|
This is really more of a rant but does anyone else have this problem?
I invoke thee O' Stormwind Falacy!
---
Logos has a good point.
---
"I want everyone to be at a similar power so we can all be involved..."
I understand why people use the point buy system to help this situation out... but not all classes are created equal nor should they be. There are situations where some classes will outshine the rest of the party.
---
I told him to pick a fantasy illustration as the basis for his character.
I love this idea!
---
1) Adventurers are regularly faced with life-threatening situations.
2) Adventurers don't want to die.
A good defense is a good offense. If I kill it first then it can't kill me.
If I make a char that can do 20+ pts of damage @ level 3, then so be it. If the rest of the party can't do that too, I won't hold it against them. They can probalby do something else better than my character. Ain't no thang really.---
I'm bothered by these types of threads...
it's a player style or it's a player's character creation skills that make them stand out. People want to be the heroes of the story. I think that's why we play the games we do. If they stand out it's a good thing... or it should be. I know some people take it too far and the GM should handle it the best way they can.
It's also a good point to know that 'power-creep' happens in every new book that comes out in some form or another. (The publishers know this and they know that the players want something 'new and improved' otherwise they wouldn't be making more money/books.)
I think outright banning of things is a mistake. Don't forget if the player's can make something really badass so can the GM. Power creep can do some bad things to a game when people are not prepared for it.
---
I think the english grammar thread jack is funny. w00t! bbq ftw! ciao bella!
Well, I have a rules lawyer in my game; I kinda gave him the job as he knows 3.5 better than any of the rest of us; he shows me the rule, usually out of game as were buds, and I consider the impact on my game and yeah, or nea it. It is very true that some people have a real big problem when I say a particular rule does not apply or work in my world that way though it has not really been a big issue; anyone who does not like it knows where the door is; anyone who is gonna be a problem about it; my players usually show them the door.
One thing that I think that helps moderate some players desire to rules lawyer is:
1) make it clear; your game; your game mechanic rules
2) appoint a player as rules lawyer; players take rules problems to that player, whom you trust and knows your game and why you have rules a certain way, have them deal with it; if it is something new then they bring it to the gm; this keeps rules lawyers from cutting into everyone elses gaming experience and keeps the game going while those two players go to another room and discuss it.
3) keep a list of all your rules changes or rule modifications or arbitrations and homebrew mechanics; make this available to your players so they know what is expected of them rule wise.
4) never show your hurt or anger; be nice, be gentle. Most gamers like to get together and go to some dining establishment that you can talk at and get in a big table and eat drink and discuss game stuff in a non threatening or aggressive venue.
|
And the key is that if my group HAD decided to go that route, I was prepared. DMs make a mistake when they create a scenario and imagine only one way it "should" play out, especially if they become frustrated when the players' solution doesn't meet their "correct" solution. The better way to go is to create a situation where the players' dictate the direction of the outcome, and to have several outcomes prepared.
Sticking with my above example, my players could have chosen to kill the dryad, or the islanders, or neither. They could have left. It was entirely up to them, and I had different eventualities mapped out, the only difference being that more creative solutions yielded more XP than less creative solutions. I could have had a party of 4 gestalt Monk/Driuds with Vows of Poverty all around and it wouldn't have made a difference in terms of balance, simply because the adventure was not one where combat was either the only or the most desirable solution. If you are going to rely heavily on "kill the bad guys" as a plot device, it's your responsibility to challenge the players, not ban feats and classes until they no longer challenge the DM.
The key here is that at no point did I ever think to myself, "This is how they should behave." That's...
I think you're too busy telling us that we're not adaptive enough DMs to notice the point.
In your examples all of the party are working together and getting involved. The principle complaint against power-gamers is that they make the game almost a one-on-one; taking pleasure away from the rest of the players at the table because they don't get to join in.
Whether the players adopt a combat response, intiate negotiations, work around a problem, etc etc. doesn't matter if one character does all of the problem-solving due to his/her carefully built, rules-focused character.
Everyone wants to be a hero, but not everyone wants to get involved in a splat-book arms race just to be involved in the game. balancing encounters for a seriously unbalanced party is beyond my skills and free-time.
I think outright banning of things is a mistake. Don't forget if the player's can make something really badass so can the GM. Power creep can do some bad things to a game when people are not prepared for it.
I know this is true but... why? Is it worth all the work to "up the game" when you have a specific flavour (as a DM) you are looking for? And if I wanted to get a TPK I could do it with nothing but the PHB and DMG (and with out making a NPC with a higher ECL then theirs). I wouldn't have to resort to using their "builds". Why don't I? Because it isn't about the DM vs the players. I don't wreck their characters for fun. Want to build a powerful character? Then build a powerful character. But if I ban something understand it isn't to screw you but because it unbalances my vision of the game. Don't like it? Talk to me. Still don't like it? Find another game or run a game.
I am bothered by the fact that some players want to make the character about the stats, abilities and magic items not about the story. I am bothered when their characters are a collection of those things but not a person. When they have no personality, history, etc.
And don't break out the stormwind fallacy. It is such a shield to hide behind. I know what it is and I agree with it. But we aren't arguing that you can't have powerful characters and be a good roleplayer. But nor do you need powerful characters to have fun.
We were talking about (before the whole language debate) how sometimes it is necessary for the DM or GM to point out that a player needs to trim their character down a notch. Most people I know will do this automatically. There is a big difference between optimising your character and taking every advantage you can. As a player I won't make my background hookless or my character nigh-invulnerable. Why? Because it isn't fair to the DM. As a DM you want to challenge your players. You want to engage them and make them care about their characters. But you shouldn't have to work your a$$ off more so then you already are just because one player wants to do something his way. Great. What about the rest of the players? What about the DM? This game isn't about one person. If everyone wanted to play superman with a sword that would be fine.
But it is like playing that one evil son of a b%^$# when you knew that everyone else is writing up LG characters.
That is what were talking about. When a player can't see that they are actually being selfish because their fun comes at the expense of everyone else's fun.
-----------------------------------------------------
I don't like power creep and that is why I ban certain things. just because someone else wrote something doesn't mean that I am going to allow it.
Is it not possible, at least, that the other players may need to simply cowboy up and play better characters? I find it very silly to suggest that a player should do anything other than make the best possible character they can. I think we can all agree on the following:
1) Adventurers are regularly faced with life-threatening situations.
2) Adventurers don't want to die.
It seems to me that if you accept those two premises as true, then from a realism standpoint your character should either always try to maximize his contribution to the party, or should have plans for early retirement.
As it turns ot some players like to play interesting characters over power hungry, "I've got to control every thing cause I think I am better than everyone else." players. Like I have a player who plays a shadow caster, not really the best class to do anything that is really all that usefull in most situations, but it definatly is interesting to see how he plays the character.
I think you're too busy telling us that we're not adaptive enough DMs to notice the point.
In your examples all of the party are working together and getting involved. The principle complaint against power-gamers is that they make the game almost a one-on-one; taking pleasure away from the rest of the players at the table because they don't get to join in.
Whether the players adopt a combat response, intiate negotiations, work around a problem, etc etc. doesn't matter if one character does all of the problem-solving due to his/her carefully built, rules-focused character.
Everyone wants to be a hero, but not everyone wants to get involved in a splat-book arms race just to be involved in the game. balancing encounters for a seriously unbalanced party is beyond my skills and free-time.
Exactly.
My dorkiness knows no bounds. :)
I think you meant "My hat of on-dorks know no limit" or something. Couldn't understand a word you wrote there ;-P
|
I think what the OP is describing is not rules lawyering per se, but powergaming. The two are often seen together, but are separate afflictions.
As a recovering power gamer/rules lawyer (Hello, my name is Xuttah and I'm a munchkin), I have found a way to use my powers for good. I DM. This provides me an outlet for my power-builds in a way that is both fun and challenging for my fellow gamers.
When I play, my PC's, while optimised, are usually support characters with self-imposed limitations on game-breaking mechanics. This lets me have a fun character with lots of good abilities but lets the others have the spotlight.
I can still come up with a maug knight/fighter with a spiked chain and trip build at a moment's notice (that was just on the fly BTW), but I rarely feel the urge to. Maybe this means I'm maturing as a gamer?
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I think what the OP is describing is not rules lawyering per se, but powergaming. The two are often seen together, but are separate afflictions.
...
I can still come up with a maug knight/fighter with a spiked chain and trip build at a moment's notice (that was just on the fly BTW), but I rarely feel the urge to. Maybe this means I'm maturing as a gamer?
Well, your tastes are *changing*. They may change back at some point, or you may come to enjoy both "PC as literary character" and "PC as deck design" styles depending on the situation and environment.
|
|
Well, your tastes are *changing*. They may change back at some point, or you may come to enjoy both "PC as literary character" and "PC as deck design" styles depending on the situation and environment.
Leaning towards the former more and more. Power builds are just too easy and play gets a bit boring after you use the same trick 20 or so times. Character concept and roleplay is where it's at. Not that is wasn't before, but now I have a better eye for balance within the party.
My advice for DM's with a powergamer in their group is to talk to them about your concerns and ask them to self-police in the interests of fair play and fun for the rest of the party.
If you don't roll 3d6 straight down the line you're a b%!&$!!! And the sad thing is I'm not really kidding, I was happy back in those days. Ah, the 0-level character rules, and getting fined on the streets of Greyhawk for "smelling like a dwarf." More fun than uber critting a half dragon half ghost zombie lord any day for my money.
This is really more of a rant but does anyone else have this problem?
Been gaming for over 15 years...had problems similar to that probably 15 years ago. Then, not so much.
As ever,
ACE
PS - haven't met a broken rule that couldn't be fixed in RPGs.
|
|
If you don't roll 3d6 straight down the line you're a b~*~&!!! And the sad thing is I'm not really kidding, I was happy back in those days. Ah, the 0-level character rules, and getting fined on the streets of Greyhawk for "smelling like a dwarf." More fun than uber critting a half dragon half ghost zombie lord any day for my money.
I think that you forgot to add a ;) or ;P at the end of that. :)
Besides, you can't score a crit on a zombie lord anyways; it's undead! ;)
As it turns ot some players like to play interesting characters over power hungry, "I've got to control every thing cause I think I am better than everyone else." players. Like I have a player who plays a shadow caster, not really the best class to do anything that is really all that usefull in most situations, but it definatly is interesting to see how he plays the character.
Well, I think that grossly mischaracterizes what I'd said. I repeat:
1) Adventurers are regularly faced with life-threatening situations.
2) Adventurers don't want to die.
All this means is that if you're playing a fighter in full plate, then spending a feat on Stealthy is pretty stupid compared with Weapon Specialization. Play all the Shadowcasters you want, but make it a *useful character*. One of my favorite classes is Truenamer, but I'm always, always going to take Skill Focus: Truenaming when I play one because I want the character to be maximally useful, i.e. I don't want my character to die. Conversely, I once played with a person whose wizard character memorized Greater Teleport *twice* and was without Disintegrate when heading into a dungeon. I doubt anyone would argue that wizard isn't a powerful class, but that guy turned his into a commoner with a pointy hat through lousy spell selection.
A half-ogre spiked chain wielding fighter with improved trip is really, really good at one thing and one thing only. He still has bad reflex and will saves, and while he might be super amazing in a toe-to-toe fight, that's really just incentive for the NPCs to avoid a toe-to-toe fight with him.
A big part of the problem some folks might be having is that most of the modern pre-fab adventures are heavily combat oriented as D&D becomes more and more like a videogame and less and less like the open-ended story that it has been (which is not to say that there haven't been vast improvements in the rules); the videogame mindset focuses solely on raw power and solely on "action" as a means to resolve plot points.
point taken. and now i understand more clearly... thank you.
If you don't roll 3d6 straight down the line you're a b~*~&!!! And the sad thing is I'm not really kidding, I was happy back in those days. Ah, the 0-level character rules, and getting fined on the streets of Greyhawk for "smelling like a dwarf." More fun than uber critting a half dragon half ghost zombie lord any day for my money.
I think that you forgot to add a ;) or ;P at the end of that. :)
Besides, you can't score a crit on a zombie lord anyways; it's undead! ;)
Oh sure you can, you just need the 5 different splatbooks that you can combine prestige classes and feats and alternate class features from to make it possible.
And pretty much - didn't forget.
Oh sure you can, you just need the 5 different splatbooks that you can combine prestige classes and feats and alternate class features from to make it possible.
And pretty much - didn't forget.
Exactly what i started this thread about... useing like 5 different books, most of which are really obscure, and "breaking the game".
|
|
Exactly what i started this thread about... useing like 5 different books, most of which are really obscure, and "breaking the game".
Another thing that my gaming group has, whether it's me or my friend DMing, is an understanding that anything the PC's have access to, so do the bad guys. If we agree that a certain splat book, spell or feat is allowed for the PC's, then the NPC's can have it too. This keeps the cheese level down to a pretty reasonable level. Kind of like a nuclear deterrant only with dice and books.
Another way to keep adventures challenging and fair for groups with a super-optimised character is to tailor your encounters a bit more. If the dominating character is less than optimally effective all the time, then the other players get time to shine too.
Example: I have a player with a grappler build minotaur (+25 to grapple at level 8!). Any lone baddy that goes up against him gets smooshed in a few rounds (grab, gore, pin). I very quickly realised that this character was going to be a problem because he basically dominates melee combat. To counter this I've thrown in a variety of combat encounters from flying or incorporial foes to plain ol' hordes of weaker enemies. This reduces the minotaur's impact on the encounter, but not so much that he feels useless, and ensures the participation of the rest of the party.
It's a tough balancing act though.
This is really more of a rant but does anyone else have this problem?Been gaming for over 15 years...had problems similar to that probably 15 years ago. Then, not so much.
As ever,
ACEPS - haven't met a broken rule that couldn't be fixed in RPGs.
I've been at this for more then a little while myself but I find that I actually have significantly less trouble these days then in 1st and 2nd edition. In part I think this is becuase some classes are not significantly better then others from the get go. I don't have to work as hard to make sure that the thief and the magic-user are balanced in 3.5 becuase, in general, their at least in the same ball park in terms of power.
The other big difference is pure experience. If it is busted its gone...I'll give you 5 minutes to convince me that my call is bad and thats all. Back in the day I could end up arguing for, literally, hours.
Finally I think that, as bad as 3.5 is in respect to open ended rules and mechanics its an order of magnitude clearer then 1st and 2nd edition ever was. I've found that DMing in rules lawyer mode at least insures that we are all playing by the same rules.