Gary tends not to like it when we reopen threads elsewhere. ;-)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."
I am not even considering that :P just interested as to what caused it :D
|
Gary tends not to like it when we reopen threads elsewhere. ;-)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."
If you want to take a look at the evolution of a train wreck, head down to the MOvie section and read trought the W the Movie thread. But, like Tarren said, I would not recommend trying to revive it. However, there are a few threads down in the Off-Topic Discussion board that are discussing similar things and have remained civil for the most part.
|
I'd like to see a character optimization board around here, and here's why:
Because while things like Pun-Pun and the Word get all of the attention, many of the threads I participated in over there went something like this:
I have a concept that is best served by X build. Is that viable in play, or am I going to be a liability to the rest of the party?
There were the system-crackers, to be sure, but oftentimes, it was just a good place to trot out interesting mechanical combinations and run them past the community before you realized they didn't work in actual play the hard way.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
I'd like to see a character optimization board around here, and here's why:
Because while things like Pun-Pun and the Word get all of the attention, many of the threads I participated in over there went something like this:
I have a concept that is best served by X build. Is that viable in play, or am I going to be a liability to the rest of the party?
There were the system-crackers, to be sure, but oftentimes, it was just a good place to trot out interesting mechanical combinations and run them past the community before you realized they didn't work in actual play the hard way.
Well, the WotC forum has several related subforums. Character Building: Defenders; Character Building: Strikers; Character Building: Leaders; Character Building: Controllers; Character Building: Hybrid; Character Optimization; and Character Development.
The intro text for the Character Optimization subforum reads "Want to eke every mechanical benefit out of your character as possible? Is Min/Max your middle name? Or just design a character based on a loophole you've discovered! Bounce your ideas off the learned members of the character optimization forum."
The Character Development subforum reads: "It takes great craftsmanship to develop a compelling and credible background for a character. Get some ideas and assistance within. This forum focuses on roleplaying and character backstory."
The most popular threads (ignoring 'stickied' threads) are:
- Treantmonk's guide to Wizards: God 4e style
- The Orcuslayer, or how Cascade of Blades broke 4.0 even 3 days before it was released
- Am I missing something, or is there no reason to use 2 handed weapons?
- Things which need to be errataed
- Warlock: how many at wills do you get?
- Doomsayer and the Wand of Howl of Doom
- Fixing Multiclassing (Multiclassing, CO, and you)
- Fighter's Handbook: Taking it to the Face and Loving It
I think a 'Character Design' or 'Character Development' forum would be cool. I just see 'Character Optimization' as being a bit narrow as it seems to be associated with breaking the game, min-maxing, and discovering loopholes (see the text above). Joseph, Neceros, Timespike, others, would you feel unwelcome in a 'Character Development' forum? As players and DMs, we need to be doing both: designing mechanically challenging characters and giving them convincing motivations and personalities, which often would relate to, influence, and be influenced by their mechanical choices. Let's do it together.
|
|
I'd like to see a character optimization board around here, and here's why:
Because while things like Pun-Pun and the Word get all of the attention, many of the threads I participated in over there went something like this:
I have a concept that is best served by X build. Is that viable in play, or am I going to be a liability to the rest of the party?
There were the system-crackers, to be sure, but oftentimes, it was just a good place to trot out interesting mechanical combinations and run them past the community before you realized they didn't work in actual play the hard way.
Well, the WotC forum has several related subforums. Character Building: Defenders; Character Building: Strikers; Character Building: Leaders; Character Building: Controllers; Character Building: Hybrid; Character Optimization; and Character Development.
The intro text for the Character Optimization subforum reads "Want to eke every mechanical benefit out of your character as possible? Is Min/Max your middle name? Or just design a character based on a loophole you've discovered! Bounce your ideas off the learned members of the character optimization forum."
The Character Development subforum reads: "It takes great craftsmanship to develop a compelling and credible background for a character. Get some ideas and assistance within. This forum focuses on roleplaying and character backstory."
The most popular threads (ignoring 'stickied' threads) are:
- Treantmonk's guide to Wizards: God 4e style
- The Orcuslayer, or how Cascade of Blades broke 4.0 even 3 days before it was released
- Am I missing something, or is there no reason to use 2 handed weapons?
- Things which need to be errataed
- Warlock: how many at wills do you get?
- Doomsayer and the Wand of Howl of Doom
- Fixing Multiclassing (Multiclassing, CO, and you)
- Fighter's Handbook: Taking it to the Face and Loving It
I think a 'Character Design' or 'Character Development' forum...
I was talking about the old 3.5 CharOp board. As far as name goes, call it whatever you want. I'd like a board dedicated to trotting out character concepts and character mechanics.
|
|
Seriously.
Us CharOp regulars in the 4E forums do a very good job of finding "bugs" in the system. In our quest to build the most powerful characters, we expose the hard-to-find loopholes and flaws in the rules that the playtesters missed.
So how about it, almighty moderators? Can we have a CharOp forum for Pathfinder?
Need? Nah. Want? Sure. I can always use new monsters to hurl at my unoptimized PCs.
|
|
Do CharOps forums encourage a 'DM versus players' arms race which destroys some games?Need? Nah. Want? Sure. I can always use new monsters to hurl at my unoptimized PCs.Seriously.
Us CharOp regulars in the 4E forums do a very good job of finding "bugs" in the system. In our quest to build the most powerful characters, we expose the hard-to-find loopholes and flaws in the rules that the playtesters missed.
So how about it, almighty moderators? Can we have a CharOp forum for Pathfinder?
I think if that happens, you've got bigger problems than an optimization board.
Why do characters need to be optimized?
Why do they need to be all that they can be?
...non-optimzers have as much chance of understanding the optimization mindset...
I should like to try.
Trying to understand another perspective demonstrates a lack of intelligence?
Hey!!!
Waaaaaaugh!!!
Hehehe...
|
I think a 'Character Design' or 'Character Development' forum would be cool. I just see 'Character Optimization' as being a bit narrow as it seems to be associated with breaking the game, min-maxing, and discovering loopholes (see the text above). Joseph, Neceros, Timespike, others, would you feel unwelcome in a 'Character Development' forum? As players and DMs, we need to be doing both: designing mechanically challenging characters and giving them convincing motivations and personalities, which often would relate to, influence, and be influenced by their mechanical choices. Let's do it together.
I quite like this idea. I left the WotC forums myself because I felt like roleplayers were being marginalized. But now that I'm here, I don't want to see optimizers get marginalized too. That, and I think they can add a lot to the playtest. How will paizo know how to fix something if they don't know how to break it? Believe me, nothing irks me more than a super powergamer at my table. But that doesn't mean they don't have a place on this board or that they can't help make this game as good as it can be.
|
Part of it is a mentality thing. A good deal of the optimizers seem bent on "teaching" everyone else how to play D&D. I would love to have some polite, civil, reasonable and intelligent optimizers on the boards - they could change a lot of opinions. I would love if EVERY poster on these boards fit that description.
Unfortunately, decent optimizers like "neceros" seem rare.
If the purpose is only to point out the weaknesses in the system, does it go away after the official release? What do optimiziers “teach”, JD?
|
|
If the purpose is only to point out the weaknesses in the system, does it go away after the official release? What do optimiziers “teach”, JD?
Nothing, unfortunately. They just do the work for some players who can't be bothered to examine their characters from the perspective of game mechanics, but want to have a decent character. That's generally what DMs used to help with. Most just think they are teaching us the right or better way to roleplay. I wasn't trying to be positive.
They just do the work for some players who can't be bothered to examine their characters from the perspective of game mechanics, but want to have a decent character.
Does that not often ignore the original concept in favor of a more ‘effective’ character?
I wasn't trying to be positive.
I could not tell. I am just trying to understand the other side of this position because I do think optimize and role playing are mutually exclusive.
|
|
...
I could not tell. I am just trying to understand the other side of this position because I do think optimize and role playing are mutually exclusive.
They usually aren't. It's perfectly possible to both have an optimized character and role-play it well. you only run into problems on the two extremes, which is sort of the problem. the CharOp boards focused on the mechanics and as such gained a bad name with people who play the game to role-play and don't care about mechanics as much. but this doesn't mean they don't role-play as well, only that some people like to pick fights and fit people into little boxes based only on what they can see. you do run into problems though when you have a player come to you with the following exchange (exaggerated for humourous purposes, but only slightly):
player: "I got a character off the boards and now he throw 180 shurikens a round, cleave with each one, get a move action between cleave attempts and move faster then the speed of light if all the enemies are in a straight line"
DM (me): "ok...but what's his name?"
Player: "...he, uh, doesn't have one."
DM: "Ok, so what's background?"
Player: "I dunno. he's like an orphan or something i guess."
DM: *Slowly raised eyebrow (the left one)*
see, the optimization itself is not a problem since, as has been pointed out, it does serve a purpose in allowing DMs to see issues that may come up and prevent them before they do.
And, just to throw my own opinion in here, I am fully for a CharOp board, as long as it is tempered with a CharDev (character development) board where things like backstories and fluffy bits can be developed. preferably put next to each other so that players don't get the wrong idea, which can happen.
I am just trying to understand the other side of this position because I do think optimize and role playing are mutually exclusive.They usually aren't. It's perfectly possible to both have an optimized character and role-play it well.
But don’t you move away from story the more you move towards optimization?
|
|
But don’t you move away from story the more you move towards optimization?I am just trying to understand the other side of this position because I do think optimize and role playing are mutually exclusive.They usually aren't. It's perfectly possible to both have an optimized character and role-play it well.
not necessarily. If i want to create a fighter, lvl10, and i pour through the books to get just the right combinations of feats and race and whatever, that doesn't mean that i can't have a 10 page backstory on how i got grey eyes and a scottish accent from my grandmother on my father's side since she raised me whan my parents died, etc.
it's a little more work, and i personally don't bother, but people with time on their hands and are mechanically inclined are free to. in fact, i have on in my party and he still comes up with some decent role-playing.
the problem only comes up when a player (or some DMs...like mine...gah!) disregard fluff and story and role-playing when creating a character. or when playing the character.
and on the flipside, what fun is it to play a character that has a thesis for a backstory, a book of quirks and is role-played by Connery himself if it can't beat the AC of a Flumph and dies when a branch falls on his head because he didn't choose applicable feats/skills or put a 6 into Con? it gets annoying to the DM and party in that extreme too.
I am just trying to understand the other side of this position because I do think optimize and role playing are mutually exclusive.
Only if taken to extremes, I think. Say someone comes to you (you're the DM) and has a great character idea, cool backstory, tons of personality. They make a sorcerer character, and pick Two-Weapon Fighting and Power Attack as their feats. For their 1st level spells, they pick unseen servant and floating disc.
That's an example equally as extreme as the 48-throwing-star-no-name-halfling, but in the other direction. It's equally as grotesque. Ideally, there would be a middle ground -- not so much "optimization," but a place where more experienced players can say, "look, I like what you've got, but a sorcerer has poor combat ability -- which your feats aren't really improving at all -- and generally uses spells -- of which, yours can't be used in combat. How about maybe switching X for Y..., which will let you stick with the Power Attack thing but won't totally screw you over?"
The trick is to keep the people who are gifted mechanically, but who can refrain from saying things like "I know everything and everyone else in the world is a stupid crybaby who is made of suck!" We'd want the ones who can say, "I see where you're headed with that backstory; I know a cool feat that fits it perfectly, and also helps you out in combat."
If you go Poodle you don't need to optimize anymore!
Thank you, kessukoofah and Kirth Gersen. You have given me a new perspective. I never would have thought I was dropping my end of the game by failing to dish out enough damage per encounter. It is certainly not a style of game I personally would enjoy playing.
Just to be a stickler, I would say role play and optimization are mutually exclusive in that you can not be 100% and 100% the other. You can be 50% one and 50% the other. Balance.
And just for the record, I am probably 40% story 60% optimizer.
|
|
Just to be a stickler, I would say role play and optimization are mutually exclusive in that you can not be 100% and 100% the other. You can be 50% one and 50% the other. Balance.
Yeah, I can see that. There is a limit to how much you can justify, from an RP perspective, the awesome feat choices that make your character absolutely perfect. Now, a very well made character, sure you can explain that. But having a series of feats and classes that have no relation to each-other except mechanically? That is 100% Optimization with a capital O, and would seriously hinder a decent RP experience.
I never would have thought I was dropping my end of the game by failing to dish out enough damage per encounter.
It doesn't have to be just damage; some people get so wrapped up in whatever it is they're thinking of that the character can't really help outside of combat, either. The sorcerer mentioned above might also have an 8 Int, for 1 skill point/level, and picks Knowledge (UFOs), with an Int-based penalty. Now (s)he's useless in combat, has no spells of any great utility inside of combat or outside of it, and can't even be a decent "face" due to no Cha-based skills. The player doesn't care, though, because he or she is too busy describing how the character wears black lipstick and has hair coiffed into exactly 16 spikes. The sorcerer's player might be having a ball, but the other players are paying the price.
Maybe the player could get that same groovy RP experience, but would actually prefer to have some usefulness as well -- but he or she just plain has no knowledge of the rules, so he/she had no idea that the character would be so lame. Generally, the DM will step in here and help, but maybe suggests something that goes contrary to what the player is shooting for. On the other hand, when you have a forum full of suggestions, you're bound to find something you like.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
See, I would like to have a forum devoted to character design. I'm just not entirely enamoured with the "Character Optimization" paradigm. (Doesn't mean there's no room for it. What goes on between two or more OGL compliant splatbooks is none of my business.)
It's just, if Paizo opened up a new forum, I'd like it to be broader in topic than just one way of looking at character generation. If the comic book forum were called the 'Marvel comic book forum' people would be ticked, right?
I've been wanting to start a thread 'Wizards of the Varisian Coast' and invite DMs and players to submit some interesting (but not necessarily optimized) wizards who might make good NPCs.
I've got a character I'm working on for Pathfinder Society -- Maleek the Mostly Mad. He's supposed to be a ranger, but he's not all there. How can I mechanically represent a ranger who's been out in the sun too long.
A forum devoted to this kind of thing would interest me. Some threads might be devoted to 'optimized' characters. I'm more interested in kooky characters. I've been told before that if I wanted mechanically inferior but interesting characters I should just try LARPing. That kind of rudeness might be supported if the forum were called "Charops" (though any supporter of dionysius is a friend of mine).
Now we're getting somewhere! A "character design" forum could include input from an RP presepective, but also give the mechanics people a chance to flex their muscles by giving suggestions that improve the character mechanically as well (but at the same time do not at all negatively impact the character concept).
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Now we're getting somewhere! A "character design" forum could include input from an RP presepective, but also give the mechanics people a chance to flex their muscles by giving suggestions that improve the character mechanically as well (but at the same time do not at all negatively impact the character concept).
Joseph, Neceros, Others?
Are you still there? How would you feel about a 'Character Design' forum? Charops people could have their fun but so could those of us who take a more conceptually approach.
|
|
This basically hinges on half of my original reason for saying "no".
There is no CharDev forum, so why start with a CharOp forum? Should Paizo cater to the vocal minority?
Because if we don't protect the rights of the minority when we are the majority, who will protect our rights when we are the minority. As much as I dislike C.O. as a play style I dislike the idea of discriminationg against them because they are a minority. If they wish to segregate themselves and let the rest of us alone, I say more power to them. Let them talk.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Because if we don't protect the rights of the minority when we are the majority, who will protect our rights when we are the minority. As much as I dislike C.O. as a play style I dislike the idea of discriminationg against them because they are a minority. If they wish to segregate themselves and let the rest of us alone, I say more power to them. Let them talk.This basically hinges on half of my original reason for saying "no".
There is no CharDev forum, so why start with a CharOp forum? Should Paizo cater to the vocal minority?
LOL. This isn't about 'rights'. Wrong discourse. Paizo messageboards are owned by a private company and we have no real say in what forums are sub-forums they open up. When people start tracking down character optimizers and stripping them of their citizenship, I'll be all over protecting their rights. ;-)
Anyhow, I've stated my preference for a broader forum that would welcome different perspectives and styles.
I would love to see BOTH a character development forum AND a Character optimization forum.
And if you don't want to look at them, just ignore them. But they would prove to be great resources for those looking for them.
I'm in favor of letting other people try to break the system before it's in its final form. I support this endeavor as someone who will never post in there at all and will mooch off your labor as much as possible!
Do CharOps forums encourage a 'DM versus players' arms race which destroys some games?Need? Nah. Want? Sure. I can always use new monsters to hurl at my unoptimized PCs.Seriously.
Us CharOp regulars in the 4E forums do a very good job of finding "bugs" in the system. In our quest to build the most powerful characters, we expose the hard-to-find loopholes and flaws in the rules that the playtesters missed.
So how about it, almighty moderators? Can we have a CharOp forum for Pathfinder?
As a cyberpunk player, i have to say that yes, 'the arms race' is a risk.
|
|
Because if we don't protect the rights of the minority when we are the majority, who will protect our rights when we are the minority. As much as I dislike C.O. as a play style I dislike the idea of discriminationg against them because they are a minority. If they wish to segregate themselves and let the rest of us alone, I say more power to them. Let them talk.This basically hinges on half of my original reason for saying "no".
There is no CharDev forum, so why start with a CharOp forum? Should Paizo cater to the vocal minority?
LOL. This isn't about 'rights'. Wrong discourse. Paizo messageboards are owned by a private company and we have no real say in what forums are sub-forums they open up. When people start tracking down character optimizers and stripping them of their citizenship, I'll be all over protecting their rights. ;-)
Anyhow, I've stated my preference for a broader forum that would welcome different perspectives and styles.
Exactly. What I am getting at is that there has been a kind of tacit notion of what sort of gamer these messageboards have been built upon. If a small group of people starts demanding extra attention, beyond what the general community receives, then we aren't talking about rights, we are talking about special priveleges - it is actually pandering to a lobby group.
I mean, I can kick and scream all I want about how awesome a "d20 Real Physics" forum would be. Some regulars here would back me up. But the fact of the matter is, that opinion represents a small part of the gaming community that diverges from the normal use of the messageboards.
And again, we are talking about a contentious issue - a good deal of people (maybe as many as the number who support a CharOp forum) are competely put off by the notion. So now we have to groups, both opposed to each-other.
I support a Char Op forum, simply because we can use it as a containment area and bottle up all the ”this is broken because x” people.
|
|
Because if we don't protect the rights of the minority when we are the majority, who will protect our rights when we are the minority. As much as I dislike C.O. as a play style I dislike the idea of discriminationg against them because they are a minority. If they wish to segregate themselves and let the rest of us alone, I say more power to them. Let them talk.This basically hinges on half of my original reason for saying "no".
There is no CharDev forum, so why start with a CharOp forum? Should Paizo cater to the vocal minority?
LOL. This isn't about 'rights'. Wrong discourse. Paizo messageboards are owned by a private company and we have no real say in what forums are sub-forums they open up. When people start tracking down character optimizers and stripping them of their citizenship, I'll be all over protecting their rights. ;-)
Anyhow, I've stated my preference for a broader forum that would welcome different perspectives and styles.
Perhaps rights was an inelegant analogy, but you get what I'm saying. I here people complain about how people who are not C.O. are treated on other boards, so all I'm saying is that we should treat them here with the respect that we wish they would give us on the other boards. They have asked for their own board, I say that we give it to them, both so they can be happy and so those who don't like interacting with them don't have to.
|
|
I support a Char Op forum, simply because we can use it as a containment area and bottle up all the ”this is broken because x” people.
I'm also in favour of one, not quite for that reason but in general it's really not something that can be done easily in other threads of forums because you get a bunch of people complaining about the very idea of it. I say this as someone with no personal interest in character optimisation (but I do like the idea that those guys are best at identifying rules and combinations loopholes).
|
|
I support a Char Op forum, simply because we can use it as a containment area and bottle up all the ”this is broken because x” people.
I foresee a host of "in issue X of the newest AP, the NPC ally is broken because of bad_choice_of_feats", "this rule_element of the PFRPG is useless because it has no space in CharOp, and it means a noob can only waste resources with it", "you have your own board, stay the **** in it!", "CharOp is not a ghetto".
Flame on and on and on, ad nauseam.At least, this has been my experience (in broad lines) with forums that hosted CharOp sub-boards.
This is not an accusation towards anyone, but from what I've seen some thematic boards draw towards them the less roleplaying kinds of gamers, who prefer to compete and outperform others (monsters, NPCs, the DM, other players) based only on the stats they've written on their sheets and the mathematical average output they've calculated.
As the Paizo boards have a very light moderation, relying mostly on self-control and community feedback, I fear that this can be a proverbial hornet's nest.