Playing A Role

Kell · Post by **Kell** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:10 pm

Elvith: 4 levels of fighter doesn't make a 16 lvl cleric a complete cleric. He might be a warpriest, but never a fullblooded fighter. And that's what I meant to say. I dont expect that every cleric is a complete healer. But there is and should be a distinct difference between the classes, otherwise it's really obsolete to have them to begin with.

And yes, druids, clerics, other powerbuilds, they might be very good tanks. But they will never be a fighter. Not the class, fighter.

You're generalising a tad too much, imho.

And it's bollox to say that you have to stick with whatever isn't horribly underpowered. That's what you make of it. And there are a lot of people out there who aren't thinking like that. Neither of the two is wrong though. Just a different type of playing.

Atharin · Post by **Atharin** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:24 pm

Wow, I'm completely flabbergasted at how this thread makes no sense whatsoever anymore. What is even being talked about? Gear? Classes? Underpowering? Sobek? Ugh?

The following should be pretty much dead obvious ...

- The power of gear is relative to the world it's found in. Thus a +3 sickle, though of good craftsmanship, is common enough to not be considered much of an artifact in the world of Dasaria.

- PCs are abnormal individuals in a world full of NPCs. They have class levels. This makes them, with no exception, the superheroes of D&D settings.

- Classes are just that, classes. Look the word 'Class' under the dictionary. Every character in D&D has a fighting capability, that much is obvious.

The Fighter class is named as such because it excells at melee fighting, not because it's the only class capable of ... fighting. Sure, a druid can fight and is in many ways a fighter, but he can't be a Fighter (capital F designates character class!) unless he multiclasses.

I think you guys are just misunderstanding what the other is trying to say, but then again nothing here is making sense to me so I'm just winging it.

obsoletenihilist · Post by **obsoletenihilist** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 9:33 pm

What I believe they are trying to say is complete freedom of choice in how you play your character and the choices you make are useless because the server is balanced towards one certain way. Certain individuals cannot accept the fact that their Fighter/Mage/Rogue/Cleric will not be as powerful as that Barbarian/RDD/Bard/Frenzied Berserker. They don't believe it is possible to enjoy yourself or have fun without an XTREME build because otherwise your guts get splattered, big whoop.

People will play what they want to play, they will dictate their roleplay by whatever means they wish to. Be that from the classes and gear they have or the opposite and choosing their classes and gear from what they roleplay. In the end it boils down to this...

Freedom of choice makes for a poorly balanced game. If you really want everything balanced then only allow for 1 class, 1 race, and the same feats for everyone.

ErictheRed · Post by **ErictheRed** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:00 pm

I guess I give up on this thread. All I was trying to say was that you could roleplay a cultural barbarian without being a pure Barbarian (class) if you so wish. That's all.

Maybe we should all just get in game and have fun...

obsoletenihilist · Post by **obsoletenihilist** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:19 pm

ErictheRed wrote:I guess I give up on this thread. All I was trying to say was that you could roleplay a cultural barbarian without being a pure Barbarian (class) if you so wish. That's all.

Maybe we should all just get in game and have fun...

You're not wrong at all Eric.

Post by **Vahene** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 10:29 pm

I agree with you Eric.

I think you can be unique in everything you decide to play.

I don't think there should be such strict restrictions that others would place.

K

Elvith · Post by **Elvith** » Sat Oct 06, 2007 11:04 pm

obsoletenihilist wrote:What I believe they are trying to say is complete freedom of choice in how you play your character and the choices you make are useless because the server is balanced towards one certain way. Certain individuals cannot accept the fact that their Fighter/Mage/Rogue/Cleric will not be as powerful as that Barbarian/RDD/Bard/Frenzied Berserker. They don't believe it is possible to enjoy yourself or have fun without an XTREME build because otherwise your guts get splattered, big whoop.

People will play what they want to play, they will dictate their roleplay by whatever means they wish to. Be that from the classes and gear they have or the opposite and choosing their classes and gear from what they roleplay. In the end it boils down to this...

Freedom of choice makes for a poorly balanced game. If you really want everything balanced then only allow for 1 class, 1 race, and the same feats for everyone.

My point is that nwn2 is balanced in the way that you should have no problems unless you take random stupid stuff every level, which leaves alot of room for customization without sucking. Low magic servers mean that some builds will be very good, others will be average but playable, and the really interesting stuff will have you choose between RPing and fighting, quite literally. I did try to let the RP dictate what stuff I took on my first time playing in the server, and I ended up being unable to kill enemies, unable to survive in fights and in general being about as good as a character 4-5 levels lower than me. My point is that yeah, I don't care if my character is weaker than some other dude's character, whatever, I do care when my character can't beat a single Shai brave by himself at level 12.

obsoletenihilist · Post by **obsoletenihilist** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:11 am

Understandable Elvith. What I don't understand is why something like that is even up for debate. If your character is too "weak" for your taste reroll or roll a new one, right? Some things are being made more complicated than they need to be.

hannahcoldkiller · Post by **hannahcoldkiller** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 4:01 am

I think the topic of the original post got sidelined for another tired debate on powergaming and balance. I don't think Lono meant that you should purposely gimp your build (right?) to be a better RP player.

I think he was referring to not being afraid to have flaws in your PC's character itself. There's a difference between builds and character. Builds are more like a broad guide for play and are wide open for different variations, but restrict certain types of builds (i.e paladin/warlock/bard/monk) because they're nonsensical based on prescribed rules.

I'd like to again refer to this site

characters in RP are like characters in stories: they have drives, perspectives, back stories, friends, enemies, and yes flaws. The best kinds of characters are the ones that are the most human. They are jealous, altruistic, selfish, egotistical, neurotic, cowardly, brave, deceitful, caring, sad, anxious, lonely, angry, bah you get it.

Also, we need characters who play roles that fit within the greater campaign that make the world larger. We need Varanite nobles as well peasants, travelling vagrants, gossips, former slaves, current slaves, slavers, elves from Rian, refugees, priests and priestesses of various religions, pickpockets, mercenaries, and all that stuff.

so think about that and go out there and be somebody! And for tharon's sake, unpack your adjectives!

kikkelipoika · Post by **kikkelipoika** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 1:06 pm

The real problem is that combat is the only real way to develop your character and gain xp. There wouldn't be any problems if we had more quests that could be completed by talking and using certain other skills, such as rogue and crafting ones.

hannahcoldkiller · Post by **hannahcoldkiller** » Sun Oct 07, 2007 5:49 pm

The real problem is that combat is the only real way to develop your character and gain xp. There wouldn't be any problems if we had more quests that could be completed by talking and using certain other skills, such as rogue and crafting ones.

I would agree with this statement except I would substitute conflict for combat. Conflict can happen without ever reaching the point of physical violence. Characters reveal themselves in part through the choices they make. Sometimes these choices bring them in conflict with other characters. Quests aren't really necessary, but they could provide a spark in some instances for potential conflict. The druidess/hunter quest is a very good example as well as the monks. The problem with that is that these quests are replayable and there's only so many times you can play them and still expect to get the same sort of conflict among party members. Especially when others aren't in the mood.

The other component is that other players are necessary to the equation. You can't be a liar or dissident by yourself.

I think DM events are a better choice for these sort of experiences. DMs provide players with a choice in a story where some players will take one side and some players will take another where Character will dictate the course of action depending on the players perspective.