-

If you have been playing RPGs for awhile now, you probably know what I’m talking about. If not, let me explain. Generally speaking, there are two kinds of gamers; the Role-players and the Roll-players.

Role-players create their characters as if they were writing a book or a screenplay. Their characters are well thought out in regards to aesthetic look (at least in their mind’s eye), personality, background, morality, behavior, beliefs, goals, etc. They strive to fully detail the character in most every way possible. They strive to make the character into the ‘person’ that they envision in their head.

Roll-players (aka min/maxers), on the other hand, design their characters to maximize their effectiveness in the game, at least from a game mechanics standpoint. Choice of race, class, equipment, skills, feats, etc. are all calculated to gain the greatest numerical benefit and therefore, the greatest chance of “winning” the game. All of this planning focuses on a single aspect of the character, to the detriment of all others. These characters tend to be less balanced and less believable or realistic as people, but that’s not what this brand of player is concerned with.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the DM to allow min/maxers to create these unbalanced characters, if they so choose. I can see the fun and joy of running the greatest warrior on the battlefield or the spell-caster with the most powerful spells or even the best shadowy and silent of rogues. As a player, I fully understand that hunger for power and dominance in the game.

But by the same token, I also believe that same sense of responsibility demands that the DM go out of his/her way to exploit the weaknesses of these often one-sided characters. If players want to design their character to be the “best at (fill in the blank)” that they can possibly be within the rules (or sometimes not), then I personally feel obligated to make sure that they are aggressively made aware of their character’s design flaws and short-comings, as well. Not to the point of ruining their gaming experience, mind you, but just enough to make my point none the less.

You may think that this makes me a prick of a DM, but my intention is to encourage my players to see their characters less as a two dimensional avatar and more like a living, breathing person making their way through a living, breathing (game) world. Min/maxed characters may be fun to play in the short term, but I love the limitless story of an ongoing campaign. So personally, I would much rather play an in-depth, complex character that I can continually build upon.

In the end, I want my game-world to be as immersive and plausible as possible and nothing blows my player’s suspension of disbelief more than a two dimensional PC in the party whose only apparent reason to exist is to do (fill in the blank) better than everyone else. These characters will always be welcomed in a fight or wherever their talents are centered, but they are usually quite worthless in any other situation. For example, your min/maxed character maybe the greatest melee warrior around, but you’re going to feel quite useless when the party must use their intellect to solve a mystery or riddle, or diplomacy to talk the local baron into letting you through his lands unmolested or even just to strike at opponents at a distance.

When I get to play (and that’s a rarity), I want to run a character that is interesting and dynamic. A character that is fun to play and fun for others to interact with. So, on the debate of Role-play vs. Roll-play, you know which side I’m on. Are you with me or not?

Regardless of which is your style of game play, if you’re not having fun, then you’re doing it wrong.

Good Gaming to you.

-