|
I dont know if I'll see the build but I'll ask (generally the DM likes to role play people getting to know eachother and not knowing every posession the other character is carrying etc.)
And that's an awesome thing, but the DM himself is always supposed to have quick access to the sheet of any players around the table. If he isn't too much knowledgeable about the rules, there is no shame in allowing another player to submit the sheet to the boards to know whatever issue could arise from such build. It will spare him a lot of headaches and issues coming later from balance breaking.
Just because you know his possessions and stats will not change the way you roleplay your character ; especially when you seem to already know so much about him, his class and his style of play.Again : DON'T ALLOW ANY RULEBOOK YOU DON'T KNOW ABOUT.
Your DM seems to have common issues with core rules, he just has to say no to any character built with the ARG race builder. This race builder isn't even part of the "legal" ruleset, and is just a guideline for DMs to create characters, or for experimented players searching for novelty - but always within DM sight and DM fiat. Your DM must limit himself to core rules, and announce he will look over whatever else you bring to the table to look if it is balanced. Nothing is ever granted.
Now, you'll send a mail or call your DM, and start by telling him that yes, indeed, you'll do your gnome beastmorph alchemist. And that you'll come with an awesome roleplay concept to make him fit in the campaign without feeling too much out of place. A Dr Jekyll, great benefitor of the city, believed by people to be stricken with dwarfism when is is actually a fey changeling ? A gnome pow turned noble after saving the king's daughter from an illness, and renowned, given exceptional respect a as a great apothecary apprentice using animal bodies as source of remedies ?
Play what you want to play, and adapt it to insert yourself in the group and the campaign.
Then, if the half-orc character doesn't do any effort to include himself in the setting like you will, then he will naturally get excluded. You don't have to act out of character if he doesn't even try to fit with you. If he's acting crazy, he must expect people to treat him this way, and accept to suffer the consequences of his choice/lack of efforts in putting a minimum roleplay.
It's a teamwork game. Everyone (player and character) has to make effort and change a bit to accept the others, like in real life, but there are limits. If someone refuses to get along, he gets what he deserves.
Your DM is saying nobles wouldn't ever have a half-orc bodyguard ?
A good player would answer that said nobles haven't seen THEIR half-orc yet, otherwise they would harshly remember never to attempt anything against the noble you are defending. Because your half-orc is so badass even the most racists nobles would want one like you.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes Pharasma is anti-undead, what creates undead? what fuels this guy's temporary HP. in the DM's mind that priest would not like being around a half vampire, be distrustful, etc.
twisting the rules, I think it is rules legal, in the same way that making a beastmorph/dragon style totally optimized monk is legal. Its using the letter of the rules, rather than the spirit in which they were written. he is trying to get every ability he can to gain the maximum amout of healing and gaining temp hp from bite attacks etc, regardless of how unliely this would be (did the ork rape the 1/2 vampire or vamp rape the ork? and where did mr.miagui wander into the badlands to decide it would be a great idea to teach this roaring thing hungry ghost monk technique?) regardless of the amount of grief it will cause to the other players and the DM in the game. good enough? its not breaking rules its twisting and squeezing for every last drop of effect.
DM told us he did not want us to read the players guide to the campaign. said it still had spoilers he didnt want us to know about.
At this point I am going to post once more then remove myself from this thread.
Nothing in that character concept grants that player temporary hit points...he gets HP back from drinking the blood of already dead creatures, and there are some aspects of stealing ki that happens or hit points much later one. This is a clear misunderstanding that you are propogating here and in your group. Stop spreading misinformation for the sake of putting down a player you clearly dislike.
I don't see where he is squeezing any drops of power out of anything. This character is going to be on the weak side unless your GM allows him to roll stats.
What heritage feat are you talking about? It doesn't grant a bite attack. The player needs to choose whether he is a Dhampir or a Half-orc. You can NOT be both. There may be some misunderstanding there, but the GM, not you, needs to tell the player what he is reading is wrong and he needs to pick ONE race. As a matter of fact he really should just outlaw the ARG since he can't even get the basic core rules down.
Your GM is a fool. You read the player's guide because it gives you some back story into the area that you have apparently been living in your entire life leading up to this point! Jeez what a cluster eff of badness...it tells you in there what classes and races are suggested and tells you what are and are not good decisions and who the leaders are and what happened recently and all kinds of pertinent information that will help the player's make good characters that fit into the story. Its like everyone playing characters with amnesia without that player's guide. There aren't any spoilers in it and I advise you to download it, read it, then go to your GM and tell him everything he knows about Pathfinder is wrong and lay down a shun of seismic proportion until he can prove to you guys he deserves the mantel of GM.
/endrant
|
|
Alright imagine this:
Human Paladin
Level 1STR 18 (16+2)
DEX 14
CON 7
INT 13
WIS 7
CHA 16Seems weird dumping CON on a martial class doesn't it? Well the "plan" was to commit suicide and pay to be raised as an undead and expected to retain all paladin class abilities after doing so, giving him the effective stats of:
Undead Paladin
Level 1STR 22
DEX 16
CON 16 (CHA --> CON)
INT 13
WIS 7
CHA 16Changing his old hp to a d10-2 into a d8+3 once again expecting to keep all paladin abilities as CHA into saves, smite evil etc. If this isn't power gaming I don't know what to say, but honestly what do you do with a player who is constantly trying to make characters tip toeing around the rules to cut weakness without losing any of their strengths?
Give me a page number that says you can do this. Site the rule that makes this legal and not a houserule.
@baalbamoth - in the long run, the gaming group you describe, and especially the GM, will be better off without that player. It's clear he doesn't "get it", and perhaps after a few years of experience he might mature enough to listen to the GM and be more considerate of the group playstyle.
For many reasons it's good to have these discussions up front to see if there are any "red flags" that pop up when getting to know players. This isn't about judging anyone--it's about getting the right players at the table for the type of game the GM wishes to run. Players who have enough self-awareness to know they're a powergamer and have those preferences could be self-regulating and find another group to play in where they will be happier.
Wait wait...you are calling this guy a powergamer? HOW? Did you read his character concept? A Hungry Ghost Monk with a multiclass into a Sanguin Bloodline Sorcerer! That is the opposite of powergaming...as a matter of fact his character design sounds more like power roleplaying than powergaming.
At this point its not even about being a more powerful character its just the GM being a terrible GM. He may as well come out and say, "Here is the story I want to read you guys so I need you to make these characters to play."
+1. The concept is nice, but the character is not powergaming. He would be better off going straight sorcerer, a lot better off.
|
|
(does it really matter if I'm playing a Gnome alchemest or a noble ranger? no, what matters is that the game has a coherence between the party members and the setting.)
Nope, wrong. What matters is that you and your group are HAVING FUN. Why play a game otherwise ?
The challenge and the fun resides into giving coherence to your concept, not into playing what the DM wants you to play. It is way funnier to get a team of different people to play along than playing people who would by design not need a lot of argument before becoming best pals.If you want to play this gnome alchemist, do it, and prove your group that this character will be awesome and well-integrated thanks to a coherent roleplay.
Roleplaying games require a Social Contract. In most games it's unspoken. Most people don't even think about it, and then they wonder why they aren't having fun.
This has been dissected ad nauseum by some of the finest minds in the Role Playing Design community.
Start Here. If you're interested, just google role playing social contract and start reading articles.
The basic breakdown is something we all really understand if we think about it- Everyone needs to be on the same page about the game they are playing. If they aren't, it all breaks down. All this usually requires is a communication before the game starts. The main issue is that a lot of people don't know what questions to ask in order to facilitate narrative coherency (that's where reading those articles comes in handy).
If you have a GM or a player in your group who just cant get with the program, it might be that they just haven't been approached in a way they understand. If they want to do a monte haul dungeon smash, and the rest of you want to make like assassin's creed/mission impossible, then you are quite literally playing different games and it's no wonder no one is having any fun.
Just talk before hand. Generate characters together and try to find built in, from the get-go, ways of complimenting and supporting each other.
Bet that solves 90% of your problems.
|
|
I dont really agree with that Maxx, if you have a severely disruptive player its not fun, likelwise if the DM is interested in forcing the players to only follow his idea of a proper and ridgid playstlye it will also not be fun. everyone must be a little willing to compromise or everybody suffers.
And I already agreed with that. Using extreme exemples isn't proving anything I don't already know ; now tell me, are you the kind of player who would play a CE character just for the pleasure of party antagonism ?
Because you admitted to have been pushed from playing a gnome alchemist to get a ranger noble instead ; while the group's optimizer ends up with a character concept even less integrable if the player doesn't do a great effort of integration.That's not what I call fun, and I doubt you would have broken the social contract of "not being a jerk" if you were playing the character you originally wanted. It may even have shown everyone how fun an unusual character is to a party when well played.
So, why don't you tell the DM you want to play whatever you want, since it seems clear that you don't treat it like a one-way ticket to jerkness and breaking everyone's fun ?
... and even then, the whole evil-within-good-party can be dealt with by a good player.
|
|
baalbamoth, your arguments would weigh more if you wouldn't follow the practice of giving only extreme blown-out-of-any-proportions-the-sky-is-falling-and-rapture-is-coming examples.
A group of mature, intelligent people who want to sit down and play a role-playing game will find a way to have everyone happy 99% of time. If there are problems with that, it means that somebody is lacking in maturity and/or grey matter, and as such should be kindly asked to step aside.
baalbamoth, your arguments would weigh more if you wouldn't follow the practice of giving only extreme blown-out-of-any-proportions-the-sky-is-falling-and-rapture-is-coming examples.
A group of mature, intelligent people who want to sit down and play a role-playing game will find a way to have everyone happy 99% of time. If there are problems with that, it means that somebody is lacking in maturity and/or grey matter, and as such should be kindly asked to step aside.
*Points at Gorbacz and nods sagely*
Grod agree with bag with teeth.
|
|
Maxx- the character I origionally wanted to play did not fit with the game the DM wanted to run, same with the other optimizing player. I took the hint, he didnt. It does not matter all that much to me what type of character I play so I didnt fight so hard. Why does that make me a bad person, a jerk, and the other guy the poor abused victem?
The character I am playing is a noble, who weither he likes it or not has to confrom to a social norm within the setting for a person of his class and status. there are even in-game laws about this (the ways commoners must address noblity etc)
Its not "being a jerk" its called playing in character, or conforming to character concept, or in a larger sense, I'm playing a character that fits with the game concept that the DM and all the other players except one wants to participate in.
I'm not going out of my way to treat the other guy like a jerk, his character simply does not fit the setting, It wouldent be any differennt if the guy wanted to play a smelly homeless drunken kung-fu fighter... It might not be OP, it might be a great concept, but it just isnt something I and the rest of the other players and DM want to deal with in the game.
Doomed- hit that dead on, thats a pretty awesome link, reading through it right now, think I might print that out and hand it to this guy and the other players at our next session.
How would you know? You didn't read the PLAYER'S GUIDE!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The character I am playing is a noble, who weither he likes it or not has to confrom to a social norm within the setting for a person of his class and status. there are even in-game laws about this (the ways commoners must address noblity etc)
Its not "being a jerk" its called playing in character, or conforming to character concept, or in a larger sense, I'm playing a character that fits with the game concept that the DM and all the other players except one wants to participate in.
Okay, I'm going to try walking a very fine line, and I will probably fail.
Roleplaying your character accurately and being a jerk are not mutually exclusive. I have personally seen many people use the excuse of "but that's what my character would do" to justify their own jerkish behavior. There have also been numerous people on the boards who have shared similar stories.
There is a difference to being a jerk to the other character and the player. If your character is being a jerk, but the target character's player is in on the scene and is having fun, that is perfectly acceptable roleplaying. If your character is being a jerk and you are ruining the fun of the other player, you are just being a jerk.
If that guy is not conforming to the tables standards, using my character to punish his fun is just passive aggressive behavior.
Not saying this is what you did. I'm saying that I've seen it before. Hiding behind "but this is my character" is not an excuse for jerkish behavior. I made the character, I am making his decisions, I am responsible for his actions.
I'm not going out of my way to treat the other guy like a jerk, his character simply does not fit the setting, It wouldent be any differennt if the guy wanted to play a smelly homeless drunken kung-fu fighter... It might not be OP, it might be a great concept, but it just isnt something I and the rest of the other players and DM want to deal with in the game.
Emphasis mine.
There is a quick and simple way to force him to make a new character. You have to have the support of your fellow players, but it's very logical and easy to do. Simply don't adventure with him. It is completely "In Character" as well. Don't include his character in your "In Game" group. Always treat him according to the stereotype the setting would place on him. He is now at worst an annoying wanna-be following in the groups wake and never getting any treasure or at best gone from the game. It IS the role play solution to a character that doesn't fit. This is how our group gets rid of unwanted character types. We call it the "Player Veto" since it requires no GM approval.
Yup, that's a guy who is purposely playing against the group. The best thing to do is to sit down and talk to him. If he truly is being disruptive with his play, continues to do so after having it pointed out, then I would ask him to either leave the group or sit this campaign out.
|
|
Maxx- the character I origionally wanted to play did not fit with the game the DM wanted to run, same with the other optimizing player. I took the hint, he didnt. It does not matter all that much to me what type of character I play so I didnt fight so hard. Why does that make me a bad person, a jerk, and the other guy the poor abused victem?
The character I am playing is a noble, who weither he likes it or not has to confrom to a social norm within the setting for a person of his class and status. there are even in-game laws about this (the ways commoners must address noblity etc)
Its not "being a jerk" its called playing in character, or conforming to character concept, or in a larger sense, I'm playing a character that fits with the game concept that the DM and all the other players except one wants to participate in.
*facepalm*
Nope. I feel like I need to state something obvious, but that seems to have been lost during the argument : no one called you a jerk. Ever.
We said your DM was too lenient and still had things to learn to keep everyone's pleasure around the table. We said you were not playing your character, but the one the DM feels like you should (which is, if you don't get it, not really the intent of a roleplaying game with players choosing their background, class and looks to the smallest hair).
What you are describing is a DM putting a LOT of work in a setting and a campaign. So much work even, that to make it reeeeally perfect, you apparently have to play the character he said you should play ; instead of your original concept. You will NOT be a jerk by refusing these terms. You have the right as a player to play whatever you want, as long as this liberty doesn't mean you are breaking the fun of other people - and by other people, I mean the group as a whole, not the DM only. This is a game, not a real-life simulation of whatever scripted novel the DM is writting.
Let's determine what makes a player or a DM a jerk :
Example 1:
Grognak the Barbarian.
- The DM said "this is gonna be a roleplay-heavy campaign, with racist nobles everywhere who will just despise anyone without blue blood".
- Player 1 says "whatever, I'll play it hard mode". Player 1 then tries to play his half-orc barbarian as a ruff guy easily breaking bones when annoyed, searching fights and despising authority. Heavily mini-maxed character, taking great pleasure in PvP situations, breaking the game, going nowhere, and enjoying antagonism with the group itself.
=> Grognak's player is a jerk.
Example 2:
Gragnok the Barbarian.
- The DM said "this is gonna be a roleplay-heavy campaign, with racist nobles everywhere who will just despise anyone without blue blood".
- Player 2 says "whatever, I'll play it hard mode". Player 2 then tries to play his half-orc barbarian as a ruff guy easily breaking bones when annoyed, searching fights and despising authority. Heavily mini-maxed character.
Player 2 talks to the DM about how he could introduce his character in the setting, and comes with a great idea : "my barbarian will be the bastard son of a powerful noble family... but, according to the the Old Laws, the only true head left to assume the position of family leader. I'll have it hard, but my enemies will have it harder, and even the worst ones will have to keep face by showing me respect and honor, at least at a bare minimum in my presence - fueling underground enmities. Oh, and maybe I could have a half-sister leader of the family's army, for example deciding to perform a putsch to become the new family's head ? My rage class feature could represent my boiling blood, and I would keep a ruffian look with lighter armors just to prove that I have nothing to fear ; except for the life of the prostitute who helped me reclaim my position from the darkness. I'm sure the nobles would hate a whore potentially tainting their highness when they learn about it.".
=> Gragnok's player will be awesome to play with. Will there be blood ? Will there be anarchy ? Will there be roleplay, drama and interesting characters ? F**k yeah.
Example 3:
Gragnok the Barbarian.
- The DM said "this is gonna be a roleplay-heavy campaign, with racist nobles everywhere who will just despise anyone without blue blood".
- Player 3 says "whatever, I'll play it hard mode". Player 3 then tries to play his half-orc barbarian as a ruff guy easily breaking bones when annoyed, searching fights and despising authority. Heavily mini-maxed character.
Player 3 talks to the DM about how he could introduce his character in the setting, and comes with a great idea : "my barbarian will be the bastard son of a powerful noble family... but, according to the the Old Laws, the only true head left to assume the position of family leader. I'll have it hard, but my enemies will have it harder, and even the worst ones will have to keep face by showing me respect and honor, at least at a bare minimum in my presence - fueling underground enmities. Oh, and maybe I could have a half-sister leader of the family's army, for example deciding to perform a putsch to become the new family's head ? My rage class feature could represent my boiling blood, and I would keep a ruffian look with lighter armors just to prove that I have nothing to fear ; except for the life of the prostitute who helped me reclaim my position from the darkness. I'm sure the nobles would hate a whore potentially tainting their highness when they learn about it.".
- DM says : "Nope. Not gonna happen. My universe doesn't work this way, now you could play a noble instead because I have awesome ide..."
=> DM is a major grade slimy jerk.
Example 4:
Belle Pandragon, Rogue aristocrat.
- The DM said "this is gonna be a roleplay-heavy campaign, with racist nobles everywhere who will just despise anyone without blue blood".
- Player 4 says "ok, here is my racist, noble character". Player 4 then tries to play his dandy rogue as a manipulative b&%$~, taking great pleasure in PvP situations, breaking the game, going nowhere, and enjoying antagonism with the group itself, especially when nobility and racism is enjoyable as a determining quality.
=> Belle's player is a jerk.
Starting to see the point there ?
Starting to see the point there ?
Roleplay heavy adventures are too much trouble?
I think the simplest end to this argument would be the following statement:
Not all powergamers are "rollplayers".
The title of the thread should have been "Dealing with Rollplayers"
The OP makes the mistake of assuming all powergamers are rollplayers, which is false.
|
|
I think the simplest end to this argument would be the following statement:
Not all powergamers are "rollplayers".
The title of the thread should have been "Dealing with Rollplayers"
The OP makes the mistake of assuming all powergamers are rollplayers, which is false.
Can't we just derail this thread into a great discussion on chocolate and cheese again? I miss all the talk of delicious food...
Can't we just derail this thread into a great discussion on chocolate and cheese again? I miss all the talk of delicious food...
What about caek? Then we could have a discussion of how to overcome the pit-traps filled with gem-encrusted spikes that stand between you and the delicious chocolate cheesecaek (you must eat it).
and this statement. "You have the right as a player to play whatever you want"
since exactly when has this been true?
Always at some tables, never at others.
Yeah steve but it seems on these boards there is a real strong push to say that players should be able to play anything they want, and any DM or other player that has a problem with a build or character type (class race exploit etc) is impeeding on what makes the game fun for that player and therefore a jerk. Anyone who disagrees that a player should be able to play anything they want is misguided and controling and a crappy DM and a lot of other stuff I've heard.
Our Dm does not allow people to use "Multi-Shot" he says "its impossible to put three arrows in a bow and hit anyting with them" an arguement could be "well how likely is it that I could cause fire and electricty to shoot out of my hand when I punch somebody?" so really how far fetched is the tripple arrow thing? but it dosent matter, bows are bad assed enough, loosing that feat does not change that, and if its just something that annoys the hell out of the DM why is it so wrong that he chooses not to allow it in his game?
The point is that just as the "players have the right to do anything they want" crowd are wrong, so are the "DMs have the right to restrict players' choices" crowd.
There isnt a right way to play, what matters is that everyone at the table wants the same thing (more or less).
You cant win an argument over how the game 'should' be played in the same way that you can't win an argument over which sporting team one 'should' support.
Yeah steve but it seems on these boards there is a real strong push to say that players should be able to play anything they want, and any DM or other player that has a problem with a build or character type (class race exploit etc) is impeeding on what makes the game fun for that player and therefore a jerk. Anyone who disagrees that a player should be able to play anything they want is misguided and controling and a crappy DM and a lot of other stuff I've heard.
Our Dm does not allow people to use "Multi-Shot" he says "its impossible to put three arrows in a bow and hit anyting with them" an arguement could be "well how likely is it that I could cause fire and electricty to shoot out of my hand when I punch somebody?" so really how far fetched is the tripple arrow thing? but it dosent matter, bows are bad assed enough, loosing that feat does not change that, and if its just something that annoys the hell out of the DM why is it so wrong that he chooses not to allow it in his game?
Manyshot does not allow for 3 arrows. It only allows for 2, but with that said it is not a matter of right or wrong. It is a matter of his reasoning is not compelling. "Because I say so", which is basically what it is boiling down to with the above reason, never goes over well, even with kids. If he had said, "I as a GM can't deal with it", that would work better. I am not saying anyone would like it, but it is more credible.
As for a player being able to play what he wants, it really depends on the situation. Most of the time the game should be open, especially if the player can think of a reason as to why it can make sense. Now if the GM and the party are running a campaign where the elves are trying to fight goblins off so they don't take over, then asking to make a goblin should be a hard sell, if not an impossible one.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Roleplaying games are the only games I have ever encountered where skilled players are not praised but instead are alienated.
It does not matter who you are when you play a game you are going to do it to the best of your ability. I have never heard of a player in any game intentionally doing bad without some serious ulterior motives. It would be like playing a video game and choosing non optimal choices because you want the enemies to do better against you.
If you as a GM made a character would you intenionally make poor choices when building it?
Or would you use your superior knowledge of the rules and time proven combinations to make a competitive character?
Skilled players (Power gamers) like any normal person choose the second choice. The issue that comes in is they are much better at it (for whatever reason) then their peers in the group.
They are just playing the game and trying to have fun the same as everyone else.
In fact the only reason most Pathfinder supplements sell is because they have feats, archetypes, classes, races, spells, or equipment that people can use to optimize their characters and make them better. Because everyone is at some level trying to power game.
How would you feel if after making your character if the other players complained and forced you to make another one? How would you feel if after making a new one to appease them they once again complained until you made a third one? A fourth one? All the while they are playing their first characters not so descretly competeing with each other for who has the most kills or does the most damage. Until you make either what by your own personal standards would be an underpowered and unfun character (which emotionally would be like intentionally losing a game) or you leave the group.
All games are going to have people who are good at it and people who are less good at it. Changing the rules or refusing to play with someone because they are good at the game is just childish and petty. Especially in a cooperative game where everyone at the table (GM included) are working together to succeed and overcome the adventure.
|
|
max I think this "your arguments would weigh more if you wouldn't follow the practice of giving only extreme blown-out-of-any-proportions-the-sky-is-falling-and-rapture-is-coming examples." could just as easily be applied to your last posting.
That was not my quote you are putting there, and even then, it doesn't nullify the point I'm trying to explain, since you don't seem to get why and how a player could act like a jerk. No matter the character, any reasonable (more about it later) concept can be both awesome or gamebreaking.
and your making a lot of assumptions about example 4, I'm putting it into the character's back story that he despises the nobles of the city, but thats not going to change the fact that interacting with them is going to required in the AP and a vampork regardless of the far reaching screwy background just wouldent be accepted by the NPCs.
And why wouldn't it be accepted by the NPCs ? Is it the DM or the player who isn't putting much effort in a coherent explanation ?
Do your DM or the player even know that there is a character trait allowing a half-orc to look perfectly human, except for the imposing bulk ?the DM is just saying "no half orks, (beacause they wont be accepted and theres only three in the entire city) nothing out of the ARG, and please play a class/race that could interact with the admitedly racist nobility." thats it. the rest of the stuff your reading into it.
Nope, not reading into it. You are on the boards because another player will have a character seemingly out of the campaign's tone ; you are complaining that the player's behavior is disruptive ; you are asking "how to control a powergamer"... and right now I'm wondering if you aren't actually the DM itelf, which would explain a lot of things.
since exactly when has this been true? the DM is always within his power to say "no, I do not want you to play an undead elder dragon master summoner who weilds blackrazor." Its almost shocking to me to think that players feel they have the "right" to play any thing they want regardless of how it might effect the type game that the DM and the other players want to play.
Like, seriously ? Remembering something about "extreme blown-out-of-any-proportions-the-sky-is-falling-and-rapture-is-coming examples" ? Get back on the thread and find the "social contract" explanation. When I say you have the right to play whatever you want, this is obviously only within the official rules about creating a character, not "pick a monster, your stats and your equipment" ; and within the idea that you will not break the rules, that said class actually exists in the setting without lots of drawbacks (already played in a no-full spellcaster setting before), and will actually bring something interesting to the table. Playing a half-orc or a gnome alchemist in a racist nobles setting ? That is interesting and brings up lots of opportunities. Playing an undead elder dragon ? That is dumb.
flesh- anyone who plays a roleplaying game is a roleplayer.
Nope. Read the Gamemastery guide for common player profiles. Some are basically jerks, divas, out of the game's spirit or out of place.
But you know what ? I'll just refrain from posting here. Seems like everyone's argument is falling into deaf ears. If you are happy playing your future character, kudos for you.
Just don't complain and point to others when everything tears appart ; and please do a minimum research next time on what you are talking about before stating things about the system and the people playing it.
Baal, I didn't say roleplayer.
I said rollplayer.
A player who does not roleplay, who basically plays the game as a combat simulator, is called a ROLLplayer (as in, all he's doing is rolling the dice).
You don't actually have an issue with powergamers, you have an issue with rollplayers.
Not all powergamers are rollplayers.
Many of us are ROLEplayers.
Savvy?
Need that laid out any simpler?
Would flash cards help?
Interpretive dance?
Wayang shadow puppet play?
Aranna, yeah but then according to some here your being a jerk. Im sorta confused there, the DM tells this guy to go with a different build, the players tell this guy
after all this he dosent listen to them, saying something like "well I'm not going to create a character around what I think is in the AP, that wouldent be right, and this is the character I want to play."
in essence he's saying "yes, please put me in situations that will be greatly detrimental to my fun and some of yours, and please treat me like the jerk your characters would see me as because this is what I want to expirence."
so is it still wrong to do it?
Yes my solution IS to be a jerk toward those who are themselves being jerks. It sounds like this guy is unhappy with the groups play style and is trying to force it to change toward something he wants. I am not in your group so I don't know this for sure, but it sounds like he hates role play and instead wants a roll play style game. To solve this he munchkins out to the highest degree he can, hoping this forces others to at least power game to keep up. If this is true he won't stop till it hurts to continue. At that point he will have to either find a way to compromise with the group or quit playing. This IS a social group so the biggest faction is always right. When people gather together some amount of unfairness will occur. Enlightened groups will try compromise first, but when that fails all that's left is to be unfair to the guy who refuses to cooperate.
Roleplaying games are the only games I have ever encountered where skilled players are not praised but instead are alienated.
It does not matter who you are when you play a game you are going to do it to the best of your ability. I have never heard of a player in any game intentionally doing bad without some serious ulterior motives. It would be like playing a video game and choosing non optimal choices because you want the enemies to do better against you.
If you as a GM made a character would you intenionally make poor choices when building it?
Or would you use your superior knowledge of the rules and time proven combinations to make a competitive character?
Skilled players (Power gamers) like any normal person choose the second choice. The issue that comes in is they are much better at it (for whatever reason) then their peers in the group.
They are just playing the game and trying to have fun the same as everyone else.
In fact the only reason most Pathfinder supplements sell is because they have feats, archetypes, classes, races, spells, or equipment that people can use to optimize their characters and make them better. Because everyone is at some level trying to power game.
How would you feel if after making your character if the other players complained and forced you to make another one? How would you feel if after making a new one to appease them they once again complained until you made a third one? A fourth one? All the while they are playing their first characters not so descretly competeing with each other for who has the most kills or does the most damage. Until you make either what by your own personal standards would be an underpowered and unfun character (which emotionally would be like intentionally losing a game) or you leave the group.
All games are going to have people who are good at it and people who are less good at it. Changing the rules or refusing to play with someone because they are good at the game is just childish and petty. Especially in a cooperative game...
You are wrong.
It isn't about skilled vs unskilled... You don't seem to understand. This isn't Call of Duty, this is Pathfinder. Do people make sub-optimal choices for a better story or even better role play? YES they do. They also try to build effective combatants. Ignoring half of the gaming population is like sticking your head in the sand. Also you are wrong about sales as well YES crunch does sell books, but if the book doesn't have good fluff it also doesn't sell well. Does crunch sell better? Perhaps it does, but it's best to have BOTH if you want good sales. Role players DO exist even if you don't want to see them.
You point out that this is a cooperative game yet you defend people who wish to be uncooperative? Why?
Baal, I didn't say roleplayer.
I said rollplayer.
A player who does not roleplay, who basically plays the game as a combat simulator, is called a ROLLplayer (as in, all he's doing is rolling the dice).
You don't actually have an issue with powergamers, you have an issue with rollplayers.
Not all powergamers are rollplayers.
Many of us are ROLEplayers.
Savvy?
Need that laid out any simpler?
Would flash cards help?
Interpretive dance?
Wayang shadow puppet play?
I want the Wayang shadow puppet play.
Gilgimesh... I have an idea that might get through to you.
Imagine for a moment that this IS Call of Duty. Would you continue to play with someone who ignored the team and charged off on his own all the time? The best game is had when everyone is on the same page as far as play style and build strength. This makes it funner for everyone.
Gilgimesh... I have an idea that might get through to you.
Imagine for a moment that this IS Call of Duty. Would you continue to play with someone who ignored the team and charged off on his own all the time? The best game is had when everyone is on the same page as far as play style and build strength. This makes it funner for everyone.
Is the guy who's running off accomplishing goals for the team?
Is he contributing to the win?
It doesn't matter HOW he does it as long as he assists in the win.
|
|
It isn't about skilled vs unskilled... You don't seem to understand. This isn't Call of Duty, this is Pathfinder. Do people make sub-optimal choices for a better story or even better role play? YES they do.
The fallacy here is to even think "sub-optimal choices" make for better story or roleplay to begin with.
Better groups make for better story or roleplay. A guy unable to do his job properly is as boring as a guy without weaknesses in the wrong hands.|
|
Gilgimesh... I have an idea that might get through to you.
Imagine for a moment that this IS Call of Duty. Would you continue to play with someone who ignored the team and charged off on his own all the time? The best game is had when everyone is on the same page as far as play style and build strength. This makes it funner for everyone.
I can't refrain myself to think your argument may be better illustrated with a game -actually- requiring teamwork skills to progress.
It isn't about skilled vs unskilled... You don't seem to understand. This isn't Call of Duty, this is Pathfinder. Do people make sub-optimal choices for a better story or even better role play? YES they do.The fallacy here is to even think "sub-optimal choices" make for better story or roleplay to begin with.
Better groups make for better story or roleplay. A guy unable to do his job properly is as boring as a guy without weaknesses in the wrong hands.
It isn't a fallacy Maxximilius. If you are part of a group trying to emulate the rise of your heroes from everyday people to champions of good then you ARE going to start out with some sub-optimal choices and work toward a stronger build as you level. There are OTHER play styles that don't match your own, don't invalidate those other play styles. No one (other than straw men) have ever said it is only role playing if you only play a crippled character.
I can't refrain myself to think your argument may be better illustrated with a game -actually- requiring teamwork skills to progress.Gilgimesh... I have an idea that might get through to you.
Imagine for a moment that this IS Call of Duty. Would you continue to play with someone who ignored the team and charged off on his own all the time? The best game is had when everyone is on the same page as far as play style and build strength. This makes it funner for everyone.
Ok I don't play many shooters... is there a better example?
Gilgimesh... I have an idea that might get through to you.
Imagine for a moment that this IS Call of Duty. Would you continue to play with someone who ignored the team and charged off on his own all the time? The best game is had when everyone is on the same page as far as play style and build strength. This makes it funner for everyone.
Is the guy who's running off accomplishing goals for the team?
Is he contributing to the win?
It doesn't matter HOW he does it as long as he assists in the win.
Lets say he IS accomplishing goals... In fact he is so damn good that he is accomplishing ALL the goals without you or your team helping at all. Would you play with him? All you end up doing is logging in and watching the scenery he is THAT good. Are you going to have fun playing with him?
|
|
It isn't a fallacy Maxximilius. If you are part of a group trying to emulate the rise of your heroes from everyday people to champions of good then you ARE going to start out with some sub-optimal choices and work toward a stronger build as you level. There are OTHER play styles that don't match your own, don't invalidate those other play styles. No one (other than straw men) have ever said it is only role playing if you only play a crippled character.
Starting low doesn't mean being sub-optimal. Just because you start as a slave escapee won't mean these physical stats will not be conveniently awesome during all these fighter levels ; just because you are the sorcerer's apprentice doesn't mean this high Intelligence score won't benefit your future archimage.
I'm not the one invalidating other's play styles here. Having weaknesses is part of any interesting drama ; but it doesn't mean you are a "better" roleplayer just by existing.|
|
Gilgimesh... I have an idea that might get through to you.
Imagine for a moment that this IS Call of Duty. Would you continue to play with someone who ignored the team and charged off on his own all the time? The best game is had when everyone is on the same page as far as play style and build strength. This makes it funner for everyone.
See and here is where your argument falls apart. In YOUR playstyle that may be the case but who is to say every table is the same? I have played in many of games that there was one play/PC that was more self centered and it turned out that character was one of the main focus points moving the story forward on many occasions.
As far as your analogy goes...Call of Duty sucks, BUT in ME3 and BF3 since I can't rely on the masses, because they are all braindead kill obsessors, I do frequently run off to complete objectives all alone and sometimes it does cost the team a few tickets. Luckily I am a GOOD player and it works to benefit the team more than it does to hurt them.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah steve but it seems on these boards there is a real strong push to say that players should be able to play anything they want, and any DM or other player that has a problem with a build or character type (class race exploit etc) is impeeding on what makes the game fun for that player and therefore a jerk. Anyone who disagrees that a player should be able to play anything they want is misguided and controling and a crappy DM and a lot of other stuff I've heard.
Our Dm does not allow people to use "Multi-Shot" he says "its impossible to put three arrows in a bow and hit anyting with them" an arguement could be "well how likely is it that I could cause fire and electricty to shoot out of my hand when I punch somebody?" so really how far fetched is the tripple arrow thing? but it dosent matter, bows are bad assed enough, loosing that feat does not change that, and if its just something that annoys the hell out of the DM why is it so wrong that he chooses not to allow it in his game?
Ugh...I was with you on the first paragraph and then you had to go and ruin it with the second paragraph...
The GM should allow what he believes the Devs intended for the game to allow, unless they are doing a major houserule re-write (See Kirthfinder) and are trying make sure they deal with all the interactions and unintended consequences.
Nerfing should only occur when it is clear the player is trying to bend the rule beyond it's intended purpose to "win" the table.
Nerfing a feat or spell because you can't visualize it is fail.
|
|
Gilgimesh... I have an idea that might get through to you.
Imagine for a moment that this IS Call of Duty. Would you continue to play with someone who ignored the team and charged off on his own all the time? The best game is had when everyone is on the same page as far as play style and build strength. This makes it funner for everyone.
Is the guy who's running off accomplishing goals for the team?
Is he contributing to the win?
It doesn't matter HOW he does it as long as he assists in the win.
Well, and if he charges off to solo all the time he'll probably die.
Problem solved.
Leroy Jenkins!