RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Can it? Does it? I've heard big claims but have yet to see the links. What I've seen are bold assertions of mathematical gamer-fu, but I don't actually get to see the proof.For this to be valid, you would need to employ some type of dimensional analysis (and even that would be a stretch). There are thousands of variables (controlled and random) and even more thousands of possible combinations. There is no meaningful way to actually playtest all of that and there is likely no good way to perform a solid statistical analysis that isn't overloaded with assumptions.
Just saying "we'll test a Fighter at level 10" wouldn't give you a meaningful answer usable across the entire spctrum of classes and levels. For example, there are 330 possible combinations (without repetition) for the 4-man party given the 11 core classes. Now, imagine they all multiclass into all the possible combinations. The problem of even theoretical statistical analysis quickly becomes complex.
-Skeld
Exactly. So, let's cut the nonsense about objective approaches to playtesting and character optimization. Unless you are going to do this kind of statistical analysis, I won't even be convinced that a party that is min/maxed into specific roles beats a party of generalists.
|
Unless you are going to do this kind of statistical analysis...
I doubt anyone on these boards have the time or desire to do any kind of real combinational/statistical analysis that would stand up to rigorous review. That kind of undertaking is probably beyond a graduate-level task in scope and time; not likely something someone on these boards will do in their spare time for fun.
Anyone with the skills to really pull this off is already studying global warming and raking in the grant money by the truckload.
-Skeld
|
|
I am not a min/maxer by any means. I personally view such PLAYERS in the same realm as rules lawyers, and we go have a little chat about what sort of game I'm running and how they may want to reconsider their character in order to better fit with the players at my table.
That being said, I support a Char/Op board:
1) There's a difference between theoretical discussion concerning min/max and actually bringing it to the table. Just because someone builds "uber characters" doesn't mean that's the only way they play, and therefore min/maxing persons do not represent a threat to the more RP style of play.
2) Paizo and the boards have always had an atmosphere of inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness.
3) As a DM, there are things I can learn from said approach and boards that will help me abjudicate things in my own game. How to identify problems in advance, for example.
4) We each approach the game in different ways. I've NEVER sat down and plotted my character based upon a path. I select a class, make up my character concept, then select elements that suit that character - I'll worry about level 2 when I get there. That doesn't mean mine is the ONLY acceptable approach - some players want to plan out what classes and such, and I support this as well.
5) As brought up earlier, having a board dedicated to CharOp will allow other threads to not be derailed by the CharOp/Theoretics argument popping up in the thread. Our CharOp buddies can simply pop into a thread and drop a "We discussed this in depth over here - you may want to take a look. Those that are NOT looking to CharOp will have an area they can steer clear of.
6) Separate board or not, the CharOp guys exist, and they're going to discuss their approach in public, as is their right. I'd rather they feel welcome and have a place to do so rather than being ostracized. Unfortunately, separate board or not, they also face a certain amount of resistance from the non-min/max side of the house, and should expect a level of backwash.
All that being said, please don't assume that because you theoretically have identified an issue means that you need to crusade the issue. We're not talking about global warming, the energy crisis, economy, or Roe v. Wade here, we're talking a game. Respect my belief that the universe is not going to collapse because you've identified an issue that seems important to you, and I promise not to scoff at your analysis.
We'll get along charmingly.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Unless you are going to do this kind of statistical analysis...I doubt anyone on these boards have the time or desire to do any kind of real combinational/statistical analysis that would stand up to rigorous review. That kind of undertaking is probably beyond a graduate-level task in scope and time; not likely something someone on these boards will do in their spare time for fun.
Anyone with the skills to really pull this off is already studying global warming and raking in the grant money by the truckload.
-Skeld
I agree. That being the case, the claims of 'brokenness,' 'pwning,' and 'ruling' that we've seen of late are unsubstantiated and quite possibly hogwash.
EDIT: An example from another thread ...
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
|
|
EDIT: An example from another thread ...
Are you honestly saying that the opinions of these people--these people who have playtested 3.5--are worth more than my ability to provide a mathematical analysis conclusively demonstrating that 3.5 clerics, wizards, and druids dominate the game while fighters sit on the bench and cry?
Well, there goes all my logic out the window ...
|
|
So I don't feel guilty about the threadjack: I'd be ok with a CharOp section if only for the following 2 reasons...
1) It would keep all the ChaOp'ing in one place and everyone that wanted to go there could (and everyone that wanted to pretend it didn't exist could ignore it).
2) There's a big sticky at the top that says, "New PRPG Players - these are not viable character concepts, they are thought exercises!" Because most DM's here would have an anuerism if any of the CharOp characters show up in their game.
Now back to a topic near and dear to my heart:
I agree. That being the case, the claims of 'brokenness,' 'pwning,' and 'ruling' that we've seen of late are unsubstantiated and quite possibly hogwash.
Hmmm, unsubstantiated hogwash? I would say such claims are substatiated by at least some anecdotal evidence. Those claims are then disputed by someone else's anecdotal evidence.
All of the analysis I've seen so far relies very heavily on a set of assumptions made by the analyst. Change the assumptions, change the analysis. You really have to boil the whole thing down into a set of facts that aren't dependent on assumptions.
-Skeld
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
So I don't feel guilty about the threadjack: ....
-Skeld
I'm not feeling this is a threadjack but, in case the point is being lost, what I am suggesting is that claims are being made based on 'optimized' characters. Furthermore, calling them 'optimized' instead of 'specialized' is a bit misleading unless you are going to do that ... umm ... that transdimensional multi-planar variant postdoctoral analysis thingee that skeld mentioned.
So, we shouldn't have a Character Optimization forum, because they are not optimized.
I would argue that they are not characters either as little is written about their personalities, they are seldom given a name, and their background is non-existant but the Beta's stats-first description of character generation wouldn't support that.
So, in conclusion: "Not optimized; not characters."
I do not support a 'character optimization forum'.
|
Agreed, a CharOp board invites a whole other type of atmosphere to the boards.
That, for me, is the crux of the problem. I'm opposed to an optimization forum for this very reason. There is already way too much attention given to game systems and rules discussions. A CharOp forum would encourage that particular take on gaming.
I have nothing against message boards or members talking about that sort of thing. I just think that this particular aspect shouldn't be emphasized on Paizo's boards. If there would be such a forum, why not a character background forum, then? A DMing and Campaign Building forum?
A "rules" forum would seem more appropriate because it would be less focused. This type of forum already exists here.
Like the first reply said, it's going to serve as a lightning rod for balance issues.
Also, it seems that a lot of people here believe in the Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive. Most of the CharOp regulars in the Wizards boards are also very good roleplayers.
If we're going to be playtesting this game, we're going to need people who know how to break it so we can fix it.
Claiming that all people who are anti optimisation are commiting the stormwind fallacy is a strawman arguement.
It should also be noted that the stormwind fallacy is flawed. It should state that Roleplaying and character optimisation are not always mutually exclusive.
There are entire rafts of character concepts which cannot be built in the mind set of character optimisation. To do so, would be bad roleplaying, on those occations optimisation and roleplaying ARE mutually exclusive.
There are few character concepts which should be reflected with extreme mini-maxing, and they represent exceptionally rare and damaged people.
18 strength and 8 or less intelligence should make a character like lenny for of mice and men. While an idiot-savant should have extremely high intelligence and low wisdom. To play a concept that should not have such spiked stats, yet does, can fairly be argued to be bad roleplaying.
Equally, to gloss over negative aspects of a characters strengths, such as to ignore the fact that your strength 18 fighter should look like a participant in the worlds strongest man contest, but to instead have him be a beautiful well toned guy, can also be considered poor roleplaying.
Also, it seems that a lot of people here believe in the Stormwind Fallacy. Roleplaying and optimization are not mutually exclusive. Most of the CharOp regulars in the Wizards boards are also very good roleplayers.In the last few weeks, people have been making posts using terminology I'd nor heard before, as if they were commonly-used terms. Until I asked the Google-spirits, who lead me to some posts on Gleemax, I didn't know who Tempest Stormwind is, nor had I heard of his fallacy.
Earlier this week, people were tossing the term "gish" around, and were a little dismissive of someone else who asked what the term meant.
We may just be a bunch of old farts here, but I'd wager that a few more clarifications-of-terms would be helpful.
--+--+--
I'm an old-guard Champions player, and character-optimization in D&D has nothing on some of the abuses that are possible using Champions. For example** spoiler omitted **
It's a fun intellectual exercise. Much the same as building a killer Magic deck or getting really good at the Dragon variations of the Sicilian openings in chess.
I think it's poisonous to actually bring an "optimized" character into a live role-playing game with a bunch of normal, non-optimized PC's, because sooner or later somebody's not going to be having fun. (The same is true for playing expensive, tweaked-out Magic decks among friends who are casual players.)
I don't think Character Optimization is worth much in play-testing. The goal of playtesting is to catch problems that corrupt gameplay....
What is Gish? i have never had the heart to ask. :)
Whenever I stumble across a CharOps forum, I'm tempted to threadjack the 500 posts on how to optimize some min/max ranger by asking "So .... um... what are you going to name this bad boy?".
Here's my problem with the character optimizers and self-proclaimed objective playtesters:
** spoiler omitted **
Or ensure that your claim lists conditionality. So, under x,y and z conditions, this character is the superiour. Under other conditions this may be different.
How about any sequence of 5 or more three letter class-level codes divided by slashes?
Maybe Gary can pull a "smurf". Just write some code that changes the avatar of anyone who mentions "optimization" into one of these. ;)
you'd probably get some organic character builders in that drag net too.
Thought not may i suspect.|
|
Agreed, a CharOp board invites a whole other type of atmosphere to the boards.That, for me, is the crux of the problem. I'm opposed to an optimization forum for this very reason. There is already way too much attention given to game systems and rules discussions. A CharOp forum would encourage that particular take on gaming.
I have nothing against message boards or members talking about that sort of thing. I just think that this particular aspect shouldn't be emphasized on Paizo's boards. If there would be such a forum, why not a character background forum, then? A DMing and Campaign Building forum?
A "rules" forum would seem more appropriate because it would be less focused. This type of forum already exists here.
That is exactly my thoughts on why we shouldn't have it also. When players have someplace to troll around to find 'broken' characters they tend to mine the area for ideas and use parts of that in their builds and slowly but surely lean the game into a broken area. If a player figures it out and it starts working into a game gradually then that is something a DM has to deal with but when a player can click and scan through a bunch of different 'optimized' versions of a class without doing the work involved to dream up that combo himself it becomes much more prevalent in games. I have 2 players who start discussions about their PCs with "I was on the CharOp boards the other day, not that I would use that in game but....." usually followed by a discussion as to why they should be allowed to play a pixie sorcerer or some crap, or suddenly I see a spell combo used in game that is cheap, highly repeatable and tears through ELs of +4 over the party level with ease.
To me CharOps is cheating. People may not totally use a build in game but they take just enough of the ideas to make their PCs the center of focus cheating everyone else at the table out of their fun.Hand out free guns and there are going to be people who abuse them.
This is correct. Originally, the term was exclusive to the Githyanki, but has since become generalised.What is Gish? i have never had the heart to ask. :)I think that a gish refers to a fighter-magic user type of character.
How and why though, I have no idea.
Oh, live and learn...
I still consider that character optimization can be considered a mental exercise not without worth, though of course to be truly optimized in real world out there, the optimized characters should also survive both Rule 0 and ire of the fellow players. So I consider it a purely theoretical exercise.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
People have made some good points against a Char Op forum here. I, myself, would probably screen off any posts there. There are other areas of the board I hide: other people's campaign notes, the "n-word game" forum, and --because of recent hostility-- the Beta playtest fora.
But, you know, I'm not king of the world. And I'm fine with the Paizo boards being a welcoming place to people whose interests differ from mine.
Character Optimization is the kind of intellectual exercise that some people like. If other folk wanted to have a forum on Magic deck design here, I'd be okay with that, too.
And I'd like to address what Character Optimization does to a board's tenor or demeanor: with some embarrassing exceptions, we've demonstrated class and strength of character that is rare to find in some other on-line neighborhoods, and I'm confident that these boards would be no different.
It would be bizarre if we could maintain civil discourse about religion and politics, but not about the uses to which a twinked-out PC could put a bardiche.
When players have someplace to troll around to find 'broken' characters they tend to mine the area for ideas and use parts of that in their builds and slowly but surely lean the game into a broken area... Hand out free guns and there are going to be people who abuse them.
Fakey, the problem I see is that we can't ban all players from the Internet. If there's not an "cheese workshop" (er... "optimization forum") here, rest assured one will quickly be hosted elsewhere, and that same conversation with your players will take place. Maybe we don't want people with attitudes like the Simpsons' "Comic-Book-Guy" (er... "pro character optimizers") here, but you and I lack the ability to ban them from Paizo wholesale -- all we can do is keep trying to make them act civilly (and Gary seems to have a nice touch in supporting that endeavor -- not too ham-handed, but not afraid to issue a ban when needed, either).
I can see both sides -- give 'em a forum to keep 'em off the other threads, or try and refuse them haven here, like they're terrorists. Or maybe tolerate them, and talk to your players about why they're not allowed to use some of these builds at your table.
|
It seems like I might have to reiterate.
I am against CharOp in general, but for a CharOp forum. Think of it like a penal colony. As soon as the thread degenerates into comparisons of builds (which I have no real use for, personally) we can have Gary dump it in the CharOp dungeon. Then I don't have to see it. ;)
One of my students suggested the other day that the first people sent to colonize Mars should be convicts. Maybe they should be CharOp instead.
|
|
To the CharOp board's credit, Wizards has issued errata for several of the exploits found, including the Orcus Slayer and the Mage Hand wall.
Although for some reason they still haven't errata'd Seal of Binding (one of the most broken powers in the game).
Edit: Fake Healer, the point of a CharOp board would be to help the developers figure out which rules need to be changed. We're like the cast of that Discovery Channel show, "It Takes a Thief".
The cast of that show is made up of reformed thieves who break into their guest's home so that the vulnerabilities in their security can be fixed.
Besides, min/maxing is fun!
But if opimization is fun, why take away the very rules that allow you to do it? By the way I'm offended by the term min/maxing. It's so hateful. ;p
I do not support a 'character optimization forum'.
Everything you say enrages me.
There's no cause for you to cast judgment on a style of gaming that you cannot possibly understand. Please do everyone a favor and stop talking.
In related news, this is the first time I've ever felt cast against on these forums. Does it bloody matter I enjoy building characters?
Yes, I build characters as a past-time, and I try to do it optimally. There's no cause to be sour against people that do this, other than you can't do it yourself.
Employing a CO board wouldn't hurt any of you. I haven't once heard anyone in support of CO bad mouth anyone not supporting it. Yet, I have seen countless people on the other side say their mind ruthlessly.
Stop the hate.
But if opimization is fun, why take away the very rules that allow you to do it? By the way I'm offended by the term min/maxing. It's so hateful. ;p
Ignorant. Most CO don't bend rules, they don't break loops, most of us don't try to ruin the system purely for the enjoyment. We enjoy making characters that are powerful, not broken or unplayable. What you are describing is Character Theories.
I can see both sides -- give 'em a forum to keep 'em off the other threads, or try and refuse them haven here, like they're terrorists. Or maybe tolerate them, and talk to your players about why they're not allowed to use some of these builds at your table.
Your entire post is absolutely beyond approach. I move that this type of talk and people making blanket statements of this magnitude be stricken from these boards. This sort of outrageous behavior is what soils humanity.
I can see both sides -- give 'em a forum to keep 'em off the other threads, or try and refuse them haven here, like they're terrorists. Or maybe tolerate them, and talk to your players about why they're not allowed to use some of these builds at your table.Your entire post is absolutely beyond approach. I move that this type of talk and people making blanket statements of this magnitude be stricken from these boards. This sort of outrageous behavior is what soils humanity.
I think you missed it: Two sides: side 1 = what the anti's are saying; Side 2 = tolerance. I might have been leaning in favor of tolerance, although your post makes me think that the antis in side 1 have a valid point.
Also, I think "beyone reproach" is what you intended saying. "Soils humanity" is needless hyperbole; it adds nothing to your point.
Tempest Stormwind and Oberoni would have a field day in these boards. A lot of the anti-CharOp people here are guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy and the Oberoni Fallacy.
I've never had problems with intolerance in the various CharOp boards I've been on. Most of the intolerance I've experienced came from the roleplaying boards, at least once the vocal minority realizes that I do not see the game the way they see it.
Not having a place where all the exploits are displayed for all will not make them go away. It will just make them harder to spot. Us CharOp regulars don't need our own CharOp board to be effective optimizers. The ones who benefit the most from a CharOp board are your everyday DMs and players who want to see which is broken and which is not.
|
|
Not as much as you would like. If it isn't on Wikipedia, chances are it is a localized phenomenon.
Same goes for the Oberoni Fallacy.
I don't know what makes me sigh more - the CharOps boards, or the fact they have names for the way they debate things.
Nobody here is using the so-called "Stormwind Fallacy". You can be a perfectly fine roleplayer and also be an optimizer. What some of us are claiming is that optimizing doesn't ADD anything to roleplaying as a concept.
Ill be honest I get the impresion that those terms were made up by people trying to make themselves sound like collage profesors.
A lot of the anti-CharOp people here are guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy and the Oberoni Fallacy.
That's quite true. However, many (luckily not all) of the CharOp people are equally guilty of the Trollman Fallacy: that talking like Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons somehow imbues the speaker with superior intellect and mathematical infallability.
The boards have two components: game content and comradery. One is not inherently more important than the other. If the more obnoxious CharOp immigrants would be willing to assimilate into their new culture a bit, and maybe post as if they're speaking to friendly acquaintances (rather than as if they're speaking to mindless 3-year-olds), they would find a MUCH warmer welcome. As it is, the ones who are refusing to adapt are giving the whole group a bad name.
|
|
Tempest Stormwind and Oberoni would have a field day in these boards. A lot of the anti-CharOp people here are guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy and the Oberoni Fallacy.
I've never had problems with intolerance in the various CharOp boards I've been on. Most of the intolerance I've experienced came from the roleplaying boards, at least once the vocal minority realizes that I do not see the game the way they see it.
Not having a place where all the exploits are displayed for all will not make them go away. It will just make them harder to spot. Us CharOp regulars don't need our own CharOp board to be effective optimizers. The ones who benefit the most from a CharOp board are your everyday DMs and players who want to see which is broken and which is not.
Its funny. You and many of our new visitors are obviously guilty of the Underling Fallacy.
Haven't heard of it? Well, basically it states that "New board members who assume the existing community gives a crap about their accomplishments or reputation on other boards. Typified by an overblown sense of self importance, and a consistent attempt to paint those whose preferences are not in line with the new poster as stubborn, ignorant, or obstructionist."
This fallacy is often, but not always, accompanied by the "Underling Selective Logic Corollary" which states that otherwise intelligent people intentionally misconstrue the meaning of a post, for argumentative reasons. Often used to justify rude posting by pretending not to understand moderators requests for good behavior"
EDIT: Joe, your posts have not really been bad. This is more a general objection to the recent overuse of WotC boards lingo and philosophy in our community. Many, if not most posters here chose these boards because we like Paizo's community and disliked the WotC boards. Seeing this type of pseudo-intellectual arguments appear grates on many of us.
|
A lot of the anti-CharOp people here are guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy and the Oberoni Fallacy.That's quite true.
Honestly, it really isn't. I went back and reread the entire thread, and there is exactly one instance of Stormwind, and none of Oberoni (as I understand them, anyway). Almost all of the objections stem from something that isn't covered by either "fallacy," namely the idea that excessive optimization is damaging to the game as a whole, either by encouraging players who are interested in their characters' "power" over the enjoyment of the rest of their gaming group, or by creating a perception of "brokenness" in game systems or situations via theoretical analysis that does not actually exist in nontheoretical gameplay.
Being so quick to label objections to your desires as "established fallacies" does not really support your case, Mr. Silver, particularly when they don't actually have anything to do with those fallacies.
The boards have two components: game content and comradery. One is not inherently more important than the other. If the more obnoxious CharOp immigrants would be willing to assimilate into their new culture a bit, and maybe post as if they're speaking to friendly acquaintances (rather than as if they're speaking to mindless 3-year-olds), they would find a MUCH warmer welcome. As it is, the ones who are refusing to adapt are giving the whole group a bad name.
As someone who both appreciates the potential in mathematical analysis and enjoys spectating in CharOp boards, I support this statement whole-heartedly. A CharOp section would be fine and dandy. A continuation of some of the attitudes that have been appearing over the last month or so is not.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I do not support a 'character optimization forum'.Everything you say enrages me.
There's no cause for you to cast judgment on a style of gaming that you cannot possibly understand. Please do everyone a favor and stop talking.
In related news, this is the first time I've ever felt cast against on these forums. Does it bloody matter I enjoy building characters?
Yes, I build characters as a past-time, and I try to do it optimally. There's no cause to be sour against people that do this, other than you can't do it yourself.
Employing a CO board wouldn't hurt any of you. I haven't once heard anyone in support of CO bad mouth anyone not supporting it. Yet, I have seen countless people on the other side say their mind ruthlessly.
Stop the hate.
I think you have mistaken me for someone else. I am not casting judgement on a style of gaming. I am arguing that the claims made on the brokenness of the game based on these so-called 'optimized characters' are misleading. Build away. Just don't claim you've broken the game when you do so. You might have broken your DM but the game still works.
I actually have no problem with people exploring 'specialized builds' and I too have enjoyed making powerful NPCs to keep my players challenged and entertained.
I'm not opposed to people who want to experiment with extreme min/maxing and specialized builds. Why would I be? I just don't think of these as 'optimized characters'.
On the other hand, you've been quite rude and judgemental. You've suggested that I can't do it, that I am sour, that I'm a hater, and that I'm ruthless. I think I've explained my opinion in a reasonable fashion supported by arguments. A lot of the 'anti-CharOps' people have said they object to this kind of tone. I haven't wanted to generalize so I didn't say any such thing.
That's quite true. However, many (luckily not all) of the CharOp people are equally guilty of the Trollman Fallacy: that talking like Comic Book Guy on the Simpsons somehow imbues the speaker with superior intellect and mathematical infallability.
The boards have two components: game content and comradery. One is not inherently more important than the other. If the more obnoxious CharOp immigrants would be willing to assimilate into their new culture a bit, and maybe post as if they're speaking to friendly acquaintances (rather than as if they're speaking to mindless 3-year-olds), they would find a MUCH warmer welcome. As it is, the ones who are refusing to adapt are giving the whole group a bad name.
So now we're the trolls? I don't see any of the posters on my side of the argument resorting to name calling or baseless generalizations.
And what's this about assimilating into the new culture? Are you implying that your way of playing is inherently superior to ours because you've been on these boards longer? Does forum seniority make your opinions worth more than ours?
Seriously, what's with the "us vs. them" mentality? We're all here because we volunteered to playtest Pathfinder. In our case, we're actively trying to take the game to its limits to see which stuff need to be fixed.
Roleplaying restrictions are not a good way of implementing game balance. Roleplaying restrictions do not work against what I call the "Superplayer", one who can roleplay and min/max very well.
I think of the Pathfinder beta as something akin to video game betas. Those who actively try to break the game will be of more use to the developers because they are the ones who find most of the things that need to be fixed.
Would you rather have playtesters who try to find as many bugs as possible in your game, or ones who only try to play the game the way it was intended (i.e. not trying to actively break it)?
None of us CharOp folks would actively try to ruin someone's game with tier 1 powerbuilds, unless of course said CharOp folk is a jerk (like all groups, we have our black sheep).
I guess this thread has gone way off-topic with all the flaming. I guess I'll just post my findings in General Discussion instead of waiting for a new board to be created.
So now we're the trolls? I don't see any of the posters on my side of the argument resorting to name calling or baseless generalizations.
Below, I've bolded the parts of my post you might have missed. Rather than making "baseless generalizations," I've gone out of my way to be clear that not all CharOp people are acting the same way; indeed, you are specifically one of the people to whom I was NOT referring.
That's quite true. However, many (luckily not all) of the CharOp people are equally guilty of the [Frank] Trollman Fallacy... If the more obnoxious CharOp immigrants would be willing to assimilate into their new culture a bit, and maybe post as if they're speaking to friendly acquaintances (rather than as if they're speaking to mindless 3-year-olds), they would find a MUCH warmer welcome. As it is, the ones who are refusing to adapt are giving the whole group a bad name.
If you really want baseless generalizations and name calling on "your side," there are myriad examples on other threads, including one that Gary recently closed as a "train wreck."
And what's this about assimilating into the new culture? Are you implying that your way of playing is inherently superior to ours because you've been on these boards longer? Does forum seniority make your opinions worth more than ours?
Play style has nothing to do with it. But when it comes to the overall tone of the boards, and who "deserves" what, and what we "need" here, yes, seniority does count for something.
|
|
So now we're the trolls?...Seriously, what's with the "us vs. them" mentality? ... I guess I'll just post my findings in General Discussion instead of waiting for a new board to be created.
Can it be that you are unaware of the Trollman episode (something I like to think of as the late unpleasantness)?
You were not being called a troll. Trollman is the actual name of a poster who was/is something of a know-it-all jerk who sort of precipitated a whole distrust of a certain style of poster/gamer. People are still, apparently, a little sore about the whole thing.
Your decision to not worry about a new board and simply post thoughtful, well reasoned posts is probably the best course of action.
And it might do well for the rest of us to remember that not everyone with a char-op mentality is a disciple of Mr. Trollman. I'm sure some of them are very pleasant gamers. :)
|
|
So now we're the trolls?...Seriously, what's with the "us vs. them" mentality? ... I guess I'll just post my findings in General Discussion instead of waiting for a new board to be created.Can it be that you are unaware of the Trollman episode (something I like to think of as the late unpleasantness)?
You were not being called a troll. Trollman is the actual name of a poster who was/is something of a know-it-all jerk who sort of precipitated a whole distrust of a certain style of poster/gamer. People are still, apparently, a little sore about the whole thing.
Your decision to not worry about a new board and simply post thoughtful, well reasoned posts is probably the best course of action.
And it might do well for the rest of us to remember that not everyone with a char-op mentality is a disciple of Mr. Trollman. I'm sure some of them are very pleasant gamers. :)
Some of them surely are, but many of the current influx seem to have dump-statted Charisma to a degree that would make a stereotypical half-orc barbarian blush. Simple politeness shouldn't be considered a weakness. Some have been telling the developers how to do their job, or what to ask for in playtesting. That takes arrogant self-importance to a whole new level. And some, like those arguing upthread, seem like reasonable people, being optimisers notwithstanding (that's a joke before I get shouted at).
|
|
But if opimization is fun, why take away the very rules that allow you to do it? By the way I'm offended by the term min/maxing. It's so hateful. ;pIgnorant. Most CO don't bend rules, they don't break loops, most of us don't try to ruin the system purely for the enjoyment. We enjoy making characters that are powerful, not broken or unplayable. What you are describing is Character Theories.
Dude, Necros chill out. I was trying to make a joke. You need to lighten up and not look at every comment made as a personal attack against you. If I did that there are a lot of people on this board that I enjoy talking to that I would take offense to because they don't agree entirely with me on every issue.
|
|
If you really want baseless generalizations and name calling on "your side," there are myriad examples on other threads, including one that Gary recently closed as a "train wreck."
If it's the thread I think you're refering to, the thing to remember is that it stayed pretty civil for a long time. Even Gary commented on that. Many people on both sides started trolling pretty quick on this thread. Again, if it's the thread I'm thinking of it took us almost 12 pages before it started to really get hostile and another 5 or so before Gary actually closed it.
If it's the thread I think you're refering to, the thing to remember is that it stayed pretty civil for a long time. Even Gary commented on that. Many people on both sides started trolling pretty quick on this thread. Again, if it's the thread I'm thinking of it took us almost 12 pages before it started to really get hostile and another 5 or so before Gary actually closed it.
That's true. Shoot, you and I manage to remain civil on the political threads all the time despite having views that vary all over the spectrum. The thing is, you don't ever talk to me as if I'm a low-grade moron, and I try to return the favor. Anyone who follows that example is quite welcome, as far as I'm concerned, regardless of what they do with their character sheets in their spare time! (And as long as they keep their hands off my Pepperoni Phallus, or whatever that inside lingo term is.) I will say that Joseph seems like a good guy, and Neceros, though he gets riled, probably has reason to get that way -- although comments like "that you cannot possibly understand" are borderline Comic Book Guy. Then again, I probably sound a bit snarky when riled as well.
So I have nothing at all against a CharOp forum, unless it becomes an established hive for the "sand-in-the-anatomy" crowd, all of whom are mercifully absent from this thread.
I remain civil despite the insults in this thread. The only time I will get defensive is when people start calling CO 'scum,' and blatantly saying they don't make characters.
Mind you I don't think I've personally been attacked, but I am still offended by the sheer rudeness I've seen.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I remain civil despite the insults in this thread. The only time I will get defensive is when people start calling CO 'scum,' and blatantly saying they don't make characters.
Mind you I don't think I've personally been attacked, but I am still offended by the sheer rudeness I've seen.
Who has called you 'scum'? Must have been in another thread.
I did say that 'Character Optimization' didn't pay enough attention to the 'personality' part of 'character' generation for my tastes. I still feel that way. For me a 'character' is more than the mechanics.
Neceros, if I have insulted you personally, I apologize. I have said that I do not support a CharOps forum. I wouldn't be opposed to a 'Character Generation' forum but I feel that 'Character Optimization' implies a certain way of playing the game -- and this is based only on what I've seen in the claims made by those advocating CharOps -- and that the forums should be broader and more general than that.
Who has called you 'scum'? Must have been in another thread.
It was.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Who has called you 'scum'? Must have been in another thread.It was.
Well, that wasn't very nice of them. Tensions have been running high on these boards recently, but I personally have promised not to make personal attacks on people I've disagreed with (except for Sebastian but he's asking for it ;-)).
Who has called you 'scum'? Must have been in another thread.It was.
If this is true, Neceros, allow me to apologize on behalf of the entire Paizo community. That sort of thing is totally over the line.
|
|
If this is true, Neceros, allow me to apologize on behalf of the entire Paizo community. That sort of thing is totally over the line.Who has called you 'scum'? Must have been in another thread.It was.
Good show, Kirth. Neceros actually seems like a decent fellow, and has been pretty reasonable in his descriptions of why he likes optimizing/building, even distinguishing between different methods.
Now, in defense of this community the worst "accepted" community members do not come close to matching the hostility of some of the more recent "casual" posters. Unfortunately, there is little we can do except let Gary know (incidentally, neceros, if you ever do get offended send a description to webmaster@paizo.com) and move on with our lives.
I can't recall the exact post, but there was one that mentioned "scum".
I still don't think the boards need a seperate forum, it's not something that really needs it. A few threads, and some have been popping up, can handle the job. In truth, it's really up to Gary at this point.
I recall everything I've said that was negative.
Thanks for the advice, Jal.
If it's the thread I think you're refering to, the thing to remember is that it stayed pretty civil for a long time. Even Gary commented on that. Many people on both sides started trolling pretty quick on this thread. Again, if it's the thread I'm thinking of it took us almost 12 pages before it started to really get hostile and another 5 or so before Gary actually closed it.
If you really want baseless generalizations and name calling on "your side," there are myriad examples on other threads, including one that Gary recently closed as a "train wreck."
What was the subject matter?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
What was the subject matter?If it's the thread I think you're refering to, the thing to remember is that it stayed pretty civil for a long time. Even Gary commented on that. Many people on both sides started trolling pretty quick on this thread. Again, if it's the thread I'm thinking of it took us almost 12 pages before it started to really get hostile and another 5 or so before Gary actually closed it.
If you really want baseless generalizations and name calling on "your side," there are myriad examples on other threads, including one that Gary recently closed as a "train wreck."
Gary tends not to like it when we reopen threads elsewhere. ;-)