|
Wrong. The reason why MMOs intentionally have few options, aside from forcing people to work together is so you don't get screwed by trap options. D&D since at least 3rd edition, including PF is littered with trap options. The number of good options depends on what you're playing, but still isn't very high unless you take advantage of that whole backwards compatibility thing to use 3.5 stuff. Good luck finding a single worthwhile PF feat for non casters for example. It's like a custom Minesweeper map where you crank the number of mines to the maximum and the minefield size to the minimum.
I refuse to look at them as "Trap options". That, to me, reeks of the cookie-cutter build optimization. The extra feats are there to allow you to have more Role playing in your Roll playing.
for MMO's it is very much limiting trap options, which is why the original idea for City of Heroes did not have arch types, but just mix and match powers as you wish, but this ends up with "useless" characters, which in an MMO leads to unhappy players in the long run.
Now, for P&P, I have had great fun RP'ing non-optimal characters. One of the most fun characters I have had was in a game where character creation was based off of the "3d6, take them in order" idea. I ended up with all 10's and 11's all the way down in a party where people ended up with one to two 18's each. This game used action points, and I used them to play him as a fighter who just happened to be the luckiest person anybody could know. Heck, he practically jingled with luck charms and all the strange thing that he would do pre-combat to try to bring luck.
There are absolutely trap options. They were even called "Trap Options" by Monte Cook who developed them. 3e Toughness anyone?
Also, so far all we've proven is "Some optimizers are jerks." I've faced just as many problems from people who got mad at me for making an elf who wasn't from a forest.
This ire against optimizers gets old. You can have an optimized character who is just as rich of a character as someone who isn't. This whole thing about "roll players" vs "Role players" is childish. Bad roleplayers happen everywhere. The fighter with 18 int and 14 str can still be played like an uneducated dunce. Not because he's afraid people will find out he's smart or anything, but because the player isn't a good roleplayer.
Oh, you roleplay rather than rollplay? I guess you're just better then the guy who wants his character to be the best he can be in combat. How dare he minimize his weaknesses and bolster his strengths. Be sure to tell him that when he's picking up your slack when your halfling Monk/bard/shadow dancer starts to lag behind.
/rant & hyperbole mode off.
I don't think it's a bad thing to have other things effect the game. The strength of this hobby is that we can always discard what we don't like, or switch it around till it works. If we get some stuff from MMOs in our games, then that just means we have more options to mess with. If we don't like it, we can just leave it behind:)
There are absolutely trap options. They were even called "Trap Options" by Monte Cook who developed them.
Also, so far all we've proven is "Some optimizers are jerks."
When you put it that way, it sounds like you've proved that Monte Cook is a jerk. :(
Be sure to tell him that when he's picking up your slack when your halfling Monk/bard/shadow dancer starts to lag behind.
You leave Pindle Sneakyfoot alone! You'll be sorry when he's gone!
/cry
stizuff
All I was saying is that your scenario paints optimizers in a flattering light. Mine painted them in an unflattering light. The main issue that I brought up was that optimization usually leads to other people at the table trying to tell you you are playing your character wrong or that you made your character wrong. Attempts to "help" are usually overdone or disguised snark.
This ire against optimizers gets old. You can have an optimized character who is just as rich of a character as someone who isn't. This whole thing about "roll players" vs "Role players" is childish. Bad roleplayers happen everywhere. The fighter with 18 int and 14 str can still be played like an uneducated dunce. Not because he's afraid people will find out he's smart or anything, but because the player isn't a good roleplayer.
Oh, you roleplay rather than rollplay? I guess you're just better then the guy who wants his character to be the best he can be in combat. How dare he minimize his weaknesses and bolster his strengths. Be sure to tell him that when he's picking up your slack when your halfling Monk/bard/shadow dancer starts to lag behind.
/rant & hyperbole mode off.
I don't think it's a bad thing to have other things effect the game. The strength of this hobby is that we can always discard what we don't like, or switch it around till it works. If we get some stuff from MMOs in our games, then that just means we have more options to mess with. If we don't like it, we can just leave it behind:)
However, what's inferred here is that, somehow, someone who would rather roleplay than "rollplay" is going to suck at combat, which is not necessarily the case.
|
It is disingenuous because you say that because pre 3rd edition stats give lower numbers they make less of a difference. They don't because you missed other important factors such as the damage part, and everyone having lower numbers.
Bingo! In 3.x the bonuses get so stupidly high given the dice rolled is a d20 that the roll sometimes is only to determine the 5% of auto-failure. I firmly believe that bonuses should not be designed in a way that exceeds by too much half the value on the dice rolled.
S.
It is disingenuous because you say that because pre 3rd edition stats give lower numbers they make less of a difference. They don't because you missed other important factors such as the damage part, and everyone having lower numbers.Bingo! In 3.x the bonuses get so stupidly high given the dice rolled is a d20 that the roll sometimes is only to determine the 5% of auto-failure. I firmly believe that bonuses should not be designed in a way that exceeds by too much half the value on the dice rolled.
S.
I agree with this. I was hoping Pathfinder would do something to address this, but they kinda left it alone. I'm trying to address it in my homebrew games.
I have a player who prefers to play rogues who has had her concept of stealth completely snafu-ed by MMOs. She can't wrap her head around the idea that she can't simply hit a button and go into "stealth mode", nor can she run around the entire game world in "stealth mode" all the time. I try to be patient, but lately when she asks the impossible I simply say "No," followed by "the rules are in your book. Start reading." Might be time for me to get out from behind the screen before I get snarky.Did you have a proper talk with her? I mean not just "No, doesn't work!" but a proper explanation of how things work, how they don't work, and why they work that way? Getting people's minds into perspective often helps
Yes. I went over when Stealth checks happen, what the necessary conditions are to use Stealth, etc. It seems like it all goes in one ear and out the other. Since there are myriad changes to combat rules in PF, I've also asked my players to look up something prior to their initiative if they're using a tactic we haven't used before or used often since the switch, just to make sure we're not missing anything. Alas, I have yet to see her crack her book during the game, except when she's creating a character.
|
|
Alas, I have yet to see her crack her book during the game, except when she's creating a character.
That is a issue with the d20 system, rules, rules and more rules. My two female players that cut their teeth (no pun) on Vampire and Call of Cthulhu also can't understand why they should have to remember 50 modifiers to do anything in an RPG. I sympathize with them, the ever increasing requirement to have codified rules due the the 'boardgame' nature of modern D&D-like combat demands it. They often say they wish to preform X or Y in a combat but just want me to roll a dice and make it up. Perhaps your player is just not suited to such a rules heavy game as 3.x/PF?
S.
I have seen posts by players on the forums that their group wants to kick a player because he did not optimize and hurts the groups effectiveness. Sad. Gaming is turning into a competitive sport I guess.
This is bad news. One reason that I primarily game with friends.
Since I know that I would become irrevocably assimilated by the time-sink, I have never given in to the temptation to start playing an MMO. Single or multi-player RPGs like NWN or DAO? Sure! Just not Evercrack, World of Warcrack, etc.
However, as a DM I have a strong preference to be able to create encounters that are balanced properly. If one character is severely lagging behind or excelling ahead of everyone else, then either someone is likely to be miserable or someone is likely to be bored. As such, I have as dim of view of someone making an under-powered hapless character as I do of someone trying to exploit loopholes to craft the ultimate munchkin.
As anyone can plainly see by checking my PbP games, roleplaying is clearly king, but there's no denying that confrontation (martial or social) takes place. As such, I expect and might even be said to demand that characters will be able to hold their own in the balance of situations.
If one player wants to have an autistic killing machine who is useless in social encounters then I suppose that averages out. Same goes for a character who is the ultra socialite yet doesn't know which end of a sword to hold on to. It's when every character is built the same way that there's a problem. No way I'm crunching all the math for a no-RP dungeon crawl when a computer game could do it better and faster! This has to be an enjoyable experience on both sides of the GM screen!
Of course, I actually expect players to come up with backstories, develop personalities, and grow as people not just advance in level. At any rate, don't discount the desire for characters that are of comparable strength as being a player-only MMO-induced desire. Some of us GMs just like to be able to plan things out without having to worry about an adequate challenge for one character killing the rest of the party or vice-versa.
I removed a post that was doing just fine up until the last sentence. Let's leave the sniping out of it.
|
|
Since I know that I would become irrevocably assimilated by the time-sink, I have never given in to the temptation to start playing an MMO. Single or multi-player RPGs like NWN or DAO? Sure! Just not Evercrack, World of Warcrack, etc.
I found my foray into Warcrack provided me as a DM a benchmark of what I never wanted my roleplaying games to become. It really crystallized my desire to DM in such away that my games could never be compared to the travel-fight-travel-fight-repeat of a computer based RPG. I think what you said about character depth and the ability of the DM to involve the players at the personal/tailored level makes Pen & Paper RPGs my choice over the Computer RPG any day of the week.
I do complain, a lot ok, about the complexity of PF with feats and builds and the like. But at one level if someone spends the time to 'optimize' their character then I figure they will care a little about it and perhaps respond in a more believable manner. I would hate to see my players fall into the 'well I can be res'ed' so who cares frame of mind.
S.
|
|
In MMO's, there is a "right way" and a "wrong way" to do a lot of things. You really can tell somebody they're playing the game wrong, and you know they are because they get less loot, less XP, they do less damage... etc.
In PnP RPG's, it isn't valid to say a group is playing "wrong". They're just not playing like you.
I do complain, a lot ok, about the complexity of PF with feats and builds and the like. But at one level if someone spends the time to 'optimize' their character then I figure they will care a little about it and perhaps respond in a more believable manner. I would hate to see my players fall into the 'well I can be res'ed' so who cares frame of mind.
S.
Yeah, I'll admit that part of my expectation of similarly (if differently) balanced characters comes from some past frustrations dealing with rules knowledge (or a lack there-of). I see it like this:
If a guy/girl is really romantically attracted to a girl/guy, they will put forth effort and make time to be with them. Similarly, if a player is actively engaged in and interested in the game, I expect that they will put forth time and effort into learning the rules, getting into character, and making the most of them.
When I see dramatically under-optimized or poorly balanced characters, it makes me suspect that they are either grossly deficient in their rules knowledge, are indifferent to the fact that RPGs are a cooperative endeavor, or just really don't give a damn. Thankfully I've only ever had one player who would just let their characters get killed off with the attitude they could simply make another. Suffice it to say that I no game with OR GM for said individual.
IMO that's just wasting everyone's time and insulting everyone's effort and contributions.
Mind you, I'm quite willing to work with players and point out alternate paths that would still remain try to their character concept while raising them up to a similar level of effectiveness as the rest of the party. Once or twice, the player was actually concerned about their character seeming like they were a munchkin but generally that's a pretty simple fear to assuage.
Alas, I have yet to see her crack her book during the game, except when she's creating a character.That is a issue with the d20 system, rules, rules and more rules. My two female players that cut their teeth (no pun) on Vampire and Call of Cthulhu also can't understand why they should have to remember 50 modifiers to do anything in an RPG. I sympathize with them, the ever increasing requirement to have codified rules due the the 'boardgame' nature of modern D&D-like combat demands it. They often say they wish to preform X or Y in a combat but just want me to roll a dice and make it up. Perhaps your player is just not suited to such a rules heavy game as 3.x/PF?
S.
I'd agree with that assessment, except that she played 3.0 and 3.5 with us for years before taking an extended break. Now that she's back into it, she seems to have forgotten most of the rules. When she first rejoined, (back when we were still playing 3.5) she reverted back to 2nd Ed. terms and rules, like "backstab."
Most "modifiers" are pretty simple to remember once you've used them a few times. Also, most of them are things a good player already has factored in on their character sheets. She doesn't. She has to re-add everything on her turn, during her attack, running her finger down her character sheet to pick out all her bonuses while she does so. When other players attempt to helpfully provide advice on how to streamline things, she adopts the whole "Don't tell me how to run my character" attitude. Thing is, they're not telling her how to run her character, they're telling her how to improve her game play.
I'm taking my turn as a player soon, so I won't have to deal with it. Might give me a chance to discuss it with her as a fellow player. Maybe that will make a difference.
|
|
She has to re-add everything on her turn, during her attack, running her finger down her character sheet to pick out all her bonuses while she does so.
One of my pet hates as a DM - players need to sort out that sort of mechanic before the session. Nothing kills immersion like someone counting up bonuses on their figure each and every round.
Again this requirement is a function of the many modifiers (stat, magic, spell, feat, etc) that influence the final bonus.
The 4e character generator does an almost perfect job of cutting this sort of addition during the game. Be nice to see something is good for PF.
Luck with the player, sounds like you and your group are bending over backwards to help her. I hope she sees this and puts in a little more effort,
S.
* - Because you'd be stupid not to use a two handed weapon in 3.x.
Not that you meant it in that way, but that's exactly the type of statement that makes people dislike optimizers.
* - Because you'd be stupid not to use a two handed weapon in 3.x.
Critical isn't a bad thing if it's accurate.
Good luck finding a single worthwhile PF feat for non casters for example. It's like a custom Minesweeper map where you crank the number of mines to the maximum and the minefield size to the minimum.
I rest my case.
It all comes down to the living breathing person on the other side of the table. A computer program is static. The beefier you are, the better you will perform. You suck? Then you die.
In a P&P RPG a good GM will find a way to challenge optimizers and non-optimizers alike. If you are cruising through encounters, then I can make them harder. If you are getting pwned then I can make things easier, regardless of the party makeup and the ratio of badass characters to wussbag characters. A human can find the right balance.
I have a player who plays a ridiculous build. He is a Barbarian/Druid and he sucks. He doesn't know any of his spells or understand any of his feats. He only shows up to roleplay, make jokes, and be a social butterfly. If you killed his character then he wouldn't miss a beat.
If you try to give him suggestions on how to play his character then you are preaching to the chior. I used to try to help him pick the right feats, skills, build, etc, to no avail. That is not why he plays the game. Why should I force him to play the game the way that I think it should be played.
He is a damn good roleplayer though. Maybe the best thespian at the table. I can also rely on him to drive the story forward. He makes us all laugh. He always brings snacks. I have three badass optimizers that round the party out. I have found a way to make encounters challenging and interesting for all of them.
Can anyone honestly tell me that there is anything wrong with this picture? Who would benefit if I got in this player's grill or kicked him?
However, what's inferred here is that, somehow, someone who would rather roleplay than "rollplay" is going to suck at combat, which is not necessarily the case.This ire against optimizers gets old. You can have an optimized character who is just as rich of a character as someone who isn't. This whole thing about "roll players" vs "Role players" is childish. Bad roleplayers happen everywhere. The fighter with 18 int and 14 str can still be played like an uneducated dunce. Not because he's afraid people will find out he's smart or anything, but because the player isn't a good roleplayer.
Oh, you roleplay rather than rollplay? I guess you're just better then the guy who wants his character to be the best he can be in combat. How dare he minimize his weaknesses and bolster his strengths. Be sure to tell him that when he's picking up your slack when your halfling Monk/bard/shadow dancer starts to lag behind.
/rant & hyperbole mode off.
I don't think it's a bad thing to have other things effect the game. The strength of this hobby is that we can always discard what we don't like, or switch it around till it works. If we get some stuff from MMOs in our games, then that just means we have more options to mess with. If we don't like it, we can just leave it behind:)
That's why I threw in the "/rant and hyperbole mode off" part in:)
Can anyone honestly tell me that there is anything wrong with this picture? Who would benefit if I got in this player's grill or kicked him?
It really depends on the group and the expectations that are set. Showing up to joke, socialize, and RP might be all some groups expect and look forward to which is their prerogative. Others may prefer a more goal-oriented game.
If there's one player whose expectation are at odds with everyone else's and detrimental to the game then it's kind of irrelevant if he has a collection of Oscars on his mantle. In that case the GM either works to get everyone on the same page, finds some other solution, allows the game to deteriorate, or makes the tough call.
Lastly, if one character 'sucks', at the very least I'd say the GM ought to figure out if this is by design or a case of the player needing some help with the rules. Most of the folks I've played with desire their characters to be heroes and effective ones at that. IMO it's really no different than giving a heads-up that a forest-built, orc-hunting ranger might not be the best choice for a campaign you know will be taking place in the Underdark against the Drow.
when your halfling Monk/bard/shadow dancer starts to lag behind.
Err... Haw can someone "slack behind" ? You mean in combat ?
A lot of my characters are NOT optimized for combat, I prefer to play the "social" type, usually a bard or a rogue (spy)... They are decent, but far from being optimized in combat... And I had never got the feelings that I was "slacking behind"...
Why should I ? 'cause I do less damage than the fighter with my bard ? 'cause most spell I use are utilitary spell that help me deal with people out of fight ?
Well, sorry but usually you have to deal with people outside of fight more often than in fight... At least in my games...
Yes, I do some optimizing, but not fight related... Focus : Diplomatie, a lot of perform skill, disguise, stealth, sleight of hand... Half the feat I take are not fighting feat...
Understand me, I'm not against the MMO, I've played DAOC for 3 years, and I was playing a lot...
But this is not the same, in MMO you can't even try to send a spy to help you in your fight... "Know your ennemy" is valid in MMO and in RPG, but in MMO you do this by metagaming, in RPG you have to send someone in order to assess their forces, you can even try to talk your way out of a possible fight...
Combat is not all there is in a p&p rpg... ;)
In a MMo you have to fight by yourself, in a p&p rpg you can use others to fight for you... ;)
Let's have super awesome hardcore roleplaying then.
Your character is terrible in combat? Get out of the group. We aren't putting our lives in the hands of someone incompetent.
Your character can't do much of anything? Then what the hell is he doing in the group? Why should I in character accept having to save the same person's behind time and time again? Wouldn't I eventually say "Ok, no, you aren't working with us anymore?"
Optimization is good roleplaying. You're a group of adventurers who puts their lives at risk as a daily occupation. Why would they do anything but demand the best from themselves and others?
Let's have super awesome hardcore roleplaying then.
Your character is terrible in combat? Get out of the group. We aren't putting our lives in the hands of someone incompetent.
Your character can't do much of anything? Then what the hell is he doing in the group? Why should I in character accept having to save the same person's behind time and time again? Wouldn't I eventually say "Ok, no, you aren't working with us anymore?"
Optimization is good roleplaying. You're a group of adventurers who puts their lives at risk as a daily occupation. Why would they do anything but demand the best from themselves and others?
But it is near impossible to be "terrible" at everything... Well, you can, for example in a star wars 1st ed. there was an Ewok in the group... But well, my Jedi was making up for him anyway ;)
Even the "kid" archetype in SW was better, at least you can use it as decoy sometimes, no one is suspicious about a kid, so he can have some information... :pWhat I say is : you're not forced to fully optimize all the time... Sometimes you can take a feat which seems weaker than another for RP reason only...
And even when you're optimizing, you're not forced to optimize for combat... After all what's the big deal if the spy deal less damage ? He's not there to do damage, he's there to gather information about the ennemy, which can be even more useful than just fighting very well... ;)
It's a roleplaying game, you have to role... but combat is not the single role of the game... :)
Let's have super awesome hardcore roleplaying then.
Your character is terrible in combat? Get out of the group. We aren't putting our lives in the hands of someone incompetent.
Your character can't do much of anything? Then what the hell is he doing in the group? Why should I in character accept having to save the same person's behind time and time again? Wouldn't I eventually say "Ok, no, you aren't working with us anymore?"
Optimization is good roleplaying. You're a group of adventurers who puts their lives at risk as a daily occupation. Why would they do anything but demand the best from themselves and others?
Because optimization is mostly something that happens out of character, not in character.
Unless your character has a copy of the rulebooks and everyone's character sheets. "Frank, why did you take cleave last level? Furious focus would be a thousand times more useful!"
Besides, when they die, you can take their stuff and hire someone more useful to replace them, maybe get a few massages or something with the leftovers.
As far as the influence on my games, my players have inherited some of the optimization bug from me, and one who plays a lot of guild wars always builds very powerful characters. I have a player who has called monsters "mobs", but not when actually playing. My usual response is "Of course he's mobile. This is a game where a giant protoplasm has a 10 ft movement speed."
Though if I heard someone refer to an area as an instance I think I might snap.
|
Let's have super awesome hardcore roleplaying then.
Your character is terrible in combat? Get out of the group. We aren't putting our lives in the hands of someone incompetent.
Your character can't do much of anything? Then what the hell is he doing in the group? Why should I in character accept having to save the same person's behind time and time again? Wouldn't I eventually say "Ok, no, you aren't working with us anymore?"
Optimization is good roleplaying. You're a group of adventurers who puts their lives at risk as a daily occupation. Why would they do anything but demand the best from themselves and others?
It's the combat mindset that is the problem here, in my opinion.
What if that character got you awesome equipment, convinced allies to join your group, trebled your reward from the king and bypassed 1in4 potential combat encounters by finding inventive non-combat solutions.
Blimey, the most useful member of the party!
It's a shame they just got booted because: "Your character is terrible in combat? Get out of the group. We aren't putting our lives in the hands of someone incompetent."
It's interesting that this discussion is happening on the Paizo boards, Burnt Offerings is about 70% cool roleplaying opportunities and even the dungeons are designed for heavy RP.
Have you guys come to a result yet? No? And you won't.
Deep immersion roleplaying is great, but some people don't like it. Each way is right, and if you have some of each sort of player at the table (in addition to people who are somewhere in between - and there's always that, because human behaviour is rarely if ever a switch with two settings), make sure you respect each other's choices and person.
Character optimisation is great, but some people don't like it. Each way is right, and if you have some of each sort of player at the table (in addition to people who are somewhere in between - and there's always that, because human behaviour is rarely if ever a switch with two settings), make sure you respect each other's choices and person.
And yes, you can combine both. You can also have neither. Until you guys realise that you cannot change anyone's mind, or prove that your preference is better in anything except your opinion, this is getting exactly nowhere.
Let's have super awesome hardcore roleplaying then.
Your character is terrible in combat? Get out of the group. We aren't putting our lives in the hands of someone incompetent.
Your character can't do much of anything? Then what the hell is he doing in the group? Why should I in character accept having to save the same person's behind time and time again? Wouldn't I eventually say "Ok, no, you aren't working with us anymore?"
Optimization is good roleplaying. You're a group of adventurers who puts their lives at risk as a daily occupation. Why would they do anything but demand the best from themselves and others?
SO I'm guessing your games revolve around the characters being mute legbreakers of the powers that be in a certain area of the world?
I find the complaints leveled at me ironic seeing as how the mute dumb socially awkward fighter with no mental stats was born in earlier editions.
Charisma didn't become a dump stat with 3e, after all. It's always been one.
What's hilarious is that you all read intentional hyperbole on your own argument and then took it seriously.
As for making a character that's bad at combat...why would you? No, really, why would you? A socialite who can easily pass through any level of society with a bevy of disguises and plenty of sweet talking? That's a bard, and he has medium BAB and a lot of good casting. He doesn't have to be useless to be a socialite. A sneaky thief who leaps across the rooftops and skulks through family manors to steal valuable information? That's a rogue, and he has sneak attack, which lets him actively work as a valuable member in a fight.
That's the problem. Your examples don't work. You can easily be the awesome character outside of combat and inside of combat. Unless, like, you're a fighter.
I find the complaints leveled at me ironic seeing as how the mute dumb socially awkward fighter with no mental stats was born in earlier editions.
Charisma didn't become a dump stat with 3e, after all. It's always been one.
What's hilarious is that you all read intentional hyperbole on your own argument and then took it seriously.
As for making a character that's bad at combat...why would you? No, really, why would you? A socialite who can easily pass through any level of society with a bevy of disguises and plenty of sweet talking? That's a bard, and he has medium BAB and a lot of good casting. He doesn't have to be useless to be a socialite. A sneaky thief who leaps across the rooftops and skulks through family manors to steal valuable information? That's a rogue, and he has sneak attack, which lets him actively work as a valuable member in a fight.
That's the problem. Your examples don't work. You can easily be the awesome character outside of combat and inside of combat. Unless, like, you're a fighter.
I'd say you're the one taking things too seriously here.
I find the complaints leveled at me ironic seeing as how the mute dumb socially awkward fighter with no mental stats was born in earlier editions.
Charisma didn't become a dump stat with 3e, after all. It's always been one.
What's hilarious is that you all read intentional hyperbole on your own argument and then took it seriously.
As for making a character that's bad at combat...why would you? No, really, why would you? A socialite who can easily pass through any level of society with a bevy of disguises and plenty of sweet talking? That's a bard, and he has medium BAB and a lot of good casting. He doesn't have to be useless to be a socialite. A sneaky thief who leaps across the rooftops and skulks through family manors to steal valuable information? That's a rogue, and he has sneak attack, which lets him actively work as a valuable member in a fight.
That's the problem. Your examples don't work. You can easily be the awesome character outside of combat and inside of combat. Unless, like, you're a fighter.
First : charisma has never been a dump stat for me... ;)
Second : I have never pretended that optimization only come from MMO players (I have played MMO, and while I don't play at the moment if a new one that suits me get out I will play ;) )
What I say is : there's more optimizer in p&p rpg players who come from MMO first than players who come from reading LOTR...
Third : I've never said that me characters are bad in combat, I said "decent"... as "not optimized for combat"... ;)
Also this. All the things he described? Diplomacy. A skill. Most of combat effectiveness? It comes from things that are not skills - things that are different resource pools.
So even from a purely mechanical perspective it is easy to get the character who gets you lots of money and such and can help stab fools in the face.
Well, the difference between a bard and a bard is his feat and his spell known... Ah yes and his archetype...
Same with the rogue except instead of spell you have rogue talent...Archetype can change a lot of things... but it's new... I love them but well I don't know the relationship between having this archetype and optimzation...
Feat I know... Spend, has a rogue or bard, half your feat on non-combat feat and you won't be as good as the "combat bard" while fighting... you'll be decent... not ultra-hyper-very good... ;)
Same for rogue talent, take the extra spell for utility spell etc. you won't be as good as a "full comabt oriented rogue"...
And for the spells known it's even more obvious... Every out of combat "utility" spell you choose are spells lost for the optimizer... :p
So I am decent in combat, just don't ask me to do the same damage as a fully combat oriented character... since I'm not...
when your halfling Monk/bard/shadow dancer starts to lag behind.Err... Haw can someone "slack behind" ? You mean in combat ?
A lot of my characters are NOT optimized for combat, I prefer to play the "social" type, usually a bard or a rogue (spy)... They are decent, but far from being optimized in combat... And I had never got the feelings that I was "slacking behind"...
Why should I ? 'cause I do less damage than the fighter with my bard ? 'cause most spell I use are utilitary spell that help me deal with people out of fight ?
Well, sorry but usually you have to deal with people outside of fight more often than in fight... At least in my games...Yes, I do some optimizing, but not fight related... Focus : Diplomatie, a lot of perform skill, disguise, stealth, sleight of hand... Half the feat I take are not fighting feat...
Understand me, I'm not against the MMO, I've played DAOC for 3 years, and I was playing a lot...
But this is not the same, in MMO you can't even try to send a spy to help you in your fight... "Know your ennemy" is valid in MMO and in RPG, but in MMO you do this by metagaming, in RPG you have to send someone in order to assess their forces, you can even try to talk your way out of a possible fight...
Combat is not all there is in a p&p rpg... ;)
In a MMo you have to fight by yourself, in a p&p rpg you can use others to fight for you... ;)
"That's why I threw in the "/rant and hyperbole mode off" part in:)"
Hyperbole being the keyword here, with rant as it's backup. I play with people who don't optimize, and we pull off crazy stuff all the time. I don't actually believe that if you don't optimize you're going to make someone who's made as terrible as possible for RP purposes:P
I guess I misinterpreted the thread. I thought that it was talking about certain elements of MMOs coming into P&P games, like the idea of, say, talents, or something else. My bad! ^^;
I know P&P isn't only combat=P However, combat and optimization is easier to talk about then Roleplaying, and thus, you see more threads talking about combat an optimization. I think that's where some misconceptions come in. I think people see threads talking about optimization and what-not and think "Oh, that's what people do now. That's so lame!". It's not the new trend, you're just noticing it now. Had google and the internet been around back in "the day" ("The day" being whatever day it needs to be, it seems.), you would have seen the same thing. People tend to look up how to be better in combat more then they look up how to be a better RPer, because you can't put RP into math like you can combat. That's because it's way easier to wrap your head around math then it is concepts. That, and if your know your character's concept and how he thinks, you don't need to ask online how to make him better. If you want to make him all that he can be in combat, it's easier to go online and either look up builds or threads talking about your class, or make a thread asking for help. You can't really do that with RP, because it's much more personal.
When you put it that way, it sounds like you've proved that Monte Cook is a jerk. :(There are absolutely trap options. They were even called "Trap Options" by Monte Cook who developed them.
Also, so far all we've proven is "Some optimizers are jerks."
Well, he kind of is. I mean yeah, I'm an optimizer. But only after I fell into some traps and decided I wasn't going to repeat that mistake. Friends don't let friends play finesse builds.
If it weren't for that mentality there wouldn't be so much need to fix broken stuff.
stizuffAll I was saying is that your scenario paints optimizers in a flattering light. Mine painted them in an unflattering light. The main issue that I brought up was that optimization usually leads to other people at the table trying to tell you you are playing your character wrong or that you made your character wrong. Attempts to "help" are usually overdone or disguised snark.What you describe is a person problem, not an optimizer problem.
Yes, I'm a jerk here much of the time. This is a response to people being idiots. Those I game with are not idiots, so I am considerably nicer.
...This ire against optimizers gets old. You can have an optimized character who is just as rich of a character as someone who isn't. This whole thing about "roll players" vs "Role players" is childish. Bad roleplayers happen everywhere. The fighter with 18 int and 14 str can still be played like an uneducated dunce. Not because he's afraid people will find out he's smart or anything, but because the player isn't a good roleplayer.
Oh, you roleplay rather than rollplay? I guess you're just better then the guy who wants his character to be the best he can be in combat. How dare he minimize his weaknesses and bolster his strengths. Be sure to tell him that when he's picking up your slack when your halfling Monk/bard/shadow
While I find coming up with ways to excuse rudeness online or in real life abhorrent, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on the matter at hand here.
* - Because you'd be stupid not to use a two handed weapon in 3.x.Not that you meant it in that way, but that's exactly the type of statement that makes people dislike optimizers.
I definitely agree with this.
It always makes me a bit sad when I see a character option, feat selection, or playing style being described as "stupid" or "wrong." As many others have said, there is no "wrong" way to play Pathfinder or any other roleplaying game as long as all of those involved are having fun.
If you and your group enjoy optimization and and have fun doing so, great. If you and your group enjoy deep character immersion and couldn't care less about damage output or highly "tweaked" builds and have fun doing so, great. Just please don't try to impose your playing style on anyone else; what's stupid in one game most likely makes perfect sense in another one.
-Brooks
*nom nom nom*
Let's have super awesome hardcore roleplaying then.
Your character is terrible in combat? Get out of the group. We aren't putting our lives in the hands of someone incompetent.
Your character can't do much of anything? Then what the hell is he doing in the group? Why should I in character accept having to save the same person's behind time and time again? Wouldn't I eventually say "Ok, no, you aren't working with us anymore?"
Optimization is good roleplaying. You're a group of adventurers who puts their lives at risk as a daily occupation. Why would they do anything but demand the best from themselves and others?
"Well Bob, I know that you're always on time, usually bring chips and are generally a blast to be around, but you know... you don't always speak up in social encounters and you're a bit behind on your dps... so we're going to have to ask you leave the game. Sorry man. No hard feelings, right?"
There are things far more important then optimization, in my opinion.
I see my last post didn't have any effect. Should have known. Let's try a different approach.
That should do it.
Let's have super awesome hardcore roleplaying then.
Your character is terrible in combat? Get out of the group. We aren't putting our lives in the hands of someone incompetent.
Your character can't do much of anything? Then what the hell is he doing in the group? Why should I in character accept having to save the same person's behind time and time again? Wouldn't I eventually say "Ok, no, you aren't working with us anymore?"
Optimization is good roleplaying. You're a group of adventurers who puts their lives at risk as a daily occupation. Why would they do anything but demand the best from themselves and others?
"Well Bob, I know that you're always on time, usually bring chips and are generally a blast to be around, but you know... you don't always speak up in social encounters and you're a bit behind on your dps... so we're going to have to ask you leave the game. Sorry man. No hard feelings, right?"
There are things far more important then optimization, in my opinion.
Of course you know someone is going to erect a straw man and say that because your characters are kicking a weak character out of the party that its actually the players throwing a player out of their house. Which is terrible roleplaying of course, but it also precisely the point because it was never about roleplaying with the straw manners. That was just a mask to hide behind to cover the fact they literally suck at D&D - mechanics, and fluff wise. So the basketweavers hide behind bad roleplay, and weak characters while claiming those that are better than them at the game aren't, because they're the 'real ROLEplayers here'.I knew someone would deliver. I was hoping that they would not.
Um, except that's not at all what I did. Bob, was a good roleplayer, and was a good fighter (pointed both of those out in the example) but he was just behind everyone else, so he had to go. That's not your straw man at all.
Edti: Oh, and he was a good guy to boot, so they didn't kick him out for being socially awkward. Just because he was behind the bell curve of optimization.
(the pre 3rd edition books were minefields of ability to read your DM's mind).
While I disagree with you on most things, I have to agree on this. Twas really, really ugly.
Also, although I'm sure this is going to simply result in further disagreement, I would counter "it's fun to fail" with the idea of "you can't succeed at every challenge every time". Failure(or rather, the possiblity of failure) is a part of the game. Unless you'd really enjoy being in that Twilight Zone episode where the dude kept winning every game of chance EVERY time?
I removed a post. Politeness is not hard.
Really folks, the most important messageboard rule is "Don't be a jerk." That means, you know, don't be a jerk.