Can't contact moderator over hostility towards playstyle?


Website Feedback

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I started a thread.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qsx8&page=2?Any-Normal-Roleplayers-here

It was genuine wonderment because of a great deal of hostility on these boards towards certain types of roleplaying.

When reading certain forums, I read that the way I played and others was wrong, bad, stupid, and a whole lot of other items.

I did not insult anyone, but instead was wondering if there were people that played like we did at home, at the game stores, and other places.

I was unaware Paizo fostered hostility towards gamers who did not play a certain way...

However, when asking about it, despite NUMEROUS THREADS

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qslj?Do-Rogues-just-flat-out-suck

and of course a resultant question on it which is a LOT like my thread, but more focused...

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qsyn?So-the-rogue-is-not-a-combat-class

With FAR more worse remarks on these things...

Makes me wonder about this.

I WAS trying to send the mod who closed it a PM for clarification...but there is no way to send them a PM or discuss it privately or anything like that!???

I'm trying to figure out the hostility towards me on this?

Is there a set style of play on these boards enforced and all others told to go away?

I would hazard that isn't so, as the above two threads indicate that some go on, even while allowing people to criticize anyone who plays a rogue or enjoys a certain style of play (not to mention other things).

It appeared that I was seeing some that actually DO play as I would...but then the mod locked the thread and called me insultive?

I am very confused and would love to discuss it in PM with the mod to understand the hostility, but cannot seem to do so.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Grey the "hostility" you're seeing all comes from the players on the boards who in general are predominantly number crunching min-maxers whose evaulation comes more from spreadsheet calculations than from actual play. It's no different than from any other d20 gaming board. The game itself since 3rd edition encourages this sort of mindset.

Paizo isn't "fostering hostility", but there isn't any good grounds for them to tell the munchkins to shut up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't confuse PAIZO or even the greater pathfinder community with the attitudes on the boards. I think it is fairly widely known that the boards represent only a certain element of the gaming community. Yes they are passionate but by no means do they represent the only way to play.

Webstore Gninja Minion

7 people marked this as a favorite.

Questions about our moderation can always be directed to webmaster@paizo.com. We do not enforce any particular play style, but we will enforce being civil towards other posters.


11 people marked this as a favorite.

The thread title could be considered insulting.

"Any "Normal" Roleplayers here?"

Translation = if you do not play like me you are abnormal.

Chris even said

Quote:
"We welcome all kinds of gamers on paizo.com. Discussions starting out by isolating and disparaging one type of gamer often end up causing unnecessary tension, and don't foster the friendly and inviting place we'd like the messageboards to be."

I think what Chris said is very clear and I am confused as to why you are confused.

-MD

Silver Crusade

There's always the hide function on threads and/or forums


Muad'Dib wrote:

The thread title could be considered insulting.

"Any "Normal" Roleplayers here?"

Translation = if you do not play like me you are abnormal.

Chris even said

Quote:
"We welcome all kinds of gamers on paizo.com. Discussions starting out by isolating and disparaging one type of gamer often end up causing unnecessary tension, and don't foster the friendly and inviting place we'd like the messageboards to be."

I think what Chris said is very clear and I am confused as to why you are confused.

-MD

I didn't understand the "terminology" that is used here (not everyone is as deepset into this particular playstyle as some here). I found out in that thread that what everyone plays in my area is considered "Traditional" rather than Normal. I would have put Traditional down in it if I had know that people considered it that way here.

However, as EVERYONE I know with a few exceptions play that way...and this is really an odd type of playstyle that I'm seeing here, with a very hostile pattern towards traditional play from some, I started to wonder if this was a particular culture I had walked into.

It is very disconcerting to be reading the forums and see that there is a culture that seems to despise what people are calling "traditional" play when the traditional playstyle seems to be the only thing I've experienced outside the forums.

However, there were comments that followed the hostility towards traditional play into that thread, but I don't mind as I also saw those who seem to also play in that "traditional" manner. The hostility also isn't just found in that thread, it's found throughout the forums. I find it odd that they'd lock the thread in regards to that as it was no worse than other comments towards traditional play in multiple other threads.

I was not trying to be offensive, just find if others played like I did, rather then the prevalent culture on these boards.

Which is why I want to talk to the moderator who closed it in regards to the specifics.

It seems odd that PAIZO would ostracize what seems to be a large group of players who play in a "traditional" manner by specifically closing down a thread trying to find support from others who play likewise, or considering traditional play or anyone asking about it as being "hostile" in regards to "specific playstyles."

Which is one are which I want clarification on. In no way was I trying to be rude or anything, simply trying to find if anyone out there played like everyone I play the game with do. I was not expecting to find that we are actually playing PF wrong. I suppose that's the biggest surprise of the thread...if that's what the moderator was implying.

The implication is that the "traditional" or what I called normal (and at the time, since EVERYONE for the most part with a few exceptions play that way that I've met) is playing wrong and bad.

That by far is the WORST comment/validation in the entire thread to tell the truth, and actually pretty much shocked me to see that...which is why I'd like clarification from the person who closed it.

Unless they really do think anyone who plays in the "traditional" way is offensive?

PS: Look at it from the perspective of new players, playing in the way that the PF BB lays out and how people in the stores lay out. How in the world are we supposed to know terms like "traditional" etc. All we know is what we've seen in the products and the other players. I called it normal, because that's what it seemed to look like and I had no other term or way of putting it. What I see on the boards do not reflect what I've seen presented at games in stores, at home, or anywhere else as the norm...but perhaps PF has a wrong way to play it and we've been doing it "wrong" all along?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:


I was not trying to be offensive, just find if others played like I did, rather then the prevalent culture on these boards.

Which is why I want to talk to the moderator who closed it in regards to the specifics.

As Liz has said, email webmaster@paizo.com to discuss specifics, as they can't talk about it in public on here.

However, my guess would be the thread was closed because of the actual friction it was causing due to the unfortunate phrasing, and not because of your initial intentions. If you started a new thread with different wording, I think it would likely be okay. (Don't quote me on that, though! That's something you should ask in the email ;) )

The unfortunate reality is that almost any attempt to label anyone's playstyle will upset someone, somewhere. Pretty much every style (and there's more than I can count) is represented somewhere on the boards, avoiding any kind of label at all tends to be a good way to start (which doesn't help any, I know!)

Project Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
It seems odd that PAIZO would ostracize what seems to be a large group of players who play in a "traditional" manner by specifically closing down a thread trying to find support from others who play likewise, or considering traditional play or anyone asking about it as being "hostile" in regards to "specific playstyles."

Again, it wasn't about any poster in particular being hostile to particular playstyles. It was that threads which divide up gamers into different groups and set those groups against one another almost inevitably turn into flamewars, and thus it's better not to let the flames get started.

Silver Crusade

10 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dear OP,

You walked into a forum populated by vocal minorities of all sorts and you started a thread which was pretty much the equivalent of asking if there's anybody in here that actually considers right to bear arms/homosexuality/religion/white people/Muslims/Nazis "normal".

You might be new to the Internet, but let me tell you that implying in the thread title that any item X is "normal" (and by so inferring that items Y, Z, X-1 or whatever are not "normal") is pretty much throwing a live grenade into a gas tank.

What Paizo did was not ostracize your views, but prevent a major flamefest which would end up in several tempbans, grar and precious time lost on moderation instead of making awesome stuff.


Gorbacz wrote:

Dear OP,

You walked into a forum populated by vocal minorities of all sorts and you started a thread which was pretty much the equivalent of asking if there's anybody in here that actually considers right to bear arms/homosexuality/religion/white people/Muslims/Nazis "normal".

You might be new to the Internet, but let me tell you that implying in the thread title that any item X is "normal" (and by so inferring that items Y, Z, X-1 or whatever are not "normal") is pretty much throwing a live grenade into a gas tank.

What Paizo did was not ostracize your views, but prevent a major flamefest which would end up in several tempbans, grar and precious time lost on moderation instead of making awesome stuff.

Thank you for your comments.

My post was not meant to start flamewars. There is sooooo much hostility towards the playstyle presented by PF gaming groups, and backed up in some ways with the BB and the rulebooks, that I really started to wonder if anyone here actually played in that style, or if everyone I know played the way it was portrayed, but that was an illusion and PF was officially sanctioned to be a non-group/non-team game (the way some go on, you think they want to dominate the table, and the way they put down others who are not min/max and the insults you see on these boards towards those sometimes do feel over the top).

I wanted to see if there were others who played as I've seen it played IRL (in real life) rather than how these boards portray it.

Paizo does have threads devoted to homosexuality actually, and many comments hostile towards the "traditional" way of playing along with actual threads that have many derogatory (much more blatant than anything I actually saw in the thread even) things towards "traditional" playing that have not been locked, closed, or otherwise.

I wasn't trying to divide, I was trying to find if there were others who played like me actually on these boards, or if all the people that play the way I play are not welcome here, have stopped coming here (as I said, aforementioned hostility, which is ironic on my thread's reasoning for being closed), or if they even come here at all.

After a little while on these boards, while I found the AP and module threads interesting, I constantly found myself ostracized in the rules and other forum areas...and I wasn't even the one writing or saying anything in those threads...I was just browsing and reading!!!

It was enough to make me flail up my arms and ask...is there ANYONE like me and those I game with here?

Which the thread started to show that there may be...and offer some information on why such disparity showed...when it was locked.


As an aside, I might suggest an edit to the text below where you type in your comments to add "Questions about our moderation can always be directed to webmaster@paizo.com."

That way you don't have to keep repeating it and it is always there for newer (and perhaps older) people who wonder how to do it. Might cut a few threads and the peanut galleries that they draw.

Jessica Price wrote:
Again, it wasn't about any poster in particular being hostile to particular playstyles. It was that threads which divide up gamers into different groups and set those groups against one another almost inevitably turn into flamewars, and thus it's better not to let the flames get started.

This is pretty much the whole of it. They've seen this sort of thing happen numerous times in the past and sometimes it is better to just put out the little sparks before it is one thousand posts of back and forth hostility.

Silver Crusade

And just to confirm: No one is being quieted so much as they're putting out the fires next to the gas tanks. There ARE people that play like you here, but it can get lost easily when people start shouting past each other and perceiving what's being said a hundred different ways, which is what happens when tribalistic divisions of folks is invoked, intentionally or not.


also many of those same people are sick of participating in Stormwind Fallacy thread #484839457843

Digital Products Assistant

2 people marked this as a favorite.

GreyWolfLord, I apologize if this was interpreted as personally hostile. The reason the thread was locked is because a discussion where we partition off different gamers into types (in this case "normal"), or apply derogatory labels (like "munchkin" or similar) goes against the idea of providing a fun, friendly and inviting environment for gamers of all types (whether they are into maxing their character, extensive roleplaying, Pathfinder, 4th Edition, Card Games, Video games, et cetera). There is no set agenda or preference to one kind of gamer over another.

If you're finding that there are posts that you see that are troublesome and break the messageboard rules, please let us know. You can utilize the flagging system, this forum, or webmaster@paizo.com. Please note that staff members, just like other messageboard posters, have the option to disable private messaging. If you find this is the case with someone you are specifically trying to contact, it is best to email us.


Thank you for the response.

I've noticed that you've changed threads and titles before. It should be apparent my intent was NOT to start or partition off gamers...but to find those who shared the playstyle.

If any of my posts or topics ever seem divisive, feel free to tweak them or change them (I know how to do it with posts, not exactly topics though) to reflect what my actual intent was.

I'll try even harder to try to stay in the confines of these terms and options, but if I do make a mistake, feel free to tweak or change as you need if it saves the thread from being closed instead, for anything I write.

In this the title was because I did not understand the terminology utilized towards the playstyle. I don't normally go out of my way to pick someone out, but it can be discouraging.

Thank you for the clarification.

Perhaps, in that light, a new forum that is like the rules forum, but more towards traditional play in PF? Not certain that would have any popularity or not though as far as forums go.

Once again, thank you for the clarification and response.


GreyWolfLord wrote:

Thank you for the response.

I've noticed that you've changed threads and titles before. It should be apparent my intent was NOT to start or partition off gamers...but to find those who shared the playstyle.

If any of my posts or topics ever seem divisive, feel free to tweak them or change them (I know how to do it with posts, not exactly topics though) to reflect what my actual intent was.

I'll try even harder to try to stay in the confines of these terms and options, but if I do make a mistake, feel free to tweak or change as you need if it saves the thread from being closed instead, for anything I write.

Note that a big problem here is that if the squabbling has already begun between other posters, it's too late to fix with an edit, and locking tends to be the only way to prevent it turning into a battlefield :( Sometimes a thread needs to be locked just because things have already gotten (or are clearly going to get) out of hand. The thing is not to take it personally, and just move on :)


Gray, might I humbly suggest that perhaps you might try PM'ing individual players who responded in your thread and striking up a conversation with some of them if you feel that your style isn't adequately represented and/or you don't understand why hostility is being presented? I'm sure several of us would be more than happy to help you navigate through dealing with other playstyles, their goals and intentions, and so on without the blanket negative terminology attached to 'normal' (and, in some smaller ways, 'traditional'). It's not real hard to learn, but it does sort-of require making the mistake first (and dealing with the fallout) if you don't have someone you can simply ask for guidance/input/thought/etc.

Just an idea that occurred to me (and one that, once upon a time, I wish I had taken more advantage of -- would have saved me a lot of headaches).

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

6 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Perhaps, in that light, a new forum that is like the rules forum, but more towards traditional play in PF? Not certain that would have any popularity or not though as far as forums go.

Asking people to label themselves into specific categories is part of the *problem* here, not part of the solution.

Digital Products Assistant

Removed a post. This thread is not for debating the original topic.


Vic Wertz wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Perhaps, in that light, a new forum that is like the rules forum, but more towards traditional play in PF? Not certain that would have any popularity or not though as far as forums go.
Asking people to label themselves into specific categories is part of the *problem* here, not part of the solution.

Sorry, didn't want to contribute to a problem. Just thinking about ways to have a place where a more general way of discussions about how to make a character or create a character (for example, though the class is not not in PF, for the next adventure we run, one of the players would like to run a Warlock for the next PF adventure) without the optimization and other things being the central focus, and more on ways to implement and have fun with the characterizations and such.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure you mean well, but I still think you're coming across as "optimization = bad roleplaying".

I know I personally hear "I'm a roleplayer, not a roll-player" one more time, and I'll probably throw the person through a window. :)

I'll use myself as an example of what some of the "optimizers" might be thinking:

I was recently working on a Sohei (Monk archetype) build. I am an engineer by trade, and I like crunching the numbers to make a powerful character. I wanted to use a Sohei because it seems like an excellent "barbarian rider" type character, and I had decided I wanted to be a Shoanti. The concept calls for him to be a powerful warrior, so to ensure I didn't feel weak in a reasonably optimized group, I was looking for tricks. I found the Eldritch Heritage: Orc Bloodline, and realized it would be perfect for giving him a big bonus to attack and damage, something monks traditionally need. Part of the backstory I had in mind called for him to be a wanderer because his love had rejected him to marry another. Orc bloodline gives me a perfect hook for that, because the Shoanti generally hate orcs. So, some would say I was "powergaming" by taking an ability that (along with other tricks) will eventually let my character one-shot Balors and such. I disagree.

Another example: I found an interesting trick with an Abyssal bloodline sorcerer to summon in 3 powerful monsters at once. Comes online at about 11th level. I decided I'd like to combo that with Sylvan bloodline to get an animal companion, partially to help me out at low levels before a lot of my casting power comes online. I also wanted to go human so I could get the favored class spell option, and make up for the lost spells due to crossblooded. Also planning to take things like Dazing spell and Spell Perfection (ball lighting or chain lightning) eventually. After looking at that build, I decided the character will be the great grandson of a nymph that had a fling with an incubus, and has been watching her bloodline to help nurture/temper any abyssal progeny. So, he was raised by great grandma (though he didn't know it), and he has an animal companion because he was raised in the wilds. Does the fact I build him for abilities and then added backstory make him a worse character? I don't think it does.

tl:dr version - some of us will look at cool character builds, and then build a story for that character that makes sense for him.

Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Perhaps, in that light, a new forum that is like the rules forum, but more towards traditional play in PF? Not certain that would have any popularity or not though as far as forums go.
Asking people to label themselves into specific categories is part of the *problem* here, not part of the solution.
Sorry, didn't want to contribute to a problem. Just thinking about ways to have a place where a more general way of discussions about how to make a character or create a character (for example, though the class is not not in PF, for the next adventure we run, one of the players would like to run a Warlock for the next PF adventure) without the optimization and other things being the central focus, and more on ways to implement and have fun with the characterizations and such.

My advice would be to start a thread in the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew forum, and in the opening post, explain that you want suggestions "without the optimization and other things being the central focus, and more on ways to implement and have fun with the characterizations and such."

Lantern Lodge

Gauthok wrote:

I'm sure you mean well, but I still think you're coming across as "optimization = bad roleplaying".

tl:dr version - some of us will look at cool character builds, and then build a story for that character that makes sense for him.

That's how I do most of my character development. One example is that I have a halfling Oath of Charity/Hospitalier paladin of Sarenrae with Fate's Favored and the Adaptable Luck Trait (and plan on going with all of the other good luck bonuses). With this, he has a very happy-go-lucky attitude, but sees the luck as blessings from Sarenrae. Thus, because he is already so blessed with good luck, he looks to aid others by curing their ailments and donating as much time and energy possible to help.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

It shouldn't matter how any group plays as long as everybody at the table is having fun, because that's how you win the game.

The benefit of having a diversity of players and DM on the boards is the sharing of knowledge and ideas. More knowledge leads to an improvement in play and growth as a player or DM.

You don't have to agree with people, just be respectful when you do. I have had one or two disagreements with several of the people above, I always try and approach the disagreement with the attitude that neither the person I am disagreeing with or their idea is stupid or abnormal - it's just not to my taste.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Sorry, didn't want to contribute to a problem. Just thinking about ways to have a place where a more general way of discussions about how to make a character or create a character (for example, though the class is not not in PF, for the next adventure we run, one of the players would like to run a Warlock for the next PF adventure) without the optimization and other things being the central focus, and more on ways to implement and have fun with the characterizations and such.

I think you can get advice of the kind you're looking for by spelling out what you want (without using terms like normal, traditional, usual, majority, etcetera). My advice would be to be descriptive and explicit: quirky characterisation, conflicting motivations, interesting weaknesses or whatever it is you're looking for advice on. In doing so, you're probably also going to get advice along the lines of character builds, synergies and effectiveness but that's just extra information or a different perspective you can ignore.

Whilst I suspect I am of a similar mindset to you when it comes to creating characters, it doesnt bother me if someone suggests my dagger wielding fighter is a poor choice because of <very good optimisation argument>. I'd encourage you to think of that sort of comment as just free advice you dont have to pay any attention to rather than them declaring you're doing it "wrong".

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

GreyWolfLord, I think another thing to keep in mind that the folks offering the optimization advice generally believe they are being helpful. I honestly don't believe people are going out of their way just to be mean - they are answering what they see as your "deeper problem."

Letting you know "rogues suck" may be an inelegant way of putting it -and I would argue that such phrasing borders on "being a jerk"- but it is a way of trying to get across that rogues aren't as fun, if you care about raw numbers, as one might hope they could be. You could be a newcomer to the game and not know basic points like the fact that the game tends to reward specialization. If you don't care about raw numbers, then their advice probably won't matter, but at that point, Vic's advice becomes the best you could hope for.

Anyhow - my point is just that it helps if you try to see the "good" in what people are saying, even if they are saying things in boorish ways. If I had a dollar for every boorish role-player I've met over the years…Well, I wouldn't be wealthy, but I would have a good chunk of change.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the OP was poorly worded, but I too was a little surprised at how fast it was locked. I've seen threads go far beyond where this one did; honestly the poster has a point in that there are several threads that tout the benefits of optimization and numbers focused character creation over what he's calling "normal" role playing. The whole Stormwind comment, which originally intended as a defense that a numerically strong character could also be an excellent role playing opportunity, has become quite an offensive weapon used to cut off anyone who wants to discuss a less numbers intensive playstyle.

There are dozens of threads that start off with the word "optimization" in the title. How does one start a friendly conversation from the perspective that they're not interested in optimization, as such? Because any post titled "role play" is going to get the optimization folks insisting that they're just as good at RP (which may be true in any given situation), and you're BAD for not wanting to optimize (which is not true, IMO).


Looking at your original thread, I would call the type of role play you described "heavy" role play (I take my terminology from MMOs I play)... and, as Gauthok showed in his post, heavy role play does not preclude optimization.

I have to admit, that I would also be turned off by this type of role play being called either "normal" or "traditional" (and I am very much into heavy role play). Most games I have been in, we either did heavy or light role play... the most important thing is that we all have fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would say I have found that anytime you refer to your style of doing something in a positive light and another's style in a negative light you would be best served to go back and read your post before hitting send. Take a quick review of your tone, your verbiage such and make sure you are saying what you really mean. When you call your way normal or traditional you are assuming that you are the standard by which others are judged and therefore implying others are "doing it wrong". The I am normal menatality may seem harmless but it is unfair to others, and intentionally or not can make you seem like your are picking a fight. If the thread you made enflamed peoples feeling sometimes it is going to get shutdown..even if you didnt mean to do so.

There are hordes of people here who approach the game from a very strong RP perspective, It is great if you want to make threads that engage those people in thought provoking discussion...heck I look forward to contributing, but it quickly comes of as condescending and exlusionary to tell folk they are not doing it the way it was intended to be done just because they like to make strong characters or enjoy engaging in the theory crafting that comes with a rules set as elaborate as many generations of folk from TSR through to Paizo have been kind enough to provide us.

Food for thought brother...we are all gamers here, sometimes it isnt what you said, but how you said it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GreyWolfLord wrote:
It is very disconcerting to be reading the forums and see that there is a culture that seems to despise what people are calling "traditional" play when the traditional playstyle seems to be the only thing I've experienced outside the forums.

You misunderstood like everything. People do not react to your playstyle, people react to your high horse of cailling it the "normal" and good style while the others are the powergamesn number crunching bad roleplayers.


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
You misunderstood like everything. People do not react to your playstyle, people react to your high horse of cailling it the "normal" and good style while the others are the powergamesn number crunching bad roleplayers.

Alexandros, I'm going to guess that English isn't your first language. If I'm mistaken about that, I apologize.

Assuming that is correct, perhaps you don't realize that your statement comes across as somewhat insulting to a native English speaker.

"You misunderstood like everything" is basically telling him that he's ignorant and doesn't know anything. Regardless of whether or not you believe that to be true, it's not a productive way to start a discussion.


Gauthok wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
You misunderstood like everything. People do not react to your playstyle, people react to your high horse of cailling it the "normal" and good style while the others are the powergamesn number crunching bad roleplayers.

Alexandros, I'm going to guess that English isn't your first language. If I'm mistaken about that, I apologize.

Assuming that is correct, perhaps you don't realize that your statement comes across as somewhat insulting to a native English speaker.

"You misunderstood like everything" is basically telling him that he's ignorant and doesn't know anything. Regardless of whether or not you believe that to be true, it's not a productive way to start a discussion.

You are correct that english is not my first language. When I said "You misunderstood like everything" I was trying to say "You misundestood everything that happend in that thread".


@GreyWolfLord - there are two main problems in your threads.

1. Your assumption that most players in your area play a certain style that may not be shared by everyone, but by anecdotal evidence only that your particular play style is in fact normal or traditional. It could very well be that the 100 or so players you know might be the only players in the entire world that plays that particular style.

The truth is, there has been no worldwide study to know if any style is predominant, normal or traditional. You cannot say any one style is traditional - you just don't know. You cannot assume any one style of play is normal, and saying so will definitely start a fight. Its only natural.

It would be better to identify yourself with a particular style of play, and ask your question targetting those who share your style of play, and how best to answer your question.

2. Every single week, another "rogue sucks" thread starts on this and every other RPG forum in existence. To regular members of these communities, most of such threads are started by 'trolls' looking to cause a fight, because they know certain issues (like rogue weaknesses) push buttons and start flame-wars.

You'd be better off, doing a search (in the forum search tool at the top of the page) and look for 'rogue sucks' threads, find them, read them, and see if you're question has already been answered. Or witness the kind of vitriol that exist on similar rogue threads, and not start another one... especially ones that start off comparing your normal style to everyone elses. Doing so is only asking for a fight.


@ GreyWolfLord: Here are some of my thoughts as to why there might seem to be an emphasis on character mechanics on these boards.
First of all when you mention “more on ways to implement and have fun with the characterizations and such.” It is very subjective, what I may see as a great way to achieve this goal may be very different from your own. This means advice about this is very hit or miss.

As an example let’s say that a poster asks for a way to bring an archery based defender of their people to life. Generally when I go about this type of thing I look to existing characters from other media to use as inspiration, in this case I would use Kikyo (from the anime Inuyasha). I would note several key characteristics, provide a link to a wiki page going into great detail about the character and then maybe giving a notable quote “I must show my weaknesses to no one. I must never have doubts or demons would overtake me. I am human yet I cannot be human.” Kikyo (cries for Kikyo T.T)

The Original Poster may find this to be helpful, but just as likely they might find it to be of no use at all. Perhaps they would even hate the character. If this character concept is not to their liking they may simply ignore the advice, they might actually say how stupid they think it is, or they may thank me for my time but explain that it was not the character type they had hoped for and give “X, Y Z “ reasons to help me be more helpful in later comments.

As a note the “conversions” area is a good place to seek help if you go about role playing characters in a way that I do.

In “optimization” threads generally it comes down to things that are objective or provable.

For example the original poster (OP) asks for advice increasing his archers damage per round (DPR) output. They then supply their character’s build. I may review this build and suggest “ABC” changes that increase the OP DPR by +1, I know as a fact that I have contributed to the thread in a positive way. Even if another more knowledgeable poster suggests changes “XYZ” that increases OP DPR by OVER 9000!!!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
rando1000 wrote:

I think the OP was poorly worded, but I too was a little surprised at how fast it was locked. I've seen threads go far beyond where this one did; honestly the poster has a point in that there are several threads that tout the benefits of optimization and numbers focused character creation over what he's calling "normal" role playing. The whole Stormwind comment, which originally intended as a defense that a numerically strong character could also be an excellent role playing opportunity, has become quite an offensive weapon used to cut off anyone who wants to discuss a less numbers intensive playstyle.

There are dozens of threads that start off with the word "optimization" in the title. How does one start a friendly conversation from the perspective that they're not interested in optimization, as such? Because any post titled "role play" is going to get the optimization folks insisting that they're just as good at RP (which may be true in any given situation), and you're BAD for not wanting to optimize (which is not true, IMO).

I think part of what is being ignored is that everyone optimizes to a certain extent. When you build a wizard you make INT an important attribute. You never make a wizard with a 9 INT because "it fits the character." So don't be so bothered by the idea of optimization.

That said, you may have a low priority for optimization in your play style. So, if you are starting a thread looking for advice then "looking for ideas for an xxx concept, group optimization level is low," would be a good way to do it.

This lets others know that you want to remain in the relative power level of your group, but doesn't convey any sense of judgement about that level, AND will get you the type of advice you are looking for.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gauthok wrote:

I'm sure you mean well, but I still think you're coming across as "optimization = bad roleplaying".

I know I personally hear "I'm a roleplayer, not a roll-player" one more time, and I'll probably throw the person through a window. :)

I'll use myself as an example of what some of the "optimizers" might be thinking:

I was recently working on a Sohei (Monk archetype) build. I am an engineer by trade, and I like crunching the numbers to make a powerful character. I wanted to use a Sohei because it seems like an excellent "barbarian rider" type character, and I had decided I wanted to be a Shoanti. The concept calls for him to be a powerful warrior, so to ensure I didn't feel weak in a reasonably optimized group, I was looking for tricks. I found the Eldritch Heritage: Orc Bloodline, and realized it would be perfect for giving him a big bonus to attack and damage, something monks traditionally need. Part of the backstory I had in mind called for him to be a wanderer because his love had rejected him to marry another. Orc bloodline gives me a perfect hook for that, because the Shoanti generally hate orcs. So, some would say I was "powergaming" by taking an ability that (along with other tricks) will eventually let my character one-shot Balors and such. I disagree.

Another example: I found an interesting trick with an Abyssal bloodline sorcerer to summon in 3 powerful monsters at once. Comes online at about 11th level. I decided I'd like to combo that with Sylvan bloodline to get an animal companion, partially to help me out at low levels before a lot of my casting power comes online. I also wanted to go human so I could get the favored class spell option, and make up for the lost spells due to crossblooded. Also planning to take things like Dazing spell and Spell Perfection (ball lighting or chain lightning) eventually. After looking at that build, I decided the character will be the great grandson of a nymph that had a fling with an incubus, and has been watching her bloodline to help...

Here's the question then, have you worked on character concepts that did not involve picking up powerful combo builds along the way? If the answer is no, it's time to stop denying your inner munchkin. :)


Alexandros Satorum wrote:
You are correct that english is not my first language. When I said "You misunderstood like everything" I was trying to say "You misundestood everything that happend in that thread".

Sure, I figured it was something like that.

A native English speaker would write "You misunderstood, like, everything" if using the same wording. The commas give it the pause you need to get the correct inflection across. Just fyi.


Gauthok wrote:
Alexandros Satorum wrote:
You are correct that english is not my first language. When I said "You misunderstood like everything" I was trying to say "You misundestood everything that happend in that thread".

Sure, I figured it was something like that.

A native English speaker would write "You misunderstood, like, everything" if using the same wording. The commas give it the pause you need to get the correct inflection across. Just fyi.

Good to know.


LazarX wrote:
Here's the question then, have you worked on character concepts that did not involve picking up powerful combo builds along the way? If the answer is no, it's time to stop denying your inner munchkin. :)

I don't think I ever said I wasn't a munchkin. I just said it was possible to approach the game differently than the "organic character that grows as I level, taking whatever suits me" approach, and still be a good roleplayer.

Sometimes I start with a concept and work out a build, other times I start with a build and then develop a concept to go with it.

Our group has a quite low level of optimization, so I can pretty much build what I want and shine when I want, but I try to make sure I'm not stomping all over someone else's fun.

It can be hard though. I mean, I built a completely team player Goliath Barbarian/Bard/Dawncaller, who buffed the group and used tactical feats to knock the enemies into positions for the other characters, and people still complained behind my back that my character was too powerful and ruining their fun.

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Dear OP,

You walked into a forum populated by vocal minorities of all sorts and you started a thread which was pretty much the equivalent of asking if there's anybody in here that actually considers right to bear arms/homosexuality/religion/white people/Muslims/Nazis "normal".

Now I want to see a thread "Is Gorbacz normal?"


Well, I was trying to avoid getting involved, but people here are being so utterly reasonable that I have an overwhelming urge to post *something*.

In short, I feel GreyWolfLord's pain.

There are two "fundamental styles" of play:
(1) I have my PC mapped out from level 1. I know exactly which feats, skills, and spells I am taking to build the PC I want to have by level 10/15/20.

(2) My PC is a dynamic creature. I choose feats, skills, and spells based on what has happened to my PC over the last few sessions played.

I have personally found (and I believe that GreyWolfLord has as well) that if you use style #2 and you post in the Rules or Advice forums, you encounter a very, VERY hostile world.
I've reached the point that I will NEVER post in the Advice threads, and I will ONLY post in the rules threads to clarify specific rules questions with no discussion whatsoever of my build. Otherwise, I stick to the AP threads, which are *FAR* more friendly to style #2.

So there's definitely hostility out there towards anyone who doesn't plan their PC from level 1. But I understand that the number-crunchers want to be "helpful" by pointing out what you've done wrong, so I've simply chosen to avoid those areas entirely.

Greywolflord chose to ask a very inflammatory question in those threads, had the thread shut down (in my mind for good reason), and wants to know where he can continue the discussion.

I'd approach it my way (of course I would): Rather than accusing people of "munchkining" or "optimizing" or any other possibly-derogatory term, instead ask, "How many people have their PCs' entire progression mapped out from the moment they have them on paper, and how many people choose to adjust their PCs' progression based on their experiences in the AP?"

It's far less-inflammatory, and less likely to get the thread locked.

But I won't be posting there, because there's just too much hate in those threads.

=====
Quick example: My life oracle is the sole divine support for a party of nine. In our current AP, we're beset by creatures that have diseased bites. So I plan on taking "Remove Disease" when I hit 6th level.
As a player, I not only know that this will be a useless choice (we'll be leaving the island the moment we level up), but a poor choice (Circle of Protection from Evil is a far better spell).
So I'm intentionally making a bad choice based on what my PC has experienced so far: SHE would take it, even though *I* know it's a really bad choice for her.
This puts me squarely in category #2, and if I were ever to post her build on the Advice forum I would get torn to pieces for it. So I avoid those sections.

EDIT: Just in case people are wondering, I GM most of our games, and I'll post things like, "I've found that taking 20 actually slows down the game because people do it in every single room, then spend session time to track all their buff spells, so I offer a +5 bonus if they roll the die and get a natural 20, but a -5 penalty if they roll a natural 1, but I only let them roll once for those bonuses," and had multiple people state that this made me such a bad GM they'd walk out on my game. Things like that stick with you. Just lots of, "You're a crap player if you do that," or, "If you did that and I was at your table I'd walk away." I get that an amazing amount considering how much my players like my GM'ing.

Shadow Lodge

Matthew Morris wrote:
Now I want to see a thread "Is Gorbacz normal?"

The answer is no.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

There are two "fundamental styles" of play:

(1) I have my PC mapped out from level 1. I know exactly which feats, skills, and spells I am taking to build the PC I want to have by level 10/15/20.

(2) My PC is a dynamic creature. I choose feats, skills, and spells based on what has happened to my PC over the last few sessions played.

This is exactly what I was talking about. I think I'll steal this phrasing in the future, because it's nice and neutral, not preferring one style to another.

I agree that there is definitely hostility towards style 2, but I believe some of that is based on personal experiences with style 2 players. I'm clearly a style 1, as a I said above. Being called a "rollplayer, not a roleplayer" by style 2 players is insulting (especially if they aren't good at getting into/staying in character).

I think GreyWolfLord's initial post struck me very much as a style 2 player decrying style 1 as badwrongfun.

Btw: I wouldn't give you any grief over taking Remove Disease as an oracle. Might not be optimal, but as long as you're contributing, it's all good. And you can swap that out again later if you stop needing it.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

There is also not a definitive line between the two. I fall somewhere in the middle where I will look ahead to where I wish to be and build towards that. But my gear selection especially depends on what I encounter. Occasionally I will take experiences from other characters and use that to inform decisions on my current character. After suffering a horrible encounter with deeper darkness a number of my characters have made sure to have acess to daylight spells in one form or another.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

Well, I was trying to avoid getting involved, but people here are being so utterly reasonable that I have an overwhelming urge to post *something*.

In short, I feel GreyWolfLord's pain.

There are two "fundamental styles" of play:
(1) I have my PC mapped out from level 1. I know exactly which feats, skills, and spells I am taking to build the PC I want to have by level 10/15/20.

(2) My PC is a dynamic creature. I choose feats, skills, and spells based on what has happened to my PC over the last few sessions played.

Not just that, but also whether or not you would take a clearly "bad" decision during character design in order to better meet your character concept. That tends to be the point where I've had people look at me like I was something they just scraped off their shoe.

Understanding how different people play is important if you want to be able to collaborate constructively on these boards. With that, also comes the moment something clicks, and you understand that some people may not even get your style of play, because it just didn't ever occur to them someone may find that fun.

Some people just don't understand how I can play with just the story in mind, and my own character's success (and that of the group) being fairly irrelevant - especially the group part, as they can think I'm doing my group a disservice by not wanting them to succeed.

The part they're missing is that I intentionally play with people where "success" is measured in how intense and dramatic the story was, not on whether the characters we played in it achieved their goals. It's not that we don't mind "losing", it's that we were not even playing to "win" in the first place, just to experience the lives of our characters in the situations they were in.

I'd hope, though, that it's also fairly obvious I wouldn't turn up to a game with a random group of people to play that style, as it would likely make the game decidedly un-fun for them, and I'm not that much of an a&*+#%* :)

Oh, and to echo what TOZ just mentioned - it's also important to bear in mind any measure of playstyle tends not to be a binary thing, and also not a "I like X more, so I have to like Y less to balance that out."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gauthok wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Here's the question then, have you worked on character concepts that did not involve picking up powerful combo builds along the way? If the answer is no, it's time to stop denying your inner munchkin. :)

I don't think I ever said I wasn't a munchkin. I just said it was possible to approach the game differently than the "organic character that grows as I level, taking whatever suits me" approach, and still be a good roleplayer.

Sometimes I start with a concept and work out a build, other times I start with a build and then develop a concept to go with it.

Our group has a quite low level of optimization, so I can pretty much build what I want and shine when I want, but I try to make sure I'm not stomping all over someone else's fun.

It can be hard though. I mean, I built a completely team player Goliath Barbarian/Bard/Dawncaller, who buffed the group and used tactical feats to knock the enemies into positions for the other characters, and people still complained behind my back that my character was too powerful and ruining their fun.

Listen to yourself. you built a barbarian based on a race that handles large weapons without penalty, coupled with a class that rages, and another that synergises perfectly with it. And I'm pretty sure that PrC worked the advantages of both quite nicely together. Unless your fellow players were munchkins of equal skill, the only way you could not outshine your fellow players would be to be sleeping during sessions.


I always make sure to take Commoner levels, to prove I'm not a dirty munchkin. And if I do take an ultramax fondue cheese feat like Weapon Focus (longsword), I'm always extra-sure to use a scimitar from then on. Because that makes me awesomerer.

1 to 50 of 60 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Paizo / Website Feedback / Can't contact moderator over hostility towards playstyle? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.