Sick of players planning out their characters


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Throne wrote:

'A story that changes you' is best done through roleplay and personality. It in no stretch has to be modelled in the mechanics.

This thread sounds more like 'I like fighters that use longswords, so I don't care that this guy took exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword, weapon focus bastard sword, and weapon specialisation bastard sword, I'm going to throw magical longswords at him and whine if he doesn't use them'.

When faced with a choice between lambasting the OP as a cliche or offering useful advice for what he seems to be craving, I chose the latter. He wants what he wants. It's certainly possible to get what he wants and still have the game be fun. At least he's GMing!

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I kinda understand this DM. Planning a character progression is fine, for your own personal purpose to see if X or Y is even possible by level Z. Fine... but KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!

What OTHER player want to see at the table is your sense of fun, camaraderie, courteous and cooperative attitude. NOT an endless comparison of notes and bragging sessions about how you'll be in 10 levels from now. Chances are that if you focus so much on the future of your character, the present of your character may be too weak for your character to even have a future.

Without making a useless jack-of-all-trades, when making a build you should worry about CURRENT usefulness also, and when you show up, don't bore others with your future build unless you're asked: just bring some chips or snacks and stop being a cheap optimizer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It used to bug me a lot when players would work their characters out all the way to 20th. I had the view that events during the campaign could change the character design or even open up a relevant prestige class or suggest multi-classing. After a while though I decided that simply if a player wants to do so it is their decision and not mine, so now it doesn't bother me anywhere near as much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
just bring some chips or snacks and stop being a cheap optimizer.

Glad we could get a fair, unbiased word from you.


Not sick of it - especially as some of the Feat Trees have pre-reqs and you do sort of need to plan ahead.

I personally look ahead, but don't choose until it is time to level.

I have 1 player who plots his character out from 1-20, not just for Feats, but for how his character will evolve, which I have mixed feelings about. I love that he is so creative and invested! BUT I also feel he's less open to what I am throwing at him that HE needs to adapt to. He does get a bit sulky when the story doesn't support his pre-planned character development. There are GM's on both sides of that argument: "Why not write to allow the Player to have his character progress the way they want?" and "Make the Player adapt! It's YOUR story, not his!" Like I said: Mixed. I see both sides, and try to balance. I get annoyed when he sulks without considering MY side of the equation. I spend a lot of time writing and prepping, and he is only 1 of 7 Players.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's the difference between role playing and roll playing. A role player doesn't care if he is sub-optimal, he expects the story to be catered to the characters in the story, not some theoretical optimal party of characters.

As a DM I always try to put situations into the game that make it apparent that while mathematically it might be better to be geared towards a single specialized set of abilities, in life you are much more likely to need to be more well rounded because there will be situations where your best abilities may be completely useless.


mardaddy wrote:

LOL. We had a player drop out of our Shattered Star AP over a couple of "perceived" issues, one of which was that, yes, he had planned his Bonded Witch out to 18th level not just with Feats and weapons and Skills, but also planned out what magic items he wanted to get at what levels, then dropping hints every game what he was, "hoping for," at that level of the AP so I would conveniently, "seed," the AP with his wants...

I went by the rules, he tried to get me to allow Detect Magic to be constantly on. Whenever it expired, he would recast it immediately, and he scanned as he walked everywhere, trying to get me to treat it like "Magic Radar" without him having to stop and concentrate for the 6/12/18 seconds to get the staged benefits the spell description required.

Well, clearly his build was flawed - a lyrakien azata as an improved familiar would have continually operating detect magic *and* detect evil. :)

And hinting for a specific wish list of magic items to conveniently appear? Lame.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Throne wrote:

'A story that changes you' is best done through roleplay and personality. It in no stretch has to be modelled in the mechanics.

This thread sounds more like 'I like fighters that use longswords, so I don't care that this guy took exotic weapon proficiency bastard sword, weapon focus bastard sword, and weapon specialisation bastard sword, I'm going to throw magical longswords at him and whine if he doesn't use them'.

At some point in my GMing life I had a realization or two:

1) while challenging players is important, the perception of difficulty in combat is more important than the actual difficulty.
2) the GM exists to tell a story and adjudicate the rules, not to kill the players
3) You can tell a changing, evolving story without keeping secrets from the players that they should know.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arkadwyn wrote:

It's the difference between role playing and roll playing. A role player doesn't care if he is sub-optimal, he expects the story to be catered to the characters in the story, not some theoretical optimal party of characters.

As a DM I always try to put situations into the game that make it apparent that while mathematically it might be better to be geared towards a single specialized set of abilities, in life you are much more likely to need to be more well rounded because there will be situations where your best abilities may be completely useless.

The fallacy appears.

You're not banned from roleplaying just because you make the best mechanical decisions. Those mechanics are as ripe for roleplay as the crappy ones.

People who do that can still love their characters, chat up NPCs, and get invested in their story. They just do those things while also being really strong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:


I'll defend it.

Sometimes you want to tell a story about how events change people.

Well, I'll attack that defense. Any time a gamemaster starts out with the phrase "I want to tell a story,...." my response is "So go tell it. Open mike night is Wednesdays. Monday is RPG night." A lot of GameMasters think that they're in control of the story (they're not), and that players need to follow the themes they set out (they don't), and that the role of a game master is to impose a vision on the universse (it isn't). This isn't confined to Pathfinder, and indeed is often worse with some of the more narrative-friendly systems (like the so-called "Storyteller" system).

Even in a purely narrative context like a novel or film, it's rare to see several characters change as a result of events. We can all agree that Star Wars is to some extent about Luke's coming-of-age and about Han's rediscovering his moral compass. On the other hand, I don't recall much growth or change in Leia, Chewie, R2-D2, or C-3PO, and about all that changed about Obi-Was was the change from an annoyingly enigmatic live person to an annoyingly enigmatic dead one. (A change, I may add, that made remarkably little difference to anyone including Obi-Wan himself.)

Trying to impose a change by game master fiat is not a good idea.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The irony of IRL reverse IG:

IRL: "You got to have a life plan man, have some idea of what you want to do how to get there and work for it."

IG: "You can't have a life plan man, it takes away from immersion, because who plans out their life man? It just happens to you!"

I mean yeah there is the inflexible over planners just as there are the drifting no planners but both are perfectly legitimate and normal IRL as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Arkadwyn wrote:
It's the difference between role playing and roll playing. A role player doesn't care if he is sub-optimal, he expects the story to be catered to the characters in the story, not some theoretical optimal party of characters.

Bull. I don't expect the DM to take pity on my special snowflake of a character just because I built him a certain way. The world isn't built like that. Nor will I make combats easier just because a player chose Skill Focus (Painting) over something more 'optimal',

Sovereign Court

DominusMegadeus wrote:
Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
just bring some chips or snacks and stop being a cheap optimizer.
Glad we could get a fair, unbiased word from you.

I try Sir, I try! ;-) (bold emphasis completely cool but unplanned, like most of my characters)


I feel that the process of discovery is more fun than a character's pre-planned development.

But that's me. Other people - legitimately so - feel: "Look, man. I work all week and I get to come here to escape and have fun. So let me! This is what I want to do. Let me do it!"

As in most things, it's balance.


Hey if someone wants to plan out their character's every choice out to 20th level..organize their sock drawer..alphabetize their undies..and place CDs in chronological order..more power to them.

Just when a player comes to me with a wish/demand list of magic items they want at each level so their (and I hate saying this phrase) "Build pops at such and such level)....
I file that list in folder 13 (waste bin)

Sure contract to buy with your funds..use items as they occur..but leave a little mystery and a little trust in the GM to make a fun world.
Or go play a computer game with cheat codes to get every little thing your heart desires..lol :)


Purple Dragon Knight wrote:
I kinda understand this DM. Planning a character progression is fine, for your own personal purpose to see if X or Y is even possible by level Z. Fine... but KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!

I'm kind of this way as well. I guess I don't really care if the players plot their future levels out as much as I despise the constant talk that always seems to accompany it.

The GM presents a situation, a player says "Man, if I was just two levels higher, I'd have smoked that encounter because I'd have x feat/spell/whatever." It really detracts from the imaginative side for me.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
A lot of GameMasters think that they're in control of the story (they're not), and that players need to follow the themes they set out (they don't), and that the role of a game master is to impose a vision on the universse (it isn't).

Care to quantify "a lot?" I think part of learning and improving as a GM is realizing that the campaign story is a collaborative effort of all players and GM together.

But as far as being in control of the story, the GM is in the sense that they decide what happens next, what the NPCs reactions are, the adventure hooks, etc.

As far as players following a theme set by the GM, that all depends on how the group is formed, and what exactly you mean by a theme. If a GM said he's putting together a campaign centered around nobles of a country, all players must be human between ages x and x+y, and cannot be certain classes, a, b, c, d, e, etc, is that imposing a theme? If so, that sort of thing happens as well.

Of course, this all assumes we're talking about a GM that has created his own content, not one that is simply running pre-packaged adventures that were created by someone else.

Grand Lodge

7 people marked this as a favorite.

I can find no legitimate reason for this to be an issue.

Being a planned, or unplanned PC build, has absolutely no effect on a player's ability to role-play.

Being a planned, or unplanned PC build, has absolutely no effect on any player's, or DM's ability to have fun.

Being a planned, or unplanned PC build, has absolutely no effect on a player's, or DM's ability to immerse themselves into the game.

To have any problem with this, is as silly as having a problem with the color of a player's/DM's dice bag color.

No.

There is no legitimate reason to have a problem with this.

There are advantages, and disadvantages, to having a planned, or unplanned, PC build.

I am so frustratingly baffled by the sheer ridiculous disapproval of such a thing.

Heck, if player never said either way, then how could anyone positively confirm if a player planned, or didn't plan, their PC's build.

No., just no.

The disapproval of how a player thinks, is one the stupidest complaints, about anything, I can conceive of.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Throne wrote:
'A story that changes you' is best done through roleplay and personality. It in no stretch has to be modelled in the mechanics.

Unless the reacting to what happens would best be modeled by mechanics.

Player suddenly becomes the owner of a ship. Do they learn anything about operating it?

Player suddenly becomes a land owner. Do they clear the lands and repair the buildings? What do they do with respect to operating it?

Player nearly drowns after falling off a boat. Do they finally decide to learn to swim?

There are a lot of places where what happens in game could cause a player to want to pick up a smattering of a skill. In other systems, adding a new skill is much simpler and easier than continuing to improve one that you are good at.

In D&D and it's descendents (including Pathfinder), you wait to level. The day you level you can go from a total incompetent to an expert. How well you can do this is also determined by a decision you probably made at first level -- unless you were willing to multiclass or use a feat.

Sovereign Court

I generally plan 20 levels even when the character wont get there. The plan is usually the final part of creation (I make a character, name, spark, hooks,then fill the mechanics) I don't see how not planning is better than planning due to pre-reqs.

planning can take many levels of complexity, so its a little different to say - impersonator, vs arcane trickster, vs level plan, vs feat plan vs skill plan vs item plan vs wealth by level plan.

one example of change, I never intended a magus arcane trickster till I ran into one that depopulated my party. I radically changed plans from wizard to magus....but I did rework the remaining 17 levels. I dont usually plan skills or items, but some classes are best suited to very expensive items which may require a plan.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

I'll defend it.

Sometimes you want to tell a story about how events change people.

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Well, I'll attack that defense. Any time a gamemaster starts out with the phrase "I want to tell a story,...." my response is "So go tell it. Open mike night is Wednesdays. Monday is RPG night." A lot of GameMasters think that they're in control of the story (they're not), and that players need to follow the themes they set out (they don't), and that the role of a game master is to impose a vision on the universse (it isn't). This isn't confined to Pathfinder, and indeed is often worse with some of the more narrative-friendly systems (like the so-called "Storyteller" system).

Well, I think the "open mike" comment is a bit of an overreach. You're right, a GM does not have total control over the story, but RPGs are still a story-telling medium, albeit interactive -- just as video games are. The GM creates the context of the events and world, but yes, does not control the actions of the PCs. And yes, the story potential is much less linear in structure than most video games are.

I have a solid grasp of all of this, which is why I love RPGs so much.

But that doesn't mean that an individual GM is wrong for desiring to see organic advancement, even in Pathfinder. I've said like three times that I don't think it's the best tool for the job, but frankly you can achieve great results with any system if you handle it correctly; mainly by communicating your expectations to the other players.

But the GM is a player of the game as well, and they are entitled to their preferences, just like the players are.

In this case, we could all stand around jeering and calling the OP a control freak -- I don't think that's very constructive. As his desires don't seem altogether unreasonable to me if handled correctly, I figure we should try to help him get what he wants.

But then, this is the internet, so some people are more interested in tearing him down. I guess organic advancement is badwrongfun.


Tormsskull wrote:


Orfamay Quest wrote:
A lot of GameMasters think that they're in control of the story (they're not), and that players need to follow the themes they set out (they don't), and that the role of a game master is to impose a vision on the universse (it isn't).

Care to quantify "a lot?" I think part of learning and improving as a GM is realizing that the campaign story is a collaborative effort of all players and GM together.

But as far as being in control of the story, the GM is in the sense that they decide what happens next, what the NPCs reactions are, the adventure hooks, etc.

Actually, the GM doesn't even decide what happens next. The players decide what happens next when the person who acts next happens to be a PC; the GM places the adventure hooks, but one of the real challenges is dealing with a party that doesn't notice them or refuses to take the bait. And a GM who decides to railroad the party into doing what he thinks should happen next is generally not a successful GM.

Quote:


As far as players following a theme set by the GM, that all depends on how the group is formed, and what exactly you mean by a theme. If a GM said he's putting together a campaign centered around nobles of a country, all players must be human between ages x and x+y, and cannot be certain classes, a, b, c, d, e, etc, is that imposing a theme?

I mean "theme" in the sense that literature scholars use it : the main idea or underlying meaning of a literary work. Moby Dick, for example, is fundamentally a revenge tragedy, and in particular is about the foolishness of trying to take revenge against Nature/Providence -- except if Ahab is played by a PC, there's no necessity that that's the case (Ahab-the-PC might decide to turn it into a pirate-based sex comedy like the The Pirates of Penzance). If Ahab is played by an NPC and only Ishmael is a PC, then of course it's about whatever the GM wants it to be, but it's also an unsatisfying game, since Ishmael is a mostly-invisible narrator, not a protagonist.

I've had GMs tell me that "this particular campaign is about `redemption,'" for example. Yeah, right. It's about redemption if we decide that we are willing to allow our characters to redeem themselves. If I don't want to be `redeemed,' you're not going to be able to make it happen -- and we're both going to be very frustrated.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:

*GM massively screws over planning

*Everyone plays fullcasters

Be careful what you wish for.

People who think full casters don't take just as much planning as melee don't have much experience playing full casters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Actually, the GM doesn't even decide what happens next. The players decide what happens next when the person who acts next happens to be a PC; the GM places the adventure hooks, but one of the real challenges is dealing with a party that doesn't notice them or refuses to take the bait. And a GM who decides to railroad the party into doing what he thinks should happen next is generally not a successful GM.

I think we're just splitting hairs at this point. Assuming a GM doesn't railroad at all, everything that the PCs try to do is adjudicated by the GM. "Success" and "Failure" are defined by the GM.

I'm a big proponent of "do whatever you want" style games, when I GM. Rather than trying to guide the PCs to a certain point, I throw tons of possibilities at them and let them pick what they want to do.

But I'm still the one that has to determine what happens when they take one of my possibilities or make one of their own.

Quote:
I've had GMs tell me that "this particular campaign is about `redemption,'" for example.

Interesting - I've never actually seen a GM try to do that. That would be incredibly annoying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Orfamay Quest wrote:

Actually, the GM doesn't even decide what happens next. The players decide what happens next when the person who acts next happens to be a PC; the GM places the adventure hooks, but one of the real challenges is dealing with a party that doesn't notice them or refuses to take the bait. And a GM who decides to railroad the party into doing what he thinks should happen next is generally not a successful GM.

I think we're just splitting hairs at this point.

I don't think we are. We're discussing locus-of-control issues. Weather and tides are things that are completely under the GM's control(*) and it would be inappropriate for a player to tell the GM that the weather was wrong. But character behavior is, similarly, under the player's control(*), and it's similarly inappropriate for a GM to tell a the player that the character is behaving wrongly. And part of being a successful GM is knowing what is and isn't under your control. And "telling a story" in an RPG is definitely not something under your control, any more than playing a chess game is.

But this makes it very difficult (if not impossible) and largely inappropriate for a GM to start out by wanting to "tell" a particular kind of story, in the same way that it's difficult if not impossible for a player to want to play a particular kind of chess game. If I'm trying to exchange as many pieces as possible to keep the board clear and allow for lots of attacking.... well, if my opponent is going for a fortress-style defense, that will be hard to do.

And the same holds true for more collaborative activities as well.

What happens if the players don't want to administer a kingdom when you're running Kingmaker, and if they're having fun simply exploring?

Quote:


Quote:
I've had GMs tell me that "this particular campaign is about `redemption,'" for example.
Interesting - I've never actually seen a GM try to do that. That would be incredibly annoying.

It is. But it's actually suggested in some of the non-Pathfinder systems.

(*) Certain spells excepted.
(*) Again, certain spells excepted.


Devilkiller wrote:
I don't know, kestral287, some DMs have a special commitment to making sure crafters don't have crafting time which borders on mania. I think it might be better if they let folks craft what they wanted within reason but used the guidelines in Ultimate Campaign to limit the financial benefit a bit. I don't like the idea that saying, "I wish my PC had time to use his feat" would make me a jerk, but maybe that's because I'm a jerk...

I've never heard about anyone complain about it in that context. The times I've heard have long surpassed the "within reason" bit.

Granted, I might just not be hearing about those cases. Being able to use your feat is fine, being able to exploit it not so much.

Tormsskull wrote:

IME, the players that plan their character to a T are doing so in order to optimize their character's mechanical power. I can understand that from a theoretical concept, as seeing what kind of characters are possible when you wade through thousands of options can be fun.

But my preference is that character concept should take priority over mechanical power. Regardless of what TTRPG system I'm playing, I should be able to write down my character's concept even if I am unsure of what's possible rules-wise.

I should then be able to look at the rules and get them to match up to my character concept as close as possible.

As a person who does this: the goal is not to optimize raw power. The goal is to optimize concept.

To return to an earlier example (and one of my favorite characters, period, so probably the one I'll keep coming back to): I have a character named Shariza. She has a dragon obsession, a strong focus on cold spells, and she's dedicated largely to blasting.

Now... none of this is really optimal. It's a gestalt and mythic game, which means the potential power level is basically through the roof. And I've done everything I can to actualize her potential. But... well. Some of those optimizations are things like "How do I get the Draconic Sorcerer's breath weapon to work for me"? The answer, after putting everything I can into it? Mythic Bloodline, Robe of Arcane Heritage, and a 3.5 feat that gives it a scaling DC bonus up to +4. At level 20/mythic 10, then, this piece of her that I'm putting a lot of optimization into does... 28D6 damage (average: 98) with a DC of 45. The DC is very, very high-- primarily because her casting stat is going to be through the roof-- but the damage potential is utterly miserable. After I've optimized the hell out of it. She'd need her full day's worth (and that's been boosted too) to down, say, Cthulhu, which means it'll be taking a /lot/ of time. Hence it's a very weak choice, and the optimization I poured into it is making it less weak rather than truly strong-- compare to, say, spamming Mythic Cloudkill and destroying everything.

That's the reason level 1-20 plans are done, straight from the horse's mouth. That matches up a hell of a lot closer to what you actually do than what you claimed I'm doing.

Purple Dragon Knight wrote:

I kinda understand this DM. Planning a character progression is fine, for your own personal purpose to see if X or Y is even possible by level Z. Fine... but KEEP IT TO YOURSELF!

What OTHER player want to see at the table is your sense of fun, camaraderie, courteous and cooperative attitude. NOT an endless comparison of notes and bragging sessions about how you'll be in 10 levels from now. Chances are that if you focus so much on the future of your character, the present of your character may be too weak for your character to even have a future.

Without making a useless jack-of-all-trades, when making a build you should worry about CURRENT usefulness also, and when you show up, don't bore others with your future build unless you're asked: just bring some chips or snacks and stop being a cheap optimizer.

I dunno, for the most part my antics just amuse the fellow players. And serves as a source of useful advice when they don't know what feat to take and I can lay out a couple options (after they ask, not before).

The plotting and such doesn't happen in-session, mind. Doing that is kind of silly for a lot of reasons. When we're hanging out after the play time handling level ups and the like, yeah. When we're chatting on Skype during other days and I have a question for the GM about something that I'm toying with, yeah. When we're idly talking about our characters, yeah. But nobody has gotten irritated with me and I'm not sure why the notion that a planned character is somehow bad at low levels exists. Mine certainly isn't. Sure, she's not totally optimized for the current level (I had to take one feat and one trait-- that's it--that won't pay off for the next two levels), but she's pulling her weight just fine-- along with that feat came some very useful spells on both the tactical and strategic level and patching a hole in our skills, and an upgrade to her personal power to boot. And she was already a solid combatant. Now, she won't really hit her stride until level 7, and she's going to get another significant power boost at level 13, but she certainly isn't holding the party back. Her only major weakness (she sucks at range) was intentionally built into her design, so I didn't step on the toes of the dedicated ranged fighter or the switch hitter.

So yeah. Explain how all of this makes me a "cheap optimizer", exactly?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
I've had GMs tell me that "this particular campaign is about `redemption,'" for example. Yeah, right. It's about redemption if we decide that we are willing to allow our characters to redeem themselves. If I don't want to be `redeemed,' you're not going to be able to make it happen -- and we're both going to be very frustrated.

Let's say I say this to you. That I want to run a game about redemption.

As a player you have three options:

1) Say yes and play the game.
2) Say no and do something else with your time.
3) Say yes, but offer input and insight that can help shape the game.

If you are truly uninterested in a theme, you are perfectly in your right to say "no" and walk away. Start your own game.

You are also entitled to talk to the GM and express concerns and suggestions.

I was at a house-con this weekend. I ran my most favorite game ever, two times. It is heavily themed (power vs free will vs survival). As soon as the first session ended, one player turned to me and said "Can we play this again tomorrow?".

The sessions were great. They stayed on theme and the players had a blast. I don't railroad, but I do keep things on theme. Players get to do what then want, but I ask questions and put obstacles in their path that directly related to those themes. If those players didn't want to confront those themes, they were more than welcome to join a different table (they could literally walk to the next room and play a different game there). I also gave them massive amounts of control over their characters and the world around them.

When introducing the game I talk about what the game is like. I also talk about what the game is not like, so that people get a good idea of what they're getting themselves into.

As a player, when I join a game I make it a point to buy into whatever the GM is excited about. They want to share something with me, so I listen to their ideas and goals. This lets me play my part in contributing and ensure that the GM and I are working together to create a cool and fun game. In return, I expect to have input and control over the story (proportionally as I'm only 1 player).

I do not consider the GM and player roles to be naturally combative positions at the table. Rather I see us all as people sharing a collaborative experience. With that in mind, communicating goals and sharing ideas is important.

If a GM and 4 players all want to have a serious game about a tragedy, if I'm the 5th player, I'm an ass if I come in and make it all about Monty Python jokes. And vice versa, if it's a game of Monty Python jokes, I'm a jerk if I tell people to shut up and be serious. This all gets into communicating the mood and theme of the game and adhering to that as a participant.

Grand Lodge

Hell, this is telling a player to not even have a desire to enter a Prestige Class.

Further, this tells a player that even desiring something like "being able to teleport really far" is somehow wrong, as it require you to plan on getting enough levels in a caster class, that has Teleport as an available spell.

This is just wrong.


Orfamay Quest wrote:

But character behavior is, similarly, under the player's control(*), and it's similarly inappropriate for a GM to tell a the player that the character is behaving wrongly. And part of being a successful GM is knowing what is and isn't under your control.

I would agree on all points.

I think we're not seeing eye to eye on the

Orfamay Quest wrote:
Actually, the GM doesn't even decide what happens next.

part. The players decide what their characters do, and the GM decides what the result or reactions of the character's actions are. So if the players decide to explore plot hook A, then the GM decides what following plot hook A entails.

The players are free to abandon plot hook A and then try plot hook B, but once again, the GM determine what plot hook B entails.

I think any time discussions on control and the DM-player dynamic come up, there are always people on either side speaking from negative experiences. IME, most GMs that aren't very good are due to inexperience rather than some kind of power tripping personality.

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

How can any DM even justify this disapproval?

Is the DM intent to have players build the DM's way, or it's somehow wrong?

If so, then why have the players build PCs at all?

Just use Pregens, and simply level them, as the DM chooses, and give the player no choice.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Here here BBT!


I only plan my feats up to level 12+. Usually by level 12 I have all the feats I really want. As for skills I plan those out a level in advance to make it easier to level up as sometimes you end up doing that mid game. None of this is set in stone. Sometimes a game provides a reason for a better choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a really dumb thing to complain about.


Serghar Cromwell wrote:
This is a really dumb thing to complain about.

Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.

I'm not saying either is good or bad, but it's certainly not a "dumb thing to complain about".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
This is a really dumb thing to complain about.

Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.

I'm not saying either is good or bad, but it's certainly not a "dumb thing to complain about".

...Huh?

In what universe are those even related, much less the same thing.

One is the GM taking away player agency to create his story at the expense of everyone else.

The other is a guy going "I want to be able to do this. These are the things I will do to achieve that.". It affects nobody at the table but them. It takes away no player's agency. Not even his own. Because at any point he can go "Nevermind, this seems cool instead".

I plan all my characters to 10th or 12th (depending on how complex the build is). That's why do you care? it has nothing to do with you. It's my character, that I am making the way I want to make him.

The two things are not in any way related.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
This is a really dumb thing to complain about.

Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.

I'm not saying either is good or bad, but it's certainly not a "dumb thing to complain about".

Completely unrelated. Yes, it is dumb. Do you know what is even being disproved of?

This is a direct complaint, on the thoughts of a player.

It makes it wrong to even look at any feat, or prestige class, that would only be available at later levels, and think, "Hey, I think I will work towards that, as it look fun".

It's an attack on a player's thoughts, dreams, and desires.

It says that a player who looks to the future, and strives to work towards it, is somehow doing something wrong.

There is nothing right, or justified, or acceptable, about this kind behavior.


Muad'Dib wrote:
Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.

Interesting comparison. I can see some parallels.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:
Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.
Interesting comparison. I can see some parallels.

No comparison. It's an apples to rocks comparison.

This is not a disapproval of a DM's thoughts, or plans for the future.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
blackbloodtroll wrote:


Completely unrelated. Yes, it is dumb. Do you know what is even being disproved of?

This is a direct complaint, on the thoughts of a player.

It makes it wrong to even look at any feat, or prestige class, that would only be available at later levels, and think, "Hey, I think I will work towards that, as it look fun".

It's an attack on a player's thoughts, dreams, and desires.

It says that a player who looks to the future, and strives to work towards it, is somehow doing something wrong.

There is nothing right, or justified, or acceptable, about this kind behavior.

It sounds like the complaint is related to the players who plan ahead, and complain when they can't get what they want.

Which is a DISTINCT possibility in this game. Especially when they start planning out prestige classes and equipment

The Serpent Skull AP for example. You pass through civilization ONCE in all 6 books. If there is no crafter (we had one...) and the DM is a stickler for prestige classes need exposure to the actual group... I can definitely see a parallel here.

There were a few complaints in our group because we had hoped to get certain items, but never crossed a place to get it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
This is a really dumb thing to complain about.

Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.

I'm not saying either is good or bad, but it's certainly not a "dumb thing to complain about".

What...?

Railroading is bad because it removes the players' freedom of choice. Planning your character doesn't remove anyone's choice (even the guy doing the planning can always change his mind). It has zero effect on anyone else.

This is one of the dumbest complaints I've seen. There is no reason to be upset about players planning their character builds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:

{. . .}

Orfamay Quest wrote:
I've had GMs tell me that "this particular campaign is about `redemption,'" for example.
Interesting - I've never actually seen a GM try to do that. That would be incredibly annoying.

The Wrath of the Righteous Player's Guide sort of does this . . . .


I may be a bit late to this but you NEED to plan your character ahead in this game or you will miss your opportunities to take some of the really good options that have prerequisites. The person that plans nothing will probably end up very very vanilla and weak by high level. Now that being said you are just making extra work for yourself by planning all the way to level 20 and possibly coming in with a weaker character than you could have if for example the game is going to end around level 12-14. Also it can be very rewarding to leave wiggle room in your build for exactly the sort of situations mentioned earlier. Don't allocate ALL your feats and abilities but just the ones you need for the build and leave the rest for situational campaign specific stuff you couldn't have predicted at the start. That way you get the best of both worlds.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:

{. . .}

Orfamay Quest wrote:
I've had GMs tell me that "this particular campaign is about `redemption,'" for example.
Interesting - I've never actually seen a GM try to do that. That would be incredibly annoying.

The Wrath of the Righteous Player's Guide sort of does this . . . .

A bit different saying, "This published for profit product deals in the following themes by default" and a person saying, "I'm looking to tell a story about the following themes."

I mean yeah they are related in the way both apples and oranges are fruit, but it's still not the same.

*******************************************

Personally if I'm interested in a theme in my games as a GM and the players aren't hip to it more than likely it's going to play off in the background to whatever they are doing. Basically there will be the equivalent of the tv on the news channel in the back ground of movies going on to whatever the players are actually doing.

IF the players decide to get interested in that side bit alright, but otherwise it's just the world playing out around them. Someone gets married, someone else passes, etc -- it's just life unless they decide they want to get involved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
Serghar Cromwell wrote:
This is a really dumb thing to complain about.
Players complain about GM's who railroad. Players who plot out characters so far in advance are guilty of the same thing.

I think there's an important difference here.

GMs who railroad are making the players do things the players don't want to do.

Players who plot out characters aren't making the GM do anything she doesn't want to do.

Basically, I can overplan the toppings on my own pizza to my heart's content, but that's not the same as your planning my toppings.

Dark Archive

I think the game is much more interesting when players are allowed to tell their own stories.

APs, however, impose a restriction on this. Sometimes I think they go a bit too far in railroading PCs, but broadly speaking players have to accept that if they're going to participate in an AP they will have to compromise on some of their freedom.

APs are great for a saga-style storytelling narrative, however the highest PC freedom that I can think of happens when players are allowed to decide what adventure they're going to participate in next, possibly even dipping in and out of APs as they see fit.

Richard


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The harsh responses above reflect people who are deeply entrenched in a Pathfinder mindset, where player agency is sacrosanct. Not all games are like that, but you sure do need the players to buy in if you want to try something different in Pathfinder.

This is why I still advocate trying a system that has a little less Superpower-combo-chain-buffet, and perhaps find a system where your actions during play carry more weight than the math you did before the first session started.

Pathfinder is for building characters. Just look at the page count for character options! You can use it for other things, but building characters and testing their limits is what the system excels at.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:

GMs who railroad are making the players do things the players don't want to do.

Players who plot out characters aren't making the GM do anything she doesn't want to do.

I think its more about effect. Players want their in-character actions to have an effect on the game world. GMs want their plot lines, campaign world, enemies, etc., to have an effect on the PCs.

Some would argue that a player role-playing a change would suffice as an effect. Other GMs/groups are expecting the potential for a mechanical change depending on the campaign, random luck, etc.

So while a player planning out their character to level 20 isn't really an issue, being set on that plan and refusing to modify it at all regardless of what happens in the campaign world is unpalatable to some.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

There too many responses to my post to address each so I'll throw this out there.

When a player plots out so far ahead it makes the GM adhere to the players train tracks. Now it's the GM who has to plot and plan out encounters specifically so that the player can get his/her prestige class or whatever.

But more importantly locking your character into a "build" prevents many players from being spontaneous and responding to the (hopefully) dramatic events that happen to them.

Luke Skywalker did not know he was going to be a Jedi knight when he was shooting Wamprats with Bigs at Beggers canyon. Young Skywalker had not planned out his future beyond going to Tashi station to pick up those damn power converters. He got caught up in the story and adapted to the events that unfolded.

When a player overplans they tend to not be as open to possibilities and IMO are on some level playing outside the narrative of the campaign.

I'm not trying to convince you the OP is right (I'm not sure any such thing is possible on the internet) but several people have rudly referred to Reebo Kesh's frustration as "dumb". I think the OP's frustrations are completely valid. It's a frustration I have as a player and a GM with 3.5 and Pathfinder that I don't have with some other game systems.


Muad'Dib wrote:
When a player plots out so far ahead it makes the GM adhere to the players train tracks. Now it's the GM who has to plot and plan out encounters specifically so that the player can get his/her prestige class or whatever.

No they don't. If I want to play a prestige class, all I need is experience points and a plan.


Tormsskull wrote:
Players want their in-character actions to have an effect on the game world. GMs want their plot lines, campaign world, enemies, etc., to have an effect on the PCs.

That's the best explanation yet for what the OP (and the dozen or so people who agree with him) has a problem with.

Even so, this effect shouldn't need to manifest itself in class levels and feats. If the party gets betrayed a lot, they'll become less trusting, or whatever.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:

There too many responses to my post to address each so I'll throw this out there.

When a player plots out so far ahead it makes the GM adhere to the players train tracks. Now it's the GM who has to plot and plan out encounters specifically so that the player can get his/her prestige class or whatever.

But more importantly locking your character into a "build" prevents many players from being spontaneous and responding to the (hopefully) dramatic events that happen to them.

Luke Skywalker did not know he was going to be a Jedi knight when he was shooting Wamprats with Bigs at Beggers canyon. Young Skywalker had not planned out his future beyond going to Tashi station to pick up those damn power converters. He got caught up in the story and adapted to the events that unfolded.

Luke may not have known, but I'm pretty sure George knew...and since I am controling my chaacter I know what feats he is getting but "he" does not.

151 to 200 of 410 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Sick of players planning out their characters All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.