PDA

View Full Version : How to Encourage Min/Maxing?



Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-11, 09:27 PM
(Question is at the bottom.)

I’ll be starting a new campaign soon; 4e, though edition isn’t really relevant to my problem. My problem is this: most players in my group min/max within what I call the ‘expected min/max zone.’ They assign their highest ability as their attack stat, they use the equipment that makes sense for their class/build, etc. But two of our players play under the ‘expected zone,’ which I think is a problem because combat tends to drag out in my experience, even with ‘normal’ PCs at the wheel.

So I want to encourage these two players to min/max more:

The Friend: Out of the group, this one is the only player I call a true friend. She’s a great role player, but I wish she had just a bit more respect for min/maxing. A few weeks ago I told her that I would offer everyone in my next campaign the option to switch around their racial stat boosts, because I think they only encourage the same old, same old race/class combos. Her reply was “I wouldn’t do that, ‘cause I’m a role player.” (I can already hear the screams of “Stormwind!”) Since this conversations, I’ve decided to rationalize stat switches as ‘individualistic talent’ and ‘subraces.’

The Biologist: This guy is a simulationist like me, but unlike me he actually expects D&D to be realistic. While my Friend simply can’t be bothered to min/max, this guy actively gimps his characters. He plays melee characters with 12 Str, he plays fighters without armor; all his choices seem to depend on how his character would “realistically” grow, and most of those choices seem to go against the most basic optimization standards. He realizes that he’s gimping his characters for combat, and that we play a healthy number of combat encounters, he just doesn’t seem to care. And I don’t think he gimps his characters because he wants to play putzes, that’s just the way it works out.

Which is strange because both of these players agree with me that 4e combat takes too long. Even with me shaving HP off of monsters, an encounter with four players and four monsters can take an hour. I’d think that with combat taking so long, they’d at least pick up Expertise (in non-TS campaigns, where feat taxes aren’t house ruled). So anyway:

How do I gently but effectively encourage a simulationist and a “role player” to min/max their D&D characters just a bit more? How do I concisely and convincingly explain that role playing is not antithetical to min/maxing, and that playing a heroic realistic character is more fun than playing a putz realistic character?

EagleWiz
2010-04-11, 10:01 PM
Kill them all. If you ramp up the difficulty they will be forced to min-max more.
Or that might just anoy them

lightningcat
2010-04-11, 10:03 PM
Now I'm not a min/maxer, optomiser, or any of those other terms for people who like to make the "perfect build". But what you want them to do is play effective characters, which I can agree with totally.

Now in the case of "Friend", find out what she wants to play, and help her build it in a way that she can roleplay what she want to, but is still effective in combat. This will most likely mean sitting down well before the game starts, or on a different night. Have her think her options through, and what those options mean for her character. If she can't be bothered to min/max, see if she is opposed to you helping her.

As for "Biologist", I've got nothing. I really don't see why you whould intentionally gimp a character in combat in a game which is primarily based on combat. It would be like hanging a sign on your fore head that says "Easy Mark, Please Eat Me."

quiet1mi
2010-04-11, 10:25 PM
Remind them that they are playing a game where they are suppose to be heroes...

Heroes that face danger at every turn and stare death in the eye...

@Friend: Ask what is your character's motivation to kill other sentient life-forms and take their stuff... if she gives a response then point out the next logical conclusion would to be the best that you could be at it.

@Biologist: If he wants to to be a simulationist, ask him why he can be stabbed repeatedly and once every 5 minutes heal himself... in short, D&D 4.0 is not a game that makes for a very good simulation for anything other than fantasy heros fighting... Remember it is just a game...

Riffington
2010-04-11, 10:33 PM
They have characters they like. Don't mess with that. Weaken your encounters a bit (dropping AC might be better than dropping HP) or give them "free" benefits (whether a free feat, a free plus stat, a free magic item, whatever) til they can keep up.

El Dorado
2010-04-11, 11:16 PM
Explain your style to your players. Let them know that while you encourage roleplaying make sure they understand that their characters need to be able to deal with the rigors of adventuring.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-11, 11:43 PM
Hour long combats? I'd say you're slightly on the long side of average for 4e, at least for a 4 v. 4 encounter of appropriate CR and no weirdness that makes characters split between attacking and using skills (not that such things can't be done well, it just means that fights end either really quickly or really slowly).

For your friend, find out the kind of character she's in the mood to play, and suggest some strong builds that support it. Suggest several. Even if she doesn't follow them perfectly, it'll get her RP thinking down a vein that is strong. I skew heavily toward interest in RP over optimizing, and that's what I do when I know I need a strong character.

For the biologist, well, its realistic for adventurers who are terrible at their profession to die, right? A weakling in no armor is toast against a dragon, right? Say that if his character is ill-suited to adventure he will die, probably quickly, so he needs to make sure the guy can hold his own. Not sure what else might work...

Also, how is saying "No, I don't want to ignore RAW specifically to make a more powerful character" making the Stormwind fallacy? Sounds like she was saying "I'm a roleplayer, I'll play the setting as written" or even "I'm a roleplayer, I'm uncomfortable arbitrarily changing narrative-justified things for any reason".

QuantumSteve
2010-04-12, 01:31 AM
I don't think encouraging min/maxing is necessarily a good idea. My biggest beef with the Stormwind Fallacy is that just because optimization and role-playing aren't mutually exclusive doesn't mean they always go hand in hand.

If you want to play a character raised as a Soldier from a long line of Soldiers, who happened to be stricken with a childhood illness that left him with a con of 8, that's a perfectly OK character. He justs play to what strengths he does have. Don't have the HP take a full attack? Spring Attack. Throw in Combat Expertise, and you have the makings of a workable build. It's not optimized, but in the hands of a skilled player he can hold his own.

I can even take this further, if I want to play a 8 Str fighter who's too damned stubborn to stop charging and power attacking, I'll be much lees effective in combat, but if I'm still having fun is it really good DMing to tell me: "You should have less fun playing your character so it will better conform to my optimization standards."?

Now, if your player isn't having fun playing a gimped character, I would think she'd be much more open to some "suggestions." I can even see it as an RP thing. Your character is using tactics that go against her instincts so as to be a better combatant.


The only real problem I see if you have heavily optimized characters and not so optimized characters there con be a power rift. My favorite way to remedy this is to limit available material. In my experience, power rifts tend to be less severe if your power gamers aren't utilizing several more splat books than everyone else. Alternatively, you can throw in encounters to deliberately undermine your power gamers' powers. You should throw in some encounters where they can shine, but don't let them always steal the scene. This kind of balancing act can be difficult, but also effective.

Heck, you can also throw in more non-combat encounters to play to whatever strengths these characters do have. Not every character should have to be combat-centric to contribute.

Maybe it's because I just can't imaging be so intent on optimized table top miniature combat that I can't have fun if not everyone wants to play the same way I do, but I can't see why there can't be a game for all kinds of charatcers.

2xMachina
2010-04-12, 04:18 AM
Pull no punches. Simulate reality. Eventually, only chars that can survive will be around.

I think it's kinda stupid that Average Joe (or worse, weaker than average) can kill a dragon/monsters. No reason your other average commoners can't go kill monsters too, making you obsolete.

Doc Roc
2010-04-12, 04:25 AM
Q-Steve, I think you need to check for entanglement with an unknown particle, because there's information I'm missing ;)

Here's the gist of it:
They like their game.
They like their characters.
They're firmly attached to their comfort levels.

Have you heard the phrase:
"You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink?"
Well it's a lie. You can totally give that equine a frigging saline IV.

System, to put it lightly, matters.
Neither of these players is suited to 4e, where weak opti-fu isn't as bad as 3e, but it's certainly not a good thing. In some ways, this particular player type takes it the hardest, because in 4e a lot of the more "interesting" feats are less useful, where things like expertise are practically essential.

Your game is broken, not your players.
They're having a ton of fun, one of them is a really close friend, etc. You need a system that transparently provides them with a generally equally-optimal experience, and in a sense, lacks the deep variance between okay and great characters that D&D promotes.

Problem:
There are almost no systems like this.
Problem:
You probably like 4e.
Problem:
There's nothing wrong with that.
Problem:
This leaves us painted into a corner.

If you want, we can talk about this more directly, and maybe I can offer some more direct advice re: helping you out without disrupting things. In fact, I recommend it.

Fallbot
2010-04-12, 04:51 AM
'The Friend' sounds quite a lot like me (Though I don't think I'd turn down the racial stat switches :smalltongue:), forever torn between taking useless but flavourful feats, and being combat effective. I've found that talking things through with the group optimizer is very helpful with regards to keeping the flavour I want for characters, without completely gimping them. So like others suggested, talk things through with her, give her some options, and see if she's willing to compromise a little for the sake of keeping the game fast and fun for the other players.

As for the other guy? Fighters with no armour? No ideas.

Amphetryon
2010-04-12, 05:48 AM
I wish my rules-fu for 4e were stronger, so my advice could be more cogent to your current situation. Encouraging more CO in 3.X is sometimes as simple as paring down the list of available PrCs to only those that actually work well (I think sonofzeal has them compiled around here somewhere). Eliminating obvious traps and bad choices from the table can help give everyone a bit of a boost.

Perhaps the Paragon paths and similar in 4e can be similarly guided?

Otherwise, I think you hit the nail on the head when you mentioned 'Stormwind.' It sounds like you have a couple of players who think that intelligent choices that allow a professional violent hobo to be better at his/her job are anathema to how the game should be played. One counter argument to this (that doesn't throw valid internet-generated fallacies at your friends) is that adventuring is your character's major, or career. Those that go into college with a clear idea of their major, and who work to get through their prerequisites faster, generally excel more than the party animals who wander aimlessly from class to class. Similarly, those who work to progress career skills that are most valuable to their actual field will tend to get promoted over those who do not advance those skills.

Gralamin
2010-04-12, 06:00 AM
Heres a trick I've been thinking of implementing, that may or may not help. Take out all the useless "Interesting" feats. Tell players that they can just do them. See what happens.

Haven't tried it yet, but it may very well work.

tcrudisi
2010-04-12, 06:12 AM
As for the other guy? Fighters with no armour? No ideas.

Fighter with no armor and low strength? Avenger.

TheMinxTail
2010-04-12, 06:21 AM
Heres a trick I've been thinking of implementing, that may or may not help. Take out all the useless "Interesting" feats. Tell players that they can just do them. See what happens.

Haven't tried it yet, but it may very well work.

Do you mean like the 3e Ranger gets the Track feat, but how in Oathfinder anyone with Survival worth a crap can track? Or do you mean the more feeble '+2 diplomacy whel interacting with an elf whose uncle your shacked up with' as oposed to Skill Focus 'intresting'? I'd say go for it, but that's a lot of stuff to keep track of depending on what rules you're using. My technique that I plan to use soon is to actually use the flaw system - but make it intresting, and make it so the flaws come with those intresting feats - as in, say a character had a homebrewed Gynephobia flaw (DC 15 Will save or avoid women), he could pick up the Investigator feat from Eberron.

[A weird thought just entered my mind of a DnD rendered Adrian Monk]

Edit: Oh, right, 4e. Haven't played that in a while. No real feats come to mind for the system I suggested, sorry. I'd say just play Pathfinder if you can get the book cheap, but I respect the fact that 4e has a pretty balanced combat system.

Foryn Gilnith
2010-04-12, 07:02 AM
Pull no punches. Simulate reality. Eventually, only chars that can survive will be around.

This. Their disparate powerlevel is a problem because you're having difficulty designing encounters, right? Then just tailor the encounters to the majority of the group. You don't have to tamper with their characters, which they like. At least, not directly.
The roleplayer will either live on (no problem) or get chance to express more varieties of character concepts (most roleplayers I've met are fairly abundant in that aspect). The "simulationist" will either live on (through luck or creativity) or have to re-calibrate his understanding of what is "realistic" for an adventuring party.

Indon
2010-04-12, 09:21 AM
Pull no punches. Simulate reality. Eventually, only chars that can survive will be around.

I think it's kinda stupid that Average Joe (or worse, weaker than average) can kill a dragon/monsters. No reason your other average commoners can't go kill monsters too, making you obsolete.

Except that's not at all how 4E works.

Average Joe could go kill dragons - the only thing preventing him from doing so is that he is not a Player Character. 4E does not have versimilitude in that respect, at all.

I'm inclined to agree to leave the characters alone - just tune down the encounters appropriately.

I've been part of a group that went the other way, we optimized too much, and found it easy to defeat standard challenges. Rather than trying to get us to weaken our characters in the metagame, our DM just started throwing higher-level challenges at us until we were appropriately challenged again.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-12, 09:45 AM
For all the people who suggest to let them play their ineffective characters and dumb down the challenges to meet them...aren't we missing a key part of this equation, namely the feelings of the other half of the group? Do the two players who are meeting the bare minimum standards of effectiveness mind having these characters with them, or do they also dislike having semi-dead weight in their party? How will they feel when you bring monster encounters down to the lowest common denominator so that Joe Q. Biologist can beat anemic wyrmlings with his low-Str, low-Wis unarmored Fighter?

Godskook
2010-04-12, 09:46 AM
The problem with the "Leave them alone, they're enjoying it" mentality is(Note: OP is vague on how many PCs in his group), as far as I can tell, that these two players are a minority, not the majority. Ignoring anti-optimization when most the group optimizes is just asking the rest of the group to put up with an Elan(from OotS) who has no intention of becoming more powerful. Its down-right disruptive, and kinda offensive to players who actually optimize at all.


I don't think encouraging min/maxing is necessarily a good idea. My biggest beef with the Stormwind Fallacy is that just because optimization and role-playing aren't mutually exclusive doesn't mean they always go hand in hand.

Then your biggest beef with the Stormwind Fallacy isn't with the Stormwind Fallacy.

2xMachina
2010-04-12, 09:48 AM
Except that's not at all how 4E works.

Average Joe could go kill dragons - the only thing preventing him from doing so is that he is not a Player Character. 4E does not have versimilitude in that respect, at all.

I'm inclined to agree to leave the characters alone - just tune down the encounters appropriately.

I've been part of a group that went the other way, we optimized too much, and found it easy to defeat standard challenges. Rather than trying to get us to weaken our characters in the metagame, our DM just started throwing higher-level challenges at us until we were appropriately challenged again.

... more reason for me not to try 4e.

Chineselegolas
2010-04-12, 09:49 AM
The Friend:
Very much a case of Stormwind. If you increase the difficulty, this lovely quote springs to mind "You can't role-play when you're dead". Optimized characters are just as easy to role-play, cheesed are where it gets hard. A soldier who is strong and smart - obviously from a military academy doing officer courses, or whatever the equivalent is.

The Biologist:
A simulation... Well the weak adventures tend to die quite early in their endeavours, where'd you think all the monsters loot comes from? If he enjoys the challenge of playing sub-par characters against the odds, nothing wrong with that, just don't pull the punches at all. A game where you can simulate a weak guy and never actually be in danger is rather boring compared to a god fighting other gods. One wrong move and you could die, gives extra thrill.


All in all, my two shiny coins say don't force them to by telling them too, strongly suggest they do with how you play, no pulling of punches, no easy missions. Adapt or die.
Though that might be a bit heavy handed...

Kylarra
2010-04-12, 09:53 AM
OP isn't too vague, it says 4 players, so I'm assuming this is representative of half the group.

That said, I'd say the roleplayer isn't too bad off, in a vacuum anyway, even choosing suboptimal class-race combos in 4e, as long as you still put your highest stat into your attack stat, you'll probably be doing decently enough. If you're a striker, you'll still have decent damage output even, provided one of your secondaries is buffed by one of your racial boosts. I was going to cite my 4e game as an example, we have a dwarf chaos sorcerer, but then I remembered that we got an array that's slightly stronger than the usual pb system, but I guess I'll point out anyway that the dwarf sorcerer is still earning his keep in a group with half-elf paladin, elven ranger, elven druid.

Your "realist" is going to generally just need a talking to I think. Just explain that you have different expectations for the game, and for this particular game, would he please focus a bit more on character effectiveness, rather than organic growth.

Godskook
2010-04-12, 10:00 AM
OP isn't too vague, it says 4 players, so I'm assuming this is representative of half the group.

OP says this:


My problem is this: most players in my group min/max within what I call the ‘expected min/max zone.’

He then also gives a sample encounter, but doesn't say that he typically has fights with 4 monsters vs. 4 pcs, so we can't assume that either is a 'standard'.

I prefer to say 'vague' rather than 'contradictory', hence my word choice.

Indon
2010-04-12, 10:13 AM
The problem with the "Leave them alone, they're enjoying it" mentality is(Note: OP is vague on how many PCs in his group), as far as I can tell, that these two players are a minority, not the majority. Ignoring anti-optimization when most the group optimizes is just asking the rest of the group to put up with an Elan(from OotS) who has no intention of becoming more powerful. Its down-right disruptive, and kinda offensive to players who actually optimize at all.
If they were that small a portion of the group, then they would not be making combats significantly longer, and the DM could compensate by only dropping encounter difficulty slightly.

The gap between the nonoptimizers of the group and the optimizers of the group is unlikely to be that big in any case - 4E may be built with some optimization in mind, but it's simply not built with the synergistic options that make it as important as it is in 3rd edition.

And no, it's really neither disruptive or offensive. Whyever would you think it to be either of those? I mean, how is not playing a character as powerful as another guy's actually offensive to that person?

Seriously.


Then your biggest beef with the Stormwind Fallacy isn't with the Stormwind Fallacy.

It's with the fact that people think the concept behind the Stormwind Fallacy means anything.

Yes, it's theoretically possible to both roleplay and optimize. But people still have priorities and benefit accordingly from setting and following them.

Taelas
2010-04-12, 10:24 AM
If they were that small a portion of the group, then they would not be making combats significantly longer, and the DM could compensate by only dropping encounter difficulty slightly.

The gap between the nonoptimizers of the group and the optimizers of the group is unlikely to be that big in any case - 4E may be built with some optimization in mind, but it's simply not built with the synergistic options that make it as important as it is in 3rd edition.

And no, it's really neither disruptive or offensive. Whyever would you think it to be either of those? I mean, how is not playing a character as powerful as another guy's actually offensive to that person?

Seriously.

I think you are talking a very different level of disparity that the rest of this thread is. If they are simply suboptimal, this wouldn't be much of a problem. The difference is obviously enough to cause friction.

Indon
2010-04-12, 10:29 AM
I think you are talking a very different level of disparity that the rest of this thread is. If they are simply suboptimal, this wouldn't be much of a problem. The difference is obviously enough to cause friction.

Nah, combat's just slow and the DM's wondering how to speed it up, and he sees the power discrepancy as an obvious target.

Hell, you don't even need to not optimize to get slow combat - if, say, your group has fewer strikers/more controllers or leaders than normal, combat can take forever even if everyone's optimized (it's just that the monsters will be taking a whole lot of really ineffective turns, or the players will be taking convoluted superbuffed ones). My more-powerful-than-normal group spent a phase being controller-heavy (basically, everyone was sub-controller, and we had two controllers) and striker-light, very long combats as a result.

But really, power doesn't actually increase combat speed very much. Players who play fast, and characters that play with fewer buffs and debuffs to track, that increases combat speed.

Emmerask
2010-04-12, 10:41 AM
The problem with the "Leave them alone, they're enjoying it" mentality is(Note: OP is vague on how many PCs in his group), as far as I can tell, that these two players are a minority, not the majority. Ignoring anti-optimization when most the group optimizes is just asking the rest of the group to put up with an Elan(from OotS) who has no intention of becoming more powerful. Its down-right disruptive, and kinda offensive to players who actually optimize at all.


In his example there are 2 players who don´t optimize next he talks about having 4 players and 4 enemies against them so I assume it´s a group of 4 players - where is that majority ?

There are enough reasons why 2 combat optimized characters have two characters in the party that are not very good at combat but have other qualities the group lags otherwise.
If you need some hints how this works, there is more then enough fantasy literature in which this is the case. Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Riftwar Saga etc.

The two players in question clearly have other priorities then combat when they create their characters which is perfectly fine. To tell them that they play the game the wrong way is disrespectful on the other hand :smalltongue:

Additionally I don´t see why it should bother the two optimizers they can have all the fun they want from combat and no one is likely to steal the glory of winning the encounter from them :smallwink: So they are happy, the other players are happy (op said so atleast) so why change things?

Godskook
2010-04-12, 10:43 AM
And no, it's really neither disruptive or offensive. Whyever would you think it to be either of those? I mean, how is not playing a character as powerful as another guy's actually offensive to that person?

That's not what I asserted.

But if you must: Traveling with Elan is like say, adventuring with Syphilis. It can be done, for a while, but it's not easy, and it's not pretty. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html)


It's with the fact that people think the concept behind the Stormwind Fallacy means anything.

I'm confused as to what you're attempting to say here. Could you elaborate?


There are enough reasons why 2 combat optimized characters have two characters in the party that are not very good at combat but have other qualities the group lags otherwise.
If you need some hints how this works, there is more then enough fantasy literature in which this is the case. Lord of the Rings, Wheel of Time, Riftwar Saga etc.

Fantasy Literature is riff with examples of things you shouldn't do at the gaming table. Referencing them isn't really helpful to the conversation. Yes, a player with valuable non-combat capabilities could find a place in a group that's else-wise fighter-types. But we have no reason given by the OP that such is the case.


The two players in question clearly have other priorities then combat when they create their characters which is perfectly fine. To tell them that they play the game the wrong way is disrespectful on the other hand :smalltongue:

Kinda like telling someone that driving with their eyes closed is the wrong way to drive?


Additionally I don´t see why it should bother the two optimizers they can have all the fun they want from combat and no one is likely to steal the glory of winning the encounter from them :smallwink: So they are happy, the other players are happy (op said so atleast) so why change things?

Because the OP said that there's an apparent problem.

Mastikator
2010-04-12, 10:49 AM
Um, how about just fewer encounters? If they're not super-interested in min/maxing then they are probably not achievement oriented players, at least not in terms of whooping mob butt.

Changing people is hard and takes a lot of energy. Focusing on something else in your campaign is probably simpler.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-12, 11:13 AM
Actually, what the OP said is that He percieves a problem. As the DM, his opinion is certainly valid...but as I mentioned once above, we don't know how the remaining 50% of the group feels, the ones that aren't actively gimping themselves for RP or 'realism'. If they feel like the OP does, then it's necessary for the two lowballers to stop weighing down their party - if they're not bothered by the situation, weakening monsters is a valid option.

Toliudar
2010-04-12, 11:36 AM
Not by any stretch an expert on 4E, so forgive me if this is impractical in that context. I have a player who seems to have no optimization instincts to speak of, but loves combat - the blasting and the hurting. He has actively resisted build advice, so I've given up on that. So, as DM, I'll just occasionally tweak damage and attacks from him, so that he succeeds about as often as the other, slightly more optimized builds in the group. It's a very relaxed group, friends first and players second, so in the unlikely event that anyone noticed, I doubt that they'd care.

Depending on the group dynamic in the OP's game, since he's the one perceiving the problem, he might be the best one to fix it.

Indon
2010-04-12, 11:55 AM
That's not what I asserted.
All right, fair point.

Not forcing everyone to optimize has no reason to be offensive or disruptive either.


But if you must: Traveling with Elan is like say, adventuring with Syphilis. It can be done, for a while, but it's not easy, and it's not pretty. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0153.html)
Elan's character is annoying. In-character.

That doesn't mean weak players become annoying to be with because they're weak.


I'm confused as to what you're attempting to say here. Could you elaborate?
The heart of the Stormwind Fallacy is that it is theoretically possible to roleplay an optimized concept well.

No part of that implies that it's possible to roleplay any optimized concept well, or that optimizing does not require you to sacrifice the ability to play a given concept, or any number of very real tradeoffs between optimization and characterization.


Because the OP said that there's an apparent problem.

The problem, however, isn't that the players aren't optimized.

The most prominent problem is that combat pacing is slow, and a possible solution would be to get encounter difficulty more in-line with party power. Increasing the party's power is not the only way to approach that solution.

Eldariel
2010-04-12, 12:21 PM
The heart of the Stormwind Fallacy is that it is theoretically possible to roleplay an optimized concept well.

The heart of it is that there's no correlation between optimized and well roleplayed character. That is to say, whether you optimize or not is irrelevant to whether you roleplay well or not. Which is, at least in my experience, true. Optimization tends to happen before game anyways so there's no real overlap there.

HidaTsuzua
2010-04-12, 12:33 PM
While I'm not sure what to do about the friend, the biologist shouldn't be that bad. Just set up ways for his character to grow the right way, meeting mentors, seeing examples of certain actions (like wearing no armor), and other ways people learn and charge. Hopefully he'll take the bait and grow along those lines much like shaping a vine. Though this doesn't stop the whole STR 12 fighter issue since by the time you're a STR 12 fighter it's too late.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-12, 12:38 PM
Throw a brick at them. No, I mean an actual brick, at your actual players.


The smart ones will dodge. The Min/Maxers will put their mortal nemesis in the path of the brick.


Incidentally, this is a good way to find out if your players hate you as a DM.

awa
2010-04-12, 12:43 PM
The problem seems to be not winning fast enough you haven't told us how close the fights are.

If all you want to do is make the fights faster i would modifies the monster reduce their defense and increase their offense give them lower ac and less hit points but in exchange give them more damage and more accurate attacks.

randomhero00
2010-04-12, 01:00 PM
Explain the stormwind fallacy (I was probably ninja'd already but just in case.)
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40903

Your bio dude should especially understand that. Tell them its actually less realistic for them to be weak.

If they don't go for it then its your job as a DM to accommodate them. One possible solution though (if you have other people unwilling to weaken themselves) is to give them 2 separate advancements. You can homebrew this as much as you want but basically let them develop their weak characters how they please. Then automatically give them extra feats/powers you think appropriate. Tell them its something they'd automatically know as characters. Keep giving them extras until they catch up in power.

Only problem would be if your other players that aren't weak take offense at the special treatment. Just try to explain it to them. Or maybe bump them up in secret. There's no rules that say that all characters are created equal. We frequently do things like that in our game in fact. But we like it, it adds quite a bit of surprise at some point. Really amusing too, since they try to hide their powers.

Ozymandias9
2010-04-12, 01:10 PM
The heart of it is that there's no correlation between optimized and well roleplayed character. That is to say, whether you optimize or not is irrelevant to whether you roleplay well or not. Which is, at least in my experience, true. Optimization tends to happen before game anyways so there's no real overlap there.

Spoilered as slightly OTNo, it's that we can't demonstrate an inverse correlation-- that one does not necessarily go down because you focus on the other. It does not say (or even attempt to demonstrate) that there is no correlation.

There are certainly a lot of situations that force you to make decisions between role playing and CharOp. There are also situations that allow you to improve both. Pretending that either set of those situations doesn't exist is foolish.


@OP
The basic issue coming up with "the friend" is that they aren't divorcing the fluff from the crunch like a lot of CharOp assumes. Find fluff they like, adapt it, give it some better crunch, and insert it into the storyline. In this case, homebrew a race, find an excuse to include it, and let the players know its available for PCs in the future.

"The Biologist" is a more drastic problem. This strikes me as a person who has a hard time sustaining suspension of disbelief. In 3rd, I'd generally encourage such a player to enter a skill-monkey class. In 4E, that's simply not an option. The character he wants to play simply isn't an option for 4E. You might be able to get him enjoying an archer-- which has less obvious breaks with verisimilitude (or maybe an arcane caster if you provide a strong enough alchemical flavor), but otherwise I imagine you'll just have to wait for him to adapt to the basic, highly fantastic flavor of 4th before you can make significant progress.

Tengu_temp
2010-04-12, 01:15 PM
1. Once you see what kinds of characters they make, suggest them classes that play to the strengths they have. 4e has so many classes with similar flavour, yet different important stats, that it's definitely doable.

2. If that fails, ask them how do they expect their characters to choose Class X as their profession, if they're terrible at it. Remind them that (for example) a fighter who has low strength and refuses to wear armor wouldn't be fitting enough for this career to finish his apprenticeship - he'd most likely get kicked out from Fighter School and have to look for another job.

3. You can just let them suck it up. In 4e, the difference between a highly optimized and a weak character is something like 25%, at most. That's not so high. If they complain that they feel useless, give them a chance to rebuild their characters.

krossbow
2010-04-12, 01:18 PM
I really fail to see how a fighter without armor is realistic. Go back to medieval periods and see how long such idiots would last :smalltongue:

randomhero00
2010-04-12, 01:24 PM
Yeah I agree about the fighter-armor thing. Perhaps you could try creating an NPC of their own class that they meet. He is friendly to them but totally makes fun of and calls their characters crazy.

"Ahahah, you're a fighter?! You're a fighter? You don't even have armor on! Why are you giving my career a bad name boy?" etc.

QuantumSteve
2010-04-12, 01:28 PM
Yeah I agree about the fighter-armor thing. Perhaps you could try creating an NPC of their own class that they meet. He is friendly to them but totally makes fun of and calls their characters crazy.

"Ahahah, you're a fighter?! You're a fighter? You don't even have armor on! Why are you giving my career a bad name boy?" etc.

Inigo Mantoya wears no armor. Probably has a Str of 12, too.

Kylarra
2010-04-12, 01:29 PM
Inigo Mantoya wears no armor. Probably has a Str of 12, too.Inigo Montoya is probably closer to a rogue that doesn't use sneak attack though. He uses sly flourish for his damage.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-12, 01:29 PM
Inigo Mantoya wears no armor. Probably has a Str of 12, too.

Inigo Montoya is not a fighter. He's a Rogue, or if you're in 3.5, a Swashbuckler.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-12, 01:30 PM
Inigo Mantoya wears no armor. Probably has a Str of 12, too.

Yes but he probably has levels in swordsage(3.5), or a least a good swashbuckler class. He's a DEX based fighter. If OP's guy had some kind of alternate DEX or INT synergy I think he would have said.

Godskook
2010-04-12, 01:37 PM
Not forcing everyone to optimize has no reason to be offensive or disruptive either.

Elan's character is annoying. In-character.

That doesn't mean weak players become annoying to be with because they're weak.

Note that Elan's treatment is distinctly different from Belkar. Belkar is annoying, but unlike Elan, he's effective since page 1. He's also a valued combat member of the team that they want to have around, right up until he kills the oracle(Seriously, that's the one and only reason anyone in the OotS ever wanted to actually get rid of him)


The heart of the Stormwind Fallacy is that it is theoretically possible to roleplay an optimized concept well.

No, the heart of the Stormwind Fallacy is that it is practically possible to do that.

Also, note that optimized is among the least powerful terms in the PC's power handbook. You can have an optimized evoker, or an optimized paraplegic. You don't have to make pun-pun to qualify for optimization, just play something that brings at least level-appropriate abilities to the table.


No part of that implies that it's possible to roleplay any optimized concept well, or that optimizing does not require you to sacrifice the ability to play a given concept, or any number of very real tradeoffs between optimization and characterization.

What exactly are you thinking of, cause typically, my concepts of characterization actually include minimum amounts of optimization in them, such as "A great swordsman" or "A powerful wizard". If I don't optimize, I'm not properly roleplaying my character. But that's only to a point.

For instance, my current character is the son of a Daggerspell Mage, and quite the child prodigy(Able Learner) of his father's. In his young days, he was local ne'er-do-well who amused himself with mild mischief such as theft(Rogue 1). He then learned of his estranged father's death, and the circumstances behind it, and set out to both right this tragedy and learn more about his lineage. Insert campaign 1 here, where Jon's magical potential is realized(Wiz 1) alongside a helpful necromancer ally. Afterwards, he worked hard to be recognized among his father's peers(Wiz +3, Practiced Spellcaster, Daggerspell Mage) while doing various things, including hunting down his father's killer(Among several others). Enter campaign 2, where he's now tasked with undoing the corruption on an island, and has only just met his new group of fellows, who include among their ranks a more powerful evoker wizard whose better knowledge of arcana is both a source of potential discussion(Leading to Jonathan learning orb spells) and disagreement as Jonathan argues with her over the applications of arcane might. He's even at one point rejected a magical dagger in favor of his father's Mwk ones, since they're his father's.

Most of Jonathan's characterizations, outside those provided by campaign-mates, is the direct result of his crunch optimizations. He's not the greatest form of optimization, but he gets L9 spells before epic, has a phenomenal skill list to choose from thanks to Able Learner, has an average of almost 10 skill points per level, despite 4 levels of wizard, and will get over that mark soon. He's a FS Conjurer, and with smartly picked banned schools as well. For a secondary arcanist and primary trapsmith, he works quite well.

And that reminds me of something. One of the key abilities of a good roleplayer(aka actor) is to be able to play the role given them. An actor who must shape the role to fit him is a poor one, but an actor who shapes himself to fit the role is great. By the same token, a roleplayer who can't roleplay an optimized character is a poor roleplayer. Example: Jim Carrey was entertaining in things like Ace Ventura and The Mask, but didn't prove his acting abilities until he started taking roles in movies like The Majestic. And then there's Heath Ledger, who's done both the Joker and starred in A Knight's Tale, another great example of acting at its best. Kevin Costner, on the other hand, is either pigeon-holed or a lesser actor, as the movies I see him in all have him playing an underdog unlikely hero type. Good movies, but I get the impression that I'm watching Kevin Costner star as Kevin Costner, not an actor portraying someone else.

@Friend, ask her to roleplay someone powerful(and then build the character appropriately), and when she responds with "But I'm a roleplayer" again, just say that a real roleplayer would enjoy the challenge.

QuantumSteve
2010-04-12, 01:38 PM
Yes but he probably has levels in swordsage(3.5), or a least a good swashbuckler class. He's a DEX based fighter. If OP's guy had some kind of alternate DEX or INT synergy I think he would have said.

Touché. Can you make a DEX/INT Fighter in 4e? I've never played.

erikun
2010-04-12, 01:43 PM
May I suggest something radical and perhaps unmentioned until now?

Involve less combat in your games.

This sounds like it would solve both the time-consuming combat problem and the low stats problem at the same time.

Kylarra
2010-04-12, 01:50 PM
Touché. Can you make a DEX/INT Fighter in 4e? I've never played.Well, DEX/INT tends to be a poor combination of primary/secondary stat, due to overlap. I don't believe that there's any class, offhand, that would utilize one of those as a primary and the other as a secondary, but Swordmage is INT based and Rogue/Assassin are DEX based melee classes, so there you go for the basics.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-12, 01:52 PM
May I suggest something radical and perhaps unmentioned until now?

Involve less combat in your games.

This sounds like it would solve both the time-consuming combat problem and the low stats problem at the same time.

I think drastically changing the style that the OP plays probably isn't going to happen. You can make monsters easier or harder pretty easily, but designing a whole new campaign is decidedly harder.


Touché. Can you make a DEX/INT Fighter in 4e? I've never played.

I haven't either, but from what I hear it supports ability score shuffling a lot more (DEX or INT to initiative and stuff like that, you can choose which ability score your class is based of off), so almost definitely yes.

erikun
2010-04-12, 01:56 PM
I think drastically changing the style that the OP plays probably isn't going to happen. You can make monsters easier or harder pretty easily, but designing a whole new campaign is decidedly harder.
Well, the OP is requesting that the players drastically change their style of play...

And for the record, no you cannot make a DEX/INT 4e Fighter. All fighter powers use STR to hit. You either need to design a feat that changes the to-hit values from STR to another stat, or be a bard with the feat to allow all multiclass powers use CHA, or just use a different class entirely.

Indon
2010-04-12, 02:38 PM
Note that Elan's treatment is distinctly different from Belkar. Belkar is annoying, but unlike Elan, he's effective since page 1. He's also a valued combat member of the team that they want to have around, right up until he kills the oracle(Seriously, that's the one and only reason anyone in the OotS ever wanted to actually get rid of him)
Belkar isn't optimized either. He's a Low-wis multiclassed Barbarian/Ranger and by all accounts would be significantly weaker in combat than even Roy, who is made fun of by his father because he didn't optimize (as a straight Fighter with Caster-level Int).

Elan didn't optimize compared to these people, because for much of the game he had almost no grasp of the game's rules. It's basically impossible in 4E to be as ineffective as Elan, even if you try.


No, the heart of the Stormwind Fallacy is that it is practically possible to do that.
A fair point - that it is possible to see an optimized character roleplayed well in practical play.


What exactly are you thinking of, cause typically, my concepts of characterization actually include minimum amounts of optimization in them, such as "A great swordsman" or "A powerful wizard". If I don't optimize, I'm not properly roleplaying my character.
And that'll work well unless you get an idea that doesn't mesh with the optimize-and-justify approach, in which you make a powerful character sheet and then base the actual character around describing why they're powerful.

Not to say it's not a valid approach to characterization. It totally is. But it's not without its' limits, even if you might not care about those limits.


One of the key abilities of a good roleplayer(aka actor) is to be able to play the role given them.
Roleplaying includes but is not limited to acting - as previously noted, characterization, and other aspects of writing, are important as well.

And maybe there are people who enjoy exploring aspects like that rather than using roleplaying as a vehicle to produce effective tactical miniature gameplay.

Edit:

May I suggest something radical and perhaps unmentioned until now?

Involve less combat in your games.

This sounds like it would solve both the time-consuming combat problem and the low stats problem at the same time.

To be fair, combat's what 4E does. Without combat, there's not too much point to playing it.

Solarn
2010-04-12, 02:42 PM
The heart of it is that there's no correlation between optimized and well roleplayed character. That is to say, whether you optimize or not is irrelevant to whether you roleplay well or not. Which is, at least in my experience, true. Optimization tends to happen before game anyways so there's no real overlap there.
However:
- Roleplaying a character implies playing out the character's stats, skills, class, alignment etc. as they are written on the sheet. This is what makes Str18, Int6, NG into a dumb, but kind-hearted bruiser instead of a bunch of letters and numbers on paper that affect dice rolls.
- Roleplaying a character also implies an ability to do so; this is dependent on the player's personal roleplaying ability and theatric flair, which have nothing to do with the character sheet, but it also depends on the internal consistency of a character's fluff.
- Optimizing, or rather, over-optimizing/min-maxing a character sacrifices internal consistency for cheese.
- Therefore, the more cheesed up a character is, the less possible it is to RP it in a way that reflects its character sheet. It always remains in the realm of theoretical possibility, but practical possibility is another question.

Just_Ice
2010-04-12, 02:46 PM
Double all combat damage. Don't encourage Min/Maxing.

done

snoopy13a
2010-04-12, 02:49 PM
And that reminds me of something. One of the key abilities of a good roleplayer(aka actor) is to be able to play the role given them. An actor who must shape the role to fit him is a poor one, but an actor who shapes himself to fit the role is great. By the same token, a roleplayer who can't roleplay an optimized character is a poor roleplayer.

I don't think the problem is that they can't roleplay an optimized character. Instead, it is that they want to play the character that they want to play even if this character happens to be unoptimized.

For example, take two stereotypical fighter templates, the sword and board fighter and the tripper. Both can be roleplayed effectively but the tripper is a more effective fighter game-wise. However, suppose the player really wants to play a sword and boarder because he/she grew up loving the Camelot myths and that is how he or she thinks King Arthur or Sir Lancelot would fight. Telling this player that they shouldn't go this route could result in an unhappy player.

Thus, trying to force a roleplayer to play a character that they don't want to play may not make them happy, even if they are capable of it. Thus, the OP could end up at an impasse.

Zovc
2010-04-12, 02:49 PM
Which is strange because both of these players agree with me that 4e combat takes too long. Even with me shaving HP off of monsters, an encounter with four players and four monsters can take an hour. I’d think that with combat taking so long, they’d at least pick up Expertise (in non-TS campaigns, where feat taxes aren’t house ruled).

Obviously, these players want combat to take long.

Indon
2010-04-12, 02:56 PM
Even with me shaving HP off of monsters, an encounter with four players and four monsters can take an hour.
I'd completely missed this until zovc quoted it.

A combat in 4E that takes an hour RL time is actually very fast.

In retrospect, your problem is not, at all, the optimization of your characters. It's that combat in 4E is slow.

Eldariel
2010-04-12, 02:56 PM
However:
- Roleplaying a character implies playing out the character's stats, skills, class, alignment etc. as they are written on the sheet. This is what makes Str18, Int6, NG into a dumb, but kind-hearted bruiser instead of a bunch of letters and numbers on paper that affect dice rolls.
- Roleplaying a character also implies an ability to do so; this is dependent on the player's personal roleplaying ability and theatric flair, which have nothing to do with the character sheet, but it also depends on the internal consistency of a character's fluff.
- Optimizing, or rather, over-optimizing/min-maxing a character sacrifices internal consistency for cheese.
- Therefore, the more cheesed up a character is, the less possible it is to RP it in a way that reflects its character sheet. It always remains in the realm of theoretical possibility, but practical possibility is another question.

Changing the numbers does not in any way increase or decrease their roleplayability. Inherently, no character is better or worse for roleplaying (outside extreme cases like stats under 3 in anything when you're practically non-humanoid for purposes of that ability), and as such, optimizing does not in any way improve or worsen the roleplayability of your character.

Indeed, if character is good at what you want him to be good at, it should actually increase the consistency as his demeanor mirrors his ability (unless he specifically thinks too highly/lowly of him/herself); optimization ensures you have exactly the character you want, so I'd say you have it upside down there.


And min/maxing or optimization doesn't involve "cheese" by most definitions of the word. Of course, it depends on what you consider "cheese", but generally that's strictly off-limits for practical, game-intended optimization.

Godskook
2010-04-12, 02:59 PM
Belkar isn't optimized either. He's a Low-wis multiclassed Barbarian/Ranger and by all accounts would be significantly weaker in combat than even Roy, who is made fun of by his father because he didn't optimize (as a straight Fighter with Caster-level Int).

Elan didn't optimize compared to these people, because for much of the game he had almost no grasp of the game's rules. It's basically impossible in 4E to be as ineffective as Elan, even if you try.

Belkar is shown to be able to handle single-classed enemies of similar tier with relative ease. He's even handled a CR = ECL+4 rogue under unpleasent circumstances. Belkar is level appropriate, and therefore, optimized as well as I or the OP desires.


And maybe there are people who enjoy exploring aspects like that rather than using roleplaying as a vehicle to produce effective tactical miniature gameplay.

Who does that?

(For reference, it isn't me. I use effective tactical miniature gameplay as a vehicle to produce enjoyable roleplaying opportunities. And yes, there's a very large difference here. If there wasn't, I'd stick to MtG and C&C for my gameplay enjoyment.)

-----------

I'm still waiting on an example where roleplaying actually interferes with level-appropriate optimization.

Indon
2010-04-12, 03:08 PM
Belkar is shown to be able to handle single-classed enemies of similar tier with relative ease. He's even handled a CR = ECL+4 rogue under unpleasent circumstances. Belkar is level appropriate, and therefore, optimized as well as I or the OP desires.
The game's probably toned down for Belkar and Roy. Note the only character death was when one character tried to solo an epic-level caster.

In fact, OOTS demonstrates how the 'set the challenge to the party' approach can work extremely well.


I'm still waiting on an example where roleplaying actually interferes with level-appropriate optimization.

As noted, OOTS is likely an example of just that - by RAW, in fact, the party is very similar to the OP's group. We have one character who's intentionally unoptimized because he wants organic character growth, and another who is unoptimized because he's doing what he thinks is cool rather than what would, by the system, be effective. And of course we also have Elan, whose characterization as a hilariously inept adventurer certainly at least makes for good comedy.

Lost Wanderer
2010-04-12, 03:26 PM
Belkar is a classic example of a character who was designed primarily as a bundle of numbers spec'ed for combat effectiveness instead of anything like an actual person might develop. He's a halfling TWF ranger with a single digit Wisdom and no ranks in Survival. How in the world did he get to where he was before he met Roy? How did he even get ranger training in the first place?

Kylarra
2010-04-12, 03:29 PM
I'd completely missed this until zovc quoted it.

A combat in 4E that takes an hour RL time is actually very fast.

In retrospect, your problem is not, at all, the optimization of your characters. It's that combat in 4E is slow.
That's actually a fairly good point that I also missed. An hour for an encounter isn't half bad at all timewise.

Godskook
2010-04-12, 03:34 PM
The game's probably toned down for Belkar and Roy. Note the only character death was when one character tried to solo an epic-level caster.

In fact, OOTS demonstrates how the 'set the challenge to the party' approach can work extremely well.

Because "setting the challenge to the party" means:
-An epic-level sorcerer as the BBEG that they face before they level more than once. He has a cleric cohort who can cast 8th level spells, a MitD that has a power-level unknown. And this is before the story even gets going.
-Using smart encounters to split the party but still make them CR appropriate, despite the clear advantage.
-Send high-CR enemies at individual members as soon as they've left the main group.

And as far as 'deaths' go, no the DM hasn't killed them too often, but look at how many times he didn't only because that's the way the plot was going:
-Elan & Rescue party could have been killed by those thieves.
-Haley could have been killed by Nale when he had her alone and unenchanted.
-Miko didn't kill them only because she was ordered not to do it by Shinjo.
-V was as good as dead from the ABD.
-Haley(Again) was captured in the first arc, and its solely by DM good-will that it wasn't a CR appropriate monster that grabbed her.
-The boat incident when Azure city was taken was one that the OotS would've lost had it not been for NPC action.
-Bozzok and Starshine should've killed Haley before Belkar got there. They had the time to do it.
-Currently, V and Elan are disabled, and Haley's offscreen. By dialog, we have another "captured PCs" scenario going on, and that means that "dead PCs" was possible.
-I'm also not counting situations such as when Xykon curbstomped enhanced V, or similar, as the plot really didn't get to the "Well, really, its more DM-fiat that you're still alive than DM-fiat that you'd be dead." stage.

Yeah, kid gloves for sure. Not really. The DM isn't pulling his punches, he's giving the PCs time to optimize IC so that they actually stand a chance in hell against his BBEG.

NeoVid
2010-04-12, 03:41 PM
This is probably not that helpful, but the first thing that came to mind about Biologist was this: since he wants things to be realistic and believable, it's very realistic that incompetent adventurers would be killed. A lot. He will either not mind, since it's the logical outcome for his characters, or he'll make stronger characters.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-12, 04:19 PM
To clarify:

I and the two other players min/max, though only the teen player is really obsessive about it. (Amusingly, the obsessive min/maxer is the Friend’s younger brother.) A sixth member joined our group this Sunday, and I ran a one-shot for everyone. I didn’t look at anyone’s character sheet, so I don’t know how much the new guy min/maxed, but he did alright in the adventure.

Out of everyone in the group, I’m probably the most expressive about my thoughts and opinions. The Friend and the Biologist agreed that combat takes too long only after I brought it up. Nobody complains about anything – in game or out of game. (Except for the obsessive min/maxer, when he misses with a daily or gets close to being KOed.) But there have been occasions when the Friend and the Biologist were clearly bored/frustrated with not being able to hit and the general length of combat.

Anyway after reading these responses and thinking it over I’ve realized a couple things:

The Friend min/maxes enough for me. She’s at the bare minimum level of optimization that the game expects, but she’s there. I think her real problem, which I wasn’t thinking about while I wrote the OP, is that her favorite d20 is clearly unlucky. It’s a beautiful die, but I’m going to visit her this week so I can test roll it because I’m betting that 70% of its rolls are under 10. Maybe if I show her undisputable evidence of how unbalanced that d20 is, she’ll accept a gift of game science dice from me.

I think the Biologist can be nudged toward…well, less anti-min/maxing at least, if I emphasize that I want ADVENTURERS rather than whatever oddball concepts may occur to a player. (The armor-less fighter was a blacksmith, btw.) I’ll also try giving him stat suggestions. I’ll leave the rest up to Darwin. (Only problem will be if he makes a tough character that can’t hit the broad side of a barn – in that case, the other characters would end up suffering for him.)

@ 3e players: there are very few traps in 4e. The class descriptions flat-out tell you what stats and powers work well for you. There are no brokenly overpowered classes that I know of; and the two brokenly underpowered classes can be fixes with a simple tweak. Feats aren’t nearly as important as they are in 3e; even filling every feat slot with skill training and “useless” feats, you can still have an operable combat character. The only eventual “must have” feat is Expertise, but I fixed that with a house rule.

@ Glyphstone: I’m not sure how the other players would react if I dumbed down encounters so that armorless fighters could be heroic. The obsessive min/maxer seems to be happy as long as he gets to kill things and level up. But I know how I’d react: I’d get bored fast, and then irritated to the point of not wanting to DM.

@ “Switch game/editions.” Not interested. Even if I wanted to, everyone else prefers 4e. Except for the Biologist, whose favorite RPG is a scifi game called Blue Planet. Unfortunately for him, nobody else is particularly interested in Blue Planet. (The Friend and I played it with him a couple times, but nobody else will even try it.)

@ “Give free stuff to the weak PCs”: Not interested. The obsessive min/maxer would get upset, and might actually try to abuse my generosity, and I’m not sure I’d blame him. I wouldn’t want to play in a game where the GM actively rewarded ineptitude.

@ “Do less combat”: I do my best to maintain a balance between combat and non-combat in my game. The Biologist would probably prefer less and the obsessive min/maxer would definitely prefer more, but I’m happy with the balance and I think the others are too.

@ Sinfire: What?! I think throwing a brick at them will make my group hate me if they don’t already.

@ awa: Reduced defenses and increased attacks isn’t a bad idea. I write my own monsters, and I already use lower HP and more damage than published ones.

@ Indon: 4e does take a long time, which is my one real complaint about 4e. Shaving off HP helps, but having decent PCs (and d20s) helps too. I’ve heard of groups that do combats (even high level combats) in 30 minutes, so I can’t help thinking that there’s a player issue too.

erikun
2010-04-12, 05:19 PM
I think her real problem, which I wasn’t thinking about while I wrote the OP, is that her favorite d20 is clearly unlucky. It’s a beautiful die, but I’m going to visit her this week so I can test roll it because I’m betting that 70% of its rolls are under 10. Maybe if I show her undisputable evidence of how unbalanced that d20 is, she’ll accept a gift of game science dice from me.
This is actually a problem I have also, oddly enough. I'm not sure how three different dice can all manage to roll under 5 for entire sessions at a time, but it happens. I've found that playing leaders can help relieve this - even if you can't hit anything, you're still participating and still providing support for the party. Warlord played very nice for me, between the passive bonuses, the healing, and the ability to give attacks to allies.

Other than that, it doesn't sound like she has that big of a problem. Honestly, bad rolls suck (especially if they are quite frequent) but it just makes rolling several 16's on an AoE that much more satisfying.


I think the Biologist can be nudged toward…well, less anti-min/maxing at least, if I emphasize that I want ADVENTURERS rather than whatever oddball concepts may occur to a player. (The armor-less fighter was a blacksmith, btw.) I’ll also try giving him stat suggestions. I’ll leave the rest up to Darwin. (Only problem will be if he makes a tough character that can’t hit the broad side of a barn – in that case, the other characters would end up suffering for him.)
This one is trickier, but you might suggest making alternatives or being familiar with other options. For example, there is a feat which allows Primal characters to add their CON to their AC rather than DEX - perhaps his armorless blacksmith would make a good Barbarian with that feat?

Or just make stuff up. Just how does he expect his blacksmith to hit something? Or does he just expect to hide under a table in fights?

Recommend that he come up with interesting character concepts that can participate in fights. I remember one character mentioned here which was a dryad and a warforged - the character was basically the dryad, but the warforged was "connected" to the dryad and thus was the one with combat stats.

jiriku
2010-04-12, 06:07 PM
I think Awa's right on. If you want faster combats, use glass cannon monsters. Increase damage by 50% and reduce hp by 1/3 and BAM, you'll shave 20 minutes off every battle.

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-12, 06:26 PM
Double all combat damage. Don't encourage Min/Maxing.

done

That doesn't help at all. Min/Maxing is a good thing in the right quantities.


@ Sinfire: What?! I think throwing a brick at them will make my group hate me if they don’t already.


As I said, the Min/Maxers will be able to block it with someone else's face. It's the optimal thing to do as it not only avoids the problem, but creates humor.

taltamir
2010-04-12, 07:25 PM
Let the biologist take a level in badass. Have him find in character a powerful mentor impressed with his tenacity who offers to train him, with the explicit result of it being that he comes back with his stats adjusted up and better. just make sure you roleplay it well and he will love you for it, remain a biologist, and enjoy a more powerful character.

Have you ever nagged them about roleplaying more? this could result from stormwind.

QuantumSteve
2010-04-12, 08:00 PM
If your players want to be better in combat, then you should easily be able to offer "suggestions." Just don't call it "Min/Maxing" or "Optimizing" call it "Roleplaying Opportunities" or something. Their character, who is obviously disappointed by their ineffectiveness in combat, undergoes training to learn a new skill or tactic to increase their combat prowess.

If the problem is stats, you can make up some type of training for that to. I know 3e had straight up rules for retraining stats.


Incidentally, just how important are stats in 4e. In 3.5 the difference between a 12 Str Fighter and a 14 Str Fighter is one piddly point of damage. The right feats are much more important than stats. Even more so once stat boosting magic and items are thrown into the mix. There has to be some type of damage boosting power or weapon finesse or something in 4e.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-12, 08:21 PM
Let the biologist take a level in badass. Have him find in character a powerful mentor impressed with his tenacity who offers to train him, with the explicit result of it being that he comes back with his stats adjusted up and better. just make sure you roleplay it well and he will love you for it, remain a biologist, and enjoy a more powerful character.
That gives me a heavy-handed idea: his gimped character meets a mysterious NPC who "curses" him. As the curse takes effect, I roll a few dice behind the screen, pretend to study them, and then I tell him to modify certain stats. Those stats just happen to be decently optimized for his build, and they just happen to add up to standard point buy value. Being so uninterested in rules and numbers, I doubt he'd notice the "coincidence." Heck, "cursed" armor could also be part of the curse. :smallbiggrin:

As an aside, I wouldn't have a problem with players retraining anything and everything they want to, even mid level. Nobody has asked me, though. I should mention that when we start.


Have you ever nagged them about roleplaying more? this could result from stormwind.
Oddly, no, I've never nagged them about rping.

Godskook
2010-04-12, 08:22 PM
Incidentally, just how important are stats in 4e. In 3.5 the difference between a 12 Str Fighter and a 14 Str Fighter is one piddly point of damage. The right feats are much more important than stats. Even more so once stat boosting magic and items are thrown into the mix. There has to be some type of damage boosting power or weapon finesse or something in 4e.

You picked a bad example on 12 and 14, there, buddy. The difference is:

+1 to hit
+2 damage if using a 2-handed weapon(its 1 1/2 str, so +1 str gives +1 damage but +2 str gives +3 damage).
Power Attack

Considering that power attack is referenced in almost every fighter build advice out there, I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

The difference between a 13 str fighter and a 14 str fighter is less dramatic, but at early levels, every point of str makes a huge difference in determining how big of a creature you can 1-hit at first level. So I'd say it also makes a big difference what level you're playing at. Don't know about 4e though.

QuantumSteve
2010-04-12, 08:49 PM
You picked a bad example on 12 and 14, there, buddy. The difference is:

+1 to hit

Weapon Finesse; same to hit (or if not finessable, fine -1 to hit)


+2 damage if using a 2-handed weapon(its 1 1/2 str, so +1 str gives +1 damage but +2 str gives +3 damage).
Power Attack

Considering that power attack is referenced in almost every fighter build advice out there, I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

With a two-handed weapon, yes it's 2 less damage, but Sword&Board is a viable build, that surely meets the "Minimum Optimization" standards. So, split the difference:

1.5 Piddly Damage

As for Power Attack, take it at 4th. Power Attack isn't that good at 1st when you have no BaB to dump into it, anyway.

Even at first level, 1-2 damage is a good portion of your avg dam. But that adds at most 1 round to the fight. And each level thereafter it gets smaller. So, yeah, 12 Str makes a difference but not so big as to make a character "unplayably" weak.

Ozymandias9
2010-04-12, 09:01 PM
I think the Biologist can be nudged toward…well, less anti-min/maxing at least, if I emphasize that I want ADVENTURERS rather than whatever oddball concepts may occur to a player.

That's at least worth pointing out. The concept of adventuring as a quasi-profession is something that a heavy simulationist might not assume. If you make it clear that it's an assumed element of setting (Yeah, people really want to become violent hobos because its more economically viable than arcane research or being a member of the town guard), he may be willing to build the characters with that in mind. (Or he may find the concept offensive-- I personally never want to role play a violent hobo).


Also, "Blue Planet" is an awesome game.

The Glyphstone
2010-04-12, 11:30 PM
Incidentally, just how important are stats in 4e. In 3.5 the difference between a 12 Str Fighter and a 14 Str Fighter is one piddly point of damage. The right feats are much more important than stats. Even more so once stat boosting magic and items are thrown into the mix. There has to be some type of damage boosting power or weapon finesse or something in 4e.


I'd say, overall, that stats are somewhat more important in 4E, because they're the primary way you have of boosting your to-hit roll, with very few other options that you have active control over besides items (which should be as high as possible anyways), and the math for monster defenses assumes a certain parity of hit ability.

Endarire
2010-04-13, 12:00 AM
4E is realistic as far as "I find stuff, kill it, and take its things" goes. It's a game that admits it's a game.

3.x is a game that tries to be a simulation.

krossbow
2010-04-13, 01:39 AM
That's at least worth pointing out. The concept of adventuring as a quasi-profession is something that a heavy simulationist might not assume. If you make it clear that it's an assumed element of setting (Yeah, people really want to become violent hobos because its more economically viable than arcane research or being a member of the town guard), he may be willing to build the characters with that in mind. (Or he may find the concept offensive-- I personally never want to role play a violent hobo).


Also, "Blue Planet" is an awesome game.


well, it really does seem like a good job on paper. Your essentially doing the same thing that Freebooters and other licensed pirates did back in the day. You're endorsed by the community, your actions are accepted as being acceptable by communities, and your doing a "service" in killing threats to the community and stealing said threats wealth.

tbarrie
2010-04-13, 01:47 AM
How do I gently but effectively encourage a simulationist and a “role player” to min/max their D&D characters just a bit more? How do I concisely and convincingly explain that role playing is not antithetical to min/maxing, and that playing a heroic realistic character is more fun than playing a putz realistic character?

I'm afraid the answer to the last part of that question is as unhelpful as it obvious: you can't convincingly explain that doing it that way is more fun, because it's not universally true. If the topic were good game design in general, then evidence that most gamers prefer that would have some relevance (and I suspect it's true that they do), but this is unlikely to convince an individual who happens not to agree, nor should it.

So I'd agree with what other people have said and not worry about the optimization. The only tangible problem you mention is overly long combat, and while I can see how party power level and combat length can correlate, tinkering with the former wouldn't be my first instinct if all you want to do is adjust the latter. (Eg, fast combats are a good thing in general, but combats that are fast because the PCs just effortlessly wipe out the opposition aren't.)
The suggestion to increase monster damage while decreasing HPs sounds like a good one to me.

(I notice in a later post you do mention the two unoptimized PCs' players being frustrated with their relative difficulty hitting, but I still wouldn't worry about it. They can decide for themselves whether the frustration outweighs their reasons for choosing the stats they did; DM intervention would only be appropriate if it starts causing friction with other players, IMODO.

And, err, is the armourless blacksmith also the melee fighter with 12 Str? Because a frickin' blacksmith of all people should have no difficulty justifying a higher strength than that.)

Sinfire Titan
2010-04-13, 01:54 AM
3.x is a game that tries to be a simulation.

3.5 is 6 different toys LEGO has produced (Bionicles, normal LEGOs, etc). You're building things, then playing with them.

Reluctance
2010-04-13, 02:02 AM
@ “Switch game/editions.” Not interested. Even if I wanted to, everyone else prefers 4e. Except for the Biologist, whose favorite RPG is a scifi game called Blue Planet. Unfortunately for him, nobody else is particularly interested in Blue Planet. (The Friend and I played it with him a couple times, but nobody else will even try it.)

This stands out to me. Completely combat-ineffective characters are usually either forms of exploration or protest. The guy is either trying to experiment with something outside of the usual D&D tropes, or more likely he's deliberately undercutting his fun. Maybe because someone else called dibs on the role he wanted, maybe because he wants to play some other system/setting/whatever, maybe because he just has no op-fu and is happier redefining "success" on his own terms. Can't say exactly what the issue is, but you'll have to help him work whatever out of his system before he'll be ready to play D&D on its terms.

Doc Roc
2010-04-13, 02:32 AM
3.5 is 6 different toys LEGO has produced (Bionicles, normal LEGOs, etc). You're building things, then playing with them.

I'm so glad you're back. So So So Glad.

pasko77
2010-04-13, 06:13 AM
Fighter with no armor and low strength? Avenger.

Indeed.
Refluff the class that makes them better.
I mean, your friend has 12 Str, but 16 int? Fine, make him play a swordmage.

Indon
2010-04-13, 06:46 AM
@ Indon: 4e does take a long time, which is my one real complaint about 4e. Shaving off HP helps, but having decent PCs (and d20s) helps too. I’ve heard of groups that do combats (even high level combats) in 30 minutes, so I can’t help thinking that there’s a player issue too.

That issue is highly unlikely to be player power.

Groups like that are groups that use shortcuts to track their skills expended, buffs and debuffs, and where the players and DM make their tactical decisions quickly and without a lot of around-the-table banter.

Which is true about your campaign:

-Are your players using skill cards to easily track what they've used and what they haven't?
-Are your party's buffs and debuffs being tracked in an easy and quick way, or are your players constantly going, "Oh! And then the +2 from..."?
-Are the players talking during combat about anything that isn't combat?
-Are the players taking quick and decisive actions?
-Is the DM taking quick and decisive actions? This one's an important one, as the DM's actions constitute roughly half the combat.


Indeed.
Refluff the class that makes them better.
I mean, your friend has 12 Str, but 16 int? Fine, make him play a swordmage.

Refluff? Nah, this is 4th edition! Remechanicing is equally easy and requires much less modification of character concept.

Just let them be a Fighter or whatever that uses the Swordmage/Avenger/Psion/whatever ruleset.

pasko77
2010-04-13, 06:59 AM
Refluff? Nah, this is 4th edition! Remechanicing is equally easy and requires much less modification of character concept.

Just let them be a Fighter or whatever that uses the Swordmage/Avenger/Psion/whatever ruleset.

That's what i meant. Maybe i misused the word refluff (to me it just means "change the flavor text". So take a swordmage and call it fighter is "refluff").

Riffington
2010-04-13, 08:34 AM
@ “Give free stuff to the weak PCs”: Not interested. The obsessive min/maxer would get upset, and might actually try to abuse my generosity, and I’m not sure I’d blame him. I wouldn’t want to play in a game where the GM actively rewarded ineptitude.


I don't think I understand. If you have characters of unequal power, and you give the weaker ones freebies (that don't quite reach the power level of the stronger ones), how does that hurt the strong ones?
And what do you mean ineptitude? I thought these players just had different goals than the one you call the "obsessive min-maxer". To say that they are therefore inept at "obsessive min-maxing" is odd. I mean, if you have characters with unequal numbers of plot hooks in their character backgrounds, wouldn't you sometimes throw the spotlight to one of the ones with fewer (just as a freebie)? Is that "rewarding ineptitude"?

mackejn
2010-04-13, 08:51 AM
I don't think I understand. If you have characters of unequal power, and you give the weaker ones freebies (that don't quite reach the power level of the stronger ones), how does that hurt the strong ones?
And what do you mean ineptitude? I thought these players just had different goals than the one you call the "obsessive min-maxer". To say that they are therefore inept at "obsessive min-maxing" is odd. I mean, if you have characters with unequal numbers of plot hooks in their character backgrounds, wouldn't you sometimes throw the spotlight to one of the ones with fewer (just as a freebie)? Is that "rewarding ineptitude"?

The problem is the reaction of the min/maxer. If someone gets a lot of new shinies, the min/maxer is going to want them too. It just creates group strife. That's just how some people view stuff. I've seen time and again with video games, especially MMO's. It's just a mindset some people have. Using plot hooks as an example just shows how different the mindset is. I can almost guarantee you the min/maxer won't care about them, all he cares about is killing stuff. Nothing wrong with either of those, just different play styles. As far as the biologist goes, it really just sounds like he isn't a good fit for the group. I see a couple of ways to go. Ignore the character because obviously he's not doing much. Kill the character repeatedly and explain to the player that this is the 'realistic' outcome of building a character like that. Talk to the guy and explain to him if he wants to find a way to quit being frustrated, something has to give.

awa
2010-04-13, 11:21 AM
If the charecter is weak enough to be killed in a normal combat that's one thing but don't go out of your way to specifically kill that charecter particularly if you do it over and over the player may get angry your not letting them play the kind of player they want and are being unfair.

Another thing to think about is when pepole say why would the other characters hang out with this weakling think about this is he weak or less powerful then the rest of the party a badly unoptimized level 10 character can still slap around the town guard with one hand tied behind his back.

Sometimes a characters back story almost requires them to not be very good such as say the hobbits in lord of the rings (other times the mechanics just don't support the concept)

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-13, 04:31 PM
]
Refluff? Nah, this is 4th edition! Remechanicing is equally easy and requires much less modification of character concept.

Just let them be a Fighter or whatever that uses the Swordmage/Avenger/Psion/whatever ruleset.

:smallconfused: But that is refluffing... You're making taking a swordmage and giving it the fighter fluff.

Tequila Sunrise
2010-04-13, 04:35 PM
If he writes a character with poor defenses, I certainly will have halfway intelligent foes target him, as is appropriate. The problem I see is that his attack bonus is often very low too, in which case the smart thing for foes to do would be to just ignore him. And I don't want to punish the other players for his intentional ineptitude.

Doc Roc
2010-04-13, 05:08 PM
Have one of the optimizers roll up a toon to be his sidekick.

Indon
2010-04-14, 02:01 PM
:smallconfused: But that is refluffing... You're making taking a swordmage and giving it the fighter fluff.

In the sense that you're starting with the class you want and trying to get to a good RP character, yes, it's refluffing.

But this guy's starting with the character. He's not looking for an excuse to play a mechanically effective character, and I wouldn't recommend implying it. He'd get his character remechanic'ed, or rebuilt. Yes, it is different, in a subtle way that indicates gameplay priorities and approach, if not a substantial one.

Tinydwarfman
2010-04-14, 03:00 PM
In the sense that you're starting with the class you want and trying to get to a good RP character, yes, it's refluffing.

But this guy's starting with the character. He's not looking for an excuse to play a mechanically effective character, and I wouldn't recommend implying it. He'd get his character remechanic'ed, or rebuilt. Yes, it is different, in a subtle way that indicates gameplay priorities and approach, if not a substantial one.

True, but I also don't think his player would go for that either. From what I've heard of the Swordmage it has some very magical stuff which the player would probably object to. I would instead just take everything that references STR in the fighter class, and replace it with INT. Call it a fighter ACF. That is forced on him in game. And then give him some kind of unarmored bonus (whatever the 4e monk analogue is) and have it also given as a reward to a quest. (Don't let him say no to it. It just happens. Magical fairy X gives him the ability to see into the future a bit, giving him a bonus to AC. Metal interrupts this, since fairies generally have a pretty string aversion to metal.)