What has this game become?


Advice

201 to 250 of 312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade Contributor

Rynjin wrote:

His Counter Monkey segments used to be interesting or funny, but Spoony is not good unscripted. Like, at all.

The last few I watched over a year ago were just him reading random bits from random rulebooks (and spending several minutes trying to find the right page) for an hour.

Yeah... I remember those.

He figured that out too, to some extent. He's at least learned to bookmark things in advance (for the most part).

Paizo Employee Design Manager

6 people marked this as a favorite.

To the OP-

I rarely ban anything in my games, and actively encourage the use of 3pp materials. When I start a new game, I invite everyone over and the first thing I do is ask them what they want to play, or what type of character they want to be. If they know, I point them to the three shelves stuffed with Pathfinder books, which includes hard and soft cover books from Paizo, Dreamscarred Press, Kobold Press, Kyoudai Games, Northwinter Press, Drop Dead Studios, and more. I'll recommend two or three books that might have the materials they want to get to that general wheelhouse, and then I turn to my players who aren't as sure what they want to do and help them hash out an idea. Sometimes I get someone who has an idea so specific I end up having to grab the ol' 16 Gig thumb drive full of 3pp .pdfs and sift through that to find the materials for the race and class and feats that make what they want come to life.

I once had a player who wanted to play a character modeled after Tik-Tok from Return to Oz, and we ended up grabbing Rite Publishing's "In the Company of Ironborn" for the race, "Thunderscape: The World of Aden" from Kyoudai Games for the Golemoid class, and I think we even grabbed a couple feats from LPJ Design's "NeoExodus: A House Divided".

We're kicking off a new game this Saturday that will include characters using materials from Dreamscarred Press' "Akashic Mysteries", Kobold Press' "Southlands: Adventures Beneath the Pitiless Sun", Paizo's "Pathfinder Unchained", and Drop Dead Studios' "Spheres of Power". I anticipate it being absolutely awesome.

There are so many books out there that have cool materials, or unique ways of doing things, or sometimes, materials that do something similar to what you might find right in Paizo's Core Rulebook but in an even more balanced and/or interesting way. I've found, pretty consistently, that if players get to play the character they have in their mind, it's more fun for everyone, and with the internet available, it's not terribly hard to quickly check their feats and abilities even if they come from a dozen different source books.

If someone wants to break this game wide open, they don't need 20 different sourcebooks to create a crazy, unbalanced, ridiculously powerful character. They just need one - the Core Rulebook, where you'll find the Wizard and Cleric, along with spells like color spray, wish, simulacrum, and many more. If they have a cool character in mind and it takes a few source books to get there, I have no problem with that, it probably means they're going to be that much more invested in their character since they're taking the time to do the research (or it could just mean they don't own any books and did all their character building on the internet without ever paying attention to where the feats and options were coming from).

The other thing I find, is that min/maxing and optimization often aren't the same thing, and a well balanced adventure will quickly resolve most issues that arise from someone trying to over-specialize in something that might prove problematic. I recall a friend of mine creating a half-orc Fighter who was spec'd to deal ridiculous amounts of damage, and which he had honestly built to kind of test me as a GM. I honestly didn't go out of my way to do anything about this character, but his lack of tricks other than hitting things proved his undoing as he was swarmed, charmed, confused, dominated, dropped down a pit, lit on fire, and a few other unfortunate events.
In a Skull and Shackles campaign, one of the players in our group made a Vitalist from Dreamscarred Press, designed to be an uber-healer who could keep the party alive indefinitely and deal with virtually anything a monster could do to us. He drowned three sessions in from a bumped noggin and a failed swim check.
Even Wizards rarely get away with min/maxing, as I play clever creatures, create encounters where the environment is as much part of the challenge as the monsters, etc.


Ssalarn wrote:


"Thunderscape: The World of Aden" from Kyoudai Games for the Golemoid class

Don't have anything to say to the rest of your post, but I love that class, and the book as a whole is pretty rad. Using that book for a somewhat Borderlands (for the setting, anyway) inspired game right now. No magic, but Psionics is common and technology levels are much higher using Thunderscape stuff and tons of Alchemy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

His Counter Monkey segments used to be interesting or funny, but Spoony is not good unscripted. Like, at all.

The last few I watched over a year ago were just him reading random bits from random rulebooks (and spending several minutes trying to find the right page) for an hour.

Yeah. Unscripted Spoony isn't great. I also like wrestling and movies and can't stand his blogs about either of those things. Too long and meandering for my tastes.

He's a bit grognardy, but I still watch to hear a perspective that's going to be different from mine.


upho wrote:
Bill Dunn wrote:
The improved/greater combat maneuver feats are ripe for better scaling. They're supplements when you get them because anyone can try the same maneuver but just be kind of bad at it. But they should scale through the advanced ones. Same with vital strike.

That's actually exactly how I've solved in my home game. I've removed some of the more silly and annoying prereqs like CE, and all applicable "Improved" combat feat chains upgrades to include the Greater version as soon as the character qualifies. This also applies to for example the TWF chain (only the first requires a feat slot).

Bill Dunn wrote:
Power attack is probably one of the few feats I would agree with kart-ryder about. I could see it like combat expertise - anyone can try it (like fighting defensively) but at a less efficient exchange. The feat makes it efficient or expands the ability.

That might be a way to solve it, provided a majority of the tons of feat requiring PA lose that prereq.

How what about Deadly Aim or Point-Blank Shot? Or Weapon Finesse or Piranha Strike? I find it at least equally weird they're locked behind feats. PBS seems like a logical benefit of being close to a target, regardless of how good you are with ranged weapons, and the rest of them are either useless or absolutely vital. In my game, they're all granted for free as soon as the Dex 13 prereq is met.

Ditto. For most classes, I've been doing away with making the player spend a Feat and simply give it to them when they meet the BAB or stat reqs. I have also been giving my martial characters Martial Flexibility so they can use almost any Feat for a short time, which has allowed more of the fringe, situational feats some game-play.


Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one. When one pulls from many different sources, one is generally indicating that they care less for the motives and drives behind that class than they are interested in the one cool mechanic that is derived from a dip into that class. That is just one way “a player that creates his/her PC 'by pulling from a lot of different books' tell you [me] that the player is likely 'much more interested in ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying”?

I am sorry that you “honestly [didn't] get this at all.” I should have provided this earlier to explain it and make it clear to you.

TheRealHoratio wrote:
Is that just how people play the game now? Is it really treated like an adversarial tactical miniatures game, where instead of a group of people coming together to tell a story, it has turned into another game that one side feels they have to "win", by getting as much of an edge as possible?

When I said “in order to win” I was referencing the OP's question. Clearly, one cannot win a game that doesn't have set criteria in order to accomplish that. However, there are often players who place themselves in an adversarial role against the DM. These individuals feel that by defeating the monsters they are beating the DM, hence, “winning the game.” Again, I thought that this was understood. I apologize that you “don't get this either.” I made an assumption I shouldn't have.

Upho wrote:
'different experiences'

Different experiences are valuable.

Upho wrote:
Do you think you might have invited such "dishonesty" by not properly discussing with your whole group what playstyle you all would find acceptable and fun (rather than simply limiting stuff like character creation points and source books)?

Nope, I'm actually very up front about my DM'ing style (which strives for impartial judge [I roll all my dice in front of the players, nothing behind a screen, no nerfing of encounters just because the first level group decided to march into Smaug's lair, etc]) and what material is acceptable.

“And that's totally okay.”

Upho wrote:
No, it's obviously not ok, and I would've found your assumptions insulting if they hadn't also been as obviously emotionally charged and frankly stupid.

No, really, I am absolutely totally okay with someone who plays that way. As the DM, if I can't challenge a player (regardless of how they're put together) then I am doing something wrong. I create pantheons of deities, I should be able to challenge one's uber-whatever.

What bothers me are players who are clearly power-gaming in order to “win” but don't admit it. These are the people who pore over all the material they can to come up with the most optimized build and then hem and haw about their back story because they haven't really thought about it. But people who are honest with themselves and with me about their play style really are okay. True, it may not be mine, but I still welcome them at my table in the same way that even though I prefer cats, I still enjoy the company of dog-lovers.

Upho wrote:

Speaking for myself, one of my related hobbies is acting (I'm even lucky enough to get paid for doing it), and I can assure you that I wouldn't even be into PF in the first place if not for the ROLL-playing. Yet I'm definitely minmaxing the mechanics of my characters to bring it in line with other party members and make it able to face difficult challenges. I also love tinkering with theoretical as well as practical character optimization. I even think some of my most memorable characters were actually based on me stumbling upon strong, odd and/or fun mechanical combinations! Horrible, right?

What does that make me in your view? A paradox?

Honest, not horrible. For all your love of acting, you admit that you wouldn't be playing this rpg if not for the mechanics aspect of it (ROLL-playing). Your group plays the same way (“bring it in line with other[s]”), so you min/max first and come up with back story second.

For these “most memorable characters” did you already have a concept in mind and then had to scrutinize multiple sources to find the pieces that would make this idea a reality? Or were you min/maxing, found the bits that powered up your character, played it a few times, and then it became memorable?
Kirth wrote:
Mykull, your post is demeaning, passive-aggressive, and inappropriate by turns. Calling other people liars, when you have no basis for that conclusion other than emotional jerk reflex, is not OK. Telling people they're doing things you personally find odious and unforgivable, and then saying "but that's okay," isn't okay.

Demeaning to whom? To you? I named no one. I referred to a type of person who power-games but won't admit it. Beyond my 'emotional jerk reflex' I draw on my decades of gaming experience to separate the wheat from the chaff; in this case, the deeply-moving back story that happens to be optimized and the min/maxed pastiched whatever that has as much 'life' to it as Frankenstein's monster.

“Odious and unforgivable”?!? I never said that. I didn't even come close. I pointed out that there is a type of player out there that cares only about mechanics, about the table-top tactical miniature game and not about story, but they hide this fact. I feel that these types of players are becoming more common. It isn't my play-style, but hardly unforgivable.

Upho wrote:
I suspect Mykull has been playing with a lot of powergamers who happened to not give a crap about ROLE-playing and who also behaved like jerks. Hence why it appears he's caught in the passive center of an aggressive Stormwind he's unable to see through...

Actually, I've seen through it, and weathered the storm. I've cultivated a group of gamers that enjoy my DM style and regularly come back for more. I've been playing with one group for over thirty years, and entirely different group for twenty years, a third group of experience gamers that I've been running for a year and a half, and a fourth group that is brand new to rpg's that has been playing for about two years.

[snarkiness]Let's see, I've been called passive-aggressive, stupid, demeaning, inappropriate, and emotional. One wonders at the intelligence of nineteen people who for years regularly show up at my table.[/snarkiness]


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:
Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one. When one pulls from many different sources, one is generally indicating that they care less for the motives and drives behind that class than they are interested in the one cool mechanic that is derived from a dip into that class. That is just one way “a player that creates his/her PC 'by pulling from a lot of different books' tell you [me] that the player is likely 'much more interested in ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying”?

Great, now you're making even less sense. Someone who just wants a powerful and versatile character isn't going to dip several classes; they are going to build a single class wizard. That's one class from one source. Maybe they'd use the shaman class instead, but they sure as heck wouldn't multi-class out of it.

If you're going to make up examples of someone using multiple rulebooks to create one character, at least try to pick examples that have a reasonable chance of occurring.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:
Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one. When one pulls from many different sources, one is generally indicating that they care less for the motives and drives behind that class than they are interested in the one cool mechanic that is derived from a dip into that class. That is just one way “a player that creates his/her PC 'by pulling from a lot of different books' tell you [me] that the player is likely 'much more interested in ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying”?

Or a sign that they have a particular character concept in mind that is best represented by parts from different books.

And of course, it's pretty easy to get up to 6 books these days. An archetype from one book for a non-core class from another already gets you 3. Grab a feat from somewhere else and a couple spells or items from elsewhere and there you are - 6 books without even multiclassing.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Mykull wrote:
Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one. When one pulls from many different sources, one is generally indicating that they care less for the motives and drives behind that class than they are interested in the one cool mechanic that is derived from a dip into that class. That is just one way “a player that creates his/her PC 'by pulling from a lot of different books' tell you [me] that the player is likely 'much more interested in ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying”?

Or a sign that they have a particular character concept in mind that is best represented by parts from different books.

And of course, it's pretty easy to get up to 6 books these days. An archetype from one book for a non-core class from another already gets you 3. Grab a feat from somewhere else and a couple spells or items from elsewhere and there you are - 6 books without even multiclassing.

I ran through it before.

5 books is the minimum for a character with a non-core race, non-core class, archetype that was printed in a different book from the class with only core spells and in a game with traits from Ultimate Campaign. Want a spell from ultimate magic or the APG and your class/archetype didn't come from there? Or maybe something from a player companion? Even a couple of alchemy items that were printed in the alchemy manual? That's 6.

I could see where someone is coming from if the player was using two dozen books if it wasn't for the fact that the OGL and d20pfsrd/archives of nethys exists. As is, it is trivial to skim through and choose dozens of rules elements with no regards to where they were originally printed. It's not like the player has to go diving through 20 books to choose their stuff. They just pull up a list of 100 things, and pick the ones they like best. Maybe they use 2 books. Maybe they use 20. The player wouldn't have the slightest clue unless they actually stopped and checked or knew the source material fairly well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
137ben wrote:
Mykull wrote:
Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one. When one pulls from many different sources, one is generally indicating that they care less for the motives and drives behind that class than they are interested in the one cool mechanic that is derived from a dip into that class. That is just one way “a player that creates his/her PC 'by pulling from a lot of different books' tell you [me] that the player is likely 'much more interested in ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying”?

Great, now you're making even less sense. Someone who just wants a powerful and versatile character isn't going to dip several classes; they are going to build a single class wizard. That's one class from one source. Maybe they'd use the shaman class instead, but they sure as heck wouldn't multi-class out of it.

If you're going to make up examples of someone using multiple rulebooks to create one character, at least try to pick examples that have a reasonable chance of occurring.

Even with a single class wizard, they're likely to pull feats, traits, spells and items from other books. Unless they're intentionally limiting themselves to one source.

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

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Mykull, let me see if I can help explain some issues with your earlier post, a bit more clearly and softly than some others have done.

Mykull wrote:
Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one. When one pulls from many different sources, one is generally indicating that they care less for the motives and drives behind that class than they are interested in the one cool mechanic that is derived from a dip into that class. That is just one way “a player that creates his/her PC 'by pulling from a lot of different books' tell you [me] that the player is likely 'much more interested in ROLLplaying than ROLEplaying”?

You are incorrect here, in two different ways.

First, you are incorrect that the presence of multiple classes/options in one character means that the player is ignoring each class's non-mechanical description. Your assertion would only be true if the descriptions of the classes were mutually-exclusive. However, this is not the case. It is entirely possible for a single character to exemplify the descriptions of, say, the cleric and the slayer classes. There are very, very few combinations of classes (or other options) where a character could not fit all the descriptions at once. Therefore, your assertion that dipping means disregarding class descriptions is wrong.

Second, you are incorrect that someone who does disregard the written descriptions of their classes is therefore also disregarding roleplay in general. The described standard is not the only way to play a given class, or combination of classes. There is an infinite number of roleplay concepts out there, while the number of roleplay concepts embodied by the classes' descriptions are extremely finite. As such, what is a player to do when they come up with a roleplay concept that isn't described at the front of any class description? Just not play it? No, they go looking for whatever will help them produce the character they want to roleplay, which may well mean dipping multiple classes and pulling features from multiple books. Thus, the thing you say indicates a preference of "rollplaying" is very often actually a sign of a devotion to roleplaying.

Now, related to the above is how you expressed the things you were wrong about: that whole "rollplay vs roleplay" thing? It's got a long history of being weaponized. Lots of people have been attacked for years under that banner. And the perpetrators are usually making the same (or nearly the same) errors you did. The similarity is enough to make it very reasonable to draw the conclusion that you too are aiming to assert your superiority. (I myself am not even convinced of your innocence; after all, you knew the term, so thinking you somehow managed to learn it without knowing that it's primarily an elitist put-down is a bit suspect; but I'm trying really hard to give you the benefit of the doubt for now.) So if you're honestly not looking to put anybody down, then I recommend just dropping the word "rollplay" from your vocabulary entirely.

Mykull wrote:

Demeaning to whom? To you? I named no one. I referred to a type of person who power-games but won't admit it. Beyond my 'emotional jerk reflex' I draw on my decades of gaming experience to separate the wheat from the chaff; in this case, the deeply-moving back story that happens to be optimized and the min/maxed pastiched whatever that has as much 'life' to it as Frankenstein's monster.

“Odious and unforgivable”?!? I never said that. I didn't even come close. I pointed out that there is a type of player out there that cares only about mechanics, about the table-top tactical miniature game and not about story, but they hide this fact. I feel that these types of players are becoming more common. It isn't my play-style, but hardly unforgivable.

I'm going to once again try to give you the benefit of the doubt here and presume you don't see what you just did.

"Separate the wheat from the chaff", with "wheat" and "chaff" referring to playstyles, is absolutely demeaning to everyone who could possibly be described as whatever you label as "chaff". "Chaff" literally refers to the junk you throw away and need to get away from the good stuff. That's where the expression comes from. That is very mean of you to say that.

The line "min/maxed pastiched whatever" is pretty dismissive. It's like the subject is such utter nonsense that it doesn't even merit normal identification/description. It's just a... thing.

"That has as much 'life' to it as Frankenstein's monster" is another serious put-down. Any reasonable person who stops a moment to look at it can see why.

So in the very post where you contest the assertion that you were putting anyone down, you launched a rapid-fire three-point insult. Now, go back and look at the terminology and expressions you used in your earlier post, and hopefully you can see why Kirth Gersen summarized your sentiments with the terms "odious and unforgivable". That is indeed exactly what you described.

Yes, you ended your post with "And that's okay", but that doesn't mean much when the post you tacked it onto is full of very clear ire. Imagine if I wrote a post asserting that your "playstyle" was the manifestation of a lack of skill on your part that indicated apathy, laziness, and limited intelligence. Imagine that I ended such a post with "And that's okay". (And imagine that I genuinely meant it, as you presumably meant yours.) Would you feel okay about that post? Or would you have some things to say about the content, despite the disclaimer? You are responsible for how you present your opinions, regardless of what disclaimers you follow them with.

I hope that helps you understand where people are coming from in their reactions to your post.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

SOmeone that don't have the creativity to go beyond the non-mechanical description of a class just can't pretend to lecture about "roleplaying".


8 people marked this as a favorite.

this whole thing makes me not want to play a game that I enjoy
this community is getting worse and worse


1 person marked this as a favorite.

OTOH, powergamers do exist. The multiclassing approach he's talking about was more of a 3.5 thing, since PF boosted the base classes, but in some cases it's still real. People really do plan out builds for power with little concern for the character reasoning behind it. They do look for unexpected synergies between different classes or between class abilities and feats or spells or any other powers.
These things do happen. They're not a figment of anyone's imagination.

Particularly convoluted character designs are a warning sign for that. Not a certainty of course and nowhere near as simple as "X number of books is over the line", but a warning sign.

It's a sign of focus on the build game part of Pathfinder, which isn't exclusive to the actually playing the game part, but does suggest a lesser interest in that. If you're looking to run a different kind of game, one more focused on actual play than on how cleverly we can build characters, you might have problems show up in play.

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

2 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, powergamers do exist. The multiclassing approach he's talking about was more of a 3.5 thing, since PF boosted the base classes, but in some cases it's still real. People really do plan out builds for power with little concern for the character reasoning behind it. They do look for unexpected synergies between different classes or between class abilities and feats or spells or any other powers.

These things do happen. They're not a figment of anyone's imagination.

Can you point me to anyone who suggested otherwise? Because what I keep seeing happen in discussions like these is this:

Bob: If you do X, it's a pretty strong indication of Y.
Alice: No it's not, there are LOTS of reasons to do X, and most of them are the opposite of Y. My whole group X's every game and there's only one Y among us.
Carl: Well it's not like Y doesn't exist; they totally do, and that's definitely the thing that needs to be focused on right now, much more than Bob's assertion that Y is almost always the reason for X.

Yes, these players exist, but I think constantly reminding people of their existence is less important than reminding people not to berate each other.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Don't worry Lamontius, forum bickering has always existed, and will always exist, and the other 99% of happy players are just playing because they have no interest in needless back and forth on the internet.


I find it encouraging to read these boards, actually. I've discovered quite a few people who like PF, and also want to make it better. Even if that's "better for their group."

Exchange of ideas is a good thing! People's style of communicating can be a bit harsh - yes. But I just remember, these people aren't at my table, and I can take or leave what they suggest or argue, and come away with something of value in the end.


Jiggy wrote:
thejeff wrote:

OTOH, powergamers do exist. The multiclassing approach he's talking about was more of a 3.5 thing, since PF boosted the base classes, but in some cases it's still real. People really do plan out builds for power with little concern for the character reasoning behind it. They do look for unexpected synergies between different classes or between class abilities and feats or spells or any other powers.

These things do happen. They're not a figment of anyone's imagination.

Can you point me to anyone who suggested otherwise? Because what I keep seeing happen in discussions like these is this:

Bob: If you do X, it's a pretty strong indication of Y.
Alice: No it's not, there are LOTS of reasons to do X, and most of them are the opposite of Y. My whole group X's every game and there's only one Y among us.
Carl: Well it's not like Y doesn't exist; they totally do, and that's definitely the thing that needs to be focused on right now, much more than Bob's assertion that Y is almost always the reason for X.

Shows up on both sides. You'll note that several of my prior posts on this thread were of the "Lots of books doesn't mean a thing".

But no, no one's explicitly suggested it, but there's an awful lot of dismissiveness.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Read over a bit of this, and man, the more things change, the more they stay the same.

People are always going to complain about this for almost no reason at all. I myself LOVE all the options, and building a 'frankenstein' character is super fun. Normally I'd go on some sarcastic rant here about how the OP was wrong, but really? This 'problem' happens the second there's more than one book, having a chimera character doesn't facilitate bad roleplaying anymore than a single book character facilitates good roleplaying, and to think so is just silly.

I'm sure the OP has had bad experiences, I've had bad experiences with poorly build mechanical characters breaking the rules because 'they should be able to' while deriding my characters for getting the same results by following the rules and using multiple books (ex: I was in a game where a poison made by a rogue instantly knocked out a guard without a save, but my 10 x concentrated drow poison powder bomb didn't work because "the wind was blowing"), so my opinion on people who are 'book purist' is skewed.

Once you're trying to shame people for using more content (and generally supporting the system more by using and purchasing more of the company's content), you're not in a strong position to lecture anyone. Seriously, I should just start ignoring any anyone who uses the term power gamer negatively, or read it for what it is, replacing power gamer with 'mechanically sound character' to see how silly these arguments sound.

TR;DR Using lots of books is fine, being an elitist because someone does isn't.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
The multiclassing approach he's talking about was more of a 3.5 thing, since PF boosted the base classes, but in some cases it's still real.

You don't think that's maybe a reflection on how weak the martial classes are, in terms of options, as opposed to a reflection on how nefarious these players must be? As has been pointed out repeatedly, if someone just want the most powerful possible character, wizard, cleric, and druid are all right there in the core rulebook. Witch is dandy, too. Sure, they can cobble together a rogue/barbarian/fighter, but by 9th level or so they'll still be far less useful than the full casters. Someone who was intent on "building" the "most powerful possible character" would surely be aware of this?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
The multiclassing approach he's talking about was more of a 3.5 thing, since PF boosted the base classes, but in some cases it's still real.
You don't think that's maybe a reflection on how weak the martial classes are, in terms of options, as opposed to a reflection on how nefarious these players must be? As has been pointed out repeatedly, if someone just want the most powerful possible character, wizard, cleric, and druid are all right there in the core rulebook. Witch is dandy, too. Sure, they can cobble together a rogue/barbarian/fighter, but by 9th level or so they'll still be far less useful than the full casters. Someone who was intent on "building" the "most powerful possible character" would surely be aware of this?

Agreed. Most often when I see multiclassing in Pathfinder, it involves martial characters, so "building the most powerful character" is something the player has already taken off the table. It tends to be more like "I want a character who is like this protagonist from this book/movie/anime/video game and the only way to get there is to cobble together the pieces from these options".

To take an example from anime- If I want to play Naruto from Naruto Shippuden, all I have to do is play a wizard. I'll get all of the frog summoning, shadow cloning, teleporting, giant ball of death flinging action imaginable. But if I want to play Rock Lee, the guy who only uses martial arts to be just as good as everyone else, I've got to grab Unchained Monk, some feats from Ultimate Combat, maybe some way to get Rage or Bloodrage to represent the whole 8 Inner Gates thing, and I'll still be not as good as someone who just used magic, but at least I kind of got where I wanted. If I wanted to kick it up a notch and go all Might Guy, the martial who was so badass he actually gave a high level caster a run for his money, I'd have to go to 3pp materials, because martial arts aren't allowed to be as cool/powerful as spellcasting under the Paizo dynamic.

Long story short, I find that most of the time multiclassing is a tool that gets used by people who are trying really hard to create a character who matches the character they see in their head and who they want to tell stories about, which is pretty much the essence of roleplaying. There may be a few nonsense builds out there that don't have any story behind them and were just cobbled together mechanics to try and hit some magic number, but I find those builds are rarely all that optimized anyways. Dealing 3500 DPR in a game where you're unlikely to find an enemy with 1k hp isn't optimized, optimized is the guy who does exactly enough damage to win and then still has enough resources to make the treacherous journey home and tell everyone what he did. Super optimized is the guy who won without ever having to stoop to dealing damage in the first place.

Grand Lodge

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I roleplay the heck out of everything I build... I love creating quirky characters. What this plethora of archetypes and multi-classing allows us to do is sometimes create something weird and wonderful that might not exist in the core standard classes.

Example:

There is a player local to me plays an AWESOME character called, "Delphix, Beloved of Kurgess." Delphix is a wrestler, and wishes to be the epitome of the ideal of Kurgess (God of Sport.) He's a fair-playing guy who just wants to wrestle anything he can, and to evangelize for his deity. He's part monk, park fighter, part cleric... I think he's got five different classes in there. They all contribute to both his role play (Delphix is exploring how to best serve his god through wrestling) and his roll play (optimizing the heck out of grapple.)

When Delphix meets people, he offers to sign autographs. He has a herald announcing him wherever he goes. He pronounces proudly that he came in "Fourth place" in the wrestling competition in his village. He wrestles everything he sees. I've watched him grapple an ooze. Twice!

Moreover, he wants fair fights... I've seen him give himself handicaps to help out an outclassed mook. Delphix is ridiculous, over-the-top and an absolute delight to play with. He adds to every game that I've seen him in.

You can role-play and roll-play. Both approaches can and do work together. Making a great and original character often means creating roleplay opportunities for others that wouldn't be there otherwise, and making sure that everyone at the table has a great time.

Hmm


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TheRealHoratio wrote:

I've been playing D&D for about 15 years now, through editions 3, 3.5, and 4th. I've always been the DM, and have run content for groups of between 2 and 6 players. Everyone I've played with before has made fun, interesting characters using maybe only one or two sourcebooks, all of which you would probably say weren't exactly "optimized". I never disallowed any books in my games, or banned any races or classes because they didn't "fit". When someone came to me with a character that they wanted to conceptualize, I would usually help them get there, because being able to play what you find attractive is a big part of the game.

I had to take a break for about 4 years, due to moving away from my old players and not being able to find new ones, but I recently came across a group that wants me to GM a Pathfinder game for them. During the character creation questions, I disallowed 3rd party material, cause I've read threads on here talking about some of the stuff that's out there, so I decided to just keep it limited to Paizo books. They told me what classes and races they wanted to be, which sounded fine, so I gave the greenlight on everything. Now, it is getting close to our first session, and I'm discovering the actual characters these guys have made, and it honestly has me terrified.

We're talking about basically a flesh golem of rules, stitched together from maybe 5 or 6 books apiece, in what I can only describe as less of an actual character and more just shiny numbers on paper. From reading threads on these forums, it's what I suppose you would call min/maxing, or optimization, which as I understand is very commonplace in the Pathfinder game system. What makes me feel even worse is that I tacitly allowed it. I figured that since I had never played with these guys before, I wouldn't say no to anything, or disallow any content except for 3rd party stuff, but I had no idea of the extent to which it would be taken.

Is that just how people play the game now? Is it really treated like an adversarial...

I think I can understand where you're coming from... it's a variation on what I've described as the "Half-Vampire, Half-Drow, Half-Dragon, Half-Werewolf, Half-Dinosaur, Half-Demon, Half-Angel, Half-Anime Ninja/Pirate/Robot/Gunslinger/Barbarian/Wizard-Cleric/Samurai" character - with the emphasis on trying to collect the biggest bunch of awesome numbers, rather than the biggest bunch of cool character gimmicks.

It's not so much that a Vampire Drow Ninja can't possibly be a fun and interesting character with some fun stories to be told about him.

Rather, it's more like I feel like I'm not even playing the same game after a certain point.

And I think that which side of that point the character is on will be evident when, as some of the replies above suggested, you spend a little time talking to the player about the character's back story and personality:

If you ask the player to tell you a little bit about who his character is, what she believes in, what her hopes and dreams are, who her friends and family are, what her greatest disappointment in life was, or what one thing the character did that her parents were particularly proud of, and you get a blank look, followed by some variation on "She's the party DPS character... the DPS numbers are awesome, she just kicks ass!", then you and the player are probably in the game with very different (and possibly incompatible) expectations and motivations.

There's probably something to be said about you adjusting your expectations and motivations to conform to what the player wants, or about trying to adjust the player's expectations and motivations to meet your tastes, or working together to meet half-way. And, from glancing over the replies above, I suppose plenty has been said about that already.

Really, though, this probably comes down more to a communication thing that probably needs to be sorted out before you ever commit to joining a group: an honest conversation about what each of you wants from the game, what your gaming style is, and what your gaming pet peeves are. Then, it's time to decide whether you're really a good fit for the group, after all.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
yronimos wrote:
"...she just kicks ass!"

For real! I mean, look at that stupid "d'Artagnan" character. Got nothing going for him except being a swordsman. What does he do when Dumas the DM gives him a social encounter? He challenges the NPC to a duel. So Dumas tries again, and he does it again. And Dumas tries again and he does it again! Stupid player never got the hint! And to think the campaign went on for like five volumes!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:


Agreed. Most often when I see multiclassing in Pathfinder, it involves martial characters, so "building the most powerful character" is something the player has already taken off the table. It tends to be more like "I want a character who is like this protagonist from this book/movie/anime/video game and the only way to get there is to cobble together the pieces from these options".

To take an example from anime- If I want to play Naruto from Naruto Shippuden, all I have to do is play a wizard. I'll get all of the frog summoning, shadow cloning, teleporting, giant ball of death flinging action imaginable. But if I want to play Rock Lee, the guy who only uses martial arts to be just as good as everyone else, I've got to grab Unchained Monk, some feats from Ultimate Combat, maybe some way to get Rage or Bloodrage to represent the whole 8 Inner Gates thing, and I'll still be not as good as someone who just used magic, but at least I kind of got where I wanted. If I wanted to kick it up a notch and go all Might Guy, the martial who was so badass he actually gave a high level caster a run for his money, I'd have to go to, I'd have to go to 3pp materials, because martial arts aren't allowed to be as cool/powerful as spellcasting under the Paizo dynamic.

Guy is an inspiration to martials everywhere. PF needs people who can punch demigods so hard they cry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kullen wrote:
yronimos wrote:
"...she just kicks ass!"
For real! I mean, look at that stupid "d'Artagnan" character. Got nothing going for him except being a swordsman. What does he do when Dumas the DM gives him a social encounter? He challenges the NPC to a duel. So Dumas tries again, and he does it again. And Dumas tries again and he does it again! Stupid player never got the hint! And to think the campaign went on for like five volumes!

If the player described D'Artagnan in terms of personality and the other things yronimos suggests and didn't just respond with "He's really good with a sword", than I'd agree.

And if you look at the beginning of the Three Musketeers, that's exactly what Dumas does - he tells (and shows) us who D'Artagnan is. Where he's from, a bit of his background and personality and then immediately how he reacts to situations. Which is, admittedly, usually by challenging someone to a duel. But by that point, you understand why.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lamontius wrote:

this whole thing makes me not want to play a game that I enjoy

this community is getting worse and worse

Look at the bright side, you don't have to game with anyone you disagree with on these forums.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sure powergamers exist, nobody is going to dispute that. But to call everyone who uses more than just the CRB when they make a character a powergamer is ludicrous. And that's exactly what several posters on here have done.

There's a reason books like the APG and ACG are popular: core classes are BORING! Wizards, Clerics, Rangers, they've all been done to death. And the feats in the CRB have also been done to death. So excuse us if we wanna play something new and different! If you're happy playing the same old dual wielding Ranger that's been done a million times before, be my guest, I got no quarrel with that. In return, extend me the same courtesy if I wanna play a Warpriest/Alchemist/Kineticist multiclass, or something else non-traditional.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

More important than the Powergamer Roleplayer dichotomy is Powergaming Roleplaying harmony.

Where players simultaneously improve their skill at creating powerful characters and creating interesting characters.

I want to repeat something I mentioned upthread though, and that is that what is important to the story is the character not the class.

Why on earth do some GMs stress so strongly the default flavor text? Allowing players to actually write their own characters rather than force them to read off a script some game developer wrote is far better for both the player and your campaign.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can mess up a game playing a commoner.
I can destroy a game playing an adept.
I can ANNIHILATE a game playing an expert and using the take 10 rule.

I have a high degree of system mastery, because as a player I take so much time reading material and coming up with character ideas.

OP, you are BLESSED to have such dedicated players wanting you to craft them an experience so they can enjoy their concepts. These people they are not out there to "beat" you, they just want to build memorable and tactically sound character. Plus they probably know the rules a lot and that can only be a good thing!

Character are not the sum of their levels, skill points, stats, feats, spell and gear, these are variables that can be tweaked in a lot of ways. Characters are defined by their action; by their players.

So take a step back, focus on memorable experiences and who care if they have a barbarian that can slice your goblins in two super quick? or a witch that can put asleep every thing that is not immune to sleep or that the synthesis summoner has pretty much 30 HP at level 1 and 2 natural attacks?

They still need to do climb checks, they still need to talk to people, they will still need to save people, they will still need to lock pick/bash in doors, they still need to sleep! Use these elements to your advantage!


thejeff wrote:
And if you look at the beginning of the Three Musketeers, that's exactly what Dumas does - he tells (and shows) us who D'Artagnan is. Where he's from, a bit of his background and personality and then immediately how he reacts to situations. Which is, admittedly, usually by challenging someone to a duel. But by that point, you understand why.

Which is exactly why you need to see the player play his character, and see how he RPs and how he reacts to situations -- and not just look at the numbers on the character sheet up front and say "dirty powergamer!" before you get a chance to see that other stuff.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
And if you look at the beginning of the Three Musketeers, that's exactly what Dumas does - he tells (and shows) us who D'Artagnan is. Where he's from, a bit of his background and personality and then immediately how he reacts to situations. Which is, admittedly, usually by challenging someone to a duel. But by that point, you understand why.
Which is exactly why you need to see the player play his character, and see how he RPs and how he reacts to situations -- and not just look at the numbers on the character sheet up front and say "dirty powergamer!" before you get a chance to see that other stuff.

Agreed. Though, as the post you responded to and quoted said, asking the player about the character is a partial substitute. If you get nothing then but mechanics and DPR, it's a really good clue.


I'm not saying anyone who optimizes sucks.
I'm not saying everyone who min/maxes is a loser.
I am saying that players who build a character only for the mechanics without considering the story AND pretend that they are about story are disingenuous (these are the chaff to which I referred, a specific sub-set of power gamers; not all of them).

Jiggy, that's why I typed “generally indicating” and not “ABSOLUTELY IN EVERY LAST POSSIBLE INSTANCE WITHOUT AN IOTA OF VARIATION ! ! !” Class descriptions are not mutually-exclusive, nor did I claim that they were, merely indicative. Can Rogues, Stalkers and Rangers fill similar roles? Yes and without much work. Can Rogues, Oracles, and Barbarians fill similar roles? Technically, they caaaaaaaan, but one would have to stretch a bit more to make that happen.

ROLE vs ROLL. I actually have a friend who during all-nighters literally plays like this, “Wake me when there's a fight.” He could not be any less interested in the plot (and before you say it, we've played with him for decades with multiple DM's and a variety of campaigns, so, no, it isn't just me that has to come up with more interesting stories); he wants tactical combat. He is a rollplayer. Everyone else accepts him for who he is and let's him play how he likes. We don't try to change him or cajole him into participating in an aspect of the game he doesn't enjoy. So, no, I really don't have a problem with that play style . . . when the player is up front and honest about it. However, as people are having a negative reaction to the terminology I'll drop it.

Let me try another tack:

TheRealHoratio wrote:
Is that just how people play the game now? Is it really treated like an adversarial tactical miniatures game, where instead of a group of people coming together to tell a story, it has turned into another game that one side feels they have to "win", by getting as much of an edge as possible?

I just took 20 on searching the Advice forum. I looked at the twenty most recent posts about character builds. Only three of them mentioned anything about their character's story. The other 85% wanted mad dps, most powerful [INSERT CLASS HERE], best [INSERT CLASS HERE], etc.

So, people aren't saying, “Hey, Paizo Community, I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.”

What they are saying, approximately 85% of the time is, “Help me optimize these numbers.”

So my response to TheRealHoratio is, “Yes, a great many people play the game this way now. You have to work hard with people or work hard looking for people who want to play the way you enjoy.”


Mykull wrote:
I am saying that players who build a character only for the mechanics without considering the story AND pretend that they are about story are disingenuous (these are the chaff to which I referred, a specific sub-set of power gamers; not all of them).

Your words didn't say that though. You said that if someone care about numbers then that person will not care about the story or roleplaying at all. And you say that again in your last post.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Mykull wrote:
So my response to TheRealHoratio is, “Yes, a great many people play the game this way now. You have to work hard with people or work hard looking for people who want to play the way you enjoy.”

However, your conclusion does not follow from what you've observed. You're treating the forums like a representative sample and ignoring the fact that the community here is no such thing. So while people here, on the forums, are generally saying 'help me optimize these numbers' in the Advice forum, players on the whole cannot be claimed to be saying that. Especially since 'help me optimize my character background' is not at all equal to 'help me optimize these numbers' in difficulty or demand.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:

I just took 20 on searching the Advice forum. I looked at the twenty most recent posts about character builds. Only three of them mentioned anything about their character's story. The other 85% wanted mad dps, most powerful [INSERT CLASS HERE], best [INSERT CLASS HERE], etc.

So, people aren't saying, “Hey, Paizo Community, I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.”

How are we supposed to help them with *their* story? Or do you believe it makes you a better roleplayer if you get your story from an online community?

People help with numbers, because numbers are easy to help someone with. If someone says I want to be good at X, Y and Z, we can help them get the numbers to be good at X, Y, and Z.

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

Mykull wrote:
Jiggy, that's why I typed “generally indicating” and not “ABSOLUTELY IN EVERY LAST POSSIBLE INSTANCE WITHOUT AN IOTA OF VARIATION ! ! !”

First, calm down.

Second, I know you typed "generally indicating" rather than an absolute. None of what I wrote was based on a belief that you weren't leaving room for exceptions.

The problem is that you're wrong about who's the exception and who's the rule (or even whether there IS a rule/exception model versus a more 50/50 split), and therefore what you can conclude from a given piece of evidence in a given situation.


Anzyr wrote:
Mykull wrote:

I just took 20 on searching the Advice forum. I looked at the twenty most recent posts about character builds. Only three of them mentioned anything about their character's story. The other 85% wanted mad dps, most powerful [INSERT CLASS HERE], best [INSERT CLASS HERE], etc.

So, people aren't saying, “Hey, Paizo Community, I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.”

How are we supposed to help them with *their* story? Or do you believe it makes you a better roleplayer if you get your story from an online community?

People help with numbers, because numbers are easy to help someone with. If someone says I want to be good at X, Y and Z, we can help them get the numbers to be good at X, Y, and Z.

I understood that hypothetical request to be "Here's the concept/backstory for a character - help me find mechanics to make it effective."

In other words, help with numbers, but in the service of a non-mechanics derived concept.

I've seen it around here, but it is pretty rare. And is often derailed by suggestions to do something else entirely because it'll be more powerful.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Nothing has happened to the game. It's the same game that it has always been, and not even people have changed all that much. There have been people playing an assortment of ways and styles that other people haven't liked since the very beginning.

Mykull wrote:

I just took 20 on searching the Advice forum. I looked at the twenty most recent posts about character builds. Only three of them mentioned anything about their character's story. The other 85% wanted mad dps, most powerful [INSERT CLASS HERE], best [INSERT CLASS HERE], etc.

So, people aren't saying, “Hey, Paizo Community, I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.”

What they are saying, approximately 85% of the time is, “Help me optimize these numbers.”

There is a very simple explanation for this. On the forums, there isn't much to talk about regarding role play or their backgrounds. That's up to individual tastes usually. What is far easier to help with and debate are the numbers, the math behind the game, the intricate dance of classes, feats and abilities that get the right combination of elements to make the whatever that you have in mind.

Some people here are very good at putting those elements together to help someone else with. That doesn't make them "rollplayers" or somehow inferior to "roleplayers" -- I mean, you are using the system, right, and therefore need the stats as well as the story.

Again, nothing has changed about any of this. It is just easier to see these days with the internet. People have been doing this for as long as I've been playing, with whatever elements and options they can find in the books, the magazines, other game rules, and pure imagination.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
I've seen it around here, but it is pretty rare. And is often derailed by suggestions to do something else entirely because it'll be more powerful.

A lot of topics like that tend to confuse class names with character concepts, i.e. the person who wants his character to be roguish charlatan thinking that means they must take the class Rogue. Telling someone that they can do better to mechanically fulfill their concept by dropping their preconceived notions about class choice is hardly derailing the conversation and telling them to do anything else entirely.

Mykull wrote:

I just took 20 on searching the Advice forum. I looked at the twenty most recent posts about character builds. Only three of them mentioned anything about their character's story. The other 85% wanted mad dps, most powerful [INSERT CLASS HERE], best [INSERT CLASS HERE], etc.

So, people aren't saying, “Hey, Paizo Community, I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.”

What they are saying, approximately 85% of the time is, “Help me optimize these numbers.”

Literally anyone in the world can come up with a story for a character that interests and excites them. Not everyone has the understanding of a particular RPG system to the extent that can turn that concept into a mechanically strong build. Maybe that's why very few people feel the need to bring up their backstory; it is already decided so it is irrelevant to the build conversation unless you really have no idea about how to express it mechanically. Most people have some idea about that though.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

What Chaoseffect said.

I'm a professional writer. Stories come easily to me. Math and mechanics are harder. So when I seek help, it is usually with the mechanics end.


chaoseffect wrote:
Literally anyone in the world can come up with a story for a character that interests and excites them.

Not everyone can come up with a story. I can not. Math / Science nerd here. Honors Physics and Math in High School, Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering, finally turned System Support programmer before I retired.

I can make any reasonable character mathematically, but backstories are always extremely hard for me to do.

The last time the home group had another DM run things, my statement was "Other than a cleric, I'll pick last and fill in whatever hole there is in the group." There are five of us, DM and four players.

-- david

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
TheRealHoratio wrote:

I suppose this is an opportunity to expand my skills as a game master. I do realize that I have unlimited license to make the game as easy or as challenging as needed. After my initial post and reading the responses, I guess I am overthinking it. I can't really make any decisions if we haven't played any of the campaign yet.

Basically, what I wanted advice on from the community, is do the types of gamers that make these characters do so because they want to be able to breeze through the content, or because they want the challenge of seeing what they can survive? I guess it could be both, or something else entirely. Either way, thanks to the folks that actually contributed something meaningful to the thread.

The best advice I can give as a GM for many games (including Pathfinder) is don't be afraid to throw out your pre-made notions on what your game/campaign should be. Think on your feet and be flexible when running the game. Pathfinder can be intimidating, but like most things it's only intimidating if you allow it to be. No matter what happens in the game you have the ultimate say-so. Good luck and welcome back to fold!


Horatio,

Fret not, thou art the DM.

Unless this is a society game, take the next meeting or talk with them outside of the setting to better introduce your expectations and what you are willing to bring into your game, which is yours, again.

I expect that it may be more system shock for you, but PF now was inevitable. It would be awesome if Paizo just stuck to stories. But, they are a company, and they have to make money. So... miniatures, cards, all kinds of accessories. And some of those accessories are new rules. As in, new stuff for people to play with to draw new blood in, and to entertain those that feel they want more. It is not bad, it is simply evolution. PF is doing nothing that 3.5 did not do, which is keep growing. And sometimes that growth is painful.

But, please, take these players desires into consideration. They may end up feeling victimized or alienated, when it could simply be dissonance between what you believe a game should be, and their concepts. You are not playing a tournament, you can find a middle ground, and if not, then walk away amicably instead of resentfully going into a commitment.

I have argued with players before, and bluntly told them that I am doing the best within my ability, please help me grow, instead of just criticizing my failings. Don't build my resentment, build my abilities -storytelling is my main focus, I know I have much to learn mechanically. I have seen skub, I have performed skub, it is a circle where truly, one cannot please everybody, and heck, a lot of players and DMs likewise hold unfair biases for/against classes.

If they are powergamers, that does not mean they are not roleplayers. Those two are not mutually exclusive. It may require more effort on your part... or, make the simple adjustment and simply look at encounters and challenges above their CR to where you feel there is a balance between their abilities and the difficulty you wish to set for them where the players feel like they are doing well, and you feel that they are not curbstomping every poor enemy you place in front of them.

Unless they are/become murder-hobos, I think the campaign can proceed. The hard thing for us who DM is being able to track these rules and options. That doesn't have to be all on us. The online resources are robust, and if the player wants to have a class feature/trait/archetype/feat yatta-yatta, then have that person work with you and help expand your skill set.

It isn't bad that something is new, or strange, or unfamiliar. You have no obligations to subscribe to every new product released by Paizo as the Core Canon that thou must adhere to, lest ye be judged Heretic. But... take a look, make the call, and let them know your reasons.

DMing is something you do, ostensibly for free. You are not their employee, but they are also not indentured servants in your magical realm. Find the compromise.


chaoseffect wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I've seen it around here, but it is pretty rare. And is often derailed by suggestions to do something else entirely because it'll be more powerful.

A lot of topics like that tend to confuse class names with character concepts, i.e. the person who wants his character to be roguish charlatan thinking that means they must take the class Rogue. Telling someone that they can do better to mechanically fulfill their concept by dropping their preconceived notions about class choice is hardly derailing the conversation and telling them to do anything else entirely.

Mykull wrote:

I just took 20 on searching the Advice forum. I looked at the twenty most recent posts about character builds. Only three of them mentioned anything about their character's story. The other 85% wanted mad dps, most powerful [INSERT CLASS HERE], best [INSERT CLASS HERE], etc.

So, people aren't saying, “Hey, Paizo Community, I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.”

What they are saying, approximately 85% of the time is, “Help me optimize these numbers.”

Literally anyone in the world can come up with a story for a character that interests and excites them. Not everyone has the understanding of a particular RPG system to the extent that can turn that concept into a mechanically strong build. Maybe that's why very few people feel the need to bring up their backstory; it is already decided so it is irrelevant to the build conversation unless you really have no idea about how to express it mechanically. Most people have some idea about that though.

Not to mention it's a lot easier to have provide a definitive answer to optimization questions than roleplaying ones. Optimization is all about math and number-crunching, while the roleplaying side of the game is a creative exercise.

"What sword gives me the best average damage?" is a simple math problem with clear right and wrong answers. Assuming everyone you ask is reasonably good at math, they'll all give the same answer.

"What would make my character's backstory more interesting?" is almost entirely a matter of opinion. You could ask ten people and get a dozen different answers.

Even if the forum could agree, it might not matter because a lot of roleplaying isn't about cranking out a good backstory, but playing out that backstory at the table. A player can have a twenty-page backstory and character profile, complete with a full family tree and timeline of his entire life from birth to right before the first sessions, and still be playing the character as flat, boring, and uninteresting character. Just like another player might not even know the names of her character's parents, but at the table she roleplays her character so well that she's a blast to play with.

Bottom line, optimization advice gets asked for more often because you're far more likely to get useful advice on the subject.


"What would make my character's backstory more interesting?" is not what he was saying.

He was saying, as you quoted: "People aren't saying 'I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.' ”

You're arguing against something that wasn't said.


thejeff wrote:

"What would make my character's backstory more interesting?" is not what he was saying.

He was saying, as you quoted: "People aren't saying 'I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.' ”

You're arguing against something that wasn't said.

And we're saying that they don't need to tell us that. Presumably their character is really good at X, Y, and Z and they need help to make it so. /Picard


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
thejeff wrote:

"What would make my character's backstory more interesting?" is not what he was saying.

He was saying, as you quoted: "People aren't saying 'I have this really awesome character concept, but I just can't find the rules, classes, and/or feats to make it work. Here's the story, help me make it a reality.' ”

You're arguing against something that wasn't said.

And we're saying that they don't need to tell us that. Presumably their character is really good at X, Y, and Z and they need help to make it so. /Picard

Indeed, why to bother others with the background when they could just could just say "I envisioned my character doing X,Y, and Z".

As pointed out so many times, people not mentioning their character background in the forum tells absolutely nothing about their roleplaying preferences.


Jiggy, deep breath has been inhaled and slowly exhaled.

Jiggy wrote:
Your assertion would only [emphasis added] be true if the descriptions of the classes were mutually-exclusive [emphasis added].

“Only” and “mutually-exclusive” are absolutes. Based on that, your quote seems “based on a belief that [I wasn't] leaving room for exceptions.”

Anyzr, TriOmegaZero, knightnday, chaoseffect, Hmm, Chengar Qordath: What thejeff said . . . both times.

I'm not expecting people to be asking for help with their stories. Many posters appear to be claiming that there's a ton of people out there who have awesome concepts that would pull from many sources and thus are not power-gamers (as though that is something to avoid), just incredibly well thought out character ideas that just, by pure happenstance, to also be optimized. If this is true, some should lack the skill/knowledge to bring it to fruition. Then they should be asking for help with their builds. My recent sampling shows 15% of people are doing this to some extent.

Versus 85% who are simply asking for mechanical help with no mention of back story. These, then, are the the players who are, more than likely, uninterested in their character's back story as compared to how much their character will dominate.

Nicos, the 15% are people who didn't provide the entire actual back story, but simply put in the few words, “got the story covered, just need help with X, Y, Z.” People who care about story throw that in there, I imagine, just to show that they do. Just as people who omit it do so, in my experience, because story is not important to them. And why? Because what people do, or don't do, is a guide to understanding their role-playing preferences.

For example, if a lady, Adele, posts for years about her martial characters and never posts about any spellcaster she's ever played, I can reasonable infer from her posts that her roleplaying style is one that favors martial characters (because that's what she posts about) and she doesn't like to play casters (because she doesn't post about that).

TriOmegaZero, so the people who post on the Paizo Messageboards do not represent the people who play Paizo's rpgs?!? You're kidding me with this, right? Please tell me you're kiddding me with this.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Mykull wrote:
TriOmegaZero, so the people who post on the Paizo Messageboards do not represent the people who play Paizo's rpgs?!? You're kidding me with this, right? Please tell me you're kiddding me with this.

Mykull, it's not a representative sample - it's a biased sample. Thus there's more error if you try to infer anything about the overall PF-playing community based on your observations of people here.

201 to 250 of 312 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / What has this game become? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.