Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?

[toturi]

1) Can a vanilla mortal, through the proper use of stunts (I will ignore reality for a moment since the entire game is about over the top action), be an 'optimized' character?  My answer is 'yes' with the qualifier that you and I may have differing opinions of what 'optimized' means.  I'm hoping it means more than "I see it, I kill it."  My idea is that it means "She's good at what she sets out to do and what she puts her mind towards doing."  There.  That said, my optimizing may look like story-focusing to you. 
2) That said, am I story-focusing when I role-play my sorcerer into making bad or stupid moves because that's part of who/what he is?  When I use my abilities in a sub-optimal manner?  If I use my hard-won skill points to buy up my Performance instead of Guns, Weapons, Resources, Contacts or Burglary, am I hogging the spotlight because I'm not making a spell-slinging killmaster? (My sorcerer Crafts musical instruments by hand)

1) Yes, I agree with you. A Pure Mortal can be an "optimised" character.
2) Again, yes. You are "story-focusing". As long as you do not cause other players trouble with your roleplaying that they are not being compensated adequately for, then I think it should be none of their business.

When I GM my campaign, I welcome all types to my table, "Story-focused" or otherwise.  If a player wants his character's form of offense to be Social instead of Physical, that's fine with me.  If she wants to run someone that's not that good in a fight, fine with me.  Hence the 'RP' in the DFRPG.  She'll miss out on action and I'll tell her so, but that's her choice--dare I say, Free Will?  Likewise if someone wants to run a Kill Master, I'll say fine.  Just don't expect to make many friends and be constantly outmaneuvered or duped by NPC's.  Hope his buddies will take up the slack.

Not only will she miss out on action; if in physical combat, she may well be the weak link that the enemies will target and easily take out first. I think what happens to a social character in physical combat should likewise happen to a physical combatant in a social setting and vice versa.

[Vairelome]

What I'm afraid of is the concept that a character must be 'optimized' to be effective.  IMO, it seems that the dilemma is that people haven't different concepts of what an 'optimized' PC is.  That brings us to "vanilla" mortals.
1) Can a vanilla mortal, through the proper use of stunts (I will ignore reality for a moment since the entire game is about over the top action), be an 'optimized' character?  My answer is 'yes' with the qualifier that you and I may have differing opinions of what 'optimized' means.  I'm hoping it means more than "I see it, I kill it."  My idea is that it means "She's good at what she sets out to do and what she puts her mind towards doing."  There.  That said, my optimizing may look like story-focusing to you. 

Optimizing a character is deciding on a character concept/area of expertise and then efficiently taking advantage of the relevant synergies based on what the rules permit.  "I see it, I kill it" is a fairly condescending way of describing the goal of someone who wants to optimize a character for combat purposes--a perfectly legitimate decision, of course, depending on the game, but certainly not the only optimization goal possible.

The general goals are efficiency and synergy leading to effectiveness.  In a DFRPG context, this largely means avoiding inefficiency (taking multiple stress boosting stunts on a werewolf instead of Inhuman Strength) and/or non-synergies (taking both Inhuman Strength and Evocation on the same character is usually a sub-optimal choice).  A well-balanced system--and the DFRPG is pretty decent--offers a number of different builds that are in the same ballpark of effectiveness at the various major areas of competency.

2) That said, am I story-focusing when I role-play my sorcerer into making bad or stupid moves because that's part of who/what he is?  When I use my abilities in a sub-optimal manner?  If I use my hard-won skill points to buy up my Performance instead of Guns, Weapons, Resources, Contacts or Burglary, am I hogging the spotlight because I'm not making a spell-slinging killmaster? (My sorcerer Crafts musical instruments by hand)

"Story-focusing" or "role-playing" is mostly unrelated to character optimization (except for cases where the character concept itself is inappropriate).  A player may be quite good at both, one or the other, or neither.  The process of role-playing a character largely has two concerns: internal character consistency and social appropriateness.  If you are role-playing your character with good consistency, the other players ought to be able to describe that character fairly well--his likes and dislikes, general attitude, and areas of competency.  "Social appropriateness" is what I'd describe as a broad set of concerns for the other people in your group: am I trying to play Ellen Ripley in a game that's designed around political maneuvers in Austin, Texas?  If there are five people in the room, am I talking 60% of the time?  If the PC group is working on an in-game goal, have I tried to help accomplish that goal in the past three sessions?  In short, am I helping make the game fun for myself and those around me, given whatever definition we've agreed on for "fun"?

When I GM my campaign, I welcome all types to my table, "Story-focused" or otherwise.  If a player wants his character's form of offense to be Social instead of Physical, that's fine with me.  If she wants to run someone that's not that good in a fight, fine with me.  Hence the 'RP' in the DFRPG.  She'll miss out on action and I'll tell her so, but that's her choice--dare I say, Free Will?  Likewise if someone wants to run a Kill Master, I'll say fine.  Just don't expect to make many friends and be constantly outmaneuvered or duped by NPC's.  Hope his buddies will take up the slack.

Many games are cooperative in style, with the PC group trying to accomplish defined goals, hindered by various antagonist NPCs.  In this type of game, the more popular ways to fail at role-playing are well known: refusing to share the spotlight, backstabbing other PCs, etc.  There's another way to fail, though, that character optimizers in particular really hate: the PC group never accomplishes anything because one or more characters can't or don't meaningfully contribute.  Certainly, in a system with limited resources (Refresh and skill points), one character can't do everything, but every character ought to be able to do something, and if the game is cooperative, that something had better be useful to the group as a whole.  Freeloading isn't cool.

[blackstaff67]

Given the last two responses, it would seem that the problem is less optimized/story-focused characters and more problem players.  I'm rather certain my character run by three different people, even if placed in the same setting, will have three different reactions to things going on around him, and they might not be the best choices...or they might be better than the choices I'd make. 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that without some more concrete examples given by you regarding your peer's behavior, I'm at a loss as to how to respond or give input.  Are they younger than you or less experienced with role-playing than you?  Are their assumptions about the Dresdenverse out-of-sync with what's really happening?

Dammit, we've gone from non-wizard PC's to something different altogether.   

[toturi]

Given the last two responses, it would seem that the problem is less optimized/story-focused characters and more problem players.

I would say that less optimized/story-focused characters are one of the prime symptoms of problem players.

[Taran]

Dare I be pulled into this conversation right after I said that I try not to get involved in them?  Sure, why not.

The biggest reason I don't like having these debates is because of comments like this one:

And often these are the players who have the gall to whine (to other people and on forums) that they are simply "roleplaying" and the other guys are "min-maxers", "powergamers" or "munchkins". I feel myself wanting more to take a swing at these clowns than those players who bring one-dimensional giant thews barbarians who can benchpress the world or fighters whose roundhouse kicks can kill gods.

In the first part of the paragraph you slam someone for having an opinion based on the people he's played with which, apparently, insults your sensibilities but in the second part of the paragraph you feel it's perfectly acceptable to call another poster a "clown".  I think that's a bit of a double-standard.

With that out of the way...

I've been playing for about twenty years and in my own personal experiences, the worst role-players were the min/maxers.  With that said, in my experience the best role-players were min/maxers.

The worst role-players tended to min/max because they wanted to out-do every other player in the game. There was no thought to story or background unless it would help to make their characters more powerful. So it wasn't so much a matter of optimization, but a matter of competition.  They would cheat and lie about their rolls in order to do so.  I wouldn't call these players, "mature" players - but that's just my opinion. I once witnessed a fist-fight break out during a game I was in.

I learned that this didn't jive with my playing style.

The best players I've played min/maxed as well.  They put lots of thought into their back-story and how they'd play their characters.  THey'd build a character that was solid, although not always optimized.  Then they'd play that character to the best of their abilities with all the foibles it entailed(like rping bad stats and what-not).  Combat for most of these players was played like a game of chess...it was strategy.  But I think that was mostly due to the fact that it was D&D.  They'd make mistakes, but wouldn't try to screw up...unless it was funny for the group and wouldn't get us all killed.  Some of these players would take "less optimized" characters (due to rolling poor stats, usually) and these would be some of the most interesting and fun characters to have in the group.

My personal experience is that I've often let my inner-munchkin get the better of me.  In a game that had "quirks" like 40k, for instance, I'd rarely take the quirks that were in the original vision of my character if that quirk gave me a penalty to something that made my character less optimal.  Instead, I'd try to optimize my character using those quirks and change the original vision of my character to fit the new quirks I'd chosen.

I also hated when bad stuff happened to my character...this was another reason I wanted to min/max.  I'd want to role-play more, but fights were so intense (gygax style adventures) that there was no room for mistakes.

When people say that DFRPG is more rp-based, I have to agree because when I started playing it, it totally changed my outlook on role-playing.

In DFRPG, it's o.k to have bad stuff happen!  It might change the original vision of the story, but the story goes on.  I'd been so used to trying to avoid the TPK's that ended whole campaigns. Concessions are awesome!  Aspects let you RP your foibles and advantages and you get rewarded for doing so.  RPing and story  is built into the min/max experience.

DFRPG still leaves room for those who want to optimize.  Admitedly, I still give in to my inner-munchkin and take things like 'feeding dependency' so I can squeeze every last bit of refresh out of a character, even though it wasn't in my original vision.  Where it gets problematic is when players start using lots of "custom" powers that are dubiously balanced.

So, as I said, min/maxing does not equal immature/bad players, but in all my experiences the ONLY time a bad rp'er wasn't a min/maxer was with one of my friends.  He's just bad at rping.  He has no mind for tactics and does the stupidest things, that no normal human would do in real life, all in the name of rping. He therefore is incredibly frustrating to play with.  Don't get me wrong, he's a good friend, but man,  is he ever bad.  I actually think DFRPG would help him because, assuming his aspects were worded properly, he'd get FP's for his dumb tactics and get compels to do things more in line with his character concept.  I just have to convince them to stop playing D&D and play Dresden!

Sorry abou the essay.

EDIT:  Maybe the worste players are the "Maxers"  - nevermind the "min" because they are trying to get as much as possible for nothing.  Maybe that would better reflect the type of player I described above who cheats.

[blackstaff67]

Sounds like your friend should take the Aspect: "It's okay, I know what I'm doing."   

[JDK002]

Are all bad players min/maxers?  Are all min/maxers bad players?  Of course not, however the min/maxer mentality combined with the wrong personality tends to cause the worst issues in my experience.

Just a heads up, the following is intended to be a bit tongue and cheek even if true in some ways:

The MMO Gamer: Every player MUST be 100% optimized at all times and if anyone makes a single mistake or bad decision that the entire group is utterly doomed to failure.  I suppose playing video games where if one person slips up can set you back hours, days, or even weeks would make anyone paranoid.

The perfectionist: He spends days, even weeks pouring over mechanics and numbers to optimize his character before the game even starts.  Only to decide 3 weeks into the campaign that the character sucks and insists he be allowed to reroll a new character, and repeats this process over and over throughout the course of the game.  We get it, you want to play a flawless character, but it does t matter, you as a human are still a failure.

The Competitive Role Player: Hes not playing for story, relaxing entertainment, or a fun night with friends.  He's playing to out-shine everyone else at the table and bask in his superiority all night by repeadedly bringing up his accomplishments to the group.  I think is speak for everyone when I say we would all appreciate it if you would stop trying to relive your glory days as the star player of you're high school lacross team through our role playing games.

The Rambo:  He's couldn't be less interested in taking part in an epic story.  He doesn't give a damn about character development.  He just wants to fufill a power fantasy of being able to use his bare hands to rip the head off any PC or NPC he comes across.  When the time comes to actually role play, he lays back in his chair and closes his eyes or stare idly at the ceiling.  He let's the other players take care of all that "boring stuff" while waiting for the next fight to break out.  When I come across The Rambo, I humbly suggest they go play Gears of War and Call of Duty instead.

Ya know I wouldn't mind doing a legit write up like this.  Not just power gamers, but for story focused and GM architypes.  Maybe I'll start a thread for some ideas. xD

[Taran]

@JDK002

Nice.

[Mr. Death]

That note is quite correct regardless of what abilities you have, by the way. Attacking isn't usually a good idea unless you think can do real damage.

And my point is, with these stunts you're guaranteed to do real damage almost all the time.

As I said before, it happens without these stunts. Look at the first post of this thread, and think about how much in OW could survive one of the rotes of the character sketched out there.

People make characters that can murder pretty much everything in OW all the time, without using these stunts or even really trying to optimize.

The difference being that people with access to magic are implicitly and explicitly supposed to have access to more dangerous abilities than pure mortals. If a wizard is throwing around a Weapon:5 attack, that's one thing. A pure mortal doing so is, I feel, beyond what they're supposed to be capable of.

The book suggests that getting weapon 4+ for free is a big deal. Once you start spending Refresh it's obviously a different matter.

I disagree. A supernatural creature getting Weapon:4 in melee is at least three refresh--with these stunts, getting Weapon:5 is only one refresh.

You're wrong about that. It's often optimal only to take one.

I'd think it would be more optimal to boost your attack and defense if at all possible. If I have the refresh to spend, why on earth would I not want to directly and flatly boost one of my most important skills?

Well, if you specifically alter the rules of the game to compensate people every time their stunt's limitations come up, obviously their stunt is going to be broken.

Which raises the question. Why would you do that?

Not "every time their stunt's limitations come up." I said when they're significantly disadvantaged. A character losing access to his main weapon--which has several stunts directly boosting its performance--for the duration of a scene is a significant disadvantage.

Like, I wouldn't give a fate point to someone for facing multiple people just because they had the Duelist stunt. But if they had to eschew their weapon for which they had the three Weapon Focus stunts--i.e., that they'd be fighting not only without their melee weapon, but also without the cumulative +4 worth of bonuses to it (+2 stress, +1 attack, +1 defense)--I'd consider that a compel.

They generally can't be.

The attack stunt is worth +1, yes? Equal to the Inhuman Speed bonus to defense. The stress stunt is +2, equal to Inhuman Strength's stress bonus, and enough to balance out Inhuman Toughness.

She's like five feet tall, female, and ageing. She is not the pinnacle of fist-fighting ability.

Fortunately she has guns.

Regardless, it's practically a running gag that she's one of the most physically skilled characters in the series--and the only time she wins a stand-up, physical fight with anything supernatural, it's only after breaking her arm and it's with a mess of declarations.

Yeah, that's gonna shake up the game balance a bit. Probably not enough to wreck a game, but enough that things will be noticeably over/under powered if you don't throw in some additional houserules.

You're ditching a major part of the rules, after all.

We haven't had to houserule anything as far as social stuff goes. I just make the villains to match, and for the most part, the OW monsters provide an appropriate challenge.

They note it for stunts because of the other note saying stunts don't stack.

But for the most part bonuses like the Speed Athletics boost are just thrown out there and assumed to stack with whatever.

This is perfectly in accordance with normal math, where 1 + 1 generally equals 2. Though of course there are exceptions to that.

I know I'm a writer and I always say I don't do numbers well, but yes, I'm familiar with normal math.

The examples don't bear up with that kind of stacking from what I've seen.The Tentacled Horror, for instance, has one stunt for its tentacles to boost its grappling, and a strength power--but its description, if I'm not mistaken, only accounts for the stunt because it's the higher of the two.

The books are pretty consistent in saying that if more than one bonus applies, you go with the higher one unless otherwise indicated.

As I said, Inhuman Strength is only equal to Bow Specialization if your game is 100% combat and players are always able to use their preferred tactic.

Inhuman Strength is broadly potent. A +2 stress stunt gives you about 1/7 of its effects for 1/2 of its price. That's a good deal if and only if you really want to specialize.

Do you know much math? I have an analogy I like, but you have to understand vectors to get it.

Yeah, I think the last time I did anything with vectors was somewhere in ninth grade, so I probably wouldn't get it.

No, they really don't.

A mortal can get accuracy 5 weapon 5 at Feet In The Water. A pyromancer can get weapon 7 accuracy 7. (Actually a pyromancer can go past that, but I'd rather not use an extreme example.)

Fortunately mortals have FP to make up for the discrepancy.

That's close enough as makes no difference at that level. Weapon:5 accuracy 5 is enough to kill or seriously wound a ghoul on an even hit. Ghouls are supposed to be very tough to hurt, tough to kill, and tough just to survive against. So instead of that, a mortal character on the lowest refresh level can just straight up fight a Ghoul and has the advantage?

That, to me, is a problem.

I do not mind that they do not play the game the way I do per se. I do mind that their playstyle reduces my (and other peoples') enjoyment of the game. I know I was striking a discordant note in my post, but I think I might have underestimated how jarring my counterpoints were. I think you are attributing anger and vitriol where there is none intended. Don't get yourself so bent out of shape just because someone else advocates gaming in a way that you don't approve of.

What's the fun in making all the right tactical choices? I find the right tactical choices lead to less headaches for one, less stress for another, and a higher likelihood of success in the third. I game for fun, I find success fun, I find failure stressful. I am a simple person and can do with less stress and more fun.

I assume there's anger and vitriol because you say things like you want to "take a swing at these clowns" for having a different play style from you, and having slightly different priorities from you when it comes to what they want to get out of a game.

It's not the style of gaming that I don't approve of--it's you insisting that other players are doing it wrong, to the point where you say you want to take a swing at them for it. Some people find the drama that comes with not always succeeding to be fun. Instead of saying, "They're making it less fun for me, therefore I want to smack these clowns," maybe consider that they're thinking, "This guy yelling at me for not being a tactical genius is making it less fun for me."

[Haru]

In DFRPG, it's o.k to have bad stuff happen!  It might change the original vision of the story, but the story goes on.  I'd been so used to trying to avoid the TPK's that ended whole campaigns. Concessions are awesome!  Aspects let you RP your foibles and advantages and you get rewarded for doing so.  RPing and story  is built into the min/max experience.

I think this is a big part of why Fate is called story centric. In your average RPG, people mostly take disadvantages for points they can spend on increasing other stuff (the "max" part), while trying to minimize the effect of those disadvantages (well, the "min" part). It pretty much comes together all the time. Since you only get compensated once for your troubles, you are naturally inclined to reduce the impact those have. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm saying that it comes with the way the games are designed. I am "guilty" of that myself, even if I don't really like that, it kind of is the nature of the beast. Fate circumvents that, by paying up when a disadvantage comes up, and just ignoring them, mechanically, if you don't bring them into play.

Also, since I just reread GP, especially the scene where Harry loses Michael's sword to Lea. In any of the systems I played, I could not see a scene where one character does something that makes another player lose their magic sword and give it to the enemy. There would be blood at the table. Fate brings another kind of looking at things like that, I feel, so I could easily see a scene like that unfold there.

Mind you, all that is my experience and opinion.

@JDK002

nice summary

[Dr.FunLove]

@Haru
Huh...great point regarding GP. That really emodies The Dresden Files feel and I think the game system does a pretty good job of porting that over.

[Vairelome]

EDIT:  Maybe the worste players are the "Maxers"  - nevermind the "min" because they are trying to get as much as possible for nothing.  Maybe that would better reflect the type of player I described above who cheats.

I still think this misses the point by a mile.  Character optimization has NOTHING to do with why the stereotypical munchkin is a bad player; the reason he's bad is because he's being inconsiderate of the other people at his table (by spotlight-hogging, backstabbing, cheating, etc.).  "Trying to get as much as possible for nothing"--so long as the rules are followed--is a laudable goal called "efficiency," and in a well-balanced system with limited resources, you shouldn't be getting very much for "nothing."  If you are, that's a systems problem, not inherently a player problem.  "Cheating" is entirely different, and obviously bad.

I'm also confused as to the implication that a player's "original vision" of a character is somehow sacrosanct.  If it's a character that I care about, I usually spend a fair bit of time refining and fine-tuning both the mechanical and role-playing aspects of the character so that they mesh well and support each other.  If the concept involves being a detective, I add Investigation.  If the character has high Guns, I think about who taught him, how often he goes to the range, etc.  Of course, I'm not saying everyone should follow my process, but it works for me, and generally lets me do two things I care about: quickly and accurately predict how that character will respond to a given situation, and look at any part of my character sheet and say "that makes sense for describing this character."

With that said, in my experience the best role-players were min/maxers.

This needs more emphasis in this thread.

[polkaneverdies]

In my experience those who went to the extreme in either direction were the obnoxious ones to deal with.

I have played with "Min/Maxers" who only cared about the numbers who might as well have been nameless npc's outside of their area of expertise.

I have also played with "RPers" who drew up interesting, but largely useless characters. By that I mean characters who had no real connection to the group, who obviously weren't going to be interested in the activities in the type of game we were going to play. Regardless of ridiculous in their scope efforts being made by players and the gm, insid and outside of the game.

In my experience the best players are those who blend form and function.

[Sanctaphrax]

2) That said, am I story-focusing when I role-play my sorcerer into making bad or stupid moves because that's part of who/what he is?  When I use my abilities in a sub-optimal manner?  If I use my hard-won skill points to buy up my Performance instead of Guns, Weapons, Resources, Contacts or Burglary, am I hogging the spotlight because I'm not making a spell-slinging killmaster? (My sorcerer Crafts musical instruments by hand)

Behaving unintelligently on purpose in play for character reasons should count as a self-Compel. Which makes it as optimal as behaving intelligently.

And Performance is a handy skill. Shouldn't be suboptimal to take it, in my opinion.

And my point is, with these stunts you're guaranteed to do real damage almost all the time.

You are not. Supernatural Toughness will give you a pretty hard time.

I disagree. A supernatural creature getting Weapon:4 in melee is at least three refresh--with these stunts, getting Weapon:5 is only one refresh.

Um, no. You can get weapon 5 in melee as a supernatural for 1 Refresh with a stunt, 1 Refresh with an IoP, or 2 Refresh with Inhuman Strength.

The stunt is situational and has no other benefits, the IoP is situational but has other benefits, and Inhuman Strength has other benefits without being situational but is more expensive.

I'd think it would be more optimal to boost your attack and defense if at all possible. If I have the refresh to spend, why on earth would I not want to directly and flatly boost one of my most important skills?

There are other boosts that might be better.

Not "every time their stunt's limitations come up." I said when they're significantly disadvantaged. A character losing access to his main weapon--which has several stunts directly boosting its performance--for the duration of a scene is a significant disadvantage.

Ugh. Can't you see you're inflicting this problem on yourself?

These stunts, like all stunts, are balanced by the fact that they're situational. If you compensate people for their situational-ness, you'll break them.

It's the same for all stunts.

The attack stunt is worth +1, yes? Equal to the Inhuman Speed bonus to defense. The stress stunt is +2, equal to Inhuman Strength's stress bonus, and enough to balance out Inhuman Toughness.

The monster can have Supernatural abilities and stunts of their own.

I've tested this. Combat stunts let mortals compete, but they don't have anything like the firepower Powers have.

Regardless, it's practically a running gag that she's one of the most physically skilled characters in the series...

She's still nowhere near peak mortal melee combat ability. She says it herself in Cold Days.

And her stats say that Fists is two steps down from her skill cap.

We haven't had to houserule anything as far as social stuff goes. I just make the villains to match, and for the most part, the OW monsters provide an appropriate challenge.

Eh, unbalanced games are often still fun.

The examples don't bear up with that kind of stacking from what I've seen.The Tentacled Horror, for instance, has one stunt for its tentacles to boost its grappling, and a strength power--but its description, if I'm not mistaken, only accounts for the stunt because it's the higher of the two.

The books are pretty consistent in saying that if more than one bonus applies, you go with the higher one unless otherwise indicated.

The Horror is clearly a mistake. Stunts can only give +1 to grapple, says so in YS.

And they don't say that you go with the higher bonus unless indicated. Search the books if you want. You will not find any such statement.

But you will find Speed stacking with Size and Echoes Of The Beast for movement, Lawbreaker stacking other spellcasting bonuses, and stunts stacking with basic weapon ratings.

That's close enough as makes no difference at that level.

Nope.

Weapon 7 accuracy 7 is clearly superior to weapon 5 accuracy 5. It's not even in question.

Weapon 5 accuracy 5 will do a mild to a (naked) ghoul on average. The ghoul will shrug that off and keep coming. Plus you'll have a significant chance of missing.

Weapon 7 accuracy 7 will a mild and a moderate. That's likely to end the fight, since consequences are taggable. And you're a lot less likely to miss.

[toturi]

In the first part of the paragraph you slam someone for having an opinion based on the people he's played with which, apparently, insults your sensibilities but in the second part of the paragraph you feel it's perfectly acceptable to call another poster a "clown".  I think that's a bit of a double-standard.

Of course, you would. I think it is simply a function of where you stand on the kind of gamer you are. I call such people clowns because I find their behavior laughable and to show what it looks like from the other side of the line. If it is a bit of a double standard, then so be it, I can live with that.

I assume there's anger and vitriol because you say things like you want to "take a swing at these clowns" for having a different play style from you, and having slightly different priorities from you when it comes to what they want to get out of a game.

It's not the style of gaming that I don't approve of--it's you insisting that other players are doing it wrong, to the point where you say you want to take a swing at them for it. Some people find the drama that comes with not always succeeding to be fun. Instead of saying, "They're making it less fun for me, therefore I want to smack these clowns," maybe consider that they're thinking, "This guy yelling at me for not being a tactical genius is making it less fun for me."

I want to take a swing at those people because I often find such people trying to justify their characters' mechanical lack with "roleplay" and trying to tar other people whose characters actually function well mechanically with terms like "min-maxer", "powergamer" or "munchkin" and often these terms are used derogatorily.
Another poster had posted that I had a bit of a double standard. My standard is that success is fun and failure is not. And I am applying that same standard to his character and his character's actions as to my own and my character's. Sure, if they find the drama that that comes with not always succeeding to be fun, then I would wish that they would deliberately opt to fail on their own time (maybe as a one-on-one session with the GM), the randomness introduced by the dice rolling with ensure that no matter how well built the character, he will not always succeed.

I was gaming with a group of friends. One guy said he was creating a roleplay character. I did not think it was a big deal, so did not comment. So come to the game, he was the first guy to try to charge into melee. Then the GM asked,"Aren't you the bard?" You could see the rest of us look askance at that guy. "WTF, dude?" He said,"I told you guys, this was a roleplay character. This is what he would do in this situation." Suffice to say, the character was punked before he reached the enemy. We patched him up as best we could and proceeded on. He did it again. And again. And he did not bring any healing supplies of his own. We asked him why didn't he get any healing supplies - his answer was "The character's charming enough to get healing from the other party members. I can roleplay it if you want." Yes, the player was roleplaying well, the character was behaving in character. But it wasn't any fun for the rest of us (there were 5 other players not counting the GM).

EDIT: That guy was a lousy player but we did not mind him taking over the GM duties. We knew his NPCs would most probably self-destruct.