Gimped characters are more fun [Fallacy discussion]

[archangel.arcanis]

Here is a quote of me responding to a poster on another gaming board, for an out of the mainstream RPG.

For me making characters suboptimal is what gives them character. I have two separate flaws for my character (Heroic and Bloodthirsty) even though the second gives me no benefit. It is just more fun for me.

This isn't directed at you personally Nierite, your post is just expressing something I consider a problem across gaming systems and communities.

This is where I have a problem. You aren't just making suboptimal choices, you are intentionally adding mechanical restrictions to your character ("gimping" them) for no benefit. I find the fallacy of having to make characters gimped for them to be interesting is far too dominant. Yes weak/gimped characters can be interesting, but it is just as easy to make a character interesting without gimping them. I find that once you are intentionally making a weak character, keep in mind there is a difference between suboptimal and weak, you are being selfish to an extent. You are putting the other members of your party at more risk for you to have your fun, and as I explained weakness isn't the source of an interesting characters thus it is needless.

I enjoy playing suboptimal and flawed characters but I won't gimp them, because at that point I'm not being a team player in a team game.

Now no one has responded to this post yet, it is a slow moving board. Do you guys feel I have sufficiently explained a)what gimping your character? is b)why it is bad? c)What else should be mentioned?

I also figure this would be a good place to discuss this fallacy in general for those here. I just hadn't seen it in a while and forgot most of the arguments aside from "you can't RP if your dead".

[ImperatorK]

There's nothing wrong with intentionally gimping your character to have more fun. It's a game. Chill out.

[RobbyPants]

Now no one has responded to this post yet, it is a slow moving board. Do you guys feel I have sufficiently explained a)what gimping your character? is b)why it is bad? c)What else should be mentioned?

I also figure this would be a good place to discuss this fallacy in general for those here. I just hadn't seen it in a while and forgot most of the arguments aside from "you can't RP if your dead".

It's basically that, and it's a false dichotomy. There's no reason you have to gimp them to make them interesting. They're two separate things on two separate axes. It's just, for some reason, people like to put them onto a single line. It's the crux of the Stormwind Fallacy.

[archangel.arcanis]

There's nothing wrong with intentionally gimping your character to have more fun. It's a game. Chill out.

I think the last line of my quote tells you exactly what is wrong with gimping a character.

edit: Imperator if you would like to make a case as to why I'm wrong on this please do, that is the point of this being a discussion thread.

[RobbyPants]

There's nothing wrong with intentionally gimping your character to have more fun. It's a game. Chill out.

I think the last line of my quote tells you exactly what is wrong with gimping a character.

Yeah. When you gimp a character in a team game, you're doing it at everyone's expense. At that point, everyone needs to be on the same page as to what they're even playing, and what type of PCs are appropriate for the game. This can include alignment, overall goals, level of player dispute allowed/wanted, and even PC effectiveness.

[archangel.arcanis]

Now no one has responded to this post yet, it is a slow moving board. Do you guys feel I have sufficiently explained a)what gimping your character? is b)why it is bad? c)What else should be mentioned?

I also figure this would be a good place to discuss this fallacy in general for those here. I just hadn't seen it in a while and forgot most of the arguments aside from "you can't RP if your dead".

It's basically that, and it's a false dichotomy. There's no reason you have to gimp them to make them interesting. They're two separate things on two separate axes. It's just, for some reason, people like to put them onto a single line. It's the crux of the Stormwind Fallacy.

Thank you that is what I was looking for but couldn't quite get my brain to come up with. It is a false dichotomy.

[ImperatorK]

You do with your character what you like, I do with my character what I like. Simple as that.

[RobbyPants]

You do with your character what you like, I do with my character what I like. Simple as that.

Well, yes, but it might hurt the enjoyment of the group.

If everyone shows up to play D&D and one guy wants to play Parcheesi, there's going to be a problem. Likewise, if everyone shows up with wizards and one guy shows up with the littlest halfling from the halfling clan with dreams of one day being a great barbarian... there's probably going to be a problem.

Best case scenario, the halfling player laughs the whole time at his PC's failure, or the DM gets stuck inserting pity artifact swords axes into the game to try and keep things sane.


In a solo game, I think you can do what you want. It's just in a group game, everyone needs to be fine with what everyone is doing. If the wizards and DM are fine dragging the halfing around (possibly literally, in a bag of holding), then great. I just don't think you can say carte blanche that anyone can just do whatever and it will all be fine.

[archangel.arcanis]

You do with your character what you like, I do with my character what I like. Simple as that.

I understand that, but how is it not detrimental to the team to intentionally make a character weaker than needed? It is different between choosing a sub-optimal choice and gimping a character. ie I want to make a clone of Edgtho from the 13th warrior movie, so I go TWF with a sword and axe. That is making sub-optimal choices to make the character. If I do that but also start adding flaws that hinder melee capabilities or something like that, I'm gimping the character and hurting my team.

Let me be clear, not every character has to be optimized to be their best. If that were so there would be only a hand full of builds and all characters would be cookie cutter copies of each other. I'm saying that gimping (actively making a character weaker) goes beyond less than the best choices and is a problem. So if we were in a game your choices, that you made to have fun, are putting my character, and my ability to have fun, at risk.

[ImperatorK]

It. Is. Just. A. Game.
If you'll understand and accept that, you'll be fine.

The DM might set restrictions. There can be a gentlemen's agreement. But besides that, my character is my own and I do with him what I want.
And it's an ideal situation for a powergamer, because now he can go all out. He has to pick up the slack of the weakling.

[Kajhera]

From a writing perspective, flawed characters are more interesting. If you can make your character good enough to participate in a team game, adding ways to catch plot hooks and make the story more entertaining for everyone is probably good.

From a mechanical perspective, arbitrary restrictions can be a creative outlet. For example, when I make a female water orc, I adopt a variety of arbitrary restrictions: Use unarmed weapons, natural weapons or claw gauntlets only, in obedience to Luthic; do not use fire; and view orcs as superior to all other races, with lurking hatred and suspicion of every race that has betrayed them (pretty much everyone when you look into it).

From that, I know enough to guide me into totemist, druid, tashalatora monk, or something else cool. And generally I'll eke whatever mechanical benefit I can out of a flaw I take, because that's just smart; but it doesn't stop being a flaw. xD

From an optimizing perspective, min/maxing itself is minimizing some capabilities to maximize others. I find it makes for a dynamic and interesting character than someone who's good or bad at everything, don't you? And one who's a better team player, and whose qualities are well-defined.

So, in conclusion: Arbitrary mechanical restrictions are fine to place on yourself if they're not just pointless penalties. If they are just pointless penalties, you're not going to be performing at the level expected of you by your team, and you're missing the opportunity to better define your character by taking a feat or such in compensation. I mean who doesn't like essentially free stuff?

Arbitrary roleplaying restrictions are what makes the plot go 'round, though.

[Mooncrow]

I've never understood the need to mechanically limit your character when good roleplaying would serve the same purpose.  If you want to play a bloodthirsty character, play a bloodthirsty character for crying out loud - you don't need a line on the character sheet that says "my character must be bloodthristy".  More often than not, that type of thing is a substitute for actual roleplay.  "Oh hey, we're in a tense social situation, better roll my dice to see if I flip the fuck out and start killing people" (or whatever that trait does, just tossing an example out there) instead of trying to be in the character's head figuring out when they would flip out. 

[Kajhera]

Well, I happened to be playing a water orc who actually had to drink blood, so I took the Blood Hunger mutation to represent the consequences of not doing that.

It gave me a mutation point to spend on the bite attack I needed to take that penalty, though, and totemist, so another natural weapon made me happy.

[Sinfire Titan]

There's nothing wrong with intentionally gimping your character to have more fun. It's a game. Chill out.

There is if the results end up costing the entire party. Not playing to your full potential is fine. But specifically playing a weak character, such as an ACF-less Fighter 20 with the Weapon Focus tree and the Elite Array or a VoP Monk 20, despite knowing better is a bad idea. And this doesn't have to be "Herp Derp, Elf Commoner 20 with Skill Focus 7 times" stupid. If your character is consuming more of the party's resources than he is capable of replacing in the process, the character needs to be retooled. I, for one, would not shell out 5,000gp to Raise your ass regardless of RP skill if your character was only going to die again in the next two encounters.

Do what you want, but don't force us to keep you floating.

[Risada]

There is if the results end up costing the entire party. Not playing to your full potential is fine. But specifically playing a weak character, such as an ACF-less Fighter 20 with the Weapon Focus tree and the Elite Array or a VoP Monk 20, despite knowing better is a bad idea. And this doesn't have to be "Herp Derp, Elf Commoner 20 with Skill Focus 7 times" stupid. If your character is consuming more of the party's resources than he is capable of replacing in the process, the character needs to be retooled. I, for one, would not shell out 5,000gp to Raise your ass regardless of RP skill if your character was only going to die again in the next two encounters.

Do what you want, but don't force us to keep you floating.

I agree completely with this.

You may think it's all fine and dandy playing with a weak character and roleplay it, but what if the party dies because of your nonpresence in combat? You may have had fun, but what about the rest of the group?

[ImperatorK]

They won't. They're all optimizers and can take care of themselves. Or the DM can make encounters a little easier.

[Unbeliever]

As is often the case, I think the gimped characters fallacy is based on conflating two.  As another poster notes, flawed characters are more interesting -- it's often what makes them interesting.  But, "flaws" in that sense are character traits, grist for role-playing, and don't necessarily need to be mechanically supported or have any relationship to the mechanics.  My characters can be reckless, cowardly, shortsighted, physically weak, and so on without needing particular mechanical support for that. 

Second, I think the gimped character fallacy is based on a belief that an optimized character is abandoning the character part for the optimization part.  This is, of course, brings up the Stormwind Fallacy.  There is something to this, however, when "optimization goes wrong" (tm).  I think if someone wants to play a twf with a sword and an ax (to borrow another poster's example), that's perfectly fine.  The response from the optimization community should not be "don't play that" except under very rare circumstances (e.g., a very high-powered game where such a character would be out of place with the other established PCs).  The optimization community's responses should, I contend, be ways to make that character viable at the table, where "viable" means able to succeed in the things the concept wants to.  In this case, probably running around and slashing people to bits.

To the extent that optimization, the opposite of gimping, leads people to abandon character concepts/archetypes that are interesting, leading people to always playing Druids or what have you, then the gimped character fallacy has a point.  But, in my humble opinion, character optimization is supposed to do the exact opposite:  to make mechanically interesting and viable concepts and archetypes that are not obviously supported by the system.


P.S.:  I can only speak for myself, but I find ImperatorK's posts here both dismissive and vaguely insulting.  If you feel that way, then why post in this thread or even bother having an account on these boards?  If it's "just a game" which implies "why do you give a shit?" then why even bother having forums like this ...

[ImperatorK]

Sorry for stating my opinion. >.> I'll remember to keep it to myself next time.

[Kajhera]

Aw, look now you've upset him. Stop being mean, people are entitled to a healthy perspective on the place a hobby has in their life. 

(Sorry for the silly tone, just that your Captain Fang avatar is cute *winks*)

[archangel.arcanis]

Ik I think the main issue is 2 fold. 1) You say it isn't a problem and then suggest ways to fix the problems. 2) We are all just giving opinions but everyone else is giving reasons why they think the way they do.

Also you are making assumptions about the group. You said the group wouldn't die due to anti-optimization, because they are optimizers. That is not a safe assumption to make in most cases. Practically everyone here is the lone optimizer in their group, or one of very few. I know in the groups I've played with there was only 1 other player who was ever even a decent optimizer, that being out of 20+ players over the years.


The main point of this thread is to address the fallacy that anti-optimization makes a character "more interesting". At best there is some correlation, but most of the time the mechanical impediments lead to the other players not having as much fun because they have to pick up the slack.