[Any] Powergaming, what's the appeal?

[Starsinger]

I've been wondering about this for a while, and figured might as well ask. What's the appeal in optimization, specifically high-end optimization? Where's the fun in, to use D&D 3e as an example, taking out a CR 18 creature with Glitterdust or throwing "Save or Dies" at the enemy, repeatedly?

I understand the appeal it would have for say, Munchkins, but there are several people who optimize that I wouldn't necessarily want to call a Munchkin. So what is it about things like Leap Attack-Power Attack-Pounce-Full Attack-Shock Trooper (Attack ) round after round that's exciting?

Is it a desire to "win"? An ego boosting "pissing contest" as it were, to see who can make the biggest and best build? I apologize if I sound condescending, I don't see the appeal in optimization to the extent I generally hear of.

[Rei_Jin]

Well, the appeal for me with optimisation is the thought exercise component of it, and gaining a better understanding of the system that you are using.

Working through a character concept to see how to best build it, and working through the mechanics of it helps me understand more of what I'm working with, and what to expect.

It also helps when I get a killer DM who is out to destroy me for no particular reason, or for when I get cheesy powergaming players.

In short? It expands my knowledge of the system, and helps make me a better player and DM. Most of the horrible cheese I've built I would never use, and I wouldn't recommend anyone else doing either.

[Fan]

It's the power appeal to be honest. People want to be many magnitudes stronger than they ever will be in real life, and they don't like feeling threatened in game by anything. even the Balor.

[Whiplord]

For me, it's the knowledge that I can take all these various rules, and put them together in a cool and unique way. I also, personally, enjoy the number crunching aspect of putting together a sheet and having all the information laid out.

And of course it's satisfying to have a powerful character. Weak characters simply aren't that fun. Say all you want about RP, and likely it's true, but DnD at least remains a very combat oriented system, and if you're useless in such a big part, your fun will likely be less than it might otherwise.

This is not to say that every character that is not 'optimized' is going to suck. Or even that every 'optimized' character should be able to singlehandledly destroy encounter's of an overpowering CR.

Also in the end, I think it comes down to group. If you are an optimized Batman wizard in a party with a core fighter, a monk, and a simple healing cleric, then not only will you not have as much fun (which is what this all is about in the end, at least for me), but you will also lessen the fun that the rest of the group has.

However, if all the members of the party, and your DM optimize as well, it can result in some very memorable games.

Again, in no way am I attempting to lessen the importance of RP. I love creating a character concept and acting it out. I just happen to equally love making the character from a mechanical standpoint.

[magellan]

It also helps when I get a killer DM who is out to destroy me for no particular reason, or for when I get cheesy powergaming players.

optimizing helps against optimizing? Interesting...

[The Antigamer]

Optimization as an exercise explores the limits and cracks in the system. I enjoy them as a kind of puzzle-solving activity, but rarely do I exploit my knowledge by making an uber-optimized build in a campaign, unless it's fiendishly hard or the DM's an ass. Also, exploring how to twink out a PC means that when I DM, I can smell cheese coming a mile away, and prevent any really serious powergaming that'll break the game for everyone else, spoiling the fun. Like they say, no one will ever play Pun-Pun, but it sure was fun designing him.

[Kyeudo]

The extent you hear of are the theoretical limits of the classes. Yes, the one-shot-wonders are powerful but, as you've pointed out, most of them are one trick ponies.

However, knowing where power lies helps you make the most of any concept. For example, I once gamed with a guy whose concept was a paladin with sorcerous powers gained from vampire blood back in his family tree. He was going to do Paladin 5/Sorcerer 6 so he'd have spells and a mount. I pointed him to Paladin 2/Sorcerer 6/Knight Phantom 3. It gave him what he wanted, but more of everything.

Fluff is so easy to divorce from crunch that milking your concept for extra power never hurts and can come in handy in a pinch. Does it matter when you are talking to the king that your uncouth tribesman is a warblade instead of a barbarian? No. Does it matter when you have an angry red dragon trying to kill you? Yes!

[Deepblue706]

Optimization is appealing to me when I'm trying to build PCs around absurd concepts that would not work unless I invested a fair amount of thought into the mechanics. For instance, a human fighter who dual-wields bastard swords...and throws them. Unless you optimize the method, it doesn't work.

In most other cases, I happen to find optimization a rather shallow approach to character construction. Of course, there are exceptions. Still; if you optimize, I probably hate you as a person and wish you great ill.

[Rei_Jin]

optimizing helps against optimizing? Interesting...

Sadly, yes. It does.

Most people don't know enough about the system to optimise correctly, they only go half way, or maybe three quarters.

When you throw encounters up to them that they can't kill, but the CR is appropriate, and they've build super optimised characters, they get the lesson that anything the player can do, the DM can do better.

Also, if as a player the DM is trying to kill me for no particular reason than to sate his own need for blood, then using optimisation to show him that there's a nice way and a not nice way to play the game can be needed.

I've done it with my current DM, and he's since decided that deliberately setting out to kill the party is a bad idea. It gives us all too much wealth and XP.

[magellan]

But isnt that all a bit like an arms race? best way to win is not to start it? Also: if your DM is out to kill you and he is serious, no optimization in the world is going to save you from the ceiling in the room, that actually is a 10 ton ston block.

[bosssmiley]

TO - exploring the limits of the system to see where it degenerates into illogic and absurdity. When you know where those limits are you can learn how to keep to the sane side of the line. Net result, better game for you and your friends.

CO - speaking personally, after a hard week at the metaphorical coalface why play an unlucky patsy who "can't get away with nuthin"? I get enough of that IRL. CO helps me recreate within the game mechanics the OTT, balls-to-the-wall heroics I can see in my imagination. It's like tuning a car for performance I suppose.


Eggy; humble student of the School of Stilton Bearded Cheese.

[Eldariel]

Well, my theory is that all non-optimal adventurers are dead. Adventuring is a dangerous business; unless you go out of your way to stay alive, you're going to end up in a body bag. Optimization is a logical extension of the idea that the world follows the rules given instead of trying to mimic our world (which, let's face it, it doesn't). And that's how I want to play - if the world has certain rules, everyone in that world better follow them. I find the consistency of a world far more important than epic stories. Both is of course better, but if I had to choose between a world that makes sense and a game with mill-of-the-grill story and a game with an inconsistent world and an epic story, I'd probably choose the former.

Besides that though, I simply optimize to ensure party balance. Proper optimization allows you to convey any character idea without mechanical issues. That is, in a game of optimized characters, there should be no player ahead or behind the other players in their characters' ability to contribute in their given fields. Furthermore, optimized characters tend to simply have more options they can pursue proficiently than unoptimized characters. Therefore, there's greater variety in playing an optimized character; you've got lots of efficient means to reach an end so you don't just have to repeat a cycle every encounter.

Of course, extreme optimization towards one goal, such as Charger Barbarians, leads to repeated use of one strategy. However, that's simply a problem in the class; the class design doesn't allow for a lot of variety while still being efficient. This problem only exists for melee characters and thus I instead use ToB to sidestep that issue (and strongly encourage my players to do the same). Basically, optimization (within limits and through the board) ensures fairness, variety and survivability. It also allows me to work with any possible monster encounters a bit more (I've never sent a monster with Toughness at the players) as I know they have the tools to survive should they play their cards correctly. Same applies to other DMs DMing for me; one can make for much more powerful and interesting combat encounters in a world of optimized PCs. Generally you can just expand the foes' arsenal too when the PCs enjoy a wider range of optimization.


Basically, I find that optimization changes the game...for the better.

[Edge of Dreams]

For me, optimization is all about winning in a way that's unexpected. If everyone says that 2-handed power attack is the standard of big damage, then I want to be the guy who figures out how to either get that much damage out of dual wielding, or find some really great benefit to offset the damage loss. I want to win if I can, but on my own terms, in my own style.

For those who know Magic The Gathering's three play styles (link, anyone?) I'm whatcha call a "Johnny" - interesting strategy and optimization just to see if it can be done matters more to me than winning. The other type of optimizer is a "Spike" - winning is all that matters, and optimizing is their way of "winning" d&d by making sure they can win any reasonable encounter with no trouble, even if that means playing a one-trick-pony.

[ghost_warlock]

Um, anything worth doing is worth doing well?

[KKL]

Um, anything worth doing is worth doing well?

This is my reason.

[Curmudgeon]

I like starting out with something that's not inherently powerful and seeing if I can make it generally effective. Like starting with a Rogue, probably the most balanced (i.e., middling in power) of the core classes, and seeing if I can make one that's decent in both melee and ranged combat. Pure optimizers will be happy to make a character that does one thing extremely well, and could as well be part of the scenery the rest of the time. I like the challenge of making a character that's playable all the time. After all, D&D is a role-playing game; what's the fun of a character who spends most of the time just standing around?

[Avilan the Grey]

There is a huge difference for me between RPG and cRPG for obvious reasons. In a Table Top situation, an optimized character is not the same as a (nearly) min-maxed character for example. You have to be more well balanced (and can survive it too!), so your fighter don't have to be butt ugly to survive.
Obviously, if you are a fighter you pick good fighter-optimizing feats and skills).

(Most players in groups I have played with that plays a fighter type tend to multiclass with a skillmonkey class eventually, most commonly Rogue, because it benefits the survivability in the long run. The most common combinations is Fighter / Rogue, Barbarian / Rogue, Barbarian / Bard and Bard / Fighter).

In a cRPG on the other hand a lot of times you have to go hardcore optimizing because the computer does not adjust enemies, and situations to suit you (nor can you improvise like in a table top game).

[Tempest Fennac]

I prefer RPing to combat, but I always put optimization first based on the fact that I hate the idea of having to spend time drawing up another character (I don't like overshadowing other players, dispite liking other people to be super-optimized so that combat ends sooner, but I consider not being able to pull my weight to be inconsiderate).

[Starsinger]

I suppose at this point I really should say that there's (at least to me) a difference in making something effective, and taking it to extremes. I understand making something effective. It's taking it too far that I don't get.

[Tempest Fennac]

I'm typically better at optimizing then RPing for some reason (and I tend to class trying to be as powerful as possible to be realistic due to how I see power in real life).

[The Mormegil]

In my gaming group there are... intresting mechanics that sent us out to optimization.

It all started when player K made a Paladin of Bahamut, with the very flavorful PrC form BoED. In the same group there were a full Clericzilla of Kord, not using DMM, but anyway, a dedicated fighter/tempest (3.0 PrC) with twin bastard swords and a godly AC, and a simple Bard/Sublime Chord. He felt useless, plus he hated being Exalted (or good, for that matters). He swore to himself never to do that again.

He was the first to optimize, and had a blast with it. The rest of the party felt useless and (with one exception) they all started to race to reach an equal level of cheese with him, who always tried to be higher in power level than the rest of the party.

We don't want to feel useless, and we don't want to be killed nor obey an Evil PC. So we optimize to keep up, and the DMs (me, for instance) need to adapt to the party. It is a never-ending escalation.

We stopped with 4E. It was the perfect solution to all our problems. It created new problems, however, as the group splitted up, and player K weant away. We miss him as he was good at role playing and it was fun to have him around, but probably we'll be better off without him.

[Eldariel]

I suppose at this point I really should say that there's (at least to me) a difference in making something effective, and taking it to extremes. I understand making something effective. It's taking it too far that I don't get.

That would, to use the terminology of the former WoTC Boards, be the difference between Theorethical Optimization and Character Optimization; one is intended to be used in game, the other is not.

[KIDS]

If you intend to play a hero, part of it is overcoming obstacles. If you happen to play ... well, most of the character classes, you will soon find that you are not actually very suited to overcoming them, which can be sad and frustrating. Thus, you optimize to be better at facing your challenges and feel more heroic.

That seems like the most basic reason for me...

[Kiero]

Not sucking in the game, because you accidentally went down a dead-end or picked some poor choices that either don't work together, or are simply rubbish.

I'm personally not interested in single-task super-builds that do one thing very well. But I like to have competent characters who are good at the things they're supposed to be good at. Which usually means an understanding of how the system works.

I'm playing a semi-optimised character in SWSE. By knowing what's good and what's not, I can make informed choices about what is useful, and what I'm deliberately ignoring for the sake of making the character more interesting. Like choosing to take Martial Arts I with one of my bonus feats because I like being an unarmed combatant, even though it's rubbish in the game. Or taking Skill Training (Athletics) instead of Skill Focus (Use the Force) so I don't step on the primary-Jedi's toes. Next I'll be getting Block as my Jedi Talent, because it fits my concept of him being a complete lightsaber duellist, rather than it being the most useful thing around (the other Jedi went for Redirect).

And so on and so forth.

[Starsinger]

That would, to use the terminology of the former WoTC Boards, be the difference between Theorethical Optimization and Character Optimization; one is intended to be used in game, the other is not.

I wasn't talking about Pun-Pun or Omnificer or whatever it was called, when I said taking it too far. Uber-Chargers, (and quite frankly a good extent of Wizard/CoDzilla types) are taking it too far. Is it really necessary to be that strong?

[Kesnit]

Is it really necessary to be that strong?

It all comes down to the group you play with. If they all super-optimize, you need to do the same or your character will become useless. If everyone goes middle of the road, then you have a lot more flexibility. (The Ranger in my PnP group only has the PHB and DMG, so only uses those books. He does fine, though, since none of the rest of us go out of our way with cheese.)

[Eldariel]

I wasn't talking about Pun-Pun or Omnificer or whatever it was called, when I said taking it too far. Uber-Chargers, (and quite frankly a good extent of Wizard/CoDzilla types) are taking it too far. Is it really necessary to be that strong?

If no other variables are present, I'll take an idea to a logical maximum within the allowed rule set. It's simply a matter of maximizing whatever concept I'm going for. Übercharger I'd disallow simply because it's such an on-off build. But really, most of the "maximum damage"-builds are theorethical exercises. War Hurlers? Theorethical. Chuck? Theorethical. The Übercharger? Indeed, theorethical. It's simply an exercise to build the maximum damage melee build.

Übercharger is not very playable simply because it needs to be able to Charge to actually do anything relevant and because it can be completely broken in some encounters, but utterly useless in others. Now, a Barbarian with Pounce, Leap Attack and Shock Trooper I'd have no problem with based on efficiency. It doesn't really deal that much more damage than an optimized Sneak Attacking Rogue (which gets Sneak Attack effectively always) or a Swift Hunter or your average ToB build. Its damage potential isn't in the same dimension as your average Incantatrix Blaster.

CoDzilla, sure, that's what I'd suggest for players seeking a tank. It's just making good use out of the spells and class features given in PHB. Same with Batman Wizard. That's not hardcore optimization, that's simply basic utilization of their class's tools. If that amount of optimization is broken, go fix the spells (read: Divine Power, every arcane spell ever, Polymorph-line), feats (read: Natural Spell, DMM: Persistent) and class features (read: Wildshape, Animal Companion) that cause the issues, because otherwise you're basically cutting down on characters not going beyond the basics of their class. Otherwise the classes will frankly be quite one-dimensional and boring.

If I can't optimize my casters, then the system needs fixing. I want to be able to build the kind of a caster I feel like, and not break anything. That includes Conjurers and Transmuters, and a solid spell selection.


Basic answer to your question, I guess, is that I want to keep my character alive and my party alive. Having a character with some more power than I regularly go around using is a great way to go about it. Also, I find it weird to have a bunch of options that my character would no doubt choose since they'd further his ambitions, and be unable to pick them. It's simply weird for me to make stupid choices; it seems illogical that a character would strive to grow in directions that don't make him relevantly better at anything.

That said, I optimize in context of the group, and generally try to stay within a tier of the group average, unless it's a group that wants me to keep them alive.

[Tokiko Mima]

I've been wondering about this for a while, and figured might as well ask. What's the appeal in optimization, specifically high-end optimization? Where's the fun in, to use D&D 3e as an example, taking out a CR 18 creature with Glitterdust or throwing "Save or Dies" at the enemy, repeatedly?

I understand the appeal it would have for say, Munchkins, but there are several people who optimize that I wouldn't necessarily want to call a Munchkin. So what is it about things like Leap Attack-Power Attack-Pounce-Full Attack-Shock Trooper (Attack ) round after round that's exciting?

Is it a desire to "win"? An ego boosting "pissing contest" as it were, to see who can make the biggest and best build? I apologize if I sound condescending, I don't see the appeal in optimization to the extent I generally hear of.

I think it's the simple satisfaction of doing something well. To optimize you have to have a complete understanding of all the rules, and there are a TON of different rules. You create a character that is the absolute best it can possibly be within the given framework and you know that whatever else happens, you won't be beaten at what you optimized for.

Anyone can throw together a character, but if you cared wouldn't you try to do the best job possible? I think that's why people optimize, or at least, that's why I optimize. Conversely when I see an unoptimized character, I just can help but wonder why in the world they care so little about making a character that performs well. I would be ashamed of myself *not* to optimize, given the amount of time I've put into learning the rules.

[kalt]

It is a challenge and that is the appeal of optimization for me. I still roleplay the character and sure I also don't mind giving the DM some fits. It is a game and optimizing is one of the aspects that I find the most fun/challenging.

[KevLar]

Well, optimizing is a general and broad term, which applies to many different situations.

There's theoretical optimization, made to break a world record or something. That is, for the most part, just a thought exercise, like puzzle-solving. If you like that sort of thing, it's nice. If you bring Pun-Pun to an actual game, you're usually mad. I agree that it helps understanding the rules, though.

Then there's optimizing a specific character concept. This is something that makes perfect sense, because if you spend your precious time thinking of a character's personality and background, you really don't want to see him drop dead from a stray arrow. However, this is something that I do not find (personally) necessary, as it depends on the game style and the DM style. Yes, D&D is combat-oriented, but
A) that doesn't mean you cant' run a game focused on social encounters and heavy roleplaying.
B) even in combat, some games focus on tactics rather than builds, and your shock trooper's 1578 damage per round is pathetic Vs Tucker's Kobolds.
C) some DMs don't actually try to kill you with every encounter. It's OK, you can make a normal and not optimized character. You have other lovely aspects of the game to focus on.

As a subsection of the above, there's optimizing an intentionally weak character. (Wait, what?) I mean, say I want to play a fearsome warrior. I will not dumb Charisma, no matter what the Handbooks say. But since I'm "penalizing" myself from an optimization point of view, I'd want to compensate in order to be effective. Not pwn!, just effective. So I'll try to optimize my concept. Say I want to play a squishy character, and dump CON. The CO boards would smack me on the head with all the 3.5 rulebooks for saying that, but I don't care. I want to play it. So I'll try to use this devil (optimization!) in order to compensate for my weaknesses and remain alive.

Here's where optimization becomes sour:

1) When the players (including the DM or not) get in the mindset of seeing D&D as a game where the goal is to make the most powerful character. That's indeed a pissing contest. I've found myself in such a group once, and chose to flee as soon as possible. That's not why I play.

2) When optimization gets in the way of roleplaying, one way or another. If for example your character concept is ridiculous, or something you can't even figure out yourself, and yet you play it because it's "powerful". Or when your character doesn't fit, conceptually, a specific campaign setting, and yet you stick to it because it's "awesome". Or when you make a poor background in order to justify the above, and it's bloody obvious that your goal isn't to make a character with a personality, it's just to make a stat block. Bleh.

If none of the above happens, I have no problem with optimization. But, in most games I play, I don't find it necessary either.