S
shurai
Guest
When I was just starting out at this whole roleplaying thing, I spent hours obsessively tinkering with every last detail of my characters. I was so paranoid that someone else in the game would have more powerful abilities than me, and that therefore I wouldn't have any fun because my character wouldn't get to do anything. It was frustrating, because as we all know perfect game balance is impossible. I played that way for months.
Then I made a new character for a new campaign one afternoon. I realized that competing with powergamers is an ultimately futile exercise, and that I could, instead, roleplay someone interesting instead of someone necessarily powerful. So I spent all this time picking abilities based on where the character came from and what his motivations were. That character (this was 2nd Edition) remains the most compelling roleplaying experience I've had.
I'm not saying I play purposely weak characters; I don't mean to suggest that there's something wrong with a character being good at something, certainly. Heck, I do wander down the mad min/maxing road from time to time (it is fun sometimes), but for the most part I ignore maxing out my characters' abilities.
The strange thing is that something counterintuitive happens when I do: Instead of my characters being useless, they are generally highly useful. Why is that, given that my character must be weaker?
I think it's because even slightly underpowered characters who are roleplayed well are capable of much more than overpowered characters that are poorly roleplayed. There's a fairly nonsensical idea out there that dictates that if a character can't be really good at some task, then that character shouldn't learn how to do it at all. I'm not saying specialization is a bad thing, but I am saying that overspecialization certainly can be. For example, I often play characters with random skill points devoted to things like old jobs, like what they did before becoming adventurers. It's amazing how often weird little skills like Profession: Farmer can be useful.
There's another angle too. A character that is roleplayed well is often capable of finding solutions to in-game problems more often because the player is paying more attention to the facts of the situation and is mulling things over in-character. It's harder to get into character when the character has less personality, after all.
The remarkable conclusion of all this is that game balance is not nearly as necessary for a fun game as so many people here think. So much of the activity here these days assumes the opposite that I wonder how some here have any fun at all. So, in the end, I think we'll all enjoy the hobby more if we relax and play our characters well. Speaking for myself, it's worked out beautifully.
-S
Then I made a new character for a new campaign one afternoon. I realized that competing with powergamers is an ultimately futile exercise, and that I could, instead, roleplay someone interesting instead of someone necessarily powerful. So I spent all this time picking abilities based on where the character came from and what his motivations were. That character (this was 2nd Edition) remains the most compelling roleplaying experience I've had.
I'm not saying I play purposely weak characters; I don't mean to suggest that there's something wrong with a character being good at something, certainly. Heck, I do wander down the mad min/maxing road from time to time (it is fun sometimes), but for the most part I ignore maxing out my characters' abilities.
The strange thing is that something counterintuitive happens when I do: Instead of my characters being useless, they are generally highly useful. Why is that, given that my character must be weaker?
I think it's because even slightly underpowered characters who are roleplayed well are capable of much more than overpowered characters that are poorly roleplayed. There's a fairly nonsensical idea out there that dictates that if a character can't be really good at some task, then that character shouldn't learn how to do it at all. I'm not saying specialization is a bad thing, but I am saying that overspecialization certainly can be. For example, I often play characters with random skill points devoted to things like old jobs, like what they did before becoming adventurers. It's amazing how often weird little skills like Profession: Farmer can be useful.
There's another angle too. A character that is roleplayed well is often capable of finding solutions to in-game problems more often because the player is paying more attention to the facts of the situation and is mulling things over in-character. It's harder to get into character when the character has less personality, after all.
The remarkable conclusion of all this is that game balance is not nearly as necessary for a fun game as so many people here think. So much of the activity here these days assumes the opposite that I wonder how some here have any fun at all. So, in the end, I think we'll all enjoy the hobby more if we relax and play our characters well. Speaking for myself, it's worked out beautifully.
-S
