Hi all,
If you've spent any significant amount of time playing PF, you've inevitably run into people that are very concerned about having weaker characters than their fellow players.
This often results in these individuals having less fun, being unhappy, and sometimes quitting games.
My theory is that this is a result of seeing the numbers. As in, if one character regularly deals 30 damage in a round, and another deals 15, the person that deals 15 starts to feel as if their character is inferior. For ease of reference, I'm calling this Mechanics Envy.
My guess, based on previous experience, is that if the numbers are not visible to all players, and thus no player knows how much another adds to hit, damage, or how many HP they have, Mechanics Envy is reduced dramatically.
If this is the case, then it would beg the question as to if it is the perception of having a weaker character that is really the concern rather than an actual character power disparity. I.e, ignorance is bliss.
Does anyone have any experience with this? Observed any players that really enjoyed their character, but then when they measured their character's mechanics against another PC's mechanics, they suddenly weren't satisfied with their own character anymore?
Thanks in advance.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's definitely not just the numbers (though that is a small portion of it).
A large part of it is also to do with how well a character can deal with common situations. Character A could do just as much damage as Character B, but Character B might be much better in situations like fighting invisible enemies, flying enemies or incorporeal enemies while Character A might be helpless at one of those things and only barely adequate at the other two.
Often it's more of an issue of how self-sufficient a particular character is when faced with common adventuring hazards in comparison to their companions. Nothing is worse than feeling redundant.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all,
If you've spent any significant amount of time playing PF, you've inevitably run into people that are very concerned about having weaker characters than their fellow players.
This often results in these individuals having less fun, being unhappy, and sometimes quitting games.
I agree that it's a problem, but....
My theory is that this is a result of seeing the numbers.
I don't think this is the cause. It's not about numbers, but about effectiveness. If it's obvious that my character is substantially less effective than everyone else trying to do the same thing, that's frustrating. While numbers are a big clue to effectiveness, so is the actual effect of my actions.
For example, I charge into battle with three orcs, swinging my greatsword, and delivering a mighty blow to one of them. Meanwhile, the archer takes out three other orcs with one arrow each in a single round. I'm obviously less effective at killing orcs, and refusing to tell me the numbers won't hide that.
As another example, if I'm searching for traps and finding nothing, and we keep falling into pit traps, and finally the wizard says "here, let me help" and her familiar points out six pit traps in a row, I'm obviously less effective at finding traps than she is.
.... or, as a third example, if the fighter can negotiate a better price than I as the bard can, I'm less effective.
At the end of the day, Legolas had forty-one orcs, Gimli had forty-two. But if Gimli managed only six orcs, and Legolas had eighty-five, there's an effectiveness differential there.
Obviously, there's also some element of expectation there. I expect the wizard to be lousy in melee, I expect the fighter not to be particularly social, and I expect as a trap-finding specialist rogue to be the best in the party at finding traps. When I'm not finding traps and everyone else is, it means that I'm not good at what I specifically set out to be good at. It doesn't matter what the numbers are, just that I can't do what I wanted to do, and I can't be what I wanted to be.
So, real problem, wrong solution (in my view).
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have observed it, including within myself. I've played characters that under other circumstances would be perfectly acceptable and which matched my "vision" of that character pretty much spot on... until I realized I had had a "vision" of, for example Daredevil, while everyone else was having a "vision" of Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk, and Doctor Strange. Meaning I was feeling badly outclassed and very much like a fifth wheel.
I felt bummed because I didn't feel like I was contributing meaningfully. Even when I did something "cool" and that seemed to be of some significance in combat, maybe getting a lucky set of iterative attack rolls with subsequently lucky high damage rolls, putting the BBEG within a few hit points of death, the next guy would come along and dish out a large amount of damage and end the fight. Was I setting them up for that? Sure, but given how much damage they put out my contribution was probably not needed anyway.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking for myself it's not simply just about numbers. It's also seeing what other characters are capable of doing. Then going out of ones way to do the opposite. Let me explain.
A player wants to play a Bard who specialize in Enchantment spells. Yet at the same time decides to take a low Cha score. While a generalist wizard who has a variety of spells who has a high Int score. The second still has a good chance of their Charm Person beating a opponents DC. As long as the system still ties in spell DC to a primary casting attribute. It's going to be a problem.
Even a melee class who dumps Strength. While still somewhat viable is not going to either hit and damage as much as one that does not dump strength. Good luck carrying stuff as well.
Obviously no one has to optimize or have a high primary stat score. Yet at the same time your responsbile for what happens at the table if you take a low stat in that score. You can't dump Cha as a Bard then complain at the table your spells are not as effective as the player that does the opposite. Same way your suddenly not going to be as effective in social situation as the player who built his character around being the party face. You can try but chances are the other guy will be better at it.
That's the main issue wanting to build a character their way. Yet refuse to acknowledge or accept responsability for choices that lead to it being less effective. If your told that making a character a certain way leads to having the character do 15 points in combat vs 30 points. Then ignore any advice. Well it's on you. I'm not toning down encounters as a DM to make a player feel better. Or build a character in such a way as to do less damage.
Yes, I've seen all of these. No, hiding the numbers wouldn't have fixed any of them. While the ranger would have taken longer to pick up the barbarian was doing more per hit, they would have very easily picked up the barbarian killing their opponents in one hit versus the three or four it took them.
IME, it's rarely as cut and dry as this though. Yes, tendencies will be observed, but unless the PCs encounter a lot of enemies that can be one-shotted, who knows what % of health each attack dealt?
I agree that it's not a perfect way to eliminate Mechanics Envy, but it does seem to reduce it.
As a side note, I've particularly noticed this "hide the mechanics" thought helping a lot when groups decide to roll stats.
With the few times I've used this method, I've had no complaints, no arguments about characters feeling underpowered compared to their teammates, etc.
When I contrast that with the times I had everyone roll as a group in the open, even after requesting everyone agree on the rolling rules and agree to not try to suicide characters if they don't roll as well as they like, I find rolling individually rather than as a group very helpful.
When you find yourself thinking that a solution might be to just never tell them Santa isn't real, it's probably time to take another look at what the problem really is.
Being honest and telling Santa is real might help :P
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Obviously no one has to optimize or have a high primary stat score. Yet at the same time your responsbile for what happens at the table if you take a low stat in that score. You can't dump Cha as a Bard then complain at the table your spells are not as effective as the player that does the opposite. Same way your suddenly not going to be as effective in social situation as the player who built his character around being the party face. You can try but chances are the other guy will be better at it.
I would be much happier with Pathfinder as a system if this were true. Unfortunately, there are enough non-obvious trap options hidden in the rules (and similarly enough non-obvious but wildly overpowered options) that it's very easy to build a character out of reasonable choices that nevertheless is completely overpowered in his or her specialty by a well-built generalist.
The (chained) rogue and (chained) monk are excellent examples of that. I can build a better AD&D rogue on a bard or ranger chassis than I can on a PF rogue chassis, and be better at spells and combat to boot. The best archer in the game is a monk, while the best unarmed fighter is probably a barbarian. The best summoner in the game (esp. after the unchained summoner nerf) is actually a wizard, and the best shapeshifter is a druid, not a transformer wizard.
It's very easy to say that players are responsible for their choices, but Paizo is being highly irresponsible in presenting choices that suck to them without appropriate warning labels.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The mechanics of Parhfinde are not perfect by any means. I like running and playing it. It has some flaws. Yet like my example with the Bard. If a player after being given advice by the DM and players. Still insists on taking a low charisma score. Is to some extent responsible for the spells failing more often than not in and out of combat. Yes PF has some bad options rule wise. Sometimes it's not so much the rules. So much as a player wanting to do their own thing at a gaming table. Then complains about about their character not being effective. As long as classes are built around having certain stats at high levels. With some poor options rules wise it's not going to get better.
I've felt this myself at times, although the time it felt most striking was when I was playing a monk in 3.x and fell for the 'dump Strength' mindset. That was not an effective melee character for some reason.
I also wonder how much of the mindset is caused by the variances on a d20 roll. That same Str 10 monk I just described? Embarrassed a Str 16 or 18 paladin type on having to move an obstacle, again just due to the die roll. And there's always the 'I can't hit the broad side of a barn!' frustration, or musing that our d20 was replaced with a d6 behind our backs.
Hi all,
If you've spent any significant amount of time playing PF, you've inevitably run into people that are very concerned about having weaker characters than their fellow players.
This often results in these individuals having less fun, being unhappy, and sometimes quitting games.
My theory is that this is a result of seeing the numbers. As in, if one character regularly deals 30 damage in a round, and another deals 15, the person that deals 15 starts to feel as if their character is inferior. For ease of reference, I'm calling this Mechanics Envy.
My guess, based on previous experience, is that if the numbers are not visible to all players, and thus no player knows how much another adds to hit, damage, or how many HP they have, Mechanics Envy is reduced dramatically.
If this is the case, then it would beg the question as to if it is the perception of having a weaker character that is really the concern rather than an actual character power disparity. I.e, ignorance is bliss.
Does anyone have any experience with this? Observed any players that really enjoyed their character, but then when they measured their character's mechanics against another PC's mechanics, they suddenly weren't satisfied with their own character anymore?
Thanks in advance.
I have seen it twice in person. In the first case the person was not really dealing that much less damage, but they wanted to be the undisputed best at dealing damage in the group.
In the 2nd case the person was playing a rogue, but they didn't really put all of their ranks into perception. The party druid(key skill wisdom) did put all their points into perception.
It is not really a common occurrence in my experience though. Most people are content as long as they know they are useful.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wait... is the OP really saying "The game is totally unbalanced, but any problems that causes are the players' fault for not being sufficiently unaware of the problems"?
The Dutch should never repair dikes and levees. They should just tell people that walking and swimming are the same thing, so the problem will go away. It's all just dryness envy, after all.
Honestly, I often find it an options issue rather than a numbers issue...:
GM: "you fall from an airplane with no parachute, what do you do?"
How many players can answer that question with something other than "I plummet to my death?"
Does it really matter if you ask Fred the fighter if he has no options?
You can hide all the numbers you want, but it's pretty obvious there is an issue when a problem arises and some players examine their sheet to figure out which of the many options they have they will use while some players are just asking why you think they have an option.
The only thing this would admittedly solve is when the numbers are close enough not to matter and/or challenges were made more or less easy than they otherwise might be.
Say that you stretch out your body like a flyin' squirrel. This reduces falling in real life. You can survive a fall from orbit this way in real life. A couple of guys did actually in real life.
You might break a leg, but it will heal.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not afraid to admit I wish I knew how to repair my own car.
So yes, I am envious of mechanics. :-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly what gets more annoying is when the 8 charisma, no skill ranks in bluff barbarian tries to convince an inquisitor that we're allowed to be entering the sewers beneath the vault of Abadar. Meanwhile the halfling oracle that's taken the time to invest in that gets to watch as a grueling combat is initiated when everyone is running out of spell slots...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly what gets more annoying is when the 8 charisma, no skill ranks in bluff barbarian tries to convince an inquisitor that we're allowed to be entering the sewers beneath the vault of Abadar. Meanwhile the halfling oracle that's taken the time to invest in that gets to watch as a grueling combat is initiated when everyone is running out of spell slots...
Isn't that less Mechanics Envy and more party role disfunction, or whatever you want to call it? I haven't been following the thread very closely, but that sounds like someone should say, "Thrud the Barbarian, not now, this is a job for the diplomancer," rather than a mechanical problem with the ruleset. Of course, any skill check is only as meaningful as the GM's willingness to enforce its failure, if you see what I mean.
For me, if the players don't get to know things then you do simple tests to figure it out.
Okay guys, I want to know who the best diplomacy guy is. So lets gather information about something unimportant and take 10. This will let us see who gets the most info and is the best diplomacy.
Lets see who can see the best. Everyone take 10 and see how far you can see and then we'll go verify the best saw the best.
Like since there are rules it's fairly easy to set up stuff to figure out stuff using relative positions.
Your take 10 beats a DC 5 lock and loses to a DC 10 lock so you're somewhere in there. Let me give you this +2, okay you still fail. so you're at 5-7. Let me give you a -1, passed? okay so you're a 6 or 7.
I think it's pointing out that the proposed solution (never tell anyone the numbers) means that you can't have a diplomancer (since you're not allowed to tell people what your numbers are). So Thrud is allowed to attempt the role, even if they're pretty much guaranteed to fail at all times. And since you can't see what Thrud rolled, you can't tell if they're rolling poorly or just don't have the skill.Honestly what gets more annoying is when the 8 charisma, no skill ranks in bluff barbarian tries to convince an inquisitor that we're allowed to be entering the sewers beneath the vault of Abadar. Meanwhile the halfling oracle that's taken the time to invest in that gets to watch as a grueling combat is initiated when everyone is running out of spell slots...Isn't that less Mechanics Envy and more party role disfunction, or whatever you want to call it? I haven't been following the thread very closely, but that sounds like someone should say, "Thrud the Barbarian, not now, this is a job for the diplomancer," rather than a mechanical problem with the ruleset. Of course, any skill check is only as meaningful as the GM's willingness to enforce its failure, if you see what I mean.
I didn't even know there was a proposed solution.
I prefer a table were everyone rolls their own die and sees their own numbers, but the GM can do whatever the hell they want with the result. (Yes, I've gone over to a form of grammar in which "they" is the only safe pronoun.) :P
Your take 10 beats a DC 5 lock and loses to a DC 10 lock so you're somewhere in there. Let me give you this +2, okay you still fail. so you're at 5-7. Let me give you a -1, passed? okay so you're a 6 or 7.
How do you know what a DC 5 lock is? When you typically game, does the GM tell the players the DCs of things before he has them roll? Like, this archmage just cast a spell on you, roll a DC 22 Will Save?
When you attack an opponent, does the GM say "This opponent's AC is 25, let me know if you hit?"
Most games I've played in, the number needed to succeed at the task is not shared with the players.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Your take 10 beats a DC 5 lock and loses to a DC 10 lock so you're somewhere in there. Let me give you this +2, okay you still fail. so you're at 5-7. Let me give you a -1, passed? okay so you're a 6 or 7.How do you know what a DC 5 lock is? When you typically game, does the GM tell the players the DCs of things before he has them roll? Like, this archmage just cast a spell on you, roll a DC 22 Will Save?
When you attack an opponent, does the GM say "This opponent's AC is 25, let me know if you hit?"
Most games I've played in, the number needed to succeed at the task is not shared with the players.
In Pathfinder, a lot of DCs for interacting with the world are pre-determined and listed in the Core Rulebook.
For instance, the DC for Disable Device to open a lock is 20 for a simple lock, 25 for an average lock, and so forth. These same lock qualities have their prices listed in the CRB as well: 20gp for a simple lock, 40gp for average, and so forth.
So the PCs can test someone's lock-picking abilities by going into an ordinary shop, purchasing those specific items, and having someone try to open each one and see when they fail.
Same goes for Acrobatics. The DC for a long jump is 5 for a 5ft jump, 10 for a 10ft jump, and so on (doubled without a running start). So the PCs can find an area that doesn't have any modifiers (like being slippery or whatever), and take turns making standing jumps and seeing who goes how far.
Lots of skills have aspects with static DCs that the players could test.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
This hasn't ever happened in the way you describe in my experience. Being blind to the math helps nothing, and hurts if anything.
And I've run games where I did all the math and the PCs thus didn't know their stats in any meaningful sense (I mean, they technically saw their character sheets, but they didn't really know what most stuff signified). Indeed, the game I'm currently running for some 13 year-olds where I do most of the math (I did it all to begin with) is very much a 'math blind' game in many senses.
And I've run and played in LARPs, where people saw their own character sheet, but not ever anyone else's and thus only knew other people's when they came up. So a similar situation in many ways.
And you know what? The players still get deeply frustrated very rapidly when their character isn't as mechanically effective as others. It doesn't take long to notice that you're only killing one enemy while your comrade is killing two, and so on. Within a handful of sessions people generally figure such things out (barring weird runs of luck, anyway).
In fact, without math to back things up, people often (in my experience) become frustrated even when it's the dice or circumstances rather than their character's actual statistics that are at fault for the low effectiveness. If they look at the math they usually at least don't get frustrated at how bad their character is when they aren't actually worse than other characters.
Without the math? A run of bad luck can lead to someone thinking their character is terrible and the desire for a new one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Without the math? A run of bad luck can lead to someone thinking their character is terrible and the desire for a new one.
This happened to me in Shadowrun- I had a character who was categorically better suited to just about everything we were doing than the guy I made him up to replace.
I hated him inside of two sessions because where the other guy had just had the good fortune to put his more limited skillset to good use, my face-stomping physical adept consistently failed to stomp face- or indeed, do anything else terribly well.
This hasn't ever happened in the way you describe in my experience. Being blind to the math helps nothing, and hurts if anything.
And I've run games where I did all the math and the PCs thus didn't know their stats in any meaningful sense (I mean, they technically saw their character sheets, but they didn't really know what most stuff signified). Indeed, the game I'm currently running for some 13 year-olds where I do most of the math (I did it all to begin with) is very much a 'math blind' game in many senses.
And I've run and played in LARPs, where people saw their own character sheet, but not ever anyone else's and thus only knew other people's when they came up. So a similar situation in many ways.
And you know what? The players still get deeply frustrated very rapidly when their character isn't as mechanically effective as others. It doesn't take long to notice that you're only killing one enemy while your comrade is killing two, and so on. Within a handful of sessions people generally figure such things out (barring weird runs of luck, anyway).
In fact, without math to back things up, people often (in my experience) become frustrated even when it's the dice or circumstances rather than their character's actual statistics that are at fault for the low effectiveness. If they look at the math they usually at least don't get frustrated at how bad their character is when they aren't actually worse than other characters.
Without the math? A run of bad luck can lead to someone thinking their character is terrible and the desire for a new one.
Just going to second all of this. People are going to notice whether they succeed or fail even if they don't have access to any of the numbers. Even if they player doesn't know that they're rolling a +7 attack bonus vs AC 26, they're going to notice that they almost never hit.
Not to mention that hiding the numbers makes a whole lot of the game's tactical decision-making a lot more difficult. It's a lot harder to make meaningful tactical choices when you have no idea how effective any given option is.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have observed it, including within myself. I've played characters that under other circumstances would be perfectly acceptable and which matched my "vision" of that character pretty much spot on... until I realized I had had a "vision" of, for example Daredevil, while everyone else was having a "vision" of Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk, and Doctor Strange. Meaning I was feeling badly outclassed and very much like a fifth wheel.
I felt bummed because I didn't feel like I was contributing meaningfully. Even when I did something "cool" and that seemed to be of some significance in combat, maybe getting a lucky set of iterative attack rolls with subsequently lucky high damage rolls, putting the BBEG within a few hit points of death, the next guy would come along and dish out a large amount of damage and end the fight. Was I setting them up for that? Sure, but given how much damage they put out my contribution was probably not needed anyway.
The epitome of this (to me) is the scene in Iron Man 2 where Black Widow and Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) go after the bbeg and he takes on the doorman while she takes out the rest of the agents. The look on his face when he realizes what happened is priceless. And it pretty much sums up what many characters might feel in a similar situation.
It's not numbers that drive it, it's the level of contribution.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all,
If you've spent any significant amount of time playing PF, you've inevitably run into people that are very concerned about having weaker characters than their fellow players.
This often results in these individuals having less fun, being unhappy, and sometimes quitting games.
My theory is that this is a result of seeing the numbers. As in, if one character regularly deals 30 damage in a round, and another deals 15, the person that deals 15 starts to feel as if their character is inferior. For ease of reference, I'm calling this Mechanics Envy.
My guess, based on previous experience, is that if the numbers are not visible to all players, and thus no player knows how much another adds to hit, damage, or how many HP they have, Mechanics Envy is reduced dramatically.
If this is the case, then it would beg the question as to if it is the perception of having a weaker character that is really the concern rather than an actual character power disparity. I.e, ignorance is bliss.
Does anyone have any experience with this? Observed any players that really enjoyed their character, but then when they measured their character's mechanics against another PC's mechanics, they suddenly weren't satisfied with their own character anymore?
Thanks in advance.
Let me summarize that the effect is the same regardless of the numbers.
That said, playing with everyone "blind" to each others sheets is a great time for developing some roleplaying skills.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have observed it, including within myself. I've played characters that under other circumstances would be perfectly acceptable and which matched my "vision" of that character pretty much spot on... until I realized I had had a "vision" of, for example Daredevil, while everyone else was having a "vision" of Iron Man, Thor, the Hulk, and Doctor Strange. Meaning I was feeling badly outclassed and very much like a fifth wheel.
I felt bummed because I didn't feel like I was contributing meaningfully. Even when I did something "cool" and that seemed to be of some significance in combat, maybe getting a lucky set of iterative attack rolls with subsequently lucky high damage rolls, putting the BBEG within a few hit points of death, the next guy would come along and dish out a large amount of damage and end the fight. Was I setting them up for that? Sure, but given how much damage they put out my contribution was probably not needed anyway.
The epitome of this (to me) is the scene in Iron Man 2 where Black Widow and Happy Hogan (Jon Favreau) go after the bbeg and he takes on the doorman while she takes out the rest of the agents. The look on his face when he realizes what happened is priceless. And it pretty much sums up what many characters might feel in a similar situation.
It's not numbers that drive it, it's the level of contribution.
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit!!! ;)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit!!! ;)
I still remember the first time I saw that. LOL
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty easy to estimate what a target number has to be simply based on your roll vs the target. As soon as you have a success and a failure, you now have a number range that can be estimated from. That number narrows with every number you roll between those ranges until eventually you know what the dc is.
Only if you consistently fail, or pass will it be left up to guesswork. But even then you can get some idea based on your level and your opponent. Small creatures at level 1 tend to be on the high end. You're probably looking at ac 18 if you fight a goblin with a light shield and a chain shirt. Looking at what your opponent is wearing, and for any visible magical effects (Like Shield) can give you further ideas.
Even if you hide the math wholesale from the players by not letting them see their own sheets for some reason, they probably still have a rough idea of what their rolls might be simply based on level.
So really, you can't much hide the math if someone wants to think about it. And then there's, as everyone has already said, the fact you can simply compare the results of actions to others.
At best, this is just sweeping a problem under the rug of ignorance, which has big worn holes in it. At worse it's going to exacerbate feelings of frusteration at being overshadowed and ineffectual.
The only way this will actually work out is if they are ignorant to what being effective is, or simply doesn't care if they can pull their own weight or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I noted that playing blind to sheets was a good RP-developing tactic, it's less about hiding numbers and more about getting players to think beyond ability scores, alignment, and class names.
As to actually hiding the numbers for rolls and such, that's not really very useful at all, for the reasons Icehawk has mentioned.
The only way this will actually work out is if they are ignorant to what being effective is, or simply doesn't care if they can pull their own weight or not.
And if either of those were the case, then showing them the numbers wouldn't make a difference anyway. Most folks who can't tell if they're effective or not barely understand the game's math anyway. Those who don't care if they're effective likewise don't care about the numbers.