Talakeal's Gaming Horror Stories Continued (not really)

[zinycor]

@zinycor:

It was already mentioned that all character were build and outfitted along the same parameters. It doesn't really matter what the sorcerer player wants.

What? how could it not matter wat one of your players wants? What sort of game are you playing?

When that was the basic deal for the whole group, it´s either playing along or quit the game. The thing with wanting a free bard, nearly demanding it, practically shows were all of this is leading to.

That's pretty much a decision that is meant to be taken by the table, I don't advice on that line because I don't have any advice to offer, since thats an outside of game problem.

[zinycor]

If going by the rules is the matter, allow him to kill or retire his character and create a new one with whatever rules your game allows.

[Talakeal]

If going by the rules is the matter, allow him to kill or retire his character and create a new one with whatever rules your game allows.

It isn't.

You said "Just allow the guy to pick his feats a skills within the rules of the game," and I was responding by saying he already did pick his skills and feats within the rules of the game but I don't have a problem with him going outside of the rules of the game to change them if it will make him happier, I would just prefer if he didn't in a more low-key way that doesn't screw over the rest of the table.

[zinycor]

It isn't.

You said "Just allow the guy to pick his feats a skills within the rules of the game," and I was responding by saying he already did pick his skills and feats within the rules of the game but I don't have a problem with him going outside of the rules of the game to change them if it will make him happier, I would just prefer if he didn't in a more low-key way that doesn't screw over the rest of the table.

Your preferences hardly matter, and I don't think it would screw over anything.

[Florian]

What? how could it not matter wat one of your players wants? What sort of game are you playing?.

The kind that are a group-based social activity. Depending on the exact rules used, even heavily on the team-based side. That's why every decision has to be weighted with how they effect all participants, not only a single player.

[Talakeal]

Your preferences hardly matter, and I don't think it would screw over anything.

The DM's preferences hardly matter?

Having someone who refuses to work as a team player and is on a completely different optimization level as the rest of the party won't screw over anything?

Are you seriously saying this?


Honestly the longer I stick around this thread the more it seems like you are just trying to get a rise out of me.

[zinycor]

The kind that are a group-based social activity. Depending on the exact rules used, even heavily on the team-based side. That's why every decision has to be weighted with how they effect all participants, not only a single player.

Thats weird

[zinycor]

The DM's preferences hardly matter?

Why would it? The GM has a role to accomplish, and so do the players. If you don't like the character... other than pointing it out to the player and hope for him to understand there is no more than the GM Should do. If the player is a problem or the table is not the responsability of the GM, but the table as a whole.

Having someone who refuses to work as a team player and is on a completely different optimization level as the rest of the party won't screw over anything?

I don't think so. In my experience new players learn from more experienced players.

Are you seriously saying this?


Honestly the longer I stick around this thread the more it seems like you are just trying to get a rise out of me.

¿? Really don't get where that comes from... Just trying to help here man. If it bothers you so much I can stop posting.

[Talakeal]

I don't think so. In my experience new players learn from more experienced players.

What exactly is the lesson they are learning here though? Serious question.

¿? Really don't get where that comes from... Just trying to help here man. If it bothers you so much I can stop posting.

I won't lie, your "Jesus man WTF is wrong with you for calling someone a psychopath because they don't play they way you want them to," comment last week bothered me a bit, but at this point it isn't that you are bothering me so much as you keep stating opinions that I find harder and harder to take seriously.

The game is a social activity that relies on everyone having fun, of course everyone's opinions matter.

I do appreciate your presence here, for the prompt thread bumps if nothing else

[zinycor]

What exactly is the lesson they are learning here though? Serious question.

To build their characters better

I won't lie, your "Jesus man WTF is wrong with you for calling someone a psychopath because they don't play they way you want them to," comment last week bothered me a bit,

I wouldn't have done that comment if you didn't say:

The players do not enjoy imagining their characters betraying allies and murdering innocent women and children because they are not sadists and psychopaths.

Which clearly implies that if a person does enjoy imagining their characters doing such things, they are a sadist and psycopath. However This has already been cleared as you clearified you posted it in a flippant manner, so we ok.

but at this point it isn't that you are bothering me so much as you keep stating opinions that I find harder and harder to take seriously.

The game is a social activity that relies on everyone having fun, of course everyone's opinions matter.

I do appreciate your presence here, for the prompt thread bumps if nothing else

Is it so hard to understand? In my opinion a player picking caster feats and skills, won't break your game. I believe that makes it clear, doesn't it?

[Cluedrew]

Also, I don't think it is "realistic" to have someone with all 18s and 3s. Even someone like Stephan Hawking wouldn't be that extreme.

Yeah, Stephan Hawking gets close but I don't think even he would reach that point. He probably would* have 18 INT. Since 3 STR is enough to move around he might have a strength of 1 and his dexterity might be similar. But that is where it stops. The endurance aspect of CON is irrelevant and I am unaware of any problems with his skeleton so that would be average or a bit low. Wisdom probably a bit higher than average, but not spectacular. CHA is about average as well, he had good public speaking skills (and a very good poker face) but other than that, neutral.

So even Stephan Hawking might only have 3 extreme stats.

* If he was a D&D character.

The kind that are a group-based social activity. Depending on the exact rules used, even heavily on the team-based side. That's why every decision has to be weighted with how they effect all participants, not only a single player.

Thats weird

How so? It makes sense to me at first glance.

[Talakeal]

To build their characters better.

What is "better" in this context?

He is switching to a less competent character that is making the group weaker as a whole.

Are they learning to be more like him or less like him in this case?

[zinycor]

What is "better" in this context?

He is switching to a less competent character that is making the group weaker as a whole.

Are they learning to be more like him or less like him in this case?

How? Are skills and feats that important in your game?

[zinycor]

How so? It makes sense to me at first glance.

Am of the mind that your character is your responsability, unless you happen to offend any other person at the table. At that point it becomes an outside of game problem and solves itself by a mature conversation between players.

[The Glyphstone]

Yeah, Stephan Hawking gets close but I don't think even he would reach that point. He probably would* have 18 INT. Since 3 STR is enough to move around he might have a strength of 1 and his dexterity might be similar. But that is where it stops. The endurance aspect of CON is irrelevant and I am unaware of any problems with his skeleton so that would be average or a bit low. Wisdom probably a bit higher than average, but not spectacular. CHA is about average as well, he had good public speaking skills (and a very good poker face) but other than that, neutral.

So even Stephan Hawking might only have 3 extreme stats.

* If he was a D&D character.

How so? It makes sense to me at first glance.

Stephen Hawking is probably a bad example anyways because he's the last sort of person you would invite on an archaeological expedition. Keep him on speed-dial to answer questions, but hauling him around through dangerous terrain is unlikely. On the other hand, Stephen Hawking's brain does not let him fly or shoot lightning bolts from his eyes.

[Talakeal]

How? Are skills and feats that important in your game?

Yes, skills are extremely important in my game.

Basically he is making a character who is only good in combat, and even then only offensively against things which are vulnerable to blasting spells as he is removing his defenses as well as his speed, maneuverability, and a good deal of his ability to act tactically.

[zinycor]

Yes, skills are extremely important in my game.

Basically he is making a character who is only good in combat, and even then only offensively against things which are vulnerable to blasting spells as he is removing his defenses as well as his speed, maneuverability, and a good deal of his ability to act tactically.

My bad then. Thought your game was closer to 5e or 3.5. Always a problem with homebrew games.

[Cluedrew]

Am of the mind that your character is your responsability, unless you happen to offend any other person at the table.

Yes, it is your responsibility. But if you have offended someone (or otherwise damage the game*) with your character I would say you have already have failed that responsibility. So why not start thinking about it earlier?

* There are a lot of ways you can damage the game besides offending people. For instance a friend had a game where one character "accidentally" ended up so over powered it could solo any (combat) encounter other characters could meaningfully contribute to. No one was actually offended by this, but it did make the game less fun.

At that point it becomes an outside of game problem and solves itself by a mature conversation between players.

You are optimistic in phrasing it like it happens every time, but I agree that is what should happen.

[Talakeal]

My bad then Thought your game was closer to 5e or 3.5. Always a problem with homebrew games.

Honestly that depends on the game style more than the system.

Running a dungeon can be very skill intensive depending on how much emphasis the DM puts on traditional "rogue" stuff like finding secrets, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. Also overcoming obstacles which require running, jumping, climbing, swimming, etc.

Wilderness survival, social interaction scenes, and investigations are all fairly commonplace across systems I play and all require a lot of skills and very little fire ball.

[zinycor]

Yes, it is your responsibility. But if you have offended someone (or otherwise damage the game*) with your character I would say you have already have failed that responsibility. So why not start thinking about it earlier?

don't really get your point here

* There are a lot of ways you can damage the game besides offending people. For instance a friend had a game where one character "accidentally" ended up so over powered it could solo any (combat) encounter other characters could meaningfully contribute to. No one was actually offended by this, but it did make the game less fun.

Not really my experience, if a character becomes that powerful, is not the fault of the player but the system which allowed for that.

You are optimistic in phrasing it like it happens every time, but I agree that is what should happen.

Of course it happens every time. I believe most tables has some kind of problem at one point of another (After all roleplaying games have a lot of rules, and many of those rules have many posssible interpretations. That's without even mentioning acting outside of the boundaries of a game, or outside of game problems.).

[zinycor]

Honestly that depends on the game style more than the system.

Running a dungeon can be very skill intensive depending on how much emphasis the DM puts on traditional "rogue" stuff like finding secrets, disarming traps, picking locks, etc. Also overcoming obstacles which require running, jumping, climbing, swimming, etc.

Wilderness survival, social interaction scenes, and investigations are all fairly commonplace across systems I play and all require a lot of skills and very little fire ball.

Absolutely depends on the system

he is removing his defenses as well as his speed, maneuverability, and a good deal of his ability to act tactically.

For example, of the things you mentioned, only maneuverability (Athletics, Acrobatics) is related to any skill on the editions I mentioned.

[zinycor]

And the whole searching for traps, on some editions sorcerers aren't even able to do that.

[Talakeal]

For example, of the things you mentioned, only maneuverability (Athletics, Acrobatics) is related to any skill on the editions I mentioned.

As I said, he is stripping away everything that doesn't directly aid in his ability to cast damaging spells.

Ability scores, skills, feats, equipment, and spell selection.

[zinycor]

As I said, he is stripping away everything that doesn't directly aid in his ability to cast damaging spells.

Ability scores, skills, feats, equipment, and spell selection.

Then your answer is clear, just say no to him, he can't do that. Is not in the rules.

All this time I thought He wanted to change his skills for others, and his feats for others feats.

[Talakeal]

Then your answer is clear, just say no to him, he can't do that. Is not in the rules.

All this time I thought He wanted to change his skills for others, and his feats for others feats.

He does. He just wants to get swap out absolutely everything that doesn't directly help him with blasting spells for something that does. For skills this means maxing out his concentration and spell craft and dropping everything else, as well as dropping his intelligence to the point where he has almost no skill points to begin with.

Absolutely depends on the system.

I honestly can't think of a system where those things I mentioned wouldn't be skill checks.

I am sure they exist, but I have played AD&D, 3.X, 4E, 5E, Pathfinder, Star Wars, GURPS, Shadow Run, Exalted, oWoD, nWoD, Riddle of Steel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Call of Cthulhu, Dark Heresy, and I am sure a few more I can't recall as well as having read dozens of others and as far as I can remember all of them involved fairly heavy skill usage for wilderness survival, social encounters, and investigations.

[zinycor]

He does. He just wants to get swap out absolutely everything that doesn't directly help him with blasting spells for something that does. For skills this means maxing out his concentration and spell craft and dropping everything else, as well as dropping his intelligence to the point where he has almost no skill points to begin with.

As I have said multiple times now, I don't think you should allow him to drop his numbers on intelligence that much, if at all. But if he want to change his skills towards those things... frankly, I don't see any problem as long as it is legal.

I honestly can't think of a system where those things I mentioned wouldn't be skill checks.

I am sure they exist, but I have played AD&D, 3.X, 4E, 5E, Pathfinder, Star Wars, GURPS, Shadow Run, Exalted, oWoD, nWoD, Riddle of Steel, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, Call of Cthulhu, Dark Heresy, and I am sure a few more I can't recall as well as having read dozens of others and as far as I can remember all of them involved fairly heavy skill usage for wilderness survival, social encounters, and investigations.

You mentioned:
Defense: Not affected by skills
Speed: Not affected by skills
good deal of his ability to act tactically: Not really sure what you mean by this.
Maneuverability: Affected by some skills.

[Talakeal]

You mentioned:
Defense: Not affected by skills
Speed: Not affected by skills
good deal of his ability to act tactically: Not really sure what you mean by this.
Maneuverability: Affected by some skills.

I am not just talking about skills here. I was responding to the part about how it teaches the other players to make a "better" character and what lesson they will actually take away from someone who plays a one trick pony who overshadows them in combats (that he survives) and is dead weight the rest of time.

[zinycor]

I am not just talking about skills here. I was responding to the part about how it teaches the other players to make a "better" character and what lesson they will actually take away from someone who plays a one trick pony who overshadows them in combats (that he survives) and is dead weight the rest of time.

I am just talking of skills here! Well, skills and feats xD

This might be the reason of why I can't really get your points xD

So, just to be clear.

I believe that the player should be able to change his skills and feats, in whatever way suits him, as long it is within the rules!

That is, with the exception of any rules that forbid him to do so. But hey, that sort of rules are meant to be broken.

[Cluedrew]

Stephen Hawking is probably a bad example anyways because he's the last sort of person you would invite on an archaeological expedition. Keep him on speed-dial to answer questions, but hauling him around through dangerous terrain is unlikely. On the other hand, Stephen Hawking's brain does not let him fly or shoot lightning bolts from his eyes.

I some how missed this ENTIRE POST last time, they have been coming in pretty fast. Yes he is not a typical adventurer. On the other hand I would totally play that wizard. Have a system design in my notes about it actually.

don't really get your point here

My point is...

OK, let me back up. What did you mean by this sentence: "Am of the mind that your character is your responsability, unless you happen to offend any other person at the table." Particularly, in the context of this statement being weird: "The kind that are a group-based social activity. Depending on the exact rules used, even heavily on the team-based side. That's why every decision has to be weighted with how they effect all participants, not only a single player." I tried to figure it out but I must of missed the point.

[zinycor]

Am of the mind that your character is your responsability, unless you happen to offend any other person at the table.[/I]" Particularly, in the context of this statement being weird: "The kind that are a group-based social activity. Depending on the exact rules used, even heavily on the team-based side. That's why every decision has to be weighted with how they effect all participants, not only a single player." I tried to figure it out but I must of missed the point.

That I don't think you should build a character thinking of whatever the party needs, you should play a character that you think is fun/interesting.