For example, if someone posts "which is a better animal companion, the tiger or the wolf?" Someone will invariably pop in with "both of those are crap, good players always pick dinosaurs!"
Tiger, the answer is clearly Tiger. The best additional advice is that you can release your animal companion and get say....A dinosaur. Or simply try out both and see which one you like better. :)
First, that whenever I see a "roleplay versus rollplay" argument come up, the majority of the attacks and finger-pointing is from the roleplayers toward the rollplayers, while the rollplayers (mostly) just try to defend themselves and point out that they can roleplay too. It's like 70/30-ish.
I pretty much agree with this sentiment. The roleplayer/rollplayer dichotomy usually revolves around the presumption that an optimizer is incapable or bad at role-playing on the very basis that they are partial to optimization.
Granted, I can give way to the possibility that a rollplayer might be more likely to have a predisposition to treating the RPG like it's a video game. The assumption that both aspects are mutually exclusive is a little much for me to swallow.
In a group I frequently play with the best optimizer is consistently the best role-player. One of the worst optimizers is often the worst at role-playing. Then there are those that are in-between.
It's a Pen and Paper roleplaying game. If there's no interest in roleplaying and developing a character and delving into his/her shoes. I beg the question why is anyone playing? There are much better less time consuming hobbies if someone isn't interested in the core function of the game.
OT: I think this thread makes a good point though, ideological debates on certain subjects should be relegated to discussion or other areas not rules questions. Rules questions should be clarification on how rules work either via RAW or RAI and any extension of said topic when things are unclear or there are dissenting opinions.
I'm personally perfectly having those discussions in a rules thread, but I'm keenly aware that the discussion has clearly veered off-topic.
What worries me, is that the amount of over-optimization some people preach and propagate seeems to lead to the effect that the modules start ramping up the difficulty to a point they prove a challenge to the STR 50 RageLancePounce Barbarian, the 40d8+8,388 damage fireball blaster and the AC76 tank.
Which, of course leads to louder cries that claim that non-dumped, non-cheesed characters are not able to survive.
In my opinion, this spiral is removing quite a lot of variety and flavor from the game.
What worries me, is that the amount of over-optimization some people preach and propagate seeems to lead to the effect that the modules start ramping up the difficulty to a point they prove a challenge to the STR 50 RageLancePounce Barbarian, the 40d8+8,388 damage fireball blaster and the AC76 tank.
Which, of course leads to louder cries that claim that non-dumped, non-cheesed characters are not able to survive.
In my opinion, this spiral is removing quite a lot of variety and flavor from the game.
Obvious hyperbole aside, I'd say that I have yet to see a paizo module geared towards optimized characters. I think their relative difficulty has been rather even in the ones I have played in or run. Paizo has been pretty clear on what their standard is, a 15 point buy non-optimized party of 4-5 players. Seems to me they have held to that and its been up to dms of optimizers to make the needed adjustments not the other way around.
And given the massive different in the flavor of the last few adventure paths, I'd hardly say there has been a loss of variety, but instead an increase. Carrion Crown, Jade Regent, Skull and shackles, this is a LOSS of variety?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I'd have a hard time saying that even those criticisms of "gaming the system" are just coming from "role players". Even a roll player may not want someone exploiting loopholes in the rules.
Fair point, though usually that's when someone really is gaming the system and it's obvious to everyone. But I've seen the anti-munchkin attacks spring from things like "When can I take 10?" or "Can I main-hand a shield bash?" or "Does using two different weapons for iterative attacks count as TWF?" or "Does using beguiling gift to hand a druid a steel shield do what it sounds like it does?". Those are all completely legitimate questions (and if you're curious, I have the answers to them) and none of the people asking them were trying to "game the system". But still the attacks came, unprovoked.
And, yes, I have seen OPs take jabs at role players.
Can I ask what section(s) of the boards they were in? And the context/topic? I'm really curious about that aspect of this whole thing.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like Pathfinder. I also generally enjoy these forums. I usually just stop reading threads that degenerate into arguments (and have been trying to actively avoid getting involved in any as of late). However, I think there are more people out there who are good roll-players AND good role-players then people realize.
However, it is the internet, and people are going to take shots at each other. Doesn't make it right, but it's certainly not constrained to roll/role problems. It happens with casters/martial, guns/no guns, houserules and different variants, RAW/RAI.....
Just try not to take it personally.
Also it can be frustrating when some further argue that a 7 charisma character should be able to be the party face...again, also argued on these here boards.Psst... if he invests the skill ranks (and maybe feats) in it, why not?"Que derail"
Because skill checks do specific things, generally requiring time to do them, and have no effect on inital impression (gm fiat based on circumstance) and have limited utility as written, and by definiton are skills you learn to improve specific task...seriously there was a 1000 post war on this I don't have the link to and don't want to re-live.
And yet here you are, going exactly there. Funny, really...
Jiggy - are you just trying to say that you'd like it if poster's responses could be more constructive? Well, that ain't gonna happen on the internets. :(
I usually just stop reading threads that degenerate into arguments (and have been trying to actively avoid getting involved in any as of late).Man, I so need to do this.
I now have SO much more time for activities!
I do have a campaign setting I should be spending more time designing...
Then, by all means, do! It's considerably more productive than posting in threads that have been de-railed.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy - are you just trying to say that you'd like it if poster's responses could be more constructive? Well, that ain't gonna happen on the internets. :(
Not that they need to be "constructive" - I can appreciate a fun de-rail, for instance - but just to leave out the personal attacks, particularly the ones for which you have no evidence yet.
If someone's wrong about how a rule works, maybe they're innocently mistaken, rather than trying to ruin Pathfinder.
If someone suggests a stat lower than 10, maybe they're just trying to be helpful, rather than not knowing what the game is all about.
It'd be a huge step forward if the personal attacks weren't even eliminated, but just delayed until the mentality being criticized was actually demonstrated, instead of it being assigned to someone just because they dumped a stat or asked a question.
|
I just Don't. Dump. Stats.
Which means I'm not as uber, perhaps, as the guy whose character can't hold a meaningful conversation (but can solo most encounters).
But I don't feel that high bonuses in one or two stats are worth the price paid in attribute penalties in half my attributes. Just a personal failing, judging by the eye-rolls from the optimaxed crowd.
Mind you, I do my freakin' best to optimize around my less-than-glowing attributes; I just have a mindset organized around minimizing my flaws, rather than maximizing my advantages.
I'm generally the same way. It might be a group game, but you're character doesn't ALWAYS have the other members of the group at his beck-and-call.
It'd be a huge step forward if the personal attacks weren't even eliminated, but just delayed until the mentality being criticized was actually demonstrated, instead of it being assigned to someone just because they dumped a stat or asked a question.
I agree, some people around here do tend to make some pretty gross assumptions about other posters. And when you try to ignore the assumptions, those same posters just keep banging on the assumption drum.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
However when the poster didn't get the answer they wanted, that's as in the druid shield question, that's when things went ugly.
If you're going to be specific, at least be honest. The OP in that one didn't get nasty. In fact, he mentioned in his OP that he had already been attacked for the idea.
Shame on you for saying it got ugly when he didn't get what he wanted, without actually checking your facts.
That's exactly the type of assumption I'm talking about.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I agree, some people around here do tend to make some pretty gross assumptions about other posters.
See my above post.
Guy asks question.
Flame war starts among respondents, but guy doesn't partake and regrets even asking.
I cite said flame war.
LazarX says "only because the guy didn't get what he wanted".
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Also it can be frustrating when some further argue that a 7 charisma character should be able to be the party face...again, also argued on these here boards.With the proper skill and trait investment, it seems to get the job done fine. Working as intended.
Apparently having a character who's socially awkward at first and so devotes lots of time/energy into overcoming that flaw and learning to be assertive and smooth (like every "ugly duckling" chick flick ever) is totally munchkin. ;)
It's a roleplaying game. Some people just ignore the game part.
CHA-dump thread ON!
The real question we should be asking is why the duelist a bad duelist?
I really don't care how someone else plays.
Are you a munchkin? power gamer? are you someone who uses feats and skills to back up the fluff of your character?
Who cares? From a Rules perspective its largely irrelevant. No side is better/worse than the other in terms of right/wrong game play.
You can explain how the rules work without your game style becoming an insult to someone else.
For example: You can currently gate in and bind a genie for infinite wishes. This is 100% grade A allowed by the rules, unrestricted.
If someone comes into the forum and asks about it- either from a player or DM perspective- I would hope that people can
1) Explain the RAW correctly.
2) Explain that while the rules state it directly, its bad idea for the Campain.
3) Explain why its a bad idea by discussing and explaining the ramifications.
In no shape, form, or fashion does there ever need to be a mention of "Only a munchkin gets away with this " or "go take your cheesy crap somewhere else".
Answer questions. Inform people about the rules. Educate them about traps in the rules (whether they are "this is a trap because its worthless" or "this is a trap because your DM will smack you with the rulebook when you try it").
The name calling is just inappropriate and has no function except to belittle people.
Whether someone is playing a character underpowered or way over the top- its up to his/her DM and other players to decide if thats appropriate for their campaign. Lets keep the rules discussions about the rules, and leave out judgments about how other folks play the game.
Regardless of how your group plays- its the right way if you enjoy it.
Just like the way my group plays is right. since we enjoy it.
And that other guys, since he enjoys his too.
-S
|
I really don't care how someone else plays.
Are you a munchkin? power gamer? are you someone who uses feats and skills to back up the fluff of your character?
Who cares? From a Rules perspective its largely irrelevant. No side is better/worse than the other in terms of right/wrong game play.
You can explain how the rules work without your game style becoming an insult to someone else.
For example: You can currently gate in and bind a genie for infinite wishes. This is 100% grade A allowed by the rules, unrestricted.
If someone comes into the forum and asks about it- either from a player or DM perspective- I would hope that people can1) Explain the RAW correctly.
2) Explain that while the rules state it directly, its bad idea for the Campain.
3) Explain why its a bad idea by discussing and explaining the ramifications.
In no shape, form, or fashion does there ever need to be a mention of "Only a munchkin gets away with this " or "go take your cheesy crap somewhere else".
Answer questions. Inform people about the rules. Educate them about traps in the rules (whether they are "this is a trap because its worthless" or "this is a trap because your DM will smack you with the rulebook when you try it").
The name calling is just inappropriate and has no function except to belittle people.
Whether someone is playing a character underpowered or way over the top- its up to his/her DM and other players to decide if thats appropriate for their campaign. Lets keep the rules discussions about the rules, and leave out judgments about how other folks play the game.
Regardless of how your group plays- its the right way if you enjoy it.
Just like the way my group plays is right. since we enjoy it.
And that other guys, since he enjoys his too.-S
Actually having munchkin characters can throw the game out of balance. The thing with highly optimized PC's is the fact that if everyone isn't doing it then it can cause problems. We have been in encounters that had to be increased because of an optimizer in order to challenge him while killing the the people who weren't optimized at all.
As much as you want to paint the "we all work together" picture, it just doesn't fly in actual game play. Sometimes it may work but there are more times where it causes problems. Sure nobody is technically in the wrong but it has to be a all or nothing kind of deal.
Digs against specific posters under the cover of speaking generally is just plain bad form.
And it's done so often here that it's practically it's own language. I know of a few posters specifically who speak it fluent enough to be a native tongue.
That, and the sheer amount of times someone throws the word "fallacy" around here everytime a debate breaks out. "Strawmen" and "fallacy" have become the new Godwin.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Actually having munchkin characters can throw the game out of balance. The thing with highly optimized PC's is the fact that if everyone isn't doing it then it can cause problems. We have been in encounters that had to be increased because of an optimizer in order to challenge him while killing the the people who weren't optimized at all.
As much as you want to paint the "we all work together" picture, it just doesn't fly in actual game play. Sometimes it may work but there are more times where it causes problems. Sure nobody is technically in the wrong but it has to be a all or nothing kind of deal.
Although this is a valid viewpoint, I don't think anyone's trying to argue that the type of problem you're describing doesn't exist. The issue has nothing to do with optimization's role in table difficulties. The issue's about people taking one look at a build/rules question/idea/suggestion/whatever and making the assumption that that person is being a problem and then defaming them for it.
It's about jumping to conclusions about an individual, and then berating them based on those assumptions.
Your post doesn't address that. It just reasserts your "rightness" about something that wasn't really being directly challenged.
I think that focusing on "name calling" misses the point about what some of us find bothersome in the dynamics of these exchanges.
Many posters attempt to be very sly and coy in their denigration of those they disagree with. Others drip acidic condescension. Still others assume lordly airs.
None of those are "calling names" but they get under people's skin just as quickly.
And some of the problem is just due to the text-based nature of the internet where seemingly innocent comments or suggestions are interpreted as sly, condescending or arrogant when they weren't meant that way.
I am sure that most of the flame wars on the boards end up even amazing and surprising those who are the most guilty of sparking and escalating them. I know that's true for me. I sometimes post what seems to me to be a relatively benign comment, and then ten minutes later check in and find half a dozen incensed responses which seem to me to be vicious personal attacks, and BAM the war is on!
I've really tried to avoid that lately. It's just too exhausting, and nobody ever seems to listen anyway, all they do is want to make sure THEIR point is being heard. Yes, I include myself in that group.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Strawmen" and "fallacy" have become the new Godwin.
If I tell you you're stupid, I'm being childish and insulting, and my post gets deleted.
If I tell you you're committing a fallacy, then I've still called you stupid, except I'm being rational and intellectual (and moreso than you!), and my post stays.
These forums have lots of code-words. ;)
Probably 95% of the time they are used incorrectly because some people have trouble actually comprehending what they really mean.
That, and the sheer amount of times someone throws the word "fallacy" around here everytime a debate breaks out. "Strawmen" and "fallacy" have become the new Godwin.
Exactly. Every time I even see someone invoke a "fallacy" I cringe and roll my eyes. We're discussing rules to a hobby game, not passing bills in Congress.
"Strawmen" and "fallacy" have become the new Godwin.If I tell you you're stupid, I'm being childish and insulting, and my post gets deleted.
If I tell you you're committing a fallacy, then I've still called you stupid, except I'm being rational and intellectual (and moreso than you!), and my post stays.
These forums have lots of code-words. ;)
Amen to that. And as soon as you call someone out on full-on insulting you, they hide behind those fallacies and generalizations. "Oh, I wasn't talking about you, I just meant in general." Puh-lease.
shallowsoul:
Actually having munchkin characters can throw the game out of balance. The thing with highly optimized PC's is the fact that if everyone isn't doing it then it can cause problems. We have been in encounters...I really don't care how someone else plays.
Are you a munchkin? power gamer? are you someone who uses feats and skills to back up the fluff of your character?
Who cares? From a Rules perspective its largely irrelevant. No side is better/worse than the other in terms of right/wrong game play.
You can explain how the rules work without your game style becoming an insult to someone else.
For example: You can currently gate in and bind a genie for infinite wishes. This is 100% grade A allowed by the rules, unrestricted.
If someone comes into the forum and asks about it- either from a player or DM perspective- I would hope that people can1) Explain the RAW correctly.
2) Explain that while the rules state it directly, its bad idea for the Campain.
3) Explain why its a bad idea by discussing and explaining the ramifications.
In no shape, form, or fashion does there ever need to be a mention of "Only a munchkin gets away with this " or "go take your cheesy crap somewhere else".
Answer questions. Inform people about the rules. Educate them about traps in the rules (whether they are "this is a trap because its worthless" or "this is a trap because your DM will smack you with the rulebook when you try it").
The name calling is just inappropriate and has no function except to belittle people.
Whether someone is playing a character underpowered or way over the top- its up to his/her DM and other players to decide if thats appropriate for their campaign. Lets keep the rules discussions about the rules, and leave out judgments about how other folks play the game.
Regardless of how your group plays- its the right way if you enjoy it.
Just like the way my group plays is right. since we enjoy it.
And that other guys, since he enjoys his too.-S
spoilered our quoting since it was getting excessive.
If everyone at the table is playing the same way, and they are all enjoying it (including the DM- they play too) then regardless of under powered, over powered, or everyone getting +5 armor at level 1 with immunity to elements, or if everyone is sitting around at level 10 with masterwork weapons and 10 different non-synergistic classes each..
If it works for that group, it works. "Broken" is merely suggestive of problems we think a group might have with any given combination.
Even the Genie "problem" may not be a problem for some games.
(games where DM's take the old school "twist" on wishes, for example, would fairly well eviscerate that whole mess rather quickly).
I agree completely with your statement. /if everyone else/ at the table isn't doing it, then it throws things out of whack.
But if everyone else Is doing it then it works fine.
But:
telling someone "you are munchkin because you think X" is just another way of saying "shut up, you are wrong". Its just not right.
If you think someone is wrong, don't call them names. Explain why something is usually too powerful.
"in most campaigns having unlimited and infinite wishes breaks the game, so you shouldn't use this combination (pc)/allow this combination to work (DM)."
Its far more effective than "thats a munchkin tactic".
Educate people as to how the game works and to the ramification of their interpretations of the rules. Skip the name calling altogether.
-S