I think he means that as a DM he does not already have the story planned out and expects the player characters to following along as he tells it, but instead (*as I do) he presents a situation, a setting, and the story is created by the participation of all the players, including himself.
Precisely. I'd also like to point out that a campaign-length story is particularly subject to this, because there's usually no reason that chapter two should flow particularly from chapter one without either active cooperation from the players (which can't be assumed) or heavy-handed railroading by the Game Master.
Reign of Winter is a good example of that.
Skull and Shackles is a bit better, but still has issues.
One of the standard fantasy tropes is the collection of short stories, not the novel. (Consider Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser.) There's no reason that a campaign should have a singular story, and every reason for it not to.
If you're creating a prestige class as something for the player to do then you're out of line.
This is what I was talking about when I said arguing against an extreme. Notice I said "It can also provide a goal for a PC, if the player is interested."
I typically have any where between 3-7 custom prestige classes, depending on the custom world. Most represent organizations that provide special training. None of them are requirements. If the players decide they are not interested in the prestige classes, that's fine.
The second, of course, is that an GM who uses a phrase like "the campaign story" should not be using that phrase. Or GMing. And I (personally) will happily use that phrase as my cue to deliberately break the game world and the pre-planned narrative. (If you don't care if the other people at the table are having fun, why should I?)
You've managed to construct an amazing straw man. I applaud your skills.
I think he means that as a DM he does not already have the story planned out and expects the player characters to following along as he tells it, but instead (*as I do) he presents a situation, a setting, and the story is created by the participation of all the players, including himself.
Yes - but planning is a part of that "non-planning", I think. A good hero needs a good villain to be his best - to be challenged! I find when I'm GM'ing, the villains are more interesting if the PCs are. My last "big bad" definitely changed her plans because of PC actions. The plot in that game got way more interesting than my "first draft" because of how PCs interacted (some much smarter than I'd anticipated - some not - but all fun).
But I needed to have lots of plans so I knew what I was changing and why. Often the same for player characters - having a good plan means you know exactly what you're changing. There's no sense in making a "character decision" that sounds like a great story but makes your character unable to accomplish things in game.
(edit - blah)
If you're creating a prestige class as something for the player to do then you're out of line.This is what I was talking about when I said arguing against an extreme. Notice I said "It can also provide a goal for a PC, if the player is interested."
Except that's not what you said, or at least, not what you wrote in the part I was responding to.
You wrote:
I see it is justification and reinforcement of the campaign story. If there is a particular wizard order that is supremely important to the campaign world, and is somewhat unique from regular wizard organizations, it seems to make sense to have a prestige class to support the concept. Take Red Wizard as an example (from Forgotten Realms).
I don't see player preference, or even player autonomy, anywhere in that justification. It looks to me explicitly like you're subordinating player autonomy to "supporting the concept" of something that is "supremely important to the campaign world" and "justification and reinforcement of the campaign world."
I think he means that as a DM he does not already have the story planned out and expects the player characters to following along as he tells it, but instead (*as I do) he presents a situation, a setting, and the story is created by the participation of all the players, including himself.
Right. For example, right now I'm creating a campaign where the PCs will start on an island. The concept of the campaign world is that a guy many years ago killed off all of the dragons after he discovered a stone that allowed him to drain dragons of their powers.
This is the brief version of how the campaign will start. The players will create their characters, they'll then adventure in the world and make various choices.
The "campaign story" is the collected events, occurrences, etc, that the PCs encounter.
You could say the campaign story of Rise of the Runelords, for example, is the PC's quest to stop Karzoug.
I've never seen anyone take offense to the term "campaign story', much less suggest that someone shouldn't be a GM because of a term they use. It's funny in an absurd kind of way.
I think he means that as a DM he does not already have the story planned out and expects the player characters to following along as he tells it, but instead (*as I do) he presents a situation, a setting, and the story is created by the participation of all the players, including himself.You could say the campaign story of Rise of the Runelords, for example, is the PC's quest to stop Karzoug.
And if I don't want to stop Karzoug?
I don't see player preference, or even player autonomy, anywhere in that justification. It looks to me explicitly like you're subordinating player autonomy to "supporting the concept" of something that is "supremely important to the campaign world" and "justification and reinforcement of the campaign world."
How does player preference or player autonomy come into play when designing a custom prestige class for a custom world? I don't even know who the players are going to be when I'm creating the campaign world.
You're conflating separate issues in order to follow through with your shtick.
Edit to add:
And if I don't want to stop Karzoug?
Well, in the AP realm, you're kind of stuck. Luckily, in homebrew games, assuming the rest of the party agrees with you and wants to change direction, you can do that.
And if I don't want to stop Karzoug?Well, in the AP realm, you're kind of stuck. Luckily, in homebrew games, assuming the rest of the party agrees with you and wants to change direction, you can do that.
Even in a sandboxy homebrew game, I find it's still best to have some kind of basic agreement, on the meta-level, not to completely make it impossible for the GM to use the resources he's got... Even if it's just the idea that the party is going to help out with each other's character's extremely diverse goals. If the GM describes the world and the players always go "no" to every hook in the bag (assuming the GM isn't taunting the players with nonsense) ... there's the random encounter table, I guess...
And if you don't want to stop Karzoug, great. Play that character. Maybe it'll make the team dynamics fun... But do you want not to stop Karzoug because you have an interesting roleplay idea ... or because you need to prove the world should be built to bend for you? Going along, at least in a general way, with the *resources* of the AP is going to make it so the GM can give you a great game. Derail to your heart's content, as long as it's worth playing out. But once it's not, find a way to play through.
tl/dr: it's like the rule against saying "no" in improv. You should be saying "yes, and". When playing the AP (or the GM's homebrew), try not to say "no"... unless you're good enough at improv/roleplaying to say the kind of "no" that is really a "yes, and..."
I said I view that characters are aware of their class, not the mechanics behind it. I mean sure, they would be aware that through this or that class, they will be able to learn this or that skill or ability, but the character would certainly not be aware of the mechanics behind the skills or abilities (e.g. know that they are getting a +1 to hit - vs. knowing that they will, through hard work and dedication, get a little better overall with weaponry).
What? Characters are aware of the class they're in but not the mechanics?
Um, the class itself IS a mechanic. The fact that it gives abilities in a certain order determined by how it was wrote up is just as much a mechanic as the rules for flanking.
Drizzt is a ranger. No matter how that is manifested (whether he's a gestalt Dervish/Scout, or a multiclassed Fighting Man/Thief/Cleric of Mielikki, or reflavored Warden, or just has a bunch of skill points distributed in such a manner as to make his claims of being a ranger not fall short), he's a ranger. His profession is ranger, and he identifies and is identified as a ranger. If he got his skills from one class or several, he'd still chalk it up to one source: ranger. But how those abilities are expressed and grouped together for the purposes of gameplay is a mechanic.
The fact that Rangers never get an animal companion before they pick a favored enemy or a favored terrain is a mechanic. Something that exists on the "real world" side of the game, not the "in-universe" side, is a mechanic.
Even in a sandboxy homebrew game, I find it's still best to have some kind of basic agreement, on the meta-level, not to completely make it impossible for the GM to use the resources he's got... Even if it's just the idea that the party is going to help out with each other's character's extremely diverse goals. If the GM describes the world and the players always go "no" to every hook in the bag (assuming the GM isn't taunting the players with nonsense) ... there's the random encounter table, I guess...
I agree, though I will say that sometimes the best laid plans on the GM side fall flat to the players. In one recent campaign, I had a whole story arc take place in an underground atmosphere. I hand drew nine standard-sized map sheets with various interesting locations, enemies, world history, etc.
This story arc could have easily taken four six hour game sessions in order to finish. But the players hated it after two hours. The fact that it was dark, and that there was a lot of 3D battles threw them for a loop.
So I axed the whole story arc and brought them back above ground, and continued from there.
When playing the AP (or the GM's homebrew), try not to say "no"... unless you're good enough at improv/roleplaying to say the kind of "no" that is really a "yes, and..."
If I'm playing with an inexperienced GM, I follow this for sure. GMs that are newer tend to think more linearly, assume that most of the party is good and will be enticed to help people, save the day, etc. Avoiding the plot hooks make it difficult on an inexperienced GM.
For more experienced GMs, however, a character of mine may say "no" to a plot hook if it doesn't match up with the character's personality. For example, work for some criminal organization when the character hates criminal organizations.
An experienced GM will either have an alternative plot hook, or will find a way to convince my character to undertake the mission anyway (though this should be done seldom as overuse turns into a railroad.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or he may just be confident in his own abilities. He is wondering "Should I drop my training, which proved successful so far, to chase whatever mysterious teaching they are offering?".Sure, again, its in-character. That's the important part.
And my whole point is that planning a character build has zero impact on the player's ability and willingness to roleplay. Planning doesn't restrict anything, not even the character being planned, because the player can always change his mind.
There is really no reason to be upset about players planning their characters in advance.
Or he may just be confident in his own abilities. He is wondering "Should I drop my training, which proved successful so far, to chase whatever mysterious teaching they are offering?".Sure, again, its in-character. That's the important part.And my whole point is that planning a character build has zero impact on the player's ability and willingness to roleplay. Planning doesn't restrict anything, not even the character being planned, because the player can always change his mind.
There is really no reason to be upset about players planning their characters in advance.
What about someone who refuses to deviate from their plan? What if their refusal becomes disruptive at the table or reduces the enjoyment of others?
|
Um, the class itself IS a mechanic.
Um, not if you view a character class to be virtually the same thing as a "real life" job or career is, it isn't...
To me, a class provides the game mechanic, but it is not a game mechanic in-and-of itself.
I keep saying this over and over; I don't view classes as a list of tools to be moved around and arranged however someone wants them (thus, I do not like re-tooling, re-skinning, re-fluffing, or re-flavoring classes).
The Fluff, the flavor, or however you want to say it, is VITALLY important to me, more so than the skill set that the class provides a character with is (which remains important, but NOT NOT NOT as important TO ME as the flavor or fluff of the class is)... I view character classes as an in-game profession; something that the character does for a living, something that when asked, the character himself actually, in the game, answers with: I am a Fighter by profession!, I am a Mage by profession!, or whatever the name of their class is... Just exactly the same as someone in the real world would answer: I am a Cashier, I am a Fork-lift driver, I am a - whatever the name of their job is.
What about someone who refuses to deviate from their plan? What if their refusal becomes disruptive at the table or reduces the enjoyment of others?Or he may just be confident in his own abilities. He is wondering "Should I drop my training, which proved successful so far, to chase whatever mysterious teaching they are offering?".Sure, again, its in-character. That's the important part.And my whole point is that planning a character build has zero impact on the player's ability and willingness to roleplay. Planning doesn't restrict anything, not even the character being planned, because the player can always change his mind.
There is really no reason to be upset about players planning their characters in advance.
That is about a player being intransigent, not about planning. You can build a character by randomly choosing feats and class levels and still be unwilling to collaborate with the story.
Besides, if the player's plan only involves his own character build.. Who cares? What does it matter for the GM if the guy sticks with his plan? How exactly does it harm the story? What's the difference between a character randomly grabbing Improved Critical or deciding to take it 5 levels in advance?
Planning does not equal locking so the argument has no merit.
Media and games do not cross over well so what happens in media is largely irrelevant.
So says the arbiter of merit and relevance...
Thing is, that cashier doesn't necessarily have levels in the Cashier base class. It's entirely up to the character if he calls himself a fighter, but he isn't talking about the Fighter class when he does it. He means he is one who fights. Even if his class is Barbarian.Sadly I have several levels of Cashier from my years working at local stores when I was much younger and had more hair. It's not as glamorous as "fighter" but it does afford me a Save Bonus vs Patience when waiting in line at the grocery store.
1. I said that because in media the main guy is more like an NPC not a PC← short version
2. You conveniently had no answer for my more relevant comments.
We call it "Character Sheet Solitaire."
Perfect name for it :) Never done it as a player in D&D, plenty of it as a DM of course. It takes me back to 1977 when Traveller came out. It was fun to generate characters and see how they turned out. But hey, your character could die during character generation in Traveller making it something of a mini game in it's own right. Especially after High Guard and Mercenary came out...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What about someone who refuses to deviate from their plan? What if their refusal becomes disruptive at the table or reduces the enjoyment of others?Or he may just be confident in his own abilities. He is wondering "Should I drop my training, which proved successful so far, to chase whatever mysterious teaching they are offering?".Sure, again, its in-character. That's the important part.And my whole point is that planning a character build has zero impact on the player's ability and willingness to roleplay. Planning doesn't restrict anything, not even the character being planned, because the player can always change his mind.
There is really no reason to be upset about players planning their characters in advance.
That is about a player being intransigent, not about planning. You can build a character by randomly choosing feats and class levels and still be unwilling to collaborate with the story.
Besides, if the player's plan only involves his own character build.. Who cares? What does it matter for the GM if the guy sticks with his plan? How exactly does it harm the story? What's the difference between a character randomly grabbing Improved Critical or deciding to take it 5 levels in advance?
Here's the problem I have with your response:
Someone came on here and said "something is bothering me".
Instead of trying to understand why it's bothering them, your response is essentially "be quiet, it's not a problem".
I agree, I think planning the character is a good thing. The game is complex and to make a good, solid character can take planning and preparation.
At the same time, I see the point. It CAN (not always, but sometimes) represent a player who is being uncooperative, who doesn't interact with the DM and other players fully.
So please, stop trying to argue that the problem doesn't exist, because there are people on here saying "I have this problem". For you to say "no, that doesn't exist" is belittling and condescending.
By the way, you do that with a lot of things quite consistently. Both in roleplaying topics and real life. When someone else points out an issue they have to deal with, your standard response is "it's not a problem for me, so you should stop talking about it".
So I axed the whole story arc and brought them back above ground, and continued from there.
I'm totally with you here. If you've prepared something that isn't flying, you've got to adapt.
F'rinstance, I've abandoned a whole dungeon, too. I try to plan smarter than that (i.e., knowing what my player's character goals are and working those in). When I misstep, I try to find ways to work parts of maps or monsters or items into new plots.
When playing the AP (or the GM's homebrew), try not to say "no"... unless you're good enough at improv/roleplaying to say the kind of "no" that is really a "yes, and..."(snip) For more experienced GMs, however, a character of mine may say "no" to a plot hook if it doesn't match up with the character's personality. For example, work for some criminal organization when the character hates criminal organizations.
An experienced GM will either have an alternative plot hook, or will find a way to convince my character to undertake the mission anyway (though this...
When I say don't say "no"... I don't mean that you always have to do GM plan A. "Yes, and..." means taking something on the table and doing something with it. In this example, you don't want to work for the criminal organization. That's great, because you have a reason and you've expressed it... You don't work for criminals (so I've messed up if I'm the GM, because I should have known this... unless you just made this up, in which case...). You just need to go further to make it a "Yes, and..." - say you're interested in stopping these criminals, interfering with them, competing, who knows (hopefully in game, talking with the PCs and NPCs in the story). It's important to play back with the GM (inexperienced or no) - just saying "no" until the GM comes up with something you like is, well, less than the spirit of the game, I'd say.
Maybe you don't know the specifics of where you want to go - and a good GM will help you there by trying to bring in what they know about your character to help you "Yes, and...". You're hinting at that at the end of your post - find a way. But for me it's all one thing. Maybe I know you're real interest is (defending veterans of the campaign your father was injured in). Now I've got something to work in. If I don't remember that, I need some help at the table.
Maybe I'll come up with this: Just as you're putting your foot down and telling the party you won't help, you recognize one of the old thieves. He's one of your dad's old buddies. Now we've got the "one last job" story going (or some variant, whatever). If I didn't come up with that, I may need a little reminder of what's up with you (perhaps as you debate with the other PCs I'll hear it).
The point is, the meat and potatoes of the encounter are going to give me enough to work with if we can create story together. Maybe I'll switch out one of the baddies to match someone in your backstory, maybe there's now an added complication - your character has to get the blackmail item from so-and-so that will help the old thief quit the organization for good. Or maybe you think you have to help him regain his honor and help him kill the mastermind down at the docks - and you and the other PCs have to figure out a way to achieve that and the other goal you aren't into.
That's the fun, but it takes your character's participation in turning the "No", into a "Yes, and..."
Regardless of the rest of the argument, this is one of the arguments I find most annoying. Calling people who GM a different style than you like "inexperienced". As if there is a One True Way, which one might learn with "experience" which they obviously don't have unless they do it that way.
How did you make this leap? I'm contrasting GMs with little experience, as in, they haven't GMed very often, with GMs with more experience, as in, they've GMed several times.
It is generally easier on inexperienced GMs if the players accept the plot hook, even if it clashes with their character's personality. In other words, what the GM has already planned out, they can run as they expected, rather than having to modify it on the fly.
A more experienced GM is generally better at winging things, so I can throw them a curve ball here and there, rather than simply accepting every plot hook that is presented.
When I say don't say "no"... I don't mean that you always have to do GM plan A. "Yes, and..." means taking something on the table and doing something with it.
I think we're basically in agreement. Working against the criminals could be a viable alternative. Or working with them in an effort to ultimately work against them could be another.
I would also agree that saying "no" over and over is not in the spirit of the game. The only distinction I'd draw is that in some rare instances, there's not a way to salvage a plot hook without violating your character's concept.
As an example, I have one GM who has a tendency to expect the PCs to always act as good characters, even if they don't have a good alignment. In a recent example, a group of mercenary-type PCs encountered some random dying guy, and that guy said "Save my family, they were taken by ogres..."
As I was RPing a CN tiefling who was not interested in "saving" anyone, it was a difficult plot hook to follow (though we ultimately did because the GM strongly hinted that it was what we were supposed to do.)
The GM could have slipped in that we recognized the now dead guy as a famous merchant, who's family would surely reward the PCs with coin, and bam, instant hook that works for my character.
Um, the class itself IS a mechanic.Um, not if you view a character class to be virtually the same thing as a "real life" job or career is, it isn't...
To me, a class provides the game mechanic, but it is not a game mechanic in-and-of itself.
I keep saying this over and over; I don't view classes as a list of tools to be moved around and arranged however someone wants them (thus, I do not like re-tooling, re-skinning, re-fluffing, or re-flavoring classes).
The Fluff, the flavor, or however you want to say it, is VITALLY important to me, more so than the skill set that the class provides a character with is (which remains important, but NOT NOT NOT as important TO ME as the flavor or fluff of the class is)... I view character classes as an in-game profession; something that the character does for a living, something that when asked, the character himself actually, in the game, answers with: I am a Fighter by profession!, I am a Mage by profession!, or whatever the name of their class is... Just exactly the same as someone in the real world would answer: I am a Cashier, I am a Fork-lift driver, I am a - whatever the name of their job is.
Then I have no idea how this conversation can continue. We're both speaking English, but otherwise not using the same language.
"A character is aware of their class but not the mechanics" is a statement with a specific meaning. Either the character is aware of, not the mechanics of his class, but the fact that it exists (at which point, its existence as a class points to other things from outside the characters' purview such as the twenty-sided dice that govern the fates, which then points right back to the mechanics that we had established the characters as not being aware of, making the statement contradict itself)...
...Or the statement means that the character is aware of what he can do, is aware that, from his perspective, he acquired these skills from a readily identifiable source (his profession), and is only aware of these things (which means that whether what he thinks is a complete package in fact is or not is undetermined and undeterminable). His profession ranger might be the Ranger class or might not, but he will never know.
One of the interpretations of that statement is contradictory (but in a game like Order of the Stick or the Gamers (where the characters could literally find their character sheets and increase their own intelligence with merely a pencil), it gets a pass because of the Rule of Funny), and the other is not.
I mean, it's like saying "the curtains are blue" and meaning "oh look, the mouse finally got caught in the mousetrap". You can say what you want all you want, but as long as you're using words with certain meanings, I don't see how you can complain when people try to parse it out and come to a conclusion you didn't mean.
I don't know. Maybe try phrasing it differently. "I don't play in games where the player characters learn a broad swath of abilities and skills outside of a previously established profession or tradition. That these in-universe professions coincide at least 99% perfectly with the classes of the game is a coincidence I prefer."
|
|
the statement means that the character is aware of what he can do, is aware that, from his perspective, he acquired these skills from a readily identifiable source (his profession)
I view that the characters within the game world are aware that their chosen profession has a name, and that the name of their profession is the same name that both you and I refer to when we say the words "character class" (e.g. Ranger, Fighter, Mage, etc.), however, they do not and would not ever refer to their profession as a "class", as that is a term we use in the real world, and not something a character within the game world would know or understand (again, they would call their profession the same thing we call their class; Ranger, Fighter, Mage, etc.).
I further view that the characters within the game world are aware of the skills imparted by their chosen profession in the same manner that you and I are aware of the skills imparted by our real-life jobs. For example, we know that if we apply for a job flipping burgers at a burger restaurant, we will at the very least, learn how to properly flip a hamburger, just as a character becoming a Ranger for example, would know that he will learn how to do such things as track, walk quietly in a wilderness setting, etc.
Obviously there are game mechanics behind those skills, but the characters within the game world are not aware of that; to them, like you and I, they are just doing what it is that they were trained to do, and that as in our real world, they succeed or fail. But again, at no point does the character within the game world know or even realize that his whole life hangs in the balance of some dude eating cheese puffs while tossing dice to determine the outcome...
If this is not what you mean, then I apologize, for I am truly at a loss as to the point you are trying to impart to me.
We call it "Character Sheet Solitaire."
There's nothing wrong with it, but for some people it begins to interfere with actually playing, and that I consider that to be a problem.
Yeah I do that a lot and I do find it problematic at times; it makes me want to drop my current character out and bring the new shiny build in! Look at it! It's so new and fresh and exciting and, oh my god forget that one, look at the new one I just made again!
As a side note, with one DM in a game I'm a long running player in we considered just coming up with an in game justification for it and have it be the same character for continuity sake. We never actually expanded on the idea but I can see how I'd explain it... I'd be like the Avatar; all those past (or maybe future) lives keep manifesting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the problem I have with your response:
Someone came on here and said "something is bothering me".
Instead of trying to understand why it's bothering them, your response is essentially "be quiet, it's not a problem".
No, my response is "Why the hell is this even a problem?". So far the answers I got are not very convincing. I have no obligation to agree with anyone.
I never told anyone to "be quiet", I merely said it's simply not something that I consider worth of being bothered by.
So please, stop trying to argue that the problem doesn't exist, because there are people on here saying "I have this problem". For you to say "no, that doesn't exist" is belittling and condescending.
Anyone can choose to be bothered by anything... What I'm pointing out is that some things are just not worth being bothered by. "Players planning their character build" definitely falls into that category for me. And I have every right to voice my opinion that the presented issue is not a real issue. If someone created a thread named "I'm sick of players wearing blue shirts!" I'd also point out that I don't think the color of someone else's shirt is a problem... Even if someone insisted that it is for whatever reason.
By the way, you do that with a lot of things quite consistently. Both in roleplaying topics and real life. When someone else points out an issue they have to deal with, your standard response is "it's not a problem for me, so you should stop talking about it".
Hah! Yeah, right...
For someone who claims to know my "standard response", you obviously haven't been paying attention. (Also, how the hell would you know what I do IRL? Are you stalking me? :P)
Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I'm trying to keep them from talking. I don't remember any instance where I told anyone to shut up. At most, I replied multiple times explaining my arguments... You know... Like people to do in a discussion.
In fact, the simple fact that I'm bothering to reply means I'm not trying to silence anyone. Everyone is free to discuss whatever they want. Including myself, so when someone says something I disagree with, I have no problem voicing my disagreement, even when the disagreement is "X is a problem".
the statement means that the character is aware of what he can do, is aware that, from his perspective, he acquired these skills from a readily identifiable source (his profession)I view that the characters within the game world are aware that their chosen profession has a name, and that the name of their profession is the same name that both you and I refer to when we say the words "character class" (e.g. Ranger, Fighter, Mage, etc.), however, they do not and would not ever refer to their profession as a "class", as that is a term we use in the real world, and not something a character within the game world would know or understand (again, they would call their profession the same thing we call their class; Ranger, Fighter, Mage, etc.).
I further view that the characters within the game world are aware of the skills imparted by their chosen profession in the same manner that you and I are aware of the skills imparted by our real-life jobs. For example, we know that if we apply for a job flipping burgers at a burger restaurant, we will at the very least, learn how to properly flip a hamburger, just as a character becoming a Ranger for example, would know that he will learn how to do such things as track, walk quietly in a wilderness setting, etc.
Obviously there are game mechanics behind those skills, but the characters within the game world are not aware of that; to them, like you and I, they are just doing what it is that they were trained to do, and that as in our real world, they succeed or fail. But again, at no point does the character within the game world know or even realize that his whole life hangs in the balance of some dude eating cheese puffs while tossing dice to determine the outcome...
If this is not what you mean, then I apologize, for I am truly at a loss as to the point you are trying to impart to me.
Prospective fighter joined to fight, hearing that there would be lots of fighting. Turns out there was mostly training and briefing, then drill, then marching, then cleaning and maintenance, then fighting wooden humanoid shaped targets that didn't fight back, then more marching, athletics, athletics in armour, and finally a graduation and a job standing around in hot uncomfortable armour guarding things without much fighting. This fighter began to consider the name of his profession should be changed...
Then later, finally he got into a fight, and died. Fighting being quite dangerous, difficult and easily leading to disembowelling.
2. You conveniently had no answer for my more relevant comments.
In all fairness Wraith you never actually asked me question and gave little indication that were open to a civil discussion. I did my best to state my opinion. You insulted my thoughts by saying they are without merit and irrelevant. Why would anyone willingly choose to engage with a person who says there opinions are irrelevant?
But I did read your ideas and now I understand your point of view. Thank you
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's the problem I have with your response:
Someone came on here and said "something is bothering me".
Instead of trying to understand why it's bothering them, your response is essentially "be quiet, it's not a problem".
No, my response is "Why the hell is this even a problem?". So far the answers I got are not very convincing. I have no obligation to agree with anyone.
I never told anyone to "be quiet", I merely said it's simply not something that I consider worth of being bothered by.
So please, stop trying to argue that the problem doesn't exist, because there are people on here saying "I have this problem". For you to say "no, that doesn't exist" is belittling and condescending.Anyone can choose to be bothered by anything... What I'm pointing out is that some things are just not worth being bothered by. "Players planning their character build" definitely falls into that category for me. And I have every right to voice my opinion that the presented issue is not a real issue. If someone created a thread named "I'm sick of players wearing blue shirts!" I'd also point out that I don't think the color of someone else's shirt is a problem... Even if someone insisted that it is for whatever reason.
By the way, you do that with a lot of things quite consistently. Both in roleplaying topics and real life. When someone else points out an issue they have to deal with, your standard response is "it's not a problem for me, so you should stop talking about it".Hah! Yeah, right...
For someone who claims to know my "standard response", you obviously haven't been paying attention. (Also, how the hell would you know what I do IRL? Are you stalking me? :P)
Just because I don't agree with someone doesn't mean I'm trying to keep them from talking. I don't remember any instance where I told anyone to shut up. At most, I replied multiple times explaining my arguments... You know... Like people to do in a discussion....
I understand what you're trying to say. I really do.
The problem is communication between humans, and it's a problem you aren't understanding. You think you are saying one thing, and it's being interpreted as something else. Here's the thing though, it's a fundamental problem to thing you are trying to say, not a problem with communication, language or interpretation.
When someone says "I have a problem"
You respond "That's not a problem"
You do this consistently, and in multiple threads (I'm not stalking you, the "RL" topics comment was referring to other threads about life in general, other than roleplaying).
Now, you're free to say "that's not a problem" all you want. The issue is that when you do that, it becomes interpreted as "be quiet". I understand you're NOT trying to say that, but that is an inherent inferred meaning, regardless of your intent. This is the nature of how human minds work.
You aren't choosing to belittle and condescend, but that is the effect of your comments.
I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm pointing this out so that you KNOW. You have the choice, take this as a moment to learn something, or continue on your path where you inadvertently (even though you don't want to) belittle and condescend others.
If it is your goal to better understand WHY this bothers other people, than there are better ways to go about it. But to question the validity of the premise IS an attempt to shut down conversation on the topic.
This is not from the simple fact of your disagreement. It's fine to disagree. To be honest, I don't necessarily agree with the OP either. I want to offer suggestions and advice though, and setting myself up as the opposition who completely disagrees is not the best method to do that though. Plus I do understand the core problem and have methods from my own games that can help solve that issue, because I have personally seen, experienced and probably even been that problem before.
"Why the hell is this even a problem" is not really adding anything to the conversation.
I'm not even sure why "not a problem" would ever be posted? If you don't care enough to help the OP (or anyone who posts with a problem) why would you purposely diminish them? It's not like his problem was offensive or morally objectionable...
Come on man, be better than that.
"Why the hell is this even a problem" is not really adding anything to the conversation.
I'm not even sure why "not a problem" would ever be posted? If you don't care enough to help the OP (or anyone who posts with a problem) why would you purposely diminish them? It's not like his problem was offensive or morally objectionable...
Come on man, be better than that.
Because in asking the person, whether the OP or someone else, to further clarify why they even have a problem in the first place, you can get closer to the root and provide a better solution than, say, not responding at all and withholding the advice you have to give, simply because you don't know said advice applies, because you didn't ask the guy why he even has a problem with something.
Or we could choose to perceive personal attacks where they don't exist. Keep crying "Wolf!"
I'd like to think we could be better than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I understand what you're trying to say. I really do.
The problem is communication between humans, and it's a problem you aren't understanding. You think you are saying one thing, and it's being interpreted as something else. Here's the thing though, it's a fundamental problem to thing you are trying to say, not a problem with communication, language or interpretation.
When someone says "I have a problem"
You respond "That's not a problem"You do this consistently, and in multiple threads (I'm not stalking you, the "RL" topics comment was referring to other threads about life in general, other than roleplaying).
Now, you're free to say "that's not a problem" all you want. The issue is that when you do that, it becomes interpreted as "be quiet". I understand you're NOT trying to say that, but that is an inherent inferred meaning, regardless of your intent. This is the nature of how human minds work.
You aren't choosing to belittle and condescend, but that is the effect of your comments.
I'm not saying this to be mean. I'm pointing this out so that you KNOW. You have the choice, take this as a moment to learn something, or continue on your path where you inadvertently (even though you don't want to) belittle and condescend others.
If it is your goal to better understand WHY this bothers other people, than there are better ways to go about it. But to question the validity of the premise IS an attempt to shut down conversation on the topic.
This is not from the simple fact of your disagreement. It's fine to disagree. To be honest, I don't necessarily agree with the OP either. I want to offer suggestions and advice though, and setting myself up as the opposition who completely disagrees is not the best method to do that though. Plus I do understand the core problem and have methods from my own games that can help solve that issue, because I have personally seen, experienced and probably even been that problem before.
By that logic, every time I disagree with someone I'm choosing to belittle them, because the mere fact that I disagree means I think their argument is not good enough.
Yes, sometimes I question the validity of claims. Because sometimes I think those claims are not a big deal. That doesn't come even close to trying to silence anyone.
Like I said, if someone creates a thread complaining about the color of the t-shirts of their players, I'll say I think it's a non-issue. I'll not pretend it's a big deal just to spare the OP's feelings. If the OP is so sensitive that he's hurt by someone disagreeing with him online, then he shouldn't be on the internet in the first place.
You can choose to interpret my post in the most offensive and dismissive way possible, but that doesn't mean I was offensive or dismissive. Much less that I'm trying to stop anyone from talking about whatever.
Let me try to use that same logic... You know, by accusing me of trying to stop the debate, you are trying to silence me. Trying to make me feel bad about disagreeing, saying "agree or be quiet".
Not a very good line of thought, huh?
So no, I'll not stop disagreeing with people when I think they are wrong. You can take that as me being mean or condescending. The way I see it, I'm just being honest and sharing my opinion. If you want me to take the "issue" of players planning their character seriously, then give me a good reason why it's a real problem (so far, none of the arguments were very convincing). Don't expect me to automatically agree with you and support your claims. Same goes for trying to convince me of anything.
"Why the hell is this even a problem" is not really adding anything to the conversation.
Ah, so not only I have to agree with the OP, I'm also not allowed to ask why it's a problem... Great...
It adds the following to the discussion: I have no idea why this would be a problem, so I'm asking the OP to understand why he's bothered by it.
I'm not even sure why "not a problem" would ever be posted? If you don't care enough to help the OP (or anyone who posts with a problem) why would you purposely diminish them? It's not like his problem was offensive or morally objectionable...
Come on man, be better than that.
Oh, I try to help the OP... My advice is "Stop worrying about this".
"Offensive" or "morally objectionable" are not the only reasons to disagree with someone, you know. Sometimes I just think they are wrong.
I was in the wrong to think you saying "Why the hell is this even a problem" was a dismissal rather than a earnest effort to understand the OP's problem.
Glad to see you reaching out to help, it's very nice of ya. /cheers
-MD
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The difference is in the tone.
OP: I hate it when people do x. I wish they didn't do x.
Poster 1: Why? What affect are you finding that x has on the game?
Poster 2: What? That's dumb. x is not a problem.
Poster 2 causes people to get defensive, thread turns into a huge argument, etc, etc.
the statement means that the character is aware of what he can do, is aware that, from his perspective, he acquired these skills from a readily identifiable source (his profession)I view that the characters within the game world are aware that their chosen profession has a name, and that the name of their profession is the same name that both you and I refer to when we say the words "character class" (e.g. Ranger, Fighter, Mage, etc.), however, they do not and would not ever refer to their profession as a "class", as that is a term we use in the real world, and not something a character within the game world would know or understand (again, they would call their profession the same thing we call their class; Ranger, Fighter, Mage, etc.).
I further view that the characters within the game world are aware of the skills imparted by their chosen profession in the same manner that you and I are aware of the skills imparted by our real-life jobs. For example, we know that if we apply for a job flipping burgers at a burger restaurant, we will at the very least, learn how to properly flip a hamburger, just as a character becoming a Ranger for example, would know that he will learn how to do such things as track, walk quietly in a wilderness setting, etc.
Obviously there are game mechanics behind those skills, but the characters within the game world are not aware of that; to them, like you and I, they are just doing what it is that they were trained to do, and that as in our real world, they succeed or fail. But again, at no point does the character within the game world know or even realize that his whole life hangs in the balance of some dude eating cheese puffs while tossing dice to determine the outcome...
If this is not what you mean, then I apologize, for I am truly at a loss as to the point you are trying to impart to me.
My point is this:
The thread started with Reebo saying he took issue with players planning out their characters. Lack of further participation on his part* led the conversation to speculating what about "players planning out their characters" he might have a problem with. A lack of care about the events in the campaign manifesting as a lack of desire to join another class or a prestige class was suggested as a possibility. This led to Lemmy suggesting that adhering to a previously established character progression did not equate to a lack of care for events happening in the campaign. Or, "class does not equal concept".
Then you added your post that sometimes players do consider class to equal concept. What I took issue with, and what none of your posts until the above outright stated, was that equating class with concept was anything other than a choice on the part of the player, or possibly in Reebo's case, the game master. Your posts prior do say your choice to treat classes as professions is your choice, but because you kept referring to the in-universe professions with the same term as the out-of-universe collection of game mechanics (i.e., you kept calling them classes), it read as you adhering to some kind of correct way to view classes in-universe, and not SOLELY your choice.
Put another way: Reebo might be under the impression that his treating game mechanics (including classes) as their in-universe analogs is something he has to do. It's his choice to see classes as equivalent to concepts, but he might not be aware that he's making that choice and that he's allowed to choose otherwise. Turning right around and saying that it's not a choice (i.e., "class DOES equal concept" and "classes and professions refer to the same thing") strikes me as counter-productive.
*Which is not necessarily his fault. If he's got some kind of issues preventing him from posting here, then that's fine. But at the same time, we're still having a conversation and we might have to suggest some refinements to his position to better understand it, even as we acknowledge that our speculation is exactly that.
|
|
but because you kept referring to the in-universe professions with the same term as the out-of-universe collection of game mechanics (i.e., you kept calling them classes), it read as you adhering to some kind of correct way to view classes in-universe, and not SOLELY your choice.
There was a side tangent where I was stating how things worked specifically in 2nd edition as I interpreted the RAW (including optional rules within the RAW), but that is all it was; a side tangent that had very little to do with the overall topic at hand. I went on said tangent to clarify where my views of character classes as jobs/professions stems from...
But in all other aspects, I did my best to clearly and plainly state that what I was posting, was solely how I view and play the game.
I apologize for not making myself clearer in that regard.
I apologize for not making myself clearer in that regard.
In fairness, we have no idea how clear you were or weren't. It's just as likely as not that the whole tangent had nothing to do with Reebo's issue.
Only Reebo would know for sure.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By that logic, every time I disagree with someone I'm choosing to belittle them, because the mere fact that I disagree means I think their argument is not good enough.
Yes, sometimes I question the validity of claims. Because sometimes I think those claims are not a big deal. That doesn't come even close to trying to silence anyone.
Like I said, if someone creates a thread complaining about the color of the t-shirts of their players, I'll say I think it's a non-issue. I'll not pretend it's a big deal just to spare the OP's feelings. If the OP is so sensitive that he's hurt by someone disagreeing with him online, then he shouldn't be on the internet in the first place.
You can choose to interpret my post in the most offensive and dismissive way possible, but that doesn't mean I was offensive or dismissive. Much less that I'm trying to stop anyone from talking about whatever.
Let me try to use that same logic... You know, by accusing me of trying to stop the debate, you are trying to silence me. Trying to make me feel bad about disagreeing, saying "agree or be quiet".
Not a very good line of thought, huh?
So no, I'll not stop disagreeing with people when I think they are wrong. You can take that as me being mean or condescending. The way I see it, I'm just being honest and sharing my opinion. If you want me to take the "issue" of players planning their character seriously, then give me a good reason why it's a real problem (so far, none of the arguments were very convincing). Don't expect me to automatically agree with you and support your claims. Same goes for trying to convince me of anything.
No, I'm not trying to silence you. I'm trying to encourage you to participate in the conversation more constructively.
If your only concern is that this issue doesn't exist, fine. I think at this point we are all convinced you believe this is a non-issue.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not a matter of what's allowed, BTW.
You're "allowed" to do anything short of the stuff the moderators will shut down.
The question is whether or not a certain response is constructive at all, and that includes guiding the OP toward a viewpoint more to your liking.
Many of us show up here for the satisfaction of helping dysfunctional games get back on track. So when someone else shows up just to pass judgement, you bet we're going to be critical of that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sadly the op's trouble is simply one of the drawbacks to 3.0 3.5 and 3.p... Any system that contains skill trees really. There's going to be a point where anyone who plays that game is going to either say 'oops. I took these feats and now there's no way i'll ever be able to take this one cool feat I found... next time I'd better plan my tree more carefully' or he's going to say 'ooh. feat trees. I know how these work. You have to plan them backwards or you might stray down an unintended path that leads where you didnt want it to go.'
Sure, its 'meta' but its a truth of the feat tree mechanic. To a lesser extent such conversations have been had even in systems that didnt have feat trees... If I was a wizard who wanted to have a few levels in cleric back in 2e, I had to weigh the fact that I might have to wait an extra level to get my 9th level spells, or if I took too many cleric levels it might remove 9th level spells from possibility completely...
In this case its simply a matter of 'making that choice more stark... more direct.'
Its easy for someone making a character to see that road because the road is layed out explicitly for them. If you want to end up here... You take this path. If you don't take this path, you don't end up here.
It's a 'meta railroad' and I agree. I'm not fond of it. I'd never take away a player's agency to do it, since I'd never want a gm to tell me I couldnt choose what path my character wanted to take.
For me personally the only way I've found to avoid it is to play systems that dont use it.
Sadly the op's trouble is simply one of the drawbacks to 3.0 3.5 and 3.p... Any system that contains skill trees really.
quoted for truth
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am all for players planning out their characters so that I can know what to expect and plan my stories, fights, plots, protagonists accordingly.
In fact I very much prefer it to those who give me next to nothing about their PCs to work with.
And I am all in favor of rebuilds, whether based on story or better optimization of the PC, as long as credibility and consistency with the story told so far is maintained.
That's my bottom line I guess : the story has to make sense so that it can be enjoyable to all those participating in it (i.e. GM and all players).
2. You conveniently had no answer for my more relevant comments.
In all fairness Wraith you never actually asked me question and gave little indication that were open to a civil discussion. I did my best to state my opinion. You insulted my thoughts by saying they are without merit and irrelevant. Why would anyone willingly choose to engage with a person who says there opinions are irrelevant?
But I did read your ideas and now I understand your point of view. Thank you
I never said I asked you a question. I said you had no reply to my comments.
I am always open to civil discussion. I am not just not going to consider every point someone brings up a viable one. Don't take that as an insult because I am sure some people feel the same way about things that I say.
I also never said your opinions(all of them here) were irrelevant. I am saying the media comparison to a game is not relevant. It is too much of a difference. I understand that a PC and a novel character are both "characters", but when you look beyond sharing the same word the differences are huge. It is kind of like how some words have more than one meaning and you can't really compare both definitions under the same context. <---I hope this is easier to understand. If not, then I will just stop I might not be able to explain it well enough.
PS: I probably should not have given you my short version the first time around, but I did not feel like typing a long post.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the OP's case, the only detail he gave is the common example of not using the nifty magic weapon he gave the PC because he'd invested feats in a single weapon type. IMO, that's a really stupid thing to complain about. D&D has rewarded focusing on a single weapon for a long time. For many martial classes, it's nearly required. The coolness of the new item doesn't overcome the existing investment. It's not even really about planning, but about what's already been done.
Right, and if this means that the game is clashing with the OP's expectations, then as the people who grasp the real reasons for his disappointment we are better off working to help him understand that. From there he can either try to get what he wants, or revise his expectations.
Calling him a dummy, no matter how elaborately you put it, is a waste of time. Arguing with a third party about how he really is a dummy is an even bigger waste of time.
So yes, let us focus on things like how Pathfinder reinforces this behavior and if he wants to see it changed he can either switch systems or communicate with his players!
|
|
If I was a wizard who wanted to have a few levels in cleric back in 2e, I had to weigh the fact that I might have to wait an extra level to get my 9th level spells, or if I took too many cleric levels it might remove 9th level spells from possibility completely...
So if a Wizard dual-classed into Cleric before he was able to cast 9th level spells, it is no longer a matter of he "might remove 9th level spells from possibility completely", it is a done deal, he can never go back:
After switching to a new class, the character no longer earns experience points in his previous character class and he can no longer advance in level in that class. Nor can he switch back to his first class at a later date, hoping to resume his advancement where he left off. Once he leaves a class he has finished his studies in it.
And if you're talking about the demi-human's ability to multi-class, all of their classes are chosen at character creation (and once play begins, those classes are set in stone for the life of the character), and then all XP they earn is divided equally among all of those classes; so there is no picking or choosing which class to level first.
I think the advice the OP was looking for is in this thread somewhere. I'm done here.