|
Has our gaming become so influenced by video games, that a player would quit a character just based on game mechanics? Are we completely split as a gaming community? I never thought mechanics were more important than personality and story.
Have a look at what one of my players has said about his PFRPG L13 wizard. Has ROLL-playing replaced ROLE-playing for good?
* * *
"While its true that my character chose to die to give his companions a few more seconds- this was NOT the hero Boromir taking arrows to buy time for the hobbits. My character made that choice the way a red-shirt chooses to take a phaser blast for Captain Kirk- because he has no kung-fu like Sulu and no Vulcan death grip like Spock. He is not a hero, but a nameless, faceless mook who could be replaced by anyone of the other 400 crew members and he dies, because he has nothing more useful to do. If you want to bury him as a hero, be my guest- but his death felt stupid and pointless to me, there was nothing heroic about it."
"Don't tell me that my character is supposed to be a hero- his abilities and interaction with the other characters will dictate his role. If he has the capability of performing heroic deeds, he may evolve into a hero, if not- perhaps he will just be a disgruntled taxi driver."
"After a look inward, my character found that 18 more seconds of the fighter's heroic sword was more important to the world than anything he could cast, swing, speak or invoke. With nothing to contribute, he envisioned himself a red-shirt rather than a hero- and he behaved accordingly."
"Whether the game mechanic or my inability to work with it is to blame, the result is the same: I cannot create what I envision as a Wizard with the tools I have available to me. I still maintain (although phrased slightly more tactfully) that any Wizard created within the framework of the CORE RULEBOOK is useless to me. Nearly everything that my character could do can be accomplished with a few scrolls in the rogue's backpack or a cheap NPC."
"In my experience, there are parallel ways to accomplish every skill and spell available to a Wizard and even the possession of a familiar is not unique. Call me a poor player if you wish, but I am unable to fashion a Wizard into anything but supporting cast. Each time I got excited about a new spell or ability, I ended up frustrated with it's drawbacks and dissappointed with it's party benefit compared to other classes I have played. The Wizard is NOT a viable character class.
"After staring long and hard at my character sheet (and I had a week to do so), I determined that the most useful thing that my character could do in the current situation was to stay in a position far from the other party members and soak up as much damage and as many attacks as I could, to buy time for members of the party with more significant offensive capabilities. I stuck to the plan and found my character woefully inadequate for the task of defeating any enemies, so I used the only other advantage that I had available to me: 103 targetable hit points."
"I understand that a Wizard is not meant to be an offensive powerhouse, but (as we are supposedly not under the constraints of a video game) I fully expected to be able to transform my character into one, given that our current task was to walk into hell and extract items from the principals there. I was not able to do this, despite my best attempts. With a DEX of 22, Mage Armor, Shield spell, an expensive Ring of Protection and +6 Natural Gianty-Armor- I still ended up with an AC that was easily bypassed (and several less than others in the party). With the nastiest 'top level spells' I could muster, I was only able to deal a bit of damage to some minions, while the attacks of subordinate enemies easily felled my fully-beefed wizard in a couple of rounds. On top of that, with each spell I cast, my usefulness diminished significantly while an archer or fighter can fight at FULL efficiency until they perish. It became evident that damage magnet was the best I could hope for."
"Whenever I, as a player, notice this much disparity between characters at a single level I begin looking at several possible causes:"
"- My knowledge of playing the Wizard Class is incomplete. It is certainly possible to make them as effective as other classes, but I'm not doing it correctly. Perhaps some prestige classes are better suited to what I was trying to do with my character. Guess I better hit the books."
"- Players are not playing their characters according to the class rules, leading to a wider than normal disparity in AC, CMD, Attack bonuses, etc. This happens when players continue to take shield or buckler benefits, even when fighting with two handed weapons; players add +5 to a power attack but forget to subtract it off their AC when attacked later in the round, etc."
"- The Game Mechanics are not balanced, leading to classes that lag behind their counterparts at certain levels. Everyone knows that low-level wizards are not as effective in battle or as robust as other classes. Perhaps these gaps appear at other levels as well. (Maybe at the NEXT level, wizards get some killer battle spells?)"
"- Magic Bloat. A +4 Vorpal sword, for example, significantly boosts a fighter's level. Beef his strength up with a Belt of Giant Strength and a few properly (or improperly) stacked feats and you have a 10th level fighter easily defeating ELs designed for a 15th. If the encounter levels are increased to be a challenge for Mr. super-fighter, then the unbuffed 10th level members of the party become fodder."
"In three out of four of these areas, the disparity and complexity increase as levels get higher- contributing to my general distaste of higher level campaigns. For the sake of argument, we'll say that all players are appropriately equipped and playing their characters correctly within the boundaries of sound, well-balanced game mechanics. That leaves us with me, or rather my lack of Wizardly prowess and brings me to the second topic:"
"Wanting to Stay Dead
I did my best to pump my character for combat and still fell way short of the mark. Essentially, I Min-Maxed a Wizard and the pinnacle of my efforts with was bested in moments, by supporting actresses. Accepting as a given that combat is NOT my strong suit, I looked at other character traits- does my character have a saving grace that warrants resurrection? Since I've never wanted to be a support caster, the majority of my spells are offensive in nature, leaving little of usefulness outside of combat. The Inquisitor has a comparable Knowledge Planes roll, the cleric is my equal in Knowledge Religion, the fighter excels with Knowledge Engineering and the Archer knows Dungeoneering and Spellcraft at least as well as I. What unique ability makes the wizard useful to the party?"
"Teleport. I'm a taxi? (as long as the party doesn't mind landing in a lake- I'm not very good at teleporting either ;)"
"My character is bland and generic, without much agenda and acts mostly as a sounding board for the cleric. He was not given the same care as as my monk or rogue, through no one’s fault but my own. So, without being able to contribute significantly to battle, knowledge or story- he's consequently not much fun to play. That's what it boils down to- he's not fun anymore. Not to be an RPG snob, but if I'm going to pour my hard-earned free time into D&D, I'd best enjoy a character who plays a significant role in battle, skills and story. That's the only time that it’s fun."
"Real Life has challenges, inequities and setbacks. There is no reset button so we soldier on with whatever dignity we can muster. One of the best things about D&D is that the ONLY real rule is that it should be fun. When D&D life gives you lemons, you don't HAVE to make lemonade- you can just go to the pub, have an ale- then punch a nasty looking half-orc when you get bored. And if you're not happy with your life in D&D, you CAN have someone else’s life. Grab a blank character sheet."
"If your unhappiness occurs at a higher level- find a different game (and that is what we're talking about here, right? A game?) D&D not happening? Go play Monopoly."
"Perhaps it IS primarily a video game mentality to press the reset button when things aren't going well, but one thing is for certain in either type of game: if you're not having fun playing the game, do something different. "
"Speaking of Video Games...
The language that I chose to voice my umbrage was the language of video games, but if you review the causes I list above: (my own lack of skill, player cheesing, improperly designed game mechanics or equipment bloat), ALL of the things I mention are the areas where RPG and Video games overlap. In fact, my specific issues with my wizard's configuration are from the only space where RPG and video games are the same. I'm not advocating that RPG should be more like a video game, essentially I'm upset that RPG is too much like a video game when it comes to building a character. I couldn't seem to build an effective wizard within the video-game-like boundaries imposed by Pathfinder. With effort on my part I could give my wizard more RPG depth- but I do not believe that I can make him a viable combatant nor will his skills ever provide any unique benefit to the party because the numbers won't let that happen."
Let's try to ignore the player's conclusions on the wizard class for a moment. I think our tendency to argue over that might blind us to the real issue...
Has our gaming become so influenced by video games, that a player would quit a character just based on game mechanics? Are we completely split as a gaming community? I never thought mechanics were more important than personality and story.
Have a look at what one of my players has said about his PFRPG L13 wizard. Has ROLL-playing replaced ROLE-playing for good?
Seems to me that you are asking the wrong question if you are focused on whether this is a matter of ROLL- vs ROLE-playing. You didn't overlook their points because of the analogy in which they couched their complaints, did you?
The point the player is making is that they were not having fun. The reason this this is because their character was simply not relevant most of the time. Their complaint could just as easily have come from the player of a min-maxed warrior type who later finds that they are largely irrelevant and bored in a political intrigue style campaign.
Even if people might disagree with the player's assessment that a Pathfinder wizard is under-powered, that still doesn't change the fact that they felt the crunch was holding them back from being able to support the fluff. To that end, I suppose you could shape it into a Roll vs Role issue: by getting out-rollplayed, the of game mechanics (or the player's understanding of them) shoehorned them into roleplaying what they felt was a Red Shirt™ rather than getting to roleplay a hero.
Not surprisingly, that's not much fun.
What spells was he using? He could just be horrible at picking spells.
|
Has ROLL-playing replaced ROLE-playing for good?
One of the things that I came to terms with a while ago, was that the way we played "back in the day" is not how it's done today...
Several of the people I know that are "old-schoolers" like myself, claim that "these gamers today" aren't even role-playing anymore...
I used to share this philosophy, but have come to realize that what it is to role-play has changed along with the times...
Just look at the debate going on over in the 4e side of the forum concerning magic right now for a look into the modern mindset...
As an old-school grognard, I often times don't understand it, but if I'm to continue gaming with new people, I must accept it...
His knowledge of game mechanics is lacking if he believes power attack costs next round AC.
My question is this: What did you throw at the party that gimped a wizard so badly? The wizard is arguably one of the most versatile and powerful core classes on the roster. I've only seen them lacking in action in very specific circumstances.
He may well be right in thinking he doesn't have enough experience in the game to run a wizard well, because I've never seen a game where a wizard could not be a major contributor...or a major character role, for that matter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Most players(I am assuming the OP's player is new also) I know that have issues just ask me(normally the GM) what went wrong.
I also give suggestion on how to make what they envision match the game, and at what level this might come to fruition.
The first class I played was a wizard(2nd edition), but nobody told me how to play. I did not know I had to take the crappy spells first. I thought the class sucked. I figured I would go into melee. I died.
When a new player is at the table giving them a general explanation of how things work is a good idea, otherwise they expect to blow things up and change reality long before their character is able to do so.
The player needs a tutor, and he needs to be led towards a class that does what he wants to do. He is also missing basic concepts that people who play at level 13 already have.
Just because he likes video games, and uses the terminology that does not make that the issue. The issue here is that the character's mechanics does not match his RP concept. This should have been evident long before level 13 though unless the game started at a much higher level.
off-topic:I would allow him to rebuild the character so that the mechanical ability matches the RP concept. When playing isn't fun, why play?
edit:by "basic concepts" I mean system mastery 101.
Most players(I am assuming the OP's player is new also) I know that have issues just ask me(normally the GM) what went wrong.
I also give suggestion on how to make what they envision match the game, and at what level this might come to fruition.
The first class I played was a wizard(2nd edition), but nobody told me how to play. I did not know I had to take the crappy spells first. I thought the class sucked. I figured I would go into melee. I died.When a new player is at the table giving them a general explanation of how things work is a good idea, otherwise they expect to blow things up and change reality long before their character is able to do so.
The player needs a tutor, and he needs to be led towards a class that does what he wants to do. He is also missing basic concepts that people who play at level 13 already have.
Just because he likes video games, and uses the terminology that does not make that the issue. The issue here is that the character's mechanics does not match his RP concept. This should have been evident long before level 13 though unless the game started at a much higher level.
off-topic:I would allow him to rebuild the character so that the mechanical ability matches the RP concept. When playing isn't fun, why play?
I agree. This makes sense a lot. The only real problem I have with it is how much starting gold do you have and I say same as value of previous character's gear who takes his things with him.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has our gaming become so influenced by video games, that a player would quit a character just based on game mechanics? Are we completely split as a gaming community? I never thought mechanics were more important than personality and story.
Have a look at what one of my players has said about his PFRPG L13 wizard. Has ROLL-playing replaced ROLE-playing for good?
Has Pax' life become so lacking in relevant examples, that he has to really work this hard, to twist any and every passing comment he hears into a false dichotomy between 'true ROLE-players' and 'dirty ROLL-players'?
Honestly, my read on the situation is that it has nothing to do with roleplaying or rollplaying or anything like that whatsoever. It sounds way more like a player whose character died and who is deeply disillusioned as a result, and has spent a bunch of time brooding about it, eventually coming to the sentiments expressed in the original post. How many players unload about game balance and mechanics after losing, for example, a half-hour game of "Starcraft"? (The answer is "tons", for those not familiar with the culture.) This is the same phenomenon. It's just a coping mechanism, born of what appears to be upset with something naturally upsetting (losing a character), probably combined with some burnout. When we lose something, "that wasn't important to me anyway" is a natural human reaction.
I don't want to offend anyone with this question, but I have to ask. How old is he?
I'll go you one better and ask: "how long has he been playing table top RPGs in a d20 type system?" Reason being, age may not have anything to do with it. He might be a very experienced game player, but not a very experienced d20 player. If that's the case all of the above mentioned "problems" (which I'll digress about in a minute) are understandable. Wizards are a very specialized class. Don't think so? Look here. Part of the title of the actual guide is: being a god. One does not put a title like that at the head of a class that might end up "just be[ing] a disgruntled taxi driver." Wizards can, at higher levels (and I'd call 13 pretty high in my experience), be world-benders, and certainly should never look at themselves as "103 targetable hit points." I mean even if a wizard runs out of spells, he can still use wands, scrolls, etc. and I'd guess at 13th level the SOB has collected quite a few of those...
So, to sum up, I don't think your player's problem has anything to do with their video game mentality, unless of course their only experience with wizards is those in a mana-pool non-d20 system. In that case their entire experience is corrupt. You can't blame that on video games though. Anyone that played a similar class in a completely different system would come in with a skewed perspective. If the player had only ever played wizards in 4e they would come in with just as skewed an idea of what wizards are for, and what they can do.
So the answer to all of the "problems" above is more experience with Pathfinder mechanics. Play wizards more often, and learn how they can be useful. Did the player play this wizard from 1st level on up? If they had, I'd certainly hope that (s)he'd garnered enough experience with how they are most effective.
Now to my digression on the "problems" as listed above.
There's nothing I see listed in the set of reasons for being upset, that doesn't have to directly with "not shining." This player felt like they were constantly "outshone" by the melee classes in the party. This, in my experience, is more a problem of the setting or campaign, which (yes I'm going to be a little pointed here) rests solely on the shoulders of the GM. A wizard needs to absolutely feel useful outside of combat, especially at low levels. In every campaign I've run the Wizard's ability to Detect Magic to find and subsequently identify treasure, etc. has made them absolutely indispensable. They feel an intricate part of the team, and frequently the melee classes go to the aid of the caster because they value him/her so much. Everyone needs a time to shine in every campaign, and, hopefully, in every gaming session. If everybody doesn't feel they can "shine" at every sit-down event, they will get fed up with a character rather quickly. Let a player shine for just a moment, and watch their face light up while the spotlight is on them. Sometimes, for me at least, this means fudging things. Fudge a hit point or two here or there, to give the caster a kill in combat. Oh, the BBEG's soldiers rolled all their will saves--nope, no they didn't. Et cetera ad infinitum, find a time for all players to shine, and they will never willing present themselves as "103 targetable hit points."
This is not meant as a shot to GM of this particular group, whom I'm sure is excellent. Nor is it meant as a way to say, I'm an awesome GM and you're not. It is only a representation of truths about TTRPG, that I've found over the years. Unhappy players, in my experience, are almost always (read 97% of the time) a result of the GM. When it's not a result of the GM, it's usually a result of a terribly mismatched set of players (which, funnily, sort of also comes back on the GM).
|
|
Yeah, I think I have a mismatched set of players somehow. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the player's statements but I can't seem to see his point in all this.
To answer questions (above) he's got about 10 years of experience since the third edition ruleset. And it may surprise to learn he is in his 50s. He does play a lot of Warmachine, and I been wondering if other rulesets like that one or other games, or video games have something to do with this mindset.
In all my years, those playing rpgs usually do so with much more of the "spirit" of the game, not min maxing and then finding some narrow area where they can break the game and boast about it.
I really don't agree with the player. I think the wizard is a great and powerful class. I didn't see the player try a full withdraw, regroup and quaff a potion, nor parlay with the enemy, nor take cover and cast spells from a better protected postion. It almost feels like he tried to buff his own brains out then try to go toe-to-toe as a fighter. He's certainly shined outside of combat in the campaign, in many cases the party would not have succeeded without him, but he doesn't seem to care about that stuff. I just wondered maybe it was some kind of "modernist gaming style" I wasn't aware of? But I'm starting to think its just kind of ... well, I've got to idea what this is all about.
He might be one of those players who wants to do everything well. I had one of those in my group before. You might want to remind him that he should find a role to fulfill, and that nobody is always going to be useful or be the best at something. You(really him) have to decide what you want to to and build toward it. He can be good at damage, but it will cost him somewhere else.
In reading his complaints, could it possibly be that he actually has a problem with the system? SHOCK!
He says that once he is out of spells (they can run out, at 13th lvl he has a minimum of 29) he has no options. So a 13th lvl Wizard, by the grace of his class alone, has 29 times a day to feel like a wizard. Whereas, as he mentioned, any melee class has as many actions as they have the ability to swing a weapon. With cantrips they have SOME unlimited casting, but do you really expect cantrips to make a big difference at lvl 13?
When he's out of useful spells (in which he has to guess at the start of the day which will be useful), he could rely on his skills, but no one else does. As he said, all the skills that are supposed to give him the feel of a studious bookworm, poring over old texts, (the knowledges) are covered by any one other person in the group.
Then, there's the old argument about wands, scrolls, staves, etc.. since he can use those when out of spells. As he said, though, the rogue (or any other) with UMD has the exact same ability with them. So, having access to them isn't unique or exceptional to a wizard.
It's not the spotlight that he's asking for, it's the want of FEELING like a wizard. Slinging spells all day, unlike any other. Using impressive knowledge, unlike any other. Using wizard implements to fruition, unlike any other.
He feels like he's playing a sidekick, since he is only so effective over the course of a day (due to limited spell quantities), and once he's out, ANYONE else in the group can do his job, how could he NOT feel like a red-shirt? It's not about how well he plays the wizard, it's about how useless a wizard is when either restricted/unneccesary they are when anyone else can do almost the same job just as well. I don't know how many times I have seen the words of how unnecessary a cleric/wizard is as long as you have a rogue with UMD (or how useless a rogue is with a wizard).
Sometimes, when everyone can do any part of any other class, maybe it makes each class not really feel special for what they do anymore? At least that's a problem I saw in 3.x/PF when they blur the lines way too much, you end up with a whole lot of lone wolves that can do it all by themselves.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In reading his complaints, could it possibly be that he actually has a problem with the system? SHOCK!
Not to be snarky or anything (and I mean that), but, upon seeing this same post across what, 3 threads now, does not there come a point in which you say, "This is not the game for me" (whatever that game is)? I mean, the game rules are the game rules. That's what makes different game systems so appealing; don't like the rules in one game, you play another (or, houserule what rules you don't like). But to complain about the rules that aren't going anywhere (as in how Wizards work in Pathfinder or 3.x D&D) does nothing but fuel the fire in threads like these...
I understand this is why you play 4e, yes?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Maybe I missed something, and please forgive me if this was already addressed, but... in the OP I saw quotations of a player complaining that he was unable to portray the roleplaying concept he envisioned for his character, and the OP interpreted that as an issue with said player being a "rollplayer" instead of a "roleplayer".
Huh?
I did not understand the OP that well either.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the tone of the wizard player is quoted exactly, he has a very self-defeating attitude.
That has nothing to do with roll-playing or roleplaying. And everything to do with a player who is bored or insecure or SOMETHING. Maybe as an issue of a point in his life, as Jerry Wright points out, or maybe this game just isn't for him.
I don't see a damned thing about roll-playing versus rollplaying. If he's not bored or self-defeating, he's still feeling like he can't accomplish what he thought he could with his character. That isn't an obsession with mechanics, per se, that's wanting to feel useful--and that's an important thing to feel in a cooperative game. Maybe he designed his character poorly. Maybe the nature of the campaign was not designed to allow a wizard to show off. Maybe he just isn't good at spellcasters.
There's also a lot of griping about the fighter shining---could be that he's got a grudge against the fighter player in the group? Maybe he feels fighter-player is showing off too much, or got the lion's share of the good loot, or the fighter-player is simply a master of character building and tactics in a way the wizard-player is not, so that the fighter-player constantly outshines the wizard and the other characters.
And it REALLY sounds like this guy is burned out on the game, one way or another. Time for him to have a break.
Yeah, I think I have a mismatched set of players somehow. I'm trying to wrap my mind around the player's statements but I can't seem to see his point in all this.
To answer questions (above) he's got about 10 years of experience since the third edition ruleset. And it may surprise to learn he is in his 50s. He does play a lot of Warmachine, and I been wondering if other rulesets like that one or other games, or video games have something to do with this mindset.
Long before video games were an entertainment standard, I had a similar conversation with one of my players. It was in Adnd and he couldn't accomplish what he wanted with his character. The reality was (as I see it now), that he was trying to do something that the game never intended to allow, there was a lack of understanding, that is what you have with your player.
There is absolutely nothing videogamy about wanting your character to be good at whatever it is they do and to feel like you are contributing to the encounters/non-roleplay situations. Everyone can roleplay. Every character can if the player chooses, talk. Some will talk 'better' then others, but nothing prevents that. Contributing to success though generally involves skills/combat/utility. And everyone should want to do that. If someone feels like they are not contributing somethign, somewhere is wrong. In this case it is the player's understanding of how a wizard works.
In all my years, those playing rpgs usually do so with much more of the "spirit" of the game, not min maxing and then finding some narrow area where they can break the game and boast about it.
It seems to me he min-maxed because he was trying to fit a round peg in a square whole. He was trying to accomplish something the wizard simply isnt meant to do. "Soaking up damage" and having a High AC while doing hp damage is not how a mid level wizard is 'good at combat'. Miss chance spells (blur, mirror image, displacement) are WAY better detterents to hits then any kind of AC bonuses. Not to mention simply not allowing the enemy near you (battlefield control). He wont ever match the fighter's hp or damage, that isnt how the wizard contributes. Point him a treantmonks wizards guide for ideas on how to be a wizard, because pretty clearly he has some misconceptions on what the ways to have a wizard contribute are.
With a 22 dex I wonder how high his int is, with +6 ring of natural armor and an 'expensive' ring of protection it seems to me he spend his money on the wrong items (or there wasnt items useful to a wizard in the rewards. He needs redirection here. He should have rods, scrolls, an int headband and maybe a cloak of resistance
I really don't agree with the player. I think the wizard is a great and powerful class. I didn't see the player try a full withdraw, regroup and quaff a potion, nor parlay with the enemy, nor take cover and cast spells from a better protected postion. It almost feels like he tried to buff his own brains out then try to go toe-to-toe as a fighter. He's certainly shined outside of combat in the campaign, in many cases the party would not have succeeded without him, but he doesn't seem to care about that stuff. I just wondered maybe it was some kind of "modernist gaming style" I wasn't aware of? But I'm starting to think its just kind of ... well, I've got to idea what this is all about.
This has nothing to do with a 'modernist perspective' its just the perceptions of one individual player. And it is anything but modern. Combat and mechanic focused players (including those that misread certain intentions in the rules) have existed since the game started. The game did start after all as an extention of a tabletop wargame.
As dm is your job to try to make sure everyone is having fun. Obviously this player has tried to do something the wizard never was meant to do and is unhappy it didnt work that way. So work with him on it. If he wants to be a wizard, then have him look at things like treantmonks guide to wizards here on these boards.
If he instead wants to be a guy who casts spells and is in the forefront of combat like a fighter, then direct him in other directions. Within the core, the druid and cleric are better options. If you allow it (he mentioned core only) you should consider the magus from ultimate magic. There are also several 3rd party options, a good one is the Super Genius Games Archon. Heck even an arcane duelist bard, or the new dervish dancer bard would be better choices then a wizard for this.
I realize you dont normally place alot of weight on mechanics, but if you have a player who does, and presumably this person is your friend and is someone you want to be in your game, as dm its part of your job to guide them towards a character that will mean they (and hopefully everyone else) will be having more fun.
I apologize in advance for reacting to what, I'm sure was intended as flame-baiting, but I had to respond to the A-B.
My first reaction to the post was "huh?" There are so many logical fallacies inherent in your arguments that I thought, for the briefest of moments, that the words were going to just up and fall, matrix screensaver style, down the screen. They didn't so I wanted to address a few things.
1.
"So a 13th lvl Wizard, by the grace of his class alone, has 29 times a day to feel like a wizard."
So you're telling me that the only time a wizard feels like a wizard is when they're in the midst of actually casting a spell? That makes very little sense to me. If I were a wizard (and I will neither claim nor deny any wizardly heritage) I'm pretty sure I'd feel like a wizard all the time. Unless of course I had cast Transformation(which btw a 13th level wizard can cast), and then I'd feel like a warrior temporarily. The feel of a wizard, imho, shouldn't be determined by what is the major separation of them from other classes (casting spells from memory). It should be in the mindset of the player. If you don't feel like a wizard except for when you're casting spells, I'd rest that feeling entirely on the player, not the character. Minimum 29 spells a day is a bucket-load, by my way of thinking. If you want to feel more like a wizard, come to the game dressed in a robe and a pointy hat, and carry around a walking stick, maybe grow a beard, get weird, and disappear. My point being, if the only time a wizard feels like a wizard is when he's casting spells, that's not a problem with the class, it's a problem with how the player perceives the class. I've found that 98% of reality is dictated by perspective.
2.
"Then, there's the old argument about wands, scrolls, staves, etc.. since he can use those when out of spells. As he said, though, the rogue (or any other) with UMD has the exact same ability with them. So, having access to them isn't unique or exceptional to a wizard."
That's so patently false I can't even believe you took the time to type it. I'll point you to the rules for wands. Specifically to the rule that says "A wand is a thin baton that contains a single spell of 4th level or lower." So a rogue with UMD can use wands yes, but no wand is ever going to duplicate a delayed blast fireball, or a finger of death. So the rogue may be able to fire off some magic missiles out of a wand, but they are never going to be able to out-magic a wizard at higher levels.
As for scrolls, it is important to remember that "Using a scroll is like casting a spell for purposes of arcane spell failure chance." So I highly doubt that "any other" class is going to be as good at using scrolls as the wizard. Even the rogue is going to be wearing some type of armor, and unless he's taken some feats, he's going to have to make a concentration check to fire that scroll off without it fizzling. If you think a fully plate-mailed fighter who has taken max ranks in UMD is ever going to out-magic a wizard by casting scrolls you're sorely mistaken. Not to mention the fact that a fighter or rogue is probably going to be pretty close to the melee and will take attacks of opportunity (which then requires they make another concentration check, if they take damage) just to try and get that scroll completed.
Now for staves. It is very important to remember that "Staves use the wielder's ability score and relevant feats to set the DC for saves against their spells. Unlike with other sorts of magic items, the wielder can use his caster level when activating the power of a staff if it's higher than the caster level of the staff." This means that while a fighter with maxed out UMD could use a staff, they'll never be able to use it as effectively as a full-class caster. Tomo the tank probably has intel and charisma as "dump-stats" (that's a whole different thread) and so his save DCs for using a staff are going to be way below my 13th level wizard buddy. In addition a fighter or a rogue doesn't even have a caster level, so they must use the CL of the staff. Whereas a wizard can use his own caster level to determine the effects of a staff's spells.
So, while "having access to them isn't unique or exceptional to a wizard." Making the full and potent use of most of them is going to be the sole territory of your full-class caster.
3.
"He feels like he's playing a sidekick, since he is only so effective over the course of a day."
I'd love to see a definition here of "so effective." You mean he's not as effective as the rest of the party? At 13th level I really doubt that's true. Besides the fact that any character can be made to feel ineffective if they get taken out of their element. Drop a two-handed fighter into a canoe on the river, and have them fight off dive-bombing birds, or swarms of bugs. They get "sidekick" real fast, whilst the ranger fires arrows ad nauseum, and the wizard blams out some cones of fire. Drop a bow-style ranger into an ambush where all the enemies have concealment and they get "sidekicked" awfully fast, whilst the barbarian closes distance and starts hacking, and the wizard summons a couple monsters right at the heart of the ambush. Et cetera, et cetera... Any class has it's more effective moments.
In addition a character should never measure their effectiveness against one day's journey. They should measure their effectiveness over the course of an entire campaign. If they do, I guarantee you that they will find some moments where they are epically effective, and the key person to a successful outcome (if the GM is doing their job anyway).
4th and Finally:
"I don't know how many times I have seen the words of how unnecessary a cleric/wizard is as long as you have a rogue with UMD (or how useless a rogue is with a wizard)."
Really?! Just, really?! You've actually seen people say that over the course of an entire campaign they didn't need a cleric if they had a rogue with UMD? Because, of course, a rogue with UMD can channel positive energy and heal the entire group at once, or rain down holy damage upon the undead... Oh wait, they can't. They might be able to cast a scroll, but there aren't too many Resurrection scrolls out there, at least not in any campaign I've ever been in. Of course a rogue with high UMD can detect magic and identify the magic treasure the group just found. But, in order to do that they'd also need a high Spellcraft, or Knowledge Arcana skill-set, and if a rogue maxed out ranks in UMD, Spellcraft, and Knowledge Arcana, they would just feel so much more like a wizard to me.
All I saw in the OP was a player who wasn't having fun with their character so they let it die. I saw nothing that resembled "roll vs. role-play." I've been in the situation where a character just doesn't develop they way you envisioned, and it's time to put it out to pasture... No sense continuing on with a character they weren't enjoying.
The title of this thread is extremely misleading.
|
|
Responding to thread title questions, and having mentioned roll vs. role...
I posted this as I seek to understand the players quotations. At the time I posted, I just couldn't wrap my mind around where the player was coming from.
So far, I've heard he's "burnt out", or "obsessed with game mechanics". And frankly, that's where I get the idea that since is judgment of the wizard was based on the performance in combat that he must be "comparing" the class to other players' characters. In this regard, it seems like "roll" play.
But moving beyond the thread title... there have been some good insights as to what might be going on with the player, but the ideas are quite varied, and there are many of them.
I've enjoyed his company, but still cannot understand why he would reach these conclusions. Again, had he tried various other spells, or defensive tactics mixed in to stave off his death, it might make some sense... but all I seem to get from this is that he's quite focused on evaluating his ability to realize his character through game mechanics-- and that's where, at least at first, I thought maybe the gaming world is changing to forget about roleplaying, and personality, and remembering not to always press the attack as I've seen folks do in video games.
But I'm open to ideas. Setting aside video games, and "roll"play for a moment... what gives? Is it normal for players to base so much of their enjoyment out of mechanics alone? What do you say to a guy like that?
It is not about basing enjoyment on mechanics. It is like I said before the player had a vision conceptually that he could not bring to life in the game. He complains about not being able to do damage, and having limited resources, but he is playing a wizard which is not about unlimited abilities, and lots of damage.
I don't know what his intended vision was but he won't be getting it with a wizard. If he is trying to do everything, which I think he is, then no class will work for him.
I've enjoyed his company, but still cannot understand why he would reach these conclusions. Again, had he tried various other spells, or defensive tactics mixed in to stave off his death, it might make some sense... but all I seem to get from this is that he's quite focused on evaluating his ability to realize his character through game mechanics-- and that's where, at least at first, I thought maybe the gaming world is changing to forget about roleplaying, and personality, and remembering not to always press the attack as I've seen folks do in video games.But I'm open to ideas. Setting aside video games, and "roll"play for a moment... what gives? Is it normal for players to base so much of their enjoyment out of mechanics alone? What do you say to a guy like that?
Yes, it is normal for some players to feel that way. Particularly if as you say he has a wargaming background. Like I said half this games heritage is wargamming. That is almost all mechanics. The roleplay light or absent style of gaming didnt originate from video games. It was prevelant in some circles right from the start of our hobby.
As to what you say, the first thing you say is, 'what do you want out of your character and this game?'. If you think you can reconcile that with the kind of game you want to run, then work with him on it. For many it is important for a character to 'feel' mechanically the way the envision their character concept. It the mechanics feel off it's a roadblock to everything else. There is no 'wrong' way to play the game, and if you think he can work within your game and your group, then the best thing to do is try to help him create a character he will be happy with.
Sit down, talk with the player about the kind of game you both want and how you can get bring the two together. Usually its pretty easy. There is no reason you cant have both a well roleplayed AND mechanically sound character. One does not preclude the other.
Responding to thread title questions, and having mentioned roll vs. role...
I posted this as I seek to understand the players quotations. At the time I posted, I just couldn't wrap my mind around where the player was coming from.
So far, I've heard he's "burnt out", or "obsessed with game mechanics". And frankly, that's where I get the idea that since is judgment of the wizard was based on the performance in combat that he must be "comparing" the class to other players' characters. In this regard, it seems like "roll" play.
But moving beyond the thread title... there have been some good insights as to what might be going on with the player, but the ideas are quite varied, and there are many of them.
I've enjoyed his company, but still cannot understand why he would reach these conclusions. Again, had he tried various other spells, or defensive tactics mixed in to stave off his death, it might make some sense... but all I seem to get from this is that he's quite focused on evaluating his ability to realize his character through game mechanics-- and that's where, at least at first, I thought maybe the gaming world is changing to forget about roleplaying, and personality, and remembering not to always press the attack as I've seen folks do in video games.
But I'm open to ideas. Setting aside video games, and "roll"play for a moment... what gives? Is it normal for players to base so much of their enjoyment out of mechanics alone? What do you say to a guy like that?
I think I understand what is troubling your player. He wants the mechanics to support his RPing. Which is not so much of a roll-play vs role-play issue. He had a vision of what a Wizard is....what he created at 13th level did not work out right.
Personaly I like it when there is mechanics backing up my concept...but I also am very good with the mechanics do to what want....and willing to make compromises between my concept and the system. So while I understand it...I disagree with his conclusions. I also disagree on comparing the amount of fun you are having on what you are doing during combat...it is important but I have played useless combats characters before and had alot of fun....though I did it with the understanding that combats maybe a little boring at times.
Anyway I would say to him
"What is your concept? Don't worry about the mechanics I'll help you build it."
It is the job of the GM to help the players reach their goals....and I see GMs who don't help out there players in building their characters all too often a problem with RPGs in general.
Also I'll not if any player is not having fun with his character for any reason(mechanics, RPing, etc) you should allow them to change PCs.
Pax, I have a friend just like this. He doesn't like the D20 mechanics at all, and really prefers other games. But he was in denial about it for years because it was what we were playing. Resentment built up over time until he became a total dick, deliberately sabotaging his own character to prove how bad the system was.
Some people are just allergic to some games. Try another system on the side, it could make him happy.
In reading his complaints, could it possibly be that he actually has a problem with the system? SHOCK!Not to be snarky or anything (and I mean that), but, upon seeing this same post across what, 3 threads now, does not there come a point in which you say, "This is not the game for me" (whatever that game is)? I mean, the game rules are the game rules. That's what makes different game systems so appealing; don't like the rules in one game, you play another (or, houserule what rules you don't like). But to complain about the rules that aren't going anywhere (as in how Wizards work in Pathfinder or 3.x D&D) does nothing but fuel the fire in threads like these...
I understand this is why you play 4e, yes?
You are right, in it being the reason I play 4E. I was just responding from the perspective I saw as the player (who has had no voice here as of yet), and it feels like the same issues I had as casters. It's not how he plays in as much it's how the mechaincs did not match up to his idea of what it is to be a wizard. I completely agree with you that if the system doesn't work for you play another game. It's just that it looked like no one was offering that as his particular issue, only that he was playing the class the wrong way, or playing the wrong class for what he wants. He probably just wanted a wizard to match his concept of a wizard.
I stopped playing casters back in 2E, because I didn't like how they played, but other people were fine and liked it. It is the biggest complaint I had about the system, but we just houseruled a different way or I just avoided playing them. Yes, I have posted a lot about it recently, as it is one of my biggest issues with the system and is a popular theme recently. Sadly, when all your friends are playing a system, and you want to game with your friends, you tend to play what is being played. I don't like Shadowrun, almost all of the mechanics, but when my friends ran a campaign I played and accepted it. I tend to have more issues with most other games than the few I have ever had with D&D (M&M seems to be good with a level based point buy system, but I haven't had the opportunity to use it). I'm not trying to change the rules to the system, I'm just saying I can understand where he is coming from, and that it's not a foreign idea to the game. I apologize that it came off snarky.
@Mended Wall,
I'm sorry if it came across as flame-bait to you. Removed my big reply, otherwise it would have gone further.
It just doesn't have the feel I'm looking for in a wizard. Period. The mechanics don't provide me with that. I'm not going to change what gives me the feeling of being a wizard just because the mechanics are built to imply that it should work a different way, there's a reason why there are numerous other systems that do magic differently. I disagree with the mechanics, so I prefer not to use them. I was just trying to provide the perspective that I interpreted from the person complaining. Systems can be fallible, especially based on preferences, and I don't prefer how casters are handled. From what I read, it appears that the person that complained didn't either.
...I thought maybe the gaming world is changing to forget about roleplaying, and personality, and remembering not to always press the attack as I've seen folks do in video games.
But I'm open to ideas. Setting aside video games, and "roll"play for a moment... what gives? Is it normal for players to base so much of their enjoyment out of mechanics alone? What do you say to a guy like that?
So because one player at your table is acting disinterested, the whole gaming world is changing?
Beyond that, you do realize there are some pretty deep in interactive games out there, that require a bit more creativity than "press the attack button?" Neverwinter Nights? The Elder Scrolls series?
I think video games get are getting a bad wrap with posts like this. I personally role-play the hell out of Skyrim. I make decisions based of what my character would do, I make sure to eat and sleep as normally as possible, I ally with factions that are more in line with my character's ideals, etc etc. All that's missing is a multiplayer component.
...I thought maybe the gaming world is changing to forget about roleplaying, and personality, and remembering not to always press the attack as I've seen folks do in video games.
But I'm open to ideas. Setting aside video games, and "roll"play for a moment... what gives? Is it normal for players to base so much of their enjoyment out of mechanics alone? What do you say to a guy like that?
So because one player at your table is acting disinterested, the whole gaming world is changing?
Beyond that, you do realize there are some pretty deep in interactive games out there, that require a bit more creativity than "press the attack button?" Neverwinter Nights? The Elder Scrolls series?
I think video games get are getting a bad wrap with posts like this. I personally role-play the hell out of Skyrim. I make decisions based of what my character would do, I make sure to eat and sleep as normally as possible, I ally with factions that are more in line with my character's ideals, etc etc. All that's missing is a multiplayer component.
I want to +1 this. Video games can be and are very immersive. I also roleplay the heck out of Skyrim. I killed the Dark Brotherhood rather than join them, and I killed all of Boethiah's priests instead of bringing someone to be sacrificed. These are roleplay elements that I, and many others like me, bring to the game. The same can, and should, be said of table top games. Any player is going to bring to the table their own desires and expectations. It is sad, but nonetheless true, that for some players, certain systems will just never be able to fulfill those desires or expectations. It seems to me Pax, that that is what you are dealing with. A character that had very rigid expectations and desires for a character, who subsequently realized they were hemmed in by the mechanical system. It happens. It's not the end of the world. Many times that player just needs to find a system that works for their ideas. Also, remember, sometimes it's okay to just part ways with the mutual realization that your "games" are not compatible. It's akin to trying to play chess with checkers pieces. It just won't work.
I'd like to know why he felt the need to write an essay about how much his wizard sucked. I mean, the wizard's dead so the player has an excuse to roll up the damage monster that he clearly wanted the wizard to be. So what's the problem? Maybe he just wanted to get it off his chest? Or maybe he's hoping Pax will give the other players the hint not to waste a diamond to rez him? Or maybe this is just part of a long-term back-and-forth thing that he has going with Pax?
|
Has ROLL-playing replaced ROLE-playing for good?
"Don't tell me that my character is supposed to be a hero- his abilities and interaction with the other characters will dictate his role. If he has the capability of performing heroic deeds, he may evolve into a hero, if not- perhaps he will just be a disgruntled taxi driver."
For this player, yes.
His character is defined by the numbers, the racial/class abilities, and the equipment written on his sheet rather and the win/fail ratio that these elements determine, rather than by the actions he does (successful or not), the choices he makes (wise or not so much), the ambitions/desires/agendas he pursues (rightful or wicked), and so on.
I've seen players enjoy characters that rolled VERY poorly stat wise and had sub-standard loot even at higher levels, and others going on tirades for a character with 3 characteristics ranging in the 18+ and a single dump stat not even with a negative modifier.
It's not even roll-play vs role-play, it's the gut feeling that a player is protraying a super-heroic character able to shrug off any situation instead of having to risk limb and life at any other corner of the dungeon.
Some like only the former, some are at the opposite of the spectrum.
Whatever floats their boats.
|
|
So... I been mulling over this whole situation a bit and seem to identify the following actions I can take, based on what happened:
>I finished the last scene in the mega-homebrew-AP I was running. Only 4 players attended (the ones who were still alive), and it was awesome. Things got wrapped up nicely, and all had a great time.
>I'll speak to the group next session, and ask them to plot themselves on an x/y axis where y=level of simulation and x=level of roleplay. I think our situation is we have a mixed bag of players and those most intersted in roleplay have really come a long way over to the left to meet the simulationists (minis, all RAW rules, good healthy level of rule use in the game to PFRPG standards). BUT... the simulationists haven't come over more to the right to meet the roleplayers/narrativists (myself included). Over the years I've gravitated more toward encouraging/enabling/promoting rules details in-game to some expense of even my own narrative (i.e. handwaiving, fast descriptive transitions, and moving to the interesting bits faster without necessitating rolling or detailed mechanics to do so).
Basically, in any situation, I first look to seek to understand what I own in the problem.
>I've decided that any attempt at forcing, or mandating, or providing ultimatims doesn't make any sense. Instead, I generally agree that if a player gets sick of a character and wants to switch classes or whatnot, that I should really care as much as I do. I've decided to explain that I don't wish to be that crazy GM that obsesses about story continuity if others don't really care as much. Instead, I'll focus on letting the players do/play as they wish, and continue to try to accomodate them.
>I've introspected on this particular player's issue, and will explain that as a rule I expect players to come see me about helping them realize their characters in-game. And if they choose not to involve me, then I really don't wish to hear any complaining later on. I will add the caveat that I do expect characters to roleplay and evolve over the course of a campaign... and this isn't something that requires mechanics to do so.
>I'll put this whole "wizards suck" thing behind me, because I wholly disagree with the player's comments. But as good friends should do, I will agree to disagree and move on. I'm not about to let one players opinions about a class cause negative repercussions on my group. Ultimately, players should be happy and as a GM I'll do my best to accomodate, then as a player if that's not good enough they'll need to re-examine whether they wish to continue playing in the group.
Thanks to all those who posted here, I was really able to reflect better and use you all as a sounding board for this issue.
Put simply, too bad the player didn't enjoy his wizard, and too bad he didn't put forth roleplay effort as well. Now that the character is dead, let's move on with a different character that maybe the player will like. If he needs me for anything I'm available, but there's more fun adventure just around the corner.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
>I've decided that any attempt at forcing, or mandating, or providing ultimatims doesn't make any sense. Instead, I generally agree that if a player gets sick of a character and wants to switch classes or whatnot, that I should really care as much as I do. I've decided to explain that I don't wish to be that crazy GM that obsesses about story continuity if others don't really care as much. Instead, I'll focus on letting the players do/play as they wish, and continue to try to accomodate them.
If I may offer a suggestion here....while I firmly believe a player should be allowed to switch out a character if they are not having fun....doesn't mean you have to destroy the continuity of the story/ You should add a caveat that the player has to work with you to write out the old character and bring in the new one.
I've been quitting games due to not liking the rules ever since I've been old enough to play games. :-)
I'm not sure what video games have to do with it -- board games, card games, role-playing games, kids' games, head games -- you name it, I've quit it.
Life's too short to play a game that's not fun for you. (I'm looking at you, Monopoly!)
Having said that, that's no excuse to crap on everyone else's fun. (I'll make an exception for head games, I suppose.)