|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
TriOmegaZero, so the people who post on the Paizo Messageboards do not represent the people who play Paizo's rpgs?!? You're kidding me with this, right? Please tell me you're kiddding me with this.Mykull, it's not a representative sample - it's a biased sample. Thus there's more error if you try to infer anything about the overall PF-playing community based on your observations of people here.
I can't say it any better than Bill has. The people who post here are gamers, but they are not ALL the gamers.
I can't say it any better than Bill has. The people who post here are gamers, but they are not ALL the gamers.TriOmegaZero, so the people who post on the Paizo Messageboards do not represent the people who play Paizo's rpgs?!? You're kidding me with this, right? Please tell me you're kiddding me with this.Mykull, it's not a representative sample - it's a biased sample. Thus there's more error if you try to infer anything about the overall PF-playing community based on your observations of people here.
It's not just that the forum doesn't have all the gamers. Studies don't get the entire population when they want to research something, but the whole point of studies is that you don't need to - so long as the sample is representative of the group as a whole, you will get accurate data (subject to probabilistic error, which isn't a big deal if you have a decent sample size).
No, the problem with sampling from the Paizo forums is the same as trying to determine the typical political opinions of the average American by asking people in a Texas Republican rally. The mere fact that the forum goers signed up to the forum says something about them(statistically speaking). Since the typical spread of people that sign up to the Paizo forums are almost certainly not going to match up to the typical spread of people that buy and/or play the Pathfinder RPG, you have a biased sample of the group of people who buy and/or play the PFRPG when you take the people on the Paizo forums as representative of them.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I ask for advice on a build here, it's not because I'm looking to optimize, power-game, or min/max but because of the overwhelming number of options spread over several books and supplements, APs, etc.
I simply don't know all the options out there, some of which would help me realize my concept mechanically. Or Paizo hasn't yet developed the mechanics that would let me do what I want to do (silent take-downs are one example where the rules really don't work well).
These forums are a fantastic resource! People will tell me about feats, or items, that would help me to have mechanically the things I'm hoping to do in game. Or suggest home-brew and/or 3rd party solutions.
I don't need anyone to help me role-play my character. But I do recognize that I can use help sometimes with the roll-play of my character.
I'm usually here to get advice on powergaming/optimization.
Me and one other player basically carry our group, the rest of them build very much substandard characters (I mean it, really, like shortbow using wizards with STR and DEX of 10 or less, that sort of thing).
We all work well together, because they have accepted our rolls as tanks/cheesy killers, and their rolls as support/social.
It's funny how a common belief is that having a powerful character in some way detracts from the enjoyment of the game.
I like the optimization process. I'm not even that GOOD at it, I'm just the 'powergamer' in my group because my characters are pretty good at what they do.
I don't multiclass, I rarely use races other than human or half orc and I almost NEVER play arcane casters (that would just put the game on easy mode).
I definitely support the idea that people who sign up for the forums are NOT representative of the gaming community as a whole. I've been playing RPGs for DECADES and most of the time, the players I have sat down with are primarily interested in having a good time, doing silly things and pretending they are heroes...
My love of rules discussions (ten foot pit, anyone?) stems from boredom at work, and an argumentative nature. I would never claim to be representative of my gaming group.
My love of rules discussions (ten foot pit, anyone?) stems from boredom at work, and an argumentative nature. I would never claim to be representative of my gaming group.
Really? "...love [of] rules discussions...bored at work... argumentative..." You'd be totally representative of my gaming group! ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Your assertion would only [emphasis added] be true if the descriptions of the classes were mutually-exclusive [emphasis added].“Only” and “mutually-exclusive” are absolutes. Based on that, your quote seems “based on a belief that [I wasn't] leaving room for exceptions.”
The fact that I was speaking in absolutes about one subject does not in any way imply that I thought you were speaking in absolutes about a different subject. It boggles my mind that you even managed to connect the two. It's starting to get really hard to keep giving you the benefit of the doubt on this. The only innocence I can still think of is that maybe you're reading posts way too fast, catching only a few key verbs and nouns here and there, and making assumptions to fill in the gaps; rather than reading carefully with an intent to really grasp and comprehend a message whose contents you're not assuming you already know.
There is no reason to mention your character background . . . Why he have to mention his long background to the forum?
If the poster is one who values background, plot, and story more than the mechanics then that would be one reason to mention character background. As I said in my last post, the posters who did mention background did not give the entire story; they just tossed in a few words along the lines of, “Got the story down, just need help with the mechanics.”
Of course it is a biased sample! I never intended the sample space to be representative of all people in the world. It isn't even intended to represent all game players: Go, checkers, backgammon, cribbage, poker, Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley players are not at all represented and I never purported to represent them. The sample isn't even intended to represent all people who play roleplaying games.
This is Paizo's messageboards. The sample is intended to represent people who play Paizo's rpg. The idea that the people who post on Paizo's messageboards do not represent the people who play Paizo's rpg astounds me. So, according to some, the people, the majority of the people (and it would have to be the majority in order for posters to not be indicative of actual players), who post on these boards do not actually play the game?!? Who do you think is posting here? Golf enthusiasts? The League of Hi-Ho Cherry-O? The NFL?
I looked at twenty Advice forum threads that dealt with character builds. I could go back further, but I'm confident that what I found in the last twenty would hold for the last two thousand threads. Someone will have to do the leg work to prove me wrong.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is no reason to mention your character background . . . Why he have to mention his long background to the forum?If the poster is one who values background, plot, and story more than the mechanics then that would be one reason to mention character background. As I said in my last post, the posters who did mention background did not give the entire story; they just tossed in a few words along the lines of, “Got the story down, just need help with the mechanics.”
Of course it is a biased sample! I never intended the sample space to be representative of all people in the world. It isn't even intended to represent all game players: Go, checkers, backgammon, cribbage, poker, Parker Brothers and Milton Bradley players are not at all represented and I never purported to represent them. The sample isn't even intended to represent all people who play roleplaying games.
This is Paizo's messageboards. The sample is intended to represent people who play Paizo's rpg. The idea that the people who post on Paizo's messageboards do not represent the people who play Paizo's rpg astounds me. So, according to some, the people, the majority of the people (and it would have to be the majority in order for posters to not be indicative of actual players), who post on these boards do not actually play the game?!? Who do you think is posting here? Golf enthusiasts? The League of Hi-Ho Cherry-O? The NFL?
I looked at twenty Advice forum threads that dealt with character builds. I could go back further, but I'm confident that what I found in the last twenty would hold for the last two thousand threads. Someone will have to do the leg work to prove me wrong.
I'm afraid to go into character background when asking for optimization advice for two reasons:
1)I'm afraid people will make fun of my concept
2)I don't want to waste peoples time with extra info
I don't think the people on the message boards represent the player base accurately, I think they represent the portion of the player base who posts on the boards.
That is the only thing we can agree on. Until data is gathered to prove one way or the other, it's all conjecture. :D
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who do you think is posting here?
RPG players who enjoy spending time on Internet forums. Please note that this is a subset of all RPG players, not a subset of all humans. So it is not representative of RPG players, only of RPG players that enjoy spending time on Internet forums. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with accusing people of being powergamers is that there is no consistent criteria for determining who is a powergamer, it's all relative. So if I play a modestly effective character while someone else plays a Fighter with "8s" in all physical stats who sinks all their skill points and feats into improving their Performance skills, then that person could call me a powergamer by comparison.
In most cases, I don't buy into the whole roleplayer vs rollplayer argument. It usually boils down to "I don't like you or your character, so I'm gonna call you a derogatory name".
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There are also pretty substantial differences between parts of the forums. If you look in a thread asking for character building advice, a large number of the posts will be by people interested in character optimization.
But if you go elsewhere, like to the Campaign Setting discussion, you won't see any of that. In fact, a lot of the exact same people who are interested in character optimization are also posting really insightful stuff about the setting.
And, if you look at the AP sections, you'll see the occasional thread with folks who like character optimization helping GMs buff up villains to better challenge their parties. And basically nothing else.
It looks to me like people talk about optimization in threads where optimization is on topic. Those threads don't seem to be the most popular on the forum or even the most heated.
If we can extrapolate the contents of those threads into the tone of the entire player community, it's also filled with campaign setting wonks who love third party material, have constant romantic subplots, and spend all of their time on the internet playing forum games.
Cheers!
Landon
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I call myself a powergamer, but real powergamers make fun of me for being too weak. :(
I call myself a powergamer, but real powergamers make fun of me for being too weak. :(
I prefer the term optimizer myself. Short. Sweet. Rolls of the tongue. People love it.
If the poster is one who values background, plot, and story more than the mechanics then that would be one reason to mention character background. As I said in my last post, the posters who did mention background did not give the entire story; they just tossed in a few words along the lines of, “Got the story down, just need help with the mechanics.”
Let's say I want to build a rogue charlatan like someone mentioned earlier. I spend a little bit of time trying to figure out how to best represent that mechanically. Hey, look, there's a Rogue class and it happens to have a Charlatan archetype. Obviously that's the best way to do what I want, right?
So, I make a post on the forum. I don't say much, if anything, about my backstory. Why should I? I already know how to represent my character mechanically, it's just a matter of making that the best it can be at this point. Instead, I just give my first pass idea of a Rogue Charlatan build and ask for suggestions.
Some people will respond and give me advice on how to improve the build I posted. Others will tell me things like, "The (core) Rogue is rather poor. Here are some suggestions of other classes that may work better for you." And, depending, I may look at those at those suggestions and decide they fit my concept better and switch focus to that, or I may say, "No, that doesn't really fit my concept of X."
You run into this sort of problem a lot in the software development. Essentially, if you're not careful when gathering design requirements for software, you may produce the software that the client asked for, but not the software that the client needs. This happens because the client will have some preconceived notion of how best to meet their needs, but because they are not software developers, they don't necessarily know all of the options or have any idea how to design something that's actually functional.
So, it doesn't surprise me at all that people don't tend to put much (if any) detail about their backstory on their Advice threads, even if they're far more focused on story than mechanics. It's perfectly human for them to think they're ready to focus on the next step, when in reality they've ignored potentially better solutions on the previous step.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What has this game become?
A fun game and a great success worthy of much praise.
What? The balance is better than ever, chiefly between martials and spellcasters. (There's still a sizeable gap, but it's not as big as it once was.)
Also, with the exception of a handful of anti-options (as described in my earlier posts), there seems to be a lot MORE player agency to me.
I've been playing D&D for about 15 years now, through editions 3, 3.5, and 4th. I've always been the DM, and have run content for groups of between 2 and 6 players. Everyone I've played with before has made fun, interesting characters using maybe only one or two sourcebooks, all of which you would probably say weren't exactly "optimized". I never disallowed any books in my games, or banned any races or classes because they didn't "fit". When someone came to me with a character that they wanted to conceptualize, I would usually help them get there, because being able to play what you find attractive is a big part of the game.
I had to take a break for about 4 years, due to moving away from my old players and not being able to find new ones, but I recently came across a group that wants me to GM a Pathfinder game for them. During the character creation questions, I disallowed 3rd party material, cause I've read threads on here talking about some of the stuff that's out there, so I decided to just keep it limited to Paizo books. They told me what classes and races they wanted to be, which sounded fine, so I gave the greenlight on everything. Now, it is getting close to our first session, and I'm discovering the actual characters these guys have made, and it honestly has me terrified.
We're talking about basically a flesh golem of rules, stitched together from maybe 5 or 6 books apiece, in what I can only describe as less of an actual character and more just shiny numbers on paper. From reading threads on these forums, it's what I suppose you would call min/maxing, or optimization, which as I understand is very commonplace in the Pathfinder game system. What makes me feel even worse is that I tacitly allowed it. I figured that since I had never played with these guys before, I wouldn't say no to anything, or disallow any content except for 3rd party stuff, but I had no idea of the extent to which it would be taken.
Is that just how people play the game now? Is it really treated like an adversarial...
It's interesting that I see this now.
I've actually become aware that among my gaming circle that I'm "That Guy". You know, the one who optimizes and Min/Maxes and tends to take the spotlight when things come down to it. I wasn't really aware of it, because as far as I could see, I was just having fun. I would make characters that were optimal, sure, but I also did it to be able to enjoy playing the game.
Now, I'm not saying being "That Guy" is a bad thing; I get asked all the time by my friends how to do different builds, what the rules are for X situation, etc. It's not that I was trying to always win forever. I think the best way to put it for me at least was that I like to win enough that losing is significant. The loss meant something.
Anywho, I've been looking at my play style, and I don't really feel like I should *change* per se, but it did make me more conscious of everyone else's positions in the overall metagame of it all. I don't know how this could help, I suppose I was just sharing my perspective on the matter. Sometimes, we just learn the game that way, thinking that optimizing is just how it's done.
What I do when running a game is do a pow-wow with everyone before we make characters to discuss what's going to happen. Themes of the game, what conventions I'm going to use, what kind of characters are fine and what kind of stuff won't fly right off the bat for me. This way the players all can agree on what party dynamic they're going to aim for, pre-design story ideas, and know what I'm going to run for.
I'm also perfectly willing to say when something makes me uncomfortable running, and ask that an alternative be found.
A step backwards in terms of balance and player agency, but one propped up into an excellent success through quality marketing and open source game mechanics and a thriving third party publishing base.
It's more balanced than a lot of other tabletop RPG's.
As for agency, I would certainly like to hear your thoughts on how you feel that's expanded R.D.
Most has come from developer clarifications I think, like the fact that they said it is the PLAYERS who get to build and control their cohorts/companions and not the GM. Also that a player can indeed benefit from item crafting DURING character creation. These are things that greatly expand a player's options over older editions where such things simply weren't true, or at least not clarified.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I do when running a game is do a pow-wow with everyone before we make characters to discuss what's going to happen. Themes of the game, what conventions I'm going to use, what kind of characters are fine and what kind of stuff won't fly right off the bat for me. This way the players all can agree on what party dynamic they're going to aim for, pre-design story ideas, and know what I'm going to run for.
This is an excellent approach!
I do the same thing. Especially when it comes to paladins in the group. I only allow 1 in the party because I view them as rare - a champion of their diety - and so make sure that everyone in the party knows this up front. They decide what they want to play together, to work out roles and so on. It helps encourage the co-operative nature of the game. IMHO.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Upho, each class has its own particular niche. There is a great deal of fluff before the mechanics of each one.
First off, I'm sorry for the late reply. RL distractions means I've completely missed checking up on this thread.
Anyhow, I think especially Jiggy and Ssalarn posted very eloquent replies which questions your views on this matter in the same way that I do, and also describe pretty much exactly how I see it.
When I said “in order to win” I was referencing the OP's question. Clearly, one cannot win a game that doesn't have set criteria in order to accomplish that. However, there are often players who place themselves in an adversarial role against the DM. These individuals feel that by defeating the monsters they are beating the DM, hence, “winning the game.” Again, I thought that this was understood. I apologize that you “don't get this either.” I made an assumption I shouldn't have.
Well, of course I suspected this was what you meant. The reason I asked anyway was to make sure we were talking about the same thing and to highlight the irrelevance and futility of it. Now that you clarified what you meant, and since it appears you believe min-maxing and char-op is something only done by "power gamer" type of players who want to "win", you are actually saying that a player that optimizes his/her character is not only stupid (not understanding they cannot ever "win"), but also don't even know what an rpg is.
That is one of your assumptions I would've found insulting if your post hadn't been so obviously emotionally charged. More importantly, you are obviously ignorant of what min-maxing and practical char-op actually is and especially what the most common purposes of it are, at least in groups with reasonably mature people that aren't out to ruin anyone else's fun.
What bothers me are players who are clearly power-gaming in order to “win” but don't admit it. These are the people who pore over all the material they can to come up with the most optimized build and then hem and haw about their back story because they haven't really thought about it. But people who are honest with themselves and with me about their play style really are okay. True, it may not be mine, but I still welcome them at my table in the same way that even though I prefer cats, I still enjoy the company of dog-lovers.
Again, I can understand being bothered by a lack of honesty. What I don't understand is why you assume that "power-gaming in order to “win”" is somehow an inherent trait or the only purpose of using options from several sources, or of character optimization in general for that matter.
Honest, not horrible. For all your love of acting, you admit that you wouldn't be playing this rpg if not for the mechanics aspect of it (ROLL-playing).
Ooops! My sentence should've said "I wouldn't even be into PF in the first place if not for the ROLE-playing". My bad. Anyhow, my point was that despite being a player that grew up with, and have basically only played in, "story and character first"-games, not to mention a lot of free-form and semi-impro-acting games, I spend quite a lot of time on optimizing the mechanics of my characters in games like PF. I even find it an absolute necessity to do so in many cases. Which according to you, if I'm understanding you correctly, is an impossibility.
In other words, I optimize a lot, but never to "win".
Your group plays the same way (“bring it in line with other[s]”), so you min/max first and come up with back story second.
You misunderstand. First, the "bring in line with others" is about me having to do my part in minimizing the mechanical balance problems of the 3.5/PF rules system. That means for example that if I want to play a martial character in a new game and my friends have already created a full casters, I better be prepared and able to optimize my character's mechanical effectiveness and versatility beyond what is normally expected of a martial character, whereas the opposite (reining in effectiveness and versatility) is true for my friends and their full caster characters. Both are examples of practical character optimization.
Second, it seems you assume the end result must somehow be different depending on whether I "min/max first and come up with back story second" or vice versa. But that's simply not the case. There is no common source of inspiration for my characters, and neither can I ever recall a source of inspiration actually conspiring to diminish the quality of my PC's backstory or that of my characterization/ROLE-play.
For example, some characters have come alive only because I've stumbled upon mechanical combos, and others have instead required that I write a lot of home brew mechanics in order to be able to represent the character's abilities in the system. Likewise, as a DM I'll do everything I can in order to help my players' realize their character ideas, both in terms of pure story fluff and in terms of pure game mechanics crunch. Which may for example include writing up and play testing new feats, races, archetypes, PrCs, etc. Here's a pretty recent example - a bloodrager archetype made primarily so one of my players could realize his character idea in a way fitting with the mechanical demands of that game.
For these “most memorable characters” did you already have a concept in mind and then had to scrutinize multiple sources to find the pieces that would make this idea a reality? Or were you min/maxing, found the bits that powered up your character, played it a few times, and then it became memorable?
First, I find it wrong to assume character optimization is always about making the most mechanically effective character possible according to the rules and options available. If that were true, a PC would have to be a wizard to be called optimized. Char-op is not even always about making a certain character concept or class as mechanically effective as possible, though I can see why it's easy to get that impression from looking at class guides and example builds, since the creators cannot make any assumptions about the requirements or preferences of specific games or players. In reality, I think char-op is just as often about realizing a concept and simply making it viable. And sometimes, as in the case of my last character (a summoner), it may even be about nerfing mechanical power without losing flavor in the process or making the character too mechanically weak.
To answer your questions, I can't remember ever having played without having a clear idea of my character, regardless of any mechanics. This does not in any way exclude that the character concept was born out of a purely mechanical combo, as was the case of some of my "most memorable" PCs. I think a major reason those were memorable is precisely because the mechanics they were created from both allowed for and inspired a distinct and different character concept.
Actually, I've seen through it, and weathered the storm. I've cultivated a group of gamers that enjoy my DM style and regularly come back for more. I've been playing with one group for over thirty years, and entirely different group for twenty years, a third group of experience gamers that I've been running for a year and a half, and a fourth group that is brand new to rpg's that has been playing for about two years.
Regardless of the popularity and quality of your games (which may very well be high), I don't think you have seen through the Stormwind at all.
And think of it this way: your games may actually become even better if you do. I'd even go as far as saying it's unavoidable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back in 19*cough*, *cough* years ago when I was introduced to 1eAD&D there were people who only cared about how to get the best weapons, defeat the monsters as effectively as possible and those who derided that as 'powergaming' or 'cheesy'. 'monty haul' was a similarly derisive term when GMs caved to their players desire for more power.
Not a lot has changed near as I can tell.
Back in 19*cough*, *cough* years ago when I was introduced to 1eAD&D there were people who only cared about how to get the best weapons, defeat the monsters as effectively as possible and those who derided that as 'powergaming' or 'cheesy'. 'monty haul' was a similarly derisive term when GMs caved to their players desire for more power.
Not a lot has changed near as I can tell.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Back in 19*cough*, *cough* years ago when I was introduced to 1eAD&D there were people who only cared about how to get the best weapons, defeat the monsters as effectively as possible and those who derided that as 'powergaming' or 'cheesy'. 'monty haul' was a similarly derisive term when GMs caved to their players desire for more power.
Not a lot has changed near as I can tell.
Thing is, there are most likely plenty of groups who don't ever play like that, but still have players doing plenty of char-op and having a high level of system mastery. At least when playing more rules-intense rpgs, this has been the case for more than *cough* *cough* 35 years now in pretty much all of the groups I've played with. Sure, the level of interest in, talent and/or need for char-op, tactics, character depth and improvisational acting have varied between individual players and games, but so far I've never played "table-top Diablo" Monty Hauls and have no interest in it either (there are far better tactical games to play than rpgs). But I have seen grown men and women (myself included) being immersed enough to cry like babies or try to hide/take cover behind/under furniture/blankets/pillows quite a few times! :D
I really feel like I'm from another planet (hence "Upho") sometimes when discussing this...
Back in 19*cough*, *cough* years ago when I was introduced to 1eAD&D there were people who only cared about how to get the best weapons, defeat the monsters as effectively as possible and those who derided that as 'powergaming' or 'cheesy'. 'monty haul' was a similarly derisive term when GMs caved to their players desire for more power.
Not a lot has changed near as I can tell.
Thing is, there are most likely plenty of groups who don't ever play like that, but still have players doing plenty of char-op and having a high level of system mastery. At least when playing more rules-intense rpgs, this has been the case for more than *cough* *cough* 35 years now in pretty much all of the groups I've played with. Sure, the level of interest in, talent and/or need for char-op, tactics, character depth and improvisational acting have varied between individual players and games, but so far I've never played "table-top Diablo" Monty Hauls and have no interest in it either (there are far better tactical games to play than rpgs). But I have seen grown men and women (myself included) being immersed enough to cry like babies or try to hide/take cover behind/under furniture/blankets/pillows quite a few times! :D
I really feel like I'm from another planet (hence "Upho") sometimes when discussing this...
My point really was that nothing has changed. it's not the end of the world. we will come back in 15 years time and there will be charop boards and people complaining about 'power gamers', or games that aren't immersive enough for them and doesn't anybody build 'characters with character anymore or whatever. Guess what we will have 15 years after that...if we are still around :)
There are as many ways to play this game as there are players, none of them are wrong.
I will give you another perception. I have never seen an avowed optimiser tell the 'roll'players they are doing it wrong until after they ask for advice ("no, you don't want to use that class it is so weak, this class is better"). I see 'roll' players complaining about other peoples playstyle all the time - make of that observation what you will.
When people refer to "roll"players and optimisers, aren't they referring to the same group?
It's obviously a false dichotomy, but surely rollplaying is more optimisey than roleplaying?
When people refer to "roll"players and optimisers, aren't they referring to the same group?
No. Because an optimiser doesn't need to be a rollplayer, and a rollplayer need not be an optimiser.
When people refer to "roll"players and optimisers, aren't they referring to the same group?No. Because an optimiser doesn't need to be a rollplayer, and a rollplayer need not be an optimiser.
Hence the "obviously a false dichotomy" part.
Nonetheless, people who use the term rollplayer are generally referring to optimisers, arent they? What characterises a rollplayer who isnt an optimiser? I don't understand what sort of playstyle that is.
Hence the "obviously a false dichotomy" part.Nonetheless, people who use the term rollplayer are generally referring to optimisers, arent they? What characterises a rollplayer who isnt an optimiser? I don't understand what sort of playstyle that is.
A person who only cares about the numbers but isn't able to actually optimize their characters. Whether from misunderstandings of the game rules, from poor skills in mathematics or something else, they aren't optimizers if they don't actually know how to do optimization.
Optimizing isn't a playstyle, it's simply a skill that is learnt and implemented.
I guess a non-optimized "rollplayer" would just want to play the game mechanically sans roleplaying...and does so poorly :)
In my experience, the players that make the best characters are often the best roleplayers.They are invested in the game, have a clear picture of their character and circumstances....and have actually read the books.
I've encountered a few munchkins in my day..that brought net builds and paid zero attention to the story. They were not in the majority though...
Pathfinder rewards study....a player that has read the core and the APG is going to build a better character,with the same resources,than the same player only having read the core.
The player base represented on this forum is the opinion of the highly informed, and many, many GMs.
People with a passing interest in the game, or "beer and pretzels" players...don't sit around on forums debating the minutia of rules and character concepts.
Many are game designers or writers themselves.
It is biased...but it is an informed bias.
Hence the "obviously a false dichotomy" part.Nonetheless, people who use the term rollplayer are generally referring to optimisers, arent they? What characterises a rollplayer who isnt an optimiser? I don't understand what sort of playstyle that is.
A person who only cares about the numbers but isn't able to actually optimize their characters. Whether from misunderstandings of the game rules, from poor skills in mathematics or something else, they aren't optimizers if they don't actually know how to do optimization.
Optimizing isn't a playstyle, it's simply a skill that is learnt and implemented.
I can understand that - I just didn't think that when people referred to "optimisers" they were referring to a highly skilled group. Maybe I'm just seeing negativity where none exists. Cheers.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, part of the problem with these debates is that there's no proper definition for things like "rollplayer" so everyone means something slightly different when using the term. Personally, I would define a rollplayer as a player who has zero interest in the non-mechanical side of the game. The sort who, when combat is over, says "Let me know when I need to roll something" and starts playing games on his cellphone.
I suppose that the best way to make the distinction would be that "rollplaying" is about behavior at the table and one's attitude toward the game, while optimizing is about your decisions when interacting with game mechanics. A rollplayer only cares about the mechanical side of the game and ignores everything else, while an optimizer just wants to be good at the mechanical side of the game.
When people refer to "roll"players and optimisers, aren't they referring to the same group?
It's obviously a false dichotomy, but surely rollplaying is more optimisey than roleplaying?
I think some people just get "role" and "roll" mixed up, but yes, that's essentially what they mean.