PDA

View Full Version : I do not understand



denthor
2018-09-27, 09:48 PM
Why does it appear that the majority of this board is so obviously obsessive over

"I need the most optimal " best character.

I dominated a 7th level game with a 2nd level wizard.

I held my own with a 6th fighter /4th Rouge/3 mage with one magic item +1 halberd with ghost touch.

The others had magic armor, enhanced str., more powerful weapons.

Explanation would be nice as to why you need to put out 100 points of damage per round.

Am I the only one that plays this for the challenge?

The Insanity
2018-09-27, 09:52 PM
It's almost like people play for different reasons than you. I know, people are weird like that.

Darth Ultron
2018-09-27, 09:59 PM
Am I the only one that plays this for the challenge?

It's just the people that make up the majority of the boards often posting members. I call them the Everyone Collective.

They like to play the types of games you mentioned, and very often all agree with each other.

But they in no way are really ''everyone", and there are ones....like myself, that stand 180 opposite of them.

Kyrell1978
2018-09-27, 10:00 PM
Why does it appear that the majority of this board is so obviously obsessive over

"I need the most optimal " best character.

I dominated a 7th level game with a 2nd level wizard.

I held my own with a 6th fighter /4th Rouge/3 mage with one magic item +1 halberd with ghost touch.

The others had magic armor, enhanced str., more powerful weapons.

Explanation would be nice as to why you need to put out 100 points of damage per round.

Am I the only one that plays this for the challenge?

For some people the fun of the game comes in the optimization of the character. It's like a puzzle...how do I fit these particular pieces together in order to become the most optimal possible.

Rynjin
2018-09-27, 10:23 PM
{Scrubbed}

Mr Beer
2018-09-27, 11:48 PM
Why does it appear that the majority of this board is so obviously obsessive over
"I need the most optimal " best character.

Evidence please?

Millstone85
2018-09-28, 12:37 AM
I would say that character building is a game of its own, and many enjoy it.

Kaptin Keen
2018-09-28, 01:07 AM
Why does it appear that the majority of this board is so obviously obsessive over

"I need the most optimal " best character.

I dominated a 7th level game with a 2nd level wizard.

I held my own with a 6th fighter /4th Rouge/3 mage with one magic item +1 halberd with ghost touch.

The others had magic armor, enhanced str., more powerful weapons.

Explanation would be nice as to why you need to put out 100 points of damage per round.

Am I the only one that plays this for the challenge?

So .. you go straight from asking why the board is obsessive over optimizing, best characters - to bragging about how you dominate a game (which, by the way, you play with other people - not against), and how you play for the challenge.

And that doesn't strike you as hugely ironic?

MoiMagnus
2018-09-28, 05:56 AM
Why does it appear that the majority of this board is so obviously obsessive over

"I need the most optimal " best character.

I dominated a 7th level game with a 2nd level wizard.

I held my own with a 6th fighter /4th Rouge/3 mage with one magic item +1 halberd with ghost touch.

The others had magic armor, enhanced str., more powerful weapons.

Explanation would be nice as to why you need to put out 100 points of damage per round.

Am I the only one that plays this for the challenge?

1) Some people can't take pleasure in a challenge if they didn't make the most optimal choice they could do. They are haunted by "I should have make an optimal build" at each failure, and "that was easy, my build is not even optimal and I've still won" at each success. They want the most optimal build, and expect the DM to create a challenge adequate to the power of their build. In some case, this kind of player tend to not tolerate their own mistake, and argue to roll back to a decision "they should have made".

2) Some people just have more pleasure optimizing builds than actually playing RPG anyway (and the game session are just "testing their build to find weakness and how to improve it"). The goal can be personnal satisfaction of solving the puzzle of character build, or the personnal satisfaction of breaking a system and forcing the DM to houserule against their build (as a kind of competition against the DM).

3) Some people (like me), like theory crafing about the optimal build, even though they (I) usually don't use those optimal build in real game sessions.

4) See other responses

Rhedyn
2018-09-28, 06:07 AM
Why does it appear that the majority of this board is so obviously obsessive over

"I need the most optimal " best character.

I dominated a 7th level game with a 2nd level wizard.

I held my own with a 6th fighter /4th Rouge/3 mage with one magic item +1 halberd with ghost touch.

The others had magic armor, enhanced str., more powerful weapons.

Explanation would be nice as to why you need to put out 100 points of damage per round.

Am I the only one that plays this for the challenge?
The Rules Cyclopedia is available for Print on Demand (POD), I suggest that system

Seto
2018-09-28, 07:24 AM
I think you're on to something when you use the word "obsessive". When you are passionate about a hobby, it occupies your mind a lot. You tend to get obsessive about it - god knows I do. So, even when you're not actively engaging in it, you try to explore it in different ways. Tabletop gaming epitomizes this, because unlike a series or a sport (where you can binge-watch or go practice on your own), you can't always be playing TTrpgs - for most people, once a week is the best you could hope for.

So what do you do when you can't wait for the next session and want to occupy your time by engaging in solo RPG-related activities? Reading up on it is one way. Planning your next character or campaign is another. Posting on these forums is a great way. And reading all the manuals and trying to produce optimal characters, or plan out the best feat progression for your current character, is a way a lot of people espouse.
When I started to play, I didn't care much about the mechanics of my character, because I was mostly there for the narrative freedom and immersion (and I was quite intimidated by the complexity of the system, and the mastery required to build effective characters). Mind you, I'm still not nearly at TO levels. But I progressively got into reading guides and manuals and thinking about how I could improve my characters. Because that's the thing: you can't really plan out story or character arcs on your own, because you don't know how the game is gonna go. You have to be at the table to experience the narrative side of the game. But you can fiddle with mechanical parts between sessions.

TLDR: Optimizing your character is a way to keep being invested in the game and learning about the system even when you're not actually at the table.

The Insanity
2018-09-28, 07:29 AM
Why optimize? Because we CAN (sometimes even have to to have fun with a suboptimal concept).

PastorofMuppets
2018-09-28, 07:51 AM
As far as I can tell some folks like to play the game by trying to see what can be accomplished rather than by trying to see the storyline through. It’s how I think of my first and second play through on most computer games.

In play through one, I just follow the narrative and try to be true to the experience the development team seemed to set up. Second play through is more like the “optimize” run, trying to see what I can set up to give me advantages that were clearly not anticipated or to just break the games(for ex. Stealing made Easy in Bethesda games when you just wall off an NPC with movable debris)


I’d imagine the more power gamer types of players have just been gaming so long they have moved into the What can I get away style of gaming.

Willie the Duck
2018-09-28, 08:03 AM
Hi! First and foremost, try to imagine coming across someone else on this forum making a post that is similar in tone to this one, but with different specifics. Let's say one that starts with 'Why does it appear that the majority of this board is so obviously obsessive over rollplay instead of roleplay?, ' and ends with 'Am I the only one that plays this for the playing in character?' Do you think you might feel they were doing a little self-congratulatory posturing? Apply it to this situation, and it might explain some of the condescending responses you are getting.

Now, on to the meat of the question--


Am I the only one that plays this for the challenge?

If you are playing this 'for the challenge', then you are still 'playing to win,' so to speak -- as opposed to playing for the resultant story, or just to spend time with your friends, etc. Mind you, I don't mean you don't also play for these things, just that you yourself are couching this discussion in terms of goal=your character succeeding.

So, what can be done here, on the forums, that make you more likely to succeed? Be smarter? Know your DM (and what they will throw at you) better? Not really something one can do here all that well. I suppose we could go over drills like "If you find yourself fighting flying monkeys while scaling a scaffold on a partially constructed temple, your best bet is to _____," but that seems rather impractical. If your goal is to succeed, that which you can most readily do to improve your likelihood to that goal, that can be accomplished here, is pre-plan the best possible starting position.

In the earliest of games, that would mostly come through making one's starting equipment be the most efficient use of your starting gold (and, as Rhedyn suggested, those games are cheap and available). Later, attribute assignment made aligning stats to class part of it. Later editions moved (with a slight step back in 5e's case, but it is still a 'build-friendly' game) towards planning entire character leveling careers 1-20, supposedly in no small part because it facilitates being able to mentally engage with what-ifs in between gaming sessions.

But beyond that, I think it has to do with how forums, and the internet, work. Let's take your example of 'I dominated a 7th level game with a 2nd level wizard.' Well, let's be honest, you totally could have made that up. Even if you personally didn't, we all know someone we've seen on the internet who we are quite sure did. So it conveys no status. Making a character build and presenting it, that's tangible. People can look at it, make sure it is legit, run the numbers, and then say, 'okay, that is suitably impressive, welcome to the group.'

On some level (I guess the treating us not-appreciably-different-from-troupe-of-monkeys level), forum-going is a socio-cultural bonding activity where people are seeking group membership by shared interest. We each relay a 'I like D&D, and here's what I did that is vaguely impressive and shows group alignment' statement, and the rest of us relay a 'welcome, member, you have proven that you are one of us.' To that end, making a build is a display of skills that has commoditized weight because it is verifiable, while hard fought victories do not.

It's not that people here (and every time I see someone clearly think that they are worlds away more impressive than everyone else here, I assume that they are missing/ignoring that everyone else here is also only showing the parts that have weight in this context) don't value hard fought victories where the marginal victory-profit is the highest. I'm sure, at-the-gaming-table, everyone will laud and applaud the individual who pulled a victory off with nothing but pluck and guile. It's just not a big discussion point here because it is impossible to verify.

Pleh
2018-09-28, 08:51 AM
Maybe it's because optimizing requires a lot of work and access to many resources, while not optimizing doesn't. Therefore, people unconcerned with optimizing tend to not look online for support and this forum winds up with a disproportionate concentration of players with interest in optimization.

Hyperversum
2018-09-28, 08:53 AM
I think you're on to something when you use the word "obsessive". When you are passionate about a hobby, it occupies your mind a lot. You tend to get obsessive about it - god knows I do. So, even when you're not actively engaging in it, you try to explore it in different ways. Tabletop gaming epitomizes this, because unlike a series or a sport (where you can binge-watch or go practice on your own), you can't always be playing TTrpgs - for most people, once a week is the best you could hope for.

So what do you do when you can't wait for the next session and want to occupy your time by engaging in solo RPG-related activities? Reading up on it is one way. Planning your next character or campaign is another. Posting on these forums is a great way. And reading all the manuals and trying to produce optimal characters, or plan out the best feat progression for your current character, is a way a lot of people espouse.
When I started to play, I didn't care much about the mechanics of my character, because I was mostly there for the narrative freedom and immersion (and I was quite intimidated by the complexity of the system, and the mastery required to build effective characters). Mind you, I'm still not nearly at TO levels. But I progressively got into reading guides and manuals and thinking about how I could improve my characters. Because that's the thing: you can't really plan out story or character arcs on your own, because you don't know how the game is gonna go. You have to be at the table to experience the narrative side of the game. But you can fiddle with mechanical parts between sessions.

TLDR: Optimizing your character is a way to keep being invested in the game and learning about the system even when you're not actually at the table.

^Basically this.

Also, I have a personal view about "optimization".
I play mostly good characters, probably because I am so (without the "sacrifice my life for random others) and I am not at my ease when doing evil roles. When I play these characters, I am playing "heroes". Various kind of heroes, but still heroes. The brave paladin fighting off an Cthulu-lovers group, the tiefling Archivist-Malconvoker who likes to play the theatrical femme fatale but who is at hearth a good person, the wizard with "I will save my beloved teacher" as his main reason for adventuring and going out of his magic school etc.
And to succeed in their own quests and adventures, they have to be strong. There is a reason why my wizard wins where the others failed. And yeah, sometimes it's being smart and using their resources decently.
But not every encounter, not every situation is a chessboard where you have to move carefully to reach the solution.

Sometimes you brute force your way through the enemy, sometimes you just have to be the stronger caster during a duel, the stealthiest rogue who was able to enter the enemy castle unseen in the most dire condition. Sometimes your character simply have to be the best at what he does. And that's where optimization comes into the equation.
How do I make my PC the one being able to be the "hero"? How do obtain the best results from a certain concept?

Yeah, my Paladin at level 5 could have been a dude with a greatsword and the feats: Power Attack, Toughness and Weapon Focus. But why? He can be the same concept with Power Attack, Law Devotion and Divine Vigor.

Segev
2018-09-28, 12:50 PM
And, to be honest, if you "dominated" a 7th level game with a 2nd level character, you optimized (perhaps not intentionally) pretty darned hard. ^^;

JNAProductions
2018-09-28, 01:40 PM
Because, as was said earlier, it's hard to make an optimized character. It's easy to make an unoptimized one.

So, naturally, you're going to have more discussion over what's optimized than what's not.

In addition, you'll notice that a lot of the builds bandied about here (Coffeelocks in 5E, D2 Crusader or Pun-Pun in 3.5, and I'm sure there are examples in other systems) are not MEANT TO BE PLAYED. It's not "Do this and you'll break the game!" it's "Look at this neat exploit I found!"

Now, I will 100% agree that the average player on this forum has a higher optimization level than your average Joe Schmoe Roleplayer. But that's not a bad thing. So long as everyone is on the same page, who cares whether you're fighting adult dragons at level 1 or level 20? Roleplaying games are, first and foremost, games. And games are there for people to have fun. If you're having fun, what does it matter if you're having fun by dealing four-digit damage numbers or by playing a Commoner and somehow coming out ahead?

There CAN be issues, of course. If I showed up at a 3.5 table with Pun-Pun, I'd be a jerk, because unless Emperor Tippy is running that table, I'm blatantly overpowered, compared to the other players. But if I show up with a God Wizard, even if the rest of the table is a Monk, Fighter, and Barbarian, it's not an issue, or at least PROBABLY not, since my emphasis is on making other people more awesome, not stealing the show myself.

Also, just FYI-your first post comes across as pretty insulting towards us, so you might want to lighten the language a little.

Jama7301
2018-09-28, 01:52 PM
People have different ideas of fun. Sometimes, people are joining a new group and want to know how to make a specific build work well, or they have a new game and can't quite figure out how best to build what they're envisioning.

I see a bunch of those in the 5e forum, about tweaking builds. It's fine. Not for me. Not my cup of tea, but I'm not going to harangue someone over their excitement. A lot of them seem like people earnest to have their builds critiqued, which is cool.

Mastikator
2018-09-28, 01:52 PM
Sometimes I envy how much tabletop action other people on this board get...

Nifft
2018-09-28, 02:10 PM
Why does it appear that the majority of this board is so obviously obsessive over

"I need the most optimal " best character. Because it's easy.

It takes little effort to look up "standard" optimized characters. The work is already done for you. There's not much thinking needed, and yet you can get praised as if you were someone very smart by just talking about what someone else wrote.

It's also a way for people who don't have a game to play to feel like they're participating, albeit second-hand.



Am I the only one that plays this for the challenge? Of course not.

But you don't need to spend time on any forum to do that, and there's very little point in discussing how to do it best since every game is a new, separate challenge. There are no universal benchmarks to spend hours making spreadsheets about -- just lots of fun, to spend hours enjoying.

If you have a game, enjoy it and don't worry about what us forum dwellers think.

Segev
2018-09-28, 03:20 PM
Because it's easy.

It takes little effort to look up "standard" optimized characters. The work is already done for you. There's not much thinking needed, and yet you can get praised as if you were someone very smart by just talking about what someone else wrote.

Not always. Much like the kid picking up a crib sheet and memorizing last year's test answers, not knowing how it works enough to do it, yourself, makes using that intricately-woven build unwieldy. "How is this powerful?!" the inexperienced script kiddie-equivalent moans, not knowing when and how to use all the abilities in the optimal fashion.

Put another way, it's like handing a mana ramp deck to a newbie who barely understands how to play a speed deck: while he might get lucky and only get the right cards in his hand, if he has to do any strategizing or card-hunting, he'll likely botch the implementation of the deck.

Nifft
2018-09-28, 03:30 PM
Not always. Much like the kid picking up a crib sheet and memorizing last year's test answers, not knowing how it works enough to do it, yourself, makes using that intricately-woven build unwieldy. "How is this powerful?!" the inexperienced script kiddie-equivalent moans, not knowing when and how to use all the abilities in the optimal fashion.

Put another way, it's like handing a mana ramp deck to a newbie who barely understands how to play a speed deck: while he might get lucky and only get the right cards in his hand, if he has to do any strategizing or card-hunting, he'll likely botch the implementation of the deck.

Sorry but that's not at all relevant to what you've quoted.

I'm talking about how it's easy to give formulaic optimization advice (i.e. discuss well-documented builds).

You're talking about actually playing the damn things, which is not a service that advice threads can perform -- and not the thing which the thread is discussing, either.


To use your own terminology:
a) The forum can recommend and describe a mana ramp deck.
b) The forum cannot play the deck for you.

The thread is about (a), and not about (b).

Hope that helps.

Aneurin
2018-09-28, 04:56 PM
I blame Challenge Rating systems mostly.

A Challenge Rating system creates a firm expectation of what a PC should be capable of at any given point in the game, and if the PCs don't live up to that level of capability then they are, in effect, being punished for not building their characters "properly" as they're either more likely to take casualties, less likely to win (denying them experience if they're using a per-kill experience system, and the opportunity for material rewards in most systems) and more likely to expend large amounts of resources. Of course, they could face weaker encounters but for a lot of systems (okay, mostly D&D and its clones) they're receiving lower rewards for facing encounters that are weaker than they "should" face.

So, yes, by failing to optimize in the areas the game designer thinks they should optimize in, for lacking capabilities the designers expect you to have, you are being punished. And if you massively overshoot the mark, then you're getting rewarded with faster advancement and better gear.

On top of that, unless the designers are some kind of flawless genii, then they're going to mess up and have some threats stronger then they're meant to be (some are weaker, of course, but that's not really relevant here). Which means even keeping up with where you "should" be in terms of character power and utility doesn't actually mean you've got as good a chance of winning as you're meant to.

So, again, you're being effectively punished if you don't build as optimally as possible (whatever "optimally" means in your system and game of choice).



It's not the only reason, of course - others in this thread have already made some great examples of other reasons optimization happens - and optimization occurs in non-threat rating systems too. Some of that is bleed over from first exposure to a system that does feature threat rating systems, and some of it is just that some players - I'd go so far as to say "almost, if not all players" - want their characters to succeed, and enjoy having them succeed, or maybe just dislike failing. There are as many reasons to build strong as there are players... and PCs.

dmteeter
2018-09-29, 07:26 AM
I can see absolutely no benefit in not optimizing. If i show up to a table with a character capable of dropping 94DPR and you show up with a one eyed, one armed, fighter who uses a club and wears leather armor your the problem not me.

I build my character to be the best at the "thing" he's supposed to be the best at and i feel like that is what many of the people on this forum do. Building a fighter who doesn't do optimal damage, or a rogue who isn't optimized for stealth/sneak attacks is pointless.

Your problem seems to be that like so many gaming "purists" you seem to think just because my character is optimized for combat i choose to ignore roleplay. I personally tend to play bards/warlock party faces who use roleplay and skills as a first choice. But when combat happens you can guarantee my character is built to do as much damage as he can as fast as he can because otherwise that's how you die.

This whole post is basically you saying "Why does everyone try so hard to be good at this game, I'm bad at this game and that makes me cooler than you".

As someone who has dealt with quite a bit of ridicule and bullying over my choice of hobby from people outside the gaming community. It kinda strikes me as odd that someone who is part of that community would go out of their way to be rude about the way others choose to play the game.

ijon
2018-09-29, 09:02 AM
I can see absolutely no benefit in not optimizing.
time spent optimizing is time you can't spend doing other things
for the beer and pretzels player who just wants to chill and have some fun, there's a real benefit right there
and yeah, grabbing someone else's build saves time there, but you still gotta sit down and figure out how it works, and some people (me) just can't be bothered with that

but hey, that's why I play with dudes who also don't really care about optimizing

dmteeter
2018-09-29, 10:06 AM
time spent optimizing is time you can't spend doing other things
for the beer and pretzels player who just wants to chill and have some fun, there's a real benefit right there
and yeah, grabbing someone else's build saves time there, but you still gotta sit down and figure out how it works, and some people (me) just can't be bothered with that

but hey, that's why I play with dudes who also don't really care about optimizing


I don't use anyone else's builds. Building an optimal character does not really take anymore time then building a sub-par one. Just don't waste resources on inferior options?

Jama7301
2018-09-29, 10:10 AM
I don't use anyone else's builds. Building an optimal character does not really take anymore time then building a sub-par one. Just don't waste resources on inferior options?

Learning which options are inferior will either take A) Lots of time to learn the system at a deep mechanical level or B) lots of time fact checking and referencing each ability. A lot of things can look better at a glance than when you start to see how the mechanics interact and play starts.

ijon
2018-09-29, 10:28 AM
I don't use anyone else's builds. Building an optimal character does not really take anymore time then building a sub-par one. Just don't waste resources on inferior options?
how are you going to know which options are best if you don't take time to look into it, keeping in mind that complex game mechanics can interact in weird ways, the idea of "trap options" exists, and that there can be a lot of options, many of which the guy in question might not even be aware of?

(you can't)

MoiMagnus
2018-09-29, 10:42 AM
your the problem not me.


Not exactly (well, maybe in the extreme case you've brought up). The problem is the profound incompatibility between you two.

(Which mean that who is the problem is the one in minority is the playing group, unless pathological cases)

Some people "hate" optimisers because they break unwritten rules (which may be as simple as exceeding a certain powerlevel, but is more frequently a behaviour rule since they are not rational rules, they are just stuff that "feel wrong")

Morty
2018-09-30, 08:05 AM
People who don't optimize also don't make threads about how much they don't do it... usually, since sometimes you get threads like this one. So the threads about optimization are much more visible.

dmteeter
2018-10-01, 01:37 PM
how are you going to know which options are best if you don't take time to look into it, keeping in mind that complex game mechanics can interact in weird ways, the idea of "trap options" exists, and that there can be a lot of options, many of which the guy in question might not even be aware of?

(you can't)

I can see this argument if the player in question is new to the game in which case i never expect them to have optimal builds. But if you've been playing d&d even just from the time 5e came out until now on any kind of regular basis you should know that certain options just aren't great.

I also assume anyone who cares enough about the game to join a forum about gaming has invested at least a little bit of time into character ideas and options.

ijon
2018-10-01, 02:08 PM
I can see this argument if the player in question is new to the game in which case i never expect them to have optimal builds. But if you've been playing d&d even just from the time 5e came out until now on any kind of regular basis you should know that certain options just aren't great.

I also assume anyone who cares enough about the game to join a forum about gaming has invested at least a little bit of time into character ideas and options.
even knowing which options are great/good/okay/bad/terrible, oftentimes it's just easier and faster to go with "good enough". but sure, if you've got experience in making character builds it'll take a lot less time to get to "optimal".

even then, I know there's at least one guy who's been in the hobby forever and still doesn't care about all this optimization hoohah *cough2D8HPcough*

dmteeter
2018-10-01, 03:18 PM
I've played some weird concept characters who were not combat based at all. But they always have a role in the party and i always make sure that they are good at what they are supposed to be good at. If that makes sense. My biggest problem with this post is it seems like a guy whining about other people trying to be good at something they enjoy and that does not make any sense to me.

2D8HP
2018-10-01, 03:22 PM
....even then, I know there's at least one guy who's been in the hobby forever and still doesn't care about all this optimization hoohah *cough2D8HPcough*


*wipes cobwebs and dust out of eyes*

What?

Me not optimize?

Of course I optimize!

Most of my PC's have both a bow and a sword, and many have bags of flour, flasks of oil, and a tent.

That's optimal!

Though for me optimal is a PC that I can just tell the DM/GM what they try to do without my looking at a bunch abilities on character record sheet to remind myself of some "crunch" or another, because looking that up a lot is usually not fun for me!

O.P. and, everybody, just make your characters for optimal fun for you and the others at the table, whether that's Dr. Strange or drooling begger Cleatus, and part of that is having the right co-players, and the right PC for the party, and sometimes you find they don't mesh well at first, so make do, or look some more.

I'm doubtful that I'll ever have the mental agility to play a "god wizard" and I'm sure that annoys co-players who want to steam roll the foes, just as I'm annoyed by someone who insist that I play a more "optimal" PC with the stats I rolled.

I like playing Fighters who pretty much just shoot arrows and Thieves who just sneak, but I still enjoy seeing the shenanigans that other players come up with that I would not have.

Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

Everyone has their own jam.

Nifft
2018-10-01, 03:24 PM
*wipes cobwebs and dust out of eyes*

What?

Me not optimize?

Of course I optimize!

From what I've seen in threads where you requested character building advice, you optimize your characters to work best within your preferred play style.

Your play style is fixed, and that's fine -- so you optimize the character to best work mechanically given that style.

2D8HP
2018-10-01, 03:43 PM
From what I've seen in threads where you requested character building advice, you optimize your characters to work best within your preferred play style.

Your play style is fixed, and that's fine -- so you optimize the character to best work mechanically given that style.


That sounds right.

Optimize for fun.

If having a challenge is the goal (like to OP says they want) go ahead (keeping in mind that we play with other people and this is a group game).

If playing a PC that's extremely powerful for you is fun, go ahead (keeping in mind that we play with other people and this is a group game).

I think that most of us, despite our differing preferences, could have a fun time with each other, even when we (me) insist that our preferences are OBJECTIVELY!!! the most bestest.

Even if there's more people playing these games than in the past we're still a minority, of folks, so let's cut each other some slack.

ijon
2018-10-01, 04:24 PM
Most of my PC's have both a bow and a sword, and many have bags of flour, flasks of oil, and a tent.

That's optimal!
I'm sorry, unless your average combat round plays out like a fight scene from dragon ball (including how long it takes), it's just not good enough.

nah but seriously, you're just the first guy that came to mind when I was trying to think up an example of "I want something that Just Works".

me, I'm still trying to figure out whether my dissatisfaction with simple characters is because I just need more options in general, or because I've just been playing boring encounters/scenes. I like the idea of a macho warrior with a giant sword and an unbreakable confidence (or the hotshot cop with a fully loaded shotgun and a dictionary full of one liners), but man is it boring doing the "I attack, I attack again, I attack again" routine over and over, and I dunno if that's just me not being creative or my GM making fights too static in general. it's definitely something I'm gonna pay attention to in whatever games I run.

on the other hand, I really don't want to go back to a game where every round takes an hour because of people playing optimal builds they weren't really familiar with. I could make a plan after I finish my turn, then forget it by my next turn because of how long things took. that was awful.

blogging aside, I guess all I'm trying to say here is that there's nothing wrong with not playing the most powerful dude you can, especially if it means you're more comfortable with your character and can keep the game flowing that much better. after all, faster combat means more time for dumb one liners, and that's what really matters.

Slipperychicken
2018-10-01, 04:43 PM
I don't need to ask GITP for advice on the best accent for my fighter.

I do however, on occasion, need internet advice regarding the best ways to interpret, use, or modify game-rules to suit my purposes.

Nifft
2018-10-01, 04:46 PM
That sounds right.

Optimize for fun.

On a more serious note, all optimization is for a goal of some type.

You're only "more optimized" towards some goal or other -- there is no such thing as better in isolation, there's just better at _____.

Optimizing for a play-style is the same as optimizing for any other goal.

denthor
2018-10-01, 05:03 PM
I don't use anyone else's builds. Building an optimal character does not really take anymore time then building a sub-par one. Just don't waste resources on inferior options?

Then all of your fighters end up with the exact same build?

In 20 years I have not had two characters with same collection of feats.

Pex
2018-10-01, 06:38 PM
The ability and desire to optimize has no relation to the ability and desire for roleplaying engagement of campaign story. I enjoy both, so I do both. I refuse to apologize for it.

2D8HP
2018-10-01, 07:17 PM
The ability and desire to optimize has no relation to the ability and desire for roleplaying engagement of campaign story. I enjoy both, so I do both. I refuse to apologize for it.


And I'll add that de-emphasizing "mechanical optimization" doesn't make you better at role-playing.

You can be bad at both, as well as good at both, or good at just one.

Pleh
2018-10-01, 08:22 PM
Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

Everyone has their own jam.

Permission to sig?

2D8HP
2018-10-01, 08:32 PM
Permission to sig?


Thanks, I would be flattered.

Pex
2018-10-01, 09:06 PM
Some play RPG's like chess, some like charades.

Everyone has their own jam.

We likely have different if not completely opposite play styles, but yeah, that is clever.

2D8HP
2018-10-01, 09:22 PM
We likely have different if not completely opposite play styles, but yeah, that is clever.


Thanks Pex! :smile:

theMycon
2018-10-01, 09:38 PM
I like knowing how it's done, mostly because sometimes I DM and you *always* have to watch out for players you don't know well. Knowing exactly how tricks work makes it possible to keep things in check.

As a player, I like picking one or two weird tricks so I can throw them on a character who's otherwise on-par with the rest of the party. It's convenient having a trick up my sleeve for when things go sideways; these usually involve a creative way to run away or pause a fight.

dmteeter
2018-10-02, 07:55 AM
Then all of your fighters end up with the exact same build?

In 20 years I have not had two characters with same collection of feats.


In 15 years of playing i've probably only ever played 5 or so fighters. So i'm sure the 5 or so that i've built are probably pretty similar.

And i'd like to congratulate you on how superior you are to the rest of us because of how many different characters you've made Woohoo congratulations you have unlocked the pretentious achievement.

dmteeter
2018-10-02, 07:57 AM
The ability and desire to optimize has no relation to the ability and desire for roleplaying engagement of campaign story. I enjoy both, so I do both. I refuse to apologize for it.

Exactly!!

I want to play a fantasy player who feels like a hero so i optimize my abilities but i also want to play a character that feels like a real person so i tend to give them layers of personality, backstory, and motivations

Chijinda
2018-10-02, 08:17 AM
My reason for trying to optimize my character is pretty simple; "I want to see the story the GM has planned out."

If my character can't pull his weight, the party could die, and I don't get to see the full story. TTRPG's are sort of a unique devil, in that unlike video games or other types of games, you don't usually get "do overs". I can do a joke build in a video game, because I'm allowed as many tries as needed to beat that video game, and eventually can get the dice to roll in my favor through sheer persistence.

You don't get to do that in D&D. You don't get to say "Ah, well that was fun, to play my melee wizard that doesn't use magic, and had a poor strength score. Alright, now that the party got wiped because I was as useful as a bucket with a hole in the bottom, let me try a real character"-- while your mileage (and GM) may vary, most GM's I've worked with would simply tell me: "....Nnnoo.... the party got wiped, the campaign is over. You're welcome to try again in a different campaign, but this one is done."

So if I want to get the actual payoff for this specific campaign, I owe it to the group to at LEAST make sure my character is going to pull their portion of the weight.

Which requires at least a certain level of optimizing.

Nifft
2018-10-02, 10:01 AM
Exactly!!

I want to play a fantasy player who feels like a hero so i optimize my abilities but i also want to play a character that feels like a real person so i tend to give them layers of personality, backstory, and motivations

Even if you just want to play a character who feels like a real person, that's sufficient to optimize for that person's desired job.

I mean, in real life we practice doing the things which we want to do well, especially if those things are risky.

Spending effort & resources to be good at your job is very much a real-person thing to do.

dmteeter
2018-10-02, 10:17 AM
Even if you just want to play a character who feels like a real person, that's sufficient to optimize for that person's desired job.

I mean, in real life we practice doing the things which we want to do well, especially if those things are risky.

Spending effort & resources to be good at your job is very much a real-person thing to do.

Absolutely that's why i never understood the argument against optimizing. People who are anti optimization always tend to think that being really really good at what you are supposed to be good at means that you can't have a fun fleshed out person to also play.

Characters are more then numbers on a sheet. However i think everyone at the table benefits from a character who has the numbers in the right places ya know what i'm saying?

huttj509
2018-10-03, 01:06 AM
My reason for trying to optimize my character is pretty simple; "I want to see the story the GM has planned out."

If my character can't pull his weight, the party could die, and I don't get to see the full story. TTRPG's are sort of a unique devil, in that unlike video games or other types of games, you don't usually get "do overs". I can do a joke build in a video game, because I'm allowed as many tries as needed to beat that video game, and eventually can get the dice to roll in my favor through sheer persistence.

You don't get to do that in D&D. You don't get to say "Ah, well that was fun, to play my melee wizard that doesn't use magic, and had a poor strength score. Alright, now that the party got wiped because I was as useful as a bucket with a hole in the bottom, let me try a real character"-- while your mileage (and GM) may vary, most GM's I've worked with would simply tell me: "....Nnnoo.... the party got wiped, the campaign is over. You're welcome to try again in a different campaign, but this one is done."

So if I want to get the actual payoff for this specific campaign, I owe it to the group to at LEAST make sure my character is going to pull their portion of the weight.

Which requires at least a certain level of optimizing.

Yeah, for me it's "I intend my character to fill group role X, can this character actually fill that role?"

Sometimes that role is "taking out single targets at a distance," sometimes that role is "find the information without being spotted," sometimes that role is "do the talking, as the face of the party, ugh, I'm no good at talking to people, why did I pick this role," sometimes it's "make my friends smile."

I don't generally need to post threads regarding that last one.

Pleh
2018-10-03, 08:51 AM
Absolutely that's why i never understood the argument against optimizing. People who are anti optimization always tend to think that being really really good at what you are supposed to be good at means that you can't have a fun fleshed out person to also play.

Characters are more then numbers on a sheet. However i think everyone at the table benefits from a character who has the numbers in the right places ya know what i'm saying?

To be fair, there's a bit of a paradox when you set up an "adventuring career."

Most Adventures worthy of the title take protagonists out of their preferred element and force them to adapt to scenarios they did not expect or intend to find themselves in and were absolutely in every way unprepared for.

It is possible to delve too greedily and too deep into the Wargame of TTRPGs, weaponizing your character to fill a role the game expects from the party. Some optimization tricks are so esoteric that it stretches suspension of disbelief that even the "exception to the rule" heroes just HAPPEN to have the one genius in the world that came up with the strategy. It gets worse when suspiciously *every* PC built along the same lines ends up using the trick because of how good it is (see also: SLT Barbarian Pouncers in 3.5) regardless their various backgrounds and the peculiarly unique facets of the Op Trick that don't lend much corroboration to the backstory.

In the end, it's the Soldier problem. They devote so much of their lives and minds and souls to becoming what they need to be to succeed that they lose a great deal of individuality in the process. That can be an interesting arc to roleplay, but it can get tiresome and repetitive in TTRPGs. Just as much as there should be room to Roleplay as statistically exceptional geniuses and experts, there should also be room to be the odd man out who was in the wrong place at the right time.

Unfortunately, many RPG mechanics punish characters who were ill-equipped and reward the optimized, skewing the ideals of heroism with ideals of tactics and strategy.

As with so many things in this field, it's a loss of translation between Story Tellers and War Gamers trying to Role Play together.

Willie the Duck
2018-10-03, 09:42 AM
Absolutely that's why i never understood the argument against optimizing. People who are anti optimization always tend to think that being really really good at what you are supposed to be good at means that you can't have a fun fleshed out person to also play.

I think some part of it undoubtedly comes from real gaming experience where they have come into conflict. Usually in terms of miscommunication on where the lines are supposed to be set. Say, for instance, where one play brings a swashbuckling pirate with character decisions based on filling that role, even though it isn't perfectly optimized and another player brings a god/batman wizard, bladesinger, hulking hurler, coffeelock, whatever-the-edition-in-question-has-as-ultimate-optimization-option.

There ought not be a downside to one player being unbalanced compared to another (and thus the guy playing the for-flavor swashbuckler should just let differences in taste be just that), but if the DM scales the difficulty to the optimizer, then it really sucks for the first guy.


Characters are more then numbers on a sheet. However i think everyone at the table benefits from a character who has the numbers in the right places ya know what i'm saying?

It really depends on if it becomes an arms race.

Pleh
2018-10-03, 10:17 AM
There ought not be a downside to one player being unbalanced compared to another (and thus the guy playing the for-flavor swashbuckler should just let differences in taste be just that), but if the DM scales the difficulty to the optimizer, then it really sucks for the first guy.

And if they scale the difficulty to the for-flavor player, the optimizer has to "play down," always having their character pull their punches and never getting to let loose (like Gandalf, Superman, or One Punch Man) or they trivialize every challenge.

Some optimizers don't mind this and are happy knowing they can win whenever they need to and get plenty of satisfaction just playing a supporting role most of the time. Other optimizers feel like it's too bland and easy if they never need half the power they built for.

Willie the Duck
2018-10-03, 10:29 AM
And if they scale the difficulty to the for-flavor player, the optimizer has to "play down," always having their character pull their punches and never getting to let loose (like Gandalf, Superman, or One Punch Man) or they trivialize every challenge.

Some optimizers don't mind this and are happy knowing they can win whenever they need to and get plenty of satisfaction just playing a supporting role most of the time. Other optimizers feel like it's too bland and easy if they never need half the power they built for.

Yes, but it's not about which of these two guys has it worst off. The situation as a whole is suboptimal for everyone. And I'm just describing the scenario that I think has happened where someone has gotten the impression that optimization is the cause of their not having fun.

kivzirrum
2018-10-03, 02:28 PM
I think one of my favorite things about TTRPGs is that there's not truly a singular "correct" way to play. I DM for a group with no optimizers, who don't play for the challenge at all but for the opportunity to roleplay and experience the story. I think that's a fine way to play.

So's playing just to optimize a character. Or deliberately playing with a suboptimal character just to court additional challenge.

There are a whole bunch of different kinds of folks who play games as a hobby, and that is really cool. :smallsmile:

detritus
2018-10-04, 08:38 AM
People want optimised characters because they want to "win", which is, for me at least, not the point of the game. The same way that people buy premade WoW characters at level 90, when for me the fun part is getting there.
Overcoming the challenges set by the DM isn't "winning" - its an achievement, as the next challenge is usually right round the corner. Doing so with un-optimised PCs is more fun.

Segev
2018-10-04, 11:03 AM
People want optimised characters because they want to "win", which is, for me at least, not the point of the game. The same way that people buy premade WoW characters at level 90, when for me the fun part is getting there.
Overcoming the challenges set by the DM isn't "winning" - its an achievement, as the next challenge is usually right round the corner. Doing so with un-optimised PCs is more fun.

Yes, and no.

People want to succeed at the things they design their character to be good at. You want your brilliant detective archetype character to actually figure out mysteries from oblique clues, and to be able to notice important but hidden clues. So you optimize him to be as good at that as you can.

Optimization is about getting the character you want. Having areas you expect to succeed in/be amazing is part of character design.

LordCdrMilitant
2018-10-04, 03:50 PM
Then all of your fighters end up with the exact same build?

In 20 years I have not had two characters with same collection of feats.

Pretty much, yes? I think all but one 5e fighters played by my players have been a Battlemaster [the last was a Samurai], all the Rogues have been Assassins with sharpshooter, etc. Casters tend to have a fixed "basic" spell list [sleep, haste, fly, etc.] plus one or two additional ones for flavor.

Builds that deviate far from the norm are rather uncommon, and usually because somebody found some combination of traits that makes a particularly eccentric and fairly strong build.

That said, few characters have been identical. Like, the characterization isn't particularly strongly dependent upon the combat statblock, so among 3 or 4 different assassin rogues, I don't think any 2 were particularly identical in personality. Only one was actually an assassin by profession.



However, going the other way, I don't think anybody's Dark Heresy/Deathwatch characters have been similar in stats in my other group.

Lacco
2018-10-05, 03:51 AM
Yes, and no.

People want to succeed at the things they design their character to be good at. You want your brilliant detective archetype character to actually figure out mysteries from oblique clues, and to be able to notice important but hidden clues. So you optimize him to be as good at that as you can.

Optimization is about getting the character you want. Having areas you expect to succeed in/be amazing is part of character design.

Would the people who optimize still optimize if they got a character they wanted without optimization?

Or: if set of game rules provides competent starting character (the "brilliant detective" able to figure out mysteries, the "veteran fighter" able to beat group of monsters without breaking a sweat), how do you think it would change players' approach to character design?

martixy
2018-10-05, 04:14 AM
Would the people who optimize still optimize if they got a character they wanted without optimization?

Or: if set of game rules provides competent starting character (the "brilliant detective" able to figure out mysteries, the "veteran fighter" able to beat group of monsters without breaking a sweat), how do you think it would change players' approach to character design?

Depends. Some will. Some won't.

Depends on their primary incentive for playing the game.

I'm probably an extreme example. I'd optimize no matter what. As a programmer, that urge is in my blood. Couple that with an absurdly high satisfaction target meaning I'd probably end up running Mary Sues if given the chance. Not immediately of course, but that journey from chump to master of the universe is appealing to me.

Other people might get off on realizing a character concept and stop when they get what they want, content to play their character. E.g. the badass shadowy thief who is never seen. Or the goofy, but secretly super cool gunman who never misses and can take down giants with a single bullet. Or the bored, reluctant hero who can take out everyone with a single punch without even breaking a sweat.

Newtonsolo313
2018-10-05, 10:05 AM
In many ttrpgs success comes down to good decisions and luck. the reason why the OP won wasn’t because of skill, it was likely because they were rolling better than the other character or making good decisions. optimization is simply making good decisions to reduce the impact of luck.

Pelle
2018-10-05, 10:37 AM
optimization is simply making good decisions to reduce the impact of luck.

The thing is, these are disassociated decisions that the player make before the game is even starting. To people like me, character building is not part of playing the game, it is a part of the game design. Thus trying to build as powerful character as possible is pointless, IMO one should decide on a power level that one want for the game, and build a character within that. Calling that 'optimization' or not doesn't really matter to me...

Newtonsolo313
2018-10-05, 10:46 AM
The thing is, these are disassociated decisions that the player make before the game is even starting. To people like me, character building is not part of playing the game, it is a part of the game design. Thus trying to build as powerful character as possible is pointless, IMO one should decide on a power level that one want for the game, and build a character within that. Calling that 'optimization' or not doesn't really matter to me...

Understandable, you see the game in a different light and i can respect that. However that is not how i see it. I find that a badly built character will cause them to frankly suck and sucking at stuff you want to do or have to do sucks.

Segev
2018-10-05, 11:46 AM
Would the people who optimize still optimize if they got a character they wanted without optimization?

Or: if set of game rules provides competent starting character (the "brilliant detective" able to figure out mysteries, the "veteran fighter" able to beat group of monsters without breaking a sweat), how do you think it would change players' approach to character design?

By definition, yes.

Choosing the "brilliant detective" class/archetype/whatever is optimizing. It's building the character you want.

To have a more useful discussion, you're going to need to analyze what you mean by "optimizing" and define it more clearly. I have some guesses, but because this falls along a spectrum that asks what your "limits" are, I can't make specific comments without likely running afoul of your definition.

"Optimization," as a term, refers to making choices to optimize your character's fit to the standard you find desirable. If you're making choices with an eye towards achieving an end goal, you are optimizing.

BeerMug Paladin
2018-10-06, 11:10 PM
Absolutely that's why i never understood the argument against optimizing. People who are anti optimization always tend to think that being really really good at what you are supposed to be good at means that you can't have a fun fleshed out person to also play.

Characters are more then numbers on a sheet. However i think everyone at the table benefits from a character who has the numbers in the right places ya know what i'm saying?
I have a few different experiences with fans of optimization.

First there was a guy I used to game with that was unhappy with a character unless he absolutely dominated all aspects of play. This included things like splitting away from the party to try and solo boss encounters to just flat out grabbing weird things he could see and trying use magic device on them.

Despite how that sounds, he was pretty fun as a player, if a tad inconsistent. He usually didn't seem too happy with sticking to his crazy builds for long, but he was still fun to have around. His characters did the stupidest things possible just for the challenge, but he liked making new characters or retiring old characters for new builds, so it kind of worked out.

Then there was the time I joined an evil game as a high-level sorcerer. The party leader had some ridiculous super-death sword he insisted must be used on all potential new recruits to the party, and if they survived for 10 rounds, the new party member would be accepted into the group. The gist of it was that when it hit someone, it would remain lodged in their body and do its damage to them every round without any chance to evade. It could be removed with a high strength check. It did something like 20-30 damage per round. The character insisted that it must actually hit on round 1 to count.

So I cast dispel magic to suppress the ridiculous effect and removed the blade. There was immediately an argument amongst the leader and another player over whether or not this method counted as actually passing the conditions of the test. They were the two people in the group most interested in optimization so their argument took the form of whether that was an in-game-world demonstration of optimization. I believe the DM more or less stepped in to resolve the argument as a pass since there's really no way a sorcerer character (much less one made by someone not knowing about this test beforehand) could otherwise win the test.

My experience with players looking for (power) optimization is not exactly bad, but it does make me feel the whole endeavor is a tad ridiculous.

Hopefully that's at the very least informative.

Mechalich
2018-10-07, 01:22 AM
Most people who play TTRPGs also play single-player video game RPGs or MMOs. In the context of a video game, optimization is almost always a positive. It makes the game easier, which allows the player to do more, and accomplish additional challenges, and in many cases beat the game faster (or in the context of particularly challenging games, beat it at all). Dying and reloading all the time is extremely frustrating, and being able to avoid that tends to make the gaming experience more fun. Insofar as it reduces time spent staring at a loading screen this is absolutely the case. Sure sometimes it can be fun to artificially limit a character, but if you're playing through a game primarily for the story, being able to steamroll the content is generally helpful.

This impulse bleeds over into Table-top, especially into combat heavy games like D&D. Dying in D&D sucks orders of magnitude more than it does in a video game, since you have to either wait to be raised from the dead (which may derail the plot) or make an entirely new character. Player investment in any given character is also generally much higher than in video game characters and seeing them die - especially permanently due to some annoying random event rather than at a heroic climax - is generally not very fun. As such, optimization makes sense as a means of mitigating risks so that your character can survive long enough to actually get through the story for a while. Since the average D&D story proceeds over a road paved by enemy corpses, this makes a great deal of sense.

That being said, it is easy to take optimization too far. Table-top games are a collaborative enterprise, and characters who routinely annihilate the challenges presented before them by the GM at little to no risk remove the fun from the game. The GM can always make enemies more powerful, but this can lead to its own problems. For one, it puts a lot of additional work on the shoulders of the GM (never a good idea). For another, cranking up the power tends to cause games to break, so that high-powered games vulnerable to optimization (3.X D&D, Exalted, large-point totals in GURPs) become exercises in absurdity that are completely unplayable past a certain point. Finally, while GMs vary in their desire to impose real-risks and costs on the party, most do what the heroes to at least struggle to accomplish the goals of their game, and optimization can erase whole plots, especially in the hands of players with more experience than their GM. Optimization can also create intraparty conflict. Most players come to the table to play the game, not to sit around and watch other people play the game. If one character can do everything well, that can certainly be a problem, as can one character who can't do anything and becomes nothing but a liability.

Generally, optimization issues are much less troubling in games without a heavy combat focus for several reasons and such games are more susceptible to telling stories about less capable characters as a result, because the price of failure is usually something less starkly destructive as 'you die now.'

MoiMagnus
2018-10-07, 06:35 AM
Absolutely that's why i never understood the argument against optimizing. People who are anti optimization always tend to think that being really really good at what you are supposed to be good at means that you can't have a fun fleshed out person to also play.

Characters are more then numbers on a sheet. However i think everyone at the table benefits from a character who has the numbers in the right places ya know what i'm saying?

I agree that in a team where the other players have mostly optimals characters, having a suboptimal one is bad.
But assuming that everyone have suboptimal characters, it just reduce the global power level of the team (and the difficulty of the tests, since the DM will adapt).

By coming with an optimal character in a team of suboptimal ones, you kind of force everyone to go to your level. And if someone just does not like the action of optimizing, they will hate you because you force them to chose between "optimizing or being a weak character compared to the rest of the team". (On top of that, since some optimizers are anti-RP peoples, stereotypes do not help this conflict)

(That's a little like when I was playing MTG with some friends and brothers. Due to some bad luck, despite my relatively huge collection, I did not have any card that allowed to "clear the board" and destroy everything. That added to the fact that we were all very bad at deck building, it leaded to a "suboptimal meta" that I really enjoyed. Latter, when entering into the real meta, with people with decks actually optimals, the way the game was played no longer interested me, and I've quit for games more adequate to my tastes)

YohaiHorosha
2018-10-07, 10:42 AM
The best thing about this thread is that we're talking multiple ways to "optimize" a character.

I think the OP was saying "why do so many people spend so much energy optimizing the skill and statistical synergies within a character for the sole purpose of maximizing damage." And the thread split, mostly, into three camps. 1) character creation is always about optimizing what you want to play, either statistically/synergetically 2) because that's the game people are playing 3) because analyzing mechanical crunch is fun.

Let's break it down:
1) if you want to play a drunk sailor - you're going to want to know how to stat that character so it's playable within the mechanics of the system you're using. Ultimate, you never want to be the player that detracts from everyone's fun (namely, causing them to die). Plus, you yourself want to be able to impact the world you're in.
2) the mechanics of an rpg feed the story everyone is playing. If the mechanics are crunchy with purpose and effect, to want to use those mechanics effectively is inherently part of the game. If the purpose is to kill stuff, why not kill stuff more and better?? I'm not sure I want to be the guy that says "don't use the mechanic".
3) numbers people like their numbers. Why take that away from them, especially since the game is about numbers. Half the fun for numbers people is crunching the numbers.

That isn't to say that looking for mechanical ways to break the game by design isn't problematic, or if you're the only person looking at mechanics in your group in that way isn't also problematic, but if you're doing generic dungeon crawling with little attention to plot with people you'll only play with once...

I think the general rule of RP is don't crap on other people's fun. So don't be that guy.

Kami2awa
2018-10-09, 02:17 AM
Bad sportsmanship, and lack of empathy that means they don't see that they'll make the GM's life much harder and overshadow the other players who don't want to optimise their PCs.

Jay R
2018-10-09, 02:52 PM
Why does it appear that the majority of this board is so obviously obsessive over

"I need the most optimal " best character.

The number of threads on a given subject is not a measure of how many people are "obviously obsessive" on that topic. Rather, it's a measure of the number of questions people might need help on.

I am deeply into role-playing, and always have how the character will behave in mind when I create a character. I'm pretty good at that, and I doubt if I've ever started a thread over it.

But I've started several threads looking for the optimal way to produce a certain ability. That's because I'm far less interested in it, and therefore have far less knowledge about it.