Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Role Players Vs. Tactical Gamers


Gamer Talk

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

CourtFool wrote:
Apparently the Narrative crowd isn't the only one capable of telling people they are having BadWrongFun.

I think it's funny that your post, which specifically suggested intentionally taking suboptimal choices was ignored in favor of mine. Whee!

I think I mentioned earlier that one optimizer can lead a group down the path of escalationism...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jal Dorak wrote:
I think I mentioned earlier that one optimizer can lead a group down the path of escalationism...

Yes. And Zark mentioned that one "I'll make my character as weak as I want" player can lead to a TPK.

The better approach? It depends on what the group wants, not on what you as an individual want. If the other players have rolled up Larry, Curly, and Moe for the Pie-in-the-Face Adventure Path, you have no business playing Commando. Equally, if the other players have rolled up an elite hunter-killer team for the Age of Worms, you have no business showing up with your Str- and Dex-dumped fighter with Skill Focus: Comedy as your 1st feat.


Digitalelf wrote:
Zark wrote:
You might as well play Monopoly, Earth dawn, D&D 2:nd edition, Poker or Risk.
As a 2nd edition DM (who played 2nd edition "back in the day" AND runs a current 2nd edition game), I can assure you that there is nothing nonchalant about the system any more than Pathfinder can be (and it certainly does not belong lumped together with Monopoly, Poker, or Risk)....

I never claimed or implied the system is nonchalant. Some of the best, if not the best, times in my gaming years have been when I played Erath dawn.

Osirion

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
I think I mentioned earlier that one optimizer can lead a group down the path of escalationism...

Yes. And Zark mentioned that one "I'll make my character as weak as I want" player can lead to a TPK.

The better approach? It depends on what the group wants, not on what you as an individual want. If the other players have rolled up Larry, Curly, and Moe for the Pie-in-the-Face Adventure Path, you have no business playing Commando. Equally, if the other players have rolled up an elite hunter-killer team for the Age of Worms, you have no business showing up with your Str- and Dex-dumped fighter with Skill Focus: Comedy as your 1st feat.

Jal Dorak wrote:
It all comes down to what you and your group find important.

We agree, Kirth. I just took issue with Zark's broad statement that if you are not optimizing you are a bad person/gamer and might as well play tiddlywinks. He made this comment after I suggested the above quote.

The reason I mentioned escalation is because it is precisely Zark's attitude towards character creation that can disrupt average character builds.

EDIT: And by no means am I advocating intentionally weak characters, especially in some games, I'm just suggesting that sometimes it might be more desirable to just pick some basic options and roll with it.


Kthulhu wrote:

stuff

Just because I don't agree, don't mean I'm Hostile. Quoting someone out of context can prove anything. Me, I don't like the gaming style or the attitude, but if others are fine then fine.

And BTW, playing a game not "bogged down in their own mechanics is perfectly fine. I never claimed anyone should "spend hours on character creation". This is a game with rules and game mechanics if you want to ignore them, fine, but don't say that tactical gaming and role playing is mutually exclusive without some solid argument.

Ignoring mechanics, not bothering with rules or the game, not caring about your if character dies or lives, or how that might affect the game and other players, and at the same grasp having a go at role players vs. tactical gamers from a Pathfinder perspective (or a D&D or earth Dawn perspective) strikes at coming close to trolling.

My point is that tactical gaming and role playing isn't mutually exclusive, but if you don't care for any of them and only care for enjoying the ride, then the ride can be anything. My experience is that role players and tactical players - maybe role players more - do care if their character lives or dies.

I'm not saying Jal Dorak is a jerk or that his/her style of playing is universally wrong or bad.
I'm however saying that "I" - as in me personally - don't like it. I do however claim (if have I read him/her correct) if you don't care about the game, the mechanics AND your character, then I'm not sure what's makes it Pathfinder and not earth dawn or 2nd edition.

As cranewings put it: " The basic classes given in the book, taken in combination with the obvious choices, are pretty decent."
How much time you want to spend on creating your character from a role playing aspect AND a mechanical aspect is a matter of taste and gaming style. Ignoring mechanical aspect and calling people 'power gamers' just because they do spend some time isn't fair.

CourtFool wrote:
Apparently the Narrative crowd isn't the only one capable of telling people they are having BadWrongFun.

I never did claim Jal Dorak is having BadWrongFun. Please reread my post. But it is perhaps a good thing if I have even out the statistics ;-)


Jal Dorak wrote:
just took issue with Zark's broad statement that if you are not optimizing you are a bad person/gamer and might as well play tiddlywinks.

I never stated such a thing.

edit:
Jal Dorak wrote:


The reason I mentioned escalation is because it is precisely Zark's attitude towards character creation that can disrupt average character builds.

Fine to have a fighter with char 12 is an "attitude towards character creation that can disrupt average character builds"?


Jal Dorak wrote:
I just took issue with Zark's broad statement that if you are not optimizing you are a bad person/gamer and might as well play tiddlywinks.

Admittedly, some game systems are better-suited to some types of gaming.

  • If I want deep story immersion and/or focus on personality, and feel that mechanics and dice rolls will just get in the way, Amber Diceless and Dying Earth are far superior choices to Pathfinder.
  • If I want a highly-optimized "hard mode" tactical game with intelligent, experienced players, Pathfinder won't cut it past very low levels due to all the system bugs retained from 3rd edition; you'd be better off using Frank and K's Tome modifications for 3.5.
  • Pathfinder is a good choice for people who want a rules-heavy game with a lot of combat emphasis, and who want to play in Paizo-written adventures -- but who don't spend too much time or effort actually thinking about system mechanics.

  • Andoran RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16

    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:
  • Pathfinder is a good choice for people who want a rules-heavy game with a lot of combat emphasis, and who want to play in Paizo-written adventures -- but who don't spend too much time or effort actually thinking about system mechanics.
  • Agreed. PFRPG is a good system, a comfortably familiar system, but it isn't the best evar messiah of RPG rulesets. But the APs that it supports are brilliant.


    Zark wrote:
    I never did claim Jal Dorak is having BadWrongFun.

    My apologies. I thought you were implying it.

    Osirion

    Jal Dorak wrote:

    Or to take CourtFool's argument in a different direction, perhaps you just don't want to spend hours on character creation (maybe...gasp...you're in session and need a character in minutes), or maybe you'd rather spend that time thinking about your characters voice, mannerisms, background, motivation, etc.

    Maybe you don't care if your character lives or dies, and just want to enjoy the ride.

    To go back to this post, which seems to be the source of some contention - I'm not exactly advocating an extreme form of this attitude toward gaming. I was providing a list of alternate reasons someone might not care to painstakingly apply the rules to their character, besides Zark's "can't be bothered" scatter-shot comment.

    What I can't stand, in any form, is extremism!


    You start off with clarifying yourself, move on to ascribing opinions to me that aren't mine and ending with a cheap shot, real classy.

    I have never said or implied that everyone should painstakingly apply the rules to their character. I haven't even said that all gamers need to do X or Y.

    It would be nice if you could stop quoting me out of context and ascribing opinions to me that aren't mine, especially since you obviously feel the need to quote your whole post to clarify your intent.

    Next time you accuse someone of extremism, be sure their opinions are extreme. Saying you can be an optimizer and a role player isn't extreme, IMHO.

    Shadow Lodge

    If this many people are "ascribing opinions to you that aren't yours" then maybe you should realize that your original post did NOT come across as you say you intended it to.

    Osirion

    Zark wrote:

    You start off with clarifying yourself, move on to ascribing opinions to me that aren't mine and ending with a cheap shot, real classy.

    I have never said or implied that everyone should painstakingly apply the rules to their character. I haven't even said that all gamers need to do X or Y.

    It would be nice if you could stop quoting me out of context and ascribing opinions to me that aren't mine, especially since you obviously feel the need to quote your whole post to clarify your intent.

    Next time you accuse someone of extremism, be sure their opinions are extreme. Saying you can be an optimizer and a role player isn't extreme, IMHO.

    So we're clear, you suggested:

    1) People who don't optimize (usually) don't understand the game.

    2) Optimization is about using the correct mechanics.

    3) People who avoid optimization for roleplaying are lazy or indifferent, and using roleplaying as an excuse.

    I'm not sure what I am misrepresenting about your posts.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.
    Jal Dorak wrote:
    1) People who don't optimize (usually) don't understand the game.

    I somewhat agree with this, insofar as system familiarity eventually gets you to the point where the so-called "Timmy cards" (e.g., the Toughness feat as written in 3.0) are so obvious, and so grating in their incongruity, that you can't really force yourself to take them, even if they have cool names. Check out Monte Cook's later regrets about including so many of these in the core rules, in his article about "Ivory Tower Gaming."

    Avoiding trap options often occurs at a level below conscious thought, where you just "know" that playing the knock-down, drag-out tough guy you envision doesn't actually require such an awful feat. You also get to the point where you realize that, in order to play a lightly-armored archer, it's not automatically necessary to have the word "ranger" on your character sheet, if some other class (or combination) will suit your character better.

    The thing is, to a person who's only tangentially familiar with the rules, it will seem like you're "gaming the system," and accusations of cheese will inevitably follow. Because that person actually has to be led through the logic step-by-step in order to understand why Toughness in 3.0 was not a good feat for anyone, they refuse to believe that it doesn't require the same degree of effort for you to sort through the possibilities (when in fact it's largely reflexive).

    Is it possible to go against every instinct you have? Sure, but at that point you're intentionally crippling yourself. And, as pointed out above, I don't agree that doing so is automatically a sign of superior role-playing.

    Andoran

    Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

    Ivory Tower Game Design. For those who have not read Monte's article.


    @Jal Dorak Yesterday

    My point is that tactical gaming/ Optimization and role playing doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

    When people say their role play being constrained by their need to min max/Optimize they (Usually)have not grasped that Optimization actually just is understanding how the game mechanics can be used to bring your concept/character to life.

    And I'm not saying people are stupid or lazy if they don't. I do however say that if you play the Optimizer vs. role playing card in a rules-heavy game with a lot of combat emphasis and still claim you understanding how the game mechanics can be used to bring your concept/character to life, but you don't because it constrains their role playing, they Usually don't have a good grasp of the rules or are lazy.

    There are obviously exceptions. One might be that the player are "forced to play a game he/she doesn't what to play. In that case: don't blame the game. Or as Kirth put it:

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Admittedly, some game systems are better-suited to some types of gaming.

  • If I want deep story immersion and/or focus on personality, and feel that mechanics and dice rolls will just get in the way, Amber Diceless and Dying Earth are far superior choices to Pathfinder.
  • If I want a highly-optimized "hard mode" tactical game with intelligent, experienced players, Pathfinder won't cut it past very low levels due to all the system bugs retained from 3rd edition; you'd be better off using Frank and K's Tome modifications for 3.5.
  • Pathfinder is a good choice for people who want a rules-heavy game with a lot of combat emphasis, and who want to play in Paizo-written adventures -- but who don't spend too much time or effort actually thinking about system mechanics.
  • How do I define Optimization?:

    "Optimization does not equal maximized DPR. Optimization is the act of building to meet a goal, and using the correct tools to accomplish this. The statement should generally hold true if you aren't trying to pidgeonhole players into thinking in only one form."

    I'm fully aware that all people doesn't share my take on Optimization. Not even Optimizers. I find it sad that most of the guides on how to Optimize a character is all about maxi DPR or becoming the most powerful character in the game.

    "Role players" can suck as Role players and as Optimizers and Optimizers can suck as role players and as tactical gamers.
    Again, My point is that tactical gaming/ Optimization and role playing doesn't have to be mutually exclusive.

    Gaming style? There is not right or wrong way.
    Kirth Gersen again:

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    "

    The better approach? It depends on what the group wants, not on what you as an individual want. If the other players have rolled up Larry, Curly, and Moe for the Pie-in-the-Face Adventure Path, you have no business playing Commando. Equally, if the other players have rolled up an elite hunter-killer team for the Age of Worms, you have no business showing up with your Str- and Dex-dumped fighter with Skill Focus: Comedy as your 1st feat.

    So before we talk about what I mean, I think it is important that you get what I mean by Optimization and what I mean by "the game!"/the mechanics.

    I post more later, European Football Championship got the better of me right now :-)

    Osirion

    @Zark: Thank you, your opinion is much clearer. I would still tend to disagree that optimization is a requirement to a successful character, but from your perspective I can see why you value it.

    In general:(spoilered for length)

    Spoiler:

    This is as straight-forward as I can be with my philosophy of optimization. I think there is a fine line that is eventually crossed, where you are taking so many options into account that you are no longer playing the same game, but some sort of meta-version. At least, this was my development.

    Spoiler:

    Here's my explanation, following on Zark's and Kirth's comments. Keep in mind that most people probably use a bit of both methodologies:
    1) You begin play as a novice. The roleplayer will pick things that look interesting and learn from your mistakes. The optimizer will study and choose options carefully, weeding things down as you go.

    Spoiler:

    2) Eventually, you begin to feel comfortable with the system. You start taking into account secondary options and multiple sources. You understand (perhaps not fully) how the system works, but you still make some mistakes. The roleplayer continues to learn either through trial-and-error, the optimizer by correcting a lack of understanding.

    Spoiler:

    3) You reach the "hump". You are bogged down by so many options that you become paralyzed when making a decision. You revert back to choices from 1 or 2, or you plow forward slowly absorbing the new material. The roleplayer may erroneously begin to feel bored by the system at this stage as every class build "feels the same". The optimizer similarly may begin to feel constrained, incorrectly feeling the options for unique concepts are not present.

    Spoiler:

    4) System Mastery. You have an excellent understanding of the system, so much that you can find the best options available to build any character concept. The roleplayer is comfortable enough with the system that you can take options that are not necessarily the best, but that will still work in the context of the game. The optimizer is able to find workable options for pretty much any concept.

    Spoiler:

    5) Meta-Mastery: This is the point when the player realizes that so many options are in play that the game no longer holds together, but that it doesn't really matter. The roleplayer is comfortable making up mechanics to suit the needs of your character. The optimizer no longer has to reference their library of resources before starting, you can eyeball a concept and make something up or quickly find an analogous existing rule.

    Spoiler:

    I played a Shackled City at stage 4. We all had some wacky concepts, and it took hours to make a character. It got to the point where we ended the campaign rather than make a new party after a TPK.

    That experience affirmed my belief in stage 5. It would have been so much easier to just make up an "urban druid" than to search out the handful of swap-options that ended up getting used. I'm still very put off by stage 3/4 levels of detail.

    These stages aren't meant to be "superior", only to show a possible development. I think one of the reasons I was disappointed with the release of 4e was that I was still at stage 3 with 3.5, I needed more time. I tend to look at my 3.X library now as a wealth of resources for inspiration and comparison, not as reference materials.

    There's nothing wrong with being content at a certain stage, but it would be very hard to game with someone else who wasn't at the same stage as you, especially if you weren't aware of it.


    Jal Dorak wrote:

    @Zark: Thank you, your opinion is much clearer. I would still tend to disagree that optimization is a requirement to a successful character, but from your perspective I can see why you value it.

    I'm not saying that optimization is a requirement to a successful character, but that optimization is a tool in helping you to "mechanically successfully match your character concept with your role playing character concept".

    I agree with some of the things you say, but not all, but perhaps our view on optimization and role playing is not as far apart as one might think.

    The problem with the definition of optimization that I've used is that it only deals in "why", not in 'how'.

    How many sourcebooks does optimization takes? The core book? The Core + The APG? Every good at the SRD? Every Golarion good out there or every Inners Sea book out there ? What about every splatbook available?
    Me, I mostly use the Core book and the APG. Sometimes I use UC and UM. I also got the Inner sea world guide, but mostly because I like the fluff, the art and the map.
    So, No you don't have to use Core, APG, UM, UC, and all the Inner sea books?
    It all depends on your game and your GM. Core book might be all you need. If you use traits the APG will be useful. If you want to play the Magus use UM.

    How much time to you have to invest in building the character? DO I have to use some DPR formula to check out what feat is best in what combination? To I have to spend hours thinking about if I should start with 17 dex or not? Perhaps 16 is more optimal, or even 18? Should my charismatic fighter start with 10, 12 or 14 charisma. Should I spend hours on what feats or skills I should take. Shall I plan my character from level 1 to level 17, or only from level 1 to at least level 8 or 13? If I play a barbarian, must I plan her to level 12?

    This kind of thinking can indeed lead to someone having their role play being constrained by the need to Optimize.

    No, you don't need XXX sourcebooks.
    You don't have to plan your character from level 1 to level xxx.
    You don't have to look thru all the archetypes, PRC, feats, traits, spells, races, etc.
    You don't have to weigh all decisions on a scale of silver, etc, etc.
    No, there is no objective answer on what is optimal/ Optimized. There is no: Class X should start with 16 dex, because 15 dex in not as optimal, etc.
    Common sense and a knowledge of the rules will get far enough.

    Jal Dorak wrote:


    "there is a fine line that is eventually crossed, where you are taking so many options into account that you are no longer playing the same game, but some sort of meta-version"

    Yes, You do have a point. That said, I agree with the Devs. The Game actually requires some meta gaming. Players Campaign guides is an example of this.

    But yes, there is a fine line that is eventually crossed, when creating a character can make you crazy or bored. So I agree, "someone having their role play being constrained by the need to Optimize" can be true if you take it too far, but why would you?
    I'm not saying you should take it too far.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth wrote:
    Pathfinder is a good choice for people who want a rules-heavy game with a lot of combat emphasis, and who want to play in Paizo-written adventures -- but who don't spend too much time or effort actually thinking about system mechanics.

    *awestruck*

    Yeah, that's more or less exactly right. I would extend it to "those who are able to actively suppress thinking about mechanics in order to have a good time"... y'know, beer and pretzels type stuff. That's me, almost exactly!

    Osirion

    @Zark: Now we're getting somewhere!

    As you pointed out, optimizing in a core-only game is much simpler and faster than a free-for-all game using every splatbook. And as you pointed out, it depends on the DM and the style of game being run.

    I wouldn't go anywhere near some of the tournament play described on the boards - the ones where the players see the game as a challenge and design super-builds to crush the DM. Nothing wrong with that per se, just not my style of game.

    But when I'm thinking about a character, I would agree with you that knowing the rules permits one to choose options that support your concept. I think where I disagree is in calling that "optimization" - as you said, it's more a matter of common sense. If I'm making a trap-monkey, I'm not going to take Power Attack.

    Finally, to go back a few posts to the Ivory Tower design article, I have to point out a common misconception about it. It's not that Toughness (or some other feats) are useless feats, it's just that they are to be used carefully. As Monte points out, Toughness is a feat for 1st-level elven wizards in a dungeon delve that need to be able to survive a single attack.

    What I hate about feats is that they have a flat value, thus favoring certain character concepts (especially combat) over others. And that some of them (like Endurance) used to be non-weapon proficiencies, which explains why they are so underpowered.


    Thod wrote:

    Here is a very interesting observation I made when introducing new players to PFS - the most unique ideas often come from new players who haven't been playing before - or children. Both of mine are now at an age that they have started.

    It only seems to last a certain amount of sessions - but it seems to me the knowledge of the rules and what is optimal can be in the way.

    One problem new players with unique ideas have is that in a rules intensive game those creative ideas must conform to those rules. Finding a way to make a creative idea happen legally can be difficult or impossible. It is just easier to play a stereotypical optimal character than a creative one sometimes.

    (I still identify as a new player and am struggling with this)


    Zark, I dont 'need' all of that. But it sure is fun sometimes to figure it all out. I do alot of DPR calculations and then ignore them when it comes time to actually make a character.

    Sometimes I even go so far as to intentionally choose a lower DPR character just so that I do not upstage everyone.

    - Gauss


    .

    Role Players Vs. Tactical Gamers?

    I'm sure the tactical gamer will win. So I would bet money on him.

    .


    Jal Dorak wrote:
    @Zark: Now we're getting somewhere!

    LOL, yes we are.

    We don't have to agree on everything, but I don't think we are that far apart.

    Jal Dorak wrote:


    I wouldn't go anywhere near some of the tournament play described on the boards - the ones where the players see the game as a challenge and design super-builds to crush the DM. Nothing wrong with that per se, just not my style of game.

    I never did like that kind of game.

    Jal Dorak wrote:


    But when I'm thinking about a character, I would agree with you that knowing the rules permits one to choose options that support your concept.

    Fine. We agree on one thing :-)

    Jal Dorak wrote:


    I think where I disagree is in calling that "optimization" - as you said, it's more a matter of common sense. If I'm making a trap-monkey, I'm not going to take Power Attack.

    My answer is again ""Optimization does not equal maximized DPR. Optimization is the act of building to meet a goal." The goal can obviously be maximized DPR, but it doesn't have to.

    Common sense goes a long way, but not all the way if you don't understand the game. You have to know the game: the game mechanics; what kind of game your GM run; what kind of game the other players play; what adventure path/homebrew that will be played; what is expected of you (if anything is expected).

    You have to know the rules + the context in where you are creating and playing the character. That is one reason paizo created the adventure paths players guide. Where they tell people or hint what are good and bad options for the campaign.
    If Favored enemy undead is good option and enchanter wizards is a bad option, we now know the campaign will have a lot of undeads.

    As for the trap-monkey. Sure he can take Power Attack if it fits the build.

    Jal Dorak wrote:

    Finally, to go back a few posts to the Ivory Tower design article, I have to point out a common misconception about it. It's not that Toughness (or some other feats) are useless feats, it's just that they are to be used carefully. As Monte points out, Toughness is a feat for 1st-level elven wizards in a dungeon delve that need to be able to survive a single attack.

    I think the point was that in order to Avoiding trap options you need to have a grasp of the game and what you want for your character. " want for your character" as in what plans do I have for him/her? Will I only play him/her for one level or for 10 levels.

    Yes, you often actually need to plan ahead. If you want a feat with a prereq, you need to fill that prereq, if you want to pick one level in a Pr. Class you need to meet the prereq and thus plan ahead.

    I have a good friend who played in war Of The Burning Sky. We got 25 PB because it was going to be a rough campaign. He created a hafling druid with a riding dog as a AC.
    Starting stats if I'm correct: 5 points each to str, dex, con, wis and char.
    So str: 12, dex: 16, con: 14, int: 10, wis: 14, char 16.

    I think somewhere round level 7 he realizes he was no good melee dude, his animal companion it wasn't build for being a combat monster and he wasn't a good spell caster. It was at level 11 when he just sat at the table and said: I don't know what to do [with my character].

    He built a perfectly viable character for a level 1 character, but it wasn't viable character when you play at mid or higher levels.
    The game self destructed at level 13 or 14.

    My point? You often need to plan ahead. Not 8 or 12 levels and not in details, but just what is my plan with this character and what is the context. The AP, The GM, the other players?

    Jal Dorak wrote:

    What I hate about feats is that they have a flat value, thus favoring certain character concepts (especially combat) over others. And that some of them (like Endurance) used to be non-weapon proficiencies, which explains why they are so underpowered.

    I'm not sure what you mean by that (due to crappy English), but it sounds like you have a point.

    Reading your posts it seems that you and I have some common ground, and some stuff we can't agree on. That is fine.

    It is still interesting why the "role player vs. tactical player/Optimizer" argument keeps popping up.

    First: I honestly think that people get hang up on the actual word Optimizer.

    As I pointed out before I mostly use only the core book and the APG. Sometimes I use UC or UM, but for me my two core books are the Core + APG.
    Optimization doesn't have to be using 20 books and 1000 feats and 100 archetypes.

    The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization by Caelic wrote:


    Simple Is Good.
    There are a LOT of WotC sourcebooks out there. I did a rough estimate on the value of my collection just of hardcover rulebooks; it cost more than my car.
    Not everyone has that kind of cash to spend on this hobby. Not only that--a lot of people simply don't have the time to commit several thousand pages of rules, hundreds upon hundreds of prestige classes, and thousands of feats to memory.
    So: builds which are simple are good. There's nothing WRONG with a build that incorporates eight different prestige classes from seven different sources, and then tosses in feats from five more...but that build is going to be useful only to the people who have those sources, whereas the Druid 20 build that doesn't go outside of Core is useful to everybody.
    Sometimes, simplicity is worth more than raw power.

    Second: What you describe as stage 3, 4 and 5, that really doesn't have anything to do with Optimization. It's all about the game/the game mechanics. Information overload. Too many rules, Too many books, to many classes, too many options/not enough options.

    Is this really a problem with Optimization or is it the game and the expectation?

    Role play can be constrained by the rules, by the game. That is indeed true.


    ValkyrieStorm wrote:
    Thod wrote:

    Here is a very interesting observation I made when introducing new players to PFS - the most unique ideas often come from new players who haven't been playing before - or children. Both of mine are now at an age that they have started.

    It only seems to last a certain amount of sessions - but it seems to me the knowledge of the rules and what is optimal can be in the way.

    One problem new players with unique ideas have is that in a rules intensive game those creative ideas must conform to those rules. Finding a way to make a creative idea happen legally can be difficult or impossible. It is just easier to play a stereotypical optimal character than a creative one sometimes.

    (I still identify as a new player and am struggling with this)

    I absolutely agree with you. I think you sum up the problem with "role player vs. tactical player" very good.

    Edit:
    I think, to a large part, it is actually a role player vs. the game mechanics" problem.
    BTW, Don't give up. This is a fun game. :-)
    You can find a way to create a character with your unique ideas that still can have a place in a party.


    Hmmm what if it takes only reading a rule once to commit it to memory? :D

    - Gauss

    Osirion

    Gauss wrote:

    Hmmm what if it takes only reading a rule once to commit it to memory? :D

    - Gauss

    I can do that with a phone number. I can't memorize the phone book. :)


    Jal Dorak wrote:
    Gauss wrote:

    Hmmm what if it takes only reading a rule once to commit it to memory? :D

    - Gauss

    I can do that with a phone number. I can't memorize the phone book. :)

    Keep practicing then. There is no reason you can't memorize entire books.

    Remember what Yoda said to Luke after he said, "That's impossible."

    .


    Rapthorn2ndform wrote:

    I am the middle ground

    I love the role-playing aspect, but why does that mean i can't pick feats and abilities that make sense.
    I was called out as a "power-player" when i went to my group who had just started a new game, with a Human Barbarian with 20 Str, Power Attack and Furious Focus.
    Some players think that in order to be a true "role-player", everything you pick MUST be utter cr*P.

    The goblin monk in that group
    str 12, dex 14, con 16, wis 16, int 14, cha 9

    she says the stats don't matter as much, as long as she role-plays them, and yes she is an above average role-player.
    BUT IN COMBAT, SHE IS DEAD WEIGHT.
    I mean, there's a difference between playing a character you'd more enjoy role-playing then combat, and i'm gonna focus COMPLETELY on role-pay and FORGET combat.
    And the glaring issue is SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY USEFUL ROLE-PLAY SKILLS. She has acrobatics, linguistics, perception, stealth, and religion. Not bad choices but she has yet to use one.

    And in This game, combat and role-pay are about 60-40.
    I'm just sick of this idea that if i enjoy playing a semi-optimized character, i'm a "bad player"

    I was being told this (by dm and a few players) when i played a 20 str druid who was spect for magic crafting, i was told this when i played a Paladin built for defense and in-combat healing, and now with my lv 1 barbarian.

    That dm is going to regret kicking my lv 10 pali because he was "overpowered".
    Now i've got a lv 10 fighter focused on damage. I've never built a character like that before...BECAUSE I WAS BEING NICE.

    I feel where you are coming from. Oh gods, can I relate.

    I have had to stop the game and start up "game talk" on multiple occasions with my main group, over the character I make. It seems like it doesn't matter what I make, or what I do, everybody thinks I'm just overpowered min/max cheese.

    Nevermind the pages and pages of backstory, the RP-flavored traits, the underpowered feats, etc. Nope, I'm just a "power-gamer." It's infuriating. I've purposely gimped my characters to try and prove to them I'm not min/maxing. Every time I do, they think I'm just pulling some weird combo to get something out of it. I'm not, I'm seriously, seriously not.

    In our most recent game I even made a Barbarian, WITHOUT Power Attack. Doesn't matter. I'm still "power-gaming." They think I'm doing some crazy under the table feat combo or trick, but it's like; "No, I'm just playing the damn game. Leave me alone."


    I like to role play tactical games.

    That's the best of both worlds.

    .

    301 to 330 of 330 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
    Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Gamer Talk / Role Players Vs. Tactical Gamers All Messageboards

    Want to post a reply? Sign in.

    ©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.