Stop Trying to Win


Advice

101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.

I am a bit suprised and appalled at the vitrol and bile in some of the responses this post have gotten, maybe this is the dangers of the internet where a lot of subtleties (like facial expression, incantation and tone) are removed and only raw text is left.

Regardless of how others recive the OP, and almost regardless of wheter the OP was being smug or just wanted to share an opinion he thought might help, here is what I got from the Original Post:

I agree.
Because sometimes I have to tell my players that no, I will not allow the Suprise round on the creature rising from the depths in the subterrean pond it's just my description, and no, this does not mean he's prone, and if they would be so kindly to be quiet , I have a monologue to deliver and maybe they would like to know whats going on before whipping out their fireballs and greatswords?

And lately I've noticed that everybody in the group are either specializing to the point where they need other people to point out where the enemy is, where they are ( in some cases who they are) or what their political views are OR they all make these superly self-sufficient dudes that makes me wonder if they are aware that there are other players around the table.

I've had rogues getting pissy because for once (in the whole campaign!) they face an opponent that is immune to Sneak Attacks, or spellcasters that just zone out because this ONE fight has the added complication that it's an antimagic field in effect. Instead of tackling the challenge they opt out because they can't do thinks "the usual way".

I've also had players meeting a sceptic npc who at first, does not trust them and won't offer help until they have proven themselves - the player stated matter-of-factly that if this guy didn't get around to seeing things their way soon he would kill him and see if his replacement was a smarter man ...

Not too long ago I outright told my group "Look, guys, you do know that I'm on YOUR side right? I mean, my plots might be machavellian and twisted and the evils I will visit on you will be manyfold, but I am expecting you too survive and to go on to be Big Damn Heroes, if you get sqashed at lvl1 by a dragon there really isn't much story for me to tell."

In some of my favorite films, series, books and games the protagonist fail, more than once. And then the story continues, in a new unexpected direction.

Maybe playing computer games have made us all a little to rigid in the way we percive solutions; there are more options than "we die/they die" when conflict arises.
Or maybe it's ego in this age we live in where the possibility of being vunerable and at the mercy of the world/enemy/weather/fates is too much for us to accept in our playtime...

I don't know, and like many have stated (loudly and in some ways rabidly, like this topic was an attack on their person/family/way of life or whole reason for existing) : As long as you're having fun, you're doing it right.

But I also agree that many of us (myself included at times) might enjoy to take our nose out of the books,
put down the spellists and feat descriptions,
put away the laptops with rules, dps-excel-sheets and FAQ's,
take a sip of (insert favorite bewerage here),
stop trying to win

- and just play how you feel like, and see where the story takes us.


Skylancer4 wrote:
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.

No problem at all :)


That's also a matter of taste. As a GM, I'm not very fond of the "I'm going to tell a story, and you just happen to be there" idea, but that's me. If it works for you and your group, great. However, as a suggestion, if several of your players aren't finding it fun, for whatever reasons, maybe you should talk to them, openly, and with an open mind. Be willing to try to convince AND to try to be convinced. Either that, or find a group that shares your point of view about the game.

EDIT: About that creature rising from the deep, I guess I'd have give it the prone condition. Last day I gm'd I put an encountr with several goblins opening cages in the floor with void zombies, while other goblins with reach weapons poked them toward the heroes. The zombies were prone 1 round. There was also an alchemist goblin there, and a blue dog with tentacles (an akata) in a cage, seemingly tortured. That gave the group an interesting encounter, where they could find themselves being "heroes" because they were fighting a bunch of zombies and goblins at the same time. It also gave the party several things to interact with, and several options: Go against the goblins who open the doors, to stop it? fight the zombies while proned, to gain adventage of the situation? kill the poking goblins, so the zombies also attack the goblins? Someone want to risk opening the cage with the akata?. That's what I like, because it gives the players the ability to choose, and make their decision matter. It doesn't really matter that much if the creatures are prone an extra round or not. It can even be leveraged for a more interesting fight, in my opinion. YMMV, and if your group had fun, everything is OK


LuxuriantOak wrote:
I am a bit suprised and appalled at the vitrol and bile in some of the responses this post have gotten, maybe this is the dangers of the internet where a lot of subtleties (like facial expression, incantation and tone) are removed and only raw text is left.

I think it was the tone. I'm guessing I play fairly similarly to the OP, yet his post still sounded like "I know how you should play better than you do". I bristled at it and he wasn't even having a go at my playstyle! :)


Maybe it's just me, and I'm alone with this humble opinion - but here it is.

I don't want your mage with a 9 intelligence in my party, or your fighter with a 6 strength, or your rogue that has no rogue skills and a 5 dexterity.

That is all.


Hmmm, has anyone had a no build pf game in recent years?

They come, they play, they leave power-builds on forums and don't bring them into the game. No carefully selected feat trees pulled from this and that book, none of this stack my classes for ultimate power, play it like really early pf before the power creep.

Anyone?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, but for some reason the rulebook was called 'Trail of Cthulhu'. Dunno, maybe some printing error.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Hmmm, has anyone had a no build pf game in recent years?

They come, they play, they leave power-builds on forums and don't bring them into the game. No carefully selected feat trees pulled from this and that book, none of this stack my classes for ultimate power, play it like really early pf before the power creep.

Anyone?

I'm going to bet that Paizo is hoping this doesn't become a trend. It's really bad for the business of selling books if said books aren't going to be used :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I once played someones familiar, a Raven called (cheesy, be warned) Poe.

The GM allowed me to function as a caster eventually, so I grew out of just being his familiar, but it was SUPER fun!

I was way weaker in a lot of ways (no thumbs, couldn't wear most magic items etc) but I had a blast.

It was a case of role-play vs roll-play, and I did have fun, but it was an exception... not the norm.

My favorite characters usually can punch dragons in the face without fear.

I live IRL, I don't want my characters to live there too.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Considering that Paizo makes most of their money on adventures, I doubt it's that much of an issue as some people pin their hopes on.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Hmmm, has anyone had a no build pf game in recent years?

They come, they play, they leave power-builds on forums and don't bring them into the game. No carefully selected feat trees pulled from this and that book, none of this stack my classes for ultimate power, play it like really early pf before the power creep.

Anyone?

"Before," you say, as though the majority of the strongest and most versatile options aren't in core. Before Paragon Surge, core was the go-to to wring every last drop of godlike power out of PF. Anything else was just to be cute.

But, frankly, what you describe is more or less every character I play in a campaign (one-shots are another matter). Even as a designer I get annoyed by the mechanical aspects of character creation, so I tend to pick a class that I know is hard to screw up, then slap the book with my face until the appropriate number of blanks have been filled in. Assign skill points to role and backstory as appropriate, proceed with gaming.

And yet, amazingly, none of this requires that I:

A. Suck
B. Not go splat diving
or
C. End up incapable of doing the jobs expected of adventurers, which, I might remind you, includes at the barest minimum more lethal encounters per day than meals, high-risk combat exploration in hostile territory, and facing down against things that can blast your soul out the back of your eyes and eat it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Hmmm, has anyone had a no build pf game in recent years?

They come, they play, they leave power-builds on forums and don't bring them into the game. No carefully selected feat trees pulled from this and that book, none of this stack my classes for ultimate power, play it like really early pf before the power creep.

Anyone?

In my group only myself and one other player are 'power gamers'. The rest of the group uses primarily core and maybe Ultimate _______ or the APG.

We universally outright ban most books, actually. Pretty much Players, APG, Ultimate, Advanced and all Inner Sea stuff. :D

Grand Lodge

Tell us how you really feel.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:

Hmm, let me try something else to get the point across. Years ago I joined a Star Wars game that already had all the iconic roles filled. We had a jedi, a pilot, a noble, a technician, a solider, etc. So I said, "You know what? I'm going to play a protocol droid." My gamer buddies (who were moderate to severe min-maxers) thought I'd lost my mind. Not only was I going to be totally ineffective in combat, but wouldn't that get boring, playing a chatty droid in an action-packed space opera game? Seriously, who watches Star Wars and wants to be C-3PO?

You know what? It was an absolute blast! My character wasn't just comic relief, either; he saved the day a couple times with his polite diplomacy, average computer skills, and ready-made disguise. Of course, he also got torn apart by animals once, blasted to bits by bounty hunters, and even fell out of the ship once, but hey, who's counting. The point is: I went into a Star Wars game with the least combat optimized character you can imagine and it was awesome. My advice to you is to give it a shot as well.

I had a similar experience. Years ago, I joined a group of about 10 players and the only character available was a Halfling healer. Now the system was such that the only thing he could do was heal, and that not very well.

But I had a blast. I played him as a naïve young Halfling, bumbling about in combat and generally getting in the way. The GMs developed a soft spot for him and went out of their way to help him survive, and he provided a great many comic relief moments.

But hold on, we were both able to play these sub-optimal characters because all the iconic roles were already filled - in other words they were superfluous to party optimization. I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that every character should be sub-optimal as the only way to have fun, and it certainly hasn't made me want to deliberately sub-optimize my characters. In fact I had fun for 10 years before then by semi-optimizing and fun in the last 20 years by optimizing. The only complaint I have is that optimized characters seem to be a bit cookie-cutter in their crunch (all warpriests have fate's favoured, all wizards have Magical lineage, or if they dip another class, Magical knack), but even then you can have a variety of backgrounds and characterizations to explain it that it doesn't really matter all that much.

Even optimal characters have their weaknesses. You would expect an optimized Cleric of high level to succeed their Will check every time; you would not expect them to succeed Reflex. You would expect the Rogue to succeed Reflex, but not do so well in straightforward combat (where there is no sneak attacks). You would expect the BSF to excel in combat, but they usually suck at Will saves, etc. Just because a character is optimized for the role they fulfil, does not mean they are super-uber at everything else too.

In fact you could argue that our 'sub-optimal' characters were, in fact, optimized for what they do - provide comic relief. It's not a role I get to play often, but it is fun occasionally. I would recommend it if you get the chance, but I won't claim it's the only way to play, and I would even go so far as to say make sure all the iconic roles are filled first.


Very nicely said.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
gustavo iglesias wrote:
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.

Absolutely. Hence:

"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."

On one "extreme" you'll have people shouting "STORMWIND FALLACY!!!!" all over the place, a "fallacy" that had limited value to begin with and which has been misapplied so much at this point I'd just wish it'd die in a fire, and on the other "extreme" you'll have people whining about how people shouldn't want to be effective characters (kinda like the OP).

They'll have a very hard time enjoying a game together, hence I think it's better they aim for different groups, rather than try to convince each other of things that won't change.

Grand Lodge

I think people are going to play how they're going to play. What folks find fun can be different for everyone.

For example, I got to play my Suli Paladin of Shelyn for the first time in PFS last Sunday in The Confirmation. It was amazing, he's a bit power built, but he has an INT of 6. Let that sink in. Now imagine he's a mash-up of Captain Hammer, Zapp Branigan, and Gaston (Beauty and the Beast).

Effective and immensely fun to play. And gods save the fool PCs who don't interject when I make a diplomacy roll.

Spoiler:

"IT'S A MINOTAUR! RUN FOR THE CAVE!!!"
"A Minute tour? In the cave? Wonderful, I love tours! :D"

*skald starts his rage song*
*Pally joins in and wastes a turn being distracted by the singing* (yes, I have ranks in perform: sing)


gustavo iglesias wrote:
That's also a matter of taste. As a GM, I'm not very fond of the "I'm going to tell a story, and you just happen to be there" idea, but that's me.

I think "railroad vs free roam" is a different topic alltogether than "concept first vs mechanics first". I've been in very optimized and very railroaded campaigns, and to some degree they fit well because story and character took second place to just interesting combat and tactics. I've also been in very free-roaming character-heavy low-mechanics games.

I think we should be careful assuming those are related to the topic of the thread.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Hmmm, has anyone had a no build pf game in recent years?

This was our standard in my PF group for quite some time. When we decided to open it up to "Paizo PRD material" we definitely noticed a jump in character power. A couple of the players complained that it was pointless to use the physical copy of the CRB as "all of the good options come from outside the book."

That is of course a subjective statement based only on my group at the time, so take it with many grains of salt.

Personally even the word "build" irritates me as most of my experience with that term comes from video games. I'm fearful of the day that one of my players says "Okay, my toon is going to attack the monster."


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
OP wrote:
Stop building your characters for optimal performance and stop playing them like chess pieces. I'm not suggesting doing stupid things or making absurdly broken characters, but rather just making ones that sound interesting based on their backgrounds, motivations, and imagery instead of just their statistics.

These things are not mutually exclusive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
I'm fearful of the day that one of my players says "Okay, my toon is going to attack the monster."

'Monster'? Oh, you must mean a 'mob'. How quaint.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, LO Special Edition, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Min/Max is never a problem in my opinion. With every max there is min. The character that will dominate combat and crush the enemies before them usually has a glaring weakness somewhere. Look for it and use it to make it interesting. If charisma is a dump stat start draining charisma, it Touch AC is the issue a few ghosts should help. There are lots of GM options along with lots of characters options. That is the great thing about having a bad guy in control....they learn the parties weakness and will exploit them! Muh ha ha ha ha

Plus if you have a balanced game; combats, social encounters, puzzles, riddles and hard decisions then then it will not matter. As a GM let the characters shine when the are suppose too, they are heroes after all. Just make sure everyone gets a chance to shine and every one will ave fun.

Grand Lodge

Chris Mortika wrote:

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.

This is awesome advice!


Modern online gaming has all but ruined the current generation for roleplaying. They are brainwashed to powergame and can't even think in any other fashion. Everything is bigger, faster, more damage, more gwrar, more killlllllllllzzzzzzz!!!!!1111one

The only solution is to go back in time and drown every WoW player at birth. Posthaste.

*said with tongue planted in cheek.


Gaberlunzie wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
That's also a matter of taste. As a GM, I'm not very fond of the "I'm going to tell a story, and you just happen to be there" idea, but that's me.

I think "railroad vs free roam" is a different topic alltogether than "concept first vs mechanics first". I've been in very optimized and very railroaded campaigns, and to some degree they fit well because story and character took second place to just interesting combat and tactics. I've also been in very free-roaming character-heavy low-mechanics games.

I think we should be careful assuming those are related to the topic of the thread.

I'm kinda railroading myself as a GM. I like what I call "railroaded sandboxes", where the PC have options, but the history drive or force them to take said options.

I wasn't making a direct comparison between railroad vs sandbox, or optimize vs unoptimized. I was answering to the poster who told us he had to "stop" their PC actions so he could describe what's going on. Maybe it feel different at the table, but here, reading it as he told us, it sounded to me it was a style of GMing that I'm not personally very fond of, the "GM tell us a story and we just happen to be there". That can be done in both optimized and unoptimized parties, and while it's more common in railroads, it can happen in sandboxes too (have seen it in Kingmaker).

In my game ethos, it's not just the GM story. It's everybody's story, and the comunal storytelling matters. But, again, that's me. I'd never tell other groups how to play. At best, I'd tell the GM that made the post that he should talk to his players. If several players are complaining about his style, then maybe he should at least think about it. It's not that it's wrong, but it might not be the best suited for his group.

Grand Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

In my experience, the Stormwind Fallacy is just an excuse for power gaming. When someone shows up at my table with a character that has three 18s and three 7s for attributes, with just enough skill points to max out Acrobatics, Perception, and Use Magic Device, and tries to convince me that their oddball combination of race/class/deity/traits from 20 different books that just happens to add up to maximum DPR, I roll my eyes. Their immediate response is, "Stormwind Fallacy, Stormwind Fallacy, Stormwind Fallacy!" Trust me, play RPGs for 30+ years and you'll learn how to smell these people coming a mile away.

Anyway, the point of this thread wasn't to accuse people of playing the game the wrong way, but rather to suggest trying something different in their next game. At the end of the day, it's just advice. It can't hurt you. If anything less than maximum DPR offends and infuriates you, maybe this isn't the thread for you. :)


gustavo iglesias wrote:
I wasn't making a direct comparison between railroad vs sandbox, or optimize vs unoptimized. I was answering to the poster who told us he had to "stop" their PC actions so he could describe what's going on. Maybe it feel different at the table, but here, reading it as he told us, it sounded to me it was a style of GMing that I'm not personally very fond of, the "GM tell us a story and we just happen to be there".

Shows you how poor text-only communication is. I took the post to mean that the GM is trying to set the scene, describe what the players see, hear, etc., while the player(s) is/are interrupting to describe what they do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Some birds are ducks.
Some ducks are brown.

OP's conclusion: All birds are brown.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:

Some birds are ducks.

Some ducks are brown.

OP's conclusion: All birds are brown.

But I saw a red one yesterday, or was it the day before yesterday?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Don't let fact get in the way of a good troll bait thread.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Headfirst wrote:
It can't hurt you. If anything less than maximum DPR offends and infuriates you, maybe this isn't the thread for you. :)

That's quite arrogant, once again. And if you don't understand why this style of writing rub people in the wrong way, maybe you should refrain yourself of doing topics like this, because you are unwillingly posting flame baits.

That said, let's keep with the discussion. Wanting to be competent isn't the same than wanting to max DPR. Some PCs are optimized at helping others (there's a character somewhere in the forum that gives +14 AC to all his party at 7th level, with a combination of halfling feats, magic items and cavalier features), or providing support ("God" wizard style of spellcaster even advide against doing damage), or healing (the Oradin builds for example). There are also characters optimized for out of combat duty, including several ways to increase your ability to be the party face, or find traps, or help with knowledges.

My last character is a druid that is built as a primal big game hunter. It's optimized to do that: hunting, so it's a druid 6/trophy hunter ranger 1, that has very big survival bonus. I took a lvl in another class that gave me a bonus to track, and I spend a spell every day to increase my surivival and be able to track. I could have exactly the same character concept (a primal shapeshifting predator that hunts big prey), without taking certain archetypes, magic items, or spells, and I'd be exactly the same concept, just mechanically weaker in the survival skill. I fail to see how failing to track more often will help my character concept to feel better as an apex big game hunter. Roleplaying wise, I'm able to do the same things with both an optimized and unoptimized tracking ability. It would be the same personality, the same character, the same motivations. Just lower survival skill.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brother Fen wrote:

Modern online gaming has all but ruined the current generation for roleplaying. They are brainwashed to powergame and can't even think in any other fashion. Everything is bigger, faster, more damage, more gwrar, more killlllllllllzzzzzzz!!!!!1111one

The only solution is to go back in time and drown every WoW player at birth. Posthaste.

*said with tongue planted in cheek.

We aren't all like that (WoW players I mean)-I mainly fish when I log in. :D


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Brother Fen wrote:
The only solution is to go back in time and drown every WoW player at birth. Posthaste.

Suddenly very glad I never got into that game... :P


Ravingdork wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
The only solution is to go back in time and drown every WoW player at birth. Posthaste.
Suddenly very glad I never got into that game... :P

It can be tons of fun if you don't take it seriously. Lots of cool content, huge worlds to explore...

The 'hardcore' gamers that people think of when they think of WoW are scary... I wouldn't want to be that kind of person.

It's a great, cartoonish game that you can play casually and walk away from easily. I highly recommend it.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tormsskull wrote:
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."

The very first post of this thread presents building powerful characters as being something that you need to stop doing in order to make interesting characters that are "fun to have around". Later in the same post, the OP then "promises" that readers will have more fun and acquire more awesome stories with a character who is NOT super-optimized than with one who is. He said that.

If the message of the OP were simply this:
"Try making characters who are fun to have around and have some depth/personality/etc"
...then you would be correct in your identification of a strawman. However, that wasn't his message. His message was this:
"Try making characters who are fun to have around and have some depth/personaltiy/etc by means of making them less powerful."

Why did the OP include the "stop optimizing" segment if he didn't believe that making weaker characters could contribute to his goal of deeper characters?

The OP said "Stop doing X; do Y instead." Then when people rephrased it as "You need to stop doing X in order to do Y", you labeled it a strawman.

And that's just the first post. Later in the thread, the same poster came back and supported his position with roleplay anecdotes that were very explicit about how much fun it was to play around with an unoptimized character. Why was the lower optimization level such a key point in the stories if he's not trying to say that it contributes to enhanced roleplay?

Other posters in this thread have actually replied to people who said "I can optimize and roleplay with the same character" by explicitly declaring that no, optimization will hinder your roleplay.

How can you continue to believe that nobody really thinks you need to build weaker characters in order to roleplay better when even in this very thread we have people jumping in to counter people who say you can have richly-roleplayed powerful characters?

The thing you say is a strawman is in fact right before your eyes.

Now, that's to say nothing of which parties I do or don't agree with, but my first priority is usually to be clear and honest about what people are actually saying already. Can't have a discussion if we don't acknowledge what others are saying. :)


Another possibility would be to go Dragon Disciple, but it would require a SLA or preferably at least one level of an arcane Spellcasting class. Also, not available until 5th level. This would mean Paladin is probably not a good choice, but what the hey.

Personally, I would say Half-Dragon is not a bad choice; it would depend greatly on what level the campaign goes to but even as a sub-optimal high level choice it is not so far behind the curve as to be unplayable, and you get the Kudos of playing a Half-Dragon (plus the threat of getting Dad involved is a bonus all its own). I'd say go for it; if you find it's not working out speak to your GM and see if he'll let you play another character.


DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Hmmm, has anyone had a no build pf game in recent years?

They come, they play, they leave power-builds on forums and don't bring them into the game. No carefully selected feat trees pulled from this and that book, none of this stack my classes for ultimate power, play it like really early pf before the power creep.

Anyone?

I'm trying to understand what this even means.

Is this supposed to be talking about a restricted options game?

Is this supposed to just be about building a character towards the current needs of the campaign, instead of following a planned build?

Is "I want to be good at ______" too much build planning for this "no build" game?

Many character types require some level of planning to even work, after all.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Addendum to my above post about whether "You're saying that building weaker characters enables greater roleplay" is a strawman or something actually being said:

Here are all the posts in this thread where the OP (Headfirst) noted optimization level as being relevant to roleplay (other than the very first post of the thread):
LINK
LINK
LINK

He's also joined in this sentiment by Ithnaar and LuxuriantOak. (That's only the people who very directly declared an inverse relationship between optimization and roleplay; many others implied it, such as DM Under the Bridge suggesting the value of banning most books from character creation, but we'll leave those out for now.)

So, counting the OP, Headfirst has connected optimization levels to roleplay/fun potential four times in a single thread, and at least two other people have done so as well. And that's all in just this one thread.

At this point, claiming that there's not really a "less power means better roleplay" sentiment out there is just being willfully ignorant. As such, I say let people respond to that sentiment as they will. That's how good discussion starts: acknowledging what others have said, and responding to it.

Now if only we could get someone to respond to those responses, we could really get somewhere! :)


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Headfirst wrote:
It can't hurt you. If anything less than maximum DPR offends and infuriates you, maybe this isn't the thread for you. :)

That's quite arrogant, once again. And if you don't understand why this style of writing rub people in the wrong way, maybe you should refrain yourself of doing topics like this, because you are unwillingly posting flame baits.

That said, let's keep with the discussion. Wanting to be competent isn't the same than wanting to max DPR. Some PCs are optimized at helping others (there's a character somewhere in the forum that gives +14 AC to all his party at 7th level, with a combination of halfling feats, magic items and cavalier features), or providing support ("God" wizard style of spellcaster even advide against doing damage), or healing (the Oradin builds for example). There are also characters optimized for out of combat duty, including several ways to increase your ability to be the party face, or find traps, or help with knowledges.

My last character is a druid that is built as a primal big game hunter. It's optimized to do that: hunting, so it's a druid 6/trophy hunter ranger 1, that has very big survival bonus. I took a lvl in another class that gave me a bonus to track, and I spend a spell every day to increase my surivival and be able to track. I could have exactly the same character concept (a primal shapeshifting predator that hunts big prey), without taking certain archetypes, magic items, or spells, and I'd be exactly the same concept, just mechanically weaker in the survival skill. I fail to see how failing to track more often will help my character concept to feel better as an apex big game hunter. Roleplaying wise, I'm able to do the same things with both an optimized and unoptimized tracking ability. It would be the same personality, the same character, the same motivations. Just lower survival skill.

It doesn't rub me the wrong way. Please understand I do not accept being included in your attempted ploy of using the inclusive "people" as if there are many, lined up, all rubbed the wrong way.

The fixation on DPR is a problem in the hobby. Please don't try to play apologist or deny it.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

So much badwrongfun in this thread...


Zhangar wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:

Hmmm, has anyone had a no build pf game in recent years?

They come, they play, they leave power-builds on forums and don't bring them into the game. No carefully selected feat trees pulled from this and that book, none of this stack my classes for ultimate power, play it like really early pf before the power creep.

Anyone?

I'm trying to understand what this even means.

Is this supposed to be talking about a restricted options game?

Is this supposed to just be about building a character towards the current needs of the campaign, instead of following a planned build?

Is "I want to be good at ______" too much build planning for this "no build" game?

Many character types require some level of planning to even work, after all.

I will explain.

Do you remember a time before the years of many builds in pathfinder? I dub it pre-build-bloat-in-pathfinder: PBBIP! Or, PBBIP time.

Do you run your games like that, do you play in games like that, or is it inconceivable like fighting a land war in Asia?


I don't think that powering down a character=better roleplay opportunities.

I do believe that underpowered characters have less options, thus the players focus on roleplaying because they still want to have fun.

Causation vs correlation and all that.


Kryzbyn wrote:
So much badwrongfun in this thread...

But is it bad?

Sovereign Court

DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Do you run your games like that, do you play in games like that, or is it inconceivable like fighting a land war in Asia?

That's not inconceivable - it's just one of the classic blunders! (The first of them in fact.)


NO! YOU STOP TRYING TO LOSE!


Jiggy wrote:
The very first post of this thread presents building powerful characters as being something that you need to stop doing in order to make interesting characters that are "fun to have around". Later in the same post, the OP then "promises" that readers will have more fun and acquire more awesome stories with a character who is NOT super-optimized than with one who is. He said that.

Walk me through your logic step-by-step here Jiggy so I can follow you.

Here is what you quoted me on:

Quote:
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."

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that the OP Is in fact suggesting that players must make terrible characters in order to be good role players.

I've re-read the OP a few times, I'm not seeing that. If that's not what you're saying, then clarify.

Jiggy wrote:
Why did the OP include the "stop optimizing" segment if he didn't believe that making weaker characters could contribute to his goal of deeper characters?

This is a matter of degree, not binary. Making a character that is not optimized is not the same as making a terrible character. If you disagree with the distinction, that that's probably where the confusion is coming in.

This is the construction of the strawman:

OP: "Stop trying to win...(make characters) that sound interesting based on their backgrounds, motivations, and imagery instead of just their statistics...I promise you right now that the stories you come up with during that game will stick with you much longer than the exploits of (insert name of super-optimized character.)"

Strawman - "The OP said you have to have a terrible character in order to be able to role play."

If you read what I posted for the OP just above, and came away thinking that the OP said what I posted above for the strawman, then I would posit that you're interpreting what the OP is saying incorrectly.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
alexd1976 wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Brother Fen wrote:
The only solution is to go back in time and drown every WoW player at birth. Posthaste.
Suddenly very glad I never got into that game... :P

It can be tons of fun if you don't take it seriously. Lots of cool content, huge worlds to explore...

The 'hardcore' gamers that people think of when they think of WoW are scary... I wouldn't want to be that kind of person.

It's a great, cartoonish game that you can play casually and walk away from easily. I highly recommend it.

Meh, I've actually found most MMORPGs to be quite boring and repetitive. Haven't really enjoyed any of them since Ultima Online.


alexd1976 wrote:

I don't think that powering down a character=better roleplay opportunities.

I do believe that underpowered characters have less options, thus the players focus on roleplaying because they still want to have fun.

Causation vs correlation and all that.

"I don't think that powering down a character=better roleplay opportunities."

Ever played an awakened snail? Or a familiar perhaps? If one cannot gank you go with what you have got, which means an rp focus instead of an overkill focus.


Anarchy_Kanya wrote:
NO! YOU STOP TRYING TO LOSE!

Casting aside builds I HAVE ALREADY LOST!


DM Under The Bridge wrote:
alexd1976 wrote:

I don't think that powering down a character=better roleplay opportunities.

I do believe that underpowered characters have less options, thus the players focus on roleplaying because they still want to have fun.

Causation vs correlation and all that.

"I don't think that powering down a character=better roleplay opportunities."

Ever played an awakened snail? Or a familiar perhaps? If one cannot gank you go with what you have got, which means an rp focus instead of an overkill focus.

I have, in fact, played someones familiar. I was given the ability to start casting spells after playing five levels... it was fun.

It was fun DESPITE being crappy, not BECAUSE it was crappy.

101 to 150 of 179 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Stop Trying to Win All Messageboards