Gnomersy did you read my response to that?
Or he could suggest "Alright you can play a goblin but you're the exiled prince of the goblin nation and you sought refuge with the elves after your father was usurped and executed by your treacherous uncle. Or, okay you can be a goblin but you were a spy for the elves in the goblin court until your identity was discovered and now that you could no longer act as a spy you've joined the elvish forces on the front lines."
These sound like fine role play opportunities, but they are moot. The OP is talking about a guy who isn't interested in any of those scenarios. To use your scenario: He just wants to play a goblin without any of that silly story getting in the way of his fun killing stuff. He wants to ignore the whole elf vs goblin war completely.
|
Gnomersy did you read my response to that?
Or he could suggest "Alright you can play a goblin but you're the exiled prince of the goblin nation and you sought refuge with the elves after your father was usurped and executed by your treacherous uncle. Or, okay you can be a goblin but you were a spy for the elves in the goblin court until your identity was discovered and now that you could no longer act as a spy you've joined the elvish forces on the front lines."These sound like fine role play opportunities, but they are moot. The OP is talking about a guy who isn't interested in any of those scenarios. To use your scenario: He just wants to play a goblin without any of that silly story getting in the way of his fun killing stuff. He wants to ignore the whole elf vs goblin war completely.
I will be honest with you...you can't take one word that Baal says as the truth...this guy has changed his story, manipulated the truth and lead the masses astray for like 20 pages toots. I wouldn't take anything he says to be how it really is...have you seen how he takes everything to the extreme as a viable argument time and time again? I have...been goofing around in this thread from page 1.
|
Leroy didn't die...he lives on in Infamous Immortality! The legend of Leroy Jenkins will be told for ages to come!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!
And he got chicken.
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.
Yes MY play style, is what works in MY group! But what you are all missing in my admittedly sub-optimal example, is that there is not ONE correct play style each table has it's own way and if someone is being a jerk about the way the table plays then it's fair to be a jerk right back.
I will be honest with you...you can't take one word that Baal says as the truth...this guy has changed his story, manipulated the truth and lead the masses astray for like 20 pages toots. I wouldn't take anything he says to be how it really is...have you seen how he takes everything to the extreme as a viable argument time and time again? I have...been goofing around in this thread from page 1.Gnomersy did you read my response to that?
Or he could suggest "Alright you can play a goblin but you're the exiled prince of the goblin nation and you sought refuge with the elves after your father was usurped and executed by your treacherous uncle. Or, okay you can be a goblin but you were a spy for the elves in the goblin court until your identity was discovered and now that you could no longer act as a spy you've joined the elvish forces on the front lines."These sound like fine role play opportunities, but they are moot. The OP is talking about a guy who isn't interested in any of those scenarios. To use your scenario: He just wants to play a goblin without any of that silly story getting in the way of his fun killing stuff. He wants to ignore the whole elf vs goblin war completely.
You may be right... I often take people at their word. If this makes me an easy mark for trolls then I guess I have to live with that.
|
|
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.
Yes MY play style, is what works in MY group! But what you are all missing in my admittedly sub-optimal example, is that there is not ONE correct play style each table has it's own way and if someone is being a jerk about the way the table plays then it's fair to be a jerk right back.
Again...I'm willing to bet this has nothing to do with the GM and Baal is just lying to cover up the fact that he doesn't like the other player. The only constant and verifiable piece of information that we can gather from this whole 20 odd page thread is that Baal doesn't like this other player and specifically designed his last character to kill the other guy's character. Its odd that they were just playing CoT but now all of a sudden are changing APs...what a waste of time not to finish one.
|
|
Ossian-thats a load of crap, you just get off by trying to sound superior and when it gets pointed out that your streching the truth to make your arguements sound better, you start backsliding and trying to be gracious. you blow things out of proportion just as much as anybody else on this thread and that last post proved it. Ultimately just a goof off goofing off.
I think that "sub-optimal" pretty much frames the mindset of people trying to justify a feat choice becoming more combat powerful over taking one that would put the character more within concept.
Right now I'm building a ranger and I'm seriously considering using a feat to get more traits, not because they will make me "uber" but because they fit with the character's backstory. To you that means I'm runing a crappy character, or a "sub-optimal" one and means that your a "better" player of this game than I am because I am not going for "Moar Power, Moar DPS!".
I see it the exact opposite way, you choose to go for "power" because you cant see that adherence to concept is more important and "better" than power at the table where the adults sit.
your like that kid who keeps pumping quarters into streetfighter thinking that if you get good enough, you will be a winner and everyone else will be losers. sorry but life and most RPGs dont really work like that.
See and we have been over this before. I don't tell anyone how to play the game...if that is the way you want to play then fine, BUT don't get all pissy with me when my character that is designed to do more damage than yours is wrecking combat.
I've warned you once before not to put words in my mouth, and others have told you to CITE your statements. I have never said or done any of those things you are claiming in this post.
Lucky for me citing you is easy...all I need to do is tell people to read the first 3-4 pages of this thread and we shall see who you really are.
|
Right now I'm building a ranger and I'm seriously considering using a feat to get more traits, not because they will make me "uber" but because they fit with the character's backstory. To you that means I'm runing a crappy character, or a "sub-optimal" one and means that your a "better" player of this game than I am because I am not going for "Moar Power, Moar DPS!".
Congratulations, you optimized your character for roleplay instead of rollplay. It's still optimization though. I'm sure the additional skills or background crunch will be handy when the situation arises and you can say "but I have X trait/X skill ranks AND it's a bonus trait I have, I can totally do this !".
Don't forget you can only take two traits from a single category - you can't have two religion traits or two magical traits, for example.
If a moderator comes near this thread, I suggest it gets closed as nothing gentleman-y will probably come out of it from now on.
|
|
maxx then why is it the consensus of most here that an optimized roleplay character is "worse" not "better" than a combat optimized character?
Maybe because you are twisting everyone's words ?
An optimized roleplay character will be fine in social situations and campaigns. Heck, if your roleplay is to be big and scary, combat optimization and putting points in Charisma is a form of roleplay optimization.What most people are having a consensus on is that voluntarily crippling yourself is not optimizing a character for anything except being useless. Being bad at anything isn't being good at roleplaying. Spending a feat to run faster with a slow, heavy hitter when you could get a trait instead to move a bit faster is a perfect example of crippling vs roleplaying.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
maxx then why is it the consensus of most here that an optimized roleplay character is "worse" not "better" than a combat optimized character?
Its not. Your reading comprehension fails you on this. We are just simply saying that taking things that are more "roleplaying" than "rollplaying" will simply not benefit you as frequently as taking something that is more combat oriented. Truth is when you play this game you will spend more time and make more rolls having to do with combat than almost anything else (short of like knowledges and perception, and even those are largely combat based). Your player can be as flavorful as Jambalaya, but if you aren't going to use those flavor choices but once or twice every few sessions then you probably should have chosen something that would come into play more frequently. Its like making the choice on whether you should buy a nice new frying pan so you can make pancakes and bacon and eggs and grilled cheese and other things, or you should buy a waffle maker. That pan will be more useful all around than the wafflemaker and therefore be a better use of your resources. There will be one time you want waffles and having that waffle maker will be awesome and delicious...but for the most part not the greatest investment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Then I do my best to support the superior player.
That's kind of how you play videogames competitively. There's always a handful of guys better than everyone else, the smart player who's not great supports those players.
Even a lot of fantasy literature usually has one or two party members who are extremely powerful and a handful of more support characters.
If those players who are not as skilled as the power gamer instead changed their play style to support him they would be involved in more of his victories and, hence, their victories.
When someone is on fire, you dish him the rock and let him drive.
|
|
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?
Then I do my best to support the superior player.
That's kind of how you play videogames competitively. There's always a handful of guys better than everyone else, the smart player who's not great supports those players.
Even a lot of fantasy literature usually has one or two party members who are extremely powerful and a handful of more support characters.
If those players who are not as skilled as the power gamer instead changed their play style to support him they would be involved in more of his victories and, hence, their victories.
When someone is on fire, you dish him the rock and let him drive.
Without Grod, son of Grod there would be no Brad the Bard!
Right now I'm building a ranger and I'm seriously considering using a feat to get more traits, not because they will make me "uber" but because they fit with the character's backstory. To you that means I'm runing a crappy character, or a "sub-optimal" one and means that your a "better" player of this game than I am because I am not going for "Moar Power, Moar DPS!".Edit- further you got everything wrong, were playing an additional game, we havent given up on runelords, its a different group playing on a different night with the same DM, this guy running the vampork isnt the same guy as the guy who ran the barb/lizard folk, and like I said I have no idea if the vampork is going to be OP or not, I havent seen it, I just know that the concept does not fit with what the DM wants to run. the way you just brutalized everyting going on shows you have no idea what your talking about when you criticize me.
Can you show how these traits that fit background will not improve you in anyway? Because if they improve anything you failed not to optimize.
You uber'd anyway.|
|
...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
First off I strongly disagree with your response Aranna. You are saying that the player in question is trying to be uncooperative when making or playing his character. yet it seems to me that the rest of the group is the one that excluded HIM. No one in any of the posts against the Half-Orc Vampire example does anyone ever reference accepting him and working with the player to make his concept fit the setting and the group. In fact it in all ways is being presented as "we do not like your concept so we do not want to play pathfinder with you.". Does that not seem petty and unjust to anyone other than me? It is like the group has an elite attitude that "we are real roleplayers" and they act as the "roleplaying police" and slander any concepts they do not agree with.
People in Power Gaming debates often like to fall back on the "Golden Rule" where the GM has final say on all rulings and game related matters. Which is an important rule as all social games need a judge to quickly settle rules disputes and get focus back on gameplay. However what people constantly seem to ignore is the unwritten "Platinum Rule"- This is a game and people play it with intention that they are going to have fun. These people are dedicating time out of their lives on a long term basis in order to enjoy a recreational delve into a world of fantasy with some friends. I guaruntee that when the player in question was making his character he settled on his concept because he perceived it as a lot of potential fun. Not because he wanted the other players (his friends) to hate him. Not because he attends a secret worldwide power gaming cult regularly where power gamers gather to plot how to ruin roleplaying for everyone. He did it for fun, the same as you, or me, or any other player does when we draw up a character of our own.
All the above being said I would like to make one final point. If you are playing your pathfinder games like a miniature war game where all game play is based around battlefield tactics and the roll of a dice, then yes optimized builds will have an advantage in the competitive atmosphere you are playing in. However if you are actually roleplaying, talking in character, developing relationships with side characters, and becoming an over-all living breathing part of the world then there is no issue whatsoever. Look at any heroes in any form of modern media today. Nearly all of them are exceptional individuals that meet hardships that their exceptional skills are poorly tailored to. A cheesy example I know but look at Batman in the movie The Dark Knight. In a straight up fight no one - not entire groups of villians nor the joker himself stand a chance against him. But is the strory boring? No because there are complex relationships that develop, loved ones that need protecting, and suspenseful scenario's where even Batman's impressive abilities may not be enough to come out on top. A roleplaying example would be my heavily optimized (powergaming abomination) Pirate captain Domino I had in a pirate game me and some friends were doing. A giant octopus grabbed another players character off our ship and pulled him under dark unlit water. All the other players just watched and did nothing to save him. My optimized character that had a 6 page back story and took me nearly 3 days to flesh out was the one who jumped in to save him. I had a non-masterwork dagger, no feats or abilities that worked with that dagger, and no water breathing or light source. I risked my character's (evil power gaming abomination's) life to save the player because I felt it was "what Domino would do for a crewmate". Was I power gaming? Yes. was I roleplaying? Yes. They are not mutually exclusive.
P.S. Aranna pick up any book from either the Advanced line or the Ultimate line (the best selling Pathfinder books by far). Flip the book over and look at the books own advertisement for the contents of the book. Look for any reference of anything outside of character options. Case and point.
P.S. Aranna pick up any book from either the Advanced line or the Ultimate line (the best selling Pathfinder books by far).
Don't take this the wrong way, but do you have a citation for this? I wouldn't have guessed these to be the best sellers.
maxx then why is it the consensus of most here that an optimized roleplay character is "worse" not "better" than a combat optimized character?
It isn't.
Don't take this the wrong way, but do you have a citation for this? I wouldn't have guessed these to be the best sellers.
P.S. Aranna pick up any book from either the Advanced line or the Ultimate line (the best selling Pathfinder books by far).
Top Sellers
Pathfinder Adventure Path #59: The Price of Infamy (Skull & Shackles 5 of 6) (PFRPG)
1. Pathfinder Adventure Path #59: The Price of Infamy (Skull & Shackles 5 of 6) (PFRPG)
Add Print Edition: $19.99
Add PDF: $13.992. Pathfinder Adventure Path #58: Island of Empty Eyes (Skull & Shackles 4 of 6) (PFRPG)
3. Pathfinder Player Companion: Blood of Angels (PFRPG)
4. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Race Guide (OGL)
5. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Player Character Folio
6. Pathfinder Adventure Path: Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition (PFRPG)
7. Pathfinder Campaign Setting: Magnimar, City of Monuments
8. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Core Rulebook (OGL)
9. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Advanced Player's Guide (OGL)
10. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Bestiary (OG[/b]The APG barely cracked the top 10.
The ARG is a new book, and every new hardcover has always done well right after it was released. In a few weeks I expect for it to drop off.
PS:My information is from the Paizo site. The besting selling items are always on the front page.
PS2:There is no advanced line. The ARG and the APG both have the words "advanced" but they are not party of any sequel or line of books.
What they do share is that they a part of the "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Ongoing Subscription" which included all the of the hardbacks, and a few other things at times.
The Blood of Angels book is number 2, but that goes back to my "new book" statement.
I always figured that was in the last month (or something). It's a pretty impressive showing by the APG, given how long it's been out - that's not so surprising, but I wouldn't have expected the ultimate books to be relative big sellers.
(I'm also surprised the player companions don't feature more prominently).
maxx then why is it the consensus of most here that an optimized roleplay character is "worse" not "better" than a combat optimized character?
Well, it depends on what's happening.
The character not optimized for combat IS worse in combat.
The one not optimized for social interact IS worse in social interaction.
If my character can do 3 times your damage in combat, then my character is a superior COMBAT character.
Now, if you have a "kick in the door" DM, then the combat character is generally superior.
If your DM is more into social stuff, the combat optimized character is less good.
But, of course, if I was playing with a DM who's not a big combat guy, I wouldn't optimize for combat. I'd play a rogue and deck him out for non-combat.
Gilgimesh, wow what an entitled attitude. The whole table GM included has to change to accommodate the one player who refuses to cooperate?! I am sorry the GM is the one doing the real work in keeping her players entertained, she earned the right to VETO concepts. And as for the rest of the players, I am going to side with the many over the one. It is upon the shoulders of the one trying to go his own way to justify it to the group. But this player doesn't even bother, he just acts all entitled and says he is playing what he wants, to hell with the story.
And you can see others have already shot down your marketing error.
OH, and don't try to straw man me. I never said you couldn't both power game and role play. This situation isn't about that.
maxx then why is it the consensus of most here that an optimized roleplay character is "worse" not "better" than a combat optimized character?Well, it depends on what's happening.
The character not optimized for combat IS worse in combat.
The one not optimized for social interact IS worse in social interaction.
If my character can do 3 times your damage in combat, then my character is a superior COMBAT character.
Now, if you have a "kick in the door" DM, then the combat character is generally superior.
If your DM is more into social stuff, the combat optimized character is less good.
But, of course, if I was playing with a DM who's not a big combat guy, I wouldn't optimize for combat. I'd play a rogue and deck him out for non-combat.
Honestly this is completely true. However, in my experience(not saying it's right or wrong here) the DM's who really like social stuff also tend to hand wave the mechanics of social interaction in favor of things flowing more easily in players roleplay.
So rather than having you spin out a sweet speech on why the goblins should lay down their swords and make peace. Then forcing you to roll a diplomacy check and if you fail somehow that speech turned into "Uhhhh so I know you're fugly and you smell but want to be friends?" the DM will instead let you belt out the speech and if it makes sense then of course the goblins accept that was an inspiring speech about the future of our two peoples blah blah blah.
This also tends to stop people from saying "I want to reason with the goblins, roll diplomacy I get a 50" ... "Fine."
The last example is a character optimized for social situations but as you can see it has no effect on the roleplaying the character is doing. And since in my experience roleplay>mechanics when the two clash I see no reason to invest a bunch of feats to do something which is primarily dependent on my personal abilities rather than that of the character.
However in...
Yes, I know this happens I try to involve both. Sometimes I have people who kick off an interaction give me an "impression" roll. (Basically a d20 plus your Charisma modifier) to give me an idea about how certain people would approach them base on their interaction.
I have people then define the things they do what not and utilize diplomacy.
Success or failure, it is always interesting.
(If people start minimizing what they are saying, then it leaves more open for my interpretation. This fact alone tends to lead people to describe what they are trying to do more, plus I ask a lot of questions. I also tend to reward boons to those people that interact with my world more.)
|
|
Gilgimesh, wow what an entitled attitude. The whole table GM included has to change to accommodate the one player who refuses to cooperate?! I am sorry the GM is the one doing the real work in keeping her players entertained, she earned the right to VETO concepts. And as for the rest of the players, I am going to side with the many over the one. It is upon the shoulders of the one trying to go his own way to justify it to the group. But this player doesn't even bother, he just acts all entitled and says he is playing what he wants, to hell with the story.
And you can see others have already shot down your marketing error.
OH, and don't try to straw man me. I never said you couldn't both power game and role play. This situation isn't about that.
Because my earlier comment got moderatored I want to remind you that this is entirely based upon Baal's explanation of the situation which has more holes than cheese cloth.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
maxx then why is it the consensus of most here that an optimized roleplay character is "worse" not "better" than a combat optimized character?It isn't.
How do you "optimize" for "role" play? If we're discussing social skills and craft/profession/etc and stuff, um, you still make a roll on a d20 to adjudicate "role" play situations (if you're using a skill/feat/spell or whatever).
Just a different kind of "roll" play, really. The character is just optimized for non-combat die rolls.
The whole table GM included has to change to accommodate the one player who refuses to cooperate?!Will it somehow lessen their fun?
Is one players fun less important then the other players fun?
Will it lessen the uncooperative one's fun to make a character according to the story?
Is ONE player's fun more important than everyone else's fun?The GM wants to tell a certain story. They made guidelines on building a character to fit (however informal they seem to be). The rest of the players want to enjoy this story. Why should they be denied this fun because one guy feels entitled to play a completely different game?
The whole table GM included has to change to accommodate the one player who refuses to cooperate?!Will it somehow lessen their fun?
Is one players fun less important then the other players fun?Will it lessen the uncooperative one's fun to make a character according to the story?
Is ONE player's fun more important than everyone else's fun?The GM wants to tell a certain story. They made guidelines on building a character to fit (however informal they seem to be). The rest of the players want to enjoy this story. Why should they be denied this fun because one guy feels entitled to play a completely different game?
I've been a GM almost exclusively for the entire time as a Pen and Paper gamer (which is like 17ish years).
First rule of the GM: the story you want to tell will never get told.
There is ALWAYS the chaotic player. A good GM has to learn to "order the chaos".
The problem with the group you're describing is more the GM than the player. It sounds like the GM was planning on a rail road campaign.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The GM wants to tell a certain story. They made guidelines on building a character to fit (however informal they seem to be). The rest of the players want to enjoy this story. Why should they be denied this fun because one guy feels entitled to play a completely different game?
Believing that the players are in the GM's story is another fallacy.
Without the PCs's presence and choices, the world is just made of NPCs. And if I want to see fascinating NPCs interact awesomely with each other in a well-defined and rigid setting I can't shape myself, I don't sit at a table with several friends. I read a book.
The game is actually the story of the players's characters within a specific setting, with a GM being arbiter of what happens according to a certain sense of drama and aventure and depending on the characters's choices.
The GM explains the setting ; the players then try to shape the setting with their imagination and their actions, from character creation to ultimate death.
Everyone is probably going to ignore me because we're over 20 pages into a thread and I'm just now commenting, but thought I'd throw my two cents in.
1. Power gaming doesn't make you a skilled player. The goal of Pathfinder isn't to break the game by designing a character that isn't challenged, or is challenged the least. At least that's not the goal for the vast majority of the players. Most players want a game where they are constantly challenged, and they get to vicariously live these fantastic adventures through their characters. You can be a skilled power gamer, but that has nothing to do with how good of a player you are. The best players can differentiate character knowledge from player knowledge, and sometimes they make choices that are detrimental to their character because role-playing demands it.
2. All the Ultimate lines and Advanced lines and the Player Companions are great. They really are. I own most of them. But if you're DMing and you're having an issue with a power gamer, then just house rule that you can only pull from one supplement outside of the Core Rulebook and the APG. I've seen a lot of the power builds rely on four different player's guide releases, or use two separate archetypes from both Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic. There are lots of reasons to do this:
As a DM, you don't want to clutter your table with lots of rulebooks. You want to keep a handle on the characters, and pulling from so many sources will complicate things on your end. You don't want players from using feats, spells, and archetypes from supplements you don't own. Or maybe you just want a simple game. Maybe they need to roleplay their choices, and taking choices from Pirates of the Inner Sea doesn't make sense when the game takes place in the Hold of Belkzen.
3. Use a lower point buy at character creation. A lot of choices are dependent on having these massive ability scores across a wide spectrum. Worked with one of the power gamers in my game. We were using dice roll methods and high point buy at character creation. We switched to just a 15 point buy. Problem solved.
4. Give less loot. A lot of these builds require certain item combinations. The GMG has guidelines for settlement gold piece values. If the gear they need never drops, and it's not for sale in the settlements they visit, build becomes a lot less broken. If you do this in conjunction with controlling the pace of the game, you can prevent them from crafting it themselves, too. Don't punish a character for taking a crafting feat, but don't let them abuse the system, either.
5. If you're playing scripted Adventure Paths, throw random encounters at them at odd times that capitalize on their characters' weaknesses. Most power gamers focus on maximizing their effectiveness in one area, leaving gaping holes in the rest of their character. Use those holes. If the builds are dependent on specific weapons, have enemies target those weapons with sunder attacks. If it's archery based, have enemies attack the party with defences against ranged attacks, or under cover of fogs, so they can close the distance. If it's magic, SR, or have them attack before spells are prepared. Remember, the BBEG is likely gathering intel on the PCs, and if all monsters are trounced in the same manner every fight, he'll start adjusting his tactics.
6. Use power builds against your PCs. If the PCs can do it, so can your NPCs. If it was always such a viable option, and clearly superior to other options, then your NPCs will train that way too. Give the party a taste of their own medicine. We'll see how they like their optimized archer when an elite hit squad of optimized archers attack from ambush.
7. Stop playing with the power gamer. Tell them that their playstyle isn't what you're looking for. If this is an issue because you can't find new players, or the power gamer is a friend or relative you can't just throw away, ask them to take their turn DMing. Then, power game the crap out of something. Find the most broken build on the messageboards and roll with it. Show them how frustrating it is to run a game with someone power gaming throughout. Hopefully it'll open their eyes up a bit.
8. Or, pre-roll the characters for your party. Not a lot of groups like things like this, but we messed around for a while running just the pregenerated iconics that accompany the adventure paths, and it was actually a lot of fun. Radical stuff, I know, but it takes the focus of the game from character statistics and numbers to actual roleplaying.
First rule of the GM: the story you want to tell will never get told.
There is ALWAYS the chaotic player. A good GM has to learn to "order the chaos".
The problem with the group you're describing is more the GM than the player. It sounds like the GM was planning on a rail road campaign.
First reply: When you have a good GM the story is often not only told but truly an entertaining experience.
There is NOT always a chaotic player. And even when there is one, the best way to control the situation is to limit the game and explain why so nobody makes the mistake that it's arbitrary. The idea is to get them involved in the game story as heavily as possible, as an involved player is never bored. That is EXACTLY how you "Order the Chaos".
I fail to see how limiting starting concepts is in any way railroading as railroading is a play problem not a creation issue. Just tossing out unwarranted names just makes you look like you don't know what the word means.
Railroading is where you are given no choices as to what to do in game. Like the GM placing a fight in front of the PCs. And if they run away he moves the fight to where they ran to. If they try to avoid it with diplomacy or stealth they automatically fail. That is an example of a railroaded encounter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Believing that the players are in the GM's story is another fallacy.
Without the PCs's presence and choices, the world is just made of NPCs. And if I want to see fascinating NPCs interact awesomely with each other in a well-defined and rigid setting I can't shape myself, I don't sit at a table with several friends. I read a book.
The game is actually the story of the players's characters within a specific setting, with a GM being arbiter of what happens according to a certain sense of drama and aventure and depending on the characters's choices.
The GM explains the setting; the players then try to shape the setting with their imagination and their actions, from character creation to ultimate death.
I agree with you, but I think it might be better to refine that a little more. The GM and the Players are telling a story cooperatively. The GM provides the setting, the impetus behind the plot, and the rest of the cast in the story. The players move the plot forward and provide the main characters. This doesn't mean that the players are moving the GM's plot forward, they are moving the story's plot as they define it. It's up to the GM to determine the consequences of the PC's actions, whether martial, social, or even metaphysical (building characters). It is true that the GM has the right to refuse a character concept, but it is a right that should only be used when the concept is likely to affect the enjoyment of the game by everyone. There are instances when it is because the person is a munchkin, like some of the more outrageous examples here in this thread, and there are instances where the setting would cause a TPK, like having a goblin, or several goblin characters enter a dwarven hold. Denying the GM that right hampers their ability to do their job, ensure that everyone at the table is having fun. The most important question a GM can ask a table is, "Did everyone have fun?" If someone is not enjoying themselves, then the GM has failed in their main job. Everything else is second to that.
Will it lessen the uncooperative one's fun to make a character according to the story?It lessens my fun when I have a concept that I'm very keen on playing, but I can't, because the DM is too lazy or stupid to work with me to incorporate it.
Is ONE player's fun more important than everyone else's fun?Where did I say that?
Now please, answer my questions.
The GM wants to tell a certain story.Then what why is he playing a game with people instead of writing a novel or something?
Why should they be denied this fun because one guy feels entitled to play a completely different game?Again, how does my fun deny fun for others? They're not really good friends if me having fun somehow lessens their fun...
Well the person in the example wasn't willing to work with the GM or players even when offered. And calling your GM stupid after being unwilling to work with her is classic disruptive behavior. You would be booted from the session and your place at the table placed on probation or given to someone else depending on your apology or lack thereof.
I am placing words in nobodies mouth. I asked counter questions which you are obviously unwilling to answer.
Role playing is an interactive story. Without a story all you have is a poorly balanced combat sim. Since you don't want story perhaps you would be better entertained with a shooter game or perhaps a good real time strategy. Or if you want to do something similar at your table try old school War gaming like Advanced Squad Leader or Wahammer 40k.
And yes playing a disruptive concept usually lessens everyone's fun. Just look at the nightmare stories from GMs who allowed an evil character into a good only game.
Anti-powergaming doesn't make you a skilled (role)player either.
Obviously not, but that's not the issue here.
The GM wants to tell a certain story. They made guidelines on building a character to fit (however informal they seem to be). The rest of the players want to enjoy this story. Why should they be denied this fun because one guy feels entitled to play a completely different game?Believing that the players are in the GM's story is another fallacy.
Without the PCs's presence and choices, the world is just made of NPCs. And if I want to see fascinating NPCs interact awesomely with each other in a well-defined and rigid setting I can't shape myself, I don't sit at a table with several friends. I read a book.
The game is actually the story of the players's characters within a specific setting, with a GM being arbiter of what happens according to a certain sense of drama and aventure and depending on the characters's choices.
The GM explains the setting ; the players then try to shape the setting with their imagination and their actions, from character creation to ultimate death.
What is it with all your made up fallacies? As I said Role Playing games are interactive stories.
No you are wrong the game is the tale of the PCs as they experience the GMs story. If you don't want a story from your GM I refer you to the advice I gave ImperatorK. And the GM is a lot more than a moderator she is the one who builds the scenarios you will be playing through. She will balance your encounters and create fun and entertaining NPCs and settings.
First rule of the GM: the story you want to tell will never get told.
There is ALWAYS the chaotic player. A good GM has to learn to "order the chaos".
The problem with the group you're describing is more the GM than the player. It sounds like the GM was planning on a rail road campaign.
First reply: When you have a good GM the story is often not only told but truly an entertaining experience.
There is NOT always a chaotic player. And even when there is one, the best way to control the situation is to limit the game and explain why so nobody makes the mistake that it's arbitrary. The idea is to get them involved in the game story as heavily as possible, as an involved player is never bored. That is EXACTLY how you "Order the Chaos".
I fail to see how limiting starting concepts is in any way railroading as railroading is a play problem not a creation issue. Just tossing out unwarranted names just makes you look like you don't know what the word means.
Railroading is where you are given no choices as to what to do in game. Like the GM placing a fight in front of the PCs. And if they run away he moves the fight to where they ran to. If they try to avoid it with diplomacy or stealth they automatically fail. That is an example of a railroaded encounter.
I come from a culture of gamers where you don't limit what your player wants to play, you work with the player to fit his/her concept into the game.
If I walked into a game and a GM put a list in front of me of "acceptable player concepts", he'd need to find a new player really quickly.
I play the game to make the characters I find interesting to play, not someone else's.
|
|
What is it with all your made up fallacies? As I said Role Playing games are interactive stories.
"Interactive" is the important part ; but even better, as you may qualify a click and point story as such without it being something else than a plot on rails.
No you are wrong the game is the tale of the PCs as they experience the GMs story. If you don't want a story from your GM I refer you to the advice I gave ImperatorK. And the GM is a lot more than a moderator she is the one who builds the scenarios you will be playing through. She will balance your encounters and create fun and entertaining NPCs and settings.
Oh no I'm not wrong. I as a player am the one writting the story through my actions and deeds ; the DM is the one allowing me to do so in a coherent and pleasant way through his own additions, work and global context to the story. This is a collaborative game from point A to Z, not a game where I sit around a table to hear someone tell me his awesome novel's plot where I have the luck to play a character (as long as it fits his story, obviously). While this is one way to play it, it is far from the most interesting for the majority of players. These fine encounters he built are nothing if my character decides like a jerk that he will do something else instead but still roleplay. No one is saying the DM isn't putting a lot of work ; but this doesn't mean the story and whole game is his.
I'll also ask you nicely to keep the condescending suggestions for yourself ; as I see no other way to qualify "you may want to play something asking for less intelligence".
I come from a culture of gamers where you don't limit what your player wants to play, you work with the player to fit his/her concept into the game.
If I walked into a game and a GM put a list in front of me of "acceptable player concepts", he'd need to find a new player really quickly.
I play the game to make the characters I find interesting to play, not someone else's.
So you are perfectly fine with someone who is unwilling to work with you or any other player? You would alter your game completely if need be to satisfy his desires? And then what do you do about the other players who are now unhappy with this new direction? Do you force them to change their play because someone else won't cooperate? I can't see that ending happily for any number of people.
I am sorry to see you limit your own enjoyment by avoiding tables based on a simple restriction (like no evil as one example).
|
|
So you are perfectly fine with someone who is unwilling to work with you or any other player? You would alter your game completely if need be to satisfy his desires? And then what do you do about the other players who are now unhappy with this new direction? Do you force them to change their play because someone else won't cooperate? I can't see that ending happily for any number of people.I am sorry to see you limit your own enjoyment by avoiding tables based on a simple restriction (like no evil as one example).
There is a difference between "characters" and "players" unwilling to work with each others. Our 1st level campaigns traditionally begin with dudes unable to work with each other ; but adventuring turns them into friends. We prefer having to work "in character" for it to become true after some levels instead ; all the while working together as "players" for it.