RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
That's just plain false. Every PC should have their own agenda, desires, and ties in the world, and every PC should change the world in their own way.
I don't know what to say to this, other than to quote Malvolio in 12th Night. "Some men are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them." Some PCs come into the campaign with agendas (Princess Leia). Some pick up agendas during their careers (Han Solo), and some are just in the wrong place at the wrong time (Die Hard's John McLean).
There are an awful lot of products out on the market, including Wizards' "Red Hand of Doom", Monte Cook's Ptolus and "Dungeon a Day," and Paizo's adventure paths, that either allow the PCs the opportunity to just explore for their entire careers, or to have adventure thrust upon them.
Sure, some PCs are the disinherited scion of the High King, and long to win back their crown. But others are simple adventurers, looking to win fortune and perhaps a flash of notoriety through strength of arm and it. Really, there's nothing wrong with that.
Any aspect we agree on is not worth discussing because we agree on it and there is absolutely nothing to discuss. Why waste time on it?
Oh, there's lots of good reasons to say, "I agree with you on X, and while I don't think you're right about Y, I can see how, if Y were true, then Z is a reasonable position." It builds both the companionability that makes long conversations satisfying, but also helps other people identify just where the disagreement is coming from, and where it's not coming from.
A lot of times, I'll say to a student, "You're right about this part of your argument, because of these reasons," and, seeing those reasons spelled out explicitly, the student himself will be able to apply them to the part of the argument that's in error.
And some people actively ignore the repeatedly voiced and inherent caveats and concessions already built in and expressed as a part of their oppositions' position.
And I want to compliment you, again, on being so patient in explaining these exceptions and caveats. You are unyielding in your position, but it is by no means an easily-caricatured extremum.
Sure, some PCs are the disinherited scion of the High King, and long to win back their crown. But others are simple adventurers, looking to win fortune and perhaps a flash of notoriety through strength of arm and it. Really, there's nothing wrong with that.
Again, every PC needs their own agenda, even if they're just vagabond adventurers. It needn't involve changing the world, though in the end that should be the result. It needn't be grandiose and sweeping, even though the adventure should end up that way. "I want money," is an agenda. But just a purely homogeneous party who all have the exact same goals, who work solely as a single unit, who don't have any real internal conflict beyond caustic banter? If you want to play that way, fine, but that doesn't exactly make for great character development or interaction, and forcing that style of play on others doesn't help the game, either. The characters need to have some sort of differing drives to make things interesting. The thief's after money, the knight's after glory, the mage is after knowledge, and with any luck, those interests will come into conflict soon enough.
And I want to compliment you, again, on being so patient in explaining these exceptions and caveats. You are unyielding in your position, but it is by no means an easily-caricatured extremum.
Let's just say I've had this argument many, many times before this.
Again, every PC needs their own agenda, even if they're just vagabond adventurers. It needn't involve changing the world, though in the end that should be the result. It needn't be grandiose and sweeping, even though the adventure should end up that way. "I want money," is an agenda. But just a purely homogeneous party who all have the exact same goals, who work solely as a single unit, who don't have any real internal conflict beyond caustic banter? If you want to play that way, fine, but that doesn't exactly make for great character development or interaction, and forcing that style of play on others doesn't help the game, either. The characters need to have some sort of differing drives to make things interesting. The thief's after money, the knight's after glory, the mage is after knowledge, and with any luck, those interests will come into conflict soon enough.
You know, for once I think I'm in about complete agreement with you. Utterly homogeneous parties should not be enforced, nor are they even very interesting.
That said, while internal conflict is good, one directive I generally give my players (and suggest other people implement for their games) is "Play your character however you want. However, try to make someone who your fellow adventurers won't just ditch at the next town once the current peril is over."
Another problem is the "Child of Destiny" business which can be fine for a novel but bad for a game. If one character is the Chosen of the Gods, everyone else falls into Boon Companion mode, and usually their lesser but often more interesting goals get shoved by the wayside by the main character's epic quest.
Having quests and destinies on roughly equal footing tends to make for far more interesting gameplay for all the players.
|
Oh I agree, we kinda went a different way with it really, Some worlds we ran elves tend to"forget" and live in the moment allowing sadness and bitterness to slide away.
Anyhow the long lived race issue has always been an issue. I try to tackle it early on in my worlds building, but really elves are less likely then humans to go hunting though dungeons for the most part. You would have some high powered elves somewhere but really not a huge amount. Long lived races I can see gaining skill focus as a bonus feat for long age but really it's something that never comes up for a player
I went the total opposite in my campaign world. Elves were around so long that they became the de facto race. Humans never existed (they did, they just wiped themselves out by being humans). The elves split into distinct cultures. The most dominant felt that given their long lives and great intelligence, they needed to bring civilization to the rest of the world - it was their right to rule.
Needless to say, all the other races hated them, but for a different reason than normal.
A comment on the "one gnome cleric" deal. It's all well and good to come up with such a concept and play it out.
But what if Gnomecleric dies? Does Gnomeclerictwin show up? Divine favor fails? Or does the DM play coddler and let the PC live because he/she is special?
If it's a matter of "flavour", what is it about the gnomes that attracts the player? Why not just play a halfling with a gnome-like personality?
If the player really wants to buck tradition and rules by being a unique being, then that raises many other issues at the table and in-game. Some of us feel the psionic/wizard argument ties in to these problems.
Another problem is the "Child of Destiny" business which can be fine for a novel but bad for a game. If one character is the Chosen of the Gods, everyone else falls into Boon Companion mode, and usually their lesser but often more interesting goals get shoved by the wayside by the main character's epic quest.
Just because a character ostensibly has some spectacular destiny does not mean the game has to be about that destiny. It doesn't have to mean that character steals the spotlight at all times unless the DM makes it that way.
Having quests and destinies on roughly equal footing tends to make for far more interesting gameplay for all the players.
Then again, if one player comes up with a grand, sweeping storyline that feeds into the game and becomes a significant element of the campaign (but not so much so that the other players feel neglected, mind), it can be a good way of telling your players to make characters characters who can change the world and come with their own ambitions and plot hooks, who are spectacular in some way, rather than another nobody out for generic adventure.
But what if Gnomecleric dies? Does Gnomeclerictwin show up? Divine favor fails? Or does the DM play coddler and let the PC live because he/she is special?
If the gnome Cleric dies, the gnome Cleric dies. Implement PC death procedure alpha. And I hope that's not Paranoia-style clone-launching. If the gnome dies for good (and isn't just rez'd), then everyone arrayed against everything that gnome represented has won, the gnome clearly was not destined, and it's time to reroll with another story and another set of ambitions.
If it's a matter of "flavour", what is it about the gnomes that attracts the player? Why not just play a halfling with a gnome-like personality?
Again, it's about what represents the character best. Race interchange is rarely useful in refining character representations, as races don't generally provide or shape abilities, but rather give fairly minor modifiers.
If the player really wants to buck tradition and rules by being a unique being, then that raises many other issues at the table and in-game. Some of us feel the psionic/wizard argument ties in to these problems.
And considering it 'bucking tradition' when someone ignores rules and constraints that do not exist and were never a part of the game (and do not that 3.X/PF are not 2e/1e/0e) causes major issues around the community at large.
|
|
And considering it 'bucking tradition' when someone ignores rules and constraints that do not exist and were never a part of the game (and do not that 3.X/PF are not 2e/1e/0e) causes major issues around the community at large.
I believe you've misinterpreted what I wrote. I was referring to the players intent to alter the tradition and rules of the specific game world.
I believe you've misinterpreted what I wrote. I was referring to the players intent to alter the tradition and rules of the specific game world.
And I'm calling much of what some call "traditions" nothing more than irrelevant non-rules that do not contribute to the world or the game, that have no inherent value, which a player then treats as such. "Clerics must be clerics," while traditional, is an irrelevant non-rule that carries absolutely no weight, and any world that forces it as a defined world-aspect is designed wrong.
|
Wow this one really has dragged on for a while. It has been pretty fun to withness the argumentative cycle repeat itself time and time again.
However I am weak and couldn´t help myself, so I post again.
What I am observing (and find extremly interesting) is that there i a pretty clear paralel between VV´s position and that of a power gamer.
The power gamer is all about using it´s somehow superior out of game skills (crunch fu) to excel above the rest of the players and story (often even without counciously wanting too). In this case the same applies, however it is focused through storytelling skills (call it fluff fu).
Another common thing is that power gamers insist that for everyone to have a good time, the tother players unoptimized character should become stronger (and would therefore be better by following the power player´s example). In this case Vv expressed the idea of other characters developing world changing goals for themselves instead of being just random people out for adventure (pharaprasing) in order for the game to become better.
And last but not least power gamers do love to challenge DM´s to throw their strongest challenges and built restrictions, just so they can still find a way to smash the world. In this case is about seeing the DM´s story restrictions and still finding a creative way to get away with more than is allowed (the best example are all the special justifications to circunvent any given restriction presented as examples).
And again I cannot stress this enought. The person can still be completly oblivious to his or her behavior. But there is definetly a personality pattern here.
And as always this is just my observations, feel free to agree or disagree. Cause as my peruvian friend always says I might just be pooping out of the toilet here.
And I'm calling much of what some call "traditions" nothing more than irrelevant non-rules that do not contribute to the world or the game, that have no inherent value, which a player then treats as such. "Clerics must be clerics," while traditional, is an irrelevant non-rule that carries absolutely no weight, and any world that forces it as a defined world-aspect is designed wrong.
Again your welcome to your opinion, but You keep acting like it's a given fact. Which it is not
Wow this one really has dragged on for a while. It has been pretty fun to withness the argumentative cycle repeat itself time and time again.
However I am weak and couldn´t help myself, so I post again.What I am observing (and find extremly interesting) is that there i a pretty clear paralel between VV´s position and that of a power gamer.
The power gamer is all about using it´s somehow superior out of game skills (crunch fu) to excel above the rest of the players and story (often even without counciously wanting too). In this case the same applies, however it is focused through storytelling skills (call it fluff fu).
Another common thing is that power gamers insist that for everyone to have a good time, the tother players unoptimized character should become stronger (and would therefore be better by following the power player´s example). In this case Vv expressed the idea of other characters developing world changing goals for themselves instead of being just random people out for adventure (pharaprasing) in order for the game to become better.
And last but not least power gamers do love to challenge DM´s to throw their strongest challenges and built restrictions, just so they can still find a way to smash the world. In this case is about seeing the DM´s story restrictions and still finding a creative way to get away with more than is allowed (the best example are all the special justifications to circunvent any given restriction presented as examples).
And again I cannot stress this enought. The person can still be completly oblivious to his or her behavior. But there is definetly a personality pattern here.And as always this is just my observations, feel free to agree or disagree. Cause as my peruvian friend always says I might just be pooping out of the toilet here.
Oh, I think you're completely on track. The "fluff" (and again how I hate that word) equivalent of the Power Gamer is the Mary Sue: They must always be the bestest, shiniest, prettiest snowflake of them all, and their story is always the bestest of them all, especially that bad naughty stupid boring DMs!
Demanding that all the other characters become Mary Sues as well is part of the picture. Mary Sues are always surrounded by their equally perfect if not quite as sparkly BFFs.
As I've mentioned before, I really have no interest in being DM for that sort of player.
To me, the difference between a Power Gamer and an Optimizer is as follows. The Power Gamer wants to hog the spotlight and doesn't care if he trashes the story, he will use any stinky nasty cheese he can get his hands on to decimate everything ever thrown at him, and will focus on character Power over all other aspects.
Meanwhile, the Optimizer will optimize all aspects of the PC, the story, the combat capabilities, the personality, everything
Good point, however almost every single Optimizer I have ever seen was a powergamer at heart. They would twist "fluff" backstory or what ever to make fit this over powered mary sue monster they envisioned
The truth is from most folks I have talked to or gamed with "Powergamers" outnumber "Optimizers" 3 or 4 to one easy. And you get this backlash toward Optimizers.
Also Optimizers can ruin the fun of a group just as bad as a power gamer does. Just in a different way
To me, the difference between a Power Gamer and an Optimizer is as follows. The Power Gamer wants to hog the spotlight and doesn't care if he trashes the story, he will use any stinky nasty cheese he can get his hands on to decimate everything ever thrown at him, and will focus on character Power over all other aspects.
Meanwhile, the Optimizer will optimize all aspects of the PC, the story, the combat capabilities, the personality, everything
Good point, however almost every single Optimizer I have ever seen was a powergamer at heart. They would twist "fluff" backstory or what ever to make fit this over powered mary sue monster they envisioned
The truth is from most folks I have talked to or gamed with "Powergamers" outnumber "Optimizers" 3 or 4 to one easy. And you get this backlash toward Optimizers.
Also Optimizers can ruin the fun of a group just as bad as a power gamer does. Just in a different way
The trouble I've found with "optimization" as a style is that it tends to outshine everything else, especially when the optimization is pointed towards combat or potentially game-breaking skills like Diplomacy. If you've made your mere mortal character, who doesn't have anything stellar except maybe insanely good skills in Craft Basketweaving (and a story behind it), you will find yourself routinely trumped in everything by some other member of the party for every skill check, and also pretty much useless against the BBEG who the DM has somewhere between optimized and powergamed to make into a challenge for the optimized characters when he hasn't twinked it utterly.
Frankly, it bores me.
Wow this one really has dragged on for a while. It has been pretty fun to withness the argumentative cycle repeat itself time and time again.
However I am weak and couldn´t help myself, so I post again.What I am observing (and find extremly interesting) is that there i a pretty clear paralel between VV´s position and that of a power gamer.
The power gamer is all about using it´s somehow superior out of game skills (crunch fu) to excel above the rest of the players and story (often even without counciously wanting too). In this case the same applies, however it is focused through storytelling skills (call it fluff fu).
Another common thing is that power gamers insist that for everyone to have a good time, the tother players unoptimized character should become stronger (and would therefore be better by following the power player´s example). In this case Vv expressed the idea of other characters developing world changing goals for themselves instead of being just random people out for adventure (pharaprasing) in order for the game to become better.
And last but not least power gamers do love to challenge DM´s to throw their strongest challenges and built restrictions, just so they can still find a way to smash the world. In this case is about seeing the DM´s story restrictions and still finding a creative way to get away with more than is allowed (the best example are all the special justifications to circunvent any given restriction presented as examples).
And again I cannot stress this enought. The person can still be completly oblivious to his or her behavior. But there is definetly a personality pattern here.And as always this is just my observations, feel free to agree or disagree. Cause as my peruvian friend always says I might just be pooping out of the toilet here.
What I find ammusing is that VV has stated what a cr@p DM you are for not allowing stuff for fluff reasons but at the same time seems to be arguing the point that as a player a DM must allow something because of the players fluff.
Its okay for a player to use fluff to get whatever they want but as soon as a DM uses it for their campagin and says no to a player because of it the DM is bad.Sound like a bad player to me ;)
Don't make me dig up the thread optimizing a basketweaver for use in an adventuring party. Guy ended up dishing out some serious hurt xD
Please do!
I would really like to see that ;)*edit* baskets don't exist in my campaign as it is set in a snowy icefield where no crops grow and everything gets hauled around in sealskin bags. So I'm banning it in my game for fluff ;)
|
|
No baskets?
Well technically my character uses long strings of dried up animal skin treated with special alchemical items that makes them hard and strawy as bases to build backpacks to carry food for the long winter walks. They do look and work like baskets but they´re really not. So STOP SLAPPING ME IN THE FACE!!
(sorry I couldn´t help myself)
No baskets?
Well technically my character uses long strings of dried up animal skin treated with special alchemical items that makes them hard and strawy as bases to build backpacks to carry food for the long winter walks. They do look and work like baskets but they´re really not. So STOP SLAPPING ME IN THE FACE!!(sorry I couldn´t help myself)
IT IS MY CAMPAGIN AND I SAY NO BASKETS!!!!!
YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!!!*clutches chest, falls to floor*
Anybody want to go play Cops and Robbers?
Don't you mean Militia and Rogues?
Don't make me dig up the thread optimizing a basketweaver for use in an adventuring party. Guy ended up dishing out some serious hurt xDPlease do!
I would really like to see that ;)
*edit* baskets don't exist in my campaign as it is set in a snowy icefield where no crops grow and everything gets hauled around in sealskin bags. So I'm banning it in my game for fluff ;)Urgh... I hate WotC's new boards. I'm going to try to find it, but if I can't I'll just build a few versions myself.
(Of course, Paizo's made this task easier with a few of the Pathfinder feats lol)
Thanks. This thread needs a little humor!
The Art of Basketweaving was lost when the Goddess of Basketweaving died, murdered by the other gods for Her hippie ways and specifically the brownies She brought to the god's potluck in place of the usual ambrosia. These made the gods act in unusual ways--Asmodeus disported himself with Sarenrae and vice versa--and when the effects wore off, all the gods were so uniformly horrified that they killed the Goddess of Basketweaving, expunged Her name from all records and memory, and made it so Her art was unknown and unknowable for all time.
The only clue to this mortals have is the unspeakable "Forbidden Rhyme" spoken of by some bards, an unfinished verse so abhorrent to the gods They will immediately strike dead anyone who pronounces the following: "A tisket, a tasket/A red and yellow--"
Bards do not know why the gods hate this rhyme so, but since "casket" is the only word that adequately finishes the rhyme, and it's what the speaker gets, there must be some great significance and mystery.
The Art of Basketweaving was lost when the Goddess of Basketweaving died, murdered by the other gods for Her hippie ways and specifically the brownies She brought to the god's potluck in place of the usual ambrosia. These made the gods act in unusual ways--Asmodeus disported himself with Sarenrae and vice versa--and when the effects wore off, all the gods were so uniformly horrified that they killed the Goddess of Basketweaving, expunged Her name from all records and memory, and made it so Her art was unknown and unknowable for all time.
The only clue to this mortals have is the unspeakable "Forbidden Rhyme" spoken of by some bards, an unfinished verse so abhorrent to the gods they will immediately strike dead anyone who pronounces the following: "A tisket, a tasket/A red and yellow--"
Bards do not know why the gods hate this rhyme so, but since "casket" is the only word that adequately finishes the rhyme, and it's what the speaker gets, there must be some great significance and mystery.
LOL!
Glad that we can all smile :)And there is nothing wrong with Hippies!
|
|
Well what if I make a drow LG (yeah he is THAT special) Bard who only performs through sign language. And since he never SPEAKS the rhyme then the gods restriction doesn´t apply. And he is the only one in the whooooole world that knows how it ends and performs it.
However since nobody can use profesion (basketweaving) he will just become also a sculptor who makes concave embroided pot like objects made of straw (with obvious handles for convenience). And since they are his own creation he calls them Basket after the word only he seems to know.
I think there is no way you should say no to that...NO WAY.
The gods have a special construct known as a wicker man which they send to kill anyone who reinvents basketweaving.
After it kills him, it gathers up all of his bits, packs them in his "baskets," then transports them to another plane, delivering them to some goddess named Lolth who will be delighted at the thoughtful gift baskets.
Well what if I make a drow LG (yeah he is THAT special) Bard who only performs through sign language. And since he never SPEAKS the rhyme then the gods restriction doesn´t apply. And he is the only one in the whooooole world that knows how it ends and performs it.
However since nobody can use profesion (basketweaving) he will just become also a sculptor who makes concave embroided pot like objects made of straw (with obvious handles for convenience). And since they are his own creation he calls them Basket after the word only he seems to know.
I think there is no way you should say no to that...NO WAY.
Sorry. He can only be a cleric.
Sorry. He can only be a cleric.Well what if I make a drow LG (yeah he is THAT special) Bard who only performs through sign language. And since he never SPEAKS the rhyme then the gods restriction doesn´t apply. And he is the only one in the whooooole world that knows how it ends and performs it.
However since nobody can use profesion (basketweaving) he will just become also a sculptor who makes concave embroided pot like objects made of straw (with obvious handles for convenience). And since they are his own creation he calls them Basket after the word only he seems to know.
I think there is no way you should say no to that...NO WAY.
I'd say he can be a lay priest, but we know where that will lead...
The Art of Basketweaving was lost when the Goddess of Basketweaving died, murdered by the other gods for Her hippie ways and specifically the brownies She brought to the god's potluck in place of the usual ambrosia. These made the gods act in unusual ways--Asmodeus disported himself with Sarenrae and vice versa--and when the effects wore off, all the gods were so uniformly horrified that they killed the Goddess of Basketweaving, expunged Her name from all records and memory, and made it so Her art was unknown and unknowable for all time.
The only clue to this mortals have is the unspeakable "Forbidden Rhyme" spoken of by some bards, an unfinished verse so abhorrent to the gods They will immediately strike dead anyone who pronounces the following: "A tisket, a tasket/A red and yellow--"
Bards do not know why the gods hate this rhyme so, but since "casket" is the only word that adequately finishes the rhyme, and it's what the speaker gets, there must be some great significance and mystery.
This made me laugh so hard. I think I hurt myself