| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
When you get constipated, that's way too much cheese.
when you have to buy stool softeners.......
Gamewise it usually amounts to the number of rolled eyes and shaking heads from fellow players as you describe your newest character to them.
Cheese is the fun breaking things the rules can let you do. Those are the same things you as a player know you shouldn't.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to know what qualifies as "funny" to you all and whats the difference between "funny" and just humourous?
How in the world could you ask a question looking for a quantified answer for a concept that is mostly based in personal opinion? This is silly and possibly trollish...
ok. how about making a charachter who dosent attack, but gives adjacent allys a passive +5 ac each turn, if they get attacked and they are adjacent to you, you use your ac against their attack, and they get an aoO, and if they have multiple attacks, you can raise their ac up by 11? all legaling stacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience, Cheese seems to come when people optimize first then try to work a narrative concept around that optimization*. Too much cheese occurs when this strains believably.
(*Note that this is different from Mechanics first character creation. While cheese builds are often mechanics-first creations, it's not necessarily the other way around. With mechanics first creation, you can come up with sub-optimal concepts that are based on mechanics, like going for a dirty-trick rogue or trying to make a battlefield control fighter. Those aren't going to be the most optimal builds, so they're not going to really be cheese, but they're mechanics first creations, still. You can optimize from that point, but just as long as you don't overoptimize it likely won't dip into cheese)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to know what qualifies as "cheese" to you all, and whats the difference between "cheesy" and effective builds?
Not my perspective, but the truth behind most people's accusations of cheese:
"Anything that is better then my build is cheesy, anything that is worse is poorly built."
If I, as a GM, can't see a way that a standard, normal person could come up with the set of skills/feats/etc without thinking of a pure Mary Sue...it's cheese.
Thankfully my players don't like cheese much. In fact, they're almost so anti-cheese that I have to give them ideas on how to be a little more effective. They're progressing quite well with that though, I'm happy to say.
In my opinion cheese and being effective have absolutely nothing in common. A build can be cheesy without being effective and another build can be effective without being cheesy.
One of my main examples of cheesy is when someone wants to play a something because it is "cool" but he doesn't want the drawbacks. Like someone wanting to play a dhampir paladin and asking his GM to allow himself to lay on hands heal himself. And if someone else brings along the social stigma of being a monster they scream.
This has nothing to do with being effective, just with wanting the salary without doing the work.
All in all cheese for me is gaming the system (even if ineffective) and using tropes that are too old and worn out to still have around the table. One of those, for me if the "I wield giant weapons because I'm cool" trope. More so if coupled with version 1 like "the bastard sword is listed as one-handed so I can use me large sized BS while being grappled"
Cheese is like obscenity. You know it when you see it.
I am French and I resent that statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Cheese" is a stupid term.
It constantly changes meaning from person, to person, and depends on the situation.
Usually, it just means "I don't like it".
It is a silly term, and a silly question.
Ask yourself: "How much Ishkabibble is too much Ishkabibble?"
BBT why would you ask something like that? Everyone knows 3 Ishkabibble is the limit more than that and you risk Ishkabibble poisoning.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
BBT why would you ask something like that? Everyone knows 3 Ishkabibble is the limit more than that and you risk Ishkabibble poisoning."Cheese" is a stupid term.
It constantly changes meaning from person, to person, and depends on the situation.
Usually, it just means "I don't like it".
It is a silly term, and a silly question.
Ask yourself: "How much Ishkabibble is too much Ishkabibble?"
I took a feat from a 3rd party source that lets me have four. But only if I wash it down with muddy water
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you find something cheesy, throw some wine at it.
In my experience the w(h)ine comes from the cheesy player if the GM tells him no.
In my experience, Cheese seems to come when people optimize first then try to work a narrative concept around that optimization*. Too much cheese occurs when this strains believably.
(*Note that this is different from Mechanics first character creation. While cheese builds are often mechanics-first creations, it's not necessarily the other way around. With mechanics first creation, you can come up with sub-optimal concepts that are based on mechanics, like going for a dirty-trick rogue or trying to make a battlefield control fighter. Those aren't going to be the most optimal builds, so they're not going to really be cheese, but they're mechanics first creations, still. You can optimize from that point, but just as long as you don't overoptimize it likely won't dip into cheese)
Any answer I could give would more or less be repeating ^this.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me, cheese is attempting to fool the GM into underestimating your character's capabilities so that you can make short work of any challenge presented. Alternately, it is twisting the rules to attempt to argue that you are far more capable than your stats indicate.
In both cases, it is the player attempting to destroy the game's expectations and enforce a personal view of the game upon everyone's experience. This is a shared activity, and we all should be willing to work together to tell the stories we want to. A PC can be super-powerful but as long as everyone knows and accepts this, there will be no issue. Cheese occurs when the power comes at the cost of the game's understanding between all players and the GM.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
For me the ultimate dose of cheese I suffered is when 2 players showed up to game with Drow rangers with scimitars and good alignments.......
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok. how about making a charachter who dosent attack, but gives adjacent allys a passive +5 ac each turn, if they get attacked and they are adjacent to you, you use your ac against their attack, and they get an aoO, and if they have multiple attacks, you can raise their ac up by 11? all legaling stacking.I would like to know what qualifies as "funny" to you all and whats the difference between "funny" and just humourous?
How in the world could you ask a question looking for a quantified answer for a concept that is mostly based in personal opinion? This is silly and possibly trollish...
This sounds oddly specific. Perhaps you would be better served by posting this cheez build and verifying its legality instead of passive aggresively venting like this?
A lot of stuff that seems like cheez is usually just cheet. Or a misunderstanding.
The closest you can get to a line in the sand for cheez is, "is everyone, GM included, having fun?" If so your build is probably fine. If not, something needs to change. Because fun is the most important part, not having awesome builds and the coolest combos.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know it when you see it.
My experience tells me otherwise. I've followed lots of rules threads through to their conclusions. Some of them end with designer commentary and/or FAQing. A great many of those end up being officially answered as "yes, you really can do this". And in every single case of an issue ending with official endorsement, there's been a contingent of GMs crying "cheese" the whole time only to vanish silently when the so-called "cheese" gets vetted by the Design Team.
It's my estimation that the more often someone cries "cheese", the less likely it is they have any clue what they're talking about.
Honestly, I've been considering compiling a list of FAQs whose topic was called cheese then officially declared legit, so I have something to point to when folks can't seem to understand why a genuinely-abusive munchkin isn't listening to their indictments.
EDIT: Compiled, at least for CRB FAQs.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look at every single time this stupid term is used.
It breaks down, at it's core, to two meanings:
"I don't like it" or "Someone else may not like it."
That's it.
So, for me, Kender are "cheese", and angsty CG Drow Rangers are "cheese".
Unwritten rules are "cheese".
Look at every single time this stupid term is used.
It breaks down, at it's core, to two meanings:
"I don't like it" or "Someone else may not like it."
That's it.
So, for me, Kender are "cheese", and angsty CG Drow Rangers are "cheese".
Unwritten rules are "cheese".
I'm pretty sure cheez only applies to mechanics. So kender are not cheez. Cheez is the stuff you see munchkins do. If doing it would qualify someone as a munchkin, its cheezy.
You know it when you see it.My experience tells me otherwise. I've followed lots of rules threads through to their conclusions. Some of them end with designer commentary and/or FAQing. A great many of those end up being officially answered as "yes, you really can do this". And in every single case of an issue ending with official endorsement, there's been a contingent of GMs crying "cheese" the whole time only to vanish silently when the so-called "cheese" gets vetted by the Design Team.
It's my estimation that the more often someone cries "cheese", the less likely it is they have any clue what they're talking about.
Honestly, I've been considering compiling a list of FAQs whose topic was called cheese then officially declared legit, so I have something to point to when folks can't seem to understand why a genuinely-abusive munchkin isn't listening to their indictments.
EDIT: Compiled, at least for CRB FAQs.
Not sure I follow your point. Legality or RAI doesn't change whether I perceive something as cheese.
Everything at our home table is vetted by all the players. If we don't think something will be fun for our campaign, including cheese, then it doesn't get played. Designers and FAQs aren't a part of it.
The number of times this has actually happened for us over the past 30 years could be counted on one hand. But when you play with reasonable folks problems of this sort seldom crop up.
|
|
This is why you cheese in party friendly ways. God Wizard, soften up the bad guys while simultaneously buffing the entire party and positioning them ever so perfectly for them to get the killing blow. You know you did it all, but they can be like "Did you see me one-shot that dragon!?"
Enchantment Bard, get the best deals for your friends, make it so people don't hate you and then have vendettas against you, use your charm to buff your friends into killing machines, provide after battle heals and then drop a Persistent Dominate Monster on the BBEG so he joins your party. (Psst... the secret is to Dominate Monster your party. Convince the GM that you have done it and mind-wiped their knowledge of it, so not even the players know).
Or you can do what some guy did on the forums here. Set up a vast information gathering network by spiking pastries with charm spells and paying off brothel workers to let you eavesdrop/spy on customers. Then you always know what's coming and get ready your party for anything. These are the true Cheeses. You make every encounter super easy and let your BSFs hit things.
<-- Munchkin-er/Cheeser/Pro-pizza designer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
According to the Urban Dictionary #49, it is when "something is unfair, stupid, or makes no sense at all."
I personally believe it is the cause of eye rolling and head shaking, as described by Ashtathlon above.
I mean, everyone here has made it plain enough that cheese is subjective. And this is true. What is cheesy to one might not be cheesy to another.
That said, here's my personal rubric for cheese: Cheese abuses rules in a way that trivializes parts of the game that were meant to be fun. I gauge this by the group's response.
When things are particularly great, the group is happy. They think the thing the other guy did is cool. This is especially true if everyone feels like they did something in the situation. A game altering power can be exhilarating. Who doesn't remember a time where everything just clicked, and a supposedly difficult encounter was handled with ease and grace?
However, when it becomes habitual, and situations are consistently too easy because of a single player's powers? After a while it stops being fun. When the 1st level fighter blasts through every encounter while the rest of the group struggles to have a positive influence, it stops being a fun game to play and that fighter is seen as cheese.
I think I'd sum it up as this: An effective player makes the rest of the party feel powerful, while a cheesy player makes the rest of the party feel ineffective.
It's not about whether your powers are boosting your allies, per say. If your spells are assisting other players, but the players feel the spells are doing all the heavy lifting, they won't care that their attacks are still the ones doing the damage. It's a difficult line to balance.
Sometimes a GM will take a while to adjust to a new style the PCs have come up with. That doesn't mean it's cheese, because the GM can and should adapt. If doing so makes the game unfun for everyone else, that's probably the point where the build is not simply very effective but cheesy. Keep in mind the GM's control of the world also allows them the control to make you not do something. I suppose that would also be a hint that he sees it as cheese. One can only hope when he does though that he does it because he is aware his GMing abilities aren't up to par with the challenge of balancing around your powers. (I'm assuming male GM because I'm male and in this scenario I'm imagining me as GM)
Anyway I know that's more answer than anyone probably ever wanted, but oh well
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Not sure I follow your point. Legality or RAI doesn't change whether I perceive something as cheese.You know it when you see it.My experience tells me otherwise. I've followed lots of rules threads through to their conclusions. Some of them end with designer commentary and/or FAQing. A great many of those end up being officially answered as "yes, you really can do this". And in every single case of an issue ending with official endorsement, there's been a contingent of GMs crying "cheese" the whole time only to vanish silently when the so-called "cheese" gets vetted by the Design Team.
It's my estimation that the more often someone cries "cheese", the less likely it is they have any clue what they're talking about.
Honestly, I've been considering compiling a list of FAQs whose topic was called cheese then officially declared legit, so I have something to point to when folks can't seem to understand why a genuinely-abusive munchkin isn't listening to their indictments.
EDIT: Compiled, at least for CRB FAQs.
Perhaps you use the term differently than I'm used to; usually, when I encounter people calling something "cheese", it's as part of a chorus, with folks seeming to be using "cheese", "abusive", "exploiting", "loophole", "unintended", "against the spirit of the rules", etc interchangeably.
So when I say people don't know what is and isn't cheese, I mean people don't know what is or isn't intended/unintended, a feature/bug, normal/abusive, skilled/loophole, proper/exploitive, etc. They often claim they do, and are very ready to point fingers and say "That is cheese/abusive/unintended/exploiting a loophole", but as often as not it turns out to be exactly how the game is supposed to work.
But if that's not what you mean by cheese, then I guess my post isn't really a reply to you after all. ;)
No worries, Jiggy.
I think even bringing up a post about "cheese" is a difficult prospect because there is no agreed definition for it.
It seems to generally be a negative thing, "I don't like this." But for some it is too much power, others it is loophole seeking, still others it is bad mesh of backstory and mechanics.
For me, it is simply a character that is obviously and painfully inappropriate for the campaign taking place at the table.
What is and is not appropriate changes with every campaign - and so does the definition of "cheese".
That's what I meant by my comment. It's not cheese until it is witnessed by the appropriate audience and judged as much. No other standard really works.
The cheater of mystra build from back in the day.
Also incantrix is bordering the cheese line......the incantrix has an ability to steal a summons from a caster. So I let a BBEG summon some unspeakable monstrosity and stole it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to know what qualifies as "cheese" to you all, and whats the difference between "cheesy" and effective builds?
Completely depends on the table.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The incantatrix was broken AND cheesy for a whole host of reasons, many of which applied to free and reduced metamagic.
Too much cheese is the point at which having the character in the party make GMing a burden and a chore instead of part of a pleasant hobby.
Too much cheese is the point at which having the character in the party make GMing a burden and a chore instead of part of a pleasant hobby.
I like this definition.
The incantatrix was broken AND cheesy for a whole host of reasons, many of which applied to free and reduced metamagic.
Is it wrong a part of my misses the incantrix? With meta magic was it horribly broken? Yes
Without meta magic was it broken? very close
Did I enjoy the brokenness then? Yes, yes I did
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Too much cheese is the point at which having the character in the party make GMing a burden and a chore instead of part of a pleasant hobby.
So... when an 11th-level gunslinger is built such that he can't fire more than one shot every 1-2 rounds and only rarely deals more than single-digit damage, so the GM constantly has to find ways to cut everyone else some slack so the table doesn't TPK, that gunslinger's got "too much cheese"?
;)
I consider "cheese" when narrative and mechanical optimization clash in a very distracting way.
Too much cheese is the point at which having the character in the party make GMing a burden and a chore instead of part of a pleasant hobby.So... when an 11th-level gunslinger is built such that he can't fire more than one shot every 1-2 rounds and only rarely deals more than single-digit damage, so the GM constantly has to find ways to cut everyone else some slack so the table doesn't TPK, that gunslinger's got "too much cheese"?
;)
Limburger is still cheese, ain't it?
Too much cheese is the point at which having the character in the party make GMing a burden and a chore instead of part of a pleasant hobby.I like this definition.
It expands beyond cheese though.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cheese is what the player with a simulacrum army calls the fighter who two-hand fights and uses armor spikes.