PDA

View Full Version : The other kind of min-maxing



Umael
2010-07-11, 08:48 PM
Just wanted to get some thoughts from other people on this idea.

My gaming group is somewhat blind in their assessment of D&D 3.5 and the power balance. As in 20th-level fighter is as strong as 20th-level wizard kind of blindness. They also think Mystic Theurge is a broken prestige class.

I'm wondering if I can get them to allow me to play a Mystic Theurge, but play up the optimization of a wizard/cleric class.

I know playing a Tier 1 (and optimizing it) in a group of Tier 4-6 or so is bad taste, but what is the reaction if I intentionally gimp myself?

Wings of Peace
2010-07-11, 08:50 PM
I don't understand, do you just want to play a Mystic Theurge or do you want to show them they're wrong? Because if you just want to show them they're wrong dominating as a single classed Wizard or Cleric would be more effective.

To your second point, if you purposely don't perform overpoweringly they probably won't think you're overpowered. It doesn't sound like they're mechanic minded enough to look at your sheet and realize you're stronger than them so their ideas will likely come from witnessing how you perform.

Prodan
2010-07-11, 08:57 PM
I know playing a Tier 1 (and optimizing it) in a group of Tier 4-6 or so is bad taste, but what is the reaction if I intentionally gimp myself?

Have fun with your Theurge.

elonin
2010-07-11, 08:57 PM
In a group of tier 5 characters a teir 4 character is king. If you were a blaster wizard only then a fighter isn't that horrible. For example if you went focused specialist evokation and banned conjuration, transmutation and necromancy then you wouldn't be that much better than a melee type.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-11, 08:59 PM
What's the fun of not min-maxing?
The less you're worried about the numbers, the easier it is to make a character that's fun to roleplay. :)
Unless it's not one of those games.

Prodan
2010-07-11, 09:00 PM
What's the fun of not min-maxing?
The less you're worried about the numbers, the easier it is to make a character that's fun to roleplay. :)

Do you want a minute to think over the flaws in your statement before I say something involving the Stormwind Fallacy?

Private-Prinny
2010-07-11, 09:03 PM
If they think Mystic Theurge is broken, it might leave a bad taste in their mouths if you pick it up, even if we all know better.

If you want to show them that they're wrong, you could just throw some math at them, but again, bad taste.

If this is just about how to blend in while playing a decently powerful caster, use those extra slots to your advantage to buff the party, and only take the gloves off when you're close to a TPK. Powerful buffers can slide by unnoticed unless you're mechanically minded.

Keld Denar
2010-07-11, 09:05 PM
What's the fun of not min-maxing?
The less you're worried about the numbers, the easier it is to make a character that's fun to roleplay. :)
Unless it's not one of those games.

Stormwind alert! Stormwind alert! BLOOOP BLOOOP BLOOOP!

Anyway, the best thing you can do in a low op group if you want to optimize is to max out a support character. Be a buffer wizard, buffer cleric, or buffer drood, or bard. Bards in particular are hillarious because historically they have such a bad name as being weak.

Watch their jaws drop when you add 4d6 fire damage to all of their hits at level 3...

Lhurgyof
2010-07-11, 09:07 PM
Do you want a minute to think over the flaws in your statement before I say something?
I'm saying that creating a character that can dispatch of any enemy and just killing monsters doesn't make for a good roleplaying game.
I understand the problem, but he said making a bad character isn't fun, but making a character that's unoptimized can be fun. Thog, the half-orc bard/fighter, A half-elf barbarian that's timid but is close to snapping, etc., etc.

Keld Denar
2010-07-11, 09:14 PM
What is this half-elf of which you speak? I don't seem to remember seeing it before.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-11, 09:17 PM
What is this half-elf of which you speak? I don't seem to remember seeing it before.

I don't know if this is sarcasm. Both of those were characters of mine.
Someone told me to name my half orc bard thog, but this was before I discovered OotS. xD
And it's just a character I'm gunna make if mine dies, a half-elf barbarian with low strength and low con. He's very timid and doesn't carry himself well. Until he just snaps and goes ape-**** crazy. xD

Zovc
2010-07-11, 09:19 PM
OP, what is your objective?

Are you trying to show them how broken Wizards and Clerics are at the same time, or do you just want to play a Mystic Theurge?

I ask because playing a MT will make it harder to demonstrate how broken one class or the other is. On the other hand, they will probably hate your guts and overreact to everything you do as a Mystic Theurge, even if it is very underwhelming.

"You're flying around at level 8? That's BROKEN!"

...Even though a Wizard would be doing that at level 5. I guarantee you you will have a moment like that, that is, if you just want to play a MT.

Prodan
2010-07-11, 09:24 PM
And it's just a character I'm gunna make if mine dies, a half-elf barbarian with low strength and low con. He's very timid and doesn't carry himself well. Until he just snaps and goes ape-**** crazy. xD

How would this be better roleplayed than a more powerful build?

Akal Saris
2010-07-11, 09:27 PM
Eh, depending on the character they might not even realize how powerful you are. A Wiz 5/War Weaver 5/Incantatrix 10 is certainly a powerful PrC, but if they are doing all the killing after you weave 10 buffs into them, they might not even realize how strong your character is. Same for a character based on crowd control ("god" wizard) or for an artificer who makes items for the party.

Honestly, I've had players complain about my ranger/scout getting 3rd level spells when I was in a party with a druid, a wizard, and a cleric. At 13th level. There's simply no accounting for what people might think is broken or not.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-11, 09:28 PM
How would this be better roleplayed than a more powerful build?

I'm not sure, but I'm saying that adding up numbers is not a good way to roleplay.

I misread the OP and I thought he said "What's the fun in intentionally gimping myself". Dx

Keld Denar
2010-07-11, 09:36 PM
Ah, but adding up numbers is INDEPENDANT of roleplay. You can roleplay an effective character as one who doesn't think hes effective, and then surprises himself when he "goes crazy and kills people" as you mentioned it. You don't actually have to be terrible to do it.

Stormwind Fallacy, google it. Unfortunately, the origional thread has been lost in the polluted sesspool that has become the gleemax forums. Lame.

HA! Simu-swordsaged all of you!

Wings of Peace
2010-07-11, 09:36 PM
I'm saying that creating a character that can dispatch of any enemy and just killing monsters doesn't make for a good roleplaying game.
I understand the problem, but he said making a bad character isn't fun, but making a character that's unoptimized can be fun. Thog, the half-orc bard/fighter, A half-elf barbarian that's timid but is close to snapping, etc., etc.

I'm failing to understand how my desire to be mechanically well made is reducing my ability to roleplay. Your description of Thog even gains its interest by centering around a personality trait, something that is not influenced by Thog's mechanics but rather by how you yourself roleplay him.

Optimystik
2010-07-11, 09:36 PM
I'm not sure, but I'm saying that adding up numbers is not a good way to roleplay.

'Adding up numbers' is completely independent of roleplay.

What you're saying makes as much sense as "peeling a banana is not a good way to drive." Whether people can roleplay well or not has nothing to do with how they handle numbers.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-11, 09:40 PM
Guys, I said that I misread the OP. I was sure he said that there's no fun in gimping yourself, so I was describing fun characters that are non-optimized and that just being concerned with your character's power doesn't make for a fun game at all... O.o

Prodan
2010-07-11, 09:40 PM
HA! Simu-swordsaged all of you!

Check post number 6.

Private-Prinny
2010-07-11, 09:42 PM
'Adding up numbers' is completely independent of roleplay. What you're saying makes as much sense as "peeling a banana is not a good way to drive."

This is going straight into my sig.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-11, 09:43 PM
Guys, I said that I misread the OP. I was sure he said that there's no fun in gimping yourself, so I was describing fun characters that are non-optimized and that just being concerned with your character's power doesn't make for a fun game at all... O.o

No way man, we've got a hate train going. Don't use your friendly demeanor or the admittance of making a mistake to stop us! :smallsmile:

Lhurgyof
2010-07-11, 09:44 PM
I indeed feel stupid for misreading the OP and learned my lesson. Dx
Playing an unoptimized character can be just as fun as playing an optimized character was the point I was making. The game doesn't have to be all about the numbers.

Ah, poo, hate train? xD

Math_Mage
2010-07-11, 09:49 PM
OP, if you want to break the fallacy of 'fighter 20 ~ wizard 20', just use a lower-tier caster like a beguiler to out-contribute the others. Demonstrating that MT <<< straight Tier 1 class has to wait until they recognize that there's a tier system to begin with, and breaking them down with a Tier 1-2 class is probably too much of a shock to a Tier 4+ party.

Prodan
2010-07-11, 09:52 PM
OP, if you want to break the fallacy of 'fighter 20 ~ wizard 20', just use a lower-tier caster like a beguiler .

Woah there, Nelly! The beguiler is totally broken because it has a large amount of spells known per level from which it casts spontaneously, and we all know how powerful spontaneous casters are! On top of that, it gets more HP and actual class features, making it more OP than the sorcerer, who only has his familiar to keep himself company.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-11, 09:55 PM
Woah there, Nelly! The beguiler is totally broken because it has a large amount of spells known per level from which it casts spontaneously, and we all know how powerful spontaneous casters are! On top of that, it gets more HP and actual class features, making it more OP than the sorcerer, who only has his familiar to keep himself company.

Why the sarcasm? He was saying that the OP should use a lower Tiered class than Wizard or Cleric to show that even without being one of the Big X, casting itself is generally more powerful than the bottom of the rung tiered classes thus introducing them to the tier system.

Or were you doing mock examples the groups potential responses?

Private-Prinny
2010-07-11, 09:56 PM
Woah there, Nelly! The beguiler is totally broken because it has a large amount of spells known per level from which it casts spontaneously, and we all know how powerful spontaneous casters are! On top of that, it gets more HP and actual class features, making it more OP than the sorcerer, who only has his familiar to keep himself company.

But how will either of them get through the Monk's spell resistance? Then he can just use Quivering Palm. How will they ever make a DC 22 Fortitude save?

Prodan
2010-07-11, 09:56 PM
Why the sarcasm? He was saying that the OP should use a lower Tiered class than Wizard or Cleric to show that even without being one of the Big X, casting itself is generally more powerful than the bottom of the rung tiered classes thus introducing them to the tier system

Doesn't mean a thing of the group thinks the Beguiler is broken, which they probably will.

Keld Denar
2010-07-11, 09:57 PM
who only has his familiar to keep himself company.

Cause we all know, classes that don't get familiars are totally weak. Familiars can totally tank and are badass like that. *cough* Lightning Warrior *cough*

Wings of Peace
2010-07-11, 09:57 PM
Doesn't mean a thing of the group thinks the Beguiler is broken, which they probably will.

Yeah, caught onto your point and ninja edited it in. :smallsmile:

Prodan
2010-07-11, 09:59 PM
Yeah, caught onto your point and ninja edited it in. :smallsmile:
That's cheating.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-11, 10:03 PM
That's cheating.


It's a class feature of Forum Posters. It's not cheating, it's min/maxing :smallcool:

Lhurgyof
2010-07-11, 10:04 PM
It's a class feature of Forum Posters. It's not cheating, it's min/maxing :smallcool:

Hahaha, can I use that in my sig? xD

Wings of Peace
2010-07-11, 10:06 PM
Hahaha, can I use that in my sig? xD

It's yours. :smallbiggrin:

Devils_Advocate
2010-07-11, 10:24 PM
The less you're worried about the numbers, the easier it is to make a character that's fun to roleplay.
People can and do play games where the players give generally non-quantitative descriptions of their characters and their actions. Some players may indeed find that these free-form and/or rules-light systems are more fun to roleplay in (though others may not).

But if you show up to a session of D&D with a page-long description of a character but no stats, expect the rest of the group to be peeved at best. (That is, if you were expected to bring an already-finished character.) Don't expect them to be any happier if you just make up whatever numbers you think would be appropriate to the character that you have in mind, instead of following the rules for character creation.

Even if you followed the rules, the group may still complain if they feel that the character's abilities are inappropriate. This includes -- but is not limited to -- a perception that the character is "overpowered" or "underpowered".

So, D&D is indeed "not one of those games" in which numbers are disregarded. Worrying about the numbers is part of the appeal. Otherwise there would be no reason to have them.

Wings of Peace
2010-07-11, 10:44 PM
People can and do play games where the players give generally non-quantitative descriptions of their characters and their actions. Some players may indeed find that these free-form and/or rules-light systems are more fun to roleplay in (though others may not).

But if you show up to a session of D&D with a page-long description of a character but no stats, expect the rest of the group to be peeved at best. (That is, if you were expected to bring an already-finished character.) Don't expect them to be any happier if you just make up whatever numbers you think would be appropriate to the character that you have in mind, instead of following the rules for character creation.

Even if you followed the rules, the group may still complain if they feel that the character's abilities are inappropriate. This includes -- but is not limited to -- a perception that the character is "overpowered" or "underpowered".

So, D&D is indeed "not one of those games" in which numbers are disregarded. Worrying about the numbers is part of the appeal. Otherwise there would be no reason to have them.

I think you're late to the party D_A as Lhurgyof has both retracted and apologized for the comment all while being very nice about it.

penbed400
2010-07-12, 12:39 AM
My friends used to think that fighter, barbarian, rogue, base classes in general all just seemed to balance out to equal each other. Then I decided to play a Wizard(Focused Specialist: Illusion)5/ShadowAdept1/Incantatrix1/ShadowcraftMage3 in a friends level 10 campaign. Then they saw the light...well shadow.

Runestar
2010-07-12, 12:54 AM
To me at least, better stats can help improve the satisfaction derived from roleplaying, because for all the trashtalking you do, it is ultimately your stats which determine whether you are successful at a particular task or not.

For example, say a red dragon breaths on your rogue. You can weave some fantastic tale about how he dances about dodging the flames, but unless he actually succeeds on his reflex save, he is still getting toasted.

So yeah, you can't roleplay if you are dead. That's really all there is to it, IMO. :smallsmile:

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-07-12, 12:56 AM
You know, a Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge X might be weaker than a Cleric or Wizard of the same level, but it's still probably more powerful than the characters Umael's buddies are trotting out. I don't see much of a point being proven unless the MT is being played alongside a more powerful character; this is why it's always a great help to have a second knowledgeable player at the table.

So, Umael, if you just want to play a MT, don't let their groaning stop you. If you remain buff-oriented you shouldn't outshine anyone, even if you don't disprove any of their mistaken notions about D&D. If you're just trying to prove a point, I suggest against it unless you can invite someone who knows what they're doing to play a reasonably-optimized full caster next to your MT, and you're willing to be outshone every step of the way just to educate your fellow players. What a brave soul.

Thrice Dead Cat
2010-07-12, 01:31 AM
If everyone else is playing some form of beat stick and you want to play a caster without dealing with Mystic Theurge, take a quick look at War Weaver. See that goodness there? Yeah, totally focused on buffing your minions friends. Using War Weaver, you can technically be the strongest member of the party without appearing as such: you just load up on a butt-ton of buffs, packing only a few debuffs or Save-or-Suck type spells so that it isn't apparent.

This way, your friends have fun whacking stuff while you're playing at about Tier 1-2 range, depending on how you slice it. They shouldn't notice this, though, as you're not the one doing the damage.

Read (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=394.0) all (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19867778/The_War_Weaver_Guidebook) of (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19862086/Sir_Guide_to_Gishborn_%28Short_guide_to_DP_Gishes% 29) these. (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19870806/War_Weavers_Handbook,_Black_Tactica_Edition?post_i d=338372886#338372886)

Umael
2010-07-12, 02:27 AM
Note to self: Read Harry Turtledove novel, then post idea in forum. Reverse order means won't check the thread for quite some time.


Okay, wow. Lots to go through.

My original purpose was a lot of things, a witch's brew of ingredients and thoughts. It was about correcting my friends' impression about which classes are broken and how badly, it was about getting to play a Mystic Theurge because I think the class is a neat idea even if the mechanics aren't the most supportive, it's about the value of playing a cool character even when the character is not optimized, it's about the ethics of optimization when you intentionally "gimp" your Tier 1 concept down to Tier 4 or 5.

It was probably more than that, now that I think about it. I think I detected a hint of nutmeg too.

To be fair, it's not just my friends. I mean, they drive me nuts sometimes, but I know I do the same for them. Part of these questions are for my benefit, and since I am not objective about myself, I wanted to (hopefully) phrase it in a manner which would allow for outside (and therefore, more objective) input.

I'll give a more detailed response when I have more time to read the replies thus far more carefully. Thank you all for what you have given so far.

Psyx
2010-07-12, 02:53 AM
I mean, they drive me nuts sometimes

When that happens, sit back and reflect on how lucky you are. Your friends are enjoying the game for what it is, in the manner that it's supposed to be treated.

It would be far worse if you were sat around a table with a whole bunch of venerable dragonwrought kobolds, summoners, druids, RKVs and Naar Demonbinders.

Greenish
2010-07-12, 02:56 AM
When that happens, sit back and reflect on how lucky you are. Your friends are enjoying the game for what it is, in the manner that it's supposed to be treated.

It would be far worse if you were sat around a table with a whole bunch of venerable dragonwrought kobolds, summoners, druids, RKVs and Naar Demonbinders.Yeah, some people play the game totally wrong! How dare they!

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-07-12, 03:35 AM
When that happens, sit back and reflect on how lucky you are. Your friends are enjoying the game for what it is, in the manner that it's supposed to be treated.

It would be far worse if you were sat around a table with a whole bunch of venerable dragonwrought kobolds, summoners, druids, RKVs and Naar Demonbinders.

Excellent straw man you have there. :smallamused:

For the record, disallowing a sub-optimally designed PrC on the unsupported grounds that it is over-powered is not how the game is "supposed" to be played either. It is a stance rooted in the technical ignorance typical of those who have a free form mindset and cannot be bothered to understand the rules/mechanics of the game they are playing.

Psyx
2010-07-12, 04:05 AM
"cannot be bothered to understand the rules/mechanics of the game they are playing."

There's a difference between knowing the rules and knowing how to squeeze every last ounce of blag out of them. Most players manage to play D&D for years without knowing what 'Tier 1' means, or feeling the urge to play a venerable kobold based on their awesome stats.

Hadrian_Emrys
2010-07-12, 04:30 AM
Knowing the rules means being able to grasp the concept that the Mystic Theurge PrC is not broken unto itself given the inherent -3 caster level up both sides as a prereq. Now, sure, one could use something like Ur-Priest and Sublime Chord to pull some late game silliness off, but that's a lot of work for so little effective gain as action economy caps off one's spell usage per round.

The earliest one typically gets into MT is level seven, putting the player at CL4 in both classes. So, instead of running around with level 3-4 goodies, the player gets a couple extra 0-1-2 spells. This isn't wringing out an ounce of anything from the rules, it's just looking at what actually is as opposed to how it appears at an inattentive glance.

tl;dr: The Mystic Theurge PrC makes Admiral Akbar's spidey sense tingle.

ryzouken
2010-07-12, 04:44 AM
Eh, I had good mileage out of a theurge build a long while back, but it hinged on early entry shenanigans and making use of stuff a straight cleric would've abused just fine.

Hee... CL 19 Cleric, CL 11 (15) Wizard with Initiate of Mystra, Divine Metamagic: Persistent Spell, Craft Contingencies, and late levels in Dweomerkeeper. Free Miracles, Contingent effects that only activated if someone got through my 24 hr Anti Magic Field, a 24 hr AMF combined with a 24 hr Stormrage... fun stuff. Later version replaced Stormrage with Ghostform, so if you didn't have Ghostblight or the ability to be incorporeal as an ex ability... I was immune.

And I had Ray Deflection vs. those pesky orbs.

But yeah, usually not a good choice, the Theurge.

Runestar
2010-07-12, 05:10 AM
It would be far worse if you were sat around a table with a whole bunch of venerable dragonwrought kobolds, summoners, druids, RKVs and Naar Demonbinders.

I don't see anything inherently wrong with a game that includes planar shepherds, dweomerkeepers and dragonspawn loredrake dragonwrought kobolds so long as the DM is able to accommodate and challenge them adequately. :smallamused:

So long as everyone is of roughly equivalent power, then it should all work out, regardless of what that power level is, as it means you don't have to worry about any players finding the encounters too easy or challenging.

If anything, this could make for a fun campaign, since their power level allows the DM to pull stunts he otherwise may not be able to use on a less powerful party, such as invading hell and taking Dispater head on (and I am talking about the cr60+ dicefreaks version, not the anemic FC2 one. :smallbiggrin:

Zovc
2010-07-12, 05:19 AM
Eh, I had good mileage out of a theurge build a long while back, but it hinged on early entry shenanigans and making use of stuff a straight cleric would've abused just fine.

Right, essentially the only purpose to use Mystic Theurge would be to get 'more mileage' in the sense of having more spells to cast. I'm sure some would argue that having less high-level spells would defeat the purpose of this.

Also, if you think OP's group frowns upon Mystic Theurge, see what they think of entering it before level 5.


Hee... CL 19 Cleric, CL 11 (15) Wizard with Initiate of Mystra, Divine Metamagic: Persistent Spell, Craft Contingencies, and late levels in Dweomerkeeper. Free Miracles, Contingent effects that only activated if someone got through my 24 hr Anti Magic Field, a 24 hr AMF combined with a 24 hr Stormrage... fun stuff. Later version replaced Stormrage with Ghostform, so if you didn't have Ghostblight or the ability to be incorporeal as an ex ability... I was immune.

For some reason, I doubt CL 19, 15, or even 11 has ever really been utilized by OP's group. If it has, it probably hasn't been utilized 'in an optimal manner'. Otherwise, I doubt OP's group would feel the way they do about the game as a whole.


But yeah, usually not a good choice, the Theurge.

Indeed, and OP agreed with you in the first post of this thread.

taltamir
2010-07-12, 06:00 AM
For the record, disallowing a sub-optimally designed PrC on the unsupported grounds that it is over-powered is not how the game is "supposed" to be played either. It is a stance rooted in the technical ignorance typical of those who have a free form mindset and cannot be bothered to understand the rules/mechanics of the game they are playing.

Beautifully said.
I would point out that convincing them to let you run an already sub-optimal build if you hobble it further is a recipe for suffering.

@OP, I wouldn't bother... expect them to constantly give you crap about it and say "see, see! its over powered" every time you don't totally suck.
Just look at the classes they think are under powered and min/max one of those.

For example, if they think that wizard is totally the same power as fighter... well, play a wizard. You will be more powerful than a theurge, the DM will be less likely to ABUSE your character, and the other players wouldn't constantly whine bitch and moan about it either. (as long as you play them right... aka, give the fighter some buffs)

Psyx
2010-07-12, 06:15 AM
I don't see anything inherently wrong with a game that includes planar shepherds, dweomerkeepers and dragonspawn loredrake dragonwrought kobolds so long as the DM is able to accommodate and challenge them adequately.

It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it? Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.

I don't want to play a skirmish wargame. If I did, I'd play a better one than D&D.

I'm not sure what's worse:
1) One player in the group insisting on playing something insanely powerful compared to their 'friends' so that they are better than everyone else, resulting in the GM either upping the ante to the point where everyone not optimising to the max becomes roadkill or where the uber character destroys everything in its path and everyone else is essentially surplus.

2) Everyone in the party doing it.


I always feel annoyed at players who pull out all the stops to 'beat' me as a GM, rather than trusting me to set the level of difficulty in comparison to their characters; especially when they are doing it to the detriment of the rest of their friends. It doesn't make for a nice game. It also doubles the number of hours I have to spend statting things and thinking of 'oh yeah but they can do X clauses', which means less time thought about story arc, which is generally detrimental to the game. As a result, when the dice 'turn' on such characters, I don't bother giving the benefit of the doubt that I might give to a character who is playing a character first and foremost, regardless of the advantages/disadvantages of doing so.

olentu
2010-07-12, 06:32 AM
tl;dr: The Mystic Theurge PrC makes Admiral Akbar's spidey sense tingle.

Ah good old Admiral Ackbar, I bet he thanks the force every day that he chose not to take penetrating strike.




It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it? Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.

I don't want to play a skirmish wargame. If I did, I'd play a better one than D&D.

I'm not sure what's worse:
1) One player in the group insisting on playing something insanely powerful compared to their 'friends' so that they are better than everyone else, resulting in the GM either upping the ante to the point where everyone not optimising to the max becomes roadkill or where the uber character destroys everything in its path and everyone else is essentially surplus.

2) Everyone in the party doing it.


I always feel annoyed at players who pull out all the stops to 'beat' me as a GM, rather than trusting me to set the level of difficulty in comparison to their characters; especially when they are doing it to the detriment of the rest of their friends. It doesn't make for a nice game. It also doubles the number of hours I have to spend statting things and thinking of 'oh yeah but they can do X clauses', which means less time thought about story arc, which is generally detrimental to the game. As a result, when the dice 'turn' on such characters, I don't bother giving the benefit of the doubt that I might give to a character who is playing a character first and foremost, regardless of the advantages/disadvantages of doing so.

Eh as for 2 I really don't see the problem with playing fun powerful characters so long as everyone is fine with it. Sure you have the point that it might not work in your groups but there is no reason to be so disparaging about what for other groups might find to be just the thing for them.

taltamir
2010-07-12, 06:33 AM
who is Admiral Ackbar?

hamishspence
2010-07-12, 06:34 AM
Its a reference to the "It's a TRAP!" Admiral Ackbar meme.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 06:35 AM
Tier 4, 5's pretty suck though.

They can do 1 thing, if that.
If someone shows up with an unoptimized Truenamer, you'll have a bloody headache trying to make encounters for him in any case.

Tier 3 is pretty fine.

Personally, I don't bother with optimizing tier 1/2's. Sure, you can handle everything, if you plan for it, but that's a lot of work.

Some people DO play D&D as a strategy war game though. I do. It's better than computer games, cause they can't accept unexpected plans. And more customizable options (main reason I like 3.5)

EDIT: Ok, tier 4 isn't all that bad. They can be fine... but it's not so great.

Amphetryon
2010-07-12, 06:36 AM
It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it?
It's rather indicative of wanting to play professional adventurers who are the elite and good at there job, for a different perspective. The notion that I am only 'roleplaying' if my character's stats aren't good is at the heart of Stormwind Fallacy.

Greenish
2010-07-12, 06:38 AM
It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it?That's a false dichotomy.
Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.Races of the Dragon did things to kobold fluff, too, made them something other than low level speedbumbs. Besides, Loredrake, Sovereign Archetypes nor even Greater Dragonic Ritual are in RotD.

I don't want to play a skirmish wargame. If I did, I'd play a better one than D&D.There's a difference between thinking about the numbers too and playing a skirmish wargame.


1) One player in the group insisting on playing something insanely powerful compared to their 'friends' so that they are better than everyone else, resulting in the GM either upping the ante to the point where everyone not optimising to the max becomes roadkill or where the uber character destroys everything in its path and everyone else is essentially surplus.What has that to do with anything? Just because you play a high-strength barbarian or a bard without racial charisma penalty doesn't mean you're trying to be better than everyone else.

taltamir
2010-07-12, 06:38 AM
Its a reference to the "It's a TRAP!" Admiral Ackbar meme.

oh right... that one :P. I should have just googled right away before even asking. I just assumed its a gitp forums thing.

lsfreak
2010-07-12, 07:21 AM
It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it?

I'm going to play off this real quick.

You're a professional soldier. You probably have at least some concept of good training versus bad training, and if you've got an Int or Wis of at least 8 (probably more like 6), you're going to know you should figure out what training is good and what training is bad. Would such a character not look into various kinds of training, figure out what tends to be effective and what not?

As you're regularly risking your life for your profession, it is poor roleplaying to not look at the numbers.

Runestar
2010-07-12, 07:26 AM
Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.

You just answered your own question.

Nobody played a hundred year old geriatric kobold prior to races of dragon exactly because the rules couldn't support the creation of a viable kobold PC. Emphasis being on the word "viable". They were intentionally watered down so they could make for very weak npcs, but that also meant PC kobolds were screwed, as there was no precedent for a negative LA.

You should be thankful that RoD made such a concept viable. What does that say about "rollplaying", when it actually increases the variety of character archetypes available. :smallwink:

You can say that stats aren't everything to a PC, but to me, without stats, the PCs are nothing. :smallsmile:

taltamir
2010-07-12, 08:11 AM
I'm going to play off this real quick.

You're a professional soldier. You probably have at least some concept of good training versus bad training, and if you've got an Int or Wis of at least 8 (probably more like 6), you're going to know you should figure out what training is good and what training is bad. Would such a character not look into various kinds of training, figure out what tends to be effective and what not?

As you're regularly risking your life for your profession, it is poor roleplaying to not look at the numbers.

what about wizards? you are a super genious at a college... do you:
1. randomly take courses
2. randomly select a degree, then take courses that it requires in a random order.
3. plan out your education, deciding what is a good career path, selecting a degree that optimizes your capabilities for said career path, and select class that optimize your ability to finish said degree?

Well, if you are sufficiently intelligent then the answer is 3.

BTW. Even playing a straight fighter 20 is in a way god modding, "ha, I take 30 sword stabs to kill, sucker!". So the same argument against a very high powered party can be made against playing any party in which you can go above RHD.

Psyx
2010-07-12, 09:11 AM
That's a false dichotomy.

No it's not, as I said indicative. Indicative is a not a defining a cast-iron relationship between the two.



Races of the Dragon did things to kobold fluff, too, made them something other than low level speedbumbs.


It did; but there has always been lots of kobold fluff. They only got popular as PCs when they got blaggy. Kobolds are supposed to be low-level speedbumps, after all. Reading RoDr, I'm struggling to figure out why they aren't the dominant lifeform!



There's a difference between thinking about the numbers too and playing a skirmish wargame. What has that to do with anything? Just because you play a high-strength barbarian or a bard without racial charisma penalty doesn't mean you're trying to be better than everyone else.

There's a difference between thinking about numbers and electing to choose the most powerful builds possible regardless of RP aspects or considerations. None of us want to play a gimp, but there's a difference between not playing a gimp and annoying friends and the person running the game by an insistence on playing something ridiculous just to 'win'.

You're right: It's not even really playing a skirmish wargame; it's like trying to win a skirmish wargame by having a semi-broken army list.




You're a professional soldier. You probably have at least some concept of good training versus bad training...

I think you may be over-rating Wis 6, Int 8. Ask any professional soldier how good their military's training is, and they'll tell you it was the best in the world. I digress.

So you become a kobold? So you become a Summoner regardless of the fact that your summoning teacher was boring and you much preferred illusion at school? So despite the fact that when you were a young adventurer struggling to survive, you ignored swordplay thinking 'Never mind that I have a much higher chance of dying in the next year than I would if I spent a while learning how to do 'un-optimal thing X'; when I'm the best magic user in the kingdom, I'll be better than the best warrior in the kingdom?'
So you spurned the religions of your people and culture because that god could make your spells last longer? Or you redefined your entire moral code because then X mystical PrC would let you in? So you never bothered learning anything useful or interesting in life, in favour of spending all your time learning skills that would best benefit you for the 2 minutes a week that you fight?

Trying to defend extremes of optimisation as 'in character' doesn't really hold much water. Trying to defend a mild version is viable; but not the extremes.

Remember also that players have access to a wealth of knowledge that's not known to a character. A starting character probably wouldn't know about the PrCs and specifications that the player is grooming them for.

PersonMan
2010-07-12, 09:19 AM
Trying to defend extremes of optimisation as 'in character' doesn't really hold much water. Trying to defend a mild version is viable; but not the extremes.

I think you mean theoretical optimization, the kind that's not meant to be played. Yes, it wouldn't make sense in a real game because that isn't it's purpose.


Remember also that players have access to a wealth of knowledge that's not known to a character. A starting character probably wouldn't know about the PrCs and specifications that the player is grooming them for.

Not exactly. In-character you think "Oh, if I want to join X group, I'll need to do Y, Z and C!", while on the sheet you get skills and spells/feats/whatever necessary for the PrC.

You can have goals. If, say, John wants to be a Fireman when he gets older(let's say he needs to take the Fireman PrC, which requires A, B and C), so he pursues A, then C and then B. To an outsider this is odd, but him, it's getting ready to be a Fireman.

Tyger
2010-07-12, 09:27 AM
So you become a kobold? So you become a Summoner regardless of the fact that your summoning teacher was boring and you much preferred illusion at school? So despite the fact that when you were a young adventurer struggling to survive, you ignored swordplay thinking 'Never mind that I have a much higher chance of dying in the next year than I would if I spent a while learning how to do 'un-optimal thing X'; when I'm the best magic user in the kingdom, I'll be better than the best warrior in the kingdom?'
So you spurned the religions of your people and culture because that god could make your spells last longer? Or you redefined your entire moral code because then X mystical PrC would let you in? So you never bothered learning anything useful or interesting in life, in favour of spending all your time learning skills that would best benefit you for the 2 minutes a week that you fight?

Trying to defend extremes of optimisation as 'in character' doesn't really hold much water. Trying to defend a mild version is viable; but not the extremes.

Remember also that players have access to a wealth of knowledge that's not known to a character. A starting character probably wouldn't know about the PrCs and specifications that the player is grooming them for.

The above examples are, quite frankly, lacking in any semblance of realism...

If you want to play a kobold, you do. If you don't want to play a kobold... you don't. I have never seen any player starting out with a character concept (say a human bard), only to suddenly lament their inability to do so, having seen the kobold's stats.

Your Illusion teacher was more interesting than the Conjuration teacher? Great! Now we know why you are an illusionist. The question remaining is why are are a lousy illusionist (i.e. non-optimized) rather than a great illusionist (optimized).

And yes, that young adventurer could have learned to wield a sword - an un-optimized choice for many classes - or could have honed their existing skills. Now, if they are already a sword wielder, then yes, they should be honing those skills, regardless of the fact that the most powerful beings on the planet are those that cast spells rather than swing swords... its what they do!

Why are you spurning the gods of your people? If you want to play a cleric with worship of a particular god (for Domains presumably) why are you not a cleric of the people who worship that god???

Now changing your moral stance to qualify for a PrCoptimization - this one is bad RP in my opinion as well. If a PrC doesn't fit your character concept and you can't find a way to make it work that doesn't destroy the continuity of the character, then yes, I'll agree with you on this one. That said, rationalization is the one thing that human beings excel at... I can find almost any excuse for a character of any moral grounding to do damned near anything - and stay consistent with the character's beliefs and morals at the same time.

And who said anything about spending all your skill points on things that are only useful in combat? *looking around, seeing no hands up*

tl;dr version: Your arguments are commonly referred to, as you have already been informed, the Stormwind Fallacy.

There is ZERO causal connection between Role-playing and Roll-playing. A weak character is not better for RP. An optimized character is not worse (or better) for RP. A good RPer will take any character and RP it well. A bad RPer will RP the weakest and the most powerful builds equally bad - but at least that bad RPer will be able to meaningfully contribute with the more powerful build.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-12, 09:39 AM
You just answered your own question.

Nobody played a hundred year old geriatric kobold prior to races of dragon exactly because the rules couldn't support the creation of a viable kobold PC. Emphasis being on the word "viable". They were intentionally watered down so they could make for very weak npcs, but that also meant PC kobolds were screwed, as there was no precedent for a negative LA.

You should be thankful that RoD made such a concept viable. What does that say about "rollplaying", when it actually increases the variety of character archetypes available. :smallwink:

You can say that stats aren't everything to a PC, but to me, without stats, the PCs are nothing. :smallsmile:

I actually played a Kobold PC once, with all the **** stats and all. It was quite fun. I was a ranger totally against gnomes (Favored enemy +6, improved favored enemy, fierce bane gnome hunting weapons, etc.). He was quite fun to play. xD

JaronK
2010-07-12, 09:51 AM
My advice to the OP: the group is having fun already. Wizards aren't overpowered in their group (probably because no one's using them in overpowered ways) and that's a good thing... no sense introducing what they can do and creating a power arms race. You might as well just play characters in their power band and enjoy it. You don't need high numbers to have fun, nor do you need world shattering power to roleplay decent party dynamics and all that. Would it really improve the game to raise armies of intelligent undead and consume the world? That doesn't sound like the kind of game your group wants to play.

JaronK

Psyx
2010-07-12, 10:27 AM
Not exactly. In-character you think "Oh, if I want to join X group, I'll need to do Y, Z and C!", while on the sheet you get skills and spells/feats/whatever necessary for the PrC.

Fair, but -technically speaking - don't a lot of PrCs have a little 'how much you know about this PrC by making a knowledge check' table next to them? I'm not convinced that every PC being molded for their future has rolled on that table to even have heard of it! I know it's nitpicking, but defending many of the more silly-broken builds that we've all no doubt experienced as roleplaying choices with a straight face is also pretty absurd.


You should be thankful that RoD made such a concept viable. What does that say about "rollplaying", when it actually increases the variety of character archetypes available.

I think that we're all grown up to admit that RoDr is a book filled with a lot of blag that the writer never really thought about, let alone decided to balance in-line with other stuff. I think the line of thinking went: 'Dragownz are grate! My stuffz should be betta' or something similar.
I'd like to cite some of her previously stellar work for the prosecution!




If you want to play a cleric with worship of a particular god (for Domains presumably) why are you not a cleric of the people who worship that god???

Because race/region X gives a better build?


There is ZERO causal connection between Role-playing and Roll-playing.

There's a pretty good correlation between people insisting on being the best in the group - even at the expense of the enjoyment of their friends - and bad roleplaying though. Your experiences may differ.



I actually played a Kobold PC once, with all the **** stats and all. It was quite fun.

^This. Kobolds have always been the runt of the litter, and laughable foes. But that was the -for some- the fun of playing them. RoDr pretty much redefined their place in the world and changed them.


I think you mean theoretical optimization, the kind that's not meant to be played. Yes, it wouldn't make sense in a real game because that isn't it's purpose.

So when twenty posts a week ask 'what the best X I can build for my upcoming campaign', those people are only kidding. Phew: That's a relief :smallbiggrin:


I look at numbers, you look at numbers. It doesn't preclude roleplaying. But please don't tell me with a straight face that the majority of people jumping through creative hoops and fielding fully optimised T1 characters are doing it for roleplay reasons. Because we know that to be a fiction. I really like Wee Jas as a deity, but I have too much respect for my co-players and GMs to turn up at the table with a RKV; let alone trying to blag RKV PrC for some other deity (...one with -say- Planning and Luck, maybe) for 'roleplay reasons'

Kesnit
2010-07-12, 10:33 AM
If you want to play a kobold, you do.

You're reading the post wrong. All of the comments are from an IC point of view.

In this case, the PC in question started out as human (say), but decided to become a kobold for the stats.


Your Illusion teacher was more interesting than the Conjuration teacher? Great! Now we know why you are an illusionist.

Except the PC isn't an illusionist - they became a Conjurer because that is more powerful than the Illusionist they really wanted to be.


Why are you spurning the gods of your people?

Because the domain of your people's god don't give the bonus feats that the domains of another god do.

Snake-Aes
2010-07-12, 10:47 AM
You're reading the post wrong. All of the comments are from an IC point of view.

In this case, the PC in question started out as human (say), but decided to become a kobold for the stats.



Except the PC isn't an illusionist - they became a Conjurer because that is more powerful than the Illusionist they really wanted to be.



Because the domain of your people's god don't give the bonus feats that the domains of another god do.

I believe what he tried to say is that your choices only are dissonant with the character's personality if you choose to do so. An wizard that wanted to be an illusionist would be an illusionist.

Sliver
2010-07-12, 10:54 AM
There's a pretty good correlation between people insisting on being the best in the group - even at the expense of the enjoyment of their friends - and bad roleplaying though. Your experiences may differ.

That has nothing to do with optimization, but people being jerks.


So when twenty posts a week ask 'what the best X I can build for my upcoming campaign', those people are only kidding. Phew: That's a relief :smallbiggrin:

And still, most of the advice they get is practical optimization that won't ruin the fun of the rest of the players.


Except the PC isn't an illusionist - they became a Conjurer because that is more powerful than the Illusionist they really wanted to be.

Except why would the PC say that his conjurer learned under a boring conjuration teacher while the illusion teacher was awesome? He wouldn't write that in his background. That type of input can only be made by the DM who has no rights to do it randomly.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 10:56 AM
I look at numbers, you look at numbers. It doesn't preclude roleplaying. But please don't tell me with a straight face that the majority of people jumping through creative hoops and fielding fully optimised T1 characters are doing it for roleplay reasons. Because we know that to be a fiction. I really like Wee Jas as a deity, but I have too much respect for my co-players and GMs to turn up at the table with a RKV; let alone trying to blag RKV PrC for some other deity (...one with -say- Planning and Luck, maybe) for 'roleplay reasons'

Some people do play the game for the combat, and not the roleplaying.

Caphi
2010-07-12, 11:07 AM
So you become a Summoner regardless of the fact that your summoning teacher was boring and you much preferred illusion at school?

Why would you write this fact into the backstory about a character planned to be a summoner? You'd write a backstory suited to a summoner.


So despite the fact that when you were a young adventurer struggling to survive, you ignored swordplay thinking 'Never mind that I have a much higher chance of dying in the next year than I would if I spent a while learning how to do 'un-optimal thing X'; when I'm the best magic user in the kingdom, I'll be better than the best warrior in the kingdom?'

Why would you write something like this into the backstory of a caster, unless deliberately going against his background or initial training is part of the character concept? You'd write a backstory suited to a caster.


So you spurned the religions of your people and culture because that god could make your spells last longer?

Why would you write one religion into the backstory of a character that follows another, unless, again, turning his back on that religion was part of his story? You'd write a backstory incorporating devotion to the better god.


Or you redefined your entire moral code because then X mystical PrC would let you in?

This is just stupid. All your examples have been ludicrous strawmen where the player apparently wrote a backstory deliberately opposed to the character's build. Did the idea that a build and a story could grow together and complement one another never occur to you? Or are you simply being disingenuous?


So you never bothered learning anything useful or interesting in life, in favour of spending all your time learning skills that would best benefit you for the 2 minutes a week that you fight?

Campaigns have different degrees of emphasis on armed conflict, and good characters - optimized characters, if you missed it - have ways of contributing in multiple spheres of play, whether by magic, skills, or just good preparation.

Umael
2010-07-12, 11:19 AM
You might as well just play characters in their power band and enjoy it. You don't need high numbers to have fun, nor do you need world shattering power to roleplay decent party dynamics and all that. Would it really improve the game to raise armies of intelligent undead and consume the world? That doesn't sound like the kind of game your group wants to play.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that point of view, but every so often I want to play one of my character concepts that I really want to play. Not because the character is game-breaking or uses some really cool mechanics, but because the character seems like an interesting concept, has this wonderful backstory developed for it, or just gives me a chance to cut loose.

As an analogy, imagine that you are involved with a great bunch of friends (or not so great, everyone has their flaws) with whom you D&D - and everyone insists on playing Lawful Good.

And they cover the gambit of Lawful Good. I'm talking Miko Lawful Good, CSI Lawful Good, Star Trek Lawful Good, Roy Lawful Good, X-Files Lawful Good... you get the idea. Wouldn't it be nice, just once, to cut loose with someone who is a little more morally grey?

I admit things aren't that bad, and there is a big difference between playing within a restricted field and being forbidden from playing within the opposing restricted field (i.e., "You must go North!" vs. "You can go anywhere BUT South!"). Furthermore, I've got plenty of character concepts, so it's not like I get one shot down and it was my sole soldier I deployed. Heck, it's not even the champion of my ranks. But I did spend 160,000 gp putting it through fighter school...

(As a sidenote, I've had character concepts nixed on account on both game mechanics ("No, you cannot take this, that is not what the book says. No, I don't care about your interpretation, you cannot do that.") and for flavor reasons (redneck ranger with the spell Animal Friendship with Benefits). I also stress that I know I can be a pain to my friends from time to time, and just as much they can be a pain back.)

Optimystik
2010-07-12, 11:25 AM
And they cover the gambit of Lawful Good. I'm talking Miko Lawful Good, CSI Lawful Good, Star Trek Lawful Good, Roy Lawful Good, X-Files Lawful Good... you get the idea. Wouldn't it be nice, just once, to cut loose with someone who is a little more morally grey?

Just be Hellbred :smalltongue: Don't mind me

(I think you meant "gamut" btw)

lsfreak
2010-07-12, 11:40 AM
There's a pretty good correlation between people insisting on being the best in the group - even at the expense of the enjoyment of their friends - and bad roleplaying though. Your experiences may differ.

They do differ. I've found no such correlation. Instead, I've found a correlation between people insisting on "roleplay, not rollplay" and people who constantly need me to save their ass because they managed to build a flavorful, utterly useless character.

EDIT: And as pointed out, you've described someone who is primarily a jerk who happens to optimize at the same time.

Zovc
2010-07-12, 11:40 AM
Don't get me wrong, I understand that point of view, but every so often I want to play one of my character concepts that I really want to play. Not because the character is game-breaking or uses some really cool mechanics, but because the character seems like an interesting concept, has this wonderful backstory developed for it, or just gives me a chance to cut loose.

Your problem is, 'unfortunately', that you understand how to use the materials given to players 'better' than they do.

If you want to play "the magic guy", you play a Wizard (or a Sorcerer if you want to blow stuff up, probably). If you want to play "the priest guy", you play a Cleric. Similarly, if you want to play "the guy who fights", you play a Fighter, and you better believe he fights like no one else!

It's as simple as that for them, I think--well, it's probably a bit more complicated, but my point is that classes are characters to them, where as most of the people on these forums think characters are classes.

White_North
2010-07-12, 12:11 PM
This thread is strating to treat of something that's been bothering me for a while now. Let me start out by saying that I have nothing against the desitre to optimize itself. As many of you have stated, it only makes perfect sense for a character to be good at what he does. Plus, it is way more fun to be good at what you actually do than to be innefective. Just as the Stromwind Fallacy states, optimization does not inherently preclude roleplaying.

However, I am becoming quite aggravated at how some people seem to hide behind it. It's almost gotten to the point that whenever someone says something marginally bad about the relationship between optimization and roleplaying, the Stormwind fallacy gets thrown out without any consideration about whether it actually applies to the argument. Fact is, optimization can be a good thing. But it is definitely possible to have too much of a good thing. As Optimistyk said, saying that optimization is detrimental to roleplaying is like saying that ''peeling a banana is not a good way to drive''. While that is cetrainly true, if one gets so obsessed with peeling that banana, they won't be able to drive. Tyger wisely pointed out that optimization, amongst other things, leads people to play builds, instead of characters. He has since then been accused of gross strawmanning. However, I can speak from experience when I say he is right. In the group I play with, we have several optimizers, and it is becoming a recurring theme for them to do exactly this. Without being too specific, they will freely and spontaneously change alignment, make up ludicrous backstories and come up with incredibly convoluted reasons that will allow them to play the latest build that caught their eyes. Quite simply, they don't play characters. They play builds with characters superficially tacked on to them. And the thing is that they actually are good roleplayers. Except that they have recently become so interested in optimization that they stopped playing roles and started playing builds instead.

But that kind of thing really isn't restricted to my group. Why, you can see it in this very thread (along with at least another of its kind every week). People aren't asking ''Hey, I want to play this character. How can i make it work?''. They're asking ''I want to play this class and optimize the hell out of it. Help me do that''. And every time someone starts a thread asking how he could make his paladin viable, and gets told to play a DMM cleric instead, or a blaster mage gets told to play a control mage instead, this is exactly what is happening. People aren't making their characters mechanically effective, but they're changing their character in order to be more powerful. That is, in my opinion, when optimization becomes detrimental to roleplay. It should be an aid to a good character, not a character onto itself.

There are other things that I dislike about a heavy level of optimization, like the fact that it breeds a heavy and somewhat unhealthy spirit of competition, that it makes the job so much harder on the DM (which I often was), and that the power ramp often turns the game into an elaborate game of rocket-tag. Due to these reasons, I no longer DM 3.5. But I digress. My point is that, while optimization does not inherently preclude roleplay, it is possible for one to become so taken by optimizing that they roleplay less and less. And, contrary to what people seem to affirm, that is an occurence that I witness whenever I sit at a gaming table, and most of the time I read D&D forums.

Psyx
2010-07-12, 12:12 PM
You'd write a backstory incorporating devotion to the better god...
This is just stupid.


Hmm... the old 'I'm justified by playing a killing machine, because my character background is vat-grown ninja killing machine' thing.

You know what: You're right, if it matters so much.
Fully optimised characters without so much as a single skill point [let alone a feat or character level! Heretic!] wasted on anything vaguely characterful are always created for purely solid, characterful roleplaying reasons, rather than eany other grubby reason. As you say: Me proposing anything else is stupid.


I know it's what I do IRL. I like being good at my job, so I never bothered learning to play cards, fix my car or train my dog, and I'd certainly never watch TV or generally fill my head with anything outside my optimal career.


Personally; I don't think that it's at all 'optimal' to build characters like that in most games. It's usually short sighted in the extreme, because at the end of the day there's one thing and one thing only that decides if the character lives or dies, and that's the GM. And by playing fully optimised characters who are grossly out of kilter with the rest of the party the player is pretty much kissing any sympathetic dice-fudging or lucky breaks goodbye. I -personally- also don't like annoying my friends by making them feel that their characters are worthless and solving every encounter effectively single-handed, but that might just be me.





people who constantly need me to save their ass because they managed to build a flavorful, utterly useless character.

I'm sure they are having just as much fun playing a flavourful character as you are being their Superman. It's clearly a symbiotic relationship.

Caphi
2010-07-12, 12:18 PM
Hmm... the old 'I'm justified by playing a killing machine, because my character background is vat-grown ninja killing machine' thing.

Strawman.


You know what: You're right, if it matters so much.
Fully optimised characters without so much as a single skill point [let alone a feat or character level! Heretic!] wasted on anything vaguely characterful are always created for purely solid, characterful roleplaying reasons, rather than eany other grubby reason. As you say: Me proposing anything else is stupid.

You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?


I know it's what I do IRL. I like being good at my job, so I never bothered learning to play cards, fix my car or train my dog, and I'd certainly never watch TV or generally fill my head with anything outside my optimal career.

At what point did I say any of this was impossible? Quote me.


Personally; I don't think that it's at all 'optimal' to build characters like that in most games. It's usually short sighted in the extreme, because at the end of the day there's one thing and one thing only that decides if the character lives or dies, and that's the GM. And by playing fully optimised characters who are grossly out of kilter with the rest of the party the player is pretty much kissing any sympathetic dice-fudging or lucky breaks goodbye. I -personally- also don't like annoying my friends by making them feel that their characters are worthless and solving every encounter effectively single-handed, but that might just be me.

Where did anyone in this thread say anything like that? Quote.


I'm sure they are having just as much fun playing a flavourful character as you are being their Superman. It's clearly a symbiotic relationship.

Are you deliberately misrepresenting the opposition viewpoint, or do you honestly have such a misguided understanding of it?

Psyx
2010-07-12, 12:21 PM
However, I am becoming quite aggravated at how some people seem to hide behind it.

QFT
I'd quote more, but it smacks of wasted page-space. Ok...except I have to quote this bit:


they will freely and spontaneously change alignment, make up ludicrous backstories and come up with incredibly convoluted reasons that will allow them to play the latest build that caught their eyes. Quite simply, they don't play characters. They play builds with characters superficially tacked on to them.

Writing a backstory that coincidently covers and legitimises every bizarre feat/level/race choice on that optimal build list isn't roleplaying: It's just trying to justify a bunch of numbers. Trying to pass it off as roleplay is just laughable.

Caphi
2010-07-12, 12:22 PM
QFT
I'd quote more, but it smacks of wasted page-space. Ok...except I have to quote this bit:



Writing a backstory that coincidently covers and legitimises every bizarre feat/level/race choice on that optimal build list isn't roleplaying: It's just trying to justify a bunch of numbers. Trying to pass it off as roleplay is just laughable.

...you're quoting your own accusations as proof of your accusations?

Psyx
2010-07-12, 12:26 PM
I am actually allowed to make comments that aren't based on quoting others. You are aware of that, right? I don't actually need to respond to your every point, or to address them. This thread doesn't have to constantly recycle either itself or tediously tired old tropes such as calling everything a strawman or rolling out Stormwind.



Strawman

Winning is clearly very important to you.

Caphi
2010-07-12, 12:28 PM
I am actually allowed to make comments that aren't based on quoting others. You are aware of that, right? I don't actually need to respond to your every point, or to address them. This thread doesn't have to constantly recycle either itself or tediously tired old tropes such as calling everything a strawman or rolling out Stormwind.




Winning is clearly very important to you.

So you're going to make baseless accusations, refuse to back them up, and invoke the very act of calling you out on that as evidence for your claim?

PersonMan
2010-07-12, 12:29 PM
I know it's what I do IRL. I like being good at my job, so I never bothered learning to play cards, fix my car or train my dog, and I'd certainly never watch TV or generally fill my head with anything outside my optimal career.

Skill point are said to represent real, full training in a skill. In a modern world, unless you can professionally train dogs, fix cars or play cards, you don't have skill points in those.

The other problem is that if you want to build a character who can do what they do well, for example a frontline melee-type who can guard(spot/listen), be stealthy(move silently, hide), scare enemies(intimidate) and ride a horse(ride). The end result is having no skill points to spend on, say, Craft(flutes) or the like, something that you would have due to hobbies, but can't get without giving up something more important to the concept. It's like having to take parts off of a car. Will you take off the things on the outside that you like, but don't need? Or will you get rid of the parts that are fairly important, but not really necessary?

Psyx
2010-07-12, 12:32 PM
No. Why would I do that?



However, I am becoming quite aggravated at how some people seem to hide behind it.

Esser-Z
2010-07-12, 12:36 PM
Hmm... the old 'I'm justified by playing a killing machine, because my character background is vat-grown ninja killing machine' thing.
I justify playing a killing machine by saying "my character is an exceptional--heroic, even--swordsman". Because, y'know, PCs tend to be heroes.



he end result is having no skill points to spend on, say, Craft(flutes) or the like, something that you would have due to hobbies, but can't get without giving up something more important to the concept.
I've been in several games that solve this with a simple houserule--everyone can get a couple free skill points/level for character-justified flavor stuff. A hobby, a profession, an extra language, etc. Nothing that has a huge effect on balance, but stuff what helps with concepts.

Psyx
2010-07-12, 12:36 PM
Caphi: I really can't be bothered to involve myself in any confrontation with you. Go back and read how you waded into this discussion. Yelling 'strawman' et cetera is rude, and not something that I really care to address.

Merk
2010-07-12, 12:46 PM
I'm going to play off this real quick.

You're a professional soldier. You probably have at least some concept of good training versus bad training, and if you've got an Int or Wis of at least 8 (probably more like 6), you're going to know you should figure out what training is good and what training is bad. Would such a character not look into various kinds of training, figure out what tends to be effective and what not?

As you're regularly risking your life for your profession, it is poor roleplaying to not look at the numbers.

I'd agree, but I don't think this is reflected in the game all too well. For example, it would make sense IC that training with a weapon (Weapon Focus) is a good thing, but it's a relatively poor OOC choice.

PersonMan
2010-07-12, 12:51 PM
I'd agree, but I don't think this is reflected in the game all too well. For example, it would make sense IC that training with a weapon (Weapon Focus) is a good thing, but it's a relatively poor OOC choice.

Not really. Training can be seen as proficiency. Training even more is Weapon Focus. Or BAB, it can be either.

Caphi
2010-07-12, 12:56 PM
Caphi: I really can't be bothered to involve myself in any confrontation with you. Go back and read how you waded into this discussion. Yelling 'strawman' et cetera is rude, and not something that I really care to address.

I waded in because you used a set of examples you created to be deliberately as opposed in build and character as you could make them to argue against optimization. That is almost the definition of a strawman argument - you set up a weak argument that is superficially, but not truly, like your opposition's position, and then you tear it down and congratulate yourself.

lsfreak
2010-07-12, 01:10 PM
I'd agree, but I don't think this is reflected in the game all too well. For example, it would make sense IC that training with a weapon (Weapon Focus) is a good thing, but it's a relatively poor OOC choice.

I'd see it rather as knowing there are certain ways to train with a specific weapon that are good (Weapon Mastery chain), certain ways that are subpar but easy (Weapon Focus). IC, a character likely knows which ways are good and which ways are poor, and knows which methods he can actually pursue and which ones they can't. A barbarian would know that Weapon Focus is subpar, something reserved for basic recruits, and Weapon Mastery is out of reach - but perhaps Three Mountains (putting the subpar weapon training to use) and Shock Trooper is something they can do instead.

Umael
2010-07-12, 01:18 PM
Not really. Training can be seen as proficiency. Training even more is Weapon Focus. Or BAB, it can be either.

Hmm...

As someone who has both been a varsity fencer and has engaged in numerous boffer fights, I wonder. As a varsity fencer, I was not the best compared to the other fencers, but as a boffer fighter I was a lot better. Different fighting styles and all.

Again the captain of our fencing team, no matter which year I pick, I would lose if I fought with his weapon of choice (usually foil, fencing rules on point scoring). Give me a boffer broadsword and a different set of rules (mass combat, simulated wounding), I probably would have won.

Weapon Finesse? Sure. Dex bonus? Probably equal, I think I'm a little faster than most. BAB? Well, I think we would be the same, maybe give a little. Weapon Focus? For the captain, sure. So I'm thinking the team captain would have +2 BAB advantage over me. Now if the broadsword is -4 for lack of Procifiency, the captain would be at a -2 BAB disadvantage.

That doesn't feel right. It wasn't just the fencing captain. Most of the people on the fencing team weren't the type to pick up a boffer and have a go. Yet most of the fencing team were pretty dang good with their fencing weapon of choice. Me, I had to unlearn certain things, what I did, how I did. I've been using boffer weapons long before fencing. And even if they didn't pick up a boffer weapon, I would think they would have proficiency with it.

The major advantage they had is that they really knew their weapon, which seems like Weapon Focus. Giving it only a +1 seems pretty weak, because that just represents an "edge".

When I think Weapon Focus, I think Bladesmaster, someone who concentrates on a weapon at the exclusion of everything else. I can't take on Mariel Zagunis with a fencing saber, but I bet I could hold my own if we both went broadsword. If an Olympic 2-times Gold Medalist doesn't have Weapon Focus (fencing saber), I'll eat my hat.

Terazul
2010-07-12, 01:25 PM
My advice to the OP: the group is having fun already. Wizards aren't overpowered in their group (probably because no one's using them in overpowered ways) and that's a good thing... no sense introducing what they can do and creating a power arms race. You might as well just play characters in their power band and enjoy it. You don't need high numbers to have fun, nor do you need world shattering power to roleplay decent party dynamics and all that. Would it really improve the game to raise armies of intelligent undead and consume the world? That doesn't sound like the kind of game your group wants to play.

JaronK

Wasn't the problem that he wanted to play something in their power band but they actually believe it's far and away above it? It sounds like he just wants to be able to play a MT without getting yelled at, not transform the world into the tippyverse.

Psyx
2010-07-12, 01:57 PM
I justify playing a killing machine by saying "my character is an exceptional--heroic, even--swordsman". Because, y'know, PCs tend to be heroes.

Now THAT is a good point. What is a hero?

Superman can do everything without breaking a sweat. Is he a hero?

Not really, because he can do everything without breaking a sweat, with no real risk to himself. To be a hero in our culture, you have to overcome some kind of internal adversity or inerrant flaw. Being perfect and saving the world doesn't make one great. Being imperfect and still saving the world; that's a hero.

Taking it back to the game slightly, what does the rest of Superman's superhero team feel about him. Are they in constant awe? Is he still one of the lads? Or do they feel superfluous. Ultimately, I don't in many ways see him as a character (from a story viewpoint) who would ever work well in a team, simply because his perfection makes it so hard for others to be on an equal footing. And let's face it: Anything that comes close to seriously threatening Superman (that isn't green) is going to make pate of the rest of the PCs.

Going back to gaming properly. Did anyone play d6 Starwars? Ever play it with a single Jedi in the group? Wasn't it great fun following around a Jedi, acting as their supporting cast, while they did everything better than you? Sure; it was great fun if you were that Jedi, but it often made a pretty uninspiring and somewhat lacklustre game for others.

tl;dr: Optimising doesn't make a great character. It's character that makes a great character.




I've been in several games that solve this with a simple houserule--everyone can get a couple free skill points/level for character-justified flavor stuff. A hobby, a profession, an extra language, etc. Nothing that has a huge effect on balance, but stuff what helps with concepts.

A big problem with D&D is that 'hobby' skills and less useful skills cost exactly the same as (say) UMD. It might be realistic in some ways, but it makes for one dimensional characters.



Weapon Finesse? Sure. Dex bonus? Probably equal, I think I'm a little faster than most.

D&D is a poor simulation, consumed by the masses: The McDonalds of the RPG world. Your skill as a fencer bears no relation to a foe's ability to hit you, according to the rules. The balance between a good simulation and a good game system is fine, but D&D is very special in that it doesn't really manage either. I was wandering home the other day thinking about E6. I'd also personally change armour AC bonus to DR. That drops DR drastically, but then instead, you'd get to use BAB as an AC bonus. At least that way the character's skill stops reflects their defence instead of offence. I digress...

Esser-Z
2010-07-12, 02:02 PM
Superman can do everything without breaking a sweat. Is he a hero?
HOLD IT I'm not playing Superman. Superman bores me--he's too powerful, as you say. I'm playing, uh... Robin Hood or Samuel Vimes or the Dread Pirate Roberts.

Optimystik
2010-07-12, 02:06 PM
Superman can do everything without breaking a sweat. Is he a hero?

Not really, because he can do everything without breaking a sweat, with no real risk to himself.

Tell that to the people whose lives he just saved.

You've lost me completely here. So if I'm up against a dragon, and I prepare all kinds of anti-dragon countermeasures and kick his scaly posterior, thus saving the village he's been terrorizing, am I suddenly not a hero?

Lhurgyof
2010-07-12, 02:10 PM
Tell that to the people whose lives he just saved.

You've lost me completely here. So if I'm up against a dragon, and I prepare all kinds of anti-dragon countermeasures and kick his scaly posterior, thus saving the village he's been terrorizing, am I suddenly not a hero?

No, he's merely saying if you can kill the dragon, the evil necromancer, the evil god, and etc. That it's not much fun. If nothing can ever stop you but DM fiat it makes it not fun for everyone else.

Tyger
2010-07-12, 02:10 PM
Tyger wisely pointed out that optimization, amongst other things, leads people to play builds, instead of characters. He has since then been accused of gross strawmanning. However, I can speak from experience when I say he is right. In the group I play with, we have several optimizers, and it is becoming a recurring theme for them to do exactly this. Without being too specific, they will freely and spontaneously change alignment, make up ludicrous backstories and come up with incredibly convoluted reasons that will allow them to play the latest build that caught their eyes. Quite simply, they don't play characters. They play builds with characters superficially tacked on to them. And the thing is that they actually are good roleplayers. Except that they have recently become so interested in optimization that they stopped playing roles and started playing builds instead.

While I do enjoy being called wise, I didn't say anything even remotely close to the bolded portion here. In fact, I said pretty much the opposite.

And no, I wasn't accused of strawmanning, (as you indicate in the underlined portion) in fact, I noted that Psyx's argument was one big strawman.

Just for clarity.

That said, my original point stands - good build or bad build, the build does not determine the RP, nor said RP's quality. Just because some people have had bad experiences with players who like to optimize does not mean the problem is with optimization. The problem, as is the case in any RP situation, lies with the player.

EDIT:



tl;dr: Optimising doesn't make a great character. It's character that makes a great character.


Ummm... so doesn't that mean that the corollary is also true, that optimizing doesn't make a poor character - it's character that makes a poor character?

Lhurgyof
2010-07-12, 02:11 PM
While I do enjoy being called wise, I didn't say anything even remotely close to the bolded portion here. In fact, I said pretty much the opposite.

And no, I wasn't accused of strawmanning, (as you indicate in the underlined portion) in fact, I noted that Psyx's argument was one big strawman.

Just for clarity.

That said, my original point stands - good build or bad build, the build does not determine the RP, nor said RP's quality. Just because some people have had bad experiences with players who like to optimize does not mean the problem is with optimization. The problem, as is the case in any RP situation, lies with the player.

Yep, unfortunately way too many players full into the clutches of this problem.

Kesnit
2010-07-12, 02:12 PM
Except why would the PC say that his conjurer learned under a boring conjuration teacher while the illusion teacher was awesome? He wouldn't write that in his background. That type of input can only be made by the DM who has no rights to do it randomly.

That is not what I said, nor what the post I was referring to said...

No player wrote that their PC became a conjurer rather than an illusionist. Rather, the point being made was that the PC really liked illusion and dislike conjuration, but became a conjurer because that school is more powerful.

The comment was addressing players who make decisions based only on the power of the choice rather than the flavor of the character. In no way was it meant to say every player who plays a conjurer rather than an illusionist is power-gaming.

Tyger
2010-07-12, 02:15 PM
That is not what I said, nor what the post I was referring to said...

No player wrote that their PC became a conjurer rather than an illusionist. Rather, the point being made was that the PC really liked illusion and dislike conjuration, but became a conjurer because that school is more powerful.

The comment was addressing players who make decisions based only on the power of the choice rather than the flavor of the character. In no way was it meant to say every player who plays a conjurer rather than an illusionist is power-gaming.

Except the post you were referring to also didn't say that... it noted some power imbalances, and then noted that choosing the more powerful option in a particular set of contrived circumstances, was somehow bad. It failed to take into account option B - don't contrive circumstances. :smallsmile:

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 02:16 PM
That is not what I said, nor what the post I was referring to said...

No player wrote that their PC became a conjurer rather than an illusionist. Rather, the point being made was that the PC really liked illusion and dislike conjuration, but became a conjurer because that school is more powerful.

The comment was addressing players who make decisions based only on the power of the choice rather than the flavor of the character. In no way was it meant to say every player who plays a conjurer rather than an illusionist is power-gaming.

The problem is...

The conjurer DON'T dislike conjuration, and prefer Illusion. That's just bad RP'ing. Unless you're going for the power vs preference vibe. Which can also be done.

IRL, for example, some people might like painting, but decides to become a doctor anyway, cause the money's better. It's in no way a bad RP.

Sucrose
2010-07-12, 02:17 PM
That is not what I said, nor what the post I was referring to said...

No player wrote that their PC became a conjurer rather than an illusionist. Rather, the point being made was that the PC really liked illusion and dislike conjuration, but became a conjurer because that school is more powerful.

The comment was addressing players who make decisions based only on the power of the choice rather than the flavor of the character. In no way was it meant to say every player who plays a conjurer rather than an illusionist is power-gaming.

Well, that example is dishonest. Someone who wanted to play a conjurer would not have it in their backstory that the conjuration class was boring to their character. That would be against the flavor, not for it.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 02:20 PM
I say that you CAN dislike conjuration and specialize in it without bad RP.

Do you choose things just because you like them? Some people choose things they dislike, cause it gives more benefit.

Does everyone take up their dream job? Or do most of them pick up a practical, well earning job, rather than something they like, but isn't much use?

Gametime
2010-07-12, 02:26 PM
Now THAT is a good point. What is a hero?

Superman can do everything without breaking a sweat. Is he a hero?

Not really, because he can do everything without breaking a sweat, with no real risk to himself. To be a hero in our culture, you have to overcome some kind of internal adversity or inerrant flaw. Being perfect and saving the world doesn't make one great. Being imperfect and still saving the world; that's a hero.

Uh, Superman regularly faces foes capable of killing him (and the known universe). A "Superman" character should face Superman-level enemies. No one's arguing your DM should pull punches when you start optimizing; in fact, I think most of us would agree that the DM and player levels of optimization should be roughly equal.


Taking it back to the game slightly, what does the rest of Superman's superhero team feel about him. Are they in constant awe? Is he still one of the lads? Or do they feel superfluous. Ultimately, I don't in many ways see him as a character (from a story viewpoint) who would ever work well in a team, simply because his perfection makes it so hard for others to be on an equal footing. And let's face it: Anything that comes close to seriously threatening Superman (that isn't green) is going to make pate of the rest of the PCs.

Again, Superman's teammates are some of the most powerful in the universe. The Martian Manhunter is basically Superman with bonuses (and a weakness to fire, but that varies in effectiveness), Wonder Woman can hold her own against most planet-wreckers, Flash can solve literally any problem if the writers are bad enough at math (one comic had him doing something that would require him to move thirteen times the speed of light), and Batman is, well, the goddamn Batman.

So, to continue with this analogy, a party with Superman should probably contain the Flash, Wonder Woman, the Martian Manhunter, and Batman. It shouldn't be filled with second-rate heroes. If your team has second-rate heroes in it, play one yourself.


Going back to gaming properly. Did anyone play d6 Starwars? Ever play it with a single Jedi in the group? Wasn't it great fun following around a Jedi, acting as their supporting cast, while they did everything better than you? Sure; it was great fun if you were that Jedi, but it often made a pretty uninspiring and somewhat lacklustre game for others.

I think all of us would agree that showing up your party is a jerk move. There are ways to optimize without doing this. Personally, I wouldn't advocate optimizing to a level higher than that of your party unless they're so weak that the challenges the DM is throwing at you are hard to overcome.


tl;dr: Optimising doesn't make a great character. It's character that makes a great character.

As Tyger pointed out, you're absolutely correct. Optimizing also doesn't ruin a great character. Poor character does.

Caphi
2010-07-12, 02:27 PM
The problem is...

The conjurer DON'T dislike conjuration, and prefer Illusion. That's just bad RP'ing. Unless you're going for the power vs preference vibe. Which can also be done.

IRL, for example, some people might like painting, but decides to become a doctor anyway, cause the money's better. It's in no way a bad RP.

Except, that PC likes illusion, and therefore is not a conjurer, but an illusionist. He's also not a PC. The PC is the wizard sitting next to that guy, who likes conjuration and is a conjurer, because the player wanted to be a conjurer. The first guy might be someone else's PC, someone who wanted to play an illusionist instead.

This isn't bad roleplaying, it's a situation that doesn't exist. Yet Psyx claims that THIS IS WHAT OPTIMIZERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE, as if optimizers go out of their way to write backstories that completely contradict their characters.

White_North
2010-07-12, 02:28 PM
While I do enjoy being called wise, I didn't say anything even remotely close to the bolded portion here. In fact, I said pretty much the opposite.

And no, I wasn't accused of strawmanning, (as you indicate in the underlined portion) in fact, I noted that Psyx's argument was one big strawman.

Wow. Huh. I actually mixed up yours and Psyx's names while I was writing. Apologies, for that. Didn't mean to put words into your mouth. I sure feel pretty silly now.

Now, about your actual point, I don't think we're saying things that are that different. Speaking generally, I don't think that optimization has anything to do with a character's quality. I've even met people who were wonderful roleplayers, and who simply enjoyed seeing their character perform optimally in their respective duties. I do know, however, people who favor optimization so much that their roleplaying becomes minimal or inexistant. And those people tend to throw out the Stormwind fallacy when I try to talk to them all the while ignoring that they're creating a fallacy of their own. If optimization does not preclude roleplaying, that doesn't mean that it guarantees it either. I agree that the ''problem'', if you will, lies with individuals rather than optimization itself. The only difference is that I see this tendency being much more widespread than you apparently do.

2xMachina
2010-07-12, 02:32 PM
Except, that PC likes illusion, and therefore is not a conjurer, but an illusionist. He's also not a PC. The PC is the wizard sitting next to that guy, who likes conjuration and is a conjurer, because the player wanted to be a conjurer. The first guy might be someone else's PC, someone who wanted to play an illusionist instead.

This isn't bad roleplaying, it's a situation that doesn't exist. Yet Psyx claims that THIS IS WHAT OPTIMIZERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE, as if optimizers go out of their way to write backstories that completely contradict their characters.

Even if it does exist, it can be roleplayed well . That's my point.

Tyger
2010-07-12, 02:33 PM
Wow. Huh. I actually mixed up yours and Psyx's names while I was writing. Apologies, for that. Didn't mean to put words into your mouth. I sure feel pretty silly now.

Now, about your actual point, I don't think we're saying things that are that different. Speaking generally, I don't think that optimization has anything to do with a character's quality. I've even met people who were wonderful roleplayers, and who simply enjoyed seeing their character perform optimally in their respective duties. I do know, however, people who favor optimization so much that their roleplaying becomes minimal or inexistant. And those people tend to throw out the Stormwind fallacy when I try to talk to them all the while ignoring that they're creating a fallacy of their own. If optimization does not preclude roleplaying, that doesn't mean that it guarantees it either. I agree that the ''problem'', if you will, lies with individuals rather than optimization itself. The only difference is that I see this tendency being much more widespread than you apparently do.

Groovy.

And no, I don't see that tendancy being widespread, but I do completely agree that optimization doesn't guarantee a good RP experience either. But I think what you are talking about are just poor RPers. They didn't get made poor by their optimizing tendancies, they were already bad at it. Seems they found a segment of the game that they like though - the mechanics - and its good they are enjoying themselves. Unless of course they are detracting from their fellow players' enjoyment, but as noted, there is a name for those folks too, and it isn't optimizer. It's jerk. :smallbiggrin:

Caphi
2010-07-12, 02:35 PM
You can write that and roleplay it well also. It's not as if taking up a rewarding job you don't like is unheard of.

Or you can just roll with it. I mean, some of my most interesting professors have been writing and philosophy, and most of my worst have been CS, but I've never used that as a basis to say "Hmm, I should just give up pursuing a career as a software developer and go into fiction."

None of this detracts from the point that Psyx' examples have absolutely no weight as an argument for... well, anything. They don't prove Stormwind, they don't say anything about optimizers or roleplayers or the people who are both or neither, and there are a ton of Colossal holes in them.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-12, 02:41 PM
Groovy.

And no, I don't see that tendancy being widespread, but I do completely agree that optimization doesn't guarantee a good RP experience either. But I think what you are talking about are just poor RPers. They didn't get made poor by their optimizing tendancies, they were already bad at it. Seems they found a segment of the game that they like though - the mechanics - and its good they are enjoying themselves. Unless of course they are detracting from their fellow players' enjoyment, but as noted, there is a name for those folks too, and it isn't optimizer. It's jerk. :smallbiggrin:

I completely agree.

Some people have all the fun in making the numbers add up, but that doesn't really matter unless it's detrimental to the other players.

Umael
2010-07-12, 02:43 PM
Tell that to the people whose lives he just saved.

You've lost me completely here. So if I'm up against a dragon, and I prepare all kinds of anti-dragon countermeasures and kick his scaly posterior, thus saving the village he's been terrorizing, am I suddenly not a hero?

If you were never in danger, your heroic buff isn't as shiny.

Really, what's going on are three different definition of the word "hero" being used.

The first is the mechanical definition. A hero is 75-points base plus a maximum of 75 points in disadvantages.

The second is the emotional definition. You came in and saved the day. My hero!

The third is the literary (not the literal) definition. Despite the overwhelming pressure to do otherwise, I stood my ground to do the right thing.

Superman is not a hero in the mechanical definition (well, duh! He's a super-hero!). To all those people he saved, he is the second definition. But whether he is the third is debatable.

One of the greatest problems with Superman is that it is difficult to write a story about Superman that engages the audience. Why? Because it seems that everything comes so easily to him!

Bomb about to go off? Superman grabs it with super-speed and throws it super-far so that it explodes super-harmlessly!
Bridge gives out? Superman moves super-fast to super-build supports so the train doesn't wreck when it crosses the river.
Bad guy about to shoot Jimmy Olsen? Superman steps in the way and the bullets bounce off his super-tough body!

With all this power at his disposal, Superman can afford to put himself in harm's way in order to do what is right. Thinking of Superman as the "hero" in the literary sense only applies when you actually involve a threat so bad that even Superman is in danger (Doomsday, anyone?).

The trouble with stories that involve threats that actually make Superman hesitate is that we, as mere mortals, have trouble comprehending them. For example, the great strength of Doomsday is something horrible, something so artifical it is obvious that the writers wrote it with full-on comic-book physics and comic-book logic engaged. But if Superman is the hero of the story (oops! Fourth definition - protagonist, one we root for), then he had better survive so we can sell more Superman comics! But if he survives and is able to defeat Doomsday, who was the more horrible supervillain ever... then the only thing to do is make a supervillain who is even more horrible than Doomsday!

And yet, despite the power-creep (which only happens with uber-powerful characters like Superman, by the by), Superman still emerges victorious. How can we call him a "hero" in the literary definition if the writers keep on letting him win? What is he, the original Mary Sue???

Going back to the thread - optimization and min-maxing isn't like that. And just because you can optimize and min-max your 75-points + 75 in disadvantages to become an uber-killing machine does not make you a hero. Even if you are the author of your own PC's destiny.

Umael
2010-07-12, 02:57 PM
Well, that example is dishonest. Someone who wanted to play a conjurer would not have it in their backstory that the conjuration class was boring to their character. That would be against the flavor, not for it.

"Hey, Frank, I thought you hated law."
"*sigh* I do."
"Then why you'd become a lawyer."
"...the money."

So, yes, there is a reason (sadly) for someone to go for a career path they don't like. Of course, in your example, that becomes...

"Hey, Francokillus, I thought you hated conjuring."
"*sigh* I do."
"Then why you'd become a conjurer."
"...the power."

What's dishonest is if they DON'T have an IC reason for taking conjuring, not that they have something against it.

Keld Denar
2010-07-12, 02:59 PM
there are a ton of Colossal holes in them.

Be careful...Colossal holes have 25' natural reach. Best tumble around them to avoid Attacks of Opportunity.

Gametime
2010-07-12, 03:02 PM
And yet, despite the power-creep (which only happens with uber-powerful characters like Superman, by the by), Superman still emerges victorious. How can we call him a "hero" in the literary definition if the writers keep on letting him win? What is he, the original Mary Sue???



A few objections.

1. Power creep happens to lots of heroes. In fact, Superman got to be the uber-powerful character he is today because of power creep from his original, much less uber power set! You know that "jump higher than a tall building in a single bound?" That used to be his way of getting around. Then animators decided he would look better flying, and hey, Superman can fly now!

The original hero really was a super man - way beyond normal endurance, but not so far beyond it that he was the juggernaut he is today. Lots of other heroes have gone through something similar; Wolverine used to be able to heal up pretty quickly, and now he can regenerate from a single atom. Hulk has gotten stronger and stronger as they keep writing it. Batman has gone from "world's greatest detective" to "world's greatest detective, incredibly good martial artist, and top-notch inventor capable of developing his own power suit that can go toe-to-toe with Superman."

2. Winning isn't what defines a Mary Sue. Winning in spite of all evidence to the contrary is a good warning sign.

3. Constantly winning doesn't make you not a hero, so long as you have setbacks along the way. Aragorn fails how many times during the Lord of the Rings - once, when the hobbits are captured? Every other battle, he's victorious. It still makes a compelling story, because even though we're pretty sure he's going to make it in the end, his struggles are legitimately difficult and his victory in-universe is never certain. Genre-savvy shouldn't make a fictional character less a hero.

That said, yeah, Superman's opponents do get pretty ridiculous. The funny thing is, he's not even the most absurd hero in DC - the Flash's speed is so high that, really, no one should pose a threat to him, and the Martian Manhunter is basically Superman-plus, but their powers are less well-known and so the writers often just push them aside.

I think it can still be heroic to do something even if there's no risk to yourself, though. Saving someone's life when you might die? Definitely heroic. Saving someone's life when you definitely won't die? Can still be pretty heroic, depending on the circumstances. I mean, Superman gives up nearly his entire life to helping others. That's heroic, even if he's unlikely to get hurt along the way. I think it's only when you stop helping people for the sake of helping people that your heroism can be called into question.

Sucrose
2010-07-12, 03:07 PM
"Hey, Frank, I thought you hated law."
"*sigh* I do."
"Then why you'd become a lawyer."
"...the money."

So, yes, there is a reason (sadly) for someone to go for a career path they don't like. Of course, in your example, that becomes...

"Hey, Francokillus, I thought you hated conjuring."
"*sigh* I do."
"Then why you'd become a conjurer."
"...the power."

What's dishonest is if they DON'T have an IC reason for taking conjuring, not that they have something against it.
Fair point. However, the example that I'm arguing against essentially stated that players would create a backstory for their character, then willfully ignore it in order to make a more powerful set of numbers. That just isn't the way that optimization works.

Caphi
2010-07-12, 03:13 PM
Fair point. However, the example that I'm arguing against essentially stated that players would create a backstory for their character, then willfully ignore it in order to make a more powerful set of numbers. That just isn't the way that optimization works.

I decided not to take luminous armor for a sorceror. It sort of hurt, but she's a soldier for druids (long-ish story), so exalted (Sanctified, even!) spells would be a little weird.

Then I remembered I already had mirror image. That made me feel better.

Sucrose
2010-07-12, 03:22 PM
I decided not to take luminous armor for a sorceror. It sort of hurt, but she's a soldier for druids (long-ish story), so exalted (Sanctified, even!) spells would be a little weird.

Then I remembered I already had mirror image. That made me feel better.

Yes....?:smallconfused:

Sliver
2010-07-12, 03:27 PM
I decided not to take luminous armor for a sorceror. It sort of hurt, but she's a soldier for druids (long-ish story), so exalted (Sanctified, even!) spells would be a little weird.

Then I remembered I already had mirror image. That made me feel better.

Was your background focused at one point about luminous armor and how awesome your character thought it was but then ignored it? Otherwise... I have to go with this:


Yes....?:smallconfused:

Esser-Z
2010-07-12, 03:27 PM
Be careful...Colossal holes have 25' natural reach. Best tumble around them to avoid Attacks of Opportunity.
Stop telling my players the statistics of the monsters I plan to use ! :smalltongue:

Umael
2010-07-12, 03:32 PM
A few objections.

1. Power creep happens to lots of heroes.

*nod*

Not surprised - but just to be technical, I will assume you meant superheroes (especially as you mentioned Wolverine, Hulk, and Batman). Someone like Indiana Jones is definitely a heroic character, but he's no superhero, and his opponents don't have power creep.

[Cue the rebuttals mentioning "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"]


2. Winning isn't what defines a Mary Sue. Winning in spite of all evidence to the contrary is a good warning sign.

True. I was going for more of the "He wins! He wins! He wins again! He never stops winning! Isn't this exciting?" angle.



3. Constantly winning doesn't make you not a hero, so long as you have setbacks along the way.

Sorry, my rhetoric must have been off.

In my definitions of "hero", I thought of Aragorn as one the literary heroes because he defies Sauron and his own legacy, despite great cost and potential cost to himself.

I certainly did not mean to imply that to be a hero you have to win all the time. It was more of a gripe about the mindset that puts certain people as "heroes" in the story, and the accompanying thought that since they are the "heroes", they can't fail, because they wouldn't be "heroic".



I think it can still be heroic to do something even if there's no risk to yourself, though. Saving someone's life when you might die? Definitely heroic. Saving someone's life when you definitely won't die? Can still be pretty heroic, depending on the circumstances. I mean, Superman gives up nearly his entire life to helping others. That's heroic, even if he's unlikely to get hurt along the way.

But in a way, he is getting hurt, or at least, he is making a sacrifice that we could conceivibly do as well but we often don't because it would hurt us.

Superman as Superman devotes his life to helping people. He believes that with great power comes great responsibility, so he uses his power in every way he can to be, basically, the ultimate Good Samaritan. He goes out of his way to help people and devotes so much of his time and energy and ability to do so.

On THAT I will grant him a measure of respect. He's like the Mother Teresa of the Justice League, not that he does any one good deed, but that he does so many of them.



I think it's only when you stop helping people for the sake of helping people that your heroism can be called into question.

I agree, but just because you are helping people for the sake of helping people - that doesn't necessarily make you a hero.

Caphi
2010-07-12, 03:34 PM
Was your background focused at one point about luminous armor and how awesome your character thought it was but then ignored it? Otherwise... I have to go with this:

No, it was the opposite. Taking it would have been weird and sort of jarred the concept. It's a counterexample.

White_North
2010-07-12, 03:35 PM
Groovy.

And no, I don't see that tendancy being widespread, but I do completely agree that optimization doesn't guarantee a good RP experience either. But I think what you are talking about are just poor RPers. They didn't get made poor by their optimizing tendancies, they were already bad at it. Seems they found a segment of the game that they like though - the mechanics - and its good they are enjoying themselves. Unless of course they are detracting from their fellow players' enjoyment, but as noted, there is a name for those folks too, and it isn't optimizer. It's jerk. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah. Well, they're not jerks. They do have that immensely competitive spirit that makes them resent the DM if things don't go their way. That, and the fact that I just couldn't stand the way they played, is why I don't DM for them anymore. I still do play with them, but never as a DM (at least not with D&D). They're a good bunch and they sure do have fun, but, to me, it's become more of an elaborate wargame than anything else. I like my narratives to be intricate, real, and full of realistic, consistent, and interesting characters. That's kind of hard to do when one of your protagonist has more templates than he has points in his dump stat and changes alignment every session in order to fulfil the requirements for the next class/Prc in his build, in addition to not having much of a personality at all.

Gametime
2010-07-12, 04:07 PM
[Cue the rebuttals mentioning "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"]

I think that power creep was more on the part of the refrigerator. Either that, or Indy's DM nerfed nuclear weapons for being OP. :smalltongue:


I certainly did not mean to imply that to be a hero you have to win all the time. It was more of a gripe about the mindset that puts certain people as "heroes" in the story, and the accompanying thought that since they are the "heroes", they can't fail, because they wouldn't be "heroic".

I agree, and I don't think always winning is necessary to be a hero. For the purposes of heroism in role-playing games, though, I think winning more often than not is usually going to be a requirement, if only because losing isn't usually as much fun.

To put it another way, there are heroic saviors and heroic martyrs, and the former is (usually) the more enjoyable to be.

Keld Denar
2010-07-12, 04:09 PM
Yeah. Well, they're not jerks. They do have that immensely competitive spirit that makes them resent the DM if things don't go their way.
AKA jerk

That, and the fact that I just couldn't stand the way they played, is why I don't DM for them anymore.
See also: jerk

I still do play with them, but never as a DM (at least not with D&D). They're a good bunch and they sure do have fun, but, to me, it's become more of an elaborate wargame than anything else. I like my narratives to be intricate, real, and full of realistic, consistent, and interesting characters. That's kind of hard to do when one of your protagonist has more templates than he has points in his dump stat and changes alignment every session in order to fulfil the requirements for the next class/Prc in his build, in addition to not having much of a personality at all.
Sounds like D&D isn't the game for you. Just like not every character is a fit for every player, not every system is a fit for every player. Try a lower rules system like Fudge or Fate, or a non-rules narative style game. Some people enjoy that. Some people enjoy squeezing every last drop of power out of a given set of constraints. Some people like apples, others enjoy rhudabagga.

Tyger
2010-07-12, 04:23 PM
Yeah. Well, they're not jerks. They do have that immensely competitive spirit that makes them resent the DM if things don't go their way. That, and the fact that I just couldn't stand the way they played, is why I don't DM for them anymore. I still do play with them, but never as a DM (at least not with D&D). They're a good bunch and they sure do have fun, but, to me, it's become more of an elaborate wargame than anything else. I like my narratives to be intricate, real, and full of realistic, consistent, and interesting characters. That's kind of hard to do when one of your protagonist has more templates than he has points in his dump stat and changes alignment every session in order to fulfil the requirements for the next class/Prc in his build, in addition to not having much of a personality at all.


AKA jerk

See also: jerk

Sounds like D&D isn't the game for you. Just like not every character is a fit for every player, not every system is a fit for every player. Try a lower rules system like Fudge or Fate, or a non-rules narative style game. Some people enjoy that. Some people enjoy squeezing every last drop of power out of a given set of constraints. Some people like apples, others enjoy rhudabagga.

Well, I'd say that it isn't so much D&D, as it is the group you were playing with there. While Keld may be right (D&D is a very mechanical game compared to a lot of the ones on the market), you can have D&D campaigns where drama, RP, tension, intrigue and character interactions are huge. Now, and here is my favorite part, you can have those campaigns either using the D&D rules, or ignoring the rules. Different strokes for different folks. :smallbiggrin:

Runestar
2010-07-12, 05:04 PM
Fair point. However, the example that I'm arguing against essentially stated that players would create a backstory for their character, then willfully ignore it in order to make a more powerful set of numbers. That just isn't the way that optimization works.

Why can't I create a character build first, then build a backstory around it? Or revise my backstory later on when I realise the former can no longer accommodate the concept I have in mind? I agree that backstory is useful and all, but it shouldn't become a straitjacket for character design. :smallconfused:

Keld Denar
2010-07-12, 05:17 PM
One of the most fun aspects of optimization is when you have a given set of constraints. Make the most powerful character you can...using Green Star Adept. Or...using only 2 books outside of core. Or...who is a competant melee specialist at all levels (not just 17+ when you get Shapechange). Or...whatever. You can pick a character flaw, and optimize around it, finding abilities that negate your flaws.

Since we are using superhero analogies today, I point you toward Daredevil. Blind is a VERY suboptimal characteristic for a hero to have. Its nearly crippling, from a D&D PoV. But Daredevil's aquired an accute sense of hearing that essentially gives him Blindsense, and trained in hand-to-hand combat using subtle differences in air currents to predict incoming blows.

THATS character optimization at work. Its not always making THE MOST POWERFUL CHARACTER EVAR!!!!! That character already exists, is named Pun-Pun, and shall never see play at any table, ever.

If you want to play a low-str fighter, good for you. If you think you are gonna do it as a straight fighter, well, you are gonna be SORELY in trouble. There are, however, a number of different classes, abilities, and feats printed that allow you to pick up bonus damage from a HOST of different sources, from high knowledge checks, to dex based Champions of CL, to magically augemented stats and/or formshifting, to swinging your Cha like a hammer.

Math_Mage
2010-07-12, 05:37 PM
One of the most fun aspects of optimization is when you have a given set of constraints. Make the most powerful character you can...using Green Star Adept. Or...using only 2 books outside of core. Or...who is a competant melee specialist at all levels (not just 17+ when you get Shapechange). Or...whatever. You can pick a character flaw, and optimize around it, finding abilities that negate your flaws.

What many of the 'roleplay first' people are arguing about is that optimizers let their optimization constrain their roleplaying. "I want to make a Conjurer because it's more powerful than an Evoker, so find a backstory justification for my character being a Conjurer." It skirts the edge of making a backstory to justify one's mechanical power, rather than to fill out one's concept beyond mechanics. Not only is this likely to result in a more shallow backstory, but it also indicates a subordination of roleplaying considerations to mechanical ones.

That's the argument, anyway. I've made my disagreement clear enough on other threads that I don't feel like rehashing it here. But since you mentioned mechanics as a constraint on mechanics, I thought I'd clarify the discussion of mechanics as a constraint on roleplaying.


Since we are using superhero analogies today, I point you toward Daredevil. Blind is a VERY suboptimal characteristic for a hero to have. Its nearly crippling, from a D&D PoV. But Daredevil's aquired an accute sense of hearing that essentially gives him Blindsense, and trained in hand-to-hand combat using subtle differences in air currents to predict incoming blows.

I'd say that's min-maxing, actually. Take a disadvantage (blindness), and then acquire a skill that makes the disadvantage not matter mechanically (blindsense), and also gain benefits from your skill above and beyond what you would have had without the disadvantage.

Yeah, you end up with the disadvantage of not being able to read, but, well, that's just roleplaying (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0052.html).

Lhurgyof
2010-07-12, 07:52 PM
Sounds like D&D isn't the game for you. Just like not every character is a fit for every player, not every system is a fit for every player. Try a lower rules system like Fudge or Fate, or a non-rules narative style game. Some people enjoy that. Some people enjoy squeezing every last drop of power out of a given set of constraints. Some people like apples, others enjoy rhudabagga.

Amber is a pretty good role playing game. You have your stats and some abilities and that's really it, roleplaying from then on out.

Runestar
2010-07-12, 08:25 PM
I think the bottom line is - You play your game, I play mine, and we leave each other well alone. Don't care about whether you are playing dnd the one right way or not. Everyone's happy. :smallsmile:

Psyx
2010-07-13, 04:13 AM
It failed to take into account option B - don't contrive circumstances. :smallsmile:

But that's the massive characterisation trap with optimising: It encourages and rewards reverse engineering. The player wants to play X uber character, and then reverse engineers the entire character process -right down to region of birth in FR games- in order to fit the optimised 1-20 character build. That's completely the opposite of the way that 95% of games tell you to build characters, and leads to those awful, awful contrived backgrounds that are seen with startling regularity. And I will go out on a limb here and say that the most optimised characters do often tend towards the most unlikely and absurd backstories (if they have one at all), whereas a character designed character-first, numbers later tends towards a more 'realistic' and often better thought out background.

I'll put my hand up here and say that I cheerfully min-max. But I do it in order to crowbar my character concept and back-story into the framework of the rules: The maths comes after the character is designed, because D&D is a constrained game and you have to beat the rules with a stick to make some concepts work.



thirteen times the speed of light

Speedforce baby! Solves everything! :smallcool:


I think all of us would agree that showing up your party is a jerk move.

Yet half a dozen times in the last two dozen threads I've read is something like 'I have to keep bailing them out' or 'None of the other players are optimisers', or utterly rabid offences yelling tired old tropes arguing against even the possibility that optimisation can lead to poor characterisation. Maybe advice on optimisation 'help me' threads should come with a public safety warning: Doing this can make you a complete jerk.


Tell that to the people whose lives he just saved.
You've lost me completely here. So if I'm up against a dragon, and I prepare all kinds of anti-dragon countermeasures and kick his scaly posterior, thus saving the village he's been terrorizing, am I suddenly not a hero?

You were doing your job.

Simply winning does not - from the point of view of culture - make a hero. It makes for a dull, dull, dull story. 'The wizard prepared his buffs in advance, strode in and killed a dragon at no personal risk' makes a duller story and a far smaller hero than a bloke with one leg saving a dog from the river.



True. I was going for more of the "He wins! He wins! He wins again! He never stops winning! Isn't this exciting?" angle.

It's even more tedious in team stories. Ronin started as an ace movie, then when down the pan when it transpired that DeNiro was a better killer than the killer, a better driver then the driver, and could basically do everything.


Heroes have to have flaws and be real people.

Amphetryon
2010-07-13, 04:50 AM
But that's the massive characterisation trap with optimising: It encourages and rewards reverse engineering. The player wants to play X uber character, and then reverse engineers the entire character process -right down to region of birth in FR games- in order to fit the optimised 1-20 character build. That's completely the opposite of the way that 95% of games tell you to build characters, and leads to those awful, awful contrived backgrounds that are seen with startling regularity. And I will go out on a limb here and say that the most optimised characters do often tend towards the most unlikely and absurd backstories (if they have one at all), whereas a character designed character-first, numbers later tends towards a more 'realistic' and often better thought out background.

I'll put my hand up here and say that I cheerfully min-max. But I do it in order to crowbar my character concept and back-story into the framework of the rules: The maths comes after the character is designed, because D&D is a constrained game and you have to beat the rules with a stick to make some concepts work.

Once again, I'll ask where you get your percentages and just tell you that the tendencies you describe above are neither typical for my experiences nor in keeping with the vast majority of those posting to this thread. Either a) your perception of the percentages is woefully skewed, b) there's a real statistical anomaly going on with the folks posting here versus the percentages in "real games" or c) you're throwing out unsubstantiated claims and percentages in an effort to make your POV appear substantiated.

I'll just go ahead and flat out disagree with what is apparently your stated opinion that a person who is 'just doing his job' is automatically disqualified from being a hero. I personally wouldn't want to be the one to tell that to a police officer, fireman, or EMT that saved lives.

Psyx
2010-07-13, 05:39 AM
Once again, I'll ask where you get your percentages and just tell you that the tendencies you describe above are neither typical for my experiences nor in keeping with the vast majority of those posting to this thread. Either a) your perception of the percentages is woefully skewed, b) there's a real statistical anomaly going on with the folks posting here versus the percentages in "real games" or c) you're throwing out unsubstantiated claims and percentages in an effort to make your POV appear substantiated.

Wow. Can we possibly converse without there being some kind of line in the sand that one has to stand one side of ? "CITE CITE CITE PROVE IT" is not a conversation; it's an argument, and a poor one at that.


Ok... I've been gaming for 28 years. I game a couple of nights a week with a variety of different people; some are optimisers, some are not. I'm involved in a games club, which means that I get to swap co-players fairly regularly. I've gamed with hundreds of players over the years in a wide range of geographical locations, so I have a pretty good sample size. I sometimes go to larger gaming events/conventions and get to roleplay alongside complete strangers. Is that ok with you? How about yourself?

I sit here genuinely amazed that you aren't familiar with the concept of gamers who gen up superman then crowbar any old background into place afterwards, in order to fit the bill and meet all the regional feat/whatever requirements.

[Putting my shrink hat on for a second: Powergaming/competitive gaming/oneupmanship in RPGs CAN (before you jump on it - not always) be indicative of an ingrained need to win/compete/narcissistic personality traits, and Optimisation is an essential tool for that style of gaming. So I'd postulate that the side of the floor defending the legitimacy of optimisation would hypothetically, given a large enough sample size include such players, who would be unwilling to concede even small points in favour of an opposing argument, or be subject to a reinforcing cognitive bias. That would then lead to a statistical bias in the given evidence. I digress]




I'll just go ahead and flat out disagree with what is apparently your stated opinion that a person who is 'just doing his job' is automatically disqualified from being a hero. I personally wouldn't want to be the one to tell that to a police officer, fireman, or EMT that saved lives.

Please go back and read the sentence underneath it, instead of selectively reading with negativity in mind to start with.

Think about some really great stories here the hero is perfect and flawless and always wins for a moment, please. It's a struggle, isn't it? For hundreds of years we've culturally and literally recognised the fact that heroism is overcoming adversity; not just winning. Roleplaying games are about telling a story.


We aren't talking about real life. In real life those people take serious risks and make serious sacrifices if they are to be seen as heroes (LEOs who work traffic duty are not lauded as heroes). They are not perfect, they are not invulnerable, they have threatening problems to overcome. They are not vastly better in terms of HP/lvl/CR than their buddies. They are weak bags of flesh that breaks all too easily.

(And...if you ask them, then 99 days out of 100 they WILL tell you that they're just doing their job, and deny being a hero. Someone who genuinely believes -regardless of their employment- that they are routinely a hero is mentally unbalanced.)

olentu
2010-07-13, 05:53 AM
Wow. Can we possibly converse without there being some kind of line in the sand that one has to stand one side of ? "CITE CITE CITE PROVE IT" is not a conversation; it's an argument, and a poor one at that.


Ok... I've been gaming for 28 years. I game a couple of nights a week with a variety of different people; some are optimisers, some are not. I'm involved in a games club, which means that I get to swap co-players fairly regularly. I've gamed with hundreds of players over the years in a wide range of geographical locations, so I have a pretty good sample size. I sometimes go to larger gaming events/conventions and get to roleplay alongside complete strangers. Is that ok with you? How about yourself?

I sit here genuinely amazed that you aren't familiar with the concept of gamers who gen up superman then crowbar any old background into place afterwards, in order to fit the bill and meet all the regional feat/whatever requirements.

[Putting my shrink hat on for a second: Powergaming/competitive gaming/oneupmanship in RPGs CAN (before you jump on it - not always) be indicative of an ingrained need to win/compete/narcissistic personality traits, and Optimisation is an essential tool for that style of gaming. So I'd postulate that the side of the floor defending the legitimacy of optimisation would hypothetically, given a large enough sample size include such players, who would be unwilling to concede even small points in favour of an opposing argument, or be subject to a reinforcing cognitive bias. That would then lead to a statistical bias in the given evidence. I digress]

Well here is the thing there is a difference between understanding a concept but only in theory, seeing it once or twice, and believing that the characterization is one of the most widespread types of gamers. It seems that he is saying that so far as he has seen the type of person you present is not especially common.

Amphetryon
2010-07-13, 06:37 AM
Well here is the thing there is a difference between understanding a concept but only in theory, seeing it once or twice, and believing that the characterization is one of the most widespread types of gamers. It seems that he is saying that so far as he has seen the type of person you present is not especially common.
Got it in one.

2xMachina
2010-07-13, 07:01 AM
Druids CAN be exalted. There are exalted feats for them you know...
NG can be exalted. Pure Good without the hangups of Law and Chaos.

Caphi
2010-07-13, 10:27 AM
Wow. Can we possibly converse without there being some kind of line in the sand that one has to stand one side of ? "CITE CITE CITE PROVE IT" is not a conversation; it's an argument, and a poor one at that.


If you make a claim, and someone else says "no, I think that claim is flawed", it's only polite to try and back up the claim if you intend to stand by it. You can't stand by a claim under contention and refuse to provide any reasoning for it - or at least, that would not be a conversation, just a performance of stubbornness.


Simply winning does not - from the point of view of culture - make a hero. It makes for a dull, dull, dull story. 'The wizard prepared his buffs in advance, strode in and killed a dragon at no personal risk' makes a duller story and a far smaller hero than a bloke with one leg saving a dog from the river.

"Mangarr raged, strode in, and beat up the dragon." That's not interesting either.

If you tell the story boringly, of course it's going to be boring. The wizard isn't omnipotent. His battle was one of intellect characterized by research and preparation and planning, but that doesn't make it inherently less heroic than Mangarr the barbarian, whose battle was one of strength and yelling and rage, and didn't start until he entered the dragon's lair while Wizardington's was completed before he set foot in the dragon's country.

It's a different kind of story, to be sure, but not, in itself, worse. "Psychological thriller" is a genre.

BONUS EDIT:

And as esrz22 said, all optimizers aren't the wizard. A lot of us are playing Mangarr - but we're playing a really strong Mangarr with a lot of talent and tricks under his belt. He may not be invincible, but he's good at being Mangarr. That's optimization.

Amphetryon
2010-07-13, 10:58 AM
We aren't talking about real life. In real life those people take serious risks and make serious sacrifices if they are to be seen as heroes (LEOs who work traffic duty are not lauded as heroes). They are not perfect, they are not invulnerable, they have threatening problems to overcome. They are not vastly better in terms of HP/lvl/CR than their buddies. They are weak bags of flesh that breaks all too easily.
And they train and prepare to minimize and mitigate those risks inherent in being 'weak bags of flesh.' Simply because a Wizard, a Cleric, or a Druid (to name a few examples) use Magic to minimize and mitigate the risks instead of doing squat thrusts and running laps, it does not negate their training or preparation, nor should it inherently limit the scope of their heroism when they kill the dragon that's been terrorizing the kingdom.

Psyx
2010-07-13, 11:41 AM
And they train and prepare to minimize and mitigate those risks inherent in being 'weak bags of flesh.' Simply because a Wizard, a Cleric, or a Druid (to name a few examples) use Magic to minimize and mitigate the risks instead of doing squat thrusts and running laps, it does not negate their training or preparation, nor should it inherently limit the scope of their heroism when they kill the dragon that's been terrorizing the kingdom.

And minimising and mitigating those risks does make it less heroic. Diving in to save a drowning child is less heroic if you stop to put on a life preserver. That's the way of it. The greater the personal risk, the greater the heroism. Our armed forces don't dish out medals for simply sucking down an artillery barrage from the safety of a nicely prepared bunker, because that's simply not heroic.

Again though: We are discussing stories, not real life. Proper Preparation might Prevent Pi...errr...Very Poor Performance, but it makes a rubbish story. Tales of a hero preparing for a combat that they then sail through don't make the best seller list. Saga-wise, tales of heroes obtaining items to defeat a foe are themselves laced with oodles of risk.

Culturally speaking I'll once again ask if you can think of a few examples of heroes always sailing through without risk to themselves, while being perfect. Those tales don't survive because there is no literary tension.

Instead of launching a constant offence against any perceived weak point in my individual comments [which there will be, because this is an imperfect medium], please think about the wider scope of what is being said, and think in terms of ideas, rather than a series of blows to be either riposted if appropriate or side-stepped and forgotten if not. I'm not planning on doing any fencing until tomorrow evening.

You asked about my experience and said it didn't tally with your own. What has your own experience of the points you raised been?

Esser-Z
2010-07-13, 11:52 AM
(one comic had him doing something that would require him to move thirteen times the speed of light)
Worse than that. Thirteen TRILLION times the speed of light.



I'll just go ahead and flat out disagree with what is apparently your stated opinion that a person who is 'just doing his job' is automatically disqualified from being a hero. I personally wouldn't want to be the one to tell that to a police officer, fireman, or EMT that saved lives.
"I wish more soldiers had your definition of 'just doing your job'"--Admiral Hackett



Tales of a hero preparing for a combat that they then sail through don't make the best seller list.
Batman.

Umael
2010-07-13, 12:06 PM
Just something to toss in here on optimization:

I'm making a character for a 7th Sea game - it will be the first time most of us have ever played in 7th Sea or made a character for it.

When I first was told about the game system and had a chance to look at it, I didn't really have a concept. New game, new setting, new system, all of that. Eventually I came across the idea of doing a runic sorcerer. This was my concept, barely formed.

The first big chance to talk about it with our GM for this game, he told me that I would want to pick up the "Fury" rune.

Long story short - no, no I did not.

A beginning runic character who picks up the "Fury" rune has made a big mistake. At higher "levels" (7th Sea doesn't really use levels, but whatever), sure, it is decent, but at the lower levels it sucks!

A beginning character starts with at most Resolve 3 and Wits 3, and a max Rank of 3 for any sorcerer skill. (Resolve + Rank) keep (Resolve) means that a beginning character must roll 6d10, keeping the highest 3 (aka 6k3), or take damage. With Wits 3, a beginning character can only cast 3 beginning spells per day - and multiple casting and failures count towards this total.

"Fury" lets out a lightning bolt attack. To attack and for damage, roll (Mastery + Rank) keep (Mastery). A beginner has Mastery 1. So 4k1... roll four ten-siders, keep the highest one.

A basic thug, the equal of a D&D 4.0 minion, has 1 hp. It also has a defense of 10. That means to hit a minion, I would roll four dice and hope that at least one of them is a "10". And I can only do this 3 times a day (Wits 3, remember).

Pretty pathetic, right? It gets better. Sorcery costs 40 points. A beginning character starts with 100 ponits. I spent 40% of my points to create someone who's magical ability is absolutely pathetic.

So I changed the concept. Without hesitation or guilt.

Believe me, I wanted the "Fury" idea to work, but the more I thought about it, the more convinced I was that my character concept would suffer because of the mechanics behind that decision.

That was a form of optimization, but it wasn't the only one.

Recently I sat down and looked at everything. Skills, Advantages, Backgrounds... which one, which one? I put more work into my character concept, and then sent my prelimary character sheet (a complete list of all relevant stats and my reasoning behind them) to the GM for his input and okay.

At this point in time... I have no solid story, no back history made in mind. Why bother? My character might not get approved as he stands. Things might need to be changed. Suggestions given.

I have, in essence, made my character without a backstory, done the character design, the mechanics, first.

Can anyone say with conviction that I am wrong, say it with enough conviction to convince a neutral, impartial third party? I doubt it.

Caphi
2010-07-13, 12:12 PM
snip

Can anyone say with conviction that I am wrong, say it with enough conviction to convince a neutral, impartial third party? I doubt it.

I won't. Regardless of which end comes first, ultimately the character and the build should harmonize, and sometimes that requires compromise from one side or another. Adapt the concept if the system says you will not have fun playing it, and adapt the build decisions if they run against the grain of the character you want to play. Ultimately you have to play both sides of every character, so both sides have to be fun for you. Everything else is to be compromised for that, if necessary.

Psyx
2010-07-13, 12:22 PM
Batman

One example doesn't make a cast-iron case at all, and it still seldom seems to go without any hitch anyway. An easy end to a story can be worse than a badly-written one, due to anti-climax.

I genuinely find batman dull though, for the same reasons that I find Superman dull. 'Look how awesome he is' doesn't work as a hook for too long. I appreciate Batman has been going a while, but there seems to have been a definite power creep, and he now seems utterly unstoppable. His only flaw is his angst it seems, and that to becomes tedious after about one book normally*.



*cf Elric, Drizzt *yawn*

tiercel
2010-07-13, 01:13 PM
The thing about "Stormwind Fallacy" invocations/discussions is that it seems that about for every time someone falls into the trap of the fallacy, someone invokes it fallaciously.

To wit: "Stormwind Fallacy" merely says that optimization does not necessarily come at the expense of roleplaying development, and vice versa.

The problem arises when someone wields "Stormwind Fallacy" like a fasces built out of nightsticks in the hands of a Divine Metamagic: Persistent ClericZilla to say that optimization never comes/cannot come at the expense of roleplaying development (or, of course, vice versa). (Perhaps I should call this misapplication of the "Stormwind Fallacy" the "Tiercel Fallacy," so that people can invoke it, too, in a pithy way.)

Just because there doesn't *have* to be a correlation of "rollplaying vs roleplaying" doesn't mean the two are always completely independent.

Additionally, there is no one "correct" way to play D&D (or any other RPG). A "more optimized" character (whether we are talking about a "higher tier" character vs a "lower tier" character, or simply a more mechanically optimized version of a specific character for a particular build idea) does not inherently make for a better or worse gaming experience, because such a character does not exist in a vacuum.

It is a question of playstyle. We don't say the Ravenloft-loving player is inherently better than the, say, Spelljammer-loving player. Finding a single campaign to please both may be more difficult if players have radically different playstyles, though, and this is particularly evident if one player wants to play a "higher tier"/"heavily optimized" character in a party made up of lesser mortals (and who isn't willing to distribute much of his power amongst the other, i.e. as a buffer), or if one player wants to play a "lower tier"/"weakly optimized" character in a party made up of virtual demigods (without some mechanical ability that will allow him to contribute meaningfully and on the same level with any level of regularity).


I have, in essence, made my character without a backstory, done the character design, the mechanics, first.

Can anyone say with conviction that I am wrong, say it with enough conviction to convince a neutral, impartial third party? I doubt it.

Of course not, without knowing anything about how the other players are playing. If they are trying to play a "roleplay-intensive" game where backgrounds wind up being woven into the fabric of the story -- whether or not they are "heavily optimized" -- then creating a character this way, *for this game*, is probably not the best idea.

OTOH, if the game's story is going to be more or less what the game's story is, and roleplay (especially the impact of character background) is going to be relatively light, then designing a character in this fashion may be not only perfectly valid but a good idea (since anyone who invests too much time in character background might just wind up disappointed that it never matters).

Boci
2010-07-13, 01:19 PM
Just because there doesn't *have* to be a correlation of "rollplaying vs roleplaying" doesn't mean the two are always completely independent.

Obviously, but so is whether you like cola or pepsi. Just because you like pepsi, doesn't mean you are automatically a worse roleplayer than someone who likes cola, but it can happen. Basically, sarcastic hyperbole aside, if the two are not automatically related, there is only limited value in bringing it up.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-13, 01:45 PM
Batman.

...is regularly battered because he's a punk and a bit stupider than popular and memetic culture make him out to be. This is a guy who got beat up by a drug-fueled luchador who outsmarted him, alright? Let's not go waving the Batman flag. Stupid black-leather-wearing reject from hot topic...::grumble grumble::

This thread is starting to feel like a sequel to the High-Op Man, Low-Op World one I started a while back, but with a great deal more venom. I suppose that’s bound to happen when two people choose to argue.

I am currently a player and a DM in two groups, one low-op, one high-op. The high-op group has better roleplayers, more creativity, and is more fun to play in and run for because of their ability to separate power and character. The low-op group is frustrating, as they tend to play one note characters, roleplay poorly, and make combat increasingly difficult to the point of frustration.

I enjoy my time in both of them because of the friends I’ve made, but I have to say, the high-op group plays a better game. One of them has never played 3.5 before and he’s playing his cloistered cleric flawlessly. It’s kinda awesome to watch.

Also, regarding Superman – something to remember about him is…he can’t really turn off most of his powers. He controls them and its almost second nature, but there was an entire issue about how difficult it is to control his super-hearing…to the point where he simply can’t. Which means he can hear every…single…crime happening not just in his city, but halfway across the continent. But he knows that he can’t stop them all. It would be too much even for him and then he’d be too drained to handle a real threat if it cropped up, or too distracted, or simply not fast enough. So every minute of his life, Superman has to make a choice…he has to let some people die because he knows that if he tries to save everyone, he’ll doom everyone eventually.

Badly-written, Superman is pathetic.

Well written…well, frankly, there’s a reason he’s Superman.

Esser-Z
2010-07-13, 01:52 PM
Batman was actually a joke, because of the fan "with planning, he can beat anyone!" thing.


But on a more serious point... there's a very big difference between WATCHING some guy plan and then succeed and YOU YOURSELF planning and then succeeded. An RPG is a far more interactive environment, and its tropes are different than cultural fiction.

AtwasAwamps
2010-07-13, 01:53 PM
Batman was actually a joke, because of the fan "with planning, he can beat anyone!" thing.


But on a more serious point... there's a very big difference between WATCHING some guy plan and then succeed and YOU YOURSELF planning and then succeeded. An RPG is a far more interactive environment, and its tropes are different than cultural fiction.

Obviously.

And also I despise batman. Stupid batman.

Amphetryon
2010-07-13, 02:15 PM
And minimising and mitigating those risks does make it less heroic. Diving in to save a drowning child is less heroic if you stop to put on a life preserver. That's the way of it. The greater the personal risk, the greater the heroism. Our armed forces don't dish out medals for simply sucking down an artillery barrage from the safety of a nicely prepared bunker, because that's simply not heroic.Your opinion on the inherent contradiction in calling a rescue worker, police officer, or soldier 'heroic' for doing their job is duly noted.

It's also an opinion. Your presentation style, thus far, has given many of us, myself included, the impression that you hold the belief that your opinion is fact. On this point, I must strenuously disagree.

TheMeMan
2010-07-13, 02:16 PM
It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it? Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.


If it counts, I chose to play a 15 year-old Kobold Spirit Shaman, with no Races of the Dragons add-ons, etc. Not strong, but incredibly fun to play. So... eh? The concept of the character was to good for me to pass up, and it is one of the funnest characters I've made.

Kylarra
2010-07-13, 02:19 PM
If it counts, I chose to play a 15 year-old Kobold Spirit Shaman, with no Races of the Dragons add-ons, etc. Not strong, but incredibly fun to play. So... eh? The concept of the character was to good for me to pass up, and it is one of the funnest characters I've made.I think the key part there is geriatric. Without cheese, generally, playing a venerable character from level 1 is significantly less than optimal. :smalltongue:

TheMeMan
2010-07-13, 02:29 PM
I think the key part there is geriatric. Without cheese, generally, playing a venerable character from level 1 is significantly less than optimal. :smalltongue:

Ah, didn't think of the penalties involved....

However... it does sound like a fun idea... at least for a one-shot quest...

(incase you couldn't tell, my characters tend to border on the ridiculous).

That all said, I'm not sure what I said. So yep.

Math_Mage
2010-07-13, 02:31 PM
But that's the massive characterisation trap with optimising: It encourages and rewards reverse engineering. The player wants to play X uber character, and then reverse engineers the entire character process -right down to region of birth in FR games- in order to fit the optimised 1-20 character build. That's completely the opposite of the way that 95% of games tell you to build characters, and leads to those awful, awful contrived backgrounds that are seen with startling regularity. And I will go out on a limb here and say that the most optimised characters do often tend towards the most unlikely and absurd backstories (if they have one at all), whereas a character designed character-first, numbers later tends towards a more 'realistic' and often better thought out background.

I'll put my hand up here and say that I cheerfully min-max. But I do it in order to crowbar my character concept and back-story into the framework of the rules: The maths comes after the character is designed, because D&D is a constrained game and you have to beat the rules with a stick to make some concepts work.

*sigh*

People who make awful, awful contrived backgrounds for optimized characters would make shallow, uninteresting, flat backgrounds for unoptimized characters. They're not interested in roleplaying to begin with.

Also, I think you may need a refresher on optimization terminology.
Optimizer: Someone who works to develop the mechanical power of his character in a specific direction. Ex: "I want to make a good S&B fighter."
Min-Maxer: Someone who seeks to trade disadvantages that don't mean anything mechanically for advantages that do mean something mechanically. Ex: Taking the maximum number of available flaws in a 3.5 game.
Powergamer: Someone who isn't satisfied with anything less than an 'uber' character in terms of mechanical power. Ex: Playing a White Dragonspawn Loredrake Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer for the extra CL, or throwing around Nightsticks.
Munchkin: Yeah, yeah, we all know who this is.

The terms are not mutually exclusive; in particular, powergamers are usually optimizers, and min-maxing is a routine activity of both optimizers and powergamers. But you should be able to see how an optimizer might take offense at being argued at as if he were a powergamer. One large difference between the two is that an optimizer generally develops his character concept concurrently with his character sheet; a powergamer will use whatever gives the most pluses and contrive an explanation for it later.


Yet half a dozen times in the last two dozen threads I've read is something like 'I have to keep bailing them out' or 'None of the other players are optimisers', or utterly rabid offences yelling tired old tropes arguing against even the possibility that optimisation can lead to poor characterisation. Maybe advice on optimisation 'help me' threads should come with a public safety warning: Doing this can make you a complete jerk.

'I have to keep bailing them out': Sounds like AtwasAwamps, no? The guy who tries to avoid showing up his group, but pulls out the stops when the group comes in danger of TPK through consistent failure to adhere to basic tactics, never mind build optimization tenets? The guy who, if it matters, is perfectly capable of building consistent, believable, and powerful characters? Because you're not really making the 'that guy's a jerk' case very well if that's your standard.

'None of the other players are optimizers': usually leads to complaints like 'gives fellow players poor advice in complete confidence' (AtwasAwamps again) or 'imposes arbitrary restrictions on build concepts because of their ignorance of optimization' (Umael, in the OP). Again, it's not about showing up the group.

(And maybe you should consider your words carefully before making statements implying that most of the people you're talking to, who regularly post on 'help me' threads, are or could be complete jerks.)


Wow. Can we possibly converse without there being some kind of line in the sand that one has to stand one side of ? "CITE CITE CITE PROVE IT" is not a conversation; it's an argument, and a poor one at that.

Discussions generally involve making supportable claims and supporting them when necessary.


I sit here genuinely amazed that you aren't familiar with the concept of gamers who gen up superman then crowbar any old background into place afterwards, in order to fit the bill and meet all the regional feat/whatever requirements.

And I sit here genuinely amazed that you would implicate optimizers for the actions of people who are plainly:
(a) powergamers; and
(b) not interested in roleplaying to begin with.

Now that we've gotten all that genuine amazement out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand, instead of discussing a straw man.


[Putting my shrink hat on for a second: Powergaming/competitive gaming/oneupmanship in RPGs CAN (before you jump on it - not always) be indicative of an ingrained need to win/compete/narcissistic personality traits, and Optimisation is an essential tool for that style of gaming. So I'd postulate that the side of the floor defending the legitimacy of optimisation would hypothetically, given a large enough sample size include such players, who would be unwilling to concede even small points in favour of an opposing argument, or be subject to a reinforcing cognitive bias. That would then lead to a statistical bias in the given evidence. I digress]

You should consider which side of the discussion is resorting to fallacies and complaints about requests for evidence in order to avoid conceding 'points'.

Esser-Z
2010-07-13, 02:36 PM
I think the key part there is geriatric. Without cheese, generally, playing a venerable character from level 1 is significantly less than optimal. :smalltongue:
Works well for Wizards!

Kylarra
2010-07-13, 02:39 PM
Works well for Wizards!Occasionally. They're one of the better ones at obviating the penalties, especially at higher levels, but in practical play, not so much.

Caphi
2010-07-13, 02:39 PM
Works well for Wizards!

Not before they get alter self and mirror image, it doesn't. And it doesn't really become a sure bet until fly.

Keld Denar
2010-07-13, 02:57 PM
Tales of a hero preparing for a combat that they then sail through don't make the best seller list. Saga-wise, tales of heroes obtaining items to defeat a foe are themselves laced with oodles of risk.

Rocky...Karate Kid...pretty much any sport movie ever. Also, pretty much any courtroom thriller. 2/3 of the movie is about the preperation, training, and lessons learned prior to the "main event". Its about the character's growth during those periods. Then, finally, during the climax, the character uses this well developed toolbox of lessons in a way to beat the competition, either resoundingly or by a narrow margin, depending on the story.

Just sayin...:smallcool:

Kylarra
2010-07-13, 02:59 PM
Even with the training montage movies though, they generally struggle up until the very last second where they have a revelation and win.


Not saying that epic planning/training isn't an epic story in its own right, I'm just sayin' ... :smallcool:

Sliver
2010-07-13, 03:03 PM
I feel compelled to point out that the connection between "I play a strong character" and "I roleplay my character poorly" is not "I play a strong character, thus I roleplay it poorly" but "I don't care about the roleplaying aspect, only about the power of my character, thus I play a strong character." You can play a strong character and you can roleplay it just fine if you aren't hell bent on thinking that you can't.

And I don't get what is wrong with deciding what you want to play mechanically before fluffing it out. Those aspects complement and support each other. If you can't make it work, you aren't trying hard enough. If you are going to think about an exaggerated example just to show that it doesn't work all the time, pet yourself on the back for being so close minded.

Although sometimes I get the feeling from arguments like these that the opposing side is arguing because "I don't like this since I can't pull it off" and not because no one can pull it off well enough,

If you have a personal experience with someone who focused on power and didn't roleplay, it does not mean that optimizers are poor role players, or that caring about your power means your character probably has poor fluff or w/e. It means that the someone you know didn't care about roleplaying or was a poor roleplayer, nothing else.

Gametime
2010-07-13, 03:52 PM
And I will go out on a limb here and say that the most optimised characters do often tend towards the most unlikely and absurd backstories (if they have one at all), whereas a character designed character-first, numbers later tends towards a more 'realistic' and often better thought out background.

There is, I think, an event horizon of optimization beyond which good backstory and coherent storytelling becomes more difficult. I think it's at a far higher level than most people credit; Pun-Pun, in most of his forms, is hard to write a good backstory for, for instance. (A Paladin who summons a demon prince so that he can be become omnipotent, and understands the relatively complex steps necessary to do so? ...Sure, why not!)

Even once you're well into theoretical optimization, though, it's possible to make good backstories. A properly built Hulking Hurler can kill just amount anything that can be damaged, but there's nothing inherent in it that makes it impossible to tell a story about.


Yet half a dozen times in the last two dozen threads I've read is something like 'I have to keep bailing them out' or 'None of the other players are optimisers', or utterly rabid offences yelling tired old tropes arguing against even the possibility that optimisation can lead to poor characterisation. Maybe advice on optimisation 'help me' threads should come with a public safety warning: Doing this can make you a complete jerk.

Well...a couple of things.

First, I'm not willing to bet that there is not a single optimizer who is also a jerk. (I haven't seen many on these forums, which I find tend to be populated with quite lovely people, but I'm sure they're out there.)

Second, I am willing to bet that optimizing jerks have jerky behavior predating optimizing. I don't think it's fair to blame the jerkiness on the optimizing, even if optimization can be manifested in a jerky way.

Third, I don't think bailing your party out is you showing them up; I would say that's the DM showing them up. If the encounter is too difficult (and you aren't the sort of group to flee, or the DM didn't give you any indication it would be too difficult so you didn't think you'd have to, or something), then I think doing whatever you can to prevent a TPK is the right choice. I'm talking about showing them up in normal encounters, when you are doing it just to prove your superiority.

Basically, you start showing them up when you start using overkill, but it's not overkill unless you could have succeeded just as easily with less firepower. If the DM is throwing unbalanced challenges at you, that's an issue to be fixed on his end.


Simply winning does not - from the point of view of culture - make a hero. It makes for a dull, dull, dull story. 'The wizard prepared his buffs in advance, strode in and killed a dragon at no personal risk' makes a duller story and a far smaller hero than a bloke with one leg saving a dog from the river.

You aren't the first one to say this, so I apologize if it seems like I'm singling you out, but where did this idea that there is only one cultural concept of heroism come from? Not only are there a multitude of cultures, ideals of heroism are hardly uniform even within a culture.

Also, just because one person is more heroic than another does not mean that the other is not heroic. The bloke with one leg might be a greater hero, but the wizard is at least an excellent samaritan and very likely a hero in his own right, based on his selfless action (assuming he was killing the dragon to aid others, and not just for the sweet, sweet experience and loot).

At least, I think so. Again, heroism is hardly a well-defined concept.


Heroes have to have flaws and be real people.

lolwut? :smalltongue:


Worse than that. Thirteen TRILLION times the speed of light.

You know, that's what I thought it was at first, but then I figured I must have exaggerated it because the writers couldn't possibly think the Flash should be that fast. Good times.

Lhurgyof
2010-07-13, 07:15 PM
Indeed, optimization isn't powergaming.

I had a character idea, Mr. Bumblebux, who was an umberhulk bureaucrat wearing a suit and tie. So I took the umberhulk class and made him decently powerful (not super optimized, but able to hold himself quite well in a fight). Now, is there anything truly wrong with that?
I also like playing not so strong characters as well, I'd rather play a strong character, but hey. Who cares?
I wouldn't let optimization get in the way of making a fun to play and roleplay character, that's when it becomes powergaming. When you're in a group of venerable kobolds from Faerun and fighters using spiked chains.

EDIT: Oh, and my old DM used the GURPS books to give our characters traits and flaws, if we so wished, it made for some good characters.
I remember Dillon's spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, and spiked shield charging ball of spikes had a peg leg, lol.

Quietus
2010-07-13, 10:34 PM
"Hey, Frank, I thought you hated law."
"*sigh* I do."
"Then why you'd become a lawyer."
"...the money."

So, yes, there is a reason (sadly) for someone to go for a career path they don't like. Of course, in your example, that becomes...

"Hey, Francokillus, I thought you hated conjuring."
"*sigh* I do."
"Then why you'd become a conjurer."
"...the power."

What's dishonest is if they DON'T have an IC reason for taking conjuring, not that they have something against it.

And now, I want to play this character. It seems that it could be made compelling, if played well. :smalltongue:

Caphi
2010-07-13, 11:07 PM
And now, I want to play this character. It seems that it could be made compelling, if played well. :smalltongue:

Maybe his dad pushed him into conjuration! All he ever wanted to do was entertain the kids with shadow plays (with real shadows - er, quasi-real shadows), but...

Umael
2010-07-14, 12:25 AM
Heh.

Sometimes it is fun to create an uber-powerful character... and then throw something into the works that makes it completely different and entertaining in a new light.

I had a starting Brujah (who ended up being an NPC, but I didn't assign any more points to him) who at first glance seemed to scream combat-monster-powergaming.

Worked as a bouncer in a biker bar, wore leather (counts as armor), had several weapons hidden all over his body (my favorite was the pool cue that was broken in half - one half was the club, the other the stake).

Physicals Primary - Strength 5, Dexterity 3, Stamina 4. Celerity 2 Potence 1. Huge. Permanent fangs. Clan enmity: Ventrue. 8th Generation. Melee 5. Intimidation 3. Demeanor Bravo.

Nature Pacifist.

Suddenly, everything took on a new light. Here was someone who looked totally designed for combat... with a pacifist nature.

But it worked!

Having someone 7' 6" looming over you and saying (through tight lips), "I think you better go now," to someone who was trying to pick a fight... was actually effective, and kept the character concept three-dimensional.

His name was also Sheila.

Tiki Snakes
2010-07-14, 01:12 AM
Pun Pun backstory;

'Monty' was always an idealist. When he was young, and being taught the racial myths of his people, he never really empathised with Kurtulmak, even during the tale of Garl Glittergold and the collapsing of the first Great Mine.

He empathised with the common Kobold, and to an extent, all such people. (He grew to believe that it was both common Kobolds and common Gnomes who were the victims in that tale, because due to the squabbling of their racial gods, a lot of kobolds died, and a lot of gnomes would come to die in the following ages due to this.)

He grew to venerate the pantheon of Gods that most represented this general world-view, dedicating himself to the concept of doing what must be done to alleviate the suffering and injustices of the common people. His chosen God / Gods espoused the end-goal of an enlightened and compasionate world, and Monty dearly wanted to see it one day.

But life as a Kobold is hard, and when his tribe were wiped out by a Necromancer seeking a new lair, he got a close-up view of just how badly broken the world could be.

Monty lost a little faith in the Pantheon of shiny fluffy niceness just then, because he reasoned that if he adhered to their rules as they stood, he could never hope to live to see their ideal world created.
He saught to use his keen mind and his now iron will to find a way to truly make a change. Working feverishly, the holy warrior eventually found a way to do just that, and all it took was a single gamble on the whim of a Demonlord too arrogant to consider what could be done with one wish in exchange for a small existential cost.

Monty spoke the name three times, and wished for a Candle. He would need more than one wish to do what must be done, but he needed only deal with the Demonlord once... A small price to pay, in exchange for the kind of earth-shattering power that could truly begin to fix the broken world.

Seems simple enough to me. For a character that explicitely should never be used, it's really quite a simple, elegant and obvious backstory/motivation.

Icewraith
2010-07-14, 01:42 AM
You changed your character concept in order to optimize your character's role in the party. You went from combat god to intimimancer, (I'm not sure how much of a mechanical penalty you take if you slug someone as I'm not conversant in the system you're using, but even if it's pretty harsh you've optimized your intimidate-equivalent skill quite well with the leather, body, visible weapons, etc) and it sounds like you did a fairly good job of it. It's a fairly tame example, but I think it illustrates the sort of back and forth that should go into creating a truly well-put-together character:

The concept should affect the mechanics AND the mechanics should affect the concept.

Here's my anti-optimization horror story/counterexample:

One of my friends played a rogue and decided he would forego disable device and focus on opening locks, to differ his rogue from past rogues who always had disable device. His backstory was that his character had been imprisoned by a wizard and he escaped by learning to pick the locks in the wizard's dungeon.

...

I will maintain to this day that no matter how good in other areas his character turned out to be, that his backstory made no sense for his character and it should in fact still be rotting in this dungeon unless someone else busted him out and showed him how to bypass and or/disable the magical TRAPS the wizard would have had his dungeon covered in. Wizards know all about the knock spell. "Take use magic device and disable device, it works for magic traps and fits your concept perfectly!"

Hoo boy he wasn't having any of it. Fortunately our DM didn't punish the party too much, but he also might have been tailoring the encounters to the party and so not installed any traps that did more than shoot people with evocations.

Bodkins Odds
2010-07-14, 02:05 AM
Pun Pun backstory;

'Monty' was always an idealist. When he was young, and being taught the racial myths of his people, he never really empathised with Kurtulmak, even during the tale of Garl Glittergold and the collapsing of the first Great Mine.

He empathised with the common Kobold, and to an extent, all such people. (He grew to believe that it was both common Kobolds and common Gnomes who were the victims in that tale, because due to the squabbling of their racial gods, a lot of kobolds died, and a lot of gnomes would come to die in the following ages due to this.)

He grew to venerate the pantheon of Gods that most represented this general world-view, dedicating himself to the concept of doing what must be done to alleviate the suffering and injustices of the common people. His chosen God / Gods espoused the end-goal of an enlightened and compasionate world, and Monty dearly wanted to see it one day.

But life as a Kobold is hard, and when his tribe were wiped out by a Necromancer seeking a new lair, he got a close-up view of just how badly broken the world could be.

Monty lost a little faith in the Pantheon of shiny fluffy niceness just then, because he reasoned that if he adhered to their rules as they stood, he could never hope to live to see their ideal world created.
He saught to use his keen mind and his now iron will to find a way to truly make a change. Working feverishly, the holy warrior eventually found a way to do just that, and all it took was a single gamble on the whim of a Demonlord too arrogant to consider what could be done with one wish in exchange for a small existential cost.

Monty spoke the name three times, and wished for a Candle. He would need more than one wish to do what must be done, but he needed only deal with the Demonlord once... A small price to pay, in exchange for the kind of earth-shattering power that could truly begin to fix the broken world.

Seems simple enough to me. For a character that explicitely should never be used, it's really quite a simple, elegant and obvious backstory/motivation.

Yeah, haven't people learned by now not to ask for valid backstories for characters that must not be played? It tends to be taken as a challenge.

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-07-14, 02:16 AM
Re: Stormwind, optimizing, anecdotal correlation/causation

If P(Bad Roleplayer | Optimizer) = P(Bad Roleplayer)*
Then P(Optimizer | Bad Roleplayer) = P(Optimizer)

*I'll call this Strong Stormwind Independence, or SSI. It's basically saying that if optimization holds no predictive power over bad roleplaying, then the visa versa is true.

Suppose...

1. We have an initial roleplaying pool where SSI holds. (I know, some of you are shaking your heads already).
2. The total pool of bad roleplayers > the total pool of good roleplayers.
3. Bad roleplayers who do not know the game very well (and hence do not optimize) are more likely to drop out of the initial roleplaying pool than those in other groups.

If one took a reliable survey of such a population after drop-outs, all those anecdotes about poor roleplayers who make killing-machine characters seem to gain their statistical redemption. But even though (in this setup) optimization predicts poor roleplaying, there is no direct causal link. All the 'cause' is in assumption 3, the dropout bias.

I posit that, naturally, optimization and roleplaying are SSI, but that those who are bad at all aspects of an RPG generally tend to drop out/stop playing that RPG more often than those who are good at at least one aspect (setting aside the relative importance of different aspects). This leads to observed link between optimizing and bad roleplaying that some incorrectly conclude is causal.

Keld Denar
2010-07-14, 02:48 AM
What about the population that is both a good roleplayer and a good optimizer? Those are the people with the highest interest in the game (from both aspects) and are therefore least likely to drop out of the hobby. NEEDZ MOAR MATHZ PLZ!

Twilight Jack
2010-07-14, 02:50 AM
Re: Stormwind, optimizing, anecdotal correlation/causation

If P(Bad Roleplayer | Optimizer) = P(Bad Roleplayer)*
Then P(Optimizer | Bad Roleplayer) = P(Optimizer)

*I'll call this Strong Stormwind Independence, or SSI. It's basically saying that if optimization holds no predictive power over bad roleplaying, then the visa versa is true.

Suppose...

1. We have an initial roleplaying pool where SSI holds. (I know, some of you are shaking your heads already).
2. The total pool of bad roleplayers > the total pool of good roleplayers.
3. Bad roleplayers who do not know the game very well (and hence do not optimize) are more likely to drop out of the initial roleplaying pool than those in other groups.

If one took a reliable survey of such a population after drop-outs, all those anecdotes about poor roleplayers who make killing-machine characters seem to gain their statistical redemption. But even though (in this setup) optimization predicts poor roleplaying, there is no direct causal link. All the 'cause' is in assumption 3, the dropout bias.

I posit that, naturally, optimization and roleplaying are SSI, but that those who are bad at all aspects of an RPG generally tend to drop out/stop playing that RPG more often than those who are good at at least one aspect (setting aside the relative importance of different aspects). This leads to observed link between optimizing and bad roleplaying that some incorrectly conclude is causal.

Elegant. Have an internet.

Math_Mage
2010-07-14, 03:34 AM
Re: Stormwind, optimizing, anecdotal correlation/causation

If P(Bad Roleplayer | Optimizer) = P(Bad Roleplayer)*
Then P(Optimizer | Bad Roleplayer) = P(Optimizer)

I did a little happy dance inside when I read this. The rest of the comment is good too, of course.

Psyx
2010-07-14, 04:05 AM
Rocky...Karate Kid...pretty much any sport movie ever.
Just sayin...:smallcool:

I'll disagree.
There's still danger and tension in the final conflict. Lots of it. Courtroom dramas hinge on the final tension even more than sporting tales. And Rocky and the Karate Kid did NOT sail through at the end: They got the TRIPE kicked out of them, and had to come back from being in a worse position than they were in when the fight started. Rocky in particular focuses on this, as the character ALWAYS gets knocked around the ring for most of the fight, then 'heroically' comes back. He most certainly does not step into the ring and fell his foe with one punch.



Second, I am willing to bet that optimizing jerks have jerky behavior predating optimizing. I don't think it's fair to blame the jerkiness on the optimizing, even if optimization can be manifested in a jerky way.

Sure. No disagreement there. This was never a 'optimisers are jerks/all powergamers' thing.




Third, I don't think bailing your party out is you showing them up; I would say that's the DM showing them up. ....I'm talking about showing them up in normal encounters, when you are doing it just to prove your superiority.

Remember that we're talking about the perspective of the person doing the talking, rather than the actual facts. NLP and all that. It's reported on this board as 'I had to bail my lame party out again'. That may bear no relation to the facts, and is inherently tainted with limited and biased perspective. What kind of person comes on a board and says 'I had to bail out my lame friends'? Often someone who feels that need to win, someone that feels the need to share that perspective and gain attention, or be seen as a competent person. Most people might bail out their party on a regular basis, but never need to come and tell the world about it.


but where did this idea that there is only one cultural concept of heroism come from?

I believe that I said culturally early in the thread. I stopped using the word each time. But you are right. However; in my culture that's the way of things: Success is measured on how 'far' an individual has improved, rather than just a 'win' [cf: Eddie Edwards]. The US likes its heroes to be a little bit more Superman (as evidenced by... nevermind. You get it) but still likes to cheer for the underdog. Japan loves it's heroes to be complete mental wrecks. As a species though, we do tend to move from tales of perfection to more human heroes. Early opic tales form the walls of tombs have 'uber' heroes, but by the time we get to our literary staples from a few hundred years ago, things have really changed.




lolwut?

They have to be identifiable characters, with traits that invoke some form of empathy. GDFSGBH the blob of force that floats around saying nothing, teleporting around the world randomly killing terrorists is not a hero. Even 'non human' heroes have human traits. Basic literary premise dictates that people need to identify with characters to really get behind them.

Bodkins Odds
2010-07-14, 04:29 AM
Rocky doesn't even win the fight either. The point was he went the distance.

But then came Rocky II... :frown:

Psyx
2010-07-14, 05:22 AM
Do you know... I've never seriously sat and watched any of them all the way through.

I love the way that we're citing Rocky and Batman as literary examples though. :smallbiggrin:


"I get the feeling from arguments like these that the opposing side is arguing because "I don't like this since I can't pull it off" "

I think that's a little petulant. 'You're just jealous because you can't do it'?

It's not rocket science. There isn't really any vast skill in having an encyclopaedic knowledge of a system (And yes; I can cheerfully build grim characters, too). And frankly; anyone who can find this forum and write the words 'help needed druid build' has covered their bases adequately. Being able to optimise does not make anyone more than averagely bright.
How about we turn that on its head and say 'I get the feeling on the pro-optimisation side of the conversation are arguing because they can't pull good characterisation and roleplay off'? That's patiently ridiculous and absurd.
Have a negative cookie.


"Which means he can hear every…single…crime happening not just in his city, but halfway across the continent. But he knows that he can’t stop them all."

*headdesk* Angst... step two in poor character development. Dull, dull, dull.
Basically, Angst is the next stop for characters that are slightly more literately mature than the 'I'm godlike and perfect' characters. The author has realised that perfection is dull and that some humanity needs to be injected, so piles on a big, steaming heap of angst and woe. If we think about it, I'm sure we can all remember seeing it or even experiencing it ourselves in gamers who moved on from playing uber killing machines, to uber killing machines with a heaping of angst.

qv: Drizzt, Elric, Bad vampire novels. And now Superman you say? My opinion of Superman has dropped more. Even more than it did when he took 6 bullets to the chest and then ducked the pistol that was thrown at him.

Math_Mage
2010-07-14, 05:44 AM
Remember that we're talking about the perspective of the person doing the talking, rather than the actual facts. NLP and all that. It's reported on this board as 'I had to bail my lame party out again'. That may bear no relation to the facts, and is inherently tainted with limited and biased perspective. What kind of person comes on a board and says 'I had to bail out my lame friends'? Often someone who feels that need to win, someone that feels the need to share that perspective and gain attention, or be seen as a competent person. Most people might bail out their party on a regular basis, but never need to come and tell the world about it.

What kind of person talks about how they 'had to bail the party out'? The kind that's frustrated with his group's low optimization level--and, therefore, not someone who derives a lot of pleasure from constantly showing up the group. We can speculate about the sort of attention seeker who might skew circumstances to win Internet sympathy, but I find that no more credible than Sliver's speculation about anti-optimizers not being able to optimize. Again, I point you to AtwasAwamps, who is easily the most regular ranter on the subject.

For someone who claims to be avoiding the tack that optimizers are jerks, you seem peculiarly attached to this image of self-satisfied showoffs displaying their competence under the guise of complaints about their group.

Psyx
2010-07-14, 06:14 AM
What kind of person talks about how they 'had to bail the party out'? The kind that's frustrated with his group's low optimization level--and, therefore, not someone who derives a lot of pleasure from constantly showing up the group.

And the first case is the only type of person that would talk like that? Realistically?

'I had to bail the party out', rather than 'The party was in serious trouble' is fairly indicative, placing the writer at the centre of the story - a separation of themselves from their team.

The second case for using the term of phrase is just as viable a reason as the first. If you sympathise heavily with the first view though, that will -to you- eclipse the possibility that it might be the second reason.
(ie you are an optimiser, not a narcissist - good for you)


'I had to bail the party out' might be a frustration with non-optimisers, but... we've already waved the 'players are entitled to game how they like and there's nothing wrong with that' flag on the pro-optimisation side, so what exactly are the grounds for an optimiser getting on the Internet and being frustrated at others for not optimising? None; really, if we use the 'people can play how they want' line of reasoning.

If the party are in trouble, then it's generally because the GM want the party to be in trouble. Referring to that situation as the 'fault' of other players and insisting that 'I' saved the day does speak for the writer and his emotions. Many other people would state 'The GM put us in a fight that was way too difficult', or 'We nearly got TPKed' in exactly the same situation, but with a different personality or emotions guiding them.

Psyx
2010-07-14, 06:17 AM
For someone who claims to be avoiding the tack that optimizers are jerks, you seem peculiarly attached to this image of self-satisfied showoffs displaying their competence under the guise of complaints about their group.

A proportion of optimisers are precisely that. It's undeniably true. And a proportion are great roleplayers. And a proportion of them like vanilla icecream, while some prefer bagels. I'm not really dwelling on the point, but if I keep getting grilled about that opinion and countered on it a disproportionately large amount of the time, it's going to seem that I think that a greater proportion are that kind of jerk than like bagels.

Math_Mage
2010-07-14, 07:00 AM
And the first case is the only type of person that would talk like that? Realistically?

The language you use runs counter to the persona you think is using it. The sort of person who derives satisfaction from bailing the party out of situations is not the sort of person who complains about having to bail the party. The two sentiments contradict each other.


'I had to bail the party out' might be a frustration with non-optimisers, but... we've already waved the 'players are entitled to game how they like and there's nothing wrong with that' flag on the pro-optimisation side, so what exactly are the grounds for an optimiser getting on the Internet and being frustrated at others for not optimising? None; really, if we use the 'people can play how they want' line of reasoning.

That is extending the line of reasoning past where it is meant to apply. Two groups can game completely differently and justify it because people can play how they want, but within a party there has to be some harmony of playstyle.


If the party are in trouble, then it's generally because the GM want the party to be in trouble. Referring to that situation as the 'fault' of other players and insisting that 'I' saved the day does speak for the writer and his emotions. Many other people would state 'The GM put us in a fight that was way too difficult', or 'We nearly got TPKed' in exactly the same situation, but with a different personality or emotions guiding them.

According to AtwasAwamps, his DM was crying tears of joy when he took over an absent player's character for a day and employed basic tactics in combat (not even talking about build op). [/repeating myself]

Obviously there's somebody out there who is thwarting the DM's attempts to present an appropriate challenge to the party by over-optimizing, and then being smug about it on the Internet afterwards. Could you give an example? Don't think I could.

But then, you say this isn't what your problem is to begin with. In which case, I must confess to be missing something. Do you have a problem with optimization? With powergaming? With munchkinism? With disregard for roleplay? What?

GoodbyeSoberDay
2010-07-14, 07:23 AM
What about the population that is both a good roleplayer and a good optimizer? Those are the people with the highest interest in the game (from both aspects) and are therefore least likely to drop out of the hobby. NEEDZ MOAR MATHZ PLZ!My little model, like all models, can be very easily complicated. In order for my dropout bias to do the same thing in principle, you'd need stronger conditions about dropout rates, or to put it another way, effective population sizes. While (whoops) I didn't need assumption 2 in the original setup, I'd probably need something like it taking what you're saying into account. Basically the selection bias of the good roleplayer optimizers would have to be relatively less than the selection bias of the bad roleplaying non-optimizers.

Psyx
2010-07-14, 07:37 AM
The sort of person who derives satisfaction from bailing the party out of situations is not the sort of person who complains about having to bail the party. The two sentiments contradict each other.

Actually, they don't. 'I had to bail the party out again' is slightly more subtle that 'I saved the day, because I'm great', but the intention can be the same. Easily. Remember that the person is now communicating to others. Using a disparaging turn of phrase is normally a slight of frustration, but there can easily be an element of pride/ego in there as well, as the author is aware that the 'I'm great' is considered rude.

Break it down.

'I' - centres sentence on author

'had to' - it's his 'job', his duty. They other members of the party are seen as his responsibility for one of a variety of reasons.

'save' - It's a very strong word. Not 'help', 'aid' 'assist', but 'save'. Me. I did that.

'The party' - not 'us'. Separation of themselves from their comrades. They are 'different' there is a gap there.

'Again'. Reinforcement of the fact that this is their job. It happens a lot. the reader is being told to understand that.

It certainly can point to frustration (which is telling others how they 'should' be playing the game, or at least dictating an opinion on the matter), but it can be narcissistic as well. Neither answer is cast-iron 'right' without more to back it up.

I digress. We're onto NLP.



within a party there has to be some harmony of playstyle.

And is the minority optimised player the one who should dictate that, or the majority who do not optimise? If the shoe was on the other foot and someone was insisting on excessively roleplaying a team skirmish wargame, whose responsibility would it be to harmonise things?


Could you give an example?

Err. I don't need one. We've acknowledge that they exist. It's not moving the conversation anywhere interesting. If I did cite 100 examples, then what? Would it matter? Would you say 'oh yeah, you're right' and drastically change opinion? No.



Do you have a problem with optimization? With powergaming? With munchkinism? With disregard for roleplay? What?

In general terms?

Optimisation: Excessively and to the detriment of the game, yes. If it giving one player a massive advantage over others and causing disruption: Yes. If it results in people feeling left out, or their characters repeatedly being turned to pate because they can't 'keep up': Yes. At the expense of good roleplay and characterisation: Yes. But getting your character to be competent to an acceptable and reasonable level: No. To use the rules in order to create a decent character: No. I do it all the while. I have some great characters. I love maths and have a reasonably encyclopaedic knowledge of most game systems that I play.

Powergaming: If people want to go and get their kicks from playing god, they can. But I don't want to game with them. It's not my style of play and I don't personally like it, or find it fulfilling in any way. It lends itself to a personality type that I don't find overly desirable in my friends. I like better adjusted, more internally balanced people who are less frustrated with the world.

Munkinism: Another step down the ladder. I am genuinely annoyed sometimes when I attend larger games and have to share a game universe with such players, because they are often about an inch away from outright cheating. I don't like it, no. It's selfish and not fun.

Disregard for Roleplay: I don't tend to bother roleplaying wargames because they are wargames. Disregard for roleplay in an RPG though is annoying and defeats the purpose. There are plenty of computer games that people could invest time on instead. Some people treat 3.5/4 like a skirmish wargame, but that doesn't interest me, because there are better skirmish wargames out there. D&D -to me- has always been an RPG. Sure: There have been times when roleplay annoys me when it is actually to the detriment of the game (picking at the scabs and cracks in the game world, or an insistence on micro-gaming day-to-day tedium for 4 play sessions in a row instead of getting out and getting on with things), but too much roleplay is better than too little.

Math_Mage
2010-07-14, 07:41 AM
Which leaves me wondering where the point of disagreement is with the rest of the people on the thread, unless it be 'optimization at the expense of roleplaying', which some would take exception to.

Psyx
2010-07-14, 07:58 AM
Indeed: I don't like optimisation at the expense of characterisation. and we can safely agree that it does happen at times. And when it does happen, then it's often a pivotal character who can be more powerful than everyone else put together who is screwing the game up for others.

Frankly, it often doesn't matter so much if the guy who took Toughness for his Fighter can't roleplay, as it does if the guy who is playing something horrific doesn't want to roleplay, because he's in the position of having more influence on the game.

I also don't like adventuring with the same characters time and time again. Another vat-grown ninja you say? Thrilling.
A venerable kobold, you say? Spellscale bard perhaps? Oh: A battlefield control summoner? Sure, they can duct-tape a different personality onto them but (depending on the game) they've often had to jump through so many hoops to qualify for the blag that they want that it's restricted the background and even partially dictated personality. And then when certain powerful builds crop up a lot, you tend to sometimes feel that you're sitting next to a clone of a character from another game. RP and characterisation aside, it's also sometimes tactically boring when you see the same spells and 'tricks' coming out time after time because they're 'best' and 'optimal'. FFS: chuck a fireball once in a while!

I think that's another frustration: The unwillingness of some players to play a game of cards with a duff hand once in a while. If you want to show us how clever you are, play from a disadvantage. Rise to the challenge and get out of the comfort zone. Don't rely on being a honed machine. We gain satisfaction from overcoming obstacles. If you lower the bar and make easier things more challenging, then it's possible to sometimes have a much better time. 'Winning' when your best is far less fun than winning when you're worst.

Keld Denar
2010-07-14, 09:18 AM
If you want to show us how clever you are, play from a disadvantage. Rise to the challenge and get out of the comfort zone. Don't rely on being a honed machine. We gain satisfaction from overcoming obstacles.

I'm mentioned this a couple times within this very thread. One of the joys of optimization is doing it within a given set of constraints. This leads to a lot of "Oh, I could totally do that....nah, that book is banned" or "My DM won't let me polymorph...what else can I do?" or "How do I make the most powerful Green Star Adept, or Warchanter, or other funky PrC." Some times the fun is taking something BAD and turning it into something GOOD through the application of various combinations of classes, feats, abilities, and alt class features. Take a look at the Iron Optimization challenge for a good example. That's a perfect example of self-constrained optimization because its based on appealing to critera, several of which will get marked down dramatically if you use something that is "cookiecutter" or slides too heavily on the TO side of the tracks.

Also, while I know its not THE best model for it, I happen to REALLY enjoy D&D tactical movement and combat. There is something satisfying about laying out your AoE disable in exactly the right spot, 5'ing in just the right spot that allows you to flank one foe, cleave into another foe, and still block the charge lane between a big angry charger and your caster friend.

As I said earlier, maybe D&D isn't the game for you, but it is the game for me, and for what its worth, I enjoy ALL aspects of it, from RP to CharOp to combat. Everything.

Umael
2010-07-14, 11:07 AM
You changed your character concept in order to optimize your character's role in the party. You went from combat god to intimimancer, (I'm not sure how much of a mechanical penalty you take if you slug someone as I'm not conversant in the system you're using, but even if it's pretty harsh you've optimized your intimidate-equivalent skill quite well with the leather, body, visible weapons, etc) and it sounds like you did a fairly good job of it.

The game was Vampire: the Masquerade (which is oWoD).

From a mechanical aspect, my (N)PC did not suffer too much. Nature: Pacifist means that my character can only regain Willpower Points if he solves a conflict or potential conflict through peaceful means. However, playing my character counter to his nature WOULD forego earning extra experience points through role-playing (i.e., I am encouraged to solve my problems outside of violence, despite my ability to fight).

As I saw it, Sheila was a pacifist warrior, someone who didn't like to fight, but knew how to fight and when it was necessary to fight - and it showed.



It's a fairly tame example, but I think it illustrates the sort of back and forth that should go into creating a truly well-put-together character:

The concept should affect the mechanics AND the mechanics should affect the concept.

*nod*



Here's my anti-optimization horror story/counterexample:

One of my friends played a rogue and decided he would forego disable device and focus on opening locks, to differ his rogue from past rogues who always had disable device. His backstory was that his character had been imprisoned by a wizard and he escaped by learning to pick the locks in the wizard's dungeon.

...you know, all he had to do was just change the backstory to something that DIDN'T involve wizards. That or he should have had a major, major dislike for wizards and anything related to them.

(Which is to say, yes, I can see a character concept like that... but from the way you describe it, he didn't think it all the way through.

Gametime
2010-07-14, 04:02 PM
Pun Pun backstory;
*snip*

Seems simple enough to me. For a character that explicitely should never be used, it's really quite a simple, elegant and obvious backstory/motivation.

Your mileage may vary. I don't like that backstory, personally; not because there's anything wrong with it, but it doesn't explain away the most grating part of Pun-Pun's ascendance: the Candle.

In a world where high-level adventurers operate, gold is peanuts. Crafters just make gold less valuable peanuts. How, in a world with Candle of Invocation, has someone not done something world-shattering with it already? I mean, it's not like knowing about Pazuzu is a difficult check. You don't need to justify rolling up wizard #4,701, but rolling up Mr. God-to-be? I dunno. As a DM, I'd expect some reasons why no one else has tried it first.

Basically, if it's easy for Pun-Pun, it's easy for anyone. Why is your character the first to do this? Is the Candle a recently-invented magical item? Has Pazuzu only become active recently? Does no one else in the world have Knowledge: Religion?

The fact that Pun-Pun can time travel only makes things worse, because then you get into this whole paradox where no one ever gets to become Pun-Pun because other people became Pun-Pun later and then traveled back in time and HEAD A-SPLODE.*

I think, personally, that Pun-Pun's existence hinges on verisimilitude-breaking mechanics. Again, your mileage may vary.

*Of course, this depends on whether you think time in D&D is closed-circle or flowing-river. Either interpretation has issues.



"Which means he can hear every…single…crime happening not just in his city, but halfway across the continent. But he knows that he can’t stop them all."

*headdesk* Angst... step two in poor character development. Dull, dull, dull.
Basically, Angst is the next stop for characters that are slightly more literately mature than the 'I'm godlike and perfect' characters. The author has realised that perfection is dull and that some humanity needs to be injected, so piles on a big, steaming heap of angst and woe. If we think about it, I'm sure we can all remember seeing it or even experiencing it ourselves in gamers who moved on from playing uber killing machines, to uber killing machines with a heaping of angst.

Angst is sort of the punching-bag of the internet community at the moment, but I object to its use as a pejorative blanket term for any sort of emotional distress. Dwelling on angst can often be detrimental to the character, but like everything else in literature it's very subjective, and even the angstiest angster can be pulled of beautifully. Tropes are tools, and all that. There is at least one extremely popular franchise that centers around an insufferable Mary Sue, for example.

Having not read the Superman story in question, I am unable to comment on well the angst is handled in it. Watchmen, though, is a book with more than a little angsting, and it's usually considered pretty darn good. Done right, the angst contributes to the story instead of detracting from it.

You're right, though, that it's the first resource of talentless hacks. It's just a shame the hacks have ruined the public perception of what can be a very effective tool.

Tiki Snakes
2010-07-14, 05:55 PM
I think, personally, that Pun-Pun's existence hinges on verisimilitude-breaking mechanics. Again, your mileage may vary.

As far as I understand it, this is the entire point of Pun-Pun.

Also, as some people have hinted, I don't believe even the candle is necessary, (someone mentioned a ring of three wishes being used in some of the more recent low level versions).

I just find that although the existence of Pun Pun is unlikely when RAI is considered, or if a DM is involved at all even, when starting from the premise that there IS a Pun Pun, there can quite easily be an interesting and cohesive backstory. If that makes any sense, anyway. :smallsmile:

Gametime
2010-07-14, 06:36 PM
As far as I understand it, this is the entire point of Pun-Pun.

Also, as some people have hinted, I don't believe even the candle is necessary, (someone mentioned a ring of three wishes being used in some of the more recent low level versions).

I just find that although the existence of Pun Pun is unlikely when RAI is considered, or if a DM is involved at all even, when starting from the premise that there IS a Pun Pun, there can quite easily be an interesting and cohesive backstory. If that makes any sense, anyway. :smallsmile:

I think I know what you mean. At least, if what you mean is "Pun-Pun exists" makes more sense than "My character can ascend to become Pun-Pun." If that's the case, I agree; I think a universe in which Pun-Pun is possible but does not already exist is bizarrely improbable, whereas a universe in which Pun-Pun has, through various reality-warping methods, instituted himself now and forever into the fabric of the cosmos is more internally consistent.

But yeah, since Pun-Pun's whole schtick is telling physics not only to sit down and shut up, but to make him a sandwich at the same time, I just think his existence presupposes a universe which doesn't make any sense. (Well, even less sense than normal D&D-verse, anyway.)