To share or not to share?


Gamer Life General Discussion

101 to 150 of 338 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

claymade wrote:


Of course, as mentioned, I (for my own personal part) find the fundamental idea of having a table ethos that gives other players that kind of permission to try and force decisions like that based on DPR calculations to be flat-out TOXIC to the sort of environment I find fun in tabletop gaming.

The freedom to make dumb, in-character tactics is something awesome, and IMHO doesn't happen enough in my games.

You know, I've mentioned other players getting upset about how you are acting. I've even mentioned other players talking to you about it. But I've never advocated they should try to force you. What I have indicated, is that you should feel obligated to be a decent team player in what is essentially, a team game.

I fully agree if you're in a party playing and someone flat out tells you ''play this way'' even if they have a myriad of valid reasons why, that's not good party ethics. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not you should feel obligated when someone asks things of you in the party. And the answer, my answer to that, is yes if there is a significant benefit to that action.

Now is that really such a toxic position?

claymade wrote:


Really, this one example says it all, and about as clearly as could be asked for, how you're portraying playing Pathfinder as analogous to playing baseball.

This whole argument is basically the difference between looking at Pathfinder as a game where the objective is just to "win", and looking at it as a storytelling exercise where the objective is to have cool memories after it's over of the fun things your characters did.

Meaningful story telling does not come at the price of basic teamwork. Furthermore, it's just human nature that people like to ''win.'' Maybe the definition of winning is different for each person but a TPK is almost universally a loss. Repeated TPK's are always a loss.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:

Chess Pwn;

Why would we debate using unrealistic terms? It's easy to ''win'' a debate if you set unrealistic terms. It's like saying guns are bad, but we're only talking about a gun when it's being fired at an innocent mother of five. Thus, only an insane person would disagree guns are bad. [For the record, I do think guns are bad, but that is not a topic for this forum].

1. If the situation is that every fight becomes Haste = Best option either your gm is being bad, or your party is being bad, or your build is just bad. It's no longer an issue of should you cast haste, it's an issue of what's wrong with your group.

2. If you want to define terms, Would it help if I said inconsiderate instead of jerk? Is it like just too strong of a word. People don't want to think of themselves as jerks? Cause I'll admit right now I'm kind of a b!tch, so calling someone a jerk to me is like... calling them rude.

Look, if you accept my advice where I'm telling you the situation WE'RE using, then you can stop arguing things we both agree on. Everyone agrees that there will be situation where haste isn't the best option.

But it is your example that we are saying it's okay to not do haste.

Quote:

In another example;

The same 5th level party is facing a CR 8 Boss. Now the wizard can either fireball for that 17 dmg, or haste the other 3.

In this case, it is more likely Haste is going to be significantly more beneficial. The fight is likely to take 3 or more rounds. If the wizard, decided not to cast haste, that would be inconsiderate.

This situation is the situation WE ARE talking about and meaning when we talk about haste. Situations where haste IS CLEARLY a significantly more beneficial action.

If you want to keep repeating yourself until you're blue in the face by talking about a situation that we're not then you're welcome to it. But people will keep saying you're not talking about the same thing they are because you're not.

To me and many people, a blaster wizard is perfectly fine casting his fireball for 17 damage instead of haste in this situation. He's a blaster, that's what he does. He's being a team player by helping do damage to the enemy.


Chess Pwn wrote:


To me and many people, a blaster...

Couple things here. Once more if you define the terms to the most extreme then yes you can make your argument sound great.

Secondly, you don't speak for other people on this board. So far it seems we're ''arguing'' about the same thing. If they're not, they can come speak up.

In -your- scenario, I've already stated my opinion. If Haste is always the significantly better than your fireball, either your GM isn't using enough diverse encounters, your party is doing something wrong, or your build is bad. In any case, the issue isn't about whether you should be a decent team player, it's what's wrong with your group.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Wizards gonna fireball ball ball ball
Haters gonna hate hate hate hate


Look, why can't we all just agree that I am right?

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Terquem wrote:
And I think society play in the convention atmosphere sort of encourages this. Players just are not motivated in getting to know each other at all, unless you know the game is going to be played at regular intervals, at a table, where you have to look at other people and learn how to play with them.

Actually, I think the vast majority of Organized Play is not at conventions, but at local, recurring, regularly-scheduled Game Days. If you play with any kind of regularity, you start to get seated with some of the same characters repeatedly (hence why some people knew Thomas the Tiefling Hero enough to be excited for me to play him) and can benefit from that knowledge.

For instance, when my Eldritch Knight was seated with a charge-oriented cavalier that I'd seen before at other tables, I prepped an extra slot or two of fly specifically for use on the cavalier's mount if we encountered difficult airborne enemies.

Unless someone only does organized play at conventions, or only plays once in a blue moon, there will be opportunity to learn other people's characters and adapt your strategies for a good payoff. Additionally, some people got rather well-practiced at very concisely and clearly telling the table what they're good at (and eliciting the same information from others) for the specific purpose of fostering teamwork.

Thus, I don't think organized play has all the effects on the playerbase's culture/mindset that folks outside of organized play tend to think it has.


Redjack_rose wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:


To me and many people, a blaster...

Couple things here. Once more if you define the terms to the most extreme then yes you can make your argument sound great.

Secondly, you don't speak for other people on this board. So far it seems we're ''arguing'' about the same thing. If they're not, they can come speak up.

In -your- scenario, I've already stated my opinion. If Haste is always the significantly better than your fireball, either your GM isn't using enough diverse encounters, your party is doing something wrong, or your build is bad. In any case, the issue isn't about whether you should be a decent team player, it's what's wrong with your group.

first off, how is YOUR EXAMPLE taking it to the most extreme to make my view sound so great? I'm quite confused as to what you think I'm doing by stating terms. If you'd care to elaborate of what you mean by this I'd appreciate it to be able to understand what you're trying to say by it.

Secondly, It's quite obvious that people are sharing my view, because they are against yours. I feel the people debating with you are all saying basically the same thing. Using basically the same examples and situations. And you're responding with basically the same things. And then they keep going saying you're not understanding. Thus why you feel that "people haven't read your posts" like you blamed Claxon for doing. And why you feel you're repeating yourself till your blue in the face. It's because you think you're talking about the same thing, but you're not, and for most people the way they deal with that is by saying the same things saying, "but what about this same situation?"

Thirdly, I'm wasn't specifically talking about a scenario where every fight is haste. I made sure to indicate that I was specifically talking about the scenario YOU gave where there was a boss, a 17 damage fireball, and a clearly superior haste option. And yes, you've stated you're opinion that the wizard is a rude immature inconsiderate jerk player. Which boggles us because we feel it's the same as having a core rogue or core monk instead of something better. Or using an "inferior" weapon. It boggles us that you say you're okay with sub-optimal builds and character designs. but then if the sub-optimally built blaster wizard decides he wants to blast instead of cast haste he's a jerk. Like that is just the player fulfilling his sub-optimal build and character design that you said you didn't have a problem with.


Chess Pwn wrote:


first off, how is YOUR EXAMPLE taking it to the most extreme to make my view sound so great? I'm quite confused as to what you think I'm doing by stating terms. If you'd care to elaborate of what you mean by this I'd appreciate it to be able to understand what you're trying to say by it.

This is the example I am referring to. Earlier you asked me to assume the situation is the most optimal choice, all the time.

Chess Pwn wrote:

@Redjack_rose - helpful advice

Look, whenever we bring up the haste example PLEASE assume we're talking about a situation where haste IS the most optimal choice, because we are talking of such a situation.
If needed assume the GM ONLY throws fights where haste is the most optimal option every time.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Secondly, It's quite obvious that people are sharing my view, because they are against yours. I feel the people debating with you are all saying basically the same thing. Using basically the same examples and situations. And you're responding with basically the same things. And then they keep going saying you're not understanding. Thus why you feel that "people haven't read your posts" like you blamed Claxon for doing. And why you feel you're repeating yourself till your blue in the face. It's because you think you're talking about the same thing, but you're not, and for most people the way they deal with that is by saying the same things saying, "but what about this same situation?"

Fallacy. Someone disagreeing with me isn't agreeing with you. Let them speak for themselves.

Chess Pwn wrote:
Thirdly, I'm wasn't specifically talking about a scenario where every fight is haste. I made sure to indicate that I was specifically talking about the scenario YOU gave where there was a boss, a 17 damage fireball, and a clearly superior haste option. And yes, you've stated you're opinion that the wizard is a rude immature...

Yes, in my scenario the wizard capable of but refusing to cast at that point is being at best inconsiderate. The first time this happens, not a big deal.

If you want a good comparison of like examples from a martial, allow me;

In the example with the CR 8 boss, one of the other players is a barbarian with bonuses to charge. Another player is just a regular old fighter. The fighter wins initiative and charges.

Now, the barbarian's charge damage is significantly more beneficial to the party and the barbarian's player points it out. ''Hey man, would you mind not taking that charge and flanking instead. It will help the party the most.''

If the fighter's response is ''No, my character prefers to charge rather than flank. It's more fun for me. If I flank I don't get to attack this turn so screw that.''

Sure, the fighter won't get to attack if he offers the barbarian a flank, but if the barb hits he's going to deal 2.5x damage more than the fighter. In this case, I'd say the fighter is being inconsiderate and possibly, a jerk. It's 1 action. 1 turn. To help a party member.


Jiggy wrote:
hence why some people knew Thomas the Tiefling Hero enough to be excited for me to play him

Ha, I thought I quoted two people but both were Jiggy.

I am accustomed to agreeing with Jiggy. He is wise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

See, I, and I feel the others debating with you, feel it's fine for the fighter to charge. He's still aiding in taking down the Boss by doing 1x damage.
If I were to place blame on anyone I'd call the Barb in your example the jerk, "Hey guys I have this one specific thing I do, so everyone else needs to play around my one thing. Fighter, you can't charge, as long as you sit back I'll one shot any Boss." Well that's probably not much fun for the fighter's player. The fighter is wanting to get in there and fight just as much as the Barb does. It's 1 action, 1 turn, 1 charge to let a party member have more fun and still be helpful to the overall goal of the party.

Grand Lodge

Chess Pwn wrote:
It boggles us that you say you're okay with sub-optimal builds and character designs. but then if the sub-optimally built blaster wizard decides he wants to blast instead of cast haste

Comparing an entire character class/build against the use of one or two spells in distinct situations is quite boggling IMO...

Spell are an in-game resource, one that of course belongs to the caster, but an in-game resource none-the-less, and there are those that consider it selfish to not share that resource (or any resource for that matter) in-game with those characters that can make better use or are in dire need of that resource in very specific cases.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That's not what the barb did at all. He asked the fighter for an assist. He could still charge even if the fighter doesn't. Hell, he might even still hit no matter what the fighter does. But he asked the fighter, as a party member, to do something for him. The thing he asked is significantly beneficial to the party. The only detriment to the fighter is not getting his ''glory'' for one attack.

So sure, go ahead and refuse to cooperate. It makes you inconsiderate, but whatever, you're having fun. =P the party just knows who to look at when you all TPK. I'm sorry, is dying what your character would have done?


Redjack_rose wrote:

That's not what the barb did at all. He asked the fighter for an assist. He could still charge even if the fighter doesn't. Hell, he might even still hit no matter what the fighter does. But he asked the fighter, as a party member, to do something for him. The thing he asked is significantly beneficial to the party. The only detriment to the fighter is not getting his ''glory'' for one attack.

So sure, go ahead and refuse to cooperate. It makes you inconsiderate, but whatever, you're having fun. =P the party just knows who to look at when you all TPK. I'm sorry, is dying what your character would have done?

Unless is a very weak fighter then your scenario is absurd. Why aren't they attacking in the same round? What exactly is that bonus a 4-6 level barbarian have that is better than the fighter attack?, what if the fighter goes to flank and before the barbarians turn something happens and the barbarian is no able to charge?

Using your measuring stick, the barbarian player is the jerk for demanding suboptimals choices from his teammates.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:

You know, I've mentioned other players getting upset about how you are acting. I've even mentioned other players talking to you about it. But I've never advocated they should try to force you. What I have indicated, is that you should feel obligated to be a decent team player in what is essentially, a team game.

I fully agree if you're in a party playing and someone flat out tells you ''play this way'' even if they have a myriad of valid reasons why, that's not good party ethics. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about whether or not you should feel obligated when someone asks things of you in the party. And the answer, my answer to that, is yes if there is a significant benefit to that action.

So... you're saying it's wrong for someone to say "play this way" to someone, but it's fine for someone to say "you should feel obligated to play this way"? I'm afraid I don't see all that much difference between the two in terms of actual social pressure.

The latter is, perhaps, slightly more polite, and it uses more words, but the effective, conveyed intent is not something I would consider terribly different.

Redjack_rose wrote:
Meaningful story telling does not come at the price of basic teamwork. Furthermore, it's just human nature that people like to ''win.'' Maybe the definition of winning is different for each person but a TPK is almost universally a loss. Repeated TPK's are always a loss.

If you look at the whole quote, "meaningful storytelling" wasn't even the crux of the main objective I mentioned. What I described it as was "a storytelling exercise where the objective is to have cool memories after it's over of the fun things your characters did." That's why I don't want to get in the way of other people doing whatever sort of thing they personally find to be cool.

Let me give an actual example from our group that sort of turns the example situation we've been discussing on its head. Where buffing was probably the less optimal choice and attacking probably the far better one.

Our group was doing a high-level module, and I was playing the Wizard, and was scouting ahead with the Arcane Archer. We rounded a corner and ran into something that was pretty clearly a Big Climactic Area Boss Fight, who also saw us. We won initiative, and as luck would have it, I still had a couple nasty Save-or-Lose combos prepared that I was pretty certain could just stop the thing right in its tracks (based on what the DM gave me for my knowledge check regarding its immunities and weaknesses).

But I had also (deliberately) built my character's personality as a more withdrawn, diplomatic sort of person, who generally preferred to avoid direct violence himself. So (playing my character) I instead flew back to the party along with the archer and cast (you guessed it) Haste instead, allowing us to all fight it together in a fun, epic battle, with me more focused on buffing and healing than attacking directly.

Now (applying your litmus test to it) was the spell I chose "significantly" less effective than the one I could have used instead? Well, yeah, since if I'd just zapped the enemy when I won initiative, it could easily have turned what became one of the hardest fights of the whole module for us into a speedbump encounter. But if it had, it would also have turned one of the most fun fights of the module into one of the most boring ones, especially for everyone else.

That was, in the end, the ultimate reason I went with my in-character approach, instead of the most mathematically sound one. Because I wasn't just trying to win the encounter as conclusively as possible (as I would have if I were playing Pathfinder like a game of baseball). I was playing my character, and even more, I was hoping that as many people at the table as possible would get the chance to do their own particular fun things, especially in a Big Climactic Boss Fight like that.

The reason I don't want to tell Wizards in my group "you should feel obligated to cast Haste instead of throwing a Fireball" is the same reason I did cast Haste in that particular scenario. Because I think fights are more fun when everyone at the table is doing the sort of things they find to be cool and fun. If casting Haste isn't fun for someone, I don't particularly want them to feel "obligated" to do so, even if doing so would give a "significant" extra boost to my Fighter's DPR numbers.

So yeah, if you don't think I should have made that "significantly" less optimal choice, simply because A) I thought it would be closer to my character, and B) that it would be more FUN to play it out that way, then I guess we're at an impasse, because I totally don't regret the choice.


@Claymade

Sounds like a fun story. Did the party ask you to take the more beneficial path?

If yes, then you probably should have but hey, glad it worked out for you.

If no, not relevant to the conversation. The conversation is are you obligated to give things buffs/help/resources to party members when they ask.


Nicos wrote:


Using your measuring stick, the barbarian player is the jerk for demanding suboptimals choices from his teammates.

It's an example I made up on the spot. Not going to waste my time making a whole build to prove the point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:

@Claymade

Sounds like a fun story. Did the party ask you to take the more beneficial path?

If yes, then you probably should have but hey, glad it worked out for you.

If no, not relevant to the conversation. The conversation is are you obligated to give things buffs/help/resources to party members when they ask.

No, no one asked... nor would I particularly expect them to, since the table culture was pretty much the sort of table culture I've been trying to advocate for. If someone wants to play a character of "withdrawn, non-violent fellow who doesn't like hurting people and prefers to buff the party from behind" then our players, by and large, will just roll with stuff like that, and not ask them to act outside their character concept. Even if they did think that it might be technically better for the party if he fought more directly more often.

My point with the story was that, despite all the dire things you were saying about TPKs and such in the comment that prompted it, that "yes, it totally can work out to just let people play sub-optimally, even significantly so." And that in fact, it can actually be more fun all around when your goal is "do fun, in-character things" rather than "win Pathfinder".

What I'm trying to say is that that's the kind of table I want to play at, the kind of table where you can do stuff like that without being called to the carpet for being "significantly" less than optimal in your fighting tactics, because the other players don't mind things like that.


@claymade
That sounds wonderful. Glad things worked out. Still irrelevant then. If the party didn't ask and wouldn't ask, then a story about how you didn't do what you think the best thing for the party was and it turned out fun isn't really important.

As the OP askes, with spelling and obvious negative connotation aside;

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:


So qhat do yu guys think? Are you obligated to break from your theme or build or whatever to give someone else something?

If no one asked for anything, and thus you gave them nothing... hurray!

My point has been if someone asks for something and it's a significant benefit to the whole party over whatever artsy character model you got, yeah, you should do it. If you don't, you're not really being a team player and you have traits many find dis-favorable.

Nothing more, nothing less.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

AS far as it goes, when I play (and many of the parties I've GMed for) tend to follow the idea that some of that copious free time in character is spent talking tactics for adventuring. And out of character as well.

I personally don't care either way if someone buffs the party or not, if that is what they are going to do; that said, I'd like some conversation about it all before we're in the middle of a fight and people believe, right or wrong, that the cleric or wizard or whatever is going to cast X spell or a character is going to take Y action.

It doesn't have to be spelled out exactly, but a general idea of what your character tends to do is pretty helpful and helps cut down a lot of this arguing. If your character plays with their belly button lint in combat and generally screams and hides, I know not to depend on you to flank, for example.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:
My point has been if someone asks for something and it's a significant benefit to the whole party over whatever artsy character model you got, yeah, you should do it. If you don't, you're not really being a team player and you have traits many find dis-favorable.

Well, none of the tables I've played at have been among those "many". If we do make requests like that, or offer suggestions for more optimal play, and the recipient responds that that really wasn't in line with how they envisioned their character, the response is generally more along the lines of "ok, sure, no prob", rather than a response of "but you're obligated to do it!"

My point is just that I, personally, believe that the former response tends to make for a significantly more enjoyable play experience overall than the latter.

haremlord said it more succinctly and poignantly than I've been able to in all my posts since, way back at the beginning:

haremlord wrote:
If someone does something that helps someone else, we accept it not as something that we expected, but as something given.

What a great way to look at it. Not as an obligation the other player owes you that you're just summarily collecting on, but as a gift!

That's the kind of player I want to be like. That's the kind of player I want to play with.


Redjack_rose wrote:

My point has been if someone asks for something and it's a significant benefit to the whole party over whatever artsy character model you got, yeah, you should do it. If you don't, you're not really being a team player and you have traits many find dis-favorable.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I really struggle to reconcile this with the previous example I gave of my fighter who liked using daggers and shortswords and wearing not great armor. You said you were fine with that, but it appears to me that it falls exactly into what you here label "not really being a team player".

Although I note you've gone from initially labelling it jerkish or immature to "you have traits many find dis-favorable" which is true of just about anyone, so if you're walking that early hardline position back a little, I don't really disagree with you. The way I play is certainly not everyone's cup of tea - but that's why I think there isn't an answer. It depends on what the group enjoys.

Grand Lodge

Steve Geddes wrote:
I really struggle to reconcile this with the previous example I gave of my fighter who liked using daggers and shortswords and wearing not great armor. You said you were fine with that

I obviously cannot speak for Redjack_rose, but I take his/her position to mean that if a character has the available resources that would be helpful to another character that can better make use of those resource in very specific circumstances, such as the various buff spells, then in the spirit of team co-operation, the character with those available resources should give those to that character that can best make use of them.

Using your fighter example, if said fighter had multiple daggers, and the ranger's only melee weapon was just broken, not sharing the daggers with the now weaponless ranger because your fighter likes to throw them, would be a similar scenario to the wizard not casting haste...


Okay. I guess I don't see why you'd make that distinction, but that is at least a difference. Cheers.

It seems to me that expecting the mage to use haste rather than fireball is the same as expecting a fighter to use a longsword over a dagger. I'm still struggling to see the point, but given it's gone from "jerkish and immature" to showing "traits many find dis-favorable". It's much less important - it means that playing with the right group is the key.

Grand Lodge

Steve Geddes wrote:
It seems to me that expecting the mage to use haste rather than fireball is the same as expecting a fighter to use a longsword over a dagger. I'm still struggling to see the point

I could be wrong, but I think Redjack_rose views spells much like I do, and that is they are a limited or perhaps even a disposable resource, much in the same way that thrown daggers, darts, sling stones, scrolls, and even food and water are - and such things should go to those that could best make use of them (again IF, IF the situation warrants such). where-as a fighter's long sword or bow are not limited or disposable resources, and are best in the hands of their owner because if the owner gives his sword of bow to someone else, then the owner is now at a severe disadvantage, conversely, the wizard casting a single spell to help his fellow comrade fight even better, is not put at any such disadvantage.

I think the disconnect is that most here do not seem to view spells as being any different than a fighter's sword or bow, while I, and perhaps Redjack_rose do...


Digitalelf wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
It seems to me that expecting the mage to use haste rather than fireball is the same as expecting a fighter to use a longsword over a dagger. I'm still struggling to see the point

I could be wrong, but I think Redjack_rose views spells much like I do, and that is they are a limited or perhaps even a disposable resource, much in the same way that thrown daggers, darts, sling stones, scrolls, and even food and water are - and such things should go to those that could best make use of them (again IF, IF the situation warrants such). where-as a fighter's long sword or bow are not limited or disposable resources, and are best in the hands of their owner because if the owner gives his sword of bow to someone else, then the owner is now at a severe disadvantage, conversely, the wizard casting a single spell to help his fellow comrade fight even better, is not put at any such disadvantage.

I think the disconnect is that most here do not seem to view spells as being any different than a fighter's sword or bow, while I, and perhaps Redjack_rose do...

I can see the difference you point out. I just don't think it distinguishes whether you're a teamplayer or not.

To my mind, if you're failing to meet some kind of obligation by not utilising limited resources in the most useful way, it seems to me you're failing the same obligation by choosing a sub-par, unlimited resource.


Yes, what Digital Elf said is about the summation of what I've said.

Also it's not an obligation in the ''most useful way,'' it's failing to meet an obligation when -asked- to do something in a significantly beneficial way.

Does this give the other players a free pass at controlling your character. No. They should ask respectfully and accept an answer of no. Whether they continue to play with you afterwards is their choice.

I do realize people are having an issue of separating a character concept/facet from a limited, renewable resource like spells.

Edit;

It's like I said earlier, if we can agree that expecting 14-15 combat rounds a day and asking for 1 haste in there, you're asking the wizard to give up 1/14th [.07%] of their time being a blaster caster. If you're asking the martial to give up their concepts weapon or whatever, you're asking for 14/14 [100%] away from their concept. Not the same thing.


Redjack_rose wrote:
I do realize people are having an issue of separating a character concept/facet from a limited, renewable resource like spells.

Not quite. I can see the difference, I just don't think it's relevant. I think about obligations to the group very differently than you do.

As I say though - moderating your language from "immature jerk" to "person with traits I find disfavourable" makes it a moot point.


Teamwork? What's that?


Redjack_rose wrote:

@claymade

That sounds wonderful. Glad things worked out. Still irrelevant then. If the party didn't ask and wouldn't ask, then a story about how you didn't do what you think the best thing for the party was and it turned out fun isn't really important.

As the OP askes, with spelling and obvious negative connotation aside;

Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:


So qhat do yu guys think? Are you obligated to break from your theme or build or whatever to give someone else something?

If no one asked for anything, and thus you gave them nothing... hurray!

My point has been if someone asks for something and it's a significant benefit to the whole party over whatever artsy character model you got, yeah, you should do it. If you don't, you're not really being a team player and you have traits many find dis-favorable.

Nothing more, nothing less.

The original post didn't specifically mention people asking for things. Whether or not someone asks for something seems less important than whether it was a good idea. If I'm a Barbarian and you're a Cleric and you cast Bull's Strength on yourself instead of me, even though the group would be better off if you cast it on me (since I can attack twice per round and you can only attack once per round), I'm going to think of you as a poor strategist and poor team player.

Note that I'm unlikely to ask you to cast Bull's Strength on me unless you first ask me for advice. I don't want to be the player who tells everyone what to do and forces everyone to choose between blindly following my plan and sabotaging it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If the barbarian really wants that Bull's strength, it only takes a few levels of dip to get it. Alternatively, the barbarian is entirely free to invest in potions for it. Then he can use it as much as he likes.

Also, there is a different way of looking at this. The barbarian may well have two attacks to the cleric's one. However, the barbarian is pretty likely to hit either way, making the difference a +4 damage for him. The cleric, if built right, is far more likely to have it affect his chance to hit, meaning you're quite likely to get an extra 1d8+Str bonus+2 or something for the cleric's bull's strength. In general, a cleric taking a round of actions should be giving FAR more than +4 damage. Expecting someone to spend their round buffing you is selfish, useless and stupid. There are exceptions, of course.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pixie, the Leng Queen wrote:

So qhat do yu guys think? Are you obligated to break from your theme or build or whatever to give someone else something?

One word: NO.

"Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live." - Oscar Wilde


Redjack_rose wrote:


1st. A simple calculation, is your 1 round of fireball equal to or greater than an entire party under haste for 5+ rounds? If the answer is no, yes you should cast haste.

2nd. Does the buff on you do more for the over all party than on the martial? If no, then cast that buff on the other person.

Why is teamwork such a bad thing. This is honestly a two way street as well. The fighter/martial/whatever receiving a benefit from you should either pull their weight with the gift you gave them, or cede the buff/action to you.

D&D is a team game, not a one on one game. Too many discussion here are focused on what a class or character can do on his own, rather than part of a TEAM.


voideternal wrote:

I think you disagree because your idea of fun is progressing through the AP.

I've played in a group with a lot of optimal teamwork. 'Teamwork' was the entire party buffing me (the Fighter) and me killing whatever encounter that appeared. We played through an entire AP, very fast.

Every turn was basically the same thing. I hit things, and everyone else used whatever buff was appropriate. It was the most repetative, boring Pathfinder experience I ever had. There was lots of teamwork and lots of wining and lots of boredom.

More or less what we did, and it was HUGE fun.

So, umm, if by game three you werent having fun, why not discuss it with the others and stop?


Look, there is one thing we can all agree on: SSSHHHHAAAAAAAAARRREER~!


You know it occurred to me that it feels like a lot of the objection is ''this is what my character would do/wants to do.'' Allow me to offer this;

You are Blaster the Red, Blast-o-mancer of Fireballs, and your martial friends say ''hey Blaster, you mind preparing a haste today?'' You think about it a bit. Blaster likes throwing fireballs. He thinks he's pretty damn effective with it. Besides, it's not like you've asked Stabby the Stabber over there to use a longsword rather than a normal sword. How dare they ask Blaster the Red not to used fireballs!

Then you think about it a little more. Who was it that stood between you and that angry, charging barbarian? Or helped climb up that wall when you didn't have a fly prepared and are as weak as a kitten? Who is it that keeps on hacking and slashing when you've cast your last spell and are reduced to either doing nothing or burning your wands?

And who is it, that takes a guard shift each night, or in the morning waits around protecting your ass while you prepare spells for an hour? Oh yeah, that guy over there that dared ask you, Blaster the Red, to prepare haste as one of your renewable spells.

Maybe after your character does a little thinking, they don't particularly care if they have a character concept. Their pal asked for a fraction of time and capabilities. It's not the end of the world.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:


It's not the end of the world.

Exactly the same if the wizard say no, unless the fighter players is quite immature.

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

^Ironically, a situation that only occurs in a system using Vancian casting.

(Also, you're assuming the guy even has haste in his spellbook.)

EDIT: Ninja'd, this was a reply to Redjack_rose.


Nicos wrote:


Exactly the same if the wizard say no, unless the fighter players is quite immature.

It would be the wizard being immature in the first place to even say no. But yes, I agree, if the wizard says no there shouldn't be a spectacle about it.

Doesn't make Blaster the Red/Player any less of an inconsiderate person.


Redjack_rose wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Exactly the same if the wizard say no, unless the fighter players is quite immature.
It would be the wizard being immature in the first place to even say no.

Not, it doesn't.


Jiggy wrote:

^Ironically, a situation that only occurs in a system using Vancian casting.

(Also, you're assuming the guy even has haste in his spellbook.)

EDIT: Ninja'd, this was a reply to Redjack_rose.

Well of course. Standard Pathfinder uses Vancian magic, and it would be pointless if the wizard didn't have haste.

If he didn't, the conversation would go like this.

Stabby ''Hey, you mind preparing haste today?
Blaster ''Yeah... don't have that in my spellbook.''
Stabby ''Oh... well nevermind then. Ready to go buddy?''


Nicos wrote:


Not, it doesn't.

Yeah, saying no it doesn't isn't really a response. It's like me saying the world is round and you saying ''Nuh uh....''

How is it not inconsiderate to tell the guy who keeps you alive, helps you out, watches your back when you're helpless, etc... No I won't prepare that one spell you asked for in one of my many spell slots that recharge every day because I like throwing fireballs instead of helping my friends?

Edit; I meant how is it not immature.


Redjack_rose wrote:
Nicos wrote:


Not, it doesn't.

Yeah, saying no it doesn't isn't really a response. It's like me saying the world is round and you saying ''Nuh uh....''

The same as you saying it is.

Redjack_rose wrote:

.''

How is it not inconsiderate to tell the guy who keeps you alive, helps you out, watches your back when you're helpless, etc... No I won't prepare that one spell you asked for in one of my many spell slots that recharge every day because I like throwing fireballs instead of helping my friends?

Easy, because throwing Fireball is helping his friends. You know, killing enemies or hurting them enough so the fighter can finish the job quicker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Or to summarize. It is understood that everyone in the team will act with the intentions of helping the team and winning the fights, how they will do it is up to them.


@Nicos

I have provided reasons for why it's an immature act. Things like it's only 1 spell, it's for a friend, it's more beneficial to the group, it takes very little time or effort, etc... It is not the same as a ''It's immature'' ''No it's not.'' conversation.

As for your summary

''It is understood that everyone in the team will act with the intentions of helping the team and winning the fights, how they will do it is up to them.''

Great, the fighter has decided to help the team, he'll ask the wizard to prepare 1 spell for him. He is acting with intentions to help the team win the fight and is doing it in a way he sees beneficial.

The wizard now says no because ''I wanna do what I want! I'm helping the team even if I'm not doing my best!''

Seriously?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Redjack_rose wrote:

@Nicos

I have provided reasons for why it's an immature act. Things like it's only 1 spell, it's for a friend, it's more beneficial to the group, it takes very little time or effort, etc... It is not the same as a ''It's immature'' ''No it's not.'' conversation.

As for your summary

''It is understood that everyone in the team will act with the intentions of helping the team and winning the fights, how they will do it is up to them.''

Great, the fighter has decided to help the team, he'll ask the wizard to prepare 1 spell for him. He is acting with intentions to help the team win the fight and is doing it in a way he sees beneficial.

The wizard now says no because ''I wanna do what I want! I'm helping the team even if I'm not doing my best!''

Seriously?

Unless really clear cut cases (like not casting breath of life or something) then Not doing his best is only the other guy opinion. Does the wizard tell the fighter to what enemy attack? what maneuver to use? to which square to move? what weapon to use?.

That is only one spell is irrelevant.


Jiggy wrote:

^Ironically, a situation that only occurs in a system using Vancian casting.

(Also, you're assuming the guy even has haste in his spellbook.)

EDIT: Ninja'd, this was a reply to Redjack_rose.

Or spellpoints. Or mana. Or Power. Or.....

Is there a system where a wizard know every spell there is and only the amount of mana stops him from casting them?

CofC has spells Known. Tunnels & Trolls. Runequest.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

You've gone back to immature - it's only immature in the contrived situations you're portraying where the fighter asks ever so politely and the wizard responds in this caricatured way; generally with a tone dripping with insincerity and sarcasm.

Stick to saying you don't like it, rather than labelling it immature.

I absolutely guarantee you that our table has no such obligation. Further that I'd only play at a table like that if there was no other option (I think that playstyle is going to miss out on many of the bits of the game I like and bring in a whole bunch of strategising/analysis - which I do all day at work and have no time for in my hobby). Your distinction, clarified by digitalelf above, that the "obligation" extends to the usage of limited-per-day options (like spell choice) but not options that are unlimited in use (like weapon choice) is peculiar, in my experience. Until this thread, I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that there's some communal obligation on the first but not the latter.

Characterising preferences different from your own as "immature" is both condescending and flawed. It suggests that with a little bit more development, the other guy will come to see things the way you do. In actual fact, my experience is exactly reversed - we used to think similarly (though slightly more extreme than you do) but grew into enjoying the game as a bunch of misfit individuals, doing their best to survive with disparate abilities and strategies, rather than some crack, special ops unit operating as a well oiled machine.

The fact that my experience is that way doesn't mean I should consider your preferences and expectations "immature" just because I went through a similar stage and have since moved on. Your's is just a different way of playing to mine. What I should be aware of is that your view could easily cause problems and resentment in my group, just as mine could cause the same in yours.

The takeaway, in my opinion, should be to always be mindful that core assumptions may not be shared by the rest of the table. Don't jump to "jerk" when the other guy may well just be trying to achieve something quite different from what you are.

101 to 150 of 338 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / To share or not to share? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.