Was it fun because it was different, atypical, novel and because of the heavy rp focus you brought to the table by necessity?
That is what some are getting at, depth and rp over build+power fixation. There are simpler systems and the complexity of power creep mechanics can be rejected so as to get back to roleplaying in a more purer form, or it can be rolled back and restricted, hence my questions above.
I don't think that powering down a character=better roleplay opportunities.
I do believe that underpowered characters have less options, thus the players focus on roleplaying because they still want to have fun.
Causation vs correlation and all that.
"I don't think that powering down a character=better roleplay opportunities."
Ever played an awakened snail? Or a familiar perhaps? If one cannot gank you go with what you have got, which means an rp focus instead of an overkill focus.
I have, in fact, played someones familiar. I was given the ability to start casting spells after playing five levels... it was fun.
It was fun DESPITE being crappy, not BECAUSE it was crappy.
Question, was your tiny spellcaster really actually crappy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you remember a time before the years of many builds in pathfinder? I dub it pre-build-bloat-in-pathfinder: PBBIP! Or, PBBIP time.
Do you run your games like that, do you play in games like that, or is it inconceivable like fighting a land war in Asia?
Currently running a game like that. I asked the players not to over-optimize, because I knew some of them would make low-powered characters whatever I said (probably not on purpose) and I wanted to avoid major intra-party imbalance. They did.
Last campaign I played in was also like that (due to Core-only restriction plus inexperienced players).
The previous couple of campaigns before that featured varying levels of optimization.
I've never heard of anyone actually taking a 'build' off a forum and using that instead of creating their own original character, though I assume it must happen sometimes.
Question, was your tiny spellcaster really actually crappy?I don't think that powering down a character=better roleplay opportunities.
I do believe that underpowered characters have less options, thus the players focus on roleplaying because they still want to have fun.
Causation vs correlation and all that.
"I don't think that powering down a character=better roleplay opportunities."
Ever played an awakened snail? Or a familiar perhaps? If one cannot gank you go with what you have got, which means an rp focus instead of an overkill focus.
I have, in fact, played someones familiar. I was given the ability to start casting spells after playing five levels... it was fun.
It was fun DESPITE being crappy, not BECAUSE it was crappy.
For the first five levels, when I was just playing as the familiar with no spellcasting of my own, yep. I contributed nothing more to combat than a familiar normally would.
Starting at level 6, I was allowed to begin learning spells like a wizard, so I was caster level=character level -5.
Mechanically, the character sucked salty chocolate balls, but it was fun.
It wasn't fun because it sucked. It was fun despite the sucking.
Was it fun because it was different, atypical, novel and because of the heavy rp focus you brought to the table by necessity?
That is what some are getting at, depth and rp over build+power fixation. There are simpler systems and the complexity of power creep mechanics can be rejected so as to get back to roleplaying in a more purer form, or it can be rolled back and restricted, hence my questions above.
Not because of, in spite of.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you enjoy soccer, would you enjoy it more if someone broke your legs?
As far as this fallacy nonsense - let's give it a break already. The stupid fallacy has been silly since it was started. When someone says, essentially - "In my experience, people that are optimizers tend to not be as good of roleplayers," shouting "Fallacy! Fallacy" is nonproductive.
we do this unfortunately because when we make serious responses they seem to be just as productive, so it's our way of stopping ourselves from what we perceive as wasting our time at this point.
anyway, on the current topic, I played a tiny psueodragon once, man did i get bored fast, I wasn't able to impact the story or help people. So i just felt like i was there doing nothing of import. I could have not been there and everything could have largely turned out the same. So... i've never played something that "sounds fun" since then as usually, it's fun for all of five minutes, then the joke is done, and you're there facing reality.
Depends, am I playing a soccer simulation?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you enjoy soccer, would you enjoy it more if someone broke your legs?
no, but i'd enjoy watching soccer, if the player's ALL had broken legs.
"can't use your hands!" cries the crowd.
the pain, it has been unbearable, but you must crawl on, the ball is just 5 feet away now.
you look to your left, an opposing player, also crawling despite the pain. you move carefully trying to not give him access to your legs and shift to try to push the ball sideways, but you are too late.
you scream in pain as he grabs your ankle, you quickly fall unconscious, but the audience knows you will be back soon due to the painkillers and stimulants...
you wake up looking at the time, 3 minutes this time? you look around, the ball has moved 10 feet toward you goal, the opposing player is pushing it with his hip...
It doesn't rub me the wrong way. Please understand I do not accept being included in your attempted ploy of using the inclusive "people" as if there are many, lined up, all rubbed the wrong way
Maybe it's a problem of language barrier, as English is not my first language.
As far as I understand, "people" doesn't mean "everybody". It just mean that there are more than few, a group with indefinite numbers. In this very thread, alone, some people got rubbed in the wrong way. Quite a few. I could go back and mention the names of the posters that answered the OP in a negative way not because of his opinion about DPR, but because of the way he talks.
So either I'm wrong with the meaning of people, which could be the case, or your argument is a strawman. I never said (unless my English is betraying me) that my sentence included you, specifically, or even a majority. Only that people get rubbed in the wrong way when other people use confrontational words like the OP, or like your own "attempted ploy" sentence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am not winning, I am putting effort in a game I love and enjoy.
I retrospective I had the most fun when "power gaming" I felt like I could role-play better than when I was playing a weak character. I tried to make a plain character more than once. I am just tired of it, I have attained a level of system mastery where I have earned the RIGHT to make a goofy character concept that will not only nail and beat most obstacles thrown at him, but be very memorable. Yesterday I had to sit 30 minutes listening to some Uber RP master describing how she would hide in a crowd in a dress and attempt to steal important documents from a target. She then proceeded to roll a whooping 8 with modifiers.
I think my post about soccer and broken legs pretty much sums up what this thread is.
Some people are arguing that soccer with broken legs would be more fun, and I'm not one of those people.
I tweak my builds and power play like CRAZY, and always have fun.
I enjoy my crappy characters less, cause they are crappy.
I don't see how anyone could see it otherwise.
Being bad at your primary function isn't entertaining, its depressing.
It doesn't rub me the wrong way. Please understand I do not accept being included in your attempted ploy of using the inclusive "people" as if there are many, lined up, all rubbed the wrong wayMaybe it's a problem of language barrier, as English is not my first language.
As far as I understand, "people" doesn't mean "everybody". It just mean that there are more than few, a group with indefinite numbers. In this very thread, alone, some people got rubbed in the wrong way. Quite a few. I could go back and mention the names of the posters that answered the OP in a negative way not because of his opinion about DPR, but because of the way he talks.
So either I'm wrong with the meaning of people, which could be the case, or your argument is a strawman. I never said (unless my English is betraying me) that my sentence included you, specifically, or even a majority. Only that people get rubbed in the wrong way when other people use confrontational words like the OP, or like your own "attempted ploy" sentence.
"or your argument is a strawman"
OH NO YOU DIDN'T!
I disagree with your tactics, I must be strawmanning. I strawman all day, so I opened a strawman shop. I sell them to farmers, internet debaters and witches, one weird guy down the road builds houses out of them. Conjuring them from thin-air, it is easy money. Where does all this straw come from? I cannot fathom my strawman conjuring powers.
Being bad at your primary function isn't entertaining, its depressing.
I see how some people would love that, because I've known a few of them. It's ok, there's nothing wrong. They can play Pippen if they want, as long as they also understand that some people preffer to play Legolas.
There's no badwrongfun. There's people who insist that the rest of the group play like they like, and those are the problem. It doesn't matter if it's people asking everybody else to power up, or to power down. It's just, in my opinion, a wrong thing from ethical point of view, to assume that you are enlightened with the Only Truth, and try to force feed everybody else with your own opinion.
Let Pippin be Pippin, and let Legolas be Legolas. They'll both have fun
I really, really dislike when people assume that because I start building a character by deciding on a mechanical theme, that my characters obviously cannot be interesting or fun to play (or fun to play with).
It's an assumption because it is frequently true. As both a player and a GM, I can't count the number of asinine, nonsensical backgrounds and dull, silent loners I've encountered due to character backgrounds built backwards from an optimal build.
I agree with you in general; playing a mechanically *interesting* (rather than DPR optimized) character is a lot of fun, but if you're wondering why you're setting side-eye from people, that's why. There's a legion of half-elven Greatsword fighters with wands of shield (or whatever the new flavor of the month is) bereft of personality that generally give character optimization a bad name.
Me, I kind of enjoy the challenge of taking the weirder mechanical options, thinking about what kind of person would use them, and then trying to make that playable as well.
I'm still in the drawing-board phase of my armor-less Oracle (using one of the mage armor-esque Revelations) and that weird, kind of awful Cleric archetype that can't wear armor at all (Ecclesiarch? something like that)
"or your argument is a strawman"
OH NO YOU DIDN'T!
I disagree with your tactics, I must be strawmanning.
Nah. It's not a strawman to disagree with my "tactics", whatever you mean with it. It's a strawman to say that I tried to include you in my sentence about the OP rubbing people.
Did the OP rub people? Or didn't he? Is my use of "people" wrong? Or did some people in this thread felt rubbed, even if it doesn't include you?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Being bad at your primary function isn't entertaining, its depressing.
I see how some people would love that, because I've known a few of them. It's ok, there's nothing wrong. They can play Pippen if they want, as long as they also understand that some people preffer to play Legolas.
There's no badwrongfun. There's people who insist that the rest of the group play like they like, and those are the problem. It doesn't matter if it's people asking everybody else to power up, or to power down. It's just, in my opinion, a wrong thing from ethical point of view, to assume that you are enlightened with the Only Truth, and try to force feed everybody else with your own opinion.
Let Pippin be Pippin, and let Legolas be Legolas. They'll both have fun
Pippin was bad at Legolas' role, but he was pretty good at what he did (stealing things, sneaking around, negotiating with trees, etc.)
Being bad at your primary function isn't entertaining, its depressing.
I see how some people would love that, because I've known a few of them. It's ok, there's nothing wrong. They can play Pippen if they want, as long as they also understand that some people preffer to play Legolas.
There's no badwrongfun. There's people who insist that the rest of the group play like they like, and those are the problem. It doesn't matter if it's people asking everybody else to power up, or to power down. It's just, in my opinion, a wrong thing from ethical point of view, to assume that you are enlightened with the Only Truth, and try to force feed everybody else with your own opinion.
Let Pippin be Pippin, and let Legolas be Legolas. They'll both have fun
So true.
If you like the character, you are playing correctly.
I just don't believe underpowered=more fun.
My favorite character ever was an indestructible wartroll/halfdragon ECL 40 insane epic character played over a two year long campaign.
Totally insane. MOST FUN EVER! I talk about him years after the fact.
I don't often talk about my level 3 commoner... *shrugs* he didn't accomplish anything memorable I guess. :D
Pippin was bad at Legolas' role, but he was pretty good at what he did (stealing things, sneaking around, negotiating with trees, etc.)Being bad at your primary function isn't entertaining, its depressing.
I see how some people would love that, because I've known a few of them. It's ok, there's nothing wrong. They can play Pippen if they want, as long as they also understand that some people preffer to play Legolas.
There's no badwrongfun. There's people who insist that the rest of the group play like they like, and those are the problem. It doesn't matter if it's people asking everybody else to power up, or to power down. It's just, in my opinion, a wrong thing from ethical point of view, to assume that you are enlightened with the Only Truth, and try to force feed everybody else with your own opinion.
Let Pippin be Pippin, and let Legolas be Legolas. They'll both have fun
I was thinking more about the alerting whole Moria stuff, but fair enough. Again: let those who want to play Pippin have fun with it, and let those who want to be Legolas have fun with it.
I really, really dislike when people assume that because I start building a character by deciding on a mechanical theme, that my characters obviously cannot be interesting or fun to play (or fun to play with).It's an assumption because it is frequently true. As both a player and a GM, I can't count the number of asinine, nonsensical backgrounds and dull, silent loners I've encountered due to character backgrounds built backwards from an optimal build.
maybe this is just all opinions based on experience.
like i just MADE A CLASS so I could easy get what i wanted without multiclassing or getting abilities that didn't quite fit the theme. most people would think i'm power gaming, but the last session that i played in, i killed 1 guy, with a coup de grace with a great sword, that's it. I killed him because he was a bandit I was interrogating, that i had managed to intimidate down after our party ambushed them.
I also read things for the party's blind member(they actually have some non-visual sense so they don't get lost or anything, but they still can't read books), and i'm the party's face but only because i'm the only one in RP that keeps people focused and so he runs around making sure everything is organized.
I know he's pretty good at fighting, but i'm not upset that i didn't get into a fight because i know if we did later I would still be an important member in that fight.
As both a player and a GM, I can't count the number of asinine, nonsensical backgrounds and dull, silent loners I've encountered due to character backgrounds built backwards from an optimal build.
This is my experience as well, though I have to also admit that SOME people can actually pull it off. It just seems that for every person that finds/makes an incredibly powerful character that also has an incredibly detailed personality and is RPed well there are twenty that are blank slates.
Again: let those who want to play Pippin have fun with it, and let those who want to be Legolas have fun with it.
In general I agree with this - subject to the group's wishes. If the group sets out saying "This is going to be a game for Pippin-type characters," then if one guy shows up with Legolas, he's in the wrong.
The opposite is true as well (if the group wants everyone to be Legolas, the guy showing up with Pippin and complaining that everyone else is Legolas is in the wrong.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't blame well made characters for poor role playing...
I don't think power level affects role-play any more than role-play affects power level.
The initial statement made in this thread has been taken as inflammatory, but I don't think it was meant to be.
I agree with the sentiment, I think players should focus more on fun and less on survival.
Most GMs will tailor the game to the characters, so if you don't make something capable of smashing planets, that's okay...
As long as everyone has fun, that's all that matters.
|
It's an assumption because it is frequently true. As both a player and a GM, I can't count the number of asinine, nonsensical backgrounds and dull, silent loners I've encountered due to character backgrounds built backwards from an optimal build.
True - but I've met nearly as many horribly built characters who are just as bad at RPing.
The nagaji druid who wielded a club and did little RPing besides talking about eating people... the wizard/cleric/rogue who - I'm not even sure what his sctick was. etc.
There are plenty of optimized characters who can't RP their way out of a paper bag. But the one has virtually nothing to do with the other.
|
It's an assumption because it is frequently true. As both a player and a GM, I can't count the number of asinine, nonsensical backgrounds and dull, silent loners I've encountered due to character backgrounds built backwards from an optimal build.True - but I've met nearly as many horribly built characters who are just as bad at RPing.
The nagaji druid who wielded a club and did little RPing besides talking about eating people... the wizard/cleric/rogue who - I'm not even sure what his sctick was. etc.
There are plenty of optimized characters who can't RP their way out of a paper bag. But the one has virtually nothing to do with the other.
This is true. I once played a session with a CRB rogue with a heavy crossbow. The only things they said the entire session was "I shoot it", "I missed", or "I reload".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Find a group that plays the way you like, regardless if that is number heavy or RP heavy or whatever assortment of the two that describes you. Then you'll be happy, rather than being in a group doing it however your particular brand of "wrong" lines up.
And for the love of all the Gods, can the word fallacy die in a fire? If I took a shot every time it is used I'd die within a page on these threads.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh. Find a group that plays the way you like, regardless if that is number heavy or RP heavy or whatever assortment of the two that describes you. Then you'll be happy, rather than being in a group doing it however your particular brand of "wrong" lines up.
And for the love of all the Gods, can the word fallacy die in a fire? If I took a shot every time it is used I'd die within a page on these threads.
Get Word Replacer for Chrome... that way you can replace the word 'fallacy' with "I don't know what I'm talking about" or whatever you like.
I like reading the news with human, person, people etc. changed to kittens.
