|
Ok Mr. Baird we understand you hate people that admit they are power gamers, but appreciate people that are power gamers but hide it.
If a DM gets upset about a legal character then that is a poor DM. I play this game to escape my normal life like most people. I want my players to try and act epic. I want my players to walk away from my tables retelling stories that happened at my tables. I do not get attatched to my mods and monsters that I would get upset. I enjoy when players smite the worst I throw at them. The only thing that makes me cry is the guy/gal that cheats his/her dice rolls and is epic from cheating.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok Mr. Baird we understand you hate people that admit they are power gamers, but appreciate people that are power gamers but hide it.
I don't hate power gamers. They can be some of the most fun people to play with or GM for. I hate people who feel the need to try to dominate the attention of the table with their "amazing" character. Those people aren't power gamers, they're immature jerks.
HUGE difference.
|
Ok Mr. Baird we understand you hate people that admit they are power gamers, but appreciate people that are power gamers but hide it.I don't hate power gamers. They can be some of the most fun people to play with or GM for. I hate people who feel the need to try to dominate the attention of the table with their "amazing" character. Those people aren't power gamers, they're immature jerks.
HUGE difference.
+1
|
I don't get the hostility.
I mean if you're a math whiz you have to turn to another mathematician to say "hey check out this proof!"
If you're a computer programmer you have to turn to another programmer to say "hey check out this elegant solution
If you've created a cool character combo who else are you going to show it off to but other gamers? They're the only ones that can understand whats going on with the scribblings on the character sheet.
I don't think i fully appreciate the "woot two more points of dpr" crowd
My preference is for something bizarre that works oddly well(an animal companion raccoon acting as the rogue for instance) but that crowd does turn out some useful information and some of the builds are kinda interesting.
Player A says: "I create legal characters that make GM's cry!"
Translates to: "I need attention! Look at me mommy!"
Or it could translate to "I am using hyperbole to make a point."
Which seems to have been missed.
I made the comment to emphasize that there is no really good reason not to be able to briefly summarize any character build so that a GM understands it, at least for the general idea behind the build.
Personally, do I make strong builds? Sure. Do I talk about how awesome they are at the table? Do I ignore the other player's need to have fun? Absolutely not. I dial it back for most tables. I just like having the "extra ammo" when I am in a high powered party with a GM that I know can handle it.
I do find it odd that people seem to love picking a fluff phrase that is there purely to contrast and emphasize a related main point, and ignore the main point to focus on the fluff.
-j
|
|
Or it could translate to "I am using hyperbole to make a point."Player A says: "I create legal characters that make GM's cry!"
Translates to: "I need attention! Look at me mommy!"
1) None of my comments were directed at anyone specific.
2) Unfortunately IME, that phrase is not hyperbole. Sad, I know. I count at least a dozen players I've run across use it or something nearly identical. Are they bad people? Nope. Are they usually concerned about the enjoyment of everyone at the table when they play? Nope.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a DM gets upset about a legal character then that is a poor DM. I play this game to escape my normal life like most people. I want my players to try and act epic. I want my players to walk away from my tables retelling stories that happened at my tables.
We all want our players to have "epic" moments at the game table. We just dislike dealing with players whose idea of epic is to steamroll adventures without risk or challenge because they're so ferociously optimized. If that sort of optimization is coupled with self-centered narcissism, the rest of the table gets to watch while some "SuperToon" forces them to be spectators instead of adventurers.
While "builds that make GMs cry" may be hyperbole, Kyle's reaction wasn't that different from my own occasional frustration. I've watched while some guy demolished a scenario, then had other players choose not to come back because they spent an entire adventure without doing a single worthwhile thing. In a couple of cases, I only discovered afterward that the player had misremembered important abilities, taking advantage of "broken" spells or feats that weren't really broken: They just didn't work the way he had described them.
Organized play games don't give the GM as much latitude to tweak encounters as a home game might, so fairly challenging everyone can be difficult. As an author, I've had people tear into me for writing encounters that "no 1st or 2nd level party should have to face". I've had others complain that the same scenario's fights were all too easy.
|
|
I have played PFS where DMs take pride in killing people and cheat to do so. I have seen a DM add traps in a mod to wound people they do not like at the table. I have seen a DM have the big bad guy walk past his girlfriend's PC provoking to attack someone else(I have yet to see him wound her as a DM). I take pride in making those DMs cry. When it comes down to it no DM should hold enough pride of a mod that they would ever be reduced to crying(or being bothered by someone steam rolling). I have yet to see a mod where one player could reduce all other characters to being worthless without cheating. I have seen tables of 7 where new players were left behind with pregens because all of the vets were power gamers, and that is a shame. Back to the point a DM should not view the game us him verus the PC's, but mod vs the PCs while he judges. If a DM allows one player to dominate the table then that is another example of a poor DM.
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
I have played PFS where DMs take pride in killing people and cheat to do so. I have seen a DM add traps in a mod to wound people they do not like at the table. I have seen a DM have the big bad guy walk past his girlfriend's PC provoking to attack someone else(I have yet to see him wound her as a DM). I take pride in making those DMs cry. When it comes down to it no DM should hold enough pride of a mod that they would ever be reduced to crying(or being bothered by someone steam rolling). I have yet to see a mod where one player could reduce all other characters to being worthless without cheating. I have seen tables of 7 where new players were left behind with pregens because all of the vets were power gamers, and that is a shame. Back to the point a DM should not view the game us him verus the PC's, but mod vs the PCs while he judges. If a DM allows one player to dominate the table then that is another example of a poor DM.Sorry, I just felt the need to chime in here....
Take it from someone who has been in this hobby for a while (35+ years), it's not worth it. Just walk away. If you encounter a judge doing any of the above things, why would you inflict yourself with gaming with them? Do what we gamers have done sense this hobbit was 3 small books in a cardstock box... walk away and avoid this guy in the future. If players don't sit at his table - NO ONE has to suffer from him. By trying to "win", you are just inflicting him on other players, and worse yet, on yourself.
If you try to "beat the Judge" - it is a waste of your time and a waste of anyone elses who gets stuck with him. This guy is NOT going to brake down and cry... "Rock falls, you die". Get up, go tell the organizer you can't play for this guy, 'cause he's a jerk and get on with your life. You don't even have to tell the other players - they'll notice, and perhaps follow your example. To do anything else in PFS is "burning a scenario" - one maybe you...
And if the scenario has already begun? You risk unscrupulous GMs holding your character hostage. You also will "burn" the scenario, like you said.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a DM allows one player to dominate the table then that is another example of a poor DM.
That's a little simplistic and naive. While I agree that a GM has quite a bit of control over the game, in PFS where the adventure is largely scripted, a GM can be hamstrung by a min/max uber-optimized PC. This is particularly so if the scenario is heavy in the area of optimization of the PC. There is only so much a GM can do to deflect the spot-light to the other players. Now, in a home game, where I (GM) have 100% control over the environment, I can make changes to increase the participation of the other players.
I don't begrudge players from playing the game the way they enjoy it most, but in organized play, its not all about *you*. There are 6 +/- other players at the table, including the GM, who is also allowed to have fun. As players we have to ask ourselves if our PC is appropriate for the campaign. If it takes advantage of loop-holes in the rules, exploits known cheesy/broken combinations, or is just soo effective at a major part/s of the game that other players will be relegated to baggage handlers, then perhaps PFS is not the right venue for you. Not everyone should play PFS and there's nothing wrong with that. I don't enjoy WoW or MtG, so I don't play them. That's not an indictment of those games, they're just not for me. For some of *you* the same might be said.
Explore! Report! Cooperate!
|
I have played PFS where DMs take pride in killing people and cheat to do so. I have seen a DM add traps in a mod to wound people they do not like at the table. I have seen a DM have the big bad guy walk past his girlfriend's PC provoking to attack someone else(I have yet to see him wound her as a DM). I take pride in making those DMs cry. When it comes down to it no DM should hold enough pride of a mod that they would ever be reduced to crying(or being bothered by someone steam rolling). I have yet to see a mod where one player could reduce all other characters to being worthless without cheating. I have seen tables of 7 where new players were left behind with pregens because all of the vets were power gamers, and that is a shame. Back to the point a DM should not view the game us him verus the PC's, but mod vs the PCs while he judges. If a DM allows one player to dominate the table then that is another example of a poor DM.
You appear offended by the thought that only power gaming players cause problems, but then go and say everything is the fault of power mad DMs. Or at least that how it reads to me.
I am somewhat of a Pathfinder Society neophyte, but I have been heavily involved in other organized play systems. I have even written a module or two for them. It does not happen locally, but I have personally seen a single player dominate a scenario (or module or adventure) at the convention level. If I am volunteering I am incredibly restricted on what I can do about that kind of thing. You can't blame the DM if someone went out of their way to have a character built to dominate. They have all the resources the Pathfinder Society allow at hand. I have the scenario, the bestiaries, and rules I am bound to follow.
In my personal experience I often find people who build to dominate also have a command of the rules, organized play as well as game, that is startling. If perhaps I try to do something to occupy that character so the other players can enjoy themselves then I would be immediately called out. I have seen a table full of people completely unhappy at the end of a convention slot. They felt about as useful as the horses the party rode in on and parked at the tavern's stable. Yet I followed all of the rules that I am bound to do by being involve in organized play and what was written in the scenario.
Personally if I am deep into volunteering full time at a convention then I don't mind power gamers if everyone is on board. If steam rolling through a mod in an hour is what rings their bell then great. I can go back to my hotel room for the rest of the slot and sleep. I only ask that if not everyone at the table is into that then be considerate.
Now that I managed to get here and wander off a bit. Let me get back to the point of the thread. The only problems I've felt I had with really complicated builds involves people who try to be purposefully confusing because they are trying to hide some shady rules interpretation. The second is that a friend built a wildly complicated character for the player and then went off to play at a higher level table. The new players knows this build is awesome in theory but is then confused by how it works. It makes things drag out for everyone.
I really do regret using that turn of phrase.
As an aside, there's really more than one form of "optimizer" that you might see in play.
There's what I term "min-maxers", who are purely trying for the most powerful build possible. This can often be without regards for balance or the enjoyment of the others at the table. They can be frustrating to deal with but usually aren't maliciously trying to cause trouble.
I classify myself differently as a "power gamer", because to me it denotes a larger goal: Challenge. Power gamers will build powerful but will also expect similar builds from their fellow players, and a real challenge from the GM. They step up their game with the expectation that others will do so in response. They can also be similarly frustrating when they don't realize if the other players or GM might not be up to such play.
Obviously, these are my personal definitions, but the idea should be understandable.
Either way, the best method to deal with problems at the table? Talk to them. At the next opportunity for a break, take the player aside and ask him or her tone it down a bit. Most will do so. I have judged literally hundreds of tables at conventions in the past couple of decades (albeit not Pathfinder), and I can count on my hands the number of times I ran into problem players that were not understanding.
The ones that refuse, well, at that point the player is purely being disruptive and I have no sympathy if they get ejected from the table or the convention.
-j
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimization is is highly subjective. Like driving, everyone thinks they're doing it at the proper speed, and the folks whizzing past them are lunatics and the people they need to zoom past are a bunch of chickens who need to learn how to drive.
If you're a two handed fighter with an 18 strength in a party with an evoker that thinks magic missile is awesome, a clerical heal bot, and a two weapon fighter you're going to dominate the scenario compared to the rest of your party. In a home game you can dial back or step on the gas to conform with your group, but in a pfs game
-You don't always know who's at the table
-Even if you see them, most players don't comp shop on the character sheets.
-You don't know if someone's having a bad night with the dice or if there's something bad in their build.
You can also get a lot of variation based on the scenario. I've had scenarios where all I could do is some minor buffing and other scenarios where the options were to neigh solo the thing on my own or have the entire party ride the fail boat.
On top of that, a little... lack of social awareness isn't exactly uncommon in the gaming community. Someone ROFLCOPTERing the scenario may think they're doing it at the right difficulty, and is probably unaware if they're making someone else feel bad.
I don't think its the DMs job to play Harrison Bergeron and arbitrarily decide to even the playing field. Even if they COULD get such a balance i don;t think it would be perceived that way.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, West Virginia—Charleston
|
Quote
No, my point was that if you walk away from the table, some GMs might not let your character go. They might go as far as to play the rest of the scenario with him as an NPC (against your will), and not necessarily be too worried about his survival. Even if you have the PP to spend on resurrection..."Oh, I'm sorry, you weren't around to spend it."
There would be very little way of proving that the GM was wrong. It would be the player's word against the GM's.
There have been other threads about the consequences of walking away and how GMs handle that. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect that this sort of GM could behave like that.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Netopalis,
If only there were other people at the table who could bear witness...
Really, when the player leaves the table, he gets a Chronicle sheet. If the GM hands me a Chronicle sheet that doesn't say my character died, then that serves as the primary record of the session.
|
|
What I do and counsel other GMs to do, is ignore this player. Let them do their thing, but ignore them for most part. Play up the accomplishments of the other characters at the table. When Player A does his thing, just say "ok" remove the bad guy or whatever, and move on. When Player B does his thing, go into great detail and act things out. Sometimes Player A gets the hint and stops being a jackass. Usually, ime, they don't.
I've seen this happen at a couple of tables and I just feel like that's the way not to deal with that kind of player. The problem with this is that it makes the entire session awkward (and have a strange vibe), whether it's for the optimized player or a non-optimized player. Either way, it makes the game kind of suck. I haven't enjoyed the tables where this happenned (I wasn't the ignored player but I wasn't the 'praised' player either). It felt a little like a GM praising his girlfriend in high school. It felt a little like the GM was being the 'jerk' in this case. How about just GMing normally?
The problem with GMs making evaluations like this is that they can be completely off base. For example, an inquisitor just doing his thing. GM didn't understand the class apparently. Gun slingers are often targets as well. They definitely didn't "dominate" the table, but the GM maybe felt that they did. I'm sure Kyle wouldn't make this mistake, but other GMs definitely have in the past.
Basically you're punishing the player for picking a certain character, which isn't cool. And just because the PC is optimized, why would you ignore the player's roleplaying?
And you're right, the players don't walk away "understanding". If you want them to understand, talk to the player. In the end, the players just walk away from the table with a lesser experience, which isn't really good for anyone.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think Kyle was speaking about the player's role-playing or ignoring them in RP situations. Not speaking for him, I simply inferred differently than you did.
Player's dominating tables, is too broad a term. There are a lot of different types of people/players out there and they are all different. Here's some examples and how I attempt to handle them.
Optimized Diplomancer ROLLplayer: He's not interested in RPing the scenes just "I diplo that guy, 35".
As a GM: I try to goad the player into at least saying something to the NPC or try to role-play it out with other PCs and then use his roll. If nobody seems interested I shuffle through those encounters like "this dude you approach seems "roll diplomacy" extremely helpful what would you like to ask him?
The Diva: This is the guy that people think about when they thing about min-maxers, he's got some crazy awesome build, might even be tracking his kills or damage/round and loves to announce how much damage he did.
IMHO this is what Kyle was referring to.
As a GM: In combats he wants nothing more than to explain where all his bonuses come from or how much damage he did. Now I usually just tell people the monsters AC (lets them figure out what they need to roll, so no less mathing, faster play) Those guys "I shoot this one" alright he dies, next player, move through it, don't dwell on it, ask for things like the total not the bonuses. You're not denying that guy anything except more time to brag about his dudder.
Munchkins: These guys are usually cheating or boarderline cheating. usually taking "favorable" rulings ect. If a character is in a sea of gray it's a munchkiny. Builds based on ambiguity being perceived favorably, and raw cheating, are munchkins.
Then we have power gamers: Power gamers know the rules, understand what makes characters strong assets to the party and know what they are doing with them. Sometimes powergamers are also Divas, sometimes they are also ROLLplayers, but in my experience most of the people that have put the time in to learn the game that well did so because they are players who love the game.
Everyone who has played a lot of 3.5 or PF knows that 2-handed is better that TWF if for no other reason than money, they know that clustershot is basically a feat tax, as is power attack. They know that enchantment doesn't work on half the enemies, so it's pretty meh.
Ultimately, most of this doesn't come up, and the point of this thread is "what do I do when I just don't know what this PCs guy is going to do" I stand by trust them.
Secondarily what do I do when a player is grandstanding. Ask them to stop. Say "I get that you like you character, but dude chill out and let other people have fun" it's surprisingly effective.
|
Player A says: "I create legal characters that make GM's cry!"
Translates to: "I need attention! Look at me mommy!"
What I do and counsel other GMs to do, is ignore this player. Let them do their thing, but ignore them for most part. Play up the accomplishments of the other characters at the table. When Player A does his thing, just say "ok" remove the bad guy or whatever, and move on. When Player B does his thing, go into great detail and act things out. Sometimes Player A gets the hint and stops being a jackass. Usually, ime, they don't.
The worst thing you can do is concentrate on this player and try to challenge them. That's what they want and only encourages the adolescent behavior.
Well put, Kyle. I've did this a couple of times and it worked pretty well. Except when the powergaming cheese weasal has a little yappy dog-like friend sitting next to him, stroking his .... ego for him with comments about how great/powerful his character is -- but, eh, that's gaming sometimes. Mostly the ego-tripper did pick up on the fact that he was getting short-changed by me, as far as ego petting time. It might have been the regular eye-rolling that I did after he announced his rolls. >.>
|
|
What I do and counsel other GMs to do, is ignore this player. Let them do their thing, but ignore them for most part. Play up the accomplishments of the other characters at the table. When Player A does his thing, just say "ok" remove the bad guy or whatever, and move on. When Player B does his thing, go into great detail and act things out. Sometimes Player A gets the hint and stops being a jackass. Usually, ime, they don't.I've seen this happen at a couple of tables and I just feel like that's the way not to deal with that kind of player. The problem with this is that it makes the entire session awkward (and have a strange vibe), whether it's for the optimized player or a non-optimized player. Either way, it makes the game kind of suck. I haven't enjoyed the tables where this happenned (I wasn't the ignored player but I wasn't the 'praised' player either). It felt a little like a GM praising his girlfriend in high school. It felt a little like the GM was being the 'jerk' in this case. How about just GMing normally?
The problem with GMs making evaluations like this is that they can be completely off base. For example, an inquisitor just doing his thing. GM didn't understand the class apparently. Gun slingers are often targets as well. They definitely didn't "dominate" the table, but the GM maybe felt that they did. I'm sure Kyle wouldn't make this mistake, but other GMs definitely have in the past.
Basically you're punishing the player for picking a certain character, which isn't cool. And just because the PC is optimized, why would you ignore the player's roleplaying?
And you're right, the players don't walk away "understanding". If you want them to understand, talk to the player. In the end, the players just walk away from the table with a lesser experience, which isn't really good for anyone.
Emphasis added is mine. My understanding is that Kyle was talking about playing up the accomplishments of ALL the other characters at the table, and just being very brief with superman/woman/thing.
Frankly, speaking, I've hardly ever felt like a GM was intentionally trying to kill any of my characters (maybe I'm too obtuse to see it?). The only problems I've had with GM's is pacing. Rushing through the scneario because they just really don't enjoy GMing/they're tired/they just would rather be somewhere else.
I've much, MUCH more often had troubles with players using the set of numbers on their character sheet as a device to extend/expand their own ego. As a GM, I have less difficulty with this, as I can chide them if they are taking too much time away from the table to pontificate on why exactly their character is so wonderful. As another player, I have much less control over their use of the table's time. I wouldn't say it's a huge problem, but there are people I activitely avoid gaming with because I know they are like this.
As far as ignoring roleplaying, I would NEVER advocate that. Heck, I know some power-gamers that are also excellent role-players and bring enjoyment to me as a gamer from presenting a three dimensional character with believable motivations, quirks, and *gasp* even weaknesses. These players also tend to keep their OOC comments about their own character/rules to a minimum during the gaming slot, but are more than happy to talk about it between slots/on breaks/etc.
|
|
I think that is horribly passive aggressive to ignore the troll player and "hope" he learns. If there are two people at the table the common dominator would begin to point at the DM being the issue. Treat each player as an adult human being. I highly doubt the troll player realizes he is being a jerk. Call a break and speak to him alone and tell him he is wrecking other players' or your fun. D&D is full of people with social issues, and they may not be able to pick up the cues fo thier actions bothering people. I never have consistent issues with players at my tables because of these types of issues.
It is deliberate cheating that wrecks my game. I honestly wish there were more rules then that help with cheaters and not the silent stigmata I get for wrecking the table for pointing it out. People should know thier builds and their gear. There should be nothing complicated about one person'ss character that they can not completly and easily explain.
|
|
I think that is horribly passive aggressive to ignore the troll player and "hope" he learns. If there are two people at the table the common dominator would begin to point at the DM being the issue. Treat each player as an adult human being. I highly doubt the troll player realizes he is being a jerk. Call a break and speak to him alone and tell him he is wrecking other players' or your fun. D&D is full of people with social issues, and they may not be able to pick up the cues fo thier actions bothering people. I never have consistent issues with players at my tables because of these types of issues.
To be fair, not all self-absorbed gamers are the same. If this is a younger person, I will try and talk to them and stress that this is a multi-person cooperative game. That said, I've encountered at least a half dozen older/veteran players that just don't or won't 'get it'. I have spoken to some of them about their self-absorbed gaming style. As far as I can tell by their facial expressions and verbal responses, you are correct in saying they do not realize they are being a jerk. A certain minority of people just do not seem capable of understanding how this behavior detracts from the fun of the other players and GM. Sometimes they have reacted in a rather belligerent fashion at the table up to and including pouting. I would guess that the 'fun time' we all have at that point is equivalent to what you get you've called cheaters out and the resulting silent stigmata casts a long shadow over the table.
Speaking of cheating, I just have encountered very little of it in PFS (compared to other bad behaviors). 99% plus of what I've seen from rules bending or breaking falls into two categories.
1.) Honest Mistakes - new-ish or rules-lite players misinterpreting the rules.
2.) Rules Lawyering - veteran players (usually power gamers) interpreting rules in the most favorable way (to their character) that they can. In some cases the if they were to do the physical contortions that were equivalent to the mental contortions required to make their rules interpretations legit ... well, I'm pretty sure they'd suffer multiple dislocations in their bodies.
Anyway, I've beaten this horse into glue. Happy gaming.