Role Players Vs. Tactical Gamers


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 330 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nosreme wrote:

This is not intended to be a flame war in any way, but it seems nearly every group I play PF with seems more interested in carefully adjusting their character to "min-max" and get the highest bonuses possible than why their character is in that locale at all, or where they came from. I routinely get told things such as "Hey if you drop your INT by 2 you can increase your HP with CON" or "This feat combination gives you the best attack bonus". I'm aware of all that, but I chose these attributes, skills, and feats because it fits my character. Not to get an additional +1 to my attack roll.

Secondly, the campaigns I'm in are mostly concerned with killing monsters repeatedly for gold. I honestly don't know why we're in town or what the town even looks like because the GM didn't bother to describe it. Or the enemies we're fighting.

The thing is, none of that appears to be a rarity. Quite the contrary, it's very common from what I've experienced. Is anyone else having the same trouble of finding a group that matches their play style? What suggestions do you have to combat this? Unless I always run, which is tiring at times, this is what I encounter.

*edited for spelling

Welcome to the biggest dilemma in gaming. With the newer generations coming into gaming from video games rather than from books as the older generations did, it has altered that split between the various types of gamers who game for the stories and characters vs the various other types who game for the tactical challenges. Now we have too many tactical gamers and not enough role players. I have fought as best I could to convert any willing tactical people into role players to fill my table but it does seem to be a lost cause most days. You have encountered the only solution I have ever found to the problem... always run the game yourself. And while I play from time to time, the constant tactical focus is tiring. It always drives me back to the GMs seat.

BigNorseWolf wrote:

There is no vs.

There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.

I used to think the same way. The problem is it isn't entirely true. While it IS possible to create a character that is both optimized mechanically AND has an in depth background, place and motivation in the setting, and fully realized personality, It simply means that player and that GM is literally spending twice as much time building that character/game as the person focused on one goal. Also there is a point during character creation where you have to sacrifice appropriate role play choices to make a stronger optimized battler. Once you cross that line it dramatically reduces the sorts of backgrounds you can build from. For example it's hard to play a runaway princess when you have the skills of the worlds most elite assassin... Growing into those skills? Sure that's why we level, but starting out that way isn't good role play. And how are you going to play as a runaway princess when you don't buy the skills and feats she would have? And this is just one example of a wonderfully rich sort of background full of potential role play that you have to set aside when you want to always have everyone start out as the worlds greatest team of ninja warriors. Is it fun to play that team? Sure but it gets us story people bored if that's all you ever do.

The real hit that enforces that VS some of you would like to pretend doesn't exist is game time. While it is rewarding and fun to have a GM willing to spend the load of extra time it takes to fully feature both in their games, including splitting the play time up between role encounters and roll (combat) encounters. But lets face the truth. Most GMs downplay one side and feature the other as a way to simplify and reduce the amount of time vs personal reward they get at the gaming table. A tactical GM for example will have put a great deal of thought and time building challenging combat scenarios to use at the session. This is what he enjoys. His game's story will usually be brief and built to get the characters to those combats as quickly as possible. While the opposite is often true of role play GMs. Who set up elaborate plots and stories for their game. For them the combat part is that part you get past as quickly as possible to embrace more story. They prefer characters to be as close to the generic 15 point buy / elite array builds as possible so that they can use unmodified book monsters and still get that challenge out of combat. This also allows their players to build characters who aren't optimized elite ninja assassin's and still survive in combat. There is a place in the middle where both meet... but it isn't the place most players or game masters want to be. Because it limits their time and options by holding that middle place. Most people prefer one style above the other and their time is often better spent focusing on the type of game they want.


Mark Hoover wrote:
I am GMing a group of older guys. They are not suffering from MMO disorder...they're board gamers.

That is true. The original reason for the old school split between tactical and story was people joining the hobby from books/stories vs joining from the old tactical simulations that gaming grew out of, including board games.


Black_Lantern wrote:
Perhaps your character shouldn't have been in the party? Maybe that type of character isn't meant to be an adventurer? Perhaps you should have talked to your DM about some houserules to make it work out?

Why not? Who decides who should be an adventurer or not?

A lot of role-players like the idea of the 'accidental' or 'everyman' hero. He's like Luke Skywalker or King Arthur, just going about his life and whammo! the fates roll the dice and suddenly he's in the thick of it and just has to do the best he can.

While everyone wants to survive, most people have weaknesses and strengths, merits and flaws. Most people, even the most dedicated professionals, have personal agendas. In short the player may see the situation one way, and see the optimal solution, but the character may well see it another way.

This is where role-playing and optimization separate.

Face_P0lluti0n wrote:

That issue is not inherent to min/maxing. It's a problem with the system.

I have been having a similar issue with optimizing a finesse fighter. The character concept is a nigh-unbeatable expert duelist who uses brains, grace, and discipline rather than brawn. I've yet to find...

It can be done, but like making an effective monk it's not easy. Free Hand Fighter archetype then Duelist works well, and you have to focus feats on maneuvers as well as damage. Barbarian howls and swings his axe, and you disarm him. After some levels of duelist with an agile weapon you can show him who the damage-king is.


Slightly off topic. I am curious what other people's experience with this is. 99.99% of the optimizers I have gamed with focus on combat. What percentage of the optimizers you have gamed with focused on combat as opposed to non-combat?

Scarab Sages

Dabbler wrote:
Black_Lantern wrote:
Perhaps your character shouldn't have been in the party? Maybe that type of character isn't meant to be an adventurer? Perhaps you should have talked to your DM about some houserules to make it work out?

Why not? Who decides who should be an adventurer or not?

A lot of role-players like the idea of the 'accidental' or 'everyman' hero. He's like Luke Skywalker or King Arthur, just going about his life and whammo! the fates roll the dice and suddenly he's in the thick of it and just has to do the best he can.

While everyone wants to survive, most people have weaknesses and strengths, merits and flaws. Most people, even the most dedicated professionals, have personal agendas. In short the player may see the situation one way, and see the optimal solution, but the character may well see it another way.

This is where role-playing and optimization separate.

Face_P0lluti0n wrote:

That issue is not inherent to min/maxing. It's a problem with the system.

I have been having a similar issue with optimizing a finesse fighter. The character concept is a nigh-unbeatable expert duelist who uses brains, grace, and discipline rather than brawn. I've yet to find...

It can be done, but like making an effective monk it's not easy. Free Hand Fighter archetype then Duelist works well, and you have to focus feats on maneuvers as well as damage. Barbarian howls and swings his axe, and you disarm him. After some levels of duelist with an agile weapon you can show him who the damage-king is.

I'm thinking Lore Warden with TWF, using one hand for maneuvers and the other for attacking. When I have improved trip or disarm, winning Init matters WAY more than a few more points of DPR. Assuming Agile Maneuvers, by 3rd level, I think I could end up with a pretty mean Trip modifier, and Trip/Disarm would make me a good team player, considering that a successful trip or disarm means everyone gets an AoO on the recovery.

That's the theory, anyhow.


CourtFool wrote:
Slightly off topic. I am curious what other people's experience with this is. 99.99% of the optimizers I have gamed with focus on combat. What percentage of the optimizers you have gamed with focused on combat as opposed to non-combat?

I had one that focussed on trap-finding. The rest...combat...

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
CourtFool wrote:
Slightly off topic. I am curious what other people's experience with this is. 99.99% of the optimizers I have gamed with focus on combat. What percentage of the optimizers you have gamed with focused on combat as opposed to non-combat?

I played with an optimizer who focused on Stealth and Infiltration.

The 3.5 Tome of Battle is WAY better for this than one might think.

The resulting Rogue/Assassin/Swordsage could get into anywhere on the same plane of existence by the time her level hit the double digits. I ended up having to rule that most important NPCs and rulers have court wizards that make rope tricks or magnificent mansions for the people of import to sleep in, because it was the only remaining way to protect an NPC from getting a Coup de Grace in their sleep.

EDIT: I am guilty of having a Wizard who optimized for stopping combats before they started. I killed a huge combat encounter by using Major Image to make it look like I summoned a Balor. I used Invisibility, Fly, and Gaseous Form to skip a lot of combats the party didn't want to put up with...and that was before I wrote Passwall into my spell book.


CourtFool wrote:
Slightly off topic. I am curious what other people's experience with this is. 99.99% of the optimizers I have gamed with focus on combat. What percentage of the optimizers you have gamed with focused on combat as opposed to non-combat?

Ooo ooo, that's me!

I think fewer people try this angle because non-combat is less rigidly documented. It's comically easy to make great diplomancer type characters, or illusionists and the like who get everything done without any direct confrontation — but those situations are harder to bet on without a lot of trust in the GM.

Combat, on the other hand, is so standardized that many players feel comfortable with an adversarial attitude toward the GM (and vice verse). That's not a good attitude, but you get a lot more security assuming the NPCs are going to try to kill you than getting them to play along with your schemes.

That, and let's be honest, 99.99% of published adventure content assumes that combat is the solution to all the setting's ills.


Face_P0lluti0n wrote:
However, I really wish there were a system where you and I and other intelligent people could pick any character concept and all concepts were equally valid. In such a system, the Role vs. Roll discussion would not have to happen. It's a dichotomy only because we are playing with a rules set which has a flaw where certain character types are better than others. I think that when comparing systems, that should go on the list of reasons to be cautious of such a system.

I wish you luck on this. I don't think such a system is truly possible. But if you find one be sure to mention it.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

CourtFool wrote:
Slightly off topic. I am curious what other people's experience with this is. 99.99% of the optimizers I have gamed with focus on combat. What percentage of the optimizers you have gamed with focused on combat as opposed to non-combat?

My semi-retired PFS character was a skillmonkey optimized for getting faction mission PA. Combat effectiveness was a secondary concern. But yeah, I'd agree with your experience.

Scarab Sages

Evil Lincoln wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Slightly off topic. I am curious what other people's experience with this is. 99.99% of the optimizers I have gamed with focus on combat. What percentage of the optimizers you have gamed with focused on combat as opposed to non-combat?

Ooo ooo, that's me!

I think fewer people try this angle because non-combat is less rigidly documented. It's actually comically easy to make great diplomancer type characters, or illusionists and the like who get everything done without any direct confrontation — but those situations are harder to bet on without a lot of trust in the GM.

Combat, on the other hand, is so standardized that many players feel comfortable with an adversarial attitude toward the GM (and vice verse). That's not a good attitude, but you get a lot more security assuming the NPCs are going to try to kill you than getting them to play along with your schemes.

That, and let's be honest, 99.99% of published adventure content assumes that combat is the solution to all the setting's ills.

If I could get away with it, all of my characters would be Illusionists. The only time I won't play a tricky, optimized for skipping combat character is in organized play games where it's not polite to go too far off the rails.


Face_P0lluti0n wrote:
If I could get away with it, all of my characters would be Illusionists. The only time I won't play a tricky, optimized for skipping combat character is in organized play games where it's not polite to go too far off the rails.

And that's only right! Because so much of the content is structured around combat, sometimes rolling a pacifist problem solver is downright disruptive, and difficult to GM for. I love those characters, but I always check with a GM I trust first.


Aranna wrote:
Face_P0lluti0n wrote:
However, I really wish there were a system where you and I and other intelligent people could pick any character concept and all concepts were equally valid. In such a system, the Role vs. Roll discussion would not have to happen. It's a dichotomy only because we are playing with a rules set which has a flaw where certain character types are better than others. I think that when comparing systems, that should go on the list of reasons to be cautious of such a system.
I wish you luck on this. I don't think such a system is truly possible. But if you find one be sure to mention it.

Hero system.

Character creation is actually designed around min/maxing, and the powers are generic in effect that you can put whatever "special effect" (i.e. fluff) on them that you like. Characters of the same point-buy will be pretty much equivalent.

That said, Hero System itself is very much optimized for superhero games (i.e. Champions), and is not nearly as good for other genres.

Scarab Sages

Haladir wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Face_P0lluti0n wrote:
However, I really wish there were a system where you and I and other intelligent people could pick any character concept and all concepts were equally valid. In such a system, the Role vs. Roll discussion would not have to happen. It's a dichotomy only because we are playing with a rules set which has a flaw where certain character types are better than others. I think that when comparing systems, that should go on the list of reasons to be cautious of such a system.
I wish you luck on this. I don't think such a system is truly possible. But if you find one be sure to mention it.

Hero system.

Character creation is actually designed around min/maxing, and the powers are generic in effect that you can put whatever "special effect" (i.e. fluff) on them that you like. Characters of the same point-buy will be pretty much equivalent.

That said, Hero System itself is very much optimized for superhero games (i.e. Champions), and is not nearly as good for other genres.

That's actually rather different than what I have heard in the past - specifically, that Hero is better at covering the whole mundane-to-demigod scale than GURPS is.

The power building still looks pretty involved though.


Haladir wrote:
Hero system.

As much as I love Hero, I disagree. It does allow far more flexibility than Pathfinder. However, it still favors certain builds over others.

I believe PDQ comes close to allowing any build to be equally valid. Truth & Justice (built on PDQ) claims that you can play Batman and Superman in the same system and be balanced. Of course, it relies heavily on GM adjucation.


Face_P0lluti0n wrote:
That's actually rather different than what I have heard in the past - specifically, that Hero is better at covering the whole mundane-to-demigod scale than GURPS is.

In my humble opinion, G.U.R.P.S. handles 'gritty' campaigns better, but really starts to break at high powered campaigns. One example is, because defense is not really an opposable roll, extreme Dodge values make it impossible to hit no matter how good you are.

Both systems are solid.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
CourtFool wrote:
Face_P0lluti0n wrote:
That's actually rather different than what I have heard in the past - specifically, that Hero is better at covering the whole mundane-to-demigod scale than GURPS is.

In my humble opinion, G.U.R.P.S. handles 'gritty' campaigns better, but really starts to break at high powered campaigns. One example is, because defense is not really an opposable roll, extreme Dodge values make it impossible to hit no matter how good you are.

Both systems are solid.

This.

GURPS (which is my system of choice) is a superior low-powered game.

Hero Systems is a superior high-powered game.

IMO, of course, but I do believe it's also pretty much conventional wisdom.

(GURPS Supers, for instance, is so completely broken. Especially the first version.)

Scarab Sages

Evil Lincoln wrote:
CourtFool wrote:
Slightly off topic. I am curious what other people's experience with this is. 99.99% of the optimizers I have gamed with focus on combat. What percentage of the optimizers you have gamed with focused on combat as opposed to non-combat?

Ooo ooo, that's me!

I think fewer people try this angle because non-combat is less rigidly documented. It's comically easy to make great diplomancer type characters, or illusionists and the like who get everything done without any direct confrontation — but those situations are harder to bet on without a lot of trust in the GM.

Combat, on the other hand, is so standardized that many players feel comfortable with an adversarial attitude toward the GM (and vice verse). That's not a good attitude, but you get a lot more security assuming the NPCs are going to try to kill you than getting them to play along with your schemes.

That, and let's be honest, 99.99% of published adventure content assumes that combat is the solution to all the setting's ills.

My current Serpent Skull character is level 5 with a +23 Perception modifier, and defaults Take 10 which can reliably find invisible wizards. I expect that number to continue to rise drastically (Alertness is coming up at 7th level).

My brother once had a 3.5 character with Diplomacy far in excess of +20, so he routinely prevented encounters before they started (even with the -10 for rushing).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
shadowmage75 wrote:
I think this is fallout from the MMO genre, wherein the storyline inevitably gets dumped by the side as a player spends hours repeating dungeons and quests to obtain loot or armor. They've kinda upped the stakes by adding achievements, but again, only important to completists, not very effective for a roleplaying factor.

Given that the "kick in the door style" of play was in the 3E DMG before WoW ever came about, methinks not. This game began as a tactical miniatures game. Blaming MMOs only shows ignorance and insults people who play MMOs (there are actually people who RP using MMOs).


My group discourages advising tactics to other players during combat, but we tend to let single sentence stuff slide. You should practice suggesting tactics in character. Instead of "will you flank it for me" say "move around it, let's get it surrounded!" That's a pretty simple example, but it gets complicated when you try to convey that you want a fire resistance spell cast on your fighter or that a five foot step to a specific space will force the enemy caster to cast defensively.

But, for the larger picture, eventually you will need to have a serious talk at the table about what each person wants out if the game.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Dabbler wrote:
Why not? Who decides who should be an adventurer or not?

Natural selection.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

There is no vs.

There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.

Very true Norsewolf. Sadly, most people I have found have not mastered that yet. But in my post, I was referring to those that cannot do both. You can powergame your character as long as you can role-play him. But very often, making a role-play choice conflicts with a tactical decision, and then we see if the player is a good role-player or not.

Also, if a player spends more time tweaking his character to get a +1, or flipping through the rules to find loopholes or amazing combos than he does working on his character's background, then I'd say there's the problem. But how many players do you know that do not do that? Not many for me.


Dabbler wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

There is no vs.

There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.

This is so very true.

I think, Nosreme, that you just found a group that suck at RP. That's OK, though - put on the DM's mantle and show them!

Dabbler, I am so frustrated that I have nearly given up DMing. The reason? I have spent countless hours on carefully planned stories only to have them ruined by gamers that either A)don't appreciate them B) don't role-play, and/or C) quit them before they get finished. Last year I was running a Pathfinder take on Ravenloft. Great story, plenty of action and role-playing, and overall a fun adventure. I described everything in detail, creating a spooky setting, and the players simply did not get it. They didn't heed any warnings, they didn't really want to talk to the townsfolk, every story lead they found was laid out in plain sight for them to find or they wouldn't find them on their own. It just gets old after a while.

Scarab Sages

Nosreme wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

There is no vs.

There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.

Very true Norsewolf. Sadly, most people I have found have not mastered that yet. But in my post, I was referring to those that cannot do both. You can powergame your character as long as you can role-play him. But very often, making a role-play choice conflicts with a tactical decision, and then we see if the player is a good role-player or not.

Also, if a player spends more time tweaking his character to get a +1, or flipping through the rules to find loopholes or amazing combos than he does working on his character's background, then I'd say there's the problem. But how many players do you know that do not do that? Not many for me.

My group basically functions with a gentleman's agreement of "You can optimize however you wish as long as you stay in-concept". Even with that restriction, there are some pretty powerful characters that come out of these games, though it does put a stop on people playing theorycrafted max-DPR Falchion Barbs. With all of the expansion books, it's usually possible to make a character of almost any concept good enough to be effective and contribute to the party.

Some concepts have more effective builds behind them, but I'm hard pressed to think of a concept that I cannot somehow build to be good enough to survive the average PFS scenario.


Nosreme wrote:

Very true Norsewolf. Sadly, most people I have found have not mastered that yet. But in my post, I was referring to those that cannot do both. You can powergame your character as long as you can role-play him. But very often, making a role-play choice conflicts with a tactical decision, and then we see if the player is a good role-player or not.

Also, if a player spends more time tweaking his character to get a +1, or flipping through the rules to find loopholes or amazing combos than he does working on his character's background, then I'd say there's the problem. But how many players do you know that do not do that? Not many for me.

*Shrug* developing significant background is hard. After all the average human is a 15 year old who is mostly incompetent, somewhere along the lines of an apprentice or possibly a journeyman crafter who got tossed out on his arse.

Essentially IMO starting at level 1 ruins the development of huge backstory. Sure I could write out how he ate dinner consisting of gruel because he's poor and his master lashed him for failing to buy more toadstool on time but he can't have done anything epic because if he did why is he still so useless now?

Also more importantly nothing the reason one optimizes for combat is because a character who I create who is completely optimized in combat is almost always just as good at making an eloquent speech because DM's want ME the player to make a speech instead of just rolling.

So I can have a 3 in charisma but it doesn't matter because nobody wants the roll they want me to play the role. But in combat noone cares about how I "let loose a furious series of blows subtly pushing the opponent's defense into the right position for my last strike to pierce through his throat killing him instantly" they require that I roll and see what happens.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Why not? Who decides who should be an adventurer or not?
Natural selection.

Another way of saying that would be, "the enemy."


gnomersy wrote:


*Shrug* developing significant background is hard. After all the average human is a 15 year old who is mostly incompetent, somewhere along the lines of an apprentice or possibly a journeyman crafter who got tossed out on his arse.

Backstories don't have to be novels in themselves ... they just have to establish where the person comes from, what their personality is like, and how they acquired the skills they acquired.

gnomersy wrote:

Also more importantly nothing the reason one optimizes for combat is because a character who I create who is completely optimized in combat is almost always just as good at making an eloquent speech because DM's want ME the player to make a speech instead of just rolling.

So I can have a 3 in charisma but it doesn't matter because nobody wants the roll they want me to play the role. But in combat noone cares about how I "let loose a furious series of blows subtly pushing the opponent's defense into the right position for my last strike to pierce through his throat killing him instantly" they require that I roll and see what happens.

I'm so sorry that your DM doesn't also make you roll your diplomacy / intimidate / etc score when doing social engagements. I'm also very sorry that your DM doesn't allow creative role-play to enhance the combat experience. I think both of those failures are indications of a DM who doesn't quite know what they're doing yet. Everything should be done to enhance the immersion into the story, but die rolls should always be enforced ( with story based adjustments of course ) in order to keep the story "random" and exciting. In the cases where I am the DM in games, I regularly give on-the-fly adjustments to rolls of all kinds based on the role play during the event.


Whiskey Jack wrote:

Kydeem, great summary of the possible groupings, but my experience has been that most folks fall into either B or C with very, very few in D.

I optimize when I can, but I won't optimize if it (the choice of feats/attributes/abilities/etc.) doesn't fit my initial character concept. I think a lot of people optimize first, then stick a facade of a character concept over the top of it.

This. Although BNW makes a good point, this is the error in his logic. It's not that the players are bad, it's just that D&D and PF do not encourage the player to make RP choices over combat optimization. In other words, when combat optimization clashes with my character concept, guess which one gets changed first. Not the optimization. There should be at least some encouragement to focus on the character, which I feel PF is missing.


gnomersy wrote:
Nosreme wrote:

Very true Norsewolf. Sadly, most people I have found have not mastered that yet. But in my post, I was referring to those that cannot do both. You can powergame your character as long as you can role-play him. But very often, making a role-play choice conflicts with a tactical decision, and then we see if the player is a good role-player or not.

Also, if a player spends more time tweaking his character to get a +1, or flipping through the rules to find loopholes or amazing combos than he does working on his character's background, then I'd say there's the problem. But how many players do you know that do not do that? Not many for me.

*Shrug* developing significant background is hard. After all the average human is a 15 year old who is mostly incompetent, somewhere along the lines of an apprentice or possibly a journeyman crafter who got tossed out on his arse.

Essentially IMO starting at level 1 ruins the development of huge backstory. Sure I could write out how he ate dinner consisting of gruel because he's poor and his master lashed him for failing to buy more toadstool on time but he can't have done anything epic because if he did why is he still so useless now?

Good characters don't require huge backstories. I tend to frown on them, because, as you suggest, I want the character's story to be what he does in the game, not how cool his past is. Though if you can build some hooks in for the GM to work with, that's good. It doesn't have to be complex.

For me the concept usually comes as an image or an attitude not so much a history. That then gels in my head while I try to come up with stats to fit it. It usually only takes a few minutes to actually write up the character background/goals but that's because I've had them in the back of my mind the whole time I've been working on the crunch.


Face_P0lluti0n wrote:


I'm not saying you're a dope. Please do not interpret anything I have said as an attack on you because it's not meant to be.

Sorry Face_P0lluti0n, didn't mean to come off as angry or offended, I wasn't in the slightest :) Really enjoying the discussion, actually. By way of explanation, it was about 2.30am here when I posted that, my self-editorial abilities were probably not at the peak...


Considering what has been said on this, I want to add something in. I think the division typically exists, and where this is seen is not at character gen, where one reveals how well you know the system and how strong and effective a character you make. The division between rpers and tac/power gamers "look at my beefy stats and my 20+ dex, what dex do you have?" comes when you compare how they play the game and what they do. The first one, the roleplayer will be less concerned with items, yeah they trust they will grow with power as they level and accomplish things in the world. They become involved with npcs, solve mysteries or move along plots. They actually act in character and hopefully entertain, at the very least give the game rp authenticity, they may not be liked, but they are engaged.

The second type are those obsessed with magic items or special abilities. They are concerned with combat sure, using their special abilities absolutely, but their rp focus is lower. When given free time, they will shop for magic items, and busily fill out their character sheet with the new bonuses and list the stuff they created or bought down with eagerness.

You only have a limited time to game, and some people focus on making their stats higher, shopping, crafting instead of interacting with the world and moving the story or adventure along/making friendships or pursuing rivalries. Where this becomes most stark is when the party is divided between these types. Then it becomes clear for a dm and the players.


mem0ri wrote:


Backstories don't have to be novels in themselves ... they just have to establish where the person comes from, what their personality is like, and how they acquired the skills they acquired.

I'm so sorry that your DM doesn't also make you roll your diplomacy / intimidate / etc score when doing social engagements. I'm also very sorry that your DM doesn't allow creative role-play to enhance the combat experience. I think both of those failures are indications of a DM who doesn't quite know what they're doing yet. Everything should be done to enhance the immersion into the story, but die rolls should always be enforced ( with story based adjustments of course ) in order to keep the story "random" and exciting. In the cases where I am the DM in games, I regularly give on-the-fly adjustments to rolls of all kinds based on the role play during the event.

Ah well in that case I'd say that making a reasonable backstory is easier than making an optimized character which is why optimizing takes longer.

As for the diplomacy he allows rolls but if you completely fail to make a good speech you fail regardless of the roll and if you make a great speech then your DC is so low that the roll hardly matters as long as you have any points in the skill.

Besides I could hardly call it roleplay if your story amounts to

"A gang of desperate bandits comes out of the mountains ready to murder and plunder they see your horses and full belt pouches and begin forming up for battle"

"I want to convince them they don't want to attack us I roll 20+25 I get a 45 to diplomacy"

"You succeed the bandits ignore their desperation and wander back into the hills"


Nosreme wrote:
Dabbler, I am so frustrated that I have nearly given up DMing. The reason? I have spent countless hours on carefully planned stories only to have them ruined by gamers that either A)don't appreciate them B) don't role-play, and/or C) quit them before they get finished. Last year I was running a Pathfinder take on Ravenloft. Great story, plenty of action and role-playing, and overall a fun adventure. I described everything in detail, creating a spooky setting, and the players simply did not get it. They didn't heed any warnings, they didn't really want to talk to the townsfolk, every story lead they found was laid out in plain sight for them to find or they wouldn't find them on their own. It just gets old after a while.

Sounds like, as a DM, you have an issue with 'connecting' with your players. One of the primary jobs of a DM, just like a good manager, is to find what motivates a player and give them motivation to do the work you want them to do. Remember that Pathfinder/DnD/etc is a collaborative story ... not a DM story in which the players exist.

If you have certain players who care only about combat ... reward them with things that help in combat when they interact with townspeople. "It's dangerous to go alone, take this ... " (give healing potion)

If you have players who can't see a plot hook despite the big glowy shiny sign that says "plot hook here", start making the NPCs go to the characters. Usually, the players immediately start recognizing a certain NPC as a "quest giver" so they will then return and speak to them voluntarily.

You have to adjust to your players ... and in return encourage them to adjust to you. It works. I've been doing it for 20 years.


Nosreme wrote:
Whiskey Jack wrote:

Kydeem, great summary of the possible groupings, but my experience has been that most folks fall into either B or C with very, very few in D.

I optimize when I can, but I won't optimize if it (the choice of feats/attributes/abilities/etc.) doesn't fit my initial character concept. I think a lot of people optimize first, then stick a facade of a character concept over the top of it.

This. Although BNW makes a good point, this is the error in his logic. It's not that the players are bad, it's just that D&D and PF do not encourage the player to make RP choices over combat optimization. In other words, when combat optimization clashes with my character concept, guess which one gets changed first. Not the optimization. There should be at least some encouragement to focus on the character, which I feel PF is missing.

Exactly.

It's quite possible to start with the mechanical optimization and then build a good character around that, not just a facade. I suspect that those who work that way react strongly when others claim the goals are in conflict because a) they don't see it that way and b) it seems like an accusation that they aren't roleplaying.

For those who start with a character-based concept, whether that's a personality, a backstory or just an image, they do seem in conflict. You can apply optimization to any concept of course, and being better at it helps, but if you start with a concept, then there may well come a point where the effective mechanical improvements move away from the idea. This doesn't happen the other way around, because you're wrapping the malleable character around the rules.
The number of times I've looked at traits or regional feats and thought, mechanically that's what he needs, but that's not what happened it him or that's not where he's from.

I also suspect some of the confusion is a matter of terminology. Roleplay vs optimization is poor usage. Roleplay isn't really done during character creation, so a lot of conflict is swept away when it's really still an issue. I've been using concept here, but that's not really good either. A mechanics based concept is still a concept.

Maybe something like character-first vs mechanics-first?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
shadowmage75 wrote:
I think this is fallout from the MMO genre, wherein the storyline inevitably gets dumped by the side as a player spends hours repeating dungeons and quests to obtain loot or armor. They've kinda upped the stakes by adding achievements, but again, only important to completists, not very effective for a roleplaying factor.
Given that the "kick in the door style" of play was in the 3E DMG before WoW ever came about, methinks not. This game began as a tactical miniatures game. Blaming MMOs only shows ignorance and insults people who play MMOs (there are actually people who RP using MMOs).

I don't think it does Ashiel. Although this style of gaming came about with Basic D&D in the 70s, which I played (even before that!), MMOs simply carried the torch for any number of reasons. So for younger gamers, this could be the first example of role-playing they're getting. So I feel it's fair and valid to blame MMOs as well as D&D for this style of gaming. Neither have been good leaders in the role-playing department.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
gnomersy wrote:
Essentially IMO starting at level 1 ruins the development of huge backstory. Sure I could write out how he ate dinner consisting of gruel because he's poor and his master lashed him for failing to buy more toadstool on time but he can't have done anything epic because if he did why is he still so useless now?

Which is why when I write a character backstory, invariably half of it is taken up with talking about the character's family.


gnomersy wrote:


*Shrug* developing significant background is hard. After all the average human is a 15 year old who is mostly incompetent, somewhere along the lines of an apprentice or possibly a journeyman crafter who got tossed out on his arse.

Essentially IMO starting at level 1 ruins the development of huge backstory. Sure I could write out how he ate dinner consisting of gruel because he's poor and his master lashed him for failing to buy more toadstool on time but he can't have done anything epic because if he did why is he still so useless now?

Sorry, maybe I should have clarified that. I'm not suggesting you sit down and write a novel about your character (although if you read a few you may gather some great ideas). But rather, some sort of background information and a personality even just in your head would be a great start.

For example, my last character was a bard that had been abused growing up, so he began to write stories to escape. Eventually running away from his drunken, angry father, he took to a life on the streets, where he learned some survival skills, and a musical instrument he stole. Eventually, as an adult, he was an outgoing charismatic leader, rebounding from the childhood trauma perhaps. As far as the game went, I constantly was writing notes on a pad of paper, and at certain breaks/intervals would read aloud events that had just transpired... often in amusing ways. Best of all, whatever the circumstance, my character was always the star of the scene, saving the baby from the orc mob (even if it was actually the brave fighter while I hid behind a hay cart), for example. Was he effective in combat? Not terribly. Was he a fun and memorable character to play? You bet! The party loved him. And how much time did I spent writing that background and concept? Not very much, truth be told. But more than anyone else at the table, I'll wager.


gnomersy wrote:
mem0ri wrote:


Backstories don't have to be novels in themselves ... they just have to establish where the person comes from, what their personality is like, and how they acquired the skills they acquired.

I'm so sorry that your DM doesn't also make you roll your diplomacy / intimidate / etc score when doing social engagements. I'm also very sorry that your DM doesn't allow creative role-play to enhance the combat experience. I think both of those failures are indications of a DM who doesn't quite know what they're doing yet. Everything should be done to enhance the immersion into the story, but die rolls should always be enforced ( with story based adjustments of course ) in order to keep the story "random" and exciting. In the cases where I am the DM in games, I regularly give on-the-fly adjustments to rolls of all kinds based on the role play during the event.

Ah well in that case I'd say that making a reasonable backstory is easier than making an optimized character which is why optimizing takes longer.

As for the diplomacy he allows rolls but if you completely fail to make a good speech you fail regardless of the roll and if you make a great speech then your DC is so low that the roll hardly matters as long as you have any points in the skill.

Besides I could hardly call it roleplay if your story amounts to

"A gang of desperate bandits comes out of the mountains ready to murder and plunder they see your horses and full belt pouches and begin forming up for battle"

"I want to convince them they don't want to attack us I roll 20+25 I get a 45 to diplomacy"

"You succeed the bandits ignore their desperation and wander back into the hills"

That certainly is role-playing, especially if you acted that scene out a bit. Did you talk to the bandits or did you just roll dice and they left? If the latter, then therein lies your problem, and welcome to my gaming world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
mem0ri wrote:
Nosreme wrote:
Dabbler, I am so frustrated that I have nearly given up DMing. The reason? I have spent countless hours on carefully planned stories only to have them ruined by gamers that either A)don't appreciate them B) don't role-play, and/or C) quit them before they get finished. Last year I was running a Pathfinder take on Ravenloft. Great story, plenty of action and role-playing, and overall a fun adventure. I described everything in detail, creating a spooky setting, and the players simply did not get it. They didn't heed any warnings, they didn't really want to talk to the townsfolk, every story lead they found was laid out in plain sight for them to find or they wouldn't find them on their own. It just gets old after a while.

Sounds like, as a DM, you have an issue with 'connecting' with your players. One of the primary jobs of a DM, just like a good manager, is to find what motivates a player and give them motivation to do the work you want them to do. Remember that Pathfinder/DnD/etc is a collaborative story ... not a DM story in which the players exist.

If you have certain players who care only about combat ... reward them with things that help in combat when they interact with townspeople. "It's dangerous to go alone, take this ... " (give healing potion)

If you have players who can't see a plot hook despite the big glowy shiny sign that says "plot hook here", start making the NPCs go to the characters. Usually, the players immediately start recognizing a certain NPC as a "quest giver" so they will then return and speak to them voluntarily.

You have to adjust to your players ... and in return encourage them to adjust to you. It works. I've been doing it for 20 years.

No you are absolutely right. I have been at it for longer than that. The problem is, the older I get, the less I want to "train" new groups of players constantly. Maybe I'm just getting lazy. :-)

I usually ask players what type of campaign they want - combat heavy, storylined, lots of role-playing, fully of moral dilemmas or puzzles, etc.


thejeff wrote:


I also suspect some of the confusion is a matter of terminology. Roleplay vs optimization is poor usage. Roleplay isn't really done during character creation, so a...

Yeah the title is rather misleading, I apologize.


Nosreme wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I also suspect some of the confusion is a matter of terminology. Roleplay vs optimization is poor usage. Roleplay isn't really done during character creation, so a...
Yeah the title is rather misleading, I apologize.

Not your fault. I've seen it before.

I think the problem is there isn't really accepted terminology for the concept.


Nosreme wrote:
...the older I get, the less I want to "train" new groups of players constantly. Maybe I'm just getting lazy. :-)

I hear you there. In the end ... I can only wish you luck.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Nosreme wrote:
thejeff wrote:


I also suspect some of the confusion is a matter of terminology. Roleplay vs optimization is poor usage. Roleplay isn't really done during character creation, so a...
Yeah the title is rather misleading, I apologize.

I'll be honest, the thread title reminded me of Treantmonk's "I can't optimize, I have a moustache" thread. A lot. I've been fighting the urge to link to it every time I've refreshed the boards.


Nosreme wrote:
gnomersy wrote:


*Shrug* developing significant background is hard. After all the average human is a 15 year old who is mostly incompetent, somewhere along the lines of an apprentice or possibly a journeyman crafter who got tossed out on his arse.

Essentially IMO starting at level 1 ruins the development of huge backstory. Sure I could write out how he ate dinner consisting of gruel because he's poor and his master lashed him for failing to buy more toadstool on time but he can't have done anything epic because if he did why is he still so useless now?

Sorry, maybe I should have clarified that. I'm not suggesting you sit down and write a novel about your character (although if you read a few you may gather some great ideas). But rather, some sort of background information and a personality even just in your head would be a great start.

For example, my last character was a bard that had been abused growing up, so he began to write stories to escape. Eventually running away from his drunken, angry father, he took to a life on the streets, where he learned some survival skills, and a musical instrument he stole. Eventually, as an adult, he was an outgoing charismatic leader, rebounding from the childhood trauma perhaps. As far as the game went, I constantly was writing notes on a pad of paper, and at certain breaks/intervals would read aloud events that had just transpired... often in amusing ways. Best of all, whatever the circumstance, my character was always the star of the scene, saving the baby from the orc mob (even if it was actually the brave fighter while I hid behind a hay cart), for example. Was he effective in combat? Not terribly. Was he a fun and memorable character to play? You bet! The party loved him. And how much time did I spent writing that background and concept? Not very much, truth be told. But more than anyone else at the table, I'll wager.

Did he have the bullied trait?

Sounds fun though.


Nosreme wrote:


That certainly is role-playing, especially if you acted that scene out a bit. Did you talk to the bandits or did you just roll dice and they left? If the latter, then therein lies your problem, and welcome to my gaming world.

Well that's the thing though if you act it out properly it doesn't matter how optimized/suboptimal your character is because you're roleplaying but if you let the dice speak for you then it doesn't matter how suboptimal your character is because the roleplaying still isn't happening.

As an aside do you roll first then act or act first then roll? Because I can see how you could do either, say you roll well then you act it out well but if you roll poorly you intentionally make a poorer argument. But then there's acting first then rolling, in which case you simply make the best argument possible which results in a lower DC even if your roll is shoddy which should indicate you did a poor job.


gnomersy wrote:


So I can have a 3 in charisma but it doesn't matter because nobody wants the roll they want me to play the role. But in combat noone cares about how I "let loose a furious series of blows subtly pushing the opponent's defense into the right position for my last strike to pierce through his throat killing him instantly" they require that I roll and see what happens.

But surely if you had a 3 in Cha (and presumably not much in Dip/Bluff/Int) and your DM wants you to roleplay it rather than roll, you would actually depict your character as if they had a Cha:3 and no Diplomacy?

Or is that just me?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Serisan wrote:


I'll be honest, the thread title reminded me of Treantmonk's "I can't optimize, I have a moustache" thread. A lot. I've been fighting the urge to link to it every time I've refreshed the boards.

Well, I don't have a moustache, so I'm in the clear... :)

But seriously, have you never had the dilemma where you wanted your character to be a certain idea, theme, style, personality, whatever, but you also wanted to optimise - and the two wants required different choices? I'll refer you to my first post on this thread about my pugilist bard - not optimal, but still fun, and based on my original concept rather than optimal effectiveness.

Now I'm not saying there's anything wrong with choosing 'effective' over 'original concept', but it can introduce dilemmas for a GM, and if the GM ain't up to the task, then those issues become obvious.

In a campaign a long time ago, I fell into that trap as the GM. The party only had one power gamer, who was also a good actor/roleplayer - but his priority was combat effectiveness. All well and good.

Except at that point in my GMing career, I didn't know how to make other things attractive to the other players that weren't focusing on combat effectiveness. So through the course of that campaign, everyone became a power gamer, or left the campaign early, discouraged with being so ineffective.

Now, that's my fault, as the GM. I realise now I didn't offer enough options outside of combat - I too caught up in the power gamer's heady rush of combat glory. As such, the campaign ended up dithering out, as the story had completely dwindled into insignificance.

Again, that wasn't Mr Power Gamer's fault - as I said, he was also an excellent roleplayer. It was my fault. But this can be an issue with a GM that isn't aware of these sort of issues before they happen. I see now that I just needed to plan things that could specifically let the other characters shine as well.

I still play with Mr Power Gamer, and he's great. The difference between him and me, is that he'll think of a functional concept and I'll think of a narrative concept.

We both make cool characters, just in different ways.


Beware making a brilliant combatant, and then having to actually rp and try to influence an npc and change a course of action.

It gets ugly.


littlehewy wrote:

But surely if you had a 3 in Cha (and presumably not much in Dip/Bluff/Int) and your DM wants you to roleplay it rather than roll, you would actually depict your character as if they had a Cha:3 and no Diplomacy?

Or is that just me?

I agree, but having made that same argument on the forums regarding the application of player intelligence to in game situations I've learned that many people do not believe that proper roleplaying requires downplaying your bad abilities.

At least not as long as you assume there isn't some double standard which allows them for intelligence type checks but not for charisma type ones.


gnomersy wrote:


I agree, but having made that same argument on the forums regarding the application of player intelligence to in game situations I've learned that many people do not believe that proper roleplaying requires downplaying your bad abilities.

At least not as long as you assume there isn't some double standard which allows them for intelligence type checks but not for charisma type ones.

Huh? But why would they put 3 in Int or Cha but not have that part of their concept...?

Oh yeah, they're just dump statting. Has nothing to do with their character concept.

;)

51 to 100 of 330 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Role Players Vs. Tactical Gamers All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.