Hedgehog's page

Jiggy wrote: In any conversation in which the participants know what roleplaying is, the whole "roleplay vs rollplay" thing simply doesn't exist.

I've found this to be almost completely true in my home game. Of course, Jiggy didn't elaborate, so I'm interpreting the comment my way. :)

Let's say players write background and goals well-integrated with the campaign setting, and the GM (me) creates (or modifies) plentiful encounters so that the encounters have meaning in terms of the character's story arcs. You could then have a 12-hour game session of non-stop combat, and the entire time it's role-playing, because the fights are all meaningful to who the characters are. Just sayin'

I GM a regular home game mostly using modified APs. Currently running Wrath of the Righteous. One character has 7 pages (!) of backstory for his tiefling Inquisitor. Not everyone's cup of joe, but I feel privileged that I get to enjoy the efforts of this player. Oh, he's also a really well built Inquisitor - very effective during fights. ;)

I was late to discover these awesome letters (book 4), but I have been using A as an NPC friend of the Professor from as early as Lepidstadt. A has developed an interest in the Professors daughter, placing him in mild competition with one of the PCs.

The group is currently about to enter the Vampire Undergroud, having captured (good job!) Merrick Sais. A has remained undiscovered as a villain, but it is now time to show his hand. Letter 4 will be waiting for the group at their lodgings when they return from the Underground to rest.

I will use letter 5 before beginning Shadows. Also, I'll need to modify them to incorporate our campaign quirks (for example A's cold-hearted, calculating, but intellectually stimulating plan to make a devoted bride out of Kendra Lorrimor).

Thanks much for these Loki_Thief!
And thanks Scadgrad for the genuine appearance.

I'm thinking this AP will make a subscriber out of me - I can't wait.

I loved the menacing threat of Iuz in the Greyhawk setting, so I fell in love with the Worldwound from the first time I read of it.

Also, I'm a big fan of (Mr. Jacobs' list of hooks):
1) The mythic adventure path.
2) The big demon themed AP.
3) The "great choice for paladins and other good guys" AP.
4) The Big War AP.

"I used to bull's-eye Iuz-rats in my T-16 back home...but some of them are much bigger than 2 meters!" (sorry to mix genres)

I can't wait! Er, did I say that already?

Hedgehog, I love you!

"Waaaaaambulance."

Had to stop reading until my eyes cleared.

Plus cogent argument with good points.

Alitan, can you teach me to speak Gamercant, please?

Hedgehog wrote:

The gripe I have is not at all with min-maxing itself

Although high levels of optimization do make encounters easier (duh), I've gotta call BS on this. You do have a gripe with min-maxing. If you truly were okay with it, you wouldn't be saying things like "anyone wanting to play an actual character" (implies that anyone else - the optimizers - do not want to play an actual character), or "the roll-players" (an established term used to denote someone who optimizes but does not roleplay). Had you actually believed there was nothing wrong with optimization, you'd have made no comment on roleplaying ability (yes, one can be mentioned without the other).

No, you quite obviously believe that roleplaying and optimization are at opposite ends of a spectrum, and that the roleplaying end is superior.

Whether or not that's correct is a topic for another thread, but it's quite obvious you believe it, so please don't drag that old debate into this already-heated-at-times thread, and PLEASE don't insult the intelligence of every reader here by claiming not to have that view.

Jiggy! Jiggy! Let's be friends!

If only you could have overheard the discussion tonight between myself and one of my min-maxing home game players, you would know that you've misjudged me. I think his comment was actually relevant to this thread. He said "rather than a bunch of restrictions on power level, I'd much rather play optimized characters against optimized monsters". This is, in fact, what he gets from me in our home game, where I can throw a few fighter levels and some optimized feat choices on say, a frost giant (using an awesome new Pathfinder Battles miniature, of course - I prefer the sword to the axe), because I know his PC is gonna waste 'im (probably) before the giant slashes the rest of the PCs to death.

Without leeway to modify encounters in Society play, how could I accommodate a group made up of players like him? Which, by the way, I would be happy to do. Answer: I can't. That's not about "min-maxing, good or bad?" it's about "PFS GM-ing, can you modify scenarios, or not?"
I think a bit of leeway in OP, if it could somehow be encoded in a rules section, would be a plus.

Don't the faction mission suffer from an incentive problem? Since earned fame is tied to what you can purchase, it makes stickler or rigid GM's seem like miserly poopy-heads if they don't let me get creative beyond what's written. "Cheat" in the players favor? As my old female Alaskan GM would say "You Betcha!"

nosig wrote:
so - please don't critisize the min-maxers to much. being one myself, I can assure you we are not all the jerks some would have you think we are.

I believe that I can tie in min-maxing with the original thread idea of "as written vs. GM caveat".

First, Organized Play is set up in such a way that players who want to play PFRPG at a table with balanced, non-optimized, non-min-maxed characters (I’ll use Eando Kline’s build as an example, or Valeros) are completely out of luck. A group with min-maxed characters can swiftly bring what might have been an interesting 3-4 round fight to a boring 1 round conclusion. Essentially anyone wanting to play an actual character will tend to be sidelined by people who would rather play a set of optimized stats. Such is Society play.

The gripe I have is not at all with min-maxing itself (see below). The gripe I have is that if I’m going to attempt to enjoy Society play (as a GM and as a player), I have no choice but to accept min-maxed style characters, and sleepwalk through scenarios when the “as written” is nowhere near robust enough to provide a credible challenge to the roll-players. Their style can be imposed upon me, but I cannot impose my style upon them. I’m not asking for the ‘Waaambulance’ to be called, just pointing out that the situation is inherently one-sided, which tends to generate a bit of cynicism (I know I’m not alone in that).

I don’t dislike optimizing, it’s actually kind of fun. Am I myself a hypocrite? Possibly, since in my homebrew game I essentially allow anyone to min-max if they want to. In that setting, I have all of the freedom I need to make sure that each game session has something for everyone. I can fudge faction missions (I use the outstanding faction rules provided in the Faction Guide), or fudge encounters all that I want.

I do wish I had more leeway in Society scenarios to add or subtract challenge in terms of creature type and creature count, so that I could go in either direction in terms of challenge. I’d feel more incentive to GM in Society if that leeway were possible, whereas now I prefer to save my efforts for home games.

Since I’ll continue to play at the local Society games, and GM there, I find this thread quite interesting. I must admit to having felt sorely tempted to nudge up the challenge while GM-ing Song of the Sea Witch for a min-maxed group of 5. I just felt that the rules of Society play forbade me from adding monsters or changing stats. I believe that everyone’s fun would actually have increased, if there had been more of a challenge.

Kerney wrote:

As far as the gold screw goes, most players have more than enough that it is not a problem.

Maybe not a problem mechanically, but it can sure feel like a slight to the player who paid for stuff. Somebody once broke into my car (and smashed the window to do it). He probably needed the money from the stuff he stole more than I did, and the cost of replacing the window wasn't enough to make me miss my rent payment or anything. But I was still upset about having to pay for it (and I don't think unreasonably so).

In the same way, if Player A gets a little free stuff and Player B pays his own way, the gold itself might not end up mattering mechanically, but Player B would still be within his rights to be pissed about it. And failing to care about Player B's fun just because he's from someone else's table seems pretty hypocritical from anyone who claims to prioritize fun.

I believe in fun for as many players as possible, not just the handful at my table.

This is a really good point, I think. The larger responsibility GMs have towards everyone that plays in Sociey should be a part of how every Society scenario is run. I think mabye the OP was trying to lift the veil on GMs "tweaking" things during a game to get a sense of what is actually happening out there in Society play.

It's sounding to me like some 'hypocrisy' in judging is almost intended by certain sections of the GPSOP.

nosig wrote:

"I have seen a PC (played in a game with him last month) who had a wand of CLW for his fighter - and a rank in UMD so he could heal himself. and a CHA of 7. He explained that Judges just hand wave the healing. I was shocked. I had played my bard (who has 2 wands of CLW) so that the party could heal up after a fight and offered to use his wand for him. He explained he didn't need me to. he just UMDed it. and never bothered any of the other players OR THE JUDGE about it."

I agree with the sentiment expressed here. It really grates on my nerves to think that a GM would hand wave that Cha 7 Fighter character and his use of UMD.That example has spiraled way out of the 'creative solution' galaxy into a whole other kind of universe, in my opinion.

nosig wrote:
"why was I playing my bard? ... well, because I felt the party needed a "Face" and I could heal."

Really, these are the types of players that I actually want to play with and GM for, and see rewarded for creative solutions. If I NEVER see someone like the Cha 7 UMD Fighter at my table, it would be great...I occasionally daydream about an anti-min/maxer stasis ray that I could shoot from my eyes, it would hurt anyone, just freeze them for 4 hours while I had fun playing PFSOP.

Absolutes :(

That I might, ever, under any circumstances, give free healing does not mean that I would always, under all circumstances, give free healing.

Hey, if a character dies, that player is not having Fun. Maybe he did right up to the glorious end, but he's not now. Yet it's not Fair to let him live anyway. You balance the two. You strive to have both, but eventually you come to times where you have to choose which to sacrifice in the name of the other. How you make those decisions is what I'm talking about.

And I'll be so bold as to suggest that it appears to me that's what the thread is originally about.

Edit: the '1 on a UMD check' thing: It occurs to me that the forest was missed because of all the trees in the way O.o

That specific example I gave:
1. only 1 player at a table full of PFS players has any ranks in UMD
2. out of all those players, the ONLY source of healing available is a single wand
3. the players were literally brought togther at random and had no way to control who else they'd be gaming with, making a perfect storm of 1 AND 2 happening together possible
4. A '1' comes up on an early UMD check and with my knowledge of the remaining portion of the scenario, they just have NO way to complete the scenario even far enough to recieve a chronicle w/o further healing

Now come on, that's a pretty speficic, and extreme example. I've never seen it. I was saying that if I DID, I'd be amenable to throwing a bone and letting them keep having Fun as opposed to being Fair and watching them go past the event horizon.

I can see how 'RAW BY RAW ALL THE TIME NO DEVIATIONS' can mistake that hypothetical for 'I'd allow free heals on a 1 UMD skill check all the time!'

Table variation. Even applies when the the identity of the GM doesn't change ;)

LOL! You guys are crackin' me up! Last night I played my weird 2nd level barbarian in 0-06 Black Waters. We had 5 players with no healing classes at all. Only my 14 Charisma barbarian with Dangerously Curious (giving him UMD, which I'm going to keep maxed) and a Wand of CLW gained by spending 2 PP could provide healing.

I rolled a d20 for each and every attempt to use that wand! No 1s, thank heavens.

Now, as far as 'creative solutions': The GM basically allowed the sorcerer, playing a brand new 1st level character, to rework his skill choices to take UMD, lest disaster strike. This was technically after the scenario had started, since we were 2 encounters into things. This doesn't touch on faction mission or combat encounter stuff that the OP was talking about, but I agree with the decision because he was a newer player.

I think it's important to give consideration to the fact that the GM is running an AP. To me, this means that the group as a whole has signed on to "go through an adventure path" as opposed to signing up for "Sith Hunter's encounters as he sees fit".

It' my opinion that the player has a significant responsibility to the group, including to the GM, to help ensure an enjoyable experience for everyone. More so in an AP, where the GM is trying to stick to "as written".

Therefore, one player holding out for personal benefit in a situation where the game encounters can't really be changed all that much, is unacceptable. If the group will still play without that person, and that person will actually quit over this issue, then let them go.

Also, I agree with everyone who said its the players responsibility to know all of the rules (errata included) for their character, and adjusting for errata should be a non-issue.

+1 to Black Moria's idea of adding an "anti-selective spell" spellcaster to some encounters, if you can accept that.

I enjoyed Arcticon and I liked playing all 3 First Steps scenarios in a row. Doubtless I'm not the first to consider official ways of tweaking those scenarios to increase "replay-ability",(for example 3 different encounter possibilities for each 'encounter slot' in a given scenario).

I really liked meeting the World War 2 reenactors at the con, although not all RPG-ers like to mix their metaphors.

Is there a spell or set of tactics that can be used?. I remember spell vulnerability from the d20 3.5 version so is there a pathfinder equivalent?

Thanks!

Todd

There's the indirect way (i.e. not actually affecting the monster itself) by using feats: Spell Penetration, Greater Spell Penetration, Piercing Spell (from UM). Also, being an elf helps.