An experiment in communication: Do I "optimize" my characters?


Advice

101 to 150 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Lemmy wrote:


Maybe you'd have a better view if you came down from your high horse...
"Gifted" =/= "conceited." PLEASE grasp that. Being autistic, I've lived my whole life viewing Humanity from an outsider's perspective. It's definitely a double-edged privilege. Being Cassandra SUCKS, and I've found myself in that role more often than I care to count. I'm emphatically NOT the type who enjoys looking down on people. Since I'm strongly resistant (possibly even immune) to many of the ugly pitfalls to which normal people are vulnerable, I try to warn them when I see the danger of falling into a trap. Because I know how vastly superior people can be as long as they can stay free of those traps.

I came into this late, and started reading from the back, but I stopped reading when I got to this post and realised that whatever IHIYC had to initially say, I really didn't care, he lost a lot of respect with this post, I don't really care what provoked it. It justifies everything that I had read up to that point (starting from the back remember) and strongly indicates that I really don't want to know what IHIYC said to get to this point.

IHIYC you need some perspective.

Scarab Sages

dragonhunterq wrote:


IHIYC you need some perspective.

Okay, I'm game.

What do I need to do to get it? How would I know if I had it? I can't just decide that decades of consistent life lessons (including formal education in history, psychology, etc, and the observations of friends, family, and teachers) have all been wrong based on one little forum thread, but evidently, I don't know what's reasonable (and neither do my family, friends, and teachers, apparently), so I'll take your word for it, since it's plainly superior to mine - but I need you to tell me what to do. If what I think is true actually isn't, what more would I need to do to either verify it properly or find the truth that I've been so blind to for so long? How many times must I test my own assertions before I no longer need to prove anything any further? How often do other people question their innermost convictions and rigorously challenge their self-perception, and to what degree of personal expense? What's the standard for that? Apparently, I pamper and indulge myself and don't do enough to consider the points of view of others. Tell me what the standard expectations and practices are for "getting perspective," and then we can compare it with what I've done to that end to see just how much more perspective I need. Fair?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Ugh!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
How many times must I test my own assertions before I no longer need to prove anything any further?

That's not a state a person can reach.

Scarab Sages

Jiggy wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
How many times must I test my own assertions before I no longer need to prove anything any further?
That's not a state a person can reach.

Technically, no, but there has to be a level that can be declared "good enough for any reasonable person to accept/good enough that it would be perverse by this point to say otherwise" otherwise you're just testing and testing and testing forever, and then you have no functional life. Are you saying I'm arguing with a whole temple's worth of ascetic monks whose existences are devoted to endlessly verifying their every thought? If so, I must admit that's a bit hardcore for me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think I may have to build an alias for these boards -- my turn unthread check yesterday failed. If I were to show up as a gestalt liberator/cleric and tried again, would it work?? I get that Syrus Terrigan doesn't get solid results in doing so (having never taken the feats, and such), but that's just because he's usually too busy re-deadifying them . . . .

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Tell me what the standard expectations and practices are for "getting perspective," and then we can compare it with what I've done to that end to see just how much more perspective I need. Fair?

Gents and ladies, I fully believe in IHIYC's sincerity and conviction regarding the assertions he has made (ad nauseam) in this thread. I understand the positions that most of you have taken which have led to this . . . abomination of discourse, seeing that so many are so overwrought (Excellent vocabulary contribution! Can't remember who used it first, as it's on another page) about it. But the quote above should clearly be seen as a cesspool -- no one who goes in any further has any chance of coming out clean.

Just don't do it.

"Objective" evaluation of existential/experiential statements is a vain effort -- cannot be done.

Stop it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yes! Make more aliases!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Perspective:
dragonhunterq wrote:
IHIYC you need some perspective.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
What do I need to do to get it?

Listening to criticism.

And by "listening" I mean more than just "hearing" - I mean taking what is written here and thinking about how it could be applied to your life - if not outside these forums, than at least within them.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
How would I know if I had it?

By paying attention to, and understanding the over-all responses that you get from people you respect or trust on these forums within the context of the forums.

That is to say, I'm not recommending that you take words said on these forums and change your life beyond them, as I don't know your life beyond them, but changing the way you interact with those in these forums is, in fact, important.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
I can't just decide that decades of consistent life lessons (including formal education and the observations of friends, family, and teachers) have all been wrong based on one little forum thread, but evidently, I don't know what's reasonable (and neither do my family, friends, and teachers, apparently), so I'll take your word for it, since it's plainly superior to mine - but you need to tell me what to do.

You should not do any of these things lightly, but all may be worth doing either entirely or within limited confines.

- consistent life lessons are undercut by confirmation bias
- - formal education is excellent, but can contain errors; or can be misunderstood and thus misapplied... in which case there is nothing wrong with the lesson in principle, but the way it is taken in practice (at least the specific practice of the one person) is incorrect
- - observations of friends, family, and teachers are great; but prone to be (potentially) overly-positive, creating a feedback that generates unintended arrogance

- wisdom found in a thread may be empty or it may be solid
- - taking advice from someone on a thread may well be a good idea, or it may be a poor one
- - inherently presupposing (or declaring) anyone is superior is potentially dangerous (though sometimes accurate), as it places over emphasis on one thing instead of the other

I am not declaring these things wrong and needing to be rejected; rather, I am pointing to potential errors either within them (in which case specific, small parts of the thing is wrong, but not the whole), or in how these things are taken (in which case it is not the thing that is wrong, but the one who is interacting with it).

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
If what I think is true actually isn't, what more would I need to do to either verify it properly or find the truth that I've been so blind to for so long?

It depends entirely on what the apparent-truth is.

Various means exist to allow the truth to prosper. Some work better for some elements, while others work better for other elements.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
How many times must I test my own assertions before I no longer need to prove anything any further?

One of the interesting things about testing your assertions isn't that you need to be the only one testing them. Many others do as well.

In this case, the greatest problem with your assertions, and what is being claimed by "you need perspective" is the arrogant-seeming nature of your word choice and the ways by which you compare and contrast yourself with others.

This is very important because, on a base level, by stating or implying, "I am objectively superior." (which, intentionally or otherwise, you have*), you immediately shut down potential listeners. In this case, it's not really the majority of the listeners that are the problem, but the way the message is expressed - at least, if the message is supposed to be something that others are actually supposed to receive and interact with**.

That is not to say that simply expressing a message in a certain way automatically goes along with "I don't want anyone to listen." nor is a reaction to something objective proof that said thing is accurate according to the reaction, but rather that in this instance, the speaker and listener are not communicating, and it is necessary that the speaker and listener work to get back into communication with each other by altering the method by which they interact, or accept that they are not communicating.

(The fact that two people can also communicate, but disagree, leads to some amount of confusion as well.)

* Let me (hopefully) clarify, here. You cannot possibly have long life-lessons from friends or family that tell you whether or not you've appeared arrogant within this thread. You can have life-lessons about what does and does not appear arrogant, and how to interact with people, but that doesn't necessarily tell you in any given instance that you are correct. Given that you have a vacuum of information, you should use more local cues to inform you - in this case, other people saying it really looks like something is the case.

** The full burden of communication does not rely on either listener nor speaker. Communication is fundamentally a two-way act. It requires both people to do their best in order to be honest, otherwise, you're left with people who's intents are deceptive; again, this may not be on-purpose, but it is part of the nature of communication.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
How often do other people question their innermost convictions and rigorously challenge their self-perception, and to what degree of personal expense? What's the standard for that?

I don't know. I do it sometimes, but not others, and in response to a whole host of things.

Some things I accept that I am or have been wrong, some things I accept that I don't have an answer but I hold them anyway (cognitive dissonance), and some things I accept that I am or have been right.

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Apparently, I pamper and indulge myself and don't do enough to consider the points of view of others. Tell me what the standard expectations and practices are for "getting perspective," and then we can compare it with what I've done to that end to see just how much more perspective I need. Fair?

The problem, here, is that the standard practices cannot be standard, because people are not standard. There are many ways in which people are similar, but many more in which they are not.

Individuals are individual. And some individuals may easily work out in similar manners, while others definitively do not.

The mark of having perspective is not something easily told.

In the case of this thread in specific, however, avoiding (and sincerely apologizing for) specific word-choices, and accepting that certain attitudes expressed as unpalatable to others is the gist of what most people, here, are looking for.

It's not just that you've used words, it's that when people say (paraphrased), "Wow, that looks really arrogant." your response is (paraphrased), "It doesn't matter, you're wrong, I'm right." which is really arrogant (or at least seems to be).

And if you're not trying to say, "It doesn't matter, you're wrong, I'm right." than you're doing a poor job of communicating that as it provides no additional proof to the contrary; the "you're wrong" bit doesn't show any element that can be used to change perspective in a rational way, and seems dismissive enough to actually be the very arrogance people are trying to warn against.

Arrogance probably has a place and a use, if limited. Engaging with people in a manner that doesn't offend isn't one of them.

All that rambling aside, can we agree that the original purpose of the thread has been fulfilled? :)

EDIT:

Ninja Syrus Terrigan:
Syrus Terrigan wrote:

I think I may have to build an alias for these boards -- my turn unthread check yesterday failed. If I were to show up as a gestalt liberator/cleric and tried again, would it work?? I get that Syrus Terrigan doesn't get solid results in doing so (having never taken the feats, and such), but that's just because he's usually too busy re-deadifying them . . . .

I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
Tell me what the standard expectations and practices are for "getting perspective," and then we can compare it with what I've done to that end to see just how much more perspective I need. Fair?

Gents and ladies, I fully believe in IHIYC's sincerity and conviction regarding the assertions he has made (ad nauseam) in this thread. I understand the positions that most of you have taken which have led to this . . . abomination of discourse, seeing that so many are so overwrought (Excellent vocabulary contribution! Can't remember who used it first, as it's on another page) about it. But the quote above should clearly be seen as a cesspool -- no one who goes in any further has any chance of coming out clean.

Just don't do it.

"Objective" evaluation of existential/experiential statements is a vain effort -- cannot be done.

Stop it.

Oh, come one! It was a five-minute ninja! I can't help it that I started typing before you and finished after you! Bwaa~!

:)

EDIT 2: to fix spoiler tag!

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

4 people marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
The idea that "the majority MUST be right, because it's the majority, and an individual who thinks differently cannot possibly be other than arrogant/stupid/whatever" is the veritable poster-child for "evil mind-plague."
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
...but evidently, I don't know what's reasonable (and neither do my family, friends, and teachers, apparently)...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

No.

I still need a pool filled with Jello. I have a certain lifestyle I've been accustomed to.

I can't go back man!

Scarab Sages

Syrus Terrigan wrote:


Just don't do it.

"Objective" evaluation of existential/experiential statements is a vain effort -- cannot be done.

Stop it.

Why are we all arguing if it's all, just, like, subjective, maaaan?

People seem very convinced that I'm...whatever they're calling me. More to the point, they refuse to take me at my word, despite the fact that they barely know me, and we kind of all have to take each other at our words on the Internet (which is truly a tear-jerkingly spectacular testament to the efficacy of the often-mocked "Honor System," by the way). They MUST have a reason. More specifically, I've been accused of demanding understanding without trying hard enough to give others their due...so they must be doing something I'm not. I just need to know what that is so that I can do it too (assuming I haven't).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Let's try this again:

TURN UNTHREAD!! BY ALL THAT IS RIGHT, GOOD, AND VIRTUOUS IN THE UNIVERSE (WHETHER ACTUAL OR MAKE-BELIEVE!!) DISPATCH THIS CORRUPTION TO THE ABYSS!! I SAY AGAIN: TURN UNTHREAD!!

spoiler:
This would be so much better if I could *choose* the font size . . . . :(

And, yeah, I *can* perform a banishing channel/turn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think the main point is that there are different avenues of optimization and what I mean is character vs. concept. There are hundreds of feats for example that rarely ever get used because they are not considered character optimizing. However, these same feats really do serve to flush out the concept of the character. I kind of look at them like background skills. Some people are of the mindset that the mechanical character is more important that the conceptual fluff of the character and will build their characters with that perspective. Others are not nearly as concerned with being as numerically efficient and are more focused on adding details and life to their paper concept to really bring the character to life. Neither mindset has to be exclusive of the other, but those that excel at one side tend to discount the other. Some so much so that they cannot see the value in the other side and can even resort to attacking the other side.

Me personally, I tend to put characters together mechanically before attaching a concept to it, but I have friends who process just the opposite. They have a concept in mind and I try to help them build their character into that. I could always say "no, that's dumb, do this instead" but that's no fun for anyone. Instead I recommend classes or feats or what have you and in turn, we work together to build something that we both enjoy. I've also asked for help to develop a concept for a class or feat build that I'm interested in trying and friends have likewise helped me from their strong side. Not everyone is equal, not everyone is strong on all sides, and not everyone builds the strongest each and every time. The strength and fun (at least for me) in Pathfinder is working together with others to create something that I couldn't have done by myself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

>>> Tacticslion --

Your work was more thorough, certainly. Mine was more concise. Great stuff, regardless.

Didja like that turn unthread attempt?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paladin of the Tetragrammaton wrote:

Let's try this again:

TURN UNTHREAD!! BY ALL THAT IS RIGHT, GOOD, AND VIRTUOUS IN THE UNIVERSE (WHETHER ACTUAL OR MAKE-BELIEVE!!) DISPATCH THIS CORRUPTION TO THE ABYSS!! I SAY AGAIN: TURN UNTHREAD!!

** spoiler omitted **

if I might suggest the helpful little menu below. It has all sorts of fun options. italics out of character, fourth wall breaking, big and bold.

It's all sorts of fun. :-)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

>>> CYS --

Too many keystrokes, dude. LOL.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I did it all on my phone!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Help me!


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I did it all on my phone!

And now you can as well, I have just introduced this new feature, Please call 1900Youaretotallynotgettingscamed


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Fine. Due diligence, then. Now watch it get ninja'd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Do I turn up to download that... I'm about six deep so I might need a hand here...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not a problem buddy quick get me some gum chocolate and a damn paperclip


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So I suck on the paperclip...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Exploiting the absolutely epic level channel/turn attempt levied by his alter ego, Paladin of the Tetragrammaton, Syrus Terrigan executes his favorite attack -- the Skirmishing Two-Weapon Pounce, followed by a gratuitous Intimidate check ('cause hey, why not?).

Charge: 1d20 + 43 ⇒ (10) + 43 = 531d20 + 43 ⇒ (8) + 43 = 511d20 + 38 ⇒ (2) + 38 = 401d20 + 38 ⇒ (16) + 38 = 541d20 + 33 ⇒ (14) + 33 = 471d20 + 33 ⇒ (17) + 33 = 501d20 + 28 ⇒ (6) + 28 = 34

So, those are hits of 53, 51, 40, 54, 47, 50, and 34. Considering this thread is flat-footed, Colossal ++, humanoid (due to its constituency), has no natural armor, etc., we'll just call 'em all hits, with one threatened crit.

Drops Chessex bag.

All the damage. I win.

Optimal Scary Snark Attack Achieved. Somebody gimme a cookie.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Now, nobody likes feeling inferior

It may be nitpicking... but this isn't true. I have encountered players that are happiest NOT being the powerful mega hero. And I have also seen different people take the weakest character and make him shine like a sun by brilliant or colorful playing.

Jiggy wrote:
Over the years, some of the less-skilled players felt the need to paint it as a strength rather than a weakness. That's where we get expressions like "ROLEplay not ROLLplay"

Wow you love to paint in only one color don't you? While this might be true in some cases It certainly isn't true as a general rule. Many if not most people talk about rollplay vs roleplay as a numbers vs fluff argument, NOT as a slight against rollplayers.

Sorry, while most of your post was spot on, leaving these falsehoods unaddressed would do injustice to the ideas.

Grand Lodge

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Aranna wrote:
Many if not most people talk about rollplay vs roleplay as a numbers vs fluff argument, NOT as a slight against rollplayers.

Every instance of serious use of the phrase I have seen has been a pejorative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Too bad I got banished along with my target to the Abyss. Meh. I'll just kill my way back out again. No biggie.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Aranna wrote:
Many if not most people talk about rollplay vs roleplay as a numbers vs fluff argument, NOT as a slight against rollplayers.
Every instance of serious use of the phrase I have seen has been a pejorative.

+1

And I'm not sure I've EVER heard it being used to compare the numbers of something to the fluff of that something.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tacticslion wrote:

Listening to criticism.

And by "listening" I mean more than just "hearing" - I mean taking what is written here and thinking about how it could be applied to your life - if not outside these forums, than at least within them.

That's only good if the criticism is valid from the start. Taking criticism you don't actually deserve is poison.

Tacticslion wrote:


By paying attention to, and understanding the over-all responses that you get from people you respect or trust on these forums within the context of the forums.

That is to say, I'm not recommending that you take words said on these forums and change your life beyond them, as I don't know your life beyond them, but changing the way you interact with those in these forums is, in fact, important.

I've been PMing with others I know on this forum on this topic since it got hairier than I ever expected this thread to (seriously, it's totally ceased to be about the original point), and they're saying I'm in the right here. The idea that I'm one irrationally-closed mind against a perfect sitewide consensus is an illusion.

Tacticslion wrote:


You should not do any of these things lightly, but all may be worth doing either entirely or within limited confines.

- consistent life lessons are undercut by confirmation bias
- - formal education is excellent, but can contain errors; or can be misunderstood and thus misapplied... in which case there is nothing wrong with the lesson in principle, but the way it is taken in practice (at least the specific practice of the one person) is incorrect
- - observations of friends, family, and teachers are great; but prone to be (potentially) overly-positive, creating a feedback that generates unintended arrogance

- wisdom found in a thread may be empty or it may be solid
- - taking advice from someone on a thread may well be a good idea, or it may be a poor one
- - inherently presupposing (or declaring) anyone is superior is potentially dangerous (though sometimes accurate), as it places over emphasis on one thing instead of the other

I am not declaring these things wrong and needing to be rejected; rather, I am pointing to potential errors either within them (in which case specific, small parts of the thing is wrong, but not the whole), or in how these things are taken (in which case it is not the thing that is wrong, but the one who is interacting with it).

Well okay, but that's all so open-ended and general as to have no real utility or relevance. :(

Tacticslion wrote:


It depends entirely on what the apparent-truth is.

Various means exist to allow the truth to prosper. Some work better for some elements, while others work better for other elements.

Have ANY of you ever considered that I DO all of these "various means," and this is the conclusion that has been reached? Let's face it, nobody's arguing with what I say because they're at all qualified to know I'm wrong, they just don't like what I'm saying because it makes them feel personally uncomfortable - they shouldn't, and they're handling it GROSSLY wrong for reasons that actually validate my stance that an ethos of humility is poison that works to everyone's pointless disadvantage. I'm a statistical outlier, a freak of nature - since when was that a crime?

Tacticslion wrote:


One of the interesting things about testing your assertions isn't that you need to be the only one testing them. Many others do as well.

In this case, the greatest problem with your assertions, and what is being claimed by "you need perspective" is the arrogant-seeming nature of your word choice and the ways by which you compare and contrast yourself with others.

This is very important because, on a base level, by stating or implying, "I am objectively superior." (which, intentionally or otherwise, you have*), you immediately shut down potential listeners. In this case, it's not really the majority of the listeners that are the problem, but the way the message is expressed - at least, if the message is supposed to be something that others are actually supposed to receive and interact with**.

That is not to say that simply expressing a message in a certain way automatically goes along with "I don't want anyone to listen." nor is a reaction to something objective proof that said thing is accurate according to the reaction, but rather that in this instance, the speaker and listener are not communicating, and it is necessary that the speaker and listener work to get back into communication with each other by altering the method by which they interact, or accept that they are not communicating.

(The fact that two people can also communicate, but disagree, leads to some amount of confusion as well.)

Let's talk about arrogance. Let's talk about being conceited, inconsiderate, and lacking perspective. It's not MY responsibility to know what my word choice means to YOU. I CAN'T read your mind n advance, and I CAN'T control your reactions, and YOU can't just preemptively assume that I speak and think the same way you do, and punish me for what I sound like when filtered through YOUR language. We all need to be more multilingual. I talk the way I talk, and if I could pick every word I say so perfectly that NOBODY would misinterpret me one iota, then could I solve just about all the world's problems (since the overwhelming majority of them are really nothing but miscommunication). If this is really all about "my word choice," then seriously, f$~! you all. My word choice is no worse or better than yours, it just isn't what YOU consider "normal," and you have no right to be angry just because I don't cater specifically to you.

@Tacticslion: Despite being a response to your post, please be clear that none of the above invective was directed to YOU, since it's a response to crap other people tossed at me prior.

Tacticslion wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:
How often do other people question their innermost convictions and rigorously challenge their self-perception, and to what degree of personal expense? What's the standard for that?
I don't know. I do it sometimes, but not others, and in response to a whole host of things.

Okay, fellas, ready for the entrée?

I think about it every waking moment. 24/7. Every day for roughly 12 years. I have severe, life-ruining OCD, I have no choice. Any question, any doubt, any hole anybody's ever poked in me that I haven't been able to answer to THEIR satisfaction, I CANNOT be confident of ANYTHING I'VE EVER THOUGHT if I cannot resolve EVERY MAJOR ARGUMENT I'VE EVER BEEN IN - and I remember all of them. Life's no fun anymore. It hasn't been for over a decade. I can't DO anything, and what little I can do, I can't enjoy the way I used to, because the echoes of every chickenshit voice that's ever gotten under my skin runs roughshod across my mind, telling me how I'm wrong or forcing their thoughts into my mind at the direct expense of MY OWN thoughts. And I can't kick them out, because they all say I'm wrong, and demand I change my mind, but I can do NOTHING to change theirs, because they are "entitled to their opinion," but I am NOT. I have to prove I am objective and open-minded nonstop by letting them treat me however they like, and giving them equal time, which of course means MORE AND MORE AND MORE of time, until I am purged of all my 'biases' - whether that's what they are or not. I must grind my every thought and feeling to the marrow to figure out how I'm wrong...but I can't, because I'm NOT. Doesn't matter. I can't POSSIBLY be right. How do I win arguments? How do I communicate? How do I perfectly configure my every word so that people will understand me? It's all I ever get to think about, NOTHING distracts me from it, and I. CAN'T. WIN. Because there's always someone else who I can't satisfy at the same time as all the other critics and imbeciles and bullies and well-meaning ignoramuses who all think they're entitled to demand satisfaction from me.

Bottom Line: Don't any of you dare to tell ME about "perspective."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Now, nobody likes feeling inferior

It may be nitpicking... but this isn't true. I have encountered players that are happiest NOT being the powerful mega hero. And I have also seen different people take the weakest character and make him shine like a sun by brilliant or colorful playing.

In other words, they don't feel inferior, then. They're where they want to be.


k


Aranna wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Over the years, some of the less-skilled players felt the need to paint it as a strength rather than a weakness. That's where we get expressions like "ROLEplay not ROLLplay"
Wow you love to paint in only one color don't you? While this might be true in some cases It certainly isn't true as a general rule. Many if not most people talk about rollplay vs roleplay as a numbers vs fluff argument, NOT as a slight against rollplayers.

Jiggy did use the word "some" in his sentence... Precisely to point out that he isn't generalizing to mean "all".

Also:

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Every instance of serious use of the phrase I have seen has been a pejorative.

Same here. Every. Single. Time.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Aranna wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Now, nobody likes feeling inferior
It may be nitpicking... but this isn't true. I have encountered players that are happiest NOT being the powerful mega hero. And I have also seen different people take the weakest character and make him shine like a sun by brilliant or colorful playing.

If you go back and read my statement in context, you'll see that the reference to feeling inferior was not "feeling like the character is inferior", but rather, a player might feel inferior in such cases as the gap between PCs results from a gap in player skill. The things you're talking about are entirely outside the scope of the statement you're replying to.

Do you disagree with what I actually said?

Quote:
Jiggy wrote:
Over the years, some of the less-skilled players felt the need to paint it as a strength rather than a weakness. That's where we get expressions like "ROLEplay not ROLLplay"
Wow you love to paint in only one color don't you? While this might be true in some cases It certainly isn't true as a general rule.

You're going to "correct" my statement about what some people do by pointing out it only happens in some cases? I agree with you that it's only "some". That's why I said "some".

I realize that in a post as longwinded as mine it can be easy to let your attention slip, but if you're going to do a line reply, it would be worthwhile to give it another pass at full attention to make sure you're not asking for something that's already there.

Quote:
Many if not most people talk about rollplay vs roleplay as a numbers vs fluff argument, NOT as a slight against rollplayers.

I agree that sometimes "rollplay and roleplay" gets discussed abstractly in the manner you describe.

But, again, if you go back and re-read my statement in context, you'll see I wasn't referring to all uses of the term "rollplay", but rather "expressions like 'ROLEplay' not 'ROLLplay'". The capitalizations and the "not" are important: I'm talking about when people say things like "This is a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game" or otherwise try to "ROLE" is how things are meant to be done and "ROLL" is missing the point or otherwise morally inferior.

I was specifically and explicitly speaking ONLY of when people talk about how it's "X, not Y", not every time that X is mentioned at all.

Quote:
Sorry, while most of your post was spot on, leaving these falsehoods unaddressed would do injustice to the ideas.

Hopefully this clears things up for you.


Man this thread sure took a head dive into lunatics and general silliness of the internet. You have your default socially backwards argumentative loony, you have the OCD corrector, you have the peanut gallery, the "I agree, buuuut" and our all time favorite the offrailers who tries to derail the "discussion" to something more lighthearted.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Oh! That's me!


Yeah.

I find it particularly annoying because "roll"playing suggests to me the rolling of the dice, the enjoyment of the actual game part of the game. While it's clearly used as a slight against people who care about the mechanics too much, I must say that I'm proud to rollplay- rolling dice is fun as hell.

im going to ignore shaco's breakdown, i'd much prefer to b$%#& about common pejoratives instead. much easier to deal with.

(ps: is it really derailing if the discussion was already horribly off the rails already?)


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Smurf it all!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dracoknight wrote:
Man this thread sure took a head dive into lunatics and general silliness of the internet. You have your default socially backwards argumentative loony, you have the OCD corrector, you have the peanut gallery, the "I agree, buuuut" and our all time favorite the offrailers who tries to derail the "discussion" to something more lighthearted.

And as always... It all starts with someone with a viciously toxic attitude.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Facepalm Deluxe.Can I smite myself with that?

All your post are belong to me.

>>> IHIYC --

It pains me to see your conflict here, chief -- it really does. But if contribution, exhortation, rebuke, and levity-driven snarkiness have done nothing but exacerbate the confusion and negativity surrounding the original topic and its fallout, why not let it lie?

So far as I can read, EVERYONE who has been involved in this is getting bogged down in a crisis of one sort or another when there is no crisis. (Referring, of course, to the original topic.) We may not be of much (or any) assistance in supporting you through the challenges you face each and every day, but I would call into question the value of making those difficulties a centerpiece of the discussion here. I'm not an exceptionally bright guy, so there's plenty I may be getting wrong here, so take all of this with a grain of salt (or the Dead Sea, for that matter): you're not doing yourself any favors here, especially since we are apparently incapable of communicating effectively with you. No one is here to be mad at you (or shouldn't be), nor are you here to be mad at anyone else (or shouldn't be).

Your character builds are fine. I know that without looking at any of them. Play the game, have a blast, and leave the cold corpses of any emergent manifestations of unfun-ness on the ground in your wake.

tl;dr -- If you're not having fun, then the game has no point.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Dracoknight wrote:

Man this thread sure took a head dive into lunatics and general silliness of the internet. You have your default socially backwards argumentative loony, you have the OCD corrector, you have the peanut gallery, the "I agree, buuuut" and our all time favorite the offrailers who tries to derail the "discussion" to something more lighthearted.

And as always... It all starts with someone with a viciously toxic attitude.

I agree, but...


Well if we ARE going to talk about "ROLL VS ROLE" playing i guess i am more of the mechanically inclined sort as i am not that good at roleplaying due to being of the shy type.

It appears that those who even get into that discussion at all either forget that it IS a game after all. And the "discussion" between the two is like arguing what you like best of the heads or tails of a coin, its the combined package that you play for. Though... D&D is more on the mechanical savy side technically speaking, if you want more ROLES and less ROLLS i would suggest another system which have more fleshed out mechanics for that.

So on the scale of things, i guess i could say i am like:

Role 30% < Mechanical 70%
Combat 65% > Social 35%
Rules 50% = Freeplay 50%

*shakes head*...

Scarab Sages

Syrus Terrigan wrote:

Facepalm Deluxe.Can I smite myself with that?

All your post are belong to me.

>>> IHIYC --

It pains me to see your conflict here, chief -- it really does. But if contribution, exhortation, rebuke, and levity-driven snarkiness have done nothing but exacerbate the confusion and negativity surrounding the original topic and its fallout, why not let it lie?

So far as I can read, EVERYONE who has been involved in this is getting bogged down in a crisis of one sort or another when there is no crisis. (Referring, of course, to the original topic.) We may not be of much (or any) assistance in supporting you through the challenges you face each and every day, but I would call into question the value of making those difficulties a centerpiece of the discussion here. I'm not an exceptionally bright guy, so there's plenty I may be getting wrong here, so take all of this with a grain of salt (or the Dead Sea, for that matter): you're not doing yourself any favors here, especially since we are apparently incapable of communicating effectively with you. No one is here to be mad at you (or shouldn't be), nor are you here to be mad at anyone else (or shouldn't be).

Your character builds are fine. I know that without looking at any of them. Play the game, have a blast, and leave the cold corpses of any emergent manifestations of unfun-ness on the ground in your wake.

tl;dr -- If you're not having fun, then the game has no point.

Fair, enough, thank you, all I would point out is that there was a definite shift in the entire topic - first it was my initial question, which was surprisingly productive (if sort of frustrating), then it became kind of a finger of death Katamari deal.


>>> IHIYC --

How *do* you spell dim mok (or whatever it was) from Bloodsport? Getting bricks?? --> Build a stadium.

:)

And I gotta admit -- I'm having fun with the effort at conciliatory gestures *and* the super-snarky derailing, too.

Am I enjoying my conflict too* much?

* -- Holy blazing burgers, Batman! I can't spell!!


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Maybe I wasn't clear in earlier posts.

To answer the OP initial question (the title of the thread)

yes, yes you do. And there is nothing inherently wrong with doing that, or wanting to do that.

Other people may disagree, but in my opinion, if you are having fun doing this the way you do (playing the game the way you play it) and have a group of people to play with who are not opposed to your methods,

then why get so bothered by the idea that somewhere, out there there may be someone who doesn't want to play with you right at this moment.

You'll be alright.


Also, you know what sort of really, really, troubles me.

The idea that one Dungeon Master might be capable of running two different games, one with IHIYC in one of them, and Jiggy in another.

Could this even possibly be more than a thought experiment....hmmmmm


This thread has become, well, . . . . you know.

And I can't even get *this* (Name that Dump) past 51 posts. The agony!!


To me, "optimization" is a disparaging term used when a player chooses traits/feats/equipment/options that are "obviously" in conflict with the setting/mood/story, solely because they improve the PC, without regards to storytelling.

My favorite example was a post of a barbarian build. The PC was a Shoanti barbarian from the Cinderlands. The player chose the "rich parents" trait, and used that to purchase a masterwork nodachi and breastplate.

I might have even excused the breastplate, but a nodachi?

"Oh, I can write my way around that," was the player's response.

"I abandon storytelling and 'realism' in favor of making my PC as powerful as possible," is my 'negative definition' of optimization.

If you're choosing stuff that fits in with the campaign, fits in with what your character has done so far, and fits in with what you're trying to accomplish, then no problemo, no matter how advantageous/disadvantageous your choices are.

But if your PC is a mishmash of wildly variant traits from a dozen different sourcebooks and your excuse is, "I can write around that," then I have an issue...

EDIT: I mean, I can list simple facts:
(1) Fact 1: In the last 4+ years, I've run 13 players (as a GM) and played with 7 others (as a player) through 33 AP books.

(2) Fact 2: In that particular experience, there is a strong correlation between "problem players" (players with whom I or another GM have a problem) and "number of source books used for the PC".

So while I would reject the assertion that "multiple source books" = "bad", I would say that "multiple source books" is a strong indicator that the player in question is choosing more powerful options without regard to their character concept or the storyline as a whole


2 people marked this as a favorite.

You don't understand! It was my grandmother's brother's boyfriend's third cousin's twice removed's farm hand's lucky Nodachi that was given to him by the emperor of funky dew blossoms.

Still no?


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Not just No,

but No...dachi

hahahaha, I kill me


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NobodysHome wrote:

To me, "optimization" is a disparaging term used when a player chooses traits/feats/equipment/options that are "obviously" in conflict with the setting/mood/story, solely because they improve the PC, without regards to storytelling.

My favorite example was a post of a barbarian build. The PC was a Shoanti barbarian from the Cinderlands. The player chose the "rich parents" trait, and used that to purchase a masterwork nodachi and breastplate.

I might have even excused the breastplate, but a nodachi?

"Oh, I can write my way around that," was the player's response.

"I abandon storytelling and 'realism' in favor of making my PC as powerful as possible," is my 'negative definition' of optimization.

If you're choosing stuff that fits in with the campaign, fits in with what your character has done so far, and fits in with what you're trying to accomplish, then no problemo, no matter how advantageous/disadvantageous your choices are.

But if your PC is a mishmash of wildly variant traits from a dozen different sourcebooks and your excuse is, "I can write around that," then I have an issue...

EDIT: I mean, I can list simple facts:
(1) Fact 1: In the last 4+ years, I've run 13 players (as a GM) and played with 7 others (as a player) through 33 AP books.

(2) Fact 2: In that particular experience, there is a strong correlation between "problem players" (players with whom I or another GM have a problem) and "number of source books used for the PC".

So while I would reject the assertion that "multiple source books" = "bad", I would say that "multiple source books" is a strong indicator that the player in question is choosing more powerful options without regard to their character concept or the storyline as a whole

TRANSLATION : You must play stereotypes to evade my rancor! I have a zero tolerance policy for characters lacking a staunch drudgery that locks in all their choices based upon MY conception of what is appropriate for them!

101 to 150 of 223 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / An experiment in communication: Do I "optimize" my characters? All Messageboards