|
The bottom line of all of this is that Mike and Paizo cannot and will not look at the campaign and make decisions based on what is right or what happens in one area. They have to think globally and act globally. So while ideas you think are awesome and perfect .. for your area... won't work across the board. If people want this thread to be constructive, my suggestion would be to stop arguing about your area and instead come up with ideas that could be implemented across the board and fairly for all types of players.
The unfortunate side of all of this is that the extremes on either end of the spectrum cannot be catered to, the campaign has to be run in the middle of the pack so to speak.
To be fair, my suggestion is time-limited no region limited. If your region doesn't like "hard mode", don't play it! How much more global can one be than have three difficulties implemented through sidebars for each subtier? It's not any really different than what is already being done with "instructions for 4 players" in season 4.
Ditch the 4 player thing, and then make "easy mode" and "hard mode" side bars. Done. However, the decision making process at start will eat into time.
|
|
First, you have to ignore the most exteme outliers.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. How can you ignore them when they're pwning your face off? You ignore them at your peril, because they just get on with wrecking the game.
And this is an issue with the players, not the game system.
Sorry, but how can this be so? The game system is what has enabled them to do this.
|
|
First, you have to ignore the most exteme outliers.Wrong, wrong, wrong. How can you ignore them when they're pwning your face off? You ignore them at your peril, because they just get on with wrecking the game.
When making decision for the overall good of the campaign, the two extremes cannot be fully considered. The campaign cannot be geared towards either the over-optimizer or the under-optimizer. It has to be geared for the mid-line players as that is where the majority of the players live.
|
|
When making decision for the overall good of the campaign, the two extremes cannot be fully considered. The campaign cannot be geared towards either the over-optimizer or the under-optimizer. It has to be geared for the mid-line players as that is where the majority of the players live.
I'm sorry but this simply does not make sense. I'm not asking anybody to cater to/gear things towards these people; I'm asking someone to deal with them. Gearing things to the mid-line player means dealing with the problems caused by the extremes.
|
A choice which the system allows. Therefore how can we fault them?
By holding them responsible for their actions.
You can't force a playstyle via rules. The players have to actually want that playstyle. Thus, if talking to your players about toning down their optimizing doesn't work, your only option is not to play with them.
Gotta say, calling the designers lazy is probably not the best way of enacting change. Especially a change that only you want made.
|
|
When making decision for the overall good of the campaign, the two extremes cannot be fully considered. The campaign cannot be geared towards either the over-optimizer or the under-optimizer. It has to be geared for the mid-line players as that is where the majority of the players live.
I'm sorry but this simply does not make sense. I'm not asking anybody to cater to/gear things towards these people; I'm asking someone to deal with them. Gearing things to the mid-line player means dealing with the problems caused by the extremes.
If the campaign is geared towards the over-optimizer then one of two things happens.. either people start learning to over-optimize and we end up with epic scenarios, or people that don't want to/don't like to over optimize simply leave the campaign all together.
If the campaign is geared towards the under-optimizer then the mid-line and the over optimizer complain that the campaign is too easy and eventually fade away to other systems.
Since, generally, the majority of the player-based would be in the mid-line area with neither over or under optimized characters it make since to gear the campaign towards that goal... the majority of the people that are going to play the game.
There isn't going to be one singular option that works the best for the campaign an appeases everyone. At some point, the decision has to be make to appease the majority vs. the entirity
|
|
A choice which the system allows. Therefore how can we fault them?By holding them responsible for their actions.
You can't force a playstyle via rules. The players have to actually want that playstyle. Thus, if talking to your players about toning down their optimizing doesn't work, your only option is not to play with them.
Gotta say, calling the designers lazy is probably not the best way of enacting change. Especially a change that only you want made.
I'm not calling them lazy. I'm saying it would be lazy of them to blame the optimizers as you are doing. Which they are notably, you will notice, not doing. Presumably because they are aware of this. And yes, you can force playstyle with design. If you can't, then what is the point of design? And what right do you or any of us even have in an organized play environment to say that any playstyle is right or wrong, especially without word to that effect from above? I'm sorry but your POV about this is simply logically unsupportable.
|
|
Red Ninja, I'm trying to be respectful of your opinion, but calling every opinion on the board that is not yours false makes you seem more like a troll vs. a concerned gamer.
I'm all for constructive conversation, however, with the tone that is developing in the thread no long makes this a constructive conversation.
Good luck
|
|
I'm sorry, I thought you were the one complaining about optimizers ruining the game for you. My mistake.
I do not have a problem with optimizers making scenarios easy. It's reward for their work. If you do not like scenarios becoming cakewalks, ask those players to tone it down or don't play with them.
|
|
Red Ninja, I'm trying to be respectful of your opinion, but calling every opinion on the board that is not yours false makes you seem more like a troll vs. a concerned gamer.
I'm all for constructive conversation, however, with the tone that is developing in the thread no long makes this a constructive conversation.
Good luck
It's not about opinions, it's about logic and analysis. If I didn't think that opinions that contradicted mine were wrong, then I wouldn't have much strength in my convictions would I? I wouldn't bother to post at all. And I think you'll find that I have adjusted my view and admitted my mistakes multiple times in this thread when someone said something that logically (rather than unsupportably)contradicted my statements. Thank you for your contributions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But I will say I played a season 1 where my dwarf fighter literally didn't get to take a swing because of pets/eidolons.
Although off topic, I think any character which has companions, eidolons, summoned creatures, and so forth runs the risk of violating "don't be a jerk" if only because they have so many actions that they often end up hogging the camera. Even if the beasties are not overpowered, those players end up getting a larger slice of time/GM attention.
|
Bond's characters are totally optimized killing machines, so much so that I have actually started dropping out of games if I see he is signed up to play in them. I drop out of these games because I know that with him at the table the mods can not possibly present any significant challenge. Although I personally find this degree of optimization boring, I do not blame Bond at all. There are very good arguments to the effect that he is playing the game "correctly."
Hi The Red Ninja, can you explain or give me an example of an optimised killing machine? I played my third PFS game yesterday and we had a 1st level Barbarian in the group with a lot if hit points and could dish out 2d6+10 damage per hit! This "optimised killing machine" went down more often than a...well you know what I mean. So please, I'd love to know what a "optimised killing machine" build is?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll say one other thing: group cooperation at tables to accomplish faction missions is a huge enabler of some these min-maxed builds. I don't know what to do about that, either.
Its explore, report COOPERATE.
An Osirion pathfinder wants me to disarm a doohicky for the thingamajig inside why shouldn't I? I have nothing against the ruby prince. If a shadowlodge member wants to search for the body of a missing pathfinder why shouldn't I help? I'd want someone to do the same for me. If a Qadiran wants a flower because its valuable why not help him look? The andoran wants to free slaves, well so do I. Grand lodge? Thats all of us, same way the shadowlodge is.
yes, sometimes i might turn down a scarzini or chelaxian mission, but thats about it.
Furthermore its a fellow player that wants my help. Why shouldn't I give it to him?
|
|
Hi The Red Ninja, can you explain or give me an example of an optimised killing machine? I played my third PFS game yesterday and we had a 1st level Barbarian in the group with a lot if hit points and could dish out 2d6+10 damage per hit! This "optimised killing machine" went down more often than a...well you know what I mean. So please, I'd love to know what a "optimised killing machine" build is?Sure. It's actually kind of a complex thing to talk about but I'll try to condense and not go off on too much of a tangent.
So, first of all the game functions very differently in each of three rough phases: Level 1-4 (what you're talking about)/Level 5-10/Level 11+. I personally don't think the game works very well at all below level 4, because of exactly the kind of stuff you're talking about. Characters have too few abilities to make play interesting, and you can boost damage output and in some cases AC far beyond the normal range of hp/attack bonus that exists at that CR. And since hp is so low you get a lot of the absurdly swingy kind of stuff you're discussing. In other words, at the first two or three levels it's almost difficult to have a discussion about what's high powered or not, because the system in general is basically kind of chaotic and semi non-functional in that range. And yes, the complete dominance of barbarian types at these levels is well known. Also, the fact that somebody gets put down a lot doesn't mean they aren't an optimized killing machine. It could mean that they're a glass cannon, or else that they're just low level, or that the player is just doing absurdbly reckless things. All I'm saying is that a character getting dropped (and even killed) a lot does not, in itself, rule out the possibility that that character is (over) optimized, in the sense that his effect on the mod is much greater than it ought theoretically to be given the tenets of the CR system, and/or much greater than the average effect of the other PCs on the mod/encounters.
That said, if you want to know more about crazy optimized super builds, you should be able to find a lot of them with a quick search on google and/or the Paizo site. Now, it's not nearly as bad as it used to be, but my point is that characters these days really don't even have to be very optimized in order to exceed their theoretical CR-competent performance. Archers, for one, really need to be reined in at this point, especially after the publication of Ultimate Combat ended their last remaining weakness via the Clustered Shots feat. When the optimized archer is also an inquisitor above 4th level, things get really nasty...
|
|
Bond's characters are totally optimized killing machines, so much so that I have actually started dropping out of games if I see he is signed up to play in them. I drop out of these games because I know that with him at the table the mods can not possibly present any significant challenge. Although I personally find this degree of optimization boring, I do not blame Bond at all. There are very good arguments to the effect that he is playing the game "correctly."Hi The Red Ninja, can you explain or give me an example of an optimised killing machine? I played my third PFS game yesterday and we had a 1st level Barbarian in the group with a lot if hit points and could dish out 2d6+10 damage per hit! This "optimised killing machine" went down more often than a...well you know what I mean. So please, I'd love to know what a "optimised killing machine" build is?
Tiefling with double darkvision feat and access to deeper darkness. Authors don't write encounters to deal with this and they just get obliterated, particularly when played with a partner. And the rest of the group just stands around in the dark. Most scenario-breaking builds don't come into their own until 4-6 level.
|
|
When making decision for the overall good of the campaign, the two extremes cannot be fully considered. The campaign cannot be geared towards either the over-optimizer or the under-optimizer. It has to be geared for the mid-line players as that is where the majority of the players live.
I'm sorry but this simply does not make sense. I'm not asking anybody to cater to/gear things towards these people; I'm asking someone to deal with them. Gearing things to the mid-line player means dealing with the problems caused by the extremes.
If the campaign is geared towards the over-optimizer then one of two things happens.. either people start learning to over-optimize and we end up with epic scenarios, or people that don't want to/don't like to over optimize simply leave the campaign all together.
If the campaign is geared towards the under-optimizer then the mid-line and the over optimizer complain that the campaign is too easy and eventually fade away to other systems.
Since, generally, the majority of the player-based would be in the mid-line area with neither over or under optimized characters it make since to gear the campaign towards that goal... the majority of the people that are going to play the game.
There isn't going to be one singular option that works the best for the campaign an appeases everyone. At some point, the decision has to be make to appease the majority vs. the entirity
Different difficulty levels at each subtier. Everyone is catered to, but at the cost of time and PC wrangling at the beginning on how to play it.
|
|
I'll say one other thing: group cooperation at tables to accomplish faction missions is a huge enabler of some these min-maxed builds. I don't know what to do about that, either.Its explore, report COOPERATE.
An Osirion pathfinder wants me to disarm a doohicky for the thingamajig inside why shouldn't I? I have nothing against the ruby prince. If a shadowlodge member wants to search for the body of a missing pathfinder why shouldn't I help? I'd want someone to do the same for me. If a Qadiran wants a flower because its valuable why not help him look? The andoran wants to free slaves, well so do I. Grand lodge? Thats all of us, same way the shadowlodge is.
yes, sometimes i might turn down a scarzini or chelaxian mission, but thats about it.
Furthermore its a fellow player that wants my help. Why shouldn't I give it to him?
Pardon me for wanting some balance, but I think there should be some downside to min/maxing for combat to the exclusion of all other capabilities sometimes.
|
|
Pardon me for wanting some balance, but I think there should be some downside to min/maxing for combat to the exclusion of all other capabilities sometimes.
And that penalty should come in the form of one player not helping another, and one character refusing to help another because of metagame reasons?
You kill things too fast so i don't like you, grrrr... how does that even make sense? If you go into the dungeon with a barbarian why on earth would you expect him to be the very model of a modern major general rather than reaaally good at bashing things?
|
|
I've played with tieflings who have super duper darkvision (maybe that needs banhammered?) that drop deeper darkness every battle. While this really hoses up the NPCs, guess who also gets to stand around? Yeah, the rest the PCs. This build is legal, and there is nothing the VC or the GM can do to keep this player from doing this. This is an extreme example, admittedly.
I've also seen cases where the nature of the power build just causes roleplaying strife. The 18/18/14/7/7/7 fighter archer was coming up with battle plans and speculating on the nature of the undead foes we faced. The GM took umbrage to this, (he was already miffed that many of his NPCs weren't even getting to *move*) and then the player came back with "you can't tell me what my character would say".
So yeah. That's what's running around.
Your players are part of the problem. Tell them that their uber builds are ruining your experience and everyone's experience.
And if they don't listen, if a local GM doesn't like GMing for them, then don't. If they're being jerks, then boot them from the table. Problem solved. I certainly wouldn't put up with lip like that.
I find that Darkness isn't as much of a factor in upper levels since most creatures can see fine, even blind. It's always the other PCs who get hosed. So the party only has 2 out of 6 PCs active? Sounds like a TPK waiting to happen to me. And yes, those 2 PCs would also be focus fired, which is a just reward. Sure, most of the encounters could be handled like this, but it only takes 1 encounter to destroy you.
|
|
When making decision for the overall good of the campaign, the two extremes cannot be fully considered. The campaign cannot be geared towards either the over-optimizer or the under-optimizer. It has to be geared for the mid-line players as that is where the majority of the players live.
I'm sorry but this simply does not make sense. I'm not asking anybody to cater to/gear things towards these people; I'm asking someone to deal with them. Gearing things to the mid-line player means dealing with the problems caused by the extremes.
And that somebody is the local game day coordinator, your VL and VC. You don't need a systemic change for something that a quick word from one of these folks will fix. Hell even as a fellow gamer works. I have had a chat with several people on either side. Except for one player, we talked like mature adults and it worked out JUST FINE. Seriously, if somebody as much of a grognard as I am can deal with this one a personal level, I honestly fail to see how this could even be an issue.
|
|
And that somebody is the local game day coordinator, your VL and VC. You don't need a systemic change for something that a quick word from one of these folks will fix. Hell even as a fellow gamer works. I have had a chat with several people on either side. Except for one player, we talked like mature adults and it worked out JUST FINE. Seriously, if somebody as much of a grognard as I am can deal with this one a personal level, I honestly fail to see how this could even be an issue.
When making decision for the overall good of the campaign, the two extremes cannot be fully considered. The campaign cannot be geared towards either the over-optimizer or the under-optimizer. It has to be geared for the mid-line players as that is where the majority of the players live.
I'm sorry but this simply does not make sense. I'm not asking anybody to cater to/gear things towards these people; I'm asking someone to deal with them. Gearing things to the mid-line player means dealing with the problems caused by the extremes.
I appreciate the advice, but trust me, this is not going to work in this case.
|
Pathfinder Society Campaign Coordinator
|
I appreciate the advice, but trust me, this is not going to work in this case.And that somebody is the local game day coordinator, your VL and VC. You don't need a systemic change for something that a quick word from one of these folks will fix. Hell even as a fellow gamer works. I have had a chat with several people on either side. Except for one player, we talked like mature adults and it worked out JUST FINE. Seriously, if somebody as much of a grognard as I am can deal with this one a personal level, I honestly fail to see how this could even be an issue.
When making decision for the overall good of the campaign, the two extremes cannot be fully considered. The campaign cannot be geared towards either the over-optimizer or the under-optimizer. It has to be geared for the mid-line players as that is where the majority of the players live.
I'm sorry but this simply does not make sense. I'm not asking anybody to cater to/gear things towards these people; I'm asking someone to deal with them. Gearing things to the mid-line player means dealing with the problems caused by the extremes.
If it isn't something you think you're VC or VL can handle, then email me directly. But, I think they can handle it.
|
|
What is this "theory crafting" term you keep throwing around pejoratively? Good ideas are good ideas, and yes they are more likely to be had by people who have played a lot then people who haven't but...I don't know, this "theory crafting" business strikes me as a political buzzword, like when Kevin Spacey keeps saying "disorganized labor" in House of Cards. I don't get the point of it.
Anyhow, I will leave this thread to all of you to get back to theory crafting the best ways to make things better.
Well, basically there are two terms here to understand: Theory and Practice.
Mike is just saying that he values practical experience with PFS over those who don't play/GM PFS (a lot - or at all) and only speak in terms of Theory.
In short: one might talk the talk, but do they walk the walk.
|
|
"Speaking as someone with a Tiefling Ninja and See in Darkness, the players dropping Deeper Darkness without consideration for their team members are violating the "Don't be a jerk" rule."
This rule is purely subjective and I've never seen it actually enforced. As long as what PCs do is legal within the rules, I feel that GM's hands are tied.
Besides, I'm not sure its really worth the angst and blood pressure spikes to try to force people out of their pet schemes. Just let them do it, and then take that into account in future table seatings.
|
|
"Speaking as someone with a Tiefling Ninja and See in Darkness, the players dropping Deeper Darkness without consideration for their team members are violating the "Don't be a jerk" rule."
This rule is purely subjective and I've never seen it actually enforced. As long as what PCs do is legal within the rules, I feel that GM's hands are tied.
Besides, I'm not sure its really worth the angst and blood pressure spikes to try to force people out of their pet schemes. Just let them do it, and then take that into account in future table seatings.
GMs hands aren't really tied tho. If it disrupts the game, they have every right to have a chat with the player. So does every other player at the table. If it raises above what you can handle at that level, you can involve your local VO. If that fails, Mike has offered an open door to e-mail him about it.
|
|
It's not really disruptive per se. In all fairness, why should the GM handle this any differently than say four poorly built characters and two competently built characters versus two scenario-breakers and four competent builds that are rendered moot?
What's the judge going to say? "Don't drop deeper darkness on you own group!" or "Quit killing everything before the group gets to move!" Then said player asks to see that in the bylaws. If the player is legally capable of casting it, what possible ruling can come from that?
A lot of players don't realize they are being carried until towards the end of the scenario and by then, they just want to collect their sheet and goodies.
|
|
The first will give you a number of players that are willing to face more challenges for the same amount of reward. In this case, numerically double. A slow track character faces twice the challenges for the same level of reward as a fast track character. I would think that here you would have raw data that would help decide between my theory crafting and the anecdotal responses of some on these boards. How many people have elected to use the slow track with a character?
I would think so too, but I have come to believe there may be some internal dissonance that makes this not always hold true. One of our local players who goes half track to get more time with his character is also the most hardlined "I can't play down because I can't lose gold" players I have seen.
|
|
I would think so too, but I have come to believe there may be some internal dissonance that makes this not always hold true. One of our local players who goes half track to get more time with his character is also the most hardlined "I can't play down because I can't lose gold" players I have seen.Well there is a difference between:
A. Facing MORE challenge for the same gold/rewards, and
B. harming your wealth in relation to your level.
Case A is something that might make the scenario more enjoyable (than a boring cakewalk) and gives bragging rights (for facing epic challenges). Meanwhile B is (in the eyes of many) something permanently damaging your character.
And what you're saying is that even amongst the most diehard 'never play down' there will be players fully willing to face more challenge for the same gold rewards.
-James
You are taking a lot of liberties with the mentality of a person explained in just a few sentences.
A. He has never expressed any interest in desiring more challenge, but he has repeatedly expressed very strong desires in playing that character as long as he can and having as much gold as he can. In fact, both in game and in the stories he recounts, he seems to get the most enjoyment from dominating his enemies.
B. While point B may sometimes be separate from A, I think it a hasty generalization to state it such categorically. If A has more cost, it is also a B.
My contention is that this person would show up on the data set that you claim would represent <people wanting a challenge and therefore willing to play up without extra cash despite the board saying they wouldn't>, yet he would not be an indicator of your hypothesis being true. He represents someone who values time with his character over gold, not someone who values challenge over gold.
Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville
|
Let me hear your thoughts. I'm not picking on anyone in this thread. I'm going to play devils advocate and welcome others to join me. If we are going to consider something like this, then we need to poke as many holes as possible in a suggestion to see if it would actually work as people intend it to do so.You could theoretically have a check box in the scenario to report
TPK
X characters died but got better.It would give you a larger sample size to see when deaths are occuring, because right now you only know who dies in what scenario locally but overall you only know they die if they don't come back.
But I thought the purpose of a rating system people have been asking for would be before they played it, not afterward. With this system, Sure it gives every one a good metric 6 months after release but it doesn't solve the problem people have been asking for - a rating system when a scenario is released before they play.
Making an assumption here, but the large majority of people who post here, and have been asking for such a thing, play a scenario in the first few months of release. A check box isn't going to do anything for those people.
Ok.. barely into the beginning of the thread...
But I had to put this in. This idea isn't for players, it would be for those on top to see which scenarios are bad enough (ie, which ones are killing players) to merit retirement for future play. I can think of one particular that I have mentioned before, King of the Stoval Stairs. The amount of TPK's for that one is staggering.
|
|
Your players are part of the problem. Tell them that their uber builds are ruining your experience and everyone's experience.And if they don't listen, if a local GM doesn't like GMing for them, then don't. If they're being jerks, then boot them from the table. Problem solved. I certainly wouldn't put up with lip like that.
** spoiler omitted **
Don't know how many times I can say it: Blaming the optimizers does not fix the problem.
|
|
This rule is purely subjective and I've never seen it actually enforced. As long as what PCs do is legal within the rules, I feel that GM's hands are tied.
Besides, I'm not sure its really worth the angst and blood pressure spikes to try to force people out of their pet schemes...
Listen to this man. He speaks truth.
|
|
If the optimizers change their ways, is the problem fixed or not?
They will not change their ways, because we do not actually have a good, logical argument for them doing so. Anything we could say they could counter just as easily with "Well, if everybody optimized there wouldn't be any problem either." Or, better still, "Of course I optimize. You are aware this is a game and succeeding is the point, yes?" Now I know we don't all view it that way, but how on earth are we to tell them not to? By what right?
|
|
Let the players inforce this. Just like we always have.
.
If you spoil a game I'm in, I remember it. If you make it a habit, I don't sit with you. If you do it enough, to enough people, no one sits with you, or we just "cold shoulder" you. That's the way the hobby has always worked. It's slow sometimes, but you know what? It works sometimes too.
It does NOT work. It just fractures the already hard enough to come by members of this community into smaller and smaller groups, which eventually, in many cases, results in the game eventually becoming unplayable since you simply don't have enough people. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, because I've seen it over and over. At best it means people divvy up into cliques and play what are essentially home games that they then report to PFS. I guess this is fine in a sense, but it really starts to beg the question of what the point of organized play is in the first place.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(I've read the first two pages, then skipped to the end ...)
Does this issue go back to Painlord's advice to "Get Found?" (You can play Hide-and-go-Seek so well that you aren't ever found. You're "winning the game" but the game isn't much fun, what with you being quiet and alone in a dark enclosed space.)
From that perspective, we've got players who are building characters with strengths beyond those the PFS development team expects. That's possible, and it's useful for the player, because the GM can't respond by increasing the monsters' numbers. But it's "not getting found".
Red Ninja, you ask how we encourage those people with characters who are breaking the encounters to stop doing that.How about, we point out to them that not every adventure is Bonekeep.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Let the players enforce this. Just like we always have.
.
If you spoil a game I'm in, I remember it. If you make it a habit, I don't sit with you. If you do it enough, to enough people, no one sits with you, or we just "cold shoulder" you.
It does NOT work. It just fractures the ... community into smaller groups, which eventually, in many cases, results in the game eventually becoming unplayable since you simply don't have enough people. And don't tell me it doesn't happen, because I've seen it over and over.
I've now read through the entire thread. Nothing that anyone suggests prevents this split. Labeling the scenarios as "Hard" (non-optimizers stay away), "Medium", and "Easy" (optimizers will be bored) don't help at all.
I'll argue it's (a) along character lines, not along player lines: I have some characters who are "Pathfinder marines" in their field, and others who aren't. I choose which PC to play based on the others at the table.
Also, (b) codifying scenarios, putting in that hard bright line, makes things worse.
|
|
They will not change their waysHave you asked them?
And if this is true, why do you still play with them?
Okay, bear with me because this argument at this point requires that I indulge in a little bit of autobiography.
I am from a very small, Southern Baptist town. There is no PFS and overall very little gaming where I am from. I have lived the last several years in a very big city. There is, I suppose, a lot of gaming here, but I have found it very frustrating.
My first few years here, I was part of two large gaming groups, both of which imploded, one over the kinds of "nature of the game" type arguments that are had on these boards, and the other because of interpersonal conflicts involving a love triangle (which I was not a part of). After this, I spent a period of several years responding to meetup posts and local gaming store message boards for groups looking for GMs and players.
The first game I joined was being run by an oldschool DM who, although he claimed to be running 3.5, was running with very much a 2nd edition mindset. He was actually an entertaining DM, but both character creation (an endless process of "mother may I?" and second guessing his seemingly endless house rules) and combat (which suffered simultaneously from both new-school rule complexity and constant old-school DM fiat whimsy) became eventually unbearable. I wrote the DM an email to that effect, and asked him if he might mind taking it easy on just a few of his 50 or so pages (seriously) of house rules, or at least could he stop adding more. I was expelled from the group.
The second group, although fun to hang out with, knew almost nothing about the rules despite the fact that the campaign I joined had apparently been going on for over two years. Now, I'm no rules lawyer, but there were certain things I simply could not avoid pointing out (things as basic as the fact that having two weapon fighting does not enable you to make two attacks after a move action). Although I sincerely tried to be diplomatic, my insistence on playing the game by at least the most basic fundamental rules frustrated a couple of them beyond the breaking point. I was expelled from the group.
The third group was very different. They knew the rules, oh, all too well. I have never seen such powerhouse characters actually get played in a cohesive game. I tried to keep up. I made a real effort, and after a couple of drafts produced a Swordsage/Lurk that was able to satisfy their expectations. They were impressed, in fact, by the unorthodox build principles I used to nonetheless build a character capable of competing with theirs'. And he was only sort of capable of it. At 14th level (the level the game started at), he was spending a standard and a swift action to do around 18d6+34 damage (with a solid melee attack bonus) that ignored incorporeality, concealment, and most types of DR (and that also sometimes staggered people). In addition he had at least 12 skills at +20 or higher and had a reasonable suite of psionic powers and martial maneuvers. He was, by far, the weakest link. After a while, I couldn't take it, and things really came to a head in particular when I tried DMing for them. They became furious when I tried to enforce even fairly liberal build restrictions. I was expelled from the group.
After spending years of my life in pursuit of a few simply reasonable people to play this hobby with, you will forgive me if I have become somewhat bitter and frustrated. You will, perhaps, also understand why I hang so many of my hopes on organized play and want to see it become all that I think it could be. I hope the above story explains somewhat why simply walking away from a potential group of players is unappealing, after having done so already so many times. I want everyone to evolve and embrace a more complex understanding of this game that acknowledges that design choices have inevitable consequences which can lead to actual interpersonal strife and conflict. Foisting off the responsibility for game balance/playstyle on the individual human beings involved in play and expecting diplomacy to resolve everything for you is a bad idea.
Now, I am sure some of you will say "where there is smoke, there is fire." You will, without knowing the details of my situation, assume that I bear the blame for the events I have related here. Well, I would never claim to be blameless, and there are of course always two sides. But if any of you are curious I will certainly relate the details of all these incidents individually, and I think you will find that, even if I did not always behave in a manner above reproach, I was being constantly put in very difficult positions and forced to deal with widespread ignorance, irrationality and extremism in relation to this hobby. This is the reason, also, that I find it very difficult to accept advice to simply ignore the "extremes," either of over-optimization or of ineptness. Because my experience is that these extremes are quite a large portion of the gaming community. If there were a President of Gaming, I think his state of the union speech of 2013 would have to be rather glum.
Incidentally, the happy post script to all this is that I currently have, in addition to PFS, two groups of people that I really enjoy gaming with in home games. But it took a long time and a lot of pain and frustration to get there.