New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 188
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by lsfreak View Post
    I'm going to play off this real quick.

    You're a professional soldier. You probably have at least some concept of good training versus bad training, and if you've got an Int or Wis of at least 8 (probably more like 6), you're going to know you should figure out what training is good and what training is bad. Would such a character not look into various kinds of training, figure out what tends to be effective and what not?

    As you're regularly risking your life for your profession, it is poor roleplaying to not look at the numbers.
    what about wizards? you are a super genious at a college... do you:
    1. randomly take courses
    2. randomly select a degree, then take courses that it requires in a random order.
    3. plan out your education, deciding what is a good career path, selecting a degree that optimizes your capabilities for said career path, and select class that optimize your ability to finish said degree?

    Well, if you are sufficiently intelligent then the answer is 3.

    BTW. Even playing a straight fighter 20 is in a way god modding, "ha, I take 30 sword stabs to kill, sucker!". So the same argument against a very high powered party can be made against playing any party in which you can go above RHD.
    I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman!

    the glass is always 100% full. Approximately 50% of its volume is full of dihydrogen monoxide and some dissolved solutes, and approx 50% a mixture of gasses known as "air" which contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenish View Post
    That's a false dichotomy.
    No it's not, as I said indicative. Indicative is a not a defining a cast-iron relationship between the two.

    Races of the Dragon did things to kobold fluff, too, made them something other than low level speedbumbs.
    It did; but there has always been lots of kobold fluff. They only got popular as PCs when they got blaggy. Kobolds are supposed to be low-level speedbumps, after all. Reading RoDr, I'm struggling to figure out why they aren't the dominant lifeform!

    There's a difference between thinking about the numbers too and playing a skirmish wargame. What has that to do with anything? Just because you play a high-strength barbarian or a bard without racial charisma penalty doesn't mean you're trying to be better than everyone else.
    There's a difference between thinking about numbers and electing to choose the most powerful builds possible regardless of RP aspects or considerations. None of us want to play a gimp, but there's a difference between not playing a gimp and annoying friends and the person running the game by an insistence on playing something ridiculous just to 'win'.

    You're right: It's not even really playing a skirmish wargame; it's like trying to win a skirmish wargame by having a semi-broken army list.


    You're a professional soldier. You probably have at least some concept of good training versus bad training...
    I think you may be over-rating Wis 6, Int 8. Ask any professional soldier how good their military's training is, and they'll tell you it was the best in the world. I digress.

    So you become a kobold? So you become a Summoner regardless of the fact that your summoning teacher was boring and you much preferred illusion at school? So despite the fact that when you were a young adventurer struggling to survive, you ignored swordplay thinking 'Never mind that I have a much higher chance of dying in the next year than I would if I spent a while learning how to do 'un-optimal thing X'; when I'm the best magic user in the kingdom, I'll be better than the best warrior in the kingdom?'
    So you spurned the religions of your people and culture because that god could make your spells last longer? Or you redefined your entire moral code because then X mystical PrC would let you in? So you never bothered learning anything useful or interesting in life, in favour of spending all your time learning skills that would best benefit you for the 2 minutes a week that you fight?

    Trying to defend extremes of optimisation as 'in character' doesn't really hold much water. Trying to defend a mild version is viable; but not the extremes.

    Remember also that players have access to a wealth of knowledge that's not known to a character. A starting character probably wouldn't know about the PrCs and specifications that the player is grooming them for.

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PersonMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Duitsland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    Trying to defend extremes of optimisation as 'in character' doesn't really hold much water. Trying to defend a mild version is viable; but not the extremes.
    I think you mean theoretical optimization, the kind that's not meant to be played. Yes, it wouldn't make sense in a real game because that isn't it's purpose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    Remember also that players have access to a wealth of knowledge that's not known to a character. A starting character probably wouldn't know about the PrCs and specifications that the player is grooming them for.
    Not exactly. In-character you think "Oh, if I want to join X group, I'll need to do Y, Z and C!", while on the sheet you get skills and spells/feats/whatever necessary for the PrC.

    You can have goals. If, say, John wants to be a Fireman when he gets older(let's say he needs to take the Fireman PrC, which requires A, B and C), so he pursues A, then C and then B. To an outsider this is odd, but him, it's getting ready to be a Fireman.
    Last edited by PersonMan; 2010-07-12 at 09:20 AM.
    Not Person_Man, don't thank me for things he did.

    Old-to-New table converter. Also not made by me.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tyger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    So you become a kobold? So you become a Summoner regardless of the fact that your summoning teacher was boring and you much preferred illusion at school? So despite the fact that when you were a young adventurer struggling to survive, you ignored swordplay thinking 'Never mind that I have a much higher chance of dying in the next year than I would if I spent a while learning how to do 'un-optimal thing X'; when I'm the best magic user in the kingdom, I'll be better than the best warrior in the kingdom?'
    So you spurned the religions of your people and culture because that god could make your spells last longer? Or you redefined your entire moral code because then X mystical PrC would let you in? So you never bothered learning anything useful or interesting in life, in favour of spending all your time learning skills that would best benefit you for the 2 minutes a week that you fight?

    Trying to defend extremes of optimisation as 'in character' doesn't really hold much water. Trying to defend a mild version is viable; but not the extremes.

    Remember also that players have access to a wealth of knowledge that's not known to a character. A starting character probably wouldn't know about the PrCs and specifications that the player is grooming them for.
    The above examples are, quite frankly, lacking in any semblance of realism...

    If you want to play a kobold, you do. If you don't want to play a kobold... you don't. I have never seen any player starting out with a character concept (say a human bard), only to suddenly lament their inability to do so, having seen the kobold's stats.

    Your Illusion teacher was more interesting than the Conjuration teacher? Great! Now we know why you are an illusionist. The question remaining is why are are a lousy illusionist (i.e. non-optimized) rather than a great illusionist (optimized).

    And yes, that young adventurer could have learned to wield a sword - an un-optimized choice for many classes - or could have honed their existing skills. Now, if they are already a sword wielder, then yes, they should be honing those skills, regardless of the fact that the most powerful beings on the planet are those that cast spells rather than swing swords... its what they do!

    Why are you spurning the gods of your people? If you want to play a cleric with worship of a particular god (for Domains presumably) why are you not a cleric of the people who worship that god???

    Now changing your moral stance to qualify for a PrCoptimization - this one is bad RP in my opinion as well. If a PrC doesn't fit your character concept and you can't find a way to make it work that doesn't destroy the continuity of the character, then yes, I'll agree with you on this one. That said, rationalization is the one thing that human beings excel at... I can find almost any excuse for a character of any moral grounding to do damned near anything - and stay consistent with the character's beliefs and morals at the same time.

    And who said anything about spending all your skill points on things that are only useful in combat? *looking around, seeing no hands up*

    tl;dr version: Your arguments are commonly referred to, as you have already been informed, the Stormwind Fallacy.

    There is ZERO causal connection between Role-playing and Roll-playing. A weak character is not better for RP. An optimized character is not worse (or better) for RP. A good RPer will take any character and RP it well. A bad RPer will RP the weakest and the most powerful builds equally bad - but at least that bad RPer will be able to meaningfully contribute with the more powerful build.
    Thanks The Neoclassic for my avatar!

    Stark Raving Dad - a blog about life.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by theos911 View Post
    Fighter: I can kill a guy in one turn.
    Cleric: I can kill a guy in half a turn.
    Wizard: I can kill a guy before my turn!
    Bard: I can get 12 idiots to go kill guys for me
    Quote Originally Posted by grarrrg View Post
    Oh, and Person-Man's real name is a little something called "SKYNET"

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    in the playground.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Runestar View Post
    You just answered your own question.

    Nobody played a hundred year old geriatric kobold prior to races of dragon exactly because the rules couldn't support the creation of a viable kobold PC. Emphasis being on the word "viable". They were intentionally watered down so they could make for very weak npcs, but that also meant PC kobolds were screwed, as there was no precedent for a negative LA.

    You should be thankful that RoD made such a concept viable. What does that say about "rollplaying", when it actually increases the variety of character archetypes available.

    You can say that stats aren't everything to a PC, but to me, without stats, the PCs are nothing.
    I actually played a Kobold PC once, with all the **** stats and all. It was quite fun. I was a ranger totally against gnomes (Favored enemy +6, improved favored enemy, fierce bane gnome hunting weapons, etc.). He was quite fun to play. xD
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans
    Not again...

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    My advice to the OP: the group is having fun already. Wizards aren't overpowered in their group (probably because no one's using them in overpowered ways) and that's a good thing... no sense introducing what they can do and creating a power arms race. You might as well just play characters in their power band and enjoy it. You don't need high numbers to have fun, nor do you need world shattering power to roleplay decent party dynamics and all that. Would it really improve the game to raise armies of intelligent undead and consume the world? That doesn't sound like the kind of game your group wants to play.

    JaronK

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Not exactly. In-character you think "Oh, if I want to join X group, I'll need to do Y, Z and C!", while on the sheet you get skills and spells/feats/whatever necessary for the PrC.
    Fair, but -technically speaking - don't a lot of PrCs have a little 'how much you know about this PrC by making a knowledge check' table next to them? I'm not convinced that every PC being molded for their future has rolled on that table to even have heard of it! I know it's nitpicking, but defending many of the more silly-broken builds that we've all no doubt experienced as roleplaying choices with a straight face is also pretty absurd.

    You should be thankful that RoD made such a concept viable. What does that say about "rollplaying", when it actually increases the variety of character archetypes available.
    I think that we're all grown up to admit that RoDr is a book filled with a lot of blag that the writer never really thought about, let alone decided to balance in-line with other stuff. I think the line of thinking went: 'Dragownz are grate! My stuffz should be betta' or something similar.
    I'd like to cite some of her previously stellar work for the prosecution!


    If you want to play a cleric with worship of a particular god (for Domains presumably) why are you not a cleric of the people who worship that god???
    Because race/region X gives a better build?

    There is ZERO causal connection between Role-playing and Roll-playing.
    There's a pretty good correlation between people insisting on being the best in the group - even at the expense of the enjoyment of their friends - and bad roleplaying though. Your experiences may differ.


    I actually played a Kobold PC once, with all the **** stats and all. It was quite fun.
    ^This. Kobolds have always been the runt of the litter, and laughable foes. But that was the -for some- the fun of playing them. RoDr pretty much redefined their place in the world and changed them.

    I think you mean theoretical optimization, the kind that's not meant to be played. Yes, it wouldn't make sense in a real game because that isn't it's purpose.
    So when twenty posts a week ask 'what the best X I can build for my upcoming campaign', those people are only kidding. Phew: That's a relief


    I look at numbers, you look at numbers. It doesn't preclude roleplaying. But please don't tell me with a straight face that the majority of people jumping through creative hoops and fielding fully optimised T1 characters are doing it for roleplay reasons. Because we know that to be a fiction. I really like Wee Jas as a deity, but I have too much respect for my co-players and GMs to turn up at the table with a RKV; let alone trying to blag RKV PrC for some other deity (...one with -say- Planning and Luck, maybe) for 'roleplay reasons'

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kesnit's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eastern US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
    If you want to play a kobold, you do.
    You're reading the post wrong. All of the comments are from an IC point of view.

    In this case, the PC in question started out as human (say), but decided to become a kobold for the stats.

    Your Illusion teacher was more interesting than the Conjuration teacher? Great! Now we know why you are an illusionist.
    Except the PC isn't an illusionist - they became a Conjurer because that is more powerful than the Illusionist they really wanted to be.

    Why are you spurning the gods of your people?
    Because the domain of your people's god don't give the bonus feats that the domains of another god do.
    Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.

    Proud member of the "I Love Anyway" Club

    Thank you, Ceika, so much for the avatar!

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Banned
     
    Snake-Aes's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    R'lyeh
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Kesnit View Post
    You're reading the post wrong. All of the comments are from an IC point of view.

    In this case, the PC in question started out as human (say), but decided to become a kobold for the stats.



    Except the PC isn't an illusionist - they became a Conjurer because that is more powerful than the Illusionist they really wanted to be.



    Because the domain of your people's god don't give the bonus feats that the domains of another god do.
    I believe what he tried to say is that your choices only are dissonant with the character's personality if you choose to do so. An wizard that wanted to be an illusionist would be an illusionist.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    There's a pretty good correlation between people insisting on being the best in the group - even at the expense of the enjoyment of their friends - and bad roleplaying though. Your experiences may differ.
    That has nothing to do with optimization, but people being jerks.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    So when twenty posts a week ask 'what the best X I can build for my upcoming campaign', those people are only kidding. Phew: That's a relief
    And still, most of the advice they get is practical optimization that won't ruin the fun of the rest of the players.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kesnit View Post
    Except the PC isn't an illusionist - they became a Conjurer because that is more powerful than the Illusionist they really wanted to be.
    Except why would the PC say that his conjurer learned under a boring conjuration teacher while the illusion teacher was awesome? He wouldn't write that in his background. That type of input can only be made by the DM who has no rights to do it randomly.
    A wise monk trains both mind and body, but a smart monk is actually a swordsage.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    I look at numbers, you look at numbers. It doesn't preclude roleplaying. But please don't tell me with a straight face that the majority of people jumping through creative hoops and fielding fully optimised T1 characters are doing it for roleplay reasons. Because we know that to be a fiction. I really like Wee Jas as a deity, but I have too much respect for my co-players and GMs to turn up at the table with a RKV; let alone trying to blag RKV PrC for some other deity (...one with -say- Planning and Luck, maybe) for 'roleplay reasons'
    Some people do play the game for the combat, and not the roleplaying.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx
    So you become a Summoner regardless of the fact that your summoning teacher was boring and you much preferred illusion at school?
    Why would you write this fact into the backstory about a character planned to be a summoner? You'd write a backstory suited to a summoner.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx
    So despite the fact that when you were a young adventurer struggling to survive, you ignored swordplay thinking 'Never mind that I have a much higher chance of dying in the next year than I would if I spent a while learning how to do 'un-optimal thing X'; when I'm the best magic user in the kingdom, I'll be better than the best warrior in the kingdom?'
    Why would you write something like this into the backstory of a caster, unless deliberately going against his background or initial training is part of the character concept? You'd write a backstory suited to a caster.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx
    So you spurned the religions of your people and culture because that god could make your spells last longer?
    Why would you write one religion into the backstory of a character that follows another, unless, again, turning his back on that religion was part of his story? You'd write a backstory incorporating devotion to the better god.

    Or you redefined your entire moral code because then X mystical PrC would let you in?
    This is just stupid. All your examples have been ludicrous strawmen where the player apparently wrote a backstory deliberately opposed to the character's build. Did the idea that a build and a story could grow together and complement one another never occur to you? Or are you simply being disingenuous?

    So you never bothered learning anything useful or interesting in life, in favour of spending all your time learning skills that would best benefit you for the 2 minutes a week that you fight?
    Campaigns have different degrees of emphasis on armed conflict, and good characters - optimized characters, if you missed it - have ways of contributing in multiple spheres of play, whether by magic, skills, or just good preparation.



    Spoiler
    Show

    <Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK View Post
    You might as well just play characters in their power band and enjoy it. You don't need high numbers to have fun, nor do you need world shattering power to roleplay decent party dynamics and all that. Would it really improve the game to raise armies of intelligent undead and consume the world? That doesn't sound like the kind of game your group wants to play.
    Don't get me wrong, I understand that point of view, but every so often I want to play one of my character concepts that I really want to play. Not because the character is game-breaking or uses some really cool mechanics, but because the character seems like an interesting concept, has this wonderful backstory developed for it, or just gives me a chance to cut loose.

    As an analogy, imagine that you are involved with a great bunch of friends (or not so great, everyone has their flaws) with whom you D&D - and everyone insists on playing Lawful Good.

    And they cover the gambit of Lawful Good. I'm talking Miko Lawful Good, CSI Lawful Good, Star Trek Lawful Good, Roy Lawful Good, X-Files Lawful Good... you get the idea. Wouldn't it be nice, just once, to cut loose with someone who is a little more morally grey?

    I admit things aren't that bad, and there is a big difference between playing within a restricted field and being forbidden from playing within the opposing restricted field (i.e., "You must go North!" vs. "You can go anywhere BUT South!"). Furthermore, I've got plenty of character concepts, so it's not like I get one shot down and it was my sole soldier I deployed. Heck, it's not even the champion of my ranks. But I did spend 160,000 gp putting it through fighter school...

    (As a sidenote, I've had character concepts nixed on account on both game mechanics ("No, you cannot take this, that is not what the book says. No, I don't care about your interpretation, you cannot do that.") and for flavor reasons (redneck ranger with the spell Animal Friendship with Benefits). I also stress that I know I can be a pain to my friends from time to time, and just as much they can be a pain back.)
    1. Have fun. It's only a game.
    2. The GM has the final say. Everyone else is just a guest.
    3. The game is for the players. A proper host entertains one's guests.
    4. Everyone is allowed an opinion. Some games are not as cool as they seem.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Banned
     
    Optimystik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Umael View Post
    And they cover the gambit of Lawful Good. I'm talking Miko Lawful Good, CSI Lawful Good, Star Trek Lawful Good, Roy Lawful Good, X-Files Lawful Good... you get the idea. Wouldn't it be nice, just once, to cut loose with someone who is a little more morally grey?
    Just be Hellbred Don't mind me

    (I think you meant "gamut" btw)

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Goblin

    Join Date
    May 2008

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Umael View Post
    Don't get me wrong, I understand that point of view, but every so often I want to play one of my character concepts that I really want to play. Not because the character is game-breaking or uses some really cool mechanics, but because the character seems like an interesting concept, has this wonderful backstory developed for it, or just gives me a chance to cut loose.
    Your problem is, 'unfortunately', that you understand how to use the materials given to players 'better' than they do.

    If you want to play "the magic guy", you play a Wizard (or a Sorcerer if you want to blow stuff up, probably). If you want to play "the priest guy", you play a Cleric. Similarly, if you want to play "the guy who fights", you play a Fighter, and you better believe he fights like no one else!

    It's as simple as that for them, I think--well, it's probably a bit more complicated, but my point is that classes are characters to them, where as most of the people on these forums think characters are classes.
    Last edited by Zovc; 2010-07-12 at 11:40 AM.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    There's a pretty good correlation between people insisting on being the best in the group - even at the expense of the enjoyment of their friends - and bad roleplaying though. Your experiences may differ.
    They do differ. I've found no such correlation. Instead, I've found a correlation between people insisting on "roleplay, not rollplay" and people who constantly need me to save their ass because they managed to build a flavorful, utterly useless character.

    EDIT: And as pointed out, you've described someone who is primarily a jerk who happens to optimize at the same time.
    Last edited by lsfreak; 2010-07-12 at 11:46 AM.
    Proudly without a signature for 5 years. Wait... crap.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    This thread is strating to treat of something that's been bothering me for a while now. Let me start out by saying that I have nothing against the desitre to optimize itself. As many of you have stated, it only makes perfect sense for a character to be good at what he does. Plus, it is way more fun to be good at what you actually do than to be innefective. Just as the Stromwind Fallacy states, optimization does not inherently preclude roleplaying.

    However, I am becoming quite aggravated at how some people seem to hide behind it. It's almost gotten to the point that whenever someone says something marginally bad about the relationship between optimization and roleplaying, the Stormwind fallacy gets thrown out without any consideration about whether it actually applies to the argument. Fact is, optimization can be a good thing. But it is definitely possible to have too much of a good thing. As Optimistyk said, saying that optimization is detrimental to roleplaying is like saying that ''peeling a banana is not a good way to drive''. While that is cetrainly true, if one gets so obsessed with peeling that banana, they won't be able to drive. Tyger wisely pointed out that optimization, amongst other things, leads people to play builds, instead of characters. He has since then been accused of gross strawmanning. However, I can speak from experience when I say he is right. In the group I play with, we have several optimizers, and it is becoming a recurring theme for them to do exactly this. Without being too specific, they will freely and spontaneously change alignment, make up ludicrous backstories and come up with incredibly convoluted reasons that will allow them to play the latest build that caught their eyes. Quite simply, they don't play characters. They play builds with characters superficially tacked on to them. And the thing is that they actually are good roleplayers. Except that they have recently become so interested in optimization that they stopped playing roles and started playing builds instead.

    But that kind of thing really isn't restricted to my group. Why, you can see it in this very thread (along with at least another of its kind every week). People aren't asking ''Hey, I want to play this character. How can i make it work?''. They're asking ''I want to play this class and optimize the hell out of it. Help me do that''. And every time someone starts a thread asking how he could make his paladin viable, and gets told to play a DMM cleric instead, or a blaster mage gets told to play a control mage instead, this is exactly what is happening. People aren't making their characters mechanically effective, but they're changing their character in order to be more powerful. That is, in my opinion, when optimization becomes detrimental to roleplay. It should be an aid to a good character, not a character onto itself.

    There are other things that I dislike about a heavy level of optimization, like the fact that it breeds a heavy and somewhat unhealthy spirit of competition, that it makes the job so much harder on the DM (which I often was), and that the power ramp often turns the game into an elaborate game of rocket-tag. Due to these reasons, I no longer DM 3.5. But I digress. My point is that, while optimization does not inherently preclude roleplay, it is possible for one to become so taken by optimizing that they roleplay less and less. And, contrary to what people seem to affirm, that is an occurence that I witness whenever I sit at a gaming table, and most of the time I read D&D forums.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Caphi View Post
    You'd write a backstory incorporating devotion to the better god...
    This is just stupid.
    Hmm... the old 'I'm justified by playing a killing machine, because my character background is vat-grown ninja killing machine' thing.

    You know what: You're right, if it matters so much.
    Fully optimised characters without so much as a single skill point [let alone a feat or character level! Heretic!] wasted on anything vaguely characterful are always created for purely solid, characterful roleplaying reasons, rather than eany other grubby reason. As you say: Me proposing anything else is stupid.


    I know it's what I do IRL. I like being good at my job, so I never bothered learning to play cards, fix my car or train my dog, and I'd certainly never watch TV or generally fill my head with anything outside my optimal career.


    Personally; I don't think that it's at all 'optimal' to build characters like that in most games. It's usually short sighted in the extreme, because at the end of the day there's one thing and one thing only that decides if the character lives or dies, and that's the GM. And by playing fully optimised characters who are grossly out of kilter with the rest of the party the player is pretty much kissing any sympathetic dice-fudging or lucky breaks goodbye. I -personally- also don't like annoying my friends by making them feel that their characters are worthless and solving every encounter effectively single-handed, but that might just be me.




    people who constantly need me to save their ass because they managed to build a flavorful, utterly useless character.
    I'm sure they are having just as much fun playing a flavourful character as you are being their Superman. It's clearly a symbiotic relationship.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    Hmm... the old 'I'm justified by playing a killing machine, because my character background is vat-grown ninja killing machine' thing.
    Strawman.

    You know what: You're right, if it matters so much.
    Fully optimised characters without so much as a single skill point [let alone a feat or character level! Heretic!] wasted on anything vaguely characterful are always created for purely solid, characterful roleplaying reasons, rather than eany other grubby reason. As you say: Me proposing anything else is stupid.
    You didn't read anything I wrote, did you?

    I know it's what I do IRL. I like being good at my job, so I never bothered learning to play cards, fix my car or train my dog, and I'd certainly never watch TV or generally fill my head with anything outside my optimal career.
    At what point did I say any of this was impossible? Quote me.

    Personally; I don't think that it's at all 'optimal' to build characters like that in most games. It's usually short sighted in the extreme, because at the end of the day there's one thing and one thing only that decides if the character lives or dies, and that's the GM. And by playing fully optimised characters who are grossly out of kilter with the rest of the party the player is pretty much kissing any sympathetic dice-fudging or lucky breaks goodbye. I -personally- also don't like annoying my friends by making them feel that their characters are worthless and solving every encounter effectively single-handed, but that might just be me.
    Where did anyone in this thread say anything like that? Quote.

    I'm sure they are having just as much fun playing a flavourful character as you are being their Superman. It's clearly a symbiotic relationship.
    Are you deliberately misrepresenting the opposition viewpoint, or do you honestly have such a misguided understanding of it?



    Spoiler
    Show

    <Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    However, I am becoming quite aggravated at how some people seem to hide behind it.
    QFT
    I'd quote more, but it smacks of wasted page-space. Ok...except I have to quote this bit:

    they will freely and spontaneously change alignment, make up ludicrous backstories and come up with incredibly convoluted reasons that will allow them to play the latest build that caught their eyes. Quite simply, they don't play characters. They play builds with characters superficially tacked on to them.
    Writing a backstory that coincidently covers and legitimises every bizarre feat/level/race choice on that optimal build list isn't roleplaying: It's just trying to justify a bunch of numbers. Trying to pass it off as roleplay is just laughable.

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    QFT
    I'd quote more, but it smacks of wasted page-space. Ok...except I have to quote this bit:



    Writing a backstory that coincidently covers and legitimises every bizarre feat/level/race choice on that optimal build list isn't roleplaying: It's just trying to justify a bunch of numbers. Trying to pass it off as roleplay is just laughable.
    ...you're quoting your own accusations as proof of your accusations?



    Spoiler
    Show

    <Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    I am actually allowed to make comments that aren't based on quoting others. You are aware of that, right? I don't actually need to respond to your every point, or to address them. This thread doesn't have to constantly recycle either itself or tediously tired old tropes such as calling everything a strawman or rolling out Stormwind.


    Strawman
    Winning is clearly very important to you.

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    I am actually allowed to make comments that aren't based on quoting others. You are aware of that, right? I don't actually need to respond to your every point, or to address them. This thread doesn't have to constantly recycle either itself or tediously tired old tropes such as calling everything a strawman or rolling out Stormwind.




    Winning is clearly very important to you.
    So you're going to make baseless accusations, refuse to back them up, and invoke the very act of calling you out on that as evidence for your claim?



    Spoiler
    Show

    <Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PersonMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Duitsland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    I know it's what I do IRL. I like being good at my job, so I never bothered learning to play cards, fix my car or train my dog, and I'd certainly never watch TV or generally fill my head with anything outside my optimal career.
    Skill point are said to represent real, full training in a skill. In a modern world, unless you can professionally train dogs, fix cars or play cards, you don't have skill points in those.

    The other problem is that if you want to build a character who can do what they do well, for example a frontline melee-type who can guard(spot/listen), be stealthy(move silently, hide), scare enemies(intimidate) and ride a horse(ride). The end result is having no skill points to spend on, say, Craft(flutes) or the like, something that you would have due to hobbies, but can't get without giving up something more important to the concept. It's like having to take parts off of a car. Will you take off the things on the outside that you like, but don't need? Or will you get rid of the parts that are fairly important, but not really necessary?
    Not Person_Man, don't thank me for things he did.

    Old-to-New table converter. Also not made by me.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    No. Why would I do that?

    Quote Originally Posted by White_North View Post
    However, I am becoming quite aggravated at how some people seem to hide behind it.

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Hmm... the old 'I'm justified by playing a killing machine, because my character background is vat-grown ninja killing machine' thing.
    I justify playing a killing machine by saying "my character is an exceptional--heroic, even--swordsman". Because, y'know, PCs tend to be heroes.


    he end result is having no skill points to spend on, say, Craft(flutes) or the like, something that you would have due to hobbies, but can't get without giving up something more important to the concept.
    I've been in several games that solve this with a simple houserule--everyone can get a couple free skill points/level for character-justified flavor stuff. A hobby, a profession, an extra language, etc. Nothing that has a huge effect on balance, but stuff what helps with concepts.
    Last edited by Esser-Z; 2010-07-12 at 12:38 PM.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Caphi: I really can't be bothered to involve myself in any confrontation with you. Go back and read how you waded into this discussion. Yelling 'strawman' et cetera is rude, and not something that I really care to address.

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Orc in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2009

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by lsfreak View Post
    I'm going to play off this real quick.

    You're a professional soldier. You probably have at least some concept of good training versus bad training, and if you've got an Int or Wis of at least 8 (probably more like 6), you're going to know you should figure out what training is good and what training is bad. Would such a character not look into various kinds of training, figure out what tends to be effective and what not?

    As you're regularly risking your life for your profession, it is poor roleplaying to not look at the numbers.
    I'd agree, but I don't think this is reflected in the game all too well. For example, it would make sense IC that training with a weapon (Weapon Focus) is a good thing, but it's a relatively poor OOC choice.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Titan in the Playground
     
    PersonMan's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Duitsland
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Merk View Post
    I'd agree, but I don't think this is reflected in the game all too well. For example, it would make sense IC that training with a weapon (Weapon Focus) is a good thing, but it's a relatively poor OOC choice.
    Not really. Training can be seen as proficiency. Training even more is Weapon Focus. Or BAB, it can be either.
    Not Person_Man, don't thank me for things he did.

    Old-to-New table converter. Also not made by me.

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    Caphi: I really can't be bothered to involve myself in any confrontation with you. Go back and read how you waded into this discussion. Yelling 'strawman' et cetera is rude, and not something that I really care to address.
    I waded in because you used a set of examples you created to be deliberately as opposed in build and character as you could make them to argue against optimization. That is almost the definition of a strawman argument - you set up a weak argument that is superficially, but not truly, like your opposition's position, and then you tear it down and congratulate yourself.



    Spoiler
    Show

    <Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
    <Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •