I wouldn't call it a flaw either, at least not a big one, I'm just pointing out that if certain people want something along the lines of the Star Wars narrative "interpretation" dice, they can do something similar. It's not a fix, it's just an alternative approach to help GMs fill in the blanks so to speak.

The 'flaw' in completely random stats is not that a bad stat ruins a character; it's that the potential gulf between one character's average and another can be detrimental to the group's fun. If Bill rolled 3 18s for his D&D character, and the highest you rolled was a 12... yeah, Bill is probably going to be enjoying the game more than you...

I wouldn't call it a flaw either, at least not a big one, I'm just pointing out that if certain people want something along the lines of the Star Wars narrative "interpretation" dice, they can do something similar. It's not a fix, it's just an alternative approach to help GMs fill in the blanks so to speak.

I think the original question was to how much work is involved for the GM, which absolutely varies by system and FFG SW is no question easier on the GM. Yeah you can shoehorn narrative results into any game, but SW is built around it.

The 'flaw' in completely random stats is not that a bad stat ruins a character; it's that the potential gulf between one character's average and another can be detrimental to the group's fun. If Bill rolled 3 18s for his D&D character, and the highest you rolled was a 12... yeah, Bill is probably going to be enjoying the game more than you...

This, this times a million. Random efficacy rolls are only realistic in the sense that the real world is crushingly and arbitrarily unfair and that's a bad thing to want to have in a game.

The 'flaw' in completely random stats is not that a bad stat ruins a character; it's that the potential gulf between one character's average and another can be detrimental to the group's fun. If Bill rolled 3 18s for his D&D character, and the highest you rolled was a 12... yeah, Bill is probably going to be enjoying the game more than you...

I think there's a sort-of unwritten rule where the GM allows you to re-roll your stuff if the dice turned out to be that bad.

But honestly, aside from such a result being fairly unlikely anyways ... in a system where the actual difference between a 12 and an 18 turns out to be 32 vs 38 (as those rolls get added to a fixed basis) - yeah, maybe that's just me, but I wouldn't consider it crippling for my fun.

It seems like "realism" in this case is closer to meaning "not planned for."

Yes, exactly - and whilst I can follow your reasoning, that doesn't change how I feel about it. Call it illogical, but characters who have all their stats and in 0s and 5s just appear to me like clones specifically bred to be the best at their job, which is not how I perceive the setting to work.

You know this is a consequence of the system only recognizing the 10s digit as being important, and increases working in increments of 5. So why is it that starting out with characteristics in increments of 5 seems unrealistic, but having stat increases only work in an increment of 5 or having no major difference in characters with 20-29 in a stat but suddenly having 30 adding a bunch of bonuses seems okay? Like, why do you think you're able to dissociate for the +5 (or 2, or 3) to a characteristic or the difference between 29 and 30 being more important than between 28 and 29, but not for players starting out with nicely rounded numbers?

I honestly have a theory that rpg players have become infected with this idea that trying to do well at the game being played is actually a bad thing that leads to bad stories. I really don't think this is the case. I think this comes from playing D&D 3.5 which had a high level of system mastery involved and no sense of balance, meaning that there had to be gentleman's agreements for players to not just wreck the system with the options given to them. This sensibility of "optimization = ruining the system" ended up bleeding through to every little mechanic with people, so you end up with this feeling that having a bunch of rounded numbers is wrong. Consider that that all of those even 5's and 10's in d100 are equivalent to 1-20 and suddenly they seem much less rounded.

Characteristics ending in other numbers just appear more "natural" to me, not just because of how people were born but also how they continue to develop. Even if a character is supposed to be "the best at their job" (which I do not necessarily agree with, especially at the start of a character's career when they have barely reached half their potential), 0s and 5s just look more like caps rather than stats-in-motion.

That the "gaps" in a character's evolving experience are fairly wide is of course another issue, but I can at least justify the +5 as an abstracted version of accumulated expertise. I should probably point out that, as part of a hypothesised "how about this instead of Unnatural Stats" houserule, I have in the past suggested to lower the steps of advancements to +2 and +3, which would eliminate the unnatural appearance of some characteristics sooner or later.

Again, why are these numbers more unnatural or natural seeming, given that they are entirely arbitrary abstractions. They literally just represent your chance to succeed at a task in the game. They have no actual parallel to real world ability, other than the 10s digits occasionally affecting things like how much weight you can lift. It just seems silly to me to take an inherently unnatural value and then apply the logic that 3s and 7s are more natural than 5s and 10s.

This visual appearance is just one half of the issue, though. The other being that pointbuy leads to "dump stats" - and I'm sorry, but I just cannot combine that idea with the concept of a well-rounded character. Just like I'd have to disagree about the implied connection between natural-looking stats and messy game mechanics.

Ironically, even FFG seems to agree with me here given how the official NPC profiles are written.

tl;dr: It boils down to a simple matter of perception, but the characters we play are still human beings with unique, individual strengths, weaknesses and experiences - not robots built and programmed to exacting factory specifications, and in a d100-based stat system their profiles should reflect that.

If people dislike the ones numbers in characteristics so much, that seems to be more of an argument for a d10-based ruleset, rather than a counterpoint to my argument?

Point buy doesn't lead to dump stats. Poorly implemented point buy does. You can easily design a point buy system that doesn't create dump stats. "You must invest at least X points in each attribute." There, no more dump stats, adjust X to whatever number you think no longer constitutes a dump stat. The only thing this prevents is someone with a character concept that has a really low stat, but then the only difference between them and the optimizer is that the optimizer is trying to do well at the game and the other one is trying to make a mechanical flaw. While it could be argued that there can be good reason to prevent players from handicapping their characters and instead have flaws be available through other means, let's just run with this. The end result of this mindset comes back to "people trying to do well at the game are engaging in bad behavior," or at least "planning your character around gameplay mechanics is wrong. If you think people trying to do well at the game are playing badly, then I will come out and say that you are engaging in bad GMing (unless the mindset is that its only bad if they do well at the expense of others). If a game enables a player to do well at the game at the expense of others, it could do with some redesigning. If your mindset is that planning your character around gameplay mechanics is wrong, then I would say that you probably shouldn't play game systems that reward players for doing so and afford them ample opportunities and reason to do so.

Also, in regards to the star wars dice, you can't really substitute an extra d6 to do the same job. Star wars dice have multiple results.

Successes and Failures, which cancel each other out and having extra successes means better success.

Advantage and Disadvantage, which cancel each other out and can add little good or bad things that result from the action or just happen to occur

Super good thing and super bad thing, which DON'T cancel each other out and represent either the worst or best thing that could happen from the roll.

In addition, there is a discrete list of things that advantage/disadvantage can be used to have occur, and this ties into both narrative play and encounter play. The whole game is designed around these things, and the fact that they not only provide narrative information but are also MORE FUN to interpret and play out than your standard dX's.

The reason why low prep works in star wars is that the system itself is fun and strategic to play, AND that it helps the GM do his job. Yes, a perfect GM could make up everything and have it perfectly fit in, but it's like the difference between having the visual flair and posting aids of this forum versus just doing everything in html code on a website that looks like notepad. If you've learned to do the latter, then great. For everyone else, the former is a lot easier.

You know this is a consequence of the system only recognizing the 10s digit as being important, and increases working in increments of 5. So why is it that starting out with characteristics in increments of 5 seems unrealistic, but having stat increases only work in an increment of 5 or having no major difference in characters with 20-29 in a stat but suddenly having 30 adding a bunch of bonuses seems okay? Like, why do you think you're able to dissociate for the +5 (or 2, or 3) to a characteristic or the difference between 29 and 30 being more important than between 28 and 29, but not for players starting out with nicely rounded numbers?

Because like I said, "nicely rounded numbers" just look artificial. Look, I've already admitted that this is an assessment based entirely on gut-feeling, but that's that and it won't change. They're like a visible evidence jumping right into my face, yelling "this character was optimised", and that automatically lets them feel more artificial than a character subjected to the perfectly natural element of randomness.

Also, you are really overestimating the importance of the tens digit. Yes, it's decisive for bonuses, but has zero bearings on the actual tests as you roll a d100 rather than a d10, meaning that the difference from a 28 to 29 is exactly as important as from 29 to 30. If you consider a single point of difference in stat bonuses so important that you feel you have to justify it with such a long text, I'd say you are just as emotional about it as I am.

There is a difference between "trying to do well" and obsessing over minuscule advantages, and in my opinion, that +1 SB or +1 TB is simply the latter.

Again, why are these numbers more unnatural or natural seeming, given that they are entirely arbitrary abstractions. They literally just represent your chance to succeed at a task in the game. They have no actual parallel to real world ability, other than the 10s digits occasionally affecting things like how much weight you can lift. It just seems silly to me to take an inherently unnatural value and then apply the logic that 3s and 7s are more natural than 5s and 10s.

Ironically, you are already half-delivering the counterargument to this all by yourself. The 3s and 7s look more natural because having all the stats in 5s and 10s is evidence of stat assignment being player-authored (artificial) rather than influenced by randomness (nature), specifically because they would be the goal of your optimisation..

You can't argue with "optimisation being good" on one hand, and then deny that this means an artificial intrusion into the representation of how the character would have otherwise been born and grown up, as represented by their characteristics, as if they'd be run through a huge mechanical press squeezing them into just the right format for the job that "fate" assigns them.

You can easily design a point buy system that doesn't create dump stats. "You must invest at least X points in each attribute."

Just because you have to invest a minimum of X points into Y doesn't make it any less of a dump stat. Dump stat means bare minimum (to free up those valuable points for what you actually want to maximise), so regardless of where you set this minimum, it'll always be there.

Not that I am that much opposed to dump stats. I think we all tend to neglect one or more characteristics in favour of what's more useful to what we want our characters to represent. However, that's no reason to let the dump stat simmer on the bare minimum for any character in that ruleset, because that brings us back to this feeling of artificiality.

And that's the thin line between "trying to do well" and minmaxing.

In other words, I most certainly do plan and design my characters around game mechanics. But I don't want this fact to be visible at the very first glance, and neither do I wish to evoke the appearance as if this is the only thing on my mind. And for this reason I am willing to sacrifice some level of efficiency in order to make the character feel more natural. Be that by missing out on that precious +1 tens bonus, or by investing a couple hundred XP into buying a skill that doesn't actually seem very useful, but which I feel the character should have due to their background.

Yes, I'm playing Style over Substance , and I have a lot of fun doing so.

The reason why low prep works in star wars is that the system itself is fun and strategic to play, AND that it helps the GM do his job. Yes, a perfect GM could make up everything and have it perfectly fit in, but it's like the difference between having the visual flair and posting aids of this forum versus just doing everything in html code on a website that looks like notepad. If you've learned to do the latter, then great. For everyone else, the former is a lot easier.

Perhaps I'm too cool for school or something, but how much prep work do you guys do for your games? At the most for my 40k rpg games I've written a single page of cliff notes with the general ideas and tentative goals. Which is my methodology for almost every rpg i've played, barring sand-boxe games which I do alot more prep work on the setting. The most work I do is designing my 'bad-ass' nemesis.

I think the original question was to how much work is involved for the GM, which absolutely varies by system and FFG SW is no question easier on the GM.

I think Radwraith's original point of contention with Gamgee was how much pre-game work was involved; and while I can't deny that the system makes a difference, for me personally the difference is negligible. I'd only say an average of around 5% of my prep time is spent stating antagonists for potential encounters. The rest is all detailing locales, coming up with NPC's, outlining potential arcs, and writing situations; all of which is 100% system-independent.

I honestly have a theory that rpg players have become infected with this idea that trying to do well at the game being played is actually a bad thing that leads to bad stories. I really don't think this is the case. I think this comes from playing D&D 3.5 which had a high level of system mastery involved and no sense of balance, meaning that there had to be gentleman's agreements for players to not just wreck the system with the options given to them. This sensibility of "optimization = ruining the system" ended up bleeding through to every little mechanic with people, so you end up with this feeling that having a bunch of rounded numbers is wrong. Consider that that all of those even 5's and 10's in d100 are equivalent to 1-20 and suddenly they seem much less rounded.

This may be true, but I believe there's more to it than that. I believe there is a perception among many fluff-oriented players that there is a correlation between crunch-oriented players and a number of undesirable behaviors; including but not limited to metagaming, rules lawyering, arguing endlessly with GM's, whining incessantly about flaws in the system, murderhoboing, playing characters that are nothing but walking stat blocks with a name, and getting pouty and huffy and deliberately dragging the game down when everyone doesn't praise them (both in game and out of game) for how awesome they are.

Let me be clear: I am not speaking to the validity of these perceptions (and have exactly zero interest in doing so); merely that they are perceptions which I have frequently observed.

In fact, in the spirit of fairness, here's a list of undesirable behaviors which I've frequently observed crunch-oriented players to perceive to correlate with fluff-oriented players: Mary Sue backgrounds, special snowflake backgrounds, excessively monopolizing the GM with NPC interactions with little-to-no bearing on the current story, playing up limitations for the sole purpose of putting attention on themselves, having to constantly be reminded of basic rules, making inappropriate amorous advances on other characters, and getting pouty and huffy and deliberately dragging the game down when those advances are rejected.

^ Just in addition to that, and to defuse a potential point of misunderstanding: I did not want to imply anything extreme about Nimsim's playing style. I fear he may have gotten so defensive because my post could be understood in a way that I'd unjustly accuse him of all those negative crunch-player extremes and, in doing so, hint at his characters not being as detailed, when in truth he may have put a load of work into them.

I lack the actual experience on his tables to make an accurate judgement, though just from his posts on this forum I'd be surprised if he would truly exhibit those traits in a notable manner, meaning any stronger than the average player does. Hell, I'm fairly sure I share some of those negative traits from both the crunch and the fluff group: I'm sure by now everyone knows of Toughness and Unnatural Stats being one of my "favourite" topics to discuss, and there have been a number of times where I had to inquire about some rule just because it was either late or it's been ages since I last used it (coinciding with my developing preference for systems with less complex .. or cluttered .. rules, as I just want to play rather than spending an hour per session just to read up in five different books on how stuff works again ).

No, for me it really is as simple as a feeling that 0s and 5s look too artificial. Call it a quirk of mine. Besides, with the official NPC profiles also not following this optimisation trend, why should I start with it?

What you said could make sense for the wider prejudice that may exist amongst RPGamers, though, and thus is still a good "both sides of the coin" response to Nimsim's perception.

I'm sure by now everyone knows of Toughness and Unnatural Stats being one of my "favourite" topics to discuss,

Unnatural Stats are actually my single biggest qualm with the system, so you're not alone in that particular antipathy.

The reason why low prep works in star wars is that the system itself is fun and strategic to play, AND that it helps the GM do his job. Yes, a perfect GM could make up everything and have it perfectly fit in, but it's like the difference between having the visual flair and posting aids of this forum versus just doing everything in html code on a website that looks like notepad. If you've learned to do the latter, then great. For everyone else, the former is a lot easier.

Perhaps I'm too cool for school or something, but how much prep work do you guys do for your games? At the most for my 40k rpg games I've written a single page of cliff notes with the general ideas and tentative goals. Which is my methodology for almost every rpg i've played, barring sand-boxe games which I do alot more prep work on the setting. The most work I do is designing my 'bad-ass' nemesis.

I do absurd amounts of prep work: detailing almost all of the NPCs the group is likely to encounter, mapping key locations, itemizing gear/loot the PCs are likely to find, detailing planetary culture and governance, mapping cities and continents, and designing adversaries that have a reasonable chance of not being one-shot-killed the first time the trigger-happy PCs set eyes on them.

And then I end up using about a third of the stuff that I have prepped...

And then I end up using about a third of the stuff that I have prepped...

Ah, yes, that ancient little problem of trying to anticipate how the players will (re)act ...

You know this is a consequence of the system only recognizing the 10s digit as being important, and increases working in increments of 5. So why is it that starting out with characteristics in increments of 5 seems unrealistic, but having stat increases only work in an increment of 5 or having no major difference in characters with 20-29 in a stat but suddenly having 30 adding a bunch of bonuses seems okay? Like, why do you think you're able to dissociate for the +5 (or 2, or 3) to a characteristic or the difference between 29 and 30 being more important than between 28 and 29, but not for players starting out with nicely rounded numbers?

Because like I said, "nicely rounded numbers" just look artificial. Look, I've already admitted that this is an assessment based entirely on gut-feeling, but that's that and it won't change. They're like a visible evidence jumping right into my face, yelling "this character was optimised", and that automatically lets them feel more artificial than a character subjected to the perfectly natural element of randomness.

Also, you are really overestimating the importance of the tens digit. Yes, it's decisive for bonuses, but has zero bearings on the actual tests as you roll a d100 rather than a d10, meaning that the difference from a 28 to 29 is exactly as important as from 29 to 30. If you consider a single point of difference in stat bonuses so important that you feel you have to justify it with such a long text, I'd say you are just as emotional about it as I am.

There is a difference between "trying to do well" and obsessing over minuscule advantages, and in my opinion, that +1 SB or +1 TB is simply the latter.

First, I think you're overestimating how natural randomness is. Keep in mind, this is pertaining to a statistic that is meant to be an abstract quantification of a character's chance of succeeding at a task in the game. Keep in mind that we're not talking about just building a character, we're talking about assigning gameplay mechanics to a character. Real world ability to do almost everything outside of sports has nothing to do with a person's percentage chance of doing something. Determining a character's ability to do something is abstracted into a random number generator which is further abstracted into a set of numbers that character plugs into the generator.

Given all of the above, you can see why I think it's silly to worry about "optimized" characters given that you are playing a game, and not just doing freeform roleplay. Something about a game filled with talents and skills and combat rounds and so on has obviously attracted you to gameplay that is more reflective of a game than any real world analogue. So I find it confusing why so many people would be so adamant about preserving a bunch of gameplay mechanics, adding on a physics engine that often runs counter to these mechanics, and then insist on punishing/disliking players for trying to play the game well.

You can claim that the player trying to do well is obsessing over a miniscule advantage, but that can be turned right back on you by saying it shouldn't matter how the player's values are assigned.

You can easily design a point buy system that doesn't create dump stats. "You must invest at least X points in each attribute."

Just because you have to invest a minimum of X points into Y doesn't make it any less of a dump stat. Dump stat means bare minimum (to free up those valuable points for what you actually want to maximise), so regardless of where you set this minimum, it'll always be there.

Not that I am that much opposed to dump stats. I think we all tend to neglect one or more characteristics in favour of what's more useful to what we want our characters to represent. However, that's no reason to let the dump stat simmer on the bare minimum for any character in that ruleset, because that brings us back to this feeling of artificiality.

And that's the thin line between "trying to do well" and minmaxing.

In other words, I most certainly do plan and design my characters around game mechanics. But I don't want this fact to be visible at the very first glance, and neither do I wish to evoke the appearance as if this is the only thing on my mind. And for this reason I am willing to sacrifice some level of efficiency in order to make the character feel more natural. Be that by missing out on that precious +1 tens bonus, or by investing a couple hundred XP into buying a skill that doesn't actually seem very useful, but which I feel the character should have due to their background.

First, your reasoning for this is suspect. You already advocated for players random rolling and assigning their rolls, something that will also result in dump stats. So now it sounds like you're okay with players choosing what stat to make the lowest, but not with them choosing exactly how low. You're okay with players choosing their what numbers to put in their stats, but not exactly what numbers. Why not have them use a stat array, then, and avoid the problem of random rolling creating uneven characters. The point of this is that almost any reason you have for using random rolling can be done better with assigned numbers or point buy, unless your reason is wanting to have the players play a game and not be able to choose how well they can play the game.

Also, for your style of play, there are ways to design systems where you don't have to choose between being true to your background and being good at the game. That is not good game design! You don't have to play these systems that are exercises in masochism and wind up fostering bad player beliefs and behaviors as a result.

The reason why low prep works in star wars is that the system itself is fun and strategic to play, AND that it helps the GM do his job. Yes, a perfect GM could make up everything and have it perfectly fit in, but it's like the difference between having the visual flair and posting aids of this forum versus just doing everything in html code on a website that looks like notepad. If you've learned to do the latter, then great. For everyone else, the former is a lot easier.

Perhaps I'm too cool for school or something, but how much prep work do you guys do for your games? At the most for my 40k rpg games I've written a single page of cliff notes with the general ideas and tentative goals. Which is my methodology for almost every rpg i've played, barring sand-boxe games which I do alot more prep work on the setting. The most work I do is designing my 'bad-ass' nemesis.

I run pretty much no prep beyond trying to get as good of a grasp on the rules as possible. Generally, I'm not going to be able to get my players to spend a lot of time pre-learning a setting, so I have to do a lot of broad strokes or establishing setting through game play.

I honestly have a theory that rpg players have become infected with this idea that trying to do well at the game being played is actually a bad thing that leads to bad stories. I really don't think this is the case. I think this comes from playing D&D 3.5 which had a high level of system mastery involved and no sense of balance, meaning that there had to be gentleman's agreements for players to not just wreck the system with the options given to them. This sensibility of "optimization = ruining the system" ended up bleeding through to every little mechanic with people, so you end up with this feeling that having a bunch of rounded numbers is wrong. Consider that that all of those even 5's and 10's in d100 are equivalent to 1-20 and suddenly they seem much less rounded.

This may be true, but I believe there's more to it than that. I believe there is a perception among many fluff-oriented players that there is a correlation between crunch-oriented players and a number of undesirable behaviors; including but not limited to metagaming, rules lawyering, arguing endlessly with GM's, whining incessantly about flaws in the system, murderhoboing, playing characters that are nothing but walking stat blocks with a name, and getting pouty and huffy and deliberately dragging the game down when everyone doesn't praise them (both in game and out of game) for how awesome they are.

Let me be clear: I am not speaking to the validity of these perceptions (and have exactly zero interest in doing so); merely that they are perceptions which I have frequently observed.

In fact, in the spirit of fairness, here's a list of undesirable behaviors which I've frequently observed crunch-oriented players to perceive to correlate with fluff-oriented players: Mary Sue backgrounds, special snowflake backgrounds, excessively monopolizing the GM with NPC interactions with little-to-no bearing on the current story, playing up limitations for the sole purpose of putting attention on themselves, having to constantly be reminded of basic rules, making inappropriate amorous advances on other characters, and getting pouty and huffy and deliberately dragging the game down when those advances are rejected.

"Tell me, Nimsim, how often do you beat your wife?"

I don't have this perception that crunch-oriented gamers engage in these bad behaviors. My perception is that crunch-oriented games tend to inadvertently cause these behaviors through bad game design and a lack of guidance for GMs. These things tend to be the game's fault (other than a player being pouty about not being called awesome). Most of the things that you mention as stereotypes for fluff-oriented players tend to be personal problems. I've also never heard these stereotypes for fluffy systems other than for systems relating to completely freeform roleplay or to the old world of darkness (which is still a crunchy system).

So yeah, I've constantly made a point of blaming a system for things rather than players (or blaming a system for causing bad beliefs) and you've seemingly taken it as me personally insulting you. It's fine if you like crunchy systems that aren't well-balanced. I like 1 dollar McDonalds cheeseburgers, but that still doesn't make them good. I could do better. The thing is, though, that for $1 a McDonalds cheeseburger is a really good deal compared to my other options, whereas one of these super crunchy systems is a huge time investment and should be worth all of that time.

^ Just in addition to that, and to defuse a potential point of misunderstanding: I did not want to imply anything extreme about Nimsim's playing style. I fear he may have gotten so defensive because my post could be understood in a way that I'd unjustly accuse him of all those negative crunch-player extremes and, in doing so, hint at his characters not being as detailed, when in truth he may have put a load of work into them.

I lack the actual experience on his tables to make an accurate judgement, though just from his posts on this forum I'd be surprised if he would truly exhibit those traits in a notable manner, meaning any stronger than the average player does. Hell, I'm fairly sure I share some of those negative traits from both the crunch and the fluff group: I'm sure by now everyone knows of Toughness and Unnatural Stats being one of my "favourite" topics to discuss, and there have been a number of times where I had to inquire about some rule just because it was either late or it's been ages since I last used it (coinciding with my developing preference for systems with less complex .. or cluttered .. rules, as I just want to play rather than spending an hour per session just to read up in five different books on how stuff works again ).

No, for me it really is as simple as a feeling that 0s and 5s look too artificial. Call it a quirk of mine. Besides, with the official NPC profiles also not following this optimisation trend, why should I start with it?

What you said could make sense for the wider prejudice that may exist amongst RPGamers, though, and thus is still a good "both sides of the coin" response to Nimsim's perception.

Where were you implying that my style of making characters isn't detailed? I didn't even notice that. I generally like to make characters who can do cool stuff in the game, and then make up a funny backstory that gives me something interesting to roleplay. I like doing both parts of an rpg, and I like games that don't make you sacrifice one for the other. I don't believe that games should make you sacrifice one for the other.

And I just think it's silly for you to think 0s and 5s look too artificial, so I'm trying to get to the bottom of your reasoning for it, and arguing about it because why not. It's a fun intellectual exercise to argue about things that don't really matter.

@AdeptusB

If you love doing the prep work, then keep at it. Consider refluffing it a bit and reusing it. If you plan out fighting orks and your players go after heretics, just cross out ork and have them fight a bunch of juiced up muscle implant heretics.

Or, toss it all and try out a low prep game and just have your players make up fluff for you as you go. See how you like it.

And then I end up using about a third of the stuff that I have prepped...

A whole third !? That's awesome!

Seriously, though; I feel your pain. I have an entire folder labeled "recycling" devoted to nothing but people, places, and things which ended up getting bypassed. I'll often find a later situation in which I can use something with only minor alterations.

The upshot is this, though: if you have that kind of leftover material, it means that you're not railroading your PC's or forcing the setting down their throats; and I'm willing to bet your players very much appreciate that.

^ Just in addition to that, and to defuse a potential point of misunderstanding: I did not want to imply anything extreme about Nimsim's playing style.

My deepest apologies if I came across like I was putting words in your (or anyone else's) mouth; it was not my intent. I don't believe that all member of either group carry those kinds of prejudices any more than I believe that all members of the opposite group embody them.

So yeah, I've constantly made a point of blaming a system for things rather than players (or blaming a system for causing bad beliefs) and you've seemingly taken it as me personally insulting you.

No, and in fact the first sentence of my post was an acknowledgement that I believe you're correct about bad game design being a factor in people's negative perceptions of certain approaches to roleplaying. I simply believe that there are others which are at least equally significant.

Given all of the above, you can see why I think it's silly to worry about "optimized" characters given that you are playing a game, and not just doing freeform roleplay. Something about a game filled with talents and skills and combat rounds and so on has obviously attracted you to gameplay that is more reflective of a game than any real world analogue.

I see your personal reasoning, I just can't "get" it, similar to how you don't seem to understand how I am ticking here.

Exactly! And I don't think this is suspect at all. Like I mentioned before, to me, this is just an ideal compromise between total randomness and total control. It prevents your character concept from being undermined completely due to bad dice, whilst simultaneously avoiding that appearance of artificiality. The best of both worlds.

Or, "natural optimisation", representing an abstract combination of a characters' stats developing with only limited guidance, but affecting what role/profession they'd attain (even though the latter is the player's choice, reversing the process OOC'ly by assigning the characteristics based on the chosen class, rather than choosing the class based on your characteristics).

If everyone is special ised , no one is.

I don't think I did, but in combination with your statement regarding the "fear of optimisation" and Vorzakk's thesis regarding a certain bias between the different types of players I worried it could be seen as such due to mere proximity.

My deepest apologies if I came across like I was putting words in your (or anyone else's) mouth; it was not my intent. I don't believe that all member of either group carry those kinds of prejudices any more than I believe that all members of the opposite group embody them.

No worries! I just wanted to address a possible source of misunderstanding before it could actually lead to it, so to say. Maybe I was too cautious, but given the very polar positions of Nimsim and mine, I'd preferred to better be safe than sorry.

If everyone is special ised , no one is.

I just want to point out that this canard is a quote from the movie The Incredibles and is spoken by the main antagonist who is, in the context of the movie, wrong . You're repeating the words of the villain that the whole movie shows is wrong.

I don't understand why this happens. It's like people latching onto Gordon "Greed is Good" Gecko defending his reprehensible avarice in court. He was the bad guy .

I just want to point out that this canard is a quote from the movie The Incredibles and is spoken by the main antagonist who is, in the context of the movie, wrong . You're repeating the words of the villain that the whole movie shows is wrong.

Two things:

1. Syndrome's plan was completely sound - He was going to make the 'Supers' redundant by giving powers out to the general public via technological means. His motivations and goals were what was wrong. Had his motivations not been driven by a desire for revenge born out of rejection from the opening rejection of Mr. Incredible, it could have been altuistic.

2. Lynata was more or less using that line to equate to Nimsim's view on optimization.

Yeah, I think that line is actually a lot older than that movie, isn't it...?

I've "learned" it many years ago as the internet's reaction to MMORPG characters, who have a reputation of all being "special" as the game treats them as The Biggest Hero Ever, even though .. well, everyone does the same stuff.

To be fair, The Incredibles is kind of subtly a celebration of Objectivism and depending on your thoughts on that, the movie's intended message IS wrong.

To be fair, The Incredibles is kind of subtly a celebration of Objectivism and depending on your thoughts on that, the movie's intended message IS wrong.

Wow thanks for ruining that movie I saw once when I was a kid for me, bro.

Zomg! For some reason, I didn't realize you were that young cps!

I wonder why Disney/pixar never made a second one...