OSS- (thats it you just lost 3 letters from your name for that posting!)
yes and I've been pointing out all of your flaws, which if you go back through them were also hammered on by many other readers, (hey emperor... your not wearing any clothing)
Like who? It's been the lot of us against you alone for the past four pages. Names and/or links. Otherwise you're blowing smoke.
Orthos- this is what you said...
But he'll never be as good at fighting as the barb, and never be as good at talking as the bard, because guess what? They're made to do their jobs. The fighter's trying to do everything, and as a result is master of nothing.
so the fighter wasnt "made to do his job" and who exactly decided what his job was if not the system?
and your whole point was that the fighter was "less legitmate" because he couldent fufill his role...
you flipflop like that then call me the troll... interesting...
Nothing I said there contradicted what I said later. I see no flipflop. Anyone else see one? Feel free to correct me, but I don't see the contradiction.
A fighter's job is normally to fight things. To run up and hit them with a sword. Or shoot a bow at them if he's ranged. If he splits his skills and stats around to do other things, it reduces his ability to do that.
A character that doesn't make those sacrifices is better at doing that task. Thus the fighter will be worse at doing that job. Simple as that.
Still curious about this one by the way. Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
|
flesh dont think you read this it was on an earlyer posting and yes my character is totally OP in my opinion and no, I have no feats to anything other than combat, as mentioned earlyer this character was designed to potentially take out a barb doing 100+pts damage per rnd that was 2 levels higher than me...
http://paizo.com/forums/dmtz616v?Spear-wielding-warrior-builds#9
OSS- (thats it you just lost 3 letters from your name for that posting!)
yes and I've been pointing out all of your flaws, which if you go back through them were also hammered on by many other readers, (hey emperor... your not wearing any clothing)
and no, the problem was not that he was doing 5x my damage the problem was that when confused he nearly killed the whole party, the monsters the DM had to put in to make the game challenging only for him ended up killing the whole party (or would have if the dm didnt fidge) and when we would try to fight an encounter that was of average powerlevel, that should have been an enjoying climax to a night of gaming he would stomp it in two rounds. his character (optimized) was way more powerful than the majority of the party (only partially optimized)
gee you sure like to re-write history dont ya? how many times have I had to type that same story over and over again to refuit your silly repetitve "uh and dats why hes stuped?" postings?
Oh no I just wanted to put it on this page too that your GM is doing it wrong. Its been a pretty successful tactic thus far in getting you to reiterate that the problem wasn't with the "powergamer" but with the GMs attempt at handling the situation completely backfiring in his face.
See what I did there? My Charisma and Intelligence scores are pretty decent to pull off a trickery such as that. But my Dex stinks because I won't be able to dodge the mods forum blast.
"And why can't combat effectiveness BE A CONCEPT." lol sounds like something only a powergamer would say. btw I am copying that and the character description to hard copy and carrying it around with me in my gaming bag to say "never do this" when I start a game.
Reason number two I would never play in your games. So the Master Swordsman isn't allowed? No Inigo Montoya, "I will become the greatest warrior ever and avenge my fallen friends/family"? No "I will master all knowledge and all arcana" wizards? No "I am the strongest EVER!! ARRRRRGH!!!! *lifts giant boulder*" barbarians?
FAIL. Next strike you're out.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
flesh dont think you read this it was on an earlyer posting and yes my character is totally OP in my opinion and no, I have no feats to anything other than combat, as mentioned earlyer this character was designed to potentially take out a barb doing 100+pts damage per rnd that was 2 levels higher than me...
You're a fighter, all your feats SHOULD be in combat.
The most Out of Character thing a soldier could do is waste precious training time on something that will not help him survive.
If I live in a world where my survival isn't certain, you better believe most of my skills happen to land in that "survival" zone.
I ain't going to learn how to play a flute unless I can kill someone with it.
If my father is the town elder, but I am a athletic child, I'm not going to pick up his agriculture or business skills because I don't care about them.
You want a good example of RP and minmaxing?
Raistlin from Dragonlance.
That coughing? That's called "Con was my dump stat".
|
|
"And why can't combat effectiveness BE A CONCEPT." lol sounds like something only a powergamer would say. btw I am copying that and the character description to hard copy and carrying it around with me in my gaming bag to say "never do this" when I start a game.Reason number two I would never play in your games. So the Master Swordsman isn't allowed? No Inigo Montoya, "I will become the greatest warrior ever and avenge my fallen friends/family"? No "I will master all knowledge and all arcana" wizards? No "I am the strongest EVER!! ARRRRRGH!!!! *lifts giant boulder*" barbarians?
FAIL. Next strike you're out.
No "there is no smoke coming from that fire because it burns so hot" Bard? Lame Sauce!
orthos- (rolls eyes)everything that you said contradicted what you said later, the fact that you try and explain away a glaring contradiction like that is hillllllarious, everyone can see it and you should be embarassed, but because you took such a stern stand nobody wants to shove it in your face, also because they are tryin mass me and dont wanna hammer on sombody in their corner. dude, seriously? you cant see that?
I want an opinion from someone who's not so distinctly and desperately biased and backed into a corner, thanks. You gave your vote already. Now wait for someone else to get their turn.
And me? Intimidating? Hah. Nice one. I suppose I should be flattered?
and orthos... this tread is a lot longer than 4 pages...
I was being generous. And maybe a bit lazy. But the first handful of pages weren't all giving you the bashing you earned. Mostly cause you were still being evasive as to what the REAL issue was.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
so... do you think Ingo had any crafting skills? his father was a sword maker, maybe any CHA based skills after all sword makers have to sell swords? see thats just it, you probably wouldent have put any of those skills in there, you even forgot about that in your description of ingo, a nearly totally onesided character can still have non-combat RP skills and feats. and yes, you can have a character who's goal is to do all those things, but very rarely does somebody start out as take over the world guy... hitler was an artist...
by the way your on about 10 fails... how many do YOU get?
And how many of us build characters without Survival? Acrobatics? Knowledges? Crafting? I guarantee on my next paycheck that every single person in this thread whether they are a barbarian or a bard puts skill ranks in things that may not be directly related to "class norms". My fighter has ranks in Profession: Sailing because I preferred to roll that instead of Survival for things like tying knots and using the stars for directions. but my backstory says my father was a farmer...didn't take that profession because of the way I wanted to go instead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, a lot happened in this thread between when I started writing and when I just hit preview! I should probably stop reading the forums and get to work... Anyway,
There is some asymmetry between social skills and combat abilities, because, most often, it only takes one person with good social abilities to get through most social encounters, while combat encounters typically assume that everyone is contributing. That can lead to Cha being a dump stat, because, in many games, it's easy for some (not all!) of the characters in the party to get by with low Cha. Most of the other stats are important for everyone, to at least some degree. You need Str to carry your gear, Dex for AC and Ref, Con for hp and Fort, Int for skills, and Wis for Will.
your now trying to convince me that CHA is not the most common dump stat. sorry I'm not buying it.
I see lots of different dump stats in my games. We have characters with 5's and 7's in Str, Int, Wis, Cha, and even Con. I don't think anyone has so far taken Dex below 8. Everyone plays their weaknesses as well as their strengths. Nothing moves an adventure along like a character with 7 Wis, 23 Cha.
Speaking of 23 Cha, Charisma is probably the stat I see being raised into the stratosphere the most often; certainly more than Strength. Maybe it's because my games all include sorcerers, bards, and/or oracles.
I have also noticed that the best optimizers in my group, of which I consider myself to be one, tend to avoid classes and roles that do damage; they tend towards buffing, battlefield control, bypassing encounters in the first place, and shouting orders. (Maybe that's because the best optimizers realize that that's a more optimum way to play...)
In answer to the original question, though I think there's nothing here that hasn't been said:
- Ban nonstandard races. That's not a real barrier to true optimizers, because standard races are frequently the best way to go. However, what seems to be bugging you is the ability to get a huge strength and do massive melee damage, combined with a GM/AP combination which rewards that playstyle, and that's one thing adding to the stack.
- Stick to the Core Rulebook. (This also achieves the first point.)
- In one of my games, I give players bonus feats which they can only spend on non-combat, non-synergistic feats, so that they don't have to choose between Skill Focus: Profession: merchant, which they want for their backstory, and whatever feats they would want in order to make their characters effective in the bulk of gameplay. (I am all for making the occasional profession (merchant) roll, but let's face it, it's not going to come up much.)
- Finally, building all characters with the elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) can also resolve some of the issues you seem to have.
But the real answer is: talk to your fellow players, talk to the GM. Find out what everyone is hoping to achieve and experience, and try to help each other get there. Asking the "powergamer" to tone down is an option. Having the optimizers help build up the other players' characters is an option. Suggesting that the more system-savvy players play supporting roles rather than front-liners is an option. Using the rules/sources suggestions in the preceding paragraph is an option. Finally, if what one person is looking for turns out to be, "Make everyone else superfluous," then suggest they go play a single-player game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Y'know, when I was younger and first got introduced to D&D via Neverwinter Nights online servers, I used to think much like you. I'd see the Fighter/Weapon Masters with low mental stats and grumble about them being poor RPers but able to claw their way to 20 by ripping holes in every monster they faced, while my poor (and poorly built) Cleric struggled in the low teens to not die every time I left town.
Two things happened. One, I got better at the game, learned the ins and outs of effective character creation. My Cleric was always pretty mediocre, but the glass-cannon Sorcerer and "Smash ALL the things!" Barbarian/Dragon Disciple I made later were far, far more effective at doing their jobs... and at staying in-character the entire time. The Sorc was a pyro who had been kidnapped by the fey at birth, with a fragile grip on survival and an even more fragile hold on her sanity (8 STR, 9 CON, 8 WIS - you don't get much more min-maxed with a Sorc than that!); the Barbarian thought she'd been demon-possessed (though being CE, she was kind of okay with it) and that the fiend was manifesting its presence through the draconic mutations and once they were complete her mind and its would merge completely.
The other thing was I met someone who played one of those uber-powergamed Weapon Masters and didn't know that's what they were playing. I never managed to see their classes, or at least notice them, on the login screen. But he was an excellent roleplayer, fun to hang out with, and had a very interesting backstory to his character that he played to the hilt. Then one day I got a look at his character sheet, and saw it was the standard "powergamey" WM build. So this guy I'd spent all this time having this awesome RP with... was just another powergamer? Or powergamers could legitimately RP?
That pretty much killed my having a mindset like yours. I can only hope you'll likewise grow out of it.
by the way your on about 10 fails... how many do YOU get?
I actually bothered to take the Fail Forgiveness feat chain. =P It's core to minmaxing your GM levels.
Is that a combat feat?by the way your on about 10 fails... how many do YOU get?I actually bothered to take the Fail Forgiveness feat chain. =P It's core to minmaxing your GM levels.
No, but I'm a Trivia Master build so it's all cool. Makes those Nat 1's a little less painful.
Oss- and your last post backs that up, when was the last time you created a character where 20% of your feats, and 20% of your stat bonuses had nothing to do with combat effectivness?
wow thanks guys... I think you totally gave me a way to stop powergamers... the 20% rule!
"You now have to build your characters my way, spend 20% of all your character resources on doing what I want!"
Yeah no dude. Nobody likes a bossy, controlling, micromanaging GM. FAIL.
Strike three.
I'm trying to come up with a list of fantasy characters who dumped stats.
I've got Raistlin (Con dump)
His brother Caramon (Int dump)
Tas had the wisdom score of a shoe.
Tyrion Lannister got a str, dex, and con dump, but his cha, wis, and int are through the roof. I'd consider him a bard with "Perform: Oratory".
Conan is cunning, but not exactly smart. High wis, low int.
Most fantasy characters are incredibly good at what they do and very bad at what they don't.
Raislin may be the ultimate example of minmaxing. Super powerful god-like wizard that a 3 year old could break his arm.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oss- The most Out of Character thing a soldier could do is waste precious training time on something that will not help him survive.
you read that right? so according to that, if you have any skills that flesh out your character, any skill which conforms to a backstory, its not "helping you survive" and therefore not worthwile for a character to have.
and this guy is a RP-er as well as a min/max-er
its just that he does nothing to create characters that have any potential of RP-ing anything that cant be broken down or killed.
flesh, this is directly proving my point that minmaxing IS powergaming
and that was also sorta the point about the slave/fundraser, I see a crapload of postings about how to max out a magus, but I dont see anything about using that kind of system knowledge to make a character that isnt 80% combat effective (they are all 90-100s)Oss- and your last post backs that up, when was the last time you created a character where 20% of your feats, and 20% of your stat bonuses had nothing to do with combat effectivness?
wow thanks guys... I think you totally gave me a way to stop powergamers... the 20% rule!
Profession: Sailing does help me survive as a fighter. I can use this for tying knots, not getting lost, fishing, weather, geography, repair and maintenance of weapons that got wet, etc. My fighter is useless if he is starving, not able to climb with the rest of the group, lost, incapable of preparing for bad weather, his weapons aren't useful due to damage from not caring for them, etc. Taking things like Craft: Weapons is a good choice but maybe not for the Wizard. My fighter probably doesn't want to take Profession: Librarian even though I can think of a few scenarios where that just may help him survive an encounter.
This goes back to the discussion earlier where we said that skills and stats can have many different uses and strengths. And back to the point of you GM putting too much focus on combat...real games include things like those stated above.
Oss- and your last post backs that up, when was the last time you created a character where 20% of your feats, and 20% of your stat bonuses had nothing to do with combat effectivness?
wow thanks guys... I think you totally gave me a way to stop powergamers... the 20% rule!
"You now have to build your characters my way, spend 20% of all your character resources on doing what I want!"
Yeah no dude. Nobody likes a bossy, controlling, micromanaging GM. FAIL.
Strike three.
He's not even a GM.
Do not sully our noble profession by counting him amongst our ranks.
Bad Orthos! Bad!
|
|
I'm trying to come up with a list of fantasy characters who dumped stats.
I've got Raistlin (Con dump)
His brother Caramon (Int dump)
Tas had the wisdom score of a shoe.Tyrion Lannister got a str, dex, and con dump, but his cha, wis, and int are through the roof. I'd consider him a bard with "Perform: Oratory".
Conan is cunning, but not exactly smart. High wis, low int.
Most fantasy characters are incredibly good at what they do and very bad at what they don't.
Raislin may be the ultimate example of minmaxing. Super powerful god-like wizard that a 3 year old could break his arm.
Think of things more along the lines he can relate to.
Naruto has a low Wisdom but a pretty good Intelligence.
Saske has a very poor Charisma.
Sakura is lacking in the Constitution department but her Strength is great.
Oss- and your last post backs that up, when was the last time you created a character where 20% of your feats, and 20% of your stat bonuses had nothing to do with combat effectivness?
wow thanks guys... I think you totally gave me a way to stop powergamers... the 20% rule!
"You now have to build your characters my way, spend 20% of all your character resources on doing what I want!"
Yeah no dude. Nobody likes a bossy, controlling, micromanaging GM. FAIL.
Strike three.
He's not even a GM.
Do not sully our noble profession by counting him amongst our ranks.
Bad Orthos! Bad!
He seeks to become one, by his own words - I'm just trying to change his mindset before he does and puts his poor future players through this.
orthos- oh I've ran a lot, did TRWG group at cal tech for a while, ran games at the gaming club at cal-state fullerton for about 2 yrs, though most of those were champs, cyberpunk, etc, stuff that was popular in the late 80s-90s also ran a lot of games in the early 80s at chaptman college, couse I started those when I was 10 years old... so I may have a few more levels than you in it...
I find this hard to believe. Your typing style marks you as a teenager.
So either you're too lazy to bother typing properly, meaning you really don't care about this conversation enough to put worthwhile effort into your conversation and thus troll, or you're lying about your age and experience.
|
|
orthos- oh I've ran a lot, did TRWG group at cal tech for a while, ran games at the gaming club at cal-state fullerton for about 2 yrs, though most of those were champs, cyberpunk, etc, stuff that was popular in the late 80s-90s also ran a lot of games in the early 80s at chaptman college, couse I started those when I was 10 years old... so I may have a few more levels than you in it...
K all, needs ma sleep, I am a nocturne, cya in about 6 hrs...
I find this hard to believe. Your typing style marks you as a teenager.
So either you're too lazy to bother typing properly or you're lying about your age and experience.
His profile info screams immaturity as well.
By the way Baalbamoth, the reason why we bring up your gaming group as being the problem is based on your own statements.
You said one of the players is destroying all the encounters without issue.
This means your GM is bad at encounter design.
You're saying the guys in your group don't RP their weaknesses
This means your fellow players are bad RPers.
All the problems you keep bringing up keep showing that YOUR GROUP is the issue.
I've been a DM longer than a lot of people have been alive, there is not a powergamer out there I cannot prepare for.
As a player, I RP my weaknesses. If I've got low CHA, I'm either ugly, or socially awkward. If I have low Dex, I'm playing the character as near sighted.
What I won't do is waste feats and skills that don't benefit my character.
If my father was a blacksmith and I don't take "Craft: Armor" it just means my character didn't pay attention to his father.
Hell, my actual father is a welder by trade and I've never even held a welding torch.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do want to back up baalbamoth on one thing: I think it is okay to enjoy having a non-optimized build. I understand the feeling that you shouldn't have to learn how to optimize to play the game, that you should be able to come up with something on the level of the pregens and enjoy the game without feeling that your buddy with the carefully honed character is stealing your thunder all the time. I agree that earlier editions of the game were more supportive of that playstyle, because the mechanical choices you made during character creation didn't matter that much. The thing that makes the whole 3e family what it is is that making the character is a game in and of itself, and how good you are at that sub-game has a big effect on the rest of the game, and this leads to an inherent quandary about what to do with people who want to play together, but have different levels of skill/interest in character building. It is something that many groups have to deal with, and dealing with it badly probably makes a lot of people enjoy the game less than they otherwise would.
If you want to sum all that up by saying that Pathfinder is "unbalanced," ok. It is a complex system, and not all strategies are equivalent; those who follow effective strategies are rewarded by the system, those who don't are not. Some people call it a bug, some people call it a feature, but in any case, it's there.
I also want to back everyone else up: making powerful characters is not antithetical to roleplaying, and it is certainly not immoral and reprehensible. "My character is awesome at X" is probably the single most common element in a character concept, though to be interesting, there would be more there too. Perhaps even, "but sucks at Y." This is a game about heroes saving the town/country/world. Or maybe just doing amazing things to get loot/revenge/laid. In any case, chances are most of them are pretty awesome at something, or they wouldn't be the heroes. Using the rules to back up that claim of awesomeness is... kind of the point of having the rules in the first place.
I don't care to debate the distinctions between powergamers, minmaxers, optimizers, munchkins, roleplayers, and "normal" people. They are poorly defined, emotionally loaded terms. The issue should not be how to "Control Powergamers in Pathfinder," as the thread title suggests, because controlling people should probably not be your goal as you sit down to have a fun evening with your gaming buddies. The issue is how to have fun with people who have different skill levels and play styles. I think there has actually been a lot of good advice here regarding that, but baalbamoth doesn't want to listen to it, because he wanted a rules fix, along with validation that his fellow player was wrong, and most of the solutions involve an attitude fix instead.
I also have to say, GMing is hard. I do it, but I don't consider myself very good at it, though I like to think I am getting better. It takes practice, experience, and a lot of work; this applies to rules mastery, encounter planning, presenting the setting and NPCs engagingly, and also managing out-of-character group dynamics. Mistakes happen. It seems like one happened to baalbamoth's group. Hopefully, they can learn from it and move on.
The "you can take my optimized characters when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers" attitude rubs me just as wrong as the "it's not a real character unless it has skill focus: uselessness and a 14 in an off ability score" attitude. They both represent inflexibility and an unwillingness to put the fun of your fellow players above the philosophical chip on your shoulder.
And this?
Your typing style marks you as a teenager.
So either you're too lazy to bother typing properly or you're lying about your age and experience.
I agree with almost everything you are saying about Pathfinder, but the ad-hominem troll-baiting isn't helping anything. Even if he is a teenager, lying about his age, so what? (For the record, I don't think he is.) That's not relevant; teenagers can play Pathfinder too, and they can misrepresent themselves on the internet all they want. If you're not going to take them seriously, it's no wonder they would try.
He might well be, but it makes it difficult to take him at face value if he's going to try to claim he's something he's not, or not going to bother making an effort to take the conversation seriously.
I've got nothing against teenagers playing the game at all. Several of my players started in that age range. I was only barely out of it myself when I jumped in, though I didn't start GMing until I was in my early 20s. But there's a visible dissonance between the age he represents himself to be by his behavior and the age he claims to be by his examples of life experience, and the two don't jive.
Still, if it was over the line, I'll leave it be.
Everything else, well said.
Technically an insult isn't an ad hominem.
It's only an ad hominem when the personal attack is used as the counter argument.
So "Of course a POWERGAMER would say that!" is an ad hominem.
But if I counter all the points of an argument and then add an insult at the end, it's not technically an ad hominem, as it's not part of my argument.
|
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.
Others have in the past, so I was preemptively cutting off that argument.
Others have said initial reactions taking charisma into consideration were madness, because what GM would consider personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance when deciding how NPC's initally react to PC's...
Gotcha.
I tweak encounters.
Anything they can break, I can break broker.
I'm the same way Fleshgrinder =)
I am lucky in that my current gaming friends are more into telling a good story.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"And why can't combat effectiveness BE A CONCEPT." lol sounds like something only a powergamer would say. btw I am copying that and the character description to hard copy and carrying it around with me in my gaming bag to say "never do this" when I start a game.
More people should do this.
I'd know what games to leave immediately.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically an insult isn't an ad hominem.
It's only an ad hominem when the personal attack is used as the counter argument.
So "Of course a POWERGAMER would say that!" is an ad hominem.
But if I counter all the points of an argument and then add an insult at the end, it's not technically an ad hominem, as it's not part of my argument.
Fair enough, and I certainly didn't mean to say that the ad hominem arguments were all coming from one side. I did get the feeling that there was a sense that baalbamoth's perceived age, or perceived lying about his age, was being used as an argument against his opinions. If I was reading that wrong, then I retract the term.
Totally off topic, but when I saw that Kirth favorited my last post, I suddenly felt like one of the cool kids. Hopefully, the feeling will pass.
Technically an insult isn't an ad hominem.
It's only an ad hominem when the personal attack is used as the counter argument.
So "Of course a POWERGAMER would say that!" is an ad hominem.
But if I counter all the points of an argument and then add an insult at the end, it's not technically an ad hominem, as it's not part of my argument.
Fair enough, and I certainly didn't mean to say that the ad hominem arguments were all coming from one side. I did get the feeling that there was a sense that baalbamoth's perceived age, or perceived lying about his age, was being used as an argument against his opinions. If I was reading that wrong, then I retract the term.
Totally off topic, but when I saw that Kirth favorited my last post, I suddenly felt like one of the cool kids. Hopefully, the feeling will pass.
No issue at all, I just see ad hominem called so often that I always feel the need to ensure it is defined properly.
Some of the stuff in the thread is definitely ad hominem. I just hate when anything remotely vitriolic gets called for something it is not.
Nah, I have plenty to argue with him about without getting into his age. I just thought it sounded like he was trying to say "I'm a lot older than you and know better" there at the end, when his prior posts hadn't given that impression but rather quite the opposite.
I certainly feel he's in need of some experience and a bit of understanding of the game outside his group's play style, which seems very wonkily "balanced" and paints his perceptions of the way the game is to be played in a very unpleasant manner. I in no means want to give the impression I consider him beyond improving, as frustrated as I may have gotten here a few times. I don't toss out FAIL because I think the person beyond help - if I'm that annoyed by a thread, I just quit responding and hit the hide button. I did the Fail thing mostly for humor value, but also to point out where improvement can be made. Arbitrary rules to punish people whose play style differs from yours is only going to drive them out of your game: if that's the goal... well, I guess, well done? But if you're wanting them to still play with you, it's not the way to go.
A few times as it felt like I was talking to a wall, as well as the fact that Baal made quite a few claims that he refused to back up - such as his claiming of me flipflopping where I see no contradictions (other than the ones painted by his own bias toward the game, the breaking of which was the entire point of my post), or saying that "many other readers" had been calling Ossirian on his "mistakes" when I saw no one but himself on that side of the argument.
Totally off topic, but when I saw that Kirth favorited my last post, I suddenly felt like one of the cool kids. Hopefully, the feeling will pass.
I don't care so much about the insult war commentary, one way or the other; just thought there was a lot of very good stuff earlier on in that post -- written clearly and engagingly -- and didn't want it to get lost in the melee. But, dog help us, if I'm one of the "cool kids" then we're all in REALLY sad shape.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, Sorry if I missed something on the 7 pages I skipped. But here is my advice and opinion.
First, this is indeed a difference in play styles. When confronted with a difference in play styles such as this it is often best to take a combined approach to solving it. That is both "talking to the players" and "constructing a limiting framework" to prevent the worst levels of power gaming should be used together. My philosophy is this: I want a group with very closely matched power levels. This means I will cater to the level of PG mastery the majority of the group plays at. If someone is that much stronger then steps need to be put in place to make it harder for the outlaying player to PG. But at the same time I want to explain to that player WHY I am doing this. I want them to be comfortable power gaming at a level that isn't vastly better than the party as a whole.
Secondly, as the GM in many games I make the kind of games I want to run, not the games most power gamers want to play. I build a story that is driven by the PCs and NPCs that are part of that story. I will freely veto and concept that doesn't fit the world or the game I am looking to run. Any GM should be doing similar vetoing as it is part of your job as a GM. The entirety of the rules complete with all splat material was never meant to be played together. It is the GMs job to decide what sort of resources are available to best tell their story.
I use a limiting stat generation method as the first step in keeping power gamers in check. Since PrCs and feats are based on stat minimums this by itself limits the options available to break the game. But I also keep story and role play as one of the principle methods of generating XP, Not combat! Combat XP is generated at 1/4 to 1/3 the rate suggested in the core books. To this I add story rewards as the gate keepers making sure players who participate in the story earn stable advancement and role play rewards because I love seeing players really get into their roles and play them out fully. Combat is like treasure in my opinion... it is its own reward. That is to say Combat and Treasure = Survivability. No need to also base advancement on combat, since players will need no additional encouragement to build effective combatants. Since story rewards need no special build to take advantage of, this will leave players free to explore interesting ways to build for better role play XP. And can make for fun and exciting games.
So in summary:
- limiting stat generation.
- limiting in game build options/resources to that which makes the most sense story wise.
- Control the rewards to emphasize the sort of game you enjoy running.
- Talk to everyone at the table so that you all know what to expect and why.
PS:
- Know your players.
The last bit is important when building a game... any game. Because you as the GM are going to have to adjust encounters to match your players. And you can't do that if you don't know your players.
In my group for example we generally fall into the following stereo types (not perfectly obviously but close enough to count):
Me: "Songbird" I love to be the center of attention and I often build characters intended to get a lot of attention. When I am not GMing I usually build characters to match the GMs play style. For example when J runs I build as strong a power build as I can manage since his games are deadly and unforgiving. And while I still have a detailed background I rarely run it by him since he won't be using it anyway.
P: "Newbie" He is new and generally hasn't built his unique play style yet. He listens to build advice from the experts and is awed by simply adventuring.
J: "Munchkin" He rarely pays any heed to a background and loves to combine any and all elements from any number of sources to build a combat monster.
M: "Power Gamer" P's best friend and he loves to build his characters to hit hard. But he also usually has a good background and has no trouble role playing.
K: "Strategist" He hasn't a power gaming instinct to save his life. He is also only an average role player. He loves the shiny stuff. He usually focuses on treasures and places he can use to control battles.
C: "Role Player" She is totally focused on what makes her character tick. Not a very good power gamer, but a wonderful person to interact with during encounters or at any time at all.
E: "Hound" He loves secrets and is the biggest collector of NPCs and information in any game. He frequently recruits NPCs to act as his contacts and loves to control the game from behind the scenes. He fits perfectly in with my play style when I am a player and is P's best friend.
I aim my games at the power level of the strategist for best effect and limit to keep M & J in closer to the rests power levels. I also talk to everyone all the time. I ...am the songbird after all and can't usually keep my mouth shut. They all like my games even the Munchkin.
Totally off topic, but when I saw that Kirth favorited my last post, I suddenly felt like one of the cool kids. Hopefully, the feeling will pass.I don't care so much about the insult war commentary, one way or the other; just thought there was a lot of very good stuff earlier on in that post -- written clearly and engagingly -- and didn't want it to get lost in the melee. But, dog help us, if I'm one of the "cool kids" then we're all in REALLY sad shape.
I think you're a pretty cool dude who writes houserules and doesn't afraid of anything.
... okay I probably deserve to be shot for that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my home game, I like to have two sets of PCs running conurrently; the players switch back and forth between parties each adventure. Party "A" will generally be relatively well-optimized adventurers who are expected to do things like kill monsters, solve mysteries, and save the world. Party "B" will consist of poorly-optimized "experimental" characters that the players thought would be fun to play, but knew weren't exactly well-suited to standard adventuring. I make adventures for Party "B" that are generally a bit wackier and more off-beat, and quite a bit less deadly, than the hard-mode adventures I concoct for Team "A."
Let me hasten that there was exactly equal role-playing for both sets of characters (a high level, at that); only the level of tactical difficulty and optimization level varied.
...Me: "Songbird" I love to be the center of attention and I often build characters intended to get a lot of attention. When I am not GMing I usually build characters to match the GMs play style. For example when J runs I build as strong a power build as I can manage since his games are deadly and unforgiving. And while I still have a detailed background I rarely run it by him since he won't be using it anyway.
P: "Newbie" He is new and generally hasn't built his unique play style yet. He listens to build advice from the experts and is awed by simply adventuring.
J: "Munchkin" He rarely pays any heed to a background and loves to combine any and all elements from any number of sources to build a combat monster.
M: "Power Gamer" P's best friend and he loves to build his characters to hit hard. But he also usually has a good background and has no trouble role playing.
K: "Strategist" He hasn't a power gaming instinct to save his life. He is also only an average role player. He loves the shiny stuff. He usually focuses on treasures and places he can use to control battles.
C: "Role Player" She is totally focused on what makes her character tick. Not a very good power gamer, but a wonderful person to interact with during encounters or at any time at all.
E: "Hound" He loves secrets and is the biggest collector of NPCs and information in any game. He frequently recruits NPCs to act as his contacts and loves to control the game from behind the scenes. He fits perfectly in with my play style when I am a player and is P's best friend.
I love playing the Hound, which is great as my GM loves to craft hugely intricate stories. I honestly think the best part of the game is when I find out more things behind the scenes.