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

Why I power game


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

201 to 250 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

I don't think you understood my point, AD. I'll try to explain it better.

Everyone (presumably) tries to create a character who is competent at what they do. Some people are better at doing so than others. Some people would consider a given character simply competent, while others may think it's too optimized. Others may think the same character isn't optimized enough.

My point, then, was that every group will have a different breaking point for when they consider a character to be too far into optimization as opposed to competence. This makes a discussion on optimization hard to conduct, as everyone will have a different point of view.


I get it Are.

I made the same point roughly 150 posts ago.

It's been made and remade dozens of times.

And people still want to argue that "your idea of optimized doesn't match mine".

I still think BNW's driving analogy is best.

Even so, when someone says "if you have more than a 10 in your attribute" or "if you pick up a weapon you are proficient with" or similar stuff...

Well, that's so far away from my idea of "optimizing" that it frankly just amazes me to see anyone assert it.


Are wrote:
My point, then, was that every group will have a different breaking point for when they consider a character to be too far into optimization as opposed to competence. This makes a discussion on optimization hard to conduct, as everyone will have a different point of view.

If you're comparing the same character against two different groups, then it's a problem. If you're comparing a character against the group's own benchmark, the fact that different groups have different benchmarks is utterly irrelevant.

That said, I think we can extract a very blurry, imprecise benchmark by just looking at what the designers apparently expect and by considering common practice across a wide cross-section of groups. This, I strongly suspect, would lead one to the conclusion that at a bare minimum, a wizard should have the intelligence necessary to cast a cantrip, as part of the overall community's expectation for what a wizard is. Given that, the contention that if a person wants his wizard to be smart enough to cast a cantrip, then that person is an optimizer seems to be nothing more than redefining the term "optimization" in order to score rhetorical points.

Optimization is an English word. It has a meaning. That meaning is not "avoiding an absolute minimum." If what you actually mean is "avoiding an absolute minimum," you should probably not use a word whose plain meaning is "seeking a maximum." You might as well make up a whole new term. "Glorbization is bad." The conversation would be equally incomprehensible, but at least it would be honest.


Glendwyr: I don't know what you think I'm trying to accomplish. I'm just saying that the conversation can't really go places, since the people arguing are likely not coming from the same "place", for lack of a better word popping into my mind at the moment. I'm definitely not trying to "score rhetorical points".

For instance, some in this thread seem to consider an optimizer someone who bends (or even breaks) the rules for their benefit. Others seem to consider an optimizer someone who seeks to dominate every encounter on their own. While others still seem to consider an optimizer someone who tries to make a character as good as it can be at its job (without bending or breaking rules, or taking the spotlight).

These three loose definitions all existing at the same time make it hard to accomplish anything in a discussion regarding optimization, since different groups will be using the same word to describe different things.


Fair enough. I'm more directing my comments toward the school of thought that says "if you're not playing a commoner with straight 3s, you're optimizing!" We haven't - yet - seen this in the thread, but it's been waiting in the wings all day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

the moment you pick a class other than commoner, you are optimizing.


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
the moment you pick a class other than commoner, you are optimizing.

That's one line of thought, but there are others. It all seems to depend on whether you define "optimizing" as "I pick option A because it is closer to the optimum than option B is, even though option C might be closer" or as "I pick option C because it is as close to the optimum as I can get".


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:


EDIT 2: Actually this pretty much says it all I think. :3

I could almost agree with Sean if I didn't see all those damn AP obituary threads and think, "I like living."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
the moment you pick a class other than commoner, you are optimizing.

Hell you can optimize a commoner.


Glendwyr wrote:
Irontruth wrote:

You are claiming its your build that is the problem.

I am claiming the problem is that you marginalized other players.

See the difference?

I do. Fortunately for my position, you are more or less entirely misstating my claim.

My claim, correctly, is that if the combination of an optimal build with optimal play results in the marginalization of other players (which we would prefer to avoid), then since without the optimization there would not have been the marginalization, my build is indeed part of the problem. I can fix the problem by changing the way I play, or by changing my build, or both.

Basically, I'm saying that if A+B => C and I do not want C, I cannot have both A and B. Not "I cannot have A" and not "I cannot have B" but "I cannot have both."

Except changing the build doesn't prevent marginalization of other players. The problematic behavior remains, all you've done is require the jerk player to use another method to be a jerk.

A= the jerk
B= optimization
C= unfun game

You can actually remove B from the equation and still have A=C, therefore, B is not the primary factor. Because if a player is being respectful and helpful to other players, I doubt the optimization will be an issue.

In one of my games, I tend to be far and away the best optimizer. To be helpful, for the guy who doesn't show up often, doesn't own any books but likes to hang out (our group has been playing since 97), I help him make build choices. I ask him what he wants to do and tell him which feats best represent that. He doesn't have to optimize now, but he gets a character competitive with mine.


Ashiel wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
the moment you pick a class other than commoner, you are optimizing.
Hell you can optimize a commoner.

Get wis all the way up there, grab Skill Focus (Profession Farmer) and Endurance. Farm all day, like a pro. Earn mad dosh. Optimized as fuark.

And there is truth in what Waruko says. Personally, I invest a lot of time and consideration into my characters. To have them die prematurely is to throw out all that effort.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Kamelguru wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
the moment you pick a class other than commoner, you are optimizing.
Hell you can optimize a commoner.
Get wis all the way up there, grab Skill Focus (Profession Farmer) and Endurance. Farm all day, like a pro. Earn mad dosh. Optimized as fuark.

Not even dude. :P

First, take a commoner. 3 point buy or standard array. Emphasize Constitution and Wisdom and a splash of Charisma. Put ranks into Handle Animal. Purchase some oxen. Train oxen to battle for you. Oxen use the same statisticd as Aurochs. Wear armor. You won't be fighting anyway, so the extra AC just improves your survival. And a shield. Max Perception. Boost Perception like a boss. Take Skill Focus (Perception). Take Alertness. You are now a 1st level commoner with the meanest animal companions on the block, a decent AC, fair hit points, with a Perception modifier somewhere around +10 (+4 base, +1 ability, +3 skill focus, +2 alertness).

Make monks cry.

EDIT: So after Farmer McOwnage utterly destroys the local orcs pillaging the lands with his angry war oxen, he sells off all their loot and buys better stuff for himself, puts his oxen in war gear and armor, and gains a few levels. He then begins buffing Use Magic Device, and gets ready to go on his next adventure. And thus was born the legendary commoner hero. Farmer McOwnage of Awesomestien.

EDIT 2: And don't even think about messing with his daughter, Candice "Eyespike" McOwnage. Sweet thing but the deadliest in the kingdom with a pair of knitting needles...


Irontruth wrote:

Except changing the build doesn't prevent marginalization of other players. The problematic behavior remains, all you've done is require the jerk player to use another method to be a jerk.

A= the jerk
B= optimization
C= unfun game

You can actually remove B from the equation and still have A=C, therefore, B is not the primary factor. Because if a player is being respectful and helpful to other players, I doubt the optimization will be an issue.

In a world where the only way that one player ever marginalizes another is through malice aforethought, you'd be quite correct, and I wouldn't have been disagreeing with you all day. Unfortunately, the assumption that all marginalization is intentional is quite clearly false.

Yes, I can intentionally marginalize other players, in which case the root problem is indeed that I am a jerk. But I can also build a character who marginalizes others as a result of miscommunication or miscalculation or misconception or misfortune. And in that case, the fact that I have optimized is indeed a contributing factor to the marginalization of my peers. Under such circumstances, changing the build or the play style absolutely does prevent marginalization of other players.


Pathfinder: The social study.

Seriously, if you have a big problem with a playstyle, voice your issue BEFORE anyone makes a character, or hold your peace. People make what they think is fun to play, not because they want to be better than you or ruin your fun. (Yes, some of those people do exist, but they have deeper seated issues, and can hardly be considered the norm.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ashiel wrote:
Kamelguru wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
the moment you pick a class other than commoner, you are optimizing.
Hell you can optimize a commoner.
Get wis all the way up there, grab Skill Focus (Profession Farmer) and Endurance. Farm all day, like a pro. Earn mad dosh. Optimized as fuark.

Not even dude. :P

First, take a commoner. 3 point buy or standard array. Emphasize Constitution and Wisdom and a splash of Charisma. Put ranks into Handle Animal. Purchase some oxen. Train oxen to battle for you. Oxen use the same statisticd as Aurochs. Wear armor. You won't be fighting anyway, so the extra AC just improves your survival. And a shield. Max Perception. Boost Perception like a boss. Take Skill Focus (Perception). Take Alertness. You are now a 1st level commoner with the meanest animal companions on the block, a decent AC, fair hit points, with a Perception modifier somewhere around +10 (+4 base, +1 ability, +3 skill focus, +2 alertness).

Make monks cry.

EDIT: So after Farmer McOwnage utterly destroys the local orcs pillaging the lands with his angry war oxen, he sells off all their loot and buys better stuff for himself, puts his oxen in war gear and armor, and gains a few levels. He then begins buffing Use Magic Device, and gets ready to go on his next adventure. And thus was born the legendary commoner hero. Farmer McOwnage of Awesomestien.

EDIT 2: And don't even think about messing with his daughter, Candice "Eyespike" McOwnage. Sweet thing but the deadliest in the kingdom with a pair of knitting needles...

*Takes off all 5 pairs of glasses*

Mother of god.


It is easier to nerf the optimizers rather than somehow grant skill at mechanics to role players in a mixed group. In fact this is recommended so as to make it a LOT easier to balance encounters. It is also fair. Lets face the facts a good optimizer is always going to do more with less over someone not skilled in optimizing. So even with a nerfed setup your optimizers are going to out fight the role players. The gap gets narrower however the more you nerf. The trick is to nerf down to the point where you can comfortably balance encounters without overly aggravating your optimizers.


Soo..you can't optimize and roleplay..?


Of course you can... but most people are better at one over the other. I have never seen more than one person at a table truly skilled in both.


People keep mistaking a basic optimizer for a munchkin.

Ripfang, you can optimize and roleplay, assuming a competent DM.

Yes, that's more or less my motto by now and I don't mind that at all.

Of course the player should also know what they are doing when playing their character.


Aranna wrote:

Of course you can... but most people are better at one over the other. I have never seen more than one person at a table truly skilled in both.

I have two at my table :)

These two are also what I'd call "responsible optimisers". One just recently retired his paladin, as he thought he was overly dominating, and so made an optimised rogue that wouldn't interfere with anyone else's role. I did try to talk him out of it.

Both of them also occasionally build sub-optimal PCs just for the challenge :) Not horribly so, though, they're both pretty firmly in the "I don't want my character to die" camp.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Glendwyr wrote:
Yes, I can intentionally marginalize other players, in which case the root problem is indeed that I am a jerk. But I can also build a character who marginalizes others as a result of miscommunication or miscalculation or misconception or misfortune. And in that case, the fact that I have optimized is indeed a contributing factor to the marginalization of my peers. Under such circumstances, changing the build or the play style absolutely does prevent marginalization of other players.

I think we're closer than we realize.

The build is a symptom. Sometimes you can solve or mitigate problems through symptom management, but first you need to figure out what the real issue is and if it can be solved.

The build does not exist on its own, it is the result of choices made by an individual. Once the build is gone, the individual who made those choices is still at the game table. If their intent is to be a jerk, removing optimization does not stop them from being a jerk. If their intent is to be nice and help others enjoy the game, they'll probably appreciate being told that something is wrong.


Hrm..I don't think I'm good at either, but i can only get better by trying. I'm not sure I'd want to play at a table that'd nerf something I did because it was too good somehow. If power disparity happens, I'd try to help out somehow either by helping the person become more optimized or maybe help with roleplay ideas. My first real crack at RP came from City of Heroes then came PnP. That's what i try to do when i build my character, to survive because I like the character and want to RP with it.

My first DnD Character was Taz'or Bloodmaw. We rolled stats and he wound up as Likeable Brickwall Dummy. He fought mostly with gauntlets, using javs to peg things from afar. We had a rogue, a Sorc and a Pirate of some sort, I think. I picked the feats i thought would help me in combat and such and RP'd him accordingly.

Hydra appears out of the lake and roars. Rill for Intiative!

Everyone rolls. Taz has his back to the lake. Notices shadow, turns around "..Hi! Me Taz! You big! What you name?!"

Hydra: *tilts head, roars and attacks party*

Taz: HEY! You leave friends alone! *finds a fallen sword that does acid damage and precedes to go to town*

Party looks at Taz. "What? It attack friends. Me no like that. Make me angry. Oh..me make mess. Sorry.."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:

Of course you can... but most people are better at one over the other. I have never seen more than one person at a table truly skilled in both.

Thank you for either insulting my roleplaying ability, or my optimizing. I'd invite you over for a game of Fiasco, but you probably wouldn't like how I optimized my character.


Rynjin wrote:

*Takes off all 5 pairs of glasses*

Mother of god.

Your post made it all worth it. (^o^)

Also, probably an entirely valid character in an E6 game. Sure, you could do the same thing with a druid and be better, but we're talking about optimizing a commoner, and the funny thing is this commoner just might be more effective than certain PC-classed characters.

Hell, my little brother solo'd a wyvern at 3rd level as an expert using Handle Animal, Aurochs, clever use of cover, and some tanglefoot bags.


Oh. I made a mistake in my last post. The Pirate came later. We had a Half Elf Ranger that, while being kinda snobby at the begining, fell in love with Taz. And it reminds me of the mage thing the Pirate replaced.

He had a homebrew class. I was worried about it being OP. Cept, the guy was a jerk and would turn to gaseous form half the time and not help the party. He even admitted he was a jerk out of character. We let him play because we didn't have enough players. I can't remember if we kicked him out, or we left or something.

Back on topic. We wound up fighting a dragon at the end and it destroyed us. i don't really blame the DM as we were all learning and we missed some key clues/he didn't really make them obvious.

Point is, it really sucked to have this character I really enjoyed playing get mushed and fell like it got mushed because I sucked at the game


Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Of course you can... but most people are better at one over the other. I have never seen more than one person at a table truly skilled in both.

Thank you for either insulting my roleplaying ability, or my optimizing. I'd invite you over for a game of Fiasco, but you probably wouldn't like how I optimized my character.

Really? I fail to see how I insulted anyone? You are free to label yourself. Aren't you?


Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Of course you can... but most people are better at one over the other. I have never seen more than one person at a table truly skilled in both.

Thank you for either insulting my roleplaying ability, or my optimizing. I'd invite you over for a game of Fiasco, but you probably wouldn't like how I optimized my character.

Oh come on, don't be so thin skinned. Especially if you're going to be thin skinned AND going out of your way to get hit by "insults".

Ashiel wrote:

Your post made it all worth it. (^o^)

Also, probably an entirely valid character in an E6 game. Sure, you could do the same thing with a druid and be better, but we're talking about optimizing a commoner, and the funny thing is this commoner just might be more effective than certain PC-classed characters.

Hell, my little brother solo'd a wyvern at 3rd level as an expert using Handle Animal, Aurochs, clever use of cover, and some tanglefoot bags.

So how many people actually play E6? I'd never heard of it before I started frequenting this forum and I didn't really see the point in it.

Though I guess it would give classes that peak early plenty of room to shine, wouldn't it?


Rynjin wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Aranna wrote:

Of course you can... but most people are better at one over the other. I have never seen more than one person at a table truly skilled in both.

Thank you for either insulting my roleplaying ability, or my optimizing. I'd invite you over for a game of Fiasco, but you probably wouldn't like how I optimized my character.

Oh come on, don't be so thin skinned. Especially if you're going to be thin skinned AND going out of your way to get hit by "insults".

Ashiel wrote:

Your post made it all worth it. (^o^)

Also, probably an entirely valid character in an E6 game. Sure, you could do the same thing with a druid and be better, but we're talking about optimizing a commoner, and the funny thing is this commoner just might be more effective than certain PC-classed characters.

Hell, my little brother solo'd a wyvern at 3rd level as an expert using Handle Animal, Aurochs, clever use of cover, and some tanglefoot bags.

So how many people actually play E6? I'd never heard of it before I started frequenting this forum and I didn't really see the point in it.

Though I guess it would give classes that peak early plenty of room to shine, wouldn't it?

It does, and there are many people who play E6. E6 is pretty simple and it's really good for what it's meant for, and that's running grand scale adventures on a not so grand a scale. D&D goes from normal joe to the battle of Ragnarok on a power scale. E6 just lowers the ceiling on the building a bit, and keeps the world closer to reality but with a bit of heroic fantasy.

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Even better, if you would balk if your GM put it on an NPC, don't even think about it.
I guess that rules out armor. Hur hur. :P
I probably shouldn't be surprised at this but why would people be bothered by NPCs in armor?
Who knows, maybe it is like +3 weapons...

+3 weapons wielded...by dragons! (How else are you going to magically find an Amulet of Mighty Fists +3 fall from the sky?)

:P

EDIT: And at no less than CR 15 even. *grin*

Dragons with +5 to all attributes they bought from a local genie binding market!

Oh what a fun game!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:

another reason to power game...

If i have an uber character i can turn him down for most fights, and then crank him up when the DM is going to kill us otherwise.

If i have a character that has the effectiveness of a wet noodle... he'll ALWAYS be a wet noddle no matter what i do with him.

The fallacy of most optimisers is the failure to recognise the continuum between those two extremes.


ciretose wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Even better, if you would balk if your GM put it on an NPC, don't even think about it.
I guess that rules out armor. Hur hur. :P
I probably shouldn't be surprised at this but why would people be bothered by NPCs in armor?
Who knows, maybe it is like +3 weapons...

+3 weapons wielded...by dragons! (How else are you going to magically find an Amulet of Mighty Fists +3 fall from the sky?)

:P

EDIT: And at no less than CR 15 even. *grin*

Dragons with +5 to all attributes they bought from a local genie binding market!

Oh what a fun game!

They have a market? Hmm, well I suppose dragons could turn into humanoids long enough to go get some casters to help them out in exchange for lots of gold pieces. Alter self doesn't last a super long time though. It'd be like Cinderella, only instead of the carriage turning into a pumpkin, you end up with a dragon sitting in the town square.

I fail to see how that gets them any amulets though (I'm pretty sure that actually means the dragon can't afford an amulet anymore)?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Orthos wrote:
Quote:
The group could bring the problem to my attention and I could attempt to address it. I have many options for addressing their concerns,
My preferred answer to this is "bring the party up to your level".

Maybe they're not yet capable of that. Maybe they're not interested.

Maybe they'd rather win their fights through tactical skill than through powerhouse characters.
Maybe they know the GM will just up the difficulty to match the new power level of the optimized characters, so there is no point.

Whatever the reason, if one player is obsessed with tweaking his characters for maximum power, why should the rest of the group have to adapt to his playstyle?

Glendwyr wrote:
Orthos wrote:
My preferred answer to this is "bring the party up to your level".
Unsurprisingly, I agree with thejeff here. Given the choice between adapting myself to fit in with my peers or forcing my peers to adapt to fit in with me, the former strikes me as vastly preferable, in that it is not only more courteous but also the path of least resistance.

I'm going to just say that I'm so very glad this has never been a problem for me in my groups then, and leave it at that. Every group I've ever played in, players have been willing and eager to learn how to better craft their characters to excel and survive and happily would take advice from the more skilled or experienced players in their number. I feel very sorry for groups who do not, and would rather force that person to come down to their subpar level than learn to become better themselves.

Time to hide this thread.

Andoran

If only there were precident in Golarion for Dragons to live amoung people for long periods of time...

@Orthos assuming he is still around, it isn't always players not being willing to "...learn how to better craft their characters to excel and survive and happily would take advice from the more skilled or experienced players in their number."

Sometimes it is about someone proposing something that kills the flavor of the game and breaks verisimiltude for everyone else at the table. Things that makes it less about role playing and more about rules manipulation.

If your group is into minutia and loopholes, and that makes you happy, that is not wrongbadfun. But that is "a" way to play the game, not "the" way to play the game.

I would go even further and argue it is not even the way the game was intended or designed to be played.

However, much like poker has evolved, whatever works at your table, whatever your GM wants to run, get down with your bad self.

But where the conflict comes in is when someone who finds a loophole shouts out in a crowded forum that anyone who says this isn't allowed is wrong and cruel.

Particularly people who won't then FAQ the question to get the people who wrote the game to weigh in.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
the moment you pick a class other than commoner, you are optimizing.
Hell you can optimize a commoner.

Optimized commoner.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

LazarX wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

another reason to power game...

If i have an uber character i can turn him down for most fights, and then crank him up when the DM is going to kill us otherwise.

If i have a character that has the effectiveness of a wet noodle... he'll ALWAYS be a wet noddle no matter what i do with him.

The fallacy of most optimisers is the failure to recognise the continuum between those two extremes.

In my experience, it's more often the fallacy of those who like to talk about optimizers.


ciretose wrote:
If only there were precident in Golarion for Dragons to live amoung people for long periods of time...

Yeah, I believe silver dragons do. Most other dragons aren't super awesome shapeshifters though, last I checked (it's been a while admittedly). Even the bigger dragons that get spells like alter self and polymorph could only hold those forms for a short while. Kind of amusing.

Perhaps those dragons craft expensive magic items that let them stay in humanoid form for an extended period of time. *ponders*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:


I'm going to just say that I'm so very glad this has never been a problem for me in my groups then, and leave it at that. Every group I've ever played in, players have been willing and eager to learn how to better craft their characters to excel and survive and happily would take advice from the more skilled or experienced players in their number. I feel very sorry for groups who do not, and would rather force that person to come down to their subpar level than learn to become better themselves.

And this is the part I don't like. I'm fundamentally not interested in "crafting better characters", at least when it's taken to extremes. Building something reasonably functional that matches the concept I have in mind is enough for me.

I'm interested in immersion in the character. I'm interested in interacting with the world and the other players. I'm interested in the events the GM has going on in that world. In the villains and their plots.
I don't consider skill and experience at manipulating the rules set to be important. I do not think I am subpar player because of this. I do not think I need to better myself. I think the attitude that I am and I should is a lousy one.
That's not the part of the role-playing game experience I'm really interested in.


I think everyone has said it but just to voice my experience as a GM:

Power gamers are OK so long as they don't break the rules or try and break the game for the detriment of everyone else.

Optimissing is OK so long as the above is true as well. If a player has a good idea for a PC then I will help them to make the best possible one for them so they can enjoy it. Which is what its all about anyway, who wants to play a PC that dont like and dies within half an hour of playing, there is no point to it?

Hogging the limelight, trying to break the game and being an all round pain in the backiside for everybody are not. You dont have to be an optimiser/power gamer but 95% of the time they are. Mess with the game and you mess with the GM!!

So I think its all ok to a certain extent so long as everyone and the GM are having fun. If not then the root of the problem needs to be sorted before the game collapses and the players start to get annoyed with said problem.

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is the real rift IMHO.

On the one hand you have people who view the game as a puzzle to be solved. How can I make the best X to win all of the things. The rules, to them, are the game.

On the other hand you have the people who view the game as an interactive story that they expect to not be a simple "win" or "lose" kind of proposition. The rules, to them, serve the setting.

Obviously with people who fall in the grey area in between.

When I hear about someone trying to argue for bound genies with no risk granting bonuses, I want to throw a book at them. You are, to me manipulating the rules to break the setting.

When someone else hears me say "You can't do that" to something they think is RAW, to them, I am cheating and being cruel.

I fall very strongly on the side of the rules serve the setting, rather than the setting serving the rules.

Power gaming, similarly, either serves the table, or serves the player.

If the player is helping everyone enjoy the game more, they are, well...helping everyone enjoy the game more. Awesome.

If they aren't, they are a problem.


Then get on the grey area instead of calling out "badwrongfun" on the other group, Ciretose.

Andoran

Icyshadow wrote:
Then get on the grey area instead of calling out "badwrongfun" on the other group, Ciretose.

It is only when the other group says it is "the" rule and that it would be "wrongbadfun" to not allow it.


ciretose wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Then get on the grey area instead of calling out "badwrongfun" on the other group, Ciretose.
It is only when the other group says it is "the" rule and that it would be "wrongbadfun" to not allow it.

Hey man you can play your game the way you want, and we'll play our game the way we want, and when we're on the forums discussing the game we'll stick to the rules. Sound fair? I think so.

Andoran

Ashiel wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Then get on the grey area instead of calling out "badwrongfun" on the other group, Ciretose.
It is only when the other group says it is "the" rule and that it would be "wrongbadfun" to not allow it.
Hey man you can play your game the way you want, and we'll play our game the way we want, and when we're on the forums discussing the game we'll stick to the rules. Sound fair? I think so.

Thank you for illustrating my point.


ciretose wrote:
Ashiel wrote:
ciretose wrote:
Icyshadow wrote:
Then get on the grey area instead of calling out "badwrongfun" on the other group, Ciretose.
It is only when the other group says it is "the" rule and that it would be "wrongbadfun" to not allow it.
Hey man you can play your game the way you want, and we'll play our game the way we want, and when we're on the forums discussing the game we'll stick to the rules. Sound fair? I think so.
Thank you for illustrating my point.

Which is?


I feel whatever point I needed to make has been made and will now resign myself to my cup of coffee while watching this thread deteriorate into something more entertaining.

*ssssssip*


TarkXT wrote:

I feel whatever point I needed to make has been made and will now resign myself to my cup of coffee while watching this thread deteriorate into something more entertaining.

*ssssssip*

Climbs up next to TarkXT and sips tea with him.

*ssssssip*

Silver Crusade

What is 'E6'? Are there any other 'E's I should know about?


Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
What is 'E6'? Are there any other 'E's I should know about?

E6 (short for Epic 6), a variant of D&D 3.5. Characters stop leveling at level 6, and instead gain more feats as they continue to advance. This allows games to remain at a certain level of play for simplicity and ease of DMing.

It was spawned on the assumption that all core classes where basicly at an even power level at level 6, and that level 6 was the hight of a realistic hero.

It suggested that d20 has four distinct quartiles of play:

Levels 1-5: Gritty fantasy
Levels 6-10: Heroic fantasy
Levels 11-15: Wuxia
Levels 16-20: Superheroes

E6 was meant to stay in the first two catagories.

Edit: Also to answer your second question. Yes there are other E#s... they are variants of E6... where the DM wants to stick to a different catagorie... like E12... You get Wuxia but avoid Superheroes. You see the same thing in PFS, as it stops at a certain level.

Personally I didn't like E6. It was just as easy to make a cheasy optimized build for level 6 as it was for level 20.

Andoran

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

While I am somewhat guilty of being an optimizer I will say that you are as only powerful as the player sitting next to you. Don't worry about the GM. The GM has infinite resources and can always scale things to be appropriately easy or difficult as suits their whim.

Now if everyone at the table is a powergamer that is fine. Otherwise, what advantages are there to being more powerful than your fellow player? While it may stroke your ego, it may also come at the cost marginalizing their experience and making them feel like a bit player. Also, a wide spread of character ability levels makes it really tough for a GM to design a balanced encounter that is fun for all players.

Personally, I prefer to think that how heroic you are has nothing to do with the numbers on your character sheet. Rather, it has do with the actions of your character in relation to the narrative taking place. RPGs are generally meant to be a shared experience between the players and the GM rather than a competition to see who can get the biggest number.


I am also a power gamer....lol. But for me it developed from being with a group that did no optimizing at all. I play a crowd control witch and found that while the dwarf barbarian is taking his 5th round to kill the BBEG himself (which had lower AC, and lower bonus to hit with Evil Eye), i slept his minions with slumber and they can be taken out at will over the next 2-3 rounds. The GM was angry at my crowd control, but i didn't shine more than any other character. The barbarian was gloating how he took out the bad guy by himself, the sorcerer how she aoe'd 2 of the minions. WE all had fun and I know I did my job.

201 to 250 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why I power game 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.