|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that the message boards are a great place to chat with other members of the gaming community but I find that they are not so great when it comes to discussing certain topics. The boards are a vast array of corner cases and hypothetical situations when discussing certain topics. When I meet people who are wanting to give the hobby a go I always tell them to stay clear of the boards until they have settled fully into the game. I just don't understand why this place is such a magnet for using all the "what ifs" as an argument when discussing certain topics. I haven't gamed with everyone on the planet but I do feel with 28 years behind me that I have at least scratched the surface with how things actually happen in games.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In many ways Pathfinder is two different games: one is a roleplaying game that consists of a bunch of people sitting around a table trying to have a good time. The second is a theory crafting game that allows people to sift through a ton of options and complicated rules and construct new things from them - characters, new rules, new options, etc.
I enjoy the first game greatly - as a GM I like sharing stories with my good friends.
I enjoy certain aspects of the second game - mostly, I like creating NPCs for the PCS to interact with. Specifically I like designing a concept ("sneaky shadow priest", "red mantis assassin", etc.) and then finding the appropriate options to represent it.
Much of what goes on in the board is a different aspect of the theory crafting game - designing an optimal character. Some people find great joy in mastering a system and then thinking through numerous scenarios to create a character capable of handling all of them.
There's nothing wrong with it, as long as people are aware that they are discussing one very specific part of Pathfinder and not the entirety of it.
I find that the message boards are a great place to chat with other members of the gaming community but I find that they are not so great when it comes to discussing certain topics. The boards are a vast array of corner cases and hypothetical situations when discussing certain topics. When I meet people who are wanting to give the hobby a go I always tell them to stay clear of the boards until they have settled fully into the game. I just don't understand why this place is such a magnet for using all the "what ifs" as an argument when discussing certain topics. I haven't gamed with everyone on the planet but I do feel with 28 years behind me that I have at least scratched the surface with how things actually happen in games.
It can get depressing at times. Lord Snow is quite correct that a lot of what goes on is what ifs and theory crafting. It reminds me of something someone on an online game told me about public chatting: it's easier to discuss and argue rules and builds than talk about actually role playing or things considered the "fluff" side of the game. Easier to dispute what someone things about how many dice they can throw than whether they are playing their priest right.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This board has a bad problem of "Theory Crafting = TRUTH." I've given up on the actual PF discussion forums, and I just hang out here in Gamer Talk. The actual PF-specific sections are minefields and battlegrounds of "I'm right cuz of THIS!" "Nuh uh, I'm right cuz of NUMBERS!" Nuh uh! I'm right cuz of TOLKIEN!" Ugh, enough already.
If I see a thread with "Monk" in the title, I automatically click the Hide button. Automatically. Not even worth my time to try and sift through all that garbage. It's killed any interest I've ever had in actually playing a Monk.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This board has a bad problem of "Theory Crafting = TRUTH." I've given up on the actual PF discussion forums, and I just hang out here in Gamer Talk. The actual PF-specific sections are minefields and battlegrounds of "I'm right cuz of THIS!" "Nuh uh, I'm right cuz of NUMBERS!" Nuh uh! I'm right cuz of TOLKIEN!" Ugh, enough already.
If I see a thread with "Monk" in the title, I automatically click the Hide button. Automatically. Not even worth my time to try and sift through all that garbage. It's killed any interest I've ever had in actually playing a Monk.
The only reason I go into those threads is I feel like most people are like you, so now there is this group of about 15 to 20 that only talks to each other and never has anyone say no to them or questions them so they believe "This is the way".
Every once in awhile a new person wanders over there and thinks they know what they are talking about and tries to take that to a home game and the plague of making the stereotypes of gamers have basis in truth spreads further.
I think that is why the nerd rage is so epic. They believe what they are saying about RAW is brought down from the mountains, so when the people who actually write the rules say "Actually..." it's heresy.
Also, I like arguing on the internet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find that the message boards are a great place to chat with other members of the gaming community but I find that they are not so great when it comes to discussing certain topics. The boards are a vast array of corner cases and hypothetical situations when discussing certain topics. When I meet people who are wanting to give the hobby a go I always tell them to stay clear of the boards until they have settled fully into the game. I just don't understand why this place is such a magnet for using all the "what ifs" as an argument when discussing certain topics. I haven't gamed with everyone on the planet but I do feel with 28 years behind me that I have at least scratched the surface with how things actually happen in games.
That's sort of the description of 67% of the internet. I mean, if you want truly vicious discussions, just visit the boards of any popular MMO. You'll be quickly left wondering why people play something they hate so much in the first place.
The key is learning to not get ruffled by that and proceed as normal; there is still a lot of meaninful debate going on between the noise.
Trade hazards, I suppose.
This board has a bad problem of "Theory Crafting = TRUTH." I've given up on the actual PF discussion forums, and I just hang out here in Gamer Talk. The actual PF-specific sections are minefields and battlegrounds of "I'm right cuz of THIS!" "Nuh uh, I'm right cuz of NUMBERS!" Nuh uh! I'm right cuz of TOLKIEN!" Ugh, enough already.
If I see a thread with "Monk" in the title, I automatically click the Hide button. Automatically. Not even worth my time to try and sift through all that garbage. It's killed any interest I've ever had in actually playing a Monk.
The only reason I go into those threads is I feel like most people are like you, so now there is this group of about 15 to 20 that only talks to each other and never has anyone say no to them or questions them so they believe "This is the way".
Every once in awhile a new person wanders over there and thinks they know what they are talking about and tries to take that to a home game and the plague of making the stereotypes of gamers have basis in truth spreads further.
I think that is why the nerd rage is so epic. They believe what they are saying about RAW is brought down from the mountains, so when the people who actually write the rules say "Actually..." it's heresy.
Also, I like arguing on the internet.
I agree, very much so. In my experience, I only really see the same 3 or 4 people shouting numbers at each other in every single thread, and ***k-blocking anyone else who tries to get a word in edgewise. It's like trying to have a conversation with an ATM.
I too, like ruffling feathers here and there(I'm a battle-scarred edition war veteran, because I'm a sucker for a good argument), but even that's hard to do on that board; the same little circle of people are so busy shouting at each other that they ignore everyone else, unless they get quoted.
I think rules discussions are interesting. I just like to take apart te literal meaning of rules texts every once in a while, and the people i'm discussing them with i dont see as opponents or anything, but rather partners with whom to throw opinions back and forth as means of analyzing the problem at hand. Of course it goes into detailing why i think the other party's interpretation or logic is flawed, but finding the right way to go there is an important step in finding the correct interpretation.
No matter what I think the rules actually SAY, that doesn't mean it is what I think they MEAN. It doesn't matter how passionately I discuss the RAW case, i might still have a completely different opinion as to what RAI is. It's merely the mental exercise i seek.
When we're at a gaming table i always use GM fiat, wether I'm the GM or someone else (unless the GM rules something completely outrageous or senseless), and move on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I look at the boards as more a collection of niche cases.
The arguments on these boards serve as an early warning system, though, too.
That is, if there's an 'exploit' covered on the boards, then the inevitable conversation when one is built helps me craft a better and more reasoned conversational opening. That is, it helps me have access to a variety of opinions before it's brought forward as a concern or not.
...these conversations, also, are not with the average player or majority, though.
It's more that they're helpful in working with the player who has a specific set of interests.
Instead of an outright 'no,' I can explore some of the conversations here and therefore have a more reasoned discussion, explore the limits of it, and have a better decision overall.
As an aside, how 'frothy' the boards become also helps me understand how 'frothy' this discussion might become, and take the number of deep breaths accordingly!
This doesn't apply to most players, but it is a resource I'm appreciative of.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree, very much so. In my experience, I only really see the same 3 or 4 people shouting numbers at each other in every single thread, and ***k-blocking anyone else who tries to get a word in edgewise. It's like trying to have a conversation with an ATM.I too, like ruffling feathers here and there(I'm a battle-scarred edition war veteran, because I'm a sucker for a good argument), but even that's hard to do on that board; the same little circle of people are so busy shouting at each other that they ignore everyone else, unless they get quoted.
That's the real shame of it. Every-so-often, one of us will offer something very insightful, or even a real answer to a question, but it gets drowned out by the flamers. You'd have to search closely through six pages of shouting to pick out the one intelligent comment hidden between, but who's going to do that?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
As a counterpoint, a lot of what people call "theorycraft" and "hypothetical cases that never happen" are things that other groups observe directly at their tables. Just because your group ignores certain rules or because your DM tilts things a certain way or whatever doesn't mean that everyone else does it the same way.
Some examples are players wanting to have input into world-building (which people have told me doesn't happen, but I personally have seen it and encourage it) and the whole "martial-caster disparity" (which I never saw in theory, but finally recognized in play when our Savage Tide campaign ground to a halt as a result of it and we had to figure out why the barbarian wanted to straight-up not participate, and the bard player clued us in that he was seeing it, too).
Just because your group doesn't see something in play, doesn't mean it never comes up in play. Just because you have a certain means of circumventing a problem, doeesn't mean that problem doesn't exist.
I've never seen a real live pangolin. Does that mean they exist only in theory?
I like to skew the results with wild improbabilities.
|
|
As a counterpoint, a lot of what people call "theorycraft" and "hypothetical cases that never happen" are things that other groups observe directly at their tables. Just because your group ignores certain rules or because your DM tilts things a certain way or whatever doesn't mean that everyone else does it the same way.
Some examples are players wanting to have input into world-building (which people have told me doesn't happen, but I personally have seen it and encourage it) and the whole "martial-caster disparity" (which I never saw in theory, but finally recognized in play when our Savage Tide campaign ground to a halt as a result of it and we had to figure out why the barbarian wanted to straight-up not participate, and the bard player clued us in that he was seeing it, too).
Just because your group doesn't see something in play, doesn't mean it never comes up in play. Just because you have a certain means of circumventing a problem, doeesn't mean that problem doesn't exist.
I've never seen a real live pangolin. Does that mean they exist only in theory?
And vice versa, things they observe at their tables because they allow such theorycraft to translate into actual game play causing problems is like me calling up Ford after I heavily modified the engine and it blew up.
And vice versa, things they observe at their tables because they allow such theorycraft to translate into actual game play causing problems is like me calling up Ford after I heavily modified the engine and it blew up.
Cause before effect, dude. Our houserules were made in response to the Savage Tide game; what happened in that game was not a result of them.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And vice versa, things they observe at their tables because they allow such theorycraft to translate into actual game play causing problems is like me calling up Ford after I heavily modified the engine and it blew up.Cause before effect, dude. Our houserules were made in response to the Savage Tide game; what happened in that game was not a result of them.
And Pathfinder itself was made in response to 3.5 house rules.
And I'm arguing into the abyss for Pathfinder 1.5....
What I am also saying is that while the disparity 'can' exist (at high levels, yadda, yadda...) most of the discussion on here tend toward Schrodinger and his magic wish machine IMHO.
But if you say "Why do you read it that way. If you read it this way and do this, you won't have this problem" nerd rage ensues.
I bet there is a super secret board where I will never be welcome where rational people have rational discussion about actual game adjustments.
That place is probably really cool.
As a counterpoint, a lot of what people call "theorycraft" and "hypothetical cases that never happen" are things that other groups observe directly at their tables. Just because your group ignores certain rules or because your DM tilts things a certain way or whatever doesn't mean that everyone else does it the same way.
Some examples are players wanting to have input into world-building (which people have told me doesn't happen, but I personally have seen it and encourage it) and the whole "martial-caster disparity" (which I never saw in theory, but finally recognized in play when our Savage Tide campaign ground to a halt as a result of it and we had to figure out why the barbarian wanted to straight-up not participate, and the bard player clued us in that he was seeing it, too).
Just because your group doesn't see something in play, doesn't mean it never comes up in play. Just because you have a certain means of circumventing a problem, doeesn't mean that problem doesn't exist.
I've never seen a real live pangolin. Does that mean they exist only in theory?
I agree, and that's fine, since every gaming table is different, and experiences different things. I'm talking about when the first-hand observation ends, and the array of endless goalpost-moving begins.
If someone speaks up and says: "Fighters rock in our campaign. I have never witnessed this "Martial/Caster disparity..." Then someone else fires back with: "Well, it exists, because [numbers numbers lalala] and your DM is terrible for playing favorites and going easy on your group. CLEARLY, if your DM did 1, 2 and 3..."
And it just goes downhill from there. Theory crafting in and of itself is not a bad thing, but it's when particular posters get "inspired" and just start an avalanche of potential outcomes based on very, very specific criteria, and then turns them into blanket statements and gospel(kinda like my post here is doing), those are the times I dread coming to this message board.
Really though, it's the nature of the internet. Blah.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone speaks up and says: "Fighters rock in our campaign. I have never witnessed this "Martial/Caster disparity..." Then someone else fires back with: "Well, it exists, because [numbers numbers lalala] and your DM is terrible for playing favorites and going easy on your group. CLEARLY, if your DM did 1, 2 and 3..."
And it just goes downhill from there.
Sounds to me like, if 1, 2, and/or 3 prevent the problem, then people who aren't doing those things might want to hear what they are. It doesn't need to go downhill unless people choose to talk like "Comic Book Guy" on the Simpsons, or unless people choose to misrepresent one another's positions because they just want to argue (which seems to be par for the course around here). A lot of people rememeber the Pathfinder open playtest, in which, sadly, the people with the most cogent analyses and best suggestions tended to also be the people with the most overbearing posting styles, which led to their input being rejected wholesale -- and I believe the game is much poorer for it.
Also, I understand that most people here are really scornful of math, but for people who roll the dice, add the modifiers, and compare the total to a DC, math is something that actually underlies the mechanics, so it's not irrelevant to those groups.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone speaks up and says: "Fighters rock in our campaign. I have never witnessed this "Martial/Caster disparity..." Then someone else fires back with: "Well, it exists, because [numbers numbers lalala] and your DM is terrible for playing favorites and going easy on your group. CLEARLY, if your DM did 1, 2 and 3..."
And it just goes downhill from there.
Sounds to me like, if 1, 2, and/or 3 prevent the problem, then people who aren't doing those things might want to hear what they are. It doesn't need to go downhill unless people choose to talk like "Comic Book Guy" on the Simpsons, or unless people choose to misrepresent one another's positions because they just want to argue (which seems to be par for the course around here). A lot of people rememeber the Pathfinder open playtest, in which, sadly, the people with the most cogent analyses and best suggestions tended to also be the people with the most overbearing posting styles, which led to their input being rejected wholesale -- and I believe the game is much poorer for it.
Also, I understand that most people here are really scornful of math, but for people who roll the dice, add the modifiers, and compare the total to a DC, math is something that actually underlies the mechanics, so it's not irrelevant to those groups.
Agreed again. I'm not saying math is not important, but I am saying that solutions based solely on math as being the end-all, be-all solution, often times ignore the other half of the game; ignoring context, setting, race, class, flavor in general, story, etc.
I understand that math-based conversations give us a solid ground to talk on, since few of us actually play with other posters at the table. But, the math only goes so far in this game. If your DM is nothing but an encounter vending machine, and players roll up nothing but the most min/maxed "optimal" builds, then I can't help but feel like a significant part of the game is completely lost.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone speaks up and says: "Fighters rock in our campaign. I have never witnessed this "Martial/Caster disparity..." Then someone else fires back with: "Well, it exists, because [numbers numbers lalala] and your DM is terrible for playing favorites and going easy on your group. CLEARLY, if your DM did 1, 2 and 3..."
And it just goes downhill from there.
Sounds to me like, if 1, 2, and/or 3 prevent the problem, then people who aren't doing those things might want to hear what they are. It doesn't need to go downhill unless people choose to talk like "Comic Book Guy" on the Simpsons, or unless people choose to misrepresent one another's positions because they just want to argue (which seems to be par for the course around here). A lot of people rememeber the Pathfinder open playtest, in which, sadly, the people with the most cogent analyses and best suggestions tended to also be the people with the most overbearing posting styles, which led to their input being rejected wholesale -- and I believe the game is much poorer for it.
Also, I understand that most people here are really scornful of math, but for people who roll the dice, add the modifiers, and compare the total to a DC, math is something that actually underlies the mechanics, so it's not irrelevant to those groups.
I agree Kirth, and something else I have been seeing now for years is that people also have not only an inability to be wrong, but an inability to understand any view but their own. I try to go into every aspect of life with an open mind and look at things from every perspective I possibly can to see what is an issue. I am sometimes good at this, sometimes I miss stuff and my own perspective take dominance but if I am shown to have made a mistake or something I accept that and admit it and move on. This has shaped who I am.
I also think that too often people are so self-important that they can't accept that they could possibly be wrong and believe that other opinions are those of idiots. Then the Debate Team mentality shows up and you get people dissecting posts to tear apart a different opinion and belittle that opinion's owner.I chalk it up to the mask of the internet that helps to dehumanize people and the inability to understand that there is another life out there and their opinions matter also.
If your DM is nothing but an encounter vending machine, and players roll up nothing but the most min/maxed "optimal" builds, then I can't help but feel like a significant part of the game is completely lost.
That's often another point of contention -- as DM, I often feel that, if the group rules are clear-cut, understood in advance, relatively mathematically-balanced, and lead to the kinds of stories we're trying to tell, then I'm freed up to spend my time running encounters and bringing the world to life, instead of devoting most of my efforts to working counter to the written rules in order to keep the game functioning. The players are also freed to explore their characters' personalities, instead of spending their efforts and feats trying to avoid "trap" options that will get them killed in the first encounter unless I go out of my way to warp the results to prevent it.
This of course runs directly counter to the more common notion that "The DM's job is to fix all the issues in the rules so that the players never notice them," and "the DM's job is to make the game work," and I get an awful lot of backlash when I recommend that people try it before rejecting it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If your DM is nothing but an encounter vending machine, and players roll up nothing but the most min/maxed "optimal" builds, then I can't help but feel like a significant part of the game is completely lost.That's often another point of contention -- as DM, I often feel that, if the group rules are clear-cut, understood in advance, relatively mathematically-balanced, and lead to the kinds of stories we're trying to tell, then I'm freed up to spend my time running encounters and bringing the world to life, instead of devoting most of my efforts to working counter to the written rules in order to keep the game functioning. The players are also freed to explore their characters' personalities, instead of spending their efforts and feats trying to avoid "trap" options that will get them killed in the first encounter unless I go out of my way to warp the results to prevent it.
This of course runs directly counter to the more common notion that "The DM's job is to fix all the issues in the rules so that the players never notice them," and "the DM's job is to make the game work," and I get an awful lot of backlash when I recommend that people try it before rejecting it.
Thinking back to what I said, I recall some groups who play exactly like that. One group I knew actually had a cosmic NPC who granted encounters to PC's like they were in the X-Men's Danger Room. Just an endless stream of battles and loot. They found it fun, so it's not right of me to talk down about that playstyle. Not everybody is a story-hound.
I find that DM'ing is an ongoing process; the rules will never be 100% complete. There will always be something that somehow wiggled through the cracks during playtest and was not accounted for. I know that I'll never be able to freely run a game completely void of clunky rules and bad math, but I can do everything in my power to streamline the conflict-resolution process. When I was DM'ing 3e heavily, we had it down to a science. It's why I still prefer 3e rules to PF to this day; I knew the ins and outs, I knew the faults and problem areas, and could correct on the fly. I ran many sessions with only a Monster Manual just for stat reference. PF just threw me way off and scrambled the problems around(for me, not saying for everyone).
In many ways Pathfinder is two different games: one is a roleplaying game that consists of a bunch of people sitting around a table trying to have a good time. The second is a theory crafting game that allows people to sift through a ton of options and complicated rules and construct new things from them - characters, new rules, new options, etc.
I enjoy the first game greatly - as a GM I like sharing stories with my good friends.
I enjoy certain aspects of the second game - mostly, I like creating NPCs for the PCS to interact with. Specifically I like designing a concept ("sneaky shadow priest", "red mantis assassin", etc.) and then finding the appropriate options to represent it.
Much of what goes on in the board is a different aspect of the theory crafting game - designing an optimal character. Some people find great joy in mastering a system and then thinking through numerous scenarios to create a character capable of handling all of them.
There's nothing wrong with it, as long as people are aware that they are discussing one very specific part of Pathfinder and not the entirety of it.
You sir are spot on the money. The theory crafters of option 2 are completely against low magic, low to no crafting or limitations of any form. That would interfere with their mighty builds that can pop you, and they would not be able to fill all their slots to their heart's content. Two games indeed!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In many ways Pathfinder is two different games: one is a roleplaying game that consists of a bunch of people sitting around a table trying to have a good time. The second is a theory crafting game that allows people to sift through a ton of options and complicated rules and construct new things from them - characters, new rules, new options, etc.
I'd point out that both of those games can be played together simultaneously, without interfering with each other in any way, and can even be interwoven into something more than either on individually -- I assert this from experience, not theory -- but when I say stuff like that, no one believes me.
I believe you, every game would mix and hopefully match them. I've seen it too, but they can interfere with eachother a bit.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've never seen a real live pangolin. Does that mean they exist only in theory?
All I can say is I've put more hours into trying to see a real life pangolin than I have into worrying about how many free actions are allowed in Pathfinder. I think my life is richer for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You have an awesome screen name, BTW.
New to the Paizo boards and really enjoying them so far.
Things I like about messageboard talks
1) People who post a lot tend to be really passionate about the game. These are people I like talking to, especially over meaty topics like character choice vs a DM's right to world build.
2) on boards, I get what Kirth described, the experiences of people who's tables are very different from my own.
3) I get good theory-craft. Games are only as good as the rules that support them. Numbers give those rules life, and understanding how 19 to hit is 100% better than 20 to hit affects how monsters interact with characters, and how players interact with skill challenges. Many of my players aren't that into crunch, but my understanding how the crunch works is vital for their fun.
4) The whole "Full Casters are better than everyone else" argument isn't one that's come up at the tables I play at or run, but why people think that way I think helps me avoid issues where a someone playing a fighter might feel overshadowed if there aren't enough encounters in each day, or I don't pay enough attention to the pacing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The forums attract the kind of person who wants to talk endlessly about the game, but may not have anyone around to talk to.
The latter part can be for any number of reasons, ranging from "wasting time at work" to "social disfunction drove everyone away from this person".
Government shutdown? To the forums!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my real life game, I GM because I'm the only one who really studies the rules -- or really thinks about the game when we're not actually playing (which is once a month at best). My problems aren't with martial-caster disparity, or monks, or whatever -- they're with cell phones at the table, teenagers who forget how attack rolls work between turns, and trying to keep our Skype player connected.
So yeah, I enjoy a little theorycrafting now and then -- specifically because it bears very little resemblance to my real life game. :)
The awkward moment when the skype player steps into a trapped room, and the connection drops.
|
All I can say is I've put more hours into trying to see a real life pangolin than I have into worrying about how many free actions are allowed in Pathfinder. I think my life is richer for it.
I opened this thread looking for examples of what the OP meant, and then came upon this gem. There's some talk about players here being really passionate as well, that comes into this.
I think the whole shemozzle about free actions has really blown out of proportion. I agree with the dev team's FAQ on it - not as a hard rule of 3 free actions, but as a rule of keeping it reasonable and as a clarification to point out the same thing is in the rulebook.
That's not the point; we can agree to disagree however you see it. The thing is, if this is the kind of thing that's making players on the messageboard cynical, I really think we've been overreacting, maybe thanks to being so passionate about it.