My problem with optimization

[NichG]

The whole 'lets dump the guy who is less powerful' thing makes sense in games where your party has their pick of powerful individuals to incorporate. It's the Faerun model, where adventurers are a dime a dozen and you're probably just another adventuring company.

On the other hand, in a game where that isn't what you're doing, it becomes a lot less reasonable to assume that everyone you travel with should be without weaknesses. Consider a game set around a group of people traveling together by ship, which is then wrecked/transported to another plane/etc. Now in this situation you might have something like 15 Lv1 warriors/commoners/experts (the NPCs), a Lv 6 Expert (the captain), and then the PCs: a Lv 5 Cleric, a Lv 5 Warblade, a Lv 5 Rogue, and a Lv 5 Wizard who is afraid of flying, the dark, and accountants (especially vampire accountants).

Your ship is trapped in some weird demiplane, and there's an island floating in the void ahead that seems to be the reason you're stuck. What do you do?
In this situation, it'd be stupid to say 'lets leave the wizard with the civilians since he can't pull his own weight'. Aside from his phobias, he's among the most powerful if not the most powerful people on the ship, and he's also more or less your only way to deal with magic things that come up.

Or alternately in a low-level setting, the party are the only people within five hundred miles above Lv3. You could trade out your Lv5 wizard with 'issues' for a Lv2 wizard hireling, or take the issues in stride.

[Terazul]

I also don't get where this "optimization = no weaknesses" thing comes from. Lowering weaknesses, maybe, but few characters are without any. And the "dump the loser" concept generally doesn't assume the character in question has no weaknesses, but that he has no strengths, which is something else entirely. Being bad at basketweaving when your forte is the piccolo is one thing, being incapable of picking a lock when you claim to be a master thief is another.

[ryu]

Again without some optimization the wizard isn't awesome until around level ten or so. At five he has no claim to being better than the warblade, let alone the versatile cleric. Honestly I'd tell him to lay as many defensive spells on the ship and all non combatant classes while the rest of the pcs did a short scouting mission. Would you waste such a squishy potentially valuable resource without some seriously good reason?

[nyarlathotep]

In my mind this is probably the key issue.

Suppose I am a seasoned RPGer and wargamer who carefully reads the 3.5 PHB from front to back, and then flips through the Complete Warrior for a couple hours...

I should be ready to make a reasonable attempt at The Best Swordsman in the World. It is a 10th level campaign, so pick up 10 Fighter levels, grab a bunch of PHB feats and a couple from Complete Warrior as well.

I would hardly expect to fully succeed at the goal. But my first attempt should not embarrass himself when standing next to even a super-maximized PC. A Fighter is darn good at fighting, right?

Now let me look at the SuperDuper PC who really does completely outshine my Fighter. What do I see? Probably two or three base classes with dips into two PrCs, already at 10th level. And he is planning to pick up a third PrC at 12th.

Double-you. Tee. Eff.

I understand that there will always be some rewards for "system mastery". But the potential rewards are out of the park and a few blocks down the road. I would not say this is necessarily a problem, at any particular table. I have seen some mild cases though.

Somehow, the idea I should just look something up on the internet is not a satisfying answer. "Yeah, he is a cow worshiper who is good at shapechanging, I guess. And, no, I do not own the books on that PrC or those other feats either, so I cannot explain it."

Maybe an extreme example. But giving a smart beginner who is attempting a very, very simple concept a pile of heterogeneous STUFF he pulls off the internet is a pretty terrible solution.

The solution is to have a Fighter who is excellent at fighting without much effort, etc.

That is seriously a flaw with the system. At level 10 you need to do that to fight level appropriate encounters or just play a warblade instead. A warblade with feats that are all core and ToB is very doable, useful to the party, and unlikely to be out-shined at his stated goal.

[Lord_Gareth]

Disclaimer: in the interests of not getting so angry that I get banned, I have not read all or even most of this thread. The following is anecdotal and thus subject to being taken with a grain of salt.

I'm currently experimenting with PracOp with my Warblade in a tabletop game, a young human adult named Kyllan Hammerson (the first name was not intended as a pun, and I didn't notice it until three sessions in). For the op level of the campaign, this dude is a monster; a hasted full attack can (and has) torn into enemies for damage in excess of 180 points (at level 7) thanks to Power Attack and Tactics of the Wolf. He's intelligent, insightful, quick on the draw, and has several maneuvers like Iron Heart Surge, Moment of Perfect Mind, and Wall of Blades meant to cover up his mechanical weaknesses. Does he still have a few? Hell yes - for one thing, any flying enemy gives him serious headaches (that he solves with a lasso these days, but I digress). Mages also cause him problems, as he can't penetrate non-AC defenses reliably, but these have been minor problems at best so far. One might actually describe him as having no weaknesses in the RGE (Real Game Environment) in which he exists.

But he still gets challenged. Instead of throwing arbitrarily more powerful monsters at me/the group, the DM has come up with cunning mechanical twists to his encounters, some stunningly unique homebrew monsters, additional concerns (like protecting civilians) during battle and non-combat challenges like riddles, puzzles and social etiquette at a royal ball. He's had my character, a Lawful Neutral type with a strong devotion to his duty, attempt to reconcile the honorable thing to do with the RIGHT thing to do, and I've enjoyed several tense roleplaying encounters where Kyllan's own deep-seated rage and insecurity was his greatest enemy.

Optimization is only a concern if the entire group is at differing levels, really, but that can include the DM. If the DM is low-op and the party is high-op, obviously there is a problem - and the same is true in reverse, or even if one side is mid-op instead. But that's something to work out at the table, you know? It's not a problem with optimization. It's just a Human Factor.

[WarKitty]

I think the issue is more that a lot of people think flaws automatically make for good roleplaying. They...really don't. Allow the character to have flaws and weaknesses as they come up, but don't go out of your way to invent them. Most of the time I've seen it done in play, it's not good roleplaying, it's someone dragging attention onto their angst party.

[Talakeal]

I think the issue is more that a lot of people think flaws automatically make for good roleplaying. They...really don't. Allow the character to have flaws and weaknesses as they come up, but don't go out of your way to invent them. Most of the time I've seen it done in play, it's not good roleplaying, it's someone dragging attention onto their angst party.

Well, all real people have some flaws, so I would say that giving flaws to a character certainly makes them more real. Likewise every detail you add to a character, benefit or flaw, makes them a more fleshed out character.

[WarKitty]

Well, all real people have some flaws, so I would say that giving flaws to a character certainly makes them more real. Likewise every detail you add to a character, benefit or flaw, makes them a more fleshed out character.

As long as you have flaws that make some sort of sense, yes, and don't make them the focus of the character. But a lot of people seem to think flaws = roleplaying, so lots of flaws = completely awesome roleplaying! And then those flaws become the focus of the character, and all too often the focus of the game to the detriment of the other players who didn't make such a special snowflake.

[Terazul]

Well, all real people have some flaws, so I would say that giving flaws to a character certainly makes them more real. Likewise every detail you add to a character, benefit or flaw, makes them a more fleshed out character.

Well yes, but I assume those Warkitty are referring to are those who often take a straight up adventurer-hindering one that frequently gets in the way of things as opposed to more subtle flaws. Like the guy who just has to have a crippled leg/gambling addiction/extreme prejudice against a common race to give him more "character" and then one can't walk from the bar to the mayor's house without them going on about how he's lagging behind the group or tripping or being discriminated against. I mean yeah, you can have problems, but they don't have to be at the forefront all the time.

I played a 6 year campaign as a female admiral of a somewhat obscure foreign race, with a debilitated arm. How often did it all really come up as an actual issue? The arm, once, when we needed to climb a rope ladder, and someone helped me, and the race thing once when we wound up in her homeland. A couple minor other things here or there, but her forceful personality and skill with a sword made it so few actually questioned her crippled/racial/gender status.

It's one thing to have traits or flaws, it's another to have them eclipse a character's personality or who they actually are.

[Yukitsu]

Well, all real people have some flaws, so I would say that giving flaws to a character certainly makes them more real. Likewise every detail you add to a character, benefit or flaw, makes them a more fleshed out character.

Yeah, but a lot of people with combat flaws that insist they become mercenaries fighting dragons die really quickly. Characters with flaws that don't get in the way of their actually functioning at their jobs shouldn't really be characterized by their shortcomings, as it shouldn't really come up. Fish out of water flaws are fine, but you don't hear my complaining that my computer fixer upper dude can't cook spaghetti, and you don't hear him angsting about it either.

[ryu]

Also who uses dnd to emulate real life? I personally get my fill of that actually living it. In dnd I don't want to have to worry about having a bum leg, doing house chores, or other daily drudges. I want to murder epic beasts, hunt boundless treasure, Save the word (then take it over:smallamused:), have epic duels to the death, and plum the ancient secrets of crypts long forgotten.

I miss when dnd was about adventure rather than numbers and humdrum emulation.

[Gnaeus]

Isn't that effectively saying "my group will roleplay so long as it doesn't get in the way of being effective"?
Consider that vertigo isn't a choice, its not really something that can be overcome, its not an lack of intelligence or willpower sort of thing..

Vertigo is a choice. Your choice, when you decide to give it to your character. He can adventure with a fighter with a fear of dead things (undead? run away!!!) a rogue with claustrophobia (Frack no I'm not going into that dungeon), and a cleric who collapses in a quivering heap whenever someone casts a Darkness spell. Or you could play... you know, adventurers? Or GURPS, where everyone expects everyone in the party to have some crippling disability.

For that matter, vertigo can be overcome in D&D. Heal fixes it. Other spells may fix it. And it is only a DC 20 will save, so the typical wizard with fear of flying can do it anyway. Then there are the dozens of ways to become immune to fear...

[Snails]

No, they're roleplaying a sensible adventuring party, a cadre of men who put their life on the line exactly four times a day as part of their job. They are not going to put up with someone who can't pull their own weight, because they can't babysit the dead weight and survive at the same time.

Well, yeah. At some point, an exercise in "extremely interesting" roleplaying runs smack into the roleplaying of the other PCs. Most likely the rest of the party has to believe that everyone is not dead weight the majority of the time, or they would simply refuse to travel with a certain person(s). Even when alternative party members are not easily available, at some point the loss of a share of treasure will outweigh the advantage of having a kook around. "Good roleplaying" can cut both ways.

My savage and violent outlaw with a heart of gold may decide that a certain someone should be beaten unconscious, stripped of wealth, and left by the side of the road long before he gets intrigued by a backstory. It is his belief that the potential victim is not someone to be screwed with and that the other people in the party would be justifiably angry at the loss that will keep my PC's meaner aspects in check.

[Knaight]

As long as you have flaws that make some sort of sense, yes, and don't make them the focus of the character. But a lot of people seem to think flaws = roleplaying, so lots of flaws = completely awesome roleplaying! And then those flaws become the focus of the character, and all too often the focus of the game to the detriment of the other players who didn't make such a special snowflake.

The issue is really one of quantity of flaws, true. A flawless character is immensely boring and terrible, a character with too many flaws can turn into a caricature. "One armed parapalegic with a fear of boats being chased by the mafia who's family all died in front of him giving him traumatic flash backs at different times who also has PTSD" is not the sort of character concept that can be taken seriously. All of the flaws in it are fine, though orphans are somewhat overused in this medium, but together it looks absurd. People have flaws, yes, but the flip side of that is that people have positive traits. There are ways in which people can be very resilient, can be very capable, can recover from terrible things, and ignoring all of those leads to characters that are dull.

[Snails]

Claudius, Eldariel,

I do not disagree. I am pointing out that we are very, very far away from the problems being mostly newbies making silly errors.

And as I have said before, whether any of these things is a large, small, or no problem depends heavily on the particular game group, as well.

[Talya]

Well, all real people have some flaws.

Indeed.

For instance, despite otherwise being a paragon of perfection, I am not fabulously wealthy. Other people might have different flaws. :smallbiggrin:

[NichG]

Immunity to fear could itself be an interesting flaw to play up, especially if you gained it rather than having always had it. It could basically mean that those slight concerns, second considerations, etc that allow for instinctually cautious behavior have to be re-learned, since now you have to do it consciously rather than just having your instinct tell you you should be worried.

[Zonugal]

So I think we have settled upon that suitable, appropriate flaws add depth to characters?

Good to hear.

[WarKitty]

So I think we have settled upon that suitable, appropriate flaws add depth to characters?

Good to hear.

Yeah pretty much. I think what we're hitting is that different people have different experiences with who's causing the problem. And all the munchkins call themselves optimizers and all the stormwinders call themselves roleplayers, which leaves a lot of confusion around.

[Knaight]

Yeah pretty much. I think what we're hitting is that different people have different experiences with who's causing the problem. And all the munchkins call themselves optimizers and all the stormwinders call themselves roleplayers, which leaves a lot of confusion around.

More than that, its that you have several main issues.
1) Stubbornness: Some people insist that they must play their way, and won't change it. You get this both with differences in optimization and with differences in role play.

2) Lack of group cohesion: Basically, styles don't match. Optimization and role play can both fit into this, and it pretty much inevitably happens. For instance, I do optimize to fit characters, and I role play heavily. Once, I briefly joined a D&D group where I optimized too much even when deliberately trying to make weak characters, and I also role played too much, as the style was more a casual, low-op low-RP dungeon delve. Characters were mechanically pathetic, and were more avatar of the player than character.

3) Deliberately damaging play: Someone is being a jerk in some way or other, and possibly using neutral tools to do so. Maybe they optimize to break the game intentionally, maybe they take a character and faithfully role play them, after deliberately crafting them to not fit with everyone else. Usually, this is due to bad blood out of game, and it has a tendency not to be solved simply because the action of not including someone is stigmatized in geek culture.

[Drachasor]

I'm liking the Dresden Files RPG. It is a system where you have to make up "Aspects" for your character. These a short phrases, descriptors, or the like about them. You might have "Stubborn as Hell" or "Can't Say 'No' To a Girl" or "Shall Not Suffer a Witch To Live"...anything you can think of really.

Then, if that element comes into play, you can get compelled by the GM or OPT to compel yourself if it makes life more difficult. So your stubborn guy could not be convinced by a reasonable argument and take a more difficult path to an objective (or perhaps insist on fighting, not compromising, whatever). It could even be something as automatically failing a skill roll (or an attack roll) that matters. In return, you get a Fate Point, which can be spent to give a +2 bonus on a roll (big deal in fate, probably like a +5 bonus in D&D), reroll, or declare a fact (within reason). (You can also spend a Fate Point to resist a compel if you really don't want your flaw to play a role in a given circumstance).

This works really, really well.

So on the subject of having flaws, I think it works best if the system actually rewards the PLAYER for the character having flaws and having those flaws have an impact on the game. I think that's the best way to go regarding character flaws.

As far as optimization goes, I tend to favor a philosophy that optimizing a character should deliver relatively little benefit. If you just get say a 10% improvement in effectiveness out of optimizing, then that's not much. It means people who are bad at optimizing won't be inadvertently hurt...so long as there is also a very small gap between an average character and below average.

So I guess if I had my druthers about D&D, I'd want them to come out with a system that actively rewards players for playing into their characters' flaws and also has a very low optimization ceiling (while maintaining a good variety of playstyles and very wide variety of themes).

[ryu]

I disagree. Limits on how high or low power can go limits the stories that can be told and the threats that can be faced. I say agree on a general level of power before the game with every player and trust them to not be jerks.

[Lord_Gareth]

This, right here, is what has caused me to actually physically assault people in my gaming groups. Do you have any idea how insulting it is to sit down at, say, an Oriental Adventures campaign with a "samurai" (Warblade) and have the dude playing a CWar Samurai sneer at you for "not really playing a character"?

Exactly. Imo, dedicated 'roleplayers' (the kind who split everything up into rollplayers and roleplayers) can be terrible roleplayers due to their inability to view mechanics as mechanics, and insisting that they're really roleplaying choices.

There was a thread on the 4E boards a while back about a player who wanted to play a ranged paladin, but because the 4E paladin only has melee powers, he ended up being useless, never doing anything but making basic attacks from the back, and not even using his lay on hands because he was never near the characters who took damage. Some people on the thread logically suggested that he became a ranger with the cleric multiclass feat instead. That way, he could do awesome stuff with a bow, and still do a bit of healing ability and get religion as a trained skill. Cut to people whining that this proved that 4E had destroyed roleplaying, because no one who played a paladin without having a class with the name 'paladin' on their character sheet could possibly roleplay a paladin.

Never mind that the mechanics of a ranger/cleric fitted the player's concept much better than the paladin class, no one could just roleplay a holy warrior specialising in ranged combat by having abilities making them good at ranged combat, rather than having the word 'paladin' on their character sheet. This is on par with people who think someone whose character concept includes being tough must take the toughness feat to represent it, someone who is deceitful must take the the deceitful feat, and someone whose character is a barbarian must take the barbarian class. There's even an OotS comic about how stupid it is: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html

I optimise because not doing often lands me with characters whose abilities do not fit with my concept. And because some aspects of a concept can require so many sacrifices that it can end up weakening other aspects of the character, unless you optimise. And because having a character that is ineffective in combat and yet insists on going on dangerous adventures for payment usually breaks suspension of disbelief. People who believe that their mechanical weakness makes them superior roleplayers often, ironically, end up making less believable characters, as well as being a lot less fun to have at your table.

Relevant post from another thread is relevant.

[Provengreil]

on the subject of flaws, one of the things about them is that they don't have to be all or nothing. to wit, a decent charger build will decimate anything if he can get off a clear shot. fantastic, but the big bad sorcerer is behind his horde of goblins and ready to dispel your flight...so good luck, you're trick is useless because those goblins have 5 HP anyway. your flaw has been exploited, rendering you largely useless.(i know there are other things that can be done here, just making a basic point.)

but if your flaw is, say that you have a naturally queasy stomach and as such take a small penalty to scent based saves like the stench from a flesh jelly, or get automatically nauseous when zombies are involved, it's there, it's penalizing, but it isn't catastrophically bad to have it in effect.

On the subject of optimization in general, i'm fine with it, but the problem is that many people here appear to be having different lines that separate optimizers, munchkins, and powergamers. as i believe has been said, only munchkins tend to like munchkins, and powergamers can disrupt a group if they refuse to tone it down. but anyone that goes without even basic optimization(hello STR 10 fighter) is more often being stupid than anything else(newbies exempt, sometimes you have to play the monk to see why it's bad. i did).

[Flickerdart]

A high-level charger against 5hp goblins? Just jump over them or something, Overrun one (hey, turns out that option is useful sometimes, who would have thought), Tumble through a bunch more...you can be prepared for this sort of thing. Remember also that losing Fly doesn't mean you fall down - you glide down slowly, meaning that you can still clear the goblins.