PDA

View Full Version : On Optimization and Roleplaying: Musings of a Playgrounder



Thrice Dead Cat
2011-07-25, 02:26 PM
*Most of this comes in relation to the DND 3.5 and the broader d20 system as a whole, but I'm shooting for something that isn't just about those systems. Any Playgrounder could easily see that I'm a big fan of Tome of Battle, the wizard class, and probably other "broken/cheesey/overpowered" things. I don't wish to make this a "My way of playing is better than yours" hellswarm, but - in any system - "broken" can be a really relative term. A lot of this does come from my opinion, so take it all with some salt. In effect, I'm trying to build on the classic "Stormwind Fallacy."


The Playground is known for having a lot of silly arguments, be they any number of monk threads, Tome of Battle threads, and/or the immutability of class fluff (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=206955). I find these sorts of debates interesting because it is rather useful to get varying opinions on topics - be the goal to sway your opponents in the debate or merely try to show them how you play and why you like it. I know people who have played just about every system out there and play tabletop games for to play a role. Others may just want something to do with friends to kill time/have fun, and still more like to be apart of a story or simply crunch some numbers to do silly things like the Jumplomancer.

For convince, I'll refer to these four hypothetical archetypes as the "Actor," "Beer and Pretzlers," the "Author," and the "Optimizer." There are cases where focusing too much on one of these can and will hamper the others, but they are independent in the sense that someone could be- using RISUS (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)-a Roleplayer 5, Pretzler 3, Author 1, Optimizer 2 or really anything on a 0-5 scale for each of those. Each one of those has different core desires out of a game or campaign but they could all play together at a table without major problems. We're dealing with people, so obviously there will always be some minor scuffles or misunderstandings. If things aren't working out, I'd recommend heavily to talk with your fellow gamers and work out the issues. If that doesn't happen, remember, "No gaming is better than bad gaming."

As to these archetypes, I'd say the Actor does it for taking up the role and getting involved in another world. He or she wishes to become "Bjorn the Jotunblut Warrior of Skarv," "Jim the baker," or really anything else they can imagine, because pretending to be someone else for a bit can be a fun way to spend your time, no matter what role you do don. At the extremes, you'll get people who could be the next Johnny Depth for how committed they are to their role as their character or how easy it is for them to go from being the town guardsman to the major when they are the GM. Or could be unlucky and playing with people that are simply melodramatic "Act-twars!" - going so far as to be teeth-gratingly narcissistic and egotistical.

Pretzlers are there to just play a game and "hang-out" - for lack of a better term. It could be really any good friend that just wants to mess around and have fun. They could be the guys who play the chaotic neutral rogue that drips alchemist's fire down someone's pants for everyone's laugh or they could be the serious straight-man, tough-guy character that loathes such nonsense. Either way, they're there to be among good company and have a good time.

Authors go for the storytelling and being apart of the story. The quintessential example is the DM who wants to write a true epic or the next Harry Potter but doesn't know where to start. Heck, I've played under at least one such DM and it was a great ride. You'll also get people like myself who just enjoy playing for the sake of experiencing such a story and being a part of that world. It doesn't matter if the character dies so long as it goes with the story. Heck, in some systems, you can even come back and add that experience to the on-going narrative!

And finally we get to The Optimizer. This guy doesn't always want to "win" the game, but some of the worst can be that guy, sadly. For these people it can really just be more fun to play with the system for either practical game playing or for the silliness that is Pun-Pun just to see if such is possible. I'm a big proponent of optimizing and recall lurking back over on the WotC boards before they were nuked when 4E was first coming out. At first, I did it to see what was "good" or "powerful," but even just seeing the silly theoretical nonsense like the Omnificer was fun for me, at least.

Nowadays, as a self-labeled optimizer, it mostly comes down to how I want to do something. If in my next game I want to be Captain America, then, well, I'll figure out how best to fight with a shield first, then cover general things like strength, endurance, and tricks that help me throw and return my crazy shield. In 3.5, the quick and dirty route is to be a two-handed shield fighter, focusing on some Power Attack-based goodies and go Bloodstorm Blade so that I can actually throw the shield around on my attacks. If I dug around and knew more about Captain America as a character, I could easily do something else entirely.

The general idea here is that I do think that for a lot of systems the written fluff can just be ignored or changed. It's fine if your Mage: the Awaking game runs the world as the book presents it. Same goes for your Greyhawk or FR campaigns. The thing is that some systems have a monogamous love affair between "fluff" and "crunch," while others can roll it a little loser and mix and match fluff with crunch. Heck, people can even play it one way in a system that I would find the two to be completely disjointed.

Overall, though, when someone says "I (dis)like things because of blah" be prepared to explain why. Sure, you may hate the celerity powers in your Vampire game simply because it means that the one guy that focuses on them gets to do more in combat, but going past that word "because" helps. Messing with time-based things almost always causes headaches, even if it just means your pass in the initiative comes.:smalltongue:

The general idea, though, is that we all play roleplaying games differently and for slightly different reasons. My old standby for when someone goes "I hate playing X!" or "My table doesn't use Splat Banana because muffins are so overpowered!" is usually something to the effect of "Well, have you guys played X or ran that muffin alongside your fruit sundaes, because I've found they go well together in a party." Not everything works for everyone: doesn't mean everyone shouldn't at least give everything a fair shot once or twice.:smallsmile:

ILM
2011-07-28, 05:03 AM
There are cases where focusing too much on one of these can and will hamper the others, but they are independent in the sense that someone could be- using RISUS (http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/risus.htm)-a Roleplayer 5, Pretzler 3, Author 1, Optimizer 2 or really anything on a 0-5 scale for each of those.
How can you expect us to discuss this with you when you just proved you were the worst kind of munchkin? I mean RP5/Pretz3/Author1/Opt2? Seriously, couldn't you multiclass more? You're supposed to pick one and stick with it instead of jumping ship just to get the abilities that let you powergame the most. I'd never let you in one of my games.

gkathellar
2011-07-28, 06:53 AM
How can you expect us to discuss this with you when you just proved you were the worst kind of munchkin? I mean RP5/Pretz3/Author1/Opt2? Seriously, couldn't you multiclass more? You're supposed to pick one and stick with it instead of jumping ship just to get the abilities that let you powergame the most. I'd never let you in one of my games.

Sarcasm on the internet is like winking over the phone.

Tengu_temp
2011-07-28, 07:05 AM
How can you expect us to discuss this with you when you just proved you were the worst kind of munchkin? I mean RP5/Pretz3/Author1/Opt2? Seriously, couldn't you multiclass more? You're supposed to pick one and stick with it instead of jumping ship just to get the abilities that let you powergame the most. I'd never let you in one of my games.

I didn't even know Risus has multiclassing.

dsmiles
2011-07-28, 07:17 AM
How can you expect us to discuss this with you when you just proved you were the worst kind of munchkin? I mean RP5/Pretz3/Author1/Opt2? Seriously, couldn't you multiclass more? You're supposed to pick one and stick with it instead of jumping ship just to get the abilities that let you powergame the most. I'd never let you in one of my games.
http://mm-bbs.org/public/style_emoticons/default/facepalm.gif

Urpriest
2011-07-28, 02:36 PM
To play devil's advocate: your point here is that it's better to explain why one has one's opinions then to just sit and stew in them. But for many of these people, opinions are just facts about themselves, not arguments with justifications. You speak of Beer&Pretzels Roleplayers, but many people lead Beer&Pretzels Lives. They don't want to think about or analyze the world because they find doing so tiring or uncool or boring or a letdown or frivolous, and that goes for understanding other people as well.

Tyndmyr
2011-07-28, 02:58 PM
To play devil's advocate: your point here is that it's better to explain why one has one's opinions then to just sit and stew in them. But for many of these people, opinions are just facts about themselves, not arguments with justifications. You speak of Beer&Pretzels Roleplayers, but many people lead Beer&Pretzels Lives. They don't want to think about or analyze the world because they find doing so tiring or uncool or boring or a letdown or frivolous, and that goes for understanding other people as well.

If that's the opinion you have, then a discussion board, especially the bits wherin people discuss rules of complex roleplaying games, is probably not the best place to enjoy yourself. Thinking about, analyzing and discussing things is pretty much what we do.

No, no...I greatly encourage the idea of posting why you feel a given way. It can help with many things...consider every time someone has posted "aha, this is fallacy x!", and acted like they just won the internet. It's usually more helpful to explain WHY it's a fallacy.

Talya
2011-07-28, 03:45 PM
If that's the opinion you have, then a discussion board, especially the bits wherin people discuss rules of complex roleplaying games, is probably not the best place to enjoy yourself. Thinking about, analyzing and discussing things is pretty much what we do.


Yeah. The people who don't want to think about stuff, probably don't post or argue about it, either.

flumphy
2011-07-28, 06:02 PM
It has always bothered me that people who parrot "Stormwind Fallacy" often fail to acknowledge that different gaming styles can cause real conflict. I wholeheartedly agree that optimization is not the opposite of roleplaying. However, it's important to acknowledge that any individual player probably has one at a higher priority than another. When two players, or a player and his DM, differ enough in their preferences, problems can arise. This isn't even necessarily an optimization vs. roleplaying thing. I've seen as many actors blow up at pretzlers as I've seen optimizers blow up at authors.

Likewise, people like me who are equal parts "author" and "optimizer" have a very real tension between building their concept perfectly and making a powerful character. Maybe not in all systems, but certainly in most.

I think the OP is a good way of illustrating that.

Talya
2011-07-28, 06:49 PM
It has always bothered me that people who parrot "Stormwind Fallacy" often fail to acknowledge that different gaming styles can cause real conflict. I wholeheartedly agree that optimization is not the opposite of roleplaying. However, it's important to acknowledge that any individual player probably has one at a higher priority than another.

Sure, so long as they realize the two styles are independant and unlinked. It's entirely possible that one gamer doesn't optimize AND doesn't roleplay, he simply shows up to drink beer and make crude jokes. (And likely plays a dwarf who likes to drink beer and make crude jokes.)


Similarly, it's entirely possible that the one person who can kill the entire monster manual (at once) in the first two rounds of of combat by himself due to optimization, also thinks as his character, wrote a 10 page back-history for him, and is more concerned with describing the embroidery on his wizard's cloak than with his spell loadout for the night.

flumphy
2011-07-28, 06:58 PM
Sure, so long as they realize the two styles are independant and unlinked. It's entirely possible that one gamer doesn't optimize AND doesn't roleplay, he simply shows up to drink beer and make crude jokes. (And likely plays a dwarf who likes to drink beer and make crude jokes.)


Similarly, it's entirely possible that the one person who can kill the entire monster manual (at once) in the first two rounds of of combat by himself due to optimization, also thinks as his character, wrote a 10 page back-history for him, and is more concerned with describing the embroidery on his wizard's cloak than with his spell loadout for the night.

I agree. Entirely possible, and certainly not "wrong". Just rare, in my experience, and, as with any extreme, unlikely to fit into a lot of groups.

Thrice Dead Cat
2011-07-28, 07:23 PM
How can you expect us to discuss this with you when you just proved you were the worst kind of munchkin? I mean RP5/Pretz3/Author1/Opt2? Seriously, couldn't you multiclass more? You're supposed to pick one and stick with it instead of jumping ship just to get the abilities that let you powergame the most. I'd never let you in one of my games.

I never said that was me in RISUS!:smalltongue:


To play devil's advocate: your point here is that it's better to explain why one has one's opinions then to just sit and stew in them. But for many of these people, opinions are just facts about themselves, not arguments with justifications. You speak of Beer&Pretzels Roleplayers, but many people lead Beer&Pretzels Lives. They don't want to think about or analyze the world because they find doing so tiring or uncool or boring or a letdown or frivolous, and that goes for understanding other people as well.

That's not something I had really considered when posting that, as I still find it odd that people won't explain why they didn't like a certain movie or what have you. It's more an issue when discussing it online, as Tyndmyr elaborated on, but I also think it's much easier to either ignore or simply understand that sort of thing when talking with someone face to face.

I have had it before where I've said something off-handedly with a longtime friend and fellow gamers response would be "But those monks are WAY OP. Just look at VoP." It really is just easier to sidestep the issue, especially when that eats into game time. Neither here nor there, but I do appreciate that bit of thought, Ur-Priest.


If that's the opinion you have, then a discussion board, especially the bits wherin people discuss rules of complex roleplaying games, is probably not the best place to enjoy yourself. Thinking about, analyzing and discussing things is pretty much what we do.

No, no...I greatly encourage the idea of posting why you feel a given way. It can help with many things...consider every time someone has posted "aha, this is fallacy x!", and acted like they just won the internet. It's usually more helpful to explain WHY it's a fallacy.

This is largely it. I occasionally get into "debate club" mode and start dissecting arguments that eventually boil down to opinion. When that happens it becomes less "But you're wrong!" and more a "Well, have you tried to do it this way?" because I find enjoyment in how I do play RPGs and even if I and another person are playing the same game at the same table, understanding what it is we like about gaming can help.

I also find it especially useful to try gaming in new and different ways - be it either a new system or just a different type of campaign. Especially when concerning 3.5, I like to hold the view that "more options are more better." That's not to say that I'll use each and every option, but just having them there is nice to know.


Yeah. The people who don't want to think about stuff, probably don't post or argue about it, either.

There are a lot of people who simply lurk. I know I followed a few threads where I made no comment myself - either because my views had already been expressed by others - or simply because it was interesting to read it. In the context of online arguments and debates, even just explaining yourself can maybe help another person in one way or another.

I know a few people who have mentioned how they either bought Incarnum, Tome of Magic, or even the infamous Tome of Battle simply because of a playgrounder's description of it.


It has always bothered me that people who parrot "Stormwind Fallacy" often fail to acknowledge that different gaming styles can cause real conflict. I wholeheartedly agree that optimization is not the opposite of roleplaying. However, it's important to acknowledge that any individual player probably has one at a higher priority than another. When two players, or a player and his DM, differ enough in their preferences, problems can arise. This isn't even necessarily an optimization vs. roleplaying thing. I've seen as many actors blow up at pretzlers as I've seen optimizers blow up at authors.

Likewise, people like me who are equal parts "author" and "optimizer" have a very real tension between building their concept perfectly and making a powerful character. Maybe not in all systems, but certainly in most.

I think the OP is a good way of illustrating that.

More or less, yes. Conflict seems to come up a lot when people do different things in a game and it conflicts with one or more of the group's "fun." Simply just being able to pull back for a second and realize "Okay, Bobbie likes to be fighters because he just kind of wants to play a simple farm hand-type hero." or "Spike loves wizards because of all the crazy things he can do with their illusion spells."

Basically, I just want there to be another tool out there for people to use to express themselves or their thoughts to help make gaming easier. I know JaronK's system of tiers is often criticized for any number of reasons rather than being used to help gauge the relative fun of a group of players from across the tier spectrum so that people don't feel useless.

Not everyone's going to agree with everything said, but if I can at least throw my two cents in, I figure why not?:smallsmile:

Tyndmyr
2011-07-29, 08:22 AM
Similarly, it's entirely possible that the one person who can kill the entire monster manual (at once) in the first two rounds of of combat by himself due to optimization, also thinks as his character, wrote a 10 page back-history for him, and is more concerned with describing the embroidery on his wizard's cloak than with his spell loadout for the night.

Oh god, I have a new optimization goal.


I agree. Entirely possible, and certainly not "wrong". Just rare, in my experience, and, as with any extreme, unlikely to fit into a lot of groups.

Quite likely in my experience. Both optimization and roleplay are skills honed by practice. Experienced people tend to be better at both.

gkathellar
2011-07-29, 10:02 AM
Oh god, I have a new optimization goal.

Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10.

Tyndmyr
2011-07-29, 11:40 AM
Druid 10/Planar Shepherd 10.

While good, I'm not sure that he could take the entire MM in two rounds.

No, I might have to resort to gestalt. Beholder Mage is a likely candidate.

gkathellar
2011-07-29, 12:50 PM
While good, I'm not sure that he could take the entire MM in two rounds.

No, I might have to resort to gestalt. Beholder Mage is a likely candidate.

Beholder Mage is solid, but can you really pass up At-Will wish?

EDIT: It might be doable without gestalt. How about Druid 9/Prestige Ranger 1/Planar Shepherd 10 with Sword of the Arcane Order? Wizard spells, druid spells, animal companion and Planar Wild Shape? And there must be some way to get Arcane Hierophant in there for Companion Familiar.

Tyndmyr
2011-07-29, 01:37 PM
Im thinking extra spell to nab GAF from the sorc spelllist. That + beholder mage = an atrocity.

Plus, yknow, I can always mystic theurge beholder mage and ur-priest, right?

Eric Tolle
2011-07-29, 01:51 PM
This is where I bring up Sean K. Reynold's old Breakdown of RPG players (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html). This was based on the only real survey of player offenses. The categories are:

Thinker: Strategic/Combat focus. Regards game as a puzzle to be solved. Optimizers tend to fall into this category.

Power Gamer: Tactical/Combat focus. The "kick the door in and attack" group. Tends to be least involved with the character.

Character Actor: Tactical/Story focus. The "Amateur Thespian" crowd, willing to make sub-optimal choices for character reasons.

Storyteller: Strategic/Story focus. Most interested in the narrative and a reasonable progression of the game story.

Note that these are primary interests, not absolutes. Even power gamers tend to like strong characters, and roleplayers often enjoy strategic or tactical situations.

Now bear in mind this poll was done over 12 years ago. I personal that 3rd. Edition has shifted the proportions so that the proportions of Thinkers is larger. Hence the popularity of optimization forums and Pathfinder-the game appeals to builders in the same way that Magic the Gathering does. These people won't be opposed to roleplaying, as long as it doesn't interfere with their assembling an optimized collection of feats, templates, and prestige classes.

Jude_H
2011-07-29, 02:16 PM
There was a thread over on BG a few years ago that proposed that most rpg conflicts are a result of mismatched expectations, where the game one player thinks is being played is fundamentally different than the game another person thinks the group is playing. At first glance, the thesis seemed trivial, but I think it really is the cause for many gaming conflicts. It's also the problem I see with several points in the OP.

Regarding the ability to refluff anything, it certainly is possible. It's also possible to recrunch it, and it's often no more difficult. The problem is that when I call my friends and say 'Hey! Let's play World of Darkness!" and my campaign is Ghostbusters-meets-Casper the Friendly Ghost, there's going to be a clash of expectations. Or if I pitch a grim game about Faustian warlocks clinging to their humanity, then toss my players the Smallville rulebook, with its bright colors and sexy actors, there's an element of dissonance. It's awkward. More so if I have InSpectres and Sorcerer on my shelf.

In D&D, it's the same situation. I could neglect the printed Monk class to instead use the Psychic Rogue. It might even be more mechanically fitting. But it would mean ignoring half of both classes' content, undermining the expectations associated with both the Psychic Rogue's powers and the Monk's title. The shift wouldn't necessarily be problematic, but it would invite clashing expectations - even if I'm not trying to break the game, I'm corrupting the class system for a power grab. It wouldn't be unreasonable for another player who treats the classes as reflections of game fiction to see this as abusive or - at least - needlessly awkward.

I've yet to find a group that smiles on the general approach typically assumed in 3e forums: presenting complex character builds, dumpster-diving splatbooks for niche items, feats and spells, filing off the serial numbers and working the mechanics into a new archetype. Homebrewing new material has generally been more acceptable approach to achieving similar results.

Given the way the sourcebooks present their material, this is understandable. Classes are presented as specific archetypes, with hundreds (thousands?) of pages discussing the behaviors, roles and treatments of the various classes. Refluffing directly contradicts that, and contradicts players who take the sourcebooks at face value.

This is an odd stance for me because I was an obnoxious proponent for the mechanics-only outlook on the internet for a long time, but after my refluffings met enough incredulous "why?"s from various groups in RL games, I've gotten the feeling that there's a bit of an echo chamber in the online D&D community, regarding optimization-related expectations.



Regarding justifications for arguments, I agree. But I believe these and other forums are quick to dismiss that contradict the internet-grown expectations. The OP's closing paragraph implies that the opinion that "Muffins are overpowered" is founded in ignorance or inexperience. It is very possible that the opinion was established when Muffins have overwhelmed their otherwise satisfying breakfasts.

nyarlathotep
2011-07-29, 03:39 PM
Jude in general I'd say that the groups I role with either are the opposite of your's or are sort of accepting of everything. The most resistance I encountered was when a DM looked at my character sheet before being told who my character was. She asked me why I had 5 different prestige classes, but after I explained how each prestige class's abilities contributed to a holy warrior of the god of pestilence and love an understanding was met.

SITB
2011-07-30, 04:19 AM
This is where I bring up Sean K. Reynold's old Breakdown of RPG players (http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html). This was based on the only real survey of player offenses. The categories are:

Thinker: Strategic/Combat focus. Regards game as a puzzle to be solved. Optimizers tend to fall into this category.

Power Gamer: Tactical/Combat focus. The "kick the door in and attack" group. Tends to be least involved with the character.

Character Actor: Tactical/Story focus. The "Amateur Thespian" crowd, willing to make sub-optimal choices for character reasons.

Storyteller: Strategic/Story focus. Most interested in the narrative and a reasonable progression of the game story.

Note that these are primary interests, not absolutes. Even power gamers tend to like strong characters, and roleplayers often enjoy strategic or tactical situations.

Now bear in mind this poll was done over 12 years ago. I personal that 3rd. Edition has shifted the proportions so that the proportions of Thinkers is larger. Hence the popularity of optimization forums and Pathfinder-the game appeals to builders in the same way that Magic the Gathering does. These people won't be opposed to roleplaying, as long as it doesn't interfere with their assembling an optimized collection of feats, templates, and prestige classes.

I really fail to see the logical connection here. How did 3 Ed changed the population of overall players? Why do you think that optimization necessarily comes before character concept?

gkathellar
2011-07-30, 06:49 AM
I really fail to see the logical connection here. How did 3 Ed changed the population of overall players? Why do you think that optimization necessarily comes before character concept?

I'm not sure I agree with his logic, but if you're familiar with 2E you can follow it. There wasn't nearly as much ability to optimize back then: you could take a kit, multiclass, maybe use some Player's Option stuff. Increased ability to optimize is a reasonable basis for saying there are more optimizers.

SITB
2011-07-30, 10:50 AM
I'm not sure I agree with his logic, but if you're familiar with 2E you can follow it. There wasn't nearly as much ability to optimize back then: you could take a kit, multiclass, maybe use some Player's Option stuff. Increased ability to optimize is a reasonable basis for saying there are more optimizers.

How many spells did 2ed have? How many different weapons with actual differences rather then damage dice? How about Dual classing?

Lacking the later 3ed ridiculous width of choice doesn't mean you couldn't optimize in 2ed, especially because that 3ed didn't start out with that many options, it was built over a long period.

MeeposFire
2011-07-30, 11:46 PM
While good, I'm not sure that he could take the entire MM in two rounds.

No, I might have to resort to gestalt. Beholder Mage is a likely candidate.

Well it depends is it two rounds your time or two rounds in "real time". Considering how much faster time could be going in the planar bubble you make who knows what kind of insanity you could do after two rounds have passed. Now if you mean two rounds to the character yea it wouldn't happen with that character.