Quote from: cranebump;955486Beyond that, the way you're presenting yourself as a player (here, anyway) is as someone who would sit at my elbow every session, peering over at my sheet, then judging whether I'm "dead weight" based on that, rather than the decisions I make. It seems that how I plunk down the numbers might be your primary yardstick for how I play, before you've even seen me play).

Sadly, I've seen more-or-less exactly this happen in MMORPGs on a pretty regular basis, back when I used to play them.  Join a group, someone checks how your specialization points are distributed, get kicked from the group instantly.  Maybe without a word, or maybe they'll complain about your gimped build first.  If you're supremely lucky, they might tell you what website you can find the "correct" build for your class on, so that you can respec into the correct cookie cutter build for that particular group to find you acceptable.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that, at least at some tables, this attitude has leaked into TTRPGs.

Quote from: nDervish;955692Sadly, I've seen more-or-less exactly this happen in MMORPGs on a pretty regular basis, back when I used to play them.  Join a group, someone checks how your specialization points are distributed, get kicked from the group instantly.  Maybe without a word, or maybe they'll complain about your gimped build first.  If you're supremely lucky, they might tell you what website you can find the "correct" build for your class on, so that you can respec into the correct cookie cutter build for that particular group to find you acceptable.

I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that, at least at some tables, this attitude has leaked into TTRPGs.

Had this happen early on when I was playing City of Heroes. Think it was the second character I'd ever played (the first was a "wtf is going on?" character). Waiting to enter a mission, and some yahoo decided to go on about what I "should" have done with the character. Now, we're talking about a low-level character, maybe lvl 8? Wasn't like we were doing a Hami raid, or some other Task Force. I just up and left the team, ran mishes with other folks who didn't give a shit. Thankfully, a vast majority of the people in that game were more inclined to wait until you asked for help before "offering up" their expertise.  In real life, that's the guy who reaches over and points at your sheet while babbling away about what's gonna happen at level 20 when you haven't even ran the first session.

Anyhoo, that experience taught me to never wax eloquent on "builds" unless someone asks (and then I refer them to the folks who actually know their stuff on that subject).:-)  People should play what they want to play. It doesn't affect my fun.

*Real* ROLE-players play one legged, blind, amnesiacs.

Quote from: Tetsubo;955703*Real* ROLE-players play one legged, blind, amnesiacs.

Only in GURPS.

Quote from: cranebump;955698Had this happen early on when I was playing City of Heroes. Think it was the second character I'd ever played (the first was a "wtf is going on?" character). Waiting to enter a mission, and some yahoo decided to go on about what I "should" have done with the character. Now, we're talking about a low-level character, maybe lvl 8? Wasn't like we were doing a Hami raid, or some other Task Force. I just up and left the team, ran mishes with other folks who didn't give a shit. Thankfully, a vast majority of the people in that game were more inclined to wait until you asked for help before "offering up" their expertise.  In real life, that's the guy who reaches over and points at your sheet while babbling away about what's gonna happen at level 20 when you haven't even ran the first session.

Anyhoo, that experience taught me to never wax eloquent on "builds" unless someone asks (and then I refer them to the folks who actually know their stuff on that subject).:-)  People should play what they want to play. It doesn't affect my fun.

Yeah, and I'm the guy who managed to create the "Strike 199" build in Legends of the Wulin:D.

The number is the actual "maximum reasonable expectation" of my attack roll at the endgame, and values close to it are reachable sooner. BTW, that's without the GM allowing Transcendent techniques, in which case, I can get up to +15 better, should I decide I need them.
Thing is, the expected maximum value of an attack or defence in LotW is...more like 120, I think:p.
But the fun thing is that I know how to destroy that same build, too, and it's not by getting better strike;).

I never used it in actual play, FWIW.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;955704Only in GURPS.

No it can happen in Harnmaster as well.

Oh oh, cam we have the Disadvantage systems are of the Devil "discussion" now?

Or Social Mechanics vs Real Role playing?

Quote from: AsenRG;955685But the PF's GM advice tells you to give level-appropriate encounters, thus exacerbating the problem.

Advice not a rule.

Basically

Quoteguidance or recommendations concerning prudent future action, typically given by someone regarded as knowledgeable or authoritative.

versus

Quoteone of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or sphere.

I find the various pieces of advice informative but in the end it is me who decides how to run my campaign not Paizo, Wizards, Judges Guild, TSR, Columbia Games, Steve Jackson Games, etc, etc.

If people have trouble with this then they should re-evaluate their critical thinking skills.

However if it was me writing a set of RPG core books, I would make it fucking crystal clear that this game is nothing more than a set of tools to help you adjudicate the actions of the characters of a campaign and to help you save time in managing a campaign. That anything I say about campaigns or how to use the rules is advice from one referee to another and in the end it you who decide what is what in your campaign.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;955676I prefer point buy because of the inherent 'fairness' of having a level playing field

Point buy doesn't make the playing field level or more fair irregardless if disadvantages are involved or not. If you and your friend think that  then you are all deluding yourselves. What point buy does is allow for precise customization. It also can serve as a method for customized advancement.

Again this is because of the freeform nature of RPGs.

Quote from: estar;955712Point buy doesn't make the playing field level or more fair irregardless if disadvantages are involved or not. If you and your friend think that  then you are all deluding yourselves. What point buy does is allow for precise customization. It also can serve as a method for customized advancement.

Again this is because of the freeform nature of RPGs.

Beat me to it. It's no more "fair" than anything else, though it does shift accountability to the player, while shifting excuses away from dice rolls.

It's a control issue. Some folks want more control. Point Buy is just a tool to allow it.

Quote from: estar;955711Advice not a rule.

Basically


versus



I find the various pieces of advice informative but in the end it is me who decides how to run my campaign not Paizo, Wizards, Judges Guild, TSR, Columbia Games, Steve Jackson Games, etc, etc.

If people have trouble with this then they should re-evaluate their critical thinking skills.

However if it was me writing a set of RPG core books, I would make it fucking crystal clear that this game is nothing more than a set of tools to help you adjudicate the actions of the characters of a campaign and to help you save time in managing a campaign. That anything I say about campaigns or how to use the rules is advice from one referee to another and in the end it you who decide what is what in your campaign.

The advice says that, the rules for monsters have chapters how to determine the power level of more monsters in order to get a more balanced fight, and they're running an adventure path.
I treat rules as advice, or rather, as what the designer wishes me to use. But us two agreeing simply isn't relevant to what Gronan is talking about.

Quote from: AsenRG;955715The advice says that, the rules for monsters have chapters how to determine the power level of more monsters in order to get a more balanced fight, and they're running an adventure path.

Quote from: AsenRG;955715I treat rules as advice, or rather, as what the designer wishes me to use. But us two agreeing simply isn't relevant to what Gronan is talking about.

I am not totally clear on the circumstance of the campaign where Gronan experienced an Adventure Path. I could assume that the referee was running it 'as-is' and the whole thing was an experiment to see what it was about. Or it could be the referee was really enthusiastic about that adventure path and convinced everybody to participate in that campaign and basically repeated the mistake I did with Dragonlance back in the day.

Regardless, the deal with adventure path that is share traits with going to a movie or watching a TV show. For one person the work may be the greatest thing since sliced bread, for another it sucks monkey balls.  There been a lot of words about how successful films and tv shows are made and how they fail. My view is that there is a element of chance that even if you dot all your i's and cross your t's the work can still suck. And if you don't dot your i's and cross your t's, it still may wind up good but likely it will suck for the technical reasons alone.

Paizo's Adventure Path's have that hit or miss quality. if the players totally buy into the premise and make character in the spirit of the adventure path then it can be a fun ride for all. If they think it sucks then the campaign won't work. More likely is a meh reaction of "Yeah it was OK but lets get back to a regular campaign."

My point about taking the AP and tearing it down into it components is so I can use the advantages of a sandbox campaign to overcome the meh reactions. I find players tend to be more interested in a situation when they feel that they choose to get involved even when it something they consider meh.

And just let you know where I am coming from, while I am know for running sandbox campaign and writing about them.

I also ran boffer LARPS events for a decade. The problem with managing adventrues in LARP campaigns is the live action imposes hard limits on flexibility. People got to eat, and sleep. You can't magically teleport from one end of the site to the other. Your staff is limited compared to the number of players, etc, etc.

This means if you want to run a good LARP events you better learn to run decent railroaded adventures. I don't view railroads as automatically evil. They can work but it is hit or miss. And in the end I prefer to referee sandbox campaigns because I find the uncertainty factors far more interesting than playing out some pre-determined story.

Incidentally the one area where LARP equal tabletop in flexibility is social interactions. And in some ways better when it comes to multiple NPCs interacting with multiple players. This is why I was so involved because it was fascinating to see what people actually did when thrust into typical fantasy adventures.

Quote from: estar;955712Point buy doesn't make the playing field level or more fair irregardless if disadvantages are involved or not. If you and your friend think that  then you are all deluding yourselves. What point buy does is allow for precise customization. It also can serve as a method for customized advancement.

Again this is because of the freeform nature of RPGs.

Probably going to regret this but: Freeform nature?

Quote from: Nexus;955710Oh oh, cam we have the Disadvantage systems are of the Devil "discussion" now?

Actually... You know what the only problem I've ever had with Disadvantage systems is? Getting the players to actually sully their pristine characters with any ugly Disadvantages.

Likewise, I've found it an eternal struggle to get players to actually specialise in something, as opposed to spreading their points thin in a frantic effort to not be bad at anything ever. After all, what if they didn't put any points into Dance, and then there was a dance competition? Why, they'd be mortified! Better shave some points off of the fighting skills to put there, just in case!

And then there was that one time when a player struck me mute on the spot by asking: "do I really have to spend all my points?" Screw the sound of one hand clapping, that is a question to induce a zen state!

What I'm saying is, these discussions where min-maxing twinkery is assumed to be the norm and something a system is broken if it doesn't guard against always catch me wrong-footed. I can recall, hmm... all of twice over the course of the last fifteen years that someone has actually shown up with a character built for maximum utility at the expense of prettiness. The rest of the time, I keep having to try to convince players that a few actual strengths and weaknesses will bring more prettiness, not less, by making the character less bland and generic. To me, twinks are some kind of weird edge case that's unfortunate but can be safely ignored most of the time.

So how come everyone but me apparently runs into them everywhere? Do I just hang out in extremely strange places? :confused:

Quote from: Baeraad;955737Actually... You know what the only problem I've ever had with Disadvantage systems is? Getting the players to actually sully their pristine characters with any ugly Disadvantages.

Interesting. I wonder how much is mechanical (the system) and how much is the players. In the system I designed and run, disadvantages are optional and are not associated with a matching bonus. The disadvantage is just there for flavor, like if you want wizards that can't wear armor or something to add flavor to your character. My players love picking disadvantages. I have players with a mantis (bug) that gets a -1 to everything while underground and a calico feline who thinks she's stealthy while getting a -1 to all stealth rolls.