What is D&D? (Losing the spark)

[Morithias]

This is probably going to get heated very fast, but try to keep it civil.

In another thread I basically misread something that caused me indirectly to BSOD and question my philosophy as a whole and whether I'm misguided. I figure this forum knows more about gaming as a whole than almost any place on the world so this is the place to ask.

My core problems comes from this: Optimization is no longer creative or even mentally challenging as a whole. It's gone from great mathematics and number crunching to "Nope sorry, this broken build that can literally beat anything still wins so your build is pointless."

The Iron Chef in the playground does a lot of great work, and as soon as I post this I am going to go back and re-read every single one of them. I loved stuff like the "shadowdancer sandiego" which was clever and creative.

But...Sturgeon's revelation is right, 90% of everything is crud. It has been and always will be that way. I've read through my crystal keep books endless times and I probably will never use 90% of the stuff in it, but...doesn't everything deserve it's trial?

I'm just saying, is it really "optimization" to copy and paste the same Dues Ex Machina win button to every optimization thread as the be all and end all?

I'm just saying, it seems that a lot of this stuff is getting...dull...and I think it's killing my interest in 3.5 as a whole. Sure we always have the classic ethics and morality debates but seriously even those are starting to go around in circles. I think we're actually starting to exhaust what 3.5 as a whole offered. Or at least all the grade AAA stuff from it.

My latest girlfriend is going to be joining my 3.5 group. She made a character, a fighter....she rolled her stats, and stuck her 16 in intelligence. A classic mistake, but then I realized. That's the kind of stuff I want to see. New stuff, off the wall insane stuff. Show me an optimized fighter without power attack. Make me a druid without natural spell.

I think this is going to be my new philosophy to breathe life back into my love for the system. Think less like Batman, and more like the Joker. (God that's something I never though I'd hear myself say).

But at the same time...I want your guys opinions. Is this just me going through a BSOD and completely losing my head over nothing? Or do you find your games and characters are getting repetitive and boring after years of play?

In the war campaign...a campaign I'm very looking forward to...I blew WEEKS making characters. Making every little thing fit right, and now that I look back, these characters look...bland...

Aasimar blackguard, Tiefling Archer, Gnome Sage, Human Artificer, hell the only one that actually looks interesting anymore is the mounted charger, and that's not cause she's original, it's because I don't think I've EVER seen someone use a mount yet in a campaign I've played in.

Seriously guys, I need your advice, cause I'm breaking down, and maybe losing my love for this game I've sunk years into playing. This might just be the sunken cost fallacy speaking, but I seriously don't want to lose this. I want to get that spark back.

Maybe once my group finally tries pathfinder I'll get my love for it back...but until then. I just want advice. I want to know if anyone else has gone through something like this and how you got your love for the game back.

Did anyone ever go through something like this?

[Rallicus]

{Scrubbed}

To be honest, I tell my players to avoid the 3.5 section of this site for that very reason. One of my players and I were discussing this last week and we both agreed that, while optimizing does have it's place in certain games, it's better to make a character how you want. He told me he took a brief glance at the Shifter guide on here and quickly closed the window, because optimizing isn't his idea of fun.

However, optimizing in itself is fun for some people. Even if certain builds are more viable (which is to be expected, it's like thinking a praying mantis might be able to stand up to a bear because it has claws), it's still fun for some people to try and optimize stuff. To each their own.

As for the question: what is D&D? It's whatever the heck you want to make it, man.

(Also I'd suggest picking up new systems if you're burned out. 3.5-ers seem to have the most trouble doing this, myself included.)

[some guy]

I'm almost never a player, but when DM-fatigue strikes me I just play a different game like Gamma World or Call of Cthulhu. After a week or two I'm full of inspiration for D&D.

Maybe try something like that? GM a non-D&D game yourself? Or some board games? Switching systems may get rid of the optimization issue, and the fastest way to try a new system is to take initiative yourself.

[Kol Korran]

As for the question: what is D&D? It's whatever the heck you want to make it, man.

Just wanted to point this out again, as it is quite true.

At the OP: You describe a very specific interest in the game, a very narrow focus on optimization and making "the best" character. In our group, though people enjoy optimization to a degree, the main focus for most is to roleplay the specific character- it's interaction with the group, with the world, bringing it to life and making it memorable and fun. We do optimize somewhat, but far less than most on these boards. And the DM (either it's me or someone else) don't penalize characters for it, but build the game and campaign to fit.

In fact, most of our players intentionally make "mistakes" in character creation, and in game (for example following a fey's seduction even knowing it will end up badly, sleeping with the wench of the pirate captain you're trying to persuade, or inviting a curse by killing the creepy old witch) because it makes the game more challenging, more interesting, a better story to remember and more fun. The goal isn't "to win D&D", but to do so in an interesting and satisfying manner. If you make a character that is "unbeatable", then sure, it will destroy every encounter, but i'd guess that will become very boring, very fast.

As a DM I find tons of things to get excited about- creating new interesting and surprising challenges for the party, creating a thrilling environment for them to deal with and make an impact, crafting interesting and intriguing NPCs, and more. I find myself constantly evolving as a DM, and guess what- I don't own that many books or use overly complicated builds. There is a LOT to do with simple ingredients, imagination and tactics. quite a few encounter don't require opponents at all...

I'm babbling I think. In short:
- try to expand your interests to more than optimizing. cool character interactions, challenges that don't stem from a certain build, but from a situation, time, interfering factors and more.
- Seek to expand your skills and expertise in more than just one venue. tackle the subjects you're less good as a DM or a player, seek what makes them fun to others, than to yourself.

Hope this helps.

[JellyPooga]

The so-called "optimisation" of characters is a fallacy.

The 'point', if there is one, of any Roleplaying Game (and D&D is no exception) is to play a character you have invented within a game world that is, for one reason or another, not real.

Having a character that can surgically remove the liver and kidneys of 10 foes with a single punch in 1.06 seconds precisely might be 'optimised' for combat, but that in itself means nothing unless that character also has a personality, motivations and goals, flaws (no, not the kind that give you extra Feats!) and foibles, an appearance, habits, a background and everything else that goes into making a character. If he does, great. The character standing next to him with just as much detail, but is a Fighter who's spent all his Feats on Exotic Weapon Proficiency, is just as valid a character to play. Sure he might not be as effective when it comes to a combat, but whilst the rules of D&D are mostly concerned with combative situations, those rules are not neccesarily the primary focus of any given game. Even if combat is the primary focus of a game, then being bad at it can also be as enjoyable as being good at it; just look at The Lord of the Rings (not that I'm saying LotR is combat focused)...the Hobbits were rubbish; they couldn't fight, they didn't know anything and were generally outclassed in every respect by the rest of the world. Yet were that a game being played, I can imagine playing those Hobbits being enourmous fun!

[NikitaDarkstar]

To be honest, most optimization is a mind game, what can be done with a system, not what should be. And exercises like that can be fun, and poking around for stuff like that can be helpful if you're clueless on how to get something you want, or don't know what spells to pick. But actually play a fully optimized character? No thanks.

Now to be honest, I've been down that road, feeling everything I did was the same, so I tried mixing it up a bit, instead of my two weapon, high agility characters I'd try thinks like sorceress, sword and boarders, wizards, clerics, druids, etc. but in the end I ended up getting bored with them because it wasn't what I wanted to play. My next character is going to be an elf, two weapon fighting assassin.

But really, consider taking a break from 3.5 and try something else, or just try something from a different genre and then come back to it with a fresh mind.

[Lateral]

Well, D&D is what you make of it. If you enjoy just playing a character, then you may be better off not worrying about optimization. For me, personally, half the fun is building the most effective character I can within a certain concept.

I think that the problem you're having might be because it looks like you think of optimization as simply picking all the best, most powerful options. It doesn't have to be. I find that it's the most fun when you take a crazy, interesting concept, set it down in front of yourself, and say, "How can I build this so that it won't suck?" You know, make it a challenge for yourself. Don't think about yourself as trying to build a great Fighter, or a great Druid- try thinking about it from a less class-based perspective: "I want to build an elderly martial arts master who uses cool Judo-like flips and throws to make up for his physical weakness, and can also breathe fire and fly," or "I want to build Optimus Prime."

[Jack of Spades]

My solution to this was simple: my group generally doesn't play DnD.

But for you, you may just want to take a break from at least the 3.x forums for a while. I've noticed that the more time you spend reading about any game on the internet (in any medium), the quicker your brain starts to convert everything in the game to math. Thus, you start to see the choices of others as "right" or "wrong" based on all that math you have in your head that they probably don't.

So, if you want to avoid getting burnt out on d20 specifically, avoid d20 forums until you can go "Oh, an intelligent fighter-- interesting" instead of "High int on a fighter! But what about str or con!?"

Either that, or try out other games. Board games made to feel like RPG's (such as Descent) are often refreshing in their randomness when compared to RPG's. Non-d20 RPG's like GURPS and WoD manage to be a bit harder to reduce to math because they drop the class abstraction. By doing that, they allow the player to make a person instead of a Fighter or a Wizard, meaning they can have a more varied (in theme, at least) skillset without hamstringing their "build."

Oh, and about the morality debate: As I mentioned in the current Big Morality Thread, that argument's been running in circles for 2500 years. Don't ever hesitate to ignore it if you get the chance.

[toapat]

I havent played true DnD, and i get what you are saying.

looking at the Optimization boards isnt really fun, because they look at the game from a pure mechanics perspective. Their only real value is when you are looking at something like The Paladin Handbook, which while it does give you a few optimized builds, is also useful as a quick refference for what you can do within a class.

my first real character will preferably be a High Elven Mystic Fire Knight of Freedom, who would be considered to have ADD if she didnt also ruthlessly destroy evil

[valadil]

I've never been a fan of optimization in play. The way I see it is that optimal is optimal and you don't need to play a build in order to see how awesome it is. I can look at a fighter with a gazillion strength and know that he'll hit hard. No need to play him. I'd rather play a character with a spontaneous personality and see where that takes me.

[Kaun]

Optimization is fun in theory but can make for some average games.

If you players like optimization but your getting sick of it try to encourage them to optimize bad build options rather then premium ones.

Get them to play lower tier classes and races and let them figure out how to squeeze the most juice out of them.

At least that way it might switch things up a bit.

That or go play something rules lighter with less room for optimization. Some times everyone needs to be reminded that Role play isn't a table top war-game.

[Kane0]

Hmm. If you're going to try Pathfinder, you will likely look back at 3.5 and think of how different two very similar systems can be. I started playing PF with a group of people and i was the only one with knowledge of 3.5 so I was thrown out a lot by things they simply took as the way it is. Quite the eye opener.

My suggestion? If you cant just enjoy 3.5 for how it is and how you want to play it go to PF and try to get into it. You will either love it more than 3.5 or look back and see 3.5 in an entirely new light, especially if you do a few PFS games.

Edit: Also ask yourself this: How will you react when your character dies? If it is always along the lines of "Meh, I have another ready to go" or "Saw it coming, ill do this next" that is a problem. Make a character that you like and that will be alive. Make a character you will not want to lose, someone memorable and special.
I do not make backup characters for that exact reason. If I do then I end up losing the ones I have, which always is a great loss for me. Not every character needs to be over the top and awesome, but it needs to be unique and develop in the game.
Remember, your character is different from your character sheet.

[Lanaya]

I've never been a fan of optimization in play. The way I see it is that optimal is optimal and you don't need to play a build in order to see how awesome it is. I can look at a fighter with a gazillion strength and know that he'll hit hard. No need to play him. I'd rather play a character with a spontaneous personality and see where that takes me.

Ergh. Stormwind. What about a fighter with a gazillion strength and a spontaneous personality? Surely the numbers on your character sheet don't change your ability to roleplay. There's nothing stopping you from roleplaying when you play a highly optimised character, and there's no reason that playing a low-op character will make your personality more interesting. I do agree with your general point, but roleplaying and optimisation are by no means mutually exclusive.

[Gamer Girl]

Did anyone ever go through something like this?

Well, I have always been ''like that''. But I do know what your talking about s I see it all the time:

The Optimizers sit down to have a game. First it normal takes them something like an hour to decided all the rules and such and what they will use and how they will use it and what 'the' means. Then they start the game, and just don't have any fun. They barely role-play as everything is all about the rules and rolling. They have lots of combat, sure, but even that gets dull and pointless after an hour or so. In short, they are playing a video game at the table. And they get burned out and lose their spark.

Then, just two tables over is My Game. And everyone is always having fun over at this table. Instead of hour long 'rule discussions', we are having hour long action encounters(but not necessarily combat). Everything is role-played out and everyone joins in the fun.

And it's not too shocking when at the end of the night, one or two Optimizers come over and ask to join My Game. And as at least one character will have died(and the player wishes to take a break) we will have an opening. At first the Optimizers scream, and cry and complain about my House Rules(death is common, lots of drawbacks, high magic, high fantasy, status que). And some won't make it past the first game and will quit. But some love it. The huge sense of danger, the speed of the game and the massive role-play really hooks them in. I've ''saved'' several Optimizers this way.

[Snowbluff]

Ergh. Stormwind. What about a fighter with a gazillion strength and a spontaneous personality? Surely the numbers on your character sheet don't change your ability to roleplay. There's nothing stopping you from roleplaying when you play a highly optimised character, and there's no reason that playing a low-op character will make your personality more interesting. I do agree with your general point, but roleplaying and optimisation are by no means mutually exclusive.

This pretty much.

ALSO. A build with out Natural Spell for a Druid! It's my personal Ubermount, using several more obscure feats. It's rough, since I don't have the original anymore.

Halfling AcDruid4/Wizard1/ArcaneHeirophant10/MysticTheurge/RanferKnightofFurmundy

Devoted Tracker, Holy Mount, Theurgic Mount, Draconic Steed, Natural Bond, Theugic Bond, various prerequisite feats.

Combines your AnC, Familiar, and Special Mount. Make it a Gold Dragon. Take the ACF to drop wildshape for Wis to AC, or take the Halfing druid Sub levels (they give ride as a skill, IDR id you can take both, but my DM let me).

Use lots of Buffs and Swift action spells (like Wraith Strike) to buff up your Dragon.

For RP, play up your dualistic nature and your relationship with your dragon. I had fun with it.

[Anxe]

Nothing says you can't try a new system. V

[Jack of Spades]

I'd like to note this: Post 13, Stormwind fallacy invoked by name. Post 14, Stormwind fallacy actually occurs.

By which I mean to say, mention optimization once and within a page you will hear about and see the Stormwind fallacy.

Which, by the way, is part of the problem with 3.x forums, and the reason why I recommended taking a break. The Stormwind fallacy isn't used just as a way to say that one can optimize and roleplay, it is used as a way to justify snubbing anyone who doesn't optimize as 'not doing it right.'

Just because the Stormwind fallacy is true does not mean the inverse of it is also true. Saying one prefers to play sub-optimal builds does not mean that one needs the crutch of mechanical weakness to roleplay properly. It just means that one does not feel any need to build an optimal character.

Hence why I feel a big source of un-fun in 3.x is reducing the game to its math, even if you later add the other things. If you don't allow yourself to be mechanically suboptimal then you will remove too much failure from the game. Failure is important. It is the only way that we know what success is supposed to feel like. Sure, you can optimize yourself such that you win every balanced challenge faced before you. But no matter how much fun you have role playing, every time you bring out the dice the game will become as fun and suspenseful as accounting. And not the cool kind, either. You'll win. Good for you. Why did you bring out the dice, again? You may as well have just run the fight as a cutscene rather than a rolled battle. It would have saved you time.

Sure, losing a character sucks. But without the possibility of losing something worthwhile (not necessarily the character) with every fight, the fight isn't really worth actually rolling dice for half an hour or more.

So, to add something to my previous suggestions, I recommend that the OP try out an old-school, low-op game. Maybe a different system, like L5R or one of the other ones where any given fight generally means someone's having a bad week. Just to cleanse your palate, at least. Then you can go back to rolling to see how many rounds it takes you to win every combat.

Sorry if I got more heated there than the OP wanted-- this ended up a bit rant-y. Feel free to ignore my tone/words/general annoyance at DnD.

[Snowbluff]

I'd like to note this: Post 13, Stormwind fallacy invoked by name. Post 14, Stormwind fallacy actually occurs.

By which I mean to say, mention optimization once and within a page you will hear about and see the Stormwind fallacy.

Well, too be honest,I posted that build to challenge this man's assertions. He asked for a build without Natural Spell. I gave him one. /challengeaccepted /challengeturnedinsideoutbybulletsmadeofoptimizatio nawesomeness

Ironically enough this sort of post is probably why the Stormwind Fallacy came into play. Sure, the reverse may be true (There is an exception to every rule, even this one), but snubbing optimizers for problems with your own game while you do not know them is rather inappropiate.

I've played low OP, but honestly, High OP can be risky, too. Sure, my Swiftblades and Batman Wizard eat encounters for breakfast, but being the tactical genius I am is the only reason I get through anything else.

Other times I get lucky. Like my fight versus that Air Necromental. My Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage buddy (yes, 1 level of each lol) got drained to death. I was able to kill it with nothing but my sling and my trusty riding dog Pilbo. Damn thing had fast healing. It took forever.

[eggs]

So switch games.

D&D isn't the only game on the market, and I wouldn't call it anywhere near the best. It's just a game with a lot of space to tinker with in a M:tG way; if you're burning out on that, there's no reason you shouldn't drop it.

My core problems comes from this: Optimization is no longer creative or even mentally challenging as a whole. It's gone from great mathematics and number crunching to "Nope sorry, this broken build that can literally beat anything still wins so your build is pointless."

This doesn't sound like as much a problem with optimization as it does like a problem with a community. And I can't say it's undeserved.

[KillianHawkeye]

It's okay. You've rebooted into Safe Mode. Sometimes when you crash, tinkering about in Safe Mode for a while is the only way to get things straightened out again. In time, you may find that you can run your system again with all of your software applications running at full steam, or you may find that your system works better without all the bells and whistles.

[Jack of Spades]

Well, too be honest,I posted that build to challenge this man's assertions. He asked for a build without Natural Spell. I gave him one. /challengeaccepted /challengeturnedinsideoutbybulletsmadeofoptimizatio nawesomeness

Ironically enough this sort of post is probably why the Stormwind Fallacy came into play. Sure, the reverse may be true (There is an exception to every rule, even this one), but snubbing optimizers for problems with your own game while you do not know them is rather inappropiate.

I've played low OP, but honestly, High OP can be risky, too. Sure, my Swiftblades and Batman Wizard eat encounters for breakfast, but being the tactical genius I am is the only reason I get through anything else.

Other times I get lucky. Like my fight versus that Air Necromental. My Crusader/Warblade/Swordsage buddy (yes, 1 level of each lol) got drained to death. I was able to kill it with nothing but my sling and my trusty riding dog Pilbo. Damn thing had fast healing. It took forever.

Well, for one thing, you were post 15

I guess I was a bit quick to blame the practice of optimization. But when so many people burn out on a game in almost exactly the same way (same flavor of burnout, that is), I'm generally going to assume something is wrong in the mechanics of said game. And optimization is a symptom of a few failures on the game side of how DnD was written and merchandized. So, to clarify/revise. I don't have a problem with the optimizers (other than the ones who behave how I described, and they do exist) as much as I have a problem with game systems which are conducive to optimization.

I'm still going to stand by my suggestion of trying out high-risk low-op though. The single thing that got me back into gaming after a major slump of the sort described was a game of NWoD where we all started as 0-XP mortals in a town beset by just about everything in the books. One life each. It was exciting as hell, and every time we encountered a monster of some kind I came out exhilarated at the fact that my character had managed to survive.

EDIT: Heh, two posts in the time I was writing this. Strange how some forums are more active in the evening.

[Lanaya]

Which, by the way, is part of the problem with 3.x forums, and the reason why I recommended taking a break. The Stormwind fallacy isn't used just as a way to say that one can optimize and roleplay, it is used as a way to justify snubbing anyone who doesn't optimize as 'not doing it right.'

Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I'll assume it was because I'm terribly egocentric. Also because I feel that you're being a bit unfair, but the egocentrism is the main part. In this case, I brought it up in response to somebody saying that optimisation is bad because it makes roleplaying impossible. Saying that no, it actually doesn't, is not pressuring anyone into optimising or lauding high-op as the one true playstyle, it's saying that every playstyle is fun and viable. I don't think I've ever actually seen Stormwind used to tell people that optimising is the only way to go. Challenging someone's assertion that X > Y isn't necessarily saying that Y > X. They can be equal.

[huttj509]

I guess I was a bit quick to blame the practice of optimization. But when so many people burn out on a game in almost exactly the same way (same flavor of burnout, that is), I'm generally going to assume something is wrong in the mechanics of said game. And optimization is a symptom of a few failures on the game side of how DnD was written and merchandized. So, to clarify/revise. I don't have a problem with the optimizers (other than the ones who behave how I described, and they do exist) as much as I have a problem with game systems which are conducive to optimization.

I'm inclined to agree. There's a difference between systems where "beginner does A, optimizer does A better (more efficiently, more effectively, but at best something like 2-3x as well), and systems where "beginner possibly fails to be able to do A despite seeming like that's what the choices do, while optimizer breaks the game into tiny little pieces, and needs to set external limits to achieve something generally playable without making angels cry, since he didn't WANT to make angels cry."

My personal position on optimization is that if I want to make a character to do XYZ, it's fine if the system doesn't permit that (not enough build points, etc). It's not fine if the system gives me something that looks like it does XYZ, but doesn't. I detest trap classes/feats. Choosing a character who cannot perform as described should be something done on purpose, not by accident.

Now in terms of "cannot perform," it depends on if you're gathering with friends to play interesting characters, or to play a team with certain roles. They are not exclusive, but can describe an outlook on things. If I tell my friends I'm playing a Tank, and the character I bring cannot Tank (whatever your group understands that to mean), I have failed their expectations. If we're planning to make a team of adventurers, and I try to provide some damage output for when we encounter resistance, and I CANNOT provide the expected damage output, I have failed their expectations.

My character can be interesting, but if we're expecting to be defending the town, and built characters to work together to defend the town, and someone fell for a trap that dopes not perform as claimed, that's not good. If someone CHOOSES to play a fighter with 18 INT and 8 in everything else, or something like that, that's different, and not at all related to the system (if the group's fine with it in their own expectations, by all means go for it! Enjoy!).

[obryn]

So switch games.

This, pretty much.

IMO, the best way to handle burnout with one system is to play a completely different system. Ideally, you come back to the first one with a new perspective. Or you find one that suits your new needs better and stick with it.

I found that running 1e improved my 4e game. I found that running Call of Cthulhu improved my Arcana Evolved game. I found that running Paranoia for a session or two can rekindle excitement for gaming like nothing else on this planet. I'm going to run some Savage Worlds before long for another palate cleanser.

My own rule is that the more games you learn and play, the better off you are.

-O

[Jack of Spades]

Not sure if this was directed at me or not, but I'll assume it was because I'm terribly egocentric. Also because I feel that you're being a bit unfair, but the egocentrism is the main part. In this case, I brought it up in response to somebody saying that optimisation is bad because it makes roleplaying impossible. Saying that no, it actually doesn't, is not pressuring anyone into optimising or lauding high-op as the one true playstyle, it's saying that every playstyle is fun and viable. I don't think I've ever actually seen Stormwind used to tell people that optimising is the only way to go. Challenging someone's assertion that X > Y isn't necessarily saying that Y > X. They can be equal.

But, reread what you posted. They didn't say anything about the relation between optimization and roleplay. You inferred the relatonship falsely. They merely said "I don't like optimizing my build, so I play a build and a character I like instead." They barely even said anything about roleplay, but you quoted them and the second word of your post was "Stormwind." And that is extremely frustrating to see.

[Gamer Girl]

I'd like to note this: Post 13, Stormwind fallacy invoked by name. Post 14, Stormwind fallacy actually occurs.

My Post!

Not that I agree with all that 'wind' though.....

I was not attacking a playstlye or anything, I was just relating a True Story. I have seen plenty of players get burned out Optimizing. All of them? of course not! There are always two tables full of Optimizers going through an Alphabet Dungeon or trying out a new build. But some players do get burned out. And of them, some like My more 'hardcore unbalanced and unfair' game. But again, not all. And it's not just Optimizers, I get plenty of players that don't like the safe nerf storytelling game.

My point was that Opimization does not matter much in My 'hardcore unbalanced and unfair' game. And it has worked to 'unburn' optimizers.

[Lanaya]

But, reread what you posted. They didn't say anything about the relation between optimization and roleplay. You inferred the relatonship falsely. They merely said "I don't like optimizing my build, so I play a build and a character I like instead." They barely even said anything about roleplay, but you quoted them and the second word of your post was "Stormwind." And that is extremely frustrating to see.

"I've never been a fan of optimization in play. The way I see it is that optimal is optimal and you don't need to play a build in order to see how awesome it is. I can look at a fighter with a gazillion strength and know that he'll hit hard. No need to play him. I'd rather play a character with a spontaneous personality and see where that takes me."

I think that's pretty unambiguously saying that an optimised character is just numbers on a sheet and cannot have a personality. Maybe that wasn't valadil's intention, but I think it was what he said. If he had simply said that "I don't care about optimisation, I'd rather play a character with a spontaneous personality and see where that takes me", then yes, that would be saying that he prefers to just build and play a character he likes. But saying that an optimised character need not even be played, because you know everything about them just by looking at their character sheet? The only valid interpretation of that statement I can see is that playing an optimised character is pointless because they are merely a bunch of numbers on a character sheet with no personality, unlike unoptimised characters, which can have the spontaneous personalities he likes. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Even if I am wrong, my intentions were to defend against a perceived attack, not to tell everyone anyone not playing high-op is having badwrongfun.

[toapat]

The Stormwind Falacy has 2 Parts:

That Optimization and the capacity to roleplay a character are not mutually exclusive

That it shall be missused as a sledge with which to claim that High Op is the way to go.


The part that the Falacy ignores, is that High Optimization actually does limit gameplay significantly. If you want to play someone better then low Tier 3, you are going to start to hurt the story potential of the game. Challenges become less so, and the DM has a much harder time responding to this. CR was never good enough as it is.

[Medic!]

Character creation has always been a somewhat religious experience for me. I love rolling the dice, then pick a basic character concept, and see where it goes. I've always personally thought of D&D as stepping into the shoes of a character that already exists in the world and sharing his story with him as opposed to creating a character to insert into the world and creating his story. It never mattered if I was playing the dumb orc fighter or the gestalt orc barb/ftr/FB/warhulk with headlong rush and pounce who one-shot a maralith at level 8, or the dwarven monk who called himself Stone-Dome and headbutted everything to smithereens.

I tend to play melees almost as a rule, and I've gone through dozens each of monks, fighters, crusaders, warblades, rangers....each one was a completely different person with a new personality that just seemed to manifest itself as the campaign moved along. To me, that's always been the draw and the magic that keeps me coming back session after session. When the folks at our table make new characters, I don't say "Let me see your sheet." I say "Tell me about Ja'viron...introduce me."

[Reluctance]

Count me as another "switch games" person. It really sounds like you're burnt out on the character building subgame, so switching to something else entirely is probably your best bet.

Also, focusing on build does tend to inhibit characterization. There's nothing wrong with mechanically supporting "I'm good at X" by actually being good with X. Focusing on a build gimmick does tend to make your character feel more like a build gimmick than anything else.