Author Topic: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?  (Read 55754 times)

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #45 on: March 21, 2013, 12:03:55 AM »
Well I don't have much experience with GURPS so I can't really speak for it. Bit with regard to D&D and World of Darkness, I've noticed a marked focus on the importance of choosing the right combinations of abilities to make an effective character.

Ideally, all games should be about character and story, but that just isn't the case. FATE, at least, takes the focus away from combat by offering alternative ways to solve problems from a mechanical standpoint, such as social conflicts, and the combination of Aspects and declarations mean that even a character with no other viable abilities can contribute to his friends' efforts.

Essentially, what about the character creation or even campaign setup of GURPS makes it focus on story? With FATE, and DFRPG in particular, you are not only required to create story elements for your character in the form of their Aspects and past adventures, but you contribute to the creation of the setting and the kinds of stories which will take place there.

Offline GryMor

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 224
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #46 on: March 21, 2013, 12:33:45 AM »
Just chiming in here, but Item slots aren't 'typed' it's one big pool to be filled with foci, enchanted items and potions. This becomes really clear when you look at the existing character write ups or pay attention to sponsored magic (and it's 'discounting').

On the subject of effectiveness, a Thaumaturge can be amazing at preparation and an Evoker can be amazing at alpha strike, but they et exhausted REALLY quickly. A super with equivalent investment can exceed a Thaumaturge in effective preparation in an information constrained environment and can exceed an Evoker in staying power. A mortal can actually exceed an Evoker in single target Alpha on account of their huge Fate pool.

All that said, the best of the best is a team (You are almost always better if one of your team members is an artifacer and another one is some other sort of specialized practitioner).

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9863
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #47 on: March 21, 2013, 01:18:39 AM »
Just chiming in here, but Item slots aren't 'typed' it's one big pool to be filled with foci, enchanted items and potions. This becomes really clear when you look at the existing character write ups or pay attention to sponsored magic (and it's 'discounting').

I don't understand this statement.  If you have evocation and Thaumaturgy, you get 4 focus item slots.  You have to determine what they do and then they are set.  If you put them all into Evocation Offensive Control, then you have nothing left for enchanted item slots.

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #48 on: March 21, 2013, 01:22:54 AM »
I don't understand this statement.

I believe it was in response to earlier confusion as to whether or not thaumaturgy-sourced foci slots could be applied to evocation-purposed foci (or the other way 'round; and responding in the affirmative).
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9863
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #49 on: March 21, 2013, 01:38:39 AM »
I believe it was in response to earlier confusion as to whether or not thaumaturgy-sourced foci slots could be applied to evocation-purposed foci (or the other way 'round; and responding in the affirmative).

Ah, I thought that matter had already been cleared up.  Sorry.

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #50 on: March 21, 2013, 02:21:03 AM »
It doesn't actually take in-session time to make items. Item dependency is a gear issue, not a prep time issue.
Even if it's not in-game time, it's still preparation--the player has to decide beforehand and devote character resources to the items, and the character has to be prepared by having them.

Quote
Why wouldn't specializing in a single weapon make as much sense as learning to use two at once?
Because to me, the sword itself isn't hitting any harder, or cutting deeper. The person can use it better, but it's still the same sword. I'd allow maybe a bonus to maneuvers, or a circumstantial bonus to the attack roll, but you're already getting a Stress bonus by using a weapon, and it feels a lot to me like stacking stunts to pile another +2 on top of that.

Quote
That may have been me.

Honestly, I think Way Of The AK is overpowered. That's why Weapon Focus is significantly weaker than it.

Your later comments about a mortal with these stunts being able to thrash most of OW are accurate, by the way. (Though you ignore the fact that it won't be every mortal, just every focused mortal combatant. The talky and thinky types are another matter.)

But that's an issue with OW.

A Feet In The Water Focused Practitioner can beat almost all of OW to death.

A Feet In The Water Changeling can beat almost all of OW to death.

A Feet In The Water mortal with no stunts can beat almost all of OW to death.

OW characters are not tough.
I'm really not a fan of the, "Something I've done makes the game inaccurate. Therefore, it's the game's fault" way of thinking. But put it this way.

Pure Mortal Feet in the Water vs. Red Court Vampire. Without stunts, the Mortal's attack stat is only 1 above the vampire's dodging, and he might have up to a Weapon:3 weapon. Meanwhile, his dodging stat is, at most, only 1 above the vampire's attack stat, and the vampire has 5 stress boxes and Armor:1. That means, rolling evenly, it's going to take the Pure Mortal four hits before he does any consequences.  Meanwhile, the vampire has a solid 40% chance of hitting the mortal for a Weapon:4 attack--something that will almost assuredly happen if he has those four turns.

With the stunts, the Pure Mortal is now attacking at 5, with a Weapon:5--meaning he's doing a total of 6 shifts of stress on an even roll, so if he rolls evenly, he's now doing consequences on his second attack, and making it much less likely the vampire's even going to get a hit in.

So, let's see: Without the stunts, the Pure Mortal character needs to be very lucky for a considerable amount of time to survive fighting a Red Court Vampire one-on-one, which is something that reflects the world of the books.

With the stunts, the Pure Mortal character is almost certainly going to destroy the Red Court Vampire one-on-one.

And it's Our World that's wrong?

Quote
It's a trapping replacement that works exactly like a stress booster. Weird, huh?
No, a stress booster would give you more than the Weapon's normal rating. This does not.


Quote
Mostly for the same reason that a Wizard can't necessarily use their foci all the time. Also because sometimes your weapon isn't suited to the situation.

Someone who gets +2 stress with their tiny weapon 1 knife has no combat advantage over someone with no stunt and a broadsword, but someone who gets +2 stress with a broadsword will frequently have to use something less flashy. And they'll both have to set aside their bonus if they want to make ranged attacks.
But someone with those stunts has a complete combat advantage over someone without them. It's effectively adding a solid, constant +3 to every attack. And it's something entirely within the player's control--I know I'd spend the fate points to buy out of a compel if it meant the difference between having those bonuses and not, which means that players are always going to take these stunts, and always going to keep their weapons.

Quote
(Also Weapon Focus doesn't boost defence rolls.)
I could've sworn there were three of them: Boosting attack, boosting stress, and boosting defense.

Quote
It's not the most a stunt can give. It's listed as a standard bonus. And there are canon stunts that give more.
The canon stunts that give more all have some kind of significant drawback--either spending a fate point, or taking a penalty to some other trapping while it's in use.

And the stunt guidelines all say they apply when under particular circumstances--and they're usually something outside of the player's control. It also says it should never be a flat bonus to most or every use of the skill, and "attack" is, yes, going to be most or every use of the Weapons skill.

My feeling, as I've said before, is the type of weapon choice just does not feel like a restrictive enough circumstance to justify the full +2 bonus.

Quote
Anyway, a sword wielded by a master can be as deadly as explosives wielded by an amateur. At least, in fantasy stories.
Usually because that Master is doing more and different with his sword than just attack. Having these flat bonuses to every single attack means that maneuvers just aren't going to happen. Why spend a turn maneuvering when your every action is already getting a flat +3?

Quote
You and I remember the books quite differently.
I've been through this argument in the Spoilers section a few times. There are maybe two examples in all of the books where Murphy goes hand-to-hand with something that has supernatural power and wins a straight up, full-on fight: When she bashes the one Raith's head into her coffee table (if you can consider that a Fight), and when she kills the Turtleneck (which she doesn't match strength for strength--grappling with him ends up with her arm broken, and she only beats it by--surprise surprise--maneuvers and declarations).

Quote
2 stress just isn't that big a deal. It's well within the system's tolerances. It's nowhere near the combat-skill disparity between a social character and a killy one.
Combat, though, is the meat of the system, and that's where most players and characters are going to put their skill points. Hell, my groups eschew Social Conflict altogether. 2 stress is a significant difference--it's the difference between a consequence that clears after a scene and one that takes a whole session. It's the difference between complete failure and a +1 success. And it's not the +2 I'm objecting to--it's the +2 stacking on top of the +3.

You can't stack armor. You can't directly stack weapon ratings. And you can't stack stunts. So why can you stack a stunt on top of a weapon rating?

Quote
Because there are other stunts and Powers that are competitively valuable.

Would you prefer Defend My Tribe (for Weapons) or Greataxe Specialization? I think that one's a toss-up.
I'll take the specialization over not taking it every time. Because it's basically a flat +2 to every time you use the weapon, which is going to be every time I get into a fight, because it sure as hell is worth buying out of a compel.

Quote
The Pure Mortal is not a character type revolving around ingenuity. Its mechanics don't promote ingenuity any more than those of, say, Werewolves.

Ingenuity is for anyone who's outmatched. Not just mortals.
Per the lore of the series, mortals are supposed to be physically outmatched by the supernatural. It says "they don’t bring any supernatural oomph to the table," but these stunts are just as good as supernatural oomph at half the price.

Quote
And if you're not outmatched, you can just bash away.
Which also runs counter to the gamebook's text, which suggests that most fights are going to come down to maneuvers and blocks more than attacks.

The whole rulebook points to a system where the numbers aren't supposed to be that high--where a +2 is a big difference. Where mortals have to find a way around and to overcome a supernatural creature's powers, not just bash through them because you spent half the points for the same--or better--result.

Quote
The basic point here is that two characters at the same level should be at the same level. Regardless of template. So if your mortal is designed purely for murder, he should be about as capable as a Wizard designed purely for murder.
"At the same level" doesn't mean they're capable of the same things with the same mechanics. "Equally capable" doesn't mean they do things the same and on the same level.

Murphy's considered on par, Refresh wise, with Harry, but when she has to face down a wizard, she does it from ambush, with a silenced gun, and lets rip with a blast at his head. She doesn't go toe-to-toe with his flunkies even and expect to survive a physical confrontation.

Edit: Also, man, fix your quote boxes. I had to do a lot of C+Ping in this response >.>
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #51 on: March 21, 2013, 03:11:05 AM »
Well I don't have much experience with GURPS so I can't really speak for it. Bit with regard to D&D and World of Darkness, I've noticed a marked focus on the importance of choosing the right combinations of abilities to make an effective character.

The consequences for failed optimization are pretty bad in D&D 3.5. Dunno about WoD or other types of D&D, but I expect they're similar.

In a game where failed optimization screws you, people worry more about optimization.

Ideally, all games should be about character and story, but that just isn't the case. FATE, at least, takes the focus away from combat by offering alternative ways to solve problems from a mechanical standpoint, such as social conflicts, and the combination of Aspects and declarations mean that even a character with no other viable abilities can contribute to his friends' efforts.

Essentially, what about the character creation or even campaign setup of GURPS makes it focus on story? With FATE, and DFRPG in particular, you are not only required to create story elements for your character in the form of their Aspects and past adventures, but you contribute to the creation of the setting and the kinds of stories which will take place there.

GURPS has lots of traits and stuff that define your character's nature. I guess maybe those promote story?

I dunno, I'm not really sure what promoting story really is. I've seen this kind of discussion before, and it seems like no matter which game you choose its mechanics are clearly more story-focused than those of other games (according to the people who like that game). So I find such claims a little dubious.

Even if it's not in-game time, it's still preparation--the player has to decide beforehand and devote character resources to the items, and the character has to be prepared by having them.

It is a weakness, but describing it as a need for prep time is misleading. Makes it sound like Wizards are weak whenever a fight they didn't expect shows up, when actually they're just fine as long as they've got their stuff. And if they don't have their stuff, prep time probably won't save them.

Because to me, the sword itself isn't hitting any harder, or cutting deeper. The person can use it better, but it's still the same sword.

A sword wielded by a strong and skilled person swings harder and cuts deeper.

Isn't that obvious?

I'm really not a fan of the, "Something I've done makes the game inaccurate. Therefore, it's the game's fault" way of thinking. But put it this way.

It's not something I've done. If you just take 5 Refresh points and spend them on being strong and tough with a Catch of Cold Iron, you can probably kill Ursiel 1v1 with Great Weapons.

I'm not talking crazy munchkin characters here. Just basic "combat skill is in the highest slot, spent some Refresh on fighting" characters.

Pure Mortal Feet in the Water vs. Red Court Vampire. Without stunts, the Mortal's attack stat is only 1 above the vampire's dodging, and he might have up to a Weapon:3 weapon. Meanwhile, his dodging stat is, at most, only 1 above the vampire's attack stat, and the vampire has 5 stress boxes and Armor:1. That means, rolling evenly, it's going to take the Pure Mortal four hits before he does any consequences.  Meanwhile, the vampire has a solid 40% chance of hitting the mortal for a Weapon:4 attack--something that will almost assuredly happen if he has those four turns.

The mortal has a massive pile of FP and can wear armour. He'll win, no problem.

Obviously he'll fight better if he invests Refresh in fighting. But he can win without doing so.

No, a stress booster would give you more than the Weapon's normal rating. This does not.

Imagine a stunt that gives you +3 stress with Fists attacks if you happen to be holding a greatsword or a warhammer.

Ta-da! Armed Arts as a stress booster!

I could've sworn there were three of them: Boosting attack, boosting stress, and boosting defense.

Yes. But they must be bought separately. Weapon Focus just pumps accuracy.

The canon stunts that give more all have some kind of significant drawback--either spending a fate point, or taking a penalty to some other trapping while it's in use.

I know.

Nonetheless, 2 is obviously not the maximum.

My feeling, as I've said before, is the type of weapon choice just does not feel like a restrictive enough circumstance to justify the full +2 bonus.

Fair.

I think you're wrong though. I mean, I'm pretty sure most games wouldn't let you bring a broadsword or assault rifle everywhere. And that's not necessarily a Compel, since a weapon's not part of your character.

And if you're using a weapon that you can take everywhere, you're weakening yourself.

Usually because that Master is doing more and different with his sword than just attack. Having these flat bonuses to every single attack means that maneuvers just aren't going to happen. Why spend a turn maneuvering when your every action is already getting a flat +3?

Maneuvering is still valuable. The only time it's not is when you can easily inflict consequences. Against tough, fast, or magically protected foes, you'll likely maneuver a lot.

I've been through this argument in the Spoilers section a few times. There are maybe two examples in all of the books where Murphy goes hand-to-hand with something that has supernatural power and wins a straight up, full-on fight: When she bashes the one Raith's head into her coffee table (if you can consider that a Fight), and when she kills the Turtleneck (which she doesn't match strength for strength--grappling with him ends up with her arm broken, and she only beats it by--surprise surprise--maneuvers and declarations).

Shooting counts as a straight fight. Her apex skill is Guns, she's better at fighting outside of hand-to-hand.

Combat, though, is the meat of the system, and that's where most players and characters are going to put their skill points. Hell, my groups eschew Social Conflict altogether.

Really?

I thought my games were pretty violent, but I find people invest plenty in stuff other than ass-kicking. I mean, violence only gets you so far.

2 stress is a significant difference--it's the difference between a consequence that clears after a scene and one that takes a whole session.

It's meaningful, but it doesn't prevent you from fighting alongside one another.

You can't stack armor. You can't directly stack weapon ratings. And you can't stack stunts. So why can you stack a stunt on top of a weapon rating?

Because that's how the system works. Things stack unless specifically prohibited. This isn't in doubt at all, it's all over the rules.

(Also you can stack armour under certain special circumstances.)

I'll take the specialization over not taking it every time. Because it's basically a flat +2 to every time you use the weapon, which is going to be every time I get into a fight, because it sure as hell is worth buying out of a compel.

As I said above, you can't rely on always having your chosen weapon.

A Fate Point, some other Stunt, or 1 point of Power might well serve you better in combat. I've actually tested this, I'm not just blowing smoke.

Per the lore of the series, mortals are supposed to be physically outmatched by the supernatural.

They are. Stunts can't take you to the level that a supernatural combatant will have. Unless, of course, you cripple your supernaturals OW-style.

It says "they don’t bring any supernatural oomph to the table," but these stunts are just as good as supernatural oomph at half the price.

No they aren't.

Compare, say, Bow Specialization with Inhuman Strength.

Bow Specialization gives +2 stress with bows.

Inhuman Strength gives +2 stress with bows, +2 stress with thrown weapons, +2 stress with unarmed attacks, +3 to lift, +3 to break, +1 to grapple, automatic +1 when Might modifies, +1 stress to grapple attacks, +1 zone moved in a grapple, and +2 stress with melee weapons.

The latter is significantly better. Unless for some reason the only thing you care about is one narrow form of attack, in which case I'm not surprised that you find Inhuman Strength underwhelming. After all, buying it involves paying for all kinds of stuff you don't care about.

Which also runs counter to the gamebook's text, which suggests that most fights are going to come down to maneuvers and blocks more than attacks.

You can still maneuver if you want. You just don't have to.

Incidentally, where does it say that?

The whole rulebook points to a system where the numbers aren't supposed to be that high--where a +2 is a big difference. Where mortals have to find a way around and to overcome a supernatural creature's powers, not just bash through them because you spent half the points for the same--or better--result.

I think the book encourages everyone to be sneaky. It's not like mortals have a monopoly on that stuff.

"At the same level" doesn't mean they're capable of the same things with the same mechanics. "Equally capable" doesn't mean they do things the same and on the same level.

It means they are similarly able to accomplish things. Murphy's player has as much power as Harry's does.

Murphy's considered on par, Refresh wise, with Harry, but when she has to face down a wizard, she does it from ambush, with a silenced gun, and lets rip with a blast at his head. She doesn't go toe-to-toe with his flunkies even and expect to survive a physical confrontation.

That's a sensible way to fight for everyone. Not just mortals.

And FP make characters punch above their weight. A character with no Refresh spent is capable of doing much more than they're capable of doing, if you know what I mean.

Edit: Also, man, fix your quote boxes. I had to do a lot of C+Ping in this response >.>

Sorry. I left out an [.

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #52 on: March 21, 2013, 03:36:09 AM »
Imagine a stunt that gives you +3 stress with Fists attacks if you happen to be holding a greatsword or a warhammer.

Ta-da! Armed Arts as a stress booster!
The rest of this discussion aside, Armed Arts is actually better than standard stress-boosting stunts, because it can stack with them, while they cannot stack with each other.
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #53 on: March 21, 2013, 07:03:16 AM »
GURPS has lots of traits and stuff that define your character's nature. I guess maybe those promote story?

Not in the way I mean. A lot of the time, buying qualities and flaws such as "Heroic" and "Scarred" for your character can come down to min-maxing to get extra build points. It's less of a problem in more mature players, but it can happen. FATE's Aspects, on the other hand, are neither positive nor negative, and everyone has the same amount of them. They not only help define your character, but the kinds of stories that happen to them. "Sworn to protect the city" and "The Red Court left its mark" carry a lot more gravitas than "Heroic" and "Scarred."

Basically, systems like GURPS, D&D and WoD let you decide what your character can do. FATE lets you decide what kinds of things will happen to them, through the use of Aspects.

I dunno, I'm not really sure what promoting story really is. I've seen this kind of discussion before, and it seems like no matter which game you choose its mechanics are clearly more story-focused than those of other games (according to the people who like that game). So I find such claims a little dubious.

Fair enough. I've never seen anyone make the argument that D&D or WoD's rules are story-focused, myself. Focused on a character's abilities, yes, but not on story.

Offline Vairelome

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 904
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #54 on: March 21, 2013, 08:01:22 AM »
A lot of the time, buying qualities and flaws such as "Heroic" and "Scarred" for your character can come down to min-maxing to get extra build points. It's less of a problem in more mature players, but it can happen.

It sounds like you are drawing a distinction between "players who are interested in mechanically optimizing characters" and "more mature players."

Basically, systems like GURPS, D&D and WoD let you decide what your character can do. FATE lets you decide what kinds of things will happen to them, through the use of Aspects.

I'd say that character-sheet Aspects are more of a way of formalizing a conversation about game-related interests and goals between players and the GM, in order to make sure everyone is sufficiently on the same page so that the resulting game is more likely to be a successful attempt at having fun.  (This would be an excellent idea even in non-FATE games; I have had experiences with games in other systems where individual concepts of "this is fun" diverged sharply, were not reconciled, and the game sucked as a result.)  It's the GM's responsibility to incorporate characters' Aspects into the game with a nod towards each player's intent in creating the Aspect.  It's the players' collective responsibility to make the GM's job reasonably feasible.

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #55 on: March 21, 2013, 08:53:48 AM »
It sounds like you are drawing a distinction between "players who are interested in mechanically optimizing characters" and "more mature players."

Okay, I phrased that wrong. I've had bad experiences with players who focus on stat-optimization. I've seen it turn into "my character could kick your character's ass" all too often. Not saying everyone who enjoys mechanically optimized characters is like that, just that I don't like seeing players get so intensely focused on it, because I've witnessed, and been on the receiving end of, poor behaviour towards players who aren't as interested in it. I have literally been called stupid for making a poor tactical choices in-game or using my character's abilities in a sub-optimal manner.

I'd say that character-sheet Aspects are more of a way of formalizing a conversation about game-related interests and goals between players and the GM, in order to make sure everyone is sufficiently on the same page so that the resulting game is more likely to be a successful attempt at having fun.  (This would be an excellent idea even in non-FATE games; I have had experiences with games in other systems where individual concepts of "this is fun" diverged sharply, were not reconciled, and the game sucked as a result.)  It's the GM's responsibility to incorporate characters' Aspects into the game with a nod towards each player's intent in creating the Aspect.  It's the players' collective responsibility to make the GM's job reasonably feasible.

Yes, exactly!. That's what I mean by story-focus. I've learned the hard way that the GM needs to make sure everyone's on the same page with regard to the campaign. I ran a Deadlands game once where half the group (myself included) was looking at it as a very Young Guns and Tombstone style of game, and the other half thought nothing of cutting open an Indian from guts to neck just because he wouldn't give information about the villains. After that I swore never again run a game where I didn't make absolutely certain everyone knew what tone and themes I was going for from the start.

FATE simply makes it easier for me to achieve this.

Offline toturi

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #56 on: March 21, 2013, 09:20:27 AM »
Okay, I phrased that wrong. I've had bad experiences with players who focus on stat-optimization. I've seen it turn into "my character could kick your character's ass" all too often. Not saying everyone who enjoys mechanically optimized characters is like that, just that I don't like seeing players get so intensely focused on it, because I've witnessed, and been on the receiving end of, poor behaviour towards players who aren't as interested in it. I have literally been called stupid for making a poor tactical choices in-game or using my character's abilities in a sub-optimal manner.
Min-maxing is and should be a seperate issue from story focus. I have had bad experiences who use "story focus" as an excuse for poor character building and making the game un-fun for the rest of the group.
If you want to roleplay an incompetent twit and the GM has no problems with it, then even if you are a good friend (and the guy whose character was an incompetent twit remains a good friend), I will be quite happy that "my character could kick your character's ass" and have my character do so.
I have called people out for making poor tactical choices in-game and/or using their characters' abilities in a sub-optimal manner because it forces the rest of the players and their characters to pick up the slack. I can do without such self-maturbatory tendencies in games I play. I find such "story focused" (but not optimised) characters incredibly selfish, instead of hogging the spotlight because their characters are uber-capable and moving the plot forward, these characters are hogging the spotlight and bogging the game down because they are uber-incompetent!
And often these are the players who have the gall to whine (to other people and on forums) that they are simply "roleplaying" and the other guys are "min-maxers", "powergamers" or "munchkins". I feel myself wanting more to take a swing at these clowns than those players who bring one-dimensional giant thews barbarians who can benchpress the world or fighters whose roundhouse kicks can kill gods.
With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks. - BumblingBear

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #57 on: March 21, 2013, 09:53:39 AM »
Clearly this is a touchy subject. It looks like I've caused some offence so I'm going to back off.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was ragging on particular playing preferences or suggesting that it was okay to make a game less fun for other players in the name of roleplaying. That was absolutely not my intention.

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9863
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #58 on: March 21, 2013, 11:38:31 AM »
Clearly this is a touchy subject. It looks like I've caused some offence so I'm going to back off.

I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was ragging on particular playing preferences or suggesting that it was okay to make a game less fun for other players in the name of roleplaying. That was absolutely not my intention.

Meh, people get upset in discussions about rp styles I noticed.  I try to stay out of them.  Sorry if anyone here is making you feel unwelcome.

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #59 on: March 21, 2013, 11:56:09 AM »
Thanks. Don't worry, I don't feel like I'm unwelcome. I can just see that this topic is getting some emotional reactions from a few people and aside from the difficulty in having a proper discussion when that happens, I simply don't want to get into an argument with anyone over it.