|
I've noticed in the couple of years, especially since Pathfinder has come out, that more and more of the players are number crunchers looking for the optimum damage output and less that are role-players... I am not saying that this is wrong, just an observation.
I know that each group is different, but is that what most old-time DMs are finding as well? Are gamers by and large just number crunchers now? Up until games like WoW, Rifts, etc I've just not heard RPGers consistently talk about "damage builds", etc.
Again, I'm only asking a question, not meaning this as a flame
There are Five RPG gamer types (on the number crunch to Roleplay axis),
1) Munckin(Extreme PowerGamer),
2) Number Cruncher(Roll-player),
3) Balanced (role-play and numbers balanced),
4) Role-player.
5) Extreme Roleplayer
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are Five RPG gamer types (on the number crunch to Roleplay axis),
1) Munckin(Extreme PowerGamer),
2) Number Cruncher(Roll-player),
3) Balanced (role-play and numbers balanced),
4) Role-player.
5) Extreme Roleplayer
I sincerely hope this was posted in jest.
|
|
You're definitely right about power-gamers and rules-lawyers... they've always been around (even before games like D&D).
You're probably right about meeting more.
I know when I was playing back in the 80s (yes I'm that old lol), it was really hard to find fellow gamers if your friends weren't interested in it. In the 90s, had a much easier time in college, but most of them were playing either White Wolf games or Ars Magica when I was there. A few played 7th Sea. By and large though, these were all wanna-be-thespians and were great role-players and not roll-players (I am referring to RP vs PVE/PVP in WoW terms).
|
|
By and large though, these were all wanna-be-thespians and were great role-players and not roll-players (I am referring to RP vs PVE/PVP in WoW terms).Then you were lucky to meet so many people that matched your playstyle.
Actually I have always been more of a "Balanced" player. Most of those were more of the "Extreme Role-player" style. Not sure I could handle them any longer (lol)
In the group of 6 I DM with now, I have the following:
1 Role-Player
2 Balanced
3 Power players
We had 2 additional Extreme Power gamers but they didn't last more than a few months because I didn't meet what they wanted in a game. They found another game with a 4e group that was also at the game shop.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having played RPG´s since nearly 20 years now, i think that is a relativ new phenomenon, perhaps due to WoW and other stuff.
Of course groups and people are different and also tastes.
Some like more the storytelling aspect, others more hack and slay aspects.
A problem i often see are how skills are treated and how much you are supposed to roleplay something theatrically, while others just roll and maybe play that out somehow, or not.
Lately i found the concept that i actually don´t decide what my character does or knows as a player, but the numbers on the paper, the history and background i´ve written up, the skills and feats as well as the rolls and i then just try to play that as good as i can.
That´s my take on concept characters.
I even think in PC communication should skill rolls prevail, since we are not playing ourselves.
One problem i see there sometimes though is the interaction.
Not all adventures treat all classes and partyroles the same.
And if you have seen a babarian walk in and kill everything with one hit several times, but you only could stand by and try not to die (what can be funny roleplay), you might get tempted starting the min-max show, so you get some action too. That´s unfortunately part of the game and hard-coded somehow it seems. A battlefield controll/utility mage, a healer and a good fighter type could master most challenges alone i guess. But of course that also depends on the GM.
I think the wish to change that a bit lead to 4Ed D&D, without judging it. How to design and balance a game like this is a difficult thing.
Visions and opinions differ widely, you can see that in many discussions here on the board.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Number-crunching can be complicated. People seek help with it, either in person or online (mostly online).
Roleplaying is so subjective that people don't need/want help with it, so you don't see them online asking for tips as much.
So if it seems like there are more number-crunchers, it just looks that way because they're more visible due to asking each other's opinions on things.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So this is the new "old-school" vs. "new-school" thread.
The one where somebody says new school players are all roll-players, and old school players are all role-players, and they're not trying to say that's bad, but they still took the time to say it in a public place so you can certainly infer that they don't agree with it.
Number crunching and role-playing aren't mutually exclusive. I do a lot of both.
Away from the table I enjoy quantifying the overall effectiveness of different martial builds (last week I was looking at the implications of WBL on sword+board, two-handed and two weapon fighters in terms of affordability of offensive and defensive gear). I calculate expected DPR (as a function of AC) for the characters I'm playing, know what buffs work best with my PCs and what kinds of situations demand specific tactics.
At the table I primarily enjoy the role-playing aspect but build characters that are robust contributors in and out of combat. My samurai recently started a tea shop (Honor in All Teas) as a charity venture to raise money for a town that was flooded due to the party's incompetence. Last session he had to close the shop temporarily due to "blindness" (he put up a sign he painted after being blinded in combat). Mechanically, I've built him to be fairly close to optimal when using certain tactics (that I don't use in every combat) and still fairly decent when using a wide array of weapons and fighting styles (e.g., using different polearms, fighting with a shield, fighting defensively, firing a bow from horseback, etc). It keeps the game interesting for me and avoids spotlight issues with the other martial characters.
Jiggy + MendedWall12 = Pretty much everything I wanted to say, regarding this thread.
Pathfinder is a simulator that uses numbers to simulate combat and interactions. It is a complex game with a 550+ page rule book and is based entirely in the realm of mathematical systems. The skill system distills the 'combative' aspects of role playing to a numbers game as well as investigation and information determination.
Just about everyone who plays Pathfinder has to understand the math and care about the numbers to some extent unless they are being assisted by someone else who cares about that. The numbers and math have a direct effect on the ability for a character to stay alive. This is obvious and immediate and consistent. It isn't subjective or confrontational like tactics or riddles or other things that require the players to think of the result.
That means you will see people focus on the numbers because they have a real effect on the character. It is far from the only thing you need, but it is the only required thing every player has to care about which also has a direct effect on the character's survivability.
It doesn't matter how strong a character you can roleplay, how eloquent or savage or skilled, if the owlbear crits your character's head from his shoulders.
Role playing is not required to play Pathfinder. Most people who like role playing over combat will pick a system that is less combat simulator (whitewolf is a simulator that is more generic, burning wheel is less mathematical, and some systems are entirely role playing without any mechanical system backing it up).
It is far less common to find someone who wants to role play that chooses Pathfinder over some other more RP-focused system. We just aren't optimized for that kind of game play.
|
|
So this is the new "old-school" vs. "new-school" thread.
The one where somebody says new school players are all roll-players, and old school players are all role-players, and they're not trying to say that's bad, but they still took the time to say it in a public place so you can certainly infer that they don't agree with it.
Since I posted this, I'll address this post directly
It's not that I disagree or agree with it. It is what it is. New school gamers have new needs and desires than old school gamers do/did. People will gravitate toward a group that meets their needs.
Despite what others have said or implied, I really was just asking a question if that was a "change in the wind". Sorry if I ruffled feathers.
|
|
Number-crunching can be complicated. People seek help with it, either in person or online (mostly online).
Roleplaying is so subjective that people don't need/want help with it, so you don't see them online asking for tips as much.
So if it seems like there are more number-crunchers, it just looks that way because they're more visible due to asking each other's opinions on things.
Thanks Jiggy
I haven't quite thought of it that way
|
|
Pathfinder is a simulator that uses numbers to simulate combat and interactions. It is a complex game with a 550+ page rule book and is based entirely in the realm of mathematical systems. The skill system distills the 'combative' aspects of role playing to a numbers game as well as investigation and information determination.
<snipped/>
It is far less common to find someone who wants to role play that chooses Pathfinder over some other more RP-focused system. We just aren't optimized for that kind of game play.
Thank you for your post.
The next time I go to the FLGS, for reference, I'll have to check to see what "Story-Telling" games (I believe that is what White Wolf describes their games as) have a Medieval/Fantasy aspect.
As I said above, I'm more in the middle liking both aspects but you are right about a numbers simulator.
So this is the new "old-school" vs. "new-school" thread.
The one where somebody says new school players are all roll-players, and old school players are all role-players, and they're not trying to say that's bad, but they still took the time to say it in a public place so you can certainly infer that they don't agree with it.
Since I posted this, I'll address this post directly
It's not that I disagree or agree with it. It is what it is. New school gamers have new needs and desires than old school gamers do/did. People will gravitate toward a group that meets their needs.
Despite what others have said or implied, I really was just asking a question if that was a "change in the wind". Sorry if I ruffled feathers.
There is no "new school"/"old school". There have always been these differing groups from day one. At least I think that's MW's point.
DeathQuaker says it better than me. Read here and here and here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no "new school"/"old school". There have always been these differing groups from day one. At least I think that's MW's point.DeathQuaker says it better than me. Read here and here and here.
You got it. There's nothing new under the sun, not even in RPGs. Hell, I'm pretty sure Arneson was an uber-optimizer/number cruncher.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Umbral Reaver, actually I know I've seen that list before so Azure_Zero is right... I'm just observing more of the #1s and #2s in my gaming area than I am #4s and #5s... that was all my question was.
The list presumes a dichotomy that does not exist. This is not one scale. It's two (or maybe more).
A single person can sit at both extremes of the scale simultaneously without contradiction.
to define a player with a single axis is impossible since there are N axis that can define a player, but since the OP only asked about this one axis, I answered.
Umbral is right in that you could be at both extremes and not be in contradiction,
since I use the axis as a sum difference of the two aspects.
|
I think the thing is maturity. I have been playing with pool of players for 10 years now (not every one in every game, but around the same 20 people give or take). And as we get older we start to care much more about roleplay then about numbers. Not that we don't get a sense of satisfaction when somebody cuts something tough in half with a single crit, but still.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I tend to both build a optimum character and also roleplay. I see no reason why I can't be the nest fighter with the best of everything and not be able to roleplay. the system imo also encourages optimization because while you can not make a optimzed character genrally they tend to suffer at the game table. Note I'm not saying players yet rules and mecahnics wise non-optimzed classes suffer.
When 3.5 came out we had 2 monks in a game I was playing in one. One make a optimized monk. The other wanted to make a monk/bard. A little optimized but mostly built fro roleplaying/ The problems started when the non-optimzed monk tried to do the same things as the optimzed monk. Nit the players fault it's the mechanics. With a system like gurps or hero system you can make both characters and still be reasonable effective. The rules in PF imo assume your going to take the best of everything. It's not just a phenomanon unique to 3E and after.
When I played 2E if I played a fighter I made sure to have high Str, Dex and Con. Everything else while not dumo stats were at most 10 or 8 in terms of attributes. I do tend to add more to a class beyond just combat skills. Yet I also want som sort of retrun say if I take a craft or profession skill. If I can I plan to use those skills to make some money on the side. If the game involves little or not downtime those skill points are lost.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the thing is maturity. I have been playing with pool of players for 10 years now (not every one in every game, but around the same 20 people give or take). And as we get older we start to care much more about roleplay then about numbers.
Seems the opposite for me. The younger crowd I game with are all about White Wolf levels of roleplay (up to and including live-action roleplay), and can go multiple sessions without a dice roll, let alone a combat. The older D&D players, from all the way back to 1st edition (or, in some cases, the red box), are more mechanically oriented, and are more prone to 'just wanting to kill stuff' rather than deal with heavy storylines and deep characterization.
|
|
Umbral Reaver, actually I know I've seen that list before so Azure_Zero is right... I'm just observing more of the #1s and #2s in my gaming area than I am #4s and #5s... that was all my question was.The list presumes a dichotomy that does not exist. This is not one scale. It's two (or maybe more).
A single person can sit at both extremes of the scale simultaneously without contradiction.
Okay, you got me. <falls to floor faking bullet hit>
We "remember" playing more when we were younger. Hence more "roleplaying" and less number crunching (AD&D wasn't a crunch friendly game, that came later). Modern gamers come from the WoW or Skyrim mentality. They expect to be powerful, effective and justifiable in their actions. They've been playing tough heroes for years already.
I actually had a player at the table ask if we were expected to "act this out" in regards to a scenario. I just about fell to the floor! It's taken me until just now to verbalize what shocked me. He's playing a different game than me, but the rules are the same.
Doesn't mean we can't share game space. When the way you play is more important than who you play with, it's time to hang up the dice.
Just about everyone who plays Pathfinder has to understand the math and care about the numbers to some extent unless they are being assisted by someone else who cares about that.
To SOME extend, perhaps. That said, I suck at math, and have been happily running pathfinder since the beta. I've had one player who didn't care for my style because I wasn't a number cruncher. The rest have really enjoyed my games and even asked me to run more.
Just about everyone who plays Pathfinder has to understand the math and care about the numbers to some extent unless they are being assisted by someone else who cares about that.To SOME extend, perhaps. That said, I suck at math, and have been happily running pathfinder since the beta. I've had one player who didn't care for my style because I wasn't a number cruncher. The rest have really enjoyed my games and even asked me to run more.
To some extent doesn't mean munchkin. It means you have to think about the fact that you have hitpoints and an armor class and care about ensuring the AC goes up as you level. If you don't, your character dies. The numbers have nothing to do with the role playing part of the game. You don't have to work to maximize the numbers, but you have to consider them.
Like wise, if you the player have a master's degree in classical engineering but your character has 0 ranks in knowledge: engineering, the numbers say your character can't contribute information about engineering. The number system exists to ensure there is an abstraction.
The benefit goes the other was as a player running the cleric doesn't have to have memorized the (not actually real) holy book of his religion; he has a knowledge: religion to help the character say the right thing when the player doesn't know it.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To SOME extend, perhaps. That said, I suck at math, and have been happily running pathfinder since the beta. I've had one player who didn't care for my style because I wasn't a number cruncher. The rest have really enjoyed my games and even asked me to run more.
Meanwhile, I've had a player tell me he really appreciated how sharp I was (as the GM) with rules/numbers.
Anecdotes are anecdotes.
I do both also, I walk around the house practicing the voice I am going to use for my new character that I spent 3 weeks number crunching to make. most of the number crunching is not trying to output damage but make the character creation fit my mental idea of the guy I have in my head. in my case it is an level 2 monk level 8 brawler. who focuses on High AC decent damage +14-18 and good Stunning fist dc. I have posted several time and rejected insane build ideas because it didn't fit the vision I have of my ex monk bar bouncer.
I tend to focus on an area and attempt to be the best at it with in reason. I do have a dm that will veto stuff. but i have never made a serious character with out a voice at the table and back story that made sense. blame the theater major in me.
Anecdotes are anecdotes.
True. Just saying that there are other sides of the story. I've really come to appreciate rules a lot more than I used to, and I try to apply them correctly, but people enjoy my game because of the story, the setting I present, and the way that I present it moreso than my knowledge of the rules and/or math.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally like players to be both effective in their builds and care about the story.
I will say that the younger players in my group care less about the story and their character motivation than the older players. That may just be my group, or maturity, and not a generational change.
This is where we run into my pet peeve.
The fighter 2 (for the feats dip)/rogue1 (for the stealth/traps/w-e dip)/sorc 1 (for the bloodlines dip)/ cleric of (Fill in the blank with optimized domain) (for whatever domain bonuses dip) with no real background that explains any of it except "Well, one day he just decided to become a rogue/sorcerer/cleric/pick next class with desireable ability". And I *have* seen it. More than once. When questioned about it the player says "Dude, that's my roleplay. That's it. I just decided to."
It doesn't just break ther verisimilitude of the game, I beats it about the head and neck, stabs it in the kindeys a bunch of times, then goes and slaughters its family as well. Then urinates on the whole mess for spite.
|
|
Pathfinder is a simulator that uses numbers to simulate combat and interactions. It is a complex game with a 550+ page rule book and is based entirely in the realm of mathematical systems. The skill system distills the 'combative' aspects of role playing to a numbers game as well as investigation and information determination.
<snipped/>
It is far less common to find someone who wants to role play that chooses Pathfinder over some other more RP-focused system. We just aren't optimized for that kind of game play.
Thank you for your post.
The next time I go to the FLGS, for reference, I'll have to check to see what "Story-Telling" games (I believe that is what White Wolf describes their games as) have a Medieval/Fantasy aspect.
As I said above, I'm more in the middle liking both aspects but you are right about a numbers simulator.
Exalted is the one that comes to mind, but it is in no way rules-light, and has a very distinctive "high power" feel.
EDIT: I think part of the perceived skew could be due to the ever-present phrase, "You can't roleplay when you're dead."
There are several "authoritative" breakdowns of "gamer types". Some are quite hilarious. Most have some kernel of truth to them.
I view numerical expertise and dynamic playacting as two completely orthogonal axis which have no dependency beyond the sheer investment of time that each take to pursue aggressively.
Most people don't have time to spend investing heavily in building out multiple characters' backstories, motivations, mannerisms, accents, while also running spreadsheets to optimize damage, armor, spell effectiveness, etc. So just time available alone tends to push people in one direction or the other.
Then, of course, there are plenty who have intense interest in one aspect and could not care less about the other.
And finally you have some who really don't care about EITHER, they just like getting away from the daily grind of life and prefer playing games where they get to kill monsters to playing poker or fantasy football.
I tend to be pretty far towards the optimizer end of both axis. So I number crunch quite a bit, but I also do a lot of deep backstory development and work with the GM to incorporate and interact with story elements.
OK, having gone through all that, if anyone is still reading, since I have been playing the game for 35+ years now, I do have an opinion about the commonality of "munchkins" or other optimizers over time.
The real difference between today's gamer makeup and the makeup of gamers back in 1980 (for example) is not so much that there are more gamers interested in optimizing numerical aspects of the game as it is that there are far more opportunities in the game to advance your character numerically.
Heh. I probably better restate that more simply.
There's just a whole lot more advantage to number crunching your character these days than there was 35 years ago purely because there are more options available to exploit.
The game has always had those who exploit the rules to their advantage. But the explosion of feats, skills, spells, magic items, archetypes, classes, races, etc... has simply vastly increased the available set of exploitable options, synergies and exploits.
So you see more of that now than then, just because it's more possible now than it was then. Back then people would attempt to exploit the game through "role playing" options. For example, long before "two weapon fighting" existed as a "feat" my brother used a wish to make his character "ambidextrous" and used that to argue for more attacks per round. So he was "munchkining" through role playing. That's how we used to do it.
I personally like players to be both effective in their builds and care about the story.
I will say that the younger players in my group care less about the story and their character motivation than the older players. That may just be my group, or maturity, and not a generational change.
This is where we run into my pet peeve.
The fighter 2 (for the feats dip)/rogue1 (for the stealth/traps/w-e dip)/sorc 1 (for the bloodlines dip)/ cleric of (Fill in the blank with optimized domain) (for whatever domain bonuses dip) with no real background that explains any of it except "Well, one day he just decided to become a rogue/sorcerer/cleric/pick next class with desireable ability". And I *have* seen it. More than once. When questioned about it the player says "Dude, that's my roleplay. That's it. I just decided to."
The GM's perfectly justified in quoting Inigo at that point though, right?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The fighter 2 (for the feats dip)/rogue1 (for the stealth/traps/w-e dip)/sorc 1 (for the bloodlines dip)/ cleric of (Fill in the blank with optimized domain) (for whatever domain bonuses dip) with no real background that explains any of it except "Well, one day he just decided to become a rogue/sorcerer/cleric/pick next class with desireable ability". And I *have* seen it. More than once. When questioned about it the player says "Dude, that's my roleplay. That's it. I just decided to."
I now want to play just such a character as a mystical dilettante rake...
Although a Bard would be better and easier.
As far as the generational thing, I don't really think that's accurate. My daughter, who loves video games and is always playing card games with evolutions and such, is the best role player in my younger group. Her friend, who's just a little older and has the same hobbies is that one who always sits there and says "I'm so bored" when we're not in combat.
In my experience, role-play vs. roll-play is just a personality thing, and it's a spectrum. Extreme examples of either end should be rare.
I some great role players that heavy number crunchers out side of the game. In game they switch from. This is the guy who came up with the most damage dealing character but plays totally unoptimized character. I'm like that.
There is huge difference between theory building and playing.
I think also that most of the for lack of a better word "roll-players" will gravitate to a group that they like and the for lack of a better word role-players will find each other.
I know my group has a mix of each but there is a tacit agreement that when we are asked we speak in character and such. but we do have the one guy who made a sorc who doesn't have much of a back story but he still pretends well even if the guy with the German accented dwarf can actually speak German.
I some great role players that heavy number crunchers out side of the game. In game they switch from. This is the guy who came up with the most damage dealing character but plays totally unoptimized character. I'm like that.
There is huge difference between theory building and playing.
I don't disagree, but there isn't necessarily a huge difference between optimizing and role-playing. A role-player can just say how and why their character can do all that.
|
|
I personally like players to be both effective in their builds and care about the story.
I will say that the younger players in my group care less about the story and their character motivation than the older players. That may just be my group, or maturity, and not a generational change.
This is where we run into my pet peeve.
The fighter 2 (for the feats dip)/rogue1 (for the stealth/traps/w-e dip)/sorc 1 (for the bloodlines dip)/ cleric of (Fill in the blank with optimized domain) (for whatever domain bonuses dip) with no real background that explains any of it except "Well, one day he just decided to become a rogue/sorcerer/cleric/pick next class with desireable ability". And I *have* seen it. More than once. When questioned about it the player says "Dude, that's my roleplay. That's it. I just decided to."
It doesn't just break ther verisimilitude of the game, I beats it about the head and neck, stabs it in the kindeys a bunch of times, then goes and slaughters its family as well. Then urinates on the whole mess for spite.
Hey, no kill like overkill...
The GM's perfectly justified in quoting Inigo at that point though, right?
Absosmurfly.
The fighter 2 (for the feats dip)/rogue1 (for the stealth/traps/w-e dip)/sorc 1 (for the bloodlines dip)/ cleric of (Fill in the blank with optimized domain) (for whatever domain bonuses dip) with no real background that explains any of it except "Well, one day he just decided to become a rogue/sorcerer/cleric/pick next class with desireable ability". And I *have* seen it. More than once. When questioned about it the player says "Dude, that's my roleplay. That's it. I just decided to."I now want to play just such a character as a mystical dilettante rake...
Although a Bard would be better and easier.
Pretty sure I saw an OP post that they wanted an optimized Bard and someone suggested what I posted as an alternate build....
But if you can generate some plausible background for cherry-picking your way through the core classes then there really isn't a problem :D
P.S. If it sounds like I'm being snarky about that, I'm really not, but I can't find an easier way to describe what I mentioned other than cherry-picking :D
P.S. If it sounds like I'm being snarky about that, I'm really not, but I can't find an easier way to describe what I mentioned other than cherry-picking :DIndeed, I find it cherry-picking when players select their feats too. They look for the best ones to do what they want to do. ;)
Don't try to pidgeon-hole me into something I'm not. You know very well what it was that I was describing as a pet peeve.
I guess it comes down to how you see classes. If they're "character building kits", then jumping in and out of them to get the effects you want is perfectly justified. If they're representations of professions or orders within the campaign world, multiclassing requires a little more explanation. Different answer this question differently, and maybe even differently for different classes.
For example, I see multiclassing into Wizard as a big deal. You can't pick up a book and a week later be a 1st level Wizard, IMO. But a Sorcerer is a natural caster. You could be walking along and one day BAM! You can cast first level spells. Would I restrict a player's class choices based on this? No. But would I require some sort of explanation in story for the Wizard? Yes.