Moderating your min/maxing is key.
Especially if your DM is not good at custom encounter building.
A veteran DM can deal with any character, but newer ones become frustrated fast.
Here's the major problem with "custom encounter building". If a player's build is that much more uber than his companions, it's rather difficult to challenge said player without wiping the floor with the blood of said companions.
It's also flatly annoying to roleplayers when it becomes obvious that your "roleplay" hook is nothing more than to justify a theorycrafted construction that breaks world verisimilitude.
It becomes even more annoying when said min-maxer judges other players by how much their characters abide by some gaming messageboards charop analysis, such as when someone critiques me because I did not build my magus as Yet Another Dervish Dancer.
It's not hard for a good DM, but as I said, it can frustrate a less skilled encounter builder easily.
And most min-maxers I know are also extreme roleplayers who put as much work into their backstory as they do with their mechanics, so I haven't personally had to deal with this mythical ultra-antagonistic powergamer that people seem to be using as an example in this argument.
Maybe they exist, sure, but in my 17ish years of gaming I've never met one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It really boils down to jerks will be jerks and has nothing to do with powergamers, minmaxers, roleplayers or rollplayers.
|
There's nothing wrong with playing in a power-gamey kind of way, as others have stated. Our Friday GM is the kind of guy who can power-game the crap out of pretty much anything but he's really very good at playing a character. (Though I hate playing most board games with him. He doesn't try to be a jerk, but I get tired of getting my backside handed to me on every game. Glad we didn't meet over board games!)
As long as you fit in with the group, seems like it should work out. I liked the bits about how to background-up a character who would otherwise be a collection of stats walking about. Nothing at all wrong either with taking inspiration from wherever you can!
Happy gaming...
I'll admit to being a bit of a power gamer, but I haven't had too many problems because of it, of course i always have a back story, and unless I'm playing a rogue I try to play in the background as often as possible. In the campaign I'm playing now I actually turned down a magical set of armor and kept my plain old hide armor cause it didn't match my character's concept, which has given me a nice little cushion of good will with the gm.
]Uh, that's 'Eowyn,' and the only thing she one-shotted was the Witch-King's flying mount. The Hobbit with her one-shotted the Witch-King.The hobbit stabs him in the back of the knee, which distracts him long enough for Eowyn to stab him in the face. Technically neither of them one-shorted him.
By the time the hobbit stabs the nazgul, Eowyn is already down with shield-arm shattered. And only the blades forged as a bane to the Witch-King of Angmar COULD have harmed him: even if the Rhohirrim (sp?) lady HAD bashed him, it wouldn't have gotten past the DR...
Are you quoting... the events portrayed in the MOVIE?!
'Cause that isn't how it really happened.
|
I don't exactly see how optimizing your stat layout is cheating.
Cheating is, by definition, the breaking of a rule.
PF already has rules on stat distribution (you can't start with a base stat of lower than 7 or higher than 18, unmodified by racial bonuses).
So, yeah, if a guy has a dwarf with a CHA of 4 and a Con of 22 at 1st level, he probably cheated.
If he's at 5 and 20, he's within the rules.
You have failed to understand the idea of cheating.
In fact, you have represented it in a way that a conniving lawyer might, or even a conniving rules-lawyer...
-If I sleep with other women behind my partner's back then I have not broken any written rules but I have still cheated.
-If I find a man in the depths of despair, get him drunk, cajole him into a game of cards and walk off having 'won' all of his money then I have not broken any written rules but I have still cheated.
-If my business makes vast profits in a certain country, taking advantage of the resources provided by the state and the wealth of the citizens, and then squirrel my profits away in obscure 'investment vehicles' to avoid tax then I have not broken any written rules but I have still cheated.
Cheating isn't about following rules, it is about tricking others and usually occurs when people break the unwritten social contract.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't exactly see how optimizing your stat layout is cheating.
Cheating is, by definition, the breaking of a rule.
PF already has rules on stat distribution (you can't start with a base stat of lower than 7 or higher than 18, unmodified by racial bonuses).
So, yeah, if a guy has a dwarf with a CHA of 4 and a Con of 22 at 1st level, he probably cheated.
If he's at 5 and 20, he's within the rules.
You have failed to understand the idea of cheating.
In fact, you have represented it in a way that a conniving lawyer might, or even a conniving rules-lawyer...
-If I sleep with other women behind my partner's back then I have not broken any written rules but I have still cheated.
-If I find a man in the depths of despair, get him drunk, cajole him into a game of cards and walk off having 'won' all of his money then I have not broken any written rules but I have still cheated.
-If my business makes vast profits in a certain country, taking advantage of the resources provided by the state and the wealth of the citizens, and then squirrel my profits away in obscure 'investment vehicles' to avoid tax then I have not broken any written rules but I have still cheated.Cheating isn't about following rules, it is about tricking others and usually occurs when people break the unwritten social contract.
Excuse me, but you do not get to redefine the definition of cheating as you wish. Cheating in a game has a very concrete definition and has NOTHING to do with the use of the word in extramarital affairs.
Cheating is breaking the rules. That is the very definition. The concrete definition.
The social contract has nothing to do with a game with a CODIFIED SET OF RULES.
You know what, never mind. I'm not going to argue with someone who attempts to redefine entire words to fit their argument.
It's bloody disgusting etiquette.
Do me a favour and never interact with me in any way in the future.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]Uh, that's 'Eowyn,' and the only thing she one-shotted was the Witch-King's flying mount. The Hobbit with her one-shotted the Witch-King.The hobbit stabs him in the back of the knee, which distracts him long enough for Eowyn to stab him in the face. Technically neither of them one-shorted him.By the time the hobbit stabs the nazgul, Eowyn is already down with shield-arm shattered. And only the blades forged as a bane to the Witch-King of Angmar COULD have harmed him: even if the Rhohirrim (sp?) lady HAD bashed him, it wouldn't have gotten past the DR...
Are you quoting... the events portrayed in the MOVIE?!
'Cause that isn't how it really happened.
I think perhaps you need to reread the Battle of Gondor section in your book. Eowyn does indeed slay the Witch King after Merry stabs him in the back of the leg.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the feeling that names like "Powergamer, Munchkin, etc" arise more from how a character is played, and less from how the character is built.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
]Uh, that's 'Eowyn,' and the only thing she one-shotted was the Witch-King's flying mount. The Hobbit with her one-shotted the Witch-King.The hobbit stabs him in the back of the knee, which distracts him long enough for Eowyn to stab him in the face. Technically neither of them one-shorted him.By the time the hobbit stabs the nazgul, Eowyn is already down with shield-arm shattered. And only the blades forged as a bane to the Witch-King of Angmar COULD have harmed him: even if the Rhohirrim (sp?) lady HAD bashed him, it wouldn't have gotten past the DR...
Are you quoting... the events portrayed in the MOVIE?!
'Cause that isn't how it really happened.
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this, Alitan, but: It's fiction; it never really happened.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheating is breaking the rules. That is the very definition. The concrete definition.
THIS is the very definition. The concrete definition...
cheat [cheet]verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often followed by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cheating is breaking the rules. That is the very definition. The concrete definition.THIS is the very definition. The concrete definition...
cheat [cheet]verb (used with object)
1. to defraud; swindle: He cheated her out of her inheritance.
2. to deceive; influence by fraud: He cheated us into believing him a hero.
3. to elude; deprive of something expected: He cheated the law by suicide.
verb (used without object)
4. to practice fraud or deceit: She cheats without regrets.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
6. to take an examination or test in a dishonest way, as by improper access to answers.
7. Informal . to be sexually unfaithful (often followed by on ): Her husband knew she had been cheating all along. He cheated on his wife.
Right, and definition 5 is what applies here.
5. to violate rules or regulations: He cheats at cards.
None of the other definitions are valid when talking about a game.
Pathfinder is a board game. An extremely complex boardgames in comparison to most, but a boardgame none the less. It has concrete rules of what can and cannot be done.
These are codified in a set of rule books.
My original example of a dwarf with 5 Cha and 20 Con is not cheating, it is adhering to the Pathfinder pointbuy system and the rules set out by the people who playtested the system.
There is no definition you can create that can turn following the codified rules of a game into cheating.
Point being, GE was trying to apply the other definitions where they clearly don't belong, that being in the context of a game with written rules. That fact alone should narrow down from the list of options to the only one that fits the context.
To try to claim that operating within the rules is "cheating", just because it goes against one person's idea of what is "appropriate" within those rules, is disingenuous at best. It might be accurate to say "I don't like it" or "I don't think the game should be played that way", or something along those lines, but it isn't cheating, and to claim it is is dishonest and deliberately misusing the word to support your point.
|
|
There is no definition you can create that can turn following the codified rules of a game into cheating.
My point was, you are both correct...
To use an example of a much more debated and heated topic:
Gun laws (at least in California) are a set of laws that tell someone what they CANNOT have or CANNOT do (and NEVER list what one CAN have or CAN do)...
So...
Many people have come up with ways, within the very letter of the law, to allow people to have many of the things that are not allowed by the law as they are written...
And yet even though the letter of the law has been followed explicitly, there are many other people that proclaim these others have somehow "cheated the law" or found "loop-holes" around the law...
But all they are doing is following the exact letter of the law...
The reason I bring this up, is that yeah, Pathfinder is a game with rules, but almost any rule can be exploited and turned into something perverse...
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can cheat. Rule 0 means the GM can change the rules. That option does not transfer to players, and even then if the group agrees that rule 0 to not be used you are cheating by breaking the group's rules.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You can cheat at the rules assigned by the GM. If the GM has different rules, which you are following, it's not cheating.
Terquem's talk about what is essentially a Free-Form Roleplay isn't actually relevant to the definition of cheating, since you can't cheat when it's not a true game. Godmoding and creating overpowered characters is just being a jackass.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Rule zero is not specifically meant to be only available to Dungeon Masters
Rule Zero: "The GM is always right."
Looks pretty explicit to me.
If everyone playing in your game is "making things up as they go along", and you are all having fun, no one of you is cheating.
While true, I'd say you're also not playing PF, which has written rules and doesn't operate under the method of "make stuff up as you go along". It's one thing to exchange, replace, substitute, whatever with house rules, but there's still rules and regulations that have to be followed. You need X levels in X class, or this or that feat/item/spell, to do this or that action, have to roll the dice to reach X number to succeed/fail at Y action, etc. etc. etc.
Remove that framework and it ceases to be recognizable as PF as a ruleset, instead becoming more akin to a communal storytelling session where each person takes turns pitching in their bit of "okay this is what happens next", and the only thing it has in common is the fantasy setting.
Rule zero is not specifically meant to be only available to Dungeon Masters, nor is there any rule that says someone must be the Dungeon Master. The game can be played any way you like, as long as the one person, or other persons, you are playing with all agree that you will play in a way that mutually satisfies all of you.You cannot cheat at playing the game. You can disrupt the act of playing by making other people dislike the experience, thus not fulfilling the meaning of the word, "play", but even this is not cheating. To cheat you must exploit an aspect that is unknown to the others involved. To Cheat you must do something that gives an advantage, where others are not given the same oportunity.
If everyone playing in your game is "making things up as they go along", and you are all having fun, no one of you is cheating.If someone in your game is doing something to spoil the fun of "playing" they are ruining the game, not cheating at the game.
If you break the rules the group is expecting you to follow then you are cheating. Is that simple enough for you?
|
|
Oh, and rule zero is specifically meant for game masters...
Althoug i wouldn't call it cheating per se, a player who makes his character ridiculously overpowered in doing a certain type of things, and leaves it with massive vulnerabilities in every other aspect is cheating. He is clearly in it to win (which you cannot do in a tabletop) and is at the very least cheating his fellow players out of their fun.
