| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we at least acknowledge that while some optimizers are also good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruptions and annoyance as a lot of tables?
Define "many". All of the problem players I've met had nothing to do with optimization or powergaming in any form. They were problems because they simply could not play well with other human beings. I've been a problem player myself not because of any numbers on a sheet but more because I roleplayed my character in a way that caused undue and unnecessary friction in the group.
And I've played/run a number of games that I drink to forget. Ones with down syndrome furries, drama queens that ended the game running out the door in tears and broken relationships, guys in the middle of divorce, groups of drunken rednecks at dragoncon (actually those are the funnest groups to run for so I take that back), neo-nazis whose every character is a racist allegory. And out of all that I can only think of one guy who was a problem who could be called an optimizer and that's only because his kobold was a treacherous douche.
Wherever this horde of apparent evil optimizers crashing through games and raining hell down upon encounters and hapless gm's is it must be nowhere near me because I haven't seen nor heard of it. Sometimes I wonder if it's not a myth built out of the inadequacies of others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone optimizes, just differently. The problem here is that every table has its own variance of what is too weak or too strong mechanically, and sometimes someone is way above or way under that bar, and it causes issues with the other players.
Normally this can be solved by having a discussion assuming everyone is level headed and fair. It can also be prevented by the GM letting the party know how difficult the game will be, but even if that is not done pulling a player to the side can help.
Everyone needs to do what they can to make sure everyone else has fun within reason. That means that if the group is tactical you need to pull your weight, and if you are one-manning encounters tone it down, if the others are not happy.
|
Can we at least acknowledge that while some optimizers are also good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruptions and annoyance as a lot of tables?As soon as you acknowledge that while some "Roleplayers, not ROLLplayers" are good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruption and annoyance at a lot of tables.
I fully and openly acknowledge this.
There is a reason that stereotype exists as well.
|
|
Define "many".
Can we at least acknowledge that while some optimizers are also good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruptions and annoyance as a lot of tables?
Enough that it is a problem most gamers are aware of existing, like body odor at conventions and guy who drinks all the milk :)
I'd much rather have the a 'burden' character than an optimized one that ends the encounter before anyone gets a chance to play.
This applies to both PFS and normal play.
Sounds like the problem is with the encounter. It's exceedingly difficult to create a character that is capable of soloing encounters on the first turn unless there is something grossly wrong with the encounters.
|
|
And I've played/run a number of games that I drink to forget. Ones with down syndrome furries, drama queens that ended the game running out the door in tears and broken relationships, guys in the middle of divorce, groups of drunken rednecks at dragoncon (actually those are the funnest groups to run for so I take that back), neo-nazis whose every character is a racist allegory. And out of all that I can only think of one guy who was a problem who could be called an optimizer and that's only because his kobold was a treacherous douche.
Wherever this horde of apparent evil optimizers crashing through games and raining hell down upon encounters and hapless gm's is it must be nowhere near me because I haven't seen nor heard of it. Sometimes I wonder if it's not a myth built out of the inadequacies of others.
@Jiggy - You were saying about commenting about the other side of the debate?
The last line in particular.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like the problem is with the encounter. It's exceedingly difficult to create a character that is capable of soloing encounters on the first turn unless there is something grossly wrong with the encounters.I'd much rather have the a 'burden' character than an optimized one that ends the encounter before anyone gets a chance to play.
This applies to both PFS and normal play.
Not really. I've done it with relatively weak characters before. Apparently a heavy pick + crit kills bosses in one hit. Same with save or die spells/hexes. Even a non crit can end an encounter with little effort, and a lance charge just obliterates enemies.
Heck, at first level a power attack + cleave can drop 2 CR 1 monsters (which is a CR3 encounter) in one round on average (2d6+9 = 16, 15 is average HP of CR1s). Seen it done in society before, seen it done in normal play.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we at least acknowledge that while some optimizers are also good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruptions and annoyance as a lot of tables?As soon as you acknowledge that while some "Roleplayers, not ROLLplayers" are good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruption and annoyance at a lot of tables.I fully and openly acknowledge this.
There is a reason that stereotype exists as well.
Actually I disagree with you on both counts. You equate "being heard of (in a negative way)" with "being the majority".
It is very much NOT true. The "vocal minority" is a very strong phenomenon, doubly so on the internet. As I am sure you are well aware of.
Way I see it, most optimizers and most roleplayers ("as opposed to rollplayers") are indeed good (or at least tolerable) players.
The problem is that the threads tend to be launched by angry people who had a problem with jerks of one category or the other and feel the need to vent their anger on the boards, not realizing that their angry words just might provoke angry reactions. And so it begins
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we at least acknowledge that while some optimizers are also good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruptions and annoyance as a lot of tables?As soon as you acknowledge that while some "Roleplayers, not ROLLplayers" are good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruption and annoyance at a lot of tables.I fully and openly acknowledge this.
There is a reason that stereotype exists as well.
Actually I disagree with you on both counts. You equate "being heard of (in a negative way)" with "being the majority".
It is very much NOT true. The "vocal minority" is a very strong phenomenon, doubly so on the internet. As I am sure you are well aware of.
Way I see it, most optimizers and most roleplayers ("as opposed to rollplayers") are indeed good (or at least tolerable) players.
The problem is that the threads tend to be launched by angry people who had a problem with jerks of one category or the other and feel the need to vent their anger on the boards, not realizing that their angry words just might provoke angry reactions. And so it begins
Tolerable is a low bar to set.
I don't disagree that these threads are usually launched because someone is a jerk (often the poster...but that is another thread) but I do think that generally if your table is saying "Stop doing 'x' behavior because 'x' behavior is a problem" the logic of "You are jealous of my higher level of system mastery" when I comment on your playstyle is about as reasonable as "You a jealous of the manliness of my musk" when I suggest wearing deodorant.
So far on this page when I scroll up (not the thread just this page), we have seen the following:
"non-contributing character and marginalize themselves"
"a myth built out of the inadequacies of others."
As a comment on other people at the table who are commenting that a player may be causing problems.
And the comparison to Jordan earlier...come on.
The irony is this is coming from many of the same people who say "You are accusing me of wrongbadfun!?!?!"
What are these comments doing?
Can you both be very effective and interesting? Yes.
Can you be very ineffective and uninteresting? Yes.
If you make the table all about you and your character is that someone most people want to play with?
Nope.
So if your behavior, any behavior, is causing table problems, if your brain goes "They are just jealous"...
Maybe they are just tired of you.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can we at least acknowledge that while some optimizers are also good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruptions and annoyance as a lot of tables?As soon as you acknowledge that while some "Roleplayers, not ROLLplayers" are good gamers, many are problem players who cause major disruption and annoyance at a lot of tables.I fully and openly acknowledge this.
There is a reason that stereotype exists as well.
Fair enough then.
I tend to be of the opinions that some people are just jerks, and the form of jerkiness they employ is largely immaterial. Whether it's someone complaining that the rest of the players are powergamers who don't know how to roleplay because they outperform his fighter that can only 1d4 damage a hit and has a negative attack bonus, or it's someone who can't go one session without needing to talk about how great his build is and get into dick-measuring contests with all the players about how much better his character is, the fact is that the player is a disruptive jerk who's making the game less fun for everyone.
Personally, whether someone tries to justify bad behavior by claiming that they're a "True Roleplayer" or "Optimizer" isn't important. What matters is that they're being a jerk.
However, I'd like to think that for every bad example, there are plenty of roleplayers and optimizers who can sit down, play the game, and have fun. Personally, I'll take someone who's just fun to spend a couple hours with as my number one qualification. In my experience, it's a lot easier for someone with decent people skills to learn roleplaying and system mastery than it is for a jerk who's a master roleplayer/optimizer to learn how to be tolerable company for an entire game session.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I'll take someone who's just fun to spend a couple hours with as my number one qualification. In my experience, it's a lot easier for someone with decent people skills to learn roleplaying and system mastery than it is for a jerk who's a master roleplayer/optimizer to learn how to be tolerable company for an entire game session.
Yeah. I'm starting to think the majority of "people that do X are problems" posts we get on here are really "I ran into a jerk, who just happened to do X, but he would have been a jerk no matter what his playstyle was".
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah. I'm starting to think the majority of "people that do X are problems" posts we get on here are really "I ran into a jerk, who just happened to do X, but he would have been a jerk no matter what his playstyle was".
Yep, and this phenomenon also goes waaaaay beyond gaming. You can spot it everywhere:
"Gamers are fat, stinky layabouts just like this one guy I saw at a store once!""RPGers worship Satan and commit suicide if their character dies; I have a documented example!"
"[Race redacted] do tend to have anger problems; I've seen examples in the newspaper!"
"Religious people typically say/do XYZ; I know because I've met several!"
"I saw a book written by an atheist who said he didn't believe in morality because we're all just animals anyway; that must be common to atheists in general!"
"Republicans, amirite?"
"Democrats, amirite?"
"People who play MMOs..."
"People who watch My Little Pony..."
"People who..."
The list goes on and on. Seems that an awful lot of problems, tensions, hurt feelings, rifts and antagonism (on-topic, specifically the optimization-related attack threads/posts) are the result of people generalizing their experiences.
|
|
At the same time, some gamers are, in fact, fat stiny layabouts.
And some gamers overdo roleplaying/optimizing to the point that no one wants to game with them.
I don't go to open games or Cons at this point because these people do in fact exist and do in fact drive many people away from gaming.
The only reason I am a gamer is a cute girl (now a friend) asked me to join her group when were were hanging out at a coffee shop/bar after I got out of college, after I swore off the hobby since middle school following too many encounters with the all to accurate stereotypes.
It was at that point, in that group, that I realized it doesn't have to be like it was back then. Then after the fun home games, I went back the FLGS and scouted open games...and yeah...the sterotypes exist for a reason. Not all of them. Not even the majority. But it really only takes one to ruin a table.
If we don't self police this behavior, these types of behaviors will continue to drive people away from the hobby. Which is bad for all of us in the long run.
So this whole discussion of "You are attacking my moral standing" on either side of the issue is beside the core issue.
Are you irritating your fellow players?
If yes, stop.
If no, great. Now are you enhancing the experience of the whole table?
That should be the goal. Be it because you need to have more of a team optimized concept, less long soliloquies about your intricate backstory, or just wear deodorant and shower.
If we don't self police this behavior, these types of behaviors will continue to drive people away from the hobby. Which is bad for all of us in the long run.So this whole discussion of "You are attacking my moral standing" on either side of the issue is beside the core issue.
Are you irritating your fellow players?
If yes, stop.
If no, great. Now are you enhancing the experience of the whole table?
I think this pretty much comes down to policing jerks in the hobby, which is something I can get behind. A community needs to turn to individuals sometimes and say "look, that kind of behavior just isn't acceptable here."
The main problem with that is we're all going to disagree over certain behaviors, but essentially "not getting on with the majority of people at the table" is a good guideline.
Sometimes that can be a person complaining that the rest of the players suck for not being optimized. Sometimes that can be the person who brought a non-optimized character into a game full of optimizers. Sometimes it's the person insisting on spending three hours talking to the blacksmith and monopolizing the game session.
For home games, it's pretty easy - a table style can be set, and whoever doesn't fit in is the problem.
For PFS, it's a bit more difficult, and I'm tempted to say anyone who expects any particular style is the problem. The idea there is surely to accept whoever turns up, and whatever their playstyle may be, and to remind yourself that if you don't like accepting Joe Public and their playstyle then you should probably keep yourself to home games.
|
|
If we don't self police this behavior, these types of behaviors will continue to drive people away from the hobby. Which is bad for all of us in the long run.So this whole discussion of "You are attacking my moral standing" on either side of the issue is beside the core issue.
Are you irritating your fellow players?
If yes, stop.
If no, great. Now are you enhancing the experience of the whole table?
I think this pretty much comes down to policing jerks in the hobby, which is something I can get behind. A community needs to turn to individuals sometimes and say "look, that kind of behavior just isn't acceptable here."
The main problem with that is we're all going to disagree over certain behaviors, but essentially "not getting on with the majority of people at the table" is a good guideline.
Sometimes that can be a person complaining that the rest of the players suck for not being optimized. Sometimes that can be the person who brought a non-optimized character into a game full of optimizers.
Which is why I am a huge advocate of adapting to table norms and only gaming with GMs you trust enough to let be the GM.
I think selfishness and self-centerness is the leading cause of jerk behavior.
Personally I am going to put this one out there now, you can optomize AND be very good at Social situations very easily. Simply play a Sorcerer with rediculous CHA. Good with spells AND have face abilities. If you wna to get even funnier, play a Sorcerer of the Arcane bloodline and focus heavily in enchantment spells and take spell mastery (dominate person). You then grab silent and still spell and start dominating people at a ball mid-sentence while talking about how nice their chandelier looks. Contrary to popular belief, enchantment spells (if focused heavily on) can do ALOT of powerful things, especially in games that you seem to be advocating that are more "roleplaying heavy." (those games tend not feature mass walls of undead, oozes, and constructs).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I am going to put this one out there now, you can optomize AND be very good at Social situations very easily. Simply play a Sorcerer with rediculous CHA. Good with spells AND have face abilities. If you wna to get even funnier, play a Sorcerer of the Arcane bloodline and focus heavily in enchantment spells and take spell mastery (dominate person). You then grab silent and still spell and start dominating people at a ball mid-sentence while talking about how nice their chandelier looks. Contrary to popular belief, enchantment spells (if focused heavily on) can do ALOT of powerful things, especially in games that you seem to be advocating that are more "roleplaying heavy." (those games tend not feature mass walls of undead, oozes, and constructs).
The ALOT of Powerful Things, one of the most powerful creatures in existence.
Being a Hyper-optimizer is a choice. Just like not taking showers. While it’s true that “smelly gamers’ is a rather outdated meme ( I remember some early DunDraCons and wargame cons, whoa!) the fact that “gamers who don’t take showers” ARE ‘smelly gamers’ is indeed- a fact . And, that sort of thing needs to be discouraged. Now, we have a gamer who had cancer and wears a colono bag. He gets smelly. Do we condemn him for that? No- it’s not a CHOICE he made. See- you can blame people for making bad choices.
So, I am not saying that the sort of gamer who plays hyperoptimized characters is a issue. The hyperoptimized PC is the issue- sometimes. You can be a wonderful guy who just happens to want to try out some weird build.
There’s lots of issues at gaming tables;
PvP characters
Characters that steal from the party
Evil characters in a Good group
Paladins in a moral ambivalent group.
Kender
People that eat the snaks but don’t bring any
Gamers that hit on gamers of the opposite sex (or same sex, even)
Smelly gamers
Late arrivals
No-shows without warning
You can be a great gamer and a friend and do any of these things- within certain circumstances. I despise PvP but we played a 3 game Evil campaign where PvP was encouraged. Would I condemn a player for doing PvP in that case? No. We got one guy who’s currently unemployed- we don’t expect him to bring snaks, and we even often get an extra burger for him.
Ok, well- there’s just no excuse for Kender, tho- they should be shot on sight. The player, not the character… ;-)
But if you’re ALWAYS “that guy” the guy that makes the CHOICE to always try PvP in a non-PvP game, (“It’s the way my character would act!”), then yes, you’re a problem player.
So, HYPER-optimized characters can be a problem…but not in a campaign where everyone is encouraged to be so. However- if you’re ALWAYS “that guy”- “that guy” who HAS to run a hyperoptimized killing machine in every campaign- you’ve got issues. If that’s all you can run, then yes, you’re a bad roleplayer, ‘stormwind” or no.
Being a Hyper-optimizer is a choice. Just like not taking showers. While it’s true that “smelly gamers’ is a rather outdated meme ( I remember some early DunDraCons and wargame cons, whoa!) the fact that “gamers who don’t take showers” ARE ‘smelly gamers’ is indeed- a fact . And, that sort of thing needs to be discouraged. Now, we have a gamer who had cancer and wears a colono bag. He gets smelly. Do we condemn him for that? No- it’s not a CHOICE he made. See- you can blame people for making bad choices.
So, I am not saying that the sort of gamer who plays hyperoptimized characters is a issue. The hyperoptimized PC is the issue- sometimes. You can be a wonderful guy who just happens to want to try out some weird build.
There’s lots of issues at gaming tables;
PvP characters
Characters that steal from the party
Evil characters in a Good group
Paladins in a moral ambivalent group.
Kender
People that eat the snaks but don’t bring any
Gamers that hit on gamers of the opposite sex (or same sex, even)
Smelly gamers
Late arrivals
No-shows without warningYou can be a great gamer and a friend and do any of these things- within certain circumstances. I despise PvP but we played a 3 game Evil campaign where PvP was encouraged. Would I condemn a player for doing PvP in that case? No. We got one guy who’s currently unemployed- we don’t expect him to bring snaks, and we even often get an extra burger for him.
Ok, well- there’s just no excuse for Kender, tho- they should be shot on sight. The player, not the character… ;-)
But if you’re ALWAYS “that guy” the guy that makes the CHOICE to always try PvP in a non-PvP game, (“It’s the way my character would act!”), then yes, you’re a problem player.
So, HYPER-optimized characters can be a problem…but not in a campaign where everyone is encouraged to be so. However- if you’re ALWAYS “that guy”- “that guy” who HAS to run a hyperoptimized killing machine in every campaign- you’ve got issues. If that’s all you can run, then yes, you’re a bad...
Interesting points, i have one player who fits into several of those categories. AND he wants to play a kender. I told him he has 2 strikes and him playing a kender would be strike 3.
Chiming in quite late here but: This *is* a problem. Certainly it was a huge problem in 4E (ugh, that game was worth killing off just to avoid having to again be handed the character sheet for ANOTHER Human Avenger with a Ravenclaw Warblade and a stock image of Vin Diesel for his character portrait).
Optimization is rife and it *is* problematic. The solution for it is for DMs to take things in hand and start disallowing rulebooks left and right. No, you cannot use the Advanced Player's Guide or Class Guide or Ultimate Combat. Just full stop: No. We all played Pathfinder using nothing but the Core Rulebook at one point and thought it was more than adequately fun. We're going back to those days.
It also is necessary, especially when running PF Society or Adventure Path modules, to actually climb into the guts of the machine and, y'know, 1.) maybe add monsters
2.) maybe make monsters smarter (i.e. maybe they *don't* all rush into a big open space with the PCs)
3.) actually require something other than combat to solve problems
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chiming in quite late here but: This *is* a problem. Certainly it was a huge problem in 4E (ugh, that game was worth killing off just to avoid having to again be handed the character sheet for ANOTHER Human Avenger with a Ravenclaw Warblade and a stock image of Vin Diesel for his character portrait).
Optimization is rife and it *is* problematic. The solution for it is for DMs to take things in hand and start disallowing rulebooks left and right. No, you cannot use the Advanced Player's Guide or Class Guide or Ultimate Combat. Just full stop: No. We all played Pathfinder using nothing but the Core Rulebook at one point and thought it was more than adequately fun. We're going back to those days.
It also is necessary, especially when running PF Society or Adventure Path modules, to actually climb into the guts of the machine and, y'know, 1.) maybe add monsters
2.) maybe make monsters smarter (i.e. maybe they *don't* all rush into a big open space with the PCs)
3.) actually require something other than combat to solve problems
See if you had enough system mastery you would know that the strongest stuff is mostly in core. Wish - Core, Glitterdust - Core, Summon Monster/Nature's Ally - Core, Power Attack - Core, Natural Spell - Core, Divination Specialist Wizard - Core, Diplomacy - Core, Use Magic Device - Core and lets not forget Simulacrum and Planar Binding which really deserve their own section.
But hey, if you want to encourage people to stick to the huge power gap that is present in Core considering you have Fighter/Monk/Rogue and Cleric/Druid/Wizard all in core, then ya... sure ban those other books.
|
|
Well, it is true that reducing the available options curtails optimization, as there are less possible ways to optimize a build.
However, and at the very same time, it also curtails creativity and diversity, as more options mean more possibilities to build the concept you have in your mind. Which, in the end is the true goal of optimizing ;-)
My issue is when someone wants to use a weird corner feat or spell in a certain regional guide for a character not in or from that area.
Want the Orc bloodline? At least have some vestige of a RP reason for it.
You have some Orc in your background, probably on your mother's side. See how easy that is?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I've played/run a number of games that I drink to forget. Ones with down syndrome furries, drama queens that ended the game running out the door in tears and broken relationships, guys in the middle of divorce, groups of drunken rednecks at dragoncon (actually those are the funnest groups to run for so I take that back), neo-nazis whose every character is a racist allegory. And out of all that I can only think of one guy who was a problem who could be called an optimizer and that's only because his kobold was a treacherous douche.
Wherever this horde of apparent evil optimizers crashing through games and raining hell down upon encounters and hapless gm's is it must be nowhere near me because I haven't seen nor heard of it. Sometimes I wonder if it's not a myth built out of the inadequacies of others.
@Jiggy - You were saying about commenting about the other side of the debate?
The last line in particular.
The above bolded aren't simply me ragging on people. These are actual experiences with actual people. When you've been tabletop gaming for over a decade with a wide variety of groups over two different states and several countries online....you see some s*++. Throw in some play by post and a couple of chat games here and there...
The question about inadequacies comes from a simple feeling that a lot of people that make these threads really just have no idea what they're doing and rather than improve their game or talk amongst their group over it they come here to gripe. I read a couple of lines and immediately think "this guy is optimizing"? And in the end it turns out the guys just a jerk who gets out his jerkness via powergaming. Not optimizing. They're two different things.
So, HYPER-optimized characters can be a problem…but not in a campaign where everyone is encouraged to be so. However- if you’re ALWAYS “that guy”- “that guy” who HAS to run a hyperoptimized killing machine in every campaign- you’ve got issues. If that’s all you can run, then yes, you’re a bad roleplayer, ‘stormwind” or no.
I agree with the spirit of this at the least.
Anyway I ahve a strong and terrible need to vent, and vent greatly. I feel this is neither the time no place for it.
You have some Orc in your background, probably on your mother's side. See how easy that is?
You'd think so, wouldn't you.
The actual answer was "I get more damage". In character.
Sounds like the problem is with the encounter. It's exceedingly difficult to create a character that is capable of soloing encounters on the first turn unless there is something grossly wrong with the encounters.I'd much rather have the a 'burden' character than an optimized one that ends the encounter before anyone gets a chance to play.
This applies to both PFS and normal play.
Not really. I've done it with relatively weak characters before. Apparently a heavy pick + crit kills bosses in one hit. Same with save or die spells/hexes. Even a non crit can end an encounter with little effort, and a lance charge just obliterates enemies.
Heck, at first level a power attack + cleave can drop 2 CR 1 monsters (which is a CR3 encounter) in one round on average (2d6+9 = 16, 15 is average HP of CR1s). Seen it done in society before, seen it done in normal play.
To which I would respond that the encounter was either set up to be that way from the start. It's not great secret that just picking a monster a few CRs above the party's is not going to do much.
An axe/pick/scythe critical should probably end up destroying the badguy. That's kind of the point of the big x3-4 multipliers. You want the crits to be big and end that dude when they come.
But when you make an encounter of singular enemies you're really just asking for them to be mowed over unless something special is going on (such as a well prepared spellcaster who spends time and effort to redirect enemy momentum).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can see that work still. He's a power hungry sorceror student who shot himself up on magical Orc blood to get more powerful spells. "Because it makes me stronger" is a perfectly valid reason for adventurers. Even if the player didn't think about it.
Or, you know, he could just fluff it away, right? He's just a sorceror whose talents are naturally more inclined towards blasty spells, which is represented by having the orc bloodline. Hell, crossblooded dragon/orc is perfect grab-bag of abilities for a pyromanic adrenaline junkie sorceror who is not very bright and goes on more instinct than thought (lower will save, more blasty powers, touch of rage...).
"Because I want these abilities" is a perfectly fine justification. As long as there's some roleplay happening.
I'm of the camp that you need to justify your nonsense. If the nonsense is particularly silly you need to be able to give me some good material as to why you're being silly. Saying "I get more damage" is not that material.
|
|
The above bolded aren't simply me ragging on people. These are actual experiences with actual people. When you've been tabletop gaming for over a decade with a wide variety of groups over two different states and several countries online....you see some s#@#. Throw in some play by post and a couple of chat games here and there...
Yes.
And so is complaining about the optimizer who kills verisimilitude or acts like an arrogant jackass and makes the game less enjoyable for other people who don't share either their play style or interpretations of the rules.
It is something enough people experience for it to become a trope.
C'mon, you don't have to imply I am a control freak Gm, just because I like to present my players a challenge. That is poor form. Being a control freak and setting up a difficult encounter are not the same thing, one wants to challenge and see how the players get out of it, one wants to control and prevent the players from doing all they can.
It really comes down to this, players can optimize however they wish, they can make the most powerful builds around, and they can still be challenged and countered. There is also the very simple matter that if a APL+8 encounter can be beaten by a party, those players have no excuse to complain about a +4 coming their way. They are clearly optimized over and above what they are expected to be taking--in short, powergamers pushing the crunch up hill until breaking point.
Player assassinations particularly going above and beyond the normal CR scaling and targeting specific weakness that can't be overcome by ANY of the party sounds like controlling behavior and not creating a challenging encounter.
Your scenarios involve: out ranging range specialists, the melee characters in that sort of party are hardly going to be able to contribute at all. Specifically murdering a PC using over CR rogues with no chance to respond whatsoever. Destroying weapons on the weapon specialist, note that this doesn't really work since he can just club it to death with a chair leg if he has to. Draining the strength of the melee specialist, which doesn't' work because he is still better than any other combatant in the same situation (in fact it could KILL other characters against many enemies). Draining all of the dex of the range characters, not that this doesn't actually work due to similar issues that appear in the melee example.
It all smacks of heavy handed attempts to control the party and/or punish players. And that is poor form. You can challenge a party without such ham fisted tactics and without going beyond APL+3-4 range.
Well as adamant as you are, I can only say the truth is in the pudding. Challenging players and putting them outside of their comfort zone once in a while, is not controlling--it is how you test whether they are playing heroes.
Challenge is not control. Control is pretty dodgy, and not what I am about (been a player long enough to get over this). Control is being forced to tag along with the paladins that the dm loves, and bask in their glory while being outdone. Challenge is a foe plus a situation that is a counter to some of the party.
Just because I disagree with you and throw out some counters to pcs, doesn't mean I am a bad guy. Challenges that counter are older than Gygax's socks.
The above bolded aren't simply me ragging on people. These are actual experiences with actual people. When you've been tabletop gaming for over a decade with a wide variety of groups over two different states and several countries online....you see some s#@#. Throw in some play by post and a couple of chat games here and there...
Yes.
And so is complaining about the optimizer who kills verisimilitude or acts like an arrogant jackass and makes the game less enjoyable for other people who don't share either their play style or interpretations of the rules.
It is something enough people experience for it to become a trope.
And I'm saying this is not a thing I've run into.
Nor something so common it appears on every board as often as it does here.
Am I saying that these things don't exist particularly in organized play?
No.
But I do think the blame on optimization is over exaggerated. Competitive jerks are going to be like that even in Fiasco.
Sounds like the problem is with the encounter. It's exceedingly difficult to create a character that is capable of soloing encounters on the first turn unless there is something grossly wrong with the encounters.I'd much rather have the a 'burden' character than an optimized one that ends the encounter before anyone gets a chance to play.
This applies to both PFS and normal play.
Not really. I've done it with relatively weak characters before. Apparently a heavy pick + crit kills bosses in one hit. Same with save or die spells/hexes. Even a non crit can end an encounter with little effort, and a lance charge just obliterates enemies.
Heck, at first level a power attack + cleave can drop 2 CR 1 monsters (which is a CR3 encounter) in one round on average (2d6+9 = 16, 15 is average HP of CR1s). Seen it done in society before, seen it done in normal play.
If you appreciate the way of the dire pick, we can still be friends.
Those are nasty. Especially if you are having a lot of 20s in a night.
"Last Friday was the night Bob's char insta-gibbed a boss".
I'm of the camp that you need to justify your nonsense. If the nonsense is particularly silly you need to be able to give me some good material as to why you're being silly. Saying "I get more damage" is not that material.If someone answered me "I get more damage" I'd ask "Why do you want more damage?". I think you should too.
If "I want a character focusing on aggressive blasting because I want to play someone who likes blowing things up, and should be good at it" doesn't sit well with you, we should probably not play in the same group.
The source of the mechanics of the character really should have very little bearing on the backstory, in my opinion. Just because you took a level of rogue doesn't mean you are a pickpocket, a thug, a thief, a burglar, or even a dashing swordsman. You just wanted to have 8 skill points, because you wanted to play a skilled person. Your backstory doesn't have to contain you training with the thieves guild to get that rank in diplomacy and disable device.
So why should the crossblooded sorc do that? "He's hot blooded, and that's how his innate magical ability manifests. In extra powerful explosions". Done. You can still have a backstory that explains why he's hot blooded, why he has innate magic powers, etc... and these are all way more important than how he got the ability to deal 2 more damage/dice for fire spells, which is just something he does, not something he is. The moment you discover that divorcing fluff from mechanics is totally fine ("Why does Drizzt have levels of barbarian again?" "To have Rage to simulate his battle trance."), you'll have a much more enjoyable experience without being weighed down by fluff blubrs.
Grab the mechanics, because that's the important part for the sake of balance and fair play, and then play it as you want to, for the sake of fun. That's what optimizing is about. Building exactly what you want, to work the way you want it, and then play the way you want it.
And you know what? I agree.
But some players won't be like this. They'll shrug their shoulders and turn in their four sentence backstory with three sentences dedicated to character description using their class name.
Which is fine for some. I demand better. If you want to give me some weird corner case printed in some far off book with a limited printing of like five books you've got to put in the work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, this was an issue 3.5 was having before WotC dumped it and it turned into Pathfinder. It was bad enough that before I knew 4th Edition was coming, I was going to ask our DM if we could run a campaign with nothing but the Core Rulebooks. I like high power as much as the next person, but when I have a dragon wildshaping Druid running around with a near-constant 72 AC and a constant 50% miss chance (if...Does anyone else get bothered by the push for optimization of characters? More and more I get tired of sitting down to a table of outrageous damage output where battles end ridiculously fast. Using feats to make a monster characters that immediately win the battle in the first round just is boring. It turns into the one optimized character getting all the fun each and every fight.
I've also run into the problem lately of bringing my characters to games that are not optimized for damage but are fun to play and everyone looking down on them.
-Mounted paladin gnome of erastil (why not be medium sized with a big weapon?)
-Combat Maneuver monk specializing in trip and grapple (Wait...you don't do damage?)
-Sea Reaver barbarian that, when raging, has a swim and climb speed (aquatic campaign) (why didn't you take all these ridiculous rage powers to cause a bunch of ridiculous damage?)Society games are the worst. I witnessed one guy a few months ago convince someone not to use archetypes of the bard class until the person played a bunch of games with a base bard and learned how the class worked. Getting to level 5 in PFS is a 60 hour investment. The guy knew what he wanted his character to do and an archetype would have served that better and he didn't want to play every week. This awful advice came from a 5-star GM.
I'm not out to change the world with this, but man...powergaming can be pretty obnoxious. Who cares if that wizard didn't prepare "Create Pit"? If everyone built the same character all the time the game would die.
Yes, too far.
Quick boss battles risk being incredibly unsatisfying for everyone but nova-guy.
Yes, the epic battle of when that guy killed it in a round. Sigh.
And you know what? I agree.But some players won't be like this. They'll shrug their shoulders and turn in their four sentence backstory with three sentences dedicated to character description using their class name.
Which is fine for some. I demand better. If you want to give me some weird corner case printed in some far off book with a limited printing of like five books you've got to put in the work.
Apples to car tires. These things are entirely unrelated. You can use the absolute worst mechanics in the world and it doesn't magically produce a better backstory.
The opposite is also untrue. Being mechanically strong does nothing to hinder you making a character that is deep an engaging. I frequently get the feeling that many of the boardmembers here believe me to be not only an optimizer but a "dirty powergamer".
Yet when I post about my characters, their motivations, their histories? I get a lot of favorites on those posts. I have an online game on Fridays and I suggested we make a separate skype group-chat for general roleplay when we're not actively playing the game. My group even suggested I write stories about my character during a stretch of downtime we had in Whitethrone recently.
(( For those who care, those can be found here (Pt. 1) and here (Pt.2). The first is definitely not safe for work, mature audiences, etc, etc. It was initially spurred by one of the other players who said he was shipping my PC and her psicrystal, and I jokingly said I'd write him a slashfic about them, and he thought that was a great idea so there you have it. I managed to sneak actual character detailing into it though, but don't tell anyone. The second involves a scene that might be rather difficult to read due to what could only be described as torture. In either case I've promised to continue the stories for the entertainment of my Friday group. ))
Even on my blog I generally emphasize a narrative focus alongside the mechanical parts. Dark though parts may be, my recent posts concerning encounter design and the following posts provide motivations, character quirks, and an emphasis on the narrative and the ability to draw your players in.
But hey, according to Gorbacz I only see numbers.
And you know what? I agree.But some players won't be like this. They'll shrug their shoulders and turn in their four sentence backstory with three sentences dedicated to character description using their class name.
Which is fine for some. I demand better. If you want to give me some weird corner case printed in some far off book with a limited printing of like five books you've got to put in the work.
Apples to car tires. These things are entirely unrelated. You can use the absolute worst mechanics in the world and it doesn't magically produce a better backstory.
The opposite is also untrue. Being mechanically strong does nothing to hinder you making a character that is deep an engaging. I frequently get the feeling that many of the boardmembers here believe me to be not only an optimizer but a "dirty powergamer".
Yet when I post about my characters, their motivations, their histories? I get a lot of favorites on those posts. I have an online game on Fridays and I suggested we make a separate skype group-chat for general roleplay when we're not actively playing the game. My group even suggested I write stories about my character during a stretch of downtime we had in Whitethrone recently.
(( For those who care, those can be found here (Pt. 1) and here (Pt.2). The first is definitely not safe for work, mature audiences, etc, etc. It was initially spurred by one of the other players who said he was shipping my PC and her psicrystal, and I jokingly said I'd write him a slashfic about them, and he thought that was a great idea so there you have it. I managed to sneak actual character detailing into it though, but don't tell anyone. The second involves a scene that might be rather difficult to read due to what could only be described as torture. In either case I've promised to continue...
We are talking about vastly different things. I'm speaking of a player who refuses to be engaging in anything but numbers.
We are talking about vastly different things. I'm speaking of a player who refuses to be engaging in anything but numbers.
Okay, sorry for the misunderstanding. Though I'd say those aren't mutually exclusive either. Trying to equate mechanical availability with roleplaying just seems silly to me. Like it rubs me wrong on a fundamental level. Who cares where the option came from if it's a good option (and by good I also mean balanced)?
I've met - and I'm not singing their praises - examples of players who fail both mechanically and narratively. The two aren't related. That being said I would posit that if you're interested in this game at all, you are likely interested in at least one of the two major towers of the game (one being the mechanical side, one being the narrative side).
If you have someone who is playing who is interested in the mechanics but not so much the narrative, they're probably going to be really good at the mechanics.
Likewise, if you have someone who is interested in the narrative but not so much the mechanics, they're probably going to be really good at the narrative.
These seemingly related but actually unrelated things lead to negative stereotypes, when they are not related at all, because you can also have people who enjoy both aspects of the game, or you could have people who grasp neither aspect of the game. However, the latter is far more rare because if both aspects are outside of your interest you are probably going to be playing something different.
Quick boss battles risk being incredibly unsatisfying for everyone but nova-guy.
Yes, the epic battle of when that guy killed it in a round. Sigh.
I'm actually fine with them, but I tend to play with people who also prefer short, brutal fights.
If Peter Jackson films a 40-minute "epic battle" between Bard and Smaug in a later installment of The Hobbit, I'd be sort of disappointed, in fact.