My point, KC, is at the table this would basically come down to.
KC: "Your character can't be graceful, look at that dex."
KR: "Sure she is. She was raised to be the epitome of poise and elegance, and I must say she looks dashing in an evening gown."
KC: "But that's not graceful!"
KR: *Holds up the dictionary*
Technically, you'd be holding up a thesaurus. A synonym and a definition are not the same thing, which is why English teachers generally suggest students look up the synonyms in the dictionary before they use them. And we won't even get into the distinction between denotation and connotation...
Back to the original argument, why is it horrible/detrimental to the table/etc. for someone to tank their Con, but perfectly acceptable for someone to tank all of their mental stats?
I think that it's all too easy to "get away" with tanking mental stats because we can simply claim "I can have a 5 Int and no skills but still somehow direct a team of adventurers in complicated group tactics because RP!"
It kind of makes me wonder why the game even bothers with other stats than Con, since that's the only one that actually seems to count.
I've found that the worst stat to dump with my playstyle is Wisdom. Poor Sahak the 7 Wisdom Half-Orc Bard. Got bored and wandered into a caryatid column.
Of course, if I'd put an extra rank into Constitution instead of in Intelligence, I would've lived to heal myself. So maybe you really do need 14+ Con. ;D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, Con is probably the best stat to dump when it comes to not ticking off the other players. After all, he'll die soon enough, and then you can roll up a godd!mn druid.
Well, that's new. I've been offline for 20 minutes and nobody has come in and started with the name-calling yet. Must be something worth seeing on TV tonight ;)
So, based on no information about other people's groups whatsoever, you are declaring that you could easily out-optimize everyone on the forums, AND that other people on the boards (again, not based on anything they actually said) run games entirely focused on the most optimized member of a group AND that that would be you because you are apparently so much smarter than everyone else, and so if you showed up to the table of anyone responding to this thread then suddenly it would be a solo game? Are we to assume that you also roleplay better than everyone else you've never met and can fix the world economy in an instant but don't because it would be too easy?Although I think I might be able to dominate your group...I don't think I'd ever want to play in it.I have no idea what you mean by that. Why do you think you might be able to dominate this group based on this limited information? Dominate it physically, magically, verbally...?It's very easy to make broken characters (or powergamed characters as one wants to put it) if one really focuses on it. If a GM is focused on the most optimized character to carry the group and if everyone isn't as powerful...well...I CAN optimize if I want to and if that's the GM's focus....
But be the one the GM is focusing on because the others can't optimize (read munchkin) as well or have to carry the group because of it...
If I wanted to play that way I'd just play solo...by myself...
I wouldn't argue with him because he must be omniscient too. Hell, from me describing two of my character concepts he knows everything about me and everyone I ever met that there is to know. I guess I'm just glad he has deemed me beneath his notice lest he decides to appear to me and pwn me for my insolence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, that's new. I've been offline for 20 minutes and nobody has come in and started with the name-calling yet. Must be something worth seeing on TV tonight ;)
As someone who's been flipping through the channels for a bit, there ain't JACK S*$# on TV right now.
The closest thing to something worth watching was a Jesse Stone movie on Hallmark.
I for one resent the title of this thread. Why can't it be the Orgimarr fallacy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I for one resent the title of this thread. Why can't it be the Orgimarr fallacy?
Because the Horde doesn't make mistakes.
My own 2cp:
I consider myself both an optimizer & RP-er. I love to play with numbers, feats & abilities, AND I love to create cool character concepts. Having both is important for me to feel invested.
It's funny how much attention the "stormwind" stuff gets. In any case, my observation is that the standard problem of everyone is jerks. Jerk GMs, jerk players, jerk chicken.
Now, I think optimization is simply making the best of a certain concept. Earlier in the thread they mentionned a 6-con rogue. While I agree it will have a hard time to survive, you can make it as survivable as possible. Adventuring is a dangerous business, and that's the standard we have to work with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To run with the marbles analogy, some people spend more of them on Twitter or other distractions. Some people put more of their marbles of life into the game. And some people just start with more marbles.
So you can have a person who puts 200 marbles into optimization, and someone else who puts 1 in. That doesn't mean the role-play totals are 0 and 199, however. Often, the person with 200 into optimization also has 200 or 300 in RP, too. And the guy with 1 in optimization has 0 in RP.
Reposted from elsewhere:
I've played with some people who can bring characters to life in a way that Lucas would kill for: Mundane, Jess Door, Andostre, Houstonderek, just to name four, are some of the most gifted role-players I've ever encountered over 30+ years in the hobby. All their characters feel unique, compelling, 3-dimensional. The other thing that all four of them have in common is a very solid grasp of the mechanics of the game system. In short, they're interested in the game as a hobby, and that interest shows in their role-playing skill and their mechanical knowledge BOTH.
The worst roleplayer I've ever had the misfortune to game with (who lacks a screen name, to the best of my knowledge, so don't ask) had approximately zero knowledge of the rules, and also couldn't build a competent character to save his life. His characters were also completely zero-dimensional, with no substance, quirks, backstory, or even names I can remember. His interest in the hobby was peripheral at best and it showed in all aspects of his gaming.
I remember characters like Jak, Mundane's multiple-personality sorcerer/monk. Jak took an insane amount of optimization and rules-savvy to make. Once in place, he was an unforgettable character, but also surprisingly effective. I remember Sheraviel, Jess Door's unhittable elf fighter with a chip on her shoulder against the uncouth idiots she was surrounded by. I remember Agun, Andostre's sarcastic, cigar-smoking dwarf wizard who was proudest of his ability to get enemies to discount his contributions, so as to remain safe. I remember Cadogan, a 19-year old human kid in a city full of elves, who leveraged his street smarts and combat ability to fuel a rock star lifestyle.
I don't remember Character X, the generic wizard who relied on his fireball spell because he simply wasn't aware of any better options.
Oddly enough, in 30+ years, I've never once encounted a mechanically-solid character who also lacked a personality. I'm sure they exist, but I'm not convinced that anyone is out there actually playing them in games.
So, overall, I don't think Stormwind went far enough.
I for one have seen over-opt characters played by players who never spoke in character or RP'd in the slightest.
Those though are far more rare than the unoptimized characters who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag.
... (kirth saying cool stuff)
Ahh... this is totally what I hope to aim for. I'm not quite confident enough at the table yet to try to get completely into character (I've only been playing for 7 months), but I've started PbP, and it's slower pace allows me to better play interesting characters. I'm having fun "playing" a wizard's family (a kittycat) and a slightly asocial but quite aware he has a problem alchemist.
Is it weird that I feel more confident butting character & personality into my NPCs? As a players, it feels more like normal social interaction & I feel kinda awkward. But as a GM, it's a stage, and I feel much more comfortable giving personality to my NPCs (today, I played a medusa that acted like a spoiled child and called the PCs her "pets". It was fun)
Anyway, just thought I'd say this.
Maaaarbles... Anyway back to watching Xena warrior princess. I enjoy that show way more than I should. I just say Aphrodite say to a dudebro looking Cupid "That's way harsh Cupid".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you optimize you remove that choice of trying to play a 10 strength barbarian from your creative repetouire.There are plenty of ways to play a 10 strength barbarian. A casting-oriented Druid, for example, makes an excellent 10 strength barbarian. Bard would be a good class for it as well. Or maybe a Magus who channels the power of his ancestors.
Now if you're looking to play a Strength 10 Barbarian classed character... I'm sorry, I can't see that being a legitimate option within the rules as written. Maybe a weapon-finesse based Barbarian including the Frenzy alternate rage from 3.5, with access to dex-based damage somehow?
Really, how many ways can you hash out a story of why your orc barbarian has an 18 str and 5 charisma?More ways than I will ever have time to play.
Sure you can come up with interesting stories and rp but only after you've limited yourself to a mechanical box and chose optimized stats over where an unorthodox build may take you.That's because we're playing in a system where mechanical choices determine success or failure and the degree thereof.
When is the last time you saw a genius 18 str fighter?Depends on how you're defining genius. If you mean high Int? Not very often, because the system doesn't give Fighters enough incentive to have a high intelligence. If you mean a brilliant tactician? Not only have I seen a few, I've played a few myself.
I am bolding the part where the fallacy is a fallacy.
The Stormwind Fallacy fails to account for how the roleplaying set applies the rules. It assumes that role-players have less "system mastery" than optimizers. That system mastery is in effect the road to victory.
To the role-player, the above example is tantamount to cheating. The genius tactician who dumped INT is not following the rules and is thus not that gifted in System mastery. He's no different than the wizard who dumped his STR down to something in the 5 or 6 range but never operates under a heavy load; despite his clothes, spellbook and a
dagger constituting a heavy load.
The term is overused. The concept is not all encompassing. The application of it in forum threads is often knee-jerk.
It also sounds pretentious and is off putting to new players.
I'm a better than average RPer, I am also a reasonably sound optimizer. Much like Kyrt I spend a Looong time "building" a character. I do however fall into the camp that believes you should "play your stats".
That's where the Stormwind Fallacy fails I think. It actually gets used as an excuse to only consider the 6 stats as math boosters and not as driving parameters of character design.
PS.
I'm not picking on Kyrt, he's smart and knows how to RP. He just gave the clearest example of what I see as the Stormwind Fallacy's failure.
So, based on no information about other people's groups whatsoever, you are declaring that you could easily out-optimize everyone on the forums, AND that other people on the boards (again, not based on anything they actually said) run games entirely focused on the most optimized member of a group AND that that would be you because you are apparently so much smarter than everyone else, and so if you showed up to the table of anyone responding to this thread then suddenly it would be a solo game? Are we to assume that you also roleplay better than everyone else you've never met and can fix the world economy in an instant but don't because it would be too easy?Although I think I might be able to dominate your group...I don't think I'd ever want to play in it.I have no idea what you mean by that. Why do you think you might be able to dominate this group based on this limited information? Dominate it physically, magically, verbally...?It's very easy to make broken characters (or powergamed characters as one wants to put it) if one really focuses on it. If a GM is focused on the most optimized character to carry the group and if everyone isn't as powerful...well...I CAN optimize if I want to and if that's the GM's focus....
But be the one the GM is focusing on because the others can't optimize (read munchkin) as well or have to carry the group because of it...
If I wanted to play that way I'd just play solo...by myself...
Most say the Rogue is low powered and then come back with characters of a higher "tier" that only do a mere 100-300 DPR. When you create a Rogue that does 700 DPR and other characters that do more...perhaps I'm not the best...and to tell the truth I don't ENJOY playing that way, but apparently if I really want to use and abuse the system...most "advice" and "builds" on the forum for DPR don't seem to be able to out munchkin/powergame a simple Rogue...which most of those making those builds consider underpowered.
Even lackadaisical builds can create a Rogue doing 100-200 DPR...
So, no, maybe not, but if I've almost never met someone on these forums or IRL that can out powergame/munchkin me if I put my mind to it.
Just because I don't like that way of playing does not mean I don't know how to do it. To me, I find it more distasteful (and perhaps because IF I'm going to play that way...I'll probably lean more towards the munchkin side, not be outright breaking rules...but stretching the interpretation as I talk to the GM about it)...but if the GM required me to do so...yeah...it's very possible I might overshadow the person.
More concerning was the implication that if I did so...that focus would actually be on ME rather than the group...OR if someone else did it, the focus would be on THAT person rather than the group.
In either case, one might as well play solo as it turns more into a solo game with everyone else playing a henchman anyways. If the GM is only going to focus on ONE player in a group...why would anyone want to be part of that group? It's just as easy if not easier simply to go solo at that point...or form your own group.
My point, KC, is at the table this would basically come down to.
KC: "Your character can't be graceful, look at that dex."
KR: "Sure she is. She was raised to be the epitome of poise and elegance, and I must say she looks dashing in an evening gown."
KC: "But that's not graceful!"
KR: *Holds up the dictionary*
Technically, you'd be holding up a thesaurus. A synonym and a definition are not the same thing, which is why English teachers generally suggest students look up the synonyms in the dictionary before they use them. And we won't even get into the distinction between denotation and connotation...
Back to the original argument, why is it horrible/detrimental to the table/etc. for someone to tank their Con, but perfectly acceptable for someone to tank all of their mental stats?
I think that it's all too easy to "get away" with tanking mental stats because we can simply claim "I can have a 5 Int and no skills but still somehow direct a team of adventurers in complicated group tactics because RP!"
It kind of makes me wonder why the game even bothers with other stats than Con, since that's the only one that actually seems to count.
I think it boils down to what each persons personal playstyle is. You could see that stats as sort of a guideline, but not set hard and fast items.
On the otherhand, you could use it as exposition, but not really something defining.
Playstyles differ in many ways, but I think both of the above would could equally be used in a group focused more on Roleplaying.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sounds like you have a really narrow definition of "optimization" if you consider damage potential to be the end-all-be-all; Casters aren't top of tier lists because of their optimized blaster builds.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When you optimize you remove that choice of trying to play a 10 strength barbarian from your creative repetouire.There are plenty of ways to play a 10 strength barbarian. A casting-oriented Druid, for example, makes an excellent 10 strength barbarian. Bard would be a good class for it as well. Or maybe a Magus who channels the power of his ancestors.
Now if you're looking to play a Strength 10 Barbarian classed character... I'm sorry, I can't see that being a legitimate option within the rules as written. Maybe a weapon-finesse based Barbarian including the Frenzy alternate rage from 3.5, with access to dex-based damage somehow?
Really, how many ways can you hash out a story of why your orc barbarian has an 18 str and 5 charisma?More ways than I will ever have time to play.
Sure you can come up with interesting stories and rp but only after you've limited yourself to a mechanical box and chose optimized stats over where an unorthodox build may take you.That's because we're playing in a system where mechanical choices determine success or failure and the degree thereof.
When is the last time you saw a genius 18 str fighter?Depends on how you're defining genius. If you mean high Int? Not very often, because the system doesn't give Fighters enough incentive to have a high intelligence. If you mean a brilliant tactician? Not only have I seen a few, I've played a few myself.
I am bolding the part where the fallacy is a fallacy.
The Stormwind Fallacy fails to account for how the roleplaying set applies the rules. It assumes that role-players have less "system mastery" than optimizers. That system mastery is in effect the road to victory.
To the role-player, the above example is tantamount to cheating. The genius tactician who dumped INT is not following the rules and is thus not that gifted in System mastery. He's no different than the wizard who dumped his STR down to...
The problem with your argument is that you think optimizer and RPer can be different people. Everyone optimizes to different extents and everyone RPs to different extents. You are comparing low opers and High RPers (which I have never seen) to high Opers and low RPers (which are rare). You are talking about almost no one.
Furthermore, tactical sense can easily come from just experience, having nothing to do with a mental stat.
I wouldn't argue with him because he must be omniscient too. Hell, from me describing two of my character concepts he knows everything about me and everyone I ever met that there is to know. I guess I'm just glad he has deemed me beneath his notice lest he decides to appear to me and pwn me for my insolence.
What the he...
I suppose you're right...I don't even recall responding to your character concepts...but seeing this is more a thread on talking about styles of Roleplaying rather than character concepts and such...probably wouldn't respond in regards to character builds and such.
The point is more that the GM concentrates on ONE player if they are more powerful than any of the others. Whether you are THAT player...or one of the others who get to do nothing but be none relavent henchmen of said player...at that point...there's really no difference than playing a solo game...in fact...for the "henchmen" PC's it's probably more fun.
Yeah, Con is probably the best stat to dump when it comes to not ticking off the other players. After all, he'll die soon enough, and then you can roll up a godd!mn druid.This is why the anthropomorphic bat was such a popular druid race in 3E.
Because it made the godd!mn druid also be the godd!mn bat man
Absolutely AWESOME!!!!
Sounds like you have a really narrow definition of "optimization" if you consider damage potential to be the end-all-be-all; Casters aren't top of tier lists because of their optimized blaster builds.
No, but most of the tier considerations are in regards to how quickly they can defeat a foe. Most of the powergaming occurs in that regards as well.
In that regards...700 DPR takes out most foes VERY quickly. Put together a party that does 700+ DPR per round (remember the Rogue is supposed to be the LOW on the totem pole) and you get a party doing 2800+ DPR. That pretty much wipes anything put out in the bestiaries in one round.
Heck, for a majority of the foes, the Rogue takes out in a single round by themselves!
Most of the tier system is based around ability to take out enemies (with secondary things like skills and out of combat items as a secondary thought).
HOWEVER...this isn't the thread for optimization talk...and I've allowed myself to get sidetracked...
Congrats at getting me to lose the Will save and respond rather than ignore it in favor of looking more at the different styles of RP vs. perceptions and transference issues in regards to that.
However, it DOES bring up something I should be more explicit on. People seem to assume the opposite here as well...IF your preferred playstyle is more of a RP style rather than powergaming...the assumption is you don't know how to powergame. I definitely know how to powergame...and to munchkin...that I don't LIKE to play that way and my preference is more towards how others in my area and who I know play...has no relevance on whether I can make a character that's been optimized out the whazoo.
There HAVE been times I've seen optimizers say they wouldn't want to play with a character who couldn't pull his weight, but ninety-nine times out of one-hundred, these optimizers would have been more than happy to help their fellow players up their game.
Problem being that this attitude becomes super annoying when you are perfectly aware of how to make a more powerful character, but do not wish to be obliged to do so. Heavy duty optimizers usually exists on a plane where the bar is set absurdly high for no reason, and then they bizarrely act like you are at fault when you choose not to meet it because you have instead allocated some character resources for aesthetics, RP or just plain awesome.
EDIT: And also because you want the game to be challenging and difficult.
Now, one situation that DOES bother me as an optimizer, is when the GM feels he absolutely MUST raise the difficulty of the scenario to try to 'challenge me.' If he feels I'm overshadowing the party, he should talk to me about it, and I'll start holding back more. Contrary to frequent posts on these boards regarding optimizers, I don't care which partymember MPVs the encounter, so long as we all have fun.
I don't understand this at all. Of course the GM has to increase the difficulty if you have over-optimized. What else is he supposed to do? You don't want to be challenged? Why are you playing a game? And no, having you "hold back" is not a satisfactory solution. Nobody likes knowing that there's a guy in the party who could blow the encounter away in a round, but he's hanging out for a couple of rounds and letting the kids play first so they feel special too.
I optimize for two reasons, the first is to ensure my character matches my vision of him
Good reason.
...and the second is as a safety net to make sure he isn't going to die a horrible horrible death. Cranking the challenges to put me in more danger runs contrary to what I'm looking for from optimization, AND it's making things really hard on the rest of the party who likely aren't optimized as well as I am.
Bad reason. If there's no possibility of you failing or dying then the game is boring and pointless. I wouldn't want to run it for you under those circumstances, and I'm not sure why you'd still want to play. Though you are absolutely correct that you optimizing makes things much harder on the rest of the party if they didn't. Just don't blame the GM for that...
I think the perception of Optimizers lacking Roleplaying, is a combination of multiple factors.
a clash of play paradigm is probably the biggest issue, there is nothing wrong with oprimization but when you are playing the game in a diffeent zone than the people around you (wether higher or lower) it creates a clash that leads to the mispercieved issues.
The fact that, many gamers have poor social skills and may not understand concepts of group paradigm further exasperates things. I have a friend that likes to optimize, he comes up with wonderful character concepts, then can never properly voice the ideas in his head.
The last thing, although im not sure how it connects to the rest of it all is that, its pretty frequent in discussions about optimization to wholly ignore fluff. This probably contributes to the mis-conception.
My point, KC, is at the table this would basically come down to.
KC: "Your character can't be graceful, look at that dex."
KR: "Sure she is. She was raised to be the epitome of poise and elegance, and I must say she looks dashing in an evening gown."
KC: "But that's not graceful!"
KR: *Holds up the dictionary*
Technically, you'd be holding up a thesaurus. A synonym and a definition are not the same thing, which is why English teachers generally suggest students look up the synonyms in the dictionary before they use them. And we won't even get into the distinction between denotation and connotation...
Back to the original argument, why is it horrible/detrimental to the table/etc. for someone to tank their Con, but perfectly acceptable for someone to tank all of their mental stats?
I think that it's all too easy to "get away" with tanking mental stats because we can simply claim "I can have a 5 Int and no skills but still somehow direct a team of adventurers in complicated group tactics because RP!"
I'm really going to stir up the hornets' nest now, but personally I think it is terribly unhelpful to view character ability scores as being actually very meaningful. They aren't. If you must believe that they indicate anything, then I suppose you could say they indicate some kind of inclination or potential. The exception is Strength, but I'll get to that later. Let's consider this.
I have a low Dexterity, so you say I must invariably not be graceful, eh? Then how do you account for my extremely high initiative, Reflex saves, Perform (Dance) bonus and Acrobatics bonus? A character with low Dex but a high value in these things is clearly more graceful than a character with the opposite. And it is entirely possible to create two such characters. You can apply this model to all the ability scores. The things that actually show what the score potentially represents are not actually tied that meaningfully to the score itself.
Constitution: Fort save, Climb and Swim bonus, hit points
Intelligence: Int based skill bonuses, tactical combat abilities...
This one is trickier, but basically since it's incredibly hard to define what a given Int score means anyway, I think it's a bad idea to actually link it to RP. Not to mention that you ought to be able to create smart fighters (or whatever) if you want to without having to shoot yourself in the foot to do so. And anyway, how smart a character is perceived is invariably going to be a result of how smart the player plays them, regardless of their score.
Wisdom: Wisdom based skill checks, Will save. Also...are we really going to get into arguments about what it means to be wise?
Charisma: Charisma based skill checks. I don't care if your Charisma is 18 and mine is 7. If my social skill bonuses are better than your's then I am going to be better liked. Also, same argument as Intelligence. It's disastrous in terms of potential valid concepts to demand that a player who wants their character to be beautiful or likable has to have a high Charisma. So we can't have beautiful warriors now? Only Sorcerers and Oracles and the like get to be pretty? This is ridiculous, and by the way Paizo has revealed pretty clearly that they don't even stand by it. Just look at the art in the NPC Codex. The smoking hot Charisma 8 Cleric of Norgorber on page 59 is probably exhibit A, but there are plenty of other good examples in that book.
Strength is an unusual case because it is the only ability score where the mechanical effects that reveal in gameplay what it does are actually tied to the raw score. That is to say, if you have a high Strength, you can lift heavy things. For this reason, characters who have high Strength scores probably ought conceptually to look like they are strong, unless, I suppose, they are aasimars or dhampirs or some other supernatural race where their deceptively high strength has some supernatural explanation.
I'm really going to stir up the hornet's nest now, but personally I think it is terribly unhelpful to view character ability scores as being actually very meaningful. They aren't. If you must believe that they indicate anything, then I suppose you could say they indicate some kind of inclination or potential.
I think that's down to us using simplified examples earlier, when "the contents of the character sheet" would be more accurate, including all of the associated skills. The primary ability scores are just easier to use as examples, especially for players that were playing back when those abilities were all you got. I have to admit, I still have occasions where I have to stop myself calling for a DEX check to catch onto something while falling ;)
I should better elaborate.
When (Stormwind) first posted his "Fallacy", it was during an intense period of discussion of whether optimization was really just power gaming and whiter it was killing role playing.
I am not now, nor was I back then arguing that opers were pgmers or that either precluded old school role playing. The original premise was that you could do both well. In practice it's a grey area.
While "experience" could lead to some tactical know how, it's a far reach to get that 7 INT fighter to call out orders like he's Hannibal or Rommel. That's where the initial Discussion came from.
The " Role Players" were butt sore that the Optimizers were dumping stats but NOT playing those stats with any discernible accuracy related to the actual stat value. To them that's "cheating" or "Poor Role Playing". Whether it's a valid point is another discussion that's outside of the Fallacy being a Fallacy.
Now my borrowed example above is a strong one for 2 reasons.
1) Kyrt is not dumb, in fact he's possibly brighter than some of the people he plays with (I do not know him or his group beyond years in an online forum).
2) He dumped INT.
Anyone can dump any stat, the RolePlayer's arguement at that time was that Not Everyone was or Could RolePlay the dumped stat. That hasn't changed either.
It's not fair to say that Optimizers can't Role Play, it is fair to ask if they are Role Playing mechanically.
That is the core element at work.
Can you make a satisfying character that is both optimized, playable and mechanically demonstrated through Role Play?
This forum is full of rules savvy members that can Role Play well. I'd really like to play with Ashiel for an example ( who is out of thread).
I occasionally tease him for it but Black Blood Troll (also out of thread) borders on rampant Munchkinism but almost always to support some radical character design that's only purpose is to be Role Played in an elaborate fashion.
I have no idea however if their role playing reflects the PC's stats.
While I don't particularly appreciate being told one of the reasons I optimize is a bad reason, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and add an 'IMO' to that in my head, rather than assume you were telling me my fun is wrong.
The game isn't pointless and boring if I have a very very low chance of failing or dying, that just means there's less time spent not-playing while a character is dead, and it means I won't have to reroll if the party can't acquire a Raise Dead in time and can't afford a Resurrection (or lacks the piece required for a Resurrection they could have afforded but can't afford a True Res.) Lastly, it means I won't have to sacrifice yet more time on top of the time it took to create the character to figure out whether or not said character would be willing to come back from the dead.
Quote:EDIT: And also because you want the game to be challenging and difficult.
If I wanted the game to be challenging and difficult in a mechanical sense, I'd play a Rogue or an Adept.
What I'm looking for out of the game is a memorable experience. Sometimes it will be difficult, and when those times come I do my best to rise to the challenge, but I'm certainly not seeking a challenge for its own sake.
Yes, you can of course add "IMO" onto the end of everything I ever say here that is not unambiguously factual, because I am not God :p. I always figure this goes without saying.
I get what you're saying about just wanting a memorable experience and to tell a story with your friends. But if that's what you're in it for, why don't you play Cortex system? You could save yourself a lot of that time that you currently spend optimizing to ensure non-death.
I think I probably made some unfounded assumptions about the way you play from some of your statements. I've been pretty scarred by some of the hyper-optimizing groups I've encountered in the past, but it doesn't sound like you are really in their league (and that's good).
But can you see how it's frustrating for a player who does want a challenge to come to the table and then have no hope of being challenged because your character trashes the encounters and because you won't let the GM make them harder? This summarizes my experience with PFS in general...
I think that's down to us using simplified examples earlier, when "the contents of the character sheet" would be more accurate, including all of the associated skills. The primary ability scores are just easier to use as examples, especially for players that were playing back when those abilities were all you got. I have to admit, I still have occasions where I have to stop myself calling for a DEX check to catch onto something while falling ;)
I'm really going to stir up the hornet's nest now, but personally I think it is terribly unhelpful to view character ability scores as being actually very meaningful. They aren't. If you must believe that they indicate anything, then I suppose you could say they indicate some kind of inclination or potential.
I believe you, Matt :). But unfortunately, you see this all the time. I've seen GMs start having NPCs interact in RP as though a low Cha character is ugly even though the player clearly described him as handsome (and other similar instances), and I think stuff like that is incredibly disrespectful to the player. I think we ought to take a player's stated fluff for their character at face value, until something actually happens in play that makes the fluff not make sense with the mechanics.
<snip>I get what you're saying about just wanting a memorable experience and to tell a story with your friends. But if that's what you're in it for, why don't you play Cortex system? You could save yourself a lot of that time that you currently spend optimizing to ensure non-death.
I'm going to butt in on this one, cause it's something I get asked frequently on forums too, except by people who ask why I want to play Pathfinder if I'm more interested in a story-driven game than a mechanics-driven one ("Matt, why are you playing Pathfinder if you want to tell a story rather than build the best character you can build?")
The answer I give is:
Because my group want to play Pathfinder.
We enjoy the APs, and it's therefore easier to make Pathfinder work the way we want than to spend time adapting the APs to another system.
We've spent a ton of cash on Pathfinder, and don't want to/can't afford to buy into any other system in a big way.
Mostly though, because we want to play Pathfinder :) It might not be the best choice, but it's the one we want.
But can you see how it's frustrating for a player who does want a challenge to come to the table and then have no hope of being challenged because your character trashes the encounters and because you won't let the GM make them harder? This summarizes my experience with PFS in general...
I'm a bit uncomfortable with the concept of PFS in general - a bunch of random people of differing styles thrown together on one table and expected to find a way to play together sounds like a fast track to trouble to me ;) My preferred solution is to ensure everyone in the group is on the same page before gathering them at the table. It's no use having 3 people wanting to play Pathfinder and 3 wanting to play WFRP, and I feel that's as big a difference as all wanting to play Pathfinder but with vastly different (and quite probably opposing) styles.
Quite how you solve that in a PFS environment is beyond me. I hear a few horror stories, but I also hear much more feedback from people who love it, so it's obviously working out somehow. It's likely not something I'd enjoy personally, except on occasion as something different to try out.
Outside of PFS, though, it's a case of ensuring you have a group of people that have at least compromised on a general playstyle they can all enjoy - or, to have that rare group of people that can happily play together each in their own way and not be bothered by the differences.
With a mix of styles that impose on each other's enjoyment, I think it's important to consider that frustration can work both ways, though.
I have a low Dexterity, so you say I must invariably not be graceful, eh? Then how do you account for my extremely high initiative, Reflex saves, Perform (Dance) bonus and Acrobatics bonus?
Initiative: Training, paranoia, quick reactions (clumsy, but quick)
Reflex saves: Training, luck, smallness (easier to dodge a fireball when you're a small target)Perform (dance): Training, specialized talent, allure (Dancing is a Charisma-based skill because it involves drawing the eye of the audience)
Acrobatics: Training and a bunch of the above reasons
If you can't think of reasons a Low Int guy can't be knowledgeable about, say, history, you aren't thinking hard enough. Skills do not disprove the ability system's reliability, they enhance it.
|
With all due respect a character with a cha of 7 should not be as good as one with a cha of 18 at the table. There is a reason why you get a negative value for taking attributes less than 10. At my table you can still roleplay yet expect to fail more often than succeed. What's the point then of a player investing in a high cha then. To me that is not only screwing over a player who took the time to build a socialble character. It's also called trying to cheat the system through roleplaying as far as I'm concerned. As well as trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Want to roleplay a cha 14 or more when the value on the character sheet is a 7. Go right ahead. Anyone caught cheating like that at my table when I'm a DM will suddenly find his character doing less damage and being less graceful.
I have a low Dexterity, so you say I must invariably not be graceful, eh? Then how do you account for my extremely high initiative, Reflex saves, Perform (Dance) bonus and Acrobatics bonus?Initiative: Training, paranoia, quick reactions (clumsy, but quick)
Reflex saves: Training, luck, smallness (easier to dodge a fireball when you're a small target)
Perform (dance): Training, specialized talent, allure (Dancing is a Charisma-based skill because it involves drawing the eye of the audience)
Acrobatics: Training and a bunch of the above reasonsIf you can't think of reasons a Low Int guy can't be knowledgeable about, say, history, you aren't thinking hard enough. Skills do not disprove the ability system's reliability, they enhance it.
They can be viewed either way depending on how you choose to turn that prism. My suggestion is that it is unhelpful to view ability scores as meaningful, so why do it? Let's break that habit, because no good comes of it but plenty of bad does.
My suggestion is that it is unhelpful to view ability scores as meaningful
"...IMO."
:)| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
With all due respect a character with a cha of 7 should not be as good as one with a cha of 18 at the table. There is a reason why you get a negative value for taking attributes less than 10...
If my Diplomacy bonus is better than yours despite my 7 Cha and your 18, then I guess I'm more likable than you, eh? And this can easily happen in the system in a number of ways.
Want to roleplay a cha 14 or more when the value on the character sheet is a 7. Go right ahead. Anyone caught cheating like that at my table when I'm a DM will suddenly find his character doing less damage and being less graceful.
I suggest to you that it is senseless to enforce this kind of thinking at your table, and that you might as well save yourself the headache and abandon it. What do you gain by doing this? Nothing at all. So let it go. It's ok to just let it go.
My suggestion is that it is unhelpful to view ability scores as meaningful"...IMO."
:)
Haha, yes. As always :). But honestly, what good comes of it? Is it not just a bad habit?
If you sit down at your local gamestore to run a quick one-off and all your players were synthesist summoners with low physical stats, the Stormwind Fallacy would make me FALSELY ASSUME that not one of the players would be a good roleplayer.
I contend that at least one of those players would be a good roleplayer. It could even be the one with the gnome with the 5 STR (let us assume they thought picking different races counted as diversity).
On the other hand, I would say that it is HELPFUL to view them as meaningful then, if there is a discrepancy in scores and actions or roleplay, you describe it mechanically - such as the less intelligent player investing in knowledges, or the less charismatic one taking skill focus: diplomacy and investing points there - and a trait. Or ...
Yes, absolutely. Do the thing that works. If somehow it's helping a player roleplay his concept to explain why his Int 7 Fighter has awesome Knowledge bonuses, then go with God. 100% agreement. But if insistence on RP adherence to an ability score is hindering somebody's ability to RP, then that is when I say just let it go. Why? Because it's not working. It's not serving a function except to annoy that player and cause tension between you. What use is that?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Viewing the ability scores as meaningful is part of the challenge in Pathfinder roleplay, just like relying on dice, or following rules of balance. If you aren't okay with rules limiting your character, you'd better stick with free-form roleplay (or acknowledge, as kyrt does, that your playstyle is a fairly obscure one).
Sure, it's possible for a guy with 7 Charisma to be a great diplomat. That is an exception--showing that this character is exceptional in that he defies his inborn limitations to excel in his chosen field. That is not a bug with the "ability scores affecting roleplay" system, it's a feature.
|
|
If my Diplomacy bonus is better than yours despite my 7 Cha and your 18, then I guess I'm more likable than you, eh? And this can easily happen in the system in a number of ways.
If and only the skill bonus is better. If and only a player takes the time to take the right feats and traits. Otherwise a player with a cha of 7 usually is not going to beat someone with a 18. As chances are good that the person with the higher score probably has many more skill points.
I suggest to you that it is senseless to enforce this kind of thinking at your table, and that you might as well save yourself the headache and abandon it. What do you gain by doing this? Nothing at all. So let it go. It's ok to just let it go.
I see you want the perfect character yet not suffer the consqeuences of low attribute at the table. Would you like a Holy Avenger while your at it.
I expect a player to not cheat the system with roleplaying. To build a character that if they want to be good at combat and social encounters to have their attributes reflect that. I like roleplaying like th next gamer yet I also don't play a character with a int of 7 like a genius either.