It sounds like the group has learned quite a bit about what works and what doesn't. It sounds like the group is learning about what type of game they would like. Perhaps this is a good opportunity to put this campaign on hold and start over with another party. Start at level 1 again. Go through some more modules. There are hundreds of them out there.
Some things I would recommend:
1. Use as few splat books as possible.
2. Use as few house rules as possible.
3. Do not allow other players to veto characters.
4. The GM should ask the players what they want from the game. Maybe a short questionnaire. Avoid questions that target specific players. Stay focused on the game.
If there is still a lot of tension, maybe put the books away for a bit and play something else. Sentinels of the Multiverse is a blast!
Play style is a symbiotic relationship between GM and Players. A GM that writes and runs adventures that don't match what the players like wont have players/be GM for very long. At the same time the GM sets the tone and the expectations of the game. He/she should always do this based on what the GM and players enjoy though.
One player being substantially more effective than the other can be a problem. I know our group would be vocal enough and confident enough to say - hang on a second - you've built your character in such a way to steam roller the adventure and make our characters actions irrelevant - we're not happy. Now maybe in a newer group or one where the players vary week to week you might rely on the GM to arbitrate. However if the players are friends they are well within their rights to say stop being a douche and design a character that doesn't attempt to break the system. The friend can either respect his peers or ignore them and face the consequences.
In this case I suspect the underpowered other characters are making the problem more apparent. But to be honest the build as described would overpower our group of experienced players that 2/3 optimise. if this is the fifth character that was overpowered and the OP is seeking the forums help for next stages It sounds like the communication is happening but it isn't having a positive result.
Incidentally buying cheap scrolls to access to abilities you wouldn't have untIl later levels is dangerous - doubly so if it is used to create ongoing long time effects like minions. Adding all the variants and options is making what is already a powerful character cheesetastic.
I advise a simple question for all parties involved...
"What will the reaction to this character option I'm choosing/complaining about. If it will be negative what can I do/suggest to modify the choice to be less antagonistic?"
For instance our group has a slight issue with magi because of the action economy and to damage output particularly on crits. When designing my magus I ran a staff magus for the reduced crit rate/damage output. Party wasn't upset - I played a fun character.
A store will have maybe 1 magic item of the GM's choosing. A cursed(-1 to hit and damage) adamantene dagger is nothing to sneeze at. I would have a scroll of stone to flesh or restoration, but never animate dead, in a book store in my game world.
Placing an order costs double the items normal cost. Such an item might have the blood or even severed hand of the previous owner attached.
Alternately, the shop only has a map to a dungeon entrance.
Wow, my church is selling a lot of scrolls of animate dead. I should open a chain of them. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe the problem isn't the optimizer, but the lack of investiture of the other players. I've found that some peoples' level of interest in the game just isn't as high as others--and this invariably effects the power level of their characters.
The other players may not be as invested in delving into the rules and developing power builds, but that doesn't make them "the problem". The problem is clashing styles and not enough effort put toward convergence. And, unfortunately for the power gamer, the onus is generally on the oddball to conform to the group rather than have the group conform to the oddball.
Also, Bob_Loblaw, regarding your fourth point, I asked the group what they wanted from the campaign when I started the module.
The answers I got were almost universally "It doesn't matter. Anything's fine."
You're going to get that response from most inexperienced players. Its not so much that anything's fine, its more that they lack the experience of how each type of game plays out that would allow them to solidly describe what they'd enjoy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well clearly the only option left is to kill the player.
Hope you have a good plan for that!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The funny thing is, I may be the resident powergamer, but the OP is the one that owns most if not all of the group's PF material. I don't even own my own dice, for crying out loud! Most of the material I go through is on D20PFSRD.
Yeah, that's the problem. People who own the actual books typically limit themselves to those books. People who use the PFSRD typically access ALL material available, which means they powergame much harder.
People who own the actual books typically limit themselves to those books.
They do? News to me. I haven't limited myself to the books in years and that's common around here. Why look at your old and incorrect books when you can look it up online updated. Would you suggest someone pick up their first print of ACG and make up a character for instance?
I said typically. Most of the local people I play with only use material in the books they own.
I'm not saying it's good or bad. It just is.
I said typically. Most of the local people I play with only use material in the books they own.
I'm not saying it's good or bad. It just is.
Then it's typical for you but not for everyone.
For me, it's atypical and it's not uncommon to have people with sheets on their tablets and game websites bookmarked. So it isn't "just is" everywhere, and that's what I was getting at with my post. I'll agree neither way is "good or bad" but your experience isn't universal. In fact a lot of the games I play in will say 'anything paizo on PFSRD is legal' and not even reference physical books.
There is power gaming and there is finding rules that are RAW that shouldn't be allowed. As a GM, I would veto bloody skeletons.
So the authors of the Bestiary wrote an entire paragraph on how Bloody Skeletons can be created with the spell completely by accident?
For me, it's atypical and it's not uncommon to have people with sheets on their tablets and game websites bookmarked. So it isn't "just is" everywhere, and that's what I was getting at with my post.
*Sigh* this entire line of reasoning is pointless. Your experience is also subject to only you, so why should you assume anybody else does that?
Here: In my experience, people that own their own books typically only use the books they own.
I thought that was implied (since I didn't quote a source from a statistical survey saying otherwise), but clearly it wasn't obvious enough.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is power gaming and there is finding rules that are RAW that shouldn't be allowed. As a GM, I would veto bloody skeletons.So the authors of the Bestiary wrote an entire paragraph on how Bloody Skeletons can be created with the spell completely by accident?
Not every rule is meant for the players or every group. The GM is within their rights to say "no" to any option, especially if they feel it will be disruptive. I don't allow evil characters or chaotic neutral characters in my campaigns. It's my right as GM. If a player doesn't like that ruling so much that they don't want to be in my games, that's ok with me. Yes, even a close friend. We don't have to agree on how a game should be run to remain friends.
@Bioboygamer, I really think you all need to sit down together and hash this out. There is no need for bad blood between friends over a game.
@Wildfire Heart, I love creating over-the-top characters that toe the line when it comes to character creation. I tend to make very powerful characters once I understand how a system works. What I've learned to do is to tone it down a bit so that I'm not stealing the limelight from the rest of the group. I have been banned from playing summoners and conjurers because my turns have been known to last considerably longer than the rest of the players combined. That only happened once, but now that it has happened I have been told that I am simply not allowed to play them. That's ok with me. These are my friends and I want them to also enjoy the game. I've changed my perspective about winning at RPGs over time. It used to be that I wanted the most powerful character I could have. Now it's all about making sure we all have fun. To me, that's winning.
I really do think you all need to sit down, order a pizza, drink some beers (or whatever), and discuss this. It's definitely solvable. You just have to acknowledge that there is a problem and be willing to fix it.
@Wildfire Heart, I love creating over-the-top characters that toe the line when it comes to character creation. I tend to make very powerful characters once I understand how a system works. What I've learned to do is to tone it down a bit so that I'm not stealing the limelight from the rest of the group. I have been banned from playing summoners and conjurers because my turns have been known to last considerably longer than the rest of the players combined. That only happened once, but now that it has happened I have been told that I am simply not allowed to play them. That's ok with me. These are my friends and I want them to also enjoy the game. I've changed my perspective about winning at RPGs over time. It used to be that I wanted the most powerful character I could have. Now it's all about making sure we all have fun. To me, that's winning.
Completely agreed. I am significantly better than all of my friends at mastery of the Pathfinder system and I can beat any one of them in powergaming blind and drunk. But instead of showing off, I just don't build my character until I've seen the general power level of the rest of the party, and build my character accordingly. If I'm in a bunch of powergamers, I'll bring a character to be reckoned with. If I'm with a bunch of new players, I might play a vanilla bard without any special abilities, only using core material. And every variation in between.
Being a powergamer can be fun as hell at times, but you have to know when to reign it in to not ruin other player's fun.
For me, it's atypical and it's not uncommon to have people with sheets on their tablets and game websites bookmarked. So it isn't "just is" everywhere, and that's what I was getting at with my post.*Sigh* this entire line of reasoning is pointless. Your experience is also subject to only you, so why should you assume anybody else does that?
Here: In my experience, people that own their own books typically only use the books they own.
I thought that was implied (since I didn't quote a source from a statistical survey saying otherwise), but clearly it wasn't obvious enough.
Because you wrote it without any exceptions. "In my experience" is an opinion/POV based on your experiencs while "People who own the actual books typically limit themselves to those books" is a statement of fact [more likely than not people act this way]. As such, I don't see how the second statement implies anything.
If you intend to state an opinion, it's best to word it so that's crystal clear. Had you done so, we wouldn't have had this back and forth. I didn't want Wildfire Heart to think limiting yourself to owned books was actually typical.
Back to the OP, there are ways of removing minions without destroying them or charming them. A nice pit trap works wonders. Good luck getting your skeletal lion out of a 50 foot deep pit, it ain't gonna be able to climb a rope. Neither is any of the rest of them.
Then make sure there's a pressing reason to leave the area quickly, and bam, Mister Uber-Optimized is now next to worthless because you literally just flushed 90% of his build down the drain.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's my right as GM.
I don't think that word means what you think it means. GMs have no more or less rights than the players. If a GM actually said that to me in all seriousness, I would seriously consider walking out of his game along with all the other players.
I'll happily respect many GM rulings, if they are intended to make the game more fun for everybody, but I'll not be dictated to by an arrogant SOB who thinks he's somehow above his players just because he was ELECTED as GM or happened to VOLUNTEER for the job.
(And just to be clear, I'm not calling you an "arrogant SOB" or anything of the sort; merely speaking in general.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
GMs have no more or less rights than the players. If a GM actually said that to me in all seriousness, I would seriously consider walking out of his game along with all the other players.
I'm surprised you are able to find any games. I can't think of the last time I played or ran a game (pathfinder or other systems) where the GM didn't make some restrictions based on the campaign he wanted to run, the flavor he wanted to have and similar things.
I have always assumed that everyone behaved in a similar fashion. If I don't want to run an evil campaign, then you can't play evil. If I want to run a pirate game, then you better make a pirate, not a knight in shining armor. In addition, you have to make characters that are interested in the main goals of the campaign. If I say we are running kingmaker, and you come to the table with a character that doesn't want to build a kingdom, but instead wants to run away to sea, I'll tell you to make another, and save that one for skull and shackles.
Now of course there is general agreement among the group that the campaign, with restrictions, is something we want to play, but the idea that just because we are playing Pathfinder (or GURPS, or RIFTS or whatever) that everything in that system is automatically allowed seems strange.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
GMs have no more or less rights than the players. If a GM actually said that to me in all seriousness, I would seriously consider walking out of his game along with all the other players.I'm surprised you are able to find any games. I can't think of the last time I played or ran a game (pathfinder or other systems) where the GM didn't make some restrictions based on the campaign he wanted to run, the flavor he wanted to have and similar things.
Did you actually read what Ravingdork wrote?
Did you actually read what Ravingdork wrote?
Certainly. And I read the entire post he was responding to as well.
Basically, Bob Loblaw said determining what sort of campaign he wanted to run was his prerogative, and RD said that he would walk on any GM that said that, and that such a thing was unacceptable.
There's a reason I didn't post the rest of what he said, Dave. I was referring to the perceived tone of the quoted statement, and was not addressing any of his specific rulings, or anything else for that matter.
Like, Ed, I read your post and was like "what is he talking about?"--which leads me to believe you are reading into more than is there.
I don't speak Valley Girl. I was suggesting that Dave's reaction to your post was over the top.
It's my right as GM.I don't think that word means what you think it means. GMs have no more or less rights than the players. If a GM actually said that to me in all seriousness, I would seriously consider walking out of his game along with all the other players.
I'll happily respect many GM rulings, if they are intended to make the game more fun for everybody, but I'll not be dictated to by an arrogant SOB who thinks he's somehow above his players just because he was ELECTED as GM or happened to VOLUNTEER for the job.
(And just to be clear, I'm not calling you an "arrogant SOB" or anything of the sort; merely speaking in general.)
I meant it exactly how I wrote it (the whole thing, not just that one sentence). It is my right. It is also the players' right to not play in my games. I respect that right. I have only had a very small handful of players choose to not be in my games because of that. We have also remained good friends for over 20 years. We even still game together, mostly just tabletop games rather than RPGs.
Respect is a two-way street. They understand why I have those rules. I understand why they don't like them. To be fair, their reasoning is precisely why I don't allow certain things. And everyone is ok with it.
Feel free to swap the word "right" with "prerogative." That is the right synonym after all. ;)
Bioboy and I had a talk after yesterday's session, and I think we've made a breakthrough. Part of the issue that Bioboy had (as of recent sessions) is the fact that he plays a technical character (Like an Inspector who's not built for combat, or an arcanist) and the group in general seems to just rush into encounters. He doesn't have time to set up his MacGyver style traps and such, and is left frustrated.
@Bobloblaw when Bioboy was GM, he had the same rule regarding evil or CN characters. While I didn't like it (My personal alignment is somewhere between CN and CG), I accepted it, making CG or TN characters.
@Campincarl I think I've learned a lot from you guys. thanks for the input.
This is great news! Make sure that you also bring the GM into the talks too. It sounds like one player wants something slightly different in the campaign and he's not getting it. While not every character will fit in with every game, that doesn't mean that there isn't a way for the GM to make the player feel more useful.
I think that you are on the right track here. I'm very glad to see that the lines of communication are open. That's the best way to solve the problems.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad you got a good set of friends and, what's more, that you've found an understanding with them. Every GM willing to sacrifice their time and energy for their players should be so lucky.
I'm glad you got a good set of friends and, what's more, that you've found an understanding with them. Every GM willing to sacrifice their time and energy for their players should be so lucky.
Friendship always comes before games. Always. I can always find a game to join. I don't want to lose contact with people I care about just because we got into a tiff over something that was supposed to be recreational.
Simple Fighter..
So should I put up Tim Tailor, the magic loving alterationist, just to have a range of characters available for PBP?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
