Is the only reason why 3.5/Pathfinder is still so popular in Veeky Forums and /pgg/pfg/ the character-building minigame?
It looks like lots of people want to have fun making optimized builds with a bazillion options and then testing them for, like, 1 to 5 sessions before the game inevitably falls apart.
Other urls found in this thread:
archive.4plebs.org
twitter.com
yes, that is pretty much the long and short of it in my experience.
The fact of the matter is that American (and some parts of EUropean) culture HATES the concept of RPGs, which is why they keep trying them to morph them into something else through "rules-lite" and "roleplay-heavy" and "narrative-focused" games to make them "acceptable" . It all stems from their puritan heritage that dominated both USA and Europe for the better part of the last two centuries that decries all things playful and joyful as "childish things" that neet to be "put aside" in a "proper adulthood". And since the purely mechanical aspects of RPGs are deemed akin to a children's toys, the must subdue them as much as possible to not engage in their dogmatically induced shame
The more RPGs become mainstream, the more the public subconscious tries to alter them to remove the G part. This results in a backlash of the old guard that, due to their ostracisation from society because of their interests, see this as an attempt to co-opt their hobby.This backlash leads to a renewed interested in rules-heavy systems such as 3.5e and PF, which they see as a protection from this phenomenon because 3.5e is dead and can't be changed, and PF was specifically made to panded to that kind of audience.
Your pasta sucks.
In a way I can't blame them. Look at how silly and uninspired the settings for DnPF are. It's no surprise people can't give two shits about any story set in them. This is before you even get to the math autists.
Then you have a subset who are people who'd like to play wargames, but are sore losers. So they go to RPGs where they're guaranteed a 'comfy' experience of winning fights all the time.
All these players have a higher than average chance of being That Guy simply because they don't care about the rest of the game. Since you can't rely on them behaving well from being invested and wanting a good campaign, you're basically just hoping they have the good social grace not to be a dick. This is not a given.
I love the way it suggests that we somehow view complicated, dice-and-stat-card board gaming as childish but somehow "let's pretend" and "tell me a story" as mature and difficult. Really makes you think. Not about what it's trying to, but you're still thinking.
this post is actually kinda intersting to analyse. It starts out with an interesting point: that imaginative play is seen as childlike, and puritanical culture subtly stigmatizes that.
Buuuut, then it goes full retard because the author doesn't realise that he's also affected by that. When you think about that, the urge towards lots of game mechanics and rules and technical stuff to study serves to 'legitimize' the experience of rpgs by making it not merely 'imaginative childlike play'; after all, it's full of stats and numbers so it must be serious! However, the author is caught in this way of thinking, so they try to filter their semi-insight into a mold that makes sense, flipping the dynamics so they're protected.
>Our games are serious business!
There are parallels with the old wargaming culture and its strong resistance to the introduction of fantasy elements, like the fantasy tables at the back of Chainmail, which were derided in many corners when it came out.
The dude here in the horn-rimmed glasses and tie shaking hands with he Colonel is the new president of the IFW, the biggest wargaming organization of the era. (This was taken at the start of the Summer of Love, not that you can tell from these squares, maaan) You can see how much he REALLY wants to be taken seriously. Obviously this is a mature and level-headed person's pursuit here, not some childish hobby!
I'd also draw comparisons to the dismissive manner with which comics were treated for much of their life, and movies during their early years, when they were viewed as being like a degenerate form of theater, fit only for children, simpletons, and dirty foreigners.
It seems I forgot where I was going with this, I suppose that means it's time for bed. 'Night, anons!
OP, are you suggesting that we can't have well-written characters just because people have fun making optimized builds?
Sunk cost is a far larger reason. People don't want to believe they wasted so much time learning a garbage system, so they'll stick with it forever and defend it to the death rather than acknowledge its imperfections.
The sad thing is it's perfectly okay to like a bad system and if they had fun with it, then all the effort they put into making it work was worthwhile. But they're so insecure they can't admit to any of its flaws, even though IMO being aware of and accepting the flaws is a necessary part of fully appreciating a game system. They're obviously aware of them, given how many fixes and adjustments exist (virtually nobody plays RAW), but any admission of that is treated as some sort of absolute heresy. It's a pretty odd situation.
Dunno about that. From what I've seen, most 3.5e and PF players are happy to talk on about how broken the system is. Heck, the "wizards are OP" and "Paizo sucks" meme came from ourselves. Most of us just don't care, since we like the strengths of the systems more than we hate the weakness.
On the other hand, criticize 5e in the slightest and the brigade will be at your throats.
It might be a warped view, since I don't post in the actual threads. I just see the most belligerent fanboys who go around posting in any thread where 3.PF is criticised, claiming caster supremacy doesn't exist and other such blatant nonsense. But you're right, I should have been more specific- I'm talking about the angry fanboys who make up the D&D defence force, rather than people who actually understand what Pathfinder is.
...
Are you joking? Make a thread shitting on 3.PF and you'll attract the same autist who comes in going "SHUT THE FUCK UP! IT'S POPULAR SO IT'S GOOD! FUCK YOU CONTRARIAN TROLL SHITTERS, GET A LIFE!"
Even /pfg/ is mostly concerned with jacking it to the kitsune loli than they are actually talking about the rules.
No, there are also lots of people who refuse to even consider trying anything that isn't D&D 3.x
>Even /pfg/ is mostly concerned with jacking it to the kitsune loli than they are actually talking about the rules.
To be fair, /pfg/ will also happily explain that Pathfinder is a terrible game and you shouldn't play it if you pretend to be a new player.
I just came across this thread recently, with the same for 5e:
archive.4plebs.org
Who would have thunk it? There are shitters everywhere, and one autist is just one autist.
Nobody said there weren't spergs in every community, I'm just saying that 3.PF has an obnoxiously high volume of spergs, or at least an obnoxiously high minority, who play 3.PF exclusively and defend it to the end.
No.
It's a common thread on the forums because it has such a large market share and has been around in the same basic form for almost 20 years. Be as elitist as you want but no one will buy that you play table tops but aren't at least familiar with 3.pf systems. Being so visible and with organized groups playing games and actively trying to bring more people into the game means people will continue to be exposed to it and talk about it.
That's the same fucking guy.
Personally, i love most aspects of pathfinder, possibly because its the only P&P ive played, but i digress.
I love reading up on magical items, seeing what sort of weird and useful things are out there, seeing what spells are needed to use them, figuring out alternative uses and trying have even tried my hands at making some myself.
I love reading about classes and archetypes, seeing what they all have to offer, from the beatyoutoapulp monk and the ever-fun oozemorph to the cabalist who basically have a bag of holding in his arm.
I love reading and looking at the imagery of monsters, smirking a bit in hope that my gm will pit us up against some of the amazing things i stumble over, and laugh at the silly things, like mutated goblins with hands growing out of their heads.
I love reading about races, their lore, and by extention prodding my gm for the lore of the races in his setting. Even tried my hand at making my own race (which, in hindsight, probably was pretty shit)
And i love to make up characters, giving them their own quirks, making up thematic builds for them and making either super flashy and awe inspiring characters, or characters who do alot without anyone really noticing.
But i guess this could all be summed up to ''I love TTRPGS'' instead of ''I love pathfinder.''
>In a way I can't blame them. Look at how silly and uninspired the settings for DnPF are. It's no surprise people can't give two shits about any story set in them.
Looking back, this might have been a big reason why I was such a shameless munchkin in my early roleplaying years. It may have been hard to bring myself to care about the stories being told because the game system forced them all into a framework of bland kitchen-sink-fantasy powerwanking.
>the ever-fun oozemorph
You mean the archetype that's so weak that you, no shit, actually get stronger by breaking your conduct and falling?
The one and only.
It might be retarded, but i have a soft spot for stupid things like that, and im pretty stubborn about trying to make it work some way or another.
Also i think i would survive not being the biggest damage dealer. The roleplay opportunities alone are fun, and beast-shape or alter self are very versitile effects.
>i have a soft spot for stupid things like that
I bet you'd like Veeky Forums's own Exploding Death Man. Nobody's converted it for Pathfinder though.
>that neet to be "put aside" in a "proper adulthood
>neet
>proper adulthood
Freudian slip, by chance? Is there something you want to tell us?
>''Take a social penality or something''
You are damn right user that shit is hilarious!
So i assume once you blow up, its roll up a new character?
All Exploding death man campaign could be catastrophic
Yep, pretty much. You're like a walking one-use fireball spell that will probably wipe the party, but could be tactically amazing if you can get into the right place. In the meantime:
>No torches for me, please, I'm an Exploding Death Man!
There were several of these dumb classes made in the /osrg/ but the EDM was the best one in my opinion.
Ive never seen alot of these, save for the really well known memes, like muscle wizard, and it catches me somewhat off guard how amazingly stupid things people could make, even back then. It also brings a huge smile to my face. Thank you for showing me this
>Look at how silly and uninspired the settings for DnPF are
Hey man, Eberron is alright.
>possibly because its the only P&P ive played,
broaden your horizons
Considered it, both shadowrun and warhammer (yeah woo extremely wide horizons, i know) have been something ive considered to pick up, but i know none of the guys i play with would be interested in it. Especially my current GM who is full on ''Reeeee'' with new things
Tons of character options are fun. Get over it. If your group isn't made up out of complete shitters you won't have an issue with powergaming.
get a new GM
Sorry to hear about your group. I had a group that was largely uninterested in anything other than Pathfinder and a GM who refused to try any other game. Maybe offering to run something yourself would work, but I once offered to GM a different game and while they initially seemed excited when we sat down to play the old GM made sure he went out of his way to shit up the game as much as possible (we've since parted ways).
I felt the same as you for a couple years when first getting Pathfinder, but as I got exposed to other games I realized that Pathfinder REALLY is not a good system and the things I liked about it were done so much better elsewhere. My recommendation is to just keep reading other games that strike your interest and have fun with that. Feed that love for TRPGs as a whole rather than languishing in the Pathfinder ecosystem.
Maybe that's your experience, but my general experience with my players is that we have fun making optimized builds and then play them through campaigns.
Hell, we're 40 sessions into Rise of the Runelords.
>he went out of his way to shit up the game as much as possible
What an unconscionable turd sack!
Amen to this.
A lot of what I enjoy from Pathfinder is the amount of variety within it.
This is also where most of the online complaints come from, but honestly, theorycrafting is going to generate complaints regardless of the system. You get out of a game what you put into it.
>languishing
I don't blame you for being unhappy with your GM, but honestly I don't consider "having a good game and a system you enjoy" languishing. I'm not the guy you were talking to, but isn't it better to have a good game than not?
Here's one of the cummier ones.
The one I always remember is a platonic ideal of a knight, which has sworn alligence to 2 odd ideals of its choice.
There's another good one that's a dude who lives in a trash heap, but the wording on it is a bit confusing.
>Drink Your Problems Away
I forgot about that one!
>one of the cummier ones.
Uh, autocorrect, I presume?
Here's a ghost class.
just play a fucking video game
To be honest my group isnt all that bad, im probably making it sound waaay worse than it really is. Personally, WoD and Shadowrunner have both caught my interest, but do you have any recomendations? Anything in the typical medieval fantasy would probably be to the taste of my group!
Agreed! Although i think there is probably a line between ''investment'' and ''obsession'' somewhere, and im not fully sure on which side i stand.
Would that class actually require you to drink? because that could be either incredibly fun or incredibly messy fast.
>implying he's ever played tabletop in his life
I'm Not really sure I'd place myself into investment or obsession, really; its not so much that I have to play Pathfinder, as its one of the more solidly crunchy and tactical options, and works well with my crew (most of whom are a little bit rules lawyer-y).
Shadowrun is good, and has good, solid crunch, though the splatbooks for 5e aren't as good as those for the previous edition (but in return, the base game is a bit more solid).
WoD is much lighter and not a crunch-heavy system. I played a lot of it in college; its decent, can provide good stories, and has a lot of fluff to work with. If you prefer fluff-heavy games or just want a good base set of hooks to work with, oWoD in particular is pretty great.
It was really strange. He was a decent GM all things considered, but as soon as he was put in the player chair he became a total asshole. Mocked the game and story, lied about the contents of his character sheet, and deliberately invoked a few rules I made an offhand mention about being a little confused by.
Yeah languishing was probably a strong word. I just think it's shitty that so many people have play PF because it's the first thing they found rather than it actually being a good game. Like that guy who only drinks Budweiser and only plays CoD because it's popular and refuses to try anything else. I can't deny someone saying they have fun with the game, but I think it's really sad when they deliberately ignore the fact that it's one game in a much larger world.
I've been reading through the WoD books recently so you have good taste! If you like fantasy stuff then I'd recommend FantasyCraft. It's based on 3.5 so it's similar, but I really like the mechanical changes they made. If you like building a character it has an interesting system where there are a number of base classes then a whole bunch of what are essentially prestige classes to build yourself into at levels 5 and 10 though sticking with one class is just as viable of course. It's also got plenty of feats, really diverse weapons, and lots of other character building options you can fiddle with. Also they have giants and dragons as base races which is pretty neato,
That's a fair argument. I think PF gets way more hate than it really deserves (though we are on Veeky Forums and hate is what we do), but anyone who's constrained to one system is missing out.
As for your GM... honestly it sounds mostly like he was upset about not really being the GM any more, and taking it out on you as a result. And that sucks.
>It was really strange. He was a decent GM all things considered, but as soon as he was put in the player chair he became a total asshole. Mocked the game and story, lied about the contents of his character sheet, and deliberately invoked a few rules I made an offhand mention about being a little confused by.
GM Jekyll and Player Hyde, huh? I see people complain about that sometimes, but usually it turns out to be just "he had so many PC ideas backed up as a foreverGM, and he tried to cram them all into one sheet and session"
That's a whole other level you get there. My guess is that he felt like you were threatening his GM position so he had to tear you down to show the other players and protect "his" turf. Which is stupid as hell.
>FantasyCraft
Seconding this. It's like a non-fucked up 3.PF minus shit like feat taxes and whatnot.
The downside is there's not a lot of premade content for it, so you're gonna be rolling your own. Also
>Spellbound never
>minus shit like feat taxes
By this I mean it doesn't have feat taxes, not like "oh those are the parts where it's still fucked up like 3.PF"
FC is the toolkit 3.5 pretended it was.
Thank you ever so much for the recommendations! Its alot easier trying to find things when you have people who actually know their stuff to help a little bit!
He had a pretty severe inferiority complex and other issues so it's not like his behaviour was out of nowhere. He wasn't the ass he usually was as a GM, but I think that's because it allowed him to have control or something so I also think he saw it as a bizarre GM pissing contest.
It gives me hope to see people on Veeky Forums that like FC.
>tfw you will never live in the alternate universe where FantasyCraft is the go-to version of 3.5
Not true at all. Your post makes no sense. Westerners value autonomy, which is why open-worlds are popular in western game devs and shunned in Eastern game devs. Westerners value freedom in rpgs to do whatever they want, unlike Easterners compulsive attitude to force players into a specific role and force them into some linear, predictable story.