Confessions That Will Get You Shunned By The Members Of The Paizo Community

[thegreenteagamer]

Pan wrote:

@greenteagamer sorry about using you in my example bud not trying to pick on ya or anything.

It's cool man. I get it. No beef here...Even though you totally flaked on the PbP idea!

[Zhangar]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

It's because its more work on me and it sort of punishes the players for making stronger characters.

Now if the players tell me they want more challenge I am happy to provide it, but my general assumption is that they build powerful characters to be powerful.

If the GM is just going to power up the opposition, what was the point of those hours you spent planning and preparing a powerful character?

To be able to fight and destroy superior opposition?

If you're an unstoppable monster that's constantly smashing critters that aren't even a threat to you, you're not a hero, you're a bully =P

My players get bored if they're constantly fighting things that aren't challenging =P

[Neurophage]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

It's because its more work on me and it sort of punishes the players for making stronger characters.

Now if the players tell me they want more challenge I am happy to provide it, but my general assumption is that they build powerful characters to be powerful.

If the GM is just going to power up the opposition, what was the point of those hours you spent planning and preparing a powerful character?

The point of having power is to comparable to more powerful opposition. If a player's goal is to obviate all challenge and never face equal opposition, I don't want them in my game.

[kyrt-ryder]

Neurophage wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

It's because its more work on me and it sort of punishes the players for making stronger characters.

Now if the players tell me they want more challenge I am happy to provide it, but my general assumption is that they build powerful characters to be powerful.

If the GM is just going to power up the opposition, what was the point of those hours you spent planning and preparing a powerful character?

The point of having power is to comparable to more powerful opposition. If a player's goal is to obviate all challenge and never face equal opposition, I don't want them in my game.

To each his own.

There are games where I like the idea of fighting an uphill struggle against the odds, but there are also games where I like coasting downhill.

Neither is wrong.

[Zhangar]

I like to do a mix, honestly. Battles where the players can just fool around and show off, and battles where at the end I can say "yep, you really just fought _____ and won."

Edit: And the occasional battle where the players expect a hard fight, and then the PCs trounce it, or where the players expect a cake walk and then the PCs have to fight for their lives (SPIDERCROC!) can be fun, too.

[Aranna]

Icyshadow wrote:

Proper balance is difficult.

It really isn't if you control the difference in power level from the start of the game. Know your Players, aim your baseline just above the weaker members and restrict the high powered options to keep the uber optimizers from getting too far ahead of the pack.

[Pan]

Aranna wrote:

Icyshadow wrote:

Proper balance is difficult.

It really isn't if you control the difference in power level from the start of the game. Know your Players, aim your baseline just above the weaker members and restrict the high powered options to keep the uber optimizers from getting too far ahead of the pack.

This is assuming its on the GM to do all the work. I expect my players to meet me in the middle. If folks are too far apart I will suggest they do not play together.

[Kthulhu]

Zhangar wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

It's because its more work on me and it sort of punishes the players for making stronger characters.

Now if the players tell me they want more challenge I am happy to provide it, but my general assumption is that they build powerful characters to be powerful.

If the GM is just going to power up the opposition, what was the point of those hours you spent planning and preparing a powerful character?

To be able to fight and destroy superior opposition?

If you're an unstoppable monster that's constantly smashing critters that aren't even a threat to you, you're not a hero, you're a bully =P

My players get bored if they're constantly fighting things that aren't challenging =P

I never find D&D more exciting than when I'm walking the razor's edge between victory and defeat.

[Krensky]

Kthulhu wrote:

I never find D&D more exciting than when I'm walking the razor's edge between victory and defeat.

John Wick called it the Die Hard Effect. Players want to be John McLane. They want to be beaten, bloodied, and knocked down, but they want to get up again. They don't want to win, they want to win by the skin of their teeth.

So it's the GM's job to do that.

But it's very hard to do that when your party is made up of Superman, Green Arrow, The Question, and Jimmy Olsen.

[Pan]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Pan wrote:

@greenteagamer sorry about using you in my example bud not trying to pick on ya or anything.

It's cool man. I get it. No beef here...Even though you totally flaked on the PbP idea!

I should be shunned for that,

however:

lifes been complicated. My good friends wife split and Ive been helping him. My bro is supposed to get married next year and is off the wagon again so im helping him. I started dating again and currently am seeing 5 different women. life has been complicated. Sorry about flaking on ya.

[Rynjin]

Who knew Pan was such a playa?

Krensky wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

I never find D&D more exciting than when I'm walking the razor's edge between victory and defeat.

John Wick called it the Die Hard Effect. Players want to be John McLane. They want to be beaten, bloodied, and knocked down, but they want to get up again. They don't want to win, they want to win by the skin of their teeth.

So it's the GM's job to do that.

But it's very hard to do that when your party is made up of Superman, Green Arrow, The Question, and Jimmy Olsen.

This is a bit of a narrow view. Players might want to be John McLane sometimes, but that doesn't mean they want to struggle to survive in every single encounter. It gets tiring.

[kyrt-ryder]

Rynjin wrote:

Who knew Pan was such a playa?

Krensky wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

I never find D&D more exciting than when I'm walking the razor's edge between victory and defeat.

John Wick called it the Die Hard Effect. Players want to be John McLane. They want to be beaten, bloodied, and knocked down, but they want to get up again. They don't want to win, they want to win by the skin of their teeth.

So it's the GM's job to do that.

But it's very hard to do that when your party is made up of Superman, Green Arrow, The Question, and Jimmy Olsen.

This is a bit of a narrow view. Players might want to be John McLane sometimes, but that doesn't mean they want to struggle to survive in every single encounter. It gets tiring.

This. So much this.

As a player I don't WANT that kind of struggle on a frequent basis. It's tiring and stressful.

I want that sort of struggle maybe 10% of the time in an average game, 20% in a hard one and 5% in an easy one.

[Krensky]

Wick was talking in a broader sense than an encounter. He's really talking more about the campaign's story arcs (however you want to define those) than individual encounters or scenes, letalon just combat encounters.

[thejeff]

Rynjin wrote:

Who knew Pan was such a playa?

Krensky wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

I never find D&D more exciting than when I'm walking the razor's edge between victory and defeat.

John Wick called it the Die Hard Effect. Players want to be John McLane. They want to be beaten, bloodied, and knocked down, but they want to get up again. They don't want to win, they want to win by the skin of their teeth.

So it's the GM's job to do that.

But it's very hard to do that when your party is made up of Superman, Green Arrow, The Question, and Jimmy Olsen.

This is a bit of a narrow view. Players might want to be John McLane sometimes, but that doesn't mean they want to struggle to survive in every single encounter. It gets tiring.

Personally I find that relatively easy combat lets me do more roleplaying. If I have to be at or near my personal tactical best to win, I have less roleplaying options. I can't have my character do deliberately do sub-optimal things. I can't have him be overconfident or impulsive or anything except my closest approximation of paranoid tactical genius.

Easing off a couple notches gives me more room to play.

[thegreenteagamer]

Five women, Pan? FIVE?!

...

Well, I mean, geeze. Priorities and all that. Yeah.

Five women isn't dating, by the way. It's an open audition for the actual dating position. It's practically a reality show.

[Simon Legrande]

It looks to me like there are people who don't get that some people aren't capable of the same level of system mastery. Not everyone is a genius, hell not everyone is even above average. Some people are just flat out incapable of grasping the concepts.

Then there are the people who just want a casual game. Spending hours building a character is not their idea of fun.

That being said, Pathfinder is not really the best game for people in either of those groups to be playing. Especially if they're going to whine about everyone else being better.

[captain yesterday]

Great now I gotta spend the last ten minutes before I gotta leave for work coming up with a spoof of American Idol judges panning Pan's dates :-)

[Pan]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

Five women, Pan? FIVE?!

...

Well, I mean, geeze. Priorities and all that. Yeah.

Five women isn't dating, by the way. It's an open audition for the actual dating position. It's practically a reality show.

thread jack:

Dude the online scene is like that. I'm usually a one gal at a time kinda bloke. Though as I got started I'm receiving all kinds of attention. I didnt want to get hitched to the first woman I dated so I thought id take out a couple. Its bloomed into something I can barely keep track of. I wont lie I'm loving the attention and my self esteem is through the roof. You made a great analogy though, this really feels like an audition and I'm hoping to start eliminating (man that sounds awful) some of the women and getting down to one soon.

[captain yesterday]

Do I go with Simon Cowell spoof... Randy Jackson.. or is he too easy... I kinda wish I watched American Idol once in the last 10 years right now...

[thejeff]

Simon Legrande wrote:

It looks to me like there are people who don't get that some people aren't capable of the same level of system mastery. Not everyone is a genius, hell not everyone is even above average. Some people are just flat out incapable of grasping the concepts.

Then there are the people who just want a casual game. Spending hours building a character is not their idea of fun.

That being said, Pathfinder is not really the best game for people in either of those groups to be playing. Especially if they're going to whine about everyone else being better.

The second rather than the first for me. And there are a lot of things I like about PF, though it's not my favorite game. It's a favorite for its genre though.

And I wouldn't say "casual". Just more focused on rp & plot and less on tactical combat.

[RDM42]

Krensky wrote:

Kthulhu wrote:

I never find D&D more exciting than when I'm walking the razor's edge between victory and defeat.

John Wick called it the Die Hard Effect. Players want to be John McLane. They want to be beaten, bloodied, and knocked down, but they want to get up again. They don't want to win, they want to win by the skin of their teeth.

So it's the GM's job to do that.

But it's very hard to do that when your party is made up of Superman, Green Arrow, The Question, and Jimmy Olsen.

When I say raise the challenge rating I mean the average Challenge rating. The mix of individual encounters will still very probably 10 to 20% really difficult 20% easy and the rest in the middle.

[Simon Legrande]

thejeff wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

It looks to me like there are people who don't get that some people aren't capable of the same level of system mastery. Not everyone is a genius, hell not everyone is even above average. Some people are just flat out incapable of grasping the concepts.

Then there are the people who just want a casual game. Spending hours building a character is not their idea of fun.

That being said, Pathfinder is not really the best game for people in either of those groups to be playing. Especially if they're going to whine about everyone else being better.

The second rather than the first for me. And there are a lot of things I like about PF, though it's not my favorite game. It's a favorite for its genre though.

And I wouldn't say "casual". Just more focused on rp & plot and less on tactical combat.

Just out of curiosity, have you looked at Dungeon World? One of the guys in our group threw some money at the Kickstarter so we got essentially a beta version of the rules and a few classes. It was a little too freeform for us so we didn't go far with it.

[kyrt-ryder]

thejeff wrote:

Simon Legrande wrote:

It looks to me like there are people who don't get that some people aren't capable of the same level of system mastery. Not everyone is a genius, hell not everyone is even above average. Some people are just flat out incapable of grasping the concepts.

Then there are the people who just want a casual game. Spending hours building a character is not their idea of fun.

That being said, Pathfinder is not really the best game for people in either of those groups to be playing. Especially if they're going to whine about everyone else being better.

The second rather than the first for me. And there are a lot of things I like about PF, though it's not my favorite game. It's a favorite for its genre though.

And I wouldn't say "casual". Just more focused on rp & plot and less on tactical combat.

I'd just like to put in my vote as an optimizer who's focus at the table is RP and Plot and less on tactical combat.

[Demonknight]

Aranna wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

Demonknight wrote:

I really really really hate Mini Maxers, as in really! No, really really!

We don't hate you back.

[I'm assuming 'mini' in 'Mini Maxers' was a typo.]

I didn't read it as a typo. It looks like a clever way to say "mini" instead of "munchkin" both have the meaning "small". If so the man is a clever word smith... if not it is an amusing coincidence.

Points for Aranna! Now on the subject, i don't like players who try to break the system, just to prove they can. What's the fun on trying to win on this kind of game? Shouldn't we all just have fun playing or i'm just getting old?

[Kthulhu]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I'd just like to put in my vote as an optimizer who's focus at the table is RP and Plot and less on tactical combat.

I'm kind of the opposite. I'm not really an optimizer...I can make decent characters, but I just don't find pouring over a thousand options to be all that fun. However, I think I'm decent at actual tactics (actions taken in combat, not a character build....I specify because some people on these forums seem to equate the term "tactics" to character advancement more than what you actually do on the battlefield).

[Kthulhu]

Kthulhu wrote:

I never find D&D more exciting than when I'm walking the razor's edge between victory and defeat.

Actually, I'd like to clarify that. I never find D&D COMBAT more exciting than when I'm walking that razor's edge. As I said before, I'm more of an exploration / adventure focused player than one who's focused on combat or heavy roleplaying.

[thegreenteagamer]

I love it all, combat, RP, building characters, political intrigue, skill challenges...

Except mazes and puzzles. F*** that mess. Let me roll an int check and move on, my 23 int wizard should be able to solve that if I'm too dumb for it.

[Steve Geddes]

Kthulhu wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I'd just like to put in my vote as an optimizer who's focus at the table is RP and Plot and less on tactical combat.

I'm kind of the opposite. I'm not really an optimizer...I can make decent characters, but I just don't find pouring over a thousand options to be all that fun. However, I think I'm decent at actual tactics (actions taken in combat, not a character build....I specify because some people on these forums seem to equate the term "tactics" to character advancement more than what you actually do on the battlefield).

It can be frustrating when the DM views tactics that way - then you can be creative as you like but he looks at your character sheet to see if what you want to try is going to work.

I don't really know whether I'm any good at optimizing. I'd presume so (since it's a similar skillset to what I do at work all day) but I really don't enjoy building highly functional characters. Although I don't buy into the "if you optimize you can't roleplay as well" argument, it's definitely true for me personally. I just don't really care about my characters' stories unless they're oddballs and/or mechanically flawed, for some reason.

[thejeff]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I love it all, combat, RP, building characters, political intrigue, skill challenges...

Except mazes and puzzles. F*** that mess. Let me roll an int check and move on, my 23 int wizard should be able to solve that if I'm too dumb for it.

That much I agree with.

[DungeonmasterCal]

Shunning? Anyone remember shunning? This used to be such a fun thread.

[thejeff]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Shunning? Anyone remember shunning? This used to be such a fun thread.

I shun shunning.

[Kthulhu]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Shunning? Anyone remember shunning? This used to be such a fun thread.

I shun you for attempting to bring a thread back on-topic.

[Jaelithe]

thejeff wrote:

Generally if there's one player whose idea of fun is ruining the fun for the rest of the group, that player should adjust to the group style.

At last, the voice of genuine reason.

[thegreenteagamer]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Shunning? Anyone remember shunning? This used to be such a fun thread.

I don't know about these other folks, but my comments have all been confessions that people would shun me over. Just because I don't say "I confess" and people don't reply "I shun you" doesn't mean it's off topic.

[A highly regarded expert]

I've only run into 2 or 3 players who play like that, and I've played with hundreds. They're a drag to play with. It's like encountering a sociopath.

Most people understand that it's a team effort. Everybody gets to shine at some point or another.

Most people who are just starting out will take advice from the more experienced. I GMed a few PFS games (I really don't like to GM, but it was just starting, and there weren't enough GMs), and played with total virgins to Pathfinder. The key was to make it fun enough, they'd want to play again. Some came back, others didn't.

While I don't play PFS there anymore, it's going strong without me.

Present it as a game of teamwork, and players get the hint.

If somebody dumped con, then realized their mistake, I'd let them reconsider. I still play because people were (and still are) patient with me.

[Kthulhu]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Shunning? Anyone remember shunning? This used to be such a fun thread.

I don't know about these other folks, but my comments have all been confessions that people would shun me over. Just because I don't say "I confess" and people don't reply "I shun you" doesn't mean it's off topic.

I shun you for that confession.

[Goth Guru]

Bring down to the same level...
humiliated....degrade.....debased..... criticised....burst his bubble.....mortified... .humbled....abased....lowered.. demeaned.

I on the other hand think all PCs should have a chance to earn stuff tailored to their strengths. Adding a goblin who found some nunchucks, thinks they are a ninja, but isn't able to access it's magic, makes it interesting. I would also add a half ogre goblin, with a great ax, with bleed, to challenge the optimizer.

[ElterAgo]

thejeff wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I love it all, combat, RP, building characters, political intrigue, skill challenges...

Except mazes and puzzles. F*** that mess. Let me roll an int check and move on, my 23 int wizard should be able to solve that if I'm too dumb for it.

That much I agree with.

Oh Lordy yes! I am not that great at puzzles most of the time. I really can't understand the point of them either. Yes, I know they are a staple of certain types of fiction. I never understood their inclusion there either. It always seemed like poor storytelling to me.

"Gosh I can't figure out a reason why everyone else didn't kill the monster before this guy showed up. Guess I'll throw another puzzle in there, that's always good to make people miss the hole in the plot."

[Kthulhu]

I don't really mind riddles, although I'm not all that great at them. And solving them is often less a question of intelligence than it is of inspiration (or just plain natural talent).

Nor do I mind puzzles. However, I'm much better at them than riddles.

MAZES I'm not really a fan of, at least complicated ones. You either let the PCs metagame and see the entire map, or spend several sessions with the party wandering around aimlessly until they happen upon the correct exit.

[Steve Geddes]

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Shunning? Anyone remember shunning? This used to be such a fun thread.

I ran into a nice, young korean man and suggested he might like to provide some information about his website to the Paizo online community.

[thejeff]

Kthulhu wrote:

I don't really mind riddles, although I'm not all that great at them. And solving them is often less a question of intelligence than it is of inspiration (or just plain natural talent).

Nor do I mind puzzles. However, I'm much better at them than riddles.

MAZES I'm not really a fan of, at least complicated ones. You either let the PCs metagame and see the entire map, or spend several sessions with the party wandering around aimlessly until they happen upon the correct exit.

Or for riddles - having heard them before. Same with a lot of the puzzles.

For me, the thing about them both is that they generally pull me out of the world and out of character. It's a type of thing I'm pretty good at, especially the logic puzzles, but there's rarely anyway to think about it from an in-world perspective.