| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cha needs to be roleplayed
Meh. I let players say and do whatever they want. Their speeches are not going to sink in, and when they are forced to roll their diplomacy, perform or other relevant skill, their effort will have been so much hot air.
Like Eddie Izzard says: 70% HOW you say it, 20% how you LOOK, 10% what you actually SAY. Someone with Cha7 and no ranks in relevant skills will likely come off as a complete <insert favored expletive/derogative> and make people react about as favorably as they would to a Nazi giving a speech about how pedophilia should be widely accepted.
The game itself "punishes" stats plenty without having to resort to "You are doing it wrong!" if the GM only calls for the relevant rolls. Eventually, the player will either learn that their character CANNOT pull off suave/inspiring/etc, and then either mitigate with ranks, or stop trying, and stick to what he is actually good at. Just like how the system punishes a wizard that comes down with a case of the crazies and thinks he can sword-fight.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So how about an orc fighter who fights with a composite longbow? High Strength and Dexterity, dumping Charisma and Wisdom.
He's very loud, and follows orders instinctively. He's fairly agreeable by orc standards (having had a while to get used to most societal rules), but his lack of personal confidence and an inside voice result in him getting very little respect. He is also the very definition of 'loose cannon'.
This is a minmaxed character. I dumped two abilities for him to be this way, and they're stats I won't need in combat. He also has a roleplaying identity, though. They are far from mutually exclusive.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Low cha makes it easier to convince you. Low wisdom means you are weak willed. This character sounds like a VERY obedient type if there is a leader in the group.
Low cha/wis does not have to mean loud at all. I'd say that bill fits the social shut-in as well. High cha is outgoing, low cha can thus mean introverted.
Interpretation of stats is up to the individual. From a psychological standpoint, you can more or less justify any given combo. While I said low cha can be introverted, does not mean a low cha cannot TRY to sound extroverted, because he has low self-esteem and desires to be accepted. But in a pinch, he will suck at it (mechanically). Or just have very stunted social antennae. Etc.
I challenge anyone to create a "mold" in which they deem certain stats and combinations thereof to fit, and I will be able to refute them. Placing limiters on RP due to low stats does not add to the game. In fact, it greatly subtracts from it.
So how about an orc fighter who fights with a composite longbow? High Strength and Dexterity, dumping Charisma and Wisdom.
He's very loud, and follows orders instinctively. He's fairly agreeable by orc standards (having had a while to get used to most societal rules), but his lack of personal confidence and an inside voice result in him getting very little respect. He is also the very definition of 'loose cannon'.
This is a minmaxed character. I dumped two abilities for him to be this way, and they're stats I won't need in combat. He also has a roleplaying identity, though. They are far from mutually exclusive.
Orcs make fantastic bowmen. In one game I ran, the northern orc tribes and desert/mountain inhabitans, became quite adept at the longspear and the bow.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
besides I sort of think APs (and game modules for that matter) are for lazy DMs... (I know that will cause a flame but its how I feel)
That is lazy thinking on your part. I am surprised that you could not think of one reason why a person might use AP's.
The GM's with a full time job, 4 kids, and so on don't have time to write. Some people are also good at running a story, but not good at writing.
Even though I use AP's I still spend 8-15 hours a week on them.<--not lazy.
I am so nitpicky when I write my own that it takes me about 3 months to get enough for even a few sessions.
8-15 hours is a lot better than the previous results.
I do tend to do full builds for every NPC also, which probably takes up too much of my time, while some GM's do partial builds, and fudge the rest if it comes up. While I think that is a lot more efficient than the way I do things, it just never feels right.
Orthos- this is what you said...
But he'll never be as good at fighting as the barb, and never be as good at talking as the bard, because guess what? They're made to do their jobs. The fighter's trying to do everything, and as a result is master of nothing.
so the fighter wasnt "made to do his job" and who exactly decided what his job was if not the system?
and your whole point was that the fighter was "less legitmate" because he couldent fufill his role...
you flipflop like that then call me the troll... interesting...
Flesh- nice that you go into attacking my group and my dm rather than really dealing with the flaw in your arguement I pointed out.
you claim to be a RPer and a MIN/MAXer... flesh... if min/maxers are RPers then why does almost every min/maxed build focus on combat effectiveness rather than a build to fit a concept? I dont think I've ever seen something like "BEST FORMER SLAVE NOW MOST CHARATBLE CLERIC BUILD!" which would highlight just how many slave/donation raising skills you can mash into one character... something to think about eh?
I have seen people max out the social skills, just saying. Intimidate can get you a lot of things when bluff and diplomacy don't come through. If used well, and in the right group you can get a lot without shedding any blood. If that fails use spell like charm person which are not designed to be combat spells. That proof is the +5 save the individual gets if he is threatened.
Even if the GM is a strict RAW person who hates interpretation, a profession skill still allows a player to roll for info related to their field,..
Really?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
besides I sort of think APs (and game modules for that matter) are for lazy DMs... (I know that will cause a flame but its how I feel)That is lazy thinking on your part. I am surprised that you could not think of one reason why a person might use AP's.
The GM's with a full time job, 4 kids, and so on don't have time to write. Some people are also good at running a story, but not good at writing.
Even though I use AP's I still spend 8-15 hours a week on them.<--not lazy.
I am so nitpicky when I write my own that it takes me about 3 months to get enough for even a few sessions.8-15 hours is a lot better than the previous results.
I do tend to do full builds for every NPC also, which probably takes up too much of my time, while some GM's do partial builds, and fudge the rest if it comes up. While I think that is a lot more efficient than the way I do things, it just never feels right.
Hey! I resemble that remark! (Sucking at writing.) I also rebuild APs for my own purposes and spend considerable time doing so. I rarely allow an encounter to run unmodified. Fact is, I am usually unable to come up with ideas on my own as Im never satisfied. Modifying someone else's ideas is significantly easier for me. That isn't to say I never have my own ideas. I just tend to insert them where I desire rather than run an entire campaign on them.
- Gauss
Edit: It is my guess (with absolutely no data to back it up) that there are a significant number of GMs that do exactly the same thing (modify APs or modules). Writing adventures is insanely hard work. I respect those with the ability and time to do so. I am not one of them.
I am to OCD about it. When I did do it, the result was not bad though. I often wondered what I would do if I won RPG Superstar and had to write a module. Meeting that deadline would be a challenge.
I am too critical about my work. I tear it apart too many times and then it is not ready. That is why it is easier to redo someone else's work. Less of an emotional investment.
- Gauss
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe my experiences are different yet it's not the powergamers who game me trouble in D&D. It's the hardcore roleplayer. For example I had a player who wanted to play a character that was cowardly. It went fine for a few levels except the player started running away from goblins and kobolds at 6th level. It was one thing if the character would at least do ranged attacks. He would barely do even that and expected to be given the full range of treasure from the rest of the party. Eventually he had to stop being so damn cowardly and actually act like a hero and adventurer.
Second the game assumes imo that your going to optimize your character and take the best feats, spells etc. If you take a monk the desingers assumed that your would build the best monk. Can you build a monk with levels of bard. Sure you can. Just don't expect to be effective a a player with an optmized monk. Maybe in Gurps Hero System or Savage Worlds not imo D&D as RAW. Once again have experienced my fair share of that too as a DM. Players makes a less optimized version of a character class then gets angry he can't do as much as the next guy who did optmize.
Third I don't mind building a non-optmized character class as long as the DM does not force the issue. I'm all for taking Profession as a skill yet if I'm not going to be able to benfit from taking that skill and have to take it because the DM has something against optimization then no I'm not going to take that skill. I either try to come to an accomadation or walk away from the group.
Trying to make the best character with the options tht will benefit the character the most has been around since the first rpg was created. It will never go away. Not unless you find a foolproof way to mindcontrol players.
I've had similar problems when playing with "pure RPers"
They create characters that are disruptive to the party, build their character's so poorly I have to drop Encounter Levels by 1 or 2, and then they have not even the smallest understanding of tactical strategy in a grid based combat system.
They whine when they don't get their way.
They whine when a stronger character bullies them into not being disruptive.
They whine when there's too much combat in a session.
They whine when their character isn't the centre of any non-combat encounter.
They make little suggestions about my campaign world that would ruin the flavour of my world but they really, really want to play some character ripped out of an Anime and I have nothing in my world that works for that.
You give me the choice between a group with a hardcore RPer and a guy who's a total munchkin, I'll take the munchkin.
At least I can deal with the munchkin.
And I say this as a moderate RPer.
Right over your head.
Woosh.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grod sits cross legged, sharpening his axe and staring into the fire, silent. His companion turns; "Grod, what's on your mind big guy?"
Grod slides his sharpening stone slowly across the edge of his axe. "Grod thinks of many things." Pressing his thumb against the edge of the blade, Grod splits the end of his thumb and blood begins to drip down the scarred axe blade.
"...Like?"
"If human gods say all things must be good, why does things feel the want to do bad?"
"Well... umm."
Grod stands. "If human gods say we all be at peace, why is Grod built like weapon?!" Grod snarls slightly and looks sharply to the sky. "IF GROD NOT SUPPOSED TO KILL, WHY DOES GROD WANT TO KILL!?"
"Calm down big guy."
Grod throws his axe at a tree, nearly splitting it in twain. "Human gods is stupid and does not understand "man" nature."
RPing low CHA and low INT ain't hard.
|
Controlling Powergamers in Pathfinder
Rule #1: Only one Archetype in your build. You can also only multiclass into at most two base classes (not counting prestige classes).
Stop oppressing my culture !
...
Seriously though, your rule(s) shows a clear misunderstanding of the system's balance. Not that's it's a bad thing, only this is something that should be resolved with the players, not through arbitrary rules that also lack the most important mention if you want the game to feel slightly balanced : no full spellcasters.
Any character with more than two base classes is less efficient than it could be ; any character with more than one archetype is less versatile than it could be.
no its not, and after a few extremely predictable encounters like this become completely boring, but it has nothing to do with a low int and cha and has everything to do with a lack of character concept.
whats grod's motivation? to kill? what does he seek outside of killing? meat. where do you go with that as a story arc? the quest to find the largest peice of meat? the quest to kill more than any have killed before and be honored as the greatest killer of all time?
Again its what happens with one dimentional characters and the reason I have players write me at least a paragraph of background including people and events in the characters life that have influenced them to positive motivations or negitive ones. based on those associations there should be skills and in this game feats devoted to the things outside of combat.
conan had a lot of that, the kind slave trader who released him, eastern masters who taught him the way of the sword... and, of course...
"Language and writing were also made available, the poetry of Kitai, the philosophy of Sung"
gee think of that, the mighty pit fighter barbarian with a KS philosophy KS poetry and obscure language skills..
You still so sure Conan used INT as a dump stat?
Not every person has motivation that goes beyond 'survive today'.
You know, there are such thing as nihilists and we're a lot more common than one might think.
I, in real life, do not have motivations that go much further than my next meal or finding something to cause my brain to release endorphins.
Obviously I'm going to play characters that are at least semi-similar to myself.
Most alignment tests peg me at Neutral Evil, so my characters are often Neutral Evil. They are hyper-exaggerated aspects of my own personality.
Again, you are defining your idea of a good character as the only definition of a good character.
Sometimes, one does not need much of a reason to do things. Sometimes "to defeat one's enemies, to see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women" is good enough motivation.
Maybe you need a more grandiose reason to roll out of bed in the morning, me and Grod don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Grod would also make an amazing straight man if paired up with a witty character.
PC: "Think of it Grod, if we kill these guys before sundown, we can make it back to the inn before all the whores are asleep."
Grod: "They are whores. Can we not simply pay them to wake up?"
PC: "Well... sure, I guess."
Grod: "Good. Then I may take my time and enjoy this."
Grod proceeds to generously slaughter everything that looks at him funny.
PC: "So... whores now?"
Grod: "I would prefer more killing... but whores will suffice."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"My style of RP is not your style of RP, and I will stop belittling you for playing different characters than I make."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What in Mork's name is a "dual masters counselor"?
Typing it into google just found some religious schools of questionable value as education centers.
And there's nothing to see through.
There is a movement in modern functional nihilism known as "the annihilation of all values."
I am currently undergoing this process, which has had quite the effect on my method of viewing life.
I discovered the pointlessness of most endevours and the idea of "dreams." and attempting to strip back the human "wants" to my base primal animal "wants".
Now I am in the "rebuilding of values" phase.
Interesting enough, do you realize we pay money to slather a viscous slime under our arms because at some point it become socially offensive to smell like a human?
Ever notice how females, and some males, slather coloured grease on their face because at some point it became socially unacceptable to look like yourself?
Nihilistic mediation is an interesting process.
|
Once again every single rpg imo allows roleplaying. Even Rifts in the hands of a good GM. The problem is that sometimes the rules imo don't lend themselves to just pure roleplaying. I am playing a Bard in a Kingmaker rpg. I'm playing him as spoiked rich kid who is afraid to go into comabt and only do so if need be. I'm still doing a job of roleplaying while also being effective in combat. I'm staying away from combat and using ranged attacks and my bardic abilites and spells to their fullest. I'm not a min-maxer yet I took feats and spells that would make me be feective both in and out of combat.
The problem with saying that roleplaying solves everything is that the rules don;t necessaeily support that. I could have played the Bard as a frontline fighter and built him that way yet his odds imo of surviving at least to mid-levles would be slim to none. As Bards as Raw are not meant to be frontline at least until high levels.
D&D is a roleplaying game and like other rpgs on the market are created with the assumption that your going to take a character class and do some optimizing. One does not have to optimize in D&D yet the system at least 3.5 And up really does not reard you mechancally for doing so. It's all fine say to take a Fighter with a few levels of Bard so long as you don't try to do the same as a regualr fighter especially one that is optmized. That's the problem. Players want to make different character concepts that encourage roleplaying yet the system penalizes you if you do. IF I played a fighter /Bard at least a lower levels would either wait for the pure fighter types to attack then attack. As I know that I will not survive as well as say a regular fighter.
The thing is too many roleplayers make create characters that are goof for social interactions poor in combat the nget angry when they can't be as effective. This is not the system to have your cake and eat it too. You want to be the skill monkey/malster of social interaction don't expect to be as effective. Same thing applies to someone who makes a combat monster they are usually not as good with skills or social interaction. If your playing a generic system such as Savage Worlds possibly not D&D.
I'm not saying don't make socila characters or skill monkeys. I encourage it in my games. Where I draw the line is someone attempting to everything with a character and you can't with the system as is. There is only so much leeway I'm willing to give a non-optimized character. Another example was a Cleric in a 3.5. who became tired of healing the group and decided not to take any healin spells. Two players died because of it and his charatcer a;most died too because he had no way to heal himself because he wanted to be a pure combat cleric. Great character concept he roleplayed it well except it did not save his character from almost getting killed.
oh your absolutely right, grod would make a wonderful NPC, just a terrible PC.
and yes, generally I do present my arguements as "this way is the only way" because I'm never wrong about anything but on those few occasions when I am convinced I am wrong, or have made some mistake, most often, I will admit it quickly.
;-)
This thread speaks otherwise.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually I disagree about Grod. He would make a good PC. It's all in the player and realizing that Grod is gnerally suited more for comabt than skill/social interactions. Does not mean an unplayable pc.
I think Grod would make more than a good PC, he'd be fantastic.
Let's assume rock bottom 5 Int and 5 Cha (we'll assume he's a pure blood orc), maybe an 8 in Wis.
Social interaction would be a blast, because he'd constantly be accidently sabotaging the high CHA character's attempts to talk their way through things.
PC bard uses diplomacy to try talking their way out of a fight on the road
Grod starts furiously tapping the bard on the shoulder
Bard: "Excuse me good sirs." Turns to Grod "WHAT!?"
Grod: "Grod must pee."
Bard: "Then go pee in the forest."
Grod: "Grod fears glorious combat will begin as he is off peeing."
Bard: "Well you have two options. Hold it until I'm done, or go pee and miss possible 'glorious combat'."
Grod: "Grod has third option."
Bard: "Oh?"
Grod turns and punches one of the opposing party, beginning combat.
Grod: "Grod shall pee on the corpses of his slain enemies!"
Fantasic comedy character.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Later that day,
Bard: Grod, why do you refer to yourself in the third person?"
Grod: Who is third person?
Bard: No, I mean, why do you call yourself Grod?
Grod: Grod is Grod's name.
Bard: Well, yes. But do you not use pronouns?
Grod: What is professional noun?
Bard: No, not profe... PRONOUN, one word.
Grod chews on the haft of his axe and looks confused.
Bard: Okay, you know how my name is Brad?
Grod: Yes, Brad is Grod's friend.
Bard: Okay, you notice how I use the word "I" when I refer to myself?
Grod: Yes, I is a name Grod hears many people have.
Bard: No. I isn't a name, I is a pronoun. It's a word we use when we refer to ourselves.
Grod: So... you has a special name for yourself?
Bard: No... well, yes, sort of.
Grod: Why?
Bard: So people can tell when I am talking about myself.
Grod: Weird. When Grod says Grod, people tend to know Grod means Grod.
Bard: You know what. Nevermind. Just keep doing what you're doing there big guy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fleshgrinder if you have a role player who is disruptive about role playing then you are dealing with a bad role player.
Ok I am going to address the side issue I missed... The rehash of Tactical Gamers vs Role Players. I posted in a thread like that months ago and it seems to be a recurring theme on the internet.
There is a stereotype that says Optimizers tend to be bad Role Players and Role Players tend to be bad Optimizers. Stereotypes do not form by chance. They form because there is a general trend toward that behavior that is witnessed by a lot of people. Enough people to start them talking about it and then a stereotype is born. Stormwind fallacy is true... but it is frequently misused to imply that the trend that formed the stereotype never existed in the first place. I have observed that there are two separate skills used when playing a RPG: Role Playing skill and Optimizing skill. Most people buy ranks in both skills. But only the truly devoted player maxes out both skills. Most players only focus on the skill that focuses best on their personal play style, leaving the other skill with just enough ranks to get by with. There are even players who devote most skill ranks to other areas of their lives and place only minimal ranks in both skills. All the stereotype is observing is the trend toward that middle group in a large segment of the gaming population. To simply quote Stormwind and ignore the issue seems to me like sticking your head in the sand. It is far better to recognize where each of your players is and reach a compromise that fosters fun games with all of your players involved.
Fleshgrinder if you have a role player who is disruptive about role playing then you are dealing with a bad role player.
Ok I am going to address the side issue I missed... The rehash of Tactical Gamers vs Role Players. I posted in a thread like that months ago and it seems to be a recurring theme on the internet.
There is a stereotype that says Optimizers tend to be bad Role Players and Role Players tend to be bad Optimizers. Stereotypes do not form by chance. They form because there is a general trend toward that behavior that is witnessed by a lot of people. Enough people to start them talking about it and then a stereotype is born. Stormwind fallacy is true... but it is frequently misused to imply that the trend that formed the stereotype never existed in the first place. I have observed that there are two separate skills used when playing a RPG: Role Playing skill and Optimizing skill. Most people buy ranks in both skills. But only the truly devoted player maxes out both skills. Most players only focus on the skill that focuses best on their personal play style, leaving the other skill with just enough ranks to get by with. There are even players who devote most skill ranks to other areas of their lives and place only minimal ranks in both skills. All the stereotype is observing is the trend toward that middle group in a large segment of the gaming population. To simply quote Stormwind and ignore the issue seems to me like sticking your head in the sand. It is far better to recognize where each of your players is and reach a compromise that fosters fun games with all of your players involved.
The point of that post was to show that lumping people's personalities and actions together based on a loosely defined label (in my post's case, the label RPer, in Baalbamoth's posts, the word Powergamer) is unfair and, frankly, insulting to those who self-label themselves.
When an RPer sees a quip about RPers, it bugs them. When a minmaxer/powergamer gets lumped in with munchkins, it bugs them.
The post was a sacastic attempt to emulate Baalbamoth's terrible habit of paiting with broad strokes.
I am an RPer. I've lead "pro-RP" coalitions on MMO RP servers. Believe me, I would never actually lump RPers into one description.
No person on earth fits the labels that are assigned to them other than "Human".
I am both an RPer and a powergamer/minmaxer/optimizer. I am equally both of these things, regardless of how many times Baalbamoth busts out the Stormwind Fallacy.
If you're frustrated with the way the game works Baalbamoth then by all means change it. Alter the reward system and/or include free professional skills to flesh out a character's background without tapping the combat efficiency.
The game is here to serve us as Game Masters and Players. We are not here to serve the game.
flesh- so there was this this punk band in LA in the 1990's called "the junkies" they really were just 6 heroin junkies with some musical instruments they could borrow, there were no songs I dont believe, just a lot of banging, blaring, and yelling...
but the lead singer did have quite a finale... he would pull down his pants, grab a sirenge, load it up with a truly incredible amount of heroin and.. well.. I guess you can guess what came next... but he would fall down and begin to OD... every time the band played... nobody would call an ambulence or anything, they'd just drag him to one side of the stage, let him shake and vomit, and just keep playing till somebody threw them out. ya never knew if he was gonna die or not...
oh and that guy... he was my roomate.... so I know a little about true nihilism, but I never really got into it for reasons I hope are easy to understand. (and I dont think your anything like that guy was)
oh and dual masters in therapy MFT/MST gotta have both to get the job that I had.
Your understanding of nihilism is about 100 years out of date.
Philosophical ideas evolve over time.
I also don't really believe your story, you have the typing mannerisms of someone with a tendency to invent anecdotes to give yourself "personal experience." on any possible subject that comes up.
Sure, people can have a large breadth of experience, but not that large.
Is there an ignore button on these forums? I don't think Baalbamoth's existence actually serves me any purpose or provides anything of worth to my furthered experience here.
magic items, make em or buy em their everywhere (heck you dont even really need a healer because wands of cure light seem to be sold on every corner.) wild new abilities making you much more effective dont require any training or any special in-game sacrifice.
Thank you GOD that the game allows you an alternative to forcing some poor guy to be the healbot. There is a reason nobody ever wanted to play as a cleric in 2e. It is a huge game FLAW to force someone into a boring, unrewarding role. I play clerics all the time, but I only cast cures in a pinch, when an enemy lands a big crit or some such. And tell people who expect me to healbot to go suck a bag of ducks.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My understand of nihilism comes from the Big Lebowski.
My understand of nihilism comes from the Big Lebowski.
The ironic part of that movie:
The Dude was the actual nihilist.
|
|
Maxx- yeah I dont think I wrote that, though, generally I look down on multiclassing unless there is an in-game reason for it. I love how a character will be a Kellid barbarian, out in the wilderness and then say
Player: "ok I went up a level so next level I'm gonna be a magus"
me: "wait what? where is the years of training it takes to become a magus? whos to even say you have a magical affinity? why would a Kellid, a culture that hates magic suddenly decide he should gain a level in a class he's never heard of?"
These players are of the rare kind. And let's be honest, they just come in the game with different expectations and probably less rules-fu than the DM himself. Yet again a communication and understanding issue.
If the player on the other hand is a rules-fu monk that is only searching to build the most powerful character ever in the clear intent to overshine the party, then the simple answer is to refuse him at the table. If he wants to get his vorpal thing on his axe and make his character more magic, maybe rebuilding him totally would help the player feel like his character is doing what he should do.One of the best roleplayers at our table was an inexperimented powergamer who built a half-ogre barbarian with 5 Int and 5 Wis. We insisted he took Charisma to reflect the character, and got no more than 20 as his base Str stat at level 1. To this day it's still one of the best, funniest characters we've seen ; and the player himself is roleplaying like hell... while he played his phone and sighed any second without fight with the previous DM.
Wishing to be powerful and efficient does not equal to bad character, bad fun or bad roleplay. It can even give more experience to a player.