| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Fantasy gaming is no excuse to throw realism out the window.
Ahahahaha!
Oh wait. You were serious.
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.
First of all, building a PC for non-combat (or non-optimally) is not "roleplaying". Roleplaying has nothing to do with character design, it has to do with how you play the PC during the session. Some of the worst "roleplayers" had PCs with non-optimal builds, but the players were extremely uninteresting during the session. And I've seen extremely optimized PC controlled by the best roleplayers.
Now it sounds like your campaigns are all about combat. Players are going to build PCs based on the campaign style, which is combat. So you're going to get combat monkey PCs.
You could try to convince the GM of using a different campaign style (communication is always important), however I doubt he'll change his style.
I suggest you keep looking for other gaming groups (and play in the combat groups in the meantime) but interview the GM better next time, and ask what proportion of the game is combat vs roleplay vs puzzles. Personally I like a good mix, all of the extremes are annoying, but some people do like them.
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 think you are being too black-and-white in your definitions.
I would say:
Optimised = every decision made for maximum mechanical gain.
Effective = able to handle his role adequately. In the dynamic of a party, the variety of monster you face, I would hesitate to say that a character is "weak" if they cannot solo a CR of their level - some classes are just not able to do that at low level. I can see what you are headed at, and I think my 'effective' is the same as your 'optimised'. A dex-build fighter can be effective, while he would never be considered optimised.
Weak = not able to handle their role reliably, and struggling to contribute anything useful to the party. That or made with glaring weaknesses that are easily exploitable, like fighters with minimal wisdom, or wizards with minimal con.
Gimped = deliberately made with so many disadvantages that they struggle to function at their allotted role if they can perform it at all. I am talking low intelligence wizards or blind fighters here.
Now that said, creating the character is only half the challenge. Some characters can start out weak, and if played with skill can grow into effective characters in time. A weak character can be played in such a way that they contribute effectively within the party dynamic. By the same token, an optimised character can be played in such a way to be a downright liability.
The kind of 'weak' characters that are being derided are those I would call 'gimped' - characters made in such a way that they are not and never can be effective at what they are meant to do.
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!
Absolutely agreed. What you should be saying is "It sucks for me in my party because they are min-maxers and I prefer to make weaker but more interesting characters." That's a perfectly reasonable thing to say, and it highlights the problem: their style of play does not suit you.
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.
I don't think anyone has advocated this. However I will point out that if the adventure is designed for non-optimal characters (as most Paizo adventures are) then running an optimized character is in effect demanding special treatment, because if the DM doesn't up the ante the adventure will get boring fast.
I think you are being too black-and-white in your definitions.
I would say:
Optimised = every decision made for maximum mechanical gain.
Effective = able to handle his role adequately. In the dynamic of a party, the variety of monster you face, I would hesitate to say that a character is "weak" if they cannot solo a CR of their level - some classes are just not able to do that at low level. I can see what you are headed at, and I think my 'effective' is the same as your 'optimised'. A dex-build fighter can be effective, while he would never be considered optimised.
Weak = not able to handle their role reliably, and struggling to contribute anything useful to the party. That or made with glaring weaknesses that are easily exploitable, like fighters with minimal wisdom, or wizards with minimal con.
Gimped = deliberately made with so many disadvantages that they struggle to function at their allotted role if they can perform it at all. I am talking low intelligence wizards or blind fighters here.
I just call them differently...
Optimised -> Min-MaxedEffective -> Optimized (aka can do their job well)
Weak -> same here for the not able to handle their role part, but the glaring weakness could be in the optimized department too, as long as it doesn't turn the character into a constant liability (how many min/maxed fighters dump charisma again? :D )
Gimped -> I didn't take this one into account, as that player is trying to be actively disrupting to the game and thus everyone else's fun.
Now that said, creating the character is only half the challenge. Some characters can start out weak, and if played with skill can grow into effective characters in time. A weak character can be played in such a way that they contribute effectively within the party dynamic. By the same token, an optimised character can be played in such a way to be a downright liability.
Growing into it is usually not a big problem because it's temporary. Same goes for optimized characters with inexperienced players. The new players I know are usually very happy, if I point some cool new trick out. Hell even I or old veterans are happy when they learn some cool new detail, they didn't know about.
Weak characters (my definition) have no way to contribute effectively. If they can contribute, then they can't be "weak". Weak means "constant liability", throughout most levels.The first 1-3 levels can't be really measured as a sorcerer with a greataxe could be great in melee (yes I've seen such a guy... stormborn half-orc, the player left at level 2 for personal reasons). Similarly a different concept could be slow to start and then grow powerful. I like taking key-levels like 5-10-15 as a measure...
I look up some monsters at those challenge ratings and look at attack boni, spell DC and similar stuff and compare with the character... what would be the chance when rolling d20's...
I don't think anyone has advocated this. However I will point out that if the adventure is designed for non-optimal characters (as most Paizo adventures are) then running an optimized character is in effect demanding special treatment, because if the DM doesn't up the ante the adventure will get boring fast.
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.
Somebody said something about npc-levels to make up for that veteran fighter with one arm or something like that...
If the DM decides to give a purposefully weak character something extra, that's special treament.If the player asks for something extra it's asking for special treament.
Lol terminology has really f*$#ed with this discussion :)
All those philosophy subjects I did are coming rushing back to me...
Lol terminology has really f*$#ed with this discussion :)
The tao that can be told
is not the eternal TaoThe name that can be named
is not the eternal Name.
Or more succinctly, "Yes."
Somebody said something about npc-levels to make up for that veteran fighter with one arm or something like that...
If the DM decides to give a purposefully weak character something extra, that's special treament.
If the player asks for something extra it's asking for special treament.
I think in that case they were suggesting that if they chose an age bracket that modified their stats, they were allowed to take a level in an NPC class rather than the bonus to mental Ability Scores. I could be wrong.
One thing to do to have fuller more interesting and ultimately more useful backgrounds. Is ask players who their character started out as, how they want to play the game, and where they see their character retiring from adventuring.
In the case of my runaway princess example we know the answer to the first question, she runs away from an arranged marriage to carve her own path in the world. The player's answer to the second one was that she wanted her character to be a wizard, to blast enemies from the rear while also supporting the party with secondary magical spells. The answer to the last question was she wanted to retire as a noble, but a noble title she earned in her own right not one granted with a ring and someone else controlling her life.
I will tell her to stat out a NPC class Aristocrat. This will be her as a child growing up. I believe the Aristocrat has 4 skills to select and I tell her to use them all to buy the skills she was trained in to become this princess. I let her save the Int and racial bonus skills if she has any left later in the process to help transform her into a wizard. She takes Diplomacy(etiquette), Knowledge (nobility), Profession (Princess), Perform (Dance), Riding, and handle animal. These all now become class skills for her (my house rule), and she then builds a level 1 wizard and assigns these skills as her starting skills. Since her final Int after human bonus ends up being 18 she has one skill left over to select from her wizard class skills, she selects Knowledge (Arcana). She selects a trait which reflects her growing up and then we chat about how this princess learned magic. After our discussion we decide she learned it from a condemned criminal kept in her families dungeons. A man she would bring sweet tea and treats to in exchange for long honest discussions about magic. I decide that her first spell book is stolen from the armory as she escapes her life of pampering to one of self reliance. In fact I make it the condemned criminal's own spell book.
As a GM now I have a wealth of NPCs to use as complications or assets in subplots involving our princess. I decide it makes life more interesting if the criminal escapes. So he does. And now there are a variety of people out looking for our runaway as she begins making her fortune in the world. Some might help her, some might hinder her. And it makes for the perfect subplot spice during the players adventures. I also know the player wants to remain a part of the nobility in the end. So I can use other nobles as complications as well. Perhaps one of her fellow PCs lets it slip that she is a princess while the team is working an angle for the local noble lord. Now that lord takes it into his head to fix her up with his own useless son. And later during a celebratory party for our victorious heroes he sets her up with his son. How will she handle the situation? Diplomatically? Angrily? Will she storm out? Will her real identity become known? These I leave up to the role play of the event between the players and the NPCs. I can the use the aftermath to set up new subplots for her later on. But I never feature the same players subplots two adventures in a row unless I can't help it due to circumstances.
This is the sort of interesting background I was talking about. Not gimped, Not Optimized (I like Dabblers categories). But someone fun to run for the player and the GM.
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.
The legal(CR by guidelines) and effective (How hard a fight really is. CR) can vary greatly.
I don't think Jeff was just speaking in terms of CR. He was saying make the fight more difficult. I have made monster in the book more difficult, just by swapping feats out. I tend to get rid of bull rush and the vital strike chain as an example if the players are optimized(well above average for the purpose of this post).
I would like concur that roleplaying and building effectively are not mutually exclusive. You can (and should) do both. There are enough Pathfinder (and 3.5) rule books out there that you can find ways to build your character to fit with your roleplaying.
And if you can't find exactly what you want, talk to your GM about house-ruling or re-skinning an existing rule.
A punching Bard could use finessable weapons reskinned as brass knuckles or hand wraps.
A "Dwarf" Sorcerer could be a different sub-race of dwarves that dont have a CHA penalty <insert plug for the Advanced Race Guide :)>
A drunkard who throws molotov cocktails could be an alchemist with house-ruled CHA instead of INT for bombs and potions.
You only really run into problems if your character concept starts the break the bounds of what is acceptable for the game atmosphere. If your character idea is a OCD detective that solves crimes with strong perception skills (Sherlock Holmes or Monk), or super-spy with crazy technology(James Bond), or a nearly-invincible flying guy who punches things (Superman), you either need to adapt the character to an appropriate Pathfinder concept, or play a different RPG.
|
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.
The legal(CR by guidelines) and effective (How hard a fight really is. CR) can vary greatly.
I don't think Jeff was just speaking in terms of CR. He was saying make the fight more difficult. I have made monster in the book more difficult, just by swapping feats out. I tend to get rid of bull rush and the vital strike chain as an example if the players are optimized(well above average for the purpose of this post).
Additionally, Ashiel runs a very permissive game with a very, very, very, liberal rule of what is legal.
|
I would like concur that roleplaying and building effectively are not mutually exclusive. You can (and should) do both. There are enough Pathfinder (and 3.5) rule books out there that you can find ways to build your character to fit with your roleplaying.
And if you can't find exactly what you want, talk to your GM about house-ruling or re-skinning an existing rule.
A punching Bard could use finessable weapons reskinned as brass knuckles or hand wraps.
A "Dwarf" Sorcerer could be a different sub-race of dwarves that dont have a CHA penalty <insert plug for the Advanced Race Guide :)>
A drunkard who throws molotov cocktails could be an alchemist with house-ruled CHA instead of INT for bombs and potions.
You only really run into problems if your character concept starts the break the bounds of what is acceptable for the game atmosphere. If your character idea is a OCD detective that solves crimes with strong perception skills (Sherlock Holmes or Monk), or super-spy with crazy technology(James Bond), or a nearly-invincible flying guy who punches things (Superman), you either need to adapt the character to an appropriate Pathfinder concept, or play a different RPG.
People understand that not everybody wants to look through 5+ splatbooks to make a character, right?
If a player was that bent on finding an alternative solution to their concept, I would just let them make it up to save everyone time.
(has not read anything blindly posting)
well i think that the tacticians would win in lower levels because their characters would be more optimized mostly but i think at later levels the role players would win because of all the accumulated role playing exp hence they would be higher level.
|
|
(has not read anything blindly posting)
well i think that the tacticians would win in lower levels because their characters would be more optimized mostly but i think at later levels the role players would win because of all the accumulated role playing exp hence they would be higher level.
Oh. I thought this thread was about who would win in a no-hold-barred cage match. ;)
Playing that out, the optimizers would probably train really hard with a professional trainer in a good gym, perfecting one specific style of aggressive combat.
The roleplayers would spend their time talking to the media about how good they feel, how their story is unique and that their going to win this for their fellow gamers and their sick loved one(s).
The bell rings. The roleplayer bows his head for a moment of prayer or reflection (depending on belief system). The optimizer would come out flying, solid blow after blow overwhelming the roleplayers paltry defenses and out-of-shape body. The roleplayer would muster a reserve of inner strength, rising from his knees, blood dripping. Just as the fight looks like it is going to turn around, the referee declares this is a Texas Chainsaw Tag-Team Match...against 42 genetically-engineered Trolls!
The ref rings his hands in glee as the slaughter begins, and starts prepping his next campaign...I mean, match.
(has not read anything blindly posting)
well i think that the tacticians would win in lower levels because their characters would be more optimized mostly but i think at later levels the role players would win because of all the accumulated role playing exp hence they would be higher level.
Oh. I thought this thread was about who would win in a no-hold-barred cage match. ;)
Playing that out, the optimizers would probably train really hard with a professional trainer in a good gym, perfecting one specific style of aggressive combat.
The roleplayers would spend their time talking to the media about how good they feel, how their story is unique and that their going to win this for their fellow gamers and their sick loved one(s).
The bell rings. The roleplayer bows his head for a moment of prayer or reflection (depending on belief system). The optimizer would come out flying, solid blow after blow overwhelming the roleplayers paltry defenses and out-of-shape body. The roleplayer would muster a reserve of inner strength, rising from his knees, blood dripping. Just as the fight looks like it is going to turn around, the referee declares this is a Texas Chainsaw Tag-Team Match...against 42 genetically-engineered Trolls!
The ref rings his hands in glee as the slaughter begins, and starts prepping his next campaign...I mean, match.
This is Vidmaster and i approve of this message
Mark, thank you, this is possibly the best post on this thread yet. You and I are a lot alike, and I will strive to take your advice to heart.
I played chess when I was 5. It's a tactical war game. Does that make it the bane of roleplayers too?
No. Because last time I checked, chess never claimed to be an RPG.
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...?
Yes. They thing you are not really addressing here Kyoni is that we are supposed to be the HEROES of the story. Destined for greatness and all that. So yes, I want my clumsy old wizard to have much better odds of survival as the town guard because he's NOT the hero of the story, play and simple. John McClain is no better than an average cop for the most part. But being the hero of the story means he gets to survive gunshots, exploding planes, and a harrier jet simply because if he dies, so does the story. There is nothing more dramatic in high fantasy as the hero beating all odds.
Nos, I would love to have you as a GM and a player. It sounds like our styles are cut from the same cloth, on both how we run a game and how we play one.
Ha would love to! :-)
Just to riff on the crippled veteran fighter for a moment:
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.
Since D&D's level system directly links experience to power and assumes stats will be balanced separately this doesn't work well.
Sure you can make your one-armed fighter and you can call him a veteran, but you don't get anything to compensate and the mechanics don't reflect him being more experienced.
Yes, but D&D characters are far more balanced than point based systems like Gurps, which is a power-gamer's wet dream. You and I can each make a jedi with the same points and VASTLY different power levels. At least the range of variance is less in D&D.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP, personally I like to RP a strong character and he is only strong if he is strong in relationship to the setting. The only way to get that is to have high numbers. If my numbers are higher than 95% of the game world than his personality is appropriate. If not, he's a joke.
As far as the town goes, I like to RP the adventure and the characters. I prefer the GM to take an interest in world building, but as long as the adventure is good and the RP with the NPCs and PCs is good, I don't mind using my own imagination to picture where the character hangs his hat.
A good GM will set the adventure obstacles to your strength. If you are playing a group of 12 year olds, then the obstacles will be something 12 year olds can overcome. If you are playing the Avengers, those obstacles should not be the same. But that is not what I have a problem with. It's the lack of role-players out there versus the overwhelming number of tactal board gamers. Regardless of whether your Strength score is 20 or 2.
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.
Optimized for me means that being mechanically optimal (as in, the best it can be) at its job is the primary goal.
With your definition, the one-handed fighter is optimized.
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_
Agreed, but it's hard to make such a character. I could make a fighter that _literally_ took all his general feats as Skill Focus and still not be weak until at least 10th level.
It's rude to tell people that your way is the "right way".
Yes. That's what my previous post was about. You seemed to do that.
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.
You'd have to make a reaaaally mechanically weak character to need special treatment to survive in a campaign going by the core assumptions on difficulty, at least until high levels. The issue is more if some characters are heavily optimized in such a campaign they'll steamroll through everything so no-one else gets a chance to participate.
I don't know if it's a language issue, but to me, "weak" is a pejorative term. If you mean "low-power campaign", I agree, but "weak campaign" means the campaign is (according to the free dictionary) a "weak, feeble, frail, fragile, infirm, decrepit, debilitated" campaign.
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.Optimized for me means that being mechanically optimal (as in, the best it can be) at its job is the primary goal.
With your definition, the one-handed fighter is optimized.
Well if you managed to compensate that missing hand, that's good... however:
- how do you climb ropes? (we get lots of pits and our heavy armor people are already struggling because of ACP at levels 1-3)- how do you cut your meat to eat?
- did you get a special shield you could fix to that forearm?
If I was in a wonky mood during creation I might require that player to do everything with one hand behind his back to realize just how difficult it is to live with just one hand. Did you read "A Song of Ice and Fire"? (Not sure if the TV series already showed that part I have in mind.)
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_Agreed, but it's hard to make such a character. I could make a fighter that _literally_ took all his general feats as Skill Focus and still not be weak until at least 10th level.
As I said... my key comparing levels are 5 and 10 and 15.
Also, if you take so many skill-focus feats I am wondering how much you min-max the hell out of everything else to make up for that.It's rude to tell people that your way is the "right way".Yes. That's what my previous post was about. You seemed to do that.
What I intended to do is show people who complain about min-maxers, that it's not acceptable to enforce their view of roleplaying at a gaming table.
I gave examples how it is ok to do a game specifically meant for unoptimized characters as long as everybody agrees.I severely dislike it when people come here and complain behind their group's back about how their group are bad roleplayers because those people in their group optimize.
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.You'd have to make a reaaaally mechanically weak character to need special treatment to survive in a campaign going by the core assumptions on difficulty, at least until high levels. The issue is more if some characters are heavily optimized in such a campaign they'll steamroll through everything so no-one else gets a chance to participate.
General advice on this forum to optimizers playing in groups with weak-ish characters is: give advice but be nice about it and play a supporting optimized character yourself. That min-maxed bard should not make everyone feel weak... he is boosting his entire group. That min-maxed guy could also focus on maneuvers and help the group by disabling enemies... how will that make the rest feel useless?
What's wrong with playing a campaign that is "weak"?I don't know if it's a language issue, but to me, "weak" is a pejorative term. If you mean "low-power campaign", I agree, but "weak campaign" means the campaign is (according to the free dictionary) a "weak, feeble, frail, fragile, infirm, decrepit, debilitated" campaign.
campaign with weak characters... it was you who brought up lame, frail and infirm characters? (bad memory here)
|
|
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
This. Sooo this.
This. Sooo this.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
So very true. I have seen many optimizers role-play well, as long as you regard perfectly playing every single character as a cold-blooded emotionless psychopathic kleptomaniac good role-playing.
I have also seen brilliantly role-played optimized characters that weren't, but for some reason so many more of the former than the latter. It's OK if that's the kind of game you want to play, I suppose, but it doesn't thrill me.
|
(has not read anything blindly posting)
well i think that the tacticians would win in lower levels because their characters would be more optimized mostly but i think at later levels the role players would win because of all the accumulated role playing exp hence they would be higher level.
Oh. I thought this thread was about who would win in a no-hold-barred cage match. ;)
Playing that out, the optimizers would probably train really hard with a professional trainer in a good gym, perfecting one specific style of aggressive combat.
The roleplayers would spend their time talking to the media about how good they feel, how their story is unique and that their going to win this for their fellow gamers and their sick loved one(s).
The bell rings. The roleplayer bows his head for a moment of prayer or reflection (depending on belief system). The optimizer would come out flying, solid blow after blow overwhelming the roleplayers paltry defenses and out-of-shape body. The roleplayer would muster a reserve of inner strength, rising from his knees, blood dripping. Just as the fight looks like it is going to turn around, the referee declares this is a Texas Chainsaw Tag-Team Match...against 42 genetically-engineered Trolls!
The ref rings his hands in glee as the slaughter begins, and starts prepping his next campaign...I mean, match.
Or the troll ugly and borderline retarded combat optimized guy finds that this fight is really a debate and the more rounded character laughs and beats him mercilessly. Optimisers tend to suck outside of their narrow specialty, "roleplayers" are often more balanced
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I intended to do is show people who complain about min-maxers, that it's not acceptable to enforce their view of roleplaying at a gaming table.
Except that what happens all too often is the min-maxers enforce their view of roleplaying at the gaming table. The GM has to reign them in or make the challenges more difficult. If they try to reign in the min-maxer there is no end to the bemoaning of 'nerfing' and/or enforcing their view of gaming. If the GM makes the challenges more difficult, the non-min-maxers have to start min-maxing just to stay relevant.
…play a supporting optimized character yourself.
Great advice. When it starts happening in the wild then there will be less of an issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that what happens all too often is the min-maxers enforce their view of roleplaying at the gaming table.
Quite the contrary. I tend to notice -- on these very boards even -- that those "non-min/maxers" try to enforce their very narrow views on others at the table or try to read more into the mechanics than are there in the first place. They're the folks that if someone brings a dwarf with a 6 Charisma to the table they have to say that the dwarf is an unclean and ugly as sin individual, when the player was using the -2 to represent his incredibly blunt and hardnosed manner that is off putting.
Or the player who plays a sorcerer with an 8 Intelligence, and the "true roleplayers" try to make out like he's mentally handicapped in the extreme, instead of the street urchin who never got to go to school or have an elder to teach him who later developed arcane powers as the player intended.
Such players are also - in my experiences - the quickest to get irrationally hostile with the slightest provocation. It's the reason I try to distance myself from such people, because that's just unstable and a failure as a human being. I'm not saying that all "true roleplayers" are like that, but there's definitely a stereotype floating around my area that there is. And stereotype vs stereotype, I'd rather take the guys who make really strong characters that may disrupt the game, rather than take guys who think making strong characters is wrong and get overly hostile out of game for anything that they perceive to not be the one true way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I intended to do is show people who complain about min-maxers, that it's not acceptable to enforce their view of roleplaying at a gaming table.Except that what happens all too often is the min-maxers enforce their view of roleplaying at the gaming table. The GM has to reign them in or make the challenges more difficult. If they try to reign in the min-maxer there is no end to the bemoaning of 'nerfing' and/or enforcing their view of gaming. If the GM makes the challenges more difficult, the non-min-maxers have to start min-maxing just to stay relevant.
This IS the situation in a nutshell.
|
|
What I intended to do is show people who complain about min-maxers, that it's not acceptable to enforce their view of roleplaying at a gaming table.Except that what happens all too often is the min-maxers enforce their view of roleplaying at the gaming table. The GM has to reign them in or make the challenges more difficult. If they try to reign in the min-maxer there is no end to the bemoaning of 'nerfing' and/or enforcing their view of gaming. If the GM makes the challenges more difficult, the non-min-maxers have to start min-maxing just to stay relevant.
…play a supporting optimized character yourself.Great advice. When it starts happening in the wild then there will be less of an issue.
It also tends to be an unfortunately slippery slope. As soon as the other players have been convinced to optimize, it won't be long before their optimized fighter is only "Tier IV" or some other mumbo-jumbo, and they are convinced to step up their game further.
I've kicked a player out of my group because they were constantly complaining about other players (roleplayed) character choices.
Except that what happens all too often is the min-maxers enforce their view of roleplaying at the gaming table.Quite the contrary. I tend to notice -- on these very boards even -- that those "non-min/maxers" try to enforce their very narrow views on others at the table or try to read more into the mechanics than are there in the first place. They're the folks that if someone brings a dwarf with a 6 Charisma to the table they have to say that the dwarf is an unclean and ugly as sin individual, when the player was using the -2 to represent his incredibly blunt and hardnosed manner that is off putting.
Or the player who plays a sorcerer with an 8 Intelligence, and the "true roleplayers" try to make out like he's mentally handicapped in the extreme, instead of the street urchin who never got to go to school or have an elder to teach him who later developed arcane powers as the player intended.
Are you honestly trying to restart last years unending argument?! The comparison is false. Role Player or Optimizer didn't matter, people from each type supported different sides in that argument. I label myself a role player, yet I was VERY outspoken that an 8 intelligence was NOT a retard. Same with charisma, as long as the penalty was explained by the player all was good. I had to constantly argue down people who wanted any penalty to be crippling.
Actually the players represented by both Ashiel and CourtFool exist here on these boards more than anywhere else.
I'm curious as to what players you think I represent. The only thing I've actually done in this thread is...
1. Criticized the talking down to people.
2. Criticized putting people into blanket stereotypes and trying to blame your problems on them or their other hobbies.
3. Criticized stereotyping in general and gave a counter-example of a stereotype that people might often fall into. If the counter-example offends people, then maybe they should stop trying to shove everyone else into a stereotype lest they have the same done to them.
We're not stupid kids piddling around in highschool clicks here people.
What I intended to do is show people who complain about min-maxers, that it's not acceptable to enforce their view of roleplaying at a gaming table.Except that what happens all too often is the min-maxers enforce their view of roleplaying at the gaming table. The GM has to reign them in or make the challenges more difficult. If they try to reign in the min-maxer there is no end to the bemoaning of 'nerfing' and/or enforcing their view of gaming. If the GM makes the challenges more difficult, the non-min-maxers have to start min-maxing just to stay relevant.
Two possibilities:
- one min-maxer with many casual players- many min-maxers with one casual player
if there is one min-maxer, then the other players should voice it to the dm and dm should speak to that player in private and explain the situation and how everybody is having less fun and find a solution that does not include houseruling, also the dm should never up the difficulty because of a single player
if there is one casual player he should ask for advice from his fellow players or if that game does not become him: suggest DMing the style of play he'd like and see if people like it or find people who's playstyle he likes better
in both cases the minority should not overrule the majority's whishes
in both cases houseruling is a bad idea as it will inevitably make one side feel cheated
if the minority can't live with the majority's vote, the minority should leave
in any case:
complaining behind the back of your friends is bad,
what you should do instead is ask for help/suggestions/possible solutions
I disagree with people who say
min-maxer = bad roleplayer
anti-optimizer = good roleplayer
good or bad roleplay has nothing to do with the way you build your character
What I might agree with, is lazy people who go to the forums copy&paste some build, come up with some quick&dirty (&bad) background story for it and then want to play in games.
Handling those people is difficult, but that is something the DM should do through talking.
in both cases the minority should not overrule the majority's whishes
Agreed. That is why I usually suggest talking to the GM/Player(s) regarding any problem someone has at the gaming table.
|
|
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.
I want an intelligent, well-spoken druid.
And I don't just mean a player ignoring the fact that he has 7's on his character sheet.
I disagree with people who say
min-maxer = bad roleplayer
anti-optimizer = good roleplayergood or bad roleplay has nothing to do with the way you build your character
YOU are the only one saying that Kyoni. You are either obsessed with straw men or you are reading WAY too much into other peoples arguments.
Most if not everyone on this thread agree that an optimizer CAN also role play well. It just frequently isn't the case or it looks contrived. It takes a lot of extra effort to do both well. Some gifted people however CAN and DO put that effort in. I think I speak for most people on here as well when I say that such gifted people are the minority.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I intended to do is show people who complain about min-maxers, that it's not acceptable to enforce their view of roleplaying at a gaming table.Except that what happens all too often is the min-maxers enforce their view of roleplaying at the gaming table. The GM has to reign them in or make the challenges more difficult. If they try to reign in the min-maxer there is no end to the bemoaning of 'nerfing' and/or enforcing their view of gaming. If the GM makes the challenges more difficult, the non-min-maxers have to start min-maxing just to stay relevant.Two possibilities:
- one min-maxer with many casual players
- many min-maxers with one casual player
Can you explain to me the relationship between min-maxing and 'casual' playing? I get the feeling that many people will think that you are implying that min-maxers are 'serious' or 'professional' players and everyone else isn't. I'm sure that isn't the impression you intended to foster, but that's what this jumped out and sang to me.
A lot of role-players take the game very seriously indeed, and put a great deal of time and effort into it. They are hardly 'casual' in their approach.
if there is one min-maxer, then the other players should voice it to the dm and dm should speak to that player in private and explain the situation and how everybody is having less fun and find a solution that does not include houseruling, also the dm should never up the difficulty because of a single player
To be honest, one min-maxer isn't usually a problem. Min-maxing means the characters will have weaknesses as well as strengths. As long as he doesn't go around treading on everyone else's toes, there's no issue. If he does, it's because the player is being a jerk, not the character.
if there is one casual player he should ask for advice from his fellow players or if that game does not become him: suggest DMing the style of play he'd like and see if people like it or find people who's playstyle he likes better
Again, one casual player won't be an issue because he will usually have a generalist in a party of specialists, which leads to being able to contribute in a wider range of situations.
The problem is when you have players on either side trying to tell the other 'how it is done'.
in both cases the minority should not overrule the majority's whishes
in both cases houseruling is a bad idea as it will inevitably make one side feel cheated
if the minority can't live with the majority's vote, the minority should leave
When I join a new group, I try and find out how they like to play, and what will fit best with their party mechanics. I am often the last to pick a character as a result, although I resist playing clerics :p
I think it's only common courtesy to adapt to the play-style of your GM and players.
I disagree with people who say
min-maxer = bad roleplayer
anti-optimizer = good roleplayer
I don't think anyone is holding that this is a universal truth. However there is a tendency for min-maxing and role-playing to clash sometimes.
good or bad roleplay has nothing to do with the way you build your character
Not strictly true: Only taking optimal choices can restrict role-play choices, and only taking role-play choices can clash with optimal choices.
What I might agree with, is lazy people who go to the forums copy&paste some build, come up with some quick&dirty (&bad) background story for it and then want to play in games.
I will be honest: I have done both. If a party needs a particular type of character, I will build first and then try and come up with backstory and character. If I have a free reign I will come up with backstory and character first, and build from there. Neither is bad, neither is wrong, and I aim for a 'middle ground' between optimal and role-played options.
Golden Rule, right there.As long as it doesn't become fascist!
All things have their backs to the female
and stand facing the male.When male and female combine,
all things achieve harmony.
--Tao Te Chin (Stephen Mitchell translation)
I think what this is saying is that moderation is necessary. Too much of anything creates disharmony.
So yes, fascism, 'bad'. :)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
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.
I want an intelligent, well-spoken druid.
And I don't just mean a player ignoring the fact that he has 7's on his character sheet.
Mrs. Bell did just that in CoCT, actually. She played an old woman, a Varisian urban druid with Knowledge domain. GM ruled she didn't get the modifiers for old age, but she dumped Str, kept Dex about 12, Con 10, and bought up Int and Cha. Any time we were fighting something she knew about it in advance, told everyone its strengths and weaknesses, and buffed the party appropriately. In combat she did very little because she had already won the fight before it even began.
I disagree with people who say
min-maxer = bad roleplayer
anti-optimizer = good roleplayer
good or bad roleplay has nothing to do with the way you build your character
YOU are the only one saying that Kyoni. You are either obsessed with straw men or you are reading WAY too much into other peoples arguments.
Most if not everyone on this thread agree that an optimizer CAN also role play well. It just frequently isn't the case or it looks contrived. It takes a lot of extra effort to do both well. Some gifted people however CAN and DO put that effort in. I think I speak for most people on here as well when I say that such gifted people are the minority.
What I've described is what I've seen in the various groups (total of 4 right now) I play with. Also I believe Ashiel is a good example for a successful roleplayer and optimizer, the descriptions read I about things happening in his/her group(s) seem to include as much rp as combat-tactics?
|
I think it's true that you can be both optimized and well-roleplayed. I guess it really comes down to a matter of preference. I'd rather play the game than play the system. I'm going to pick the weapon I think is the coolest for my character to have rather than sitting down with a spreadsheet to see which weapon will squeeze out a small fraction more DPR than the other. If the spreadsheet DPR calculation thing turns you on, go for it. Just don't expect that everyone else will be equally enthusiastic about a game of Bookkeeping & Accounting.
|
|
Okay, it doesn't matter how well min-maxed players are. That has nothing to do with the tactical mind/roleplaying mindsets.
IT is up to the GM to make those instances important. When a GM focuses on combat rewards and rewards that are given to the player due to their combat effectiveness and only tactical execution, then they are promoting that style of game play. Rewards should be offered from both sides of the game, tactical and ROLE Playing.
When I first started DMing, I played a munchkin hack n slash style game. Now that I have gained experience and have read more novels and learned how better to set the scene, I incorporate a lot of roleplaying. The group I game with is half the same people we started with 10 years ago, and we are all better role-players. However, most of it is because I incentivize role-playing encounters.
That's why I say, that the GM makes or breaks how much roleplaying is respected versus solely min-maxing a player.
There are numerous ways to reward roleplaying. This can be through more experience points to the players who roleplay, i.e. faster level progression than the munchkin gamer. This could also be through unique items with unique abilities, i.e. artifacts. Also, a player can't win every encounter through combat. My players use their knowledge checks and roleplaying to figure out if an enemy is more powerful than them. They use their diplomacy checks and profession checks. They use these skills because when we start a game there is a background and every unique skill/profession will shine at some point. As a GM it's up to me to create reinforce those roleplaying decisions the players made when they create their characters.
I like now when we talk about a new campaign instead of the players asking each other "who is going to heal?" We get "who is going to be the diplomat?" Why? Because throughout the different gaming sessions together, they know that when I GM roleplaying and other skills are as important or more important than if they can break the AC off the BBEG!
As a player, if you feel that your GM isn't doing a good enough job... You have multiple choices. You could GM yourself, or you could sit down and talk with the GM on how better to balance the game out towards those two areas.
If Experience Points are a measure of what is and is not encouraged in the game, what is the ratio of XP for killing things to role playing? Is it really 1 to 1?