And those appropriate actions are essentially kowtowing to the group's desires and not playing a generalist? It sounds like no matter what the answer to the OP's questions are nor whether or not he's in the right playing a generalist, the answer is the same - play a specialist to appease the peer pressure.
If the OP chooses to pursue his current path, he can armor himself against their continued griping with the heartwarming thought that they're irrational. Given that they are human, this should go without saying, but he may nevertheless find in your rhetoric some comfort.Alternatively, he could decide that he doesn't want to be griped at, try to understand why they're griping, and take appropriate actions.
I.e., you can continue to park on the street and pay money to have your windshield repaired, knowing that the people who smash them are "just dicks, pure and simple. There's no defense of them, and so, in that context [smashing your windshield] is completely irrational."
Or you can park your car in the garage and save yourself some hassle.
Yeah, we should bow to that peer pressure. Lol.
|
Yeah, not everyone has great game mastery, gets with the powergaming/optimisation program or cares for those type of things.If a party is a bit weaker than a path expects, the dm can grind them into lettuce or make some adjustments.
You do realize that officially, the make some adjustment is suppose to off the table for PFS...right? RIGHT? Not that amping up or down doesn't happen mind you...but officially, it's not an option for a GM...and officially, speaking on the official board here, that is not the solution you do realize.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I will just add another point. If one person's build is weak, at a certain level, so what? If others are playing the combat wombats, where is the harm in having a character that provides support, does things other than engage in combat and is less than stellar in a fight and has other specialties?
Let the others shine in their area, and the strange build pc shine in theirs. Not everyone has to be the same level of power, with the same strengths (combat spec or get out!)
This seems obvious to me. Or perhaps it matters not in the face of peer pressure, which must apparently be respected.
|
|
I will just add another point. If one person's build is weak, at a certain level, so what? If others are playing the combat wombats, where is the harm in having a character that provides support, does things other than engage in combat and is less than stellar in a fight and has other specialties?
Let the others shine in their area, and the strange build pc shine in theirs. Not everyone has to be the same level of power, with the same strengths (combat spec or get out!)
This seems obvious to me. Or perhaps it matters not in the face of peer pressure, which must apparently be respected.
Because in PFS, there WILL BE COMBAT. So not having any use in combat is to not have use in roughly HALF of the game. There is a reason why PFS character...even the face ones are told to have something for combat. PFS is not a home game. PFS does not have GM flexibility. They all follow a basic formula. They are railroad as all hell. You either can or can not deal with what is in front of you.
That said, seriously, the OP's character is perfectly capable of dealing with combat in PFS (seriously, it's casual difficulty)...at least until 5ish...then I see problems.
Galadriel: Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.
Not playing a brilliant combat spec, doesn't mean you can't help and contribute to combat.
Is this, gaming communism?
:''D
|
|
Not playing a brilliant combat spec, doesn't mean you can't help and contribute to combat.
Yeah, you can be a flanking buddy...until your stabbed and crying for a heal from the cleric who instead of doing 2d6+24 damage now has to heal you...or you die the next round. Oh wait, that wasn't helping...silly me, that was the opposite of helping.
Not that the OP's character is all that bad at the lower levels. But seriously, when he's level 7 and facing critters that do 2x3d8+19 damage with +26 to hit...yeah I see a big old liability unless he has a trick up his sleeve I am not seeing.
You seem very committed to the powergame or go home position. I hope you have fun with that, but there is a lot more out there than just that stance.
As to tyranny, a player chooses and makes their character, with input and any restrictions from the dm. It isn't any business of the other players to interfere in this. Not in the class, or how it levels, or what feats are chosen. The design is none of their business they are not in control, nor should they be. A character is a very personal choice, it isn't up for peer review and doesn't require committee approval.
If it fails it fails.
|
|
Is this, gaming communism?
:''D
No. It's call freedom of choice. You can choose to play whatever you like without listening to anybody else. Nobody is forced to actually PLAY with you however. You can not take a stance that you can play whatever you like and then take away the choice of ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS. Sorry, not how freedom works. I ALWAYS have the option to walk away from a table. If after muster, I don't think they can handle the challenge, I can walk. If after meeting my fellow players, I don't like it, I can walk. Just like there is noway for me to actually force you to play something else, there is noway for you to actually force me to stay. And none of this mutually assured destruction even had to happen...had you just talked like a mature adult. Something even this crazy nutter can do on a regular basis. When I am being the voice of reason...something has gone terribly wrong...just so you know.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You seem very committed to the powergame or go home position. I hope you have fun with that, but there is a lot more out there than just that stance.
As to tyranny, a player chooses and makes their character, with input and any restrictions from the dm. It isn't any business of the other players to interfere in this. Not in the class, or how it levels, or what feats are chosen. The design is none of their business they are not in control, nor should they be. A character is a very personal choice, it isn't up for peer review and doesn't require committee approval.
If it fails it fails.
Your have no idea what PFS is do you....
Your have no idea what PFS is do you....You seem very committed to the powergame or go home position. I hope you have fun with that, but there is a lot more out there than just that stance.
As to tyranny, a player chooses and makes their character, with input and any restrictions from the dm. It isn't any business of the other players to interfere in this. Not in the class, or how it levels, or what feats are chosen. The design is none of their business they are not in control, nor should they be. A character is a very personal choice, it isn't up for peer review and doesn't require committee approval.
If it fails it fails.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderSociety
No. It's call freedom of choice. You can choose to play whatever you like without listening to anybody else. Nobody is forced to actually PLAY with you however. You can not take a stance that you can play whatever you like and then take away the choice of ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS. Sorry, not how freedom works. I ALWAYS have the option to walk away from a table. If after muster, I don't think they can handle the challenge, I can walk. If after meeting my fellow players, I don't like it, I can walk. Just like there is noway for me to actually force you to play something else, there is noway for you to actually force me to stay. And none of this mutually assured destruction even had to happen...had you just talked like a mature adult. Something even this crazy nutter can do on a regular basis. When I am being the voice of reason...something has gone terribly wrong...just so you know.Is this, gaming communism?
:''D
Now we are getting somewhere. You can indeed walk, if one player is not playing the correct class or build based on your biases and opinions. It is not your place to try and force someone to stop playing a character, or bully them until they play something else.
Got it?
|
|
http://paizo.com/pathfinderSocietyYour have no idea what PFS is do you....You seem very committed to the powergame or go home position. I hope you have fun with that, but there is a lot more out there than just that stance.
As to tyranny, a player chooses and makes their character, with input and any restrictions from the dm. It isn't any business of the other players to interfere in this. Not in the class, or how it levels, or what feats are chosen. The design is none of their business they are not in control, nor should they be. A character is a very personal choice, it isn't up for peer review and doesn't require committee approval.
If it fails it fails.
That tells me you still have no idea what it is since you used a link instead of actually telling me why a PFS GM needs to be even remotely involved in character creation...or how they are even remotely allowed to put restrictions. Nor that you even remotely understand how table mustering works or any of that. PFS is NOT HOME GAMES. They have VERY different requirements and approaches. If you don't know this, I suggest you not give advice for a PFS specific issue with advices you would give a normal home game.
|
|
No. It's call freedom of choice. You can choose to play whatever you like without listening to anybody else. Nobody is forced to actually PLAY with you however. You can not take a stance that you can play whatever you like and then take away the choice of ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS. Sorry, not how freedom works. I ALWAYS have the option to walk away from a table. If after muster, I don't think they can handle the challenge, I can walk. If after meeting my fellow players, I don't like it, I can walk. Just like there is noway for me to actually force you to play something else, there is noway for you to actually force me to stay. And none of this mutually assured destruction even had to happen...had you just talked like a mature adult. Something even this crazy nutter can do on a regular basis. When I am being the voice of reason...something has gone terribly wrong...just so you know.Is this, gaming communism?
:''D
Now we are getting somewhere. You can indeed walk, if one player is not playing the correct class or build based on your biases and opinions. It is not your place to try and force someone to stop playing a character, or bully them until they play something else.
Got it?
So I can walk. You accept this. So can EVERYONE else. You also accept this right? You know what happens to games when there are no players? Yes, there is no game. You seem to think this is some sort of a bully tactic...when you just admitted that it the right of all the other players to individually make.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Napalm, you stated you made a GM cry by playing a pre gen. If you are capable of pulling off such amazing feats of gameplay and brilliance, why isn't someone else able to do so with, say, their own build of non optimization?
people are speculating how bad this guy is going to be at level 5, but he hasn't even said how he's built, what spells he has, what feats he has etc etc.
I've seen absolute machines in paper contribute SFA to a game because the player just sucked (or was having a bad day, couldn't tell). I've also seen characters that people would mock on these threads be the most productive member of the game, uplift everyone's fun and be asked to come back.
I've seen uber wizards slain at level 5 (to the chagrin of said player), and measly Monks survive where others have fallen.
Organised play is far less about the character than it is about the player. Unfortunately, if you take these threads as a sample of the player base, then what you seem to find is a group of self righteous people more interested in proving how badass they can be than having a fun time in a group (hint - ensuring everyone, including the GM, enjoys themselves is actually the point of the game.)
I believe this is why the 4 or 5 groups I've helped to start in the Pathfinder Game have all sworn off playing PFS, but we all talk with amazing enthusiasm about our home games. It's not because the scenarios are bad. It's not because we can't do them with the characters we create and have fun with. It's because there's a better than average chance you'll end up with some tosser at your table telling you you're playing wrong and screaming at you when you haven't killed your opponent in one hit and now he's bleeding.
In short, the fact you bragged about making a GM cry with your pure badassery using just a pregen speaks volumes.
I'd advise the OP to see if he can't shop around in the PFS crowd. Find some like minded players and set up a home game. He will get a better chance at exploring the game and types of characters without getting reamed by other players because of his play style, enthusiasm and exploration of the system.
Cheers
Great damage, brilliant to hit, spells, that does not make you a badass.
That doesn't even begin to make you a badass player, so I agree with wrath.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's worth mentioning that although PFS uses 20 point buy, the standard CR system which is still applied to PFS encounters is assuming 15 point buy, so being not as optimized in stats in PFS is far from game-breaking. The OP has a pretty standard stat split for monks, albeit giving up ranged and CMD for CHA/social skills. Eventually the PC will get the benefits of Curse scaling (@1/2) as is common advice to dip with a Barb, and between actual slots and wands/scrolls can both self buff and help the group. Feat choices not optimal at that exact level, but I'm sure that can be said about MANY characters in PFS, it's not a problem. Hope it can work out with this group, but if it doesn't, don't sweat it there's other players and groups with different attitudes and you may enjoy the game better with them anyways.
...
Seriously: The infestation of jerks* at PFS at witnessed at multiple different stores is just a complete turn-off to the whole thing. And, at least in observation in the wild, this isn't a unique thing only rumored on this message board.*Jerks is too tame of a word for what I'm feeling right now, but I'd prefer to avoid a post deletion.
This sounds like it was directed at my comment. If so, I never said it was "... a unique thing only rumored on this message board ..." I agreed that there is a wide variety of people at PFS events. And the the good to bad ratio was better than I have seen when trying to find a home group. I believe it seems worse than it is due to the fact that people are more likely to complain than praise. (That is a part of the reason, I have purposely made a few posts just to say I had a good time and specify what I enjoyed about the experience.)
If you have a good time. You probably won't post anything because that is what you were expecting to happen when you went. If you do, you will get some agreement and well wishes then the thread will die.
If you unexpectedly have a poor experience. You are a bit more likely to post something to get it off your chest. Then there will be an argument (or several). The thread is likely to rage for days going to several hundered posts (kinda like this one).
I am certain there are areas where unfortunately a statistical cluster shows up and more of the 'unpleasant' than normal are in the area. That isn't the fault of PFS. That is the way distribution works. If you had a bad experience at a PFS event and feel you simply will not enjoy dealing with those individuals, then I would suggest you try a different location before you write off the entire system across the world as unacceptable.
And those appropriate actions are essentially kowtowing to the group's desires and not playing a generalist?
If the OP chooses to pursue his current path, he can armor himself against their continued griping with the heartwarming thought that they're irrational. Given that they are human, this should go without saying, but he may nevertheless find in your rhetoric some comfort.Alternatively, he could decide that he doesn't want to be griped at, try to understand why they're griping, and take appropriate actions.
I.e., you can continue to park on the street and pay money to have your windshield repaired, knowing that the people who smash them are "just dicks, pure and simple. There's no defense of them, and so, in that context [smashing your windshield] is completely irrational."
Or you can park your car in the garage and save yourself some hassle.
Or educating the group, or finding a different group to play with, or abandoning Pathfinder and setting up a Minecraft server,....
There are lots of options. If you LIKE being yelled at by your gaming group, then by all means, carry on.
|
|
Napalm, you stated you made a GM cry by playing a pre gen. If you are capable of pulling off such amazing feats of gameplay and brilliance, why isn't someone else able to do so with, say, their own build of non optimization?
people are speculating how bad this guy is going to be at level 5, but he hasn't even said how he's built, what spells he has, what feats he has etc etc.
I've seen absolute machines in paper contribute SFA to a game because the player just sucked (or was having a bad day, couldn't tell). I've also seen characters that people would mock on these threads be the most productive member of the game, uplift everyone's fun and be asked to come back.
I've seen uber wizards slain at level 5 (to the chagrin of said player), and measly Monks survive where others have fallen.
Organised play is far less about the character than it is about the player. Unfortunately, if you take these threads as a sample of the player base, then what you seem to find is a group of self righteous people more interested in proving how badass they can be than having a fun time in a group (hint - ensuring everyone, including the GM, enjoys themselves is actually the point of the game.)
I believe this is why the 4 or 5 groups I've helped to start in the Pathfinder Game have all sworn off playing PFS, but we all talk with amazing enthusiasm about our home games. It's not because the scenarios are bad. It's not because we can't do them with the characters we create and have fun with. It's because there's a better than average chance you'll end up with some tosser at your table telling you you're playing wrong and screaming at you when you haven't killed your opponent in one hit and now he's bleeding.
In short, the fact you bragged about making a GM cry with your pure badassery using just a pregen speaks volumes.
I'd advise the OP to see if he can't shop around in the PFS crowd. Find some like minded players and set up a home game. He will get a better chance at exploring the game and types of characters...
See, but the pre-gen are horrible. They are pretty much at the low end. And yes I did make a couple GM cry using them. But that is because I know how to most tactically effectively use them...and I could have VERY easily made a mistake and thing could have gone the other way. I would be worried with anything that doesn't stack up to at least pre-gen level. And this character at level 7 will get blown away by the pre-gens.
That aspect aside...I already said I don't have issues with playing with pretty much any build already. I too have seem great builds cause failures because the player did not know what to do. And some pretty sub par builds do some amazing things. What issue I do have is how you as a player acts. The tosser who screams at people without having that nice talk at the start...yeah, he's in the same category as the tosser who brings in the level 8 int wizard without that nice same talk at the start. Pro tip...talking like mature adults is a GOOD THING.
I agree, and school-yard peer pressure has no place in a fun game for all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Galadriel: Even the smallest person can change the course of the future.
That's true. But that's not really how RPGs work. Imagine playing The Lord of the Rings as an RPG.
.
Your party:
- Frodo - Low level commoner with an artifact.
- Sam - Low level expert. (Sam had skills!)
- Merry - Low level commoner.
- Pippin - Low level commoner.
- Gandalf - The second most powerful wizard ever to live.
- Aragorn - High level ranger.
- Boromir - High level fighter.
- Legolas - High level ranger.
- Gimli - High level fighter.
Your mission:
- Get Frodo to Mount Doom alive, with the ring.
- If Frodo dies, the game ends.
- If Frodo loses the ring, the game ends.
- If Sam, Merry, or Pippin dies, roll d%. For every hobbit that has previously died, -25% from your roll. On 25% or lower, Frodo loses hope and gives in to the influence of the ring. Game over.
- If at any time Frodo is in danger, you must sacrifice yourself to save him.
- If you are not a hobbit, and a any hobbit is in danger, you must sacrifice yourself to save him.
I wouldn't want to play that game. I'd play a game where we were four untrained hobbits, or a game where we were high level adventurers, but I wouldn't want them in a party together.
I didn't realize 'generalist' (I'm assuming that means players who don't min-max) were hated. I guess I'm fortunate for having a pretty laid back lodge (for the most part).
”Generalist” isn’t the opposite of “min-maxed”, it’s the opposite of “Specialist”. Neither generalists nor specialists are particularly hated by Pathfinder players, or by people in this forum.
The title of the thread is misleading because the OP didn’t make a generalist. He made a character with high social skills and a few knowledges who doesn’t do anything else. If anything, he made a specialist, min-maxed for armor class and saving throws.
There is a very strong correlation between players who make a min-max character and the lack of depth said character has. They are usually very bland, and more of a stat block than a character.
That’s a popular myth, but it is just a myth. I’ve seen thousands of characters played in all sorts of environments, and there is little or no correlation between mechanically well-built characters, and poor roleplaying. There are some good reasons for the myth, however.
The biggest reason is observation bias. When we see a character who is well roleplayed, we don’t give credit the game mechanics - Whether the game mechanics of the character are good or bad, we naturally credit the player’s roleplaying skill. When we see a character who is roleplayed badly, especially if it’s very bland and essentially not roleplayed at all, but the game mechanics are bad too, we just say someone is a lousy player – We don’t say “If he had made his character better, his jokes would have been funnier.” But, when we see a bland character kicking butt all over the place and stealing the spotlight, we say, “That guy is just a pile of numbers. He doesn’t even have a personality.”
I’ve been blessed with the opportunity to play with some truly amazing roleplayers over the years, people I look up to as RPG role models. They’re great fun to play with, and their characters really come alive during a game: pictures or descriptions, backstories, motivations that effect the character’s actions, personality quirks, accents, the works! Playing with them really elevates my performance, by helping me stay in character if nothing else. At the same time, they know the rules, and their characters are totally effective at what they do.
I’ve also taught a lot of new players, and run games for a lot more players who I will generously describe as “aging newbs”. Plenty of them can neither roleplay nor build a decent character.
...There is a very strong correlation between players who make a min-max character and the lack of depth said character has. They are usually very bland, and more of a stat block than a character.That’s a popular myth, but it is just a myth. I’ve seen thousands of characters played in all sorts of environments, and there is little or no correlation between mechanically well-built characters, and poor roleplaying. There are some good reasons for the myth, however.
The biggest reason is observation bias. When we see a character who is well roleplayed, we don’t give credit the game mechanics - Whether the game mechanics of the character are good or bad, we naturally credit the player’s roleplaying skill. When we see a character who is roleplayed badly, especially if it’s very bland and essentially not roleplayed at all, but the game mechanics are bad too, we just say someone is a lousy player – We don’t say “If he had made his character better, his jokes would have been funnier.” But, when we see a bland character kicking butt all over the place and stealing the spotlight, we say, “That guy is just a pile of numbers. He doesn’t even have a personality.” ...
I wish there was some way to do an effective study on that. But I can't see anyway you do it with such subjective terms and lack of clear definitions.
Personally I think there is some correlation, but not as strong as many people seem to think.
There is a very strong correlation between players who make a min-max character and the lack of depth said character has. They are usually very bland, and more of a stat block than a character.That’s a popular myth, but it is just a myth. I’ve seen thousands of characters played in all sorts of environments, and there is little or no correlation between mechanically well-built characters, and poor roleplaying. There are some good reasons for the myth, however.
Actually, we even have a name for it. Stormwind Fallacy. Remember, optimization and roleplay are not mutually exclusive.
Your party:
- Frodo - Low level commoner with an artifact.
- Sam - Low level expert. (Sam had skills!)
- Merry - Low level commoner.
- Pippin - Low level commoner.
- Gandalf - The second most powerful wizard ever to live.
- Aragorn - High level ranger.
- Boromir - High level fighter.
- Legolas - High level ranger.
- Gimli - High level fighter.
<snip>
I wouldn't want to play that game. I'd play a game where we were four untrained hobbits, or a game where we were high level adventurers, but I wouldn't want them in a party together.
What constitutes "high level" in this case? Justin Alexander makes a reasonably cogent case that Aragorn could be modeled as low as 5th level. Personally, I might consider going with 9th-10th with Legolas and Gimli more at 7th, but I can see the case he makes. That makes the lower level hobbits less of a stretch.
Considering the hobbits, I'd say treating them as 1st level commoners is pretty much untenable at the start. Sam fits the definition of commoner best, Frodo and his cousins being more akin to country squires given their relationships to the local authorities and social positions. That suggests aristocrat more than commoner. Pippin, not even come of age, would be 1st level easily, but Frodo, Sam, and Merry could be higher level to reflect their age and experience. In a world in which Aragorn is calibrated at 5th, I'd probably keep them at 1st, but if Aragorn was calibrated at 10th, I'd go to 2nd or 3rd. They're definitely weaker as fighting characters than the mightier members of the fellowship, but not utterly outclassed by the wolves and orcs they encounter on their travels.
And, of course, D&D conceits being what they are, the hobbits are improving at a much faster rate than their fellows. Getting into a few scrapes with orcs and wolves provides a much faster education for them with PC hero classes almost certainly being picked up. By the end of the trilogy, they're a confident and formidable bunch even if they never reach Aragorn's league.