"Optimized" characters or parties?

[Rigeld2]

-----

Grr, let me ask you this. What difference, if any, exists between the following two people:
- A character with a given selection of stats, feats, skills, spells, and equipment which makes him really good.
- A character with a given selection of stats, feats, skills, spells, and equipment which makes him really good and a satisfactory backstory which explains it all.

I'm asking because I understand many points being made from many folks, but I don't understand yours. What makes a minmaxxer worse than someone who creates the exact same character but has a fluff concept for that character?

-----

From what hes said, the second one can never exist - minmaxers always have a shallow, dull backstory, without fail.

[Zincorium]

Mmm . . . no. I see where you're coming from, and I agree that the profession skill isn't a good example, but I can't agree with this. If your character's background is supposed to be that you spent 90% of your adult life as a baker, and 1% as a wizard, then for me, it really strains credibility when you spend all your skill points on wizard skills and don't have a single point in anything else. "Sure, I'll roleplay a character, just as long as I don't have to give up even the tiniest bit of mechanical effectiveness to do it." I don't particularly want to play in the kind of game that Tippy seems to like, where a player's character sheet tells you absolutely nothing about their character.

Well, if you spent 90% of your adult life as a baker, and 1% of it as a wizard, that both leaves 9% of your life unaccounted for and means you shouldn't ever go on typical adventures. You'll die, and unless your character is terminally unobservant, they probably realize that. 1% of wizard means your wizard percentage equals your probably survival rate.

Seriously, campaigns where the characters are essentially normal people can be fun and certainly have their place, but it isn't representative of the 'reality' of most campaigns.

Or, you can just be a seriously terrible baker, never learning recipes and always forgetting to take the bread out before it burns. After the bakery burns down while you left it unattended to spend time on your hobby, wizardry, you decide to make being a wizard your career and seek out others with your distaste for the working life, robes still covered in flour and egg whites.

I'd never demand that someone took the Commoner or Expert class, or anything that would really gimp them, as part of a background, but a guy who's unwilling to pay even a few skill points? That's like someone who claims to be generous and open-handed, but won't leave a shop until he's gotten his 1 cent change from his $10 bill.

- Saph

You'd be well within your rights as a fellow player in the game or as the DM to tell him he's being unreasonable. Changing a character's background, well before the game, doesn't hurt anyone. A character who will not back down about both his character being a baker and his lack of points in that seems more like a straw man to argue against than a person you're willing to roleplay with.

[Lolth]

I've gamed with enough people to see that the min-maxxing munchkins are generally poor roleplayers. All they're interested in, is killing stuff and making big numbers get bigger.

Oh no... I hate min-maxxers. Has nothing to do whether they're a poor roleplayer or not. Poor roleplaying can be fixed. Munchkins are a lost cause. If it doesn't have numbers or lots of combat, they get bored and whine.

This leads me to ask another, hopefully not too inflammatory question:

Is all optimization about combat? I didn't think or assume so when I started this thread. I mean, what about optimizing your Bard to be the suavest, swingin'est performer/seducer around, or your Wizard to be the ablest of diviners, learning the mysteriest of the universe, or your Rogue to be the most daring of trapsmushers?

Not to imply that being combat-capable makes one a poor RPer, though some seem to think the two go hand in hand, but what about these other bits?

I guess I think of "optimization" as "working the rules to be the best, mechanically, at what you do" as opposed to "working the rules to be the best killer of stuff you can be."

[Lolth]

Jargon check: Stormwind Fallacy?

[Sir Giacomo]

I guess I think of "optimization" as "working the rules to be the best, mechanically, at what you do" as opposed to "working the rules to be the best killer of stuff you can be."

Actually, in my opinion, it is a third version: "optimisation" as "working the rules to be exactly/as close as possible, mechanically, at what you intend your character to do".

In this, of course, you should be somewhat consistent- within a general consensus on what that means, with the DM providing the final call.

If in the above example you play someone who spent 90% of the time in a kitchen and only 1% with magic (too little to justify an evening school of wizard apprenticeship), at 1st level he should maybe be a bard (explaining why he can only cast cantrips), with all his skills focused on something that has to do with a kitchen:
Profession, craft, hide (from the angry kitchen chef, but not move silently since it is always loud in a big kitchen), knowledge-nature (for some poison knowledge, alternatively take healing), some perform-juggling (with kitchen stuff), a bit of tumbling and balance (to mirror the ability to tread between unkempt kitchen floor, slippery surfaces etc.), gather information etc..
And THEN some single skill points onto spellcraft, knowledge arcana, whatever,.

If you as a player find out that your initial idea ("90% of your life in a kitchen") does not fit with that kind of character outcome ("but I'd love to play a powerful wizard with a start into his career as a kitchen boy"), then adjust accordingly your background.
The rules help you a lot in callibrating some sort of consistency into getting your character concept into something that can be played and enjoyed.

- Giacomo

[The Glyphstone]

Jargon check: Stormwind Fallacy?

In a very abbreviated nutshell, it's the assumption that if you have an effective character, you are a poor role-player, and vice versa. AKA the "roll-play" vs. "role-play".

[Bears With Lasers]

f in the above example you play someone who spent 90% of the time in a kitchen and only 1% with magic (too little to justify an evening school of wizard apprenticeship), at 1st level he should maybe be a bard (explaining why he can only cast cantrips), with all his skills focused on something that has to do with a kitchen:

D&D isn't a realistic simulation. It's okay to prioritize things based on narrarative importance and dramatic weight. Someone whose character is only 10% wizard at level 1 is still playing a wizard; presumably, they want the character to be a wizard, rather than a cook. Therefore, marginalizing the cookery (which could warrant a couple of mechanically character-ruining levels of Expert, "realistically") and taking a standard first-level wizard setup and just spending a little RP time on his cooking the party's meals is just fine.

Your character isn't--or at least, probably shouldn't be--purely reactive to the game world. It says something about what you want. If most of your character sheet is focused on cooking, that says that that's what you want your character to do. If you make a reach/tripping/stand still fighter, that says that you want to play a warrior who controls the flow of combat. If you make a bard focusing on social skills, it says you want to sweet-talk people and have various other social adventures. If you make a character who isn't any good at anything... well, you want to explore failing, I suppose.
I'm not sure why people think that a character sheet should model a character as "realistically" as possible.

[Talya]

A few ideas being tossed around as arguments that don't actually contradict each other.

Optimizing isn't "bad roleplaying." Even my 2 bard/6 sorceress/5 heartwarder is as optimized as I can make her, within the limitations of the bard multiclass and heartwarder prerequisites. (While the charisma bonus from heartwarder is truly great, the requirements of dodge/mobility/proficiency: whip are certainly not sorceror-friendly...so much so that my DM houseruled out mobility and said if I took the "harem trained" feat to fit my character background it would suffice.) I still take feats and skills and spells to try to make her as effective as I possibly can. (BTW, as I mentioned in another thread, no sorceror should be without the spell "Ruin Delver's Fortune.") Apart from that, she still avoids most necromancy...she's a sunite, and necromancy is generally anything but pretty, no matter how effective it is. (The lone exception I considered was the healing touch spell, which seemed very noble and pretty and good for a necromancy spell, and would fit her divine focus well. I still ruled against it in the end though.)

Also, you should not separate your character's fluff from the numbers...they tie-in to each other. If you want to rolepay Roy the leader of the Order of the Stick, you're going to have a high intelligence and wisdom score. Obviously not as high intelligence as Varsuuvius, or as high wisdom as Durkon, but unnaturally high for a fighter. Is that optimal? No. (Combat expertise aside.) But if you minmax out an intelligence of 8 and then play a university grad, you aren't getting it. Your ability scores represent your character's *gasp* abilities...mental and physical. Those certainly have an effect upon the personality of the character...someone with a charisma of 26 who roleplays a completely unlikeable ass**** needs a smack to the head. Heck, the fighter with the dex of 8 who pretends to be all skilled and graceful is also way off base...you're a clumsy oaf who has enough strength to compensate for it. The character's ability scores do represent a framework that the character's personality sits on top of...they don't singularly define your character, but they won't support a personality that doesn't fit them.

[Bears With Lasers]

Why do you need INT/WIS stats that high? Surely just "above average" should cut it? Stats are very abstract. A high INT does not guarantee a knowledge of tactics and a high WIS could cover philosophical insights but not interpersonal understanding. Meanwhile, an INT 13 (for Combat Expertise) character could be very good at tactics but just not be particularily adept at book-learning.

Charisma isn't likeability, it's force of personality. A high-charisma character can be an ass--negative attention is still attention. You can have a caustic, bastardly personality... that people take seriously rather than dismissing, because it's also charismatic.

What's more, if you roleplay your Dex 8 character as graceful, why does it matter? You're not gaining any mechanical advantage out of making your character look cooler, you're just getting pure enjoyment out of it.

Again--D&D is not a simulation. There's no need for a character sheet to be as perfectly representative of all of your fluff as you can make it.

[Talya]

Why do you need INT/WIS stats that high? Surely just "above average" should cut it?

I consider "13" rather high. 14 is probably where I'd put Roy. (At least on a point buy, 14 is efficient. No sense going 13 just for combat expertise and not taking advantage of the extra skill points.) I distinctly said he's not as high as Varsuuvius or Durkon, who are likely in the 16-18 range for their respective casting stats.

Charisma isn't likeability, it's force of personality. A high-charisma character can be an ass--negative attention is still attention. You can have a caustic, bastardly personality... that people take seriously rather than dismissing, because it's also charismatic.

Absolutely, but it does represent the ability to manipulate others. If a high charisma character wants you to like them, you're probably going to like them. If a high charisma character wants you to be afraid of them, you're likely to be afraid of them.

What's more, if you roleplay your Dex 8 character as graceful, why does it matter?

It doesn't "matter" from a gameplay perspective...but you're not graceful. You're a clumsy oaf. That's what the dexterity represents.

Again--D&D is not a simulation. There's no need for a character sheet to be as perfectly representative of all of your fluff as you can make it.

I feel it does need to represent the fluff as closely as possible.

[Bears With Lasers]

I consider "13" rather high. 14 is probably where I'd put Roy. (At least on a point buy, 14 is efficient. No sense going 13 just for combat expertise and not taking advantage of the extra skill points.) I distinctly said he's not as high as Varsuuvius or Durkon, who are likely in the 16-18 range.

13 is rather high? Er, okay. And here I thought it wasn't much above average (+1). The point is, you could play an absolutely brilliant tactician... with a 13 INT.

Absolutely, but it does represent the ability to manipulate others. If a high charisma character wants you to like them, you're probably going to like them. If a high charisma character wants you to be afraid of them, you're likely to be afraid of them.

If they don't have any ranks in any social skills, it's more likely, but far from guaranteed.

It doesn't "matter" from a gameplay perspective...but you're not graceful. You're a clumsy oaf. That's what the dexterity represents.

My character is whatever my group agrees he is. By default, yes, but mechanically, dexterity is AC bonus, initiative, reflex saves, et cetera.
So, from a gameplay perspective, it doesn't matter. All that happens when you describe your 8 dex character as graceful is... you have more fun. Oh noes?

I feel it does need to represent the fluff as closely as possible.

Why? What's bad or wrong about separating them a little (like with dexterity), or focusing on the more dramatically important parts of your character (which some games do by default)?

[Talya]

If they don't have any ranks in any social skills, it's more likely, but far from guaranteed.

Heh...at level 13, my heartwarder is now at a minimum +12 to use any charisma based skill...untrained. I think her highest one is Use Magic Device (with 9 ranks and synergies it's at about +23 - +25).

[Bears With Lasers]

True, but that's a particularily high Charisma. A CHA of 18 won't have such a dramatic effect (but is still large).

Plus, you can auto-fail skill checks, can't you?

[Talya]

True, but that's a particularily high Charisma. A CHA of 18 won't have such a dramatic effect (but is still large).

Plus, you can auto-fail skill checks, can't you?

Na. Skill checks succeed on a roll of 1 if your total with bonuses exceeds the DC, and still fail on a roll of 20 if your total with bonuses is less than the DC. No critical rules for skill checks per RAW.

[Roethke]

...
Also, you should not separate your character's fluff from the numbers...they tie-in to each other. If you want to rolepay Roy the leader of the Order of the Stick, you're going to have a high intelligence and wisdom score. Obviously not as high intelligence as Varsuuvius, or as high wisdom as Durkon, but unnaturally high for a fighter. Is that optimal? No. (Combat expertise aside.) But if you minmax out an intelligence of 8 and then play a university grad, you aren't getting it. Your ability scores represent your character's *gasp* abilities...mental and physical. Those certainly have an effect upon the personality of the character...someone with a charisma of 26 who roleplays a completely unlikeable ass**** needs a smack to the head. Heck, the fighter with the dex of 8 who pretends to be all skilled and graceful is also way off base...you're a clumsy oaf who has enough strength to compensate for it. The character's ability scores do represent a framework that the character's personality sits on top of...they don't singularly define your character, but they won't support a personality that doesn't fit them.

At least in D&D, this isn't quite true. Believe me, I've met some dumb*** university grads :). Most of the RP value comes from where you put your skill ranks. An 8-DEX character with 8 ranks in tumble, is still a pretty darned good acrobat. A 6-INT character who has many ranks in knowledge skills, may actually know something. As for a 26-CHA player being a jerk, well, I've heard that psychopaths are actually very, very charming. The ability scores represent natural aptitude, but levels and skill ranks sort of nullify this. And, due to the unequal distribution of skill ranks, and the mechanically useful vs. useless ones, most players are end up making the 'fluffier' skill ranks not as pronounced in their character sheets or not using them at all.

[Bears With Lasers]

Fair enough, but you can just say "Eff you, mothereffer" instead of making a check, which should mean that you just don't roll a check at all.

[Reinboom]

There are a lot of historical world leaders that are now considered "psychotic" or otherwise not very pleasant or well liked who clearly had "maxed out leadership". Many of these figures I would consider to be extremely charismatic.
But even more clearly, they maxed out Diplomacy as well as made sure to get the bare synergies with everything to make them as diplomatic as possible, taking every stat increase to CHA to make them even more so.. Those optimizing bastards!

[Talya]

Sure, hence my qualification if a high charisma character wants you to like them, you're probably going to like them. If they don't care, well, then you very possibly won't.

For the record, my charisma bonus is only +8. Heart of Passion is a heartwarder ability that adds +2 to all charisma based skill checks, and Nymph's Kiss [BoED] was a "quest reward" my DM gave me as a free feat for rescuing an actual nymph from a succubus queen in the abyss.

(How's that for a non-RAW reward for going above what the DM intended in an adventure?)

[Bears With Lasers]

Sure, hence my qualification if a high charisma character wants you to like them, you're probably going to like them. If they don't care, well, then you very possibly won't.

Not quite.
If a high-charisma character's player wants you to like them, you probably will. The character can be trying his best despite the fact that his player is intentionally fudging.
We call that "roleplaying". ;)

[Indon]

Personally, I think we're confusing two quite different things and calling both of them optimization.

One of these things is taking a character concept and utilizing knowledge of the rules to make that characters' abilities appropriate to that concept, while still maintaining a balanced position in the party.

The other is to use the rules for maximum effect, justifying the character abilities gained with backstory.

The first approach to creating a character focuses on the character, and creates the mechanics for that character as an afterthought. These mechanics may be very optimized for the concept, but they will be limited by that concept.

The second approach to creating a character focuses on the mechanic, and creates the character for that mechanic as an afterthought. These characters may be quite interesting given the mechanic, but they will be limited by that optimization.

Can a good roleplayer do both, approaching from neither the conceptual nor the mechanical side alone? Yes, and clearly many do. Some create their characters and mechanics simultaneously, while others decide to divorce their characters' personae from their mechanics, both alternate examples of character development.

Are any of these approaches better than any other? In a free-form game like D&D, I doubt it.

Can people who use these approaches come into conflict in a game, decreasing everyone's enjoyment? YES.

So, I propose, each to their own, flock together, yadda yadda. If you have a problem with a gamer of a radically different school of thought, it's not a massive-scope philosophical problem as to the True Nature of Gaming, it's a personal problem between you and them.

That said, *whips out the marshmallow bag* mmm, toasted...

[Saph]

Again--D&D is not a simulation. There's no need for a character sheet to be as perfectly representative of all of your fluff as you can make it.

There's no need to roleplay your character, or make her have a distinctive personality, either, but it's still a good idea.

Divorcing fluff from crunch is a bad idea because it negates the whole point of having a rules system. If you say your character is supposed to be really good at something (like cooking), but you have neither the ability scores nor the skill points to back it up, then by the rules, you aren't good at cooking. Sure, the DM can ignore it, just like he can houserule ignore any part of the rules he doesn't like - but if you're always going to do that, why bother having any numbers on your character sheet at all?

- Saph

[Bears With Lasers]

There's no need to roleplay your character, or make her have a distinctive personality, either, but it's still a good idea.

Er, a little different, don't you think? I just said the sheet didn't need to be perfectly representative--see that concept of dramatic weight again, for example.

Divorcing fluff from crunch is a bad idea because it negates the whole point of having a rules system. If you say your character is supposed to be really good at something (like cooking), but you have neither the ability scores nor the skill points to back it up, then by the rules, you aren't good at cooking. Sure, the DM can ignore it, just like he can houserule ignore any part of the rules he doesn't like - but if you're always going to do that, why bother having any numbers on your character sheet at all?
- Saph

There are no rules for cooking. Profession is for using it for income; Craft is based on how much something is worth. If you can make a pastry that's worth a gold piece, you must be the world's greatest chef... only the DC on that is incredibly low if you took Craft(cooking).
Sure, you could invest in Craft(cooking) anyway to lend verisimilitude to the idea that your character is a cook, or to give it dramatic weight (there's that idea again) and indicate you'd like it to come up occasionally, but your character can be a great cook without a single skill point.
Similiarily, your character can be keen-eyed without taking Skill Focus: Spot, an Archmage without taking the Archmage prestige class, and so on.

The mechanics, even where they are representative, are something of a generalization. Emulating your fluff as close to 100% as you can isn't particularily good--it's kind of pointless. It doesn't add anything to the game, and it can detract from abilities you'll be using regularly in-game.

[Mauril Everleaf]

To go back to the original post (which asked that we not place any preference on one method or another) I would say that I rarely play optimized characters. In fact, I would venture to say that any true optimization happens by accident. I just go with what I like.

I play Sword-and-Board fighters because I don't like Two-handed or Two Weapon fighters. My clerics are more like WWII Medic, slightly less effective than the true infantryman since part of his time is spent healing (and casting some buffing spells). I rarely play a rogue, but I like being a skill-monkey. I like playing a Warlock, even though they suck. I have never played a bard, paladin or monk, but people in my party have. I may use some battle field control spells with my mage, but he will usually specialize in Evocation (if only by the fact that those are what he selects most often). I almost always play dwarves, regardless of the class, because I can identify better with a dwarf's motivations than with the other fantasy races, and we tend to have a few humans in the party already. I also tend to play straight class, since I don't want to have to mess with multi-classing penalties and since I rarely make a character that qualifies for a PrC.

I rarely have a storyline set out for my character and build around that, nor do I build character and set a story around the build. I may start with something akin to "X is a dwarf from Y. Having been trained to be a Z, he sets out adventuring (occassionally I include) for reasons A, B and/or C."

Do I make characters that are impossible to play or ruin the team dynamic in one way or another? Nope, because most of the people in my group do about the same as I do. If I was in a group that tweaked every possible advantage out of a build, I would learn to do so, so that I can stay up with them and not be a drag. I don't think I would (or could, for that matter) play a character that was less optimized, so if I played with a group that was less about optimization than I am (again, not really possible) I would keep my play style and just play something a little more fluff intensive (like a warlock).

[Reinboom]

The fact that a standard, unoptimized, untweaked, weak, basic, wizard with 8 dex, 8 wis, 8 str, and 8 con can run at 13.63¯ miles per hour (21.9456 kilometers per hour) and has the background story of always being trapped up in a study... studying... until coming out to adventure has led me to believe that what's on a character sheet doesn't represent characters well at all and that cat girls should just stay out of it.
With this... I believe the whole optimizing, roleplaying, etc. entwined fiasco should be done like this:
As long as (most) everybody is having fun.

[Saph]

Sure, you could invest in Craft(cooking) anyway to lend verisimilitude to the idea that your character is a cook, or to give it dramatic weight (there's that idea again) and indicate you'd like it to come up occasionally,

Yes, exactly. Putting a skill rank in it lends verisimilitude.

but your character can be a great cook without a single skill point.

How? You don't have the skill. A character who actually does have the skill will consistently outperform you.

Similiarily, your character can be keen-eyed without taking Skill Focus: Spot

Do you have any Spot ranks? A very high Wisdom score? Racial bonuses? If not, then you're not keen-eyed. If you insist that you are, then you're going to end up in awkward situations where your supposedly 'keen-eyed' character can't spot a white whale on a black background.

The mechanics, even where they are representative, are something of a generalization. Emulating your fluff as close to 100% as you can isn't particularily good--it's kind of pointless. It doesn't add anything to the game, and it can detract from abilities you'll be using regularly in-game.

It adds verisimilitude, and it gives you a set of rules to use.

If you don't want players to have to use their skill points on non-combat skills, then you can play with a house rule that gives players +X/level skill points to be used on background or fluff skills. Or have some kind of proficiency system like HeroQuest where you can do everything mentioned in your background. But this is a house rule. D&D already has a rules system for managing this kind of stuff.

- Saph

[Ayrynthyn]

Er, a little different, don't you think? I just said the sheet didn't need to be perfectly representative--see that concept of dramatic weight again, for example.

There are no rules for cooking. Profession is for using it for income; Craft is based on how much something is worth. If you can make a pastry that's worth a gold piece, you must be the world's greatest chef... only the DC on that is incredibly low if you took Craft(cooking).
Sure, you could invest in Craft(cooking) anyway to lend verisimilitude to the idea that your character is a cook, or to give it dramatic weight (there's that idea again) and indicate you'd like it to come up occasionally, but your character can be a great cook without a single skill point.
Similiarily, your character can be keen-eyed without taking Skill Focus: Spot, an Archmage without taking the Archmage prestige class, and so on.

The mechanics, even where they are representative, are something of a generalization. Emulating your fluff as close to 100% as you can isn't particularly good--it's kind of pointless. It doesn't add anything to the game, and it can detract from abilities you'll be using regularly in-game.

I agree with this to a point. My only advice with this kind of thinking, is make sure that the entire group is on board. It's no fun if you role play the greatest sailor since Jason, when Bob the rogue wanted to be Popeye, and sunk 10 ranks in Profession:Sailor because of (discussed ad nauseum previously) misconceptions and the desire to make his sheet's numbers reflect his fluff.

[Dausuul]

Do you have any Spot ranks? A very high Wisdom score? Racial bonuses? If not, then you're not keen-eyed. If you insist that you are, then you're going to end up in awkward situations where your supposedly 'keen-eyed' character can't spot a white whale on a black background.

It adds verisimilitude, and it gives you a set of rules to use.

If you don't want players to have to use their skill points on non-combat skills, then you can play with a house rule that gives players +X/level skill points to be used on background or fluff skills. Or have some kind of proficiency system like HeroQuest where you can do everything mentioned in your background. But this is a house rule. D&D already has a rules system for managing this kind of stuff.

- Saph

I agree. Going back to the cook example, suppose your character declared that he was trying to impress the king by cooking a really good pastry. As DM, I'd call for a Craft (Cooking) or Profession (Cook) check at that point, your choice. If you didn't put any ranks in, well... you're not going to make a very good pastry. That's why D&D has rules, to help establish just how good a pastry your character can or cannot make.

[Roethke]

I agree. Going back to the cook example, suppose your character declared that he was trying to impress the king by cooking a really good pastry. As DM, I'd call for a Craft (Cooking) or Profession (Cook) check at that point, your choice. If you didn't put any ranks in, well... you're not going to make a very good pastry. That's why D&D has rules, to help establish just how good a pastry your character can or cannot make.

But that doesn't make any more sense than using background fluff-- I mean, many cooks are bad bakers and vice versa. It's the background fluff that determines what kind of cook you are.

House-ruling in extra skill points for 'fluff' skills is fine, but really no different than just forgetting about the points and handwaving it in as background

[Tor the Fallen]

House-ruling in extra skill points for 'fluff' skills is fine, but really no different than just forgetting about the points and handwaving it in as background

What happens when you, the group's handwaved gourmand, get coerced to enter the town's annual cook off?
Roll off or more handwaving?

[Indon]

What happens when you, the group's handwaved gourmand, get coerced to enter the town's annual cook off?
Roll off or more handwaving?

Well, clearly you have to obtain the Legendary Sauce of Groth'narz, the only copy of the recipe of which is held by Sillaz the Goblin warlord, who homes in...

...what?