|
3 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2010 - 1:23PM
#91
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
I'm tyring to understand where; care = consideration ? If I sit down with complete strangers - I dont know them, they dont know me. In many cases care goes out the window. Its how the world works. When I sit down with people I have even passing familiarity with, then such things are opened to view.
Last I checked, consideration pretty much == caring. If you don't care about those other players at the table, sure, you won't show them any consideration, by definition.
Given LFR's "dying" rules, and I do use those quotes for their literal meaning, I think it is a joke to think that anyone would care that their PC died. Aside from some sort of machismo about enemies counting coup on you.
Back to the attitude that the other players in the game don't matter because you randomly sit down with them and you don't know them ... do you announce this when you sit with them? Do you give them a warning about this attitude? I doubt it. You know that its impolite (at the least) and you know that there is an assumption about the shared fun everyone is looking for. Stating this up front would make if clear you weren't there for that and may well result in folks getting up from the table and leaving. DMs included. So, ... why would you then -act- that way later?
The answer you're looking for is the obvious one. I'll leave you to it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2010 - 1:35PM
#92
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
Surprise rounds are in the game rules, as are game mechanics (perception and stealth skills and powers) to determine who is surprised.
Invented effects in modules to prevent action point expenditure aren't.
Just for the sake of argument, since the game rules don't cover all the possible variations of skill challenges, when a writer/DM either makes up a new affect for a skill challenge (imposing some penalty on a failure) or a new use for a skill ... you're ok with that, right?
It's just the combat mechanics you have issues with? Because every possible way to play D&D combat is in the books?
I know this. The line you think you're drawing, isn't as sharp, clear or as well placed as you think it is. D&D, at its heart, is a framework. Everything else, comes from our imaginations and creativity. Sometimes those will reflect more challenge on a PC that the powers and abilities they claim to have. No PC is invincible, and no PC is able to fiat that they can never be X by a monster doing Y. Just doesn't exist.
I'll give you an example. Spending an AP is a power. Spending a healing surge is a power. You say no power should exist that prevents a PC from spending an AP. There are monsters that have powers that prevent PCs from spending healing surges. So ... the precedent exists for a power that would prevent AP spending. The difference? None.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2010 - 1:45PM
#93
|
|
|
I think the point that Cpttylorx was making is that it is silly to expect a player not to Alphastrike out of some "concern" or "caring" for the other players. I agree with him and disagree with the OP of this thread. In combat the name of the game is (normally) killing the monsters. It is silly for a player to have to think about whether they should go all out or not because some other player might not get to go. First, I have never seen anyone actually get upset about an Alphastrike or not getting a meaningful turn in a fight (and I have been the person who didn't get to go). Second, if they care that much than maybe they should boost their initiative.
But again, I have never seen a player get upset because a fight was too easy due to an Alphastike going down. I have seen plenty of DMs get their bubble burst -- but those are normally the same DMs who were eagerly anticipating which Monster of Doom power they wanted to use first. Too bad Monster of Doom A is dead and Monster of Doom B is blind, dazed, weakened and prone with 5 hps. lol To me, having your monsters get waxed by the PCs is just part of the DM job description -- its something you should just expect.
Daren
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2010 - 2:11PM
#94
|
Date Joined:
Jul 29, 2008
|
I'll give you an example. Spending an AP is a power. Spending a healing surge is a power. You say no power should exist that prevents a PC from spending an AP. There are monsters that have powers that prevent PCs from spending healing surges. So ... the precedent exists for a power that would prevent AP spending. The difference? None.
The difference? Lots. Spending an action point is NOT a power. It's an ability keyed off a free action.
If you want to deny AP use, prevent characters from taking free actions. This degree of powerlessness blows, so I'd never recommend it, but that's how you'd do it.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2010 - 3:01PM
#95
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2008
|
I'll give you an example. Spending an AP is a power. Spending a healing surge is a power. You say no power should exist that prevents a PC from spending an AP. There are monsters that have powers that prevent PCs from spending healing surges. So ... the precedent exists for a power that would prevent AP spending. The difference? None.
The difference? Lots. Spending an action point is NOT a power. It's an ability keyed off a free action.
If you want to deny AP use, prevent characters from taking free actions. This degree of powerlessness blows, so I'd never recommend it, but that's how you'd do it.
You're quibbling. But fine. It is part of the game. It is a part of the game that a player can invoke on a PC. Fair? Both are examples of mechanics that a player can invoke on his PC and both are, in my mind, things that can be prevented from being invoked by a player on his PC.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2010 - 4:46PM
#96
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2006
|
You are going to throw a forum tantrum (or worse, one at a table) over an encounter that caused you to wait to use your action points? It's hardly even a meaningful threat and undermines your own credibility to present reasonable arguments.
Meddling with fundamental game mechanics is one of my personal pet peeves.
BTW I never said that I would 'throw a forum tantrum'. Maybe my choice of words was a bit hyperbolic. I will vociferously express my dislike (after the module is over, maybe on one of these fora) of such a mechanic that has absolutely no foundation in the rules. I might grumble at the table, but I never bring it to a level that affects the enjoyment of my fellow players.
BTW the last time I checked this was a team game. If Team PC wins, I am happy. For the record, nearly half of my characters are leaders. I play support, and count it as a victory when the other members of my party wipe the floor with Team Monster (even if I don't get to take an action in the combat). I don't complain that I didn't get to do anything, I chalk up a victory and move on.
Felt like the point needed to be made that that style of overstatement has little place here and generally just moots your own point. I don't want any instituationalized obsolescences of alphastrike players but, I am fine with the occasional use of reasonable plot devices to force people outside of their comfort zone or to face the flaws over over-optimized builds.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2010 - 11:26PM
#97
|
|
|
I'm tyring to understand where; care = consideration ? If I sit down with complete strangers - I dont know them, they dont know me. In many cases care goes out the window. Its how the world works. When I sit down with people I have even passing familiarity with, then such things are opened to view.
Last I checked, consideration pretty much == caring. If you don't care about those other players at the table, sure, you won't show them any consideration, by definition.
Given LFR's "dying" rules, and I do use those quotes for their literal meaning, I think it is a joke to think that anyone would care that their PC died. Aside from some sort of machismo about enemies counting coup on you.
It's not about caring or consideration IT'S ABOUT RESPECT I play with people I don't know everytime I go to a convention so depending on what charactor I'm playing I may or may not be inclined to play the role of "hero" and will from time to time use them to serve my charactors needs. But there is always respect if a person wants to cry after the death of a charactor they put a lot of time and effort in to building I can understand it as silly as I personally think they're behaving. I respect a person's right to express the passion they feel when playing anyway they see fit so long as they don't cross the line into becoming that jerk who endlessly talks about how great his charactor is.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 15, 2010 - 11:35PM
#98
|
Date Joined:
Aug 19, 2007
|
force people outside of their comfort zone or to face the flaws over over-optimized builds.
Right.
Because the one thing that makes the sort of person who purposefully builds an over-optimized PC have the most fun is to have that PC not work the way it's supposed to. lol
If you want to be challenged or face big obstacles, you build a mildly optimized (or *gasp* unoptimized) PC. If you go the route of hyper-optimization, it means you probably like to win and really really really hate to lose. I don't think that it is our role (collectively, as a campaign) to try to put the optimizer in his place, or show him the error of his ways.
The optimizer is not inherently wrong.
The non-optimizer is not "better", in an ethical sense.
If there is a conflict between the two, the default should not be to knock the dirty optimizer down a rung. It should also not be to kill off all the unoptomized PCs in some sort of sped up version of the evolution of species, until only Pun-pun is left.
The most sensible solution I can see is to build up a campaign that tries to challenge the folks who want to be challenged, and is a cakewalk for folks who want to cakewalk. It is only when these groups mingle that there is any conflict at all - and again, I can't stress this enough, the onus is not only on the cakewalk crew to do all the compromising. In mixed playstyle groups, once the mismatch has been detected, the challenge crew need to accept that the adventure might very well be a bit eay for their taste, and the cakewalk crew need to accept that they need to share the limelight a bit more than they'd like.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 16, 2010 - 7:35AM
#99
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2003
|
Just to add feul to the fire, I'll say that sometimes people create damage optimized characters and alpha strike whenever possible because they feel they need to make up for other characters at the table, especially in a con or gameday event when they're sitting down with people they've never played with before, or if another character at the table is obviously a low or no-damage outputting character like a pacifist cleric build.
So assuming that a person does it as a "jerk move" or because they don't care about anyone else at the table is a bit presumptuous, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
3 years ago ::
Jun 16, 2010 - 9:13AM
#100
|
Date Joined:
Nov 22, 2006
|
Look, as gamers, we all want a chance to use our cool powers/tricks. I think that is what the OP is saying. If it is clearly an easy fight, hold back just a little(you dont have to daily, AP and daily again).
Just have a little empathy and let other people participate in the fight. Which from some of these posts, I suppose it is asking too much. Gamers aren't known to be considerate of one another, and this kinda proves it.
|
|
|
