First of all, I feel one of the most basic requirements of playing in a PnP group is trying to build a character that fits in with the rest. Anything that clashes with other people's characters and lessens their enjoyment of the game for whatever reason (too strong, too weak, clash of outlooks etc.) is a **** move in my book.

No, Dave really needs to be a fighter or wizard. Yes, clerics might be able to pull it off, but a real Dave the Dragonslayer either needs flashy and destructive beams of death coming out of his eyeballs, or he needs to be encased in several millimeters of Dwarven steel and wielding an arcane blade of wing sundering. Given that Dave is a wizard or a fighter, then any build (I'm assuming no D&D 3.X here, since that's practically a classless system, with all the options of skills and feats, and I know nothing of D&D4 or Next or...or...) will eventually be able to slay dragons. The only thing optimization will give Dave is simply being able to slay the dragon at an earlier time in the game, hence my statement that such a player is only attempting to be more powerful for their level than that they would otherwise be; that they are in fact trying to monopolize the game's dramatic moments, steal all the glory, etc.

I'll talk about 3.5 since it's the D&D edition I'm most familiar with: if a fighter (or paladin) Dave (which I agree is probably the closest to the typical dragoslayer image) wants to be a dragonslayer (which for me means 'has slain dragon(s) as part of his background and is capable of slaying dragons at the game table') he will have to optimize quite a fair bit, because the average fighter/paladin has next to no chance of dealing with even the most basic defense of a dragon (Flight). Much like building a simple 'master of stealth' in D&D 3.5 required a ton of optimization because the plain Rogue lacked even the most basic stuff (Hide in Plain Sight, ways to bypass Blidnsight or similar, ways around even the simplest magical wards like Alarm etc.)

Even so, regardless of edition (not sure about the very old ones though), D&D has worked with CRs. Not optimizing might not mean 'can slay dragons later', but rather 'will never be able to slay an appropriate CR dragon'.

It's a very fine line, that line between character optimization and intelligent character development, but I can usually spot it during character generation. In our last campaign someone showed up with a Missionary *** Tainted > Mutant > spend 200XP for mutation of choice > Wyrdling > choice of techniques = Compel and Mind Probe. It's all perfectly legal (the loophole not being closed by the Errata, though Into the Storm did close the loophole on the Witchborn) since the rules don't state that the character needs the prerequisites for those psychic techniques. See any problem here? The person playing the Astropath was immediately made obsolete and wouldn't be the party's premier psychic until the end-game, plus the Missionary is arguably the best anti-psychic in the game, or at least the most psy-resistant. That means the Missionary, who can usually challenge the RT in social situations, now outshining them (with the ability to Compel), outshine the Astropath in telepathy related matters, and outshine the Navigator in their ability to stand down hostile psykers. And that's not intelligent character design. That's pure unadulterated power-gaming. It's selfish game-play. It's not allowing other players to shine in their chosen career because you've outdone all their abilities in a single career. Of course, the player had a long and detailed rationalization explaining how his psyker became a Missionary, and it was all quite believable, and there's no way in hell I'd ever allow such a monster into one of my games and expect anyone to ever again take me for a serious GM.

And now I've probably offended someone who drew up exactly the same character, thinking their special Mary Lou was their own unique brainchild that nobody else had ever thought of before, which takes us right back up to the top of the page, where I was telling Traejun that sometimes you just have to tell it the way it is. In my defense, however, I'll point out that this is all detailed in my House Rules, which some of you might have read in my thread there.

Believe it or not, there are games where that kind of character will be the norm, and the guy showing up with a plain, can just do the basic stuff, Rogue Trader or Astropath is the selfish one because he's expecting the other 3 guys playing optimized characters to carry him through challenges.

Apart from stuff that simply breaks the game (as in makes it non-functional, D&D communities mostly called it Theoretical Optimization as it wasn't intend for actual play), most characters should only be judged 'too strong' or 'too weak' in comparison with the rest of the player characters. If everyone else is roughly at the same power level (whatever that power level might be) and the DM doesn't feel hard pressed to challenge them, where's the problem ?

Its a constant battle I find between role and roll playing.

I tried to generate peoples characters in my first ever (as GM) roleplay game by giving them (pcs) the choices In the book and specifically not tell them the bonus or character change they would get form it (hiding the crunch), for example a guy would pick 'stubjack', get the blurb for it but the bonuses would remain a mystery, I did this because I craved the 'screw rules, pure roleplay, **** the consequences' and it would make powerplay impossible, it would promote a purity of character design where the PC has made a character completely ignorant of the rules and benefits, I would obviously help guide people and ensure peoples niches remain solid.

This however did not float with some players, sadly had to toss it and do the standard "What does stubjack give me? oh it gives me X ill take it"

A sad day, and grinds my gears still.

Its a constant battle I find between role and roll playing.

I tried to generate peoples characters in my first ever (as GM) roleplay game by giving them (pcs) the choices In the book and specifically not tell them the bonus or character change they would get form it (hiding the crunch), for example a guy would pick 'stubjack', get the blurb for it but the bonuses would remain a mystery, I did this because I craved the 'screw rules, pure roleplay, **** the consequences' and it would make powerplay impossible, it would promote a purity of character design where the PC has made a character completely ignorant of the rules and benefits, I would obviously help guide people and ensure peoples niches remain solid.

This however did not float with some players, sadly had to toss it and do the standard "What does stubjack give me? oh it gives me X ill take it"

A sad day, and grinds my gears still.

- The knee-jerk reaction 'it's MY character'. A player's character is the only thing he controls in the game world, and GM attempts to significantly limit that control rubs me the wrong way significantly. So much that I did storm off in the middle of a D&D session once over being told by GM 'your character wouldn't do that'.

-If I make a character for a lengthy campaign, enjoying playing him is paramount. I draw enjoyment in a character out of 2 aspects: RPing him and using his mechanical abilities. While this method would almost certainly result in a character I'd enjoy RPing (there might be exceptions though, like wanting to play a character pure in the eyes of the Emperor and choosing something that gives you Corruption and/or a mutation for example) there would be no guarantee I'd end up with a character I'd enjiy from a mechanical point of view (especially after finally going through the book and seeing what I missed)

But conversely, a character specced to be amazing in 'whatever' created a hollow-man that nobody enjoys, the player rping him or the party to the GM, random aside, ever used point-buy in RT or any 40K rp? its amazing how mechanical characters become lol, its awful.

I know its good fun being 'amazing' at something, but ultimately its just not important, sure you might miss a shot but hey, its roleplay, sugar happens, it adds to the roleplay, some of the most fun characters I've roleplayed were thin pre-gens that I could fill with personality and not worry about them being tactically viable, the oldest game ive played has been with a pre-gen, and he's awesome.

Being a pilot with a dodgy eye that's had more 'hard' landings than soft ones is just as much fun as the ultra-competent fighter-pilot.

Mechanics just arnt important, sure they are (to me) essential to play a game and keep it sensible, but let the GM worry about that crap.

I just want my players to be creative in a ever-changing environment and rule-of-cool everything.

I tend to find the hyper-optimization to be a fun-killer. People here have posted stuff for this game, I'm going to risk accusing the wrong person, but I believe it was Errant Knight who posted the supercarrier, a ship well within players' range of abilities to get, and so unnecessarily broken as to make one cry. It was so silly, it made me question why "the Imperial Navy favors true warships, over carrier vessels, and reserves these august ships for rear support duty, or mothballs them, due to the expense of maintaining their attack craft assets", and why "players should choose anything else, justifiably, when this thing will eat most any threat the GM can pull, that he didn't build specifically to eat this supercarrier", at the same time. It's attack craft could kill almost anything, and quickly, and with the right upgrades, and such, you almost never lost fighters, so they weren't even that expensive to maintain. It was a super-optimized vessel that made anything the publishers printed up cake (a glaring potential flaw in much of FFG's 40K works), and the only real reason to go a different route was to have a more non-military-themed ship, but when fighting is the most dangerous thing you do, and this ship is good at that, you do that, and scrounge up Achievement Points elsewhere, going up in PF, anyway.

D&D could be just as bad. If I was in a group of six, I might try to optimize, but if I was in a group of four, with my friends being "especially and only good at one thing" was the deathblow, and it was the insult to my players. I can slay dragons, I have the prestige class, and everything, but THEY can't, so either we fight dragons, and they die, if I can't kill it fast enough, or we fight other stuff, and my abilities don't proc, because those aren't dragons. It was often good to be good at TWO things, and at 5th-9th level, you really shouldn't optimize both, while my games usually fizzled before double digit levels. Also, when someone else joins, later, and they say what they want to do, which should be more important than what you think they should do, it can hurt to say "nope, sorry. We already have a buffer bard, and don't really need a wizard who specs in buffs. We could certainly use another beat stick, though." If people are good at several things each, they can afford to have a new player step in, and get to do what they want a little more.

Example: in my last D&D game, I was playing a Noble/Rogue combo. The party didn't know it, but Silver was the deposed king of the country, hiding from assassins who wanted to kill him for the greedy general who tried to oust him. Silver was speced for talking, disguise skill, and using buffs, but I was only allowed to use the Noble class on the condition that no one else in the party knew it. I would buff, and they assumed I was some sort of bard. That worked until we got a real bard, later, and he put me to shame. Some of my buffs were slightly different, and my Charisma was actually a bit higher, but he made much of what I could do meh, and I really couldn't grumble, because bard was what he wanted to play. By the end, I was a Nbl 4/Rog 3/LegTac 5/SfChan 2, and some of that stuff was purely to have something ELSE to do, such as fight competently, when I had originally expected to be the mouthpiece/buffer machine. Silver was always fun, and my favorite D&D character in along time (that means something considering he wasn't a wizard), but he lost a lot of purpose when parts of his class were partly unavailable, and other parts were outdone by someone who knew how to pimp bards to be ridiculous.

These are my relative feelings, at least. Your mileage may vary, depending on your preferences, and you friends. I like to be a bit more jack-of-all-trades, master of one or two. Aedan Qel-Drake is my most in-depth character, and he is a bit cheesy, as I see it, able to charm the pants off of about anyone, while also being very good in a sword fight, and pretty good in a gun fight, with a pistol fluff-intended to melt tanks, that he can use on people. if Aedan wasn't any good in combat, he'd get punked for his boisterous, and lecherous, ways, while if I optimized him for combat, he'd be a grizzled monster who no one would want to drink with. RT tries better than some games, at least some of the time, to try and say "SOMEONE in your party is good at that", but I'm more a fan of characters with a wider array of skills, just to not get bored when we aren't _________. I played Shadowrun ages ago, I don't even think it works like it did then, anymore, and I decided to be a decker. I had so much cool crap, and was well optimized to fulfill my role, but if we weren't in a place where I could net-run, I wasn't so useful, and was bored, while if I was doing that, the rest of the team was sitting by, waiting for me to get to a good pausing point, so that they could go through the doors I unlocked, or whatever. I was okay in a gunfight, and mechanized enough to survive a couple of hits, but it was the last place I was prepared for. That game thankfully imploded when the GM revealed he didn't actually know the system well enough to run it, and also pulled supporting NPCs who were a lot better than us (that whole "why are WE here, again?" conundrum.)

My group only uses PB, no rolling. It lets us build the characters we want rather than the characters we are (un)lucky to roll.

I've never had any issue in building an interesting character with PB.

If anything, I find it easier to do a story first, mechanics after approach with PB because I can assign the stats perfectly in a way that fits the character I have imagined.

As a side-note though, I find PB in 40k RPGs to be poorly done. In D&D for example, your PB dump stats make you slightly below average at that thing. In 40k, PB dump stats make you absolutely worst at that thing. A D&D char who dumps Int is slightly dumber than average (8 on a 3-18 scale). A RT char who dumps Int is the dumbest man alive (20 is the absolute minimum a human can have)

I think that playing that character that wants to be "pure in the eyes of the Emperor," but has a few corruption points in the backstory is more interesting than the one that has none. That could be the driving force in the story, that character's motivation. This is what set them on their path to purity.

I also love that pilot that's Ace McRace in the air but brings that bird down hard when it's all over. That character has character and class. The pilot that does everything right is boring.

Characters NEED flaws, and not those ones that give you more points to build the character with, but flaws that are pure disability and not just for the character in question, but for the whole party. The path to overcoming that flaw is part of the plot. It's the GMs responsibility to provide the opportunities to overcome that flaw, and it's the player's responsibility to fail a few times in order to highlight the flaw. I think if you do a search on "how to roleplay well" then you'll find that most veteran gamers agree with these sentiments.

And yes Venkelos, It was me that posted that obnoxious carrier. And while that ship is a combat beast I've drawn up even more obnoxious ships that are entirely within the rules. I have a Universe-class that you can afford as a starting ship that will earn you +68 PF in a single voyage. Now that's obnoxious, and it underlines the faulty reasoning behind optimization, because it's next to impossible to design a game that gives myriads of character choice and close all the loopholes that can be taken advantage of.

I agree character need flaws. A well-built personality always has them I just disagree it's more productive to randomly determine them as opposed to having the player choose some he would have fun RPing.

Also, there should be a really clear line betwwen optimizing for an actual game (where the goal is still to play and have fun) and optimizing fir a thought exercise (like that +68 PF Universe). Both these categories of optimization (practical and theoretical) shouldn't just be lumped together.

I agree character need flaws. A well-built personality always has them I just disagree it's more productive to randomly determine them as opposed to having the player choose some he would have fun RPing.

Also, there should be a really clear line betwwen optimizing for an actual game (where the goal is still to play and have fun) and optimizing fir a thought exercise (like that +68 PF Universe). Both these categories of optimization (practical and theoretical) shouldn't just be lumped together.

I have to respectfully disagree. Optimzation is, by nature, competitive. If optimization is an objective, it behooves me to be better at it than the next person, at which point the Universe is more than fair game, it is a necessary component. The only way to avoid this line of reasoning is to completely remove optimization as an objective.

About your comments on Points-Buy, I have to say I prefer it. Does it tend to produce over-powered characters? Yes, but that's another fault of the system. The advantage of points-buy is its inherent fairness. I like level playing fields for the players. Also, in a game with character classes I like players being able to draw up the character class they want to play, and randomized stats don't permit that.

>>> Yes, but that's another fault of the system.

LOL

I agree character need flaws. A well-built personality always has them I just disagree it's more productive to randomly determine them as opposed to having the player choose some he would have fun RPing.

Also, there should be a really clear line betwwen optimizing for an actual game (where the goal is still to play and have fun) and optimizing fir a thought exercise (like that +68 PF Universe). Both these categories of optimization (practical and theoretical) shouldn't just be lumped together.

I have to respectfully disagree. Optimzation is, by nature, competitive. If optimization is an objective, it behooves me to be better at it than the next person, at which point the Universe is more than fair game, it is a necessary component. The only way to avoid this line of reasoning is to completely remove optimization as an objective.

In my view, optimization isn't, or shouldn't be a goal. It's a means to an end. Whatever end you might be using it for is up to you. For ne, it usually is 'bringing up a character concept to the level I and my fellow players consider adequate for the fullest enjoyment of the game'. I've been gaming with optimizers for almost 10 years and neither we nor most people I've bounced ideas around on D&D optimization boards have had little issues with being mature about it and not going past a limit that is acceptable to everyone (GM and players).

Optimization has allowed us to bring weaker/less supported character concepts (like melee or sword&pistol in RT) up to par with concepts that are inherently stronger/better supported.

In the end, what matters in game is the power level of your character, not how much optimization it took to get there.

An optimized character is one designed to utilize the rules to their best benefit. Anything less than my best is disingenuous. My best breaks the game. Should I draw up something less than my best? That allows me to say, "Hey it only somewhat breaks the game; I could do worse." Does that make my less-than-best acceptable?

Some people say the end justifies the means. Others say the means defines the end. I belong to the latter crowd. I've played with optimizers for almost 50 years now, and while I can appreciate the mental acrobatics I've learned to disallow those characters in RPGs I run. I like D&D 3.X but never run it because the rules are so easily taken advantage of...just look at plethora of "my character is a lvl 2 this, lvl 3 that, and lvl 1 this-that-and-the-other." The system reeks of rules-lawyering. Wargames are different since those are competitive by design. I'm not throwing dirt at you, believe me. After 10 years of play I was still one of those that engaged in it. I fully understand the attraction. As I said earlier, I'm an old-time wargamer at heart. RPGs came along later (early '70s).

One of the reasons I like RT so much is because the scope and scale make broken characters less important. Who cares if your Explorator can arm-wrestle 16 demons and win? Your rival RT is meanwhile landing 16 Imperial Guard regiments on the other side of the planet. The only parts of RT I find irretrievably broken are ship combat and achievement points, both which are addressed in my house rules.

What I do works for me. What you do probably works for you (you likely wouldn't be gaming for so long if it didn't), so in the end we'll most likely just have to agree to dusagree.

An optimized character is one designed to utilize the rules to their best benefit. Anything less than my best is disingenuous. My best breaks the game. Should I draw up something less than my best? That allows me to say, "Hey it only somewhat breaks the game; I could do worse." Does that make my less-than-best acceptable?

Some people say the end justifies the means. Others say the means defines the end. I belong to the latter crowd. I've played with optimizers for almost 50 years now, and while I can appreciate the mental acrobatics I've learned to disallow those characters in RPGs I run. I like D&D 3.X but never run it because the rules are so easily taken advantage of...just look at plethora of "my character is a lvl 2 this, lvl 3 that, and lvl 1 this-that-and-the-other." The system reeks of rules-lawyering. Wargames are different since those are competitive by design. I'm not throwing dirt at you, believe me. After 10 years of play I was still one of those that engaged in it. I fully understand the attraction. As I said earlier, I'm an old-time wargamer at heart. RPGs came along later (early '70s).

One of the reasons I like RT so much is because the scope and scale make broken characters less important. Who cares if your Explorator can arm-wrestle 16 demons and win? Your rival RT is meanwhile landing 16 Imperial Guard regiments on the other side of the planet. The only parts of RT I find irretrievably broken are ship combat and achievement points, both which are addressed in my house rules.

This sort of **** makes my brain hurt. What you saying is, essentially, I can make a completely broken, OP special mary-sue snowflake... and it's ok because its RT?

I'll even go a step further, Traejun, and say that Mary Lou's ultra-optimized combat monster wasted her XP...unless she's playing D&D in space.

An optimized character is one designed to utilize the rules to their best benefit. Anything less than my best is disingenuous. My best breaks the game. Should I draw up something less than my best? That allows me to say, "Hey it only somewhat breaks the game; I could do worse." Does that make my less-than-best acceptable?

Some people say the end justifies the means. Others say the means defines the end. I belong to the latter crowd. I've played with optimizers for almost 50 years now, and while I can appreciate the mental acrobatics I've learned to disallow those characters in RPGs I run. I like D&D 3.X but never run it because the rules are so easily taken advantage of...just look at plethora of "my character is a lvl 2 this, lvl 3 that, and lvl 1 this-that-and-the-other." The system reeks of rules-lawyering. Wargames are different since those are competitive by design. I'm not throwing dirt at you, believe me. After 10 years of play I was still one of those that engaged in it. I fully understand the attraction. As I said earlier, I'm an old-time wargamer at heart. RPGs came along later (early '70s).

One of the reasons I like RT so much is because the scope and scale make broken characters less important. Who cares if your Explorator can arm-wrestle 16 demons and win? Your rival RT is meanwhile landing 16 Imperial Guard regiments on the other side of the planet. The only parts of RT I find irretrievably broken are ship combat and achievement points, both which are addressed in my house rules.

This sort of **** makes my brain hurt. What you saying is, essentially, I can make a completely broken, OP special mary-sue snowflake... and it's ok because its RT?

Personally, I'm not sure anyone is saying "and it's okay , because it's Rogue Trader?" (my opinion, at least; I won't speak for anyone else), as much as saying it's Rogue Trader, and it allows you to build such a thing with nary a house rule; as written in several books, you just can, and it's legal. Rogue Trader won't hold it against you, and nothing they wrote up will survive, without the GM customizing everything as if your ship is merely a benchmark, and not the upper echelon of ship-death. I won't say a thing about fair , because you might hear me laughing through the Internet, right about now, but you can, unless your GM says no, and on some levels, that's just them using fiat, which some people view as just as weak. Yes, the GM makes the rules, but the book that we all borrow most of those rules from says one thing, and my plan only failed because the GM doesn't like it; too much work for them. Not a failure of interpretation; they just don't like it. The players aren't truly given a good reason NOT to build this Crystalline Entity (a good reference, if you know it; maybe two), other than they might not be able to afford it NOW, and they might not want such a military-themed ship. If you are going to optimize and such, build a ship that can kill all comers, if it needs to, and perform the other endeavor chunks, as normal. You'll make plenty over time, regardless.

Personally, I'm not a fan of such optimization, as I like my stuff to have a bit more character, and sometimes the flaws are as much character points as the perks are. On the other hand, of the handful of ships I've built, one is a Dictator (the Hammerfall ), so it's most of the way to the supercarrier, and has torpedoes, too, one is a long-range warhorse that I like, even if it isn't well optimized, and it's quite tough (the Exalted Wyrm ), and the other is it's escort Havoc missile-boat (the Wyvern ), so I'm not in the best position to talk, and I've always had freedom to build what I want as the GM would, rather than constraints of available points and GM fiats. A few others I've started aren't done, as I haven't needed them, but they'd be cheesy for other reasons (a warp lance cannon, or being the focal ship of a story I'm on-again/off-again writing).