[Any] Powergaming, what's the appeal?

[arguskos]

Not necessarily.

Consider Haberdash the Masked (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88633). That is one highly-optimized build; I don't think you could read it and seriously disagree. Its construction was approached with a strict optimization-heavy mindset, bent on getting every last drop of effectiveness out of the tools at hand.

Despite that, it is not an objectively powerful build, not when compared to your typical druid or fullcaster.

Often optimization is based around taking a single fun or interesting idea (in this case, a masked fighter with a thousand different weapons concealed among his clothes) and running with it; often these tend to be ideas that, without significant optimization, simply wouldn't work the way they're intended.

Many optimizers have a mindset along the lines of what's expressed in that post -- they're not actually interested in power, specifically. Instead, they're interested in making a mechanically interesting build -- which, to them, often means one with a wide variety of options, many different things it can do, and so on.
Well, really, that's what I said (or intended, at least). Haberdash the Masked is the best that he can be at what he does (that happens to be most of everything :smallbiggrin:). I'm not trying to deride optimizing here, there's nothing wrong with it, IMO. What I am saying is that, as a general rule, optimizing seems to be about doing something AMAZINGLY well (look at the Killer Gnome, Gabriel the Undeadenator, the Ubercharger, etc), and doing something in moderation only seems to defeat that point somewhat (since why put in all that effort, if you aren't going to excel, right?) and I think that people may as well just admit that's how it goes, rather than skirt around the issue.

Options come from mastery. Mastery comes from optimizing during creation. Thus, optimization=options=mastery in an area. Seems simple to me. :smallcool:

DISCLAIMER: Though I personally do not optimize much, and think it's a lot of effort for not much return, it's fine by me if you like it. Just saying, since folks get touchy about this stuff REALLY fast.

[NEO|Phyte]

Indeed, but who optimizes a build for moderation?

One who optimizes in moderation? I'll admit to liking my characters powerful, but I don't go out of my way to find every last way to improve them. It's also possible to have the power, but not use it unless it's important. It's like the can of liquid shwartz to throw in the emergency tank when you need to go stop the princess's wedding because you JUST NOW found out you're a prince.

[Deepblue706]

One who optimizes in moderation? I'll admit to liking my characters powerful, but I don't go out of my way to find every last way to improve them. It's also possible to have the power, but not use it unless it's important. It's like the can of liquid shwartz to throw in the emergency tank when you need to go stop the princess's wedding because you JUST NOW found out you're a prince.

This is what I was talking about before: Terminology. 'Optimize' is a poor description of what we're discussing here. To obtain these results, you must not optimize, but efficate.

[SadisticFishing]

It's hard. It's fun to think.

And it maxes the survivability of all of our favorite characters.

[Starsinger]

It's hard. It's fun to think.

And it maxes the survivability of all of our favorite characters.

There's a difference between survivable and this...
There's just something about dropping an entire encounter with a single spell that doesn't ever seem to get old.

[ChaosDefender24]

Indeed, but who optimizes a build for moderation?

Anyone who isn't playing Pun-Pun

[KKL]

Anyone who isn't playing Pun-Pun

Nobody plays Pun-Pun.

[chiasaur11]

Nobody plays Pun-Pun.

Well, yeah.

His sense motive is way too high for that sort of thing.

[Kyeudo]

On Wall of Iron:


That Wall of Iron stuff is pretty effective; but it can be countered without a DM just saying "Don't do that". First of all, people need to buy that iron for you to get money out of it. Some buyers will only take so much.

True. Every town does have its GP limit. Which is why you move towns once they stop buying. Teleport is cheap. Fabricate also speeds up the money making process by allowing you to convert iron into greatswords and sell if for fifty times the price of ordinary iron.


Second, you need to transport it all. Unless you're dedicating yourself to amassing this iron to a place where it can be sold in an efficient manner, you'll need help. Caravans can be raided, and you might not get much out of it after considering the costs to hire people and buy shipping vessels, etc. If you have enough spells to do this, you likely won't have much for actual encounters with baddies.

Either make it on the spot, or use Lesser Planar Binding to snag some demons or elementals to do the heavy lifting for you. You don't need to go adventuring on the same days that you call your latest pack of servants.


Thirdly, a villain who finds out about this might just unleash a wave of Rust Monsters at you.

I can always make more iron, and rust monsters arn't hard to splatter across the walls.


Alternatively, dragons may hear about how infinite wealth can be gained from some wizard schmuck who keeps creating iron, and command they just make it all of them. Dragons like money, you know.

Dragons attacking me in my lair instead of the other way around? Yay XP!


Also, even if you are successful in selling as much iron as you want, the economic ripple would be feld worldwide. Everyone will start getting iron from "that guy", and then you might have to deal with less-than-friendly governments.


Assuming that real world economics work, yes. Even then, what's a goverment going to do about a teleporting iron supplier? Raise taxes?



Or villains might say, "Hey, not a bad idea. Let's do that too."


Ooh, a plot hook! Got to take out the competition!

Of course, I would never use this trick, since it's too reality bending even for me.




This! What's so fun about this? What's the draw in basically sticking your tongue out at the DM and saying, "Can't you do better than that?"

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it is: "This was supposed to annoy the whole party and I just soloed it with a single spell. I am awesome!"

I had a player who fried an encounter I made with one spell. I applauded, because handling that many low CR creatures gets annoying to handle.


I hope to all the gods that you are being sarcastic. If not... I weep for your DM. It's not like DM's aren't people too, they get to have fun. :smalltongue:

As a GM, the fun you should be having is enjoying watching your players have fun.


Many optimizers have a mindset along the lines of what's expressed in that post -- they're not actually interested in power, specifically. Instead, they're interested in making a mechanically interesting build -- which, to them, often means one with a wide variety of options, many different things it can do, and so on.

QFT.

Of course, options = power, just like greater force = power.


There's a difference between survivable and this...

Really? My wizard survived much better than the rogue or the warlock or the fighter, and I had to save the day with a frickin' quarterstaff! Stength 8, poor BAB, and 2 hitpoints and I kept the ogre from offing the rest of the party. I'd hate to see what would have happened if that encounter I one-shotted had actually gotten to do something.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

I finally figured out that my biggest problem with optimizing is that the system isn't built for it. You know how trading card games have banned lists? Magic, for example. The reason is because two cards, printed a long time from each other, cause a completely broken combo, or some such similar thing.

You get the same deal with all of the options available to a character. Each new splatbook adds another layer of complexity, and increases the chance that something gamebreaking happens. Not to mention the fact that the level of rules already in existence is huge.

So what eventually happens is that an optimizer engages in one-on-one combat with the DM, striving to find what the DM cannot, and striving to outwit the DM on every turn. Something about that strikes me as wrong.

I'd prefer to make a competent character who takes his own role in the party, and who can do interesting stuff. That's probably one of the reasons I like 4E, because it lets you build a strong character rather easily, whilst still doing cool stuff. Optimization is unneeded.

[Myatar_Panwar]

I suppose that's one way of looking at it. Another way to look at it is: "This was supposed to annoy the whole party and I just soloed it with a single spell. I am awesome!"

Yes, and I'm sure that all of the other party members are just as giddy that this character got to destroy an entire encounter where they might have been able to show off their character a little. So giddy!

[Starsinger]

Yes, and I'm sure that all of the other party members are just as giddy that this character got to destroy an entire encounter where they might have been able to show off their character a little. So giddy!

Don't be silly there is no "U" in "My Glory" :smalltongue:

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I enjoy doing the things I'm good at, and I tend to dislike and avoid doing things I'm not good at. Likewise, when I'm playing a character I have more fun when that character is doing something he's good at. Therefore, I have more fun when I'm playing an optimized character than when I'm playing an unoptimized or mediocre character. Plus characters who are highly capable feel more heroic than characters with few capabilities.

A lot of people see optimization as making a character who's "the best" at one particular thing, completely disregarding every other aspect of the game to do so. That type of optimization is really just an exercise in mechanics and numbers, rarely producing anything even remotely playable. Playable optimization is about making a character who's exceptional in his chosen role, while maintaining capabilities which are versatile enough that he's rarely in a situation that he's powerless to get himself out of. This maximizes the amount of fun you can have performing your intended role, while minimizing the amount of time spent not having fun while you sit powerless waiting on another character to rescue you. It's also very satisfying to hear someone else at the table go, "Wow, that was awesome!" when you completely destroy an entire encounter with a single spell/trick.

One thing to keep in mind is that anything a PC can do, the DM can do better. PCs use so many buffs that nothing's a challenge, DM gives the monsters buffs, PCs dispel the monsters' buffs, so the DM gives the monsters a 3/day Dispel Magic spell-like ability with Quicken Spell-Like Ability as a racial bonus feat, or puts Dispelling Screen in every doorway, and now nobody has any buffs. PCs using Shivering Touch to take down everything? DM throws opponents who have Shivering Touch and better initiative. Regardless of what tricks the PCs pull, the DM can pull the same tricks only without the standard level and wealth restrictions. Game-winning combos are banned in CCGs because everyone's on an even field, but in D&D the DM's monsters/villains can do anything the PCs can do twice, and there's no limit to how many of them you'll face.

Optimization and exploitation are two completely different things. Selling Walls of Iron, Gating in a creature capable of casting Gate, summoning a Djinni to use Major Creation to make twenty cubic feet of Saffron, etc. are exploits. Creating a character with such a high Profession check that he can make more money from a week's honest work than if he were dungeon crawling is optimization, though it sort of defeats the purpose. Optimizing is about creating a character who is good at stuff, not creating a character who "wins" or can "beat the DM".

On handicapped characters:
A party of adventurers need to recruit an arcane spellcaster to fill out their group. One applicant is Gruntha, a Half-Orc Wizard with Int 14, three levels in Half-Orc Paragon, and Weapon Focus: Orc Double-Axe. Her Dex is too low for Two-Weapon Fighting, but she wields it anyway because it was her father's father's and a legacy of her half-breed people or somesuch and she's sunk all her starting wealth into enchanting it. She only casts spells when her opponents are too far away to swing it at, and she's anxious to wade into melee despite her abysmally low AC and HP. This heiress has always been fascinated by magic and worked hard to learn to wield it. She also happens to be the best role-played character in the entire game setting.

Another applicant is Nick, a Grey Elf Wizard/PrC/PrC, exceptional spell DCs, lots of spells/day, good feats, and all the right Batman spells. He has very little personality and is utterly lacking in dialogue, but always knows what to do in every situation.

The party of adventurers risks life and limb on a daily basis, depending on each other to contribute to the group's success. Whoever they decide to recruit will be relied upon to carry their weight and further the party's goals. Which of those two applicants would be more desirable in-character? For that reason, characters who are intentionally gimped for RP reasons would probably want to become adventurers, but would either retire early or (repeatedly) end up dead. Out of character, I'd rather play with a good, capable player who's to the point and doesn't bog down the game with personal sub-plots, than with a drama queen who constantly hogs the spotlight and expects the rest of the party to carry along a mechanically worthless character.
My favorite character:
My all-time favorite character is a LE mercenary type, loyal to his contracts and true to his word, but not unwilling to take even the dirtiest jobs. The build goes Human Hexblade 3/ Sorcerer 2/ Talon of Tiamat 5/ Spellsword 1/ Talon of Tiamat 5/ Spellsword 4. Use Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Dragonthrall, Practiced Spellcaster, Maximize Breath, Clinging Breath, Arcane Strike, and whatever else seems appropriate. The weapon of choice is a +1 Spell Storing Glaive containing a Maximized Vampiric Touch via a Lesser Metamagic Rod. Other spells of choice include Shield, Wraithstrike, Whirling Blade, AoEs that neutralize multiple opponents such as Web, and anything that can get the character out of difficult noncombat situations such as Alter Self. The character is a capable second-rank warrior superb at melee damage, a good secondary spellcaster, capable of nuking down an encounter with a Maximized Clinging breath attack (Cone of Acid deals 60/30/15/7 damage over 4 rounds), great with social skill checks, and rarely finds himself in a situation he can't handle. This is no better at one thing than any other character, but good enough at enough different things that I always have fun playing it.
A "That was awesome!" story:
A while back I was playing through Baldur's Gate 2 again. I always have at least 2-3 mages in the party and they each always have a Spell Sequencer set up with three Flame Arrow spells. Just one of those is usually enough to one-shot a single powerful foe as long as they don't have magic resistance, such as a standard Beholder. An oldschool gamer friend of mine who'd really been into 2e happened to stop by right when I was in Suldanessellar walking into the dragon fight. He knew the game as soon as he saw the screen, and he knew that dragons in that game were serious business.

"Watch this, I'm about to one-shot this dragon."
(sarcastically) "Ok, sure."

I had the refresh rate turned way up, which makes the game play faster but triggered events feel delayed because they go at the normal speed. My characters ran in and I managed to pause the game after the dragon appeared but before its dialogue started. I selected each of my three mages and targeted their readied spell sequencer on it. I unpaused the game and there was a great roar as nine Flame Arrow spells went off, stopping in the air as the dialogue began. I clicked through the worthless banter and finally the End Dialogue button. The dragon immediately dropped to the ground, a charred cinder of its former glory, a perfect little stack of loot resting atop its smoldering corpse.

My friend stood in awe for a moment before exclaiming my greatness and demanding to know how I did it. Downing the opponent so easily wasn't very satisfying by itself (I was actually surprised it worked), but impressing that particular friend in that particular way was one of the greatest moments in my gaming career.

[Arcane_Snowman]

4) Thank you for not understanding Sample size, you have proved that Denmarkian D&D players that you have gamed with have a certain opinion, the fact that 90% of this forum disagrees with you should prove that is not a sample of anything. It's Danish, and before you ask: yes, it is like the pastry.

[only1doug]

I like to optomise, I'm viewed as one of the major optomisers of our group.

I have optomised my character in the group.

I'm playing a Gish (fighter/caster)

Feats wise he's got about the same as a fallen paladin (ie: no fighter bonus feats)

Attack wise he hits about as often as a rogue (ie: not as good as a fighter)

magic wise he's 6 levels behind a pure wizard in casting power. (casting is mainly used for self buffs or group buffs)

The character being optomised means that a unusual concept can be useful in the group instead of being a burden to the group.

[Tokiko Mima]

There's a difference between survivable and this...

Well, one could certainly argue that the ultimate in survival is identifying and slaying your opponents instantly before they have a moment to attack or even marginally inconvenience you. It's at the very top of a sliding scale of how much survivability you want to attain. :smallwink:

Seriously, I played an optimized character in a campaign recently. The DM didn't tell me much about the game beforehand except that one of the players was an awesomely powerful wizard. So I rolled up a character that I felt was on par with a well played wizard... only to discover that the wizard in question was an evoker, who really only loved blasting spells, and never used battlefield controls at all. So my warlock ended up being a little too strong, compared to all the other characters who were weaker than the wizard.

It's really, really tough to hold back with abilities you know could destroy most encounters instantly, especially when the DM ensures those encounters have a CR less than the ECL of the party. Not spoiling things for everyone meant a lot of intentionally sidelining myself, jealousy from less optimized players, and anger when the party got itself into trouble and the warlock had to tap even an ounce of his full potential to save everyone when they got themselves in trouble. Which happened quite frequently, sadly.

What I learned from the experience is that everyone should be on the same level of optimization, be that low or high, or D&D doesn't really work. I did enjoy the experience saving everyone, but after the first few times it began to feel almost like I was picking up their messes for them, plus they resent you for it. So kind of like a parent cleaning up a teenagers room, I guess!

[Stephen_E]

A lot of people see optimization as making a character who's "the best" at one particular thing, completely disregarding every other aspect of the game to do so. That type of optimization is really just an exercise in mechanics and numbers, rarely producing anything even remotely playable. Playable optimization is about making a character who's exceptional in his chosen role, while maintaining capabilities which are versatile enough that he's rarely in a situation that he's powerless to get himself out of. This maximizes the amount of fun you can have performing your intended role, while minimizing the amount of time spent not having fun while you sit powerless waiting on another character to rescue you. It's also very satisfying to hear someone else at the table go, "Wow, that was awesome!" when you completely destroy an entire encounter with a single spell/trick.
[/spoiler]

You remind me of the other optimiser in one of my gaming groups. He also likes to have no weaknesses AND be exceptional in his chosen role. Me, I prefer taking my chosen role and maximising it to the tee while deliberately leaving at least one glaring weakness that must be covered by others in the party. My impression is that the other players generally prefer my PC over the other optimiser. I think they find it less offensive that while someone is amazingly good at something if they also know the person NEEDS the other PCs for other stuff. The PC with no weaknesses AND really good at stuff gets a bit annoying to non-optimisers.

I guess it's it a matter how you see adventuring parties, an interlocking mutually dependant/supportive group of abilities whose total is greater than the sum of their parts, or a collection of freestanding individuals whose total is equal to or less than the sum of their parts.

Stephen E

[Zen Master]

1) Really, you personally have gamed with more people then I can imagine, so without knowing my age, or the people I've met in life, much less what I can imagine, you have determined that you have gamed more.

2) This is a direct contradiction to your previous complaints about the one bad player you've ever had.

3) Why would I agree to stop doing something I enjoy, so that you'll stop doing something I enjoy. That's sound very unlike me. Perhaps if you are incapable of handling disagreement running away is a better response then bargaining.

4) Thank you for not understanding Sample size, you have proved that Denmarkian D&D players that you have gamed with have a certain opinion, the fact that 90% of this forum disagrees with you should prove that is not a sample of anything.

1) I did not. But here's what - you can give me your best guess of how many people I've had opportunity to game with in 20 years, and I'll make a more informed estimate of your imagination.

2) No, it isn't. I just didn't mention him this time around, because you - of all people - asked me not to repeat myself 'as if it really means something'. Also, he wasn't any bad player - just someone who'd be better off with playing with someone else. That he hasn't been able to find. In a couple of years.

3) I'd not go so far as to say I enjoy this. It is pointless and futily - for you as well as for me. Unlike you, I do not delude myself into some sense of winning - I guess thats the difference between us. But at any rate, I suggested we keep out of each others hair, because this has to be far, far more boring and pointless to all the rest of the users of the board.

4) Sample size? Hell if I know, I'm educated in business, not statistics, but the word works in danish, and I'm sure you understood my meaning. Carry on.

[Blood_Lord]

1) I did not. But here's what - you can give me your best guess of how many people I've had opportunity to game with in 20 years, and I'll make a more informed estimate of your imagination.

2) No, it isn't. I just didn't mention him this time around, because you - of all people - asked me not to repeat myself 'as if it really means something'. Also, he wasn't any bad player - just someone who'd be better off with playing with someone else. That he hasn't been able to find. In a couple of years.

3) I'd not go so far as to say I enjoy this. It is pointless and futily - for you as well as for me. Unlike you, I do not delude myself into some sense of winning - I guess thats the difference between us. But at any rate, I suggested we keep out of each others hair, because this has to be far, far more boring and pointless to all the rest of the users of the board.

4) Sample size? Hell if I know, I'm educated in business, not statistics, but the word works in danish, and I'm sure you understood my meaning. Carry on.

1) I don't really care about how many people you have gamed with. I honestly don't even know how many people I have gamed with. But unless your answer is "Everyone you've ever met." it still has no bearing on me.

2) Your statement that no one ever disagrees with you is a contradiction of your statement that someone disagreed with you.

3) You should really stop pretending you know what I think. You are really bad at it. I have no sense of winning. I have a sense of enjoying what I do, if I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't do it.

4) Language barrier aside, the point is that playing with a bunch of Danes doesn't prove your way is superior, which is what you erroneously claimed.

[arguskos]

As a GM, the fun you should be having is enjoying watching your players have fun.
This is partially true. However, GM's should get to enjoy themselves in other ways (good moments of RP, fun combat routines, tricking the players, watching your hardwork pay off for everyone), and something about a player just go "poof! We win." all the time isn't fun from the other side of the screen. Sure, it's great that he's having fun, it really is. But if the GM isn't enjoying himself, something has gone wrong. The GM isn't the player's slave. :smalltongue:

Just my thought anyways, goodness knows I'm not a great GM, but I haven't had any major complaints yet, so I must be doing something right. :smallbiggrin:

[Stephen_E]

Something that has struck me from this and my Party Optimisation thread is the huge difference between optimising a single PC and optimising a party (where all the PC are fun/useful to play).

Paths that are consider sub-optimal from normal "Optimal" builds can become quite optimal depending on exactly what their primary and secondary functions in the party are.

Stephen E

[Eloel]

Something that has struck me from this and my Party Optimisation thread is the huge difference between optimising a single PC and optimising a party (where all the PC are fun/useful to play).

Paths that are consider sub-optimal from normal "Optimal" builds can become quite optimal depending on exactly what their primary and secondary functions in the party are.

Stephen E

QFT
6 Chargers may take an army of enemies down in 1-2 rounds. A single trap is all that is needed to take them down.

[Zen Master]

2) Your statement that no one ever disagrees with you is a contradiction of your statement that someone disagreed with you.

4) Language barrier aside, the point is that playing with a bunch of Danes doesn't prove your way is superior, which is what you erroneously claimed.

I'm going to count one guy in twenty years as a random blip on the probability curve, and disregard it. You can assign all the importance to it you like, and keep bringing it up like it is somehow significant - have a ball.

I have never claimed that my way of playing is better. I don't think it is. But I maintain that I do not see the appeal in the way you like to play. I wont invite you to explain it, because I've seen your answers, and you move on and on down a road I cannot follow.

If I'm reading your statements in this thread correctly, you can only feel powerful if your one-shotting encounters you know are above what you should be able to at your level. You can only have fun if you can break the system. Well - fine. No appeal to me, but there you go.

Oh - and of course now you'll come again with how little of what you say I seem capable of understanding. Which is just another round of how futile discussion with you is. You are here to make statements. Well - go on the podium all you like, but I think the audience has already gone home. To wash hair, or do laundry.

[Blood_Lord]

If I'm reading your statements in this thread correctly, you can only feel powerful if your one-shotting encounters you know are above what you should be able to at your level. You can only have fun if you can break the system.

And you are very much not reading my statements correctly. I do not think it is even possible to obtain that opinion from what I actually wrote.

[mikej]

Something that has struck me from this and my Party Optimisation thread is the huge difference between optimising a single PC and optimising a party (where all the PC are fun/useful to play).

Paths that are consider sub-optimal from normal "Optimal" builds can become quite optimal depending on exactly what their primary and secondary functions in the party are.

Stephen E

Problem is ( and I'm dealing with this IRL ) is that not everyone wants to optimize. One PC will play some really underpowered/poorly designed character ( CW Samurai/Pyrokineticist ) while another will write up a decent Cleric. The player of the badly designed character will get frustrated at the better players character even though the decent player ( aka Cleric ) choose wisely and thought his character through ( hmm a lot of things have fire resistance/immunity ).

Aside from the people that play just for fun and roleplaying, in my experience I have only dealt with two types of people. In my opinion and general understanding, I respect the people that optimize. In a world filled with stuff that wants to kill you just for the fun or dinner, its not unrealistic to believe in a character that trys to become the " best ". Now in my group there is the player[s] that want to be the " best " but hardly put forth the afford ( either minor/major ) aside from " I want this uber X " and are the first to call another player broken. In general I find these players to be worse then the descriptions of the bad optimizers since mine ( optimizer ) are mature enough to do it once for show and never again out of respect. A good example is this famous argument with my fellow player who was playing a CW Samurai/Pyrokineticis ( DM allowed it for some off reason even though he never made the prereqs ) after I was irritated after him " criting constructs " debate.

PC/CW Samurai/Pyrokineticist: " I set the umber hulks 50ft away from me on fire. "
Me: " Okay, this is a cave filled with sand. They'll roll on the ground to put out the flames. "
PC: " Noo !!!, they'll continue to move forward and to take fire damage each round "
Me: " There 50ft away, aside from the fire assualt your not a immediate threat, soo there going to put out the fire since it harms them. "
PC: " Nooo, there dumb bugs there going to take it "
Me: " They have Int10, they're just the same intelligent as your character... "
litterally...not joking this was a 30 minute debate.

[The_JJ]

Long quote:

I enjoy doing the things I'm good at, and I tend to dislike and avoid doing things I'm not good at. Likewise, when I'm playing a character I have more fun when that character is doing something he's good at. Therefore, I have more fun when I'm playing an optimized character than when I'm playing an unoptimized or mediocre character. Plus characters who are highly capable feel more heroic than characters with few capabilities.

A lot of people see optimization as making a character who's "the best" at one particular thing, completely disregarding every other aspect of the game to do so. That type of optimization is really just an exercise in mechanics and numbers, rarely producing anything even remotely playable. Playable optimization is about making a character who's exceptional in his chosen role, while maintaining capabilities which are versatile enough that he's rarely in a situation that he's powerless to get himself out of. This maximizes the amount of fun you can have performing your intended role, while minimizing the amount of time spent not having fun while you sit powerless waiting on another character to rescue you. It's also very satisfying to hear someone else at the table go, "Wow, that was awesome!" when you completely destroy an entire encounter with a single spell/trick.

One thing to keep in mind is that anything a PC can do, the DM can do better. PCs use so many buffs that nothing's a challenge, DM gives the monsters buffs, PCs dispel the monsters' buffs, so the DM gives the monsters a 3/day Dispel Magic spell-like ability with Quicken Spell-Like Ability as a racial bonus feat, or puts Dispelling Screen in every doorway, and now nobody has any buffs. PCs using Shivering Touch to take down everything? DM throws opponents who have Shivering Touch and better initiative. Regardless of what tricks the PCs pull, the DM can pull the same tricks only without the standard level and wealth restrictions. Game-winning combos are banned in CCGs because everyone's on an even field, but in D&D the DM's monsters/villains can do anything the PCs can do twice, and there's no limit to how many of them you'll face.

Optimization and exploitation are two completely different things. Selling Walls of Iron, Gating in a creature capable of casting Gate, summoning a Djinni to use Major Creation to make twenty cubic feet of Saffron, etc. are exploits. Creating a character with such a high Profession check that he can make more money from a week's honest work than if he were dungeon crawling is optimization, though it sort of defeats the purpose. Optimizing is about creating a character who is good at stuff, not creating a character who "wins" or can "beat the DM".

On handicapped characters:
A party of adventurers need to recruit an arcane spellcaster to fill out their group. One applicant is Gruntha, a Half-Orc Wizard with Int 14, three levels in Half-Orc Paragon, and Weapon Focus: Orc Double-Axe. Her Dex is too low for Two-Weapon Fighting, but she wields it anyway because it was her father's father's and a legacy of her half-breed people or somesuch and she's sunk all her starting wealth into enchanting it. She only casts spells when her opponents are too far away to swing it at, and she's anxious to wade into melee despite her abysmally low AC and HP. This heiress has always been fascinated by magic and worked hard to learn to wield it. She also happens to be the best role-played character in the entire game setting.

Another applicant is Nick, a Grey Elf Wizard/PrC/PrC, exceptional spell DCs, lots of spells/day, good feats, and all the right Batman spells. He has very little personality and is utterly lacking in dialogue, but always knows what to do in every situation.

The party of adventurers risks life and limb on a daily basis, depending on each other to contribute to the group's success. Whoever they decide to recruit will be relied upon to carry their weight and further the party's goals. Which of those two applicants would be more desirable in-character? For that reason, characters who are intentionally gimped for RP reasons would probably want to become adventurers, but would either retire early or (repeatedly) end up dead. Out of character, I'd rather play with a good, capable player who's to the point and doesn't bog down the game with personal sub-plots, than with a drama queen who constantly hogs the spotlight and expects the rest of the party to carry along a mechanically worthless character.
My favorite character:
My all-time favorite character is a LE mercenary type, loyal to his contracts and true to his word, but not unwilling to take even the dirtiest jobs. The build goes Human Hexblade 3/ Sorcerer 2/ Talon of Tiamat 5/ Spellsword 1/ Talon of Tiamat 5/ Spellsword 4. Use Power Attack, Combat Reflexes, Dragonthrall, Practiced Spellcaster, Maximize Breath, Clinging Breath, Arcane Strike, and whatever else seems appropriate. The weapon of choice is a +1 Spell Storing Glaive containing a Maximized Vampiric Touch via a Lesser Metamagic Rod. Other spells of choice include Shield, Wraithstrike, Whirling Blade, AoEs that neutralize multiple opponents such as Web, and anything that can get the character out of difficult noncombat situations such as Alter Self. The character is a capable second-rank warrior superb at melee damage, a good secondary spellcaster, capable of nuking down an encounter with a Maximized Clinging breath attack (Cone of Acid deals 60/30/15/7 damage over 4 rounds), great with social skill checks, and rarely finds himself in a situation he can't handle. This is no better at one thing than any other character, but good enough at enough different things that I always have fun playing it.
A "That was awesome!" story:
A while back I was playing through Baldur's Gate 2 again. I always have at least 2-3 mages in the party and they each always have a Spell Sequencer set up with three Flame Arrow spells. Just one of those is usually enough to one-shot a single powerful foe as long as they don't have magic resistance, such as a standard Beholder. An oldschool gamer friend of mine who'd really been into 2e happened to stop by right when I was in Suldanessellar walking into the dragon fight. He knew the game as soon as he saw the screen, and he knew that dragons in that game were serious business.

"Watch this, I'm about to one-shot this dragon."
(sarcastically) "Ok, sure."

I had the refresh rate turned way up, which makes the game play faster but triggered events feel delayed because they go at the normal speed. My characters ran in and I managed to pause the game after the dragon appeared but before its dialogue started. I selected each of my three mages and targeted their readied spell sequencer on it. I unpaused the game and there was a great roar as nine Flame Arrow spells went off, stopping in the air as the dialogue began. I clicked through the worthless banter and finally the End Dialogue button. The dragon immediately dropped to the ground, a charred cinder of its former glory, a perfect little stack of loot resting atop its smoldering corpse.

My friend stood in awe for a moment before exclaiming my greatness and demanding to know how I did it. Downing the opponent so easily wasn't very satisfying by itself (I was actually surprised it worked), but impressing that particular friend in that particular way was one of the greatest moments in my gaming career.



OKay, long quote.

Sue me.

@Fax and the other bewildered optimizers: This is also where I disagree with the optimizers. It's the perfect example, in fact.

For one, I don't actually dislike the poster, nor do I view his views as blasphemy or whatever. I quite liked what he had to say, in fact.

But the mentality is insidius.

We get to the spoilers before he calls the "best roleplayer in the setting" a "drama queen," and dismissing it because it can't pull weight. (But to me, pulling weight is decent RP...) We see the endless list of feats weapons, spells, Pr. class what have you. (Which I don't have because all that doesn't matter to the *ahem* core gameplay. :smallwink: Oh, and it's ungodly expensive...)

And then the "that was awesome story"
Err... a computer glitch lets you pause before... *sigh* before "the worthless banter" and so one shot an enemy, and thus earn the admiration of another for thy prowess.

It's just not me, not how I play, not why I play. Biffoniacus seems like the kind of person I'd like in RL, and I like that his arguments were intelligent. *glances at some of the other posters in this thread...* But I don't think I'd ever like to actually play with him, y'know?

And there are people more extreme than I am, just as there are people more extreme than Biff.

And that is the anti-optimizer thought process summed up.

[Blood_Lord]

Err... a computer glitch lets you pause before... *sigh* before "the worthless banter" and so one shot an enemy, and thus earn the admiration of another for thy prowess.

Um, just a minor correction, There is no computer glitch here. All he did with the Computer was make it so that spells actually have visual effects (it's an old game, sometimes if you don't fix it, you'll cast the spell, the creature will take damage, and then the actual character on the screen will cast the spell after the creature is dead and fire an arrow at it.)

Personally, the worthless banter comment upsets me a bit, and I'm the most unabashed min maxxer in this thread. Though it might be specific to the dragon.

The Shadow Dragon is stupid and boring, but some of the Reds are really cool, and BG II in general has good dialogue.

[The_JJ]

Eh. Sounded to me like he was doing something that slowed something down, and incidentally that this let him pause between scripted events.

Doesn't really matter, it's just an example of near incompatable playstyle mentalities.

[only1doug]

We get to the spoilers before he calls the "best roleplayer in the setting" a "drama queen," and dismissing it because it can't pull weight. (But to me, pulling weight is decent RP...)

I don't know that I'd be all that sympathetic about another player wanting all the spotlight time, whether their justification is optimisation or roleplay, either way they have to be willing to share the spotlight with other players.

Unable to pull weight... I could live with that, but maybe thats why the player wanted the spotlight time, because they just weren't viable in combat situations.

[Zen Master]

And you are very much not reading my statements correctly. I do not think it is even possible to obtain that opinion from what I actually wrote.

Well - lets see. You said this:


I think feeling like your character is powerful or matters or is awesome is why it's good. No one cares about how the DM feels, we are selfish and care about our own feelings. And we like feeling cool.

In support of this:


To get back on topic, I'd have to say that I powergame (yes, I go for all I can get) because I like the rush that comes when what you made performs like it was supposed to. There's just something about dropping an entire encounter with a single spell that doesn't ever seem to get old.

So yea - where did I get a crazy idea like that. You're right, forget all about it.

[lisiecki]

Personally, as someone who has dabbled with a bit of LARPing, it can be more of a problem there than in tabletops, where groups are mostly small and amongst friends, so it's easy to adapt/overlook/avoid problems. In bigger LARPs, you have to deal with these strangers you don't know who keep beating the everlovin' crud out of you because you want to show some regard for the RP.Hence the venom. Bad optimisers (as in, evil aligned, not incompetent :smallbiggrin:) can really wreck your day. That's the origin of my anti-optomized streak, anyway.

So very true.
The thing that drives me in sane about optimizers in WW larps is, well for one thing there is a website giving the exact break down of the stats you SHOULD have at 0 points of XP.

The moment i loved THE MOST was with two characters one was a noob one character had composure 7 (human composure maxes out at 5) This noob said something annoying and was killed by composure 7 guy, who freely admitted that that stat was there so he could better withstand mental attacks

Also

I have made it clear (i think) on these boards that I DM for for my kind of fun, and that's a very slapstick, high fantasy, type game.
The ONE Time i had an optimizer in game, they made an uber sneak attacker, and would bring the game to a halt trying to get his PC in to position to sneak attack, while bringing up the SRD, so he could show he WAS flanking and could do a billionDabillion damage. While i tried to explain to him that i really didn't care what the SRD said, i was using the rules that are in the book i spent $35 on.


So Flux, i would say that my problem with optimizers is that
A) in my experience they tend to have character sheets that have nothing to do with there characters
and
B) they bring the game to a dead halt so they can properly exploit the rules.

[The_JJ]

I don't know that I'd be all that sympathetic about another player wanting all the spotlight time, whether their justification is optimisation or roleplay, either way they have to be willing to share the spotlight with other players.

Unable to pull weight... I could live with that, but maybe thats why the player wanted the spotlight time, because they just weren't viable in combat situations.

Point. But people who hog the spotlight by dropping a whole encounter in one go annoys me just as much. But the consolation (tiny that it is) with a good RPer (not someone who thinks they're good. At least in powergaming there is a verifiable measure of success.) it's more entertaining than the number jockeys.

The best method here is to raise yourself up to the spotlight level. With RP, I think you can get too good (and one measure of good ought to be plays well with others). With powergaming, the dedicated, those who buy the source books, win out. Those who care about a setting and RP more can get thrown under the bus of an escalating arms race.

[only1doug]

Point. But people who hog the spotlight by dropping a whole encounter in one go annoys me just as much.

As I originally said, I'm not impressed by spotlight hogging regardless of source, which specifically included optimisation.


But the consolation (tiny that it is) with a good RPer (not someone who thinks they're good. At least in powergaming there is a verifiable measure of success.) it's more entertaining than the number jockeys.
I have had entertainment from both RP and (well executed) Powergaming. (powergaming should never delay the game, except where the group need to recover from laughing to hard (see further comments on this subject later in this post))


The best method here is to raise yourself up to the spotlight level. With RP, I think you can get too good (and one measure of good ought to be plays well with others).

The best thing about good roleplaying is that encourages more of the same from the other players.


With powergaming, the dedicated, those who buy the source books, win out. Those who care about a setting and RP more can get thrown under the bus of an escalating arms race.

this only works if the GM lets it. The group I play with the GM wants to know how the characters work before play starts and he'll ban obvious cheese. If someone tried to sneak a special in mid combat and the GM doesn't understand how it works then it simply doesn't work, no argument (as you should of explained it to him long before trying to use it).
In our group all rulebooks are communal when it comes to making new characters and everyone is happy to help optomise each others characters.

The true arms race is in the fact that if the players become overpowered the monsters get stronger, if someone pulls off a one move kill on the BBEG then the BBEG's bigger brother steps out from behind the curtain and single move kills that PC. (well not really but that tactic will get hit with the nerf bat and if the player continues to take similar tactics then he may earn the GM's attention)

[The_JJ]

Hey, if it works for you, go with it.

In fact, that seems okay, perfectly fun, whatever, but what you describe is hardly powergaming commpared to some things I've seen. As I said in an earlier post, most groups will never have a problem with all this crap, whether by inherent compatabilities, communal helpingness, self regulation, and good DM's. But there are crazy people out there! And they're out to get me!

And arms races with the DM really screw the lazy bastards like me who can't be bothered to catch up over. It's not fun, trust me. And sometimes the response I get is "See, powergaming makes it more fun!" :smallannoyed::smallconfused::smallmad:


:smallamused:

[Kyeudo]

I'd prefer to make a competent character who takes his own role in the party, and who can do interesting stuff.

In other words, you like to optimize, but not to extremes.


Yes, and I'm sure that all of the other party members are just as giddy that this character got to destroy an entire encounter where they might have been able to show off their character a little. So giddy!

Yes, they were glad they didn't have to kill the swarm of stirges themselves. Those things are annoying, like demon mosquitos.


This is partially true. However, GM's should get to enjoy themselves in other ways (good moments of RP, fun combat routines, tricking the players, watching your hardwork pay off for everyone), and something about a player just go "poof! We win." all the time isn't fun from the other side of the screen. Sure, it's great that he's having fun, it really is. But if the GM isn't enjoying himself, something has gone wrong. The GM isn't the player's slave. :smalltongue:


Those great moments of RP, those fun combat routines, tricking the players, and whatnot are all the ways you make the game fun for your players. :smallamused:

If I have a player who has a "poof! We win" combo, I can always figure out how to counter it, usually with very little effort. Knowing how to optimize lets you know just exactly where a build is at its weakest.

[Aquillion]

So yea - where did I get a crazy idea like that. You're right, forget all about it.
This:

To get back on topic, I'd have to say that I powergame (yes, I go for all I can get) because I like the rush that comes when what you made performs like it was supposed to. There's just something about dropping an entire encounter with a single spell that doesn't ever seem to get old.
Is not the same as this:

If I'm reading your statements in this thread correctly, you can only feel powerful if your one-shotting encounters you know are above what you should be able to at your level. You can only have fun if you can break the system.
You caricatured his statement. Enjoying wiping out a bunch of mooks easily now and then is not the same thing as "one-shotting encounters you know are above what you should be able to at your level"; everything after the word 'encounters' you completely made up yourself, simply to express your contempt more clearly. Likewise, there is nothing that says that one-shotting an encounter with a bunch of mooks is 'breaking the system' -- many DMs will throw such groups at the players deliberately to waste their resources or just to establish the setting, with the real enemies coming later. A group of level 15 players is massively more powerful than, say, the average goblins guarding the outside of a goblin encampment, or the typical small-town city guard. It is fine for the DM to sometimes have one-sided encounters that represent this; that can make the thrill of encountering an enemy that actually challenges them even greater.

Nobody seriously enjoys an endless series of winning every fight instantly with no conflict. But for some players it can be fun to do it every now and then, especially if the DM accommodates their playing style with occasional bands of mooks.

And... I suspect that Blood_Lord was agreeing mainly with this part:
To get back on topic, I'd have to say that I powergame (yes, I go for all I can get) because I like the rush that comes when what you made performs like it was supposed to.Most people who optimize do it, primarily, because they enjoy the process of optimization itself, the thrill of building something highly effective and seeing it in action. If they didn't enjoy it they wouldn't do it. Many of them are people who enjoy things like computer programming or logic puzzles for the same reason. If you ask them, most optimizers will be perfectly happy to help other people optimize, too -- the number of threads here on the topic speaks to that. It isn't just about being powerful themselves, but about creating powerful builds period.

[arguskos]

Those great moments of RP, those fun combat routines, tricking the players, and whatnot are all the ways you make the game fun for your players. :smallamused:

If I have a player who has a "poof! We win" combo, I can always figure out how to counter it, usually with very little effort. Knowing how to optimize lets you know just exactly where a build is at its weakest.
True enough. I just take enjoyment from the planning part of D&D for the most part. I love being the "man behind the curtain" more than the "major domo". I mean, they're both fun, I just like one more than the other, and you like the latter over the former. As long as we're both having fun, we're doin' it right! :smallcool:

[Mushroom Ninja]

Why powergame?

Simple. It's fun.

In D&D (especially 3.x), there is a huge multitude of options when designing the mechanical side of a character. For me, it's hard to resist combining and tinkering with these options in order to create a "stronger" character.

Just as a mechanic might tinker with a car's engine for hours to make it run the way he/she wants it to, I like tinkering with Classes/Feats/PrCs in order to make a character run the way I want it to. I don't see anything wrong with this.

[Saph]

As a GM, the fun you should be having is enjoying watching your players have fun.

GMs don't exist purely to serve the players, you know. Sure, I'll try and make sure the players have fun, but I want to have fun too.

And optimisers do make such tempting targets . . .

- Saph

[Deepblue706]

On Wall of Iron:




True. Every town does have its GP limit. Which is why you move towns once they stop buying. Teleport is cheap. Fabricate also speeds up the money making process by allowing you to convert iron into greatswords and sell if for fifty times the price of ordinary iron.


And there also needs to be a demand for material. Towns do not necessarily buy up to their GP limit.



Either make it on the spot, or use Lesser Planar Binding to snag some demons or elementals to do the heavy lifting for you. You don't need to go adventuring on the same days that you call your latest pack of servants.


Your party may be upset about their only wizardly friend spending all of his time trying to see his mad money-making schemes come to fruition. And, it does not mean trouble might not find you.



I can always make more iron, and rust monsters arn't hard to splatter across the walls.





Dragons attacking me in my lair instead of the other way around? Yay XP!





Assuming that real world economics work, yes. Even then, what's a goverment going to do about a teleporting iron supplier? Raise taxes?




Ooh, a plot hook! Got to take out the competition!

Of course, I would never use this trick, since it's too reality bending even for me.

Even though you can deal with all of these hindrances individually, eventually there would be so much involved with the Wall of Iron that the campaign would effectively be about maintaining your ability to trade the materials. You might balk at doing it because it's reality bending; I would refuse to do it because I wouldn't want the game to become centered around something so lame. If I were DMing and a player tried this, however, I would put these pressures and more on the PCs until they agreed to either ditch their caster, or convinced him to give up his mad obsessions; as in-game events would show the endeavor to be too difficult to proceed with.

[Zen Master]

... simply to express your contempt more clearly.

While I dislike Bloodlord - I have no contempt of neither him nor his playstyle. I have said before, and I will say again: I fail entirely to see how it's fun. But that's all. It does not appeal to me - I'd rather play the way that I do. And when I try to bend my mind around what part of it can be fun, I see only competition (which I enjoy tremendously in other contexts) and the 'beating/breaking the system' thing, which I see as both futile and pointless.

I mean - for the love of god, it's a few numbers on paper. Anyone can beat it.

[Aquillion]

I mean - for the love of god, it's a few numbers on paper. Anyone can beat it.That game me the image of an Ettin or something reaching out of the game, grabbing the wizard's character sheet, pulling it into the game, and angrily stomping on it, causing the wizard to disappear. :smallbiggrin:

But it isn't about being completely unbeatable (we have that. Playing Pun-Pun would be dull.) It's about a certain sort of mathematical perfection, seeing something running really well with lots of different pieces supporting each other. Even the best-made characters die eventually; they just (from that mindset) look better doing it.


Even though you can deal with all of these hindrances individually, eventually there would be so much involved with the Wall of Iron that the campaign would effectively be about maintaining your ability to trade the materials. You might balk at doing it because it's reality bending; I would refuse to do it because I wouldn't want the game to become centered around something so lame. If I were DMing and a player tried this, however, I would put these pressures and more on the PCs until they agreed to either ditch their caster, or convinced him to give up his mad obsessions; as in-game events would show the endeavor to be too difficult to proceed with. I believe one of those old Dungeonomicon-style posts on the Gleemax forums had a section on this.

The idea is that, if you do it right, you can turn just about anything (profitable) your players want to do into a fun adventure. Determine the amount of money they're trying to get over a set time period, determine the correct challenges that would earn that much money, then ensure that they run into those challenges over that time period (plus a bit, so you can give them some treasure, though most of the treasure will be in their 'profits'.)

For instance, if the players set up a business, other high-level characters or local interests might notice and decide they want a cut. Maybe someone else tries to muscle them out of the business entirely so they can take over.

Basically, I think a campaign based around an insane magical-oriented business scheme that encounters constant problems that have to be put down could actually be pretty fun. The players would be trying to change the world and establish a financial empire, while the entrenched interests of their world (and, eventually, the planes, if they take it planar) would try to fight them off or put them back in line.

It's not everyone's cup of tea. But if all the players want it, you might consider thinking about how you'd run it... I think it could be more interesting than a typical 'boot down the door, divide the treasure' campaign.

[lord_khaine]

I finally figured out that my biggest problem with optimizing is that the system isn't built for it. You know how trading card games have banned lists? Magic, for example. The reason is because two cards, printed a long time from each other, cause a completely broken combo, or some such similar thing.

You get the same deal with all of the options available to a character. Each new splatbook adds another layer of complexity, and increases the chance that something gamebreaking happens. Not to mention the fact that the level of rules already in existence is huge.

but the problem is here, like some other guy has allready mentioned, is that the system isnt even really build to handle the core rules.

im currently playing in a core only game, with me as a wizard, as well as a druid, a monk, a rogue and a cleric.
and because the druid and i have a greater understanding of the rules, then we often have to actualy hold back, to avoid stealing all the spotlight.
and the thing is, all of the chars are more or less standart representations of their class, none of us are using any kinds of fancy comboes.

that aside, my chars more or less gets optimised as a secondary thing, because i find that chars with more options are more fun to play, so in the end i usualy get either some sort of caster, or a monk because i like them.

[Blood_Lord]

That game me the image of an Ettin or something reaching out of the game, grabbing the wizard's character sheet, pulling it into the game, and angrily stomping on it, causing the wizard to disappear. :smallbiggrin:

But it isn't about being completely unbeatable (we have that. Playing Pun-Pun would be dull.) It's about a certain sort of mathematical perfection, seeing something running really well with lots of different pieces supporting each other. Even the best-made characters die eventually; they just (from that mindset) look better doing it.

I believe one of those old Dungeonomicon-style posts on the Gleemax forums had a section on this.

The idea is that, if you do it right, you can turn just about anything (profitable) your players want to do into a fun adventure. Determine the amount of money they're trying to get over a set time period, determine the correct challenges that would earn that much money, then ensure that they run into those challenges over that time period (plus a bit, so you can give them some treasure, though most of the treasure will be in their 'profits'.)

For instance, if the players set up a business, other high-level characters or local interests might notice and decide they want a cut. Maybe someone else tries to muscle them out of the business entirely so they can take over.

Basically, I think a campaign based around an insane magical-oriented business scheme that encounters constant problems that have to be put down could actually be pretty fun. The players would be trying to change the world and establish a financial empire, while the entrenched interests of their world (and, eventually, the planes, if they take it planar) would try to fight them off or put them back in line.

It's not everyone's cup of tea. But if all the players want it, you might consider thinking about how you'd run it... I think it could be more interesting than a typical 'boot down the door, divide the treasure' campaign.

It's the actual Dungeonomicon here (http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=28547).

You can read it any time you want, but good summary.

[Deepblue706]

I believe one of those old Dungeonomicon-style posts on the Gleemax forums had a section on this.

The idea is that, if you do it right, you can turn just about anything (profitable) your players want to do into a fun adventure. Determine the amount of money they're trying to get over a set time period, determine the correct challenges that would earn that much money, then ensure that they run into those challenges over that time period (plus a bit, so you can give them some treasure, though most of the treasure will be in their 'profits'.)

For instance, if the players set up a business, other high-level characters or local interests might notice and decide they want a cut. Maybe someone else tries to muscle them out of the business entirely so they can take over.

Basically, I think a campaign based around an insane magical-oriented business scheme that encounters constant problems that have to be put down could actually be pretty fun. The players would be trying to change the world and establish a financial empire, while the entrenched interests of their world (and, eventually, the planes, if they take it planar) would try to fight them off or put them back in line.

It's not everyone's cup of tea. But if all the players want it, you might consider thinking about how you'd run it... I think it could be more interesting than a typical 'boot down the door, divide the treasure' campaign.

Well, sure. People can have fun doing it. And, I'd keep DMing it out (despite that I find a game centered around business to sound a bit dull). But, it'd hardly be 'infinite wealth', at that point; merely just another way of keeping up with WBL. The point I was trying to make was that the scheme fails to break the game if action is taken to prohibit it from doing so, and you don't have to resort to simply outright denying its overusage.