Am I the only player that does this? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Am I the only player that does this? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Gellion
09-04-04, 07:00 PM When I could easily explout something I do nt, and I do not try to make my character all powerrful, and I will play pretty much anything. Like I was once a WIzard and had a teleport spell that I could have probably used to get to the island in the middle of a very large lake, but I decided not to because that might annoy the DM and I wanted to ride on the boat anyway.
Kalanth
09-04-04, 07:32 PM Not at all. Not doing those things, resisting the urge to metagame, those are traits of a quality player. I have fallen into the habbit of planning far ahead on a character, even though I usually wont get there. I know exactly what I want from lvls 1 to 20, and sometimes beyond. That can be looked at as metagaming, but considering that its usually because I mix abstract classes to get to what I want, I dont look at it that way. My next character is planned to be a Rogue/Cleric/Evangelist. Rogue because I have not played one in years, cleric because its my favorite character class, and evangelist because I like the idea of convincing someone to change sides because "my god is better than your god." So no, you are not the only one, and I say continue to follow that path, because it will only lead to good memories.
Thorak
09-04-04, 08:18 PM I'm definetely a 'powergamer' and a 'min/maxer', in that I enjoy optimising and planning out my characters, in full progression to level 20, and usually with optimal pieces of magical gear to watch out for/have made. But this doesn't mean I force my desires on the character outside of the plot, either; my paladin I had planned for Kensai has been whupped so severely and so regularly by the enemy that I considered, instead of aiming for Kensai, to have him fall somewhat horrendously and go Blackguard, because he's tired of trying to be good and nice and getting the crap pounded out of him in return. It would have made sense at the time, but that's how I play em.

That said though, if I notice my character is obscenely over-powered (as was the case with an Athasian character I had in 2nd edition who was transported into a 'normal' D&D world), I'll do everything within reason to shaft him down to a more equal footing. Said Athasian developed a neurosis about being a Hero with a capital H, and would do anything he thought would look heroic despite the possible consequences. Including, in the space of a memorable 2 days, jumping off a 40' tall bridge to do solo battle with a fire giant, catching a spiked portcullis bare-handed and piercing both hands horribly, assaulting massive stone snakes while the party escaped behind him, etc, etc. And using his nifty spear, enchanted to be as strong as steel when it was made of obsidian (but no further enchanted), despite him having, amongst other weapons, a +5 Katana.

If the DM's clearly got some interesting ideas for the crossing of the lake, keeping your yap shut about the teleport is a good idea. Especially if your wizard doesn't want to risk using up valuable spells when there's perfectly valid ways to get across by other PC's sweat, like the boat you mentioned.

That said, with a good DM, there's also a lot of fun to be had by grossly messing with the 'assumed' rules. Like one character of mine who, confronted with a BBEG wizard's tower, grumbled about the floors and floors of traps and enemies, then realized his axe could cast Dig 1/day (again, 2nd edition). The spell, at the axe's caster level, removed several hundred feet of dirt, and the tower was a magical construct on an open plain. Which translated into a pit 40' deep under half the tower. Which the DM ruled then proceeded to partially collapse into the pit. We still had to climb the outside, but we avoided a lot of headaches.
Cade Hedger
09-04-04, 08:45 PM well, if its in character to exploit the hell out of anything you can (like it is for my character) then there isnt really a probablem, but i think that not exploiting powers you have is a good thing, you never know when that extra slot will come in handy
Kalanth
09-04-04, 09:01 PM I had one player where exploitation was in character. His character took knowledges in as many monster lores as he could, and each fight he would use those abilities to dismantle the enemy at hand. Pretty cool character overall, and was rather hard to stop, because the player was a good tactition as well, so once he knew the weakness he would start barking orders. To bad he fought one enemy that he was not prepared for (failed his check), and the Shadow Dragon slaughtered him.
BobtheMighty
09-04-04, 10:05 PM I'm like that, too. I'm one of those people who believes that if something can be solved without magic, that should be the first approach.

Back on track, I don't exploit things. I try to follow what the DM intends. I'm not saying that I follow the train tracks, but I take into account what the DM may have planned when I make my actions. Some people will fire back that it's the DM's own damn fault if his players do something he's unprepared for. That might hold some validity, but if you recognize that doing something will wreck the game, or throw a wrench into the DMs plans, and go ahead with it, you're just being an ass. And I'm not talking about getting that lucky final hit in that kills the BBEG, or figuring out an adversary's secret plans earlier than expected, -- which may catch the DM off guard, but shouldn't ruin things for him -- I'm talking about Gellion's example. Your DM may have prepared an entire, unique, nifty adventure on this boat trip, -- and served up a juicy plot hook -- but you just cast teleport and skip it anyway.
Encard
09-04-04, 10:11 PM Hmm, depends. I don't try to be actively exploitive with my characters. On the other hand, if I see something that I think will be in character and at the same time make them more powerful, I probably won't turn it down. Never seen it as logical to intentionally weaken a character without a good reason.

Now, as for not taking actions because they might possibly annoy the DM... That I'm not so big on. If an action's in character, I'll generally do it. Hasn't really been a problem so far, since I've avoided run any particularly disruptive characters, but... *shrug* Now, if it's in character to take an action that won't annoy the DM, that I'll certainly do. :P It probably also helps that most of my DMs so far don't mind when characters do something unexpected.
Baron Stoonir Fel
09-05-04, 05:59 PM Well it all comes down to the character that you are playing, it is always a good idea not to playing in a metagame thinking style. But it all of your characters act in the exact same mannor, not taking advantage of anything, not doing anything that might be seen as overkill. You could create a negative image of yourself as someone who has no imagination when it comes to varing character personallity.

Example; i had a new player in my group who evidently had a large ammount of D&D experience, he told me of some of his earlier exploits and he seemed to be the type where his characters did all of the talking, and not alot of fighting. Well predictably his character for the campaign turned out to have the same personallity as all of the others, a diplomat. But the problem was his designed character was a half elf / half black dragon, cut throat pirate who had just about enough brain power to fly a goose, so naturally this was not at all a good thing.

The trick is to know when to refrain from metagame thinking, and when it could be used to your advantage to make a character appear more realistic in terms of how the character thinks.
Student Of The Mind
09-05-04, 08:52 PM Kalanth, the second poster, was dead on. Being able to RP without metagaming is a good sign, specially if it will make it more of an interesting journey. Currently my archmage is halfway through his journey, which is taking him from Waterdeep to Halruaa to Mulhorand on horse back. Very strange to witness a 19th lvl spell caster (3rd lvl W/3rd lvl C/10th lvl MT/3rd lvl AM) crossing the great continent of Faerun on horse or buggy, atleast I wouldnt expect it. My DM was very happy, it's given him more time to kill the party of humble BBPC's.
Father Dale
09-06-04, 05:27 AM I'm like that as well.

As an arcane caster, you have to realize that the DM probably doesn't know your spells as well as you do. There are things you could do with one spell that can ruin the DMs plans in an instant (teleport being a primary one). Sometimes you have to forego the easy route to let the story play out. If you have a good DM, then you know that everyone will have more fun if you let the DMs story run its course.

Now, I'm not saying that you should not let your character do what the character would normally do. If you are attacked by guards doing subdual damage, and its obvious that the DM wants the party captured, you should not hesitate to dimension door away. Thats what the character would do, right? The DM shouldn't be dictating the course of action to that extent anyways.

But if the DM apparently has an adventure planned around a trip for the PCs, you shouldn't be using teleport to instantly reach the end. Most wizards wouldn't be doing that if they hadn't been to that place already--too much chance of a mishap. A high intelligence wizard would know better. A smart wizard will use teleport to return the party to safety at the end of the day and to take them back the next morning. You don't use it to travel to places you've never been.

See, the DM is telling a story and you are telling a story, together with the other PCs. Nothing will ever turn out just as the DM planned or as the PCs hoped. Its the mix that makes this game great. But a PC shouldn't go out of their way to make things difficult for a DM that failed to account for a single spell.

Besides, the DM could just rule 0 that teleport doesn't work. Then what? Now you've got a useless spel because you tried to be a smarty pants.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Gellion 09-04-04, 07:00 PM	When I could easily explout something I do nt, and I do not try to make my character all powerrful, and I will play pretty much anything. Like I was once a WIzard and had a teleport spell that I could have probably used to get to the island in the middle of a very large lake, but I decided not to because that might annoy the DM and I wanted to ride on the boat anyway.
Kalanth 09-04-04, 07:32 PM	Not at all. Not doing those things, resisting the urge to metagame, those are traits of a quality player. I have fallen into the habbit of planning far ahead on a character, even though I usually wont get there. I know exactly what I want from lvls 1 to 20, and sometimes beyond. That can be looked at as metagaming, but considering that its usually because I mix abstract classes to get to what I want, I dont look at it that way. My next character is planned to be a Rogue/Cleric/Evangelist. Rogue because I have not played one in years, cleric because its my favorite character class, and evangelist because I like the idea of convincing someone to change sides because "my god is better than your god." So no, you are not the only one, and I say continue to follow that path, because it will only lead to good memories.
Thorak 09-04-04, 08:18 PM	I'm definetely a 'powergamer' and a 'min/maxer', in that I enjoy optimising and planning out my characters, in full progression to level 20, and usually with optimal pieces of magical gear to watch out for/have made. But this doesn't mean I force my desires on the character outside of the plot, either; my paladin I had planned for Kensai has been whupped so severely and so regularly by the enemy that I considered, instead of aiming for Kensai, to have him fall somewhat horrendously and go Blackguard, because he's tired of trying to be good and nice and getting the crap pounded out of him in return. It would have made sense at the time, but that's how I play em. That said though, if I notice my character is obscenely over-powered (as was the case with an Athasian character I had in 2nd edition who was transported into a 'normal' D&D world), I'll do everything within reason to shaft him down to a more equal footing. Said Athasian developed a neurosis about being a Hero with a capital H, and would do anything he thought would look heroic despite the possible consequences. Including, in the space of a memorable 2 days, jumping off a 40' tall bridge to do solo battle with a fire giant, catching a spiked portcullis bare-handed and piercing both hands horribly, assaulting massive stone snakes while the party escaped behind him, etc, etc. And using his nifty spear, enchanted to be as strong as steel when it was made of obsidian (but no further enchanted), despite him having, amongst other weapons, a +5 Katana. If the DM's clearly got some interesting ideas for the crossing of the lake, keeping your yap shut about the teleport is a good idea. Especially if your wizard doesn't want to risk using up valuable spells when there's perfectly valid ways to get across by other PC's sweat, like the boat you mentioned. That said, with a good DM, there's also a lot of fun to be had by grossly messing with the 'assumed' rules. Like one character of mine who, confronted with a BBEG wizard's tower, grumbled about the floors and floors of traps and enemies, then realized his axe could cast Dig 1/day (again, 2nd edition). The spell, at the axe's caster level, removed several hundred feet of dirt, and the tower was a magical construct on an open plain. Which translated into a pit 40' deep under half the tower. Which the DM ruled then proceeded to partially collapse into the pit. We still had to climb the outside, but we avoided a lot of headaches.
Cade Hedger 09-04-04, 08:45 PM	well, if its in character to exploit the hell out of anything you can (like it is for my character) then there isnt really a probablem, but i think that not exploiting powers you have is a good thing, you never know when that extra slot will come in handy
Kalanth 09-04-04, 09:01 PM	I had one player where exploitation was in character. His character took knowledges in as many monster lores as he could, and each fight he would use those abilities to dismantle the enemy at hand. Pretty cool character overall, and was rather hard to stop, because the player was a good tactition as well, so once he knew the weakness he would start barking orders. To bad he fought one enemy that he was not prepared for (failed his check), and the Shadow Dragon slaughtered him.
BobtheMighty 09-04-04, 10:05 PM	I'm like that, too. I'm one of those people who believes that if something can be solved without magic, that should be the first approach. Back on track, I don't exploit things. I try to follow what the DM intends. I'm not saying that I follow the train tracks, but I take into account what the DM may have planned when I make my actions. Some people will fire back that it's the DM's own damn fault if his players do something he's unprepared for. That might hold some validity, but if you recognize that doing something will wreck the game, or throw a wrench into the DMs plans, and go ahead with it, you're just being an ass. And I'm not talking about getting that lucky final hit in that kills the BBEG, or figuring out an adversary's secret plans earlier than expected, -- which may catch the DM off guard, but shouldn't ruin things for him -- I'm talking about Gellion's example. Your DM may have prepared an entire, unique, nifty adventure on this boat trip, -- and served up a juicy plot hook -- but you just cast teleport and skip it anyway.
Encard 09-04-04, 10:11 PM	Hmm, depends. I don't try to be actively exploitive with my characters. On the other hand, if I see something that I think will be in character and at the same time make them more powerful, I probably won't turn it down. Never seen it as logical to intentionally weaken a character without a good reason. Now, as for not taking actions because they might possibly annoy the DM... That I'm not so big on. If an action's in character, I'll generally do it. Hasn't really been a problem so far, since I've avoided run any particularly disruptive characters, but... shrug Now, if it's in character to take an action that won't annoy the DM, that I'll certainly do. :P It probably also helps that most of my DMs so far don't mind when characters do something unexpected.
Baron Stoonir Fel 09-05-04, 05:59 PM	Well it all comes down to the character that you are playing, it is always a good idea not to playing in a metagame thinking style. But it all of your characters act in the exact same mannor, not taking advantage of anything, not doing anything that might be seen as overkill. You could create a negative image of yourself as someone who has no imagination when it comes to varing character personallity. Example; i had a new player in my group who evidently had a large ammount of D&D experience, he told me of some of his earlier exploits and he seemed to be the type where his characters did all of the talking, and not alot of fighting. Well predictably his character for the campaign turned out to have the same personallity as all of the others, a diplomat. But the problem was his designed character was a half elf / half black dragon, cut throat pirate who had just about enough brain power to fly a goose, so naturally this was not at all a good thing. The trick is to know when to refrain from metagame thinking, and when it could be used to your advantage to make a character appear more realistic in terms of how the character thinks.
Student Of The Mind 09-05-04, 08:52 PM	Kalanth, the second poster, was dead on. Being able to RP without metagaming is a good sign, specially if it will make it more of an interesting journey. Currently my archmage is halfway through his journey, which is taking him from Waterdeep to Halruaa to Mulhorand on horse back. Very strange to witness a 19th lvl spell caster (3rd lvl W/3rd lvl C/10th lvl MT/3rd lvl AM) crossing the great continent of Faerun on horse or buggy, atleast I wouldnt expect it. My DM was very happy, it's given him more time to kill the party of humble BBPC's.
Father Dale 09-06-04, 05:27 AM	I'm like that as well. As an arcane caster, you have to realize that the DM probably doesn't know your spells as well as you do. There are things you could do with one spell that can ruin the DMs plans in an instant (teleport being a primary one). Sometimes you have to forego the easy route to let the story play out. If you have a good DM, then you know that everyone will have more fun if you let the DMs story run its course. Now, I'm not saying that you should not let your character do what the character would normally do. If you are attacked by guards doing subdual damage, and its obvious that the DM wants the party captured, you should not hesitate to dimension door away. Thats what the character would do, right? The DM shouldn't be dictating the course of action to that extent anyways. But if the DM apparently has an adventure planned around a trip for the PCs, you shouldn't be using teleport to instantly reach the end. Most wizards wouldn't be doing that if they hadn't been to that place already--too much chance of a mishap. A high intelligence wizard would know better. A smart wizard will use teleport to return the party to safety at the end of the day and to take them back the next morning. You don't use it to travel to places you've never been. See, the DM is telling a story and you are telling a story, together with the other PCs. Nothing will ever turn out just as the DM planned or as the PCs hoped. Its the mix that makes this game great. But a PC shouldn't go out of their way to make things difficult for a DM that failed to account for a single spell. Besides, the DM could just rule 0 that teleport doesn't work. Then what? Now you've got a useless spel because you tried to be a smarty pants.