This might be straying from the topic a bit, but I remember encountering the problems with trying to convert Pokémon to a tabletop game years ago - I was involved with an attempt to convert the concept to a d20 system about a decade ago (this was not too long after Ruby and Sapphire came out), which involved both the trainers and the 'mons having levels and stats. The problem was that stats were determined by the actual stat spread of the in-game critters... which posed a real problem when we were told to go for any unevolved choice. While others went for choices like Oddish or Eevee, I ended up with Scyther... and then Pidgey as a Nerf, because the GM realized I knew the games way better than anyone else. The stat spread was too extreme ("What do you mean, you have an 18 Strength and an 18 Dexterity?").
I think the problem comes from the fact that the source material discourages that radical of a mix of a party. I mean, yeah, you could play the original games as if you were a coordinator doing a run through the League on the side, but you would generally avoid playing against competitive players, and those in turn generally don't run against type mastery sorts.
From the quick look I've taken on this, there'd need to be a bunch of Rule 0 rulings to bring various things into balance. It doesn't even look like you have one player that is particularly great at Min-Maxing - given that I'd probably trip into a similar build if I was playing (except I'd specialize in Rock), I think one player discovered the rules were made for their playstyle by accident.
That said, I'd talk to the player and see if they'll help with how to bring things back in balance - I've found that players who accidentally find (and build) a Game-Breaker are much more willing to work on making tweaks for equalization than someone who goes out to make the game all about their Uber Awesome Character.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.Eh, I don't know. I sure wouldn't be willing to nerf my character, especially if it worked out that well. I'd be way too invested.
I think a more proper solution would be to tweak the other players so they can keep up with them. Somehow.
Yeah, PTA has a bit of a balance problem, in addition to the administrative nightmare that is having stats for trainers and every single mon. It's still officially in beta, after all.
32 Footsteps: requirement for enduring soul requires them being knocked out, or 3 pokémon with a move called endure.
It just so happen a few missions ago I rolled really well on a move, that nearly ko'd the entire party, and most people did indeed go unconscious.
Ace Trainer which was a prereq just required the right stat distribution, which Kayeka described much better than me.
But yeah, I am good friends with the guy with the build. I am not mad at him, it just makes me a bit worried when it comes to balancing combat, since I'm very new at it, and not the best at figuring how to keep even flat battles fine. This should be evidenced by what I just said above, where I ko'd half the party by accident
.
It's definitely a learning experience for me, although my plot is apparently good enough for everyone to enjoy, minus hiccups.
edited 8th Oct '13 11:51:47 AM by MrAHR
Read my stories!
So rather than sticking to a theme, he picked up on a chance for roleplaying that just so happened to fit with his theme and went with it?
Yeah, I really find that commendable. Problematic for the GM because of the way it turned out, but definitely commendable. I wish my players were more like that. When they level up in a D&D 4e game, they just fire up the character optimisation forum on the Wizards website and follow whatever looks good.
Seriously, give the guy my compliments.
edited 8th Oct '13 11:54:16 AM by Kayeka
Yes, his theme just happens to be "if something gets me down, I will make sure it doesn't work again." He knew he was gonna be a steel type ace, but he basically said he'd only take enduring soul if he actually got his pc knocked out, but otherwise wouldn't vy for it.
Which is fine, it's just like I said, he's much better at being competent than my other players.
I also implemented a training system where you can battle your own pokémon for training, where you get full xp first time, and then half xp next time, which you could do over the week break, since my tabletop follows real world time. He is usually the only one to do it who also has many pokémon, so he gets a lot of xp, not because it's broken, but because no one else does it.
So I requested everyone else either tell me they were going to do a training montage, or they would train against themselves, so that way it doesn't become obscene after a while.
But when it comes down to it, you are correct in that I should give him my compliments. I am insanely lucky that the worst I have to worry about is someone who merely takes any and every opportunity I give them, and not someone who is actually minmaxing.
edited 8th Oct '13 11:59:27 AM by MrAHR
Read my stories!Well, not knowing about what the other players are building, I don't know what buffs I could recommend to them. That said, given that amount of disparity involved, at least some nerf is probably necessary. And speaking from the side of a player who did end up making such a build by accident once (the character got nicknamed "the mook blender" and it was asked if anyone else could get even a quarter of the attacks he did), I'm just saying that it's not the worst idea to approach them about how to bring things in balance. Honestly, based on @431, I think he'd be reasonable about it.
The system itself seems a bit broken, though the fact that it's in beta probably explains a bunch. I know that there are limits based on the source material, but some of the powers I looked up seemed a bit much.
The problem with keeping track of that many things with that many stats has been an issue for every take on the 'mons genre I've ever seen (the aforementioned d20 version I mentioned, Big Eyes, Small Mouth, the amalgamation of the two in BESM d20... heck, even the Summoner class in Pathfinder has these issues, and it only gets one 'mon). I think the nature of the genre necessitates it.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.I'm going to preemptively complain, because I already see where the coming disaster is developing.
My players are investigating a theft that hit their employer, a merchant guild. They found a secret wererat warren under the trading house, and they're now cleaning it out.
The problem is that none of them have appropriate weapons to bypass a lycanthrope's damage resistance. So I decided to do the tabletop version of Suspicious Video-Game Generosity - they managed to find the wererats' alchemy room, which they primarily used to destroy silver weaponry. They had a supply of aqua regia, and a pile of weapons that had yet to be processed. And the party has an alchemist. Plus, they managed to find the alchemy room immediately without setting off any alarms. This should be perfect for them, right?
The only think they took from the alchemy room were gas masks. The alchemist blew his checks to identify the aqua regia (he figured out it was acid, but that's it), and the players completely ignored the "suspicious pile of metal" that I described multiple times. And nobody thought to ask if there was anything to take any of the acid with them. Heck, the alchemist has empty vials on his person, and he didn't even ask.
I'm going to really laugh if the alchemist doesn't bother testing the "bags of some alchemical salt" that they also found, because there's a large quantity of silver in salt form down there that he could easily process by taking 10 on the check.
I suppose I can't be surprised... this is the group that took four sessions to realize that the bow-equipped archer that tried (and failed) to ambush them from a tree didn't have arrows on him (they were in the tree he was hiding in... along with a generous sack of coin). It's not that they're blowing their Search checks... they're not even asking to make them in the first place.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.Oh, it was somehow worse than I thought.
In terms of player survival, not so bad. The player using the monk found out just how much more he could do with Improved Grapple in Pathfinder, and managed to subdue both of the wererats that had tried to ambush the party.
Problem Gamer decided he wanted to do a little test - he wanted to see if wererats were as vulnerable to silver as werewolves supposedly were. So he held a silver piece onto the skin of one of the captured wererats. I decided the rat would writhe in pain and scream, but that much wouldn't do hit point damage (because that would, frankly, be a bit absurd). I'm willing to let that go, because the character was curious. Problem Gamer does it a second time, to show to a local sheriff that they did, in fact, have wererats in their custody. Again, with the writhing and screaming in pain. But considering that they're trying to get people to believe them about a problem with wererats threatening to take over the town, I'm willing to let that slide.
But then, in order to interrogate them, he decides he wants to do that again. At this point, I think it's become just torture, and I warn him that it'd be violating the "good" portion of his alignment. He complains about it, and he's continued to complain since then - "it's no more torturous than a tickle!" is his argument - after all, he claims, it's not causing hit point damage or leaving scars.
I don't know how fucked up this is. He's enough of a sociopath that he thinks that this is just tickling? That causing a sentient being pain and anguish for the purposes of interrogation isn't torture? (Part of his justification is that "my character doesn't like it"... oh, for fuck's sake, nobody is forcing your character to do it, and in fact several people are trying to stop you from doing it; don't even try to use that justification on me.) He's trying to claim that I, as the GM, don't have the right to make judgments as to what counts as a morality violation (check the rulebook - I'm the arbiter of such things when I run a game)? I've seen stupid arguments in the past, but this is very quickly draining my desire to run a game. If this keeps up, I might just can the game, and publicly castigate him as the reason I'm ending the game. I don't have the energy to deal with someone so self-centered and sheltered that he can't acknowledge either what counts as torture or someone who can't accept Rule 0 of tabletop games.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.What do the other players say about this? If you make a ruling and they back you up, hopefully Problem Gamer should get the hint. And if he persists in doing something blatantly Evil, like torture, I think you should have the right to correct his character sheet by dictating an alignment change.
What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly.@435 The other players are all taking my side, at various volumes. Not surprisingly, the one who has had the most issues (namely, when she was previously running a game for this group) with him is the most vocal about supporting me - in fact, she did the lion's share at session itself to assert that A) torture is an evil act, and B) that I was well within my rights to warn him that it was an alignment violation. Everyone is on my side - in fact, one player who was absent from the session (due to a parental visit) told me that his character is going to be ripshit over this, noting that it would be well within his character's alignment (Lawful Neutral) to attack him outright for attempting to torture a captive (it might be a stretch as there was no formal surrender, but it's certainly closer to his alignment than a Chaotic Good character deciding to torture as a first resort).
My biggest problem is that he's continuing the argument the next day, away from the table. He's blatantly wrong, and he's now doubling down on it. I appreciate the hope that the other players' reaction would be a controlling influence, but I fear that this is not the case.
@436 I'm not going to get into a discussion about the morality of torture in modern society here; I think that would potentially get me thumped or possibly even a posting ban in OTC, and I'm certain that it'd be problematic here. However, I'll note several things.
- We're talking about the world in which I've designed and am effectively the god of. My word on morality within the game world is the guiding one. Rule 0 - what the GM says, goes. Technically speaking, I don't even have to invoke Rule 0, because the system specifically says that I'm the arbiter of what counts as an alignment violation.
- We are not discussing an "imminent danger of mass attack" scenario. We're not even discussing an "imminent danger of a single person being attacked" scenario. Nobody in the party is under an impression of anything different. Even if you believe in certain politicians who have argued that certain scenarios do allow for torture as being an acceptable method of interrogation, those certain scenarios have not come up in this game.
- He still is ignoring the fact that the reaction of the prisoner to his actions previously were much more severe than "a tickle." He's selectively editing what I've said to fit his worldview, and he's whining in part about being disabused of that notion.
- His argument is so full of holes as to what counts as torture that it cannot be taken seriously. He's argued that it doesn't count as torture if it doesn't do any physical harm to the subject. This is absurdly self-serving, and I'm not even going to begin to entertain it.
Torture is a touchy subject in general. One time in LARP, our DM asked one of our players to play an npc who would torture the pcs. It ended up being super divisive. Interestingly enough, despite the fact, everyone wanted their own personal torture session, despite it only supposed to be for a few.
Ah, people and their wishy washy desires.
Read my stories!Agreed that torture is a touchy subject in general... and upon reflection, one that I never wanted to have to adjudicate on as a GM. In my more introspective dark moments, I'm wondering how this happened. This scenario started out not much different than hundreds of others that I've been part of, either as a GM or as a player. What happened that cause things to go crazy on this one?
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.If we're talking about "is torture objectively evil" I will remind everyone that if we're talking Dungeons and Dragons, the answer is "yes" according to canon, specifically the fact that the domain of dread aka Ravenloft explicitly ruled that it is indeed evil and you could get sucked into the mists for that kinda shit.
Well, we're actually talking Pathfinder, so it's not as explicitly canon as it is in Dungeons & Dragons unless you're playing it such that Ravenloft is part of your version of Pathfinder (I haven't included or dismissed it; I was kind of hoping that I never had to).
The thrust of the problem still remains - I, the GM, have canonically declared torturing to be an evil act in my campaign. Whether you want to subscribe to saying it's an application of Rule 0 or page 168 of the Core Rulebook ("In the end, the Game Master is the one who gets to decide if something's in accordance with its indicated alignment..."), the fact remains that I shouldn't have to deal with this. It is not something that's open for discussion, and I don't appreciate the amount of recalcitrance I'm encountering on the issue from Problem Gamer.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.Yes don't hesitate to punish evil player. D&D isn't real life. There's no shortage of Gods and Heros in universe to slap people into place.
^ I just had the townsfolk run the party town when they try to flog them. It wasn't Shadowrun so I still have no idea why they thought what they would be a market for them.
edited 19th Oct '13 7:28:30 PM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidSo I was trying to start a 3.5 session, Eberron specifically. I've gotten all of one character sheet out of three (at least initially) players. One was working on it the last time I checked, the other hasn't even started.
What do you think I should do? Besides nag them.
edited 24th Oct '13 3:00:45 AM by Midna
pearlina brainrot affects millions of people worldwide. if you or a loved one are suffering from pearlina brainrot, call 1-800-GAY-NERDSJust started the game as planned and give the ones who didn't prepared really crapy pregenerated characters like ''Truckle the Uncivil' or 'Biff the Understudy'.
edited 24th Oct '13 6:23:43 AM by joeyjojo
hashtagsarestupidI was going to suggest how to handle players who didn't submit character sheets before game began... and then you turned out to implement the suggestion I was going to give on your own. So I highly approve of giving out substandard pregens to lazy people.
And you never know, the player may come to love them. I once joined a group partway because the GM needed someone to take control of a substandard NPC he made (in 3.5, a goblin monk whose highest score was a 14). I realized that the monk class specified that it was part of an order that taught discipline and martial arts, but never specified anything beyond that... so I made Urush, the goblin monk who specialized in lucha libre. Sadly, the character died, but I've thought about reviving the concept one day.
Reminder: Offscreen Villainy does not count towards Complete Monster.A core part of the setting I'm working with is that everyone important is magicla. Even the guy who is a completely mundane warrior at game start WILL become a mage if he survives long enough. I had a little wager with myself, that the first applicant player would want to play a magic-less fighter, and throw a tantrum when informed he couldn't.
Lo and behold, I was right.
I don't know why I bother sometimes.
Mura: -flips the bird to veterinary science with one hand and Euclidean geometry with the other-

In theory, it's a pretty nice system where all possible archetypes found in the pokemon world are represented. In practice, it's more than a little unbalanced, mostly because, in the end, it's all about the pokemon battles, so the people that focus on skill sets outside those are likely to get left behind. It's a bit of a nagging problem without an easy solution.
Heck, the Ace Trainer AHR describes isn't even the worst possible minmaxer (and I'll actually commend the guy/gal for finding way to stick to a theme without crippling his effectiveness). I remember an older version where the most broken class was the coordinator of all things, who had/have the ability to mess with their pokemon's... ability, leading to all kinds of stupidly overpowered combos.
EDIT: You know, I'd really vote for whichever party promises to get solve the problem of out-of-context pagetoppers.
edited 8th Oct '13 10:36:32 AM by Kayeka