ways to work with you. Like I said, they might find ways to make your character more powerful. Also, I happen to be convinced that it's possible to have mixed power levels in groups, though most rulesets don't seem to offer advice on it. It has to do with having alternate goals for both PCs and monsters, such that damage, while important, is not usually the key to defeating the other side. Which also doesn't mean compromise or truce or diplomacy, just ways in which a side and survive and still lose or die and still win. Talk to the GM about this, and work with them to build situations that offer appropriate challenges to everyone in the same scene.