I can feel for you a bit here, Ravenloft isn't the kind of campaign you drop on players unknowingly, unless it was a one-nighter or something. It takes a certain kind of player and DM to play that campaign. It was kind of a jerk move of the DM to dump you guys into that setting without letting you know first.
Where I come from a 1 is a fail. Doesn't necessarily make it a fumble, or have disastrous consequences, just keeps the random element there. Even seasoned experts have brain-farts once in a while. But on that same token, I wouldn't have a Ranger roll a skill check for something mundane like setting up a tent; I only call for skill checks on things that the character is exerting effort to do. So, maybe my games inadvertently do the same auto-successes your game does, just labeled differently?
I probably would not have minded Ravenloft if the setting wasn't so blantantly obvious that it was dealing with vampires (I have purposely avoided looking at it just in case someone wants to run it some day, but the forums have lots of references to it, hence how I picked up on the name Strahd and this mist crap). But between his ruling on negative levels and the way he introduced the adventure I was just done with it. One of my current players was also in that campaign and his will get on a soapbox about it to this day. He left because of college though, not for the reasons I did.
I guess it would really depend on what tasks you considered auto-successes. Acrobatics in combat, I could probably reconcile, maybe even perception checks of all kinds, but craft, knowledge, heal, ride... even in combat, I don't think 1 should auto-fail to check vital signs of a fallen comrade, and if you've got enough ranks in ride to be able to do all sorts of crazy stunts, I don't think you should fall off the saddle just because you're guiding with your knees.
It is my experience that we (my group) want our characters to be badasses, and our entire group has terrible luck with dice. They seem to know when we're attempting something cinematic or heroic and they fail us every time, so no one tries things. Adding auto-fail to skills when it should be an auto-success based on modifier alone drives home that your character is a joke being told by a handful of polyhedral plastic.
This isn't a quick session of checkers. Role playing games tend to take up a lot of spare time and many people put considerable effort and resources into it. That makes it far more than a game.This. oh, so many times this. A tabletop RPG is not 'just' a game. It's so much more.
I agree with both sides of this side-discussion. It is JUST a game in that you shouldn't sunder your relationships over it, but at the same time, care should be taken not to make personal issues out of it because people do invest a lot into this game, and more than money, but time and creativity as well, and creativity is a conduit for the soul.
Creativity is self-expression, and when you play a game and invoke your own creativity, you impart to the game a part of yourself. That sounds really spiritual or new age or something, but it's not SO serious. It's just explaining the unconscious attachments we make to our characters.
Of course, some people really don't care, and that's fine. Those expectations should just be made known to everyone and respect should be mutual for everyone involved.
1s are failures for attacks and saves, but not skill checks.Only for GMs that aren't passive-aggressive. "Sure you can play that character. No, I won't forbid you to play. I'll just arbitrarily kill off your character so you leave all by yourself."
Pitiful, but what can you expect from someone who hates Firefly? :P
Hey, noone's died in this theoretical Firefly game yet!! Why are you being so negative? ;-)
I can feel for you a bit here, Ravenloft isn't the kind of campaign you drop on players unknowingly, unless it was a one-nighter or something. It takes a certain kind of player and DM to play that campaign. It was kind of a jerk move of the DM to dump you guys into that setting without letting you know first.
Where I come from a 1 is a fail. Doesn't necessarily make it a fumble, or have disastrous consequences, just keeps the random element there. Even seasoned experts have brain-farts once in a while. But on that same token, I wouldn't have a Ranger roll a skill check for something mundane like setting up a tent; I only call for skill checks on things that the character is exerting effort to do. So, maybe my games inadvertently do the same auto-successes your game does, just labeled differently?
I probably would not have minded Ravenloft if the setting wasn't so blantantly obvious that it was dealing with vampires (I have purposely avoided looking at it just in case someone wants to run it some day, but the forums have lots of references to it, hence how I picked up on the name Strahd and this mist crap). But between his ruling on negative levels and the way he introduced the adventure I was just done with it. One of my current players was also in that campaign and his will get on a soapbox about it to this day. He left because of college though, not for the reasons I did.
I guess it would really depend on what tasks you considered auto-successes. Acrobatics in combat, I could probably reconcile, maybe even perception checks of all kinds, but craft, knowledge, heal, ride... even in combat, I don't think 1 should auto-fail to check vital signs of a fallen comrade, and if you've got enough ranks in ride to be able to do all sorts of crazy stunts, I don't think you should fall off the saddle just because you're guiding with your knees.
It is my experience that we (my group) want our characters to be badasses, and our entire group has terrible luck with dice. They seem to know...
I see where you are coming from with bad luck on the dice. Like I, and a few others, have said above, I wouldn't break both arms because you rolled a 1- it's just that life gets a little more difficult for the moment. The biggest badasses I know of are usually able to take bad luck on the chin and then shove their fist down bad luck's throat- I would work with you in a game I ran to make that happen for your character.
I guess it would really depend on what tasks you considered auto-successes. Acrobatics in combat, I could probably reconcile, maybe even perception checks of all kinds, but craft, knowledge, heal, ride... even in combat, I don't think 1 should auto-fail to check vital signs of a fallen comrade, and if you've got enough ranks in ride to be able to do all sorts of crazy stunts, I don't think you should fall off the saddle just because you're guiding with your knees.
Expert horse trainers and riders can have terrible accidents, well outside of combat; Christopher Reeves being a famous example.
But, I see your point, and I guess it would really come down to a case-by-case basis for me as to what would be auto-success or not. I absolutely do not think tumbling in combat should ever be auto-success, but on something like a craft check I would probably allow it, just for the sake of the pace of the game.
Knowledge checks would not be auto-success for me either; there are just too many things in the world for one character to be able to automatically know and have heard of everything. Rolling a 1 on a knowledge check just results in "that's a new one to me, never heard of it." If I introduce a new monster into a game, that happens to be a kind of Aberration, the player shouldn't be able to automatically know everything about it just because they have the ranks. They at least should have to make the check, in my opinion.
My point was more about the auto-fail/success on a 1/20.
Granted, it gives a 5% chance in either direction, but saying that a 1 is an auto-fail should mean a 20 is auto-success. Take your example for a new monster for instance: if your player rolls a 20 on the appropriate knowledge, that would be an auto-success, despite that it's entirely new, maybe even to that world for whatever reason. It wouldn't make sense, it's inconsistent with the game world.
Auto success on a 20 for acrobatics to jump? I just said I wanted to jump across that 300 ft wide chasm. I know I have a 5% chance of auto-success, and I've obviously got a lack of regard for my own life, but I have a potion of feather fall.
It opens up more than just "Well, s@@#, I botched and now we're lost forever in this forest." It allows players to take risks and succeed where they shouldn't be able to as well.
We've treated 1s as a roll of -10 and 20s as a roll of 30 for years. Not sure where that came from, but it seems like a nice compromise. It allows really skilled characters to louse up occasionally, but the consequences are explicit and big bonuses still win over small DCs.
|
We've treated 1s as a roll of -10 and 20s as a roll of 30 for years. Not sure where that came from, but it seems like a nice compromise. It allows really skilled characters to louse up occasionally, but the consequences are explicit and big bonuses still win over small DCs.
+1. Seems a good solution.
We've treated 1s as a roll of -10 and 20s as a roll of 30 for years. Not sure where that came from, but it seems like a nice compromise. It allows really skilled characters to louse up occasionally, but the consequences are explicit and big bonuses still win over small DCs.
It was in the Epic Level Handbook - an alternative rule for attacks and saves because when the levels get high enough, the possible range for attack rolls, AC, save bonuses and save DCs gets quite large - and the ELH has no hard level limit.
It was basically made so the level 100 fighter won't miss one in 20 attacks against old, crippled level 1 commoners. Or the level 10.000 cleric won't have a 5% chance to fall under thrall of a level 1 wizard with int 11 and charm person.
They also said that on higher levels, the effects that will just take you out of the game if you fail your save become really frequent meaning that higher-level combat basically becomes Russian roulette.
That was back in the day of massive damage rules. Whenever anything dealt 50+ points of damage all at once, the target had to make a DC 15 fort save or die.
Get high enough in level and 50 points of damage become standard for spells or even attacks.
That means when an epic fighter attacks you, you'll probably have to make more than one fortitude save just because of his attacks. And if you fail any of these saves, you're dead. And even though the DC is a ridiculously low 15, a natural 1 is a miss.
So at some (admittedly ridiculously high-level) point, you'll probably have fighters with 8 attacks per round, half or which will probably hit, and each hit will deal over 50 points of damage (doesn't matter how much more). That means 200+ points of damage per round. No problem if you have 10.000 HP (I'm going totally nuts here). However, you'll have to make 4 saves each round, too (or more, if someone else attacks you). Statistically speaking, 5 rounds will mean 1000+ points of damage and 20 saves - one of which a natural 1. That means you're dead with 90% of your HP still intact.
Auto success on a 20 for acrobatics to jump? I just said I wanted to jump across that 300 ft wide chasm.
No. Don't say that. Say you want to jump straight up to Akiton. I don't know how far apart Golarion and Akiton are. Probably not something you'd measure in feet unless you like really big numbers. All I know is that given 2 minutes (to try jumping there 20 times), I'll probably get a natural 20 on my jump roll, and then I'll jump up to Akiton. Jump DC One Killion? Give me some time and I'll roll you that 20.
Even without the delicious hyperbole, we can easily jump up to the top of Mhar Massiv, or just that house over there.
Hm. Thanks for the explanation KY.
But, to nitpick, we only used it for skill checks, never for attacks/saves... attacks still adhered to the auto-fail on 1 and auto-hit on 20.
|
This isn't a quick session of checkers. Role playing games tend to take up a lot of spare time and many people put considerable effort and resources into it. That makes it far more than a game.This. oh, so many times this. A tabletop RPG is not 'just' a game. It's so much more.
The same could be said for soccer.
Just sayin'
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Expert horse trainers and riders can have terrible accidents, well outside of combat; Christopher Reeves being a famous example.
I think examples like these are exactly the stumbling block in this discussion. Your opinion of whether a 1 should be an auto-success seems to be based on making the game more realistic (something that I find a ridiculous notion to begin with, but that's a separate issue)- and I argue that no, it does not make the game more realistic.
You mention expert horse trainers and riders still having terrible accidents. First, let me posit one question: What do you consider an "expert" in D&D? Because very, very, very few people in real life have what would equate to a +15 skill modifier in D&D. (Depending on the skill, having a +15 is typically a superhuman feat.) I know that D&D doesn't quite translate to real life (hence making the "realistic" hope even more ridiculous), but I'd say that in order for someone to get a +15 in a particular skill, they either need to be an adventurer (you know, someone who fights monsters and uses magic to become more powerful) or they need to spend literally their entire lives working at a skill.
The point I'm trying to make is that there's a fallacy in trying to compare real-life "experts" to someone who's attained superhuman ailities in D&D. In my opinion, no, someone who is effectively a superhuman (and who is likely using magic in order to attain such skill) should NOT fail every now and then, unless there are extenuating circumstances (in order words, circumstantial modifiers allowing them to get a low enough roll to fail). Someone who has spent literally their entire life (in real life, not D&D) training in a particular skill does NOT fail 5% of the time. I'd be willing to bet Christopher Reeves rode a horse far more than 20 times before his accident. In other words, his accident was NOT a result of rolling a 1.
Yes the rules as written do state that 1's always miss, and 20's always hit.But if foghammer, where being consistant, would he not want to see this rule removed?
Really? That's your argument? Talk about being petty.
No, it's not consistent. Attack rolls are attack rolls, saving throws are saving throws and skills are skills. The difference between Attacks/saves and everything else makes sense. After all, the game treats them differently in other ways.
After all, BAB is still there. That's not a given. It could just as well be the "Attack" skill, or "Weaponry" and "Archery" skills or even more.
Other games treat it like that. WoD has one for unarmed fighting, one for fighting with weapons like swords, and one for firearms.
Other games even make you put skills into different weapons (One for swords, one for blunt weapons, one for bows, one fro crossbows etc.)
But in Pathfinder, it's not a skill. It's a fixed value associated with your class.
Having different rules for how to treat natural 1s and 20s isn't that much of a stretch after that.
Both are success/failure determined by D20+/-modifier vs TN
They are the same roll. Some of the modifiers are different(some for arbitrary reasons), but their are differences of modifier between skills one and skill two, and between attack one and attack two.
But the roll is fundamentally the same.
Exept for the entirely inconsistent and entirely arbitrary auto success/auto failure clause, which has no logical basis.
As for you walking out...Dude, these are your friends
Who says? Some might have the luxury to play with people they call friends. Others do not. They play over the internet (play by post or maybe even via virtual tabletops and the like), on conventions, or find other players via their FLGSs or one of those sites where you can have "personal ads for RPG groups".
In such cases, it's only prudent not to stretch out the whole thing when you find a house rule you really don't agree with early on. Chances are you'll realise that this group isn't for you later on, after having wasted precious hours of spare time (another thing not everyone has in profusion).
In this case, I think it is fairly safe to assume that they where his friends. I do not know many people who invite complete strangers into their homes, and then walk out to leave them alone in it. Just, you know, sayin.
Having played in more than my fair share of games clubs, however, i can agree that I have roleplayed with people who arn't my friends, but they have almost exclusively become so. After all, I am dedicating between 4 and 6 hours a week to social interaction with them, how could they not become friend, even if it is my only social contact with them.
, your playing a game.This isn't a quick session of checkers. Role playing games tend to take up a lot of spare time and many people put considerable effort and resources into it. That makes it far more than a game.
No, it is just a game. Sure one that I can safely say has been a dominating hobby in my life. But no more so that chess is in the lives of serious players, or war games in the life of a serious historical war gamer.
But it is still a social game, that in the end does not matter any more than that quick game of checkers. It not going the way you want it, does not give you the right to act like a child. If it isn't fun, don't play by all means, but throwing your toys out of the pram is not helping anyone.
I will freely admit, that I have done stupid stuff, because I have gotten emotional about stuff that happened in game. The difference seems to be that I have the good grace to know that on those occasions, I acted like an arse, and that I am not proud of said behaviour. I see no such self awareness here, I see only pride at acting in a way that would mark one as deeply rude in any other circle.
We've treated 1s as a roll of -10 and 20s as a roll of 30 for years. Not sure where that came from, but it seems like a nice compromise. It allows really skilled characters to louse up occasionally, but the consequences are explicit and big bonuses still win over small DCs.
Hey, I like this idea. Works for me. +1
Am I the only one who is running into people who do things that don't make sense for their character (or at the very least they can't/won't explain) to the point of meta-gaming?
[..]
I'm thinking they guy did a great job of role playing weapon focus feat and BOOM! some crunch that is only justified by the phrase, "Well I don't want to be a power gamer."
I call it "suboptimizing".
"You can tell I'm not a powergamer because my front-line fighter has 7 Constitution!"
FASA said this best in the Earthdawn book. "We won't come knocking at your door to see if you're running Earthdawn "correctly". We haven't finished checking up all the Shadowrun players yet."RAW is a guideline. Paizo's clan of ninja retainers do not turn up and burn your books for house ruling, nor do Paizo or Monte Cook before them before them have never claimed infallibly when it comes to rules design.
That is a lovely example. Makes me wish I knew earthdawn better :D
What's with the tough-guy act I'm seeing more and more around here lately, the "If I ever saw that, I'd walk away from the table"? We're not talking about poker tournaments for cash, this is a glorified board game we play with friends(or online acquaintances). If your call is to up and walk, especially from a game you're hosting at your house, over something like a crit fumble, wow. Just... Wow. Communication works wonders, by the way.If stuff like one random crit fumble, or not getting automatic success even on a natural 1(really? In combat even?) is enough for some of you to walk from the table, I have no hope for the future of this hobby. Yes, I've walked from games, as recent as last week. But it took a hell of a lot more than one odd roll or an inflated sense of entitlement to make me go.
Much of it is just standard male posturing. Like the posters here who insist on using *shakes fist* as some form of signature. Our culture doesn't have any uniformed rights of manhood so we use text to work up the testosterone. In a time where things are becoming more grim and events spiral more out of our control, people tend to look for whatever ways they can express dominance. And that usually means finding someway to stamp down on someone else. (Anyone who's worked at a copy shop or a Wal-Mart, should know what I mean)
Again most of this is text board posturing. Not all of these posters would actually follow through with it as often as they might indicate.
I see it a lot on MMORPG message boards, where the hostility reaches insane levels over things like gear choices and play styles preferences. Sort of like around here sometimes, but 100x worse. The profanity on one board got so bad, the website lost their advertisers and sponsorship from google, and nearly shut down.
And yeah, it's just a minor pet peeve of mine when people force sig's on a forum where signatures are not allowed. It's like, yeah, we can read your name by your avatar, no need to remind us.
|
|
As to the "adds realism" aspect, I personally am not looking at it that way. I am looking at it from the standpoint that if you are guaranteed success, eventually the fun disappears. There has to be some measure of risk for the payout (success) to have any meaning. This holds true in real life as much as in gaming. YMMV.
As to the "adds realism" aspect, I personally am not looking at it that way. I am looking at it from the standpoint that if you are guaranteed success, eventually the fun disappears. There has to be some measure of risk for the payout (success) to have any meaning. This holds true in real life as much as in gaming. YMMV.
For some things, yes, you are completely correct. But pretty much anything that can be beaten on a natural 1 is going to be a use of a skill that SHOULD be trivial by that point. If you've put ten ranks in spellcraft, you shouldn't have to roll when identifying a first-level spell. Failing something so trivial to your character isn't fun- at least it won't be to someone who's invested that much in it. Building a character around being able to tumble around the battlefield would cease being fun if, even at high levels, you had a one-on-twenty chance of your entire build being useless because you rolled a one on your skill check. (And I'm not talking about enemies build specifically to be good against tumbly-types- I'm talking about average, run-of-the-mill enemies that should be tumble fodder.)
Yes, there should still be a chance of failure. That chance of failure should come from appropriate sources, not ones that (by the RAW) should be a non-issue.
As to the "adds realism" aspect, I personally am not looking at it that way. I am looking at it from the standpoint that if you are guaranteed success, eventually the fun disappears. There has to be some measure of risk for the payout (success) to have any meaning. This holds true in real life as much as in gaming. YMMV.For some things, yes, you are completely correct. But pretty much anything that can be beaten on a natural 1 is going to be a use of a skill that SHOULD be trivial by that point. If you've put ten ranks in spellcraft, you shouldn't have to roll when identifying a first-level spell. Failing something so trivial to your character isn't fun- at least it won't be to someone who's invested that much in it. Building a character around being able to tumble around the battlefield would cease being fun if, even at high levels, you had a one-on-twenty chance of your entire build being useless because you rolled a one on your skill check. (And I'm not talking about enemies build specifically to be good against tumbly-types- I'm talking about average, run-of-the-mill enemies that should be tumble fodder.)
Yes, there should still be a chance of failure. That chance of failure should come from appropriate sources, not ones that (by the RAW) should be a non-issue.
The thing is, according to the RAW, there is no chance of failure.
Yep, which is why I like the -10 on a 1, 30 on a 20, as mentioned earlier by EL. It still keeps the potential for failure on skill rolls. I'll be floating it by the folks in my group next weekend.
The thing is, according to the RAW, there is no chance of failure.
Give it a try. I did something quite similar in an old 3.0 game with friends, and it worked. If I weren't such an afficionado of the critical hit/fumble and plot twist deck, I'd probably do something similar.
|
I think having a strong character is fine. Good for you! I'm proud.
This is kinda off-topic but it’s my biggest issue with powergaming.
I think the real problem arises when the rest of the party isn’t as optimised as one power gaming character in the party. There’s no problem with a PC going invisible, flying 400 ft up and then starting offensive actions. I can deal with that.
There’s no problem with a PC stacking on the best armour in the game, enchanting barkskin, rings of protection and multiple dodge bonuses and then wading into the melee.
My problem is, as a DM, I have to create challenges for the entire party, not just one hero. My crack team of evoker wizards hunting the invisible flying mage through the clouds will make mincemeat of the rest of the party. My hyper-accurate Hill Giant fighter clashing with the mountain of AC will power attack the rest of the party to sloppy goo before he starts on the hardest character to hit. When PC’s optimise, the DM must optimise as well, to keep the challenge running, and this can lead to sub-optimised heroes being the real casualty. And I don’t want to punish players who decide to take Skill focus: Perform or Profession skills just because someone else in their party found an effective build off the web. That’s a sucky way to DM.
Either the entire party needs to be optimised for power-gaming, or none at all.
I think having a strong character is fine. Good for you! I'm proud.
This is kinda off-topic but it’s my biggest issue with powergaming.
I think the real problem arises when the rest of the party isn’t as optimised as one power gaming character in the party. There’s no problem with a PC going invisible, flying 400 ft up and then starting offensive actions. I can deal with that.
There’s no problem with a PC stacking on the best armour in the game, enchanting barkskin, rings of protection and multiple dodge bonuses and then wading into the melee.
My problem is, as a DM, I have to create challenges for the entire party, not just one hero. My crack team of evoker wizards hunting the invisible flying mage through the clouds will make mincemeat of the rest of the party. My hyper-accurate Hill Giant fighter clashing with the mountain of AC will power attack the rest of the party to sloppy goo before he starts on the hardest character to hit. When PC’s optimise, the DM must optimise as well, to keep the challenge running, and this can lead to sub-optimised heroes being the real casualty. And I don’t want to punish players who decide to take Skill focus: Perform or Profession skills just because someone else in their party found an effective build off the web. That’s a sucky way to DM.
Either the entire party needs to be optimised for power-gaming, or none at all.
This.
Either the entire party needs to be optimised for power-gaming, or none at all.
Do they all need to be veteran players as well? Because I've seen players with optimized characters who just sucked at playing the game. Conversely, I've seen veteran players with characters that had taken sub-optimal choices who were no less effective than the rest of the party because they were clever in play.
I once had to play a dwarf druid whose ability scores were 11, 13, 13, 11, 16, 11. The rest of the party had miraculously managed to come out with at least two 18s each (integrity check!). Two of the [older] players were known powergamers. I never let them show my druid up though, and never asked the DM to help me out because I got a raw deal on ability scores.
My animal companion (a ram) played chicken with a dire bear and won, by headbutting it into a stupor. Very memorable event that saved several unconscious players.
Not all groups are going to have the luxury of deciding what KIND of players you have. Some will be powergamers and some will not. The tone of your post makes it sound like you would tell the minority (either the powergamers or the non-powergamers) that they couldn't play because they didn't fit the rest of the group.
|
|
My favourite character had the worst stats out of all my PCs too.
I'd never tell someone they couldn't play.
I took a variety of actions to try and balance out the party power level, by coaxing the non power gaming characters to start thinking about builds rather than choosing a feat at the time of leveling up. This made me come off as insistent and controlling and gave the illusion of me taking the reins of their character away from them.
I also ruled that methods of defeating foes that weren't "daring" would see less experience awards. How much does a flying invisible mage 400ft up from the enemy REALLY know about battle? This was met with sheer rage by the player in question.
I had one fight that was optimised and that lead to a near TPK. Not the good kind, but the sucky kind where a clustered party is hit with a maximised fireball and roll badly on their reflex saves. After that bad experience I just ran standard fights that seemed to me to be too easy for the PCs. :shrug:
I don't have any easy answers, but I know that if one character is powergaming and the rest of the party isn't, it'll lead to unsatisfying combat.
|
|
I think having a strong character is fine. Good for you! I'm proud.
This is kinda off-topic but it’s my biggest issue with powergaming.
I think the real problem arises when the rest of the party isn’t as optimised as one power gaming character in the party. There’s no problem with a PC going invisible, flying 400 ft up and then starting offensive actions. I can deal with that.
There’s no problem with a PC stacking on the best armour in the game, enchanting barkskin, rings of protection and multiple dodge bonuses and then wading into the melee.
My problem is, as a DM, I have to create challenges for the entire party, not just one hero. My crack team of evoker wizards hunting the invisible flying mage through the clouds will make mincemeat of the rest of the party. My hyper-accurate Hill Giant fighter clashing with the mountain of AC will power attack the rest of the party to sloppy goo before he starts on the hardest character to hit. When PC’s optimise, the DM must optimise as well, to keep the challenge running, and this can lead to sub-optimised heroes being the real casualty. And I don’t want to punish players who decide to take Skill focus: Perform or Profession skills just because someone else in their party found an effective build off the web. That’s a sucky way to DM.
Either the entire party needs to be optimised for power-gaming, or none at all.
::applauds::
I've lost count of how many times I've seen that happen. You field something designed to challenge the powergamer, the rest of the party attacks it, they die, the powergamer lives on.
I think having a strong character is fine. Good for you! I'm proud.
This is kinda off-topic but it’s my biggest issue with powergaming.
I think the real problem arises when the rest of the party isn’t as optimised as one power gaming character in the party. There’s no problem with a PC going invisible, flying 400 ft up and then starting offensive actions. I can deal with that.
There’s no problem with a PC stacking on the best armour in the game, enchanting barkskin, rings of protection and multiple dodge bonuses and then wading into the melee.
My problem is, as a DM, I have to create challenges for the entire party, not just one hero. My crack team of evoker wizards hunting the invisible flying mage through the clouds will make mincemeat of the rest of the party. My hyper-accurate Hill Giant fighter clashing with the mountain of AC will power attack the rest of the party to sloppy goo before he starts on the hardest character to hit. When PC’s optimise, the DM must optimise as well, to keep the challenge running, and this can lead to sub-optimised heroes being the real casualty. And I don’t want to punish players who decide to take Skill focus: Perform or Profession skills just because someone else in their party found an effective build off the web. That’s a sucky way to DM.
Either the entire party needs to be optimised for power-gaming, or none at all.
::applauds::
I've lost count of how many times I've seen that happen. You field something designed to challenge the powergamer, the rest of the party attacks it, they die, the powergamer lives on.
In my experience, it's ALWAYS the other way around.
Powergaming totally sucks, and Anti-Powergaming sucks every bit as much, in a different way.
Powergaming results in one character dominating at the expense of others, which leads to discontent and resentment among the other players, making them feel worthless. Plus,Powergamers tend to have inferiority complexes and are completely obnoxious twits.
Anti-Powergaming results in one character being a completely useless liability that the other party members have to carry on their backs, often at their own risk. Also, Anti-Powergamers tend to have superiority complexes and are usually completely pretentious d-bags constantly sniping at other players for not being "real roleplayers".
All of this negativity can be avoided just by everyone making reasonably effective, capable characters instead of min-maxed ubermunchkins, or max-minned worthless pains in the ass.
Extremes are extremes, and whichever end of the spectrum they happen to fall on, they are always bad. Moderation is key, as with most things.
Actually, anti-powergaming is just ... an extreme dislike and refusal to tolerate powergaming.
It's healthy, and a very understandable point of view. Playing with powergamers sucks the enjoyment out of the game for everyone but the powergamer.
Making a purposefully weak character ... is a really silly idea. I recently met with a potential new player who found this enjoyable. He was not invited to join our group.
Powergaming totally sucks, and Anti-Powergaming sucks every bit as much, in a different way.Powergaming results in one character dominating at the expense of others, which leads to discontent and resentment among the other players, making them feel worthless. Plus,Powergamers tend to have inferiority complexes and are completely obnoxious twits.
Anti-Powergaming results in one character being a completely useless liability that the other party members have to carry on their backs, often at their own risk. Also, Anti-Powergamers tend to have superiority complexes and are usually completely pretentious d-bags constantly sniping at other players for not being "real roleplayers".
All of this negativity can be avoided just by everyone making reasonably effective, capable characters instead of min-maxed ubermunchkins, or max-minned worthless pains in the ass.
Extremes are extremes, and whichever end of the spectrum they happen to fall on, they are always bad. Moderation is key, as with most things.
I'd say your description is only the most extreme case of anti-powergaming, to the point of being something completely different. Yes, I'll willing write flaws into my characters persona, but my characters can still carry their own weight(and then some). What you're describing is some sort of horrid extreme role-player demanding attention and sympathy through role play. I am an anti-powergamer, but I'm nowhere near what you described here.
off the wall stuff like a character spending 3 months of down time studying under a fencing master then taking skill focus profession basister, with nothing related to that in their back story or any of the games. I'm thinking they guy did a great job of role playing weapon focus feat and BOOM! some crunch that is only justified by the phrase, "Well I don't want to be a power gamer."That is trolling, plain and simple. If someone were doing that in my game, they'd be out of the game. It's an insult to the GM.
I get regular powergamophobia where they think that fun characters need to be ineffective (I always laugh at them when I play my effective characters that are fun at the same time!). It's a silly misconception, but beyond making no sense, it at least makes sense. (Yes, you read that right!)
But munchkinising the character in order to make him ineffective? That's sabotage. It's being contrary for the sake of being contrary, and giving the GM grief to show him how little you think of his work and efforts.
A lot of this thread needs to be taken in context of the group. The idea of the 'social contract' (that we are spending time together to play this game so that everyone can have fun, and all that).
All our players fall under the category of Optimisers - we create Heroes, characters who are very good at what they do (which is why they are not farmers, barmaids or merchants) and they have a good back story. We all tend to minmax, but none of us play 'one-trick ponies.' We create realistic characters who are very good at only a few things (know of anyone who specialises at a very high level in more than two unrelated areas?).
But we have one player who doesn't know the game system very well yet, and so doesn't optimise, but does create well-fleshed characters. Unfortunately this player has chosen Alchemist, and has no idea how to use it in combat.
Our problem player very deliberately anti-powergames. He has even called me a 'dirty minmaxer.' His characters are deliberately ineffective. He is currently playing an Oracle with no combat nor support abilities, and was even very reluctant to take the Wand of CLW that the GM threw into the loot to give him some healing ability.
The rest of us see this as breaking that social contract. Combat has effectively only three of us to handle the monsters (we are sky-pirates who loot and plunder for a living). We don't find it Fun to play with this sort of character. And as characters we didn't join together as a crew to ferry passengers about for sightseeing tours.
We are talking about drawing straws to tell him how we really feel about it all - he just isn't fun to game with. Perhaps the captain of the ship will ask him to leave, and we will look for a new crew member, as an option for him to create a new character.
I'd say your description is only the most extreme case of anti-powergaming, to the point of being something completely different. Yes, I'll willing write flaws into my characters persona, but my characters can still carry their own weight(and then some). What you're describing is some sort of horrid extreme role-player demanding attention and sympathy through role play. I am an anti-powergamer, but I'm nowhere near what you described here.
Powergaming totally sucks, and Anti-Powergaming sucks every bit as much, in a different way.Powergaming results in one character dominating at the expense of others, which leads to discontent and resentment among the other players, making them feel worthless. Plus,Powergamers tend to have inferiority complexes and are completely obnoxious twits.
Anti-Powergaming results in one character being a completely useless liability that the other party members have to carry on their backs, often at their own risk. Also, Anti-Powergamers tend to have superiority complexes and are usually completely pretentious d-bags constantly sniping at other players for not being "real roleplayers".
All of this negativity can be avoided just by everyone making reasonably effective, capable characters instead of min-maxed ubermunchkins, or max-minned worthless pains in the ass.
Extremes are extremes, and whichever end of the spectrum they happen to fall on, they are always bad. Moderation is key, as with most things.
Josh, you are correct of course that there is an entire spectrum between the extremes I described above. I'm just going by personal experience, and describing the people that I've played with in the past, that have fit those criteria.
The point I was trying to make, is that middle ground is always better. The group I play in now makes it a point to try to make characters together to create a balanced group, and so far it's worked out very well. We've made it a point to exclude powergamers, and also the opposite extreme of anti-powergamers as well.
By anti-powergamer, I don't mean someone who has a balanced character with a few flaws. To me, that's just normal, good roleplaying. An Anti-powergamer in my view is someone who goes out of their way to make a pathetic, useless mess of a character so they can gain some sort of moral victory over the other players by pointing out how "powergamey" they all are. Unfortunately, I've run into this person before.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All our players fall under the category of Optimisers - we create Heroes, characters who are very good at what they do (which is why they are not farmers, barmaids or merchants) and they have a good back story.
Right, this approach annoys the snot out of me.
Heroism and being exceptional are not innately linked. It is not their skill level that makes them a hero. Said farmer, barmaid, and merchant, could all be heroes, they can dive into a burning building and rescue the owner and their children. They could defend their homes from attacks by goblins, they could be dragged into sanity shaking events involving ancient books and servants of alien gods.
Heroes exist all over the world, and in many different styles of RPG, without being the skull stomping superheroes of DnD/pathfinder.
The paraplegic librarian in a Call of Cthulhu game is every bit as much a hero of a hero, as a 20th level fully optimised wizard.
What your talking about is staying within the tropes of modern DnD, and playings a powerful and exceptional individual. But it isn't that power that makes them a hero, it is their willingness to strive towards an end, at great personal risk, not their spell casting ability, that makes them a hero.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, this approach annoys the snot out of me.
All our players fall under the category of Optimisers - we create Heroes, characters who are very good at what they do (which is why they are not farmers, barmaids or merchants) and they have a good back story.
Being against this approach annoys the snot out of me! :P
Being against this approach annoys the snot out of me! :PRight, this approach annoys the snot out of me.
All our players fall under the category of Optimisers - we create Heroes, characters who are very good at what they do (which is why they are not farmers, barmaids or merchants) and they have a good back story.
Why? Do you think that the only heroes in life, fiction and roleplaying are superhuman four colour variety?
|
|
Right, this approach annoys the snot out of me.
Heroism and being exceptional are not innately linked.
I'm not sure the poster you responded to said they were.
He said they create character that are the following.
Heroes
Very good at what they do
Have a good back story
I don't read anything in it that says heroes must be very good at what they do. Only that they play such heroes.
A lot of this thread needs to be taken in context of the group.
Goes without saying. If the whole group has fun playing characters that can't survive a level-appropriate encounter unless the GM sabotages them, and the GM is okay with that, and everyone at the table is okay with that, it's perfectly okay. If you want to play non-heroes who only survive because of the old Deus Ex Machinegun, more power to you. (Ha, pun totally intended).
The obvious note of mockery in my previous statement was totally unintentional! ;-) Bottom line: If everyone likes it that way, it's cool.
It's when people have differing opinions, don't value each other's opinions, and try to openly mock each other's play styles when the problems start.
All our players fall under the category of Optimisers - we create Heroes, characters who are very good at what they do (which is why they are not farmers, barmaids or merchants) and they have a good back story.
That's fine. Nobody could have an issue with that. This opinion is as valid as anything else. In my own opinion, it's more valid than anything else.
Characters who have glaring and obvious disadvantages and only survive because the GM must constantly keep them alive are more baffling to me. That stuff might work well in a story, but I don't think they belong in the game.
But we have one player who doesn't know the game system very well yet, and so doesn't optimise, but does create well-fleshed characters. Unfortunately this player has chosen Alchemist, and has no idea how to use it in combat.
Well, you all were once new to the game (I know that one usually uses "we all were once new" in such situations, but I'm a prodigy, of course ;-)), and it's likely his skills will improve with experience.
(As an aside: A good approach is to give him advice without outright telling him what to do. The elven approach.)
Our problem player very deliberately anti-powergames. He has even called me a 'dirty minmaxer.'
I don't know him personally, but by the way you describe him, he sounds like a jerk.
His characters are deliberately ineffective. He is currently playing an Oracle with no combat nor support abilities, and was even very reluctant to take the Wand of CLW that the GM threw into the loot to give him some healing ability.
Negative oracle? Because they get to choose between getting all cure spells and getting all inflict spells as bonus spells known on the appropriate levels.
We are talking about drawing straws to tell him how we really feel about it all - he just isn't fun to game with. Perhaps the captain of the ship will ask him to leave, and we will look for a new crew member, as an option for him to create a new character.
Don't draw straws. Talk to him all at once. Call it an intervention. He obviously doesn't fit your group's play style. Ask him to cut it out or leave. With all due respect, of course.
Right, this approach annoys the snot out of me.
Heroism and being exceptional are not innately linked.
I'm not sure the poster you responded to said they were.
He said they create character that are the following.
Heroes
Very good at what they do
Have a good back storyI don't read anything in it that says heroes must be very good at what they do. Only that they play such heroes.
Its how it read to me ;)
I can only respond to what I see. The implication seemed to be that he considered being powerful to be innately linked to being heroic.
The implication certainly seems to be that heroes are a different breed of people in his mind to "farmers, barmaids or merchants"(oh my).
All our players fall under the category of Optimisers - we create Heroes, characters who are very good at what they do (which is why they are not farmers, barmaids or merchants) and they have a good back story.Right, this approach annoys the snot out of me.
Heroism and being exceptional are not innately linked. It is not their skill level that makes them a hero. Said farmer, barmaid, and merchant, could all be heroes, they can dive into a burning building and rescue the owner and their children. They could defend their homes from attacks by goblins, they could be dragged into sanity shaking events involving ancient books and servants of alien gods.
Heroes exist all over the world, and in many different styles of RPG, without being the skull stomping superheroes of DnD/pathfinder.
The paraplegic librarian in a Call of Cthulhu game is every bit as much a hero of a hero, as a 20th level fully optimised wizard.
What your talking about is staying within the tropes of modern DnD, and playings a powerful and exceptional individual. But it isn't that power that makes them a hero, it is their willingness to strive towards an end, at great personal risk, not their spell casting ability, that makes them a hero.
You're right Zombie, but I think what Oberon was actually envisioning were adventurers. While anyone can be a hero, you wouldn't send a regular barmaid or farmer who refuses to become something more anymore than you would go try to send a banker to save the kittens from a burning building; it just makes it harder for the people trying to do their job. And in a game, it just makes it more cumbersome for people trying to play the game.
An Anti-powergamer in my view is someone who goes out of their way to make a pathetic, useless mess of a character so they can gain some sort of moral victory over the other players by pointing out how "powergamey" they all are. Unfortunately, I've run into this person before.
We'll just have to agree to disagree on the use of the term then. I'm more of the opinion that an "Anti-Powergamer" is simply someone who dislikes power-gaming and overly min/maxing.
I'm sorry you played with someone who goes to the extremes you described, but I just think the term is overly broad to specifically mean such an extreme. Maybe that player was just an "Extreme Anti-Powergamer." Just my opinion.
I feel the need to reiterate: "powergamer" is a meaningless term. It describes a behavior that, when executed by a jerk is irritating, and when executed by a well-adjusted human being is just "playing the game".
Position yourself as against the behavior and you're bound to unfairly lump some pretty cool people into your summary judgement. Position yourself against the jerks, it is the one true way.
I feel the need to reiterate: "powergamer" is a meaningless term. It describes a behavior that, when executed by a jerk is irritating, and when executed by a well-adjusted human being is just "playing the game".
Position yourself as against the behavior and you're bound to unfairly lump some pretty cool people into your summary judgement. Position yourself against the jerks, it is the one true way.
How about "Anti-jerk gamer"? "Anti-power jer...." nevermind on that one, lol.
I feel the need to reiterate: "powergamer" is a meaningless term. It describes a behavior that, when executed by a jerk is irritating, and when executed by a well-adjusted human being is just "playing the game".
Position yourself as against the behavior and you're bound to unfairly lump some pretty cool people into your summary judgement. Position yourself against the jerks, it is the one true way.
It isn't quite that simple.
Because context plays a part as well.
The player who is a jerk, can perform the same behavior that labelled him a power gamer with one group, with a different group, and not be considered a jerk.
While the nice enough guy can cause havak and be considered a jerk in a group, if the expectations of the game have not been explained to him.
It is a meaning full term, it describes a common cluster of negative behavioural traits. One, might as well say jerk is a meaningless term, because the term anti-social exists.
Now I'm sure some of you would have kicked me out for these actionsWhat, for making a character whose only purpose was to piss off me as a GM?
Nah! Killed you and buried you in the foundation of the house maybe, but not kicked out! :P
Just remember at the end of the story, you love me. Sometimes letting a Player be a jerk isn't a bad thing, it can make a good story better, not all heroes are nice about it.
A character being a jerk is not the same as a player being a jerk.
Not by causation, true, but the correlation is significant.