Sorry, blame the English Major in me. :)
In classis literature many of our heroes are what I would consider "optimized". Hercules, Sherlock Holmes, Beowulf, Lancelot, all are exceptional human or demi-humans. Achilles was close but that heel disadvantage he took did him no favors in the end.
Even in modern day life our heroes are optimized. Take a look at a NFL football team, each player is among the best in the world at what they do and are each specialized for his particular role on that team. How many feats, skill and traits did Seahawk Steven Hauschka but into his kicking foot?
Optimized characters are fun for many gamers and they can, if you let it, be fun to GM as well. As long as the optimization fits the character concept I really have no problem with it.
-MD
I don't know theJeff...they were just examples. I'll let you and others figure it out and let me know that were I erred.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are they optimized or did they just roll well for stats and are now higher level?
Hercules didn't optimize, for example - he got a whole bunch of bonuses from being the son of a God.
They're still optimized -- you'll notice that Hercules is a warrior and a wrestler, not a poet or priest. Sherlock Holmes is notorious for being a knowledge specialist, to the point that he doesn't know that the earth goes around the sun, and having been informed of that, tries to forget it.
The guy who plays kicker in high school and does well enough at it to be recruited to a D-I school is not going to decided on a whim that he's kicked enough and now it's time to try to play cornerback -- or second base. Any coach will tell you to play to your strengths.....
Another aspect to consider is that interaction and ability to affect outcomes impacts player participation.
One thing the videos in the OP don't address is that while games can tell fantastic stories, the story is often the part of the game that I as the player don't have control over. I get to push buttons and kill monsters. I do often find that if I enjoy the mechanics of the game, I start skipping the story cut scenes, because I want to get back to the game play, which is more interesting for me. I don't remember much of the story later on (clearly, because I skipped it), but I remember the exciting moments of game play.
To relate this to RPG's, players will focus on where they feel they have impact in the game. In a game like PF, it is incumbent on the GM to incorporate player actions and input in developing the story. If the GM does a good job of this (and the players are interested) you get a group that is excited about the story and focuses on how it develops.
If on the other hand the GM has a pre-written scenario (published or not) where events will unfold in a certain patter regardless of player actions, players are more likely to focus on the area of the games where they do have direct input, combat. With an inexperienced GM, for example, who is running an AP, they might have difficulty adjusting the adventure on the fly and reacting to strange ideas from the players. In a game like that the story becomes the thing that links one encounter to the next, but the game is really just about the encounters. Since players are focused on the encounters, you get a focus on optimization.
This concept of course is not taking into account personal preference. Some people play games because they like killing monsters and coming up with cool combos and will focus on that regardless of external forces.
You know TORG Planescape fits.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Shadowrun Golarion," as would "Shadowrun Shadow Earth," "Pathfinder Shadow Earth," "Shadow Earth 3.0," "TORG Golarion," "TORG Planescape," "2nd Edition D&D Eberron," "World of Darkness PARANOIA," et cetera.I'ld play those games. But I think PFS Paranoia would be hilarious.
The PFS is happy. The PFS is crazy.
The PFS will help you become happy. This will drive you crazy.
Being a citizen of Absalom is fun. The PFS says so. The PFS is your friend.
Many traitors threaten Absalom. Many happy citizens live in Absalom. Most happy citizens are crazy.
Which are more dangerous, traitors or happy citizens?
Rooting out traitors will make you happy. The PFS tells you so. If you are not happy, The PFS will use you as spell components.
Being a Pathfinder is fun. The PFS tells you so. Do you doubt The PFS, pathfinder?
Pathfinders get shot at, stabbed, mangled, incinerated, poisoned, stapled, blown to bits and occasionally, accidentally executed. This is so much fun that many Pathfinders go crazy.
You will work with many Pathfinders. They all carry greatswords.
Aren't you glad you have a greatsword too? Won't this be fun? Stay alert! Trust no one! Keep your greatsword handy!Go on! Optimise away. I dare you.
Failure to optimize means you aren't serving the Pathfinder Society to your fullest. Not serving the Pathfinder Society is grounds for incineration.
****WARNING****
Stating that a character needs to be optimized implies that the Pathfinder Society created said character with inherent flaws. Pointing out the flaws in anything is grounds for incineration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... you mean that's not how PFS works?
After some of the stories... I mean... I thought... well... nevermind.
I am in error. No one is screaming. You have my cooperation.
|
I'd be happy to play Paranoia as Organised Play.
But you're reliant on the other players having the right mindset. Too many would either get hurt feelings about PvP, or would go the other extreme, and just play a violent lunatic.
Paranoia is best when everyone understands some brand of subtlety, and how to make things look like 'accidents'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If only Durvin G-EST knew what he started...
|
|
But yes, there are extra dimensions to Paranoia. APs exploring that angle would be very bizzare experiences and may need a warning.
Warning! The senior GMs at Paizo feel that this adventure will do truly freaky things to your PC. Use the pregens inside. We really mean it.
The 'We Be Goblins' adventures seem to fit that category already.
They encourage the PCs to nobble each other, for all kinds of reasons, some of which are even related to the plot. And a character like Mogmurch is a danger to himself and others, even if he's played straight (though why you'd want to do so is beyond me).
I'd be happy to see more of those, if only to keep my friends in regular paid work...
In classis literature many of our heroes are what I would consider "optimized". Hercules, Sherlock Holmes, Beowulf, Lancelot, all are exceptional human or demi-humans. Achilles was close but that heel disadvantage he took did him no favors in the end.
Even in modern day life our heroes are optimized. Take a look at a NFL football team, each player is among the best in the world at what they do and are each specialized for his particular role on that team. How many feats, skill and traits did Seahawk Steven Hauschka but into his kicking foot?
Optimized characters are fun for many gamers and they can, if you let it, be fun to GM as well. As long as the optimization fits the character concept I really have no problem with it.
-MD
Let me start by saying that optimization isn't always bad, or good, or...anything. It's situational.
That said, I do find it annoying more often than not when fellow players try to over-optimize. The greatest problem is almost always when players optimize combat. If someone optimizes lock picking, they can make a single roll, and it doesn't really hamper the party if they are always making the Disable Device checks. No one ever feels underwhelmed because the rogue is too damn good at breaking and entering.
But in combat, it's a different story. If the optimized barbarian charges in and one-shots everything, it's boring, and anti-climatic. Even worse, it may force the GM to start optimizing their creatures to counteract it, which can be potentially lethal to the characters who aren't combat-optimized. A scaled up lock DC isn't likely to cause a TPK. A scaled up BBEG might. Using a (college) sports analogy, it would be like being a division three team that gets bumped up to division one because of a single player.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To follow up that Disable device analogy by Calvinball, it's not just that a tougher lock DC isn't going to TPK, but it's the relative effects of different areas of optimisation, on session time and prep done away from the game.
If the Rogue makes a check on a take 10, or is forced to roll, once, twice, or five times, before hitting the DC, it still only takes up a short time of play, unless she's being forced to do it with combat erupting around her, and is having to wait for her turn to cycle round.
Non-combat skill rolls are expected to take up a short time.
But combat is a different matter; it's usually expected that when combat breaks out, it will take a certain amount of session time. The GM may have estimated that he only needs to prepare the next few encounters, because that's as far as he expects the PCs to be able to progress.
He may have spent time creating stats, finding appropriate miniatures, painting them up, printing or assembling floorplans and scenery for the session he's budgetted his time for.
So when it gets trivialised, not only does he feel like he's wasting his time giving the players any kind of 'show', he could be left unprepared for them getting to the next location earlier than he thought.
And annoyed at a player who's made his life more difficult.
Whether a GM is justified in investing so much time and effort into session prep is another subject, but it's a fact that many do, and to see that bypassed or beaten too easily can seem like your eforts aren't appreciated.
It would be like putting out a buffet, taking care to include different ingredients to complement varied nuanced tastes, only to have the first guest through the door mash it together and cram it into his face.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To follow up that Disable device analogy by Calvinball, it's not just that a tougher lock DC isn't going to TPK, but it's the relative effects of different areas of optimisation, on session time and prep done away from the game.
If the Rogue makes a check on a take 10, or is forced to roll, once, twice, or five times, before hitting the DC, it still only takes up a short time of play, unless she's being forced to do it with combat erupting around her, and is having to wait for her turn to cycle round.
Non-combat skill rolls are expected to take up a short time.But combat is a different matter; it's usually expected that when combat breaks out, it will take a certain amount of session time. The GM may have estimated that he only needs to prepare the next few encounters, because that's as far as he expects the PCs to be able to progress.
He may have spent time creating stats, finding appropriate miniatures, painting them up, printing or assembling floorplans and scenery for the session he's budgetted his time for.
So when it gets trivialised, not only does he feel like he's wasting his time giving the players any kind of 'show', he could be left unprepared for them getting to the next location earlier than he thought.
And annoyed at a player who's made his life more difficult.Whether a GM is justified in investing so much time and effort into session prep is another subject, but it's a fact that many do, and to see that bypassed or beaten too easily can seem like your eforts aren't appreciated.
It would be like putting out a buffet, taking care to include different ingredients to complement varied nuanced tastes, only to have the first guest through the door mash it together and cram it into his face.
Sounds like the DM needs to feel less entitlement to me.
Some of the most memorable encounters I've run were ones where the players destroyed them in 2 rounds or less. They felt like heroes, we got great stories, and I learnt to balance my encounters better.
The best part is, even then the players don't go 'man that was easy'. They go 'wow that was tense, i'm so glad we pulled off that epic charge/bullrush combo and crushed him so badly'. Actually riskier/longer doesn't necessarily mean better, funner, or more interesting in any way.
A good DM gets off his high horse and balances encounters around the players, accepting mistakes and adjusting the plot as necessary. A bad DM gets annoyed because the players 'ruined his encounter', or 'derailed his plot' or 'did something unpredictable'.
To follow up that Disable device analogy by Calvinball, it's not just that a tougher lock DC isn't going to TPK, but it's the relative effects of different areas of optimisation, on session time and prep done away from the game.
If the Rogue makes a check on a take 10, or is forced to roll, once, twice, or five times, before hitting the DC, it still only takes up a short time of play, unless she's being forced to do it with combat erupting around her, and is having to wait for her turn to cycle round.
Non-combat skill rolls are expected to take up a short time.
The Rogue having to keep retrying a Disable Device roll can actually have a pretty big impact. You're losing 2d4 rounds every time, so he's eating your min/level buffs.
Plus if he fails by 5 or more on a trap, it goes off.
|
|
The Rogue having to keep retrying a Disable Device roll can actually have a pretty big impact. You're losing 2d4 rounds every time, so he's eating your min/level buffs.
Plus if he fails by 5 or more on a trap, it goes off.
Yes, but it takes very little table time. The rolls are made, the time taken calculated, everyone ticks off that many rounds from their spell effects, the game moves on.
An optimised Rogue taking one round rather than two or three, means the group gets past the obstacle in 20 seconds of real time, rather than 30-40 seconds.| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't the "quickness" of the fights that creates ill feelings at the table though it can contribute... No; it is the time share that matters. If you have a mixed group and one guy single-rounds most of the encounters then all the other people at the table who are expecting some table time in combat are left with nothing. "Oh you go third? Sorry you get to do nothing this combat". BUT if the GM makes the baddies powerful enough to last to round two then suddenly it becomes apparent that a hack and slasher with a weaker build is simply going to die, NOT get more combat time. And this creates HUGE resentment toward the optimizer who spent months combing up every trick in the books or on the internet to master his build. Because now all those combat aficionados who didn't "eat, sleep, optimize" all that time have to suddenly catch up inside of a week. So most groups answer isn't to keep punishing all the lesser optimizers, NO most groups either kick out the "munchkin" or put house rules in place to keep the over-optimizer at the same power level as his friends. And so that over-optimizer comes crying on the internet that he plays with a tyrant GM who won't let him play anything cool.
|
Well my gaming group it's expected that one shows up with a compatent character. Not optimized but if he or she is not pulling their weight at the table. They either adapt or find a new gaming table. Same thing as a DM. I tell players up front that if they make a fighter who can't hit the broad side of a barn and/or can't survive being sneezed on I'm not doing the pc any favors. To me it's more work trying to work with and around those who don't optimze then those who do. To be blunt I would consider it a dick move on the part of players and their dms who boot out a player who is doing what they are supposed to at the table. Be both effective in combat and out. Roleplaying and being effective in combat can and do work well together.
Mind you it also depends on the players, dms and who they play at the table. If it's a table where it's moslty roleplay and no combat. I adapt and alter my character and style of play and vice versa. What is missed about D&D as a whole is that eventually one will encounter combat. Unless the dm goes ou of his way to minimize encounters. So one has to keep in mind that i playing a Fighter having a Str of 10 and a Con of 10 won't get you too far. Espcially if their is no one who can cast healing spells.
I played one time where I felt resentment from the group because I was doing my job at the table. Never again. It almost soured me on the hobby as a whole. C'mon I'm the bad guy because I am doing what I'm supposed to with my character both in and out of combat.
|
Yes, but it takes very little table time. The rolls are made, the time taken calculated, everyone ticks off that many rounds from their spell effects, the game moves on.
An optimised Rogue taking one round rather than two or three, means the group gets past the obstacle in 20 seconds of real time, rather than 30-40 seconds.
Which edition are you playing, where a full round only takes 20 seconds of real time to play out? It's g&*@@#n sure not Pathfinder, where you're very lucky if the round takes 20 minutes play.
|
How can one experience sour you on the entire hobby?It was a series of bad Dms. Not one after the other of course. It was nearly the final nail in the coffin for me. I'm the bad guy for not only doing my job at the table but doing it well.
Unfortunately, your job is to not only facilitate your own fun, but that of everyone else at the table too. If you can't have fun at the same table as these other people, you need a different table.
This is my overall gripe with this topic. Optimizing isn't bad. Making a rogue/sorcerer/druid multiclass isn't bad. It's not being "in tune" with the rest of the table that's bad. My barely-there handwavey roleplaying would offend many groups who are trying for a more immersive in-character social game. I could run at an optimizers' table, but I would tire of it quite quickly and wouldn't really have much fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can one experience sour you on the entire hobby?It was a series of bad Dms. Not one after the other of course. It was nearly the final nail in the coffin for me. I'm the bad guy for not only doing my job at the table but doing it well.
False; It's not your job to smash encounters in one round.
It is your job to have fun and not ruin the fun of others.Clearly you were failing at that second part of your job.
It isn't the "quickness" of the fights that creates ill feelings at the table though it can contribute... No; it is the time share that matters. If you have a mixed group and one guy single-rounds most of the encounters then all the other people at the table who are expecting some table time in combat are left with nothing. "Oh you go third? Sorry you get to do nothing this combat". BUT if the GM makes the baddies powerful enough to last to round two then suddenly it becomes apparent that a hack and slasher with a weaker build is simply going to die, NOT get more combat time. And this creates HUGE resentment toward the optimizer who spent months combing up every trick in the books or on the internet to master his build. Because now all those combat aficionados who didn't "eat, sleep, optimize" all that time have to suddenly catch up inside of a week. So most groups answer isn't to keep punishing all the lesser optimizers, NO most groups either kick out the "munchkin" or put house rules in place to keep the over-optimizer at the same power level as his friends. And so that over-optimizer comes crying on the internet that he plays with a tyrant GM who won't let him play anything cool.
This is really what I was going for. It's the "all Jedi or no Jedi" idea. The biggest combat complaint that I've heard across various tabletops with varying groups is, "I didn't get to do anything that encounter."
If the team rawrsmashes the BBEG into oblivion, it's empowering for everyone. If one player does that almost on their own, not so much.
|
|
An optimised Rogue taking one round rather than two or three, means the group gets past the obstacle in 20 seconds of real time, rather than 30-40 seconds.
Which edition are you playing, where a full round only takes 20 seconds of real time to play out? It's g$@&$@n sure not Pathfinder, where you're very lucky if the round takes 20 minutes play.
I was referring to actions outside of combat, when the GM describes the area, everyone declares what they're doing, the Rogue declares 'search, disable trap if required, then open.', and the whole thing is resolved in seconds, even if it represents longer time in-game.
I made an exception above for combat situations, where they're waiting for the round to cycle back round to them. Though usually, the Rogue would join in the combat, to end it quicker, unless they were in a trapped room filling with water, spikes, gas, etc.|
|
Unfortunately, your job is to not only facilitate your own fun, but that of everyone else at the table too. If you can't have fun at the same table as these other people, you need a different table.
There is a point where I need to do my own thing as well. I will try to make sure that the rest of the group has fun. I also refuse to build a character that is not good at what he does as well. If I build a Fighter I take all the bread and butter feats so to speak. I don't go out of my way to optimize Con and Str. It's hard to not to do with the vanilla Fighter. due to a lack of skills and skill points. I will advise and encourage someone to make a similar character who can actually hit and do damage. I politely do so. I back off if I offend. At the same time if the other Fighter can't hit or take damage. The fault lies not with me. It lies with the other player. I refuse to purposefully gimp a character to please the other players and or the DM at the table. I tried it twice I don't do it again and calmly leave the group. Even if it means no gaming to be had.
This is my overall gripe with this topic. Optimizing isn't bad. Making a rogue/sorcerer/druid multiclass isn't bad. It's not being "in tune" with the rest of the table that's bad. My barely-there handwavey roleplaying would offend many groups who are trying for a more immersive in-character social game. I could run at an optimizers' table, but I would tire of it quite quickly and wouldn't really have much fun.
It's strange that it's considered bad and that roleplaying can't be done at the same time. I find it harder to tailor a game with non-optimized players than with optimized ones. The firs because I'm always wondering if my encounters will kill some or all. The second I can see what they can do and develop tactics more easily without fear of death. It happens yet it's rare.
I wonder if some posters in this thread played or remember how important attributes were in second edition. Despite the "low attributes don't make a useless character" they tried to push in the PHB or was it the DMG. The rules said otherwise imo.
Want to open a door or carry sutff. Good luck with that nine or lower str. Force a locked or barred door. Or bend bards on a jail cell. Good luck. Take a low Dex. Good luck on acting first in initative if it's low enough. Expect to be hit by missile attacks more often as the enemies had a bonus with a low score. Con was even worse. A 9 Con give you a 60% chance to survive System Shock. The body trying to cope with say something like being polymorphed by a W
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if some posters in this thread played or remember how important attributes were in second edition. Despite the "low attributes don't make a useless character" they tried to push in the PHB or was it the DMG. The rules said otherwise imo.
Want to open a door or carry sutff. Good luck with that nine or lower str. Force a locked or barred door. Or bend bards on a jail cell. Good luck. Take a low Dex. Good luck on acting first in initative if it's low enough. Expect to be hit by missile attacks more often as the enemies had a bonus with a low score. Con was even worse. A 9 Con give you a 65% chance to survive System Shock. The body trying to cope with say something like being polymorphed by a Wizard. A 70% chance of being ressurected. 70% may look like a lot yet on a percentile dice it still leaves a 30% chance of dying. Int as well. A 9 Int gave two languages and the maximum spell level one could cast was fourth level. Good luck trying to learn a spell which was a whopping high 35%. A low Wisdom gave a percentage chance to fail to cast a spell. Again one of 9 gave 205 chance of spell failure.
With third edition and later attributes are still important imo. Nowhere near as they used to be where a player can take two 20s in a attribute and take 5 in two others with little penalty.
False; It's not your job to smash encounters in one round.
It is your job to have fun and not ruin the fun of others.
Clearly you were failing at that second part of your job.
Why do you assume I was smashing encounters in one round. I was doing my job which if I was playing a Fighter it's to hit often and do damage. If it's a group which involves more roleplaying then I adapt and build a approriate character. If it's more combat oriented I build a similar character. I'm sure but I can play to lose just to simply allow others to feel good at the table. If the other melee character is built to hit less and not do as much damage well it's on the player to while not optimize build a character that can do both as well. When I play Monopoly I play to win. I don't lose on purpose to make other feel better.
I told the dm and players from the start while not optimizing I was not going to hold back at the table. If I tell the group from the start well either the table adapts to my playstyle. It accepts it. Or I leave gracefully. I'm told old to rage quit. I'm a team player I try to do my best to make sure others enjoy myself. I also want to enjoy myself as well. Holding back a proper build to me just cheapens the experience.
What made it worse was that even with my build and when I held back at first the party still complained their characters were not effective. If the group is going to make sub-optimal characters or average characters it's on them if they are not having fun. If you decide to show up and play ice hockey with no protective equipment. Are given spare protective equipment from the other players. Then complain that your getting more injuries well the fault is on you. Not the smarter players for protecting themsevles.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People assume that because you claim to be talking about an over optimized character and that's what over optimized characters do. You seem to actually be talking about playing a non-gimped character, which is an entirely different thing.
To a certain extent many people optimize when making a character to a different degree. From what I'm seeing as soon as one takes say a high Str and Con when one builds a Fighter. Then one is already optimzing. To me that is designing a character properly. I could make a high int or cha Fighter as well. Yet it's also not worth it at least with the vanilla Fighter imo. Low skill points. I would have to make a low Str and Con to make that build effective. Then making a less effective Fighter imo. My philosophy with making characters is make what you want even if it's not as effective at the table like my character. Don't penalize me at the table because of it. If I can help everyone having fun at the table it's a bonus. I refuse to be miserable as a player because of it.
In one of my earlier runs as a 3E DM. I had two players who wanted to play Monks at the table. One full class another multiclass. The single class Monk while not optimizing made a character that did what he was good at. The multiclass decided to go with Bard as the second class. The players and myself warned him that Monks were MAD. That if he was going to multiclass he would be a less effective Monk. I also told him upfront that I was not doing him any favors either as a DM. He ignored any and all advice. Tried to do the same as the single class character and kept failing miserably. He never had enough attribute points to go around. Multiclassing works for some class combos. Not that many imo. If your going to ignore any and all advice well the fault is on you for building character that is not effective. Or in the case of the multiclassed Monk to hold back an not rush into combat.
Thejeff has the right of it. You came across seeming to support over-optimized concepts, If that isn't the case then I mistook your comments. But keep in mind if the others at the table are resenting you as you say, then you are probably doing something wrong, something that is making the game unfun for them.
|
|
I've tried running a short campaign that was powered down, and explicitly told the players I was doing so, and encouraged them to play sub-par characters. When I got baseline competent characters (str 18 fighter with a two-hander) I was, I believe, justifiably annoyed. If the agreement at the table, implicit or explicit, is that the characters are kept at a low competency level, then it's your job to either fall in with that agreement, or go play with a different group.
In the same way, if I run a game and tell the players it'll be a dungeon grinder, with occasional deaths resulting from nothing other than opening the wrong door, and a player whines to me when his cool backstory-heavy-but-mechanics-lacking character dies, I'm going to tell him to suck it up and make a better character.
Most groups aren't at those extremes, so you sort of just have to tune as best you can. At one point there was a post floating around here asking if there was ever a reason not to optimize. The argument was that you can always turn the power down during a game, but you can't really turn it up. The classic example is the god-wizard, who can dominate all of the encounters if he wants, but instead usually sits around casting buff and utility spells. This is mostly true, though with some character types, usually martials, it's difficult to turn your numbers down without actively tanking them. Stuff like rolling in sewage to get filth fever, getting double-vision drunk, stripping naked of your armor, and charging into combat with nothing but a rusty knife for a weapon.
Basically, I'm saying every group has the right to run whatever sort of game they want with whatever sort of restrictions on players and their characters that they want. The only real "job" of any individual within that group is to contribute to the fun-goal the group has set.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
How can one experience sour you on the entire hobby?It was a series of bad Dms. Not one after the other of course. It was nearly the final nail in the coffin for me. I'm the bad guy for not only doing my job at the table but doing it well.False; It's not your job to smash encounters in one round.
It is your job to have fun and not ruin the fun of others.
Clearly you were failing at that second part of your job.
By exactly the same token, isn't it their job to not ruin his fun, which clearly involves actually contributing?
I've had build and skill discrepancy in my games before. I don't tell the optimised dude to tone it down: I help the newer players improve their builds, and/or throw them some extra treasure/boons. Expecting everyone to be awful at the game, and punishing someone for not being awful, is a very odd thing indeed.
*edit*
The most hilarious thing about this thread is people are mostly complaining about high DPS builds. This blows my mind. I've had a optimised fighter in my game with the power to blow through two CR=level enemies in one round if they started within 5 ft of him. It STILL wasn't a big deal. DPS is so easy to adjust encounters for and similarly easy to boost on weaker characters.
Come back when you have a wizard trying to use earth elemental shape/bag of holding to bypass the dungeon and pop everyone into the boss room -- while scrying to make sure the boss is asleep. Or a scarred witch doctor with a slumber DC of 30+. These things become much more challenging to deal with.
Tangent:
I like pathfinder and role playing games because of the broad scope of activities and play that I can engage in with them.
Examples include:
- If I'm in a puzzle solving/problem solving mood I can sit down and say, "Can I design a character using these restrictions that can do (x)?"
- If I'm in a story telling mood I can develop an entire trope of characters (or a town/kingdom) with great depth and so on.
- If I'm interested in possibilities and theories at the time I can sit down and consider how the rules come together, pull apart and what points work and do not work.
- If I'm ready to 'rack up the score' I can build characters for any sort of optimization I want.
- I can come on like and trade stories about things I've seen or offer advice when I'm in a social mood.
However the reason I can do these things enjoyably is because of the rules set (mechanics) in place.
It's like when my father wants to work on cars -- he isn't looking to create the wheels, engine and so on entirely by himself from scratch. He's looking to adjust the timing on the motor, or change out the radio, do routine maintenance or the like.
Building the car from scratch on his own while it likely would be enjoyable would also be onerous. it would take a lot of time and commitment that generally he doesn't have to spend on the task.
Same for me with my role playing games: I am perfectly capable of developing my own rules, tools, and mechanics in order to facilitate my games and fun (indeed I have a system I've been slowly working on for years -- who doesn't?)... but that doesn't mean that's all I want to do or that I never want a different... 'flavor' to play with.
And that's what the different systems offer me.
That's why I have pathfinder, 3.5, shadowrun, battletech, cyberpunk, warhammer 40k, mechwarrior, heroes unlimited, Heroes 5th ed, world of darkness, 2nd edition, 4th edition, and a whole host of other games sitting on my shelves.
They are each different cars I can pull out and do different things with -- off roading, speed racing, demolition derby, fix-it-up, tune it up and all sorts of different choices of fun.
Such is good.
How can one experience sour you on the entire hobby?It was a series of bad Dms. Not one after the other of course. It was nearly the final nail in the coffin for me. I'm the bad guy for not only doing my job at the table but doing it well.False; It's not your job to smash encounters in one round.
It is your job to have fun and not ruin the fun of others.
Clearly you were failing at that second part of your job.By exactly the same token, isn't it their job to not ruin his fun, which clearly involves actually contributing?
I've had build and skill discrepancy in my games before. I don't tell the optimised dude to tone it down: I help the newer players improve their builds, and/or throw them some extra treasure/boons. Expecting everyone to be awful at the game, and punishing someone for not being awful, is a very odd thing indeed.
Why is it always "Expecting everyone to be awful and punishing someone for not being awful" as opposed to everyone being basically on par and one guy being on god-mode, which I've seen far more often and is clearly what Aranna was talking about - unless "smash encounters in one round" is the baseline for "contributing", which doesn't really seem right to me.
I see both equally. The problem is that people on the boards take things to extremes sometimes when the truth is often somewhere in the middle.
If I am in a group of "less optimized" characters I can normally tell if the GM is holding back or not. If that is the case then I default to a more "normal/not really optimized" build. If the GM is not about to take mercy on the party for building weaker characters that means I might have to pick up some of the slack for the party to stay alive.
Basically look at the table and build accordingly. I would say ask the GM what type of game he runs, but some might complain about that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why is it always "Expecting everyone to be awful and punishing someone for not being awful" as opposed to everyone being basically on par and one guy being on god-mode, which I've seen far more often and is clearly what Aranna was talking about - unless "smash encounters in one round" is the baseline for "contributing", which doesn't really seem right to me.
If you look up at the thread, you'll see people mostly complaining about that one character doing well, not the opposite. Just like you are doing. Thus my comment.
As for your actual argument: killing a CR equivalent monster in one round is not smashing it. I would not consider a (martial) character who takes more than 2 rounds to kill a CR=level monster to be 'on par' - the swingyness of pathfinder combat means they are risking death at lower levels in this case. If one character is strong but the others are competent, chances are there's no problem: I've only ever seen this kind of sourness from DMs who want their encounters to be 'gritty and dangerous', not players. Especially in terms of martials, the difference between 'on-par' and 'godlike' is usually the difference between killing in one round and killing in two rounds --- IE not a big deal at all.
As for why not balance in the other direction: very few people are having fun by being incompetent. Generally it is easier AND more palatable to help everyone build strong characters.
Rynjin, have you ever played Amber?
Its very much closer to free form than anything I have come across.
|
|
For me it's a middle ground as well. I like to build a effective character. Try to help others do the same. I try to adapt to the parties needs yet a the same time there is so much of that as a person I want to do. My goal is not to take out a npc or monster in two rounds. It's to be effective at the table. While also trying to make sure others have fun. Which depending on the table is hard to do. It's not that hard to optimize certain character classes in the game. The fighter just taking the usual feats like Weapon Focus, Specialization, Whirlwind attack is a good example imo. One can easily a build that tries something different.
It's not as effective or struggles at the table. Even with the help of the DM. A fighter with the bread and butter feats and with decent ability scores will simply do better. Overcome DR easier. Make will saves more often if he takes the Iron Will and does not dump Wisdom. To me it's not the fault of the DM or the player who makes a effective build. if a player dump Wisdom as a stat and keeps failing Will saves it's the fault of that player imo.
As for my posting style I come off as a rant. Really considering what some other posters have written on these forums and I'm the poster who sounds like he rants. Ma