PDA

View Full Version : Reasons I'll Never Win D&D



Scorpina
2007-04-17, 08:37 AM
A confession, of sorts, I suppose. I've been on this board for *checks* the best part of three years now. I've been playing D&D for about four, and before that I played the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games (not that I don't still play them, mind...). However, in spite of all this I've never been the kind who actually notices the supposed balance issues that take up so much space in this particular forum. I certainly never noticed the 'CoDzilla' phenomenon until it was given a (rather silly) name and pointed out to me.

I actually like to play Bards. I read so many posts bemoaning how underpowered they are, how useless they are, and how Marshall (whatever that is) is better, but none the less, I love Bards to bits. It might just be nostalgia (my first ever D&D character was a Bard who didn't put her first rank in Perform until Level 2 because I put all my skill points in Knowledge at character creation) but I have more fun playing them than I did the one time I played an 'optimized' TLN-style Wizard.

On that subject, the one time I did play a TLN-style Wizard I didn't have much fun, at all. I can't really explain why, since I was basically unto a god that none of the enemies our poor beleagured Dungeon Master was throwing at us could hope to challenge, but it just wasn't as much fun as playing a Bard or a Barbarian for me.

Finally, I've used Monkey Grip. There, I said it. Not only that but I used Monkey Grip to wield a large longsword while also carrying a shield. With a Fighter. So naturally the character was totally 'underpowered' (as opposed to the Cleric I played in the game before that one, who naturally must have been 'CoDzilla') but, you know what, I enjoyed playing him.

...I'm never going to win D&D, am I?

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 08:40 AM
Congratulations, I suppose?


...incidentally, why do people feel that "I play unoptimized characters!" is some kind of virtue?

Ranis
2007-04-17, 08:41 AM
...I'm never going to win D&D, am I?

No, because, that's not the point. You play your D&D how you want to, and as long as you're having fun with your fantasy experience, everything else is kosher.

And, I LOVE bards too. Playing one right now, he's so fun ^_^

EDIT: BWL, it's considered a virtue because, IMHO, people here seem to glorify min/maxing on a large scale.

The Great Skenardo
2007-04-17, 08:42 AM
@Bears
Probably in reaction to the number-crunching and sometimes fairly petty arguments that break out about which class is "best."

Not that I'm saying that's manifestly the case, mark you.

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 08:44 AM
A confession, of sorts, I suppose. I've been on this board for *checks* the best part of three years now. I've been playing D&D for about four, and before that I played the Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale games (not that I don't still play them, mind...). However, in spite of all this I've never been the kind who actually notices the supposed balance issues that take up so much space in this particular forum. I certainly never noticed the 'CoDzilla' phenomenon until it was given a (rather silly) name and pointed out to me.

I actually like to play Bards. I read so many posts bemoaning how underpowered they are, how useless they are, and how Marshall (whatever that is) is better, but none the less, I love Bards to bits. It might just be nostalgia (my first ever D&D character was a Bard who didn't put her first rank in Perform until Level 2 because I put all my skill points in Knowledge at character creation) but I have more fun playing them than I did the one time I played an 'optimized' TLN-style Wizard.

On that subject, the one time I did play a TLN-style Wizard I didn't have much fun, at all. I can't really explain why, since I was basically unto a god that none of the enemies our poor beleagured Dungeon Master was throwing at us could hope to challenge, but it just wasn't as much fun as playing a Bard or a Barbarian for me.

Finally, I've used Monkey Grip. There, I said it. Not only that but I used Monkey Grip to wield a large longsword while also carrying a shield. With a Fighter. So naturally the character was totally 'underpowered' (as opposed to the Cleric I played in the game before that one, who naturally must have been 'CoDzilla') but, you know what, I enjoyed playing him.

...I'm never going to win D&D, am I?

Um... since when has DnD been about "winning"?

Sure, there are ways of playing optimized characters, or optimizing characters to do X or Y or Z, but in then end as always it's whatever you have the most fun with.

The problem most people who enjoy the mental game of optimization have is when someone comes along and says "Warlocks/Scouts/Monks/Whatever are so damn overpowered!" When, as shown countless times they are *not*. Then after being shown, again, what the problems are the quip is always "Well not after spellcaster houserule/nerf X/Y/Z" or "But numbers don't matter if its what I like to play!" Which goes against the basic argument that the class is, yknow, overpowered.

You don't need to play an optimized character if your having fun. Sure it helps survive encounters and most people have a better time when they feel like they're really good at something, but play what you will. No ones going to say your doing it wrong.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 08:45 AM
I don't think the term "win D&D" has ever been used seriously as anything other than an abbreviation for "be fairly powerful".

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 08:47 AM
BWL, it's considered a virtue because, IMHO, people here seem to glorify min/maxing on a large scale.

I'm sorry, but no. Only in certain circumstances where it is completely unviable (epic level, a few other situations) people are advised to play whatever character they want, but can be helped along with whatever else to do that *better*.

Fluff and Crunch are in *no way* connected. Being able to actually effect the game world has nothing to do with your ability to play a role, and is for the most part more fun to do as well... unless you enjoy being good at nothing, which is fine, but a bit odd in my opinion.

Indon
2007-04-17, 08:48 AM
Of course you can't win D&D. I win D&D, thus precluding anyone else from being able to.

But seriously, having fun is winning D&D. Even the most ridiculous character optimizer has the potential to realize this.

Also, if you think the title "CoDzilla" is funny, try referring to clerics or druids in the singular; "Oh, hey, you're playing a Druid? Excellent, we could really use some Dzilla in the party."

Whisper
2007-04-17, 08:48 AM
I think that you should play the characters you enjoy playing. I've played all the basic character types but I do prefer rogues. I have never tried to optimise a character. I always choose the skills and abilities I think each character would have depending on their particular style and personality.

The Great Skenardo
2007-04-17, 08:50 AM
As long as we're reminiscing about "non-optimized" characters, I'll throw in my memories of Yog the barbarian. The charm of the character came in the little rhymes he would make, and how easily he was pleased by simple things.
Like pushing over monoliths.
Sure, his will save was pretty abysmal, and you couldn't sneak around worth a darn with Yog around, but if half your party is in stitches or shaking their heads while trying to suppress laughter, then you're having a good time.

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 08:50 AM
I think that you should play the characters you enjoy playing. I've played all the basic character types but I do prefer rogues. I have never tried to optimise a character. I always choose the skills and abilities I think each character would have depending on their particular style and personality.

Never? So you never put say, an 18 in dex and selected weapon finesse as your third level feat? Your feats and skills are all chosen at random and have no synergy whatsoever?

Everyone optimizes, its the nature of the game. Really its just the extent that you want to go with it thats the difference.

Ozzy_G
2007-04-17, 08:50 AM
As someone who DMs much more than plays, I hate min-maxers. Especially at high levels (the game I DMed before the current one went as high as lvl 25 before the characters were retired, all of them being powerful rulers), and you can do some stupid stuff. One guy wanted to use the metamagic feat that allows you to extend a spell to 24 hours, the divine feat that allows you to power metamagic with Turn Undead, and Shapechange, to be a Planetar all the time. So I banned Shapechange. Because it wouldn't have been fun: he would just be far too hard. Another time, a player made an evoker/red wizard, who would generally kill most monsters in one turn. Which made all the fights very short, and none of the other players got to do anything if he rolled the highest initiative.
If characters are too good, it removes the challenge. And without a challenge, the game is boring. It's the reason when I do play, I don't like playing clerics. They are, simply, the best, but I find them boring. I just don't see the point of playing a character that is ridiculously powerful, unless you're at high level and fighting ridiculously powerful monsters, so it balances out. Also, I tend to do a lot of RP, so I want rounded characters, and min-maxed characters tend not to be like that.

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 08:56 AM
As someone who DMs much more than plays, I hate min-maxers. Especially at high levels (the game I DMed before the current one went as high as lvl 25 before the characters were retired, all of them being powerful rulers), and you can do some stupid stuff. One guy wanted to use the metamagic feat that allows you to extend a spell to 24 hours, the divine feat that allows you to power metamagic with Turn Undead, and Shapechange, to be a Planetar all the time. So I banned Shapechange. Because it wouldn't have been fun: he would just be far too hard.

Your complaining about persistant metamagic... at level 25?! When theres, yknow, EPIC magic? That is DnDs only "Win Button"

And he would be just far too hard? For you to DM for because what? He has high abilitiy scores and can fly? At those levels?!


Another time, a player made an evoker/red wizard, who would generally kill most monsters in one turn. Which made all the fights very short, and none of the other players got to do anything if he rolled the highest initiative.

An evoker... killing everything? So you just threw packs of low-level mooks at them, or single targets that you made focus on your "tank"?


If characters are too good, it removes the challenge. And without a challenge, the game is boring. It's the reason when I do play, I don't like playing clerics. They are, simply, the best, but I find them boring. I just don't see the point of playing a character that is ridiculously powerful, unless you're at high level and fighting ridiculously powerful monsters, so it balances out. Also, I tend to do a lot of RP, so I want rounded characters, and min-maxed characters tend not to be like that.

Um... I really don't know what to say other than this:

Some people like performing amazing feats and playing heroic fantasy. DnD is pretty damn decent for this. A grittier, down to earth campaign is better suited to a system that really supports it.

Not that it can't be done in DnD, its just far more difficult and.. odd.

Saph
2007-04-17, 08:56 AM
Never? So you never put say, an 18 in dex and selected weapon finesse as your third level feat? Your feats and skills are all chosen at random and have no synergy whatsoever?

Everyone optimizes, its the nature of the game. Really its just the extent that you want to go with it thats the difference.

There is a huge difference between making a character reasonably effective, and "optimising" in the way that the guys on the WotC CharOp boards do it. It's the difference between playing a backyard game of football with your kids, and training to get onto the national team. It really is a completely different mentality, and people who can do the first often just can't do the second (or don't enjoy it if they do). I think that's the point Scorpina's making.

- Saph

The Great Skenardo
2007-04-17, 08:59 AM
As someone who DMs much more than plays, I hate min-maxers.

I've got a mate like that. He holds that any character that doesn't have at least one 18 stat is worthless and not worth playing.
It's mitigated a little by the fact that this person is kinda obsessive-compulsive and extremely competitive, but it's still annoying to hear him complain.

Another character that made for great fun was Albert Wooster, the sorceror. Due to a homebrewed (and rather ineffectual) character generation method, Albert Wooster ended up being 17th-level in a party ranging between 10th and 15th level, and additionally was given the flaw that he always casts the right spell at the wrong time and the wrong spell at the right time.

It was pretty unbalanced, actually. Luckily, his Wisdom score was rolled low enough for me to play him less effectively and let the others get a chance to shine. (There were still awkward moments. In Albert's rush to cast haste on the party, he neglected to get plot-vital NPCs out of the area of effect, should he accidentally cast a fireball instead. It was grim.)

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 09:01 AM
There is a huge difference between making a character reasonably effective, and "optimising" in the way that the guys on the WotC CharOp boards do it. It's the difference between playing a backyard game of football with your kids, and training to get onto the national team. It really is a completely different mentality, and people who can do the first often just can't do the second (or don't enjoy it if they do). I think that's the point Scorpina's making.

- Saph

I'm sorry Saph, but thats the Stormwind Fallacy rearing its ugly head again. Not everyone who optimizes does it 100% to the extreme. I don't think I've *ever* seen someone say "Oh you want to play a rogue? screw that crap wizards are so much better".

A lot of people optimize a concept dispite it being less powerful than something else. Still, if you want to play a "crazy unarmed fighter" theres no difference to the character what class you pick, but a swordsage is a far more optimal choice than a monk.

Chris_Chandler
2007-04-17, 09:02 AM
I don't think the term "win D&D" has ever been used seriously as anything other than an abbreviation for "be fairly powerful".

2 years ago I'd have agreed with this. Now, it's been said too often. The new folks that come into the game didn't get to hear it as sarcasm, or even as a beleaguered phrase to point out a power discrepancy. Now, too often, this phrase is interpreted as a mantra, and taken seriously, to the point where a "non optimal build" is seen rather as an "unacceptable build". It might not be the intention, but it isn't coming across that way anymore.

To answer your earlier statement, I think that it's just a pendulum swing, really - an answer to treating the attitude of "I can make characters that are completely mechanically dominating" as a virtue.

Ranis
2007-04-17, 09:02 AM
There is a huge difference between making a character reasonably effective, and "optimising" in the way that the guys on the WotC CharOp boards do it. It's the difference between playing a backyard game of football with your kids, and training to get onto the national team. It really is a completely different mentality, and people who can do the first often just can't do the second (or don't enjoy it if they do). I think that's the point Scorpina's making.

- Saph

I was going to say this, but you said it better than I could have.

There is a large difference between putting 18 Dex and slapping in Weapon Finesse because it makes sense for your character rather than trying to make him Batman in every way.

Indon
2007-04-17, 09:02 AM
I'm sorry Saph, but thats the Stormwind Fallacy rearing its ugly head again. Not everyone who optimizes does it 100% to the extreme. I don't think I've *ever* seen someone say "Oh you want to play a rogue? screw that crap wizards are so much better".


Except for on this board. (or at least, to that effect)

But people often don't act the same on the internet as they do in real life, I guess.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-17, 09:02 AM
If the characters are too powerful, you just make all the enemies harder. CR be damned! :P

Really though, it's perfectly fine to play a character because they're fun to play. I actually despise playing arcane spellcasters, for example. Beguiler is the closest I'll get. I also don't like druids. Clerics are the ONLY member of the power four that I'll actually play, and I still rarely play them. It's not because I purposely like underpowered characters and want to be underpowered in order to win some roleplaying award, because that's ridiculous. I do it because those aren't the sort of characters I want to be in a fantasy world. It's after that when I start shamelessly optimizing, because I just found my weapon of choice and would now like to also be a useful character on top of a fun one.

dungeon_munky
2007-04-17, 09:03 AM
I sometimes feel this way. This effect comes from me wanting to play things that I enjoy, while a bunch of my friends are nattering on about their optimization and how awsome he'll be at level 16. Although I can usually shut them up pretty quick by saying "My character has personality and is awesome now."

Interestingly enough, one of the few people I've met that never talks about numbers while gaming is a guy who's playing a Goliath Fighter that dealt 110 damage at level 3. Granted, he was enlarged and bull's strengthed by the cleric, and has a weapon with a x4 crit.

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 09:03 AM
Except for on this board. (or at least, to that effect)

But people often don't act the same on the internet as they do in real life, I guess.

I meant on this board.

Please, if you have a thread that has nothing to do with Epic-Level play where someone has said this, I'd love to see it.

The Great Skenardo
2007-04-17, 09:04 AM
Your complaining about persistant metamagic... at level 25?! When theres, yknow, EPIC magic? That is DnDs only "Win Button"
And he would be just far too hard? For you to DM for because what? He has high abilitiy scores and can fly? At those levels?!


For those who actually care to read:

I can actually vouch for the unbalancing effects of such magic. Consider a monk optimized towards grappling and acrobatics. Now consider a helpful wizard friend who makes liberal use of Polymorph to boost his allies. Since virtually all of the monk class abilities are Extraordinary or skill-based, you can exchange your +0 lv. adjustment fleshbag for several more martial forms. (Various types of trolls, Remoraz, etc.).
The problem with the Solar idea, I think is that you essentially gain a wide variety of abilities as well as a sizeable increase in stats without diminishing your effectiveness at all.

Fhaolan
2007-04-17, 09:05 AM
Yeah, a lot of people here like the mental exercise of optimizing characters. That doesn't mean they actually *play* those characters. It's just an exercise to see what they can achieve within the rules.

I'm not an optimizer, but I like seeing the kinds of things optimizers can do with my character concepts. I do on occasion throw a character to the 'wolves' on this board just to see what they come up with.

As a side note: Not once have they said 'No, play a Wizard instead' to me. That was always brought up by someone else who was complaining about that being their only answer.

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 09:08 AM
For those who actually care to read:

I can actually vouch for the unbalancing effects of such magic. Consider a monk optimized towards grappling and acrobatics. Now consider a helpful wizard friend who makes liberal use of Polymorph to boost his allies. Since virtually all of the monk class abilities are Extraordinary or skill-based, you can exchange your +0 lv. adjustment fleshbag for several more martial forms. (Various types of trolls, Remoraz, etc.).
The problem with the Solar idea, I think is that you essentially gain a wide variety of abilities as well as a sizeable increase in stats without diminishing your effectiveness at all.


But... your level 25!

You are a full spellcaster. You have access to Epic Magic.

Epic Magic wins DnD to such an extent that people just don't play with it. Being able to polymorph into a solar is *nothing* compared to being absolutly immune to everything and able to do rediculious things with magic.

Indon
2007-04-17, 09:08 AM
Hmm. Is there a way to link a post from a thread without isolating it from the context of its' thread?

Zincorium
2007-04-17, 09:10 AM
I'm going to chime in with 'there is a serious misconception afoot here' as my take on the OP.

There isn't anything wrong with bards as long as you actually figure out what bards are good at and don't go by the 'jack of all trades' marketing hype that makes them out to be something they're not. I know the sig might lead you to believe otherwise, but I don't mind having a bard in the party, although I don't find they fit my character concepts.

Anyway, monkey grip, while it has some stigma on these boards, is only going to cause an argument if you claimed that your monkey-gripping, shield using character was, how to put it, 'teh Uber'. That would not be the case, you'd probably be straight up mediocre and the DM would be advised to take your character into consideration when planning encounters. Likewise the DM should steer people away from the TLN-ish wizards due to the encounters they can and should negate easily.



Okay, here's the real gist of 'winning' D&D: most people who claim they can do so have no idea how to optimize, and it's best if they're left that way. As long as the DM knows the books well enough to keep them from abusing the rules, there's very little harm a monk or warlock can do to an otherwise reasonable game.

I know that both BWL and I play melee characters a lot, and I often play systemless games with my old group of friends. What this means is, despite seeing and acknowledging all the rules uses and abuses that would make me the most powerful, I've decided not to bring them into the game because I wouldn't enjoy the result.

I'm planning on playing a half-drow warmage next game. Will he probably be one of the least optimized characters that I've ever put onto paper since 3.0 came out? Yep. But he'll fit the power level of the group well. I still plan on taking feats and skills that help me do my job, I'm just restricting the scope of that job and giving myself less room to cause problems in.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-04-17, 09:10 AM
I'm sorry Saph, but thats the Stormwind Fallacy rearing its ugly head again. Not everyone who optimizes does it 100% to the extreme. I don't think I've *ever* seen someone say "Oh you want to play a rogue? screw that crap wizards are so much better".

A lot of people optimize a concept dispite it being less powerful than something else. Still, if you want to play a "crazy unarmed fighter" theres no difference to the character what class you pick, but a swordsage is a far more optimal choice than a monk.

Actually, I don't think she was saying anything about the roleplaying skill or value of the optimizing.

She was just commenting on the difference in mindset. Look at what she said:


There is a huge difference between making a character reasonably effective, and "optimising" in the way that the guys on the WotC CharOp boards do it. It's the difference between playing a backyard game of football with your kids, and training to get onto the national team. It really is a completely different mentality, and people who can do the first often just can't do the second (or don't enjoy it if they do). I think that's the point Scorpina's making.

She never once mentioned anything about the inclination or skill at roleplaying of people who do one or he other; she merely said, "there is a difference in the mindset of people who do X and people who do Y, and it is roughly comparable to [easily understandable analogy]."

Not once did she bring roleplaying into it.

Saph
2007-04-17, 09:13 AM
I'm sorry Saph, but thats the Stormwind Fallacy rearing its ugly head again. Not everyone who optimizes does it 100% to the extreme. I don't think I've *ever* seen someone say "Oh you want to play a rogue? screw that crap wizards are so much better".

I didn't say that everyone who optimises does it 100% to the extreme. I didn't talk about roleplaying vs. optimisation, which is what the Stormwind Fallacy is about. I didn't say that people on these boards told people not to play rogues. You've completely misrepresented what I said, and failed to answer the point I was making.

I'll repeat myself:

There is a huge difference between making a character reasonably effective, and "optimising" in the way that the guys on the WotC CharOp boards do it. It's the difference between playing a backyard game of football with your kids, and training to get onto the national team. It really is a completely different mentality, and people who can do the first often just can't do the second (or don't enjoy it if they do). Hence Scorpina's post.

- Saph

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 09:14 AM
Actually, I don't think she was saying anything about the roleplaying skill or value of the optimizing.

She was just commenting on the difference in mindset. Look at what she said:



She never once mentioned anyhting about the inclination or skill at roleplaying of people who do one or he other; she merely said, "there is a difference in the mindset of people who do X and people who do Y, and it is roughly comparable to [easily understandable analogy]."

Not once did she bring roleplaying into it.

Perhaps, though I took it as a comment on my previous statement about fluff and crunch. Though it looks like I was wrong -_-

But even if thats so, you can either learn from people who do like to optimize, ask them for help with whatever your trying to do, or just, yknow, enjoy what your doing.

How does their having fun detract from your own?

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-17, 09:16 AM
I'm gonna post what Rei_Jin has in his sig:


In the first step: the player wields the Stilton Bearded Cheese

In the second step: the Stilton Bearded Cheese becomes one with the player

In the third step: the player transcends the need for Stilton Bearded Cheese, and only the purity of the game remains


Me hopes this (somewhat abstract notion) will spark some understanding amongst those reading.

Tengu
2007-04-17, 09:17 AM
Playing overpowered characters does not make you a worse roleplayer.
Playing underpowered characters does not make you a better roleplayer.

And I also will never win DND, because I don't play it.

JellyPooga
2007-04-17, 09:20 AM
I like Bards! :elan:

In one ongoing campaign I was playing, through no design, we ended up with a party consisting of 2 Bards, 1 Bard/Sorcerer and a Ranger (all Chaotic alignments, around level 4-ish)

We were...The Bards Of Chaos!!! WOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! (The ranger was our roadie)

It was a surprisingly good party...the Bards all stood back being useless, casting the odd spell (and arguing about the best way to kill stuff) while the Ranger did all the killing.

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-17, 09:22 AM
She likes bards and barbarians.
/sigh

Lord Iames Osari
2007-04-17, 09:24 AM
Perhaps, though I took it as a comment on my previous statement about fluff and crunch. Though it looks like I was wrong -_-

But even if thats so, you can either learn from people who do like to optimize, ask them for help with whatever your trying to do, or just, yknow, enjoy what your doing.

How does their having fun detract from your own?

Because sometimes when you ask them for help, some of them are arrogant, condescending jerks, and being condescended to always detracts from my fun.

Emphasis on the some of them and some of the time. This statement is not a sweeping generalization intended to apply to all optimizers.

Gryndle
2007-04-17, 09:26 AM
To the OP, I disagree that you will never "win D&D".

You already have. You play what you enjoy, you play to have fun. That is entire point.

D&D, and virtually any other game can be reduced to mathematic equations of win vs. loss in combat. And the folks that wnat that out of the game, can certainly get it.

However, D&D can also be about the story, the adventure, and the sense of adventure. With the right DM and friends, D&D does that just fine as well. And that's what it sounds like you play for. It's certainly what I play for.

By that standzard, we win just as much as the number crunchers do. We're just playign a different kind of game with the same system.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-17, 09:27 AM
Because sometimes when you ask them for help, some of them are arrogant, condescending jerks, and being condescended to always detracts from my fun.

Someone being condescending or arrogant, over a written electronic medium, probably over a 1000 miles away from you, and who can be ignored by simply not looking... bothers you?

I can understand if someone were actually talking to you, since it can be hard to drown out an annoying voice.

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 09:28 AM
Because sometimes when you ask them for help, some of them are arrogant, condescending jerks, and being condescended to always detracts from my fun.

Emphasis on the some of them and some of the time. This statement is not a sweeping generalization intended to apply to all optimizers.

Ok... and sometimes people kick puppies, or kill other people, or claim that unoptimized characters are more roleplay-viable than optimized ones. Not saying all of those things are on the same level, but people say and do a lot of things.

If that person is being a moron, tell him so, and play with someone who isn't. But that has nothing to do with the optimized/non-optimized debate.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-04-17, 09:31 AM
You clearly do not understand the lure of the written words. They are words. They are written. I MUST READ THEM! :smallwink:

But seriously, if someone posts in response to a question I have asked, I feel obligated to read their response. I mean, otherwise, what would be the point of my asking the question if I didn't want to get and read the responses?

Thrawn183
2007-04-17, 09:33 AM
I've found that whenver I play a character, once the game starts my focus is completely drawn to overcoming obstacles, challenges, whatever. Whenever I play a character in rediculously dangerous situations (re: adventuring) I have difficulty seeing how a character doesn't try to be the best THEY can be. This is key and how I've addressed the problem is as follows: I play characters with caps built into their power. That way I can "optimize" to my hearts content and feel true to the character while at the same time not having a power gap with the rest of the party. I'd like to think this keeps the game fun for myself and everyone who plays with me.

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 09:35 AM
You clearly do not understand the lure of the written words. They are words. They are written. I MUST READ THEM! :smallwink:

But seriously, if someone posts in response to a question I have asked, I feel obligated to read their response. I mean, otherwise, what would be the point of my asking the question if I didn't want to get and read the responses?

True, but if you know poster/person X is going to spew garbage all over what is otherwise a normal debate, and has done so before, then you can reasonably expect it to happen again and ignore it when it happens.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-04-17, 09:39 AM
True enough, but I don't spend enough of my time here to really have a feel for who I should ignore.

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 09:42 AM
True enough, but I don't spend enough of my time here to really have a feel for who I should ignore.

Then, to quote 4chan: LURK MORE!

It's the internet: nothing is serious business. Getting upset over what some schmuck says from hundreds if not thousands of miles away is just silly.

And still has nothing to do with the OP's topic, so think we should stop derailing the thread now.

Person_Man
2007-04-17, 09:42 AM
Yeah, no one wins D&D. But if you and your party members build your PCs competently and know how to use tactics intelligently, then combat becomes far more interesting. If you play "weak" builds, then your DM has to throw weak encounters at you, and combat is generally boring and repetitive.

Just off the top of my head, every party should be able to deal with:

1) A very big and powerful enemy.
2) Lots of weak enemies.
3) Ranged Enemies.
4) Being ambushed.
5) Having to ambush a superior foe.
6) Flying enemies.
7) Well organized enemies (a mounted cavalry unit, a pike unit, etc)
8) Enemy's that use battlefield control spells/effects.
9) Blaster casters.
10) Grappling enemy.
11) High DR enemy.
12) High SR enemy.
13) Invisible/Concealed enemy.
14) Enemy with Frightful Presence/Fear effects
15) Enemy that combines two or more of these traits.

If someone in your party can't damage a flying enemy, then the DM can't throw one at you unless he wants to kill you or wants to force you to retreat. But if someone in your party can deal with flying enemies, then that opens up a new type of encounter.

So you don't win D&D. You just have more diverse combats, which is important to those of us who have been playing various roleplaying and tabletop games for 17+ years now.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-17, 09:49 AM
But seriously, if someone posts in response to a question I have asked, I feel obligated to read their response. I mean, otherwise, what would be the point of my asking the question if I didn't want to get and read the responses?

Well, sure, but what's the point of letting any condescending note get to you? It's someone on a forum. It's not a close friend of yours, it's not your boss, it's not family. It's not even someone you've met irl. Being condescending is often a way of expressing an opinion (other times, it's just a character trait :smalltongue:). Why care about the opinion of someone you hardly know?



Reminds me.

I've had a girl I just met try to provoke me into anger (quite some time ago) (forgot the reason why, some kind of argument) come up to me, point a finger an me and say "I think you're ugly!"

I couldn't help it. I burst out laughing, couldn't stop myself. I just blurted out: "What on earth gives you the idea that your opinion matters to me?!"

There's no point in letting people you don't know (nor care for) get to you. Sticks and stones and all that.





And still has nothing to do with the OP's topic, so think we should stop derailing the thread now.

Whoops. Stopping the derailing: Right now

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-17, 09:51 AM
Well, sure, but what's the point of letting any condescending note get to you? It's someone on a forum. It's not a close friend of yours, it's not your boss, it's not family. It's not even someone you've met irl. Being condescending is often a way of expressing an opinion (other times, it's just a character trait :smalltongue:). Why care about the opinion of someone you hardly know?



Reminds me.

I've had a girl I just met try to provoke me into anger (quite some time ago) (forgot the reason why, some kind of argument) come up to me, point a finger an me and say "I think you're ugly!"

I couldn't help it. I burst out laughing, couldn't stop myself. I just blurted out: "What on earth gives you the idea that your opinion matters to me?!"

There's no point in letting people you don't know (nor care for) get to you. Sticks and stones and all that.





Whoops. Stopping the derailing: Right now

Then what makes you think he should care about your opinion?

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-17, 09:53 AM
Then what makes you think he should care about your opinion?

Nothing, I'm just putting it out there.

It's advise. I give it, but it's up to the other whether he/she wants to take it or ignore it. Whether it's good advise, is for everyone to decide for themselves.



(whoops, more derailing)

Shiny, Bearer of the Pokystick
2007-04-17, 09:58 AM
As a DM, I am in complete agreement with Person-Man's comments here.

'Optimization' in the broad sense of 'tactically viable builds' allows me to increase player fun with increased player variety.

I don't care how much you love Talkathos the Yakking Bardking, if he can't fight anything but goblins until level seven, he's a dead man, because he's boring to design encounters for.

asqwasqw
2007-04-17, 12:29 PM
How do you even win D&D?

Tor the Fallen
2007-04-17, 12:30 PM
How do you even win D&D?

Wizard 20 !! lawlersk8s!!

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-17, 12:33 PM
How do you even win D&D?

The same way you win the internet ofcourse!

asqwasqw
2007-04-17, 12:33 PM
Wizard 20 !! lawlersk8s!!

A god approaches you, taps you on the shoulder, and punches you out. What now? Unless, *sniff* your too good for gods now *runs away crying*


The same way you win the internet ofcourse!

By giving out cookies? Have a cookie, monster! Yahh, we all win!

Lemur
2007-04-17, 12:36 PM
How do you even win D&D?

Catchphrases. Tons of horrible catchphrases and quips for every imaginable situation.

asqwasqw
2007-04-17, 12:39 PM
Catchphrases. Tons of horrible catchphrases and quips for every imaginable situation.

Smacks you upside the head. What now? (and god help me if you actually make a quip...)

Lemur
2007-04-17, 12:48 PM
You've got a lot of nerve, pal. Too bad none of it's located in your head.

asqwasqw
2007-04-17, 12:49 PM
Curse you quip, curse you I say! Goes off to cry... then comes back and smacks you upside the head again. Ohh, ohh, better yet, sews your mouth together. Whose quiping now?

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-17, 12:51 PM
What's wrong with playing the character you want to play? Some people just enjoy it when they can design a character with a lot of firepower at their disposal. There's such a stigma attached to that on this board that it sometimes sickens me. "Oh, you played a batman-wizard, this makes me better than you. I would never [DM for/game with/shake hands with] a powergaming munchkin like you." (not directed at anyone in particular) That's fine, but then don't come crying to the boards looking for a creative solution out of a tight spot when you're under attack by invisible golems and you were too sexy to take glitterdust and orb of acid.

That said, I too DM more than play (much to my dismay) and it is more difficult to DM for players who spend more time thinking about quad damage combos than, say, backstory - and it is a little more fun DMing for my "college group" that honestly cares more about roleplay than mechanics, and responds in character to most situations. This does not make the "college group" better than the original group that I sometimes DM for back home, which is at least 50% powergamer. This is why I up the encounter difficulty, split up the party, or force the "home group" to think thier way out of a situation once in a while. I also put in the occasional encounter where the players get to put down the pure, unadulterated smack once in a while, because any player that runs through 7 splatbooks to make his character wants to see that put to good use, and (this is the important part) it is not your sacred duty as a DM to thwart powergamers by making them useless. DMing became much easier when I realized and accepted this. The players had more fun too.

Edit: More than 15 people posted while I wrote this...

Closet_Skeleton
2007-04-17, 12:51 PM
...incidentally, why do people feel that "I play unoptimized characters!" is some kind of virtue?

Because society is as a whole reactionary?

CharPixie
2007-04-17, 12:52 PM
To the OP:

I'm with you. A lot of people are; they just aren't the type to post about mechanics a lot. And most threads in Gaming are about mechanics. There are few really interesting RP threads and a few more DM threads, but it seems to me there's less of those than there used to be.

I wish that the Gaming forum had another split and had all the mechanics in another forum, but I suppose that would be against the spirit of this place (or something).

Jayabalard
2007-04-17, 12:53 PM
...incidentally, why do people feel that "I play unoptimized characters!" is some kind of virtue?
probably for the same reason that some other people feel that "I play optimized characters!" is some kind of virtue...

It's just preference of play style; some people like focusing on having a high power level, and some people don't.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-17, 12:56 PM
I am really bad at optimizing my characters. I will never win D+D either, though not for lack of trying.

I enjoy characters most when they are both true to my concept and effective. Fluff comes over crunch, and I won't change my concept from a Hooked-hammer wielding Gnome Fighter to a Shock Trooping Half-orc Fighter/Barbarian/Psychic Warrior/Monk/Frostrager to make him more optimized. Ever. However, I believe that optimization has a definite place in D+D. If someone were to post on this board and ask for cool character concepts, and I felt like participating, I'd post cool ideas that had no connection to game mechanics. When people post on the board asking for Optimization, however, I tell them how best to do it without changing their concept too much.

I will advise people to change when their build could be drastically improved quite easily—changing from Ranger/Rogue to Ranger/Scout, for example—but I try to keep that to a minimum. Flavor always takes precedence over Crunchy, but you crunchy can still be fun.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-17, 12:56 PM
probably for the same reason that some other people feel that "I play optimized characters!" is some kind of virtue...

I haven't encountered those kind tho. I've encounter people who enjoy it, but none who seem to believe it to be a virtue

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-17, 01:01 PM
To the OP:

I'm with you. A lot of people are; they just aren't the type to post about mechanics a lot. And most threads in Gaming are about mechanics. There are few really interesting RP threads and a few more DM threads, but it seems to me there's less of those than there used to be.

I wish that the Gaming forum had another split and had all the mechanics in another forum, but I suppose that would be against the spirit of this place (or something).

You do understand that the reason that there are practically no RP threads is because RP-ing is a personal thing? People RP differently, and have different ideas about it. There's no basic framework to work discussions from, and thus will only result in threads full of opinions rather then discussions.

Rules on the other hand, provide us with a basic framework to base things on, and thus allows us to have discussions about it.

Jayabalard
2007-04-17, 01:02 PM
I haven't encountered those kind tho. I've encounter people who enjoy it, but none who seem to believe it to be a virtueAre you sure that we're reading the same message board? It's not like it's hard to find posts that treat creating and playing powerful characters as the end-all, be-all of D&D.

Same goes with posts that treat RAW and game mechanics as more important than RP.

Different people have different opinions of what's important for their gaming; isn't it great that this board affords both of them the chance to discuss their opinions?

Khantalas
2007-04-17, 01:03 PM
Ah well, there's a saying in Turkish, which can be roughly translated as: "He who fails at gambling wins at love."

I think D&D is sort of gambling. It has those cards. And dice. And counters. And the house takes all.

Jayabalard
2007-04-17, 01:06 PM
You do understand that the reason that there are practically no RP threads is because RP-ing is a personal thing? People RP differently, and have different ideas about it. There's no basic framework to work discussions from, and thus will only result in threads full of opinions rather then discussions.Threads full of opinions are discussions; and while debating RAW has it's place, I'd rather see more discussions consisting of opinions than threads that are primarily rules-lawyering.

Starbuck_II
2007-04-17, 01:06 PM
probably for the same reason that some other people feel that "I play optimized characters!" is some kind of virtue...

It's just preference of play style; some people like focusing on having a high power level, and some people don't.
Well, surviving is a virtue. If it isn't before, it is now.

Jayabalard
2007-04-17, 01:12 PM
Well, surviving is a virtue. If it isn't before, it is now.I'm not really sure what you are trying to say. But surviving isn't always a virtue (especially for a paladin for example, where dying for your cause may be more virtuous)

Person_Man
2007-04-17, 01:22 PM
What's wrong with playing the character you want to play? Some people just enjoy it when they can design a character with a lot of firepower at their disposal. There's such a stigma attached to that on this board that it sometimes sickens me.

I wouldn't say there's a stigma attached to it. I would just say that a lot of posts go like this:

Original Poster: I want to play a Samurai/Spellthief. Can anyone give me good advice on what feats I should use?

Regular: Samurai and Spellthief are both phenomenally weak classes, and combining them doesn't make any crunch sense. X feat, Y feat, and Z magic item might help a little. But there's really nothing I can do to help you make it useful.

OP: Why are you criticizing my roleplaying choices! I don't care about being powerful!

Regular: Then why did you post asking for build advice?

Newb: Hey, don't criticize the Spellthief! I played a Spellthief once, and I had a lot of fun!

Regular: No one said Spellthiefs aren't fun. They're just weak. There's a difference.

And so on. If you post asking for build advice, expect build advice and criticism, and discussions on the relative merits of certain rules and tactics. If you're not interested in build advice and criticism, and you just want to talk about your character concept, make that clear in your post, and 99% of people will respect it.

Counterspin
2007-04-17, 04:19 PM
Are you sure that we're reading the same message board? It's not like it's hard to find posts that treat creating and playing powerful characters as the end-all, be-all of D&D.

Same goes with posts that treat RAW and game mechanics as more important than RP.


I'd invite you to show me a post that says the above. I've yet to see it. The most visible crunch supporters, bearswithlasers and Emperor Tippy, don't believe this. I'd say my play style (for D&D) is pretty crunch heavy, and I don't believe it.

Lots of times people treat mechanics as the be all and end all because they're having a mechanics discussion, but I've yet to see anyone be dismissive of roleplay on the whole the way several posters on the boards write about their "hate" of optimization.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-17, 04:25 PM
I'd invite you to show me a post that says the above. I've yet to see it. The most visible crunch supporters, bearswithlasers and Emperor Tippy, don't believe this. I'd say my play style (for D&D) is pretty crunch heavy, and I don't believe it.

Lots of times people treat mechanics as the be all and end all because they're having a mechanics discussion, but I've yet to see anyone be dismissive of roleplay on the whole the way several posters on the boards write about their "hate" of optimization.

Quoted for having wanted to say the same.

Morty
2007-04-17, 04:30 PM
I wouldn't say there's a stigma attached to it. I would just say that a lot of posts go like this:

Original Poster: I want to play a Samurai/Spellthief. Can anyone give me good advice on what feats I should use?

Regular: Samurai and Spellthief are both phenomenally weak classes, and combining them doesn't make any crunch sense. X feat, Y feat, and Z magic item might help a little. But there's really nothing I can do to help you make it useful.

OP: Why are you criticizing my roleplaying choices! I don't care about being powerful!

Regular: Then why did you post asking for build advice?

Newb: Hey, don't criticize the Spellthief! I played a Spellthief once, and I had a lot of fun!

Regular: No one said Spellthiefs aren't fun. They're just weak. There's a difference.

And so on. If you post asking for build advice, expect build advice and criticism, and discussions on the relative merits of certain rules and tactics. If you're not interested in build advice and criticism, and you just want to talk about your character concept, make that clear in your post, and 99% of people will respect it.

Yes, but sometimes it's "I have a character concept, would you help me optimize it while remaining within boundries of that concept, please?"

MeklorIlavator
2007-04-17, 04:37 PM
I think I win DandD every time I play it, or even get ready to play it, because its FUN. I think of DnD as a game, and so I don't care if I'm playing the Half Dragon Warmage/Elemental savant(one of my earlier characters) or a IotSV. As long as everyones enjoying them selves, its all good.

And to chime in on the optimization debate, I think that the optimization board at Wizards gets a slightly unfair reputations. I have seen them helping someone with Eldrich disiples and Shadowdancer builds, and while there is some excessively complex and powerful builds, those are mainly theoretical, and aren't even supposed to be used in actual game, kinda like a word puzzle in a puzzle book, or those soduko books. They are their because someone wondered if he could do it, and he did it for fun. So what is the real problem with the boards?

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-17, 04:37 PM
Threads full of opinions are discussions; and while debating RAW has it's place, I'd rather see more discussions consisting of opinions than threads that are primarily rules-lawyering.

Really?

Here's a thread that eventually devolved into a discussion where one side held only an opinion (correction, multiple opinions): http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=40237

Do you find that a good thread?

Counterspin
2007-04-17, 06:16 PM
The thread breakdown there has more to do with a certain posters demand that words mean whatever he wants them to mean, so I think you're getting a little off-topic cyborg. :)

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-17, 06:36 PM
Yeah, Cyborg Pirate's link has more to do with a poster being certain that (s)he was right and everyone else was wrong than an actual opinion debate. The poster wouldn't even acknowledge that a statement like "A, B, and C should not be allowed in a game" was an opinion and not a universal truth.

Indon
2007-04-17, 07:43 PM
I wouldn't say there's a stigma attached to it. I would just say that a lot of posts go like this:

Original Poster: I want to play a Samurai/Spellthief. Can anyone give me good advice on what feats I should use?

Regular: Samurai and Spellthief are both phenomenally weak classes, and combining them doesn't make any crunch sense. X feat, Y feat, and Z magic item might help a little. But there's really nothing I can do to help you make it useful.

OP: Why are you criticizing my roleplaying choices! I don't care about being powerful!

Regular: Then why did you post asking for build advice?

Newb: Hey, don't criticize the Spellthief! I played a Spellthief once, and I had a lot of fun!

Regular: No one said Spellthiefs aren't fun. They're just weak. There's a difference.

And so on. If you post asking for build advice, expect build advice and criticism, and discussions on the relative merits of certain rules and tactics. If you're not interested in build advice and criticism, and you just want to talk about your character concept, make that clear in your post, and 99% of people will respect it.

This is a very good example of what the problem is.



OP: "Hey, I want to play a <insert class here>, what kinds of feats or equipment or whatever go well with <insert class here>?

Regulars: "PLAY ANOTHER CLASS!"

OP: "Gosh, that was absolutely worthless, why am I even here?"

Is what I see _all the time_. If someone asks the forum for advice on building a Scout, that doesn't mean they secretly want to build a Ranger or Rogue and the posters will bring the searing, wondrous light of Truth Incarnate to them by telling them to be a Ranger or Rogue instead. Rather, they're simply not being helpful, and quite possibily being condescending at the same time.

I mean, seriously, Person_man, your example even started out with the exact words "I WANT TO PLAY A...", which means they don't exactly need advice on something else in that thread, now do they?

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 07:46 PM
Indon, someone asking about a character concept will get help with that concept. Someone asking about some class in particular, even when there are others that will fulfill the exact same fluff, is making a decision based on crunch. Pointing out that it's weak isn't criticizing a ROLEPLAYING choice, it's criticizing a MECHANICAL choice.
Representing a Samurai with Samurai rather than, oh, Fighter is a mechanical choice, not a fluff choice. Fluff-wise, the character's a samurai either way.

Indon
2007-04-17, 07:50 PM
Hmm. Perhaps it's just my belief that fluff and crunch should compliment that prevents me from seeing "Help me be a Samurai" as being anything other than a request to be a good Samurai, rather than a member of another class.

Nonetheless, I've observed that many such recommendations simply fall flat, especially if from someone new to this forum; many players simply expect crunch and fluff to compliment.

Considering as it probably helps immersion, I really have difficulty seeing people who would want it otherwise.

Lemur
2007-04-17, 07:54 PM
The samurai base class from CW doesn't really represent an actual samurai fluff-wise, so I don't see anything amiss with telling a would-be samurai to pick a different class.

EvilElitest
2007-04-17, 07:58 PM
Congratulations, I suppose?


...incidentally, why do people feel that "I play unoptimized characters!" is some kind of virtue?

Because hevens fobid somebody else have a different understanding of fun than you
Didn't you say that on the pun-pun thread?
from,
EE

Indon
2007-04-17, 07:59 PM
Really? I've admittedly not read into the class very much. Is it the 'OMG I've got a sword and I'll cut you in half' kind of samurai from popular anime, or is it like, a mounted archer type?

Edit: Er, that's aimed at Lemur.

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-17, 08:00 PM
Hmm. Perhaps it's just my belief that fluff and crunch should compliment that prevents me from seeing "Help me be a Samurai" as being anything other than a request to be a good Samurai, rather than a member of another class.

Nonetheless, I've observed that many such recommendations simply fall flat, especially if from someone new to this forum; many players simply expect crunch and fluff to compliment.

Considering as it probably helps immersion, I really have difficulty seeing people who would want it otherwise.
There are only 2 classes that get people told to outright play a different class with any regularity. One is the CW samurai.

I'm sorry but it just sucks. You are 100 times better off with 20 levels of straight fighter than you are with 20 levels of samurai (and I would go as far as saying 20 fighter levels are better than 30 samurai levels).

The only other time someone is told to play something else with any regularity is when they want a non caster epic build. This is another case of sheer suckyness. Epic Spellcasting wins D&D and without it (when other people have it) you will not even be remotely competitive.

Now if someone gives a fluff concept and wants a build to uphold that concept then people will say "Oh you want to be a scout, why not use rogue instead of scout?" Its more effective. (Note I'm just pulling classes out of my ass here)

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-17, 08:01 PM
Really? I've admittedly not read into the class very much. Is it the 'OMG I've got a sword and I'll cut you in half' kind of samurai from popular anime, or is it like, a mounted archer type?

Edit: Er, that's aimed at Lemur.
The CW Samurai is the worst (power wise) class that WoTC has ever published. The NPC warrior class may even be more effective.

Epiphanis
2007-04-17, 08:01 PM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

If someone says they want to play a samurai in D&D, then I think it more than likely that they want to play a member of the D&D Samurai class as opposed to a Fighter with a selection of feats, skills and equipment to simulate an out-of-game concept of what a samurai should be. That would be a "Samurai-style Fighter," not a "Samurai" when speaking in game terms.

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-17, 08:03 PM
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

If someone says they want to play a samurai in D&D, then I think it more than likely that they want to play a member of the D&D Samurai class as opposed to a Fighter with a selection of feats, skills and equipment to simulate an out-of-game concept of what a samurai should be. That would be a "Samurai-style Fighter," not a "Samurai" when speaking in game terms.
Yes, and if someone wants to play the Samurai base class then they should be told loudly and repeatedly to play something else. They will be a large burden on their group with that class. Its the only class that I would say is really THAT ineffective.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 08:04 PM
Hmm. Perhaps it's just my belief that fluff and crunch should compliment that prevents me from seeing "Help me be a Samurai" as being anything other than a request to be a good Samurai, rather than a member of another class.

Nonetheless, I've observed that many such recommendations simply fall flat, especially if from someone new to this forum; many players simply expect crunch and fluff to compliment.

Considering as it probably helps immersion, I really have difficulty seeing people who would want it otherwise.
There was an OotS strip about this. The class is named "Samurai". That doesn't mean you can't play a samurai without taking it, nor does it mean that everyone who plays a samurai takes it. If someone wants to roleplay a samurai, they could do that fine with a Fighter.
There is more than one set of crunch for any given fluff.

If someone wants to play the CWar Samurai crunch, then they're asking about mechanics, not roleplay. It's perfectly fair to tell someone that a certain set of mechanics is terrible. It's not criticizing their roleplaying concept, it's criticizing their crunch.
If someone wants to play the samurai fluff, then telling them a better mechanical way to do so than the Samurai class isn't criticizing their concept, it's helping them implement it mechanically.


Because hevens fobid somebody else have a different understanding of fun than you
Didn't you say that on the pun-pun thread?
from,
EE
I'm perfectly fine with other people having fun in different ways. It's fine to play unoptimized characters. I've never said it isn't.
My point was that people think it's some sort of virtue. That it makes them better than people who do optimize their characters. That's a mite different, neh?

Krellen
2007-04-17, 08:08 PM
There are no winners in D&D. There are only losers, and gamers. Which are you?

(Note: you only lose by trying to win. IE, when you turn it into a competition.)

Tangentally: Optimisation discussions, and the extolling of it as a virtue, decreases my fun on this forum. I enjoy this forum far less because of how easily threads devolve into conversations about optimisation and its virtues. Like this one did.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 08:10 PM
This thread was about optimization from the beginning, Krellen. It was someone going "look at me! I don't optimize!"

Krellen
2007-04-17, 08:13 PM
Yes, and as usual, you had to come to trumpet the defense of optimisation. It's a trumpet carried by most of the posters on this forum, and creates a feeling that optimisation is the only "true" calling, and those that do not and cannot don't belong.

Making the post more a post saying "I just don't fit in here, because I can't bring myself to play like that." Might've been better with an added: "How do you guys manage it? Can you help explain the joy to me?", but it could easily be implied.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-17, 08:14 PM
There are plenty of discussions here that don't involve character optimization. They just have a habit of quickly fading away under the intense pressure of two other kinds of threads- ones about mechanical optimization and ones like this that are pretty much all about arguing. This is because both of those can be debated, whereas the threads you're looking for can't be. Thus they fall to back pages quickly with only a handful of posts while these threads become encyclopedia-sized.

There's nothing that can fix this, really. But if you're really that intent on talking about concepts and cool campaign stuff more, then start visiting/replying to those threads more often. I do think it's a shame they disappear so quick.

EvilElitest
2007-04-17, 08:17 PM
I'm perfectly fine with other people having fun in different ways. It's fine to play unoptimized characters. I've never said it isn't.
My point was that people think it's some sort of virtue. That it makes them better than people who do optimize their characters. That's a mite different, neh?
But the orginal poster never said it as a vitue, he said it in context of him not being able to optimize well

In the vast majority of cases playing what makes you enjoy your self is fine, even if it is not great, hence why we still have fighters

With the exception of the Samurai. I'm sorry, the CW version i just make an NPC class because it is bloody awful. In that case, if you want to play one, ether play OA version, one of the millions of other version out their, or play a secial fighter, because it just is the king of the suck.
from,
EE

Roethke
2007-04-17, 08:19 PM
Yes, and as usual, you had to come to trumpet the defense of optimisation. It's a trumpet carried by most of the posters on this forum, and creates a feeling that optimisation is the only "true" calling, and those that do not and cannot don't belong.

Making the post more a post saying "I just don't fit in here, because I can't bring myself to play like that." Might've been better with an added: "How do you guys manage it? Can you help explain the joy to me?", but it could easily be implied.

But when someone asks you for help making a 'build' or what feats they 'should' take, what are you supposed to talk about?

And in this case, when someone makes saying "I don't really understand optimizers", perhaps the optimizers might explain themselves?

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 08:21 PM
Yes, and as usual, you had to come to trumpet the defense of optimisation. It's a trumpet carried by most of the posters on this forum, and creates a feeling that optimisation is the only "true" calling, and those that do not and cannot don't belong.
"Most posters"? Did you do a survey, now? When has anybody here said that optimization is Right and Good and The Correct Way To Play? At most people suggest that it's good to optimize within your character fluff. Nobody's promoted optimization over fluff.
Just about everybody here optimizes to some extent (read: not the CO board extent, 99% of the time). Similarily, everybody here roleplays.
I asked why people seemed to think that not optimizing characters was a virtue, i.e. better than the reverse. That "creates a feeling that [non-optimization] is the only 'true' calling", after all.

The Gaming board here is not full of slavering goons who post "lol play a cleric instead, they're uber!" I'm not sure why you seem to think it is.


Making the post more a post saying "I just don't fit in here, because I can't bring myself to play like that." Might've been better with an added: "How do you guys manage it? Can you help explain the joy to me?", but it could easily be implied.Except that of course most people here don't play like that and there was nothing in the OP that implied a desire to have "the joy" explained.

The OP was "I don't optimize!" with a slight side of "gasp! I know all of you number-crunching fiends will come down on me for this, because you're powergamers!" although that bit had a decidedly humorous tone. My question wasn't just directed at the OP, in any case. There are, in fact, people here who seem to get a smug sense of superiority out of not optimizing.

Epiphanis
2007-04-17, 08:21 PM
My point was that people think it's some sort of virtue. That it makes them better than people who do optimize their characters. That's a mite different, neh?

I understand Bears' frustration with this point of view, but its not entirely groundless.

Optimization narrows options. In the objective mathematics that dictates optimization, given a constant background there will always be only one absolutely optimal option.

Perfection is monotonous.

Now, taken to an extreme, a hardcore optimizer will evaluate the other members of his party, and the projected circumstances his DM will expose them too, and come up with a very limited number of acceptable characters to play.

But thats not the limit of how far an optimizer can go. Taken further, the optimizer not only plays the one exact perfect build, he is resentful when other players don't do the same. Here, I built the perfect Clericzilla and you want to play a frickin' Samurai? Not in my party! I'm not holding back my Lamborghini so your Go-cart can keep up!

While its certainly true that you can roleplay well with a mechanically well-constructed character, depending on how far you take it the number of character concepts available to you becomes very limited, and you can actually be a killjoy to any other player who doesn't share your philosophy.

Krellen
2007-04-17, 08:22 PM
I'd love for them to explain themselves. However, I see far less explanation and for more defensation. And yes, I made up a word so they'd rhyme. :smallbiggrin:

And Bears, I never said you played like that. I said you make it feel like that is the way people should play, without ever once mentioning how you actually do play. And honestly, if you don't play like that, why do you spend so much time finding optimisation choices?

(Yes, I know: It's easy. Wizard optimisation is just obvious, samurai are obviously weak, etc. Right?)

Counterspin
2007-04-17, 08:26 PM
Krellen - As I've said before, please link me to a thread where there is open hostility to roleplaying. Having been on the boards for some time, I've yet to see one.
And why do you feel that just because the majority of the board is pro-optimization that you're unwelcome? The only open hostility I've ever seen to roleplayers is when they walk into optimization threads and say that optimization is unneeded or an inherent evil.

Roethke
2007-04-17, 08:26 PM
But the orginal poster never said it as a vitue, he said it in context of him not being able to optimize well

In the vast majority of cases playing what makes you enjoy your self is fine, even if it is not great, hence why we still have fighters


So, OP argument is
1) I like playing suboptimal characters and have fun.
2) I don't like playing optimal characters and don't have fun.

Therefore
3) I'm not going to 'win' D&D. (because I don't optimize)

The obvious implication being that optimizing = trying to win D&D.

Now, given all the optimization talk around here, this (kind of snide) venting is not a big deal. But neither is it when the optimizers come by and explain themselves.

Krellen
2007-04-17, 08:30 PM
Krellen - As I've said before, please link me to a thread where there is open hostility to roleplaying. Having been on the boards for some time, I've yet to see one.
There isn't open hostility to it. There's a near-complete lack of it, which is even worse. At least with hostility, there'd be a feeling that it was normal, or at least common enough to warrant ire. Most threads around here don't even consider the roleplaying, unless they can't be about optimisation, such as a thread about alignment.

Sometimes it makes me despair of these forums. Most of the time it just makes me spend more time elsewhere, which is more healthy anyway. :smallbiggrin:

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-17, 08:33 PM
Why are you aggressively trying to get players to play characters that are suicidally bad by level 5-10? You can't roleplay a party wipe.

Pick out your favorite class and features, that's great and what you should be doing. But don't look down on the guy that does that, then tweaks it a little so your whole party doesn't die when they run into NPC goblins.

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-17, 08:33 PM
There isn't open hostility to it. There's a near-complete lack of it, which is even worse. At least with hostility, there'd be a feeling that it was normal, or at least common enough to warrant ire. Most threads around here don't even consider the roleplaying, unless they can't be about optimisation, such as a thread about alignment.

Sometimes it makes me despair of these forums. Most of the time it just makes me spend more time elsewhere, which is more healthy anyway. :smallbiggrin:
Rolepalying can't be helped by people over the boards. We can't play your character for you or tell you hwo to roleplay. We can tell you how to make an effective character or one optimized within the constraints of your fluff. Roleplaying is largely ignored in a lot of threads because it is to DM and game specific and we have no common ground to meet on to discuss it (why we discuss RAW instead of houserules in gaming (generally))

Counterspin
2007-04-17, 08:35 PM
Krellen - So we let you guys do your thing while we do ours, and that's a bad thing? I'm so confused.

Roethke
2007-04-17, 08:35 PM
There isn't open hostility to it. There's a near-complete lack of it, which is even worse. At least with hostility, there'd be a feeling that it was normal, or at least common enough to warrant ire. Most threads around here don't even consider the roleplaying, unless they can't be about optimisation, such as a thread about alignment.

Sometimes it makes me despair of these forums. Most of the time it just makes me spend more time elsewhere, which is more healthy anyway. :smallbiggrin:

I don't think that's so at all-- (well, not the healthy part). There's almost continuously a "Mood Music" thread, lots of "Save my Game" type threads, all of which are really RP/Gamer-group focused.

The reason you don't see too many really RP focused threads is that, there's not too much to discuss. I mean, we've all been playing "let's pretend" since we were about three. So I have a hard time envisioning what you could ask, other than "How should Character X deal with this situation". And the answer would always be, however you want to. That's kind of the point of D&D.

If you want RP-focused threads, check out the In-game threads. There are a LOT of those.

Grr
2007-04-17, 08:35 PM
I don't have the CWar Samurai... someone PM me the basic stats so I can see why so many people say its trash. I'm willing to bet it fits in perfectly for the setting and the style of game its expected to be played in.

Lemur
2007-04-17, 08:36 PM
Really? I've admittedly not read into the class very much. Is it the 'OMG I've got a sword and I'll cut you in half' kind of samurai from popular anime, or is it like, a mounted archer type?


I apologize in advance. It's hard for me to talk about stuff like this without going into essay-mode.

The samurai from the Complete Warrior? It isn't really either of those, which is partially why it doesn't give a good fluff representation of a samurai.

Originally, the samurai was the knight of feudal Japan. Their 3 main weapons were the bow, the spear, and the sword. Primarily, they were mounted archers.

The samurai that we're more familiar with is more of a wandering ronin. Go watch some movies with Toshiro Mifune in them, and you'll have a good portrait of the popular culture samurai. They'd travel the country, working when and where it was available, often as a bodyguard or mercenary, with their katana at their side. With no wars to fight, there was no work for many of these samurai. With no masters, they would find another line of work, or the occasional odd samurai would travel in search of perfecting his skill- fighting other teachers of the art of swordsmanship in their quest.

So which of these does the CW samurai emulate? Neither! They seem to have a pop-culture type samurai in mind, but they completely fail to give an even halfway accurate representation of him. I get the sense that the staredown ability they give the samurai is supposed to come from the movie type samurai, since they'd often play up the intimidation factor of the main character.

But what does the CW samurai do? The class gives the two weapon fighting tree and quick draw, but these feats only apply to use of the katana and wakizashi.

Several problems arise from this- real samurai didn't fight with the katana and wakizashi together. Yes, there were some styles that utilized the wakizashi, but the majority of samurai left their wakizashi alone unless they were in some kind of pinch. The wakizashi's general purpose was in case the samurai had to kill himself.

For this reason, most movie and anime samurai don't carry wakizashi's around- they're not two weapon fighters, and they don't really need the short sword with them. They're katana suffices, and they're not going to kill themselves in any case.

The main warrior notable for using two weapons was Miyamoto Musashi, a famed real-life warrior and popular subject of Japanese samurai tales. However, Musashi was a proponent of not tying oneself to any particular weapon.

The CW samurai, in contrast, attempts to pigeonhole the character into only using two weapons. He doesn't get any sort of mounted archery type abilities like a classical samurai, and he really doesn't have any of the actual fighting abilities a post-feudal/Meji era samurai might have.

So essentially, he doesn't represent any sort of samurai that actually existed. This is compounded by the fact that the class is mechanically weak, and is clearly inferior in all respects to a normal fighter. (for what it's worth, I always thought that the fighter class represented the samurai as much as it represented Western warriors and knights). This boils down to the samurai not only having terrible crunch, but also having fluff which makes no sense for the concept.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 08:37 PM
I understand Bears' frustration with this point of view, but its not entirely groundless.

Optimization narrows options. In the objective mathematics that dictates optimization, given a constant background there will always be only one absolutely optimal option.

That's not true. D&D isn't that cut-and-dry. There will be a number of highly optimal options, a few slightly-less-optimal but still pretty optimized options, et cetera.


Perfection is monotonous.And has someone here insisted someone else play a mechanically "perfect" (not that there's such a thing aside from Pun-Pun) character?


Now, taken to an extreme, a hardcore optimizer will evaluate the other members of his party, and the projected circumstances his DM will expose them too, and come up with a very limited number of acceptable characters to play. It doesn't even take a particularily hardcore optimizer. I drew up a wizard for my tabletop Red Hand of Doom game, even though I could've had just as much (but not particularily more) fun with a different concept or different mechanics, because this was a published adventure with a DM who was going to run it largely by the book and I didn't think the other guys would do even an "okay" job of it mechanically.
This has saved the party's ass on more than one occasion. TPKs aren't fun.
In the beginning, I was in the party with an Aasimar Monk and a Tiefling rogue (with 12 STR, 18 DEX, no Finesse, and a greatsword). I was towing their Go-Carts with my Laborghini (i.e. trying to make sure they didn't die against all odds), because there'd've been a car wreck otherwise. The rogue did eventually die, and is now a fairly solid cleric. Not a shining example of optimization, but pretty well-built. We got another player, too, also with a relatively optimized build. The monk's still around.
The cleric's having a lot more fun now because he can wade into melee and smash things without getting splattered. The DM's having more fun because he can actually play up the bad guys a little. I'm having more fun now that I can relax and not worry that if I don't use Polymorph (haven't cast it since the party became a reasonable one) the monk will be unable to contribute or the rogue will die.
I certainly never said anything like "quit holdin' me back!" or "not in MY party!"


But thats not the limit of how far an optimizer can go. Taken further, the optimizer not only plays the one exact perfect build, he is resentful when other players don't do the same. Here, I built the perfect Clericzilla and you want to play a frickin' Samurai? Not in my party! I'm not holding back my Lamborghini so your Go-cart can keep up!

While its certainly true that you can roleplay well with a mechanically well-constructed character, depending on how far you take it the number of character concepts available to you becomes very limited, and you can actually be a killjoy to any other player who doesn't share your philosophy.
The problem here is being a jackass to other players, not optimizing. You can get the same effect with a guy playing the "badass, silent loner, Angsty McAngstface" or a paladin impeding a group's fun by making himself the Morality Police. I managed to optimize without telling people "not in MY party!" or otherwise being an ass. I've been a fun-enabler, not a fun-destroyer. And non-optimized characters can be fun-enablers or fun-destroyers, too.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-17, 08:39 PM
Uh, Krellen? Most of the topics started on this thread are about builds and mechanics. Those threads that I do see asking for roleplaying tips/advice tend to fill just as quickly with useful and creative suggestions. Indeed, I've never seen a roleplaying-specific thread that was derailed into an optimization one, and I challenge you to find one that was.

And your assertion that there should be people viscerally and violently against optimizaiton is... how do I explain it? The logic behind it boils down to the following non-sequitur:

"Between A and B, you don't have to pick A, but you can't pick B."

Do you see what I'm saying? You try so hard not to say optimizing is bad or that you're better than optimizers, but then you go and make a statement like that. I'm just confused.

Edit (to Grr): CW Samuri has full bab, free proficiency with lighter armors and two weapon fighting, and a few fear effects. With low DCs. That's it. It's his only special feature. Compare this with a fighter and his ton of bonus feats and armor proficiencies, and there is a clear mechanical lapse between the two.

Epiphanis
2007-04-17, 08:43 PM
So essentially, he doesn't represent any sort of samurai that actually existed.

Well, I agree that as a historical model its pretty inaccurate. But history had real druids and clerics that looked like nothing in the D&D rules. And ANY class above level 10 has nothing even remotely similar that happened in real life.

Krellen
2007-04-17, 08:45 PM
And your assertion that there should be people viscerally and violently against optimizaiton is... how do I explain it?
I'm sorry, where did I say this? I don't remember taking a stance that optimisation was wrong - just that there's is an atmosphere that makes it feel that optimisation is right. Such as Bears's above example about how his optimised wizard was the only thing keeping his game from being unfun through a TPK (you probably didn't mean it to come across that way, Bears, but it did.)

So, where'd I misspeak, so I can try not to do so again?

Grr
2007-04-17, 08:49 PM
Hah, here I was thinking people were talking about Clan War Samurai... which ironically, is what the Samurai in Comp War mimics.

Roethke
2007-04-17, 08:50 PM
Such as Bears's above example about how his optimised wizard was the only thing keeping his game from being unfun through a TPK (you probably didn't mean it to come across that way, Bears, but it did.)

You have to look pretty hard to take that away from the example. I mean, he specifically said the other players were running unoptimized characters, and everyone ended up having a good time. What BWL was getting at, was that his character could cover for a DM that wasn't going to tone down the power level of a shrink-wrapped adventure.

Annarrkkii
2007-04-17, 08:50 PM
...should I just quote the entire post I recently made, and repost it in case?

Optimization is making the best out of what you have. To optimize isn't to sit down and say "What is the best character I can possibly play?" To optimize is to sit down, say, "I want to play an orc, or perhaps a human, warblade, who is the last practitioner of his tribe's old twin-hammer two-weapon fighting?" and then say, "What's the best way I can do this?"

In this instance, maybe you're stymied, and you come to the boards. You say "I want to make an ECL 6 orc warblade, maybe with some levels of barbarian. I'm planning on TWFing a pair of hammers, and was considering looking into Deadly Defense from the PHB II—if it's worthwhile. Any recommendations?"

Bears posts and says—"If you're playing an orc, don't leave home without Power Attack." (or whatever)

You post and say, "I was looking for more a of a defensive build, as I said, than a traditional offensive one."

Fax posts and says, "Well, I homebrewed a feat chain HERE, and you might want to look in to that."

You post and say "Cool. I might grab some of that."

MAYBE someone posts and proposes that you change races—perhaps to human. Or, if you were a half-orc, to a full orc. Perhaps they recommend you take a few levels of fighter instead of barbarian, or even look in to Swordsage instead of Warblade.

NO ONE posts and says that you should play a wizard instead. NO ONE. EVER. That's not optimizing. Merriam-Webster says optimize means " : to make as perfect, effective, or functional as possible." When you "optimize" a TWFing Orc Martial Adept, you make him as effective as possible. You don't change him into a wizard because that would be the most effective thing of all.

Lemur
2007-04-17, 08:58 PM
Well, I agree that as a historical model its pretty inaccurate. But history had real druids and clerics that looked like nothing in the D&D rules. And ANY class above level 10 has nothing even remotely similar that happened in real life.

For druids, it's true that they don't match up very well with historical druids. The class is more of a generic nature priest than an actual druid.

Clerics, however, were originally based on crusader type holy warriors, like the Knights Templar.

And it's not quite the point about classes doing things that don't happen in real life. It's a fantasy game, after all.

The samurai focuses on two weapon fighting- which is rare even among fantasy samurai. In addition, it only gets a small pinch of the abilities which samurai, both real and fantastic, are famed for.

*Checks watch* Hmm, it seems to be off-topic o'clock. I should get going.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 08:58 PM
And Bears, I never said you played like that. I said you make it feel like that is the way people should play, without ever once mentioning how you actually do play. And honestly, if you don't play like that, why do you spend so much time finding optimisation choices?

(Yes, I know: It's easy. Wizard optimisation is just obvious, samurai are obviously weak, etc. Right?)
I mention how I actually do play on a regular basis. I prefer rules-light, roleplaying-heavy games, or rules-medium games where the rules work with the game rather than separately from it. When I play D&D, I optimize, but I don't use anything broken (from Polymorph to the Hulking Hurler). Why do I optimize? Because I can. Because it's easy. Because it's fun to do (if not necessarily fun to play every optimized thing I come up with). Because when I play D&D, I'm playing the crunchy wargame aspect of D&D as well as the roleplaying aspect of D&D, and optimization is part of the crunchy wargame aspect.

How do I "make it feel like that's how people should play"? What have I said that indicates people should optimize to the hilt? I think people should probably try to avoid making mechanically (nigh-)useless characters, sure, in the same way that they should avoid making a paladin for an evil party: it'll do bad things to the game. Similarily, if everyone else in the group has a weak character, it may not be the place for CoDzilla.


There isn't open hostility to it. There's a near-complete lack of it, which is even worse. At least with hostility, there'd be a feeling that it was normal, or at least common enough to warrant ire. Most threads around here don't even consider the roleplaying, unless they can't be about optimisation, such as a thread about alignment.
There are plenty of threads about roleplaying. There are threads full of roleplaying anecdotes. There aren't any "help me build my character's personality" threads, but that's because people generally do that themselves.
"My character is like this" also leaves very little for discussion.
There is also an entire section for roleplaying on this site, which is full of PbP games. People don't need to talk about their character's personality, they can just go play him.

There's no open hostility to roleplaying. There's no promotion of optimization as being superior. People can start whatever thread they want. So what's your problem? Is it that people aren't starting the exact threads YOU want? Maybe you should look into starting them yourself.


I don't have the CWar Samurai... someone PM me the basic stats so I can see why so many people say its trash. I'm willing to bet it fits in perfectly for the setting and the style of game its expected to be played in.
Essentially, the only things it gets over 20 levels is Two-Weapon Fighting for free (which makes them worse, since mechanically they'd be better off with a two-handed weapon, given that they have no source of bonus damage), and the ability to intimidate people and then groups of people (which is bad because it just applies the Shaken condition, which is a -2 to some stuff, but is made totally useless by the fact that monsters wind up having more HD than their CR very quickly. They also get a Kiai Shout thing; I forget the details, but it's very unimpressive.
To make matters worse, the fighter can pick up the TWF line with his bonus feats AND a couple of Kiai Shout feats that are in the Complete Warrior. If he really wants, he can even have some feats that help him intimidate enemies. And he'll have bonus feats left over.
"For the setting"? It's presented in the Complete Warrior, which is a settingless splatbook. It's expected to be played in typical D&D games.
Why do you have such a hard time believing that some class is particularily weak, mechanically?

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 09:03 PM
I'm sorry, where did I say this? I don't remember taking a stance that optimisation was wrong - just that there's is an atmosphere that makes it feel that optimisation is right.


Such as Bears's above example about how his optimised wizard was the only thing keeping his game from being unfun through a TPK (you probably didn't mean it to come across that way, Bears, but it did.)

So, where'd I misspeak, so I can try not to do so again?
How is that "optimization is right" rather than "optimization isn't bad and fun-killing"? It was in response to a post about how optimizers kill fun, for chrissakes! You're really grasping for straws, here.

In the same thread as this post, I have explicitly stated that optimization is not "right" or somehow better than roleplaying.
If you STILL feel that I'm somehow saying it's "right", then... I can't help you, man. I don't know what can.

Grr
2007-04-17, 09:04 PM
The samurai seems to be very similar to the one from the Oriental Adventures book which was produced for the L5R CCG/RPG stuff. I see the class as a perfect warrior type in an oriental setting where duels are commonplace. The shouts and staredowns would be quite useful in a duel to first blood. The only thing I would change is a few more class skills, representing the education samurai's receive and some skill points to spend on them.

Epiphanis
2007-04-17, 09:05 PM
D&D isn't that cut-and-dry. There will be a number of highly optimal options, a few slightly-less-optimal but still pretty optimized options, et cetera.


In the realm of pure mechanics, if you know exactly what opponent you will face (complete with stats), in what exact battlefield, with what exact resources are available to both sides, and you do the numberwork to the final iteration, I'm sure you could come up with an exactly 'perfect' build that has the highest possible chance of victory. You will never really have that information, but if you did, I'm sure you could.


I certainly never said anything like "quit holdin' me back!" or "not in MY party!"

I'm certain you haven't, because you are cool. But there are some who have, because they aren't.

Roleplaying taken to an extreme can be just as unfun as optimization taken to an extreme. ("But its in character for my rogue to stab your wizard in the back and take his stuff!")

Its not that fluff and crunch are mutually exclusive, but they can and do get in each others' way when you take them to either extreme.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 09:06 PM
The samurai seems to be very similar to the one from the Oriental Adventures book which was produced for the L5R CCG/RPG stuff. I see the class as a perfect warrior type in an oriental setting where duels are commonplace. The shouts and staredowns would be quite useful in a duel to first blood. The only thing I would change is a few more class skills, representing the education samurai's receive and some skill points to spend on them.

No, the OA samurai is fine.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's not bad design for this class to be a vastly weaker Fighter because in a single particular arrangement of fluff, his class features might be useful?
Incidentally, they still wouldn't be as useful as, oh, the fighter's feats.


***


In the realm of pure mechanics, if you know exactly what opponent you will face (complete with stats), in what exact battlefield, with what exact resources are available to both sides, and you do the numberwork to the final iteration, I'm sure you could come up with an exactly 'perfect' build that has the highest possible chance of victory. You will never really have that information, but if you did, I'm sure you could.
But you can't, and no one optimizes to that degree anyway, so, um... so what?


I'm certain you haven't, because you are cool. But there are some who have, because they aren't.
So the problem is them being jerks, not the optimization.


Roleplaying taken to an extreme can be just as unfun as optimization taken to an extreme. ("But its in character for my rogue to stab your wizard in the back and take his stuff!")
Again, we see that the problem is someone being a jerk, not roleplaying.


Its not that fluff and crunch are mutually exclusive, but they can and do get in each others' way when you take them to either extreme.
Sure, they can. Fixing this requires some work. It's also not particularily related to the above.

Roethke
2007-04-17, 09:09 PM
In the realm of pure mechanics, if you know exactly what opponent you will face (complete with stats), in what exact battlefield, with what exact resources are available to both sides, and you do the numberwork to the final iteration, I'm sure you could come up with an exactly 'perfect' build that has the highest possible chance of victory. You will never really have that information, but if you did, I'm sure you could.

Maybe theoretically, but the questions are almost never phrased this way. The answer would always be 'Pun-Pun or a Wizard', more or less. It's usually,
"given this set of vague constraints, what's a good build/feat to take, etc."

and here there are often different ways to go about it, or when the function collapses, it results in a very specific piece of advice, e.g. Fighters should take power-attack.



I'm certain you haven't, because you are cool. But there are some who have, because they aren't.

Roleplaying taken to an extreme can be just as unfun as optimization taken to an extreme. ("But its in character for my rogue to stab your wizard in the back and take his stuff!")

Its not that fluff and crunch are mutually exclusive, but they can and do get in each others' way when you take them to either extreme.
Well, that falls neatly into the 'Don't be a jackass' school of D&D, to which I heartily subscribe.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-17, 09:09 PM
Come to think of it-

A knight makes a more flavorful samurai than a CW samurai.

Even funnier, it's from the same damn book.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 09:10 PM
Come to think of it-

A knight makes a more flavorful samurai than a CW samurai.

Even funnier, it's from the same damn book.

The Knight is a set of mechanics. It doesn't make a more or less flavorful samurai. The mechanics are a little more appropriate, yes.

And the Knight is from the PHB II, not the Complete Warrior.

Matthew
2007-04-17, 09:11 PM
Huh, seems like this Thread should have been titled "Reasons I will never win D&D as an Optimised Wizards" - I didn't have much fun, ergo I didn't win D&D.

Oh yeah, The Complete Warrior Samurai sucks, unless you are playing a particular type of Samurai (a rubbish one).

asqwasqw
2007-04-17, 09:15 PM
Huh, seems like this Thread should have been titled "Reasons I will never win D&D as an Optimised Wizards" - I didn't have much fun, ergo I didn't win D&D.

Oh yeah, The Complete Warrior Samurai sucks, unless you are playing a particular type of Samurai (a rubbish one).

It doesn't suck, it's just, um... use-impaired. Thats it!

Aquillion
2007-04-17, 09:18 PM
Most of the people who come here talking about "optimization" aren't asking how they can ownzor noobs or win D&D or whatever you do in a MMORPG. They're asking "What can I do with this basic idea so I can contribute meaningfully to the party in combat throughout gameplay?" They don't really want the most optimal character out there; they just want to avoid completely shooting themselves in the foot.

Different groups have different playstyles, but the fact is that the vast, overwhelming majority of D&D is devoted to wargame-style combat. Playing D&D primarily for roleplaying is a mistake. There are plenty of systems out there designed for roleplaying--ones with detailed social models, ones that are entirely skill-based, ones with no combat at all or ones where it's realistically dangerous so characters can't just leap into it regularly and recklessly, ones where everyone is so powerful that optimization is silly, whatever.

D&D isn't one of those systems. D&D is designed to give players a setting in which they can go into a dungeon and kill progressively larger goblinoids until they hit level 20, collecting magical items and money along the way that makes them even better at killing goblinoids. A few other things were grafted on over the years, but the core purpose of D&D has always been killing goblinoids.

D&D has exactly nine options to define your character's core moral and philosophical position, and over a thousand feats to make you better at killing goblinoids. You do the math.

It even has a detailed set of rules to help ensure that every fight starts out as even as possible. Come on, think about that for a moment. The core system for encounters in D&D has nothing to do with roleplaying or setting or anything else (though all those things can be added as fun decorations around the edges and make things more fun, to be sure); it's designed to set up a roughly even and fair wargaming situation. Why does the D&D world even have monsters at every point in the PC's progression? It makes no sense at all. We've been conditioned to accept it by years of RPGs, but when you get right down to it it's a hack, and it's there because the developers know that most people are basically playing the game because they want to run through a sequence of roughly fair tactical fights (with the occasional outlier to spice things up), which they will generally win while progressing in power until they roll up new characters.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-17, 09:20 PM
Wait- that's it. I'm going to play a Blue samurai/warlock that constantly berates his companions for seeking power and wealth instead of a richness of character. Oh sure, I'm going to die rather quickly either at the hands of the first serious enemy I encounter of the players themselves. But, for once, playing a ridiculously weak character will grant some seriously fun roleplaying potential.

Epiphanis
2007-04-17, 09:20 PM
But you can't, and no one optimizes to that degree anyway, so, um... so what?


So, it can be a problem. And yes, some people try to get as close to that extreme as they possibly can.


So the problem is them being jerks, not the optimization.

So the problem is them being jerks about optimization.

Roethke
2007-04-17, 09:23 PM
So the problem is them being jerks about optimization.


The catch, is that if you somehow stop them from being jerks about optimization, you're still left with a jerk.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 09:25 PM
So, it can be a problem. And yes, some people try to get as close to that extreme as they possibly can.
It's impossible, so it can't be a problem. As for those people, if they're doing that then being limited in character choices isn't a problem for them.


So the problem is them being jerks about optimization.
And? People can be jerks about lots of things. Sure, some people are jerks about optimization. Others are jerks about roleplaying, or, hell, not bathing. There are jerks of every variety out there.

I'm not sure what your point is. No one's ever said that no one who optimizes can possibly be bad for a game. There are jerks who optimize.
I'm not sure why you feel this should reflect badly on optimization, though.

I guess I just don't get what your point is.

Counterspin
2007-04-17, 09:25 PM
Trust me, there are some roleplaying jerks on the boards too. As in people being jerks about roleplaying. Turnabout proves nothing.

Matthew
2007-04-17, 09:28 PM
*snip*.
I wouldn't tend to agree with this. D&D supports this type of play and may even be geared towards it, but it's not prohibitive of other types of play; in fact, there are hundreds of articles devoted to alternate playstyles and how to make them work best with D&D.

Also, Alignments do not define your Character's personality, moral, philosophical or otherwise, rather, your Character's personality, morality and philosophical disposition, amongst other things, determines his Alignment.

Rakeesh
2007-04-17, 09:28 PM
...incidentally, why do people feel that "I play unoptimized characters!" is some kind of virtue?

Probably because many people feel that the prime virtue of roleplaying games is playing a role, that is, telling a story. This is a point of view I happen to agree with. Yes, it is certainly possible to play a role well and still be "optimized"...but with few exceptions, you're only going to have so much time to commit to develop your character. Every hour you spend "optimizing" him is often an hour taken from flavoring him nicely.

A question to reply to your question with: why is it important to have your character "optimized"?

Rakeesh
2007-04-17, 09:30 PM
And? People can be jerks about lots of things. Sure, some people are jerks about optimization. Others are jerks about roleplaying, or, hell, not bathing. There are jerks of every variety out there.

Speaking anecdotally here, I've encountered a helluva lot more jerks about optimization than I have about roleplaying.

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-17, 09:31 PM
Because it's still a game with game mechanics. If you don't even try to make a character useable in the combat that frequents most games, you are going to die and thus end the game. You can't enjoy a game you aren't playing anymore.

Aquillion
2007-04-17, 09:31 PM
Wait- that's it. I'm going to play a Blue samurai/warlock that constantly berates his companions for seeking power and wealth instead of a richness of character. Oh sure, I'm going to die rather quickly either at the hands of the first serious enemy I encounter of the players themselves. But, for once, playing a ridiculously weak character will grant some seriously fun roleplaying potential.I would make it a Bard. While bards could theoretically be more powerful, it's not like its hard to un-optimize them, and it would be even funnier with a Bard. You can explain to them that the real purpose ought to be looking good, not winning.

Ooo, even better--put everything in Diplomacy and Perform, but don't use it to help the party. Instead, use it in every town to convince the world that you are the hero and the rest of the party is your flunkies. Convince them that you do all the work, that you carry every battle and win every fight, and so on. Make songs about your fictional exploits and sing them constantly to egg your allies on to victory. Be as useless as possible in combat, but devote every single point of your character to taking every possible iota of credit afterwards. Tell people the fighter is your porter, the mage and cleric are there to learn from your vast wisdom, etc, etc. This would work best in Eberron or someplace similar where word travels quickly, so every town you visit will gather at the gates to cheer "YAAY! It's Viscount Einstrauss and his lowly flunkies!"

...yes, I'm telling you how to optimize your roleplaying. :smallbiggrin:

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-17, 09:33 PM
Aquillon- you have just made my next session as player a horrendous train wreck in the making.

Thank you :smallbiggrin:

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 09:33 PM
Probably because many people feel that the prime virtue of roleplaying games is playing a role, that is, telling a story. This is a point of view I happen to agree with. Yes, it is certainly possible to play a role well and still be "optimized"...but with few exceptions, you're only going to have so much time to commit to develop your character. Every hour you spend "optimizing" him is often an hour taken from flavoring him nicely.
Once a character is flavored, he's flavored. Sprinkling on more thyme won't help.
What's more, D&D characters tend to develop in play. I can write as much backstory as I want, but odds are it won't get used much.


A question to reply to your question with: why is it important to have your character "optimized"?
It isn't necessarily.
It can be, if you want to play a competent character and want the mechanics to reflect this.
It can be, if you are playing D&D as a wargame in addition to as a roleplaying game (something it pretty much cries out for).
It's important to have a party optimized to some extent, because otherwise they'll probably die. And you can't exactly roleplay very much with dead characters.
This question is also only tangential to my question.

Epiphanis
2007-04-17, 09:34 PM
I guess I just don't get what your point is.

My point is that optimization carried to an extreme can place limitations on roleplaying, and there are times when taking suboptimal choices can produce better results in terms of game fun.

Fairly simple as a thesis statement. You might not agree with it as a conclusion, but I can't see why you wouldn't understand what I'm saying.

Merlin the Tuna
2007-04-17, 09:36 PM
Every hour you spend "optimizing" him is often an hour taken from flavoring him nicely.Every hour you spend optimizing him is also an hour you spent thinking about him (the first and most important hurdle), about where he's been and where he's going. This sounds almost like the people who deride multiclassing; sticking with Barbarian 20 doesn't mean you're better than that Barb 1/Fighter 2/Ranger 3/PrC/PrC/PrC, and if anything, I'm inclined to think that you were just lazy and uninventive when imagining your character.

Note that that's a general "you." This isn't a personal attack.

Speaking anecdotally here, I've encountered a helluva lot more jerks about optimization than I have about roleplaying.I've found exactly the opposite to be true. I still facepalm every time I look in a recruitment thread and see "I want ROLEplayers, not ROLLplayers," particularly because of how often these remarks are made by those who are good at neither.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 09:36 PM
My point is that optimization carried to an extreme can place limitations on roleplaying, and there are times when taking suboptimal choices can produce better results in terms of game fun.

Fairly simple as a thesis statement. You might not agree with it as a conclusion, but I can't see why you wouldn't understand what I'm saying.

Sure. But, of course--so what? Was someone saying otherwise? Was anyone recommending optimization be the be-all end-all of character creation?


Edit: Merlin, exactly. "I want roleplayers, not ROLLplayers! Now roll 3d6 for stats and you'd better play your stat-defined character!"

More generally--"roleplaying jerks" are elitists. They like whining about "munchkins", they may spend time "roleplaying" with every shopkeeper while the rest of the party sits around, they may steal from the party because "they're just roleplaying their character", and the like.

If you play a lot of D&D, you won't see as many of these (but there'll still be some). White Wolf games, OTOH, will probably have an even balance of roleplaying jerks and optimizing jerks, perhaps somewhat tilted towards the former because White Wolf does the pretentious "storytelling/roleplaying, not ROLLplaying" thing in a lot of their books.

Roethke
2007-04-17, 09:39 PM
Speaking anecdotally here, I've encountered a helluva lot more jerks about optimization than I have about roleplaying.

Actually, my experience is something of the reverse. See, at least with optimization, a DM on his guard can always say "Nyet" and keep the players on a leash.

If a player decides to hog the spotlight, or be disruptive to the party, or something like that, it's a lot harder to deal with.

I've seen both, in roughly equal numbers.

Counterspin
2007-04-17, 09:39 PM
Once again, I invite someone to link to a post where someone says something along the lines of "roleplay is stupid" or "I hate roleplaying."

Aquillion
2007-04-17, 09:42 PM
I wouldn't tend to agree with this. D&D supports this type of play and may even be geared towards it, but it's not prohibitive of other types of play; in fact, there are hundreds of articles devoted to alternate playstyles and how to make them work best with D&D.Oh, certainly you can alter D&D to work any way you want. My point is just that the default tone is decidedly flavored towards 'kick down the door and swing your greatsword until all NPC movement has stopped', and that there are other, more RP-centered systems out there already. No need to try and cram D&D's square peg into a round hole when there are other options that fit better.

Compare D&D to the typical virtue-flaw system, for instance (not D&D's ungodly flaw hacks, nobody uses those.) A system like that generally encourages people to think long and hard about their background and character, to try and make their flaws and history meaningful, and to really bring it into the game. D&D, well, doesn't. You can, sure, and most people do to an extent, but if you want to make a one-eyed fighter in D&D, do you take a penalty to archery? If you say your character was raised by wolves, are you going to realistically find yourself unable to cope in society? If you say that you have an enemy or dire quest in your backstory, is it going to come back to haunt you?

Some people might try those things, in D&D yeah... but there are systems out there designed, from the ground up, with supporting that in mind, with making it as real as possible and ensuring that everyone has their interesting RP quirks. D&D, well, doesn't, and if you're going to use it that way you might as well just toss the books and start RPing on some blank scratchpaper. It really has that little to offer you in that regard.

Krellen
2007-04-17, 09:43 PM
I drew up a wizard for my tabletop Red Hand of Doom game [...] because this was a published adventure with a DM who was going to run it largely by the book and I didn't think the other guys would do even an "okay" job of it mechanically.
This has saved the party's ass on more than one occasion. TPKs aren't fun.
This is the statement I took exception to, Bears. Your little aside about how a "concept" character might've been more fun is just that - an aside. With or without it, your statement right here says two things: 1. "These guys don't know how to build a good character if their lives depended on it" and 2. "Which it did, so I did it and saved our butts and our fun."

You right there, outright, said optimisation was the only way you could've had fun. Sure, you didn't push the optimisation on your fellow gamers, but you still trumpeted it as the saviour and salvation.

That's the impression I'm talking about - and how many posters here view you, and your opinions, as a gospel, thus furthering the "Cult of Optimisation" that, by your own admission, you're not even trying to spread.

Counterspin
2007-04-17, 09:46 PM
Ah yes, optimizers are so condescending. Of course, the fact that I refer to them as a cult in the same post proves that I'm totally blind to my own bias.

Grr
2007-04-17, 09:46 PM
And you can't exactly roleplay very much with dead characters.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/885660000

Viscount Einstrauss
2007-04-17, 09:47 PM
But it also sounds like, had Bears not been a wizard, the party would have died because they would have lacked the firepower to deal with a pre-built adventure based mostly around fighting (I'm guessing here. Most official adventures are). In this case, it was important that someone in the group was mindful of crunch in order to let the other guys have fun just doing whatever it was they wanted to do.

Matthew
2007-04-17, 09:52 PM
*snip*
It's not really a case of trying, though. D&D isn't a square peg, it's just a peg. It's a lot easier to make D&D an effective story based game than to make Ars Magica a robust Dungeon Hack. All the same, default core D&D 3.x is certainly geared up for Dungeon Crawls, but it's also geared up to be modded. This is the most combat focused incarnation to date, and yet the D20 system seems to have been able to lend itself to just about any genre (surprisingly).

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 09:53 PM
This is the statement I took exception to, Bears. Your little aside about how a "concept" character might've been more fun is just that - an aside. With or without it, your statement right here says two things: 1. "These guys don't know how to build a good character if their lives depended on it" and 2. "Which it did, so I did it and saved our butts and our fun."
The rogue then built a perfectly sound cleric, so apparently they can build a good character to save their lives. Wizards are just complicated and something I am particularily good at. I played a wizard in a crunch-heavy game because I thought I was better at the wizard crunch than other people were. How is this bad, again?

I said a character with a different concept would have been equally fun, not more. (Actually, it would probably have been less--I like my little secret-agent, highly-efficient, saving-fools-and-wincing-about-it gnome.) You're only labelling it as an "aside" because you want to focus on how I am Evil Optimizer.


You right there, outright, said optimisation was the only way you could've had fun. Sure, you didn't push the optimisation on your fellow gamers, but you still trumpeted it as the saviour and salvation.Actually, I trumpeted my working to save the party, rather than saying things like "not in MY party!" or "STFU, lose the character and build something effective", as savior and salvation. This was in response to a post about how optimizers would damage games by saying things like "not in MY party". I was pointing out that optimization doesn't mean ruining others' fun, and it can actually help it.

But, yes. In a party where most of the characters are highly ineffective, an effective character can save the party (and therefore the fun). Why? Because without it, everyone would be dead and there wouldn't be a party.
Note that I was saying this in response to a post about how optimization was bad. I was pointing out that it wasn't always bad--in fact, SOMETIMES, it's good and helps the roleplaying and/or fun.


That's the impression I'm talking about - and how many posters here view you, and your opinions, as a gospel, thus furthering the "Cult of Optimisation" that, by your own admission, you're not even trying to spread.I'm not sure why you're taking "SOMETIMES optimization is good" to "optimization is the right way to play" or "always good".

I was responding to a post that was saying how optimization is bad, so my post was pro-optimization. Nowhere did I say that optimization was always good, or that it was better than roleplaying. You are pulling these things out of the air. Why? Do you really object to the fact that sometimes, optimization can be a good thing so much?

You, for some reason, are generalizing my post to mean "always" rather than in this example. I can't help that. That's like taking a "play pun-pun" post in response to "how do I make the best character ever?" post and using it to show that the poster seriously thinks Pun-Pun belongs in a real game.

You need to seriously reexamine your tone. "Cult of optimization"? Get real. You're, in one post, saying that what you (and, apparently, only you) think I implied beats out things that I've said flat out, that other posters are weak-willed and will be swayed by whatever I post without thinking it over or deciding for themselves, and that you're some kind of nifty free-thinker whereas optimizers are a cult.
Seriously, WTF.

Krellen
2007-04-17, 09:58 PM
It's probably because I can't recall you ever talking about a non-optimised build you enjoyed, Bears. I'm sure they're out there, but you've been talking about this particular wizard a lot in the threads I've read.

Wasn't there a favourite character thread a while ago? Did you post to that?

On the other hand, I want to thank you for explaining the bit about playing D&D as much for the wargamish aspects as the roleplaying aspects. That does help explain a lot of it, and I feel I have a better understanding of the mindset now, which makes things easier on me. So thanks, Bears. I hadn't considered that.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 10:03 PM
It's probably because I can't recall you ever talking about a non-optimised build you enjoyed, Bears. I'm sure they're out there, but you've been talking about this particular wizard a lot in the threads I've read.

Wasn't there a favourite character thread a while ago? Did you post to that?

That's because this particular wizard is the only tabletop D&D character I'm playing at the moment, and therefore he naturally comes up when I want to make a point about wizard mechanics, and this game comes up when I want to make a point about games.

I'm sure I've posted stories of my Favorite D&D Character Ever, an 8-CHA no-social-skills pure Fighter in a roleplay- and social-stuff-heavy game with a bunch of handwaving of the rules.
I'm not sure how my talking or not talking about my characters is relevant, though.

When you get right down to it, this board mainly talks about D&D, so quite naturally the discussions are going to be heavy on the crunch. The game is.

Emperor Tippy
2007-04-17, 10:07 PM
It's probably because I can't recall you ever talking about a non-optimised build you enjoyed, Bears. I'm sure they're out there, but you've been talking about this particular wizard a lot in the threads I've read.

Wasn't there a favourite character thread a while ago? Did you post to that?

On the other hand, I want to thank you for explaining the bit about playing D&D as much for the wargamish aspects as the roleplaying aspects. That does help explain a lot of it, and I feel I have a better understanding of the mindset now, which makes things easier on me. So thanks, Bears. I hadn't considered that.
Do you ever hear me talk about non-optimized wizards? I play lots of other things quite often, I happen to like wizards the best but I play other classes all the time. I rarely post about them on these forums or bring them up because they are unimportant to whatever point we are discussing.

Krellen
2007-04-17, 10:09 PM
Bears: It's relevant in the impression it imparts, especially when you are a well-respected poster - as you are. You probably don't try to be, but you are (many posters defer to you, or mention how much they respect you in threads (okay, sometimes it's clearly supposed to be a jab - "Man, I used to respect you")), so the impression you impart colours the feeling of the board. It's just something that happens in social circles - influencial, highly reputed individuals within a social group will always tend to flavour that group through their words and actions.

It's not fair, especially if one doesn't seek to be influencial, but so it goes.

Knight_Of_Twilight
2007-04-17, 10:13 PM
No, because, that's not the point. You play your D&D how you want to, and as long as you're having fun with your fantasy experience, everything else is kosher.

And, I LOVE bards too. Playing one right now, he's so fun ^_^

EDIT: BWL, it's considered a virtue because, IMHO, people here seem to glorify min/maxing on a large scale.

Actually, if anything, I see more people bashing optimization then supporting it.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 10:13 PM
Except I'm apparently only imparting this impression to you, and only through twists of logic that make the brain hurt. I'm pretty sure that most people know I'm some kind of Evil Optimizer who twinks out no matter what, and I'm pretty damn sure they're not going to start roleplaying less and optimizing more because of what I say.

Krellen
2007-04-17, 10:15 PM
I certainly wasn't trying to describe you as such, Bears. I'm sorry if I imparted that impression.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 10:19 PM
Sure you weren't. That's why you were talking about how I create a "cult of optimization", "optimization as savior and salvation", that I was "trumpeting the defense of optimization" (because attacking it is fine, but defending it isn't), and so on.

Let's be honest--you were attacking the boards in general as being pro-Evil Optimizing, and trying to say that I specifically am a part of the (not actually real) Optimizing Is Right attitude here. If you've changed your mind, great, but that doesn't retroactively change your posts.

Either that, or youjust really consistently misrepresented whatever it is you were actually saying.

Krellen
2007-04-17, 10:26 PM
I never even attacked optimisation. I haven't - not in this thread, anyway, nor in any thread for many months - said it was wrong, or wicked. I said it was prevalent. And that you are one of the prime advancers of it, for whatever reason.

I also said its prevalence makes me less comfortable with this forum, because I'm not much for optimisation. But that's my issue, and I certainly wasn't trying to convince you to fix it. I was simply trying to explain it, and by virtue of thus possibly explain why others might feel hostile to things that smack of optimisation.

I'm not trying to attack or malign you in anyway. It seems that way simply because I've been trying to show you how your words seem to champion something that you yourself claim to not overly value. That's it.

Would I be maligning a sci-fi board that mostly discussed Star Wars by saying at one point, "These boards just don't fit for me all the time: I prefer Star Trek"? Because that's all I was saying.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-17, 10:29 PM
I never even attacked optimisation. I haven't - not in this thread, anyway, nor in any thread for many months - said it was wrong, or wicked. I said it was prevalent. And that you are one of the prime advancers of it, for whatever reason.

"When you shake Joe, his brain rattles in his head like a bullet in a tin can."
"Joe is not the sharpest tool in the shed."
"If you get what I mean... and what I mean is Joe may not get what I mean."

Now, did I actually say Joe was stupid? No. It's implied. BWL isn't dense, and neither are most posters here. Your terms and phrasing, as well as word choice, imply a that there's a problem with optimization and the BWL is somehow the cause of it.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 10:30 PM
Krellen: "It's a trumpet carried by most of the posters on this forum, and creates a feeling that optimisation is the only "true" calling, and those that do not and cannot don't belong." That's calling the forum Evil Optimizers. Evil not in the sense that optimization is evil, but that they're holding it over roleplay. You kept talking about how people here thing optimization is right (we don't, and we've never said so).
On top of that, your posts all convey a very thinly veiled intense dislike for optimization and optimizers. It doesn't go unnoticed. Seriously, you actually said "Cult of Optimization".

If you don't mean to convey a sneering disdain, then, well, try harder.

Counterspin
2007-04-17, 10:31 PM
If you're trying to be neutral your word choice sucks. "Cult" doesn't say "share your knowledge, explain your viewpoint." it says "you're a brain damaged zombie who can't see how you're being manipulated."

Krellen
2007-04-17, 10:34 PM
We're not going to understand each other at this point, so I think it's best we just agree we disagree and leave it at that.

Counterspin
2007-04-17, 10:36 PM
It's not that we don't understand you, it's that we find your words meanspirited.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-17, 10:37 PM
We're not going to understand each other at this point, so I think it's best we just agree we disagree and leave it at that.

...yeah, that's a great response to "your tone is insulting and condescending, you should do something about that if you don't mean it".

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-17, 10:37 PM
*Sigh* - Drop it, BWL. He's apologized twice and attempted to pretend that there was no need to apologize once. That still leaves you with one apology.

Krellen
2007-04-17, 10:38 PM
I have been represented as twisting everything Bears says to make him look "evil" and "twinkish" - but instead of continuing a discussion that won't end anywhere pleasant, I'm choosing to just let it lay. And now I shall do just that.

Galathir
2007-04-17, 10:44 PM
I really dislike this whole issue. I personally dislike min-maxing taken to an extreme, for example a wizard with 18 INT and 5 in everything else. However you don't get any extra brownie points just because you gave your character a dumb feat selection or placed his stats in all the wrong places. Sure that can make for some fun role-playing, but so can having some powerful feats and high stats in key abilities.

When making a character in D&D you do need to make some optimization unless you want your character to be absolutely useless.

Right now I am playing a Beguiler in a campaign that is at level fourteen. I am probably the most powerful character in the party of five, but that doesn't mean that I don't role-play or that the other characters are better because they play less powerful characters. I don't play my character "to win D&D" (how I hate that phrase), but to mesh with the other players and contribute to the fun of the sessions.

However, on previous campaigns I have played some very "sub-optimal" characters, such as a warlock, fighter (archer) and warmage. Did I have more fun because they weren't as powerful? Not at all. I at least derive the fun from party interaction and overcoming challenges. I am not going to go out of my way to get an extra +1 bonus to ability X at the sacrifice of everything else, but I am not going to make a dumb choice to avoid making my character better at something.

I may not have made myself very clear above, but I guess what I am trying to say is if you want to play a wizard, go ahead and have fun. If you want to play a bard, go ahead and have fun. You don't have to feel guilty for playing a wizard or especially proud for playing a bard. Sure some classes are more powerful than others, but in a real campaign I think the differences are much less then are generally discussed.

Diggorian
2007-04-17, 11:18 PM
I think these threads are so full of optimizations because:

It's what newbies ask the most questions about.
RAW based crunch is something we all can reference.
Diffferent builds can be critiqued with mathematic analysis (which geeks flock to).


What're the best weapons to maximize the damage of a TWFer? There's an answer.

What's the best way to portray a Bard with Cha 16? A seductive lothario or clean upstanding boyscout? No definate answer.

I like roleplaying more than optimizing, cause thats where the most fun/laughs/memories come from in my gaming experience, but I do try to get big bonuses on stats to help out when it hits the fan. My Warlock rocked both ways because of how I played him, and we didnt have wizard in the party. If there was one, I'd have rocked as another class for an unfilled role.

One doesnt detract from the other.

Min-maxers in my game tend to stick out in a bad way since bad guys can make a tactics check and Gather Information too. "That guy just killed six on my warriors in six seconds. Sic the worgs on him!"

Roland St. Jude
2007-04-17, 11:27 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep things civil in here, remember our rules on flaming, and don't forget that insulting others based on a preferred playstyle is also a violation of our board rules. Thank you.

Foeofthelance
2007-04-17, 11:51 PM
I don't mind optimization, so long as it doesn't interfere with the roleplaying. Granted, my own characters have never really been the Holy Grail of tweaking, as I enjoy playing wacked out fighters (mostly using Monkey Grip and Two Weapon Fighting. So what if I have a -4 penalty to my attacks? More then easily overcome... OR the dwarf sundermonkey who wields a Monkey Gripped Fullblade {Yes, he is over compensating for something. Just don't call him shorty!}) The real focus should be whether a character is causing the group of people in real life to have less fun. Having four of your friends throw up their hands and say "No more!" is not the sign of a good character, whether twinked or not. Good characters are the ones who have memorable stories, not the ones with stories that always end in "and then I cast spell X/ hit it like I always do and it died." (Though admittedly, some entertaining tales exist about the manners of deaths of various beasties. As long as they are creative!)

So what if the mage can kill anything in one hit? Isn't that what magic is for, to make his life easier? The question is, can he come up with a good reason why he just Phantasmal Killered the Duke's beloved Fluffy? Now, I'm not trying to say Political/Intrigue games are better then Hack and Slash, I'm saying that a character's abilities shouldn't matter at all, but that the mind set of the players should. I can have just as much fun playing King Arthur, High Lord and Martial Master of Britania as I can playing Joe Bob V, local redneck sword swinger and dispatcher of vampiric cattle. But only if I and the folks I am playing with are having fun as well.

Beren One-Hand
2007-04-17, 11:51 PM
I try to steer clear of discussions like these, as they tend to move too fast for me to make more than one meaningful comment, but I find myself unable to resist.

I, too, feel that this board does have a tendency to tout the superiority of playing characters designed to give the best numerical advantage(s) in combat. Not necessarily at the expense of developing the characters behavior and personality, but more often than not at the expense of varied tactics.

Here are some specific reasons how I think this impression is conveyed. If I had time I would provide links to threads as examples, but since I don't I'll just give broad paraphrases that should be recognizable.

1) Class Comparison/Fixing threads: Not only do these keep surfacing and rehashing the same material, but they flat out say that X class is a better class to play, Y class isn't worth playing, or Z class needs to be changed somehow.

After reading a bunch of this and then looking at your character sheet to see X, Y, or Z written in the class field doesn't engender feelings of belonging and tolerance. Especially when you've had no problems with the class and have had lots of fun playing said character.

2) Reamplified Feedback: In most of the threads I've read asking for advice on how to best build X character concept read something like this:
OP: "I know it's not Optimized, but I'm looking to build a X character type. What feats and things should I take?"

If posters feel the need to attach a disclaimer to their character concept to get the help they are looking for, then there is definitely a prevailing feeling in the community that unOptimized characters aren't as good as Optimized ones. Individual posts may not say this, but taken as a whole there is definitely the impression that to get the help you're looking for you should first admit that your character isn't going to ever be as powerful as possible.
I've seen threads where the OP was looking to build a melee sword and board type, and several people tried to convince him to change the concept because the damage output wouldn't be anywhere near what you can do with a greatsword. While this is true, it wasn't what he was looking for and so shouldn't have been debated.

3) Crunch vs Fluff: It has been said many times that Crunch and Fluff have nothing to do with each other... but for some people they do.

Every class has a section talking about their general outlook on everything from religion to other classes. Every class has descriptions about how they get their powers. While you can represent any concept with many different mechanics, not everybody feels that you should. I personally fall somewhere in the middle, swinging back and forth as the mood takes me. Saying things like, "Fighter 5, Bad! Never take fighter 5 unless you're going for 6. Go Fighter 4/Barbarian 1 or Fighter 4/Ranger 1 either is better than Fighter 5!" only works if you feel that there is no relation between mechanics and flavor. Those who do feel there is a relation between class mechanics and flavor will feel maligned by statements such as these, since they choose to take the numerically sub par for something that feels better to them.

ZekeArgo
2007-04-17, 11:59 PM
1) Class Comparison/Fixing threads: Not only do these keep surfacing and rehashing the same material, but they flat out say that X class is a better class to play, Y class isn't worth playing, or Z class needs to be changed somehow.

After reading a bunch of this and then looking at your character sheet to see X, Y, or Z written in the class field doesn't engender feelings of belonging and ?. Especially when you've had no problems with the class and have had lots of fun playing said character.

Jesus this always comes up. It doesn't matter if you've had fun with it, or if *you* haven't had any problems with it. The fact of the matter is that there *are* classes that are better choices than others. If you want to play a martial character a Warblade is a better choice than a CW Samurai. Anything else is a personal value judgement and is VERY difficult to discuss


02) Reamplified Feedback: In most of the threads I've read asking for advice on how to best build X character concept read something like this:
OP: "I know it's not Optimized, but I'm looking to build a X character type. What feats and things should I take?"

If posters feel the need to attach a disclaimer to their character concept to get the help they are looking for, then there is definitely a prevailing feeling in the community that unOptimized characters aren't as good as Optimized ones. Individual posts may not say this, but taken as a whole there is definitely the impression that to get the help you're looking for you should first admit that your character isn't going to ever be as powerful as possible.
I've seen threads where the OP was looking to build a melee sword and board type, and several people tried to convince him to change the concept because the damage output wouldn't be anywhere near what you can do with a greatsword. While this is true, it wasn't what he was looking for and so shouldn't have been debated.The problem here is context. Maybe the poster was a first-timer and just didn't know that sword and board or TWF were unoptimal. Or the poster was just giving he opinion, who knows?


3) Crunch vs Fluff:
It has been said many times that Crunch and Fluff have nothing to do with each other... but for some people they do.

Every class has a section talking about their general outlook on everything from religion to other classes. Every class has descriptions about how they get their powers. While you can represent any concept with many different mechanics, not everybody feels that you should. I personally fall somewhere in the middle, swinging back and forth as the mood takes me. Saying things like, "Fighter 5, Bad! Never take fighter 5 unless you're going for 6. Go Fighter 4/Barbarian 1 or Fighter 4/Ranger 1 either is better than Fighter 5!" only works if you feel that there is no relation between mechanics and flavor. Those who do feel there is a relation between class mechanics and flavor will feel maligned by statements such as these, since they choose to take the numerically sub par for something that feels better to them.
No, every class has discriptions about how they *generally* feel about other classes. The thing is, you can represent almost *any* concept with *any* class. Holy warrior? Hey I'm a paladin, I'm a cleric, I'm a fighter, I'm a druid, I'm a rogue, I'm a barbarian, I'm a monk, etc...

So just because *you* feel that you need to constrain yourself to the arbitary decisions that a designer made does *not* affect the opinions of others or how they choose to express them. You may not like it or think its weird, but then the same could be said of your own outlook, which brings us to a moot point.

Counterspin
2007-04-18, 12:10 AM
I'm sorry, but "from a pure crunch perspective, fighter level 5 is bad" is a statement of fact. You admit as much. Since the conversation you suggest is with an optimizer, that's what he or she is saying, and you've admitted that it is correct. So the real question is why a statement of truth makes you feel bad, which I don't see as a question we can answer.

Holocron Coder
2007-04-18, 12:47 AM
Wow, quite a mess we had here :) I could point out places where people misunderstood each other or something, but I don't wish to, really.

It's generally accepted that, if a player says "I want to play a rogue, give me some suggestions", he should get suggestions about possible PrCs, classes to assist in the build (rogue, swashbuckler, fighter, etc), along with weapons or feats (TWF, etc).

And if a player says "I want to play a tanking fighter", he should get suggestions on class, as well as possible feats. He shouldn't, however, receive posts telling him that "two-handed weapons are better, use those", since it doesn't fit what he wishes to play.

Optimizing is a sliding scale. As long as your character isn't completely hopeless, it should be acceptable. Additionally, as long as your character isn't god at level 5, he should be acceptable.

Am I making sense? It's late for me and I really should be sleeping :)

Beren One-Hand
2007-04-18, 12:56 AM
I'm sorry, but "from a pure crunch perspective, fighter level 5 is bad" is a statement of fact. You admit as much. Since the conversation you suggest is with an optimizer, that's what he or she is saying, and you've admitted that it is correct. So the real question is why a statement of truth makes you feel bad, which I don't see as a question we can answer.

I'm not saying that it makes me feel bad, what I am saying is that the statement of fact is only true for those who completely seperate mechanics from feel. For people who do not, the statement of fact becomes a rigid denouncement of their character idea - because the two people think in diametrically opposed ways. Statements that do not inculde some sort of quailfier to denote what school of thought the statement represents, preferably with some backing evidence for the fact, only serve to heighten the impression that the poster feels one particular way of playing is better than another.

Counterspin
2007-04-18, 01:10 AM
So I'm supposed to append "from a pure crunch perspective to all my posts?" I notice you didn't append "from a primarily roleplay perspective" to any of yours. Why is it my job to point out the obvious?

The whole thing breaks down to "I've decided that you don't like me" as far as I can tell.

I'm not subtle. I haven't seen much in the way of subtle people on these boards. If I wanted to tell you I thought your character sucked, there's an easy way for me to do it. I'd type "I think your character sucks" and post it in a thread about your character.

Why you choose to interpret the message "Your character could be better from a crunch perspective if you did x" as "I denounce your character" is beyond me. Why not take people's statements at face value, not read everything in the worst way, and avoid all the drama?

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-18, 04:35 AM
So I'm supposed to append "from a pure crunch perspective to all my posts?" I notice you didn't append "from a primarily roleplay perspective" to any of yours. Why is it my job to point out the obvious?

The whole thing breaks down to "I've decided that you don't like me" as far as I can tell.

I'm not subtle. I haven't seen much in the way of subtle people on these boards. If I wanted to tell you I thought your character sucked, there's an easy way for me to do it. I'd type "I think your character sucks" and post it in a thread about your character.

Why you choose to interpret the message "Your character could be better from a crunch perspective if you did x" as "I denounce your character" is beyond me. Why not take people's statements at face value, not read everything in the worst way, and avoid all the drama?

Quoted for very very much truth. If there's something that really needed to be said on this board, it's this ^




The thread breakdown there has more to do with a certain posters demand that words mean whatever he wants them to mean, so I think you're getting a little off-topic cyborg. :)

Yeah, Cyborg Pirate's link has more to do with a poster being certain that (s)he was right and everyone else was wrong than an actual opinion debate. The poster wouldn't even acknowledge that a statement like "A, B, and C should not be allowed in a game" was an opinion and not a universal truth.

I know, it's a little bit of a stretch. I wanted to use it as an example of how discussions usually go once there is no common ground to discuss on.

Dhavaer
2007-04-18, 04:42 AM
And if a player says "I want to play a tanking fighter", he should get suggestions on class, as well as possible feats. He shouldn't, however, receive posts telling him that "two-handed weapons are better, use those", since it doesn't fit what he wishes to play.

Doesn't it? Unless I'm misunderstanding the definition of 'tanking', I don't se why you couldn't use a two-handed weapon.

Cyborg Pirate
2007-04-18, 04:49 AM
And if a player says "I want to play a tanking fighter", he should get suggestions on class, as well as possible feats. He shouldn't, however, receive posts telling him that "two-handed weapons are better, use those", since it doesn't fit what he wishes to play.

Doesn't it? Unless I'm misunderstanding the definition of 'tanking', I don't se why you couldn't use a two-handed weapon.

I was thinking about commenting on that. The problem about saying that is: The definition of 'tanking' differs from person to person.

If the one who responds with advise believes that tanks are only there to soak damage, he/she'll probably recommend sword n board.

If the one who responds with advise belives that tanks are there to soak and deal damage, he/she'll reccomend a two handed weapon.

If the one who responds has a very good grasp of the rules, he/she'll recommend a two handed weapon and an animated shield, giving the best of both worlds, but quite possibly not what the one asking for a tank would want.



Fact is, just asking "I want to play a tanking fighter" gives people almost no significant information to base their reply on and forces them to rely on their own interpretations, which can be drastically different from those of the one asking.

"I'd like to make a shield-bearing fighter who can protect his friends really well" would be a Far better question.

Holocron Coder
2007-04-18, 06:02 AM
Apologies on my wording then, I use the word "tanking" as it comes from my other games, where it referes to a sword-n-board character :)

Jayabalard
2007-04-18, 08:07 AM
And so on. If you post asking for build advice, expect build advice and criticism, and discussions on the relative merits of certain rules and tactics. If you're not interested in build advice and criticism, and you just want to talk about your character concept, make that clear in your post, and 99% of people will respect it.It seems kind of arrogant to me that some people assume that anyone asking for build advice is strictly looking for advice on building a powerful/optimized character.

I do recall a little while back that someone was asking for advice on a character; he made it clear in his post there were things that he didn't want to have because it didn't fit his character concept, but some people still persisted in offering advice that didn't fit with the character to produce a more optimized character. It kind of made my character concept advice/comments seem out of place.


Now, did I actually say Joe was stupid? No. It's implied. BWL isn't dense, and neither are most posters here. Your terms and phrasing, as well as word choice, imply a that there's a problem with optimization and the BWL is somehow the cause of it.That seems pretty similar to how many of the posters disparage people that like to play un-optimized characters to me... saying such characters are "useless", "inefficient", "can't contribute meaningfully", etc; they seem to be implying just as clearly that the things that are important to them in the style game that they play, should be important to everyone.

Perhaps it just stands out more since the people that don't see any virtue in optimization aren't in the majority?

Person_Man
2007-04-18, 09:49 AM
It seems kind of arrogant to me that some people assume that anyone asking for build advice is strictly looking for advice on building a powerful/optimized character.

I do recall a little while back that someone was asking for advice on a character; he made it clear in his post there were things that he didn't want to have because it didn't fit his character concept, but some people still persisted in offering advice that didn't fit with the character to produce a more optimized character. It kind of made my character concept advice/comments seem out of place.

I think a lot of this can be cleared up if Original Posters are more clear about what they're looking for.

Perhaps everyone should answer 4 simple questions whenever they start a new thread looking for build advice:

1) The general fluff they'd like to follow.

2) What abilities they want to get out of the build.

3) Whether or not they'd consider alternative class builds, or if they just want feat and item advice.

4) What books are available to them.

Once they answer this, anyone deviating from the OP's specifications can be told to read the OP, and off-topic optimization advice can be minimized.

Someone brought up the excellent example of the Scout. Sometimes people want a ranged combat Skill Monkey, so they post "How can I build a good Scout?" Someone might respond that a Scout 3/Ranger 17 with the Swift Hunter is the way to go. And if the OP wants an effective ranged combat Skill Monkey, they might think its a great idea. But maybe they just want to play a Scout 20, and they don't care if its weak, but they want to make it slightly better somehow. In that case, just saying "I want to play Scout 20, please don't suggest alternative class builds" helps everyone reading the trhead.

Does anyone else think answering these four questions at the start of every new build post would be a good idea? Alternative suggestions?

I'm not really concerned about arrogance or ego or how people should be extra special nice to each other. I'm concerned with clear communication. If we can get that, I think the niceness and community building will naturally follow.

Counterspin
2007-04-18, 10:02 AM
Jayabalard - It still comes down to this. The OP is asking for a favor from the boards. He wants them to spend time optimizing his character. A lot of them help him within his parameters, and some of them push those parameters. He should be thankful to both, and ignore the latter. After all they took part of their day to try to help him.

Why read things that aren't there into their helpfulness?

As for the bias against optimization-neutral folk I have yet to see it. So far in the last two weeks I've been called "stupid", "lazy", and a "cultist" in various discussions on the merits of optimizations and the classic wizard optimization argument. The "What does pun-pun mean to you" thread was full of people who swore their hatred of min-maxers and munchkins. I've never seen anyone disparage role-playing in that way. You're welcome to link an example, but I keep asking for one and no-one ever gives it.

Tough_Tonka
2007-04-18, 10:10 AM
But seriously, having fun is winning D&D. Even the most ridiculous character optimizer has the potential to realize this.

If you play 1st ed. you can win DnD without enjoying it one bit :smallbiggrin:. Just attain immortality and become a Full Hierarch Immortal then transfer your essence back into a mortal first level character and repeat the process. Once you become a Full Hierarch Immoratl again and are willing to try a third time Black Balls living black holes, suck you up and take you to the realm of the Old Ones.

"...no higher goal can be attained, and no reward is too great. The player wins and his character vanishes. And that is the final end of this game."
-DM's Guide to Immortals

See min/maxers, you need to fun at all to beat this game.

Heh heh heh....

Diggorian
2007-04-18, 01:39 PM
I think a lot of this can be cleared up if Original Posters are more clear about what they're looking for.

Perhaps everyone should answer 4 simple questions whenever they start a new thread looking for build advice:

1) The general fluff they'd like to follow.

2) What abilities they want to get out of the build.

3) Whether or not they'd consider alternative class builds, or if they just want feat and item advice.

4) What books are available to them.

Once they answer this, anyone deviating from the OP's specifications can be told to read the OP, and off-topic optimization advice can be minimized.


I think these are good guidelines, and would be natural questions a contributer would ask the OP to gauge what he wants.

Not sure if this will decrease optimizers tangents, but it's a good place to start. After the OP posts something like, "Thanks for all the advice. I've know what to do now.", I consider the discussion over. But others, continue until someone mistates something or states an opinion as fact, another points it out, defensiveness occurs. Repeat ad nauseum until Roland shuts it down.

Indon
2007-04-18, 03:38 PM
I think a lot of this can be cleared up if Original Posters are more clear about what they're looking for.

Perhaps everyone should answer 4 simple questions whenever they start a new thread looking for build advice:

1) The general fluff they'd like to follow.

2) What abilities they want to get out of the build.

3) Whether or not they'd consider alternative class builds, or if they just want feat and item advice.

4) What books are available to them.

Once they answer this, anyone deviating from the OP's specifications can be told to read the OP, and off-topic optimization advice can be minimized.


I also agree with this proposal. I think that there'll still be some less-than-clear requests, generally from new posters who don't realize the breadth of effort that has been placed into D&D optimization here on the interwebs, but ineffeciency in any system is inevitable.

So, someone make a good "Guidelines for asking character advice" thread, and a bunch of people post on it saying "This is great and should be stickied", and then I presume it'd get stickied?

Matthew
2007-04-18, 10:10 PM
If you play 1st ed. you can win DnD without enjoying it one bit :smallbiggrin:. Just attain immortality and become a Full Hierarch Immortal then transfer your essence back into a mortal first level character and repeat the process. Once you become a Full Hierarch Immoratl again and are willing to try a third time Black Balls living black holes, suck you up and take you to the realm of the Old Ones.

"...no higher goal can be attained, and no reward is too great. The player wins and his character vanishes. And that is the final end of this game."
-DM's Guide to Immortals

See min/maxers, you need to fun at all to beat this game.

Heh heh heh....

Is that (A)D&D 1.x? I think it's (O)D&D, right?

Person Man is right, a good deal of the confusion is created when Posters are unclear about what it is they exactly want.

Bears With Lasers
2007-04-18, 10:12 PM
So, someone make a good "Guidelines for asking character advice" thread, and a bunch of people post on it saying "This is great and should be stickied", and then I presume it'd get stickied?

...yeeeeeeah, not so much.

Jade_Tarem
2007-04-18, 11:12 PM
I also agree with this proposal. I think that there'll still be some less-than-clear requests, generally from new posters who don't realize the breadth of effort that has been placed into D&D optimization here on the interwebs, but ineffeciency in any system is inevitable.

So, someone make a good "Guidelines for asking character advice" thread, and a bunch of people post on it saying "This is great and should be stickied", and then I presume it'd get stickied?


Are you serious, or was this just a "while we're on the topic" kind of idle suggestion? I'd be happy to give it a shot, but the forum doesn't sticky just any old thread...

Dareon
2007-04-19, 12:57 AM
The problem I see, beyond people being far too quick to respond and misunderstanding each other in the process, is one of flavor versus mechanics, and the definitions of such.

Before I begin, let me say I don't like the terms optimized or unoptimized or suboptimal or whatever you like, because they set up a hierarchy that I'm not even certain exists, due to my perspective on fun and mechanics and flavor. This perspective can be stated, rather clunkily, as As mechanics and flavor approach equilibrium, the fun value approaches maximum.

To me, it seems that there are two groups on these boards. There are likely more, but these are the two easiest to classify and quantify. In the interest of a handy mnemonic that is neither overly insulting nor insulting to one party over the other, I shall call them the Hoities and the Toities.

Group A, the Hoities, sees class names as firmly intertwined with their mechanics and flavor. A samurai should be a member of the Samurai class, the Factotum is a weird name, Monks must be the wandering Zen master type, et cetera. There is nothing wrong with this viewpoint.

Group B, the Toities, sees class names as a label for a set of mechanics. A samurai may be a Samurai, an EWP Fighter, a Ranger, maybe a Paladin, whatever. A Monk may be a Zen master, a boxer, or merely someone who likes hitting things. Ditto for an IUS Fighter. There is nothing wrong with this viewpoint either. I happen to see myself as a Toity.

Where anything even possibly approaching wrong comes in is when the two
collide. A user will post with questions about a samurai build, a Toity will give them advice concerning a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue/PrC+skill trick option, and a Hoity will get upset because the poster wanted a Samurai. The main thing I personally would class as wrong is that, in 75% of the examples I've seen, the Hoity makes no attempt to offer a Samurai build in rebuttal, but merely complains and sets off a huge round of bickering that lasts long past any time the original poster may have wanted his build advice.

...Wow. I can't actually tell if this is off-topic or not. Just to be on the safe side, though...

Optimization is a normal state of character-building. The only way to create a completely unoptimized character is on purpose. And even then it's debatable. A Lawful Fighter with nothing but cross-class Perform and Magical Aptitude? Maybe he always wanted to be a bard, but couldn't afford tuition. His Lawful attitude made him sneer at taking instruction from any tuppenny minstrel on a street corner, so he studied the way of the blade, as his father did before him. But always he longed to sing, and the magical blood from his mother's side of the family would not be denied... Okay, extreme example.

The thing is, you can optimize for flavor or mechanics. Now, the CompWar Samurai is a bad choice for flavor if you want a halfway authentic one, but I can't actually speak for its mechanics since I haven't played one. I've found several times now where my experience with a character class has been almost completely counter to general consensus (Or at least the loudest general consensus), perhaps Samurai is of a similar nature.

An example. One of my current characters is a Warlock. At level 6, he provides consistent damage per round at extraordinarily long range, nothing spectacular, but easily able to match the meat shields over the course of a battle, said meat shields being fairly optimized as well. One is a Large Fighter tripmonkey, another a Crusader, yet a third a Paladin/variant Samurai specializing in 2HF. This is actually counter to both viewpoints expressed most often towards the Warlock, those being A) They are weak, and B) They are overpowered.

If I wanted to optimize for damage, I'd take a level of Binder, then go into Hellfire Warlock. Neither of those makes sense in the character's flavor, so he's going for Mindbender/Enlightened Spirit/Legendary Leader. Both the latter ones make sense in the setting and character, and Mindbender plus the Mindsight feat is advantageous for several reasons, both flavor and mechanical. This is a fun character for me. I would not, for the most part, have fun mowing through hordes of enemies like the aforementioned meat shields, but I have fun with my Spymaster-who-would-never-take-levels-in-the-actual-Spymaster-class.

I enjoy playing the character, therefore I win at D&D. That is probably the point of this whole meandering post. Those who feel I have wasted their time with this post may now punch me in the face across the Internet.

Lord_Kimboat
2007-04-19, 02:00 AM
I'm not so sure Scorpina. It seems to me that you do win - the point of role playing is to have fun. You have fun playing bards and thus I would say you win.

Some people love to create optimized characters though. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as they don't try to destroy the fun others have in the game by saying, "I'm optimized, you aren't so you're a loser!"

With me, I try to create a character that's effective but the thing that's important to me is her/her story. My character doesn't have to be The All Powerful Gawd Destroyer but I'm also not into playing the incredible shrinking violet either.

The trick is simple. Play what you want to play, try to enjoy the game and try not to stop others from doing the same thin.

Aquillion
2007-04-19, 02:39 AM
An example. One of my current characters is a Warlock. At level 6, he provides consistent damage per round at extraordinarily long range, nothing spectacular, but easily able to match the meat shields over the course of a battle, said meat shields being fairly optimized as well. One is a Large Fighter tripmonkey, another a Crusader, yet a third a Paladin/variant Samurai specializing in 2HF. This is actually counter to both viewpoints expressed most often towards the Warlock, those being A) They are weak, and B) They are overpowered.It's not surprising at level 6. The warlock's damage problems start to show up at slightly higher levels, when your fighter-types are getting more and more swings with more and more magical weapons and getting all their bonuses on every hit, while the warlock is still stuck with pretty much the base dice given by their level. Warlock damage doesn't scale.

To bring that back onto the topic, though... It's obvious that seeing that said, for whatever reason, makes a lot of people wince. It shouldn't. Certainly nobody is saying you shouldn't play a warlock or that warlocks are absolutely unplayable; it's just a fact that, as a class, they do damage an entire category below most damage-focused classes at higher levels.

Dareon probably already knows all this and wasn't trying to go for a high-damage warlock in any case; I'm just using that to illustrate a point.

The general sense I'm getting here is that what many of the people who oppose optimization really feel, even if they can't bring themselves to say it, is that it's wrong say things like that at all. They feel, I think, like they're being sucked into a MMORPG, surrounded by people who only care about damage output or disabling the enemy with 66.4% efficiency or whatever. That isn't the point of most optimization discussion at all.

Making a warlock or whatever is fine, but players need to know how its class mechanics work out in the game before they can tell if it suits their image of their character, and they need to know what sort of strategies they'll be using in combat. Someone whose image of their character is a tricky sort who evades all attacks, teleporting and flying around or turning into a horde of bats while laughing and pinging the enemy might be perfectly happy as a basic warlock; someone whose vision of their character is a walking wave of destruction probably wouldn't be.

Likewise, if a class or build is going to have serious problems--I'm not talking about suboptimal functionality, I'm talking about not being able to contribute at all--in a wide variety of situations, players need to know about that. Unless your vision of your fighter is someone who hardly ever gets to swing his sword because none of the enemies are ever in reach, it's perfectly valid to discuss the prevalence of flying, mobile opponents later on and tricks that can be used to deal with this. No matter how you RP it, sitting in the back row unable to do anything at all for a significant percentage of your fights is no fun. (Ok, now that I think about it, there are probably ways to make it fun. But people who play D&D expecting to do some fighting ought to at least know what they're getting into there.)

That sort of talk can also be useful to a DM; if you're aware of the problems certain classes can have, you can try and adapt to them a little. You don't have to, of course, but you should at least realize what's going on before you throw hordes of critical-immune monsters at a group where someone depends on sneak attacks, or flying monsters when someone can't really contribute against them.

...finally, most of the really extreme optimization is a game in and of itself, totally seperate from actually playing D&D. Things like Pun-Pun and the infamous Hulking Hurler build fall into this category; nobody ever intended them to be played, they're just bits of fun discussion where people can see what sort of weird things they can twist the rules into. You don't have to enjoy those, but criticizing them the way I've seen some people here do it is completely and utterly missing the point. The only thing those sorts of theoretical optimization games have to do with D&D is that they use the RAW as a basis to optimize off of; they don't touch on RP anywhere because they have nothing to do with RP. They're part of a totally seperate game where people sit around and try to see what sort of tricks they can come up with on paper for laughs.