| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
At some point, you (as a DM or as a player) need to decide what breaks immersion. Does a character dual wielding daggers (probably not)? What about a character wielding massive weapons in each hand (Monkey Grip probably ... for a lot of people)? What about a player wielding elephants in each hand (hypothetical feat - probably ... for most people)? What about a zombie riding a T-rex firing a laser while riding a shark that's flying due to the rockets strapped to its side (look it up, you'll see)?
Now even in the most extreme of these cases, you could point to some nonsense that Wizards can do ("X") and say "A zombie riding a T-rex that is firing a laser off of the back of a shark that's flying by means of rockets is clearly no more absurd than X." What's more, you'd probably be right! Arcane casters can do some crazy, stupid "stuff." That doesn't mean it's not immersion breaking (and generally cheesy) to see a fighter pancake someone between two elephants (one for each hand), if your idea of the world is one where magic exists, but (when magic is not being employed) so do consistent physical laws.
It entirely depends on your context. Also, I'd like to point out that many anime don't disregard the laws of physics completely for their characters either. That is to say, you're going to see very different "max physical abilities" for humans in, for example Attack on Titan or FMA than in Bleach or DBZ.
The game already allows and uses oversized weapons. Aelryinth seems to find dual wielding greatswords cheesy but the game allows dual wielding Dwarven double waraxe (and for dwarves it's martial...) and they are FOUR more pounds heavier per weapon. You're pretty much whipping around two Greataxes and don't even need a feat to do it.
Or for normal folk, the Flambard, a two handed weapon, can be used one handed and can therefor be used in TWF. The oversized weapon ship sailed a while ago.
Do you mean the Flamberge? That's a wavy bladed bastard sword.
Axes are always heavier then swords, but the Double Waraxe is basically just a bastard sword as well.
==Aelryinth
I meant the Flambard. Adventurers Armory. Two handed weapons. It's true it's bastardsword-like though. My point would be that they are 5-6' long, within that 'anime' weapon length for a one handed weapon and of non-eastern design.
My point is that heavier weapons(with the weight at the end) can be used in TWF (Double Waraxe) vs a slightly longer greatsword with a better distributed weight that you think is cheesy.
It seems a bit disingenuous to find a Double Waraxe TWF fine but greataxe TWF badwrongfun even though they are the same size/weight/ect just because one happens to be labeled 1 handed. They both look as 'anime' big after all.
The flamabard is usually called the flamberge, and its either a bastard sword or a greatsword with alternate construction.
Um, the Double Waraxe is a waraxe with two heads, not a double weapon. You're right in that it doesn't remind me much of anything, but it's not a greatsword, it'd be the equivalent of using two bastard swords...which is not the same as wielding two greatswords, or two Large greatswords, which would be 9' long.
==Aelryinth
But since axes don't remind him of a type of entertainment he doesn't care for, they get a pass.
It's not about "I don't like it when characters can do X" (such as use improbably large weapons).
It's about "This particular mental image reminds me of something I don't like" (such as a certain type of large weapon setup reminding someone of anime).
It only looks inconsistent when using incorrect labels: label it as "I don't like using improbably large/heavy weapons/styles" and you get inconsistencies like swords being regarded differently than axes. Label it instead as "I don't like things that remind me of other things I don't like", and you see that a giant sword could remind a person of anime while an unlikely axe-wielding style isn't a prominent trope of any particular thing (other than D&D), so there's no conflict/contradiction.
Self-awareness: it benefits everyone. :)
Flambard vs greatsword fits just as well so sword vs axe doesn't really matter. I didn't even bring up the fact that the iconic barbarian for pathfinder runs around with a LARGE bastard sword... Running around with a giant [fill in the blank weapon] isn't new or different for d&d/pathfinder. I'm finding it hard to accept "dual wielding greatswords is looked as cheesy" when you can do it with Flambards that LOOK similar and the iconic is running around with a LARGE bastard sword.
I understand he may not like 'anime' type things (and that's cool), but that ship sailed a while ago and the base game has that 'cheese' in it with even the iconics using it. I'm cool with his not liking it, it's just the 'cheese' part that bothers me. "because its anime-ish, and not something even a hugely strong person would attempt in reality" but the game allows it as a given so it seems to fail the 'cheese' test IMO.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get him to change his mind. He likes/dislikes what he does. It just seems at odds with the game so I was curious. We view things differently though so I expect I'm missing something.
But since axes don't remind him of a type of entertainment he doesn't care for, they get a pass.
It's not about "I don't like it when characters can do X" (such as use improbably large weapons).
It's about "This particular mental image reminds me of something I don't like" (such as a certain type of large weapon setup reminding someone of anime).
It only looks inconsistent when using incorrect labels: label it as "I don't like using improbably large/heavy weapons/styles" and you get inconsistencies like swords being regarded differently than axes. Label it instead as "I don't like things that remind me of other things I don't like", and you see that a giant sword could remind a person of anime while an unlikely axe-wielding style isn't a prominent trope of any particular thing (other than D&D), so there's no conflict/contradiction.
Self-awareness: it benefits everyone. :)
Now, now, you're drawing incorrect assumptions again.
I happen to love anime, and I read a lot of manga. How could it remind me of those things if I didn't read them, mmmm? I currently follow half a dozen anime and at least a dozen manga.
It's just they are very different flavors from the Western style. And over the top cheesy, because that's the style.
Or as Ichigo's dad put it, "If we couldn't control our reitsu, all our released swords would be as big as skyscrapers!"
==Aelryinth
|
At some point, you (as a DM or as a player) need to decide what breaks immersion. Does a character dual wielding daggers (probably not)? What about a character wielding massive weapons in each hand (Monkey Grip probably ... for a lot of people)? What about a player wielding elephants in each hand (hypothetical feat - probably ... for most people)? What about a zombie riding a T-rex firing a laser while riding a shark that's flying due to the rockets strapped to its side (look it up, you'll see)?
Now even in the most extreme of these cases, you could point to some nonsense that Wizards can do ("X") and say "A zombie riding a T-rex that is firing a laser off of the back of a shark that's flying by means of rockets is clearly no more absurd than X." What's more, you'd probably be right! Arcane casters can do some crazy, stupid "stuff." That doesn't mean it's not immersion breaking (and generally cheesy) to see a fighter pancake someone between two elephants (one for each hand), if your idea of the world is one where magic exists, but (when magic is not being employed) so do consistent physical laws.
It entirely depends on your context. Also, I'd like to point out that many anime don't disregard the laws of physics completely for their characters either. That is to say, you're going to see very different "max physical abilities" for humans in, for example Attack on Titan or FMA than in Bleach or DBZ.
You know, I acknowledge you have a right to your opinion on this matter, but I disagree with all of my being.
More than a right to not have their immersion broken, people have a right to have fun and effective options. And if those options bruise somebody else's verisimilitude, so be it. Especially since Captain Archmage gets a free g**#&!n pass, apparently?
When 90% of this argument ends up being "Well, Bob the Fighter can't do <THING> because <THING> is not something a person can do!" I'd like to mention that nobody can survive an unprotected free fall from orbit, but Bob can once he's level 8 or so. So why can't he hold silly oversized weapons, or punch through walls, or generally do stuff people dismiss as "too anime" or "unrealistic"?
This ain't JRR TOLKIEN'S MIDDLE EARTH SIMULATOR or any other such game where people are incapable of miraculous feats of strength, piety and arcane might. We're pretty much playing a superhero game with elves and dwarves.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I acknowledge you have a right to your opinion on this matter, but I disagree with all of my being.More than a right to not have their immersion broken, people have a right to have fun and effective options. And if those options bruise somebody else's verisimilitude, so be it. Especially since Captain Archmage gets a free g!&$+@n pass, apparently?
When 90% of this argument ends up being "Well, Bob the Fighter can't do <THING> because <THING> is not something a person can do!" I'd like to mention that nobody can survive an unprotected free fall from orbit, but Bob can once he's level 8 or so. So why can't he hold silly oversized weapons, or punch through walls, or generally do stuff people dismiss as "too anime" or "unrealistic"?
This ain't JRR TOLKIEN'S MIDDLE EARTH SIMULATOR or any other such game where people are incapable of miraculous feats of strength, piety and arcane might. We're pretty much playing a superhero game with elves and dwarves.
I think you missed his point.
He wasn't talking about something being mechanically overpowered.
He was talking purely about fluff cheese.
Frankly - I think much of the disagreements in this thread are that some are discussing things which are fluff cheesey / immersion breaking, and some are talking about mechanically OP. (the latter group are the ones who keep saying, "yes, but the wizard...")
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When people refer to Tolkien they typically mean the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings (and frequently the movies, not the books), primarily depicting characters that are certainly above average or even exceptional, but not dramatically so. When you really dig into the mythology you find a lot of more extreme examples, but a lot of people don't get that far.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When people refer to Tolkien they typically mean the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings (and frequently the movies, not the books), primarily depicting characters that are certainly above average or even exceptional, but not dramatically so.
I must say - I did get a laugh in the last Hobbit movie when one of the 4 dwarves said to two of their number (paraphrasing) "Go on ahead - there's only a hundred of them! No problem for the two of us."
Legolas is literally centuries older then everyone else in the party, except Gandalf. He was born before Sauron was last defeated (his mother died during the course of that war.)
So, he's high level, and he's bad ass. He's also using Western-style lightfoot techniques, which were pleasant to see.
And the fact his tread is so light he can walk on snow is a thing, too.
==Aelryinth
|
|
I have read and enjoyed both the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings, and I am not implying that Tolkien's world didn't have some of the same kinds of feats of power. They were mostly done by demigods, though, while PF puts that kind of power squarely into the hands of "normal" adventuring folk.
What I mean is that there should be plenty of options for interesting and unrealistic feats of strength and dexterity. Because in any world where the guy in a robe can start rewriting reality at a whim, why can't the guy who has honed his fighting skill do stuff that is beyond what our real-life humans can do?
TL;DR version: If your verisimilitude is broken by the strong guy being capable of doing stuff that real people couldn't do, that's fine. But that's not a restriction that needs to (or should) be imposed on the game as a whole.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also if you read the Silmarillion, you'll...
...fall asleep.
That trash was awful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I acknowledge you have a right to your opinion on this matter, but I disagree with all of my being.More than a right to not have their immersion broken, people have a right to have fun and effective options. And if those options bruise somebody else's verisimilitude, so be it. Especially since Captain Archmage gets a free g!&$+@n pass, apparently?
When 90% of this argument ends up being "Well, Bob the Fighter can't do <THING> because <THING> is not something a person can do!" I'd like to mention that nobody can survive an unprotected free fall from orbit, but Bob can once he's level 8 or so. So why can't he hold silly oversized weapons, or punch through walls, or generally do stuff people dismiss as "too anime" or "unrealistic"?
This ain't JRR TOLKIEN'S MIDDLE EARTH SIMULATOR or any other such game where people are incapable of miraculous feats of strength, piety and arcane might. We're pretty much playing a superhero game with elves and dwarves.
I think you missed his point.
He wasn't talking about something being mechanically overpowered.
He was talking purely about fluff cheese.
Frankly - I think much of the disagreements in this thread are that some are discussing things which are fluff cheesey / immersion breaking, and some are talking about mechanically OP. (the latter group are the ones who keep saying, "yes, but the wizard...")
I agree with him in part. If your disagreement of something is immersion breaking, that should be left to a table debate on what everyone likes. A mechanically overpowered option is a debate for the game as a whole. So I wouldn't want something taken out of the game as a whole because of an immersion issue but a mechanical issue maybe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read and enjoyed both the Silmarillion and the Lord of the Rings, and I am not implying that Tolkien's world didn't have some of the same kinds of feats of power. They were mostly done by demigods, though, while PF puts that kind of power squarely into the hands of "normal" adventuring folk.
What I mean is that there should be plenty of options for interesting and unrealistic feats of strength and dexterity. Because in any world where the guy in a robe can start rewriting reality at a whim, why can't the guy who has honed his fighting skill do stuff that is beyond what our real-life humans can do?
TL;DR version: If your verisimilitude is broken by the strong guy being capable of doing stuff that real people couldn't do, that's fine. But that's not a restriction that needs to (or should) be imposed on the game as a whole.
People mislike hearing this, but just because the wizard can rewrite reality on a whim is not an excuse or rationale for everything to be thrown out the window. It's on the same level as "there are dragons, so therefore there should be X."
Yes, it is utterly unfair that wizards can rewrite reality and you have a half a brick. It's unfair that Superman (or Gods forbid Martian Manhunter) gets all the powers and Green Arrow gets a bow.
I've run across this in any number of games, be it D&D or Pathfinder or Shadowrun or Rolemaster or etc. Yes, wizards and clerics and psionics and people that manipulate reality are more powerful than a guy with a stick. Because they rewrite reality! If everyone was on the same power level, it wouldn't seem fantastic.
This does not mean that mundanes shouldn't get interesting and/or more abilities. But basically giving mundanes magical powers and calling them "fighter tricks" and allowing them to jumo great distances (flying but they have to land) or whatever is just making them wizards.
The sort of cleaving a mountain in twain with their swords shouldn't be an every other fighter sort of thing. But then, I'm a fan of limiting wizards too --- which tends to decrease the amount of complaints that they are taking the spotlight or can do anything.
Some people like tiny girls with two giant swords leaping 75 feet and destroying a host of enemies. Others prefer something a little less super heroic or anime-style in their games, and neither is right or wrong.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
But since axes don't remind him of a type of entertainment he doesn't care for, they get a pass.
It's not about "I don't like it when characters can do X" (such as use improbably large weapons).
It's about "This particular mental image reminds me of something I don't like" (such as a certain type of large weapon setup reminding someone of anime).
It only looks inconsistent when using incorrect labels: label it as "I don't like using improbably large/heavy weapons/styles" and you get inconsistencies like swords being regarded differently than axes. Label it instead as "I don't like things that remind me of other things I don't like", and you see that a giant sword could remind a person of anime while an unlikely axe-wielding style isn't a prominent trope of any particular thing (other than D&D), so there's no conflict/contradiction.
Self-awareness: it benefits everyone. :)
Now, now, you're drawing incorrect assumptions again.
I happen to love anime, and I read a lot of manga. How could it remind me of those things if I didn't read them, mmmm? I currently follow half a dozen anime and at least a dozen manga.
It's just they are very different flavors from the Western style. And over the top cheesy, because that's the style.
Or as Ichigo's dad put it, "If we couldn't control our reitsu, all our released swords would be as big as skyscrapers!"
==Aelryinth
Oh! I think I see the issue! This whole time, you've been using the film version of the term "cheesy" , while the premise of the thread is the RPG version of cheese . That would certainly explain a lot. Yeah. Wow. Totally changes how I understand your previous posts. Cripes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with him in part. If your disagreement of something is immersion breaking, that should be left to a table debate on what everyone likes. A mechanically overpowered option is a debate for the game as a whole. So I wouldn't want something taken out of the game as a whole because of an immersion issue but a mechanical issue maybe.
I'm with you somewhat, but for immersion - there should be some consistency within the system. (I'm not going to weigh in on what such consistency should be.) Otherwise you might as well remove the fluff entirely and have nothing but mechanics & formulas and allow players to add whatever fluff they want.
There are systems like that. I don't like them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
New stuff is often labelled as cheese by one of my GMs.
The reason is kind of sad, the poor dude love to create his own little world. Anything that does not fit his world is awful, thus most of the time he ban any new books that does not fit his world. It's really sad because he label everything that does not fit his narrative as cheesy.
Mutation Warrior fighter archetype? Cheesy!
Bomb focused Alchemist build? Cheesy!
Using adamantine arrows heads to cut a steel wire? Cheesy!
Gunslingers? Cheesy!
Archer paladin build? Cheesy!
Summoner using summons? CHEESY!
Being a total s~*!ty GM with 0 creativity and copying over and over stuff from final fantasy into his games: Not cheesy
Refusing to play any other game and to be a player every now and then to leave anyone else the chance to be a GM: Totally not cheesy
Creating about 60 pages worth of house-rules but refusing any other stuff besides from core at the table: Not cheesy
Usually people that call everything cheesy are close minded control freak that want to impose their vision on everything. If you want so much control on a interactive storytelling combat sim table top game. Maybe you should just write a book and let people that wanna play play.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
New stuff is often labelled as cheese by one of my GMs...
Two things -
1. If it bothers you that much - why do you keep playing with him?
2. Strawman much? Your implication is that anyone who calls anything cheesey is as closeminded as the GM who you dislike & keep playing with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
New stuff is often labelled as cheese by one of my GMs.
The reason is kind of sad, the poor dude love to create his own little world. Anything that does not fit his world is awful, thus most of the time he ban any new books that does not fit his world. It's really sad because he label everything that does not fit his narrative as cheesy.Mutation Warrior fighter archetype? Cheesy!
Bomb focused Alchemist build? Cheesy!
Using adamantine arrows heads to cut a steel wire? Cheesy!
Gunslingers? Cheesy!
Archer paladin build? Cheesy!
Summoner using summons? CHEESY!Being a total s+!$ty GM with 0 creativity and copying over and over stuff from final fantasy into his games: Not cheesy
Refusing to play any other game and to be a player every now and then to leave anyone else the chance to be a GM: Totally not cheesy
Creating about 60 pages worth of house-rules but refusing any other stuff besides from core at the table: Not cheesyUsually people that call everything cheesy are close minded control freak that want to impose their vision on everything. If you want so much control on a interactive storytelling combat sim table top game. Maybe you should just write a book and let people that wanna play play.
Ah, the old "should write a book if they are going to blah" train. That one is never late.
It is just opinions, nothing more. No more than people liking giant swords or little scantily dressed female characters or tentacled mutations or hyper-prepared anti-heroes or whatever. Just options and choices.
Everyone should be discussing this stuff together, and if the person who is GMing doesn't want to bend, they may want to consider not GMing for a round so that people can get their freak on (for lack of a better term.) If you are the player and no one at the table wants your half-fox half-dragon drunken master with a flaming tail who speaks in iambic pentameter while doing whatever, you should probably consider other choices.
Or maybe everyone would be better off writing their own story and not playing?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
half-fox half-dragon drunken master with a flaming tail who speaks in iambic pentameter
This is why I love reading the Paizo message boards. You never know when you'll run into your next character concept!
;)
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
People dislike hearing this, but just because the wizard can rewrite reality on a whim is not an excuse or rationale for everything to be thrown out the window. It's on the same level as "there are dragons, so therefore there should be X."
Yes, it is utterly unfair that wizards can rewrite reality and you have a half a brick. It's unfair that Superman (or Gods forbid Martian Manhunter) gets all the powers and Green Arrow gets a bow.
The difference is that a Pathfinder game is a collaborative story. It's okay for Green Arrow to not be as powerful and relevant as Superman because Green Arrow doesn't have a controlling player who has to sit and twiddle his thumbs while Superman gets to do everything.
D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff.
In a game with levels, the levels should mean that they are roughly equivalent options in both flavor, mechanics and fun. If they ain't, then there's no damn point to them. And that's not okay.
This is why I play mostly Path of War and Psionics stuff nowadays: they go out of their way to lower this disparity AND give me fun and interesting options for my characters to play with. This is good. Is the Warder just a Wizard with a coat of paint? Hell no, he's a martial class that can do lots of really effective and fun things that the Fighter would have to spend all of his ability points and feats on, and he does them baseline. Also he doesn't have 2+Int skill points per level, a terrible skill list, and assorted other quality of life things that make him fun.
Drawing the line in the sand that says NO SPELLS, ENJOY WAVING A STICK AROUND BECAUSE HAHA REALISM! in the same world where there are dragons and demons and people who can easily survive plummets from orbit and various other stuff that is completely NOT realistic is pretty much the definition of unfair to me. I'm not saying that every game needs to have people cutting mountains in half or jumping 70 ft in a single bound and stuff, but if the martial classes are incapable of doing ANYTHING but whacking stuff with their weapon (which is pretty much the paradigm right now) then that's not a good place for the system to be. Especially when most attempts to change this unreasonably lopsided disparity is met with OMG CHEESY NO YOUR FUN BUT NOT MAGIC OPTION IS BANNED.
Give the option to be silly and unrealistic, and let groups decide if they want to use it. The problem is that line drawn in the sand that people throw a fit if you toe it, while being completely obtuse about what kind of game PF really is.
People dislike hearing this, but just because the wizard can rewrite reality on a whim is not an excuse or rationale for everything to be thrown out the window. It's on the same level as "there are dragons, so therefore there should be X."
Yes, it is utterly unfair that wizards can rewrite reality and you have a half a brick. It's unfair that Superman (or Gods forbid Martian Manhunter) gets all the powers and Green Arrow gets a bow.
The difference is that a Pathfinder game is a collaborative story. It's okay for Green Arrow to not be as powerful and relevant as Superman because Green Arrow doesn't have a controlling player who has to sit and twiddle his thumbs while Superman gets to do everything.
D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.
Unless you are playing a DC Heroes RPG. Then you have the same problem.
And yes, it is supposed to be a collaborative story, which is why I hope and pray that all the stories I see on these and other boards are just internet braggadocio and people aren't actually trying to actively ruin the other players fun and then claiming "Sorry bro, I'm a wizard and I gotta do this or it isn't fun for me."
As far as it being true or not, that is a correctable problem at the table. Games have had this problem since forever, and people have managed to either live with it, not have it be a problem for them, or correct it at their own tables. People complain a lot about it, but either the complaints are too soft for companies to hear or their are not enough of them to influence what the other people want: highly powerful spell casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with you somewhat, but for immersion - there should be some consistency within the system. (I'm not going to weigh in on what such consistency should be.)
That is why I see it as more of a table issue. Even the internal consistency within the system that's required differs person to person. From my perspective, pathfinder seems to have oversized weapons built into it while Aelryinth perspective of the same internal consistency differs.
That's why things that don't harm the game mechanically should be left to individual tables. Even out views of internal consistency varies person to person.
D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit! ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit! ;)
One can summon ANGELS!!! The other riiiiides a BMX!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff.In a game with levels, the levels should mean that they are roughly equivalent options in both flavor, mechanics and fun. If they ain't, then there's no damn point to them. And that's not okay.
This is why I play mostly Path of War and Psionics stuff nowadays: they go out of their way to lower this disparity AND give me fun and interesting options for my characters to play with. This is good. Is the Warder just a Wizard with a coat of paint? Hell no, he's a martial class that can do lots of really effective and fun things that the Fighter would have to spend all of his ability points and feats on, and he does them baseline. Also he doesn't have 2+Int skill points per level, a terrible skill list, and assorted other quality of life things that make him fun.
Drawing the line in the sand that says NO SPELLS, ENJOY WAVING A STICK AROUND BECAUSE HAHA REALISM! in the same world where there are dragons and demons and people who can easily survive plummets from orbit and various other stuff that is completely NOT realistic is pretty much the definition of unfair to me. I'm not saying that every game needs to have people cutting mountains in half or jumping 70 ft in a single bound and stuff, but if the martial classes are incapable of doing ANYTHING but whacking stuff with their weapon (which is pretty much the paradigm right now) then that's not a good place for the system to be. Especially when most attempts to change this unreasonably lopsided disparity is met with OMG CHEESY NO YOUR FUN BUT NOT MAGIC OPTION IS BANNED.
Give the option to be silly and unrealistic, and let groups decide if they want to use it. The problem is that line drawn in the sand that people throw a fit if you toe it, while being completely obtuse about what kind of game PF really is.
I believe I said people should talk and decide it. But having half the people wanting to be silly and the other half wanting to be serious makes for an unfun game for everyone. I've had a player that, without telling any of us, decided her chaotic neutral cleric would just do random things all the time. The player thought it was hilarious fun just like the movies; no one else was impressed by her talking to a door knob in the middle of a fight and trying to grow a flower instead of healing someone.
It still boils down to what people like and dislike. There are a lot of people who LOVE anime (since it got drug into this), for example. There are others that despise its existence. A lot of what people consider exaggerated or 'cheesy' comes from this dislike; I've see it with comic book art or gaming art, as an example, where the art is attacked not because it is not good but because it is 'too anime.'
What do they mean by that? They'd have a hard time explaining it to you, but they hate it just the same. Gamers as a community tend to have some very passionate feelings about things (look at any thread on these boards). This is the sort of thing that I feel should be hammered out when you get started. Things like "Anyone care if my sword is like, huge? Anyone had little tiny goth girls? How about dinosaurs? Vampires that sparkle? <put your hated thing in this slot>"
People fall out over fluff as much as rules. I've left games because someone wouldn't stop playing a clown. I've asked people to stop "being weird" because it is messing with the other players. One person's likes and tolerances can make others very unhappy.
Cheese, although often improperly used to show disgust about a subject, is to be properly used as something that is used unintentionally, against the rules, or both. Things that are "new" or "interesting" mean nothing if they go against the purpose of the rules. A lot of times, things that are allowed by RAW, but don't follow the RAI, are subjects that would fall under the category of "cheese".
Paizo devs work very hard to create balanced and interesting rules. They understand that chaotic rules with no balance and no structure will ruin the game and Pathfinder would die.
I find this to be a giant misnomer on your part. Paizo Devs do create rules that are interesting, sure, however that's once in a great while; if you take a look at a lot of the threads on here, they involve a lot of imbalances that Paizo essentially says "Yup, that's how it is, suck it up," whether vocally (Dev posts, Errata, or FAQ answers), or non-vocally (such as what RAW would allow to happen, and it being unchecked). They actually created imbalance with several of the things they changed, that were actually much easier to fix (and it still would have kept the unique, interesting feel the content provided). And that doesn't just apply to things that they change, but with the things that they publish, the imbalance only grows and grows, the structures gets bigger (and thusly more fragile, since there are more parts associated),
Granted, no system is perfect, and they have tried to shore up some of these issues with their Unchained spin-off, and by constructing their own rules chassis, but when the original Pathfinder game was built with the same chassis that D&D 3.X used, the same issues that would plague D&D 3.X, such as the content bloat, the Caster/Martial disparities, Rogues sucking, Paladin Alignment issues, etc. would also plague Pathfinder. It's like putting two of the same species of monkey in a cage that contains a petri dish containing parasites and expecting the parasites to only affect one of the monkeys because it has a different name with several features that are different (and many features the same).
People dislike hearing this, but just because the wizard can rewrite reality on a whim is not an excuse or rationale for everything to be thrown out the window. It's on the same level as "there are dragons, so therefore there should be X."
Yes, it is utterly unfair that wizards can rewrite reality and you have a half a brick. It's unfair that Superman (or Gods forbid Martian Manhunter) gets all the powers and Green Arrow gets a bow.
The difference is that a Pathfinder game is a collaborative story. It's okay for Green Arrow to not be as powerful and relevant as Superman because Green Arrow doesn't have a controlling player who has to sit and twiddle his thumbs while Superman gets to do everything.
D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.
Unless you are playing a DC Heroes RPG. Then you have the same problem.
And yes, it is supposed to be a collaborative story, which is why I hope and pray that all the stories I see on these and other boards are just internet braggadocio and people aren't actually trying to actively ruin the other players fun and then claiming "Sorry bro, I'm a wizard and I gotta do this or it isn't fun for me."
As far as it being true or not, that is a correctable problem at the table. Games have had this problem since forever, and people have managed to either live with it, not have it be a problem for them, or correct it at their own tables. People complain a lot about it, but either the complaints are too soft for companies to hear or their are not enough of them to influence what the other people want: highly powerful spell casters.
Thing is, if you're good at casters you don't even have to be an a~!#*&# to ruin the fun for everyone else. Had a PFS game a while back where we fought a boss-type creature; classic PFS scenario, one big enemy with lots of HP and very little in the means of other protections. Our Conjuration Wizard had Acid Pit prepared and dropped it in the pit. The monster was dead before the pit ran out.
I can't blame him for what he did; it was the best play he could have made with the spells available, and he did beat the encounter. The blame is squarely on the shoulders of whoever decided it was a good idea to make a spell that can destroy anything that can't fly and locks all of your party members out of the encounter.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One can summon ANGELS!!! The other riiiiides a BMX!D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit! ;)
They're a CRIME FIGHTIN' DUO!!! OH-OH, OH-OH YEEEEAAAH!!!
*Guitar riff*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why can't people occasionally complain about all the Game of Thrones fans who can't cope with cool powers in PF? They don't even get the elves and dwarves!
To be fair, I do figure GoT is responsible for a lot of the renewed interest in low-magic "gritty" campaigns.
The difference is that a Pathfinder game is a collaborative story. It's okay for Green Arrow to not be as powerful and relevant as Superman because Green Arrow doesn't have a controlling player who has to sit and twiddle his thumbs while Superman gets to do everything.
D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.
Yes, this is the big difference. In most other storytelling formats it's fine for a character to just not show up or do anything for a while, until they have some contribution to make to the story. Or for one character to completely dominate the story for a while.
In an Tabletop RPG, you can't really tell your players "Sorry Bob and Jim, I don't have any rogue or fighter things planned for this session, so just sit there quietly and don't bother anyone. This is the scene where Tom's wizard takes on the Big Bad and saves the day, and I don't want you guys spoiling his moment of triumph by getting in the way."
Thing is, if you're good at casters you don't even have to be an a#&&&#& to ruin the fun for everyone else. Had a PFS game a while back where we fought a boss-type creature; classic PFS scenario, one big enemy with lots of HP and very little in the means of other protections. Our Conjuration Wizard had Acid Pit prepared and dropped it in the pit. The monster was dead before the pit ran out.
I can't blame him for what he did; it was the best play he could have made with the spells available, and he did beat the encounter. The blame is squarely on the shoulders of whoever decided it was a good idea to make a spell that can destroy anything that can't fly and locks all of your party members out of the encounter.
Yup. And this is one of the things I look out for when I GM and remove from play. PFS doesn't do this, which is something they should look into as an aside. But yeah, if there are easy one shot kills like that people are going to take them if they can.
There is some broken and problematic stuff, mostly spells, that goes on in the game. I don't deny that. I'd like it if they took care of it, but they haven't. That's where I come in as a GM. I'd like to say as a player I wouldn't take the spell knowing how broken it is, but I might if push came to shove. But I try pretty hard not to use that sort of thing, so that the other people at the table are not staring at me trying to get my head to explode.
|
|
More stuff.
I'm just saying that if the options for the supposed "cheesy" stuff were part of the baseline rules, and people could decide whether they wanted to use it or not (for example, to choose not to use it because they feel it's "cheesy"!) that would be better for the system as a whole.
More options that you can choose to not use is better than fewer options and the hamfisted NUH UH NOT REALISTIC CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE nonsense that is so common among people right now. In the first option, everyone can get what they want with a bit of discussion, but in the second, one party is told "No, what you want is unimportant to us."
Other stuff.
See, these guys get it.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One can summon ANGELS!!! The other riiiiides a BMX!D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit! ;)They're a CRIME FIGHTIN' DUO!!! OH-OH, OH-OH YEEEEAAAH!!!
*Guitar riff*
I can't believe they cancelled that show after just one episode. :(
#Firefly
#DiedTooSoon
#BmxNeverDies
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
One can summon ANGELS!!! The other riiiiides a BMX!D&D is not supposed to be about the wizard and his three sidekicks. It's about a team of equal individuals striving to do something greater than what they could accomplish on their own; the fact that this isn't really true thanks to mechanics means that there is a problem that should be resolved.Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit! ;)They're a CRIME FIGHTIN' DUO!!! OH-OH, OH-OH YEEEEAAAH!!!
*Guitar riff*
I can't believe they cancelled that show after just one episode. :(
#Firefly
#DiedTooSoon
#BmxNeverDies
It makes me smile that people get the reference. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's more than one episode.
There's more than one episode of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit? I thought the show was cancelled after BMX Bandit pulled out over creative differences. I never took a liking to Angel Summoner and Gymkhana girl, the show just wasn't the same when they lost the BMX action. :(
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's more than one episode.There's more than one episode of Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit? I thought the show was cancelled after BMX Bandit pulled out over creative differences. I never took a liking to Angel Summoner and Gymkhana girl, the show just wasn't the same when they lost the BMX action. :(
I might have liked the second series, except for Gymkhana Girl's catchphrase ruining it for me.
"Sugar lumps" were just a bit too cheesy for me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
First of all, half the problem with Monkey Grip is a gross misunderstanding of what the feat does. Monkey Grip allows you to use a weapon of one size larger than you with the same effort as if the weapon was sized for you, for a -2 penalty.
The whole "Dual-wielding Greatswords" thing comes from the fact that a Large Longsword has the same damage roll as a Medium Greatsword. There are some problems with that in practice.
The first is RAW. The feat text specifically states that it works with larger weapons. You have to use it with Large Longswords, not Medium Greatswords.
Secondly there's penalty stacking. Even if your character has Two-Weapon Fighting, they're still eating a -6 penalty. If they choose not to burn that feat, it jumps to -8/-12.
And the final reason actually renders all of that moot. The feat text explicitly states that Monkey grip cannot be used with your off hand.
Now, for the actual meat of your question: The answer is Theorycrafting. People read the rules, plug in a few variables, and if they get a number greater than whatever they deem is "fair", go running for the hills. This gets a lot of attention because of the Optimization crowd: people who deliberately try to max out 1-3 numbers for their character(s). Usually sometime later, people put it into practice, and find that it may not be as broken as it seems when the old Random Number God comes into play.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are games where normal guys can leap over mountains, swing 20' long swords and can fart fireballs at their enemies. Such games EXIST.
THIS is not that kind of game.
The people who created this game had a choice: Make it one of THOSE games or make it THIS game. They chose to make it THIS game.
That's what the devs wanted, so that's what they made.
When I bought this game, I bought it because it was THIS game. I'm resistant to people who want to make it THAT game. It's not THAT game. I'm extra resistant to people who tell me I'm wrong for wanting to play the game the devs created. I'm extra resistant to people who tell me I'm wrong for wanting to play the game that I purchased. I'm most resistant of all toward people who tell me to get lost, abandon the game I bought because it's THIS game, that was created by its own devs to be THIS game - just because I disagree that THIS game should not be THAT game.
So yeah, when some dev publishes something that moves in the direction of turning THIS game into THAT game, I often look at it as cheesy. But that's just my opinion. An opinion, I believe, that I'm entitled to as a paying customer of THIS game. Despite that, I almost never ban anything for being cheesy.
But I do ban broken combos. And I do frown on players at my table who (cheesily) insist on looking for the most broken combos to give them an advantage over other players, usually by finding ways to play THAT game while everyone else is playing THIS game. That's the kind of thing I dislike and prevent. In my games. That I paid for. Because it's THUS game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
More stuff.I'm just saying that if the options for the supposed "cheesy" stuff were part of the baseline rules, and people could decide whether they wanted to use it or not (for example, to choose not to use it because they feel it's "cheesy"!) that would be better for the system as a whole.
More options that you can choose to not use is better than fewer options and the hamfisted NUH UH NOT REALISTIC CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE nonsense that is so common among people right now. In the first option, everyone can get what they want with a bit of discussion, but in the second, one party is told "No, what you want is unimportant to us."
Other stuff.See, these guys get it.
Cool. Who gets to decide what is cheesy and what isn't for inclusion into the baseline rules? The devs? A vote on the boards? Do we have them ask the weirdest person at work, defined by some nebulous criteria?
Whether or not Paizo puts the ideas in the Core book, a 3PP presents them or they fall from the sky on stone tablets means exactly nothing if your table decides to use them or not to use them. This is what I've said repeatedly about talking and communicating.
If everyone at your table wants the "Cheese" dial turned to 11, then go for it. You don't need some "official" source to tell you that is OK; that's the creative part of the hobby.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Leaping over mountains is covered by seven league leap, 20 foot long swords is a bastard sword sized for a gargantuan creature so it should be manageable with the right magic item and archetype. Hm... I can't do farting fireballs, but I can do sneezing fireballs?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are games where normal guys can leap over mountains, swing 20' long swords and can fart fireballs at their enemies. Such games EXIST.
THIS is not that kind of game.
The people who created this game had a choice: Make it one of THOSE games or make it THIS game. They chose to make it THIS game.
That's what the devs wanted, so that's what they made.
When I bought this game, I bought it because it was THIS game. I'm resistant to people who want to make it THAT game. It's not THAT game. I'm extra resistant to people who tell me I'm wrong for wanting to play the game the devs created. I'm extra resistant to people who tell me I'm wrong for wanting to play the game that I purchased. I'm most resistant of all toward people who tell me to get lost, abandon the game I bought because it's THIS game, that was created by its own devs to be THIS game - just because I disagree that THIS game should not be THAT game.
So yeah, when some dev publishes something that moves in the direction of turning THIS game into THAT game, I often look at it as cheesy. But that's just my opinion. An opinion, I believe, that I'm entitled to as a paying customer of THIS game. Despite that, I almost never ban anything for being cheesy.
But I do ban broken combos. And I do frown on players at my table who (cheesily) insist on looking for the most broken combos to give them an advantage over other players, usually by finding ways to play THAT game while everyone else is playing THIS game. That's the kind of thing I dislike and prevent. In my games. That I paid for. Because it's THUS game.
This game is many games. To claim there was a single solid "game" that the devs were making is disingenuous.
Your post largely sounds like "it's cheesy because I don't like it" to me. You shouldn't claim that the devs made THIS game and deliberately not THAT game, but that now it's THAT game despite it all being (largely) the same devs. At the end of the day, though, it's nice to hear that it seems you're willing to work with your players and allow such things so long as balance is preserved. And I hope your players return the courtesy by working with your campaigns rather than against them.
The fact of the matter is, any reasonably popular pen and paper RPG will be many kinds of games at once to many different people. This is fine, and we should embrace it. We should find better ways to describe the kinds of games we play in more explicit terms and be okay with the idea that not every rule is built to apply for every table or every kind of game. We should view the game rules as a tool, not a sacred relic. Sometimes the tool isn't perfect for the job, but that's what optional rules and house rules are for. Switching systems to play a slightly different game is overkill, especially when no-one at your table owns the books for any other game.
TL;DR - THIS game, THAT game; noodles, not noodles; only synergy matters.