Talonhawke wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: Talonhawke wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: Chess Pwn,
I have to disagree with you in that I know quite a few people that find it help to to put either of the two terms in add's seeking new players. (both in person (home,game store, other) and online.
After talking to them about it our experience has been that most negative reactions are do to the person not being allowed to play and or being asked to leave the game. Which can pose a problem and is why such descriptive language was included in the game description to begin with.
As I said I appreciate this topic and I am being more selective in where i use the term (and try and explain it before hand) but even then in the last few days since this topic started the people that I would expect to have problems with the term have done so because it defines they play style to a T and if a new term was coined then they would have a problem with that term also.
I do understand that not everyone's experiences will be or are the same but I know that I try and get many different opinions and ranges of experience when I seek out information and I thank you and the others who have such feeling's for your's.
MDC
The problem is who is defining those terms, and how are they defining them. If I am both am i allowed or banned? What level of optimization is the cutoff before I am too Rollplay and not enough Roleplay? I think this is where how I have defined the term and you are different, ie my roll-player are those who ignore fluff ( example:ignore fluff in traits and just go by benefits it gives you) Fluff was made to be ignored.
Some of the best role-players out there create THEIR OWN fluff to align with their mechanics, crafting a unique story via their character. IMHO, this is why it is important to define some type of play style as I know many groups in which if you ignored fluff you would not be allowed to play in the ... First of all I know many groups in which this is not true and fluff is given equal footing to rules, in fact fluff shapes the rules and how they are enforced.
And it is the roll group who seems to think that it is not important at all.
Being able to run a car without paint is not a fair comparison to the two groups.
having a group of people being offended by a term does not mean it is generally offensive to a much wider population. (see my next post)
MDC
After this topic started i started reaching out to people I knew about it. I sent out some feelers to about 30 GM's and 5 people who I know represent the roll group (and their players and anyone else they wanted to include in the topic) for comments about how they and their group felt about the term and how it was used. I tried to pick people I knew from the various groups and took that into consideration when reading their responses and when needed I asked the person I sent the request to for more info.
From the responses I got which was from about 30 groups (20 from my email request and 10 other groups, over 100 people represented) the people who found it most offensive were the people who other tended to say embodied the the term.
I then asked of the others that in their opinion if another term was used would they be offend, the answer was yes as in most cases it was the person play style that was the issue. So simply using another term did not solve the issue.
Fluff,
I define the roll term in terms of fluff usage but I know that others do not but in most cases it applies. The other terms I have seen proscribed here such as Engineers, Optimizer and War Gamer do not match my experiences or in most cases the other people I talked to.
MDC
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: First of all I know many groups in which this is not true and fluff is given equal footing to rules, in fact fluff shapes the rules and how they are enforced.
And it is the roll group who seems to think that it is not important at all.
Being able to run a car without paint is not a fair comparison to the two groups.
It's actually quite an apt metaphor.
Let's take Wizard for example. The Wizard class has 'powers' it can use on a limited use basis, it has a 'book' which holds these powers and it must prepare those limited uses of those powers each day. This preparation can only happen if they've had a full night's rest.
I can just as easily use the Wizard class for an old Martial Arts Master [Master Roshi, for example] as I could for a Wizard with his Hat and Wizard Staff.
A more exotic example would be a Master Chef who cooks his recipes in the morning and releases their power later in the day.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: After this topic started i started reaching out to people I knew about it. I sent out some feelers to about 30 GM's and 5 people who I know represent the roll group (and their players and anyone else they wanted to include in the topic) for comments about how they and their group felt about the term and how it was used. I tried to pick people I knew from the various groups and took that into consideration when reading their responses and when needed I asked the person I sent the request to for more info.
From the responses I got which was from about 30 groups (20 from my email request and 10 other groups, over 100 people represented) the people who found it most offensive were the people who other tended to say embodied the the term.
This is how offensive terms work. The people who find them offensive are the people victim to the labels.
|
3 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I feel like the problem that people (including me) have with being called rollplayers, munchkins, minmaxers, powergamers et al. is that we feel it is an extremely reductive and dismissive way of looking at how we go about gaming, which is to say as part of a unified whole.
The people objecting to being called rollplayers aren't objecting because they think rollplaying is better than roleplaying and that it's wrong to insult them for playing the game the one true way. We object because we think that because we care about the mechanical side of characters doesn't mean that we care any less about the flavor and in-character decisions of our heroes.
Even aside from that, there are people asking not to be referred to in a specific way. Even if you think it's accurate, there's a point where out of respect for your fellow gamers/people you should stop using a term that insults people who you keep claiming you aren't trying to insult.
I feel like that point should have been passed a few pages back.
kyrt-ryder wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: First of all I know many groups in which this is not true and fluff is given equal footing to rules, in fact fluff shapes the rules and how they are enforced.
And it is the roll group who seems to think that it is not important at all.
Being able to run a car without paint is not a fair comparison to the two groups.
It's actually quite an apt metaphor.
Let's take Wizard for example. The Wizard class has 'powers' it can use on a limited use basis, it has a 'book' which holds these powers and it must prepare those limited uses of those powers each day. This preparation can only happen if they've had a full night's rest.
I can just as easily use the Wizard class for an old Martial Arts Master [Master Roshi, for example] as I could for a Wizard with his Hat and Wizard Staff.
A more exotic example would be a Master Chef who cooks his recipes in the morning and releases their power later in the day. You could choose to do that.
Someone else can choose not to do that. Someone else can choose to stick to the fluff as presented.
Yet a third person might choose to change the rules to better reflect his idea of a Master Chef. Or for that matter, changing the mechanics to better match his conception of the original wizard fluff.
None of those are inherently better approaches. You waving the fluff away doesn't mean the fluff isn't important any more then the plethora of house rules floating around mean the rules aren't important. Sticking to the fluff isn't any more the wrong way to play than sticking to the rules is. Nor, for that matter, is changing either. It only becomes a problem when all parties aren't clear that it's happening or aren't happy with the approach.
thejeff wrote: kyrt-ryder wrote: Mark Carlson 255 wrote: First of all I know many groups in which this is not true and fluff is given equal footing to rules, in fact fluff shapes the rules and how they are enforced.
And it is the roll group who seems to think that it is not important at all.
Being able to run a car without paint is not a fair comparison to the two groups.
It's actually quite an apt metaphor.
Let's take Wizard for example. The Wizard class has 'powers' it can use on a limited use basis, it has a 'book' which holds these powers and it must prepare those limited uses of those powers each day. This preparation can only happen if they've had a full night's rest.
I can just as easily use the Wizard class for an old Martial Arts Master [Master Roshi, for example] as I could for a Wizard with his Hat and Wizard Staff.
A more exotic example would be a Master Chef who cooks his recipes in the morning and releases their power later in the day. You could choose to do that.
Someone else can choose not to do that. Someone else can choose to stick to the fluff as presented.
Yet a third person might choose to change the rules to better reflect his idea of a Master Chef. Or for that matter, changing the mechanics to better match his conception of the original wizard fluff.
None of those are inherently better approaches. That's the beauty of it. They all are equally valid. Going back to the car metaphor, some might choose to stick to the default paintjob while others might do some amazing detailing.
Some might stick to the default mechanics while others might modify their rigs [though I would argue this is the more involved process, much like real world mechanics vs paint jobs.]
Quote: You waving the fluff away doesn't mean the fluff isn't important any more then the plethora of house rules floating around mean the rules aren't important. Sticking to the fluff isn't any more the wrong way to play than sticking to the rules is. Nor, for that matter, is changing either. It only becomes a problem when all parties aren't clear that it's happening or aren't happy with the approach. Fair point. I'd feel a little more bothered by restricting character concepts than by openly changing the rules, but that's just my nature as a roleplayer.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Talonhawke wrote: thejeff wrote: Yeah, we know.
And Mark was saying some people don't like to play like that. Are they wrong? Do they not know how they like to play? Do they need to be stopped and made to play correctly?
Fluff can be ignored. Rules can be ignored. Fluff can be changed. Rules can be changed. Various different groups have different tolerances for such approaches. That's okay. It really is. They don't need to be made to conform to your superior way.
Mark Carlson 255 wrote: So again the fact that you feel fluff is there to be ignored where as other do not should say something to you, IMHO. That was someone being superior. And that was what I responded too. Yes you can monkey around with the engine and tweak it. Hell I run Kirthfinder over Pathfinder any chance I can, but I still have an engine. You can't actually play a game without some form of mechanics and rules, you can't actually play an RPG without it either. But when the character is all said and done it will run with a new paint job. If I get told to build a character for Rise of the Runelords, and show up and we are now running in Eberron and the DM is writing his own adventures but still using the PF rules set I'm probably gonna be just fine outside of a handful of fluff things that might not work in the setting. But if you say we are running a PF in Ebberon and I show up to 5E the fluff might be fine 100% but I have to rebuild the engine before it'll go. Honestly? If I build a character for a Rise of the Runelords in Varisia and show up to find a home brew game in Eberron, I'm likely to be pissed. :) I'm probably going to want to rebuild the character's background from the ground up and likely wind up playing a completely different character. I design characters for the campaign. Inspired by and hooked into the setting and what the GM's told me of the campaign itself.
Sure, a few tweaks would likely get me a character that was legal to play, but it probably wouldn't be a character I wanted to play in that game.
Meanwhile, if we decided to play RotR, but convert it over to 5E, I could probably keep most of the character intact, if it was something that translated over easily - most of the core clases & races for example. The necessary mechanical changes would be greater, but it would be much closer to the same character concept.
Talonhawke wrote: If I get told to build a character for Rise of the Runelords, and show up and we are now running in Eberron and the DM is writing his own adventures but still using the PF rules set I'm probably gonna be just fine outside of a handful of fluff things that might not work in the setting. But if you say we are running a PF in Ebberon and I show up to 5E the fluff might be fine 100% but I have to rebuild the engine before it'll go. thejeff wrote: Honestly? If I build a character for a Rise of the Runelords in Varisia and show up to find a home brew game in Eberron, I'm likely to be pissed. :) I'm probably going to want to rebuild the character's background from the ground up and likely wind up playing a completely different character. I design characters for the campaign. Inspired by and hooked into the setting and what the GM's told me of the campaign itself. Now we have two diametrically opposed approaches to character building, and for the sake of categorization, we could try to find descriptive names for those approaches. Or we could argue if one should be called roleplaying and the other rollplaying.
But the more interesting question (at least to me) is: Would those different approaches be detrimental to your ability to have fun in a game you both participate in? And I start to think that the real problems with any kind of categorization is (no matter if descriptive, offensive or stupid) that it puts the emphasis on the differences, when you probably have enough in common that those differences wouldn't matter. Because if the game simply stays where it was originally intended to (RotRL in Varisia with the PFRPG ruleset), you both would probably have awesome characters perfectly suited to the campaign and who the hell cares if you came up with those characters in different ways?
WormysQueue wrote: Talonhawke wrote: If I get told to build a character for Rise of the Runelords, and show up and we are now running in Eberron and the DM is writing his own adventures but still using the PF rules set I'm probably gonna be just fine outside of a handful of fluff things that might not work in the setting. But if you say we are running a PF in Ebberon and I show up to 5E the fluff might be fine 100% but I have to rebuild the engine before it'll go. thejeff wrote: Honestly? If I build a character for a Rise of the Runelords in Varisia and show up to find a home brew game in Eberron, I'm likely to be pissed. :) I'm probably going to want to rebuild the character's background from the ground up and likely wind up playing a completely different character. I design characters for the campaign. Inspired by and hooked into the setting and what the GM's told me of the campaign itself. Now we have two diametrically opposed approaches to character building, and for the sake of categorization, we could try to find descriptive names for those approaches. Or we could argue if one should be called roleplaying and the other rollplaying.
But the more interesting question (at least to me) is: Would those different approaches be detrimental to your ability to have fun in a game you both participate in? And I start to think that the real problems with any kind of categorization is (no matter if descriptive, offensive or stupid) that it puts the emphasis on the differences, when you probably have enough in common that those differences wouldn't matter. Because if the game simply stays where it was originally intended to (RotRL in Varisia with the PFRPG ruleset), you both would probably have awesome characters perfectly suited to the campaign and who the hell cares if you came up with those characters in different ways? At that point and assuming that the differences end there, nothing. My suspicion is that there are other differences in approach that correlate to the differences in character building. As I've said before in this thread, most of the time, in most games, that's not going to be a problem, but I've been in games that appealed strongly to very different tastes - some of which I loved and some that just bored me.
I would have to say that part of the definition of (XYZ) (The term formerly known as rollplayer, if you want to find it offensive, is that you emphasize mechanics TO THE DETRIMENT OF roleplaying. If you are someone who optimizes well and also does roleplaying well, then you aren't that thing - now are you?
That's a valid way to explain it RDM, if we could get that standardized it would far more acceptable IMO.
RDM42 wrote: I would have to say that part of the definition of (XYZ) (The term formerly known as rollplayer, if you want to find it offensive, is that you emphasize mechanics TO THE DETRIMENT OF roleplaying. If you are someone who optimizes well and also does roleplaying well, then you aren't that thing - now are you? Except the problem comes where you think the "detriment of roleplaying" comes in. That blurry line is part of what makes the term "rollplayer" useless for having any actual discussions.
Sighs, I believe that unsubscribe from this thread as parts of the discussion are getting very frustrating. I hoped something useful might come but there is a lot of back and forth that seems to be going nowhere.
Perhaps there is simply too stubborn of heads in here to come to any sort of agreement or compromise.
I have read each post since this first started up, and have kept from posting in it until now.
The way that I have seen "rollplaying" described, is the act of choosing spells, feats, classes, class features, traits, etc for their numerical aspects only, with no character justification whatsoever. "I'll dip one level of oracle for my paladin so I can use my Cha bonus for AC and Reflex instead of Dex (oracle of lore with sidestep secret revelation)". What's the in-character reason? Because it lets him use his Cha bonus for AC and Reflex instead of Dex.
If you come up with an in-character reason your paladin takes 1 level of Oracle of Lore at level 2, then congrats! You aren't "rollplaying". But if you can't? Then congrats! You are "rollplaying".
That's the only definition I have ever seen given to "rollplaying" everywhere else except for this board. and now will probably regret saying anything in this thread
Is a Paladin X Oracle 1 really more compelling then a Champion of Justice [insert personal spin on Paladin here] who is the sum of his parts under the hood?
Taking a level one oracle, I have no problem with. What I do have a problem with is there being no character reasoning and only getting "because it lets me use Cha for AC and Reflex saves". Yes, I get that, but what's the in-character reason? "Because it lets me..."
That's all I ask for is in-character reasons that make sense with said character. But most people like this only care for the numbers on the sheet. To me, that's "rollplaying". Not optimizing, or powergaming, or any other word that people use to describe increasing effectiveness of a character (which I will admit I don't always do, as the thing that would increase effectiveness makes no sense character-wise).
To me, "rollplaying" is doing things for power with absolutely 0 character reasoning, citing "because it lets me use my Cha for AC and Reflex saves" as the absolute reason the option is chosen. You want to take 1 level of oracle with the lore mystery on your paladin with the Sidestep Secret revelation? Sounds good. But why does the character suddenly have a level of oracle with the lore mystery and Sidestep Revelation?
I am sure a number of people can come up with it. So if you can, congrats! You aren't "rollplaying".
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
so to turn this on it's head, what fluff does oracle necessitate that can't be just part of him being a gifted paladin? are you saying if I pick swashbuckler do I need to be a pirate? so an oracle NEEDS? to be cursed by their god or something? if they gained this after paladin levels is there even a reason for them to question their increase in power?
like why did you get 1 level of oracle?
well, i wanted my paladin to not be ranged and to not require a ton of armor either. to me this is still part of the concept of the person, making a holy warrior in light armor because you don't imagine him as the sort who got platemail is enough for me.
though to me, making a strong character is a character reason.
best answer for why he has a level of oracle and what not. he did more paladin training. *shrug*
to put it in perspective, you might as well complain that they took paladin over fighter because they wanted to gain smite.
Bandw2 wrote:
best answer for why he has a level of oracle and what not. he did more paladin training. *shrug*
Training.
I could see a GM making that argument if he uses training as an in world explanation for levels.
Personally speaking as a GM I always fo7nd levels as a direct internal evolution of personal power to be far more compelling.
Bandw2 wrote: so to turn this on it's head, what fluff does oracle necessitate that can't be just part of him being a gifted paladin? are you saying if I pick swashbuckler do I need to be a pirate? so an oracle NEEDS? to be cursed by their god or something? if they gained this after paladin levels is there even a reason for them to question their increase in power?
like why did you get 1 level of oracle?
well, i wanted my paladin to not be ranged and to not require a ton of armor either. to me this is still part of the concept of the person, making a holy warrior in light armor because you don't imagine him as the sort who got platemail is enough for me.
though to me, making a strong character is a character reason.
best answer for why he has a level of oracle and what not. he did more paladin training. *shrug*
to put it in perspective, you might as well complain that they took paladin over fighter because they wanted to gain smite.
Congrats. You split hairs.
I feel the intent behind Adjule's stated preference is clear. "Buy-in" to the imaginary world set before you. When I GM, everyone can buy-in to a different degree but please buy in or find another game. Not just nominally. Show me your imagination.
Nothing personal. It's a preference. For me, I draw a hard line. If you don't care about the imaginary component, then I'm the wrong GM for you.
Edit: I want to add that for years I struggled with PF rule system. For years I didn't even understand what a favoured class was and why it was called that. I got razzed by my friedns about it and I took it on stridec But I kept making an effort. Eventually it clicked and I made gradual progress. And I'm grateful for it.
When I razz rollpayers, it's because I care enough to push them outside their comfort zone to learn new skills and try new experiences. Maybe I'm just old and out of touch with this younger generation's politics, but I think sometimes a well-meaning ribbing is good for one's character.
To the rollpayers out there reading this. You are not a victim for chrissake! Learn a new skill or find another game.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
you misunderstood my point.
if you get upset at a person picking up a level of oracle for charisma to AC then you should get upset at him for picking another level of paladin as well since it also arbitrarily raises your level.
I'm trying to point out that there's nothing inherently wrong with picking a single level of oracle so that he can either change his views or more clearly understand his views as they are.
if it's as you say, then "is the act of choosing spells, feats, classes, class features, traits, etc for their numerical aspects only" isn't what he meant. as 1 level of oracle is as much this as 1 level of paladin.
example i regularly use. I generally like barbarian more than fighter, so when i want to play a knight, i'm playing a barbarian.
i'm more inclined to believe he's under a false pretense that the class's fluff is necessarily more important than the ones a player makes, which is of course arbitrary.
Bandw2 wrote: you misunderstood my point.
if you get upset at a person picking up a level of oracle for charisma to AC then you should get upset at him for picking another level of paladin as well since it also arbitrarily raises your level.
I'm trying to point out that there's nothing inherently wrong with picking a single level of oracle so that he can either change his views or more clearly understand his views as they are.
if it's as you say, then "is the act of choosing spells, feats, classes, class features, traits, etc for their numerical aspects only" isn't what he meant. as 1 level of oracle is as much this as 1 level of paladin.
example i regularly use. I generally like barbarian more than fighter, so when i want to play a knight, i'm playing a barbarian.
i'm more inclined to believe he's under a false pretense that the class's fluff is necessarily more important than the ones a player makes, which is of course arbitrary.
No. I understood your point perfectly I think.
What you apparently misunderstand is that regardless of choice of feat or level or spell, I would want you to show me your imagination. Wether you spin a yarn after your choice of feat or your story informs your choice, I don't care which order. Choose whatever the hell you want. Just contribute to the imaginary world as you are doing it.
"Just because" and "Paladin training" are poor displays of imagination. In such a case, you may be contributing to the gameplay. But you are contributing next nothing to the game's world. This is the distinction between rollpay and roleplay in my view.
In the games I run, I want to see both those things to varying degrees from each player. No one gets to be lazy with mechanics or narrative.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
ClingClong wrote: Bandw2 wrote: you misunderstood my point.
if you get upset at a person picking up a level of oracle for charisma to AC then you should get upset at him for picking another level of paladin as well since it also arbitrarily raises your level.
I'm trying to point out that there's nothing inherently wrong with picking a single level of oracle so that he can either change his views or more clearly understand his views as they are.
if it's as you say, then "is the act of choosing spells, feats, classes, class features, traits, etc for their numerical aspects only" isn't what he meant. as 1 level of oracle is as much this as 1 level of paladin.
example i regularly use. I generally like barbarian more than fighter, so when i want to play a knight, i'm playing a barbarian.
i'm more inclined to believe he's under a false pretense that the class's fluff is necessarily more important than the ones a player makes, which is of course arbitrary.
No. I undersstood your point perfectly I think.
What you apparently misunderstand is that regardless of choice of feat or level or spell, I would want you to show me your imagination. Wether you spin a yarn after your choice of feat or your story informs your choice, I don't care which order. Choose whatever the hell you want. Just contribute to the imaginary world as you are doing it.
"Just because" and "Paladin training" are poor displays of imagination. In such a case, you may be contributing to the gameplay. But you are contributing next nothing to the game's world. This is the distinction between rollpay and roleplay in my view.
In the games I run, I want to see both those things to varying degrees from each player. No one gets to be lazy with mechanics or narrative. if paladin training is a poor excuse I want to know what was the catalyst between level 3-4 of your paladin levels? you can now suddenly channel positive energy, I want you to explain that to me, since apparently just becoming a better paladin isn't enough.
beyond that you did miss my point since i was still explicitly refuting "is the act of choosing spells, feats, classes, class features, traits, etc for their numerical aspects only", in which case I'd like to know why a fourth level of paladin get's more slack than 1 new level of oracle.
.
okay personal talk, you want to know what i'd respond to someone saying "ugh, you need to explain why you got oracle levels now".
"it's not impotent to my character's story, she gained these powers the same way she would have gained paladin powers, which i'm purposefully leaving open."
Bandw2 wrote: ClingClong wrote: Bandw2 wrote: you misunderstood my point.
if you get upset at a person picking up a level of oracle for charisma to AC then you should get upset at him for picking another level of paladin as well since it also arbitrarily raises your level.
I'm trying to point out that there's nothing inherently wrong with picking a single level of oracle so that he can either change his views or more clearly understand his views as they are.
if it's as you say, then "is the act of choosing spells, feats, classes, class features, traits, etc for their numerical aspects only" isn't what he meant. as 1 level of oracle is as much this as 1 level of paladin.
example i regularly use. I generally like barbarian more than fighter, so when i want to play a knight, i'm playing a barbarian.
i'm more inclined to believe he's under a false pretense that the class's fluff is necessarily more important than the ones a player makes, which is of course arbitrary.
No. I undersstood your point perfectly I think.
What you apparently misunderstand is that regardless of choice of feat or level or spell, I would want you to show me your imagination. Wether you spin a yarn after your choice of feat or your story informs your choice, I don't care which order. Choose whatever the hell you want. Just contribute to the imaginary world as you are doing it.
"Just because" and "Paladin training" are poor displays of imagination. In such a case, you may be contributing to the gameplay. But you are contributing next nothing to the game's world. This is the distinction between rollpay and roleplay in my view.
In the games I run, I want to see both those things to varying degrees from each player. No one gets to be lazy with mechanics or narrative. if paladin training is a poor excuse I want to know what was the catalyst between level 3-4 of your paladin levels? you can now suddenly channel positive energy, I want you to explain that to me, since apparently just becoming a better... You have erected a strawman. But I'll address it nonetheless.
Because a Paladin is following a narrative pattern when he goes from levels 3-4. He is becoming more "Paladin-y" for lack of a better term. Whereas taking an Oracle level represents a change of direction. Why? Symbolically speaking, the oracle level is more meaningful than a continuation of a Paladin level.
In the Inner Sea Realm, a Paladin is expected to continue Paladining. A sudden change of pattern such as gaining oracular abilities is an opportunity to tell a story. To not use your imagination in this case is a waste of a good opportunity.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Why is a level of Oracle or Swashbuckler or Monk or Fighter or Ranger or Sorcerer or Brawler or Bard a change of direction?
When I create characters I create whole fictional people who aren't pursuing a 'class' but are instead living their lives the best way they know how (in accordance with their ethics and goals) growing into their potential in whatever form it takes.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
ClingClong wrote: Because a Paladin is following a narrative pattern when he goes from levels 3-4. He is becoming more "Paladin-y" for lack of a better term. Whereas taking an Oracle level represents a change of direction. Why? Symbolically speaking, the oracle level is more meaningful than a continuation of a Paladin level.
In the Inner Sea Realm, a Paladin is expected to continue Paladining. A sudden change of pattern such as gaining oracular abilities is an opportunity to tell a story. To not use your imagination in this case is a waste of a good opportunity.
actually no I was looking for you to write this.
Because a character is following a narrative pattern when he goes from levels 3-4. He is becoming more "defined" for lack of a better term. Whereas taking an paladin level represents a overall better mechanical choice. Why? mechanically speaking, it's overall easier for me to just wear fullplate and not lose out on gaining those paladin spells for a level.
-----------------
In the Setting, a Paladin is expected to continue Paladining. A sudden change of pattern such as gaining oracular abilities is an opportunity to tell a story. To not use your imagination in this case is a waste of a good opportunity.
i'm leaving this paragraph as is because it's the issue.
the oracle level is completely and totally executed by the character as if it were simply more paladin powers. I gained spells? yeah so do paladins at 4rth level, I gained the ability to dodge things with charisma as if it were dex? yeah my character became protected by his ideals so much he chose to forgo armor. to top it off, while i normally use 3pp, the most likely mundane curse is tongues and guess what, my character now speaks in celestial to prove their dedication while fighting.
understand that this isn't something i'd be unlikely to explain before hand either, it'd just be.
so once again, what about the oracle is inherently unpaladin/uncharacter driven, as opposed to just taking another level of paladin?
so once again, i'm pointing out, people seem to assume class fluff is better universally than character fluff, which i think is inherently more rules lawyery if we get into it.
----------------
edit:
Personal hour again.
Another thing I like to do, is get a monk level to get wisdom to AC, this is because I don't want to wear armor; since wearing armor is almost always the better choice it gets boring. doesn't mean i want to punch people or take martial art lessons though, just be more aware of my surroundings.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
I think what some people are TRYING to say, is that characters without fluff are a sign of 'rollplay'
But they're tragically unfamiliar with/closed off to Character Fluff over Default Fluff.
As a GM I INFINITELY prefer my players create a story irrespective of the defaults, but those defaults are important to have for a learning tool for new players.
To give an example, my favorite Paladin I ever played was no Paladin at all in story, just a very noble, honorable and dedicated grizzled old war veteran.
Heck he'd pretty much lost faith in the gods entirely, feeling it was the responsibility of good men to take their own initiative to keep the material plane from degrading into a metaphoricap second Abyss.
To be frank his faith in THAT was slipping too, but he didn't quitw give up on his ideals for the duration of the campaign. Thw pccassional sm8le on a child'a face, the sincere gratitude in the voice of those rescued... They kwpt him clinging to that last thread of faith.
Bandw2, you are getting lost in details that barely relate to the point being made. I am clear when I say I don't care what you do mechanically if you are contributing to the imaginary world. If you fail to make an effort to do so, I don't want to be in the same game as you.
Judging by the examples you give, you seem to have a healthy imagination. Which makes your stubborn skirting of the issue even more frustrating for me.
Paladin, oracle. I don't give a s~%#. Just use your imagination.
This is not a complicated concept.
I think that Bandw2 is actually arguing with Adjule, whose side you inadvertently took (although it's not the same thing you are arguing).
You are arguing that you need imagination to invest in setting and character in your games. Bandw2 is arguing that using mechanical choices such as multiclassing has no influence on that. I consider both of you in the right but talking past each other. I only disagree with Adjule because of his stance that each mechanical choice has to be somehow related to characters personality or history. Of course it's only a difference of opinion, my DM also likes that.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
necromental wrote: I think that Bandw2 is actually arguing with Adjule, whose side you inadvertently took (although it's not the same thing you are arguing).
You are arguing that you need imagination to invest in setting and character in your games. Bandw2 is arguing that using mechanical choices such as multiclassing has no influence on that. I consider both of you in the right but talking past each other. I only disagree with Adjule because of his stance that each mechanical choice has to be somehow related to characters personality or history. Of course it's only a difference of opinion, my DM also likes that.
this i tried to explain this like 5 times... ;-;
Bandw2 wrote: necromental wrote: I think that Bandw2 is actually arguing with Adjule, whose side you inadvertently took (although it's not the same thing you are arguing).
You are arguing that you need imagination to invest in setting and character in your games. Bandw2 is arguing that using mechanical choices such as multiclassing has no influence on that. I consider both of you in the right but talking past each other. I only disagree with Adjule because of his stance that each mechanical choice has to be somehow related to characters personality or history. Of course it's only a difference of opinion, my DM also likes that.
this i tried to explain this like 5 times... ;-; Noone understands bandw2 I need to make this a meme now.
Since they continue to refuse doing so, I'm going to offer a little insight on my own on that of a mechanical choice working in story since in my personal opinion a Paladin taking an Oracle level or few Oracle levels could actually work quite well.
The Paladin begins his path though defending the weak, fighting for what is good and just in the world, adventuring with the party to fight monsters and creatures of evil. As he proves his devotion and dedication to the cause he learns and is given greater power/ability.
When it comes to being a Paladin itself he could gain the means to call upon the magic of the divine, eventually bonding with his mount if he has one or was his weapon… on becoming an Oracle let’s say this is because their deity has chosen him as a vessel of the divine as well their warrior. Whether by way of the Oradin and learning the mystery of life to better heal his allies or himself, to that of the mystery of lore in that of learning the secrets in avoiding danger is insight from his deity.
His curse being that of speaking the language of celestial planes in battle as this heavenly influence overtakes him.
kyrt-ryder wrote: I think what some people are TRYING to say, is that characters without fluff are a sign of 'rollplay'
But they're tragically unfamiliar with/closed off to Character Fluff over Default Fluff.
Au contraire, mon capitain. What people are trying to say is that there actually are people out there, who don't care for fluff in any form, they just want the mechanical bonus. If you're a paladin 3 and then chose to level as an oracle, you become an exception from the default which would be taking a fourth level as paladin 4. The thing with that is, that I already know the default fluff, so you don't need to explain to me anything. But if you're not following the default (again which is totally fine with me) I want to know how you came to be such an exception. And if the only answer you will give me in this case is because of the mechanical bonus and deny me any setting/character/fluff information on that, I'll probably have a problem with it.
Quote: As a GM I INFINITELY prefer my players create a story irrespective of the defaults Well they create a story -> they are not rollplaying. Meaning that neither Adjule nor Cling Clong were talking about you or your players.
I was adressing a few posts immediately prior to that Wormys, you've established a different viewpoint for yourself.
A being, given sufficient time and resources, could experimentally determine much of the PF ruleset. Hence, a perfectly reasonable in-universe explanation for Pally X oracle 1 is "I ask [deity] how to leverage my strong personality over my weaker body, they ask [probably Nethys] for how that works, I accepted the drawbacks of this method, and now I have Cha to Reflex."
And you would be wrong with that assumption, bandw2. I want you to give me something more than "Because I can use Cha for AC and Reflex saves".
Why did you choose a level of lore oracle over another level of paladin? Because my character, when on watch, had been talking to themselves, trying to figure things out, when they came to a realization, and something just clicked in their head. Cool, why the legalistic curse? My character has always been more on the lawful side than good, and feels like his word is his everything.
It could be practically anything that doesn't say "Because I can use Cha for AC and Reflex saves, and the curse because I can make some stupid 'promise' to get +4 to any roll while trying to make that promise. 'I vow to live through the day!' gives me +4 to everything."
I don't care if you take a level of lore oracle as a paladin (or other Cha-based class) because it gives you a mechanical boost. What I do care about is the in-character reason. Hell, even a "Because I feel it makes my paladin closer to the image I have of him as a character" would be great! JonathanWilder and Sideromancer give good reasons. Even bandw2 seems to actually give a reason that I feel is a good reason to take a level of oracle.
Adjule wrote: And you would be wrong with that assumption, bandw2. I want you to give me something more than "Because I can use Cha for AC and Reflex saves".
Why did you choose a level of lore oracle over another level of paladin? Because my character, when on watch, had been talking to themselves, trying to figure things out, when they came to a realization, and something just clicked in their head. Cool, why the legalistic curse? My character has always been more on the lawful side than good, and feels like his word is his everything.
It could be practically anything that doesn't say "Because I can use Cha for AC and Reflex saves, and the curse because I can make some stupid 'promise' to get +4 to any roll while trying to make that promise. 'I vow to live through the day!' gives me +4 to everything."
I don't care if you take a level of lore oracle as a paladin (or other Cha-based class) because it gives you a mechanical boost. What I do care about is the in-character reason. Hell, even a "Because I feel it makes my paladin closer to the image I have of him as a character" would be great! JonathanWilder and Sideromancer give good reasons. Even bandw2 seems to actually give a reason that I feel is a good reason to take a level of oracle.
For the same reason anyone becomes an oracle - they were chosen by a god. Isn't that the whole point of an oracle?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Adjule wrote: Why did you choose a level of lore oracle over another level of paladin? It seems we have entirely different paradigms regarding levels.
To me leveling is simply the character growing/evolving into their potential power, it has little to do with specific learning/training/events.
I'd rather focus on the character's internal development than how they obtain their power.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
thejeff wrote: For the same reason anyone becomes an oracle - they were chosen by a god. Isn't that the whole point of an oracle? I think the main issue here is if this anyhow came up in the game before. I remember my first 3.0 character, a sorcerer, multiclassing to cleric after surviving a really narrow encounter with several barbarians by casting several mirror images and a lot of sheer luck with the dice rolls by the GM. During the fight she called out to Mystra an promised to put herself into her service if she would survive this battle. She did and consequently held her promise. It wasn't about mechanics at all and that's my general approach to those things (only that in the meantime, I stopped doing things that would probably be detrimental to the group, I'm playing this character in).
Now given the default fluff of the Oracle class, I probably wouldn't even want the player to give me an explanation why he was chosen by the gods, because that's actually an awesome flag to things we can explore during gameplay.
Still would be very disappointed if the player told me that he has no interest in this thing fluff-wise and that to him it's a pure mechanical decision.
Now here we are talking about an oracle of lore with the sidestep secret revelation. The book says that a mystery " can represent a devotion to one ideal, prayers to deities that support the concept, or a natural calling to champion a cause." The revelation starts with words "Your innate understanding of the universe has granted you preternatural reflexes and the uncanny ability to step out of danger at the very last second."
If your character concept up to this point didn't support any of this, I'd probably ask you how you explain that you're still got chosen. I'd probably accept any answer to this (including: I've no idea but I'd like to find out during the game) except : I don't care, just want my AC bonus tied to CHA instead of DEX.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Adjule wrote:
It could be practically anything that doesn't say "Because I can use Cha for AC and Reflex saves, and the curse because I can make some stupid 'promise' to get +4 to any roll while trying to make that promise. 'I vow to live through the day!' gives me +4 to everything."
but here's the point, that's like asking "why do you have paladin levels?" "because I want to be good at fighting demons"
mind you this is the character's motivation.
why did i gain a level of oracle, because my character wants charisma to AC, whatever fluff the player take charisma to be in this situation. (let's remove the paladin previous levels for a moment and pretend thei r fighter levels)
if the character image is a character that uses charisma to AC, as opposed to dex, then it's all fine by you right?
there's nothing specific about multiclassing that needs additional explaining or a more stringent "ruleset" to define how much story connections are required. multiclassing is already almost always mechanically inferior, it doesn't need a soft-ban.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
WormysQueue wrote:
If your character concept up to this point didn't support any of this, I'd probably ask you how you explain that you're still got chosen. I'd probably accept any answer to this (including: I've no idea but I'd like to find out during the game) except : I don't care, just want my AC bonus tied to CHA instead of DEX.
Bandw2 wrote: "ugh, you need to explain why you got oracle levels now".
"it's not important to my character's story, she gained these powers the same way she would have gained paladin powers, which i'm purposefully leaving open."
replace paladin powers with whatever class I may be taking before oracle levels.
1) In general I am not saying that one approach is better than the others but all approaches do not have equal merit in all games.
For example In thinking about this post I think about 75% of the games I know about now are a lot more fluff oriented than non-fluff but that could also be just my experience and a fact of my age.
2) The post started because the OP thought the term offensive. But in thinking about this again I know know people who find being called a D&D player or even a Pathfinder player offensive and I know quite a few more people who run the game being very offended by the term Dungeon master vs Game Master.
In the DM vs GM argument most of the people I know who find it offensive do so because they think of a DM being all in the roll camp and to them a GM is more in the role camp.
Again that does not mean it is so it is just their perception.
Why do I think this is important and continue on? Because as I have said I have seen a player of one type destroy games of another type. Some times it happens during the first session and sometimes it happens after many sessions.
The result's that I have seen and or heard about range from starting over, to backing up to a specific point, re-doing the last game or starting to continue on from "tragic" event with a lot of GM tinkering behind the scene to a player not realizing that he fits in with this group and at some point says he is going to move on.
Most of the stories I have heard and experienced have been more on the negative side when play styles clash and when a GM shells out for Rise of the Runelords Anniversary Edition and plans on running that for the next 6 months to 2 years it can be a big hit in the pocket book besides just the social problems it can cause.
MDC
When you say 'fluff oriented' do you mean story oriented?
IMO Pathfinder works best in a story-driven style, even when the rules are strictly adhered to. It's distantly derived from wargaming but that distance really shows.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
huh, never heard anyone even propose to me that there's a distinction between GM and DM. pretty sure the former is the generic term for all tabletop games and DM is the DnD specific one.
Bandw2 wrote:
but here's the point, that's like asking "why do you have paladin levels?" "because I want to be good at fighting demons"
We all understand your point dangit! :P
You keep sticking on this specific example for some reason. So I'll roll up my sleeves and dig into it with you.
I want to first expand the context. If you choose Paladin as your favoured class from the onset of the game, as your GM I would expect that this choice is explained by your backstory. Your backstory can't be "Because I want such and such a Paladin spell at level 6" or whatever mechanical explanation. I would expect you to imagine something up. I want to be reassured you have an understanding of the type of role you will be assuming in the months to come.
This backstory would explain your choice of Paladin as your character path.
When your character deviates from his Paladin-y path and suddenly learns oracular things, I want there to be an imaginary reason for this. Otherwise, you are making no contribution to the game world.
As your GM, I would feel you are wasting an opportunity to collaborate with the rest of the group.
It is entirely a semantic thing. Because the new abilities your character possess are called something different thing than what your favoured class has been called for several months, this begs for an imaginary explanation. There is no rule in the book requiring you to do so. If you need rules to make decisions then I would make a house rule that says something to the effect "changes in character must be driven by character narrative at the discretion of your GM". Something like that.
If again you would insist on simply saying you are taking a level in oracle for a mechanical reason I would encourage you to find an imaginary/narrative explanation for it. As a GM I put a lot of effort creating an imaginary platform for an imaginary adventure. The players I play with put forth an effort to contribute. I also put a lot of effort understanding the mechanics, so do the other players. If you refuse to put any effort into an important aspect of the game (the imaginary aspect in this case), then you are disrespecting the group.
If at that point you bypass my request to explain your oracle level by saying something like "well you didn't ask me to explain my paladin level up from 3-4", then you would be confirming to me that you either A) don't get what I'm driving at and probably won't get it so we have a pretty serious impasse or B) you do get it and your are just being argumentative for the sake of being contrary and we have an even more serious impasse. At that point I would suggest you find a game and GM better suited to your preferences so you can be happy with your preferred gaming experience and the rest of us can enjoy our preferred gaming experience.
If however you make some effort. Even a nominal one as Adjule suggests, I would thank you for your contribution and work with it.
I'm glad I got involved in this discussion. It helped me cohere my point of view on this.
Boiled down my opinion on rollplaying is this.
If people in your group are saying some things to you in a s~#&ty way, tell them you don't like it and discuss it in a calm manner. If they continue to be s&&!ty to you, leave.
BUT, this assumes you are making an effort on your end and not just forbidding people from saying a certain word that hurt your feelings. If you don't want to roleplay, find a group that is ok with that and move on. Or learn to roleplay. If your group is making an effort to learn the mechanics of the game, respond in kind by learning to roleplay. If you make an effort and you are still being pigeonholed, assert your boundaries. Or leave.
If you just want to stay in your comfort zone and wish to make no effort to collaborate with your group, don't expect your group to respect you. Respect is earned. If your group does not respond positively to your efforts, leave.
Really, it's more of group dynamics and social skills thing than anything else. it certainly isn't about identity politics as is vaguely implied in other posts. We're not talking about a group calling you fa**ot because you're gay. Not even near anything like that. You are more than likely getting a mild ribbing about your playstyle.
In the event that your PF group is abusive to you despite your efforts, leave.
Bandw2 wrote: "it's not important to my character's story, she gained these powers the same way she would have gained paladin powers, which i'm purposefully leaving open." I already read this the first time. And here's the thing: By default, oracles don't get their powers the same way paladins do. You might not care about default, but I do. That does not mean that we can't deviate from default, but it means that I expect an explanation for this deviation, no matter if you think it's important for your character's story or not. To me it matters, and if we can't find common ground on that, it's probably reason enough not to partake in the same game.
But just not to be misunderstood: That has nothing to do with the thread topic. You're character might still be awesome, as might your roleplaying skills. It's just that our outlook on the game might be way to different to have fun together.
What's default fluff as opposed to fluff?
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
ClingClong wrote: What's default fluff as opposed to fluff? My guess is what he means by "default fluff" is what is printed in the CRB/PHB.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
This might be a bit pretentious, but I'll say it anyways.
In PFS, I do feel like that everyone just accepts "Rollplaying" over "Roleplaying", in a cold, professional pathfinder sort of way. Here is how, or rather, here is just one experience out of many which has lead me to this mentality.
Our mission was to investigate this small village for how it survived a mana storm. There is a priest there, sure, but she is far from even character level, let alone epic level. The god they worship is not a well known or even particularly powerful as far as divine abilities goes (As the GM told us after the game, we could actually kill it if we wanted to). And sure, the village was creepy and a bit xenophobic, but they let us in and treated us well. They weren't bad people.
But our job was to find out what happened to the village and how if survived the mana storm. What happens to the village, apparently the Pathfinders don't particularly care about. Now maybe that's too harsh; it's not to say that Pathfinders as a whole don't care. As a pathfinder on that job, I certainly did care. But I guess in a way, there's no real reward for following your morality, when there is a reward for brutal pragmatism.
I won't spoil the scenario too much, but we found the source of the power that protected the village. We figured that we should bring this back to our venture captain so that he could study it, as he wanted us to do in the first place. But I had a bad feeling about it. That power source resonated with the same energy we found back at the village, the same energy that the priests said that it protected them and brought them prosperity. Removing it seemed like a really, really bad idea. Only two of us cared, because this was their answer: that's not our job.
Now maybe this is where the rollplayer/roleplayer debate starts to occur. Yes, it's not our job to worry about this village. But how can we just accept a whole village's destruction as a simple afterthought for completing our mission? Note I am not a paladin, and frankly never was interested in being a paladin. I was a CN Skald who at the time, was totally willing to help and fight for the village, though I didn't particularly care for their weapon ban and kept by battleaxe with me.
But anyways. There was some arguments thrown back and forth such as "You don't know it'll harm the village" and "We need to have good relations with this village" and so forth. For some, while we did fail the knowledge checks to have it explained to us, I don't need to be a level 20 wizard with 40 intelligence to figure out that the giant glowing seed that radiates a powerful transmutation aura probably powers the giant glowing tree that radiates a powerful transmutation aura. Or at the very least are closely related to one another.
Anyways we ended up taking the power source anyways since the we were cutting close to time and one of the players simply kept taking the seed even when we left it behind. And because PvP is highly frowned upon, there was little we could have done about it. So we returned to our venture captain and reported in, and yes, the seed is exactly what protected the village, and now that it was gone the village was no longer protected and it's prosperity plummeted (Cuz they live in the mana waste). The village would later be destroyed by a minor mana storm that without the seeds protection, there was nothing to save them. But did that matter?
No.
As far as objectives and such went, the well-being of this village had no bearing. Our job was to find the source of power, bring some evidence of it to our venture captain, as well as find a few missing people (Which we did). The village, which aside from their odd tendencies, were completely polite and curious to us. And we destroyed them, perhaps accidentally, perhaps callously. And yet everyone said this was a good ending.
I will admit to my own sins that the nagging feeling I had in the back of my head was only confirmed when I overheard another table who had taken the seed and brought it back to the village, where they were banished and scorned as the effects of their actions were immediate; the village was dying and now the people had to flee. Metagaming? Perhaps. But hearing this didn't give me the idea that taking the seed was a bad idea, I already knew that. It only reinforced that idea. Perhaps because others also heard of it was why they were so adamant to oppose me, because being metagaming is somehow worse then condemning a village for the sake of your mission (And I guess the sanctity of tabletop gaming?).
Anyways in the end, a lot of the objectives we needed to complete were fairly aimed towards not having to worry about the repercussion of our actions. To me, that does feeling like something a rollplayer would do because it's almost descriptive of the usual murder hobo cliche; just wandering vagrants killing what they want/need to and then moving on to the next area. More telling, there was no benefit to doing "good" or playing the part as a pathfinder who wasn't just doing what he was told. Aside from the fuzzy feelings or extended gameplay. Yeah, I get it, being good isn't always about getting a reward from it. But it does grate on one's mind to know that even if you want to the right thing, you may get nothing (or indeed loose out) whereas doing what's most effective without regards to what may happen even to NPC's is more rewarding.
|
