|
Post by goblingravy on Feb 21, 2017 20:30:40 GMT
I connected with this episode a lot. I'm weird because although I hate when people look at D&D from a competitive angle, I also need more of a purpose than just "playing to have fun" when I'm a regular player (DMing keeps me plenty busy without inventing new goals for myself though). Anyway, I relate to a lot of the things Mark does, including having a folder of every player supplement in the edition you're playing and spending hours working on a character (even in 5e).
I think I've always channeled this energy to put more into D&D than is necessitated similarly to how Mark does now. I love looking for ways to make strange race/class combinations or unusual builds work. Lately, I've been enjoying building utility spellcasters. Interestingly, the hard part with that is basically the opposite of Mark's problem: I have trouble getting my characters to keep up in combat when the only option is to attack or cast a spell.
Generally, I have lots of innovative options for solving noncombat problems and I love to think through tricky or complicated situations with limited resources available. Basically, my "spike" or "munchkin" side manifests less as a desire to win and more as a desire to overcome tough challenges within the safe space structure of a game. I definitely also have to watch that I don't overshadow my fellow players, too, just because I sometimes don't give them enough of an opening to interact with NPCs and puzzles.
I dunno, this episode got me thinking and reflecting a bit so I thought I'd share. Thanks for the episode and thanks for reading!
|
|
|
Post by DM Mitch on Feb 21, 2017 22:07:49 GMT
I dunno, this episode got me thinking and reflecting a bit so I thought I'd share. Thanks for the episode and thanks for reading! And thank you for sharing goblingravy! Everyone seems to be really enjoying the episode, which I am glad, because both Mark and myself thought it was a good one to share SaveSave
|
|
|
Post by blakeryan on Feb 22, 2017 6:43:25 GMT
A few years back I ran a Pathfinder game where the pcs were having flashbacks or weird dreams. At 5th level they got caught in a magical time loop trap and when they got out they recalled their past life.
They gained 5 levels in the class from past life. Did the players enjoy the roleplaying? Heck no! Instead they sulked for 90 minutes because I ruined their build-path, and the following two sessions they put zero effort into their characters.
Another game one player threatened to quit because I didn't allow every published book. He was not angry that he could not play a cool concept, he was angry he couldn't use his awesome build. I told him to go if he wanted, I was running a game for a cooperative story, not a DM vs PCs arms race which is pointless-since DMs can create tons of reasons for tons of monsters to rock up.
As a player I found you have to min/max in Pathfinder/3.5 to get anywhere, your skills/focus is built in the game with monsters/challenges/items. If you create something non-min maxed then by 5th-6th level you character is failing most of the time, so you feel bad since you are not just failing rolls but letting down the team by not contributing to successes.
Crunchy games are not hard for me, I've played & run Shadowrun, Pathfinder and Rolemaster in the past, but every time people are bored with the game its because 1-3 of them are focused on rules benefit in the given situation. When you record and then listen to your own game, and realise 1 combat round takes 15-20 minutes, and most of that was checking rules/discussing options, this is a problem. Hence I went from Pathfinder to 5e, and now days run Dungeon World which is more Narative based.
|
|
DMFunkopotamus
Commoner
Posts: 20
Favorite D&D Class: Sorcerer with nuclear bloodline
Favorite D&D Race: Demilich
|
Post by DMFunkopotamus on Mar 7, 2017 21:26:15 GMT
I don't mind having min/maxed characters in my games. In my current campaign, I've got two players who min/max (one of which does so to an extreme), one who does almost the opposite, taking odd feats and one-off levels to diversify at the expense of power, two who are "normal", and one who I think has never read the rulebook. The min/maxers never become a problem though, because I try to make sure to throw a variety of challenges at the party. The "min" part of min/maxing is that those characters have deficits as a result of focusing on their specialties. Just because they've chosen to ignore certain things doesn't mean those things are now absent from the campaign. I also like using recurring villains who learn from their mistakes. So when they're thwarted by a group with a couple min/maxed characters in it, he'll adjust his next nefarious plan with those strengths and weaknesses that he knows about in mind. The power players still get to be powerful, but the rest of the party never becomes useless, and the "weaker" players have their chances to shine too.
|
|
|
Post by DM Exitium on Mar 13, 2017 15:23:48 GMT
Just have to add that I liked Mark's Hobgoblin with the inability to turn right. Epic Zoolander reference.
|
|
magicmark
Squire
Posts: 31
Favorite D&D Class: Sorcerer (I am the Boom Stick!)
Favorite D&D Race: Lapid (ain't nobody as Hard as a SodHopper)
|
Post by magicmark on Apr 3, 2017 20:37:25 GMT
Just have to add that I liked Mark's Hobgoblin with the inability to turn right. Epic Zoolander reference. He is very much not an ambi-turner, though I wish I could say it was an intentional reference twas but a happy accident, and more a result of my quirks as a person in general, and knowing in a labyrinth if you always turn the same way you'll always know your way back.
|
|
|
Post by frohtastic on Apr 19, 2017 21:15:25 GMT
Just have to add that I liked Mark's Hobgoblin with the inability to turn right. Epic Zoolander reference. Urge to make a cleric that uses blue steel to make his turns.
On that thought, what god would use the clerics handsome face as its symbol?
|
|