PDA

View Full Version : Do suboptimal choices a good thing?



Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 10:45 AM
Okay, I was reading Pathfinder forums: On Topic what Playtesting is.

And Vic Wertz said something that feels wrong:
"However, I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to players—it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born. Further, I suspect that many people would find that an RPG that's perfectly balanced is also likely to be perfectly boring."

Do suboptimal choices lead to positive results?
Or
Are they a trap that the designers have a good laugh about when people choose them (Nelson from Simpsons type laugh: Ha Ha).

Kinda like how Toughness was a weak feat. Vic feels feats like this lead to good results.
What are your feelings/thoughts? Do weak feats help you make a better character?

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 10:50 AM
Okay, I was reading Pathfinder forums: On Topic what Playtesting is.

And Vic Wertz said something that feels wrong:
"However, I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to players—it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born. Further, I suspect that many people would find that an RPG that's perfectly balanced is also likely to be perfectly boring."


I hesitate to comment too thouroughly without seeing the comment in context but I'll say on the basis of this, I strongly disagree with Mr. Wertz and think he is conflating two ideas. He seems to be rolling the notion of 'difference' in terms of feel and RP options into the notion of 'unbalance' in terms of in game mechanical power. They really aren't the same, although in practice they often overlap.

Calinero
2008-10-08, 10:53 AM
I agree that there are times when it is good not to have overly optimized players. If you are too strong, then the challenge is gone from the rollplaying of the game. Plus, if you become too focused on the combat aspect, then roleplaying suffers as well. I also find that players who focus too much on building their characters to be the perfect Fighter/Wizard/whatever are thinking more about the damage they're about to do than their character's backstory.

fractic
2008-10-08, 10:58 AM
This has stormwind fallacy written all over it.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-08, 10:59 AM
Clearly offering suboptimal choices is good for the players: it allows them to have more than a single choice. Now, to answer the implied question (is it good to play a suboptimal character) we have to look a bit closer.

I think we can all agree that, in a cooperative game, it is bad to present the players with "trap" choices - choices which, if they are taken, makes the PC far less capable of facing challenges generally than their fellow party members. The reasoning here is that the "trap" character becomes a drag on story advancement - The Load (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TheLoad), specifically - and that makes the game less fun for everyone.

However, these two endpoints leave us with a vast middle ground of choices where the character is sub-optimal at facing challenges, but the drop in power is not enough to be a wearying hindrance on their fellow party members. These choices can be very good for allowing mechanical diversity in character builds (ex: Weapon Proficiency Feats) which can make it easier for some players to build "different" characters. To this end, they aid in characterization and, since they don't bring down the party, they can be good.

But, IMHO characterization comes from RP, not mechanics. Wielding a greatsword instead of a dagger doesn't make you a "different" character - having spent time drafted in the military before deserting does. Mechanics like getting +2 to Sneaking while taking -2 to Climbing might help reflect that characterization, but it is hardly necessary.

1of3
2008-10-08, 10:59 AM
I guess some things get mixed up. One is suboptimal choices and the other is characters with weaknesses. Characters with weaknesses are interesting, but no sane player would actually make a suboptimal choice he or she is aware of.

If you want characters with weaknesses have chargen with some random results or mechanical disadvantages.

Lord Herman
2008-10-08, 11:00 AM
I don't think it's a good thing to simply pick the 'best' spell/feat/power every time you level up. I much prefer picking something that fits my character's concept or theme. If I'm making a fire-using wizard, I'm not picking a lightning spell, period, even if it's better than the fire spells available on that level.

That said, I don't intentionally take rubbish feats like toughness (in 3.5, that is). But feats like toughness are just poorly designed - if nobody in their right mind takes it, it should be improved, like they did with toughness in 4E.

Duke of URL
2008-10-08, 11:00 AM
Optimization, or the lack thereof, is not related to roleplaying in any meaningful sense.

That said, a better way to express the idea may be something like: a variety of choices, even if some of those choices are sub-optimal, improves the ability of players to make characters fit a particular ideal or mental image.

Playing non-optimal characters is fine. Pretending that you're a better roleplayer simply because you play non-optimized characters is not. The decision as to whether or not to intentionally use a non-optimized choice depends greatly on your group's style of play -- a mixture of highly-optimized characters and sub-optimized (or even "gimped") characters in the same party is likely to make for a frustrating game experience.

Jack Zander
2008-10-08, 11:03 AM
I think suboptimal choices are good for a few reasons. They give an RPG the ability to play at various power levels. If you want a gritty or an anime campaign, you can do either. They allow for DMs to make suboptimal NPCs, becuase mooks don't have to be 4 levels below the PCs where they pose no threat, simply giving them poor feats allows their BAB to remain high without them having the ability to wipe out the party.

Now, if the group is unbalanced it can lead to issues, but that's a problem with the group, not the system.

Proven_Paradox
2008-10-08, 11:11 AM
The problem here is with trap choices that shouldn't be traps. For example, going with two-weapon fighting with pretty much anything but a rogue SHOULDN'T be a trap. However, it is, and in this way it's a problem with the system. The same goes for feats like Monkey Grip. Trying to utilize these feats actually makes most characters LESS useful, and to me, that is a problem.

leperkhaun
2008-10-08, 11:14 AM
I would point you to the Stormwind Fallacy.

A lot of.... RP snobs think that people who play optimized characters cannot RP due to the fact that they optimize.

Following this, those who do not optimize or use suboptimal builds are great RP'ers.

Its simply not the truth, the two (optimization and roleplaying) are not mutually exclusive.

Great RP is about building a character that includes more than their stats, saying your character is great for RP because you are playing a thief with a -10 penelty to Dex, doesnt make the character great for RP.... it makes a character who is useless.

ehhhh, anywho dont pay attention to people who say things like that.

1) There are people who do not optimize who RP great
2) There are people who do not optimize that cant RP to save their life
3) There are people who do optimize who RP great
4) There are people who do optimize who cant RP to save their life

snoopy13a
2008-10-08, 11:21 AM
In theory, I suppose it is neutral. Suboptimal choices ought to result in easier encounters while optimal choices should result in more difficult encounters. Thus, the difficulty level of the campaign should remain the same.

However, suboptimal choices could be considered a good thing because they create more archetype choices. Builds such as a archer fighter or a blaster wizard are not considered optimal but they are popular choices for some players. Granted, optimal builds can be roleplayed just as well but there are fewer archetypes to choose from.

Kurald Galain
2008-10-08, 11:30 AM
This simply proves that, like WOTC does, they have people who play a lot of Magic the Gathering (and similar CCGs) designing a RPG.

See, the thing is, part of the fun of Magic is, for many people, to optimize your deck (for a given value of "optimize"; e.g. some people optimize for the greatest chance of some obscure but awesome combo, rather than greatest chance of victory). So part of the learning experience for Magic is to learn to identify which cards are better than which others.

So yes, Magic actually does benefit from printing sub-par cards, much as power players hate to admit it. The dev team occasionally does it on purpose, too. Thing is, D&D is not Magic. That's where the fallacy creeps in.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 11:30 AM
That said, a better way to express the idea may be something like: a variety of choices, even if some of those choices are sub-optimal, improves the ability of players to make characters fit a particular ideal or mental image.

I'd agree here, but I think it's also important to make it clear that it is not the case that having variety in choice necessarly entails having mechanically weaker choices. Obviously, in execution, this is going to be a gray area for the most part. Variety in choice often, and intentionally, means that a character will be better at some tasks and worse at others than another character who made different choices. However, overall, these varied stregnths and weaknesses can balance out eachother making each character as strong overall. I wouldn't call either build in this kind of case 'suboptimal', since each accomplishes what it wants to do as well as possible. In this theoretical case, variety is still preserved, both mechanically and in RP.


I think suboptimal choices are good for a few reasons. They give an RPG the ability to play at various power levels. If you want a gritty or an anime campaign, you can do either.

They allow for DMs to make suboptimal NPCs, becuase mooks don't have to be 4 levels below the PCs where they pose no threat, simply giving them poor feats allows their BAB to remain high without them having the ability to wipe out the party.

I don't see the need for this goal to be accomplished by suboptimal choices within any given level of a system. It seems to me that it is better accomplished in one of three ways:

1. Multiple systems. If you want to play a gritty game, there are plenty of systems, d20 systems even, that can provide that. If you want a superpowered game, you can get that too. There's no reason that any one system itself need provide these options at any given power level and farming them out to systems specific to the kind of game desired seems to give the benifits desired without the risk of a imbalanced party (which we all seem to agree is often a problem). Although that is rightly noted as a 'problem with the group and not the system' a good system should be able to anticipate problems that are, causally, the fault of the group and preempt them as much as is practical.

2. Variants. A system can provide concrete mechanical variants within the overall structure. I.e. if you want a gritty game, the game can suggest getting rid of or toning down some particular life saving mechanics. Similarly, it can suggest areas to 'ramp up' if you want that kind of game.

3. Power levels within a system. Class levels is an example of this, but so are other mechanics avaliable to the DM, like the Minions mechanic in 4e. You can have a gritty game in 3.x by playing at very low levels. You can have an anime game by playing at very high ones. Regarding DM freedom to make NPCs that are challenging but not deadly, there are again ways from the DM side (like minions, giving them min hp, making their tactics foolish, or making them optimized for something other than their confrontation with the PCs) to create monsters and foes that are a neither a deadly challenge nor a cakewalk.

I think that in large part this confliation of ideas is a result of some of the poorer design choices in 3.x. Just because in 3.x a DM or player has problems and may feel constrained by the RAW in their ways of fixing them doesn't mean that those problems are inherent to any and all systems.

Talya
2008-10-08, 11:41 AM
I would point you to the Stormwind Fallacy.

A lot of.... RP snobs think that people who play optimized characters cannot RP due to the fact that they optimize.

Following this, those who do not optimize or use suboptimal builds are great RP'ers.

Its simply not the truth, the two (optimization and roleplaying) are not mutually exclusive.



This is true, but there's a qualification to it. I do my share of optimizing, but I do have to say that the most optimized build is almost always in conflict with my character build. For instance, my sorcerer's spell selection could be a bit better optimized, but there are certain great spells that I just cannot justify the character having from a personality perspective...and indeed, some less than great spells that I cannot imagine her being without. The character concept requires some less than optimal choices. That doesn't mean that within those choices, I don't optimize the hell out of her, but the character takes precedence over the mechanics. And this is the difference; people who think crunch first, character after, are actually metagaming, which is really the antithesis of roleplaying.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 11:53 AM
The character concept requires some less than optimal choices. That doesn't mean that within those choices, I don't optimize the hell out of her, but the character takes precedence over the mechanics.

Wouldn't it be nice though, if the flavorful choices that fit the character concept weren't mechanically less powerful than the 'optimal' ones? Is there any reason that they need to be?

Talya
2008-10-08, 11:58 AM
Wouldn't it be nice though, if the flavorful choices that fit the character concept weren't mechanically less powerful than the 'optimal' ones? Is there any reason that they need to be?

Sheer variety. The more choices you give people, the less possible it is for them all to be perfectly balanced. That doesn't mean that some aren't just stupidly designed from the start and couldn't be easily fixed, mind you. But there will always be suboptimal choices, so long as you have real choices.

For instance, 4e essentially fixed most balance issues by making most abilities nearly identical, they follow a specific predictable pattern, and furthermore, they removed the variety and choice during the build that 3.x has. Is 4x more balanced? Absolutely. Is it more fun? You'll get a lot of argument on that, much of that depends on how much people value the ability to have the rules support their concept. I greatly prefer 3.x, its balance issues notwithstanding. My DM is good enough that they don't really matter anyway.

Theodoric
2008-10-08, 12:00 PM
Well, if one could compare character creation or the RPG experience as a whole to one giant prisoner's dilemma, with the DM as prisoner A and the player as prisoner B with the options being 'fun, but lesser combat performance' and 'not quite as fun but good combat performance', you can be pretty damn sure that both sides choice the suboptimal choice. Ofcourse, I don't have a clue which of these options is he actual subtoptimal one.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 12:21 PM
Sheer variety. The more choices you give people, the less possible it is for them all to be perfectly balanced. That doesn't mean that some aren't just stupidly designed from the start and couldn't be easily fixed, mind you. But there will always be suboptimal choices, so long as you have real choices.

I suppose this would be a good place to discuss the notion of logical necessity and increasing difficulty. Less possible is an oxymoron, a thing is possible or it is not. I think you meant to say less probable.

Each category of mechanical options broadens the potential actions and builds overall possible in the system. Essentially, the more ways that a character can effect the game world such that mechanical representation is needed, the harder the task of balance becomes.

For example, if in a given system a player can cause only one harm to an enemy (say HP damage) then every option to do damage can be pretty easily balanced against each other. If we add a second way to harm them (say ability damage) then we now need to not only balance the ability damage against other options to cause ability damage but against the options to cause HP damage. This is obviously quite a bit more complex and a harder task. But it is not one that is by definition impossible, merely harder. I'll happily grant this. Making a balanced system that is complex is very very hard. 4e did sacrifice some of its mechanical complexity for balance. Whether mechanical complexity is, in and of itself, a benifit to the game is a matter of taste.

However, this is not the claim person the OP quoted seemed to be making. The claim there seemed to be that suboptimal choices should be intentionally included in systems rather than accidentally included as a by product of the difficulty of the task of complex system design and human falability.

I think we agree that more variety, assuming it's meaningful variety (two feats that do almost the same mechanical thing but one is slightly better than the other and has different fluff is not meaninful variety), is a good thing for a system. However, it's not a requirement for variety to purposefully include unbalanced choices.

Talya
2008-10-08, 12:24 PM
I think we agree that more variety, assuming it's meaningful variety (two feats that do almost the same mechanical thing but one is slightly better than the other and has different fluff is not meaninful variety), is a good thing for a system. However, it's not a requirement for variety to purposefully include unbalanced choices.

I think we agree entirely. I would never include an option that was intentionally made to "suck."

Edit: I might include options I liked the flavor of but could not perfectly balance, but the intent is not to present a suboptimal option -- merely to present an option.

Zincorium
2008-10-08, 12:31 PM
I know I've A. been absent practically forever, and B. Come down on both sides of this issue in my time.

But my experiences with other game systems, and the design of my own, has led me to realize that there should never be universally suboptimal choices (aka commoner) but there should certainly be classes that provide different types of reward.

Focusing on social skills, while it's never been done well in D&D and likely won't be, is a perfectly legitimate option in several other RPGs and while it does detract from creating a well-rounded character (which I've ranted against in the past), it may be the best way of distinguishing a character and providing a unique niche in games where it's easy to dominate other methods of play.


But to be more to the point:

Suboptimal mechanical choices should always provide some ancillary benefit that can't be duplicated, in accordance with the rule of cool (see TV tropes).

Suboptimal flavor choices should be added to by both the DM and player until it becomes a part of the character's playstyle in addition to the player's arsenal.

Things that are both shouldn't exist past the first stage of house ruling.
While it seems like a cop out, agree-with-everyone-solution, I've always advocated the course of action that I believe makes the game better, and allowing things which don't always add up seems to play into that goal more than I've neccessarily held to in the past.

RukiTanuki
2008-10-08, 12:35 PM
Personally, I'm inclined to believe that weak mechanics-related character choices are no more likely to result in better roleplay characterization than strong mechanics-related character choices. It's far more important that the choices reflect the character.

Granted, beginning players can benefit greatly from a starting hook to guide their character's beliefs and motivations, but that's no reason to take the Mildly Flatulent feat when you really want the Brooklyn Rage feat. Even the most heavily-optimized character, mechanically speaking, is not a roleplaying black hole; plenty of opportunity for characterization exists. If anything, they benefit from being more fleshed out; it's easier to identify their weaknesses and from their, branch out into their outlook on life and the world. Even the Batman Wizard, master of any situation, can become a imperfect and interesting character, by delving into the "can't-sleep-clowns-will-eat-me" mentality of someone who is attempting a Xanatos Gambit (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/XanatosGambit) on a daily basis, obsessing over the fact that his weakness is that someone may outplan him.

Overall, I'd say that the character choices you make, no matter their level of optimization, should be used to enhance the character concept and roleplay. Making better or worse mechanical choices doesn't make you roleplay better or worse -- at least not inherently.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 12:38 PM
This has stormwind fallacy written all over it.

This. Textbook.

Tengu_temp
2008-10-08, 12:42 PM
And Vic Wertz said something that feels wrong:
"However, I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to players—it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born. Further, I suspect that many people would find that an RPG that's perfectly balanced is also likely to be perfectly boring."


"OMG rael rollplayers has unoptoimized characters, game balance = bad!!1"

Forgive me, everyone, but I'm allergic to stupidity and therefore Vic Wertz's statement weakened me too much to read the rest of the thread to an extent higher than just skipping through it. I can only say that this guy clearly has no f***ing idea what is he talking about, or is a masochist - because only masochists would enjoy a game where some of the players can defeat all encounters by blowing their nose at them, and some players can't do sh*t - not because of their lack of skills, but because they unknowingly chose a gimped archetype to play.

Crow
2008-10-08, 12:44 PM
I do happen to agree that perfect balance is perfectly boring. When I get a new power in 4e on level up, I often get a feeling like my choice doesn't really matter that much. No matter my choice, I'm going to get roughly the same bump in power.

This doesn't really change the in-game experience, but it certainly puts a damper on advancement.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 12:44 PM
this is the difference; people who think crunch first, character after, are actually metagaming, which is really the antithesis of roleplaying.

Believe it or not, but characters also think in terms of power.

You're an adventurer, you put your life on the line every day; don't you think that you might think about taking a stronger spell rather than a weaker one, even if it doesn't fit in with your overall "theme"? Remember, characters are living, breathing game constructs, they're not just cardboard cutouts of whatever ideals you've given them. They want to live, most likely. And they can realize that stronger options give them a better chance of surviving to the next day, or keeping their friends alive for one more day.

This is without even getting into characters for whom strict power is an end unto itself.

It's not so simple as "powergaming is bad! powergamers are metagaming munchkins!".

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 12:48 PM
Optimization, or the lack thereof, is not related to roleplaying in any meaningful sense.I'll have to disagree; it's quite relevant to roleplaying to look at mechanical optimization from an in-character perspective. Real People don't always take the optimal choice, and in order to realistically roleplay a character it's important to make optimization decisions that realistically portray what the character in question actually would do., Some make optimal decisions, some look much more at the long or the short term, and some tend to make sub-optimal, even extremely sub-optimal decisions for emotional (or other) reasons.



Playing non-optimal characters is fine. Pretending that you're a better roleplayer simply because you play non-optimized characters is not. Likewise, pretending that always making the optimal decision has no effect on roleplaying is just as bad.

Someone who can roleplay any character regardless of the level of optimization involved is a better roleplayer than someone who can only play characters at a particular level of the power spectrum.


not because of their lack of skills, but because they unknowingly chose a gimped archetype to play.He didn't suggest that there should be anything clandestine about these sub-optimal choices... the unknowingly part isn't really relevant to the discussion.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 12:49 PM
I do happen to agree that perfect balance is perfectly boring. When I get a new power in 4e on level up, I often get a feeling like my choice doesn't really matter that much. No matter my choice, I'm going to get roughly the same bump in power.

This doesn't really change the in-game experience, but it certainly puts a damper on advancement.

See, I feel exactly the opposiite. When I get a new power in 4e on level up, I think "So I can pick any of these powers, and my character's power level won't be positively or negatively affected much by my choice? Great!"

Also, though powers may be roughly equal in power, that does not by any means mean that they do the same exact things. There is quite a variety of choice when it comes to what powers actually do in 4e.

Crow
2008-10-08, 12:49 PM
Believe it or not, but characters also think in terms of power.

You're an adventurer, you put your life on the line every day; don't you think that you might think about taking a stronger spell rather than a weaker one, even if it doesn't fit in with your overall "theme"? Remember, characters are living, breathing game constructs, they're not just cardboard cutouts of whatever ideals you've given them. They want to live, most likely. And they can realize that stronger options give them a better chance of surviving to the next day, or keeping their friends alive for one more day.

This is without even getting into characters for whom strict power is an end unto itself.

It's not so simple as "powergaming is bad! powergamers are metagaming munchkins!".

In the context of a single character this is one thing. When every character has the strongest spells, and every character has the same feat combos, I would say that Mr. Wertz is somewhat correct. This isn't the case with all players, but the stereotype had to start somewhere.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 12:51 PM
I hesitate to comment too thouroughly without seeing the comment in context but I'll say on the basis of this, I strongly disagree with Mr. Wertz and think he is conflating two ideas. He seems to be rolling the notion of 'difference' in terms of feel and RP options into the notion of 'unbalance' in terms of in game mechanical power. They really aren't the same, although in practice they often overlap.

Dear everyone else:

AKA Bait won the thread, noting all proper nuances necessary, in reply 1.

Talya
2008-10-08, 12:54 PM
Believe it or not, but characters also think in terms of power.


Not when the source of that power is hidden inside the peculiarities of a rule system that would not be apparent to the characters doing it.

This is why I said optimizing isn't bad, inside the boundaries set for your character. You can take that forever...if everyone went all out optimizing with no regard for any character personality and flavor choices, all parties would consist of 3 wizards and a cleric, with possibly a few full-caster progression PrCs. And when you're playing a sorceress who is supposed to be decended from an efreeti, and take the "Bloodline of Fire" regional feat (+2 to CL on [fire] spells, +4 to save vs all [fire] spells and and effects), you're going to take fireball. It doesn't matter that blasting is a suboptimal choice for a spellcaster (and in fact, even if you're following character you'll likely have a whole lot of non-blaster choices as well), you're going to do your fair bit of blasting.

It's not that building the most effective character you can is going to result in bad roleplaying, it's that if you do so, every character you ever make will be a cookie-cutter copy of each other, with no depth or variety. There's nothing about optimizing within your build concept that precludes good roleplaying, but when your entire build concept is based around "I want to be badass!," well, that's not how most people end up building their lives. It's metagaming, looking at rules first, character second.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 12:55 PM
In the context of a single character this is one thing.

So you agree.


When every character has the strongest spells, and every character has the same feat combos, I would say that Mr. Wertz is somewhat correct.

I agree that monotonous character creation is a problem. It is exacerbated by the inherent imbalance of the 3e ruleset.


This isn't the case with all players, but the stereotype had to start somewhere.

So? Why does a stereotype matter? You have to look at each player as an individual, without lumping them into a broad category.

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 12:56 PM
You're an adventurer, you put your life on the line every day; don't you think that you might think about taking a stronger spell rather than a weaker one, even if it doesn't fit in with your overall "theme"?Think about it, perhaps... choose it over the sub-optimal one with no thought? certainly not. Real people make sub-optimal choices quite a bit of the time. Often this is a case of "I want X now even though Y would be better long term" but there are lots of reasons why people do that.

Crow
2008-10-08, 12:58 PM
I work in a field where death or serious injury can occur any day. As such, I exercise, shoot at the range, and generally do the things that will make me as "optimized" as possible. However, not all of my co-workers train as hard as I do, shoot as often as I do, or generally "optimize" themselves the same way I do. Some of them shoot more often, but don't exercise at all. Some of them don't do either.

So clearly, people who are risking their lives every day don't necessarily always make the most "optimal" choices.

Try again, Jax.

huttj509
2008-10-08, 01:00 PM
I think this really depends on how suboptimal it is.

For a 3.5 melee combatant, it is a good option to have both ubercharger builds, and ToB builds. One may be more effective, but both can hold their own and have very different flavors.

When you have the wizard on one hand, who not only has a lot of power, but can completely change any suboptimal spell choices he made for better spells, since he can snag them all and write them down, and on the other hand you have the monk. The trap class that looks good on paper at first, but just doesn't work effectively.

Having one feat better than another? Sure. Having one feat be instant win and the other be Toughness? That's a bit much to purposely include.

Suboptimal choices, fine. Crap choices, not so much.

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 01:03 PM
Suboptimal choices, fine. Crap choices, not so much.Real People make crap choices too; there's nothing wrong with having them as options in a game, as long as there's no intent to deceive players about what they're choosing.

Talya
2008-10-08, 01:05 PM
Real People make crap choices too; there's nothing wrong with having them as options in a game, as long as there's no intent to deceive players about what they're choosing.

Intentionally making them "crap" however serves no positive purpose.

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 01:06 PM
Intentionally making them "crap" however serves no positive purpose.Yes, it does... it gives players the options to roleplay real people by making crap decisions.

Talya
2008-10-08, 01:08 PM
Yes, it does... it gives players the options to roleplay real people by making crap decisions.

There are so many ways to make a character suck, even in 4e, if you really want to do so, that this is unneeded and a waste of precious space in a book.

Zincorium
2008-10-08, 01:09 PM
Real People make crap choices too; there's nothing wrong with either, as long as there's no intent to deceive players about what they're choosing.

And perhaps it even goes beyond lack of deceit to actual informing. There is, to use famous examples, nothing inherently deceitful about Monkey Grip or the Battle Sorceror variant, they are both fairly clear about what is lost. However, it takes a skilled eye and memory for fact to be clear about how suboptimal they are in return for the gain that is made.

As always, the idea is never to punish the newer, less experienced players. We all should know how to deal with that eventuality and the dangers of not doing so. Flawed choices do require a personal touch and are easier to work with when it's obvious where the tradeoffs take place.

Person_Man
2008-10-08, 01:10 PM
IMO opinion, you never want perfect balance, because that leads to D&D becoming Warhammer or Heroclix (which aren't exactly balanced, but they're much closer). Instead, you want an elaborate rock/paper/scissors. Each class should be very good at one thing, very bad at one thing, and moderately ok at most other things. Everyone needs something that makes them really cool and something that will always challenge them, but most of the time they shouldn't have to worry about optimization to just play the game and enjoy themselves.

4E tried to do this to a degree with roles (Defender, Striker, Controller, Leader) and by standardizing attacks and defenses (Str vs AC, Str vs Fort, etc). But in an attempt to balance things out beyond this point, 4E made most of the powers mediocre and boring. This naturally makes some people long for the days of 3.5, where they could make a weak sword and board Fighter and enjoy the challenge, or make a god-like Druid and wield ultimate power.

I think the biggest problem isn't including weak choices. I think the biggest problem is WotC's lack of play testing and need to publish endless supplements. Instead of having 175 base classes, 800 or so prestige classes, and thousands of feats, write 20ish classes, 100 feats, and guidelines for balanced homebrewing. Play test the heck out of it, and release alpha and beta versions for a reasonable fee (six month subscription to D&D online, which also gives you access to special forums for play testers, or something similar). Then package it really well (excellent artwork, maps, miniatures, dice, a solid level 1-5 adventure), THEN market it heavily, and support the core box set sales with with additional campaign settings, modules, and miniatures, not more classes, feats, and rules.

This is what leads to weak and strong choices (and fan dissatisfaction in general). Not an intentional desire to leave in bad choices like Toughness. But a failure to play test all of the rules, and an expectation that you can always "fix" it in the next errata or splat book.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 01:13 PM
I'm not saying that a character is going to make optimized choices at every turn, just that it is a consideration. Unless the character is a moron, they'll realize that if they're better at fighting, they'll be more likely to live a little longer. This doesn't mean that every choice they make will be optimal, but some of their choices will be made at least in an attempt to be optimal.

What I'm reading, by the OP and by the post I quoted before, is that any attempt at being optimal in any respect is metagaming and bad, which I strongly disagree with.


Crow, as to your job: you may work in a field where death or serious injury can occur on a daily basis, but you presumably do not actively seek out life or death situations, and plunge yourself head first into them, no? What I mean is that the default outlook for an adventurer is proactive, looking for a fight. Your default outlook is reactive, trying to prevent a fight.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 01:13 PM
I believe they've stated now that 3.0 and feats like Toughness were meant to intentionally encourage rules mastery.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-08, 01:18 PM
Intentionally making them "crap" however serves no positive purpose.

I'd also like to remind folks of Natural Selection: if you are in a profession where you are routinely exposed to hazards (e.g. adventuring) then if you routinely make "crap choices" in regards to skills and abilities that help you survive those hazards, you will likely have a shorter life expectancy than those who instead improve themselves to survive said hazards. :smallbiggrin:

In a RPG, this usually implies that the PCs, being the Heroes of the story, should probably not be utterly unsuited for the situations they place themselves in. It's all well and good to play a blind, one-legged scholar-pacifist, but eventually someone is going to ask why said person (a) continually and willingly exposes themselves to Horrors From Beyond and other violent indignities and (b) continues to be alive after all this time.

Such a person must be suicidal and terrifically lucky. Any normal person would have opted for a more quiet life or be quite dead by now.

Talya
2008-10-08, 01:21 PM
I believe they've stated now that 3.0 and feats like Toughness were meant to intentionally encourage rules mastery.

See, if I'd been writing the game, Toughness would have been included in Great Fortitude, and included +3 fortitude saves, +1 hit point per hit die.

(And yes, I'd boost Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes a bit as well.)

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 01:26 PM
I believe they've stated now that 3.0 and feats like Toughness were meant to intentionally encourage rules mastery.

Yes. Cook has. Personally though, I think he's full of it and trying to make the stupid mistakes of his system look like brilliant strategies.


Such a person must be suicidal and terrifically lucky. Any normal person would have opted for a more quiet life or be quite dead by now.

Or have some other very powerful abilities (patented Demon'B'Gone Spray) that more than compensate for the downsides. Of course, in that case the choice might actually be optimal. GURPS anyone?

Yakk
2008-10-08, 01:28 PM
So, suppose there is a feat called "On Your Guard": Adds +1 to your AC.

You could say "Only front-line characters can buy this feat, as back-line characters don't get hit as often, and as such it would be a sub-optimal feat for them."

Or you could let back-line characters purchase the feat, even if you think it is sub-optimal. You might even include flavor text that says "this feat is ideal for a character who gets into the thick of the battle".

In short: sub-optimal choices that have a purpose, yet _do not pretend to be optimal in all cases_, have a pretty good case going for them.

Then comes the question -- should that feat be tweaked in such a way that it is better for back-line characters?

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 01:29 PM
Yes. Cook has. Personally though, I think he's full of it and trying to make the stupid mistakes of his system look like brilliant strategies.

That is a possibility. I have to admit, I've never actually thought Monte Cook was a good designer. Arcana Unearthed and the Book of Eldritch Magic II both failed to impress me.

But I also tend to be hard to impress, so.

Talya
2008-10-08, 01:29 PM
Just to play devil's advocate on the 3.x implementation of "Toughness," btw, since we're talking about what real life people would do.

For a level 1 wizard, toughness represents a default increase in their hit points of 75%. It dramatically increases the likelihood they will reach level 2 alive. After that, its effectiveness drops substantially every level.

The problem is, for players, surviving to level 2 is not that big a deal for them...they can roll up a new character if someone gets a lucky shot in on the wizard and instant-kills him. However, to the actual character, who doesn't have that option of "rerolling" if they die, toughness at level 1 can look like a very good feat. Sure, it does nothing for you later, but it increases the likelihood that there will be a later at all.

That doesn't mean I think it's good game design, but if we're thinking about the choices in character, making yourself tougher for some characters would be a very good idea.

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-08, 01:34 PM
Or have some other very powerful abilities (patented Demon'B'Gone Spray) that more than compensate for the downsides. Of course, in that case the choice might actually be optimal. GURPS anyone?

Oh, absolutely, which is why I noted in my Natural Selection post that this applies to skills and abilities that would help them survive the hazards they face. It makes perfect sense for a sniper to not waste his time with greatsword or heavy armor training - he uses different skills to survive. Now, the same sniper refusing to practice his riflery, camouflage, or survival training...

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 01:40 PM
There are so many ways to make a character suck, even in 4e, if you really want to do so, that this is unneeded and a waste of precious space in a book.That really doesn't make any sense; if you cut out all of the crap options then you stop having ways for your character to mechanically reflect their poor decisions; that restricts what you can realistically roleplay to a very narrow band of character types.

More options = more better. If possible you should be able to play both a sourceror and Rincewind the wizzzard, as well as anything in between.

Personally, I think that the number of crap choices should be roughly equal to the number of optimal choices, and that the vast majority of choices should be sub-optimal (somewhere in the middle)

Crow
2008-10-08, 01:42 PM
I'm not saying that a character is going to make optimized choices at every turn, just that it is a consideration. Unless the character is a moron, they'll realize that if they're better at fighting, they'll be more likely to live a little longer. This doesn't mean that every choice they make will be optimal, but some of their choices will be made at least in an attempt to be optimal.

What are you saying? Somebody may choose to pick up toughness in an attempt at being optimal. Just like in real life people can train ineffectively. (Yes, you can train ineffectively.) Sure, they are making the attempt, but that doesn't mean that what they're doing is always the right choice.


What I'm reading, by the OP and by the post I quoted before, is that any attempt at being optimal in any respect is metagaming and bad, which I strongly disagree with.

I didn't read it as any attempt at being optimal is bad roleplaying. I read it as making suboptimal choices can sometimes (not always) encourage character development, which is true. He never said that optimal choices made every player a bad roleplayer.


Crow, as to your job: you may work in a field where death or serious injury can occur on a daily basis, but you presumably do not actively seek out life or death situations, and plunge yourself head first into them, no? What I mean is that the default outlook for an adventurer is proactive, looking for a fight. Your default outlook is reactive, trying to prevent a fight.

Not looking for a fight, but you can pretty much be called at any time to walk into a situation where one might occur. If something goes down, you want to be equipped to handle it the best you can. I don't look at it as looking for a fight or trying to stop one (though nobody wants a fight). I look at it as, if something goes down, no matter the situation, I'm going to be ready for it. As I said in my earlier post, other guys train, but not the same way I do, and not to the same extent. Some don't train at all. These are guys that have to deal with the same things I do. Somewhere, some of us are making some "sub-optimal" choices, given the situations we may have to deal with.

snoopy13a
2008-10-08, 01:44 PM
I'm not saying that a character is going to make optimized choices at every turn, just that it is a consideration. Unless the character is a moron, they'll realize that if they're better at fighting, they'll be more likely to live a little longer. This doesn't mean that every choice they make will be optimal, but some of their choices will be made at least in an attempt to be optimal.

What I'm reading, by the OP and by the post I quoted before, is that any attempt at being optimal in any respect is metagaming and bad, which I strongly disagree with.


Crow, as to your job: you may work in a field where death or serious injury can occur on a daily basis, but you presumably do not actively seek out life or death situations, and plunge yourself head first into them, no? What I mean is that the default outlook for an adventurer is proactive, looking for a fight. Your default outlook is reactive, trying to prevent a fight.


Still, the character doesn't have the same wide range of options as the player. The character doesn't choose his/her attributes. Perhaps wizards are seen as the most powerful people in the character's viewpoint but if he/she was born with an intelligence of 10, there is no chance of them becoming a wizard. Additionally, the character may have chosen their class before deciding to be an adventurer. Perhaps they wanted to be a bard because they liked playing music and traveling. Later on, after becoming a bard, they decided to take up adventuring. Some characters may not have even had an opportunity to choose their class. A street urchin may have become a rogue not due to choice but rather due to their experiences in surviving on the streets.

Feats may not be active choices either. Characters may not actually "choose" the feats but rather the feats could represent the character's natural improvement in skill over time. The character themself doesn't decide to take the Toughness feat instead of say Dodge. Instead, through adventuring the character happened to become tougher instead of more mobile. It may not be a choice at all.

Of course, the character has some choices such as choosing to multiclass, what weapons to use and what spells to study. However, some feats, such as many of the fighting feats, could be interpreted as not in the character's control but rather represent improvement over time.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 02:27 PM
Alright, let me quote the OP again:


I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to players—it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born. Further, I suspect that many people would find that an RPG that's perfectly balanced is also likely to be perfectly boring.

What the OP is saying here is that making suboptimal choices are the "start of characterization", that without suboptimal choices, the player is not characterizing their character. In other words, they're not roleplaying.

They are further saying that an RPG system that is perfectly balanced, so that every choice is optimal or close to it, is boring. Why would it be boring? Because the premise is that making suboptimal choices leads to, or is the source of, roleplaying. Therefore, in a perfectly balanced system, they are claiming that one cannot roleplay effectively, leading to boredom. I.E. a perfectly balanced system must be hack n slash.

I find this to be absolute bunk. See my reasoning above, and the Stormwind Fallacy.


Not looking for a fight, but you can pretty much be called at any time to walk into a situation where one might occur. If something goes down, you want to be equipped to handle it the best you can. I don't look at it as looking for a fight or trying to stop one (though nobody wants a fight). I look at it as, if something goes down, no matter the situation, I'm going to be ready for it. As I said in my earlier post, other guys train, but not the same way I do, and not to the same extent. Some don't train at all. These are guys that have to deal with the same things I do. Somewhere, some of us are making some "sub-optimal" choices, given the situations we may have to deal with.

What's the death rate in your profession? What's the death rate amongst adenturers?

I would be more likely to compare adventurers to soldiers in active combat, rather than whatever your line of work is (police officer?).

Talya
2008-10-08, 02:31 PM
What the OP is saying here is that making suboptimal choices are the "start of characterization", that without suboptimal choices, the player is not characterizing their character. In other words, they're not roleplaying.



Right, and the quote in the OP is pure silliness.

People can take it too far in the other direction though.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 02:36 PM
Right, and the quote in the OP is pure silliness.

Correct.


People can take it too far in the other direction though.

Of course, but what do you mean by "the other direction", specifically?

Skjaldbakka
2008-10-08, 02:45 PM
The only time I've seen toughness taken is as a prereq. But the skill feats are often considered to be suboptimal, however, they are not necessarily so. It all depends on what you are optimizing. Even if you are gunning for high HP, you aren't going to take toughness for all your feats (thats what, +24hp - not even a drop in the bucket compared to a L20 d12 HD, 24con (280ish hp).

But if you are optimizing for a really high X skill, that +5 you can get from feats is still significant next to the +23 you'll get from ranks.

Does that mean alertness is a good choice for Jozan the cleric, with his 0 ranks in spot and listen? No (although he does have that very thing, at least, last time I pulled him up for a pregen - wound up tossing him out).

Even the +2 to save X feats are likely to find their way into the "I want a really high X save" builds. I was running a character with the true submissive feat at one point (opposed will save to attack me or target me with a hostile effect, unless I take an action). Iron Will was on the list (as well as several ways to cast spells w/o being detected). It made for an interesting party healer.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 02:48 PM
Correct.



Of course, but what do you mean by "the other direction", specifically?

Should I have mentioned he is a pathfinder designer? Not just some Joe-Shmo?

Still, twas a interesting debate. But the majority seem to think that bad chioices are okay as long as certain conjditions are met: as long as it is mentioned that they are bad.

So if the 3.5 PHB had a Sidebar that explained about the crap feats and why they were there so you only chose them on purpose and not accident: it would be okay to have the crap feats?

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 02:49 PM
That really doesn't make any sense; if you cut out all of the crap options then you stop having ways for your character to mechanically reflect their poor decisions; that restricts what you can realistically roleplay to a very narrow band of character types.

Why's that? Can't I pick a mechanical option that's less than optimal for my character given what my character is supposed to be doing without the option itself being inherently less powerful than another option that is along the lines of what I should be doing?

I think there is another disconnect lurking in the discussion now. I'm going to try to distinguish two more things here that have been conflated:

Suboptimal Choices Because of Character Optimization:(SCO)

Boris the hammer weilding fighter has to choose a new feat. He can take:
"Sma****withahammer" which will give him a +2 bonus to smashing things with his hammer. or;
"openthebloodylock" which will give him a +2 bonus to (you guessed it) opening locks.

Presume for a moment that both opening locks and smashing things with a hammer have equal game usefulness. The fighter, whose job is to smash things, would optimally pick sma****withahammer because that's what he does, Crispy the party rogue unlocks stuff. However, he can if he wants to, for RP reasons (say he thinks Crispy is really cool and wants to be able to do the neat stuff he does) pick openthebloodylock.

Neither feat is less valuable in a vaccum that the others, both grant a +2 bonus to an equally in game useful skill, but each can more or less optimal to a particular build, depending upon the aim of the build.

Suboptimal Choices Because of System Design (SSD)

Now it's Crispy's turn to pick a new feat. He can pick:

"begoodatlotsofstuff" which will make 2 non-class skills of his choice count as class skills. Or;
"begoodatabsolutleyeverything" which will make all non-class skills count as class skills.

Crispy is going to pick 'begoodatabsolutleyeverything' because there is no difference bettween the two feats except that one is simply mechanically better than the other. Both are options, but the presense of the option doesn't really provide anything to the game except the possibility of the player picking the weaker one. There is no concievable RP reason for them to pick the former rather than the latter since they do the same thing except that the latter does it better. This is not cool.

**
Obviously, these two examples are cut and dry ends of the spectrum that are clearer than exist in most systems but I think they serve to illustrate the distinction I want to make:

Some suboptimal choices are suboptimal because they don't fit into a specific optimal build for doing x but are equally powerful to all the other options when considered by themselves. IME, these are fine and not only unavoidable but desireable components of a robust and balanced system. Other options are inherently suboptimal because of the design of the system itself. They are always the worse mechanical option to another option in the system because that's just how the system is designed.

In practice, all complex systems (3.x is a good example of this) are going to have SSD aspects and SCO aspects. As I said before, the more complex the system the harder it becomes to avoid the interplay of various choices making other, previously viable options, SSD. The better the system, fewer the SSD aspects exist.

Eliminating the SSD aspects of a system (or not purposefully putting them in) therefore doesn't eliminate meaningful choices in character building or limit representation of a character in game, it just means that the game itself is balanced at the outset and all the options represent an equivalent increase in power against a standard baseline. Whether that increase is stacked on top of other increases to make a more mechanically powerful character in that particular aspect, another aspect, or spread around in ways that the character might in play see little practical benifit from in play isn't affected by each option be equally powerful.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 02:52 PM
I would also posit that Crow's note that 'many people make suboptimal choices' could also be simply represented by slower experience growth in many cases.

Crow
2008-10-08, 02:54 PM
What the OP is saying here is that making suboptimal choices are the "start of characterization", that without suboptimal choices, the player is not characterizing their character. In other words, they're not roleplaying.

They are further saying that an RPG system that is perfectly balanced, so that every choice is optimal or close to it, is boring. Why would it be boring? Because the premise is that making suboptimal choices leads to, or is the source of, roleplaying. Therefore, in a perfectly balanced system, they are claiming that one cannot roleplay effectively, leading to boredom. I.E. a perfectly balanced system must be hack n slash.

Dude, you're putting a lot of words into Mr. Wertz's mouth, and drawing conclusions that are not stated in the quote. I think we would get further in this if we had the entire text from which this quote was pulled. It very well be that this was taken out of context.


I would be more likely to compare adventurers to soldiers in active combat, rather than whatever your line of work is (police officer?).

If they weren't required to, a lot of soldiers wouldn't train as much either. I've been there too, and some soldiers chose to train extra in their spare time, while others only did the bare minimum, and you could see the difference.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 02:55 PM
Should I have mentioned he is a pathfinder designer?

Oh, I know that.


Not just some Joe-Shmo?

Being a game designer does not automatically elevate the person to some higher level.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 02:57 PM
Dude, you're putting a lot of words into Mr. Wertz's mouth, and drawing conclusions that are not stated in the quote.

Perhaps, but how would you define "start of characterization" differently from how I did?


I think we would get further in this if we had the entire text from which this quote was pulled. It very well be that this was taken out of context.

That is a good idea. I'll try to find it now.


If they weren't required to, a lot of soldiers wouldn't train as much either. I've been there too, and some soldiers chose to train extra in their spare time, while others only did the bare minimum, and you could see the difference.

I suppose you're right.

Lycar
2008-10-08, 03:00 PM
Believe it or not, but characters also think in terms of power.

You're an adventurer, you put your life on the line every day; don't you think that you might think about taking a stronger spell rather than a weaker one, even if it doesn't fit in with your overall "theme"? Remember, characters are living, breathing game constructs, they're not just cardboard cutouts of whatever ideals you've given them. They want to live, most likely. And they can realize that stronger options give them a better chance of surviving to the next day, or keeping their friends alive for one more day.

Okay. So this has been the standard argument for 'optimising is the natural way' and for some 'lol, only clueless noobs don't optimize!!!1!!!!'.

Now considering...


... since we're talking about what real life people would do.

For a level 1 wizard, toughness represents a default increase in their hit points of 75%. It dramatically increases the likelihood they will reach level 2 alive.

Now, JaxGarret, I wonder:

Using your OWN argument, how do you justify a d4 hitpoint character NOT taking toughnes at 1st level?

Lycar

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 03:01 PM
Using your OWN argument, how do you justify a d4 hitpoint character NOT taking toughness?

Lycar

Going to wizard school until level 5.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 03:02 PM
I would also posit that Crow's note that 'many people make suboptimal choices' could also be simply represented by slower experience growth in many cases.

I think it would be best represented in D&D terms by both slower xp accumulation (because they don't train) and probably investing of skill points in other things beside their job which seem equally or more important to them, like, Perform: gettingmygameon.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 03:05 PM
Now, JaxGarret, I wonder:

Using your OWN argument, how do you justify a d4 hitpoint character NOT taking toughnes at 1st level?

Lycar

Oh, and also specializing in being sneaky and relying on attacking from range entirely, working on the 'best defense strong offense' principle.

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 03:07 PM
Okay, through application of google-fu, I found the thread in question:

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/whatPlaytestingIs&page=3

Crow
2008-10-08, 03:09 PM
How would you define "start of characterization"?

I don't think of it as the start of characterization. I think of it as a part of characterization. Picking up the basketweaver feat and putting ranks into basketweaving doesn't make your fighter any more of a character than picking up the power attack feat does.

What it does do is open up an avenue of roleplay that wasn't there before. Now, your fighter isn't just a slayer of trolls and goblins, but he has a hobby that can be represented in-game. When the troll and goblin population gets depleted and times are tough for troll and goblin slayers, Mr. Fighter has the option to fall back on his basketweaving skills to get by.

Sure, basketweaving won't help him kill trolls or goblins any better, but when commoners approach him at the inn because they need a new basket, or a rival knight taunts him for doing "women's work", you have something that distinguishes the fighter from others. Maybe his baskets are so good that he draws the attention of rival basketweavers who want him out of the picture.

Of course these examples are a little crazy, but even Beowulf was known as a great swimmer. Hell, it even helped him later on. How many fighters pick up the athletic feat nowadays?

Oracle_Hunter
2008-10-08, 03:12 PM
@Crow
Question: why do you need a game mechanic for basket-weaving? Wouldn't it just be easier for the player to say "Beowulf is a champion basket weaver" and leave it at that.

What use is there in inventing a mechanic for basket-weaving on the off chance that a peasant might want to have a basket? Couldn't the DM just say "you weave a basket" or require some arbitrary roll, if need be?

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 03:12 PM
Dude, you're putting a lot of words into Mr. Wertz's mouth, and drawing conclusions that are not stated in the quote. I think we would get further in this if we had the entire text from which this quote was pulled. It very well be that this was taken out of context.



If they weren't required to, a lot of soldiers wouldn't train as much either. I've been there too, and some soldiers chose to train extra in their spare time, while others only did the bare minimum, and you could see the difference.

Page 3 of "What Playtesting is". It is a Stickied topic in General board: so finding should be easy.
On Paizo's message boards.
http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/general/whatPlaytestingIs&page=3

The whole quote is this:

Vic Wertz wrote
Also, I'd like to say something regarding this whole "balance" thing. Before I do, I'd like to point out that in this post I'm speaking for myself; Jason and other Paizo folks may feel differently.

There are certainly games where perfect balance in game design is essential. If players are motivated by the mechanics to do the same few things all the time, that's a problem that needs to be solved.

However, I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to players—it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born. Further, I suspect that many people would find that an RPG that's perfectly balanced is also likely to be perfectly boring.



Note while he personally believes in suboptimal choices, but Pathfinder as a whole doesn't have to (still hope for Pathfinder then).

JaxGaret
2008-10-08, 03:15 PM
Okay. So this has been the standard argument for 'optimising is the natural way' and for some 'lol, only clueless noobs don't optimize!!!1!!!!'.

That's not at all what I said.


Now, JaxGarret, I wonder:

Using your OWN argument, how do you justify a d4 hitpoint character NOT taking toughnes at 1st level?

Lycar

I don't need to justify it. I never said that optimization was the one and only concern of character creation.

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 03:17 PM
Why's that? Can't I pick a mechanical option that's less than optimal for my character given what my character is supposed to be doing without the option itself being inherently less powerful than another option that is along the lines of what I should be doing?I don't agree with the word "should" in that... it doesn't exist.




Now it's Crispy's turn to pick a new feat. He can pick:

"begoodatlotsofstuff" which will make 2 non-class skills of his choice count as class skills. Or;
"begoodatabsolutleyeverything" which will make all non-class skills count as class skills.
The character doesn't actually just pick "I'm going to learn everything" or "I'm going to learn 2 things" off of a menu. Feats aren't something that a character picks off of a list (unless you're playing a ultratech game where you download stuff into your head)... they are much more abstract, representing multiple things that a character has done to better himself that add up to that feat.


Crispy is going to pick 'begoodatabsolutleyeverything' because there is no difference bettween the two feats except that one is simply mechanically better than the other. Both are options, but the presense of the option doesn't really provide anything to the game except the possibility of the player picking the weaker one. There is no concievable RP reason for them to pick the former rather than the latter since they do the same thing except that the latter does it better. This is not cool. It's rather trivial to come up with counter examples showing a RP reason why Crispy wound up with only 2 additional skills instead of all skills: He's a bit lazy and didn't put in the time to learn all of them; he only put in enough time to learn two of them.

Sure, if you're going to restrict yourself to a very narrow band of character types where people always going to pick the smart choice, it doesn't make any sense, but that seems like an awfully limited roleplaying experience to me.

Lycar
2008-10-08, 03:20 PM
Going to wizard school until level 5.

Ah, and that is just the crux of the problem, isn't it?

It IS all fine and well to say 'toughnesS is the SUXXOR' if you look at builds'.

For a character starting at lv. 5, toughness is, in all fairness, a wasted feat. It's benefits no longer are in an adequate relation to the power loss a missing feat represents.

And form a roleplaying standpoint, there really is little reason for a mage, who grew up in the (relative) safety of an academy or a wizard's tower, to take that feat.

And what optimisation concerned player is going to have a character, which he is 'building' at lv. 5, who ever has a background that would make having toughness as a feat a fair choice?

Yes, just have him enter play after spending a couple of years at the mages academy. You can make pretty decent background stories. Great tales of his ever growing talent with magic, which just happens to manifest itself in having quite potent feat choices.

Nothing inherently wrong with that.

My beef with these kind of players is that they never, ever have something along the line of

"My character studied magecraft under an old hermit of a mage, who lived high up in the icy north. Since he constanly had to brave the harsh climate to collect firewood, ingredients or run errands for his mentor, he is a bit tougher then your average apprentice mage. So he has both the toughness and endurance feats. His mentor was more about building 'character' then magic power in his apprentice. Maybe he was just afraid that his pupil would one day surpass his master. Anyway, after all these years, he finally decides that he will be better off striking out on his own to learn more about magic. So he one day packs up and wanders off, in search of adventure and magic power..."

This is as much a valid concept for a character as the academy mage.

It is just less powerful.

Some people don't have fun playing such a character.

Fair enough. That is everybody's own opinion and choice.

But I absolutely HATE the notion that such a character is 'unplayable', 'doesn't pull his weight in the party' and all the other dreck pseudo excuses for denouncing a perfectly valid character concept. :smallfurious:

The question is, however, how to justify not taking it on 1st level. As in, you start play at lv.1.

Lycar

huttj509
2008-10-08, 03:25 PM
I do think part of the key is defining suboptimal.

If the optimal top of the line most effective choice is 100%, then where do you consider suboptimal?

50%, but does something else? Similar to the smash the door down or open the dang lock example from earlier. This is what I consider when I see suboptimal in the quote. Not the best for your optimized role, but you still get something fairly useful, or at least something less useful that you knew going into it. It's rather clear, for example, that the perform skill will not have much mechanical usefulness except to a bard, so that might be considered 25% but does something else, but that's precisely the thing someone could take as part of building their character if they so desired.

50% but does nothing else? Closer to the SSD example earlier.

25%, but looks like 100% unless you've gone through the book in detail to realize exactly what all the options are and exactly what they do?

If someone takes the 25% knowing what it is, fine, no problem. The issue in my mind comes into play with things like Monks (the great exemplifier), lots of abilities, rule of cool, but what are they actually really good at doing? The non-1/level BAB hurts them a lot more than it looks like to someone starting. Now someone who knows that deciding to play a monk anyway, and seeing what they can do with it is 100% fine by me, but I've seen folks thinking they were getting one thing, when they actually weren't. Mobile fighter who has lower BAB and also can't use the extra attacks which make up for it while being mobile...yeah...

Edit: the only issue I have with anyone actually taking known sub-par choices on purpose is with premade adventures, or a party that ends up with a wide level of power disparity.

Crow
2008-10-08, 03:26 PM
He says that suboptimal choices should be available to the players. He's not saying that they should be put in to trick players into making suboptimal choices.


Question: why do you need a game mechanic for basket-weaving? Wouldn't it just be easier for the player to say "Beowulf is a champion basket weaver" and leave it at that.

What use is there in inventing a mechanic for basket-weaving on the off chance that a peasant might want to have a basket? Couldn't the DM just say "you weave a basket" or require some arbitrary roll, if need be?

There is no reason for a basketweaving mechanic in the same way that there is no reason for combat mechanics. Why can't you just say that your fighter is an excellent combatant and just role-play it out and ask for some arbitrary roll to resolve combat? I'm sorry, but arbitrary rolls often feel just that. Arbitrary.

The basketweaving skill was just an on-the-spot example. At some point, Beowulf may want to know if he really is a better basketweaver than the Hrothgar's champion basketweaver. Why should a basketweaving contest be handled any different than an archery contest?

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 03:29 PM
He says that suboptimal choices should be available to the players. He's not saying that they should be put in to trick players into making suboptimal choices.


Bard Prc Warweaver and some Druid Prc both require Craft Basketweaver to qualify: so those aren't entirely useless skills.

Crow
2008-10-08, 03:31 PM
Bard Prc Warweaver and some Druid Prc both require Craft Basketweaver to qualify: so those aren't entirely useless skills.

I didn't even know there was a basketweaving skill. I just picked it for the hell of it. In most cases, it would be a sub-optimal choice, though.

But that is funny. :smalltongue:

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 03:34 PM
I do think part of the key is defining suboptimal.Sub = a prefix meaning below, less than. Suboptimal = less than or below optimal.

Lycar
2008-10-08, 03:41 PM
That's not at all what I said.

I don't need to justify it. I never said that optimization was the one and only concern of character creation.

Hmm.. allow me to clarify:

You, YOU didn't say that (at least not in this thread, I don't know about other threads, nor does it matter for the moment). Unfortunately, a lot of .. let us say... 'not fully mature' participants seem to use this as the be-all, end-all argument to justify totally ... let's say 'cheesy' choices for character developement.

Now, if the argument goes that 'real characters would do whatever they can to improve their chances at survival' and obviously, an Übercharger who can k.o. a single, powerfull enemy in one cruel blow (if the dice play along) has a better survival potential then, say, a fencer. Fair enough.

But if you argue for survivabilty, what argument would YOU, personally, use to prove that 'toughness is a poor choice for a 1st level wizard/sorcere' ?

Really now. What would YOUR choice be and why?

Combat Casting? So he has a better chance to cast a spell in case things got pear-shaped and he has an angry kobold threatening his 4 hp with a pointy stick? Oh wait, 5 foot step offers total immunity to AoO, never mind...

Dodge? +1 AC ... could be useful vs. arrows. But wait, dodge is suboptimal too, isn't it. So that can't be it either.

Magical Aptitude? Nope, these +2 to 2 skills feats suck.

Spell Focus? Hmm.. makes it harder to resist your spells.. but only 1 school of spells.. and a paltry +1 ? It's in the same league as weapon focus, isn't it ?

Metamagic feats? They are neat. Too bad you're stuck with lv. 1 spell slots for the next 2 levels...

Run? Well... could have it uses... not losing one's DEX bonus to AC while running is very... Rincewind :smallwink:

Toughness? Hmm.. nearly double my original HP. I might actually take an (un)lucky hit and still be conscious. To take cover and quaff a potion. Or get off one more spell that ends the encounter. Or even if i do go down, that is still 3 more rounds for my buddies to finish the fight and stop me from bleeding out... why, that doesn't sound that bad all of a sudden....

Lycar

snoopy13a
2008-10-08, 03:47 PM
Hmm.. allow me to clarify:

You, YOU didn't say that (at least not in this thread, I don't know about other threads, nor does it matter for the moment). Unfortunately, a lot of .. let us say... 'not fully mature' participants seem to use this as the be-all, end-all argument to justify totally ... let's say 'cheesy' choices for character developement.

Now, if the argument goes that 'real characters would do whatever they can to improve their chances at survival' and obviously, an Übercharger who can k.o. a single, powerfull enemy in one cruel blow (if the dice play along) has a better survival potential then, say, a fencer. Fair enough.

But if you argue for survivabilty, what argument would YOU, personally, use to prove that 'toughness is a poor choice for a 1st level wizard/sorcere' ?

Really now. What would YOUR choice be and why?

Combat Casting? So he has a better chance to cast a spell in case things got pear-shaped and he has an angry kobold threatening his 4 hp with a pointy stick? Oh wait, 5 foot step offers total immunity to AoO, never mind...

Dodge? +1 AC ... could be useful vs. arrows. But wait, dodge is suboptimal too, isn't it. So that can't be it either.

Magical Aptitude? Nope, these +2 to 2 skills feats suck.

Spell Focus? Hmm.. makes it harder to resist your spells.. but only 1 school of spells.. and a paltry +1 ? It's in the same league as weapon focus, isn't it ?

Metamagic feats? They are neat. Too bad you're stuck with lv. 1 spell slots for the next 2 levels...

Run? Well... could have it uses... not losing one's DEX bonus to AC while running is very... Rincewind :smallwink:

Toughness? Hmm.. nearly double my original HP. I might actually take an (un)lucky hit and still be conscious. To take cover and quaff a potion. Or get off one more spell that ends the encounter. Or even if i do go down, that is still 3 more rounds for my buddies to finish the fight and stop me from bleeding out... why, that doesn't sound that bad all of a sudden....

Lycar

I suppose I'd go with Improved Initiative.

huttj509
2008-10-08, 03:48 PM
Sub = a prefix meaning below, less than. Suboptimal = less than or below optimal.


Yes, but I think some are saying suboptimal things are fine meaning a choice that doesn't put you at 100% peak effectiveness but is still quite effective on its own, discounting uber feat combos.

Others are saying suboptimal choices are bad when they're referring to the trap choices that show up to look good and make new players much much less effective than they thought they were being.

These two definitions of suboptimal seem to be arguing past each other, because if it were understood what definition each was using, there may not be disagreement. There might be, but there would be less of it.

IMHO not every choice has to be 100%. At the same time, you should not have a feat that gives +1 to hit at the same prereqs as a feat that gives +5 to hit and +7 to damage, while allowing you to make a free trip attack on every swing. Especially if the mechanics for each are laid out such that it looks like both feats are equivalent in different ways.

A feat to do 1d10 damage on a critical hit, vs. one to do 1d2 on each hit would be a reasonable comparison. In general that 1d10 will add about .5 damage per swing on average, but have much larger burst potential, and depends on your crit rate enhancers (keen, for example). vs. 1d6 damage per hit instead of 1d2, however, and you'd need to crit half the time to have the damage match-ish. Those would be 2 feats which look similar, but really aren't due to the mechanics obscuring the actual effect. If you added a BAB prereq to the 1d6 damage per swing, however both could easily be considered reasonable.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 03:57 PM
I suppose I'd go with Improved Initiative.

I think we have a winner.
I would accept Eschew Materials (Dm dependent).

Efstrofos
2008-10-08, 04:06 PM
I think the problem with sub-optimal choices in D&D is that there doesn't seem to be a system in place to learn from your mistakes. In the case of monkey grip vs. power attack, at some point my fighter should realize "You know, instead of swinging this big sword around, maybe I should just start swinging a normal sized sword harder." Sure he can take power attack later, but it seems a little silly to me that he has permanently used up his chance to learn something else in his monkey grip feat slot.

Using Crow's example from earlier. If one the guys you worked with, lets say one who doesn't exercise enough, finds himself out of breath and unable to do his job properly, he can just start exercising to be better prepared next time. His sub-optimal choice earlier doesn't permanently prevent him from making the optimal choice later. I know leveling is supposed to represent this in a way, but I think it does so poorly. In the last 6 years I've fluctuated from bench pressing 150lbs to 210lbs and back many times. There's no way that I leveled, then lost levels, and then gained them back again.


Also, why does a sub-optimal choice need to be represented mechanically? My characters frequently don't fight defensively when being hit multiple times, or they do charge into battle vs. a hydra/demon/dragon. Not because they mechanically can't make the right decision, but because they are just making a bad choice. Its my character development that says "I'm big, stupid, and brave. I refuse to take the defensive, and I'll charge at anything." No mechanics necessary.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 04:11 PM
Ah, and that is just the crux of the problem, isn't it?

For a character starting at lv. 5, toughness is, in all fairness, a wasted feat. It's benefits no longer are in an adequate relation to the power loss a missing feat represents.


I did also offer the alternative solution that they would rely on a strategy not involving getting hit.


But I absolutely HATE the notion that such a character is 'unplayable', 'doesn't pull his weight in the party' and all the other dreck pseudo excuses for denouncing a perfectly valid character concept. :smallfurious:

For what it's worth, I've rarely seen denunciations of other people doing what you described - only when a person feels as though that is their only option. I'm not seeing any of that in this thread.

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 04:15 PM
It depends on the setting, players, and DM. For example, in one game I played a slave with pretty much all my ability scores in the 12 or below range. However, even without a class or special abilities, I managed to sneak into the King's hall and convince him that our group and my master were fighting for a cause that was of paramount importance to his country's survival. This move ended up getting us the support we needed to overtake our foe and greatly reduce the BBEG's power.

A character's worth can be measured against several criteria: Prowess in battle, personality, and the player's ability to make informed and clever decisions.

Sub-optimal characters can be fun to play, sometimes even more-so than min/maxed characters. There is nothing wrong with playing sub-optimal characters and I don't think it should be discouraged if the player is an experienced role-player.

valadil
2008-10-08, 04:27 PM
How suboptimal are we talking?

I remember a friend's cleric took Skill Focus Diplomacy without taking any ranks in it. It was a total waste of a feat, but he insisted that wasting the feat made him a better roleplayer. That's the kind of attitude Stormwind applies to.

I remember another character who was a drunken master/duelist. There were probably three other prestige classes in there. The build was powerful, but the character was lost in all the classes. I think this is a case where a less optimized build would have better represented the character underneath.

While characters are not necessarily aware of mechanics, they want to be good at what they do. There's nothing wrong with making them effective, but I do have a problem with deviations too far from the original character made only for the sake of mechanical power. For instance, a loner mage should not take Mage of the Arcane Order as written since it depends on other mages for spells. Maybe he could rework the PrC's flavor with the GM or rewrite his character a little (a loner who doesn't mind depending on people, but just doesn't want to be around them could take MotAO in my opinion).

I'm babbling. I'll be quiet now.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 04:28 PM
Babbling or not, I agree with you, valadil. I think AKA Bait did a good job summing the whole thing up well in his first post, though.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 04:32 PM
I don't agree with the word "should" in that... it doesn't exist.


You are correct. I should have been more precise. It should read "should be doing if his goal is to become more mechanically powerful". I think that was pretty clear though.

Do you understand the distinction that I was getting at?


The character doesn't actually just pick "I'm going to learn everything" or "I'm going to learn 2 things" off of a menu. Feats aren't something that a character picks off of a list... they are much more abstract, representing multiple things that a character has done to better himself that add up to that feat.

Picking the feat is the out of game representation of what they are doing in game, namley improving at something. That's the purpose of the mechanic. The concept entails the notion of improvement and the notion of in character effort. The character, if RPed well, takes the actions that lead to the improvment in game but the feat is still 'picked' buffet style, by the player as there is no causal connection between the two.


It's rather trivial to come up with counter examples showing a RP reason why Crispy wound up with only 2 additional skills instead of all skills: He's a bit lazy and didn't put in the time to learn all of them; he only put in enough time to learn two of them.

Then he wouldn't put any skill points in the others. Having a skill on your class list has literally NO in game representation. The effects of the additional skill points do; which the player can spend, or not spend, as they like.

But, fine, lets try to muddy the waters even less:

Using feats/skills here might be a poor retorical choice as it is too steeped in the 3.x concepts. How about we consider the base mechanic for improvment "Training Hours" (TH) for purpose of hashing this out? We can have total in game transparancy that way.

1 TH is gained by training in something for 1 hour of in game time. Mechanically, 1 TH allows the player to pick one "Improvement Option".

Crispy has trained in picking pockets for an hour. The rest of the party have also trained in other things for an hour. Out of game, his player now gets to pick an "Improvement option". He can pick:

Pickpocketsgood: +1 picking pockets.
Robemblind: +2 picking pockets.

One is clearly better than the other. The choice to pick either one represents the same amount of in character investment. Are you arguing that same amount of 'Training Hours' in a game should not grant the same amount of improvement to equally in game valuable skills? The point of the SCO v. SSD distinction I was making is to show that there are optimization choices made by the player selecting things according to the character and also aspects of the system that make one game choice inherently mechanically better than the other for the same amount of IC effort.

To back out bit, this hypotetical system makes the connection I'm getting at a bit clearer. One of the problems with these dicussions when they are couched in D&D terms is the level of abstractness and imprecision of character creation/advancment mechanics. D&D deals in big lumps of power i.e. levels. A level represents, or is supposed to represent, a discreet amount of additional power the PC can exert over the world. The level is a catchall for a number of different and particular increases in power (bonuses, new abilities) and the watermark at which a number of those are increased all at the same time. Regardless of that, it still represents a discreet amout of power the character is supposed to have gained (through experience) which all manifests itself upon reaching that given level. The blocks that go into the level are feats, skill points, BaB, casterlevels, new spells etc. As such, all these things for all classes at a given level should come out together to that same amount of power exerted in game. When you have SSDs you are undermining the concept the system is built upon by having characters of the same level, but not the same power. The imprecision of it, in terms of relating specific bonuses to match character aspects, is a consequence of the system deciding to lump everything together for ease of use. Classless systems, like GURPS, are less easy to use but more precise (and closer to my easier conceptual example).


50%, but does something else? Similar to the smash the door down or open the dang lock example from earlier. This is what I consider when I see suboptimal in the quote. Not the best for your optimized role, but you still get something fairly useful, or at least something less useful that you knew going into it.

That's fair, and what I was getting at with an SCO choice. The picking locks choice is less useful because of the rest of the build and the circumstances of the character.

The basic idea I'm advocating is that the bulding blocks of a character should all have the same mechanical value. It's an SSD situation when they don't. How many of those building blocks you want to use and how to spread them around can vary with taste.



I've seen folks thinking they were getting one thing, when they actually weren't. Mobile fighter who has lower BAB and also can't use the extra attacks which make up for it while being mobile...yeah...

This is the point of having an SSD free system as much as possible. You get what you pay for in terms of 'training hours', 'levels', 'experience' or whatever the building block of the system looks like. If you want a weaker character, use fewer blocks, but you shouldn't be presented with blocks of different types when you do decide to improve a character in part because it may not be obvious from the outset that they are in fact different.


For what it's worth, I've rarely seen denunciations of other people doing what you described - only when a person feels as though that is their only option. I'm not seeing any of that in this thread.

I'm not sure I've ever actually seen one on this forum. Other forums... we'll they aren't us.


Sub-optimal characters can be fun to play, sometimes even more-so than min/maxed characters. There is nothing wrong with playing sub-optimal characters and I don't think it should be discouraged if the player is an experienced role-player.

I agree and I think there is stil some retorical confusion right around this point. I'm talking about system design when I say SSD is bad, not freedom of choice in character construction or character optimization.

The system should not present SSD options to the players. The actual progress of the game and the system working together should present SCO options to the players.

Tokiko Mima
2008-10-08, 05:07 PM
You, YOU didn't say that (at least not in this thread, I don't know about other threads, nor does it matter for the moment). Unfortunately, a lot of .. let us say... 'not fully mature' participants seem to use this as the be-all, end-all argument to justify totally ... let's say 'cheesy' choices for character developement.

Now, if the argument goes that 'real characters would do whatever they can to improve their chances at survival' and obviously, an Übercharger who can k.o. a single, powerfull enemy in one cruel blow (if the dice play along) has a better survival potential then, say, a fencer. Fair enough.

But if you argue for survivabilty, what argument would YOU, personally, use to prove that 'toughness is a poor choice for a 1st level wizard/sorcere' ?

Hmm.. this is a very Allegory of the Cave way to look at things. You want use to choose something that benefits a character right now in a highly conspicuous way, but wizards and casters are much more subtle than that. They read and learn and analyze the past to divine the future.

In the absense of analysis, past experience, and outside opinion, Toughness does look like one mighty awesome feat for a wizard. Monk even looks like a much better class, too. But a wizard is not going to make choices based on merely gut feelings of how it would help him immediately.

A wizard will have read about Fredrick the Evoker, who spent his time learning to be physically tougher and faster (taking Toughness, Dodge and Improved Toughness Feats) instead of studying metamagic. The wizard will read about how Fredrick predictably discovered that he never could seem to be as effective as all the other wizards who'd chosen decent schools and used their feats more wisely. He'll have noticed that higher level wizards don't seem to need to dodge or take hits much. He'll be told that if he wants to be physically tougher, then he should take up the warblade class instead of being a wizard.

Generally, I think most characters would naturally gravitate towards the better more optimal feats, but sometimes they would make bad character building choices because (a) they aren't perfect (b) sometimes appearance overrules logic and (c) it might be a choice that they really, really want to make, even if they know it's not the best option. I think it would be pretty rare to have someone shape their destiny around being ineffective at what they do.

Lycar
2008-10-08, 05:14 PM
I suppose I'd go with Improved Initiative.


I think we have a winner.
I would accept Eschew Materials (Dm dependent).

Very nice, you found a solution, have a biscuit.

Now, for full credit, please describe, in your own words, why you would take these feats for your own lv. 1 wizard.

Otherwise I feel compelled to deduct points because you 'obviously just copied from your neighbour read that on the char-ops boards'. :smallwink:


I did also offer the alternative solution that they would rely on a strategy not involving getting hit.

Yes, YOU did. And that is all fair enough. It is just a different philosophy. Make the low HP not matter by reducing the chances for it to be a problem.
Other take: I can't get 100% certainity of not being hit, then having a 75% better survival rate if I do get hit looks good all of a sudden.



For what it's worth, I've rarely seen denunciations of other people doing what you described - only when a person feels as though that is their only option. I'm not seeing any of that in this thread.

Lucky you. Maybe I just have been reading the wrong boards then. It is just that by now I get a rash every time someone mentions the words 'oberoni' or 'stormwind' *twitch*.

Because in most cases, that are just lame excuses for justifying totally ridiculous builds. :smallyuk:

Don't get me wrong: I totally agree that playing a weak character does not a great roleplayer make. The opposite is just as true however: Just because you can come up with a nice story for your 'built' doesn't make you an inherently good roleplayer.

That's like saying that a certain guvernor is a great actor, because his action flicks rock. Then you look at his comedies... :smallbiggrin:

Personally, I don't mind that the game rules aren't balanced.

The point is: Playing (roleplaying, poker, Settlers of Catan, even chess to some degree) is a social activity. People get together and play to have some fun time...


Some people enjoy taking a rulesset and min-maxing the hell out of it. Others rather think up a nice story and build their characters around that. The power levels will be different. This is not too much of a problem as long as the players remember to have fun.

The problem only really starts when 'some' people lord their '1337 rules mastery' over the others. But jerks are always a problem, not only in D&D so...

Okay, so in my opinion, D&D 3.x is a great RPG for 'heroic sword & sorcery fantasy'. It is a great toolkit to play a very large number of games, as long as they follow the basic premises. For other premises, not so much.

But as every other toolkit, you need to have a certain maturity to use it responsibly. You can take a hammer to shingle a roof. Or to cave someone's skull in. Or, in case of 'bad feat choices', hammer a nail into your knee and hang a piano on it.

So yes, in a perfect world, rules should not require rule 0. Not too often anyway. Our world isn't perfect. If we buy all those rulebooks and play that game, it is OUR responsibilty what we make of the material given to us.

We can bitch and moan about the wizards smoking the rest of the PHB in his pipe. Or we can agree not to ruin each other's fun by avoiding the things that make being a fighter unfun.

Ideally, there wouldn't be such a thing. But again, we are not living in an ideal world.


I think this really depends on how suboptimal it is.

Fun fact: Did you know that almost 50% of all employees worldwide work at less then mediocre efficiency?

And 5.999.999.999 of 6.000.000.000 people perform at a sub-optimal standard! The horror!

Or let us take a look at the DMG: That nifty little table where it says your average party should have around 50% encounters at challenge level (and some easier and some tougher ones)...


An 'appropriate' encounter is supposed to cost you around 20% of your resources.

If your character can (on average) perform on a level like that, then he is actually 'optimal' for the expected level of power in the RAW.

If he can ace some encounters by one-shoting them and suffers greatly in others, he's still ok.

If he routinely takes less attrition during gameplay... maybe it's time he takes a nice, neat but ... ahem.. sub-optimal feat next? You know, just so he doesn't upset the game balance.. it's okay. You still won't suck. You are supposed to bleed a bit. Otherwise, what's so heroic about you?

If you get your behind handed to you in more encounters then not... is it just you or do the other players fare just as bad? Talk to the GM? Maybe he likes it a bit too gritty for your own tastes, eh? The others outperform you? Still having fun because you are the wimpy bard, who gets his jollies from singing about his great adventures in the pubs and inns, collecting groupies like the wizard spells? Then rock on! If not.. well, they did introduce those retraining rules in the PHB II. May want to check them out maybe.

####

Okay, this post got a bit too long really. Spoilered some parts. Sorry.


Lycar

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 05:16 PM
Using feats/skills here might be a poor retorical choice as it is too steeped in the 3.x concepts. How about we consider the base mechanic for improvment "Training Hours" (TH) for purpose of hashing this out? We can have total in game transparancy that way.While I can see what you're getting at, I'm going to have to say that I don't think it really helps the discussion. What you're suggesting would be reasonable in a point based system like GURPS, but advancement in D&D is much, much more abstract than that; abilities gained (especially feats) do not translate into time invested in any sort of meaningful fashion.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 05:25 PM
considering how 3.x's EXP gain is laid out per encounter, and the mere nature of point systems (which tend to be balanced purely by usefulness, except for GURPS, which represents so much that anything could potentially be useful) I'd say D&D tries harder to make a relevant relation between time and improvement than other systems, at least as far as combat capability is concerned.

snoopy13a
2008-10-08, 05:28 PM
Very nice, you found a solution, have a biscuit.

Now, for full credit, please describe, in your own words, why you would take these feats for your own lv. 1 wizard.

Otherwise I feel compelled to deduct points because you 'obviously just copied from your neighbour read that on the char-ops boards'. :smallwink:








Because improved initiative would likely allow the wizard to either act first or to prepare a readied action. I could gain a few hitpoints early on by going with a higher constitution. Improved initiative, unlike toughness, is also useful throughout the wizard's career.

Although, if I was playing a human wizard in a low-level campaign, I could see getting improved initiative and toughness at level 1.

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 05:39 PM
I could gain a few hitpoints early on by going with a higher constitution. This doesn't look like an in-character decision at all; it's not something the character gets to pick.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 05:44 PM
This doesn't look like an in-character decision at all; it's not something the character gets to pick.

Diet and exercise versus more studying or socializing. Toughness would be learning pain tolerance, maybe.

Starbuck_II
2008-10-08, 05:46 PM
Very nice, you found a solution, have a biscuit.

Now, for full credit, please describe, in your own words, why you would take these feats for your own lv. 1 wizard.

Otherwise I feel compelled to deduct points because you 'obviously just copied from your neighbour read that on the char-ops boards'. :smallwink:



Well, as I said DM dependent. If you DM makes you roleplay out gathering out spell components or whatever: Eschew materials makes life easier and Wizards are not usually dummies.

Improved Iniative: The Wizard knows that if he goes first he can stop danger before he gets hit: Since he is likely to have good Dex and +4 is nothing to sneeze at (but go ahead; only a number if you have a cold) you'll go first 7/10 times.

+3 hps won't stop all attacks that will kill you (the rogue alone deals 2d6 if he goes first). But stopping a threat before he gets to you can.

DM Raven
2008-10-08, 06:07 PM
The system should not present SSD options to the players. The actual progress of the game and the system working together should present SCO options to the players.

I would agree with this, not all options need to be balanced, but they should all present the player with options that allow his or her character to perform well in some situation. And if certain choices are very bad (a-la Toughness from 3.x) then they should be the pre-req for some other option that is better than average (thus creating a balance). I have no problem with sub-par options being the pre-reqs for more powerfull options because that sort of design makes the very act of character creation into somewhat of a game.

Saph
2008-10-08, 06:29 PM
Very interesting discussion.

I don't think including deliberately suboptimal choices with no extra payoff is a good idea. I do think it's a good idea to include suboptimal choices which give some kind of interesting side benefit, though.

However, in this case I think the point's moot, for the simple reason that I don't think it's possible to give players any significant freedom in character creation without including suboptimal choices (bearing in mind that a choice that's great in one build can be useless in another). 3.5 has loads of freedom to make a character; in exchange, it's possible for the character to suck. I think that's close to a universal law.

The talk about the 'Stormwind Fallacy' doesn't impress me; I've never really bought into the whole concept, for the reason Talya already pointed out - the in-character choice is not always the optimised choice. However, I'd stop short of making deliberate 'trap' design decisions.

- Saph

The Glyphstone
2008-10-08, 06:33 PM
The talk about the 'Stormwind Fallacy' doesn't impress me; I've never really bought into the whole concept, for the reason Talya already pointed out - the in-character choice is not always the optimised choice. However, I'd stop short of making deliberate 'trap' design decisions.

- Saph


i think that's misquoting the Stormwind Fallacy though, as too many people tend to do. It's supposed to disprove that someone who takes a non-optimized character choice automatically becomes a superior role-player, regardless of any other circumstances.

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 06:35 PM
Diet and exercise versus more studying or socializing. Toughness would be learning pain tolerance, maybe.To a certain extent, perhaps... but really, people have limitations that they're born with.

Saph
2008-10-08, 06:37 PM
i think that's misquoting the Stormwind Fallacy though, as too many people tend to do. It's supposed to disprove that someone who takes a non-optimized character choice automatically becomes a superior role-player, regardless of any other circumstances.

Which is an incredibly easy thing to disprove, and if that was all it was saying, it wouldn't bother me. However, in practice it usually seems to be used to try to insist that there's no conflict between optimisation and roleplaying at all . . . which simply isn't true, for the reasons Crow pointed out.

- Saph

Jayabalard
2008-10-08, 06:37 PM
i think that's misquoting the Stormwind Fallacy though, as too many people tend to do. It's supposed to disprove that someone who takes a non-optimized character choice automatically becomes a superior role-player, regardless of any other circumstances.As I recall, all it is is his attempt to show that it's possible to both roleplay and optimize, but it doesn't prove anything about them orthogonal... nor was I particularly impressed with any of the logic tat I've seen quoted out of it.

AstralFire
2008-10-08, 06:40 PM
I sometimes frequent another forum with a forum admin who is positively convinced that optimizers are actually better roleplayers inherently. ...For many reasons, several of them involving his ideas on game design, I only go there now to work on a few homebrew projects I'm involved in.

I believe there's some level of conflict that becomes trivial for many good players, myself.

AKA_Bait
2008-10-08, 07:45 PM
While I can see what you're getting at, I'm going to have to say that I don't think it really helps the discussion. What you're suggesting would be reasonable in a point based system like GURPS, but advancement in D&D is much, much more abstract than that; abilities gained (especially feats) do not translate into time invested in any sort of meaningful fashion.


considering how 3.x's EXP gain is laid out per encounter, and the mere nature of point systems (which tend to be balanced purely by usefulness, except for GURPS, which represents so much that anything could potentially be useful) I'd say D&D tries harder to make a relevant relation between time and improvement than other systems, at least as far as combat capability is concerned.

Indeed, encounter based Exp is supposed to be the bridge between the two. That's the point of it rather than having a DM simply say 'take a level' every so often. GURPS is closer to the example in terms of easy conception, D&D farther from it in terms of design, but both have the same underpinning. D&D is more abstract, it sacrifices closeness to the concept for ease of use and thus has to be, otherwise everyone would be adding powers in tiny incraments all the time and the system would become overly burdensome. I find GURPS that way sometimes and it's far from as transparant as my hypothetical example. D&D basically delays the benifits of the time spent and awards it all at once. The fact that for ease of bookkeeping it delays the award doesn't mean that the connection isn't there.


I have no problem with sub-par options being the pre-reqs for more powerfull options because that sort of design makes the very act of character creation into somewhat of a game.

I don't like them for a different reason than above. Mainly, it's that I don't like setting up weakness at one powerlevel to justify more ability at a higher one. This is primarily because not all games traverse all those power levels, and it makes some feats essentially worthless or a free powerboost when they don't.


I don't think including deliberately suboptimal choices with no extra payoff is a good idea. I do think it's a good idea to include suboptimal choices which give some kind of interesting side benefit, though.

Sort of agree. Insofar as the benefits are mechanical ones, I'd just consdier them as part of the overall powers of the choice (feat, class, whatever). If the side benefit is some more flavorful thing that doesn't really effect the mechanics, I'd just as soon not put a power pricetag on it.


However, in this case I think the point's moot, for the simple reason that I don't think it's possible to give players any significant freedom in character creation without including suboptimal choices (bearing in mind that a choice that's great in one build can be useless in another).

True, this is part of the reason I felt the need to make the distinction between the two types of suboptimal choices. A choice that's awesome for one character and crud for another is not a SSD scenario.


I think that's close to a universal law.

I'd have to think about it some, but I suspect that you are probably right.


As I recall, all it is is his attempt to show that it's possible to both roleplay and optimize, but it doesn't prove anything about them orthogonal... nor was I particularly impressed with any of the logic tat I've seen quoted out of it.

Yeah. I've never been particulary impressed by it and was less so after one of my brief forays to the WotC forum where I ended up arguing with Stormwind about it and getting him to the conculsion that his definition of "optimization" had no actual link to character power but to representation of the character concept. Also, as phrased, it's not a fallacy. It's an axiom.

Swordguy
2008-10-08, 08:52 PM
Yeah, I know it's late in the thread, and everyone's made up their minds anyway, but I wanna chime in.

I look at "optimization" as actually two types. There's optimizing for a role - this is where picking "smart" feat choices come into play. Smart feat choices can be independent of the character type. You can still optimize, using the first definition, a blaster wizard, for example. Take feats that increase your save DCs and metamagic, and some other stuff that makes you a better blaster within the confines of the DMs preferred power level". No issue here so far.

However, over the years I've been reading this board, I've seen "optimization" defined as "taking a combination of feats/spells/abilities/etc from a large variety of sources that were never intended to work together in such a fashion to produce unusually large damage or significant effects". A large number of "One Trick Pony" builds, like uberchargers, fall into this category. There's no denying that they're optimal - they allow you to do your job (kill people with green skin and take their stuff) to the best of your ability as allowed by the rules...but, to me at least, they break the "spirit" of the game -the social contract between players and GMs and players and other players that is basically summed up as "don't be a ****." They FORCE everyone else at the table to start the "optimization arms race" in order to stay relevant within the game - and that's not fair to them. I've seen threads that advise that if you don't have a Leap Attack/Shock Trooper/Etc fighter build, or Batman, or a Natural Spell Druid with that funky Uber-Dinosaur Animal Companion (regardless of whether the DM has dinos in his campaign), the poster asking for optimization help is playing wrong.

There's a difference between optimization to be good at what you do, and optimization to abuse poorly-written or ill-considered rules. A LOT of optimization that I see here and on the CharOp boards is of the second type. As long as it's listed as a "haha, look what I can make the rules do", that's fine. But when I see people actually recommending it to people as in-play builds, and actively denigrading those who don't want to abuse the rules in such a way ("get a real/better build!"), then it becomes...well...yeah.

As for the OP, he does have a point, though I agree, IN GENERAL, that optimization (of the first type) is NOT the enemy of RP. We all know that a 2-handed fighter should take a greatsword for optimal performance. Fine. But what if my basic character concept doesn't hold with using a greatsword? My wife, for example, refuses to play dwarves as using anything but axes and hammers. So her Dwarf uses a greataxe, because she likes the visual, and she prefers the theme. Does that mean she can't optimize within her concept by selecting good feats? Not whatsoever. But "pure" optimization ("Drop that axe for a greatsword! You do more damage that way!") is, in this case, directly opposed to her RP.

EvilElitest
2008-10-08, 10:13 PM
Okay, I was reading Pathfinder forums: On Topic what Playtesting is.

And Vic Wertz said something that feels wrong:
"However, I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to players—it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born. Further, I suspect that many people would find that an RPG that's perfectly balanced is also likely to be perfectly boring."

Do suboptimal choices lead to positive results?
Or
Are they a trap that the designers have a good laugh about when people choose them (Nelson from Simpsons type laugh: Ha Ha).

Kinda like how Toughness was a weak feat. Vic feels feats like this lead to good results.
What are your feelings/thoughts? Do weak feats help you make a better character?
In theory, yes. But only if they are presented and maintained well...........yeah
from
EE

erikun
2008-10-08, 10:22 PM
Very nice, you found a solution, have a biscuit.

Now, for full credit, please describe, in your own words, why you would take these feats for your own lv. 1 wizard.
I almost always take Enchew Materials for my Wizard at level 1. (I rarely run a Sorcerer.) The reason for doing so is because I don't like the micro-management of material components. I don't like the thought of suddenly running out of a necessary component to cast a spell, or of having my components taken from me. Furthermore, I feel that I have more important things to worry about than the amount of guano my familiar can produce in a month.

I believe that my 18-20 INT character would feel the same way. Heck, there is more of a reason for the character to think that than the player, as most DMs don't worry about material components.


I didn't even know there was a basketweaving skill. I just picked it for the hell of it. In most cases, it would be a sub-optimal choice, though.

But that is funny. :smalltongue:
I'm pretty sure that they are both homebrew, joke classes though. :smallwink:

Anyways, I wouldn't call Beowulf's Craft: Basketweaving choice purely suboptimal, just suboptimal for what he is good at. In fact, once he settles down, his basketweaving skills will help support him while all his other fighter friends are busy trying to earn a living with Climb and Swim.

As AKA Bait mentioned previously, there's a difference between something being suboptimal at most things and being suboptimal at all things. Being suboptimal at most things means that most people will avoid the skill/feat/power, but it is there for those who are optimizing that one item, or for those who want to vary their build. Skill Focus is a good example - most builds don't use it, but the ones that do can get a lot of effectiveness out of it.

Being suboptimal at all things is nothing more than a "Noob choice" - that is, something that nobody who is familiar with the ability will willingly chose. It may be a good idea for certain game styles, such as having a Commoner class for average-people games, but presenting the clearly-suboptimal choice as equal to other skills isn't good game design (which I think is what AKA is trying to say).


However, over the years I've been reading this board, I've seen "optimization" defined as "taking a combination of feats/spells/abilities/etc from a large variety of sources that were never intended to work together in such a fashion to produce unusually large damage or significant effects".
I call that "overoptimation", and think that having one option/group of options that are clearly better than all others to be no better than one option/group of options clearly worse than all others.

Kantolin
2008-10-09, 01:32 AM
As a quick aside, frequently from an in-character perspective, the optimal choice may not seem as such.

As an example that happened to me ages ago, which is somewhat funny to look back on now... my favorite spell in D&D was (and still is) baleful polymorph. I find it very entertaining to turn people into toads and turtles and rabbits.

Anyway, we went through what functionally equates to two dungeons, with me the wizard and a sorceror who used mostly fireball and cone of cold. We got to rest after about every encounter, resulting in everyone using their higher-end stuff each time.

And not a single baleful polymorph connected.

I have no idea if the DM was arbitrarily saying 'sorry, he makes his save' or not, but from an in-character point of view, fireball was a heck of a lot more effective (Hit multiple enemies which was the case most of the time, did something while Baleful Polymorph clearly was not).

I then stuck with Baleful Polymorph anyway since I liked being a no-damage wizard and thought it was neat to not have fireball memorized, and that was the character concept I had in mind.

Either way, though, that was an extremely logical in-character method of looking at it. Sure, baleful polymorph mechanically does this, but your character doesn't have access to the leveld6 v on average 1/3 of the monster manual of your CR will fail their saves 84% of the time...

Sebastian
2008-10-09, 04:49 AM
Perhaps, but how would you define "start of characterization" differently from how I did?


I would simply read the whole sentence

"it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born."

see? 'often', i.e. not always, sometime is born here, sometime is born elsewhere. He is not saying what you think he is saying.

Talic
2008-10-09, 05:00 AM
I think this is a further support for stormwind. It all boils down to point of view.

The OP's quote thinks that suboptimal Mechanic choices are the start of characterization.

The Roleplayer's concept is that suboptimal choices may be made, but they are the RESULT of characterization, not the cause.

Basically, it all begins with where you begin. If you say, "I think I'll see if I can play a character who has toughness, Iron will, and endurance... Hmm, he's not really excelling too much, how about I make him a bull-headed guard that refuses to budge or give up?" and then you fill in the blanks, that's Mechanical motivation.

If you start with, "I've built me a former guard. Well, in the backstory I've made, he didn't really outperform his competition; rather he just outlasted them through sheer stubbonness, determination, and unwillingness to give up. Let's see, what can I do to support that? Ah, Iron will, Toughness, Endurance... Those fit the theme," then you're role play motivated.

You may end up with the exact same result. It's the starting point, however, that defines what you favor.

Saph
2008-10-09, 06:38 AM
Sort of agree. Insofar as the benefits are mechanical ones, I'd just consdier them as part of the overall powers of the choice (feat, class, whatever). If the side benefit is some more flavorful thing that doesn't really effect the mechanics, I'd just as soon not put a power pricetag on it.

An example of the sort of thing I'm thinking of would be the Versatile Performer feat from Complete Adventurer (it lets you count your ranks in Perform towards several other Perform skills, and also gives you a +2 bonus if you use two Perform types at once).

From an optimisation point of view, it doesn't achieve much, as being able to do different types of Perform is pretty useless in a dungeon crawl. But it's an extremely fun feat all the same, and most people who like Bards and have CompAdv will take it just for the fun of being able to sing, play, act, and dance all with ridiculously high skill levels. So it's suboptimal for power, but cool, and it can also be useful if the DM chooses to make it that way. That would be my pick for a good suboptimal feat.

A bad suboptimal feat is something like Dodge. Not only is the bonus from Dodge trivial, it also slows the game down by forcing you to declare your use of it every turn. Unlike Versatile Performer, it doesn't give you any kind of fun or unique side benefit, and hence I've never taken it in any game except when I needed it as a prerequisite for something.

- Saph

AKA_Bait
2008-10-09, 07:12 AM
As for the OP, he does have a point, though I agree, IN GENERAL, that optimization (of the first type) is NOT the enemy of RP. We all know that a 2-handed fighter should take a greatsword for optimal performance. Fine. But what if my basic character concept doesn't hold with using a greatsword? My wife, for example, refuses to play dwarves as using anything but axes and hammers. So her Dwarf uses a greataxe, because she likes the visual, and she prefers the theme. Does that mean she can't optimize within her concept by selecting good feats? Not whatsoever. But "pure" optimization ("Drop that axe for a greatsword! You do more damage that way!") is, in this case, directly opposed to her RP.

Well, I think that you may really be disagreeing with the OP here more than you think. The SSD of greatsword > greataxe is what caused that RP/optimization conflict in the first place. Reasonably speaking, the two weapons could be scaled to cause the exact same amount of damage or some other balancing mechanic could be included (4e trades +1 proficency bonus for high crit and one die larger, which may not really balance but it's a try).

As Saph pointed out, SCO options (the ones you seem to think are fine, as do I) will grow naturally out of any complex system. SSD options pretty much serve only to cause the kind of problems you and others have identified with that second kind of optimization you identify.


It may be a good idea for certain game styles, such as having a Commoner class for average-people games, but presenting the clearly-suboptimal choice as equal to other skills isn't good game design (which I think is what AKA is trying to say).

Indeed. Moreover, even classes like Commoner weren't intended to be available to the PC's in 3.5. It's activley discouraged in the DMG.


I call that "overoptimation", and think that having one option/group of options that are clearly better than all others to be no better than one option/group of options clearly worse than all others.

I'd agree there too, although that can be much harder to avoid. Thing is, those kinds of issues will crop up on their own just because we piddly little humans are the ones making the system and we just don't have the time/smarts to account for every interaction when we design. Including SSD's (which you are right, are just the flip side of overpowered ones) on purpose is just making the situation worse that it's going to end up being.


From an optimisation point of view, it doesn't achieve much, as being able to do different types of Perform is pretty useless in a dungeon crawl. But it's an extremely fun feat all the same, and most people who like Bards and have CompAdv will take it just for the fun of being able to sing, play, act, and dance all with ridiculously high skill levels. So it's suboptimal for power, but cool, and it can also be useful if the DM chooses to make it that way. That would be my pick for a good suboptimal feat.

Well, this kind of thing is part and parcel of the lumping that D&D does in terms of power really. That's a cool and underpowered (in most games) feat but I agree a fun and flavorful one. It seems to me, given it's power, it could be offered at a price tag equal to it's mechanical worth (i.e. one lower than a full feat) in an ideally designed system. Basically, I don't think extra cool alone should cost anything in terms of mechanical power and a well designed system should avoid charging for it as much as they can.


A bad suboptimal feat is something like Dodge. Not only is the bonus from Dodge trivial, it also slows the game down by forcing you to declare your use of it every turn. Unlike Versatile Performer, it doesn't give you any kind of fun or unique side benefit, and hence I've never taken it in any game except when I needed it as a prerequisite for something.

Totally agree about dodge. I also have never seen anyone take it unless they were going for Spring Attack specifically, I think.

Leon
2008-10-09, 08:11 AM
What is the Benchmark for Optimal and Non Optimal?

Roderick_BR
2008-10-09, 08:46 AM
What is exactly the question?
Is playing sub-optimal characters good?
or
Is having the *choice* of playing it good?

The text quoted by the OP says "(...)However, I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to player(...)"

The actual problem comes when someone is forced to play something ("don't get wizard levels above level 5, take a full spellcasting progressing PrC instead, or you are doing it wrong") under the risk of become "unoptimized", or when something is suboptimal by default ("I want a guy with little armor, great dodge, and that can hit things with his hands". "play a monk". "monks are suboptimal").
I have no problem with "weak" options, the problem are the "trap" options (that I highly believe the designers did by mistake, not on purpose as they tried to cover up :smallyuk:)

JaxGaret
2008-10-09, 10:56 AM
I'm pretty sure that they are both homebrew, joke classes though. :smallwink:

Nope. War Weaver is from Heroes of Battle. However, the actual requirement is Craft (Weaving), not Basketweaving.

Craft (Basketweaving) references started as a joke that originated from a thread on the CO forums of the Wizards boards, in which the virtues of Craft (Basketweaving) were extolled.


I would simply read the whole sentence

"it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born."

see? 'often', i.e. not always, sometime is born here, sometime is born elsewhere. He is not saying what you think he is saying.

No, he is not saying what you think he is saying. Often does not mean "sometimes". Look it up if you don't believe me. Synonyms are "generally, usually, frequently, customarily".

Thank you for the snide comment, though.

Xenogears
2008-10-09, 11:43 AM
Well, I think that you may really be disagreeing with the OP here more than you think. The SSD of greatsword > greataxe is what caused that RP/optimization conflict in the first place. Reasonably speaking, the two weapons could be scaled to cause the exact same amount of damage or some other balancing mechanic could be included (4e trades +1 proficency bonus for high crit and one die larger, which may not really balance but it's a try).

In the Warhammer Fantasy RPG (atleast the version I played) almost all weapons were lumped into either hand weapons (anything you would use with one hand like a sword or axe or mace) and Great Weapons (things like greatswords/axes Two-Handed Hammers etc.) This works out great because mechanically they all function exactly the same. I was playing a trollslayer and wanted him to use a two-handed hammer. Then I decided it would be awesome if the head of the hammer was actually a troll's head. Instead of homebrewing a new weapon I just treated it as any other Great Weapon and let everyone else know what it looked like. So that was a great way to solve mechanical game balance (which I think that game does a good job of in general.)

As for the actual topic. They aren't going to make someone a better RP'er but generally the kind of person who is going to make all his choices based on optimization is not that interested in RP'ing anyway. Generally atleast. Obviously there are exceptions. I think some skills that are absolutely horrible were A) mistakes or B) they were trying to add a skill to help players match the mechanics to the fluff and it just wound up weak.

So for an example of catagory A) you would have things like toughness. I'm sure they meant for it to be a useful skill that would give you just that extra edge you needed. (and if you only take the basic PHB for 3.0 it wasn't unimaginable that a fighter would take it at later levels. Kinda starting running out of good options at that point.) An example of catagory B) would be something like the aforementioned Versatile Performer. It makes your character pretty good at everything performance wise. Very little in mechanical benefit (unless you ruitinely come across tribes that demand you win a dance-off or be executed) but allows you to make a character that is good at singing, dancing, juggling, poetry, etc. without having to put a million points into various different perform skills.