>smart
>physical
Which type of character do you prefer to play? You can't say "both" because that would just make you shit at both in 99.9% of tabletop games.
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>smart. >physical
>smart
>physical
Which type of character do you prefer to play? You can't say "both" because that would just make you shit at both in 99.9% of tabletop games.
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
Playing physical character and applying smarts on meta level works much better than the other way aroudn.
> the other way around
> playing a smart character and applying physical strength in a meta sense
I will beat the gm into submission in order to cast more fireballs.
>t.
Does it?
Frick you and you kin for being in control of this damn hobby.
Physical. Being smart in game requires me to have an autistic level of knowledge of setting and game mechanics (unless you're referring to "smart" as a simple number instead of ACTUALLY BEING SMART). Physical just requires knowing game mechanics and having a mild tactical awareness.
Smart.
>You can't say "both" because that would just make you shit at both in 99.9% of tabletop games.
Wrong, but also, play less shit games, and also stop being a min-maxing power-moron.
>Being smart in game requires me to have an autistic level of knowledge of setting and game mechanics
Patently untrue. Being smart doesn't have anything to do with knowledge of any one specific setting, and when it comes to game mechanics the "smart" mechanics are often even easier or simpler than combat mechanics. You'd know this if you (the you-you, not the player-you) weren't moronic and weren't nogames.
tpbp, /thread
>Fake binary choice thread
Just because you used "character" doesn't make it /tg/-related
What the frick else could it be related to?
Look, I'm just going to say this. I don't think anyone has ever enjoyed playing a wizard, it's for autists and fricking nerds. Just let me play a fighter so I don't have to flip through a book to check out what each of my two dozen fricking spells do.
Smart, because I am a shameless degenerate and I like cute caster girls. Also glasses fetish.
I always play the face because it's hard to turn off my natural charisma
Both.
Stop playing shit games where it's a binary choice.
"You can't give an honest answer" seems like a pretty weird premise for the thread, OP. Assuming that answering "both" means always trying to balance smarts and physical ability rather than enjoying playing both smart characters and physical ones seems pretty weird, too.
It's not weird to anyone who plays games.
Yeah? I sometimes play physical characters, sometimes smart ones, and I enjoy both. System permitting I like making characters who have decent abilities both mentally and physically. Last time I played Pathfinder 2E, which is dairly generous with Ability increases, I played a magus who had good but not maximized Intelligence and good physical Ability scores. I've played both physically and mentally solid characters in a number of other games, including at least various WH40K RPGs, Blades in the Dark, WHFRP and Exalted - tgat's based on characters that spring immediately to mind. Tell me more about what you imagine playing games to be like, though.
>System permitting I like making characters who have decent abilities both mentally and physically.
They weren't decent at either. You're delusional.
>DnDogshit player desperately huffing copium.
You literally said you played DnD in your previous post. As I expected, you're demented.
>Y-you can't have a system where your character is good at two things, you can'tYOU CAN'T YOU JUST CAN'T OKAY?!?!!?!?!!?!??!
Sure you can, you just have to get out of the kiddie pool of DnDogshit and DnDogshit clones.
The problem is that most dndrons are organically unable to do this and subconsciously impose a dnd template on everything, so as a result they cannot enjoy other systems because they play it wrong.
Neither.
I play spellcasters, which use their awesome reality-bending powers to do shit. As a result, they're both stupid and weak.
I play GOOD games. I don't play DnDogshit. So actually I CAN make characters who have both.
>Socrates went on to become a veteran of at least three major battles of the Peloponnesian War. Indeed, he was well-known in Athens not only as a philosopher but also, to some extent, as a war hero.
Frick murica and murican anti-intellectualism.
Socrates, America, and anti-intellectualism is not traditional games.
Dnd is made by stupid murican nerds. Also, other systems do not have this problem.
Yes, they do.
>he's literally frothing at the mouth
D&D 5e players actually believe this. Unironically.
both
There's always that one guy who makes a shit character and then gets upset when he fails at everything. The """roleplayer""".
I find it hilarious how confused DnDrones like (you) get at the very idea tgat people playing a ROLEPLAYING GAME might actually want to ROLEPLAY. Like seriously, wtf is wrong with (you) people? Can I learn this power of inflicting moronation like WotC can?
>you can't, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T!!!
Lmao he keeps seething
Have you considered playing vudeogames? Since you don't want any roleplaying in your roleplaying games, something like Skyrim might be right you alley.
Having a shit character doesn't make you a roleplayer.
>no, your character has to do six billion damage or its shit
moronic autist detected.
>character must be mechanically optimized or it's shit
>he does not understand that in better systems character can do more than one thing and still be useful
Tell me you're a DnDrone without telling me you're a DnDrone.
No, but a good roleplayer can have fun with a shit character. A DnDetard is usually just a shitty person.
No, he's right. Those players are fricking insufferable.
>Painfully obvious samegayging
No. I've had to deal with those frickers in actual games and it sucks.
Sounds like you're the problem tbh.
No, the problem is the guy who builds shit characters on a mechanical level and sucks at roleplaying at the same time and then b***hes up a storm. They go hand in hand a good 90% of the time.
It really sounds like you're just a min-maxing autistic who doest roleplay.
Stop projecting.
Bingo, he hit the nail. Also, every minmaxer deserves a rope.
I'm not the one complaining about my self-created problems though. (You) are. If you don't even know how to use a word properly, don't use it.
Someone else sucking at everything isn't a self-created problem.
>Replies literally spaced as close as the post time allows
>Still samegayging to protect his ego on an anonymous image board.
Copium overdose.
Allowing an autistic person in a group is always a bad idea, so my table has a rule that no autistics are allowed.
The irony of being a DnD 5e player and saying this is... honestly pretty overwhelming. I'm not sure whether to laugh or face-palm.
Also, if you actually had a group, you wouldn't be so insecure as to make up pretend arguments and samegay to "win" a Ganker thread.
I think you should give him the charitable interpretation of a pc who wants to fill a role but does not have the stats to fulfill it.
Like a charter who wants to be an elegant aristocrat dualist but ends up losing duals and competing social faux pas do to him not building his charter correctly and ruins the mood due to his sulking
>AHHHHHHH DND DND DND DND DND DND DND DND DND DND
Mindbroken.
Have you tried playing better games?
/tg/ is actually, unironically obsessed with d&d
d&d actually gives you the best odds of making a character that's both physically powerful and intelligent because you roll your stats, in say World of Darkness you have primary secondary and tertiary attributes, there is no possible way to start good at everything.
Both.
Just roll 18 str and 18 int when you make your character, easy.
I don't care about whatever encompasses those "99.9% of tabletop games", none of my characters are dopey idiots who need a short little shit to yell at them because they forgot what they were told two seconds ago. They all have practical knowledge based on the basics learned from living in the world, general knowledge of adventuring (including common monsters and hazards), and advanced knowledge based on what kind of creature they are and on the two abilities chosen at the start to create an implied background.
They are smart enough to go on adventures with relative safety and have the sense to pull out of danger when needed, but are physically strong enough that if they team up and use their best skills for the scenario, they can take down pretty much any threat.
It's crazy how you can avoid the problems of "99.9% of tabletop games" when you just make your own and design around what you like. Keep hinging on what's pumped out of greedy corporations and self-absorbed indie developers for a quick buck, instead of using your own agency to produce your own enjoyment.
Stupid and weak for the escapism.
When tempered with extreme aggression, brutal physical characters become smart characters.
Anyone playing a smart weenie is just asking to get bullied.
Of course I can say both, shut the frick up nogames. Like I'd trust what someone on /tg/ claims 99.9% of games are
I like to make smart & strong characters with awful personalities, in defiance towards my group trying to make me the party leader. They refuse to speak with npcs and fall silent when the GM asks what we want to do, so I'm going to abuse the NPCs and get the group into trouble until the group learns to not be a bunch of dialtones.
>[cringe nogame fairy tale]
>make strong but dumb character
>play smart anyway
What you gonna do about it?
I tend to play large guys or mad scientists seeking to become large guys
>99.9% of tabletop games
Smart with an edge. Like "zoology prof with an elephant gun" or "aristocrat with a fencing hobby" or "scholar of east asian history who picked up some martial art."
>it would make you shit at both in 99.9% of tabletop games.
That's not true at all, also play better games.
Neither