| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
besides I sort of think APs (and game modules for that matter) are for lazy DMs...
I write crap adventures yet I want my players to enjoy themselves so I buy stories written by professionals with cool handouts in a richly developed setting. Is that what you mean by lazy?
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
besides I sort of think APs (and game modules for that matter) are for lazy DMs... (I know that will cause a flame but its how I feel)
I'm sure you'll get a more mature perspective as you get older and wiser.
I probably put 15-20 hours a week into general gaming-related activities over and above actually playing in our weekly table-top game; preparing scenarios for when I judge them at PFS events, reviewing potential modules and/or APs that I might run when I swap in as GM for our group, looking at what's new from Paizo (and other sources), and generally considering how I could make good use of available materials to provide the best experience for my players. I also have a full-time job (at a startup, so a 40-hour week would be a nice relaxing time), generally try and spend some amount of time with my family, and even have other hobbies besides gaming.
Twenty-five years ago I tried to do all of that, and also develop my own storylines and game world (and even my own rule set). But after a while I came to realise that everybody would be better off if I concentrated on customising existing material to adapt it for our group, rather than trying to do everything myself. It's nice to be able to grab the game-world atlas to answer the questions "what's on the other side of those mountains?" or "what happened here 100 years ago?" even if you didn't expect those questions to be asked, and to be certain that the answers are consistent with whatever you might have said three years ago.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oddly enough its the reason we have GM's ;)
because a GM can say excuse me Bob awesome build you have but its breaking the game for everyone else, how bout we tone it down or we find you something else you'll like to play as your ruining the fun for other players
and if the player is a douche about it ...*kick*.... rest of player group is happy problem solved
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we stop using "powergamer" and "minmaxer" synonymously?
There's a difference.
A powergamer aims to break the game.
A minmaxer aims to create a mechanically consistent character.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with minmaxing, the game is designed for it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powergaming
Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in video games, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie. Due to its focus on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules, it is often seen as unsporting, un-fun, or unsociable. This behaviour is most often found in games with a wide range of game features, lengthy campaigns or prize tournaments such as role-playing, massively multiplayer or collectible games.[1]so... does a min/maxer do this?:
maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie.
focus on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules
I would say yes, so me and wiki say min/maxing IS powergaming.
Here's the thing though.
to the exclusion of other considerations such as (in video games, boardgames, and roleplaying games) storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie. Due to its focus on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules, it is often seen as unsporting, un-fun, or unsociable.
That does not apply to all minmaxers.
I'd actually say it applies to very few I've personally met.
I am both a dedicated roleplayer AND a minmaxer, as are most of us.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, the most commonly used definition of Powergamer seems to be 'someone who minmaxes to a higher degree than I do'
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we stop using "powergamer" and "minmaxer" synonymously?
There's a difference.
A powergamer aims to break the game.
A minmaxer aims to create a mechanically consistent character.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with minmaxing, the game is designed for it.
As long as the minmaxer plays the min as well as the max, I see no issue.
When the min/maxer complains when his min is a problem for him...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we stop using "powergamer" and "minmaxer" synonymously?
There's a difference.
A powergamer aims to break the game.
A minmaxer aims to create a mechanically consistent character.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with minmaxing, the game is designed for it.
As long as the minmaxer plays the min as well as the max, I see no issue.
When the min/maxer complains when his min is a problem for him...
Half the fun of dump-stating CHA is roleplaying the character with dump-stated CHA.
"Look, we could sit here and chat about it, or we could go murder something that deserves it and get to the hookers before sundown. Crystal?"
Just a guy who can't help but say the socially awkward thing in every situation.
I've also RPed CHA 5 as high-functioning autism.
Can we stop using "powergamer" and "minmaxer" synonymously?
There's a difference.
A powergamer aims to break the game.
A minmaxer aims to create a mechanically consistent character.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with minmaxing, the game is designed for it.
I'm not even sure I'd say powergamers aim to break the game. At least not of powergamer = optimizer. I think the classic term for intentionally breaking the game is a munchkin; but then again I could be wrong because we have no clear definitions for these things.
We really need a gamer dictionary.
|
|
Can we stop using "powergamer" and "minmaxer" synonymously?
There's a difference.
A powergamer aims to break the game.
A minmaxer aims to create a mechanically consistent character.
There is ABSOLUTELY nothing wrong with minmaxing, the game is designed for it.
As long as the minmaxer plays the min as well as the max, I see no issue.
When the min/maxer complains when his min is a problem for him...
Half the fun of dump-stating CHA is roleplaying the character with dump-stated CHA.
"Look, we could sit here and chat about it, or we could go murder something that deserves it and get to the hookers before sundown. Crystal?"
Just a guy who can't help but say the socially awkward thing in every situation.
I've also RPed CHA 5 as high-functioning autism.
Careful now, some on here would argue that 5 charisma person could be dashing...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
and if they have a low Int or Wis when they think of something smart to say, or figure out some puzzle in game, or advise somebody else on tatics or spell use... do you then stop them and say "uh no, your character is not smart enough to think of that, do it again and you start loosing XP for playing out of character." no... nobody does that.
Actually, I do. Both as a player and as a GM.
If my char lacks sufficient Int, I don't partake in solving riddles.
If my char has a single-digit wisdom, I play him as naive and gullible.
My (so far) only Cha-impeded char was a wizard that fulfilled pretty much the definition of 'nerd'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
snip
Having a low CHA does not necessarily mean you're silly.
It could mean you're horrifically ugly and have the manners of a bull.
And let's talk about low intelligence, shall we. Because I think a lot of people misconstrue low intelligence.
10 is average intelligence. An IQ of 100 is average intelligence.
18 intelligence means 4 extra skills, and at least 4 bonus languages. While that is smart, I don't think it's necessarily 180 IQ territory.
I'd say 18 intelligence makes sense in the 140 to 150 range of IQ.
8 points = 40 IQ points.
1 point = 5
If 10 int is 100 IQ, 8 int is 90. Still perfectly intelligent, just a little slow.
6 is 80 IQ. Now we're entering "functionally retarded" area, but still not stupid enough to be considered disabled.
5 would be 75 IQ.
Below 5 is impossible using core classes and Pathfinder point buy.
So even the stupidest character has an IQ of around 75. This means they're not THAT stupid.
Still perfectly capable of stumbling over the answer of a puzzle.
Still perfectly capable of stumbling over the answer of a puzzle.
Stumbling across the answer? Possible.
Deducting a complex solution through logic and reason? Not likely.
Still perfectly capable of stumbling over the answer of a puzzle.Stumbling across the answer? Possible.
Deducting a complex solution through logic and reason? Not likely.
Depends, maybe he's an idiot savant.
I know guys who can't do basic math who have an innate understanding of mechanical processes.
They can't spell, but they could build an engine in their sleep.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
having that low of a Cha stat means that anything your trying to be like comes off as just wrong,
If your trying to be dashing dexterous rogue you seem more like a disorganized clumbsy dope, if your trying to inspire courage, you actually increase their fears. its a negitive not a positive. if a huge ugly guy with bullish manners told you he was going to go kick somebody's ass you'd probably believe him right? well then thats not a low CHA score, because someone with that low of a score would instead convince you he probably couldent beat up your grandma.
Well if you're going to go by only the descriptions provided in the RAW than I guess every Dwarf is exactly the same. Every LG person has an identical morality. Every CE villain is completely psychotic.
That's a little too one dimensional for my liking.
The word Charisma and what it means extends beyond a single paragraph description in a rule book.
Come on dude, think.
Dwarves have a -2 charisma because they're "gruff", not silly.
Just like Nagaji have a -2 int because they're "irrational", not stupid.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For that matter, even with a CHA of 5, which is -3, if I take a half-orc fighter, put my rank in Intimidate, then grab Intimidating Prowess, assuming I go for 18 strength, my Intimidate check is as follows at first level.
-3 from Cha, +2 for Half-Orc, +4 from Intimidating Prowess, +4 from my rank.
That's still a +7 at first level on my intimidate check while having a CHA of 5.
Ugly as sin, but still scary.
This is why ability scores cover multiple things, so that you have some versatility.
This CHA 8 character might be dashingly handsome... but have the manners of a street thug behind all his pompousness. This other may be horridly ugly and have speech patterns that might make an ogre look civil, but be surprisingly friendly and good with people once they get past the initial "What-aaaaugh!" reactions. Perhaps due to spending lots of points in Diplomacy? Representing an honest effort by an uncharismatic character to master a skill that, by his own natural talent, he is poor at through effort rather than innate skill?
Skill points often are the determining factor. In your own example, you basically told the player "Screw you and your skill points, I don't care what you spent them on because your base stat is low." Which IMO = Jerk GM.
This is why ability scores cover multiple things, so that you have some versatility.
This CHA 8 character might be dashingly handsome... but have the manners of a street thug behind all his pompousness. This other may be horridly ugly and have speech patterns that might make an ogre look civil, but be surprisingly friendly and good with people once they get past the initial "What-aaaaugh!" reactions. Perhaps due to spending lots of points in Diplomacy? Representing an honest effort by an uncharismatic character to master a skill that, by his own natural talent, he is poor at through effort rather than innate skill?
Skill points often are the determining factor. In your own example, you basically told the player "Screw you and your skill points, I don't care what you spent them on because your base stat is low." Which IMO = Jerk GM.
Yeah, I would hate to be limited to one explanation for my score. If I'm smart, I don't necessarily want to be the book smart guy. Maybe I want to be the 18 int thief who's just a born genius who's self taught.
Maybe my 18 strength fighter is a power lifter who brute forces everything, maybe he's more of the martial artist type that knows exactly where an objects center of gravity is and he lifts with a lot less raw power.
Every ability score can be explained in multiple ways.
Except for skill points have detailed explanations of what they do. Unless you add points in climb to carrying capacity, you shouldn't be adding to appearance because of diplomacy.
Where did I say that? I never said the guy was any less ugly. I just said that because of his high Diplomacy score despite his negative Charisma, once you got past the initial "holy cow that guy is UGLY-lookin' and crude-soundin'" reaction you might find him to be surprisingly personable.
no it cant.
if your 5 cha barbarian goes back to his own village and trys to convince somebody of something without a skill, he still gets a negitive reaction score TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. because a 5 score is still half of what is normal even from his tribe
You are not listening.
At all.
FAIL.
I'm out. Done with you. The choice now is between talking to a wall or smashing someone's face into it. I have better things to do.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie.
focus on the letter of the rules over the spirit of the rules
I would say yes, so me and wiki say min/maxing IS powergaming.
First off, "Wiki and I." Normally I'd let this slide, but this just seems to underscore the idea that you've no interest in coming across more coherently than dropping a wiki link to "prove" a point.
Secondly, yes, to the exclusion of everything else. There is a difference between min/maxing and playing a strong character. I can play a strong character just fine, thanks. Is a paladin with poor dex and wis a bad character just because I dumped those stats knowing they are somewhat less important? Or is it just common sense? What about an oracle with low strength?
Powergaming's only bad when it overtakes everything and ignores roleplay entirely, such as an example of "Hm, my character's personality would make this social feat probably better, but this feat lets me kill the things!"
Everyone's got a different limit for what is allowed. Yours looks distressingly low.
As for this "you have to play these scores this way" line of thought...
Remember how Russell Crowe hit a guy with a phone? That is a pretty person with bad charisma. Ever seen an amazing gymnast unable to actually tie a knot? That's poor dex with a ton of points in acrobatics. Ever seen someone with no common sense that was impossible to trick? Low wisdom with an insane sense motive.
Your way of roleplaying is not my way of roleplaying. There are lots of nuances to how a score is interpreted, so I'm actually getting the vibe that you are focusing on the letter of the rules (your strict definition of charisma) over the spirit of the rules (the fact that these scores are interpreted in many different ways).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how this thread turned from him telling us how broken Pathfinder was to telling the boards what each of the stats means as if his statements are truths.
Charisma just means that in social situations you have a flaw. That flaw could be your looks, your demeanor, or even just being awkward. I've played low Cha as a character that carried around jugs of ale and was drunk so blurted out whatever was on his mind. I've played low Cha as a fighter with a glowing tattoo all over his face. I've played low Cha as a disfigured barbarian that constantly wore a leather mask over his face. I've even played a low Cha as someone with tourette syndrome. All of those accomplish the same goal of making social interactions uncomfortable for NPCs so as to effect their thoughts or feelings for that PC.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
no it cant.
if your 5 cha barbarian goes back to his own village and trys to convince somebody of something without a skill, he still gets a negitive reaction score TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. because a 5 score is still half of what is normal even from his tribe
Yes, he gets a negative reaction, but it doesn't mean that negative is caused by the same thing.
One guy with 5 cha could be silly
One guy with 5 cha could be rude
One guy with 5 cha could be so ugly that it hurts to look.
Cha 5 can be explained many different ways.
They all end in -3, but that -3 isn't for the same reason for every 5 cha character.
Do you not understand this concept? Not every low CHA character has low CHA for the same reason.
Not every 18 strength character is a muscle bound mountain.
Not every 18 int character is "book smart".
|
|
no it cant.
if your 5 cha barbarian goes back to his own village and trys to convince somebody of something without a skill, he still gets a negitive reaction score TO HIS OWN PEOPLE. because a 5 score is still half of what is normal even from his tribe
Yes, he gets a negative reaction, but it doesn't mean that negative is caused by the same thing.
One guy with 5 cha could be silly
One guy with 5 cha could be rude
One guy with 5 cha could be so ugly that it hurts to look.
Cha 5 can be explained many different ways.
They all end in -3, but that -3 isn't for the same reason for every 5 cha character.
Do you not understand this concept? Not every low CHA character has low CHA for the same reason.
Not every 18 strength character is a muscle bound mountain.
Not every 18 int character is "book smart".
I immediately thought of A Beautiful Mind when I read that LoL
Jeez, this is becoming the Russell Crowe as an RP example thread.
One guy with 5 cha could be silly
One guy with 5 cha could be rude
One guy with 5 cha could be so ugly that it hurts to look.
Cha 5 can be explained many different ways.They all end in -3, but that -3 isn't for the same reason for every 5 cha character.
D'accord. However, a player who made a Cha 5 character and attempts to play him like a normal dude without any social flaw whatsoever is doing it wrong.
One guy with 5 cha could be silly
One guy with 5 cha could be rude
One guy with 5 cha could be so ugly that it hurts to look.
Cha 5 can be explained many different ways.They all end in -3, but that -3 isn't for the same reason for every 5 cha character.
D'accord. However, a player who made a Cha 5 character and attempts to play him like a normal dude without any social flaw whatsoever is doing it wrong.
Not necessarily, he could have very good manners, and be so ugly that it doesn't matter.
Speaking as a generally pretty nice, but extremely unattractive, person covered in tattoos of horrible tentacle monsters, believe me the nice part often doesn't get a chance to come through before judgement is made.
My CHA would be pretty low despite having decent social skills.
As long as your character sheet reflects those skills being spent, I see absolutely zero problem with it. I would just need to take up the reins as the GM to make sure NPCs have the proper reaction to your low base score until you have a chance to get the words out.
If you're playing a nuked-CHA character, not spending ANY skills on social stuff, and still RPing an erudite, personable social butterfly, then there's a problem. But I don't think anyone (except Baal) is arguing that.
Actually, I'm curious. What class are you playing, Baal? We might be able to offer some ideas for how to RP those stats without nerfing everyone.
I can't think of any situation you thought would break the game.
You only pay attention to what you want to see, so I imagine not.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Elephant Man, especially as portrayed by John Hurt in the movie, would be a good example of a person with good social skills who was so ugly that it didn't matter.
After watching the movie, I did some reading on the real Joseph Merrick. Quite the guy. He put himself into the freak show to make money. They originally assumed he was retarded due to his inability to speak, but later they discovered through his letters that he was probably abnormally intelligent.
His manners and intelligence made him actually quite popular amongst British nobility when he was alive. While some of this seemed like "parading the freak around", it was said the British royal family actually genuinely liked and cared for the man.
But no matter how smart and well mannered he was, there is no way he was going to make a good speaker or be considered overly charismatic.
The simplest way of defeating power gamers is in the stats. Use a 15 point buy. You can't really power game with 15 pt buy. I make lot of optimized to the max characters as GM. I do this to understand the feats and possible combinations. Going 15 point buy limits what can do. 25 point gives you a lot more option to power game with. I'm not saying can't power game with 15 but you have less options and the worst side effect is you might have player balance issue with optimized vs unoptimized characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Orthos I was responding to this.."Every ability score can be explained in multiple ways"
It cant.
Yes, it can.
in my mind CHA has nothing to do with situation and everything to do with personality.
And this is why you fail.
used car salesman trys to sell a car to a lady, he walks up and says "hey toots, nice boobs, wanna buy this car?" a low CHA character makes this sound slimy and rude, a high CHA character makes this sound funny and charming.
Actually, both salesmen lose the sale and get slammed with sexual harassment. Try rephrasing!
Orthos I was responding to this.."Every ability score can be explained in multiple ways"
It cant.
Again not listening. MULTIPLE examples have been provided of how to do EXACTLY THAT.
Again FAIL. INSERT 25 CENTS TO TRY AGAIN.And NINJA'd by Scint.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Orthos I was responding to this.."Every ability score can be explained in multiple ways"
It cant.
in my mind CHA has nothing to do with situation and everything to do with personality.
according to fleshgrinder every huge barbarian with a bullish nature has a low cha. I totally disagree with that. a huge bullish natured barbarian can still have a 18+
your CHA has nothing to do with the situation your in, if you have bad manners you can still have a high cha
think of it this way..
used car salesman trys to sell a car to a lady, he walks up and says "hey toots, nice boobs, wanna buy this car?" a low CHA character makes this sound slimy and rude, a high CHA character makes this sound funny and charming.
No body is arguing that situation matters, we're arguing that a low score can be explained multiple ways.
Low cha can mean ulgy, it can mean rude, silly, offensive.
It can mean many things.
All of them have the same mechanical affect, but you don't have to RP a low CHA character as silly, you can RP him as ugly as sin while still being quite well spoken.
His ugliness is the cause of his low charisma.
Another man could be quite handsome, but he has no "brain to mouth" filter and starts off conversations with "Well, you have fantastic breasts, but your teeth are terrible and you smell like stale piss. Want to go to my room?"
Both of these men have low CHA, but their low CHA is for different reasons.
Not different SITUATIONS. Different PERSONALITY and PHYSICAL traits.