What is a Roleplay Build?

[The Supreme Watcher]

As the title suggests, this is a thread to ask a question.

What is a 'roleplay' build?

I would like to start the discussion by pointing out that our characters are, invariably, adventurers. They may be skillful rogues, studious wizards, or stalwart knights, but they all have one common thread: they are adventurers, with above average attributes, in extraordinary circumstances.

We all pick from a list of adventurer classes when we create our characters: fighter, rogue, barbarian, wizard, sorcerer, druid, cleric, bard. This is the first division from 'common' people, creating a character with a skill set that puts them a step above their more mundane counterparts: adept, warrior, expert, aristocrat, commoner. At this point, they are no longer simple people living their lives, they are 'heroic,' in the sense that they are above what common people can attain.

With that simple truth in mind, we can assume that, due to their inherent heroic predisposition, our characters are not meant to sit idly. They are not intended to fill the roles of the NPCs in this, our, world, unless they are destined for retirement. They are meant to dive faithfully into the realms of shadows and evil, save the princess from the dragon, break the curse on the king, and any other quest a hero could fulfill.

What, then, is a role play build, I ask? If our characters are meant to dive into the depths of evil, sword in hand, victory in their hearts, and this is their profession, wouldn't they want to be good at it? Wouldn't they have to be good at it to survive? Does apportioning their skills to pursuits that would make them better at their profession make them less three dimensional characters?

I don't think it does, and of course I'll provide examples from my own characters.

Gerard Rakurno is a Paladin of Helm. He is the first line in the war against those who would bring ruination and strife to civilization. His shield arm is strong, as it has to be, and his sword arm is swift, as it has to be. He was trained as a guardsman in his hometown, became the Captain there, and then moved to a Monastery of his militaristic faith. He was trained by the Cowled Wizards to battle spellcasters and bolster his defenses against magic. His faith has always been his true armor and his true weapon.

Reflecting that, Gerard's feat choices are clearly going to be combat-oriented. I focused heavily on defense in his feat choices. He has saving throw bonus feats to reflect his training under the Cowled wizards, and has focus - epic focus at that - in his deity's favored weapon, which remains a basic +1 bastard sword renamed to Ever Watchful. Divine Might and Divine Shield fulfill the part of his concept that faith is his shield and his sword, and his spells make him a truly potent combatant.

For a Paladin, however, combat is life. Old Paladins are few, because they are typically slain in pursuit of their duties. Only the best paladins, with the best training, survive to old age - and Gerard wishes to survive to old age, to spend his life with his wife and (hopefully) children. It stands to reason, then, that because of his faith's militaristic bent, and his desire to live to old age, he would hone his abilities (actually, that's part of a Paladin's oaths too) to be better capable of surviving his profession. Does that make him less three dimensional as a character? Those who have roleplayed with him, I think, would say no, his feat and skill choices don't affect the depth of his roleplay.

And on to Garum, the Mercenary Swordsman, the Dragonslayer. Garum has a reputation largely based around his skill with the blade. Before he came to Cormyr, he was a mercenary of no small renown, working in Waterdeep with a successful company, traversing Faerun to fulfill this job or that, forging his life with sword in hand. After he came to Cormyr, he was spurred to reach for mastery by Vrulo Myskada's superiority. An orc? His better? Garum would not have it. He trained against impossible odds, throwing himself in to hordes of orcs and emerging, ridiculously, slightly worse for wear. His reputation and skill grew, and after the death of a close friend, he set his eyes on those he thought responsible: wyrm-kind. Armed only with his skill with the blade, Garum killed a white dragon in singular combat - a feat few men, and fewer still without magic, could boast. He has come full circle, now, and his romance with Mithika has quelled much of his vengeful spirit. Still, though, the rumors of his skill with the blade remain, and his renown is not small. Garum 'The Dragonslayer' Glandash is a martial hero.

It's no secret that Garum is a Weaponmaster. He uses bastard swords, which some may say is a very powerful choice. More powerful still is his feat choice: improved expertise makes him tough to hit, armor skin increases his defenses even more. lends him more offensive might, focuses and specializations further this. He has ranger levels, and his favored enemy is Dragon, giving him more prowess against them. Spring Attack renders him immune to attacks of opportunity, and whirlwind attack coupled with his crit range makes swarming him a poor choice. Garum, as many who have seen him in combat can attest, is a fearsome combatant...

... But does that make him less deep? Or does it further the depth of his character? Would it make sense for a mercenary, a dragonslaying, orc-hunting, duel-fighting mercenary, to be less effective in combat? I don't think it would. I think that a martial hero who is poor in combat is... well, not going to be a long-lived hero, but that might be what you're going for in the first place, after all, a flawed concept, who struggles to overcome his inefficiencies and failings. But that's not a better character, it's a different one, and one who has no more or less merit in role play than a powerful character.

Truly, it is the characters who go and do heroic things - and do them well - that receive the spotlight. It is the Drizzt Do'Urden, with his whirling dance of death, the Artemis Entreri, with his cold, calculated skill, the Elminster of Shadowdale with his incredible magics, and the Cadderly Bonnaduce with his divine might, the Jarlaxle Baenre with his thousands of tricks, Pharaun Mizzrym with his cunning and spells, Gromph Baenre with his millenia of magical skill, Halisstra Melarn with her mix of divine and song-based magic, and many more heroes - flawed and other wise - who are the stuff of story and legend.

It is not Ralph the Barkeeper who has a book written about him, who drives a story to edge-of-the-seat, white-knuckle anticipation and immersion. Those characters, the non-heroic, unskilled, often tragic stand-bys, are not deeper. They're not more dynamic or more interesting. They're not more full and meaningful.

They're not more built for roleplay than Garum, or Gerard, or Kethoth or Sharteel, or Sharita or Silverstring or Krohn, or James or Vivian or Wyn or Zodika. They're not more built for roleplay than any character FRC has known and will ever know, because it isn't a character's build that makes its roleplay. It isn't the feats and skills and gear. It's not the HP or the saves, the attack bonuses or the caster levels. It's the persona, the history, the emotion and the hardship that our characters face that make them deep, three dimensional, meaningful, and memorable.

And that simply has nothing to do with the rules. And it never has. So, build your characters as flawed as you like. Make them the worst combatants in the world. It doesn't make your character more built for roleplay than anyone else's. It just makes them different.

That's my two cents (at this point I think it's closer to two dollars) on this concept that has always had me rubbing my chin in wonderment. This isn't directed at anyone, and isn't meant to be inflammatory, and so I ask: what do YOU think a 'roleplay build' is, and why do you think it makes the character deeper, more full, and more memorable?

[Malignant Naricissism]

To me, roleplay and builds are two sides of a coin. Both part of the same character, but very distinct from one another. I don't really see much of a thing called a "roleplay build" from my perspective.

Good post though.

[ConcreteSequential]

Since Garum, et al, used their experiences IG to decide what attributes and skills they chose, they fall under the thoughts I hear most often from others. Let RP dictate how your character progresses.

I really don't have any problems with what you've said, and I'm pretty much in agreement as it follows my views on elitism. As you say, it's the players choice and as long as they're following the rules, having fun, and playing someone that's alive and somehow adds depth to our world, who cares.

One of my dwarves has maxed craft armor for his level and has a focus feat as well. It's just who he is and how he was taught before he left the fold. I don't believe it makes the RP any better, but it is indicative of the RP behind him.

You want to be the hereo, I think that's great. As you've seen however, not everyone else has the same vision, and that's fine too. If everyone on the server had that vision, we wouldn't have Darkharp or Mynian both are/were pretty much based on what were once termed as intrigue characters as opposed to adventure characters. Conversely, we probably wouldn't need all the really cool quests and areas if no one wanted to play the heros. I like both, I just can't play both.

I think everyone just needs to realise that there are different thoughts and approaches to what each individual sees as their PC's purpose and accept it for what it is instead of throwing rocks at others who don't follow their thinking.

Good post Garum, watch out for rocks though.

[The Supreme Watcher]

Sept 23, 2010 22:55:04 GMT -5 ConcreteSequential said:

You want to be the hereo, I think that's great. As you've seen however, not everyone else has the same vision, and that's fine too. If everyone on the server had that vision, we wouldn't have Darkharp or Mynian both are/were pretty much based on what was once termed as intrigue characters as opposed to adventure characters.

And that simply has nothing to do with the rules. And it never has. So, build your characters as flawed as you like. Make them the worst combatants in the world. It doesn't make your character more built for roleplay than anyone else's. It just makes them different.

Not a callous reply, just pointing out something that seemed to have been missed!

[ancientempathy]

I like to keep my character building process very simple.

I pick feats for what would pertain to the character.

Sometimes feats chosen reflect what a character learns from another through in game interaction. Othertimes the feat is chosen because it reflects the characters attempt at discovering/mastering something. It can go either way and there's no right or wrong.

I recently approached Yulena with Gorstag to learn how to scribe divine scrolls and in turn he offered to teach her how to craft wands. Nifty deal

One quick example was taking expertise with Gorstag. He wanted to know how to fight defensively. I roleplayed with him taking the initiative on reconsidering his shield use and footwork, and reflected his learning through his actions. So, I then took expertise.

In general, Gorstag is a cleric of a war god. Feats will reflect his need to want to be battle savy or well prepared (like supplying wands, and making gold from said wands).

Sharteel sadly got little feats due to be a Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple, but I liked to demonstrate her as having a tough mentallity and strong will, so I just felt it practical to take Iron Will. Doesn't mean it was nessecary. She liked to say she was a craftswoman, so I invested in Craft Armor and Weapon with her.

A roleplay build is a stylized choice of mechnical composition that reflects the characters needs, desires, and learned tradeskills throughout their career. How they go about gaining all this is the fun part.

People are encouraged to come up with a creative definition of how their character knows what they know, because this type of encouragement helps spark creative thinking that can lead to more roleplay that's immersive. No one should feel pressured in justifying every choice though.

Heck, even I can't justify why I took improved expertise or improved with Gorstag. I didn't even need them, and I had no idea what else to go for at the time. All I got is, "He's a war priest - it seemed practical."

[ConcreteSequential]

Sept 23, 2010 23:29:27 GMT -5 The Supreme Watcher said:

Sept 23, 2010 22:55:04 GMT -5 ConcreteSequential said:

You want to be the hereo, I think that's great. As you've seen however, not everyone else has the same vision, and that's fine too. If everyone on the server had that vision, we wouldn't have Darkharp or Mynian both are/were pretty much based on what was once termed as intrigue characters as opposed to adventure characters.

And that simply has nothing to do with the rules. And it never has. So, build your characters as flawed as you like. Make them the worst combatants in the world. It doesn't make your character more built for roleplay than anyone else's. It just makes them different.

Not a callous reply, just pointing out something that seemed to have been missed!

Heh, just that native english language getting all tangled up in my head again. Pretty much the same sheet of music then. Enjoy your youth, you'll get this way too.

[ancientempathy]

Speaking generally here...

I'm trying to force myself away from the term "powerbuild" because it paints a gruesome seen of unnessecary tension and hate, and throat ripping bloodshed.

It's probably better on principal to say, "a powerful build", than a "powerbuild".

If we really were to focus ourselves on building a PC based purely on power...we'll all be caught in a loop realizing that there's a counter for it all, due to all this mostly being circumstantial. We'd eventually limit ourselves to probably about 3 or so class options, and combination, that'd duke it out until the end of time.

I think, generally, when someone says, "They are powerbuilding and are abusive", that the bulk of people are probably thinking about powergaming.

Apr 17, 2008 14:04:05 GMT -5 @ancientempathy said:

Defining Powergaming

Do you think you’re powergaming? Do you even know what powergaming means?

Powergaming - the act of forcibly gaining levels and coin quickly, while disregarding a communities needs and wants (expectations), and to pursue a more action-based orientation, versus participating in a roleplaying environment that is verbally-oriented.

>.< I'll shut up to not distract. Sorry Glandeezy!

[ManyAsOne]

There's a couple of small points I'd like to address.

First, in regard to the idea that everyone must play a battle-hardened adventurer, my question to this would be: "says who?". I think there's been a rash of people making all manner of assumptions about how other people should be playing lately and this seems to follow that trend. If someone wants to sit idle, I say 'go for it'. I think people are far too worried about how other people are playing their characters these days.

Not to derail the topic, but I view this as I view the thread on epics and retirement. Nobody has the authority to govern how someone else should play except the DMs, and in those cases they are only limited by the bounds of the server rules. If player 'A', we'll call him 'Chester', wants to pour all of his skill-points into Craft-Armor, get by on RP experience point gains alone and play a character that is a run-of-the mill tailor or armor-smith, they're more than welcome to do so and I encourage them to make that decision.

There's no requirement that a player 'dive into the depths of evil, sword in hand, victory in their hearts'. If someone wants to play a beggar, a scribe, a town drunk, or any other manner of non-adventuring character, its their decision and perfectly fine.


But I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.


Your point is that a character's roleplaying merit shouldn't be judged by their 'build', right? And that's completely true. If your character is a combatant and you've 'min-maxed' all of his stats, gear, feats, and skills, you are more than welcome to, but always keep in mind that it isn't a situation where your character's behavior 'simply has nothing to do with the rules', as you put it.

If you made a character who, for example, had intelligence, wisdom, and charisma as their 'dump stats', you're going to be held accountable for it. You aren't going to be told how to roleplay that character, but you are going to have to keep those ability-score choices in mind when making your roleplaying decisions. Your 'dumped' intelligence means you're not book smart. Your low wisdom means you're not insightful, either. That low charisma means that your character simply doesn't have much force of personality and that he likely isn't going to be Mr. Prince Charming.

So, again, you're right. Your character's roleplaying merit shouldn't be judged off of what build you choose, so long as you are playing that build choice accordingly, taking the good with the bad. If you min-maxed for combat, prepare for the DMs to expect those low ability scores to be part of your character's behavior and mannerisms and much as his or her combat prowess is.

This is, after all, a Roleplaying server and not an Action server.



In any case, I'll be keeping a close eye on this thread and a few others on the forum regarding topics like this. I don't want this to turn into a thread where people are telling each-other how to play and making a fuss over it if its not by their personal rules and guidelines about what roleplaying is. As long as its within the server rules, people can play however they like. If you want to play a non-combatant, do it. If you want to keep your epic character until the day the server dies (heaven help us if it ever does), do it. If you want to make a character whose build is all combat all the time, go for it (roleplaying your low ability-scores as well, of course).

Just make sure you're obeying the rules. If we find out you're making decisions that are, simply put, against the rules or spirit of things, you'll be spoken to.

[ManyAsOne]

Sept 23, 2010 23:53:23 GMT -5 kottle said:

That's a good reminder that having a powerful character does not mean you are not roleplaying. A 'roleplay' character is maybe a bit strong of a euphemism for 'weak hero'.

I actually like having powerbuilds on the server (powergaming is another story). I expect there to be more powerful characters than my own PCs anyway and it adds to the fun to be on the look-out. As long as they are 'roleplay powerbuilds' that is. But I should add that I also do respect players putting skill points into non-combat skills (beyond appraise and such).

Sept 24, 2010 0:09:21 GMT -5 @ancientempathy said:

Speaking generally here...

I'm trying to force myself away from the term "powerbuild" because it paints a gruesome seen of unnessecary tension and hate, and throat ripping bloodshed.

It's probably better on principal to say, "a powerful build", than a "powerbuild".

If we really were to focus ourselves on building a PC based purely on power...we'll all be caught in a loop realizing that there's a counter for it all, due to all this mostly being circumstantial. We'd eventually limit ourselves to probably about 3 or so class options, and combination, that'd duke it out until the end of time.

I think, generally, when someone says, "They are powerbuilding and are abusive", that the bulk of people are probably thinking about powergaming.

Apr 17, 2008 14:04:05 GMT -5 @ancientempathy said:

Defining Powergaming

Do you think you’re powergaming? Do you even know what powergaming means?

Powergaming - the act of forcibly gaining levels and coin quickly, while disregarding a communities needs and wants (expectations), and to pursue a more action-based orientation, versus participating in a roleplaying environment that is verbally-oriented.

>.< I'll shut up to not distract. Sorry Glandeezy!

More or less in short how I feel in these two posts. Good stuff. Both sides have plenty of merit, so long as everyone is still abiding by the server rules and expectations.

[ancientempathy]

MaO's post eerily echos most of my thoughts

I never personally touched in on the aspect of taking the bad with the good however. That's just second nature by now I guess, but yes, it's important to keep in mind that we got to roleplay the bad with the good which we fuse our characters with. That all plays a bigger picture too...it's apart of character shaping to accept fault

And no one should be telling another how things are done. Best we can do is offer our opinions and approach, but hold no ill will towards others who don't do it "your way." If someone really bothers you with a bad approach then we all got the ability to just move along with our lives

[The Supreme Watcher]

I think the point of my post has completely gone over your head, MaO. Reread my post, please, and read it in a less accusatory tone. This isn't me telling you how to roleplay your characters. It is a discussion, and one I would like to keep from becoming inflammatory, especially in an unwarranted manner.

So, please, relax, and discuss, take off the mantle of authority, and communicate with your fellow players. Share examples and opinions, and listen to what everyone's input is.

[ManyAsOne]

Sept 24, 2010 0:22:29 GMT -5 The Supreme Watcher said:

I think the point of my post has completely gone over your head, MaO. Reread my post, please, and read it in a less accusatory tone. This isn't me telling you how to roleplay your characters. It is a discussion, and one I would like to keep from becoming inflammatory, especially in an unwarranted manner.

So, please, relax, and discuss, take off the mantle of authority, and communicate with your fellow players. Share examples and opinions, and listen to what everyone's input is.

*Blink* I think you may have misread my post. Perhaps you should read it again, and in a less accusatory tone.

I got your point. I never said that your post was about telling people how to play their characters. It was that your roleplaying merit isn't based off of your build decisions. I even said I agree.

But I don't think that's the point you were trying to make.


Your point is that a character's roleplaying merit shouldn't be judged by their 'build', right? And that's completely true.

I was simply making a general reminder to everyone, however, that your ability scores and general mechanical statistics should also be reflected in your character's behavior, and my final point about watching the thread was because I'd prefer to nip in the bud what has the potential to become one of 'those threads' that devolves into a debate about how people should play.



That was more than a little rude. If you have a problem with my post, however, I'll be more than happy to discuss it with you, though I won't derail the thread for it. Please PM me, or if it really is enough to warrant the kind of reply that you gave me, PM a Player Advocate or another DM.

[Lady Frost]

Sept 23, 2010 23:44:10 GMT -5 @ancientempathy said:

A roleplay build is a stylized choice of mechnical composition that reflects the characters needs, desires, and learned tradeskills throughout their career. How they go about gaining all this is the fun part.

I agree.

I think "social builds" are opposite "power builds" actually, not "roleplay builds". Roleplay builds can be any type of build so long as they are built around the RP in their lives.

[ManyAsOne]

Sept 24, 2010 0:30:59 GMT -5 Lady Frost said:

Sept 23, 2010 23:44:10 GMT -5 @ancientempathy said:

A roleplay build is a stylized choice of mechnical composition that reflects the characters needs, desires, and learned tradeskills throughout their career. How they go about gaining all this is the fun part.

I agree.

I think "social builds" are opposite "power builds" actually, not "roleplay builds". Roleplay builds can be any type of build so long as they are built around the RP in their lives.

'nother good point.

[ManyAsOne]

Sept 24, 2010 0:17:45 GMT -5 @ancientempathy said:

MaO's post eerily echos most of my thoughts

I never personally touched in on the aspect of taking the bad with the good however. That's just second nature by now I guess, but yes, it's important to keep in mind that we got to roleplay the bad with the good which we fuse our characters with. That all plays a bigger picture too...it's apart of character shaping to accept fault

And no one should be telling another how things are done. Best we can do is offer our opinions and approach, but hold no ill will towards others who don't do it "your way." If someone really bothers you with a bad approach then we all got the ability to just move along with our lives

*Nods*

This is exactly what I was saying, yes.

[ancientempathy]

Social build?

Are social builds the type where you're a half dragon/half vampire/half erinyes/half angel character bisexual-overlord of a demiplane?

Oh, wrong section of Online NwN >.> ;D

[ManyAsOne]

Sept 24, 2010 0:43:10 GMT -5 @ancientempathy said:

Social build?

Are social builds the type where you're a half dragon/half vampire/half erinyes/half angel character bisexual-overlord of a demiplane?

Oh, wrong section of Online NwN >.> ;D

/cry

[maeglhachel]

Sept 24, 2010 0:10:33 GMT -5 ManyAsOne said:

If player 'A', we'll call him 'Chester', wants to pour all of his skill-points into Craft-Armor

Wow, Snipe's a crafter? Didn't know that.

I agree the terminology is kinda ugly, especially for the vast majority of not-so-clear-cut, gray area cases. But just to give an example of what I understand when I hear role-play-build: I understand builds where players have knowingly invested resources in skills/feats (well, skills mostly, I guess) that have nothing to do with making the char tougher or richer, just are in line with what the character does. Some make "bad" choices on purpose to add flavour (provided they RP it, too). Not saying everybody has to do that, but hey ... I kinda find it amiable. (And I'm not patting my own shoulder here, only thing Tari does in that respect is stay away from those lovely necro spells.)

On the other end I'd, for example, view chars who just tell lies all the time without having invested a single point in bluff, because they know they won't be asked for a roll as long as people don't suspect anything. So those points are better invested in maximizing some other skill. (Oh, and by the way that example is my own char Cynthia where I only realized she'd need a lot more points in bluff when I fleshed out her history at ... don't remember, but not at lvl 1. So nobody feel offended, please.)

[Aodhan the Unusual]

When I say roleplay build, I mean that all feats, skills, spells, etc. are picked based on how the RP has been going with that character - whether it's the most effective choices mechanics wise in the rest of the game world or not.

Like Torian. Torian was technically a gimp. From the weapon choice to stats and skills, Torian was literally built for the RP and not for going out dungeon crawling. But any rogue can trap a place all to the hells, right? Maybe, if they knew how to use traps that were effective on things her level. Even being a shadowdancer, she wasn't the most stealthy person on the server, but that didn't stop her from trying. Again, all stats, feats, etc. went to the RP around the character, not the actual effectiveness vs. the game world. Of course this also meant it took almost 5 years for her to reach level 20 on mostly RP XP, but the RP scenarios she was involved in, and created, was so worth it. Many an older player will remember her antics, and some older PCs still shy away or keep a wary eye on her because of these situations from the distant past.

Many people build the mechanics first and the character second. I suppose I do it backwards in this case. I build the character first and base everything around their personality, their history, the pre-adventuring days. Does this mean it's a bad build? Probably to those that would rather build a character, go out dungeon crawling all day, and come back with nary a scratch. Does it make it challenging? Oh hells yeah! Having a rogue that can't trap or a wizard who can't cast certain spells? Challenging as all hell. Is it for everyone? No. And I'm not saying that people are making their characters wrong.

For me, and others, we enjoy the RP aspect more than the dungeon crawling aspect of the game. Those that like the action more are entitled to their fun just as much as the heavy RPers. The real problem comes in when those RPers do get to go dungeon crawling, it's not a lot, and many times can be very challenging or even deadly. Sometimes one death can take a month's worth of RPing and a couple of dungeon crawling episodes worth of XP away and can make it disheartening to continue playing for a while.

The thing to keep in mind is that not all characters are meant to go traipsing through a dusty crypt, a dirty cave, or an abandoned tower. And if someone doesn't happen to have certain spells, skills, etc. because of the RP aspect of the character, you shouldn't get mad at them and tell them they're doing it wrong. Each player, and character, is unique (even if the head choices are rather limited... ), and as such should be treated that way. Just because someone builds a character different than the way you would have, doesn't mean it's wrong.


And... Don't mind the disconnected thoughts on this subject... Still not quite awake yet.

[iangallowglas]

Sept 24, 2010 6:24:05 GMT -5 Aodhan the Unusual said:

When I say roleplay build, I mean that all feats, skills, spells, etc. are picked based on how the RP has been going with that character - whether it's the most effective choices mechanics wise in the rest of the game world or not.

Like Torian. Torian was technically a gimp. From the weapon choice to stats and skills, Torian was literally built for the RP and not for going out dungeon crawling. But any rogue can trap a place all to the hells, right? Maybe, if they knew how to use traps that were effective on things her level. Even being a shadowdancer, she wasn't the most stealthy person on the server, but that didn't stop her from trying. Again, all stats, feats, etc. went to the RP around the character, not the actual effectiveness vs. the game world. Of course this also meant it took almost 5 years for her to reach level 20 on mostly RP XP, but the RP scenarios she was involved in, and created, was so worth it. Many an older player will remember her antics, and some older PCs still shy away or keep a wary eye on her because of these situations from the distant past.

Many people build the mechanics first and the character second. I suppose I do it backwards in this case. I build the character first and base everything around their personality, their history, the pre-adventuring days. Does this mean it's a bad build? Probably to those that would rather build a character, go out dungeon crawling all day, and come back with nary a scratch. Does it make it challenging? Oh hells yeah! Having a rogue that can't trap or a wizard who can't cast certain spells? Challenging as all hell. Is it for everyone? No. And I'm not saying that people are making their characters wrong.

For me, and others, we enjoy the RP aspect more than the dungeon crawling aspect of the game. Those that like the action more are entitled to their fun just as much as the heavy RPers. The real problem comes in when those RPers do get to go dungeon crawling, it's not a lot, and many times can be very challenging or even deadly. Sometimes one death can take a month's worth of RPing and a couple of dungeon crawling episodes worth of XP away and can make it disheartening to continue playing for a while.

The thing to keep in mind is that not all characters are meant to go traipsing through a dusty crypt, a dirty cave, or an abandoned tower. And if someone doesn't happen to have certain spells, skills, etc. because of the RP aspect of the character, you shouldn't get mad at them and tell them they're doing it wrong. Each player, and character, is unique (even if the head choices are rather limited... ), and as such should be treated that way. Just because someone builds a character different than the way you would have, doesn't mean it's wrong.


And... Don't mind the disconnected thoughts on this subject... Still not quite awake yet.

This is pretty much how I look at a RP character. It doesn't mean your character doesn't adventure, it just means their choices in skills, feats, classes, ability point allocation, and IC actions (like not casting death spells) are built on RP and the characters in-game experiences, not on what makes the best sense game-mechanics wise. Talin comes to mind here, a character from a few years back. He was an Ilmatari Paladin that wouldn't wear full-plate or a helm, only half-plate, and took ranks in parry to simulate a non-lethal approach to combat that he would take with certain opponents. He routinely got tells and IC comments about how dumb it was for a low-dex fighter not to wear full plate or a helm, but it was part of his characters story, so he wouldn't change it, which I greatly respected.

[longearmage]

I get to use Silverstring as an example! *dances*

When Silver started out, his original concept was to be a "lighthearted Darkharp." He was a bard at the start, average strength (enough to carry what he needed), average dexterity (enough to throw a rock and run), average-ish constitution (squishy...yep), medium intelligence (as he was a studied individual), average wisdom (never really knew when to cut his losses and run) and relatively high charisma (bard song, presence, etc.).

I originally was going to go straight bard and handle things that way...until Silver started hanging out with an adventuring group. As this group traveled quite a bit, and Silver was still very squishy, he had Dusk and a priest named Tyrius teach him some martial skills (which is how I introduced the Fighter class into his build). He never really took to the slashing and the cutting and the killing, but he learned enough to defend himself, and others if necessary.

Well, a year or so passed. In the course of that, the group fell apart (sadtimes RP). Silver was taken on by Darkharp as an assistant at the time of the founding of the Alizarin Academy. Bard became my main focus once again. But soon, Silver felt that patriotic call to defend his homeland and he joined the Royal Corps. I still focused on Bard, but there were some more martial feats and skills taken as he progressed in his military career.

About nine months ago, Silver was knighted by the Steel Regent. As a member of the Purple Dragon Army, this entitled him to take levels in the Purple Dragon Knight Prestige Class. Roleplay dictated I do so, so I did. (Learned afterward that the Bard/Fighter combination utilizes the feats and powers of the PDK class very well.)

After that, Silver rose through the ranks of the Royal Corps of Monster Hunters until he was where he is today, the Lionar and day-to-day commander of the Royal Corps, answering to good old Commander Faril.

What I'm trying to get at is that Roleplay has dictated a lot of Silver's development. He started off as a very social-based character and is now a passable fighter. You aren't constrained to how you start out. One paladin character I know has aspirations to be a lawyer in the Courts of Suzail.

(Yay rambling at 8:30 in the morning!)

[Roseanna]

I personally prefer to have RP help me choose what kinds of feats and skills I put into my characters. It's not always what dictates it, and I've been told by a few people that how I have progressed Ginna doesn't fall in line with what they expect.... even started to argue with me about it and I've held my ground.

When I first made her (a fighter class), I took one point in each lockpick and disable trap. Her background made it appropriate before coming to Greatgaunt, and several people were a little surprised that I bothered taking non-class skills at level 1. Throughout her interactions with various halflings and others, RP occurred where they'd show her how to disable harder traps or harder locks. So as I progressed in levels, I'd take a point in one or both here and there.

I wanted to add Weaponmaster class, but I wished for the experience to RP out learning it. I located an old post offering to RP such learning experiences and contacted the player ingame about any possibility they were still interested in roleplaying that. They indicated yes, and they crossed paths in Greatgaunt one day... and the RP began. (Thank you Kenji!)

As levels continued, I was torn between what I saw nearly everyone else doing with a Fighter/WM build (taking rogue levels) and my own desire to do something completely different. Ginna's not a rogue, despite the lockpick and disabling skill points. Her personality isn't driven that way. Since coming to Greatgaunt, she has learned that magic had a very useful purpose. She used to be overly wary of -anyone- casting magic on her, but has since relaxed about it. And I started to RP her having interest in -how- magic works exactly.

Effectively, I added the Wizard class to her build, as she was trying to learn how to use wands and scrolls. When I finally took that first level of Wizard, I got a lot of tells saying "I expected you to take rogue, as that's what everyone else does with that build." Or that I was told I made the completely wrong decision in taking that class and that I'd regret it forever.

Let's just say, I don't regret it. It sparks some very interesting RP with other people. They see her walking around in full plate with sword and shield, then she decides to take off her armor and casts a spell or two. The raised eyebrows from other characters as well as the conversation about "where'd you learn to do that?" creates some interesting dialog. And it also brings about a bit of mystery to her on just how much she knows.

I am taking other non-fighting skill points as Ginna 'practices' them in RP as well. While I still know where I'd like to take her future levels, nothing is set in stone.

[Levedara]

To me RP builds, be they social or combat orientated will revolve around the characters goals, ambitions and experiences.

Mithika is a very social and 'personal' build, being focused in craft traps, and such. Even her feat of 'armor skin' was based on RP rather than combat, having spent a lot of time emphasizing miths scales I thought it would be appropriate, and fitting, as her scales are perhaps more prominent than most rdd's make them. The ac bonus does little for her, since she 99% of the time is flanking! If and when she gets her next feat it's intended to be Epic Reputation, as the Golden Lady, for all her time spent meandering around being nice to people to try to teach them that not all dragon kin are evil monsters. She in the end is not a very strong character comparatively to what she could have been had I built her differently. She is so incredibly fun though, I wouldn't change a bit. Especially her abysmal Wisdom which results in her many blunders that leave others hiding their grins.

Vorels feats and spell choices are mostly based on things that occurred in game, RP with her companions, the many many demands from Gorstag! hahaha <3 She had harp lessons from Silverstring, Thril, and Darkharp, along with combat training for armor, weapon and shield from Gerard for some time before she took her bard level (more to come someday I think!). She is an extremely strong character, though there are a few things that would have made her more potent one way or the other. Once again another very fun character, mostly focused on overcoming failures of the past with preparation and dedication in the now.

I have several more characters in the works. Two are preplanned feat and class wise up to level 15 or so, should I ever manage to get that far, and the rest (7 or so of them between levels 4 and 10) are completely open books. I still consider the two preplanned characters to be 'RP' builds, with their personal goals and 'professions' in mind.

So, I suppose to me RP builds are builds that are focused on the characters personal factors, rather than what would make them 'more efficient' though it should be noted that sometimes personal factors can be very efficient anyways.

[Deleted]

I think the term roleplay build is a bit of a misnomer: FRC is an rp server, so everyone should rp their build's strengths and weaknesses regardless of whether they have more of the former or later.

I think the key to role playing your character's abilities well is integrating the crunch and fluff of your build so that it feels natural and stylish rather than a collection of numbers and disjointed abilities that make you powerful (or not).

It's hard to always have time to roleplay abilities used during combat; however, it adds a lot when you can. If your character is conceptually a fencer & is using expertise, then you could describe using that feat in fencing terms: perhaps you are hanging back further and sliding the blades off to the side as the enemy advances or such. Now expertise is more than a feat that gives you +5 ac for -5 ab ... it's an extension of your character concept that people who are commonly in your party will think of, even if you don't always emote that description every time you use the feat.

[EDM Entori]

Rp build is having no plan, its having your character and his or her skill sets evolve from the dynamics(hopes dreams and goals) and the interactions of roleplay.

It is the opposed of building for the best numbers. its taking 14 intelligence as a sorcerer, being a squishy fighter, or a sickly rogue.

its taking a bard class where a wizard would be more mechanically sound.

[Charon's Claw]

Although it's not necessarily always the choice that causes a weaker character. Just because a fighter is rather strong it is still equally an RP build if the choices of that character and training in their life lead to that strength.

[Deleted]

I am gonna chip in here...

To me a Role Play build is a build which is roleplayed. If you want to be a Fighter / WM / Rogue. Aslong as you RP it, it is an RP build. No matter how strong it is. If you want to make a character with only bluff, pursuade and intimdate ranks. Go nuts. Aslong as you rp it then guess what? It is an rp build.

This entire debate about powerbuilds, social builds and what not is comepletely pointless. I mean... hell... if you want to do something with your character you will find yourself justifying this decision any way you can. "The rp went that way...". "My characters believes in X, C and G. That is why they are doing this thing that most would never imagine a character like mine doing".

I guess the point I am trying to make is this... Any build. Be it super strong or weak as hell... is a roleplay build as long as you, the player, make an effort to actually roleplay your feats, classes and stats.

~Sio

[Lokarn]

Agreed with Sio.

I bet some ppl think I have a powerfull build. They are right. I also didn't plan it and could have easily added another attack per round and another 5 or so AC.

I will also say that every aspect of my character is RP'd. Most of it is only seen by her closest allies, and even more is rp'd in private between me, and any DM who happens to see.

The only non-rp builds are the ones that don't get rp'd. Those ppl leave fairly quick, so have fun, enjoy your story, and make friends IC and OOC.

[soulfien]

All builds are RP builds if you RP your build.

[anerwyn]

Sept 27, 2010 21:14:01 GMT -5 @soulfien said:

All builds are RP builds if you RP your build.

very true.