|
Ok, I've been lurking in the message boards for about 2 weeks now, and I'm starting to wonder a lot about certain things that seem to be common among members of this board. I've been both playing and running rpg's of various stripe of several years (Basic D&D, AD&D 2e, various WoD and Deadlands Classic) and my groups have always been more about the story and the exploration then the combat.
I started running Pathfinder when two of my players wanted to get back into high fantasy as a break from all the grittier stuff we had been playing, and I after sampling some other more point based systems couldn't go back into AD&D without major tweaks, and we all passed on 4e as too combat focused for us (our opinion, not trying to start a flame war here.)
So another gamer friend loaned me his copy of the bound beta to look over, and I talked the owner of my local game store into ordering me a copy of Core (indecently he ordered all the hard-covers and signed the store up for PFS). And after recruiting a few more players (total party roster: 6 players 1 gm) And we started playing. We are loving it.
I start hanging around the Paizo forums and check out the playtest stuff (Magus base class is awesome by the way, two of my old elf fighter/wizards from 2e may enjoy NPC rebirths now). But then I get involved in reading a lot of the actual forum posts, and start seeing things like MAD and DPR thrown around. Multiple Ability Dependency and Damage Per Round, I had to explain to my girlfriend, her response: "This a WoW forum too?"
On MAD to a guys who's last D&D experience was 2e, I have to go "this is new? unless you were a fighter, cleric, or magic user you need 2 or 3 above average scores" so lets just stick with I don't get it, as only spellcasters in Pathfinder NEED to have high casting scores and the rest of the classes can go very well with lower starting scores and build them up as they advance, and hell with the 15 point starting array you can make a hell of a paladin, with scores that would have made it impossible to BE a paladin in 2e. Skill bonus's and penalties from ability scores tend to fall by the wayside towards middle levels, and there are feats to shore up any chink in a characters offensive capabilities (has anyone seen a average or low Str rogue without weapon finesse? Hell a crossbow of any type completely negates Str penalties as it's completely mechanical) I guess I just look for solutions rather then complaining about perceived drawbacks.
As far as DPR goes, I see it as comparing oranges to grapefruits to apples to coconuts. Each class has a role to fill and shouldn't expect to match perfectly with the other classes in damage potential. Fighters (and Paladins and Rangers) are supposed to be engines of destruction, clerics healers, buffers and second line fighters, rouge are scouts and skirmishers, and wizard type classes mystical artillery and crowd control. Damage per round doesn't figure in the wizard holding a creature so the rogue can deliver a coup-de-grace, the sorcerer using walls of force to force the opponents to take on the fighter one at a time, or the cleric using buffs to keep the fighter standing he stands against the rush of opponents. It's a team game and focusing solely on your character's DPR potential makes it seem like less of a team sport to me.
These are my opinions, I've tried not to be insulting, and to express myself without getting heated or bitter and would like to hear other opinions and discuss this civilly. What do more experienced Pathfinders think on the subject.
Thanks for reading
Holt
Ok, I've been lurking in the message boards for about 2 weeks now, and I'm starting to wonder a lot about certain things that seem to be common among members of this board. I've been both playing and running rpg's of various stripe of several years (Basic D&D, AD&D 2e, various WoD and Deadlands Classic) and my groups have always been more about the story and the exploration then the combat.
I started running Pathfinder when two of my players wanted to get back into high fantasy as a break from all the grittier stuff we had been playing, and I after sampling some other more point based systems couldn't go back into AD&D without major tweaks, and we all passed on 4e as too combat focused for us (our opinion, not trying to start a flame war here.)
So another gamer friend loaned me his copy of the bound beta to look over, and I talked the owner of my local game store into ordering me a copy of Core (indecently he ordered all the hard-covers and signed the store up for PFS). And after recruiting a few more players (total party roster: 6 players 1 gm) And we started playing. We are loving it.
I start hanging around the Paizo forums and check out the playtest stuff (Magus base class is awesome by the way, two of my old elf fighter/wizards from 2e may enjoy NPC rebirths now). But then I get involved in reading a lot of the actual forum posts, and start seeing things like MAD and DPR thrown around. Multiple Ability Dependency and Damage Per Round, I had to explain to my girlfriend, her response: "This a WoW forum too?"
On MAD to a guys who's last D&D experience was 2e, I have to go "this is new? unless you were a fighter, cleric, or magic user you need 2 or 3 above average scores" so lets just stick with I don't get it, as only spellcasters in Pathfinder NEED to have high casting scores and the rest of the classes can go very well with lower starting scores and build them up as they advance, and hell with the 15 point starting array you can make a hell of a paladin, with scores that would have made it...
Holt, what you have to understand is multi-media has swept the RPG world, so maximizing performance, builds, optimizing etc etc have virtually taken over, pushing roleplaying to a back seat.
SOME of that is due to the fact that alot of the higher level monsters are, how shall i say, "undeafeatable" without tons of extras.Be that as it may. Most of the MAD/DPT fan boys havent been role playing THAT long and animae and WoW are their bases of knowledge.
"We" don't play that way. (I like batman, lots of options, comes with weaknesses, knows how to fight another day, not superman, can beat everything but kryptonite and magic in one turn)
To each their own.
If you play paizo material, or your own, dont worry you won't need MAD.
If you play with these guys, you will.
My Beta test fighter had a 14 str, a 14 wis and a 15 dex.
it's totally do-able with ho hum stats. IMO
I've been both playing and running rpg's of various stripe of several years (Basic D&D, AD&D 2e, various WoD and Deadlands Classic) and my groups have always been more about the story and the exploration than the combat...
As far as DPR goes, I see it as comparing oranges to grapefruits to apples to coconuts. Each class has a role to fill and shouldn't expect to match perfectly with the other classes in damage potential. Fighters (and Paladins and Rangers) are supposed to be engines of destruction, clerics healers, buffers and second line fighters, rouge are scouts and skirmishers, and wizard type classes mystical artillery and crowd control. Damage per round doesn't figure in the wizard holding a creature so the rogue can deliver a coup-de-grace, the sorcerer using walls of force to force the opponents to take on the fighter one at a time, or the cleric using buffs to keep the fighter standing he stands against the rush of opponents. It's a team game and focusing solely on your character's DPR potential makes it seem like less of a team sport to me.
Right there with you Holt. I agree totally. Part of what you are seeing as a "problem" (if it can even be called that, since a social game relies on those partakers of the hobby for continued life, therefore the partakers will align and design the game as they see fit) is what is often referred to as the old school - new school difference. While guys like you and I look at RPGs as a storytelling tool, many of the genre's younger members have had more experience with PC RPGs or game console RPGs and therefore their idea of an RPG revolves around their own understanding. They've been playing RPGs where they can direct multiple characters in combat against multiple opponents and the whole combat lasts maybe 3-5 minutes. They've never had to sit at a table and help imagine combat unfold over the course of an entire hour. Therefore ideas like MAD and DPR have become part of the culture.
Great thing about RPGs in general, but more specifically Pathfinder, IMHO anyway, is the diversity of the audience. You can always find like minded people to play, and when you find a group of minds who like the play the same way, you can have at it, and the system will support your idea of fun gaming. Likewise, those that look at it differently can, with Pathfinder's great system, enjoy it the way they think best.
So, I agree with you. The great thing about Pathfinder, though, is that people can disagree with our viewpoint, and still play the same game, and we can all have our fun regardless.
Edit: Ninja'd by Pendagast
|
If no-one's said it yet, welcome to Pathfinder and the boards!
There's a well known difference between 'theorycraft' statistical analysis and actual game play experience. Don't be fooled by some of the posts and threads you read around these parts which seem to be dominated by maths-based analysis of aspects of the game - it doesn't necessarily mean people are playing the game that way... just that some people like to 'run the numbers' and see what's happening 'behind the curtain' of the rules. Theorycraft has its place - and for the most part that place is on a rules discussion forum - but I'm sure most people find that game play experiences will always lead them in weird and wonderful directions no statistical analysis can predict.
For example, in the tabletop Legacy of Fire game I'm running the barabarian is a devoted spear user. He started with a falchion, but it was destroyed in the fist encounter before he ever used it, and the only spare weapon was a spear. Now, after meeting various enemies who start fights by charging, and having been able to pick off the last straggler who's trying to flee the fight with a well-placed cast of his trusty spear, he'll likely never give the thing up. Theorycraft suggests he's an idiot. Game play experience proves he rolls over most encounters with ease. He's not even an optimised uber-strength build or anything - very spread out Ability Scores...
It's always worth a double-check to see which particular sub-forum something is posted in. Some forums are there to talk about rules mechanics, other aren't. Hopefully you'll see a lot of the 'DPR' analysis and the like are in the rules mechanics forums, not the more role-play oriented ones. I'm yet to notice a DPR analysis in any of the PBP games I've been involved in or lurked about reading, for example.
These are my opinions, I've tried not to be insulting, and to express myself without getting heated or bitter and would like to hear other opinions and discuss this civilly.
Good to hear, but that's pretty much the norm around these parts - friendliest forums on Earth! :)
|
Well also keep in mind a forum is about talking to your fellow gamers. RPing, story etc is all subjective and varies wildly by group to group on what does or does not work for them. So most of those conversations just end either in pointless debate or quickly because both sides agree the other likes other things.
Now rules is something that can be discussed debated etc. Cause the rules as written do have a single answer. So if most of the posting starts to focus on rules it is only naturally for people to try and perfect builds and see what is or is not strongest by the rules. So I think that is why you see so many threads like that. It is one of the few things that can be debated and people that do like games that way enjoy talking about them.
I post here a lot, but I almost never post on threads about rules etc. Or when I do, I tend to offer my view and then move on. I think there is a wide range of people who post here, on a wide range of topics. Just certain things are going to keep being discussed.
:facepalm:
Also, it depends on the forum section you're in.
Stop into any AP thread, and you get creative GMs talking about roleplaying concerns. They get into detailed system discussions only as they pertain to an ongoing campaign. Campaign emphasis eliminates a lot of wild conjecture and peckerdueling you see elsewhere.
The general forums tend to attract self-imagined experts of the game who enjoy proving their "superiority" as some kind of surrogate for actually playing the game.
There are also experts who are committed to helping people enjoy the game more! But, since their efforts require actual research and social graces, they are necessarily less vocal than the obnoxious folks.
And then there's the OTD crowd. :)
But, if you're in search of good, creative, RP-driven threads, I suggest exploring the AP sections. Adventure Paths are the roots of this company, and I think those forums (and not the general/rules forums) reflect the best of the posters here.
Paizo have also set a baseline, the early APs should be marked as 'expert-only' and they still err on the bad-ass so it is difficult ot get away from the damage is everything ethos.
Incidentally; don't be offended by Cartigan's deliberately insulting post, he does that to everyone.
Really? You consider that insulting? I suppose it's a good thing I didn't elaborate on all the role-playing elitism.
"Indecently" yeah your right carti, lol
|
|
I think that the game suddenly got much more tactical since 3.0 came out. Before that, our group seldom used figs for placement, as it didn't seem necessary. Now, so many abilities are triggered by placement and exact movement, that you need something to represent where everyone is.
Since the game has gotten so much more tactical, it's not unreasonable that character design has also gotten more tactical in nature.
I think that 3.0 also tried to make each of the attributes more relevant to more character classes, so that there was a difference even between a score of 10 and 12. It used to be that scores in a big chunk of the bell curve were functionally the same until you got to a 15 or 16.
Add to that, the internet sort of magnifies things. Everyone shares what works for them, or argues about what doesn't.
All of that being said, I'm not sure how people optimizing and making effective characters in any way diminishes roleplaying. In fact, telling interesting stories around characters that don't suck is a better way to simulate my favorite heroic fiction than telling interesting stories around characters that are comparatively ineffectual.
So I say, optimize all you like, then mix in as much storytelling and plot twists as your your heart desires, and just enjoy the game.
All of that being said, I'm not sure how people optimizing and making effective characters in any way diminishes roleplaying. In fact, telling interesting stories around characters that don't suck is a better way to simulate my favorite heroic fiction than telling interesting stories around characters that are comparatively ineffectual.So I say, optimize all you like, then mix in as much storytelling and plot twists as your your heart desires, and just enjoy the game.
I see both sides of the issue of optimizing vs role playing. The two are not mutually incompatible, and role playing an optimized character is still role playing. Most of us "old-school" players have role played min-maxed characters at some time, and it can be fun playing the mentally deficient barbarian.
But having said that, in general I prefer to role play a more balanced character than one that is totally optimized for a particular role. The more options a character has, the more opportunities I have to role play interesting situations differently.
There is also a huge, HUGE difference between "optimized" and "comparatively ineffectual." A character can be quite effective without being "optimized", and a lot of how effective the character can be has to do with how well the player understands their abilities and puts them to proper use.
It is also very important to consider the play style of the rest of the group. In one of my groups we have mostly old-school players who try to build characters they find interesting and don't consider optimization that important. But one player is an optimization machine, constantly pushing the envelope by requesting special considerations and obscure rule interpretations from the DM. During game play he revels in his character's awesomeness to the point that it sometimes causes the other players to roll their eyes. However, he's an excellent role-player too, and plays his character exactly as the character is built. The DM has confided to me that this creates a bit of a problem for him to come up with encounters that challenge the party optimizer without putting the rest of the party at risk.
Optimization tends to work best when the whole party optimizes.
Really? You consider that insulting? I suppose it's a good thing I didn't elaborate on all the role-playing elitism.Paizo have also set a baseline, the early APs should be marked as 'expert-only' and they still err on the bad-ass so it is difficult ot get away from the damage is everything ethos.
Incidentally; don't be offended by Cartigan's deliberately insulting post, he does that to everyone.
Care to elaborate on the bolded part mate?
|
Care to elaborate on the bolded part mate?Really? You consider that insulting? I suppose it's a good thing I didn't elaborate on all the role-playing elitism.Paizo have also set a baseline, the early APs should be marked as 'expert-only' and they still err on the bad-ass so it is difficult ot get away from the damage is everything ethos.
Incidentally; don't be offended by Cartigan's deliberately insulting post, he does that to everyone.
You really don't want that, but I guess it's too late...
You really don't want that, but I guess it's too late...Care to elaborate on the bolded part mate?Really? You consider that insulting? I suppose it's a good thing I didn't elaborate on all the role-playing elitism.Paizo have also set a baseline, the early APs should be marked as 'expert-only' and they still err on the bad-ass so it is difficult ot get away from the damage is everything ethos.
Incidentally; don't be offended by Cartigan's deliberately insulting post, he does that to everyone.
Ahh but I do :) I know cartigan, and I love a good argument.
|
|
I see both sides of the issue of optimizing vs role playing. The two are not mutually incompatible, and role playing an optimized character is still role playing. Most of us "old-school" players have role played min-maxed characters at some time, and it can be fun playing the mentally deficient barbarian.
But having said that, in general I prefer to role play a more balanced character than one that is totally optimized for a particular role. The more options a character has, the more opportunities I have to role play interesting situations differently.
If you look at an optimized character only as someone who dumps several less necessary attributes down to a 7 in point buy, then I understand your point of view.
I look at an optimized character as one that has planned a build, with feats and attributes and class abilities designed to synergize with one another.
If you design a character to be good in a variety of situations, and you give a great deal of thought to that character's development, specifically advancing him so that he maintains his utility in a wide variety of circumstances, I would argue that you are making an optimized character, at least of a sort.
I play with a couple of guys who level up, and then sit around trying to figure out what class they'd like to develop this level. Or else, they fret over what feat to take next. They never have a plan for the character.
I never viewed optimized characters as necessarily one-dimensional characters (although they could be). I view them as well-planned character progressions versus whimsical seat-of-my-pants character design. And by the way, I've seen plenty of big, dumb Barbarians who I would not consider optimized.
So, I guess it comes down to how you define optimized. I do believe that in 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, anyone who plans ahead for their character, and tries to build on their strengths while (somewhat) mitigating their weaknesses is going to be in a much better place.
Care to elaborate on the bolded part mate?Really? You consider that insulting? I suppose it's a good thing I didn't elaborate on all the role-playing elitism.Paizo have also set a baseline, the early APs should be marked as 'expert-only' and they still err on the bad-ass so it is difficult ot get away from the damage is everything ethos.
Incidentally; don't be offended by Cartigan's deliberately insulting post, he does that to everyone.
[...]
and we all passed on 4e as too combat focused for us (our opinion, not trying to start a flame war here.)
[...]
But then I get involved in reading a lot of the actual forum posts, and start seeing things like MAD and DPR thrown around. Multiple Ability Dependency and Damage Per Round, I had to explain to my girlfriend, her response: "This a WoW forum too?"
It's all in there. And it just gets more derogatory from there.
OP, regardless people opinion, just think about this:
Pathfinder is a very good game wich you can play with very different gamestyles. Maybe not every gamestyle can fit your needs, but no fear.
Just accept, reading the threads, that not every person needs and focuses on the same things :)
I'm sure you will enjoy the game. Welcome.
To the OP: Welcome to the forum, and you're not alone. I actually find most of the points you have mesh fairly well with my own views, and mostly ignore the people who harp on optimization the most.
Care to elaborate on the bolded part mate?Really? You consider that insulting? I suppose it's a good thing I didn't elaborate on all the role-playing elitism.Paizo have also set a baseline, the early APs should be marked as 'expert-only' and they still err on the bad-ass so it is difficult ot get away from the damage is everything ethos.
Incidentally; don't be offended by Cartigan's deliberately insulting post, he does that to everyone.
It's all in there. And it just gets more derogatory from there.[...]
and we all passed on 4e as too combat focused for us (our opinion, not trying to start a flame war here.)
[...]
But then I get involved in reading a lot of the actual forum posts, and start seeing things like MAD and DPR thrown around. Multiple Ability Dependency and Damage Per Round, I had to explain to my girlfriend, her response: "This a WoW forum too?"
I don't think it does. Maybe u see too much malice in people's posts. I think his girl was being sincere when she said that, not sarcastic.
I don't think it does. Maybe u see too much malice in people's posts. I think his girl was being sincere when she said that, not sarcastic.Care to elaborate on the bolded part mate?Really? You consider that insulting? I suppose it's a good thing I didn't elaborate on all the role-playing elitism.Paizo have also set a baseline, the early APs should be marked as 'expert-only' and they still err on the bad-ass so it is difficult ot get away from the damage is everything ethos.
Incidentally; don't be offended by Cartigan's deliberately insulting post, he does that to everyone.
It's all in there. And it just gets more derogatory from there.[...]
and we all passed on 4e as too combat focused for us (our opinion, not trying to start a flame war here.)
[...]
But then I get involved in reading a lot of the actual forum posts, and start seeing things like MAD and DPR thrown around. Multiple Ability Dependency and Damage Per Round, I had to explain to my girlfriend, her response: "This a WoW forum too?"
It's still derogatory. The inherent implication is that WoW players - and thus anyone that plays like them - are below real role-players because they talk about stats. Well I don't know about how AD&D or 1E worked, but 3.0+ is about stats - stats affect everything characters do - intrinsically. You can role-play all you want, but that doesn't mean a character that relies on 4 stats isn't going to have a harder time fighting anything CR appropriate than a character that relies on 2 stats, short of DM fiat.
Nevermind the fact that the implication that WoW influenced table-top players is false. 3E was out well before WoW. The dynamic already existed that stats affected everything and that classes that relied on multiple high stats were at a disadvantage in the game.And let's definitely nevermind the undercurrent of Stormwind Fallacy in his post
[
It's still derogatory. The inherent implication is that WoW players - and thus anyone that plays like them - are below real role-players because they talk about stats. Well I don't know about how AD&D or 1E worked, but 3.0+ is about stats - stats affect everything characters do - intrinsically. You can role-play all you want, but that doesn't mean a character that relies on 4 stats isn't going to have a harder time fighting anything CR appropriate than a character that relies on 2 stats, short of DM fiat.
Nevermind the fact that the implication that WoW influenced table-top players is false. 3E was out well before WoW. The dynamic already existed that stats affected everything and that classes that relied on multiple high stats were at a disadvantage in the game.
And let's definitely nevermind the undercurrent of Stormwind Fallacy in his...
I don't think it's derogatory or dismissive. 3rd Edition came out at the beginning of the MMO/PC gaming explosion (see EQ came out before 3rd) and to ignore the influence the video-gaming industry has had on traditional RPG's is just denial. Which isn't a bad thing either. Companies like WoTC need to stay in business and if expanding their market to include the ever increasing numbers of younger players is the chosen strategy, than so be it.
But like most people have said here, PF lets you play any style you want. It works well for traditional role-players and theorycrafting min-maxers and with a little house ruling on either side can smooth out the rough edges.
That being said, comments like :facepalm: are just passive aggressive =)
I'm in a similar situation, I've been gaming for a while, in various groups. I've been in a shadowrun game for a while now, and while it's great fun, I was getting the itch for some swords and sorcery.
I'd tried 4th, and for whatever reason, it didn't work for me. Some of it was the people I played with, some of it was some of the flavor.
I'd been hearing about Pathfinder for a while now, and during some boredom at my local FLGS, I browsed the Core Rulebook. After reading through how the classes worked, I picked up a copy.
This led to the Pathfinder website, asking about modules and getting started. I posted requesting any pathfinder books or modules that people were willing to put up in a local math trade and ended up getting offered the Rise of the Runelords, so I started reading up on it. I'm now very interested in running it, and the Carrion Crown, which I've ordered.
I've found the forums to be a really friendly and helpful place. There's been a couple of threads that made me cringe, but they've been pretty minimal.
|
Really? You consider that insulting? I suppose it's a good thing I didn't elaborate on all the role-playing elitism.Paizo have also set a baseline, the early APs should be marked as 'expert-only' and they still err on the bad-ass so it is difficult ot get away from the damage is everything ethos.
Incidentally; don't be offended by Cartigan's deliberately insulting post, he does that to everyone.
Elaborating on the roleplaying elitism would not necessarily be insulting.
Dismissing someone's opinion without engaging with it is insulting, disagreeing is not.
I think the topic can actually be distilled into the same basic observation as covers any technically or statistically-minded group since the advent of widespread internet use:
A whole lot of nothing is getting said all the time.
Let's face it, idle hands are the Devil's playground, and idle time spent with a computer nearby is apt to facilitate a lot of people arguing over matters they have argued and contemplated for years with no resolution, with the bonus of now having an instant forum to speak with others around the world, to give one the illusion of these same old arguments being shiny and new again.
Not that I am not guilty of enjoying those same lively debates and discussions. I am. Just that I am aware, sometimes acutely, or other times, such as when I am knee-deep in an argument over the benefits or drawbacks of introducing gunpowder to a system, I am aware only subconsciously, that all of this is silly, largely inconsequential, and people being stubborn as they are, not likely to ever really settle matters, or sway others.
But getting back to the heart of what I am saying, yes, I agree with the OP: there is nothing new under the sun. But having a new forum up once in a while gives us that needed feeling of importance and relevance that feeds our monkeys and keeps us all yammering at each other like mockingbirds at a brick wall.
|
|
Holt, I've been playing pathfinder since they broke away from WoTC, and Ive had a lot of the same feelings from time to time. But honestly a lot of good stuff comes out of the boards. Ive had a ton of my questions answered by skimming them. a lot of the people on here play PFS and the rules as written are the determining factor in a lot of cases. you'll see a lot of the mechanics questions come out of those groups. You of course have people playing different styles, but I've seen a lot of quality posts on here. Even Cartigan is good for some insight if you can ever get him to stop trolling. All in all this is one of the friendliest boards around and the developers are intimately involved with what goes on here. So have fun, take what you need, leave the rest and make great stories for you and your friends to share. Cheers and welcome to the family!!!
Creative Director
|
Holt, if it makes you feel any better, while I know what DPR stood for, I'd actually never heard the acronym "MAD" before. And that's me sitting in the Creative Director's chair... the guy who sets the vision and theme and flavor for the game.
So I wouldn't worry too much if some of the forums here seem to be a bit focused on the rules/character optimization side of things. To a certain extent, that's a natural outgrowth of us doing public playtests, but that's certainly not the overwhelming flavor of all the threads on these boards. I'm a pretty frequent poster, after all, and I've never run across "MAD" before this.
It's all about what forums you chose to hang out in. The more you get into the world content stuff and out of the playtest forums, the more roleplaying and less character optimization stuff you'll find.
RPGs may be a niche hobby, but there's a HUGE spread of ways to PLAY the game. None of them are the only right way (despite what some posters might think), and they're all welcome here. The trick is to find your way to the sections that match your preferred play style, and when you venture OUT of those zones, to keep your zen with you and not get too annoyed, I suppose. ;-)
AND! Welcome to the boards!
Welcome to the boards!
That said, I think I'm with Cartigan on this one. What you are seeing is just how the game rules encourage players to act. Rules influence the feel of a game very strongly. This is doubly so in things like PFS and published adventures (modules or APs). They are written with certain benchmarks in mind and if you aren't meeting those statistical benchmarks, it can be very difficult to engage the game.
Does that mean that the game forces you to focus only on the mechanical? No, not really. However, what others have said is also true. It is hard to discuss roleplaying objectively because everyone has a different style.
Pathfinder is awesome. I love it. However, it is what it is. It doesn't model the story-driven system very well. Does that make it wrong? No. Just good at reflecting different things.
|
Creative Director
|
It doesn't model the story-driven system very well. Does that make it wrong? No. Just good at reflecting different things.
Huh. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I think it works better at modeling story-driven games than anything else. I've certainly never had a problem with the rules in setting up any Adventure Paths to tell the exact story I wanted to tell, that's for sure.
All depends on your point of view.
It's all about what forums you chose to hang out in. The more you get into the world content stuff and out of the playtest forums, the more roleplaying and less character optimization stuff you'll find.
Speaking of which; At the WotC board, they used to have a "Character Optimization Forum". Might be an idea to consider here, too.
It doesn't model the story-driven system very well. Does that make it wrong? No. Just good at reflecting different things.Huh. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I think it works better at modeling story-driven games than anything else. I've certainly never had a problem with the rules in setting up any Adventure Paths to tell the exact story I wanted to tell, that's for sure.
All depends on your point of view.
I didn't mean to imply that the rules hamstring a story. Sorry about that. I meant that in Pathfinder, the background and story aren't as mechanically relevant as other systems (FATE, Burning Wheel and other such games.)
|
Creative Director
|
It's all about what forums you chose to hang out in. The more you get into the world content stuff and out of the playtest forums, the more roleplaying and less character optimization stuff you'll find.
Speaking of which; At the WotC board, they used to have a "Character Optimization Forum". Might be an idea to consider here, too.
Not a bad idea! Especially if it ends up self-quarantining in that folder! :-)
Not a bad idea! Especially if it ends up self-quarantining in that folder! :-)It's all about what forums you chose to hang out in. The more you get into the world content stuff and out of the playtest forums, the more roleplaying and less character optimization stuff you'll find.
Speaking of which; At the WotC board, they used to have a "Character Optimization Forum". Might be an idea to consider here, too.
I was going to say "Only if the devs paid attention to the holes in the system that would inevitably turn up there." Obviously, I have to oppose the creation of a Char Op forum.
...Obviously, I have to oppose the creation of...I would expect nothing less from you.
And I from you
|
|
Not a bad idea! Especially if it ends up self-quarantining in that folder! :-)It's all about what forums you chose to hang out in. The more you get into the world content stuff and out of the playtest forums, the more roleplaying and less character optimization stuff you'll find.
Speaking of which; At the WotC board, they used to have a "Character Optimization Forum". Might be an idea to consider here, too.
I've been pushing to get an "Alignment" forum for the same reason.. no luck yet, though.
And am I the only one who is starting to suspect the JJ and Cartigan are the same person? ;P
Huh. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I think it works better at modeling story-driven games than anything else. I've certainly never had a problem with the rules in setting up any Adventure Paths to tell the exact story I wanted to tell, that's for sure.
All depends on your point of view.
James, could you point me in the direction of any AP's that may deal with:
Mass combat
Trials and other extended social interactions that have serious consequences for the PC
Ship to ship chase and combat rules. Coach to coach would be good.
It's a good system, it's a quite effective system but unless these things are tucked into an AP somewhere there are shortcomings in the rules.
James, could you point me in the direction of any AP's that may deal with:
...
Mass combat
...
You should check out Warpath. Great book. I'll see if I can scrounge up a link.
EDIT: And here it is. Warpath. Helped out a lot in my last campaign.|
|
Huh. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I think it works better at modeling story-driven games than anything else. I've certainly never had a problem with the rules in setting up any Adventure Paths to tell the exact story I wanted to tell, that's for sure.
All depends on your point of view.
James, could you point me in the direction of any AP's that may deal with:
Mass combat
Trials and other extended social interactions that have serious consequences for the PC
Ship to ship chase and combat rules. Coach to coach would be good.
It's a good system, it's a quite effective system but unless these things are tucked into an AP somewhere there are shortcomings in the rules.
Mass combat rules are in #35 I believe.
Chase rules are in CotCT and the Gamemastery guide.I don't have it at hand, but I believe the AP with the opera in it has an example of how PCs making a series of skill checks can influence the outcome of an encounter.
|
Holt,
I, too, have been baffled by all this talk of DPR and MAD. I couldn't care less about "optimizing" and most of my characters don't either. I find all this talk of optimizing and number crunching much too much like World of Warcraft when I used to play it--people running potential new gear through special spreadsheets, etc. When I play, I come up with a character personality, peruse the classes to see what jumps out at me, and then have fun with it. I suppose there is a little bit of "optimizing" in the sense of taking traits and feats which make sense, but that's about it for me.
Thanks guys! Now I know what to add to my shopping lists
|
Creative Director
|
James, could you point me in the direction of any AP's that may deal with:
Mass combat: Kingmaker (Pathfinder #35.)
Trials and other extended social interactions that have serious consequences for the PC: Curse of the Crimson Throne (Pathfinder #8 & #9); Second Darkness (Pathfinder #13 & #16); Council of Thieves (Pathfinder #26); Kingmaker (Pathfinder #32); Serpent's Skull (Pathfinder #37 & #39); Carrion Crown (Pathfinder #44)
Ship to ship chase and combat rules. Coach to coach would be good. GameMastery Guide. And the upcoming Ultimate Combat, I believe. This isn't something that's come up yet in an AP, so it's not something we've yet had a chance to design.
|
Creative Director
|
Holt,
I, too, have been baffled by all this talk of DPR and MAD. I couldn't care less about "optimizing" and most of my characters don't either. I find all this talk of optimizing and number crunching much too much like World of Warcraft when I used to play it--people running potential new gear through special spreadsheets, etc. When I play, I come up with a character personality, peruse the classes to see what jumps out at me, and then have fun with it. I suppose there is a little bit of "optimizing" in the sense of taking traits and feats which make sense, but that's about it for me.
A lot of the DPR and stuff comes from the MMORPG culture, to be honest. In those games, which are more like amusement parks than RPGs (not that there's anything wrong with that... amusement parks are FUN!), there are very specific end-game choices to go for when you're building your character, and things like "damage per second" (AKA DPS) and the like are statistics you can micromanage down to like the hundredth of a point. Because computers are great at that.
Holt. Welcome to the boards.
I can see where you're coming from but I feel like there are a lot of really great people from every school of thought here that no matter what your particular style of play is you will find something that you can learn/agree/speculate-on and gain insight from on these boards.
This place has quickly become one of my favorite forums for rpg discussion... I guess what I'm saying is:
Keep on rocking on fellow posters!
DPR comes up because it's important when you're trying to survive combat, generally by killing the other guy. Being able to hit and do damage is what DPR is all about. If encounters keep killing your guys, something is wrong.
MAD comes up when characters require multiple ability scores to do the job required of them. Multi Ability Dependency is exemplified by the Monk...as a Melee class, it needs Str, Dex, Con to be good at combat, but it needs Wisdom for most of its class abilities to function well.
Paladins suffer it because of Charisma, but not as badly, mainly because they can wear decent armor.
Melee in general has the problem because they need good Str, Con and Dex to deal and take or avoid damage.
Most spellcasters do NOT have MAD. They need a strong caster stat, and then anything else is secondary and elective. It is far easier to build a character with an 18 casting stat then it is a Melee character. And once they have that high central stat, they simply perform better in their roles then anyone else.
MAD just wasn't noticed as much in the old game. Go back to the original Unearthed Arcana, and you can see it in action with the Table VI dice rolls...9d6 for this stat, almost guaranteed a 16+, 8d6 for this one, etc. Heck, the UA barbarian from 1E was noted by Gygax himself to need an 18 str, 17 Con and 16 Dex to be effective. Your ability scores in 1E were 15+ or might as well not exist.
Sorry, JJ, I find it REALLY funny that a game designer hasn't heard of MAD before. It's a classic way to limit the power of a class. Make this stat essential, but this one over here also essential, and you force stat spread and lower the power curve. A nice example is the Warmage from Complete Arcane - Charisma based caster, but extra damage to spells based on Intelligence. As a blaster mage character, you couldn't just dump the Int score if you wanted that damage bonus.
============
FOr the newcomer: Stormwind Fallacy is a rule from the WoTC boards. It basically means that role-playing considerations do NOT invalidate optimizing a character. You can have an optimized character that is good at what he does, and ALSO role play well.
Having a character that roleplays well and cannot do his job skillwise takes DM favoritism to keep alive. In an impartial contest (like the AP's) such characters tend to have severe problems. Once you're in combat, being able to role-play doesn't help you avoid the ogre barbarian's greatclub.
===Aelryinth