For the OP haters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 451 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

I would like to say that I have seen this blade cut the other way as well.

Recently I have been working on "optimizing" my character, as I knew that I was not going to be as useful as some. A lot of the advice I got was good (JourneyCat, thank you a lot). However at times the attitude did seem like (Why would you do anything less than "The one right way"). To the point where I was said to being stupid for sacrificing some "Optimization".

Coming from an old Hero Player, let me tell you that it can cut both ways, and they are not mutually exclusive. I like to have characters that break the mold, and are not the most optimized, because in truth I can over optimize most systems (Especially point based), and then my character detracts from the fun of the group. I however LIKE tweaking a character to be the best. So I personally find niches to fill or become generalists in games with specialists. So that I do not overshine the others (To the point of begging a GM to allow me to rewrite my character so that I was not better than other players)

Silver Crusade

wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:


But optimization is also pulling the ruleset to its extremes.

I am going to disagree here. Optimization does not equal make super character or the best character possible. I can make a standard character and optimize. What you are describing is more like power-gaming.

The various terms (power gaming, optimization, munchkin, twink, etc etc etc) are all very ill defined and vary from group to group and individual to individual.

I think that there is little to be gained by arguing about terminology.

It doesn't help that we almost ALL think of OURSELVES as reasonable and middle of the road with maybe a small leaning towards/away from optimization, scoffing at both those Twinked out Monstrosities on one side and those absurdly badly built characters on the other.


pauljathome wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:


But optimization is also pulling the ruleset to its extremes.

I am going to disagree here. Optimization does not equal make super character or the best character possible. I can make a standard character and optimize. What you are describing is more like power-gaming.

The various terms (power gaming, optimization, munchkin, twink, etc etc etc) are all very ill defined and vary from group to group and individual to individual.

I think that there is little to be gained by arguing about terminology.

It doesn't help that we almost ALL think of OURSELVES as reasonable and middle of the road with maybe a small leaning towards/away from optimization, scoffing at both those Twinked out Monstrosities on one side and those absurdly badly built characters on the other.

I agree that they are not defined well, and there was no argument. I said what I said to draw attention that his use of the word was not universal.

PS: I tried to get a codified use of those words a while back, but nobody could really agree.


Jason Wedel wrote:

I would like to say that I have seen this blade cut the other way as well.

Recently I have been working on "optimizing" my character, as I knew that I was not going to be as useful as some. A lot of the advice I got was good (JourneyCat, thank you a lot). However at times the attitude did seem like (Why would you do anything less than "The one right way"). To the point where I was said to being stupid for sacrificing some "Optimization".

Coming from an old Hero Player, let me tell you that it can cut both ways, and they are not mutually exclusive. I like to have characters that break the mold, and are not the most optimized, because in truth I can over optimize most systems (Especially point based), and then my character detracts from the fun of the group. I however LIKE tweaking a character to be the best. So I personally find niches to fill or become generalists in games with specialists. So that I do not overshine the others (To the point of begging a GM to allow me to rewrite my character so that I was not better than other players)

There are going to be extreme cases, and sometimes just misunderstandings.


wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:


But optimization is also pulling the ruleset to its extremes.

I am going to disagree here. Optimization does not equal make super character or the best character possible. I can make a standard character and optimize. What you are describing is more like power-gaming.

Power-gaming is the end state of optimization.

You are talking about optimization in moderation.
Difficult thing to discuss because it immensely benefits the game, but yet still.
Weak options stay weak unless you find elaborate ways to make them stronger. But where the line where "strong enough" is a line draw in the water. There is huge variation on this from table to table, even if Paizo books deliberate have a system in place that is there to standardize it. GMs very rarely just feel like saying "hey, you make this encounter built with the gm book too easy, you cannot play that character". It comes off rude and bossy.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Saldiven wrote:

The best gaming situation is one where everyone in the group is looking for the same thing. When the players all have very different ideas as to what constitutes "fun," it is really difficult to appeal to everyone.

Speaking as a 30+ year GM, it's just plain too much work to try to balance out a campaign where there are wide variations in expectation from the players. Trying to do that destroys my own fun. I used to try to do that, but it was stressful and almost never successful. So, these days, I always have a "session zero" type meeting where we hash all this kind of stuff out head of time.

This is a good view of the situation. Honestly, TTRPG is a small niche and requires group play. Groups are inherently difficult at times to manage. There are thousands of books just on communication. Since the hobby is so small, there simply isn't room for a collection of games that suits all particular playstyles. Despite that fact, it never stops folks from trying to make D&D/PF the one to rule them all and claim the right to brand badwrongfun at will.

I strongly believe in filtering my groups for playstyle. My number one rule is to never ever join a long term campaign until I have had a chance to play with everyone first. This usually means one shots or organized play. My time is valuable to me, and I'm not going to waste it by going through great efforts to smash a triangle peg through a square hole.

Now given that I am selective, and believe many players and I are incompatible, does not mean I have to be a jerk about it. I try my best to explain my viewpoints without resorting to name calling. I see value in discussing playstyle differences with those I disagree with. It has helped me understand more of what I want out of my game. Insults have contributed zero to that. Target that behavior, but don't force everyone to compromise if its going to make the game less fun for them. IMO


Envall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:


But optimization is also pulling the ruleset to its extremes.

I am going to disagree here. Optimization does not equal make super character or the best character possible. I can make a standard character and optimize. What you are describing is more like power-gaming.

Power-gaming is the end state of optimization.

You are talking about optimization in moderation.
Difficult thing to discuss because it immensely benefits the game, but yet still.
Weak options stay weak unless you find elaborate ways to make them stronger. But where the line where "strong enough" is a line draw in the water. There is huge variation on this from table to table, even if Paizo books deliberate have a system in place that is there to standardize it. GMs very rarely just feel like saying "hey, you make this encounter built with the gm book too easy, you cannot play that character". It comes off rude and bossy.

I have no idea how that applies to what I just said.


wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:


But optimization is also pulling the ruleset to its extremes.

I am going to disagree here. Optimization does not equal make super character or the best character possible. I can make a standard character and optimize. What you are describing is more like power-gaming.

Power-gaming is the end state of optimization.

You are talking about optimization in moderation.
Difficult thing to discuss because it immensely benefits the game, but yet still.
Weak options stay weak unless you find elaborate ways to make them stronger. But where the line where "strong enough" is a line draw in the water. There is huge variation on this from table to table, even if Paizo books deliberate have a system in place that is there to standardize it. GMs very rarely just feel like saying "hey, you make this encounter built with the gm book too easy, you cannot play that character". It comes off rude and bossy.

I have no idea how that applies to what I just said.

Optimization does mean making best character possible.

At the utmost meaning of the word.
I take it you wanted to defend optimization in micro scale rather than macro scale.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Envall wrote:
Optimization does mean making best character possible.

So only Wizards are optimized characters? Otherwise, this is a flawed definition.


Envall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:


But optimization is also pulling the ruleset to its extremes.

I am going to disagree here. Optimization does not equal make super character or the best character possible. I can make a standard character and optimize. What you are describing is more like power-gaming.

Power-gaming is the end state of optimization.

You are talking about optimization in moderation.
Difficult thing to discuss because it immensely benefits the game, but yet still.
Weak options stay weak unless you find elaborate ways to make them stronger. But where the line where "strong enough" is a line draw in the water. There is huge variation on this from table to table, even if Paizo books deliberate have a system in place that is there to standardize it. GMs very rarely just feel like saying "hey, you make this encounter built with the gm book too easy, you cannot play that character". It comes off rude and bossy.

I have no idea how that applies to what I just said.

Optimization does mean making best character possible.

At the utmost meaning of the word.
I take it you wanted to defend optimization in micro scale rather than macro scale.

There is optimization with regard to just trying to achieve an end, and then there is optimization as in "try to make the most powerful(or best) character you can within a set goal". The two are not the same.

One is extreme, and the other is not. From my reading of your previous post you wrote as if the basic use of the word is when people take things to extremes.


"To optimize" is a pretty clear english word to me, how I learned it.
Yes, it can mean different things if you put it to context, but without it means "to make something best it can be".
And if character building is question of problem solving, it is to find perfect solution.

If the whole issue was that the word means different things to you, fine, I don't wanna go deeper into semantics.


Envall wrote:

"To optimize" is a pretty clear english word to me, how I learned it.

Yes, it can mean different things if you put it to context, but without it means "to make something best it can be".
And if character building is question of problem solving, it is to find perfect solution.

If the whole issue was that the word means different things to you, fine, I don't wanna go deeper into semantics.

I don't consider it semantics for me to tell someone that it is not the most common use of the word on the forum.


wraithstrike wrote:
Envall wrote:

"To optimize" is a pretty clear english word to me, how I learned it.

Yes, it can mean different things if you put it to context, but without it means "to make something best it can be".
And if character building is question of problem solving, it is to find perfect solution.

If the whole issue was that the word means different things to you, fine, I don't wanna go deeper into semantics.

I don't consider it semantics for me to tell someone that it is not the most common use of the word on the forum.

I have not read all the conversations where it has been used either.

It the forum would had made a slang word to differentiate it, perhaps then it would be more obvious.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

99 times out of 100 character optimization is optimization of a concept, rather than the theoretical most optimized character possible.

You're painting your strokes too broad, Envall.


I have no problem with min-maxing/optimising as long as you can ROLEplay


4 people marked this as a favorite.
doc roc wrote:
I have no problem with min-maxing/optimising as long as you can ROLEplay

*Obligatory roleplay vs rollplay reply.*


6 people marked this as a favorite.

There's another type of misunderstanding that I've been on the wrong side of plenty of times, and that's the difference between specializing and power gaming.

I never build characters that are good at everything, even if it's technically possible to do so in a system. I build "specialist" characters that have a particular skill set and role and are very good at that. Could be a knowledge based character, a stealth guy, a strong guy, a ranged guy, etc.

I know that there are alot of other players like me, who enjoy playing specialist characters. The problem I've had in the past is that players who don't like playing particularly useful characters, or don't know how to make useful characters, call people like us power gamers.

There's a huge difference between someone who likes to play an "expert" type of character, and someone who purposely tries to break the game. And there's a huge difference between a player who likes to play useless characters to troll the rest of the group, and a "roleplayer".


HeHateMe wrote:

There's another point of misunderstanding that I've been observed the wrong side of plenty of times, and that's the difference between specializing and power gaming.

I never build characters that are good at everything, even if it's technically possible to do so in a system. I build "specialist" characters that have a particular skill set and role and are very good at that. Could be a knowledge based character, a stealth guy, a strong guy, a ranged guy, etc.

I know that there are alot of other players like me, who enjoy playing specialist characters. The problem I've had in the past is that players who don't like playing particularly useful characters, or don't know how to make useful characters, call people like us power gamers.

There's a huge difference between someone who likes to play an "expert" type of character, and someone who purposely tries to break the game. And there's a huge difference between a player who likes to play useless characters to troll the group, and a "roleplayer".

I agree with this just so much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Johnnycat93 wrote:
doc roc wrote:
I have no problem with min-maxing/optimising as long as you can ROLEplay
*Obligatory roleplay vs rollplay reply.*

He wasn't actually violating that. He may assume many optimizers are all about combat, but he explicitly stated he was cool with optimizers who want more from the game.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
It's the GM's responsibility to create a game for everyone, not just for the story.

If you have an optimizer that's so far above the rest of the group that makes the dm's job a LOT harder.

There's nothing inherently wrong with the optimization, but it's like tennis. If you're not playing with someone at your own level it's really just standing around and watching things fly by your head.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
doc roc wrote:
I have no problem with min-maxing/optimising as long as you can ROLEplay

Define 'roleplay'.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem isn't optimization its game design and quality control


1 person marked this as a favorite.
kyrt-ryder wrote:
The problem isn't optimization its game design and quality control

What problem?


Envall wrote:

"To optimize" is a pretty clear english word to me, how I learned it.

Yes, it can mean different things if you put it to context, but without it means "to make something best it can be".
And if character building is question of problem solving, it is to find perfect solution.

If the whole issue was that the word means different things to you, fine, I don't wanna go deeper into semantics.

This isn't really semantics, it's a pretty important definition of terms for having this conversation, since it entirely hinges on the accepted definition of this word. Your definition is not the one used in this context...nor is it necessarily the only strict dictionary definition. This one is closer to the meaning being used in this context.

"Optimization: The action of making the best or most effective use of a situation or resource."

Situation: Making a Magus.

Optimization: Taking advantage of all the options that make the Magus more powerful.

Broadly speaking you could make the situation "making a character", but that makes the definition so simultaneously broad and narrow that it becomes meaningless (the game would boil down to a single set of options, in that case).

And that is not how the word is used in real life, either. When businesses optimize for function, they have parameters to work within. If a business is built around selling watermelons, optimization discussions generally do not start and end with "We should sell oranges instead, they're more profitable". A poor example, but you work with what you have.


wraithstrike wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
Tyinyk wrote:
A book focusing on the real people playing the game is not a book I would buy. I think Paizo should stick to game content.
Player character's is game content. The first one taught player's how to play the game. The second one could be for rule sets for OP's and GM's and such. Make's perfect sense.

OP is subjective so that won't work. As an example I have run games for well optimized parties and to be put nicely, a group or two that forced me to run the game on easy mode or they would have died.

Both of those groups thought they were the baseline for "average" level play.

People can be sensitive, so if Paizo says _____ is the standard someone will take it as an insult. It is basically them saying "If you don't play like this you are doing it wrong", and that is not the attitude Paizo wants to promote.

An example of this is a post I made a while back explaining that it is better to prevent healing than make a character who does nothing but heal. Someone took what I said completely out of context, and even after I explained it they stayed mad at me. Eventually I realized they saw it as me saying "your playstyle sucks", and I was saying "this is more efficient". The same thing will happen with Paizo telling people what a baseline is, and how to get to that baseline.

As far as "how to do __", there are strategy guides here which teach optimization, and I don't mean "how to solo boss encounters". The idea is to just help people make useful characters, and some people complain about those.

Your heart is in a good place, but your idea of what is a problem is not really a problem that can be solved with a book.

PS: I am still waiting on your ideas to fix these problems. <----Just in case you forgot.

I've already explained three of my solutions. I don't have it in book form, if you're looking for thorough analysis of what I mean. I don't know what other affirmation you need from me.

I believe some things can be solved with a book, not all, but at least it would give a foundation to those who want to understand a system of balance, that could work by following the accommodations of the book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It would give a foundation for people to argue about, much like they do now. Ironing out "over powered" will leave many sides debating if Paizo is correct, what about this corner case, are you saying I am bad, and so on. It's a no win scenario for them.

I cannot see this book selling well, considering the way that the Strategy Guide was talked about when it was suggested. This sort of thing would likely appeal to a very small market, not one that I'm confident that could justify the expenditure.

If nothing else, perhaps you could set up a Kickstarter to do a game neutral version if it is a subject close to your heart, and find others who feel the same to contribute. For me, I'd rather Paizo's work hours go towards books that will be of more general use.


HeHateMe wrote:

There's another type of misunderstanding that I've been on the wrong side of plenty of times, and that's the difference between specializing and power gaming.

I never build characters that are good at everything, even if it's technically possible to do so in a system. I build "specialist" characters that have a particular skill set and role and are very good at that. Could be a knowledge based character, a stealth guy, a strong guy, a ranged guy, etc.

I know that there are alot of other players like me, who enjoy playing specialist characters. The problem I've had in the past is that players who don't like playing particularly useful characters, or don't know how to make useful characters, call people like us power gamers.

There's a huge difference between someone who likes to play an "expert" type of character, and someone who purposely tries to break the game. And there's a huge difference between a player who likes to play useless characters to troll the rest of the group, and a "roleplayer".

Yes, exactly.


knightnday wrote:

It would give a foundation for people to argue about, much like they do now. Ironing out "over powered" will leave many sides debating if Paizo is correct, what about this corner case, are you saying I am bad, and so on. It's a no win scenario for them.

I cannot see this book selling well, considering the way that the Strategy Guide was talked about when it was suggested. This sort of thing would likely appeal to a very small market, not one that I'm confident that could justify the expenditure.

If nothing else, perhaps you could set up a Kickstarter to do a game neutral version if it is a subject close to your heart, and find others who feel the same to contribute. For me, I'd rather Paizo's work hours go towards books that will be of more general use.

It's interesting how you say general use, but yet there is optimizer's around every corner.

The Exchange

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

Actually I think that it is one of the great strengths of D&D (and it's variants) and probably the most important factor of it's success, that it lends itself to a lot of different styles of play without excluding someone from the start. Compare it to all those Indie Games out there. Most of them have a much narrower (some say better) definition of how they should be played and none of them has had any success comparable to that of D&D. Because narrowing those definitions directly translates into narrowing the potential base of customers.

So to define such a standard would actually be detrimental to the game's success because it would most certainly alienate part of the fans who didn't and don't want to play according to said standard. Now the consequence of not having a standard is that players have to compromise when they collect around a game table. I consider this a small price to be paid, especially as I don't think that it is too hard to find such a compromise most of the time, as long as each participant is willing to consider their partners' fun as important as their own fun.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

In the grand scheme of TTRPGs, Pathfinder characters are actually on a pretty short leash. There's games out there where a wild power gamer can really mess things up.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:
knightnday wrote:

It would give a foundation for people to argue about, much like they do now. Ironing out "over powered" will leave many sides debating if Paizo is correct, what about this corner case, are you saying I am bad, and so on. It's a no win scenario for them.

I cannot see this book selling well, considering the way that the Strategy Guide was talked about when it was suggested. This sort of thing would likely appeal to a very small market, not one that I'm confident that could justify the expenditure.

If nothing else, perhaps you could set up a Kickstarter to do a game neutral version if it is a subject close to your heart, and find others who feel the same to contribute. For me, I'd rather Paizo's work hours go towards books that will be of more general use.

It's interesting how you say general use, but yet there is optimizer's around every corner.

General use: books of monsters, books on regions, books on classes, books offering new options (psychics, horror, mythic, etc.) A book on how to optimize, how to play with people who like to optimize, and how to feel when someone says no to optimizing isn't as useful as any of the other subjects IMO.

The community boards here and elsewhere provide a great place to learn about optimization if that is someone's thing. If you look at those threads, you'll see comments on how the person did it "wrong", how they don't know what they are talking about and more. Creating a whole book about that is like asking the company to stand there and be a punching bag.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Besides, free online articles are already pretty comprehensive on the subject. I honestly doubt Paizo would be able to add any unique insight that one couldn't find elsewhere. Also: I usually resent designers who spend large portions of time insisting on how their games should be played. One of the things I don't like about PFS.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Johnnycat93 wrote:
In the grand scheme of TTRPGs, Pathfinder characters are actually on a pretty short leash. There's games out there where a wild power gamer can really mess things up.

For example Mutants and Masterminds just about exists entirely on player trust with the GM (and vice versa).


Pan wrote:
Saldiven wrote:

The best gaming situation is one where everyone in the group is looking for the same thing. When the players all have very different ideas as to what constitutes "fun," it is really difficult to appeal to everyone.

Speaking as a 30+ year GM, it's just plain too much work to try to balance out a campaign where there are wide variations in expectation from the players. Trying to do that destroys my own fun. I used to try to do that, but it was stressful and almost never successful. So, these days, I always have a "session zero" type meeting where we hash all this kind of stuff out head of time.

This is a good view of the situation. Honestly, TTRPG is a small niche and requires group play. Groups are inherently difficult at times to manage. There are thousands of books just on communication. Since the hobby is so small, there simply isn't room for a collection of games that suits all particular playstyles. Despite that fact, it never stops folks from trying to make D&D/PF the one to rule them all and claim the right to brand badwrongfun at will.

I strongly believe in filtering my groups for playstyle. My number one rule is to never ever join a long term campaign until I have had a chance to play with everyone first. This usually means one shots or organized play. My time is valuable to me, and I'm not going to waste it by going through great efforts to smash a triangle peg through a square hole.

Now given that I am selective, and believe many players and I are incompatible, does not mean I have to be a jerk about it. I try my best to explain my viewpoints without resorting to name calling. I see value in discussing playstyle differences with those I disagree with. It has helped me understand more of what I want out of my game. Insults have contributed zero to that. Target that behavior, but don't force everyone to compromise if its going to make the game less fun for them. IMO

It seems to me that you have a clear understanding of how people feel about their characters. You don't want people to feel bad about themselves or their characters, and that's the most important thing.

Not a lot of people care about feelings or people, like you and I. That's why this issue can be resolved with some party rule sets. I'm not asking too much. It can be done.

People, I'm not saying it will resolve every table, but it will help, and if it can help 40 to 50% of groups, then that's a lot better than nothing. It is a very large problem that ruins everyone's fun. And I know that Pathfinder will be the spreadsheet for the next generation ttrpg that ascends from Pathfinder, just like 3.5. Because people love this system, I love this system, I believe in it so much, I think it's incredibly hard to beat, I don't think even 5E DnD stands a chance anymore.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think you've got tunnel vision.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

If you think this kind of book is so important, why not write it yourself?


Tyinyk wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

There's another point of misunderstanding that I've been observed the wrong side of plenty of times, and that's the difference between specializing and power gaming.

I never build characters that are good at everything, even if it's technically possible to do so in a system. I build "specialist" characters that have a particular skill set and role and are very good at that. Could be a knowledge based character, a stealth guy, a strong guy, a ranged guy, etc.

I know that there are alot of other players like me, who enjoy playing specialist characters. The problem I've had in the past is that players who don't like playing particularly useful characters, or don't know how to make useful characters, call people like us power gamers.

There's a huge difference between someone who likes to play an "expert" type of character, and someone who purposely tries to break the game. And there's a huge difference between a player who likes to play useless characters to troll the group, and a "roleplayer".

I agree with this just so much.

The issue I have is that it assumes that the useless character is in there to troll.

My last rogue was intended to be in over his head, out of his comfort zone type character. So he was not as useful as a rogue doing rogue things (Finding traps, etc...) in another game his social skills would have rocked. My goal was not to troll, but rather to play the hapless adventurer. Also it can easily get to the point of what I can "The One true way" where if you want to play this you have to do it like this (Max skills levels on a rogue need to be in Perception, Stealth, & Disable devices, Fighter must take XYZ feats, etc...). I have seen this with my Shadowrun character who has actually been designed to be less efficient as any of the standard arch types would normally be (However he is okay at a lot of things, just not great at any)


Johnnycat93 wrote:
I think you've got tunnel vision.

My eyes are covered with a headband. I'm blind to those who can't see.


I love to optimize in theory crafting just to see what the best is. When I play a character swap out things here and there that make me less optimized than I could be. Usually landing 75% optimized. I like to leave room for interesting story oriented thing that most times are not optimizing my character.

Like for example optimizing a wizard but leaving things open to take prestige class even though it's weaker but makes sense from role playing point view. In a way it optimizing to the story even if mechanically inferior. There are in game bonuses to doing this in home brew games that give the GM the ability shape the world they have created. So I'm always open working with the GM in that way. Wish more players would work that way with me when I'm the GM.


Johnnycat93 wrote:
In the grand scheme of TTRPGs, Pathfinder characters are actually on a pretty short leash. There's games out there where a wild power gamer can really mess things up.

In Champions I can destroy the world on about 3 Character points (Average Starting character has 400)


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
I think you've got tunnel vision.
My eyes are covered with a headband. I'm blind to those who can't see.

You realize this is the same kind of rhetoric that people use to sell snake oil and encyclopedias, right? You're not really arguing with any sort of facts or evidence outside of dubious anecdotes and you're appealing entirely to peoples sense of empathy and justice.

In a game. For a game.

This kind of thing is why people outside of the hobby think we're all crazy weirdos.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wedel wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
In the grand scheme of TTRPGs, Pathfinder characters are actually on a pretty short leash. There's games out there where a wild power gamer can really mess things up.
In Champions I can destroy the world on about 3 Character points (Average Starting character has 400)

In RIFTS you can have a Cosmo Knight with faster than light travel in the same party as a Barmaid.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:

It seems to me that you have a clear understanding of how people feel about their characters. You don't want people to feel bad about themselves or their characters, and that's the most important thing.

Not a lot of people care about feelings or people, like you and I. That's why this issue can be resolved with some party rule sets. I'm not asking too much. It can be done.

People, I'm not saying it will resolve every table, but it will help, and if it can help 40 to 50% of groups, then that's a lot better than nothing. It is a very large problem that ruins everyone's fun. And I know that Pathfinder will be the spreadsheet for the next generation ttrpg that ascends from Pathfinder, just like 3.5. Because people love this system, I love this system, I believe in it so much, I think it's incredibly hard to beat, I don't think even 5E DnD stands a chance anymore.

What it appears you are asking for is some sort of "official" policy/book that you can point to in order to coerce/force/bully your GM and table mates into accepting your character? That is how it comes across in your statements.

You can feel strongly that you are right, that your character is great, or that not allowing you to play this one thing will ruin your fun. You cannot, not even with a book with Paizo's name on the front, convince others to allow it.

Once again, it isn't bullying. It is a choice that people make with regard to their game. Even with the Ultimate Optimizer's Handbook in print and in someone's hand, you can still be told no. You can still have ideas shot down. You can still have house rules that disallow things.

This isn't a problem that is going to be solved with a set of codified rules, or else humanity might have made them to deal with the other millions of problems we face in interpersonal relationships every day.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Wedel wrote:
Tyinyk wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

There's another point of misunderstanding that I've been observed the wrong side of plenty of times, and that's the difference between specializing and power gaming.

I never build characters that are good at everything, even if it's technically possible to do so in a system. I build "specialist" characters that have a particular skill set and role and are very good at that. Could be a knowledge based character, a stealth guy, a strong guy, a ranged guy, etc.

I know that there are alot of other players like me, who enjoy playing specialist characters. The problem I've had in the past is that players who don't like playing particularly useful characters, or don't know how to make useful characters, call people like us power gamers.

There's a huge difference between someone who likes to play an "expert" type of character, and someone who purposely tries to break the game. And there's a huge difference between a player who likes to play useless characters to troll the group, and a "roleplayer".

I agree with this just so much.

The issue I have is that it assumes that the useless character is in there to troll.

My last rogue was intended to be in over his head, out of his comfort zone type character. So he was not as useful as a rogue doing rogue things (Finding traps, etc...) in another game his social skills would have rocked. My goal was not to troll, but rather to play the hapless adventurer. Also it can easily get to the point of what I can "The One true way" where if you want to play this you have to do it like this (Max skills levels on a rogue need to be in Perception, Stealth, & Disable devices, Fighter must take XYZ feats, etc...). I have seen this with my Shadowrun character who has actually been designed to be less efficient as any of the standard arch types would normally be (However he is okay at a lot of things, just not great at any)

Well, "less efficient" and useless really aren't the same thing. And I was referring specifically to trolls, not to someone who just doesn't optimize. I mean someone who purposely makes a character that has no use other than to give him or her a platform from which to talk about how superior a roleplayer he or she is compared with everyone else.


Johnnycat93 wrote:
Wise Old Man wrote:
Johnnycat93 wrote:
I think you've got tunnel vision.
My eyes are covered with a headband. I'm blind to those who can't see.

You realize this is the same kind of rhetoric that people use to sell snake oil and encyclopedias, right? You're not really arguing with any sort of facts or evidence outside of dubious anecdotes and you're appealing entirely to peoples sense of empathy and justice.

In a game. For a game.

This kind of thing is why people outside of the hobby think we're all crazy weirdos.

I think my argument is pretty clear. If you believe that I have a snake oil salesmen approach to trying to improve a community, then that's your opinion.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself in other words to please your questions or answers.
I don't need the help or support of people with your attitude of defining how people should help when you clearly have a negative ideology with how people should be treated anyway. It seems to me you have a lot of insecurities about how people feel about you out of a gaming circle.

Maybe you should be more concerned with your own moral compass, speaking of justice and empathy as though you weren't just displaying it yourself. We're not your subsequents, don't rationalize me with a bigot mindset.


HeHateMe wrote:
Jason Wedel wrote:
Tyinyk wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

There's another point of misunderstanding that I've been observed the wrong side of plenty of times, and that's the difference between specializing and power gaming.

I never build characters that are good at everything, even if it's technically possible to do so in a system. I build "specialist" characters that have a particular skill set and role and are very good at that. Could be a knowledge based character, a stealth guy, a strong guy, a ranged guy, etc.

I know that there are alot of other players like me, who enjoy playing specialist characters. The problem I've had in the past is that players who don't like playing particularly useful characters, or don't know how to make useful characters, call people like us power gamers.

There's a huge difference between someone who likes to play an "expert" type of character, and someone who purposely tries to break the game. And there's a huge difference between a player who likes to play useless characters to troll the group, and a "roleplayer".

I agree with this just so much.

The issue I have is that it assumes that the useless character is in there to troll.

My last rogue was intended to be in over his head, out of his comfort zone type character. So he was not as useful as a rogue doing rogue things (Finding traps, etc...) in another game his social skills would have rocked. My goal was not to troll, but rather to play the hapless adventurer. Also it can easily get to the point of what I can "The One true way" where if you want to play this you have to do it like this (Max skills levels on a rogue need to be in Perception, Stealth, & Disable devices, Fighter must take XYZ feats, etc...). I have seen this with my Shadowrun character who has actually been designed to be less efficient as any of the standard arch types would normally be (However he is okay at a lot of things, just not great at any)

Well, "less efficient" and useless really aren't the same...

Sorry, upon rereading I realize I let some of my annoyance about the "One right way" cloud my response. It was not deserved


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It's not the build it's the player. The strategies for not overwhelming a campaign are completely dependant on class. Buff and actualize other characters. Summon flanking buddies for your rogue. Help enhance their skills. The reason this cannot be codified is that balance depends on looking at the whole party and figuring out how to use your character build so that it'll be effective, yet enjoyed at all. I do not believe there are types of builds that don't work at a table; but certainly there can be personalities that cannot.


17 people marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:

I think my argument is pretty clear. If you believe that I have a snake oil salesmen approach to trying to improve a community, then that's your opinion.

I'm not going to keep repeating myself in other words to please your questions or answers.
I don't need the help or support of people with your attitude of defining how people should help when you clearly have a negative ideology with how people should be treated anyway. It seems to me you have a lot of insecurities about how people feel about you out of a gaming circle.

Maybe you should be more concerned with your own moral compass, speaking of justice and empathy as though you weren't just displaying it yourself. We're not your subsequents, don't rationalize me with a bigot mindset.

See - it's that sort of dialogue that's the problem. I don't agree with you and I get busted down to an insecure bigot who lacks a moral compass.

Your argument, while clear and concise, is not satisfactory. As far as I'm concerned you've failed to convince me of your position in the following ways:
-I do not believe your problem exists in any severity that you have proposed.
-I do not believe you are approaching the problem (whether I think it exists or not) in a reasonable manner.
-I do not believe your proposed solutions are unique enough to merit implementation.
-I do not believe your proposed solutions will help. With that, I believe your proposed solutions are more harmful to the community than helpful.

Finally, as this is a discussion forum I will not refrain from weighing in with my thoughts when necessary. Especially when its in response to people trying to impose their own ideologies on the community at large.

Not liking something isn't a crime. It isn't bigoted. It isn't discrimination. It speaks nothing to the quality or merit of that something, beyond that one doesn't like it.

People who don't want to play with ruthless power gamers aren't misguided and in need of correction. People who only use certain aspects of the game aren't in need of correction. People who play the game differently than you do not compromise the integrity of Pathfinder in any way, shape, or form.

That said: people have already given you good advice. If you believe so strongly in your cause then go start a Kickstarter or write a web article. Don't lay your beliefs at the feet of others and expect them to take them up in your stead. That is, don't push all of your problems onto Paizo like it's their business.


*puts a brick in a glove and slaps Johnnycat with it*
I challenge you to a dual!
*shakes out the shattered remains*

Shadow Lodge

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wise Old Man wrote:
I challenge you to a dual!

Dual what? Blasters? Daggers? Credit application?

101 to 150 of 451 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / For the OP haters All Messageboards