If a low powered game is the thing you and your players want, then go for it, but don't BS yourself into thinking that starting the players off with fewer resources somehow makes the roleplay purer .

That's elitist garbage.

It's the same game with smaller numbers.

The GM has the same challenges in crafting a compelling storyline, with a solid tone, interesting flavorful NPC's, and "level" appropriate challenges. The players can still choose how to approach the situations presented, how to go about overcoming the challenges, and decide whether or not to power/meta game within the allowed rules, or whether they want to go deep into character interactions or ignore all the "box text" and kick in the door to roll dice.

Starting SP/PF means nothing to any of that.

If a low powered game is the thing you and your players want, then go for it, but don't BS yourself into thinking that starting the players off with fewer resources somehow makes the roleplay purer .

That's elitist garbage.

It's the same game with smaller numbers.

The GM has the same challenges in crafting a compelling storyline, with a solid tone, interesting flavorful NPC's, and "level" appropriate challenges. The players can still choose how to approach the situations presented, how to go about overcoming the challenges, and decide whether or not to power/meta game within the allowed rules, or whether they want to go deep into character interactions or ignore all the "box text" and kick in the door to roll dice.

Starting SP/PF means nothing to any of that.

I disagree... for many reasons. Not the least of which is that there is no such thing as a low powered RT game. You own a voidship, crewed by tens of thousands... you're not low powered... ever.

As for GM challenges, I again disagree. In order to make a scenario that is compelling to a high powered group, you essentially have to spend more time making things like combat non-trivial. By spending time doing that, you simply don't apply it to more worthwhile aspects of the game, like RP. As a 20-year GM, I've experienced this time and time again. When given the opportunity, players will flex their stats to ease through problems. When they don't have the stats to flex, they think more. That's where game get interesting.

IMO, the only garbage being discussed here is the belief that rules must be rigidly followed... to the detriment of the game. The second a player goes rule-lawyer on me, they can find the door. Not because I'm being questioned, but because if they are thinking about that, they are focused on the wrong things.

From my experience, I find both high power and low power groups more difficult to chalkenge than average power ones. Most systems seem to have a 'swwet spot' on the balance scale, where you can throw stuff at the party straight from the book and they are strong enough to handle it, but weak enough to be challenged by it. Go too far on either the high or low side and the GM needs to start doing more encounter building work (which is something some of us enjoy though).

You also seem to want your players to aolve problems with tools found outside the rules rather than inside them (not flexing their stats). In that case why have rules at all? They seem to me more of a hinderance rather than a tool for the kind of game you want to play.

Also, I don't advocate rigidly following the rules uf it hurts the game, but I do feel that, when a player sits down to play 'Rogue Trader', he is well within his rights to expect the rules in the Rogue Trader book to be adhered to most of the.time, unless the GM clearly stated otherwise beforehand.

In my, won't admit how long, time as DM'ng I have picked up a few things. Related:

One is that LordBlades is correct that mid-powered groups are the easiest to DM. A 1st-3rd level character in D&D for instance can die with a sneeze, and you have to be very careful in choosing challenges that won't accidentally TPK. At Mid range, there is plenty of things that will challenge/frighten the players, and plenty of things the players will frighten. The second part is just as important as the first: The players should be allowed to FEEL the power they are accruing(or starting with). . . and if you have a combat leaning party, that feeling of power should manifest in having combats that the players rip through with ease(not every combat mind you). And if my players min-max a shooting ship in RT, they will get the opportunity to own opposing ships with it. We all enjoy the feeling of success, and mastering the rules of the system is a means of EARNING that success.

Second: As GM, it isn't my game. I am the host and referee of a social event, not a god deigning to spend time with lesser beings. My goal is for everyone to have a good time, and "Rule 0" is something that can undermine that fun. The rules are the foundation of the evening, one which the story and events are built on. Both the players and the GM will abide by them. If it is apparent that the rules are up to DM whim then that foundation becomes fluid and undependable. The player's ability to act with confidence is undermined. (which already happens to some degree since this world is so far different from their own. Modern settings are easier that way)

By limiting myself to the rules (and being a bit flexible when adjudicating on behalf of the players), the players feel empowered, have more fun, and keep coming back. Set the scene, and hands off. If the players kill the big bad in one hit, so be it. (though I may delay the moment of death in order to get all the players an attack; minor fudge they tend to not notice and enjoy more) Many times I have witnessed GMs who didn't realize the only reason the players were having fun was because they were hanging out with friends, and that they were hindering more than helping. Gauging how well the GM is doing can be quite difficult with social games, as friends hanging out will tend to have fun regardless.

To bring it back to ship creation: In the 2 games I recently started running(one already going, the other soon to start), Players go through the Warrant & Origin Path for storyline background. .. but PF is fixed at 20, SP at 70, and whatever isn't spent on the ship goes to PF. This allows them the most freedom (both story and gear wise), without the randomness of the Core's system, or the min/maxy of the ItS setup. Max out SP and start with low PF? Peachy, the players get some fun space combats, but hope they didn't choose to be armed with torpedoes. Opposite? Peachy, they will run from space combat for awhile, but . . . etc. etc. etc. . .

Teleportarium is a complication though. I'll probably leave it with the once per major encounter thing. If the players choose to have something they only use once in a while that is on them. . .

Whenever I've theorycrafted a ship for play (I'm always the GM in RT, so sad ), I've typically gone for the small cheap ship and kitted her out to the nines, figured survival in space trumped all other concerns. Recently however I have been attracted more to the idea of a half-mothballed cruiser+ sized ship which is barely equipped. . . like an Overlord with 2 guns and a couple supplemental components. Not effective in pretty much any way, but would go well with the theme of rebuilding a near ruined House. Call her the House of Usher or some such

Well written post. I disagree with much, but you make cogent arguments.

No point in arguing about it. As long as you have fun at your table, that's all that matters. With that out of the way, I shall start arguing!

In my experience I just throw enemies with better statblocks at my PCs, I have an idea of where fights might happen and what might be there, but it's pretty elastic, I mostly base it on their current attention span. Setting up complicated combats never took that much time, because I improvise them 90% of the time. It's just something I've gotten used to with this gameline. But that's something I'm okay with and something my players never forced me out of. So as always YMMV.

The argument is more about preferred styles of play, than one about the sanctity of RAW. No one is wrong for liking games where all the PCs are glimmering in archeotech, command hundreds of ships, billions of humans, and can slap box a bloodthrister to death without ever being in trouble. No one is wrong for liking games where you have 20 PF, 20 SP, states in the 20s and 30s, and maybe a single bolter to your name at chargen. And when it comes to social dynamics at a table everyone is different, and the only thing that matters is if the table is happy.

I sometimes get into rule disputes with players. About all sorts of stuff(rules, gear, rulings, powers). And mostly I'm happy to talk it out. In the same way that while their characters and decisions are their own. There's certain things I don't want to do in certain games.

To me we're all having this shared experience, collectively telling a story, and trying to have a goodtime. Sometimes I tweak them and they tweak me, and it mostly works out. This works partially because we're all on the same page when it comes to our expectations, and partially because we all have known each other for a long time before we started playing. You can always work on the first one, but the second one is unusual. I honestly don't know how I'd deal with serious table conflict, I have some ideas, but I've never had a real issue. I've gotten into one shouting match in 3 years because I didn't telegraph how dangerous an opponent was that I didn't think the players would attack. Which ain't half bad considering. That made the players lean heavy on avoidance(I think that's where all their XP went til it was maxed after that incident), and it made me institute the "if I ask you if you're sure three times, it's not my fault," policy. Every table is different, do what works for you.

What J said basically what I was writing this post.

Again, another well written and thought-out post.

As a final point on this issue, I have to stress that part of the reason I do things the way I do is because I find that players glean a lot of gratification from the feeling of grinding up from a failing dynasty to a powerful one. The path and journey to power and riches is a very important one, and something that seems an integral part of the game. If you come out of the gates in a decked Cruiser, glimmering in archeotech, where is there to go? Another cruiser? A battlecruiser? A fleet full of ships faffing about the expanse making you more money than you can reasonably spend? That just feels unexciting and elicits the feeling that I'm robbing the players of something indispensable to the story as a whole. When players start out modestly-equipped (by RT standards), every gain feels massive. When they start there and look back on the past, they can feel true pride in beholding what they have built. In my opinion, that simply can't exist when you're coming out of the gates in geared to the nuts.

I get that many many players have a tough time with having less than they feel they are entitled to. I accept that this exists. I just don't care because, to be frank, I am the GM and if they don't like my approach, they are free to find another GM. They will invariably state, at some point deep into the campaign, that they see the merits of my approach... and often copy it in games they subsequently GM. I take great pride in that.

Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, I have GMed with success a campaign that began more like the one that LordBlades seems to favor. The players came out of the gates with a Conquest-class Star Galleon, very well fitted (mostly for trade/fancy-factor) and were personally loaded with top notch gear. The campaign I'd created called for that level of power, so it made sense. But I will very bluntly say that, 6 months in, with the players even more badass than they started, the campaign really missed the feeling of accomplishment that my usual approach invariably provides. For what it's worth, I don't do things the way I do them for no reason and without experiencing the alternative.

Oh yeah I for sure get that desire of continually doling out bits of stuff. Trying to elicit the fun filling of progression without having the players with so much cool stuff 10 sessions in that you have to start making up insane stuff for them to even consider it an upgrade. I give out PF and XP a little slower than the book suggests, and open up the game the progression by being somewhat free with elite advances. Mostly because I want to play this game for years to come I don't want to have to contrive too much in taking things away from them, though I've come up with ways(we lost PF but we can get most of it back on an adventure), and I'm a a bit worried about how to keep them progressing beyond the bounds of the book (crazy items, implants, talents).

I've told my players this in the past when questioned why I said no to just straight rolling for stuff like Inqusitorial anti psyker gear, and they understood why we moved a bit slower. They promised that even when they have super craftsmenship storm, full auto, inferno pistols with handles made from Saint Drusus himself. That they'll still follow my lower level plot hooks, that are more about adventuring than amassing wealth. Which I believe, they'll spend 5 sessions on a extreme camping trip on Burnscour where they make no money, but get inspiration for a later endeavor. So I started moving a bit faster but not quick by any means. I started my guys off with like 24 PF and seeing them claw their way up has been fun for me at least. They're happy now that they can roll on stormbolters a few dozen sessions in.

They're still rocking the same capital ship they had at chargen, but it's as a flagship for their ever expanding fleet. They seem to have enough fun progression wise trying to grab every human ship they see, and it's easier to mitigate that for a few reasons so far. Though I'm going to have to start contriving more background tasks for the fleet to do before I put anymore human ships in their sights. A lot of the boats are either playing a form of selective security around Footfall as a form of goodwill, or running as muscle for hire in trips through the Maw. Which is a pretty thin excuse for the PCs not not go everywhere in a big ass flotilla.

Our approaches have more in common than they do setting them apart honestly.

The feeling of progression is an important theme in RPGs and I don't think anyone cqn deny it's fun.

I do feel however that there is an important line between starting with a little and starting with too little. Ideally, the starting point should be something the players are comfortable with, so that they look to the first session(s) as a fun experience, not as grinding until they get to the point where they start having fun.

It's also a matter of time, campaign length and grup stability. Going from Zero to Hero is fun, but IMO at least, going from Zero to half way there is a lot less fun than going from halfway there to Hero.

That is an important consideration. If this was a game with some acquaintances and strangers, something I didn't expect to be running years later. I'd likely play it a lot faster and looser with stuff.

Well, I've run a few games of RT now, and I definitely have a favorite ship flavor. I hope future groups decide to go this way and I'll actively encourage it, though not require it. First, I love the Conquest. IMNSHO (really, I'm not so humble), it captures the flavor of the RT Dynasty I like to see; ancient, mucho prestige, short on capital. Just the same, the best group ship I've run was a cruiser. It was kitted out with several poor craftsmanship components in order to make the PF/SP ratio work best (they wanted small craft capability with enough PF left over to replace losses with). It never ceased to be the main ship of the dynasty, simply because it had the potential to be wicked but started out in such disrepair that it took forever for them to replace the bad with good, and add the remaining shiny bits they desired.

As far as the rules argument goes, I'm solidly on both sides. People come to game with expectations and those expectations are centered upon a common set of rules. I'm pretty much a RAW GM, EXCEPT my house rules, which are clearly stated on my website for all to plainly see, and there are several pages of them. Sorry FFG, but your play-testers were not as rigorous as mine. My players broke your rules out of the starting gate in the first game I GMed. I kept copious notes then and now and I add house rules to every new game...lots of them.

I like drama in my games. I don't mind killing PCs. If they do something foolish it's their fault, but I've been known to approach a player and say, "I want to kill your character for some good plot stuff. What do I need to offer you?" I've never been turned down. I often ask the group if they want to play something out (usually mass combat) or just come up with some loose die rolls and narrate through it (usually mass combat). I've seen it go both ways and I let majority decide in those cases (I can think of a couple times I needed a consensus instead of simple majority rule).

And yes, character and dynasty (or sub-group) development are important. But if you only get enjoyment from buffing your stat-line or getting new shiny bits you might want to look for another game. I consider Contacts, Henchmen, Allies, and treasure maps (thar be dragons heare) to be ample reward and development for many situations.

And Traejun. Heehee. I can remember a bit over a year ago when certain people thought I was a bit harsh on a couple posts. I remember relaying that any GM or player might get a bit impatient or testy after answering the same question a couple hundred times, or that they might get loose eye sockets from rolling their eyes the next time a Monte Hauler came to the forums with their "my paladin has a +7 unholy sword of unicorn-slaying and I can't challenge the group" problems, or that a segment of the hobby is still in their literal phase of development and you've gone and progressed to a more abstract way of playing, and that...occasionally...you'd just have to sound off and tell them what you really think. Welcome to the club. And you've only been doing this for 20 years? Wait till it's been 30 years. Wait till it's been 40. You don't have any choice there, so just wait.

I just started my 5th campaign of RT a little over two months ago (we meet bi-weekly - I'm an old guy with a life and career now). My players have an age range of over 30 years. The youngest is 23 and the son of the oldest player in the group. The group has very different styles. I have a 50-yr old "that guy" and a 30-something that only perks up when combat is imminent. The 23-yr. old is the most technically inclined (engineering grad student). I see major challenges in my near future. They asked for help designing their ship and ignored pretty much every piece of advice I gave them. And that's ok. They'll do fine even if they will struggle at the outset.

Lawyers aren't well-liked. Some people become jags because they're lawyers. Some people become lawyers because they are jags. Never marry one. It's plain hell to live with someone who always needs to be right. Divorce lawyers are about the worst of the lot but even rules lawyers are an unwelcome annoyance. If it's your first game then let them cite and spew and come to forums like this often to get the scoop. Develop your own house rules and let them be known to all ahead of time.

Where roleplaying and rollplaying are concerned, nuture your garden of RP friends through the years and you'll always find an enjoyable "next game." These aren't styles so much as phases of life we pass through, and some people take longer than others to potty-train. In the final analysis, you're the GM because a) you probably know the rules the best, b) you have creative juices, c) everyone thought you were responsible enough to have things ready for the next session, and d) you have an immeasurable quality that teaches other people how to behave in a group setting. So teach them how to play.

But don't feel like you have to be nice about it every time.

ErrantKnight, you now have an open invitation to any game I run.

That is a good read EK

I might take you up on that some day, Traejun. Due to career and family life I can only do a single game at a time, and right now I'm full up running one. I'd have a hard time even doing weekly sessions as most people here do. There are a handfull of posters here whose games I'd love to play in. I actually did get the chance to play in RT this past year instead of GMing and I had a blast. It was never intended to be a full-blown campaign and we ran over keeping it going for 7-8 months. Still, I had a great time and I hope to one day play again.

On a different tack, there's more than a handful of posters here I'd love to see in my next game of RT. You'd certainly be welcome.

I might take you up on that some day, Traejun. Due to career and family life I can only do a single game at a time, and right now I'm full up running one. I'd have a hard time even doing weekly sessions as most people here do. There are a handfull of posters here whose games I'd love to play in. I actually did get the chance to play in RT this past year instead of GMing and I had a blast. It was never intended to be a full-blown campaign and we ran over keeping it going for 7-8 months. Still, I had a great time and I hope to one day play again.

On a different tack, there's more than a handful of posters here I'd love to see in my next game of RT. You'd certainly be welcome.

So... You able to share the link to your website?

Yeesh...My house rules are posted on my roll20 campaign website and I really don't want the traffic there. Here's a copy/paste. Some of the rules aren't detailed; there is just a notice to the players that those rules have been changed. I'm happy to share any of those files with you, or anyone. Let me know if you want to see further files.

So if you read any of that I posted earlier, I apologize for hijacking the thread. I've posted seperately under House Rules now and am erasing that super-long post I made here. Carry on.

I just had to create an account to point out the amount of Stormwind Fallacy that's flying around here. Simply put, optimization and roleplaying do not exist on one spectrum: not only is it unnecessary to sacrifice one in the pursuit of the other, it is in fact pointless to do so, because they are unrelated.

On a similar note, as LordBlades suggested earlier, as a player, I have the right to play the game that I agreed to play unless notified ahead of time what the houserules are. Insulting or deriding people who insist that their characters should follow the rules as written is completely unjustified.

Maybe we don't all have the same view of rollplaying. Just speaking for myself, rollplay means overly leaning on your sheet to play a game.

"I don't have good social skills so Joey, who does, is going to tell the NPC that these aren't the droids they're looking for."

"My character is stupid so he throws a chair through the window."

"I have no idea how to do that. Can I make a research roll?"

In fact, my eyes are loose in their sockets from that last one alone. When a player asks me if they can roll something I always say, "Yes." But, it hardly ever has any effect on what happens next.

Many RPGs, maybe even most now, have aids to bring their players more in touch with their characters. In RT, we have an Origin Path. It's an attempt to give your characters a back story. Roleplayers look at their options here and make choices that suit a character whose personality they want to play. Rollplayers reverse engineer these choices to maximize the stat-line they want for the character class they've decided to play. And no, I don't see both those approaches making the same character choices. So, in some repects, optimization and roleplaying do not co-exist.

Now, I've certainly seen people who can draw up a good rationale. They've optimized their choices and turned those choices into a good story. They rarely play it well, though. In the end, these decisions are often made in an attempt to make a character more powerful for their level than were designed to be, and just as often, this is done in order to dominate the game-play.

I've learned to let the players resolve this. I have them vote at the end of each session for the player(s) that added the most "fun" to that game session. In some games this is rewarded with extra XP. This method rewards with "levels" the people that often lag behind on the power curve. Another method, and one I use more and more, are "Dramatic Moments." The players still vote on someone to receive the reward, but instead of XP they draw from a deck of cards and receive an action that can dramatically change a situation. [GM] "Your party is surrounded by a bunch of desperate bandits that want your money!" [Player throws down his Dramatic Moment] "Yes, but their leader is an old army buddy of mine that owes me a favor!" It has the same effect. It rewards the good roleplayers by giving them the power to alter game play.

The power to alter game play is what the power gamer is after, and I like giving every player that ability, not just the ones that spend the most time reading the rules and looking for loopholes and optimization. The latter methods too often lead to everyone having to break out their books and giving interpretations of what the rules mean. That's wasteful of time, which I have little of, and it's not fun. Good roleplay is fun, whether it's you or the person sitting next to you that's performing it.

i Fear with some of the things being said the players and GMs's forget that in some cases my character knows X but I as a player frankly don't and that by saying you're dice roll means nothing is insulting and something that means they will forever only try certain actions I was always a 7th sea player and GM and frankly my RT campaigns have that flavour as the necessary things become whatever is dramatically appropriate but I would never penalise someone for frankly then running out of ideas when their character wouldn't have done that's just you being a bad GM who wants to punish someone

I believe Errant is referring to the players who use skills like Research as a replacement for coming up with a plan of any kind, or as a plot diviner. A related example (Dark Heresy) that easily comes to mind would be where the acolytes are supposed to discover the source of a strange drug that's been traced to the hab block. Upon arrival, the GM describes a half dozen locations, then one of the players asks "Can I make a Common Lore: Imperium check to know where to start the investigation."

These are the cases where a player is using dice to have the GM tell them what decision to make, rather than making a decision themselves. Asking the GM "what would my character know about underhive bars?" is what many would consider the more appropriate question, because it's information to make a decision, not asking for a die to replace the decision.

However, you are correct that many players do not have the world lore that their characters do, and this is true for any game. I'm always fairly free with "what would my character know about...", no roll required.

I try to hit a mix between rollplaying and roleplaying. If I completely deny rollplaying then I make it harder for new gamers or gamers who choose to break out of their shell and play against type to enjoy the game.

In past gaming groups I've experienced the opposite of rollplaying where experienced gamers would come up with cool ideas that their characters would never manage. This is particularly worrying when they build a combat monster with little to no social skills because they themselves have the social skills to compensate for their character's weaknesses.

Maybe we don't all have the same view of rollplaying. Just speaking for myself, rollplay means overly leaning on your sheet to play a game.

Many RPGs, maybe even most now, have aids to bring their players more in touch with their characters. In RT, we have an Origin Path. It's an attempt to give your characters a back story. Roleplayers look at their options here and make choices that suit a character whose personality they want to play. Rollplayers reverse engineer these choices to maximize the stat-line they want for the character class they've decided to play. And no, I don't see both those approaches making the same character choices. So, in some repects, optimization and roleplaying do not co-exist.

Also, personally I feel that optimization and RP aren't 100% independent. They work together to make your character come to life in the game world. Contrary to what some people believe, optimization isn't about building the best character ever, it's about building a character that can mechanically meet a goal (like master of stealth or peerless marksman). The actual power level of the goal in the grand scheme of things is largely irrelevant.

By RP you write the awesome story of Dave the Dragonslayer. By optimization you make sure Dave is actually able to slay dragons in game.

Quick hit it there. My most often experience is players that want to "investigate" a scene. "Can I roll my Investigation skill?" What to want to hear as a GM is more in the line of, "My character wants to start searching for evidence," or "My character is going to question some of the witnesses." Asking to "roll my Investigation skill," is just asking for the answer, the cut to the chase. That removes the whole "mystery" in the murder-mystery. It turns the game into an arrest scene. Maybe some people like that.

The idea that I want players to actually tell me what they are doing is over the top. I can't expect even a rocket scientist to explain how they are going to fix a starship engine that by our own laws of physics could never possibly work. So of course I'm not going that far.

You bring up a good point, Weedy, and I've seen it in LARPS, where the player has good social skills and can dance around a game session with 50+ people playing and a half dozen Storytellers, all while sporting a character that can rip apart anyone else at the session, and it's pretty obnoxious. It's the exception to the rule, though.

And really, Blades, I don't consider RT very rules heavy at all. Starship combat is so simplified it doesn't even take 3-D space into account, nor acceleration vs. velocity, nor even gravity. Heck, that you can put it on a board and play it out demonstrates its simplification. I've never had to break out anything like a D&D dungeon map for close personal combat. And it doesn't have the hundreds of pages of sci-fi gadgets that Traveller or GURPS has (that's a GM nightmare). You have nice simple things like omnitools. I love omnitools. I do, however, have a sci-fi chart that can randomly roll an adjective, a noun, and a qualifer for anything you might need (e.g. short-circuited flux capacitor), should my characters have a need for specificity. Some past players would probably be angry to know I have such a chart, or that such things were randomized.

Also Blades, character classes are designed so the characters in them fit the role they were intended to play. There are plenty of free-play systems that are simply skill-driven, design-your-own-class games. In the first rendition of D&D, 9th-level fighters killed dragons...solo. In fact, that was wasteful. Why kill the dragon when you can subdue it and make it work for you? You didn't need any special skills or feats (well okay, there weren't any). Only stupidity could cause said fighter to lose, and you didn't make it to 9th-level by being dumb.

All that said, I didn't denigrate intelligent game-play nor intelligent character design. I was explicit in what I dislike, and that is the player that studies the rules for that loophole, or that optimization technique that works, but only if you "interpret the second sentence of the 5th paragraph on page 256 to mean..." If you draw up a RT that intends to duel, and you don't take Swift Attack and Lightning Attack when they become available (unless you were looking to build that foppish duelist that needs constant rescuing), then you're not putting enough thought into your character. Then again, if you're a Rank 8 RT, you can outduel any mook at the bar, even if you didn't draw up a duelist.

I was less clear in what I like, but that's so much harder to define, since it's an infinitely larger group of players.

I'm not sure what you mean by "play against type," Weedy. If you're talking about that type of person that doesn't question the world they live in trying to play a detective, then I find that enjoyable to play with and watch. That person will grow as a human being while playing an RPG. If you're talking about that shy person that draws up a combat monster in order to push their opinion in way that they never have before, then I'm just watching a nerd that found an outlet for their social frustrations, and that's not so fun to watch.

In the end, I'm an old-time wargamer, as are all of us ancient roleplayers. Winning is important or it wouldn't be called a roleplaying GAME. The hobby began in the miniature-wargames industry. We played miniature wargames and wanted to carry our favorite generals and heroes from one battle to the next; we wanted some continuity. Eventually, we also wanted to give those characters some personality. It was growth, and it was in stages. I don't judge a poor roleplayer poorly. Everyone has to start somewhere and it's not an easy learning curve. I do judge poorly, though, that person that never intended to roleplay. Why is that person playing a RPG? They are playing only to win, and while important, winning isn't everything.

I could go on and on, but there have been veritable books already written on the subject. Google the Angry GM. He's got some great stuff, if I don't agree with it all. Google good roleplaying. You'll get tons of hits, and many are worth reading. I've provided some links to roleplaying tips in my House Rules thread. Mind you, some of these are for advanced roleplaying, but that should be all of our goals, assuming you come to RPG forums to get better at RPG, and not just to have your opinion about a rules question verified so you can shove it in your poor GMs face and be exactly the kind of person I don't want sitting at my table (okay, virtual table since I'm now an online player).

Also Blades, character classes are designed so the characters in them fit the role they were intended to play. There are plenty of free-play systems that are simply skill-driven, design-your-own-class games. In the first rendition of D&D, 9th-level fighters killed dragons...solo. In fact, that was wasteful. Why kill the dragon when you can subdue it and make it work for you? You didn't need any special skills or feats (well okay, there weren't any). Only stupidity could cause said fighter to lose, and you didn't make it to 9th-level by being dumb.

Not sure where you're getting at with this. What do character classes have to do with what I said?

Blades, you said that Dave had to be able to slay dragons to be a dragonslayer. I'll just stick with the D&D analogy. To earn his name, Dave will probably have to slay a dragon, unless Dave is a bard, in which case he can write a nifty song about himself slaying a dragon. If he's good enough, people will even begin to believe him. If Dave isn't a bard, then he probably shouldn't be a thief, either. That's a poor selection. Sure, you can make up a long rationalization, kit him out correctly, soup him up with the right equipment, and make sure the dragon isn't too awfully large, but that's just stretching incredulity to make a point. Part of growing up is learning to want to win, not just wanting to be right.

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.

Which brings us to the real point. Is Dave the only character in the game? What about the other players? Do they want their characters to be dragonslayers? Did Dave even ask them? Is Dave drawing up a character in a social vacuum? Maybe Marjory wants a character that is a Dragon Lord and rides to battle on dragons, lives in a society where earning one's own dragon mount is the epitome of social advancement, and thinks the Daves of the world need exterminated. This won't make for very good group play. That's the real objective, btw, not for Dave to slay the dragon, but for the party, of which Dave is a member, to slay the dragon. When Dave gets that straight, he will have grown as a player.

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.