Get Found! - as communicated by Painlord through Bob Jonquet

[Dennis Baker]

The guy who is 'hiding' sees the game as a game of skill you can win or show mastery of.

The guy who gets 'found' recognizes that the game is a collaborative experience and that sometimes it's best to let someone else 'win' so the whole group has more fun.

[Callarek]

Dennis Baker wrote:

The guy who is 'hiding' sees the game as a game of skill you can win or show mastery of.

The guy who gets 'found' recognizes that the game is a collaborative experience and that sometimes it's best to let someone else 'win' so the whole group has more fun.

I think I got lost, here.

So, if I build a PC who is really good at something, but not so good at others, I have "got found"?

All you are objecting to are the uber-JOATs? The guys who can solo a module?

For those, I haven't seen any at our local games, nor at the local conventions. Hard to object to people who don't seem to exist.

Or are you objecting to the PC who is really good at one thing, no matter what his abilities are somewhere else?

[nosig]

Dennis Baker wrote:

The guy who is 'hiding' sees the game as a game of skill you can win or show mastery of.

The guy who gets 'found' recognizes that the game is a collaborative experience and that sometimes it's best to let someone else 'win' so the whole group has more fun.

Dennis - I think the disconnect for me is in linking these two things together -

(from Bob's post)
"If you, however, have a dominant character that can do everything better than the others at the table or can do something so well, that there is no way for the GM to overcome it, thematically, you are "hiding."

I think we are mostly all agreeing with #1
"If you, however, have a dominant character that can do everything better than the others at the table ... you are "hiding."

It's the #2 that I (and I think Jiggy) am having problems with "If you, however, ... can do something so well, that there is no way for the GM to overcome it, thematically, you are "hiding."

I do not see #2 at all. Say there are 5 players. each masters in thier field. each can do something so well that they AS A TEAM eaily overcome the challenges the mod puts before them. Why are they hiding? (another thing I object to is the phrase "no way for the GM to overcome" like the Judge is cast against the players - but that is likely not want Bob ment).

[Thea Peters]

Nosig ...

I judged for Pain one time... While I will never ever confess to understanding what goes through his head... perhaps a story from this table will help you understand him a bit better..

This will be as unspecific as possible as I hate the spoiler tab

The part is in a vault. There are four leevers that the party must activate in order for a door to open. Pain is playing Aroden. While the rest of the party runs around the room, works with the leevers and the encounter, Aroden is prostiltizing at the door expounding on all his great works and encourageing the door to open for him

While for some this may seem odd and the first incliniation would be to say that Pain should have had his character helping. However, having learned a bit, from watchig him play not from a character introduction, one would know that this specific charater was all about bringing "aroden" to the masses ... innanimate objects such as leevers and boxes and barrels were of no import, it was the door that was the important part.. because a door holds the future so there for has to be sentient right?

Another story from the same convention, there were a couple of players whom I dubbed the "opto-twins". They spent time completely optomizing their characters to the point where it was basically pointless for the rest of the players to be there. The one played a summoner, the eidolen was completely tricked out ... to the point where all he had to do was not roll a 1 to hit the npc. The ONLY contributing factor my sorceress made was to cast stumble gap to trip the golem, the rest of the time I just floated invisible since by the time it was my initiatve the npc was dead already. The scenario is unmemorable for me, what I remember is the player at the table who dominated the scenario. I would have loved for this player to "get found" so that the rest of the players could have contributed to the scenario and hopefully I would remember it and not have just the chronicle to show that I played it -- and technically it was a replay so I didn't even get a chronicle, I donated my time so that the dominating player and his friend could get chronicles.

MY moral to the "get found" bit is this..if all you have to do for an attack roll is NOT roll a 1 ... perhaps, just perhaps, you should readjust so that you interact a bit more and the party works as a cohesive unit and not you with people tagging along behind so you can get a chronicle.

[Thea Peters]

nosig wrote:

It's the #2 that I (and I think Jiggy) am having problems with "If you, however, ... can do something so well, that there is no way for the GM to overcome it, thematically, you are "hiding."

I do not see #2 at all. Say there are 5 players. each masters in thier field. each can do something so well that they AS A TEAM eaily overcome the challenges the mod puts before them. Why are they hiding? (another thing I object to is the phrase "no way for the GM to overcome" like the Judge is cast against the players - but that is likely not want Bob ment).

For me this comes in when my +12 to attack npc needs a 35 to hit the paladin... only way this person is going to be in any danger is if I crit.. and I have a 1 in 20 change of doing that.. generally in my experience if they have that high of an AC they have tricked out everything else and I'm going to be dead before I've rolled 20 times.

In addition, as judges we cannot change the scenario to fit the party. So, no, the judge cannot do anything to overcome an uber player.

[KestlerGunner]

I love Get Found! so much.

It's not an order, it's a philosophy.
And that philosophy is that everybody wins at tabletop rpgs. So there is very little point in making a character that is designed to be the strongest, most DPR'ingest, uber hero. You can be excellent at diplomacy, sure, but when you're stretching belief trying to use your build/spell combo/feat combo to overcome every obstacle and/or never fail, you're showing an obvious fear of getting found.

It's fun to fail! Get found!

[nosig]

Thea Peters wrote:

Nosig ...

I judged for Pain one time... While I will never ever confess to understanding what goes through his head... perhaps a story from this table will help you understand him a bit better..

This will be as unspecific as possible as I hate the spoiler tab

The part is in a vault. There are four leevers that the party must activate in order for a door to open. Pain is playing Aroden. While the rest of the party runs around the room, works with the leevers and the encounter, Aroden is prostiltizing at the door expounding on all his great works and encourageing the door to open for him

While for some this may seem odd and the first incliniation would be to say that Pain should have had his character helping. However, having learned a bit, from watchig him play not from a character introduction, one would know that this specific charater was all about bringing "aroden" to the masses ... innanimate objects such as leevers and boxes and barrels were of no import, it was the door that was the important part.. because a door holds the future so there for has to be sentient right?

Another story from the same convention, there were a couple of players whom I dubbed the "opto-twins". They spent time completely optomizing their characters to the point where it was basically pointless for the rest of the players to be there. The one played a summoner, the eidolen was completely tricked out ... to the point where all he had to do was not roll a 1 to hit the npc. The ONLY contributing factor my sorceress made was to cast stumble gap to trip the golem, the rest of the time I just floated invisible since by the time it was my initiatve the npc was dead already. The scenario is unmemorable for me, what I remember is the player at the table who dominated the scenario. I would have loved for this player to "get found" so that the rest of the players could have contributed to the scenario and hopefully I would remember it and not have just the chronicle to show that I played it -- and technically it was a replay...

Thea - I will need to respond in two posts I think, so please bear with me. I need to do the second part first too, sorry.

I said earlier that "I sit at a table and say to the group. "What sub tier are we playing? What's everyone playing"" and I gave my reasons. It is to allow me to:
1)ensure that I do not have a character that will tower over the other guys and
2)ensure that I am playing a unique character - someone with a tool box/skill set that no one else at the table has.
I can not judge your "opto-twins", though I have played with a lot of really tricked out characters. Some are mine (though none of the combat guys, I normally count on someone else killing things). I have almost never been at a table where I am upstaged in ALL things by one or more other players. I HAVE played characters that were very nearly useless in the adventure (a Face in a Dungeon crawl with only one creature that could talk - and that was the madman at the end). This was the fault of the Adventure and my fault for the character I brought into it (My Trapsmith would have been so much better a fit...) So I role played my harlot to the max - and provided a great many laughs and comic releaf during the mod (If you can't be the star - be the clown - it works for me).

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

I have almost never been at a table where I am upstaged in ALL things by one or more other players

It's really frustrated when you are a paladin or fighter and largely built for combat, yet you never even get to act because another character's COMPANION is significantly better at everything than you (even the few skills you have are shared) and one-shots all the enemies.

[Thea Peters]

nosig wrote:

Thea - I will need to respond in two posts I think, so please bear with me. I need to do the second part first too, sorry.

I said earlier that "I sit at a table and say to the group. "What sub tier are we playing? What's everyone playing"" and I gave my reasons. It is to allow me to:
1)ensure that I do not have a character that will tower over the other guys and
2)ensure that I am playing a unique character - someone with a tool box/skill set that no one else at the table has.
I can not judge your "opto-twins", though I have played with a lot of really tricked out characters. Some are mine (though none of the combat guys, I normally count on someone else killing things). I have almost never been at a table where I am upstaged in ALL things by one or more other players. I HAVE played characters that were very nearly useless in the adventure (a Face in a Dungeon crawl with only one creature that could talk - and that was the madman at the end). This was the fault of the Adventure and my fault for the character I brought into it (My Trapsmith would have been so much better a fit...) So I role played my harlot to the max - and provided a great many laughs and comic releaf during the mod (If you can't be the star - be the clown - it works for me).

Nosig .. not a problem :)

I see your points and can see them being useful when you have more than one character at a given tier; personally not having more than one at a tier (and low playing times with them) I generally don't have that issue. I do in with the character I have for their tier range and that's what I have to play -- I would hazard a guess that that is the majority of most players, though granted not all players.

Making sure that you are playing a character that doesn't tower over others is a nice and rare thing, most players are anxious to play their uber character.

I have a split opinion about it to be honest, if I'm a player I don't want one player to monopolize the game play, I want to have a turn to play my character since I take so few opportunities to play.

As a judge I'm slightly less ambivalent about it, however, will take the time to focus on the players that are not dominating so they have some play time as well, and will I try to work more on the story telling so that those players don't walk away from the table not remember the scenario.

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

nosig wrote:

I have almost never been at a table where I am upstaged in ALL things by one or more other players

It's really frustrated when you are a paladin or fighter and largely built for combat, yet you never even get to act because another character's COMPANION is significantly better at everything than you (even the few skills you have are shared) and one-shots all the enemies.

(I cannot judge the events you describe - so my comments may sound a little off the wall. they are not ment to be. I'm commenting about something I have not seen - and with my current play style am not likely to experience personally)

why do you have a character that is "largely built for combat"? Can he do nothing else? And why would you play it at a table that had another Max Damage guy at it? if you double up everything you can do - you are going to be sidelined alot.
So, if you had been the one that splatted the monsters - and my friend John had had his slow tank - would you need to "get found"? (Except Johns tank can do other things, like track, and do the CSI thing. He drives Judges to distraction with "How's these beasties die then? Sword wounds? Axes? BIG axes?")

[Andrew Christian]

Callarek wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

1) Did I have fun?

2) Did others around me seem to have fun?

Of course, as far as I can tell, the "Get Found" piece ignores both these questions.

As well as the question of, "Was the hider so good that he couldn't be found, or was the finder so bad that he couldn't find the hider?"

Whose "fault" was it? If, indeed, there is any fault to be found.

And, above all, were both of the kids having fun?

Quote:

We both recognize that different people come to play these games for different reasons, and for possibly different reasons find different ways to play more enjoyable than others. We all have opinions on what the right way, or a good way (or conversely bad way) to play is

So, from reading this quote, it appears that any way except your way is a bad way?

Excuse me while I disagree.

Don't cheat. Don't be a jerk. What more needs to be said?

You are trying to put words in my mouth and twisting what seems to be a very positive post to be negative. Please stop that.

[nosig]

Thea Peters wrote:

nosig wrote:

Thea - I will need to respond in two posts I think, so please bear with me. I need to do the second part first too, sorry.

I said earlier that "I sit at a table and say to the group. "What sub tier are we playing? What's everyone playing"" and I gave my reasons. It is to allow me to:
1)ensure that I do not have a character that will tower over the other guys and
2)ensure that I am playing a unique character - someone with a tool box/skill set that no one else at the table has.
I can not judge your "opto-twins", though I have played with a lot of really tricked out characters. Some are mine (though none of the combat guys, I normally count on someone else killing things). I have almost never been at a table where I am upstaged in ALL things by one or more other players. I HAVE played characters that were very nearly useless in the adventure (a Face in a Dungeon crawl with only one creature that could talk - and that was the madman at the end). This was the fault of the Adventure and my fault for the character I brought into it (My Trapsmith would have been so much better a fit...) So I role played my harlot to the max - and provided a great many laughs and comic releaf during the mod (If you can't be the star - be the clown - it works for me).

Nosig .. not a problem :)

I see your points and can see them being useful when you have more than one character at a given tier; personally not having more than one at a tier (and low playing times with them) I generally don't have that issue. I do in with the character I have for their tier range and that's what I have to play -- I would hazard a guess that that is the majority of most players, though granted not all players.

Making sure that you are playing a character that doesn't tower over others is a nice and rare thing, most players are anxious to play their uber character.

I have a split opinion about it to be honest, if I'm a player I don't want one player to monopolize the game play, I want to have a turn to play my...

Yep, sounds like fun. And I can see the problem with "only one character at this Tier" - after all, I had 4 characters at 1st level for a long time (I now have active characters level 1,2,3,4,5,6 - but my 6th just made 6th.) And I have 5 more drawn up ready to go. Each are unique - thou I appear to be playing a lot of Rogues (each I think are very different).

I have a bit of a reputation for "only playing low levels" with many of the old hands - they fail to realize that I like to Play, and most anything is fine. I can have just as much fun at sub Tier 1-2 as at 8-9 (though I haven't done PFSOP at that tier yet - I know I will. After all, my 4th is about to level, my 5th is too, and my 6th will eventurally.)

There are currently something like 90 adventures. That's 3 characters of 10th level - or 4 of almost 9th... So I have a hard time understanding the guy with only one character at 2nd and another at 8th. Unless he regularly plays with the same group. (But even then, why play the SAME GUY all the time?) You know, the team of friends where each plays a different tricked out dude. But you know, this game is made for any play style - even mine.

Try it sometime. Make two guys - very different. Try to advance them together. I's much easier if you use judge credits for about half. Which would you rather be able to do, sit at a table where your choice is to play the same 5th level guy two other players are playing, or choose from 2 very different 3rd level guys? The levels could have as easily been be stuck with the one 3rd, or pick one of two 2nd levels.

I really don't feel good talking about my difference in play style with Pain - it's too much like gossip and I don't want to sound like I am being critical of him. I do not know him, or rather I only know him from his posts here. Our differences are only in style of set up apparently. When, at first he said he wouldn't tell me anything about any character he would run if he sat at the same table as me - it really bothered me. (more exactly he said I would have to pick my character and then discuss it IC - no input from him to influence my random selection of character) I felt like I was being excluded - given the cold shoulder. Kind of like haveing a team mate that hates being stuck with you. At first I figured I'd just get up and walk away. If he didn't want to play - it's fine with me, "Life's to short for bad games". After a day I figured I'd be ok with just talking to the other players - no need to sweat it, even if I end up playing the Understudy to his star, I can likely make my PC unique in play. But then he posts this story - which seems to be all about being included in the group - in the team - "get found" - play with people, don't hide. Just seems to me to be a disconnect. I do not understand what he is getting at in his story in lue of what he said he would do if I asked before a game what he was playing (sorry for the run on sentence). Anyway - that's why I say I don't understand this.

[Dennis Baker]

nosig, Callerek

It isn't about anything specifically. The original analogy relates to Hide and Seek. It can apply to a lot of things. Getting hung up on specifics just sort of muddies things IMO.

[nosig]

Thea Peters wrote:

nosig wrote:

It's the #2 that I (and I think Jiggy) am having problems with "If you, however, ... can do something so well, that there is no way for the GM to overcome it, thematically, you are "hiding."

I do not see #2 at all. Say there are 5 players. each masters in thier field. each can do something so well that they AS A TEAM eaily overcome the challenges the mod puts before them. Why are they hiding? (another thing I object to is the phrase "no way for the GM to overcome" like the Judge is cast against the players - but that is likely not want Bob ment).

For me this comes in when my +12 to attack npc needs a 35 to hit the paladin... only way this person is going to be in any danger is if I crit.. and I have a 1 in 20 change of doing that.. generally in my experience if they have that high of an AC they have tricked out everything else and I'm going to be dead before I've rolled 20 times.

In addition, as judges we cannot change the scenario to fit the party. So, no, the judge cannot do anything to overcome an uber player.

let me take an example from my characters. I have a Hvy Armor cleric. Yeah - got the AC maxed out early. 3rd level I think I had a 26 AC, and he's fast 40' move most times in combat. And even when someone swings on him, Love Domain means they have to make a will save to even swing at him. All these gimmicks come at a price. He can't hit anything (at third level he was +0 to hit and would do 1d8 points when he did hit). I always ran into the monsters face, sometimes they hit (let's not talk about CMD or a touch AC of 11). His HP is ok, but nothing to take home. He's got a few face skills, and lots of healing (got to keep the guy doing the damage up and in the fight). So, when I sit down with a player with a Archer fighter my cleric comes out and the guy can do what his PC was built for. After the adventure the guy came by to thank me, LOL! He was so used to being stuck in the front line, he was thinking of scrapping the character and building a melee guy instead.

If I set down with a melee heavy group of players I play a face (almost the same level as my cleric) or if there's a Face guy and a tank, I play a Trapsmith/snipper. A party of adventurers can be booring if they are all Aragor - somebody should run a Sam.

[Thea Peters]

[

nosig wrote:

Yep, sounds like fun. And I can see the problem with "only one character at this Tier" - after all, I had 4 characters at 1st level for a long time (I now have active characters level 1,2,3,4,5,6 - but my 6th just made 6th.) And I have 5 more drawn up ready to go. Each are unique - thou I appear to be playing a lot of Rogues (each I think are very different).

I have a bit of a reputation for "only playing low levels" with many of the old hands - they fail to realize that I like to Play, and most anything is fine. I can have just as much fun at sub Tier 1-2 as at 8-9 (though I haven't done PFSOP at that tier yet - I know I will. After all, my 4th is about to level, my 5th is too, and my 6th will eventurally.)
There are currently something like 90 adventures. That's 3 characters of 10th level - or 4 of almost 9th... So I have a hard time understanding the guy with only one character at 2nd and another at 8th. Unless he regularly plays with the same group. (But even then, why play the SAME GUY all the time?) You know, the team of friends where each plays a different tricked out dude. But you know, this game is made for any play style - even mine.
Try it sometime. Make two guys - very different. Try to advance them together. I's much easier if you use judge credits for about half. Which would you rather be able to do, sit at a table where your choice is to play the same 5th level guy two other players are playing, or choose from 2 very different 3rd level guys? The levels could have as easily been be stuck with the one 3rd, or pick one of two 2nd levels.

I get what you're saying and so you understand (hopefully) the mindset I'm coming from; I tend to judge more than I play. Currently I have a slew of lvl 1s, a couple of 2s, a 3, 2 lvl 4s, a level 5 and two level 12s. (the level 5 is pure GM credit save for the one time I have played her.) I have played more than one character at the same time, I didn't see a difference in my play style as I still went into a game knowing what character I was going to play; mainly as I had a series of scenarios I wanted to play specifically with my sorceress so I played my fighter instead.

While there may be 90 scenarios, I have a tendency to not want to play something after I've judged it or at least not right away, and as I also tend to judge things before I have a chance to play it's a never ending cycle.

nosig wrote:

I really don't feel good talking about my difference in play style with Pain - it's too much like gossip and I don't want to sound like I am being critical of him. I do not know him, or rather I only know him from his posts here. Our differences are only in style of set up apparently. When, at first he said he wouldn't tell me anything about any character he would run if he sat at the same table as me - it really bothered me. (more exactly he said I would have to pick my character and then discuss it IC - no input from him to influence my random selection of character) I felt like I was being excluded - given the cold shoulder. Kind of like haveing a team mate that hates being stuck with you. At first I figured I'd just get up and walk away. If he didn't want to play - it's fine with me, "Life's to short for bad games". After a day I figured I'd be ok with just talking to the other players - no need to sweat it, even if I end up playing the Understudy to his star, I can likely make my PC unique in play. But then he posts this story - which seems to be all about being included in the group - in the team - "get found" - play with people, don't hide. Just seems to me to be a disconnect. I do not understand what he is getting at in his story in lue of what he said he would do if I asked before a game what he was playing (sorry for the run on sentence). Anyway - that's why I say I don't understand this.

That's fine that you don't want to talk about differences, I was thinking Pain as more of the general gamer instead of his person game style which (having been at a table with him is totally not the norm).

Dennis said it best in his post, the "get found" analogy needs to be applied in more of a broad approach than to specific situations.
I believe Kreslter Gunner said it best:

KestlerGunner wrote:

I love Get Found! so much.

It's not an order, it's a philosophy.
And that philosophy is that everybody wins at tabletop rpgs. So there is very little point in making a character that is designed to be the strongest, most DPR'ingest, uber hero. You can be excellent at diplomacy, sure, but when you're stretching belief trying to use your build/spell combo/feat combo to overcome every obstacle and/or never fail, you're showing an obvious fear of getting found.
It's fun to fail! Get found!

We all have this habit of needing to succeed at everything, get all our faction points, get all the mission points, save the slaves, kill the BBEG, wax the walls and buff the floor. What we fail to see is that sometimes are greatest games can come from our failures.

Ok... breaking down and using the spoiler thingie

Frost Fur Captives Spoiler:

I was at a convention recently and was running a table of low levels (tier 1-2) through frost fur captives. I add names and personalities to the goblins as it makes it fun for me. There are the best friends Stinky and Boomer (stinky has a perma-cloud of stink around him and boomer tries to light him on fire with his flint and steel {frozen mammoth dung}) and we also have noggin licker (likes to lick knee-pits) and Der Flicker who loves loves loves "fire in bottle" and pooing himself (need i say more?).

But I digress, so anyway. The party walks into the final encounter. The once player that has been herding the goblins (uncle nick), who is also the weezard gets critted and falls. Before the rest of the party can act the goblins run forth "noooooooooooooooooooooo uncle nick nooooooooooooooooo" and cover him to save him.

The cleric heals him and brings him to -1. Now NIck has 4 potions on him. 3 alchemist fire and 1 potion of healing. He gets a d4 roll to determine which potion is pulled, the goblins pulled a alchemist fire, Der Flicker fails his perception to see what is and NIck takes an alchemist fire down the throat, max damage he's at -7. He mentions he has a wand. So now he has a 2 in 4 chance to get healed. D4 roll and the goblins pull the wand *yayyy* 50% chance they are going to know what to do with it (fail) they shove it in the first place they see.. so poor Nick as a tummy full of fire and a want out his backside.

The character survived, but had fun in the all the failing of the rolls as it made for an epic story to tell of how the goblins tried to save him.
.

[AdAstraGames]

Quote:

What we fail to see is that sometimes are greatest games can come from our failures.

This is why I use the house rule I described outside of PFS, where you get bennie points for describing your failures in ways that at least two other people at the table find entertaining.

It encourages people to think outside the "Must Succeed All The Time!" box.

[nosig]

I resently had two very good games. they sort of convensed me to stay in the PFSOP (I got kicked around real bad on the board and was questioning if I really wanted to play in OP any more) anyway - they were very good games. and very different. In one we nearly got killed (due to a miscalculation we were playing at tier 4-5 with 2.5 APL party), in the other it was kind much of a Cakewalk (a really good team, with real role players). Both were real blasts - (thou the near TPK was almost sour if hadn't had to call it for time. I would HATE to walk away from a table where everyone but me died, and I got chased away. It would be years for me to try to figure what I could have done to save them, how I'd let my team down.)

The thing that made both games? the players, the judge. Could it have been a "Bad game"? yep. but it wouldn't have taken Uber builds or even sub-par builds - it would have just taken a few jerks, a couple cheaters or a control freak or two.

[nosig]

So, I don't think the guy who spends hour tweaking out his PC to be some gods right hand man is a problem - if he's fun to play with. "Win", "Loose" or "Draw" - it's all the same to me. Was it fun? That's what I want to know.

The guy with Max Damage isn't "hiding", the guy that cheats on his dice rolls? him, maybe I would think he's "hiding".

And on that note, I think I will say good night and happy gameing! (enjoy the 1s as much as the 20s).

[TwilightKnight]

nosig wrote:

why do you have a character that is "largely built for combat"? Can he do nothing else?

Yes, he has a couple of other skills, but a paladin has limited skill points. He is also a Diplomacy/Sense Motive guy. Unfortunately, the Summoner also was a Diplomacy-monkey (with more skill points and a higher ability modifier) and the scenario did not have any opportunities for Sense Motive checks to have a meaningful impact.

There is nothing wrong with "largely built for combat" because he has other skills as well. Unfortunately, all of his training was for naught because the other character could do everything much better.

nosig wrote:

And why would you play it at a table that had another Max Damage guy at it? if you double up everything you can do - you are going to be sidelined alot.

Yes, and that was discussed by a number of us. The Summoner was described as a non-combatant, who buffed, which turned out to be misleading. All of his buffs were focused on the Eidolon and while the summoner was not a combatant, the companion sure was.

[nosig]

Bob Jonquet wrote:

nosig wrote:

why do you have a character that is "largely built for combat"? Can he do nothing else?

Yes, he has a couple of other skills, but a paladin has limited skill points. He is also a Diplomacy/Sense Motive guy. Unfortunately, the Summoner also was a Diplomacy-monkey (with more skill points and a higher ability modifier) and the scenario did not have any opportunities for Sense Motive checks to have a meaningful impact.

There is nothing wrong with "largely built for combat" because he has other skills as well. Unfortunately, all of his training was for naught because the other character could do everything much better.

nosig wrote:

And why would you play it at a table that had another Max Damage guy at it? if you double up everything you can do - you are going to be sidelined alot.

Yes, and that was discussed by a number of us. The Summoner was described as a non-combatant, who buffed, which turned out to be misleading. All of his buffs were focused on the Eidolon and while the summoner was not a combatant, the companion sure was.

really-really I was headed to bed and just had to peak one more time.

Hay bob! I feel your pain guy. It took me a long time to figure out that summoners are like the old AC Druids - for them it's all about the Companion. I've learned to ask - "And what's your Eilodons gimmick?"

Yeah, I know the feeling with someone is mis-discribed (either because what I think a "Triditional Rogue" is or what other people think differ or because what some players thought the Fighter chacter was one way and the guy running it was on a bio brake). Even I get burned sometimes. I didn't play my rogue in a game, and someone was playing a "traditional rogue" that turned out to be a Ninja with NO ranks in Perception or Disable Device. It seems his view of Rogues were to hide in combat and sneak attack. And try to steal from the party (exactly how you could do this in OP I do not know). The Fighter turned out to be an Archer - and told me just in time for me to switch from my snipper to my Hvy Armor Cleric. So yeah, we get fried sometimes. Greater depth in characters helps me here - but that fix is not workable for everyone. SO I do feel the pain to.

Like sitting at a table (Tier 1-2) with 3 gunfighters and an paladin archer... what the heck do I run? the party has no spells, no healing, no tank, no trap smith, and a only a soft face character...wow. What would you do?

[Dennis Baker]

nosig wrote:

So, I don't think the guy who spends hour tweaking out his PC to be some gods right hand man is a problem - if he's fun to play with. "Win", "Loose" or "Draw" - it's all the same to me. Was it fun? That's what I want to know.

By overly optimizing your character you may will be making someone else in the group the fifth wheel. How fun is it to be the guy who just follows along and occasionally gets to kill a mook that 'god's right hand man' graciously left merely stunned for you to finish off?

[Thod]

As a GM my issue with optimization that goes too far is when I'm unable to threaten someone at all.

In a recent season zero, tier 3/4 scenario the following happened:

First encounter - I roll openly.

NAT 20 on initiative - enemy goes first.
Followed by a roll of 19 - scimitar, thread range. PC is still flat footed.

I ask for AC to roll critical - player - don't bother - you don't hit. I needed a Nat20 to hit him even while flanking or flat-footed.

Compare this to the game yesterday. Tier 3/4 - my monster slams into the level 2 rogue playing up, takes her in one hit to approx. 5 HP. Player just drops - terrified, plays dead and hopes for th best. The rest of the party was 2 lvl. 5 and 2 lvl 4 - She just tried to sneak past the monster and rolled badly on her stealth check - so did face the overpowered monster on her own in combat round 1.

As GM I really want to tell the player in the first situation - get found. It is difficult to weave an exiting story if I'm unable to threaten a character at all. It is also depressing for other players if they see me rolling high but I can't scratch someone - but their own characters are effected.

In the second case we had suspense from the start. And it gave me lots of options as GM. I could hit her again once - bringing her close to death and plant the monster between the group and the close to death character.
I can pick on the next weak link. I can target the healer and take her out, etc. actually that is what I did. I dropped the healer 40 feet down - knowing that a) she could take the damage and b) this would add even more tension as the two most scared characters where on the way to trigger the next encounter.

I had a total of 2 characters and 1 companion 'playing dead' and the most crucial action saving a TPK was from the ineffective fighter to stop fighting and throw a rope down to the cleric to get her into channel range in time before people died.

After the game I was told by the healer - this was the best game yet that you GMed. And yes - i dont think it was coincidence that the player who didn't like tobe found was absent this game.

[hogarth]

Dennis Baker wrote:

By overly optimizing your character you may will be making someone else in the group the fifth wheel. How fun is it to be the guy who just follows along and occasionally gets to kill a mook that 'god's right hand man' graciously left merely stunned for you to finish off?

Right. The ideal situation is for a table of overly-optimized ("easy mode") people to sit together and a table of other ("hard mode") people to sit together. And the un-ideal situation is for one person to compromise but still try to have a good time ("you can't please everyone").

[Chris Mortika]

Hogarth,

I see where you're coming from. You've been consistent and polite this whole thread. Kudos to you.

The concern I'm hearing from others is that it's possible to push "easy mode" too far, even for those people who like easy mode. (Not in every direction. I don't think there's a way to bump damage-dealing too far, for example.) You might describe high AC, where the NPCs only hit a PC on a 15 or better, as easy mode. But I think it's an actual problem, not just a play-style preference, when the GM needs to roll a natural 20 in order for the serious bad guys to hit a PC. Or when a PC can cast dominate person and the target can only save on a 20. Or when a PC polymorphing into a creature with earth glide always skips right past the opposition.

None of this would be a problem in a home game. In a normal RPG, the guy behind the screen sees what the players are doing and adapts the bad guy stats appropriately. Or else he takes a player aside and levels: "If you give your character that ability, at that level, it's going to mess up the game." In a home game, 'power advantage' is an illusion: your PC gets tougher, so the GM sends you out to fight tougher opponents.

In organized play, the campaign removes from the table GM the ability to course-correct like that, so 'power advantage' is real.

[thejeff]

Chris Mortika wrote:

The concern I'm hearing from others is that it's possible to push "easy mode" too far, even for those people who like easy mode. (Not in every direction. I don't think there's a way to bump damage-dealing too far, for example.) You might describe high AC, where the NPCs only hit a PC on a 15 or better, as easy mode. But I think it's an actual problem, not just a play-style preference, when the GM needs to roll a natural 20 in order for the serious bad guys to hit a PC. Or when a PC can cast dominate person and the target can only save on a 20. Or when a PC polymorphing into a creature with earth glide always skips right past the opposition.

I think it depends on the rest of the character. Take the "only hit on a natural 20" PC: If he's also a serious damage dealer or dominates the fight in other ways then he's a problem, but if he really is just a tank, letting the other PCs shine by doing the damage then it's much less so. You can't easily hurt him, without touch attacks, spells, etc, but can the baddies get around him to reach the rest of the group? That's what the contest becomes, rather than trying to hit the one guy.

[Jiggy]

You know, with all this talk about how detrimental it is to have an unhittable Armor Class tank, I'd just like to point out that the last time I played my 6th-level fighter, he could only be hit on a 20, and the other players were smiling and laughing as they nicknamed him 'Cledwyn the Steadfast'.

I play an "only hit me on a 20"-style fighter, and so far every player I've shared a table with has seemed to greatly enjoy the experience. None of the negativity people are clamoring about has happened.

The only negativity that has happened is that one of my local GMs occasionally gets frustrated if his only damage sources are attacks versus AC.

So from my own experience, I have to ask: do the PCs being talked about actually consistently harm the game for other players? Or do they just wound the pride of certain GMs?

Now, if a contingent of GMs were to come on here and say that it makes them feel impotent when a character can't be hit, I'd consider softening him up a bit. But I'm gonna need people to be honest. Right now I'm seeing cautions against things that I just haven't seen happen in six levels of play. I can only assume that either I'm playing with more mature people than the rest of you are, or the problem is more personal than some of you want to admit.

It's completely valid for something to bother you as a GM. You don't have to say "it's for the other players" for it to be a worthwhile topic of concern. We care about you too.

[Dennis Baker]

hogarth wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

By overly optimizing your character you may will be making someone else in the group the fifth wheel. How fun is it to be the guy who just follows along and occasionally gets to kill a mook that 'god's right hand man' graciously left merely stunned for you to finish off?

Right. The ideal situation is for a table of overly-optimized ("easy mode") people to sit together and a table of other ("hard mode") people to sit together. And the un-ideal situation is for one person to compromise but still try to have a good time ("you can't please everyone").

Eh.

If someone is consciously deciding to make the game harder, they should be confortable siting with any group and do just fine.

I am more concerned about are the new players and people who aren't spending hours and hours mastering the system. PFS is a social, cooperative game and should be approachable and fun to the casual player.

[nosig]

ok, I also have to chime in with a high PC character. Mine thou has almost no offensive capabilities. That's just me though. Almost no interest in killing things. The only flack he has gotten from people is when I talk about him on the boards. He has been called a useless character and my personal INT has been questioned. But the last time I played, the other players asked me to play him - because they wanted to Role Play - they like his personality, their interaction outside of combat. His high AC is getting to be a past "problem" anyway - the monsters he's encountering are getting better at hitting... I expect his 26+ AC wont help him much after 5th level.

wondering off topic:

Guys, this game is not all about the combat. It's not just a dungeon crawl - where you go from room to room fighting monsters. (though some Judges persent it that way.) It's also about the Rogue who insures we don't fall in that pit, about the fighter who just happens to also be a carpenter - because he likes to build things, not just brake them. It's about my matchmaker dwarf trying to fix up the barbarian PC with "this little lady down in the Puddles district, you should meet her!" It's about a bunch of people sitting around a table having fun.

One of the worst things I ever heard at a table (because it's often true) is when an "old hand" explained to a "young kid" that he should put his skill points into combat skills - cause the Judge is going to give you the other information anyway. "if you need to find the bandit camp, just wonder around in the woods - the Judge wants to play too, and the only way we get a fight is when we find the bad guys". (Sarcasm alert: Kind of made me feel good about my Divination Wiz. ) And to him this game was all about the fight.

I can recall something I heard at an LG table a long time ago. A Max Damage player was complaining that in his last mod they had spent almost 30 minutes "chatting up the bar-maid" and had cut into his fight time. I resisted pointing out that he had just taken 20 minutes "dancing with the mooks" and had cut into my bar-maid time. It wouldn't have done any good. to him, this game is all about rolling dice and splatting monsters. The challanges he sees are all combat related.

Sure, you can have a character who dominates combat. If you kill the beasties in 2 melee rounds, it'll give me more bar-maid time. And I'll try my darnedest to ensure we find those fights for you! I'll run the investagater that does the Gather Info rolls, that removes the Traps that warns the BBEG, that ensures we get the right guy and get paid for it. But then I would have as much fun if the Judge just said after Init is rolled "Everyone just mark off 20% of you HP and 10% of you consumables and we'll handwave this encounter". After all, some Judges do that to the RP encounters (even having the term "RP encounter" vs. "Combat encounter" makes my mind hurt - like they are two different things).

[nosig]

Dennis Baker wrote:

hogarth wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

By overly optimizing your character you may will be making someone else in the group the fifth wheel. How fun is it to be the guy who just follows along and occasionally gets to kill a mook that 'god's right hand man' graciously left merely stunned for you to finish off?

Right. The ideal situation is for a table of overly-optimized ("easy mode") people to sit together and a table of other ("hard mode") people to sit together. And the un-ideal situation is for one person to compromise but still try to have a good time ("you can't please everyone").

Eh.

If someone is consciously deciding to make the game harder, they should be confortable siting with any group and do just fine.

I am more concerned about are the new players and the players who don't put the time in to pursue mastery of the system but instead just show up to have a good time with friends. PFS is a social cooperative game and should be approachable and fun to the casual player.

Dennis -(not being confruntational in the least, so please do not take this in a bad way or anything) If we meet at the gaming table, say for the fictional adventure "Whips & Midgets, a Chaliaxian Romance for Tier 3-7", and I say - "What sub-tier are we playing, what'er you planning to run? I've got a bunch of characters at 3 to 7 and need to decide" what do you say?

[hogarth]

Dennis Baker wrote:

I am more concerned about are the new players and people who aren't spending hours and hours mastering the system. PFS is a social, cooperative game and should be approachable and fun to the casual player.

I don't really see how being a new player is particularly correlated with having a non-optimized character; presumably someone else is helping them create their PC, which could end up optimized or suboptimized as the case may be.

Unless they're playing a pregen, I suppose. If you're suggesting that, in an average game, no PC should ever outshine any of the pregens, I suspect you'll get some disagreement... ;-)

[nosig]

hogarth wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

I am more concerned about are the new players and people who aren't spending hours and hours mastering the system. PFS is a social, cooperative game and should be approachable and fun to the casual player.

I don't really see how being a new player is particularly correlated with having a non-optimized character; presumably someone else is helping them create their PC, which could end up optimized or suboptimized as the case may be.

Unless they're playing a pregen, I suppose. If you're suggesting that, in an average game, no PC should ever outshine any of the pregens, I suspect you'll get some disagreement... ;-)

most of the Pregens will beat most of my PCs for Damage Dealing abilities - does that make me a better player (more "found")?

[Dennis Baker]

hogarth wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

I am more concerned about are the new players and people who aren't spending hours and hours mastering the system. PFS is a social, cooperative game and should be approachable and fun to the casual player.

I don't really see how being a new player is particularly correlated with having a non-optimized character; presumably someone else is helping them create their PC, which could end up optimized or suboptimized as the case may be.

Unless they're playing a pregen, I suppose. If you're suggesting that, in an average game, no PC should ever outshine any of the pregens, I suspect you'll get some disagreement... ;-)

Umm.... in my experience the correlation is pretty high. I've been to quite a few games where the pregens would fit right in with the characters or even seem downright optimized. Heck we played the beginners bash the other day and one of the players even said Ezren was better than the wizard her husband built for her.

And I really wish people would stop thinking about it as being a matter of optimized versus not-optimized because that is largely not the point. Having a massively optimized character is one way to marginalize other people at the table, but it's hardly the only way and it doesn't even follow that bringing superman to the table is going to marginalize other players (though it's irritatingly common).

[hogarth]

Dennis Baker wrote:

And I really wish people would stop thinking about it as being a matter of optimized versus not-optimized because that is largely not the point.

I honestly don't know what to tell you. It's obvious to me that 75%+ of these arguments/discussions on the PFS forum boil down to "hard mode rules!" vs. "easy mode rules!", just dressed up in different ways. I'm surprised you haven't noticed it.

[Dennis Baker]

nosig wrote:

Dennis -(not being confruntational in the least, so please do not take this in a bad way or anything) If we meet at the gaming table, say for the fictional adventure "Whips & Midgets, a Chaliaxian Romance for Tier 3-7", and I say - "What sub-tier are we playing, what'er you planning to run? I've got a bunch of characters at 3 to 7 and need to decide" what do you say?

Play what you want.

[Dennis Baker]

hogarth wrote:

Dennis Baker wrote:

And I really wish people would stop thinking about it as being a matter of optimized versus not-optimized because that is largely not the point.

I honestly don't know what to tell you. It's obvious to me that 75%+ of these arguments/discussions on the PFS forum boil down to "hard mode rules!" vs. "easy mode rules!", just dressed up in different ways. I'm surprised you haven't noticed it.

If you have sammy super summoner, you can play in such a way where you are focus all your spells on buffing your eidolon and maximizing it's damage. You can have your eidolon charge into combat every encounter ignoring other players and dominating combats.

With that that same character you can choose to buff the whole party with your spells making sure that everyone in the party does great in combat. You can steer your eidolon so it works in flanking with the rogue every chance he gets so the rogue gets to do some major damage with sneak attack.

Same character, different outcomes. In one case you are playing the game as a solo experience, in the other you are playing a cooperative group game. At the end of the former there is a fair chance you've alienated some other players. After the latter game you might get high fived for making someone else's character awesome. Every time you sit down, it's your choice.

[Azmyth]

[Great mentoring aside...]

No matter how intelligent a person is, you can't be taught 'life lessons'.
The must be experienced and earned.

~@~

[Jiggy]

Dennis Baker wrote:

If you have sammy super summoner, you can play in such a way where you are focus all your spells on buffing your eidolon and maximizing it's damage. You can have your eidolon charge into combat every encounter ignoring other players and dominating combats.

With that that same character you can choose to buff the whole party with your spells making sure that everyone in the party does great in combat. You can steer your eidolon so it works in flanking with the rogue every chance he gets so the rogue gets to do some major damage with sneak attack.

You could also take that same character, self-buff to the max like in your first example, and then choose to blow it all on the weakest enemy just to see how hard you can splatter him, while still leaving the bigger targets for your teammates to beat on. ;)

[nosig]

Dennis Baker wrote:

nosig wrote:

Dennis -(not being confruntational in the least, so please do not take this in a bad way or anything) If we meet at the gaming table, say for the fictional adventure "Whips & Midgets, a Chaliaxian Romance for Tier 3-7", and I say - "What sub-tier are we playing, what'er you planning to run? I've got a bunch of characters at 3 to 7 and need to decide" what do you say?

Play what you want.

I want to play what is not at the table... I want to play what you are NOT playing, so you don't marginalize my character with yours and I don't overshadow you. So that we can form a team that have fun together. My choices at 3 to 7 are:

A 3rd lvl combat Rogue - with no face skills
A 4th lvl face character - with NO COMBAT SKILLS. A harlot
A 5th lvl Trapsmith/Snipper with a touch of Arcane caster (and an extensive Wiz spell book that you can copy from)
A 6th lvl Hvy Armor Combat Medic. that can act as a shield wall, who has some face skills.

Which of these would be good with what you bring to the table?

[AdAstraGames]

In a nutshell:

1) PFS Scenarios aren't built for massive optimization, at least through season 2. Starting around season 3, you REALLY seem to need a trap-monkey to avoid having the difficulty ramp up.

2) For some people, making the most optimized "X" is their way of enjoying the game, whether "X" is Damage Per Round, Armor Class, Difficulty Class for a spell, or having a sky-high level in one of the God Skills of Pathfinder (Perception, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, and if this trend towards needing to remove traps continues, Disable Device). This results in the player wanting accolades for his system mastery.

3) For some people, playing a role (as opposed to a party niche) is their way of enjoying the game. They want to talk in character, they want to make a character with a personality that is memorable, or with a belief system that is memorable. They usually have some measure of system mastery; often using system mastery to shore up unconventional builds.

System mastery by itself is not the problem. Nobody is saying "Hey, system mastery doesn't mean you can't roleplay."

What they're saying is "Hey, yes, that's IS INDEED an awesome trick, making a character who swings for 3d6+12 with a Falcata with a +27 to hit with a first level character. Nothing can stand before you. Now, mind telling me about why your character is adventuring? What's he afraid of? Does he have any lost love? Does he send letters home to his parents? How does what he believes in shape his actions?"

Most everyone who's saying 'get found' is as capable of telling the corpus of the Pathfinder rules "You've got a pretty mouth..." while banjos start warming up as the system optimizers. They just find that it's futile. All the fun is making the character and visualizing how you smack the I WIN button with your sublimated manhood, rather than making the game fun to play for everyone at the table for the four hours you're sitting together.

And yes, I've played a game with a character who had an AC of 34, the ability to dish out 3d6+18 per hit routinely, and who had a 7 INT and 7 CHA. In a tier 4-5 mod where he was level 5. Made everyone else who thought fighting would be a place to shine...kinda go "Well, at least we get the chronicle."

My first question when considering a character to play:

How does this character make the game fun for other players?

Let's break that sentence down.

It's NOT "How does this character fit into a traditional four or five person party."

It's NOT "How does this character spam the I WIN button."

It's "What would make playing this character result in a positive game play experience for the other players at the table?"

[nosig]

AdAstraGames wrote:

In a nutshell:

1) PFS Scenarios aren't built for massive optimization, at least through season 2. Starting around season 3, you REALLY seem to need a trap-monkey to avoid having the difficulty ramp up.

2) For some people, making the most optimized "X" is their way of enjoying the game, whether "X" is Damage Per Round, Armor Class, Difficulty Class for a spell, or having a sky-high level in one of the God Skills of Pathfinder (Perception, Diplomacy, Intimidate, Bluff, and if this trend towards needing to remove traps continues, Disable Device). This results in the player wanting accolades for his system mastery.

3) For some people, playing a role (as opposed to a party niche) is their way of enjoying the game. They want to talk in character, they want to make a character with a personality that is memorable, or with a belief system that is memorable. They usually have some measure of system mastery; often using system mastery to shore up unconventional builds.

System mastery by itself is not the problem. Nobody is saying "Hey, system mastery doesn't mean you can't roleplay."

What they're saying is "Hey, yes, that's IS INDEED an awesome trick, making a character who swings for 3d6+12 with a Falcata with a +27 to hit with a first level character. Nothing can stand before you. Now, mind telling me about why your character is adventuring? What's he afraid of? Does he have any lost love? Does he send letters home to his parents? How does what he believes in shape his actions?"

Most everyone who's saying 'get found' is as capable of telling the corpus of the Pathfinder rules "You've got a pretty mouth..." while banjos start warming up as the system optimizers. They just find that it's futile. All the fun is making the character and visualizing how you smack the I WIN button with your sublimated manhood, rather than making the game fun to play for everyone at the table for the four hours you're sitting together.

And yes, I've played a game with a character who had an AC of 34, the ability to...

I love 90% of what you say... for the other 10% I'm probably just a goof-ball and not understanding you (cause you make so much sense on the other 90%).

and I like the way you put it.
"What would make playing this character result in a positive game play experience for the other players at the table?"
though I would likely say
"what can I do to make it fun for everyone?"

[Andrew Christian]

I don't know why people are taking the philosophy of "get found" so personally. Either there is some deep-seated belief that you are not liked by others and this must be it, but you don't like it so you are getting defensive, or this applies to you.

Jiggy, I know you, you may have an uber-optimized AC, but you don't use it to dominate the scenario or even a single encounter. You make social and tactical decisions that let other people shine just as much as Cledwyn does. And that means you've been found. You play this game as a social game to have fun with other people, instead of as a personal attempt to get some sort of recognition for being the best.

Bbauzh, my character, is extremely optimized for both Trip and Disarm. When Raging, Enlarged and with Bulls Strength, Bbauzh will have a +27 Trip and +29 Disarm (and CMD's vs those two in the 30's) at 8th level. But I don't foresee myself using those abilities constantly unless its absolutely necessary, or I think it would be fun to be dramatic. Much the same way you play all your characters. I'm not saying I've been found. I'm sure that there are ways I can improve my table etiquette just like anyone can.

The key is, if everyone you are playing with seems to be having fun despite your character's optimization or lack thereof, then within the paradigm of that group, you've been found.

And the irony is, just because you've been found in one paradigm, does not mean you will be in another. And I don't think there is a simple algorithm to make sure you can be found in every possible situation. There will just be some groups you don't clique with, for whatever reasons.

So rather than get all defensive about this philosophy and what some people are saying about it, just look at how the people around you are reacting to you. If it is generally positive, don't sweat it. If it seems you are constantly getting into arguments (this can apply to getting into rules arguments with the GM as well), people seem to be put off by you, and you seem to be hogging the spotlight on a regular basis, then perhaps some self-reflection is necessary.

If you can honestly say, "this doesn't apply to me" then good. You've been found.

[hogarth]

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't know why people are taking the philosophy of "get found" so personally.

I don't think anyone's taking it personally. I also don't think that anyone's taking my "you can't please everyone" comment personally. We're just not in complete agreement, that's all.

[Care Baird]

Jiggy wrote:

Does that mean that the next time I want to point out that a GM's methods aren't in accordance with the Guide, I can say he's GMing "badly" and it'll be okay because that's not the same as telling him how to GM? ;)

I once had a player tell me I was GM'ing badly. I wonder if they ever found his body.

[Kyle Baird]

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't know why people are taking the philosophy of "get found" so personally.

Because arguing on the internet is the most social interaction some people get.

C'mon people, get away from your keyboards, grab some friends and some dice, and let's actually PLAY this game!

[Jiggy]

Andrew Christian wrote:

Stuff I agree with

Thanks for the kudos, Andy. :)

I agree with what you point out about being able to optimize some aspect of your character without turning your companions into sidekicks, based on how you play it out.

This is why I'm involved in this thread. The vibe I'm getting from some posters is that you can't play Captain Optimized in such a way as to still be social. The message I keep hearing is "If you're more than so good at X, you're taking away other people's fun" and the corollary "If you care about the people around you, you'll play less optimized characters".

If the general consensus was in line with what you and I know about getting "found" being more about how you play, then there'd be more talk in this thread about how you play. The fact that examples of doing it wrong are consistently referencing optimization levels with little to no mention of how you actually play, tells me that people still think optimization leads to non-social gaming (or that one is a symptom of the other).

I'm trying to point out exactly what you said: that you can build those characters (and employ their optimized strengths) while still being social and not overshadowing anyone.

[nosig]

I think the problem comes from linking "power builds" and "getting found".

Oh, and the feel of the guy in the story giving advice when he sees what he thinks is a problem. We all hate being told how to run our own characters. You tell me I have a useless character for x and my first instinct is to defend her. I can put myself in the kids place. When I'm hiding REALLY good, don't assume that you know what is good for me better than I do. Are the other people playing having fun? is everyone in the game enjoying themselves? then why have the guy walking by yell "get found!" It's like the guy walking by my gamer group and yelling out "get a Life!". and walk away muttering "a bunch of geeks".

this is why the knee-jerk response from me might make me look like a jerk. Sorry if it does. But it feels like "Dr. Science" is giving me advice, 'cause after all as he says "I know more, than you do".

[Dennis Baker]

Jiggy wrote:

You could also take that same character, self-buff to the max like in your first example, and then choose to blow it all on the weakest enemy just to see how hard you can splatter him, while still leaving the bigger targets for your teammates to beat on. ;)

Which can be fun in a lot of ways too :D

[Dennis Baker]

nosig wrote:

I think the problem comes from linking "power builds" and "getting found".

Because when you have a power build it is very easy to forget about other players and rampage around, making the game less fun for others without even trying. Particularly if there is a second or third player with a similar build to compete with.

I don't think people intend to be rude, but it can be easy to forget.

[Dennis Baker]

Kyle Baird wrote:

Andrew Christian wrote:

I don't know why people are taking the philosophy of "get found" so personally.

Because arguing on the internet is the most social interaction some people get.

C'mon people, get away from your keyboards, grab some friends and some dice, and let's actually PLAY this game!

On the cycling forums they like to say "Shut Up and Ride"...

so "Shut up and Play"

[Painlord]

Kyle Baird wrote:

C'mon people, get away from your keyboards, grab some friends and some dice, and let's actually PLAY this game!

NO DICE, BAIRD!

pun intended. i'm hilarious.