vuron wrote: Michael Johnson 66 wrote: vuron wrote: Tank as big dumb fighter in heavy armor, shield and big weapon has been in informal usage in Tabletop play for ages (1e-2e at least). The newer usage of forcing aggro creatures to target the tank, or the ability to punish opponents that choose to ignore the fighter and attack the squishy types is more recent in origin but has been around at least as long as 3.0 (AoOs provide at least a small degree of stickiness to fighters). To call tank MMORPG terminology is probably a bit anachronistic. How about meat-shield? :P Back in 1e that's what we called the hirelings and warhounds ;) That or fodder.
But yes meatshield is typically what the full casters call the fighter types behind their back. They call them tanks to their face because it makes them feel better about themselves. We used to call the hirelings "arrow-catchers" ;)
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I never played MMORPGs with anything akin to the devotion necessary to be considered "proficient" in them.
And any time someone at one of my tables refers to their "toon" I have to fight really hard to not reach out and slap the s@%$ out of them.
Shar Tahl wrote: It just seems sometimes folks are getting all crazy with mechanics and forgetting to have fun and just role play. Mechanics are my fun.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Wow, nice deep reach into the bowels of the forum to retrieve this gem.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
It is an interesting look into the history of forum perspective on things. Only four years and look at the way things have changed.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: Mechanics are my fun. Mechanics are a means to an end. This is a Roleplaying Game, after all.
blahpers wrote: Mechanics are a means to an end. This is a Roleplaying Game, after all. That's true. It's a Roleplaying Game. I'm enjoying the "game" part as well as the "roleplay" part. Is that somehow wrong?
Plenty of "games" have mechanics. I'd suggest boardgames if you like crunch more than roleplay. If roleplay comes first and crunch is just a means to assist roleplay, than ppttrpgs are where it's at.
Good Lord, I only just noticed that this was from 2010...
Don't I feel silly for flagging an abusive post from half a decade ago.
Anywho, I don't think there is an MMORPG effect, I'm pretty sure that started at the table first.
It took me awhile to notice the year on the posts too. I was just too astounded that - with a topic like this - it hadn't deteriorated into a bunch of arguments.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I was just surprised the OP used the Bard as an example of a class that's criticized for being weak. Does... anyone actually do that?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
About the only thing from mmo I see used is terminology. The the funny thing is a lot of that terminology pre-dates mmo to dikumuds.
It bugs me mostly because its used incorrectly. I guess the modern player doesn't know that say "mob" stands for mobile object.
Although if anyone ever uses it to refer to an animates suit of armour I'd be amazed.
Daenar wrote: Plenty of "games" have mechanics. I'd suggest boardgames if you like crunch more than roleplay. If roleplay comes first and crunch is just a means to assist roleplay, than ppttrpgs are where it's at. If you're just interested in roleplay and don't much care for mechanics FATE might be a better game for you.
That's not an insult or anything, it just is a bit weird to me to see people sneering at mechanics on a forum for a game as rules oriented as this one.
Arachnofiend wrote: I was just surprised the OP used the Bard as an example of a class that's criticized for being weak. Does... anyone actually do that? I think this thread was from a point in time when people were still used to the 3.5 Bard, not the PF best class in the game bard.
Ssalarn wrote: Arachnofiend wrote: I was just surprised the OP used the Bard as an example of a class that's criticized for being weak. Does... anyone actually do that? I think this thread was from a point in time when people were still used to the 3.5 Bard, not the PF best class in the game bard. I don't think so, when was CRB released?
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
This may have been before the APG was released. The thread first post was Feb 2010, and the APG was released (my guess) around GenCon 2010. So, at the time, there were no archetypes. I haven't played a bard (archetyped or plain old core), so can't comment on the weakness of the core bard.
I'm not sure the whole "keep the bad guy's attention focused on the tank" (I.E. aggro) mechanic works for D&D. You'd have to have bad guys who were powerful enough to kill a wizard or rogue with 1 or 2 hits, and that doesn't seem to be conducive to low-key gaming (which plenty of people like).
And even the game itself was fairly new. It took a while for the "Wait a minute, you're saying bards are good now?" to catch on. Because they were fairly terrible in 3.5.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So many things that were bad in 3.5 got good in PF, and some of the most overused things from 3.5 got nerfed in PF. I'm kind of happy to see the current mix of weaponry instead of mostly Spiked Chain, Lance or Casting.
Ssalarn wrote: And even the game itself was fairly new. It took a while for the "Wait a minute, you're saying bards are good now?" to catch on. Because they were fairly terrible in 3.5. They were a solid T3 in 3.5 and gained a lot of awesome stuff outside core. I mean DFI alone was pretty killer.
Even MMO tanks required that their party didn't spam large hate building heals or nukes and that the other DPS classes have some means of shedding hate or keeping themselves alive should they get hate by doing too much damage. Although I agree that D&D doesn't have traditional MMO "roles" it still requires similar work on each player's part to understand what their class can do, what their enemies can do, and the consequences of each action.
The game also scales poorly. In the low levels a fighter type is a greater threat than most classes. Higher defensive and offensive capabilities than most classes. Potentially one shotting monsters is a bigger threat than 1d4+1 magic missile. Magic scales too quickly in power and leaves non magic classes at a deficit, but if it didn't people wouldn't like the feel of playing magic classes.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: blahpers wrote: Mechanics are a means to an end. This is a Roleplaying Game, after all. That's true. It's a Roleplaying Game. I'm enjoying the "game" part as well as the "roleplay" part. Is that somehow wrong? Easy, tiger. Nothing wrong with enjoying the secondary aspects of the game.
blahpers wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: blahpers wrote: Mechanics are a means to an end. This is a Roleplaying Game, after all. That's true. It's a Roleplaying Game. I'm enjoying the "game" part as well as the "roleplay" part. Is that somehow wrong? Easy, tiger. Nothing wrong with enjoying the secondary aspects of the game. You mean primary part of the game. What with it being the underlying foundation of everything. Roleplaying is also primary, because by themselves those statistics are gonna do squat. Nice try there though, better luck next time.
Shar Tahl wrote: In all the complaints about current classes haves and have-nots, I can see this mirroring the message boards of EQ2 when I used to play that. It seems like a class being good at a couple things makes them weak (bards are the prime example) and trying to change them to be a viable "solo class". This was most evident with all the fighter/mage talk back in December, when most wanted a full BAB, High HD, full casting class. The MMO effect is also evident in the DPS talk. I know back in 1st and 2nd Ed, I never heard anyone complain that their fighter wasn't doing enough damage per second on average, and we had some pretty big nerds in our group!(me being one of them) As a whole, I think Paizo did an excellent job with this game system, creating balance without leaving it flat (4th ed is an example of flat, playing like a computer game)
I guess this effect was inevitable, since many of the gamers now are the ones that grew up with MMOs. It just seems sometimes folks are getting all crazy with mechanics and forgetting to have fun and just role play. I think that is why, in all the MMORPGs I played (EQ, UO, EQ2, DAOC, AoC, WAR, CoH, LoE,Realm, WoW, GoldBox NWN, LOTRO...yes I played a lot of them), I always play the class race nobody plays(considered inferior). Gnome, Lurikeens....anything tiny! It always seems more fun to play something that isn't the best, but has a little more flavor.
This is a gross oversimplification fueled by nostalgia, among other things
Icarus Pherae wrote:
You should give guild wars a shot, its a darn good MMO with a story....yep you heard me MMO, with story.
most mmos have a story. Something I feel is a waste of effort. Few things are as awful as a video sequence interrupting a good game. Especially if you cant skip it.
Anzyr wrote: blahpers wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: blahpers wrote: Mechanics are a means to an end. This is a Roleplaying Game, after all. That's true. It's a Roleplaying Game. I'm enjoying the "game" part as well as the "roleplay" part. Is that somehow wrong? Easy, tiger. Nothing wrong with enjoying the secondary aspects of the game. You mean primary part of the game. What with it being the underlying foundation of everything. Roleplaying is also primary, because by themselves those statistics are gonna do squat. Nice try there though, better luck next time. Roleplaying is the underlying foundation of everything. Mechanics are a means to resolve the innumerable "what happens when" scenarios that come up when characters interact with each other and their environment.
And sheesh, you folks are defensive.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
My favorite part was that there's two primary parts. Kinda defeats the point of something being primary if there's two things that come first. IMO fun is the primary aspect of any game. Enjoy the mechanics or the role playing it doesn't matter as long as you're having fun and not ruining other people's fun.
Khrysaor wrote: My favorite part was that there's two primary parts. Kinda defeats the point of something being primary if there's two things that come first. IMO fun is the primary aspect of any game. Enjoy the mechanics or the role playing it doesn't matter as long as you're having fun and not ruining other people's fun. Not really. There's lots of situations where having multiple primary parts is necessary. Which is primary to creating a computer for example; the hardware or the software? They're both primary components, neither is secondary. The same is true of a roleplaying game. I see fun as more of an objective that is achieved by the primary parts of the RPG.
blahpers wrote: Easy, tiger. Nothing wrong with enjoying the secondary aspects of the game. Less condescending please.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: blahpers wrote: Easy, tiger. Nothing wrong with enjoying the secondary aspects of the game. Less condescending please. That wasn't condescending.
blahpers wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: blahpers wrote: Easy, tiger. Nothing wrong with enjoying the secondary aspects of the game. Less condescending please. That wasn't condescending. You mean that wasnt condescending Tiger right?
blahpers wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: blahpers wrote: Easy, tiger. Nothing wrong with enjoying the secondary aspects of the game. Less condescending please. That wasn't condescending. Implying a part of the game (a BIG part of the game) that I enjoy is "secondary" isn't condescending. Yup.
Hey. Aren't you that guy who granted me my wish? What happened with that?
Saying what you enjoy is secondary to the game intent isn't condescending. The entire point of D&D is to "role play" a character in a fantasy setting. The mechanics are just the means to measure the effects of role playing. Without the mechanics there's nothing to tell you how effective your efforts are. You can't just say I cast fireball without having a spell range, blast radius, damage, and everything else the mechanics measure.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
You can't have a cooperative story-telling game without some form of rules and mechanics. Take those away and you aren't playing a Role Playing Game, you're just role playing, which is just LARPing (or possibly having sexy fun time).
The RP portion is neither more nor less important than the G portion It's three letters, all together, RPG.
Implying that someone who enjoys the "game" portion more than the "role playing" portion is into a "secondary" facet is absolutely condescending. It says "The things I value are more important than the things you value", and it's not okay. Throwing "tiger" in there only underscores the point, as it's either an affectionate nickname being used to assume unwarranted familiarity, or something you'd call a Little Leaguer who's just learning the game. Either way, not a respectful way to address a peer.
Khrysaor wrote: Saying what you enjoy is secondary to the game intent isn't condescending. Except it isn't secondary. It's equally important.
Ssalarn wrote: You can't have a cooperative story-telling game without some form of rules and mechanics. Take those away and you aren't playing a Role Playing Game, you're just role playing, which is just LARPing (or possibly having sexy fun time).
The RP portion is neither more nor less important than the G portion It's three letters, all together, RPG.
Implying that someone who enjoys the "game" portion more than the "role playing" portion is absolutely condescending. It says "The things I value are more important than the things you value", and it's not okay. Throwing "tiger" in there only underscores the point, as it's either an affectionate nickname being used to assume unwarranted familiarity, or something you'd call a Little Leaguer who's just learning the game. Either way, not a respectful way to address a peer.
100% agree with the first paragraph here.
I read the "tiger" as more "easy 'super aggressive person'" than what you did.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Khrysaor wrote: Saying what you enjoy is secondary to the game intent isn't condescending. The entire point of D&D is to "role play" a character in a fantasy setting. The mechanics are just the means to measure the effects of role playing. Without the mechanics there's nothing to tell you how effective your efforts are. You can't just say I cast fireball without having a spell range, blast radius, damage, and everything else the mechanics measure. whoa whoa whoa, hold the phone....mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing, the are more of a "if I do -this- what happens?" or a way of avoiding arguments like the "my guy can kick your guys behind" kind. the ONLY way of measuring the effectiveness of ROLE playing is how much fun you are having.
The role playing IS the game. You don't play monopoly because you want to roll dice and move a top hat around the board. You play a game to complete an objective whether it's to win, to save the princess from another castle because she's not in this one, or to save the world from hordes of demons. The rules of the game are how to play; ie the mechanics. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the rules or even enjoying them more than the purpose of the game. This is why people theory craft and it's very fulfilling to many people. Arguing that the rules of a game are the primary focus of a game doesn't make for a good game IMO.
Karyouonigami wrote: mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing, the are more of a "if I do -this- what happens?" So mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing; they tell you what happens if you do something which is quantifiable and you've measured something.
Got it.
Anarchy_Kanya wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Saying what you enjoy is secondary to the game intent isn't condescending. Except it isn't secondary. It's equally important. how is it equal? why would the mechanics be as important since you can change the mechanics and still play a character the same, or even the game itself?
please elaborate on your point
Khrysaor wrote: Karyouonigami wrote: mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing, the are more of a "if I do -this- what happens?" So mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing; they tell you what happens if you do something which is quantifiable and you've measured something.
Got it. Correct, they measure the ROLL part not the ROLE.
and to be fair the rules are more for the GM so he/she can tell you what happens when you do the action since it is up to him what really happens in the game
Karyouonigami wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Karyouonigami wrote: mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing, the are more of a "if I do -this- what happens?" So mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing; they tell you what happens if you do something which is quantifiable and you've measured something.
Got it. Correct, they measure the ROLL part not the ROLE.
and to be fair the rules are more for the GM so he/she can tell you what happens when you do the action since it is up to him what really happens in the game You do understand that swinging your sword IS role playing, right? Just because it's accompanied with a die roll to tell you the outcome doesn't change this. You chose the role of the aggressor or whatever reason you have for attacking and your character swings their weapon. Role playing is not just the speaking part of the game.
Roll play is also an extremely derogatory term given to people who care more about rolling dice than role playing how their characters would react to stimuli.
If the mechanics say you aren't a good sword fighter all the RP in the world isn't going to make you one. And as a some who can both build and RP, I should know.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pan wrote: blahpers wrote: Anarchy_Kanya wrote: blahpers wrote: Easy, tiger. Nothing wrong with enjoying the secondary aspects of the game. Less condescending please. That wasn't condescending. You mean that wasnt condescending Tiger right? The person to whom I was responding was being unnecessarily combative. I pointed it out in a noncombative manner. If you're bound and determined to be offended by something I write, you probably will be. ("Look at that @&$!? eating crackers like she owns the place.")
I stated that Pathfinder was first and foremost about roleplaying and that mechanics were one of the tools used to further that goal. I said nothing about badwrongfun. You can respectfully disagree with that, or you could even recognize that such a view does not in any way infringe on one's enjoyment of mechanics for their own sake. But if you find it mortally offensive, consider rethinking how you interpret written communication; you may be inferring more than intended.
Khrysaor wrote: The role playing IS the game. It's PART of the game.
Quote: The rules of the game are how to play; ie the mechanics. There's nothing wrong with enjoying the rules or even enjoying them more than the purpose of the game. That's like, your opinion, man.
Quote: Arguing that the rules of a game are the primary focus of a game doesn't make for a good game Show me where anyone said that. I'll wait.
Quote: how is it equal? One isn't more important than the other.
blahpers wrote: The person to whom I was responding was being unnecessarily combative. Sure I was.
Quote: I stated that Pathfinder was first and foremost about roleplaying and that mechanics were one of the tools used to further that goal. You would be wrong then. PF is a game that involves roleplaying.
Anzyr wrote: Ifthe mechanics say you aren't a good sword fighter all the RP in the world isn't going to make you one. And as a some who can both build and RP, I should know. Which is why we have mechanics--to further the roleplayer's goal of playing the role of a sword fighter. When situations come up in which a player should be able to demonstrate her character's prowess with a sword in comparison to other characters, the mechanics provide a way to do that. There are other ways to accomplish this, and people tend to gravitate toward the system they feel best resolves these ambiguities. Without the goal, however, it's just paper, dice, and mats. Roleplaying without mechanics is still roleplaying, but mechanics without roleplaying is a different kind of game altogether. That type of game can be very fun, but I got into D&D to roleplay, not to wargame. The latter serves the former.
Anzyr wrote: If the mechanics say you aren't a good sword fighter all the RP in the world isn't going to make you one. And as a some who can both build and RP, I should know. You're obviously not role playing your character if your mechanics make you an inferior swordsman yet you continue swinging that sword. Maybe you should have been casting spells instead of running into melee. Unless inferior swordsman is your role in which case the mechanics confirm it.
This still doesn't change the fact that the mechanics measure the effects of your role playing. And again, role playing is not limited to the speaking portion of the game. How does that super agile monk hold up with his vow of silence in your games?
Khrysaor wrote: Karyouonigami wrote: Khrysaor wrote: Karyouonigami wrote: mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing, the are more of a "if I do -this- what happens?" So mechanics don't measure the effects of role playing; they tell you what happens if you do something which is quantifiable and you've measured something.
Got it. Correct, they measure the ROLL part not the ROLE.
and to be fair the rules are more for the GM so he/she can tell you what happens when you do the action since it is up to him what really happens in the game You do understand that swinging your sword IS role playing, right? Just because it's accompanied with a die roll to tell you the outcome doesn't change this. You chose the role of the aggressor or whatever reason you have for attacking and your character swings their weapon. Role playing is not just the speaking part of the game. It is a part of Role-playing and I am not disagreeing with you as far as it is a part of the game, I am trying to point out(badly) that you don't need the mechanics to play the role of a character. I know many players who could care less what the bonus is to hit something with a sword or how to find out and they can still role play. At least to me the point of playing any game is to have fun, some people have more fun when they have lots of rules like in pathfinder and others have more fun with LARPing but the mechanics don't tell you how much fun you are having. I feel the MMO effect has many players focused too much on how to "win" at role-playing and less on "how do I make a unforgetable character." I say "win" because things like Damage per Seconed/round and phrases like "how they can change the world around them" lend themselves more to the Roll side of the game and the mechanics of the game itself. On the other side of the game you have the players who only care about the personality of the character to the exclusion of the mechanics or even the disdain for them, When the game is not designed to be heavy in either way it should be a balance of the two.
Anzyr wrote: If the mechanics say you aren't a good sword fighter all the RP in the world isn't going to make you one. And as a some who can both build and RP, I should know. There is more than one way of accomplishing a goal, swinging a sword is one of them but not the only one. Convincing the enemy that you are much better than they are with a sword is another, avoiding the fight alltogether is another....no where in the rules does it say that you HAVE to kill a monster to earn exp
In my experience people who have to say they can do things rarely can.
blahpers wrote: Anzyr wrote: Ifthe mechanics say you aren't a good sword fighter all the RP in the world isn't going to make you one. And as a some who can both build and RP, I should know. Which is why we have mechanics--to further the roleplayer's goal of playing the role of a sword fighter. When situations come up in which a player should be able to demonstrate her character's prowess with a sword in comparison to other characters, the mechanics provide a way to do that. There are other ways to accomplish this, and people tend to gravitate toward the system they feel best resolves these ambiguities. Without the goal, however, it's just paper, dice, and mats. Roleplaying without mechanics is still roleplaying, but mechanics without roleplaying is a different kind of game altogether. That type of game can be very fun, but I got into D&D to roleplay, not to wargame. The latter serves the former. that is what I was trying to say, thank you
|
