High levels of optimization doesn't make somebody bad at RPing. Making sub-optimal characters doesn't make somebody a good role-player. They aren't mutually exclusive.
But even if a player didn't RP at all and treated the game like a combat sim... what's wrong with that? Is that player having fun wrong?
True, it doesn't make them bad at RP'ing and I've never said it does, not sure if someone else did say that. In my personal experience most of the people that I've seen that do crazy optimization aren't really in the game to role-play. After all this is a role-playing game is it not?
Now if someone wants to treat the game as a sim and has a group that does the same that's their prerogative. As long as everyone is having fun that's all that matters and I won't tell people how to have their fun.
This can go both ways, you can have a group that treats the game as 95% combat and 5% role-playing, have a new player join them, and not realize that they'd rather do more role-playing and leave the group. The same can be said for having a group that does 95% role-playing and 5% combat and have the same thing happen where a player leaves because they want more combat. Neither is "badwrongfun" it's all personal preference and what kind of group plays together.
Hey, I hear ya. But when your OP says things like "Where did the flavor and imagination go", "Why do people play to win", and "When did people stop building for concept(s)", then it doesn't sound like you consider all styles of play equally enjoyable. And that's fine! For you, it clearly isn't. Enjoy the game the way you want to. But a thread like this seems to be asking "power-gamers" to justify their power-gaming. Which is silly, of course.
Also:
Not to powergame. Powergaming entails putting mechanics over roleplay which means a lot of mechanics talk I don't have the patience for. Most people who I consider powergamers do little to no actual roleplaying, even if they say they do. They may cry 'badwrongfun' when someone complains about their playing "style", but I don't really see what's fun about it.
I just don't get why you complain about your resident powergamer's playstyle in the first place. You don't have to see what's fun about somebody else's playing style. Even if he isn't doing any role-playing... again, I ask what's wrong with that?
Hey, I hear ya. But when your OP says things like "Where did the flavor and imagination go", "Why do people play to win", and "When did people stop building for concept(s)", then it doesn't sound like you consider all styles of play equally enjoyable. And that's fine! For you, it clearly isn't. Enjoy the game the way you want to. But a thread like this seems to be asking "power-gamers" to justify their power-gaming.
I guess I'm a little frustrated when I see 10 new topics daily about what I'd classify as power-gaming a PC to specifically thwart their DM's encounters or try to break the game in some way, but I don't see hardly any topics about concepts. Does that make sense?
Something like: "Hey, help me come up with a cool back-story and concept for a battle-scarred Ulfan and why he's deathly afraid of pigeons?"
Again, not trying to knock those people who do power-game, my question was more about where are the people who I think of as more interested in the fluff of their PC's rather than the crunch or who strive for the balance between the two.
The thread wasn't asking power-gamers to justify their power-gaming. Who would ask for such a thing? Just once it'd be nice to be able to discuss the actual issues with people who don't feel that "being labelled" is the same as "being judged". There's never a chance to discuss the way styles and expectations really have changed, because somebody casts waves of self-justification and then everybody who agrees joins in.
Please bear in mind I'm not bad-mouthing you, Magic Butterfly, or any of the other folks who design their characters with attention toward mechanics. I just don't see the point in an eightieth thread defining the distinction between optimizing, meta-gaming, power-gaming and rule-breaking: maybe everybody (including me) could stand to lower their defensiveness just a bit.
You're right! I think I am being too defensive and I apologize.
One interesting thing that I do think has changed is the concept of character death, and ESPECIALLY of a TPK. I read books like Hackmaster and the tone of the game is just so different. Granted, Hackmaster has tongue planted firmly in cheek. But it is describing a game in which the goal is *survival*. If you read the Hacklopedia of Beasts (man, Hackmaster is hilarious) then death *literally* lurks around every corner. And the implication seems to be that most campaigns will end in a TPK.
Now you definitely don't see that. Dying is actually *hard*. The game is just not designed to kill you anymore. TPKs seem veeeeery rare. Personally, I'd say it's a result of the TTRPG industry moving towards more narrative style games, and TPKs can just torpedo a narrative. Even character death can disrupt story continuity to such a degree that it's often such a headache for GMs to have to re-adjust long-term plot threads.
It's kind of interesting to see how GMs try to engender a sense of danger when there's not really any *personal* danger involved. I know my GM probably isn't going to kill me because of a random critical hit. Neither of us would consider a PC death without narrative "oomph" to it very fun, and it would probably screw up a lot of his plot threads.
So I think that, at least to some degree, a movement away from character death has less to do with mechanical optimization and more to do with TTRPGs becoming more story-focused. Video games have a lot of advantages when compared to TTRPGs, but the biggest advantage TTRPGs have is an unpredictable story where you really ARE the hero. And unlike a video game, once you "win" the story in a TTRPG... there's a totally new one next week. For years.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
High levels of optimization doesn't make somebody bad at RPing. Making sub-optimal characters doesn't make somebody a good role-player. They aren't mutually exclusive.
But even if a player didn't RP at all and treated the game like a combat sim... what's wrong with that? Is that player having fun wrong?
True, it doesn't make them bad at RP'ing and I've never said it does, not sure if someone else did say that. In my personal experience most of the people that I've seen that do crazy optimization aren't really in the game to role-play. After all this is a role-playing game is it not?
Now if someone wants to treat the game as a sim and has a group that does the same that's their prerogative. As long as everyone is having fun that's all that matters and I won't tell people how to have their fun.
This can go both ways, you can have a group that treats the game as 95% combat and 5% role-playing, have a new player join them, and not realize that they'd rather do more role-playing and leave the group. The same can be said for having a group that does 95% role-playing and 5% combat and have the same thing happen where a player leaves because they want more combat. Neither is "badwrongfun" it's all personal preference and what kind of group plays together.
Wanting your character to be effective in combat (or out of combat mind you) is not the same thing as 'treating the game as 95% combat'. I spend the vast majority of my time here on these boards discussing combat, mechanics, balance, theory, builds etc. In my last gaming session in a friends homebrew game last week. We played for 10 hours (real time) and had one combat encounter.
Why? Well we got hung up roleplaying a scene where our lovable gnome alchemist decided to recruit about 50 of her 'cousins' for a drunken singalong in a tavern while the Magister (3rd party caster class) was in another tavern falling down her cycle of alcoholism after the death of her beloved goat familiar, and the rogue and monk were busy getting to know the local town lord and his fairly comically brash wife.
Obviously this is anequdotal, but the fact is that people who care about the mechanics of the game, and discuss the mechanics of the game often have varying amounts of roleplaying at their tables. My group, most of whom are optimizers and talk about 'builds' all the time, roleplay alot. We enjoy roleplaying, we debate the laws of our burgeoning kingdoms constitution (kingmaker game) in character, and debate the effectiveness of a trip specialist monk out of game.
But why then if mechanics and roleplay both matter to me do I spend most of my time here on the boards talking about only one? Easy, its really hard to talk to someone on the internet about roleplaying. It pretty much ends up turning into 'let me tell you about my character'. We dont share eachothers roleplay. Its not common amongst the community. We do share the rules. That is common. Its also quanitifiable. Again much easier to discuss with strangers.
I can right now talk to you about the average damage a level 7 fighter will do against a hill giant. I cant really discuss with you the emotional impact of my pious ranger's near death experience and message from his diety upon survival. I could try and tell you the background of the character, and the situation, but its all once sided. You would respond with, thats cool. Thread over. A discussion over how to 'fix' magic items in pathfinder though, that can go on forever.
Basically what I am saying is what you see on the boards isnt neccessarily representative of what actually happens at tables. You get a way dispraportionate amount of mechanical discussions because those are our shared experiences, those are the things we usually want to get input on. How to roleplay my magus' lust for power and loyalty to his people at the same time is something I pretty much want to handle on my own. but what feat should he take at level 11? Thats something I might ask the boards.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously, why does some "old school" gamer always have to stop in and tell us about why the new generation is awful? And why is it always video games (MMOs mostly) that make us all awful?
Every time I see a thread like this, it's about how the past was better, how new players can't roleplay (we can only ROLLPLAY!), and it's seriously annoying. It's like the game has somehow magically changed in the past 10-20-30 years!
New players are going to play the way that makes them happy, and that may not be to the archaic standards that the legendary roleplayers of old enjoy, but it's no one's job to keep those traditions alive but them.
I think for many of us "old school" crowd, creating your character, storyline, and background AFTER optimizing, powergaming, or munchkining your way into the "WIN" button is a prime example of roleplay vs. rollplay. We didn't have Wizards of the Coast trying to cater to a younger crowd and dumbing down our rules for modern 8-year olds. We actually taught our 8-year olds how to do math. Calculate THAC0. Add and subtract bonuses. I think many of us feel the modern methods are lazy, because "WE" had to put the effort in to get the effect out. Not so much these days. So, yes, gaming has radically changed over the past 30 years, and not all for the better.
We used to not get a choice for ability scores. There was no "point buy system". There wasn't even a "put your rolls into whatever score you wanted" option. There was "Roll 3d6. Record ability scores in order. See what race and class you qualified for." Yes, you had to qualify for race as well as class. If your scores were too high, you couldn't be a dwarf. And qualifying for Paladin? Good effing luck.
Now, were strict rules like this "BETTER"? No. But they certainly forced you to roleplay rather than rollplay. I'd honestly like to see a fusion of old and new. A compromise of the freeform, but with tighter focus on creation of a story rather than a monster crunching, faceroll wizard with the same build everyone else uses because it's "better", "more effective", or puts out more DPR with better action economy.
I'm of the mind that the ATTITUDE is more the problem than the playstyle. If I want to make a Grippli Barbarian, don't convince me to make a half-orc because the stats are better. That happens on this site a lot. And it's a result of the very thing I've been talking about.
We blame MMOs because MMOs require no roleplaying. No background. No immersion. Create character using generator, kill monsters, level up. Get the best gear. That HAS carried over onto the tabletop. Perfect example: D&D 4ed. That's an MMO on paper. It's why I don't play it.
As the title states, my question to the rest of the gamer community out there is: To power-game or not to power-game?
Lately all I see on the forums (especially in advice) are things along the lines of:
1) How do I build the best _____ ?
2) What is the best ____ ?
3) Casters are so much better than ____
4) Where is the ____ love?
5) Why do _____ archetypes suck?
6) Why can't I do ____ with ____ ability to make me more powerful?
7) Build me an invincible _____
8) My GM hates us, s/he TPK'd us!
9) And my favorite: Oh noes! ______ is broken!
I think you are confusing Power-gaming with optimizing. Most of the post you refer too are anything but power gaming. To be honest I see very little Powergaming on these forums. Just the oposite. You want to see Power-gaming. Go check out the Min-Max or You break it sections on brilliantgameologists.com. Thats powergaming. Most of the threads and advice here are optimizing. Which is fine. Its simply wanting to build an effective character that fits a concept. You might not see the concept because honestly most dont include the concept in their question. They already have it and want the nuts and bolts of the build worked on. Are there post about "I want to ruin my DM's day!"... sure. But they are far and few.
So it really got me thinking:
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?
* Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays? As opposed
to? What... lose. NOT save the day? I dont understand your question. You can RP, work with your DM, and "Win"... if thats even a thing in PF/D&D.* Where did the flavor and imagination go to? No where. This is a forum where people ask rules question, get build advice, and get help as DM's. RP, flavor, and imagination while brought up on occasion is usually not an issue.
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?I do see quite a bit of "I want to play X concept... what build would work best." But again... just because someone doesn't bring up their concept when asking for build help doesn't mean they dont have one.
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW? Is this a question? I dont get this one. Are you saying people ask this alot? If so then yes. People get frustrated with what they perceive to be unbalanced and they come there to debate it/try and house rule fixes for it. Whats the issue with that?
My thoughts are that the generation of gamers has truly changed and want to make these uber heroes that will completely destroy and derail any attempt made by Paizo through AP's or a GM to run an interesting game. It's really turned to more of a video gamey type of thing rather than the danger lurking everywhere and things can truly kill PC's if they aren't careful.
This honestly just gets an eye role from me. "Back in my day our characters had to walk up hill in the snow both ways! We used sticks and traps had impossible saves! Poision was save or DIE! None of this fancy AC... we used THACO! You didnt play a class... your RACE was your class!"
Not everything back then was as great as your rose tented glasses recall. There where just as many Powergamers/Min-Maxers/Optimizers. Just because things are less deadly doesn't make it less fun. If anything that gives you more oportunities to RP. Alot of the earlier editions where just long dungeon fest with lots of deaths and re-rolls. If you haven't taken notice of PF's excellent AP's, not to mention those of 3PP material... you are sticking your head in the ground. There is alot of love in story telling when it comes to PF. Danger Lurking everywhere that are deadly... thats a playstyle and has little to do with RP.
Don't get me wrong, I like to play a powerful hero who is good at what they do too, but I also like to have a chance to fail and roll up a new one every once in a while. I like the different archetypes out there, I like the options to actually create a nice little background and play an completely unique character rather than God-Wizard 23045502...What are your thoughts?
What it seems you are complianing about is the lack of deadly encounters. Not the power of the party. Most of the things from older editions have been nerfed. Traps... less deadly. Poison... less deadly. Spells... less deadly. Monsters... less deadly.
There is supposed to be a 3PP product that recreated the Temple of Elemental Evil complete with deadly crazy encounters... you should look into it. But its confusing when your basicly saying "I want stuff that can kill me, but people dont die, so they must be Powergamers that dont RP!". Its really strange. Optimization has nothing to do with concept, RP, or the style of campaign.
It sounds like to me you just miss the deadly dungeon crawls... something ironicly that has nothing to do with RP or character concept whatsoever.
Hey, I hear ya. But when your OP says things like "Where did the flavor and imagination go", "Why do people play to win", and "When did people stop building for concept(s)", then it doesn't sound like you consider all styles of play equally enjoyable. And that's fine! For you, it clearly isn't. Enjoy the game the way you want to. But a thread like this seems to be asking "power-gamers" to justify their power-gaming.I guess I'm a little frustrated when I see 10 new topics daily about what I'd classify as power-gaming a PC to specifically thwart their DM's encounters or try to break the game in some way, but I don't see hardly any topics about concepts. Does that make sense?
Something like: "Hey, help me come up with a cool back-story and concept for a battle-scarred Ulfan and why he's deathly afraid of pigeons?"
Again, not trying to knock those people who do power-game, my question was more about where are the people who I think of as more interested in the fluff of their PC's rather than the crunch or who strive for the balance between the two.
I find a problem is that there's no *mechanical support* for any "fluff" in D&D games. Traits just don't scratch that itch for me, in large part because they don't provide drawbacks.
My group tends to play Cortex a lot, and that game is based mostly around mechanical Assets/Flaws. So I have a character who has a Pacifist flaw (substantive penalty to all attack rolls), a Smart-Ass Flaw (penalty to social roles because he can't resist getting a wisecrack in), an Overconfident Flaw, etc. And the game makes it so that this actually inconveniences you. And it's a blast. Of course, a lot (most?) players will do that anyway. But it's nice when mechanics map on to RP, at least for me.
So Ulfan might take a -2 morale bonus to all checks for an hour after he's seen a pigeon. He's just so shaken! That's a lot of fun to me. Supporting things like that with mechanics is cool because:
1) I know what I'm getting into. Taking a penalty to things because of my Flaws is fun because it throws a monkey-wrench into my schemes. It's something for me to overcome. If Ulfen ran screaming from pigeons every time he saw them, then... that's probably too much because the GM can decide that there are some situations that I can't play.
2) PCs can over-play their flaws to the detriment of the group. "Well, Barduk the Barbarian has the "Anger Issues" flaw, which means he won't take no guff from anybody. Did that orphan just say I smelled bad? I cave her head in with my warhammer. It's what my character would do!" If having Anger Issues made Barduk poor at Diplomacy or to Feints in combat, then you can cut down on "Ruining Your Game Is What My Character Would DO" syndrome.
In Cortex, you get mechanically rewarded for playing your Flaws, which makes them a lot of fun. Sadly, outside of Hero Points, PF doesn't really have much of an analog. I've taken to self-imposition of flaws I import from Cortex, and that's a lot of fun. It would be nice to see some officially designed rules for this, though.
Wanting your character to be effective in combat (or out of combat mind you) is not the same thing as 'treating the game as 95% combat'. I spend the vast majority of my time here on these boards discussing combat, mechanics, balance, theory, builds etc. In my last gaming session in a friends homebrew game last week. We played for 10 hours (real time) and had one combat encounter.
That was just an extreme example of what some groups might play as in response to a sim game or all RP game. I do understand that they are different.
Good points on how the background story and fluff are much more personal to each person and the reason behind why people ask for the crunchy mechanical advice. Guess I hadn't really thought of it that way.
It's funny because I ALWAYS come up with a back-story for my PC's, to the point that it's usually a page or two long. It seems that some people I play (or have played with in the past) it's like pulling teeth to get them to write down two or three sentences of a back-story. It's those kind of people I think should be on the boards asking for help with the fluff of characters.
Usually if I'm GM'ing people who don't give out a small background I'll use a carrot like giving out a free background feat if used in conjunction with their PC's back-story. This is just so that I have more to toss their way when it comes to hooks and side-quests for their PC's. Also, I feel it gets people more invested in their characters when they do things like that. It certainly gets me more invested if I do a write-up.
Sigh, can't we just combine this thread with the hundreds of other threads on exactly the same subject with exactly the same straw men, exactly the same fallacies and exactly the same justifications?
I'm a true grognard, going back to the earliest days of the original D&D game. When we first started using miniatures on a battle grid the letters to Dragon erupted with "where did all the imagination go? all anyone wants to do is 'win D&D.' Let me tell you, you can't WIN D&D! Not if you're doing it right!"
Sound familiar?
First, methinks you doth protest too much. I must have struck pretty close to the mark to make you so defensive about your playstyle.
Second, THAC0 (with a zero, not an "o") is both addition and subtraction. Yes, it's kindergarten math. But it still requires a modicum of effort.
Third, being forced to play a certain role that you might not choose is definitely an impact on roleplay. It forces you out of your "comfort zone" and into a character you might not have chosen. You have to take on a new skin, familiarize yourself with it, come up with a reason for acting the way you do in that character, etc...PLENTY of impact on roleplay.
You know those people who ALWAYS play rogues or barbarians? It's either because that's what they like to play or that's the only rules they cared to breeze over.
If I've mildly offended you, I assure you it wasn't on purpose. But saying you didn't have to plan 3-6 levels in advance to stay on par is just not the case. And, that's kinda my point. Even today, with Pathfinder ruleset, you DO NOT HAVE TO PLAN IN ADVANCE. What, exactly, is the meaning of "stay on par"? There is no par. There is only the amount of fun you're having. If you feel you have to progress your damage charts each level, that's exactly the stuff I'm talking about that's changed in the past 30 years. I don't remember reading the rule that says "If the fighter doesn't increase his damage output by 5 points per level, he dies".
The same planning was possible back then. Even in the old editions. Yes, it was minimized because the amount of options weren't there. It was more "simplistic" as you said. But no one says that you are required to do it now. That's a fallacy that's been adopted with the "new generation".
You don't NEED anything to not fall flat on your face in modern encounters. Hell, I don't even know what the "big 6" you're talking about is. And I've run plenty of modern characters to level 20 and back without dying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think for many of us "old school" crowd, creating your character, storyline, and background AFTER optimizing, powergaming, or munchkining your way into the "WIN" button is a prime example of roleplay vs. rollplay. We didn't have Wizards of the Coast trying to cater to a younger crowd and dumbing down our rules for modern 8-year olds. We actually taught our 8-year olds how to do math. Calculate THAC0. Add and subtract bonuses. I think many of us feel the modern methods are lazy, because "WE" had to put the effort in to get the effect out. Not so much these days. So, yes, gaming has radically changed over the past 30 years, and not all for the better.We used to not get a choice for ability scores. There was no "point buy system". There wasn't even a "put your rolls into whatever score you wanted" option. There was "Roll 3d6. Record ability scores in order. See what race and class you qualified for." Yes, you had to qualify for race as well as class. If your scores were too high, you couldn't be a dwarf. And qualifying for Paladin? Good effing luck.
Now, were strict rules like this "BETTER"? No. But they certainly forced you to roleplay rather than rollplay. I'd honestly like to see a fusion of old and new. A compromise of the freeform, but with tighter focus on creation of a story rather than a monster crunching, faceroll wizard with the same build everyone else uses because it's "better", "more effective", or puts out more DPR with better action economy.
I'm of the mind that the ATTITUDE is more the problem than the playstyle. If I want to make a Grippli Barbarian, don't convince me to make a half-orc because the stats are better. That happens on this site a lot. And it's a result of the very thing I've been talking about.
We blame MMOs because MMOs require no roleplaying. No background. No immersion. Create character using generator, kill monsters, level up. Get the best gear. That HAS carried over onto the tabletop. Perfect example: D&D 4ed. That's an MMO on paper. It's why I don't play it.
Seriously? Did you have to walk up hill both ways in the snow to the game too? I played AD&D, thats how I started, and there was certainly PLENTY of rollplay as opposed to roleplay. In fact, I think the modern era allows for a far greater depth of storytelling and character development, because characters last longer (anyone remember what a gygaxian dungeon was like? There were times we didnt bother coming up with names for new characters because they wouldnt last 20 minutes), and because the greater freedom of creation allows you to play the character you want to be instead of the character the dice force you to be.
And I have news for you. THe kick down the door, kill monsters and level up mentality didnt start with MMOs or video games. It was right there at those first edition tables. The Monty Haul gaming mentality that is populates alot of mmos and vidoe games right now originated with DnD.
I think you are confusing Power-gaming with optimizing. Most of the post you refer too are anything but power gaming. To be honest I see very little Powergaming on these forums. Just the oposite. You want to see Power-gaming. Go check out the Min-Max or You break it sections on brilliantgameologists.com. Thats powergaming. Most of the threads and advice here are optimizing. Which is fine. Its simply wanting to build an effective character that fits a concept. You might not see the concept because honestly most dont include the concept in their question. They already have it and want the nuts and bolts of the build worked on. Are there post about "I want to ruin my DM's day!"... sure. But they are far and few.
Not so, I guess it depends on people's individual definitions. You may think something is power-gaming where I think it's being a munchkin. I already explained that I also like to build a character concept and work from there to optimize without trying to break the game or exploit loopholes.
My question was more in relation to why are there so many posts about HOW to actually break the game and not so many about interesting character concepts that are effective, but not about exploitation of the rules.
What it seems you are complaining about is the lack of deadly encounters. Not the power of the party. Most of the things from older editions have been nerfed. Traps... less deadly. Poison... less deadly. Spells... less deadly. Monsters... less deadly.
There is supposed to be a 3PP product that recreated the Temple of Elemental Evil complete with deadly crazy encounters... you should look into it. But its confusing when your basically saying "I want stuff that can kill me, but people don't die, so they must be Powergamers that don't RP!". Its really strange. Optimization has nothing to do with concept, RP, or the style of campaign.
It sounds like to me you just miss the deadly dungeon crawls... something ironically that has nothing to do with RP or character concept whatsoever.
I don't miss dungeon crawls or deadly encounters as my group does them both quite often. My assertion is that most of the posts on the forum have to do with people hating their PC's dying so much and getting so mad when it happens that they feel the need to get back at their GM and build a nearly invincible PC.
That's where I'm left wondering:
*Why not enjoy the time your PC has in the adventure focusing on the positive rather than the negative?
*Why are there so many post about how to get back at the GM because the dice gods were frowning upon said PC's dice that day?
*When did this game devolve into players vs GM instead of PC's vs the Adventure?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never once did I say the "old school" is better. As a matter of fact, all I was doing was explaining why I blame MMO's for the modern attitude towards "WINNING" at tabletop games. Again, if you're offended, it might be because you're amongst that crowd and a bit too defensive.
And, yes, I know the Monty Haul methodology started with the very game I'm talking about. A dungeon crawl was just that. Kick open the door, kill the monsters, take the loot.
But it's different nowadays. Now, if you're not level-dipping, maximizing DPR, and using all of your action economy, "You Suck At This Game and L2P". You can't say that attitude doesn't exist. Just look around these boards for literally thousands of examples.
If we took the old-school attitude and combined it with the new-school options and freedoms, we'd have tabletop perfection. I've said that in every post, and given allowance to compromise.
But, no, people want to take my words out of context and focus only on what they want to try to troll me for. It's cool, I'll sleep tonight regardless. And still happily game tomorrow.
Here's a perfect example. I posted a build of a Catfolk Ninja/Assassin I wanted to create for a story arc. I was immediately assaulted NOT by people helping me maximize that concept, but by people naysaying the Assassin Prestige Class (which is admittedly sub-optimal, but I didn't care), telling me I should use 2-handed weapons (which have been popular lately because of the scaling damage) instead of my natural claw/claw/bite routine, and pretty much trying to reconceptualize my build into a "WIN" scenario.
To be fair, there were a few who non-judgmentally looked, questioned my feat choices, and offered suggestions, but the overwhelming majority was the paragraph above.
Why would YOU say that is, if not for the "new-gen" crowd trying to push the "WIN" button and facerolling their metaphorical keyboards?
Well, like I said above, PC death can be a pain for GM as well. If the game is story-heavy, with a lot of threads woven around each PC, a PC dying can mean that a lot of those threads are wasted.
Heck, if my wizard died, then I'd happily roll up a barbarian and continue on. Like a lot of people, I have a half dozen characters I'd love to play. My GM would sigh and drop a lot of relevant plot threads that were specific to my PC. So that "death is bad" sentiment isn't just about power-gaming or a "players vs. GM" mentality. I actually think it's more endemic to games that take a collaborative storytelling approach to D&D.
Well, like I said above, PC death can be a pain for GM as well. If the game is story-heavy, with a lot of threads woven around each PC, a PC dying can mean that a lot of those threads are wasted.
Heck, if my wizard died, then I'd happily roll up a barbarian and continue on. Like a lot of people, I have a half dozen characters I'd love to play. My GM would sigh and drop a lot of relevant plot threads that were specific to my PC. So that "death is bad" sentiment isn't just about power-gaming or a "players vs. GM" mentality. I actually think it's more endemic to games that take a collaborative storytelling approach to D&D.
Agreed, PC death was indeed a pain. I remember using a character tree back then. You built 5 characters, and each got a diminutive returns scale of your experience percentage.
When I asked why so many characters, the DM just laughed and said "You'll see". On my third character, I didn't wonder anymore.
Here's a perfect example. I posted a build of a Catfolk Ninja/Assassin I wanted to create for a story arc. I was immediately assaulted NOT by people helping me maximize that concept, but by people naysaying the Assassin Prestige Class (which is admittedly sub-optimal, but I didn't care), telling me I should use 2-handed weapons (which have been popular lately because of the scaling damage) instead of my natural claw/claw/bite routine, and pretty much trying to reconceptualize my build into a "WIN" scenario.
That is unfortunate, and it is definately something I strike to avoid when people ask for advice in that sense. And I do like that behavior, but by the same token, the complexity of the game means there are literal trap options in the game, and it is possible to make a character that simply doesnt work. I dont know about you, but I'd played characters that dont work, and no amount of roleplay makes up for failing at 80% of the things you attempt.
To be fair, there were a few who non-judgmentally looked, questioned my feat choices, and offered suggestions, but the overwhelming majority was the paragraph above.
Why would YOU say that is, if not for the "new-gen" crowd trying to push the "WIN" button and facerolling their metaphorical keyboards?
Mostly because its the internet. People are jerks on the internet. It has nothing to do with gaming, or the 'new generation'. Plenty of old people are jerks on the internet.
Mostly because its the internet. People are jerks on the internet. It has nothing to do with gaming, or the 'new generation'. Plenty of old people are jerks on the internet.
Point taken. I'm a jerk on the internet. But, to be fair, I'm also a jerk in real life. But it seems to be creeping into the gaming table as well, so it's not just on the Intarwebs that the people are expecting Big Things and Epic Lewts.
Every time I mention a low-magic or campaign based on Athas, eyes roll and no one wants to play it because they won't "get geared and leveled for endgame". Tell me that's not a product of MMO gaming.
Ub3r_n3rd, I think the only way you're going to get a discussion on the actual points you wanted to discuss is to take the three bullet-points from your last post and build a new thread around 'em with a title that doesn't name or refer to power-gaming in any way. Sorry, but it looks like this is gonna be that eightieth thread after all. Good effort, though, M.B...
Thanks LH, you are right. I guess I was hoping for the best when I started the thread. There have been quite a few good posts about the actual subject(s) I was trying to broach here before some derailed it.
Not so, I guess it depends on people's individual definitions. You may think something is power-gaming where I think it's being a munchkin. I already explained that I also like to build a character concept and work from there to optimize without trying to break the game or exploit loopholes.
My question was more in relation to why are there so many posts about HOW to actually break the game and not so many about interesting character concepts that are effective, but not about exploitation of the rules.
Thats exactly my point. You make a concept... then you work from there to optimize. How is that differnt then 90% of the post you metion. They are asking questions about their build. That doesn't mean they dont already have a concept nailed down. You would have a point if you saw post like "I got this uber build!... help me come up with a character concept to work with my build." That would be making a build and then working on the concept.
I don't miss dungeon crawls or deadly encounters as my group does them both quite often. My assertion is that most of the posts on the forum have to do with people hating their PC's dying so much and getting so mad when it happens that they feel the need to get back at their GM and build a nearly invincible PC.
Its very rare to see post like you describe. And when people ask for builds to "get back at" their DM, they mostly get replies that range from helpful advice on how to talk to their DM about the issue to "Stop being a douch bag and play nice". PC vs DM behavior is not popular on these boards.
That's where I'm left wondering:
*Why not enjoy the time your PC has in the adventure focusing on the positive rather than the negative?*Why are there so many post about how to get back at the GM because the dice gods were frowning upon said PC's dice that day?
*When did this game devolve into players vs GM instead of PC's vs the Adventure?
* Because people get attached to their characters. It an indication they have a concept and RP a class/concept they enjoy.
* I see very few of these post, and they are usually new players
* Again. I see few post conserning this. And what I do see are mostly offending DM's who see their players and the "enemy". And lets be honest... this isn't an issue that began recently. Its been around since Pen and Paper started.
Actually, @ Thomas Long 175, I'd likely do just fine at "your table" as my characters are indeed dynamic and able to keep up their part in combat and out. I never mentioned that I created sub-par characters on purpose, just that they have a place in roleplaying vs. rollplaying.
I can see your argument for APL or CR scaling to be the "par". And I guess I take the mechanics there for granted, since I've been using them for so long.
I guess I use the "big 6" without knowing it, but to be fair, those six items and types are the ones most introduced in dungeons. So they're all over the place. It's almost washed out as a necessity because you're going to get them by the end of the campaign anyways.
Every time I mention a low-magic or campaign based on Athas, eyes roll and no one wants to play it because they won't "get geared and leveled for endgame". Tell me that's not a product of MMO gaming.
Well to be honest... most low-magic/low-weatlh campaigns suck. Its extreamly hard to balance. Most CR encounters are based around the assumption you have a certain level of items/magic available. And whether you like it or not... getting new shiny loot is fun. Combat is fun, but so is the looting afterwards. Low-Magic can be sumed up by "O great... another 5 masterwork longswords... I can sell those and... buy a house I guess."
Some people really like those games. It has a more gritty feel. It is completly dependent on RP because the combat is subpar. I get it. But you shouldn't blame others for not wanting to play that style of game. Its not fun for most. I am one of those. I love RP. I love story. But I refuse to play Low-Wealth/Low-Magic campaigns... they just aren't fun to me.
Thats exactly my point. You make a concept... then you work from there to optimize. How is that differnt then 90% of the post you metion. They are asking questions about their build. That doesn't mean they dont already have a concept nailed down. You would have a point if you saw post like "I got this uber build!... help me come up with a character concept to work with my build." That would be making a build and then working on the concept.
It just seems that a lot of posts do actually go from super optimized build where someone has a summoner (example only) that they then want to plug into the group, but the reason for the summoner in the group isn't because it's a cool concept but rather trying to make sure that they defeat encounters with little to no challenge and then you get the posts from the GM's on here crying foul about how that summoner broke their campaign. Sound familiar?
Its very rare to see post like you describe. And when people ask for builds to "get back at" their DM, they mostly get replies that range from helpful advice on how to talk to their DM about the issue to "Stop being a douch bag and play nice". PC vs DM behavior is not popular on these boards.
True, you'll see some friendly advice and some not so friendly advice to that person, but you'll also see the posts that say something along the lines that the best way to get back at your GM is to build God-Wizard #22020444033 go see XXXX guide and you're GM will hate you for building the best character ever.
* Because people get attached to their characters. It an indication they have a concept and RP a class/concept they enjoy.* I see very few of these post, and they are usually new players
* Again. I see few post conserning this. And what I do see are mostly offending DM's who see their players and the "enemy". And lets be honest... this isn't an issue that began recently. Its been around since Pen and Paper started.
* I get attached to my PC's as well, I put a lot of work into them with back-stories and figuring out what direction(s) I want to take them mechanically, but I don't whine about it if my PC dies like quite a few people on the forums seem to be doing recently.
* Actually I see quite a few of those "get back at the GM" posts in recent weeks. The players are normally either newer as you said, or they have some issues with feeling cheated somehow.
* Again, I bring this part up because I've seen a lot of this mentality on the forums. Usually it's because the player feels that the GM wronged them in some way and that they need to figure out how to destroy the campaign with the invincible player. Read some of the rantings on the forums about how people think their GM's cheated them out of something or killed their PC and you'll see what I mean.
Oh rad. People are making poorly founded assumptions about me personally. I probably shouldn't respond to those.
Though I will say that if your character dying "ruins" the game for you and everyone needs to make their character as powerful as possible for that reason, on one hand, sure it's understandable. The character should at least have a shot at surviving to the end of the campaign. A little bit of optimization doesn't bother anybody much. However, on the other hand (and this is probably where I'm gonna come off as really mean and old school):
Suck it up.
This kind of thing is supposed to happen. It's a game where characters face down something that can kill them and it is supposed to be challenging enough for whatever group is playing. Yeah sure you may have made a huge backstory and put a lot of hours in your character, but if you seriously think your character's death made all that a waste of time, that throws into question why you're doing this in the first place(since making a character seems like 'work', perhaps make some ahead of time or use a pregen next time). Maybe if the GM is nice and knows you're invested in the character he'll let you salvage them, but if they're not kind of person, either have a talk with them or see this as an opportunity for something new. Otherwise you're just being a sore loser. Gms have been known to kill characters in ways that are completely bs, but sometimes, shit just happens. It's supposed to give the game excitement and feel like you're in some kinda fantasy thing where the writer isn't too much of a wuss to kill someone off.
There was a thing circulating around the internet that showed the difference between a 'real man'(old school combat liking player), a real rper and a munchkin. And the most significant line between a real man and a munchkin was this: the real man didn't mind going down as long as he went down fighting and took a lot of guys with him. The munchkin didn't accept death and would most likely be a sore loser about it. The guy actually rping would see this as a chance to roleplay an epic ass death scene.
In an attempt to 're-rail' the thread:
Why do so many people play to "win" nowadays?
I don't think this is a new trend. People have always played to 'win'. Even in my earliest days of gaming three decades ago - and with input from a co-worker who has gamed, four decades ago - people always have strove to achieve, to beat the scenario, to get every bit of loot out of the dungeon.
Personally, although I never played AD&D, but having read over it, and having played 3.0 some and 3.5, I think things have gotten better in regards to the system supporting role playing. But I could be wrong in that.
* Where did the flavor and imagination go to?
Still there for me and my group - although I admit that if I had my druthers, I'd play a Storyteller system game for role playing and Pathfinder for more combat-focused stuff.
* When did people stop building for concept(s)?
I answered this a bit earlier, but I stopped building only for concept after several of my concept characters died.
* Is ____ really that broken if played RAW?
Yes, yes it is.
Just kidding - I think 'broken' is a subjective term. In a lot of cases, I think what you're seeing is less representative of the gaming community as a whole, and more representative of the 'gaming community forum goers'. As an example, I play World of Warcraft in my off-table time. The make-up of the forums for it is not really representative of the overall population of the game; they tend to be the most vocal (read: complaining) of the game*.
*And yes, I'm including myself in that number.
It just seems that a lot of posts do actually go from super optimized build where someone has a summoner (example only) that they then want to plug into the group, but the reason for the summoner in the group isn't because it's a cool concept but rather trying to make sure that they defeat encounters with little to no challenge and then you get the posts from the GM's on here crying foul about how that summoner broke their campaign. Sound familiar?
But what is wrong with wanting to have an optimized build/party? And even if you decide on what fits a party before you decide on a concept... whats the problem. A lot of times I ask the GM "What is everyone else playing?" and then decide on what to play based on what the party needs. Thats not something new. Its making a well rounded party. As for GM's complaining about a summoner breaking a game... I have seen people complain that Rogues/Fighters/Monks/Bards/ect have broke their game BEFORE THE CHARACTER EVEN ENTERED THE GAME. Each and every GM has his own style. Not every class works with every GM. The only think I have come to understand... One mans "Weak Class" is another mans "OMG OP". Super Optimized is relative I guess. I dont see picking a class with a decent build as being "Super Optimized". Being good at playing a roll is a good thing. I personally only get annoyed by one trick ponies(Mounted charge builds, Trip/Grapple builds, ect). They suck because as a GM... I either let it work and they destroy an encounter... or I counter it and they are a waste of space.
True, you'll see some friendly advice and some not so friendly advice to that person, but you'll also see the posts that say something along the lines that the best way to get back at your GM is to build God-Wizard #22020444033 go see XXXX guide and you're GM will hate you for building the best character ever.
But those people are in the minority. Most of the advice is on how to work out the issue... or how not to be a 5 year old throwing a tantrum. I do see the occasional person suggest a build like you said but it might be one or two people at most.
* I get attached to my PC's as well, I put a lot of work into them with back-stories and figuring out what direction(s) I want to take them mechanically, but I don't whine about it if my PC dies like quite a few people on the forums seem to be doing recently.* Actually I see quite a few of those "get back at the GM" posts in recent weeks. The players are normally either newer as you said, or they have some issues with feeling cheated somehow.
* Again, I bring this part up because I've seen a lot of this mentality on the forums. Usually it's because the player feels that the GM wronged them in some way and that they need to figure out how to destroy the campaign with the invincible player. Read some of the rantings on the forums about how people think their GM's cheated them out of something or killed their PC and you'll see what I mean.
* lol true. But I guess I have seen people whine over a PC death since I started playing Pen and Paper. Its not a new thing to me.
* Maybe I have just missed them. I really think its a small amount.
* GM vs Player is a horrible way to play. I totally agree. It should be corrected when post come up. I guess I just dont see the up trend in those type of post.
Over all I guess my point is this. The PF forum community makes up a small fraction of those playing PF. For the most part you have two types of posters. New players and Veteran Players. The first usually hasn't learned all the nuances of the game. He doesn't realize that Player vs DM is bad. He might have a concept but really wants help on how to make a build "work". The Vets are most of us. The guys who have played for years and years and years. We like to come here and debate, argue, and discuss a game we love. And one of the favorite things to do... Theorycraft. Its just a way to pass the time between games. New and Vet... we represent the extreams of the PF community. So of course the post on here are going to somewhat mirror that.
Mostly because its the internet. People are jerks on the internet. It has nothing to do with gaming, or the 'new generation'. Plenty of old people are jerks on the internet.Point taken. I'm a jerk on the internet. But, to be fair, I'm also a jerk in real life. But it seems to be creeping into the gaming table as well, so it's not just on the Intarwebs that the people are expecting Big Things and Epic Lewts.
Every time I mention a low-magic or campaign based on Athas, eyes roll and no one wants to play it because they won't "get geared and leveled for endgame". Tell me that's not a product of MMO gaming.
Which is something that is an issue for the state of your table, and your group, not the hobby in general. I have never in my life seen anyone on these boards say such a thing. In fact the very nature of paizo as a company lends itself to a more balanced community then wizards did (the bulk of their hardcore fans are gms, not players).
And I dont know what Athas is, but I've spent alot of time working on low magic or variable magic rules for pathfinder, and I play in a low magic item (the world is low magic, the players arent) E6 game. That is the aformentioned 10 hours 1 combat game. I enjoy that game quite a bit. I still spent a fair amount of time working on the mechanics (as well as the background) of the character I am playing.
Its all about what people are used to and their expectations. You should be able to get your 'friends' to at least try something new. They might like it the might not, but if you cant get them to try it for at least a one shot (with an open and non-judgmental conversation) they probably arent your friends
But what is wrong with wanting to have an optimized build/party? And even if you decide on what fits a party before you decide on a concept... whats the problem. A lot of times I ask the GM "What is everyone else playing?" and then decide on what to play based on what the party needs. Thats not something new. Its making a well rounded party. As for GM's complaining about a summoner breaking a game... I have seen people complain that Rogues/Fighters/Monks/Bards/ect have broke their game BEFORE THE CHARACTER EVEN ENTERED THE GAME. Each and every GM has his own style. Not every class works with every GM. The only think I have come to understand... One mans "Weak Class" is another mans "OMG OP". Super Optimized is relative I guess. I dont see picking a class with a decent build as being "Super Optimized". Being good at playing a roll is a good thing. I personally only get annoyed by one trick ponies(Mounted charge builds, Trip/Grapple builds, ect). They suck because as a GM... I either let it work and they destroy an encounter... or I counter it and they are a waste of space.
Oh nothing "wrong" with it and that's been my assertion the whole time, it's going to be up to the individual group on how they want to play and have fun. By the way the summoner was strictly an example, there are plenty of others I could have used, I just wanted to add a bit of humor since I have seen a lot of Summoner hate on the boards :)
My query is more asking why there are so many posts on this type of play style? I don't mind filling the void in my group if it needs a cleric or an armored melee character. I will do my best to create a PC that will be able to survive normal to hard fights, but I also don't want to be the only person who shines in the group so I refrain from the over optimization and definitely stay away from trying to exploit loopholes on purpose. On these boards though, I've seen a lot of people trying to do the exploitation of the loopholes to gain things that they really should be gaining, it's not for concept, but rather for POWER.
But those people are in the minority. Most of the advice is on how to work out the issue... or how not to be a 5 year old throwing a tantrum. I do see the occasional person suggest a build like you said but it might be one or two people at most.
Perhaps I'm doing what I said others have been doing and focusing on the negative when I say that I see too many people doing the tantrum stuff and suggest the God Wizard builds. It's still out there and I always wonder at the reasoning behind it and why some of the posters even like to build those "get back at the DM" characters rather than talking to the DM about their problems at their own table so that everyone can continue to have fun together.
* lol true. But I guess I have seen people whine over a PC death since I started playing Pen and Paper. Its not a new thing to me.* Maybe I have just missed them. I really think its a small amount.
* GM vs Player is a horrible way to play. I totally agree. It should be corrected when post come up. I guess I just dont see the up trend in those type of post.
Over all I guess my point is this. The PF forum community makes up a small fraction of those playing PF. For the most part you have two types of posters. New players and Veteran Players. The first usually hasn't learned all the nuances of the game. He doesn't realize that Player vs DM is bad. He might have a concept but really wants help on how to make a build "work". The Vets are most of us. The guys who have played for years and years and years. We like to come here and debate, argue, and discuss a game we love. And one of the favorite things to do... Theorycraft. Its just a way to pass the time between games. New and Vet... we represent the extreams of the PF community. So of course the post on here are going to somewhat mirror that.
* As long as there are PC deaths, I'm sure there will be the immature gamers who cry about it. I look at my PC deaths as an opportunity to bring in a new character and start a new adventure and I'm sure there are tons of other players out there that think the same way.
* Perhaps it's a smaller amount, but it's definitely not nonexistent.
* Totally agree, I don't like DM vs Player and think that mindset shouldn't be part of the gaming table. I've been floating around posting and reading the forums for a while now and I believe that I've seen an uptick and that's part of the reason I started this thread. Perhaps out of a bit of my own frustration with those kinds of people and trying to understand what makes them tick.
I'll agree with you on the two types of posters and within each are subsets who play for combat, RP, or a mix of the two. I also like to theory-craft, mine comes from a concept of a PC that I see myself playing if I think up an idea or if I see a really cool piece of art.
This brings me to my next set of questions to the readers/posters out there:
How do you form your concepts of your PC's or where do you get your inspiration from?
Is it based off seeing a nice piece of fantasy/sci-fi art?
Is it based on a character in a book you read about?
Is it based off something like a comic book character?
Is is based off of a movie character (which could be from a book or comic)?
Is it wholly original and just popped into your head one day?
This brings me to my next set of questions to the readers/posters out there:
How do you form your concepts of your PC's or where do you get your inspiration from?
Is it based off seeing a nice piece of fantasy/sci-fi art?
Is it based on a character in a book you read about?
Is it based off something like a comic book character?
Is is based off of a movie character (which could be from a book or comic)?
Is it wholly original and just popped into your head one day?
Yes.
Not trying to be flippant - I've had them inspired by all of the above. I've had a character inspired by a song* as well, one inspired by a piece of classical\choral music**, one inspired by a piece of classic poetry***...
*Duck and Run, Three Doors Down
**Out of the Deep, John Rutter's Requiem
***Ulysses, Lord Alfred Tennyson
I once based a character on a name in the end-credits of Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie. (No, it was not "The Amazing Rando!")
*goes to look up the credits for This Island Earth*
Or was it one of the actual MSTy cast members?
Either way, I wish they'd bring that series back...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trying to keep it going with conceptual characters here, I'm actually curious as to what everyone's favorite character concepts have been and what inspired them in a bit more detail.
A couple of mine to start out:
1) Shoanti Barbarian who's personality is based off of Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men" character Lenny Small, he has a penchant for carrying around small fuzzy animals and doesn't know his own strength.
2) A Dwarf cleric who followed Cayden Cailean I came up by myself based off of the Enhance Water spell which allows the priest to turn any dirty water into an alcoholic brew. He would "recycle" the water so he'd never waste any... Got some disgusted looks from fellow party members!
3) An old wizard who's personality was based off a mix of Si from Duck Dynasty and Zedd from Terry Goodkind's SoT series.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The three examples I gave above weren't Pathfinder - they were various Storyteller system games, but nonetheless:
-"Duck and Run" inspired a Ragabash (trickster) Metis (inbred handicapped wereolf) born to the Get of Fenris (think Viking warriors) tribe, who was adopted by the Bone Gnawers (a tribe of urban primitive werewolves) and eventually became a battle-hardened warrior despite his physical limitations.
-Rutter's "Out of the Deep" inspired a Hunter character - a former Catholic priest, fallen from his faith, who saw his inner-city congregation torn apart by a brutal territory clash between rival vampire gangs; he eventually redeemed himself in his dying moments when he helped destroy the leaders of both gangs.
-Tennyson's "Ulysess" was, well - a Solar Exalted version of Ulysess. Not exactly original, since Exalted was very much based on the classic Roman\Grecian hero anyway...
If you don't take at least 5 ranks in Profession (Irrelevant) then you're not doing it right.
First what do you mean by power gaming.What many people consider powergaming simply does not work in our group. We have gone at time several sessions without any blood shed or real spells being thrown as we do research and interact with NPC. . So if some one brought in a character designed for only turning Orcs into a pink mist and had no social skills or Knowledge based skills , that person would spend a lot of time bored.
Perhaps the our most useful character is our Rogue Detective, a class considered next to useless in most groups.