|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most important thing is to know your group. If they're power gamers, Pathfinder becomes a tactical board game, which can be very fun and rewarding. If they're hardcore role-players, you probably want to build a character to follow suit.
Remember, the point is to have a good time. You don't want to be the guy trying to act out your novella worth of backstory in a game full of blank-faced murder hobos, and you don't want to sit there, bored out of your mind, waiting for the next battle while the rest of the group spends hours reenacting Shakespeare every time they bump into an NPC.
TL;DR: Figure out what kind of group you have and play accordingly.
Just putting in my two cents worth here, I tend to agree with those who say that parties should be comprised of people who get along to some extent. Your characters might have some moral disagreements, and they might get annoyed at other members of their party, but they all need to have the same goal in the end. Why else would a character join a party instead of working alone, or at least leave to find a party of more like-minded individuals?
Blue, (and chbgraphic) this is partially in response to your above disgruntlement. Why would a character who wants to steal everything bog himself down with a goody two shoes adventuring party, and for that matter, why would they accept him? A druid that only cares about nature should probably try to find other nature enthusiasts than work with people that could care less about the environment. I believe that the above questions should be asked about every character joining a campaign, and that if asked, they could tone down some of the more frustrating "it's what my character would do" scenarios.
Edit: Pffffft, I'm now picturing a hippie adventuring party going from forest to forest and battling the "evil" guys who cut down trees to make room for their farmland/house/settlement/etc. I can't decide if that would be fun to play or not simply due to the sheer absurdity of the idea. Maybe they could be the terroristic PETA of Golarion and take the villainous role of the campaign, with the PCs having to take down their cult one branch at a time...
Just putting in my two cents worth here, I tend to agree with those who say that parties should be comprised of people who get along to some extent. Your characters might have some moral disagreements, and they might get annoyed at other members of their party, but they all need to have the same goal in the end. Why else would a character join a party instead of working alone, or at least leave to find a party of more like-minded individuals?
Blue, (and chbgraphic) this is partially in response to your above disgruntlement. Why would a character who wants to steal everything bog himself down with a goody two shoes adventuring party, and for that matter, why would they accept him? A druid that only cares about nature should probably try to find other nature enthusiasts than work with people that could care less about the environment. I believe that the above questions should be asked about every character joining a campaign, and that if asked, they could tone down some of the more frustrating "it's what my character would do" scenarios.
Yeah, totally agree. When the difference between party members is too great (both mechanichally and alignment wise) then drama ensues. In an ideal world it would never happen. When there's only one table you can join because of schedule reasons or whatever, then these kinds of things start to appear.
The radical greenpeace campaign sounds awesome, by the way. It could be a way to have a real Neutral campaign, fighting against the evil and good empires at the same time. OH oh also it could have some nature vs supernatural theme where druids with animal companions fight against summoners and eidolons. Yeah, I'd join that campaign
Just putting in my two cents worth here, I tend to agree with those who say that parties should be comprised of people who get along to some extent. Your characters might have some moral disagreements, and they might get annoyed at other members of their party, but they all need to have the same goal in the end. Why else would a character join a party instead of working alone, or at least leave to find a party of more like-minded individuals?
Blue, (and chbgraphic) this is partially in response to your above disgruntlement. Why would a character who wants to steal everything bog himself down with a goody two shoes adventuring party, and for that matter, why would they accept him? A druid that only cares about nature should probably try to find other nature enthusiasts than work with people that could care less about the environment. I believe that the above questions should be asked about every character joining a campaign, and that if asked, they could tone down some of the more frustrating "it's what my character would do" scenarios.
Yeah, totally agree. When the difference between party members is too great (both mechanichally and alignment wise) then drama ensues. In an ideal world it would never happen. When there's only one table you can join because of schedule reasons or whatever, then these kinds of things start to appear.
The radical greenpeace campaign sounds awesome, by the way. It could be a way to have a real Neutral campaign, fighting against the evil and good empires at the same time. OH oh also it could have some nature vs supernatural theme where druids with animal companions fight against summoners and eidolons. Yeah, I'd join that campaign
Wouldn't the make the party a evil group of ecoterrorists rather than a neutral group?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I strongly disagree here, as all attempts at "helping weaker characters" I have seen involve skill ranks, ability scores and feats out of the things they're actually interested in and converting them to raw number feats, denying the player the ability to actually play their concept.Player A says I want to be able to do this. Player B says here's what you need to do that (take this feat, take that class, shift your attributes around so you get do this). And you think Player B is harming player A role playing experience?That's not optimizing in my eyes. Let me give the example I've already given. (this is based on an actual instance but paraphrased for format/protect people identities)
Player A: I'm going to play a no-nonsense Paladin.
Player B: Yeah? *looks at player A's character sheet* No, you're not doing it right. You can't take Knowledge (Religion), Int if your dumb stat. Skill focus? Nah, leave that to the rogue. We'll change your feat to Power Attack, and move your Knowledge ranks into Climb. There, now you're better at being a Paladin.-2 sessions later-
GM: Roll Knowledge (Religion)
Player B: *checks character sheet* I don't have it.
Player C: Wait, what? You were trained by a church for your entire adult life.
Player B: Yeah uhm... I thought I had it but... I guess it got changed.Optimizers do not care about concepts, only that you numbers are big.
That's only one form of optimization.
The form you'll find most on these boards is Optimization of Concept where the character's story/identity plays a huge role in the optimization thereof.
That being said, what skill WOULD you suggest for a Paladin who dumped Intelligence and wasn't Human and wasn't taking the extra skill points?
[Incidentally, skill points are a big thing with me and I would use both of the above to get at least three skill points out of a Paladin who dumped Int, but some players value HP more than Skill Points, and...
Whatever skills are most important to the character concept. In the case of the Paladin, he was brought up by the church and trained by them so Knowledge (Religion) is a no brainer to me, and more importantly it was the skill the player wanted.
Also note the player didn't dump Int until the power gamer insisted it was the dumb stat.
As for optimization of concept, suffice to say, I don't buy it.
I remember once attempting to get some character optimizers to help with a concept I had for a Barbarian Warlord with a decent Int secondary that can be summed up as such.
Me: Alright, what can I do with a Barbarian with 14 INT
Power Gamer 1: Nothing, play an idiot Barbarian instead.
Power Gamer 2: Instead of INT invest in WIS and make your perception crazy high because that's the only important skill.
Repeated of the previous two for 5 posts, thread ends.
Step 1) Come up with a mechanical concept - what the character can do, not who they are (that's fluff and has no business in designing a character)
Step 2) Fine-tune that concept to its most-efficient form, cutting out extraneous things (it doesn't have to be the "best" version of a class, but it should be highly effective in at least 1 useful area).
Step 3) Come up with a personality that would make sense/be interesting for the mechanics chosen.
I do it in a different order.
Come up with a character concept that interests me and would be fun to play. That is fluff and mechanics should be avoided at this point except to recognize when they don't allow that concept.
Try to fit it within the mechanics.
Make some adjustments normally both in concept and mechanics to make a character that will function well.
Adjust in play depending on what happens.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.
Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing.
Okay, that's it.I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa.
Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else.
A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
Wouldn't the make the party a evil group of ecoterrorists rather than a neutral group?Just putting in my two cents worth here, I tend to agree with those who say that parties should be comprised of people who get along to some extent. Your characters might have some moral disagreements, and they might get annoyed at other members of their party, but they all need to have the same goal in the end. Why else would a character join a party instead of working alone, or at least leave to find a party of more like-minded individuals?
Blue, (and chbgraphic) this is partially in response to your above disgruntlement. Why would a character who wants to steal everything bog himself down with a goody two shoes adventuring party, and for that matter, why would they accept him? A druid that only cares about nature should probably try to find other nature enthusiasts than work with people that could care less about the environment. I believe that the above questions should be asked about every character joining a campaign, and that if asked, they could tone down some of the more frustrating "it's what my character would do" scenarios.
Yeah, totally agree. When the difference between party members is too great (both mechanichally and alignment wise) then drama ensues. In an ideal world it would never happen. When there's only one table you can join because of schedule reasons or whatever, then these kinds of things start to appear.
The radical greenpeace campaign sounds awesome, by the way. It could be a way to have a real Neutral campaign, fighting against the evil and good empires at the same time. OH oh also it could have some nature vs supernatural theme where druids with animal companions fight against summoners and eidolons. Yeah, I'd join that campaign
I'd rather not get in a deep discusion about good and evil, but fighting against angels and demons because they chop down trees and alter the ecosystem sound neutral to me, not evil. The term "terrorist" has too much of a real world politics baggage to it so I'd rather leave it out, but it can be applied to any party I've been a part of and/or read about online. Parties go "the [enemies] do [something we don't think is right] so we kill them". If you use "goblins" and "caravan raiding" then you are a LG adventurer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lots of posts
Didnt read them all.
Here's MY 2 coppers:
From a GM stand point, I prefer SOME back story,
If youre a Min max goblin eating machine optimized to the teeth, WHY?
IF you have some character flaws and lots of story, cool bro.
If you are the LARP type of person who never rolls for anything dont sit at my table and make a character, WAY too laborious.
AS a GM I tend to "story" my way through menial encounters.
If a 5th level party meets a random group of orcs in the alley way, there's a REASON why the orcs are there... I want to get to the searching of the bodies, the finding of the clue and the advancing of the plot.
I tell everyone what they see and ask them what they intend to do. If they choose fight, then I story board my way through an easy fight, asking casters if they use spells or conserve.
If it's a party of 1st level characters vs. a band of orcs, Roll for init.
I prefer roleplaying but dont expect people to only speak in character or use "voices"
When in a PLAYER, I tend to make a character that is flawed, because I find them interesting.
Im playing for a reason and it's not to dominate the game.
So Im likely to play a middle aged fighter, or an elf barbarian,
OR when coming into a group, I frequently ask "what do you need?"
Most groups are frequently missing a healer.
as I GM I dont care much if the group is missing a healer, I just adjust to make potions or NPCs available.
But as a player I typically assume the role of party support.
I like the skald for this because he does almost everything a party might be missing.
But buyer beware "wee need a healer" will often get you something off the wall like a half orc rage prophet who is chaotic neutral and expects payment for his precious spells.
I dont typically play a cardboard healing battery.
My skald made scrolls for everyone, everyone had two on their body.
Everyone in the party learned UMD semi well.
I you were down, almost anyone (but the rogue and I especially) could pull out your scroll and use it to heal you.
Was a pretty spiffy way to do it too,
Im a big fan of E6 and E8 style campaigns too.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was hoping the thread would turn more into a "when is it thematically and narrative appropriate to incorporate dice rolling when running a game?" kind of thread, rather than a blatant Stormwind rehash.
Why don't we discuss that instead? That sounds more productive and constructive than rewriting another 200+post thread about something that has already had several 200+post threads about it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you tailor encounters to your PCs or do you roleplay the world around them?
I tend to catch myself throwing CR appropriate monsters at the party when I expect them to fight the monster, and when I do throw something too dangerous at the party I always leave an out. Now if the party is weaker than they should be, then I let them die.
I also tend to keep shoving the plot into the players face rather than letting them get completely lost by roleplaying the world honestly. If a was being honest, they could miss every clue and wander around aimlessly for sessions at a time. I tend to avoid that, but should I? I feel that when I determine that the plot must move forward that I am taking away agency.
How do you balance having an authentic world and tailoring a campaign to a leveling party?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with most everything, but I leave the world very sandbox.
I try to run everything on the fly except for key, world-changing things. And, if they find something too hard, I try to let them have a chance to escape (they rarely take it).
Course, I also don't use combat XP to track leveling, so your mileage may vary :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is simply a matter of expectations that should be taken into account before the game is started. If you let the players know you're tailoring encounters towards the adventure there shouldn't be an issue. Likewise you should let the players know if you're going to tailor the encounters towards their party as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
100% depends on the group. Normally, I expect groups to play through the story of a campaign with very few side tangents outside of a quest to upgrade some gear.
It really wasn't until recent years that the entitlement of players to control the flow of the game really took the power out of the GM's hands. Or at least the 'good GM's' hands according to the internet.
Personally, I like to have stuff premade that is challenge appropriate, as if playing through an AP. Meaning that it scales with the players as they level.
I also have on the side sets of NPCs who just exist in the world, some of them are high level, some are not. Depending on what part of the world they are in. For example, a very powerful warrior may exist at the Martial Academy in a major metropolis who not only serves as the school's headmaster, but may also serve the city as its Warden, or General of the army. He would also be someone that a player could retrain with. I try to carry this over to all of the classes and spread them throughout the world.
But there are also weaklings that exist, like petty bandits, or weak little kobolds running a muck.
In the end, it entirely depends on how much work you wanna do as the DM to have these things available for the players to interact with.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also truly hate the "Can of Worms Fallacy" that seems to be inherent to the thread.
Meaning of course, that the game will always be winnable because you will only face enemies that you are capable of winning and the reverse being that as a player you cannot use some of the better options because doing so means the DM will use them against you.
Or even worse, the assumption that choosing NOT to use such strategies will somehow shoehorn the DM into not using those strategies himself.
So really there are several different fronts to this debate, but the answer will always be that it depends on the group.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I did have the Tarrasque chase a level 4 party on horses. They weren't really paying attention and decided to lead it to a hamlet. This made the party paladin very upset so she tried to fight the Tarrasque and save the villagers. Two other party members died trying to save her. And that's how 3 of 5 party members died in one session.
This lead to one player and I having a very lengthy conversation about player agency and story preservation. The party experienced events that made it seemed like they were brought together for a very specific reason, but then three of them just died. Now my story allows for that, but from the players perspective it seemed like that they weren't really all that special.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me the players aren't special. Their characters may become special in regards to what they achieve and how powerful they become, but they're still people who are no more favored/blessed by fate in general [though it's possible to have a god in your court depending on things] than your average adventurer.
In my campaign they were special, but at the same time this is a game as much as it is roleplaying. So you can still "win" and "lose" encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do you tailor encounters to your PCs or do you roleplay the world around them?
I tend to catch myself throwing CR appropriate monsters at the party when I expect them to fight the monster, and when I do throw something too dangerous at the party I always leave an out. Now if the party is weaker than they should be, then I let them die.
I also tend to keep shoving the plot into the players face rather than letting them get completely lost by roleplaying the world honestly. If a was being honest, they could miss every clue and wander around aimlessly for sessions at a time. I tend to avoid that, but should I? I feel that when I determine that the plot must move forward that I am taking away agency.
How do you balance having an authentic world and tailoring a campaign to a leveling party?
Typically I create / adjust the world based on the pcs
Then play around themNo healers? There's a way to get pots and they are cheaper
If the pcs don't have full casters
Enemy full casters are rarer too
I also don't do cr appropriate encounters
Dragons exist
If you're foolish enough to attack them when magic missle is your best spell
You die
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me the players aren't special. Their characters may become special in regards to what they achieve and how powerful they become, but they're still people who are no more favored/blessed by fate in general [though it's possible to have a god in your court depending on things] than your average adventurer.
Pcs are intended to be special
They have greater wealth and potential (better stats) than npcsThere are not 12 1st level wizards in the hamlet your character grew up in
Npcs do not typically have pc classes
Fighters are rare
Not every member of the tribe is a barbarian
And so on