>be a DM >3.5 edition >those players that create the

>>52462628
Give 'em a selection of premade characters?

>>52462628
>Low stats can be hilarious and fun if you role play properly
When people roleplay they usually want to be characters that are better than them, so they can literally flesh inside them. They don't want to feel retarded.

>>52462649
This was an excuse I was given. "But anon we're supposed to be fantasy superhumans"

>what is Achilles
>what is kryptonite
>what is removing tension from the game

>>52462647
This is a great idea actually. I might switch to an earlier version they don't know as well, too.

>>52462628
Why are you rolling for stats in 3.5

The system isn't designed for that

>>52462668
>what is Achilles
Achilles was an extremely able and charismatic warrior. He had pretty much high skills all around. Picking a weakness isn't a character flaw.

>what is kryptonite
Superman is unbelievable strong, dexterous, fast (no need to explain), intelligent (his brain is like a hundred super computers), charismatic (he knows his words, everyone loves him, he made villains give up simply by talking), wisdom (he solved almost unsolvable puzzles), etc.
Having a weakness flaw is not the same as having a bad stat.

>>52462690
How do you generally create stars for a character then? Do you just create a basic build/set of numbers to choose from without rolling?

How to roll flawed but heroic 3.5 characters,

one stat is 18, one stat is 8, the rest are d6+10, boom, one thing they're good at, one thing they're shit at and the rest above average. Heroes with a flaw.

>>52462707

Powergaming (or power gaming) is a style of interacting with games or game-like systems, particularly video games, boardgames, and role-playing games, with the aim of maximising progress towards a specific goal, to the exclusion of other considerations such as storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie.

>>52462628
>Option 1
Do the "Book of Nine Swords and Psionics Classes Only" thing, as it's basically the easiest way to make 3.5 not absolute garbage even though it doesn't solve your players' mindset.

>Option 2
Switch editions. 3.P is pretty much built around treating your character like a MMORPG toon. Even 4E, which has all the qualia of an MMO, is better suited to roleplay than 3E and Pathfinder because your character doesn't -need- to be optimized to be competitive against monsters of similar CR.

>Option 3
Play something other than D&D. I've found switching to FATE can really jar a person locked into mechanics back into seeing their character as more than a pile of numbers, but YMMV.

>>52462736
Thank you!
>>52462754
Agreed, I'm switching to an earlier edition probably, something less based on numerical stats.

>>52462739
Those were the examples you gave me. I just listed why it was wrong.

Of course nobody should have a character good in everything, but the fact is that players hate having weak stats because they are too problematic.

ITT: A person would love to be a ridiculous strong or smart or fast person, while being average in the others. A person would hate being stupid, even if he was ridiculous strong to compensate. The bad traits usually shine more than the good ones.

File: 32 points.png (82KB, 501x186px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 501x186px

>>52462724

>>52462668
A weakness isn't the same as having a character flaw anon. Like if it was then vampires would be inherently more personable than humans by default.

>>52462736
That's genius, thanks anon

>>52462788
Fuck I'm an idiot, this rules, thank you!!

>>52462846
Undead have no constitution.

>>52462900
Yet depending on legends, vampires are weak to sunlight, cannot enter a home that they're not invited into, cannot cross streams, are allergic to garlic, project not reflection (which makes it harder to blend in among humans), and have an aversion to holy symbols like the cross and holy water.

So based off your logic, vampires would be inherently more personable than a human because they have so many weaknesses to deal with while humans...don't.

>>52462668
In my group we fixed being overpowered by making every other charater op as well. So the players feel like heros and get to do a lot but so can their enimies.

>>52462932
>a flaw is not the same as a weakness
>proceeds to list flaws and calls them weak himself

Nice strawman by the way.

File: wat3.jpg (112KB, 572x303px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 572x303px

>>52462754
>your character doesn't -need- to be optimized to be competitive against monsters of similar CR

What monsters of similar CR -need- your character to be optimized in 3.5? I always found the other way around: the monsters -need- to be optimized to challenge the character (unless you are playing a monk or some shit)

>>52463065
The problem is, the characters will always feel safe and untouchable for being superhuman.

Good CR selected monsters are great, but if you have no weakness you won't fear the perils of the campaign, that destroys the story.

>>52463065
3.5 monster math assumed that your fighter, for example, was on top of his build in order to hit consistency. The rule of thumb was that with a full BAB and proper buffs, you should hit at-CR threats at about an 8 on the die.

Because of the way HP and damage worked, you should also assume that any at-CR threat would die in about two rounds, maybe less; That's about how fast and how deadly any good threat is.

Mages are, of course, the exception - They tend to end encounters in one round with a spell, get horribly mauled by having low HP and AC before they can get anything off, or just fly above the threats and ping things to death slowly, or deal with problems in a myriad of other ways.

>>52462707
A weakness is, by definition, a flaw

>>52463104
This is the problem with my group precisely. It's too much meta-gaming and understanding the core rules over just letting go and facing dellimas like a real character actually would.

>>52463110
True, but weakness are usually added on the Flaws page(depending on system).

Weak to Water is not a stat but a flaw. Low Int would be a flaw, but it doesn't get into the Flaws page.

>>52463131
Have you thought that maybe the problem is the story? People usually start forgetting the meta if the story is involving enough. Even the most powergamer on my table once took a story decision by how involved he got.

>>52462994
You're confused anon. Take a moment to follow the chain of comments before commenting on the conversation.

>>52463145
How high are you?

>>52463173
ITT: traits =/= stats

Stats affect everything, traits only on certain situations.

>>52463162
The chain of comments changed multiple times except for my stance that every good character has a weakness, or struggle.

That's literally all I've been getting at.

>>52463131
I absolutely agree anon, except it usually starts before the campaign even starts.

I'm definitely setting stat standards and limiting classes/races this time.

>>52463202
I never disagreed dumbass, I just said flaws are important, NOT in the context of the game, but for character building, emersiveness and story.

You're grasping at straws.

>>52463131
Assuming we're talking about D&D, something that you need to understand is that there is no such thing as meta-gaming when it comes to player knowledge. Everything that the character knows what to do is borne from your knowledge as a player, even the knowledge to go "I don't know about X, can I roll a knowledge Y check to see if my character knows the thing" is dependent on whether or not the player has the wherewithal to access those abilities.

So if you want to take players to stop meta-gaming, don't feed them information that you wouldn't want them to know. Instead of saying "it's a wight," say "it's a pale gaunt humanoid with long black nails and piercing red eyes" or something to that effect.

Believe me, it helps tremendously once you get into the thought process of "they only know what I tell them."

>>52463221
You don't actually need flaws for character building through. A jack of all trades can be the most moving character in the story.

>>52463255
Yeah things are totally compelling when they're never difficult, you're right. Are you done being a geriatric?

>>52463288
You don't need flaws to have a difficult campaign through. You really think a 12 stat in everything character could beat a Behemoth alone?

>>52463255
This thread is not for you anon

Use point-buy maybe. They can be somewhat decent at everything.

>>52463204
My stance was that weakness is not the same as having an actual character flaw and the only reason why characters even have weaknesses in the first place is so the author can throw something in that harms them when the character would otherwise be untouchable.

Superman wouldn't be a compelling character if he was a nigh unstoppable god who could only be harmed with green rocks or red sun radiation, but since he's generally written as a good-ol' boy who tries his best while serving as inspiration for the little guy, while at the same time having the capacity to sink do some low levels when he's pushed too far, THAT'S what makes him a compelling character overall.

And if you want characters like that in D&D, the closest you'll find is a paladin who is LG and HAS to be LG or else he loses his nifty paladin powers.

>>52462628
Your players are playing 3.5 correctly, you need to either get with the program or run something that's not d20 based.

>>52463306
Any advice that isn't deviantart tier?

>>52463357
I'm not saying they're wrong!! I'm just saying there's a huge ton of power/meta gaming that has zero to do with building a character with a believable/interesting background.

I'm most likely switching to a new system to keep it fresh.

>>52463348
He's compelling because of his flaws/weaknesses, I see your point.

Moving on...

>It's a "Multiclassing has no purpose besides being a munchkin" episode

Nah fuck off
You're given a box of Legos and are sperging out that people are building something besides the Millennium Falcon on the box

Making your players play a straight barbarian isn't going to suddenly make them roleplayers, it's going to suddenly make them wonder why they're wasting time playing a game after you've castrated the point that made it fun for them

>>52463397
Flaw=/=Weakness

A flaw is something that can be good or bad depending on the context while a weakness is something that's always meant to be bad.

>>52463423
Having my players play a barbarian doesn't make them want to roleplay either though.

I need to switch the system to get them less interested in values over storytelling

>>52463425
Are you going to give some real advice or are you just gonna suck your own dick the whole thread?

Moving on #2...

>>52463423
>he wants to play a Druid stonechild half dragon with a weapon from sandstorm, but might multiclass into a fighter for extra combat feats while trying not to look retarded episode

Don't you dare equate Lego to this, at least lego requires imagination

>>52463485
It's not my fault that you're too stubborn to accept advice that doesn't already line up with what you wanted to do.

Here's some advice, instead of running a game like the gameplay is an obstacle that gets in the way of roleplay, how about you try combining them together so that you're not forced to sacrifice one or the other.

>>52463518
You don't think that knowing how to combine different class/racial abilities together to create a good build doesn't require imagination? It takes more creativity to make a good character than to just arbitrarily nerf yourself and claim that your ineptitude somehow enhances the roleplay.

>>52463362
I will take this as a sign you have run out of arguments. Thank you anon.

>>52462628
>since every character needs flaws

This triggers me.

The flaws that make interesting characters are... wait for it... *character flaws*. Not sucking at certain actions because you failed to or couldn't optimize (or, also, because you did precisely that).

Mechanical optimization and roleplaying ARE NOT mutually exclusive. They are wholly independent.

>>52463544
There's nothing wrong with a buffed out character, cool multiclassing and stuff doesn't bother me; but I think you should be able to role play your choice.

These people are playing to win, not to role play.

>>52463550
Not here to argue. Here for advice.

>>52463425
>a weakness is something that's always meant to be bad.
So it can be good for storytelling then. Alcoholism is a weakness but can make for a compelling character.

>>52463544
But a good build doesn't equate a good character. It just means that the PC is mechanically competent.

>>52463580
I completely agree anon, but my trouble is my player characters optimize themselves so they have zero flaws and high stats, so my only option is higher CR stuff.

I need to show my players how it can be fun to face turmoil in a game

>>52463606
Multi-classing as a concept doesn't mean that a player is inherently averse to roleplaying, if they're a shit roleplayer with multi-classing then they'll be just as shit without it.

Even then, you're not going to change their ways by forcing it onto them and if you push too hard, you'll end up turning them off to roleplay in general.

The amount of players here who don't want to face personal challenges is sad

>>52463621
Want an advice?

Make a good story. People will then want to get into it.

>>52463671
You're right, I still feel like limiting can help a little, but it's also my call on the world I throw them into to make them role play.

File: IMG_0041.jpg (57KB, 600x440px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 600x440px

>>52463696
I will do my best anon

>>52463638
>So it can be good for storytelling then.
Not really.
>Alcoholism is a weakness but can make for a compelling character.
Alcoholism is a flaw because the person can still, at some point in their lives, learn how to live without it. A true weakness would be something like a werewolf's aversion to silver; it's something that affects them on a conceptual level and rarely are they capable of not being weak to it on some level (if we're going by the legends of course).

Rule of Thumb: If it's something in a character's personality that can be negative but can also be overcome through some means, it's a flaw. If it's something that is ALWAYS negative and can NEVER be overcome in some way, it's a weakness.

>>52463680
> your personal challenge is having -2 to your strength roll
That's pretty sad actually.

>>52463580
I don't think character flaws (i.e. personal failings) should be treated separate from the mechanics. A cold, callous character *should* have harder time to convince others to help him because he's unable to connect with people properly, and the game mechanics should reflect that.

>>52463647
And characters who are mechanically competent have the ability to affect the storyline in a significant way.

Think about it, in any system, your ability to do anything is always dependent on whether or not you pass the roll, so it stands to reason that someone who builds well and knows how to play will be able to have more fun and have more of an effect on the world than someone who can barely hit a goblin as a level 3 character.

>>52463727
>flaws aren't good for storytelling
>uses a werewolf as an example
>wew lad

>>52463668
Actually how does someone optimize himself?

To get extra points you need to get flaws. To prioritize a stat you need to dump another, ergo you have a flaw. Do you let your players reroll until they get everything 15-18?

>>52463696
That only works if the player isnt for the xp. Thry will ignore any history, no matter how good you and the others players make, and ask how much the orc babies gave of loot.

On another note, anon players doesnt seem lile that, they just like being Op, and I dong see why thsts a problem. Just makes their strength slowly became famous and call attention from more powerful stuff.

>>52463733
How can you make up for it?

>>52463705
Limitation without proper context just ends up being annoying and arbitrary in the grand scheme of the campaign.

You'll find that in most games, there's already a balancing factor involved that prevents someone from being good at everything, so adding layers on top of that is just unnecessary overall.

>>52462628
3.x was designed to have shitty classes and abilities that aren't viable. Your players would be at fault in 90% of RPGs but they simply aren't in this case.

>>52463788
By rolling 2 more.

>>52463727
Yes, but I'm arguing that something that is always negative and can never be overcome can still be good for making a compelling character. It doesn't matter whether it's a flaw or weakness, both are material for shaping the character and its growth.

>>52463782
>That only works if the player isnt for the xp.
There is an easy solution: give xp for good acting.

>>52463762
A werewolf having an aversion to silver does not, in and of itself, make it a good character. To put it another way, a dude who has a peanut allergy is not going to be a compelling character just because he can't be around a PB+J sandwich for the rest of his life.

>>52462628
You can't explain it to them. This kind of player is terminally autistic. They don't care about the group experience, they don't care about having to get creative under circumstances of limitations, they don't care about anything but themselves and their power trip.

The game literally ends at character creation for these people, the rest is just them whining about not having enough EPIC stuff happening. Try introducing them at level 1 to a small fishing village with a mysterious past and strange locals hiding a terrible secret. They will breeze past and say "I WANNA GO FIGHT KING DRAGON NOW"

Find a new group, and maybe try an edition that doesn't hold appeal to this kind of person (if not a new game altogether).

>>52463798
That's great roleplaying

>>52463819
Neither does being an alcoholic.

>>52463831
Thank you.

>>52463799
This, INCLUDING their base stats. It creates fear in the players in dangerous situations which makes them more careful and attached to their characters

>>52463761
That comes down to player preferences. I can imagine a scenarios where coping with the fact that you're shit and out of your league is fun. In WFRPG for example the characters tend to be ragpickers and hoodlums who have to survive in a world of chaos monstrosities and magic, and becoming more scarred and grizzled over the play is satisfying, the more fucked up your character becomes the better play experience you've had.

>>52463799
If it's something that can never be overcome in some way, it doesn't make the character itself grow, it just gives the writer the means to limit their involvement should he find that their presence would impact the narrative.

If it's something that CAN be overcome, then the journey of that character as they both a) realize that their flaw is negatively impacting their life, and b) begin taking the steps to move past this aspect of their life; that is what generally makes them compelling characters as a whole.

>>52463819
>comes from horror stories in European folklore about monsters beaten by their weaknesses/flaws to silver

You dumb

>>52463841
An alcoholic can, at some point in their life, decide to get help and stop allowing their addiction to take over their life in a negative way.
>>52463873
How exactly does its origins weaken my point?

>>52463866
>it doesn't make the character itself grow,
Not by itself, but how the character's limitations shape it.
For example my tragic weakness is that I'm unable to fly, and my obsession to overcome that shapes how my character grows.

>>52463865
In in those types of games, the player still has enough agency to try and avoid said monstrosities while fucking about the setting and their ability to do so is still dependent on whether or not they make the rolls.

Wait, why are you playing spreadsheet edition if you're upset that your players are walking statsheets?

Play Edge of the Empire or some other narrative pnp

>>52463828
OP here. I'm actually super bummed to hear this because I think you might be right.

I don't have another group, so maybe I can explain the situation a little better to them now. Im not even sure playing D&D will help under any variation either.

Might just have to keep the stories to myself for now.

>>52463912
>An alcoholic can, at some point in their life, decide to get help and stop allowing their addiction to take over their life in a negative way.

It still does not by itself make someone into a good character.

>>52463933
Sure, but some people just enjoy seeing their characters fail spectacularly. It's a matter of preferences.

>>52463912
These are both stories about weaknesses.
>>52463935
Will check this game out today. >>52463946
His flaw requires roleplaying, that makes it interesting.
The werewolfs flaw requires roleplaying, that's what makes it interesting.
>>52463968
Agreed, it's called having fun and not powergaming.

>>52463928
>For example my tragic weakness is that I'm unable to fly, and my obsession to overcome that shapes how my character grows.
Your "tragic" weakness does not make you a compelling character, especially in a world where most terrestrial creatures lack the ability to fly.
>>52463946
>It still does not by itself make someone into a good character.
Yes it does, because in order for them to overcome their alcoholism, they have to both address the problem head on and work towards overcoming that struggle.

Having the courage to admit that you fucked up and that you're the cause of your own misfortune is something that a lot of people struggle with, even today. Because of this, seeing a character who has this courage and actually works hard to overcome that struggle and become a better person, that's something that's going to make them compelling by default because we want to see them succeed and be a better person.

>>52463968
If people enjoyed failure then we wouldn't give a shit when people do something worthwhile like, I dunno, curing polio or reaching the moon.
>>52463986
>The werewolfs flaw requires roleplaying, that's what makes it interesting.
The werewolves flaw only requires him to not be touched by silver, it's as basic of a weakness as you can get and doesn't actually serve to make them grow as a character.

>>52464005
Let's put it this way: if a character never overcomes their flaw, does that make the flaw boring? You seem to be arguing that this is the case considering what you said about weaknesses not being useful for making compelling characters.

>>52462628
In D&D, useful = fun.

Personally I've always viewed character building as starting with a mechanical concept, working towards mechanical functionality, then from there into what sort of a person your character must be in order to have the mechanical features you've given him

>>52464005
>Yes it does, because in order for them to overcome their alcoholism, they have to both address the problem head on and work towards overcoming that struggle.
The vast majority of alcoholics don't do that.

>Having the courage to admit that you fucked up and that you're the cause of your own misfortune is something that a lot of people struggle with, even today. Because of this, seeing a character who has this courage and actually works hard to overcome that struggle and become a better person, that's something that's going to make them compelling by default because we want to see them succeed and be a better person.
That REALLY depends on the execution. It's very, very easy to handle that kind of character growth badly.

File: IMG_0156.jpg (116KB, 800x1304px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 800x1304px

>>52464028
>we decide to go to the moon
>we don't do these things because they're easy, we do them because they're hard
>literal quote from JFK when he told the world.

I see you don't like being challenged you powertripping crybaby.

>>52464028
I'm all for people curing polio and reaching the moon, but I also enjoy my character being the laughinstock of the table. They're not really exclusive ideas.

>>52464028
The problem is you just don't know how to roleplay around your flaws, since you don't think balance is required in a game.

>>52463464
Have an interesting story before you start looking at the system to find flaws inherent in it..

>>52463814
Or just, you know, discover the fun of actually roleplaying.

>>52463986
>Agreed, it's called having fun and not powergaming
Powergaming is fun through, otherwise players would not powergame.

>>52464329
Your games must be awful you maniac

>>52464206
>Or just, you know, discover the fun of actually roleplaying.
>I want people to have fun my way
Like it or not that's your players. If they only want XP then give rewards for good acting, or otherwise find other players.

>>52464350
>Your games must be awful you maniac
Not for the powergamers. :^)

>>52464329
Then again there's an element of competition to powergaming which easily leads to hurt feelings when a player feels that their character isn't more powerful than the others. Then they mope because GM refuses to give them better gear than other players.

>>52463065
You are partially right here, but the real point that you're looking for is this: In 3.PF the CR system simply doesn't work, because players and monster of the same level and/or CR can be vastly different in their capabilities.
On the other hand, 4e has a tighter math and design concerning how monsters match up to players and vice versa.

So yes, in 3.PF you could have two fighters of the same level and one of them could oneround a monster two CR above him and the other could barely hit one of his CR
On the other hand you have monsters with spells/spell likes and/or special abilities that are up there with wizards in how hard they can control the battlefield/PCs and others are just walking bags of soft hp

>>52464383
That's only if you all fucked up

Powergaming should be a group effort. Powergaming on the group scale rather than the individual scale produces far greater results and is more fun overall

>>52463759
Yeah, but D&D is certainly not the game that supports that. The mechanical and the role playing side are almost completely separate here

>>52464403

Out of 20 years of playing /tg/, across 3 states and 8 cities, I have met one powergamer that was interested in the whole group being optimized. ONE. Putting on my smoking jacket and playing the armchair psychologist for a moment, it always seemed like the powergamers I encountered had some pretty heavy issues with feelings of inadequacy or lack of control.

Hyper-optimized characters gave them that feeling of control or satisfaction, and having other people approach it challenged the illusion.

But that one guy was pretty friendly about helping people, so...

>>52464510
Yeah, in D&D it would come down to GM rulings most of the time. Simple way to do it would be to change the DC of skill rolls depending on the character and the action they're trying to take, but even that would take extra work.

I kick out powergamers at my local table. If they put in more effort to build over story I'm not interested. They're all insecure trash.

>>52463131
>let go
>get fucked over by the game because you wanted to play Zorro
Turns out that I do not fucking care that you are having fun throwing 1d8+5 swings at monsters with 100 HP because you have a nerf bat fetish, I care about how much fun *I* have in that situation, which is less than none, or if it ruins someone else's fun, which it inevitably does.

>>52464529
I have to agree with this anon. Powergamers I've met by and large have been obsessed being The Best in the group, and start to whine when they perceive other characters perform mechanically as well (or god forbid even better!)

>>52464603
Why would the GM put you against 100 HP monsters if he knew you deal 1d8+5 swings of damage? A 10 HP monster would be far more appropriate.

>>52464603
>>52464367
Good to see people enjoy winning imaginary games to themselves over storytelling, atmosphere and camaraderie. Why don't you just stick to WoW?

If your players don't know the other PCs except by metagaming, they're not actually playing.

>>52464611
>>52464529
From my experience, powergamers are obsessed at being the best at THEIR JOB in the group

If everyone in the group has a job to do, and all the jobs are distinct, powergamers can work together without stepping on each other's toes

>>52464611
OP here, mine whine if you limit their races/classes to the players handbook.

Seriously.

>>52464628
Because THAT'S

HOW

3.5

WORKS

That is what HAPPENS when you roll up a Duelist, or a one handed or sword and board Fighter, or any of a number of shitty builds. You stop being able to do damage that looks even remotely appropriate for an equal CR monster's HP, and that's something that should be curbstomped in 2 rounds if it's stuck in full attack range. You have to completely break the CR system to challenge them because they are just SO fucking bad, and if anyone else in the party is even remotely able to handle CR appropriate enemies it becomes borderline impossible to challenge both.

>>52464688
If you're limiting class choice to just what's in the 3.5 players handbook, they have every right to complain

>>52464688
Have you ever considered that that's because you're not improving the game by doing that? If you're doing it to try to stop people from breaking the game, you've already failed because PHB is where the worst imbalance is - if they wanted to break the game they'd just roll CoDzillas, but if they wanted to roll a martial that didn't suck or a tier 3 class they're stuck with Barbarian and Bard.

>>52464693
Look, the OP complained about having to dial up the challenge because his players powergame. If he's capable of dialing up then he's equally capable of dialing it down when the characters are underoptimized. The game is run by a human with cognition and reason, not a mindless algorithm.

File: IMG_9901.jpg (177KB, 1024x1006px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 1024x1006px

>>52464675
This 100%. There's never any challenge if there's always a fix.
>>52464693
Monsters should be frightening, not treated like cockroaches you can slap away.

You're the kind of person the
OP was complaining about.

>>52464728
Some of us here use our imagination.

>>52464675

Oldfag here. I agree it's possible, since that's how the one bro-tier player felt. He wanted everyone to be good at their jobs. But anecdotal evidence showed that he was the exception, not the rule.

Splitting hairs, here. I wonder if you could label gamers that want everyone to exceed at their role as something separate from a power gamer.


Shit, forgot I was on 4chan. Uh. REEEEEE NORMIES!

>>52464739
Your mistake is assuming that the entire party will be equally unoptimized.

>>52464757
It makes it more difficult/interesting if there's a struggle.

>>52464757
Which the OP is trying to ensure, hence this thread.

>>52464747
>Monsters should be frightening, not treated like cockroaches you can slap away.
PCs should be competent at their jobs instead of someone who's only capable of dueling something 5 CR below them, and nerf batting enemies over 5 rounds to kill them is not fun.

You're the kind of fucking idiot who cries when a Fighter takes Power Attack.

OP, how did you challenge your Players up till now?
If all problems that you throw at them can be solved by murderfucking something, guess what your players are gonna do.

It won't matter if you switch systems or give them arbitrary mechanical restrictions. What's important is the structure and principles of your campaign.
Are there are Npc that talk to them about all kinds of stuff? Are there problems that can only be solved by talking?

If you give an outline where you currently are in your campaign, maybe you can get some fitting advice

>>52464779
That has no relevance to anything I said.

>>52464787
What about games like CoC where going toe to toe with the monsters is usually a recipe for suicide?

>>52464634
> reee get out of my hobby you are enjoying it wrong

>>52464785
No, he's not, he's making it far more likely to happen. All it takes is one player going something like "I want to play Indiana Jones and whip/punch people into submission" and another player going "I want to play a defender of nature and I like bears" and you've got a worst case scenario on your hands, and trying to make people ignore mechanics makes it so, so much worse.

>>52464811
CoC is a fundamentally different game from D&D and cultists still drop like a fucking rock if you shoot them in the chest.

>>52464838
And that's why we need to give him good advice how to avoid that happening.

>>52464747
>Monsters should be frightening, not treated like cockroaches you can slap away.
Then make tougher monsters.

>No u, I want you to make a dirty peasant
Oh yeah, that does sounds like fun. I enjoy having everyone spitting at my character face.

>>52464811
>but what about oranges?
that game was built to be "if you're in combat, you failed"

>>52464855
There is no advice that will stop someone who is 100% intent on ignoring mechanical repercussions from running face first into mechanical repercussions.

>>52464852
Yes, but that example highlights the fact that competent and good at fighting monsters above your level are not synonyms.

>>52464874
CR equal monsters are not monsters above your level. You did nothing but prove my point.

>>52464818
Not an argument little baby.

>>52464788
This is my first time being a DM for my group, usually I'm a player character with these guys. We've done a dungeoneering one with a ton of traps and a basic fantasy adventure one with little story. Everyone was surprised I picked a human knight since it's "boring", go figure.

I'm working on a heroes of horror campaign that will feature a lot of heavy roleplaying and mystery, less combat. I'm forcing them into using their characters personalities in game. I just hope they don't try to force combat into every situation possible.

>>52464811
In D&D, the PCs job is to delve into dungeons and fight monsters, so they should be competent at those things. In Call of Cthulhu, the PCs job is to investigate weird things and stop cultist from summoning Nyarlathotep or whatever, so they should be competent at those things.

>>52464890
Being able to fight monsters above CR-5 is not a good measure if a character is competent or not. A character being utterly shit at fighting can still be competent in some other, perhaps even more relevant field.

>>52463065
You ever fought a Balor or a Wraith or a Shadow? If you aren't built to handle them you're fucked.

>>52464874
In D&D(talking about WotC editions, here), they pretty much are. If you don't like that, you should play a different game(various OSR games might be more to your liking if you want to stick with dungeon delving).

>>52464749
Yeah, the Robin Laws list of player types is perhaps one or two examples short of the full set in my opinion

>>52464923
>Being able to fight monsters above CR-5 is not a good measure if a character is competent or not.
Yes it fucking is.

>>52464898
>I don't understand atmosphere

You can make a stronk guy, grats you dumbass. This thread is about the opposite, so talk about getting people into roleplaying or get out faggot.

Switch systems. Maybe 13th age or something. It has its own problems but doesn't encourage this behavior like 3.5 seems to.

Or switch players.

>>52464898
And here's the thing: if the characters are underoptimized and kinda shitty at fighting, then the GM should put shittier monsters in those dungeons. Which is a thing he's entirely capable of doing. Which is why powergaming is unnecessary.

>>52463865
I once played a game of WFRPG. We rolled up completely random characters. I think I was a dwarven graverobber with a scar on his face and the most competent character by far. The others were a stableboy, a clerk and a cook or some shit like that.

We walked through a forest, accidentally fell into half-buried ruins hidden under vegetation right on top of a few skeletons, and died.

>>52464896
>Not an argument
>It's not an argument saying you cannot force others to enjoy what you do

>>52464941
That is absurdly narrow, downright useless definition of competency.

>>52464953
Not him, but I'm pretty sure very few players would enjoy playing a game where you kill slimes and imps.

>>52464923
Being competent at fighting is apart of the adventurers repertoire. You're comparing CoC and DnD too closely, the paranormal investigators job is just that, to investigate and sequentially stop the cultists from doing whatever the fuck they're doing. A dungeons and dragons adventurers kit is suited for him to go out and kill shit, while also being able to solve problems killing shit often presents.

>>52462736
But then everyone has to play SAD characters (casters).

>>52464953
Or slightly stronger monsters to give a real challenge. Getting your players to learn to flee is important.

>>52464960
You can with a good story that doesn't encourage shitty PC behaviour

>>52464953
>hen the GM should put shittier monsters in those dungeons
Which then get wiped out by the guy who stumbled into the strongest build out of all of them, making everyone else irrelevant. It's much more difficult to challenge party members across a broad swathe of power levels, which is exactly what will happen every single time you encourage people to ignore mechanics.

>>52464965
No, it's not, that's downright trivial to achieve at any level and isn't even mutually exclusive with being competent out of combat. You know, unless you're being a fucking retard and encouraging people to not pay attention to the game.

>>52464980
>Getting your players to learn to flee is important.

Then stop playing D&D, because the system really loves making monsters more mobile than PCs. Unless the GM is deliberately not having anything chase you ever, fleeing is a very good way to get killed.

>OP makes post about how power gamers ruin campaigns before even starting playing

>powergamers come into the thread and start justifying never losing ever and never being challenged is somehow fun

If I were you, I'd just break all their shit as their DM and give it back to them broken to watch them have an autistic fit about how it's not fair.

>>52464983
I'm not encouraging people to ignore mechanics. Equality between characters is important, but whether they're high powered or low powered is irrelevant to that goal. The OP would prefer a less powerful game, so the goal it to make the characters underoptimized in this case.

>>52465021
>being able to fight enemies of your own CR = never being challenged and never losing
And this is how you tell someone's mentally handicapped.

>>52465021
>start justifying never losing ever and never being challenged is somehow fun
Except no-one in this thread is doing anything remotely like that, you illiterate piece of shit.

>>52465004
So what happened to that 1d8+5 swings versus 100 HP monster scenario? Is it easy to make underoptimized characters or not?

>>52465031
>The OP would prefer a less powerful game
Then limit the available classes to T5 and know what you're doing beforehand.

Ugh, can we stop this whole crap about what is appropriate difficulty for anyone?
Because it simply boils down to the group in question and how they operate, especially in 3.PF where CR means almost nothing.

You like high optimized PCs? Fine, fight optimized monsters. You like low powered PCs? Fine, fight lower powered monsters. Different strokes for different folks and 3.PF tries stroking all kinds of people, which means there simply is no unified basis to argue upon.

But this isn't what OP wants to know, since he seems to be able to challenge the PCs in battle. You don't get people to role play more by arguing about power levels. You have to set up requirements (at the beginning of the campaign you have to have about half a page worth of back story with at least 2 Npcs which the Pc cares about or your character has to have a dream/goal, a modus operandi and one sin/vice/weakness), incentives (stuff like free healing, buffs or minor consumable magic items from characters that have been treated well, maybe Xp for good rping, but not big on this, since I rarely use XP these days) and non-combat challenges (whodunnits, intrigue, town building)

>>52465010
If you can't handle your imaginary character coming into danger, why are you even playing you fucking pussy

>>52465039
You'd still chimp out over a higher CR, so it doesn't matter, since being challenged isn't fun for you, wussy pussy.

>>52465057
That's what happens when you pick Duelist or the shittiest Fighter combat styles.

>>52465083
>I got called on my bullshit because i obviously don't know how the game works, waaaaaaaaah you are the problem
Please go.

>>52465088
Alright, then the OP's group should pick Duelist-equivalent character classes, and he put shittier monsters in the dungeons.

File: IMG_0149.png (68KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 500x380px

>>52465101
>roleplaying game
>argues in favour of not roleplaying

In today's news: Another Inadequate crybaby needs to win the imaginary tabletop game

>>52465010
Making monsters more mobile than the PCs is one of the shittiest design decisions in the game, and one that should be houseruled away right from the beginning.

>>52462628
Just play the GLOG or somesuch other system that prioritizes your character over your character sheet

>>52465083
>If you can't handle your imaginary character coming into danger, why are you even playing you fucking pussy
There's danger and there's danger. Dying because "You are supposed to run away. BTW, this monster has 120 fly speed and no reason not to chase you" makes for a terrible experience and a terrible game. Dying because you screwed up or got unlucky in a fight might suck in short term, but it's good for the game(assuming, that is, that the game still continues and doesn't end up because of a TPK or someone throwing a fit).

>>52462628
First of all don't play 3.pf. Other editions of D&D are fine, especially 1e and OD&D. Despite this, I'd still recommend a system that doesn't have classes and has mechanics to reward roleplaying built in.

Secondly, it's probably better to have your players think of personality flaws than just make them have a low stat. Low stats don't really do anything other than make the players afraid to attempt certain actions, but a properly roleplayed personality flaw, e.g alcoholism, anger issues or suicidal depression (the real kind, not the edgy teen kind) makes the character feel more like an actual person who makes mistakes.

Finally, add a huge incentive for roleplaying. Something like roleplaying exp. or fate points, where roleplaying your flaws and their consequences gets you substantial bonuses, but ignoring them has a cost. For example, resisting the urge to lash out when your flaw is 'sever anger issues' should require a successful Wisdom check, or the spending of metagame resources.

>>52465121
Which I don't have a problem with, IF the DM obviously knows what he's doing and told everyone this ahead of time. I wouldn't play in it because T5 and T6 classes are inherently unfun due to being one trick ponies forever, but it's doable. The attitude that results in wanting a party to be on that level is almost never compatible with knowing about tiers and why they exist, though, and without that knowledge, it is just as likely to result in some guy picking Druid because he likes bears or Wizard and ignoring blasting spells because he thinks blasting spells are why Wizards are OP.

>>52465176
Can you explain how you use faint points?

>>52465139
>roleplaying game
>wants to decide how other people roleplay

What if my character is Goku and just wants to become stronger?

>>52465139
>being strong = not roleplaying
Really?

>>52465174
Wow, look at you grasp at straws. >>52465209
If you weren't a femanon, you'd know that a man isn't handed everything to him and has to work for it

>>52465207
Presumably like so
>can be spent to influence a roll by +/- 1 point, after it has been rolled. This works on both damage rolls and d20 rolls. This only works on rolls involving you.

>>52465232
>You're supposed to run away from stronger encounters
>But monsters have much faster movement speeds so that's not going to work
>REEEEEEEEE POWERGAMER BOOTSTRAPS!
Holy shit you're like a fucking parody.

>>52465232
>hurrdurr I don't have an actual argument so I'm just going to bitch and whine
Kill yourself faggot.

>>52465241
This is a great idea, I like it much better than rewarding exp. Thanks! Will be doing this for sure.

>>52465266
I gave a fair point about creating a compelling story. It's a pretty fair argument.

>>52465257
Still grasping at straws. Not all monsters are faster. Are you going to give more advice instead of complain baby?

>>52465232
>reply to two different people
>hur dur femanon
Yeah, I'm sure that no character ever tried to become strong just because it feels good being strong.

>>52465182
In a vacuum I'd agree with you, but if we go all the way back to OP he told us that his players are powergamers so they probably know the system pretty well. So basically even if he restricted them to shitty Fighter subclass equivalents they'd end up at the same power level.

Whether this is a good way to get them to roleplay or not is up for debate. Personally, I don't think so, but restricting the power level doesn't make the game a slog is what I'm getting at (since the GM adjusts the threat level).

>>52465287
>Not all monsters are faster.
The vast majority of high CR enemies are, and as CR increases so does the amount of enemies with superior movement modes.

Golems are slow sometimes, I guess, but they're also fucking useless against any party with a Wizard with a brain.

>>52465287
>I gave a fair point about creating a compelling story. It's a pretty fair argument.
And when that was contested, you followed up with strawmen. Seriously, if you're not going to actually argue, just fuck off and let adults do the talking.

>>52465333
So use lower CR enemies and restrict the PCs to shittier classes.

>>52465321
>but restricting the power level doesn't make the game a slog
It does though. Going from T3 to T5 will almost assuredly put you in a straitjacket in terms of what's effective and what you can do.

File: IMG_8972.jpg (64KB, 480x321px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 480x321px

>>52465266
>doesn't like feeling his heart pump from a difficult challenge
>doesn't like feeling worried for his character in trouble
>doesn't like seeing his character overcome his physical attributes
>doesn't like feeling the hair raise in his arms from the description of treasure somewhere perilous slightly out of grasp
>doesn't fear the abilities of the enemy

Dude, why don't you just go to /v/? We're trying to discuss roleplaying games here.

>>52465351
>>52464980
>Or slightly stronger monsters to give a real challenge. Getting your players to learn to flee is important.
It shouldn't take a genius to see why these are incompatible.

>>52465207
Basically what >>52465241 said. Exactly how much of a bonus one fate point gets you depends on the system, but I give them to my players every time one of them does something their character would do that's going to cause them trouble later (it could be something as major as starting a fight with the town guard, or as minor as getting too drunk before braving the dungeon) and I let them use their points however they wish.

I'd recommend that you read FATE, even if you never plan on playing it, and adapt the fate points mechanic that uses for your games somehow. You'll probably want to dial it back and make it more of an added feature than a core mechanic of the game, unless you decide to play FATE itself.

>>52465338
>give my point a second time
>doesn't refute it

So your diaper is still full then?

>>52465399
You never actually gave a point.

>>52465371
See >>52465174 and then go fuck yourself with a rake.

>>52464896
Ok, but if you're already planning on changing it up (and from what you've written, it seems you're trying to do the right thing. Given the other two campaigns you mentioned, I'm not surprised your players don't role play much.

Two things though
>heroes of horror
My knee jerk reaction here is: Don't try to do horror in D&D. Apart from that, I don't think two changes at once are a good idea. A horror game has a way different tone and requires a different mind set. Additionally you want to get more RP going. Although it kind of goes hand in hand here, I'd rather try a lighthearted setting first. Make the regular people not want to fight because they're happy. Challenge the players with candy gnomes cursing a town with rotten teeth, but killing those adorable fuckers does nothing because they're made of sugar. Get silly. Maybe they won't get really much in-character, because of the silly tone, but you have to make them interested in the non-mechanical parts of the game world.

Second thing:
>afraid they force combat
With the horror game, it could really be a problem, because choosing to fight or to flee should be something that is up to the players to decide, which you want to foster. You want your players to participate and to make decisions. Problem is, since they are used to make those decisions dependant on a meta level, the first situation where they have to make an in-character decision should be on the non-live-threatening side, because if it's not and they die, they'll probably be annoyed and you don't want that. You want them to be able to choose again, but next time with higher stakes

Bonus: Always ask your players "Ok what do you do?" And make them describe what they do, at least out of combat

>>52465371
>doesn't like feeling his heart pump from a difficult challenge
The 'difficult challenge' being inbred goblins vs a handicapped Fighter who can't fight anything appropriate because he's garbage at everything.

>>52465399
But I did refute it, which you in turn made into a strawman which you proceeded to argue against while ignoring the actual refutation.

>>52465382
Okay here's a tip: if you put a stronger monster in a dungeon make it also slow. Genius!

>>52465500
And then it gets kited to death.

>>52465444
If the characters are shitty at hitting things, put them against things that are easy to hit. That way the challenge stays the same and the combat doesn't turn into a slog.

>>52465500
You can just pile on houserules upon houserules to achieve what you want, or you can just play a game that supports the kind of game you want to play to begin with. The fact that anyone is even suggesting the former just goes to show that 3.x genuinely DOES cause brain damage.

>>52465528
What do you even want anymore? The monster cannot be strong, but it cannot be weak either, nor fast nor quick. You're starting to sound like Goldilocks!

>>52465528
>>52465500
Are you guys really this autistic? It's a problem with the players not roleplaying.
Guess what, you're not gonna solve it with the game part of rpgs

>>52465544
So 3.x doesn't have slow and strong monsters, then? That's not what the game supports, then?

>>52465528
Have the noise of battle attract more monsters.

>>52465571
>send higher level monsters at your party to force them to run away
>but movement speed climbs with CR, so do movement modes, you'll get overtaken and killed
>so send a slower monster
>but those are heavily exploitable
>HURRR WHO WAS EVER TALKING ABOUT THE GAME PART OF D&D
Holy fuck.

>>52465443
Oh and another thing. Don't try to be subtle. Players are, without a doubt, stupid.
Tell them at least two options. If they somehow pick one of them and don't come up with a third, much more moronic option, they still have to describe what they're doing.
It will take some time and maybe a few different systems, but they will role play, given the chance.
Unless they don't, at which point you get a new group

>>52462649
>so they can literally flesh inside them
How has no one pointed out how horrifying that sounds.

>>52465713
The monster isn't supposed to give chase, that's the entire point of being slow. That way it won't get kited to death either.

>>52465713
a good way to have the party run from faster monsters is to provide an obvious target for the monsters. Maybe there is a group of villagers, or soldiers helping them. Maybe there is another pack of monsters that is also hostile and they can lead the monster into them and then run.

Sometimes it's just as simple as the monster didn't come looking for them at all and just wants the party to go away. A dragon guarding its' horde won't abandon the horde to chase after you, a monster in its' den won't come running out to pursue once it forces you out, guards won't abandon their post.

Give the monsters something to do and a reason to be there and the party will usually realize that they can run away rather than die pointlessly.

>>52464066
That has nothing to do with what the other anon said about some people enjoying their characters failing spectacularly.
>>52464089
I can roleplay around my flaws just fine anon, I'm just saying that there's a difference between "you can't touch X because Y" and actually working around a character flaw that affects how your character goes through their lives.
>>52464074
And that's all well and good, but there's a reason why most people don't like characters whose existence boils down to being the joke character, at best it's only funny for a session or two and then people start to ask "why are they even there if they can't do anything?"

>>52464034
>Let's put it this way: if a character never overcomes their flaw, does that make the flaw boring?
That depends, can they never overcome their flaws because they choose not to or can they never overcome their flaws because it's something that's just a part of their physiology?
>>52464057
>The vast majority of alcoholics don't do that.
Yet a sizable portion of alcoholics do manage to recover from their condition.
>That REALLY depends on the execution. It's very, very easy to handle that kind of character growth badly.
Maybe, but if the execution is flawed, that's either a DM issue or an issue with the player.

>>52464747
If a monster isn't challenging for your group, up the difficulty a bit until you find a good sweet spot. This isn't difficult stuff but then again, storyfags like you are generally inept when it comes to actually producing a challenging GAME to make the ROLE-PLAYING mean anything.

>>52466574
Stories aren't compelling without danger, of course I can fit challenging ones in; but shitty munchkins ruin the mood of the ROLE PLAYING in dangerous places (:

>>52465083
>If you can't handle your imaginary character coming into danger, why are you even playing you fucking pussy
There's a difference between "this monster is in our way and we took half our total HP in damage over a few rounds but luckily our group is able to handle it so we win without dying" and "fuck, it killed two people in one round and it can easily catch us with our 30 ft. movement speed thanks to its 120 movement speed and scent."

In the former, it's reasonably challenging if we assume that everyone pulls their weight and isn't just standing around with their dick in the hands going "what do I do?"

In the latter, the group is kinda just thrown into a TPK and they have no means of fixing the situation outside of some hail-mary throw that somehow manages to do the monster in.

But then if you throw mobile enemies at the party but they just *don't* chase them even though they can easily do so, it takes you out the game because "why is this hydra just standing there?"

>>52465021
Now actually read the thread before commenting.

>>52466697
>>52466684
Why are you samefagging old replies? Go shill elsewhere you handicap

>>52466650
If the challenge you set before them actually isn't challenging because they're competent, it wasn't all that fucking challenging in the first place.

Next time, go in assuming that the players have seen it all before, rather than just assuming everyone is as stupid as you are.

File: pot kettle black.jpg (90KB, 480x326px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 480x326px

>>52466754
>You
>Calling anyone else handicapped

>>52466764
>if the challenge isn't challenging
>a dm can do anything to challenge his players

Are you literally an amoeba?

>>52463131
Sounds more like you are shit at running a game. If they want to powergame, just ramp up the difficulty, have their exceptional skill be the main reason the NPC give a shit they're around.

Mechanics and fun rarely interact, beyond nat ones and nat twenties.

>>52466868
>Mechanics and fun rarely interact,
Spoken like true cancer.

>>52466764
>>52466814
>>52466868
Detecting butthurt

>>52466847
If the DM knows that they can easily handle creatures at their level, bump up the CR and see if they can handle creatures that are slightly stronger than them. If they can, bump it again but if not, keep it at that level for the rest of the campaign. If people are having trouble keeping up, give them the power to rebuild so that they're better able to handle the new baseline of the campaign.

I gotta be honest though, it's kind of a roller coaster how you claim that the people ITT hate being challenged while claiming that the DM isn't supposed to challenge the players.

>>52466868
OP here. We've already come to the conclusion I'm not playing 3.5, so your argument is baseless as I'm in favor of stories and Roleplaying over technicalities.

>>52466890
Point it away from yourself next time chief.

>>52466932
You say that as if the two concepts are mutually exclusive of one another. If you don't have the talent to build a story around your players building strong characters then that's up to you but don't claim that it's because you value roleplay.

>>52466957
I can present them with presets and limitations, they're fine with it. Discussed powergaming too and they agreed.

File: hmmm.jpg (546KB, 979x832px) Image search: [Google]

546KB, 979x832px

>3.Pathfag
>complains about min-maxing

>>52466986
Well what presets and limitations are we talking about?

>>52467038
Depends on Gokus limitations theoretically.

>>52467141
What do you mean?

>>52467151
Dude has no weaknesses, so he just wins and that's forever fun for everyone involved. Winning = cash

>>52467175
No, Goku has limitations as far as what he can do, it's just that Goku keeps training and finding ways to break through those limitations but that doesn't mean that he just wins every battle ever.

He died in his battle with Radits, was critically injured after his battle with Vegeta, won against Freeza thanks to going Super Saiyan, died after warping Cell to King Kai's world, and only won against Kid Buu because they had an extra wish and he was able to produce a spirit bomb in time to deal with Kid Buu's power.

When you stop and think about it, if Goku didn't have friends in a lot of these situations, he would've ended up dead (well...permanently) because while Goku loves to fight, he can still only do so much on his own

>>52463425
Ah, I think I understand now.
A "weakness" is a low stat that makes you roll low numbers and gives you the grumpy dumpies
A "flaw" is how you manipulate your DM and party into letting you play your munchkin characters, by pointing out how it's got this "flaw" that can be "good or bad" but only ever is good, or ignored

>>52467640
A low stat wouldn't be a weakness because you can always improve it during actual play. Also, if I present a flaw and the DM doesn't bother taking advantage of it, that's their fault, not mine.

File: mfw9.jpg (28KB, 403x293px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 403x293px

>>52462628

>what can I do to literally alter the brain construction and chemistry of these human being to force them to be more intelligent and creative?

Nothing. Any chances you perceive will be temporary.
Find better people.

>>52464688
My group was arguing about what edition was best, the powergamer cunts were all saying they liked 3.5 because hurr options durr feel powurful.
And then immediately saying oh well a GOOD 3.5 DM limits what his party can play to avoid getting too powerful.

>>52467693
Oh, let me clarify: it's your dump stat and bringing it up any higher would interrupt your planned 1-20 spreadsheet.

>>52467803
If my class doesn't use it, the game punishes you for not focusing on your class's primary stat(s), and the DM isn't going to punish me for my character's ineptitude in this one area of play, then why shouldn't I make a dump stat?

I mean what, is it suddenly a problem for a Wizard to have good INT? Does that suddenly make me unable to roleplay a dude whose good at casting spells by actually giving him stats that would make them good at casting spells?

>>52467803
>not planning from 1-20 in a game that screws you over for not doing it

>>52463288
>a jack of all trades means there's never any difficulty
Can you honestly not comprehend the concept of someone who is skilled in many fields but master of none?
And you think anyone who does is geriatric?

You do know this site is 18+ right?

>>52462887

In my first group, we had a stat-array sometimes to make high-powered characters. It was 10, 12, 14, 16, 16, 18.

It sucks when randomness prevents a good character idea/concept/build from coming to fruition and point buy can be a little crippling for characters with MAD.

Having more tools is always nice.

File: 1361481562023.jpg (31KB, 221x272px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 221x272px

>>52463518
>you don't understand, they want to have fun THE WRONG WAY!!!

>>52463782
>That only works if the player isnt for the xp
Xp is literally decided and handed out solely at the discretion of the gm, any rules are just a general guide to help judge balance.
It's your own stupid fault if you choose to give xp rewards in a way that incentivises murder-hoboing.

>>52464066
Wow you really thrashed that strawman! So masterful!
You really showed how mature and smart you are to that stupid baby ;^)

>>52465821
If it doesn't give chase then why are the players even running away?
What's even the purpose? You're just showing them a big monster and either saying "it's tough run away" or letting the players figure it out through combat which based on your lack of understanding of the rules will probably just result in tpk or you resorting to dm fiat to let/force some/all to run away.

>>52466932
Well have you come to a conclusion on what you are playing?

>>52467258
It has been years since I've really looked into dragon ball-whatever but isn't he also still bound by most mortal concerns of needing to eat and sleep and breathe and such? I mean there're, of course, silly "anime badass" exaggerations but he's still living flesh and blood(outside the afterlife) and he ages though irrc the monkey people just spend more of their years in their physical prime.

>>52467640
A flaw as other anons are using the term like alcoholism is literally an invitation for roleplaying like what op is looking for. Addiction can also have related rules to help enforce roleplaying but may not be necessary.
This is separate from the concept of mechanical "flaws/weaknesses" in some roleplaying games where you can take some penalty usually in exchange for some corresponding benefit.

>>52462707
he was also incredibly proud, sometimes vindictive, and had a *incredibly* ugly temper. Like most Greek heroes, he had flaws out the wazoo.

>>52463464

If my friends like deck builders and I like plastic pushers, flipping the table and pulling out blood rage isn't going to suddenly change their opinions about games.

You need new players or you need to find a middle ground