5 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

If you want to build a... let's say a supreme melee fighter, and you fail to do so with 1800 XP, than you are failing on purpose and are going out of your way to take non-melee specialisations and talents and Dedications.

You may be missing the points I was trying to make (not sure)...

1) stats should support the concept, *whatever* that concept is

2) the lady in video actually did optimize her character but for a unusual objective function

3) there is nothing wrong with playing a farce character if that is your concept, and a don quixote style character could be a lot of fun. But you can't have it both ways at the same time, the character is either a farce or he/she isn't.

But hypothetically would you agree if there was an 1800 xp character who the player intentionally diversified but in the most inefficient way possible (ending up a 7 of all trades instead of the jack), thereby "failing on purpose" to be good at what the player actually and truly intended for the character to be good at would it then be unreasonable for said player to vehemently object out of character to their character not being treating with awe and reverence, particularly if they drained the destiny pool trying (and yet still failing) to live the lie and thereby prevent other players from using their talents/abilities which require destiny point flips?

6 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

If you want to build a... let's say a supreme melee fighter, and you fail to do so with 1800 XP, than you are failing on purpose and are going out of your way to take non-melee specialisations and talents and Dedications.

Elias is referring to my signature character, Korath, who was never even brought up, nor is he the subject of this thread. That character was a D6 character, converted to D20 RCRB, and again to F&D. He started out as a focused lightsaber jockey, and, indeed, a lot of his XP in D6 went into that skill, but a lot more went into many other, more diverse skills as time went on playing him in an actual campaign.

What Elias fails to understand, is my attempts to rebuild that character was never about building an “Uber” character. It was to quite literally do a faithful one for one conversion of the D6/D20 character with all of his skills, talents, and Force powers intact with the fewest XP using the rules and looking at how this system’s attributes and skill dice codes compared to D6 SW to make a sensible and workable conversion system, for which I used Korath as a test bed.

And, for the record, I have since been able to reduce his XP total down even further without sacrificing anything critical to his character.

However, once again, this has nothing to do with Korath, though he is a good example of a “non-optimized” character. But that’s because he’s a character who grew organically over years of game play, he wasn’t built from whole cloth.

9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

And has such a character been brought up? Nope. 😝

I was speaking "hypothetically" (because we both know the context behind your original post)

Just now, EliasWindrider said:

I was speaking "hypothetically" (because we both know the context behind your original post)

That’s your assumption . I could just as easily been referring to my Ild Republic era albino wookiee Jedi, another “non-optimized” build, and one who started out as a starting character. He started out as a Sentry, but quickly had to branch out into Armorer because of an in game need to know how to build and repair his lightsaber, something he was woefully ill equipped for. I make “non-optimized” characters all the time because I let the story dictate where I end up putting my XP as my character advances. I don’t tend to min-max or “mean-max” as you like to put it. I don’t go out of my way to “optimize” a character, as a rule. You do. So, no, I was not specifically referring to Korath with this thread. You were.

8 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Elias is referring to my signature character, Korath, who was never even brought up, nor is he the subject of this thread. That character was a D6 character, converted to D20 RCRB, and again to F&D. He started out as a focused lightsaber jockey, and, indeed, a lot of his XP in D6 went into that skill, but a lot more went into many other, more diverse skills as time went on playing him in an actual campaign.

What Elias fails to understand, is my attempts to rebuild that character was never about building an “Uber” character. It was to quite literally do a faithful one for one conversion of the D6/D20 character with all of his skills, talents, and Force powers intact with the fewest XP using the rules and looking at how this system’s attributes and skill dice codes compared to D6 SW to make a sensible and workable conversion system, for which I used Korath as a test bed.

And, for the record, I have since been able to reduce his XP total down even further without sacrificing anything critical to his character.

However, once again, this has nothing to do with Korath, though he is a good example of a “non-optimized” character. But that’s because he’s a character who grew organically over years of game play, he wasn’t built from whole cloth.

1) you ROLEPLAYED him as an uber character that everyone else was supposed to hold in awe and respect, and complained "loudly" (it was pbp so "loudly" doesn't necessarily mean audible volume) when that wasn't the case. And drained the dp pool trying to keep up which prevented other players from using talents and abilities with a dp flip. Which was highly inconsiderate to other players.

2) in the bolded underlined section of your post you have conceded the point I made a long time ago.... there was a more efficient way to achieve your objective. Welcome to the world of optimization.

2 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

3) there is nothing wrong with playing a farce character if that is your concept, and a don quixote style character could be a lot of fun. But you can't have it both ways at the same time, the character is either a farce or he/she isn't.

Eh, I dunno, Don Quixote could be a skilled lightsaber combatant, a landed noble and very much the gentleman, but also quite literally insane. He thinks Sand Crawlers are Krayt Dragons, every shadow behind a dune is a sarlacc, and that Sith spies are tracking him to steal his Lucky Charms!

I don't think such a character is necessarily a farce, he could be quite good at things. But the fact that he's rarely in his right mind means he puts those good skills to use on the wrong targets. But never say that he spoke an unkind word to the moisture vaporator.

https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/Don-Wan_Kihotay

On 12/4/2020 at 7:53 PM, HappyDaze said:

If you hurry, you might still be able to get into the Derek Zoolander Center For Children Who Can't Read Good And Wanna Learn To Do Other Stuff Good Too.

Connard !

4 hours ago, WolfRider said:

Connard !

When your wolf gets tired, look for the short bus. It'll take you where you need to go.

6 hours ago, False God said:

Eh, I dunno, Don Quixote could be a skilled lightsaber combatant, a landed noble and very much the gentleman, but also quite literally insane. He thinks Sand Crawlers are Krayt Dragons, every shadow behind a dune is a sarlacc, and that Sith spies are tracking him to steal his Lucky Charms!

If memory serves me, one of the books in the old D6 system actually had a character template called "Quixotic Jedi".

13 minutes ago, Vorzakk said:

If memory serves me, one of the books in the old D6 system actually had a character template called "Quixotic Jedi".

Well, thanks to Don Quixote, it's an actual word. Use it in scrabble. I guarantee you will never have to play scrabble again.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

When your wolf gets tired, look for the short bus. It'll take you where you need to go.

Maybe you could dial the mockery/hostility down a notch or 10 and help make this forum a friendlier place.

1 hour ago, Vorzakk said:

If memory serves me, one of the books in the old D6 system actually had a character template called "Quixotic Jedi".

I remember that to.

13 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

1) you ROLEPLAYED him as an uber character that everyone else was supposed to hold in awe and respect, and complained "loudly" (it was pbp so "loudly" doesn't necessarily mean audible volume) when that wasn't the case. And drained the dp pool trying to keep up which prevented other players from using talents and abilities with a dp flip. Which was highly inconsiderate to other players.

2) in the bolded underlined section of your post you have conceded the point I made a long time ago.... there was a more efficient way to achieve your objective. Welcome to the world of optimization.

Actually, no, I didn’t optimize anything. I simply removed skills that were essentially duplicates. For instance, the D6 Blasters skill covers both Ranged Light and Ranged Heavy . Originally, I put equal ranks in both skills during conversion. I simply removed the ranks of Ranged Heavy. I did the same with other such “duplicate” skills.

However, once again, Korath is not the subject of this thread, so please keep on topic.

6 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

so please keep on topic.

12 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

However, once again, Korath is not the subject of this thread, so please keep on topic.

I find that amusing coming from you but I kind of already did that too

On 12/5/2020 at 8:46 AM, EliasWindrider said:

You may be missing the points I was trying to make (not sure)...

1) stats should support the concept, *whatever* that concept is

2) the lady in video actually did optimize her character but for a unusual objective function

3) there is nothing wrong with playing a farce character if that is your concept, and a don quixote style character could be a lot of fun. But you can't have it both ways at the same time, the character is either a farce or he/she isn't.

Some people mistake the idea of optimization in terms of rpg characters to mean only the most powerful or most capable character, while those are certainly possible objective functions a player could choose for their character build... the general statement is the objective function is for the character to be effective at fulfilling a character concept. I.e. pick a concept and then build to support /fulfill that concept so that the character build helps create the desired roleplaying experience. If the concept is badass fighter/spell caster/face/pilot/jedi so be it, but that's going to be boring if that's all the character is. However, I've never done that... if you remember back from 2005 under wotc RCR, Elias was a Ysanna with the whole aspect of practicing a force enhanced martial art handed down, and honed through the generations, and that was seen by his people a the intersection of the natural and supernatural. He was the eldest son of the chief of chief of his tribe and his reason for leaving Ossus was to learn the ways of the jedi (his people's ancient answers) and bring those teaching back to his people to restore their heritage. Under RCR he started consular with the build plan including soldier to reach defensive throw (the only effective way under RCR to combine martial arts and lightsaber into an effective fighting style, defensive throw being a way to interrupt a multi attack) so when rebuilt for ffg, niman-disciple and steelhand adept were narratively appropriate parts of his build, as were jedi specs and padawan survivor (Ysanna being survivors of ancient jedi on Ossus when the chron cluster went supernova). The point of that his concept came first and his build was optimized to support that concept... optimization and roleplaying are not either or propositions.

Ooooh! Shiny thread!

Characters with quirks I call it. Starting out as a Scientist, going into Mercenary Leader or Force-sensitive Emergent to focus on becoming an Alchemist ... that's where I think there is a great story! All with child, husband, and COMPNOR/ISB/Imperial Intelligence chasing you, together with the modder-droid with a kyber crystal installed, who tries to be a hotshot pilot and gunslinger, and the pathfinder who just runs around and wants to go into the wild and discover animals and force stuff, while still trying to find her lost master and attempting to stay all Jedi about things ... sub-optmised grand saga in the making I tell you.

7 hours ago, Jegergryte said:

Ooooh! Shiny thread!

Characters with quirks I call it. Starting out as a Scientist, going into Mercenary Leader or Force-sensitive Emergent to focus on becoming an Alchemist ... that's where I think there is a great story! All with child, husband, and COMPNOR/ISB/Imperial Intelligence chasing you, together with the modder-droid with a kyber crystal installed, who tries to be a hotshot pilot and gunslinger, and the pathfinder who just runs around and wants to go into the wild and discover animals and force stuff, while still trying to find her lost master and attempting to stay all Jedi about things ... sub-optmised grand saga in the making I tell you.

That seems a bit like over the top hyperbole... not sure if you're joking or serious.

That's my current group.

12 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I find that amusing coming from you but I kind of already did that too

Some people mistake the idea of optimization in terms of rpg characters to mean only the most powerful or most capable character, while those are certainly possible objective functions a player could choose for their character build... the general statement is the objective function is for the character to be effective at fulfilling a character concept. I.e. pick a concept and then build to support /fulfill that concept so that the character build helps create the desired roleplaying experience. If the concept is badass fighter/spell caster/face/pilot/jedi so be it, but that's going to be boring if that's all the character is. However, I've never done that... if you remember back from 2005 under wotc RCR, Elias was a Ysanna with the whole aspect of practicing a force enhanced martial art handed down, and honed through the generations, and that was seen by his people a the intersection of the natural and supernatural. He was the eldest son of the chief of chief of his tribe and his reason for leaving Ossus was to learn the ways of the jedi (his people's ancient answers) and bring those teaching back to his people to restore their heritage. Under RCR he started consular with the build plan including soldier to reach defensive throw (the only effective way under RCR to combine martial arts and lightsaber into an effective fighting style, defensive throw being a way to interrupt a multi attack) so when rebuilt for ffg, niman-disciple and steelhand adept were narratively appropriate parts of his build, as were jedi specs and padawan survivor (Ysanna being survivors of ancient jedi on Ossus when the chron cluster went supernova). The point of that his concept came first and his build was optimized to support that concept... optimization and roleplaying are not either or propositions.

Maybe, but that is not what Ginny Di is talking about in her video. She’s specifically talking about building a “sub-optimized” character specifically because of the character’s concept, and as a role-playing challenge, such as a Rogue with a low Dexterity, or a Warlock without that class’ signature “Uber spell”, or a “bookworm” wookiee with a comparably low Brawn. In other words building a character that is, in some ways, completely against type for that species, class, career, etc. or playing up to that character’s weaknesses , not to that class’ strengths, thus giving the character room to grow, often in surprising directions.

By contrast, you always look to maximize your character’s effectiveness in everything that character does. You always look to play your character’s strengths, and work to maximize them. And when you postulate different career/specialization combos, it is always with the goal of maximum ability with minimal weakness. While that isn’t inherently a bad thing in and of itself, it is not the only “right” way to build a character. What Ginny Di is talking about is almost the complete opposite: she consciously builds weaknesses into her characters, even when those weaknesses make her character sub optimal for that race or class . She deliberately plays against type .

6 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Maybe, but that is not what Ginny Di is talking about in her video. She’s specifically talking about building a “sub-optimized” character specifically because of the character’s concept, and as a role-playing challenge, such as a Rogue with a low Dexterity, or a Warlock without that class’ signature “Uber spell”, or a “bookworm” wookiee with a comparably low Brawn. In other words building a character that is, in some ways, completely against type for that species, class, career, etc. or playing up to that character’s weaknesses , not to that class’ strengths, thus giving the character room to grow, often in surprising directions.

By contrast, you always look to maximize your character’s effectiveness in everything that character does. You always look to play your character’s strengths, and work to maximize them. And when you postulate different career/specialization combos, it is always with the goal of maximum ability with minimal weakness. While that isn’t inherently a bad thing in and of itself, it is not the only “right” way to build a character. What Ginny Di is talking about is almost the complete opposite: she consciously builds weaknesses into her characters, even when those weaknesses make her character sub optimal for that race or class . She deliberately plays against type .

1) unless "sub-optimized" character is in scare quotes (which is possible) she is optimizing her character to fulfill her concept, and that means building in weaknesses to better fit the concept

2) optimal does not mean most powerful or most capable, in the context of rpg characters it means best fulfilling a concept, the concept maybe a specialist, jack of all trades, or a fish out of water among an infinite list of other things.

3) the only thing I've advocated as the "right way" to build a character is the one that best fulfills a concept, regardless of what concept the player chooses for the character is

4) be careful with "always" and "never" because both are rarely true

5) it's impossible to maximize everything , and while it is true that I usually prefer broadly, capable jack of all trades characters with an area of elevated focus that means no strength actually gets maximized, as second best at as many things as possible is the goal (making your characterization of me even "usually" false), I have on occasion played against type, just one example is I built an awkward book smart fish out of water wunderkind mid teenage jedi knight with scraggly facial hair a cracking voice that was frequently discounted by "adults" as a "just a padawan" and the build had a few noticeable deficiencies, sadly the campaign didn't happen.

Mods, can we please have a little symbol to go with the "dot" (for threads with unread posts) and the "star"?

It should be a diamond to indicate the perfection of yet another thread that Tramp has turned into a war of (bolded) words.

The conflict between the "bold" and the "everything is optimisation" is a never-ending conflict of pedantism, with disparate premises, adherents always shoot past each other, never giving up, staying in the trenches, determined to ... I don't really know.

58 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

1) unless "sub-optimized" character is in scare quotes (which is possible) she is optimizing her character to fulfill her concept, and that means building in weaknesses to better fit the concept

2) optimal does not mean most powerful or most capable, in the context of rpg characters it means best fulfilling a concept, the concept maybe a specialist, jack of all trades, or a fish out of water among an infinite list of other things.

3) the only thing I've advocated as the "right way" to build a character is the one that best fulfills a concept, regardless of what concept the player chooses for the character is

4) be careful with "always" and "never" because both are rarely true

5) it's impossible to maximize everything , and while it is true that I usually prefer broadly, capable jack of all trades characters with an area of elevated focus that means no strength actually gets maximized, as second best at as many things as possible is the goal (making your characterization of me even "usually" false), I have on occasion played against type, just one example is I built an awkward book smart fish out of water wunderkind mid teenage jedi knight with scraggly facial hair a cracking voice that was frequently discounted by "adults" as a "just a padawan" and the build had a few noticeable deficiencies, sadly the campaign didn't happen.

Emphasis on the “ wunderkind ”, a prodigy . Even if he had one or two deficiencies, it’s because the character was probably min-maxed to focus on one or two key strengths that played into his career and specialization.
I’ve seen your character builds. I’ve read your threads on concept builds. In every one of them you look to mix and match careers and specializations that maximize a character’s abilities and minimize his or her weaknesses. You’ve also pushed others to do so as well, myself included. You always push Niman Disciple as the end-all be-all lightsaber spec that everyone should take because of how powerful you believe it is. For you it’s all about building the better stats . It’s all a numbers game . You do the exact same thing she is telling us many D&D players and GMs she’s played with do.

Secondly, no, those aren’t scare quotes. And if you actually watched her video, she specifically doesn’t optimize her characters at all. She doesn’t take the most powerful spells of her class, she doesn’t pump up her class’ optimal stats, etc. For her, the numbers are insignificant. They’re just numbers. She builds the characters she wants and lets them grow organically, taking spells, skills etc that are often completely counter to the “accepted” norms for that class. Her signature character, Ashling (sp?), being her prime example: a Warlock without Eldridge Blast , nor many other powerful typical Warlock spells; a Warlock multclassed with Druid. Have you ever built a character like that? Have you ever built a Jedi who wasn’t strong in the Force? One who wasn’t necessarily good with a lightsaber? Have you ever not put most or all of your starting XP into attributes? Have you ever not taken the +10 starting XP option during character creation? No. You build to the career’s strengths. You optimize the stats. You maximize the chances of success in the dice rolling. To you it’s all about the statistics and averages. You’re a numbers person, always looking at the numbers. It’s why you’re an engineer. It’s how you think.

In D6 I had a Jedi (I think the template was “Young Jedi”) who only used a blaster. He used the Force to help him shoot things. I thought it was fun to be different, and figured if the Force helps you excel at anything, why does it have to be a glow stick? Luke used the Force to blow up the Death Star after all.

I’m tempted to make a Jedi baker someday who can sense your favorite flavors and make you the perfect meal.