PDA

View Full Version : [4e] A theory on Game-Fun



ocato
2008-12-16, 05:21 PM
I have an interesting theory that I plan to test, but I'd like to run it by you all to see what you think. I would like to freely admit that this is based on my own tendencies and preferences and is not a sweeping social change or sudden revelation that you all need to follow me on. I just kind of want to organize my thoughts and get some feedback.

I feel like my research on 3.5 optimization has lead me to have less fun playing the game. I feel like I role play about the same, but I'm more inclined to overly complicate my characters. If someone wants to play core only or ban a few books, I get the urge to turn my nose up slightly. Playing a dumb old rogue sounds boring compared to the convoluted mass of feats, skill tricks, races, and templates I can come up with to be 100 times stronger, faster, and meaner. Now, I'm not saying a little optimization is bad, or even that the entirety of thought exercises on the subject are somehow wrong or evil. All I'm saying is that I've become a bit addicted to properly tricking out characters to the point where if I get poor stats or can't use the idea I want due to banned feats/books, I kind of lose the interest in playing.

This makes me long for the simple days of my first foray into 3.0, where basic characters did basic things and story-telling took the center stage. Wizards cast fireballs and Fighters thought exotic weapons were super cool. We fought over who got to play the monk. We had a blast and the mathematical or popular opinion of any class, race, or feat was about as important as a ball of twine. Sure, our characters died. But we always had a blast.

So, I've made a resolution. 4th edition is untouched to me. It is pure. I have no idea what powers and feats and races and classes are broken or super powerful. In fact, I don't think I've even read the powers past about level 5. So, my plan is to avoid Char Op boards and posts for 4th edition, and see if this improves the game to me in any way. Obviously I won't be making silly or purposely weak decisions or anything like that. But ideally, the strength of the character will come not from a formula I learn on the internet, but from the fun I have crafting a person and then statting out the details later. Now, this doesn't mean I'm leaving the boards or anything like that (not that anyone was like 'oh noes ocato's leaving! QQ"). In fact, I probably won't stop playing 3.5 necessary. But I do hope that I can establish 4th edition as my system for simple pleasure. No l33t builds or hardcore planning.

I'd like to reiterate that I am not blaming 3.5 or the internet or anything like that. I'm simply stating that I feel that I might be more inclined to enjoy the game when I am ignorant of the latest trends of optimization therein and that I intend to test that theory.

Starsinger
2008-12-16, 05:27 PM
I understand, that was part of the draw for 4e to me. It was new, it was clean, it was un-touched by Leap Attack Shock Trooper 1d12+300 damage type things, or Batman Winzards.

AKA_Bait
2008-12-16, 05:28 PM
I'm not exactly sure what the theory here is, but I'll just chime in on the off chance that it is "The more known about how to optimize in a system, the harder it is to have fun without optimizing" or something similar.

I have a very different experience. Knowing that, given access to any splatbook I want and a DM with the wisdom of a retarted sea slug, I can break 3.5 over my knee like dry kindling actually makes me more interested in playing underpowered classes. I know I can rule the universe with a Planar Shepard, so I'd rather see what I can do with a regular old Rogue.

Morty
2008-12-16, 05:31 PM
Well, I understand what you mean, but since I don't let stuff people write in the Internet affect my enjoyment of the game, I can't say I feel the same way. Whether some things affect me or not doesn't depend on whether I know about them beforehand or not.

Grey Paladin
2008-12-16, 05:40 PM
One enjoys the journey, not the result: as you grow better, you draw pleasure from your self-improvement- when you reach the peak, you no longer have fun due to the focus of said self-improvement yet now cannot throw away your instincts.

In essence, you suffer the same curse long-term drug users do: you need a bigger dosage for the same high, and one day you won't be able to be effected at all.

If you'd put the same effort and hours of research upon techniques on roleplaying, you'd quickly grow bored of easy or shallow characters and would slowly try to play more and more complex/unusual characters to subvert tropes: this pattern holds true for every single source of joy.

ocato
2008-12-16, 05:50 PM
Well, I kind of hope that my friends follow suit, at least. I admit that part of the reason that 3.5 optimization hurts the game is competition. Sure, a regular old rogue can still be fun, but it gets awfully raw after a few rounds compared to the shock trooper or whatever god-awful build. So you build a character to keep up with X optimized character, and then your third friend feels he needs to 'catch up' or even 'pull ahead' and the escalation gets pretty out of hand until the DM is throwing god knows what at you to try and slow you down. Then the DM tries to ban or restrict some things and it gets into a game of "He can have X but I can't have Y? X is more powerful than Y!" and the whole thing starts going to rot. Granted I can't say this has happened in my games, but I definitely feel like it gets close from time to time.

Totally Guy
2008-12-16, 05:53 PM
I've very much been a latecomer to 3.5 and the optimised character build is a downright intimidating concept. I've felt that extreme optimisation to the degree of planning the entire build is a solo acivity and one that I can all by myself, which is not why I play this game. I like to be surprised by a level up and get advice, it's a bit like a christmas gift to open.

I've not been a player in fourth edition yet but I'm DMing it. Which is something I'd not be able to do under 3.5.

My players have criticised the leveling system when they get to choose between all sucky feats but I looked up the list with each of them and they all discovered one that was great for their guy.

Warlord took linguist, warlock took defensive mobility and the paladin multiclassed to fighter. And they were all really pleased with the choice.

Tacoma
2008-12-16, 05:58 PM
Try playing a very simple game. You'll soon realize that you don't have enough "crunch" in the rules to engage you and make you feel like your character is interesting and different.

It is then you start actually playing your character instead of playing your stats. You think about what your character would do, not the optimal choice. You realize that a Decanter of Endless Water is far better than a Sword +3 even if you only get one magic item.

And it's then the DM actually has to start creating. Before, no matter what obstacles he placed, your characters would always approach it with incredible violence and Batman wizardry. Now because you no longer have those as your only options, he can make up different obstacles. And when he does, you won't just kill it automatically, because you have other ways to approach things.

But honestly, once you know how games like this work you can walk into any system and make a munchkin ubercharacter. The walking is the same, though the trail is different. And after ruining enough systems you start thinking about what systems are actually fun.

It's probably about that point people stop pointing out that "X system sucks" because they know that inherently it's not a problem with the system.

Grey Paladin
2008-12-16, 06:13 PM
But honestly, once you know how games like this work you can walk into any system and make a munchkin ubercharacter. The walking is the same, though the trail is different. And after ruining enough systems you start thinking about what systems are actually fun.


It's probably about that point people stop pointing out that "X system sucks" because they know that inherently it's not a problem with the system.

This is a Zen moment not many reach - once you realize how ridiculously easy it is to break nearly any system, you understand that the real challenge is not trying to do so.

Matthew
2008-12-16, 06:29 PM
Try playing a very simple game. You'll soon realize that you don't have enough "crunch" in the rules to engage you and make you feel like your character is interesting and different.

Or, alternatively, you will like it a lot, and steer clear of crunch heavy games in the future. Either result is good, as you have discovered that you do have a preference and know what it is.

That may also lead to the revelation that not every game is for everyone.

Prometheus
2008-12-16, 07:05 PM
While I agree with your point from a player perspective, I believe a DM has to know how things are balanced to make a good encounter - even if he does not rely on or believe his characters should do the same. I have gave many sessions which just weren't as fun as I could be because I didn't understand how everything worked out.

Suggestions about trying other games is good, provided you can find people to play them with you.

KIDS
2008-12-16, 07:09 PM
Nicely said, Ocato. And nonagressively, which can't be said for many many of "theory" topics these days. Even though I wouldn't exactly agree with what you said, I hope you'll have a lot of fun that way!

I just got into one game where everyone is offering me tons of help (since I'm new to 4E) and I'm all like "why is a +1 attack more that important" :smallsmile:

Oslecamo
2008-12-16, 08:29 PM
This is a Zen moment not many reach - once you realize how ridiculously easy it is to break nearly any system, you understand that the real challenge is not trying to do so.

QFT.

And I do agree with the OP. Optimization is addicting. In the bad sense. I had to control myself to don't spend several hours optimizing my first 4e character by searching the net for the latest builds and examining each and every power, feat and other rules of the books.

Tengu_temp
2008-12-16, 08:37 PM
This thread is the reason why game balance is made of win - because in a balanced game, you can have the OP's stance even after you know the mechanics and combos inside out. You will be stronger than someone who doesn't optimize, yes, but not game-breakingly so.

Oslecamo
2008-12-16, 08:45 PM
This thread is the reason why game balance is made of win - because in a balanced game, you can have the OP's stance even after you know the mechanics and combos inside out. You will be stronger than someone who doesn't optimize, yes, but not game-breakingly so.

The problem with that is that diferent people have diferent definitions of game breaking. Just because you're dealing slightly more damage you can start a power race. Why risk at all?

ken-do-nim
2008-12-16, 09:10 PM
Or, alternatively, you will like it a lot, and steer clear of crunch heavy games in the future. Either result is good, as you have discovered that you do have a preference and know what it is.

That may also lead to the revelation that not every game is for everyone.

That's my story. I'm happy as a clam nowadays with Classic (RC), 1E, LL, and BFRPG - the 4 systems I'm playing in at the moment.

Starscream
2008-12-16, 09:16 PM
I have a very different experience. Knowing that, given access to any splatbook I want and a DM with the wisdom of a retarted sea slug, I can break 3.5 over my knee like dry kindling actually makes me more interested in playing underpowered classes. I know I can rule the universe with a Planar Shepard, so I'd rather see what I can do with a regular old Rogue.

I feel the same. I'd been playing 3.5 for a couple of years before I joined these boards, and now it seems I can't turn my head without stumbling over another five ways to become a living god. And all it does is make me want to play as more bard and monk 20s. I actually liked playing wizards more before I found out they were unstoppable.

Frankly I don't see the point of optimization, anyway. This isn't a video game, if the DM notices that you are blowing through the level appropriate encounters with ease he's just going to up the challenge until its not an issue anymore. And the non optimized players are going to suffer as a result. So I don't do it. That way if my character does uncommonly well its because I played him well, not because I exploited the flaws in the system to become Superman.

Take my current character. He is a gestalt druid/ninja, which is a pretty potent combination. I could have made him terrifying, but I didn't want to. I decided I wanted to be plant themed, because I like Swamp Thing, and knowingly made some "bad" decisions to further that bit of flavor.

I gave up my first three caster levels to take the Woodling template, even though my lousy charisma makes the SPAs nearly worthless. I took Shapeshift even though it pales in comparison to Wild Shape simply because it lets me keep my vegetable nature even when transformed. Now the DM has offered everyone access to a domain of our choice and I'm taking (you guessed it) the Plant domain even though it is nowhere near the most powerful.

From an optimization point of view he's a failure, but he's my failure and I have fun playing him.

Tehnar
2008-12-16, 09:36 PM
I think people will be screaming bloody murder over optimisation in 4e in a few months.

Someone will come up (or allready has) with the best combination of feats/class/race etc to produce the tankiest tank, or the best damage dealer, even if those builds are only a few percents off to other builds. Then a whole lot of people will read the build, and without even playing it in a RL game, will jump on the bandwagon and declare that the best build ever, and shame on you for playing something else. It wont matter if the super optimised build deals 1% more damage then the next one or 100%.

Until the next splatbook is released and its back to the drawing board.

WickerNipple
2008-12-16, 09:41 PM
It wont matter if the super optimised build deals 1% more damage then the next one or 100%.

Actually I'd say that matters quite a lot. A tremendous lot.

JaxGaret
2008-12-16, 09:51 PM
I actually liked playing wizards more before I found out they were unstoppable.

I have to comment on this - you don't have to go on the internet to "find out" that 3e wizards (and casters in general) are powerful or overpowered. They are intrinsically and demonstrably so. Whether you read it on the internet or not does not change that fact.


I know I can rule the universe with a Planar Shepard, so I'd rather see what I can do with a regular old Rogue.

I like to think that both types of builds have their place, depending on the campaign.

Starscream
2008-12-16, 10:07 PM
I have to comment on this - you don't have to go on the internet to "find out" that 3e wizards (and casters in general) are powerful or overpowered. They are intrinsically and demonstrably so. Whether you read it on the internet or not does not change that fact.

I always knew they were a very powerful class, I just didn't know how to make them into Batman.

Ellisthion
2008-12-17, 02:18 AM
One of the groups I DM for consists entirely of Int 18+ engineers, including myself. Not one of my players has read anything on optimization. I handed them the books I allow (read: have) (Core + PHBII), and pointed the Wizard player in the right direction (I told him evocation sucks), and I got a party consisting of a nigh-perfect Rogue, Druid, and Wizard.

This is a group of people who are smart enough to work out what the optimal choice is in seconds. They don't need to know how to make Batman: they can work it out themselves faster than you could read it on the internet.

We find this extremely enjoyable. To not do this would be un-fun, because to us, the rules are part of the challenge of the game.

Once they're playing, they'll roleplay fantastically, and the character choices they've made allows them to sweep through the combats, and I'm happy to let them. They've put effort into their characters, and I reward them for that.

Optimization is not bad: to some it's the "game" part of "roleplaying game", although like all parts of a game it does not appeal to everyone. It only becomes bad if you set out to break the game, or forget the "roleplaying" part of "roleplaying game".

RPGuru1331
2008-12-17, 02:40 AM
This is a Zen moment not many reach - once you realize how ridiculously easy it is to break nearly any system, you understand that the real challenge is not trying to do so.

It's not difficult at all when you quit caring about optimizing.

Grey Paladin
2008-12-17, 03:08 AM
Quitting to care is as hard as you are skilled in the area- choice bias often rears its ugly head.

RPGuru1331
2008-12-17, 03:14 AM
Quitting to care is as hard as you are skilled in the area- choice bias often rears its ugly head.

No, it really isn't. It's pretty trivial, since style and optimization aren't usually hand in hand, and it's not classy to take optimization to its maximum level w hen the rest of the play ers aren't anyway. It's about as hard as being good to your frien ds, which is generally considered simple.

Now if there were an RPG where the winner was the fanciest, an d style directly tied into your optimization, then yes, I imagine it would be nigh impossible to avoid. But as long as that game doesn't exist..

Tengu_temp
2008-12-17, 05:45 AM
The problem with that is that diferent people have diferent definitions of game breaking. Just because you're dealing slightly more damage you can start a power race. Why risk at all?

I prefer the definition of "makes the other players feel useless, or your sidekicks at best".

Dumbledore lives
2008-12-17, 06:00 AM
Kind of like when me and my friends first started we picked our classes and could do this or that. We kind of understand the rules, but didn't bother figuring out which ones were best, and didn't bother with stuff like skills, we would make a roll, add some modifiers and decide whether it was a success or not. We weren't optimized but I may have had more fun then, before I even thought about optimizing. Then I didn't have to care about which feat sucked, I just picked whatever, now I care a lot more about power, and which spells are best.

Kantolin
2008-12-17, 06:20 AM
I don't optimize, and don't usually see much reason to as I don't find it very entertaining.

The only part of optimization that really bothers me is when you're ridiculed or insulted for not doing so - like when you have people criticizing your build for not being maximized. But that's not optimizers insomuch as jerks - and I get tons of jerks, half of whom are optimizers and half of whom aren't.

I mean, some people enjoy having very powerful groups, and there is nothing wrong with that. Some people don't care and enjoy just doing whatever, and there is nothing wrong with that either. So long as your group is all about on par with each other and/or everyone is having fun, then awesome.

The idea that people I don't play with are playing games where they can do thousands of damage in a swing does not bother me. The idea that a jerk can come into my game and make my game unfun has nothing to do with any edition, and does bother me.

(Personally, I've gotten plenty of flak in 4e about things like 'playing a rogue', and other such things, apparantly due to a requirement of team-optimization, so I'm not sure about what people are suggesting by 4e has no interest to optimizers, but eh).

ken-do-nim
2008-12-17, 09:50 AM
I have a few more minutes now and I wanted to expand upon the subject. One of the things that bugged me in the 3.5 camaign I played in was that all books were valid, and as soon as they became available. When we started, I mapped out my character's path solely in core and I was happy and relaxed into the game. Then a new book would come out - you know, one a month - and somebody at the table would buy it so that we could look & see what feat or prestige class we should be trying for now and I was continually remapping my character's path, which at first was exciting but then just got old. It led to each player asking to change their character very often; which was offset somewhat by the official retraining rules in PHBII when that came out. But the whole 'new book syndrome' got old, very very fast and I wish the DM had just restricted the campaign to a given set and stuck with it.

A 4E campaign could go down the same path. An end-of-lifed system like 1E or RC cannot, and that is appealing. 3.5 already has too many books out to ever feel comfortable about allowing everything, and even 1E has slightly too much. RC D&D is very, very attractive to me because it is all the rules in one book, yet thanks to the skills & weapon mastery systems there is still plenty of ways to differentiate your character.

Starscream
2008-12-17, 11:06 AM
But the whole 'new book syndrome' got old, very very fast and I wish the DM had just restricted the campaign to a given set and stuck with it.

I agree, that can be a problem. I mostly play online now, but in my old face to face group the first thing we'd do upon starting a new campaign was pick which books were valid and which weren't. Setting specific books were usually the first to go (unless we were playing in that particular setting), followed by any book that nobody was planning to use right from the beginning (so unless someone's plans already include psionics or incarnum, they are out).

Usually we'd end up with Core, Complete, a couple of the more generically themed splatbooks, and a bit of UA. It sounds like we were cutting out a lot, but even together we didn't own too many books, so these would represent about 3/4 of our combined collection.

valadil
2008-12-17, 11:44 AM
I agree. I've always liked discovering a new system more than reusing a played out one. The first game system I ever played was MERP and it lost a little of its magic the day I bought my own copy of the book.

4th ed will get played out in time. But for now enjoy it as something new to you.

PurinaDragonCho
2008-12-17, 11:48 AM
The most fun I've ever had is with my current character, and he's far from optimized. He has 3 non-caster levels (gasp) - and NO prestige class yet at 12th level. But I used 5 books to build him.

I like having options. Your mileage may vary.

I think it's inevitable, though, that as 4e continues, there will be more and more option, with more and more books coming out, and the cycle is going to repeat itself. Even if you stay off the boards, you'll probably hear other players in your game or people at your FLGS talking about some uber-builds.

Hzurr
2008-12-17, 12:04 PM
I agree with the OP. For me, one of the best things about 4E was hitting the reset button. I like not knowing the stat for every creature in the MM (and I like that when I run my games, the players don't know what the monsters can do). I like that feeling of, as the players level up and learn new abilities, they're looking at one another going "wait, you can do that? That's an awesome ability!"

A few people in my group have attempted to "optimize" to a degree, but very few of them read message boards or anything like that, so it's very trial and error thus far, and very entertaining as well.

I mean, yeah, there are things that I miss from 3.5E (The rogue, my favorite class in 3.5, is now my least favorite in 4) and I know that eventually I'll know as much (or more) about 4E as I do about 3.5, but in the meantime I'm really enjoying myself and am trying to do like the OP, where I remain ignorent of what the OMGAWESOMESAUCE combo of the day is, because in switching systems I realized that the more I know, the less fun I have.