PDA

View Full Version : Build Optimization--Unfair? Nonsensical? Unrealistic?



EndgamerAzari
2007-07-07, 07:04 PM
I've been playing D&D for a few years now, and there's something I've noticed: no matter how good or bad the DM, no matter how plotless or in-depth the campaign, no matter who else is playing.... my characters are always the weakest, deal the least damage and hit the least, have the worst saves, have no useful class abilities, and are borderline useless. I know I've whined about this before in the "Help me kill my party!" thread, but something dawned on me last night:

Build optimization. It makes no sense from an in-game perspective. I know that the characters would obviously strive to better themselves at what they do best, but when does it get ridiculous? It's borderline powergaming! When the DM has to throw monsters of a challenge rating of nearly ten higher than your actually average party level, is it going too far? I know there's a thread going on about whether the Tome of Battle is overpowered, and I don't want this thread to turn into that (despite being the only one who owns the book among my friends, I have yet to create a character from it). But I know people who plan all twenty levels of their characters out before they even start playing! Where's the fun--or sense-- in that? Despite the fact that these characters wouldn't be able to adapt to the campaign, they seem to do quite well in viciously overshadowing anything I put together.

Maybe it's just poor planning on my part, or just poor taste in classes. But does anyone see this as a genuine threat to the whole point of the game?

Tokiko Mima
2007-07-07, 07:31 PM
It's just a different style of playing. Frankly, the way Feats and class abilities build on each other, unless you plan ahead you'll always end up fairly suboptimal. Maybe that's what you're experiencing?

In any case, you have to accept that some players will plan what they want their characters to be before they start, and other players will not. The ones that plan ahead usually have a much more narrow focus, and do better because they have already adapted their character to fill your campaign. The ones that don't plan ahead generally have a broader focus and thus are not as powerful in the specific scenarios you prevent.

Example: I'm running a Ravenloft campaign. One character I'll get from a player that plans ahead will be a cleric of Pelor, the other will be a rogue. They're both useful classes, but the cleric is going to be a lot more useful because he/she is well suited to a campaign full of undead. The rogue is a great class overall, but isn't as effective on crit-immune monsters.

The point here is that players choices drive this: The planner didn't really need to be a cleric, but decided that this based on your choice of setting. The non-planner picked what he liked to play, and accepts that this might cause him difficulty. In fact, the non-planner might even enjoy this.

The only way to counter this is to force players to create a build path before they even start, and that's not really fair to either playstyle. What works best for me, as someone that enjoy planning out a build for a character, is offering help to players in creating their characters, and dropping as many suggestions as possible, steering people away from sub-optimal classes/variants when possible, and recommending something more suited to what the player wants to play.

HidaTsuzua
2007-07-07, 07:31 PM
Build optimization can make sense in game. Many training regimes have a steady progression of what you learn being built on what you did before. It can get kind of messed up with "and then I took a level in passive way monk!" But that can depend on SFX and in game justification. Also with most optimized builds, the level of multiclassing all over the place tends to be low (outside of obvious dips like Fighter or Paladin). Honestly, this is going to be a side effect of class based system (since you have make artifical cut offs all over the place). It only gets to bad levels when the classes themselves aren't built well (Fighter and Paladin).

There is the issue of limited flexibility in the campaign. This isn't a problem because how do you adopt to a campaign? I mean if you discover psionics, taking levels in psion isn't going to help. The only adaptation you could do is if you suddenly discover that you're in a dragon heavy world or undead world or whatever. And all that means is that you either are horribly messed up (a sneak attack TWF rogue in the undead heavy campaign) or extremely happy (the super undead turn build cleric in the same campaign). Since most campaigns aren't that extremely, you can figure out your builds ahead of time. If you don't want this problem, I'll suggest using a point buy system and set it so that most points you'll get are from XP not character creation (Hero is especially good for this).

Rachel Lorelei
2007-07-07, 07:36 PM
I can't think of any optimized character (there are a few actually -broken- ones, I suppose) that would make the DM use monsters of a CR equal to the party's level +10.

TheLogman
2007-07-07, 07:36 PM
Well, it seems to me that you have 4 simple options:

1. Try very hard to get your fellow players to stop playing optimised characters for once, the DM is only throwing tougher monsters at them because they are optimizing! Get them to hark back to the days when Wizards NEEDED fighters to protect them, Rouges were a necessity unless you wanted death as a shish-ka-bob, and you made characters to have fun, not have tons of numbers.

2. Get the DM to try more puzzle-based stuff, things that involve brain thinking, and no matter how insanely powered the rest of the party, this puzzle has only 1 answer, and you can contribute as much as or more than the rest of the party.

3. Find another group. It seems you want a little more Roleplay, and less Crunch, at least to the point where you can play a straight anything and still be useful. Or, play something on the forums.

4. When in Rome... Maybe you can dip your toes into the pot of Optimization, just a little, just enough to be useful again. Probably not desirable, but is always an option.

asqwasqw
2007-07-07, 07:37 PM
It really depends on the rest of the players. Some people consider build optomization a fun challenge. If all the players in the party are like that, the DM just bumps up the combat level of the monsters abit (or alot). Others do not optomize at all, either because they do not want to, or they do not know how (I'm gonna take point blank shot, cleave, weapon focus, dodge, toughness. I'm gonna own! :smalltongue: ). The DM then bumps the level of the monsters down. They can still have fun. It is only a threat when you have powergamers and weak characters together. Otherwise, the game is still fun. There are many different ways to play the game, and optomizing your character is one of them.

Couple of solutions:

Talk it out. Ask the powergamers to make their characters a bit weaker.

Make stronger characters. There are a lot of people on this Board who can make a killer character of almost any class.

Ignore it. So what if your useless in combat? Be a better roleplayer. Show them how you play the game!

Premade characters. Have the DM make premade characters, all you need to do is make a background. Solves all combat issues, but may not be fun.

Edit: Ninja-ed by 5 people?? ... I am a slow typer :smallmad: .

Dhavaer
2007-07-07, 07:48 PM
Edit: Ninja-ed by 5 people?? ... I am a slow typer :smallmad: .

Obviously, you should have taken the Creative feat to get a +2 on Craft (writing).

bigbaddragon
2007-07-07, 08:03 PM
Don't worry about your character being the weakest in the group, just play the game for the love of it.

As for the powergaming, there will always be people which like making badass characters more than roleplaying (or simply they do not know how to roleplay or what that even means). Hack, I'm really surprised that my party wizard haven't yet taken level of barbarian to get pounce :smallsmile:

Fishies
2007-07-07, 08:28 PM
Get them to hark back to the days when Wizards NEEDED fighters to protect them, Rouges were a necessity unless you wanted death as a shish-ka-bob

Surely you mean ROGUE?

TheOOB
2007-07-07, 08:46 PM
Keep in mind that D&D is a game, not a story, a certain amount of optimization by all players is necessary to be able to play the game well and contribute to the group. Also keep in mind that in D&D you are role playing epic heroes, so you need a certain amount of power to justify it.

A good DM will take measures to limit the powers of their players. Some feats, races, classes, PrCs, spells, magic items, ability combos, ect are just too powerful and should not be allowed. That said dont force your characters to be weak, there is nothing wrong with wanting to have a powerful character, assuming the character arn't completely broken (divine metamagic presitant divine might polymorph cheese I'm looking at you), I'd worry more about the weaker party members then the stronger ones.

Curmudgeon
2007-07-07, 08:48 PM
Characters are "optimized" for particular types of encounters. A spiked chain tripping machine is going to be excess baggage when half the scenario involves getting through traps. Any DM who reacts to "optimized" characters by throwing exactly the same sort of encounter at them with a higher CR is playing to the characters' strengths. A DM should craft scenarios that will challenge PCs where they're weak. Pit swarms against the two-handed sword wielder. Send constructs against magic users, and slather the iron golem in clay just to keep them guessing. If your healer used Divine Metamagic to crank up their spellcasting, send lots of undead to make them regret spending their turn attempts. If you've got sneak attack specialists, hit them with plants and oozes.

After repeated encounters that target their weak points, your "optimized" characters may decide that they need to generalize a bit more the next time they level up.

Skjaldbakka
2007-07-07, 09:01 PM
Characters are "optimized" for particular types of encounters. A spiked chain tripping machine is going to be excess baggage when half the scenario involves getting through traps. Any DM who reacts to "optimized" characters by throwing exactly the same sort of encounter at them with a higher CR is playing to the characters' strengths. A DM should craft scenarios that will challenge PCs where they're weak. Pit swarms against the two-handed sword wielder. Send constructs against magic users, and slather the iron golem in clay just to keep them guessing. If your healer used Divine Metamagic to crank up their spellcasting, send lots of undead to make them regret spending their turn attempts. If you've got sneak attack specialists, hit them with plants and oozes.

After repeated encounters that target their weak points, your "optimized" characters may decide that they need to generalize a bit more the next time they level up.


Yeah, just be careful not to overdo that. There should be just as many encounters that play to the party's strengths as to thier weaknesses.

Beleriphon
2007-07-07, 09:14 PM
Talk it out. Ask the powergamers to make their characters a bit weaker.

Why?


Make stronger characters. There are a lot of people on this Board who can make a killer character of almost any class.

The simplest answer that does nothing to prevent your enjoyment of the game. A mechanically useful character does make you a bad roleplayer.


Ignore it. So what if your useless in combat? Be a better roleplayer. Show them how you play the game!

Never the twain shall meet those that understand and can use the rules and those that want to have a meaningful in character experience? You can do both thank you very much.

And really optimization isn't a huge issue. Your character doesn't know what feats or attack bonus he might have. He doesn't know how high is Diplomacy check is going to be if you roll a 7. D&D's RP aspect is about the end result, not so much what feats and skills you as a player have selected to reach that end result.

TheOOB
2007-07-07, 09:34 PM
For the record, character power level has very little to do with roleplaying.

Power Gamer != Poor Role Player, conversly, Good Role Play != Weak Character. In fact, that opposite is true more often then not. Lets face it, it's bad role playing to take a fighter who has an 8 con and spends their feats on monkey grip, oversized two weapon fighting, and skill focus. Your characters are adventures, they kill demons and loot dragon treasure for a living, its a dangerous job, weak adventurers die, end of story.

brian c
2007-07-07, 10:08 PM
Don't worry about your character being the weakest in the group, just play the game for the love of it.

As for the powergaming, there will always be people which like making badass characters more than roleplaying (or simply they do not know how to roleplay or what that even means). Hack, I'm really surprised that my party wizard haven't yet taken level of barbarian to get pounce :smallsmile:

Don't be silly, a wizard would never lose a caster level :smallwink:

SilverClawShift
2007-07-07, 10:11 PM
Keep in mind that D&D is a game, not a story, a certain amount of optimization by all players is necessary to be able to play the game well and contribute to the group.


Never the twain shall meet those that understand and can use the rules and those that want to have a meaningful in character experience? You can do both thank you very much.

What they said, which I think is illustrated really well in the DM of the Rings comic: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=850

You rolled a one on your diplomacy check? Don't be mad that you rolled a 1, roleplay it! Go down swinging! Never let the DM take you alive.

"You're surrounded by armed warriors on horseback. They could currently destroy your party by sneezing. Roll a diplomacy check. annnnnd, you rolled a 1."

*sigh* Allright. "Tell me your name horse-f*****"

Erm. Anyway. The point is, there's no reason you can't apply your roleplaying AFTER the game mechanics have been laid down. In fact, that's why the game mechanics exist. They give you a framework to throw your character into, so you don't have to act blind. If you just wanted pure roleplaying, why bother with paper and dice at all? Why not just sit around in a group and write a story together.
(hey, that actually sounds like it'd be kind of fun. Everyone adopts a character or two, one person lays down a storyline framework, and keeps notes of what happens, and then someone types it all up as half decent literature).

Also remember that you don't even HAVE to play off your class as a solid profession. If your sorcerer would be more powerful with a few dice of sneak attack for whatever reason, you can still consider yourself a sorcerer in the game. You can still introduce yourself as a spellcaster and refer to other weilders of the arcane as your peers.
You don't have to introduce yourself as "A Powerful Arch-mage! (with three levels of rogue)". You can just introduce yourself as an archmage, and roleplay those few rogue levels you took as a raw tendency to step lightly and blindside people with a sneak-attack ray of frost.

Gefangnis
2007-07-07, 10:28 PM
I always tell my players at the start to come up with something interesting that defines their character to other players (by the way, this is great advice for any character concept). More often than not, this comes out as a disability - an obese ninja, or an OCD rogue. This not only helps roleplaying tremendously, but it slows down powergamers. It gives them a point to focus on that's not necessarily a certain combat build. It can be, though, which is the beauty of focusing a character - powergamers still get their, well, power, but instead of detracting from roleplaying, it adds to it. As a DM, I'm happy to make deals with players during the creation process that help them focus their character, even if it makes them more powerful.

Kizara
2007-07-07, 10:43 PM
Why not just sit around in a group and write a story together.
(hey, that actually sounds like it'd be kind of fun. Everyone adopts a character or two, one person lays down a storyline framework, and keeps notes of what happens, and then someone types it all up as half decent literature).


This is called Dragonlance. "Half-decent" would be a generous statement imo.

Vva70
2007-07-07, 10:58 PM
Build optimization. It makes no sense from an in-game perspective.

I agree. However, I would also say that the reason that it makes no in-game sense is because the term "build" has no in-game meaning. A character doesn't know his own level. He doesn't know what feats he has, or where his skill points lie. Oh, he probably could tell you some of the results of these factors. A wizard certainly knows what the most powerful spells he can cast are. A fighter with combat expertise knows that he has an above-average ability to fight defensively at the cost of his offense. A rogue with lots of points in bluff probably realizes that he's a smooth-talker. But those are observable consequences of the character builds, not the builds themselves.

The line between what is in-game and out-of-game can be pretty fuzzy in places, I'll admit. And often, there are multiple different (yet valid) opinions on where the line should fall in a given area. But I think that in most cases, it's safe to say that the following terms are out-of-game: class; level (class level and character level specifically, not things like spell level or caster level); feat; skill. A character is going to define himself by what he does, not by what is on his character sheet.

EndgamerAzari
2007-07-07, 11:36 PM
Make stronger characters. There are a lot of people on this Board who can make a killer character of almost any class.



Much easier said than done, I'm afraid, my friend.

Dhavaer
2007-07-07, 11:39 PM
Much easier said than done, I'm afraid, my friend.

You only need to say it. Just say what class, race, level, etc and we'll figure out how to give it a taste of Real Ultimate Powah!!1!!oneleven.

HidaTsuzua
2007-07-07, 11:41 PM
Much easier said than done, I'm afraid, my friend.

I would suggest the Character Optimization board found on the Wizard's website. People will often post "X guides/handbooks." Typically they'll list feats/skills/PrC that go well with that class and have sample builds. I've found then quite useful as a reference for character creation. You don't have to follow much less agree with their advice, but they should at least point you to the right direction. You can use the sticked library link or google to find a guide to a class. Here are some samples.

Beguiler (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=805782)
Dervish (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=629013)
Paladin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=858849)

EndgamerAzari
2007-07-08, 01:01 AM
Hm.... my character IS a dervish....

Callix
2007-07-08, 05:07 AM
Nothing wrong with dervishes. Grab Two-weapon Rend and hit each target twice. Bonus dice galore. Try picking up Tempest (you already have the prereq's to qualify and TWF) for more TWF goodness. The ability to move and full attack, coupled with the extra speed, makes Tempest a powerful melee combatant, especially with extra damage sources. Snare Elusive Target if you want to avoid being crushed when in melee with THWers. Take your pick. I'm something of an admirer of the Ftr4/Bbn1/Dervish10/Tempest5 build. A lot of optimisers aren't, but I am.

warmachine
2007-07-08, 05:41 AM
Adventurers explore places full of deadly monsters and oppose powerful people. They have to be good at what they do or they're dead and they know it. Thus, it makes in-game sense for characters to be optimised.

I optimize myself but I like writing backstories and customize around that. Of the options to customize a PC, feats and skills, feats are far too valuable for roleplay flavour. That leaves skills. One of my favourite characters is an ex-mercenary Fighter with high Craft (Painting). I had great fun making snarky comments about the local decor and painting wonderous events and brutal slayings. When the party rescued a noblewoman from slavers, he only asked for his paintings in her gallery.

Go ahead and optimize but choose a Craft or Profession skill and base the personality around that.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-08, 06:03 AM
But I know people who plan all twenty levels of their characters out before they even start playing!

Yes. The way D&D3 is written, if you want to take a presclass you consider "cool" at level seven, you have to start planning this from level one, because otherwise you won't have the necessary feats or skills or whatnot. If you want to be a powerful cleric later on, you must start with a near-optimal wisdom score because otherwise you won't be able to cast fifth-level spells. And so forth. The system is full of mutually exclusive "tech tree" choices.

If you don't like this, you should seriously look into playing a different system. In fact no other system I'm familiar with has anything remotely resembling this problem. Try Whitewolf, or D&D 2nd edition, or GURPS, or TORG.

arnoldrew
2007-07-08, 08:11 AM
I would suggest the Character Optimization board found on the Wizard's website. People will often post "X guides/handbooks." Typically they'll list feats/skills/PrC that go well with that class and have sample builds. I've found then quite useful as a reference for character creation. You don't have to follow much less agree with their advice, but they should at least point you to the right direction. You can use the sticked library link or google to find a guide to a class. Here are some samples.

Beguiler (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=805782)
Dervish (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=629013)
Paladin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=858849)

Sorry if this seems off-topic, but can anyone tell me why I simply cannot access the WoTC message boards? I've never been able to, and I'm reminded of it every time someone puts up a link to them.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-08, 08:16 AM
Sorry if this seems off-topic, but can anyone tell me why I simply cannot access the WoTC message boards? I've never been able to, and I'm reminded of it every time someone puts up a link to them.

That's odd. Perhaps some overzealous parental guard software? Perhaps a browser hijack? (if so, download Ad-Aware and scan your PC) Perhaps your browser has java disabled and the WOTC boards require that?

Dhavaer
2007-07-08, 08:34 AM
That's odd. Perhaps some overzealous parental guard software? Perhaps a browser hijack? (if so, download Ad-Aware and scan your PC) Perhaps your browser has java disabled and the WOTC boards require that?

I don't think it's Java, I have a Java blocker and the Wizards boards don't worry it.

Tormsskull
2007-07-08, 11:13 AM
OP:

If the game focuses on mostly combat it only makes sense to make a character that is powerful in combat. My guess is that your group is like 90% combat 10% roleplay from what you are saying. So if you want to be in a more roleplay oriented group, you'll probably have to look for a different group.

As for your current group, ask the DM if you can remake your character because you are so much weaker than everyone else. Then post on the board what the other characters are, and I'm sure someone on here will make your a "build" that will be able to keep up with the other characters.

PinkysBrain
2007-07-08, 12:23 PM
Get them to hark back to the days when Wizards NEEDED fighters to protect them
So you mean stop playing 3e? This has little to do with optimization, this is a side effect of design (extremely good defensive spells) and the basic fact that you can almost always simply walk around someone. You can roleplay it outside of actual combat, but in combat without intentional de-optimization on the part of the wizard so he actually needs protection (normally in melee mirror image gives better defense than a fighter's AC&hp) and optimization on the part of the fighter (reach + combat reflexes + tripping + stand still + island of blades) so he can actually defend anything there is neither the need nor the opportunity for the fighter to protect the wizard.

Diggorian
2007-07-08, 12:30 PM
Build optimization. It makes no sense from an in-game perspective. I know that the characters would obviously strive to better themselves at what they do best, but when does it get ridiculous?

"Ridiculous" is a matter of taste ofcourse. Taking the first level of a PrC that has never been mentioned in the narrative when ya level up mid-adventure can appear to be creating a whole new fighting/casting style over night in-character. If you've been working on new techniques in character through out the story, it could represent a breakthrough and better preserve the 4th wall.


It's borderline powergaming! When the DM has to throw monsters of a challenge rating of nearly ten higher than your actually average party level, is it going too far?

Although I hope you're exaggerating, yeah, that's generally "too far". If your group can defeat such a high encounter level, I'd deduce a system breaking problem as well.


... I know people who plan all twenty levels of their characters out before they even start playing! Where's the fun--or sense-- in that? Despite the fact that these characters wouldn't be able to adapt to the campaign, they seem to do quite well in viciously overshadowing anything I put together.

Fun is in the eye of the ... fun-haver :smallamused:. Design challenges, as has been said and shown on forums, can be rewarding to many. In general, optimal choices dont need to adapt to campaign, because they're optimal -- best choice for a given character objective with the sources available.


Maybe it's just poor planning on my part, or just poor taste in classes. But does anyone see this as a genuine threat to the whole point of the game?

Cant really call it a threat to the point of the game cause different games have different objectives. One can optimize for combat in many ways or for socializing in many ways.

If it's a threat to your enjoyment, your best off discussing it with the DM -- whose job it is to ensure your entertainment.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-08, 12:45 PM
this is a side effect of design (extremely good defensive spells) and the basic fact that you can almost always simply walk around someone.

Well, it is not a given that you can simply walk around someone. In fact, many team sports are based upon precisely that being not that easy. The only reason why you can walk around people so easily in D&D3 is the turn-based combat and grid-based movement. If, as in 2e, you don't use a grid, the fighter can simply declare he is interposing himself between the wizard and the enemy.

KIDS
2007-07-08, 02:31 PM
Build optimization is allright, but not necessary. Don't forget that it is no way related to roleplaying of course. A good thing you might want to practice when making a character or thinking about a concept is to ask yourself what the character should be good at and then find several classes/feats that help towards it. So you have a rough advancement plan, but nothing exact, and this average is what most people are comfortable with.

Anyways, optimize or not, but if you're doing allright for your level (not in comparison to party members but to monsters of your CR) the only thing you need to worry about is whether you enjoy playing or not :) Hope that helps.

Callix
2007-07-08, 03:44 PM
All optimised characters have roleplaying potential. They tend to be focused, dedicated to their goal, and organised. I would say most plan-from-1-to-20 optimised characters deserve to be lawful neutral. Exeptions will be made liberally on a casee-by-case basis. But there's nothing wrong with a warrior or mage who is dedicated to becoming the most powerful they can be at what they do, and devoting all their training (skills, feats) to it. The ten-class builds, on the other hand, feel a bit odd to me. I don't like multiple dips. But that's just me.

Stephen_E
2007-07-08, 09:12 PM
Re: Advance planning.
Love it or hate it, DnD requires advance planning unless you're taking a single class with few feats. It's a basic requirement of the game. To not do so is like going to university and choosing your courses by taking whatever looks interesting when you complete your current course.

Re: Optimising.
It's important to keep in mind that optimising a character requires 2 things. Getting the build right (which as has been pointed out many here will happily do for you) AND playing the build right. This means understanding how the build works. The optimisers can build the best Rogue out there, but if you keep charging him into the frontline without flank he'll get creamed and you'll feel you're "weak". I know someone playing a Rogue who's getting frustrated with sneak attack because he has trouble with the fact that it has a specific set of circumstances where it can be used and you can't just go "I attack with sneak attack. But he's fighting someone else so surely I get sneak attack."

If you don't like pre-planning play a pure caster nad never deviate from the base class. If others wish to pre-plan, that's their choice. It's not powergaming, cheating, or taking all the fun out (at least not for them) it's simply part of the game.

Optimisation isn't per se "power gaming". A party works best if people optimise to a similiar level, whatever level that is. In the OP's case it sounds like the problem is that he is optimising id PC to "x" level, and the rest of the party is optimising their PCs to "y" level, where "x"<0 and "y">0. The funny thing is that one of the groups I play in sound like it would be perfect for you. I'm the only person who does much of what is commonly refered to as optimisation, and I take some care to limit the power of my builds to keep them on a rough par with the rest of the party. As a result people who take pure casters almost always take non-caster levels, or non-stacking caster levels.

Stephen

Tor the Fallen
2007-07-09, 01:30 AM
It's just a different style of playing. Frankly, the way Feats and class abilities build on each other, unless you plan ahead you'll always end up fairly suboptimal.

It really depends on the campaign. Taking quicken spell or power attack at level one are significantly more useless than taking dodge, weapon focus, skill focus, or improved initiative.

Damionte
2007-07-09, 01:34 AM
Yes. The way D&D3 is written, if you want to take a presclass you consider "cool" at level seven, you have to start planning this from level one, because otherwise you won't have the necessary feats or skills or whatnot. If you want to be a powerful cleric later on, you must start with a near-optimal wisdom score because otherwise you won't be able to cast fifth-level spells. And so forth. The system is full of mutually exclusive "tech tree" choices.

If you don't like this, you should seriously look into playing a different system. In fact no other system I'm familiar with has anything remotely resembling this problem. Try Whitewolf, or D&D 2nd edition, or GURPS, or TORG.

Except then you have to worry about all the things wrong with those systems. disclaimer: I've neverplayed or even heard of TORG. White Wolf games are not playable from a mechanics standpoint. If your only problem with D&D is that you have to plan out your character to ge into a prestige class, then sufering through white wolf is not the way to go. Just plan out your bleeding character. How hard is that?

MrNexx
2007-07-09, 01:57 AM
I've been musing on this for a bit, actually, as a result of my exposure to GURPS. I know full well I will never be able to play GURPS, because I will point-whore in a fashion that will be insulting to the oldest profession for its blatancy. Tweaking point totals to fit in just at the bar, and still make a kick-butt character.

Now, D&D has its own version of this... optimizing. Optimizing doesn't necessarily mean you're not role-playing, but it can mean sacrifices of character concept... unless you build your stats, then your concept.

I think that's where a lot of non-optimizers get separated from the optimizers. The optimizers often have a build in mind, and create a character who fits that build, whereas the non-optimizers come up with a concept then try to optimize it, and get frustrated when they have to make sacrifices to the concept to get a "good" character. This doesn't mean that the optimizers are playing "wrong", or aren't role-playing; just that they're starting with the mechanical considerations and fitting themselves to that.

Falrin
2007-07-09, 02:22 AM
If you want to play a barbarian swinging his axe around you can

1) Start of a you're suposed to be (few LvLs barbarian). Think it would be fun to be able to inspire your teammates with a drum (few bard-lvLs). Also you're 'living in the wild' character should abviously be able to sleep in his armour (get Endurance), be very good at survival (Skill focus Survival) and cary an over-sized axe (Monkey grip).

Yes, you will end up with a wild, axe-swinging half-orc who hits a wardrum before rushing into battle and track the fleeing enemies with ease. This is the extreme 'role-play' example: Build a character around a concept on the fly. 'It looks fun, go for it!'-style.


2) Take a look at your options. Barbarian. Damage. Axe. Get yourself Power Attack, Cleave, Leap Attack, Shock Trooper. Invest skills in Survival, take a big Drum with you and get a Greataxe with some fluff description (read: Big, Big axe)

Now you'll end up with a character who can survive in the wild and can dish out some decent damage. You still hit your big Wardrum. This is 'optimized-play'. You build your character around a concept and make it work mechanicly.

3) Scan the complete optimization board, buy tons of books and look for abscure rules. Take 2 LvLs in Fighetrs, 1 in barbarian, get 2 LvLs of PrC X & 1 of PrC z to go with feats 1, 2 & 3 to get tripple damage afther a charge and automaticly kill everything you look at.

This is the power-style'. You base everything on maximal potential and reach a powerLevel that lets your fellow partymembers look like commoners. Not good.


When party-balance is disrupted you have to analyse the party. What is the average player ? Role vs Power? And then you fit in. If you can't work out a build capable of reaching the wanted powerLvL ask some help. If your teammates aren't bothered by your underpowered builds there's no problem. When the wizard gets killed again because your barbarian/bard/commoner half-elf wasn't able to protect him there's a problem.


Always remeber: Being a munchkin is no problem. The only problem is the powerdifference between players. 3 Munchkins will have as much problems with 1 Hardcore Role-player as the other way around.

Tor the Fallen
2007-07-09, 02:43 AM
I think that's where a lot of non-optimizers get separated from the optimizers. The optimizers often have a build in mind, and create a character who fits that build, whereas the non-optimizers come up with a concept then try to optimize it, and get frustrated when they have to make sacrifices to the concept to get a "good" character. This doesn't mean that the optimizers are playing "wrong", or aren't role-playing; just that they're starting with the mechanical considerations and fitting themselves to that.

Yup, that's me. I usually come up with a concept, then try to figure out how to make it playable. A lot of the time, I end up having to cut things because I don't have enough feats or skill points to both keep up with the casters and create the character I want.
I've gotten pretty good at optimization AND playing characters that are interesting/justify dips in 3 base classes and 4 PrCs.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-09, 02:59 AM
White Wolf games are not playable from a mechanics standpoint.

???? That didn't make any sense.

My point is that every game has its strong and its weak points - however D&D3 is the only game (to my knowledge) with so many mutually exclusive and interdependent character options you can take (most other games simply have options that cost char points, and you can take them whenever you have the char points). THEREFORE, if this character "tech tree" bothers you, D&D might not be the best game for you, as possibly with the op.

Jannex
2007-07-09, 03:03 AM
White Wolf games are not playable from a mechanics standpoint. If your only problem with D&D is that you have to plan out your character to ge into a prestige class, then sufering through white wolf is not the way to go.

...What?

Not to sidetrack this into a discussion about White Wolf, but... what?

White Wolf games are completely playable, mechanics-wise. I should know; I've been doing it for years with no problem. Heck, I'd even go so far as to call the mechanics simple, flexible, and intuitive. They may not be your particular cup of tea, but to call White Wolf games "suffering" is hyperbole, and not even remotely accurate hyperbole at that.

Regardless, the point here is that while yes, there may be some other systems that emphasize characterization over statistics more than D&D does, you can still have a satisfying roleplaying experience within D&D--as long as all the players involved are looking to get the same thing, or at least compatible things, out of the campaign. If you're the only one looking for meaningful character development, and the rest of the party is just drooling over how über they're going to be at level 20, then yeah, you're gonna run into some issues. If the DM is having to pit your party against encounters that are far above-CR, the there probably is a problem.

That said, I don't think there's anything wrong with a little bit of planning, regarding a character's stats. If you have your eye on a particular PrC (and have the DM's okay to go for it, and an in-character reason and means of learning that style), then it makes sense to collect the prerequisite feats, skills, etc. that you'll need for it. If your character has a general idea of the things he'd like to do (become a better spellcaster, learn to dodge fireballs, find a pet), then it makes sense, out-of-character, to have a general idea of how you'd like to progress his build (more Wizard levels, dip into Rogue, take Obtain Familiar or become a Druid). Of course, in-game events might change these plans, but a general idea never hurt anybody. Usually, when I play D&D, I'll have a vague notion of where my character will go over the next couple of levels: whether she's likely to multiclass or stay on her current track, the next feat she's likely to pick up, where her next Ability Point will go, and maybe a new Skill that she wants to study up on. Nothing is hammered in stone, and I'm usually not looking more than three or four levels into the future, but it helps focus a little. It's good to have goals.

Damionte
2007-07-09, 07:09 AM
I was exagerating a bit. My problem with the white wolf systems is that it's not codified, ENOUGH. so a noob GM, or one with limited imagination, won't be ale to keep up with what you are trying to do. The ball is too much in his court as to what can and can not work.

The codified nature of D&D is part of it's success. More people can play it because it gives you rules to do most things.

Yes it is even simpler to have no rules and just tell the story in ways of the ancients, but it requires a GM with a decent amount of talent. They are not really as common as some may think.

D&D's strength is that anyone can pick it up and play it.

Many players "think" they're these great story tellers and actor/roleplayers, but the vast majority of players couldn't act thier way out of a paper bag. a wet paper bag. While most GM's have trouble just interacting with with real people. Gamers are not the most socially adept crowd."

We need D&D, because most of us simply are not capable of coming up with all of this stuff on our own. If we were we'd have done so already.

Hell i bet we could poll the folks on the forum tomorrow to see how many are "working on thier own custom RPG." I bet we couldn't find more than maybe a half dozen that have actually finished whatever game they tried to make. Only two of those are probably even playable or make sense.

Kurald Galain
2007-07-09, 08:12 AM
I was exagerating a bit. My problem with the white wolf systems is that it's not codified, ENOUGH. so a noob GM, or one with limited imagination, won't be ale to keep up with what you are trying to do. The ball is too much in his court as to what can and can not work.

In my experience that works exactly the opposite way. A noob GM can't do D&D or GURPS properly because he doesn't know all the rules yet, or gets overwhelmed by the sheer amount thereof, or gets into too many meta-debates with the players. The suggestion that you need a Rule that explains how to do whatever discourages creativity. It should be obvious that systems with fewer rules are easier to learn. D&D first and second edition are way less codified than third, yet that never hurt their popularity.

Indon
2007-07-09, 09:33 AM
Regarding the reasonableness of build optimization-

I think that some sorts of optimization are pretty reasonable. A power attacker who relishes his nature as a front-line fighter would only naturally take Shock Trooper when it was availible. A rogue advances down two-weapon fighting because it makes him shank better, and he's certainly capable of doing it.

On the other hand, Paladin 'dips' are on the absurd side. You become a deity's champion, sure, that's awesome. Coincidentally, serving your deity is the same as doing what you've been doing beforehand... okay, I guess it's the God of Adventuring, right? After a while, you just really stop caring about that deity and go back to studying something else entirely.

Or, a lawful character taking a level of Barbarian for pounce. "Yes, I was a hard and disciplined warrior, but then I did a bit too much of the Shire Weed and before I knew it, I'd gone non-lawful, joined one of the Northern Tribes, and had become their mightiest warrior! Who'd have thought? Well, in any case, I'm off the high so I'm ready to go back to adventuring now."

My point being that some optimization methods are more reasonable than others.

Tormsskull
2007-07-09, 09:57 AM
My point being that some optimization methods are more reasonable than others.

While I agree with you, it isn't really the issue specifically. Some people view the classes (Barbarian for example) as a collection of skills rather than a class. In this view, Barbarian could just as easily be called "Melee class A" or anything else really generic. In this view, all of the description of the Barbarian class can be ignored if it doesn't suit what the player wants. In this view, the only thing that matters are the mechanics.

So to you and I, a player taking a level in Barbarian all of a sudden would be strange, but to them they are simply taking a level of +1 BAB, Rage, d12 HD, etc.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 12:32 PM
Tormsskull said what I was gonna say, and he said it quite well, even though he's on the other side of the fence. Just reading his post gave me hope for board discussions everywhere. So, what he said, and long live the monk barbarian!

Indon
2007-07-09, 12:55 PM
So to you and I, a player taking a level in Barbarian all of a sudden would be strange, but to them they are simply taking a level of +1 BAB, Rage, d12 HD, etc.

It all goes back to if you look for mechanics that fit your concept, or make up a concept to match the mechanics. Both can be optimized. Both can roleplay. But it seems to me that the one you start with is going to be easier to do better with.

So while in the end, build optimization doesn't neccessarily mean you aren't into your character... it does mean the mechanics of the character are placed at a higher priority than the character itself is.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 01:00 PM
Indon : Unless you believe that the character and the mechanics are disjoint.

Indon
2007-07-09, 01:04 PM
Indon : Unless you believe that the character and the mechanics are disjoint.

Then, instead of risking not having a good character concept to match your mechanics, you risk damaging the game's immersion level for everyone who doesn't play with the same assumption. (I somewhat remember the thread we had about this, sure you do too)

Though, as with any other style of play, if you find a group of gamers who roll the same way you do, you'll no doubt be all right.

TheDarkOne
2007-07-09, 01:12 PM
In my experience that works exactly the opposite way. A noob GM can't do D&D or GURPS properly because he doesn't know all the rules yet, or gets overwhelmed by the sheer amount thereof, or gets into too many meta-debates with the players. The suggestion that you need a Rule that explains how to do whatever discourages creativity. It should be obvious that systems with fewer rules are easier to learn. D&D first and second edition are way less codified than third, yet that never hurt their popularity.

Yes with fewer rules it takes less time to learn them all, but it also takes more time to get the experience required to DM a game well. One example of this is the CR system D&D has, it lets a new DM have a pretty good idea how hard a given monster will be with out having ever run the monster or anything similar to it before. In systems without a CR equivalent, it would be hard for a new DM to figure out how hard a given encounter will be for the pcs until they get experience with the system. Another example is the things not covered in the rules in the systems with less rules, a new DM will be a lot less likely of coming up with a fair ruling on things not covered by the rules till he's more experienced.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 01:14 PM
Why do other players all of a sudden have the right to exert control over my character build? If a character finds my build immersion breaking, I can't think of a reason why that is my problem rather than his.

Indon
2007-07-09, 01:17 PM
In systems without a CR equivalent, it would be hard for a new DM to figure out how hard a given encounter will be for the pcs until they get experience with the system.

Funny story: Last Exalted session I ran, I faced the party against a pirate crew of about 80, led by a heroic mortal. There were a number of extras, but also a number of elite troops and the captain was well-armed, armored, and had solid stats.

He was dead (by decapitation) in less than half a round.

It was a learning experience.

Edit: Counterspin, just like many other problems of conflicting gaming styles, it's everyone's problem. Things will resolve in the direction of either the majority, or the game's DM, depending on circumstance.

For instance, if someone is running a D20 game and agrees with you, then it's likely that the other players will just have to suck it up and optimize a bit more while your calls-himself-a-monk-but-is-actually-full-wizard (as a very extreme example of divesting mechanics and description from each other) rocks the house.

But on the other hand, if you're playing with a group that doesn't agree on your position, or you have a GM that just thinks that kind of concept is silly, it's likely that you're the one who'll end up having to conform.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 01:20 PM
Though I do think the White Wolf systems are inarguably simpler than D&D, the CR thing does have some merit. I would say that the real issue there is the vast power level irregularity that can exist in systems where a character with no combat capacity is viable in the long term. My last vampire group was three social meanderers and one unfortunate decapitating lunatic(by which I mean decapitator of unfortunates). The lunatic was one of the better characters, but made combat very hard to gauge.

Indon : I'd rather not play in a game where another player can look over my shoulder at my character sheet and force me to change it. As for the more extreme separations of fluff and crunch, I've played with or without it.

Indon
2007-07-09, 01:30 PM
Indon : In a situation where conformity of that type is required, I choose not to play.

A choice which many people make.

Luckily, there's enough groups out there that people of like playstyles can generally play together.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 01:32 PM
On a related note, does anyone find the situation where you're forced to change your character build because someone else in the group finds your build "immersion breaking" acceptable?

Indon: Apologies, I clarified what you just quoted with an edit.

Indon
2007-07-09, 01:41 PM
On a related note, does anyone find the situation where you're forced to change your character build because someone else in the group finds your build "immersion breaking" acceptable?


I imagine we've been discussing a rather extreme case.

I think a more common scenario along the same lines would go:

DM: "So, looks here like you have a warforged... sorceror?"
Player: "Yup!"
DM: "So how precisely did this warforged get innate magic installed in them?"
Player: "Uh..."
DM: "Make him a wizard, or a psion with applicable construction."

As an example of not having a divorcing between mechanics and description, and:

Player: "Man, I want to play a monk, but I want different abilities than this and none of the variants seem to work out."
DM: "Here's my Tome of Battle. Make a Swordsage, use the Unarmed variant, and call him a monk."
Player: "But, he won't actually _be_ a monk... would he?"
DM: "He'd be close enough."

As an example of divorcing them.

This sort of thing strikes me as pretty common, but rarely so extreme that gaming groups get broken up as a result of it (though it does supply a few "what do I do?" posts on this forum, eh?).

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-09, 01:44 PM
The only problematic bit I see is that both of you are running under contradictory assumptions of how things work right up to a reality collision. Either the 'leveling doesn't work like that' or the 'immerse yourself better' outcome is acceptable, but it really shouldn't have ever reached that point because the question is best settled prior to game-start.

Either you have to deviate from your character plan, or the other player has to shift paradigms without a clutch. This is a no-win situation, all that's left is to distribute the lose.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 01:53 PM
As far as I'm concerned the GM is actively harming his game by denying the guy who wants to play the warforged sorceror. Nothing useful comes out of denying the guy, and the guy doesn't get to play what he wants.

MeklorIlavator
2007-07-09, 01:59 PM
On a related note, does anyone find the situation where you're forced to change your character build because someone else in the group finds your build "immersion breaking" acceptable?

Yes. I once played in a game that was supposed to be morally grey campaign, with emphasis on politics and backroom deals, and someone choose to play the Shadowbane Inquisitor Miko. Now,that was early on in my gaming career, but now i wish that the DM had told the guy that its unacceptable. What's worse, the guy continues to play 90% of his characters this way, with the express purpose of Railroading the morality of the group to his play style.

Character conformity does matter, to a lesser extent than other things, but its still there. If your group is making a morally grey campaign, with emphasis on politics and backroom deals, playing the Shadowbane Inquisitor Miko is not a good idea, just as if your playing an extremely kick-in-the-door game the effeminate Bard may not be appropriate( depending on the mechanics behind said bard). The same can be said of optimization, namely that you should make the characters in the same general vein of optimizing. If your playing a Codzilla, Batman, and artificer campaign, one should make something relatively high powered compared to normal power level. On the other hand, if you doing a halfling monk, Half-orc Wizard, ogre rouge campaign, don't go near the cheater of Minstra. Of course you always can ignore these guidelines, but unless your careful people feel left out.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 02:02 PM
MeklorIlavator : Paladins and their ilk are a bad example because they're the one place in the game where fluff and crunch are unfortunately combined in a death grip.

MeklorIlavator
2007-07-09, 02:05 PM
MeklorIlavator : Paladins and their ilk are a bad example because they're the one place in the game where fluff and crunch are unfortunately combined in a death grip.

Yes, but he does the same thing with incarnates(going so far as to kill an prisoner that 2 members of the group were against), and I haven't seen him really play much else, except the stereotypical dwarf cleric.

Indon
2007-07-09, 02:05 PM
As far as I'm concerned the GM is actively harming his game by denying the guy who wants to play the warforged sorceror. Nothing useful comes out of denying the guy, and the guy doesn't get to play what he wants.

While I would say he should pick something more in-tune with what Warforged are, or think up an appropriate backstory if he wants something unusual along those lines.

But on the other hand, I think just telling the monk aspirant to pick another class entirely is rather flippant, and doesn't let the player play what he wants. You, on the other hand, no doubt feel that the monk player should just change his conceptions on what a monk is, divorcing his association between mechanics and description.

So I feel we've accurately modeled precisely the stylistic difference involved here. Now what?

Tormsskull
2007-07-09, 02:06 PM
As far as I'm concerned the GM is actively harming his game by denying the guy who wants to play the warforged sorceror. Nothing useful comes out of denying the guy, and the guy doesn't get to play what he wants.

That's one way of looking at it, which brings us one bracket out to "Who has the final say?" Which brings us another bracket out to "How did this campaign come to be?"

Just like a computer with files divided into subdirectories within a drive.

-D&D
**-DM-Built Worlds
****-Who has the final say?
******-DM
**Collectively-Built Worlds
****-Who has the final say?
******-The group

I think if people prefaced their posts with which way their game was created (either by the DM or collectively) then posters would have a much easier time directing their responses.

valadil
2007-07-09, 02:07 PM
I've been in your situation too. I play with a lot of power gamers who don't really care about the roleplaying aspect of the game. I've coped by playing the same characters I would have played, but optimizing their builds. I always try to figure out just who the character is before I even think about what game to play him in. Once you've done that, find some prestige classes that fit the character. Do any of them have synergy with each other? If I've come up with a fairly strong character I can usually find 5-10 prestige classes and some of them will either have similar prereqs or abilities that complement each other.

Also, don't worry about making the best build you can. Just make something powerful enough to keep up with the rest of the group. Sure roleplaying is more interesting than combat, but you don't want to be bored when combat rolls around, do ya?

TheOOB
2007-07-09, 02:23 PM
A good trick is to have the power gamers help the others in your team optimize their builds. That makes everyones characters similar in power level, and gives the power gamers a personal connection with the other chars they helps they roleplay well.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 02:45 PM
Indon : Now nothing. I continue to be saddened by people who accept GM whim as a reason to suppress players, and we both go about our business.

Tormsskull : I don't care which, and I don't think it's a useful distinction. But other people are welcome to clarify their statements. More clarity never hurts.

mudbunny
2007-07-09, 02:48 PM
As far as I'm concerned the GM is actively harming his game by denying the guy who wants to play the warforged sorceror. Nothing useful comes out of denying the guy, and the guy doesn't get to play what he wants.

But if the DM has a concept in mind for the world he built, and that concept *doesn't* include warforged sorcerers, why should the DM be forced to change his mind??

For me, it comes down to:


DM's world, DM's rules.

Now the player has every right to whine discuss things with the DM to try to change his mind, but in the end, DM's world, DM's rules.

Tormsskull
2007-07-09, 02:54 PM
Tormsskull : I don't care which, and I don't think it's a useful distinction. But other people are welcome to clarify their statements. More clarity never hurts.

I disagree, I think it is a very important distinction. In the first case (DM-built world, DM then invites players to play campaign as-is), the players know what is allowed/not-allowed upfront. They are agreeing to play in the DM's campaign. If the DM says that classes are ways of life in his campaign, then regardless of how you personally view classes, you are required to view them as he has proscribed in order to play in his campaign. Thus, if up front you do not agree with the way the DM is going to run the game, you decide not to play. Nobody's time is wasted, no hurt feelings, everyone moves on in their own direction if need be.

In the second case (friends get together and decide to play D&D, make a world, pick a DM, choose rules, etc) then the players collectively decide on the rules up front. If a dispute occurs during play, just poll everyone involved and/or come to a compromise of some kind and then move on.

If you are a player used to type 2 campaigns and you are inserted into a type 1 campaign, there will likely be a lot of problems as you won't be used to being so restricted.

Also, a lot of the rules in the books can be interpreted in numerous different ways. Knowing who has the final say in what way they are going to be interpreted for the campaign you are going to be playing in is very important.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 02:54 PM
The GM shouldn't be forced to change his mind. He should start out in a place where he is willing to share ownership of the setting with the players, because that will get everyone engaged with the setting and produce a superior experience.

Tormsskull : Why bring up making rulings on text? No one else has been discussing that.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-09, 02:55 PM
Indon : Now nothing. I continue to be saddened by people who accept GM whim as a reason to suppress players, and we both go about our business.
You can, if you insist, call it GM whim. It can be nothing but whim, but only if the GM is badly unqualified.

It can also be consistent world-mechanics. If the GM views sorcery as the PHB-supported 'draconic magic in the hands of their blood-kin', and doesn't grant that a warforged can be blood-kin to something organic, it makes perfect sense to refuse a warforged sorcerer.

If class levels do in fact represent specific training, it makes perfect sense to refuse a monk cross-classing to barbarian without notice.

If you're playing straight d20 modern, it does make sense to reject an elf character, doesn't it?

Please note, all of these are conditional. A warforged sorcerer, monk/barb, or for that matter modern-day elf can make perfect sense. But they don't always have to.

EDIT: I radically disagree that a GM should always be willing to share control. I would very much not want to play in a game where badgering the GM could alter the premises of the setting. To me, that flexibility would hurt the experience more than any possible setting choices.

Jayabalard
2007-07-09, 02:57 PM
A good trick is to have the power gamers help the others in your team optimize their builds. That makes everyones characters similar in power level, and gives the power gamers a personal connection with the other chars they helps they roleplay well.That doesn't really help if the people who don't have optimized builds don't want optimized builds.

Tormsskull
2007-07-09, 03:00 PM
The GM shouldn't be forced to change his mind. He should start out in a place where he is willing to share ownership of the setting with the players, because that will get everyone engaged with
the setting and produce a superior experience.


Which is your opinion. If the DM doesn't share your opinion, see: who has final say.



Tormsskull : Why bring up making rulings on text? No one else has been discussing that.

Because it is all interconnected with the way the campaign is created. If Player A thinks that the text says one thing which encourages the opinion that classes are simply a collection of skills rather than ways of life, and the DM disagrees, see: who has final say.

mudbunny
2007-07-09, 03:05 PM
The GM shouldn't be forced to change his mind. He should start out in a place where he is willing to share ownership of the setting with the players, because that will get everyone engaged with the setting and produce a superior experience.

But in the end, the DM has to be comfortable with the world that s/he is creating. If, to him/her, the idea of a construct having sorcerer powers is right up there with The Maple Leafs being a good team, than it is his/her right to say no.

Of course, that doesn't mean that the player and the DM couldn't come up with a way to get draconic material/essence into the warforged allowing multiclassing into sorcerer.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 03:12 PM
Why is it that every time I come up with an arbitrary GM decision (in this case "Warforged sorcerors don't feel right) it suddenly becomes a centric plot point in the world we're discussing? In the example, there was no good reason for the decision. It was arbitrary.

On a related note, repeating "GM has final say" over and over again is not a useful piece of argumentation.

Indon
2007-07-09, 03:16 PM
Why is it that every time I come up with an arbitrary GM decision (in this case "Warforged sorcerors don't feel right) it suddenly becomes a centric plot point in the world we're discussing? In the example, there was no good reason for the decision. It was arbitrary.

The world is a good reason.

Of course, any DM can be open to exceptions to the rules. If that player had said, "He was created to be a reclusive Sorceror's personal servant and parts of one of the sorceror's dead relatives were, in truly macabre fashion, incorporated into my design," that DM may well have responded with, "Wow, awesome." But that goes back to what I said earlier about customizing the description to match the mechanics.

LotharBot
2007-07-09, 03:16 PM
I usually come up with a concept, then try to figure out how to make it playable.

This is a great point.

I don't think it makes sense to phrase this as "optimizing", even though you'll be doing a fair bit of optimizing to make the character playable and effective at what he does.

It seems like the disconnect between the OP and the rest of his group isn't so much "optimizing" as "coherence". Some people come up with a character concept and pre-plan a coherent build 1-20 that describes the concept mechanically. Others come up with a concept and construct the build on-the-fly but still manage to be effective within their concept. Others never really come up with a concept... they're just "a barbarian" and they never really pick a direction to go, so they end up being fairly ineffective.

Here's a thought for the OP: come up with a character concept entirely using "in character" descriptions. Don't write down any out-of-game terms (class names, levels, feats), just describe what you want your character to do. Then let the people here describe builds that would be effective in terms of allowing your character to do that particular thing well.

Tormsskull
2007-07-09, 03:16 PM
Why is it that every time I come up with an arbitrary GM decision (in this case "Warforged sorcerors don't feel right) it suddenly becomes a centric plot point in the world we're discussing? In the example, there was no good reason for the decision. It was arbitrary.

I'm just guessing, but it is probably because we assume that a DM doesn't just make arbitary decisions. We assume that when a DM says you can't do something it is for a reason rather than just to tout his "I can disallow things because I am the DM" power.

Maybe you need to start a new thread with "Is is ok for a DM to institute a new rule that clearly has no rationale behind it what so ever?" Though I think both sides of the issue will probably agree that it is in really bad form for a DM to do so.

Edit:



On a related note, repeating "GM has final say" over and over again is not a useful piece of argumentation.


I disagree, it is very crucial to the issue. I am repeating it so that you understand why everything else is important. When you start to get into some type of conflict it is important to understand how conflicts are resolved at your table.

Jayabalard
2007-07-09, 03:23 PM
Why is it that every time I come up with an arbitrary GM decision (in this case "Warforged sorcerors don't feel right) it suddenly becomes a centric plot point in the world we're discussing? Because you're speaking in absolutes. In order to disprove/debate against an absolute, all someone has to do is show a single case where you're wrong. They're picking the easy case, where the GM is overruling the player because of world realism.

If you'd like to move away from the "The DM should never limit the player in any way" stance, you wouldn't be getting that.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 03:24 PM
Yeah, GMs don't make arbitrary decisions. Just head on over to the "my GM won't let me play a female warforged" thread, if you'ld like to see one. It's not plot centric, it's not vital, it's just some fluff the player wants but the GM doesn't like. Too bad. GM wins. And that's senseless. GMs can and do abuse their authority.

Jayabalard : I've never held that stance. You've constructed it.

My stance is, for the record, that GMs should be hands off of how characters are run/constructed whenever possible. Good reasons for interfering involve important plot and balance.

LotharBot
2007-07-09, 03:34 PM
Yeah, GMs don't make arbitrary decisions. Just head on over to the "my GM won't let me play a female warforged" thread, if you'ld like to see one. It's not plot centric, it's not vital, it's just some fluff the player wants but the GM doesn't like. Too bad. GM wins. And that's senseless. GMs can and do abuse their authority.

Jayabalard : I've never held that stance. You've constructed it.

My stance is, for the record, that GMs should be hands off of how characters are run/constructed whenever possible. Good reasons for interfering involve important plot and balance.

That's a reasonable position, though I would add "world consistency" to the list of good reasons.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 03:39 PM
Lotharbot : Nope, not gonna add it, because then "Everything the GM has ever thought of about the world, even if it will never effect the party" would be a good reason, and it's not.

Tormsskull
2007-07-09, 03:41 PM
Yeah, GMs don't make arbitrary decisions. Just head on over to the "my GM won't let me play a female warforged" thread, if you'ld like to see one. It's not plot centric, it's not vital, it's just some fluff the player wants but the GM doesn't like. Too bad. GM wins. And that's senseless. GMs can and do abuse their authority.


...

...

...

*takes a breath*

Ok. First, yes, DMs sometimes make arbitrary decisions. Sometimes they do things that make no sense at all, have no reasoning behind them, and completely ruin a player's enjoyment. We call those Bad DMs(tm).

Second, in a discussion online you are rarely going to have someone post something that clearly shows that their DM is a Bad DM(tm). Sometimes players are not given the reason why a DM disallows something, but there is an actual legitimate reason that the DM did it. So when someone comes on and says "My DM did suchandsuch, that's totally unfair, don't you agree?"

Some of us initially start off with the assumption that the DM probably had good cause to do what he did, and until the poster provides clear proof that the DM is actually a Bad DM(tm) we assume the former.

Others initially start off with the assumption that the DM is a Bad DM(tm) and require clear proof before agreeing that the DM probably had good cause to do what he did.

Personally I think that the first viewpoint is the "positive, everybody is trying to have fun" view, and the second is the "negative, the DM's always out to get the player" view.

So basically, what I am telling you is that you don't need to prove to me (or us, or whoever) that Bad DMs(tm) do exist, I know they exist. But when you assume that a DM is bad before you even know what's going on, you're going to meet a lot of resistance. Resistance = conflict. Then however conflict resolution is handeled with your group kicks in. Which all goes back to how the campaign was formed, which reinforces my statement that how the campaign is formed is important.



Lotharbot : Nope, not gonna add it, because then "Everything the GM has ever thought of about the world, even if it will never effect the party" would be a good reason, and it's not.


Which is your opinion. If the DM disagrees, see: who has final say.....

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-09, 03:49 PM
If you dip back into that thread, you'll note that the GM in question went back to the source material, found his mismatch, and recanted. This suggests to me that the situation was that the GM, trying to run roughly by the book, mis-recalled the Warforged information and perhaps followed reasoning similar to Citizen Joe in that same thread, and made the wrong call in a face-to-face situation. As opposed to just making garbage up.

Surely some DMs make arbitrary decisions, but as Tormskull says...you're not going to get anyone arguing that everything is good if you posit that the decision is arbitrary and pointless. Which you didn't do here, that I noticed.

Of course, I do think world consistency is a good reason for any necessary restriction whatsoever, because I consider it completely essential for a functional game.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 03:55 PM
How does the presence or lack of female warforged have any impact on world consistency? What vital plot point in Ebberon could never have occurred if female warforged exist? There are a huge number of factoids in any setting that have nothing to do with world consistency, and this is one of them. Those are exactly the kind of things that DMs should let players overwrite if they'd like.

LotharBot
2007-07-09, 03:56 PM
Lotharbot : Nope, not gonna add it, because then "Everything the GM has ever thought of about the world, even if it will never effect the party" would be a good reason, and it's not.

So add it with a caveat.

It's obvious you've had an experience with a bad DM. It happens. But you're displaying an attitude toward all DM's that strikes me as unwarranted.

"World consistency" IS a good reason for a DM to limit character choices, provided the specific details of "world consistency" are reasonable. If I'm running a Star Trek game and you want to play an elf, it's perfectly reasonable for me to say "there are no elves in Star Trek, try something else." There isn't a particular balance or plot reason for banning elves, they just don't make sense within the game world. It's also be reasonable for me to say "we're only using the core books; none of the classes from other books exist in my world" -- which ensures all of the players and monsters will be working from the same set of material. On the other hand, if I'm running a perfectly mundane D&D 3.5 Greyhawk game and you want to play an elven wizard, it's probably NOT reasonable for me to say "there are no elven wizards in this world, even though there are elves and wizards." That's not an enforcement of game-world consistency, it's just a loony DM decision.

So, there's my caveat. Good, sensible game-world consistency IS a good reason for DM's to limit character options. Bad forms of game-world consistency are a sign of a bad DM.

EDIT: to answer your last post, "no female warforged characters" may or may not be a reasonable game-world consistency issue. If your DM built the world around that concept, it's probably fair; if it's just some tangential thing the DM threw in for flavor at the last minute, he should adjust.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 03:57 PM
Will people stop asking me where the bad GM touched me? Arguing for more player control does not necessitate a bad experience with a GM. In general my GMs have ranged from good to great.

Lotharbot: No again, I'm afraid. And this is a great example of what I'm talking about. There's no reason for there not to be elves. They can have their own little planet, and do elfy things, and one of the characters could be from there. They couldn't have magic of course, beyond force powers, because that's a plot point, but otherwise, I see no reason not to allow elves in Star Wars. They'd have to be Star Wars elves, of course, integrated into the large storyline, but I see no reason to deny a player a chance to give it a swing.

LotharBot
2007-07-09, 04:01 PM
There are a huge number of factoids in any setting that have nothing to do with world consistency....

... and I never said "factoids" provide a DM with good reason to limit player choices.

Are you in agreement that "world consistency" is a good reason for DM's to limit player choices, provided we're talking about actual world consistency and not merely some irrelevant factoid?

Tormsskull
2007-07-09, 04:01 PM
How does the presence or lack of female warforged have any impact on world consistency? What vital plot point in Ebberon could never have occurred if female warforged exist? There are a huge number of factoids in any setting that have nothing to do with world consistency, and this is one of them. Those are exactly the kind of things that DMs should let players overwrite if they'd like.

I think you are missing the point. I don't know what would be the purpose of saying that female warforged could not exist. I don't have a clue. But I assume that the DM in question did at the time (I see that he later recanted his decision). Perhaps he thought he recalled reading something to the effect that all warforged are identical in nature, I don't know.



Will people stop asking me where the bad GM touched me? Arguing for more player control does not necessitate a bad experience with a GM. In general my GMs have ranged from good to great.


Well, your posts do reflect a very anti-DM point of view, which leads one to believe that you had past negative experiences with DMs.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 04:03 PM
Tormsskull : Being pro player empowerment is radically different from being anti GM. I often criticize GM decisions, but I try to not be mean about GMs. There aren't enough of us to go around, after all.

Ulzgoroth
2007-07-09, 04:06 PM
How does the presence or lack of female warforged have any impact on world consistency? What vital plot point in Ebberon could never have occurred if female warforged exist? There are a huge number of factoids in any setting that have nothing to do with world consistency, and this is one of them. Those are exactly the kind of things that DMs should let players overwrite if they'd like.
...Do you actually think Citizen Joe was making no sense? If he weren't mistaken about the degree of human-identification common in warforged, and they functioned more like a golem with an int score, a feminine (or masculine) warforged would make very little sense. You could, and probably should, still accept it as an enormously deviant production accident, but it would be in the neighborhood of an elvish Eye of Grumush for likelyhood.

Which mental pattern Warforged work on is a major element of the world. You can build a world with either, and maybe run much the same 'plot', but they are very much not the same world.

LotharBot
2007-07-09, 04:44 PM
this is a great example of what I'm talking about. There's no reason for there not to be elves. They can have their own little planet, and do elfy things, and one of the characters could be from there. They couldn't have magic of course, beyond force powers, because that's a plot point, but otherwise, I see no reason not to allow elves in Star Wars. They'd have to be Star Wars elves, of course, integrated into the large storyline, but I see no reason to deny a player a chance to give it a swing.

Star Trek, not Star Wars. But either one works.

There's plenty of reason NOT to have elves in a particular Star Trek/Wars game. You're right that they could exist in SOME games -- that there's no reason to disallow them from all possible Star Trek/Wars games -- but if I don't want to build them into my particular game, that's perfectly reasonable. It's a game, and the people playing the game should work within the confines of the game world.

You seem to accept this when you say, for example, that elves wouldn't get magic in a Star Wars game. You're requiring them to fit within the game world. I assume you'd also accept me saying "no, you can't use a greataxe as your primary ship-to-ship combat weapon; you need phasers or torpedoes or something like that". You're just stopping a little short of where I did by allowing things with the name "elves" but tweaking them to fit the game world, instead of simply saying "there are no elves".

(I wonder if we can get a thread split here... at the end of the last page I was addressing the OP and ideas of optimization, and this is a fair distance away from that topic.)

Stephen_E
2007-07-09, 05:07 PM
Tormsskull : Being pro player empowerment is radically different from being anti GM. I often criticize GM decisions, but I try to not be mean about GMs. There aren't enough of us to go around, after all.

While I tend to lean towards the Player getting maximum choices I do think the GM has more rights to interfere than you do.

For example if I want to run a campaign that starts in Droam/Ebberon (the "monster" province) I might say that PC races have to be from the races common in that province. If you say "I want to play a Warforged and I've got a great backstory to explain him" my response will be "No". By your terms I'm been unreasonable, but if I don't say "no" I may well end up with a party of gnomes, dwarves, ecetre, at which point the entire flavour of been from Droam is lost!

The world/campaign constructer (and this can be the GM or it might be the group as a whole) does have the right to make broad limitations. No Sorcerors or no Warforged are both fair calls. If Warforged AND Sorcerors are allowed then a player should be fully entitled to play a Warforged Sorceror and if the GM doesn't like it the onus then switches to him to come up with a good reason to disallow it ("I don't like it" and "the mix didn't occur to me" don't cut it. "It would screw with the campaign plot" does, assuming you trust your GM to be honest about this. Lets face it, the GM may have an extensive plot about someone secretly developing Warforged Sorcerors). Paladins are a classic example of a class that both the GM and the player group should have banning rights on because the mechanics of Paladins tend to impose restrictions on a campaign/player group.

Stephen

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 05:18 PM
I would strongly disagree that disallowing vs. allowing with modifications is a small difference. I would say it is the huge difference between you working with the player to produce a character and you opposing him, which is about as big a gulf as you can get.

MeklorIlavator
2007-07-09, 05:35 PM
Interestingly enough, there are elves in Star Trek. At least, they were in one of the official books, that I had, until they were thrown away. They were effectively really Charismatic, slight, dexterous, and somewhat frail.

LotharBot
2007-07-09, 05:56 PM
I would strongly disagree that disallowing vs. allowing with modifications is a small difference. I would say it is the huge difference between you working with the player to produce a character and you opposing him, which is about as big a gulf as you can get.

"Allowing with modifications" is just an alternate way to state that you're disallowing some things. That's why we're not that far apart -- you're perfectly willing to disallow D&D magic in a Star Wars game. You're perfectly willing to disallow Star Trek ships that swing greataxes at each other for d12 damage. You're just not willing to disallow the elven race in a Star Wars game. You consider it important to find a way to work elves in to a world where they don't really fit if the player wants to play an elf. I don't.

I find it insulting to be told I'm "opposing the player" by not allowing Elves in a Star Trek game. It's true that the DM should work with the player. But, along with that, a mature player will be willing to work with the DM to find a concept that fits what they want to do AND fits within the game world. If I build a Star Trek world without elves, a mature player isn't going to insist that he should be allowed to play an elf; he's going to ask what races are available and find a way to build a character within those races (possibly requesting some slight modifications to allow for it.) If I design a world without magic, a mature player isn't going to insist on playing a wizard, he's going to play something that fits within a no-magic world (but might be a high-int character who's good at beating encounters in clever ways.) I agree that if the only thing holding a character back is some tiny irrelevant factoid, the DM should relent. I just don't think "no magic" or "standard Star Trek races" are tiny irrelevant factoids.

I was hoping you'd answer this question:

Are you in agreement that "world consistency" is a good reason for DM's to limit player choices, provided we're talking about actual world consistency and not merely some irrelevant factoid?

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 06:06 PM
The answer to your question is still no. If for some reason all the sorcerors in far off somewhere who will never be part of the plot are the only ice wizards, and the player wants to play an ice wizard, I think it is wrong to restrict the player for that reason.

I value player and plot over consistency, so I'm not gonna add consistency.

LotharBot
2007-07-09, 06:10 PM
The answer to your question is still no. If for some reason all the sorcerors in far off somewhere who will never be part of the plot are the only ice wizards, and the player wants to play an ice wizard, I think it is wrong to restrict the player for that reason.

I think that leads to game worlds that don't make sense, and it deprives your players of the challenge/opportunity of making characters that actually fit the world.

But, at your gaming table, you can play how you like. Sounds like we wouldn't last long in a game together, but that's OK, because we don't have to.

Counterspin
2007-07-09, 06:13 PM
Except that the thing that your conflicting with, you never encounter, so you never know about it.

And the whole thing is about giving players more control over the world, so if you see the discussion as being about the joy of conforming to the setting, you've already missed the point.

Additionally, can I take this moment to plea that no one use the line, "You play fine, of course, but I'd never play with you." I'm not sure how it's meant to be heard, but I always hear it as "you're a worse player than I am."

Aquillion
2007-07-09, 06:28 PM
To get back to the original topic:

I've been playing D&D for a few years now, and there's something I've noticed: no matter how good or bad the DM, no matter how plotless or in-depth the campaign, no matter who else is playing.... my characters are always the weakest, deal the least damage and hit the least, have the worst saves, have no useful class abilities, and are borderline useless. I know I've whined about this before in the "Help me kill my party!" thread, but something dawned on me last night:Build optimization is neither good nor bad inherently, but it is something the entire group should agree on, preferably before the game starts at all--before the DM starts deciding on the details of the setting, before anyone starts thinking character concepts, etc.

I've had a lot of fun games playing with groups of obsessive number-crunching players who tried to one-up each other with absurdly powerful builds; and I've had a lot of fun games where people just took generic archtypes with only minor tweaks. The important thing is to avoid a situation where one player optimizes and nobody else does, or everyone except one person has an optimized build. That's no fun for anyone. And, of course, the DM needs to know if the players are building powerful builds so he can adjust the challenge accordingly. (Because this requires some knowledge of the game, it's usually bad to have experienced players optimizing in a game with an inexperienced DM, too, since optimization tends to negate CRs and requires that the DM have knowledge of how difficult things will be instead.)

If the entire rest of your group is optimizing and you're not enjoying it, you basically have three options:

1. Ask that they stop optimizing. At the worst, this is basically demanding that they play the game 'your way', which they might not appreciate; on the other hand, they might not really be attached to optimization, and just play that way out of habit. They might find they enjoy playing 'unoptimal' builds if you give them a chance. On the other hand, they might just laugh at you or get annoyed; they've probably been playing the way they have for a while, and see it as part of the fun. So, your next option...

2. Give in and ask the rest of the group for help with making a more optimal build. This is playing 'their way', and you might find you enjoy it if you give it a chance. Playing an optimial build does not mean you have to always choose the most powerful classes or character concepts, either; in fact, playing an "optimized" character can sometimes give you more options than trying to play a merely 'decently effective' character with no optimization, since someone good at optimization is more likely to be able to take a far-out character concept and translate it into playable mechanics. (e.g. someone with no skill at optimization is unlikely to be able to play a gith-type character and actually show competence in both roles.)

3. Find another group. Seriously, if you really really hate optimization, and both the other players and the DM really really enjoy playing a game centered around it, you should consider finding someone who plays in a style closer to what you enjoy.

LotharBot
2007-07-09, 06:51 PM
can I take this moment to plea that no one use the line, "You play fine, of course, but I'd never play with you." I'm not sure how it's meant to be heard, but I always hear it as "your a worse player than I am."

That's not how I mean it. As you said a couple posts before, you value a certain set of things over other things. I value things differently. I don't think we'd do well playing in the same game, not because I'm "better" or "worse" than you, but because our goals aren't really compatible.

You've spoken of a DM telling a player "there are no elves in this world" as the DM opposing the player. I see a player telling the DM "you must allow elves even if it doesn't make sense" as the player going out of his way to oppose the DM. It's the player taking something the DM has already created and saying "you have to change it for me." It's the player telling the DM "I don't care about your world, I only care that I get to play an elf." Neither the DM nor the players should go out of their way to mess up the work the other has put in on the world/characters.

Personally, of the three of "player, consistency, and plot", the thing I value least is plot. I see "player/character" and "DM/consistent world" as virtually equivalent. The DM creates a game world and gives the players character creation guidelines. The players create their characters according to those guidelines, possibly with some negotiation with the DM, but with the understanding that some things just can't be made to fit. I value the player's ability to build a beautiful character that they like, but I also value the DM's ability to build a beautiful setting that he likes, and I think both sides have to respect the effort the other is putting in.

It's the plot that I see as most flexible and least important. The plot is the result of the other two things -- the work the DM put into building the world, and the work the players put in to building the characters. And it's the plot that both the players and the DM should have equal input into sculpting. The DM influences the plot through the world; the players influence the plot through their characters.

This may be where the real disconnect between us is. I see the world and the characters as important, and the plot as the result that comes from bringing the two together. You seem to see the plot and the characters as important, and the world as a mechanism to bring them together. You see "plot" as a valid reason to reject player decisions; I think the plot should adapt to character actions. I see "world" as a valid reason to reject player decisions; you think the world should adapt to player choices.


EDIT: to bring this back to the original point: when speaking of characters, there are also multiple important things... among them, personality and capabilities. It seems the OP puts most of his effort into personality, while the rest of his party puts their effort into capabilities. This means he has interesting but not very effective characters, and they don't fit well into the group. Now, I think we should also show respect both to those who put in the effort to build a character's personality and to those who put in the effort to build capability. I wouldn't be happy with a player requesting that the whole rest of my group stop working so hard on building beautifully competent characters... but I would be perfectly willing to work with a fellow player to help them make a crunch-competent build to go with their beautiful character personality.