| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not intended to be a flamewar in any way, but it seems nearly every group I play PF with seems more interested in carefully adjusting their character to "min-max" and get the highest bonuses possible than why their character is in that locale at all, or where they came from. I routinely get told things such as "Hey if you drop your INT by 2 you can increase your HP with CON" or "This feat combination gives you the best attack bonus". I'm aware of all that, but I chose these attributes, skills, and feats because it fits my character. Not to get an additional +1 to my attack roll.
Secondly, the campaigns I'm in are mostly concerned with killing monsters repeatly for gold. I honestly don't know why we're in town or what the town even looks like because the GM didn't bother to describe it. Or the enemies we're fighting.
The thing is, none of that appears to be a rarity. Quite the contrary, it's very common from what I've experienced. Is anyone else having the same trouble of finding a group that matches their playstyle? What suggestions do you have to combat this? Unless I always run, which is tiring at times, this is what I encounter.
You have to talk to the GM. Ask him to give his stories some depth. As for the players tell them you would prefer if they refrained from giving you character advice until you ask for it.
What you might want to do is talk to the GM before you even join a group to get an idea about how he does things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good GMs are hard to find. There is a bit of a balance between roleplaying and tactical elements but they're not mutually exclusive and a good GM will make both fun.
If I were to play D&D, I wouldn't expect to play Amber or Dogs in the Vineyard.
Very true, but neither am I. But some ROLE-PLAYING doesn't seem out of the question, does it? As is, most games seem closer to a game of Descent than role-playing.
Yes, I suppose I will simply have to interview the GM and/or party more thoroughly before I join, but sadly, as others have pointed out, good GMs (and players for that matter) are hard to find.
You should consider taking on the mantle of GM-ship.
And in making your campaign, signify that the play style is different from the dungeon-crawling you are used to.
Talking to your current GM might be a solution, but whether it is possible without stepping on eachothers toes depends on him as a person and your relationship.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here is a very interesting observation I made when introducing new players to PFS - the most unique ideas often come from new players who haven't been playing before - or children. Both of mine are now at an age that they have started.
It only seems to last a certain amount of sessions - but it seems to me the knowledge of the rules and what is optimal can be in the way.
I just had a great game of Mist of the Mwangi with a table devoid of long time players.
Not all was optimised
One player hurt himself needlessly roleplaying and jumping down from a height.
One player moved into the middle of a group of undead to channel. It made good cinematic - but I feared the worst as there would have been more optimal places to go. As it turned out - the dice where with that player.
But most intriguing was the last encounter. The group found a novel way to defeat the last enemies with just a sack. I've GMed the scenario five times before with lots of experienced and sometimes min-maxed players only to learn there is a much easier option as to hack.
So my advice - try to get new players at your table. They can give a very refreshing perspective to the hobby - and you do a good deed for RPG long term as well.
One thing I see that would discourage the things you are saying, Thod:
A GM might decide that the tactic with the sack is not reasonably balanced with the abilities of the characters and disallow it or allow it but only with penalties.
They might be right. You don't want 'the sack trick' to become far more useful in battle than using weapons and spells. If it is, what's to stop people from becoming sack masters and overpowering the game?
The age old problem of the dashing rogue wanting to swing from a chandelier comes to mind. Is swinging from the chandelier just a descriptive acrobatic movement and attack? Or is it something more, that would encourage the rogue to metagame into devising chandelier-oriented plans?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no vs.
There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.
There is no vs.
There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.
This is so very true.
I think, Nosreme, that you just found a group that suck at RP. That's OK, though - put on the DM's mantle and show them!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is fallout from the MMO genre, wherein the storyline inevitably gets dumped by the side as a player spends hours repeating dungeons and quests to obtain loot or armor. They've kinda upped the stakes by adding achievements, but again, only important to completists, not very effective for a roleplaying factor.
Min/maxing has been always a part of the game, but I'm coming to realize that it's more of a problem with those who spend way too much time to study the rules with that action in mind, than absorbing stories from media and thinking "how could I do that, mechanically?"
Unfortunately, those people who walk into the game are slowly turned to the dark side by the obvious returns they see min/maxers walk away with. They want that enjoyment that min/maxers display, but don't realize it was at a cost of an integral part of the game. Vice versa, GM's inequipped to handle one style, but not the other, throw players off RP as well. Simply not executing it because they only understand the rules side of the game, or incapable of interacting on that level, GM's can make it hard on players to RP actions out because it doesn't fit within their agenda.
Good Luck, lead by example, and hopefully you can bring both sides of the table around and ad a little RP to your loot grind tables.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am GMing a group of older guys. They are not suffering from MMO disorder...they're board gamers.
One of the guys in our group has an entire closet full of Descent, Runewars, Chaos of the Old World...etc. They also enjoy classics like HeroQuest and Settlers of Catan.
So my one gamer, with the closet, emails me and asks me to check out Descent 2. On a lark I say "Maybe I should make my game a hexmap with sites all over it and you just march from site to site..." A new campaign in this style is starting in 2 weeks.
Now I on the other hand am the opposite; never played a board game in my life other than Risk or Monopoly until I met these guys. I was raised on a steady diet of homebrew diceless RPG's, D&D, and White Wolf games, along with other games like these.
Almost everyone on these boards would tell me "get another group" but I've discovered something; there's a middle ground. In my last campaign a hardcore board gamer had an actual moral dilemma with his paladin and stalled game play so he could try and figure out his next move with the others at the table.
I agree w/1 poster that you should have inexperienced/new gamers for role playing. But old grognards have hearts too; you just need to know how to tap into them.
So with this new campaign its a hex map, and yes they'll have missions from site to site. But I've also told them up front that the only way to find NEW sites for adventure is to talk with folks or explore. I've also taken the time to put down a few details of the town; a stat block and some key NPC's. Finally I've incentivized roleplaying by appealing to their optimizing side: mingling with the world around them and interacting in character will earn them side quests.
Side quests in turn will net them a sub set of victory conditions. These conditions, once met, might not equal much exp but will earn you NPC boons, like one-time bonuses to skills or minor items.
Their first adventure is in 2 weeks. I have the main plot: go to town, meet main NPC contact, learn of dungeon, go there to collect historical loot. However I have 3 side quests which all take a more personal route.
One of the players rolled up a dwarf cleric w/the Noble domain. One of the sidequests is a fallen noble looking for her family's honor sword. Another is a cursed puppeteer who can't show his face - one of the PC's is a "beauty-challenged" individual who got teased a lot for it. Finally there's a wood cutter looking for his lost daughter...3 of us have daughters in real life.
Undertaking any of these won't be worth as much loot but each of the NPC's helped can offer something of value. The woodcutter can make a masterwork shield. The noble, once restored, can offer her own reputation granting a one-time bonus to some later skill they need to use. The puppeteer has a good deal of occult knowledge and can bestow upon them some kind of lore-based bonus.
My ultimate advice is: coax it out of your fellow gamers. On either side of the GM screens. Lead by example and incentivize role play. If none of that works...get out a hex map!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But if you develop a playstyle or find yourself in a campaign where you have NO choice but to Min-Max, that's going to put some severe crimps on your roleplaying choices. People who like to bring up the Stormwind Fallacy in defense of min-maxing often overlook this.
Such as? What role playing choices are limited by min maxing?
There are certainly character concepts that are good from a role-playing point of view but not at all optimized. I'm not talking about deliberately gimped "challenge" characters, but standard historical or genre types. The classic non-TWF sword and board fighter is definitely not optimized.
Its also not exactly a role playing choice. Its a mechanical choice not to twf with your sword and board, not a RPing one.
|
But if you develop a playstyle or find yourself in a campaign where you have NO choice but to Min-Max, that's going to put some severe crimps on your roleplaying choices. People who like to bring up the Stormwind Fallacy in defense of min-maxing often overlook this.Such as? What role playing choices are limited by min maxing?
Do I get another +1 Con bonus, or +1 Int for skills that the DM is never going to let me use because we just fight monsters?
I want my character to be a blacksmith in his down-time. Nope...need those skill points for Acrobatics.
My wizard wants to have a bat familiar...but arcane bond (ring) gives me an extra spell per day and cheaper magic rings.
Dwarf sorcerer.
Thinking about making a fighter. ;)
Choices that require balanced characters for starters. If you make your character old to cheese your casting stats, it means you really can't be convincingly playing a young neophyte.
There's really no rule allowing you to do that anyway except DM fiat. By raw your character starts at a starting age as derermined by their class.
When every magus becomes s dervish dancing scimitar wielder, it's really kind of hard to get away from a cookie-cutter progression.
Besides not being a cookie cutter what ROLE playing objective are you trying to meet?
Tell that to old the old geezers of Living Greyhawk. The campaign rule there was that there were no aging modifiers applied to characters so the 80 year old would have the same starting stats as the 18 year old.
PFS does the same thing. I fail to see the problem, you can set any age you want pretty much with no pros or cons to your stats, so play what you want and the mechanics don't enter into it.
If it's only a mechanical choice, not an RP one, then the same goes for all character build choices.
The vast majority of build choices ARE mechanical choices, not RP ones. People confuse the two and then complain about their role play being constrained by their need to min max.
Do I get another +1 Con bonus, or +1 Int for skills that the DM is never going to let me use because we just fight monsters?
That's a campaign style, not a min max vs role play issue.
I want my character to be a blacksmith in his down-time. Nope...need those skill points for Acrobatics.
Spend 1 point on it then. You'll survive.
My wizard wants to have a bat familiar...but arcane bond (ring) gives me an extra spell per day and cheaper magic rings.
Take the bat and learn how to get the most out of a familiar. They can be worth a lot more than an extra skill per day, especially a little ambush detector sonar system on top of your head.
Dwarf sorcerer.There's the empyreal? sorcerer that uses wisdom instead.
Thinking about making a fighter. ;)
They're ok as long as you're not playing a level 20 campaign.
I'm going to echo some sentiments above, specifically that it can be done both ways. Both ways of playing are perfectly viable. That's the great thing about this system. If you want tactically heavy combat oriented games, you can do that. If you want story heavy, role-play centric games you can do that. Either way is viable within the rules. The problems always occur when a player is part of a group that is doing it in a style that opposes their own.
I've found over the years that, as a GM, I actually have a tendency to mold myself into the style of the players at the table. If they want heavy story, I'll give exhaustive story details, and explain every subtle nuance of an NPC. If they want light story, I'll move it along from encounter to encounter, and keep them interested that way.
You just have to find a table that fits your desires. It's for this reason that I've taken to making new groups, or players joining existing groups, take a survey of their style and desires. I can (and do) then use those results to make sure that everyone at any particular table is there for the same reason. If a very story-centric player wants to join a tactical group, I'll steer them away as best I can. I try never to refuse a player if they are enthusiastic, but having people of opposing styles at a table usually causes these very problems.
The greatness of the Pathfinder system is that either style is completely valid. Find a table that fits your needs, or, if you are willing to GM, create it. :)
There is no vs.
There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.
This.
I think there is merit in mastering both country AND western.
Any comment on my other point above? Optimized tactical choices vs. roleplaying choices
Role playing shouldn't stop when the battlemat comes out. Yes, sometimes you'll have to pick one or the other in combat.
This is not intended to be a flamewar in any way, but it seems nearly every group I play PF with seems more interested in carefully adjusting their character to "min-max" and get the highest bonuses possible than why their character is in that locale at all, or where they came from. I routinely get told things such as "Hey if you drop your INT by 2 you can increase your HP with CON" or "This feat combination gives you the best attack bonus". I'm aware of all that, but I chose these attributes, skills, and feats because it fits my character. Not to get an additional +1 to my attack roll.
Secondly, the campaigns I'm in are mostly concerned with killing monsters repeatly for gold. I honestly don't know why we're in town or what the town even looks like because the GM didn't bother to describe it. Or the enemies we're fighting.
The thing is, none of that appears to be a rarity. Quite the contrary, it's very common from what I've experienced. Is anyone else having the same trouble of finding a group that matches their playstyle? What suggestions do you have to combat this? Unless I always run, which is tiring at times, this is what I encounter.
I think you have identified something that is common to PF. i have heard dnd criticised along similar lines, but this critic has known of some great dnd games over the years. Smash in the door style of play it is called.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no vs.
There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.
It's not that you can't, it's just that in most cases it doesn't happen. I've seen a few characters that feel more like builds, and when i mention that their character looks like something straight off the optimization board i get "oh it fits the character". But I have a feeling that the character concept was built around the character build which often leaves a one dimensional character, which fits in the cases i have seen.
Although kudos to those who can make a good character that is also powerful
Such as? What role playing choices are limited by min maxing?
Presumably playing a generalist jack-of-all-trades or a character "against type" (like a clumsy rogue or sickly fighter. (I'm presuming min-max means optimise).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am the middle ground
I love the role-playing aspect, but why does that mean i can't pick feats and abilities that make sense.
I was called out as a "power-player" when i went to my group who had just started a new game, with a Human Barbarian with 20 Str, Power Attack and Furious Focus.
Some players think that in order to be a true "role-player", everything you pick MUST be utter cr*P.
The goblin monk in that group
str 12, dex 14, con 16, wis 16, int 14, cha 9
she says the stats don't matter as much, as long as she role-plays them, and yes she is an above average role-player.
BUT IN COMBAT, SHE IS DEAD WEIGHT.
I mean, there's a difference between playing a character you'd more enjoy role-playing then combat, and i'm gonna focus COMPLETELY on role-pay and FORGET combat.
And the glaring issue is SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANY USEFUL ROLE-PLAY SKILLS. She has acrobatics, linguistics, perception, stealth, and religion. Not bad choices but she has yet to use one.
And in This game, combat and role-pay are about 60-40.
I'm just sick of this idea that if i enjoy playing a semi-optimized character, i'm a "bad player"
I was being told this (by dm and a few players) when i played a 20 str druid who was spect for magic crafting, i was told this when i played a Paladin built for defense and in-combat healing, and now with my lv 1 barbarian.
That dm is going to regret kicking my lv 10 pali because he was "overpowered".
Now i've got a lv 10 fighter focused on damage. I've never built a character like that before...BECAUSE I WAS BEING NICE.
But I have a feeling that the character concept was built around the character build which often leaves a one dimensional character, which fits in the cases i have seen.
Do you think that the folks building said characters would make more of a person if they weren't optimizing? I don't. I think its all about the individual involved.
I like having the framework of a build to work from to make my characters. It gives me a good starting point.
I think what most are failing to realize is that tactical situations can still be opportunities to RP. One example was the cleric that waded into the undead, to channel? Why? We have a Cleric in our campaign that put together a backstory that she came from a Mwangi village that revered an undead child as a god, and she didn't believe the child/god, and found out that it was an undead child, so consequently, the character hates undead. She's since gone on to min/max the character, to make the character tactically optimal, but always puts it into terms that make sense to the character. She would have been well in character to make that kind of decision. The easiest thing to do is ask 'Why would my character learn/know this?' as long as you can answer it, it doesn't matter if you min/max the character. The two styles are not mutually exclusive. The game is set for the GM to tell a story, and the players have to make tactical decisions along the way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no vs.
There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.
BNW, I agree with you. This is a situation where people are confusing causation with coorelation and artificially simplistic group labels.
We have probably all met players that fall into 1 of 3 groups.
A) Can't/doesn't either role play or optimise well
B) Can/does role play well, but does not optimize well
C) Can/does optimise well, but doesn't role play well
D) Can/does both optimise and role play well
They are independant axies of development (or lack thereof).
Group A is usually ignored or just lousey players with no further definition.
Group B is often called a 'role' player
Group C can be known as a 'min-maxer' or 'power gamer'
Now the curve ball is that Group D is also usually called a 'role' player
Since Group D and Group B often get the same label, they are thought of as the same. Since Group A is usually ignored in these type of discussion. You get people that think there is a single axis with 'role' players at one end and 'min-maxers' at the other.
Being a 'min-maxer' does not make you a poor 'role' player. But if someone is a 'min-maxer' as well as a poor role player it gets your attention and you learn to associate the two. Once you brain has the association, you think of one as causing the other.
Kydeem, great summary of the possible groupings, but my experience has been that most folks fall into either B or C with very, very few in D.
I optimize when I can, but I won't optimize if it (the choice of feats/attributes/abilities/etc.) doesn't fit my initial character concept. I think a lot of people optimize first, then stick a facade of a character concept over the top of it.
|
As was said above, a good GM is hard to find.
Many of them are just encounter referees.
My suggestion is master the rules and run a game yourself. Starting with an AP will make it easier, but don't be afraid to go off book once you get comfortable.
If you become a good GM, you'll get players. And eventually if you GM well those players will become good GMs and you'll get to play sometimes.
But some people aren't wired to be able to GM.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But if you develop a playstyle or find yourself in a campaign where you have NO choice but to Min-Max, that's going to put some severe crimps on your roleplaying choices. People who like to bring up the Stormwind Fallacy in defense of min-maxing often overlook this.Such as? What role playing choices are limited by min maxing?
An intelligent, charismatic monk who doesn't suck at combat.
|
|
That's a campaign style, not a min max vs role play issue.
Do I get another +1 Con bonus, or +1 Int for skills that the DM is never going to let me use because we just fight monsters?
Yes, but the point was that the campaign was forcing players to min/max. Hence you couldn't make pure RP choices.
I want my character to be a blacksmith in his down-time. Nope...need those skill points for Acrobatics.Spend 1 point on it then. You'll survive.
What if I want to spend 2 points? 3? 8? You're still limiting RP potential.
My wizard wants to have a bat familiar...but arcane bond (ring) gives me an extra spell per day and cheaper magic rings.Take the bat and learn how to get the most out of a familiar. They can be worth a lot more than an extra skill per day, especially a little ambush detector sonar system on top of your head.
Making the best out of a choice isn't min/maxing.
Dwarf sorcerer.There's the empyreal? sorcerer that uses wisdom instead.
Sure, if your DM allows that and you actually feel like playing a non-core sorcerer with divine power (which would be a very different RP).
Thinking about making a fighter. ;)
They're ok as long as you're not playing a level 20 campaign.
This isn't really a comment on the above, but a lot of people like to bust out the "Stormwind Fallacy" as soon as the discussion turns to RP vs. min/max. But it really just deflects the argument, because the point is that a lot of people DO ignore RP to pursue min/max or munchkinism (some because they enjoy it, but others because they feel they "have to"). I'm not suggesting SWF is wrong; I just think it's used inappropriately in a lot of discussions.
One of my favorite characters role playing wise comes from someone that makes an optimization guide.
Kydeem, great summary of the possible groupings, but my experience has been that most folks fall into either B or C with very, very few in D...
I think I see roughly equal numbers, when I try and seriously categorize most of the gamers I've met. But what stands out when I don't give it a lot of thought is when someone is good at one and sucks at another.
...I optimize when I can, but I won't optimize if it (the choice of feats/attributes/abilities/etc.) doesn't fit my initial character concept. I think a lot of people optimize first, then stick a facade of a character concept over the top of it.
I sorta do both. For example the process would usually go something like...
Next campaign I want a small sized master summoner, whose eidelon looks like a medium sized version of himself. General build concept.
Ok, why on earth would someone do this. Let's say he is a bit paranoid thinks someone is trying to kill him. Most people will think the bigger one is the real person and the real threat, so they will concentrate their attacks on the eidelon. Here I will fill in most of the backstory personality of the character.
Given that he above, how can I make him as effective as possible. This is where I get into the details of the build.
At this point I finish tweaking the backstory and personality to mesh with the final build.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no vs.
There is no reason you cannot both minmax your character into a four armed dual greatsword wielding quizinart of death and destruction and make him a fully three dimensional character with heart, soul, and depth.
This is so very true.
I think, Nosreme, that you just found a group that suck at RP. That's OK, though - put on the DM's mantle and show them!
In my group, the best roleplayers are also the best tactical gamers. They're the ones that think through the implications of actions - both story implications and tactical implications - and show their love of and attachment to characters by trying to make those characters effective and survivable.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Such as? What role playing choices are limited by min maxing?
I recently found myself making a character for a game that I knew was dominated by min/maxers. I came up with an idea of a bard character, that I really wanted to be a heavy drinking, smart alec, flirtatious, put-up-your-dukes kind of guy.
Except to be good at fist-fighting, which was kind of central to my character, I had to make a less than optimal character. Unarmed combat sucks unless you're a monk. I had to make a choice to either follow my character concept and make the kind of character that I wanted to roleplay, or let min/maxing dictate my character concept.
I chose my concept. And playing with these min/maxers meant that I was sub-optimal in a typical armed dungeon battle, because the GM was also min/maxy, so the battles were often pretty tough. That bard sucked at fighting. More than a bard needed to. Because my character's concept, and the way I wanted to roleplay, meant that I needed to take Unarmed feats, even though I only used them occasionally in town.
That's how min/maxing and roleplaying choices overlap and limit each other. For me, it's first a story. Then the numbers describe the story. My story usually limits my numbers options.
Now, that's just how I prefer to play. Sometimes I do make optimal characters and skew my story to fit the numbers. That's also very fun and totally legit, but personally, it's not my favourite.
But to suggest that min/maxing playstyles have no effect on stories is false. Those playstyles do sometimes limit roleplaying options. And that's fine. You don't need to defend it, you're not doing anything wrong. Just don't try to deny it.
But if you develop a playstyle or find yourself in a campaign where you have NO choice but to Min-Max, that's going to put some severe crimps on your roleplaying choices. People who like to bring up the Stormwind Fallacy in defense of min-maxing often overlook this.Such as? What role playing choices are limited by min maxing?Do I get another +1 Con bonus, or +1 Int for skills that the DM is never going to let me use because we just fight monsters?
I want my character to be a blacksmith in his down-time. Nope...need those skill points for Acrobatics.
My wizard wants to have a bat familiar...but arcane bond (ring) gives me an extra spell per day and cheaper magic rings.
Dwarf sorcerer.
Thinking about making a fighter. ;)
Talk to your DM about house ruling some free points in for everyone to develop their backstory. Such as some free points for craft or profession. You don't need many points in acrobatics but you can put as many as you want in their if you feel your character would have more points. I would never take the arcane bond over any sort of familiar to be quite honest considering the scouting potential and other bonuses. You can also reskin things to your liking to match what you want to play as long as it's reasonable. Also like someone mentioned there is the empyreal sorcerer and if you don't really like the flavor then just work with your dm to reflavor it. A fighter can hold its own in combat pretty fine. Of course he's not that useful outside of combat but you could talk to your DM about taking the somewhat common house rule of giving everyone with 2+int skills points and boosting them up to 4+int.(with the exception of casters that have int as their primary) I honestly don't know why the barbarian has more skills then the fighter.
Such as? What role playing choices are limited by min maxing?I recently found myself making a character for a game that I knew was dominated by min/maxers. I came up with an idea of a bard character, that I really wanted to be a heavy drinking, smart alec, flirtatious, put-up-your-dukes kind of guy.
Except to be good at fist-fighting, which was kind of central to my character, I had to make a less than optimal character. Unarmed combat sucks unless you're a monk. I had to make a choice to either follow my character concept and make the kind of character that I wanted to roleplay, or let min/maxing dictate my character concept.
I chose my concept. And playing with these min/maxers meant that I was sub-optimal in a typical armed dungeon battle, because the GM was also min/maxy, so the battles were often pretty tough. That bard sucked at fighting. More than a bard needed to. Because my character's concept, and the way I wanted to roleplay, meant that I needed to take Unarmed feats, even though I only used them occasionally in town.
That's how min/maxing and roleplaying choices overlap and limit each other. For me, it's first a story. Then the numbers describe the story. My story usually limits my numbers options.
Now, that's just how I prefer to play. Sometimes I do make optimal characters and skew my story to fit the numbers. That's also very fun and totally legit, but personally, it's not my favourite.
But to suggest that min/maxing playstyles have no effect on stories is false. Those playstyles do sometimes limit roleplaying options. And that's fine. You don't need to defend it, you're not doing anything wrong. Just don't try to deny it.
Perhaps your character shouldn't have been in the party? Maybe that type of character isn't meant to be an adventurer? Perhaps you should have talked to your DM about some houserules to make it work out?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Such as? What role playing choices are limited by min maxing?I recently found myself making a character for a game that I knew was dominated by min/maxers. I came up with an idea of a bard character, that I really wanted to be a heavy drinking, smart alec, flirtatious, put-up-your-dukes kind of guy.
Except to be good at fist-fighting, which was kind of central to my character, I had to make a less than optimal character. Unarmed combat sucks unless you're a monk. I had to make a choice to either follow my character concept and make the kind of character that I wanted to roleplay, or let min/maxing dictate my character concept.
I chose my concept. And playing with these min/maxers meant that I was sub-optimal in a typical armed dungeon battle, because the GM was also min/maxy, so the battles were often pretty tough. That bard sucked at fighting. More than a bard needed to. Because my character's concept, and the way I wanted to roleplay, meant that I needed to take Unarmed feats, even though I only used them occasionally in town.
That's how min/maxing and roleplaying choices overlap and limit each other. For me, it's first a story. Then the numbers describe the story. My story usually limits my numbers options.
Now, that's just how I prefer to play. Sometimes I do make optimal characters and skew my story to fit the numbers. That's also very fun and totally legit, but personally, it's not my favourite.
But to suggest that min/maxing playstyles have no effect on stories is false. Those playstyles do sometimes limit roleplaying options. And that's fine. You don't need to defend it, you're not doing anything wrong. Just don't try to deny it.
That issue is not inherent to min/maxing. It's a problem with the system.
I have been having a similar issue with optimizing a finesse fighter. The character concept is a nigh-unbeatable expert duelist who uses brains, grace, and discipline rather than brawn. I've yet to find a melee class which can be 100% DPR optimized using Dex, Int, and Wis. If I go with the concept, my "genius master duelist" will lose a duel to a dumb barbarian with 20 Str and a falchion.
That's not true of every crunchy system though. That same Duelist would hand the Barbarian his or her head in 7th Sea, True20, or even 3.5, with the right option books (I can make him pretty mean using the Swashbuckler class in combination with Tome of Battle).
One of my players argues in favor of more books and more crunch, justifying it by saying that more books means more chances that a high-powered feat or class will be introduced that brings an underpowered character type into parity. Her proof is the "Shadow Blade" feat in the Tome of Battle finally making high Dex low Str meleers competitive with Str fighters.
Perhaps your character shouldn't have been in the party? Maybe that type of character isn't meant to be an adventurer? Perhaps you should have talked to your DM about some houserules to make it work out?
Such as? What role playing choices are limited by min maxing?I recently found myself making a character for a game that I knew was dominated by min/maxers. I came up with an idea of a bard character, that I really wanted to be a heavy drinking, smart alec, flirtatious, put-up-your-dukes kind of guy.
Except to be good at fist-fighting, which was kind of central to my character, I had to make a less than optimal character. Unarmed combat sucks unless you're a monk. I had to make a choice to either follow my character concept and make the kind of character that I wanted to roleplay, or let min/maxing dictate my character concept.
I chose my concept. And playing with these min/maxers meant that I was sub-optimal in a typical armed dungeon battle, because the GM was also min/maxy, so the battles were often pretty tough. That bard sucked at fighting. More than a bard needed to. Because my character's concept, and the way I wanted to roleplay, meant that I needed to take Unarmed feats, even though I only used them occasionally in town.
That's how min/maxing and roleplaying choices overlap and limit each other. For me, it's first a story. Then the numbers describe the story. My story usually limits my numbers options.
Now, that's just how I prefer to play. Sometimes I do make optimal characters and skew my story to fit the numbers. That's also very fun and totally legit, but personally, it's not my favourite.
But to suggest that min/maxing playstyles have no effect on stories is false. Those playstyles do sometimes limit roleplaying options. And that's fine. You don't need to defend it, you're not doing anything wrong. Just don't try to deny it.
Why? I still had lots of fun, I just had to be more tactical in battles. It worked out, it just wasn't optimal.
But you've missed the point of what I was saying. Which is that mix/maxing can (but doesn't always) limit roleplaying options and character concepts. That's all I was saying.
That issue is not inherent to min/maxing. It's a problem with the system.
That particular issue is a problem in PF, and I'll agree that the problem isn't inherent in min/maxing. But it does often come up for me that, despite knowing that another choice is more optimal, I choose something else because my character is already in my mind, and the numbers (and the choices that I make to reach those numbers) are just a description of that character.
I also agree that making a build (optimal or not) and using that for inspiration for a character is great. It's just usually not what I do. Horses for courses.
But to say that min/maxing need never interfere with a character concept, story idea, or roleplaying in general, suggests that I make non-optimal builds because I'm a dope and I don't know any better. I'm not a dope. I just usually choose the idea before the numbers, and then stick with it.
|
|
That issue is not inherent to min/maxing. It's a problem with the system.That particular issue is a problem in PF, and I'll agree that the problem isn't inherent in min/maxing. But it does often come up for me that, despite knowing that another choice is more optimal, I choose something else because my character is already in my mind, and the numbers (and the choices that I make to reach those numbers) are just a description of that character.
I also agree that making a build (optimal or not) and using that for inspiration for a character is great. It's just usually not what I do. Horses for courses.
But to say that min/maxing need never interfere with a character concept, story idea, or roleplaying in general, suggests that I make non-optimal builds because I'm a dope and I don't know any better. I'm not a dope. I just usually choose the idea before the numbers, and then stick with it.
I'm not saying you're a dope. Please do not interpret anything I have said as an attack on you because it's not meant to be. You understand the choices you have, and you made a choice. Two things that you value were in conflict, and you prioritized them, one before the other. Some people agree, some would prioritize differently.
However, I have met some dopes. People who would make the rest of us feel cheated if they could be as effective as we are. The requirement of system mastery creates a situation where effort put into the game becomes success at the game, and I tend to shy away from narrativist or indie story games because I do, in fact, enjoy tactical challenges. They make my victories feel earned.
That said, all of the power-ups PF gave to races and classes make me feel as though I'm not totally cheated if another party member plays a suboptimal or even average character. IMO it's not as bad as it was in 3.5.
However, I really wish there were a system where you and I and other intelligent people could pick any character concept and all concepts were equally valid. In such a system, the Role vs. Roll discussion would not have to happen. It's a dichotomy only because we are playing with a rules set which has a flaw where certain character types are better than others. I think that when comparing systems, that should go on the list of reasons to be cautious of such a system.