Be a DM

>Option 1
Do the "Book of Nine Swords and Psionics Classes Only" thing, as it's basically the easiest way to make 3.5 not absolute garbage even though it doesn't solve your players' mindset.

>Option 2
Switch editions. 3.P is pretty much built around treating your character like a MMORPG toon. Even 4E, which has all the qualia of an MMO, is better suited to roleplay than 3E and Pathfinder because your character doesn't -need- to be optimized to be competitive against monsters of similar CR.

>Option 3
Play something other than D&D. I've found switching to FATE can really jar a person locked into mechanics back into seeing their character as more than a pile of numbers, but YMMV.

Thank you!
Agreed, I'm switching to an earlier edition probably, something less based on numerical stats.

Those were the examples you gave me. I just listed why it was wrong.

Of course nobody should have a character good in everything, but the fact is that players hate having weak stats because they are too problematic.

ITT: A person would love to be a ridiculous strong or smart or fast person, while being average in the others. A person would hate being stupid, even if he was ridiculous strong to compensate. The bad traits usually shine more than the good ones.

...

A weakness isn't the same as having a character flaw user. Like if it was then vampires would be inherently more personable than humans by default.

That's genius, thanks user

Fuck I'm an idiot, this rules, thank you!!

Undead have no constitution.

Yet depending on legends, vampires are weak to sunlight, cannot enter a home that they're not invited into, cannot cross streams, are allergic to garlic, project not reflection (which makes it harder to blend in among humans), and have an aversion to holy symbols like the cross and holy water.

So based off your logic, vampires would be inherently more personable than a human because they have so many weaknesses to deal with while humans...don't.

In my group we fixed being overpowered by making every other charater op as well. So the players feel like heros and get to do a lot but so can their enimies.

>a flaw is not the same as a weakness
>proceeds to list flaws and calls them weak himself

Nice strawman by the way.

>your character doesn't -need- to be optimized to be competitive against monsters of similar CR

What monsters of similar CR -need- your character to be optimized in 3.5? I always found the other way around: the monsters -need- to be optimized to challenge the character (unless you are playing a monk or some shit)

The problem is, the characters will always feel safe and untouchable for being superhuman.

Good CR selected monsters are great, but if you have no weakness you won't fear the perils of the campaign, that destroys the story.

3.5 monster math assumed that your fighter, for example, was on top of his build in order to hit consistency. The rule of thumb was that with a full BAB and proper buffs, you should hit at-CR threats at about an 8 on the die.

Because of the way HP and damage worked, you should also assume that any at-CR threat would die in about two rounds, maybe less; That's about how fast and how deadly any good threat is.

Mages are, of course, the exception - They tend to end encounters in one round with a spell, get horribly mauled by having low HP and AC before they can get anything off, or just fly above the threats and ping things to death slowly, or deal with problems in a myriad of other ways.

A weakness is, by definition, a flaw

This is the problem with my group precisely. It's too much meta-gaming and understanding the core rules over just letting go and facing dellimas like a real character actually would.

True, but weakness are usually added on the Flaws page(depending on system).

Weak to Water is not a stat but a flaw. Low Int would be a flaw, but it doesn't get into the Flaws page.

Have you thought that maybe the problem is the story? People usually start forgetting the meta if the story is involving enough. Even the most powergamer on my table once took a story decision by how involved he got.

You're confused user. Take a moment to follow the chain of comments before commenting on the conversation.

How high are you?

ITT: traits =/= stats

Stats affect everything, traits only on certain situations.

The chain of comments changed multiple times except for my stance that every good character has a weakness, or struggle.

That's literally all I've been getting at.

I absolutely agree user, except it usually starts before the campaign even starts.

I'm definitely setting stat standards and limiting classes/races this time.

I never disagreed dumbass, I just said flaws are important, NOT in the context of the game, but for character building, emersiveness and story.

You're grasping at straws.

Assuming we're talking about D&D, something that you need to understand is that there is no such thing as meta-gaming when it comes to player knowledge. Everything that the character knows what to do is borne from your knowledge as a player, even the knowledge to go "I don't know about X, can I roll a knowledge Y check to see if my character knows the thing" is dependent on whether or not the player has the wherewithal to access those abilities.

So if you want to take players to stop meta-gaming, don't feed them information that you wouldn't want them to know. Instead of saying "it's a wight," say "it's a pale gaunt humanoid with long black nails and piercing red eyes" or something to that effect.

Believe me, it helps tremendously once you get into the thought process of "they only know what I tell them."

You don't actually need flaws for character building through. A jack of all trades can be the most moving character in the story.

Yeah things are totally compelling when they're never difficult, you're right. Are you done being a geriatric?

You don't need flaws to have a difficult campaign through. You really think a 12 stat in everything character could beat a Behemoth alone?

This thread is not for you user

Use point-buy maybe. They can be somewhat decent at everything.

My stance was that weakness is not the same as having an actual character flaw and the only reason why characters even have weaknesses in the first place is so the author can throw something in that harms them when the character would otherwise be untouchable.

Superman wouldn't be a compelling character if he was a nigh unstoppable god who could only be harmed with green rocks or red sun radiation, but since he's generally written as a good-ol' boy who tries his best while serving as inspiration for the little guy, while at the same time having the capacity to sink do some low levels when he's pushed too far, THAT'S what makes him a compelling character overall.

And if you want characters like that in D&D, the closest you'll find is a paladin who is LG and HAS to be LG or else he loses his nifty paladin powers.

Your players are playing 3.5 correctly, you need to either get with the program or run something that's not d20 based.

Any advice that isn't deviantart tier?

I'm not saying they're wrong!! I'm just saying there's a huge ton of power/meta gaming that has zero to do with building a character with a believable/interesting background.

I'm most likely switching to a new system to keep it fresh.

He's compelling because of his flaws/weaknesses, I see your point.

Moving on...

>It's a "Multiclassing has no purpose besides being a munchkin" episode

Nah fuck off
You're given a box of Legos and are sperging out that people are building something besides the Millennium Falcon on the box

Making your players play a straight barbarian isn't going to suddenly make them roleplayers, it's going to suddenly make them wonder why they're wasting time playing a game after you've castrated the point that made it fun for them

Flaw=/=Weakness

A flaw is something that can be good or bad depending on the context while a weakness is something that's always meant to be bad.

Having my players play a barbarian doesn't make them want to roleplay either though.

I need to switch the system to get them less interested in values over storytelling

Are you going to give some real advice or are you just gonna suck your own dick the whole thread?

Moving on #2...

>he wants to play a Druid stonechild half dragon with a weapon from sandstorm, but might multiclass into a fighter for extra combat feats while trying not to look retarded episode

Don't you dare equate Lego to this, at least lego requires imagination

It's not my fault that you're too stubborn to accept advice that doesn't already line up with what you wanted to do.

Here's some advice, instead of running a game like the gameplay is an obstacle that gets in the way of roleplay, how about you try combining them together so that you're not forced to sacrifice one or the other.

You don't think that knowing how to combine different class/racial abilities together to create a good build doesn't require imagination? It takes more creativity to make a good character than to just arbitrarily nerf yourself and claim that your ineptitude somehow enhances the roleplay.

I will take this as a sign you have run out of arguments. Thank you user.

>since every character needs flaws

This triggers me.

The flaws that make interesting characters are... wait for it... *character flaws*. Not sucking at certain actions because you failed to or couldn't optimize (or, also, because you did precisely that).

Mechanical optimization and roleplaying ARE NOT mutually exclusive. They are wholly independent.

There's nothing wrong with a buffed out character, cool multiclassing and stuff doesn't bother me; but I think you should be able to role play your choice.

These people are playing to win, not to role play.

Not here to argue. Here for advice.

>a weakness is something that's always meant to be bad.
So it can be good for storytelling then. Alcoholism is a weakness but can make for a compelling character.

But a good build doesn't equate a good character. It just means that the PC is mechanically competent.

I completely agree user, but my trouble is my player characters optimize themselves so they have zero flaws and high stats, so my only option is higher CR stuff.

I need to show my players how it can be fun to face turmoil in a game

Multi-classing as a concept doesn't mean that a player is inherently averse to roleplaying, if they're a shit roleplayer with multi-classing then they'll be just as shit without it.

Even then, you're not going to change their ways by forcing it onto them and if you push too hard, you'll end up turning them off to roleplay in general.

The amount of players here who don't want to face personal challenges is sad

Want an advice?

Make a good story. People will then want to get into it.

You're right, I still feel like limiting can help a little, but it's also my call on the world I throw them into to make them role play.

I will do my best user

>So it can be good for storytelling then.
Not really.
>Alcoholism is a weakness but can make for a compelling character.
Alcoholism is a flaw because the person can still, at some point in their lives, learn how to live without it. A true weakness would be something like a werewolf's aversion to silver; it's something that affects them on a conceptual level and rarely are they capable of not being weak to it on some level (if we're going by the legends of course).

Rule of Thumb: If it's something in a character's personality that can be negative but can also be overcome through some means, it's a flaw. If it's something that is ALWAYS negative and can NEVER be overcome in some way, it's a weakness.

> your personal challenge is having -2 to your strength roll
That's pretty sad actually.

I don't think character flaws (i.e. personal failings) should be treated separate from the mechanics. A cold, callous character *should* have harder time to convince others to help him because he's unable to connect with people properly, and the game mechanics should reflect that.

And characters who are mechanically competent have the ability to affect the storyline in a significant way.

Think about it, in any system, your ability to do anything is always dependent on whether or not you pass the roll, so it stands to reason that someone who builds well and knows how to play will be able to have more fun and have more of an effect on the world than someone who can barely hit a goblin as a level 3 character.

>flaws aren't good for storytelling
>uses a werewolf as an example
>wew lad

Actually how does someone optimize himself?

To get extra points you need to get flaws. To prioritize a stat you need to dump another, ergo you have a flaw. Do you let your players reroll until they get everything 15-18?

That only works if the player isnt for the xp. Thry will ignore any history, no matter how good you and the others players make, and ask how much the orc babies gave of loot.

On another note, user players doesnt seem lile that, they just like being Op, and I dong see why thsts a problem. Just makes their strength slowly became famous and call attention from more powerful stuff.

How can you make up for it?

Limitation without proper context just ends up being annoying and arbitrary in the grand scheme of the campaign.

You'll find that in most games, there's already a balancing factor involved that prevents someone from being good at everything, so adding layers on top of that is just unnecessary overall.

3.x was designed to have shitty classes and abilities that aren't viable. Your players would be at fault in 90% of RPGs but they simply aren't in this case.

By rolling 2 more.

Yes, but I'm arguing that something that is always negative and can never be overcome can still be good for making a compelling character. It doesn't matter whether it's a flaw or weakness, both are material for shaping the character and its growth.

>That only works if the player isnt for the xp.
There is an easy solution: give xp for good acting.

A werewolf having an aversion to silver does not, in and of itself, make it a good character. To put it another way, a dude who has a peanut allergy is not going to be a compelling character just because he can't be around a PB+J sandwich for the rest of his life.

You can't explain it to them. This kind of player is terminally autistic. They don't care about the group experience, they don't care about having to get creative under circumstances of limitations, they don't care about anything but themselves and their power trip.

The game literally ends at character creation for these people, the rest is just them whining about not having enough EPIC stuff happening. Try introducing them at level 1 to a small fishing village with a mysterious past and strange locals hiding a terrible secret. They will breeze past and say "I WANNA GO FIGHT KING DRAGON NOW"

Find a new group, and maybe try an edition that doesn't hold appeal to this kind of person (if not a new game altogether).

That's great roleplaying

Neither does being an alcoholic.

Thank you.

This, INCLUDING their base stats. It creates fear in the players in dangerous situations which makes them more careful and attached to their characters

That comes down to player preferences. I can imagine a scenarios where coping with the fact that you're shit and out of your league is fun. In WFRPG for example the characters tend to be ragpickers and hoodlums who have to survive in a world of chaos monstrosities and magic, and becoming more scarred and grizzled over the play is satisfying, the more fucked up your character becomes the better play experience you've had.

If it's something that can never be overcome in some way, it doesn't make the character itself grow, it just gives the writer the means to limit their involvement should he find that their presence would impact the narrative.

If it's something that CAN be overcome, then the journey of that character as they both a) realize that their flaw is negatively impacting their life, and b) begin taking the steps to move past this aspect of their life; that is what generally makes them compelling characters as a whole.

>comes from horror stories in European folklore about monsters beaten by their weaknesses/flaws to silver

You dumb

An alcoholic can, at some point in their life, decide to get help and stop allowing their addiction to take over their life in a negative way.
How exactly does its origins weaken my point?

>it doesn't make the character itself grow,
Not by itself, but how the character's limitations shape it.
For example my tragic weakness is that I'm unable to fly, and my obsession to overcome that shapes how my character grows.

In in those types of games, the player still has enough agency to try and avoid said monstrosities while fucking about the setting and their ability to do so is still dependent on whether or not they make the rolls.

Wait, why are you playing spreadsheet edition if you're upset that your players are walking statsheets?

Play Edge of the Empire or some other narrative pnp

OP here. I'm actually super bummed to hear this because I think you might be right.

I don't have another group, so maybe I can explain the situation a little better to them now. Im not even sure playing D&D will help under any variation either.

Might just have to keep the stories to myself for now.

>An alcoholic can, at some point in their life, decide to get help and stop allowing their addiction to take over their life in a negative way.

It still does not by itself make someone into a good character.

Sure, but some people just enjoy seeing their characters fail spectacularly. It's a matter of preferences.

These are both stories about weaknesses.
Will check this game out today. His flaw requires roleplaying, that makes it interesting.
The werewolfs flaw requires roleplaying, that's what makes it interesting.
Agreed, it's called having fun and not powergaming.

>For example my tragic weakness is that I'm unable to fly, and my obsession to overcome that shapes how my character grows.
Your "tragic" weakness does not make you a compelling character, especially in a world where most terrestrial creatures lack the ability to fly.
>It still does not by itself make someone into a good character.
Yes it does, because in order for them to overcome their alcoholism, they have to both address the problem head on and work towards overcoming that struggle.

Having the courage to admit that you fucked up and that you're the cause of your own misfortune is something that a lot of people struggle with, even today. Because of this, seeing a character who has this courage and actually works hard to overcome that struggle and become a better person, that's something that's going to make them compelling by default because we want to see them succeed and be a better person.

If people enjoyed failure then we wouldn't give a shit when people do something worthwhile like, I dunno, curing polio or reaching the moon.
>The werewolfs flaw requires roleplaying, that's what makes it interesting.
The werewolves flaw only requires him to not be touched by silver, it's as basic of a weakness as you can get and doesn't actually serve to make them grow as a character.

Let's put it this way: if a character never overcomes their flaw, does that make the flaw boring? You seem to be arguing that this is the case considering what you said about weaknesses not being useful for making compelling characters.

In D&D, useful = fun.

Personally I've always viewed character building as starting with a mechanical concept, working towards mechanical functionality, then from there into what sort of a person your character must be in order to have the mechanical features you've given him

>Yes it does, because in order for them to overcome their alcoholism, they have to both address the problem head on and work towards overcoming that struggle.
The vast majority of alcoholics don't do that.

>Having the courage to admit that you fucked up and that you're the cause of your own misfortune is something that a lot of people struggle with, even today. Because of this, seeing a character who has this courage and actually works hard to overcome that struggle and become a better person, that's something that's going to make them compelling by default because we want to see them succeed and be a better person.
That REALLY depends on the execution. It's very, very easy to handle that kind of character growth badly.

>we decide to go to the moon
>we don't do these things because they're easy, we do them because they're hard
>literal quote from JFK when he told the world.

I see you don't like being challenged you powertripping crybaby.

I'm all for people curing polio and reaching the moon, but I also enjoy my character being the laughinstock of the table. They're not really exclusive ideas.