Regional Venture-Coordinator, Appalachia
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And Mike and John trusted the player base to be reasonable. That trust was unfortunately broken.Shifting blame to the player base is pretty easy and one-sided though
In the end it is also dismissive of the real power and responsibility that sits heavily on the shoulders of the Leadership team.
Thus answering the question originally posed by the topic?
Leadership had to get more harsh to reflect that their previous trust was misplaced?
I don't quite buy it. Tonya and John and Linda (and Mike Brock previously) have all been incredibly responsive to the playerbases needs, if a little slow during the busy season and in general trust us to hash out fairness on a local level. The way Assault on Absalom is being hotfixed in response to the difficulties at gencon is a great example of this.
If we as a playerbase force them to get more conservative on something we cannot really complain - we forced the hands of otherwise reasonable and friendly human beings.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Massachusetts—Boston Metro
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And as others have suggested the Slayer or Brawler DOES pretty well fill the role the Lore Warden once did which is WHY it feels so incredibly silly to even mess with it at all but that's really neither here nor there.
Actually, with the criteria people have been using Rogue and Investigators are really better choices. Namely because people want to play smart martial characters which is really depressing that it's not as common as one would think.
Edit:
Lau the monk got fixed in core because they did the worlds most inane errata for it that broke the class in totality.
|
And Mike and John trusted the player base to be reasonable. That trust was unfortunately broken.Shifting blame to the player base is pretty easy and one-sided though
In the end it is also dismissive of the real power and responsibility that sits heavily on the shoulders of the Leadership team.
What? I'm not even sure how to respond to this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What? I'm not even sure how to respond to this.And Mike and John trusted the player base to be reasonable. That trust was unfortunately broken.Shifting blame to the player base is pretty easy and one-sided though
In the end it is also dismissive of the real power and responsibility that sits heavily on the shoulders of the Leadership team.
I don't remember the specific issue, but there was some consternation among some players and they literally demanded that Mike had to make some ruling. So he did. And they complained loud and long about it. It wasn't that they wanted him to decide X, it's that they waanted him to to decide something period.
And when he did, they complained that he didn't decide differently.
It's absolutely ridiculous. There are many things that we, as players and GMs, should decide, and we should only ask for a formal decision on things that REALLY matter. But we don't. We want rulings on all sort of little things that, in the overall scheme, don't make a bit of difference.
The players and GMs who constantly demand things, or who go so far out of their way to exploit loopholes or ambiguities, share a measure of responsibility, too.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What? I'm not even sure how to respond to this.And Mike and John trusted the player base to be reasonable. That trust was unfortunately broken.Shifting blame to the player base is pretty easy and one-sided though
In the end it is also dismissive of the real power and responsibility that sits heavily on the shoulders of the Leadership team.
I don't remember the specific issue, but there was some consternation among some players and they literally demanded that Mike had to make some ruling. So he did. And they complained loud and long about it. It wasn't that they wanted him to decide X, it's that they waanted him to to decide something period.
And when he did, they complained that he didn't decide differently.
It's absolutely ridiculous. There are many things that we, as players and GMs, should decide, and we should only ask for a formal decision on things that REALLY matter. But we don't. We want rulings on all sort of little things that, in the overall scheme, don't make a bit of difference.
The players and GMs who constantly demand things, or who go so far out of their way to exploit loopholes or ambiguities, share a measure of responsibility, too.
This reminds me of people who immediately bring out a lawyer for some dispute with their neighbor instead of talking to them first and trying to work something out. Some people do not like to negotiate, so they try to get authority to back up their position instead of working things out among themselves.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The notion that it is the player base that is responsible for us all having nice things taken away from us by Campaign Leadership is, well, problematic.
It puts me in mind of being a schoolboy when the whole class got punished for the actions of 1 or 2 pupils.
I don't want PFS to make me feel like that. I'm a middle-aged professional.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean... you might not like it, but it seems fairly clear.
-Hey, we're removing this race on date X, and we're trusting players not to stockpile a huge pile.
-*players do 20-minute speedruns to accumulate thirty aasimar & tieflings*
-Apparently our trust was misplaced. We know better now.
Cause and effect.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm guessing your preferred solution is "don't change policy or do anything in response". Which may be better.
It's certainly better than one of my preferred solutions, which is "make it rain bannings". (My other, "relegalize aasimar and tiefling so there's not a permanent haves/have-nots situation", was never going to happen anyway.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The notion that it is the player base that is responsible for us all having nice things taken away from us by Campaign Leadership is, well, problematic.
It puts me in mind of being a schoolboy when the whole class got punished for the actions of 1 or 2 pupils.
I don't want PFS to make me feel like that. I'm a middle-aged professional.
Unfortunately, I am not sure of how else to deal with the problem of players who are happy to let their fun run over everyone else's.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
In a group that is largely separated by distance and in some cases significant regional differences, even a small percentage openly flouting a request of leadership and then flaunting it represents a pretty big problem.
1) It's disrespectful of other players who choose to honor the intent of the request.
2) if nothing changes in leniency of decisions, then other players will see it as ok to do the same.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean... you might not like it, but it seems fairly clear.
-Hey, we're removing this race on date X, and we're trusting players not to stockpile a huge pile.
-*players do 20-minute speedruns to accumulate thirty aasimar & tieflings*
-Apparently our trust was misplaced. We know better now.Cause and effect.
You don't HAVE to set policy based on 10 idiots.
Unless you're setting policy around nuclear weapons. Then yeah, babyproof the heck out of that.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguably, the Brass has been backed into a bit of a corner. On the one side you have a lot of fair and reasonable players who you risk punishing. On the other you have the players who will exploit every loophole and corner case to make the most powerful character they can, and who do not care about anyone else's fun. The other problem is that it can be very hard to know where the "silent majority" lays in most issues. I am not sure what the solution is, but I do have empathy for them.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean... you might not like it, but it seems fairly clear.
-Hey, we're removing this race on date X, and we're trusting players not to stockpile a huge pile.
-*players do 20-minute speedruns to accumulate thirty aasimar & tieflings*
-Apparently our trust was misplaced. We know better now.Cause and effect.
Actually, they learned the wrong thing. The lesson to learn was not to ban a race that had already been permitted.
Then again, I don't lose fun just because someone else is a little better at something than I am. Another PC being overpowered in no way interferes with my fun, and can sometimes add to it.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The "planetouched incident" was around 2 years ago right? Is it really the cause of the glut of nerfings since?
Whether it is or not, my preferred solution is to manage problem behaviours (and if necessary problem players) out of our shared campaign, which would take co-ordinated action from GMs and venture officers.
We have pretty well established "rules of engagement" - play nice, don't be a jerk and so on. These are set out in the Community Standards. Bringing PCs that are so overpowered that they spoil everyone's fun breaches the Community Standards even if the PC is technically legally built. So I think it is appropriate and entirely within the spirit of cooperation that the campaign is established upon for GMs and players to work together to agree that nobody brings an overpowered character. Leaving it up to GMs and players in this way still allows for those who might enjoy it to take a group of "hard mode" PCs through a "hard mode" module, without allowing for 1 overpowering PC to render more typical builds irrelevant and spoil a table.
We ought to be able to educate problem behaviours away without recourse to nerfs and rewrites.
Other people care.
Especially when it is as obnoxious as it was.
If you weren't there, you probably shouldn't judge.
|
|
The "planetouched incident" was around 2 years ago right? Is it really the cause of the glut of nerfings since?
Whether it is or not, my preferred solution is to manage problem behaviours (and if necessary problem players) out of our shared campaign, which would take co-ordinated action from GMs and venture officers.
We have pretty well established "rules of engagement" - play nice, don't be a jerk and so on. These are set out in the Community Standards. Bringing PCs that are so overpowered that they spoil everyone's fun breaches the Community Standards even if the PC is technically legally built. So I think it is appropriate and entirely within the spirit of cooperation that the campaign is established upon for GMs and players to work together to agree that nobody brings an overpowered character. Leaving it up to GMs and players in this way still allows for those who might enjoy it to take a group of "hard mode" PCs through a "hard mode" module, without allowing for 1 overpowering PC to render more typical builds irrelevant and spoil a table.
We ought to be able to educate problem behaviours away without recourse to nerfs and rewrites.
Here is where things get tricky, some GM's would happily make far more sweeping bans then currently exist. Also, what is the solution should you feel that you have been unfairly excluded? What if those feelings are wrong?
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
Actually, they learned the wrong thing. The lesson to learn was not to ban a race that had already been permitted.You say that after they specifically did not make any changes to races allowed this year. And cited the aasimar/tiefling issue as a reason.
Yes, maybe they learned it later. However, they did not learn it right away, or they would have immediately brought back aasimars and tieflings as options, and still added the things they have added.
As for how to fix things now? Allow any player to choose pretty much any race or class option that has every been legal to use, even with a boon. That includes old style summoner, goblins, catfolk, and both versions of lore warden. In the long term, close to every race from the ARG that is not above some RP cutoff (perhaps 13??) should be allowed.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here is where things get tricky, some GM's would happily make far more sweeping bans then currently exist. Also, what is the solution should you feel that you have been unfairly excluded? What if those feelings are wrong?The "planetouched incident" was around 2 years ago right? Is it really the cause of the glut of nerfings since?
Whether it is or not, my preferred solution is to manage problem behaviours (and if necessary problem players) out of our shared campaign, which would take co-ordinated action from GMs and venture officers.
We have pretty well established "rules of engagement" - play nice, don't be a jerk and so on. These are set out in the Community Standards. Bringing PCs that are so overpowered that they spoil everyone's fun breaches the Community Standards even if the PC is technically legally built. So I think it is appropriate and entirely within the spirit of cooperation that the campaign is established upon for GMs and players to work together to agree that nobody brings an overpowered character. Leaving it up to GMs and players in this way still allows for those who might enjoy it to take a group of "hard mode" PCs through a "hard mode" module, without allowing for 1 overpowering PC to render more typical builds irrelevant and spoil a table.
We ought to be able to educate problem behaviours away without recourse to nerfs and rewrites.
Fairness can be established by consensus around the table.
A hypothetical illustration:
GM: so today we're playing the tier 1-5 scenario "Fiery Goblins of Doom." What's everyone bringing?
Player 1: level 1 lore warden
Player 2: level 2 life oracle
Player 3: level 2 wayang unchained rogue knife master
Player 4: well I want to play my level 4 aasimar druid/monk/barbarian.
GM: if you've got a lower level character that would fit better.
Player 4: nope. This scenario says it's got content for my level 4's faction so I wanna play my level 4.
GM: *eyeballs Player 4's character sheet* - you've got a buffed AC of 30 and you do 3d6+10 damage on a hit. You could solo this scenario and that wouldn't be fun for the rest of the table. Please use a different PC with a more appropriate power level, or a pregen, otherwise my responsibility to provide a fun experience for everyone means I can't let you use that character.
Players 1, 2, and 3: we prefer you play a different PC please.
Now, if players 1, 2 and 3 all agree that it's OK for player 4 to bring a dominating build, maybe the GM should go with it. The GM's fun is important too though. Consensus is critical. Disputes would need to be handled by the VO chain.
I recognise this could be tricky, but I think we're probably intelligent people aren't we?
Actually, they learned the wrong thing. The lesson to learn was not to ban a race that had already been permitted.You say that after they specifically did not make any changes to races allowed this year. And cited the aasimar/tiefling issue as a reason.Yes, maybe they learned it later. However, they did not learn it right away, or they would have immediately brought back aasimars and tieflings as options, and still added the things they have added.
As for how to fix things now? Allow any player to choose pretty much any race or class option that has every been legal to use, even with a boon. That includes old style summoner, goblins, catfolk, and both versions of lore warden. In the long term, close to every race from the ARG that is not above some RP cutoff (perhaps 13??) should be allowed.
Aasimar and tieflings were not a good fit for the organized campaign and they probably aren't bringing them back full time, it's best to move on.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And Mike and John trusted the player base to be reasonable. That trust was unfortunately broken.Shifting blame to the player base is pretty easy and one-sided though
In the end it is also dismissive of the real power and responsibility that sits heavily on the shoulders of the Leadership team.
Sooooooooooo Leadership is to blame for being trusting?
I think they blamed themselves for that already and that they are endlessly trying to find the balanced solution.
After all, the raison d'etre for any Leadership is to ensure that people of diverse opinion live/work/play together with the least possible amount of friction. It is obvious from this very thread that this did not happen in the A/T incident. To the point that posters on both sides still fume about it and accusations fly
That said, to be sure that a rule is respected, the best thing is to be as clear and unambiguous about it as possible and then stick to it.
In other words, "reasonable" is not a number
I think the reason why there is still no ruling here is precisely because the PFS leadership are human beings willing to learn from their mistakes and make it better next time. Which is now
|
|
Here is where things get tricky, some GM's would happily make far more sweeping bans then currently exist. Also, what is the solution should you feel that you have been unfairly excluded? What if those feelings are wrong?The "planetouched incident" was around 2 years ago right? Is it really the cause of the glut of nerfings since?
Whether it is or not, my preferred solution is to manage problem behaviours (and if necessary problem players) out of our shared campaign, which would take co-ordinated action from GMs and venture officers.
We have pretty well established "rules of engagement" - play nice, don't be a jerk and so on. These are set out in the Community Standards. Bringing PCs that are so overpowered that they spoil everyone's fun breaches the Community Standards even if the PC is technically legally built. So I think it is appropriate and entirely within the spirit of cooperation that the campaign is established upon for GMs and players to work together to agree that nobody brings an overpowered character. Leaving it up to GMs and players in this way still allows for those who might enjoy it to take a group of "hard mode" PCs through a "hard mode" module, without allowing for 1 overpowering PC to render more typical builds irrelevant and spoil a table.
We ought to be able to educate problem behaviours away without recourse to nerfs and rewrites.
Fairness can be established by consensus around the table.
A hypothetical illustration:
GM: so today we're playing the tier 1-5 scenario "Fiery Goblins of Doom." What's everyone bringing?
Player 1: level 1 lore warden
Player 2: level 2 life oracle
Player 3: level 2 wayang unchained rogue knife master
Player 4: well I want to play my level 4 aasimar druid/monk/barbarian.
GM: if you've got a lower level character that would fit better.
Player 4: nope. This scenario says it's got content for my level 4's faction so I wanna play my level 4.
GM: *eyeballs Player 4's character...
Most of us are. There are the GMs who are either to soft to say anything, or "Player 2, Life Oracles are totally OP, make something else or get out." There was an inccident of a local PFS GM openly bragging that he would go out of his way to kill any Swashbucklers because he hatted the class.
|
|
So, then what is the solution if one player's build is hurting the other plers' fun? There are people out there who would happily build characters designed to break the game. Am I in the wrong for wanting a challenge? Am I in the wrong for wanting to significantly contribute?
I sincerely hope no one here said so
I think the problem lies with outside rules/restrictions impacting the fun of people who are ALL willing to play with this kind of characters
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, then what is the solution if one player's build is hurting the other plers' fun? There are people out there who would happily build characters designed to break the game. Am I in the wrong for wanting a challenge? Am I in the wrong for wanting to significantly contribute?
Wanting a challenge and wanting to significantly contribute isn't hurting anyone else's fun, I should think.
But if you've built a character with those goals in mind and you're at a table where other players haven't (for whatever reason), then depending on the scenario's difficulty you could be in a position where you're so dominant that it isn't fun for others. That in itself wouldn't really be your fault, it's more a problem with the variance in difficulty of scenarios and the variance in player "system mastery" (I don't like that phrase, but you know what I mean by it). This is why I advocate for consensus around the table.
To illustrate with another example, but this time from real play:
NPC: I gift you with this magic arrow of slaying, that will aid you in destroying the BBEG.
Party: ooh, thanks. Maybe the rogue should take that.
Me: Umm. Yes. But, well, I can make an extract of True Strike. I'm not an archer. I'm proficient in bows but I don't actually have one. I'm happy for the rogue to take the arrow of slaying, but I wanted to let you know that I have this option if you want me to use it.
Other players, including rogue: use it! use it!
Me: OK, if you're sure about this I'll buy a bow and I'll take the shot when the time comes.
And I took the shot, and we beat the BBEG. I've heard of other parties in the scenario repeatedly missing with the arrow and chasing it around the encounter area to fire it again and again until they hit.
In my example, my character was more capable than the party's rogue archer. By a wide margin. But I didn't want to take her fun away. So I avoided saying "give me that arrow, I got this, I'll smash the attack roll using my extract of True Strike." I sought and achieved a consensus, and I'd have accepted a different decision from my fellow players. (I also made sure to take Infusion as my PC's next discovery).
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, then what is the solution if one player's build is hurting the other plers' fun? There are people out there who would happily build characters designed to break the game. Am I in the wrong for wanting a challenge? Am I in the wrong for wanting to significantly contribute?
Am I in the wrong for wanting to build flavorful characters?
I think there's a vast divide here in terms of where we find our fun in the game, and I feel like campaign leadership is listening far more to the other side. Maybe the other side is the majority, which would make that make sense.
I don't find balance important for my fun on either side of the GM screen. What I do find important is to have oodles of options so that I can find things that best fit together to form the character I'm trying to make. There have been characters I've made that can one-shot an encounter. One of them did in one game, with the other players' permission, because it was fun to do and fun for them to see. There are other characters I've made who are probably underpowered because I stuck with my concept and built it the best I could, but the rules did not support a normal power level for a character built on that concept. It's about using all the options available to tell the story, including the story of who my character is. The length of a combat has very little to do with that.
If I'm hearing some of you correctly, you find it more important that every character be able to contribute about equally than you do about having lots of options. No one character should be able to finish a combat in one action (at least not dependably) but every character should be able to help with the combat. Is this an accurate overview of the opposing viewpoint?
So how does campaign leadership balance these two perspectives? To me it seems like they are very far on the side opposite of me. Perhaps that's simply because of the number of concepts I have that I will never be able to use in a PFS game. I just sometimes grow weary of being told that the fun of everyone on the 'other side' matters more than the fun of those to who the concept is more important than balance, like me.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Online—PbP
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I in the wrong for wanting to build flavorful characters?Then build those. But keep the rest of your party in mind while you do so.
What I'm arguing against here is PFS rules that prevent me from doing so. I don't have one of the very few goblin boons, so I can't build my goblin cleric of Sarenrae. And that's just one example out of many.
Many of my favorite concepts are traditional 'monster races' such as goblins and kobolds that become good, while still maintaining the flavor of their race.
|
|
If I'm hearing some of you correctly, you find it more important that every character be able to contribute about equally than you do about having lots of options. No one character should be able to finish a combat in one action (at least not dependably) but every character should be able to help with the combat. Is this an accurate overview of the opposing viewpoint?
I like having options too. Sometimes this means my character is more capable than others at the table. What I want to avoid is roflstomping encounters before other players can do anything, even if I am capable of doing that.
So, I'll ask before I take that arrow of slaying that the rogue could use. But I don't feel like I need to ask before I unload my flanking raging power attacking sneak attacking natural weapon full attack on the BBEG to save my fellow pathfinder who's just been dropped into negative hp.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Many of my favorite concepts are traditional 'monster races' such as goblins and kobolds that become good, while still maintaining the flavor of their race.
That's an itch you'll probably want to scratch in a different game, as PFS leadership has been clear from the beginning that they don't like playable "monster races".
(Which at least makes the specials that let you do so a lot more special.)
Not criticizing your tastes at all, just helping you set expectations.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arguably, the Brass has been backed into a bit of a corner. On the one side you have a lot of fair and reasonable players who you risk punishing. On the other you have the players who will exploit every loophole and corner case to make the most powerful character they can, and who do not care about anyone else's fun. The other problem is that it can be very hard to know where the "silent majority" lays in most issues. I am not sure what the solution is, but I do have empathy for them.
My experience tells me that at the table, reasonable players do one of two things when they see those who exploit and abuse every last loophole continue to get away with it.
1) they quit
2) they join
Neither circumstance is ideal. The only way to really combat this is to discourage the abuse.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@supervilan, not quite. The problems that I have been seeing is people who make very powerful builds, but never hold back or let other people have the spot light. People who make the other players feel like, "why am I even here?"
I think everyone in this thread will agree that those are problem players. We might differ in our preferred solutions. My preferred solution is table consensus.
|
|
So, then what is the solution if one player's build is hurting the other plers' fun? There are people out there who would happily build characters designed to break the game. Am I in the wrong for wanting a challenge? Am I in the wrong for wanting to significantly contribute?Wanting a challenge and wanting to significantly contribute isn't hurting anyone else's fun, I should think.
But if you've build a character with those goals in mind and you're at a table where other players haven't (for whatever reason), then depending on the scenario's difficulty you could be in a position where you're so dominant that it isn't fun for others. That in itself wouldn't really be your fault, it's more a problem with the variance in difficulty of scenarios and the variance in player "system mastery" (I don't like that phrase, but you know what I mean by it). This is why I advocate for consensus around the table.
To illustrate with another example, but this time from real play:
NPC: I gift you with this magic arrow of slaying, that will aid you in destroying the BBEG.
Party: ooh, thanks. Maybe the rogue should take that.
Me: Umm. Yes. But, well, I can make an extract of True Strike. I'm not an archer. I'm proficient in bows but I don't actually have one. I'm happy for the rogue to take the arrow of slaying, but I wanted to let you know that I have this option if you want me to use it.
Other players, including rogue: use it! use it!
Me: OK, if you're sure about this I'll buy a bow and I'll take the shot when the time comes.And I took the shot, and we beat the BBEG. I've heard of other parties in the scenario repeatedly missing with the arrow and chasing it around the encounter area to fire it again and again until they hit.
In my example, my character was more capable than the party's rogue archer. By a wide margin. But I didn't want to take her fun away. So I avoided saying "give me that arrow, I got this, I'll smash the attack roll using my extract of True Strike." I...
That isn't what he was saying, at all.
He's saying that he's made a relatively reasonable character that is functional, well-rounded, and competent, but he's sitting at a table with a group of seriously OP characters that completely make his character irrelevant.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@supervilan, not quite. The problems that I have been seeing is people who make very powerful builds, but never hold back or let other people have the spot light. People who make the other players feel like, "why am I even here?"I think everyone in this thread will agree that those are problem players. We might differ in our preferred solutions. My preferred solution is table consensus.
Technically though, for the same reason they get to legally build those characters, table consensus doesn't get to enforce them playing a different character. Different regions may collectively handle things differently, respectively.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Technically though, for the same reason they get to legally build those characters, table consensus doesn't get to enforce them playing a different character. Different regions may collectively handle things differently, respectively.@supervilan, not quite. The problems that I have been seeing is people who make very powerful builds, but never hold back or let other people have the spot light. People who make the other players feel like, "why am I even here?"I think everyone in this thread will agree that those are problem players. We might differ in our preferred solutions. My preferred solution is table consensus.
So table consensus needs strengthening. That's the solution I am advocating for, and I think it's entirely within the spirit and letter of the campaign rules; *Don't ruin everyone else's fun* trumps *bring a legal character*.
|
|
So, then what is the solution if one player's build is hurting the other plers' fun? There are people out there who would happily build characters designed to break the game. Am I in the wrong for wanting a challenge? Am I in the wrong for wanting to significantly contribute?...That isn't what he was saying, at all.
He's saying that he's made a relatively reasonable character that is functional, well-rounded, and competent, but he's sitting at a table with a group of seriously OP characters that completely make his character irrelevant.
I do not think this is what Nohwear was saying.
I read that you mean that having a single character made irrelevant because the other characters are "OP" is a big No-No (as in one player's fun is more important than that of the others).
But that having a single "OP" character making the other characters irrelevant should be verboten (as in this player's fun is less important than that of the others)
Which ends up making the real criteria not being the fun of people but whether a given character is "OP", whatever that means
