PDA

View Full Version : Unintended Consequence of Optimization Guides?



BreaktheStatue
2018-06-28, 06:24 AM
Question for GMs: Does your experience reading/familiarity with optimization guides, or posts about certain optimized builds, negatively prejudice you against certain sub-classes or builds? Does it cause you to question player motives when they select certain sub-classes or builds?

My question isn't about the actual builds, or even the concept of OP/gamebreaking builds. My question is about whether or not the actual wording of these guides negatively predisposes you against certain subclasses you'd otherwise have an open mind (or more open mind) about.

An example from another thread: the School of Illusion Wizard from 5E. Every conversation/post I've ever read about this class is something like, "Yeah, this is really powerful and you'll be able to make a mockery of encounters if your DM lets you." This isn't the only sub-class I've seen described like this, but it's probably the best example I can think of.

Now, I've never DM-ed, but if I read something like this, and then a new player who I didn't know very well yet said, "I'm thinking of playing School of Illusion Wizard with lots of control/trickery spells," my mind would immediately go to, "I wonder if this guy's entire motivation is to make a mockery of my game, because he read somewhere that the School of Illusion is great for making a mockery of my game."

Again, this isn't a criticism of that (or any) specific class or build.

gkathellar
2018-06-28, 06:46 AM
Yes, that's the intent.

A parable:


In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.

"What are you doing?", asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to play Tic-tac-toe", Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?", asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of how to play", Sussman said.

Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.

To put it differently (and to exaggerate the point, if we're being fair), I am negatively predisposed to the idea of suffering third-degree burns all over my body, despite never having had that experience. I'm also pretty confident that said negative predisposition is for the best.

Optimization guides are meant to save you the trouble of finding out for yourself.

NichG
2018-06-28, 06:49 AM
Not necessarily guides in particular, but the knowledge that certain tricks or optimizations have entered the overall zeitgeist leads me to tend to favor games in which there are sufficiently significant perturbations to the rules or the usual expectations underlying encounters/etc such that those tricks are no longer the optimal ones - generally via buffing other options rather than nerfing the broken one. Essentially, as a DM, I want to avoid any situation where a player is on autopilot rather than needing to actively think about the specific context of the game.

That is to say, I'm generally more comfortable with a game breaking build if I know that the player themselves figured it out than if it's just something they got from a guide, because it feels more like the player is actually participating actively in the former case. And if necessary, I will just raise the power level of the game as a whole and hide a bunch of breakable interactions in the homebrew, in order to maintain a situation where players are rewarded for being willing to engage.

Psyren
2018-06-28, 11:29 AM
I'm a handbook writer myself, so take my biased perspective with a grain of salt, but personally I don't think the folks who point out tricks (and traps) should be to blame if the metagame gets stale as a result. The developers are the ones with the power to print new or modify (buff/nerf) existing content.

But even if the designers don't, there is plenty you as a GM can do to keep things fresh. Handbooks tend to make assumptions about what obstacles are likely to face a player - they have to, because every table is different. Often they are very good assumptions (e.g. "you need a way to deal with undead, because undead are everywhere, while oozes and fey are more rare") but they are assumptions nonetheless. Knowing which advice is widespread and which is more niche is beneficial for GMs too, because you can easily challenge your players as a result by stirring in a few more of those niche cases than normal. That illusionist of yours may find himself up against the odd abjurer or diviner for instance who can get around his deception. You can even justify it in universe - bad guys can do homework on the party too.

And failing all of that - just put on the designer hat yourself. You have the power to buff alternate options if you feel like everyone is gravitating towards the same suggestions, or (more drastically) nerf the options that are disproportionately powerful. Shifting the blame to handbooks strikes me as misguided at best and lazy at worst.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-28, 02:11 PM
It has nothing to do with the guides.

When I meet a new player that has an optimized character is always a Yellow Flag at least. And, as most such players are jerks in real life, that easily bumps it up to a Red Flag.

While there are a couple theoretical optimizers that just want to play the game like a normal play, but they are rare. Most optimizers are jerks that just want to ruin games. That is their idea of fun: to ruin the fun of others.

A lot of optimizers will say they did it by ''mistake'', as if they tripped and a book feel on their head and made and optimized character.

Worse, many just try and deflect and ''blame the game'' and say things like ''well page 22 says I can do this, so it's the game designers fault" and then they make the huge leap that they ''must use the stuff'' and ''must be a jerk and ruin the game''. Not that that makes any sense...

Rerem115
2018-06-28, 02:22 PM
I'm guilty of being a bit of an optimizer myself. I don't think it's ever been a problem, though, since in the campaigns where i got to a high level, I was optimized towards things like being really good at music, and in the campaigns where i took a more "serious" approach to optimization, they wound up ending before I got more than one feat. :smalltongue:

King of Nowhere
2018-06-28, 02:30 PM
it creates the misconception that what is relied on guides is normal play, which it totally isn't.
guides also tend to assume that the enemy is never prepared for your tricks - so many times I read that forcecage can singlehandedly end an encounter, when in practice it can be negated in a lot of level-appropriate ways.

Took me a biit of practice to figure out the differences between actual gaming and theory.

BreaktheStatue
2018-06-28, 06:09 PM
I'm a handbook writer myself, so take my biased perspective with a grain of salt, but personally I don't think the folks who point out tricks (and traps) should be to blame if the metagame gets stale as a result. The developers are the ones with the power to print new or modify (buff/nerf) existing content.

But even if the designers don't, there is plenty you as a GM can do to keep things fresh. Handbooks tend to make assumptions about what obstacles are likely to face a player - they have to, because every table is different. Often they are very good assumptions (e.g. "you need a way to deal with undead, because undead are everywhere, while oozes and fey are more rare") but they are assumptions nonetheless. Knowing which advice is widespread and which is more niche is beneficial for GMs too, because you can easily challenge your players as a result by stirring in a few more of those niche cases than normal. That illusionist of yours may find himself up against the odd abjurer or diviner for instance who can get around his deception. You can even justify it in universe - bad guys can do homework on the party too.

And failing all of that - just put on the designer hat yourself. You have the power to buff alternate options if you feel like everyone is gravitating towards the same suggestions, or (more drastically) nerf the options that are disproportionately powerful. Shifting the blame to handbooks strikes me as misguided at best and lazy at worst.

Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to optimization guides. I read them myself, and they usually offer a lot of new perspective on things I've never thought about.

My question was if GMs are ever put-off of certain classes/abilities because of how they're described in these guides. I'm not trying to prove that guides are bad or anything, it was just a thought I had.

PairO'Dice Lost
2018-06-28, 06:26 PM
While there are a couple theoretical optimizers that just want to play the game like a normal play, but they are rare. Most optimizers are jerks that just want to ruin games. That is their idea of fun: to ruin the fun of others.

This is a pretty unfair characterization, I'd say. I've run lots of games for lots of groups at relatively high optimization levels all around, and I'd say most optimizers are team players like any other, they just like delving into the mechanics more than most. It's a minority of players who want to ruin others' fun (though it's entirely possible that most optimizers you've personally interacted with have been that type), which is why "optimizer," "powergamer," and "munchkin" are all different terms with different connotations.

Mechalich
2018-06-28, 08:12 PM
My question was if GMs are ever put-off of certain classes/abilities because of how they're described in these guides. I'm not trying to prove that guides are bad or anything, it was just a thought I had.

Yes, if they reveal design failures.

Many forms of optimization, in a wide variety of games, are dependent upon insufficiently rigorous mathematical testing allowing for game-breaking possibilities. Some of them flow from the designers simply not thinking about consequences or just not trying to balance abilities properly at all. Characters that lean into such traits are therefore deliberately taking advantage of design failure to produce something the game never intended to allow (3.5 diplomancers are an obvious example, that's not what the diplomacy skill was supposed to do).

To use a non-D&D example, many games in modern or near-future settings have a problem with the destructive power of wealth. Essentially, allowing a super-rich character into the game renders most challenges nothing more than a matter of leveraging wealth. This is not only overpowered, but also distorting. If your game is about Vampires, the path to ultimate power shouldn't be about having a giant bank account. That just isn't fun.

Joe the Rat
2018-06-28, 08:23 PM
The biggest issue - and one I am guilty of at times - is treating guides as the best way (not quite only way: Good guides present options and their impacts) to build and play. Using a black-font race and picking some red spells or skills? Why bother playing? Efficient and Effective.

The best approach was what someone said in organized play: "That's a difficult build." What you are doing isn't wrong, but it will be challenging.

lawgnome
2018-06-28, 08:41 PM
I think that, from a GMs perspective, optimization guides are great. They do several things for you:

1) They teach you about many of the tricks that different classes can do. If you have 3 new players and one experienced player, you can use that information to help the 3 new players make decisions with their character build so that all 4 players are roughly equivalent in power.

2) They teach you what to look out for when designing adventures, both good and bad. If a player is bringing a potentially game-breaking build (in this case meaning a character build that will overshadow all other players), you can recognize it and either ask them to change, or design around that builds weaknesses so that other players can have a chance in the spotlight too (This character is a combat powerhouse? Make sure there are a few good social encounters for the other characters to participate in, for example).

3) They give information about the power level to expect from players without having to directly experience it yourself. I played 3.5 for a long time, but my only experience with 5 has been as a GM. I don’t have the time or the game experience with the new system to experience all of these builds myself. I don’t know how a warlock plays. I don’t know how a paladin plays. But I can read a guide and get a good idea of what to expect.


Honestly, as long as you understand that optimization guides are not representative of all play, they are very useful. It is only a problem if you look at the guides and say “this is the definitive way to play this character, and only the things that this guide says is good can ever be good.”

Mr Beer
2018-06-28, 09:06 PM
This is a pretty unfair characterization, I'd say.

That's kind of his thing.

ExLibrisMortis
2018-06-28, 09:26 PM
I like guides in general. Guides are great for crunchy games with lots of trap options that are suggested to be good, like D&D 3.5. I've not done an inventory, but I'm guessing that's also the type of ruleset guidemakers tend to focus on.


The biggest issue - and one I am guilty of at times - is treating guides as the best way (not quite only way: Good guides present options and their impacts) to build and play. Using a black-font race and picking some red spells or skills? Why bother playing? Efficient and Effective.
I get your point, but I just want to add that I've seen builds with red options (3.5 druids with Self-Sufficient, for example), and mostly they were just dull. In 3.5, at least, the rule of thumb for feats is "adding abilities is good, adding numbers is bad". A good part of the time, the one star/red options, like the +2/+2 skill feats, are boring as well as weak, and the five-star rated options, like Leap Attack, are interesting (and Leap Attack isn't even *that* interesting, certainly not mechanically, but it's character-defining and it has moving parts). I definitely notice the same effect myself, though, where picking average-rated feats just seems like a waste when there's another five-star feat to be had.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-28, 09:29 PM
This is a pretty unfair characterization, I'd say. I've run lots of games for lots of groups at relatively high optimization levels all around, and I'd say most optimizers are team players like any other, they just like delving into the mechanics more than most. It's a minority of players who want to ruin others' fun (though it's entirely possible that most optimizers you've personally interacted with have been that type), which is why "optimizer," "powergamer," and "munchkin" are all different terms with different connotations.

Well, of course all players say they are ''optimizers'' as that is the cool buzz word. They don't come out and say they are a power gamer or munchkin or jerk.

WindStruck
2018-06-28, 10:17 PM
Worse, many just try and deflect and ''blame the game'' and say things like ''well page 22 says I can do this, so it's the game designers fault" and then they make the huge leap that they ''must use the stuff'' and ''must be a jerk and ruin the game''. Not that that makes any sense...

Kind of funny, but it reminds me of players on online games, be it FPS games or MMOs who exploit glitches. The most common of lame excuses these players give when caught is that it's the developer's fault for putting in such bugs and that "anyone can do them."

Even though, and usually repeatedly, bug abuse rules state that if something seems too good to be true or obviously not as intended by the designers, then it's going to be a bug abuse. "Anyone" can hack or exploit a game, given the know-how. But not everyone would take advantage of that knowledge even if it was given to them, and even fewer people would actively seek out that knowledge.

Psyren
2018-06-28, 11:13 PM
Just to be clear, I'm not opposed to optimization guides. I read them myself, and they usually offer a lot of new perspective on things I've never thought about.

My question was if GMs are ever put-off of certain classes/abilities because of how they're described in these guides. I'm not trying to prove that guides are bad or anything, it was just a thought I had.

I can't speak for all GMs by any means, but for when I GM, handbooks represent a puzzle to solve or a challenge to overcome. As others have said, the high-rated stuff in the books is almost always counterable; finding interesting ways to do that (particularly soft counters that can still be overcome with some teamwork or planning, rather than completely invalidating someone's build) is fun.

As for classes - generally high-tier classes only work as well as the person playing them. They tend to have very low floors to go with their very high ceilings.

Hawkstar
2018-06-29, 12:33 AM
It has nothing to do with the guides.

When I meet a new player that has an optimized character is always a Yellow Flag at least. And, as most such players are jerks in real life, that easily bumps it up to a Red Flag.

While there are a couple theoretical optimizers that just want to play the game like a normal play, but they are rare. Most optimizers are jerks that just want to ruin games. That is their idea of fun: to ruin the fun of others.

A lot of optimizers will say they did it by ''mistake'', as if they tripped and a book feel on their head and made and optimized character.

Worse, many just try and deflect and ''blame the game'' and say things like ''well page 22 says I can do this, so it's the game designers fault" and then they make the huge leap that they ''must use the stuff'' and ''must be a jerk and ruin the game''. Not that that makes any sense...
To me, I love Optimization Guides because they cut through the cruft of the game, at least when it comes to building characters. I probably still use technically outdated Pathfinder guides, simply because they focus my attention on options. There are a lot of traps in the system (Such as a Fighter who takes Toughness thinking it'll make him meaningfully tougher, not realizing Toughness is for a wizard in a level 1 One-Shot adventure), and Optimization guides can help you build a character to do what you want, while still being able to face the challenges of the adventure.

In fact... have you even looked at an Optimization guide? They're guides, not straightjackets/instructions. I find them to be a pretty invaluable resource because they list a lot of options, not just the 'most optimal' ones, and explain whats' good about each one, or, in the case of several traps, why they are bad and can lead to frustration and a feeling of impotence during play. The guides allow me to make characters that can actually work well, even if I take several "Orange" or even "Red" options because i love the flavor of them (For example, a Gnoll Bard in 4e).

MoiMagnus
2018-06-29, 04:36 AM
While there are a couple theoretical optimizers that just want to play the game like a normal play, but they are rare. Most optimizers are jerks that just want to ruin games. That is their idea of fun: to ruin the fun of others.

While I did encounter few of them that wanted to ruin the game for others, that's rarely their goal.
Optimizers (and their variations) want to "win" against the game. Which has for by-product of ruining the game for those who want to "play" in it.
Which mean that most of them are incompatible as players with "non-optimizers", but a team of optimizers do quite well (they end up fighting enemies 5 level greater than them, or if the DM is itself an optimizer, it become a Dark-Soul-like game).


Question for GMs: Does your experience reading/familiarity with optimization guides, or posts about certain optimized builds, negatively prejudice you against certain sub-classes or builds? Does it cause you to question player motives when they select certain sub-classes or builds?

My question isn't about the actual builds, or even the concept of OP/gamebreaking builds. My question is about whether or not the actual wording of these guides negatively predisposes you against certain subclasses you'd otherwise have an open mind (or more open mind) about.

An example from another thread: the School of Illusion Wizard from 5E. Every conversation/post I've ever read about this class is something like, "Yeah, this is really powerful and you'll be able to make a mockery of encounters if your DM lets you." This isn't the only sub-class I've seen described like this, but it's probably the best example I can think of.

Now, I've never DM-ed, but if I read something like this, and then a new player who I didn't know very well yet said, "I'm thinking of playing School of Illusion Wizard with lots of control/trickery spells," my mind would immediately go to, "I wonder if this guy's entire motivation is to make a mockery of my game, because he read somewhere that the School of Illusion is great for making a mockery of my game."

Again, this isn't a criticism of that (or any) specific class or build.

The main problems is when a player want to make a sub-optimal build, and another player want to convince him not to.
I tend to patch may games when things does not go as I want.
(For example I've added to all my legendary monsters the legendary action "make a save check against an effect, this action is always possible", because I wanted some fight with a unique enemy, and stun-lock was a problem.)
So my players no that OP build will be nerfed. They know that I can make an entire narrative arc with Psion-like powers (so attacks against Int save) so they should not "blindly min-max". However, if it is not OP, but just stronger, I will just try to adapt the plot to make sure that "everybody can shine".

The main problem is not optimization guide, nor optimizers. The main problem is when you have different players that have incompatible view of what is a RPG.

Glorthindel
2018-06-29, 05:20 AM
Question for GMs: Does your experience reading/familiarity with optimization guides, or posts about certain optimized builds, negatively prejudice you against certain sub-classes or builds? Does it cause you to question player motives when they select certain sub-classes or builds?

My question isn't about the actual builds, or even the concept of OP/gamebreaking builds. My question is about whether or not the actual wording of these guides negatively predisposes you against certain subclasses you'd otherwise have an open mind (or more open mind) about.


Maybe.

I love gishes, but have had an almost irrational dislike for Hexblades since they first appeared. I can't be sure if this is due to the frequency of the words "multiclass Paladin / Hexblade Warlock" appearing in optimisation guides, or the fact the fluff seems weak compared to the other quite solidly built Patron ideas (that makes me wonder if they put together the rules first, and just hacked together a bit of fluff to try and justify it). Certainly if player uttered the words Hexblade in my presence, I am likely to be sceptical of their motives.

Rhedyn
2018-06-29, 06:15 AM
Well for me, all the PF magus guides recommend Dex focused builds, but they are drastically inferior to Pool/Int focused Str builds (start 18 str and leave it there).

So I keep seeing these silly Dex magi join parties to just die after a few sessions because they heard it was optimal. Oh sure, it's a fighter+ build, but it's still too squishy and doesn't get the big pool that makes a magus a really dangerous warrior and spellcaster.

Faily
2018-06-29, 09:35 AM
I like to look at guides when it comes to classes I haven't tried yet and seem to have more moving parts than I'm used to.

Like Pathfinder's Summoner class. I've yet to play one, but I've looked at a lot of guides to get an impression of how the class works in play (because I rarely, if ever, deal with summoning or minionmancy of any sort myself). The guides have helped me understand better how it works, so I can from there build the character I have in mind.

Same with some of the really low Tier classes I like to try on occassion just to see how I can make them work. Looking at guides point out things I didn't think of or know about. (Still trying to get 3.5's Dragon Shaman to work, damnit xD).

Resileaf
2018-06-29, 10:18 AM
Optimizing is fine. Unless you try to force it on other people playing with you. Some people enjoy doing unviable concepts for the hell of it. Like a dwarf paladin, for example. You don't get to decide what the other player gets to play if he wants to have fun with it.

Nifft
2018-06-29, 12:52 PM
There are several good things about guides:

- They educate new players and help set expectations about how the rules work in practice. The game's flavor text does a very poor job of advertising the capabilities of the various tactics. For example, knowing that playing a blaster in 3.5e is somewhat underpowered relative to other spellcasting options can save new players some frustration.

- They show case some non-obvious build choices, and they make it clear that you may need to have a plan in advance. This also saves new players some frustration.



There are several bad things about guides:

- They seem to insinuate that some oddball / default-unusual options are standard, thereby setting bad expectations.

- They tend to discuss how to maximize power in absolute terms, rather than how to fit into a party at each tier. In my experience, maximizing absolute PC power is less useful than calibrating relative PC power.

- Since a guide-follower can only control a single PC, some guides may focus on and instill the idea that your PC must operate in isolation. That's actively harmful since D&D is about a party. Guides like the GOD Wizard handbook are excellent exceptions to this flaw.

- Some guides mix in theoretical optimization advice. That tends to set up a future conflict between the DM and the player who is attempting something broken or trying to use a bad-faith reading of the rules.


-- -- --

In terms of the OP's questions, I don't think player motivation needs to exclude character power. Some people like the feeling of power, and that's okay. The game involves a lot of combat which the PCs are expected to win, so the game can pretty easily accommodate those people.

I do think that expecting to make a mockery of (many?) encounters is a bad expectation to set, so I guess in that case it's possible that the wording of a guide can be another negative.

Darth Ultron
2018-06-29, 08:03 PM
Which mean that most of them are incompatible as players with "non-optimizers", but a team of optimizers do quite well (they end up fighting enemies 5 level greater than them, or if the DM is itself an optimizer, it become a Dark-Soul-like game).

Sure, if you have optimzer players and an optimizing DM, they can all play the great fun of ''how fast can we ruin the game for ourselves and stop playing."

Pex
2018-06-29, 08:12 PM
I optimize and don't apologize for it. I do not use guides a person I never met and never will posted on the internet. I use something worse. I read the rules and figure out on my own what set of abilities I want my character to have. I apply my knowledge in the character's creation and play the character accordingly. If it bothers a DM my character can do more than "I attack for 1d8 + 3 damage" or "I cast Magic Missile" or "I cast Cure Wounds", that's not a DM I want to play with.

Hawkstar
2018-06-29, 11:01 PM
Sure, if you have optimzer players and an optimizing DM, they can all play the great fun of ''how fast can we ruin the game for ourselves and stop playing."

It really depends on what you mean by "Optimization". Most guides, from what I see, aren't "How to Break The Game" - they're "How to do what you want to do, because holy **** this system is dense and loaded with options that aren't always relevant to your interests, and some that don't do what they're supposed to." - For example, stay the hell away from the Whirlwind Attack chain, because it doesn't synergize with itself very well, and you can't really get good value for your feats from it. Meanwhile, they can point you to how to effectively handle your class' abilities and features, and what feats synergize with them (And how to build in the direction you want to take your character)

Guizonde
2018-06-30, 07:18 AM
Well for me, all the PF magus guides recommend Dex focused builds, but they are drastically inferior to Pool/Int focused Str builds (start 18 str and leave it there).

So I keep seeing these silly Dex magi join parties to just die after a few sessions because they heard it was optimal. Oh sure, it's a fighter+ build, but it's still too squishy and doesn't get the big pool that makes a magus a really dangerous warrior and spellcaster.

when i read the magus guide, i got that impression too. i was planning on building a finesse-magus with as much int as dex until the dm imposed a theme to the campaign that scrapped those plans. never crossed my mind to go full-dex (i'd do probably ranger for that) or full fighting (barbarian or fighter would've done it better. it's a combat caster after all, might as well use spells and a good dodge to stab something full of poison and electricity, right?

Rhedyn
2018-06-30, 07:57 AM
when i read the magus guide, i got that impression too. i was planning on building a finesse-magus with as much int as dex until the dm imposed a theme to the campaign that scrapped those plans. never crossed my mind to go full-dex (i'd do probably ranger for that) or full fighting (barbarian or fighter would've done it better. it's a combat caster after all, might as well use spells and a good dodge to stab something full of poison and electricity, right?
Well no, it's Pathfinder, so you need to buffing your attack stat all the time and the finesse build eats feats. Meanwhile the big pool build can put all those feats into making a bigger pool and can afford the measly 1 point per round of Arcane Accuracy to turn INT into an attack stat and the larger polymorph forms buff str damage.

stoutstien
2018-06-30, 09:41 AM
As a DM I have no problems with optimized PC/ guides. A player can only "break" a game if I let them.
Most of the optimized concepts are one trick ponies and at best they do more damage, one of the easiest problems to solve behind screen.
I can't complain that players want to pick more powerful subclasses and feats. It's my job to make other choices appealing.

Dimers
2018-06-30, 10:19 AM
Yes and no. When I DM, I restrict available sources to what I've read and understand. Op-guides frequently stretch beyond that, and I admit I feel a little threatened by optimization tricks from that unknown territory. When the guide talks about something I've seen, it's good to have that extra perspective to compare against, and I often end up thinking of the optimized class (or whatever) more favorably rather than less.