Any "Normal" Roleplayers here?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

13 people marked this as a favorite.

If so...post in the thread?

What do I mean by Normal?

I mean people who just want to play!

I come to these boards and I see optimization, munchkin, powergaming, discussions of what tier is what class, that rogues are useless...etc...etc...etc.

When we play, we could care less about that stuff. There may be some ensuring that your character is the best it could be...but we don't try to game the system to the point of being some sort of super powered engine that has every little thing planned from the get go.

We play to have fun. Not fun that means we are tweaking the character by the numbers, but fun in that we roleplay the character that we want.

We don't have a problem with the Rogue, normally they are going to be the ones that are able to disable traps and such (yes, I know some say let the spellcaster do it...but we have the Rogue do it). They want to play a Rogue...they want to have that type of character. They don't want to play a Ninja...they want to play a Rogue. So they choose a Rogue.

We don't have problems with Monks...they want to play a Monk. That's what they want to do. No, dip in to this, than that...for no reason other than optimization...no...if there is any changes in class it's due to a Roleplaying reason...not a numbers reason.

We play to have fun. We play to roleplay. We don't sweep through encounters like water...but we have fun. We don't play to have a numbers game, we play to have fun together.

Is there anyone else who plays like this...perhaps we are abnormal these days, but it used to be that playing an RPG was more like what was described above.

If you play simply for the fun of it, without overly worrying about these tier things, or whether your rogue fits into the group, or if your monk is strong enough...post here and how you play!


18 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm a role-player, and I also optimize.
/thread

Grand Lodge

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Normal is just a setting on the dryer my friend.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

In before "Stormwind Fallacy!!"

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

5 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Normal is just a setting on the dryer my friend.

Normal is weak to Fighting, and usually has no place on my team.

Edit: Checked my dryer, turns out there's no normal.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sorry OP. You're not going to find anyone like that here.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Petty Alchemy wrote:
Edit: Checked my dryer, turns out there's no normal.

That'll learn me to not double-check my sources.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

Actually he will, I am a "Normal"in a sense roleplayer, but I may prefer the term Traditional.
I theme a character and not build it, I only take classes in what is appropriate for the characters concept and not what will give it better bonuses..if that means I have a bad save , or a weakness here or there so be it.

Its just how I have slowly found I prefer to play, looking for rule exploits and crazy combos, just does not really interest me anymore.

Does that make my way of playing better than anyone elses..no, just how I have fun.

Everyone has fun in different ways..the key is to get a group that has fun in similar or complimentary ways and you have a great game. :)

Grand Lodge

meatrace wrote:

I'm a role-player, and I also optimize.

/thread


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I try to play the way you're describing sometimes but it's hard nowadays. Once you've peaked behind the curtain and seen the math underlying the game it's hard to go back to those simpler days. It was more fun for me and the people I game with though. We manage to recapture the vibe from time to time. It's always our goal to do so.

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Me. Most of the threads I see here seem to be working as hard as possible to, from my perspective, suck all the fun out of the game. Probably this is why I prefer simpler game systems like Swords & Wizardry or BRP.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Try this: Stop reading the Advice Forum.

That thing is stickied from the start with "How to eke another 2.5 dpr out of your superstitious barbarian" threads.

Read the rules forum. It is full of people asking "I'm thinking of building a <completely non-optimized version of [insert class]> around this weird attack combo theme. Does this rules combo work the way I think it does?" type threads.

Also, get over it. If you're as "Normal" as you say you are, then you should be out having fun taking two rounds to kill your opponents. [/scoff]

[/joking] =)


11 people marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:

I'm a role-player, and I also optimize.

/thread

I'm a roleplayer, and I got into optimization because I was sick of shoddy mechanics no-selling my characterization & fluff.

Sovereign Court

Not sure if serious


Ashtathlon wrote:

Actually he will, I am a "Normal"in a sense roleplayer, but I may prefer the term Traditional.

I theme a character and not build it, I only take classes in what is appropriate for the characters concept and not what will give it better bonuses..if that means I have a bad save , or a weakness here or there so be it.

^ This.

Yes. Some of us play the way you describe.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

If so...post in the thread?

What do I mean by Normal?

I mean people who just want to play!

I come to these boards and I see optimization, munchkin, powergaming, discussions of what tier is what class, that rogues are useless...etc...etc...etc.

When we play, we could care less about that stuff. There may be some ensuring that your character is the best it could be...but we don't try to game the system to the point of being some sort of super powered engine that has every little thing planned from the get go.

We play to have fun. Not fun that means we are tweaking the character by the numbers, but fun in that we roleplay the character that we want.

We don't have a problem with the Rogue, normally they are going to be the ones that are able to disable traps and such (yes, I know some say let the spellcaster do it...but we have the Rogue do it). They want to play a Rogue...they want to have that type of character. They don't want to play a Ninja...they want to play a Rogue. So they choose a Rogue.

We don't have problems with Monks...they want to play a Monk. That's what they want to do. No, dip in to this, than that...for no reason other than optimization...no...if there is any changes in class it's due to a Roleplaying reason...not a numbers reason.

We play to have fun. We play to roleplay. We don't sweep through encounters like water...but we have fun. We don't play to have a numbers game, we play to have fun together.

Is there anyone else who plays like this...perhaps we are abnormal these days, but it used to be that playing an RPG was more like what was described above.

If you play simply for the fun of it, without overly worrying about these tier things, or whether your rogue fits into the group, or if your monk is strong enough...post here and how you play!

Personally, I don't find the game fun when my character doesn't kick ass. I don't have to be the perfectly optimized end-all be-all character, but if I'm rolling a Paladin, I'm damn sure going to be able to work over some evil dragons.

That said, the reason you see more talk about optimization than role-playing on the board is because it makes more sense to ask a question about objective things like mechanics rather than subjective things like backstory. Role-playing should come from within - I'm not going to go on a message board to have other people create my character's personality. But if I have an issue where I want to know what the mechanically best feat is, I'll ask for opinion. It doesn't mean I'll take the best feat every time, but I want to know the ramifications of what I can and can't do.


The short answer to your question OP is no. And your use of the word normal in this context indicates you haven't noticed the shift in gaming that's occurred in the past ~40 years.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Why would someone choose an RPG with thousands of pages of rules and mechanical options, if not to play with that material?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:
The short answer to your question OP is no.

Or rather "yes", unless the people who said yes already don't exist.

I'm pretty sure I exist.


All the data we have indicates that normal roleplayers are the ones building optimized characters. That's why the game has been successful when it provides interesting choices for optimizers (3rd, 3.5, PF) and unsuccessful when it doesn't (2nd, 4th)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

That was the short answer. The slightly longer one was "not really".

2e wasn't successful? Poor management does not mean AD&D wasn't successful. And if normal means majority then as I said pretty sure optimizers are definitely the majority in D&D now.

edit: also 2e shifted toward optimizing and options at the end when it "fell". Many of the stuff around now, I would say, derives from that Players Option stuff.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
MattR1986 wrote:

That was the short answer. The slightly longer one was "not really".

2e wasn't successful? Poor management does not mean AD&D wasn't successful. And if normal means majority then as I said pretty sure optimizers are definitely the majority in D&D now.

In D&D maybe (But I doubt it).

In the hobby? hardly.
There is no "normal" in the Hobby
There is no wrong way to play either.
Except if you are not having fun


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Bound to be an inflammatory thread even if you didn't intend it to be because it challenges a deeply embedded belief system that system mastery doesn't come with any associated cost or loss of innocence that effects the experience of gaming.

That's the groupthink here. It runs contrary to my experience but there's no point saying so because these people don't want to hear about it.

Someone will inevitably just cry stormwind and be swept up like Daenarys Targarean by adoring masses crying amen and hallelujah.


Grimmy wrote:

Bound to be an inflammatory thread even if you didn't intend it to be because it challenges a deeply embedded belief system that system mastery doesn't come with any associated cost or loss of innocence that effects the experience of gaming.

That's the groupthink here. It runs contrary to my experience but there's no point saying so because these people don't want to hear about it.

Someone will inevitably just cry stormwind and be swept up like Daenarys Targarean by adoring masses crying amen and hallelujah.

gonna regret asking this...

Stormwind? some kind of board shorthand?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

If so...post in the thread?

What do I mean by Normal?
I mean people who just want to play!

I understand dude, but... despite the hooplah 90% of these weirdos (such at me) just want to play games with fighter and wizards and monsters. Its like arguing cars or politics or sports or beers or pasta or WTF. I could never post once on a message board and still never once be accused of not being a gamer. End of the day we all like RPGS. We just holler different when we aren't actually gaming.


MattR1986 wrote:

That was the short answer. The slightly longer one was "not really".

The answer you appear to be dancing around is actually "not many".

We are here. And we are really a minority.

/notanappealtospecialsnowflakestatus

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Stormwind? some kind of board shorthand?

For your edification.


Damian Magecraft wrote:

gonna regret asking this...

Stormwind? some kind of board shorthand?

The idea that your character can have personality OR be effective, but never both, or that effectiveness detracts from roleplaying, is called the Stormwind Fallacy; it's from an older board.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Stormwind? some kind of board shorthand?
For your edification.

But I don't want to be Ed. :(

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
But I don't want to be Ed. :(

You need some book learnin', son.

We do it by osmosis 'round here.

*hefts the CRB*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

Bound to be an inflammatory thread even if you didn't intend it to be because it challenges a deeply embedded belief system that system mastery doesn't come with any associated cost or loss of innocence that effects the experience of gaming.

That's the groupthink here. It runs contrary to my experience but there's no point saying so because these people don't want to hear about it.

Someone will inevitably just cry stormwind and be swept up like Daenarys Targarean by adoring masses crying amen and hallelujah.

gonna regret asking this...

Stormwind? some kind of board shorthand?

It was the username of a guy on a messageboard who pointed out that role-playing and roll-playing are not mutually exclusive, which is of course true.

A rabid cult has since grown out of this rather obvious teaching.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

My take: some level of optimization is to be expected if that's the character you want to play.

It's for that reason I would never, ever dump Int, and even my martial types will start out with 12 or higher. Why? Because I want to roleplay characters who are tactically smart, who know what they are doing in combat and know how to get the job done! I'm not talking about silly builds, like running around with a shield on both arms. Those I think the GM should rightly step on. But knowing what spell to cast where, knowing basic combat formations, knowing how to buff out a party and lead a coordinated assault, these are the things I think characters should excel at.

Are there adventures who don't take such a thoughtful approach to the matter? Of course there are! Have you ever gone into a dungeon? Those are the skulls you see lying around everywhere.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The character I play is lawful evil. He despises weak characters that can't contribute (like rogues) for pure in-character reasons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think I fall into the category of "normal".
In before "DON'T TOUCH ME, YOU FILTHY CASUAL!"

Funny thing on your point of rogues is that I've started rolling one up, and the reason not to go ninja was because my rogue is not the meditating or sanctioned assassin type, but a simple murderer (yes, neut. evil ofc.)

Here's to hoping I don't get shot down by all the flak.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

As a longtime 2E player, I can say that it took me a long time to wrap my head around the phrase 'everyone optimizes'. It is, however, true. It just doesn't mean exactly what it may look like it means.

But there are a ton of people on the board who build characters first and use the mechanics to make that character playable. The amount of optimization may vary, but that doesn't make the approach any less useful. For instance, while I may use Intensify Spell to boost up the damage of a lower level spell of my Magus (one method of optimizing a magus that is considered 'standard'; I felt so proud when I found it, only to discover it was a common strategy. Le sigh!), I don't use what I consider silliness like using Arcane Mark to eke out an extra attack via Spellstrike. It's a perfectly legal thing to do, but my players and the other GM's all agree that its beyond the intent of the imagined genre ideal (read: its cheesy to us). Different people have fun in different ways, and the amount of optimization is one of those ways. It doesn't make it wrong, and it doesn't make it 'not normal'. Normal is one of those concepts that is supposedly passing away, and while I highly doubt the truth behind that, it is fair to say that people are becoming more aware of how much wiggle room 'normal' actually has.

So yes and no. You'd probably get on fine with my group of old folk, popping health Geritol to simulate in-character healing (hehe!), because like Motley Crue once said, "when I'm enraged, and hittin' a mage, adrenaline rushin' through my veins I'd say we are still kickin' ***"

What do ya mean those aren't the lyrics?! =D


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Stormwind? some kind of board shorthand?
For your edification.
But I don't want to be Ed. :(

Not many would, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Acetabularia wrote:

I think I fall into the category of "normal".

In before "DON'T TOUCH ME, YOU FILTHY CASUAL!"

Funny thing on your point of rogues is that I've started rolling one up, and the reason not to go ninja was because my rogue is not the meditating or sanctioned assassin type, but a simple murderer (yes, neut. evil ofc.)

Here's to hoping I don't get shot down by all the flak.

Nobody's going to have a problem with the fact that you are playing a suboptimal character (I suppose technically there could be a guy who dies a little inside every time somebody does that, but I assure you most optimized players do not feel like that unless your character actually gets them killed xD)

The problem here is that calling yourselves "normal roleplayers" because you play straight up low-complexity/synergy builds is directly implying that having a preference about the mechanical viability (or complete dominance, for certain overachievers) of your character necessarily makes you a special kind of roleplayer (usually interpreted as -worse- kind of roleplayer).

This is exactly why people keep bringing up the StormWind Fallacy. It's an obvious statement, but periodically somebody will make a thread that defies the obvious.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

The funny thing is, if I wanted to roleplay a character in-depth and long-term, I would want to make sure that...

A) They can survive combat.

B) They can make good on their threats against the villains.

If you're going to roleplay as a badass, you need to be able to "walk-the walk" so to speak.

Characters like Mal Reynolds and Tony Stark are loved for their dynamic personalities, colorful dialogue and emotional backstories, but if Mal couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and Tony couldn't wipe out whole armies with his powered armor...well, they wouldn't quite be as impressive as characters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Axial wrote:

The funny thing is, if I wanted to roleplay a character in-depth and long-term, I would want to make sure that...

A) They can survive combat.

B) They can make good on their threats against the villains.

If you're going to roleplay as a badass, you need to be able to "walk-the walk" so to speak.

Characters like Mal Reynolds and Tony Stark are loved for their dynamic personalities, colorful dialogue and emotional backstories, but if Mal couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and Tony couldn't wipe out whole armies with his powered armor...well, they wouldn't quite be as impressive as characters.

True enough... but sometimes its just as fun to RP that "guy whose mouth writes checks his body cannot cash" and has to be bailed out with a little help from his friends.

Actually now that I think on it...
The dullest characters I have ever played are the overly optimized mary sue types. (They required no thought to play... they just automatically succeeded at everything they did).
And the ones I had the most fun with were the ones that had to rely on their wits and hutzpah rather than just bulling their way through.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pupsocket wrote:
Why would someone choose an RPG with thousands of pages of rules and mechanical options, if not to play with that material?

Personally, I do that in order to play the APs (which are good enough that I know I'd enjoy playing them no matter what ruleset came along as baggage), then pair the rulebook down to the 2-3 pages that actually matter ;) I do enjoy having that library of rules there in case I actually want to use them at some point (such as the rules for running kingdoms or mass combat), but in day-to-day play for me it's mostly down to d20 ability/skill checks, rolling to hit/damage, and making saving throws.

I do object to the "normal" tag though. "Normal" for someone in this hobby means to play the way they want to play. As Ashtathlon said earlier, "traditional" might be a better tag, in order to not offend everyone else who plays and is still pretty normal :) Other than the naming of that tag though, my players and I fit the OP's description.

The reason the boards are full of optimization and build threads is because when you do those things discussing them on a forum is pretty much a part of that side of the hobby, in order to get advice and feedback.
If you just "play to play" then there's far less need to discuss things on the internet with people not in your group, so we have far less of a board presence. Most of my players don't post to forums about the game, they simply don't have any need to.


I have a reputation as an unrepentant powergamer in my group, for some reason. Like, whenever I pick something, the GM will examine that something extra carefully to see if there's something he should ban or house-rule in advance, and the other players are always like "oh, if you picked that there must be something we hadn't realized about that." Like I'd play a rogue because I had a fun idea for a Han Solo-type scoundrel, and everyone would be like "uh oh, what is he up to now."

I'm not sure exactly how I got this rep, because... it's not really how I see myself. I pick classes almost entirely based on whether the fluff sounds cool, and then try to build something useful based on whatever the random thing I picked was. Which isn't always possible. I don't think I've ever picked something for being powerful. I've tried, but I just can't make myself do it. :p

(It's particular obvious right now because I'm in the process of making a Dark Heresy character and the GM is watching me like a hawk. I don't know what he expects, but I barely even glance at the advancement table before deciding on a career.)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Guess I'm in this category too, whether you call it 'normal' or 'traditional' or not-overly optimized.

I've never level-dipped in the 15+ years of playing this game. My characters so far have been 100% cleric, 100% fighter, 100% sorcerer, 100% alchemist. I 'optimize' within the bounds of the class, usually only using CRB and part of the APG. (in 3.0 and 3.5 an occasional one-off feat from a splatbook which had to be DM approved)

As a DM, I expect the same from my players.

My play style is to do nifty stuff (but I'm never the DPR/DPS monster, don't overly care for that). My DM style is to continuously adapt to my players' needs. I feel the 'vibe' and I adapt. I can throw a CR 10 or a CR 6 at them in the same encounter, depending on how well they are organized/prepared/optimized. No worries. I wing it, just like that and the maths will be 80-90% correct, but no one will notice.

I have the luck that there are no true rules-lawyers at my table (well, one sometimes tries, but he is very reasonable).

So, +1 to 'normal' roleplaying games with lots of NPCs, lots of interaction, lots of coolness. And -1 to over-optimized stuff, makes for 1 or 2 round combats and I find that anti-climatic...


Damian Magecraft wrote:
Axial wrote:

The funny thing is, if I wanted to roleplay a character in-depth and long-term, I would want to make sure that...

A) They can survive combat.

B) They can make good on their threats against the villains.

If you're going to roleplay as a badass, you need to be able to "walk-the walk" so to speak.

Characters like Mal Reynolds and Tony Stark are loved for their dynamic personalities, colorful dialogue and emotional backstories, but if Mal couldn't hit the broad side of a barn and Tony couldn't wipe out whole armies with his powered armor...well, they wouldn't quite be as impressive as characters.

True enough... but sometimes its just as fun to RP that "guy whose mouth writes checks his body cannot cash" and has to be bailed out with a little help from his friends.

Actually now that I think on it...
The dullest characters I have ever played are the overly optimized mary sue types. (They required no thought to play... they just automatically succeeded at everything they did).
And the ones I had the most fun with were the ones that had to rely on their wits and hutzpah rather than just bulling their way through.

The problem with relying on 'wits and hutzpah' on their own is that inevitably the dice will betray you sooner or later. In a well-managed adventure, there should be vast opportunities for wits and hutzpah regardless how optimized a character may or may not be, he'll just embarrass himself (or fail a critical save) less often.

I'm not saying such characters can't be fun, nor that the GM can't potentially adjust how he runs things (DC's and such) to accommodate for it, only that I'm rather averse to having a bad day because I rolled under an 14 on a d20.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grimmy wrote:
Damian Magecraft wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

Bound to be an inflammatory thread even if you didn't intend it to be because it challenges a deeply embedded belief system that system mastery doesn't come with any associated cost or loss of innocence that effects the experience of gaming.

That's the groupthink here. It runs contrary to my experience but there's no point saying so because these people don't want to hear about it.

Someone will inevitably just cry stormwind and be swept up like Daenarys Targarean by adoring masses crying amen and hallelujah.

gonna regret asking this...

Stormwind? some kind of board shorthand?

It was the username of a guy on a messageboard who pointed out that role-playing and roll-playing are not mutually exclusive, which is of course true.

A rabid cult has since grown out of this rather obvious teaching.

The Stormwind Fallacy is itself a Fallacy. Because there is a difference between optimising to enhance your roleplay, and creating roleplay constructs to dress up your munchkin crunching.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
The Stormwind Fallacy is itself a Fallacy. Because there is a difference between optimising to enhance your roleplay, and creating roleplay constructs to dress up your munchkin crunching.

Why you play a certain character is far less important than how you play him.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:

If so...post in the thread?

What do I mean by Normal?

I mean people who just want to play!

I come to these boards and I see optimization, munchkin, powergaming, discussions of what tier is what class, that rogues are useless...etc...etc...etc.

When we play, we could care less about that stuff. There may be some ensuring that your character is the best it could be...but we don't try to game the system to the point of being some sort of super powered engine that has every little thing planned from the get go.

We play to have fun. Not fun that means we are tweaking the character by the numbers, but fun in that we roleplay the character that we want. [...]

Well the problem is, playing the character you want will always require some basic optimisation.

Example: You want to be some dextrous highly skilled Fighter with a louse mouth, who uses his Rapier to disarm his enemies.
You need to learn Combat Expertise and Improved Disarm, unless you want your character to open himself, whenever he tries to disarm an enemy. You also need Agile Maneuvers or your high Dex, not so high Str Swashbuckling dude will fail at disarming his adversaries all the time.
To simulate your brash mouth, you need to boost your Charisma and max Intimidate.
If you want to deal any damage at all and not being useless against enemies without weapons, you also need Weapon Finesse and the Agile weapon enchantment.

You class could be a Fighter or if you got acess to the ACG Playtest, a swashbuckler. Maybe you could take the Duellist Prestige class.

Now Rapier wielding Dex Fighter is not an optimized Fighter, but the character would be optimized for your concept. If the group includes a Barbarian with Power Attack and a Greatsword, that guy will still 0be much stronger than our Fencer.
However to work at all as intended the Charaacter needs some optimisation. Otherwise he won't seem like a skilled Rapier user, but totally useless.

Sczarni

GreyWolfLord wrote:

If so...post in the thread?

What do I mean by Normal?

I mean people who just want to play!

I come to these boards and I see optimization, munchkin, powergaming, discussions of what tier is what class, that rogues are useless...etc...etc...etc.

When we play, we could care less about that stuff. There may be some ensuring that your character is the best it could be...but we don't try to game the system to the point of being some sort of super powered engine that has every little thing planned from the get go.

We play to have fun. Not fun that means we are tweaking the character by the numbers, but fun in that we roleplay the character that we want.

We don't have a problem with the Rogue, normally they are going to be the ones that are able to disable traps and such (yes, I know some say let the spellcaster do it...but we have the Rogue do it). They want to play a Rogue...they want to have that type of character. They don't want to play a Ninja...they want to play a Rogue. So they choose a Rogue.

We don't have problems with Monks...they want to play a Monk. That's what they want to do. No, dip in to this, than that...for no reason other than optimization...no...if there is any changes in class it's due to a Roleplaying reason...not a numbers reason.

We play to have fun. We play to roleplay. We don't sweep through encounters like water...but we have fun. We don't play to have a numbers game, we play to have fun together.

Is there anyone else who plays like this...perhaps we are abnormal these days, but it used to be that playing an RPG was more like what was described above.

If you play simply for the fun of it, without overly worrying about these tier things, or whether your rogue fits into the group, or if your monk is strong enough...post here and how you play!

I'm a Normal player. I just love Monks. Monks kind of NEED optimization and system mastery to make useful. There isn't really much choice with them.(their MAD issues are driving me nuts lately too, even for a Dex/Wis based) I don't see a need with other classes aside from Rogue and maybe Ninja. With other classes, I don't go for optimization, but I go for specialization. It helps for RP purposes :)

Damage is boring. Yes, it gets the job done; but it's incredibly boring no matter how high the numbers go. Some people just need to satisfy that ego of theirs.

It's all about the skills. Skills that pay the bills :D! That makes this game interesting and incredibly fun. I will admit though, it's always good to have that one powerhouse guy in your group that does all the pewpew. I think it's important not to sweep through encounters, as it brings more value to the encounter itself and in dire needs, people's resourcefulness REALLY come out. We do some weird stuff to survive...

I feel ya man. I feel you. Do not harbor dislike for those not of your path though, everyone has their purpose and place :)


I think that some optimization isn't terrible. Though I wouldn't necessarily go whole hog on it. Just because a character is good at what they do doesn't mean they can't have interesting stories or personalities.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is silly. RP and Optimize are not different. There is no normal. I am a person as a player who wants to RP a lot at the table; it doesn't mean I haven't jacked up my shield-wielding PFS ranger and my gestalt Halfling ranger/cavalier for a home game. I even came to these boards to do it.

That doesn't make me normal OR abnormal; it makes me a gamer.

We're all weird. We're math nerds who like to play pretend, or wargamers with intimacy issues, or IT professionals who miss human contact once in a while, or a million other permutations. But we're all striving toward the same goal - fun at a game.

Stormwind, a thousand times Stormwind. Lets put this to bed once and for all. @Greylord Wolfenstein: roleplaying is fun and worthwhile, leading to many real-world social skills. Just as valuable are the skills practiced in optimizing.

For my PFS ranger, I am playing him cocky yet naïve. He's an urban ranger who's never been out of the city of Absalom but he's got knowledges and diplomacy cranked high enough that he feels like he KNOWS the rest of the world well enough to walk around with a chip on his shoulder. Yet, whenever he gets somewhere his obvious alien status gets the better of him. Essentially, he's a modern teenager.

This hasn't precluded him from unleashing a torrent of pain in the form of charging spiked shield bashes and sword-and-board attacks while simultaneously defending his fellow Pathfinders from harm.

I do the same as a GM too. I have some LE kobolds dug into a couple sections of a megadungeon. They've been there a while, so heck yeah they've optimized. A direct assault, even by 5th level characters would be very foolish (one fatality in the game so far after only 4 sessions). And yet they've done a lot of talking, even going so far as monologuing and helping the heroes win. Heck, I even set up a kobold brothel where LN "courtesans" take in adventurers and let them "rest" for a fee!

When I tried to be all storyteller the games weren't fun for me unless I was playing White Wolf games. When I tried to be a hardcore min/maxer I got so obsessed with the numbers that the games became stale simulations. But when I put that chocolate and peanut butter together? Magic...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like to kix sum arsh but dumping stats to start with a 20 seems filthy as are many gimmicks i see in some "optimzed x guides". The decline of rp saddens me and i begin to feel like a grumpy old man reading all the munchkin, power squeezing every last drop out of a class,race ,trait,feat,spell,item-combo.

1 to 50 of 98 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Any "Normal" Roleplayers here? All Messageboards