|
This may sound odd, but I've had a bit of success by just giving my players a simple system:
choose your stats.
Pick the character you want to be, then explain to me in his back story why he's got the high/low stats he does. It's not a perfect system (in fact I'd say it's pretty flawed if adapted by most groups) but it works for me, I think because the first thing I did was explain to them that they can't actually beat me. They can't. There's no logical way to 'beat' the DM, because if you insist on having 3 18's, he can (and I do) just scale the bad-guys to match.
So in my game I've got some low-stat people who have lots of fun because they've invested in a character, explained their stats to me and themselves and play them accordingly. I also have some high-stat players who have fun, but not as much, as their high-powered characters aren't 'winning' as often as they think they should. Probably because their tactics are simply "I'm a beast, I should be able to kill them in one shot. Why aren't they going down?!"
Alternately, I have a Barbarian/Sorcerer in my party with maxed strength and charisms who I love playing with because the player gets it. He's a powerhouse at his skills but is otherwise a dumb brute who's afraid of water and worships dragons. Half the party tactics involve boosting him with stat bonuses, shield and mage armor, an enlarge spell and an ant haul spell so he can uproot trees and use them as a club on the front lines, or letting him plow through walls with the squishy wizard right behind him applying boosts as he goes. In that case the high stats aren't a way to 'beat' the unbeatable game against the DM, but a conscious character choice one player made when contemplating what kind of awesome he wanted to be that day. Just like the wizard who gave himself 6 strength and 8 charisma just to have the fun of playing a flawed character.
Meh, it works for me. I mean, I think the biggest problem with RPGs today is we expect them to be video games with exploitable rules. Rules are awesome and I love optimizing, but when the person running the monsters can change the game to fit your particular playing style, then optimization means less 'how do I beat the game' and more 'how do I make my character reflect who I actually want to be today?' I think the problems only come when someone mistakes this game for something you can out-think.
...did I just get 'out-simpled'?
Adammeyers, your character sounds great fun. You sound like a pro-dm, not even fussed by power-gamers or giant stat characters.
"I think the biggest problem with RPGs today is we expect them to be video games with exploitable rules. Rules are awesome and I love optimizing, but when the person running the monsters can change the game to fit your particular playing style, then optimization means less 'how do I beat the game' and more 'how do I make my character reflect who I actually want to be today?' I think the problems only come when someone mistakes this game for something you can out-think."
I very much agree.
Day 216
I continue to run games where ability scores are not so different to the numbers common in second ed. Players realised they do not have to have 20+ even in key scores. Everything was great, and crunch has been kept at bay.
Dragons are to a large degree solitary creatures that don't deal much with people. Yet they have excellent charisma.
Saying "people who're not constantly talking have low cha" is like saying "people who're not in weight-lifting competitions have low str". It's not how often you use your abilities, it's how good you are at using them. Which is determined by ability.
Charisma is a measure of how easy it is to get people/reality (in the case of people who use cha to cast spells) to listen to you. Most people (and most of reality for that matter) are willing (not like they have much in the way of a choice) to listen to the giant, flying, energy-breathing, lizard. Besides, I see them as the type you typically will find hidden amongst people for centuries at a time.
Charisma represents a lot of things.
I think the game's definition of it uses clear language as a composite stat and where that representation changes with regards to undead. I prefer the clear definition to many of the "interpretations" I've seen presented here.
If you're arbitrarily reducing your player's stats based on your view and not an actual game mechanic, you must have a really desperate group of players, as those with real options will look elsewhere for a game. If that's not what you're doing, then ignore this paragraph.
hehe Carolingus
If you wan't to max min-maxing less appealing, and decrease the score levels overall, consider altering the point buy scale.
Try making the cost of buying up scores increse faster.
Results: It already costs more to buy up high stats, but making the cost increse more severe will make balanced scores mor attractive.
Also, the cost is outright increaseing, so scores will be lower overall. This can calibrate your heros to the expectations of the world.
Min maxing will be less rewarding, so the optimisation gets curbed a bit.
Unfortunately, those who insist on min-maxing will be even more unbalenced between their high and low scores. This may cripple the character, or just make it seem out of place.
|
This has unfortunately been the bugbear for GM's for decades. I think we all did the "who's got the highest this and that" back as teenagers. I remember it was how adventures started back in the early 1980's.
My current group are happy not knowing there stays. I give them a non conventional character sheet with "your good at this""very good at the following. The spell casters have figured out roughly what their stats are and everyone knows that the cleric has a very average dex. They concentrate on the role playing and very little "one upmanship".
Gives me a lot of freedom to give out non-standard awards aswell.
They have no idea if they are a 20 point or 30 point model build and this makes for one of the best campaigns I have ever run.
Downside is I got to do more number crunching, so I set up excel sheets to keep track of everything.
Hope this helps from an old bloke with a few years on playing.
Last time we did 3d6 stats, I rolled insanely high, and two others rolled garbage. By Pathfinder Point Buy system, I literally had 48 points worth of stats, while the halfling rogue had 12 points. Neither fun, nor fair.
What the original post describes is not a flaw with the system, it is simply an inconsistency between how OP and his players approach the game.
And that is something everyone is going to deal with, through any game. Some want a story, some want exciting combat. Some people play better in team sports, others perform better in competitive ones. Granted, PF is a team-exercise, where X number of adventurers band together to overcome challenges. But the finer points beyond that, is up to the players.
Personally, I prefer that every player focus on becoming the very BEST in his field. I would rather have an Int 20 wizard who reliably does wizardry as well as it can be done, than have some Int 14 hack that spends his traits, feats and remaining stats on becoming a middling swordsman. The Str18+ fighter is the swordsman. You can contribute way more to melee by casting Haste on him. His extra attack at full bab is after all YOUR doing. If he goes "I am such a badass! Check out my damage! How much damage do YOU do?" you go "You're welcome."
You guys are following me and mocking me now?
It is what they do... welcome to the community?
This is on something I've noticed over the years in gaming, and how I overcame it recently as the DM.Ability scores, they shape what our characters are good at. Almost everyone wants them to go higher and like xp, they can be a matter of dispute and argument, but mostly one-upmanship. See it often seems to me, that players feel this great need to really have high scores, to be the absolute best they can be at a variety of attributes for their level. Exceptionalism, whatever you want to call it.
Now I like some high ability scores too, but when players get there, when they are 20 at level 1, 24-26 at level 9, they are often dicks about it. Asking and comparing with other players, "what is your dex?", "I have a thirty int, what's yours?". Players have complained to me about this, and as the one-uppers go ahead with this, they take away from game time, take away from playing as their character and accomplishing other things.
I have no problem if Carl playing Carolingus the barbarian says, "I am mighty, my strength is unrivalled" after killing a dire creature. What I don't like is if Carl (not a real player) says to another player, my character's strength is 22, what is yours?"
Holy shattering verisimilitude batman!
So a focus on ability scores and on them being as high as possible can turn dnd into the spread sheet you play, not a game you are a part of (you stare at that character sheet a lot, and put all your focus into making sure those stats are truly high). That is what I want to avoid.
Speaking of focus, another way ability scores get in the way of the larger game is crafting characters that become obsessed with raising them higher, via items. Abilities scores in dnd are not very fluid so they go out to get the money and materials to beef them up and up. The true purpose of ability score focused players is making sure that prime state (and the next important one, and the next and the next) is well on the way to the 30s. It is so wroughty it annoys me a great deal.
Those that don't go...
Um. I don't think the problem is with the system. It sounds like the problem is with the people playing it. If someone turns to the next guy and says "Haha, I have a 20 strength and you don't!" the person has issues that are completely and utterly removed from Ability Scores, or Items, or anything else for that matter. If a player turns and fells an enemy and says "Haha, I have 22 Strength!", also issues.
Honestly, it sounds like you need to sit down and talk this over with your players. Explain that honestly it's killing your sense of fun and verisimilitude to shout such things, is rude and inappropriate to try and brag about their characters' advances over another member of their party in much the same way it is irritating to have someone come in and declare how much smarter they are than everyone else in the room. Whether true or not it's arrogant and off-putting. To do so with a D&D character also seems to demonstrate a severe complexity problem and an outcry for their own inner insecurities.
I do have a piece of advice which you can try for a few sessions if you'd like. This is a good piece of helping both GMs and players learn not to metagame or put so much emphasis on their stats. If you're willing to try it you might have a good bit of fun with it, because it can really add a lot of the game if everyone agrees to play along.
1) Have everyone generate a character (I personally recommend 15 point buy as is standard for Pathfinder, but you could use other methods as well, but I feel 15 point buy pretty much ensures that to excel you also have a drawback or few).
2) Have everyone decide on their character's personalities and perhaps a little history (or they can try to impromptu it on the spot if they're unsure initially).
3) Then have everyone play with their character sheets face down on the table. No one says what their class is, what their feats are, or anything that isn't immediately obvious. Let all of it be "behind the scenes" and unless the GM specifically needs to check something then leave the sheets this way except when their owner needs to reference something (such as to check their skill modifier when attempting a check).
4) Since your players seem to have some serious issues being nice to each other and what-not, consider the optional point of penalizing them for talking about their stats in that way during the game, and consider rewarding players who do not. Set some ground rules that anyone who doesn't do this once during a session gets +10% experience, but anyone who does gets -10% experience per outburst. It's harsh, but it creates not merely a punishment but a reward to strive for as well.
Theoretically, you and your players should find a new lease on the game. Suddenly class, levels, and ability scores are merely the unseen bits during the game. Very quickly it should become apparent to not metagame classes, ability scores, and so forth. Interact with characters and the world based on in-world material instead of interacting with their statistics. This is also a wonderful way to learn to break hangups based on metagame names (such as using the Barbarian class to play a Samurai themed warrior, or being a Bard who doesn't sing) and focus more on their characters.
Just a suggestion. (^-^)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP (sorry I didn't read the rest of the thread), the problem isn't ability scores, it's jerk players playing "I win at RPGs". Remind them that when they flex their numbers it's like whipping out imaginary wangs, nobody is impressed and you're going to look silly if you tried it in public.
I like the op lots there i agree with
I also think one of the problems is that often players will be having a discussion in character but be making reference to stats and feats as themselves the players and not there characters