My question to the community is what kind of game does Pathfinder represent to you? Is it about a game of Numbers and Optimization or a game about Storyline(s) and Adventuring the depths of dungeons and hideouts?
Both in equal measure.
|
Did anybody here actually say that rollplayers are lesser beings? I think some people are a wee bit overly sensitive.
Wow, just wow. This was easily a baited thread, and held up "roleplaying" as the correct way.
Don't get angry when passive aggressive statements are called out.
I think the people who are overly sensitive are the ones who have to make threads to invalidate others play styles.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
He made it pretty clear that he doesn't like mechanics as much as story telling. That's not the same as saying that no one should consider mechanics as equal to story telling.
Okay, so if I were to make it pretty clear that I think your posts are completely ridiculous, that wouldn't be the same thing as saying they actually are? What an... interesting distinction to make.
|
|
My $.02 is that the game requires fair adjudication or else we're just kids going 'nuh uh! I dodged that bullet.' in our game of cowboys and indians.
The crunch is fun for people to fiddle with because when you're on here you can't really play, but you can take part in the game of building ridiculous characters for fun adn this presents the false image of people being 'stat obsessed.'
My person thing on this though is my problem is what I like to call the Brian Van Hoose style player. The guys who start demanding that the world inside the game conform to the crunch rules that are merely used for its adjudication.
You start getting some pretty goofy things then.
Also I believe players should be able to play what they want and not suffer unduly for it. You want to play a warrior focused in the bohemian ear spoon? You shouldn't be frowned at by your party of falcata armed synthesist summoners.
Also, I have rose colored glasses for 2e too, but keep in mind, in those days fighters were just that, fighters. 3e introduced us to the idea that two fighters might be entirely different and not just in terms of what weapons they used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between customization for distinction and customization for performance (game play) and yet another aspect – customization for core outcome (DCs, Initiative, to-hit). Using your Acrobatics example we could go several routes.
1 - Feat modified raw number. Doesn't add in any degree of what you can do for the most part, just a numeric bonus to a binary roll.
2 - Use the given metric of improvement to be the better acrobat (skill points tied to level progression). You want to be better, get more skill points. In other words, level up/get better no need for a seperate bonus to reflect how good you are, just improve the entire character as a whole.
3 - Non-numeric based system of proficiency. That is, a system tied to tiers of skill knowledge: novice, trained, expert, teacher and master. These different degrees actually better represent skill function than a simple X number that can fluctuate and may not be tied to level but another valuation for progression. They can reflect the degree of success and what you can actually do with the skill as you get better. They still require a roll, but that roll is protected from stat/buff manipulation or temporary modification due to effect being tied to training.
Using the latter system you can affect the degree of success (using cats grace to get +2 on Acrobatics check) but you do not affect the level of output because that would be tied to level of proficiency (novice, trained, expert, teacher and master).
This is a bit different then what I thought you were talking about. I thought you were talking about modifying the existing system's options, not change the way the game fundamentally operates. I would certainly conceed that something of that sort would still allow customization. For instance, Maybe all level 5 characters get +5 to their 'swordplay' roll but master swordsman get to do more with success then trained swordmen. I am not sure I'd LIKE that system, but I certainly dont think it fails to allow customization.
Under a pure numeric system customization, desire and intent are meaningless. If someone or something can get the +X numbers and it has a baseline of success (a few skill ranks) then by virtue of numbers it passes all levels of dedication, training and proficiency that you put into your character. This is the Codzilla effect on ALL LEVELS.
I dont quite understand why you think its meaningless. If the desire is to be better at jumping, a +x bonus to acrobatics achieves that end. For instance, in play, the intent is for monks to be very mobile. They get a +x bonus to acrobatics and a +x bonus to speed. The end result is they are extremely mobile. And that baseline (just putting ranks) represents the line between good and exceptional. A character that puts his HD worth of ranks into acrobatics is 'trained', a character who does that with a class skill and a good dex is particularly talented., a character who does all that and has other bonuses to acrobatics is exceptional.
I just dont see how +x prevents such an effect in gameplay.
Using raw +X feat for minor things is one thing, using them for core game changes is another. This system does not weigh them the same. Being able to blacksmith is great for story, but it’s contending with feats that increase saves, determine initiative and the chance to make a target fail its save from one of your spells. Again, bad game design just by virtue of how these feats are classed and the whole +X mentality around the d20 system.
Here I dont agree with you. I dont think its bad game design to include options that are not as effective in typical adventures as others. I personally think options should work in a sensible rational way, and be coherent within the world. Being skilled at blacksmithing is not going to be as useful as being an expert swordsman in a game that focuses on adventuring in dangerous dungeons. But that doesnt mena I shouldnt be able to put resources into blacksmithing if I want to. After all SOMEONE in the world is a blacksmith. He probably isnt a very good adventurer. But thats fine so long as people realize this when they take the 'expert blacksmith' option.
I dont think its bad design, its just a set of preferences and values that dont match yours. Which is fine ofcourse. But there is a difference between 'bad' and 'not what I want in my game'
I would much rather use a system that was more detailed/complicated but I wouldn’t tie it to most of the things you listed (re-roll, lower DCs, etc) since they are the same thing as adding +X for the most part. Instead I would go with a tighter, more managed output. Number rolled determines success, while proficiency determines outcome of that success. So when a highly dexterous demon does a little tuck and roll maneuver in combat (only "trained level" of Acrobatics on stat block, but +10 on Dex mod) the higher level creature is quickly outshined by your very nimble, lower level, lower Dexterity but more highly trained character.
Going +/-X for everything was an exercise in oversimplification that opened a huge door for effect manipulation and a greater focus on squeezing out every single integer to increase the chances of the binary success/fail roll which is the cornerstone of the game.
Its an interesting idea, and yes the numeric nature of d20 is a abstraction for the same of simplification, but I also think it has a lot to do with how you play at your table. The base assumption of the game ISNT that you try to squeeze every single integer increase you can for your binary success roll. In fact the base assumption of the game is that you do this very rarely. Those that do that generally crush what the game assumes is a 'challenge' (see CR system). The game (and its designers) expect that people will at times take options that dont help the +x roll because they match a concept. For instance the monk vow of poverty is a misearable +x option since magic items represnet so much power in game, but it does help you represent your concept within the system. The child scent hex for witches inst going to do anything for +x, but its there. It wouldnt be there if the designers didnt expect some characters (be they pcs or npcs) to use it.
Granted, my group was at one point the 'squeeze every +x drop possible' style game for a while when we were younger. But as we get older we find ourselves going for those 'weaker' options more often. Its a willing choice, and I agree that only system mastery can allow you to make it as an informed choice. But I dont agree that it is the cornerstone of the system. I think the cornerstone of the system is trying to make options make sense within the context of the d20 system. And people can take the best parts of that or the worst parts of that for their game, but in the end it is a choice you and your group makes on how to use the tool that is the game.
But that isn’t the reality of the game and you know this. Every fighter that is on par with what he is "supposed" to be able to do at a given level is probably going to have all the same feats. So your weapon focus + chain feats does not make the fighter distinct from all the other fighters in the land who are at his level. That being said I am not against very minor (+1 to-hit at best, for the entire career: Levels 1-20 of the fighter) bonuses. But I would not put ANY game changing metrics (+DC, + to-hit) in the same pool as Skill Focus or Alertness. Those feats that change the success rate of core functionality should be heavily weighed and should have trade-offs (excellent with one weapon group/weapon, all other weapon groups suffer a -1).
I dont think that is true at all. Par is way lower then you are making out to be. If Par is the CR system, every martial character has a whole bunch of ways to reach it, because its alot lower then the maximum possible amount. Which is the thing I think you are having a problem with. You assume because its possible to reach the upmost of high numbers, that those numbers are the baseline. But they arent and they were never meant to be. Jason Bulhman doesnt sit down to play with a hyper optimized 35 point buy drow noble. Why should we?
A fighter might take weapon focus but he doesnt NEED it to do his job, weapon training pretty much covers that baked in to the class. Weapon focus is there to let the fighter be exceptional or to allow classes with less +x backed into their class to be up to 'par'. The fighter doesnt need it to be able to hit at CR monsters. He just doesnt. Sure lots of fighters still take it, but it isnt part of the baseline. Its a concious choice to be better at something.
Again, no issue with customization – the problem is the type of customization and the weighing of the choice options. Some choices become defaults, in which case they are not choices. The only way to manage this is to put in trade offs for the core choice types or make the decision for one type work against another core function (+1 to DCs in one school, -1 in DCs in all others).
So I don't have a problem with customization – I think you and I might just have different definitions of what the concept means for us in our respective games. You think it's +X to skill, I think it's being able to actually do something different or bettter or more detailed with said skill. Or in the case of quirkyness, having a character that has certian features at cost (e.g.- Light Sleeper: Increased perception checks to wake up when sleeping and hearing noise, but needs full 8 hours of rest every day) with some cool rp aspects.
I definately think we differ in what we want out of our game, but that is certainly fine. I do think d20 is probably not the right game for you. I wonder, have you tried Fantasy Flight's Edge of the empire game. Their dice based system seems fairly interesting, and the advantage/disadvantage thing being tacked on to success/failure is pretty interesting.
But please note, I do take rp options all the time because I find them interesting for my character. I also have a high degree of system mastery, which lets me understand how to take options like that and still meet my baseline. I guess in a system like d20 it takes a skilled optimizer not to optimize, because he can knowingly choose not to. I find myself of late trying to make 'sub par' concepts work or just things I havent tried before, like using racial natural weapons instead of manufactured ones (my current ranger), or making a blasty caster work (3pp godling in a current game). But I agree that it is still a matter of mucking around in the numbers. I just find enjoyment in that, and find that it brings diversity to my characters.
My point stands - if numbers are relative then what is the point of all the numbers? Addressing the issue of customization/distinction (as I just did), why are multiple layers of numbers and the persuit of aquiring those numbers a good thing for this game?
I think what those numbers "SHOULD" be providing is multiple paths to the same result. What I mean is, that you dont actually need ALL those numbers to hit par (again this to me is based on the CR system). You just need some of them. So maybe the fighter gets to 'par' with his to hit bonus with his full bab and weapon training, and maybe the inquisitor gets to it with his judgement and a buff spell. And the bard does it with inspire courage. Sure you could put the buff spell and the song on the fighter and he would be 'uber' but its not a requirement, and probably shouldnt be done most of the time. But it does allow for multiple paths to that same result (sufficient +x to y). Thats why I think the multiple layers are important, and useful to the game.
|
This is a bit different then what I thought you were talking about. I thought you were talking about modifying the existing system's options, not change the way the game fundamentally operates. I would certainly conceed that something of that sort would still allow customization. For instance, Maybe all level 5 characters get +5 to their 'swordplay' roll but master swordsman get to do more with success then trained swordmen. I am not sure I'd LIKE that system, but I certainly dont think it fails to allow customization.3 - Non-numeric based system of proficiency. That is, a system tied to tiers of skill knowledge: novice, trained, expert, teacher and master. These different degrees actually better represent skill function than a simple X number that can fluctuate and may not be tied to level but another valuation for progression. They can reflect the degree of success and what you can actually do with the skill as you get better. They still require a roll, but that roll is protected from stat/buff manipulation or temporary modification due to effect being tied to training.
Using the latter system you can affect the degree of success (using cats grace to get +2 on Acrobatics check) but you do not affect the level of output because that would be tied to level of proficiency (novice, trained, expert, teacher and master).
You stated you wanted customization to reflect increased proficiency over same peers at tier, and then I offered a skill track system that broke from numbers but reflected actual dedication to a devotion or skill - that is - most low level PCs would have novice or trained skill levels at acrobatics, but you spent X resource (Feat, etc) to raise yours higher than normal for your tier/level (say expert or teacher).
I wouldn't modify the existing system because for the most part it's beyond repair. It would need tier function protection and there would have to be hard caps on how much +X's you could add based on your core skill level.
I don't think that skill success should be a function of raw numbers and instead should be tied to the level of dedication and proficiency to the skill.
So variables that affect base X by adding +X, such as: spells, high stats or magic items - should not surpass or substitute for actual skill level.
I dont quite understand why you think its meaningless. If the desire is to be better at jumping, a +x bonus to acrobatics achieves that end. For instance, in play, the intent is for monks to be very mobile. They get a +x bonus to acrobatics and a +x bonus to speed. The end result is they are extremely mobile. And that baseline (just putting ranks) represents the line between good and exceptional. A character that puts his HD worth of ranks into acrobatics is 'trained', a character who does that with a class skill and a good dex is particularly talented., a character who does all that and has other bonuses to acrobatics is exceptional.
I just dont see how +x prevents such an effect in gameplay.
Bonus to speed which follows a different metric than skills and wasn’t raised as an issue, so I will throw that out of this discussion.
My problem isn’t that +X is being added from a feat, my problem is that +X is easily attainable via spells or items unrelated to training or dedication in the skill, thus making actual skill ranks or a Feat that adds +3 to a skill meaningless. If you have the high stat or bonus (however attained) then you are just as effective as someone with ranks if your total number is higher than theirs. Again, this being a binary system the actual ranks placed into the skill do not matter- just the numbers: can you hit it or not.Sorry, I find that to be incredible bad game design.
The skills and their output are not tied to rank or proficiency they are tied to a MUTABLE NUMBER – skill ranks don’t mean anything, they are just a number – a number that can be synthesized/modified via other factors in the game.
I dont think that is true at all. Par is way lower then you are making out to be. If Par is the CR system, every martial character has a whole bunch of ways to reach it, because its alot lower then the maximum possible amount. Which is the thing I think you are having a problem with. You assume because its possible to reach the upmost of high numbers, that those numbers are the baseline. But they arent and they were never meant to be. Jason Bulhman doesnt sit down to play with a hyper optimized 35 point buy drow noble. Why should we?
A fighter might take weapon focus but he doesnt NEED it to do his job, weapon training pretty much covers that baked in to the class. Weapon focus is there to let the fighter be exceptional or to allow classes with less +x backed into their class to be up to 'par'. The fighter doesnt need it to be able to hit at CR monsters. He just doesnt. Sure lots of fighters still take it, but it isnt part of the baseline. Its a concious choice to be better at something.
Who said anything about a 35 buy drow noble? I didn’t.
The point you made was that without all these options all fighters would mechanically function the same – my counter point is that most if not all those feats are actually not choices but something ingrained in the game. With no weapon focus you miss out on a whole chain of to-hit and damage bonuses – the reality is that the game assumes that you will have these things when dealing with mid to higher level foes.I don’t know what world you are playing or running you games on – if a player is given the choice of mechanically being more powerful or effective over using his resources to be sub-par, the player in question is going to go the power route. Sure some people pick and play sub-par feats for theme or feel (I have a few in my game), but designing a system where you have feat choices that are going to not be real choices (Core combat changers) vs. everything else you will have to make a conscious choice to play sub-par if you understand how the game works. Because that's exactly what it would be – sub-par.
Players are not dumb, if they have a choice between using a tool that is going to help them survive or one that is going to flesh out their character an both are mutually exclusive, more often than not they will go with survival thinking that they can pick up the "fleshing out" feats later on (which never happens since you are now on a performance track). The exceptions of – experienced players wanting to experiment, low-combat heavy rp games, etc. But as the game is pitched, and as the APs are pitched – no – the default assumption is that you are running with core combat changing feats.
I definately think we differ in what we want out of our game, but that is certainly fine. I do think d20 is probably not the right game for you.
This is probably the only thing we will agree on here. I think d20 (as a whole) is a failure in game design.
I will go back to AD&D 2 and make the progression that should have occurred – open ended ACs and Saves and a simple skill system to supplement their non-weapon proficiency system. That and scalable monsters plus templates. I will mine PF for some creature ideas (creature modularity and templates are what drew me in as a DM, should have stayed with 2nd ed) but for the most part my experience with 3rd ed/PF, from a mechanical point of view, is very negative. Paizo is decent at writing world content and the creative stuff, but tacking it onto the 3rd ed framework doesn’t cut it anymore for me.
But please note, I do take rp options all the time because I find them interesting for my character. I also have a high degree of system mastery, which lets me understand how to take options like that and still meet my baseline. I guess in a system like d20 it takes a skilled optimizer not to optimize, because he can knowingly choose not to. I find myself of late trying to make 'sub par' concepts work or just things I havent tried before, like using racial natural weapons instead of manufactured ones (my current ranger), or making a blasty caster work (3pp godling in a current game). But I agree that it is still a matter of mucking around in the numbers. I just find enjoyment in that, and find that it brings diversity to my characters.
Good for you – too bad most people who play the game or are new to the game don’t know this. They will either learn to pick the most hyper-optimized choices or on the other end go for the trap options and wonder why their level 1 Dwarven Fighter with Skill Focus (Craft) and Defensive Combat Training keeps dying.
The fact that it "takes a skilled optimizer not to optimize" speaks volumes about the system and its flaws.I think what those numbers "SHOULD" be providing is multiple paths to the same result. What I mean is, that you dont actually need ALL those numbers to hit par (again this to me is based on the CR system). You just need some of them. So maybe the fighter gets to 'par' with his to hit bonus with his full bab and weapon training, and maybe the inquisitor gets to it with his judgement and a buff spell. And the bard does it with inspire courage. Sure you could put the buff spell and the song on the fighter and he would be 'uber' but its not a requirement, and probably shouldnt be done most of the time. But it does allow for multiple paths to that same result (sufficient +x to y). Thats why I think the multiple layers are important, and useful to the game.
Multiple layers are fine. Easy manipulation of what should be hard-coded roles and function are not.
So I don’t mind detail, I don’t – most of the other games I run are considerably more complicated than D20. I don’t even mind situational bonuses to combat and saves as long as they're not superfulous. I do mind a raw numbers system that runs roughshod over skill ranks and even feats that boost those skills. The fact that ALL success is determined by final value (total of all modifiers) independent of source instead of proficiency/dedication is the problem.
And here’s a thought – maybe there shouldn’t be multiple paths that lead to the same result?
Maybe each of those varied paths should yield different results? Some with end results that are better/more suited than others attained by alternate actions? That way the system can move away from the binary, flavorless +X philosophy to make the roll, with end results not mattering since they are all the same.
Of course that would require real work and detail to be put in the system. Why do that when you're already making money?
|
|
"Of course that would require real work and detail to be put in the system. Why do that when you're already making money?"
Really?
Yeah, really. Is that hard for you to comprehend?
PF is facelift to 3rd ed with backwards compatibility in mind. They didn't change much/do real work (hence the comment). Apparently it's working for them and making them money - doesn't work for me though.
"Of course that would require real work and detail to be put in the system. Why do that when you're already making money?"
Really?
Yeah, really. Is that hard for you to comprehend?
PF is facelift to 3rd ed with backwards compatibility in mind. They didn't change much/do real work (hence the comment). Apparently it's working for them and making them money - doesn't work for me though.
Too bad its not backwards compatible... The core looks like a lot of copy pasta, and some 3.5 rules are directly contradicted(sometimes for no reason beyond a personal opinion!)
My question to the community is what kind of game does Pathfinder represent to you? Is it about a game of Numbers and Optimization or a game about Storyline(s) and Adventuring the depths of dungeons and hideouts?
Both.
|
It has always seemed to me that the moment this topic comes up, people who are primarily focused on numbers reply "both".
I base my statement here on my observation that the same people who answer 'both' seem to be primarily creating threads that focus on numbers, not story telling.
This should be read as an observation of a general trend, not as a personal attack of people who have answered 'both' previously in this thread.
If you read the Advice forum, you will note that most threads focus on numbers rather than storytelling.
Have you considered that this overall trend might explain what you tentatively identified as a specific category of posters ?
In other words, you only observed that the sky is blue.
Did anybody here actually say that rollplayers are lesser beings? I think some people are a wee bit overly sensitive.
Would they be, perchance, the people who do not agree with you ? How peculiar :-)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Of course that would require real work and detail to be put in the system. Why do that when you're already making money?"
Really?
Yeah, really. Is that hard for you to comprehend?
PF is facelift to 3rd ed with backwards compatibility in mind. They didn't change much/do real work (hence the comment). Apparently it's working for them and making them money - doesn't work for me though.
You know that they did write a few new things since 2009, right ? :-))
I am curious, Citizen Aux, if you have an alternative system that you prefer that you can recommend?
I probably won't be switching, since PF is the only system that most of my players know, but sometimes all the +2s bother me, too. And my players have never gotten above 10th level!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
But when the OP praised narrative style, some people were personally offended.
Correction: The OP didn't just praise narrative style, he made a comparison which clearly put narrative style above number-style. There's a big difference between "narrative style is awesome" and "narrative style is way better than number style".
Also, when you say "some people were personally offended", what you mean is "some people asked for others to stop putting them down".
It has always seemed to me that the moment this topic comes up, people who are primarily focused on numbers reply "both".
I base my statement here on my observation that the same people who answer 'both' seem to be primarily creating threads that focus on numbers, not story telling.
This should be read as an observation of a general trend, not as a personal attack of people who have answered 'both' previously in this thread.
However, it very easily reads as an attack. If it weren't filled with prejudice, why even mention it?
Do you read it as an attack because he spends most of his post writing about the narrative style?However, it very easily reads as an attack. If it weren't filled with prejudice, why even mention it?It has always seemed to me that the moment this topic comes up, people who are primarily focused on numbers reply "both".
I base my statement here on my observation that the same people who answer 'both' seem to be primarily creating threads that focus on numbers, not story telling.
This should be read as an observation of a general trend, not as a personal attack of people who have answered 'both' previously in this thread.
Actually I am talking about your post I quoted.
My post?? Why
Because it was easily read as an attack, if I had to guess.
I have to admit; I didn't read most of the anger in this post. I sensed it from the words that rolled by as I scrolled down. I'm not much for crystal hugging, but looking at ANY gaming table ANYWHERE ever at ANY time, including the 2 tables that SPAWNED this hobby in the first place, couldn't we say there's more than one way and agree to disagree?
...
I can sense someone forming an argument to my statement right now.
Anyway, @ the OP: I'd like to think I'm in the "both" crowd. But then I remembered - I suck at math. Another player in our group is constantly coaxing me to do better w/my builds. When I GM I habitually build combats I think are cool and challenging only to have the dwarf fighter 6 (Unbreakable) yawn and say "Power Attack/Cleave... fight over".
But I guess my thing why I say both is... I never stop trying.
I have huge word docs full of partial fluff, storylines and backstories. Other excel and word docs have dozens of pre-built NPCs. Again, I think they're cool until they die in a round but still. I find myself cruising both build threads and GM story advice requests. I want to say I've made an equal amount of both too... but I haven't crunched the numbers on this yet :)
I like what a poster upthread said, about the numbers now letting him express the concept mechanically that before he could only do with words. That's true on both sides of the screen y'know. I remember once playing a game in 1e where there were these nigh-indestructible "Black" skeletons. We were SUPPOSED to run away, research them, figure out that they were blackened and charred, and come back w/a cone of cold, but none of US knew that. The GM had no way of telling us through rolls, checks or rules; he just had to hint at it. Hint he did, we didn't pick up on it and we ended up blundering through a combat we didn't need for little reward, all the while the GM literally laughing at us.
Now as a GM I can make villains like snap-together sets. If the players figure them out on seeing them, great; if not, they have several ways to know at least enough to know when fight, when to flee, and when to pray.
My post?? WhyBecause it was easily read as an attack, if I had to guess.
Quite exactly so.
It has always seemed to me that the moment this topic comes up, people who are primarily focused on numbers reply "both".
Perhaps because in terms of numbers there is simply more to discuss objectively, while with narrative story-telling it's much more a matter of subjective taste? So those that do numbers talk numbers, those that do both narrative and numbers, talk largely numbers as well.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why some people are so defensive about whether they prefer roleplaying or rollplaying.
They're not defensive about which they prefer, they're defensive about being told that their preference is inferior or not the right way or not what the game's all about or gets in the way of fun.
|
|
It has always seemed to me that the moment this topic comes up, people who are primarily focused on numbers reply "both".Perhaps because in terms of numbers there is simply more to discuss objectively, while with narrative story-telling it's much more a matter of subjective taste? So those that do numbers talk numbers, those that do both narrative and numbers, talk largely numbers as well.
Also, the numbers are easier to deal with in terms of 'the lonely' crunch player who can build dozens of characters and derive genuine amusement from doing so. As opposed to the lonely fluff player who essentially writes fiction (and generally its easier to share a few short posts of 'look at my awesome expert/barbarian who uses math to improve his falcata usage' as opposed to 'read my saga of the elf ranger I came up with! He has hair of flame!')
I think its less that Pathfinder is a crunch game, and more that the forum is crunchy since its easier to share the crunchiness.
And while I like fluff, I'm going to freely admit that 1e was very crunchy adn bcame fluffy by imagination and application. Characters with name like Melf the Elf, or guys like Tenser the MMMCLVII were kind of common in that begotten era.
What brings us to pathfinder though isn't the tables, nor the detailed descriptions of how you move diagonally, or the way that crit damage stacks. Its what we can do with it.
Its what we can do with it. And for most of us, thats playing heroic characters who take on great threats. The Brian Van Hooses who try to corner the market on masterwork longswords by using wall of iron, or the ones who think the entire world's population should be first level wiards, or a thousand other goofy examples, are in my opinion out numbered by the ones who just, plain and simple, want to cast deadly spells, be as shadows in the night, sing songs to make the walls cry out, to fight the cardinal's men as musketeers of the king, to be like robin hood, to be Elric haunted by his horrific destiny, to be Croaker competent and haunted, to be simply flat Parn, to be a kung fu guy inexplicably fighting men in armor, to climb the eighty foot demonic star god and spit in his face.
The rules let these accomplishments arise from action on their part, and not just fiat. Despite what is said of DM fudging, the PCs can forge their destiny thanks to the rules.
To paraphrase Einstein. Rules without fluff are lame. Fluff without rules are blind. At least in a game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why some people are so defensive about whether they prefer roleplaying or rollplaying.They're not defensive about which they prefer, they're defensive about being told that their preference is inferior or not the right way or not what the game's all about or gets in the way of fun.
I have only met one rollplayer not be defensive about it (and that was in person and mostly because he felt he was unlucky with the dice. He was but never took any advice on treating his dice more nicely though).
I believe rollplayers dont see themselves as rollplayers but roleplayers who like crunch.
Roleplayers who dont even come close to being rollplayers on the other hand can see a vast difference between the two and feel that there is no way a rollplayer could see themself as anything but a rollplayer.
This is my experience, but in no way is a comment on, or in defense of any posts here, merely my understanding of the conflict.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Rollplay vs Roleplay" thread #727861872128761871 (this month).
*Yawn*
Oh my goodness, so much this. Why people ever respond to these threads with anything other than a "so this is the rollplay versus roleplay thread of the minute." Is beyond me. Seriously, we're all playing a game, and, hopefully, enjoying it. Who gives a crap about how other people play it? Pretty soon I'm going to start responding to threads like this with something along these lines.
It's come to my attention that some people are playing this game using only virtual/electronic dice, instead of actual sets of polyhedrals. I'd like to know which is better, electronic dice or real dice.
Why? Because it's equally as pointless. No matter how everyone plays the game, we're all playing the same game. Play the game in the nude for all I care. Just keep playing it, so Paizo can keep producing Pathfinder awesomeness for me to partake in.
Real dice are better! :)
So is strip rpgs :)
