What has this game become?

[Genuine]

A couple tricks I use when I GM homebrew campaigns:

1st, I appoint a co-GM. I try and pick out the rules lawyer of the group (not the munchkin or the min-maxer, I look for the guy who takes perverse pleasure in catching anyone with a rules violation). His job is to know the rules for anything the players attempt. That spellstrike thing the magus is doing - is it really kosher? Does that monk archetype really let him wear armor? Can bloodragers' dragon bloodline stack with the Dragon Disciple's bloodline? This guy is also responsible for helping look up quick reference rules.

This does require trust, but it speeds things along in a remarkable way. It's also nice when you don't remember off-hand what the DC for spellcasting after you've been tanglefoot bagged is.

2nd, I sometimes limit books. Not anything specific, but the absolute number. Back in 3.5, I had great success simply saying that players could have core and 1 non-core book. That gave players freedom to do something interesting, but it cut down on the irritation of having to access dozens of other books to figure out what someone's attack modifier is.

Last, and not really a trick, do everything in your power to play somewhere with wi-fi, and bookmark d20pfsrd.com. They aren't perfect, and I've found the occasional error, but it makes looking up details soooooo much faster.

[Maezer]

My first gut reaction to the original post. Is that D&D 3.0 & 3.5 was just as convoluted and complex. Its the fact that he changed players from a more old school GM centric anything goes to make the story work to players the want to be hold tighter to rules. And that's probably what happened.

I peaked in on the WotC character optimization boards and they certainly did pull liberally from each and every source possible. And from Living Greyhawk/(not coming up with the Eberron campaign name) experience, I saw plenty of character with half a dozen classes each from a half dozen source book. With that in mind, Paizo's Pathfinder has done an awful lot to make it easier and occur earlier.

First and foremost, Pathfinder is far more open with content. With the minor exception of setting based rules, all of Paizo rule base content is open access. This wasn't true for WotC, as the vast majority of their content outside the core 3 books was not open. So it was more difficult to find and use. This has lead to far more adoption of rules from outside the core rules set in Pathfinder.

Second, the rules come in much earlier. In Pathfinder you are making racial substitutions, archetype substitutions, trait selections, and feat selection all at character creation. In 3.x with the exception of feats, all great deal of customization came from prestige classes. Which generally required more time and effort to gain entry into. That said I can't say how much more I prefer Pathfinders archetypes and substitutions producing different characters from the start and not being tied to being quite as front loaded as the 'good' 3.x prestige classes were.

[thejeff]

Maezer wrote:

My first gut reaction to the original post. Is that D&D 3.0 & 3.5 was just as convoluted and complex. Its the fact that he changed players from a more old school GM centric anything goes to make the story work to players the want to be hold tighter to rules. And that's probably what happened.

Or possibly just players more interested in the build game part than his previous players were.

[Wolfsnap]

I have tried in the past to limit my players in terms of rules material because I felt I needed to know it all in order to run the game well. However, more recently I've come to the conclusion that I don't really need to. I rely on my players to know their own characters and capabilities even if I do not, and I only ever investigate if I feel they are not being consistent in how they interpret their PCs' rules. It's become part of the challenge for me as a GM to discover just what the PCs are capable of and figuring out how to deal with that.

In addition, I as GM hold the ultimate trump card, inasmuch as I get to occasionally break the rules when I think it's justified. I can't do it constantly, because then the players would have no basis for making decisions for their PCs - the world DOES need rules. However, I can bend or twist things just enough in the right places to let the players know that no matter WHAT they do to build their characters, the world they inhabit is not 100% predictable and still dangerous.

[Heretek]

OP never even gave an example of these characters his players created. All of this is merely hyperbole until he can give an actual example.

[Taku Ooka Nin]

Don't worry about the PCs using a lot of books. If they're using higher classes, some of the base and a lot of the hybrids, then their power is linked to a resource which they may or may not be able to recharge as the day goes on.

As for not knowing the books: Tell you players that they need to be absolute masters of whatever they are using. They are your library. Make it clear that if you find out they are lying to you about how something works or how powerful it is that their character dies and they get limited to CRB ONLY. This is usually enough to keep them honest and in line if they were previously considering taking advantage of your ignorance, though this is a rare occurrence.

If you want to learn everything about their characters, have them notate the crap out of their character sheets. Have them give you a list of all the Classes, Equipment, Feats, Race and Traits that they are using so you can look these things up on D20PFSRD.

I like to remind my players (and GMs) that any TTRPG is based on trust, and that it doesn't matter when someone cheats. We will still punish the player for cheating even if the moment we find out is when the person's character dies. This isn't something that happens often, it has only happened twice in the past few years (One guy decided to use a 3pp feat when 3pp was banned, and another was using paizo playtest content but was flat-out lying about what his chosen class did).

Just remember to take it slow, relax and don't worry about it all that much. That said, the Darklands approach is a good one. If everyone seems broken, have them fight darklands races: they all have SR, some special qualities that make them hard to fight and often times are more dangerous than your average surface dweller. To put it a different way, fighting enemies where everything has SR is akin to entering caster hard mode if the surface where practically nothing has SR is easy mode.

[deinol]

One thing that is different between now and 15 years ago, is the internet. And the Open Gaming License.

There were plenty of groups that would use every 3.X book to build characters. But you had to buy a lot of books if you wanted to do that.

Pathfinder puts all of the core books in the PRD. So I know when I'm making a character, I'm not using one or two books. I'm using one website. It just happens to reference many books.

But I think mostly the OP is just getting used to a new playgroup. Local area gamers do develop a culture, so it takes some time to get used to a new area and a new group.

If everyone is having fun, play on!

[Thomas, the Tiefling Hero!]

TheRealHoratio wrote:

Basically, what I wanted advice on from the community, is do the types of gamers that make these characters do so because they want to be able to breeze through the content, or because they want the challenge of seeing what they can survive? I guess it could be both, or something else entirely. Either way, thanks to the folks that actually contributed something meaningful to the thread.

My favorite Pathfinder character that I ever made included content from, if memory serves, the Core Rulebook plus at least seven other books. I had fun playing him, others had fun playing alongside him (some actually cheered when I brought him to the table).

You want to know what kind of player makes a multi-book "flesh golem of rules" type of character? Click my name, read the backstory/log, and decide for yourself.

[Ravingdork]

If you're worried about the unknown, just pull back the veil. Ask your new players about their characters: Why do they need to pull from so many sources? What is their concept? What are the particulars of the build? Most players are excited about their characters and will happily explain the particulars of what they hope to accomplish with them.

This can not only increase your understanding of what you're dealing with, it can be a gold mine for new plot hook ideas. Some of the best games are those where a GM listens to his players ideas about their characters and incorporates that into the game's larger story. It makes everything more cohesive and involved. It also makes the players feel like they have contributed to the campaign's story.

Don't give up and miss out on a great opportunity.

[Ragoz]

If it somehow makes you feel better about your players my Pathfinder Society arcane archer uses 18 different source books. Most of it comes from spells being in different books or random arrow types etc.

[TheRealHoratio]

After reading all the replies from everybody, I realize that I was probably overreacting. We still haven't played a game yet, but I did talk with them and learn a little bit more about their characters. In reading some of the responses, it seems like 6 books to a character really isn't all that much. I have much better feelings about this adventure, and about the experiences I am creating for them as well as the challenges they are going to pose for me. Thanks to everyone that contributed.

[Bill Dunn]

I recommend getting photocopies of their character sheets so you can review them and make sure you understand their abilities. Have them talk to you about their level up plans when you level them up. Then you can anticipate better how their characters will interact with the adventures you run.

[Lovercide]

The most important thing to remember is to have fun! DMing is a truly unique experience! And remember this never ever run a mythic Gestalt campaign: that is true OP chaos!!!!!!

[kyrt-ryder]

Dion Atkins 29 wrote:

The most important thing to remember is to have fun! DMing is a truly unique experience! And remember this never ever run a mythic Gestalt campaign: that is true OP chaos!!!!!!

I'd argue 'never ever run any campaign.... unless you want to and if so then go for it to the best of your ability' instead of 'never ever run X' [where X is any given type of game.]

[Devin O' the Dale]

A few things that may work:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)
2. get rid of the battle mat
3. limit books available. Why not core only?
4. audit characters
5. know more about the game than the players
6. forbid some classes/races
7 play a theme campaign.... an all human rogue city adventure for example
8. realize that enough ghouls can kill any party....
9. NONCOMBAT ENCOUNTERS! I bet you a million doll hairs they didn't go fishing through 6 books so they could wine and dine the duchess!!!!

[Wolfsnap]

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

[Gallyck]

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

[ZZTRaider]

Gallyck wrote:

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

In theory, I vastly prefer point buy. Yes, there's potential to overly min/max, but I think that's better than the potential in-party variance of rolled stats.

Point buy does favor SAD classes, though, and most of them don't exactly need any help. I do rather like the idea I've seen of some classes getting higher point buys to compensate.

[Gallyck]

My workaround is let them roll 3d6 (or 4d6 drop lowest or 4d6 reroll 1s drop lowest) like 30 times. Then they pick a range of 6 numbers. I liked this method because it still made you make decisions. Point buyis so bad. I hate it with a burning passion.

[TriOmegaZero]

Gallyck wrote:

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this?

You're not the only one. For our adventure paths, we've been doing 5d6 drop lowest 1. It lets the party be powerful in the low levels where death is hard to come back from, then the increasing levels balance things out. (It also helps us to not need stat boosting items as our stats match the high level curve already, so we can get other, more interesting items.)

[Jaunt]

Quote:

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

Math encourages minmaxing. I could optimize a character with 50 points or with 5 points. Or with any other form of character creation.

If everyone has low int or cha, so what? A character can be just as interesting and flavorful with low stats as he can with high ones. Flaws can be memorable, and people who aren't exceptionally awesome in every aspect of life ring much truer to me than Mary and Gary Sue. Mercenary grunts and back alley thugs aren't particularly known for their intellect or social graces.

Play with the point buy that produces characters as epic or as ordinary as the story you want to tell.

[Matthew Downie]

TheRealHoratio wrote:

do the types of gamers that make these characters do so because they want to be able to breeze through the content, or because they want the challenge of seeing what they can survive?

Maybe, maybe not.

"I optimize because my last GM was a real killer and I just want to survive so I can role-play one character over a long period of time and develop some real depth."

"I optimize from multiple sources because I really wanted to play a finesse-duellist-type, and that concept doesn't work well using only Core. If I don't shop around for the best feats I'll be letting the group down."

"I optimize because the character concept I had was someone who hates violence, yet is incredibly good at it when pushed."

"I optimize to make the most powerful character possible because I like winning and hate losing. I hope the GM doesn't spoil it by turning up the opposition to neutralise my choices."

"I optimize to make the most powerful character possible because optimizing is fun. I hope the GM makes some really challenging encounters so I have to think tactically to survive."

"I optimize because the rest of the group does."

The most important rule is:

Communicate.

[Wolfsnap]

Gallyck wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

That's the point, though: it forces the PCs to specialize more. The guy who is good at fighting is less useful in the social encounters and vice-versa. You reduce the number of Jack-of-all-Trades style PCs so that the party is forced to either work together and succeed or struggle apart and possibly fail.

[Gallyck]

I know the math wants you to minmax. But you can predict every characters point buy as soon as you say it. Its all the same. 15 point buy? Before racials?

fighter:
STR: 16 DEX: 12 CON: 14 INT: 8 WIS: 12 CHA: 8

Wizard:
STR: 8 DEX: 12 CON: 10 INT: 18 WIS: 10 CHA: 8
(maybe put some in con.)

Bard:
STR: 10 DEX: 14 CON: 12 INT: 8 WIS: 10 CHA: 16

I mean cmon. You roll dice for everything else. Roll it for chargen.

[Gallyck]

Wolfsnap wrote:

Gallyck wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

That's the point, though: it forces the PCs to specialize more. The guy who is good at fighting is less useful in the social encounters and vice-versa. You reduce the number of Jack-of-all-Trades style PCs so that the party is forced to either work together and succeed or struggle apart and possibly fail.

Isnt overspecializing the issue here? Minmaxing is specializing one trick to be overwhelmingly powerful. I mean all this goes away with good DM player communications. I run a game going on 2 years now and play in others and we all communicate and it helps.

[the Lorax]

Gallyck wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

15 is what I give for cohorts and notable hirelings/henchmen/allies.

PCs, well, actually I spent a lot of time thinking about this, and looking at some numbers and statistics, doing some research and came up with the following assumptions:

Average expected
4d6 Drop the low die 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 = 19
Elite array 15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8 = 15
4e Standard array 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 = 20
Straight 13s 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13 = 18
Best average w/an 18 18, 12, 10, 10, 10, 10 = 20
18 + second stat 18, 16, 9, 8, 8, 8 = 20
3 stats 16, 16, 14, 9, 8, 8 = 20
4 stats 15, 15, 14, 14, 8, 8 = 20

Anything less than 20 overwhelmingly favors the single stat full casters, who could care less about everything but their casting stat, a 15 point build doesn't stop the Wizard or Sorcerer from putting an 18 in theirs casting stat, but a 15 makes awful Monks/Rogues/Rangers.

25 is too much, but I think 20 is a nice balance point.

There was an interesting article on using 3 Dragon Ante as a character generator, using a mix of randomness into the stat build concept (of keeping characters closer to the same balance point.

[Charon's Little Helper]

Matthew Downie wrote:

"I optimize to make the most powerful character possible because optimizing is fun. I hope the GM makes some really challenging encounters so I have to think tactically to survive."

Yeah - that's a pretty good summary of why I optimize.

I don't even make THAT powerful of characters as I don't want to be THAT GUY who hogs the spotlight. I like taking oddball character concepts (DPR builds are boring), especially ones with combat options, and I then optimize the heck out of them so that they're solid. (Though I have a personal loathing of playing characters below Int 10, just because I'd feel like I'm cheating when I played them strategically.)

[Ravingdork]

Gallyck wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

No, you're totally right on the lower point buy, Gallyck. I was thinking the same thing when I read that post. My groups always use 25-point buy and you just don't see the level of desperate min/maxing as you do in other groups.

[Rynjin]

Wolfsnap wrote:

Gallyck wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

That's the point, though: it forces the PCs to specialize more. The guy who is good at fighting is less useful in the social encounters and vice-versa. You reduce the number of Jack-of-all-Trades style PCs so that the party is forced to either work together and succeed or struggle apart and possibly fail.

PCs are already forced to specialize waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much (except of course full casters, who are just as much generalists with 5 point buy as 50).

PCs shouldn't need to prop each other up because they're cripplingly overspecialized. That just pigeonholes people into boring one-trick ponies even more than the game already encourages them to.

Shocking thought but it's FUN to actually be able to accomplish something outside of combat as the guy who is "good at fighting" rather than having 3 people twiddle their thumbs and take a nap whenever the designated "social skills man" is the only person who can participate in the game.

[TriOmegaZero]

Gallyck wrote:

I mean cmon. You roll dice for everything else. Roll it for chargen.

If I'm going to roll dice for chargen, I should roll random race and class as well. Otherwise, I'll just pick my stats just like I pick everything else in chargen.

[deinol]

Gallyck wrote:

My workaround is let them roll 3d6 (or 4d6 drop lowest or 4d6 reroll 1s drop lowest) like 30 times. Then they pick a range of 6 numbers. I liked this method because it still made you make decisions. Point buyis so bad. I hate it with a burning passion.

Why not just roll 14+d4 and be done with it?

[TOZ]

I advocate just letting your players pick their characters stats and stop wasting time with arcane rolling methods or purchase formulas.

[Jaunt]

Minmaxing is just maximizing benefits and minimizing drawbacks. You can minmax a jack of all trades just as much as you can minmax a magus who only ever casts Shocking Touch. Pathfinder just rewards the specialist more.

Specialization and power level are two separate issues. Specializing is good, because if every character can do every task equally well, then why do we have classes and mechanics and stuff? It's generally recognized as fun for each character to have a thing they do well, a time to shine, and so on. On the other hand, characters should be at roughly equal power levels so that when the GM balances his encounters, you won't be useless or trivializing everything.

But not all specialists are optimized, and not all optimized characters are specialists. So no, the issue isn't overspecializing.

[Brother Fen]

What you're talking about has less to do with the game and more to do with the gaming culture we currently exist inside. Min-maxing and powergaming is a way of life for many gamers. It's not my style, so I let them do what they do, while I play how I like.

I've had problems with powergamers in games that I play in as they tend to mouth off through the entire session about what everyone else should be doing. I'm not the GM or I'd give them a stern warning to let the other players play as they like.

I've had problems with powergamers in games that I GM because they generally dig through the d20pfsrd for the most powerful options they can find every single day - with no regard or understanding of the context of those options. I do my best to make fair rulings on any 3PP material that I allow - but the easiest thing to do is rule that no non-Paizo material be allowed at the table. It makes the life of a GM so much easier.

I really like the added flavor that third party publishers add to the game as several publishers offer first class material across the board. Companies like Dreamscarred Press, Legendary Games, Rogue Genius Games, Purple Duck Games, and Fat Goblin Games almost always get approval at my table.

Part of the fun of the game is making the character from whatever options are available, so I like to allow players a chance to do so.

[Kirth Gersen]

TOZ wrote:

I advocate just letting your players pick their characters' stats and stop wasting time with arcane rolling methods or purchase formulas.

I've actually done that before. It was far less of a problem than most people would think.

[Duiker]

I've had good luck with everyone assigning a 16, 15, and a 14 pre-racial (or 17, 16, 15, I don't remember which I did last time) wherever they want. Then the other three stats are rolled in front of everybody (just for the social fun) in order 3d6. That averages to a 21.5 point buy, everyone gets to pick their three "good" stats, and then their other stats get to have some fun randomness to them. Best of both worlds in a lot of ways.

[thejeff]

Though as rolling methods go I'll just pitch the "Have everyone roll and have everyone use one of those sets of stats".

A bit of randomness, but without the chance of someone getting god stats and someone getting screwed. Use the method of your choice, just remember it'll skew high since you're picking from multiple sets.

[TriOmegaZero]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

TOZ wrote:

I advocate just letting your players pick their characters' stats and stop wasting time with arcane rolling methods or purchase formulas.

I've actually done that before. It was far less of a problem than most people would think.

I always like to remind the players that the ability scores they pick tell me how hard they want the opposition to me. :)

[Taku Ooka Nin]

TheRealHoratio wrote:

After reading all the replies from everybody, I realize that I was probably overreacting. We still haven't played a game yet, but I did talk with them and learn a little bit more about their characters. In reading some of the responses, it seems like 6 books to a character really isn't all that much. I have much better feelings about this adventure, and about the experiences I am creating for them as well as the challenges they are going to pose for me. Thanks to everyone that contributed.

No.... No.... Surely not.... =P

It wont be that bad, just go forth and have fun.

[LazarX]

Gallyck wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

You're not the only one who disagrees with him, but that does not imply that his method is any less valid than yours. The AP's after all, do make the assumption that you are running with 4 15 point buy characters, as I understand it.

[DM Papa.DRB]

Regarding rolling vs point-buy, I think Jiggy said it best in THIS POST

[kyrt-ryder]

Gallyck wrote:

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

Am i the only one who whole heartedly disagrees with this? Point buy encourages minmaxing. At a 15 point buy? grats everyone has uber low int or cha or both if you want to fight effectively.

Unless you're a Wizard or Witch with 18 starting Int, 14 starting Con and Dex and nothing else matters.

[Wolfsnap]

Rynjin wrote:

PCs are already forced to specialize waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much (except of course full casters, who are just as much generalists with 5 point buy as 50).

PCs shouldn't need to prop each other up because they're cripplingly overspecialized. That just pigeonholes people into boring one-trick ponies even more than the game already encourages them to.

Shocking thought but it's FUN to actually be able to accomplish something outside of combat as the guy who is "good at fighting" rather than having 3 people twiddle their thumbs and take a nap whenever the designated "social skills man" is the only person who can participate in the game.

I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that. I absolutely think that the PCs should be propping each other up depending on who's skill set is more useful in a given situation. They should be building inter-dependencies. That's what makes them a team, in my estimation. If they're good players, they'll figure out their roles both in and out of combat and find ways to be useful (or at the very least entertaining) no matter what kind of challenge I throw at them.

But that is really getting away from the point I was making: 15 point buy PCs are easier to challenge. At least that's my experience.

And, even more on point with what the OP is talking about: I have also found that the "look and feel" of the game as I've played it isn't reflected on these boards so much. The internet discussion, or "meta", or however you want to describe it is extremely focused on the minutiae of the the rules, on perfecting "builds", on weird tricks and corner cases, on the mechanical aspects of the game. This actually makes a lot of sense to me, because all of us come from different games with different play-styles. Thus, the most convenient common language we have for talking about the game is all mechanics-focused.

While it's useful and can be very inspiring, a lot of what we talk about here tends to fall away once the dice hit the table.

[chaoseffect]

Wolfsnap wrote:

Devin O' the Dale wrote:

1. lower stat points (15 not 25 makes a big difference)

^^^PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS PERSON^^^

As a GM, I always always always run for 15 point-buy characters. It forces the players to focus on their characters' core competencies and reduces the situation where you have several PCs trying to fill all the roles. Makes it easier to challenge the party as well, even at higher levels.

I 100% disagree. If you go with low point buy all you are doing is slamming the door on weaker classes and encouraging PCs to play SAD classes, i.e. the strongest classes in the game already.

[Gevaudan]

While it is possible to borrow a ton of source material and create a very "hard to write a backstory for" character, most of the time there is no necessary inverse relationship between character acting and character power.

Character power changes the story, in the sense that we go from gritty fantasy novel where everyone dies to cheerful fantasy novel where bad guys REALLY shouldn't have done "that thing", because the heroes have arrived.

Most characters in RPG's require a lot more nuance to portray deeply than several of the easier archetypes, like barbarian (who even frequently receive counter treatments).

My best ever backstory was a love story between a seductive Drow and a angry Duergar, who together rescued an aloof Aasimar. That all three were powerful builds of powerful classes didn't have any bearing on how the story has progressed, except that we die less.

Acting and story telling are separate priorities from min-maxing, except that PF is a very detailed game with very specific flavors tied to many abilities. As a DM, I gladly wash over some flavor/power relationships if it makes a more compelling character for a player.