You would have to limit damage and AC of monsters, and damage done by traps. Many beloved modules and adventure paths would have to be ruined or discarded. If someone already said this, I'm agreeing with them.
Finally overpowered characters themselves. Let's get real. A lot of stuff should never be in the AR to start with and a lot stuff in the AR should be removed. I know Paizo wants to sell books. But Paizo wants PFS to be healthy and at the rate its going it won't be for much longer. A lot of flavor options could be left in while a lot of the obvious power stuff could simply be banned. Sure the whiners will whine if stuff starts getting banned. How is that different than it is now? People whine for banned stuff to get unbanned, people demand that stuff get approved faster, people whine that AP's that should never have been sanctioned get sanctioned. Do a bunch of the worst stuff in one fell swoop like ripping off a bandage and get it over with. Make PFS more attractive to the more casual player who we're losing to D&D encounters.
i'm still really confused as to why the suggestion is that effective things be banned rather than the flavorful options ALSO be somewhat effective... (unless the reason is that you expect that one of those things could actually happen and the other won't... because i agree they'll never actually make the crappy options better, but i still think that's the better solution)
|
Finally overpowered characters themselves. Let's get real. A lot of stuff should never be in the AR to start with and a lot stuff in the AR should be removed. I know Paizo wants to sell books. But Paizo wants PFS to be healthy and at the rate its going it won't be for much longer. A lot of flavor options could be left in while a lot of the obvious power stuff could simply be banned. Sure the whiners will whine if stuff starts getting banned. How is that different than it is now? People whine for banned stuff to get unbanned, people demand that stuff get approved faster, people whine that AP's that should never have been sanctioned get sanctioned. Do a bunch of the worst stuff in one fell swoop like ripping off a bandage and get it over with. Make PFS more attractive to the more casual player who we're losing to D&D encounters.
<sarcasm>You know, I wish someone at Paizo would have done this. Perhaps some kind of version of PFS where only the CORE books are used for players?</sarcasm>
|
My dwarven monk shakes his head.
What else should be considered excessive?
Maybe my wayang oracle/rogue shouldn't be allowed to have a +20 stealth or +18 Disable Device at level 3.
Maybe my ifrit gunslinger/investigator with his +11 initiative at level 2 is overpowered and he doesn't even have improved initiative yet. I mean after all, why should he aspire to be the fastest gun in Alkenstar?
The gauntlet has been thrown!
<sarcasm>You know, I wish someone at Paizo would have done this. Perhaps some kind of version of PFS where only the CORE books are used for players?</sarcasm>
are people going to just keep bringing up core as though the CRB didn't set the bar for broken? the best part of core is probably that there are fewer trap feats.
|
|
Once isn't continually?Thank you for confirming my statement?The size limitations of Grab, on the other hand, change from Bestiary to Bestiary -_-(wrote a wall of text)The score is currently 2-3.
I have money on Bestiary 6 tying it up.
Ah, you forgot to count each edition of each book. Besides, 1st edition bestiary was correct, then they changed their minds for 2, changed 1 in an errata and 4 suffered an editing mistake. Besides 4, all the books agree with the FAQ.
|
Finally overpowered characters themselves. Let's get real. A lot of stuff should never be in the AR to start with and a lot stuff in the AR should be removed.The most overpowered classes, spells, and feats in all of Pathfinder are directly from the Core Rulebook. Fullstop.
This is not entirely my experience.
Can you minmax something from core and become extremely overpowered? Yes. Barbarians are rife for that sort of thing.
But there are lots of other overpowered things that come from other books. Perhaps one of the most "what's the point of anybody else even showing up" build is the slumber witch. (Not even much of a "build", just a single option, plus a bit of min-maxing to make your save high.) Yeah, other people are there in case it's a dragon/undead or a save is made... but you min-max your witch just a little bit, get good initiative (a green-sting scorpion is the union card of the witch's guild), and you can end lots of encounters before they even start. I've been fortunate that most of the witches I've played with in higher level games (where the saves are just ridiculous) are not played by players with the "winning is all by any means necessary" attitude, but rather have the attitude that ending the encounter as soon as it starts isn't much fun.
I've seen other completely ridiculous things, but they're rarely just Core. Usually they are a Core class, but they carefully pick stuff from other books to create just the right broken combination of things.
|
The most overpowered classes, spells, and feats in all of Pathfinder are directly from the Core Rulebook. Fullstop.
While arguably true, these are less common. My guess is the paths to these are much more linear.
It is the obscure feat that has synergies a designer didn't account for that seems to garner all the attention (that one peacock thingy springs to mind).
EDIT: not really to mind since I dinnae even.remember what it was called. Also: ninja'd
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Finally overpowered characters themselves. Let's get real. A lot of stuff should never be in the AR to start with and a lot stuff in the AR should be removed.The most overpowered classes, spells, and feats in all of Pathfinder are directly from the Core Rulebook. Fullstop.This is not entirely my experience.
Can you minmax something from core and become extremely overpowered? Yes. Barbarians are rife for that sort of thing.
But there are lots of other overpowered things that come from other books. Perhaps one of the most "what's the point of anybody else even showing up" build is the slumber witch. (Not even much of a "build", just a single option, plus a bit of min-maxing to make your save high.) Yeah, other people are there in case it's a dragon/undead or a save is made... but you min-max your witch just a little bit, get good initiative (a green-sting scorpion is the union card of the witch's guild), and you can end lots of encounters before they even start. I've been fortunate that most of the witches I've played with in higher level games (where the saves are just ridiculous) are not played by players with the "winning is all by any means necessary" attitude, but rather have the attitude that ending the encounter as soon as it starts isn't much fun.
I've seen other completely ridiculous things, but they're rarely just Core. Usually they are a Core class, but they carefully pick stuff from other books to create just the right broken combination of things.
The wizard class. The sorceror class. Color Spray. Sleep. Summoning. Leadership. Crafting. Black Tentacles. The druid. Animal Companions. I'm sure I'm missing much.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It is far more enjoyable to actually get to participate in the fight rather than have it end after the party's first actions. Character building your way to victory removes a lot of the enjoyment along with the risk.
I disagree with this as an axiom. It can be true, but isn't universally true. Not every person in the Pathfinder society wants to get involved in a fight.
There are certain characters that I play where if someone combat-focussed were to 'pull their punches' and avoided dropping the enemy, just so that I got a chance to 'participate', I'd be quite annoyed (presuming they did so because they thought that was the 'right' way to play the game and didn't discuss their intentions before hand). With those characters, I'm not there to fight, I'm there to 'translate the runes', and I make that clear in the introductions.
This is why this issue is purely an out-of-character issue to resolve, and can't (shouldn't) be resolved mechanically. It is impossible to develop a set of mechanics that adequately serves the play styles of all people, permuted into all possible combinations of tables. People are just going to have to be honest about their expectations and talk it out.
I'd also say that there are certain players who get more fun out of crafting their characters than playing. Playing is just a chance to field-test the stuff that they had fun crafting. And that's also a perfectly fine way to play the game.
|
Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
Archery...
The wizard class. The sorceror class. Color Spray. Sleep. Summoning. Leadership. Crafting. Black Tentacles. The druid. Animal Companions. I'm sure I'm missing much.
Archery is only overpowered because it gets around the annoying design flaws 3.5 martial characters have. If you remove them then it's probably not a big of difference.
Archery is only overpowered because it gets around the annoying design flaws 3.5 martial characters have. If you remove them then it's probably not a big of difference.The wizard class. The sorceror class. Color Spray. Sleep. Summoning. Leadership. Crafting. Black Tentacles. The druid. Animal Companions. I'm sure I'm missing much.Archery...
It really isn't flaws with 3.5 martial characters is it is flaws with the concept of melee combat.
And even the it isn't so much flaws as it is realities of melee combat.
|
|
I disagree with this as an axiom. It can be true, but isn't universally true. Not every person in the Pathfinder society wants to get involved in a fight.
I believe I already covered that.
Absolutely agree. Every player should be engaged to their satisfaction. If you WANT to be disengaged and only roll dice, I can handle that. I'll be disappointed, but I can work with it.
Also, 'involved in the fight' can mean yelling at the barbarian to stop smashing the bookshelves and deal with the cultists burning the books.
This is why this issue is purely an out-of-character issue to resolve, and can't (shouldn't) be resolved mechanically. It is impossible to develop a set of mechanics that adequately serves the play styles of all people, permuted into all possible combinations of tables. People are just going to have to be honest about their expectations and talk it out.
so... if all all the flavorful options were also closer in power to the options that are obviously of general application (not the same level of power, just less disparate), how would that stop you from designing a character that eschews combat and roleplaying that? it wouldn't. what it would do is allow people who want flavor and to be able to participate in things like combat, to do so more effectively.
people seem to think that in order to roleplay avoiding combat or something you need to be mechanically inferior. you don't... being mechanically inferior in certain ways is a choice you can (and should be able to) make, but i think that's a more appropriate choice to make when you are with a group you know can balance your weaknesses out instead of just hoping some optimized BSF will be around to handle your s%++. (that is to say that you should wait to choose that character until you've seen that the other players characters will allow you to do so without compromising the mission for everyone or you should do that in a home game where one of your friends can make a combat powerhouse and always be there.)
the bottom line is that there's not a whole lot of reason that flavorful and cripplingly mechanically inferior need to be married. it seems they are in pathfinder. i understand (and appreciate) that not all options are going to be equally effective. i just don't think the variance needs to be so great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Absolutely agree. Every player should be engaged to their satisfaction. If you WANT to be disengaged and only roll dice, I can handle that. I'll be disappointed, but I can work with it.
every player but the optimizer it seems... he or she should apparently be willfully dissatisfied for other people's perceived satisfaction. (note: i'm not saying other people's satisfaction isn't important, only that this conversation seems to be forgetting that the optimizer is also a player who should get to enjoy the game.)
also, on the subject of team sports/games... the performance of the team is what's important not any individual's "feeling" of contribution. if the team is doing well, everyone on the team should be glad the team is doing well... because it's about the team not you. so the idea that someone would be upset because despite having been successful at whatever the group's goal was (be that winning the soccer game or finding the macguffin and stopping the bbeg) because they felt they didn't get to shine (not because they were disappointed in their own performance but because they didn't get attention) seems wrong to me. that's like the goalie being upset that he didn't get to make (and potentially miss) a bunch of great saves because the rest of the team was doing really well... he should be glad the team was doing so well.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
every player but the optimizer it seems... he or she should apparently be willfully dissatisfied for other people's perceived satisfaction. (note: i'm not saying other people's satisfaction isn't important, only that this conversation seems to be forgetting that the optimizer is also a player who should get to enjoy the game.)
If the optimizer is only satisfied when he is edging other players out of the action, he needs to find a table of players okay with that type of engagement.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Archery is only overpowered because it gets around the annoying design flaws 3.5 martial characters have. If you remove them then it's probably not a big of difference.Archery...
The wizard class. The sorceror class. Color Spray. Sleep. Summoning. Leadership. Crafting. Black Tentacles. The druid. Animal Companions. I'm sure I'm missing much.
But that flaw IS there. And with it there certain options like two weapon fighting and core monk flurry of blows become far less powerful.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's look at it this way, if an optimizer is doing a lot better than the other characters, then should they pat themselves on the back or work with the other players to help them improve their characters? I am sorry if this sounds like a loaded question, but it seems to me that if the optimizer cares about the team, then they should help their teammates to improve.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And even the it isn't so much flaws as it is realities of melee combat.
Reality? I don' think so. Even a feeble guy like me can march 9 meters (30 feet) in a straight line and wipe out four angry rabid raccoons with a titanium golf club on the way, all in 6 seconds of time (not that I'd actually harm innocent animals anyways). The full-attack sticky feet syndrome is a foul curse, not even a semblance of a simulation of reality.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And even the it isn't so much flaws as it is realities of melee combat.Reality? I don' think so. Even a feeble guy like me can march 9 meters (30 feet) in a straight line and wipe out four angry rabid raccoons with a titanium golf club on the way, all in 6 seconds of time (not that I'd actually harm innocent animals anyways). The full-attack sticky feet syndrome is a foul curse, not even a semblance of a simulation of reality.
Well I would certainly watch your attempt with great mirth on YouTube.
Also rabid animals might be innocent but I think you'll find them more of a danger that needs to be put down.
The idea that somehow those raccoons are just going to sit there and in a straight line no less is just...
well your suggestion is just full of bizarre.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
also, on the subject of team sports/games... the performance of the team is what's important not any individual's "feeling" of contribution. if the team is doing well, everyone on the team should be glad the team is doing well... because it's about the team not you. so the idea that someone would be upset because despite having been successful at whatever the group's goal was (be that winning the soccer game or finding the macguffin and stopping the bbeg) because they felt they didn't get to shine (not because they were disappointed in their own performance but because they didn't get attention) seems wrong to me. that's like the goalie being upset that he didn't get to make (and potentially miss) a bunch of great saves because the rest of the team was doing really well... he should be glad the team was doing so well.
This would be true if the goal was win at all costs.
On the other hand, if you play on a summer "out there for fun" softball league, and you sent on the bench constantly while the team wins every game, no, it's not a lot of fun.
Standards are different in different categories.
Most of us playing roleplaying games want to play the game, not just happen to have been there while our team constantly triumphed in combat. Can you find people who feel otherwise? Yes. But don't assume that that's what everybody is there for, or you're going to be one of those folks that people complain about when threads like this get started.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And even the it isn't so much flaws as it is realities of melee combat.Reality? I don' think so. Even a feeble guy like me can march 9 meters (30 feet) in a straight line and wipe out four angry rabid raccoons with a titanium golf club on the way, all in 6 seconds of time (not that I'd actually harm innocent animals anyways). The full-attack sticky feet syndrome is a foul curse, not even a semblance of a simulation of reality.Well I would certainly watch your attempt with great mirth on YouTube.
Also rabid animals might be innocent but I think you'll find them more of a danger that needs to be put down.
The idea that somehow those raccoons are just going to sit there and in a straight line no less is just...
well your suggestion is just full of bizarre.
Well honestly, the gulf between representing actual melee combat accurately and the Pathfinder rules is so vast that trying to pick out any one thing is equally bizarre.
GURPS does a better job of modeling combat. It's also notorious for having a mook kill an experienced character with a single lucky shot. Most people don't want to play that. I don't blame them.
every player but the optimizer it seems... he or she should apparently be willfully dissatisfied for other people's perceived satisfaction. (note: i'm not saying other people's satisfaction isn't important, only that this conversation seems to be forgetting that the optimizer is also a player who should get to enjoy the game.)If the optimizer is only satisfied when he is edging other players out of the action, he needs to find a table of players okay with that type of engagement.
and if his satisfaction has nothing to do with edging other players out of the action, but they are edged out due (in no small part) to their own choices, why is his satisfaction unimportant? again, i'm not saying there aren't problem players, but the problem isn't that they optimize. it's that they're jerks. optimization itself isn't a problem. playing to not die isn't a problem. if other people want to contribute, they could build better... because as was pointed out before, you can be the most optimal at the table and still roll poorly. luck is a factor, so holding back can easily and unexpectedly get you killed. and again, it's a team game. if the team is doing well, you should be glad. or you're not a team player... because in reality a good team doesn't "let everyone shine" but "trusts everyone to do what they can for the good of the team".
|
|
Absolutely agree. Every player should be engaged to their satisfaction. If you WANT to be disengaged and only roll dice, I can handle that. I'll be disappointed, but I can work with it.every player but the optimizer it seems... he or she should apparently be willfully dissatisfied for other people's perceived satisfaction. (note: i'm not saying other people's satisfaction isn't important, only that this conversation seems to be forgetting that the optimizer is also a player who should get to enjoy the game.)
also, on the subject of team sports/games... the performance of the team is what's important not any individual's "feeling" of contribution. if the team is doing well, everyone on the team should be glad the team is doing well... because it's about the team not you. so the idea that someone would be upset because despite having been successful at whatever the group's goal was (be that winning the soccer game or finding the macguffin and stopping the bbeg) because they felt they didn't get to shine (not because they were disappointed in their own performance but because they didn't get attention) seems wrong to me. that's like the goalie being upset that he didn't get to make (and potentially miss) a bunch of great saves because the rest of the team was doing really well... he should be glad the team was doing so well.
You do know that the optimizer is being an ass? If he can't be happy unless he is the one who is shining the whole time he really shouldn't be playing a cooperative game. I don't think anyone has forgotten him... but he is the antagonist in this story. He becomes the reason the rest of the table is not having fun due to his lack of empathy for his fellow players. Any team that sacrifices its players to win is not a team.
But, I mean, if you would be perfectly satisfied to play a 1-20 campaign as a commoner which may not take feats and be perfectly happy when "the team" defeats the final BBEG, while you just watch... that's all you. But know you would be the most unlikely player.
|
|
As a GM I tend to not care. If a player wants to optimize himself out of a game the resulting disappointment is on him. If the other players are disappointed they can looked to their overly optimized comrade.
As a player I wouldn't mind something like the OP's suggestion even if it's wholly impracticle. These days I tend to heavily curate my games. If it looks like I'm going to be seated with a player/character that's likely to steamroll the scenario I'll just sit out. Opportunities to play are more plentiful than actual scenarios.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Last Sunday I sat at a weekly PFS for the first time in 6 months. I signed up to play with a GM I know and like, with some players I know I enjoy. I purchase my 3 dollar DM token and turns out I get assigned to a DM that I have a strong distaste for, with none of the people I wanted to play with, and a guy I know cheats(a hige pet peeve of mine). We are deciding what characters to play. The gentleman next to me is askign everyone what they are playing, and we get low tier. So he busts out the max level you can be for the teir. I say object saying I do not find it as fun when one player off balances the game. He blatantly brags about his character and how he plans to destroy the challenge. I politely stand up tell the DM I am not going to play and leave to another store leavign him my game token i paid for.
No hard feelings. They were taking legal options for what they found in the game. I voiced my objection and was made clear he planned to ignore it excessively. If you do not like how someone plays you do not have to play with them. You can find other games. You can still be friends in other ways or things.
I am fully defending that players right to not only pull out a character to ruin the challenge, but his right to ignore my complaint. I am an adult and I understand different people enjoy different things. We should not be forced to hate a game together I hope they enjoyed the game the played. I got to play serpent's Ire with people that enjoyed it with me.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I politely stand up tell the DM I am not going to play and leave to another store leavign him my game token i paid for.
No hard feelings. They were taking legal options for what they found in the game. I voiced my objection and was made clear he planned to ignore it excessively. If you do not like how someone plays you do not have to play with them. You can find other games. You can still be friends in other ways or things.
I am fully defending that players right to not only pull out a character to ruin the challenge, but his right to ignore my complaint. I am an adult and I understand different people enjoy different things. We should not be forced to hate a game together I hope they enjoyed the game the played. I got to play serpent's Ire with people that enjoyed it with me.
At the same point, though.
I've taken either expensive transportation time-wise or cash-wise or both, because I do not drive.
I've shown up to play PFS.
And now the player you mention above pulls out their 'over-the-top' character after the tier was determined to be *low* and is bragging about the situation.
Person may or may not even realize that I'm *stuck* there until the transportation times back out (at which point I've wasted a crud-tonne of time/money) or may take a sadistic glee in the impact that their actions have made.
This is not conducive to an organized play environment.
You're a better person than I, finlanderboy
I would have at very least asked for a refund of the token since I couldn't play at that table with that sort of environment. I'd probably also be REALLY STEAMED about the situation.
This being said, to tie back to the original proposal... still
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I politely stand up tell the DM I am not going to play and leave to another store leavign him my game token i paid for.
No hard feelings. They were taking legal options for what they found in the game. I voiced my objection and was made clear he planned to ignore it excessively. If you do not like how someone plays you do not have to play with them. You can find other games. You can still be friends in other ways or things.
I am fully defending that players right to not only pull out a character to ruin the challenge, but his right to ignore my complaint. I am an adult and I understand different people enjoy different things. We should not be forced to hate a game together I hope they enjoyed the game the played. I got to play serpent's Ire with people that enjoyed it with me.
At the same point, though.
I've taken either expensive transportation time-wise or cash-wise or both, because I do not drive.
I've shown up to play PFS.
And now the player you mention above pulls out their 'over-the-top' character after the tier was determined to be *low* and is bragging about the situation.
Person may or may not even realize that I'm *stuck* there until the transportation times back out (at which point I've wasted a crud-tonne of time/money) or may take a sadistic glee in the impact that their actions have made.
This is not conducive to an organized play environment.
You're a better person than I, finlanderboy
I would have at very least asked for a refund of the token since I couldn't play at that table with that sort of environment. I'd probably also be REALLY STEAMED about the situation.
This being said, to tie back to the original proposal... still
If i wanted to make a fuss, I could have complained to the local VO running the games. I could have worked out a solution if I really wanted things different. If I had less options I may have worked on a different solution.
My point was even when I was kind of picked on. I did not demand a player change their legal actions. He took the legal actions to play a game he thought he would enjoy. Because I enjoy it less does not mean I have any say on what he does. The same goes for any legal option someone choose to take. Agree not to play together and wish every fun in the way they enjoy it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's look at it this way, if an optimizer is doing a lot better than the other characters, then should they pat themselves on the back or work with the other players to help them improve their characters? I am sorry if this sounds like a loaded question, but it seems to me that if the optimizer cares about the team, then they should help their teammates to improve.
I have seen many people not want their character to be optimized. There's a cavalier at my store, is fighting with shortsword. We've told him for 9 levels that he'd be more effective with a lance. He doesn't want it. We tell him he'd be more effective if he challenges more often, he says he doesn't want to waste them so he maybe uses one a session. Optimized minded people can only do so much before their advice becomes harassment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You do know that the optimizer is being an ass? If he can't be happy unless he is the one who is shining the whole time he really shouldn't be playing a cooperative game. I don't think anyone has forgotten him... but he is the antagonist in this story. He becomes the reason the rest of the table is not having fun due to his lack of empathy for his fellow players.
you do realize this is an assumption you're making about the optimizer based solely on the fact that he's optimized, right? that's messed up.
also, on the subject of team sports/games... the performance of the team is what's important not any individual's "feeling" of contribution. if the team is doing well, everyone on the team should be glad the team is doing well... because it's about the team not you. so the idea that someone would be upset because despite having been successful at whatever the group's goal was (be that winning the soccer game or finding the macguffin and stopping the bbeg) because they felt they didn't get to shine (not because they were disappointed in their own performance but because they didn't get attention) seems wrong to me. that's like the goalie being upset that he didn't get to make (and potentially miss) a bunch of great saves because the rest of the team was doing really well... he should be glad the team was doing so well.This would be true if the goal was win at all costs.
On the other hand, if you play on a summer "out there for fun" softball league, and you sent on the bench constantly while the team wins every game, no, it's not a lot of fun.
the rules of softball involve competition and keeping score. if you don't do that, technically you're just knocking a ball around with a stick not "playing softball". not that there's anything wrong with that; it's just not the same, and i think it's misleading to refer to it as the same thing as a sport with competition and scorekeeping built in.
Most of us playing roleplaying games want to play the game, not just happen to have been there while our team constantly triumphed in combat. Can you find people who feel otherwise? Yes. But don't assume that that's what everybody is there for, or you're going to be one of those folks that people complain about when threads like this get started.
you're making the opposite assumption. how is that better? different people want different things from the game and it's unhelpful to make any assumptions about what other people want rather than actually discuss it with them.
|
|
On the other hand, if you play on a summer "out there for fun" softball league, and you sent on the bench constantly while the team wins every game, no, it's not a lot of fun.the rules of softball involve competition and keeping score. if you don't do that, technically you're just knocking a ball around with a stick not "playing softball". not that there's anything wrong with that; it's just not the same, and i think it's misleading to refer to it as the same thing as a sport with competition and scorekeeping built in.
You're making things extremely black and white here. Of course we keep score in softball games. But, not all softball games in which you keep score are the same sorts of things. Simply because you're keeping score, it does not mean that "win at all costs" is the goal. That the final score is the one and only thing that matters, or even that it's the most important thing. In some games, sure. You're at the Olympics, you're in a professional league, then, yeah, you do everything legal you can to increase score. But in a summer fun softball league, it's not the same thing. And, players who want to play who get benched simply because somebody else would contribute more to the score are not going to be having fun, and are not going to want to be there.
The score doesn't have to be the absolute most important thing to still be something that matters. Just how important it is depends on the context of the game. You're making a big mistake if you think that the presences of a score that's kept means that the score is the one thing you should be focusing on. In a collaborative game like an RPG, for most people that's not how they want to be playing.
Most of us playing roleplaying games want to play the game, not just happen to have been there while our team constantly triumphed in combat. Can you find people who feel otherwise? Yes. But don't assume that that's what everybody is there for, or you're going to be one of those folks that people complain about when threads like this get started.you're making the opposite assumption. how is that better? different people want different things from the game and it's unhelpful to make any assumptions.bout what other people want rather than actually discuss it with them.
How am I making the opposite assumptions? What have I indicated that I'm assuming?
I was responding to this:
the performance of the team is what's important not any individual's "feeling" of contribution. if the team is doing well, everyone on the team should be glad the team is doing well... because it's about the team not you.
You directly said what you want, and more than that, how everybody else should feel. That's not me making an assumption! I'm responding to exactly what you said..
Most of us playing roleplaying games want to play the game, not just happen to have been there while our team constantly triumphed in combat.
you mean to say you (and perhaps many people you've spoken to) want to... even if you're correct in assuming it's most people, it's unhelpful to assume that rather than actually have the conversation. as had been pointed out, many people don't want someone else to hold back.
and regarding playing softball for fun, if you're in a league that keeps score but you don't really try to win because you don't care about that, you are ruining someone else's experience.
|
|
the results may not be.Then the results should be addressed, not the player.
The results are the inevitable byproduct of the campaign rules +behavior. You theoretically may be able to change one of them..
Whether you should try or not is a hard call. You have up to 7 fluctuating ideas of what a character should be doing along multiple axis' of evaluation, and that's one table. Sure he's the quisinart of whirly death but they don't have skills/problem solving? What happens if they DO have skills/ problem solving? Do I otherwise like this person enough to overlook what he's doing to the game or do i hate this person enough to want to make a fight out of a minor quibble...
also, you're right. winning isn't everything. trying your best is. which doesn't involve holding back (barring specific deceptive strategies meant to help you win).
|
Finally overpowered characters themselves. Let's get real. A lot of stuff should never be in the AR to start with and a lot stuff in the AR should be removed. I know Paizo wants to sell books. But Paizo wants PFS to be healthy and at the rate its going it won't be for much longer. A lot of flavor options could be left in while a lot of the obvious power stuff could simply be banned. Sure the whiners will whine if stuff starts getting banned. How is that different than it is now? People whine for banned stuff to get unbanned, people demand that stuff get approved faster, people whine that AP's that should never have been sanctioned get sanctioned. Do a bunch of the worst stuff in one fell swoop like ripping off a bandage and get it over with. Make PFS more attractive to the more casual player who...
Hm... I agree with a lot of this but at the same time, what could you ban? In my experience, the biggest culprits of combat optimization are pretty basic feats like "Power Attack" and basic items like "Belts of Giant Strength" and powerful weapons like Greatswords made of adamantine (doubly so if over-sized). Said character (even without a Belt and Adamantine) will basically 1 shot 90% of enemies they come across at level 1. Couple that with high initiative bonuses and encounters will generally end before they start and no amount of GM futzing will address that. But is the right answer really to ban those things? I don't think so (unless we are talking about Celestial Chainmail, then burn it to the ground...). I think there are two "simple" (simple in my head anyway) fixes to some of the problems.
The first one is that the level cap mostly being at 12 removes a lot of the late game consequences for early game hyper optimizing. It's easy to make the choice to be a Hunter 1/Inquisitor 5/Barbarian 1/Titan Fighter 5 because the late game consequence of all those level dips (lacking high level abilities) never comes into play. If scenarios went all the way to 20, you would cause players to consider the long term consequences of hyper optimizing for early game. That said, I understand why there aren't scenarios going all the way to 20. Alternately, there could be a rule limiting the number of classes one could take to like 2 or 3 to prevent the really powerful early game builds from coming to fruition as easily while still allowing people to dip into what they need to enter various prestige classes.
The second one, which was already suggested in this thread, is to make scenarios less combat focused. I feel the majority of scenarios should be something like 2 combat encounters and one skill based encounter with the Secondary Success Condition generally hinging on how the skill encounter goes. This would cause players to consider their stats more closely as it may fall on them to make a diplomacy check if they don't have a good charisma-based character around. Maybe a 6 Charisma isn't the best choice anymore for optimization since the environment the player finds themselves in is different.
With all of this, what I am getting at is that banning stuff isn't going to help the situation I think, you're just limiting options. What if the party wants that hyper-optimized death machine for something like Thornkeep, Emerald Spire, or even Bonekeep? I think i agree with many of the others in this thread that making more of the flavorful/skill based stuff more useful and prevalent is a better solution than a large banning sweep.