BSF
Explorer
DragonLancer said:
Well, in all honesty you haven't been able to definitively express exactly what the issue is. As I see it, the issue is one that is difficult to concisely put into words as it is a situational experience. If a reader hasn't seen or experienced that situational experience, it is difficult to understand and empathize with it.
I'll take a shot at trying to capture the "issue". Dragonlancer, please correct me if I am wrong. Everyone else, this will likely be long and it will not be direct. Apologies in advance if I bore you to death.
Characters do not need to be optimized and maximized to be heroic. They can be optimized, but that is not a necessity. I understand the joy that somebody like Reapersaurus gets out of pushing the game mechanics together in efficient, sometimes brutally efficient, ways. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, so long as it doesn't detract from the group, as a whole. But, there are different ways to be a hero.
There can be the struggle of the "common man" struggling to make his small mark on the world, because he has a good heart and evil must be fought. There can be the hero that is driven by an emotional need, perhaps justice, or revenge, or just needing to prove to his father that he has worth. Some of these choices become a little more interesting if you build a poorly optimized character. Perhaps a cobbler turned ranger who has levels of Expert along with skills designed around being a cobbler, then the levels of Ranger and appropriae skills. Of course, it is also possible to have the cobbler turned ranger that is whirling death to his favored enemies, and that is a legitimate choice. In one path, the mechanics help emphasize the background. In the other path, the background exists for characterization and the mechanics exist to optimize your character.
Now, a reasonable question at this point is: What does this have to do with Dragonlancer and likuidice? As I said, this isn't a direct path. I am merely pointing out the different ways the game is played. There are more variations that can occur, but I don't need to try to define them. Let it suffice to say that these two options can also represent different "levels" of play.
In the dynamic of a game group, you end up with some implied rules. These really are nothing more than observations and assumptions on the group's style. If you are accustomed to playing the game where characterization and mechanics are seperated and you need to optimize for combat to stay alive, you will have different assumptions on character design than for a group that uses mechanics to build characterization.
Suppose you built up your cobbler turned ranger as an Expert/Ranger multiclass. For flavor, you have chosen to dual wield light hammers since they are kind of like the hammers a cobbler might use. As well, you have Craft (leatherworking) and you only wear armor that you have made. So, you have non-masterwork (you aren't good enough to make masterwork yet) leather armor. It is an interesting character build, but your damage output is going to suffer badly. Oh, your AC is probably low too. If you brought this into a combat optimized game, you are going to be disappointed. By taking levels in Expert, you have reduced your combat effectiveness. By refusing to purchase a chain shirt, your AC is too low. You are interfering with the group dynamic by having a PC that will be too inefficient in combat. Your assumptions are based around the wrong frame of reference and if you like the group, you had better learn to seperate characterization and mechanics.
By the same token, if you bring in a highly optimized character (and this need not be just for combat), you break the group dynamic by overplaying your strengths. It isn't that you are playing wrong, you have just broken the boundaries that make up the group's implied restrictions.
I have one player that tends to bring up his skills to a total of +10 and then feels they are high enough. He will add new skills, but he really doesn't like to break that +10 mark. Mind you, I am not saying 10 ranks, I am saying +10. The problem in the last campaign was that he was the one playing a rogue. Search, Spot, Disable Device, Open Lock, Hide, all of these skills were right around +10. This would have been great if the campaign ended at 5-6th level. But, we were playing at 12-13th. For CR appropriate challenges, he would be hard pressed to find a magic trap. He would have a hard time seeing a 9th level rogue sneaking up on the party. Not a surprise since he hadn't made any effort to max out the spot and listen skills, but the rogue was maxed out with hide and move silent. As a DM, I am forced to make a choice of whether to use CR appropriate encounters or to take it easy when this PC was on watch. The thing is, the rest of the group was gleefully maxing out their skills. Heck, the Sorceror/Dragon Disciple had a better chance to hear a sneaking rogue using cross-class skills. So, the particular player is inadvertently holding the party back because he sees a +10 as a high enough skill modifier.
Now, imagine if the situation were reversed and the rest of the group thought a +10 was high enough. Along comes a player that looks at it and thinks "+10 at level 12? WTF? I can max that 15 ranks, apply my Dex mod of +4 and take the Stealthy feat for another +2." All of a sudden, there is a PC that has a +21 to Hide and Move Silently, but the rest of the group has an internally driven limit of +10. This character is far beyond the group norm. He is playing to a different "level".
You also need to realize that these group dynamics are not going to be unilateral. Some groups might have an artifical limit on skills, or even specific skills. Some might have a limit on the attack roll, or damage roll, or both. Some might find a limit to AC. It might be the "norm" to be focused with three different weapons, but the group frowns on specialization. It might be the "norm" that PC's have a variety of different skills and everyone needs some ranks in diplomacy, but nobody brings their diplomacy mod above +20.
The group dynamic around the table tends to stablize around what the common perception of "reasonable" is. Whether it is skill mods, HP, AC, Attack Bonus, Damage, whatever. Sometimes a group will express distaste for the various save-or-die spells and those will be unofficially off-limits. Sometimes the perception is that a +3 weapon is tremendous and a +5 is unheard of. These are all little idiosyncracies that crop up with each group. Sometimes they get officially house-ruled, sometimes they are never consciously decided on.
The thing is, this is not indicative of any ability/inability of any of the players to max out a character. It just happens that the people in the group have come to a consensus that these limits help retain verisimilitude for the game. Breaking these limits destroys the willing suspension of disbelief within the game.
I know some of the people looking at this situation will not understand it. Why would you have any implied limits? If it is in the book, you can do it. This isn't a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of play styles.
I think part of the situation that is cropping up here with Dragonlancer's group is that they have these implied limits. For the stories they are telling, and the game they are running, they have an implied limit to the damage dealt by a single PC, in a single round. There may be other implied limits as well. likuidice may be feeling some frustration with these limits. Perhaps he doesn't understand that they are a group dynamic. Perhaps the implied limit is only applicable to damage and is not reflected in skills? I don't know.
But, I think this is part of what Dragonlancer is referring to as "not playing to that level of the game". It doesn't have to do with jealousy. It doesn't have to do with inability. It doesn't even have to be fair. It is a group enforced perception on how their shared fantasy is going to work. This is one reason why it is sometimes difficult to bring in a new player. The new player might not understand the limitations and the group might not have solidified them in the collective mind. It just ends up "not working out".
I am still interested in hearing likuidice's perspective, as well as the perspective of the other players. It could be that I am way out in left field.
