Do you prefer to make characters based on min/max stats or to fit a role-play idea? I actually like playing a character with a weakness. I tend to have a character backstory idea and then build around that as opposed to building solid stats and adding personality details to it  

For example, I made a war cleric that was a little physically weak. He’s an orphaned teen that “inherited” some equipment from a pious captain of the guard. So I started off wearing chain mail with a STR of 12. I took a movement penalty cuz it fit the backstory. One of the other players kept hounding me to change, because it was hamstringing me. Which was kind of the idea. My character was a cleric because he didn’t grow up strong enough to be part of the guard and was “assigned” to the hospital. But he always daydreamed about going to fight giants and I idolized the captain. There was no way he was going to wear anything except the ill-fitting armor of his idol. Now, at level 4 I do plan on bumping his STR up as traveling far and wide and fighting monsters and beasts actually built some muscle. 

Ultimately, do you prefer having the strongest stats and abilities, or playing an imperfect character that may or may not be able to overcome their deficiencies?

Both, like making optimized characters that fit the theme and concept I wish to roleplay. 

The Question is How focused is the PC on their Professional class, as well as do they consider themselves professional soldiers of fortune.. if they do.. it will be in character for them to MIN/MAX their choices.

It’s really not a this or that choice. You can be quite capable of making a strong stat character and role play at the same time. At least for me. Usually I come up with a character concept and then look for the class, skills, etc that make the character effective to play. Sometimes it’s a combo of abilities, spells, or something that sparks an idea for a character and I try to come up with the story to fit. It can go either way and one does not preclude the other  

Having a 12 STR and wearing heavy armor that causes the movement penalty isn’t optimal but if it fits the character and you can deal with the limitations then go for it. If it’s hurting the party as a whole then maybe reconsider it. But if it’s just one player who doesn’t like it then that’s on them. It could make for a character arc where they finally overcome their limitations and can fulfill their daydream of fighting those giants. 

This misconception is so common that it has a name - the Stormwind Fallacy. Whether or not your character is interesting has no bearing on the mechanics. It can be fun to hook story elements into mechanics, like high and low stats or various proficiencies or class tropes, but it's not necessary. There's no stat or class feature for having a gambling problem or an abusive upbringing or an unshakable resolve or always impulsively challenging the strongest opponent on the field.

There's this idea some people have that your character doesn't have a real flaw without a measurable penalty that negatively impacts your performance and by extension inconveniences your party members. And the more the party is inconvenienced, the "better" you are at roleplaying - because look how committed you are! I don't begrudge that commitment, but I don't think it's the only way to play an interesting, fun, memorable character.

I have seen plenty of characters that were very effective and also had very compelling personalities and actions. And I've seen players of decidedly non-optimized characters that thought being bad at something was a stand-in for having a personality.

Optimization and roleplay are just two very different qualities that everyone can have in different measures. Some musicians write really good lyrics and some write really good melodies. You don't have to choose between the two when you listen to music because there are plenty of musicians that are good at both.

People are talking about compelling roleplay without obvious penalties but we don't have any specific examples yet, so let me toss one for OP's Cleric -

Start with the exact same backstory, but instead of stubbornly wearing the armor of his idol immediately, he vows to one day become strong and capable enough to wear it correctly. Every night at camp, he tries it on. Flexes its joints in the firelight. Maybe runs around a little, building up stamina but all too soon running out of breath. Every night it proves to still be too heavy, but this weakness drives him on.

Then, one night (when you hit level 4), he begins the familiar ritual. Donning the armor, he rises and trots through the inn's stableyard before turning out onto the dusty road. As he breaks into a jog, his movements are fluid and confident. His breath is even and his eyes are clear in the moonlight. The realization slowly dawns that he has finally earned the right to wear his hero's armor.

I don't purposely nerf myself, but I also do not try to uber-optimize.

I will purposely pick classes or subclasses or race/class combos that "the internet" says "don't work" or are poor, just because I think "the internet" is often wrong about such things, or only right under very specific circumstances (e.g., "in a tournament setting"), and I like to see if I can make something work that everyone says doesn't. A great example was the Martial Arts scrapper with the Super Reflexes secondary in City of Heroes. Everyone at launch said these were the worst primary and secondary (for not-crazy reasons, but they were wrong -- they were running numbers on a spreadsheet not thinking about how the game actually plays), let alone combining them. Yup, I combined them. Best PC that I've ever had in that game -- so much so that I played it again in live a 2nd time and again recently when the private servers came out. 

I also prefer "even" builds -- not Jacks of All Trades, but rather, building my character evenly for the several things it is good at. Many min-maxers like to pick ONE thing and crank on it. For instance doing point buy when I expected to be a player (rather than a DM), with my bard, I spread her points among Cha and Dex, rather than cranking Cha the way most people would do, and also gave her a solid Wis. This was the concept I had for the PC, but also, I don't like putting all my eggs into one basket. If you crank Cha for spellcasting and then something is immune to your spells, your 11 DEX is not going to help you much... etc. I also don't like having characters that are one-trick ponies.

(BTW, this is why I liked Martial Arts in COH -- it had multiple different secondary effects on its attacks: One did KB, one did KD/AOE, one did stun, one did slow, etc. No, you couldn't stack them, which is why everyone else said it was bad, but you could also still DO SOMETHING to the guy who was immune to stun, for instance, or immune to KB. You could also pick which effect you wanted, if one was more useful at the moment than the others.)

I'm not saying this is the "right" way to build -- it's the right way for me. 

So, because I like characters who are a little more "generalists" than specialists, my way of building is not really "optimized."

As others have said, making a character mechanically good and role playing the character well are not mutually exclusive. Min-maxing as a process can be applied to MANY different things, and it is not limited to just maximizing DPS or taking the least damage.

Half of the time your stats are random. You're not going to suddenly give up doing RP because your rolled great stats.

I don't see min/max and RP as mutually exclusive. There are people that try to optimize, there are people that love to RP, and there are people that like both. 

An example since I didn’t really give one in my initial post:

A  former soldier (background) leaves the military and becomes a performer with a traveling circus. Maybe they didn’t just leave the military but deserted and is hiding among the circus performers. He’s good with a knife and as part of his act he does amazing tricks throwing darts at his lovely assistant, or a ”volunteer” from the audience. Then during their travels the circus is attacked (or he is found out by the local militia that he deserted) and he barely escapes with his life. Knives and darts in hand he turns to adventuring and joins up with a ragtag group to make his way in life (or to deal with those who attacked the circus. Or to keep hidden from the military that is now searching for him). If he enters a town he needs to be very careful not to be found out (if he deserted). And this is how the character would start out as an adventurer

This is a quick RP idea I came up with for this thread because I like the new throwing fighting style from Tasha’s and read threads here on the forums about making an optimized build. The fighting style piqued my interest and I came up with a story to fit. I can optimize and RP to my heart’s content if I get a chance to try it. 

I also work the other way around and could very well have come up with the backstory and then worked on the idea of what type of character would be a former soldier turned circus performer. Might not have involved knives and dart throwing at all if I came at it from that perspective. 

There's this idea some people have that your character doesn't have a real flaw without a measurable penalty that negatively impacts your performance and by extension inconveniences your party members. And the more the party is inconvenienced, the "better" you are at roleplaying - because look how committed you are! I don't begrudge that commitment, but I don't think it's the only way to play an interesting, fun, memorable character.

I want to clarify my comment here because it came off a bit dismissive. A big part of D&D is expression, and some players feel that a characteristic that comes at a cost really emphasizes that concept choice. The cost gives it weight and meaning that beneficial choices don't. These players will by necessity sacrifice rollplay for roleplay because that's how they find satisfaction and connection to their character. The same way some other players find satisfaction in combining mechanical elements as if they're solving a puzzle.

There are a lot of variables in play when it comes to how you enjoy such a broadly engaging game like D&D. I think some players are always going to see optimization as a bit cheap because they primarily value choices that come with a significant cost. Even if an optimized character has a great, compelling story it will still feel like it's lacking real weight.

So I don't want to just invoke the Stormwind Fallacy to say they're wrong, because they're not. Rather we should probably just acknowledge that there are lots of ways to play D&D and lots of different people and we're not all going to agree about everything. One person's requirements for what gives a character depth and value may differ from another's. Suffice it to say that there are plenty of optimizers that really get into the roleplaying side of their characters as well. If you can't see how that works, you might just have a different brain.

One thing to keep in mind is that not everyone creates characters the same way.  That sounds like the usual sort of meaningless fluffery - "you're a unique snowflake whose character creation method is yours alone, unicorns puppies sugarcubes!" - but no.  There are two broad camps to character creation, and many a time I've come across folks who either see everyone in the other camp as some sort of turgid degenerate (precisely which flavor of turgid degenerate comes from which camp one is in themselves), or were not even aware the other camp existed.

In broad terms (emphasizing that, here - "in broad terms"), the two ways to create a character is to start with who your character is, or to start with what your character is.  Nor are these conscious decisions - different people naturally fall into different patterns, and working the other way feels extremely weird and bizarre for them, often leading to dissatisfaction and an unlikeable character.  "Who" players need to create their character concept first - the mechanics happen only after they have a strong idea of who it is they want to play and can use that concept as a guiding ideal.  They then go into the books and match up mechanics to their ideal as best they can.  Sometimes this produces a mechanically sound character, sometimes it doesn't, but someone who's strictly a "Who" player doesn't care.  The only thing that matters is that the mechanical choices the game forces them to make match as best the game allows to their character concept, their Guiding Ideal.

A "What" player examines the mechanical structure of the game and looks for inspiration in the rules and mechanics - letting the crunch dictate the fluff.  They may see a specific class ability and go "that looks awesome!  I wonder what kind of person would learn that ability...", or they see a combination of mechanics that speaks to them and sparks a story in their mind.  A "What" player needs to have the mechanical framework in place before the refining process - they look at the end state (i.e. an Nth-level character with [X] character features) and work backwards from there to figure out the story that created this person.  "What" dictates "Who", rather than the other way around.

Both approaches are perfectly valid, and many players end up using elements of both.  A "What" player may go back and change some of their mechanical decisions as they work on their character and the "Who" behind their original framework firms up in their mind, while a "Who" player may find a mechanical interaction that really speaks to them and decide to alter their Guiding Ideal character concept to accommodate that interaction.  People who take more than three minutes to create a character (if you don't, shame on you, do better DX) often find the 'Who' and the 'What' feeding into each other and influencing each other until they arrive at their final (starting) sheet, but that doesn't stop most people from almost always starting one way or the other.

I'm a "What" player.  Most of the people that Rules-Lite Narrative Experience(TM) folks decry as horrible mechanics-obsessed combat-flogging munchkins are simply "What" players.  They're just as interested in the story as a RLNE wonk is, but their brain doesn't like making decisions without referencing the game rules.  For them, the game rules are the physics of the world their characters live in - ignoring those rules to Create A Cool Character Concept just doesn't make any damn sense.  I hate trying to Create A Concept without referencing the rules of the game.  To me, the fluff is meaningless without the underlying crunch that gives that fluff form and structure.

Doesn't make me or any other "What" player Terrible At Role Playing.  Just means we go about things differently that the Rules-Lite Narrative Experience(TM) folks.

I start with a character concept, but I try to make my character as strong as possible within that concept. It's not about being the best wizard I can be, for example, but the best ice wizard I can be—meaning I'll take all the ice spells, avoid fireball, and never multiclass even if it helps, but I'll still get that high Intelligence, specialize in Evocation, and whatnot. There are also certain subclasses I intentionally avoid, because I feel they're too powerful—Moon druid, Bladesinger, and maybe Hexblade are all on my personal nope list. In short, I lean solidly toward roleplaying, but like most players, I'm a bit of both.

I also love, love, love low stats, to the point where I really hope for at least one during character creation. One of these days I'll roll all 8's, and that might just be my favorite character. So, yeah, I do love RPing weak characters!

Also, I feel it's important to note there's a difference between your average optimizer and a munchkin. Optimizers just enjoy powerful characters, which is great, and they're often good role-players too! Munchkins, on the other hand, enjoy breaking the game with off-the-wall stuff like Hexadins and Coffeelocks, making everyone else feel totally useless. I think a lot of the stigma around optimizers is unfair, since it's usually in fact directed at munchkins. (And the "roleplayer" who tries to center everything around their twelve-page backstory is just as bad!)

Some excellent posts!

Obviously, many (if not most) players blend the two approaches.  Or even add in other ones, like maybe randomly rolling every decision and playing what luck deals them.  I guess ultimately, how I approach it depends on the attribute generation process.  If I'm doing a point buy, I'll likely follow the race, class, stat order.  If it's going to be rolls, then it completely starts there, and create a character around the stats.

And certainly, taken to an extreme, either approach can be detrimental to the party.  If you are just playing numbers games, that can take away from the role-playing other players enjoy.  If you're playing some deep role play with terrible stats and abilities, constant failures can be demoralizing for the group. 

Ultimately, I get working the numbers to get the best likely outcome for something like WoW.  And yes, I know people role-play video games too.  I just can't make numbers the priority in D&D.  

As for my cleric, he's glommed onto the Paladin now and idolizing him as a new father figure.  So at his suggestion we had the chain mail modified down to a chain shirt and are saving the remaining material to remake the mail when I'm stronger or get armor of my own (then hang the armor as decoration). Traded away the AC for movement, seeing that the paladin was basically tanking everything.

Quote from BuddyChryst >>

Do you prefer to make characters based on min/max stats or to fit a role-play idea?

I'm greedy, I want both. I want a character who is good at what they're supposed to be good at and bad at what they're supposed to be bad at. I think a character that is omni competent is boring so I do like a character who definitely has gaps in their skills that party mates can cover.

"Who" players need to create their character concept first - the mechanics happen only after they have a strong idea of who it is they want to play and can use that concept as a guiding ideal.

A "What" player examines the mechanical structure of the game and looks for inspiration in the rules and mechanics - letting the crunch dictate the fluff. 

It's funny... I am a "Who" player in some games and a "What" player in others.

In Champions, I am almost entirely "who" -- I build the concept first, and then figure out the mechanics that will allow me to bring that concept to life. I do this both as a player and as a GM. I think the reason I am who-first in Champions is that I know the rules so well, and I can make them sing and dance and do cartwheels in terms of bringing a character concept into fruition, that I don't worry about "will the rules allow me to do this?" I know they will, because the rules will let you make almost literally anything, and I know I will be able to make the stats up in no time flat.

In City of Heroes, I am a "what" player -- I decide AT/Powerset first, and then come up with a concept that fits it. For example, I just recently started a new Brute (melee heavy-hitter, think Barbarian) with the Dark Melee powerset. I love the DM animations but never got around to playing one in live, or in the couple years of private servers. Finally I decided to do one, and then looking at the secondary powers (defenses), I went with Energy Aura, because it stacks with DM (DM reduces an enemy's to-hit as a secondary effect, and EA provides dodging defense, making them miss more... -to hit +dodge = they whiff a lot). Having made the DM/EA choice, I then cast about for a concept until I decided on a science grad student who got caught up in a "Dark Energy" experiment... and Quintessence Lass was born...

Now, I'm as comfortable with the COH rules as I am with Champions, but COH has a much more restrictive ruleset. There are lots of things the rules will NOT let you do... the ATs are pretty strongly delineated. If you know you want a lot of AOE attacks, only certain powersets will do it and so forth. And each AT plays in a very certain and distinctive way, so if I am looking for very fast, aggressive melee play, I can choose either Scrapper or Brute. Nobody else will do it. If I want to order pets around and swarm an enemy with minions, Mastermind is really the only option. The more restrictive the system, I think the more I put mechanics first.

In D&D... it's tough to say. I usually think class first, and then come up with a concept, and then figure out "what subclass would do this?" (Often coming up with the answer of, "grr, not really any of them quite exactly.") But I mostly have DMed in 5e, so with that I usually decide "I want this kind of bad guy" and then look in MM, Volo's, to find a monster that fits. I then play around with the stats to get it into my concept... I guess this is sort-of concept first, but kind of not really... Not sure how to classify it.

Funnily enough, I'm of two minds about it.  With the character I'm playing now (and most of the ones I come up with), I'm very much looking at the mechanics I want and how to get the most out of them, and the RP kinda just follows from that.

On the other hand, I *desperately* want to play a battlerager barb purely so I can have my spikey-armored bounty hunter...

I think the title is fallacious, handicapping yourself doesn't mean your RPing better. Handicapped characters can be a fun challenge, but a min/maxer can RP just as much.

Many players who roll characters won't even begin a character with abysmal stats, because it doesn't make sense for the village invalid to take on dangerous quests, or for a party to recruit someone they can't rely on. It's also not rational that a weak character would impede themselves, they may not have control over their ability, but they are in control of their preparations, and taking disadvantages deliberately is more abusive than you realize. 

Everyone knows the troupe of the reckless rogue who steals from allies, deliberately ruins social encounters, and engages unwinnable fights. The player is deliberately taking actions to hinder the party for their own amusement. You've lied to yourself, you think because your handicapping yourself that your RP is nobler, but what you actually did was deliberately hinder the party for your own amusement...

There is a place for tragically handicapped PCs, with vices that hinder the party and create extra challenge. And that place is session zero, where you ask your table mates permission to enter your curious yet hindering behavior to the game, and allow them to decide whether they are okay with experiencing the game with your curiosity. It's exactly the same for players who want to homebrew, or include inter party conflict, or play something completely out of left field. They might approve, they might not, they may be more tolerant of your choice if you ask it of them without a veil of self righteousness (that's what excusing your hindering choice as RP actually is). There is a group for everything, the one your in might not be the one for what you seek. 

I've considered arranging a table with rolled stats (3d6)6 and experiencing D&D with mundane adventures. I'll have to find a group that wants that, not tell them I'm RPing while defining their min/maxing as mutually exclusive to RPing.

Coaching table mates to change their character is itself a taboo, but if your an experienced player whose knowingly taking a disadvantage for your satisfaction, your still at fault as well. In the end, the disadvantage is superficial, the challenge is only as significant as the DM assigns. You table mates might learn to appreciate the character of your vice, maybe your character conquers his handicap over time, maybe his allies learn to appreciate their brother in arms despite his vice. Either way, you should discard this false dichotomy between min/maxing and calling handicaps RP, you can't gain the respect of others by disrespecting their play style.

For my most recent character I came up with the story for him whilst reading through various different classes and then made the character. When I rolled the stats, I got 3 bad ones, so had to dump on intelligence, wisdom and dexterity (let's hope I don't have to make any saves...). I have now adapted his backstory that he was in a prison for some time for disrupting industrial "progress" (chopping down the forest he grew up in). The fatcats who owned the logging company paid for him to get the VIP treatment at the prison, and he was petrified for some years (unknown how many, as society collapsed whilst he was in there - but that's another story). As such, his knowledge was all about the forests which are now gone, the world is one he's extremely unfamiliar with, and he has a stiff leg from the un-petrification process not being perfect. Hence; low intelligence, wisdom and dexterity.

He's one of the characters I'm most looking forward to playing. My previous ones have been an idea for a role to play in an adventuring party - this one is an idea of a person to roleplay as, who happens to go adventuring. Before I wanted good stats to "do adventuring good", but now I'm more interested in the character development.

I play whatever whims I have according to the group I'm with. I won't try to crowbar RP on a group that doesn't do it. I won't try to M/M on a group that likes RPing imperfect characters. I'll RP around a M/M character if the group wants efficiency with in-game RP reasons for it (and some do despite the common insistence I often read that the two methods are disparate).

There is no wrong way to play unless people aren't having fun, and I'm rather flexible. If I was forced to choose between the two options (and I would prefer not having to choose between any styles - all can be fun), I'd lean toward imperfect character RP. I can't be certain why, but I think it's because of my preference for "nobody" characters becoming heroes rather than heroes doing heroic things from the start.

(Bonus points if the DM can drag my character kicking and screaming into the adventure🤣 - the eventual hero who never wanted to be a hero, but I won't fight the DM or other players just to force the DM to do that to my character. It's not my story but our story. I still find it more amusing for the unintended hero stories.)