|
The title says it all.
I for one do not enjoy playing cheesy characters. I used to do it on the side but I never would play those characters because I found it to be boring. I have never liked playing video games in "god mode" because I actually enjoy the chance of losing and being able to say I completed the game with skill.
Wow that's not a trolling title at all.
Here's your return, "Define cheese."
The ball is in your court.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't see it as a trolling thread or as badly formulated.
But my answer is a question:
Why do some people like to solve difficult mathematical problems?
Because they can, and noone else could do it faster. I've never played a cheese build of someone else, altough I have a strong munchkin tendency I really try to supress.
Why do some people post threads like this on messageboards?
Why do some people answer threads in a cynical, snarky way?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some people are just performing thought exercises and seeing what they can come up with, but won't play the PCs that result.
Some people are looking for holes in the system so that they can be corrected.
Some people have insufficient rules mastery to even realize that they're bending the rules.
Some people are afraid of their GMs killing them if they don't squeeze out every last bonus they can.
Some people just enjoy that style.
Some people are unfamiliar enough with the game's balance baseline that if they see something they could do, they assume that if they don't do it, they're going to die. (Basically, they don't realize they're already at or above the power curve.)
Some people just spot things really easily (i.e., not even looking for a loophole - it's just staring them in the face) and are too compulsive to not use it once they've seen it. (Sort of like how some people can't leave a door ajar once they've seen it.)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I have to disagree with you Jiggy about it being a playstyle.
I wouldn't call bending something a rule that the designers may have missed that actually causes problems in game a playstyle.
Let me clarify: I didn't mean the bending itself was the playstyle. I meant that building strong (or just plain weird) PCs is a playstyle, and sometimes questionably-legal rules interpretations are involved. So for that group of people, the answer to "why bend the rules/use cheese?" is "in order to build what I'm trying to build".
|
|
Let me clarify: I didn't mean the bending itself was the playstyle. I meant that building strong (or just plain weird) PCs is a playstyle, and sometimes questionably-legal rules interpretations are involved. So for that group of people, the answer to "why bend the rules/use cheese?" is "in order to build what I'm trying to build".I have to disagree with you Jiggy about it being a playstyle.
I wouldn't call bending something a rule that the designers may have missed that actually causes problems in game a playstyle.
I don't mind weird builds, what I do mind are builds that obviously cause games to shut down, even if they are legal.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't mind weird builds, what I do mind are builds that obviously cause games to shut down, even if they are legal.Let me clarify: I didn't mean the bending itself was the playstyle. I meant that building strong (or just plain weird) PCs is a playstyle, and sometimes questionably-legal rules interpretations are involved. So for that group of people, the answer to "why bend the rules/use cheese?" is "in order to build what I'm trying to build".I have to disagree with you Jiggy about it being a playstyle.
I wouldn't call bending something a rule that the designers may have missed that actually causes problems in game a playstyle.
A build that shuts down your game might be par for the course in someone else's game, and even necessary for survival in another.
Some people just want to "win"
Some people have a character concept that sits on the border of legal.
Some people can't tell cheese from optimization, so an optimized character looks like a cheesey one.
Some people find using the rules till they break to be an interesting exercise.
Some people enjoy finding just the right combination of things and getting them to click together like the peices of a puzzle.
|
|
A build that shuts down your game might be par for the course in someone else's game, and even necessary for survival in another.I don't mind weird builds, what I do mind are builds that obviously cause games to shut down, even if they are legal.Let me clarify: I didn't mean the bending itself was the playstyle. I meant that building strong (or just plain weird) PCs is a playstyle, and sometimes questionably-legal rules interpretations are involved. So for that group of people, the answer to "why bend the rules/use cheese?" is "in order to build what I'm trying to build".I have to disagree with you Jiggy about it being a playstyle.
I wouldn't call bending something a rule that the designers may have missed that actually causes problems in game a playstyle.
I've been gaming for over 27 years and I consider myself pretty knowledgeable of games. Causing games to shut down usually come about when you have to throw creatures into the mix that will destroy everyone else who isn't cheese.
It may be true for some games but when you've been playing long enough you know cheese from optimization.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Roleplay is paramount. "Builds" are not.
Correction: neither is paramount. The minute you put one aspect of the game above the other, you also put one group of people above another.
That said, I agree that PCs shouldn't be competing with each other. For instance, I play my fighter in such a way as to "need" other PCs. I can trip a CR-appropriate enemy fighter on something like a natural 6, take an AoO to disarm him on the way down (at the same bonus), and then use my iterative to repeat the process on his buddy.
But I can only deal 1d8+9 damage at 8th level.
I can soften up the humanoids for Max Damage to take them out or to protect Mr. Caster, but I need someone else to finish the job and to handle the demons and monsters.
You act like I play my cheese not just come up with it for the fun and only play ones that are powerful but not that cheesy. When making pcs I try to get an 18 and as many 14s as I can in point buy. Casting sleep or color spray at level 1 is not that much fun to me.
In MY game, roleplay is paramount, and my players like it that way. But a couple of them always try to pull munchkin crap during character creation. They argue, they lose, and they play anyway, and have fun. But I have to deal with it every time.
It would be much easier if the system didn't promote it with over-powered feats and class abilities. One of the reasons I don't run Pathfinder.
Go ahead. Let it all out.
|
This could have been worded better but it's not necessarily an attempt at trolling.
Some people derive a great deal of their fun in RPGs from building the absolute strongest character possible. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but if it bothers you try communicating your concerns and if there's not enough room for compromise (or none at all) be prepared to take your game elsewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Go ahead. Let it all out.Don't misinterpret my comments. I wasn't ranting, merely stating my case. You have every right to disagree. Don't expect me to bother to discuss it.
Sorry, it seemed ranty. Just remember that cheese isn't an objective term, and you may be drawing the line in a different place than others, so don't jump to the conclusion that someone is actively trying to buck the system when they come up with something mechanically interesting.
If roleplaying was truly paramount, we wouldn't need a rulebook at all.
|
The title says it all.
I for one do not enjoy playing cheesy characters. I used to do it on the side but I never would play those characters because I found it to be boring. I have never liked playing video games in "god mode" because I actually enjoy the chance of losing and being able to say I completed the game with skill.
Some people are WAAC and will attack and demean anyone who calls them on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I am going to have a crack at this.
Our group has two GMs who alternate (two campaigns)
The other GM has a Cheese allergy, anything that even has a whiff of munchkin sends him into apoplexy. Sometimes its even hard to get pure vanilla past the post on the grounds there is suspicion there might be cheeze hidden in there somewhere. Personally I find it stifling, limiting of concepts, and frustrating, but I understand his position.
Me personally I sort of son't mind when Munchkinism rears its ugly head as a GM, and we do in fact have one player who must spend 24/7 tinkering away trying to unlock the DaVinci Code of Feats to make the perfect Uber.
So how does this play out?
Personally I let the cheezemonkey go as hard as he likes, sure we get some oddball stuff at the table from time to time, but given the nature of the games I run he usually ends up the annoyed one when his hyper-specialised character has to stand around scratching his backside when the campaign is playing out a different way that session. For example during a rather long session where the players had to run counter-assassination at a masqued ball, his lack of social skills and Dumpstat CHA meant he had to simply go off on patrols a lot, and the bulk of the roleplay and investigation involved him drinking coffee.
When it comes to fight time though he does great! as long as its his preferred terrain etc.
Furthermore what I DO like about his cheezy ways is that the inevitable case put forward encourages debate and fine reading of the rules. I have learnt more about the PF ruleset while trying to untangle huge webby strands of cheeze than I would have just reading them without that prism for context.
SO
TL;DR - Cheezemonkey Munchkins are healthy for GM's.
PS: Should I choose to invent the biggest cheeze character that is 100% pure Gouda, this doesn't in ANY way shape or form reflect on my RP capability.
A poor roleplayer is a poor roleplayer, and a good one is a good one, and neither has even the VAGUEST SHRED to do with the character sheet in front of them and how optimised it may or may not be.
|
|
This could have been worded better but it's not necessarily an attempt at trolling.
Some people derive a great deal of their fun in RPGs from building the absolute strongest character possible. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but if it bothers you try communicating your concerns and if there's not enough room for compromise (or none at all) be prepared to take your game elsewhere.
It's not even about a strong character. I don't have a problem with a strong character, again it isn't about being optimized.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's not even about a strong character. I don't have a problem with a strong character, again it isn't about being optimized.This could have been worded better but it's not necessarily an attempt at trolling.
Some people derive a great deal of their fun in RPGs from building the absolute strongest character possible. This isn't necessarily a bad thing but if it bothers you try communicating your concerns and if there's not enough room for compromise (or none at all) be prepared to take your game elsewhere.
So define cheese so we know what you *are* talking about.
All I want to know is what the definition of "cheesy" characters is. After all I can't answer your question if I don't know what you are trying to talk about.
All I want to know is what the definition of "cheesy" characters is.
It's a bit like art isn't it? Highly subjective?
All I want to know is what the definition of "cheesy" characters is.It's a bit like art isn't it? Highly subjective?
Exactly. I mean if we are talking about a magus that spends a round casting true strike before stepping up and taking a swing with his eyes closed against someone with mirror image up I'm of two minds:
1. I want to celebrate his ingenuity and thinking outside of the box.
2. I want to be sure that he doesn't completely shut down actions others can take with no consequences.
Now I consider what's going on. He's spending a spell to get one attack that might have hit anyways. He's also closing his eyes in the middle of combat, which is mighty dangerous. So I let him have it granting him the blind condition for the round since that means he's giving all his opponents a better chance to hit him (through both a bonus to hit and lower AC) and call it good -- he's spent a spell on an attack (resource spent), hasn't completely negated the defensive spell since he'll still need to do something on any other swing he wants.
Now if the guy with mirror image up then decides to spread his images out more so it's harder to guess what square he is in that's good too since this is a perfectly acceptable choice to make within the limits of the spell.
If the magus now steps up to a square he thinks the wizard is in and performs the same trick but the wizard isn't actually in that square too bad for him.
|
|
All I want to know is what the definition of "cheesy" characters is.It's a bit like art isn't it? Highly subjective?Exactly. I mean if we are talking about a magus that spends a round casting true strike before stepping up and taking a swing with his eyes closed against someone with mirror image up I'm of two minds:
1. I want to celebrate his ingenuity and thinking outside of the box.
2. I want to be sure that he doesn't completely shut down actions others can take with no consequences.
Now I consider what's going on. He's spending a spell to get one attack that might have hit anyways. He's also closing his eyes in the middle of combat, which is mighty dangerous. So I let him have it granting him the blind condition for the round since that means he's giving all his opponents a better chance to hit him (through both a bonus to hit and lower AC) and call it good -- he's spent a spell on an attack (resource spent), hasn't completely negated the defensive spell since he'll still need to do something on any other swing he wants.
Now if the guy with mirror image up then decides to spread his images out more so it's harder to guess what square he is in that's good too since this is a perfectly acceptable choice to make within the limits of the spell.
If the magus now steps up to a square he thinks the wizard is in and performs the same trick but the wizard isn't actually in that square too bad for him.
He can't send his images out into other squares. They occupy the same square. That was the 3.5 way the spell worked.
I removed a post. Flag it and move on.
That's usually called optimization but your car still has rules for staying "street legal".
Absolutely and those laws are clearly defined. Cheese has yet to be given a non subjective definition that I can find.... other than the traditional milk based variety.
Until we can either get together and decide on a common "cheese" definition for everyone then it is going to vary from group to group. Therefore slinging it around is primarily useless except to assert that one disapproves of an idea and or concept.