| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I remember too a player who kept repeating the same silly joke again and again.
There was a character named «Jenna of Palanthas». In Spanish, the pronunciation for Jenna is similar to to the word «Full».
So, in character, she kept asking everytime she was mentioned what was she full of, and what was that Palanthas she was full of.
It got old soon but she wouldn't stop. She did it in a way that was close to be disruptive and the players asked her to stop. So she said «it's not my fault. My character has INT 8 and doesn't understand.» and kept going with it. In the end she was just ignored.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had a character that tended to do this as well, though more for designations than names.
Specifically, I recall a race of souless half-demons being bred by the big bad in our campaign called Barak-Kai. So my halfling kept calling them all sorts of different names, like Barracudas, Barakas, Barry Kays, and so on.
I recall doing this several other times, giving monsters with weird names kooky nicknames. Don't remember the specifics, though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm reminded of the Tick, mispronouncing Thrakkorzog.
I had to cut my game last night drastically short because I began having a severe anxiety attack. What was supposed to be a 5 hour session ended at 3 hours. My players don't know that, but I began to get confused and forgetting vital information they needed. I managed to make up a couple of things on the fly that they could explore later if they wished to compensate for it.
Ugh. Sorry to hear that, DungeonmasterCal. Anxiety sucks*. Anxiety attacks are definitely a grievance. Sometimes I wish I could shake my limbic system sharply and yell: "DUDE! Chill out! We're not under attack, bro."
Those are the only circumstances, incidentally, in which I talk like that. "Bro." *scoff* Who am I kidding?
*Actually, my opinions on anxiety attacks are a good deal more forceful, but forum decorum prohibits stating them clearly.
I had to cut my game last night drastically short because I began having a severe anxiety attack. What was supposed to be a 5 hour session ended at 3 hours. My players don't know that, but I began to get confused and forgetting vital information they needed. I managed to make up a couple of things on the fly that they could explore later if they wished to compensate for it.
Must honestly say, that I have never suffered from actual anxiety attacks. However I know of the slow creeping kind of anxiety, that slowly fills up your mind, clouding your thoughts more and more until it is all that fill your every hour awake. This is more a result of my particular psyche, and my struggles with depression.
But I believe, I can understand at least some of your problems and the pain that comes with them. So if you need a tired, distracted ear to listen to your woes or just a place to vent a bit please drop a post or pm, and I'll be here to give what ever support I can.
Ohh forgot an actual grievance.
Hmmm...what about no planed rping for me the next two weeks?.
yea that'll do I guess.
Thanks, Kjeldorn. It's much appreciated. We are planning to game next weekend, when the whole gang can be here (some drive over 2 hours to come to them). Plus we've just come off a 4 week break, anyway. There'll be enough going on to hopefully keep me distracted.
Usually my anxiety is the kind that creeps in, too. But sometimes it just says, "Hey! Here I am! Let's ruin the fun!".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In swedish it becomes "SHANGer".
As for mispronouncing names, my rock bottom was when an entire group of four simply COULD NOT remember or manage to pronounce the name of the villain (who they had rather a lot of interaction with), for several sessions. Now, if she had been called Nephft Scoontiphfvt or something equally retarded, that would have been understandable. But she wasn't. Her name was Santina.
*grumbles*
Did she have claws? Then everyone would call her Santa Claws.:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I quit roleplaying for a time because of a mix of familiar, job and health issues. I didn't have the time nor the mind in the right place to do it.
When I got back to it the only idea of GMing or playing made me feel anxiety. I lacked the confidence to do it. In the long term it helped me to recover my lost confidence but in the start I could barely do it. I froze when I had to take a decission. I had to fight the need of just running out and leaving everything. But, as I said, I regained my trust and now I am very confident as both a GM and a player. I still have a hard time taking difficult decissions but I was always like that.
I know how bad anxiety can be, but people who really care for you will always understand.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Random grievance:
Today I came to an old post where a GM proudly told how he had leveled up an encounter from an AP that he found that could be too easy for his players. He was so proud because he caused a TPK but annoyed because the PCs ALMOST managed to survive and he wanted it to be an easy TPK. He enjoyed killing the PCs and told the changes he had made so he could easily kill them in many points of the adventure.
I couldn't avoid thinking how badly I would fit in a group like that. I'm not against that kind of game if that's what everybody enjoys but I'm not be able to play like that or GM like that. I cannot think of a game as a competition between players or between the players and the GM, I couldn't even if I tried.
I grow attached easily to my PCs, my players' PCs and even NPCs and I cannot GM a story as a competition. Even if I set an encounter that can easily kill them and I don't back away if I have to do it, I always hope they find the way to win. I see roleplaying like telling a story together and I'm sad when a player is sad for losing a character.
I just started thinking that I wouldn't have a good time if a GM did that in a game where I'm a player. I've been there and I tend to avoid that kind of games. I no longer enjoy them.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate TPK, normally, though in my old days, I did have a scenario that I played specially to cause one (1st ed Ravenloft for thos who are curious).
But normally, I play to challenge my players, not to kill them, I no longer DM young stupid players in need of being put back in their place.
Challenging is good (changelings are also good... I almost mistook both words XD). The best games I was in made me fear for my character's life a few times. Both in CotCT and in RoW I suffered character deaths (always resurrected, I don't like changing my character in the middle of the story because I grow too attached to my characters) and it always had an impact on both my character and the story, what is OK.
But knowing that you are fighting against the GM is not my thing. I play to live a story, not a competition, specially a competition that I cannot win. If the GM wants, he'll always win, in a fair or an unfair way, because he's the GM.
I've only ever had one TPK, and it wasn't due to my trying to kill the players. It was just bad luck and bad saves on their part. They encountered a beholder and it just got the best of them. I felt pretty bad about it.
That is highly frustrating, to be sure. I have one player who often plays some game on her tablet between her turns, but she manages to pay attention to what's going on somehow. And I don't ban cellphones at the table; we use them to send private notes between me (the GM) and other players if they find clues the others missed, etc.
You may have to put the banhammer on the goof offs on their phones, and if they don't like it they are welcome to find the door out.
I have a gripe about this; If maces are simple weapons, why aren't hammers? I can *almost* see a large hammer being martial, because it takes some effort to swing one, but a small hammer, such as a blacksmith's tool? If it's so hard to use every blacksmith in the game would have to have martial weapon proficiency just to make a plow.
I have a character who is going to play a fire elemental Sorcerer in the next campaign we'll start after the current one ends. Her backstory is her powers were triggered after years of working around the forges and flames that are part of her profession. And since Sorcerer's can only use simple weapons, the rules say she can't use a hammer as her weapon of choice.
I threw out the rule and houseruled that hammers are simple weapons. They're so similar to maces (just a metal weight on the end of a short pole) that I believe they should fall under that category.
Grievance over.
a mace is just an iron bound club, a hammer is more difficult to wield because it's got a special striking head that's not shapes so as to hit well whatever the way you strike. it's also more weirdly balanced.
Not an issue if she doesn't want to wield a hammer as a weapon. Her not having proficiency with it just means that she can use it as a tool but not as a weapon. That she can use it in the forge doesn't mean that she has learned how to fight with it.
I see your points and understand where you're coming from. But it's an essential party of the backstory and and I think that if you're competent enough to hit specific places on complicated smithy work you should be able to swing it as a weapon. I ain't budging from my rule.... LOL
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding successful TPKs: What, "Rocks fall, everyone dies" doesn't work? Killing PCs is easy and doesn't require rolls. (Then again, I remember in my youth when the players invented "Protection from Scott" spells just to say whatever Scott said happen, didn't.)
New grievance: I don't get any high-level play ever (the max level I've played at was... maybe 7th? for the past 15+ years). But although I'd like to play high level, all the descriptions of it (of the "rocket tag" variety) makes it all seem so unengrossing. Furthermore, that's when you hear all sorts of calls of, "You can't change the game to remove high-level rocket tag! That's what the challenges are balanced for!" and I end up thinking... but that's what's wrong with the game in the first place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see your points and understand where you're coming from. But it's an essential party of the backstory and and I think that if you're competent enough to hit specific places on complicated smmithy work you should be able to swing it as a weapon. I ain't budging from my rule.... LOL
Hey, your game, your rules, plus in that particular case the rule of cool should have last word :) .
I have a gripe about this; If maces are simple weapons, why aren't hammers? I can *almost* see a large hammer being martial, because it takes some effort to swing one, but a small hammer, such as a blacksmith's tool? If it's so hard to use every blacksmith in the game would have to have martial weapon proficiency just to make a plow.
I have a character who is going to play a fire elemental Sorcerer in the next campaign we'll start after the current one ends. Her backstory is her powers were triggered after years of working around the forges and flames that are part of her profession. And since Sorcerer's can only use simple weapons, the rules say she can't use a hammer as her weapon of choice.
I threw out the rule and houseruled that hammers are simple weapons. They're so similar to maces (just a metal weight on the end of a short pole) that I believe they should fall under that category.
Grievance over.
There is a trait that would allow the blacksmiths tools to be used without penalty I believe. I'll check
EDIT: Here ya go
Rough and Ready
Benefit: When you use a tool of your trade (requiring at least 1 rank in the appropriate Craft or Profession skill) as a weapon, you do not take the improvised weapon penalty and instead receive a +1 trait bonus on your attack. This trait is commonly used with shovels, picks, blacksmith hammers, and other sturdy tools — lutes and brooms make terribly fragile weapons.
Oh, nice! I'll let her know about that one.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love how in PF there are so many options to get a unique character story to align with mechanics. The above example about a hammer wielding Sorc taking rough and ready is the perfect example.
Now here comes the grievance, folks who don't care about character background, but take full advantage of the options.
GM: So you took rough and ready and this town has a large amount of craftsmen perhaps you want to explore the guild district?
Player: Na im good.
GM: I thought your character was a craftsmen?
Player: yeah but he doesn't care about that anymore.
GM: so it was just to get hammer prof. wasn't it?
Player yeap and now I have a large size hammer too.
GM: Grea....wait where did you find a large size hammer?
Player: I don't know, I just did. It works with feat X and my other trait Z to give me +2 with large hammers and +4 against Y type creatures n Z situations.
GM:....
Fortunately, this player isn't one of those types. For which I'm eternally grateful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That's always been a grievance, yeah. You've got the people who approach the game as an exercise in optimization, expecting to meet against optimized challenges. Then, you've got people who approach it through roleplaying, allowing the course of the narrative to cause certain choices to be made for your character, even when these choices are far from optimal, and expect challenges to be more narrative driven.
They're both valid ways to play the game, but boy does it cause some friction if they sit at the same gaming table!
(Full disclosure: I'm the latter type. In a recent campaign, I had a a character that started out as a leader-bard type, took a couple levels of ranger when my expertise in the outdoors became important, and then discovered and embraced a latent magical heritage, and became a witch (not a PF witch, but a homebrew class that played like a fetish-based arcanist). Lots of fun to see how the story shaped my character, but oh my gosh, it was not an optimal trajectory at all.)
This player is one of the best roleplayers I've ever had in my group. She didn't get to play any RPGs for about 15 years (she moved away when she got divorced) and I was pretty sad to see her go. But now she sometimes drives 2 hours to join in or at least plays by Skype, so it's great to have her back in the circle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am full roleplaying type, but I like toa find a way to make my character functional so I tend to find a way to portrait my concept and still pick some options that allow me to be efficient.
But I picked Vision hex with my Witch just because it was so cool and fitting. It gave me much better roleplaying than any combat hex. And my GM even made a whole plot involving my prophetic powers!
Most of my players are more into the roleplaying aspect than rollplaying. I have a couple of players who, due to their jobs and real life, haven't played in a long, long time. They are definite optimizers. We used to joke when we played a super hero game several years ago that one of them could build a janitor that would beat everyone in the group. And he probably could have. The current campaign deals with a lot of NPC interaction and intrigue, so roleplaying is almost a requirement. The campaign we're hoping to start when this one ends will be more action oriented, but there will still be plenty of opportunity for roleplaying.
|
|
They're both valid ways to play the game, but boy does it cause some friction if they sit at the same gaming table!
Right, this.
The grievance is definitely mismatched playstyles. If you don't care about the fluff and just want the mechanical package, I can respect that. Lets cut the crap though and just let folks do that and get on with the game. Problem is when you got a GM that wants the fluff acknowledged and you get the meta-games going. I have a player who likes to dump stat and then hyper-accentuate in RP to justify it. /facepalm
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do a good job avoiding the Stormwind Fallacy.
I tend to start my character ideas off with a mechanical "I want to do that". For instance, I want to try a particular class, or some type of mechanic. But then, as I look at character options to optimize it, I try to come up with story/personality reasons for my character to have those optimized options, in order to give me plot hooks to play at the table.
As an example, back before Unchained and the Advanced Class Guide, I wanted to try a dex based finesse front liner for PFS. Back then, dervish dancing was one of the few ways to get dex to damage. So I decided to try the Dawnflower Dervish bard archetype that gets it for free.
Since that's tied to Saranrae worship, especially in the deserts of Qadira, that gave me a personality and back story for my PC - he's a devote Sarenrae worshiper, and patriotic Qadiran, so he was in the Qadira faction of the Society. But he embraces his goddess's gentler, redemptive side and good alignment, so he isn't greedy enough to fit in with the profit driven faction that much, which caused some interesting role play on occasion, and eventually caused him to leave the faction for Liberty's Edge when Qadira became The Exchange faction and focused entirely on commerce.
So from the mechanical idea of wanting dex to damage, I ended up with a personality that I could flesh out and play at the table.
Edit: Ninja'd by Pan, and want to respond to his last sentence.
Dumping a stat for mechanical reasons, and then using that as a hook for the personality of the PC is something I do frequently.
For instance, I did the typical wisdom dump on a paladin, but kept her intelligence at 10 for the skill ranks. I play her as naive and overly trusting, but not dumb.
Another example: I totally min-maxed a warpriest with both int and cha dumped so I could get 14 wisdom and good scores in all 3 physical stats. I gave him a full back story that involves being rejected by his family as a child for being VERY ugly and somewhat stupid, but having been recruited by street thugs for his large size and muscle. He was dumb enough to get stuck taking the fall when a crime went bad, and spent 20 years in prison, where he found religion. He wanted to be a priest, but the clerics thought he would be better off using his large size and strength to keep the world safe from monsters, rather than preaching, so he's a warpriest. But he sees all enemy sentient beings as misguided, but possibly redeemable, as he was 20 years ago, so he refuses to do lethal damage to sentients and tries to redeem them. Since his goddess (Shelyn) has a reach weapon as her favored weapon, he specializes in tripping, but can back it up with pure damage if necessary, though he goes non-lethal against sentient enemies.
So again, from a mechanical choice of dumping two stats on a reach weapon tripping build, I found a great back story and fun RP opportunities at the table.
I love how in PF there are so many options to get a unique character story to align with mechanics. The above example about a hammer wielding Sorc taking rough and ready is the perfect example.
Now here comes the grievance, folks who don't care about character background, but take full advantage of the options.
GM: So you took rough and ready and this town has a large amount of craftsmen perhaps you want to explore the guild district?
Player: Na im good.
GM: I thought your character was a craftsmen?
Player: yeah but he doesn't care about that anymore.
GM: so it was just to get hammer prof. wasn't it?
Player yeap and now I have a large size hammer too.
GM: Grea....wait where did you find a large size hammer?
Player: I don't know, I just did. It works with feat X and my other trait Z to give me +2 with large hammers and +4 against Y type creatures n Z situations.
GM:....
Couple of things here. It's not hammer prof. its using a blacksmiths hammer as an improvised weapon without penalty. So no using a large hammer (that's not a tool you trained with.), probably not many feats that would work with the hammer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I rarely get the chance to be a player, but I start with an idea of a class I want to play. When I roll the dice to create the character, I do put the highest number in its primary stat, but I try to not dump something because I think it's a useless ability. I'll think of a way to put the lower numbers in the abilities in such a way that it helps develop the character's personality and roleplaying potential.
annnnnd rules lawyers whats up with dat???
Fortunately none in my group. They're perfectly ok with the rule of cool, bending or even breaking a rule in certain situations for the sake of the story.
I do a good job avoiding the Stormwind Fallacy.
Easy to do as there is no such thing.
In fact, I cant remember seeing anyone actually claiming you can't RP if you Optimize.
It's not rare to see optimizers skip RP aspects, but that's fairly common, no matter your level of optimization.
|
Then your lucky DrDeth. As in my experience it seems to be not common but it happens enough. Over on one of the Pathfinder Facebook pages its starting to happen at least once a week. Even here I would hazard a guess thst it's uncommon imo.
Usually such threads always degrade into the OP geing right and everyone else wrong. Even if the majority of the posters answering disagree with the OP.
Why am I always in the position of being the player that is willing to give a honest assement of the group when we come close to a TPK. Everhone else seems to be afraid to do so. Last session the group idea of tactics was attack tne npcs as a group until the npcs are dead. No tactics beyond dome flanking. Except the non-melee types after their spells run out. Insist on wanting to go head to head with the npcs. Then wonder why their second level characters get knocked out easily.
So far the DM is going easy on the players. Eventually though on of the pcs is going to be killed. Just frusrating imo.
I start creating my players with a basic concept that I want to play, then I develope the mechanics and the backstory mostly at the same time. Sometimes a flavorful mechanics gives me a great idea for a concept and sometimes I have a concept and I search for a mechanic way to have it come into play. But until the sheet is finally done I make a lot of changes to make both mechanics and concept fit.
I didn't want my witch to have Survival skill because it would be wasted, but she grew up traveling in the wild. So she ended being a lot more overprotected by her older sister as a way to explain why she didn't have that skill.
Also, when I created the character I wanted her to have a lot more spells related to cursing or controlling minds but her personality turned out to be far more protective and a lot less controlling than I thought. Also she evolved to a much more benefic person, so I ended guiding her lot more towards healing and buffing because the character demanded it. Also the party needed a character more devoted to buffing so everything was OK. But I avoided picking some good spells just because my character would never cast them.
Then your lucky DrDeth. As in my experience it seems to be not common but it happens enough. Over on one of the Pathfinder Facebook pages its starting to happen at least once a week. Even here I would hazard a guess thst it's uncommon imo.
Usually such threads always degrade into the OP geing right and everyone else wrong. Even if the majority of the posters answering disagree with the OP.
Link please.
|
|
https://m.facebook.com/groups/20416871387?view=permalink&id=10155242393 451388
Looks like a mod stepped in and removed some of the more negative and insulting posts. The op posted a link and then the usual "you can't both roleplay and have a good build" along with the usual "munchkins" accusation thrown about. Apparently were not supposed to be able to roleplay and have decent stats and build with a character.
I do a good job avoiding the Stormwind Fallacy.
Easy to do as there is no such thing.
In fact, I cant remember seeing anyone actually claiming you can't RP if you Optimize.
It's not rare to see optimizers skip RP aspects, but that's fairly common, no matter your level of optimization.
It's not usually directly stated. It is, however, frequently implied.
Take the following statement, for example...
"My player made a character with +30 to attack and damage. They are such a terrible roleplayer."
In that context, the level of optimization is being used as evidence of the player being bad at roleplaying. Since the whole point of Stormwind is that those two factors aren't correlated (or at least not to the extent that they should be treated as such in typical conversation), the "+30 to attack and damage" bit is either a) an implied invocation of the Stormwind fallacy, or b) a completely pointless non sequitur. Given that most posters are assumed to be able to write posts without filling them with irrelevant statements, the poster would be invoking Stormwind by default.
Right, but the rough & ready example above was the sort of thing that the Stormwind Fallacy is about. Mechanical optimization against the roleplay opportunities of the actual situation.
(I suppose my bard/ranger/witch was the opposite end of that, roleplay opportunities without mechanical optimization, but hey, that's the way of it.)
The one thing I do dislike is when you have a character roleplay concept, you ask on the boards for build help, and the response is, "Nope, can't optimize that, play X instead." That's invoking Stormwind again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do a good job avoiding the Stormwind Fallacy.
Easy to do as there is no such thing.
In fact, I cant remember seeing anyone actually claiming you can't RP if you Optimize.
It's not rare to see optimizers skip RP aspects, but that's fairly common, no matter your level of optimization.
It's not usually directly stated. It is, however, frequently implied.
Take the following statement, for example...
"My player made a character with +30 to attack and damage. They are such a terrible roleplayer."
In that context, the level of optimization is being used as evidence of the player being bad at roleplaying. Since the whole point of Stormwind is that those two factors aren't correlated (or at least not to the extent that they should be treated as such in typical conversation), the "+30 to attack and damage" bit is either a) an implied invocation of the Stormwind fallacy, or b) a completely pointless non sequitur. Given that most posters are assumed to be able to write posts without filling them with irrelevant statements, the poster would be invoking Stormwind by default.
Most people dont understand the Stormwind fallacy and are thus quick to point one out when none exists:
"It is called the Stormwind Fallacy after Tempest Stormwind, the WotC forum poster who first wrote up a thread dealing with the fallacy and indicating its fallaciousness.The fallacy is often indicated when any claim of contention between roleplaying and optimization is made, but Stormwind himself does not go that far. Instead, the claim is only that the two are not mutually exclusive, that "one must not optimize in order to roleplay" is a fallacy."..."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....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')"
See, Even Tempest Stormwind himself agrees there are optimizers who dont RP, and vice versa. Is he guilty of his own Fallacy? ;-)
There is of course a contention between roleplaying and optimization. Most of us only have so much time. If you spend all your generation time on your optimization, of course the roleplaying will suffer. If you spend all your generation time on your roleplaying- of course your optimization will suffer. I have seen PCs submitted with 4 pages of background- but no info bothered about stats. I have seen powerful optimized Min/maxed PCs where the player didnt even bother with a name- but they did come up with weird, outre, and POWERFUL traits and feats.
Of course, this isnt hard and fast , since some people have so much more time as the rest of us -they can spend twice as much time on both aspects as most of us can spare on only one.
What "My player made a character with +30 to attack and damage. They are such a terrible roleplayer." means is that player didnt balance his time, he spent all of it on optimization.
I dont remember ANYONE saying that you can't do both- which is Stormwind. It's just that a lot of players concentrate on one aspect to the detriment of the other. Because most of us only have so much time.
|
|
Here the thing though. Some get told they can't roleplay properly in some cases. Simply because they made a Fighter wit decent Str and Con, the right bread and butter feats. He or she is a "bad" roleplayer because chances are they will be better than some who did the opposite. If one going to make a Fighter with low Str and Con of course the first is going to be better at hitting and damage. No amount of roleplay imo is going to change that.
It's not to say that some don't optimize to the point where they can only do one good thing and nothing else with their characters. More often than at the table I play at. The Sorcerer for example with the low Cha expects his spells to be as effective than the Bard who took a higher than normal Cha. That's not how the system works. The DCs of the spells of the character with the higher primary stat will work more often than the one that took a lower stat. One needs to build a character than can roleplay yet be effective in their role.
The Fighter with 10 Str is just not going to be as effective in his role than the 16 Str Fighter imo. The first while better possibly with social interaction is going to find the character able to carry,hit, and do less damage. The difference between myself and others who take a lower stat I accept that I'm going to be the less effective fighter at least in combat. I'm not going to hold it against the second character who took a higher Str. I assume the responsabilites of my choices made as a player even if they maybe sub-optimal for the character. Instead most players deflect the responsability of their chocies. Heaven forbid they assume the consequences of their choices they made at character creation and it's everyone else fault.
The character with 16 str is suddenly a filthy "munchkin" and/or "optimizer".
Here the thing though. Some get told they can't roleplay properly in some cases. Simply because they made a Fighter wit decent Str and Con, the right bread and butter feats. He or she is a "bad" roleplayer because chances are they will be better than some who did the opposite. If one going to make a Fighter with low Str and Con of course the first is going to be better at hitting and damage. No amount of roleplay imo is going to change that.
It's not to say that some don't optimize to the point where they can only do one good thing and nothing else with their characters. More often than at the table I play at. The Sorcerer for example with the low Cha expects his spells to be as effective than the Bard who took a higher than normal Cha. That's not how the system works. The DCs of the spells of the character with the higher primary stat will work more often than the one that took a lower stat. One needs to build a character than can roleplay yet be effective in their role.
The Fighter with 10 Str is just not going to be as effective in his role than the 16 Str Fighter imo. The first while better possibly with social interaction is going to find the character able to carry,hit, and do less damage. The difference between myself and others who take a lower stat I accept that I'm going to be the less effective fighter at least in combat. I'm not going to hold it against the second character who took a higher Str. I assume the responsabilites of my choices made as a player even if they maybe sub-optimal for the character. Instead most players deflect the responsability of their chocies. Heaven forbid they assume the consequences of their choices they made at character creation and it's everyone else fault.
The character with 16 str is suddenly a filthy "munchkin" and/or "optimizer".
But see, that has nothing whatsoever with "Stormwind" and a lot to do with that person being a "jerk".
Take it off-thread, DrDeth, if you really think we need another thread about this.
Here's my grievance:
Man, aeons are just the worst.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Grievance:
Another thread about an insane character. That's a sensitive theme for me because I've lost some loved ones to mental disease.
I hate when people bring mental disease to a game as if it was a joke: characters who believe to be personalities from other media, multiple personalities, the happy goofy madman who acts like a clown because he is insane...
Most players just want to play a fun concept, but this concepts are not only disruptive in most cases, I find most of them to be offensive.
Mental disease is not funny. People who suffer from it are not living jokes but people who struggle to deal with a disease.
There is still nowadays a lack of understanding and of knowledge. People who creates this characters of course don't mean to offend anyone. But it's a sensitive matter to me.
In this case it wasn't a big deal, just a NPC with multiple persobalities. Nothing bad (actually I have to admit that this one seems interesting and not offensive). But it brought my old grievance to mind.
I always liked Malkavians in V:tM but I had to ban them from a lot of games because everybody played them like clowns. When I played the obsessive and controlling type that couldn't let anything scape his surveillance they said that it wasn't a Malkavian just because the character was serious and a bit creepy in his obsession.
I thought people knew better now, but every now and then I have to lecture a player who thinks that an insane character must be a clown.