How Do You Handle Over-Optimization Player Characters And Enemies?

[Bartmanhomer]

I know that some RPG games that player characters want to win with using the best classes, feats, talents and abilities, same thing with enemies and monsters. But sometimes Over-Optimization can get out of hand in a quick second. So my question is how do you handle Over-Optimization Player Characters And Enemies?

[Innocent_bystan]

I'd say: Give them their 15 minutes of Glory and then ask them to retire or tone down the character.

In my experience, most over-the-top optimization is done as a thought experiment and becomes dull after a combat or two.

As a last resort, you can retire the characters for them. Just remember, a DM can optimize too.

Also, most over-optimization (at least in DnD) is based on some rather dubious rule interpretations / science metagaming. Ask the player about those interpretations and correct them if necessary.

[Vitruviansquid]

Play a better system?

[Kelb_Panthera]

There's only one real answer to a player's abiliity to build a character surpassing the GM's ability to handle that character.

The GM has to simply explain that what the player's doing is beyond him and ask the player to roll it back. Nothing else will really work and most alternatives hurt the game as a whole at least as much as they "fix" the problem.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, if your the DM you can handle OP players easy, just over power them. You can even ''use the rules'' if you feel you must give the illusion of being fair.

A great one is to move the Pc's underwater....that stops a lot of OP characters. The same is true for flying and most other extreme places.

Taking away the ''interpreted'' support system where the OP character can do things like ''go to the store and buy 100 healing belts and put them in my portable world'' can also work wonders. When lost in the wild, there are no magic shops.

Taking away the vital items also works good. What ever item the OP character uses to be OP.

And that is to just get started. Do it right, and they will leave the game.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Well, if your the DM you can handle OP players easy, just over power them. You can even ''use the rules'' if you feel you must give the illusion of being fair.

And here we have an example of how to lose players. Warping the game around the over-built player harms his allies as much or more than it does him. They find themselves either dying/failing constantly or having to builld just as hard to keep up. The latter invariably starts a player-DM arms race that ends with the game being nuked into oblivion.


A great one is to move the Pc's underwater....that stops a lot of OP characters. The same is true for flying and most other extreme places.

It stops the underpowered characters a -lot- harder. Putting a concrete wall between a tank and where it's going may stop it but doing so is guaranteed to stop the pickup trucks and sedans driving along side it.


Taking away the ''interpreted'' support system where the OP character can do things like ''go to the store and buy 100 healing belts and put them in my portable world'' can also work wonders. When lost in the wild, there are no magic shops.

Since we're obviously talking D&D at this point, it's a -given- support system. A DM is well within his rights to change the given elements of the system but should do so up front. Notably, it does -nothing- to the classes that don't need equipment; say druid or sorcerer.


Taking away the vital items also works good. What ever item the OP character uses to be OP.

Items are rarely needed for the OP builds. They -are- however needed for most of the weaker classes to meet the minimum bar set by the designers. A good DM can compensate for their absence but why make things difficult for yourself? As for the odd OP item, just don't give it to the PC's in the first place. Don't drop a ring of 3 wishes in the treasure if you don't want players swinging wishes.


And that is to just get started. Do it right, and they will leave the game.

Which is only helpful if getting them to leave is the goal. However, if that is your goal, just sack-up and tell them to take a hike. This passive-aggressive nonsense is just that; nonsense.

[JNAProductions]

Seconding the suggestion of talking to players. It's an OOC problem-and the player might not even realize it IS a problem. So talk to them.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ooh...I didn't realized that over-optimization was that serious. :eek:

[Noje]

Ooh...I didn't realized that over-optimization was that serious. :eek:

It really isn't. while different systems allow different levels of optimization, it generally just means that the players are a little stronger than they normally would be. if some rule in the system is actually broken and hurts the storytelling aspect, a DM will change it or fix it in some way. Pretty much every RPG on the market says the DM can get rid of aspects of the game he doesn't like.

If you are actually concerned about optimization, just make character generation more random (i.e. making players roll their abilities RAW). I personally find it more fun to play underdogs anyway.

[Bartmanhomer]

It really isn't. while different systems allow different levels of optimization, it generally just means that the players are a little stronger than they normally would be. if some rule in the system is actually broken and hurts the storytelling aspect, a DM will change it or fix it in some way. Pretty much every RPG on the market says the DM can get rid of aspects of the game he doesn't like.

If you are actually concerned about optimization, just make character generation more random (i.e. making players roll their abilities RAW). I personally find it more fun to play underdogs anyway.
A little stronger? How so? :confused:

[Kelb_Panthera]

Ooh...I didn't realized that over-optimization was that serious. :eek:

It's only as big an issue as you make it, same as any other problem. If you're straight with your players and they have enough respect for you and the rest of the group to be worth playing with in the first place then the issue gets resolved quite quickly and with minimal fuss.

As for the potential it has to damage the game if not treated properly, it depends on the system. 3e D&D has the potential to seriously warp the game but most others don't go quite that far with it since they don't have as many clearly defined elements whose interactions can be exploited. Generally though, the more gamist and rules-heavy the system was designed to be, the bigger the potential for this particular issue to crop up and the more powerfully it can manifest.

[Bartmanhomer]

It's only as big an issue as you make it, same as any other problem. If you're straight with your players and they have enough respect for you and the rest of the group to be worth playing with in the first place then the issue gets resolved quite quickly and with minimal fuss.

As for the potential it has to damage the game if not treated properly, it depends on the system. 3e D&D has the potential to seriously warp the game but most others don't go quite that far with it since they don't have as many clearly defined elements whose interactions can be exploited. Generally though, the more gamist and rules-heavy the system was designed to be, the bigger the potential for this particular issue to crop up and the more powerfully it can manifest.

I don't think player characters shouldn't be blamed for having a overpowered character. It just like Meta-Knight being God-Tier in Super Smash Bros Brawl. I never played an overpowered character in D&D before but I could understand that it will get the other players upset about it.

[kyoryu]

Talk to the players, or play a system which doesn't encourage that level of optimization.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I don't think player characters shouldn't be blamed for having a overpowered character.

Never said different. The point is that, regardless of who's at fault, the solution is to address the problem directly, DM-to-player, and have him tone it down.


It just like Meta-Knight being God-Tier in Super Smash Bros Brawl. I never played an overpowered character in D&D before but I could understand that it will get the other players upset about it.

Naturally. It's easy enough to avoid though.

[Darth Ultron]

And here we have an example of how to lose players. .

It is true that if you ever even slightly say or do anything to a over optimizing player, they might leave that game. This is not a bad thing.



It stops the underpowered characters a -lot- harder. Putting a concrete wall between a tank and where it's going may stop it but doing so is guaranteed to stop the pickup trucks and sedans driving along side it. .

Not true always. It will stop roll players that can't do anything that is not written on their character sheet, but role players will be fine.




Since we're obviously talking D&D at this point, it's a -given- support system. A DM is well within his rights to change the given elements of the system but should do so up front. Notably, it does -nothing- to the classes that don't need equipment; say druid or sorcerer..

The ''upfront'' thing is really odd, it's like saying the player must state ''how they will roll play'', and no one would ever do that. Things can happen on an adventure that are not planned out and agreed to by the players in advance. The Pc's are on a ship...it sinks in an encounter...and they are now marooned on a jungle island. That stuff happen in a normal game with out and ''up front'' vote by the players.




Items are rarely needed for the OP builds. They -are- however needed for most of the weaker classes to meet the minimum bar set by the designers. A good DM can compensate for their absence but why make things difficult for yourself? As for the odd OP item, just don't give it to the PC's in the first place. Don't drop a ring of 3 wishes in the treasure if you don't want players swinging wishes.
..

Most builds need items, except the odd ''vow of poverty '' builds.



Which is only helpful if getting them to leave is the goal. However, if that is your goal, just sack-up and tell them to take a hike. This passive-aggressive nonsense is just that; nonsense.

Note: Technically this is aggressive aggressive....not ''passive''.

[Corsair14]

As a DM there are always ways to take out OP characters in game. To begin with in the first line of any campaign hand out where I explain rules changes, the world as they know it etc, in capital bold letters I will type "Intentionally OP min maxed characters will be punished." In the case the PCs don't listen I handle it in different ways. I concentrate fire on them in fights using the justification the opponents see them as a major threat to be neutralized. Assassins are a favorite of mine. The super hero just saved the town from utter destruction, well the outfit that was going to do the destruction wasn't happy with that and hired an assassin to take the hero out. This can come from several angles. Poison is a favorite of mine, be it a blow dart from the dark, poison in their mug of ale at the tavern, a direct backstab in a fight with a poisoned blade with a high DC, or a simple kill in the dark while sleeping. Players were warned in the beginning, I have no problem killing them off.

As for DM characters, in my experience the character is likely a major villain or boss who is supposed to be tough. Seeing as the DM put some time into the character they are likely not going to allow you to do anything about them. Its the DM , the boss has as many HP as he feels like at the moment and can narratively have the villain escape or fight on until he is ready for him to die.

[RazorChain]

A little stronger? How so? :confused:


In some system the GM will just impose limits to skills or attributes. This is usual in point buy systems where a player might try to max out a skill and stat that the GM might set a cap at the start of the campaign.

If a player shows up at a D&D game with all stats at 18, I would make him roll again while I was watching.

Most people don't care how optimized character is until it comes to combat. The danger when one character is super optimized in combat is when the GM starts to scale combat encounters to the munchkin's standards, then if the munchkin goes down early in the fight the rest of the group is toast.

Often character combat capabilities will vary and sometimes people will specialize, one will play a face another will play a skill monster etc. This means these characters may not shine in combat but other characters will.

What I am saying is this problem varies in different systems, it is most problematic where there is expected to be a balance and combat is the main focus of the game.

[Stealth Marmot]

Quickest way to shut down a powergamer is by having full and entire sessions where you have people using few if any rolls. Diplomatic meetings, exploration, etc.

No combat, not even real skill checks. Refuse skill checks in fact.

Alternatively, veto min maxed characters. When asked why, tell them that the characters power level is inappropriate and could cause a schism in the party balance. Anything powerful enough to challenge them would be dangerous to the rest of the party.

If they have a problem with that, tell them that news flash: They aren't the only player here.

Also, be sure to double-check errata if something seems imbalanced, and if they seem to have something off the wall, bring it here and we'll dissect it.

[kyoryu]

In some system the GM will just impose limits to skills or attributes. This is usual in point buy systems where a player might try to max out a skill and stat that the GM might set a cap at the start of the campaign.


This is SOP in HERO, and mostly in GURPS.

[Bartmanhomer]

In some system the GM will just impose limits to skills or attributes. This is usual in point buy systems where a player might try to max out a skill and stat that the GM might set a cap at the start of the campaign.

If a player shows up at a D&D game with all stats at 18, I would make him roll again while I was watching.

Most people don't care how optimized character is until it comes to combat. The danger when one character is super optimized in combat is when the GM starts to scale combat encounters to the munchkin's standards, then if the munchkin goes down early in the fight the rest of the group is toast.

Often character combat capabilities will vary and sometimes people will specialize, one will play a face another will play a skill monster etc. This means these characters may not shine in combat but other characters will.

What I am saying is this problem varies in different systems, it is most problematic where there is expected to be a balance and combat is the main focus of the game.
It would be cool for my character to have all 18. :biggrin:

[Segev]

"I reserve the right to ask you to change something if I discover it's problematic. I will try to work with you to rebuild to something that is more workable in the game. If you refuse to change it, you will simply lose it with no compensation."

This is almost verbatim what one GM I often play with says if he has any concerns about players "over-optimizing." Assuming the players work in good faith, it works well, because he doesn't pre-emptively ban things that he hasn't already seen go out of hand. And he can deal with specific problems when they arise, rather than having to try to guess what will be a problem with one build or another.

[kyoryu]

"I reserve the right to ask you to change something if I discover it's problematic. I will try to work with you to rebuild to something that is more workable in the game. If you refuse to change it, you will simply lose it with no compensation."

This is pretty much a required statement for any high-optimization-potential game, I think. It's close to verbatim what I use when running GURPS.

[Pugwampy]

So my question is how do you handle Over-Optimization Player Characters And Enemies?

I dont handle it . I encourage it . I also offer advice about anything player wants to do with their pocket god or what books to look in . My rule is if they can find it in a book they can have it .
I am not getting the short end of the stick , whats good for the player is good for the DM too .

I want a player to love his character enough to give him the best possible options . I very much respect a person who spends hours pouring over obscure almost third party books to find that perfect / broken feat .

[CharonsHelper]

There is no definition for "Over-optimization". But generally characters should try not to invalidate other characters.

Myself - I enjoy power-gaming the heck out of any system that I play. It's part of what I enjoy about RPGs. I like talking shop with others' builds to tweak them. (I've found that I have to be really careful at cons - some people with terrible builds can get snippy about roll-playing vs role-playing. Yay Stormwind! Lol.)

But I also don't want to be "that guy", so I power-game sub-par concepts and/or support roles. In D&D terms - I'm a big fan of playing a bard or buff/debuff focused witch etc., because even with power-gaming I'm not going to out-magic even a sub-par wizard, I'm not going to out-fight any but the worst martial (especially after I buff them), and they're all happy to have me along for the ride.

So if 1-2 players like to power-game, let them. Just try to get them into roles where it's not disruptive.

[kyoryu]

There is no definition for "Over-optimization". But generally characters should try not to invalidate other characters.

There's no single standard, but I think there's a definition:

Over-optimization: Having a character that is optimized to the point that it actively impedes the fun of the other players.

[braveheart]

I always let the player have their fun for a session, then after the session I will tell the player that their character is has too much of a power discrepancy from the rest of the party, address what I find to be the issue and give them the opportunity to rebuild their character to be more in line with the rest of the party. but that's just me at my table, I've never had someone refuse to make changes, and it still lets them have their fun testing the broken options.

[Braininthejar2]

Any level of optimisation is okay, as long as the Gm and the players are on the same page.

[RazorChain]

I dont handle it . I encourage it . I also offer advice about anything player wants to do with their pocket god or what books to look in . My rule is if they can find it in a book they can have it .
I am not getting the short end of the stick , whats good for the player is good for the DM too .

I want a player to love his character enough to give him the best possible options . I very much respect a person who spends hours pouring over obscure almost third party books to find that perfect / broken feat .

I like your way of thinking, I did this too and I'm a sticky brain when it comes to rules, I remember them all. Unfortunately I was the GM and my favorite pastime beside RPG's is strategy games, tactical studies, military history. The joy of crushing your PC's wth adversaries that are of lower level.....mwuhahaha, outwitting them, out maneuvering, crushing their hopes and dreams. And when their spirit is broken and they admit defeat it is time to start a fresh

[icefractal]

As a DM there are always ways to take out OP characters in game. To begin with in the first line of any campaign hand out where I explain rules changes, the world as they know it etc, in capital bold letters I will type "Intentionally OP min maxed characters will be punished." In the case the PCs don't listen I handle it in different ways. I concentrate fire on them in fights using the justification the opponents see them as a major threat to be neutralized. Assassins are a favorite of mine. The super hero just saved the town from utter destruction, well the outfit that was going to do the destruction wasn't happy with that and hired an assassin to take the hero out. This can come from several angles. Poison is a favorite of mine, be it a blow dart from the dark, poison in their mug of ale at the tavern, a direct backstab in a fight with a poisoned blade with a high DC, or a simple kill in the dark while sleeping. Players were warned in the beginning, I have no problem killing them off.I take issue with ... well, pretty much every part of this. If a restaurant messes up your order, do you:
A) Ask the waiter/manager to fix it.
B) Leave a bad review.
C) Intentionally spill food on the floor and break glasses to 'punish them', without saying why you're doing it.

Because the approach you're advocating is pretty much option C.
"Oh, but it's IC logic, the enemies are just taking reasonable steps."
B. S. Let me ask you some questions:
1) Sounds like these assassins have a lot of resources. Do the normal foes have that level of resources? If so, why didn't they use those to get the job done in the first place instead of getting revenge for it failing?
2) If a non-OP character was the one who most contributed to foiling the plan, would you send those same assassins after them instead?
3) After the villain successfully assassinates the OP character, why do they not continue finishing off the rest of the group? Is it a contrived reason that boils down to "I only wanted to kill off that particular character"?

And then this:
As for DM characters, in my experience the character is likely a major villain or boss who is supposed to be tough. Seeing as the DM put some time into the character they are likely not going to allow you to do anything about them. Its the DM , the boss has as many HP as he feels like at the moment and can narratively have the villain escape or fight on until he is ready for him to die.If the GM is just going to fiat everything, why are the players even there? Might as well write a novel of what happens and have people read it after the fact.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It is true that if you ever even slightly say or do anything to a over optimizing player, they might leave that game. This is not a bad thing.

Engaging in the nonsense you're suggesting would have me ready to walk out even if I wasn't the problem player. Driving people away from the game instead of simply asking them to leave is quite likely to hit more targets than just the intended one.


Not true always. It will stop roll players that can't do anything that is not written on their character sheet, but role players will be fine.

False dichotomy is false. Being able to build a mechanically strong character does not preclude being able to roleplay well or think about ways to use one's surroundings. In any case, if there's nothing usable on the high-op character's sheet that is useful, there won't be anything better on anyone else's either. Congrats, we're now playing "read the DM's mind." You don't need rules at all for that since it's basically a glorified version of calvin ball.



The ''upfront'' thing is really odd, it's like saying the player must state ''how they will roll play'', and no one would ever do that.

When you sit down to play poker, you declare the wild cards before dealing not right before everyone shows their hand. When you sit down to play a game, you expect to play that game by the standard rules until and unless any expicit houserules are given. For 3rd and 4th edition D&D, WBL and relatively free access to magic items are standard rules.


Things can happen on an adventure that are not planned out and agreed to by the players in advance. The Pc's are on a ship...it sinks in an encounter...and they are now marooned on a jungle island. That stuff happen in a normal game with out and ''up front'' vote by the players.

Which is fine. Dealing with unexpected complications is a normal part of adventuring. The problem is that your example is an inherently temporary one and if it gets resolved -before- your problem player decides to leave then you have to do it again... and again... and again until it sticks or you have to bar the situation from being resolved until the problem player "takes the hint." In either case, you're effectively changing the standard rules mid-game to punish a player that you've otherwise given no indication they've done anything wrong, given that you refuse to just be direct with it. Worse, the other players are suffering the same punishment through no fault of their own.

The problem you're implicitly trying to avoid is that, if you tell them up-front that magic item availability and WBL are being drastically curbed for the entire campaign, they'll build around it and your limitation takes a dramatic loss in efficacy for having the desired effect.


Most builds need items, except the odd ''vow of poverty '' builds.

Druids don't care, sorcerers don't care, clerics barely care, and all three can be blended into other archetypes to make it so that they don't have to care much either. VoP is available to all characters willing to accept and act in accordance with the precepts of exalted good. The sorcerer and cleric can both focus on boosting their allies with their magic and the druid can too but to a lesser degree. If you know ahead of time that you won't be able to lean on gear, you can go around that problem with minimal fuss.

The only ones that get completely hosed are the characters with no native magical ability and no allies with native magical ability. If that describes the PC's party and you're deliberately screwing them out of treasure for the long-haul, why play with this system at all when there are others that do that sort of game better?


Note: Technically this is aggressive aggressive....not ''passive''.

Attempting to manipulate others' behavior by modulating your own to avoid a direct confrontation is text-book passive-aggressive.

[Slipperychicken]

Seconding the suggestion of talking to players. It's an OOC problem-and the player might not even realize it IS a problem. So talk to them.

This. Use your adult problem-solving skills. Help your players understand why their behavior is liable to cause issues, ask them about why they do it, and use that to get them to stop while addressing their concerns.

Also it can help to advise your players about the sort of play you want to encourage, and what numbers would fall in that ballpark. If you're playing shadowrun for example, you could say that you're going for a lower street level (the runners are just starting their careers) and players shouldn't have diepools that exceed 15 at chargen, can't have contacts over a certain rating, can't have more than a certain number of initiative passes. They could also be advised away from certain very powerful options. The idea is to have guidelines that get them thinking "what is appropriate for this sort of game" rather than "what do the words on this page technically allow".


Talk to the players, or play a system which doesn't encourage that level of optimization.

Also this.

[Ninja-Radish]

In my experience, the optimization race happens after a group or player has had a competitive "Killer DM". After a few wipes, they learn to optimize or die. It's not a problem until they play with a different group or DM, then it might become an issue.

If that's the case, it helps as the DM to say "Guys, I'm not going to go out of my way to kill characters. It's ok to not optimize the crap out of everything".

[Ninja-Radish]

One thing I would be careful of is simply taking one player's word for it that another player is a munchkin.

I've been accused of power gaming so many times by players who don't know the rules and don't understand tactics and strategy. I never had the most powerful character in the group, but I use good tactics to take advantage of my characters strengths.

I've known players with characters who were orders of magnitude more powerful than mine bitch about my power gaming and demand the DM nerf me. Then when I look at their stats, I realize that their guy could wipe the floor with my guy's ass and not even break a sweat. The issue was those players didn't understand good tactics.

Always look at the character sheets when these accusations start to fly.

[kyoryu]

In my experience, the optimization race happens after a group or player has had a competitive "Killer DM". After a few wipes, they learn to optimize or die. It's not a problem until they play with a different group or DM, then it might become an issue.

If that's the case, it helps as the DM to say "Guys, I'm not going to go out of my way to kill characters. It's ok to not optimize the crap out of everything".

That is certainly not the only reason. I've seen any number of players who like optimizing because they like optimizing. It's a big source of their fun.

The better ones of these players turn that to optimizing around strange concepts, so that the "optimized" character ends up on par with the rest of the party, but through a non-standard mechanism.

[Bartmanhomer]

But can Over-Optimization be a good thing as well? I mean the whole purpose of an RPG game is to win and have fun. It can't possibly ruined the whole game just because a single player is overpower his/her stats, feats, abilities and powers. Now just imagine a group of four who's overpowered. Fight and kill every enemies. Give them an easy campaign to win and have fun.

[The Extinguisher]

When you sit down to play poker, you declare the wild cards before dealing not right before everyone shows their hand. When you sit down to play a game, you expect to play that game by the standard rules until and unless any expicit houserules are given. For 3rd and 4th edition D&D, WBL and relatively free access to magic items are standard rules.
.

I agree with your post completely, I just want to say that poker where the wild card is randomly determined before the hands are shown sounds super interesting.


But yeah, if people aren't having fun, the correct answer isn't remove fun from those who are. It's figuring out a way that everyone has fun. That's the most important goal of any game. Everyone has fun.

[Bartmanhomer]

I agree with your post completely, I just want to say that poker where the wild card is randomly determined before the hands are shown sounds super interesting.


But yeah, if people aren't having fun, the correct answer isn't remove fun from those who are. It's figuring out a way that everyone has fun. That's the most important goal of any game. Everyone has fun.
That's partially true depending on which rank of hand does the player have.

[kyoryu]

But yeah, if people aren't having fun, the correct answer isn't remove fun from those who are. It's figuring out a way that everyone has fun.

This is a good guideline, but is not an achievable rule.

If one player's idea of fun is being Super Heroic People and being good and doing good deeds, and the other's idea of fun is being Crazy Mass Murderer dude, then those two concepts of fun aren't super compatible.

Sometimes people just need to sit out a particular game.

[Slipperychicken]

I mean the whole purpose of an RPG game is to win and have fun.

Fun is the main goal. Winning is optional.

[Kelb_Panthera]

This is a good guideline, but is not an achievable rule.

If one player's idea of fun is being Super Heroic People and being good and doing good deeds, and the other's idea of fun is being Crazy Mass Murderer dude, then those two concepts of fun aren't super compatible.

Sometimes people just need to sit out a particular game.

Well, yes and no. A good DM talks with his players about what they want from the game before they get started and such an incompatibility would come to light then. Something as diametric as you've described here would likely preclude those players playing together at all unless they could come up with some sort of compromise. Same applies to a new player joining a game in progress.

[kyoryu]

Well, yes and no. A good DM talks with his players about what they want from the game before they get started and such an incompatibility would come to light then. Something as diametric as you've described here would likely preclude those players playing together at all unless they could come up with some sort of compromise. Same applies to a new player joining a game in progress.

Completely agreed.

[Darth Ultron]

Well, yes and no. A good DM talks with his players about what they want from the game before they get started and such an incompatibility would come to light then. Something as diametric as you've described here would likely preclude those players playing together at all unless they could come up with some sort of compromise. Same applies to a new player joining a game in progress.

True enough. Simply meeting a player for a couple seconds can tell a DM that they never want to be in a game with that person.

[JNAProductions]

True enough. Simply meeting a player for a couple seconds can tell a DM that they never want to be in a game with that person.

They weren't talking about BAD players, they were talking about players who want different things out of a game. It's possible to want a different sort of game without being a bad player.

[Pakis54]

I know that some RPG games that player characters want to win with using the best classes, feats, talents and abilities, same thing with enemies and monsters. But sometimes Over-Optimization can get out of hand in a quick second. So my question is how do you handle Over-Optimization Player Characters And Enemies?

I have a limited timeline,i have to go to work, look after my family, and then finally play a few hours DND/path with my friends. I dont want to optimize the sh*t of all the npcs the players meet in every turn of the game.i like prepering for whats important for me, the story, and not for how the gusnslinger/synthesist/whatever other class is gonna ruin my game. Especially since i am making so many npcs while the powerplayer is just looking for just 1 pc!
i talk with him once and tell him how things are..i play the game for the decent story, the plot twists, the engaging chars who might have a really decent background theme which cant even be so "decently" represented in the game and hope he does understand...if not i accept we think in different ways and we do things differently and as such we cant play in the same table i DM. we are still friends and we can still play dnd together if someone else thinks he can handle things better than me!

Some people no matter how much you talk to them wont understand they like powerplaying and cheesy stuff and some others can accept the restrictions and play for the fun of it.
Trying to best them in their own game is just silly they will obviously win you since they have more experience in it than you!

Powerplayed enemies vs a group of people who co-operate in the table i dont believe are as much of a problem plus the DM can and will easily find out the difficulty the party can handle otherwise the party will die and another story will begin...usually its just that 1 overpowered encounter you didnt thought it would be so hard for them that can ruin things!

[Segev]

Make sure you have the powergamer's sheet. Familiarize yourself with his numbers. What are the bonuses to skills he has which will be relevant with this NPC? What are his AC and saves? Build your NPC with arbitrarily assigned numbers that scale appropriately.

Then see if this invalidates other players' characters. If it does, you need to bring this up with the table as a whole. Either they need to ramp up to his level of optimization, or he needs to tone it back. Have some idea of what maximum final numbers you want to see.

[Ninja-Radish]

That is certainly not the only reason. I've seen any number of players who like optimizing because they like optimizing. It's a big source of their fun.

The better ones of these players turn that to optimizing around strange concepts, so that the "optimized" character ends up on par with the rest of the party, but through a non-standard mechanism.

You are absolutely right, that's not the only reason. That was just my personal experience, having had a number of competitive killer DMs.

[Kelb_Panthera]

True enough. Simply meeting a player for a couple seconds can tell a DM that they never want to be in a game with that person.

A few minutes at least. Mere seconds isn't long enough to get a good grip on someone's *character, except in very rare cases, much less what they consider fun.


*character as in their personality traits, not the imagined person/creature they want to play in the game.

[Kalaska'Agathas]

I have a limited timeline,i have to go to work, look after my family, and then finally play a few hours DND/path with my friends. I dont want to optimize the sh*t of all the npcs the players meet in every turn of the game.i like prepering for whats important for me, the story, and not for how the gusnslinger/synthesist/whatever other class is gonna ruin my game. Especially since i am making so many npcs while the powerplayer is just looking for just 1 pc!
i talk with him once and tell him how things are..i play the game for the decent story, the plot twists, the engaging chars who might have a really decent background theme which cant even be so "decently" represented in the game and hope he does understand...if not i accept we think in different ways and we do things differently and as such we cant play in the same table i DM. we are still friends and we can still play dnd together if someone else thinks he can handle things better than me!

Some people no matter how much you talk to them wont understand they like powerplaying and cheesy stuff and some others can accept the restrictions and play for the fun of it.
Trying to best them in their own game is just silly they will obviously win you since they have more experience in it than you!

Powerplayed enemies vs a group of people who co-operate in the table i dont believe are as much of a problem plus the DM can and will easily find out the difficulty the party can handle otherwise the party will die and another story will begin...usually its just that 1 overpowered encounter you didnt thought it would be so hard for them that can ruin things!


Why is it that optimized characters must not and cannot be engaging or have decent background themes? I optimize. Which is kinda like saying "I make studied design decisions, rather than making character design decisions entirely at random." I build characters with intent, using the mechanical abilities available in-game to achieve the mechanical goals I have in order to represent the character I choose to play. This, to me, is a better way of coming up with good characters - not (just) in the sense of mechanical effectiveness, but in terms of achieving a sense of who this person is, their motivations, goals, history, and abilities. If I want to play a master assassin, for example, I could go Rogue 10/Assasin 10. But am I going to have half a chance of defeating the Evil Wizardtm who killed my beloved King and salted the earth of my Motherland, turning what was once a lush and fertile place into a barren wasteland? Not a chance, if the Evil Wizardtm is played to even half the mechanical potential inherent to the Wizard class. And while it can be interesting and fun to play a character who is doomed to failure, I generally prefer to know that's what I'm doing beforehand, so that I can choose whether or not I'm up for/interested in such a game.

So, that's a relatively unoptimized master assasin - what might I do if I wanted to create a character who could actually fulfill that role, mechanically, in D&D 3.5?

Well now, if I want to build a master assassin who actually stands a chance of defeating the Evil Wizardtm, I might start off with a level of Spellthief, since I grew up in the rough-and-tumble environment of Eisleygrad, the ruined former capital of my character's Motherland, now a wretched hive of blaggards, dastardly thieves, and general scum. I learned the ways of the Spellthief because I have long wished to strike back at the Evil Wizardtm and their magic wielding minions. I would lure them into ambushes, steal their magic, and use it against them. Then, I met a gruff but kind old man who taught me that I could become so much more than a thief striking at low level lackeys, if I dedicated myself to the mastery of myself and of the arcane arts, and so I became his apprentice, gaining levels in Wizard in the process. Soon I learned to combine my Spellthief abilities with my nascent Wizarding skills (by taking the Master Spellthief feat). I then take a detour into Incantatrix, as in my travels I have sought out a wise woman from the east who, according to local legend, has the ability to subvert other casters' own spells (Snatch Spell or Seize Concentration), as I would make the Evil Wizardtm's magic work against them. Finally, I would train as an Unseen Seer, on my Master's advice - "Know your enemy, and know yourself, and you cannot fail to defeat them, even in one hundred battles!" That would grant me Hunter's Eye, among other useful spells, in order to boost my sneak attacking. Then, in a climactic fight with the Evil Wizardtm, I would use my foreknowledge (via careful divinations) in order to neutralize or co-opt the Evil Wizardtm's spells, lure them into an ambush (just as I had done to their minions, years before), and strike them down with fistfuls of Sneak Attack dice.

So, there is an at least partially-optimized (I mean, there's a fair bit of Incantatrix in the proposed build) master assassin, who actually stands a chance of fulfilling that mechanical role, and who has the bare bones of an interesting, complete character (in the literary or theatrical sense), with history, goals, ambitions, and relationships built right in. That's not to say that one couldn't do the same with the Rogue 10/Assassin 10, but that's precisely my point - an optimized character need not be a an unrealized character, any more than a less optimized character (because unless they were built entirely at random, they were at least partially optimized for some purpose or another) needn't necessarily be more fully realized, solely for being less optimized.

And a more optimized character needn't "ruin your* game" either. If a character has abilities which you, as DM, can't manage, then it's entirely reasonable to ask them to tone it down, or choose a character whose abilities are a better fit for your table. I was once in a Shadowrun (4th edition) game, and I built a Hacker/gunslinger/backup face who, using the standard rules, could roll eighteen plus dice on his hacking skills, and fourteen plus for the shooting and the talking. However, of the other characters at that table, the highest dicepool was twelve. This wasn't to say my character was better than the others, just that I had prioritized having high dicepools for my primary skillsets, and I had allocated my build resources accordingly. The GM explained that this disparity was likely to cause problems for the game, and gave me the chance to rebuild my character accordingly. We did, though, play a couple of sessions with my character as originally designed, and it turned out that my character's skills didn't cause any problems - I focused on enabling the other characters, and not stepping on anyone else's toes, and we found that, rather than making problems for the group, he actually enhanced the experience at that particular table. I didn't end up making any changes after all.

* The whole "It's the DM's game!" thing is a real pet peeve of mine. The game is shared between participants. There are different roles, sure, and it generally takes more effort to run a game than it does to simply play in it, but a DM without players doesn't work (whereas a group of players without a DM can). That possessiveness can lead to a lot of problems, in my experience.

[Zombimode]

I know that some RPG games that player characters want to win with using the best classes, feats, talents and abilities, same thing with enemies and monsters. But sometimes Over-Optimization can get out of hand in a quick second. So my question is how do you handle Over-Optimization Player Characters And Enemies?

First, ask yourself "Is this actually a Problem?".

I know some GMs who will raise an eyebrow if a characters pulls of a trick they didn't expect, or Sports numbers in a range they haven't seen before.
Instead of a knee-jerk reaction try viewing Things from a more clam and rational perspective.

But let's assume that you truly find the abilities of the character to be out-of-line.
The next step is to carefully study how the character is build. If the character sheet is not conclusive, let the Player explain. Demand Details if necessary. Do not let the Player get a away with fast-tracking Things. Your Goal in this step is to verify if the character acually has the capabilities the Player Claims.
Depending on your stance on that matter you can, in Addition to hard rules violations, look for other issues on the character build came together, such as
- is material being used that is unavailable in your Setting?
- does the character follow all the implications from his build choices? For instance the Player wants to maintain a classic hero Outlook, but one of his main tricks uses a power with the [Evil] tag (or equivalent).
If you find inconsitencies do not blame or betitle the Player. Instead correct the mistakes and offer help to let the Player create the character he/she envisions.
Incidently you should perform this step for every character you suspect something is not quite right, not just the overpowerd ones.

If after step 2 the character is still uncomfortably powerful, despite being correctly build, explain why the character is problematic for you and/or other Players. Offer solutions to Change the character. Again, work with the Player here, not against them.

[Pakis54]

@Kalaska'Agathas i am not suggesting u dont know ur background and ur not making a great story or that ur bad at roleplaying basically the post is not the stormwind fallacy! the point is i have 2-3 hours at best to create both an engaging story for the players and create the npcs they will fight! in that amount of time i am making 10 npcs while u have the whole time to create 1 char! even if we both had the same understanding of the game mechanics which i can clearly see we dont, u have a much better understanding of them than me, i would still be at a disadvantage against ur theoretically "unlimited time"
so i would have to become even better than you to challenge your otherwise amazing build on every single encounter the party is going to face!

in the same time factors like the rest of the partys' understanding of mechanics, would come into play since if 1 or 2 them had the same basic understanding of mechanics like me, we would end up with a party of 2 gears which would only lead to another set of troubles for the players this time, where they would feel like peasants compared to ur good build, which will only lead to them getting bored and in the end just making stupid decisions so that we end the story! it needs just 1 powerplayer to break the entire game!

on the other hand a newbie wont break the game cause the DM can easily give him more power through magic items etc unlike ur build which is not based on how strong ur dagger is!

anyways what i am trying to say is that if this was a video game and we could choose difficulty lvls like "novice, normal,hard, ohhhh my god what have i done???" in the begining, i am playing a world where people are between normal and hard while you are build for against the all hell break lose senario
but the difficulty of the campaign as a whole is not up there, as such you will come on top of everyone else players and DM, which will only disturb the game in the end!

[NichG]

I encourage it, but I also run games in such a way that my job as DM isn't to compete with the players over who can build the most powerful character with a certain point budget, it's to provide things to do and enough pushback to make actions and decisions and choices feel meaningful. Furthermore, the point of the game (at least the ones I run) isn't for players to compete with each-other using a fixed pool of resources. As such, if someone makes a Lv7 character that can hold their own with Lv20 characters, I'll give everyone else enough opportunities towards power so that they can contend with Lv20 characters as well, then run a game that would be appropriate for Lv20 characters - not just in terms of numbers, but also in terms of scope.

I'm not competing with the players - when they optimize, I take that to mean that they're communicating to me the scope at which they want to play. My job is then to find viable and interesting things to engage them in the context of that chosen scope, but it's not to do so using the exact same resources that the players have.

The one issue is if a game is such that excessive optimization can oversimplify the game, in which case I generally need to modify the mechanics to retain interesting feedback. For example, if ACs are around 20-30 and you roll d20+bonus against that, changes of a few AC points are still meaningful - maybe 1 AC point is effectively a 5% damage reduction. But if the ACs are around 100-200 and so are the to-hits, then basically either you optimized your to-hit enough to hit or you didn't (or you eschew attack rolls entirely). So in cases like that, I'll make available things that increase power but also increase variance, or creatures with multiple ACs where hitting the higher AC lets you ignore some of its DR/immunities, or things like that - basically, stuff to try to make a change of AC from 20 to 25 be meaningful for one character (who is optimizing to use auto-resurrections, miss chances, and immunities to survive), alongside a character that is experiencing a change of AC from 80 to 100 (who is just optimizing all-out on AC).

[Darth Ultron]

They weren't talking about BAD players, they were talking about players who want different things out of a game. It's possible to want a different sort of game without being a bad player.

I never said ''bad player''... But ''different player'' still counts. I want a complex and complicated role playing experience, the player wants to ''roll dice and kill, loot, repeat'', well we won't game well together.


Why is it that optimized characters must not and cannot be engaging or have decent background themes?

They can, it's possible....it is just very rare. Most optimizers put all there effort into the rules and crunchy things, and to them the role playing and non-mechanical details is just fluff. Though most optimized characters will have wacky backgrounds to ''explain'' their build and try to make it sound reasonable. But as for ''engaging'', well optimized characters only engage in combat, and other crunchy challenges, as that is what they were made for and all. Asking a player of an optimized character to role play, is asking the player to ''play a different game'' or more simply is barking up the wrong tree.

[CharonsHelper]

They can, it's possible....it is just very rare. Most optimizers put all there effort into the rules and crunchy things, and to them the role playing and non-mechanical details is just fluff.

The Stormwind Fallacy says hi.

[The Insanity]

Fun is the main goal. Winning is optional.
But winning is fun. D:

@ OP
Depends on what you mean by "over-optimization."

[Cluedrew]

Casting another vote for the out of game solution.

Any attempt to handle it in character is almost certain to meet with failure because of a few reasons:

The high-optimization character doesn't know why you are suddenly targeting them. If they can figure it out great, but I think you are more likely to end up as there worst GM story. Even if you do "solve" the problem you are likely to cause more collateral damage and you are loosing a player that might have been a good addition with as little as a sentence of clarification. (Probably will take more than that, but how do you know without trying?)

You are now justifying their optimization by making the game harder, and you can start playing the game they set out to play, not the one you did. And if you are having this problem those are probably different games. Plus you can start encouraging optimization

[Bartmanhomer]

But winning is fun. D:

@ OP
Depends on what you mean by "over-optimization."

Overpowered characters. That's what I mean.

[Segev]

Overpowered characters. That's what I mean.

That's still just dancing in the same circle, unfortunately. What he was getting at is the question of where the threshold of "overpowered" is set.

Is it anybody who uses overland flight to establish day-long flying speeds for himself and perhaps his party?

Is it a fighter who takes Power Attack? Or Cleave?

Is it a Lion Totem Barbarian having Pounce?

Is it a Lion Totem Barbarian dipping 2 levels of fighter?

Is it a warlock with sneak attack from dipping rogue? With levels of Hellfire Warlock? With binder levels to mitigate the costs of Hellfire? With levels of Legacy Champion or Fortune's Friend or a Bloodline to increase his Hellfire damage beyond 6d6?

There are a lot of ways to build. What your particular threshold for "too much optimization" - what your threshold for "too powerful" vs. "just powerful enough" vs. "too weak" is - needs to be defined.

[Bartmanhomer]

That's still just dancing in the same circle, unfortunately. What he was getting at is the question of where the threshold of "overpowered" is set.

Is it anybody who uses overland flight to establish day-long flying speeds for himself and perhaps his party?

Is it a fighter who takes Power Attack? Or Cleave?

Is it a Lion Totem Barbarian having Pounce?

Is it a Lion Totem Barbarian dipping 2 levels of fighter?

Is it a warlock with sneak attack from dipping rogue? With levels of Hellfire Warlock? With binder levels to mitigate the costs of Hellfire? With levels of Legacy Champion or Fortune's Friend or a Bloodline to increase his Hellfire damage beyond 6d6?

There are a lot of ways to build. What your particular threshold for "too much optimization" - what your threshold for "too powerful" vs. "just powerful enough" vs. "too weak" is - needs to be defined.

Oh ok. I misunderstood. Sorry about that. :frown:

[Segev]

Oh ok. I misunderstood. Sorry about that. :frown:

No need to be sad or overly chagrinned. Just clarifying what he was asking.

I am still curious: what IS "overpowered" to you? What character builds have seemed such, and why?

[Pakis54]

That's still just dancing in the same circle, unfortunately. What he was getting at is the question of where the threshold of "overpowered" is set.

Is it anybody who uses overland flight to establish day-long flying speeds for himself and perhaps his party?

Is it a fighter who takes Power Attack? Or Cleave?

Is it a Lion Totem Barbarian having Pounce?

Is it a Lion Totem Barbarian dipping 2 levels of fighter?

Is it a warlock with sneak attack from dipping rogue? With levels of Hellfire Warlock? With binder levels to mitigate the costs of Hellfire? With levels of Legacy Champion or Fortune's Friend or a Bloodline to increase his Hellfire damage beyond 6d6?

There are a lot of ways to build. What your particular threshold for "too much optimization" - what your threshold for "too powerful" vs. "just powerful enough" vs. "too weak" is - needs to be defined.

even though thats true deciding whats "overpowered" comes from how much of a good understanding you the DM have of the rules of the game and how well you can implement them in your game...i believe you still see how the designers believe the game should be played by all the published material they give out in adventure paths etc in 3.5 for example you could see that not just in the premade stories they made but you could also see the shift in power between monster manuals....

[Bartmanhomer]

No need to be sad or overly chagrinned. Just clarifying what he was asking.

I am still curious: what IS "overpowered" to you? What character builds have seemed such, and why?

Overpowered in my own defination means that character is too powerful. Well character who got all 18 stats because I think that character is too powerful.

[JNAProductions]

Overpowered in my own defination means that character is too powerful. Well character who got all 18 stats because I think that character is too powerful.

But which is worse-a Figther with all 18s, or a Wizard with a 16 in Int and 10-13 in all others?

[Bartmanhomer]

But which is worse-a Figther with all 18s, or a Wizard with a 16 in Int and 10-13 in all others?

I don't think a Fighter with all 18 is worse. And a wizard with a Int of 16 and 10-13 in other is pretty decent.

[Segev]

Overpowered in my own defination means that character is too powerful. Well character who got all 18 stats because I think that character is too powerful.

Okay, the second clause (all 18s) is actually a meaningful benchmark. (The first is circular. "Overpowered is too powerful" is almost - but not quite - a tautology. It's like "oversalted is too salty.")

So, all 18s is overpowered. How many 18s is acceptable before it's overpowered? What about 17s? 16s? etc. What is the highest statline that would not be overpowered?

Now, please don't take this the wrong way, but my next question is: is this all-18s character overpowered because he's actually doing something in the game that makes it hard to run against him without destroying the rest of the party, or is he overpowered because "all 18s" is just too powerful?

What I'm getting at is that, at least from a practical standpoint, it usually matters more what happens in game than what it looks like on paper. So, I suggest examining overpowered builds you've encountered and examining what they did in the game that indicated they were overpowered.

Was it that they had final numbers that were just overwhelmingly huge compared to your monsters? Or compared to the other PCs (so your monsters had to destroy the other PCs to even challenge the overpowered one)? Was it that they had abilities you hadn't planned for, or couldn't figure out a way to take advantage of in your encounter designs? Was it that they stepped on a scene intended for another player's character?

Was it a power disparity between them and the other PCs, or between them and your monsters?

There are different solutions to these different kinds of problems. Identifying the specific nature of your problem colors how to deal with it.

[JNAProductions]

I don't think a Fighter with all 18 is worse. And a wizard with a Int of 16 and 10-13 in other is pretty decent.

How long have you been on these boards? Because in a 1v1 fight, the Fighter will get MURDERED. And in a test of who contributes more to the party's adventures, the Wizard will come out miles ahead.

[Pakis54]

a fighter with everything 25 and a wizard with everything 10 except int 18 and the spellcaster is still better in everything actually!!
well maybe except for 1-2 first lvls :tongue:

[kyoryu]

I am still curious: what IS "overpowered" to you? What character builds have seemed such, and why?

Answering for myself:

A character whose power level is such that it impacts the fun of the rest of the group.

[Bartmanhomer]

How long have you been on these boards? Because in a 1v1 fight, the Fighter will get MURDERED. And in a test of who contributes more to the party's adventures, the Wizard will come out miles ahead. I only been on this forum by a year.


Okay, the second clause (all 18s) is actually a meaningful benchmark. (The first is circular. "Overpowered is too powerful" is almost - but not quite - a tautology. It's like "oversalted is too salty.")

So, all 18s is overpowered. How many 18s is acceptable before it's overpowered? What about 17s? 16s? etc. What is the highest statline that would not be overpowered?

Now, please don't take this the wrong way, but my next question is: is this all-18s character overpowered because he's actually doing something in the game that makes it hard to run against him without destroying the rest of the party, or is he overpowered because "all 18s" is just too powerful?

What I'm getting at is that, at least from a practical standpoint, it usually matters more what happens in game than what it looks like on paper. So, I suggest examining overpowered builds you've encountered and examining what they did in the game that indicated they were overpowered.

Was it that they had final numbers that were just overwhelmingly huge compared to your monsters? Or compared to the other PCs (so your monsters had to destroy the other PCs to even challenge the overpowered one)? Was it that they had abilities you hadn't planned for, or couldn't figure out a way to take advantage of in your encounter designs? Was it that they stepped on a scene intended for another player's character?

Was it a power disparity between them and the other PCs, or between them and your monsters?

There are different solutions to these different kinds of problems. Identifying the specific nature of your problem colors how to deal with it.
Well if you combined the all 18 stats with powerful feats and abilities it would make an over powerhouse player.

[JNAProductions]

Well if you combined the all 18 stats with powerful feats and abilities it would make an over powerhouse player.

Ah. See, Fighters don't get those. They get feats and abilities that amount to "Do damage", and not much else.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ah. See, Fighters don't get those. They get feats and abilities that amount to "Do damage", and not much else.

Oh I see. So I get a fighter with all 18s is just a big waste of time huh?

[JNAProductions]

Oh I see. So I get a fighter with all 18s is just a big waste of time huh?

Depending on the game, it can be. Now, with all 18s, a Fighter actually has decent amounts of skill points and decent modifiers for things outside their specialty. In low-op parties, they'll do fine, and you'll have a good time.

In higher-op parties, though, even great stats won't save a Fighter.

[awa]

it depends on optimization a weak wizard can be practically useless, the problem is a strong wizard basically renders stats pointless. A fighter only has a couple of stats he actually cares about and polymorph makes all of those pointless anyways.

Now i have played in games where the fighter was more valuable than the wizard even at mid level but even in that game increasing all my stats to 18 would not have increased my power very much. Slightly higher damage another 10 hp (no ac increase because my armor was to heavy) slightly better will save the advantage would have been slight int and charsima could have been any where between 3 and 30 and not affected by performance meaningfully.

But if that wizard had decided to start casting more and better spells (they were used to second edition where conserving spell was a bigger deal so they tended to horde their magic for bosses then huck fire balls) i would have rapidly been left in the dust no matter my stats

[Bartmanhomer]

Depending on the game, it can be. Now, with all 18s, a Fighter actually has decent amounts of skill points and decent modifiers for things outside their specialty. In low-op parties, they'll do fine, and you'll have a good time.

In higher-op parties, though, even great stats won't save a Fighter. Well that's good to hear except it's stinks for higher levels.

[JNAProductions]

Well that's good to hear except it's stinks for higher levels.

Not levels-optimization. A Wizard can outshine the Fighter at level 1, though it becomes easier as they level, but in low-op parties, the Fighter stays good and relevant all the way through 20 and beyond. (Okay, maybe not beyond.)

[Bartmanhomer]

Not levels-optimization. A Wizard can outshine the Fighter at level 1, though it becomes easier as they level, but in low-op parties, the Fighter stays good and relevant all the way through 20 and beyond. (Okay, maybe not beyond.)
OK I get it now. Thank you. :smile:

[icefractal]

People overstate the uselessness of Fighters. An all-18s Fighter will be quite good up to at least 10th level or so, assuming a similar level of optimization to the other characters.

Probably not a big OP problem though. All they're bringing is slightly higher numbers, not too difficult to handle.

[Bartmanhomer]

Is that the reason why an all 18 wizard is better than an all 18 fighter because of the tier rank?

[icefractal]

Is that the reason why an all 18 wizard is better than an all 18 fighter because of the tier rank?The reason is just that Wizard is better in general. If anything, all 18s helps the Fighter more than it does the Wizard, but the Wizard is still stronger.

How a given Wizard compares to a given Fighter is going to vary based on players and builds, so the latter could be stronger than the former. But in more cases than not, a Wizard has a sizeable advantage.

[NichG]

Tier rank is a measurement of it, not a cause.

What it comes down to is that versatility is power. Raw numbers let you have a higher chance of success on certain rolls. Versatility allows you to choose what to roll so that you're always rolling your strongest suit, or to add numbers to the rolls you need to add numbers to, or to avoid rolling entirely.

Casters in general are versatile because they have a much wider and more varied list of options to choose from, both during character creation and also during play.

The reason why this depends so much on optimization level is that versatility requires knowledge of how to use it effectively in order to be powerful. If you give someone new to the game a character with high numbers versus a character with low numbers, they'll do better with the high numbers obviously. But if you give them a versatile character instead of a simple one, they may actually do worse because they don't know how to find the good choices out of their set of options.

[awa]

one of the problems very simply is that a fighter can basically only target ac but the wizard can target ac, fort ,reff, will, just to name a few more specialized spells can target more exotic things like balance. This means that even if your numbers are lower you just target the thing their weak against.

The other thing is not all stats are equal all 18s looks really impressive but neither the fighter or the wizard actually get much out of an 18 cha. I mean a wizard with 18 str does not hurt him but it really doesn't help him much either his babs so low hes still going to get grappled and so on.

[kyoryu]

Tier rank is a measurement of it, not a cause.

What it comes down to is that versatility is power. Raw numbers let you have a higher chance of success on certain rolls. Versatility allows you to choose what to roll so that you're always rolling your strongest suit, or to add numbers to the rolls you need to add numbers to, or to avoid rolling entirely.

Also, Tiers pretty generally measure versatility, and not power. A class capable of doing their job more effectively than another class with the same "job", but equally inept outside of that job would, IIRC, get the same tier ranking.

[dps]

It is true that if you ever even slightly say or do anything to a over optimizing player, they might leave that game. This is not a bad thing.


That assumes that over-optimized characters are created by the kind of player who wants to be the star of the party, and the best at everything. While that type of player does exist, and yeah, them leaving your game isn't a bad thing, IMO those aren't the majority of players who create over-powered characters. A lot of players create over-powered characters because a lot of systems actively (if possibly unintentionally) encourage such builds.

[kyoryu]

That assumes that over-optimized characters are created by the kind of player who wants to be the star of the party, and the best at everything. While that type of player does exist, and yeah, them leaving your game isn't a bad thing, IMO those aren't the majority of players who create over-powered characters. A lot of players create over-powered characters because a lot of systems actively (if possibly unintentionally) encourage such builds.

The best optimizers I've seen know that they're optimizing far past most of the party, and so choose to optimize strange concepts - "Hey, how much shift *can* I get on a kobold in 4e?" or stuff like that. That strikes a good balance between their desire to explore the edges of the system and the rest of the party's desire to not deal with it.

[JoeJ]

I think the best way to prevent over-optimization problems is to create the PCs as a group. Having the players all sitting around the table makes it a lot easier to insure that no character outshines the others, that all the abilities likely to be needed are covered, and that PCs are different enough from one another to allow everybody their chance to shine. It also gives the players a chance to brainstorm how their characters know one another, so I don't have to have them coincidentally sitting at the same table in some inn.

[Darth Ultron]

That assumes that over-optimized characters are created by the kind of player who wants to be the star of the party, and the best at everything. While that type of player does exist, and yeah, them leaving your game isn't a bad thing, IMO those aren't the majority of players who create over-powered characters. A lot of players create over-powered characters because a lot of systems actively (if possibly unintentionally) encourage such builds.

It is a bad player that blames the system. If a player reads a game book, and some voice in their head tells them they must make an optimized character...that player has problems.

Though I'd say the majority of over powered type games do it to ruin the fun of others as that is the warpped way they have fun: by taking fun away from others.

[Kelb_Panthera]

It is a bad player that blames the system. If a player reads a game book, and some voice in their head tells them they must make an optimized character...that player has problems.

If the phrase "Make the best character you can" and the term "optimization" mean different things to you, you have had a linguistic failure.

If powerful characters are such a threat to your game, ask your players to respect you and the other players by toning it back or simply run a game where the ceiling for PC power is low enough for your comfort.

If they don't have enough respect to yield to your request, they don't have enough respect to play in your game at all. The overpowered PC is nothing but a symptom. Ya take chemo when you -can't- cut out the cancer. Just cut out the cancer.


Though I'd say the majority of over powered type games do it to ruin the fun of others as that is the warpped way they have fun: by taking fun away from others.

Presuming you meant gamers rather than game, you have a toxic pool of players (or you're extraordinarily presumptuous.) You may do better to just abandon that location and seek another pool of players.

[Darth Ultron]

If the phrase "Make the best character you can" and the term "optimization" mean different things to you, you have had a linguistic failure.

I think it is better to make a fun character.



If powerful characters are such a threat to your game, ask your players to respect you and the other players by toning it back or simply run a game where the ceiling for PC power is low enough for your comfort.

I would never waste my time ''asking'' the players to do something. A couple target anti-optimation house rules are all that are needed.



Presuming you meant gamers rather than game, you have a toxic pool of players (or you're extraordinarily presumptuous.) You may do better to just abandon that location and seek another pool of players.

Sadly, toxic people are everywhere...

I have lots of ways of dealing with over optimized characters, like I posted.

[RazorChain]

Okay, the second clause (all 18s) is actually a meaningful benchmark. (The first is circular. "Overpowered is too powerful" is almost - but not quite - a tautology. It's like "oversalted is too salty.")

So, all 18s is overpowered. How many 18s is acceptable before it's overpowered? What about 17s? 16s? etc. What is the highest statline that would not be overpowered?

Now, please don't take this the wrong way, but my next question is: is this all-18s character overpowered because he's actually doing something in the game that makes it hard to run against him without destroying the rest of the party, or is he overpowered because "all 18s" is just too powerful?

What I'm getting at is that, at least from a practical standpoint, it usually matters more what happens in game than what it looks like on paper. So, I suggest examining overpowered builds you've encountered and examining what they did in the game that indicated they were overpowered.

Was it that they had final numbers that were just overwhelmingly huge compared to your monsters? Or compared to the other PCs (so your monsters had to destroy the other PCs to even challenge the overpowered one)? Was it that they had abilities you hadn't planned for, or couldn't figure out a way to take advantage of in your encounter designs? Was it that they stepped on a scene intended for another player's character?

Was it a power disparity between them and the other PCs, or between them and your monsters?

There are different solutions to these different kinds of problems. Identifying the specific nature of your problem colors how to deal with it.

This is the essence of the problem....it only becomes a problem when somebody feels it is a problem.

I've played games where the was power disparity between PC's and it posed no problems.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I think it is better to make a fun character.

The two are not mutually exclusive.


I would never waste my time ''asking'' the players to do something.

Then you don't respect them. That right there is the core of -all- your problems as a DM.


A couple target anti-optimation house rules are all that are needed.

You have fun with your calvin-ball. The rest of us will get on with discussing actual games.


Sadly, toxic people are everywhere...

I'm beginning to suspect you are one of them.


I have lots of ways of dealing with over optimized characters, like I posted.

All of which come with their own problems, as I posted.

[JoeJ]

I've played games where the was power disparity between PC's and it posed no problems.

In some games extreme disparity in power between PCs is expected. In Smallville, for example, it works because the focus is on drama not action, so Jimmy and Lois have as much ability to affect the story as Clark does.

[Stealth Marmot]

In some games extreme disparity in power between PCs is expected. In Smallville, for example, it works because the focus is on drama not action, so Jimmy and Lois have as much ability to affect the story as Clark does.

More to the point, the "power" of a PC can be different based on game system and setting. A character with a bunch of social talent can be a lot more useful in a Vampire game even without combat skills, whereas in a D&D game a character with nothing but ranks in diplomacy and bluff is not too useful when facing a pack of ghouls in a dungeon.

The real question is this: How do you handle it when a Player creates a character who is powerful enough that it becomes difficult to impossible to create an encounter that will challenge the optimized player character, while not being certain death for the rest of the players?

And...I wish I had a good answer. That happened to me once and all I can say is that I could have handled it better. I made an encounter where the character was completely neutralized, and the combat went actually very well, with ups and downs. Unfortunately it was so direct that it irritated the player and he ended up retiring the character soon after. We were teenagers and I acted immaturely as well as he did.

(It was a first edition game and he came in with a Barbarian with 18(00) strength, 18 dex, and 18 con. The mental stats were garbage, like bare minimum, but back then mental stats didn't even really affect things like saves)

[Jay R]

I had a DM who would often respond to any player idea that he thought was OP with, "OK, you can do that if you want. But if you do, the bad guys will start doing it, too."

[kyoryu]

The real question is this: How do you handle it when a Player creates a character who is powerful enough that it becomes difficult to impossible to create an encounter that will challenge the optimized player character, while not being certain death for the rest of the players?

"Hey, you know, it's cool that you've figured out how to optimize your character that well. Unfortunately, it's kind of ruining the game for everyone else that isn't as good at you. How do you suggest we fix this so that everybody can have a good time?"

[Segev]

Yeah, one good solution to discovered problems of power disparity between the PCs (most notably of the "I can't challenge you without killing everyone else" variety) is to ask the players to work together to figure out where their numbers are and whether they want to (or can) beef up to match the high-powered guy, or whether they should ask the high-powered guy to make some changes to his build to tone it back a bit.

In a D&D-like game, where the GM has overt control over at least one avenue of power increase, the "beefing up" approach can be as easy as identifying some numbers that need to be higher and handing out magic items that achieve it. Or identifying functional weaknesses ("Only Joe's character can fly; we need the others to be able to engage in 3D combat") and providing items to accommodate (more flying mounts, better ranged weapons, or whatever).

Another approach - for more skilled and advanced DMs - is to design encounters such that the high-powered guy gets to feel awesome but just can't be everywhere the need the powerhouse, and thus the others have things to do because action deficit kills. This can be achieved by skillful violation of the cardinal rule against splitting the party, as well as simply by having multiple objectives to accomplish (or needed sub-objectives to open the path to the primary one).

[denthor]

Enforce alignment if they are good have them act that way if the over powered player starts to lose abilities due to acting like a jerk so be it.

[JNAProductions]

Enforce alignment if they are good have them act that way if the over powered player starts to lose abilities due to acting like a jerk so be it.

Wizards have no alignment restrictions.

More than that, it's perfectly possible to be roleplaying just fine, and also have an over-optimized character.

[Darth Ultron]

All of which come with their own problems, as I posted.

My ways allow the majority of the players and the DM to have fun...so problem solved. Your ''problems'' are not problems to us, and one or two poor players stomping there feet outside somewhere far away from our game and complaining don't matter.

[JNAProductions]

My ways allow the majority of the players and the DM to have fun...so problem solved. Your ''problems'' are not problems to us, and one or two poor players stomping there feet outside somewhere far away from our game and complaining don't matter.

Judging from what I've seen, you might want to amend that statement from "the majority of players and the DM" to "me". That might be more accurate.

[Stealth Marmot]

Yeah, one good solution to discovered problems of power disparity between the PCs (most notably of the "I can't challenge you without killing everyone else" variety) is to ask the players to work together to figure out where their numbers are and whether they want to (or can) beef up to match the high-powered guy, or whether they should ask the high-powered guy to make some changes to his build to tone it back a bit.


One of the problems with powerful and beefy PCs though, is often the power is a glass cannon or a specialist. It's generally a better idea to tone down the beef than try to beef up everyone else since you are changing one player instead of 3 or 4.

Adjusting a character can actually be beneficial. If a character is a specialist or glass cannon, shifting some stats or feats around might make them more rounded and smooth out some weaknesses or make them useful in more situations as opposed to overpowering in one.

There also is the possibility that the game was just broken on a certain feat or special ability, and that the DM might need to manually adjust it to bring it down to "non-broken". I was going to list an example, but I realized that might start an unnecessary side conversation, so lets keep it theoretical.

[Segev]

One of the problems with powerful and beefy PCs though, is often the power is a glass cannon or a specialist. It's generally a better idea to tone down the beef than try to beef up everyone else since you are changing one player instead of 3 or 4.

Adjusting a character can actually be beneficial. If a character is a specialist or glass cannon, shifting some stats or feats around might make them more rounded and smooth out some weaknesses or make them useful in more situations as opposed to overpowering in one.

There also is the possibility that the game was just broken on a certain feat or special ability, and that the DM might need to manually adjust it to bring it down to "non-broken". I was going to list an example, but I realized that might start an unnecessary side conversation, so lets keep it theoretical.

Sure. Note that I said "one good solution," and then went on to list two others. One of them being what you suggested here. :smalltongue:

[Stealth Marmot]

Sure. Note that I said "one good solution," and then went on to list two others. One of them being what you suggested here. :smalltongue:

Consider it an agreement then?

[Bartmanhomer]

Was RPG meant to be over-optimized or no?

[ComaVision]

Was RPG meant to be over-optimized or no?

Optimized, certainly. Over-optimized implies that it's too much, so no.

[Jay R]

The real question is this: How do you handle it when a Player creates a character who is powerful enough that it becomes difficult to impossible to create an encounter that will challenge the optimized player character, while not being certain death for the rest of the players?

Use the same optimization on an NPC , who attacks that PC in the next encounter.

Or have all the enemies attack the PC who is most threatening.

The DM decides how much attack is aimed at each PC. This is a balancing tool.

[JoeJ]

It's been my experience that saying a character is "optimized" is just another way of saying that they are specialized. There are, as far as I can tell, only two ways this becomes a problem:

1. Some or all of the other PCs have the same specialty but are significantly worse at it. This is best addressed during character creation, by making sure the players create a sufficiently diverse party and nobody is a weaker clone of anybody else. IOW, everybody should have some way in which they excel. (Of course, if two players create very similar character and decide to have them be rivals, that's fine too because it's what those players chose.)

2. One PC's specialty is useful much more frequently than the specialties of the other PCs. This is a GM problem, and it's solved by creating more balanced adventures. If the party has a sneak, give them things that need to be dealt with stealthily. If somebody is a face, make sure there's plenty of social interaction. Balancing the nova specialist vs. the sustained damage champ means paying attention to the underling-to-boss ratio. Combat with multiple enemies can often be split into separate mini-battles as people move around the terrain, making it easier for everybody to stay involved.

[Kelb_Panthera]

My ways allow the majority of the players and the DM to have fun...so problem solved. Your ''problems'' are not problems to us, and one or two poor players stomping there feet outside somewhere far away from our game and complaining don't matter.

What's your turnover look like again? :smallamused:

If you found players that enjoy playing your guessing games rather than actual D&D, more power to you. That doesn't make your "solutions" broadly applicable.

I notice you didn't deny the assertion that you don't respect your players.

[Darth Ultron]

What's your turnover look like again? :smallamused:

If you found players that enjoy playing your guessing games rather than actual D&D, more power to you. That doesn't make your "solutions" broadly applicable.

I notice you didn't deny the assertion that you don't respect your players.


So I don't play actual D&D as I don't play the exact way you play? Lol...who died and made you Judge of D&D? And after all I'm sure you play with house rules like fairness and the gentleman's agreement, so that means you don't play actual D&D....lol.

[Kelb_Panthera]

So I don't play actual D&D as I don't play the exact way you play? Lol...who died and made you Judge of D&D? And after all I'm sure you play with house rules like fairness and the gentleman's agreement, so that means you don't play actual D&D....lol.

No. You don't play D&D because the "rules" you play with are drastically different from any printed version of the game -and- change at a whim for the sole purpose of screwing players you don't like. You're playing calvin-ball. If you weren't using official IP elements and didn't -say- it was D&D, no one familiar with the game would mistake it for D&D.

Also, neither fairness nor the gentlemen's agreement are houserules.

The former is an expectation that comes with the idea of playing any game. Its abscence is -always- seen as a detriment in game design. Do not confuse extraordinary difficulty with unfairness, they are not the same.

The latter is a social convention. It is an expectation that such is in play within -any- civil social interaction; from gaming, to work functions, to simply watching a movie with a friend; though it's virtually always implicit rather than explicity stated.


Also, -still- you make no denial of the idea you have no respect for your players.

[Dragonexx]

Why are you arguing with Darth Ultron. Just ignore him. He makes no positive or interesting contributions to threads and you're just wasting your time by acknowledging him.

[Kelb_Panthera]

Why are you arguing with Darth Ultron. Just ignore him. He makes no positive or interesting contributions to threads and you're just wasting your time by acknowledging him.

Hope springs eternal, I suppose.

Besides, if someone doesn't draw him out, newbs might take his potentially disasterous advice seriously. He either doesn't realize or doesn't care that most of us can't afford to alienate player after player if we're to have any game at all or that many of us play with friends rather than random strangers.

[Darth Ultron]

No. You don't play D&D because the "rules" you play with are drastically different from any printed version of the game -and- change at a whim for the sole purpose of screwing players you don't like. You're playing calvin-ball. If you weren't using official IP elements and didn't -say- it was D&D, no one familiar with the game would mistake it for D&D.

Also, neither fairness nor the gentlemen's agreement are houserules.



Also, -still- you make no denial of the idea you have no respect for your players.

I do love how you just change the bar and don't apply things to yourself. I know you don't play a pure by-the-book game, so you use houserules that ''alter the game from the printed version''.....but you say your all special somehow and your not altering the game? Amazing...

And fairness and gentlemen's agreement are houserules. Why would they not be? Are they not rules that alter the game? Are they not the very definition of a house rule? A rule made to change the game in a way or for some reason?

Why would you think you can change the game into some unrecognizable game-like thing and then still be able to say you play D&D? And if you can change the game and call it D&D, so can everyone else....lol.

R-E-S-P-C-T find out what it means to me.....

[TheTeaMustFlow]

And fairness and gentlemen's agreement are houserules. Why would they not be? Are they not rules that alter the game? Are they not the very definition of a house rule? A rule made to change the game in a way or for some reason?
Nope. Firstly, because they do not actually change the rules of the game, and secondly, because even if they did they're recommended in the DM'ing advice sections of the DMG anyway.

R-E-S-P-C-T find out what it means to me.....
Might want to find out how to spell it as well.

[Kelb_Panthera]

I do love how you just change the bar and don't apply things to yourself. I know you don't play a pure by-the-book game, so you use houserules that ''alter the game from the printed version''.....but you say your all special somehow and your not altering the game? Amazing...

Literally no one plays entirely by the book with no changes because typos (vigilante spells/day) and the odd logical error (drown-healing) appear in them.

We're talking a difference of scale. I actually have only a handful houserules to cover odd corner cases that I convey to my players when they select the related options, -before- they come up in the course of play. With almost no exceptions, what's in the books is what happens at the table.

You gleefully toss out just about everything but the d20s in order to passive-aggressively manipulate your players into playing how you want them to play. I hesitate to even call it a "game" in the same sense of the term. I'm more inclined to call it something like... rudisplorking?


And fairness and gentlemen's agreement are houserules. Why would they not be? Are they not rules that alter the game? Are they not the very definition of a house rule? A rule made to change the game in a way or for some reason?

Houserules are changes to the printed game rules. The expectation of fairness and the gentemen's agreement are not rules or changes to the rules but behavioral patterns that affect how the rules are applied. It's a subtle but enormous distinction.


Why would you think you can change the game into some unrecognizable game-like thing and then still be able to say you play D&D? And if you can change the game and call it D&D, so can everyone else....lol.

Keyword underscored. What I play, and most others on this forum who claim to do so, is very easily recognized as the edition of D&D we claim it to be. Even those who take beef with some particular aspect of the game generally only make significant changes to that aspect; the christmas tree effect or alignment system are common enough complaints that get changed dramatically. The rest of the game remains mostly intact.

When you reach the point where your documented houserules are so extensive as to be comparable to one of the core rulebooks, however, that you're still playing D&D starts to become questionable. When you then also throw out basic conventions of playing a group game and even your own rules and changes are subject to further change at any time, any lingering doubt decays to nothing. You've descended into playing calvin-ball.


R-E-S-P-C-T find out what it means to me.....

I'm beginning to see "very little," which says quite a lot.

[Coretron03]

I do love how you just change the bar and don't apply things to yourself. I know you don't play a pure by-the-book game, so you use houserules that ''alter the game from the printed version''.....but you say your all special somehow and your not altering the game? Amazing...

And fairness and gentlemen's agreement are houserules. Why would they not be? Are they not rules that alter the game? Are they not the very definition of a house rule? A rule made to change the game in a way or for some reason?

Why would you think you can change the game into some unrecognizable game-like thing and then still be able to say you play D&D? And if you can change the game and call it D&D, so can everyone else....lol.

R-E-S-P-C-T find out what it means to me.....
So your telling me its a houserule for the Dm to not send a Dragon (or lets say, Orcus...) at a 1st level party? Its a houserule for the party Rogue to not backstab everyone and for someone to be pun pun? These are gow people play with the rules, the games default assumption is not that everyone murdering eachother and that the dm runs their party theough tomb of horrors every other session, its more like a blank slate waiting to be filled in, most of it differently depending on how the group in question likes to play. Your not the final arbiter on everthing and you can't say that everyone who doesn't play like you play your game of Parnoria Dnd houseruled to hell isn't using houserules, the one you call trusting their players (and dm) to make sure everyone has fun. Stop Rudisplorking.

[Darth Ultron]

Nope. Firstly, because they do not actually change the rules of the game, and secondly, because even if they did they're recommended in the DM'ing advice sections of the DMG anyway.



When you change the rules of the game...you change the rules of the game....it's not ''OK'' just as you like it.



Houserules are changes to the printed game rules. The expectation of fairness and the gentemen's agreement are not rules or changes to the rules but behavioral patterns that affect how the rules are applied. It's a subtle but enormous distinction..

Not too enormous as they both change the game rules, right?



Keyword underscored. What I play, and most others on this forum who claim to do so, is very easily recognized as the edition of D&D we claim it to be..

Except your ''non houserule behavior patterns'' make the game something not even close to the printed works, so your not playing the normal game. I guess you can say your changes are special and don't count as changes and somehow make the game more like the game...but your just wrong.


So your telling me its a houserule for the Dm to not send a Dragon (or lets say, Orcus...) at a 1st level party? Its a houserule for the party Rogue to not backstab everyone and for someone to be pun pun?

Well, the balanced encounter rules don't say you ''can't'' do that. It would be an overpowered encounter and TPK, but it is not against the rules. And why can't a rogue backstab in your game? Do you randomly take away class abilities you don't like with a ''non houserule behavior pattern''? What is a punpun? (I googled it by my computer says the website 4chain might harm my computer so I'm not going there).

[JNAProductions]

Darth Ultron, simple question-do you respect your players? You have not answered that yet.

Because, in a table with respect between the DM and the Players, Over-Optimization is simple to handle. You politely talk it out, and come to an agreement on what a suitable power level is. Maybe you give the overly powerful PC one encounter to really shine in before they nerf themselves, just so they have a blast, but the point is, it's solved civilly and easily.

Without respect? I honestly don't know what you'd do.

[Segev]

If I'm reading this thread correctly, we've established that there's no difference between agreeing not to have sex and seduction be a part of a game of D&D 3.5 and making barbarians who take power attack have to buy a new weapon after every attack because they break them while raging (a hypothetical "anti-optimization" rule).

Did I get that right?

[TheTeaMustFlow]

When you change the rules of the game...you change the rules of the game....it's not ''OK'' just as you like it.
No, because they exist outside of the game, not within it. Such agreements do not modify the rules of the game, they simply set guidelines as to the conduct of the players of said game.

...but your just wrong
And you're just in need of a grammar checker.

Well, the balanced encounter rules don't say you ''can't'' do that.
No they don't. They simply state that it is not a balanced encounter (which it isn't), and that the players should not be expected to be capable of winning it (which they aren't). They do, however, advise against it under normal circumstances.

What is a punpun?
Pun-Pun is a theoretical optimisation build that (ab)uses the abilities of the Sarrukh from the Serpent Kingdoms sourcebook to become essentially omnipotent. More information can be found here (http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)). Note that it is purely a thought exercise and not expected to be used in actual play.

[RazorChain]

Was RPG meant to be over-optimized or no?


Depends on what you want from the game. You see some are playing a Game and others are RolePlaying....most of us are somewhere in the middle. When someone on the forums is going a play a vampire Half Drider and half Illithid Wizard/Psionic and asks for a build advice then it's a clear indication that you have a Gamer. When someone asks how to portray an orphaned elf raised by dwarves that is in an identity crisis after meeting his people (elves) again then you have a Roleplayer.

If you are a Gamer then optimization is important because you really need those good modifiers to your rolls so you can Roflstomp everything your GM throws at you.

[JNAProductions]

Depends on what you want from the game. You see some are playing a Game and others are RolePlaying....most of us are somewhere in the middle. When someone on the forums is going a play a vampire Half Drider and half Illithid Wizard/Psionic and asks for a build advice then it's a clear indication that you have a Gamer. When someone asks how to portray an orphaned elf raised by dwarves that is in an identity crisis after meeting his people (elves) again then you have a Roleplayer.

If you are a Gamer then optimization is important because you really need those good modifiers to your rolls so you can Roflstomp everything your GM throws at you.

Or, for the first example, you have someone who's a great roleplayer and wants to take a ridiculous concept and make it work. (Since that's terrible optimization right there.) They already know how they're going to handle personality, they just want advice on how to make it function in the game.

And the second example is a gamer who knows exactly how to make his build work (Dwarven Battlerager or something, but as an elf because their DM okayed it) but doesn't have the experience needed to roleplay his concept well, and so is asking for advice.

[Dragonexx]

Depends on what you want from the game. You see some are playing a Game and others are RolePlaying....most of us are somewhere in the middle. When someone on the forums is going a play a vampire Half Drider and half Illithid Wizard/Psionic and asks for a build advice then it's a clear indication that you have a Gamer. When someone asks how to portray an orphaned elf raised by dwarves that is in an identity crisis after meeting his people (elves) again then you have a Roleplayer.

If you are a Gamer then optimization is important because you really need those good modifiers to your rolls so you can Roflstomp everything your GM throws at you.

Please don't turn this into GNS nonsense.

Secondly, there's never going to be an agreed definition on what over-optimization means, because it's an entirely subjective term.

[Kelb_Panthera]

When you change the rules of the game...you change the rules of the game....it's not ''OK'' just as you like it.

Reductive false equivalence is false and reductive.


Not too enormous as they both change the game rules, right?

No, they don't. That's the entire point I was making. If you must liken them to rules then they are rules of social interaction -outside- of any game.

When you tell an aquaintance you're going to do a thing (no relation to gaming) and they acknowledge that you declared that intention, a gentlemen's agreement has been created between you. The -implicit- agreement that you've made is that you -will- do what you declared. The cost of breaking that agreement is that the aquaintance will lose trust in you, and possibly respect if the thing was something generally considered important. This is differentiated from an informal agreement, wherein both of you have explicitly agreed to do things in an exchange of good or service, and a formal agreement, wherein the agreement is legally binding and either the declared exchange or the consequences of its failure (documented) will be enforced.

The expectation of fairness, again, goes beyond gaming. While we all know that random circumstance is rarely fair, people generally expect that other people with whom they are deliberately choosing to interact with on a voluntary basis -will- treat them fairly and that they are expected to do the same. It's a basic tenet of human society. Volumes could and have be written on the subject. Here's a quick primer on the subject (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocity_(social_psychology)).


Except your ''non houserule behavior patterns'' make the game something not even close to the printed works, so your not playing the normal game. I guess you can say your changes are special and don't count as changes and somehow make the game more like the game...but your just wrong.

Again, they're principles of behavior that go far beyond simple gaming.

[Coretron03]

Except your ''non houserule behavior patterns'' make the game something not even close to the printed works, so your not playing the normal game. I guess you can say your changes are special and don't count as changes and somehow make the game more like the game...but your just wrong.
Show where the printed game states the players characters should engage in PVP and no variance is allowed at all because people must break everthing the dm uses and the wizard that deicides not to pick broken spells is houseruling his game. I would really like a page number on that.



Well, the balanced encounter rules don't say you ''can't'' do that. It would be an overpowered encounter and TPK, but it is not against the rules. And why can't a rogue backstab in your game? Do you randomly take away class abilities you don't like with a ''non houserule behavior pattern''?
Well the "balanced" encounter rules don't say you have to make Tpk encounters every other fight, they give you guidelines to use it. Using those guidelines differently to you is not a houserule in anyform whatsoever. When I said backstab everyone I meant backstab the party as in kill them in their sleep or steal their money, not denying class features (which is your deparment I beleive. Wild shape anyone?). Also the rogues ability is called sneak attack, which is distinct to the word backstab as we are not playing 2e.

[Darth Ultron]

Show where the printed game states the players characters should engage in PVP and no variance is allowed at all because people must break everthing the dm uses and the wizard that deicides not to pick broken spells is houseruling his game. I would really like a page number on that..

Are we counting ''every word printed in a rule book from cover to cover'' as a ''rule''?




Well the "balanced" encounter rules don't say you have to make Tpk encounters every other fight, they give you guidelines to use it. Using those guidelines differently to you is not a houserule in anyform whatsoever. When I said backstab everyone I meant backstab the party as in kill them in their sleep or steal their money, not denying class features (which is your deparment I beleive. Wild shape anyone?). Also the rogues ability is called sneak attack, which is distinct to the word backstab as we are not playing 2e.

You can't ''use'' rules differently.

What is wrong with backstabbing the party? Assuming an evil game with evil characters, right? And your the one that said backstab, not me....

[Segev]

Are we counting ''every word printed in a rule book from cover to cover'' as a ''rule''?


The trouble, Darth Ultron, is that it's clear from how you discuss this that if we say "no," you'll use that to mean that if the rules say that a character takes 1d6+str mod damage from an attack with a short sword, you're not house-ruling when you decide that instead it auto-kills a player you don't like. As a "targeted anti-optimization rule."

If we say "yes," we're obviously wrong, because there are fluff bits in every rule book.


You warp and twist and abuse the rules to punish people whose sins are "being bad players," where you define "bad players" as "people who don't play the way I want them to." And then you treat it as objective fact. Given your professed adoration for railroading, and the way you warp any discussion of the subject to create a false dichotomy between hardcore rails and "the GM can't do anything because the players are all reality warpers playing a free-for-all," your notion of "over-optimization" is best deduced to be "anything Darth Ultron didn't plan for."

Hence why it's hard to take you seriously; your pattern of illogical arguments from false authority and refusal to acknowledge others when they actually engage your points (preferring to repeat assertions and attack straw men) makes you incredibly unpersuasive and easily dismissed. It becomes difficult to look for where you may have a valid point. (I don't think this thread has had one from you, yet, but I have seen one or two in others.)

[Coretron03]

Are we counting ''every word printed in a rule book from cover to cover'' as a ''rule''?

You can't ''use'' rules differently.

What is wrong with backstabbing the party? Assuming an evil game with evil characters, right? And your the one that said backstab, not me....

First, no, there is lots of fluff that isn't relevant.

Second, How? Are you telling me because you cant use the rules differently every encounter must be the same because you can't use the rules differently at all? I can't see any logicial progression other then that but of course you don't beleive in logic.

Third, who said evil character? If its a evil game and if they said before the game started its fine (Like some kind of gentlemans agreement?) then its ok but most games probably are not evil and we never said it was a evil party. I may have said backstab but but you took it as denying class features which I would assume sneak attack because thats the one that gains benifit from suprise. Anyway, you changed ot from Back stabbing is bad to Backstabbing is fine in evil parties when the literal default assumption of the game is Good/neutral parties.


Darth ultron doesn't twist rules, he makes houserules to make "problem players" (anyone who doesn't like his houserules) go away while somehow having all the (actual) good players love his houserules because they are food players and only "problem players" dislike his housrules, therefore anyone who likes his houserule is a good players. Somehow.

[Darth Ultron]

You warp and twist and abuse the rules to punish people whose sins are "being bad players," where you define "bad players" as "people who don't play the way I want them to." And then you treat it as objective fact.

I don't warp and twist and abuse the rules...that is what people like you do. I change, alter and ignore the suggestions that people call rules. The big difference is that I'm very, very blunt and up front and unlike yourself and others I don't pretend to play some perfect pure vision of the almighty rules. I tell players straight up how things will be.




Hence why it's hard to take you seriously; your pattern of illogical arguments from false authority and refusal to acknowledge others when they actually engage your points (preferring to repeat assertions and attack straw men) makes you incredibly unpersuasive and easily dismissed. It becomes difficult to look for where you may have a valid point. (I don't think this thread has had one from you, yet, but I have seen one or two in others.)

Well, it's not like anyone even ever ''engages'' anything. I just get insults or worse and people saying ''oh your wrong and we are right''. Just hold the mirror up to yourself: you can't even say a whole paragraph about me without an insult.




Second, How? Are you telling me because you cant use the rules differently every encounter must be the same because you can't use the rules differently at all? I can't see any logicial progression other then that but of course you don't beleive in logic.

I'm not sure what you mean by ''using the rules differently''....




Third, who said evil character? If its a evil game and if they said before the game started its fine (Like some kind of gentlemans agreement?) then its ok but most games probably are not evil and we never said it was a evil party. I may have said backstab but but you took it as denying class features which I would assume sneak attack because thats the one that gains benifit from suprise. Anyway, you changed ot from Back stabbing is bad to Backstabbing is fine in evil parties when the literal default assumption of the game is Good/neutral parties.


Well, looks like your out of context question does not make any sense....maybe you should rephrase it?




Darth ultron doesn't twist rules, he makes houserules to make "problem players" (anyone who doesn't like his houserules) go away while somehow having all the (actual) good players love his houserules because they are food players and only "problem players" dislike his housrules, therefore anyone who likes his houserule is a good players. Somehow.


Makes houserules for people that don't like my houserules makes no sense. And Food Players?

[Kelb_Panthera]

Are we counting ''every word printed in a rule book from cover to cover'' as a ''rule''?

Of course not, and you know it. Reductio ad absurdum.

However, all of the rules -are- in the books and rules that a DM creates that -contradict- the rules printed are houserules; a thing distinct from dm rulings on ambiguous rules or table etiquette.


You can't ''use'' rules differently.

This is categorically and unambiguously false.

In the case of D&D; you can run narrative focused games or sandboxes in a variety of styles from kick-in-the-door to cloak-and-dagger to total meat-grinders. That's half-a-dozen different ways of using the rules right off the top of my head.

More specifically, some rules are ambiguous and different DM's will make different rulings on them. There's different uses of the same rule, nevermind rules.


What is wrong with backstabbing the party? Assuming an evil game with evil characters, right?

You mean aside from the high likelihood of creating hostilities between the players. There's the headache of having to introduce one or more new characters, the threat of the above-mentioned player hostilities creating metagame hostilities between PC's with no real reason to antagonize each other and recentering the game on that nonsense, and the general lack of respect it shows if PVP wasn't discussed beforehand is an obvious sign of further problems coming down the pipe.

PVP -can- be done well but it's something that should be discussed when going over expectations before the game ever starts and takes a certain level of maturity that just isn't common. It also takes a cooperative DM that can actually handle it.

[Coretron03]

I don't warp and twist and abuse the rules...that is what people like you do. I change, alter and ignore the suggestions that people call rules. The big difference is that I'm very, very blunt and up front and unlike yourself and others I don't pretend to play some perfect pure vision of the almighty rules. I tell players straight up how things will be.
Well then don't complain to everone else twisting the rules when you straight up alter the rules instead. Anyway, people generally only twist rules to do something cool, douchebags however try to break the game when I don't think I would be wrong if I said most of the posters here don't do that. Don't come on a optmization forumn and expect people to treat your rules as god over the games actual rules.


Well, it's not like anyone even ever ''engages'' anything. I just get insults or worse and people saying ''oh your wrong and we are right''. Just hold the mirror up to yourself: you can't even say a whole paragraph about me without an insult. Uh, hello? People insult you because you insult them. Thats kinda how life works. Also, you've also told everyone their just wrong on multiple occasions.




I'm not sure what you mean by ''using the rules differently''....
You said you can't use rules differently. You call the guidelines for encounter building rules. I am sure you can figure out the rest.




Well, looks like your out of context question does not make any sense....maybe you should rephrase it?


Out of context? I replied directly to your bit about it being ok to backstab parties because parties can be evil.


Makes houserules for people that don't like my houserules makes no sense. And Food Players?
You make houserules to keep people you don't like away. Or at least thats what you say. I meant good players.

[Bartmanhomer]

If I may interject here for a moment I think we're getting a bit off-topic on roleplaying style and running a game by abusing the power just a bit too far.

[RazorChain]

If I may interject here for a moment I think we're getting a bit off-topic on roleplaying style and running a game by abusing the power just a bit too far.

Ok I'll then answer the original question. As a GM I just talk to my players if I think they are going over board and veto their character if I think they are a game breaker. If this happens in play and they don't check themselves and are starting to ruin the fun for others and they don't listen to me then I'll help them check themselves in game.

I can't do anything about over optimized enemies. The GM has infinite power within the game world and can throw just about anything he wants against me. It is his job to check himself else he'll run out of players that want to play with him.

[Bartmanhomer]

Ok I'll then answer the original question. As a GM I just talk to my players if I think they are going over board and veto their character if I think they are a game breaker. If this happens in play and they don't check themselves and are starting to ruin the fun for others and they don't listen to me then I'll help them check themselves in game.

I can't do anything about over optimized enemies. The GM has infinite power within the game world and can throw just about anything he wants against me. It is his job to check himself else he'll run out of players that want to play with him.

I totally agree. Also I think over-optimized can ruin everybody fun unless if they could deal with the overpowerness and just enjoy the game.

[RazorChain]

I totally agree. Also I think over-optimized can ruin everybody fun unless if they could deal with the overpowerness and just enjoy the game.

This usually is about the fun factor and seems most to revolve about combat capabilities. In games that don't focus so intensely on combat over optimizations seems to be less of a problem.

Good players often check themselves when making OP characters, like one player in my group was playing a sword master sworn to pacifism, he could have killed just about everything and their grandmother with a sword but during the entire campaign he only picked up a sword once. Else he fought with a walking stick and only if somebody attacked him directly and then the he never killed anyone.

The only time he picked up a sword was to save the party from TPK.

[Mechalich]

This usually is about the fun factor and seems most to revolve about combat capabilities. In games that don't focus so intensely on combat over optimizations seems to be less of a problem.


Depends. There are absolutely powers that can totally break all non-combat scenarios easily. Socially oriented games that allow mind-control powers (like most oWoD games and many super-hero systems, among others) can have huge problems with optimization and powers that can't be stopped, just to choose one example.

[Bartmanhomer]

Depends. There are absolutely powers that can totally break all non-combat scenarios easily. Socially oriented games that allow mind-control powers (like most oWoD games and many super-hero systems, among others) can have huge problems with optimization and powers that can't be stopped, just to choose one example.

Wow. I didn't even know that. :eek:

[Cluedrew]

Good players often check themselves when making OP characters, like one player in my group was playing a sword master sworn to pacifism, he could have killed just about everything and their grandmother with a sword but during the entire campaign he only picked up a sword once. Else he fought with a walking stick and only if somebody attacked him directly and then the he never killed anyone.I like that, first off as a cool story, but secondly it serves as a good example of what can divide good optimization from bad over-optimisation.

"Over" just means to much and when that line is crossed actually have very little (obviously not nothing) to do with the level of optimization. If everyone is playing a theoretical optimisation god-wizard, it is probably not a problem. Optimization to validate a normally unfeasible character concept bringing it up so it can contribute is good.

Taking up the spotlight, constantly out doing the other members of the party or just doing so well it destroys the tension of the adventure... those are going to cause some problems.

[Darth Ultron]

I like that, first off as a cool story, but secondly it serves as a good example of what can divide good optimization from bad over-optimisation.


I don't think ''good'' optimization is making an optimized character and then not using it. It's bad enough that such a player will just sit back and do as little as possible during the game is they don't ''show their true power''. It gets worse when that player says all the time ''oh my character can take care of this in like two rounds, but I''ll low play to make everyone happy''. But it might be the worst of the worst wen the player does the silly ''anime trick'' of ''suddenly using a secret hidden power'' when ''they'' think it is ''ok''.

[Segev]

I don't warp and twist and abuse the rules...that is what people like you do. I change, alter and ignore the suggestions that people call rules. The big difference is that I'm very, very blunt and up front and unlike yourself and others I don't pretend to play some perfect pure vision of the almighty rules. I tell players straight up how things will be.Please note the insulting sneering tone in "that's what people like you do." It is quite presumptuous, as I can recall no point where I'd said anything about how I play games and how I use the rules.

Secondly, nobody has claimed to use "some perfect pure vision of the almighty rules" in this thread, nor any other I've seen them discuss with Darth Ultron. In fact, I would point this out as yet another of those straw men he likes to attack, rather than engaging with what's actually said.


Well, it's not like anyone even ever ''engages'' anything.Nonsense. I've engaged with you, personally, multiple times without any insults at all. Unless you interpret "I think you're using that word wrong" as an insult. Which, given how much umbrage you take and how vehemently you defend your definition of it, might be the case.


I just get insults or worse and people saying ''oh your wrong and we are right''. Just hold the mirror up to yourself: you can't even say a whole paragraph about me without an insult. I won't deny that I'm venting some irritation with you in the quoted paragraph. However, the fact that you say I can't say a whole paragraph about you without insult is indicative of my point, considering that I've had lengthy posts addressing you directly wherein I've given no insult whatsoever beyond telling you that nobody else uses "railroad" the way you do.

"Oh, you're wrong and we are right" is fine to say when the factual nature of that statement can be backed up. As has generally been done when it's been out-and-out said. See: any discussion on the definition of "railroad" as pertains to RPGs.


I don't think ''good'' optimization is making an optimized character and then not using it. It's bad enough that such a player will just sit back and do as little as possible during the game is they don't ''show their true power''. It gets worse when that player says all the time ''oh my character can take care of this in like two rounds, but I''ll low play to make everyone happy''. But it might be the worst of the worst wen the player does the silly ''anime trick'' of ''suddenly using a secret hidden power'' when ''they'' think it is ''ok''.

Nah, that's fine. Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad. It becomes a problem only when he brings out that "secret power" all the time and thus isn't really playing the guy who holds himself back.


"Good" optimization is building a character that achieves the goals you have for that character's capabilities. It is also tempered by an awareness of the overall capability of the rest of the party, so as to ensure that everybody has a chance to shine and enjoy the game.


"Over-optimization" is really just building a character that is too powerful to play with the rest of the party in the same game, in my experience.

OR it's when the players are all on the same power level, but the GM just has no idea how to deal with it. This version usually means the GM needs to learn more about how to run a game, and that everybody will be happier of the players work with the GM to help him become better at it.

[Quertus]

So, I'll chime in to agree with the general consensus of treating your players like adults and talking to them being the best approach.

Or is it?

A common writing maxim is, "show, don't tell". I have, personally, had a lot of luck with "show and tell": completely out-optimizing the optimizers (usually as a fellow player*), then asking them if they'd care to tone it down to the level of the rest of the party.

But, as others have mentioned, not every case of optimization results in mismatched power levels... not every case of perceived power level discrepancy is real**... and not every case of power level discrepancy is bad. I have fond memories of running my 1st level character in a 7th level party - not despite, but because of the power level discrepancies. And the fact that, despite such discrepancies, my character still had a role to play. How awesome is that?! :smallcool:

Optimization is fun! Why remove a source of fun, unless it is also hurting people's fun?

But. When one character hogs all the screen time, all the roles, that is usually bad for fun. Usually. When the best optimizer is a combat monster who is also the best tactician, party face, etc etc... No thanks. :smallyuk: I've played with several of those, only one of which did not directly negatively impact my fun.

* and once or twice out-optimized an over-optimizing GM as a player in their game :smallwink: As a GM, I usually just go straight to talking to the player.
** had that happen to me, where my character was not statistically superior, but the other players thought he was. Worse, my character never actually contributed anything to that game. Worse ^ 2, that game had one character who was powerful and tactical and did everything, and his player seemed to want other players around just for action economy. Bad times. :smallyuk:


Fun is the main goal. Winning is optional.

This.


Make sure you have the powergamer's sheet. Familiarize yourself with his numbers. What are the bonuses to skills he has which will be relevant with this NPC? What are his AC and saves? Build your NPC with arbitrarily assigned numbers that scale appropriately.

Then see if this invalidates other players' characters. If it does, you need to bring this up with the table as a whole. Either they need to ramp up to his level of optimization, or he needs to tone it back. Have some idea of what maximum final numbers you want to see.

Know your players. Not this for me, thanks. But most players don't care about "realistic worlds that aren't custom tailored just for them" as much as I do / aren't as turned off by the world invalidating my concept / my work by being adapted to it as I am.


Though I'd say the majority of over powered type games do it to ruin the fun of others as that is the warpped way they have fun: by taking fun away from others.

I have, unfortunately, met several people like that. Myself, optimization - other than being fun in its own right - can be viewed as my way of communicating what I do and don't want the game to be about. You let me bring my epic level tier 1 god wizard in your 1st (?) level game, then make it where I never have to roll a die, because we're focusing on RP?! Awesome!!! :smallcool:


I had a DM who would often respond to any player idea that he thought was OP with, "OK, you can do that if you want. But if you do, the bad guys will start doing it, too."

They're going to also be the last member of my race? :smallconfused: :smalltongue:

Out of curiosity, did anyone take him up on that "threat", the way I almost certainly would have? If so, how did it turn out?

[kyoryu]

Optimization is fun! Why remove a source of fun, unless it is also hurting people's fun?

Congratulations! You have an opinion!

Believe it or not, SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE OPTIMIZATION.

Some people find it anti-fun. Some people find even having to worry about it to be anti-fun.

[JNAProductions]

Congratulations! You have an opinion!

Believe it or not, SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE OPTIMIZATION.

Some people find it anti-fun. Some people find even having to worry about it to be anti-fun.

So putting a 16 in your Fighter's strength score is not fun? Because that's optimization. It's very low-level optimization, but it still is.

[Quertus]

Congratulations! You have an opinion!

Believe it or not, SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE OPTIMIZATION.

Some people find it anti-fun. Some people find even having to worry about it to be anti-fun.

Hmmm... Didn't expect this one to get misinterpreted, so I didn't put much effort into expressing it well... Let me try again.

I, and many others, find certain aspects of character creation fun. I don't actually enjoy complicated builds as much as most people who might claim to enjoy the act of optimizing, but I do occasionally enjoy asking myself things like, "can I make a functional fighter? Can I build a functional true namer? Can I make a functional wizard?" Oddly, most playgrounders find one of those easier than the others. :smalltongue:

People don't like to optimize, fine. Don't. People want to push their tastes and preferences on me? That's a potential issue.

Point out an actual problem in play, and I'm all about picking a new character to match the party. But what is the point in complaining about some sort of nebulous optimization level - especially when some of my most optimized characters have, historically, if anything, under-contributed, to the point where a helpful player/GM might suspect I didn't know the rules, and be trying to help me optimize more?

See also... Big shadow run dice pools that worked out fine in play (mentioned earlier in this thread).

See also... The concept of optimizing a bad base (mentioned (several times?) earlier in this thread).

See also... The concept of the OP buffer (mentioned in many threads on these forums).

EDIT:


So putting a 16 in your Fighter's strength score is not fun? Because that's optimization. It's very low-level optimization, but it still is.

That's actually a better point than I made. I also enjoy learning that it's good to put a 16 in your fighter's strength. That's a bit simple, but works to explain the joy I find in optimization.

Then, once I understand how things work, I can build characters like Quertus, who can survive being tactically inept through being optimized, or characters like Amalak, with the unfathomable-to-dozens-of-gamers "AC worse than 10". Not really sure how he survived to retirement, actually :smallconfused:

[jscape2000]

This usually is about the fun factor and seems most to revolve about combat capabilities. In games that don't focus so intensely on combat over optimizations seems to be less of a problem.

Good players often check themselves when making OP characters, like one player in my group was playing a sword master sworn to pacifism, he could have killed just about everything and their grandmother with a sword but during the entire campaign he only picked up a sword once. Else he fought with a walking stick and only if somebody attacked him directly and then the he never killed anyone.

The only time he picked up a sword was to save the party from TPK.

Love this.

One of the things I warn my players about when I'm DMing is that I get approval rights on builds, especially things outside core. I can't think of anything I've ever banned from a game, but I love PC quests, especially when a PC is doing it for the build and not for RP.
You want to multiclass to take levels as a psion? No problem, you just have to find someone who will train you. All you have to do is fly off by yourself to seek out the reclusive hermit of Dagoba, risking attach by the ogres in the area and spend a month in training and contemplation. Meanwhile, your friends are going to go explore that tomb that might have some extra magical items in it that will help them keep pace with you...

[Kelb_Panthera]

Congratulations! You have an opinion!

Believe it or not, SOME PEOPLE DON'T LIKE OPTIMIZATION.

Some people find it anti-fun. Some people find even having to worry about it to be anti-fun.

That word; it does not mean what you think it means.

Optimization, in this context, is simply the act of choosing the options that make your character better/best able to do the thing you want it to do. Putting your best rolled score into strength as a barbarian because you want to hit stuff hard is an act of optimization.

Unless you determine every aspect of your character completely at random, you're doing -some- optimization.



If you don't want to have to worry about stats at all, why use a rule system? Collabarative storytelling does not require a game, merely the phrase "yes, and..."

[Quertus]

One of the things I warn my players about when I'm DMing is that I get approval rights on builds, especially things outside core. I can't think of anything I've ever banned from a game, but I love PC quests, especially when a PC is doing it for the build and not for RP.
You want to multiclass to take levels as a psion? No problem, you just have to find someone who will train you. All you have to do is fly off by yourself to seek out the reclusive hermit of Dagoba, risking attach by the ogres in the area and spend a month in training and contemplation. Meanwhile, your friends are going to go explore that tomb that might have some extra magical items in it that will help them keep pace with you...

And... If the player's build is terrible? Do the other players get cursed items? Or do you provide the helpless character with extra swag?

See, me, I stopped playing a character for several levels, to help him fall (further) behind the party, because he just wasn't comparatively weak enough for my tastes (for playing that particular character) any more.

But, at the same time, when I don't know a system well enough to build a good character... I'd be torn. From a gameplay PoV, I would appreciate the boost, so I could contribute, but, from a realism PoV, why do these random tombs that we didn't research always seem to contain "appropriate" items?

And, um... Shouldn't "multiclass psion" likely fall in the "wtf, need some help there, noob?" category, at least at most levels of optimization? :smallconfused:

[RazorChain]

I don't think ''good'' optimization is making an optimized character and then not using it. It's bad enough that such a player will just sit back and do as little as possible during the game is they don't ''show their true power''. It gets worse when that player says all the time ''oh my character can take care of this in like two rounds, but I''ll low play to make everyone happy''. But it might be the worst of the worst wen the player does the silly ''anime trick'' of ''suddenly using a secret hidden power'' when ''they'' think it is ''ok''.

Well that might happen if I was playing with Jerk players but I aint. This is where a player wants to roleplay someone who has power but choses not to use it as he perceives violence as evil. It is about not giving in to temptation. My games don't revolve about combat or dungeon raids so this character wasn't less useful than the other PC's, he was an wise, level headed middle aged man, who contributed a lot to the game with both sage advice and good roleplaying.

[Cluedrew]

I don't think ''good'' optimization is making an optimized character and then not using it.That's not what I meant, although that could be good optimization. You see...


Please "Good" optimization is building a character that achieves the goals you have for that character's capabilities.And that (and the next two paragraphs) is not quite what I meant either. Let me be really straight forward about this.

Good optimization: Optimization that makes the game more fun.

Over-optimization: Optimization that makes the game less fun.

Any questions?

[Coretron03]

The concept of the OP buffer (mentioned in many threads on these forums).
I really like doing this, I enjoy finding the best way to buff up teamates. In a martial focused party (1 barbarian, 2 paladins and Vivectionist alchemist) I played a witch Whose purpose in life was to give all of his teammates the ability to roll twice and take the best on a D20 roll once per round all day with no in combat actions required. It felt pretty good and required a small investment but required a understanding on how the rules work to get working. That is what I enjoy, not playing god (Not treatmonks kind) wizards that solo everything. Thats no fun (for me at least).

[Lord Raziere]

So putting a 16 in your Fighter's strength score is not fun? Because that's optimization. It's very low-level optimization, but it still is.

And some people define optimization differently to. Stop looking at everything through that lens please. :smallannoyed:

[JNAProductions]

And some people define optimization differently to. Stop looking at everything through that lens please. :smallannoyed:

The issue is, something as simple as that is optimization. Building anything competent requires optimization.

It's over-optimization that's an issue, not optimization itself. I'd dare say that a totally unoptimized character (that being a character who actively sucks at everything they try to do) is going to be pretty damn bad, just like a character who's too good.

[Lord Raziere]

The issue is, something as simple as that is optimization. Building anything competent requires optimization.

It's over-optimization that's an issue, not optimization itself. I'd dare say that a totally unoptimized character (that being a character who actively sucks at everything they try to do) is going to be pretty damn bad, just like a character who's too good.

So? I don't care. No matter how true you are. Learn to read the social situation, the real message I'm sending: word it differently. The way your refer to it is rude. Because your assuming that I share the viewpoint when I don't. I don't value this, what your saying. Its not low-level optimization, be polite and stop assuming that your lens, your viewpoint is the only one that matters.

Because no matter how times you crow this point, I have heard it a thousand times before, gotten tired of it, and still don't care for it. It is a tired, eye-rolling point that vastly misunderstands what a non-optimizing player cares about or values, that I'm sick to death of, and doesn't contribute to the conversation other than to say "technically its all the thing you hate" as if thats somehow helpful, when its not, its anything but helpful, and is not productive because it only makes me want to not optimize even more. So please, stop saying it and come with up with a better way to get your point across, because its nothing but grating and annoying.

I don't care about technicalities, pointing out technicalities is just signaling to me that you care more about niggling details than respecting someone else or their viewpoint or helping them despite not being accurate to your point of view. I don't care for it. Please stop making this point, because its long become old for me.

[JNAProductions]

So how would you word it? What would you call building a character who's good at their specialty, and can contribute outside it, if not as well?

What word should I use instead?

[RazorChain]

So putting a 16 in your Fighter's strength score is not fun? Because that's optimization. It's very low-level optimization, but it still is.


Depends. If all your other stats are higher then clearly it isn't optimization. If you decide that your fighter was a blacksmith apprentice then you might have a roleplaying reason for having high strenght rather than an because you were optimizing.

Optimize

1. to make as effective, perfect, or useful as possible.
2. to make the best of.

[JNAProductions]

Depends. If all your other stats are higher then clearly it isn't optimization. If you decide that your fighter was a blacksmith apprentice then you might have a roleplaying reason for having high strenght rather than an because you were optimizing.

True, but I'm talking about a typical situation. And roleplay and optimization are not mutually exclusive.

It could go "I want a strong character-a blacksmith's apprentice used to working the hot forges. So I'll make a Fighter who needs a big Strength score."

Or it could be "I want to play a big, strong Fighter. Being a blacksmith would make sense with the big burliness, so I'll make that my backstory."

Edit: And actually, even if Strength isn't your highest stat, it can still be optimization. A well-optimized character is one who can perform their role well-if all you need is 16 Strength to do that, then that's still being a good optimizer.

[Bartmanhomer]

How can you possibly tone down an over-optimizing character?

[JNAProductions]

How can you possibly tone down an over-optimizing character?

Talk to your DM and other players to figure out a solution. The specifics aren't really system agnostic.

[RazorChain]

True, but I'm talking about a typical situation. And roleplay and optimization are not mutually exclusive.

It could go "I want a strong character-a blacksmith's apprentice used to working the hot forges. So I'll make a Fighter who needs a big Strength score."

Or it could be "I want to play a big, strong Fighter. Being a blacksmith would make sense with the big burliness, so I'll make that my backstory."

Edit: And actually, even if Strength isn't your highest stat, it can still be optimization. A well-optimized character is one who can perform their role well-if all you need is 16 Strength to do that, then that's still being a good optimizer.

Not optimizing in my book....but when you pick that race only for the +2 to strenght and -2 to charisma (which you have chosen as a dumpstat) then you have started some glorious optimizing.

[JNAProductions]

Not optimizing in my book....but when you pick that race only for the +2 to strenght and -2 to charisma (which you have chosen as a dumpstat) then you have started some glorious optimizing.

That's not what I'd call "glorious" optimizing. More like basic op-fu. :P

And that could be a fun character (loud, abrasive, good-hearted, and crass but funny) or a really annoying one (loud, abrasive, crass, jerkish, not funny). All depends how good the person behind it is.

[Bartmanhomer]

Not optimizing in my book....but when you pick that race only for the +2 to strenght and -2 to charisma (which you have chosen as a dumpstat) then you have started some glorious optimizing.

That reminds me. Doesn't an over-optimized character have some weakness? (Like an all 18 plus it's lower racial penalty)

[JNAProductions]

That reminds me. Doesn't an over-optimized character have some weakness? (Like an all 18 plus it's lower racial penalty)

Not necessarily. Pun-Pun, for instance, has no weaknesses. And if you discover he has one, he can fix it immediately. And then kill you before you were born.

But sometimes, yes. A combat monster who specializes solely for combat might be toast in a social situation, or even when faced with, say, a good trap. A Diplomancer could crumble before a mindless army.

[RazorChain]

How can you possibly tone down an over-optimizing character?



As another player or as a GM? Oh never mind....as a PC then you could murder him in his sleep, trick him to accept a cursed item that will forever gimp him, if he is a halfling you could eat him when the party runs out of supplies, kick him out of the party because....reasons....kill stealing or he makes the other looks bad.....don't tell him though....when he asks why? Tell him it's not him but you, you aren't good enough for him.

As a GM: Simple, tell him to stop it. If he doesn't the hit him where it hurts. If you don't know how? Here you go http://johnwickpresents.com/product/play-dirty/

[JNAProductions]

As another player or as a GM? Oh never mind....as a PC then you could murder him in his sleep, trick him to accept a cursed item that will forever gimp him, if he is a halfling you could eat him when the party runs out of supplies, kick him out of the party because....reasons....kill stealing or he makes the other looks bad.....don't tell him though....when he asks why? Tell him it's not him but you, you aren't good enough for him.

As a GM: Simple, tell him to stop it. If he doesn't the hit him where it hurts. If you don't know how? Here you go http://johnwickpresents.com/product/play-dirty/

As a player, you should still handle it OOC, rather than IC.

[RazorChain]

That's not what I'd call "glorious" optimizing. More like basic op-fu. :P

And that could be a fun character (loud, abrasive, good-hearted, and crass but funny) or a really annoying one (loud, abrasive, crass, jerkish, not funny). All depends how good the person behind it is.

What's op-fu? You must pardon my ignorance I'm not a teenage hipster and I mostly stopped playing D&D 20 years ago...I even had to google BBEG.....I used to call them villains...and still do.

[Lord Raziere]

So how would you word it? What would you call building a character who's good at their specialty, and can contribute outside it, if not as well?

What word should I use instead?

playing the game normally.

[JNAProductions]

What's op-fu? You must pardon my ignorance I'm not a teenage hipster and I mostly stopped playing D&D 20 years ago...I even had to google BBEG.....I used to call them villains...and still do.

Op-fu is just optimization. like kung-fu... But Optimizing. It's not really standing for anything.


playing the game normally.

Great, let me roll up a 3.5 Monk and be competent at NOTHING! :P

[RazorChain]

As a player, you should still handle it OOC, rather than IC.

Nah...if he does it OOC he'll just come across as a whiny git and it turns out something like this.

Player 1: Stop optimizing, you are ruining the game for the rest of us

Player 2: Whiny git, go home to your mommy and cry because my L33T character Roflstomps everything and you're just jelous because I'm an munchkin GOD!

/player1 runs to the forums to complains.

So it's obvious that he has already taken it OOC. So now it's time to bribe the GM to kill player2's character.

[Bartmanhomer]

Not necessarily. Pun-Pun, for instance, has no weaknesses. And if you discover he has one, he can fix it immediately. And then kill you before you were born.

But sometimes, yes. A combat monster who specializes solely for combat might be toast in a social situation, or even when faced with, say, a good trap. A Diplomancer could crumble before a mindless army.
Pun-Pun may be powerful but he can be killed by an overdeity. Just like overdeities can killed overdeities.

[JNAProductions]

I'm pretty sure the OP is a hypothetical situation. Bartmanhomere, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a "what-if", right?

Edit: And that's not a weakness, that's DM fiat. That can do anything.

Especially since, by the rules, Pun-Pun is more powerful than any given overdeity. :P

[Lord Raziere]

Great, let me roll up a 3.5 Monk and be competent at NOTHING! :P

Intentional incompetence is not playing normally. I am not a stormwind idiot who intentionally makes my character failures. But neither am I a person who thinks optimization is the be-all end-all of everything and that everything mechanical should be defined by it. If I want to play a competent character that is not optimal, I won't pretend as if the latter is the former, and just play the competent character.

it is true that mechanical competence and roleplaying competence are not inversely related. But I refuse to associate competence with optimization.

[The Insanity]

I tried not optimizing once. It was awful.

[Bartmanhomer]

I'm pretty sure the OP is a hypothetical situation. Bartmanhomere, correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a "what-if", right?

Edit: And that's not a weakness, that's DM fiat. That can do anything.

Especially since, by the rules, Pun-Pun is more powerful than any given overdeity. :P

Yeah let keep it a what if. And I'm aware of Pun-Pun powers and stats. It's crazy. It can even killed Superman. :eek:

[RazorChain]

Op-fu is just optimization. like kung-fu... But Optimizing. It's not really standing for anything.

Oh I get it......so choosing a race to become more optimized is just the basics? So what is considered munchkinism in D&D land these days? Selling your mother into a bordello so you can buy the newest splat book with the newest OP races and classes?

It surely must follow the Games Workshop trend where each race/faction is more OP than the next


Great, let me roll up a 3.5 Monk and be competent at NOTHING! :P You could tend a garden and submissively turn the other cheek? Or throw a bible at someone

[JNAProductions]

Intentional incompetence is not playing normally. I am not a stormwind idiot who intentionally makes my character failures. But neither am I a person who thinks optimization is the be-all end-all of everything and that everything mechanical should be defined by it. If I want to play a competent character that is not optimal, I won't pretend as if the latter is the former, and just play the competent character.

it is true that mechanical competence and roleplaying competence are not inversely related. But I refuse to associate competence with optimization.

So playing a core class is not normal playing?

[RazorChain]

Yeah let keep it a what if. And I'm aware of Pun-Pun powers and stats. It's crazy. It can even killed Superman. :eek:

Now we're talking. Just buy your GM a pizza and ask him that the offending optimizing player has a random encounter with a Pun-Pun when he's buying his garters of godly might for his ill gained loot.

[Lord Raziere]

So playing a core class is not normal playing?

Well you have 11 other choices, and presumably because of your attitude your playing it intentionally badly because you don't like it, so no. normal play assumes that you like what your playing. it also assumes that you have enough respect to other people not to even try anything over-optimizing.

[JNAProductions]

Well you have 11 other choices, and presumably because of your attitude your playing it intentionally badly because you don't like it, so no. normal play assumes that you like what your playing. it also assumes that you have enough respect to other people not to even try anything over-optimizing.

*Sigh*

So two new players roll up characters. One thinks druids are cool, and does that. The other thinks monks are cool, and does that. That's a completely normal play scenario, but at the same optimization levels (newbie) the druid will ridiculously outshine the monk.

In order to make a monk good, you HAVE to optimize your pants off. And here's the thing-I like monks! I like punching things! It's cool! But playing a straight monk in 3.5 is just a bad idea without a lot of work.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a perfectly good chance that people will end up with characters too powerful for the table without trying to be mean. For instance, a DM describes his table as "Cutthroat, tough players" so I roll up a God-Wizard, but it turns out they think Fighters are the most powerful class. I'm now WAY TOO POWERFUL for this table because the DM and I had different ideas of what constitutes powerful characters.

Or refer back to my new player examples-the druid will outshine the monk in nearly every way, but not because they tried to. Just because they happened to like a concept that, in 3E, is inherently more powerful.

So, in conclusion... Stop using "optimize" like it's a dirty word.

[jscape2000]

And... If the player's build is terrible? Do the other players get cursed items? Or do you provide the helpless character with extra swag?

See, me, I stopped playing a character for several levels, to help him fall (further) behind the party, because he just wasn't comparatively weak enough for my tastes (for playing that particular character) any more.

But, at the same time, when I don't know a system well enough to build a good character... I'd be torn. From a gameplay PoV, I would appreciate the boost, so I could contribute, but, from a realism PoV, why do these random tombs that we didn't research always seem to contain "appropriate" items?

And, um... Shouldn't "multiclass psion" likely fall in the "wtf, need some help there, noob?" category, at least at most levels of optimization? :smallconfused:

Not something I need to do often. But I have a couple guys at my table who know their Pathfinder forwards and backwards, while the others are less fluent. I tossed Stone of Good Luck their way in mid-levels and they were immediately focused on trying to sell it so they could turn around and buy "better" gear. So they couldn't find a buyer who'd meet "standard" price.

Part of it is communication with the players- tell me what kind of build and tools you're wishing for, and let me put those within your reach. But for the same reasons characters don't level up mid-adventure, not every class is open to every character at all times.

For those tombs- I'd rather not let the game mechanics get in the way of the story. Hercules and Thor didn't stumble across magic items they couldn't use.

Yeah, the psion was meant as an example of a dip that's far outside the CRB that a new player wouldn't consider as well as outside the current RP goals of the character, but that seems (to me) to pop up in many "broken" builds. Maybe that was more so in 3.5. Feel free to substitute Radiant Servant or Wizard or Gunslinger or whatever else you'd like.

[RazorChain]

I tried not optimizing once. It was awful.

Tried implies you failed. My advice is to try harder...keep going and at some point in the future you might not fail. Not Optimizing is a skill that is hard to master but once you have seen the light, reached enlightenment then you can call yourself a roleplaying Guru....or a method actor. That is much better than to practice the evil ways of op-fu

[Lord Raziere]

*Sigh*

So two new players roll up characters. One thinks druids are cool, and does that. The other thinks monks are cool, and does that. That's a completely normal play scenario, but at the same optimization levels (newbie) the druid will ridiculously outshine the monk.

In order to make a monk good, you HAVE to optimize your pants off. And here's the thing-I like monks! I like punching things! It's cool! But playing a straight monk in 3.5 is just a bad idea without a lot of work.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a perfectly good chance that people will end up with characters too powerful for the table without trying to be mean. For instance, a DM describes his table as "Cutthroat, tough players" so I roll up a God-Wizard, but it turns out they think Fighters are the most powerful class. I'm now WAY TOO POWERFUL for this table because the DM and I had different ideas of what constitutes powerful characters.

Or refer back to my new player examples-the druid will outshine the monk in nearly every way, but not because they tried to. Just because they happened to like a concept that, in 3E, is inherently more powerful.

So, in conclusion... Stop using "optimize" like it's a dirty word.

If you know the system so much, why haven't you fixed it then? Why haven't you made the classes truly competitive with another than pointing out the problem and doing nothing about it, and claiming various exploits that take more time to learn fix the problem?

[2D8HP]

How do I handle optimization by players?
Simple, I just don't DM anymore.
As a player I'm content to just sneak and fire arrows, and have the flashy abilities that other PC's utilize just be part of the fantastic world I RPG to explore.
I just prefer to play more mundane characters exploring a magical environment, and I leave the super powers to other PC's.
I sometimes have tiresome conversions with other players who want to "encourage" me, but most "get it" or don't care.

[RazorChain]

*Sigh*

So two new players roll up characters. One thinks druids are cool, and does that. The other thinks monks are cool, and does that. That's a completely normal play scenario, but at the same optimization levels (newbie) the druid will ridiculously outshine the monk.

In order to make a monk good, you HAVE to optimize your pants off. And here's the thing-I like monks! I like punching things! It's cool! But playing a straight monk in 3.5 is just a bad idea without a lot of work.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a perfectly good chance that people will end up with characters too powerful for the table without trying to be mean. For instance, a DM describes his table as "Cutthroat, tough players" so I roll up a God-Wizard, but it turns out they think Fighters are the most powerful class. I'm now WAY TOO POWERFUL for this table because the DM and I had different ideas of what constitutes powerful characters.

Or refer back to my new player examples-the druid will outshine the monk in nearly every way, but not because they tried to. Just because they happened to like a concept that, in 3E, is inherently more powerful.

So, in conclusion... Stop using "optimize" like it's a dirty word.


But it makes sense....I mean don't bring a knife into a gunfight! Why would you eshcew armor and weapons....the Druid will be calling lighting down on his enemies and you will be trying to punch them...get real. You don't have to be a rocked scientist to see that when the Druid is chomping on his enemies as a giant bear and shooting lightning down on them your monk might as well just go home and tend his garden and read about turning the other cheek in the good book. Meanwhile the badass druid will be kicking some butt!

[JNAProductions]

If you know the system so much, why haven't you fixed it then? Why haven't you made the classes truly competitive with another than pointing out the problem and doing nothing about it, and claiming various exploits that take more time to learn fix the problem?

I don't know the system that well. If I wanted a more balanced system, I'd just play 5E.

Beyond that, fixing the system is probably impossible. The problems run deep enough that you'd likely end up with a new system if you were to make it balanced.

Plus, the system is fun. The wildly different power levels allow for different sorts of adventures, even at the same levels. It's just important for everyone to be on the same page.

In addition, please stop assuming everyone who optimizes is a terrible roleplayer and person. That's almost certainly an exaggeration, but it's the tone I get from your posts.

[jscape2000]

So, in conclusion... Stop using "optimize" like it's a dirty word.

I think this sums it up. Figure out what story you want to tell (with your friends) in the game, and pick the character that best helps you tell the story. Play that character in the best way you can.

[Lord Raziere]

So, in conclusion... Stop using "optimize" like it's a dirty word.

Only if you stop using it for everything. what jscape posted above? None of that is optimization to me. Playing the character I want to play is not optimization to me no matter how weak or strong, nor is taking the necessary steps to play that character. The only thing that is optimization to me are stuff stronger than what I want to play that detracts from the desired character concept. It matters not if its more optimal to be a batman wizard, if I want to play a competent pyromancer and no other magic, and its only optimization if you make me try to play a batman wizard instead.

[JNAProductions]

That's called optimizing for a concept. Your concept is pyromancer, so you're going to optimize as best you can for that role and your table's power level.

I'm fine if you don't want to call it that, but don't jump down my throat if I want to use the definition, as literally defined, and as generally accepted on this forum. Okay?

[2D8HP]

Sort of related is when folks want to start play at higher levels in D&D (if you "optimize" for more power, then this allows players to just be more powerful).
I've done a couple of games like this, and I've found starting at second or third level pretty fun, but past that I actually found it a chore, especially when a budget for magic items is part of the deal.
I may be odd in this, but I usually find playing lower power (relatively) more fun.

[Kelb_Panthera]

And some people define optimization differently to. Stop looking at everything through that lens please. :smallannoyed:

This isn't a "lense" situation. The word has a literal meaning derived from the verb optimize (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/optimize?s=t). If you mean something different, you're misusing the word.


playing the game normally.

This idea is nigh-meaningless. There is no "normal" method of play. There are a number of fairly common tropes but some of them conflict with or even contradict one another.


If you know the system so much, why haven't you fixed it then? Why haven't you made the classes truly competitive with another than pointing out the problem and doing nothing about it, and claiming various exploits that take more time to learn fix the problem?

Because it's not necessarily a problem that -needs- fixing. Taking a monk and optimizing the nine hells out of it so you can keep up with more moderately optimized spellcasters and better melee classes* is an entertaining challenge to some. The discrepancy in inherent power between the classes in 3.5 is a feature, not a bug, in mine and others' opinions.

*remember, "unoptimized" would be the result of selecting options at random or in deliberate detriment to the character. If you make -one- decision to the benefit of your character, you have optimized it to some extent.

[Quertus]

This isn't a "lense" situation. The word has a literal meaning derived from the verb optimize (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/optimize?s=t). If you mean something different, you're misusing the word.



This idea is nigh-meaningless. There is no "normal" method of play. There are a number of fairly common tropes but some of them conflict with or even contradict one another.



Because it's not necessarily a problem that -needs- fixing. Taking a monk and optimizing the nine hells out of it so you can keep up with more moderately optimized spellcasters and better melee classes* is an entertaining challenge to some. The discrepancy in inherent power between the classes in 3.5 is a feature, not a bug, in mine and others' opinions.

*remember, "unoptimized" would be the result of selecting options at random or in deliberate detriment to the character. If you make -one- decision to the benefit of your character, you have optimized it to some extent.

I was about to respond to the can of worms I accidentally opened, but you already did so, better than I would have. Thank you. I second the above.


That reminds me. Doesn't an over-optimized character have some weakness? (Like an all 18 plus it's lower racial penalty)

Your thinking of the related term, min-max.

And, generally, intentionally targeting the min - especially if it's "and only the min" - is the path to unfun times. It'll turn a min-maxer into an optimizer, as a best case scenario.


As a player, you should still handle it OOC, rather than IC.

Just want to reiterate my success with "show and tell". :smallwink: It helps ensure they understand exactly what you mean. To prevent arguments about definitions of "optimization" or "railroading".

EDIT: also, pointing out explicit examples from play helps prevent situations where you are targeting the optimized monk who barely scrapes by, while ignoring the tier 1 god wizard who is carrying the party. Just saying.

[Max_Killjoy]

I would never waste my time ''asking'' the players to do something.



Sadly, toxic people are everywhere...


Anyone else finding a great deal of humor in those two comments being posted together in total seriousness?

[Max_Killjoy]

"Optimization" is such a vague term, and in any system with limited character creation "resources" (character points, characteristic points/dice, Feats, starting levels, whatever), there's a tradeoff between focused competence (specialization) and broad competence.

Games which feature one sort of content far more than any other, are more vulnerable to "optimization" causing problems for the other player's enjoyment. In a game that's almost entirely about combat, it's easier to "optimize" for that specialty and not suffer for lack of competence in other sorts of content (research and knowledge, social interaction and intrigue, whatever).

[Segev]

Because no matter how times you crow this point, I have heard it a thousand times before, gotten tired of it, and still don't care for it. It is a tired, eye-rolling point that vastly misunderstands what a non-optimizing player cares about or values, that I'm sick to death of, and doesn't contribute to the conversation other than to say "technically its all the thing you hate" as if thats somehow helpful, when its not, its anything but helpful, and is not productive because it only makes me want to not optimize even more. So please, stop saying it and come with up with a better way to get your point across, because its nothing but grating and annoying.

I don't care about technicalities, pointing out technicalities is just signaling to me that you care more about niggling details than respecting someone else or their viewpoint or helping them despite not being accurate to your point of view. I don't care for it. Please stop making this point, because its long become old for me.
Intentional incompetence is not playing normally. I am not a stormwind idiot who intentionally makes my character failures.
Only if you stop using it for everything. what jscape posted above? None of that is optimization to me. Playing the character I want to play is not optimization to me no matter how weak or strong, nor is taking the necessary steps to play that character. The only thing that is optimization to me are stuff stronger than what I want to play that detracts from the desired character concept. It matters not if its more optimal to be a batman wizard, if I want to play a competent pyromancer and no other magic, and its only optimization if you make me try to play a batman wizard instead.The problem, Lord Raziere, is that the line is incredibly fuzzy. Worse, it's something only the player doing the optimizing can judge.

It is a useless line to draw, because it only reinforces the point you're trying to rail against: that over-optimization is different things to different people. It is important to argue against the misuse of "optimization" as something bad. Because it vilifies perfectly reasonable kinds of play, painting any effort to make a character do what you want it to do as an immoral or unethical choice because somebody else doesn't agree with it.

A USEFUL definition of the "bad kind of optimization" is one which gives us a metric for gauging whether it's actually a problem. And it's helpful to not lump all "optimization" as the same thing, because the people who usually argue what you're arguing ARE attempting a Stormwind fallacy where optimization is taken as bad AND means every kind of it.

The definition you're arguing for invites conflation. Nobody is deliberately misinterpreting you; you're deliberately misusing the word and insisting everybody should know you a) are aware of what it actually means but b) don't want to acknowledge it and call half its definition "playing normally." While c) failing to acknowledge that the line between Lord Raziere's "playing normally and Lord Raziere's "optimization" is totally subjective and thus useless to a discussion of optimization-as-a-problem.


Not optimizing in my book....but when you pick that race only for the +2 to strenght and -2 to charisma (which you have chosen as a dumpstat) then you have started some glorious optimizing.
Heaven forbid somebody should want to play a "big dumb fighter" and choose the race that has "big and dumb" as their stereotype.


If you know the system so much, why haven't you fixed it then? Why haven't you made the classes truly competitive with another than pointing out the problem and doing nothing about it, and claiming various exploits that take more time to learn fix the problem?You...can't seriously mean that. Do you honestly believe that anybody who can drive a car with exquisite skill must therefore be able to build a better one?

That's arrogant and condescending of you. I expected better from somebody who usually makes such good arguments.


"Optimization" is such a vague term, and in any system with limited character creation "resources" (character points, characteristic points/dice, Feats, starting levels, whatever), there's a tradeoff between focused competence (specialization) and broad competence. This. This is why we have to be careful with the term.

What's needed is an understanding of what makes certain kinds and degrees of optimization a problem. Because only when we really understand the problem (say, insects eating the fruits and vegetables in the field) rather than blaming a boogeyman (such as "witches" for "blighting our crops") can we really solve the problem. Too often, "dirty optimizers" are named as a problem when they're just trying to build a character that does what they want it to. And that focus leads to ideas that playing X is automatically "overpowered" even when it's actually weaker in a particular build than something that flies under the radar that goes in the same game.

People try to solve perceived problems that aren't there, and wonder why the real problems persist, and it's because we don't train ourselves to really identify what's going on before we knee-jerk react.


Games which feature one sort of content far more than any other, are more vulnerable to "optimization" causing problems for the other player's enjoyment. In a game that's almost entirely about combat, it's easier to "optimize" for that specialty and not suffer for lack of competence in other sorts of content (research and knowledge, social interaction and intrigue, whatever).Indeed! This is why, if things other than combat are meant to be part of the challenge, it helps to have mechanics and resources to spend on those other things, in order to have "just optimize for combat" have its own counterbalancing costs.

[kyoryu]

Lot of continuum fallacy here.

Claiming that anything apart from randomly assigning everything qualifies as "optimization" is like saying that anything apart from a totally random game is railroading.

Imagine a hypothetical game called SneakBash, which has two classes (Sneaker and Basher) and two stats (Sneak and Bash).

Character creation consists of choosing a class, and assigning a six to one stat and a zero to the other.

Each skill is associated with one class - Sneak is associated with Sneaker, and Bash is associated with Basher. Gameplay consists of saying you do something, and then rolling a six-sided die. If you roll equal to or less than your associated skill, you succeed!

Now, by the reductionist definition of "optimization" that some have proposed, there is optimization occurring. The question is - would anybody that enjoys "optimizing" and is an advocate of the fun of optimization find such a game enjoyable to optimize?

It's an absurd example, of course.

I don't deny or object to the fact that some people find optimization enjoyable. That's great that they do. It's a totally valid way to tplay the game.

But the fact remains that I find optimization annoying at best and utterly obnoxious at worst, defining "optimization" as "the types of things that people that say they like optimizing enjoy". And that's *also* a totally valid way to play.

[Newtonsolo313]

Lot of continuum fallacy here.

Claiming that anything apart from randomly assigning everything qualifies as "optimization" is like saying that anything apart from a totally random game is railroading.

Imagine a hypothetical game called SneakBash, which has two classes (Sneaker and Basher) and two stats (Sneak and Bash).

Character creation consists of choosing a class, and assigning a six to one stat and a zero to the other.

Each skill is associated with one class - Sneak is associated with Sneaker, and Bash is associated with Basher. Gameplay consists of saying you do something, and then rolling a six-sided die. If you roll equal to or less than your associated skill, you succeed!

Now, by the reductionist definition of "optimization" that some have proposed, there is optimization occurring. The question is - would anybody that enjoys "optimizing" and is an advocate of the fun of optimization find such a game enjoyable to optimize?

It's an absurd example, of course.

I don't deny or object to the fact that some people find optimization enjoyable. That's great that they do. It's a totally valid way to tplay the game.

But the fact remains that I find optimization annoying at best and utterly obnoxious at worst, defining "optimization" as "the types of things that people that say they like optimizing enjoy". And that's *also* a totally valid way to play.

Huh SneakBash sounds like the sort of game that would, with a buttload of tweaking be a sort of okay game to play

[Segev]

Lot of continuum fallacy here.

Claiming that anything apart from randomly assigning everything qualifies as "optimization" is like saying that anything apart from a totally random game is railroading.

Imagine a hypothetical game called SneakBash, which has two classes (Sneaker and Basher) and two stats (Sneak and Bash).

Character creation consists of choosing a class, and assigning a six to one stat and a zero to the other.

Each skill is associated with one class - Sneak is associated with Sneaker, and Bash is associated with Basher. Gameplay consists of saying you do something, and then rolling a six-sided die. If you roll equal to or less than your associated skill, you succeed!

Now, by the reductionist definition of "optimization" that some have proposed, there is optimization occurring. The question is - would anybody that enjoys "optimizing" and is an advocate of the fun of optimization find such a game enjoyable to optimize?

It's an absurd example, of course.

I don't deny or object to the fact that some people find optimization enjoyable. That's great that they do. It's a totally valid way to tplay the game.

But the fact remains that I find optimization annoying at best and utterly obnoxious at worst, defining "optimization" as "the types of things that people that say they like optimizing enjoy". And that's *also* a totally valid way to play.
It's not the continuum fallacy because that really IS the definition.

No, nobody would think "SneakBash" was fun to optimize; optimization as a fun activity thrives on there being challenge and options. Heck, games are more fun the more options and strategic or tactical choices you have in the moves.

Yes, "placing the 6 in Bash on your Basher" is optimizing SneakBash. Assuming Sneakers can't bash and Bashers can't sneak, deliberately doing the opposite would also be optimizing for the least effectiveness you can have.

The fact that you can't point to a line on the scale of optimization above "randomly assign everything" and say, "That's too much," is precisely the point.

"Over-optimization" is the correct term for the problem: it's building a character that is TOO good at one thing (and possibly too inept in too many other areas...or possibly not) such that it makes the game hard to run. What is needed to make it a USEFUL term is to determine what it is that makes a given character "over-optimized" for a particular game.

But this is also why saying "optimization" like it's a dirty word is a problem. It leads to the logical conclusion that any choice that is meant to enhance a character's abilities is bad. Because otherwise, you're playing a guessing game of subjective judgment. Does whoever's opinion I care about think taking Power Attack on my monk is over-optimizing him?

Objectively analyzing why something is actually a problem helps identify ways of solving the problem. Subjectively looking at something and assuming it's a problem because it's "optimized" leads to poor judgment-calls and throwing perfectly fine things out while allowing horribly broken ones, and then wondering why the game isn't working.

[kyoryu]

The fact that you can't point to a line on the scale of optimization above "randomly assign everything" and say, "That's too much," is precisely the point.

That's kind of the definition of the fallacy.


"The fallacy causes one to erroneously reject a vague claim simply because it is not as precise as one would like it to be. Vagueness alone does not necessarily imply invalidity.

The fallacy is the argument that two states or conditions cannot be considered distinct (or do not exist at all) because between them there exists a continuum of states."


"Over-optimization" is the correct term for the problem: it's building a character that is TOO good at one thing (and possibly too inept in too many other areas...or possibly not) such that it makes the game hard to run. What is needed to make it a USEFUL term is to determine what it is that makes a given character "over-optimized" for a particular game.

No. Over-optimization is a problem that occurs in games that allow for high levels of optimization.

I. Don't. Like. Optimizing. Characters.

The very things that make someone that enjoys optimizing (oooh, if I get *this* here, then I get *this* bonus which I can combine with *this* feature over here) turn me off and make me sad. This is independent over whether a given character is over-optimized.

At best it's a chore to be done with. At best. I much prefer Fate where there's little optimization - it's just "put the thing you want to do at the level you want it to be at". There's no shuffling of numbers, no min/maxing, nothing. "I want to be really good at fighting, so I'll make Fight my peak skill". That's it.


But this is also why saying "optimization" like it's a dirty word is a problem. It leads to the logical conclusion that any choice that is meant to enhance a character's abilities is bad. Because otherwise, you're playing a guessing game of subjective judgment. Does whoever's opinion I care about think taking Power Attack on my monk is over-optimizing him?

I didn't say it was bad. I said that I don't enjoy it.


Objectively analyzing why something is actually a problem helps identify ways of solving the problem. Subjectively looking at something and assuming it's a problem because it's "optimized" leads to poor judgment-calls and throwing perfectly fine things out while allowing horribly broken ones, and then wondering why the game isn't working.

There's two issues here.

One - over optimization
Two - some people just don't enjoy optimization

They are mostly, but not entirely, orthogonal.


Huh SneakBash sounds like the sort of game that would, with a buttload of tweaking be a sort of okay game to play

It's basically an even more simplified version of TrollBabe/Lasers and Feelings.

[wumpus]

Some ideas about "playing normally":

How do you live? That is, how do you optimize your role in society to deal with your strengths and weaknesses?

How have historical heroes done the same? How did they use their strengths to succeed?

How about fictional heroes?

Part of my problem with "character builds" (especially optimized ones) are taking classes that normally would make little sense for anyone to take such roles, and then finally synergizing into an exceptionally dangerous character*. The other is one that wonders what the natural consequence of any setting that allows PCs to wander into the town shop and somehow buy anything in the DMG (with some upper gp limit if the DM is feeling stingy, but no limit on rarity). Presumably a level 3 shopkeeper is capable of contacting the Amazonian plane and obtaining any item up to 10kgp (the level 1 in the village can only do 2,500gp).

The classic "roll up a character" would leave you with some basic stats, and pretty much leave you to find the best class for your character. This is pretty much how things normally work, ignoring that plenty of D&D settings are likely to be heavily caste-oriented and most classes won't be available to most humans (DMs are likely to ignore this thanks to the "special" status of PCs. PCs obviously didn't have nutritional issues growing up (their stats are as least as good as any, and often pretty overpowered), and presumably had opportunity less blessed NPCs wouldn't.

If you can see your character taking such a path, it should make sense. This of course doesn't always fix the problem. Roy pretty much embodies this idea (he also has really great stats), and is often considered sub-optimal. Vaarsuvius is a wizard with a career structured around achieving "supreme arcane power". Had not the Giant stepped in and set the school as "evocation", things would have already gotten out of hand. Still, Rich often has to make sure that important fights happen away from V: they've hit levels where even un-optimized wizards are overpowerful.

On the other hand, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of "optimizing enemies" for overpowered characters. Presumably, most DM's simply insist on appropriate characters. Others send encounters scaled up to the level such character are really fighting at. I'm curious what monsters are known to be overpowered, and how the DM can use them?

The Giant's hit man: Adult black dragon with a single level of sorcerer. Enough said.
That darned crab: the forum seemed to proclaim this the most overpowered for it's CR. Any ideas on leveling it?
Pretty much any "animal" class: picked apart by druids the net over (obviously they can't simply add levels).

[kyoryu]

Some ideas about "playing normally":

There's no such thing.

Or, rather, "playing normally" means "playing with the assumptions and goals that I'm used to and presume". And those assumptions and goals vary extremely widely from group to group. So it's a useless statement for communication.

More to the point, when you tell people to "play normally" you're making a lot of assumptions and being entirely pejorative around playstyles that *aren't* yours. So not only does it not help communication, but it often actively harms it.

My idea of what "playing normally" is is almost certainly different from yours (frex, I rarely play D&D 3.x). Me assuming things that are common in the games I play should be common in yours is insulting to you, and calling what I do "normal" implies that what you do is *abnormal*.

[The Insanity]

Tried implies you failed.
You lost me here.

[Max_Killjoy]

No. Over-optimization is a problem that occurs in games that allow for high levels of optimization.

I. Don't. Like. Optimizing. Characters.

The very things that make someone that enjoys optimizing (oooh, if I get *this* here, then I get *this* bonus which I can combine with *this* feature over here) turn me off and make me sad. This is independent over whether a given character is over-optimized.

At best it's a chore to be done with. At best. I much prefer Fate where there's little optimization - it's just "put the thing you want to do at the level you want it to be at". There's no shuffling of numbers, no min/maxing, nothing. "I want to be really good at fighting, so I'll make Fight my peak skill". That's it.


Making Fight the character's peak skill because you want the character to be good at fighting... isn't that optimization?

Optimization - noun, "the action of making the best or most effective use of a situation or resource"

It sounds like this is a case of someone -- proponents or opponents of a certain style of character creation and gameplay, or both -- trying to use the word in a way far more narrow than its actual meaning, and in a way that carries unwarranted baggage.

Terms of art (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/term-of-art) are almost always bad.

[JoeJ]

Games which feature one sort of content far more than any other, are more vulnerable to "optimization" causing problems for the other player's enjoyment. In a game that's almost entirely about combat, it's easier to "optimize" for that specialty and not suffer for lack of competence in other sorts of content (research and knowledge, social interaction and intrigue, whatever).

One way to get past that problem is to increase the detail of that one content such that PCs can specialize in certain parts of it. In a game about Special Forces in Afghanistan, for example, the party might include a heavy weapons specialist, a forward observer, a combat medic, a language/culture expert, etc.

[Max_Killjoy]

One way to get past that problem is to increase the detail of that one content such that PCs can specialize in certain parts of it. In a game about Special Forces in Afghanistan, for example, the party might include a heavy weapons specialist, a forward observer, a combat medic, a language/culture expert, etc.


Which works if done carefully, but also runs its own risk of reaching a point of diminishing returns, or making the game over-specialized. (I'm not that enthusiastic about the idea that each game needs a specific new or newish customized set of mechanics -- I'd rather learn one system that covers a wide swath of things well, than dozens of systems that cover one thing perfectly each.)

[Segev]

That's kind of the definition of the fallacy. Not really. The fallacy is about rejecting a vague category which nevertheless has "zones" where you can say "this definitely is X" and "this definitely is not X." For example, it is the continuum fallacy to reject that "warm" has a meaning because it is impossible to point to a precise temperature where something universally stops being "warm" and universally starts being "cool." Even though nobody can say with precision what temperature is the universal definition of that boundary, we can all agree that the high seventies are "warm weather" and that the low fifties are "cool weather." (Arguably, we have further disagreement over "warm" v. "hot" and "cool" v. "cold," but you get the point, I hope.)

It is NOT the continuum fallacy to say that optimization is the process of choosing things to best achieve a goal, and therefore that anything short of random selection is optimization. You are, in fact, fallaciously invoking the continuum fallacy to try to argue that something which falls into the definition of "optimization" does not.



No. Over-optimization is a problem that occurs in games that allow for high levels of optimization.Define "high levels of optimization." I mean, I agree, but it will be different for every group.


I. Don't. Like. Optimizing. Characters.I believe what you're trying to convey is that you do not enjoy the process of building characters. Or, if you do like it, you only like it a little, and find that anything which prolongs the process and complicates it beyond a certain point bores, disinterests, or frustrates you.

I suspect that you are not claiming that you don't like having your fighter be capable of invoking the fighting style you envision, and doing so effectively.


The very things that make someone that enjoys optimizing (oooh, if I get *this* here, then I get *this* bonus which I can combine with *this* feature over here) turn me off and make me sad. This is independent over whether a given character is over-optimized....why does this make you sad? I again ask you to point where on the continuum it goes from "I'll take these things because they work together to do what I want" and becomes "if I get *this* here, then I get *this* bonus which I can combine with *this* feature over here."

I won't deny that there comes a point where everybody agrees it's probably in the realm of "high optimization," probably somewhere where it's clear they've book-dived for a number of features. Certainly when they start looking at "early entry" or other things that feel like they're gaming the system. But again, even though there comes a point where it definitely is, it's hard to find that line where it sharply becomes it.

Because of this, throwing out the notion that "optimization" is bad conflates the definition (which does go all the way down to putting your highest stat in Int when playing a wizard) with the fuzzy set of "high optimization." Which, itself, is only a problem if it interferes with the fun of the group. (It interferes with kyoryu's because he doesn't like the optimization mini-game; sadly, I still have no idea where he feels that game gets to be too much, as I'm positive he doesn't have a problem with the complement of the "high optimization" fuzzy set.)


One - over optimization
Two - some people just don't enjoy optimization

They are mostly, but not entirely, orthogonal.Given some of the stuff I trimmed out of your quote, I'm actually becoming convinced that you find building characters to be a chore. You tolerate it because you want to play them, but you dislike having to pick and choose elements to go into them with more than a quick browse to know the rules in the first place. Is that accurate?


Making Fight the character's peak skill because you want the character to be good at fighting... isn't that optimization?

Optimization - noun, "the action of making the best or most effective use of a situation or resource"

It sounds like this is a case of someone -- proponents or opponents of a certain style of character creation and gameplay, or both -- trying to use the word in a way far more narrow than its actual meaning, and in a way that carries unwarranted baggage.

Terms of art (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/term-of-art) are almost always bad.
Well said.

[JoeJ]

Which works if done carefully, but also runs its own risk of reaching a point of diminishing returns, or making the game over-specialized. (I'm not that enthusiastic about the idea that each game needs a specific new or newish customized set of mechanics -- I'd rather learn one system that covers a wide swath of things well, than dozens of systems that cover one thing perfectly each.)

That's true. Anything if done to extreme runs into problems of diminishing returns. But a good task resolution mechanic can handle a very large range of specialized characters that all use that same basic mechanic to do their unique things.

[kyoryu]

Define "high levels of optimization." I mean, I agree, but it will be different for every group.

I mean systems that allow for high values of optimization.

Or, to be more precise, systems that allow for highly varying levels of effectiveness based on character build choices, *especially* ones that are not intuitive.

3.x is a high optimization system. It is a system that allows, based on player-facing build choices, an incredibly wide array of effectiveness. To utilize much of that effectiveness, you have to make a number of non-intuitive choices.

GURPS is a relatively high optimization system. While it still allows a wide range of effectiveness based on build skills, most of the choices are more straightforward.

AD&D is a fairly low optimization system - there's not much to "optimize" except for putting stats in reasonably smart locations.

Fate is a very low optimization system.

If you play 3.x, you're not forced into a high optimization game. You can set expectations in the group that you will not optimize to a high degree, however that group defines it (and as you point out, different groups will define it differently). However, even a very low-op 3.x group is still playing with a high optimization system - they're just not utilizing that part of it.

Make sense?


I believe what you're trying to convey is that you do not enjoy the process of building characters. Or, if you do like it, you only like it a little, and find that anything which prolongs the process and complicates it beyond a certain point bores, disinterests, or frustrates you.

No.

I like building characters. I have no problem with saying "this guy is good at fighting, but not so good at sneaking". This is fine. I like defining the personality and skills of a character. It is a creative exercise I find enjoyable.

What I *don't* like is the process of going "well, if I take *one* point from here, and *one* from there, I can use those over here to get this mechanical benefit"... and so on.

That is a subset of character building, but not the totality of it.

I also don't like deck building in card games like M:tG, build orders in RTSes, or builds in MMOs.

In general, pre-game mathematical analysis is something I don't care for. I prefer the emphasis to be placed on game-time decisions, and not poring over rules prior to the game looking for an advantage.


I suspect that you are not claiming that you don't like having your fighter be capable of invoking the fighting style you envision, and doing so effectively.

Correct. That would be a strange thing to claim.

What I also don't like is having to do research into the system and its quirks to *enable* the choices I want to make.


...why does this make you sad? I again ask you to point where on the continuum it goes from "I'll take these things because they work together to do what I want" and becomes "if I get *this* here, then I get *this* bonus which I can combine with *this* feature over here."

Because I have no interest in figuring out how to get bigger bonuses. It's uninteresting to me.


I won't deny that there comes a point where everybody agrees it's probably in the realm of "high optimization," probably somewhere where it's clear they've book-dived for a number of features. Certainly when they start looking at "early entry" or other things that feel like they're gaming the system. But again, even though there comes a point where it definitely is, it's hard to find that line where it sharply becomes it.

I'm pretty uninterested in any of it. The more in-depth it is, the more of a turn-off it is to me.


Because of this, throwing out the notion that "optimization" is bad

I never said that.

I never said that.

I never said that.

Sorry for the repetition, but it seems like people are saying that I think optimization is bad. It's not. It's just a thing, one that some people like, and others don't.

What I said is "I don't like optimizing". I also don't like mustard, but I'm not trying to argue that mustard is objectively bad. Similarly, pointing out that mustard is a minor ingredient in something that I *do* like doesn't mean I like mustard, either.


conflates the definition (which does go all the way down to putting your highest stat in Int when playing a wizard) with the fuzzy set of "high optimization." Which, itself, is only a problem if it interferes with the fun of the group. (It interferes with kyoryu's because he doesn't like the optimization mini-game; sadly, I still have no idea where he feels that game gets to be too much, as I'm positive he doesn't have a problem with the complement of the "high optimization" fuzzy set.)

Fuzzy ranges are fuzzy. I'm okay with this, personally - most matters of preference are fairly fuzzy. It's enough for me that, in most cases, it's fairly easy to point out what clearly exists in category A, what clearly exists in category B, and what might be in the fuzzy area.


Given some of the stuff I trimmed out of your quote, I'm actually becoming convinced that you find building characters to be a chore. You tolerate it because you want to play them, but you dislike having to pick and choose elements to go into them with more than a quick browse to know the rules in the first place. Is that accurate?

I enjoy the creative aspect of character creation. I do not enjoy the mechanical optimization bits.

As a more concrete example - let's say I want to make a character similar to Ichiro, the blind swordsman.

In Fate, here's how I do this:

1) "He's good at fighting, so I'm going to take Fight as a peak skill."
2) "I'm going to take 'Blind Swordsman' as his High Concept. This way the blindness can be Compelled or Invoked when appropriate, but the implication is that it doesn't really stop him from being effective in a fight and so those aren't really valid uses".

Done.

Now, in GURPS:

1) "Okay, I've got this set of points. What are good abilities that I need to have? DX, ST, and HT are all probably useful. Hrm, have to figure out how many points I can spend on those."
2) "Okay, I'll probably need the standard fighter-type advantages - Combat Reflexes and High Pain Threshold."
3) "He's blind, so I'll take the Blind disadvantage."
4) "Which makes him a terrible fighter, so... hrm, is there a Blind Fighting advantage, or is that a skill?"
5) "Okay, I'll also need to give him a fighting skill... how many points should I put there? What other skills is he getting? Is it worth it to bump DX more initially or to just purchase the skills, especially considering the increasing cost of skills as they get higher?"
6) "Okay, so he's got the sword skill, but should probably be able to fight with a few other things, including unarmed... how do those default again? Is it worth buying them up, or just buying more Sword and letting the defaults rise as a consequence..."

etc...

The *creative* aspect is the same in both cases. In one case, I have to do a lot of manipulation of the system to get what I want. In the other, I don't.

Now, to be super-duper-extra clear here, some people will find the Fate version dull, and enjoy the GURPS version a lot, as figuring out how to use those bits and arrange them into an effective character is enjoyable to them, and in some cases the fact that the mechanical bits can suggest character concepts is a bonus. I don't dispute this in any way, or cast any pejorative on that. At all.


Well said.

Not really.

Since my only point is "I don't like optimization", the only thing I see in that response is "ah, but there's almost always optimization, therefore you DO like optimization!"

It's much like "anything other than totally random involves GM choice and fiat, so you like railroading!" or "well, this recipe has a litlte bit of mustard in it, so obviously you actually like mustard!"

Which is kind of strange, given Max's annoyance at people telling him what he does/doesn't like in other threads.

[JNAProductions]

The thing is, due to the definition of optimization, you clearly like basic optimization. Not advanced, scour 10,000 sourcebooks for a +1 bonus optimization, but the basic level-picking good feats, assigning stats in the right place, skill points too...

And that's totally fine. (As a side note, have you tried 5E? I think you might like it.) But the thing is, it's still optimization to make yourself a competent character. And that's all we're trying to say (or at least, all I'm trying to say).

Call it what you like, if you don't want to call it optimization, but the definition (both literal and commonly accepted) makes what you're doing optimization.

[kyoryu]

I like how everyone assumes I'm talking about/playing D&D 3.x.

I don't.

[JNAProductions]

I like how everyone assumes I'm talking about/playing D&D 3.x.

I don't.

The thought still applies. You like basic optimization (building a character who functions well in their intended role) but not advanced optimization (going above and beyond, scouring every resource available to be the best you can be in your role).

Is that wrong?

[kyoryu]

I think I've been pretty clear. I find the mechanical manipulation to be uninteresting, at best.

So, no, I don't *enjoy* it. I really don't. I like having a character that meets my imagined idea for the character. I don't "enjoy" the process of getting there.

The character creation minigames that I enjoy focus on who the character is - their history, their desires and goals, etc.

The numbers? Uninteresting. At best, there's an almost one-to-one mapping between the idea of "hey, this guy's really good at fighting, but not so much at sneaking around" and what I write on the character sheet. The more I have to get into balancing, moving things around, looking up other options, etc., the more turned off I get.

The character *as a collection of stats* does not interest me. The character *as a fictional character or a simulation of a character* does.

[JNAProductions]

Okay, poorly phrased. You tolerate basic optimization, because it's needed to play your character properly.

Is that reasonable?

[kyoryu]

It's the closest thing to accurately describing my position that I've seen, yes.

I dislike having to manipulate the mechanical systems of the game to create the character I have in mind.

Saying "Oh, my character is good at fighting and not so awesome at sneaking" is fine. That's a character decision.

A system like Fate, where you just say "okay, peak skill Fight" is okay with me, as that maps almost directly to the conception of the character.

Saying "I've got a 16 and a 12 to distribute, and fighters should be strong" likewise doesn't really bother me. That's still close enough to the conception of the character that it's not getting into the "mechanical manipulation" bits.

It's when you start going beyond that "hrm, I can lower this score here to raise this one here" or beyond that I start getting annoyed.

[Max_Killjoy]

I like how everyone assumes I'm talking about/playing D&D 3.x.

I don't.


For what it's worth, I don't make that assumption.

It does bug me when these discussions get snagged on that assumption, when it seems like a discussion is theoretical and it turns out someone thinks you're talking specifically about D&D or a D&D-like system.




It's the closest thing to accurately describing my position that I've seen, yes.

I dislike having to manipulate the mechanical systems of the game to create the character I have in mind.

Saying "Oh, my character is good at fighting and not so awesome at sneaking" is fine. That's a character decision.

A system like Fate, where you just say "okay, peak skill Fight" is okay with me, as that maps almost directly to the conception of the character.

Saying "I've got a 16 and a 12 to distribute, and fighters should be strong" likewise doesn't really bother me. That's still close enough to the conception of the character that it's not getting into the "mechanical manipulation" bits.

It's when you start going beyond that "hrm, I can lower this score here to raise this one here" or beyond that I start getting annoyed.


I still think that "optimization" is not the best word for what's being discussed, but from your comment here, I can see the line you're drawing and what it is you do and do not like.

For lack of anything better at the moment, it sounds like you don't care for the "programming" aspect.... you don't like having to "translate" the character in your imagination into the "assembly language" code of a system. Is that a fair explanation?

[kyoryu]

It's close, and part of it.

But really, the part I dislike the most is, once having a reasonable mechanical sketch of the character in place, taking more looks at it to figure out how to get bigger numbers.

I just don't care.

[Maglubiyet]

The character *as a collection of stats* does not interest me. The character *as a fictional character or a simulation of a character* does.

Yeah, I've got to agree with you. It's really sad when the two don't intersect. Like the first time you made a barbarian in D&D -- you're picturing Conan, but at some point you realize that he's going to miss like 75% of the time and could die if hit by a random arrow fired by a goblin. In this case min-maxing is a crutch to prop up a discrepancy between the perception of the character and the actuality of system play.

In other cases it can be like an arms race. You make a well-rounded barbarian character in GURPS or Hero Systems -- he can track, ride, fight, use bows, swim, find food and water, and knows how to make crude armor from animal hides. Then your teammate makes a guy who can hit a fly with a throwing axe from 500 yards. You're forced to reconfigure your barbarian or risk taking a back seat to his one-trick pony companion, especially if your GM emphasizes combat over roleplay.

If you're playing a game like FATE, you can just say "my guy is a Badass Barbarian" and it's always true. It doesn't matter if the scale changes and everyone levels up or gains skill points or whatever. You don't have to play that kind of arms race. You just play the character you want to play from the start.

[Segev]

<mostly joking>
Well, you just optimize your game choices by picking games which cater to your tastes!
</mostly joking>

The main reason people have been arguing, I think, is that too often "optimization" is treated as if it represents only powergaming munchkinism, and the insistence that it does not encompass its full definition coupled to a continuum fallacy tends to lead to people erroneously assuming that making simple, wise build choices is horrible, bad, awful gaming etiquette. I wish, I really do, that this was hyperbole, but I've been involved in discussions online and IRL where this assumption was tacitly in place. The only question was where a given person's fuzzy line of "acceptable choices" vs. "overpowered munchkinism" were drawn, and it was often so subjective as to be inconsistent depending on the archetype of character chosen and how much the speaker likes the player.

Heck, I used to fall victim to the Stormwind Fallacy, myself, and wondered why, in my efforts to "be a good roleplayer," I often wound up with characters that were no fun to play and didn't live up to the "interesting RP" that the mindset promises. So I am often in the forefront when it comes to warning people away from it and its cousin fallacies. I am a big proponent of identifying the real problem and solving it, specifically, rather than falling prey to illusory "problems" and blaming knee-jerk boogeymen for things they're totally unrelated to.

And far, far too often, "I dislike optimization" (or worse, "claiming optimization includes good aspects of character building, too, is [bad for whatever reason]") is held up to incorrectly identify the cause of people's distaste in a game. It gets in the way of really identifying the problem.

[kyoryu]

<mostly joking>
Well, you just optimize your game choices by picking games which cater to your tastes!
</mostly joking>

Um, obviously?

I mean, joking aside, yeah, pick a game which includes the most of the types of fun you like, has the least amount of stuff that you really dislike, and is fairly light on the stuff you could take or leave. I mean, how else would you choose a system?


The main reason people have been arguing, I think, is that too often "optimization" is treated as if it represents only powergaming munchkinism, and the insistence that it does not encompass its full definition coupled to a continuum fallacy tends to lead to people erroneously assuming that making simple, wise build choices is horrible, bad, awful gaming etiquette.

"Dude, if you roll an 18, and you're a fighter, and you put the 18 in STR, you're a munchkin."

Obvious stupidity.

Similarly, "Dude, if you roll an 18 and a 16, and you're a fighter, and you put the 16 in STR instead of the 18, you have a useless character".


I wish, I really do, that this was hyperbole, but I've been involved in discussions online and IRL where this assumption was tacitly in place. The only question was where a given person's fuzzy line of "acceptable choices" vs. "overpowered munchkinism" were drawn, and it was often so subjective as to be inconsistent depending on the archetype of character chosen and how much the speaker likes the player.

Right, and understanding where a given group fits on the "acceptable optimization scale" and fitting in with that is a key and critical point.

My point is not that. My point is that I just don't like the actual act of going through optimizations. I just don't.


Heck, I used to fall victim to the Stormwind Fallacy, myself, and wondered why, in my efforts to "be a good roleplayer," I often wound up with characters that were no fun to play and didn't live up to the "interesting RP" that the mindset promises.

Unfortunately, D&D 3.x is also a system that *really really* wants you to do certain things to be effective, moreso than previous versions. Like, i fyou want to be a "smart" fighter, the system kind of makes that difficult.

But putting bad stats in places doesn't make you a good roleplayer any more than putting stats in good places makes you a good one.


So I am often in the forefront when it comes to warning people away from it and its cousin fallacies. I am a big proponent of identifying the real problem and solving it, specifically, rather than falling prey to illusory "problems" and blaming knee-jerk boogeymen for things they're totally unrelated to.

Understood. And I agree.


And far, far too often, "I dislike optimization" (or worse, "claiming optimization includes good aspects of character building, too, is [bad for whatever reason]") is held up to incorrectly identify the cause of people's distaste in a game. It gets in the way of really identifying the problem.

It often does. However, in my case, finding ways to make bigger numbers* (which I think the easiest term for that is "optimization", yes?), is *precisely* the thing I don't like. I just also have enough understanding to realize that there's a huge difference between personal preference (awesome!) and turning that into a statement of objective principle (kinda shady).

* "bigger numbers" including non-number-like things as well.

[Cluedrew]

I like how everyone assumes I'm talking about/playing D&D 3.x.

I don't.I started calling that the Playgrounder's fallacy. Defined as assuming we are talking about D&D/D&D 3.x/5 (various levels) in a system agnostic discussion. Although going by my experience just saying "this includes other systems" is better received than anything with the word fallacy in it.

[Max_Killjoy]

<mostly joking>
Well, you just optimize your game choices by picking games which cater to your tastes!
</mostly joking>

The main reason people have been arguing, I think, is that too often "optimization" is treated as if it represents only powergaming munchkinism, and the insistence that it does not encompass its full definition coupled to a continuum fallacy tends to lead to people erroneously assuming that making simple, wise build choices is horrible, bad, awful gaming etiquette. I wish, I really do, that this was hyperbole, but I've been involved in discussions online and IRL where this assumption was tacitly in place. The only question was where a given person's fuzzy line of "acceptable choices" vs. "overpowered munchkinism" were drawn, and it was often so subjective as to be inconsistent depending on the archetype of character chosen and how much the speaker likes the player.

Heck, I used to fall victim to the Stormwind Fallacy, myself, and wondered why, in my efforts to "be a good roleplayer," I often wound up with characters that were no fun to play and didn't live up to the "interesting RP" that the mindset promises. So I am often in the forefront when it comes to warning people away from it and its cousin fallacies. I am a big proponent of identifying the real problem and solving it, specifically, rather than falling prey to illusory "problems" and blaming knee-jerk boogeymen for things they're totally unrelated to.

And far, far too often, "I dislike optimization" (or worse, "claiming optimization includes good aspects of character building, too, is [bad for whatever reason]") is held up to incorrectly identify the cause of people's distaste in a game. It gets in the way of really identifying the problem.

Not sure if anyone remembers me griping about players who intentionally gimp their characters and go on and on about and "concept" and "role", and kinda seem to be looking down their noses at making an character of any competence or effectiveness?

Was I running into some version of the Stormwind Fallacy, perhaps?

[Lord Raziere]

I build my character. I love building my character. I want to make my character competent and do all the things I want to do.

I just don't see any of that as optimization, its just such a cold term. It talking as if doing so is figuring corporate taxes or something, or operating a spreadsheet, and that I have to be cold and logical and not have any fun with it. The word only conjures thoughts of well-meaning extremist villains of those who think the world is too inefficient for their liking and wants to forcefully solve everything to their own judgement without others consent.

making a character is not a science to me, it is an art. I make the characters I want and do not pay attention to anything saying whether something is better or not. I do what fits my character. If my character is thrice-cursed at birth, that is not optimization for they are under three curses but their story is to be told nonetheless. Unless you are twist the meaning of "optimize" to be "optimizing something to be cursed" which is ridiculous, because its less effective because of being cursed.

all of this of course is ignoring the fact that the only reason why optimizers acquired this reputation in the first place was by coming up with all these ways to break games at all. Yet you don't see any problem with this, and don't apologize for things like Pun-Pun or Batman Wizards. Its not as if you can convince me either of those things are good for anything I want to play, because they aren't. I fail to see how such creations are badges of pride, and I assure they will never be in my eyes. I mean, can't you at least feel shame that these theoretical creations exist and poison the discussion by showing exactly how much an optimizer and creating all this fear in the first place?

You say that you agree not to do these things, but as with all things involving power, a gentlemans agreement is a flimsy thing to prevent that from happening. Thus the distrust of optimization, compounded by the lack of shame in such things. It wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't so obvious how gamebreaking optimization could be. It doesn't matter how much you promise not to use it, I'm still nervous simply because it exists and could nuke the whole game into oblivion.

Other systems fortunately don't have as much of a problem with this. But DnD optimization at its highest levels are basically the optimization equivalent of nukes, wrecking things forever and leaving any semblance of the desired game nothing but a crater. is it any wonder people do not see optimization in a favorable light? I do not optimize, therefore I cannot break the game. Nor would I want to learn how, because I do not want to break the game. I am safe in using character creation artistically without regard for optimal logic, and therefore won't lead me to break the game because I followed it.

[JNAProductions]

Except building things that break limits is fun. People don't make things like Pun-Pun because they want to play it and ruin everyone else's fun, they make it because it's fun to see how far the system can go. It's like taking apart a clock and putting it back together, or like Legoes.

And, at least in any game I've played in, a gentleman's agreement (combined with the basic talking to other players/the DM) is more than enough to stop any abuses. If you are playing with people where that ISN'T enough, then you might want to find a better table.

[kyoryu]

Except building things that break limits is fun.

For you. It's fun for you. And a lot of other people. I don't find it fun at all.


People don't make things like Pun-Pun because they want to play it and ruin everyone else's fun, they make it because it's fun to see how far the system can go. It's like taking apart a clock and putting it back together, or like Legoes.

I never accused anyone of poor motives. I also don't assume people buy mustard dogs to spite me, even though I find the smell obnoxious. I assume they buy mustard dogs because they like mustard.


And, at least in any game I've played in, a gentleman's agreement (combined with the basic talking to other players/the DM) is more than enough to stop any abuses. If you are playing with people where that ISN'T enough, then you might want to find a better table.

I still have to think about it. I still have to think about optimizing my character. And I don't want to.

It's not about you. It's not about mistrusting people. It's about the fact that I don't enjoy that aspect of building characters. I realize that this might be hard to understand, since so many people on this forum enjoy optimizing characters, at least to a certain degree.

I just don't. It's not about mistrust. It's not about abusing the system or not. It's just not something I enjoy.

[JNAProductions]

O-kay? I'm trying to figure out what we're talking about now. I, at least, have explicitly said that there's nothing wrong with your playstyle-it's different from mine, but that doesn't make it any less valid.

[Mechalich]

In other cases it can be like an arms race. You make a well-rounded barbarian character in GURPS or Hero Systems -- he can track, ride, fight, use bows, swim, find food and water, and knows how to make crude armor from animal hides. Then your teammate makes a guy who can hit a fly with a throwing axe from 500 yards. You're forced to reconfigure your barbarian or risk taking a back seat to his one-trick pony companion, especially if your GM emphasizes combat over roleplay.


This is partly a system problem - in that certain build methods will end up being geometric compared to others that are linear - and also a GM problem that stems from roleplaying tropes, particularly the 'don't split the party' trope.

Many experienced gamers recognize that their GMs will never, ever, ever split the party up and expect each character to handle all possible situations on their own. So they build characters who are absolutely devastating at one specific aspect of the game - usually killing people - but who are otherwise completely clueless and handle social situations like a small bird handles a glass window. Take a good OOTS example: Thog. Thog is a devastating combatant, he's much more optimized than Belkar or Roy, but he's also utterly clueless. He needs another person to tell him what to do all the time and if he loses that person he becomes someone else's lapdog.

Many games incentive warrior optimization by turning them into Thogs - all muscle, no brain, and no social awareness. The problem is, GMs don't enforce the limitations on such characters. They don't take their safety blanket companions away and they don't enforce the intelligence limitations effectively (the latter is admittedly difficult to do) and allow smart players to metagame stupid characters as if they are much more intelligent than they actually are.

D&D has really bad optimization metagaming incentives. The standard party of four has three characters who are almost completely focused on methods to murder their way through obstacles (including wizards, they just have more options than most) and one skill monkey character who handles everything else. Other games aren't quite that bad, but there are still incentives, especially if a group of players actively collude (like in oWoD games where only one player puts any points into drive so the others can save the points).

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah, I've got to agree with you. It's really sad when the two don't intersect. Like the first time you made a barbarian in D&D -- you're picturing Conan, but at some point you realize that he's going to miss like 75% of the time and could die if hit by a random arrow fired by a goblin. In this case min-maxing is a crutch to prop up a discrepancy between the perception of the character and the actuality of system play.

In other cases it can be like an arms race. You make a well-rounded barbarian character in GURPS or Hero Systems -- he can track, ride, fight, use bows, swim, find food and water, and knows how to make crude armor from animal hides. Then your teammate makes a guy who can hit a fly with a throwing axe from 500 yards. You're forced to reconfigure your barbarian or risk taking a back seat to his one-trick pony companion, especially if your GM emphasizes combat over roleplay.

If you're playing a game like FATE, you can just say "my guy is a Badass Barbarian" and it's always true. It doesn't matter if the scale changes and everyone levels up or gains skill points or whatever. You don't have to play that kind of arms race. You just play the character you want to play from the start.


This is partly a system problem - in that certain build methods will end up being geometric compared to others that are linear - and also a GM problem that stems from roleplaying tropes, particularly the 'don't split the party' trope.

Many experienced gamers recognize that their GMs will never, ever, ever split the party up and expect each character to handle all possible situations on their own. So they build characters who are absolutely devastating at one specific aspect of the game - usually killing people - but who are otherwise completely clueless and handle social situations like a small bird handles a glass window. Take a good OOTS example: Thog. Thog is a devastating combatant, he's much more optimized than Belkar or Roy, but he's also utterly clueless. He needs another person to tell him what to do all the time and if he loses that person he becomes someone else's lapdog.

Many games incentive warrior optimization by turning them into Thogs - all muscle, no brain, and no social awareness. The problem is, GMs don't enforce the limitations on such characters. They don't take their safety blanket companions away and they don't enforce the intelligence limitations effectively (the latter is admittedly difficult to do) and allow smart players to metagame stupid characters as if they are much more intelligent than they actually are.

D&D has really bad optimization metagaming incentives. The standard party of four has three characters who are almost completely focused on methods to murder their way through obstacles (including wizards, they just have more options than most) and one skill monkey character who handles everything else. Other games aren't quite that bad, but there are still incentives, especially if a group of players actively collude (like in oWoD games where only one player puts any points into drive so the others can save the points).

I will say that when this happens in HERO, it's usually a player failure, rather than a system failure. The system has no inherent limits, it's up to the players (GM, or as a group) to establish the boundaries of character builds.

[Cluedrew]

I have actually seen some arguments that if a system requires players to balance their characters is an inherently imbalanced system. Now they were actually applying the argument to Mutants and Masterminds' Power Arrays, but I think the same idea holds here because the concept seems the same. I'm not against player input into mechanics, so I don't think it is a bad way to balance things. (Unless it is really hard to do for some reason.)

[Max_Killjoy]

I have actually seen some arguments that if a system requires players to balance their characters is an inherently imbalanced system. Now they were actually applying the argument to Mutants and Masterminds' Power Arrays, but I think the same idea holds here because the concept seems the same. I'm not against player input into mechanics, so I don't think it is a bad way to balance things. (Unless it is really hard to do for some reason.)


I would say that all but the most basic or onerously restrictive systems require some player effort involved in balance. At the very least, it takes players operating in good faith and being honest about what they're all trying to get out of the campaign they're in together.

[vasilidor]

I, myself, have rarely run into the problem of having overly optimized players in the games I have run. I think it happened once, and that player wound up killing his character with stupid choices. you don't solo charge a wall of archers and get to live.

the problem I have run into most often is the under-optimized character where the player, whether though intent or accident, chose bad options. I have seen it in DnD(all editions, and pathfinder), shadowrun, Earthdawn, and BESM (which incidently covers about 90% of my gaming).

to me the worst is the guy who intentionally kneecaps his character, then complains that "player x made his character to strong". Only happened once, but that was more than enough.
I once made the mistake of making a human fighter/thief type guy in a group of all wizard/sorcerer psionic vampire monster powerhouses (the game was BESM, playing a mundane in that can be worse than in 3.5).

I once was in a pathfinder game where I, human fighter archer, was the most effective combatant. even if you took away all the magical goodies I had, I still out performed everyone else do to a combination of play style and character choices. the other builds? we had a fighter/forsaker, a bard/cavalier/battle herald a straight up cleric (who had no desire to go beyond healbot), and me fighter-archer archetype. the only reason I put on the brakes on the optimization of said character is I realized I was completely over shadowing everyone else in combat, and the DM catered to the average of the party for difficulty (was doing 1d8+24 damage a hit at level 10).

these two builds were designed at roughly the same level of optimization for the concepts involved (one being sneaky murder, the other being ranged murder) and in both games I wound up making choices as the characters evolved in that setting to either ramp them up or tone them down. the BESM character eventualy became a psychotic pyrokinetic vampire who had learned to hide his mind from telepaths and mind controling monsters, and the pathfinder character started looking for things beyond "be a better murder machine".

both of these games had some of the same players.

[Maglubiyet]

you don't solo charge a wall of archers and get to live.

Depends on what kind of game you're playing (https://youtu.be/L6EknwERf3o?t=75).

[Kelb_Panthera]

Lot of continuum fallacy here.

None at all, really. Just applying the literal, unambiguously defined term to the thing it's defined as meaning.


Claiming that anything apart from randomly assigning everything qualifies as "optimization" is like saying that anything apart from a totally random game is railroading.

Not even a little. I provided a link to the definition of the root word and max_killjoy copy-pasta'd the definition of the term. Railroading is a much more nebulous term. You don't have to like the term or the activity itself but you don't get to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean.


-snip-

It's an absurd example, of course.

It's a very -simplified- example of optimization but it -is- optimization.


I don't deny or object to the fact that some people find optimization enjoyable. That's great that they do. It's a totally valid way to play the game.

It's not a "way to play" at all. It's a thing that -literally- every player does. Some, like yourself, do it to the absolute minimum extent possible so they can get to the actual game. Others take it to extremes that -can- create problems which is how we get the thread title.


But the fact remains that I find optimization annoying at best and utterly obnoxious at worst, defining "optimization" as "the types of things that people that say they like optimizing enjoy". And that's *also* a totally valid way to play.

Except you're not talking about optimization. You're talking about min-maxing, powergaming, or (in some cases) munchkinery. If you want to eliminate the possibility of miscommunication, you ought to use the correct term for the concept you're discussing. Conflating terms creates problems in, basically, all cases.


I build my character. I love building my character. I want to make my character competent and do all the things I want to do.

'Kay.


I just don't see any of that as optimization, its just such a cold term. It talking as if doing so is figuring corporate taxes or something, or operating a spreadsheet, and that I have to be cold and logical and not have any fun with it. The word only conjures thoughts of well-meaning extremist villains of those who think the world is too inefficient for their liking and wants to forcefully solve everything to their own judgement without others consent.

Connotation does not define a term. It's used for selecting the most appropriate of a group of synonyms. Dislike for the connotations of the term does not mean that the term does not accurately describe what you're doing.

I'll demonstrate with a less controversial term: cooking.

I enjoy the selecting of ingredients and the slicing of meats and vegetables. I enjoy the mixing of spices to tweak flavor and I enjoy selecting the mode of heating; from braising, to sauteeing, to baking, and so on. None of that is "cooking" to me. Cooking brings to mind butt-heads like Gordon Ramsey with their "I'm so much better than you" methods of food preparation and molecular gastronomy science-experiments some people call "food."

Do you see how silly that is?


making a character is not a science to me, it is an art. I make the characters I want and do not pay attention to anything saying whether something is better or not. I do what fits my character. If my character is thrice-cursed at birth, that is not optimization for they are under three curses but their story is to be told nonetheless. Unless you are twist the meaning of "optimize" to be "optimizing something to be cursed" which is ridiculous, because its less effective because of being cursed.

You're optimizing for the narrative you want to spin. Can't very well tell a story about someone "thrice-cursed" without selecting three curses. The criteria you'd use would be based on how they'd effect the narrative to best tell the story rather than how they'd benefit the character and/or her ability to solve problems. It's not what we normally mean when discussing optimization but that's because there's an implicit "for problem solving" attached, not because it does not, or cannot, apply to that set of selections.


All of this of course is ignoring the fact that the only reason why optimizers acquired this reputation in the first place was by coming up with all these ways to break games at all.

95% of the things discovered by optimizers don't make the game unplayable, at least in D&D 3.5. They make it more complex to run and change some of the paradigms but it's still a perfectly functional game.


Yet you don't see any problem with this, and don't apologize for things like Pun-Pun or Batman Wizards.

Pun-Pun is something obviously unusable in any game. No apology necessary.

A batman style wizard can be dealt with in normal play and is only a problem if you make it one. More importantly, it's an artifact of the basic game's quadratic mage/ linear warrior paradigm. Again, no apology is necessary from those who merely point it out though -some- may be necessary from someone who plays one in a generally low-op game.

Far, far more importantly; how the **** entitled are you to be demanding an apology for examining the game in detail and sharing discoveries? I get that you don't like high-op play but demanding or even thinking you -deserve- an apology from those who do is absurd on the face of it. Nobody's done you, or any other player who prefers low-op play, any wrong for which to apologize.


Its not as if you can convince me either of those things are good for anything I want to play, because they aren't.

Bully for you. No one was trying to convince you to play beyond your comfort level.


I fail to see how such creations are badges of pride, and I assure they will never be in my eyes.

How very judgemental of you.

People take pride in being able to build to, and play in, high-op games because it is, necessarily, more difficult to pull off than to do the same for low-op games. It requires greater system mastery, the ability to parse more complex information, and involves solving problems with which less optimized characters simply cannot deal.

No one's saying that playing low-op games are badwrongfun but you certainly seem to be saying it about high-op.


I mean, can't you at least feel shame that these theoretical creations exist and poison the discussion by showing exactly how much an optimizer and creating all this fear in the first place?

No. The poison in the discussion is entirely formed in the heads of people like you letting their fear/laziness get the better of them.

The solution to an over-optimized PC is a very simple one; ask the player who built it to scale it back. If he won't, then stop playing with him. Problem solved.

You rail against this obvious and effective solution because you're afraid of a minor confrontation.

The laziness front comes from an unwillingness to learn how to deal with anything more basic than a fighter with a modestly high strength score.


You say that you agree not to do these things, but as with all things involving power, a gentlemans agreement is a flimsy thing to prevent that from happening.

Gentlemen's agreements are all anyone has from anyone they don't have legal authority over. If you can't trust the people you play with, don't play with them. If you can't trust anyone, seek help.


Thus the distrust of optimization, compounded by the lack of shame in such things. It wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't so obvious how gamebreaking high level optimization could be to a low-op game. It doesn't matter how much you promise not to use it, I'm still nervous simply because it exists and could nuke the my whole game into oblivion.

FIFY

Even then, your attitude is your problem. Calm your nerves and enjoy your game as it is instead of worrying about what could be. Trust your DM to handle the problem if it arises. If you're the DM, congratulations, you have all the authority to solve the problem. Make your optimization comfort level clear to your players then nut-up and confront them if they surpass it. If they won't back down, boot 'em.


Other systems fortunately don't have as much of a problem with this.

This is mostly true.


But DnD optimization at its highest levels are basically the optimization equivalent of nukes, wrecking things forever and leaving any semblance of the desired game nothing but a crater.

Arguing from ignorance rarely makes a strong argument.

Rocket tag is pretty much entirely the demense of uberchargers and mailmen. Everybody else is playing an increasingly complex intelligence and resource management game. That's hella fun to me and people like me. And that's not even considering the power-politics that such power tends to involve.

There are enough -actual- nukes on earth to render the planet unlivable. It doesn't stop the various powers from discussing matters of great import or even from some old-school saber-rattling. There are a handful of near-equivalents (if your being generous) in D&D and only one of those is the result of an optimization exercise; greater ice hearts, control weather, apocalypse from the sky, and a few other things can destroy whole cities exactly as they are printed with no extra effort on the part of the player that employs them.


is it any wonder people do not see optimization in a favorable light? I do not optimize, therefore I cannot break the game.

You do. You just do so to a minimal extent. Words mean what they mean.

If you join a high-op game and the DM tries to cater to you, the others no longer have any meaningful challenge. Congratulations on breaking the game with your lack of optimization skill.


Nor would I want to learn how, because I do not want to break the game. I am safe in using character creation artistically without regard for optimal logic, and therefore won't lead me to break the game because I followed it.

That's true of the game you play now, that is; you're in no danger of breaking -your- game playing that way.

Personally, I find your pride in your ignorance and your adamant desire to remain ignorant... odd. It makes less than no sense to me to leave something you apparently see as a threat as a complete mystery as well. You don't trust -yourself- not to abuse the knowledge or something?


Look, you and yours clearly like a simple, narrative-driven game without much concern given for making particularly powerful characters. There's nothing wrong with that if that's what you all enjoy.

However, your judgement that others who play drastically different from you are bad people* is completely unwarranted. "Live and let live" and all that jazz. Roll it back and realize that other people do not approach subjective matters the same way you do. Yours is not the only correct way to play.

*people that should be ashamed of their "destructive" behavior but aren't are bad people, right?

[vasilidor]

Depends on what kind of game you're playing (https://youtu.be/L6EknwERf3o?t=75).

DnD 3.5, level 7, Uber charger. low AC, was dependent on murdering things faster than he could be murdered.
that is a good movie though.

[Segev]

Not sure if anyone remembers me griping about players who intentionally gimp their characters and go on and on about and "concept" and "role", and kinda seem to be looking down their noses at making an character of any competence or effectiveness?

Was I running into some version of the Stormwind Fallacy, perhaps?

If they are saying that building less competent characters means they're better RPers (or, conversely, that building more competent characters means you're a worse RPer) you're encountering the Stormwind Fallacy in its purest form.

There's nothing inherently wrong with building an intentionally sub-optimal character in terms of any particular aspect of game mechanics, if that really does match the concept you wish to play. There is something wrong with doing so if it makes your character fail to contribute to others' fun, or worse, makes others have less fun. People making characters inept enough to make the game less fun for the rest of their party may be guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy, if they assume that their dedication to "concept" is illustrated by their mechanically-induced IC ineptitude. They may not be, if they just wanted to play a weak character and built for it. The latter is no better than the former in terms of how much fun they're draining from the table (which could be "a lot" if they're a load around the others' necks, or "not at all" if the table is having fun with their presence).

It is usually easier, however, to get somebody who is not guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy to agree to change their concept or grow their character in a way that allows for more competent mechanics. Those who hold to the Stormwind Fallacy are far more likely to sneer and scoff at the idea of playing a concept that actually would permit more optimal mechanics, thinking it is "bad RP" and that anybody asking them to is a "rollplayer," and thus a lesser gamer.

[Max_Killjoy]

If they are saying that building less competent characters means they're better RPers (or, conversely, that building more competent characters means you're a worse RPer) you're encountering the Stormwind Fallacy in its purest form.

There's nothing inherently wrong with building an intentionally sub-optimal character in terms of any particular aspect of game mechanics, if that really does match the concept you wish to play. There is something wrong with doing so if it makes your character fail to contribute to others' fun, or worse, makes others have less fun. People making characters inept enough to make the game less fun for the rest of their party may be guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy, if they assume that their dedication to "concept" is illustrated by their mechanically-induced IC ineptitude. They may not be, if they just wanted to play a weak character and built for it. The latter is no better than the former in terms of how much fun they're draining from the table (which could be "a lot" if they're a load around the others' necks, or "not at all" if the table is having fun with their presence).

It is usually easier, however, to get somebody who is not guilty of the Stormwind Fallacy to agree to change their concept or grow their character in a way that allows for more competent mechanics. Those who hold to the Stormwind Fallacy are far more likely to sneer and scoff at the idea of playing a concept that actually would permit more optimal mechanics, thinking it is "bad RP" and that anybody asking them to is a "rollplayer," and thus a lesser gamer.

I can understand someone wanting to play a character that is "out of their depth" or "out of their element", a character who doesn't start out as automatically usefully competent in some way for the context/content of the campaign.

What bothers me is someone doing this repeatedly, and then acting as if their character adapting to the situation / events they find themselves in (like real people normally do) would somehow violate that character's concept.

[Segev]

I can understand someone wanting to play a character that is "out of their depth" or "out of their element", a character who doesn't start out as automatically usefully competent in some way for the context/content of the campaign.

What bothers me is someone doing this repeatedly, and then acting as if their character adapting to the situation / events they find themselves in (like real people normally do) would someone violate that character's concept.
Yeah, that's irritating. Whether this is Stormwind or not is a matter of how and why the player is approaching it that way. Stormwind is specifically about believing that one MUST play a mechanically weak character to be a good RPer. This can be a result, but by itself is just a player who is refusing to allow his character to grow reasonably.


The most egregious example I've come across wasn't somebody who was deliberately trying to play a weak PC, but who insisted that their "concept" was, explicitly, wizard/fighter/wizard/fighter/wizard/fighter all the way up to level 20. The class choices had to be those, alternating back and forth, because that was the "concept." (There actually was more concept to it than that, involving the PC having been kidnapped by an evil wizard who wanted her as his apprentice due to her 'potential,' but her dream being to be a fighter. But any effort to discuss mechanics with her about how to better use that backstory and build a viable character was "violating the concept.")

She also wore full plate and "got around" it by reading scrolls. Often of spells above her level-based ability, so she risked spell failure. Scolded my full wizard, once, for taking all the scrolls from a loot hoard to put into his spellbook. She didn't seem to grasp that my wizard was planning to let her copy them to her own, and would have been happy to make some scrolls for her (since she was half his level, caster-wise).

[kyoryu]

What bothers me is someone doing this repeatedly, and then acting as if their character adapting to the situation / events they find themselves in (like real people normally do) would somehow violate that character's concept.

It always astounds me that so few people include "wants to live" as part of their character concept.



Except you're not talking about optimization. You're talking about min-maxing, powergaming, or (in some cases) munchkinery. If you want to eliminate the possibility of miscommunication, you ought to use the correct term for the concept you're discussing. Conflating terms creates problems in, basically, all cases.

Snipped lots of stuff.

No, I'm talking about optimization. I'm not talking about having an optimized character. I'm talking about the thing that people ask people to do in the forums when they say "help me optimize this!" You know, the reason there's an optimization tag and not a "min-max" tag.

The actual act of taking a character idea and figuring out how to find rules/use loopholes/find clever tricks/etc. to make the character more effective. If someone asked you to do that, what would you expect them to ask? "<blank> this...." I'd expect the <blank> to be "optimize". Not min-max, not powergame, nothing else.

It is that actual act that I have no interest in doing.

And, to be super-clear again, I'm not saying it's bad, which is why I'm deliberately avoiding terms with a pejorative bent to them. I don't like mechanically optimizing characters. I don't get enjoyment from it, really, in any medium.

[Max_Killjoy]

It always astounds me that so few people include "wants to live" as part of their character concept.


I know, right?

Of course, I think that's one that can get skipped because of the unspoken, assumed "agreement" to not ruthlessly kill PCs that some players/groups believe is in effect, even when it's not. It's easy to leave "I want to live" off a character when the player knows or thinks they know that the character isn't really under the threat of not living.




Snipped lots of stuff.

No, I'm talking about optimization. I'm not talking about having an optimized character. I'm talking about the thing that people ask people to do in the forums when they say "help me optimize this!" You know, the reason there's an optimization tag and not a "min-max" tag.

The actual act of taking a character idea and figuring out how to find rules/use loopholes/find clever tricks/etc. to make the character more effective. If someone asked you to do that, what would you expect them to ask? "<blank> this...." I'd expect the <blank> to be "optimize". Not min-max, not powergame, nothing else.

It is that actual act that I have no interest in doing.

And, to be super-clear again, I'm not saying it's bad, which is why I'm deliberately avoiding terms with a pejorative bent to them. I don't like mechanically optimizing characters. I don't get enjoyment from it, really, in any medium.


As an aside, it sounds like you're using "optimize" because what's what it gets called in discussions by the general gaming community...

...but I think that the other people calling it that are wrong to use that word for what they're talking about. "Optimize" covers everything from giving your character the skills they need to reflect their concept, use special abilities or Feats or whatever depending on system, making "strong" characters "system STR", whatever, etc, all the way to min-maxing to the last fraction or decimal by comparing 97 alternate builds.

[Segev]

The thing is, "Help me optimize my big dumb fighter; I'm new to the system," can mean simply pointing him to the feats that work well together. "Get power attack and cleave, and drop toughness. +3 hp is not worth a feat."

Yes, the Ubercharger and other named builds will be recommended. But "optimize" doesn't have to mean "find obscure rules and loopholes." It can just mean "I seem to have built a weak character. Help me make it do what I want it to. He's supposed to be this swashbuckler who swings into action on a rope, but he's more of a joke right now."

The fact that "don't play the Swashbuckler class" might be part of the recommendations is a condemnation of said class, but can often be good advice (depending on the class in question).

I do understand kyoryu's frustration over things like that. Traps that have to be avoided because they're named what you want to do, but fail to live up to the name, are incredibly frustrating. But it's not "optimization's" fault, at that point. It's the fault of the game's design.

[kyoryu]

Yes, the Ubercharger and other named builds will be recommended. But "optimize" doesn't have to mean "find obscure rules and loopholes." It can just mean "I seem to have built a weak character. Help me make it do what I want it to. He's supposed to be this swashbuckler who swings into action on a rope, but he's more of a joke right now."

Exactly. And the process of turning him from a joke into a viable character?

I don't enjoy it. I don't enjoy that part of gaming. I can *do* it, if I need to, but it's not something I gain intrinsic enjoyment from.

I also don't enjoy deck-building in card games, or figuring out build orders in RTSes, or poring over builds in MMOs.

And, again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm saying it's an activity that I, personally, do not find enjoyable. There is zero moral judgement here. It's like saying "I don't like playing checkers".

[Darth Ultron]

Yes, the Ubercharger and other named builds will be recommended. But "optimize" doesn't have to mean "find obscure rules and loopholes." It can just mean "I seem to have built a weak character. Help me make it do what I want it to. He's supposed to be this swashbuckler who swings into action on a rope, but he's more of a joke right now."


This sounds like a big stretch to say ''optimization is good''. Having a character that uses a dagger, take weapon focus dagger is ''optimization'', but it is sure not what most ''optimizing players '' are talking about when they say it. Normal optimization is finding rules and loop holes and interpretations it's not just slightly making a character slightly better.

[Max_Killjoy]

Exactly. And the process of turning him from a joke into a viable character?

I don't enjoy it. I don't enjoy that part of gaming. I can *do* it, if I need to, but it's not something I gain intrinsic enjoyment from.

I also don't enjoy deck-building in card games, or figuring out build orders in RTSes, or poring over builds in MMOs.

And, again, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it. I'm saying it's an activity that I, personally, do not find enjoyable. There is zero moral judgement here. It's like saying "I don't like playing checkers".


I'm right there with you on not enjoying CCGs that require constant fine-tuning and readapting to new "meta" to be even vaguely competitive.

And, I'm not a fan of video games (MMO or otherwise) that have "one best build" as opposed to a wide variety of viable builds.



This sounds like a big stretch to say ''optimization is good''. Having a character that uses a dagger, take weapon focus dagger is ''optimization'', but it is sure not what most ''optimizing players '' are talking about when they say it. Normal optimization is finding rules and loop holes and interpretations it's not just slightly making a character slightly better.

We know you're a fan of using your own definitions for words as suits your purposes... but that's plainly and simply not what "optimization" means.



op·ti·mi·za·tion



noun -- the action of making the best or most effective use of a situation or resource.

[Talakeal]

This sounds like a big stretch to say ''optimization is good''. Having a character that uses a dagger, take weapon focus dagger is ''optimization'', but it is sure not what most ''optimizing players '' are talking about when they say it. Normal optimization is finding rules and loop holes and interpretations it's not just slightly making a character slightly better.

I don't normally agree with Darth, but there actually is a nugget of wisdom in here. If you are doing something simply to find a loophole in a limitation you are probably doing it wrong. Like using the 5e wish / simulacrum combo to ignore the quite sensible limitations that the designers put in both spells.

[The Glyphstone]

I don't normally agree with Darth, but there actually is a nugget of wisdom in here. If you are doing something simply to find a loophole in a limitation you are probably doing it wrong. Like using the 5e wish / simulacrum combo to ignore the quite sensible limitations that the designers put in both spells.

One person's optimization is another person's munchkinry, though. Most people who consider 'optimizing' to be a positive thing would call hunting for abusive loopholes being a munchkin, not an optimizer. It's either a terminology disconnect, or just a RPG-specific variant of the Geek Hierarchy (http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z167/Great_WhiteSnark/geekchartbig.gif); everyone needs a subcategory of people worse than them.

[kyoryu]

One person's optimization is another person's munchkinry, though. Most people who consider 'optimizing' to be a positive thing would call hunting for abusive loopholes being a munchkin, not an optimizer. It's either a terminology disconnect, or just a RPG-specific variant of the Geek Hierarchy (http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z167/Great_WhiteSnark/geekchartbig.gif); everyone needs a subcategory of people worse than them.

Everyone that drives faster than me is insane. Everyone that drives slower than me is a moron.

[The Insanity]

This sounds like a big stretch to say ''optimization is good''. Having a character that uses a dagger, take weapon focus dagger is ''optimization''
I guess optimizing to be bad is a thing.


but it is sure not what most ''optimizing players '' are talking about when they say it. Normal optimization is finding rules and loop holes and interpretations it's not just slightly making a character slightly better.
It's not. It is what YOU are talking about when you say it. Big difference.

[Max_Killjoy]

Everyone that drives faster than me is insane. Everyone that drives slower than me is a moron.

The crazy thing is, there are weather/road conditions where that's somewhat true.

(In heavy snow, going way too slow makes you an obstacle and a hazard... going too fast makes you a hazard too... and I'm always the one stuck in the middle trying to go the appropriate speed.)

[kyoryu]

The crazy thing is, there are weather/road conditions where that's somewhat true.

(In heavy snow, going way too slow makes you an obstacle and a hazard... going too fast makes you a hazard too... and I'm always the one stuck in the middle trying to go the appropriate speed.)

Yes, but everyone else on the road thinks *the same thing*. And they think that either you're insane or a moron.

Everyone thinks they drive at an appropriate speed. That's why they're driving at that speed (caveat: Some people in a hurry might know they're going too fast)

Everyone thinks they optimize "the right amount", too. People that optimize more are "powergamers" or "munchkins". People that optimize less "aren't effective".

So, ultimately, what you have to do in a game is say "No, this is the acceptable amount of optimization". And then go with that. In some cases, this might be choosing a system that allows for less optimization. In some cases it might be setting limits on things. In others, it might be taking a look at characters for approval.

[Mechalich]

To continue with the driving analogy, it is possible to optimize to such an extent that your car effectively rips the road apart as it passes.

If you optimize to the point that the setting shatters into a million tiny pieces, then you have a problem.

This is a problem in many games. In D&D all of the canonical settings are built around incredibly low optimization levels (and 2e assumptions carried over into 3.X that no longer hold) and it easily possible to build a party that quickly tears the setting in half and then force-evolves the world into some sort of Tippyverse analog.

In Exalted it's possible to build a character who literally kills everyone in Creation in a single move. In Vampire its possible to build a terrifying mind-control monster and trigger the apocalypse (or just nuclear war). Many other settings have various break points, and the more popular a setting the more likely it becomes for the internet to easily find them (at D&D levels of popularity the ability to discover game-breaking builds asymptotically approaches the existence of said builds).

And even at non-game-breaking levels of power, things become more difficult to control, and in many cases options become even more limited. The more speed you pour onto a car, the harder it becomes to control, and even if you can re-engineer the car to handle it, physics starts to dictate the kind of routes you can take. At normal driving speeds you can go anywhere, experience interesting terrain, even off-road on occasion. At NASCAR speeds all you can do is blast around a specially engineered circle over and over, and at drag racer speeds you can only go in a straight line.

So optimization isn't a problem in terms of the equivalent of doing 60 in a 45 zone. A skilled driver on a properly engineered road (roads are engineered to be safe well above their speed limit to compensate for conditions and to aid emergency vehicles as well as general safety) can handle that without any difficulty. If you try to do 120 in a 45 zone, you're probably going to crash and burn, no matter how awesome you are.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yes, but everyone else on the road thinks *the same thing*. And they think that either you're insane or a moron.

Everyone thinks they drive at an appropriate speed. That's why they're driving at that speed (caveat: Some people in a hurry might know they're going too fast)

Everyone thinks they optimize "the right amount", too. People that optimize more are "powergamers" or "munchkins". People that optimize less "aren't effective".

So, ultimately, what you have to do in a game is say "No, this is the acceptable amount of optimization". And then go with that. In some cases, this might be choosing a system that allows for less optimization. In some cases it might be setting limits on things. In others, it might be taking a look at characters for approval.

At least with driving, there's a fairly objective standard of "appropriate to the conditions". There are engineers whose job includes determining these speeds for the road type, the road's curves and hills, the traffic level, the type of land use surrounding the road, etc, and have adjusted values for the weather and lighting conditions as well.

[Newtonsolo313]

To continue with the driving analogy, it is possible to optimize to such an extent that your car effectively rips the road apart as it passes.

If you optimize to the point that the setting shatters into a million tiny pieces, then you have a problem.

This is a problem in many games. In D&D all of the canonical settings are built around incredibly low optimization levels (and 2e assumptions carried over into 3.X that no longer hold) and it easily possible to build a party that quickly tears the setting in half and then force-evolves the world into some sort of Tippyverse analog.

In Exalted it's possible to build a character who literally kills everyone in Creation in a single move. In Vampire its possible to build a terrifying mind-control monster and trigger the apocalypse (or just nuclear war). Many other settings have various break points, and the more popular a setting the more likely it becomes for the internet to easily find them (at D&D levels of popularity the ability to discover game-breaking builds asymptotically approaches the existence of said builds).

And even at non-game-breaking levels of power, things become more difficult to control, and in many cases options become even more limited. The more speed you pour onto a car, the harder it becomes to control, and even if you can re-engineer the car to handle it, physics starts to dictate the kind of routes you can take. At normal driving speeds you can go anywhere, experience interesting terrain, even off-road on occasion. At NASCAR speeds all you can do is blast around a specially engineered circle over and over, and at drag racer speeds you can only go in a straight line.

So optimization isn't a problem in terms of the equivalent of doing 60 in a 45 zone. A skilled driver on a properly engineered road (roads are engineered to be safe well above their speed limit to compensate for conditions and to aid emergency vehicles as well as general safety) can handle that without any difficulty. If you try to do 120 in a 45 zone, you're probably going to crash and burn, no matter how awesome you are.

thats not really a good analogy i mean characters usually don't loose control the more power they get, take for instance power word kill, clean controllable able to kill almost anyone in a setting. yes that one sidereal build can destroy the realm but they don't have to they don't lose the ability to make careful decisions just because they can kill literally everything

[Cluedrew]

To Max_Killjoy: You do realize that driving speed is a metaphor right? There is no "correct speed" in the metaphoric case. So the one driving the "correct speed" is the judgemental one.

There are speeds at which you should be driving in the literal case, and it is good if you drive in that range, but speed at which we drive in cars has nothing to do with optimization levels in a role-playing game. So let us keep the facts separate from the truth and stick to kyoryu's metaphor.

[The Glyphstone]

To Max_Killjoy: You do realize that driving speed is a metaphor right? There is no "correct speed" in the metaphoric case. So the one driving the "correct speed" is the judgemental one.

There are speeds at which you should be driving in the literal case, and it is good if you drive in that range, but speed at which we drive in cars has nothing to do with optimization levels in a role-playing game. So let us keep the facts separate from the truth and stick to kyoryu's metaphor.

No objective correct speed, at least. The 'correct speed' in this increasingly distorted metaphor would be, like kyoru said, a level of optimization specific to that table/game/road.

[Talakeal]

No objective correct speed, at least. The 'correct speed' in this increasingly distorted metaphor would be, like kyoru said, a level of optimization specific to that table/game/road.

Correct no, but intended, yes. If you look at the CR rules in the DMG and Monster Manual you can get a pretty good idea of the optimization level that the game designers had in mind.