|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Some people don't like losing the characters they play without getting to tell some/all of their story.
I'm not saying you're having BADWRONGFUN, but I am going to say that I'm not going to have put nearly as much effort into a character I expect to die after two hours of gaming as one that I expect to last a whole AP/campaign.
RavingDork,
With four GM's (none of which seems to be you) and never making it through an Adventure Path or campaign in years of game-play, there's something dissonant there, and it's not necessarily you. The point of playing these games is to have fun, but the group play-style seems to be scattered to the point of not having long-term viability, and your characters seem to be built for that. I'm not saying that your group is "doing it wrong", because if that's they style they're into, there's nothing wrong with that, but it doesn't seem compatible with what you want out of your gaming experience.
You seem to put a lot of effort into your characters; optimizing them, giving them interesting backgrounds, trying new approaches to game-play, etc... Perhaps you could try doing a "blind-take" approach, where everyone creates a character, puts them all in manilla envelopes, shuffles them around and then each player draws one. Then your group can't complain that there's anything wrong with the characters you create, just with your play-style. If things are still going poorly, you should then seek out another group to play with. If things go swimmingly well, then the problem isn't yours (and that opens up a host of other issues).
I know that I would have concerns if I was always playing in meat-grinder games where the GM is attempting to kill the players as best they can (even within certain parameters). It's just not my idea of fun to try to survive as long as you can, and that may be a big part of the problem, since you claim to be one who typically survives the longest (and therefore, are best at that pseudo-game). It may improve the dynamic of the party to encourage your GMs to move away from that approach.
Just my two cents.
Several people have mentioned it, but it bears repeating...
in the situation you describe, one of three things is happening:
A. The other members of your party are not utilizing the benefits of your caster's battlefield control spells, and should be educated accordingly.
or
B. Your use or placement of your battlefield control spells is not optimal.
or
C. Your DM is not playing your opponents to their best and is not effectively bringing enough pain your way to specifically keep you busy or shut you down.
When you have identified which of those three things is happening, progress can be made.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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).
So basically, you are playing one game and they are playing another. As you are the odd one out, it's pretty much ball in your court to make the first move to compromise a little and start to resolve the situation; as you bend to them, they will bend a little to you.
Maybe your deeply involved interactions are a solo game within a game, which excludes everyone else. That leaves them in the cold, and then when it's their game you aren't playing ball.
I've tried talking to them...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.
RD, talking with your fellow players is not you telling them how you are right the way you do on these boards, the most important bit is them talking and you listening. No-one is listening to you because, at a guess, you aren't listening to them.
Look, you and your group are playing in two different styles. You want to cut the flack, you have to bend a little because you are the odd man out. That means making characters that combine your manipulations with their rushes. How you do it is up to you, but I suggest you find a way.
This is easily resolved. Meet them halway by taking a direct damage spell each level, use a wand of fire balls periodically, etc.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, why do some people get bent out of shape by any character built within the rules? Getting better at making good characters would be more productive than whining because someone can see synergies in the rules.
Roleplay has zero do do with what's on the character sheet, that stuff is all rollplay. And before anyone brings up skills, you still ROLL a D20 to adjudicate the result.
Seriously, why do some people get bent out of shape by any character built within the rules? Getting better at making good characters would be more productive than whining because someone can see synergies in the rules.
Roleplay has zero do do with what's on the character sheet, that stuff is all rollplay. And before anyone brings up skills, you still ROLL a D20 to adjudicate the result.
but because characters are point buy now most commonly, we no longer ROLL up characters instead we ROLE them because we are now largely in control of how they turn out and what ROLES they will fill.
|
|
but because characters are point buy now most commonly, we no longer ROLL up characters instead we ROLE them because we are now largely in control of how they turn out and what ROLES they will fill.Seriously, why do some people get bent out of shape by any character built within the rules? Getting better at making good characters would be more productive than whining because someone can see synergies in the rules.
Roleplay has zero do do with what's on the character sheet, that stuff is all rollplay. And before anyone brings up skills, you still ROLL a D20 to adjudicate the result.
Blah blah blah. Dump stats. 'nuff said. 100% legal. No excuse to make lame characters that can't keep up with someone who knows the rules.
And, what's your basic for "most commonly"? PFS? Because all the groups I play with still roll stats, and quite a few I know about do. I have no idea what percentage of total groups that would be, but unless you're omniscient, I'd lay off the "most commonly" stuff. You have no idea what "most" people do, no more than I do.
|
"Optimization" is a degree of "effectiveness," to say that a character isn't "optimized" means that the said character isn't "effective" at whatever task the character was meant to perform. So, no, not all characters are optimized towards survival (whether by lack of system mastery or because of personal preference).
Thank you, everyone, you've given me quite a bit to think about.
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."
What pray tell have I done wrong exactly? What is this "bad behavior" you speak of? A difference of play styles is a problem, but it is not necessarily the same as bad behavior. (Just so you don't misunderstand the tone of my post, I'm not upset. Just curious.)
|
|
I see, and I agree with that perspective (sans the "survival" part, I think it's a little low as far as benchmarks go :P). But a problem is that it isn't how people "prefer to see it." As a home game, I act as the GM for a Legends campaign (not Mongoose's) and one of the primary complaints I get from a player is that I "intimidate him because of the differences we have in system mastery." Now, as a GM, this isn't necessarily a bad thing, as it means I'll be more than able to make adjustments for the table. But, if I were another member of the party, it could create frustration and anger (with consciously or subconsciously) for the GM and the other party members. But, eh, it's an entirely subjective thing, isn't it?
[Edit]
To Conundrum
Derek is correct when it comes to "roll" and "role" stats (if we're looking at it from purely a mechanical:RP perspective), individual players have the right to decide at whether or not they'll adjust their RP concepts to match their mechanical concepts or vice versa, and players of either bent shouldn't be overly hostile towards others in their group for not choosing to follow their personal preferences.
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.
Roac, I applaud your sensitivity and benefit of the doubt... The OP however is not a complete dope, I'd gamble that he's significantly above average intelligence though likely not congruently gifted in social skills. I thought about this thread while I was out for the day, and I give him more credit than you do. He knows exactly what he's doing, knows it's wrong, and doesn't care. I wasn't going to feed the troll by posting in the thread further to the OP, because it's pretty obvious what my stance is. In RPGs you meet a lot of strange people, some with complex social issues. He's not even repentant about obviously causing a lot of grief for his gaming group. This, I bet, is just another way of fetishizing his shenanigans messing with the folks at his gaming table -- he's come here primarily to generate attention to his crappy behavior and really turn the forum into a discussion about his social problems.
I've been out of the RPG scene for a while, so I was a little slow to wake up to this. I've noticed recently that there are a few creepy people out on the boards, and I am going to have to learn not to react to them.
This whole thread is a circus, and while an interesting mental exercise, will not serve the OP in the manner anybody attempting to be analytical or helpful intends. It will suffice to stroke his ego some, which I will endeavor no longer to do. I don't play with needy, socially narcissistic douches, and I don't cultivate an endless feedback loop until we've empirically proven an obvious miscreant is one to a sufficient consensus.
So to answer your question (and I apologize to you for any offense) I am calling a spade a spade. I am somewhat disturbed by the tack of the thread, and the apparent practice of creepy people exploiting a forum of interested and intelligent people to turn their mischief into mental masturbation.
Going to read to the end of the thread, put 2 coppers on anything that may call for it, and bail on this line. But I figured you should be dignified with a response.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about you, but to me being a coward is someone who is constantly running away, or trembling in fear, doing no actions, if all you do is run away or don't even cast spells (on yourself or others) then that is cowardice, buffing yourself while still providing support to the party somehow is not cowardice.
I really see no issue how Ravindork is playing his character.
What pray tell have I done wrong exactly? What is this "bad behavior" you speak of? A difference of play styles is a problem, but it is not necessarily the same as bad behavior. (Just so you don't misunderstand the tone of my post, I'm not upset. Just curious.)
Sorry pal, I've given you plenty of hay to chew on without going around another time, as much as you might enjoy it. I've spelled it out. I went from briefly upset, to curious, to bored. No more blood in this stone.
You don't think you're jumping to conclusions a bit, Vicon?
As for being a badass, just doing my job bro. No need to thank me.
As I said, Jumping to conclusions or not -- I'm safe in my grasp of probabilities here. This guy is not an idiot. I've extrapolated that he's something else, and I'll let you come up with a name for what you think that is.
Does ANYBODY have any idea what Vicon is talking about??? I suspect he's just trolling for a response and that's why he won't be more specific.
|
|
To Vicon
Post 1)
- Your argument against Chess isn't accurate because, following the War Game heritage of D&D (and, by association, PF), is the strength of the casting classes (and this is the face most often depicted in handbooks).
- "Optimized" means is often a shorthand for "Efficient" and is exactly that. The Monk isn't efficient at survival and, neither, are the Fighter or the Paladin as they don't have very effective defensive options. Thus, none of the aforementioned classes are particularly "optimized" towards "survival."
Post 2()
- "God"-style Wizard aren't often made to contribute directly to a party's damage and instead tend to focus on buffing or debuffing. For some tables, the fact that the Wizard isn't contributing "directly" means that the Wizard is cowardly or otherwise "not adding to the party's capabilities" despite increasing the height of the floor that the entire party rests upon.
Post 3)
- A combination of unsubstantiated assertions that do little to address the thread with attacks upon Ravingdork's character that, likewise, do little to provide insight.
Post 4)
- Again, an unsubstantiated claim that isn't particularly helpful or insightful.
Post 5)
- Another attack.
Post 6)
- A number of claims that use personal assertions and character attacks without actually providing any information beyond that.
Post 7)
- A self-justification on the entirety of your participation on this thread.
Are...we done now?
[Edit]
In any case, Ravingdork, how does your party fair in the absence of a BC character? Does someone else take the role? Does the DM change how combat plays out? etc.
Does ANYBODY have any idea what Vicon is talking about??? I suspect he's just trolling for a response and that's why he won't be more specific.
Not to worry RD, I think you and i have clashed before, I don't remember but I guess the point is many of us including myself fall victim to temptation to troll on these boards. Can't say that is or isn't the case here my advice is try not to take it personally, maybe look into playing with a different group and/or adjust play style. I do think your group may be biased against you by now though so finding a different group AND slightly modifying play style seems to me to be your best bet. I also like to optimize with survival in mind with all my chars, I just go about it differently.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
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.
Wanted to touch on this...
as a GM it ruins my fun when a character is out of whack like that. Part of the 'fun' is at least including the illusion of danger.
A good example of this was tonight running Shipyard Rats, low tier. Being able to get the AC up to 18+ makes it difficult to threaten the tanks. It becomes 'boring' for people to not run a risk of damage.
Now when the channel energy breaks out... suddenly it becomes more thrilling because they are at least worried.
Now not every encounter should be "You built up this ultrahigh AC, so I'm going to bypass it." But I know that if it never happens it's not fun for me.
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.DOES BATMAN PROTECT US FROM THE FREAKS, OR DOES HE DRAW THEM OUT???
It seemed fitting though. At least my post contributed to the topic :P
Can't say the same for this post.
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.DOES BATMAN PROTECT US FROM THE FREAKS, OR DOES HE DRAW THEM OUT???
It seemed fitting though. At least my post contributed to the topic :P
Can't say the same for this post.
As stated, that was not intended as a personal jab at you petty, just observing the over inflated presence of the masked avenger on a tabletop Rpg site having nothing to do with him :-).
I meant it more in "Does RD's superior defense draw out enemies that can threaten him (and thus are able to stomp his party, which had only mediocre defense)?"
Eh, does the standard adventuring party protect NPC's from the negative events of the world, or are the NPC's of the world threatened by the negative events of the world because of the presence of adventurers? xP
It seems unfair to place all the blame on adventurers, as brigands always arise when there is unrest and turmoil and would pillage unchecked without noble adventurers about. It's just that when adventurers show up the brigands are forced to up their level of violence, and in return the adventurers are forced to as well, leading into an escalating conflict with the NPCs caught in the middle...
|
|
I know, I know, I just wanted to throw out a "product neutral" version. :3
In all honesty though, I just find it odd that many GM's take to "brute force" in retaliation instead of finding interesting ways to circumvent a character's defenses.
It seems unfair to place all the blame on adventurers, as brigands always arise when there is unrest and turmoil and would pillage unchecked without noble adventurers about. It's just that when adventurers show up the brigands are forced to up their level of violence, and in return the adventurers are forced to as well, leading into an escalating conflict with the NPCs caught in the middle...
; 3;
B-but the NPC's existed peacefully until the GM decided that the PC's needed an adventure!|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Eh, does the standard adventuring party protect NPC's from the negative events of the world, or are the NPC's of the world threatened by the negative events of the world because of the presence of adventurers? xPIt seems unfair to place all the blame on adventurers, as brigands always arise when there is unrest and turmoil and would pillage unchecked without noble adventurers about. It's just that when adventurers show up the brigands are forced to up their level of violence, and in return the adventurers are forced to as well, leading into an escalating conflict with the NPCs caught in the middle...
It is a recurring argument. I've read it in Alpha Flight, Spiderman, Young Justice...
You're right, it's not fair, but it makes for good storytelling.
I meant it more in "Does RD's superior defense draw out enemies that can threaten him (and thus are able to stomp his party, which had only mediocre defense)?"
Yes I fully recognize this both now and when I posted the original reply. Have I offended? I solemnly swear that wan't my intent!
|
|
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.
I have a rogue like this in my Shackled City game.
He gets asked to make a lot of will saves.