Pardon my tone here but I've kinda hit a wall on this one. See I spend a lot of time in the rules part of the forum and to be honest I see a glaring issue. It seems everytime a question is asked that isnt just a cut and dried response the side who's reading of the rules is most beneficial gets a constant steam of "stop gaming the system" or "quit trying to be the table superstar and have fun".
Now usually I go on about my day but today I felt like it was time to just ask the communtiy why we cant simply use the rules forums to figure out the rules and not call names to each other. I know I've done it before, though it was over glaring misreadings of the rules such as allowing half elf summoners to have over 100 evolution points.
No every one is out to min max a character and in fact a lot of the questions this comes up on would make an imperceptible differnce for the ability/class/feat in question.
it's the internet, see : haters gonna hate
it's the internet, see : haters gonna hate
Why do I read that in 1920-1940's gangster speak? :)
The rules questions usually sound bad because they almost always involve some kind of stupid fringe character you would never see a coherent narrative about.
If someone asks how spirited charge works for his paladin and horse, it is understandable.
When someone comes in asking how many rounds they can rage while sneak attacking with an alchemical bomb, you know they are just being a twink because the character they are making dosent belong in a story, nor can a story relate how the person came to be: because it is just plain stupid.
While thats one thing look at the recent Monk FoB threads several posters keep insisting that anyone who was using flurry with a single weapon was simply trying to game the system and cheat out the guys who had to do TWF the normal way.
Check the new threads the Devs are saying that TWF is exactly what FoB is.
edit And they mean Two weapon fighting as in no flurry with one weapon and if your unarmed strike is some how different (apparently they are suggesting that MF and GMF actually can enhance only one fist per cast) then you can only use the different one for half your attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone is wrong on the internet... It just kinda goes from there, yeah?
Well it's because there's two kinds of gamers. Role players and ROLL players.
JK
I don't know. I'm on your side OP, I'm sick of the RP snobbery on these boards. See Stormwind fallacy, et al.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I really rather agree with the OP.
If someone is wrong, show them the links and explain why you believe their interpretation is incorrect.
Whether they are using cheese or whatever is completely irrelevant. You can point out that you don't think its RAI or that its not a good idea to do something without resorting to insults. And yes, saying someone is trying a cheesy build or that they are gamist or all that other crap is just a way of trying to say you are better than they are. Cheesing/cheating/powergaming/munchking. they are all ways people use to say "you are playing the game wrong". And thats just not what this game is about.
Instruct someone who you think is not using RAW. Show them the RAW. Tell them what you think the RAI is. Explain why. Show them the possible pitfalls in the game with how they think the game works.
Increase knowledge. End name calling. Helping someone understand the total ramifications about what they are doing and/or suggesting is going to advance your cause far more than flinging names at them.
-S
I guess my feeling is that PF is a game where the fluff and the crunch are almost entirely separate. Some people don't get this, they think if you want to be a swashbuckler character you need to take the Duelist PrC. Sometimes I make really crazy multiclass NPCs to throw at the players, multiclass combinations that make no sense in my world but whose combined abilities will provide a challenge.
I also take the stance, much like advice columnists, that even if the OP is making it up or is being a jerk about it, that if you participate in the rules forums, that if one person is having a difficulty with rule X there are probably others. And we're here to try to help.
|
I really rather agree with the OP.
If someone is wrong, show them the links and explain why you believe their interpretation is incorrect.
Nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. You just get a reply that says "your interpretation is obviously wrong, and mine is obviously right. So there! Stop trying to game the system!"
The current "discussion" of vicious stomp, for example, started off with a reasonably civil tone, but has deteriorated so that now it's pretty much a name-calling thread, full of "I'm right, and you're wrong, and you must be really stupid not to see that"
And don't forget the mis-quoting (or selective editing) of the actual rules, and far-fetched interpretations of FAQ entries, complete with proof by assertion that this is "obviously" what the developers intended.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
maybe we should just have some regular poster declared right as default, then each side gets 30 or so posts to state their arguements, then MR RIGHT says which side wins. now all we need is an infalable poser.
i nominate... ME! ;)
I nominate lord WraithStrike.
...Noone should ever give any of us any authority at all ever. That being said, these forums are actually quite civil and very informative when compared to some other rpg boards (coughcoughdumpshockcough). The resident trolls can largely be ignored, and even the murkiest of rules have both sides argued intelligently (usually).
First, let me be clear on how I percieve the game: it's a game. It's not a 'roll playing' game nor a 'role playing' game in the extreme senses. Many facets come together to make D&D/PF/Rifts/whatever work as a system. The flexability in those systems are what allow them to have wide appeal. In each of my gaming groups, we could easilly get together to play various games. We could play Risk weekly, we could play Munchkin, we could play Magic, or we could randomly play one of dozens (hundreds?) of games we all have tucked away in our closets. We would be perfectly happy. Instead, however, we've chosen a single game to play week in and week out for years. That game has always been some sort of system where we roll a d20 as a basic mechanic. We strike (what I believe) is a great balance between the facets of the game. We write character journals, but also keep track of combat statistics (largest hits, etc). We generally have our in game empire, but it requires a lot of 'face time' to maintain. We try to do things by the book as much as possible, but this isn't always easy when converting different editions. We have some people whom are 'character focused' (in a stat sense) and some people that are 'character focused' (in an 'RP' sense). Wait - that's the same thing. YES, IT'S THE SAME THING. People take pride in different things. Certain folks, whom lack a certain type of creativity, must be more rigid in their characters. Having a particular feat or skill is what drives their interactions with other players, rather than the otherway around. Some gamers start with a persona then work stats around it - some do things stats first. In the end - everyone is having fun and that is what matters.
Second, there are clearly people whom enjoy the 'rules lawyering' (not meant as a bad thing) and those whom dont in my group (the lines aren't drawn the same as the different types of 'character focus'). For consistencys sake - I'd prefer to get each situation correct as they are explained in the rules. I have no qualms with 'getting little done' in game (except out of respect for those that dislike the investigatory process). We've met at least weekly for many many years, what's the hurry? I 100% agree with the sentiment in the OP and many of the posters here. Respect those that enjoy getting things right, even if you may not like it. How do you know what the situation was that calls for a Bane Alchemist bomb being thrown by a Ninja Eidelon? Even if the situation isn't 'up to par' or is just a mental exercize - so what?
Finally, the idea of stretching the rules is perfectly healthy. You gain further understanding about the rules at hand when you try to mix things that weren't neccessarilly meant to be mixed. All of us are learning the game. If you know the rules, and their nuances better, then your gaming experience as a whole should be better. Your group can handle complex situations easilly, be prideful in knowing you did it right, and leave time for the character building (roll or role) that you desire.
As food for thought (not directed at anyone in particular): if the rules of the game weren't important - why have a system of rules at all? There are plenty of social scafolds to facilitate rules light gaming. Why play a moderately rules-intense game if you aren't interested in expressing yourself within those rules correctly (mostly, houserules not withstanding)?
The recent monk 'flurry of blows' issue was interesting, because I'd always assumed that you had to use it two handed and played it that way. A flurry made up of someone standing there punching with one fist (or whatever) seems a bit odd to me.
I nominate lord WraithStrike.
I second this nomination!
In all seriousness yeah that probably needs to stop. I'll argue the merits of claiming something is cheese/broke/overpowered/should be barred from play/cheating in a rules thread because at the time that's brought up the topics gone off-topic at that point and that's only because someone might be wrong on the internet.
|
I really rather agree with the OP.
If someone is wrong, show them the links and explain why you believe their interpretation is incorrect.
Nice idea in theory, but it doesn't work in practice. You just get a reply that says "your interpretation is obviously wrong, and mine is obviously right. So there! Stop trying to game the system!"
The current "discussion" of vicious stomp, for example, started off with a reasonably civil tone, but has deteriorated so that now it's pretty much a name-calling thread, full of "I'm right, and you're wrong, and you must be really stupid not to see that"
And don't forget the mis-quoting (or selective editing) of the actual rules, and far-fetched interpretations of FAQ entries, complete with proof by assertion that this is "obviously" what the developers intended.
I was trying to keep it civil, but I can also tend to be a little bit hot-headed in my posts at times. So I feel part of the guilt of making it that way.
|
IMHO the people who ask reasonable questions usually have short reasonable threads answering the issue that go under the radar, while the loophole/cheese threads explode and draw all the attention, specifically because people find what they are proposing or asking to be outrageous.
And the vocal minority of cheeseplayers make those threads memorable, while the reasonable threads are soon forgotten.
|
|
There are also times when the person arguing just doesn't like the fluff of the rules that are being argued.
That's okay, by the way. I don't like aspects of these rules, and I'm sure there are few people who are always happy with all the rules. We shouldn't really be attacking each other over it though.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@The OP: This is the first thing I noticed about the Pathfinder community. Its biggest flaw is "roleplayer elitism". Had I not already found a nice local PFS group by the time I discovered the messageboards, I'd probably never have started playing Pathfinder.
The one thing I love about rugby is the respect that every players have towards the referee.
It's part of the game.
And he is here so that everyone has fun and no one gets hurt.
That is how I see myself as a DM/GM.
Sure they are a few times when my players argue about a single rule.
I listen.
Then I rule for the sake of the best fun for all. I explain why.
And I usually have no further complains.
It happens more than often that I say no, especially to rules interpretations that would spoil the fun, destabilize the story or the relative balance of fun/interest between players and between players and DM. Since I explain why, it goes well quite everytime (like anyone else I can make mistakes - if i realise I did one after 2-3 games I feel free to apologize, correct it and overule myself).
No surprise: when we were younger most of the rules complains used to be selfish requests like "my character should be able to do that, should be getting that bonus, blablabla...". Most of the time allowing it would spoil the fun for another player (or the DM). Or it would just spoil the whole story or atmosphere. Worse, most of the time allowing the request would not really give the player the opportunity to add something fun to the game. Once upon a time we had a full argument on stacking bonuses... I end up saying: does it change anything to your character adventures, story, fun... if it stacks or not? End of debate.
We are not playing chess, monopoly or poker. No one should be in it to "win".
don't blame the players (or the DM if he does a lousy job enforcing that rule), but remind them (including the DM if he had a bad day) about the whole purpose of the game.
At some point, long ago, I had put in place a double rule:
A) Rules are NEVER discussed during a game session, only between.
B) A player has a limited right to propose a rule interpretation different than the one of the DM. If he makes his point, good, everyone benefits. If he is denied, he loses his right for a certain period of time.
Worked so well I could remove rule B and never had to use it again. Rule A is still on and actually the players themselves asked me to enforce it to the max so that during session they can focus on their adventure and character rather than on the rules.
In rugby, if you stop playing before the whistle because you know that a foul was committed, you end up losing the game. Question is not whether the rule is A or B. It's about having fun, in a balanced, streamed, well drove game. Or at least that's my $0.02 about it.
I thought this thread was about messageboard conduct, not how players act at the table.
Absolutely, but this is very much linked. Players who play for fun at the table very rarely argue, especially unpolitely, on messaboards.
BTW Kudos for the RPG Superstar :-)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I thought this thread was about messageboard conduct, not how players act at the table.Absolutely, but this is very much linked. Players who play for fun at the table very rarely argue, especially unpolitely, on messaboards.
BTW Kudos for the RPG Superstar :-)
Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@The OP: This is the first thing I noticed about the Pathfinder community. Its biggest flaw is "roleplayer elitism". Had I not already found a nice local PFS group by the time I discovered the messageboards, I'd probably never have started playing Pathfinder.
I think I would argue differently. I don't see as much "roleplayer elitism" as much as I see both "cruncher elitism" and "optimization chips on shoulders". You've got critics rending their virtual garments over Paizo including mechanically sub-optimal archetypes like the cloistered cleric and the separatist in their books and every time someone is critical of roll-playing, about a dozen white knights rush in invoking Stormwind like vampire hunters with crosses. Meanwhile you've got fighter, monk, and rogue bashing, charges that Pathfinder is "D&D caster edition", and that martial characters can't have nice things.
Clearly, we have very different impressions of the PF community.
@The OP: This is the first thing I noticed about the Pathfinder community. Its biggest flaw is "roleplayer elitism". Had I not already found a nice local PFS group by the time I discovered the messageboards, I'd probably never have started playing Pathfinder.I think I would argue differently. I don't see as much "roleplayer elitism" as much as I see both "cruncher elitism" and "optimization chips on shoulders". You've got critics rending their virtual garments over Paizo including mechanically sub-optimal archetypes like the cloistered cleric and the separatist in their books and every time someone is critical of roll-playing, about a dozen white knights rush in invoking Stormwind like vampire hunters with crosses. Meanwhile you've got fighter, monk, and rogue bashing, charges that Pathfinder is "D&D caster edition", and that martial characters can't have nice things.
Clearly, we have very different impressions of the PF community.
1. Are you claiming that those who invoke the fallacy are "wrong" somehow?
2. Don't forget the people who invoke "Orcs are ALWAYS evil even though they aren't evil outsiders" either :D
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@The OP: This is the first thing I noticed about the Pathfinder community. Its biggest flaw is "roleplayer elitism". Had I not already found a nice local PFS group by the time I discovered the messageboards, I'd probably never have started playing Pathfinder.I think I would argue differently. I don't see as much "roleplayer elitism" as much as I see both "cruncher elitism" and "optimization chips on shoulders". You've got critics rending their virtual garments over Paizo including mechanically sub-optimal archetypes like the cloistered cleric and the separatist in their books and every time someone is critical of roll-playing, about a dozen white knights rush in invoking Stormwind like vampire hunters with crosses. Meanwhile you've got fighter, monk, and rogue bashing, charges that Pathfinder is "D&D caster edition", and that martial characters can't have nice things.
Clearly, we have very different impressions of the PF community.
To be clear, I was only talking about the biggest flaw which I noticed first. There are other flaws which I noticed later, including the tendency of pretty uninformed and ill-qualified individuals to make power balance claims and then pass judgment on Paizo as a result.
But if I had to rank all the crap I see and decide which pile was the biggest and stinkiest, I would still have to say it's the roleplayer elitism. Which, to define my terms, means two main things:
First, that whenever I see a "roleplay versus rollplay" argument come up, the majority of the attacks and finger-pointing is from the roleplayers toward the rollplayers, while the rollplayers (mostly) just try to defend themselves and point out that they can roleplay too. It's like 70/30-ish.
Second, that a great many rules questions result in a schism between the side that's favorable to the player and the side that's not, with the "not" side attacking the other as being "rollplayers" and trying to break the game and missing the point and wanting PF to be a video game and so on.
In short, I almost always see the "roleplay" side strike first, they don't confirm their targets before attacking (i.e., the target might not even BE a "rollplayer"), they fight the most violently, and they more often claim the moral high ground.
In the examples of rules arguments I've seen on the boards, there is no "side" that is more civil or more reasonable than any other "side."
To suggest that "role players" are elitists who try to cram their idea of how to play down the throats of other players completely ignores the behavior of "munchkins" who game the system incessantly and sneer at "sub-optimal" character builds as "unsurvivable" hacks who drag down the entire party.
Since I fall in the middle somewhere (I create role-play concepts, but then optimize them to be as viable as possible) I tend to end up on the receiving end of attacks from both sides.
For every post where someone wants an opinion of a rules change and commenters play the "munchkin" card, there is a post where someone asks for an opinion and when a "sub-optimal" choice is presented as a role-playing opportunity, some commenter will play the "unsurvivable character" card.
For example, if someone posts "which is a better animal companion, the tiger or the wolf?" Someone will invariably pop in with "both of those are crap, good players always pick dinosaurs!"
So this goes both ways. And I sometimes get drawn into these things on the "role player" side and sometimes on the "munchkin" side.
A big part of the problem is that the rules can be vague enough that there truly are multiple ways to interpret them. Sometimes you can find competing rulings from different developers.
Frankly I consider these sorts of rules discussions to be entertaining and enjoyable, until the personal attacks start. I tend to be one of those "punch back twice as hard" dudes although I've been fighting that tendency lately because I just no longer have the time or energy to play dueling condescension games these days.
But still, I don't want the debates to stop, and since it is virtually impossible on the internet for any debate to avoid becoming personal at some point, more and more I'm just ignoring the personal attacks and trying to focus on the rules question. I would hate for the debates to end because sometimes I actually learn something and have changed my views based on the debate. I think that's healthy and helps the community.
1. Are you claiming that those who invoke the fallacy are "wrong" somehow?
I would argue that a great many Stormwind invokers are making a very facile argument, probably as a knee jerk reaction as much as anything else. It has been my experience that while it is possible combine good role playing with good min-maxing most players don't and many can't. It may be illogical to say that roll players can't also be role players, but it's no more logical to say that all roll players will be role players.
On the "Stormwind fallacy". It is rarely invoked properly by those who want to use it to support their optimization.
The stormwind fallacy simply says that role playing and roll playing are orthogonal, which they are.
It says nothing about the tendency of players to focus on one or the other, which is what most players do.
While it is absolutely correct to argue that role playing and roll playing can exist in the same person, it is also absolutely correct to point out that in my experience there does seem to be an inverse correlation between the two in MOST players. Players who do both equally are extremely rare imho. In my own experience those who top the munchkin scale are typically near the bottom of the role play scale and vice versa.
And that can, in part at least, be explained simply by pointing out that both require effort, and while they don't necessarily exclude each other from a logical perspective, people only have so much energy they can devote to the game. So they invest more energy in that part of the game they enjoy more. The end result is a correlation between the two where the more energy is invested in one aspect, the less energy is available to invest in the other.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
When someone who wants to play a “Good” Drow Lich Noble and gets mad when the GM has NPC’s not like them…and yes that is a real example given on these here messageboards…Stormwind does not apply.
Some of us like some logical verisimilitude in our games, we paid money for setting books that go out of their way to make logical sense…so when you show up at the table with something that doesn’t make sense in the setting that you made to get a mechanical advantage, you can scream “Stormwind Fallacy” until you are blue in the face and I and every GM I have ever played with would point to the other players at the table and remind you are just one of the people at the table and you need to get in line with table norms so everyone can have fun, not just you.
Now if your table says “Why would anyone not like orcs, I mean they just rape and pillage communities all over this area” feel free. You have a GM I wouldn’t want to play with, and you are running a game that isn’t consistent with the published settings.
And that is perfectly fine. At your table. And if the people at your table complain about it, someone is at the wrong table. If it is the majority of the players, or the GM, than that person is you.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Here's a thought that just occurred to me:
Perhaps we see different groups "being the villain" in different parts of the boards?
For instance, I spend most of my time in Rules Questions, Pathfinder Society General Discussion (not to be confused with Pathfinder General Discussion), and a bit of Advice.
In PFSGD and RQ, I see almost exclusively the "roleplayers" being the first to throw a punch. In RQ, a rules question of "Does this rule mean X or Y?" will sometimes be answered with "How dare you suggest X! Stop gaming the system!" In PFSGD, you get basically the same thing, only with campaign-specific rules. Occasionally you'll also get someone asking what PFS is like/if they should start and take a jab at "rollplayers" in the original post. I have never seen an OP take a jab at the "roleplayers". Ever.
In Advice, it's a little more mixed. I occasionally see "If you're trying to do X, this other idea would do it better" (frustratingly, this even happens when the character has already existed for five months and can't be started over). Even so, most suggestions to do things differently are just that: suggestions. People saying "class/option X would do a better job of Y" is not a bad thing. They don't call me names or tell me that I'm the problem with modern gaming. But I've encountered so much unprovoked hate from the "roleplaying" side that any time I post a build idea with less than 10 CHA, I mentally brace myself for a personal attack.
Is it different in the other sections?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think letting people dump stats was the Bad Idea that ruined the point buy system. [Re: <10 Cha build.]
NOT saying people are engaging in badwrongfun for USING it, just that the dump stat concept is inherently flawed and -- not ALWAYS, but QUITE FREQUENTLY -- ends up with builds that are (a) munchkinlike and (b) one-trick ponies.
Which can work fine, provided you have one or more partners to cover your weak points... part of the whole reason one adventures in groups.
I just Don't. Dump. Stats.
Which means I'm not as uber, perhaps, as the guy whose character can't hold a meaningful conversation (but can solo most encounters).
But I don't feel that high bonuses in one or two stats are worth the price paid in attribute penalties in half my attributes. Just a personal failing, judging by the eye-rolls from the optimaxed crowd.
Mind you, I do my freakin' best to optimize around my less-than-glowing attributes; I just have a mindset organized around minimizing my flaws, rather than maximizing my advantages.
|
I think people need to stop a moment and think about the game as written and then "how" the game "can" be played.
Let's use Ciretose's example of the Drow Noble. Mind you the same people who want to argue word for word about the RAW when it comes to a min/max are the same people who want to ignore word for word certain things like the alignment of drow. In the bestiary, drow are considered CE and of course we all know that DM's "can" allow for drow at various alignments and that's perfectly okay but it's also okay for a DM to stick with what the bestiary says so when they say that NPC's will not like you then it's because drow have a reputation of being murderous, cruel and efficient killers. People of the Pathfinder world have not read the Drizzt novels.
Now if you want to play a pure "number wargame" then you are entitled but when you look at the rules the default of the game is a role playing game. According to the game elves are elves, dwarves are dwarves, gnomes are gnomes etc... That doesn't mean you can't change whatever you want if your DM allows it but the game had to pick a certain area that it needed to remain consistent in. It is a consistent role playing game, its what makes it different than a board game.
I guess my feeling is that PF is a game where the fluff and the crunch are almost entirely separate. Some people don't get this, they think if you want to be a swashbuckler character you need to take the Duelist PrC.
I dont agree that they are almost entirely separate. I think most of the rules in the game do have a connection to what they are supposed to represent. I do think the flavor is mutable, but it is not separate. You could be a swashbuckler in many ways, but almost all of those ways were intended to make a swashbucklery character or to make parts of a character that is swashbucklery.
I think that is one of the most important design choices to make in a game system. How much connection the rules have with the flavor. And I think pathfinder's is fairly high, when compared to other systems. The rules 'feel' like what they are meant to represent. Some things are obviously more generic then others, but when brought together the options that make up a whole character have a very strong implied theme even without any of the flavor text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also it can be frustrating when some further argue that a 7 charisma character should be able to be the party face...again, also argued on these here boards.
Psst... if he invests the skill ranks (and maybe feats) in it, why not?
Alitan, I have never dumped stats on a point buy build to gain more points to put in another attribute. However, I have taken racial penalties which dropped a score below 10. Since that race gave me bonuses in an attribute I valued, I suppose even choosing a race could be described as "munchkining" by some hard core anti-munchkin types.
It's hard for me not to relate one thread with others, and that's what's happening here. As for Jiggy's comment about how he perceives role players as being more prone to attack than munchkiners, I can't say that's been my experience. It's just a different way of jumping.
When the role players react to a munchkin build, they do have a tendency to say "you're playing the game wrong." When the munchkiners react to a sub-optimal build they don't say "you're playing the game wrong" they tend to say "you're playing the game poorly."
I dunno, but to me "you're playing the game poorly" could be interpreted as more of an attack than "you're playing the game wrong." The first feels like an attack on my competence, the second sounds like an attack on my preferred game style.
I was involved in a long and contentious thread about a feat's usefulness and in the end the argument in favor of the feat boiled down to "if you aren't hitting your opponents on a 3 or higher die roll, your character sucks."
I came away from that thread thinking "is that really how the game is played these days?" Since having the ability to hit a level appropriate opponent on a 3 can only be done by highly optimized builds, I ended up coming away with the feeling that the default expectation for many players these days is that they can't be viable characters unless they hit their target 85% of the time. And to suggest that a character who hits 65% of the time is "viable" does nothing but draw heaps of scorn.
So I still think it goes both ways.
Also it can be frustrating when some further argue that a 7 charisma character should be able to be the party face...again, also argued on these here boards.
Actually, I see no reason why said character shouldn't be declared party face in an all Cha 7 group.
Likewise, the group can take an Int 7 advisor, and a Wis 7 scout for all I care.They just shouldn't expect to get much out of it.
Well yeah, obviously, look what part of the message boards you are posting in right now:
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Rant about accustations of cheesing / cheating / powergaming / munkinism
I expect all kinds of that stuff in this area of the boards.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think letting people dump stats was the Bad Idea that ruined the point buy system. [Re: <10 Cha build.]
NOT saying people are engaging in badwrongfun for USING it, just that the dump stat concept is inherently flawed and -- not ALWAYS, but QUITE FREQUENTLY -- ends up with builds that are (a) munchkinlike and (b) one-trick ponies.
Which can work fine, provided you have one or more partners to cover your weak points... part of the whole reason one adventures in groups.
I just Don't. Dump. Stats.
Which means I'm not as uber, perhaps, as the guy whose character can't hold a meaningful conversation (but can solo most encounters).
But I don't feel that high bonuses in one or two stats are worth the price paid in attribute penalties in half my attributes. Just a personal failing, judging by the eye-rolls from the optimaxed crowd.
Mind you, I do my freakin' best to optimize around my less-than-glowing attributes; I just have a mindset organized around minimizing my flaws, rather than maximizing my advantages.
Mind if I use you as an example? :D
See, this would be a perfect example of a REASONABLE and RESPECTFUL statement of his own preferences. Doesn't bash anyone. Just says "here's how I play". There's maybe a touch of bitterness behind a couple of lines, but all in all, pretty nice. So when I talk about "roleplayers" instigating fights, I am NOT talking about posts like Alitan's.
Conversely, if our friend Alitan here posts a build and asks for advice, and someone sees that he has no stats below 12 and says "you should probably dump your CHA and bring [STAT] up to X", that's also not an attack. (I sometimes get the impression that such statements are counted as attacks by certain parties.)
Here's the kind of thing I'm talking about when I mention "roleplayers" throwing the first punch:
Original Poster: Here's a build for critique. I don't like having dump stats, so here's my array: (lists stats with nothing below 10)
Roll Guy: Your [STAT] isn't really doing anything for this build. If you dump it and raise [OTHERSTAT], you'll be much more effective/survivable.
Third Forumite: Hey, just because he doesn't want to play a drooling idiot with a speech impediment doesn't mean you're better than him. Remember, this is a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game. Maybe he wants to play a CHARACTER with actual DEPTH instead of just a pile of stats.
EDIT: Oh, and this type of example is from the Advice section. I'd be curious to hear how other people see the arguments starting, and in what sections.
In PFSGD and RQ, I see almost exclusively the "roleplayers" being the first to throw a punch. In RQ, a rules question of "Does this rule mean X or Y?" will sometimes be answered with "How dare you suggest X! Stop gaming the system!" In PFSGD, you get basically the same thing, only with campaign-specific rules. Occasionally you'll also get someone asking what PFS is like/if they should start and take a jab at "rollplayers" in the original post. I have never seen an OP take a jab at the "roleplayers". Ever.
I'd have a hard time saying that even those criticisms of "gaming the system" are just coming from "role players". Even a roll player may not want someone exploiting loopholes in the rules.
And, yes, I have seen OPs take jabs at role players.
I think letting people dump stats was the Bad Idea that ruined the point buy system. [Re: <10 Cha build.]
NOT saying people are engaging in badwrongfun for USING it, just that the dump stat concept is inherently flawed and -- not ALWAYS, but QUITE FREQUENTLY -- ends up with builds that are (a) munchkinlike and (b) one-trick ponies.
Which can work fine, provided you have one or more partners to cover your weak points... part of the whole reason one adventures in groups.
I just Don't. Dump. Stats.
Which means I'm not as uber, perhaps, as the guy whose character can't hold a meaningful conversation (but can solo most encounters).
But I don't feel that high bonuses in one or two stats are worth the price paid in attribute penalties in half my attributes. Just a personal failing, judging by the eye-rolls from the optimaxed crowd.
Mind you, I do my freakin' best to optimize around my less-than-glowing attributes; I just have a mindset organized around minimizing my flaws, rather than maximizing my advantages.
I think it really depends on the characters. The more mad your concept the more dumping a stat or two starts looking like a necessity. I dont dump when creating say a pure caster, but if im going to make a monk, or magus, or inquisitor, with point buy it almost becomes neccessary because you need so many different stats to make your character work.
In general though, you are right, most optimization leads towards if not exactly to one trick ponies. In the end thats what optimization means. It is optimizing to do a thing. Be that fighting 2handed, blowing things up with evocations, using a specific combat manuever, or having a crazy high diplomacy. Optimization means taking most or all of your choices to make that thing you plan to do as good as possible within your concept. A 'well rounded' character is by definition not optimized. Neither is wrongbadfun, but you have to be aware of which conversation you are having.
|
|
Also it can be frustrating when some further argue that a 7 charisma character should be able to be the party face...again, also argued on these here boards.Psst... if he invests the skill ranks (and maybe feats) in it, why not?
"Que derail"
Because skill checks do specific things, generally requiring time to do them, and have no effect on inital impression (gm fiat based on circumstance) and have limited utility as written, and by definiton are skills you learn to improve specific task...seriously there was a 1000 post war on this I don't have the link to and don't want to re-live.