Optimizing for survival a sign of cowardice?


Advice

51 to 100 of 419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

RD, I enjoy your inventive and quirky mind when it comes to creating and playing characters. I would probably enjoy being in a group with you because I'd figure out some way to synergize your approach to the game an my own so that the sessions would be unique and memorable. Which is usually my goal in playing. Too many games become cookie cutter series of encounters which the players dispatch with ease and then rush to the next encounter. I like to put some personality into the game and it seems like you do too.

But I gotta say. You sure seem to post an awful lot of stuff demonstrating some sort of conflict or disagreement with your fellow players. You always try to wave it off as "all in fun" but I don't know... You sure seem to suffer a lot of "he dispelled a protection from arrows spell he had cast on Hama..." moments from your fellow players.

Regardless of the specifics of this individual instance, I really think you should take a good hard look at how your playstyle meshes with the playstyle of your group. If I were having some of the experiences you routinely discuss here, especially considering the massive amount of time you seem to be able to spend playing I think I'd make it a point to play a character every now and then that was as close to what my gaming group was looking for as possible, just to balance out the tendency to pursue my own agenda the rest of the time.

Just my two copper pieces.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
I can't believe this. People are actually advocating deliberately letting enemies hit the wizard? That's like an infantryman tossing the artillery spotter or forward air controller out of his cover. It's not the wizard's job to take hits. It's the wizard's job to keep the enemy from doing whatever they want.

If the rest of the party are going down and the wizard is the last man standing, he's perhaps not doing his job.

I'm not advocating he take hits, I'm advocating he take a greater risk: shift the balance between self and party more in favour of the party. That said, there is every possibility this is the perception of the other players as much as RD's tactics. I can see why though, and those perceptions need to be combated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Brotato wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I can't believe this. People are actually advocating deliberately letting enemies hit the wizard? That's like an infantryman tossing the artillery spotter or forward air controller out of his cover. It's not the wizard's job to take hits. It's the wizard's job to keep the enemy from doing whatever they want.
+1 to this.

I don't think you are getting the gist of what RD's player group is saying. What I am hearing is not "let the wizard get hit!" What I'm hearing is "Geez, RD, are you playing ANOTHER hide-in-the-back while we take all the damage spellcaster?"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Brotato wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I can't believe this. People are actually advocating deliberately letting enemies hit the wizard? That's like an infantryman tossing the artillery spotter or forward air controller out of his cover. It's not the wizard's job to take hits. It's the wizard's job to keep the enemy from doing whatever they want.
+1 to this.
I don't think you are getting the gist of what RD's player group is saying. What I am hearing is not "let the wizard get hit!" What I'm hearing is "Geez, RD, are you playing ANOTHER hide-in-the-back while we take all the damage spellcaster?"

+1 to this.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Brotato wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I can't believe this. People are actually advocating deliberately letting enemies hit the wizard? That's like an infantryman tossing the artillery spotter or forward air controller out of his cover. It's not the wizard's job to take hits. It's the wizard's job to keep the enemy from doing whatever they want.
+1 to this.
I don't think you are getting the gist of what RD's player group is saying. What I am hearing is not "let the wizard get hit!" What I'm hearing is "Geez, RD, are you playing ANOTHER hide-in-the-back while we take all the damage spellcaster?"

This was actually separate from RD's gamer group. There was someone else saying they'd side-step to let enemies actually charge a wizard if they felt they weren't "pulling their weight." If you don't feel a character is contributing, settle it out of character. Pulling #$%^ moves like that in-game only leads to bad feelings and broken friendships out of it.


Brotato wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Brotato wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I can't believe this. People are actually advocating deliberately letting enemies hit the wizard? That's like an infantryman tossing the artillery spotter or forward air controller out of his cover. It's not the wizard's job to take hits. It's the wizard's job to keep the enemy from doing whatever they want.
+1 to this.
I don't think you are getting the gist of what RD's player group is saying. What I am hearing is not "let the wizard get hit!" What I'm hearing is "Geez, RD, are you playing ANOTHER hide-in-the-back while we take all the damage spellcaster?"
This was actually separate from RD's gamer group. There was someone else saying they'd side-step to let enemies actually charge a wizard if they felt they weren't "pulling their weight." If you don't feel a character is contributing, settle it out of character. Pulling #$%^ moves like that in-game only leads to bad feelings and broken friendships out of it.

Read RD's post Brotato. He described a situation where one of his players had their character dispel a 'protection from arrows' spell on RD's character just so RD's character would get "pincushioned". I think that's a specific and illustrative example of what I am saying.


I've run into similar playstyles in the past as a GM, usually its from new players to my group. They spend the first couple of rounds casting their protections on themselves, then they start to look for targets and find none.

Combats rarely last very long in my experience. My party has gotten really good at piling on damage/effects, and anything short of APL+3 isn't going to last long enough for a untouchable controller to really even get started. Its not that these combats aren't challenging, I've got a stack of dead character sheets proving otherwise, its just that in many full on combats things are often resolved very quickly.

The arcane casters in my party have adjusted to a different play-style. They generally prioritize first round buffs, second round counter moves (like removing enemy advantages like invisibility/flying), third round cleanup (damage, end combat effects, ect). That is not to say they won't fireball if the opportunity is there (after all damage to multiple creatures is often better than what the melee specialist can do in a round, assuming enough targets of course). The more defense oriented spells are usually cast well before combat (duration allowing) in the surprise round (if available), or as situations demand (caster cut off from party with dangerous opponent attacking). Other exceptions include long starting distance between party and enemy (rare in dungeons) and scry and fry situations (which means the usual 3 round combat often is 2 rounds or less, heck, had them end in surprise round before).

In the PFS games I've played in the group tends to roll the encounters so fast any extensive buffing class tends to get left behind. Encounter ending damage and effects are thrown around so quickly that the GMs are often left wondering what happened. Not just from damage optimizing either. Blew through a "killer" adventure with a group that was a witch, 2 bards (one a satire bard), a summoner and a single fighter (unarmed fighter at that). Got done with another one so fast we toyed with the end boss (hexes+grease+hideous laughter=comedy gold).

I guess what I'm saying is assuming your party knows what they are doing, and the encounters are balanced, you don't have time to cast too much to protect yourself. In fact lack of contribution for a couple of rounds means you are actually making things more difficult for the party because you still count towards the APL, but aren't actually directly affecting the outcome.

Dark Archive

Ravingdork wrote:
- I play in a group that has the "if your caster doesn't have magic missile and fireball it's pretty much useless" mindset. It's okay to be a controller and other style of spellcaster, but I must have the above capability ready to go at a moments notice to be taken seriously.

why.png

...Is it okay if I storytime a little bit?

STORYTIME!:
Early this year, my friends and I on an IRC channel got the idea through our heads that we'd play D&D, because some of us had played in the past and wanted to get back into it/introduce others to it. One of my friends, a nice guy who's currently taking a year of college in Japan, decides he wants to try DMing. We think this is awesome, and we all agree. Well, one of our members ends up finding the 3.5 rules online. Awesome! We read through them, and start making characters.

Somewhere along the line, the girl who found the 3.5 rules ends up deciding she will DM, and our buddy in Japan is like "I'm busy with school, so okay." He rolls up a 1st level Wizard, takes a bunch of spells he thinks will be useful. This includes Magic Missile and Burning Hands.

So, our first excursion comes along, and the DM throws 30 kobolds at us. At level one. And then yells at our buddy because he didn't take Color Spray.

There are FAR BETTER ways to express that Blasting is not really a good option in 3.x/PF, but being a jerk about it, either for OR against, is just all kinds of uncool.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Read RD's post Brotato. He described a situation where one of his players had their character dispel a 'protection from arrows' spell on RD's character just so RD's character would get "pincushioned". I think that's a specific and illustrative example of what I am saying.

I did read it, and I thought it was poor play on the part of the person that dispelled the PfA. It's something that only dysfunctional evil parties do. Despite how "cowardly" or manipulative or evil RD plays his characters, if the others are good, why don't they just leave him behind? Why do they engineer a situation to kill him? Why does the entire group let a situation devolve this badly before any action is taken? Group cohesion is important. As a GM I'd never let the animosity get this bad before doing something about it OOC. Granted, since RD's character is the main problem he'd probably have to be the one to change it, but these players do seem to have a bit of a bias, and to be honest I don't know why people that seem to consistently have a problem with the characters RD plays keep inviting him back.

Liberty's Edge

You probably don't mean to do it but I've been there before.

There's a guy in my group that, more often than not, optimizes his AC. It's to the point that at any given point his AC is 10+ points higher than anyone else's and enemies need natural 20s to hit him. I assume that's fun for him but it definitely creates the image that he can only play with 'godmode' enabled.


Brotato wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Read RD's post Brotato. He described a situation where one of his players had their character dispel a 'protection from arrows' spell on RD's character just so RD's character would get "pincushioned". I think that's a specific and illustrative example of what I am saying.
I did read it, and I thought it was poor play on the part of the person that dispelled the PfA. It's something that only dysfunctional evil parties do. Despite how "cowardly" or manipulative or evil RD plays his characters, if the others are good, why don't they just leave him behind? Why do they engineer a situation to kill him? Why does the entire group let a situation devolve this badly before any action is taken? Group cohesion is important. As a GM I'd never let the animosity get this bad before doing something about it OOC. Granted, since RD's character is the main problem he'd probably have to be the one to change it, but these players do seem to have a bit of a bias, and to be honest I don't know why people that seem to consistently have a problem with the characters RD plays keep inviting him back.

Not gonna lie. Doing something like that is a declaration of war for me and that person would soon find themselves in the area of effect of my Color Sprays, Pyrotechnics, and Glitterdusts. I've had to deal with party-destructing players too often to have the patience for that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Feral wrote:

You probably don't mean to do it but I've been there before.

There's a guy in my group that, more often than not, optimizes his AC. It's to the point that at any given point his AC is 10+ points higher than anyone else's and enemies need natural 20s to hit him. I assume that's fun for him but it definitely creates the image that he can only play with 'godmode' enabled.

My question is this: How exactly does this hurt anyone's fun? If the GM is killing other party members in hopes of besting the tank, then that the GM's mistake, not the player's. There are better ways to challenge an optimized player than meeting their strengths head on.

Odraude wrote:
Brotato wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Read RD's post Brotato. He described a situation where one of his players had their character dispel a 'protection from arrows' spell on RD's character just so RD's character would get "pincushioned". I think that's a specific and illustrative example of what I am saying.
I did read it, and I thought it was poor play on the part of the person that dispelled the PfA. It's something that only dysfunctional evil parties do. Despite how "cowardly" or manipulative or evil RD plays his characters, if the others are good, why don't they just leave him behind? Why do they engineer a situation to kill him? Why does the entire group let a situation devolve this badly before any action is taken? Group cohesion is important. As a GM I'd never let the animosity get this bad before doing something about it OOC. Granted, since RD's character is the main problem he'd probably have to be the one to change it, but these players do seem to have a bit of a bias, and to be honest I don't know why people that seem to consistently have a problem with the characters RD plays keep inviting him back.
Not gonna lie. Doing something like that is a declaration of war for me and that person would soon find themselves in the area of effect of my Color Sprays, Pyrotechnics, and Glitterdusts. I've had to deal with party-destructing players too often to have the patience for that.

Is it telling that when I started Skull and Shackles (a more or less evil game) I, as GM, had to make it absolutely clear well in advance that I wasn't going to allow PvP? I expect the PCs to work together. To accomplish that goal, they can make whatever rationalizations they want (press gang camaraderie, useful pawns/bodyguards, previous ties such as old friends or family, etc.). I'm not going to have my adventure path torn apart by immature squabbling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well I guess the problem isn't your character, its just you. ;-)

Ask your pals what you can do.

Liberty's Edge

It might come from the expectation that everyone takes their share of licks.

By optimizing yourself into near invulnerability you're choosing to exclude yourself.


Ravingdork wrote:
Is it telling that when I started Skull and Shackles (a more or less evil game) I, as GM, had to make it absolutely clear well in advance that I wasn't going to allow PvP? I expect the PCs to work together. To accomplish that goal, they can make whatever rationalizations they want (press gang camaraderie, useful pawns/bodyguards, previous ties such as old friends or family, etc.). I'm not going to have my adventure path torn apart by immature squabbling.

... and yet you routinely post anecdotes here on these boards where your characters are repeatedly the clear catalyst for this sort of intra-party squabbling...

There's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance that your posts tend to generate RD.


Feral wrote:

You probably don't mean to do it but I've been there before.

There's a guy in my group that, more often than not, optimizes his AC. It's to the point that at any given point his AC is 10+ points higher than anyone else's and enemies need natural 20s to hit him. I assume that's fun for him but it definitely creates the image that he can only play with 'godmode' enabled.

The problem with a melee character whose AC is 10+ points higher than anyone else in the party is that any decent GM is going to play their NPCs and monsters as eventually realizing that they are wasting their time on the mutant turtle and go after the squishy targets.

If I had a party member doing this I'd have an out of game conversation with him about unintended consequences and his actual party role. When it's your job to take hits, you have to give the GM a reason to try to hit you. Being hit only on a natural 20 doesn't do that.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I suppose I should also add that, in the entire history of my roleplaying career with this group, we have NEVER finished a full campaign or adventure path.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Is it telling that when I started Skull and Shackles (a more or less evil game) I, as GM, had to make it absolutely clear well in advance that I wasn't going to allow PvP? I expect the PCs to work together. To accomplish that goal, they can make whatever rationalizations they want (press gang camaraderie, useful pawns/bodyguards, previous ties such as old friends or family, etc.). I'm not going to have my adventure path torn apart by immature squabbling.

... and yet you routinely post anecdotes here on these boards where your characters are repeatedly the clear catalyst for this sort of intra-party squabbling...

There's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance that your posts tend to generate RD.

It really comes down to a difference in play styles I guess. I certainly don't go out of my way to cause intra-party squabbling. In fact, I jump through hoops (ringed with fire no less!) to avoid such things.


Quote:

The problem with a melee character whose AC is 10+ points higher than anyone else in the party is that any decent GM is going to play their NPCs and monsters as eventually realizing that they are wasting their time on the mutant turtle and go after the squishy targets.

If I had a party member doing this I'd have an out of game conversation with him about unintended consequences and his actual party role. When it's your job to take hits, you have to give the GM a reason to try to hit you. Being hit only on a natural 20 doesn't do that.

Yeah. Personally I hate it, but it is true that monsters aren't in any way compelled to attack the "tank". There aren't many ways to mechanically force an enemy to attack you, but most DMs do require it, so it sucks for "tank" types. I'm okay with using good RP, but mostly with mooks. Having only one player also helps. :P


Honestly, aside from the previous discussion, this sounds an awful lot like a group that has too much history.

Sometimes a group goes bad, and needs to take a long break, or re-form around a core of players that DO get along (or... disband... dum-dum-dum!)

If the clashing personalities do rejoin, they should do so under a new context that works hard to keep people from falling back into their old problematic ruts.


If they took all ther risk and your character only buff himself then yes your character is a coward.


Ravingdork wrote:

I suppose I should also add that, in the entire history of my roleplaying career with this group, we have NEVER finished a full campaign or adventure path.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Is it telling that when I started Skull and Shackles (a more or less evil game) I, as GM, had to make it absolutely clear well in advance that I wasn't going to allow PvP? I expect the PCs to work together. To accomplish that goal, they can make whatever rationalizations they want (press gang camaraderie, useful pawns/bodyguards, previous ties such as old friends or family, etc.). I'm not going to have my adventure path torn apart by immature squabbling.

... and yet you routinely post anecdotes here on these boards where your characters are repeatedly the clear catalyst for this sort of intra-party squabbling...

There's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance that your posts tend to generate RD.

It really comes down to a difference in play styles I guess. I certainly don't go out of my way to cause intra-party squabbling. In fact, I jump through hoops (ringed with fire no less!) to avoid such things.

RD, it sounds like something you are going to have to sit down when Them about and hash this all out.

Only they can tell you what *the actual* problem is. Is it really that your mages never get hit? is it that you don't play evokers? Is it just that you buff yourself too much? Is it somethign completely unrelated to that- like playing controlly types too much compared to other characters? (maybe one of them wants to give a try at one or something, I dunno).

Its difficult for us on the boards to peer into your group and figure out the problem because we hear your side of it and not theres. Not saying you are dishonest here- just saying that you can only really let us peer into Your mind and not theirs.

Rightly or wrongly everyone has their own idea on how things "should" be played. You need to have this convo with your group. Find out what the problem really is, and then see if its something you Can fix, if its worth fixing at all, or just worth finding a new set of faces to hang out with.

-S


Ravingdork wrote:


It really comes down to a difference in play styles I guess. I certainly don't go out of my way to cause intra-party squabbling. In fact, I jump through hoops (ringed with fire no less!) to avoid such things.

RD, I really struggle with how to interact with you. I love your posts. I love your originality and your enthusiasm. I even love your ability to find the most obscure and questionable exploits.

I really do think I'd have a great time playing with you.

But I have to be honest here and say that I am sure you BELIEVE you are doing all you can to avoid this sort of thing. But I am big on evidence and not so big on feelings.

You still get to play a lot and you clearly have a lot of fun, so probably there's nothing you need to do about your play style. Heck you clearly play more frequently and with more people than I do. I've only really got two groups I play with (one PF and one 4e) and usually play no more than two or three times a month.

But still, I just have to quote a famous physicist: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Keep on playing, and more importantly keep on posting. You provide a lot of entertainment value for me, both your posts and the reactions to them. But if I were you I would be doing some serious reflection.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I've tried talking to them, but I'm rarely able to get more than one of them at a time (nobody's interested in losing game time, or talking it out during another unrelated activity). Even then, most of them don't seem to take the situation as seriously as I seem to. Only one of them will listen to me talk for more than a few minutes, and even then, I think it's more out of politeness than a true desire to make things better.

One of the GMs outright admitted that he believes in the player VS GM philosophy and that he believed it was his job t not only challenge us, but to KILL us, provided he could manage it within the confines of the chosen adventure path. We have a second GM who is quite ruthless in his own right, but hasn't really admitted to any such beliefs. Seeing as they make up two of of four active GMs, fully half of our campaigns end in TPK or near TPK, or simply fall apart due to disenchanted GMs with dwindling amounts of time/energy on their hands.


You should make an over the top heroic character. Does whatever he/she can to save the others. Someone drops? So what if getting to them to pour a potion down their throat means you provoke from 4 baddies.

Is it antithetical to your usual play style? Yup. Might you find it a ton of fun? Yup Does it matter if you die in a blaze of glory? Nope. Will the party appreciate the attempt? yup. They might even decide they prefer you being the other type of player? Maybe


Lol at AD for sweet-talking like a boss. :D

Liberty's Edge

In my own experience, I think your friends would be happy with you building a character that fulfills his/her role but is not nigh-invulnerable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ravingdork wrote:

I've tried talking to them, but I'm rarely able to get more than one of them at a time (nobody's interested in losing game time, or talking it out during another unrelated activity). Even then, most of them don't seem to take the situation as seriously as I seem to. Only one of them will listen to me talk for more than a few minutes, and even then, I think it's more out of politeness than a true desire to make things better.

One of the GMs outright admitted that he believes in the player VS GM philosophy and that he believed it was his job t not only challenge us, but to KILL us, provided he could manage it within the confines of the chosen adventure path. We have a second GM who is quite ruthless in his own right, but hasn't really admitted to any such beliefs. Seeing as they make up two of of four active GMs, fully half of our campaigns end in TPK or near TPK, or simply fall apart due to disenchanted GMs with dwindling amounts of time/energy on their hands.

More cognitive dissonance. The last dozen or so comments and posts are all about your interaction with your fellow players. Your rationale and explanation for that is focused entirely on the GM/Player interaction, which may very well be an issue for you, but it's not THE issue we're discussing here. It's a sort of conversational out-of-body experience.

But even so you drop these little unintended revelations that, in my mind, reveal volumes about your situation. "Only one of them will listen to me talk for more than a few minutes, and even then, I think it's more out of politeness than a true desire to make things better."

Such a comment is truly profoundly important RD. It reveals to me that there is much, much more going on here than you acknowledge, or perhaps even recognize.

In post after post from you I see these little nuggets of your player group's interactions, and I wonder if you are even aware of what they seem to reveal.

Something about your personality or playstyle seems to alienate your gaming buddies RD. Maybe you brag too much. Maybe you nag too much. Maybe you simply intimidate them. I don't know what the actual party dynamic is, but it's not good.

How old are the members of your group? Are you friends outside of gaming? Do you all live in the same dorm or apartment building?

Not that I really care, these are more questions you should be asking yourself. Because if these little nuggets are accurate, you definitely seem to be wearing out your welcome, and that has an inevitable ending that I don't think you will enjoy.

Silver Crusade

I think one of the big things that is creating the problem for your group is not whether you are playing a "coward" as such. Don't ever forget one of the biggest reasons and joys for making multiple characters...you can try out new classes, new backgrounds...and new personalities. As I read what your fellow players and your GM was commenting on, I got the impression that it wasn't necessarily the actions of that character.

Heck, in my campaign, one of our players also played a "cowardly" wizard. So much so in fact, that he one time asked, "Couldn't we just put up a sign that says, BEWARE OF SPIDERS and go around it?" Everyone got a really good laugh from that. But this same person has also played sacrificial heroes, maniacal rogues and dumb brutes. I got a really strong impression that it wasn't that you were playing a coward, but that you've played nine cowards...and only cowards. Writing a different background on paper, doesn't mean you are playing that character any different than your previous characters.

What I read in your post was not that your are playing manipulators, but that your playing is rote. My advice to you, is shake it up...it's just a piece of paper....playing a death-doomed warrior...and risk-taking rogue. If they die, they die...no big deal. But it is within each player's capability to make every gaming experience memorable...for you and them. Who knows? Maybe you'll find that role-playing a dramatic death scene and then writing it for your character may become a great part of your characterization.

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
Ravingdork wrote:


My question is this: How exactly does this hurt anyone's fun? If the GM is killing other party members in hopes of besting the tank, then that the GM's mistake, not the player's.

Nope - it's the player's fault.

Everybody else at the table has, it would seem, agreed on a group playstyle. Your characters don't fit into that style. But you're trying to blame everybody else for it, and not accept the responsibility.

The GM is there to keep everybody happy, not to craft the encounters to suit a single player.


Ravingdork wrote:
It really comes down to a difference in play styles I guess.

Then address the problem, not the symptoms.


"You can please some of the people some of the time, all of the people some of the time, some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time."
-Abraham Lincoln (Adapted Version)

Also it sounds like your GM and fellow players like playing meat grinders, no offense. It also sounds like the soul-intent from two of your GMs is just to find a way to kill the party off. Since your focusing on surviving it puts a wrench in the plans of those two as you have higher chance of making it out alright.

Either you become closer to what your friends are playing or you help your friends in their optimizations of their characters for survival.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Something about your personality or playstyle seems to alienate your gaming buddies RD. Maybe you brag too much. Maybe you nag too much. Maybe you simply intimidate them. I don't know what the actual party dynamic is, but it's not good.

How old are the members of your group? Are you friends outside of gaming? Do you all live in the same dorm or apartment building?

Brag? I take pride in most of my characters, and do like to show off a creative concept or good build. I wouldn't go so far as to call it bragging though, and I never do it AT the table as it would disrupt the game.

Nag? Only when I know a rule is being broken and that myself or another player is negatively effected as a consequence.

Intimidate them? Hama certainly did. They were all terrified she would achieve her goal of lichdom.

Party dynamic? Best I can figure, they like some roleplaying and a whole lot of rushing/action, whereas I like deeply involved interactions (such as manipulating enemies into destroying one another rather than attacking them head on).

I turned 28 a few days ago. Most everyone else is 25-27.

All of us are friends outside of gaming. Have known most of them since grade school. We don't see much of each other outside of gaming these days, however.

Two players are roommates in the same apartment, two more are married and just bought a house, and the rest of us take care of our families. I live with my twin brother. (Yes, Ravingdork is an evil twin!)

Does that help to shed some light?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The idea of a Ravingjock frightens me greatly.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
JohnF wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:


My question is this: How exactly does this hurt anyone's fun? If the GM is killing other party members in hopes of besting the tank, then that the GM's mistake, not the player's.

Nope - it's the player's fault.

Everybody else at the table has, it would seem, agreed on a group playstyle. Your characters don't fit into that style. But you're trying to blame everybody else for it, and not accept the responsibility.

Respectfully, I disagree. I should not have to play a highly intelligent wizard who doesn't know proper tactics from his left foot or a raging barbarian that invites enemies to shred his pathetic AC if I don't want to. I play probably one non-spellcaster for every two spellcasterss. The physical types never live as long and are rarely as fun for me.

It's also been my experience that they are rarely any fun for anyone else.

It seems like a lose/lose situation to me regardless of what I play. Suppose I will just have to bear it for the time being.

JohnF wrote:

The GM is there to keep everybody happy, not to craft the encounters to suit a single player.

Is this not what I've been saying for as long as I've been on these boards?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
The idea of a Ravingjock frightens me greatly.

???


I think there's a river in Egypt that has an evil twin brother...


Ravingdork wrote:
Odraude wrote:
The idea of a Ravingjock frightens me greatly.
???

Evil twin = opposite

Opposite of dork is....


don't worry RD. i go through a lot of characters too. i usually go through one every 2 months or so. it's usually because i draw the most "aggro" by simply being the biggest threat. the longest lasting PCs i had were the most disturbing ones. i have played every PF class except a paladin, gunslinger, summoner, or cavalier at least once for a minimum of 6 weeks apiece.


Odraude wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
Odraude wrote:
The idea of a Ravingjock frightens me greatly.
???

Evil twin = opposite

Opposite of dork is....

OMG it's Dorknarok!


Ravingdork wrote:

I suppose I should also add that, in the entire history of my roleplaying career with this group, we have NEVER finished a full campaign or adventure path.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:


There's a certain amount of cognitive dissonance that your posts tend to generate RD.
It really comes down to a difference in play styles I guess. I certainly don't go out of my way to cause intra-party squabbling. In fact, I jump through hoops (ringed with fire no less!) to avoid such things.

You are either so full of shoe polish your ears are leaking, or (and AD beat me to the punch but I was totally thinking the same term -- you are a Brass-Ring Cognitive Dissonant.

If I had to guess why your group never finishes a campaign or AP I'd have to pick "You are wearing everyone the hell out, man." as high on my list. There might be other problems, but boy... if you want outside opinions, you wouldn't get within 20 feet of my gaming table, or most of the people I'd care to team with. You are utterly in denial of your bad behavior to the point of it being disturbing, frankly.

You haven't accepted responsibility for anything, and your posts (which are meant to cultivate enlightenment and sympathy for your position) are doing anything but. The vast majority of advice is summing up to "Stop being a nerf-herder"... and you're coming back with "But why is it a problem?"

You're being a jerk. If you didn't know, now you know. Wise up, or you'll be the poorer for it later.

You're on the Advice board. The general consensus = Stop it.

But I'm pretty confident you won't... because "Why?!"

(sigh) Wake up and join the team. I feel really sorry for your "friends."

Edit: "Nerd-herder changed to Nerf-herder"


Ravingdork wrote:

I've tried talking to them, but I'm rarely able to get more than one of them at a time (nobody's interested in losing game time, or talking it out during another unrelated activity). Even then, most of them don't seem to take the situation as seriously as I seem to. Only one of them will listen to me talk for more than a few minutes, and even then, I think it's more out of politeness than a true desire to make things better.

One of the GMs outright admitted that he believes in the player VS GM philosophy and that he believed it was his job t not only challenge us, but to KILL us, provided he could manage it within the confines of the chosen adventure path. We have a second GM who is quite ruthless in his own right, but hasn't really admitted to any such beliefs. Seeing as they make up two of of four active GMs, fully half of our campaigns end in TPK or near TPK, or simply fall apart due to disenchanted GMs with dwindling amounts of time/energy on their hands.

Bro... they HATE you.

The GM trying to kill thing is a side issue. I don't know what the complexity in the dynamic is that doesn't get you kicked out of the band, but I'd bet dimes to donuts they can barely stand your presence.


I'd go to my game store, join an entirely new group -- and cultivate a new identity as somebody who is a team player and see how that goes.

Wait... you wouldn't have a good time. But perhaps things would go smoother for a while before the new people got exhausted with the "Bull's Strength."

Liberty's Edge

Well it's entirely possible it's a case of everyone else is jerk and RD is the only well-adjusted one in the group.

Either way though, the nature of pen & paper gaming requires that you make yourself fit. Find a way to play by their rules and still have fun or look for some other people to play with.

Sometimes nobody is 'wrong' it's just a matter of incompatible characters (and by characters, I mean people).

Sovereign Court

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Vicon wrote:

Bro... they HATE you.

The GM trying to kill thing is a side issue. I don't know what the complexity in the dynamic is that doesn't get you kicked out of the band, but I'd bet dimes to donuts they can barely stand your presence.

That seems to be taking things way out of proportion.

Why do you think you need to be slinging such powerful words around in a situation you have only the bare minimum of understanding? From what I've read there seems to be a miscommunication issue between RD and the rest of his group (or some players/GM), but to take from that, that his group hates him and to put it the way you did is just outright silly and potentially damaging.

@Ravingdork, why not volunteer to GM an AP or a chapter of an AP? That could be a tremendous impact in the way your group interacts with you (though I don't know if you GM at all to begin with). You could show them your GM philosophy, and hey, they might end up liking your style more and the GM vs Player mentality might stop.

As for the character issue: don't change your current characters but maybe think about making the next character more of a buffer or debuffer. That way you should be able to play a caster type in line with these two and actively show the group how beneficial buffers/debuffers can be.


I second the finding a new group. Don't get me wrong. I think that since you're not trying to solo the combat or invalidating them, keep on doing it. But since your group isn't into it, find a different one. One that is more compatible.

Liberty's Edge

Dabbler wrote:
Ravingdork wrote:
- Even with openly evil characters, I never sacrifice party members or do anything that might knowingly jeopardize another player's fun.

Yet you are still the subject of flack, which says that either your group have a warped perception of your usefulness, or you aren't succeeding. At the end of the day, you are still at the back of the party behind everyone else.

I still advise you: Play something different - like a direct damage melee fighter - to shake the image.

Ravingdork wrote:


- I do help the party out. My first spell is often haste, for example. Mirror image is generally second (most enemies don't get past the meat shields in round one). In the case of ambushes and similar scenarios where I'm facing immediate melee threats, I might start off with a personal defensive buff first (a dead wizard doesn't help anyone).

If the party don't see the utility of haste on round 1, I fail to see how that is RD fault.

@RD: It appear that there is a strong difference in playstile between you and the other players in your group. Part of the problem can be your fault, part seem to fall on your play companions (GMs included).
Maybe it would be really wise to leave your current gaming group for a time and find a new one more compatible with your gaming style.

After a time of rest you could try rejoining with them. Playing with a different group could give you a new insight on party dynamics and playing without you could give you old group a new insight in the usefulness of your tactics.

My impression is that both they and you are carrying a lot of baggage from past characters so the interaction between them is never "our current characters" but "Hama was a horrid b*&** so your current character will pay for that".


Petty Alchemy wrote:

DOES BATMAN PROTECT US FROM THE FREAKS, OR DOES HE DRAW THEM OUT???

Ya know, I've been noticing a whole lot of Batman references on here lately and as much as I like Batman, it's beginning to make me wonder if 33% of posters on this forum are obsessed with that character more than the game we are all here to discuss? Nothing personal against you petty alchemy this is something that has been nagging at me for a couple of weeks. So folks, I know the new Batman is coming out soon and everyone is excited about it but can we tone down the black spandex love a notch or seven? thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Conundrum wrote:
Petty Alchemy wrote:

DOES BATMAN PROTECT US FROM THE FREAKS, OR DOES HE DRAW THEM OUT???

Ya know, I've been noticing a whole lot of Batman references on here lately and as much as I like Batman, it's beginning to make me wonder if 33% of posters on this forum are obsessed with that character more than the game we are all here to discuss? Nothing personal against you petty alchemy this is something that has been nagging at me for a couple of weeks. So folks, I know the new Batman is coming out soon and everyone is excited about it but can we tone down the black spandex love a notch or seven? thanks.

No, I don't think that will be possible, but your concerns have been duly noted.


Feral wrote:

Well it's entirely possible it's a case of everyone else is jerk and RD is the only well-adjusted one in the group.

Either way though, the nature of pen & paper gaming requires that you make yourself fit. Find a way to play by their rules and still have fun or look for some other people to play with.

Sometimes nobody is 'wrong' it's just a matter of incompatible characters (and by characters, I mean people).

I have felt this way when playing at the local gamestore.MAN I DESPISE most of those cats! I'm also more blue collar jock type and clearly don't fit in with the typical gamestore crowd. Occasionally I met another player that was similar to me at one of the game nights but rarely, and most of the people there were TERRIFIED of getting their character killed. Me, I would role a tough full- bab and smoke house the enemy while they all hated on me for being reckless. DUDES. A)Their just goblins!

B)If your charaacter dies oh well have a back-up handy or role a new one, that simple.


I'm Batman.

51 to 100 of 419 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Optimizing for survival a sign of cowardice? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.