IK, not IX, darn autocorrect.
But we're not talking about things like choosing not to play with someone. We're talking about things like taking away power from a legitimately built character because it's somehow too good.Would you prefer they just kicked you out?
If you are at a table with 4 people, and three of them have weak characters and one has a strong character, why is it that the person who made the strong character has to tone their character down because everyone else has a weak character? Why not make the other three character's strong?Because maybe they want to play a halfling barbarian/wizard, not whatever is dictated by the laws of optimization?
Or heck, play the game as is and realize that it's not a freaking communist society where everyone is equal?If they don't find that fun, then they don't find that fun. There's a reason why a lot of modern boardgames are carefully balanced, with reduced luck elements and rules that keep the leader from running away with it without having the other players pound on him. Because that type of balance is what people find fun.
Hmm, the laws of optimization, well put.
|
I liked your mid-point. It even heads into Nietzschean territory on democracy being the tyranny of the weak over and controlling the strong. Perhaps a dm does not want such a power gap opening between players, indeed maybe a power gamer will have to rein it in for the benefit of the group. I've heard such communist ideas on the group before the individual before, but I more back the individual. Power gaming though, I've had some awful experiences and seen some terrible players, so I don't back them.I just feel like punishing someone for being good at a game is not the right way to go about doing things.Again, people have pretty much nigh unlimited right to play with or not play with whoever they want to. If they choose not to play with someone because they're a powergamer, that's their choice. It's not punishment, it's just reality.But we're not talking about things like choosing not to play with someone. We're talking about things like taking away power from a legitimately built character because it's somehow too good.
That's what doesn't make sense to me.
If you are at a table with 4 people, and three of them have weak characters and one has a strong character, why is it that the person who made the strong character has to tone their character down because everyone else has a weak character? Why not make the other three character's strong? Or heck, play the game as is and realize that it's not a freaking communist society where everyone is equal?
I try very hard not to dominate the table and let everyone participate and often offer my assistance if someone needs help selecting powers for their character. I don't see why If I create a crafty wizard or an immortal paladin or a mighty fighter that I must now nerf myself because other people aren't as combat effective as I am, or don't have as many skills as I do, or aren't as interested in RP as I am.
Fair enough. To be honest, I'm used to playing in games where the average monster CR is a APL + 5, so power gaming is kinda requirement.
I think a part of the issue is that for me, Role Playing is a Math Problem that you solve. I like math and I like big numbers. That's fun for me (I know, I'm weird). I also really like rules and figuring out rule systems (Taking the Bar exam in feb, again, Weird, I know).
For me, the fun of the game is creating and planning a character's development and coming up with a build that's going to be effective at whatever I want it to do.
And I understand that not everyone likes that, and that's fine. I just feel like somehow what I like is being portrayed as objectively wrong and everyone else is in the clear. And that's just not something I get.
It's like, would you not be upset if I said "God, I can't stand this a$@$$$% who multi-classed Wizard/Sorceror/Cleric and is level 9 but only has 2nd level spells, he's holding us back every encounter, what a stupid douche"
Of course, you'd say I was a jackass.
But then it's ok to say "God, can you believe this Wizard who's got DC 25 spells at level 9? We don't even get a chance to play because no one can make his saves!"
+5? So the monsters constantly get better, and you don't fight mooks at all? Everything is always getting harder and stronger, thus pushing the party to power game or perish? I've heard of these games.
"I think a part of the issue is that for me, Role Playing is a Math Problem that you solve. I like math and I like big numbers."
:O
:{
:/
Thank you for being honest.
25 at 9 ain't un-passable. I remember a lizardman waiter once passed something like that with a nat 20. The spellcaster was furious.
|
|
Yeah, we play a very high lethality game. Last week my level 4 wizard got killed in the surprise round by an adult black dragon (CR 11). The rest of the party killed it while I rolled a new character, but then they got wiped out by it's mate when they went looking for it's lair. But everyone that plays is really experienced, so it's kinda a necessity. (The worst part is, we play Core Rulebook Only, no splats)
And yeah, I know I'm a math nerd and that spills over a lot, but honestly that's what's fun for me, optimizing a character and then turning it loose.
It comes down to where you draw the line. Different gamers draw the line nearer or further. For some, there is no line interms of power. That I think is the crux of the issue here. Its permited by the rules, so is this and this and this...... Small modifiers stacking to an impressive mdifier in one area is ok if thats your area of expertise. What throws the balance off course is the further stacking of over-powered feats and items from item creation feats or abundance of magic marts, allowing the purchase ofany item the player wants. Seen it go horribly wrong. Not cool.
I would like to see a stat block before I jump to conclusions like some others have.
|
It's like, would you not be upset if I said "God, I can't stand this a+~@%&% who multi-classed Wizard/Sorceror/Cleric and is level 9 but only has 2nd level spells, he's holding us back every encounter, what a stupid douche"I don't say it out loud, and this alias is too public for me to badmouth anyone here, but I've felt that way several times.
That’s a pretty extreme example though. I’ve never seen anyone with a character build that weak.
If someone did propose such a character out of ignorance, I’d explain why it was a bad idea.
If someone had a very good role-playing reason for wanting to play that character, I’d see if there was a better way of doing it – maybe a wizard 3 / oracle 4 / mystic theurge 2 with the feats that enable you to get sorcerer bloodline powers? Still a weak character, but better than the previous one.
I’d also see if the DM was prepared to house rule it a bit to make the character better. For example, if the DM would be prepared to make celestial (empyreal) bloodline powers available via feats with a wisdom requirement instead of a charisma requirement, we could go wizard 3 / cleric 3 / mystic theurge 3, which is better still.
On the other hand, I have seen comments on messageboards (but thankfully not in “real life”) along the lines of “wizards are objectively better than sorcerers, so if you want to play the arcane caster in our game you have to play a wizard”.
For me, part of the fun is trying out different things, some of which are going to be “better” than others. For example, I’ve always wanted to play a spell casting focused paladin, so my current character has the sacred servant archetype. In my opinion, our party will miss the smite evils more than they will benefit from the domain spells, but none of the other players would dream of complaining to me about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that I understand, but people are implying that you can do such a thing just by being GOOD at the game.My problem with that is that you're suggesting their is a way to play the game wrong.There is a way to play the game wrong: if you play such that you spoil the fun of the other gamers at the table, you are playing it wrong. The only wrongbadfun is spoiling the fun of others.
The problem is that to some, cheating, BSing, dominating the attention of the DM, is just being 'good at the game' and not 'being a douche'.
Imagine as an analogy: We are all playing a game of Risk. I am significantly better at Risk than everyone else. Why am I the a~&!@$& when I win the game?
In a game of Risk it is expected that there will be competition between the players and a clear winner at the end of the game. In a game of D&D it is expected that there is no 'winner' and that all characters will get a chance to shine. If you take the mentality of playing Risk (where there is a winner) into D&D (where there is no winner) and not let any other character's shine, you have a problem.
It just seems silly to me to blame someone for being too GOOD at a game.
If they are spoiling the fun of the other players, then they are not being 'good' at the game, they are being a douche. Being good at an RPG includes being able to share the limelight with everyone else at the table and help ensure that everyone has fun, and if you cannot do this then you are not good at the game.
It's like, would you not be upset if I said "God, I can't stand this a+~@%&% who multi-classed Wizard/Sorceror/Cleric and is level 9 but only has 2nd level spells, he's holding us back every encounter, what a stupid douche"I don't say it out loud, and this alias is too public for me to badmouth anyone here, but I've felt that way several times.That’s a pretty extreme example though. I’ve never seen anyone with a character build that weak.
If someone did propose such a character out of ignorance, I’d explain why it was a bad idea.
If someone had a very good role-playing reason for wanting to play that character, I’d see if there was a better way of doing it – maybe a wizard 3 / oracle 4 / mystic theurge 2 with the feats that enable you to get sorcerer bloodline powers? Still a weak character, but better than the previous one.
I’d also see if the DM was prepared to house rule it a bit to make the character better. For example, if the DM would be prepared to make celestial (empyreal) bloodline powers available via feats with a wisdom requirement instead of a charisma requirement, we could go wizard 3 / cleric 3 / mystic theurge 3, which is better still.
On the other hand, I have seen comments on messageboards (but thankfully not in “real life”) along the lines of “wizards are objectively better than sorcerers, so if you want to play the arcane caster in our game you have to play a wizard”.
For me, part of the fun is trying out different things, some of which are going to be “better” than others. For example, I’ve always wanted to play a spell casting focused paladin, so my current character has the sacred servant archetype. In my opinion, our party will miss the smite evils more than they will benefit from the domain spells, but none of the other players would dream of complaining to me about it.
Ah the wizards over sorcerer, it is only the wizard in the lead at certain levels, and if it doesn't come to a battle of attrition or a long series of skirmishers. Harder for the sorc to run out.
I too like to try different chars and builds, two that I heard about, were the wiz (most)/sorc 1-2 and the wiz/warlock. The sorc levels are there so you always have some low level stuff to use, even once the high stuff is done and spent. A wizard/warlock follows a similar principle, except you will never run out of the little eldritch. With the mix of two spellcasting classes, it also can allow interesting opportunities to change your character in down time. As in, tired of your wiz/warlock, well change it to a warlock/wiz. Your char can adapt if a dm is willing. I've moved melee chars around classes to try new stuff out too. Sometimes it can be weak for a while, but strength can be found.
|
Honestly, the reading in an of itself isn't necessarily a problem. There may be multiple subscribers to the AP in a gaming group, multiple GMs, and they may read the items they have purchased. The real issue is how this plays.
I've played the same AP or module multiple times. I've played in an AP that I earlier GMed. I go out of my way to not reveal what's coming, and in the case of the AP I had earlier GMed, I let the GM know this was the case, and went out of my way to not steer party decisions. I would even give bad suggestions on purpose sometimes, given my pre-knowledge of how things would go. The only time I used my foreknowledge for some advantage was I knew we were coming up on a dangerous situation, and I was the cleric. I made sure my cleric was in the middle of the bad situation when it happened so she could keep the rest of the party that might not avoid it alive. Since I was purposely placing my character in danger to try to avoid any PC deaths, I don't feel I was violating the spirit of "don't metagame". :)
The issue is, can this person separate themselves enough from their foreknowlege to stay in character and allow the party to bypass "good stuff" and let the party make mistakes and run into "bad stuff" on their own. The described behaviors of the player suggest to me this particular case, the answer is "no".
I think the biggest problem with the player in question is exemplified by the one game where he used diplomacy and bluff to make NPC's kill themselves. That's not power gaming (as in: building a powerful character), or using rules creatively, that's simply making rules up.
If the player is in the habit of making rules up like this, plus has himself admitted to both having read the AP in question, and to not thinking the AP is any good, then I see no reason to include him in a group intended to play that AP.
|
As is usually the case, it is also the double whammy of having a player who (in all likelihood) authoratatively declares that this is how something works, and an inexperienced GM who is not familiar with the rules or how to handle such a player.
You rarely find complaints about handling power gamers or cheese merchants from experienced GMs. Because Murphy's Law being what it is, it seems that disruptive players always seem to find their way to games with inexperienced or too nice GMs.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the biggest problem with the player in question is exemplified by the one game where he used diplomacy and bluff to make NPC's kill themselves. That's not power gaming (as in: building a powerful character), or using rules creatively, that's simply making rules up.
Not it's not. He's not doing stuff like "Hey man, your life just sucks so bad you should kill yourself" *Rolls a nat 20 Diplomacy*
He's doing stuff like "Sir! A report just came in from our outpost in the field, you need to read it" *Hands the general a piece of paper with a bunch of explosive runes on it and rolls a 20 bluff*
That's absolutely fine and a great use of the skill.
(Post edited, in case someone saw it prior to the edit)
Elamdri: I missed that post; the one before it simply spoke about the player tricking NPCs into killing themselves.
I see now that the OP later amended his statement, and the player in fact bluffed to claim a trap had been disabled, or that an explosive runes was actually an important message. I agree those are creative and good uses of Bluff.
OK you're the GM so make some rules up front.
15 point buy (ap is optimised for that). That will mean he has plenty of lowish scores if he gives himself one good stat. There are plenty of places in the ap that use stats and skills not tied to combat or spell casting so (diplomacy, intim and bluf feature a lot along with prof sailor) so chances are if you use the 15 point buy he will have problems with something somewhere.
Stick to core races from the corebook dont use advanced races, above all don't allow the gillman this will throw ceratian parts of the ap out the window and make it easier for the players.
Check the sheets when done, you could just say you are keeping them for reference in case it gets lost or they are a no show one night. That way you can keep an eye on them and check if anything is out of the ordinary.
if he has a habit of being inventive and trying odd thinks remember the actions in combat, what can and can't be done in 1 round. What you could do if he wants to do more then he should be able to then let him but as he tries his last action have the charcter become fatigued.
If the odd thing is inventive either so no outright or make him roll for it. Say its outside of the way things work but you may pull it off. If its a spell hes twisting then spellcraft and give him the DC so he knows you are not just going to dismiss it and he has a chance to succedd.
If you think he has read the AP and will derail it or try to beat the system just make subtle changes. It's easy to do and it will keep him on his toes a bit. Swith the traps round on doors with the ones that dont have any. Move equipment around a bit,change some of the NPC's names around. It wont change the AP much but it may get him confused a bit so he will have to think a bit and not metagame.
Above all you are the GM and its you're game, its a shame to punish the other players in the group but you cant single him out, whatever you decide to do must be for the group not just him. That's the big problem with players like that, they make life hard for everybody.
That’s a pretty extreme example though. I’ve never seen anyone with a character build that weak.Again, not to get into specifics, but when a character who is a direct-damage character can't damage many enemies, and when he does is doing a lot less damage then most other characters, it's frustrating, especially with all the waiting that 7 players entails.
If the rest of the players at the table prefer to to play 'weak' characters, or 'strong' characters, or any type of characters they please, it's up to the minority at the table to bend a little if their own preferred type of character would clash with this and make it less fun for the majority of players.
Oh I hadn't!
Plus this player was renowned for trying to 'break' encounters, read all adventures cover to cover, overshadowed everybody else's characters and generally show-boated his way through games.
Honestly, this guy would get shown the door in any game I ran.
|
|
If the rest of the players at the table prefer to to play 'weak' characters, or 'strong' characters, or any type of characters they please, it's up to the minority at the table to bend a little if their own preferred type of character would clash with this and make it less fun for the majority of players.That’s a pretty extreme example though. I’ve never seen anyone with a character build that weak.Again, not to get into specifics, but when a character who is a direct-damage character can't damage many enemies, and when he does is doing a lot less damage then most other characters, it's frustrating, especially with all the waiting that 7 players entails.
and there are ways to do this that don't negate the fun of the minority too. If your party frustrates you because they're not strong enough, build the best buffer ever! If they're all powergamers and you're not, ask for help with a simple build - most optimizers, if given the parameters of what you want to optimize, will help you optimize numbers for roleplaying ability or whatever else you want.
Talk to your players, talk to your GM, and try to make the game truly cooperative. Sometimes playstyles differ too much for people to successfully play together, but most people can meet somewhere in the middle if you're willing to talk about your issues and compromise a bit to keep everyone mostly satisfied.
For the people out there who say someone who is playing a Wiz/Sorc/Clc with only level 2 spells is horrible and terrible...
If it is possible for those with fully optimized characters to defeat a strong of APL+5 encounters, do you think it might be possible for a team of characters like the above wizclersorcerer to beat encounters at the APL? Also, fighting is only one aspect of PF, so it is possible to create situations that do not require the best DPS etc. How would a powergamer react in this situation? Try to kill every NPC, try to break out of a trap or puzzle with his high damage ratio? In a game where so much is possible, focusing on something very narrow as your goal might make you weaker than a horribly multiclasses PC.
I'm looking to start up an adventure path that i'm pretty sure one of my group has read cover to cover, and would know how to optimize his character to the point that everyone else is practically useless in the campaign. He's a notorious power gamer in our group who always tries to break the campaign, however when he DMs he gets mad when we have optimized characters.
I'm looking for a good way to give everyone equal spotlight in this campaign, because in our group we have a representation of all 4 major types of gamers in the group: The Hack n Slasher, the Intellectual, the Power Gamer, and the role player/actor.
I was thinking of pregenerating the characters for them, at least stat/class wise, but letting the players flesh out their personalities, and making all the characters PFS legal even though this isnt going to be a PFS game. My friend the intellectual, who also has a problem with our power game suggested just having everyone make their characters the first session and to supervise it, though i'm sure that even with having them make the characters there, our in house power gamer will still make the "ultimate X" character and over shadow everyone else so they feel left out.
I know its extra work to make all the characters and randomly assign them in the first game, but it can allow everyone to be on equal footing to begin with instead of having one super optimized character as well as suboptimal and bad characters.
My other option is not inviting this one guy to the game, however he is still a good role player and is fun to have in the party even when he's overshadowing everyone else.
The campaign i'm looking to run is Skull and Shackles, which fits our group because even when we play a standard "heroic fantasy" campaign, our groups tend to turn to piracy and chaos... always lol. With my luck though, the party will end up being super heroic instead of pirates lol.
So TLDR Which is a better choice: Generating characters the first meeting, or pregenerating the characters for the group?
Perhaps it's been asked, but if he's so disruptive that you're considering bending your entire approach and/or campaign around this PG... why invite him/her at all?
I mean, the campaign hasn't even started, and you're asking advice on how to deal with one player in it?
If the rest of the players at the table prefer to to play 'weak' characters, or 'strong' characters, or any type of characters they please, it's up to the minority at the table to bend a little if their own preferred type of character would clash with this and make it less fun for the majority of players.I think a lot of tables let it become a problem because most people don't want to tell other players how to build their characters, and people can get very defensive about it. I'm going to be next DM, and he's mentioned that he's thinking about a rogue/wizard, and if I can't dissuade him, I don't know how to politely deny him the right to make a rogue/wizard, no matter how ineffective.
I agree, a player's character is very personal to them and the thing they have greatest control of in the game. It's an avatar of their own self-image, and as such I think people should by and large play what they want. The problem can lie in that playing what you want and playing what is effective don't always work in the rules, so whatever else happens you have to compromise.
For your rogue wizard, there's always the arcane trickster prestige class, or a variant on the magus concept - oh, and you could take a look at the old 3.5 class the beguiler, which was a similar concept.
For a Rogue/Wizard.
Archeologist Bard
Luck replaces performance
They Get Bard Spontaneous casting
They Get access to Rogue Talents.
I would like to see a stat block before I jump to conclusions like some others have....its not jumping to conclusions when the OP says the player in question READ THE AP THEY ARE GOING TO PLAY!
There is always weaknesses in characters. The bigger problem is probably the information that he holds and not his characters power. In the end just kick him from the group, no one wants to play with a guy that does this sort of crap.
There is always weaknesses in characters. The bigger problem is probably the information that he holds and not his characters power.I would like to see a stat block before I jump to conclusions like some others have....its not jumping to conclusions when the OP says the player in question READ THE AP THEY ARE GOING TO PLAY!
...and what he will do with it, based on past performance.
