Ascetical vs Juridical Approaches to PFS Culture


Pathfinder Society

51 to 98 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
1/5

First, I'm enjoying the exchange. Your post is forcing me to think about the topic in depth. As a result, lets look at why trying to balance the game is a problem. In order for two things to balance, they must, by definition, be the same. An orange and an apple balance on a scale when they have the exact same mass. But you've only balanced one aspect of them. If we want to balance more than their mass, for example balance their calories, those must also be the same. Think about that. Where is this going? 4th Edition. The only way we'll know we've balanced a Fighter and Cleric is when they become the same. When two classes are balanced, they are indistinguishable. The only thing that is different is what we call them.

Trying to balance the game ultimately means that choice is irrelevant because everything is equal. I'm pretty sure we can agree that this makes the game less fun not more fun.

What makes an RPG unique? Choice. Choice becomes meaningful when the decisions have consequences. If we balance a Fighter and Barbarian so their efficacy is identical, then what is the point of choosing? It is the imbalances of the game that gives substance to our choices. The imbalances mean we must assign values to the pros and cons of each decision and thus we define who it is we want to be/play in the game.

Quaseymoto wrote:
N N 959 wrote:

The game cannot be balanced.

We don't know the metric to measure in game balance, but that doesn't mean one does not exist.

In order to balance two objects, you must have an intrinsic property that is shared by BOTH objects e.g. damage by a weapon, duration of a spell, modifier of a magic item. If two objects do not share an intrinsic property, they cannot be balanced. It isn't a question of knowledge but of reality. We cannot balance a number with a flavor. To talk in such terms is nonsensical. Likewise, we cannot balance class abilities which are completely orthogonal. The ability of one class to heal damage cannot be compared with another class' ability to resist spells. There is no basis for comparison of these two abilities.

Even if we could agree that beings from another dimension might posses a language which allows such a comparison, developers in our reality don't have that language. The point I'm making is nobody knows two classes are balanced because we don't have any way to measure it.

Quote:
Before mass was discovered, man still used levers and scales.

This is a disanalogy because objects have mass as an intrinsic property. What is the shared intrinsic property between two feats? It doesn't exist. Mass always existed. We could measure it without having a label for it. What are developers using to objectively measure balance between classes/abilities/skills/spells?

Quote:
For another analogy, we cannot say that 2 apples are the same as 3 oranges, but we can say that 2 apples have the same cost as 3 oranges.

This is technically a disanalogy. Cost of items is function of innumerable variables and is time dependent (local) value. In many cases, the cost of something is not correlated to any intrinsic value. The cost of apples today is not the same as it was in the past or in the future. An apple that has a mass of 150 grams is always going to have that mass. We don't have a "cost" for mechanics in the game because there is no free market system for assigning value. If we did, then we could balance the game based on cost. But would that mean the game is actually balanced in a meaningful way?

Quote:
Also worth noting is the difference between static and dynamic equilibrium.

Sure, but I'm not debating precision, I'm discounting the applicability of the concept of balance.

I need to jet, I'll explore the rest of this later.

The Exchange

N N 959 wrote:
Where is this going? 4th Edition.

I think 4th ed was a case where they put balance as the #1 priority, or certainly one of the top few.

Previous editions (ODD, AD&D) did balance but it was much less important than many other factors, thankfully. I'm not asking PF to put balance at a higher priority. I personally don't care much as I'll play the weakest or strongest character with equal enjoyment in many cases, to a point. In fact, I think there's some enjoyment to be had of 'optimizing' the weaker options and trying to make the best of it. Maybe not in an organized society, where you're jeopardizing other PCs, but in home games certainly. Just started this as an interesting discussion as to fair vs. balanced and I somehow ended up on this side of the argument.

Quote:
This is a dis-analogy because objects have mass as an intrinsic property.

Good point, conceded.

Quote:


In many cases, the cost of something is not correlated to any intrinsic value. The cost of apples today is not the same as it was in the past or in the future.

My point from earlier. By creating a new unit ($) we have a fluctuating measurement that relates two items. Yes, their intrinsic properties are not equal, but we value them as the same. Let's say you could get an instant snapshot of all characters in PFS. If you found that 80% of fighters took the same feat tree, or there were 2x as many clerics as oracles, you could assign a statistical relevance to these numbers. Now combine this information with the number of positive and negative comments on the boards regarding an alternative fighter feat tree.

By interpreting this information a developer can make a Qualitative determination and make adjustments. Maybe release a new feat in a new book that helps another feat tree. Or in extreme cases just ban something.

Spoiler:

Note: In the clerics vs. oracles example, with the need for APG it obviously is not a 1:1 expected ratio. Just was trying to throw something new out there.

As it is a non-intrinsic property, six months from now they may find it's no longer relevant and have to adjust back the other way.

Dark Archive

I think AD&D viewed balance as a thing between the party as a team and the encounter as a team. Between player classes, they made them so dissimilar that there was a point in very class's life when they felt awesome and another when they felt useless. The big exceptions to that are probably the 1st ed Monk and the 2nd ed Rogue, but otherwise that is how it felt to me.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Well, NN959's post made me rethink some of my ideas about Pathfinder. Class balance is certainly not their primary concern at all.

1/5

Okay, I got a minute to continue on. Once again, I appreciate the discussion. Definitely sharpens my critical thinking skills. This topic represents a convergence of many aspects of game desigh/theory and social psychology. Lot's of loose ends to tie off or attempt to trim, so apologies if I jump around.

Let's fast forward a bit and pretend you agree that the game can't be balanced in the strict sense of the word. One thing that then has to be addressed is the fact that developers, themselves, use the word "balance." In fact, developers are constantly talking about balancing the game. How do we resolve this?

There are two answers to this. The first is predicated on language and psychology. Let's say I invent a game and I've designed a bunch of weapons. I can communicate my work to the community through one of two ways:

A - I've created the weapons stats and made sure they are all fair.

B - I've created the weapon stats and made sure they are all balanced.

Despite both sentences describing a single act, which statement do you think will result in a larger percentage of the community being content? I'm going with B. While you can never make everyone happy and there is always someone who will find a way to argue that 1+1 =/= 2. Using the word "balance" conveys a scientific certainty that the majority of players will accept as true. Balance is a quantitative term. The use of the word, no matter how inaccurate, promotes the idea that some sort of objective process has been at work. B makes the weapons stats sound more credible.

Now let's look at that statement in the context of PF weapon stats. Perhaps 90% of the weapon stats are straight from 3.5. Longsword, Shortsword, all look to have been created by WotC, not Paizo. How do you think WotC came up with the weapon stats? How did they determine that a Longsword should be 1d8 and a Shortsword 1d6. Perhaps we can see a pattern that suggests a formula was used on crit range versus multiplier. Perhaps we see intent that i]Simple[/i] weapons do more damage than Martial weapons. Is that balanced?

Presumably the Fighter has given up some feat/ability to acquire Martial Weapon Proficiency in contrast to the Cleric. What does the Cleric get in return? Is that balanced? I'm betting the authors of that system have no freaking idea and more importantly have absolutely zero way to prove it. And if can't be sure the weapon system is balanced, how can be certain about anything accounts for weapons as part of its "balancing" formula?

What we do know is that creating a distinction between weapons and prerequisites for the use of them, allows us to create disintinction between classes and by extension the characters that play those classes. Authors can use the Martial Weapon Proficiency as a way to communicate to players the intended role of the classes that have that feat. We know as players, that those with MWP, are predisposed to damage dealing. We know that this is something that they are designed to be good at and as players, we can choose accordingly.

The second part of the use of the term "balance" answer is something you touched on.

Quaseymoto wrote:
Similarly, it is difficult to say that a healer, who does little damage, and a huge hitting caster or fighter are balanced based on numbers, but rubrics do exist to compare them. Especially with social media you can start by gauging public response, or tracking number of class a vs. class b, or party make-ups in TPKs. There's no set formula but you can still make qualitative decisions. ***Let's say you could get an instant snapshot of all characters in PFS. If you found that 80% of fighters took the same feat tree, or there were 2x as many clerics as oracles, you could assign a statistical relevance to these numbers. Now combine this information with the number of positive and negative comments on the boards regarding an alternative fighter feat tree.

Massively Multiplayer Online RPG's are a branch of RPGs where game "balance" is a holy grail. One of the amazing things about MMO's is that tremendous amount of datamining that can be done. MMO's provide a type of crowd-sourcing for the game's design. More importantly, the game is one of computation and not adjudication. That means we get unskewed data. We know that when Party A and Party B faced the BBEG. The BBEG used the exact same tactical algorithms. More tot the point, we know that if give the encounter the same inputs, we get the same result (ignoring RNG variables).

So in the MMO world, they do exactly what you suggest. They'll isolate a Feat and look at something like the debt ratio of groups with someone who has that feat and someone who doesn't. If over time, they see that the presence of that feat produces a .03% positive variance in favor of the players and the next best result was .00024%, then they can reason that this Feat is too good comparatively. But it's very easy to jump to the wrong conclusions if you don't understand the game, how its actually played, or the method for computing the statistics.

There is no way to obtain that type of reliable data on a PnP game. If you're relying on customer feedback to provide you with objective analysis on what is going on, you're going to have to figure out how to normalize those player experiences and account for the natural bias of people to present "facts" in way that supports their desired outcome. Lady Mage on the City of Heroes forums once made this statement in satire,

Quote:
The game is balanced when my character is the strongest

Now, let's move away from the denotation and talk about the connotation. Balance can also be used to convey a sense of equilibrium in a game. Is the game unwieldy or creating undesired outcomes. We can all agree that if the Fighter got to roll 2d20 for hit points, the game would feel unbalanced. But why? Why would 99% of the players feel a 2d20 HD fighter class was unbalanced? I would submit that it is because that class would obviate the need for other classes. Ergo, people who identified with and played those classes would not have as much fun or maybe none at all.

I think that the game (as distinct from the social context) requires two aspects for fun:

1. Purpose: As I said before, players have to feel their character serves some non-trivial purpose in the game. There has to be a point to making a rogue or having spells or being able to wield a two-handed weapon.

2. Impact: A player has to feel that their actions impact the story, that they can affect the outcome whether it be through the mechanics of their character (purpose), or insight of their observations, or the artistry of their roleplaying.

If a one or a few character can dominate encounters, that robs other characters of both serving a purpose and having an impact in the game.

I think this brings us full circle back to Greasitty's original point. But let me clean up a few things:

Quote:
If it came out that I preferred WOTC's attempt to balance to the Pathfinder system, I apologize.

It didn't. But "balance is good" is something WotC clearly wants us to subscribe to.

Quote:
Just started this as an interesting discussion as to fair vs. balanced and I somehow ended up on this side of the argument.

I actually don't see you as being on either side of the discussion, merely responding to some of my thoughts. The whole "there is no balance" thing is a bit of a nuanced concept so it can sometimes seem daft if it isn't fully conveyed.

1/5

David Bowles wrote:
Well, NN959's post made me rethink some of my ideas about Pathfinder. Class balance is certainly not their primary concern at all.

I'm not sure I would phrase it like that. I definitely think Paizo is concerned about the fairness of one class relative to another. I think they are sensitive to one class being able to obviate the need for another. I think the challenges for Paizo are:

1. By and large, they are not the architects of the original foundation (maybe a few employees were part of both teams). That makes it really really really difficult to predict how changes will affect the structure of the game as a whole.

2. It's very difficult to get reliable data on a problem and even more difficult to isolate the problem to something that is actionable.

3. I'm going to throw something out that may seem controversial:

You can't fix the game, you can only change it.

We can debate that a certain feat or ability e.g. Druid's Acom, are unfair. But not everyone is going to agree. If you change that aspect of the game, then you may be affecting a host of other classes or build options that are not unfair. Is the net effect positive or negative? So many times a "fix" is simply exchanging one set of problems for another.

4/5

I definitely agree that balance isn't what tabletop RPGs games are about, choice is. When something because so ubiquitous that it feels less like a choice than a requirement (with the exception of things the core rules), campaign leadership takes a look at why it is so overwhelmingly selected, and then balance is considered. PFS is a cooperative game, and people should keep that in mind when they build characters. If you're playing that heavens oracle and you just trivialized an encounter, maybe consider taking different actions in the next combat to allow other characters to shine? There is no way to mandate this, but clear rules are the only thing we can rely on in PFS, because in their absence, we have to do our best to interpret, which can lead to us being wrong. This is why there is a Juridical approach, so we can get it right, and people aren't upset because the a GM didn't follow the rules. That is what an organized play environment is, we agree to all follow the same rules.

The only comment I would have to people saying "you need optimized characters in S4/S5" is that earlier seasons have scenarios which are fairly difficult if done properly, but they were balanced around a 4 party table, so 6 people can overwhelm them much easier than later scenarios. If you've made choices that make a character which is ineffective in most situations in the game, you should rethink what you've done, regardless of what season you're playing in. Chose to do something, and do it well. If you're doing it so well that the rest of the table isn't doing anything, chose a different course of action.

This is a game, and the point is fun right?

1/5

David_Bross wrote:
I definitely agree that balance isn't what tabletop RPGs games are about, choice is. When something because so ubiquitous that it feels less like a choice than a requirement (with the exception of things the core rules), campaign leadership takes a look at why it is so overwhelmingly selected, and then balance is considered.

While I agree that this might be how they conceptualize it, I feel compelled to insist that the removal or restriction of such a choice doesn't "balance" the game, it levels the playing field.

An analogy would be a new tire for NASCAR. If everyone who used the tire was 2 seconds faster per lap, everyone who wanted to compete would use the tire. NASCAR would outlaw the tire if they felt that tire choice was an important aspect of the activity.

So I agree with you that when players feel they no longer have a choice about a Feat, PFS is served by reducing the benefit and preserving the choice. But I'll have to spend some time and see if I can explain why I think it's important for us not to call this "balancing" the game.

Dark Archive

Please forgive me if I missed it. Why do you think you are entitled to a long slug fest of a fight? Why do you believe you are.entitled to your style of fun and others are not entitled to attempt what they think is fun?

If you think stuff like slumber hex is a problem, I think you should concentrate on getting those offenders banned officially instead of telling us we should have denied ourself of a legal option. We already saw both the vivisection and synthesis archetypes banned after they were initially let in, it seems campaign leadership listens.

4/5

I didn't say anyone at the table is entitled to anything. I said that you should look to the rest of the table. If you won initiative, and the rest of their actions were inconsequential, because combat was effectively over after you acted, you might want to consider doing something else in a subsequent combat. I'm stating that campaign leadership can't effectively do anything about this, and the onus is on us as players to make this a fun experience for everyone else. Yes, PFS leadership could tell us all to play only the iconic characters, even restricting those with dreaded SoS spells, but as I've tried to state, PF is about giving us choices as characters, and I think PFS leadership has demonstrated they active attempt to increase our options, not decrease them.

The vivisection archetype had serious issues with flavor, as you know, a character who liked to flay other things alive, and was banned on more than one aspect (as said by Brock). The synthesis summoner was banned for reasons that N N 959 said above, its hard to envision a character that doesn't benefit from optimally dipping in Synthesis Summoner, and thus that decreases choice, and levels the playing field back to what the game was before that archetype existed.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I guess a problem I have a hard time getting past is that they banned the master summoner, but the druid can do the exact same thing. Exactly the same thing. Probably better, even.

Logically, if the master summoner is unbalanced or slows the game down too much, then the same holds for the druid.

Dark Archive

I forgot to mention, what about all those times that a slumber or color spray would not.work? Idid not gripe about you having to step in and show off your martial prowess. But I am suppose to let half the viable targets for. My hex or color spray to lip by? What about all the times the martial wins init and kills before I can slumber? Am I expected to give you a pass? What about the charisma classes with good diplomacy and bluff? Are they suppose to let me fail an intimidate check first and start a fight we could.easily avoid via diplomacy if they got the right gossip to get us this far in the story on their first contribution?

I firmly believe standing around and delaying is just asking for the enemy to get an advantage on us. I am not sorry if I end encounters to less than someone else's expectation. I do not want a dead pc or anyone else with a dead pc because I sat around for you to get your satisfaction. I will except being called selfish if someone does not like my attitude on the matter. I will also selflessly let other people who beat me on init end an encounter fast and save me the fear of anyone's PC death.

I think the real problem are people who want to play a game where they expect all the tools to be fair and balanced when this is not a game with balance as a priority. I frankly think if you want balanced contributions, you should recruit for a private campaign with upfront house rules about letting others hallways have a turn or go look for another game all together that does aim for balance.as a top priority.

I did not feel a need to bring it up before but since you want to talk about why the vivisection and synthesis archetypes were banned, now I want to point out I do not think it was such a terrible thing they were banned(even though I was excited to try and play one of each) though I do think it was terrible that they were allowed in the first place only to be pulled out. I call bull when said practices are in the text from.the get go and later you complain about it. I know the editor's dropped the ball failing to write a clear usage of the synthesis so badly that they had to write so much F.A.Q. for it. I realised how bad a job they did my first read through, major foul up on their part. I wonder if it was another foul up on campaign leadership to allow them in the first place, maybe it wax just a slip of an error, we are all entitled to a few and I rarely recall many other options being taken away at a later.date. I admit I do not know which is the worse evil, getting something taken back or having to wait longer for an answer on if a option is a go or no go.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I think part of the problem with discussions like this is that there are groups of people who mean basically different things when they use the basic terms of discussion like equality or good player.

What is equality? What does it mean that there is equality in the game? From one point of view, it means that everyone plays under the same set of rules as everyone else. Everyone makes their character under the same set of rules with the same options therefore character generation is equal even if the resulting characters differ drastically in capability. In another, equality means that everyone has a chance to contribute equally during play. These two definitions of equality are fundamentally incompatible.

What is a good player? What makes someone a good player? It's true that some Rpers have gotten a bit holier-than-thou about this but they aren't the only ones. Does a good player role-play well and do a good job helping establish atmosphere in RP scenes or does a good player make an optimized character and work the combat system well? I have seen holier-than-thou attitudes on both sides. I have seen people who disdain optimized characters as mere "roll playing". I have also seen optimizers who describe themselves and people who play like them as good players who "know what they are doing" and others as incompetent/incapable. I have even seen players saying them are considering quitting organized play entirely because of all the terrible players with suboptimal builds. Essentially, people define good player as being a player like themselves.

The same sort of thing goes for many of the terms of discussion like "enjoyable play" or what "the point" of this or that is.

1/5

yosemitemike wrote:
I think part of the problem with discussions like this is that there are groups of people who mean basically different things when they use the basic terms of discussion like equality or good player

Which is partly why I think word choice is important. As I said previously, in order to solve a problem you have to be able to accurately identify it.

Quote:
What is equality? What does it mean that there is equality in the game?

This question underscored the problem with using a term like "balance." When some one talks about "balance," we expect something that's objectively true. Gunslingers are "balanced" with Archery Rangers. Druids and their AComs are "balanced" with Fighters. But since none of us (and especially not Paizo)can prove anything is balanced, players are never satisfied with the quantitative reasons why these things are allowed to persist. There is always some context in which something is supposed to be "balanced" and it clearly is not.

Quote:
From one point of view, it means that everyone plays under the same set of rules as everyone else. Everyone makes their character under the same set of rules with the same options therefore character generation is equal even if the resulting characters differ drastically in capability. In another, equality means that everyone has a chance to contribute equally during play. These two definitions of equality are fundamentally incompatible.

What these things are is fair. Same set of rules, same build options, same opportunity to act based on build is decidedly fair. The game has to be fair. It has to afford everyone who makes the same choice the same result (ignoring dice outcomes).

The scenarios/authors are the ones responsible for creating a game that is fair. It is their responsibility to understand the various classes and build options and to present a party with challenges that require skills/abilities that orthogonal to one another. This prevents one class from dominating. For example, if authors know players will spam Color Spray, then they should make sure every encounter isn't susceptible to the such a spell.

Quote:
What is a good player? What makes someone a good player?

Simple. Someone who knows their character's mechanics. Someone who knows the rules of the game. A good player is a team player. And finally, a good player is someone who appreciates the spirit of the game beyond the rules.

Quote:
It's true that some Rpers have gotten a bit holier-than-thou about this but they aren't the only ones. Does a good player role-play well and do a good job helping establish atmosphere in RP scenes or does a good player make an optimized character and work the combat system well?

A good player can do both. What a good person should not do is try to insinuate one type of play style is superior to the other.

Quote:
I have seen holier-than-thou attitudes on both sides.

While I think it can escalate on both sides, my observations is that hardcore RP'ers don't like rules. They don't like rules which interfere with the "story." They think that the rules should be changed whenever it interferes with the story. So anyone who tries to enforce the rules is badwrongfun. I think RP'ers are also resentful that many brute force builds can obviate the need for RP. "Bla bla bla" I roll my Diplomacy and I get +20 so the "Friendly" bartender better be willing to lick my boots.

And, in my experience, RP'ers are more vocal in passing judgment and insisting their perspective on what is metagame and what is not. I once played a 3.5 game where the DM and a player insisted that nobody knew their class. That classes were "meta-game." As if a shortstop has no clue he's a shortstop or a the village shaman never refers to himself as a shaman. It was nonsensical and an attempt to impose something on the game that was counter-indicated by the rules.

Quote:
Essentially, people define good player as being a player like themselves.

Sure. But I don't see optimizer's as resenting RP'ers. Optimizers are a result of the rule set allowing such an approach to have success (and be rewarded) within the game. I also think there is an asymmetry in that RP'ers often feel that optimizers ruing the game. People focused on optimization generally do not have that attitude towards people who focus on RPing. And not, when I say RP'ers, I'm not associating them with bad players or players who make ineffectual characters.

Quote:
The same sort of thing goes for many of the terms of discussion like "enjoyable play" or what "the point" of this or that is.

I agree. I think this a problem. I have seen a contingent of posters who seemingly want a communistic approach to participation. As if there should be some meter where everyone is only suppose to contribute so much and then they must sit quietly. While I agree that each us must operate with group etiquette independent of the game, the contribution of any particular character in the game should not be regulated by the GM. The scenario/rules should dictate that.

All people who play the game are not identical. Some players are dialed-in, and some aren't. Some players have characters particularly suited to the scenario and some don't. Some people are extroverts and some are introverts. There cannot be a mandate to make player contribution "equal." The GM makes sure the game is conducted fairly and that each player has an opportunity to act/contribute commensurate with their character's abilities. Everyone won't enjoy the game equally, no matter what you do. It is misguided to try and mandate that everyone have the same amount of fun.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Fairness is also a word that means very different things to different people.

Your experience does not match mine either in person or on these forums. I have seen optimizers who are at least as vocal in passing judgement an any RPer. I have seen a person on this forum quite recently saying that we was considering quitting PFS entirely because of bad players who made suboptimal choices like making a ranger with a 16 strength. I have seen optimizers loudly refer to themselves and players like them as good players who "know what they are doing" or something along those lines implying that others are incompetent and incapable because they don't play the same way. Optimizers and tactical players are as holier-than-thou as any RPer and have been since D&D first came out. Everyone always thinks that it's those other people who are being unreasonable.

The suggestion of tailoring encounters is fine for a home game but it's not useful for scenario based PFS play. GMs are not allowed to alter encounters in scenarios.

Please don't give me that old badwrongfun rpg.net cliche stuff. Please. Just don't.

You think enforcing the rules is badwrongfun so bleh
Oh yeah well you think caring about the story instead of arbitrary rules is badwrongfun so bleh

Just don't.

The problem isn't those other guys. It's that people see things in such basically different ways that the basic terms in use mean different things for them. They aren't even in the same conversation. For example, no one is actually saying that everyone should be mandated to have the same amount of fun. That's how what some people are actually saying is being characterized to belittle it.

1/5

yosemitemike wrote:
Fairness is also a word that means very different things to different people.

That's exactly right. Which is why game developers usually don't want to say they think the game is fair, they want to say it is "balanced." As i said before, the world "balance" conveys some objective state. "Fair" suggests a subjective state which one intuitively feels can't be defended with any authority. And yet, the game developers are ultimately doing what they think is fair since they really can't know if it's "balanced.".

Quote:
I have seen a person on this forum quite recently saying that we was considering quitting PFS entirely because of bad players who made suboptimal choices like making a ranger with a 16 strength.

I saw that post and it's the only one I've seen like that. And to be fair, the guy was criticizing bad play, not bad RP. I guess I read his reant as more about not having fun with people arguably making bad decisions.

Quote:
I have seen optimizers loudly refer to themselves and players like them as good players who "know what they are doing" or something along those lines implying that others are incompetent and incapable because they don't play the same way.

I haven't seen that, but I'm sure it happens. There people who engage in all types of amoral behavior, so I'm sure we can find someone who does what you claim. Yet, while I find some people who are totally focused on the numbers aren't as enjoyable to play with as those who combine RP and pragmatic game play, I have not experienced near the self-righteous attitude of the RP'ers.

Quote:
Everyone always thinks that it's those other people who are being unreasonable.

Once gain, I don't see optimizers calling RP'ers "unreasonable." RPing doesn't really interfere with optimizing. Players whose goal is to build utmost character aren't impaired if someone wants to role-play. The reverse is not necessary true.

Quote:
The suggestion of tailoring encounters is fine for a home game but it's not useful for scenario based PFS play.

I am not advocating any altering of the scenario by the GM. In fact, I'm one of the most vocal against such activities.

Quote:
Please don't give me that old badwrongfun rpg.net cliche stuff.

And yet, that's exactly what I think is at the core of the OP. This community is constantly wrestling with what is the spirit of the game. Whether it's fudging dice, targeting vets over newbies, or expecting players to self-nerf/underachieve, the question is ultimately a subjective one.

[quoteFor example, no one is actually saying that everyone should be mandated to have the same amount of fun.

Not quite. But there is certainly a group of posters that advocate changing behavior rather than changing the game.

In many ways, the PFS dilemma is similar to recreational sports leagues. For example, in my city (and I'm sure most others), there are several volleyball leagues. The leagues have realized that the range of abilities is so broad that they can't put everyone in the same league. So they created levels of competition: B, A, AA, etc. If a team wins its league, it can move up to the next league.

I don't know if PFS is big enough, but maybe something like this might work in larger cities.

Silver Crusade 2/5

N N 959 wrote:

[That's exactly right. Which is why game developers usually don't want to say they think the game is fair, they want to say it is "balanced." As i said before, the world "balance" conveys some objective state. "Fair" suggests a subjective state which one intuitively feels can't be defended with any authority. And yet, the game developers are ultimately doing what they think is fair since they really can't know if it's "balanced.".

That depends on what you are trying to balance and how. Pathfinder seems most concerned with balancing the PCs against challenges rather than against each other.

N N 959 wrote:

I saw that post and it's the only one I've seen like that. And to be fair, the guy was criticizing bad play, not bad RP. I guess I read his reant as more about not having fun with people arguably making bad decisions.

That may be the first time you have seen that but it's far from the first time I have seen it. That's only bad play if you define making optimized characters as good play and not optimizing your character as bad play. People who don't optimize their characters are bad players making bad decisions. That's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.

N N 959 wrote:

]I haven't seen that, but I'm sure it happens. There people who engage in all types of amoral behavior, so I'm sure we can find someone who does what you claim. Yet, while I find some people who are totally focused on the numbers aren't as enjoyable to play with as those who combine RP and pragmatic game play, I have not experienced near the self-righteous attitude of the RP'ers.

I don't have to find them. I already know them. That wasn't a claim of what someone might say. It was a quote of what someone did say. You haven't. I have. In spades.

Quote:
Everyone always thinks that it's those other people who are
N N 959 wrote:

Once gain, I don't see optimizers calling RP'ers "unreasonable." RPing doesn't really interfere with optimizing. Players whose goal is to build utmost character aren't impaired if someone wants to role-play. The reverse is not necessary true.

No. They say that RPers are bad players who don't know what they are doing making bad decisions. The language is different but the holier-than-thou attitude is the same.

Really? So if the role-player wants to role-play out all the scenes and entirely avoid combat, the player with the combat optimized character isn't impaired? Isn't unable to do what his character is good at?

The ideas of leagues is an implicit statement that optimizers are better than (literally in a different league from) players more focused on role-playing. It assumes that the difference in one of ability not a difference in how one views the game and chooses to play it. People who don't don't optimize their characters are just too dumb to do it right.

Neither style of play is intrinsically better than the other. Everyone who makes a less than optimal character doesn't do so because they are too dumb to google how to do optimize their ranger. Everyone who wants to make a character that is effective isn't a knuckle dragging "roll player". We need to stop using childish language like badwrongfun. We need to put this childish nonsense behind us and grow up as a community.

1/5

yosemitemike wrote:
That depends on what you are trying to balance and how. Pathfinder seems most concerned with balancing the PCs against challenges rather than against each other.

You can't "balance" PC's against the encounter when you have no idea what it is you're metric is. More importantly, what PC's are you balancing? The author has no idea what builds/classes will be present. The authors try to create an encounter that is challenging for a given spectrum of builds. They aren't "balancing" the encounter they are making one that is fair.

Quote:

People who don't optimize their characters are bad players making bad decisions. That's exactly the sort of thing I was talking about.

***No. They say that RPers are bad players who don't know what they are doing making bad decisions. The language is different but the holier-than-thou attitude is the same.

Really? So if the role-player wants to role-play out all the scenes and entirely avoid combat, the player with the combat optimized character isn't impaired? Isn't unable to do what his character is good at?

You have a bunch of statements and comments here that indicate you are conflating issues.

The label of RP'er, in my denotation, says nothing about whether you've optimized your character or not. An RP'er as I am using the term sees Role Play as superior to Roll Play. Someone who, regardless of their build, is heavily focused on policing what is meta-game, and wanting the rules to take a back seat to the story.

An Optimizer, as I use the term, is not necessarily a "good" player. Just someone who focuses on what is possible within the rules. You seem to assume that they strictly focus on combat and I've made no such association. I've seen plenty of skill optimizers who are constantly looking to use a maxed out Diplomacy to avoid combat. They are less interested in role playing the scene because their huge modifier means that they are going to succeed.

Quote:
The ideas of leagues is an implicit statement that optimizers are better than (literally in a different league from) players more focused on role-playing. It assumes that the difference in one of ability not a difference in how one views the game and chooses to play it.

Incorrect. You are associating RP'ers and Optimizers as good and bad players. I have done no such thing, nor am I going to make such an association. You are obviously free to do so if you like.

League play is based on the competitive level people can play at or want to play at. B league has co'ed requirements. AA league does not. If you enjoy co'ed play more, you play a lower league. If you can put together a co'ed team at the level of the other AA teams, you play AA. AA players are typically college level and semi-pro players. B players are often people who never played volleyball competitively. View point is irrelevant.

Quote:
People who don't don't optimize their characters are just too dumb to do it right.

Well, maybe I know nicer optimizers or maybe I don't spend enough time with them, because I don't get that attitude from them on a general or consisted level they way I get attitude from people about meta-gaming.

Quote:
We need to stop using childish language like badwrongfun.

It isn't use of the term that is the issue, imo, it's the propensity of people to think in these terms. Which brings us back the the OP and issues with people using "cheese" tactics which others claim ruins their fun. IMO, both sides have a right to have fun, so how do we resolve this?

Silver Crusade 2/5

N N 959 wrote:

You can't "balance" PC's against the encounter when you have no idea what it is you're metric is. More importantly, what PC's are you balancing? The author has no idea what builds/classes will be present. The authors try to create an encounter that is challenging for a given spectrum of builds. They aren't "balancing" the encounter they are making one that is fair.

The system is quite mathematical. There ins nothing intrinsically impossible or even especially difficult about setting a metric. Making an encounter that is fair *is* balancing the encounter. An encounter is balanced whe it is challenging but not too challenging. That's the entire point of the CR system.

N N 959 wrote:

You have a bunch of statements and comments here that indicate you are conflating issues.

I'm not conflating anything.

N N 959 wrote:


The label of RP'er, in my denotation, says nothing about whether you've optimized your character or not. An RP'er as I am using the term sees Role Play as superior to Roll Play. Someone who, regardless of their build, is heavily focused on policing what is meta-game, and wanting the rules to take a back seat to the story.

You are defining the terms so that those other people are inherently the ones being unreasonable. I am not using those definitions. Role-player would also include someone who thins story comes first or who makes their character based on a character concept rather than what is mechanically optimized. I am contrasting them with min/maxers who see their way of play as being the right way and people who have other priorities as simply being incompetent.

N N 959 wrote:


An Optimizer, as I use the term, is not necessarily a "good" player. Just someone who focuses on what is possible within the rules. You seem to assume that they strictly focus on combat and I've made no such association. I've seen plenty of skill optimizers who are constantly looking to use a maxed out Diplomacy to avoid combat. They are less interested in role playing the scene because their huge modifier means that they are going to succeed.

The terms you have used in this discussion such as "more capable" or "Higher league" to refer to optimizers and "incompetence/incapability" to refer to role-players suggests otherwise.

Pathfinder is not a competitive game. Why would a setup for competitive play be the right one? Inherent in the idea of leagues is the idea that some players are more capable than others because they optimize their characters better and work the tactical system better. You used that language yourself.

It's not the propensity of people to think in those terms. It's the propensity of others to dismiss what others say by reducing them to those terms. No one has ever actually referred to badwrongfun or said anything like that. It's a term people use to characterize what others have said and dismiss it. No one says badwrongfun. People say that other people have said it.

A - I would like to play my character once in a while instead of doing nothing but fighting.
B - You are saying I can't play the way I want to because badwrongfun.
A - Well you are saying I can't play the way I want to because badwrongfun so bleh

and we are children calling each other poopy heads on rpg.net.

The RPG community needs to grow up and stop this nonsense.

1/5

yosemitemike wrote:


The system is quite mathematical.

No, the system uses math, it was not derived mathematically. The weapon damages stats, a core aspect of the math in the game, is arbitrary. The majority is straight from the earliest versions of D&D.

Quote:
There ins nothing intrinsically impossible or even especially difficult about setting a metric.

In fact there is. You cannot set a metric between things whose values are orthogonal to one another. There is no metric that compares a feat which allows you to gain a +2 on a skill check and a feat that gives you an extra attack if you kill the target. If you think you have one, please share it.

Quote:
Making an encounter that is fair *is* balancing the encounter. An encounter is balanced whe it is challenging but not too challenging.

I can prove to that two 5+5 = 10. Prove to me the encounter is balanced....any encounter. You can't. The term is nonsensical in the context of game. Fair =/= Balanced. The former is subjective, the later is objective. There is no objective balance in an RPG.

Quote:
That's the entire point of the CR system.

The point of the CR system was to provide guidelines to GMs for providing fair encounters. It allows GMs to ballpark difficulty. But it's got all the precision of chopping chop down a tree with a bazooka. The CR system is based on an assumption. As soon as you start to change the conditions under which the assumption was made, the CR system breaksdown and quickly passes into the realm of disinformation.

N N 959 wrote:
I'm not conflating anything.

Yes, you are. You are attempting to combine optimizers vs RP'ers as tantamount to good players and bad. You're conflating two separate categories of players. You're also lumping optimizers in with people who think everyone who doesn't optimize is incapable of doing so. I disagree with that as a general truth. I certainly haven't claimed RP'ers think people who don't RP can't.

N N 959 wrote:


You are defining the terms so that those other people are inherently the ones being unreasonable.

I can see why you think that. If people who you associated with optimizers are as dogmatic as RP'ers, then I can see your point of view. We have had difference experiences.

Quote:
I am contrasting them with min/maxers who see their way of play as being the right way and people who have other priorities as simply being incompetent.

As I said before, this is not the typical type of person I've encountered from optimizers.

Quote:
The terms you have used in this discussion such as "more capable" or "Higher league" to refer to optimizers and "incompetence/incapability" to refer to role-players suggests otherwise.

I have not. Nor is there any intent on my part to separate RP and Optimization into "good and bad players."

Quote:
Pathfinder is not a competitive game. Why would a setup for competitive play be the right one? Inherent in the idea of leagues is the idea that some players are more capable than others because they optimize their characters better and work the tactical system better. You used that language yourself.

Apologies if my point is unclear. The analogy to league play is about grouping people to maximize their enjoyment, it's not about separating people based on their competence. Yes, sports are competitive, PFS is not, but that's irrelevant to the point I'm making.

You can have a grouping of players who who agree not to use "cheese." You could have another grouping where players are okay with anything that's legal. The point is you get people with similar philosophies together. Grant it, this may be fundamentally contrary to the inclusion ethos of PFS, but so is banning people for using legal tactics. So I'm simply exploring the topic of improving the player experience.

Quote:
It's not the propensity of people to think in those terms. It's the propensity of others to dismiss what others say by reducing them to those terms. No one has ever actually referred to badwrongfun or said anything like that. It's a term people use to characterize what others have said and dismiss it. No one says badwrongfun. People say that other people have said it.

I think you're arguing semantics. Twice, I've had GMs give me attitude about Taking 20. Both of them said, in a condescending tone and dimissive tone, "why would you play a dice game and Take 20?" In no uncertain terms they were telling me I was having badwrongfun. Sorry to break to you, but people think this way.

Silver Crusade 2/5

N N 959 wrote:

No, the system uses math, it was not derived mathematically. The weapon damages stats, a core aspect of the math in the game, is arbitrary. The majority is straight from the earliest versions of D&D.

It doesn't matter a bit how they were derived. All that matters is relative magnitude.

N N 959 wrote:

In fact there is. You cannot set a metric between things whose values are orthogonal to one another. There is no metric that compares a feat which allows you to gain a +2 on a skill check and a feat that gives you an extra attack if you kill the target. If you think you have one, please share it.

Nothing of the sort is needed or even relevant. Comparing between feats that was is not necessary at all. It's how difficult the encounter is not how good this feat is relative to that one. Noe you are the one conflating things.

N N 959 wrote:

I can prove to that two 5+5 = 10. Prove to me the encounter is balanced....any encounter. You can't. The term is nonsensical in the context of game. Fair =/= Balanced. The former is subjective, the later is objective. There is no objective balance in an RPG.

That's what a balanced encounter means. I don't know what definition you are using for a balanced encounter but it bears no resemblance to any I have seen used anywhere else. Neither term is inherently objective or subjective in this context. Do you mean that there is no perfect balance? Welcome to the real world. There's no perfect anything.

N N 959 wrote:

The point of the CR system was to provide guidelines to GMs for providing fair encounters. It allows GMs to ballpark difficulty. But it's got all the precision of chopping chop down a tree with a bazooka. The CR system is based on an assumption. As soon as you start to change the conditions under which the assumption was made, the CR system breaksdown and quickly passes into the realm of disinformation.

In this context, fair and balanced mean the same thing. This division you keep insisting on is meaningless. Ballparking difficulty is all you are going to get ever. That's the way complex nonlinear systems work.

N N 959 wrote:
Yes, you are. You are attempting to combine optimizers vs RP'ers as tantamount to good players and bad. You're conflating two separate categories of players. You're also lumping optimizers in with people who think everyone who doesn't optimize is incapable of doing so. I disagree with that as a general truth. I certainly haven't claimed RP'ers think people who don't RP can't

I am using your terminology how you have presented it. I'm not the one who introduced this terminology or implied that one group is capable while the other is incapable. That was you. In the same topic that you say that one side shouldn't look down their noses at the other you say that there should be different leagues based on capability with character optimization and ability to work the tactical system representing superior capability. Which is it? I am not lumping one group together any more than you are lumping the other together. You are doing exactly the sort of thing you are complaining about. Both sides need to get off their high horses.

Not having heard what they actually said and having only your skewed "they said I was having badwrongfun" characterization of it, I am highly skeptical they said what you represent them as saying. Probably neither was any "badwrongfun" claims or anything of the sort. That's just how you portray them to dismiss them. You are reducing what they actually said to simplistic badwrongfun terms to dismiss it. There are endless variations of translating what other people say to some conveniently ignoble sounding straw man and dismissing it and they are all fallacies. Every single one. This badwrongfun nonsense is one of the silliest examples I have seen. I have never heard anyone talk about badwrongfun except to accuse other people of saying it. Ever.

1/5

yosemitemike wrote:
It doesn't matter a bit how they were derived. All that matters is relative magnitude.

What?

Quote:
Comparing between feats that was is not necessary at all. *** That's what a balanced encounter means. I don't know what definition you are using for a balanced encounter but it bears no resemblance to any I have seen used anywhere else.

Here's a definition of balance which I've already posted:

Quote:
To offset or compare the value of (one thing) with another.

An applicable term for balancing:

Quote:
To act as an equalizing weight or force to; counterbalance.

The term derives from a physical device:

Quote:
having two scale pans, from Latin
Quote:
Neither term is inherently objective or subjective in this context.

In fact, they are. You need to look up word definitions if you think the word fair is not inherently subjective. As such, our conversation is mostly pointless if you insist on clinging to false definitions of words.

Quote:
In this context, fair and balanced mean the same thing. This division you keep insisting on is meaningless.

No, it's not meaningless. People (developers) in the gaming environment are using "balance" in an effort to suggest an objective state when none exists. That is the core problem. There is no objective balance in these games, but by trying to pretend there is, game developers create more problems. Game developers don't use the term fair specifically because it is subjective. The mantra of "balance" pushes developers to create games where everything is the same and it's only skinned differently.

If you can't see this or don't recognize this, that's fine. We have nothing to discuss.

Quote:
I am using your terminology how you have presented it.

Please show me the quotes where I claim RP'ers are bad players and optimizers are good players. Please show me the quotes were I say we divide players up into levels of competency.

Quote:
I am highly skeptical they said what you represent them as saying.

So your MO is to insist your experiences are as you describe them, but refute others experiences as skewed? I think we're done on this topic.

Silver Crusade 2/5

N N 959 wrote:

What?

I doesn't matter where the arbitrary numbers for damage and hit points come from. It just matters how large they are relative to each other.

N N 959 wrote:


Here's a definition of balance which I've already posted:

Quote:
To offset or compare the value of (one thing) with another.

An applicable term for balancing:

Quote:
To act as an equalizing weight or force to; counterbalance.

The term derives from a physical device:

Quote:
having two scale pans, from Latin

All of those elevate the problem of balancing encounters to an insoluble level by insisting that all system elements have exactly the same weight and counter-balance each other exactly all the time which would require them all to be identical. It's a definition suitable to chemistry or commerce, not a role-playing game.

N N 959 wrote:

In fact, they are. You need to look up word definitions if you think the word fair is not inherently subjective. As such, our conversation is mostly pointless if you insist on clinging to false definitions of words.

Saying that something is a fact does not, in fact, make it a fact. I didn't say that fair isn't subjective. I said that in this context they are both inherently subjective and effectively mean the same thing. Responding to what I actually write would help the conversation along immensely.

N N 959 wrote:
] No, it's not meaningless. People (developers) in the gaming environment are using "balance" in an effort to suggest an objective state when none exists. That is the core problem.

Yes, it is. It's a distinction without a difference that you have conjured. The core problem is your assumption of what others "really" mean.

N N 959 wrote:


If you can't see this or don't recognize this, that's fine. We have nothing to discuss.

Saying "don't see" or "don't recognize" assumes that something is in fact there to see or recognize. It assumes the conclusion and begs the question. If that is all this is going to be, it was never a discussion to begin with.

Re-read your own posts. Look up what the phrase "in a different league" means. I can't say what you "really" meant but I can read what you really wrote. It's all there.

I quoted people exactly. What exactly did they say? ot a silly characterization like "they said I badwrongfun" but their actual words?

Silver Crusade 2/5

What's the actual dispute? I can't even tell. RPers vs Optimizers?

Silver Crusade 2/5

Power gamers are as holier-than-thou in their own way as role-players and both groups need to grow up. That's my end anyway.

Also the old argument about whether RPGs can be balanced and what saying they are balanced means. He defines balance in such a way as to make it impossible to achieve. I define it rather differently. It's an example of what I was talking about before with two people using the same word to mean very different things in the same conversation.

Plus a dash of silly rpg.net-ism with badwrongfun and how language like that prevents adult discussion in the RPG community. That's my end anyway.

1/5

Quote:
Yes, it is. It's a distinction without a difference that you have conjured. The core problem is your assumption of what others "really" mean.

If you can't understand the difference between saying something is fair and something is balanced, then I can understand your in ability to understand the discussion. People using the wrong word to say what they mean does not make it the right word. More to the point, the word is chosen specifically to convey something. To lend a credibility/objectivity to subjective decisions. Your refusal to accept this or recognize it is similar to your refusal to accept any experiences that contradict your assertions about bandwrongfun and makes it clear you're not interested in a good faith discussion.

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

David Bowles wrote:
What's the actual dispute? I can't even tell. RPers vs Optimizers?

As best I understand it, the OP posted something about how the rules are in the way of having a good attitude about the rules, or something like that.

Thread started to drift to the bottom of the forum, then Mattastrophic declared it the best thread ever and tried to pick up the torch in what he seemed to think was a crusade against "The Rules", only to have the OP come in later and declare the whole thing the product of a pain-med-induced haze.

Then these last two decided to spin the merry-go-round as fast as they could while practicing their best English accents to each make the other look like a commoner among collegiates. The only words I could were "I say!" and the occasional "indubitably".

That's about all I've got, but it's all a bit fuzzy by now, so I might have some details off.

The Exchange 5/5

my eyes glazed over some time ago...

It feels like re-runs of old chess championship matches.

1/5

David Bowles wrote:
What's the actual dispute? I can't even tell. RPers vs Optimizers?

The discussion, as it relates to the OP, is about conflicting play-styles. As I understand the OP, he's making a plea for the community to police itself outside of the written rules. But this presupposes everyone agrees on what the community ethos should be. On a more specific level, I view this discussion as a response to the use of "cheesy" but legal tactics to the extent that others feel their fun is ruined, for whatever reason.

We've seen GMs advocate banning players from their table for using tactics which make the game "unfun" for others. It's a complex issue because it affects both the economics and social environment. One one level, some people are indirectly asking to lower the common denominator while others are directly asking raise the bar/difficulty of the scenarios.

1/5

Jiggy wrote:


Then these last two decided to spin the merry-go-round as fast as they could while practicing their best English accents to each make the other look like a commoner among collegiates. The only words I could were "I say!" and the occasional "indubitably".

In all fairness Jiggy, I did not come into your endless circles of discussion on Darkness and mock it. While I have appreciated many of your posts, your willingness to mock other posters is disappointing.

Silver Crusade 2/5

N N 959 wrote:
If you can't understand the difference between saying something is fair and something is balanced, then I can understand your in ability to understand the discussion. People using the wrong word to say what they mean does not make it the right word. More to the point, the word is chosen specifically to convey something. To lend a credibility/objectivity to subjective decisions. Your refusal to accept this or recognize it is similar to your refusal to accept any experiences that contradict your assertions about bandwrongfun and makes it clear you're not interested in a good faith discussion.

I understand what you think the difference is. I just don't that distinction has any validity at all. I understand what you think the word means. I don't think it actually means that at all.

You keep using this phrase "refusal to accept" as if your opinion represented objective fact. That's just begging the question. I don't accept your premises because I don't think they are correct.

No one ever actually says "you has badwrongfun". No one. No one has ever said that. Can you quote me someone actually saying, "That's badwrongfun"? Anyone? I mean saying that actual thing not something you represent as "really" meaning that. That is just what you characterize them as having said. that you used that term tells me you are giving a skewed representation of what they said in the same way that saying "trickle down economics" tells me someone is politicizing and skewing a comment someone else made about economics.

Jiggy wrote:


Then these last two decided to spin the merry-go-round as fast as they could while practicing their best English accents to each make the other look like a commoner among collegiates. The only words I could were "I say!" and the occasional "indubitably".

You forgot poppycock and Rah-tha

Grand Lodge 2/5 RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

N N 959 wrote:
Jiggy wrote:


Then these last two decided to spin the merry-go-round as fast as they could while practicing their best English accents to each make the other look like a commoner among collegiates. The only words I could were "I say!" and the occasional "indubitably".
In all fairness Jiggy, I did not come into your endless circles of discussion on Darkness and mock it. While I have appreciated many of your posts, your willingness to mock other posters is disappointing.

It was supposed to be a joke. Sorry if I botched it. :/

EDIT:

yosemitemike wrote:
You forgot poppycock and Rah-tha

See NN959, that's more what I was going for. :)

Silver Crusade 2/5

Bit of a sticky wicket, eh old chap?

Having Castle Falkenstein flashbacks.

1/5

yosemitemike wrote:
I understand what you think the difference is. I just don't that distinction has any validity at all.

That's fine.

Quote:
No one ever actually says "you has badwrongfun".

Once again, this come across as arguing semantics. The statement you quote is about passing judgment on someone's preference in the game. In my case it was Taking 20 and two judges making it clear that such an activity is anti-thetical to the point of playing a "dice game." When the GM says this to the entire table on the heels of my pointing out that T20 is applicable in this situation, there is no quibbling about what the GM is communicating.

If you are unwilling to process that data point as an example of someone exhibiting the badwrongfun mentality, that's your prerogative.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I was originally completely opposed to the optimimzers. However, after experiencing some bad GMing, and with unavoidable table variation, I am
much more sympathetic to their position now.

I think a key to this problem is limiting table variation, because then the threshold for "effective character" is no longer such a moving target. I've seen GMs shut down builds by making "rulings" that are in direct conflict with FAQs. So why shouldn't I build an optimized character to cover for another PC that gets hosed by a ruling?

Or GMs that accidentally tier up encounters. Or GMs that that deviate from listed tactics. Or GMs that make "rulings" that increase an encounter CR by a great deal. You get the idea.

Silver Crusade 2/5

N N 959 wrote:
yosemitemike wrote:
I understand what you think the difference is. I just don't that distinction has any validity at all.

That's fine.

Quote:
No one ever actually says "you has badwrongfun".

Once again, this come across as arguing semantics. The statement you quote is about passing judgment on someone's preference in the game. In my case it was Taking 20 and two judges making it clear that such an activity is anti-thetical to the point of playing a "dice game." When the GM says this to the entire table on the heels of my pointing out that T20 is applicable in this situation, there is no quibbling about what the GM is communicating.

If you are unwilling to process that data point as an example of someone exhibiting the badwrongfun mentality, that's your prerogative.

Or this. The "GM is god" thing is a Gygaxism that I wish would just die. PFS GMs in particular should not be able to make "rulings" in direct contradiction of CRB rules that have been in place since day 1.

1/5

Jiggy wrote:
It was supposed to be a joke. Sorry if I botched it. :/

Yes, clearly it's meant to be a joke... at the expense of others.

The Exchange 5/5

I'm an Optimizer. Every one of my PCs has been Optimized to maximize the fun in Role Playing them.

1/5

nosig wrote:
I'm an Optimizer. Every one of my PCs has been Optimized to maximize the fun in Role Playing them.

Quit calling me stupid!

1/5

David Bowles wrote:
Or this. The "GM is god" thing is a Gygaxism that I wish would just die. PFS GMs in particular should not be able to make "rulings" in direct contradiction of CRB rules that have been in place since day 1.

For the most part, I've been extremely fortunate not to have had too many problems with this. When I have, it's been in PbP games and I can simply avoid the GM. One of the cornerstones of my PFS enjoyment is formal requirement of GMs to follow RAW. It really has eliminated about 99% of my debating rules with GMs.

IME, once GMs are shown the rules, they generally follow them and seem perfectly willing to do so.

Silver Crusade 2/5

In that environment, I would say optimization is far less *necessary*, but to some people that IS the game. If I just wanted to crush face, I'd play Starcraft. You can be as merciless as you like there.

However, there is the constant threat of PCs being neutered or incorrect CR encounters.

The Exchange 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Or this. The "GM is god" thing is a Gygaxism that I wish would just die. PFS GMs in particular should not be able to make "rulings" in direct contradiction of CRB rules that have been in place since day 1.

For the most part, I've been extremely fortunate not to have had too many problems with this. When I have, it's been in PbP games and I can simply avoid the GM. One of the cornerstones of my PFS enjoyment is formal requirement of GMs to follow RAW. It really has eliminated about 99% of my debating rules with GMs.

IME, once GMs are shown the rules, they generally follow them and seem perfectly willing to do so.

I am guessing you need to get out more and play for more judges.

O.O "One of the cornerstones of my PFS enjoyment is formal requirement of GMs to follow RAW." ... all I can say is wow... If I tried anything like this it would get me barred from tables.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Should a society strive to have table consistency or not? Why should requesting adherence to rulings that Paizo staff took the time to rule on get someone "barred from tables"?

Dark Archive

I, the OP, hadn't actually opined on play styles up until this point. In my med-induced hazed I posted a wall of text about the campaign's meta rules and the ways in which we as a culture often seem to miss the forest and argue down the the tenths the diameter of the trees. Apparently I really didn't explain that those meta-rules, the GtPFSOP was what I talking about, and so things went crazy after that.

My opinion on how the game is played "best" would be quite boring, I think. I enjoy roleplaying to the point of letting my character die because it is in character, I enjoy character building and put a lot of work into every PC and NPC I build, and I am known for creating complex world with great verisimilitude. I have taken part in openly DM vs the Players campaigns, shared story telling campaigns, and everything in between. It's all fun!

When it comes to how we should play at the table, I'll go whichever way the majority of vocal people leans. We roleplayed so cheerfully and loudly during WBG2 at Gencon that two tables stopped in mid sentence to stare at us, and my favorite PFS character is ridiculously quirky to the point of being far from mechanically perfect. But if that isn't where the rest of the table seems to want to go, I'll pull out my quiet, solid cleric and play a round of let's smash bad guys. Neither kind of gaming evening will leave me disappointed.

1/5

nosig wrote:
I am guessing you need to get out more and play for more judges.

I'm guessing I don't...rofl.

It's funny. When I first started playing PFS, I was against playing F2F games and some of the horror stories about GMs at Cons convinced me they were to be avoided. But I went to my FLGS and things weren't too bad. Yes, I did have to explain how T10 works and does not care if you can fail. I also ran into the local rule of Soft Cover. But the following week, I stalked with the VL about the Soft Cover rule and he agreed that they had been playing it wrong.

I went to PaizoCon and had pretty good GMs. One of them was the GM who made the comment about T20 while playing a dice game. He also insisted once could not reroll to find traps because he would insist "you're confident there are no traps," never mind that someone whoh spent a single move action (three seconds) searching for traps would not be "confident" about anything.

But none of this screwed up the game (I don't recall if there were any traps), and all things considered, I think he was a good GM. Though in fairness, I would not consent to his house rule on finding traps if it had a material impact on the game.

Quote:
O.O "One of the cornerstones of my PFS enjoyment is formal requirement of GMs to follow RAW." ... all I can say is wow... If I tried anything like this it would get me barred from tables.

LOL. I haven't had to say that to anyone. At my FLGS's (plural), people have the rule books, look up rules, and the GM abides by them. In PbP games, you simple post the rule from the PRD and unless the rule is ambiguous, there is no issue. Sounds like you might want to to talk about things with your VO's.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know that I've had a F2F game where some mistake wasn't made. But I've been lucky in that those mistakes haven't been catastrophic for the players.

The Exchange 5/5

N N 959 wrote:
nosig wrote:
I am guessing you need to get out more and play for more judges.

I'm guessing I don't...rofl.

It's funny. When I first started playing PFS, I was against playing F2F games and some of the horror stories about GMs at Cons convinced me they were to be avoided. But I went to my FLGS and things weren't too bad. Yes, I did have to explain how T10 works and does not care if you can fail. I also ran into the local rule of Soft Cover. But the following week, I stalked with the VL about the Soft Cover rule and he agreed that they had been playing it wrong.

I went to PaizoCon and had pretty good GMs. One of them was the GM who made the comment about T20 while playing a dice game. He also insisted once could not reroll to find traps because he would insist "you're confident there are no traps," never mind that someone whoh spent a single move action (three seconds) searching for traps would not be "confident" about anything.

But none of this screwed up the game (I don't recall if there were any traps), and all things considered, I think he was a good GM. Though in fairness, I would not consent to his house rule on finding traps if it had a material impact on the game.

Quote:
O.O "One of the cornerstones of my PFS enjoyment is formal requirement of GMs to follow RAW." ... all I can say is wow... If I tried anything like this it would get me barred from tables.

LOL. I haven't had to say that to anyone. At my FLGS's (plural), people have the rule books, look up rules, and the GM abides by them. In PbP games, you simple post the rule from the PRD and unless the rule is ambiguous, there is no issue. Sounds like you might want to to talk about things with your VO's.

Don't get me wrong, I don't know that I've had a F2F game where some mistake wasn't made. But I've been lucky in that those mistakes haven't been catastrophic for the players.

"unless the rule is ambiguous" ... covers a lot of ground!

Any rule is ambiguous if the judge feels it is.

But I guess we have just played for different judges, in different locations.

I have a T-shirt (more than one actually) with the Take 10 rule printed on it. I have been advised not to wear it as a player, it seems some judges find the shirt to be confrontational, and the fact that I am wearing it (even if I never mention it) to be threatening. SO... now I only wear it when I'm judgeing (or when a old friend is judgeing and I ask before hand). That is why I said:
"One of the cornerstones of my PFS enjoyment is formal requirement of GMs to follow RAW." ... all I can say is wow... If I tried anything like this it would get me barred from tables.
Do you really FORMALLY require judges to follow RAW? Do you ask before hand? How?

Silver Crusade 2/5

"Any rule is ambiguous if the judge feels it is."

And some judges can't parse English sentences. Why should I, or anyone else, be penalized for that?

1/5

nosig wrote:

"unless the rule is ambiguous" ... covers a lot of ground!

Any rule is ambiguous if the judge feels it is.

I understand what you are suggesting. I haven't had any trouble with agreement on what is ambiguous and what is not. I have had inexperienced judges clearly not understand the rule, or, in some cases, clearly choose to misinterpret the rule. Most of the time it's for the benefit of the players. One the few occasions it has been detrimental, it's been after a bunch of soft-balling or clearly favorable rulings, so I just let it slide as evening out.

Quote:
Do you really FORMALLY require judges to follow RAW? Do you ask before hand? How?

I don't know if I have a satisfactory answer for you, as I suspect the question is mostly rhetorical.

In PbP, I'll simply ask the GM if they have house rules. Or, I'll ask them if they adhere to RAW.

As far as F2F, I imagine it has more to do with the local community. The SOP is for players to look up rules right at the table if there is some confusion. Or, they ask a GM at the next table what the rule is. I've yet to see a GM try and overrule a rulebook. So by and large, there's no effort on my part. In cases where GM and players did not understand the T10 rule, we looked it up and settled the matter.

On the one occasion I've had to address a clear conflict with the rule, I had a talk with the VL. After fifteen minutes of my walking through the rules logically, he agreed that I was right and told me I had his permission to inform the other local tables that he had approved the correction to the local interpretation. No yelling, no screaming, no attitude, just a discussion and resolution.

If some GM were to totally screw things up, I've had enough exposure to the local VO's and PFS staff to have confidence they would make things right.

51 to 98 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Ascetical vs Juridical Approaches to PFS Culture All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.