Character building and discussions about this

[Spore]

So my Pathfinder group wants to transit to another system called Degenesis, some post apocalyptic mumbo jumbo. Personally I am not excited but curious what the new setting and rules will bring. But having a whole new batch of characters to create and a new rules system out group comes to pretty shouty discussions.

What is best? Creating a character and then filling the charsheet or filling the char sheet and then creating a character around this (so called optimizing). My group is pretty pretty divided on that matter. No one wants themselves to be called minmaxxer, powergamer or munchkin and all people are too polite to call others these names. They rather indirectly but heavily imply those "qualities" within their rants.

I'm at a loss of words here. I am pretty nonconfrontational and I hatehatehate pointless fighting over what should be a fun gaming experience. It feels like someone is ranting about how they don't get to play as the dog in Monopoly. It's petty and I can't react anymore. Usually I am the guy trying to mediate the different opinions but I am at the edge of what I am willing to accept concerning a silly game.

One guy is doing a hissy fit because his concept merges "racial" bonusses with his class and this is seen as optimizing. The wife of the DM is threatening to not join our game (so we might not be able to play at their place when she's around) which I take as blatant blackmailing. I am unsure if the DM has adopted the opinion of his wife or if he is in fact sharing her opinion. Me and another player are trying to appease but in my terms I am pretty fed up with it.

tl;dr: My gaming group is arguing about how you should play a P&P RPG, threatening to leave, and telling others how they should play games and I am having none of it. How should I react?

[goto124]

tl;dr: My gaming group is arguing about how you should play a P&P RPG, threatening to leave, and telling others how they should play games and I am having none of it. How should I react?

How are you related to the players? What happens if they leave? Are you risking important relationships/friendships?

[Anonymouswizard]

So my Pathfinder group wants to transit to another system called Degenesis, some post apocalyptic mumbo jumbo. Personally I am not excited but curious what the new setting and rules will bring. But having a whole new batch of characters to create and a new rules system out group comes to pretty shouty discussions.

Oh boy, groups not agreeing on how to build characters, I have a bit of experience with this. One person actually dislikes me because I'm better at maths than him.

What is best? Creating a character and then filling the charsheet or filling the char sheet and then creating a character around this (so called optimizing).

This is only one version of optimising, where you build the mechanics and then create the character to match. However, there is also beginning with a character archetype, building the character to be competent at this archetype and then filling in the personality specifics (this is not 'build a good fighter and then design the personality', this is 'I want a holy warrior focused on defence, I'll take a fighter/paladin, give him plate armour and shield, a spear, and take the spear fighting feat and interpose feat. He uses a spear, which keeps enemies at bay, maybe he's a detached person'), which can be even more annoying to some people, as I discovered when I built an agile fighter in pathfinder and people got annoyed because he was actually effective in his role (which was denying enemies the 15ft by 15ft square he stood in the centre of) when played correctly, and he was intended to be revealed as rather stubborn, which is why he developed his fighting style.

My group is pretty pretty divided on that matter. No one wants themselves to be called minmaxxer, powergamer or munchkin and all people are too polite to call others these names. They rather indirectly but heavily imply those "qualities" within their rants.

People just like to apply that to people who are better at creating characters than them. I've had it applied to me because I can build a skill-monkey competent at combat in one game, whereas another group I've played in has never batted an eyelid at my bonus totalling, because we all study science, engineering or design subjects at degree level or higher. At the same time, a player who recognises that we can both build fairly equal characters after gaining familiarity with the system is more focused on my poor decision making abilities.

I'm at a loss of words here. I am pretty nonconfrontational and I hatehatehate pointless fighting over what should be a fun gaming experience. It feels like someone is ranting about how they don't get to play as the dog in Monopoly. It's petty and I can't react anymore. Usually I am the guy trying to mediate the different opinions but I am at the edge of what I am willing to accept concerning a silly game.

One guy is doing a hissy fit because his concept merges "racial" bonusses with his class and this is seen as optimizing. The wife of the DM is threatening to not join our game (so we might not be able to play at their place when she's around) which I take as blatant blackmailing. I am unsure if the DM has adopted the opinion of his wife or if he is in fact sharing her opinion. Me and another player are trying to appease but in my terms I am pretty fed up with it.

So an Elven Archer is a bad character now? What about a dwarf fighter? This sounds more like a player assuming that anything that is better at something than a similar character is 'powergaming', whereas another character decided that his class does X, his 'race' is slightly better at X than average, then it makes sense for his character to be this race/class as this should be fairly common. This is optimising, but it's the kind of optimising that doesn't really matter that much, how often is it going to be important that the elf hits 5% more than the human? This sounds more like 'I hate any kind of optimising, I'm going to try to force you to change your character because I'm right' than a legitimate complaint.

tl;dr: My gaming group is arguing about how you should play a P&P RPG, threatening to leave, and telling others how they should play games and I am having none of it. How should I react?

I see two options here: either get the group to agree on a set of guidelines for expectable characters, so that anyone who complains can be reminded that they agreed to the guidelines; or find a new host and continue playing with players who prefer the same amount of optimisation. Your reaction should depend on how important the friendships of the players are to you.

[Spore]

That's the twist. I actually like those people with their quirks and mannerisms but I CAN'T ****ING STAND THEIR SQUABBLING. We have an online forum and as useful it is to look up info, as terrible is it for discussing important things. I know this discussion ends nowhere and we will revert to the usual style of play. But this will pull other inevitable discussions while playing:

2 Players are adamant about keeping within rules 100% of the time. So if rules prohibit you from an action the DM is clearly okay with, would be a natural reaction and could be seen in any action movie (like throwing yourself in the line of fire), this starts a 5 minute discussion interrupting game flow, immersion and everything fun about roleplaying.

2 Players, the DM and me are pretty lenient about rules and use whatever fits the scene. We couldn't care less (although it hurts me a tad bit if the DM has to bend the rules to avoid my character's death).

I am close to leaving the table for the night if they start fighting over rules for another time but at the same time I feel like that is a bit too much and an immature response.

[dream]

That's the twist. I actually like those people with their quirks and mannerisms but I CAN'T ****ING STAND THEIR SQUABBLING. We have an online forum and as useful it is to look up info, as terrible is it for discussing important things. I know this discussion ends nowhere and we will revert to the usual style of play. But this will pull other inevitable discussions while playing:

You like their quirks or you don't? People debate things. As a GM, I grew to accept the debates as part of the hobby.

2 Players are adamant about keeping within rules 100% of the time. So if rules prohibit you from an action the DM is clearly okay with, would be a natural reaction and could be seen in any action movie (like throwing yourself in the line of fire), this starts a 5 minute discussion interrupting game flow, immersion and everything fun about roleplaying.

Your GM is the problem. If all players want 100% RAW and the GM doesn't, his rulings will cause situations. He needs to get on board with the players. Simple.

2 Players, the DM and me are pretty lenient about rules and use whatever fits the scene. We couldn't care less (although it hurts me a tad bit if the DM has to bend the rules to avoid my character's death).

So now players are lenient about the rules? Which is it: 100% rules or pretty lenient? That's a conflict in your thread.

I am close to leaving the table for the night if they start fighting over rules for another time but at the same time I feel like that is a bit too much and an immature response.

Switch to Degenesis. It has less rules to argue about. 3.75 (Pathfinder) has so many rules, unless you have group consensus on play, you can argue them forever. It's why I refuse to run that version of D&D.

[Spore]

So now players are lenient about the rules? Which is it: 100% rules or pretty lenient? That's a conflict in your thread.

Sorry about my confused English there.

2 players want RAW. 3 players and the DM want leniency.

[(Un)Inspired]

Choosing the dog in monopoly is optimizing?

[dream]

Sorry about my confused English there.

2 players want RAW. 3 players and the DM want leniency.

Your group needs The Same Page tool. Having everyone in agreement on how your game will be played is crucial. That's why you have all those debates; there's no initial agreement.
Show that link to your group, discuss it, & get them playing like a group should

[Spore]

Choosing the dog in monopoly is optimizing?

It's an example of petty squabbling when concerning a game.

[neonchameleon]

tl;dr: My gaming group is arguing about how you should play a P&P RPG, threatening to leave, and telling others how they should play games and I am having none of it. How should I react?

"The correct way to play is whatever will give us all the most fun at the table. Matt, you like being inspired by the game. Mark, you take inspiration from elsewhere and like trying to make that in the game. It's all good. Arguing like this isn't fun for me, and I don't think is for you. Now can we please stop arguing and get back to playing."

But the fundamental issue is that you have two sets of understandings of what the rules are. To one group the rules are to guide you towards the fun. To the other they are the bedrock of the game, and tabletop roleplaying while the rules are mutable is like trying to drive when you are hallucinating and it can read to disaster. The world simply doesn't behave how you expect. Honestly the answer to this is "Find a game with better rules - ones you don't need to warp to do what you want."

[Jay R]

Repeat, over and over again, "There is no rule that says one player can tell another player how to create a character. Create your own character your way, and let him create his own his way."

[Spore]

Fast forward two days. Our game is now postponed until further notice because two of the five players as well as the DM don't want to continue without having a discussion. If I am honest, I like those guys, but I couldn't give less of a frick onto who hurt which one's feelings with which post in our private forum...

Spoiler

Show