|
OP: You asked 'how much is powergaming frowned upon?'
You've seen the responses here thus far.
I suspect a lot of the frowning is when the powergaming goes into the territory of 'being a jerk', which evokes a horrible situation where individuals don't want to say anything because they're afraid of being painted as a jerk for bringing up that someone is being a jerk.
Players can be bad. Raw numbers not so much generally.
Respect your fellow players (and your GM), pay attention to their body language and their reactions to your play, and play as thou wilt.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power gaming itself should not bring any frowns. Any Dm looking at my character sheet before we play and saying you can not play is being a jerk in my opinion.
Now being the most powerful in the game and wrecking other peoples fun is a jerk move too.
But the key words are wrecking others peoples fun.
Do not wreck other people's fun. You can do this with or without a powergamed character.
I played a scenario with riddles last time I went. I instantly knew the answers to the riddles so I waited until everyone was stumped before I gave the answer. I knew other people might enjoy the riddles so I let them try. Realize you are in a community game and all is well.
Build your character however you choose to.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the issues we are having in this thread is one of definition, as I really dont consider the above example "powergaming." I see players organized by the primary criterion that informs their gameplay. A powergamer is looking for a power fantasy, and their decisions in boh building and playing a character are always informed by that criterion.
Thus, powergaming--least how I understand it--is when someone looks for the optimal mechanical choices and then builds a character that hits as many of them as possible without any concern for flavor. The powergamer is playing to win Pathfinder and nothing else. These are the people that first ask "which character is the most powerful right now?" when they pick characters in a MOBA or fighting game. They immediately started playing Meta Knight and never stopped. I'm not saying this attitude is wrong; personal dislike of it doesnt invalidate the fact that other people enjoy it.
Starting with a character concept and then going "now how can I find mechanics to support this?" is playing a significantly different game. This player might want to play a powerful character, but they are (as far as game theory is concerned) arbitrarily reducing their chances of winning by imposing a "handicap" on themselves. This player might want to win Pathfinder, but they will only do it on certain terms. This kind of player first asks "which character do I like?" when they pick a character in a MOBA or fighting game and then--if it's considered underpowered or difficult--they put the effort into getting the most out of the character. They might have picked Samus or Ike because they are fans of Metroid or Fire Emblem and spent time watching gameplay videos and reading advice on how to play them.
The latter player is the standard in every game I've ever played. Even if you were to make the case that that's still powergaming, the term would become so all-encompassing to be meaningless imo.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that's often not done (and should be) is experienced GMs and players helping a player to do something within the framework of the rules.
Too often GMs just say "no" without thinking about what is really being asked. Often there just isn't time. Sometimes things just aren't practical within PFS, there's a lot the system can't handle. Sometimes you just need some finesse <EG>Is that powergaming? in a good way, yes.
This is definitely a good thing. Sometimes the "true role player!" tm wants to be able to do something but they don't know the mechanics to accomplish it. Its definitely easier for the mechanic to explain what options to take than the true role player(tm) to port over how to make a character a person.
Often a problem arises though in that the mechanic dumped charisma on more than their characters, and the true role player considers the mechanics aspects of the game to be unclean.
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am going to truly shock you.
You can have an interesting PC, with all the trimmings, and be mechanically strong.
That's right.
Even more shocking, is that the players who run mechanically strong PCs, might not be terrible roleplayers, cheaters, or horrible human beings.
Some are great roleplayers, who try to keep everyone in line with the rules, even when not to their advantage, and a number of them are also great human beings.
Now, you may need a moment to take that all in.
Breeeeeeeeathe.
I tell you, it's true.
Totally shocking, huh?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think one of the issues we are having in this thread is one of definition, as I really dont consider the above example "powergaming." I see players organized by the primary criterion that informs their gameplay. A powergamer is looking for a power fantasy, and their decisions in boh building and playing a character are always informed by that criterion.
Thus, powergaming--least how I understand it--is when someone looks for the optimal mechanical choices and then builds a character that hits as many of them as possible without any concern for flavor. The powergamer is playing to win Pathfinder and nothing else. These are the people that first ask "which character is the most powerful right now?" when they pick characters in a MOBA or fighting game. They immediately started playing Meta Knight and never stopped. I'm not saying this attitude is wrong; personal dislike of it doesnt invalidate the fact that other people enjoy it.
Starting with a character concept and then going "now how can I find mechanics to support this?" is playing a significantly different game. This player might want to play a powerful character, but they are (as far as game theory is concerned) arbitrarily reducing their chances of winning by imposing a "handicap" on themselves. This player might want to win Pathfinder, but they will only do it on certain terms. This kind of player first asks "which character do I like?" when they pick a character in a MOBA or fighting game and then--if it's considered underpowered or difficult--they put the effort into getting the most out of the character. They might have picked Samus or Ike because they are fans of Metroid or Fire Emblem and spent time watching gameplay videos and reading advice on how to play them.
The latter player is the standard in every game I've ever played. Even if you were to make the case that that's still powergaming, the term would become so all-encompassing to be meaningless imo.
I disagree with this. Powergaming is optimizing your character. It is falsely synonymous with people building characters without story. Look at the storm wind fallacy.
I spend a great deal of time developing a character. They must have a personality I enjoy playing AND be top end powerful. I am powering my game and character. I am power gaming. I also make sure every trait and feat fit a personality I can mix it perfectly with. I place equal balance on both. They both need very high levels to me.
Powergaming is seen as a problem because a few people that power game wreck the game for others. So those that fall for this stereotype set a limit and anyone that powergames more than that limit is stupidbadfun.
Powergaming is optimizing a character. It is a design choice. I met many people that NEVER roleplay their character. They come to pfs to roll dice. I often see them try to power game(and also often fall into traps of character design). But since these players do not successfully build powerful characters no one looks at them.
|
|
I think you might be demonstrating that Hrothdane is correct that everyone here is working on their own definition. Mine is close to yours, Finlanderboy, but ours are pretty far from other uses of the word 'powergamer' being used in this thread.
Controlling the definitions of words controls people.
People want to place a negative on powergaming. You build 100% for power ignoring roleplay.
So now i come along I build something very powerful. It is easy to confuse powerfull made game character with powergaming.
Now I am that. Now I have to defend and prove I am innocent. That is silly. This is from personal experience. Not what could happen.
|
|
I never said a powergamer's character has no story; I said it's not the genesis of the character. Note that I was refering to the questions each type would "first ask." They may very well have the same set of goals as any other player, but their priorities are skewed towards mechanical mastery. It's all about the direction they are coming at the game from, not about where they end up.
I'm not trying to elevate one style of play over another. I'm merely trying to explain how and why I define the term the way I do.
|
|
I never said a powergamer's character has no story; I said it's not the genesis of the character. Note that I was refering to the questions each type would "first ask." They may very well have the same set of goals as any other player, but their priorities are skewed towards mechanical mastery. It's all about the direction they are coming at the game from, not about where they end up.
I'm not trying to elevate one style of play over another. I'm merely trying to explain how and why I definte the term the way I do.
Why make the definition mor ecomplicated than it needs to be?
Powergaming, playing a powerful game/character. Simple easy. Ignores if you do or do not roleplay.
The way you build your character is not the defining piece of your character. Because this is a either or fallacy. People have ranges and measurements. They are not one or the other. For example close to 0% of the people build their characters to lose. That is the opposite of win.
|
|
I never said a powergamer's character has no story; I said it's not the genesis of the character. Note that I was refering to the questions each type would "first ask." They may very well have the same set of goals as any other player, but their priorities are skewed towards mechanical mastery. It's all about the direction they are coming at the game from, not about where they end up.
I'm not trying to elevate one style of play over another. I'm merely trying to explain how and why I define the term the way I do.
"The lesser gaming style".
|
|
I never said a powergamer's character has no story; I said it's not the genesis of the character. Note that I was refering to the questions each type would "first ask." They may very well have the same set of goals as any other player, but their priorities are skewed towards mechanical mastery. It's all about the direction they are coming at the game from, not about where they end up.
I'm not trying to elevate one style of play over another. I'm merely trying to explain how and why I definte the term the way I do.
Why make the definition mor ecomplicated than it needs to be?
Powergaming, playing a powerful game/character. Simple easy. Ignores if you do or do not roleplay.
The way you build your character is not the defining piece of your character. Because this is a either or fallacy. People have ranges and measurements. They are not one or the other. For example close to 0% of the people build their characters to lose. That is the opposite of win.
Usage determines definition. A definition is as complicated as its usage has made it.
You yourself say nobody builds their characters to lose, thus everyone builds their characters to win. Which means everyone builds their characters for power, which means that everybody is a powergamer, by your definition.
Is this how people use the word? As a synonym for gamer?
I am also wondering where I gave you the impression that I said that the method of building the character defines the character. I've been talking about defining player mentalities.
"The lesser gaming style".
Explain where I said that? I didn't intend to, so I'm rather curious.
|
|
Perhaps text is a poor way of expressing tone.
You seem to be describing a "lesser" form of gaming, and "lesser" form of gamer.
I'm sorry if I came across that way at all.
In the interest of full disclosure, I mentioned before that it's not my preferred method of play, but--once again--that is mere personal preference, and I hardly consider myself the arbiter of the "correct" way to play. Me not preferring something doesn't make it bad or lesser.
As a PFS GM, I consider it part of my duty to understand the play styles and preferences of my players as best as possible. It helps me run tables, and it helps me know what to schedule. That's why I try to analyze what I see my players doing, what aspects of their characters make them excited, which parts of scenarios bore them, etc....
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I 'powergame' specifically because of, and for the benefit of, people making incredibly dysfunctional characters that, for all their personality, are seemingly intentionally subpar, or not yet realized. The strength dumping monk (without weapon finesse), the nearly seeker level multiclass abomination built around rerolling everything (yet not having much to do with said rerolls), the low-level builds that are one feat/class feature from functional, the characters hellbent on RPing the Society into international incidents. All of them.
I just start with an idea, then create the most mechanically optimized representation of this concept. If my party is comparable to me, then all is well. If my party has Mr I'mGonnaTakeACamelToAWedding in it, I go full tilt.
People might call me cheesemonkey, but at the very least my +5/1d8+8 at level one will counterbalance a -1/1d10-1 flavor character. Also, we both have fun.
|
That looks pretty standard to be honest. Above average Str, a mwk weapon, positive bab, some class-dependent boost(rage, etc).
I've honestly never seen a distruptive roleplayer. Plenty of people who are seriously there just to roll big numbers and to hell with everything else, but never a roleplayer. Instead, there's a particular breed of players who just like sitting and dice. They don't seek to build some death combo of stats and know-how, they don't have a strong urge to participate, they just sit there and roll when asked. Sometimes they roll unasked just to make sure there's at least some rolling involved. I don't get it, personally. Maybe it's a human companionship thing.
all the lonely people, where do they all come from
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In my opinion, if you have to explain your actions or defend your build starting with the phrase, "Well, by RAW..." or some version of it, you need to start asking yourself some fundamental questions.
Beyond that, go bonkers. In my experience my biggest frustration in PFS comes from one of two categories:
1) The player's character dominates the scenario and doesn't let anyone else participate. A good player can have a character like this but know when to throttle back.
2) The player's character is so ineffective that they significantly risk the rest of the party, primarily this occurs at higher levels of play when a build should have come together 3-5 levels ago.
To expand on B, I will tell of a game I played with Bob (not a real name) the Druid. Bob's druid was a spell focused druid with a wisdom of 15 (after the +2 headband of wisdom) at level 9-10 play. His feats were all over the place (several focused on summoning, but he prepped no summon spells), and his highest level (5th) spells had a DC of 17. In a fight, he would send his animal companion into a fight, it would get dropped or nearly dropped by a single opponent in one round, and Bob would spend the rest of the fight attempting to heal it with a CLW wand. His spell selection included 2 damage spells that never did much damage due to low saves, and the rest were buffs or cure spells for his companion. The animal companion's AC was in the mid teens because he hadn't done anything to ensure it's survivability on the front lines. I wouldn't be surprised if he never even applied feats to his animal companion because it had no armor to speak of. Bob would have his druid cast defensive buff spells only on his animal companion, usually ones that wouldn't help terribly much in a given situation, or were applied halfway through a fight when the companion was already down. Bob did not shapeshift. Ever. Bob could not cast while shapeshifted, he didn't have the feats. His skills were spread so thin he couldn't make most checks at that level.
While any one of these isn't terrible, all together it made for a character that, with tactical decisions on when and where he'd send his companion (read: always put his companion in a charge lane), made fights harder for the party. I'm all for a fun flavor build, but be able to do something effectively.
That said, I refer back to my first comment. As long as you don't have to defend your build with "Rules as Written" and let other players shine, be as effective as you want.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
That looks pretty standard to be honest. Above average Str, a mwk weapon, positive bab, some class-dependent boost(rage, etc).
I've honestly never seen a distruptive roleplayer.
Lucky you. Disruptive "roleplayers" are pretty common and have worse effects than disruptive powergamers.
For the most part, a disruptive powergamer will dominate the table in combat, end fights before anyone else can do anything, and hog the glory. That can make for a sub-average session, but you get some gold and xp and can play the next session.
A super-disruptive power gamer might also tell everyone how they should have built their characters. That's unpleasant, but again, you can go do your thing at the next table afterward.
Disruptive "roleplayers" on the other hand, can have worse effects.
The super mild version just want to tell you how to play your character. "You're Lawful Neutral; that means you can't ever break the law." They make for a sub-average session but can be ignored. The guy who can't shut up about his character's bizarre backstory or wierd profession (which the character often doesn't have the skills to be good at) falls into this category too. So does the guy whose "character concept" is designed to be as uncomfortable and/or unpleasant as the player thinks they can get away with(usually a prostitute, necromancer, or devil-worshipping slave-owner).
The next version up want to dominate all of the non-combat encounters in their "in character" (usually stereotypical) voice and chat pointlessly, or worse yet, hit on random NPCs for ever. That makes for an unpleasant and sometimes uncomfortable session and what's worse, you often don't have time to finish the scenario. You walk away from an unpleasant experience with reduced gold and fame, possibly with reduced xp too.
The worst version of disruptive "roleplayer" common in organized play combines all of the preceding features with either a complete lack of system mastery or system mastery applied to making as useless a character as possible. Examples of this include the guy who made a gnome fighter with an 8 strength whose schtick was wearing purple studded leather armor and calling himself "Shrieker." All he did was point and shriek. The worse example was the thief who decided that he should spend the first three rounds of combat hiding, moving to a new hiding spot, climbing a tree, trying to line up a single crossbow sneak attack, and then running away because the party was losing the fight. That kind of "roleplayer" not only makes for an unpleasant session, but gets other characters killed because he's not pulling his weight at the table. (At least Shrieker had the decency to get his own character killed; the rogue got a couple of other characters killed instead). Not only do you end up with an unpleasant experience at the table, you also end up with a dead character so you may not be able to just go to the next table and pretend that session never happened.
At least the rules against PVP keep the actual backstabbers out of organized play.
|
|
I occasionally wonder if some of my PCs are underpowered, but I'm nowhere near as bad as the examples in the last few posts.
My first PFS PC was pretty powerful. I was new to the game (returning to table top RPGs after a 20ish year break), and was invited to join a home PFS group at the last minute, so I didn't know what they already had for PCs or what power level to go for. I was worried about not contributing, so I figured a good front liner should be easy to build, and I threw together a min/maxed barbarian (dumping all 3 mental stats, but not all the way down to 7). By level 2, I had the APG and time to read the online guides, so he ended up being the stereotypical min/maxed Invulnerable Rager with the Beast Totem line.
After that, I learned that PFS scenarios weren't difficult enough to require uber-optimization to overcome (this was season 3, so just before season 4 pumped up the difficulty). I also had time to learn a lot more about the game, so I was able to design PCs that are somewhat optimized, but I intentionally don't go all out with it, and I try to put concept ahead of character.
But I still worry about whether or not my PCs can contribute enough.
As an example, I have a skill monkey bard at level 5 who is AMAZING at social, knowledge, and a couple of other skills, but I worry that he isn't useful enough in combat. He carries a wand of Cure Light and has some debuffing, but if the rest of the group isn't built to kill our enemies, he's not the one to solve that problem.
As another example, my melee paladin just hit level 3 and still only does 1d8+4 damage. At levels 1-2, that's fine, but in sub-tier 4-5, is that enough? So I was agonizing over whether or not I could afford to postpone Power Attack until level 5 to take something else at 3rd.
And then there's my Halfling Opportunist. I liked the idea of this prestige class enough to make one, and optimized the concept as much as I could at the time (before Advanced Class Guide and Unchained were published, which probably open up better methods of doing this). But when I finally got that far, I realized the prestige class kinda sucks. The end result is a level 7 rogue/opportunist/Dawnflower Dervish bard who is probably on par with the average core Rogue in combat. He contributes, but probably not enough to help keep weaker parties alive.
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
I think there's a very, very wide range between sorely underpowered and too powerful to be fun. There's a lot of room for "well-built" and "can still cope" characters.
And any single scenario is a bad test of that, since difficulty can be quite swingy. And there's environmental effects, too (luck of the dice, group synergy, hangovers).
|
|
My basic mantra is: if you want to build the most combat-destroying monster you can, go for it. Just save that POW for those times when the party is in trouble, or for the times when time's a tickin' and the game needs to move along before the store closes.
Don't 1-shot every single fight; others need to shine as well. As long as others get their sunshine moment, it's all good.
|
Venture-Captain, Pennsylvania—Pittsburgh
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Average people do not become adventurers. I am an average person in real life. I want to play a character of someone who is exceptional. That is why my fighters have at least a 17 strength and my wizards have at least an 18 intelligence. They are exceptional, and bored with the mundane nature of life in a village, and have become adventurers as a result. If my fighter had a 13 strength and a 12 charisma, he'd probably still be a farmer. It's safer that way. If my wizard had a 14 intelligence and a 7 constitution, he'd probably be a librarian. I figure my less powerfully built characters died to a single goblin attacking them on the road to the Grand Lodge, and that's why they don't go on Pathfinder Society missions.
|
That looks pretty standard to be honest. Above average Str, a mwk weapon, positive bab, some class-dependent boost(rage, etc).
I've honestly never seen a distruptive roleplayer.
Lucky you. Disruptive "roleplayers" are pretty common and have worse effects than disruptive powergamers.
For the most part, a disruptive powergamer will dominate the table in combat, end fights before anyone else can do anything, and hog the glory. That can make for a sub-average session, but you get some gold and xp and can play the next session.
A super-disruptive power gamer might also tell everyone how they should have built their characters. That's unpleasant, but again, you can go do your thing at the next table afterward.
Disruptive "roleplayers" on the other hand, can have worse effects.
The super mild version just want to tell you how to play your character. "You're Lawful Neutral; that means you can't ever break the law." They make for a sub-average session but can be ignored. The guy who can't shut up about his character's bizarre backstory or wierd profession (which the character often doesn't have the skills to be good at) falls into this category too. So does the guy whose "character concept" is designed to be as uncomfortable and/or unpleasant as the player thinks they can get away with(usually a prostitute, necromancer, or devil-worshipping slave-owner).
The next version up want to dominate all of the non-combat encounters in their "in character" (usually stereotypical) voice and chat pointlessly, or worse yet, hit on random NPCs for ever. That makes for an unpleasant and sometimes uncomfortable session and what's worse, you often don't have time to finish the scenario. You walk away from an unpleasant experience with reduced gold and fame, possibly with reduced xp too.
The worst version of disruptive "roleplayer" common in organized play combines all of the preceding features with either a complete lack of system mastery or system mastery applied to making as useless a...
I can't favorite this enough. I've never been upset that someone created a powerful combat character that made the scenario easy for me, or even the times where the wizard wins initiative and uses one spell to end an encounter. All that means is more time for roleplaying, more time for joking around at the table, and an easy payday.
Disruptive roleplayers on the other hand usually hog the time for roleplay by unnecessarily explaining to every NPC that they "run a brothel and could offer YOU a serious discount". Could be kind of funny if used once, but becomes annoying when it's the focus of every social encounter, and becomes uncomfortable when the players list off all the services the NPC can receive at said brothel.
Of course, that's just one example I've had to play through, but anytime a player has to insert it's characters backstory into every conversation, the game is going to suffer.
And that's still less annoying than the character that was specifically built not to be a powergamer, and consistently lets down the team by barely contributing and often, dying, making things more difficult for teammates and draining resources away from players who can manage to both roleplay, and built capable characters.
|
Venture-Captain, California—Sacramento
|
I never said a powergamer's character has no story; I said it's not the genesis of the character. Note that I was refering to the questions each type would "first ask." They may very well have the same set of goals as any other player, but their priorities are skewed towards mechanical mastery. It's all about the direction they are coming at the game from, not about where they end up.
I'm not trying to elevate one style of play over another. I'm merely trying to explain how and why I define the term the way I do.
Who says there has to be a first? Neil (my groetus worshiping, whirlwind riding, barbarian) is a hilarious piece of system mastery that has resulted in me having to use the term "full attack rage sniping" to describe his tactics. He is also so "Min" in the social department that he sometimes waits outside when the party goes in to social occasions, in order to not penalize them. (He has a -7 total on most social skills, and would be rather more socially acceptable if he were dead. And he is a gnome...) He is also an awesome background and role playing experience, to the point where people have turned to me to start an interaction, realize I am not playing Neil that session, and be disappointed. His genesis came from a rules exploit that implied an interesting background that led to a certain character path, that then resulted in a rules exploit, etc...
I have played three PC in the Hero system. All of them started with a cool concept, all three had to be retired or rebuilt (one after her second game!) because they were game wreckingly powerful (Admittedly in one case I agreed to get rid of one power, provided the GM stopped abusing rules loopholes that that power closed, so that was sort of justified.)
Do I make powerful characters? Yeah, it is just as important to me that they have cool backgrounds.
Side comment on the cheating thing. I have never felt any particular need to cheat. That said, the more complicated the build, the more moving pieces, the more times someone is going to mess something up. I just found out last game that I needed to make a 3 page spread sheet for my latest character and a 6 page rules reference, because I kept forgetting things (like Mysterious Strangers first level deed is a swift action, not a free action.) So I can see how someone picking up on that might feel like I was cheating. Of course, I also forgot about +3 AC worth of bonuses I had, which if I remembered I would not have gotten hit all night long. But you probably aren't going to look at me playing and realize that my AC should have been 3 higher, so you would say "Hey look, he's cheating and getting an extra swift action" and not "hey look, he's cheating and taking hits he doesn't need to take!"
|
|
I take my time on each character, researching every option for every component of my build, considering which pieces fit best for what I want the character to do. Some of these choices inform the personality I eventually develop for said character. In the end, I come up with a design I enjoy because it does something unusual, while contributing to parties in whatever roles I selected when I wrote the character and hopefully providing an entertaining persona to bind the whole thing together.
...and then you get reincarnated as a Troglodyte.
|
|
"cheating accompanies powering"I'm going to have to disagree with this. The whole point of making a strong build is you would never even need to cheat anyway. Cheating is something entirely separate and any person can commit it. The fun of making a strong character is that everything is done within the rules, otherwise you ARE just a cheater and your character doesn't even matter.
For many, many people who min/max doing so is just an excuse to "feel awesome" by proxy. Nothing wrong with that but in my experience these same people are so obsessed with "winning the game" (as if you could defeat the GM...) that they will resort at cheating either to feel "more awesome" or to go against "bad luck" (after all rolling a natural 1 "is no fun", right?).
Of course those who mention the fact that powergaming doesn't automatically imply cheating are right, but in my experience many powergamers also cheat, and besies that they tend to want to steal the show for themselves searching for opportunities to outshine other players, asking for more attention. It's very immature, but it happens and it is disruptive. Of course that's not a fault of the builds but the humans behind them... unfortunately most things are though!|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much of the rules of pathfinder is how to play the tactical combat game. Some people are good at these types of games, some are not. Some are interested in this part of the game, some are not. If your GM is good at tabletop strategy games then you better have a well built character or you will get slaughtered. If your GM sucks at tabletop strategy games then you can play a character with no combat skill whatsoever and survive just fine.
I have played with GMs on both sides of the spectrum. Playing with the latter I got to feel like oh man, I made my characters way too strong. Playing with the former had me hunting through splatbooks for feats and items to get that bit of an edge I need to survive.
Powergaming is all relative to who you play with. Some people will glare at you and accuse you of cheating because you took power attack (OMG how do you do so much damage!). Others will glare at you and tell you to learn2playnoob because you aren't one shot killing everything (OMG you're going to get us all killed with your weak character!). It has to do with who is GMing and how good they are at the tactical combat game.
|
|
Others will glare at you and tell you to learn2playnoob because you aren't one shot killing everything (OMG you're going to get us all killed with your weak character!). It has to do with who is GMing and how good they are at the tactical combat game.
That is until, say, they get an *additional* +3 to hit and damage plus ten feet to movement from the woefully combat-ineffective yet powerfully supporting bard with a flag.
Or the same sort of thing, but with magic weapons from a skald.
Support roles can be powergamed, too. Not everyone realizes it, but when you see someone who's worked at it, it's a thing of freakin' beauty.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is the reality of those that steal the show constantly or otherwise run roughshod over their fellow players.
It's because they're jerks.
Powergaming or not.
How they do it is really kinda irrelevant to the larger issue, that they are putting their own enjoyment over others.
It is not a rules problem. It is a player problem.
-j
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh look, a thread full of people taking offense at other people whose opinions differ from theirs, while not understanding why the other group could possibly be upset with their opinions!
These are always soooo productive too!
I'm offended that you're offended at me being offended at you being offended...
|
Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Asheville
|
Much of the rules of pathfinder is how to play the tactical combat game. Some people are good at these types of games, some are not. Some are interested in this part of the game, some are not. If your GM is good at tabletop strategy games then you better have a well built character or you will get slaughtered. If your GM sucks at tabletop strategy games then you can play a character with no combat skill whatsoever and survive just fine. [Emphasis mine]
I have played with GMs on both sides of the spectrum. Playing with the latter I got to feel like oh man, I made my characters way too strong. Playing with the former had me hunting through splatbooks for feats and items to get that bit of an edge I need to survive.Powergaming is all relative to who you play with. Some people will glare at you and accuse you of cheating because you took power attack (OMG how do you do so much damage!). Others will glare at you and tell you to learn2playnoob because you aren't one shot killing everything (OMG you're going to get us all killed with your weak character!). It has to do with who is GMing and how good they are at the tactical combat game.
Given that we as PFS GM's are supposed to be following predetermined tactics unless something invalidates them, I'm not sure how often GM skill should be a factor in combat difficulty. Of course, I don't have much high-tier experience, where invalidating printed tactics may not be much of a challenge.
|
|
Given that we as PFS GM's are supposed to be following predetermined tactics unless something invalidates them, I'm not sure how often GM skill should be a factor in combat difficulty. Of course, I don't have much high-tier experience, where invalidating printed tactics may not be much of a challenge.
1) players usually invalidate the tactics rather quickly
2) many of the tactics are basically "Go for it" which can make a difference when a DM knows how outright nasty you can be with some of the NPC abilities.
|
Venture-Captain, North Carolina—Asheville
|
That's not an unfair point, but I have a feeling we're working from different definitions of 'invalidate'. I can think of at least one scenario where the tactics of the final encounter should invalidate themselves, if the GM is using a liberal interpretation of that clause.
In a game where the GM is constructing encounters around the group, the ideal PC is optimized to match the rest of the group.
In a game where the GM is running an adventure as written, the ideal PC is one that compensates for the rest of the group - if the group is particularly weak, then they'll need an extra-strong ally to be able to survive.
|
|
Given that we as PFS GM's are supposed to be following predetermined tactics unless something invalidates them, I'm not sure how often GM skill should be a factor in combat difficulty. Of course, I don't have much high-tier experience, where invalidating printed tactics may not be much of a challenge.
The predetermined tactics are generally not terribly specific. A GM who doesn't know how to get a flank, doesn't know how or why to charge or use cover is going to be an entirely different experience than a GM who is skilled at the tactical element and manages to have every single opponent flank with half of them charging into the flanking position.
Secondly, "invalidating" printed tactics is a somewhat ambiguous term. Some GMs apparently understand it as "making the tactic actually impossible," such as a fighter with a 20 foot move speed being instructed to charge a character who is 45 feet away. Others understand it as "making the tactic completely ineffective with no chance of success," such as attempting to cast a sleep spell on an elf. I tend to understand it as, "making the tactic a manifestly bad idea" such as charging a group of melee warriors with reach weapons. If the GM who isn't very good at positioning and target selection also happens to be one of the GMs in the first category who will have the bad guy charge a phalanx of PCs armed with reach weapons and with readied actions to set against charge, then you're going to have a much easier experience than if the GM is tactically skilled and interprets "invalidation" to mean "makes it a bad idea."
Adding on to that, there is a little bit of an exponential effect there too. The GM with less tactical skill is less likely to recognize obvious bad ideas (that is a lot of what "less tactical skill" means) and decide that the situation has invalidated the printed tactics, as well as being less likely to play the monsters effectively within the printed tactics. And if that DM does depart from the tactics, both the ideas and implementation that he comes up with on his own are likely to be less effective.
Taking an example from an unnamed adventure (these are generic enough to not constitute spoilers):
Before Combat If the dervishes hear a break-in from the front, one of them spreads oil in the area marked P on the map. If the PCs enter through other means, the dervishes spread the oil wherever it tactically benefits them most.
During Combat The dervishes work together to surround and flank opponents, preferring to take them down one at a time.
Morale So long as more than one dervish fights, they fight to the death. If one dervish remains, he attempts to flee.
First, you can see that the tactics are pretty generic. Surround and flank (with characters who have sneak attack). The dervishes don't have many abilities so it's hard to invalidate their tactics. But even so, there's going to be a world of difference between the GM who has them: A. Focus on the fighter with a tower shield, and the GM who has them focus on the cleric or the wizard first, and B. the GM who manages one sneak attack every round with three dervishes and the GM who uses a combination of ready and delay actions to get three sneak attacks every round.
Give the monsters more complex abilities and more specific tactics and the difficulty variance between GMs is only going to get bigger.
For the record, my interpretation is pretty close to the last one: if the tactical situation makes the printed tactics a clearly bad idea, they're invalidated. The primary exception is when the printed tactics were always going to be a bad idea from the start, in which case I will stick with them until something happens that makes it an even worse idea than it was always going to be. As use another example, I ran one adventure where the printed tactics stated that the NPC villain will open with a fireball and then divide the battlefield up with walls of fire. Opening with a fireball might or might not have been a better idea than immediately dividing the battlefield up with walls of fire, but it's the printed tactics, so I stuck with them in round 1. In round 2 or 3, the villain had several PCs in her face. Dividing the battlefield up with walls of fire was pointless then--it wasn't going to keep the beatsticks out of her face, and she needed to deal with the immediate threat, not mitigate future threats. So, I switched to channeling negative energy instead. Was the wall of fire impossible? No. Was the tactic of dividing the battlefield up invalidated? In my opinion, yes. Did tactical ability play a part in recognizing that the printed tactic was pointless and finding a better option (that wasn't going to provoke opportunity attacks)? You bet.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Minnesota—Minneapolis
|
Given that we as PFS GM's are supposed to be following predetermined tactics unless something invalidates them, I'm not sure how often GM skill should be a factor in combat difficulty. Of course, I don't have much high-tier experience, where invalidating printed tactics may not be much of a challenge.
The tactics lines are usually only two to three lines of text.
Without invalidating the tactics, there is a large range of options in how deadly that can be. If for every creature, regardless of attributes, you are moving them with optimal tactics that is much more deadly than if you attack whatever last attacked them.
In Service to Lore Part 1 has a reputation for being deadly because some GMs have trouble using poor tactics.
