thejeff |
My favorite type of player in a nutshell: An imaginative person who understands the process of playing a table-top RPG (you have a character you portray, you choose what the character does, dice are rolled to decide success in some situations) but has never even cracked the rule book
I'd rather have to remind a player every session what die they roll to do things than have a player that knows the actual rules of the game and how they apply to the action they want to take.
I find that the more a player knows (and especially the more they care) about their chance of succeeding on a particular die roll, the more they choose their actions based only on their mechanical strengths rather than just doing what seems cool to them.
...and I hate rules that jump out and "gotcha" that type of player (like the combat maneuver feats - nothing stops a player from just doing what seems cool faster than "ooh, I try to take his sword away! What do you mean he attacks me, I thought it was my turn?" other than just telling them "no, you don't.")
To that end, I mostly run games that my players are less familiar with (like Pathfinder, which most of them aren't sure what is different and what isn't from D&D 3.5, but especially Dungeon Crawl Classics and Shadowrun 3rd edition which none of them have ever actually read), look up anything they need to know for them rather than hand them the book, and handle all penalties to their actions on my end (raising the AC rather than telling them to subtract from their attack roll, for example) so that they aren't able to get "scared off" an action they just declared by the rules.
It's always a bummer for me to see a player go through this:
Player 1: "I fire an arrow at that stupid lizard-man that hit me with a rock!"
GM: "Cool. Your attack is at -1 because he is in melee with Player 2, and you'll have a 50/50 chance of hitting Player 2 if you miss."
Player 1: "Oh, right... then I am going to shoot at one of those other lizard-men instead."Just that moment when the player decides to do the more mechanically sound thing and throws all the character-driven plans they had out the window without a second thought... it makes my heart sink.
Is that really the "more mechanically sound thing" or is it "Oh right, I really don't want to hit the other PC", which is more of an in character thing. Some idea of what to expect when you try something is good.
I do think the "player who hasn't cracked the rule book" works better in simpler games. PF has too many trap options. I assume you'd build a character based on his concept, but I don't really see how it would work without understanding at least how his own character works. If the character's build is more effective at running up and hitting things than shooting into melee, then the character should know that and be able to plan accordingly, in character.OTOH, I like a game like Call of Cthulhu partly because the rules are simple and you don't really need to know much of them. It's skill based, so you can build your character fairly intuitively. It's apparently possible to build combat monsters, but they won't really help you. The equivalent of knowledge and research skills are usually more important. You don't need to know the mechanics to play effectively.
AaronOfBarbaria |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is that really the "more mechanically sound thing" or is it "Oh right, I really don't want to hit the other PC", which is more of an in character thing.
That depends on whether they are playing a character with all the archery prowess of Legolas, or playing a character who is much more of a novice with a bow.
I'm talking about Legolas-level archers deciding not to fire upon the lizard most offensive to their sensibilities, but instead the one furthest from their companions... and that makes me sad.
Some idea of what to expect when you try something is good.
I agree with that to a point - It is fine to know that you generally have better chances in melee than at range (or vice versa), which is why a player can record their attack roll modifiers on their character sheet. Beyond that simple level of knowledge, I think that the information is too tempting to be used to make choices for the wrong reason.
PsychoticWarrior |
I love the flawed hero type character. Most of my PCs stats over the years have been rolled so I almost always have 1 or more stats below 9. There was Meal the 5 Int Paladin (with a Wis of 15 - he would often come up with good ideas that were 'inspired by the Big Guy) or Random the Int 7 Ranger who was led by his emotions and less than even temper.
The thing I really hate though is the number of times I would get Captain Average - the guy without a stat above 12 or below 10. So hard to build something off of it.
Mark Rennick |
I think the idea of optimizing is dependent on what one does in the process. Making sure that your character is good at whatever their specialty is, can be fun, and rewarding for game play; making every PC without flaws, can make for boring fights and less than fun RPing. If I have a scout type, then I want him to excel at that role, whether that means he's not very socialable, or not. I can't imagine it being much fun playing a scout type character that lacked in either stealth or perception, but him being a rogue without diplomacy or escape artist makes him a specialist, not flawed. He's loads of fun to play, but limited in what role he has...love that!
thejeff |
thejeff wrote:Is that really the "more mechanically sound thing" or is it "Oh right, I really don't want to hit the other PC", which is more of an in character thing.That depends on whether they are playing a character with all the archery prowess of Legolas, or playing a character who is much more of a novice with a bow.
I'm talking about Legolas-level archers deciding not to fire upon the lizard most offensive to their sensibilities, but instead the one furthest from their companions... and that makes me sad.
Well, if he's Legolas he's not going to miss or won't hit his friend if he does, so based on mechanics he should go ahead and shoot his preferred target.
Either the mechanics give him a decent chance of hitting his friend and he should know that and take it into account. Or they don't and he should know that and take it into account.
If the mechanics are misleading, then that's a problem. To quote your OP "Your attack is at -1 because he is in melee with Player 2, and you'll have a 50/50 chance of hitting Player 2 if you miss." If that still leaves him only missing on a 1, then it's not a big deal, but that's information you left out. It makes it sound as if there's a good chance of hitting Player 2.
And since you called that the more mechanically sound option, it seems like you agree.
Why does it make you sad when the highly skilled archer bases his actions on what's likely to be effective, which he should know since he's highly skilled, rather than the player's first impulse?
Zombieneighbours |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something I've found with players who optimize characters a lot can be very predictable as to what feats they have and the type of spells or weapons they use
Was anyone else found this ?
Yes, I term it "the narrowing of range".
When I get onto the topic of optimisation that narrowing of range is my primary with the optimisation.
Optimisation is a useful skill so long as the question is, "how do I make this concept work the best it can."
It become destructive when the question becomes "which concept should I play to be as optimal as possible."
AaronOfBarbaria |
If the mechanics are misleading, then that's a problem. To quote your OP "Your attack is at -1 because he is in melee with Player 2, and you'll have a 50/50 chance of hitting Player 2 if you miss." If that still leaves him only missing on a 1, then it's not a big deal, but that's information you left out. It makes it sound as if there's a good chance of hitting Player 2.
Here's some examples of when this has come up using the actual numbers:
Example 1) Archer rolls 1d20+1d3+1 to attack with his sling, and his opponents are hit if that roll totals 12 or higher (which the player knows because of mechanics to enhance rolls at personal expense that require such transparency).
If Archer attacks an enemy in melee with an ally of his, he is at a -1 penalty and has 50% chance that a missed attack is (sorry for leaving this out before, it is important and somehow slipped my mind when typing) re-rolled at the same modifiers against his ally's AC of 16.
The Archer has a 55% chance of hitting the ally-adjacent target, a 60% chance of hitting a free-standing target, and a whopping 7.875% (if I did sleepy math correctly) chance of hitting his ally.
So why is the character so worried about hitting his friend?
Example 2) Assassin rolls 1d20+3 to attack with his short bow, but happens to have gotten into position to utilize his class ability to Backstab an opponent in melee with his ally, granting him an extra +3 to hit and guaranteeing that a hit will be a critical hit (and his friend is not subject to that ability because he is facing the assassin). His enemies in the battle happen to have an AC of 14 while his ally has an AC of 19.
Assassin has a 60% chance to hit the ally-adjacent target, 65% chance to hit the free-standing target and will critical on either, and his chance of hitting his ally, which will not be critical unless a natural 20 is rolled, is a staggering (if I did my math correctly this time) 5%.
So again, why is the character so worried?
And since you called that the more mechanically sound option, it seems like you agree.
More mechanically sound, yes, but that does not mean that the less sound option is actually unsound - it is a difference of "likely to work" and "option most likely to work", not one of "likely to work" to "unlikely to work."
Why does it make you sad when the highly skilled archer bases his actions on what's likely to be effective, which he should know since he's highly skilled, rather than the player's first impulse?
Because the player's first impulse was not only likely to be effective, but also had reasons beyond pure efficiency.
...and the players from both the above examples have, many times since, show that they have no actual problem with firing into melee even when it results in hitting an ally "Oh right, I forgot about that rule... sorry man," and yet never fail to change their declared target if someone actually reminds them of that rule before they roll their attack.
They seem not to be actually weighing what is effective, or judging their chances of success in any way other than "that action isn't the easiest to succeed at? I'll do the easiest action to succeed at instead."
Player: "I throw my axe under-handed at the pin securing the rope that holds the chandelier up, trying to drop the chandelier upon our enemies."
Me: "SWEET! Roll the attack... -4 for the combination of range and precision needed for the shot." *said knowing that still leaves a greater than 50% chance of success.
Player: "-4? Nah... I'll just throw my axe at an enemy within my first range increment instead."
...and then what? I sigh and move on because I don't have the energy to try and convince someone to do their own awesome plan that is likely to succeed, and it isn't fair to the other players at the table for me to spend the time doing so right in the middle of a session... and on top of all that, I feel stupid for not just saying "Sweet! Roll that attack," and adjusting for difficult on my end without ever invoking The Word Which Changes All Plans.
ArianDynas |
My Varisian wizard; Cyril "Silks" Lyric, some pretty good stats... and an 8.
I had been screwing around with my Hero Builder's Guidebook from 3.5, just rolling on some tables for backstory as I was making up the stats, and got the "Childhood Illness" result on "influential childhood events." I looked at that 8 and figured to myself; "Why not?" and stuck it slap dab in to Constitution.
I decided from then on in, he had a hacking cough, resulting from damage to his heart and lungs, ala Rastlin Majare, leaving him obsessed with curing a disease that is no longer there, and things have been growing from there.
And funnily enough? I'm the party "face" so I'm the one they stick in the lead. The sickly pretty guy. Needless to say; as the highest charisma in the party, and having a constitution easily knocked down by a swift breeze, fighting Lustspawn is fuuuun... -.-
Aranna |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Saltmarsh 6 wrote:Something I've found with players who optimize characters a lot can be very predictable as to what feats they have and the type of spells or weapons they use
Was anyone else found this ?Yes, I term it "the narrowing of range".
When I get onto the topic of optimisation that narrowing of range is my primary with the optimisation.
Optimisation is a useful skill so long as the question is, "how do I make this concept work the best it can."
It become destructive when the question becomes "which concept should I play to be as optimal as possible."
I think you are absolutely right Zombieneighbours. I wish more optimizers thought as you do.
AaronOfBarbaria |
there's no problems with unoptimized characters, so long as its not to the detriment of the party, or the party has to carry your weight.If that makes sense.
An example: Everyone gets together for a campaign, it's been established that the campaign will involve an ancient and powerful dracolich and its undead army attempting to conquer the nation, and the PCs will be the "special weapon" called into service to stop this...
...and then the guy that wants to play a wizard decides to only learn enchantment spells, meaning the bulk of what he brings to the table is guaranteed to not be useful in the bulk of foreseeable campaign situations.
It's a great character, and he's got a great personality in mind for it and isn't optimized in any way - he also is about the worst character for the party to be "stuck" with for the campaign ahead.
shallowsoul |
carmachu wrote:there's no problems with unoptimized characters, so long as its not to the detriment of the party, or the party has to carry your weight.If that makes sense.An example: Everyone gets together for a campaign, it's been established that the campaign will involve an ancient and powerful dracolich and its undead army attempting to conquer the nation, and the PCs will be the "special weapon" called into service to stop this...
...and then the guy that wants to play a wizard decides to only learn enchantment spells, meaning the bulk of what he brings to the table is guaranteed to not be useful in the bulk of foreseeable campaign situations.
It's a great character, and he's got a great personality in mind for it and isn't optimized in any way - he also is about the worst character for the party to be "stuck" with for the campaign ahead.
I wouldn't even call that optimized because he's put himself in a situation where jerk is useless since undead are immune to most enchantment spells.
carmachu |
carmachu wrote:there's no problems with unoptimized characters, so long as its not to the detriment of the party, or the party has to carry your weight.If that makes sense.An example: Everyone gets together for a campaign, it's been established that the campaign will involve an ancient and powerful dracolich and its undead army attempting to conquer the nation, and the PCs will be the "special weapon" called into service to stop this...
...and then the guy that wants to play a wizard decides to only learn enchantment spells, meaning the bulk of what he brings to the table is guaranteed to not be useful in the bulk of foreseeable campaign situations.
It's a great character, and he's got a great personality in mind for it and isn't optimized in any way - he also is about the worst character for the party to be "stuck" with for the campaign ahead.
Thats the exact problem. I have an issue with THAT character. Because now he's about as useful as a brick and just as much having to be carried by the party. You're not working with the party being suboptimal, your working against the party, unlike the OP examples while being sub-optimal still managed to work with the party and contribute and be useful.
Its like playing a frenzy berserker barbarian in a campaign thats set up as a city adventure that requires diplomacy and a soft touch, not slaughter till no one is left.
shallowsoul |
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:carmachu wrote:there's no problems with unoptimized characters, so long as its not to the detriment of the party, or the party has to carry your weight.If that makes sense.An example: Everyone gets together for a campaign, it's been established that the campaign will involve an ancient and powerful dracolich and its undead army attempting to conquer the nation, and the PCs will be the "special weapon" called into service to stop this...
...and then the guy that wants to play a wizard decides to only learn enchantment spells, meaning the bulk of what he brings to the table is guaranteed to not be useful in the bulk of foreseeable campaign situations.
It's a great character, and he's got a great personality in mind for it and isn't optimized in any way - he also is about the worst character for the party to be "stuck" with for the campaign ahead.
Thats the exact problem. I have an issue with THAT character. Because now he's about as useful as a brick and just as much having to be carried by the party. You're not working with the party being suboptimal, your working against the party, unlike the OP examples while being sub-optimal still managed to work with the party and contribute and be useful.
Its like playing a frenzy berserker barbarian in a campaign thats set up as a city adventure that requires diplomacy and a soft touch, not slaughter till no one is left.
It's not up to you to decide how useful someone's character needs to be. Usefulness is purely subjective because all characters can so something. No character is completely and utterly useless.
AaronOfBarbaria |
It's not up to you to decide how useful someone's character needs to be.
Sure it is.
The GM should decide how useful the character needs to be because he desires the game to continue fruitfully - which is difficult if the characters are not useful for the challenges presented to them and are having too much trouble succeeding... which could lead the group to believe the GM is "bad" and no wishing to play anymore.
The Players should decide how useful the character needs to be because they desire the game to continue fruitfully - which is difficult if there is a member of the group that has a character that isn't really all that beneficial for them to keep around... which could lead to some bad feelings if the players aren't able to say "please play a different character," to alleviate those feelings. It could even lead to some group members resenting the other player who always "gets away with" their character ideas that don't really fit.
The characters should even decide how useful someone needs to be - no one, anywhere in the world, that puts their life on the line for their "job" or "hobby" does so willingly with a teammate they do not trust to be able to keep them alive. Adventurers should be no different, and should tell the not-so-useful character to stay home (or if the character is somehow plot necessary, to follow orders and keep their head down - to "stay out of the way").
The idea that it is only up to the person making the character how useful that character should be is well... kind of ridiculous. Letting each player play whatever character they desire, regardless of whether that character "works" for the campaign at hand leads in one of two directions in my experience: 1) A very short campaign because wrangling that many cats is beyond the patience level of the people involved, or 2) A campaign that makes next to zero narrative sense because no one ever addresses the massive disparity within the party's moral codes, motivations, and ability to function as a team.
I'm not saying that a group can't enjoy a game in which one of the characters is, for example, a little brother with next to no abilities beyond being likeable and thirsting for adventure that just won't listen to his brother and older friends and stay home - I'm saying that no one should be able to decide they are going to play that little brother character without also getting the go-ahead from the rest of his play group.
Usefulness is purely subjective because all characters can so something. No character is completely and utterly useless.
I will grant that no character is inherently useless (at least not unless you throw out all of the character creation rules and play a 6 year old quadriplegic commoner with a crappy attitude).
That, however, does not mean that a character cannot be completely and utterly useless within the scope of a particular campaign. The enchanter mention above, for one, could be extremely useful in the right campaign... but in another campaign, such as one where every adversary is immune to every spell he knows and there are no NPCs around that aren't for him to get creative upon (let's call the campaign "Assault on the Land of the Dead") he is basically useless.
Haladir |
I think we're venturing into a very different territory: making a character that's appropriate to the campaign. For that, it's the GM's responsibility to guide the players into making characters that will fit. Paizo does a great job in that regard with their Players Guides for their APs.
Sir Valor, paladin of justice, who clanks around in heavy armor to bring the sword of justice to evil-doers might be a great character, but not in Skull and Shackles.
If you're running a "courtly intrigue" game, with the PCs as minor nobles in the King's Court, don't bring Grak Skull-Gnawer the half-orc barbarian.
And, yes, if the campaign is "Assault on the Land of the Walking Dead," Elvira the Enchantress, whose barred schools are evocation and necromancy is not a wise pick.
Of course, Sir Valor would be perfect for "Assault on the Land of the Dead," Grak would make a great pirate in "Skull and Shackles," and Elvira would be an excellent choice for a court intrigue game.
But that's not about mechanical optimization: it's bringing a PC that's appropriate to the game.
Aranna |
Haladir I agree. But you can't win this argument with the player entitlement crowd. They believe that if a player has their heart set on an inappropriate character, that the GM must change the adventure to allow you to be accommodated.
As for unoptimal vs optimal it's all a matter of balance between players. If everyone is playing a poorly optimized build then you are just fine... but if just one person sits down with a highly optimized build then people will complain that the optimized guy is stealing all the fun. And it will become geometrically harder to balance fights.
AaronOfBarbaria |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Haladir, it took me a while to read past your post because you said "Elvira" and "barred necromancy" in the same sentence and my brain couldn't process that... then I realized that Elvira might just be a name that came to mind, not a reference to the Mistress of the Dark.
Aranna, mixed levels of optimization within a party is not actually all that big of a problem in my experience so long as you don't attempt to balance fights - you build the encounters to be challenging for the characters that aren't highly optimized and let the highly optimized character do what he does.
I say that because then you are either letting Mr. Optimal get a little bored because he isn't challenged, realizing that the difference between 20 damage and 30 damage is that 30 damage hindered his other areas because 20 damage kills the monsters in one shot just like 30 does, but didn't cost so many resources to get, or to finally get what he has always wanted from optimizing the character by finally getting to lay waste to his enemies without effort rather than always being pushed to his limits.
I say that with complete confidence - 6 years ago I joined a gaming group of 14 high-optimizers and 2 "I just built what sounded cool" players and quickly took over as main GM, and today I am still main GM, have the same number of players (though 3 were kicked out over being terrible people that might end up getting you arrested if you hang around them, and replaced with 3 people that aren't), and not one of them is still a high-optimizer because it they were only doing it "to survive the challenges of the campaign" in the first place.
Haladir |
Haladir, it took me a while to read past your post because you said "Elvira" and "barred necromancy" in the same sentence and my brain couldn't process that... then I realized that Elvira might just be a name that came to mind, not a reference to the Mistress of the Dark.
Ha! I haven't thought about Elvira, Mistress of the Dark in decades! Not a reference: I was trying to think of a an exotic-sounding female name that starts with "E," and "Elvira" was the first that came to mind.
Actually, my initial association to the name isn't the B-movie hostess played by Cassandra Peterson, but that terrible early-'80s country song by the Oak Ridge Boys.
...and now I have that terrible song stuck in my head again. Thanks for nothing, Internet!
dbauers |
Back in my 2E days, I had a character with the "roll 3d6 6 times and put them in order they are rolled" situation. I had a 16 str fighter with a 6 int and 7 wis. He thought he was a paladin (though in 2E you needed quite a few very high stats to qualify), and no one could convince him otherwise.
He was heroic and chivalrous, and completely oblivious to the schemes of the CN (bordering CE) halfling thief in the group. Very Don Quixote-esque.
Good times. :)
carmachu |
It's not up to you to decide how useful someone's character needs to be. Usefulness is purely subjective because all characters can so something. No character is completely and utterly useless.
Actually it is. We are there to work as a TEAM and work together. If your character cant work with us it is useless.
Of course, this coming from teh DM who's made certain comments about players and such, its pretty hilarious. Hypocrite comes to mind given some of your other statments in other threads. But I dont expect better from you, not understanding working together and social contract and such.
shallowsoul |
shallowsoul wrote:
It's not up to you to decide how useful someone's character needs to be. Usefulness is purely subjective because all characters can so something. No character is completely and utterly useless.
Actually it is. We are there to work as a TEAM and work together. If your character cant work with us it is useless.
Of course, this coming from teh DM who's made certain comments about players and such, its pretty hilarious. Hypocrite comes to mind given some of your other statments in other threads. But I dont expect better from you, not understanding working together and social contract and such.
You do realize that when you resort to personal attacks it just shows you lack a proper vocabulary.
Nobody has the right to tell you how to play your character but a DM doesn't have to accommodate your character at all times either. We are talking about unoptimized characters, not characters that are purposelessly built to be essentially useless, there is a difference. Unoptimized means you are not choosing the best option you can choose. That's like choosing a 15 for a Wizard's intelligence instead of a 16 or an 18. Choosing a 10 isn't unoptimized, it's out terrible because you can't access any of your spells but your cantrips. It is your job to find your usefulness in a group, not the other way around. Also, it all depends on how many people are in your group and what other classes they are playing.
I'm going to tell you one time and one time only. Watch how you speak to me because all of your posts have been aggressive towards me and I will not put up with it. Consider yourself warned.
Dark_Mistress |
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:Haladir, it took me a while to read past your post because you said "Elvira" and "barred necromancy" in the same sentence and my brain couldn't process that... then I realized that Elvira might just be a name that came to mind, not a reference to the Mistress of the Dark.Ha! I haven't thought about Elvira, Mistress of the Dark in decades! Not a reference: I was trying to think of a an exotic-sounding female name that starts with "E," and "Elvira" was the first that came to mind.
Actually, my initial association to the name isn't the B-movie hostess played by Cassandra Peterson, but that terrible early-'80s country song by the Oak Ridge Boys.
...and now I have that terrible song stuck in my head again. Thanks for nothing, Internet!
That is actually where my user name came from, a play on Elvira's title. :)