|
A lot of people calling for the CharOp forum seem to think we don't have experience of CharOp-types on these boards - baptists probably woudn't go in an adult book shop, whereas in fact the adult book shop came to us when the playtest started. So we have some experience of it through the guys from the Games Den, and it left many of us wary - I note that many of the people getting upset maybe haven't been here that long and maybe don't undestand the context. If what Robert says about that particular crew crew is true (i.e. they were extremely unrepresentative) then great, I have no problem. But already people are taking things personally and getting upset. Frankly, if you want to talk about CharOp (as opposed to talking about talking about CharOp) why not just set up some threads in the PFRPG forums and have at it? This is really achieving very little, and proves nothing - we are otherwise talking past each other. If there is genuine demand for such a forum, it will come.
Perhaps my first opinion of you was flawed (the mature and respectful parts) but I hope it is just that you perhaps missed some words in my posts or misconstrued my language in some way.
Also I haven't talked down to you, I've tried to explain my thoughts on a matter where I was asked for my thoughts.
Now I actually will talk down to you. Sorry if my disagreeing with your opinion makes you not like me as a person. I am sure I will lose sleep over it.
I certainly hope not. I'm not particularly bothered myself, now. I've settled, for the time being, on posting in general and waiting for a while to see what the 3.75 rules look like in full. Maybe once they hit, we'll have this conversation again.
|
|
Perhaps my first opinion of you was flawed (the mature and respectful parts) but I hope it is just that you perhaps missed some words in my posts or misconstrued my language in some way.
Also I haven't talked down to you, I've tried to explain my thoughts on a matter where I was asked for my thoughts.
Now I actually will talk down to you. Sorry if my disagreeing with your opinion makes you not like me as a person. I am sure I will lose sleep over it.Forgive me, I'm new here, but does that constitute flaming, and if so, how do I report you for it?
Again, apologies, but I am unused to your Paizo community of gentleness and non-aggression which optimizers threaten to ruin.
The "flag" function is what you are looking for. But it is maybe worth noting that participating in a flame war won't exactly endear this subject to management, and nor will slagging off the Paizo community.
And given that you have got personally offended at a comment that was not specifically aimed at you but instead at a type of poster, maybe making generalisations about the rest of us is slightly hypocritical?
I don't think Solo or I intended to.... slag off the community. :: gentle grin :: Sorry if I did.
::asbestos suit :: Having known solo off and on for a while on other boards, he's a decent dude, just invariably fairly sardonic. Grain of salt, you know?
I don't think he really meant to insult me. Not really. :: shrugs ::
The issue with the Gamer's Den is that they spend so much time trapped in their echo chamber that they forget what it is like outside. This isn't a problem with CharOp, it's a problem with any esoteric community of experts. I see it a lot in my fellow linux sys-admins, though much less these days.
I've only skimmed this thread, but has it discussed any character optimization at all? Just curious, 'cause I haven't seen any.
Not really. It was more about lobbying for a sub-forum, and then suddenly it was more about fighting fires that weren't really there. I don't know how I feel about this whole thing. I mean, I can see a lot of different viewpoints but I'm not sure a sub-forum eventually would hurt anyone. It's just a long way off, from what I gather. Which certainly makes me sad, but.... such is the way and the nature of things.
But hey, bickering's an awesome second :D
I TWF unpleasant truths and I still felt that one in my gut. :)
|
If we all had a vote on having a char-op forum I'd probably vote yes. I think the benefits would outweigh the disadvantages. By a nose hair.
Gamer's Den is a particularly painful example. I'm not fond of them either, so I guess I understand that perspective.
To be fair, many of the issues they raised remained in the beta versions that I was privy to, such as the problems with polymorph. I guess if they are your baseline, I understand.
This is exactly the reason for any hostility you're seeing here. They turned some of the playtest forums into sewage.
If we do have a char-op forum here we WILL see the likes of Crusader of Logic & Squirreloid again and those kind of scum will have to be dealt with before the forum could be generally useful. After all it'll take about a dozen derailed threads, multiple mod warnings and hours of wasted aggregate time before that next wave of reprobates are banned. Is it worth it? Probably, but I'm not looking forward to it again.
|
|
Today, Doc Roc leans that a dream deferred is a dream denied.I mean, I can see a lot of different viewpoints but I'm not sure a sub-forum eventually would hurt anyone. It's just a long way off, from what I gather. Which certainly makes me sad, but.... such is the way and the nature of things.
Well, like I say, start some threads and see how it goes. I think it is a little rich to spring up here, relatively new and with little posting history, and start demanding a forum just for your interests - I don't have one for mine and I was here before they had a messageboard. Especially in the light of past experience here from other non-regular CharOps types who trucked up before. If it can be demonstrated that there exists a demand for such a forum, and if it can be demonstrated that it can be a civilised place, then your problems will go away - no one will care as their concerns will be dealt with. But getting all sarcastic here doesn't achieve anything. If there is no market, it won't fly. If there is, it will. So demonstrate to us that we need this, don't just tell us.
|
|
Maybe - or maybe not. I would be interested to see you posting anywhere but a thread about a thread about CharOps, and instead on a thread about CharOps.
EDIT - thanks for the translation - Google is a wonderful thing. And I'm British, so I knew about the SAS motto - there was a film called Who Dares Wins years ago about the SAS.
If we do have a char-op forum here we WILL see the likes of Crusader of Logic & Squirreloid again and those kind of scum will have to be dealt with before the forum could be generally useful. After all it'll take about a dozen derailed threads, multiple mod warnings and hours of wasted aggregate time before that next wave of reprobates are banned. Is it worth it? Probably, but I'm not looking forward to it again.
TGD guys don't come around much anymore, really, so you might actually just get off scott-free. We'll see, eventually, I imagine. Should be fun.
|
I've only skimmed this thread, but has it discussed any character optimization at all? Just curious, 'cause I haven't seen any.Not really. It was more about lobbying for a sub-forum, and then suddenly it was more about fighting fires that weren't really there. I don't know how I feel about this whole thing.
*Tries dousing fires that aren't there with water that isn't there*
Okay, then a solution would be to put this thread back on track.Place your vote(yes, no, or don't care), and stop fighting.
Or continue fighting, doesn't matter to me.
When it comes to whether or not paizo needs an CharOpts thread, my vote is: I don't care.
|
|
TGD guys don't come around much anymore, really, so you might actually just get off scott-free. We'll see, eventually, I imagine. Should be fun.
I suppose I'm talking about misanthropes and intellectually dishonest asshats in general and not just the half dozen or so that plague the Den. I highly suspect that we'll see completely new ones if this board becomes known for character optimization.
Anyway, not all of the guys over there are griefers. As far as I know denizens like FatR, Prak Anima & TOZ are still members in good standing here. Those guys may be a little blunt(so am I for that matter), but I've never seen them cause any real problems here on the Paizo forums.
It's true. Some of my 339 friends cross-post a lot, or work over at TGD more frequently. I do suspect you'll get a new batch of fun if a subforum opens, but it shouldn't be too bad. I imagine that 4E CO must be quite painful right about now though. :)
I obviously vote in favor of a CO board. ;)
Btw, welcome DocRoc!
Vote: Yes.
I'm relatively new to 3.5 and don't frequent other boards and I'd really like to see what people are doing to really work the system. It doesn't bother me in the least.
|
|
I don't think he really meant to insult me. Not really. :: shrugs ::
The issue with the Gamer's Den is that they spend so much time trapped in their echo chamber that they forget what it is like outside. This isn't a problem with CharOp, it's a problem with any esoteric community of experts. I see it a lot in my fellow linux sys-admins, though much less these days.
Like I said earlier, it wasn't the information the guys posted that was an issue at all. Frankly, I agreed with quite a bit of it, as it dovetailed with my opinions about "melee" (sorry for using the term, but the Gygaxian lingo is strong in me) characters in relation to what they call "Tier One" and "Tier Two" classes.
It was the condescending tone.
The community here is pretty tight knit, generally polite (although we've had some pretty nasty dust ups in political/religious threads from time to time, and the stupid "edition wars" nonsense) and very protective of the tone we try to set here.
We asked several times that the people coming over from The Gamer's Den and CharOp present their info in a more congenial manner, as, while the info was quite interesting and definitely food for thought, the tone of the posts was jarring to our laid back corner of the web.
I would LOVE to have a sub forum on mechanical builds, both from a "hey, this combo works awesomely" and from a "DMs, you may want to keep an eye on this, it could disrupt a game" perspective, but I also wish to see the place stay frosty.
Just sayin'
Not wanting to be rude but last I checked these Forums are not a democracy. At the end of the day the Paizo staff will decide whether or not a separate forum is required standing here saying yay or nay is not going to change that.
It isn't Kevin, but sometimes voicing a large preference can give Gary and his minions a snapshot of the community mood.
Personally, I vote yes, with the caveat that there should be evidence of a demand for the forum first with thread posting in the regular forums. DocRoc has already started in the Pathfinder General Discussion. I would advise patience to the CharOp folks, Rome wasn't built in a day. There are several established sub-communities waiting in line for sub-forums.
Like I said earlier, it wasn't the information the guys posted that was an issue at all. Frankly, I agreed with quite a bit of it, as it dovetailed with my opinions about "melee" (sorry for using the term, but the Gygaxian lingo is strong in me) characters in relation to what they call "Tier One" and "Tier Two" classes.It was the condescending tone.
The community here is pretty tight knit, generally polite (although we've had some pretty nasty dust ups in political/religious threads from time to time, and the stupid "edition wars" nonsense) and very protective of the tone we try to set here.
+1
The very fact that we CAN have religious/political discussions and that for the most part we are moderator-free point to the mature tone in these forums that most long-term posters are very protective of.
During the whole Gamer's Den invasion we asked the posters to moderate their acerbic tone, only to be ridiculed for counting manners as something important. As someone with a Communications degree, I know that the method of communication is equally as important as the information conveyed in the communication. If your intended audience tunes you out because you insult them it doesn't really help your advancement of the subject, even if you have some blindingly good analysis to share.
So post up those CharOp threads, get the discussion going, prove to the doubters that you folks can have a reasonably-toned debate on game mechanics and these protests to your own forum will wither. If your threads get infested with anti-CharOp trolls, then you can take the high ground, flag them and ignore them. I believe that this community will let you do your tweaking in peace.
I don't think theres much point in an CharOp board for a few reasons
1: "Bugs" aren't a problem
Exploiting a loophole found in text is just well...pathetic really, D'n'D isn't some competition for money or glory like a sports game or anything like that, it's just a game for fun, nothing is gained by "winning".
Besides, some of the bugs are just plain stupid. Has anyone here heard of the "Two Pole" "bug"? Apparently taking a ladder, getting rid of the rings and turning the two sides into poles is a "bug" because the ladder is cheaper than two poles. Lets nevermind that these poles are wooden with several deep indents, they should still be worth the same amount as a metal 10ft pole apparently.
2: Optimization can be just plain silly
Just look at Pun-Pun, one of the first things the origonal writer wrote was "This was never intended to be played, just a thought exercise". Translation - He was aware that it would just be plain ridiculous to actually play a PC like that. A surprisingly large number of these high powered builds are the same. Generally any ones which are played will have some huge weakness to compensate.
3: Just because you can prove it doesn't mean others will listen
Think you can prove/disprove the "casters are overpowering" myth? Don't bother, even if you could, very few will actually take your findings to be accurate enough to apply. Despite thinking Psionics are far more balanced than core casters, I still find, and will probably continue to find, plenty to disagree, and they'll likely still disagree even if I can find a way to "prove" them wrong.
4: Even if you can prove somthing, you won't always correct the problem
If I was able to prove, via characterOp forums, that casting a particular non-core spell was overpowering, others reading might not nessicerily think "Thats spell overpowering", they might instead think "Wow, all non-core spells are overpowering" (Despite that the majority of the most overpowering content is actually core).
|
For some people, long in the D&D tooth, Character Optimization comes across as something like Magic deck design, rather than old style AD&D, where you rolled up your fighter and were glad your DM allowed you 4d6-take-the-best-three.
I think back in the 4d6 drop the lowest days we also had a different name for people who obsessed about Character Optimization, I think we called them munchkins.
|
|
I have no evidence to support my opinion on this, but after reading those boards for a number of years, I can't help but feel that the board there have lead many developers to make some truely bad choices in trying to appeal to gamers. Something about the Monday morning quarterbacking and the constant back and forth about RAW and errata and the like makes for a truely fustrating situation between players and DMs who really should be having this discussion around the game table rather players who don't meet except on these boards.
Errata are definitely not a bad thing! Why do you say this? I wish to know more. I play a lot of games, and some of them were literally saved by erratas, quick-fixes, or second printings. Ogre, by SJG, is a great example of where a incredibly dominant tactic was missed due to a narrow line of thinking. Basically, by using exclusively fast attack units, you could almost always destroy the OpFor with no trouble. No one ever thought that using just scouts would actually work, so they'd never tested it. They heard about it later, and fixed it quickly, thanks to a few observant players. These things are important. Really important.
I'm afraid that I just don't follow your logic. Why is it bad to have a cross-pollination of ideas, or the ready exposure of flaws in the system?
WOTC has had a bad history sometimes with errata. In some cases it's made bad situations worse. SJG has had a much better time with errata. And Ogre vs. Pathfinder is a bit of a apples to oranges comparison.
And just to be clear, I'm not against the discussion, just against the idea of a seperate forum. i think that thre are forums here that accomidate some of that discussion now or if people don't like it they can start a disscusion blog somewhere else witht he cummunity use materials.
|
Solo, if you want to post something constructive, go ahead. That isn't it. Why don't you start a CharOp thread and talk about what you supposedly want to talk about, instead of raising the termperature here?So, of all the people posting nonconstructive things, you have chosen to single me out for a reprimand. Interesting.
Anyways, I find what I posted very constructive. Pointing out where other people get it wrong is generally a useful thing if you think about it.
I'm willing to be it was this:
What a coincidence. Back in the old days, we also had a different name for African Americans.
Nice comparison. Blowing things out of proportion is not helping here.
|
|
I'm willing to be it was this:
What a coincidence. Back in the old days, we also had a different name for African Americans.Nice comparison. Blowing things out of proportion is not helping here.
You'd probably win that bet.
Solo, um, chill. Seriously. Comparing some pejorative labels for a gaming style with racism is immature, silly and not going to win hearts and minds.
If that's the posting style we can expect from you, you're basically proving your detractors' points.
|
Look I have banned many people from my gaming table.
And there we're different. I've never banned anyone from a game I've run, and neither have any of the three GMs that I regularly game with.
We have chosen not to invite certain people, but we've never told anyone to leave, once they've been invited, and the few times we've had problems, we've sorted them out, by talking about it out of game.
We live in very different worlds, it seems.
Just to lighten things up...
I always liked the idea of using Flesh To Salt (from Sandstorm) on my enemies and then selling the salt at 5gp per pound (PHB prices. Okay, even at half price, it's still 2.5 gp per pound of enemy.)
Orc: "What are you looking at?"
PC: "Just trying to figure out how much you weigh."
Orc: "I weigh about 200 pounds, why?"
PC: "Oh, no reason."
I always thought that in a low-treasure campaign, the PC's could make out like bandits.
DM: "You kill the horde of gnolls, but find only a few gold pieces on their bodies."
PC: "Okay, we cast Flesh to Salt, and break out the sledgehammers and mortars."
|
|
Just to lighten things up...
I always liked the idea of using Flesh To Salt (from Sandstorm) on my enemies and then selling the salt at 5gp per pound (PHB prices. Okay, even at half price, it's still 2.5 gp per pound of enemy.)
Orc: "What are you looking at?"
PC: "Just trying to figure out how much you weigh."
Orc: "I weigh about 200 pounds, why?"
PC: "Oh, no reason."I always thought that in a low-treasure campaign, the PC's could make out like bandits.
DM: "You kill the horde of gnolls, but find only a few gold pieces on their bodies."
PC: "Okay, we cast Flesh to Salt, and break out the sledgehammers and mortars."
If you were playing in a low-treasure game you'd probably have one heck of a time trying to sell the stuff.
DMs can be cruel like that (and yes, I admit, I've tried it...). :p
|
|
Just to lighten things up...
I always liked the idea of using Flesh To Salt (from Sandstorm) on my enemies and then selling the salt at 5gp per pound (PHB prices. Okay, even at half price, it's still 2.5 gp per pound of enemy.)
Orc: "What are you looking at?"
PC: "Just trying to figure out how much you weigh."
Orc: "I weigh about 200 pounds, why?"
PC: "Oh, no reason."I always thought that in a low-treasure campaign, the PC's could make out like bandits.
DM: "You kill the horde of gnolls, but find only a few gold pieces on their bodies."
PC: "Okay, we cast Flesh to Salt, and break out the sledgehammers and mortars."
That is diabolical!
I LOVE IT!
I can just picture the adventurers with their own stand at the village market.
|
|
I think back in the 4d6 drop the lowest days we also had a different name for people who obsessed about Character Optimization, I think we called them munchkins.What a coincidence. Back in the old days, we also had a different name for African Americans.
This is exactly the kind of thing that will be unwelcome in this CO forum you want.
We used to call the optimization obsessed power gamers back then. Munchkins were the jerks that ruined games through their immature behavior.
|
|
Just to lighten things up...
I always liked the idea of using Flesh To Salt (from Sandstorm) on my enemies and then selling the salt at 5gp per pound (PHB prices. Okay, even at half price, it's still 2.5 gp per pound of enemy.)
Orc: "What are you looking at?"
PC: "Just trying to figure out how much you weigh."
Orc: "I weigh about 200 pounds, why?"
PC: "Oh, no reason."I always thought that in a low-treasure campaign, the PC's could make out like bandits.
DM: "You kill the horde of gnolls, but find only a few gold pieces on their bodies."
PC: "Okay, we cast Flesh to Salt, and break out the sledgehammers and mortars."
That's actually wonderful... Salt in the old days was akin to gold anyways, considering how useful it was. In a magic world not as much, but you'd certainly be able to sell it quickly, and make a pretty penny. *writes down notes to learn flesh to salt for next campaign... then subsequently hopes it isn't banned/made non-permanent...*
|
|
What a coincidence. Back in the old days, we also had a different name for African Americans.I think back in the 4d6 drop the lowest days we also had a different name for people who obsessed about Character Optimization, I think we called them munchkins.
That is a toally irrelevent observation and honestly it's rather poor taste to compare the two.
I'd prefer not to see a a "character optimization" forum.
I think min/maxing in general is bad for the game.
I wouldn't want to see the designers of the game themselves encourage it.
Shudder.
G---- D--
Has been said twice already. Please nobody say it a third time, you know what happens.