| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
It was a Ranger who:
- Took a miracle to hit anything in combat or succeed in any skill check.
- Never took advantage of his favored terrains or enemies.
- Never bothered to try tracking any of the enemies we had to hunt down.
- Completely forgot he had Wild Empathy.
- Completely forgot he had an animal companion.
- Completely forgot he had spells.
This character was such a disgrace to every ranger everywhere, the GM wrote it into the lore of his homebrew setting that rangers everywhere spent decades repairing the damage to their reputation this guy caused.
The player was well aware of how terrible the character was and was pretty okay with how things turned out.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I once played a buff-centric bard in a party full of people who could never seem to remember that I had buffed them.
Rarely have I felt more useless.
I once had a sorcerer who was an astounding conman and spy, with nearly all of his resources invested into his Bluff and Disguise skills, and a selfish non-team-friendly spell list that allowed him to hide the fact that he was a spellcaster with any magical ability at all.
He was SO one-sided, that he didn't make it through one game of Carrion Crown, which was chock full of undead and constructs who just didn't care the least bit what he had to say or hide.
In another campaign, I had a sorcerer (I do love sorcerers) that was completely useless within the campaign world because she was SO powerful that the GM felt the need to have all the enemies make their saves against her all or nothing spells, even though they should have failed 95% of the time.
In yet another campaign, I had a venerable sorcerer (witch concept) with Str 2, Dex 6, Con 10, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 27 who was gunning for lichdom. She hid a lot, posing as a harmless old crone who drove the heroic PCs around in her ox-drawn wagon. She somehow managed to survive all the way from 1st- to 9th-level on less than 30 hit points...before being back-stabbed by the party who feared she might actually obtain her goals and become unstoppable.
Do you know a Dumpshock poster by the name of KarmicInferno by any chance? He runs a Pixie rigger who drives a human suit and in his own words "Optimizes... Differently."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, I once played a buff-centric bard in a party full of people who could never seem to remember that I had buffed them.
Rarely have I felt more useless.
I have to say that I can't really fault the character at all for that, as their failings stem entirely from OOC incompetence of the other players.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sometimes being concerned with how everything hangs together at the table is the biggest, most important thing...
...and that's a purely OOC issue.
I've met some fairly quirky characters...if there were issues though, it was rarely with the piece of paper, but the person who had written on it. A good person you can work with, generally.
And generally...you try to fit everyone in and to make it work. That isn't always possible though, despite every attempt otherwise. Usually, it comes down to OOC issues, as to whether whatever is going on can be resolved.
Sometimes, it also comes down to management of the table. A good DM or group can help mitigate some issues or help someone incorporate, but there's a reasonable limit here as well and a table is no place for a therapy session.
So in the end...yeah, I've run into some quirky PCs. I remember the person behind the paper more, though.
and the next session two in the chest one in the head.
It's not often that you're JUSTIFIED in team killing two sessions in a row, let alone straight up executing the PC in question both times.
Probably a Water Singer bard in a desert campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably a Water Singer bard in a desert campaign.
Yeah, I can imagine limited utility on that one. Did the player know it was a desert campaign?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably a Water Singer bard in a desert campaign.Yeah, I can imagine limited utility on that one. Did the player know it was a desert campaign?
Desert campaign is an exaggeration, but a large part of the next several sessions would be taken up by desert travel. I wouldn't fault him if he had made the character at the beginning of the campaign, but this was his latest after losing three characters in two sessions, so he created it right before the travel started.
We never got to see if he would be any good in other environments because the player whose character was the only one who could wield the plot device axe dropped out and the rest of us got bored.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, where are we getting the idea that bards are feat starved?
I find them to be all the time. Sure you can get the essentials in quickly (i.e. Lingering Performance, Power Attack), but if you want anything beyond that it can be annoying. The joys of being a class without bonus feats... all this awesome Bard stuff I have, if only I could trade some of it for feats. Well not the awesome stuff I guess; Countersong, you can go.
I generally feel pretty feat starved playing a Fighter.
On topic -- There's probably too many to list (I'll do some thinking), but one springs to mind today. I once was running a game which included my cousins. One of them made a big, beefy, half-giant barbarian. The other was a teensy kobold sorcerer.
They get to the entrance of the dungeon, and it's all creepy, dark, and dank. At which point the half-giant gets cold feet and wants to hide behind the kobold. The kobold looked up at him cowering behind him and was like "Really dude?" :P
An Elvish Bard(Archeologist)/somethingerother
Since he was an Archeologist he had no Bardic Performance. I can't remember him ever casting a spell. We came across a magic item sitting alone in plain sight (everyone agreed that it was trapped), he walked up and grabbed it setting off the trap, then claimed that he had looked for traps. He relied on his passive Trap spotter talent to find traps, and was always pissed when he set one off (the GM would roll and not say anything if he didn't spot it). He set off several other traps that we warned him about. It culminated when after a long day of combats and fighting, spell casters (except for him) were out of spells, cleric out of healing, etc. the party barricaded itself in a room and set up watches, which he said he didn't have to take because he was an elf.
Wait, where are we getting the idea that bards are feat starved?I find them to be all the time. Sure you can get the essentials in quickly (i.e. Lingering Performance, Power Attack), but if you want anything beyond that it can be annoying. The joys of being a class without bonus feats... all this awesome Bard stuff I have, if only I could trade some of it for feats. Well not the awesome stuff I guess; Countersong, you can go.
I would say it's not so much that the bard is feat-starved as it is that (as befits a Jack of All Trades) the bard has a lot of good options for his feats. Though I guess that might be a case of it depending on your definition of feat-starved. Getting everything the bard needs isn't a problem, but you'll never get everything you want.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed with Anarchy. This thread is nothing but moaning about bads in our group.
Another story: had a dude who, when playing a cleric, decided that his level 2 powers could stop the plotline of the GM:
GM: okay, let's see which NPCs died in this giant battle... *rolls*... You find Sir Edward (dude we know, but is of little importance) lying on a cot, nearly dead, with a large hole cut through his stomach from a spear. He's bleeding severely, and the doctor (level 8 cleric) looks at you and solemnly shakes her head.
PC: I cast cure light wounds, bringing him above 0
Everyone else: dude, he's dead, you can't do anything.
This went on for about half an hour. He was trying to argue that his heal spell would bring him out of negative HP and back alive, and everyone else was trying to tell him that this was a moment of gameplay and story segregation, the GM decided that this person would die. He simply wouldn't be convinced. It wasn't even an alignment-based action, he was NE. I swear, he is the single most annoying person I have ever played with. If the GM is repeatedly telling you "no, he's dead" after having listened to your argument, just give it up!
Not sure I'm seeing the problem here. The GM said he was NEARLY dead. He tried to heal the guy.
Then the GM said "Yeah he's dead because Fiat".
If anything that's bad GMing, not playing. If he wanted the guy to be dead, he should have SAID he was dead. Not "nearly dead but I won't let you heal him because reasons".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've been a DM for at least six years. In my honest opinion, every new player no matter the age, 12 to 90, can get pretty obnoxious and annoying when they are just starting. But that's because they're new, and lots come out with fantastic characters. Like how in a recent campaign, a new player made an Orc Barbarian character named Be-otch Ballsdeep. He was a friend of mine who just happened to come over while we were starting a quest so he joined in after we did the paperwork for the character. Now, after one session, his character, who is still called Be-otch, is a great character that everyone enjoys having around and plays relatively well with the exception that he is new.
But I've gone far from the topic.
In my 10 years of playing table top roleplaying, and my six years of DMing them, the worst PC I've ever dealt with was one from just a few months ago. I had recently moved, leaving my old group behind, so I found a new one, with players who were new to the game, one of which being my girlfriend. There was one player, named Jake, who made a female Drow Rogue, which was nice because most were spell casters and tanks, and it's nice to have a skill monkey around. After about three or four sessions, he announced to the group that his character killed herself and that he was going to make a new one.
While the group was upset at the fact that he just randomly killed himself, it pissed my girlfriend off most, and I'll tell you why. His new character was a human character named Jake, who looked exactly like himself in real life, was the same age, height, and weight, and had literally copied my girlfriends cleric (alignment, spells, armor, deities, domains, you name it) because he thought 'clerics were cooler'. He then found out that he was an even worse cleric than a rogue. In the span of three months, he'd changed his character 5 more times, jumping between classes, races, and alignments, while simultaneously getting the party into trouble. My friend Lilandra ultimately punched him during a session after killing his 5th or 6th character, and he left the session in a huff.
See him around Wal-Mart sometimes now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once played with a druid who was an old man hippie.
That's uhh... the end of the character. Pretty sure he didn't actually do anything. Or at least nothing I remember...
I once played with a druid who was an old man hippie.
That's uhh... the end of the character. Pretty sure he didn't actually do anything. Or at least nothing I remember...
I once played with an Elf Druid who was addicted to hallucinogenic mushrooms and was constantly high. His signature move was grappling enemies and shoving either drugs or poisons down their throats. He wasn't a bad character, in fact he was probably one of the funniest characters and quirkiest character I ever played with, haha.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Rynjin:
In fairness having half-hour long arguments with a GM who's clearly made up their mind during the middle of play isn't usually a sign of a good player even if they are in the right.
And there's also everyone, not just the GM, disagreeing with them. Arguing RAW to be more important than the group's social contract isn't a good sign either.
I almost certainly wouldn't play with a GM who did cutscenes like that, mind you, but it sounds like this guy was being a bit of an ass about it.
I would say it's not so much that the bard is feat-starved as it is that (as befits a Jack of All Trades) the bard has a lot of good options for his feats. Though I guess that might be a case of it depending on your definition of feat-starved. Getting everything the bard needs isn't a problem, but you'll never get everything you want.Wait, where are we getting the idea that bards are feat starved?I find them to be all the time. Sure you can get the essentials in quickly (i.e. Lingering Performance, Power Attack), but if you want anything beyond that it can be annoying. The joys of being a class without bonus feats... all this awesome Bard stuff I have, if only I could trade some of it for feats. Well not the awesome stuff I guess; Countersong, you can go.
Ok, I'll go along with that. So many great feat choices, so few feats. Hard to spend one on Iron Will.
@Rynjin:
In fairness having half-hour long arguments with a GM who's clearly made up their mind during the middle of play isn't usually a sign of a good player even if they are in the right.
And there's also everyone, not just the GM, disagreeing with them. Arguing RAW to be more important than the group's social contract isn't a good sign either.
I almost certainly wouldn't play with a GM who did cutscenes like that, mind you, but it sounds like this guy was being a bit of an ass about it.
To go a touch further this guy basically did the equivalent of going "I fart really really loudly during the king's morale boosting speech before battle".
Time. Place.
It's killing a dramatic moment and disrespectful to the story that's tryin to be told.
@Rynjin:
In fairness having half-hour long arguments with a GM who's clearly made up their mind during the middle of play isn't usually a sign of a good player even if they are in the right.
And there's also everyone, not just the GM, disagreeing with them. Arguing RAW to be more important than the group's social contract isn't a good sign either.
I almost certainly wouldn't play with a GM who did cutscenes like that, mind you, but it sounds like this guy was being a bit of an ass about it.
To go a touch further this guy basically did the equivalent of going "I fart really really loudly during the king's morale boosting speech before battle".
Time. Place.
It's killing a dramatic moment and disrespectful to the story that's tryin to be told.
Not sure it's really the same thing.
There's a difference between "I'm going to make an obnoxious gesture for no reason" and "I'm going to do the logical thing in this scenario. Seriously guys, why are you so sad? If you really cared about this guy you'd stop being an a&%$!@# and pour that Cure Mod potion you have on your belt down his throat to save him. Guys. Come on."
A guy was dying by Hp damage, but still alive, the cleric had healing spells, the cleric could not heal him because storytime = BAd DMing.
The assumption being made here was that the guy was dying of HP damage.
The assumption being made here is that the guy is alive. The GM already decided he died it was fiat that was keeping him alive. Not the other way around.
And lets be serious here. A huge batle and no one in the whole army but the pc's had a healing spell, or an orison?
Maybe it's merely a style difference but it annoys me when dramatic moments are butchered by cheeky players being "logical".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only problem here is that, IIRC, the PC who insisted on healing the dieing NPC was NE and probably wouldn't give a poop.Not sure it's really the same thing.
There's a difference between "I'm going to make an obnoxious gesture for no reason" and "I'm going to do the logical thing in this scenario. Seriously guys, why are you so sad? If you really cared about this guy you'd stop being an a#+&+@~ and pour that Cure Mod potion you have on your belt down his throat to save him. Guys. Come on."
Healing is resource preservation. If you're part of a team (extrapolated to mean army in this case), you heal your soldiers because you spent a great deal of resources to feed and train them, and you don't want them to go to waste.
Good characters heal because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. Neutral/Evil characters heal to protect investments.
The only problem here is that, IIRC, the PC who insisted on healing the dieing NPC was NE and probably wouldn't give a poop.Not sure it's really the same thing.
There's a difference between "I'm going to make an obnoxious gesture for no reason" and "I'm going to do the logical thing in this scenario. Seriously guys, why are you so sad? If you really cared about this guy you'd stop being an a#+&+@~ and pour that Cure Mod potion you have on your belt down his throat to save him. Guys. Come on."
Healing is resource preservation. If you're part of a team (extrapolated to mean army in this case), you heal your soldiers because you spent a great deal of resources to feed and train them, and you don't want them to go to waste.
Good characters heal because it makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. Evil characters heal to protect investments.
Dead people aren't as profitable.
Watched anyway...
The only problem here is that, IIRC, the PC who insisted on healing the dieing NPC was NE and probably wouldn't give a poop.Not sure it's really the same thing.
There's a difference between "I'm going to make an obnoxious gesture for no reason" and "I'm going to do the logical thing in this scenario. Seriously guys, why are you so sad? If you really cared about this guy you'd stop being an a#+&+@~ and pour that Cure Mod potion you have on your belt down his throat to save him. Guys. Come on."
Not neccesarily.
Saving a a life (could) = new friend+ more prestige = more favors.
Exactly. There are plenty of greedy, self-interested reasons to keep someone alive. Like you pointed out, the NE cleric now has a guy who owes him a huge favor, and all it cost him was a single level 1 spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A guy was dying by Hp damage, but still alive, the cleric had healing spells, the cleric could not heal him because storytime = BAd DMing.
I've done this as a DM. I told the cleric that his spell had failed. The NPC, another cleric had seen his entire village destroyed, and everyone else slain. Their bodies hauled off to be animated as undead. He was left barely alive, and lost the will to live. He told his story and died.
The players fully accepted what happened, and liked the roleplaying aspect.
What was the in-game reason fo the spell to fail?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What was the in-game reason fo the spell to fail?
That's the thing.
There doesn't need to be one. It's drama. It's story. It's a dying NPC serving there one fleeting purpose and being moved off stage.
Call it stylistic differences but I've always felt narrative trumps mechanics. Some players just fail to grasp that it's robbing a good tool of the GM and creating more work when they fight so hard against it.
To me, it does more harm to the game to sit there and argue with the GM for half an hour over a fate that was already decided and announced.
What was the in-game reason fo the spell to fail?
The NPC cleric's God had accepted his servants wish to die, and prevented the spell from working. For the PC, it was as if he hadn't cast the spell at all.
What was the in-game reason fo the spell to fail?That's the thing.
There doesn't need to be one. It's drama. It's story. It's a dying NPC serving there one fleeting purpose and being moved off stage.
Call it stylistic differences but I've always felt narrative trumps mechanics. Some players just fail to grasp that it's robbing a good tool of the GM and creating more work when they fight so hard against it.
Agree to disagree then. For me is not a story that the GM tell to us, but a game when we can participate.
I coudl believe the
"just a second before you complete the spell the guy dies"
But
"no no, you can not use your class feature to change my story", feels wrong at several levels.
What was the in-game reason fo the spell to fail?The NPC cleric's God had accepted his servants wish to die, and prevented the spell from working. For the PC, it was as if he hadn't cast the spell at all.
Drat, GM Fiat. Foiled again!
More seriously, not the sign of a bad PC imo, and I'm not a fan of it because it can work directly against giving players a chance to affect the plot.
In other news, I once met a monk with 8 con. That was a short lived adventure for him. Poor guy got hit by a charge.
Another time I met a bard who had the misfortune of being with a GM who was using facing houserules and said you could've perform while fighting. Luckily the bard was pretty pacifist! He spent most of his time reminding us he gave us a +1/+1. He was pretty much there to steal the spotlight during roleplay. Not a bad guy, just an off character.
Another time I met a guy with 3 dips into 3/4 BAB classes, thought he was one of the most ridiculously awesome players there, and... well... he was a skill monkey with little to no combat ability. His dips were to make things in class. He eventually met his end to a chaos beast. I didn't miss him.
Oh! My favorite, the helpful cavalier. So imagine a guy who's whole schtick was using assist for +2. He left his horse all the time behind even though he was built for charging. He once went a whole day accomplishing nothing, no skill checks, no damage, nothing! He could've at least hit one guy, but he spent a whole combat saying "I'm not fighting that!" and dropped his weapon while the monster attacked his teammates. His avarage damage in an adventuring day totaled about... 10, at level 5, unless he got a hit on charge, which he thought instantly meant his character was the most amazing one there and validated himself! He contributed to several player deaths and chased one guy from the table for it. He wasn't new, so it was pretty baffling. I have no idea what he was doing. Barely spoke too, but maybe that's a good thing... So yes, a guy who may not having hit triple damage total with his character before lvl 7, rarely made skill checks, and sat in the back.
What was the in-game reason fo the spell to fail?That's the thing.
There doesn't need to be one. It's drama. It's story. It's a dying NPC serving there one fleeting purpose and being moved off stage.
Call it stylistic differences but I've always felt narrative trumps mechanics.
There absolutely needs to be a reason. There's a big difference between 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because he's surrounded by a Wall of Force' and 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because that would spoil the non-interactive story I'm trying to tell'.
There absolutely needs to be a reason. There's a big difference between 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because he's surrounded by a Wall of Force' and 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because that would spoil the non-interactive story I'm trying to tell'.What was the in-game reason fo the spell to fail?That's the thing.
There doesn't need to be one. It's drama. It's story. It's a dying NPC serving there one fleeting purpose and being moved off stage.
Call it stylistic differences but I've always felt narrative trumps mechanics.
And if he made the wall of force up on the fly then what's the difference?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And if he made the wall of force up on the fly then what's the difference?There absolutely needs to be a reason. There's a big difference between 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because he's surrounded by a Wall of Force' and 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because that would spoil the non-interactive story I'm trying to tell'.What was the in-game reason fo the spell to fail?That's the thing.
There doesn't need to be one. It's drama. It's story. It's a dying NPC serving there one fleeting purpose and being moved off stage.
Call it stylistic differences but I've always felt narrative trumps mechanics.
Verisimilitude.
When I interact with fiction (reading, watching, playing, whatever), I require a degree of verisimilitude. If the heroes try to stop the summoning, and fail due to, y'know, an actual reason (even if it comes from nowhere, and never comes up again) that's a lot less disruptive to my enjoyment of that piece of media than them not doing the obvious thing to solve the problem (or having the obvious thing fail for no reason). It preserves immersion and keeps me engaged with what's going on.
I've stopped watching movies or reading books that violated this rule, and in a directed situation like an RPG where the whole point is being able to effect and direct the narrative, I'd honestly be both bewildered and slightly insulted if anyone told me "No your character can't do that." about a perfectly logical IC action for reasons of plot.
Doesn't mean the player originally mentioned wasn't being an ass about it, though.
There's a big difference between 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because he's surrounded by a Wall of Force' and 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because that would spoil the non-interactive story I'm trying to tell'.And if he made the wall of force up on the fly then what's the difference?
The difference is that the former causes the world to cease to seem like a logically consistent place where the players have control over their characters.
So, if you ever want a character to be past salvation but not dead, try: 'He's suffering from an injury that causes Con Drain Bleed that can only be treated by a Restoration spell or Miracle.' (He can still die during the casting of the spell if they make the attempt - Restoration has a one minute casting time.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if he made the wall of force up on the fly then what's the difference?There absolutely needs to be a reason. There's a big difference between 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because he's surrounded by a Wall of Force' and 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because that would spoil the non-interactive story I'm trying to tell'.What was the in-game reason fo the spell to fail?That's the thing.
There doesn't need to be one. It's drama. It's story. It's a dying NPC serving there one fleeting purpose and being moved off stage.
Call it stylistic differences but I've always felt narrative trumps mechanics.
The difference is huge
"your arrows bounce off his wall of force" or "He has fickle winds up" or "there is a wind wall" Heck even "His bodyguard takes the arrow for him" are all things that make sense and cannot be debated
"you can't fire arrows because I don't want you to" is destroying player agency. and intrinsically bad.
Another to the pile, I once met a wizard who was made by a guy who swore he never minmaxed, but greensting scorpion and elf race and improved initiative. Well he always attacked the enemies good save, and he liked to use spells that took two saves, and he didn't want to use metamagic. He was also good at being captain obvious and restating things other people just said, and he never used in character voice so he never really spoke in the group. So he wasn't adding much in the way of roleplay or planning either. His MO in combat was to cast protective spells first, cast not save or die spells, then use DD if things got hairy at the first chance and maybe take other members with him(sometimes against their will and dooming other party members...)
There's a big difference between 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because he's surrounded by a Wall of Force' and 'You can't fire arrows at this guy while he's completing the summoning ritual because that would spoil the non-interactive story I'm trying to tell'.And if he made the wall of force up on the fly then what's the difference?The difference is that the former causes the world to cease to seem like a logically consistent place where the players have control over their characters.
So, if you ever want a character to be past salvation but not dead, try: 'He's suffering from an injury that causes Con Drain Bleed that can only be treated by a Restoration spell or Miracle.' (He can still die during the casting of the spell if they make the attempt - Restoration has a one minute casting time.)
And there we have it.
The only real difference is window dressing. Both accomplish the same thing. For the same reasons.
I do agree that the cleric and the dying guy is bad GMing. But not because he suddenly ripped narrative control from the players. But only because he messed up and dropped the illusion of choice. Being an NE guy worshiping a presumably Neutral or Evil god the GM could have simply said "Your god denies it."
So no there doesn't need to be a reason. Not a real one anyway. Just a half assed excuse will do (it worked for Star Trek).
The fact that people believe anyone actually goes "no because that's bad for the story" explains certain things.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That, and TRPGs are supposed to be different. I love video games. More than Pathfinder over the long haul I'd say.
But I get from Pathfinder what I don't get from many video games. Which is just the freedom to choose when, where, and how I do something.
Being stopped by an Invisible Waist High Fence or being smacked with Gameplay and Story Segregation (why didn't they just hit Aerith with a Phoenix Down?) is acceptable in a video game.
Not in Pathfinder. Give me an explanation better than "Because I don't want it to work". You're the GM, you have options.
Have the character not want to be healed and save against the spell. Have a curse (like Bestow Curse) laid on him so he can't receive magical healing. Make him trapped in an Antimagic Field. Stop teh spell from completing. SOMETHING.
Not "It doesn't work just because".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So...what's the difference between playing in TarkXT's game and playing Final Fantasy (or any other JRPG)?
Why compare the two? Obvious Final Fantasy has a more well written script. It's written by professionals who have made careers out of it. TarkXT and most DM's are amateurs. Comparing Final Fantasy or, frankly, any video game to a Pathfinder campaign is like comparing a nice painting your friend made to the Vatican's St. Peters Basilica. The difference between JRPG's and DM's trying to play a table top game is that DM's are just trying to make due with what they have.
Don't compare JRPG's and DM's doing tabletop. Because they are completely different.