Why sometimes we should lighten up with optimization

[ThiagoMartell]

Just a funny video I saw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i5Yw4ZoDO0&feature=share)

[GenghisDon]

awesome & true!

I like the old school books getting some views.

BREE-Yark! LOL

anyone know if they put that in the 5e keep on the borderlands? I deleted my 5e playtest stuff.

thanks for the link:smallsmile:

[Snowbluff]

This guy's advice can be pretty bad at times. He besmirches the human race!

[Augmental]

This was funny, but I don't get what it has to do with overoptimization.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I have no sympathy for someone who makes an intentionally weak/gimped character. Adventurers are exceptional individuals, and exceptionally bad characters have no place on an adventure. A given party is risking their lives day after day after day, they need to bring along people who they can count on to carry their weight. The character who's intentionally weak/gimped due to RP reasons can just keep right on role playing at the tavern where he got left behind while the capable characters go on an adventure.

[LordBlades]

I have no sympathy for someone who makes an intentionally weak/gimped character. Adventurers are exceptional individuals, and exceptionally bad characters have no place on an adventure. A given party is risking their lives day after day after day, they need to bring along people who they can count on to carry their weight. The character who's intentionally weak/gimped due to RP reasons can just keep right on role playing at the tavern where he got left behind while the capable characters go on an adventure.

This. Every time I see somebody with a gimped character (compared to the game's general power level) I ask the player to think about a plausible in-character answer to the following:

If the party is generally good: Why would they let somebody they supposedly care about brave dangers he's obviously ill-prepared for and therefore faces a significant chance of injury and/or death instead of telling him to stay safe while they take care of stuff?

If the party is generally neutral: Why would they consider traveling, fighting and sharing spoils equally with somebody who doesn't provide an equal share of work/contribution?

If the party is generally evil: How many failures would they tolerate before they kick the character out or kill him and take his stuff?

[Killer Angel]

I have no sympathy for someone who makes an intentionally weak/gimped character. Adventurers are exceptional individuals, and exceptionally bad characters have no place on an adventure. A given party is risking their lives day after day after day, they need to bring along people who they can count on to carry their weight. The character who's intentionally weak/gimped due to RP reasons can just keep right on role playing at the tavern where he got left behind while the capable characters go on an adventure.

I can see someone choosing (knowlingly) a weaker option, for personal reasons (I know Haste is better than Fireball... i don't care: my first 3rd lev. sorc. spell will be fireball, 'cause the character likes to put the world on fire), but generally I agree.
Take GURPS: when you gimp your character with a disadvantage, is to have MOAR POINTS to spend on other useful things.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I can see someone choosing (knowlingly) a weaker option, for personal reasons (I know Haste is better than Fireball... i don't care: my first 3rd lev. sorc. spell will be fireball, 'cause the character likes to put the world on fire), but generally I agree.
Take GURPS: when you gimp your character with a disadvantage, is to have MOAR POINTS to spend on other useful things.

I don't think BF (hope you don't mind the abreviation) has a problem with a character that picks a weak option here or there. I think he's saying he gets annoyed when a player hands in a sheet for a character that is, overall, significantly below the party's average level of general power/utility.

[Killer Angel]

I think he's saying he gets annoyed when a player hands in a sheet for a character that is, overall, significantly below the party's average level of general power/utility.

As a DM, I would be annoyed too. A weak choice is a... peculiarity; a weak character (in regards to the power level of the group) is a burden.

[Crasical]

I know Haste is better than Fireball

I actually was playing a game a few weeks ago where the initial party lineup was Psion, Sorcerer, Shadowcaster. No-one wanted to melee, so the extra attack from haste would have ended up being totally useless.. The sorcerer was totally baffled and also grumpy that he didn't have anyone to hit with Enlarge Person.

[Psyren]

This was funny, but I don't get what it has to do with overoptimization.

This


I have no sympathy for someone who makes an intentionally weak/gimped character. Adventurers are exceptional individuals, and exceptionally bad characters have no place on an adventure. A given party is risking their lives day after day after day, they need to bring along people who they can count on to carry their weight. The character who's intentionally weak/gimped due to RP reasons can just keep right on role playing at the tavern where he got left behind while the capable characters go on an adventure.

"Backstories are for LARPers and losers!" :smallbiggrin:

Still, one has to know where to draw the line with this. Weak compared to what? Setting too high a benchmark results in only Pun-Pun being acceptable.


I actually was playing a game a few weeks ago where the initial party lineup was Psion, Sorcerer, Shadowcaster. No-one wanted to melee, so the extra attack from haste would have ended up being totally useless.. The sorcerer was totally baffled and also grumpy that he didn't have anyone to hit with Enlarge Person.

That's what summons are for

[Lonely Tylenol]

This was funny, but I don't get what it has to do with overoptimization.

I don't see any mention of "over".

10/10, will watch again. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

I don't see any mention of "over".


It's assumed that if you need to "lighten up" on something, that you're overdoing it :smalltongue:

[Togo]

I tend to write adventures where combat ability would keep your character alive, but failure to roleplay means you consistently fail the mission. My first attempt at this, the Dark Tower, hit a bit of a problem. You literally can't* get out of the Dark Tower without talking to at least one of the NPCs, and working out what's really going on. I had assumed that, after weeks of killing everything in sight, the party would eventually give in and talk to someone. It took.... longer than I expected. :smalleek::smalleek::smalleek:

The next two games worked a little more smoothly. One had several factions, and if you don't try and work with at least one, then they gang up on you. The other was an information retrieval mission. If you kill everyone in sight, the information is lost.

I quite enjoy optimisation, but it's easy to overdo it.

(*well, not with the 5th-7th level characters the game was written for)

[Flickerdart]

I tend to write adventures where combat ability would keep your character alive, but failure to roleplay means you consistently fail the mission. My first attempt at this, the Dark Tower, hit a bit of a problem. You literally can't* get out of the Dark Tower without talking to at least one of the NPCs, and working out what's really going on. I had assumed that, after weeks of killing everything in sight, the party would eventually give in and talk to someone. It took.... longer than I expected. :smalleek::smalleek::smalleek:

The next two games worked a little more smoothly. One had several factions, and if you don't try and work with at least one, then they gang up on you. The other was an information retrieval mission. If you kill everyone in sight, the information is lost.

I quite enjoy optimisation, but it's easy to overdo it.

(*well, not with the 5th-7th level characters the game was written for)
Working with other factions is great and all, but if you're an incompetent buffoon of a character, the factions have absolutely no reason to want your help or want to share resources and information with you. Otherwise, your post has absolutely nothing to do with optimizing; an optimized character can roleplay just as well, if not better, than a crappy one, because the actions they make can actually be consistently adjudicated within the rules without necessary fiat.

[Slipperychicken]

So we need to limit optimization... Or else we become the Dungeon Bastard?


What?

[ThiagoMartell]

I don't see any mention of "over".

10/10, will watch again. :smallbiggrin:

Yay!


So we need to limit optimization... Or else we become the Dungeon Bastard?


What?
You're just taking a joke too seriously. Lighten up. :smallcool:

Also, I'm wondering where the video mention of "I have high Cha because it fits my backstory" means the character is automatically absolutely useless and incompetent. A good optimizer would make sure the player gets something out of his high CHA, imho

[Menteith]

But I like my Bards.....Nice video! Enjoyed it quite a bit.

[Lonely Tylenol]

Also, I'm wondering where the video mention of "I have high Cha because it fits my backstory" means the character is automatically absolutely useless and incompetent. A good optimizer would make sure the player gets something out of his high CHA, imho

Nitpick: He says "I have a low CON because it fits my backstory." Later, when the Dungeon Bastard says "let's just put that 7 in CHA there..." the other guy says, "hello, I need a high CHA, I'm a Bard..."

It should be noted that the Dungeon Bastard pretty much epitomizes The Real Man (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheRealMan) more than he does actual optimization:

"Half-Orcs: +2 Strength, -2 Charisma, -2 Intelligence. It practically min-maxes itself."

[Slipperychicken]

Also, I'm wondering where the video mention of "I have high Cha because it fits my backstory" means the character is automatically absolutely useless and incompetent. A good optimizer would make sure the player gets something out of his high CHA, imho

It's more that the guy put a 7 in Con (because it fit his backstory) and was a Bard with a d6 HD, so his character kept dying. Average of 1.5hp/level is pretty much a death sentence.

[ThiagoMartell]

It's more that the guy put a 7 in Con (because it fit his backstory) and was a Bard with a d6 HD, so his character kept dying. Average of 1.5hp/level is pretty much a death sentence.
I have a Factotum/Rogue/Marshall with Con 7 in one of my games. The low Con is even related to his backstory.
He took Faerie Mysteries Initiate for his hp not to suck.
The last game, this same guy played a melee character with Con 10. He had such a high AC and such a high damage output (along with 20% miss chance) that it hardly mattered beyond the low-ish levels.
Also, being defensively weak does not mean you're useless. This guy is a Bard. He could be optimized for social interactions or party buffing. He could spend the whole day invisible. He could even take Vow of Peace and still be useful. Low hp is not the same as useless...

The again, I'm not trying to argue anything here, it's just a humor video. If you're offended by low Con characters, it's none of my business. :smallsmile:


Nitpick: He says "I have a low CON because it fits my backstory." Later, when the Dungeon Bastard says "let's just put that 7 in CHA there..." the other guy says, "hello, I need a high CHA, I'm a Bard..."

It should be noted that the Dungeon Bastard pretty much epitomizes The Real Man (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheRealMan) more than he does actual optimization:

"Half-Orcs: +2 Strength, -2 Charisma, -2 Intelligence. It practically min-maxes itself."

Yeah, agree completely.

[Togo]

I played with a guy who had an elven sorceror gished with monk levels, and a con of 8. He played tournament games and survived being DMed by strangers for 5 years.

Obviously low hp makes it harder to surivive. But it's entirely possible to do.

[Slipperychicken]

The again, I'm not trying to argue anything here, it's just a humor video. If you're offended by low Con characters, it's none of my business. :smallsmile:


I'm not offended, just speaking from experience. The games I play in feature very high-damage/high attack-bonus enemies, who generally don't care about AC and could kill a PC in a round or two (sometimes taking them out with a single full-attack). Granted, if you stay out of the way, you could easily avoid the damage. I played exactly one character with <14 Con, and he died in about 4 sessions.

[ThiagoMartell]

I'm not offended, just speaking from experience. The games I play in feature very high-damage/high attack-bonus enemies, who generally don't care about AC and could kill a PC in a round or two (sometimes taking them out with a single full-attack). Granted, if you stay out of the way, you could easily avoid the damage. I played exactly one character with <14 Con, and he died in about 4 sessions.

They don't care about optimized AC? The guy in the game I was talking about was a Swordsage/Paladin/Shiba Protector with Serenity. Betwen enchanted armor, buffs from the Artificer and his Wis to AC (and he sported Wis 30 at level 11) his AC was usually around 44~50

[Psyren]

Also, I'm wondering where the video mention of "I have high Cha because it fits my backstory" means the character is automatically absolutely useless and incompetent. A good optimizer would make sure the player gets something out of his high CHA, imho

It's just a standard "bards are weak" joke. Obviously anyone with op-fu knows the truth, but their poor reputation is pervasive enough that it seems unlikely they'll ever shake it.

Even the Giant has made several jokes (usually using Elan) about the class.

[Drelua]

It's just a standard "bards are weak" joke. Obviously anyone with op-fu knows the truth, but their poor reputation is pervasive enough that it seems unlikely they'll ever shake it.

Even the Giant has made several jokes (usually using Elan) about the class.

Well from what I've seen said about them, bards really are weak if you don't have all the right books to pull from. For example, when I played 3.5 we had access to Core, CWar, CAdv and RotW, and that's about 3 books more than a lot of groups. I imagine a bard with those sources would be pretty weak, though I could be wrong. I don't think that includes any ways to increase the bonus from IC, though there are some bard feats in CAdv. I think it's largely the lack of support they get in most books and the lack of access to what rare bits of support they do get that makes them suck in a lot of people's experience.

[Menteith]

Bards have Suggestion (Sp), a good spell list (Grease, Glitterdust, Shatter, Invisibility, Dispel Magic, Gaseous Form, Haste, Slow, etc), has a good skill list (2 socials, UMD, hide/move silently) with 6+int/level, and two good saves. Bards in Core are ok (though they do get substantially better with sourcebooks).

[Drelua]

Bards have Suggestion (Sp), a good spell list (Grease, Glitterdust, Shatter, Invisibility, Dispel Magic, Gaseous Form, Haste, Slow, etc), has a good skill list (2 socials, UMD, hide/move silently) with 6+int/level, and two good saves. Bards in Core are ok (though they do get substantially better with sourcebooks).

Hm, true. I was pretty much just making that up. :smalltongue:I guess when you combine what I said earlier with most new players assuming WotC has some idea what they're doing, and believing the Bard makes a good Jack-of-all-Trades, then you end up with a pretty weak character. Or when you measure how good a character by their damage and to-hit.

I've also found that it's easy to forget about spells and stuff, and hit just people. I nearly made that mistake when I played a Warmage, and did it with my Cleric. I didn't buff or anything, just hit people with my greatsword. The sad part is I was a successful tank. I guess Bard is just an easy class to mess up.

[Menteith]

Hm, true. I was pretty much just making that up. :smalltongue:I guess when you combine what I said earlier with most new players assuming WotC has some idea what they're doing, and believing the Bard makes a good Jack-of-all-Trades, then you end up with a pretty weak character. Or when you measure how good a character by their damage and to-hit.

I've also found that it's easy to forget about spells and stuff, and hit just people. I nearly made that mistake when I played a Warmage, and did it with my Cleric. I didn't buff or anything, just hit people with my greatsword. The sad part is I was a successful tank. I guess Bard is just an easy class to mess up.

Bards can't really frontline that well in just Core (light armor, d6 HD, mid-BAB, no class features that require touch/melee range), but they're still fine in a hybrid role. I'd rather have a Bard as a skill-monkey than a Rogue if it's just core (Summon Monster is the bard's trapfinding), who also has some encounter ending spells/utility spells with AOE buffing, who also has random goodies (Bardic Knowledge, Inspire Competence).

[ThiagoMartell]

Bards can't really frontline that well in just Core (light armor, d6 HD, mid-BAB, no class features that require touch/melee range), but they're still fine in a hybrid role. I'd rather have a Bard as a skill-monkey than a Rogue if it's just core (Summon Monster is the bard's trapfinding), who also has some encounter ending spells/utility spells with AOE buffing, who also has random goodies (Bardic Knowledge, Inspire Competence).

In fact, thanks to Inspire Competence and spells like Heroism, Bard is a better skill monkey than Rogue pretty much all the time.

[Menteith]

In fact, thanks to Inspire Competence and spells like Heroism, Bard is a better skill monkey than Rogue pretty much all the time.

Yeah. Rogues have a niche with Sneak Attack being one of the few high damage sources from straight Core, but they're even worse off than Bards are without splats.

Bards are weird because the splats that benefit them the most seem almost random. Snowflake Wardance, Dragonfire Inspiration, Song of the White Raven, Melodic Casting, Lingering Song, Vest of Legends, Badge of Valor....none of those appear in the same book. I think that leads to the idea that Bards need a lot of support to function, when it's simply that the "good stuff" for them is widely scattered, instead of being in just one book. A Barbarian (or whatever) gets a pretty big boost just from having Complete Warrior - there's no comparable book (maybe the MIC?) for Bards.

[Togo]

I think it's a hangover from previous editions (3.0?) where bards were poorly supported. Worse still, for their reputation, Bards are easy to play consistently badly, stereotypically by just bardsong in round one and an inefficient attack subsequently.

Bards really come into their own when you get the items from MiC, the higher level spells from Spell Compendium, and the Harmonise line of spells from Races of Stone, which make bardsong a move action, and open up the possiblity of bardsong + spell in a single turn. The p-classes are pretty good too.

My favourite form of optimisation is to take a classically weak choice and try and make it as good as the other characters around the table.

[Menteith]

My favourite form of optimisation is to take a classically weak choice and try and make it as good as the other characters around the table.

+1

While sometimes it can be neat to play around with really high power (I still want to play an Illusionist with auto-Spell Mastery/Spontaneous Divination going into Shadowcraft Mage & Magelord for spontaneous everything I want), classes like the Ranger, Fighter, Monk, and Paladin hold a special place in my heart.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

My favourite form of optimisation is to take a classically weak choice and try and make it as good as the other characters around the table.

Done that once or twice.

On the whole, lame video. While an accurate picture of what anyone with the word 'coach' in the job title does (i.e. abuse, harass, harangue, and otherwise demoralize the person hiring them), the 'coach' has NFC what he is talking about. Which, I suppose, also matches anyone with the word 'coach' in the job title.

By way of contrast, I suggest you look up Dead Gentlemen Production and watch The Gamers, as well as the sequel. Actually entertaining.

[Ranting Fool]

Thank you ThiagoMartell! That cracked me up :smallbiggrin: just the giggle I needed.

[Kane0]

If the party is generally good: Why would they let somebody they supposedly care about brave dangers he's obviously ill-prepared for and therefore faces a significant chance of injury and/or death instead of telling him to stay safe while they take care of stuff?


Our town guard started out as volunteers, led by a teenage boy with a broken leg and a lot of spirit. The only reason he was there was because he looked up to us.

He went on to be a level 6 Oracle with the lame curse, famous for taking out orcs singlehandedly along the border while we were gone. Pretty badass in the eyes of us level 8 adventurers.

I think sometimes it doesn't matter what we think, eventually the dice will decide the RP needs its time in the sun.

[eggs]

I'm having some serious trouble with the idea that weak characters have no place adventuring.

First, because it's a level-based game. If good characters have a moral incentive to prevent weak characters from endangering themselves, or if evil characters have the gut impulse to slaughter or abuse weak characters, the in-fiction justifications that would keep a mid-level soulknife from doing anything more dangerous than tying its shoes would similarly keep the level 1 warblade from plundering crypts/fighting bandits/etc.

And second, because metagame knowledge plays a huge role in character actions anyway; inciting it to keep the less-optimized character around isn't anything new. Concessions are almost always made in the game's verisimilitude for the sake of gameplay: the PCs end up joined at the hip, they typically don't hang out with more capable characters (even at low levels when they are relatively terrible at their jobs), character wealth varies according to combat experience and is almost entirely allocated to weapons and tools that let the characters fight better, and characters are expected to go out and adventure well after the point where spells and summons can adequately address almost any job (on the same token that a level 11 Wizard summoning astral devas renders the fighter obsolete, the wizard summoning trumpet archons can effectively replace himself in the adventuring party).

[Sucrose]

I'm having some serious trouble with the idea that weak characters have no place adventuring.

First, because it's a level-based game. If good characters have a moral incentive to prevent weak characters from endangering themselves, or if evil characters have the gut impulse to slaughter or abuse weak characters, the in-fiction justifications that would keep a mid-level soulknife from doing anything more dangerous than tying its shoes would similarly keep the level 1 warblade from plundering crypts/fighting bandits/etc.

And second, because metagame knowledge plays a huge role in character actions anyway; inciting it to keep the less-optimized character around isn't anything new. Concessions are almost always made in the game's verisimilitude for the sake of gameplay: the PCs end up joined at the hip, they typically don't hang out with more capable characters (even at low levels when they are relatively terrible at their jobs), character wealth varies according to combat experience and is almost entirely allocated to weapons and tools that let the characters fight better, and characters are expected to go out and adventure well after the point where spells and summons can adequately address almost any job (on the same token that a level 11 Wizard summoning astral devas renders the fighter obsolete, the wizard summoning trumpet archons can effectively replace himself in the adventuring party).

The trumpet archon would be closer to a replacement for his cleric buddy. Cleric casting, and lacks general battlefield control that is often the hallmark of wizards.

As for your primary point, I think it's less that they aren't expected to do any adventuring at all, and more that the more powerful individuals wouldn't want them to go into a situation where they are completely outmatched. Said good characters wouldn't object to the person bettering themselves by taking on challenges that they could handle, but for sufficiently dangerous tasks, they wouldn't let the weaker individual tag along.

For evil sorts, they just wouldn't bother with sufficiently small fry. They wouldn't even show up on their radar screen, as it's not worth their time to rob the poor schmucks. Someone of equal level, but far inferior capability, on the other hand, who glows like a christmas tree with their magic items...

As for the point that versimilitude is often damaged: true. But it's not done unnecessarily, as a general rule, since there is a cost associated with it. So forcing it on others is a faux pas.

[ThiagoMartell]

My only complaint against this 'weak characters shouldn't be adventuring' thing is when it's used as an excuse to claim that anyone that is not optimizing is 'doing it wrong'. And frankly, that's not acceptable.

[Flickerdart]

My only complaint against this 'weak characters shouldn't be adventuring' thing is when it's used as an excuse to claim that anyone that is not optimizing is 'doing it wrong'. And frankly, that's not acceptable.
What's not acceptable is purposefully playing a character that is vastly different from the party's power level, whether it stems from optimization or lack thereof.

[Answerer]

a good spell list (Grease, Glitterdust, Shatter, Invisibility, Dispel Magic, Gaseous Form, Haste, Slow, etc)
How does this list lack Glibness??

[Teron]

I'm having some serious trouble with the idea that weak characters have no place adventuring.

First, because it's a level-based game. If good characters have a moral incentive to prevent weak characters from endangering themselves, or if evil characters have the gut impulse to slaughter or abuse weak characters, the in-fiction justifications that would keep a mid-level soulknife from doing anything more dangerous than tying its shoes would similarly keep the level 1 warblade from plundering crypts/fighting bandits/etc.

And second, because metagame knowledge plays a huge role in character actions anyway; inciting it to keep the less-optimized character around isn't anything new. Concessions are almost always made in the game's verisimilitude for the sake of gameplay: the PCs end up joined at the hip, they typically don't hang out with more capable characters (even at low levels when they are relatively terrible at their jobs), character wealth varies according to combat experience and is almost entirely allocated to weapons and tools that let the characters fight better, and characters are expected to go out and adventure well after the point where spells and summons can adequately address almost any job (on the same token that a level 11 Wizard summoning astral devas renders the fighter obsolete, the wizard summoning trumpet archons can effectively replace himself in the adventuring party).
Your second point is a reasonable one, but the first one ignores the distinction between weak characters adventuring together (which is fine -- they can deal with chicken-snatching goblins and the like) and characters of mixed power levels adventuring together, where too great a disparity means the stronger characters have to either squander their power tackling foes the weaker can survive, expend excessive resources protecting them, or watch them get in over their heads and die.

[ThiagoMartell]

What's not acceptable is purposefully playing a character that is vastly different from the party's power level, whether it stems from optimization or lack thereof.
Flick, no one said anything about this. You're basically attacking a strawman.

[Flickerdart]

Flick, no one said anything about this. You're basically attacking a strawman.
You said that claiming someone who isn't optimizing is doing it wrong is, itself, wrong. I am pointing out that this is not the case in at least one type of situation, where someone refusing to optimize to the party's level IS, in fact, doing it wrong.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Guys, what you need to keep in mind is that "weak" is a relative term.

If one character in the adventuring party is markedly less capable than the rest of the party, be that through level discrepency or poorly chosen class, feats, spells, etc; then if his teammates care about him, they will logically come to the conclusion that continuing to allow that person to accompany them is unnecessarily dangerous for everyone involved.

A character who's markedly more capable than his teammates would come to the same conclusion and try to ditch them somewhere they'll be safe.

If, on the other hand, the whole party is too weak for the adventure they've undertaken, then Darwin will let them know about it, and their DM will be in hot-water.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Flick, no one said anything about this. You're basically attacking a strawman.

Incorrect. Attacking a strawman means creating a whole new argument out of whole cloth to argue against. Which is what you are doing. What he is doing is pointing out that a power disparity between characters in a group means that some members are unable to meaningfully contribute to the game, and that is not fun.

See also: BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner.

[Answerer]

Flick, no one said anything about this. You're basically attacking a strawman.
I disagree; I think that's all anyone's been talking about. When you said you were disagreeing with "this argument" about weak adventurers, you were making the claim that someone has a right not to optimize even if the rest of the party expects some level of optimization, because that is that is the case that "this argument" was opposed to. No one made the claim that you should always optimize in every group period. If that's the argument you were opposing, then that would be a strawman.

[TypoNinja]

My only complaint against this 'weak characters shouldn't be adventuring' thing is when it's used as an excuse to claim that anyone that is not optimizing is 'doing it wrong'. And frankly, that's not acceptable.


You said that claiming someone who isn't optimizing is doing it wrong is, itself, wrong. I am pointing out that this is not the case in at least one type of situation, where someone refusing to optimize to the party's level IS, in fact, doing it wrong.

I think your both right, but are missing the obvious solution.

Optimization (or lack of) is not the goal, rather a character suitable for that game is. A character too weak for one game might be fine for another, someone perfect for one game may be game breakingly strong in another.

You are not doing it wrong by not optimizing, there is no wrong way to play the game if that's what everyone in your group wants to try. If everyone wants very high OP and you bring low you've got the wrong character for that game, the reverse is likewise true.

The solution however is help, A person who is too underpowered for the group probably doesn't enjoy feeling like he's nearly useless and some instruction in the art of OPfu would likely be well received. A person who is too powerful, can either dial it back to meet his groups level, or again show the rest of the group what he knows to bring everyone up to his level if that's what they want.

It's only wrong if that's not what the game calls for.

[ThiagoMartell]

You said that claiming someone who isn't optimizing is doing it wrong is, itself, wrong. I am pointing out that this is not the case in at least one type of situation, where someone refusing to optimize to the party's level IS, in fact, doing it wrong.

I disagree; I think that's all anyone's been talking about. When you said you were disagreeing with "this argument" about weak adventurers, you were making the claim that someone has a right not to optimize even if the rest of the party expects some level of optimization, because that is that is the case that "this argument" was opposed to. No one made the claim that you should always optimize in every group period. If that's the argument you were opposing, then that would be a strawman.

Incorrect. Attacking a strawman means creating a whole new argument out of whole cloth to argue against. Which is what you are doing. What he is doing is pointing out that a power disparity between characters in a group means that some members are unable to meaningfully contribute to the game, and that is not fun.

See also: BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner.
Please reread my post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13721783&postcount=39), because that is not what I said. What I said is that my only problem with the argument against weak characters is when it is brought up as an excuse for saying that anyone not optimizing is 'doing it wrong'. I bolded it for emphasis.

[Answerer]

You specifically said "this argument," which implies that you were referring to an argument within the thread.

[Kelb_Panthera]

You specifically said "this argument," which implies that you were referring to an argument within the thread.

Not necessarily. Thiago could, and apparently does, mean the hypothetical argument that could be used to say that someone not optimizing is "doing it wrong."

It's come up in another thread recently and was likely brought up because it was already on his mind.

[Answerer]

Err... well, yes, necessarily. That's what the word "this" means. Mind you, I understand that Thiago misspoke, but the point remains that he can't really accuse Flicker of strawmanning when Flicker was responding to something he actually said, even if it was a mistake.

[The Random NPC]

He never actually said it was an argument, but did call it an excuse to defend another argument. He also disagreed with the argument that anyone not optimizing is doing it wrong. Now since no one had made such an argument, I thought it was pretty obvious he was referring to a hypothetical argument that could be made, with this "'weak characters shouldn't be adventuring' thing" as a defense.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Err... well, yes, necessarily. That's what the word "this" means. Mind you, I understand that Thiago misspoke, but the point remains that he can't really accuse Flicker of strawmanning when Flicker was responding to something he actually said, even if it was a mistake.

A simple punctuation fix would completely change that. I give Thiago the benefit of the doubt on such things because english isn't his native tongue and most native english speakers are terrible about their grammar and punctuation anyway.

Edit: case in point. :smallamused: Thiago did get his punctuation right. He never said "this argument," he said "this '(describes the argument)'"

[ThiagoMartell]

Err... well, yes, necessarily. That's what the word "this" means. Mind you, I understand that Thiago misspoke, but the point remains that he can't really accuse Flicker of strawmanning when Flicker was responding to something he actually said, even if it was a mistake.

As far as I know (and I'm not a native speaker, so I could be wrong) "this" just means I'm talking about something specific. In that post, I was talking about the 'weak characters thing', like you can see on this very page. What I actually said was that I only had a problem with that when it was used as an excuse for saying that anyone who is not optimizing is doing it wrong.
You can get as specific with "this" as you want, but it doesn't change the fact I said that it's only a problem when it is used to say that not optimizing is always wrong.
Flickerdart then answered as if I was saying it was always wrong... which (again) is not what I said. I find it to be wrong only in one specific stance - the one I pointed out in the post. That is why I'm saying he is attacking a strawman.

[Sucrose]

As far as I know (and I'm not a native speaker, so I could be wrong) "this" just means I'm talking about something specific. In that post, I was talking about the 'weak characters thing', like you can see on this very page. What I actually said was that I only had a problem with that when it was used as an excuse for saying that anyone who is not optimizing is doing it wrong.
You can get as specific with "this" as you want, but it doesn't change the fact I said that it's only a problem when it is used to say that not optimizing is always wrong.
Flickerdart then answered as if I was saying it was always wrong... which (again) is not what I said. I find it to be wrong only in one specific stance - the one I pointed out in the post. That is why I'm saying he is attacking a strawman.

If you were talking in a general sense about when people make universal claims that not optimizing is always doing it wrong, then why did you make a point of posting this statement after my post, which was quite explicitly about bringing a weak character in to a group that is optimized to a point above that character's abilities, and expecting him to mesh?

Edit: huttj509, that seems like an accurate summary of general gaming etiquette.

[huttj509]

See also: BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner.

Party of BMX bandits? Great.
Party of Angel Summoners? Awesome.
Party-deliberate mix of BMX Bandits and Angel Summoners? Go for it!
Knowingly playing BMX bandit when the rest of the party is Angel Summoners and expected you to be one as well? Not so great.
Knowingly playing Angel Summoner when the rest of the party is BMX Bandits and expected you to be one as well? Not cool, man.

Unknowingly being BMX Bandit when you thought you were making an Angel Summoner because of a flaw in the system? Or Vice-Versa? *glares at system* :smallmad:

Does anyone actually disagree on any of that?

[Kelb_Panthera]

If you were talking in a general sense about when people make universal claims that not optimizing is always doing it wrong, then why did you make a point of posting this statement after my post, which was quite explicitly about bringing a weak character in to a group that is optimized to a point above that character's abilities, and expecting him to mesh?

Edit: huttj509, that seems like an accurate summary of general gaming etiquette.

I'd guess it's because he, eroneously, assumed that his correct punctuation would clarify the fact that 'weak characters shouldn't be adventuring' was used as an adjective to describe "this thing" in that particular sentence.

I do find it somewhat ironic that a non-native speaker has a stronger grasp on the written language than many native speakers. :smallamused:

[The Random NPC]

If you were talking in a general sense about when people make universal claims that not optimizing is always doing it wrong, then why did you make a point of posting this statement after my post, which was quite explicitly about bringing a weak character in to a group that is optimized to a point above that character's abilities, and expecting him to mesh?

Edit: huttj509, that seems like an accurate summary of general gaming etiquette.

Perhaps he was otherwise occupied and, due to the linear-ness of time, was unable to post before you did? I find it better to assume coincidence in most cases rather than malice.

EDIT: I don't, while native speakers have to study it in school, they are bombarded with casual speak at all other times. They may also assume that because they already speak the language, they won't need to learn it. After all they already speak the language, so obviously they speak it correctly.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Perhaps he was otherwise occupied and, due to the linear-ness of time, was unable to post before you did? I find it better to assume coincidence in most cases rather than malice.

While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that was the case here. There's a two hour window between those posts.

[ThiagoMartell]

If you were talking in a general sense about when people make universal claims that not optimizing is always doing it wrong, then why did you make a point of posting this statement after my post, which was quite explicitly about bringing a weak character in to a group that is optimized to a point above that character's abilities, and expecting him to mesh?

Sucrose, dude, you did notice that I did not quote your post, right? I wasn't referring to your post.
Even if I quoted your post, I would be defending your point because you never said that not optimizing was always wrong, so it would fall in the category of situations on which I have no problem with that bloody argument being used.

[The Random NPC]

While I agree with you in principle, I don't think that was the case here. There's a two hour window between those posts.

I meant that it would be less that he explicitly posted in response to Sucrose, and more that he wished to post he distaste of the argument, and was unable to due so until he posted.

[Answerer]

I'd guess it's because he, eroneously, assumed that his correct punctuation would clarify the fact that 'weak characters shouldn't be adventuring' was used as an adjective to describe "this thing" in that particular sentence.

I do find it somewhat ironic that a non-native speaker has a stronger grasp on the written language than many native speakers. :smallamused:
I don't know what punctuation you think makes his statement mean something other than what it actually means, but I assure you that you are incorrect.

He stated that he was referring to "this argument" (clarifying that he was speaking of "this argument" about weak characters not adventuring). "This" in the English language refers to a sense of proximity between the speaker and the object referred to. Within the context of a forum thread, "this argument" would refer to a "near" argument, i.e. one contained within this thread. More particularly, Sucrose is not being unreasonable by associating "this argument" with the argument made right before that phrase was used. It is certainly the nearest argument that fits the criteria that Thiago offered. As has already been stated, applying that adjectival phrase to Sucrose's argument or any other argument made in this thread (i.e. those most reasonably referred to by "this argument") would, itself, be a strawman argument.

It was a grammatical mistake. He's clarified. It's not a big deal. But it was a mistake, and Flicker's comment, far from being a strawman attack, was a response to what was actually said. What was said was a mistake, which means it no longer applies, but that doesn't make Flicker's statement a strawman: he didn't make up the argument, Thiago (accidentally) stated it.

And I will grant you: "this" and "that" are relative terms, and have inherent ambiguity. But I maintain that by far the most reasonable interpretation of "this argument" is as referring to arguments made within this thread. If that was not what Thiago meant (and indeed, it appears it was not), he should not have used "this". The word is wholly inappropriate for referring to similar arguments made elsewhere (either "that" or simply "the" would have worked quite well). But it's an exceedingly technical point. I wouldn't use it to attack Thiago at all. Especially if he is, in fact, not a native English speaker (I am not aware of Thiago's origins). You'll note that no one accused Thiago of making a strawman himself on this point, other than after he'd made his comment and then only in the sense of "if anything here is a strawman, your statement is closest". I only brought it up because I was defending Flicker from Thiago's accusation.

EDIT: I just saw the "South Americas in the Playground" link in Thiago's signature, which could have clarified his origins and native language earlier if I'd noticed. Nonetheless, nothing I've said would really change since I never accused Thiago of anything, I only explained where I felt Flicker was coming from and why his post was not a strawman.

[Sucrose]

I'd guess it's because he, eroneously, assumed that his correct punctuation would clarify the fact that 'weak characters shouldn't be adventuring' was used as an adjective to describe "this thing" in that particular sentence.

I do find it somewhat ironic that a non-native speaker has a stronger grasp on the written language than many native speakers. :smallamused:

The proximity of his statement to mine indicated that 'this thing' was my general argument that strong individuals would not take weak individuals along with them on their adventures. The adjective phrase that you point out would then be a mischaracterization of my general argument, him claiming that I was saying that weak characters should not adventure, rather than my claim that weak characters should not adventure alongside strong ones.

I will thank you not to mock me for reasonable use of both language and induction.


Perhaps he was otherwise occupied and, due to the linear-ness of time, was unable to post before you did? I find it better to assume coincidence in most cases rather than malice.

EDIT: I don't, while native speakers have to study it in school, they are bombarded with casual speak at all other times. They may also assume that because they already speak the language, they won't need to learn it. After all they already speak the language, so obviously they speak it correctly.

I simply find it to be a rather odd thought process that comes up with a comment about the generalities of the universe that vaguely relate to something that someone said, but do not respond to the statement directly.

I'll also thank you not to insult my grasp of the language, or claim that I have lazy thought processes.


Sucrose, dude, you did notice that I did not quote your post, right? I wasn't referring to your post.
Even if I quoted your post, I would be defending your point because you never said that not optimizing was always wrong, so it would fall in the category of situations on which I have no problem with that bloody argument being used.
People do not always quote others' posts when they wish to contest them. Not quoting my post is not evidence one way or the other.

Edit: I do agree with the point that you have been making since that post. However, I have not recently heard anyone actually say that not optimizing is invariably doing it wrong. The closest I have seen are statements about how the games of those who do not optimize are not a pure expression of the consequences of the rules of Dungeons and Dragons. Consequently, this seems like a trivial statement.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I seem to have raised some hackles here. While I don't necessarily think I was wrong, I've clearly had a more incendiary effect than I intended, and for that I apologize. I never meant to mock anyone.

How about we get back to talking about that video.

[demigodus]

Um, how long are you guys going to argue over the grammar and sentence structure an argument was presented in, after having completely clarified what the argument actually meant? Seriously, does it matter? Does whether Thiago made a mistake in the phrasing of his post or not, at all, affect anyone's arguments in the slightest?

Sometimes derailing is necessary to clarify a detail. This is not one of those cases.

[Derjuin]

Great video, really gave me a laugh :smallsmile:. I thought a few of the references were so over-the-top cheesy, they gave it the extra funny edge. I haven't seen his other stuff, but I'm thinking I'll give it a look when I have more time.

[The Random NPC]

The proximity of his statement to mine indicated that 'this thing' was my general argument that strong individuals would not take weak individuals along with them on their adventures. The adjective phrase that you point out would then be a mischaracterization of my general argument, him claiming that I was saying that weak characters should not adventure, rather than my claim that weak characters should not adventure alongside strong ones.
I will thank you not to mock me for reasonable use of both language and induction.
Upon reflection, that isn't an unreasonable interpretation of ThiagoMartell post, and I can now see where the confusion could have come from.




I simply find it to be a rather odd thought process that comes up with a comment about the generalities of the universe that vaguely relate to something that someone said, but do not respond to the statement directly.

I'll also thank you not to insult my grasp of the language, or claim that I have lazy thought processes.
I apologize if you were offended, I was not referring to anyone in particular, but responding to Kelb_Panthera statement that he found it ironic that a nonnative speaker might have a stronger grasp of grammar than a native one. I don't find it ironic that a nonnative speaker might have a stronger grasp of the English language, for the reasons listed above.



People do not always quote others' posts when they wish to contest them. Not quoting my post is not evidence one way or the other.

Edit: I do agree with the point that you have been making since that post. However, I have not recently heard anyone actually say that not optimizing is invariably doing it wrong. The closest I have seen are statements about how the games of those who do not optimize are not a pure expression of the consequences of the rules of Dungeons and Dragons. Consequently, this seems like a trivial statement.

If I recall correctly, there is a certain level of optimization assumed on this board, that I believe is above ThiagoMartell's preferred level.

[only1doug]

If I recall correctly, there is a certain level of optimization assumed on this board, that I believe is above ThiagoMartell's preferred level.

I think that ThiagoMartels Level of Optimization may be higher than people would assume from reading his (frequent) anti-optimization posts. Several of his posts mention opitimization tactics that are clearly higher optimization than would be seen in low optimization groups.

[Answerer]

I seem to have raised some hackles here. While I don't necessarily think I was wrong, I've clearly had a more incendiary effect than I intended, and for that I apologize. I never meant to mock anyone.

How about we get back to talking about that video.
Yes, it's absolutely bewildering that someone would be offended when you insult them. Complete shock, I understand.

[ThiagoMartell]

I think that ThiagoMartels Level of Optimization may be higher than people would assume from reading his (frequent) anti-optimization posts. Several of his posts mention opitimization tactics that are clearly higher optimization than would be seen in low optimization groups.

I'm not anti-optimization, as I (frequently) say. I'm against overoptimization.

[Tyndmyr]

Our town guard started out as volunteers, led by a teenage boy with a broken leg and a lot of spirit. The only reason he was there was because he looked up to us.

He went on to be a level 6 Oracle with the lame curse, famous for taking out orcs singlehandedly along the border while we were gone. Pretty badass in the eyes of us level 8 adventurers.

I think sometimes it doesn't matter what we think, eventually the dice will decide the RP needs its time in the sun.

How does that work?

Man, this crippled kid sure does look up to us. Let's make him our leader!

[ahenobarbi]

If I recall correctly, there is a certain level of optimization assumed on this board, that I believe is above ThiagoMartell's preferred level.

Please excuse derailing but I never heard of ThiagoMartell. Could give me/ link to more detail on that "ThiagoMartell's preferred level" (my Google-jutsu failed).

[The Random NPC]

Please excuse derailing but I never heard of ThiagoMartell. Could give me/ link to more detail on that "ThiagoMartell's preferred level" (my Google-jutsu failed).

ThiagoMartell is a person who posts on these forums. What I have experienced of his posts indicate certain things that are most likely wrong, given the very small sample size.

[ThiagoMartell]

Please excuse derailing but I never heard of ThiagoMartell. Could give me/ link to more detail on that "ThiagoMartell's preferred level" (my Google-jutsu failed).
Uh... was this supposed to sarcasm of some sort...?

Well, I'll explain it anyway. I have a background in 339 (the old Wizards CharOp forums) and have been playing 3rd edition ever since the 3.0 playtest (I would actually fly from Rio to São Paulo twice a month for that, which seems quite excessive looking back, but that's a different story).
The philosophy of optimization I stick to is the one that prevailed back in 339 - practical optimization. It can be defined as: be more efficient, don't step on anyone's toes (including your DM's) and have fun. I don't think characters should be optimized to breeze through encounters, because all that does is either ruin any kind of challenge or force the DM to tweak encounters to make them more difficult - and at that point, all your optimization achieved was getting the DM to tweak something, because assuming equal optimizaion levels it takes about the same in-game effort to deal with the encounter.
Optimization only actually makes your character more powerful if the whole world is not optimized to the same level. If everyone is as optimized as you, failure is pretty much guaranteed - after all, there are plenty of people above your level most of the time. That kind of optimization is only good for TO. Just playing with numbers, discovering how high you could take a specific class damage output, stuff like that.
For actuay play, I think optimization should be restricted to getting your character do what you want it to do within the confines of your group's comfort zone. If your DM gets stuff straight from the MM and/or runs published modules, you should optimize very little. When your DM says he's running Red Hand of Doom as written and you decide to play Cindy, you're overdoing it.

[ahenobarbi]

Uh... was this supposed to sarcasm of some sort...?

Well, I'll explain it anyway. I have a background in 339

I wasn't sarcasm. I honestly did not understand. Is thins "practical optimization" (find the best build for character concept you got)? Or did I got this wrong?



(the old Wizards CharOp forums) and have been playing 3rd edition ever since the 3.0 playtest (I would actually fly from Rio to São Paulo twice a month for that, which seems quite excessive looking back, but that's a different story).
The philosophy of optimization I stick to is the one that prevailed back in 339 - practical optimization. It can be defined as: be more efficient, don't step on anyone's toes (including your DM's) and have fun. I don't think characters should be optimized to breeze through encounters, because all that does is either ruin any kind of challenge or force the DM to tweak encounters to make them more difficult - and at that point, all your optimization achieved was getting the DM to tweak something, because assuming equal optimizaion levels it takes about the same in-game effort to deal with the encounter.
Optimization only actually makes your character more powerful if the whole world is not optimized to the same level. If everyone is as optimized as you, failure is pretty much guaranteed - after all, there are plenty of people above your level most of the time. That kind of optimization is only good for TO. Just playing with numbers, discovering how high you could take a specific class damage output, stuff like that.
For actuay play, I think optimization should be restricted to getting your character do what you want it to do within the confines of your group's comfort zone. If your DM gets stuff straight from the MM and/or runs published modules, you should optimize very little. When your DM says he's running Red Hand of Doom as written and you decide to play Cindy, you're overdoing it.

Weeel. I'm playing TO Cleric right now. And the cleric doesn't use his whole potential. Most of the potential is "saved up just in case" he could have solved last 10 (or so) encounters by his self. Yet he did what he could, letting others doing heir shtick[s]... and keeping himself safe.

[ThiagoMartell]

If you're playing something, it's by definition not TO

[ahenobarbi]

If you're playing something, it's by definition not TO

Ummm. Yay?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Yes, it's absolutely bewildering that someone would be offended when you insult them. Complete shock, I understand.

Dude, I never meant any insult to anyone and I apologized in any case. Can we drop it please?

[GenghisDon]

"nitpickers & naysayers" or "legislators & lawyers" or maybe the classic "papers & paychecks" should get spikes in sales soon.:smallbiggrin:

It's a funny/goofy vid clip. Chill, peeps

Bree-yark!

[ericgrau]

If taken too far there is only 1 best option which means another dull and unoriginal character that's doing the same things as a thousand others. Or even looking at it more realistically he's still very similar. If someone picks an option that is merely good for reasons of style and backstory he shouldn't be bashed. If someone picks the absolute worst for the sake of his backstory his criticism is justified, but if someone is criticized for picking something that's 2nd best for RP reasons, then the complaints against optimization killing RP are fully justified.

I also like to find options that are in fact quite good yet not commonly noticed.

[irbaboon]

i must say i enjoy a good optimization session. generally most of the players i roll with don't usually worry to much about it, and i end up playing the martial class so we have a meat shield. with out any sort of optimization i end up lacking in later levels. lol but in the end the guys usually like the safety net of standing inside the reach of their enlarged chain tripper. and have joined the band wagon of optimization. unfortunately since my introduction into the gaming group the dm has joined the forums to get an idea of the wonderful knowledge this forum has taught me. lol either way the video was funny and may have sited a new nick name for myself amidst our gaming group. thank you giant in the playground forums for teaching me the ways of optimization.

[nedz]

I wasn't sarcasm. I honestly did not understand. Is thins "practical optimization" (find the best build for character concept you got)? Or did I got this wrong?



Weeel. I'm playing TO Cleric right now. And the cleric doesn't use his whole potential. Most of the potential is "saved up just in case" he could have solved last 10 (or so) encounters by his self. Yet he did what he could, letting others doing heir shtick[s]... and keeping himself safe.

Isn't this playing in easy mode ?

BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner are extreme examples, probably T5 and T1, surely its more of a challenge (both in terms of optimisation and play) to take a T2 or T3 build and optimise/play that with a party of Angel Summoners in a manner which is genuinely competitive/useful ?

[LordBlades]

If taken too far there is only 1 best option which means another dull and unoriginal character that's doing the same things as a thousand others. Or even looking at it more realistically he's still very similar. If someone picks an option that is merely good for reasons of style and backstory he shouldn't be bashed. If someone picks the absolute worst for the sake of his backstory his criticism is justified, but if someone is criticized for picking something that's 2nd best for RP reasons, then the complaints against optimization killing RP are fully justified.

I also like to find options that are in fact quite good yet not commonly noticed.

The only time when IMO is appropriate to criticize somebody for their mechanical character choices is when the end result falls way off the party's average power level, one way or the other.

I don't think most people would consider bashing a fellow player for making RP-appropriate suboptimal choices if his character still pulls his own weight. If it falls behind the rest of the party due to those choices on the other hand, it's a different matter altogether.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Man, this thread got a bit snippy.

[nedz]

Man, this thread got a bit snippy.

Yeah, sorry about that.
Maybe sometimes we should lighten up with criticism ?:smallsmile:

[ahenobarbi]

Isn't this playing in easy mode ?

BMX Bandit and Angel Summoner are extreme examples, probably T5 and T1, surely its more of a challenge (both in terms of optimisation and play) to take a T2 or T3 build and optimise/play that with a party of Angel Summoners in a manner which is genuinely competitive/useful ?

Other players and DM agreed to play optimized characters... only half of the players made pretty weak characters. So those of us who play strong characters don't use full potential. And DM adjusted challenges to effective optimization level.

[nedz]

Other players and DM agreed to play optimized characters... only half of the players made pretty weak characters. So those of us who play strong characters don't use full potential. And DM adjusted challenges to effective optimization level.

So the guys who failed at CharOp get carried by the guys who know what they are doing, though they themselves have it easy.

I hope the role-play is fun :smallsmile: