Do suboptimal choices a good thing?

[Starbuck_II]

Okay, I was reading Pathfinder forums: On Topic what Playtesting is.

And Vic Wertz said something that feels wrong:
"However, I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to players—it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born. Further, I suspect that many people would find that an RPG that's perfectly balanced is also likely to be perfectly boring."

Do suboptimal choices lead to positive results?
Or
Are they a trap that the designers have a good laugh about when people choose them (Nelson from Simpsons type laugh: Ha Ha).

Kinda like how Toughness was a weak feat. Vic feels feats like this lead to good results.
What are your feelings/thoughts? Do weak feats help you make a better character?

[AKA_Bait]

Okay, I was reading Pathfinder forums: On Topic what Playtesting is.

And Vic Wertz said something that feels wrong:
"However, I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to players—it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born. Further, I suspect that many people would find that an RPG that's perfectly balanced is also likely to be perfectly boring."

I hesitate to comment too thouroughly without seeing the comment in context but I'll say on the basis of this, I strongly disagree with Mr. Wertz and think he is conflating two ideas. He seems to be rolling the notion of 'difference' in terms of feel and RP options into the notion of 'unbalance' in terms of in game mechanical power. They really aren't the same, although in practice they often overlap.

[Calinero]

I agree that there are times when it is good not to have overly optimized players. If you are too strong, then the challenge is gone from the rollplaying of the game. Plus, if you become too focused on the combat aspect, then roleplaying suffers as well. I also find that players who focus too much on building their characters to be the perfect Fighter/Wizard/whatever are thinking more about the damage they're about to do than their character's backstory.

[fractic]

This has stormwind fallacy written all over it.

[Oracle_Hunter]

Clearly offering suboptimal choices is good for the players: it allows them to have more than a single choice. Now, to answer the implied question (is it good to play a suboptimal character) we have to look a bit closer.

I think we can all agree that, in a cooperative game, it is bad to present the players with "trap" choices - choices which, if they are taken, makes the PC far less capable of facing challenges generally than their fellow party members. The reasoning here is that the "trap" character becomes a drag on story advancement - The Load, specifically - and that makes the game less fun for everyone.

However, these two endpoints leave us with a vast middle ground of choices where the character is sub-optimal at facing challenges, but the drop in power is not enough to be a wearying hindrance on their fellow party members. These choices can be very good for allowing mechanical diversity in character builds (ex: Weapon Proficiency Feats) which can make it easier for some players to build "different" characters. To this end, they aid in characterization and, since they don't bring down the party, they can be good.

But, IMHO characterization comes from RP, not mechanics. Wielding a greatsword instead of a dagger doesn't make you a "different" character - having spent time drafted in the military before deserting does. Mechanics like getting +2 to Sneaking while taking -2 to Climbing might help reflect that characterization, but it is hardly necessary.

[1of3]

I guess some things get mixed up. One is suboptimal choices and the other is characters with weaknesses. Characters with weaknesses are interesting, but no sane player would actually make a suboptimal choice he or she is aware of.

If you want characters with weaknesses have chargen with some random results or mechanical disadvantages.

[Lord Herman]

I don't think it's a good thing to simply pick the 'best' spell/feat/power every time you level up. I much prefer picking something that fits my character's concept or theme. If I'm making a fire-using wizard, I'm not picking a lightning spell, period, even if it's better than the fire spells available on that level.

That said, I don't intentionally take rubbish feats like toughness (in 3.5, that is). But feats like toughness are just poorly designed - if nobody in their right mind takes it, it should be improved, like they did with toughness in 4E.

[Duke of URL]

Optimization, or the lack thereof, is not related to roleplaying in any meaningful sense.

That said, a better way to express the idea may be something like: a variety of choices, even if some of those choices are sub-optimal, improves the ability of players to make characters fit a particular ideal or mental image.

Playing non-optimal characters is fine. Pretending that you're a better roleplayer simply because you play non-optimized characters is not. The decision as to whether or not to intentionally use a non-optimized choice depends greatly on your group's style of play -- a mixture of highly-optimized characters and sub-optimized (or even "gimped") characters in the same party is likely to make for a frustrating game experience.

[Jack Zander]

I think suboptimal choices are good for a few reasons. They give an RPG the ability to play at various power levels. If you want a gritty or an anime campaign, you can do either. They allow for DMs to make suboptimal NPCs, becuase mooks don't have to be 4 levels below the PCs where they pose no threat, simply giving them poor feats allows their BAB to remain high without them having the ability to wipe out the party.

Now, if the group is unbalanced it can lead to issues, but that's a problem with the group, not the system.

[Proven_Paradox]

The problem here is with trap choices that shouldn't be traps. For example, going with two-weapon fighting with pretty much anything but a rogue SHOULDN'T be a trap. However, it is, and in this way it's a problem with the system. The same goes for feats like Monkey Grip. Trying to utilize these feats actually makes most characters LESS useful, and to me, that is a problem.

[leperkhaun]

I would point you to the Stormwind Fallacy.

A lot of.... RP snobs think that people who play optimized characters cannot RP due to the fact that they optimize.

Following this, those who do not optimize or use suboptimal builds are great RP'ers.

Its simply not the truth, the two (optimization and roleplaying) are not mutually exclusive.

Great RP is about building a character that includes more than their stats, saying your character is great for RP because you are playing a thief with a -10 penelty to Dex, doesnt make the character great for RP.... it makes a character who is useless.

ehhhh, anywho dont pay attention to people who say things like that.

1) There are people who do not optimize who RP great
2) There are people who do not optimize that cant RP to save their life
3) There are people who do optimize who RP great
4) There are people who do optimize who cant RP to save their life

[snoopy13a]

In theory, I suppose it is neutral. Suboptimal choices ought to result in easier encounters while optimal choices should result in more difficult encounters. Thus, the difficulty level of the campaign should remain the same.

However, suboptimal choices could be considered a good thing because they create more archetype choices. Builds such as a archer fighter or a blaster wizard are not considered optimal but they are popular choices for some players. Granted, optimal builds can be roleplayed just as well but there are fewer archetypes to choose from.

[Kurald Galain]

This simply proves that, like WOTC does, they have people who play a lot of Magic the Gathering (and similar CCGs) designing a RPG.

See, the thing is, part of the fun of Magic is, for many people, to optimize your deck (for a given value of "optimize"; e.g. some people optimize for the greatest chance of some obscure but awesome combo, rather than greatest chance of victory). So part of the learning experience for Magic is to learn to identify which cards are better than which others.

So yes, Magic actually does benefit from printing sub-par cards, much as power players hate to admit it. The dev team occasionally does it on purpose, too. Thing is, D&D is not Magic. That's where the fallacy creeps in.

[AKA_Bait]

That said, a better way to express the idea may be something like: a variety of choices, even if some of those choices are sub-optimal, improves the ability of players to make characters fit a particular ideal or mental image.

I'd agree here, but I think it's also important to make it clear that it is not the case that having variety in choice necessarly entails having mechanically weaker choices. Obviously, in execution, this is going to be a gray area for the most part. Variety in choice often, and intentionally, means that a character will be better at some tasks and worse at others than another character who made different choices. However, overall, these varied stregnths and weaknesses can balance out eachother making each character as strong overall. I wouldn't call either build in this kind of case 'suboptimal', since each accomplishes what it wants to do as well as possible. In this theoretical case, variety is still preserved, both mechanically and in RP.

I think suboptimal choices are good for a few reasons. They give an RPG the ability to play at various power levels. If you want a gritty or an anime campaign, you can do either.

They allow for DMs to make suboptimal NPCs, becuase mooks don't have to be 4 levels below the PCs where they pose no threat, simply giving them poor feats allows their BAB to remain high without them having the ability to wipe out the party.

I don't see the need for this goal to be accomplished by suboptimal choices within any given level of a system. It seems to me that it is better accomplished in one of three ways:

1. Multiple systems. If you want to play a gritty game, there are plenty of systems, d20 systems even, that can provide that. If you want a superpowered game, you can get that too. There's no reason that any one system itself need provide these options at any given power level and farming them out to systems specific to the kind of game desired seems to give the benifits desired without the risk of a imbalanced party (which we all seem to agree is often a problem). Although that is rightly noted as a 'problem with the group and not the system' a good system should be able to anticipate problems that are, causally, the fault of the group and preempt them as much as is practical.

2. Variants. A system can provide concrete mechanical variants within the overall structure. I.e. if you want a gritty game, the game can suggest getting rid of or toning down some particular life saving mechanics. Similarly, it can suggest areas to 'ramp up' if you want that kind of game.

3. Power levels within a system. Class levels is an example of this, but so are other mechanics avaliable to the DM, like the Minions mechanic in 4e. You can have a gritty game in 3.x by playing at very low levels. You can have an anime game by playing at very high ones. Regarding DM freedom to make NPCs that are challenging but not deadly, there are again ways from the DM side (like minions, giving them min hp, making their tactics foolish, or making them optimized for something other than their confrontation with the PCs) to create monsters and foes that are a neither a deadly challenge nor a cakewalk.

I think that in large part this confliation of ideas is a result of some of the poorer design choices in 3.x. Just because in 3.x a DM or player has problems and may feel constrained by the RAW in their ways of fixing them doesn't mean that those problems are inherent to any and all systems.

[Talya]

I would point you to the Stormwind Fallacy.

A lot of.... RP snobs think that people who play optimized characters cannot RP due to the fact that they optimize.

Following this, those who do not optimize or use suboptimal builds are great RP'ers.

Its simply not the truth, the two (optimization and roleplaying) are not mutually exclusive.

This is true, but there's a qualification to it. I do my share of optimizing, but I do have to say that the most optimized build is almost always in conflict with my character build. For instance, my sorcerer's spell selection could be a bit better optimized, but there are certain great spells that I just cannot justify the character having from a personality perspective...and indeed, some less than great spells that I cannot imagine her being without. The character concept requires some less than optimal choices. That doesn't mean that within those choices, I don't optimize the hell out of her, but the character takes precedence over the mechanics. And this is the difference; people who think crunch first, character after, are actually metagaming, which is really the antithesis of roleplaying.

[AKA_Bait]

The character concept requires some less than optimal choices. That doesn't mean that within those choices, I don't optimize the hell out of her, but the character takes precedence over the mechanics.

Wouldn't it be nice though, if the flavorful choices that fit the character concept weren't mechanically less powerful than the 'optimal' ones? Is there any reason that they need to be?

[Talya]

Wouldn't it be nice though, if the flavorful choices that fit the character concept weren't mechanically less powerful than the 'optimal' ones? Is there any reason that they need to be?

Sheer variety. The more choices you give people, the less possible it is for them all to be perfectly balanced. That doesn't mean that some aren't just stupidly designed from the start and couldn't be easily fixed, mind you. But there will always be suboptimal choices, so long as you have real choices.

For instance, 4e essentially fixed most balance issues by making most abilities nearly identical, they follow a specific predictable pattern, and furthermore, they removed the variety and choice during the build that 3.x has. Is 4x more balanced? Absolutely. Is it more fun? You'll get a lot of argument on that, much of that depends on how much people value the ability to have the rules support their concept. I greatly prefer 3.x, its balance issues notwithstanding. My DM is good enough that they don't really matter anyway.

[Theodoric]

Well, if one could compare character creation or the RPG experience as a whole to one giant prisoner's dilemma, with the DM as prisoner A and the player as prisoner B with the options being 'fun, but lesser combat performance' and 'not quite as fun but good combat performance', you can be pretty damn sure that both sides choice the suboptimal choice. Ofcourse, I don't have a clue which of these options is he actual subtoptimal one.

[AKA_Bait]

Sheer variety. The more choices you give people, the less possible it is for them all to be perfectly balanced. That doesn't mean that some aren't just stupidly designed from the start and couldn't be easily fixed, mind you. But there will always be suboptimal choices, so long as you have real choices.

I suppose this would be a good place to discuss the notion of logical necessity and increasing difficulty. Less possible is an oxymoron, a thing is possible or it is not. I think you meant to say less probable.

Each category of mechanical options broadens the potential actions and builds overall possible in the system. Essentially, the more ways that a character can effect the game world such that mechanical representation is needed, the harder the task of balance becomes.

For example, if in a given system a player can cause only one harm to an enemy (say HP damage) then every option to do damage can be pretty easily balanced against each other. If we add a second way to harm them (say ability damage) then we now need to not only balance the ability damage against other options to cause ability damage but against the options to cause HP damage. This is obviously quite a bit more complex and a harder task. But it is not one that is by definition impossible, merely harder. I'll happily grant this. Making a balanced system that is complex is very very hard. 4e did sacrifice some of its mechanical complexity for balance. Whether mechanical complexity is, in and of itself, a benifit to the game is a matter of taste.

However, this is not the claim person the OP quoted seemed to be making. The claim there seemed to be that suboptimal choices should be intentionally included in systems rather than accidentally included as a by product of the difficulty of the task of complex system design and human falability.

I think we agree that more variety, assuming it's meaningful variety (two feats that do almost the same mechanical thing but one is slightly better than the other and has different fluff is not meaninful variety), is a good thing for a system. However, it's not a requirement for variety to purposefully include unbalanced choices.

[Talya]

I think we agree that more variety, assuming it's meaningful variety (two feats that do almost the same mechanical thing but one is slightly better than the other and has different fluff is not meaninful variety), is a good thing for a system. However, it's not a requirement for variety to purposefully include unbalanced choices.

I think we agree entirely. I would never include an option that was intentionally made to "suck."

Edit: I might include options I liked the flavor of but could not perfectly balance, but the intent is not to present a suboptimal option -- merely to present an option.

[Zincorium]

I know I've A. been absent practically forever, and B. Come down on both sides of this issue in my time.

But my experiences with other game systems, and the design of my own, has led me to realize that there should never be universally suboptimal choices (aka commoner) but there should certainly be classes that provide different types of reward.

Focusing on social skills, while it's never been done well in D&D and likely won't be, is a perfectly legitimate option in several other RPGs and while it does detract from creating a well-rounded character (which I've ranted against in the past), it may be the best way of distinguishing a character and providing a unique niche in games where it's easy to dominate other methods of play.


But to be more to the point:

Suboptimal mechanical choices should always provide some ancillary benefit that can't be duplicated, in accordance with the rule of cool (see TV tropes).

Suboptimal flavor choices should be added to by both the DM and player until it becomes a part of the character's playstyle in addition to the player's arsenal.

Things that are both shouldn't exist past the first stage of house ruling.
While it seems like a cop out, agree-with-everyone-solution, I've always advocated the course of action that I believe makes the game better, and allowing things which don't always add up seems to play into that goal more than I've neccessarily held to in the past.

[RukiTanuki]

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that weak mechanics-related character choices are no more likely to result in better roleplay characterization than strong mechanics-related character choices. It's far more important that the choices reflect the character.

Granted, beginning players can benefit greatly from a starting hook to guide their character's beliefs and motivations, but that's no reason to take the Mildly Flatulent feat when you really want the Brooklyn Rage feat. Even the most heavily-optimized character, mechanically speaking, is not a roleplaying black hole; plenty of opportunity for characterization exists. If anything, they benefit from being more fleshed out; it's easier to identify their weaknesses and from their, branch out into their outlook on life and the world. Even the Batman Wizard, master of any situation, can become a imperfect and interesting character, by delving into the "can't-sleep-clowns-will-eat-me" mentality of someone who is attempting a Xanatos Gambit on a daily basis, obsessing over the fact that his weakness is that someone may outplan him.

Overall, I'd say that the character choices you make, no matter their level of optimization, should be used to enhance the character concept and roleplay. Making better or worse mechanical choices doesn't make you roleplay better or worse -- at least not inherently.

[JaxGaret]

This has stormwind fallacy written all over it.

This. Textbook.

[Tengu_temp]

And Vic Wertz said something that feels wrong:
"However, I believe that roleplaying games actually benefit from making suboptimal choices available to players—it's in these non-optimal choices that the start of characterization is often born. Further, I suspect that many people would find that an RPG that's perfectly balanced is also likely to be perfectly boring."

"OMG rael rollplayers has unoptoimized characters, game balance = bad!!1"

Forgive me, everyone, but I'm allergic to stupidity and therefore Vic Wertz's statement weakened me too much to read the rest of the thread to an extent higher than just skipping through it. I can only say that this guy clearly has no f***ing idea what is he talking about, or is a masochist - because only masochists would enjoy a game where some of the players can defeat all encounters by blowing their nose at them, and some players can't do sh*t - not because of their lack of skills, but because they unknowingly chose a gimped archetype to play.

[Crow]

I do happen to agree that perfect balance is perfectly boring. When I get a new power in 4e on level up, I often get a feeling like my choice doesn't really matter that much. No matter my choice, I'm going to get roughly the same bump in power.

This doesn't really change the in-game experience, but it certainly puts a damper on advancement.

[JaxGaret]

this is the difference; people who think crunch first, character after, are actually metagaming, which is really the antithesis of roleplaying.

Believe it or not, but characters also think in terms of power.

You're an adventurer, you put your life on the line every day; don't you think that you might think about taking a stronger spell rather than a weaker one, even if it doesn't fit in with your overall "theme"? Remember, characters are living, breathing game constructs, they're not just cardboard cutouts of whatever ideals you've given them. They want to live, most likely. And they can realize that stronger options give them a better chance of surviving to the next day, or keeping their friends alive for one more day.

This is without even getting into characters for whom strict power is an end unto itself.

It's not so simple as "powergaming is bad! powergamers are metagaming munchkins!".

[Jayabalard]

Optimization, or the lack thereof, is not related to roleplaying in any meaningful sense.

I'll have to disagree; it's quite relevant to roleplaying to look at mechanical optimization from an in-character perspective. Real People don't always take the optimal choice, and in order to realistically roleplay a character it's important to make optimization decisions that realistically portray what the character in question actually would do., Some make optimal decisions, some look much more at the long or the short term, and some tend to make sub-optimal, even extremely sub-optimal decisions for emotional (or other) reasons.

Playing non-optimal characters is fine. Pretending that you're a better roleplayer simply because you play non-optimized characters is not.

Likewise, pretending that always making the optimal decision has no effect on roleplaying is just as bad.

Someone who can roleplay any character regardless of the level of optimization involved is a better roleplayer than someone who can only play characters at a particular level of the power spectrum.

not because of their lack of skills, but because they unknowingly chose a gimped archetype to play.

He didn't suggest that there should be anything clandestine about these sub-optimal choices... the unknowingly part isn't really relevant to the discussion.

[JaxGaret]

I do happen to agree that perfect balance is perfectly boring. When I get a new power in 4e on level up, I often get a feeling like my choice doesn't really matter that much. No matter my choice, I'm going to get roughly the same bump in power.

This doesn't really change the in-game experience, but it certainly puts a damper on advancement.

See, I feel exactly the opposiite. When I get a new power in 4e on level up, I think "So I can pick any of these powers, and my character's power level won't be positively or negatively affected much by my choice? Great!"

Also, though powers may be roughly equal in power, that does not by any means mean that they do the same exact things. There is quite a variety of choice when it comes to what powers actually do in 4e.

[Crow]

Believe it or not, but characters also think in terms of power.

You're an adventurer, you put your life on the line every day; don't you think that you might think about taking a stronger spell rather than a weaker one, even if it doesn't fit in with your overall "theme"? Remember, characters are living, breathing game constructs, they're not just cardboard cutouts of whatever ideals you've given them. They want to live, most likely. And they can realize that stronger options give them a better chance of surviving to the next day, or keeping their friends alive for one more day.

This is without even getting into characters for whom strict power is an end unto itself.

It's not so simple as "powergaming is bad! powergamers are metagaming munchkins!".

In the context of a single character this is one thing. When every character has the strongest spells, and every character has the same feat combos, I would say that Mr. Wertz is somewhat correct. This isn't the case with all players, but the stereotype had to start somewhere.

[AstralFire]

I hesitate to comment too thouroughly without seeing the comment in context but I'll say on the basis of this, I strongly disagree with Mr. Wertz and think he is conflating two ideas. He seems to be rolling the notion of 'difference' in terms of feel and RP options into the notion of 'unbalance' in terms of in game mechanical power. They really aren't the same, although in practice they often overlap.

Dear everyone else:

AKA Bait won the thread, noting all proper nuances necessary, in reply 1.