TheRPGSite

I troll many forums at once, and I ran across this little gem: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2py3m?well-not-at-MY-table

The gist is...

1) They are playing Pathfinder Society, which has a set of what is rules legal as well as a number of other conceits required for participation.  Chief among these is that the GM is not permitted to modify the prescribed modules.  They're assumed to be the same playing experience no matter which table you pick.
2) A player devised a rules-legal way of trivializing combat with some kind of a pet.  I gather it is a bison.
3) A pair of GMs in this situation refused to run a game for this character.
4) Drama ensued...

The 'care level' is pretty low outside of those circles, for sure, but I for one was depressed to see GMing reduced to something you can force someone else to do.

Thought that might strike some of you guys the same way...

Sad, sad, sad.

My advice to anyone who wants to complain about the DM not doing what you want via some rules lawyering?  DM a game yourself.  There.  Easy fix.



In my personal experience, either one of two things happen.

1. the player refuses, because then his personal character can't shine
2. the player is a shitty DM, and what should happen to all shitty DMs is that they will find themselves with no players that want to play in their world until they become less of a shitty DM.  

The first step in not being a shitty DM or player?  Recognizing that there are other players at the table who want to have fun too.

Serves them right for trying to FORCE ON THE PLAYERS Mother May I/MTP. Fucking GMs, who do they think they are.

Meh. The DMs chose to run games dictated by a 3rd party.

Shut up and run the robotic script you signed up for or quit being a Paizo server bitch and run your own game.

I almost wanted to rattle the vocabulary cage, but decided it wasn't the right forum for it.

For example,  can a GM without such discretion still be called a Game Master?

I think I could argue that.  They don't make the modules, don't preside over the characters in any way, can't change anything,  etc.  So much of the traditional GM role is removed that they really appear to be 'adjudicators'.

A better term is referee, like the old tourney days.  Because that's essentially what they are playing.

I do not want to sound judgmental...

But that whole setup just looks no fucking fun at all.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671338The DMs chose to run games dictated by a 3rd party.

Shut up and run the robotic script you signed up for or quit being a Paizo server bitch and run your own game.

Sympathy may be found between shit and syphilis in the OED.

In terms of full disclosure, I have no idea what the Pathfinder Society is.  I don't know if they play games like in a tourney, where players and GMs could end up switching back and forth, or if it's local groups that hardly ever change players but are part of the club.

If they are more like the tourney players, I can understand why they would want conformity among DMs.  If they are groups that are just part of the club, that makes no sense to not allow the DM to run a game like he or she wants.

Well this doesn't sound like much fun except for the part where Super Bison Summoner (Rider? Oh, wait, it's an animal companion, isn't it. Super Bison Rider!) is the most feared warrior in all the lands. That part sounds hilarious.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671326The first step in not being a shitty DM or player?  Recognizing that there are other players at the table who want to have fun too.

That should be tattooed on the inside of the eyelids of every gamemaster in glowing neon ink. And on the foreheads of every player, as well.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671358In terms of full disclosure, I have no idea what the Pathfinder Society is.  I don't know if they play games like in a tourney, where players and GMs could end up switching back and forth, or if it's local groups that hardly ever change players but are part of the club.

If they are more like the tourney players, I can understand why they would want conformity among DMs.  If they are groups that are just part of the club, that makes no sense to not allow the DM to run a game like he or she wants.

My understanding is that it works more or less like the RPGA, which was fuckawful for all the same reasons this sounds fuckawful.

Ordinarily, I'd be on the GM's side, although "discuss it with your players" is better than "fuck you and your bison, you fuck".

But.

The PFS GM's sign up to run RaW-legal (Not RaI!) games for all comers using predesigned scenarios they have to follow to the letter. There's no coercion here, the GM's signed up to this. Given that it's a heavy crunch system that's been optimised in pretty much every way possible for the last thirteen years, they should be expecting optimised characters. That shouldn't be a surprise for them. If they don't like it? They shouldn't be running PFS games, they should be running their own games and discussing banned concepts with their group. There's the fucking solution.

The players, in this instance, are just getting what they signed up for. The GM's, in this instance, are the ones being dicks.

PFS is like RPGA under a new name. Don't like being a server bitch, don't play tourney style RPGs. I find no purpose to it myself, but it is very popular among CCG types. It's all about builds, rules lawyering, and autowins. 3e was like crack cocaine to this demographic, PF is like crystal meth; they can't get enough of the chargen challenge to circumvent adventure paths.

I don't see why they'd have to allow that player in the game, even if the build is legal.

Quote from: Opaopajr;671419PFS is like RPGA under a new name. Don't like being a server bitch, don't play tourney style RPGs. I find no purpose to it myself, but it is very popular among CCG types. It's all about builds, rules lawyering, and autowins. 3e was like crack cocaine to this demographic, PF is like crystal meth; they can't get enough of the chargen challenge to circumvent adventure paths.

Agreed doesn't seem to be much roleplay involved. I would say 'you can't have a bison pet because it's a fucking stupid idea mate'. What does it eat where does it sleep, etc etc ... then I would make the entrance to the dungeon a really small narrow corridor so they would have to leave their bison outside :)

The only enjoyment I could see from GMing in such an environment would be to subvert it.

There's really only one response to this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJ4T9CQA0UM

edit: oh lord I read that thread it's like chinese or something

Quote from: Ladybird;671390Ordinarily, I'd be on the GM's side, although "discuss it with your players" is better than "fuck you and your bison, you fuck".

But.

The PFS GM's sign up to run RaW-legal (Not RaI!) games for all comers using predesigned scenarios they have to follow to the letter. There's no coercion here, the GM's signed up to this. Given that it's a heavy crunch system that's been optimised in pretty much every way possible for the last thirteen years, they should be expecting optimised characters. That shouldn't be a surprise for them. If they don't like it? They shouldn't be running PFS games, they should be running their own games and discussing banned concepts with their group. There's the fucking solution.

The players, in this instance, are just getting what they signed up for. The GM's, in this instance, are the ones being dicks.

That's all nonsense.  The problem is passive-aggressive players who are just sitting down at tables to troll basically, and a vocal minority supporting them based on some sense of "justice" in the abstract that aren't actually dealing with any problems.

The problem is that no one is obligated to DM or play, so ultimately you either give the group the leeway to decide if they aren't having fun "legal" options or not or you kill off the event because no one wants to play, and the kinds of people who are there to troll are never going to stick around to just play with each other.  Then they'll go on the forums to whine at the people they think are obligated somehow to put up with their shit.

I don't play in organized play events, and I've never had any interest in them, but this is a problem in pickup games as well, with the social expectation that whatever random nerd from the game store should be able to sit down and play and we all cater to his fetishes, or borderline cheating, et cetera.  Some people buy into it, and I guess suffer for it because they are easy to push around.  An organized play event isn't any different.  That DM can just say that he's not going to be involved any event with X player or involving Y antics.

If you bring it out of a rules discussion and into social one it's easy to see how a single player could if he wanted to totally and deliberately destroy any interest in a public event so long as he is involved, and there aren't very many people who argue on behalf of the guy whose main objective at the game table is to have the DM and other players act as his phone sex operator.

If everyone at PFS is obligated to sit and deal with some obscure rule loophole week after week then logically they should have to sit and deal with the guy who turns 2 hours of your week into some guy obsessing over his sexual fetishes.  You did agree to play the game after all, and there is no rule against it, so you must subject yourself to it.  No, again that's nonsense.

PFS guys came to my hobby shop, ran their song and dance over what it was.

The newbs, the guys that never played a RPG in their life (but where heavy into the MTG treadmill) said "no way."

It's not just the "must run all modules the same way" stuff that gets me. It's the "can't use certain characters/builds in the rulebook", the "play these adventures and your characters get bonus power points", and the "play enough and get credit for free magic items" that put it right in the "hell no" territory for me, though I certainly respect anyone who wants to play that way (plenty of MMOs do, after all).

You may dislike it, you may choose not to participate, but them's the terms of organized play. Like it or lump it. And enough of the FLGS and Convention scene has to like it -- because it brings butts into the seats and rings up sales at the register. CCG-esque RPG style is what sells en masse. Sucks, but them's the big numbers and face to the public at large.

To change it, go to your FLGS and offer an alternative. Otherwise ignore it and shrug off issues of dwindling player pool. Hey, law of advertising visibility: if no one sees, no one knows; if no one knows, no one cares. Silence equals consent.

I play at my FLGS because I want to share new ideas and styles to those curious. Part of it means listening respectfully (if frustratedly) to the dominant public style of tourney play. I am not there to "correct them," I'm there to be a friend and open up the dialogue of RPG potential. We may disagree (we often don't, as many are dissatisfied with tourney style all the time), but the more important thing is to be a visible alternative.

Quote from: jibbajibba;671454Agreed doesn't seem to be much roleplay involved. I would say 'you can't have a bison pet because it's a fucking stupid idea mate'. What does it eat where does it sleep, etc etc ... then I would make the entrance to the dungeon a really small narrow corridor so they would have to leave their bison outside :)

The only enjoyment I could see from GMing in such an environment would be to subvert it.

Only you can't- the club they are part of has strict rules against changing or adding elements.

You could enforce the were does it eat/sleep just fine, but not subvert it in the other ways.

I also agree Unbeatable Buffalo Knight sounds like the most interesting part of the whole shebang.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;671465That's all nonsense.  The problem is passive-aggressive players who are just sitting down at tables to troll basically, and a vocal minority supporting them based on some sense of "justice" in the abstract that aren't actually dealing with any problems.

The problem is that no one is obligated to DM or play, so ultimately you either give the group the leeway to decide if they aren't having fun "legal" options or not or you kill off the event because no one wants to play, and the kinds of people who are there to troll are never going to stick around to just play with each other.  Then they'll go on the forums to whine at the people they think are obligated somehow to put up with their shit.

Nobody is obligated to GM or play, but nobody is obligated to sign up to run PFS games, either.

So, don't sign up to run PFS games. It's that simple.

QuoteI don't play in organized play events, and I've never had any interest in them, but this is a problem in pickup games as well, with the social expectation that whatever random nerd from the game store should be able to sit down and play and we all cater to his fetishes, or borderline cheating, et cetera.  Some people buy into it, and I guess suffer for it because they are easy to push around.  An organized play event isn't any different.  That DM can just say that he's not going to be involved any event with X player or involving Y antics.

Now you're conflating creepy player behaviour and rules-lawyering, which are not the same thing. I'd be very surprised if PFS didn't include some form of "bringing the game into disrepute" rule to cover creepy players; at the very least, the store owner might not want them around. Kicking someone out for going on about their collection of anatomically correct RealDogs, yes, obviously. But that's not the same issue.

The new thing to me is building up a pet bison for trample damage. I didn't read the whole topic because I don't care, but it's adorable and thematic. And building up a terrain restricted pet like that is kinda cool.

It's actually weaker than the (IIRC) ranger summoner build where you summon creatures instantly and at any specific location within range of ability. This includes height. It's been ages since my friends and I cooked up the theoretical build. It's been a delightful theory build since 3e until some printing errata or missing clause killed our fun. Mercifully I have recently been informed (like last month or so, from local PFS coordinators who have to check with PF rulings team) that PF removed that restriction and the trick is legal.

Normally the trick was bison summoning was the fastest heavy animal to summon at low level. Summon it instantaneously less than an inch from the target's head. WHOOMP! 1000+ lbs. unavoidable crush damage. Now rangers can play bison tetris!

But perhaps it is a more entertaining build about a bison rider!

The problem is the same as it's always been in organized play. You have to try and ensure the rules/opportunity are equal for all, but that usually comes at the price of kneecapping nearly any relevant GM input or discretion.

It's just a different breed of game. I wouldn't have the patience for it as a GM, but the folks who sign up to run those games should know the expectations and what they're getting into. A lot of what could be resolved in 2 minutes at my home table becomes a major issue in organized play.

Side note: Man, I hate hardcore min/maxing. Few things irritate me as much as someone showing up with a Planetouched Tiefling Warborn Dragonspike Assassin who does 96 points of damage at Level 2, while the rest of us (Bard, Fighter, and Cleric) are doing 1d8+1 or 1d12+2, if we're lucky. Just roll up a character and get in there.

Quote from: mcbobbo;671322I troll many forums at once, and I ran across this little gem: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2py3m?well-not-at-MY-table

The gist is...

1) They are playing Pathfinder Society, which has a set of what is rules legal as well as a number of other conceits required for participation.  Chief among these is that the GM is not permitted to modify the prescribed modules.  They're assumed to be the same playing experience no matter which table you pick.
2) A player devised a rules-legal way of trivializing combat with some kind of a pet.  I gather it is a bison.
3) A pair of GMs in this situation refused to run a game for this character.
4) Drama ensued...

On the one hand, this sort of constraint on the GM is kind of necessary for something like PF Society or the RPGA Living campaigns, where characters can drift from table to table and there needs to be a certain level of standardisation to make sure everyone's on a level playing field. (If The Tomb of Outrageous Death is a treasure-packed cakewalk on Bob's table, a vindictive PC-killing suicide mission on Jane's table, and run RAW at Sam's table, that clearly isn't fair.)

On the other hand, that's exactly why I'm supremely disinterested in such setups.

I probably have the experience, cleverness, etc.. or whatever, to gm a pathfinder society 'constrained as all hell' game and make it fun for the players.

However, I would vastly prefer to have the option to gm as I please.

I am not seeing the appeal, other than access to new modules that might be hard to get otherwise. Or for people that can't find fellow gamers any other way.

Quote from: Zachary The First;671528Side note: Man, I hate hardcore min/maxing. Few things irritate me as much as someone showing up with a Planetouched Tiefling Warborn Dragonspike Assassin who does 96 points of damage at Level 2, while the rest of us (Bard, Fighter, and Cleric) are doing 1d8+1 or 1d12+2, if we're lucky. Just roll up a character and get in there.

Ask them to tone it down (Which may be difficult for some), or ask them to make everyone's characters. The nicest min-maxer I know will help people with character building and advancement minigames, because he's good at them and can't "think down" to not building as hard as he can. He'll also play the hell out of whatever you let him have, because "roleplaying ability" and "optimisation ability" are not measured on the same axes.

However, I also know one of the absolutely shitty game-ruining min-maxers. Guess which one of the two we like to play with?

Quote from: Ladybird;671544Ask them to tone it down (Which may be difficult for some), or ask them to make everyone's characters. The nicest min-maxer I know will help people with character building and advancement minigames, because he's good at them and can't "think down" to not building as hard as he can. He'll also play the hell out of whatever you let him have, because "roleplaying ability" and "optimisation ability" are not measured on the same axes.

However, I also know one of the absolutely shitty game-ruining min-maxers. Guess which one of the two we like to play with?

Oh, there's definitely a difference. There are folks who like to tweak their characters to do something powerful or neat, but are respectful of the group and can be helpful in teaching others the game. Those guys usually keep it fairly sane, and will work within the structure of the group. Those types I don't mind at all. It's the guy who has to have the most powerful of everything, and tries to shoehorn it into a group, despite previous discussions to the contrary.

We've had to stop gaming with a few of those over the years, if they wouldn't change behavior.

Quote from: Zachary The First;671546We've had to stop gaming with a few of those over the years, if they wouldn't change behavior.

Yep, sounds the way to do it to me, if you're not in an organised play system.

(I've also seen a GM tell his group; "yeah, this is Exalted, you can optimise the shit out of your characters if you like. But so can I, and I get more of them than you do. So don't push it too far, okay?")

Quote from: Ladybird;671547Yep, sounds the way to do it to me, if you're not in an organised play system.

(I've also seen a GM tell his group; "yeah, this is Exalted, you can optimise the shit out of your characters if you like. But so can I, and I get more of them than you do. So don't push it too far, okay?")

Here is my problem.

I hate optimization because I feel it negatively impacts the game socially and mechanically.

I am quite capable of optimizing, but I dislike it.

When I gm I do not want to have every hostile being supercharged and optimized. just because the enemies can be as optimized as an uber build pc, does not mean I like the aesthetics of that in the setting.


So for me, I just find the game more fun when players make an actual character, instead of a build.

The appeal of Pathfinder Society (and all organized play) are

1) Character continuity across many referees and sessions.
2) The sense of being part of a larger community of gamers.
3) Well designed season or adventure also takes #2 into the game itself.
4) The convenience of seeing the label (RPGA, Pathfinder Society) and knowing what to expect.
5) The challenge of thriving with an arbitrary group of players, referee, and scenario.

In short organized play is designed to appeal to the desire of gamers to interact in a larger social group. And like any activity involving large social group it appeals to some and doesn't to others.

As for the specific situation in the OP I did a little digging and the issue is caused by the fact low level characters can buy large animals and have them trained.  It appears that the training involves enough minor trade offs so that not everybody is doing it. I don't know enough of the Society rules to understand how big of deal this is. My impression from reading other threads is that it is just on the border of being useful.

However I do know based my past experience with organize play (both LARP/Tabletop)  is what going to happen is that the organized play division at Pathfinder will look at the feedback and if it is truly an issue will make changes to the rules of next season's guide to level the playing field.

Probably the tweaks will be minor to make owning a trained large animal only useful for a mid-level to high level character where the extra damage winds up just being one of the options available instead of the encounter winner at low levels.

This will of course piss off some and make other happy. But that how it goes in organized play. If you don't like then don't participate.

For me I like playing them once in a while but for refereeing I will just run my own session. I had my fill of the plot/adventure by committee during the 15 years I was running NERO LARP chapters and events. I know how to do it well but eventually trying to herd cats gets old.

Quote from: Bill;671549Here is my problem.

I hate optimization because I feel it negatively impacts the game socially and mechanically.

I am quite capable of optimizing, but I dislike it.

When I gm I do not want to have every hostile being supercharged and optimized. just because the enemies can be as optimized as an uber build pc, does not mean I like the aesthetics of that in the setting.


So for me, I just find the game more fun when players make an actual character, instead of a build.

Perfectly reasonable except that when setup organized play you will get people who will optimize. So you have to account for that in the rule design and event planning.

There is no way of banning it. All you can do is make sure your rules don't get too out of hand. Along with developing a tough skin when you fix the stuff that wasn't caught the first time around.

However this attitude is death for normal tabletop play which was one of the downfalls of D&D 4e. Which is why I say if a company choose to support organized play they need to segregate the rules for OP separate from the rules they sell to everybody else.

Quote from: estar;671554Perfectly reasonable except that when setup organized play you will get people who will optimize. So you have to account for that in the rule design and event planning.

There is no way of banning it. All you can do is make sure your rules don't get too out of hand. Along with developing a tough skin when you fix the stuff that wasn't caught the first time around.

However this attitude is death for normal tabletop play which was one of the downfalls of D&D 4e. Which is why I say if a company choose to support organized play they need to segregate the rules for OP separate from the rules they sell to everybody else.

Or just write simpler rules that aren't so prone to such ridiculous min-maxing in the first place.

I mean, forgive me if I speak out of ignorance, but prior to the Skills and Powers era, I never recall hearing it being much of an issue with RPGA in the old days, only after Wizards took over and started injecting MtG design culture into the way D&D was built.

Quote from: Bill;671549When I gm I do not want to have every hostile being supercharged and optimized. just because the enemies can be as optimized as an uber build pc, does not mean I like the aesthetics of that in the setting.

Okay then. Sounds fine to me.

But "mechanical ability" and "roleplayability" are not measured on the same axis. They are not mutually exclusive. Look at, say, Dwayne Johnson; clearly his player has optimized the shit out of that character, but he'd still be a lot of fun to play as.

Quote from: J Arcane;671373My understanding is that it works more or less like the RPGA, which was fuckawful for all the same reasons this sounds fuckawful.

That is not exactly true. See, this:

Quote from: Ladybird;671390The PFS GM's sign up to run RaW-legal (Not RaI!) games for all comers using predesigned scenarios they have to follow to the letter.

... was not what I encountered during the years when I was Regional Director of the RPGA Network (in the 90s). GM's were allowed to run the modules as they saw fit. It didn't matter if the players deviated from the "plot" or "finished" the adventure as long as the table had fun and was entertained.

I guess TSR was more interested in providing fun if you bought an RPGA event ticket.
Plus, AD&D2 was very different from 3e.



Oh, I just saw that you corrected your first statement somewhat:

Quote from: J Arcane;671555I never recall hearing it being much of an issue with RPGA in the old days, only after Wizards took over and started injecting MtG design culture into the way D&D was built.

That's basically what I wanted to say.

There was a definite change in the culture of the RPGA somewhere in the early 2000s. I'm not sure precisely when, but there was definitely a big push towards really locking down the GMs and crazy amounts of player "optimization". Some folks ate it up. I did not.

Quote from: Ladybird;671556Okay then. Sounds fine to me.

But "mechanical ability" and "roleplayability" are not measured on the same axis. They are not mutually exclusive. Look at, say, Dwayne Johnson; clearly his player has optimized the shit out of that character, but he'd still be a lot of fun to play as.

True but when a player shows up with an uber build it generally means they care about being uber. Even if they are the best roleplayer ever they will still cause trouble with the uber build.

I could make uber builds in my sleep. I choose not to.

I just dont enjoy power creep, or leetness the way many others do.

Quote from: Ladybird;671556But "mechanical ability" and "roleplayability" are not measured on the same axis. They are not mutually exclusive.

This is the Stormwind "Fallacy" yeah?  If we were having a discussion on this topic, I would point out that the "ability" access is the wrong metric.  You need to look at "interest", "passion", reward structures, and most importantly time available vs time spent.  Ultimately most folks have strengths and weakness, and will focus on what's most rewarding.

Which does put them at odds, "fallacy" or no.

My own interest in PFS is access to a game.  But I hate playing RPGs.  I can only GM unless I want to burn out.  Unfortunately I don't think I have enough "grin while you bend over" to enjoy GMing for PFS.  But I do keep considering it.

Huh, not liking being a player, just GM. That's sorta new to me.

But yeah, when you prefer GM only PFS is not the best fit.

I see no problem just refusing to allow that bison character in the game. If a Player doesn't like it, they can complain to the Pathfinder Society.

Quote from: J Arcane;671555Or just write simpler rules that aren't so prone to such ridiculous min-maxing in the first place.

I mean, forgive me if I speak out of ignorance, but prior to the Skills and Powers era, I never recall hearing it being much of an issue with RPGA in the old days, only after Wizards took over and started injecting MtG design culture into the way D&D was built.

Unfortunately, the terms change but the story remains the same. The RPGA of AD&D2 before Skills and Powers was just as bad, if not worse. It is more of a people problem than a rules problem. There are Players out there who absolutely must have the most mechanically superior (via rules) PC in the game, be it through wealth of magic items or feats and abilities. Usually because they are incapable of thinking tactically within the game itself.

Yeah, it's a psychosis I wish I could kick.  I don't mind a co-GM, but I want to feel like I can have a positive impact.   Otherwise it's just boring.  Actually for me the difference between playing and GMing is about equal to the difference between RPGs and board games.  That how it feels, any way.

Well, here, the specific problem appears to be where you allow all the splatbooks and you allow the player free reign to pick and choose things – monsters – the PC otherwise wouldn't have heard of (except in 3.x by using the Knowledge skills as they are very stupidly written, as if the PC can just google things with it) to incorporate in their setup.

I vaguely recall a 3.x exploit where you polymorphed into a "war troll" or something like that which was terribly under-CRed in its listing, or else had some specific weaknesses that wouldn't apply to PCs, and then romped over everything.

If this is about dropping summoned monsters on people's heads, hasn't everyone tried and then subsequently banned that in Basic or 1e?

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;671465That's all nonsense.

You are one of the smart ones.

To summarize: if everyone else isn't acting like a grown up, neither are you if you put up with their shit.

Quote from: Ladybird;671480Now you're conflating creepy player behaviour and rules-lawyering, which are not the same thing.

When the rules prevent you from addressing something that is disrupting the game (or just ruining it for everybody but the rules laywer), the difference is purely academic.

Quote from: Ladybird;671547(I've also seen a GM tell his group; "yeah, this is Exalted, you can optimise the shit out of your characters if you like. But so can I, and I get more of them than you do. So don't push it too far, okay?")

Very effective when you're allowed to. During the organized events under discussion, of course, the GM isn't allowed to.

Quote from: Bill;671549So for me, I just find the game more fun when players make an actual character, instead of a build.

Where on earth did you get the idea they're mutually exclusive?

Quote from: estar;671551If you don't like then don't participate.

While that is, of course, the correct answer, I can't help but wonder how often these sorts of events displace more freeform games. In other words, "don't participate" means "don't play anything because there's no room for anything else."

Quote from: estar;671554Which is why I say if a company choose to support organized play they need to segregate the rules for OP separate from the rules they sell to everybody else.

The fact that players can't figure out they can do that on their own isn't a problem with the rules, it's a problem with the players.

Quote from: J Arcane;671555Or just write simpler rules that aren't so prone to such ridiculous min-maxing in the first place.

I mean, forgive me if I speak out of ignorance, but prior to the Skills and Powers era, I never recall hearing it being much of an issue with RPGA in the old days, only after Wizards took over and started injecting MtG design culture into the way D&D was built.

And the entirety of MtG is built on the business model of "you have to keep buying more cards to continue to play competitively." They were very clever in their evil.

Quote from: Zachary The First;671563There was a definite change in the culture of the RPGA somewhere in the early 2000s. I'm not sure precisely when, but there was definitely a big push towards really locking down the GMs and crazy amounts of player "optimization". Some folks ate it up. I did not.

Wizards bought TSR in 1997. It just took them a few years to really get a grip on their new toy.

Quote from: taustin;671778When the rules prevent you from addressing something that is disrupting the game (or just ruining it for everybody but the rules laywer), the difference is purely academic.

Yeah, I don't really see a difference either.

If you read the linked thread, the OP of it is told that the event coordinators can eject anyone from the event for being disruptive, which includes rules-lawyering and he objects to that as well, saying that they shouldn't have the authority to do that either.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;671820Yeah, I don't really see a difference either.

If you read the linked thread, the OP of it is told that the event coordinators can eject anyone from the event for being disruptive, which includes rules-lawyering and he objects to that as well, saying that they shouldn't have the authority to do that either.

Wait...the gm can't eject a player for disruption or rules lawyering!

Sweet! 4 hour rules filibusters and the rules lawyer WINS at dnd!  whoo hoo!

Quote from: Bill;671901Wait...the gm can't eject a player for disruption or rules lawyering!

Sweet! 4 hour rules filibusters and the rules lawyer WINS at dnd!  whoo hoo!

Its a natural result of a gaming system that is run by the rules instead of a live GM, which is itself a natural outgrowth of a system with material marketed to players.

How they have any GMs willing to run this shit is a miracle.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671911How they have any GMs willing to run this shit is a miracle.

Bingo.  And I wonder if they genuinely do.  See, I think you can get player credit towards a character of your choice for running a scenario.  So maybe they just pressure other players into it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;671931Bingo.  And I wonder if they genuinely do.  See, I think you can get player credit towards a character of your choice for running a scenario.  So maybe they just pressure other players into it.

The idea of running a game that gives you no joy just to earn perks for a character that you can play in another scenario run by someone doing the same thing makes me shudder.

Quote from: Bill;671549So for me, I just find the game more fun when players make an actual character, instead of a build.

In reply to these being mutually exclusive,  what bothers me the most is intellectual dishonesty.  And while it can be a fine line I see a huge difference between...

A well rounded character concept that could represent an actual person, which happens to be optimized...

And

A highly effective mechanical construct with a passable character concept bolted on.

Those two things are mutually exclusive. Either you started with the person and found game terms to express that, or you started with the mechanics and needed a character as a vehicle to use them.

Typically you can tell the difference without using a lot of judgement.  Does your backstory involve a lot of bison related grist? Do you show love towards your unusual pet and roleplay accordingly?  Or is it just a collection of desirable stats?

Quote from: mcbobbo;671935In reply to these being mutually exclusive,  what bothers me the most is intellectual dishonesty.  And while it can be a fine line I see a huge difference between...

A well rounded character concept that could represent an actual person, which happens to be optimized...

And

A highly effective mechanical construct with a passable character concept bolted on.

Those two things are mutually exclusive. Either you started with the person and found game terms to express that, or you started with the mechanics and needed a character as a vehicle to use them.

Typically you can tell the difference without using a lot of judgement.  Does your backstory involve a lot of bison related grist? Do you show love towards your unusual pet and roleplay accordingly?  Or is it just a collection of desirable stats?

The real issue is the player desired to, and implemented optimization, and the effect that may have on a game.

Sure, 1 in 100 optimised characters were actually roleplay based and then optimised. But we all know most are not; and are intended to prove how uber the build is, and how leet the player is.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;671820Yeah, I don't really see a difference either.

I can smell the difference. It's like the difference between falling in to an open sewer and being sprayed by a skunk. They are different, but they both stink.

Quote from: mcbobbo;671935In reply to these being mutually exclusive,  what bothers me the most is intellectual dishonesty.  And while it can be a fine line I see a huge difference between...

A well rounded character concept that could represent an actual person, which happens to be optimized...

And

A highly effective mechanical construct with a passable character concept bolted on.

Those two things are mutually exclusive. Either you started with the person and found game terms to express that, or you started with the mechanics and needed a character as a vehicle to use them.

Typically you can tell the difference without using a lot of judgement.  Does your backstory involve a lot of bison related grist? Do you show love towards your unusual pet and roleplay accordingly?  Or is it just a collection of desirable stats?

What if the person I want to start with is the biggest ass-kicker in the history of the world?

Quote from: Bill;671940The real issue is the player desired to, and implemented optimization, and the effect that may have on a game.

Sure, 1 in 100 optimised characters were actually roleplay based and then optimised. But we all know most are not; and are intended to prove how uber the build is, and how leet the player is.

Yeah, but that's not really a problem with optimised builds. That's a problem with anti-social players. Give that same player a pre-generated character that is identical in every possible respect to all the other characters, and they'll still find a way to disrput the game.

Quote from: taustin;671945What if the person I want to start with is the biggest ass-kicker in the history of the world?

Start him at max level for the game system and have fun finding someone to run a game for you.

Quote from: taustin;671945What if the person I want to start with is the biggest ass-kicker in the history of the world?

That sounds like an optimized character to me.

Quote from: taustin;671946Yeah, but that's not really a problem with optimised builds. That's a problem with anti-social players. Give that same player a pre-generated character that is identical in every possible respect to all the other characters, and they'll still find a way to disrput the game.

They would not play without 'Uberbuild'  :)

But I agree its mostly personality.

Quote from: taustin;671945What if the person I want to start with is the biggest ass-kicker in the history of the world?

I have told players at the start of a game before that "You can't have Clark Kent as your character concept"

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671948Start him at max level for the game system and have fun finding someone to run a game for you.

In other words, as usual, the only difference between min/maxing and good roleplaying is whether or not you like it.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671949That sounds like an optimized character to me.

Nothing inherent to it that says so. You just don't like the character concept.

Quote from: Bill;671950They would not play without 'Uberbuild'  :)

But I agree its mostly personality.

I've not-gamed with few people like that over the years. It was soul-crushing, let me tell you. Not for me, mind you, but soul-crushing.

Quote from: taustin;671953In other words, as usual, the only difference between min/maxing and good roleplaying is whether or not you like it.

The concept leaves no room for a game.

Certainly not one with multiple player characters.  Even as a solo adventurer, the very premise of that concept ends the game before play begins.

An example of play:

DM: The biggest ass kicker in the history of the world is travellling through a mountain pass. Ahead there is an angry mountain giant that wants to shit stomp you.

Player: I kick his ass.

DM: Ok, you kick his ass. No need for dice or anything. Being the greatest asskicker in the history of the world, do we even need to roll?

Next encounter.... repeat.

I guess if you enjoy that kind of thing go for it. Good luck finding that DM.

Quote from: taustin;671954Nothing inherent to it that says so. You just don't like the character concept.

No, the concept is the realization of the ideally optimized character. Within the context of an RPG, a character that is in concept and execution the "biggest ass-kicker in the history of world" is optimized. And I dont hate the concept. I love it. It is entirely valid as a character and the basis of most action heroes. But it is optimized. It has to be or you are not playing the biggest ass-kicker in the history of the world (you are just playing a guy who either thinks he is the biggest ass-kicker but is not, or who aspires to be the biggest ass-kicker).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671964The concept leaves no room for a game.

Certainly not one with multiple player characters.  Even as a solo adventurer, the very premise of that concept ends the game before play begins.

An example of play:

DM: The biggest ass kicker in the history of the world is travellling through a mountain pass. Ahead there is an angry mountain giant that wants to shit stomp you.

Player: I kick his ass.

DM: Ok, you kick his ass. No need for dice or anything. Being the greatest asskicker in the history of the world, do we even need to roll?

Next encounter.... repeat.

I guess if you enjoy that kind of thing go for it. Good luck finding that DM.

Yup.

And that's why Kryptonite was invented.


Ok, Clark, what can you do again?

Clark: Well, nuclear explosions don't bother me much, I run and fly literally at lightspeed, I can lift  the moon...easily. My senses are a million times human norm, see through walls. Oh yea...I can throw those moon lifting punches at lightspeed. Sometimes I can fly through the sun to get stronger. Don't usually need to breathe. Time travel if I feel like it. Super breath? I would say I am forgetting some powers that's impossible because I also have perfect memory.

Gm: Freakin Kryptonite! All over the place!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671964The concept leaves no room for a game.

Only for a GM with a very limited imagination.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671964Certainly not one with multiple player characters.  Even as a solo adventurer, the very premise of that concept ends the game before play begins.

An example of play:

DM: The biggest ass kicker in the history of the world is travellling through a mountain pass. Ahead there is an angry mountain giant that wants to shit stomp you.

Player: I kick his ass.

DM: Ok, you kick his ass. No need for dice or anything. Being the greatest asskicker in the history of the world, do we even need to roll?

Next encounter.... repeat.

I guess if you enjoy that kind of thing go for it. Good luck finding that DM.

If the only form of challenge you can think of is combat, then you are playing a board game. Not all problems can be solved by kicking someone's ass. If, for instance, you are a policeman trying to find a lost child's parents, whose ass are you going to kick?

And that's aside from the fact that in most game systems, being the best ass kicker does not even remotely make one invulnerable. In most games, that just means you need multiple people fighting that character. In a Hero game, you'd be close to right, though I've seen some pretty clever things. But in, say, C&S, even the most profoundly ass-kicking fighter should fear a bunch of peasants with pitchforks and torches.

As always, it depends on the game, and the players. I've had every bit as much fun in games where the point is trying to figure out whose ass to kick as any combat I've ever seen, and usually more.

But if you're only interested in games that have no challenges other than ass kicking, go for it. There's lots of GMs who don't (or can't) manage anything else.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671965No, the concept is the realization of the ideally optimized character. Within the context of an RPG, a character that is in concept and execution the "biggest ass-kicker in the history of world" is optimized. And I dont hate the concept. I love it. It is entirely valid as a character and the basis of most action heroes. But it is optimized. It has to be or you are not playing the biggest ass-kicker in the history of the world (you are just playing a guy who either thinks he is the biggest ass-kicker but is not, or who aspires to be the biggest ass-kicker).

So you'd agree, then, that "optomized" isn't in any way a negative description? That the only negatives are how it's used? That, as I said, the problem isn't the optomized build, but rather, the player?

Quote from: Bill;671968Yup.

And that's why Kryptonite was invented.


Ok, Clark, what can you do again?

Clark: Well, nuclear explosions don't bother me much, I run and fly literally at lightspeed, I can lift  the moon...easily. My senses are a million times human norm, see through walls. Oh yea...I can throw those moon lifting punches at lightspeed. Sometimes I can fly through the sun to get stronger. Don't usually need to breathe. Time travel if I feel like it. Super breath? I would say I am forgetting some powers that's impossible because I also have perfect memory.

Gm: Freakin Kryptonite! All over the place!

Passive/aggressive avoidance of the real problem, which isn't the character.

Quote from: taustin;671973So you'd agree, then, that "optomized" isn't in any way a negative description? That the only negatives are how it's used? That, as I said, the problem isn't the optomized build, but rather, the player?

I don't think of it as a negative.

I have said many times, many of my favorite games were with a group of optimizers. It can be fun to optimize builds and it can be fun to run a game with characters who are optimized. But it is a different thing than a standard campaign and problems can arise in groups where some players are there to optmize and others are not (and the solution of just helping everyone optimize better doesn't always work because often the ones who are not there to pptimize find that ruins the game even more for them). Like everything it is about expectations and not being a jerk.

I think if everyone is cool with it, optimization can be great. I think if you have a tendency to optimize but you are in a group that is mostly not into it, you have probably ought to tone it down (particularly if the power levels of the setting are not assumed to be at the level of a typical optimized group).

So in a certain campaign optimzation itself could be a negative, just like in a certain campaign talking to every innkeeper for an hour can be disruptive. Some campaigns will assume optimization (or varying degrees of it) and others will not.

Quote from: taustin;671974Passive/aggressive avoidance of the real problem, which isn't the character.

I agree with you that raw power need not be the focus in an rpg.

The 'problem' as I see it, is when you have two characters that are both raw power focused in the same party.

One will be feeble and the other effective. Even worse is if the feebler raw power character has a player that is is less charismatic and clever than the raw power player.

Same thing for two social butterfly characters where one 'can't fail' from powergamed stats and the other is feeble in comparison.

I have seen that be a problem many times.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671975I don't think of it as a negative.

I have said many times, many of my favorite games were with a group of optimizers. It can be fun to optimize builds and it can be fun to run a game with characters who are optimized. But it is a different thing than a standard campaign

That really hasn't been my personal experience, which is that that is a standard game.

Tastes vary.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671975and problems can arise in groups where some players are there to optmize and others are not (and the solution of just helping everyone optimize better doesn't always work because often the ones who are not there to pptimize find that ruins the game even more for them). Like everything it is about expectations and not being a jerk.

Again, tastes vary. I've seen players who are just fine with not having optimized characters in a largely optimized group. Less common, though, yes.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;671975I think if everyone is cool with it, optimization can be great. I think if you have a tendency to optimize but you are in a group that is mostly not into it, you have probably ought to tone it down (particularly if the power levels of the setting are not assumed to be at the level of a typical optimized group).

So in a certain campaign optimzation itself could be a negative, just like in a certain campaign talking to every innkeeper for an hour can be disruptive. Some campaigns will assume optimization (or varying degrees of it) and others will not.

Again, the problem is the players, not the optimization. Specfically, players (or GM, for that matter) who do not (or do not know how to) take other people's fun in to account. This is not an in-game issue in any way whatsoever. This is an interpersonal conflict between players. It applies equally in roleplaying games, poker games, Monopoly games and Mondy night football watching. The solution is to clue the offender in to their behavioral failures, and either require them to reform, kick them out, or put up with them.

Quote from: taustin;671971If the only form of challenge you can think of is combat, then you are playing a board game. Not all problems can be solved by kicking someone's ass. If, for instance, you are a policeman trying to find a lost child's parents, whose ass are you going to kick?

And that's aside from the fact that in most game systems, being the best ass kicker does not even remotely make one invulnerable. In most games, that just means you need multiple people fighting that character. In a Hero game, you'd be close to right, though I've seen some pretty clever things. But in, say, C&S, even the most profoundly ass-kicking fighter should fear a bunch of peasants with pitchforks and torches.

As always, it depends on the game, and the players. I've had every bit as much fun in games where the point is trying to figure out whose ass to kick as any combat I've ever seen, and usually more.

But if you're only interested in games that have no challenges other than ass kicking, go for it. There's lots of GMs who don't (or can't) manage anything else.

The concept is for the best ass-kicker in the history of the world.
Not the best in a particular group of PCs (which could work just fine).

Quote from: Bill;671976I agree with you that raw power need not be the focus in an rpg.

The 'problem' as I see it, is when you have two characters that are both raw power focused in the same party.

If that is a problem, and it's not always, but if it is, it's a player attitude problem, not a problem with optimized characters.

Quote from: Bill;671976One will be feeble and the other effective. Even worse is if the feebler raw power character has a player that is is less charismatic and clever than the raw power player.

Definintely a player attitude problem, possibly for multiple players.

Quote from: Bill;671976Same thing for two social butterfly characters where one 'can't fail' from powergamed stats and the other is feeble in comparison.

I have seen that be a problem many times.

I've seen a lot of gamer (and gamign groups) with broken social dynamics, too. Plus, of course, a lot of game systems where it's relatively easy to end up with characters that are essentially immune to any opponent you run in to. You have to be very, very careful, for instance, with Hero, or you end up with one character completely dominating all fights while everyone else is limited to polite golf claps, or opponents who eat the little characters like popcorn in order to provide the brick with a real challenge. (There are ways of dealing with that, of course. I recall designing a 20 point agent who could do 1500 STUN with a shotgun in a single shot once, though I don't think that trick is legal in more recent editions.)

But with Hero, character balance is a real issue even without min/maxing, because there's considerable variation in interpretation of the rules (a 14- roll is about a 90% chance, but there's a huge difference between a 90% chance of pickign a lock under ideal circumstances, taking your time, no pressure, and 90% chance of picking a lock in 3-4 seconds while someone is shooting at you). Characters designed by people with different understanding of what the rolls mean often do not go together. Optimization doesn't even begin to enter the picture.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671987The concept is for the best ass-kicker in the history of the world.
Not the best in a particular group of PCs (which could work just fine).

That seems to be trend I'm seeing in this generation of gamers (now get off my lawn!)

Old school players view the party as a team, with each person playing a key role and the best chance of success is when the party acts like a team.

Newer school players are all about me. I want my class to be able to overcome every challenge just like any other class.  They literally cannot have fun unless they are in the spotlight and their character is a hero right out of the gate.

* that's not to say that those types of players didn't exist back then, but they were much more rare and the game design wasn't catered towards them as it is now.

Quote from: taustin;671974Passive/aggressive avoidance of the real problem, which isn't the character.

You are correct, the problem is the Player.

So don't game with That Guy.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;671989Old school players view the party as a team, with each person playing a key role and the best chance of success is when the party acts like a team.

This forum is turning in to Last Comic Standing.

Quote from: jeff37923;671990You are correct, the problem is the Player.

So don't game with That Guy.

That is certainly one option. Though it is sometimes worth the effort to education him, and encourage him to modify his behavior. The diffence, of course, is to assess the individual and the specific situation, and apply adult judgement. Which is expecting too much from a lot of gamers.

It's very rare that a problem player is the only problem, of course.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;671964The concept leaves no room for a game.

Certainly not one with multiple player characters.  Even as a solo adventurer, the very premise of that concept ends the game before play begins.

An example of play:

DM: The biggest ass kicker in the history of the world is travellling through a mountain pass. Ahead there is an angry mountain giant that wants to shit stomp you.

Player: I kick his ass.

DM: Ok, you kick his ass. No need for dice or anything. Being the greatest asskicker in the history of the world, do we even need to roll?

Next encounter.... repeat.

I guess if you enjoy that kind of thing go for it. Good luck finding that DM.

This might actually work with something like Lords of Olympus.  But then the focus of the game needs to be different.  Superman is boring if the game is about boxing matches with ordinary fellows.  But he can be quite interesting if you focus on the pieces that his powers are not a solution to.  Like moral dilemmas, needing to let people exercise free will, having friends who are not bulletproof, and being co-opted in agendas.  

So the concept should fit the game that is being played.  But it is also helpful if you are playing the right type of game for a concept.

What is harder in a group game is if the concept is "I am better than everyone else" and "I get more attention then everyone else".  Those are harder problems.

Quote from: Bill;671968Yup.

And that's why Kryptonite was invented.


Ok, Clark, what can you do again?

Clark: Well, nuclear explosions don't bother me much, I run and fly literally at lightspeed, I can lift  the moon...easily. My senses are a million times human norm, see through walls. Oh yea...I can throw those moon lifting punches at lightspeed. Sometimes I can fly through the sun to get stronger. Don't usually need to breathe. Time travel if I feel like it. Super breath? I would say I am forgetting some powers that's impossible because I also have perfect memory.

Gm: Freakin Kryptonite! All over the place!

In this case, an invasion  by the Assless Aliens from Outer Space would be in order.

Quote from: Doom;672002In this case, an invasion  by the Assless Aliens from Outer Space would be in order.

:rotfl:

Talk about a concept thats BEGGING to become a game!!!!!!

Quote from: taustin;671998That is certainly one option. Though it is sometimes worth the effort to education him, and encourage him to modify his behavior. The diffence, of course, is to assess the individual and the specific situation, and apply adult judgement. Which is expecting too much from a lot of gamers.

(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28145338.jpg)....

Quote from: Votan;671999What is harder in a group game is if the concept is "I am better than everyone else" and "I get more attention then everyone else".  Those are harder problems.

When those statements are a real problem, it's generally because they're not said in character.

Typo flame. Yawn. I notice you don't actually seem to disagree with me.

Quote from: jeff37923;672004(http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/28145338.jpg)....

Quote from: Doom;672002In this case, an invasion  by the Assless Aliens from Outer Space would be in order.

[announcer voice] They've come for ass . . . and they won't leave until they get it! [/announcer voice]

Quote from: Black Vulmea;672024[announcer voice] They've come for ass . . . and they won't leave until they get it! [/announcer voice]

I smell a kickstarter project :)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;672024[announcer voice] They've come for ass . . . and they won't leave until they get it! [/announcer voice]

Somebody's gotta mention The Ass Goblins of Auschwitz (http://www.amazon.com/Ass-Goblins-Auschwitz-Cameron-Pierce/dp/1933929936)

Quote from: taustin;671945What if the person I want to start with is the biggest ass-kicker in the history of the world?

Then you'll be happier playing that game on your PC.

So it's a strawman tangent, but I guess I'll bite:

The biggest asskicker in the world is not a character concept.

We know nothing about this character by this description.  Not race, background, gender, or even mechanism of kicking ass.

So it must be the mechanical and not the imaginary person, from the two examples above.

All you have said is you want the capability to kick a lot of ass.  Okay fine, here's your homosexual, blind, retarded, ass kicking purple unicorn.  We ready to play?

Quote from: taustin;672006Typo flame. Yawn. I notice you don't actually seem to disagree with me.

To be honest, through your flurry of posts I cannot find a singular, unifying, clearly stated position with which to agree.

Is this a trick question or is agreement achieved by merely acknowledging your prolific output?

Not being snide, truly, as I really find your comments and arguments to various posters bouncing all over the place. Did you have an overall point?

Quote from: mcbobbo;672043Then you'll be happier playing that game on your PC.

I'd kinda pity you for playing with such unimaginative people, if I liked you.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672046So it's a strawman tangent, but I guess I'll bite:

The biggest asskicker in the world is not a character concept.

We know nothing about this character by this description.  Not race, background, gender, or even mechanism of kicking ass.

So it must be the mechanical and not the imaginary person, from the two examples above.

All you have said is you want the capability to kick a lot of ass.  Okay fine, here's your homosexual, blind, retarded, ass kicking purple unicorn.  We ready to play?

That actually sounds like an interesting character. Can he fart cinnamon flavored rainbows, too?

Quote from: Opaopajr;672052To be honest, through your flurry of posts I cannot find a singular, unifying, clearly stated position with which to agree.

Is this a trick question or is agreement achieved by merely acknowledging your prolific output?

Your reply was literally nothing but a typo flame. That's all you had to contribute.

Quote from: Opaopajr;672052Not being snide, truly, as I really find your comments and arguments to various posters bouncing all over the place. Did you have an overall point?

You should read a little more slowly. It's OK to move your lips, if that helps. Really.

To summarize, once again, all the issues being bitched about are not game issues, they are player issues. The game is never the problem, even if it's poorly designed, incohrently presented, and fundamentally broken. If you're bitching about it here, the problem isn't the game, it's you not just dealing with it. If a player min/maxing is a problem, it's the player that's the problem, not the min/maxing. If someone is doing something that damages the experience for others, and won't stop, the player is the problem. If you don't tell them to stop, you are the problem.

99.9999% of the bitching I see here amount to someone, usually everyone in the game not knowing how to act like a grown up. No published rules system can possibly fix that.

Quote99.9999% of the bitching I see here amount to someone, usually everyone in the game not knowing how to act like a grown up. .

Interes...wait..

Quote from: taustin;672057I'd kinda pity you for playing with such unimaginative people, if I liked you.

Quote from: taustin;672059That actually sounds like an interesting character. Can he fart cinnamon flavored rainbows, too?

Quote from: taustin;672061Your reply was literally nothing but a typo flame. That's all you had to contribute.

QuoteYou should read a little more slowly. It's OK to move your lips, if that helps. Really.

:jaw-dropping:

And those are just the ones in the last few minutes.

Quote from: taustin;672061Your reply was literally nothing but a typo flame. That's all you had to contribute.

I never commented upon your typo. You are obviously thinking of someone else. You are sounding incoherent now.

Quote from: taustin;672061You should read a little more slowly. It's OK to move your lips, if that helps. Really.

Your insult is duly noted. I am beginning to understand with whom I am dealing...

Quote from: taustin;672061To summarize, once again, all the issues being bitched about are not game issues, they are player issues. The game is never the problem, even if it's poorly designed, incohrently presented, and fundamentally broken. If you're bitching about it here, the problem isn't the game, it's you not just dealing with it. If a player min/maxing is a problem, it's the player that's the problem, not the min/maxing. If someone is doing something that damages the experience for others, and won't stop, the player is the problem. If you don't tell them to stop, you are the problem.

99.9999% of the bitching I see here amount to someone, usually everyone in the game not knowing how to act like a grown up. No published rules system can possibly fix that.

There we go, a clearly stated position. And one that on its surface is correct in dealing with such a problem situation. The table, and GM in particular, have the responsibility to manage the shared experience. Dissatisfaction from unsociable behavior needs to address the person of unsociable behavior directly, not through the rules.

Unfortunately in this instance there is another game atop the rpg game system and that is the tourney style play encouraged by RPGA/PFS. This other game deliberately removes most of the leeway to manage such disruption. I've seen it on a weekly basis; I talk with the judges and coordinators afterwards and learn how far their hands are tied.

The rpg system, though created to allow more than its share of loopholes and system gaming, is fine as long as managerial control is left empowered to a table to immediately respond to disruptions. But when you play the game through another game attempting to unify experience across tables, you end up sacrificing authority for cohesion. You end up with Clauswitzian chain of command and HQ structure, and thus a gameable political and organizational framework. And that's where things fall apart.

The problem though is that this is now the most visible face of our hobby. It creates new players who do not see alternatives, and who judge the hobby's games through the lens of a metagame and its exploitative irritants. It runks amok in the community because it is a viewpoint that is being taken as de facto standard across tables, and dismisses even the idea of local table empowerment.

And thus the topic and agog response from our seat at the hobby.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;672069Interes...wait..













:jaw-dropping:

And those are just the ones in the last few minutes.

I'm an asshole. Get over it. But I don't whine about being involved in games I don't like being involved in. Or, even more childish, whine other people being involved in games I wouldn't want to be involved in.

Quote from: taustin;672079I'm an asshole.

No, I'm an asshole.  So is Pundit.  What you are is immature, and trying to act like an asshole to cover it up.

/sigh. It sucks being the last post upon a page of a heated topic.

There is an issue relevant to us in the general state, and the topic does bring up how such attitudes end up fostering problems in our shared future in the hobby. It's worth discussing this tangent, beyond the already known "coordinated style play brings about assholish tourney style competitiveness." We can ignore our current public face and fade, or challenge the dominant style assumptions by opening our public representation.

mar

Quote from: Opaopajr;672077I never commented upon your typo. You are obviously thinking of someone else. You are sounding incoherent now.

The forum scripting's unwillingness to quote quotes isn't very helpful. What you replied to was a comment on a typo flame (by Jeffie, apparently), and nothing else, in reply to said typo flame, and nothing else.

Quote from: Opaopajr;672077Your insult is duly noted. I am beginning to understand with whom I am dealing...

I have doubts.

Quote from: Opaopajr;672077There we go, a clearly stated position. And one that on its surface is correct in dealing with such a problem situation. The table, and GM in particular, have the responsibility

Calling it a responsiblity overstates the importance. It's only a game. If it matters enough to you that you feels any kind of responsibility towards it, you need to get out of the basement more.

Quote from: Opaopajr;672077to manage the shared experience. Dissatisfaction from unsociable behavior needs to address the person of unsociable behavior directly, not through the rules.

Unfortunately in this instance there is another game atop the rpg game system and that is the tourney style play encouraged by RPGA/PFS. This other game deliberately removes most of the leeway to manage such disruption.

Yes. It's a system designed to seperate marks, er, customers, from their money. That is its primary purpose: it is a marketing campaign. All else, including anyone actually enjoying the game, is purely secondary. When people having fun aids in this purpose, great. When there's a conflict, business logic takes precedence over everything else.

In other words, people who participate are, generally speaking, either idiots or masochists. Any discussion beyond that is pretty much pointless. If you don't like it, don't play. If you don't like the restrictions, don't run it.

It's only a game. It doesn't actually matter. If you find it does actually matter to you, get a life.

Quote from: Opaopajr;672077I've seen it on a weekly basis; I talk with the judges and coordinators afterwards and learn how far their hands are tied.

The rpg system, though created to allow more than its share of loopholes and system gaming, is fine as long as managerial control is left empowered to a table to immediately respond to disruptions. But when you play the game through another game attempting to unify experience across tables, you end up sacrificing authority for cohesion. You end up with Clauswitzian chain of command and HQ structure, and thus a gameable political and organizational framework. And that's where things fall apart.

What you end up with is a marketing campaign that is designed to appeal to current and potential customers by being fun that isn't fun. Which is to say, is a failure as a marketing campaign. What is the point of us, the current and potential customers, going in to it beyond pointing out that it sucks and isn't fun?

Quote from: Opaopajr;672077The problem though is that this is now the most visible face of our hobby. It creates new players who do not see alternatives, and who judge the hobby's games through the lens of a metagame and its exploitative irritants. It runks amok in the community because it is a viewpoint that is being taken as de facto standard across tables, and dismisses even the idea of local table empowerment.

And thus the topic and agog response from our seat at the hobby.

So hang out at the event, and when people obviously aren't having a good time, in way that isn't disruptive to the event, let those people know there are other alternatives. The ones who are the most unhappy at that kind of idiocy will generally fall in to two categories: Those you wouldn't mind having in your game, and those you dislike having to share the same universe with. And they aren't hard to tell apart.

I don't give a rat's ass about "the hobby." What other people play is of no particular relevence to me. Whether or not they enjoy an event I have no interest in is of no relevance to me. None of that will affect my gaming. And will have no effect on anyone else except those who choose to be affected by it.

The demo games are pointless and stupid. So is whining about them. If you can think of a better way, tell the company that runs them. If they listen, then maybe it's now something you want to be a part of. If they don't, then it's not, and never will be. Either way, it's still just a game. It really doesn't matter. If gaming is the only hobby interest you have, or ever will, son, you have far bigger problems than a demo game that sucks.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;672080No, I'm an asshole.  So is Pundit.  What you are is immature, and trying to act like an asshole to cover it up.

When you provide proof of ownership of the english language, I'll concede that you get to decide what words mean. In the meantime, claiming to is, well, immature, and you're projecting what you see in yourself on to other.s In the meantime:

Quoteass·hole  
/ˈasˌhōl/

Noun

1.vulgar. The anus.
2.vulgar. An irritating or contemptible person.

I'm pretty such that I either irrirate you, or that you find me contemptible, so I clearly qualify as the 2nd definition. And you clearly spew shit, so you qualify as the first. So I guess we're both assholes.

You'll still get over it, eventually.

Quote from: Opaopajr;672085/sigh. It sucks being the last post upon a page of a heated topic.

There is an issue relevant to us in the general state, and the topic does bring up how such attitudes end up fostering problems in our shared future in the hobby. It's worth discussing this tangent, beyond the already known "coordinated style play brings about assholish tourney style competitiveness." We can ignore our current public face and fade, or challenge the dominant style assumptions by opening our public representation.

Or realize that we, you and I, don't game with "the hobby," we game with particular individuals, and "the hobby" doesn't really matter. Find individuals who fit in your group, and game with them. If you can't, find a different hobby. Surely there's something else in life you enjoy as a recreational activity? It'd be really, really sad if there weren't.

I was responding to your posts in toto and I have made an assessment of your contribution to this topic as a whole. What I have learned is this:

Being passionate about a game is a waste of time because it doesn't matter, thus the importance of posting furiously insisting it doesn't matter on a website whose basis is passion about such games.

I think people here are adults and understand the nature of this site and it being about a hobby, so you offer nothing new. However, from your clarification I now find you irrelevant and impertinent, if however prolific. Taking your behavior with your words I am left that obviously your goal is disruption. Thank you for clearing things up.

Goodbye. :)

There is a problem if the hobby becomes seen as in toto like the thread listed. If the role play aspect of RPGs are subsumed to the technical mastery of the system then the net result is likely to narrow the new people interested in the game now to a very narrow band of folks whose presence will perpetuate the same behaviours.

So take MtG. It is without doubt an excellent game. I love it I have wasted far far too many hours playing it and far far too much cash. I have been to a couple of tournaments years ago and would never go again (well maybe sealled deck games) because what was designed as a really fun interactive game with interesting mechanics and tactics and interesting settings has in the tournament game become a load of really annoying technical experts playing very slight variants of the same six or seven decks.

I play Mtg with my mates we often (well when i was in the UK) played sealled deck and then mash those decks up into a stack of cards you have 10 mins to build from or whatever. We love the game we love the new mechanics we wouldn't have new mechnaics and new cards if it wasn't for the tournament model and the sale of new cards from Wizards but the opinion of Mtg players on say a forum like this is that they are all whiney, self centred OCD freaks.... because of the tourney crowd. So RPGs can go exactly the same way.

PF looks like its the same thing, 4e was the same thing I suspect 3.5 was the same thing. Want to play a Ranger then this is the built that you need to use to be most efficient, not playing that build then .. as the party is focused so much on everyone pulling their weight you will be disliked because you can't.
Now that is nothing like the games I play. Far far more disimilar to those games than say Dungeon world or Torchbearer.

Taustin, two things:

First, I rose to your hypothetical, and I think I demonstrated my point in that context.  You gave me back rainbow farts.  I think you can do better.   Though I am coming to understand that deflection is probably as honest of an agreement as your internet persona will allow you to give.  Yeah?  Put directly, does it compute now?

Second, and this can be rhetorical, but if you don't like discussing this hobby, couldn't you be doing things you enjoy?  If all your signal here is noise, then maybe the ethical thing to do is stop.  At the very least, know that some of us here do care, and we come here to discuss the hobby.

I like you man, but just because the moderation on this site is low, it doesn't make it happy-happy troll time.

Yes, I agree that if things find any way to swing even further towards player entitlement, then the game as we know it doesn't have much future.  We won't recognize what's to come.

Personally,  though, I think it apexed with 4e.  And I think even WotC is ready to admit that they took it too far.  Could just be wishful thinking on my part though.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672355Yes, I agree that if things find any way to swing even further towards player entitlement, then the game as we know it doesn't have much future.  We won't recognize what's to come.

Personally,  though, I think it apexed with 4e.  And I think even WotC is ready to admit that they took it too far.  Could just be wishful thinking on my part though.

If Next doesn't win over say 50% (???) of the PF fans and they think that they can win them over by aping the same build model they will do so. That is just good business.
The question is can they do that and still keep the other fans happy?
Will Next have the simple halfling fighter with the skulker background and a few class abilities? Or will it be swamped in Build? time will tell.

Quote from: jibbajibba;672357If Next doesn't win over say 50% (???) of the PF fans and they think that they can win them over by aping the same build model they will do so. That is just good business.
The question is can they do that and still keep the other fans happy?
Will Next have the simple halfling fighter with the skulker background and a few class abilities? Or will it be swamped in Build? time will tell.

It has to be swamped in Build.

So they can sell more books.

Quote from: Bill;672359It has to be swamped in Build.

So they can sell more books.

It strikes me that they could produce setting material that contained the splat.
So take a high magic Ebberon setting and develop splat for that, a Renaissance setting, Grewhawk etc etc

No I don;t think they will either but ....

If they used Paizo as a guide, they'd take all their IP and bridge the worlds.  Maybe by beefing up either Planescape or Spelljammer.  But some kind of a bridge dripping with cool.

Then they splat the settings with softcover intro books and hard cover deep dives.

Then they release a steady stream of adventure content linked to those splats.  Use the coolness of those adventures to bootstrap people buying the setting splat.

That's all done with or without "rules mastery".

That said, I would really, really love to know if RnD is involved in Next.  E.g. are they having "Timmy/Spike" conversations about 5e?

Because if so, we're boned.  I don't know if you have ever looked into their core principles for design of MtG, but I have and it frightens me.  Most of all because all their types are players, and I am a GM.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672367Because if so, we're boned.  I don't know if you have ever looked into their core principles for design of MtG, but I have and it frightens me.  Most of all because all their types are players, and I am a GM.

If WOTC fails to get the role of the DM yet again we will see the death of WOTC D&D. Marketing to players almost exclusively has not worked for the long haul and if another version of D&D is published that folks want to play but nobody wants to run, then its dead in the water.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672351Taustin, two things:

First, I rose to your hypothetical, and I think I demonstrated my point in that context.

No. You didn't. You demonstrated a lack of imagination in how varied a game can be. You demonstrated that for you, roleplaying games are ultimately about combat, and nothing else. And that's fine. You're certainly in good company. The vast majority of roleplayers feel the same way.

But it's not universal.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672351You gave me back rainbow farts.

I didn't bring up unicorns, retard.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672351I think you can do better.   Though I am coming to understand that deflection is probably as honest of an agreement as your internet persona will allow you to give.  Yeah?  Put directly, does it compute now?

My reference to cinnamon farts was exactly as serious as your "homosexual, blind, retarded, ass kicking purple unicorn." If you don't like it, dumbass, don't do it first. This isn't the first time you've attacked me for imitating you.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672351Second, and this can be rhetorical, but if you don't like discussing this hobby, couldn't you be doing things you enjoy?

We're not talking about the hobby. We're talking about talking about the hobby. Or, more specifically, talking about whining like a little girl about the hobby.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672351If all your signal here is noise, then maybe the ethical thing to do is stop.

I know you are, but what am I?

Quote from: mcbobbo;672351At the very least, know that some of us here do care, and we come here to discuss the hobby.

Then you should do so, instead of talking about talking about the hobby.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672351I like you man, but just because the moderation on this site is low, it doesn't make it happy-happy troll time.

And yet, here you are.

Quote from: taustin;672410No. You didn't. You demonstrated a lack of imagination in how varied a game can be. You demonstrated that for you, roleplaying games are ultimately about combat, and nothing else.

I say this in all seriousness, but are you slow or something? Is English a second language?  Because you have it backwards.

My point, in short simple words:  "best ass kicker in the world" is a mechanical construct.  "Bruce Lee" and/or "Purple Unicorn" are character concepts.  Both of the latter could be the former.

Capiche?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;672393If WOTC fails to get the role of the DM yet again we will see the death of WOTC D&D. Marketing to players almost exclusively has not worked for the long haul and if another version of D&D is published that folks want to play but nobody wants to run, then its dead in the water.

I'd agree, but Paizo does it too...

Quote from: mcbobbo;672452I say this in all seriousness, but are you slow or something? Is English a second language?  Because you have it backwards.

You made a snarky comment. I responded with an equally snarky comment. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be calling other people names.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672452My point, in short simple words:  "best ass kicker in the world" is a mechanical construct.  "Bruce Lee" and/or "Purple Unicorn" are character concepts.  Both of the latter could be the former.

Capiche?

And the former could be the latter, for someone with a little imagination. Dude, it's OK that all you're interested in is combat. Really. But it's not OK that you think that everyone else has to subscribe to your One True Way of Gaming. That's very uncool. That's very . . . rpg.net like. Capiche?

(And, BTW, the namecalling really is rpg.net like, from what I know of the place, particularly when it's over something you just don't agree with.)

Quote from: taustin;672470And the former could be the latter, for someone with a little imagination. Dude, it's OK that all you're interested in is combat. Really. But it's not OK that you think that everyone else has to subscribe to your One True Way of Gaming. That's very uncool. That's very . . . rpg.net like. Capiche?

"Best asskicker in the history of the world" is a fine character concept. If it happens to be TRUE, then its also a mechanical concept, and one that is a bit too overpowered for most gameplay.

Now I know you're just fucking with me.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;672476"Best asskicker in the history of the world" is a fine character concept. If it happens to be TRUE, then its also a mechanical concept, and one that is a bit too overpowered for most gameplay.

My view of it is that a 'character' is a person.  A fully realized person with a background, hope and dreams, a personality, etc.

"Best ass kicker in the world" may be a start, but it falls way, way short of that ideal.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672478My view of it is that a 'character' is a person.  A fully realized person with a background, hope and dreams, a personality, etc.

"Best ass kicker in the world" may be a start, but it falls way, way short of that ideal.

Agreed. That is why it is a concept and not a character.

These were my original two, from whence came the "best ass kicker in the world" suggestion:

Quote from: mcbobbo;671935A well rounded character concept that could represent an actual person, which happens to be optimized...

And

A highly effective mechanical construct with a passable character concept bolted on.

Which is a better fit?

Quote from: Exploderwizard;672476"Best asskicker in the history of the world" is a fine character concept. If it happens to be TRUE, then its also a mechanical concept,

Irrelevant, since McDumbass said it was only a mechanical concept.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;672476and one that is a bit too overpowered for most gameplay.

Which comes back to the issue of whether or not the group has the imagination and interest to play a game that is centered on something other than combat. It's a perfectly valid character concept, in any number of ways. Whether or not it fits in to a particular game is an issue with all character concepts. You can come up with the best concept for a starship captain, and it won't fit in to a high fantasy game, after all. But that doesn't make it a bad concept, or not a character concept. And every character concept is also a mechanical concept, unless you've abandoned the gaming end of the roleplaying game, and are doing pure improv storytelling.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672477Now I know you're just fucking with me.

Fair enough.

This isn't the first time you're run away, tail between your legs, when confronted with someone who acts like you. And it won't be the last, I'm sure.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672493These were my original two, from whence came the "best ass kicker in the world" suggestion:



Which is a better fit?

Depends on where you go from there. You lack the imagination to see the possibilities of either.

Quote from: taustin;672516Depends on where you go from there. You lack the imagination to see the possibilities of either.

Wasn't asking you,  kiddo.  That would be a waste of time.  Or perhaps just too much effort to try and spin it in a way that fits your internet persona.

Taustin, you keep disrupting threads with these kinds of exchanges with other posters and no rpg discussion is accomplished as a result. Please stop. You are entirley free to pepper your points about games and rpgs with insults if you must. But lets at least talk about those things.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672527Wasn't asking you,  kiddo.  That would be a waste of time.  Or perhaps just too much effort to try and spin it in a way that fits your internet persona.

I know your sig says what it says, but just ignore him.  I decided this afternoon that's probably the best course of action for him (and a couple others that are just here to troll people)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;672542I know your sig says what it says, but just ignore him.  I decided this afternoon that's probably the best course of action for him (and a couple others that are just here to troll people)

Yeah, I probably should. I may have to reconsider my policy.  See I read the forum primarily on my phone.  I have to actually scroll over to see who it is, and without knowing that it's taustin, I frequently see posts that seem like conversation.   FWIW I do seem to be junking up the board because of it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672551Yeah, I probably should. I may have to reconsider my policy.  See I read the forum primarily on my phone.  I have to actually scroll over to see who it is, and without knowing that it's taustin, I frequently see posts that seem like conversation.   FWIW I do seem to be junking up the board because of it.

His back and forth with FACERIP was the big red flag.  FACERIP just trolls to get a reaction; we all know that.  And taustin went in right with him for a couple pages back and forth to see who was the bigger troll.

So I'm just going to ignore everything.  Tell him to grow up didn't work, so it's just easier this way.  YMMV of course.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672527Wasn't asking you,  kiddo.  That would be a waste of time.

Since I've already demonstrated where your imagination fails, and you've admitted that you're not interested in a game that focuses on anything other than combat.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672541Taustin, you keep disrupting threads with these kinds of exchanges with other posters and no rpg discussion is accomplished as a result. Please stop. You are entirley free to pepper your points about games and rpgs with insults if you must. But lets at least talk about those things.

You seem to be saying that the policy of this forum is that the only interesting kinds of games are those that focus on combat, either mainly or exclusively. I am trying to talk about gaming, to someone who is more intersted in preaching their One True Way.

And mcbobbo is a troll, pure and simple. And at this point (you are a mod, aren't you?), you really, actually are starting to remind me of TBP, with a mod (IIRC) protecting a favorite troll at the expense of someone who simply disagrees with him. He has engaged in outright namecalling, evasions, and occasionally making up what he wishes I'd said, but no actual discussion of the point I'm trying to make. The closest he's gotten is "Nu-uh, is not."

"Biggest ass kicker in the world" is a perfectly legitimate character concept. DC Comics has made millions off a franchise called Superman, in case you haven't noticed it. And it's at its best when it's not about ass kicking. It's an opportunity to do some introspective roleplaying and explore the mind set of someone who doesn't have to worry about much of anything in the way of physical danger. I've already mentioned a few ways this can come up in a game, like "whose ass do you kick to help a lost child fine their parent." But, since that's not focused exclusively on combat, troll-boy isn't intersted.

And you know what? As I've said before, that's fine, if that's how he likes to play. He's certainly in the majority for gamers overall. But not universal. Some of us have a little more imagination, and, I'm guessing a lot more experience.

And now you're bitching at me for wanting to explore something else.

It's a pity this forum package doesn't seem to support themes. I could change my color scheme to purple to remind me what is and isn't an acceptable topic. Maybe you should make me a list.

Absolute last time I am going to say this: talk about RPGs.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672551Yeah, I probably should. I may have to reconsider my policy.  See I read the forum primarily on my phone.  I have to actually scroll over to see who it is, and without knowing that it's taustin, I frequently see posts that seem like conversation.   FWIW I do seem to be junking up the board because of it.

Talking about me while pretending to not respond to me makes you look stupid.

And, for BedrockBrendon: McDumbass isn't talking about gaming here, either, but about me, in insulting terms, with zero gaming content. But you chide me by name, and not him.

In my experience all web fora eventually degenerate to urine soaked sand boxes with no one left but the mods and their pets. I was hoping this one would be different, but all of a sudden, I'm very skeptical.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;672554His back and forth with FACERIP was the big red flag.  FACERIP just trolls to get a reaction; we all know that.  And taustin went in right with him for a couple pages back and forth to see who was the bigger troll.

And it would have been a very different situation if people had attacked us both equally for that. But only one name comes up in the "stop that" bitches, and that's the new guy who the mods don't know.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672585Absolute last time I am going to say this: talk about RPGs.

Is that directed at me, only, or also at the other people in this thread who are talking about me instead of games? Serious question. Because if it's only at me, you won't need to ban me. Show me what you're made of as a mod.

Quote from: taustin;672584You seem to be saying that the policy of this forum is that the only interesting kinds of games are those that focus on combat, either mainly or exclusively. I am trying to talk about gaming, to someone who is more intersted in preaching their One True Way.

No. You can talk about any rpg you want, in whatever obnoxius way you want. What you can't do is disrupt the site by not talking about games at all, and instead just engaging in mud slinging with other posters that has no point beyond the mud slinging itself.

QuoteAnd mcbobbo is a troll, pure and simple. And at this point (you are a mod, aren't you?), you really, actually are starting to remind me of TBP, with a mod (IIRC) protecting a favorite troll at the expense of someone who simply disagrees with him. He has engaged in outright namecalling, evasions, and occasionally making up what he wishes I'd said, but no actual discussion of the point I'm trying to make. The closest he's gotten is "Nu-uh, is not."

The reason I singled you out and not McBobbo is because you have done this with multiple posters on multiple threads. If you think McBobbo is my favorite troll then you haven't been paying to all the times he and I disagree.

QuoteAnd now you're bitching at me for wanting to explore something else.

It's a pity this forum package doesn't seem to support themes. I could change my color scheme to purple to remind me what is and isn't an acceptable topic. Maybe you should make me a list.

I am bitching at you for having posts that are nothing but attacks on other posters and zero rpg content. If you want to talk about the biggest ass kicking character in the world, that is fine. If you want to talk about the biggest ass kicking character in the world and how much bedrockbrendan sucks because his character concept pales in comparison to your awesome ass kicking character, be my guest. But if you are going to engage in the mudslinging, have a point related to gaming as well. Don't just go around disrupting the threads.

Quote from: taustin;672588Is that directed at me, only, or also at the other people in this thread who are talking about me instead of games? Serious question. Because if it's only at me, you won't need to ban me. Show me what you're made of as a mod.

It was directed at you because you have been doing this with other posters and on other threads. But the sentiment applies to everyone.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672593It was directed at you because you have been doing this with other posters and on other threads. But the sentiment applies to everyone.

There are a lot of people here who do not like to be disagreed with. Which is OK. But some of them tend to trivialize what they don't agree with, as mcbobbo did with a character concept he can't wrap his head around. And they really, really don't like it when they get treated the same way in return. The only real difference is I'm a lot more up-front about it.

There are a lot more posts in this thread that have zero gaming content by other people than by me. There is an exchange back and forth several times about me, with zero gaming content. All because some people can't wrap their heads around a game differen than anything they've played in, or would want to. But I'm the only one who gets singled out by name. That's insulting.

Frankly, this thread should have been locked about the third time it veered off topic. Or the fifth. Or the tenth.

Easy way to solve this problem.

1. Don't play games that are masturbatory math exercises.

2. Don't play in organized play.

3. Do play with your friends.

Contemporary D&D is one big character-optimizing circlejerk.  What I wouldn't give to see a revised and updated AD&D 2e.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;672596Easy way to solve this problem.

1. Don't play games that are masturbatory math exercises.

2. Don't play in organized play.

3. Do play with your friends.

This is indeed, a solidly logical common sense answer.

Welcome aboard!

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672592No. You can talk about any rpg you want, in whatever obnoxius way you want. What you can't do is disrupt the site by not talking about games at all, and instead just engaging in mud slinging with other posters that has no point beyond the mud slinging itself.

So you consider mcboob's gay blind unicorn to be talking about gaming? Because what it was, really, was a dismissal of an idea he didn't have, doesn 't get, and would want to game around if he did. But when I offered a comment on how it could, indeed, be an interesting character concept (in a game that isn't focused on combat, where ass-kicking ability is simply a background note), he completely ignored it. Did not even acknowledge it had been said. And then started a back-and-forth with someone else about me, with zero gaming content.

But I'm the only one who gets singled out by name.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;672596Easy way to solve this problem.

1. Don't play games that are masturbatory math exercises.

Unless you're in to that sort of thing.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;6725962. Don't play in organized play.

Unless you're in to that sort of thing.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;6725963. Do play with your friends.

I'm going to refrain from taking that to the gutter. Unless you're in to that sort of thing.

That kind of tightly scripted even must have something to offer. People do participate.

Quote from: taustin;672595There are a lot of people here who do not like to be disagreed with. Which is OK. But some of them tend to trivialize what they don't agree with, as mcbobbo did with a character concept he can't wrap his head around. And they really, really don't like it when they get treated the same way in return. The only real difference is I'm a lot more up-front about it.

There are a lot more posts in this thread that have zero gaming content by other people than by me. There is an exchange back and forth several times about me, with zero gaming content. All because some people can't wrap their heads around a game differen than anything they've played in, or would want to. But I'm the only one who gets singled out by name. That's insulting.

Again, I was responding to a pattern of behavior. Every time I have had to step in and remind people not to disrupt a thread lately, the common denominator has been you. Please feel free to report other instances of disruption to bring them to our attention.

Quote from: taustin;672598So you consider mcboob's gay blind unicorn to be talking about gaming? Because what it was, really, was a dismissal of an idea he didn't have, doesn 't get, and would want to game around if he did. But when I offered a comment on how it could, indeed, be an interesting character concept (in a game that isn't focused on combat, where ass-kicking ability is simply a background note), he completely ignored it. Did not even acknowledge it had been said. And then started a back-and-forth with someone else about me, with zero gaming content.

But I'm the only one who gets singled out by name.

Cry me a river blubber-boy. :boohoo:

Now, for all the knuckleheads and the hard of reading, this thread is not about taustin or mcbobbo, but the quandary that the OP posted.

Get back to that please or i'm most likely going to go next door and kick their cat and we wouldn't want that would we.

Quote from: taustin;672598So you consider mcboob's gay blind unicorn to be talking about gaming? Because what it was, really, was a dismissal of an idea he didn't have, doesn 't get, and would want to game around if he did. But when I offered a comment on how it could, indeed, be an interesting character concept (in a game that isn't focused on combat, where ass-kicking ability is simply a background note), he completely ignored it. Did not even acknowledge it had been said. And then started a back-and-forth with someone else about me, with zero gaming content.

But I'm the only one who gets singled out by name.

Dismissal of an rpg related idea is on topic. My job here isn't to make sure everyone gets along, or is nice. My only concern is that the site isn't being disrupted by posters consistently taking threads off topic. If you feel you were treated unfairly, that is fine. Take it to the help desk or PM pundit. I am entirely open to the other mods looking at the threads and judging whether I made the correct call here.

But note, I issued more than one general warning to everyone, then I singled you out for mention when you continued and when it was clear to me this was occuring over more than one thread. And I didn't take any actual action. You are not banned, you have no official warning on your account. You have just been asked to please not disrupt the site.

QuoteThat kind of tightly scripted even must have something to offer. People do participate.

I imagine that it's partly "bad gaming is better than no gaming."  Most of the DMs and players are likely reasonable, but there's always a bad apple among the lot.  And perhaps the min/maxxer does not realize he is ruining the game for everyone else.  Perhaps he asked for help in building a character for the game on the Paizo forums.  Perhaps the GM is reading the rules wrong.  Who knows?

Point being, I would never sign up for any sort of organized play because the DM ought to be able to customize the game for the group.  If the group is filled with new players, for instance, it is likely that their characters will be substantially weaker than those of experienced players.  They'll die quickly in any sort of organized play, which is not fun for the DM or the players.  Shouldn't the DM be able to change the encounters based on what suits his players?

So not to repost, but getting back on topic...  Exploder, and others...

These were my original two, from whence came the "best ass kicker in the world" suggestion:

Quote from: mcbobbo;671935A well rounded character concept that could represent an actual person, which happens to be optimized...

And

A highly effective mechanical construct with a passable character concept bolted on.

Which is a better fit?

Because I think this really drives home what bugs me about the bison's player.  If the GM can change the species of your character, and it doesn't interrupt your concept, then it isn't yet a 'character'.  In most circumstances, anyway.  Particularly when you can change it as much as I did with unicorn example and the description still fits.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672600Again, I was responding to a pattern of behavior. Every time I have had to step in and remind people not to disrupt a thread lately, the common denominator has been you.

The regulars seem to all have very similar attitudes. That isn't surprising. Despite all the preening about how the "in crowd/out crowd" social dynamics are a thing of the past, people who do not agree with the majority in a web forum generally get driven out, subtly or not, in short order. I'm unusual in that I don't just quietly go away.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672600Please feel free to report other instances of disruption to bring them to our attention.

The last time a forum moderator (elsewhere, obviously) told me that, I was banned specifically for following that instruction.

You want these by PM, or in replies in the thread?

Quote from: One Horse Town;672601Cry me a river blubber-boy. :boohoo:

Now, for all the knuckleheads and the hard of reading, this thread is not about taustin or mcbobbo, but the quandary that the OP posted.

Now that you've gotten your namecalling in.

Quote from: One Horse Town;672601Get back to that please or i'm most likely going to go next door and kick their cat and we wouldn't want that would we.

Note, Brendan, that there is zero on-topic content here. Only somebody who apparently wishes they were a mod, acting like they are.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672602Dismissal of an rpg related idea is on topic. My job here isn't to make sure everyone gets along, or is nice. My only concern is that the site isn't being disrupted by posters consistently taking threads off topic.

Once again, I was trying to talk about how something that looks like a min/max optimization can, in fact, be a perfectly legitimate character concept. Did you miss that the first couple of times I mentioned it? mcbobbo got snotty about it, because he doesn't agree, and at no point acknowldged the example I gave.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672602If you feel you were treated unfairly, that is fine. Take it to the help desk or PM pundit. I am entirely open to the other mods looking at the threads and judging whether I made the correct call here.

I'm not generally prone to whining to teacher about the playground bully. And it's generally not very productive to encourage me to do so.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672602But note, I issued more than one general warning to everyone, then I singled you out for mention when you continued and when it was clear to me this was occuring over more than one thread. And I didn't take any actual action. You are not banned, you have no official warning on your account. You have just been asked to please not disrupt the site.

And after at least some of those warnings, mcbobbo took to his back and forth with whoever it was about me, and nothing else, without being called out.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;672603I imagine that it's partly "bad gaming is better than no gaming."

I suspect there's a large element of truth to that. But I have a hard time believing it's universal, or even a majority. And there's no easy answer to that. For me, if it isn't fun, I won't bother. And if that means no gaming at all, there are lots of other things I can occupy my recreational time with, including going to the beach an counting bikinis (a little more often). And it's certainly easy to say "well, you should get a life and get out of the basement" (I have, many times), but we all know it's not that simple for some people.

It would be far more productive if this thread talked about ways to get the message to the people who are at these events and clearly not enjoying themselves that there are other ways, but this started off as a bitch-fest, and bitch-fest it will remain.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;672603Most of the DMs and players are likely reasonable, but there's always a bad apple among the lot.  And perhaps the min/maxxer does not realize he is ruining the game for everyone else.  Perhaps he asked for help in building a character for the game on the Paizo forums.  Perhaps the GM is reading the rules wrong.  Who knows?

Not, I suspect, the people bitching the loudest about it.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;672603Point being, I would never sign up for any sort of organized play because the DM ought to be able to customize the game for the group.  If the group is filled with new players, for instance, it is likely that their characters will be substantially weaker than those of experienced players.  They'll die quickly in any sort of organized play, which is not fun for the DM or the players.  Shouldn't the DM be able to change the encounters based on what suits his players?

And there's the rub. This sort of event should be used to bring in new customers. And the way they're being run doesn't really do that. It caters to existing customers, and rewards them for behavior that actively drives away new potential customers.

Were I in charge of such a program, I would encourage GMs to house rule the shit out of things, and encourage players to drift from table to table, to see just how much creative freedom there is in roleplaying games. Don't like the way this GM is letting his buddy min/max a character to dominate the game? No problem. There's another table with a different GM a few feet away.

Quote from: mcbobbo;672604Which is a better fit?

It depends on the game. In a game that isn't focused on combat, being a badass is just another piece of background info, like being rich in a game where nobody tracks money or driving a Ferrari in a game without car chases.

The ability to dominate in combat doesn't matter in all games.

Quote from: taustin;672611Note, Brendan, that there is zero on-topic content here. Only somebody who apparently wishes they were a mod, acting like they are.

One Horse Town is a mod. I would heed what he said.

Taustin, as a general rule I disagree with eveveryone here - especially when we actually agree.  The reason you're being a jerk is because you're spamming the thread with multiple replies.  

There is a multi-quote function that allows you to respond to multiple quotes at once.

As for the 'lack of imagination' you claim to have discerned is entirely off base.  This thread is about a scenario that the GM has been instructed not to change, and combat is a major portion of the module.   Discussion of challenges apart from combat is only tangentially relevant - thus your aside did not appear worthy of a response.

Feel free to disagree,  but please try to put it in a single post.

Quote from: taustin;672610The last time a forum moderator (elsewhere, obviously) told me that, I was banned specifically for following that instruction.

You want these by PM, or in replies in the thread?

If you want to report posts, use the report function.

Quote from: taustin;672611Note, Brendan, that there is zero on-topic content here. Only somebody who apparently wishes they were a mod, acting like they are.

Look harder.

Now, don't fucking reply to this in this thread. Take it to PM if you must. Things are getting back on track now, let's keep it that way.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;672623One Horse Town is a mod. I would heed what he said.

Your posts say you are. His don't. It isn't much of a clue when a mod engages in namecalling.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;672624Taustin, as a general rule I disagree with eveveryone here - especially when we actually agree.  The reason you're being a jerk is because you're spamming the thread with multiple replies.

There is a multi-quote function that allows you to respond to multiple quotes at once.

Seems clumsy to me, and it certainly isn't obvious. Where is it?

Quote from: deadDMwalking;672624As for the 'lack of imagination' you claim to have discerned is entirely off base.  This thread is about a scenario that the GM has been instructed not to change, and combat is a major portion of the module.   Discussion of challenges apart from combat is only tangentially relevant - thus your aside did not appear worthy of a response.

It veered off that topic long before I jumped in.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;672624Feel free to disagree,  but please try to put it in a single post.

Point me at that fuction. I see no hint of it.

Quote from: taustin;672630Your posts say you are. His don't. It isn't much of a clue when a mod engages in namecalling.

All mods have The Machine Kills Fascists near their avatar. I just informed you he is a mod. Moving forward, I can assume you know he is a mod. You have been asked to stop with this line of questioning here and get back on topic.

Just to the right of the quote button is another button that looks a little like a stack of paper.  Click on that button for every post you are responding to.  You can either click quote on the last one you want or hit 'reply' after marking all of the posts you plan to respond to.

Quote from: taustin;672633Seems clumsy to me, and it certainly isn't obvious. Where is it?



It veered off that topic long before I jumped in.



Point me at that fuction. I see no hint of it.

This part of the discussion is over. If you have questions about posting or features ask them at the help desk.

Seriously Taustin, stop or I will ban you for real.

Well, this has escalated beyond the norm, so to save all involved, i'm just going to close the thread.

Sorry, mcbobbo. Feel free to start a new thread if you want to carry on the convo.