PDA

View Full Version : What is D&D? (Losing the spark)



Morithias
2012-09-03, 04:50 PM
This is probably going to get heated very fast, but try to keep it civil.

In another thread I basically misread something that caused me indirectly to BSOD and question my philosophy as a whole and whether I'm misguided. I figure this forum knows more about gaming as a whole than almost any place on the world so this is the place to ask.

My core problems comes from this: Optimization is no longer creative or even mentally challenging as a whole. It's gone from great mathematics and number crunching to "Nope sorry, this broken build that can literally beat anything still wins so your build is pointless."

The Iron Chef in the playground does a lot of great work, and as soon as I post this I am going to go back and re-read every single one of them. I loved stuff like the "shadowdancer sandiego" which was clever and creative.

But...Sturgeon's revelation is right, 90% of everything is crud. It has been and always will be that way. I've read through my crystal keep books endless times and I probably will never use 90% of the stuff in it, but...doesn't everything deserve it's trial?

I'm just saying, is it really "optimization" to copy and paste the same Dues Ex Machina win button to every optimization thread as the be all and end all?

I'm just saying, it seems that a lot of this stuff is getting...dull...and I think it's killing my interest in 3.5 as a whole. Sure we always have the classic ethics and morality debates but seriously even those are starting to go around in circles. I think we're actually starting to exhaust what 3.5 as a whole offered. Or at least all the grade AAA stuff from it.

My latest girlfriend is going to be joining my 3.5 group. She made a character, a fighter....she rolled her stats, and stuck her 16 in intelligence. A classic mistake, but then I realized. That's the kind of stuff I want to see. New stuff, off the wall insane stuff. Show me an optimized fighter without power attack. Make me a druid without natural spell.

I think this is going to be my new philosophy to breathe life back into my love for the system. Think less like Batman, and more like the Joker. (God that's something I never though I'd hear myself say).

But at the same time...I want your guys opinions. Is this just me going through a BSOD and completely losing my head over nothing? Or do you find your games and characters are getting repetitive and boring after years of play?

In the war campaign...a campaign I'm very looking forward to...I blew WEEKS making characters. Making every little thing fit right, and now that I look back, these characters look...bland...

Aasimar blackguard, Tiefling Archer, Gnome Sage, Human Artificer, hell the only one that actually looks interesting anymore is the mounted charger, and that's not cause she's original, it's because I don't think I've EVER seen someone use a mount yet in a campaign I've played in.

Seriously guys, I need your advice, cause I'm breaking down, and maybe losing my love for this game I've sunk years into playing. This might just be the sunken cost fallacy speaking, but I seriously don't want to lose this. I want to get that spark back.

Maybe once my group finally tries pathfinder I'll get my love for it back...but until then. I just want advice. I want to know if anyone else has gone through something like this and how you got your love for the game back.

Did anyone ever go through something like this?

Rallicus
2012-09-03, 05:27 PM
{Scrubbed}

To be honest, I tell my players to avoid the 3.5 section of this site for that very reason. One of my players and I were discussing this last week and we both agreed that, while optimizing does have it's place in certain games, it's better to make a character how you want. He told me he took a brief glance at the Shifter guide on here and quickly closed the window, because optimizing isn't his idea of fun.

However, optimizing in itself is fun for some people. Even if certain builds are more viable (which is to be expected, it's like thinking a praying mantis might be able to stand up to a bear because it has claws), it's still fun for some people to try and optimize stuff. To each their own.

As for the question: what is D&D? It's whatever the heck you want to make it, man.

(Also I'd suggest picking up new systems if you're burned out. 3.5-ers seem to have the most trouble doing this, myself included.)

some guy
2012-09-03, 05:31 PM
I'm almost never a player, but when DM-fatigue strikes me I just play a different game like Gamma World or Call of Cthulhu. After a week or two I'm full of inspiration for D&D.

Maybe try something like that? GM a non-D&D game yourself? Or some board games? Switching systems may get rid of the optimization issue, and the fastest way to try a new system is to take initiative yourself.

Kol Korran
2012-09-03, 05:47 PM
As for the question: what is D&D? It's whatever the heck you want to make it, man.

Just wanted to point this out again, as it is quite true.

At the OP: You describe a very specific interest in the game, a very narrow focus on optimization and making "the best" character. In our group, though people enjoy optimization to a degree, the main focus for most is to roleplay the specific character- it's interaction with the group, with the world, bringing it to life and making it memorable and fun. We do optimize somewhat, but far less than most on these boards. And the DM (either it's me or someone else) don't penalize characters for it, but build the game and campaign to fit.

In fact, most of our players intentionally make "mistakes" in character creation, and in game (for example following a fey's seduction even knowing it will end up badly, sleeping with the wench of the pirate captain you're trying to persuade, or inviting a curse by killing the creepy old witch) because it makes the game more challenging, more interesting, a better story to remember and more fun. The goal isn't "to win D&D", but to do so in an interesting and satisfying manner. If you make a character that is "unbeatable", then sure, it will destroy every encounter, but i'd guess that will become very boring, very fast.

As a DM I find tons of things to get excited about- creating new interesting and surprising challenges for the party, creating a thrilling environment for them to deal with and make an impact, crafting interesting and intriguing NPCs, and more. I find myself constantly evolving as a DM, and guess what- I don't own that many books or use overly complicated builds. There is a LOT to do with simple ingredients, imagination and tactics. quite a few encounter don't require opponents at all...

I'm babbling I think. In short:
- try to expand your interests to more than optimizing. cool character interactions, challenges that don't stem from a certain build, but from a situation, time, interfering factors and more.
- Seek to expand your skills and expertise in more than just one venue. tackle the subjects you're less good as a DM or a player, seek what makes them fun to others, than to yourself.

Hope this helps.

JellyPooga
2012-09-03, 05:49 PM
The so-called "optimisation" of characters is a fallacy.

The 'point', if there is one, of any Roleplaying Game (and D&D is no exception) is to play a character you have invented within a game world that is, for one reason or another, not real.

Having a character that can surgically remove the liver and kidneys of 10 foes with a single punch in 1.06 seconds precisely might be 'optimised' for combat, but that in itself means nothing unless that character also has a personality, motivations and goals, flaws (no, not the kind that give you extra Feats!) and foibles, an appearance, habits, a background and everything else that goes into making a character. If he does, great. The character standing next to him with just as much detail, but is a Fighter who's spent all his Feats on Exotic Weapon Proficiency, is just as valid a character to play. Sure he might not be as effective when it comes to a combat, but whilst the rules of D&D are mostly concerned with combative situations, those rules are not neccesarily the primary focus of any given game. Even if combat is the primary focus of a game, then being bad at it can also be as enjoyable as being good at it; just look at The Lord of the Rings (not that I'm saying LotR is combat focused)...the Hobbits were rubbish; they couldn't fight, they didn't know anything and were generally outclassed in every respect by the rest of the world. Yet were that a game being played, I can imagine playing those Hobbits being enourmous fun!

NikitaDarkstar
2012-09-03, 05:49 PM
To be honest, most optimization is a mind game, what can be done with a system, not what should be. And exercises like that can be fun, and poking around for stuff like that can be helpful if you're clueless on how to get something you want, or don't know what spells to pick. But actually play a fully optimized character? No thanks.

Now to be honest, I've been down that road, feeling everything I did was the same, so I tried mixing it up a bit, instead of my two weapon, high agility characters I'd try thinks like sorceress, sword and boarders, wizards, clerics, druids, etc. but in the end I ended up getting bored with them because it wasn't what I wanted to play. My next character is going to be an elf, two weapon fighting assassin.

But really, consider taking a break from 3.5 and try something else, or just try something from a different genre and then come back to it with a fresh mind.

Lateral
2012-09-03, 05:52 PM
Well, D&D is what you make of it. If you enjoy just playing a character, then you may be better off not worrying about optimization. For me, personally, half the fun is building the most effective character I can within a certain concept.

I think that the problem you're having might be because it looks like you think of optimization as simply picking all the best, most powerful options. It doesn't have to be. I find that it's the most fun when you take a crazy, interesting concept, set it down in front of yourself, and say, "How can I build this so that it won't suck?" You know, make it a challenge for yourself. Don't think about yourself as trying to build a great Fighter, or a great Druid- try thinking about it from a less class-based perspective: "I want to build an elderly martial arts master who uses cool Judo-like flips and throws to make up for his physical weakness, and can also breathe fire and fly," or "I want to build Optimus Prime."

Jack of Spades
2012-09-03, 06:43 PM
My solution to this was simple: my group generally doesn't play DnD.

But for you, you may just want to take a break from at least the 3.x forums for a while. I've noticed that the more time you spend reading about any game on the internet (in any medium), the quicker your brain starts to convert everything in the game to math. Thus, you start to see the choices of others as "right" or "wrong" based on all that math you have in your head that they probably don't.

So, if you want to avoid getting burnt out on d20 specifically, avoid d20 forums until you can go "Oh, an intelligent fighter-- interesting" instead of "High int on a fighter! But what about str or con!?"

Either that, or try out other games. Board games made to feel like RPG's (such as Descent) are often refreshing in their randomness when compared to RPG's. Non-d20 RPG's like GURPS and WoD manage to be a bit harder to reduce to math because they drop the class abstraction. By doing that, they allow the player to make a person instead of a Fighter or a Wizard, meaning they can have a more varied (in theme, at least) skillset without hamstringing their "build."

Oh, and about the morality debate: As I mentioned in the current Big Morality Thread, that argument's been running in circles for 2500 years. Don't ever hesitate to ignore it if you get the chance. :smallwink:

toapat
2012-09-03, 06:58 PM
I havent played true DnD, and i get what you are saying.

looking at the Optimization boards isnt really fun, because they look at the game from a pure mechanics perspective. Their only real value is when you are looking at something like The Paladin Handbook (http://dictummortuum.blogspot.com/2011/08/paladins-handbook.html), which while it does give you a few optimized builds, is also useful as a quick refference for what you can do within a class.

my first real character will preferably be a High Elven Mystic Fire Knight of Freedom, who would be considered to have ADD if she didnt also ruthlessly destroy evil

valadil
2012-09-03, 07:12 PM
I've never been a fan of optimization in play. The way I see it is that optimal is optimal and you don't need to play a build in order to see how awesome it is. I can look at a fighter with a gazillion strength and know that he'll hit hard. No need to play him. I'd rather play a character with a spontaneous personality and see where that takes me.

Kaun
2012-09-03, 07:20 PM
Optimization is fun in theory but can make for some average games.

If you players like optimization but your getting sick of it try to encourage them to optimize bad build options rather then premium ones.

Get them to play lower tier classes and races and let them figure out how to squeeze the most juice out of them.

At least that way it might switch things up a bit.

That or go play something rules lighter with less room for optimization. Some times everyone needs to be reminded that Role play isn't a table top war-game.

Kane0
2012-09-03, 07:59 PM
Hmm. If you're going to try Pathfinder, you will likely look back at 3.5 and think of how different two very similar systems can be. I started playing PF with a group of people and i was the only one with knowledge of 3.5 so I was thrown out a lot by things they simply took as the way it is. Quite the eye opener.

My suggestion? If you cant just enjoy 3.5 for how it is and how you want to play it go to PF and try to get into it. You will either love it more than 3.5 or look back and see 3.5 in an entirely new light, especially if you do a few PFS games.

Edit: Also ask yourself this: How will you react when your character dies? If it is always along the lines of "Meh, I have another ready to go" or "Saw it coming, ill do this next" that is a problem. Make a character that you like and that will be alive. Make a character you will not want to lose, someone memorable and special.
I do not make backup characters for that exact reason. If I do then I end up losing the ones I have, which always is a great loss for me. Not every character needs to be over the top and awesome, but it needs to be unique and develop in the game.
Remember, your character is different from your character sheet.

Lanaya
2012-09-03, 08:07 PM
I've never been a fan of optimization in play. The way I see it is that optimal is optimal and you don't need to play a build in order to see how awesome it is. I can look at a fighter with a gazillion strength and know that he'll hit hard. No need to play him. I'd rather play a character with a spontaneous personality and see where that takes me.

Ergh. Stormwind. What about a fighter with a gazillion strength and a spontaneous personality? Surely the numbers on your character sheet don't change your ability to roleplay. There's nothing stopping you from roleplaying when you play a highly optimised character, and there's no reason that playing a low-op character will make your personality more interesting. I do agree with your general point, but roleplaying and optimisation are by no means mutually exclusive.

Gamer Girl
2012-09-03, 08:25 PM
Did anyone ever go through something like this?


Well, I have always been ''like that''. But I do know what your talking about s I see it all the time:

The Optimizers sit down to have a game. First it normal takes them something like an hour to decided all the rules and such and what they will use and how they will use it and what 'the' means. Then they start the game, and just don't have any fun. They barely role-play as everything is all about the rules and rolling. They have lots of combat, sure, but even that gets dull and pointless after an hour or so. In short, they are playing a video game at the table. And they get burned out and lose their spark.

Then, just two tables over is My Game. And everyone is always having fun over at this table. Instead of hour long 'rule discussions', we are having hour long action encounters(but not necessarily combat). Everything is role-played out and everyone joins in the fun.

And it's not too shocking when at the end of the night, one or two Optimizers come over and ask to join My Game. And as at least one character will have died(and the player wishes to take a break) we will have an opening. At first the Optimizers scream, and cry and complain about my House Rules(death is common, lots of drawbacks, high magic, high fantasy, status que). And some won't make it past the first game and will quit. But some love it. The huge sense of danger, the speed of the game and the massive role-play really hooks them in. I've ''saved'' several Optimizers this way.

Snowbluff
2012-09-03, 09:08 PM
Ergh. Stormwind. What about a fighter with a gazillion strength and a spontaneous personality? Surely the numbers on your character sheet don't change your ability to roleplay. There's nothing stopping you from roleplaying when you play a highly optimised character, and there's no reason that playing a low-op character will make your personality more interesting. I do agree with your general point, but roleplaying and optimisation are by no means mutually exclusive.

This pretty much.

ALSO. A build with out Natural Spell for a Druid! It's my personal Ubermount, using several more obscure feats. It's rough, since I don't have the original anymore.

Halfling AcDruid4/Wizard1/ArcaneHeirophant10/MysticTheurge/RanferKnightofFurmundy

Devoted Tracker, Holy Mount, Theurgic Mount, Draconic Steed, Natural Bond, Theugic Bond, various prerequisite feats.

Combines your AnC, Familiar, and Special Mount. Make it a Gold Dragon. Take the ACF to drop wildshape for Wis to AC, or take the Halfing druid Sub levels (they give ride as a skill, IDR id you can take both, but my DM let me).

Use lots of Buffs and Swift action spells (like Wraith Strike) to buff up your Dragon.

For RP, play up your dualistic nature and your relationship with your dragon. I had fun with it.

Anxe
2012-09-03, 09:47 PM
Nothing says you can't try a new system. V

Jack of Spades
2012-09-03, 09:53 PM
I'd like to note this: Post 13, Stormwind fallacy invoked by name. Post 14, Stormwind fallacy actually occurs.

By which I mean to say, mention optimization once and within a page you will hear about and see the Stormwind fallacy.

Which, by the way, is part of the problem with 3.x forums, and the reason why I recommended taking a break. The Stormwind fallacy isn't used just as a way to say that one can optimize and roleplay, it is used as a way to justify snubbing anyone who doesn't optimize as 'not doing it right.'

Just because the Stormwind fallacy is true does not mean the inverse of it is also true. Saying one prefers to play sub-optimal builds does not mean that one needs the crutch of mechanical weakness to roleplay properly. It just means that one does not feel any need to build an optimal character.

Hence why I feel a big source of un-fun in 3.x is reducing the game to its math, even if you later add the other things. If you don't allow yourself to be mechanically suboptimal then you will remove too much failure from the game. Failure is important. It is the only way that we know what success is supposed to feel like. Sure, you can optimize yourself such that you win every balanced challenge faced before you. But no matter how much fun you have role playing, every time you bring out the dice the game will become as fun and suspenseful as accounting. And not the cool kind, (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/loadingreadyrun/6239-Seth-McDebit) either. You'll win. Good for you. Why did you bring out the dice, again? You may as well have just run the fight as a cutscene rather than a rolled battle. It would have saved you time.

Sure, losing a character sucks. But without the possibility of losing something worthwhile (not necessarily the character) with every fight, the fight isn't really worth actually rolling dice for half an hour or more.

So, to add something to my previous suggestions, I recommend that the OP try out an old-school, low-op game. Maybe a different system, like L5R or one of the other ones where any given fight generally means someone's having a bad week. Just to cleanse your palate, at least. Then you can go back to rolling to see how many rounds it takes you to win every combat.

Sorry if I got more heated there than the OP wanted-- this ended up a bit rant-y. Feel free to ignore my tone/words/general annoyance at DnD.

Snowbluff
2012-09-03, 10:09 PM
I'd like to note this: Post 13, Stormwind fallacy invoked by name. Post 14, Stormwind fallacy actually occurs.

By which I mean to say, mention optimization once and within a page you will hear about and see the Stormwind fallacy.



Well, too be honest,I posted that build to challenge this man's assertions. He asked for a build without Natural Spell. I gave him one. /challengeaccepted /challengeturnedinsideoutbybulletsmadeofoptimizatio nawesomeness

Ironically enough this sort of post is probably why the Stormwind Fallacy came into play. Sure, the reverse may be true (There is an exception to every rule, even this one), but snubbing optimizers for problems with your own game while you do not know them is rather inappropiate.

I've played low OP, but honestly, High OP can be risky, too. Sure, my Swiftblades and Batman Wizard eat encounters for breakfast, but being the tactical genius I am is the only reason I get through anything else.

Other times I get lucky. Like my fight versus that Air Necromental. My Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage buddy (yes, 1 level of each lol) got drained to death. I was able to kill it with nothing but my sling and my trusty riding dog Pilbo. Damn thing had fast healing. It took forever. :smalltongue:

eggs
2012-09-03, 10:26 PM
So switch games.

D&D isn't the only game on the market, and I wouldn't call it anywhere near the best. It's just a game with a lot of space to tinker with in a M:tG way; if you're burning out on that, there's no reason you shouldn't drop it.

My core problems comes from this: Optimization is no longer creative or even mentally challenging as a whole. It's gone from great mathematics and number crunching to "Nope sorry, this broken build that can literally beat anything still wins so your build is pointless."
This doesn't sound like as much a problem with optimization as it does like a problem with a community. And I can't say it's undeserved.

KillianHawkeye
2012-09-03, 10:28 PM
It's okay. You've rebooted into Safe Mode. Sometimes when you crash, tinkering about in Safe Mode for a while is the only way to get things straightened out again. In time, you may find that you can run your system again with all of your software applications running at full steam, or you may find that your system works better without all the bells and whistles.

Jack of Spades
2012-09-03, 10:34 PM
Well, too be honest,I posted that build to challenge this man's assertions. He asked for a build without Natural Spell. I gave him one. /challengeaccepted /challengeturnedinsideoutbybulletsmadeofoptimizatio nawesomeness

Ironically enough this sort of post is probably why the Stormwind Fallacy came into play. Sure, the reverse may be true (There is an exception to every rule, even this one), but snubbing optimizers for problems with your own game while you do not know them is rather inappropiate.

I've played low OP, but honestly, High OP can be risky, too. Sure, my Swiftblades and Batman Wizard eat encounters for breakfast, but being the tactical genius I am is the only reason I get through anything else.

Other times I get lucky. Like my fight versus that Air Necromental. My Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage buddy (yes, 1 level of each lol) got drained to death. I was able to kill it with nothing but my sling and my trusty riding dog Pilbo. Damn thing had fast healing. It took forever. :smalltongue:

Well, for one thing, you were post 15 :smallwink:

I guess I was a bit quick to blame the practice of optimization. But when so many people burn out on a game in almost exactly the same way (same flavor of burnout, that is), I'm generally going to assume something is wrong in the mechanics of said game. And optimization is a symptom of a few failures on the game side of how DnD was written and merchandized. So, to clarify/revise. I don't have a problem with the optimizers (other than the ones who behave how I described, and they do exist) as much as I have a problem with game systems which are conducive to optimization.

I'm still going to stand by my suggestion of trying out high-risk low-op though. The single thing that got me back into gaming after a major slump of the sort described was a game of NWoD where we all started as 0-XP mortals in a town beset by just about everything in the books. One life each. It was exciting as hell, and every time we encountered a monster of some kind I came out exhilarated at the fact that my character had managed to survive.

EDIT: Heh, two posts in the time I was writing this. Strange how some forums are more active in the evening.

Lanaya
2012-09-03, 10:38 PM
Which, by the way, is part of the problem with 3.x forums, and the reason why I recommended taking a break. The Stormwind fallacy isn't used just as a way to say that one can optimize and roleplay, it is used as a way to justify snubbing anyone who doesn't optimize as 'not doing it right.'

Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I'll assume it was because I'm terribly egocentric. Also because I feel that you're being a bit unfair, but the egocentrism is the main part. In this case, I brought it up in response to somebody saying that optimisation is bad because it makes roleplaying impossible. Saying that no, it actually doesn't, is not pressuring anyone into optimising or lauding high-op as the one true playstyle, it's saying that every playstyle is fun and viable. I don't think I've ever actually seen Stormwind used to tell people that optimising is the only way to go. Challenging someone's assertion that X > Y isn't necessarily saying that Y > X. They can be equal.

huttj509
2012-09-03, 10:49 PM
I guess I was a bit quick to blame the practice of optimization. But when so many people burn out on a game in almost exactly the same way (same flavor of burnout, that is), I'm generally going to assume something is wrong in the mechanics of said game. And optimization is a symptom of a few failures on the game side of how DnD was written and merchandized. So, to clarify/revise. I don't have a problem with the optimizers (other than the ones who behave how I described, and they do exist) as much as I have a problem with game systems which are conducive to optimization.


I'm inclined to agree. There's a difference between systems where "beginner does A, optimizer does A better (more efficiently, more effectively, but at best something like 2-3x as well), and systems where "beginner possibly fails to be able to do A despite seeming like that's what the choices do, while optimizer breaks the game into tiny little pieces, and needs to set external limits to achieve something generally playable without making angels cry, since he didn't WANT to make angels cry."

My personal position on optimization is that if I want to make a character to do XYZ, it's fine if the system doesn't permit that (not enough build points, etc). It's not fine if the system gives me something that looks like it does XYZ, but doesn't. I detest trap classes/feats. Choosing a character who cannot perform as described should be something done on purpose, not by accident.

Now in terms of "cannot perform," it depends on if you're gathering with friends to play interesting characters, or to play a team with certain roles. They are not exclusive, but can describe an outlook on things. If I tell my friends I'm playing a Tank, and the character I bring cannot Tank (whatever your group understands that to mean), I have failed their expectations. If we're planning to make a team of adventurers, and I try to provide some damage output for when we encounter resistance, and I CANNOT provide the expected damage output, I have failed their expectations.

My character can be interesting, but if we're expecting to be defending the town, and built characters to work together to defend the town, and someone fell for a trap that dopes not perform as claimed, that's not good. If someone CHOOSES to play a fighter with 18 INT and 8 in everything else, or something like that, that's different, and not at all related to the system (if the group's fine with it in their own expectations, by all means go for it! Enjoy!).

obryn
2012-09-03, 10:51 PM
So switch games.
This, pretty much.

IMO, the best way to handle burnout with one system is to play a completely different system. Ideally, you come back to the first one with a new perspective. Or you find one that suits your new needs better and stick with it.

I found that running 1e improved my 4e game. I found that running Call of Cthulhu improved my Arcana Evolved game. I found that running Paranoia for a session or two can rekindle excitement for gaming like nothing else on this planet. I'm going to run some Savage Worlds before long for another palate cleanser.

My own rule is that the more games you learn and play, the better off you are.

-O

Jack of Spades
2012-09-03, 11:01 PM
Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I'll assume it was because I'm terribly egocentric. Also because I feel that you're being a bit unfair, but the egocentrism is the main part. In this case, I brought it up in response to somebody saying that optimisation is bad because it makes roleplaying impossible. Saying that no, it actually doesn't, is not pressuring anyone into optimising or lauding high-op as the one true playstyle, it's saying that every playstyle is fun and viable. I don't think I've ever actually seen Stormwind used to tell people that optimising is the only way to go. Challenging someone's assertion that X > Y isn't necessarily saying that Y > X. They can be equal.

But, reread what you posted. They didn't say anything about the relation between optimization and roleplay. You inferred the relatonship falsely. They merely said "I don't like optimizing my build, so I play a build and a character I like instead." They barely even said anything about roleplay, but you quoted them and the second word of your post was "Stormwind." And that is extremely frustrating to see.

Gamer Girl
2012-09-03, 11:05 PM
I'd like to note this: Post 13, Stormwind fallacy invoked by name. Post 14, Stormwind fallacy actually occurs.


My Post!

Not that I agree with all that 'wind' though.....

I was not attacking a playstlye or anything, I was just relating a True Story. I have seen plenty of players get burned out Optimizing. All of them? of course not! There are always two tables full of Optimizers going through an Alphabet Dungeon or trying out a new build. But some players do get burned out. And of them, some like My more 'hardcore unbalanced and unfair' game. But again, not all. And it's not just Optimizers, I get plenty of players that don't like the safe nerf storytelling game.

My point was that Opimization does not matter much in My 'hardcore unbalanced and unfair' game. And it has worked to 'unburn' optimizers.

Lanaya
2012-09-03, 11:18 PM
But, reread what you posted. They didn't say anything about the relation between optimization and roleplay. You inferred the relatonship falsely. They merely said "I don't like optimizing my build, so I play a build and a character I like instead." They barely even said anything about roleplay, but you quoted them and the second word of your post was "Stormwind." And that is extremely frustrating to see.

"I've never been a fan of optimization in play. The way I see it is that optimal is optimal and you don't need to play a build in order to see how awesome it is. I can look at a fighter with a gazillion strength and know that he'll hit hard. No need to play him. I'd rather play a character with a spontaneous personality and see where that takes me."

I think that's pretty unambiguously saying that an optimised character is just numbers on a sheet and cannot have a personality. Maybe that wasn't valadil's intention, but I think it was what he said. If he had simply said that "I don't care about optimisation, I'd rather play a character with a spontaneous personality and see where that takes me", then yes, that would be saying that he prefers to just build and play a character he likes. But saying that an optimised character need not even be played, because you know everything about them just by looking at their character sheet? The only valid interpretation of that statement I can see is that playing an optimised character is pointless because they are merely a bunch of numbers on a character sheet with no personality, unlike unoptimised characters, which can have the spontaneous personalities he likes. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Even if I am wrong, my intentions were to defend against a perceived attack, not to tell everyone anyone not playing high-op is having badwrongfun.

toapat
2012-09-03, 11:25 PM
The Stormwind Falacy has 2 Parts:

That Optimization and the capacity to roleplay a character are not mutually exclusive

That it shall be missused as a sledge with which to claim that High Op is the way to go.


The part that the Falacy ignores, is that High Optimization actually does limit gameplay significantly. If you want to play someone better then low Tier 3, you are going to start to hurt the story potential of the game. Challenges become less so, and the DM has a much harder time responding to this. CR was never good enough as it is.

Medic!
2012-09-03, 11:35 PM
Character creation has always been a somewhat religious experience for me. I love rolling the dice, then pick a basic character concept, and see where it goes. I've always personally thought of D&D as stepping into the shoes of a character that already exists in the world and sharing his story with him as opposed to creating a character to insert into the world and creating his story. It never mattered if I was playing the dumb orc fighter or the gestalt orc barb/ftr/FB/warhulk with headlong rush and pounce who one-shot a maralith at level 8, or the dwarven monk who called himself Stone-Dome and headbutted everything to smithereens.

I tend to play melees almost as a rule, and I've gone through dozens each of monks, fighters, crusaders, warblades, rangers....each one was a completely different person with a new personality that just seemed to manifest itself as the campaign moved along. To me, that's always been the draw and the magic that keeps me coming back session after session. When the folks at our table make new characters, I don't say "Let me see your sheet." I say "Tell me about Ja'viron...introduce me."

Reluctance
2012-09-03, 11:39 PM
Count me as another "switch games" person. It really sounds like you're burnt out on the character building subgame, so switching to something else entirely is probably your best bet.

Also, focusing on build does tend to inhibit characterization. There's nothing wrong with mechanically supporting "I'm good at X" by actually being good with X. Focusing on a build gimmick does tend to make your character feel more like a build gimmick than anything else.

Anxe
2012-09-03, 11:46 PM
StoneDome? :smallamused:

navar100
2012-09-03, 11:56 PM
Welcome to my world. Now you understand why I think the tier system is bunk. I know it's not exactly your point, but the philosophy is the same. People forget it's just a game and get all technical in the math. All this talk about Natural Spell druids pwning the game, wizards Gate chaining Solars, Fighters always failing their will saving throws and suck donkey when faced with a large four-legged flying creature with 10 ft reach is all malarkey.

Now, I don't want to derail this thread talking about the tiers, so for those of you who swear by it just let met say the above for my opinion and leave it at that.

I'm proud to be a power gamer and enjoy making characters that are kewl for me, but the theoretical horror stores you hear about non-balance is only in theory. If a player does try to Win D&D the DM stops it. An inexperienced DM won't, but that's how he learns. It's not all inexperienced DMs. Some novices can spot it and stop it. It's not about Oberoni here. You can recognize the legality but still put a stop to it and not resent it.

To encourage the less mathematical optimal characters, however, the DM needs to not punish the choice. With the Fighter having a 16 intelligence that should mean something. Mathwise have encounters where the Fighter gets to use her skills she dedicated. Roleplaywise let her be clever. Sometimes auto-fiat success in some non-combat task because she's smart enough to do it. She knows stuff without having to make a Knowledge roll. That's for the specific example given, but the idea is the point. Reinforce the non-optimal choices.

Medic!
2012-09-04, 12:02 AM
StoneDome? :smallamused:

Dang skippy! Used Decisive Strike from PHB2 and Soulwarp Strike from Complete Mage to fit his fighting style. Head-to-crotch-Fu!

Or, as we referred to it at the table: Nuts to mah dome!

Knaight
2012-09-04, 04:01 AM
I guess I was a bit quick to blame the practice of optimization. But when so many people burn out on a game in almost exactly the same way (same flavor of burnout, that is), I'm generally going to assume something is wrong in the mechanics of said game. And optimization is a symptom of a few failures on the game side of how DnD was written and merchandized. So, to clarify/revise. I don't have a problem with the optimizers (other than the ones who behave how I described, and they do exist) as much as I have a problem with game systems which are conducive to optimization.
It's almost certainly an issue with the game. D&D 3.5 claims to be balanced, is as opaque and obtuse as possible when it comes to inner workings (to the point of containing outright lies as to what works and what doesn't into descriptions), and is enough of a mess that you need a decent amount of knowledge just to do some things without them collapsing and a decent amount of knowledge just to do other things without them being too effective, with the system failing to distinguish between these things. Then, on top of that, it loads up the DMG with terrible advice and makes it hard to enter as a GM. It's a mess, and while there is a lot that it has going for it, the flaws are glaring. This is part of why it sees the analysis it does, why feats, classes and such are evaluated, because it simply becomes more usable when some level of transparency is introduced.

Given all that, it's not surprised that people burn out on the game. I burned out early, as I was starting as a GM and trying to follow the DMGs godawful advice, which includes a truly ridiculous amount of planning that I always hated. Yet, I didn't burn out on the hobby, because most of the problems in D&D are not there in other games. The hobby has improved through decades of refinement, where D&D is still very much stuck in the past.

Yora
2012-09-04, 04:34 AM
I don't know. I think 3rd and 4th Edition as well as Pathfinder and other adapatations are their own type of RPG. One which I am not really fond of.
But it's not so much an issue of D&D. Older editions and the announcements for the new Edition are quite different.

NichG
2012-09-04, 06:36 AM
I've found that weird limitations and extra considerations can bring the spice back to this kind of thing.

Take E6 for example. Optimizing in E6 can be a completely different beast than optimizing in standard 3.5ed. Feats become very cheap and levels very dear, so you can consider doing stuff like getting 20 copies of Roll With It or other weird choices, and they're not that bad.

Advanced d20 Magic also changes the grounds a lot. Now its all about pumping your saves, and why be a Wizard when Fighters can cast spells more reliably? Orange is green and the sky flows like a river up hill, and you have to recompute; it becomes new.

As a DM, learning how to make a subsystem that causes players to recompute their plans is a useful skill. As a player, encountering and embracing those subsystems can be refreshing.

You could even do challenges that don't change the system. For instance, a Lv10 campaign where you are handed the first 5 levels of your character and then must choose the next 5, plus assign your stats. A campaign where you are making a character for the person to your left, and the goal is to make a character whose mechanics are easily-enough understood that they can take advantage of what you've made, etc.

kyoryu
2012-09-04, 12:47 PM
I'd suggest trying to get into other aspects of roleplaying besides optimization. Try a different system, preferably one which has minimal opportunity for optimization.

Roguenewb
2012-09-04, 03:57 PM
Someone made an excellent statement, one of the big problems with 3.5 is that the books lie to you. The books are full of lies about what classes and such do (Wizards are for blasting! You need healing! Trapfinding is essential! Monks are great mage-slayers! Weapon Focus makes you great with a weapon!). I think of learning 3.5 as an apprenticeship to more experienced players, not a study course you learn by reading all the books.

Yora
2012-09-04, 04:11 PM
It's not that they lie. It's just that the writers of the PHB had no idea what tens of thousands of people working together over 5 years could do by trying out and testing any imaginable and unimaginable combination of everything.
And then poeple started making splatbooks, unaware of how many new combinations every single new element could possibly enable.

If you don't search the internet to learn about all those creative combinations, you are unlikely to ever find even just a tiny fraction of them by just playing with your group.

Drynwyn
2012-09-04, 04:15 PM
Sure, you can copy-paste pun-pun, if you only want the result. But you can also try and make new builds. Old tricks, though, are still useful, and certain things just don't work. However, there are lots of other fun ways to optimize, especially if you're playing under a DM who sets limits.

Or, you can focus on enjoying the roleplaying aspect of the game, and focus your "optimization" on creating some unique, highly unusual tactics and abilities for your character.

Hiro Protagonest
2012-09-04, 04:46 PM
D&D is a wondrous game. It's often the only TTRPG new guys know about. They go to a store, buy the Player's Handbook and perhaps some others, find a group, and that group says "4e sucks, here, borrow my 3.5 Player's Handbook/Pathfinder Core Rulebook".

That is the first step towards seeing just how terrible D&D is.

For some people, it ends there. They build stats out of concepts, rather than the other way around, and they rarely venture beyond core and the Completes in search of stuff. They somehow end up roughly balanced with each other. Others are particularly keen-eyed, able to see how broken Shapechange is compared to the Weapon Focus line, and leave to find a 4e group.

For others, it goes farther. Some of the ones who see 3.5's flaws don't leave for 4e, either because they can't find a 4e group or because their best friends are in the 3.5 group. There are guys who read OotS, and that goes to GitP forums, and... here we are. Others find the old Wizards CharOp boards, or RPG.net, or MinMax boards, and end up in similar situations.

From that point, some continue to play, never fully satisfied. Others find pleasure in building a concept out from stats, and still enjoy the game. Still others manage to ignore what they've learned, and go along with the low-op and the fiat, still having fun.

People like me, they find other systems. I'm considering trying to find a 4e group IRL. If they still run Encounters, that would probably be a good way to get a group. Other games would be Spirit of the Century, modified for fantasy/modern/superhero/whatever. White Wolf games are good, with Exalted 3e holding hope, and I'm considering getting nWoD. I'm also considering getting Champions. Something other than d20, and what I've heard of GURPS doesn't interest me.

Craft (Cheese)
2012-09-04, 05:23 PM
What is D&D? A miserable little pile of secrets!

*throws wine glass*


Seriously, nobody's made this joke yet?

Lanaya
2012-09-04, 05:31 PM
What is D&D? A miserable little pile of secrets!

*throws wine glass*


Seriously, nobody's made this joke yet?

I was considering 'baby don't hurt me', but decided against it. :smallwink:

Ozfer
2012-09-04, 06:38 PM
Reading this, I glanced to my right, where my character sheet is sitting-

Kenthis, human sorcerer

Spells-
True Strike
Break

Feats-
Longbow Proficiency
Scribe Scroll


The point is, it's a role-playing game for a reason. Optimization has its moments, but personally, I always try to make interesting, not necessarily optimized characters.

This one in particular is against killing, and wouldn't be all that efficient at it if he tried. (Hence the break spell).

But, I think its a fun character to play (Hopefully, I'll fight a wizard and get to say, "Your staff is broken wizard-man".

+1 internet if you get the reference.


This has turned out to be a rather rambly post, but quick recap-

Characters aren't just numbers on a sheet. Sometimes, the most fun in a system isn't the crunch, but the fluff- Such as spells like passwall, stone to mud, flesh to stone, cleave, weapon finesse... etc...

toapat
2012-09-04, 07:19 PM
"Tell me about Ja'viron...introduce me."

are you running a PbP game that could use a new paladin?

anyway, what people really need to remember about DnD being an RPG is that you dont just have a Role, you have to Play the game. High Op stops being fun because High Op doesnt work to play the game, it tries to win the game. Anything over Tier 3 becomes a problem if you play them at tier because over T3, you stop playing and just start winning.

Snowbluff
2012-09-04, 09:04 PM
What is D&D? A miserable little pile of secrets!

*throws wine glass*


Seriously, nobody's made this joke yet?

I got it. I loled.

You see, the major problem here is that the OP condemns number crunchy styles of play while:

A) The OP made a thread where people number crunch the highest skills in certain categories.

B) The most powerful things in DnD are not based in number games, but rather issues of fiat, like a straight up immunities or avoiding saves/SR/said immunities to cause instant victory.

Sure, this is rockets tag, but it's rocket tag with gods, not with arbitrarily high damage rockets.

Socratov
2012-09-05, 09:19 AM
I know how you feel buddy, after my first character in a TTRPG ever died I had the same thing. Afterwards I rebooted into wanting the most powerful thing and after being BSOD'd again upon hearing about pun-pun I just thought what the hell, why don't I 'just' have fun and play whatever I like (or adheres to the current rule of cool the most). Hell, if I want to play I'd better enjoy it, if I'm not entertained neough it is my own problem. that's why I dont just do CharOP, it is silly no matter how you think of it, I use ConOP. ConOP, or Concept Optimization, finding out the best way to give flesh to a concept you are willing to play, or in more basic terms: catering to your desires. Now here's the gem, ConOP and CharOP are not mutually exclusive. You can optimise your character's power to a certain degree whiel staying within concept limits. The way to do this is to make a shallow version of a background first (more liek the opening of your backstory), aka fluff, and fill in the crunch according to taste of fluff.

to put it into a metaphor, when driving a car you might just want to enjoy the landscape instead of just speeding your way to the end. How fast you will go depends on your particular taste for enjoyment of the landscape.

QuidEst
2012-09-05, 09:44 AM
I almost always start with a character, then work towards a class. At the beginning, I find what fits the character best. Once that's done, I start making concessions in order to make the character practical. (Switching some fluff spells out for practical staples like Haste, trading out a fun item or two for a Cloak of Resistance, invest a little less in my dump stat, etc.) If the initial character idea was interesting, then I should end up with something fun and enjoyable at the end.

Of course, it's also possible to work from an optimized concept and do something fun. My friend had a high-op dragonborn anthropomorphic bat druid/planar shepherd (although no 10-actions-for-one silliness). I came up with a cool backstory in which the adventurers on his home plane (populated by dragonborn anthropomorphic bats) had failed, and the BBEG had unleashed a dark deity that annihilated all life on the planet, reshaping it into his own twisted image. The only survivors were those able to leave the plane in time- the character's mentor was able to get him out just in time. His foray into planar magic has been an attempt to reconnect with his home plane and find out what happened to it.

One thing I found that I enjoyed was playing Pathfinder. You have more feats to spend, so you don't have to put as many towards optimization. You're rewarded for not playing a crazy multi-classed character. Full casters are the only ones with any dead levels at all, and even they have a number of those filled in. And with a lot of game-breaking stuff pulled out (not all, of course), that's less of an issue.

navar100
2012-09-05, 09:55 PM
Sure, you can copy-paste pun-pun, if you only want the result. But you can also try and make new builds. Old tricks, though, are still useful, and certain things just don't work. However, there are lots of other fun ways to optimize, especially if you're playing under a DM who sets limits.

Or, you can focus on enjoying the roleplaying aspect of the game, and focus your "optimization" on creating some unique, highly unusual tactics and abilities for your character.

Woe, on the cusp of Stormwind there.

navar100
2012-09-05, 09:57 PM
are you running a PbP game that could use a new paladin?

anyway, what people really need to remember about DnD being an RPG is that you dont just have a Role, you have to Play the game. High Op stops being fun because High Op doesnt work to play the game, it tries to win the game. Anything over Tier 3 becomes a problem if you play them at tier because over T3, you stop playing and just start winning.

Don't speak for me. I enjoy games quite well when a wizard, cleric, or druid is in the party, whether I'm playing one or not. If you have a problem with them, gosh darn.

Medic!
2012-09-05, 11:26 PM
are you running a PbP game that could use a new paladin?

heh, I haven't tried my hand at PbP yet...I'm still fairly new to PbP in general and not feeling THAT tough yet!

toapat
2012-09-05, 11:37 PM
Don't speak for me. I enjoy games quite well when a wizard, cleric, or druid is in the party, whether I'm playing one or not. If you have a problem with them, gosh darn.

Im not saying having any of them in the party is unfun, What i said is that playing anything over T3 starts to degrade the quality of the game, because you start reducing the value of partymembers, Tier 1 is Tier 1 because anything T1 is a monkeywrench to the game when played as Tier 1.

123456789blaaa
2012-09-06, 12:50 PM
Im not saying having any of them in the party is unfun, What i said is that playing anything over T3 starts to degrade the quality of the game, because you start reducing the value of partymembers, Tier 1 is Tier 1 because anything T1 is a monkeywrench to the game when played as Tier 1.

The bolded part is important. It is perfectly possible for a tier 1 class to not dominate his other party members if he doesn' play them to their potential. It's not even that hard to do so.

Amphetryon
2012-09-06, 01:21 PM
I was considering 'baby don't hurt me', but decided against it. :smallwink:

:smallfurious: Thanks for the earworm.

Scow2
2012-09-06, 02:16 PM
My view on the whole "Optimization" angle is... Well, I WANT to create the more exotic characters, but I know that ultimately, they won't actually be able to do what I want them to. The way the system handles feats (And the staggering number of "Feat Taxes" each class has... Goddamn Weapon Finesse!), and spontaneous casters handle spells are the biggest problems.

My problem is that I can't say "I'll deliberately nerf myself" when I'm trying to build a character... such as the archetypical dagger-reliant rogue (Daggers are the worst weapon in the game, period).

When I play D&D, it is a chance to roleplay, but it is also a game. And when I play a game, I play to win.

toapat
2012-09-06, 05:28 PM
Daggers are the worst weapon in the game, period

not even remotely. Daggers have a crit that doesnt make moma cry.

No, Shurikens are the worst weapons in DnD. At least Improvised weapons deal 1d6

Knaight
2012-09-06, 05:47 PM
not even remotely. Daggers have a crit that doesnt make moma cry.

No, Shurikens are the worst weapons in DnD. At least Improvised weapons deal 1d6

They also do slashing and piercing, double as a thrown weapon, and can be used in a grapple.

toapat
2012-09-06, 07:38 PM
They also do slashing and piercing, double as a thrown weapon, and can be used in a grapple.

daggers can too, plus, daggers can additionally deal bludgeon

Hiro Protagonest
2012-09-06, 07:45 PM
daggers can too, plus, daggers can additionally deal bludgeon

Er, I'm pretty sure he was talking about daggers.

Medic!
2012-09-06, 07:49 PM
Er, I'm pretty sure he was talking about daggers.

yeah but everyone else is discussing daggers.

Knaight
2012-09-06, 07:52 PM
daggers can too, plus, daggers can additionally deal bludgeon

I'm talking about daggers. The shruiken actually can't do most of the stuff listed. That said, daggers can't do bludgeon by default.

Mike_G
2012-09-06, 09:05 PM
Nothing wrong with daggers. Sure a d4 is a small die, but most of the Rogue's damage is going to come from Sneak Attack anyway. They can be thrown at need, easy to use for TWF.

And you can conceal a dagger, which is useful for a Rogue. Hard to slip a Rapier up your sleeve.

You don't need to go hardcore optimization. I never have, my group never has. We have people who will cheerfully play Monks and Fighters and Soulknives.


I don't enjoy the optimization game for its own sake. I try to pick decent feats and skills and so on, but I don't have the time or inclination to dig through a dozen splatbooks.

And you can still enjoy D&D with a Sword and Board Fighter with the Weapon Focus chain.

Heliomance
2012-09-06, 09:14 PM
If we're going Stormwind, I'll just say that I'm currently playing (or would be, if the game wasn't on hiatus) a Shadowcraft Gnome. Mechanically, it's probably the best optimised, tightest build I've ever played in a real game. From a fluff and personality perpective, she's one of my favourite characters that I've ever created, and I desperately want to play out her story.

But optimisation doesn't have to break the game. If you can't stop yourself optimising - and I know I find it hard to - the solution is easy. Optimise a sub-optimal concept. Other people have said it. Come up with an idea that would normally be absolutely terrible if built by a novice, and make it work. Play a Soulknife, or a Truenamer. Play a parkour running street thief who's never in the same place for two moments in a row. Be the best damn healer that ever mended a broken bone. Play an enlightened kobold Monk. Some great fun can be had that way.

...now I want to play a kobold Monk.

toapat
2012-09-06, 09:55 PM
Nothing wrong with daggers. Sure a d4 is a small die, but most of the Rogue's damage is going to come from Sneak Attack anyway. They can be thrown at need, easy to use for TWF.

And you can conceal a dagger, which is useful for a Rogue. Hard to slip a Rapier up your sleeve.

You don't need to go hardcore optimization. I never have, my group never has. We have people who will cheerfully play Monks and Fighters and Soulknives.


I don't enjoy the optimization game for its own sake. I try to pick decent feats and skills and so on, but I don't have the time or inclination to dig through a dozen splatbooks.

And you can still enjoy D&D with a Sword and Board Fighter with the Weapon Focus chain.

Optimization for the sake of a concept you want to play>optimization for the sake of Optimization.

if you want to play the Raw Optimization game, really, just convince your DM to let your party have pun-pun as a member, because you dont really care about the game if you just want to shatter the rules into tiny little pieces, instead of playing them