OK, at this point I must conclude that you are not playing D&D with the rest of us. You're playing some bizarro-world D&D clone that has no bearing on the actual game. Seriously, none of your posts in the last page or so of this thread have been remotely relevant to standard D&D.
Firstly, i am glad to finally meet you, oh holder of the knowledge of what the one true way of playing DnD is. I am glad to know that a, there is something called 'standard DnD', and that B, you are the one who can define it.
Given that in the sphere of published campaign settings alone, there are alteast 26 setting(those which i could come upwith quickly) with such varied thematic underpinnings that they are recognisable only as the same game because of shared system, I find it pretty damned hard to imagain that it is possible to define standard DnD anymore.
Given that Roleplaying game theory has three major philosophical camps with regards to what roleplaying is about and how it should be undertaken in a broader sense, i find it even stranger that you would try to state that such a standard DnD existed, given that any such claim could exclude very large numbers of people who are every bit as certain that the game they are playing is the real DnD.
What I suspect you really mean is that 'the game your discribing does not match the game i and my friends play.' Well as stated before there are many styles of play and people tend to gravitate to those who share there own style. So it isn't really that supprising that your game group all share one specific taste, just as it isn't supprising that most of the groups i have played with share my views.
You seem to espouse a certain very specific and, if I had to make a WAG, rather unusual type of game, one where the heroes are just ordinary people who randomly fall into events and want nothing to do with them, where the heroes do their best to never think about what would be of the most benefit to them in accomplishing their adventuring goals, where explorers aren't adventurers (seriously, try to tell that to the Pathfinder Society...).
No, i espouse playing characters who have realistic and beleivable reasons for being involved, based within the story itself, and who are multilayered, so that they have other concerns beside a story, which they are unaware off.
I have never said that a characters would 'do their best to never think about what would be of the most benefit to them in accomplishing their goals' Only that choices with regards to character developement should be made based on choices the character makes. The Character does not have the rules in front of him, his decision making process is impared by lack of knowledge, and a great many other factors, such as conflicting interests. Sometimes it is appropreate to continue using the unenchanted rapier that a character's father gave them, rather then upgrading to the enchanted simitar you just found. Sometimes, the skill specialisation in music is a more appropreate feat choice for a character, than the next combat feat.
Or that sometimes it is interesting to play a character who isn't the greatest swordsman in the world.
The explorer and the 'fantasy adventurer' are two seperate tropes, in my opinion. The pathfinder society embodies both. It is actually why i really like the pathfinder society, as it is one of the few 'adventurer organisations' in DnD that makes any kind of sense.
None of that is really very relevant to the default assumptions of D&D. D&D assumes that your characters are like Matrim Cauthon, Peregrin Took, Paksenarrion Dorthansdottir, or Lessa of Pern: maybe ordinary people to start with, but once in the grip of the adventure they become heroes, people who devote their lives to their decidedly non-ordinary goals. D&D characters are by explicit default special, more than the ordinary people around them. Among other reasons, that's why PCs get the elite array and NPCs generally don't.
The hobbits may well have grand adventures and they certainly gain grand goals, but they retain there more simple ones also, the reclaiming of the shire, is a wonderful example of this. They are also anything but optimised.
Yes dnd character are special people, of great potential, but that does not mean they lack a range of motivations, and it does not mean that every one is a hyperspecialist tailored to be the very most powerful example of that type of person. No there is variety within them. Not every swordsman is conan, bearwolf or inigo montoya. Not every wizard is Tenser, Tasha, Mordenkainen or Bigby ;)
Agreesively optimising characters reduces the range and variety of characters and stories that one can play.
it does not mean that every one is a hyperspecialist tailored to be the very most powerful example of that type of person. No there is variety within them. Not every swordsman is conan, bearwolf or inigo montoya. Not every wizard is Tenser, Tasha, Mordenkainen or Bigby ;)
No one but you is making any such claim.
And please look up the word "default" before you go ranting about 26 different campaign settings.
Okay let's make one thing clear:
ONE MORE SPOILER FROM COTCT AND I'M GOING POSTAL, OK!???
(the 'spoiler' tags are there for a reason).
Okay let's make one thing clear:
ONE MORE SPOILER FROM COTCT AND I'M GOING POSTAL, OK!???
(the 'spoiler' tags are there for a reason).
Already been commented on, responded to, and apologized for (by one of the participants, at least... the undead apparently have no remorse). There really was no need for this post except to aggravate the situation.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
We still need... nomenclature, for character profiles with two different modus operandi:
Character A: Leaps into the fray without any resources but his valor, no plans but "the lord will provide"... and that, as expected, walks right into the villain's trap and usually ends up fighting with the odds stacked against him.
Character B: Plans thoroughly, charts the terrain, has a decent booklet of prepared tactics up his sleeve, only fights on his own terms, stacks the odds in his favor, plays to win.
So, propose names for A and B?
If you're Meyers-Briggs or David Keirsey savvy, Character A is a P(erceiving), and Character B is a J(udging). If you don't know what I'm talking about, look here.
James Bond is a classic P who is also optimized to hell. He never has a plan, just walks in, does the right thing instinctively, kicks everybody's a--, and comes out smelling like a rose... with the girl, to boot.
Conversely, a J isn't necessarily competent to the point at which if we were looking at their character sheet, we'd call them optimized. In fact, it's certainly possible to plan TOO much, or to stick too rigidly to a plan that turns out to be ineffective. In the Army, we plan everything to the nines... but we also say "fight the enemy, not the plan."
Certainly, both types are found in literature as powerful characters. The classic Joseph Campbell mythic hero (Luke Skywalker) is a P. Gandalf is a J.
EDIT: The abovementioned stuff about temperament/dimensions of personality can be really handy as an aid to characterization in roleplaying, for DMs and players alike.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You seem to espouse a certain very specific and ... rather unusual type of game, one where the heroes are just ordinary people who randomly fall into events and want nothing to do with them, where the heroes do their best to never think about what would be of the most benefit to them in accomplishing their adventuring goals, where explorers aren't adventurers (seriously, try to tell that to the Pathfinder Society...).
For what it's worth, you're reading things into ZN's posts I don't see.
OK, at this point I must conclude that you are not playing D&D with the rest of us. You're playing some bizarro-world D&D clone that has no bearing on the actual game. Seriously, none of your posts in the last page or so of this thread have been remotely relevant to standard D&D.
None of that is really very relevant to the default assumptions of D&D. D&D assumes that your characters are like Matrim Cauthon, Peregrin Took, Paksenarrion Dorthansdottir, or Lessa of Pern: maybe ordinary people to start with, but once in the grip of the adventure they become heroes, people who devote their lives to their decidedly non-ordinary goals. D&D characters are by explicit default special, more than the ordinary people around them. Among other reasons, that's why PCs get the elite array and NPCs generally don't.
That's not a default. Both D&D 3.5 and Pathfinder offer different systems of generating characters, some of which --the "classic"-- generate absolutely average PCs. I honestly don't see how you can say that choosing an attribute system that the rules support is "some bizarro-world D&D clone that has no bearing on the actual game." It's the rules-as-written, my friend.
What I think you mean is, he doesn't play the game in the style that you and your friends like.
It might be worth while to take a look at the iconic PCs that Paizo offers. Some of them are "adventurers" in the canonical sense. But others have motivations like revenge, or --in the tragic case of Sajan-- desperation to rescue a kidnapped loved one. You can still tell terrific stories with characters who have backgrounds like these, who have danger thrust upon them.
As a side note: I don't see how this has anything to do with optimization as you've defined the term. If a character wants to be a medical examiner who finds herself in the midst of adventure, she can still be built efficiently (probably as a Rogue with some ranks in Profession (medicine) and Perception.) On the flip side, the iconic Valeros is certainly an adventurer through and through, but he's not a very efficient combatant.
As a side note: I don't see how this has anything to do with optimization as you've defined the term. If a character wants to be a medical examiner who finds herself in the midst of adventure, she can still be built efficiently (probably as a Rogue with some ranks in Profession (medicine) and Perception.) On the flip side, the iconic Valeros is certainly an adventurer through and through, but he's not a very efficient combatant.
This is precisely my point. ZN is saying that "professional adventurer" characters are illogical, don't fit in the setting, and are automatically optimized munchkins that prevent roleplay from happening (or was that you on that last bit? I'm starting to forget whose silly arguments are whose.).
|
|
[Okay, you have me there. Though the basic argument still holds mostly true, in that adventures are not the kind of people who have the time to sit down for a year with a variety of weapons and pig carcasses, just to work out which one does the most damage in a scientific manner. They arn't going to destroy a thosand suits of armour to work out, which weapons goes through it best. Personal taste, anacdotal and experience teach them what to use when, not any great understanding of what truely works best, nor why those things work best.
actually... elf and dwarves have both the time... and the inclination... elves master their craft to perfection, dwarves to create things that endure...
only humans fail at these... and the adventurers that don't learn to plan usually die young, has anyone asked why there are TPKs?
most of the time it might be the DM or bad luck... but when players don't use their resources correctly or don't plan according to it or don't prepare for that... well they die...
that is why i liked Ravenloft, as the old Joes said... "knowing is half the battle!"
[Okay, you have me there. Though the basic argument still holds mostly true, in that adventures are not the kind of people who have the time to sit down for a year with a variety of weapons and pig carcasses, just to work out which one does the most damage in a scientific manner. They arn't going to destroy a thosand suits of armour to work out, which weapons goes through it best. Personal taste, anacdotal and experience teach them what to use when, not any great understanding of what truely works best, nor why those things work best.
And still, warriors still end up getting said experience... by doing -just that-, destroying thousands of armors along with their pig owners whose carcasses they try their weapons on. Like it or not, humans learn, and pass on their experience. A level 1 Fighter doesn't come "fresh out of the farm", he has trained in the use of weapons to the point he is -proficient- with them, and has trained long enough to start the game with more feats than a Commoner NPC will ever see.
By the same token, Wizards and characters with similar afinity are quite familiar with the Scientific Method (which is over a millenia old).
So, between the “Professional adventurer” and the “unlikely, underdog hero”, where does that leave pulp heroes who have a job, friends and family, and plenty of other things to do besides adventuring… except they –do- adventure for kicks, and not only they happen to be pretty good at both, also they extrapolate knowledge from their dayjob (or otherwise “normal occupation”) to adventures to pull all kinds of wacky shenanigans? My CoCT’s steampunk evokress, for example, is by no means an “optimized special forces”, but so far she has outwitted all but two of the encounters she has come across (and before anyone starts the old "magic is broken" lithany, last encounter she bypassed it without a single spell thank you very much... also, her last "level up" on last weekend came from roleplay XP only, no combat at all). “Optimization” has little with having a knack for lateral thinking.
Already been commented on, responded to, and apologized for (by one of the participants, at least... the undead apparently have no remorse). There really was no need for this post except to aggravate the situation.
lol sorry, after second Korvosan line I skipped to the end, so I didn't read the rest. :P
Or call a spade a spade - most people play fantasy RPGs so they can be the stars of the story; Rosencratz and Guildenstern the RPG is going to fill a minor niche at best.
QFT.
|
|
After all Jonathan Harker(lawyer), Mina Murray(school teacher), Van Helsing(doctor and philosopher), John Seward(doctor), Arthur Holmwood (aristocrat) and Quincey Morris, possibly modern litritures first 'adventuring party' can hardly be described as professional adventurers.
Gothic Horror is quite different to High Fantasy and they don't mix well so please DON'T COMPARE WHAT CAN?T BE COMPARED
by the way Mina was not part of the party, but a victim... Harker's love, yes she took some involvement... but good part of it she would have become an NPC... otherwise it would have been quite boring for the player... THIS according to the NOVEL please don't mix the awful movie of Coppola here, only good thing was the music and vestuary.
And VAN HELSING was an professional and reputed VAMPIRE HUNTER, so YES he is a a professional adventurer... so is Quincy Jones a Cowboy who knew how to fight and surely did in his youth... only the good Englishmen were not ready for the adventure.
Gothic Horror is quite different to High Fantasy and they don't mix well so please DON'T COMPARE WHAT CAN?T BE COMPARED
Gothic Horror (having taken its name from the gothic castles said stories used to move around), is distinguised for two main things RP-wise:
1) Protagonists are rarely 'heroic', but instead regular men and women who are forced to face the unknown.
2) The antagonist is something beyond mortal capabilities, and direct confrontation means a sure death. Usually, part of the story consists in finding the antagonist's weakness and use it against him.
Indeed, nothing to do with high-fantasy, apples and oranges. I've DM'ed my share of Ravenloft and Masque of the Red Death, I can talk about it. =D
For what it's worth, I don't follow that subscription at all. In my worlds the bulk of the population have PC classes, and even those that don't level over time, such that most people you encounter will be at least level 2, if not upwards of 6-12.The default assumption of D&D 3e (and 3.5, and Pathfinder, etc.) is one of player character exceptionalism. This isn't to say that it's the only way to play (the rules are flexible enough to allow a lot of things to occur), but it's the base assumption.
This is why PCs get access to PC classes, while the vast majority of the non-PCs get... NPC classes. (Yes, there are some exceptional NPCs, and they use PC classes. But you can't spell "exceptional" without "exception.")
An adventurer can become something that most of the common folk can only dream of. They are different from the moment of their conception. Call it destiny. Or call a spade a spade - most people play fantasy RPGs so they can be the stars of the story; Rosencratz and Guildenstern the RPG is going to fill a minor niche at best.
Mine as well.
Perhaps a tweaked version of said classes - probably wouldn't get sneak attack, for example - but essentially yeah.
The idea of "everyone but adventurers is a 4-HP Level-1 Commoner/Expert" never really appealed to me, personally.
Then again, most of my campaign worlds are less-than-stable, so people with the endurance and skills of adventurers or such like are the only ones to survive. Everyone else dies too easily.
"Dungeons and Underdogs"
"Dungeon Fodder"
"Red Shirts R Us"
"Nodwick: The RPG"
Is any of these names already registered? Sounds like there might be just enough market for an underdog-flavored RPG.
Back in 2E, characters started the game being -heroic- already to the point that I remember reading on AD&D's DMG that an army only used to have one 3rd level Fighter, and he was the general (those were the days where commoners were all "0-level Fighters" and gained no XP, let alone levels).
On 3E, however, the context for power levels was watered down to the point that even "commoner" became a character class... one that advanced in levels. Furthermore, the prestige an AD&D level-6 PC used to have was instead postponed to far beyond level 20 (read the "epic levels handbook"). In addition, the population-building guidelines in 3E's DMG point clearly that, contrary to 2E, while heroes may still be "special", they're by no means the only big fishes in the pond (probably a consequence of too many Knights of the Dinner Table rejects around, which forced designers to change the dynamics in order for those rabid dogs to be easily put down).
Now, while Hit Die is no longer a measure of a character's prestige (at least not within levels 1-20), making distinctions between "Character Classes" and "NPC Classes" is still suposed to entail some token status to the PCs. They're no longer "heroic", but they're still "the cool kids".
However, while PCs are no longer intended to be "heroic", that doesn't mean players have to stick to an "underdog mentality", and d20 has enough resources for characters to get away with plenty of concepts. It all boils down to what do you like.
Thank you for making my point about rise of the runelords eloquently. One could, with ease justify a character going off and doing almost anything else at the end of burnt offerings, without guilt for leaving a threat unchallanged. It leaves no loose ends save fore shadowing. One could do exactly the at the end of skinsaw murders, with the only real sign that something deeper is going on the recurrance of the shedridron symbolism. But sevens are common in varisia, from seven standing stones in sandpoint, to seven towers of desna's palace. It isn't until the end of the hook mountain massacre that characters have an obvious continuing threat and are left convinced that the seven pointed star symbolism is more than a co-incidence. Then at the end of fortress of the stone giants, the PC's get a whole winter off.
No.
You are absolutely missing the point, here.
It's not that the adventurer could just drop whatever he's doing and go back to his old life. Of course that's possible.
But that's not what happens. In order for the adventure to continue, the PCs have to keep adventuring. Heck, partway through Burnt Offerings, even, they're hired by the sheriff to protect the town. By the end of the adventure they're the heroes of Sandpoint. Shayliss and the other ties to the town are meant to be sideline things, not things that would keep the PCs from pursuing the profession of adventuring. You can't tell me that adventuring is just a hobby for the PCs when they're tromping off to Magnimar (or even better, Fort Rannick!) to pursue the threads of the story.
After all Jonathan Harker(lawyer), Mina Murray(school teacher), Van Helsing(doctor and philosopher), John Seward(doctor), Arthur Holmwood (aristocrat) and Quincey Morris, possibly modern litritures first 'adventuring party' can hardly be described as professional adventurers.Gothic Horror is quite different to High Fantasy and they don't mix well so please DON'T COMPARE WHAT CAN?T BE COMPARED
by the way Mina was not part of the party, but a victim... Harker's love, yes she took some involvement... but good part of it she would have become an NPC... otherwise it would have been quite boring for the player... THIS according to the NOVEL please don't mix the awful movie of Coppola here, only good thing was the music and vestuary.
And VAN HELSING was an professional and reputed VAMPIRE HUNTER, so YES he is a a professional adventurer... so is Quincy Jones a Cowboy who knew how to fight and surely did in his youth... only the good Englishmen were not ready for the adventure.
Firstly mina, plays pivital parts in the location of Dracula for his distruction, thanks to hypnotism. She uses criminology to predict dracula's behaviour. She cites Cesare Lombroso and Max Nordau. She is a protagonist in the story, even if she would make a lousy PC.
Quincy Jones, is a cowboy sure. A farmer. I live in the country side, i can shoot well, have experience riding a horse, i am a trained land based navigator, i trained as a rock climbing instructor, and can scuba dive. Can i claim to be a professional adventurer too please.
It has been a while, some ten years since i last read dracula,but as i remember it the extent of Van Helsing's prior involvement with vampires
was left a little bit vague. He certainly knew of them, feared them and perhapes had perhapes been involved with the destruction of one. That to my mind, hardly makes him a 'professional vampire hunter'.
I might well be wrong about Van Helsing, but as i said, it has been some time.
As a side note: I don't see how this has anything to do with optimization as you've defined the term. If a character wants to be a medical examiner who finds herself in the midst of adventure, she can still be built efficiently (probably as a Rogue with some ranks in Profession (medicine) and Perception.) On the flip side, the iconic Valeros is certainly an adventurer through and through, but he's not a very efficient combatant.This is precisely my point. ZN is saying that "professional adventurer" characters are illogical, don't fit in the setting, and are automatically optimized munchkins that prevent roleplay from happening (or was that you on that last bit? I'm starting to forget whose silly arguments are whose.).
Optimised and munchkin is not the same thing. I haven't claimed that either, nor has chris.
I have stated that the desire to play an optimal character, can conflict with the desire to accurately portray a character concept.
To be brutally honest Valeros is a mercinary as written, or possibly a 'protagonist'(as per WFRP career). My consideration of the professional adventurer as a silly concept, is seperate.
Regardless, the idea that professionalism = special insight into best practice is in accurate.
It's been said but to reiterate, build is important if you want to have fun. In the Age of Worms game I played, the majority of the party played clerics (one of Pelor, one of Cuthbert, another of some Elven diety and a paladin of Cuthbert). One player however went rogue/mage to get into Arcane trickster and while he was good at what he did, he paled in comparison to the other characters because of his multiclassing meant he wasn't good at sneak attacking and couldn't cast high level spells... it wasn't so much that the rest of us were min-maxing either, just that the build wasn't optimal enough to be useful at high levels. (fireball vs. miracle for example.)
And that sucked for him because the spot light rarely had the opportunity to shine on him through no real fault of his own, as compared to if he'd just specialized in rogue or mage. (Having that many Clerics also tended to mean that we didn't need to worry about traps... send the pally in to set them off, we can heal him back if he doesn't save.)
OMG!
Have you been spying on MY table?
*Ahem*
Am I the useless one then? Crap. And all the other players think I'm the cheese-monger in this campaign? It's just not fair!
Having said that, there are Paizo adventures which, if run as written, require a party that's pretty tightly focused on mission preparedness. Erik Mona has stated as much in an interview, that "Three Faces of Evil" (Age of Worms) has some encounters that are designed as wake-up calls to parties that aren't prepared for some real tactical challenges.My God!
You HAVE been spying on my game!
THAT particular episode was just messed up big time.
Plus we didn't have a mage.
Anyway, enough OT stuff. Our party is not optimised AT ALL. And it showed in that segment because we really struggled. But why not? It's not a bed of roses out there, and we just do the job. Sure, had I optimised the wazoo out of my character (and I have not yet exploited my concealment at will+hide skill combo by the way) we would have had a 'normal' time in that adventure.
But my journal would not have been half as good!
The thrust of the thread seems to have gone beyond what the OP was about, but in the interests of me putting forward my 2cp:
Stupid munchkins play the game by trying to amass resources for themselves.
Intelligent munchkins optimise.
Stupid power gamers optimise without regard for the campaign, the other players or the DM
Intelligent power gamers optimise with repect for the campaign, players and DM
Stupid optimisers think that it's a game they have to win.
Intelligent optimisers realise we're all in it together.
Role-playing is a related sub-set or super-set (depending on your POV) of these player archetypes, but ultimately is irrelevant, except if you want to insult people.
Sliding scale applies.
The thrust of the thread seems to have gone beyond what the OP was about, but in the interests of me putting forward my 2cp:
Stupid munchkins play the game by trying to amass resources for themselves.
Intelligent munchkins optimise.
Stupid power gamers optimise without regard for the campaign, the other players or the DM
Intelligent power gamers optimise with repect for the campaign, players and DM
Stupid optimisers think that it's a game they have to win.
Intelligent optimisers realise we're all in it together.Role-playing is a related sub-set or super-set (depending on your POV) of these player archetypes, but ultimately is irrelevant, except if you want to insult people.
Sliding scale applies.
I could get behind this categorization. It's a pretty close match to my conception of the various terms and their relation to causing drama in game.
|
|
well people in the end everything is summarized in you could play dumb heroes who just jump without looking first, courageous heroes who think with their guts before their brains but who really try to use their resources to maximum advantage... or you can play smart and plan your battles...
if someone wants to play an ignorant farmer who never learned to properly set an ambush... its cool
if others want to play a group of mercenaries that have field experience and they are good at what they do then they will act accordingly and play smart... more power to them...
if you are a DM or player offended by any one of this... change tables and people, you will not have fun...
but please lets not tell people they should not play like this, whatever we think about, if they are happy playing like that... that is their problem.
|
I could get behind this categorization. It's a pretty close match to my conception of the various terms and their relation to causing drama in game.The thrust of the thread seems to have gone beyond what the OP was about, but in the interests of me putting forward my 2cp:
Stupid munchkins play the game by trying to amass resources for themselves.
Intelligent munchkins optimise.
Stupid power gamers optimise without regard for the campaign, the other players or the DM
Intelligent power gamers optimise with repect for the campaign, players and DM
Stupid optimisers think that it's a game they have to win.
Intelligent optimisers realise we're all in it together.Role-playing is a related sub-set or super-set (depending on your POV) of these player archetypes, but ultimately is irrelevant, except if you want to insult people.
Sliding scale applies.
or....
jerks who want fun at others expense, or people who play well together. seems like an easy enough choice for me. perhaps the reason i've played with the same group for years.
in terms of "optimizers" who have broken/screwed up your games, what stands out as abusive or mean. what won't you bring to the table, unless proposed by the dm?
for me, the high level cleric of pelor/radiant servant with spontaneous casting, lots of action points, and domain draughts. shapechange + some spell that lets you roll instant 20's + balor form = instant head chop off, against pretty much anyone. did that to a balor in my savage tide game, 1-shotted the cr what,19?. solo.
that, and animated shields piss me off.
as far as what i won't play, divine metamagic clerics, and druid summoners with crazy pet. while fun, they are just too easy to turn the tables in power level. the dm has to either kill everyone, or you mop the floor in 2 rounds.
-t
if someone wants to play an ignorant farmer who never learned to properly set an ambush... its cool
if others want to play a group of mercenaries that have field experience and they are good at what they do then they will act accordingly and play smart... more power to them...
if you are a DM or player offended by any one of this... change tables and people, you will not have fun...
No matter how you look at it, there will always be people who'll keep preaching The-One-True-Way from their moral high horse. All we can do is making sure we enjoy the way we play at our respectives tables.