The Ranting/Debate Thread

[Cappy]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Well, posting the game in and of itself is sort of a statement. It really is just a parody of that -other- non-game which shall not be named. It does make a political statement of sorts, one that most people should probably agree with, but a political statement none the less.

People will side with the whiners and anti-gamers sometimes, it just means that you've gotta suck in your stomach, hold your head up, and hope they don't start beating you en-masse like a barbaric mob sacrificing the last of their dignity and integrity out of frustration in their inability to brainwash you with loud shouting and repetitive nonsensical propaganda.

 

[XSI]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

hope they don't start beating you en-masse like a barbaric mob sacrificing the last of their dignity and integrity out of frustration in their inability to brainwash you with loud shouting and repetitive nonsensical propaganda.

This is essentially what happened that makes this situation explode in popularity. People are tired of being pushed around and yelled at, so they're pushing back. Of course, in the eyes of the ones shouting, this makes the people pushing back the bad guys

Not entirely 100% on it yet(I need to double check sources), but apparently this is the group organizing all the games 'journalists' and coordinating their efforts.

You must be registered to see the links

As can be seen here:

You must be registered to see the links

They have been planning to change 'gamer culture' and pushing hard for a while now. It's the classic "If you're not with us you're against us" stuff, coupled with identity politics bundled up in a PR firm specifically for indie games. Basically, if you don't want an established PR firm to get their journalist friends to ignore you, take their views. Or "You're part of the problem"

People have been digging into it, and finding stranger and stranger things. Yet the most amusing is that for a group about promoting diversity in such a manner, the entire team is...White, and of a western culture.

 

[Nunu]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I said this before in the game thread but as I say, I am a professional in the games industry down here in melbourne and I am being oppressed.

I am not allowed to express my opinion or speak freely on certain topics within earshot of anyone who may be associated with a possition of power in my industry, specificaly the IGDA. I mean I do not agree 100% with the loudest views on topic I cant risk talking as it may effect the ability of my company to get grants. Regardless of what gender i am, I would be labeled as a hater and anti-woman and no one would support giving me money. Of course people here have known me long enough to trust my views on this, but those dont align well enough with the loudest people. Ironicaly, i never felt oppressed until people started yelling about how much they hate oppression.

 

[Copper]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

That blows, Nu. And I'm guessing there's no way to subtly get your point across or you'd have already done so. Weather the storm and hope that, like you said, those that know you know how you really feel on the matter, I suppose.

 

[Nunu]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

To be honest it doesn't really effect me that much, I mostly deal with things inside the company and I don't generally go to the IGDAM meetings. I didn't even know about it until I was informed not to talk about it.

But because I am of the opinion that a certain indie dev (lets call her ZQ, to protect their anonymity) is a negative influence on women's rights, isn't allowed to be spoken... that angers nunu. The problem though is people, after all the problem isn't feminism, it's people not being willing to listen an accept a different viewpoint than their own and the possibility that that can effect the prosperity of my company. To quote someone "ZQ said it so it must be true". It's not worth the risk to serve my self gratification.

 

[OAMP]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Just remember, opposition doesn't destroy ideas. Ideas destroy themselves. The best way to discredit someone is let them speak their mind, and really, that's what the bad elements of the gaming industry are doing here. They've done more harm to themselves than a thousand detractors ever could.

 

[Cappy]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

How the fuck did somebody so slimy and underhanded come into so much influential power? Which numbnut decided to let her be the face of the movement, and was she always this shitty, or did the power turn her mad? My brain cannot handle.

 

[XSI]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Spoiler

For post
http://www.ulmf.org/bbs/showthread.php?p=602197#post602197
Clearly they do, otherwise there wouldn't be anyone else posting about it, and it wouldn't be a rapidly growing movement. Those sites would not be losing massive amounts of visitors or get under an investigation for possible stock market fraud(Turns out having all major games journalism sites give negative reviews to something can effect stocks). Obviously it does matter, because if it didn't then the major sites would have no reason to censor it all, and there wouldn't be people working 30+ hours a week to try to get rid of the movement.

At least this one comment didn't insult me, so I assume it may be someone else than the previous ones. It still does show a level of obliviousness I thought was only found with Baghdad Bob. My stance on it still stays the same. You don't need to attempt to silence, minimize or suppress a view if your position holds any sort of legitimacy.
It's alright if you want to stay anonymous, and I don't really care if you show up and provide reasonable arguments or stay as you are, but you're clearly delusional if you think this is not a big deal

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

My Differences With Modern RPG Thinking:

This is a mega-long rant, in which I attack the ideas behind “class tiers” and a lot of modern thinking where party balance is concerned. It’s something I’ve been thinking about for a long time, and events today made me feel like actually posting my thoughts. I do have a few caveats:

(1) Some people won’t agree with me—as this is the debate thread, I’d love to hear your opinions, even if we don’t agree. I will endeavor to be open-minded.

(2) This is a rather long post, so I’ve spoilered the bulk of the text.

(3) Regardless of our differences of opinions, I hope no one will think that I harbor any grudges over this topic or over events today, especially as I don’t even have the complete picture of what happened (and it’s history, so going through it now would be futile). I also hope no one is offended by my opinions, controversial as they might be to some.

Spoiler

I might be getting too old and cantankerous to play role-playing games anymore. I lost interest in learning new systems after the adjustment to D&D 3.5E. I played a little bit of 4E, but it felt like I was shelling out money for a watered down version of World of Warcraft; I have absolutely no interest in playing World of Warcraft. I’m beginning to lose faith in the Pathfinder system, for reasons I’ll delve into momentarily.

When I was introduced to role-playing, I remember rolling ability scores with three six-sided dice. House rules were that you could roll as many times as you wanted. I rolled those three dice a LOT of times.

This was the mid-eighties, and in our game there were seven classes: cleric, fighter, magic-user, thief, elf, dwarf, and halfling. Elves were an awesome combination of fighter and magic-user, until you hit tenth level. Then they quickly fell behind the power curve. Dwarves and halflings were neat fighter alternates, but also got left behind at twelfth and eighth level, respectively. Bottom line? Demi-human classes were best used in less experienced parties.

That game was far more primitive. Everyone’s experience chart was different. There was no multi-classing or dual-classing, beyond elves (and if I recall correctly, one of the paths for immortality involved starting over in different classes, but no one tried that route). There was some balance, but it was somewhat arbitrary. A high level wizard had access to more powers than any other class, but would still have LOW hit points (they used a d4, and beyond level 9 they simply added one hit point with no CON bonus). Clerics were decent in melee, but mostly acted as combat medics. Thieves could backstab their opponents, but received the same hit points as a wizard. Theirs was a thankless, hazardous mission: to seek out all of the DM’s nasty, nasty traps or to die a horrible death. Fighters were the party brutes, capable of dishing out and taking large amounts of damage.

The big difference, to my mind, between good ol’ Dungeons and Dragons and today’s Pathfinder is that players have become too focused on their individual characters. A certain amount of min-maxing and customization is a good thing—you always need to stay tactically relevant to the group. The part that I really despise, though, is how people have become so obsessed with the “unfairness” of the system as to paralyze the game.

Sure, rogue’s not as powerful as wizard, especially at high levels. That was as true in 1980 as it is today, and it’s remained that way for the past three decades. And yes, a cleric could cast find traps. Many characters become capable of flight, rendering climbing useless. Picking pockets is a faux-pas, especially within your own party, and your sneak attacks don’t compare well with a dedicated martial class with all the maximized skills. Martial characters say the same thing about clerics and wizards.

Is this a balance problem? Is the solution to simply have one class with a lot more options available? How do we solve this inequality?

Pathfinder attempts to solve the problem by throwing more classes at it. Hybrid and mixed and weird classes often duplicate the same powers, but they do so in different combinations that makes a player feel like his character is somehow not being left behind. Hybrid character classes are not necessarily a bad thing, but I feel that they do not adequately address the perceived balancing issue.

The supposed “balancing” achieved by hybrid classes is a false benefit. The real problem is not in the balancing of the characters, but rather in the mindset of the players. These players see their characters as individuals deserving a front-row job. They lose sight of the fact that while their characters represent individual atoms, it is a grouping of atoms that allows for a molecule, for something beyond the sum of its parts. Sure, the wizard or cleric could use up a bunch of their spells to duplicate a rogue, but this would be a waste of their magic. Casters should use their powers in ways that make a party truly awesome. They should be spending their time crafting powerful items for party use, or blasting their opponents with crowd control spells, or summoning minions to overwhelm the enemy—NOT using their powers to perform tasks that the rogue and fighter are already there to do.

TL;DR In short, I feel that many players today is to attempt to balance their character against other characters. This is fallacious thinking—players should be working together to build a party that’s going to work well together, in which the duplication is minimized by class choice, but also by all the little choices that follow. D&D and PF are not designed to be a solo venture, but a role-playing experience in which good teamwork and sound planning win the day.

When I want a solo venture, I fire up Skyrim again. In fact, I might just do that.

 

[BlueSlime]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

People play RPGs for different reasons. Prime party composition is something that never interested me, even when I began playing D&D in the early 90s and my capability for abstract thought was limited. For me, it was always about the story over the crunch. The dice were there to add some element of randomness, but I always felt that strict adherence to the dice would get in the way of the fun. If I wanted to be playing a game dictated by rules rather than imagination, cooperative storytelling, and some notion of character growth, I'd be better served playing a dungeon crawl board game like HeroQuest. (Classic. Wish I still had the sets.)

In D&D, it always bothered me that people would roll and roll and roll until they got at least one 18 and a couple 16s or 17s in their statline. A super character without any flaws? From a narrative standpoint, that's a Mary Sue. But if I try to play a character with flaws and my fellow players are min-maxing twinks, trying to solve a goblin ambush as though it were a math problem, then the game is no longer catering to creativity and my interest flags quickly.

This is part of the reason that I became the GM in my group. They didn't know any other systems and I needed my fix of creating a story. Eventually, I left that style of game behind completely, and I haven't bothered with playing Pathfinder. I still toy around with number heavy systems sometimes, but I've become more enamored with diceless systems, or systems that have a very simplistic resolution mechanic and place more emphasis on character over character sheet.

This isn't everyone's style, and my reply is likely at cross-purposes with Hope's post. But this is just to say that it's not fallacious thinking to want to balance your character against others in your party. People don't want to be relegated to uselessness, and some folks, like me, can't be bothered looking through all the splatbooks and number combinations to keep our characters mechanically relevant when narratively they should be developing on the same path as the rest of the party. If I'm not as good as John Q Twink, and his flying monk character who kills five badguys to every one of mine, then even if I'm narratively the more relevant character, I've got super min-maxer zipping in and stealing thunder.

Some people like their characters, and like the development of that single character in ADDITION to the development of the group. Min-maxers often miss this nuance, and can negatively impact the enjoyment of other players who aren't focusing on the same outcome as they are.

Just as some people would advise that I go play Skyrim, I could advise that they go play the Might and Magic series if all they want are numbers, party composition, and a dungeon crawl scenario.

 

[XSI]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I understand both of these views, and personally I just go the middle road between them(Or so I'd think. I try to have both in my games anyway). I've played a pathfinder game where I was the group's main battle engine, being a knight with lance and a wizard enlarging me to make every hit I do kill at least one goblin each time, but that doesn't mean I'm stealing everyone else's thunder. The GM was great and made sure that there were some enemies that were a bit harder to hit. Ranged opponents that the rest of the group would not reach without being peppered with arrows and similar, but I could charge down. (The GM also helped with the stats for those who couldn't even minmax a little)
This way he made sure there were plenty of things for the group to do, and the group worked as a team rather than just having one guy do everything.

Outside of battles, everyone was involved, had their own personalities and goals, and some were, certainly more charismatic than others. But everyone got involved and everyone enjoyed it, the focus was not on any one member of the party, but rather the whole group. They did get their own little flavour things, and their own reactions and oppertunities, with times where the focus was on them for a while.
Group advancement is, after all, the sum of all personal advancement of the group members.

As for the wizard and magic powercreep. Yeah, wizards could outdo a fighter or rogue with their spells. But then they're out of spells until next extended rest. You simply can not take an extended rest after every encounter. They're much better off if they keep their spells for utility stuff. The wizard is not the amazing do-everything, but rather the swiss army knife. If you find something the party can't do for whatever reason, he'll have a spell to make it work.
But getting magic to do what everyone else is already doing is a waste of that spell slot

As GM, always balance the game itself around the group. Make sure everyone has something they can do, and people will soon learn they have to rely on eachother to get through things.

An example, I ran a Shadowrun game last week.
There were a hacker, a mage, and a thief. The group comes upon some plain, not magical, not digital, but just pure key-in-keyhole locked doors.
The hacker first tried to hack the doors, and I had to point out that he couldn't hack something that he couldn't connect to
After that he started trying to figure out how to break through the door, or if he could try to pick the lock with no skills in lockpicking or lockpicks.
At that point, I had to point out the thief right behind him had both lockpicks and skill in lockpicking.
Since then, they've been letting everyone else do things much more often

Main character syndrome is something you can unlearn, and you just have to get it pointed out a few times for it to work.

 

[Sin]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

The problem though is people, after all the problem isn't (Whatever issue), it's people not being willing to listen an accept a different viewpoint than their own.

Sorry I edited a bit, but this is how I saw it,
And couldn't agree more.

 

[BlueSlime]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Sorry I edited a bit, but this is how I saw it,
And couldn't agree more.

This adds little to the conversation. Are you suggesting that the people posting are not listening to the viewpoints of other people?

 

[Copper]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

*tosses in the two copper*

I think looking into what XSI and Blue have said might actually help with Hope's issue but at the same time, I think it's the role of the GM to also look with what they have to work with (the players personalities and their classes) and work alongside the players to craft a good game.

I've gotten away from the notion that the party must have one fighter-type, one healer-type, one rogue-type, and one caster-type. If the party is coherent, then they can overcome obstacles with the application of problem-solving skills. Think the corridor is trapped but don't have a rogue to check? Summon a minion and send it down the hall. Use the fighter to throw a rock onto that spot that looks shifty. However, I do agree that while certain spells do make things easier, they are not the end all, be all. A cleric's detect traps only tells you "Hey, there's a trap." You might be able to infer what sort of trap from where it is, but it doesn't get rid of it for you, it just lets you know that there's a trap there. For that you need a rogue. (Or a minion.)

That's not to say that you can't have a mage who applies their spells in a thief-like manner. Fly to move silently, climb walls, etc. Knock to pick locks. Invisibility for stealth. That's where the flavor of characters come in and no one should be told the character they craft is wrong simply because it doesn't fit the normal standards. That's where the GM comes in. You have your magey-thief. You have a fighter that wants to be a pugilist. You work with the players and see how best to integrate them into the story you want to craft. If something really really isn't going to work, then you explain why and work with the player to come up with something else but then maybe find a way for them to bring the original character into the game later or into a different game.

Unless you're running a module/adventure path that doesn't readily allow for leeway, look at what you have and don't be afraid to adapt. I *hate* DMs that think they're playing *against* the players. Yes, they are supposed to throw obstacles and antagonists in the way, but I feel those are there to be a challenge, not your way of winning. Yes, player death can happen, but I would rather it be because of bad dice and poor choices than being put into a situation where the DM expects you to lose. (I've been there.)

Consequently, I also think it's up to the GM to give all of the members of the party a chance to feel useful. It doesn't have to be all the time, but catering to the players that want the limelight (been there, too.) and ignoring everyone else that just don't quite fit into your grand vision of things (yup, there, too.) makes people not want to play. Neither does nepotism, but that's a different rant entirely. Was in a game where if you weren't playing a paladin, cleric, or follower of this one particular god, you might as well have not been there for all the DM cared to pay attention to you. There was no role-play, outside of interacting with the church and the priests, and half of the party got ignored whenever the paladins were around. No side plots, no personal quests, and if you did have them, they were short and not nearly as in-depth as the "grand vision." I should not feel like I have to play something I don't want to just to get face time in a game.

Touching on the min/max thing, given the way I run and play my games, I've given up on that. I put stats in things that are part of the character, even if they're not necessarily going to get me an advantage. Like the fact that my Hunter has crafting. It's because she's a 19 year old girl who likes to build dollhouses. Is that ever going to help me when I'm facing down a werewolf? Probably not. But it's part of what makes Ruby who she is. Players shouldn't feel like they have to sacrifice the soul of the character just to avoid dying. Then again, in both my WW and D&D sessions, we go literally weeks without pulling out the dice, or if we do, it's for perception checks or little things that help the story along. Role, not roll. Granted that doesn't work for everybody, but if you're not worried about your stats, then you can have a better time with your character, at least that's how I see it. Also encourages players to think about each other and their resources rather than to want to try and do everything themselves.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Interesting points made, all around.

We may differ on the details, but I think that between the four of us (BlueSlime, XSI, Copper, and myself) we agree more than we disagree. Nobody wants to feel their character is absolutely useless, but the role-playing ultimately should be at the center of the game--not individual character statistics.

 

[OAMP]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I've missed most the conversation, and thus the best chances to step in, but I would like to add in an option sometimes overlooked: Be the comedy character. Granted, I'm one of the most competent people in my group (middle of the road as of this week and the return of some of our classic players), but my characters are always based off the most insane concept I had at the moment. Current character is a short bald wizard named Lebron who's stacked in diplomacy because he moonlights as a shady lawyer (which I RP with great enthusiasm). Before that I had Shinji (yes, *that* Shinji) the monk, and Grover Cleveland the Paula Deen (Paladin) who liked to make excellent pastries in his free time, and always spoke in the voice of Peewee Herman.

 

[Hopeyouguess62]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I've missed most the conversation, and thus the best chances to step in, but I would like to add in an option sometimes overlooked: Be the comedy character. Granted, I'm one of the most competent people in my group (middle of the road as of this week and the return of some of our classic players), but my characters are always based off the most insane concept I had at the moment. Current character is a short bald wizard named Lebron who's stacked in diplomacy because he moonlights as a shady lawyer (which I RP with great enthusiasm). Before that I had Shinji (yes, *that* Shinji) the monk, and Grover Cleveland the Paula Deen (Paladin) who liked to make excellent pastries in his free time, and always spoke in the voice of Peewee Herman.

I'm impressed. Naming your monk "Shinji" takes a lot of NERV.

 

[OAMP]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

I'm impressed. Naming your monk "Shinji" takes a lot of NERV.

His first action was literally punching himself in the face so hard he got knocked out...

(Rolled a 1 during the introductory bar fight...)

 

[XSI]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

Yes, they are supposed to throw obstacles and antagonists in the way, but I feel those are there to be a challenge, not your way of winning. Yes, player death can happen, but I would rather it be because of bad dice and poor choices than being put into a situation where the DM expects you to lose. (I've been there.)

I am guilty of throwing these at my players at times. But to be fair, I do warn them. If they are level 1 adventurers out to kill goblins, and they hear about a dragon's nest in the distance, then yeah. I will give them a chance to try to steal that dragon's loot if they feel so inclined, and allow them escape routes to still get away safely enough.
I will not allow them to just kill the dragon in a straight up fight, and if they choose to stand and fight against a dragon at level 1? Well, that's their choice and the consequences of that choice. They should have seen that coming. Of course I do warn them in many ways that what they're doing is really dangerous, including NPCs warning them, dead adventurers in burned up, useless gear, and that little voice in their head telling them that maybe they aren't doing the smartest thing in the world.

But if they ignore all that and still want to throw themselves at a dragon at level 1? I'm not going to stop them.
It's going to derail all my plans and the campaign, but I'm okay with that.

As for wizards, an interesting format for a character is an all-wizards party. Even more interesting is if everyone makes their character without talking to the others and all 4 players think they'll be the comedy relief character of that game.
And to top it off, sometimes wizardry is so good that said party manages to not only beat the GM's challenges, but makes a complete mockery out of them while scribbling an arcane mark of a 3D dong on the altar the goblins were using to sacrifice their captives.
Wizards!

Spoiler

 

[OAMP]

Re: The Ranting/Debate Thread

That's sort of how Druids are in our games. Though both wizards and druids have made it so that on average once every two weeks we must consult the PV = nRT formula from physics... because steam explosions in confined spaces are no joke...