Really?
Another thread like this, where people can make it abundantly clear that the way other people enjoy the game annoys them?
I honestly thought one was probably enough.
In fact, it might be time for someone to make a thread about how much people talking about roleplaying and character interaction annoys them.
Really?
Another thread like this, where people can make it abundantly clear that the way other people enjoy the game annoys them?
I honestly thought one was probably enough.
In fact, it might be time for someone to make a thread about how much people talking about roleplaying and character interaction annoys them.
I'm sure it's a cyclical thing, just as the edition war/name-your-pet-peeve-here threads are. I'm sure you know this isn't the first thread with this focus, and I'm just as sure it won't be the last.
You'll probably get the anti-roleplaying/character interaction thread sooner or later. For example, I agree for the most part with the OP, but even so, speaking in character at the table (to the point of a couple of DM's holding a hard "if you say it, your character says it" line) bugs the daylights out of me.
One of the things with this 'Gulf of Power' you describe and like is that it wasn't particularly great. Certainly the high-level Magic-User could throw around Mega-Spell of Doom. But the high-level Fighter saves against it on a five.
The high-level Wizard isn't throwing around Mega-Spell of Doom against the high-level Fighter, though. The high-level Wizard is casting spells that target the high-level Fighter's awful Will save, or is casting spells that shut the high-level Fighter down totally without even allowing for a saving throw. And he's doing all this because the high-level Wizard's Intelligence score is higher than 10.
I've never understood why people who try to argue that spellcasters and non-spellcasters operate on the same relative level of power always outline breathtakingly dumb tactics for the characters with tremendous mental stats (spellcasters) and utterly brilliant tactics for the characters with mediocre mental stats (non-spellcasters).
|
Really?
Another thread like this, where people can make it abundantly clear that the way other people enjoy the game annoys them?
I honestly thought one was probably enough.
In fact, it might be time for someone to make a thread about how much people talking about roleplaying and character interaction annoys them.
Any given RPG publisher is going to have an inherent bias towards a certain style of play - when I hear White Wolf I expect a certain amount of angsty drama, and I certainly delve into Eric Wujcik's work for Palladium Games with much different expectations than I do for his work under the Phage Press imprint.
Paizo seems to stand pretty firmly in the story/flavor before crunch/math camp, if I may say - and they're not all that shy about expressing it. There's bound to be a bit of static when one frequents the Paizo boards and tries to shift the focus of discussion away from their core concern.That said, I don't think that bars outright discussion of optimization et al - just that it seems less likely that James, Erik, Vic etc will weigh in often on a topic that's not forefront among their numerous worries (I come to this simply by observation of the threads they tend to post in, not presuming to speak for them :D). *shrug*
Really?
Another thread like this, where people can make it abundantly clear that the way other people enjoy the game annoys them?
I honestly thought one was probably enough.
In fact, it might be time for someone to make a thread about how much people talking about roleplaying and character interaction annoys them.
Any given RPG publisher is going to have an inherent bias towards a certain style of play - when I hear White Wolf I expect a certain amount of angsty drama, and I certainly delve into Eric Wujcik's work for Palladium Games with much different expectations than I do for his work under the Phage Press imprint.
Paizo seems to stand pretty firmly in the story/flavor before crunch/math camp, if I may say - and they're not all that shy about expressing it. There's bound to be a bit of static when one frequents the Paizo boards and tries to shift the focus of discussion away from their core concern.
That said, I don't think that bars outright discussion of optimization et al - just that it seems less likely that James, Erik, Vic etc will weigh in often on a topic that's not forefront among their numerous worries (I come to this simply by observation of the threads they tend to post in, not presuming to speak for them :D). *shrug*
I'm not talking about Paizo at all, here. I'm talking about the people who feel the need to create threads like this.
|
I'm talking about the people who feel the need to create threads like this.
Internet message boards are a place for people of like minds to gather and discuss their shared views of a given topic...
Of course, not everyone shares the same view within the confines of the same topic...
And...
If one frequents the boards for long enough, they will see many of the same topics continue to pop up...
It's the nature of the beast!
To say something along the lines of "NOT AGAIN!", is to forget that not all posters are "old-timers" such as yourself...
|
|
I'm not talking about Paizo at all, here. I'm talking about the people who feel the need to create threads like this.
Understood, but that's somewhat akin to being disappointed that people who like the kind of flavor-full crunch-secondary product Paizo specializes in tend to congregate at Paizo's house.
I mean, when you look at the changes Pathfinder made from the 3.5 ruleset as a whole, it seems evident (at least to me) that there was more care taken to close optimization loopholes and reduce the level of mathematical analysis (i.e. changes to power attack) involved in play than there was to bring about the sort of system-wide balance that often comes up as a desired outcome in various optimization threads.So yeah, based on the people who work at Paizo and the kind of work they produce, I'm not very surprised that the boards here tend to be more hostile to optimization discussion than, say, a pure D&D 3.5 board would be. Or maybe I'm just talking out my arse, dunno.
DISCUSSIONS ON BUILDS AND BALANCE BUG ME..so don't read them?
Now ToZ, you know logic isn't allowed around here. Please cease and desist or else go back to the funland that is Off-Topic :)
To say something along the lines of "NOT AGAIN!", is to forget that not all posters are "old-timers" such as yourself...
One need not be an "old-timer" to notice the active threads on this very sub-forum entitled "Anti-Power Gaming" and "Lack of backstory".
Let's not pretend that posters railing against how other people enjoy the game is something that happens once in a blue moon. It happens often enough that we apparently need three active threads in the same board to contain a single side of the discussion!
|
|
Let's not pretend that posters railing against how other people enjoy the game is something that happens once in a blue moon.
I didn't say once in a blue moon...
I said:
If one frequents the boards for long enough, they will see many of the same topics continue to pop up...
The OP has 74 posts...
He is new (or does not frequent the boards very often)...
Topics covered ad-nauseam will continue AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN...
It is THE nature of an internet message board because there is usually a constant stream of new posters...
One of the things with this 'Gulf of Power' you describe and like is that it wasn't particularly great. Certainly the high-level Magic-User could throw around Mega-Spell of Doom. But the high-level Fighter saves against it on a five.The high-level Wizard isn't throwing around Mega-Spell of Doom against the high-level Fighter, though. The high-level Wizard is casting spells that target the high-level Fighter's awful Will save.... Talking About Pathfinder
BTW Reynard & Bluenose were talking about previous editions of D&D, not Pathfinder where there were no Will saves for a M-U to take advantage of. (Of course there was a WIS bonus to Spell Saves)
You are not alone.
What Vic said.
Let's not pretend that posters railing against how other people enjoy the game is something that happens once in a blue moon.I didn't say once in a blue moon...
I said:
If one frequents the boards for long enough, they will see many of the same topics continue to pop up...The OP has 74 posts...
He is new (or does not frequent the boards very often)...
Topics covered ad-nauseam will continue AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN...
It is THE nature of an internet message board because there is usually a constant stream of new posters...
Again, this seems like a silly thing to say given that there are two active threads on basically the exact same topic as the one this thread was created for (railing against styles of play one does not enjoy) in the very sub-forum the user in question posted to. I can't imagine that he missed those. This seems more like thread-piling than anything else.
Again, this seems like a silly thing to say given that there are two active threads on basically the exact same topic as the one this thread was created for (railing against styles of play one does not enjoy) in the very sub-forum the user in question posted to. I can't imagine that he missed those. This seems more like thread-piling than anything else.Let's not pretend that posters railing against how other people enjoy the game is something that happens once in a blue moon.I didn't say once in a blue moon...
I said:
If one frequents the boards for long enough, they will see many of the same topics continue to pop up...The OP has 74 posts...
He is new (or does not frequent the boards very often)...
Topics covered ad-nauseam will continue AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN...
It is THE nature of an internet message board because there is usually a constant stream of new posters...
I have not read those other threads so dont know if they are identical so you may be right. However the OP didnt seem to be complaining about build threads but seemed to be complaining about minmax build discussions intruding into non minmax build discussions. This probably has come up before too but it isnt just a comment on playstyle preference IMO.
and the comments to the effect 'well dont read the discussions' seem also to have missed the point. The Op wasnt complaining about build discussions per se (IMO) but about them intruding into other discussion topics.
I have not read those other threads so dont know if they are identical so you may be right. However the OP didnt seem to be complaining about build threads but seemed to be complaining about minmax build discussions intruding into non minmax build discussions. This probably has come up before too but it isnt just a comment on playstyle preference IMO.
and the comments to the effect 'well dont read the discussions' seem also to have missed the point. The Op wasnt complaining about build discussions per se (IMO) but about them intruding into other discussion topics.
This basically boils down to "People shouldn't talk about something I don't like hearing about even in threads where such a side discussion might be warranted." Even the idea that discussions need to be separated into discussions-about-builds and discussions-not-about-builds is worrisome.
People should do what they do and enjoy themselves, and there's plenty of room for us all in the PF sandbox.
Indeed.
But when they do start to intrude on "regular" discussions, I either tone out or, occasionally, get actively annoyed.
Indeed. Everyone should be like you, and like the things you do, and if other people's preferences differ, they should not be here at all. Or only in especially marked threads, where you don't have to suffer their presence.
Do you even realize how intolerant and stuck-up your post is?
|
I always found that tolerance is overrated.
Just a few days ago, i was watching the last Harry Potter, and next to me was a child which seemed on it's deathbed, and was constantly grunting, and next to it sat it's father who fell asleep six minutes into the film, and snored like a beast.
I promptly woke the man up and told him that his child is unwell (constant coughing is not something that normally happens), and he simply said that it's fine. So i called the cinema security and they threw them out. The child was really sick, and hand pneumonia, but the father didn't care one bit. He should have been in bed, not in a movie theater where he could get worse.
Plus, they were both getting on my nerves. My father, on the other hand, and avid AA man, would have tolerated the whole thing.
I also do not tolerate stupidity in any form, for a second.
Now, I am NOT saying that a playstyle focused on characters builds or an extreme focus on "game balance" are badwrongfun. People should do what they do and enjoy themselves, and there's plenty of room for us all in the PF sandbox.
However, I just don't like those lines of thought or types of discussions. I guess you might call me a "simulationist" in that I think a character, monster, spell or whatever should look, mechanically, like it looks, non-mechanically. By that I mean, the gulf of power between the fighter and the magic-user (one way at low levels, the other at high levels) never bothered me at all in previous editions. Obviously, if the game mechanics just *don't work*, that's a whole different issue, but there's no reason to ensure that every choice is as "good" as every other choice, if you are trying to produce a certain result from a "fluff" perspective.
And as to powergaming builds: blech. I have never had to suffer through a powergamer at my table (and likely wouldn't do so for long) and I am super appreciative that most "build" discussions occur in "build" threads on most message boards. But when they do start to intrude on "regular" discussions, I either tone out or, occasionally, get actively annoyed.
Sorry. Just a little rant inspired by a few threads today. :)
OP, I agree with you. I really do. In fact, it's the reason 3.5 is my preferred system and I have just as much fun making Fighters as I do Wizards, should the mood strike; "balance" be damned. I like my games simulationist too, and in my opinion a guy swinging a sword is NOT going to be as powerful as someone who can bend reality with magic. But, sometimes I don't want to bend reality, I just want to swing a sword. For me, playing the game is not about becoming as "powerful" as possible; it's about playing a character in a story, and having an adventure. I feel plenty powerful in my day to day life, so in my fantasy games I'm content not min/maxing or optimizing as much as the next player. I just like to play out whatever concept springs to mind.
But, not everyone plays this way. Some people are not ok with imbalance, no matter how realistic it is, and this is perfectly fine, too. Truth is, we're just talking about gaming preferences, and lots of players prefer different things. For some people, a RPG is a story being written as a group. For others, the "game" portion is more important, and the number matter more to them.
On a message board, it's much easier to discuss "balance" and "builds", since these use consistent numbers, and rules that can be easily referenced. It's more difficult to discuss concepts and thematics, since everyone has a different idea of what those could be. Any message board is subject to internet one-upmanship, so of course you're just going to get those people who just have to let the world know they can do it better, whatever "it" is; a build, a strategy, idea, etc.
This basically boils down to "People shouldn't talk about something I don't like hearing about even in threads where such a side discussion might be warranted." Even the idea that discussions need to be separated into discussions-about-builds and discussions-not-about-builds is worrisome.
But he's right and you are wrong, so its perfectly understandable that he wants to remove you from his internet so you won't spoil his fun.
Some people....
snip - unrelated rambling about kids in movie theaters
Cool story bro.
But what does inappropriate behavior in a movie theatre have to do with people's preferences with respect to rpgs?
I also do not tolerate stupidity in any form, for a second.
Yeah, it's always good to be the most strict towards oneself.
Also, great idea to go to an internet forum in order to avoid that. Because we all know that the internet is completely free of it, right? :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what bothers me? Jerks.
Discussions of builds and balance are great as long as the participants are well-adjusted people with whom you would want to have a discussion.
Let's be honest, the Pathfinder RPG itself does not discourage a very gamist style of play. It places a huge emphasis on gaming character creation when compared with just about any other RPG I can think of. Character creation in Pathfinder is more akin to building a M:tG deck than in any other system; a game-wide review of short-form rules clauses that you are rewarded for combining in unique and unforeseen ways. Most games aren't like that. So there's a definite attraction for certain types of player.
This is a forum for the discussion of that game. It makes sense that people who are attracted to those features of the system should want to congregate and discuss it. I think that's great, so long as they're not oppressive jerks about it.
I wish that people (including the OP here) would stop trying to blame jerkiness on a single style-of-play or an edition or a background; suspiciously never the poster's own. Jerks are just jerks. There are definitely jerks who adopt a "role-playing superiority complex" just as there are jerks who abuse rules and jerks who insist that a narrow set of options are the only good ones.
You know what bothers me? Jerks.
Discussions of builds and balance are great as long as the participants are well-adjusted people with whom you would want to have a discussion.
Let's be honest, the Pathfinder RPG itself does not discourage a very gamist style of play. It places a huge emphasis on gaming character creation when compared with just about any other RPG I can think of. Character creation in Pathfinder is more akin to building a M:tG deck than in any other system; a game-wide review of short-form rules clauses that you are rewarded for combining in unique and unforeseen ways. Most games aren't like that. So there's a definite attraction for certain types of player.
This is a forum for the discussion of that game. It makes sense that people who are attracted to those features of the system should want to congregate and discuss it. I think that's great, so long as they're not oppressive jerks about it.
I wish that people (including the OP here) would stop trying to blame jerkiness on a single style-of-play or an edition or a background; suspiciously never the poster's own. Jerks are just jerks. There are definitely jerks who adopt a "role-playing superiority complex" just as there are jerks who abuse rules and jerks who insist that a narrow set of options are the only good ones.
*Takes deep breath to start spiel*
Oh! I see Evil Lincoln has already said everything I was thinking.
Carry on!
Discussions that discount game balance bugs me.
From the players perspective as long as everyone agrees balance is an idea that can only be obtained by those sitting at the table. Then play and have fun.
From a developers standpoint there are many different methods to obtain balance, and it would be foolish to totally ignore it.
As long as we all agree it can never truely be obtained, then it all boils down to preferences.
Prefacing a statement with "I'm not doing x" doesn't mean you're not doing it.
What exactly did you expect them — the many people who post here about builds and balance — to do when you announced that they "bug" you? You should have expected that they would manifest and defend their behavior. And that's what they've done.
All things being equal, they have a right to gripe about you griping about them.