If that player doesn't mind if his one-armed veteran or clumsy wizard is unlikely to survive very long. After all that's how it works in real life too... Fantasy gaming is no excuse to throw realism out the window.
Maybe that clumsy wizard will try to learn how to craft himself items to be less clumsy (crafters are rarely unwelcome).
I can easily build a one-handed fighter that can be viable against CR-appropriate enemies (an average encounter by the book for an alone 5th level PC is a CR1 creature, an epic encounter is a CR4 creature), but some groups play in another environment where a 5th level fighter would have a CR5 as an "average" encounter and where a 5th level party will regularly fight CR8 or so enemies - because that is possible if everyone is playing good "builds" like optimized god wizards and master summoners.
I'm not saying that it's wrong to do that, just that different groups have different styles. Regardless, trying to justify it with "realism" is, quite frankly, a very bad argument. "A an old bearded dude turning bat-crap into a blazing fireball to kill the telepathic squid people is no reason to have something as unrealistic as a one-armed hero!"
So you want to RP somebody who is handicapped (missing arms, lame, ...) and then complain that
- he is not as fit for survival as the others
- the others don't rp because they don't play handicapped characters
umm...?
No, you are using a straw man on me. I'm explicitly saying that you CAN roleplay an optimized character, just that the higher your requirement on optimization, the lesser number of different characters (such as for example missing a limb, or being short-sighted, or just have an odd hobby that consumes a few feats) can join the party.
A player that puts all his feats into Skill Focus and Weapon focus is actively trying to make a character that's as useless as possible.
It doesn't have to be. There may be a sound roleplay-based reason for it. Now, as I said, it's not WRONG to ban this character in your game - I wouldn't want such a character and it would probably get killed quite fast in our games. I'm not saying everything is playable, I'm just saying that the "there's no conflict between roleplaying and optimization"-statement is an oversimplification.
For example, let's say I want to play the one-handed veteran fighter. I've got a great story for the character and really want to play this character - I don't want to play another god wizard with combo spells, I want to play an old grumpy guy that's fought as a mercenary his whole life and has the scars to show it.
Bert Karlsson the One-Handed (Fighter 4)
Init +2; Senses Perception +8
DEFENSE
AC 19, touch 12, flat-footed 17 (+7 armor, +2 Dex)
hp 42 (10+3d10+16)
Fort +6, Ref +3, Will +4; +1 bonus on Will saves against fear
Defensive Abilities armor training +1, bravery +1
OFFENSE
Speed 30 ft.
Melee longsword +7 (1d8+9/19+)
Ranged javelin +7 (1d6+3/19+)
STATISTICS
Str 17, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 8
Base Atk +4; CMB +7; CMD 19
Feats Toughness, Skill focus (perception), Iron Will, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (longsword), Weapon Specialization (longsword)
Skills Climb +8, Intimidate +4, Perception +8, Ride +7, Survival +6
Languages Common
NPC Gear +1 longsword, masterwork javelin, +1 breastplate
This is a character that has been chosen for flavor and "crippled" as opposed to the "optimized" character. It can still beat the encounter that the ruleset considers standard. For example, as part of a group of four, an average encounter is four hobgoblins or four standard zombies (four creatures is CR+4, CR1/2*4=CR4). Thus it's fair to say an average encounter for Bert is a hobgoblin or a zombie. A hard (CR+2) encounter for Bert would be a crocodile, boar, or wolverine. These are all challenging encounters but I'm fairly confident Bert will make it.
A better optimized fighter would steamroll these encounters, no doubt, and an optimized character of a different class (say a 4th level fey sorcerer with GSF enchantment and a DC through the stratosphere) would laugh at them - but they're the baseline of the rules system.
In other words, the rules are designed as to allow unoptimized characters.
Now, the thing is that when a group consists of many people that like to choose optimal roles to optimize (and I must say again, there is _nothing wrong with this_), they'll steamroll anything like the standard encounters unless the encounters themselves are optimized by using nasty combos, equipment and feat reselection and so on (and at low levels there isn't enough to reselect). To counter this, DM's increase the difficulty by putting the party to higher-than-baseline difficulty, using CR+1 or +2 as the average and up to CR+5 for epic fights.
This means that Bert won't keep up with the group, because the difficulty has been increased beyond what Bert is capable of handling. Thus, optimization has effectively reduced the number of acceptable roles in a party - not that optimized characters aren't roleplayed well, they can be roleplayed very well but it still means someone that wants to roleplay Bert won't feel useful.
Someone that wants to play as Bert won't fit in such a group - just like someone playing a hyper-optimized god wizard won't fit in a group of Berts. For the god wizard to fit in a Bert group, it would need to make unwanted mechanical choices (unoptimizing it to not dominate), for Bert to fit in the god wizard group, it would need to make unwanted roleplaying choices. Thus, there CAN be a conflict between roleplaying and optimization.
It's not about right and wrong, or good and bad DM'ing, or anything like that. It's about different play styles, and different campaign styles, and the OP has a different play style than the groups he gets to.
To make a parallell to other media, Mace Windu would make a bad fit on the Battlestar Galactica while Starbuck wouldn't fit in the Jedi Order.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You people keep reading a lot more into it than was said.
Yes, but why Synthesists?
Strawman. Mace Windu would totally fit in on the 70s Galactica. And 70s Starbuck would be right at home in an X-Wing.
Meant the 2003 reimagining. But don't see how that's a strawman anyway :S
Short OT rant:
Spoiler:One of the things I like about more point based systems and dislike about level based games like D&D is that you can make concepts like the old, injured, but highly skilled veteran work on the same power level as the brash untrained kid running on raw talent.The new kid can have high stats and low skills/powers (including combat skills) while the veteran can have lower stats, but better skills and a disadvantage or two and they can still be balanced.
I also feel it makes more sense because the reason your better at knowledge at high age is because of experience, not because you're higher intelligence. Levels are experience so they make perfect sense.
I also have a mechanic for converting those NPC levels to PC levels but that's too far off topic.
If that player doesn't mind if his one-armed veteran or clumsy wizard is unlikely to survive very long.
Um... the GM is supposed to balance encounters to his players. The only way that one arm fighter is in any danger is if he is traveling with a pack of optimized super characters. Because the GM is then forced to aim high with the monster power levels. Or he could throw a curve ball like I sometimes do. If I had a big variance in character power I would balance everything to the weaker character. Since I don't have the time anymore to optimize my monsters I already know the super characters are going to wipe the floor with my monsters, I just leave them to it, and I focus on the Story, which is what I want people to have fun with anyway. The players will either learn to enjoy the story focus or they will have fun slaughtering hapless enemies in an effortless battle. For the players that play for the story this is win win. Effortless fights means less time spent in combat per session and more time spent role playing. If players are joining my game hoping for tactical combat... oh well, sorry I don't have the time anymore to do both. I grew up and have more responsibilities now.
Stringburka's straw veteran isn't nonviable because of optimization. He's impossible as a PC because Pathfinder does not support starting a character as a veteran.
First off, what's with calling it a "straw veteran"? It was an example of a non-optimized character you might want to play for the flavor of it. It wasn't in itself an argument... A straw man (if that's what the straw in this is for) argument is twisting another persons argument and arguing against the inflated version, how am I doing that here?
Regardless, I think you can start with a veteran _flavor_ - since most people in the army will be commoners and other random drafted people as well as professionals like warriors, a first level fighter is better than most which could be explained through being a veteran - especially if of a higher age. I agree pathfinder has issues with it (the reason for my house rule) but I don't see how it's impossible to play the flavor of a veteran.
If you want to play a has-been veteran among youths you need to play a game that doesn't have levels or try to make up a negative template and get the GM to accept it so you can start a level or two above everyone else.
Or you can play the character above and flavor it as being a veteran. The mechanics don't make that flavor impossible or even hard to do. In a game based on the core rule assumptions, that character would do well. And as long as he doesn't use both arms, there'll be no big issues - the assumed loss of balance can be compensated with an assumed gain of balance skills throughout his career.
So, really, why can't you play the character above in a pathfinder game that uses the core game assumptions on difficulty level? What mechanical issues are there that cannot be _easily_ explained through the flavor?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If that player doesn't mind if his one-armed veteran or clumsy wizard is unlikely to survive very long.Um... the GM is supposed to balance encounters to his players.
The DM is supposed to do a lot of things. That doesn't mean they actually do them.
I agree completely with your idea of encounter difficulty, however. It has served me well in my previous campaigns.
My translation of an old Exalted character as a Cleric: the original concept was a former village healer who was intelligent with average strength and some training. For Cleric optimization though, I'm told I should buy up strength, buy down intelligence, and healing? What healer in the right mind would take healing?Just because he was a cleric in the old game doesn't mean it's the way to go in Pathfinder...
village + healer + low strength + high int = witch or maybe oracle
Don't get hung up on class names.
That still doesn't get past the fact that healing is strongly discouraged among optimizers. And leaves the problem of what he's going to do in combat. Optimization-wise even as an oracle I should be buying his intelligence down and his strength up. The Witch, with all of the power coming from the familiar, just doesn't seem right for the concept of a wandering holy man.
face rogues =/= trap rogues
A rogue can take care of many skills but making the rogue the only one responsible for all skills is stupid imho.
A face rogue can kick ass with feinting and bluffing and can talk his way out of many things while still getting full effect from his sneak attacks. Maybe make take the ninja archetype, too?
Why would a swashbuckler know anything about traps???
Because rogues are expected to know that sort of stuff, even if the concept is "Swashbuckling Thief". My Swashbucklers of the Seven Skies character knew how to be stealthy and break into places. And anyways, that still doesn't deal with the optimization recommendation to drop Int and boost Wisdom.
Is this a means to squeeze a party requirement into your build: that's ALWAYS a bad idea
If your group wants you to take care of traps, then come up with a background that involves traps.
Which is as I said, part of the problem when optimization takes precedence over character concept.
|
If that player doesn't mind if his one-armed veteran or clumsy wizard is unlikely to survive very long.Um... the GM is supposed to balance encounters to his players. The only way that one arm fighter is in any danger is if he is traveling with a pack of optimized super characters. Because the GM is then forced to aim high with the monster power levels. Or he could throw a curve ball like I sometimes do. If I had a big variance in character power I would balance everything to the weaker character. Since I don't have the time anymore to optimize my monsters I already know the super characters are going to wipe the floor with my monsters, I just leave them to it, and I focus on the Story, which is what I want people to have fun with anyway. The players will either learn to enjoy the story focus or they will have fun slaughtering hapless enemies in an effortless battle. For the players that play for the story this is win win. Effortless fights means less time spent in combat per session and more time spent role playing. If players are joining my game hoping for tactical combat... oh well, sorry I don't have the time anymore to do both. I grew up and have more responsibilities now.
I would tend to agree with you. If the DM engages in escalation with the optimizers, it only hurts the campaign as a whole and the other players specifically.
That's not to say that the optimizers shouldn't be challenged - it just shouldn't be the default encounter. There should be encounters made available to either discover through investigation or foreshadowing, and occasionally randomly, in which the optimizers can shine. As per the DMG, these should be roughly 20% of total encounters (5% for the super-optimizers). With the caveat that even optimization may not be enough to survive - that is the risk the players can accept with the expectation of reward (XP and treasure).
For example, it might become clear that a dragon inhabits the caves in the mountains above the current dungeon. The party might encounter the dragon randomly (at which point the worst option may be fighting), but the optimized party members may decide to actively investigate (with the understanding that the other party members may have other ideas, designs, or require assistance in the battle).
Everybody wins, and there is very little extra work required on the part of the DM.
I don't think escalation with the optimizers to a certain extent is bad. I usually count my whole party as APL+1 because they're fairly well-optimized and good at tactics, and thus put them up against enemies that are an actual challenge. In one pbp campaign I played recently in I know we were treated as APL+2 because we were a strong party (archer paladin, bomber alchemist, melee summoner with melee pet, controller druid with melee pet). It was a great game (although far too short :() both story-wise and combatwise and we were challenged. The alchemist actually died in glorious fire in the last combat encounter. And it was seriously role-played characters too.
There's nothing wrong with playing the game on hard mode, as long as everyone likes it. It's important that everyone is on the same page though.
One of the things I like about more point based systems and dislike about level based games like D&D is that you can make concepts like the old, injured, but highly skilled veteran work on the same power level as the brash untrained kid running on raw talent.
There was a system of talents and flaws at one time, in Unearthed Arcana I think. You could give a character with a major flaw bonus points, or compensate them in some other way.
I had a one-character once, but that was a result of a faulty teleporter and he eventually found a scroll of regeneration to grow it back. It actually didn't hamper him too much as you got a seriously overpowered intelligent sword in the same adventure...
I consider APL+2 the baseline for any party with a few years experience. I will even drag on experience awards when I'm running APs to keep it there. That's how much of a jerk I am. :)
The issue with talents/flaws though is that they are used for optimization as another way of min-maxing. If you think that's an issue, anyway.
I think for talents/flaws to work, they need to either give really noticeable drawbacks that matter for all characters (for example, near-sightedness: -2 on all perception checks and double range penalties) or have the benefit be so minor or non-stackable as to not really matter (you get a +1 bonus in the profession skill of choice)
Because it's a concept that's bad not because it isn't optimized, but because it isn't supported.
1. That doesn't make it a straw man argument.
2. Say a young one-handed person then, relevance? It was just an example of a non-optimized character. You could use the physically frail but mentally sound wizard (7/8/8/19/16/10) instead if you want to.What you're doing is essentially a red herring because the argument has nothing to do with if you can represent veteran characters at first level.
In short you're complaining that a type of character that the game does not support the optimization of characters it's not designed to support at all. Or you're complaining that characters can be optimized to be better than characters the game system isn't designed to support at all.
Please reread my posts, because this has nothing to at all with what I'm discussing. I'm not complaining about anything, and certainly not that the game doesn't support optimization. I'm saying you can very well make un-optimized characters and they'll work well with the core assumptions on difficulty.
I'm also saying that if you drastically increase the difficulty on the game, the number of viable builds - regardless of reason for wanting to play them - is reduced. A game where APL=CR for an average encounter can contain a LOT of different characters and builds, while a game where APL+4=CR for an average encounter has a far more limited amount of builds that will work well.
That is natural and isn't in itself an issue - it's the way it has to be and I'm not arguing that it should be changed, but it's good to be aware of and saying that this drastically reduced number of possible builds doesn't limit roleplaying options (which is implied in the whole "stormwind fallacy" as it is used in this context*) is oversimplifying things.
Please, reread my posts from the first I did in this thread. I think you've misunderstand what I'm saying completely, because your post basically doesn't make sense in the context of what I was posting.
And a last little thing, please don't put words in people's mouth like stating I'm complaining about something. It's seen as bad form, and for a good reason. It's no biggie, but bad form on the internet tends to be a slippery slope and it's better to keep it on the civil side :)
*The Stormwind Fallacy has become twisted and overused IMO. Originally, it states that "just because you optimize does not mean you cannot roleplay" and that is entirely correct. I've seen it used in another way with increasing frequency - "optimization in no way inhibits roleplaying". This is a whole other beast.
The other problem is that it's easy for this to become an arms race. The players know they're on hard mode, so they optimize. The GM sees the players are optimized, so he cranks hard mode up another notch. They respond by optimizing farther, etc.
Agreed. Because of this, there needs to be clear-cut rules by the game, the DM, or the group as a whole - for example banning certain loopholes that become an issue, and not using mean template combinations (look at what a lich looses/gains from the young+advanced templates).
You don't actually get ahead by optimizing. Either the GM cranks the game up to match or you have easy boring encounters.
Also agreed. Optimizing to breeze through the game doesn't work if the GM keeps upping the difficulty (which depends on what kind of game you want), but it still works well if you think optimization in itself is fun (which I personally do, to some extent).
Would a patron of an adventure really think giving a story reward in gold to a one armed man seems like a good idea?
You can get ahead by optimizing as long as you don't go for overkill. That is what makes most GM's adjust the game to your character.
The issue with talents/flaws though is that they are used for optimization as another way of min-maxing. If you think that's an issue, anyway.
Well it means that optimizing and characterisation with flaws and benefits can work in the same direction instead of against one-another.
I think for talents/flaws to work, they need to either give really noticeable drawbacks that matter for all characters (for example, near-sightedness: -2 on all perception checks and double range penalties) or have the benefit be so minor or non-stackable as to not really matter (you get a +1 bonus in the profession skill of choice)
Agreed. Most super-hero RPGs have this kind of system built in and fine-tuned, which is where you see it used most often. Optimizer players generally have a blast with these systems and role-playing the flaws they give themselves.
You don't actually get ahead by optimizing. Either the GM cranks the game up to match or you have easy boring encounters.
This is the reason I don't optimize that much. There's just no point - the DM just ups the ante, and your characters are no more survivable than before, you just succeeded in limiting yourself from more interesting characters is all.
Dabbler, I am so frustrated that I have nearly given up DMing. The reason? I have spent countless hours on carefully planned stories only to have them ruined by gamers that either A)don't appreciate them B) don't role-play, and/or C) quit them before they get finished. Last year I was running a Pathfinder take on Ravenloft. Great story, plenty of action and role-playing, and overall a fun adventure. I described everything in detail, creating a spooky setting, and the players simply did not get it. They didn't heed any warnings, they didn't really want to talk to the townsfolk, every story lead they found was laid out in plain sight for them to find or they wouldn't find them on their own. It just gets old after a while.
I WANT YOUR PLAYERS!!!
There's nothing I hate more than when the players sit around and apathetically wait for me to walk them to the next railroad station. I design open-ended adventures specifically to encourage the players to approach things in their own way. They don't want to save the village from the ghasts, and prefer to hunt bullywugs in the swamp? Fine, I've got that covered, and view it as a challenge to think of a way to integrate the bullywugs into the ongoing campaign.
My favorite DMing experience was when the party inadvertently killed the BBEG (without realizing it) at the very beginning of the adventure. I was forced to improvise the rest, based on the resources I'd outlined and based on the stats and motivations of the other NPCs. If I did it well, none of the players realized they had destroyed my storyline immediately. In retrospect, I'm pretty sure it turned out to be a lot more fun for everyone than it would have been if they had followed the script.
But that's got nothing in the world to do with the "roleplay vs. rollplay" debate that people seem determined to discuss ad nauseum.
You don't actually get ahead by optimizing. Either the GM cranks the game up to match or you have easy boring encounters.
...or your DM is like me, and he has a sandbox-like setting with some intentionally easy encounters, all the way to some that you simply can't beat, no matter what your level of optimization. And it's up to the party to investigate and use their heads in order to figure out which ones they feel they can tackle.
I think tihs is something entirely different like if the pcs want to follow a story or lead the story themselves which is a playstyle choice.
At one point we had two parties going, and we'd alternate adventures. Party A was well-optimized, and got more challenging adventures (i.e., ones with more serious consequences if they failed to tackle challenges or just gave up). Party B was made up of poorly-optimized "experimental" characters, and typically got adventures that were self-contained enough that there were no world-shaking consequences for failure or running away, and which generally had dumber or less well-organized bad guys.
Would a patron of an adventure really think giving a story reward in gold to a one armed man seems like a good idea?
I have trouble parsing your post. If you mean, would they hire a one-armed man, they were known to do so in real life.
Frankly, people in older times didn't have the squeamish attitude toward loss of limbs that we do now. If a one-armed person can be paid to command a fleet, or explore the Grand Canyon, then I don't see why a one-armed person can't be hired to explore a dungeon.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You don't actually get ahead by optimizing. Either the GM cranks the game up to match or you have easy boring encounters....or your DM is like me, and he has a sandbox-like setting with some intentionally easy encounters, all the way to some that you simply can't beat, no matter what your level of optimization. And it's up to the party to investigate and use their heads in order to figure out which ones they feel they can tackle.
I'd swear I had suggested that a few posts ago (of course we agree!), and was roundly ignored. >sigh<
|
|
It seems to me that kind of approach only works well in a certain style of game: One where the players and/or characters are mostly motivated by XP & treasure. If the game is more plot or character driven, it's harder to throw bypassable side adventures in. If they're on a quest, whether it's to save the world or hunt down their old rival, they're not likely to just go off to fight some random dragon that doesn't seem tied into their goals. If you do tie it into their goals somehow, then it becomes hard to bypass.
I would tend to agree with you. If the DM engages in escalation with the optimizers, it only hurts the campaign as a whole and the other players specifically.That's not to say that the optimizers shouldn't be challenged - it just shouldn't be the default encounter. There should be encounters made available to either discover through investigation or foreshadowing, and occasionally randomly, in which the optimizers can shine. As per the DMG, these should be roughly 20% of total encounters (5% for the super-optimizers). With the caveat that even optimization may not be enough to survive - that is the risk the players can accept with the expectation of reward (XP and treasure).
For example, it might become clear that a dragon inhabits the caves in the mountains above the current dungeon. The party might encounter the dragon randomly (at which point the worst option may be fighting), but the optimized party members may decide to actively investigate (with the understanding that the other party members may have other ideas, designs, or require assistance in the battle).
Everybody wins, and there is very little extra work required on the part of the DM.
If the players are motivated by story, then why do they care if the encounters are too easy? For that matter, why are they optimizing in the first place? Optimization suggests three motivations to me.
What you're suggesting just requires a different form of carrot. It's just as easy to have information available that could make the quest/plot/thingy easier to accomplish, except it's guarded by a red dragon. Want that information? You've got to deal with a dragon. Don't want that trade-off? Fine, the plot still advances but more slowly or through a different avenue. Risk/reward.
To me, optimization suggests one of three basic mentalities (obviously simplifying here):
The first is a worry on the players part that their PC will die and thus they or the party may lose resources (where "resources" could mean any number of perceived valuables, including intangibles). This first case is easily remedied by my suggestion of risk/reward.
The second is just basic power fantasy, the desire to show-up either the DM, the other players, or the game itself. For those players, it's best to just "let it ride" and feed the machine. The occasional challenge is even more rewarding if they kick its butt. But that doesn't mean there shouldn't be the threat of death, it's just not used as the yardstick for the party.
The third is the player who thinks of his character and encounters as a puzzle. This is the most difficult to deal with if there are non-optimizers, as it requires carefully balancing encounters with multiple parts, or involving the specific PC(s) in side-encounters (which is fine, as long as the group is okay with that).
Wow. I know when even TOZ has to chime in more than once, possibly twice, that people are getting wickedly passionate about whatever stance they take. As a GM; I have learned from...BITTERLY hard fought experience that creating a "perfect" game is impossible and that players are BOUND to optimize, even if its style over substance. I have also learned as a player that to NOT optimize is ultimately folly. I averaged a character on purpose; she missed a key save at the end of the world scene climax of the campaign and doomed all elves because of it.
But who cares what I think? Every GM thinks theirs is the perfect game - me included. Every player thinks, even at 1st level, they'll be so unstopable that the 20th level capstone is right around the corner.
In our minds, we're both right. In practice, EVERY time I've played for 30 years, the 2 mindsets coexist and therefore you have comprormise. It's inevitable. The sad fact that all adult gamers have to accept is that not everyone at the table thinks like you.
That's not to say you don't stop trying though.
In another thread I was saying how I always try to redeem main villains when I'm a player. Not a GM yet has taken me up on it but if my character is one who WOULD look for a chance to redeem an evil NPC or villain, they WILL; that's just how I roll. It's earned me some REALLY wierd looks even from my GM's.
On the other hand as human beings we always think in terms of what our advantages are and I've always played to my strengths. In golf, if I can't correct my slice, I just turn sideways and play into it; FAIRWAY, every time!
So why STOP doing what comes perfectly naturally to me as a human when PLAYING a human who in turn has taken up a ridiculously risky profession? When push comes to shove though, if I'm playing a paladin with the villain hanging off a cliff and begging for his life, I'm going to lower my sword and help the guy; but I'm going to do it with an optimized Sense Motive roll!
Haven't really dealt with a tactical/optimizer player gamer yet. I'm new to DMing, and actually playing in general, but have a pretty good arm-chair knowledge of the rulers. My players are all new to PnP RPGs in general, so rule monkeys/lawyers aren't a problem.
With that disclaimer, my two cents: talk to people about it. If there is a issue in the game with some people not being able to shine, talk about it. If you'd like to see more of something, talk about it. DMs and fellow players can't help if they don't know.
Our druid is played by the shyest girl I have ever met, I had no idea what she wanted out of the game. She missed a last minute session we had, and it gave me the chance to do a one-on-one session, where she had to deal with a dryad grove in the player's city. (Carnival of Tears, kids decide to sneak a cask of ale, players don't follow up on the hints, NPCs fails saves, and poof. 13 dryads in the capital city's park.) She seemed to be enjoying it more. I asked why and learned she liked puzzles, which the dryads provided. Now I know, and there will be more puzzles.
Seconding the idea that optimizing doesn't preclude role-playing. Our fighter, who isn't optimized, but is the closest we've got, role-players her stats all the time. She excels at combat and both player and character know it, and they make sure everyone else does too. In other things, no so much, and once again, player, character, and everyone else know it too.
Who knows, maybe I've just got cool players.
If that player doesn't mind if his one-armed veteran or clumsy wizard is unlikely to survive very long.Um... the GM is supposed to balance encounters to his players.The DM is supposed to do a lot of things. That doesn't mean they actually do them.
I agree completely with your idea of encounter difficulty, however. It has served me well in my previous campaigns.
Yes. The only reason any of this is ever a problem is when people in gaming groups are mismatched. If you're GM isn't on your wavelength or you're not on theirs (i.e. your playstyles are different) there's going to be issues, whether they're minor or major.
If your group all has the same opinion about the importance of optimisation, it doesn't matter what that opinion is, the game will work and be challenging and fun for all.
Would a patron of an adventure really think giving a story reward in gold to a one armed man seems like a good idea?
I'm not understanding what you mean here. Do you mean the DM giving extra awards for someone playing one-handed? No-one has advocated such a thing. Do you mean a baron employing a one-handed guy? Well, if he's got a reputation of getting the job done, why not? How employable you are should be determined by your reputation and your charisma, possibly also with alignment and personal relations depending on who is the employer.
Saying "no-one would employ a one-handed guy" is like denying the druid work because "seriously, who would employ someone dressed in leaves?".
What I kinda don't understand in these arguments is:
some people want to play oddball characters that are weak on purpose, but can't find groups/DMs that also want to play in weak campaigns
other people want to play characters that tackle the adventuring job like a career and will go any length to be "the best" at it
now each group complains that the other group doesn't play "their way" and thus are bad players...
is that really the agrument here?
tbh, it's up to the DM to announce what kind of game HE wants to run, because it's him who has to do all the work of putting the adventure together (as a newbie DM I have a fair idea how much work this can be, especially if you have a >40hour/week-job + family/friends)
now the players can build characters that somehow fit what the DM wants to run
if the players are not interested, the DM might be persuaded to run something else,
but maybe he doesn't and then somebody else should step up and propose a different game
also for newbie DMs (like me) it's really hard to adjust campaigns, just because somebody wants to play a weak character
the good thing with standard characters is that there is "less risk" of killing them by accident
with underpowered people, there is either a good chance to kill somebody by accident and then have to deal with hard feelings
or some people in the group will make up for the weak, making the weak guy feel useless
but a newbie DM is just that: NEW
he doesn't have the veteran's experience to give everybody some time to shine
some DMs who are veteran might not have the time to prepare extra stuff because somebody wants to be weaker, because this imbalance in a group requires more work from the DMs side
I'm really tempted to introduce a houserule in my games:
weapon/skill/spell focus can only be taken once, after all you either specialize in one thing or try to be a generalist, but I'd allow the player to retrain his focus into something else, much like spellcasters get to switch their spells (every ~4 levels?)
I'd also not allow old wise veterans with a reputation in games that start at first level. Part of the thrill to beginning at first level is to discover the world and having to actually build that reputation... that wanna-be veteran would ruin it with: "oh, I should know this-that"... that's social min-maxing!
Min-maxing is as much about combat as about social interactions:
Veterans would have relations/knowledge beyond what a 1st level character could possibly have.
Saying a veteran should have levels in an npc class to show this, would mean that you start at more then first level... that would not fly with me. Otherwise the next guy will ask for a monster race with level adjustment or some other stuff... so: all go or no go -> DM decision.
If people want to start a game as a bunch of older guys who take on the mantle of adventurers again to save the local village from whatever, that's fine because the DM is running a campaign that is specifically about this sort of thing.
This is why it's important to me that the DM limits player choices to what is appropriate to his campaign.
I know people want to feel different and want to feel special and want to try something new, but crippling your own character and then complain the rules/campaign don't allow this, is the wrong way to do it.
About the cripping thing:
what happens if suddenly something gives these people access to "regeneration" and thus the possibility to regrow that arm and fix the lame leg? I guess the player would be pissed because the DM just took his cool flavor away?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. I'm notable.
I believe the term is "infamous". It means more than famous...
The other problem is that it's easy for this to become an arms race. The players know they're on hard mode, so they optimize. The GM sees the players are optimized, so he cranks hard mode up another notch. They respond by optimizing farther, etc.
You don't actually get ahead by optimizing. Either the GM cranks the game up to match or you have easy boring encounters.
You can be just as challenged in game without optimized characters. I'd rather get my challenge that way, through pushing non-uber characters to their limits during the session, than by pushing the game design during character creation.
I have to disagree with this. I run at pretty much the same level regardless of optimization, and don't feel any need. Even when PCs are downright broken, I don't need to go outside of what is already legal in the core rules. Incidentally, I've seen some people who play really powerful builds that succumb to this mundane level of stuff really easily, while others who have only ensured competence do much better.
Anecdotal though, so make of it what you will.
What I kinda don't understand in these arguments is:
some people want to play oddball characters that are weak on purpose, but can't find groups/DMs that also want to play in weak campaigns
other people want to play characters that tackle the adventuring job like a career and will go any length to be "the best" at it
Now, this is just rude. Just because a character isn't _optimized to the full extent_ does not mean it's weak, and certainly it does NOT mean the CAMPAIGN is weak.
Also, I don't think anyone is arguing that their CHARACTERS treat adventuring seriously - it's that you might want to play a character that hasn't the best prerequisites to be the optimal adventurer.
Calling other people's campaigns "weak" because you don't agree with the core assumptions on difficulty and their play style is no less than rude. Stop it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, this is just rude. Just because a character isn't _optimized to the full extent_ does not mean it's weak, and certainly it does NOT mean the CAMPAIGN is weak.
I think your definition and mine what is "optimized" and what is "weak" differ... a lot.
for me:
optimized = somebody capable to do his job well (the one he annouced, when he joined the adventure, like "guard", "scout", "me-bash", "spell-savy") at a CR suggested in the books/rules.
if he fails >50% of the time at his claimed job vs a CR that's appropriate for the level (per the book guidelines), then he is _weak_
weak = somebody who tries to claim a "title/job" but fails at it more often then not vs a CR appropriate encounter, what would his fellow teammates call him if it weren't for their inGame friendship?
I don't care about encounters that are way beyond your typical CR because some people want bigger challenges. This is usually something happening in groups that have played together for years. If you are the new guy at such a table you try to fit in or find another you like better.
It's rude to tell people that your way is the "right way".
Imho all ways are acceptable as long as _everybody_ agrees on the way chosen. Coming to this forum and saying "ugh my party sucks because they min-max", that is rude. Not because these people complain, but because these people do it behind their friend's back!
Also, I don't think anyone is arguing that their CHARACTERS treat adventuring seriously - it's that you might want to play a character that hasn't the best prerequisites to be the optimal adventurer.
What disturbs me is _not_ the fact that they are weaker but that they ask for special treatment from the DM and/or party because they had made a willing choice to be non-optimal.
I don't mind the non-optimal, but I do mind the special treatment these people usually expect.Calling other people's campaigns "weak" because you don't agree with the core assumptions on difficulty and their play style is no less than rude. Stop it.
What's wrong with playing a campaign that is "weak"? If that's what people want? It's not an insult. It's a valid wish to play something like this, if that's fun for you. But remember that everybody at a table should have fun: the DM, the players with weird wished, the players with no clue, the veteran players, the [placeholder] players,... everybody.
The word "weak" in that context was a word to describe "struggling with equal CR encounters".
Just as I would use the word "strong" for "steamrolling impossible encounters".
If you have better words for this, without having to type a 3-line explanation, please tell me. I'm always glad to enhance my english vocabulary.
I'll try to put it in a different way:
some people want to play vs easy encounters
many people are happy with standard encounters (equal CR)
some people want their skills tested to the max
(maybe the word "other" was badly chosen... I should have said "some other")
now the "many" group seems trouble-free to me, hence why I didn't mention them
the two "some" groups are the ones I believe are arguing here?