| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As we all know, the origins of D&D (which leads into what we now know as Pathfinder) has been about creating a world full of imagination and abominations, a legacy or a tragedy, and following the lives and roles of people who were born into such an era and place. We played them, lived them, enjoyed them for what they represented: A whole new dimension of ingenuity and practicality to immerse those who wanted something new and exciting.
At the same time, if such is to function as a "game" (and not a way of life, like some people may view this as), then rules and mechanics (and ultimately "scores") must be made and kept track of in attempts to make this "game" appear cohesive, realistic to its design, and most of all, fair in its construction.
I've seen through the years of this type of game developing (though I am too young to have experience to show for it, hearing the experiences of others still tells a story), I have noticed it has digressed from being a game about Storyline (A titan whose divine axe carved the heavens into the shape that mortals see at night), and more about a game of numbers (I just got a +2 to hit from *blahblahblahwhocaresimthebesticaneverbe*)
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?
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
You make the mistake in thinking the two are mutually exclusive. They are not.
Thus, my answer is both in equal measure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Rollplay vs Roleplay" thread #727861872128761871 (this month).
*Yawn*
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
As we all know, the origins of D&D (which leads into what we now know as Pathfinder) has been about creating a world full of imagination and abominations, a legacy or a tragedy, and following the lives and roles of people who were born into such an era and place. We played them, lived them, enjoyed them for what they represented: A whole new dimension of ingenuity and practicality to immerse those who wanted something new and exciting.
Which parallel universe are you from ?
The origins of D&D lie in wargame (Chainmail IIRC), not at all in immersion in stories. That came later.
At the same time, if such is to function as a "game" (and not a way of life, like some people may view this as), then rules and mechanics (and ultimately "scores") must be made and kept track of in attempts to make this "game" appear cohesive, realistic to its design, and most of all, fair in its construction.
I've seen through the years of this type of game developing (though I am too young to have experience to show for it, hearing the experiences of others still tells a story), I have noticed it has digressed from being a game about Storyline (A titan whose divine axe carved the heavens into the shape that mortals see at night), and more about a game of numbers (I just got a +2 to hit from *blahblahblahwhocaresimthebesticaneverbe*)
What you describe is actually a setting being created as a wonderful opus by a GM, and then being used as the background for the adventures of players. I can understand how this might make a GM sad, to see such disrespect for his finely crafted world, cosmology et al. However, RPG at its very basis is a collaborative game. Learn and adapt.
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?
For me, it is most about storylines and adventuring, but it also needs mastery of the rules (aka numbers and optimization) to make a really useful PC who can then live the adventures in full, rather than feel like a useless luggage carried around by the other PCs.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
As we all know, the origins of D&D (which leads into what we now know as Pathfinder) has been about creating a world full of imagination and abominations, a legacy or a tragedy, and following the lives and roles of people who were born into such an era and place.
No, the origins of D&D were as a spin-off of tactical wargames.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
Barring immediate kneejerk reactions to attack, posters here should actually make an attempt to respond using both a rational, fact based or personal experiences to formulate an answer.
As a disclaimer - we have had some fun playing PF, the numbers/bonuses/need X number in game needs have soured it and burdened the whole gaming process - but we still had fun with the system. We still RPd, still adventured - just less than we did with earlier systems.
IMO and from what I have seen moving from 1st/Basic/2nd/3.5/PF beta/PF -
This is now a numbers game that creeps into almost all aspects of the game besides the core RP that "may" be done in freestyle fashion. That is, the numbers manipulation influences everything - more than any other game I have read, ran or played in.
These changes IMO were intentional. A move away from adventure focus to a shift in builds, "I need item Y to get bonus X" was based on the creators of 3rd ed and what was going on in the market when WotC acquired TSR (and a big part of it was MtG selling numbers). Those guys were not dumb, they knew what sold and they repackaged the game and system to focus more on players vs. gaming product (splats vs. DM campaign books, modules, etc).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The optimization aspect (which is huge - aka, building your character the bestest way) shifts most of the games attention to the individual PC (and charting their progression) in d20 gaming vs. moving the adventure/story along. This has been a shift that started to occur on a small scale some time during 2nd ed, but was hard coded in 3rd ed+. 2nd ed kits pale in comparison with hard number choices offered in 3rd ed - all controlled by players. It went from controlling a few things about your character to almost hyper-optimization and affecting each metric on the character sheet.
On top of all of the that the "+X" system makes the rest of it 99% numbers driven.
So if you have a dump stat of Cha 6, you can mitigate it simply by adding in more skill points to all of your interactive/interpersonal skill that actually matter - doesn't matter that at your core being you have the appeal of a rock - you just add more numbers - via skill points, magic items or spells. Rinse & repeat with the entire skills system + X modifier via spell or item and you get a soulless, numeric based (and mostly binary) system.
There are no consequences for stat array choices as there are many work arounds for the dumps. Also skill focus characters get trampled by the "+X" system - Rogues primarily, but not just them. Why invest in a skill when it's value is just based on the number of points put in? There is not skill protectionism (Rogues do X, Fighters do Y, etc) - degrees of training which yield variable results, no. Almost everything in the game is vulnerable to very easy "plus X" factors (items/spells) and as such, highly abusable and manipulated (if you can play a character class that can pull that off).
All that being said - I don't think any of this stops roleplaying and the idea of adventuring - but it sure as hell shifts the focus of the game from the act of adventuring/playing the game to the detail of the individual PC. It does change some background focus and drivers of the game - needing that gear, building that gear, needing an expected number, etc.
Even my players - almost all 30+ gamers - have felt it when we play PF. They HAVE to pay attention to number manipulation because that factors into survival. They like adventuring and heavy RP, but in our last campaign they had to devote a considerable amount of time to: Booster gear, +X related items and items or spells that would mechanically manipulate things to change results.
In my group when we play game systems with less manipulation - the focus of the game is not as much on manipulation (since each game has varying degrees) but on RP and playing the game.
In summation (for me) I would say PF (and most D20 games with +X manipulation) is a numbers game with a story in the background. I know some people here are going to be offended by this, or just flat out deny it (stormwind etc) - but that is the state of the game. As long as +X is controllable by players, the players will have varying degrees of trying to affect +X vs. actually playing. It's different with each group - and I don't fault the players from trying - they do want the best chances of success after all, nor do I fault the DMs who run it.
I do fault the system and developers who went the easy route (D20 +X) trying to re-launch a game system.
Not trolling, not trying to flame and not dumping on PF - just presenting my gaming experience with PF and d20 gaming over the last 13 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both. And I defy you to go back and find me writing allot of posts concentrating primarily on numbers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Fair observation! I do say "both" and I do make most of my topics about numbers.
That's because I feel I don't need help from internet strangers about story, most of the time. It's a more personal thing that I chat about with friends.
As for numbers, that is an objective art rather than subjective, and the internet hivemind can be very useful for it.
|
Both.
Roleplaying wise, I had the most fun when it was a night out in town of shopping for dresses with the girls, eating dinner and watching the theatre. Then ruining a jerk NPC's day and pretending not to notice.
Rollplaying wise, everytime the outcome of the battle looks extremely grim and it comes down to an ingenius tactical idea, or a final roll to determine the victor.
I have heard fellow players say that the best ending of their campaigns have been where they completed their ultimate goal (the world was saved), most of the party was dead, and the last one or two turned to face off against the last of some evil army with no escape, and they end it there.
Design Manager
|
Fair observation! I do say "both" and I do make most of my topics about numbers.That's because I feel I don't need help from internet strangers about story, most of the time. It's a more personal thing that I chat about with friends.
As for numbers, that is an objective art rather than subjective, and the internet hivemind can be very useful for it.
^ This.
|
|
I role play for the chance to experience the thrill of making life or death decisions in the heat of battle, and then find my character still alive as the dust settles. But the numbers have to be processed for a credible outcome to be achieved. When I go up a level, I look at the numbers and optimize where I can, but my thrill is not figuring out ways to get a fighter who can do 1d12+25 with each hit.
In my first Pathfinder Society game, I had great fun running a 1st level bard who didn't make one attack the whole evening. But he made great use of ghost sound, dancing lights, sleep, and inspire courage to make an impact on each combat.
I have also had my enjoyment of the game enhanced by using d20Pro. One can program all the combat die rolls and rules into the system and then not think about it and just attack. The computer says whether I hit or not and how much damage I did. I don't have to take my mind of the combat situation and roll dice and add numbers.
I also find I have little patience for power gamers who seem to get the most fun from pushing one thing to an extreme and becoming a one-trick pony doing the same thing all night. If others have fun with it, that's okay. But I don't moan if/when the DM puts the player down with a spell that requires a will save, when the player has used every trick to get his Fort and Ref saves into double digits and has a will save of 2.
When I GM Pathfinder, the PCs meet in a tavern and decide to play Once Upon a Time until one PC get too hungry -- then they kill and eat everyone in the room.
I am fortunate enough to have players who only care about concept and couldn't care less about the numbers. I actually build most of my players' characters for them, based on what they want.
I care about numbers because I want the game to be fair for all the players. But they only care about the story, plot, and the rather terrifying things I throw at them.
"A Numbers Game or a Story to Play Out?"
Yes.
My personal experience has been that those who say "both" play numbers and drop story on top, making the story fit the numbers and spend most of their time creatively crunching numbers. Without the story they wouldnt enjoy it, but I dont think most of my friends could play even rules light rpgs, they almost need the numbers to enjoy it, need to have something precise to show how awesome they are (supported even more by the fact that they never consider a stat of 14 to be good and they never need cha unless they are a spontaneous caster.
I have seen exceptions though.
Personally I prefer to make the story first and use the numbers to support the story.
Partly why I hate classes is that classes are numbers first, giving me numbers to choose from and then telling me what story possibilities are available to me based on those numbers.
In response to expected critisms (due to prior experience),
If I want to have sorceress that was a noble and learned swordplay as a matter of course and trained regularly in addition to magical training, then I either dont have numbers to support the concept, or Im waiting for a new class to be released (which has absolutely no spells I want) or I have to be beyond human capacity in levels to take the prestige class, and earlier levels have to be built from idiotic and despised classical archtypes that dont fit my created story and often grant me numbers that are not part of my created story.
Dont ask me how this became the norm, but finding anyone who isnt building numbers first is extremely rare, for me anyway.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Have you stopped to consider that the folks who say "both" may not need help with the "story" side of things? Which is why you see more threads from them about the crunch?
Story, fluff and other such creative pursuits are myriad for the creative mind. I could do campaigns influenced by the Fall of Troy, by Prospero's island in The Tempest, by the fey machinations of a Midsummer Night's Dream, by the subtle intrigue of Sherlock Holmes, by the madcap plane-hopping of Doctor Who, and any number of other inspirations. If you see me starting more threads about mechanics than plot, maybe it's because I don't need your help coming up with a story, hmm?
In response to expected critisms (due to prior experience),
If I want to have sorceress that was a noble and learned swordplay as a matter of course and trained regularly in addition to magical training, then I either dont have numbers to support the concept, or Im waiting for a new class to be released (which has absolutely no spells I want) or I have to be beyond human capacity in levels to take the prestige class, and earlier levels have to be built from idiotic and despised classical archtypes that dont fit my created story and often grant me numbers that are not part of my created story.Dont ask me how this became the norm, but finding anyone who isnt building numbers first is extremely rare, for me anyway.
Sounds like a Magus to me, TBH. And you run into issues with game balance otherwise, even more so than this game already has.
Your sorceress can use any weapon she wants, regardless. You just can't expect to be a master swordsman and a master of magics at the same time. What would be the point, otherwise?
Without the crunch the game is nothing but storytime, which is fine I suppose but you don't need to play in the Pathfinder ruleset to have storytime. You can do that whenever you want and have heroines both skilled with a blade and with all magic at her disposal, and anything else you like.
There are class-less systems as well, which would allow you to build characters from scratch with the abilities you want. Pathfinder is not one of these systems, and there's nothing wrong with that.
And there are even some attempts to make a class-less system with the Pathfinder rules (I have one mostly workable system that does this currently, in fact), but complaining that the game doesn't let you build your own class out of the box is a bit when all these other options exist.
True, but do they spend more time maxing out damage per round, or fleshing out background and character? That is probably the better berometer of their focus. I.e. most of my friends spent 80%+ of their time building awesome number crunching builds and taking whatever fluff was attached by default, occasionally changing something minor to be unique such as useing a whip for a primary weapon instead of a sword, but really if you wrote a complete dossier on the character with no game system or rules references, how much of it would talk about the whip?
And yet my friends say story and numbers.
Personally, I dont think think they realize just how much the numbers rule their gameing.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And what's wrong with that?
Are they having fun? Is everyone else having fun?
It seems like it, or they wouldn't spend so much time on it.
So what's the issue?
And hell, it's not like background is the most important part of the story anyway. It's nice, and I love writing detailed backgrounds (...sometimes. Sometimes I just roll with whatever comes in my head), it's what happens AFTER The first session starts that matters.
And no matter how numbers focused a character is, unless the player is COMPLETELY disconnected from the game, he's going to have fun stories to tell, whether they be pure RP stories ("Remember the time we talked our way out of going to prison by pretending to be crazy hobos with no connection to the crime?") or combat ones ("Remember the time we killed a Yeth Hound with a spork?") is irrelevant. They're all story moments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Never fear Darksol. For some of us, it's still all about the story.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
It has always seemed to me whenever this topic comes up that those who favor "storytelling" are mainly interested in talking about other people, rather than talking about the actual game.
I base my statement here on my observation that the same people who bring up this topic in the first place quickly self-identify as preferring "storytelling", not "numbers".
This should be read as an observation of a general trend, not as a personal attack of people who have answered "storytelling" previously in this thread.
I think people can get enjoyment out of both. It's hard to have one player at a table who refuses to optimize at all, and another who just wants to get on with combat so he can try out the new numbers he got this level, but unless you've got the two extremes at one table, I find it tends to work out pretty well.
I have two players now who really enjoy RP and are less focused on numbers, and it was a real treat seeing them interact in character for about 1/2 of my last session, sans numbers and die rolls. OTOH, combat is a big part of the fun of the game, and having lots of feats, class abilities, and skills makes it really easy to imagine what happens in combat. It's these combat-related events that people end up talking about for hours months after the campaign has ended, in my experience, and those times are made much cooler by a reasonably good use of the numbers.
I seem to remember an article in Dragon in the late 80s/early 90s written by Gary Gygax, discussing the dichotomy of "role playing" and "game". It was his take that things were starting to go too far in the other direction (that being the time that games like Vampire the Masquerade were just starting to come out). I think we've come back full circle, and some people feel there's too much attention to rules now. I think people CAN focus too much on rules, but I've also seen where the complexity of the rules allows nuances of character depth that people never thought of before.
And what's wrong with that?
Are they having fun? Is everyone else having fun?
It seems like it, or they wouldn't spend so much time on it.
So what's the issue?
And hell, it's not like background is the most important part of the story anyway. It's nice, and I love writing detailed backgrounds (...sometimes. Sometimes I just roll with whatever comes in my head), it's what happens AFTER The first session starts that matters.
And no matter how numbers focused a character is, unless the player is COMPLETELY disconnected from the game, he's going to have fun stories to tell, whether they be pure RP stories ("Remember the time we talked our way out of going to prison by pretending to be crazy hobos with no connection to the crime?") or combat ones ("Remember the time we killed a Yeth Hound with a spork?") is irrelevant. They're all story moments.
There is one and only one thing wrong with it, it makes playing with them difficult and oftentimes boring.
I dont care if they have +4 or a +5 and they spend so much time focused on what is explicitly stated that they almost never do anything out of the box, it is always what the rules say you can do, never "I want to do this, hey GM, can I do it and what do I need to roll" in fact the closest thing I ever hear get asked is whether two particular feats or abilities will stack.
Is it about a game of Numbers and Optimization or a game about Storyline(s) and Adventuring the depths of dungeons and hideouts?In honesty, as much as some of the optimizers here irk me, I must acknowledge that if they were not fans of heroic fantasy they'd be playing something else. An optimization-minded player wants tons of player options and stackable modifiers so that he can create [the most powerful possible version of] the exact character concept in his mind. Because d20 sets up the possibility of failing a lot more often than heroes of fiction,...
The best advice for GMs nearly eliminates this. Quite simply, always fail forward. Lots of movies have heros that are constantly failing individual details or making mistakes but yet they succeed anyway. A failed roll is just an opportunity for an interesting plot twist.
Besides, the possible character concepts is limited by the rules despite encourageing exploration of other concepts, those other concepts are always within certain limits.
The only character I ever had that was close to my concept was playing savage worlds where I didnt have the rules tieing me down.
Brief History of Style in RPG Design
The original title uses Fashion, but I'm using Style here to be more descriptive.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder encompasses a wide spectrum of interests.
What we must be careful of is how we treat our fellow players. We've seen the result of not expressing ourselves well: declarations by Paizo writers that they're not going to engage in the boards, anger between players, games that fall apart.
Everything else is moot. Humans are a diverse group, and at heart, we know that. However, in the heat of the moment it can be difficult.
Some guidelines:
1. Do not accuse someone who is mechanically-inclined of being an anti-roleplayer. Instead, admit that interests are diverse. With this in mind, ask if the conflict is because of the play style or the way the play style is expressed at the table. Accept these differences, and respect them.
2. Do not declare that the only way to enjoy the game is by having a mathematically effective character. Instead, admit that interests are more diverse and opinions on what's 'effective' is diverse and contentious enough to fill 4chan's backup servers. Then, with this internal dialogue in mind, ask about other players' preferences. Then, respect them.
3. Do not attempt to control someone's character. However, if a player is disruptive, then this is something to discuss, while keeping these guidelines in mind.
4. Do not imply that someone's character is the cause of a TPK because you disagree with their build. Do not shame their method of playing as a source of failure.
5. Do ask if the player would appreciate advice before offering it. Then, ask about their goals first.
6. Do speak with your other players before making your character. Inquire about roleplay preferences and game preferences. Don't be the jerk with the CE murderhobo goblin...unless the game is about CE murderhobo goblins.
7. Do engage with other players and the GM in an active and respectful fashion.
8. Do accept that not everyone wants to roleplay and that not every group will.
9. Try not to engage in alignment arguments, even if your group doesn't use alignment. Instead, discuss what good or evil mean in general before starting. Importantly, get the thoughts of your GM.
10. Do not be an emperor, but a team player and contributor. If within your heart you begin to feel, 'I am right and everyone else is wrong,' take a step back. It's always best to respect and to reach a compromise that respects yourself and others at the table. For example, one game may be more focused on optimisation, and the next less so. The wrong thing to do is to make everyone's character for them 'because they obviously don't know how.' ...unless they ask, and goodness, I've seen this done a few times though even with the best intentions. These sorts of misunderstandings have unintentionally hurt friendships.
11. If Pathfinder becomes a game to you about winners and losers, take another step back. Get some Cheetos. A good shot of whiskey. Then come back to the table and shake hands with your friends.
12. Do accept that every group will have a different style, and that it may not be yours. If you join a group, respect their style.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't agree with the fail forward concept.
Plot twist yes, rewarding failure - no. If the players can "extract" something from the plot twist or complication then they can turn a fail into a step - but I don't think that a fail forward philosophy would work for me and my group of players.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------
Back a little more on topic/counter the pro-optimization crowd:
To me the argument isn't storytelling or a numbers game exactly. To a degree the either/or approach doesn't really fit here (for me at least).
Going back to the op - I still feel that this (3rd ed/PF) is a numbers and optimization game, to some degree all rpgs are but this incarnation of the game (d20) more so than any versions prior. Let me explain:
My problem with this - and why I'm dumping PF and would not recommend it to any gamer interested in rpgs - is because the numbers have taken over the game, for me at least.
The problem with PF/3rd ed/d20 isn't that it prevents you from having a adventures (I use this instead of "storytelling" - this word should be stricken from RPG usage) while using the system. The problem is that the game forces you to focus on the game while trying to adventure - and to me, that’s design failure.
There is a sub-game that goes in most d20 based games that serves as a distraction to the gaming objective - which I assume is to adventure and play the game with your character, not play the rules. And it eats up a TREMENDOUS amount of real time and player/DM attention.
Part of the problem is the unnecessary numbers added into the game. Basically these are numbers that both the players and DMs need to account for, spend time pursuing/mastering or simply allocating resources for - to attain an objective. Look at most fights you may run in a PF based game. If they involve buffs (which most will) you will start to get where I am going with this.
Party casts:
x3 personal buffs, 1 area buff and a personal de-buff
Enemy casts:
2 area buffs, 1 personal buff, 1 area debuff
If you are counting cards you know the value for the players here is +1. It doesn't really matter who the targets are or what the spells are...I mean it does - if you count the minutia or take into account SoDs (another problem). But in a very broad sense it does not.
So what the game has done is said – “hey players, you need to do this, and this and this to counter this, this and mitigate this”. Why? Why so many trackers and variables? What is the point of a buff in a given encounter or series of encounters if the bonus is assumed in the encounter already? Why even have it?
So now we have a meta action economic system which is created so that players need to: Plan spells (traditional), use items (traditional, but was limited), create items (new/d20), buy items (mostly new/d20) all to keep up with in-game assumptions and number needs.
On top of all of that we have player mutability and value manipulation via point buy, traits and feat selection. So much so that it becomes a distraction from actually gaming. That is my major problem with this game – that all of these extra numbers and value concerns that players get to fiddle with (which can be fun for some) detract from the focus of the game which should be to explore/play/rp/adventure/fight/etc and not customize your character to best deal with the same.
I’ll admit, I’m a bit of a dinosaur in these parts – so when I see layers and layers of superfluous numbers that detract (imo) from the game then I see a problem. For some it can be fun, but I see all of these values as +1/-1 bloat. I think these number changes, mutability/manipulation and all these extra trackers (over older editions) are put in just to give players something to do as a bit of a marketing gimmick. To be invested not in their character but the character creation and optimization process – as a sub system or distraction to the core game. It helps to sell products that address the same. And I am not faulting optimization here nor am I saying that you cannot Rp an optimized character. What I am saying is that this current focus and game design detract from a good gaming experience. These rules make their presence known vs. being transparent.
Of course all of this is my opinion on the matter. I don’t see this as a "both" answer to the problem presented by the OP, just a further explanation on why I think this is a numbers game.
If I were to rewrite this game I would not allow feats that give base numeric enhancers. I would have feats that would make the character distinctive and unique (eg - Light Sleeper, Fast Healer, etc) with small drawbacks. No raw +1 to DCs or +4 to initiative, at least not without some trade-offs. Otherwise you just created a "must have list" that punishes a lack of system mastery. If you want the ability to do specific maneuvers it should be a combat style of your class, not a feat that gives you a flat +X.
I don't expect this to be well-received or even acknowledged. For those in disagreement try looking at your game when you are running a big combat and ask yourself why are there so many variables in the game? What is their function to the gaming experience?
Anyway
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good post, Ruggs. :)
Your #4 intrigues me, as I believe it's largely based on epic miscommunication (moreso, perhaps, than any of your other points or any other aspect). There is a broad range of "acceptable power levels", which includes things very far away from the tip-top optimization suggestions in the Advice forums. However, there are limits. I was in a TPK at a convention once because someone had their 7th-level wizard throw mundane daggers instead of casting their spells.
When I read your #4, I imagine conversations where someone had a beyond-belief experience like that one, and references characters who "fail to contribute", are "dead weight", or "will get the party killed". They say those things, thinking of PCs/players who really were so far outside the normal parameters of the game system that it warps the system and would require a specially-adjusted campaign (and a unanimous table) in order to be any fun for anyone else.
I suspect, however, that when self-identified "non-optimizers" encounter such a statement, they don't fully grasp the extreme situations being talked about. Not knowing that experiences like "dying alongside DaggerWiz" are a thing, they thing those terms ("dead weight", etc) are instead referring to "anything that isn't an established top-tier build" - which of course includes every PC they themselves have ever made.
Naturally, they defend themselves, trying to justify their choice to not build extremely powerful PCs. But since the person they're defending themselves from was talking about a DaggerWiz situation, they think that's what's being defended.
So we end up with one person saying "Please don't create the DaggerWiz situation that got everyone killed this one time" (but without telling the relevant story), the second person hearing "Please don't create anything other than these certain top builds". And in reply, we have the second person saying "You have no right to object to moderately-built PCs trying to embody a given concept" and the first person hearing "You have no right to object to me showing up and DaggerWiz-ing your table into a TPK".
And the war rages, with neither side realizing the vastness of the overlap in their respective ideas of acceptable levels of optimization.
---------------------------------------
In short, if you ever find yourself affronted by a comment about needing to optimize and make yourself worthwhile, don't assume where their threshold is. Ask them what past experience they're scared of you reproducing, and you'll probably find yourself laughably distant from it and can reassure them accordingly. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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?
It's all about the story for me, which is why I use the paizo APs and campaign setting with less number heavy systems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I were to rewrite this game I would not allow feats that give base numeric enhancers. I would have feats that would make the character distinctive and unique (eg - Light Sleeper, Fast Healer, etc) with small drawbacks. No raw +1 to DCs or +4 to initiative, at least not without some trade-offs. Otherwise you just created a "must have list" that punishes a lack of system mastery. If you want the ability to do specific maneuvers it should be a combat style of your class, not a feat that gives you a flat +X.
I understand the desire to simplify the numbers, and after all the more you build on top of the same system, the more complicated you get. 3rd edition, and dnd in general has a huge legacy that has been built on over and over. So the +x and -y can get complicated. That said, I think you are missing something in your logic. Assuming those numbers will still exist, if you cant add to them through customization, it becomes very difficult to distinguish a character in that area.
For instance, lets take a very simple example. Skills. I want to customize my character, I want him to be particularly Acrobatic. Even among acrobats he stands out. I dont just want to SAY he is an exceptional acrobat, I want it to play out that way in the game. So how do I do this? In the current game, things like skill focus, mean that I will be better then most people who have similar physical ability (same dex) and are of a similar level, and also trained in acrobatics.
Sure you could come up with a feat (or other customization option) that allows a character to be better some how at acrobatics, maybe he can re-roll acrobatics checks x times per day, or the dcs are lower for him, but in the end things like that will be MORE complicated then that straight +x bonus.
The same can extend to things like weapon focus, or the fighter's weapon training feature. These +x bonuses represent actual customization of character. If they didnt exist, you couldnt represent their exceptional ability in the game, only in name. The 'worlds greatest swordman' would have the same ability with a sword as every other character of his level.
Does this edge out some more flavorful and interesting options? Sometimes, and thats unfortunate, though I have found at least in my group, as we grow older, there is a lot less focus on the numbers and more on characters and story, but the numbers game is still there. I just dont know that you can achieve customization to represent a broad range of concepts without that numbers game.
I don't expect this to be well-received or even acknowledged. For those in disagreement try looking at your game when you are running a big combat and ask yourself why are there so many variables in the game? What is their function to the gaming experience?
There are some variables I could do without. In particular I am strongly considering a dramatic reduction in the capabilities of magic. I am working on a subsystem that would be allow that, without simply removing it from the game. But I agree that alot of the time the stacking buffs at high level play can be really overly complicated.
But I do think they serve a purpose. I think without those variables, you dont have any real customization. If there wasnt a difference between the numbers for a paladin swinging a sword and a ranger shooting an arrow besides how you described it, I wouldnt be satisfied with the system. If there wasnt a difference between James Bond trying to charm the damsel in the tavern, and Joe #5 who is the same level, I'd be unsatisfied with the system.
That said, I like complex systems. Its in my nature, I enjoy understanding, working inside them, tinkering (god do I love tinkering). I do work in QA after all, so its kind in my nature. I dont mind the complex system and I'm usually able to keep it from interfering with the movement of the story. Does it slow things down? Sure, but its the price we pay for a game where the numbers and the concepts tie together, even if it takes a while to add everything up.
I also think it depends on your group and how things move. An experience group can usually deal wiht buffs and even has the common ones precalculated on their character sheet. I know when there is a bard in our party for instance, we have attack routines written out with and without inspire courage. If you do that it wont get in the way as much. But its still math that has to be accounted for, that much is true. But in the end, it isnt the numbers I remember, or talk about months or even years later with the others in my group. Its the story, the adventure, and the characters, and we are a group in which both dm and players spend a significant amount of time worrying about the numbers. Though, this mostly happens away from the table in preparation. Maybe thats why it works. The complex system doesnt have to get in the way, so long as you do your homework? I am not saying that works for everyone, but it has in my group. And it seems to be moving more in that direction with every campaign, and has made the most significant strides in life of pathfinder. (most of the group has been gaming together for around 15 years)
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I honestly don't understand why people who value "roleplaying" are so willing to consider themselves better than everyone else. I see optimizers use the same argument against roleplayers so much less, because the other group doesn't seem to have some issue of entitlement towards being "a better gamer" than the other.
I agree with everyone who's stated that some people don't need help with story. And not everyone has to have some overly grandiose story to make their players happy. I play with a group ranging from 14-17, being 24 myself, and I don't want to throw something at them that's going to go over their heads (I know this group well enough to know what would, I'm not saying they wouldn't be able to handle some things JUST because they're young.)
It's funny, optimizers are always blamed for trying to "win the game", but then I see threads like this which try to put down their style of play, and I wonder who's really trying to win the game? Either playstyle is valid, and as long as no one at your table has an issue with how you play, play however you want. And as always, ROLEPLAY and OPTIMIZATION are not MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. I do love the fallacy that this thread was started on though about the "origins of the game." But it doesn't matter if this game started as a decorative hat collecting competition, the only thing that matters now is making sure that everyone enjoys themselves in their own way, and part of that involves not slamming someone else's playstyle because it's "playing the wrong way."
I'm just sick of threads like this where people have to passive aggressively attack others playstyles to validate their own.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand the desire to simplify the numbers, and after all the more you build on top of the same system, the more complicated you get. 3rd edition, and dnd in general has a huge legacy that has been built on over and over. So the +x and -y can get complicated. That said, I think you are missing something in your logic. Assuming those numbers will still exist, if you cant add to them through customization, it becomes very difficult to distinguish a character in that area.
For instance, lets take a very simple example. Skills. I want to customize my character, I want him to be particularly Acrobatic. Even among acrobats he stands out. I dont just want to SAY he is an exceptional acrobat, I want it to play out that way in the game. So how do I do this? In the current game, things like skill focus, mean that I will be better then most people who have similar physical ability (same dex) and are of a similar level, and also trained in acrobatics.
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).
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.
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.
Sure you could come up with a feat (or other customization option) that allows a character to be better some how at acrobatics, maybe he can re-roll acrobatics checks x times per day, or the dcs are lower for him, but in the end things like that will be MORE complicated then that straight +x bonus.
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.
The same can extend to things like weapon focus, or the fighter's weapon training feature. These +x bonuses represent actual customization of character. If they didnt exist, you couldnt represent their exceptional ability in the game, only in name. The 'worlds greatest swordman' would have the same ability with a sword as every other character of his level.
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).
Does this edge out some more flavorful and interesting options? Sometimes, and thats unfortunate, though I have found at least in my group, as we grow older, there is a lot less focus on the numbers and more on characters and story, but the numbers game is still there. I just dont know that you can achieve customization to represent a broad range of concepts without that numbers game.
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.
But I do think they serve a purpose. I think without those variables, you dont have any real customization. If there wasnt a difference between the numbers for a paladin swinging a sword and a ranger shooting an arrow besides how you described it, I wouldnt be satisfied with the system. If there wasnt a difference between James Bond trying to charm the damsel in the tavern, and Joe #5 who is the same level, I'd be unsatisfied with the system.
Your paladin/ranger comparison reflects a failure in the system and has little to do with customization. See, the game makes the mechanical aspect of swinging a sword and shooting and arrow the same. Same effects, same roll mechanic, same damage. So you feel that adding more fiddly bits makes it more detailed? The core function is the same. If you want the swing/shoot to feel different you need to change the way they work from the ground up. How does a sword work vs. X armor? What are the effects of shooting a target with multiple arrows, indirect fire, aimed shots.
All the +X feats are sort of like band-aids to a game that uses a simple binary system at its core. +X/-X doesn’t reflect a complex game system – Hell no, it doesn't require much thought besides tracking values +/- and then making a binary check.
Pathfinder isn't complicated or even difficult; it just requires a tremendous amount of tracking which I feel is pointless and tacked on.
I too prefer more complex games: with to-hits reflected in degrees tied to the attack roll and damage being reflected by to-hit roll. Critical results and saves with detailed effects, equipment condition and damage during a fight (not from being targeted either), armor that doesn't serve as a binary success/fail mechanic which instead functions as DR, and skill systems tracked by proficiency of the user and not based on Y value with +X from any and all manipulation.
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?
OP - I think PF allows me to tell great stories. I am currently running a campaign where all the PCs are kobolds. They are trying to take over the world. The only problems I've encountered are the size of my group, which can range from 6 to 17 people depending on who shows up. This makes adventure design extremely difficult for me personally. The other is the amount of game knowledge you need to make a decent character. It is extremely easy to gimp yourself if you pick the wrong feats. With 1st and 2nd edition D&D large groups were easier for me to handle, and you didn't make choices about your character that come back to haunt you as your knowledge of the system grows. I still play old school sometimes, and sometimes I play PF.
Auxmaulous - have you ever tried claw and arms law? It's a bit clunky, but really brings combat to life.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Did anybody here actually say that rollplayers are lesser beings? I think some people are a wee bit overly sensitive.
Well, the OP frames "storytelling" as being the game's primary focus from the get-go, while "the numbers game" gets the blahblahblah treatment. Very much says "there's the right way, and the necessary evil attached to it; which do you prefer?"
Putting people into categories of "the way it was meant to be" and "blahblahblah" is not materially different than saying that the folks in the latter category are "lesser".
The OP got his history wrong, but that's not the same thing as saying that one group of players is "less".
He used descriptive language and held up the storytelling elements as high as he could.
Then he literally said "who cares" to the mechanics.
That seems pretty clear cut to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
The OP got his history wrong, but that's not the same thing as saying that one group of players is "less".Did anybody here actually say that rollplayers are lesser beings? I think some people are a wee bit overly sensitive.Well, the OP frames "storytelling" as being the game's primary focus from the get-go, while "the numbers game" gets the blahblahblah treatment. Very much says "there's the right way, and the necessary evil attached to it; which do you prefer?"
Putting people into categories of "the way it was meant to be" and "blahblahblah" is not materially different than saying that the folks in the latter category are "lesser".
I wasn't even talking about getting the history wrong. Just read how he presents the two "sides".
One gets line after line of creative and epic description, while the other gets an acknowledgement of necessity.
If you can read this:
...and then read this:
...and honestly think that "that's not the same thing as saying that one group of players is 'less'", then you've blinded yourself.
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?
I try to do both(of course!). Pathfinder doesn't really do well for me because I think it actively works against your narrative power as a player and GM and I do optimize my characters so as to have options and not be useless but I find myself viewing lots of not so viable choices and trap options and the mechanical and narrative imbalance between classes just irks me.
As a person working to become a professional fiction writer, I spend a great deal of time working on story and mastering the craft. Numbers are easy. They are objective. They only become hard when you are hellbent on squeezing the last bit of juice out of the lemon. There are several writing forums dedicated to helping story tellers master their craft. Story, particularly story which is heavily influenced by what happens in improv and then recrafted between game sessions, is hard.
Well someone thinks their special! Numbers aren't that easy and neither is narrative. Some people get one easier than the other sure, but pretending your doing all the heavy lifting and those other guys have it easy and aren't really doing work or spending time is kind of arrogant, isn't it?