Stop Trying to Win


Advice

51 to 100 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sara Marie wrote:
This thread started off on a bit of an antagonistic foot. Let's see if we can rein that in please. Keep in mind there are a wide variety of ways to seek enjoyment from playing and we aim for inclusivity within the community.

Sara Marie is right. My apologies as I admit I have been antagonistic and abrasive. I will try to rein it in. This is one of my hot button topics but that is no excuse for rudeness, so again my apologies for the way I stated things, but not for my statements intent.

Dark Archive

Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Not immediately disposing of the big greatsword with the skull motif and "Fury" inscribed into the blade in three different languages.

Oi! Don't get rid of that! It belongs in a museum!

*Summons a Babau that spams Dispel Magics until its suppressed, then stows the thing in a box in his haversack while it's quiescent before dismissing his summon with a high five*

Now to go acourting Zarta with me new acquisition...
*saunters off with a curious expression on his face


Rynjin wrote:


-There was some sort of incentive to do so (as-is doing something tactically stupid for RP is likely to result in lots of pain, little effect, and potential death with no real upside).

Isn't roleplaying your character consistently its own reward? As they say, optimization—and so-called "winning"—doesn't have to be antithetical to roleplay.


Good to see nothing's changed since I went on hiatus. : )

Play how you want to play, suggest what you want to suggest, and toss out what you want to toss out. We're all trying to have fun here (I hope).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win. You'll enjoy Pathfinder (and all RPGs) much more, I promise you. Here we go.

here's the thing, i've never tried to win, i've only tried to be the best i could be.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


-There was some sort of incentive to do so (as-is doing something tactically stupid for RP is likely to result in lots of pain, little effect, and potential death with no real upside).

Isn't roleplaying your character consistently its own reward? As they say, optimization—and so-called "winning"—doesn't have to be antithetical to roleplay.

It is.

The vast number of complications that arise from a dead character is probably the main reason so many roleplayers deliberately create character identities that aren't easily stirred to vulnerable outbursts of that sort.

I've reached the point I generally try to go with the character's nature regardless the risks, but its a lot easier if the GM is handing out candy of some sort for doing so [and if said candy is applicable to a replacement character if one is needed.]


Bandw2 wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win. You'll enjoy Pathfinder (and all RPGs) much more, I promise you. Here we go.
here's the thing, i've never tried to win, i've only tried to be the best i could be.

I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was.

EDIT: added link to clarify reference.


King, Occultist Extraordinaire wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Not immediately disposing of the big greatsword with the skull motif and "Fury" inscribed into the blade in three different languages.

Oi! Don't get rid of that! It belongs in a museum!

*Summons a Babau that spams Dispel Magics until its suppressed, then stows the thing in a box in his haversack while it's quiescent before dismissing his summon with a high five*

Now to go acourting Zarta with me new acquisition...
*saunters off with a curious expression on his face

Jeez, it's just a berserking sword. CL 8, man.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win. You'll enjoy Pathfinder (and all RPGs) much more, I promise you. Here we go.
here's the thing, i've never tried to win, i've only tried to be the best i could be.
I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was.

no just the best i could be, no more no less.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win.

Stop telling people what to do.


Stop censoring people's freedom of speech.


Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win. You'll enjoy Pathfinder (and all RPGs) much more, I promise you. Here we go.
here's the thing, i've never tried to win, i've only tried to be the best i could be.
I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was.
no just the best i could be, no more no less.

New character idea: Lazy bard who half-asses his way through everything.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TOZ wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win.
Stop telling people what to do.

You've just shut down the entire Advice forum.


Covent wrote:

Yes, this is correct.

Please make sure This is all future pathfinder characters.

As a sidenote, Chaplin's actually pretty badass in that chase scene. I'm not sure an optimized rogue or bard could pull it all off, honestly.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


-There was some sort of incentive to do so (as-is doing something tactically stupid for RP is likely to result in lots of pain, little effect, and potential death with no real upside).

Isn't roleplaying your character consistently its own reward? As they say, optimization—and so-called "winning"—doesn't have to be antithetical to roleplay.

I've always been of the opinion that if your character is prone to bad tactical decisions (on a regular basis), RPing him consistently isn't a reward. Because you won't be RPing him for long. Because he'll be dead.

So I just don't make characters who make bad decisions for the sake of making bad decisions, they just make bad decisions when they or I dun goofed.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win. You'll enjoy Pathfinder (and all RPGs) much more, I promise you. Here we go.
here's the thing, i've never tried to win, i've only tried to be the best i could be.
I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was.
no just the best i could be, no more no less.
New character idea: Lazy bard who half-asses his way through everything.

better as a sorcerer since he;s not likely to be shooting or stabbing people, probably casts oppressive boredom a lot, which means a kitsune's racial bonus would be a good fit...

edit: oh and before anyone says "that's not what i asked for" he is a bard, he has a lute and a funny hat with a feather in it. he knows a lot of poems, but he hates singing to uplift people.


Bandw2 wrote:
blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win. You'll enjoy Pathfinder (and all RPGs) much more, I promise you. Here we go.
here's the thing, i've never tried to win, i've only tried to be the best i could be.
I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was.
no just the best i could be, no more no less.
New character idea: Lazy bard who half-asses his way through everything.
better as a sorcerer since he;s not likely to be shooting or stabbing people, probably casts oppressive boredom a lot, which means a kitsune's racial bonus would be a good fit...

Pff. I'm not going to optimize for laziness. I just don't feel like it. : D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
King, Occultist Extraordinaire wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Not immediately disposing of the big greatsword with the skull motif and "Fury" inscribed into the blade in three different languages.

Oi! Don't get rid of that! It belongs in a museum!

*Summons a Babau that spams Dispel Magics until its suppressed, then stows the thing in a box in his haversack while it's quiescent before dismissing his summon with a high five*

Now to go acourting Zarta with me new acquisition...
*saunters off with a curious expression on his face

Jeez, it's just a berserking sword. CL 8, man.

Ain't no kill like overkill.

Besides, it's not my fault the Occultist's summon ability is minutes per level and the Babau can cast Dispel at will. At least I didn't summon 1d4+2 (Superior Summons) of the beasties and have them all unload at it.

Either way, that's one spooky sword bagged, tagged, and on its way to the warehouse.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

After repeated AP-ending TPKs, I started trying a bit harder to win.
Winning is much better than the alternative.


Rynjin wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


-There was some sort of incentive to do so (as-is doing something tactically stupid for RP is likely to result in lots of pain, little effect, and potential death with no real upside).

Isn't roleplaying your character consistently its own reward? As they say, optimization—and so-called "winning"—doesn't have to be antithetical to roleplay.
I've always been of the opinion that if your character is prone to bad tactical decisions (on a regular basis), RPing him consistently isn't a reward. Because you won't be RPing him for long. Because he'll be dead.

I'm getting the sense that death is the main problem here. So in fights where you're more likely to be captured, bad decisions are fine?


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Rynjin wrote:


-There was some sort of incentive to do so (as-is doing something tactically stupid for RP is likely to result in lots of pain, little effect, and potential death with no real upside).

Isn't roleplaying your character consistently its own reward? As they say, optimization—and so-called "winning"—doesn't have to be antithetical to roleplay.
I've always been of the opinion that if your character is prone to bad tactical decisions (on a regular basis), RPing him consistently isn't a reward. Because you won't be RPing him for long. Because he'll be dead.
I'm getting the sense that death is the main problem here. So in fights where you're more likely to be captured, bad decisions are fine?

I would be more inclined to throw caution to the wind for RP reasons in any scenario that would not end in death or something just as debilitating long term (like limb loss when Clockwork Prosthetics are disallowed), yeah.

Capture, left for dead, sent to another plane of existence...hell, even given the opportunity to play in the afterlife as long as I'd get resurrected after a while.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
LoneKnave wrote:
OP, maybe you should take your own advice and stop trying to win this argument.
That's my secret, Cap: I'm never trying to win. Just trying to give advice, and here it is again (minus the tiny dash of edginess that clearly sends some people into a defensive rage):

I hear this less as advice and more as "Heh, stupid minmaxers don't enjoy this game as deeply as I do." Said with the smuggest grin imaginable, of course.


I think the keywords for this thread are...

- One True Way

- Stormwind Fallacy

...yeah, I don't think I even need to elaborate on those.


Icyshadow wrote:

I think the keywords for this thread are...

- One True Way

- Stormwind Fallacy

...yeah, I don't think I even need to elaborate on those.

For some reason though, they are not widely known as fallacies. If this forum could have signatures, I'd post this and call it recommended reading. In fact, I think I might start a new thread to get some discussion going on it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

*Groan*

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I ran a workshop for very new Pathfinder Society players at a convention this weekend. Here's the advice I gave:

1) Worry more about how your character supports team play than solo play. Develop a character that other players are happy to see at their table. (For example, a fighter or monk designed around supporting other fighters, sucking up enemies' Attacks of Opportunity, and so on.)

2) In terms of optimization, try to get a sense as to how optimized the other players at your tables are, and aim to match that. A group of heavily overclocked characters is fun. A group of people playing the iconics can be fun. The fun is harder to come by when the party is split between the two.

3) Worry more about how your character interacts socially with the other PCs than with the NPCs. It's possible to vamp on playing a crusty old gnome for minutes, but does that help the other players have fun? Develop a play style that other players are happy to see at the table.

4) Look around when the game starts. Try to find some way during the adventure to help every ally shine, either mechanically or through role-playing. Be the player that other players are happy to see at the table.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:

Just trying to give advice, and here it is again (minus the tiny dash of edginess that clearly sends some people into a defensive rage):

The next Pathfinder game you play in, try an un-optimized character built "personality first" instead of "engine of death first." You might just enjoy the results.

It's possible to enjoy the optimisation side of the game more than the roleplaying side. If that's what someone likes, taking your advice isn't really going to improve things for them, is it?

My advice is to not stress if other people enjoy playing the game differently from how you enjoy it. Let them play however they like whilst you play however you like. The only time it might be an issue is if you're both at the same table - in which case my advice is don't try and sort it out via public messageboard posts.


Seranov wrote:
You know what makes good characters? Good storytelling. Guess how much of that is effected by whether you optimize or not. Take your time to answer, I'll wait.

I'm glad you waited!

It most definitely affects it.

Characters without a 20 STR have to think about how to get past a barred door.

Characters without a +20 Bluff need a plan for how they are going to get past the city guards.

Characters that aren't Combat Monsters have to frequently consider whether fighting a certain opponent is a good idea or not.

The sort of supreme ability that maximum optimization allows lets you effortlessly sidestep thousands of what would otherwise be great storytelling opportunities.

One of the elements of good storytelling is victory through overcoming dangerous obstacles. With optimized characters, a great many of those obstacles are inconsequential.


Ithnaar wrote:
Seranov wrote:
You know what makes good characters? Good storytelling. Guess how much of that is effected by whether you optimize or not. Take your time to answer, I'll wait.

I'm glad you waited!

It most definitely affects it.

Characters without a 20 STR have to think about how to get past a barred door.

Characters without a +20 Bluff need a plan for how they are going to get past the city guards.

Characters that aren't Combat Monsters have to frequently consider whether fighting a certain opponent is a good idea or not.

The sort of supreme ability that maximum optimization allows lets you effortlessly sidestep thousands of what would otherwise be great storytelling opportunities.

One of the elements of good storytelling is victory through overcoming dangerous obstacles. With optimized characters, a great many of those obstacles are inconsequential.

More powerful characters simply require a different kind of challenge to tell a good story, which is what separates low and high fantasy.


Athaleon wrote:
More powerful characters simply require a different kind of challenge to tell a good story, which is what separates low and high fantasy.

Sidebar, your Honor!

Low Fantasy takes place in a world very much like ours with the addition of a few fantastic elements (usually magic). Harry Potter and the Dresden Files are good examples.

High Fantasy takes place in a fictional world with a large number of fantastical elements (Dragons, Elves, Gods). Pretty much every version of D&D ever falls solidly into this category.

I'm pretty sure that what you were intending was to draw a line between low power level characters and high power level characters, and my point was that power overcomes difficulty (that's how it's supposed to work). The problem is that with enough power, the difficulty is near non-existent, and I'm a firm believer that a victory without a challenge is hard to turn into a good story (It *is* funny to put a bullet into the falchion-wielding bad guy, but that loses its novelty quickly).

As a GM you have two options:

1. Let the source material stand. In this scenario, the optimized character steamrolls the majority of challenges. I contend that this makes good storytelling harder.

2. Change the source material. In order to provide an actual challenge, you rapidly end up with hordes of ultra-competent NPCs and monsters. This can cause problems depending on what sort of story the GM is trying to tell, and can be quite brutal if any of the players is *not* optimized, because they will have significant difficulty in accomplishing much of anything because of the bar being set so high. In my opinion, that, too, can be an obstacle to good storytelling.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Honestly, it is completely the previous RPG experiences that players have that shape how they play the game (including building their characters). Which is why "Stop trying to win" should be heard, understood and respected by GMs first and foremost.

I too am GMing players who have uberoptimized their characters in "campaign monsters" (as in not only combat monsters) and it IS difficult to manage. Especially because they know the rules (and the loops there) better than I do.

But then, the blame resides squarely on the shoulders of their previous GMs who TRAUMATIZED them with TPKs for the slightest mistake or underoptimized build.

My power gamers are just suffering from RPG PTSD really. It does not make my life as their GM easy, but I know and accept that they are not trying to ruin my fun.

In other words, they are not actually trying to WIN the game. They are merely trying to SURVIVE it.


Ithnaar wrote:

Low Fantasy takes place in a world very much like ours with the addition of a few fantastic elements (usually magic). Harry Potter and the Dresden Files are good examples.

High Fantasy takes place in a fictional world with a large number of fantastical elements (Dragons, Elves, Gods). Pretty much every version of D&D ever falls solidly into this category.

That is the original definition of High & Low Fantasy, yes.

Nowadays when people speak of Low Fantasy they mean fantasy without commonplace powerful magic, like Game of Thrones (which is high fantasy by the original meaning, in that it's set in an imagined world). I'm not sure the old definition is worth maintaining.


Ryzoken wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
King, Occultist Extraordinaire wrote:
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Not immediately disposing of the big greatsword with the skull motif and "Fury" inscribed into the blade in three different languages.

Oi! Don't get rid of that! It belongs in a museum!

*Summons a Babau that spams Dispel Magics until its suppressed, then stows the thing in a box in his haversack while it's quiescent before dismissing his summon with a high five*

Now to go acourting Zarta with me new acquisition...
*saunters off with a curious expression on his face

Jeez, it's just a berserking sword. CL 8, man.

Ain't no kill like overkill.

Besides, it's not my fault the Occultist's summon ability is minutes per level and the Babau can cast Dispel at will. At least I didn't summon 1d4+2 (Superior Summons) of the beasties and have them all unload at it.

Either way, that's one spooky sword bagged, tagged, and on its way to the warehouse.

Great overkill quote. I'll use it.

The side-fun with overkill is players can have a race as to who can put a standing foe to past -10 with a single hit, the lower the better. There will be your -20s and -30s, but then someone pulls out a -44 and the bar is set until the next massive overkill.


Give people stories and back-stories, then let people use the rules to play them out. That's what works in my experience. The DM's role? Thread the story through the mechanics and challenges.


Athaleon wrote:
Ithnaar wrote:
Seranov wrote:
You know what makes good characters? Good storytelling. Guess how much of that is effected by whether you optimize or not. Take your time to answer, I'll wait.

I'm glad you waited!

It most definitely affects it.

Characters without a 20 STR have to think about how to get past a barred door.

Characters without a +20 Bluff need a plan for how they are going to get past the city guards.

Characters that aren't Combat Monsters have to frequently consider whether fighting a certain opponent is a good idea or not.

The sort of supreme ability that maximum optimization allows lets you effortlessly sidestep thousands of what would otherwise be great storytelling opportunities.

One of the elements of good storytelling is victory through overcoming dangerous obstacles. With optimized characters, a great many of those obstacles are inconsequential.

More powerful characters simply require a different kind of challenge to tell a good story, which is what separates low and high fantasy.

Incorrect, it separates the good GMs from the bad ones. A good GM will be able to handle any combination of setting or group of character builds you throw at them, and make it enjoyable.

I'm pretty certain the people who start threads like this haven't ever been fortunate enough to play under a good GM, or else they wouldn't be bashing another playstyle in the game they play, because it isn't the way they themselves play.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

He who kicks most gnomes wins. - Confucius


Headfirst wrote:
Covent wrote:
Yes, this is correct.

Let me sum this up for you a different way:

Why is Indiana Jones so awesome while Lara Croft is just kind of flat (ironically) and boring? They're both genius archaeologists with a flair for athletics and puzzle solving. Yet, for some reason, Jones is a household name and Croft is kind of an inside joke in the video game community and not really important beyond that. Let's leave the actual actors, directors, and scripts behind each out of this for just a moment and dig into their characters.

Indiana Jones isn't optimized. He's not a super ninja kung-fu master; he loses and/or flees from half the fights he gets into. He gets punched in the face and goes down. When he does something acrobatic, it looks like he's just trying not to not fall to his death and you can see the fear on his face. When he's on the ropes, there's drama, and when he emerges victorious, we cheer because he beat the odds by using his wits, charm, courage, and as many friends as he can muster.

Lara Croft, on the other hand, is basically a genetically engineered super human with no flaws. She's a martial arts master, a sharpshooter, an extreme sports enthusiast, and a savant. She's absurdly rich, fawned upon by all who meet her, and swaggers through every mortal encounter with a smirk on her face that just screams, "I'm the star of this movie - there's no way I die here." She's all 18s, has all class skills, and has every feat in the book. She's basically a nerdy 13-year-old's fantasy girl and that's why the games about her could easily swap her out for another hero (cough- Nathan Drake -cough) and the movies about her are so awful.

So, the next time you sit down to make a character, ask yourself this: "Is this an Indiana Jones or a Lara Croft?" I think that will put you on the right track.

This is actually a very nice comparison, and I agree with it mostly...

However... you could argue that Indiana Jones has great stats, and is min-maxed in his knowledge skills (he always has the answers, he is one smart cookie!).

I don't think that being as good as you can be at something detracts from the game in some way, if I'm not mistaken you perhaps intended to say something more like this:

Develop depth and breadth on a character, if they are one trick ponies, they are boring to play with.

Yes?

I totally agree with your advice though, ask if the character is more Indy or more Lara... 100% on target with that.


blahpers wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win. You'll enjoy Pathfinder (and all RPGs) much more, I promise you. Here we go.
here's the thing, i've never tried to win, i've only tried to be the best i could be.
I wanna be the very best, like no one ever was.
no just the best i could be, no more no less.
New character idea: Lazy bard who half-asses his way through everything.

I've played characters like this before, they are actually pretty fun. Our party has one power-player that can basically carry the entire group if he has to, but he doesn't use all his power at once... he steps up when required... so we all decide our level of involvement in the fight, and he picks up the slack.

It works really well, and allows us to pull off hijinks like having our characters sitting in lawnchairs drinking while he goes nova on the BBEG.

Hilarious.

But we have been gaming together for years, so this developed organically. Useless, I mean, role-play focused characters are kinda pointless in some situations, like PFS play. Playing suboptimal characters sounds like suicide (I only play home games, so I'm assuming).

I will say again though, I agree with what I believe the original posters INTENT is: don't fixate on being super death machine to the exclusion of roleplaying.

Have a backstory for your murderhobo, teach him to brew beer, have him collect coins from other countries... add depth. :D


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win. You'll enjoy Pathfinder (and all RPGs) much more, I promise you. Here we go.

Here, here.

While I don't place much stock in popular opinion, I have to say it is a bit surprising and refreshing to see this post with more favorites than any of the following posts.

I whole-heartedly endorse this sentiment, and wish more people played with this mindset.

As far as this fallacy nonsense - let's give it a break already. The stupid fallacy has been silly since it was started. When someone says, essentially - "In my experience, people that are optimizers tend to not be as good of roleplayers," shouting "Fallacy! Fallacy" is nonproductive.

If your experience tells you otherwise, then great. Tell that story.


Tormsskull wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
Here's a piece of advice that's going to sound counter-intuitive, foolish, or perhaps even offensive to some of you: Stop trying to win. You'll enjoy Pathfinder (and all RPGs) much more, I promise you. Here we go.

Here, here.

While I don't place much stock in popular opinion, I have to say it is a bit surprising and refreshing to see this post with more favorites than any of the following posts.

I whole-heartedly endorse this sentiment, and wish more people played with this mindset.

As far as this fallacy nonsense - let's give it a break already. The stupid fallacy has been silly since it was started. When someone says, essentially - "In my experience, people that are optimizers tend to not be as good of roleplayers," shouting "Fallacy! Fallacy" is nonproductive.

If your experience tells you otherwise, then great. Tell that story.

Favoriting a post doesn't mean you like the post, just as often people "favorite" a post to keep track of it for checking back later. Commonly referred to as dotting.


I feel like this shows up every what once a week. My most awesomest and amazingerest character ever was my basket weaving half-orc fighter who used no weapons because he was physically sickened by blood. He was great except he was left at the a tavern because the party wanted the actually useful adventurer.

I tell you they were pretty upset when they didn't have any baskets to hold their cabbages in later....


Skylancer4 wrote:
Favoriting a post doesn't mean you like the post, just as often people "favorite" a post to keep track of it for checking back later. Commonly referred to as dotting.

I thought "dotting" referred to posting in a thread so that it placed the "dot" next to the thread name? Marking a post as a favorite without posting in the thread won't "dot" it.


Ithnaar wrote:
Seranov wrote:
You know what makes good characters? Good storytelling. Guess how much of that is effected by whether you optimize or not. Take your time to answer, I'll wait.

I'm glad you waited!

It most definitely affects it.

Characters without a 20 STR have to think about how to get past a barred door.

Characters without a +20 Bluff need a plan for how they are going to get past the city guards.

Characters that aren't Combat Monsters have to frequently consider whether fighting a certain opponent is a good idea or not.

The sort of supreme ability that maximum optimization allows lets you effortlessly sidestep thousands of what would otherwise be great storytelling opportunities.

One of the elements of good storytelling is victory through overcoming dangerous obstacles. With optimized characters, a great many of those obstacles are inconsequential.

The character with STR 20 still needs to think about how to get past the door if they don't want to alert the nearby guards.

The character with bluff +20 will still needs to think of a good lie to convince the guards with, simply stating "because i can bluff good you should let me in...also reasons!" should receive a -20 to the roll, meanwhile the guy with +5 Bluff who comes up with a lie they want to believe nets a +10 to the roll.

Any character encountering a monster will need to asses their strength against it, it doesn't matter how well optimized you 1st level paladin is, he is not killing a CR20 dragon in single combat any time soon.

If characters are overpowering their encounters it is the fault of the GM not the players, the GM is in control of the entire multiverse, if that is not enough to challenge the players something is horribly wrong.

Encounters which are difficult for some will be trivial to others, this is a universal law and has nothing to do with optimization, the game has a built in level mechanic. If a GM is giving encounters of 3 standard goblins versus a group of 20th level player characters, it is not the fault of the PCs that the encounter is trivial.


havoc xiii wrote:

I feel like this shows up every what once a week. My most awesomest and amazingerest character ever was my basket weaving half-orc fighter who used no weapons because he was physically sickened by blood. He was great except he was left at the a tavern because the party wanted the actually useful adventurer.

I tell you they were pretty upset when they didn't have any baskets to hold their cabbages in later....

Yeah. I've never understood why some people think make their character an incapable weakling somehow makes them a better roleplayer. As folks have said, roleplaying is about personality, backstory, and all that.

Funny enough, the rulebook never says anything about how you have to give up 6 points of damage for a good personality, on 2 hp/level to have a backstory. It's almost like it's entirely possible to have a good character and good mechanics.


I find it strange that people constantly make the connection that the rules of a given system are somehow linked to the role-playing of that system. The rules merely provide a framework for how the players may interact with the world, the way in which they choose to role-play is still completely up to them.

Role-playing is a universal thing, it is the same for all role-playing games, for any of those that have played multiple editions of D&D you will know this to be true because you will have had similar role-playing experiences in each edition even though the editions have vastly different rule sets.

I believe the issue arises from peoples expectation that the rules will line up with their perception of the games reality. The best example I can think of from personal experience was during a recent game when a player who was new to the game was playing a druid for the first time, during an encounter they were grappled by an owl-bear, as a reaction they attempted to use their newly acquired wild shape ability to turn into a snake to escape the grapple. They were then immediately disappointed to discover that this had very little mechanical effect for escaping grapples (especially with the vast difference in the owl-bear's check and their CMD) and were then upset that the rules had robbed them of a role-playing opportunity.

Some might ague that this is counter to my point above about how the rules are not connected to role-playing. But while the rules did not support the action the player wanted to take there were many other options the player could have chosen that are supported by the rules, and so the issue lay with the player's perception of what the rule system should allow.


Imbicatus wrote:
Or perhaps it's because Indiana Jones is in a film with better dialogue, better direction, and a hell of a lot better actor in the lead than Angelina Jolie. (comparing film to film here, video games have next to zero character development for the hero).

Sorry, this is BS. Now, I agree the Tomb Raider movie isn't close to Indiana Jones (though more because of writing and direction than actor; Jolie isn't a bad actor by any means and definately deserved her '99 oscar), but claiming that video games have next to no character development is just dumb at this point.

Heck, case in point would be the 2013 Tomb Raider game which had character development in spades, a lot more than the IJ Movie That Shalt Not Be Named.

I do think there's some truth to what Headfirst is saying, even though they kinda come across as a condescending better-than-though (it's not like we haven't heard the message of the OP a thousand times before). As another similar example, I think it's why many people prefer Thor, Captain America, Ms Marvel and many others to say, Superman, because Superman's close to perfect and perfect is boring.

People come to the game for different reasons though, and that's what the OP doesn't aknowledge. Sometimes the different reasons means that certain people shouldn't play with certain other people. If you want to play some unique concept that can't be optimized to be in the same ballpark as an optimized wizard, there's nothing wrong with that and saying those people should just pick another class for the super-optimizers sake is as douchy as requiring the superoptimizer to stop optimizing for the sake of the one with the unique and mechanically weak concept. In those cases, it's better to play in different groups rather than shout BADWRONGFUN in either direction.


I'm not sure anyone has provided a proof that being willing to roleplay a competent character is less rewarding or less roleplaying than being willing to roleplay a less competent one.

In the OP opinion, Indiana Jones is more interesting than Nathan Drake. That's just that, his opinion. Plenty of people find interesting to roleplay Samwise , ho is a pretty limited character from an optimized point of view, and overcome those limitations with guile and bravery and GM help (like using a GM magic item that will save you when the ogre spider is going to eat you alive because you can't kill her by yourself).

PLENTY of other people, however, like to roleplay Legolas, and be the elven archer that kill orcs by hundreds, do acrobatics in the back of a Mumakil, see things 2 miles away, and is a general badass.

That's JUST a matter of taste. If you want to roleplay Samwise, or Pippin, and be the clunky idiot who throws an orc head in a well and call every orc in Moria, do it. If somebody else want to be the awesome elf that dodge attacks, never miss a shot, and jump in the shoulders of the troll, balancing there until he crits while using a feat to shoot in close quarter fights, let him too.

The player who is playing Samwise, or Pippin, will be happy with their roleplaying option. The player with Legolas will be happy too. And the group will survive the orc ambush with a troll, thanks to Legolas, and everybody will be happy that they can see the rest of the adventure, and throw the ring in Mordor, which is cool, because the story would be awful if the whole group dies in Moria because of Pippin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Chengar Qordath wrote:
Yeah. I've never understood why some people think make their character an incapable weakling somehow makes them a better roleplayer. As folks have said, roleplaying is about personality, backstory, and all that.

The reason you (and others) don't understand it is because you've bought into the strawman argument. I've been involved in these kind of discussions for a long time, and I can't recall anyone ever saying "I make terrible characters because I am a good role player."

Far more often what happens is someone has a solid idea for a character, with various mechanical options already selected. Then they ask for advice about one other aspect of their character, perhaps a feat or a skill. Then other people say "Your options so far are terrible, let me show you how to make a better character."

The initial poster then responds "I've made some of these selections to backup the concept of the character. These mechanical options reflect how I'm going to role play the character." Then the other person responds with "Gimping your character doesn't make you a better role player."

Then the original person gets defensive, calls the person offering advice a powergamer or optimizer, then that persons responds with "Fallacy! Fallacy!"

I think it all goes back to different people learned how to play TTRPGs differently. For some, making a character that fit the concept in your head was the whole point of the game. For others, maximizing character power was the point. And of course the vast majority of players fall some where in the middle.

In general, if everyone would try to give everyone else the benefit of the doubt, we'd all be able to discuss these issues much more rationally.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
I think it's why many people prefer Thor, Captain America, Ms Marvel and many others to say, Superman, because Superman's close to perfect and perfect is boring.

While I suppose this is true, the opposite is true too. Lot of people is fan of Supes, and it's not a random thing that it has been one of the longer duration comics, a huge best seller for a large period of time, and one of the heroes more often carried to the movies.

The problem here is that we all have the tendency to assume that our tastes are universal. Some people want to be Tyrion, and have limitations that they can overcome with cunning and guile, while some people want to be Daenerys and be inmune to fire, have 3 dragon animal companions, a huge charisma bonus, lead armies, and be powerful by birthright. Hey, some people even LIKE TO BE BOTH, and sometimes play one and sometimes play the other.


Tormsskull wrote:
Skylancer4 wrote:
Favoriting a post doesn't mean you like the post, just as often people "favorite" a post to keep track of it for checking back later. Commonly referred to as dotting.
I thought "dotting" referred to posting in a thread so that it placed the "dot" next to the thread name? Marking a post as a favorite without posting in the thread won't "dot" it.

Really? I always thought they favorited. Then again, I never really used any of it short of flagging spam or FAQ tags. That's what the search function is for imo. Excuse my misunderstanding.

51 to 100 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Stop Trying to Win All Messageboards