|
Yeah.. Enchanting and fascinating the enemy doesn't count. I do think they are better than the "Jack of all trades, master of none" ilk from 2nd edition. (even if one of my favorite character was a bard from then)
My point is that a party in a middle of effectiveness fairs a bit worse in the 4th season scenarios than the previous outings. There are a few season 3 scenarios out there that gives it a run for the money, though I would count Cypher Mage as a 4th season preview.
I have a bard that is a celebrity, from the puddles, and the best thing he can do is be diplomatic and know stuff.
Which means you didn't build the bard well. Sorry. Using a badly made bard as proof that well made bards can't do well under season 4 kinda fails. Hideous laughter, hold person. Both those end fights. You have haste. You have illusions. You have cure spells. You can with a group of bards cast call weapon between each other for +2 to hit and damage. With bard song and 14 strength, that is +5 to hit and damage (+6 two handed) at level 1. That is the same to hit as a fighter with 18 strength and more damage one handed and the same damage two handed. And I haven't even touched the archetypes or MCing yet. Or even giving myself decent strength. Sorry...bards are still casters. Just because YOU can't make a decent one does not mean that it is hard to make a decent one. Now monks on the other hand....
|
Now don't go getting started on monks. :P I've run across some pretty scary monks. They can pump out ridiculous levels of damage if built properly, and even then will have a respectable survivability. On the other hand, you can sacrifice some damage and in return be a HUUUUGGGEEE pain in the behind to kill.
|
Actually that will solve the problem of 'this scenario is too easy for us at the assigned tier'.
It lets them play a tougher scenario so that it won't be too easy for them. Done.That statement evinces a failure to grasp even basic psychology of what people who want a challenge are operating under. People don't want it to be simply harder. Anybody can self-nerf by fighting with less armor or mundane weapons. Nobody who's looking for a challenge does that.
There has to be a commensurate reward for it being harder. What you're proposing is simply nonsense. No designer subscribes to that theory and no significant number of people are going to exercise such an option. More to the point, no random group of people would ever subject themselves to such a situation. Ergo, you haven't solved the problem of allowing people to challenge themselves. You've simply punished people who want to challenge themselves which completely contradicts your stated goal of accommodating more play-styles.
If you don't believe me, next time you play at a Con ask every single table if they would play up without getting the rewards of playing up.
Playing season 4 vs most of season 1 or 2 is pretty much "playing up without the rewards of playing up" I would actually say it's harder a lot of the time.
I think many tier 7-8's from season 4 are harder than 8-9s from the other seasons, and in some cases even 10-11's. CHOOSING to play season 4 scenarios is, for the most part, playing up with no greater (monetary) reward.
Season 4 Scenarios are harder. they give the same amount of gold as seasons 1-3, and they are harder.
lets look at some options, and really think about them.
Scenario 1: S1 and S1 hard mode or (S1H).
S1 grants 1500gp
s1h grants 2000 gp. S1H has +1 CR added to all the encounter levels. but offers a greater reward.
here's the problem, that grants optimized players greater rewards, thus pushing the "need" for optimization and diminishing the "fun" for players who don't want to play hard mode. By either forcing those characters into, or excluding them from, playing the way they want to play.
If S1H doesn't grant additional rewards, then player's won't play it, and it's wasted design space. (I actually believe this to be a fallacy, but I'll use it as a premise for now).
What happens if players can replay a scenario for credit, but only on hard mode and only if ALL players are replaying it for credit.
I can add hardmode to every scenario with a blanket statement. "All monsters in this adventure gain the advanced simple template" If they are already advanced, apply the simple template on top of the normal advancement. This is a way for everyone to die. The perception, disable device, and save DCs of traps/locks are all increased by 2. Damage from traps is multiplied by 50%.
you can know whats in the adventure, but it gets scarier :).
One of the biggest problems in PFS are characters significantly above expected wealth, this is achieved by groups of powerful PCs playing up at every possible chance. Offering additional incentives for those PCs doesn't seem wise.
I will admit that i originally built a very strong character, then I built slightly toned down characters for most of my other ones, if the difficulty continues to increase I'll have to go back to making more powerful characters again.
I don't think season 4 is too far in that direction I think that going much furthur could start exclude players who don't enjoy crunching the numbers, or want to take "fun" flavorful feats instead of power attack.
|
Actually that will solve the problem of 'this scenario is too easy for us at the assigned tier'.
It lets them play a tougher scenario so that it won't be too easy for them. Done.That statement evinces a failure to grasp even basic psychology of what people who want a challenge are operating under. People don't want it to be simply harder. Anybody can self-nerf by fighting with less armor or mundane weapons. Nobody who's looking for a challenge does that.
There has to be a commensurate reward for it being harder. What you're proposing is simply nonsense. No designer subscribes to that theory and no significant number of people are going to exercise such an option. More to the point, no random group of people would ever subject themselves to such a situation. Ergo, you haven't solved the problem of allowing people to challenge themselves. You've simply punished people who want to challenge themselves which completely contradicts your stated goal of accommodating more play-styles.
If you don't believe me, next time you play at a Con ask every single table if they would play up without getting the rewards of playing up.
And yet, I believe that is exactly what is being proposed for next season -- when you play up you receive the rewards of the tier you are at rather than the tier you play at.
|
|
And yet, I believe that is exactly what is being proposed for next season -- when you play up you receive the rewards of the tier you are at rather than the tier you play at.
And that is why that suggestion by campaign head got an almost universal that's a bad idea response. I think there was one...maybe two forumites who supported the idea, but even they only did so because they didn't like the alternatives given...not because it was better then what we have now. NOBODY would have chosen the leadership suggestion over current system.
|
|
And that is why that suggestion by campaign head got an almost universal that's a bad idea response. I think there was one...maybe two forumites who supported the idea, but even they only did so because they didn't like the alternatives given...not because it was better then what we have now. NOBODY would have chosen the leadership suggestion over current system.
And yet, I believe that is exactly what is being proposed for next season -- when you play up you receive the rewards of the tier you are at rather than the tier you play at.
Your statement is factually incorrect.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
In any case, there is no value to be gained from rehashing the discussion here. Campaign leadership took the responses to the podcast under consideration, and have made their decision as to what the new system will be. We will find out what that decision is at some time between now and the start of season 5.
|
|
And that is why that suggestion by campaign head got an almost universal that's a bad idea response. I think there was one...maybe two forumites who supported the idea, but even they only did so because they didn't like the alternatives given...not because it was better then what we have now. NOBODY would have chosen the leadership suggestion over current system.
And yet, I believe that is exactly what is being proposed for next season -- when you play up you receive the rewards of the tier you are at rather than the tier you play at.
Mostly true. I believe it had slightly more support than that, but the overwhelming response was certainly negative. Personally, I don't have enough PFS experience to have a real opinion about it one way or the other. I'll happily play under whatever system we end up with.
My point was more that when he said the model was 'nonsense' that 'no designer subscribed to' that he was completely incorrect.
Whether or not you think something is a good idea, it can hardly be characterized as fringe if the main campaign staff has seriously suggested it.
|
|
In my personal opinion, Season 4 has been both more deadly, (both in the meat-grinding and also just the cheap gimmicks and just outside the rules tricks the enemies get to use), but also much less interesting stories in general. As far as the first part, I think this has a lot of do with the core assumptions changing, and too many factors all being changed without taking themselves into account fully. Changing table size for example, even with the suggestions on how to run it with less people, in addition to also using more brutal monsters from later books and some of the classes and options that are generally already considered too strong (for example Magus and Summoners).
Another issue is that a lot of the Season 4 scenarios include little details that are supposed to balance it out a bit very much hidden in walls of text or leave certain aspects of the encounter vague or unclear, which can lead to very mixed results. All in all, and this is just my opinion, Season 4 has been probably the worst of the Seasons, (though that doesn't mean it's terrible, just not as good as the others, IN MY OPINION). It's kind of like the X-Files, where those random episodes not touching the metaplot where great. Season 4 has also had what seems like a lot of out-of-game illusions meant to trick people into feeling like they have affected the story but are really just strong railroads.
|
|
My point was more that when he said the model was 'nonsense' that 'no designer subscribed to' that he was completely incorrect.Whether or not you think something is a good idea, it can hardly be characterized as fringe if the main campaign staff has seriously suggested it.
I don't think the point was that the idea was fringe so much as the idea is just a bad idea for vast majority of the player base. I think the response the devs got pretty clearly shows this.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
What I'll wager is that the proposal to limit rewards based on level was offered to address a perceived problem that is when you have 1st level character playing at subtier 6-7 in a Tier 1-7 mission and getting 5k on his first mission.
That's a wager you're guaranteed to lose.
It is illegal for a 1st-level character to play in a subtier 6-7.
No PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.
|
|
Not true. Here is what the text actually says:
For example,a 5th-level PC is legal for play in scenarios of Tiers 1–5, 3–7, and 5–9; a 1st-level PC can only legally play in a Tier 1 or Tier 1–5 scenario. Within each tier, PCs should play in the subtier in which they fall whenever possible, but they may be allowed to play up or down, based on the average party level at the table, as outlined below. Some scenarios or special events offer more than two subtiers. In these cases, no PC can play at a subtier more than 1 step away from her character level.
So, if your playing in a scenario that has more than two subtiers, and your APL is just right so that you need to decide to play up or down, then you can not play up if the subtier is 2 or more levels higher than your level
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
OK - I'll spell it out for you.
Q: How many subtiers does a tier 1-7 have?
A: 3. (1-2, 3-4, and 6-7)
Q: What subtier does a 1st-level character fall in?
A: 1-2
Q: Is subtier 6-7 more than one step away from a level 1 character?
A: Yes
Q: Is it legal to play a level 1 character at subtier 6-7?
A: No
Not that it really matters anymore, but originally there was no forbiddance on playing up as far as you wanted. The 'you must be in the listed level range, and can only play up to the next tier' rule didn't appear til I think season 1 or possibly season 2.
-j
|
|
Playing season 4 vs most of season 1 or 2 is pretty much "playing up without the rewards of playing up"...
I can prove this is false.
1-05: Mists of Mwangi - Subtier 4-5 pays 1351gp.
4-01: Rise of the Goblin Guild - Subtier 4-5 pays 1904gpThat's a 44.6% increase in gold. Let me repeat that: It's a 44.6% increase.
In fact, we know the PFS subscribes to the model that risk determines reward because even scenarios within a single season do not all pay the exact same amount. In fact, there are Season 1 Subtier 1-2 scenarios that pay more than Season 4 scenarios in the same category. Do you think the are just guessing at what to pay out?
The very idea that your level should determine what you earn and not the obstacles you overcome is fundamentally antithetical to D&D. The greater the risk, the greater the reward. It is that credo that motivates the character to expose him/herself to danger in the first place.
If there's a problem with Level 1's walking away from a table with loot from a 6-7 game because all his/her buddies are carrying the character's weight and the character never lifts a finger or suffers a single attack, then PFS needs to address that specifically.
Restricting loot based on level IS a universally bad idea unless it is the only way to cure a bigger problem.
the original printing of mists (and the one with the 1300gp chronicle) is from season 0, season 0 pays less gold (with the one exception of decline of glory, for no reason.) So thanks for proving my point?
you have to restrict gold based on level in organized play, because the same scenario's have to be playable by a wider range of people.
this does mean, unfortunately, that gold has to be restricted by level and in theory the scenario's should be in the same challenge range.
They ARE in the same CR range, the fact that the CR system doesn't work properly isn't PFSs fault, it's an issue with the game in general, and you just accept it.
for reference season 1 starts on scenario 29, being the first scenario designed with Pathfinder RPG rules, as opposed to 3.5 OGL.
|
|
Then I already won the wager. A level 1 who tags along a 6-7 is probably not contributing anything and is most likely surviving by avoiding all danger. So worse than giving no benefit for increased risk, is giving lots of benefit for little risk. That would be the motivation for keeping people limited to wealth based on level.
No you lost. Because as it stand now, a level one can't even play in a 6-7 tier. And even if they could, a level one caught in a fireball, lightning bolt, breath weapon or a list of other things = one dead level 1 character. And these things are freaking common in a 6-7 tier. I would say the ability to avoid even death when having insta death tossed at you is quite enlightening. Now if the GM softballs...yeah.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
That's a wager you're guaranteed to lose.
It is illegal for a 1st-level character to play in a subtier 6-7.
I'm afraid you've misunderstood the wager.
If this is true,
Not that it really matters anymore, but originally there was no forbiddance on playing up as far as you wanted. The 'you must be in the listed level range, and can only play up to the next tier' rule didn't appear til I think season 1 or possibly season 2.
-j
Then I already won the wager. A level 1 who tags along a 6-7 is probably not contributing anything and is most likely surviving by avoiding all danger. So worse than giving no benefit for increased risk, is giving lots of benefit for little risk. That would be the motivation for keeping people limited to wealth based on level.
No - you're the one who has lost.
You are wagering that a rule is being proposed in order to prevent excessive monetary gain by a level 1 character in a subtier 6-7 scenario.
Such a rule would be totally pointless, as it could never have any effect. While in the earlier seasons it was possible for a level 1 character to play in the highest subtier of a tier 1-7 scenario, this has not been possible for quite some time (ever since the rule prohibiting characters from being more than one tier away from their proper subtier was introduced).
That rule applied to all scenarios, not just to ones released after the rule was introduced; once that rule was put into effect it was no longer possible for players to play up by more than one subtier, no matter what scenario was being played.
(All the tier 1-7 scenarios are from earlier seasons; there are none to be found from season three onwards).
|
|
my point is that all scenarios of the same level range pay close to the same amount of gold (season 0 is an outlier because it was designed with a different game system in mind).
Risk=Reward, Risk is determined by CR in pathfinder. the CR system is flawed, therefore 2 encounters of the same CR that provide the same rewards will have different risks.
The "wide range" of gold amounts is because things change over time, in an attempt to find the "right amount"
there are gold amounts that are intended for each level range, authors are supposed to stay withing 5% of those amounts. Those amounts change over time, though they have stayed very consistent since the Pathfinder RPG came out. Tier 1-2 has fluctuated more than the others.
In the case of first steps, you are given slightly less gold because you automatically receive 2 Prestige for completing them.
|
|
I don't know about that. Citadel of flame is wicked hard at tier 1-2 and you get like 700+ GP for that one vs the around 500 for other tier 1-2. Citadel of nail has a boon that grants a bonus item worth a good chunk of money as well. The harder ones also seem to have better chronicle sheets as well. In terms of boons of course, but also in terms of partial wands or special arrows and what not you can grab as well.
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
Tier 1-2 ranges from 417gp (First Steps I) to 553 (two season 1 scenarios)
Tier 3-4 ranges from 1250 (Dalsine Affair) to 1634 (The Infernal Vault)
Tier 4-5 ranges from 1300 (Frostfur Captives) to 1966 (Icebound Outpost)
(ignoring season 0, which goes as low as 1038 in The Hydra's Fang Incident)
Tier 5-6 ranges from 2495 (Where Dark Things Sleep) to 2832 (Snakes in the Fold)
Tier 6-7 ranges from 3165 (Sewer Dragons) to 3862 (The Infernal Vault)
|
Venture-Captain, California—San Francisco Bay Area South & West
|
[Fortress of the Nail] has a boon that grants a bonus item worth a good chunk of money as well.
Well, yes. But it also offers considerably less gold than comparable scenarios, so you're actually paying for most of that 'bonus item' by giving up gold.
What I'll wager is that the proposal to limit rewards based on level was offered to address a perceived problem that is when you have 1st level character playing at subtier 6-7 in a Tier 1-7 mission
It was not.
Because at the time the proposal was made, it was already illegal to play a 1st level character in tier 6-7.
It has not been legally possible to play up that far since 2009ish.
-k
The issue the proposal is attempting to address isn't really "too much reward for too little risk"
The issue is "too much reward, REGARDLESS of the risk".
The problem is people skewing the power curve. X character has Y expected power at Z level. If Y is significantly higher than expected, adventures can become cakewalks for the character.
Thus the attempt to rein in Y by restricting the gold earned.
The problem is, gold is only part of Y. For many characters, a small part. Player rules savvy, character build, and teamwork can have much more pronounced effects.
I for one have played a 6th level character back before the "one tier up" restriction in a 11th level table. The character is a front line combatant and ended up defeating the main opponent nearly single-handedly.
The GM did not pull punches. The character was a monk, and had very little gear required for his build. I won because I know the rules very well and the character was build-optimized to extremes.
I don't give this example to toot my own horn (there's other players that can relate similar stories), but to illustrate that "power" can have very little to do with how much gold or treasure was earned.
The 2009 restriction was from what I remember done for a very different reason. It was mostly to keep characters from getting slaughtered. Not because they might earn too much gold, though that may have been considered as well.
-j
|
|
I noticed one thing in this thread that popped up since the last time I read it. It appears once again that individuals that min-max have been brought up, claiming it makes the game less fun for other players.
I will counter this with another argument, one that I have myself encountered a couple times now. Say for example X character is an extremely well built, extremely powerful killing machine. Now say you've got X person that built entirely for `cool` factor, completely disregarding their character's effectiveness. Which one would you rather play with? A character that even in level appropriate material is helpless, or the guy that tries to break the game within the confines of the rules? I know which one I'd choose.
"Nearly" is a nebulous word. Without knowing how the entire mission unfolded, I'm going to remain of the opinion that but for your teammates being at the appropriate level, you would not have survived the scenario or at least not completed it.
Without going into too much detail, spent most of that fight separated from party so they couldn't help. It was mostly the fact that few pure casters can deal with being grappled, especially back in 3.5, even if their opponent is half their level. And the character is a specialist in lockdown techniques.
I have noticed that most of the characters I see that seem to operate way over their level tend to use non-standard techniques. Straight up damage dealing is perhaps less effective for that.
As you seem to have discerned, Fame is the big limiter on how much effect gold has on the power curve. It's been there since the beginning, albeit under different terminology, but back then it was even more restrictive than it is now. You could only select from a specific faction list of items, not any item under the gold limit.
-j
|
|
[Fortress of the Nail] has a boon that grants a bonus item worth a good chunk of money as well.Well, yes. But it also offers considerably less gold than comparable scenarios, so you're actually paying for most of that 'bonus item' by giving up gold.
Actually if you add the boon to the amount of gold you get, it's still above what you normally get for tier I believe by about 1k for the low and 1500 for the high. Course the fact that you don't have free reign with the money kinda does make up for the bonus as getting bigger items that is more useful to build trumps having a small side item.
|
|
I should note if the success or failure of my mission depends on a single skill check or multiple successes something may have gone horribly wrong.The success of your current missions depends on multiple successes (to hit rolls) and often on the back of a single skill check (saving throw). Why can't social encounters be engineered the same way by authors and developers? And why can't players be expected to approach them the same way they approach combat?Yes, but combat and skill checks are very different things, even if they are both controlled by the mighty D20. One of the bigger differences is in combat you can win without rolling anything (Witch/wizard for instance, make everyone else roll.) All characters have a use in combat also, though some are better than others at certain things.
However, if you lack a party face and fail the whole mission because of this...
I think social encounters can be prosecuted the same way that combat encounters are. The NPC has a DC (the number you need "to hit") and can be assigned a number of successes necessary to overcome (just like hit points). All characters can contribute to the encounter, depending on their skill set, just like currently happens in combat. At the end of it all, you get to move past the encounter.
Let's examine the reverse of your "lack of face" concept: what if the entire party that shows up for a game of, say, Severing Ties, is a group of socially optimized diplo-monkeys. They'll tear through the opening sequence, then run into the <you know what> and all die after failing their FORT saves. I don't see that situation as any different than a group of all fighters failing miserably at the "Infiltrate the Cult" mission because they couldn't get anyone to believe they were just a bunch of down-on-their luck thieves looking for a good score of drugs.
Edit: Heh. I'm sorry. There is a difference: the fighters will all live and get to try again in...
Sorry if this has been addressed inbetwen this comment and now but I kind of want to build on this. I think the big problem that social encounters have is that they quite often end up an all or nothing affair. NPC's usually only have 1 or 2 ways of convincing them of what you believe and barring that can be next to impossible to bring around to your side successfully. On top of this you have the issue of a bad die roll which could mean that even with all your hard work and evidence gathering you still fail without much room for recovery. On top of this when you factor in things like attitude which can increase or decrease the DCs needed to succeed at the encounter which leaves you with very few options for success.
To put this in combat terms its like having a new monster that is only weak to a few obscure weapons, has an AC that increases every time you miss, and quickly becomes immune to said weaknesses should fail a few key hits. Now this might be fun from time to time if this is the sum total of all encounters it would get old fast. One of the things that could help this is a more fleshed out usage of the socialization skills (bluff, diplomacy, and intimidate) as well as other nontraditional skills to fill the role, i.e. the party needs to schmooze a powerful wizard in town for the local gala and the wizard decides to befriend him through a riveting discussion of arcane theory (Knowledge: arcana) rather then through just simple courtesy and capitulations. Writers could start to work in these kinds of new avenues of diplomacy for these encounters to help get other classes involved and allow them to aid in these encounters as their characters would and potentially get the players excited about roleplaying encounters even when they are running a vanilla fighter. After that all you have to do is just make sure the players are aware that roleplaying encounters don't just involve diplomacy.
FWIW Mike Brock, Mike Moreland, and John Compton just gave an interview in the Know Direction podcast addressing exactly this issue and the rule changes being put into play to correct it (along with tons of other great stuff).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I noticed one thing in this thread that popped up since the last time I read it. It appears once again that individuals that min-max have been brought up, claiming it makes the game less fun for other players.
I will counter this with another argument, one that I have myself encountered a couple times now. Say for example X character is an extremely well built, extremely powerful killing machine. Now say you've got X person that built entirely for `cool` factor, completely disregarding their character's effectiveness. Which one would you rather play with? A character that even in level appropriate material is helpless, or the guy that tries to break the game within the confines of the rules? I know which one I'd choose.
The latter. It is nice to get to play the game, rather than wasting my time and one of my limited scenario slots before the PC retires watching the former play. In addition, it takes multiple extreme examples of the latter to create a negative experience, one which can be corrected with teamwork, tactics, and my own efforts. It only takes one example of the former, which is not very hard to accomplish in Pathfinder, to wreck the experience.
The problem our group is discovering with Season 4 is that we are easing off the overpowered builds for the sake of fun, but there are so many combats which now take a long time (due to Season 4's upgrade in difficulty) that our sessions are taking way too long.
So we are stuck. We can either play overpowered characters and be done at a decent hour, or we can maintain our gentleman's agreement and be unable to play weeknight games or two-session weekend games. All because of too many combats. We can deal with Hard Mode; we don't want Marathon Mode. It's frustrating.
-Matt
|
|
gold in a scenario is determined by the things you find, therefore it has to fluctuate (personally I don't think this is true, but it's what the campaign chooses to do.)
Frostfur captives is just a mistake it was supposed to be a 3-7, got changed into a 1-5, and the 3-4 gold was left alone (the chronicle even says 3-4 on it).
I think Jason said it very well, the problem has been too much reward regardless of risk, this new "get gold appropriate to your level" is an attempt to curb that. it's easier than telling the player they don't get to play.
Either-way, I think we have derailed this thread enough.
Has PFS gone too far into hard mode? Nope, but if it goes much further it could cost them players.
Should we make a "hard mode" for scenarios and award more gold? Nope, characters with too much wealth is a problem regardless of risk, we don't want PCs getting more gold, it just snowballs into an arms race until PCs with appropriate money or "average" builds cannot complete them.
Should we make "Hard mode" and give the same rewards? Nope, wasted design space.
Should all chronicles become generic and you get gold based on your level?
It would solve the money problem, but I think it detracts from earning cool stuff that makes your characters accomplishments actually matter in the future.
|
As someone who has often had to play down with my home group, I can say that I am pretty far under the curve as far as my WBL. That's not really an issue for me, though I think things would be a little different if I would have received more (appropriate) wealth based on my contributions within the scenarios, which have ranged from I could practically solo it to even as the highest level character, I'm sitting in the back doing little.
I understand that my group's/groups experience may not be the norm, but so far the best idea I have heard is to simply award GP according to the individual character's level. No matter what, somebody is going to find a way to get more GP that they are intended to, and this would make it less of an issue to force everyone to play up. It would give higher level characters, playing down for the sake of the group a chance to shine, but at the same time they are probably going to be expending more resources and taking on more risk than the other players for, even playing down (for them). Playing up would still have the benefit of allowing you to purchase things off of the Chronicle Sheet that they might not be able to otherwise, at the cost of even more being responsible for everyone's success and survival, and taking more of the risk.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
. Say for example X character is an extremely well built, extremely powerful killing machine. Now say you've got X person that built entirely for `cool` factor, completely disregarding their character's effectiveness. Which one would you rather play with?
Whoever's more fun to play with as a person.
There's nothing stopping Hacky the killing machine from hamming it up and romping through the dungeon and having a grand old time severing heads. There's nothing stopping Paradigm the concept character with a 20 page backstory to sit there and have a deep emotional reason why he's stabbing orc number 5 that never comes up to the other players.