Is talking about building 3.5/PF characters on /tg/ so popular because building and optimizing 3.5/PF characters is a "fun" minigame, but actually PLAYING the game is a nightmare?
>>46196478
They're both fun, in their own way. The thing is, though, that actually playing a game (any tabletop game, really) requires a good GM and good players, while theorizing and building only requires access to the material. A lot of people have bad experiences with GM's who can't handle the system or who don't know how to run a game, or with players who suck in various ways, so creating builds is the easiest way for them to have fun with the system.
That doesn't mean that playing the game is a nightmare, just that playing the game with the wrong people can be a nightmare.
>>46196729
>just that playing the game with the wrong people can be a nightmare.
A fair point, but isn't that basically true with any game, any system, and any edition? We've probably all seen plenty of That Guy/That GM/That Group/That LARP threads dealing with everything from 1st-ed to DRYH.
>>46196873
>...but isn't that basically true with any game, any system, and any edition?
It is, yes. It's just that this question was about Pathfinder specifically, so that's what I was addressing.
>>46196478
Pretty much. The "ivory tower game design" used in 3.5/PF (where certain choises are just flat out better or shittier than others, and the system is supposed to reward experienced players for recognising what options are good and what aren't) makes character designing an optimization a kind of a puzzle. It can be pretty fun trying to figure out a way to make some outlandish concept work effectively or to try to create the most powerful version of a given class.
On the other hand the same design means a lot of character concepts will be almost unplayable because the "fluffy" options for them are the shitty ones, and that's not very fun if you want to play that kind of character.
>>46196478
> Is talking about building 3.5/PF characters on /tg/ so popular because building and optimizing 3.5/PF characters is a "fun" minigame, but actually PLAYING the game is a nightmare?
This is the truth, and anyone who disagrees is a delusional 3aboo. You have to keep in mind that Stockholm Syndrome is in full effect with those people.
>>46196478
The reason that playing the game is a nightmare really isn't the fault of the system itself in my experience, it's because it's hard to find any players/groups that actually know what the hell they're doing.
>>46196971
Name superior games then. I DM 3.5 because it's set up for extremely interesting player character builds, and all kinds of stuff is achievable. I've DMed plenty of 5e and while it's VASTLY superior for introducing new players to the game, it feels very hollow and bland as far as character construction and progression goes. I can't throw extremely whacky challenging situations at my players because they'll just die, whereas in 3.5 they'll find some rube goldberg machine that causes something to get cut in half by a portal or encase shit in a planar loop or something hilarious like that.
>>46197042
Why do you want to build characters as if they were MtG decks?
>>46197139
Players built like MtG decks are cooler than players built like normal people.
>>46197042
This might sound crazy, but there are people who enjoy being able to use real world intuition to solve problems instead of relying on anime logic.
>>46198236
Huh, what a bunch of faggots.
