Post/Author/DateTime	Post
MatteBlack 09-11-07, 12:31 PM	I certainly have my own strong opinions but, I wonder where the opinions of my future LFR comrades lie. The books generally seem to hold RP up as a worthy goal along with understanding the rules. Most players give at least lip service to the need to at least staying "in-game" but, there are an awful lot of players who seem to expect that everything is expendable for the sake of a tight character build or perfect strategy. I try to balance the two and disrupt other folks games as little as possible. Don't expect Shakespeare out of me but, I'll play my character as the character would respond while knowing my character's rules options and that I have built a character that can hold his own and may have a few "lovable" flaws. (BTW, Playing a jerk character to act like a jerk at the table is hardly RP in my book.) Where do you think the lines should be drawn when it comes down to play expectations in LFR?
KarmaInferno 09-11-07, 12:38 PM	I see the dividing line as a false assumption. You can be one, the other, both, or neither. They are two different subjects. Powergaming focuses on rules mechanics. Roleplaying focuses on social mechanics. Neither has to impact the other adversely unless you want them to. -karma
MichaelAhlf 09-11-07, 01:38 PM	I see the dividing line as a false assumption. You can be one, the other, both, or neither. They are two different subjects. Powergaming focuses on rules mechanics. Roleplaying focuses on social mechanics. Neither has to impact the other adversely unless you want them to. -karma Powergaming and good roleplaying can indeed coincide. I've seen some guys who absolutely have cheesy characters, but their roleplay is great as well. However, these are less than (my estimation) 2% of the powergamers. Most of the powergamers are "roll-players", and they detract from the experience of the roleplayers. Of course, they will say the same about the roleplayers getting in the way of their slash-and-smash approach. OTOH... I don't know what LFR is going to bring in. I expect a number of emo Drizzt wannabes.
smerwin29 09-11-07, 01:39 PM	I can say without hesitation that many of the "best roleplayers" (had fun and interesting backstories, stayed in character, brought fun to the others at the table, etc.) were also the "best powergamers." This was not always the case, of course, but in my experience that was the case more often than not. I have had this discussion with many different people over the course of my time in the RPGA, and there is one thing that most people I've talked to have agreed upon: regardless of the type of player you are, regardless of what kind of fun you want at the D&D table, the best players have two attributes: 1) they remain actively involved in all aspects of the game in character--they do not only pay attention when there is in-character socialization, or combat, or any one thing and 2) they consciously try to keep everyone at the table involved in the game--they do not disrupt the game or marginalize the roles of other players by either "roleplaying" to the exclusion of involving other PCs in the story or by fighting every battle by themselves to the exclusion of involving other PCs in the story.
catsclaw 09-11-07, 01:53 PM	OTOH... I don't know what LFR is going to bring in. I expect a number of emo Drizzt wannabes.Well, I've seen very very "emo" players in Living Greyhawk, so you seem to be assuming: 1) There will be a massive exodus of 70% of LG players 2) They will be replaced by a massive influx of Realms cosplayers #1 is debatable, but on the whole I doubt it. As for #2, since I've seen about zero interest from the emo kids in Greyhawk, I have no idea why they'd suddenly jump into a different Living campaign, even if it is set in the Realms.
LGMoses 09-11-07, 09:44 PM	I think this argument is kind of a waste of time until the 4e mechanics come out. But, I think its all about finding the right way to mechanically represent your character with rules. Powergaming is simply putting the rules first and conforming how your character acts around that. But like I said, 4e mechanics I think are going to help this issue. The powerband of characters is going up I think.
UMiskatonic 09-11-07, 10:36 PM	Actually, revamping the social mechanics would fix this problem. Seriously, there's 100 ways to defeat someone in physical combat, and 100 defenses against those. It's a robust system that we all love. However, in an argument, you have ONE mechanic, the diplomacy roll, and there's no defense. So, either you have a diplomat character who can convince everyone, all the time, or you have a non-diplomat who is forced to 'role-play' their way upstream, in active defiance of rules that don't support this type of behavior very well. It usually comes down to a die roll, massaged by whatever modifiers the DM happens to add in. The DM basically decides if you make it or not with social skills by the amount of modifiers added in. Think for a minute how it would be if the enemies armor class worked this way..... So, in 4E, PLEASE give us a mechanic to support role-playing. That way, everything is inside the system, and there IS no distinction between power gaming and role-playing. It would all be encapsulated within the rule system. There are games that have these systems (Earthdawn, Burning Wheel), and proposed fixes out there (Rich Burlew, for one). It can be done.
catsclaw 09-12-07, 12:23 AM	So, in 4E, PLEASE give us a mechanic to support role-playing. That way, everything is inside the system, and there IS no distinction between power gaming and role-playing. It would all be encapsulated within the rule system.Ask, and your wish ... well, maybe you just got lucky. From Dave Noonan's blog (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=13533470&postcount=7):3) The system we were testing involves skill checks (big surprise, huh?). One of the things I found fascinating was that some players preferred to deliver their dialogue, then roll the skill check and report the result. Others preferred to roll the skill check first, then deliver dialogue that matched their result (good or bad). The system works either way, so I might just make it explicit that you can "roll, then talk" or "talk, then roll." 4) There is a totally valid D&D playstyle that haaaaates the idea of social interactions being resolved with a die roll. This system should work for that playstyle, too, once you flip a few switches. That just isn't the playstyle we were testing last night.
gomeztoo 09-12-07, 02:40 AM	Diplomacy in 3rd Edition ment that you had players that would say 'I roll Diplomacy to calm the crowd', roll, say 'I roll 40', and that's that... Otoh, that same player might not recognize when a diplomacy check would make a difference. They woudl just not recognize the situation or realize what the proper arguments were. It's rather telling that my +0 Diplomacy PC (various ranks, but some weird penalties) managed that more often... simply by realizing what was going on and acting on it. Personally I like a system that recognizes that more: that success in social interaction requires awareness of the situation.
MatteBlack 09-12-07, 10:36 AM	I think alot of the problem was that many players would sell off their social abilities for combat ones and then get frustrated or bored when social situations would come up. Sounds like the new skill system should make level appropriate skills more integral to the classes so characters should suffer less from having spent skills to enter a prestige class and not having spent them on things that character should have. I do wish they would put some fairly strong language in about staying at least in-character and not stripping the adventures down to a math problem on how to press the right buttons to make the most xp, gold and accesses pop out but, I don't even know that is an expectation that would be widely valued. I can deal with a cheesy build on the table as long they aren't stomping on the story. Again, being aware of the rules and your impact on the play experience of those at your table is probably going to be the greatest factor toward improving things. Lee
UMiskatonic 09-12-07, 12:11 PM	I think alot of the problem was that many players would sell off their social abilities for combat ones I agree, this is a big problem. There are some easy fixes, though. a) More skill points? If every class had more skill points (+2?), then you wouldn't be forced to choose between concentration and diplomacy. Likewise, fewer skills would also do the job. Supporting Bluff, and Diplomacy, and Intimidate, and Gather Information, is twice as hard as supporting only Bargain and Oratory. b) Failure to scale with level. Even a 20th level commoner has a good amount of hit points and a solid will save. However, those 20 levels do NOT help vs. a diplomacy check. Nothing does. That's ridiculous. I should not be able to convince the enemy king to give up just because I can hit a DC 50. c) Poor definitions. Consider the following tasks: "Excuse me miller, but which is the road to Cormyr?" and "Set down your worldly possessions and follow me as a disciple" might both require an NPC reaction of helpful. That's not helpful. Some guidelines on setting DCs would be.
mark1978 09-12-07, 04:35 PM	Powergaming and good roleplaying can indeed coincide. I've seen some guys who absolutely have cheesy characters, but their roleplay is great as well. However, these are less than (my estimation) 2% of the powergamers. Most of the powergamers are "roll-players", and they detract from the experience of the roleplayers. Of course, they will say the same about the roleplayers getting in the way of their slash-and-smash approach. OTOH... I don't know what LFR is going to bring in. I expect a number of emo Drizzt wannabes. You may see what they do as being a distraction, but who are you to say they don't have the right to play the way they do? Their is no rule in the RPGA requiring that 'all' players build a hefty character backstory, design ingenius character flaws, and weave them into your speech and actions. It is merely implied by the idea of tabletop gaming. However, some people find pleasure in the simplicity of rolling dice and seeing the result, Craps anyone?! I am a roleplayer, and love it, but I give the roll-players their due since it IS an open game engine. If you don't like them, then ignore them and get more involved with the roleplayers in your party. Mark
MichaelAhlf 09-12-07, 06:12 PM	You may see what they do as being a distraction, but who are you to say they don't have the right to play the way they do? Mark I believe I said that while I feel "roll-players" detract from the gaming enjoyment of roleplayers, the "roll-players" would feel that roleplayers detract frmo their gaming enjoyment as well...
mark1978 09-12-07, 06:47 PM	I believe I said that while I feel "roll-players" detract from the gaming enjoyment of roleplayers, the "roll-players" would feel that roleplayers detract frmo their gaming enjoyment as well... Yes, I saw that, but it seemed off-handed to quash rebuttal rather than supportive. Just my observation. Truth be told, these two categories of players will always mix like water and oil, and it will seem to lessen the gaming experience for both. But, one must find the enjoyment despite. ;) Mark
MatteBlack 09-12-07, 07:54 PM	You may see what they do as being a distraction, but who are you to say they don't have the right to play the way they do? Their is no rule in the RPGA requiring that 'all' players build a hefty character backstory, design ingenius character flaws, and weave them into your speech and actions. It is merely implied by the idea of tabletop gaming. However, some people find pleasure in the simplicity of rolling dice and seeing the result, Craps anyone?! I am a roleplayer, and love it, but I give the roll-players their due since it IS an open game engine. If you don't like them, then ignore them and get more involved with the roleplayers in your party. Mark Again, I don't want to see players spending half a gaming slot exploring their character's inner angst that is well founded in his 20pg character background but, minimally playing within your character's social abilities and reacting as they might would be a huge improvement over the players who essentially unleash their treasure and xp seeking missiles into an adventure under the guise of playing a character in a table-top RP game. I think the implication that it is a roleplaying game would minimally suggest that you try stay in-character and allow others to do so as well. Play the game side of it well but, that should include roleplay alongside rules knowlege, strategy, deduction and, in some cases, cheating on your dice.
cetiken 09-12-07, 10:26 PM	Where do you think the lines should be drawn when it comes down to play expectations in LFR? I think that we should try to include more people into our hobby as opposed to drawing lines to keep people out. We all know that this transition is gona be rough and I bet we all know at least a few players locally who claim they won't convert (and I knew some who said the same thing about 2E and 3.5 - anyone wana place bets?). Lets just play the game and all try to have fun where we can. If i get a kick out of playing a bard who likes to ham it up out of combat, while playing a strictly support role when the d20s start rolling then thats what it is. Some people enjoy doing math and achiving rediculus amounts of damage. Thats also fine. Exclusion Bad. Tolerance Good.
mark1978 09-13-07, 08:46 AM	Again, I don't want to see players spending half a gaming slot exploring their character's inner angst that is well founded in his 20pg character background but, minimally playing within your character's social abilities and reacting as they might would be a huge improvement over the players who essentially unleash their treasure and xp seeking missiles into an adventure under the guise of playing a character in a table-top RP game. I think the implication that it is a roleplaying game would minimally suggest that you try stay in-character and allow others to do so as well. Play the game side of it well but, that should include roleplay alongside rules knowlege, strategy, deduction and, in some cases, cheating on your dice. What you want to see and what people choose to do rarely will coincide. It is both what makes roleplaying in an open gaming environment great, and at time difficult. Roleplaying is good and all, this comes down to having a good GM to allow roleplaying while still keeping the pace of the game to ensure they finish a one-round adventure in 4 to 6 hours. And, it takes a good GM to be aware of the Timmy Powergamers out there to keep their cheese in check with good calls and expedient battle pace. All the elements of what makes different players good, bad, and all the shades of mediocrity comes down to the quality of GM you have at the table. Mark
MatteBlack 09-14-07, 12:24 PM	I think that we should try to include more people into our hobby as opposed to drawing lines to keep people out. We all know that this transition is gona be rough and I bet we all know at least a few players locally who claim they won't convert (and I knew some who said the same thing about 2E and 3.5 - anyone wana place bets?). Lets just play the game and all try to have fun where we can. If i get a kick out of playing a bard who likes to ham it up out of combat, while playing a strictly support role when the d20s start rolling then thats what it is. Some people enjoy doing math and achiving rediculus amounts of damage. Thats also fine. Exclusion Bad. Tolerance Good. The lines don't have to exclude. We are expecting a whole new ruleset, essentially a big book of drawn lines that guide the player on how to play the game. There is a known division in the current game and it causes frustration on both sides of it at tables all the time. Setting the expectation before hand can likely save friction down the road. The simplest thing would be to tell everyone to respect and accomodate their fellow players around the table but, it would seem that some further definition could help the matter as the rift has been a long standing one. It is too much of a core issue to leave it to a DMs decision and table variation as impacts nearly all facets of the game.
UMiskatonic 09-14-07, 02:21 PM	But we're not randomly assigned to tables, people. If there are people whose style of play is similar to your own, invite them over, muster with them, and have a great time. Likewise, if others are doing something that you don't consider as much fun, play a game with them, and then politely move to another table. It doesn't have to be a big secret. We have a number of people in our LG region who are 'all about the combat'. They had t-shirts made stating this. I think that's a great idea. It allows them to find players and judges with a similar style, and I seriously hope they have a fantastic time. But they aren't my first choice of people to play with, even though I like them all personally. I hope that LFR is a big enough tent that there's room for everyone. We can sort it out at the con after that.
KoboldChieftain 09-14-07, 03:41 PM	But we're not randomly assigned to tables, people. If there are people whose style of play is similar to your own, invite them over, muster with them, and have a great time. But if we are at a convention we have never been to and all the people are, for all intents and purposes, a random group of people how do you tell there game style? It's not like they are wearing shirts describing their gaming style. I have been randomly assigned a table. Just so you know. ;) Likewise, if others are doing something that you don't consider as much fun, play a game with them, and then politely move to another table. It doesn't have to be a big secret. And now you know. But you still have "wasted" a slot. We have a number of people in our LG region who are 'all about the combat'. They had t-shirts made stating this. I think that's a great idea. It allows them to find players and judges with a similar style, and I seriously hope they have a fantastic time. But they aren't my first choice of people to play with, even though I like them all personally. I hope that LFR is a big enough tent that there's room for everyone. We can sort it out at the con after that. Ok, not ALL of them have shirts. :) I am sure there will be room for everybody and that everybody can find a group that suits them. At least I sure hope so! :) I know I'll do my best to make the others at my table comfortable and have a good time (even if I have to fall out of my chair...again).
MatteBlack 09-14-07, 03:54 PM	But we're not randomly assigned to tables, people. If there are people whose style of play is similar to your own, invite them over, muster with them, and have a great time. Likewise, if others are doing something that you don't consider as much fun, play a game with them, and then politely move to another table. It doesn't have to be a big secret. We have a number of people in our LG region who are 'all about the combat'. They had t-shirts made stating this. I think that's a great idea. It allows them to find players and judges with a similar style, and I seriously hope they have a fantastic time. But they aren't my first choice of people to play with, even though I like them all personally. I hope that LFR is a big enough tent that there's room for everyone. We can sort it out at the con after that. Perhaps the new campaign canbetter handle this practice but, as the levels spread and people begin to "need" different adventures , grouping of viable parties can be hard enough. Character levels will take some time to string out so maybe wecan begin to group players by playstyle as well but, doubt it will be considered plausable by that manycon organizers. Again, a little language promoting playstyle sensitivity and making it a consideration could go along way. I'd love it if I had the option to play in either story- or battle-oriented parties.
RedKnightofKet 09-14-07, 04:21 PM	We have a number of people in our LG region who are 'all about the combat'. They had t-shirts made stating this. I think that's a great idea. It allows them to find players and judges with a similar style, and I seriously hope they have a fantastic time. But they aren't my first choice of people to play with, even though I like them all personally. I ran a table at GenCon for six guys with "It's All About the Combat" shirts (probably the same guys). I didn't change my style at all, and in fact there was more role-play with them than some of the other tables I ran. I got the impression that these guys (and probably others in the same situation) are simply tired of sub-optimal builds, purely for role-play purpose, cross-gender play, funny voices, etc. If anything, I think it's a reaction to the "role-play" extreme...
Reneshat 09-15-07, 12:25 AM	I got the impression that these guys (and probably others in the same situation) are simply tired of sub-optimal builds, purely for role-play purpose, cross-gender play, funny voices, etc. If anything, I think it's a reaction to the "role-play" extreme... HEY! I resemble that remark. :-D
Sieylianna 09-15-07, 10:12 AM	I got the impression that these guys (and probably others in the same situation) are simply tired of sub-optimal builds, purely for role-play purpose, cross-gender play, funny voices, etc. If anything, I think it's a reaction to the "role-play" extreme... I believe that I know who you are talking about and their main emphasize seems to be "guys playing chicks". I think it's rampant homophobia. Any of my PCs (male or femaile) are good in a fight. Ed
UMiskatonic 09-17-07, 03:46 PM	But if we are at a convention we have never been to and all the people are, for all intents and purposes, a random group of people how do you tell their game style? You ask them. You'll have enough time between slots to do that much. Maybe the first random assignment is a dud, but you'll get better and better after that, as you learn more and more about your fellow players. Better still, you advertise. "I'm 3rd level, and I'm looking for a story-line oriented group". But you are right, overall. Not every slot of every con is going to be 100% fun. That's the nature of it. Still, I find that I do pretty well overall.
cetiken 09-17-07, 09:48 PM	I have been randomly assigned a table. Just so you know. ;) ... And now you know. But you still have "wasted" a slot. Perhaps if you care that much you should have a shirt. It doesn't even have to be a tshirt. I'm sure cafe express or some other site can get you a monogrammed polo that say something like "Dice are for wimps." Then people would know that they're getting into before you inflicted your badly accented cross-gender emo-infused characters on them. :cool: If one was to play such a character.
KoboldChieftain 09-17-07, 11:35 PM	Perhaps if you care that much you should have a shirt. It doesn't even have to be a tshirt. I'm sure cafe express or some other site can get you a monogrammed polo that say something like "Dice are for wimps." Then people would know that they're getting into before you inflicted your badly accented cross-gender emo-infused characters on them. :cool: If one was to play such a character. I have one. It says 'GM'. :)
cetiken 09-18-07, 12:32 AM	I have one. It says 'GM'. :) Well said friend.:D
LGMoses 09-18-07, 02:38 AM	I think in 4e we won't have to worry about it anymore because all builds will be 'optimal'. I may have already posted this here or somewhere else. I'm getting that deja vu feeling.
cetiken 09-18-07, 09:14 AM	I think in 4e we won't have to worry about it anymore because all builds will be 'optimal'. I may have already posted this here or somewhere else. I'm getting that deja vu feeling. Yes, in 4E all the role players will be effective, the combat monkeys engaging, and the builds above average. Or is that Lake Wobegon?
MatteBlack 09-18-07, 11:09 AM	Yes, in 4E all the role players will be effective, the combat monkeys engaging, and the builds above average. Or is that Lake Wobegon? Something tells me it will be easier for the roleplayers to be effective given the right tools than the combat monkeys becoming engaging with them but, its good that the game will prevent either from "selling off" crucial abilities of their characters. I always thought the whole sub-optimal mindset was a bit wrong-minded because it supposed that optimal was the expectation for play and even an average, balanced build was not acceptable thus forcing challenges higher than they should for their APLs.
cetiken 09-18-07, 11:56 AM	Something tells me it will be easier for the roleplayers to be effective given the right tools than the combat monkeys becoming engaging with them but, its good that the game will prevent either from "selling off" crucial abilities of their characters. Ah ah now, your biases are showing. Remember that combat monkeys are people to. They even have a cha score (even if its more often a penalty than a bonus). :rolleyes: I always thought the whole sub-optimal mindset was a bit wrong-minded because it supposed that optimal was the expectation for play and even an average, balanced build was not acceptable thus forcing challenges higher than they should for their APLs. And I thought that the mindset that well built characters need stronger challenges wrong-minded and fostering of a Player VS DM (/writer) framework.
UMiskatonic 09-18-07, 12:24 PM	I'm not asking to play with tweaked-out power gamers. Just characters who are capable. If you are a ice wizard, and all your spells deal with cold because that's your schtick, that's great. We'll manage the frost giant as best we can. But if that same 8th level wizard gets dropped by a big spider because he wasn't smart enough to buy antitoxin, then I'm irritated. Likewise, when we were torn apart by a giant bat because no one had a ranged weapon. ----------------------------------------------------------- There's an earlier post about having the right equipment for the job. If you are serious about role-playing, then role-play that your life is in danger and might very well depend on having the right gear.
Vamroc 09-18-07, 12:29 PM	Something tells me it will be easier for the roleplayers to be effective given the right tools than the combat monkeys becoming engaging with them but, its good that the game will prevent either from "selling off" crucial abilities of their characters. I always thought the whole sub-optimal mindset was a bit wrong-minded because it supposed that optimal was the expectation for play and even an average, balanced build was not acceptable thus forcing challenges higher than they should for their APLs. Its weird how you can have a balanced sub optimal charactor that can be the party face and still hold his own in a fight. Yet I've seen optimal charactors that just don't work for what ever reason be it the way it's played. Or it's geared for one type of encounter that never seemes to come up in a mod.
RanielK 09-18-07, 12:34 PM	I believe that I know who you are talking about and their main emphasize seems to be "guys playing chicks". I think it's rampant homophobia. Any of my PCs (male or femaile) are good in a fight. Ed No, they seemed to be as unimpressed by guys pulling out sock puppets to roleplay their familiars and putting on horrid accents as they are certain in their belief they've never met a guy who can truely roleplay a female. My wife has sat a table or two with them. As long as you pull your weight and don't throw out some bad acting as an excuse for roleplaying, they seem to be decent guys.
RanielK 09-18-07, 12:42 PM	I'm not asking to play with tweaked-out power gamers. Just characters who are capable. If you are a ice wizard, and all your spells deal with cold because that's your schtick, that's great. We'll manage the frost giant as best we can. But if that same 8th level wizard gets dropped by a big spider because he wasn't smart enough to buy antitoxin, then I'm irritated. Likewise, when we were torn apart by a giant bat because no one had a ranged weapon. ----------------------------------------------------------- There's an earlier post about having the right equipment for the job. If you are serious about role-playing, then role-play that your life is in danger and might very well depend on having the right gear. Yeah, I know what you mean. I sat a table with a guy who was an excellent roleplayer just couldn't (no wouldn't is a better word) fight. He only participated in combat when it became evident he couldn't escape the TPK. Thank god it was the throw away Expedition to Undermountain. Though why one would build to roleplay and not fight in a one off dungeon delve is beyond me.
MatteBlack 09-18-07, 02:25 PM	Ah ah now, your biases are showing. Remember that combat monkeys are people to. They even have a cha score (even if its more often a penalty than a bonus). :rolleyes: And I thought that the mindset that well built characters need stronger challenges wrong-minded and fostering of a Player VS DM (/writer) framework. I tend to think I keep a decent balance. My more frequently played character is fairly tweaked although not all the way to 11 like some might. I also play out his mental defficiencies without getting too cartoonish about it. I am fine with people tweaking characters just not in the expectation that they need be provided challenge at the expense of more normally built characters. APLs should be set for an average build and not creep up because folks want to pawergame their characters. If you make a tough character who wins the game , great! but, complain that the game isn't challenging, just play up. D&D is not about building the toughest character though many try to make it this. If the game becomes boring because you powergamed, oh well!, guess who you can thank? Call me biased if you like but my only bias is that I expect people to play the whole game and not just the battle or RP half of it. Or don't play all of it, just let those who do play the whole game without expectations slanted to one extreme or another.
cetiken 09-18-07, 11:01 PM	I'm incredibly confused MatteBlack, because I very much agree with everything you said just now. Here I was thinking we might have to agree to disagree and now i guess you and I will have to agree to agree. How odd.
Keith53 09-19-07, 09:37 PM	Not saying I care for either extreme of play style, but there is a tension when the different styles. If the players who optimize their PCs for combat complain that they are not challenged (or taunt the DM or author), assuming there is no option to "play up," then that behavior tends to drive the challenge up. I have witnessed that in authors who were not exposed to "average" groups, just the high end combat machines. If the challenge level escalates, then the gamers who would choose a "sub-optimal in combat" character design for role playing flavor (uniqueness) will be driven out of the campaign as their characters will either die or endanger their friends characters in combat. The trick is not to allow the challenge level to escalate and, if possible, have a GM employ a "make it tougher" tweak for the combat machine player groups. The concern then becomes, does a bad or rogue GM use the tweak to TPK parties, and what do you do about that? Another option is to offer some challenges which are not purely combat, so that pure combat-optimization is not necessarily optimal for the campaign. (the law of intended consequences or put another way, nothing simple is ever easy) Keith
Reneshat 09-20-07, 10:56 AM	No, they seemed to be as unimpressed by guys pulling out sock puppets to roleplay their familiars and putting on horrid accents as they are certain in their belief they've never met a guy who can truely roleplay a female. My wife has sat a table or two with them. As long as you pull your weight and don't throw out some bad acting as an excuse for roleplaying, they seem to be decent guys. Maybe that's because I have met very, very few guys that can RP a female well.
tombollis 09-20-07, 12:58 PM	Maybe that's because I have met very, very few guys that can RP a female well. That also applies to mumans playing members of other races, average intelligence players playing high or low Int PCs, DMs playing NPCs, people playing characters whose charisma is different from their own, people who don't understand magic playing spellcasters, playing a devotee of a fantasy god, playing an alignment that does not vonform with the player's world view, etc. Fixating on cross-gender PCs is you problem, not the player's. Tom Bollis
Reneshat 09-20-07, 01:31 PM	That also applies to mumans playing members of other races, average intelligence players playing high or low Int PCs, DMs playing NPCs, people playing characters whose charisma is different from their own, people who don't understand magic playing spellcasters, playing a devotee of a fantasy god, playing an alignment that does not vonform with the player's world view, etc. Fixating on cross-gender PCs is you problem, not the player's. Tom Bollis Really? Do those experiences explain the reason why 9 out of 10 female PCs I see being played by males are played either slutty, slutty and lesbian, completely stupid, or in a constant state of PMS?
MatteBlack 09-20-07, 04:25 PM	Really? Do those experiences explain the reason why 9 out of 10 female PCs I see being played by males are played either slutty, slutty and lesbian, completely stupid, or in a constant state of PMS? In all fairness, those same 9 male players likely have male characters who are lecherous, misogynistic, completely stupid or constantly annoying asses. Their defamation of the female gender has more to do with their internal views than whether they are playing a female or not. I also tend to think that probably 1 out of 3 guys I come across in LG play can handle the RP. I don't currently have a female RPGA character but, my personal rule has been to keep the cross gendered play down to maybe 1 in 4 of my characters and to only create them in cases where that gender makes the character and it's story better not, just for the change of pace.
bitznarf 09-20-07, 05:04 PM	and the builds above average. The logic monkey in me screams out in horror at that comment. It is literally impossible for everyone to be above average. :P
tombollis 09-20-07, 05:41 PM	Really? Do those experiences explain the reason why 9 out of 10 female PCs I see being played by males are played either slutty, slutty and lesbian, completely stupid, or in a constant state of PMS? Really 9 out of 10? Or have you just remembered such and forgotten those where the sex wasn't over emphacized? I recall loe Int charactrers played too smart, low Cha characters being too socially dominant, high Wis chara cters acting too foolishly, paladins being too homicidal, LN officials with what I concide chaotic attitudes, cleptomaniac rogues, etc. The bad examples leave a more lasting impression than the good or indifferent. When I think about it, the sex of most PCs has left little impression with me, regardless of the sex of the player. Some slutty female characters do stand out (played by males AND females) but so do some slutty male characters. I don't obsess about them. Tom Bollis
Reneshat 09-22-07, 02:08 AM	Really 9 out of 10? Or have you just remembered such and forgotten those where the sex wasn't over emphacized? I recall loe Int charactrers played too smart, low Cha characters being too socially dominant, high Wis chara cters acting too foolishly, paladins being too homicidal, LN officials with what I concide chaotic attitudes, cleptomaniac rogues, etc. The bad examples leave a more lasting impression than the good or indifferent. When I think about it, the sex of most PCs has left little impression with me, regardless of the sex of the player. Some slutty female characters do stand out (played by males AND females) but so do some slutty male characters. I don't obsess about them. Tom Bollis 9 in 10 if it was an exaggeration from Real World experience was a minor one. I know one guy that finds it impossible to play a female that is not stupid, but likes to play them. Another that tends to lean towards slutty or mean. One that plays a lesbian. I have met a few overly slutty lesbians. I admit, it is most likely that my experiences are a statistical anomaly, however, these are still my experiences thus far. P.S. Low Charisma socially dominant characters don't bother me quite as much if the character is simply obnoxious and ineffective.
wombat7477 09-22-07, 10:18 AM	I've been out of the game for a while (7 years - got married), but am pretty excited about getting back into RPGA w/ 4e and LFR. I was pretty active in the southeast Living City scene, and played with some really good roleplayers, including a few who did a good job of playing a female. Another thing I also noticed (as someone else mentioned) was that most of them could do both roleplaying and power gaming. They'd judge the makeup of the table and pull out the appropriate character sheet. I remember once being called '11 useless levels' because I had the audacity to be a fairly powerful thief... was it my fault mods weren't written to utilize my skills? I hope more mods require a balanced party these days.
Mommy was an Orc 09-22-07, 08:55 PM	9 in 10 if it was an exaggeration from Real World experience was a minor one. I know one guy that finds it impossible to play a female that is not stupid, but likes to play them. Another that tends to lean towards slutty or mean. One that plays a lesbian. I have met a few overly slutty lesbians. I admit, it is most likely that my experiences are a statistical anomaly, however, these are still my experiences thus far. It depends on the gamer. I think some gamers have problems with overusing stereotypes and overacting. They also get confused by being onstage and off. Not everything has to happen onstage. They can be lousy at picking up social cues that they've gone too far. Finally, some of them think being a stupid/slutty/PMSing woman is funny to other people. If you just use a bit of subtlety, it works out pretty well.
RanielK 09-24-07, 09:03 AM	I've been out of the game for a while (7 years - got married), but am pretty excited about getting back into RPGA w/ 4e and LFR. Really? You poor SOB! I got married and my play opportunities increased. I can't imagine what would have happened if her campaign setting had been picked over Eberron. Now, the baby is a whole other thing! She's already talking (somewhat) and rolling dice (somewhat) . Now we just need to teach her how to RP. Another thing I also noticed (as someone else mentioned) was that most of them could do both roleplaying and power gaming. They'd judge the makeup of the table and pull out the appropriate character sheet. From my experience, that is pretty rare. The number of folks who can design and play an 'optimized' character as intended AND roleplay such that it is only a question of which character they play is few and far between. I remember once being called '11 useless levels' because I had the audacity to be a fairly powerful thief... was it my fault mods weren't written to utilize my skills? I hope more mods require a balanced party these days. Yeah, three of the four "iconics" (Fighter, Cleric, Wizard) are pretty simple to put into combat. Rogues fit as flankers who capitalize on their Sneak Attack, however, focusing on the 'thiefly' skills does more often than not prove pointless in a LG mod. After all, just how punishing is a mod that NEEDS a thief to finish on a party that has none? So what you get is a "flaw" in playing thieves. No fault of the player's, just a problem in creating a mod which is fair to all parties.
catsclaw 09-24-07, 03:32 PM	Now, the baby is a whole other thing! She's already talking (somewhat) and rolling dice (somewhat) . Now we just need to teach her how to RP.I've been to cons. Chances are she's already no worse than the average con attendee, especially after seeing all the access they lost by playing their rogue instead of their wizard.
catsclaw 09-24-07, 03:43 PM	Rogues fit as flankers who capitalize on their Sneak Attack, however, focusing on the 'thiefly' skills does more often than not prove pointless in a LG mod. After all, just how punishing is a mod that NEEDS a thief to finish on a party that has none? So what you get is a "flaw" in playing thieves. No fault of the player's, just a problem in creating a mod which is fair to all parties.I'm beginning to get a little sick of all the adventures which provide "work-arounds" for parties light on rogue skills. Especially since I seem to get stuck covering all the rogue duties. There's a point in Red Hand of Doom (this is not a spoiler) where you find a couple of locked chests. I rather proudly broke out my maxed Open Lock skill, barely managed to open both the (apparently DC 35) locks, and then discovered keys to open both chests in a pouch lying nearby. Ask me how happy I am to have spent 12 skill points on Open Lock now.
wombat7477 09-24-07, 08:34 PM	I've always tried to keep things balanced, but not too restrictive. Meaning the best way to handle some scenarios may require a specific skill, spell, or class... but not the only way. For example, a locked chest that you could bash open if you don't have a thief, but half the items inside are damaged. Or a trap that, if not disabled, would leave the party damaged for the big fight in the next room. To me it's no different than combat if the party doesn't have any power fighters... not impossible, but it sure makes you wish your party was more balanced.