I do think it would be appropriate to create an "Optimization" subforum. Many other gaming site do that, and it tends to reduce the endless rehash of pro-optimization vs. anti-optimization arguments.I don't know. The Giant in the Playground forum has the same problem. New players are asking for advice on how to learn riding a bike and 80% of the replies are instructions about doing backflips through flaming hoops over the grand canyon while playing accordeon.
That's really a trick question. The answer is, Play an accordion, go to jail!
A character can be
1) Optimized but not role played
2) Role played but not optimized
3) Optimized AND role played
4) NEITHER role played nor optimized.One has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the other.
Secondly, how would you break up the advice forum? Whats the line between making a character work, optimizing it, and min maxing it? Its a very blurry continuum at best.
The line between optimizing and min maxing may be blurred, but the line between building a power house and learning to roleplay is as sharp and definite as night and day.
One forum could be titled, "Optimizing Your Character for Battle."
And the other called, "Tips for Better Roleplaying."
There's a big difference between the needs of somebody who wants to know how to kick ass, and the needs of somebody who is shy about acting around others, and would like advice on how to come out of his shell. You start there, you work backward until you find how much breadth each topic can handle, then you divide accordingly.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"Everything in moderation, including moderation" - unknown*
I don't see a problem in a little optimization. I don't think anyone does. It's when you optimize to the point that no one else is having fun (including the GM*) that it becomes an issue.
I'd also point out there are two forms of 'optimization' I see on these forums. The first is the 'mostly harmless' kind the "Should I use a rapier or scimitar?" "Is Dodge worth a feat?" or "Greatsword vs Falchion?" types. None of these alone are 'game breaking' but when you start adding them together, enough will tip into that 'unfun' catagory.
The 'dangerous' one is what I believe is called 'theorycraft'. AM BARBARIAN and AMY are the two most recent examples I've observed. They're a fun exercise, both in seeing it turned to 11, and finding holes or contradictions that need to be fixed. What makes them 'dangerous' is when you get some player who (unknown to the poor GM) starts to try to build these characters in the wild. It's no fun for the rest of the group when the GM says "You see X on the Horizion-" and the player goes "RAGELANCEPOUNCEDEAD! Next?"
It's understanding the difference between the two, having fun and participating, and breaking it that I think people need to keep in mind when the term Optimize is used.
*
What I like Matthew is when they say, "RAGELANCEPOUNCE! Next?"
And I get to say, "You missed."
That really doesn't get old.
General Discussion is a MinMaxers paradise and this would seem to detract form having fun and role-playing. Is this a bad or good thing? LolThat's because it's an internet forum, and it's interesting to talk about what does and doesn't work, mechanically, whereas nobody wants to hear about your campaign and how your half-elf rogue became a god by bluffing the forces of the universe.
Mechanical RAW is one of a very few things that's pretty campaign agnostic.
I agree
I know I like to play more powerful PCs and I like to see Ideas I dont play them complete but I do like to take ideas from them for both PCs and NPC I like the optimzation discussions.
Maybe some of us players who like to play the most effective character really dont like when you guys come in and bash us for trying to make a character who is effective every night we play instead of sitting around watching the other players kick the crap out of things while we miss and get crushed by standard encounters
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
What I like Matthew is when they say, "RAGELANCEPOUNCE! Next?"
And I get to say, "You missed."
That really doesn't get old.
No it doesn't.
Way off topic, but still funny.
Werewolf player uses Spirit of the Frey, Thor's Might, something that costs gnosis (so no rage allowed) and rolls to hit. "Ha! 18 levels of aggrivated damage!"
I roll my humanity, spend three joss, "Dhampyr luck. You miss." roll to hit, "I hit you. I win the right to be here."
I just wish I'd seen the look on the player's face.
I've had similar fun:
Mummy player, "I pull a wrap! I'm a lord of reality!"
Fae player (me), "That is fine, I unmake reality."
Mummy player, "... damn."
Garou, "I'll have your guts for garters!"
Nuwisha player (me again), "What are you a pirate?" Shoot him with a silver BB and jump over to the other side of the gauntlet.
Garou, "Ouch! You!" Follow him over.
Storyteller, "Um... you can't the Gauntlet is over 10 here."
Garou, "WHAT?!?!?!"
Story:
Playing a defender(hunter) in a vampire game. Werewolves are invading the town (from the vampire's perspective) and are killing lots (from my perspective) leading to a temporary truce between my hunter and the vampires. Vampires are telling me how werewolves are impossible to kill, one even says, "Man you need like, a tank cannon or something to kill one!"
Well a werewolf is spotted and I ask the vamps to keep it busy while I get something. Some five rounds later the vamps are getting stomped and the storyteller looks at me and says, "Alright it should be ready for you to use now."
So I fire a 'recoil less rifle' from the back of the van I had been driving. 25 Agg later the werewolf is dead (the van was totaled from the shot). Vamps asked, "What was that?"
"Anti-tank gun, don't mess with me I have an orbital kill satellite too." (Complete bluff of course but with an arsenal of 5 they didn't call the bluff).
IMHO, optimization/balance/minmaxing threads should be automatically cancelled 3.7 seconds after their creation, resulting in an autoban for the OP and all the board members who happened to be in a 17 mile radius, followed by a goat sacrifice to appease the Scorching Sun god.
That or I could simply ignore/hide them.
The line between optimizing and min maxing may be blurred, but the line between building a power house and learning to roleplay is as sharp and definite as night and day.
One forum could be titled, "Optimizing Your Character for Battle."
And the other called, "Tips for Better Roleplaying."
There's a big difference between the needs of somebody who wants to know how to kick ass, and the needs of somebody who is shy about acting around others, and would like advice on how to come out of his shell. You start there, you work backward until you find how much breadth each topic can handle, then you divide accordingly.
There is no line between roleplaying and optimizing because they are differnet things. Thats like saying there is a line between learning salsa dancing and learning how to make shoes. You can talk about both together without interfering with eachother. And you can even learn to make shoes that are good for salsa dancing eventually.
You are also assuming that somehow people who need to know how to kick ass wont also be shy about acting around others and vice versa, which for a new player is usually not the case. In many cases the person would benefit from both.
Tommy just got the core rules for christmas. His dad is going to dm for him, but he has no experience with roleplaying games, maybe some video games but he needs help with his new fighter. He sees a section marked 'Advice'. His/Her face lights up, "I can definately ask for help there"
In the advice section, constant interactions has had a moderating effect on both optimizers and roleplayers (which I believe it has if you look at actual responses in these boards when compared to boards where optimization is separated from the rest of the boards)
Tommy asks "Hey I am just starting out with Pathfinder, my dad said I should try out the fighter first. I dont know what to do from here can someone help me out"?
Poster 1 responds
'hey it would be a good idea if your fighter had a good armor class, heres some ways to go about it.... Also you should think about how you want to fight, some options are with a big 2handed weapon, or with 2 smaller weapons, or even with a weapon and shield, that will direct you towards other options...[optimizer goes back and forth with tommy on how to make a good fighter with the stlye tommy likes. He is less likely to going into a tirade about the BEST fighting style and how x weapon is the only way to go with fighters, because he has been shouted down or seen people shouted down in the past over that kind of nonsense by people who value concept and roleplay over pure numbers'
Poster 2 responds
'[He knows that many people find general competance in their speciality important, particularly new players who might get scared away by repeated failure, and wont suggest deliberatly 'bad' options just for their roleplay interest because he too has been shouted down by numbercrunchers and optimizers or seen someone shouted down]you should consider your characters backgrounds and motivations. Maybe you should talk to your dm about creating npcs with a personal link to your character like friends or a brother. That would get you more personally involved in the story. Also, here are some neat tips on how to keep yourself 'in character' and how to bring out your characters personality'
The above is based on the idea that 'forced' interaction of no separate threads has a moderating effect on all of us, or at least exposure to the 'other side's' opinion. I believe this does 2 things. It gives us experience and understanding of those that disagrees with us. It also prevents the death spiral of only talking to people that mostly agree with us. In the past I have abandoned rpg boards mostly because there were 'thruths' among certain sections of the boards that lead to extreme points of view. Here most major discussions DONT come to a concensus and I think that is a good thing.
With separate boards tommy in the above example might have immediately gotten the 'ultimate dpr invinciple and completely right fighter build v8.5' and told that that was really the only way to be a fighter and not Sux0r. Or in the roleplaying forum he would have been called a total munchkin for wanting to take power attack at first level instead of something more interesting from a roleplay perpective.
He would likey have just been confused as to why he cant just find someone to help him 'make a character'.
Okay, from reading the posts I think this discussion is vaguely centered on something to do with Minmaxing and/or optimized gameplay. My thoughts are as follows:
I'm a bigger roleplay fan then an optimizer. That said, if a player is roleplaying a barbarian that is absolutely focused on doing as much damage as inhumanly possible and is optimized to suit that notion, i'd think that the character's mechanics fit the roleplay. TBH if somebody likes to optimize their character I would be fine with that, so long as they don't look down on OTHER CHARACTERS OR PLAYERS for not being as optimized or minmax'd. That is my biggest concern. For me, the story and the fun of the game are always above streamlining the mechanics in your favour.
As I stroll through the forums where I give out my advice,
I took a look at General Discussion and realize it's full of vice,
And that's imperfect for a non-optimizer like me,
You know I shun things like super-optimality.At 8:30 in the morning I'm bashing trolls,
RavingDork is querying rules and TOZ lols, fool.
And I've been pimping bards for so long that
Even Evil Lincoln thinks my mind is gone.I'm a man of the game, I'm into cohesion,
Got a CRB in my hand, a neckbeard on my chin.
But if I finish all my advice, and you excuse my poor diction,
Then tonight we're going to party like PF outsold fourth edition.We've been spending most our forum-going time living in a MinMaxer's paradise,
I smack trolls once or twice, living in a MinMaxer's paradise,
It's hard work and sacrifice, giving advice in a MinMaxer's paradise,
We give sound advice for free, living in a MinMaxer's paradise.
This is why the Internet is allowed to live.
There are MinMax/Op sites out there who like to put down Paizo's forums because they're too "fluffy."
Just the fact that we can have this debate, I'd say someone is doing something right in terms of balancing varied interests.
Re, other posts:
The issue with MinMax/Op is probably a social one.
Concept discussions are fun.
Universally, though, no one likes sitting across the table from someone who's antagonistic.
Most MinMax/Op folks are not like that. Most are not. There are some louder ones who are--just there are within any focused area.
So we might try separating it out some, and saying: MinMax isn't the issue--it's how it's treated, and presented by those who participate in it.
In a social game, it's all in how we treat other people.
Likewise, those who are not into MinMax/Op need to be willing to reach across the table, so to speak.
It is a good reason not to have separate forums.
We all play in the same sandbox.
Um Kolokotroni...
Poster 1 and 2 sound way more reasonable than most people I have seen post in threads. I suspect you invented idealized and rather unrealistic examples to support your thoughts.
Also I tend to surf both optimizer and role play forums when the site has them. I want to see the broken builds neatly laid out so that I have a good idea what to ban when I start GMing a game. If for example a certain feat is the linchpin of a few overpowered builds then I can easily restore balance by banning that feat.
It's just easier to find a specific thing if the forums are separated.
Um Kolokotroni...
Poster 1 and 2 sound way more reasonable than most people I have seen post in threads. I suspect you invented idealized and rather unrealistic examples to support your thoughts.
They are definately idealized, but not unfounded based on my own experience here on these boards (the whole thing is subjective and I am not about to do the kind of leg work to gether legit evidence). My point is that the very fact that we are forced to interact (by having non-segregated boards) pushes us toward those idealized form. We are more sensative to eachothers views. Where as when I was active on boards where there was such segregation, the experience was far from the idealized version, and much more extreme in their views then I generally see here.
Let's test the theory:
Clerics
Conjurer equipment
Rogue at level 12
Equipping a Siege Mage
Questioning how mandatory Selective and positive energy channeling is
Helping the GM
AM the barbarian -- of all the threads at the top of the advice forum this one is the worst, and even that one is more entertaining than biting (my opinion).
Got to say those look like rather focused, polite, and helpful threads to me.
Okay, from reading the posts I think this discussion is vaguely centered on something to do with Minmaxing and/or optimized gameplay. My thoughts are as follows:
I'm a bigger roleplay fan then an optimizer. That said, if a player is roleplaying a barbarian that is absolutely focused on doing as much damage as inhumanly possible and is optimized to suit that notion, i'd think that the character's mechanics fit the roleplay. TBH if somebody likes to optimize their character I would be fine with that, so long as they don't look down on OTHER CHARACTERS OR PLAYERS for not being as optimized or minmax'd. That is my biggest concern. For me, the story and the fun of the game are always above streamlining the mechanics in your favour.
That depends....
If your character being unoptimized (for any reason) causes the death of my character because your character can't lift his own weight then yes i have the right to look down to your unoptimized character and even tell you to optimize.
That depends....
If your character being unoptimized (for any reason) causes the death of my character because your character can't lift his own weight then yes i have the right to look down to your unoptimized character and even tell you to optimize.
This is the reason I stopped playing with optimizers. This mindset. Right here. "Stop being ineffective". I don't even know where to start from to describe how incredibly wrong it is, so I won't try.
That said, I am glad that this board is generally a better place than most of the RPG messageboards on the net when it comes to obsessive optimizing and theorycrafting. People here being more polite than average, and the ability to ignore entire threads also helps.
I think if another player at my table looked down on me and told me I need to optimize, I would make a point of building an unoptimized monk sporting the Vow of Poverty the next time I died.
That depends....
If your character being unoptimized (for any reason) causes the death of my character because your character can't lift his own weight then yes i have the right to look down to your unoptimized character and even tell you to optimize.This is the reason I stopped playing with optimizers. This mindset. Right here. "Stop being ineffective". I don't even know where to start from to describe how incredibly wrong it is, so I won't try.
That said, I am glad that this board is generally a better place than most of the RPG messageboards on the net when it comes to obsessive optimizing and theorycrafting. People here being more polite than average, and the ability to ignore entire threads also helps.
Yes. How dare players have an expectation of their fellow players to actually try and not die.
I think if another player at my table looked down on me and told me I need to optimize, I would make a point of building an unoptimized monk sporting the Vow of Poverty the next time I died.
I think I would ask if I can play a Strenghless fighter with Skill Focus (Profession: Basketweaver) for good measure.
So here's the thing about me. I'm both a role player and an optimizer. I don't think I'm particularly awesome at either to tell you the truth, but I understand what is meant by both.
When the game starts, I'm role playing. Getting into character, trying to think what he/she would do, getting the voice and mannerisms right. Or at least I attempt to. I'm not "optimizing" at the table is the point.
When I'm at home and thinking about what's going to happen next week, ya know, alone in my basement or whatever, I'm not role playing. How could I role play when not at the gaming table? So I take that time to plan my character's mechanical build out. Ya know, so that when I get to the table I can concentrate on having fun.
They're mutually exclusive activities. I of course encourage my fellow players to play somewhat optimized builds, and I expect them not to be a Lump (TM) when we get to actually playing the game. I'm always there to give advice about builds and whatnot, but I don't push anything. I've never known anyone who has.
Yes. How dare players have an expectation of their fellow players to actually try and not die.That depends....
If your character being unoptimized (for any reason) causes the death of my character because your character can't lift his own weight then yes i have the right to look down to your unoptimized character and even tell you to optimize.This is the reason I stopped playing with optimizers. This mindset. Right here. "Stop being ineffective". I don't even know where to start from to describe how incredibly wrong it is, so I won't try.
That said, I am glad that this board is generally a better place than most of the RPG messageboards on the net when it comes to obsessive optimizing and theorycrafting. People here being more polite than average, and the ability to ignore entire threads also helps.
"Try not to die" is not the same as "pick this feat/spell combo and that only, yes I am better than you because I can somehow foresee everything that the GM is going to throw at us, therefore this build I am imposing over you cannot fail, yes I am basically saying what character you should be allowed to play, YOU SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR THAT".
"Try not to die" is not the same as "pick this feat/spell combo and that only, yes I am better than you because I can somehow foresee everything that the GM is going to throw at us, therefore this build I am imposing over you cannot fail, yes I am basically saying what character you should be allowed to play, YOU SHOULD BE THANKFUL FOR THAT".
Look you just had a side comment about playing a fighter with no strength and skill focus(basket weaving) which shows you have some idea what would be a BAD build and what are USELESS skills for your character.
I've played with that player. 4-player group, needed someone to be a primary damage dealer, they play a fighter with a 12 str and 16 cha. They were utterly useless and it hurt the group. It made everything harder than it needed to be for them, and the group fell apart.
You don't have to be a rage lance pounce barbarian to be optimized. But if you purposely take limited resources (skills, feats, spells, ability scores) that the game requires you to use to specialize, and use them to add flavor to your character, and you subsequently can't perform, your teammates have a right to be annoyed.
I think we can all agree that it's a better game when everyone contributes equally, or at the very least that no one feels left out.
Man, good thing there aren't any players here that try to have their characters die!
Yes. How dare players have an expectation of their fellow players to actually try and not die.
But there are players insinuating that intentionally playing an ineffective character is always okay and that it's the height of arrogance to even imply that they have any responsibility to their group.
Bad roleplaying can hurt groups just as much as bad optimisation. The guy that plays the selfish coward that refuses to contribute to the party's efforts and still expects to be rewarded or the guy that has the 7 strength finesse monk that insists on being the primary damager and becomes indignant when you suggest some advice; which is more aggravating to have in your group?
Bad roleplaying can hurt groups just as much as bad optimisation. The guy that plays the selfish coward that refuses to contribute to the party's efforts and still expects to be rewarded or the guy that has the 7 strength finesse monk that insists on being the primary damager and becomes indignant when you suggest some advice; which is more aggravating to have in your group?
Ya know what? I don't know. But can we agree they're both bad things to do? I'd also like to say that it's the player's actions don't have to be intentionally harmful to the party to warrant a good talking to. You don't have to be a jerk about it but if you can get another player to compromise on something that is deleterious to group cohesion, that's awesome!
I can't tell you how many Kenders had to die before players began to learn there are limits to role playing as well.
|
But there are players insinuating that intentionally playing an ineffective character is always okay and that it's the height of arrogance to even imply that they have any responsibility to their group.
No, you had players outright stating that a player making demands of them would not be well received. Note that no statement of the characters actual effectiveness was made. Just that said player was criticizing another's character and demanding changes be made.
Note that no statement of the characters actual effectiveness was made.
This is the reason I stopped playing with optimizers. This mindset. Right here. "Stop being ineffective". I don't even know where to start from to describe how incredibly wrong it is, so I won't try.
Oh?
But there are players insinuating that intentionally playing an ineffective character is always okay and that it's the height of arrogance to even imply that they have any responsibility to their group.No, you had players outright stating that a player making demands of them would not be well received. Note that no statement of the characters actual effectiveness was made. Just that said player was criticizing another's character and demanding changes be made.
Was gonna respond to meatrace, but I think that TOZ nailed what I was going to say.
Wanting to play an intentionally nerfed character in a group and then complaining if you die is arrogant. Equally arrogant is someone that b@$@*es at you because you picked "the wrong feat" (from their subjective and restricted point of view, I must add). I'm not saying that one is acceptable and the other is not, they are both detrimental.
Wanting to play an intentionally nerfed character in a group and then complaining if you die is arrogant. Equally arrogant is someone that b#~&$es at you because you picked "the wrong feat" (from their subjective and restricted point of view, I must add). I'm not saying that one is acceptable and the other is not, they are both detrimental.
I was only responding to your specific line. If a player is nitpicking over feat choices he needs to be slapped down*. If you are genuinely playing an ineffective character, purposely or by accident, I think it's fine for another player to ask you to step up your game. Similarly if you're playing a character who steals from the party, or is a coward, or stabs the party in the back. While valid role play choices they hurt the party and it's totally alright for the other players to ask you to stop.
There's a big continuum between those two extremes.
*Ok if you're a straight fighter and you take Spell Focus (Conjuration) I think players have the right to call you a moron. Similarly if your character is a pacifist caster and only takes attack spells and thus you are left without options in combat I think fellow players might have a legitimate gripe. For the record, both of these are things I've seen played.
I love my ineffective character! Though I'm polite enough to apologize for inflicting him on the group. And he might get better! ...someday...
Oh?Yes. That statement was the douchenozzle's perspective and may or may not be the actual effectiveness.
This is telling though.
You're assuming he's a douchenozzle because you're assuming his character wasn't ineffective. All I'm saying is...what if he is? What if he is a complete and utter waste of space, either role play wise or build wise, do other players (or GM) have absolutely no right to ever say anything to such a player/character?|
|
This is telling though.
You're assuming he's a douchenozzle because you're assuming his character wasn't ineffective. All I'm saying is...what if he is? What if he is a complete and utter waste of space, either role play wise or build wise, do other players (or GM) have absolutely no right to ever say anything to such a player/character?
No, PC and I are assuming he's a douchenozzle from the way he's acting. And PC will not play with someone who acts that way to him/her.
I'm not assuming PC's character was effective. I'm saying that if it is not, there are better ways of addressing that than trying to dictate how PC builds his/her character.
In short, the other players have the right to constructively criticize PC's character.
No, PC and I are assuming he's a douchenozzle from the way he's acting. And PC will not play with someone who acts that was to him/her.
This is telling though.
You're assuming he's a douchenozzle because you're assuming his character wasn't ineffective. All I'm saying is...what if he is? What if he is a complete and utter waste of space, either role play wise or build wise, do other players (or GM) have absolutely no right to ever say anything to such a player/character?
*throws up hands in frustration*
As I don't know PC in real life I can't assume anything as to how effective his characters are. I only have his reaction to go on, which seemed to be one of righteous indignation that ANYONE would suggest he should not be ineffective.But this back and forth is getting neither of us anywhere. Suffice it to say that I don't think playing whatever character you want without taking into consideration party dynamics and playstyle is acceptable. Regardless of how one interprets PC's statement.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Take this statement: "No one minds an optimizer who's cooperative with their fellow players, is helpful, and promotes a positive atmosphere at their gaming table."
Now rephrase it: "No one minds a roleplayer who'se cooperative with their fellow players, is helpful, and promotes a positive atmosphere at their gaming table."
There is a difference between offering someone advice, and telling them how to play.
No, PC and I are assuming he's a douchenozzle from the way he's acting. And PC will not play with someone who acts that was to him/her.
This is telling though.
You're assuming he's a douchenozzle because you're assuming his character wasn't ineffective. All I'm saying is...what if he is? What if he is a complete and utter waste of space, either role play wise or build wise, do other players (or GM) have absolutely no right to ever say anything to such a player/character?*throws up hands in frustration*
As I don't know PC in real life I can't assume anything as to how effective his characters are. I only have his reaction to go on, which seemed to be one of righteous indignation that ANYONE would suggest he should not be ineffective.But this back and forth is getting neither of us anywhere. Suffice it to say that I don't think playing whatever character you want without taking into consideration party dynamics and playstyle is acceptable. Regardless of how one interprets PC's statement.
My characters are effective if they are allowed to be. This means: if real game situations come up and test their effectiveness. This means: actual gaming sessions, not optimizing/theorycrafting debates. No amout of optimizing is going to save you from a Nat 1 in a critical situation. To me, it's not even worth to optimize.
The point is: I don't strive for "effectiveness", whatever the hell that means in terms of actual gaming situations (I don't care what that means either). I strive for having a fun game with my pals. And when some of my pals start to say things like "stop being ineffective" (which usually means: why aren't you playing your character exactly the way I want it, usually as the result of a misguided perception of party composition), it's not fun to me anymore. If a player comes up to me and says "You are supposed to be the Striker while I Tank, why aren't you taking this feat to improve DPR", I assert my rights to throw his dice out of the window. Most optimizers I've met unfortunately talk like that.
As you pointed out before, meatrace, there are in-betweens. There are shades of gray. But to be honest, I couldn't be bothered by these shades: if someone approaches me and asks me why I'm not playing this build to improve the overral party effectiveness, I'm assuming he wants me do play a bunch of numbers and not a character.
If I want advice on how my character is doing MECHANICALLY, I'd rather ask the GM who is the final arbiter of the system used after all (and who usually suggests you to take the NOT optimized option, by the way).
Wow supposition and flawed assumptions much?
Can't be bothered with numbers because I'm playing a character?
Well heck might as well throw away the dice then.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No amout of optimizing is going to save you from a Nat 1 in a critical situation. To me, it's not even worth to optimize.
I don't know if there's ever been a better example of perfectionist fallacy.
The line between optimizing and min maxing may be blurred, but the line between building a power house and learning to roleplay is as sharp and definite as night and day.
One forum could be titled, "Optimizing Your Character for Battle."
And the other called, "Tips for Better Roleplaying."
There's a big difference between the needs of somebody who wants to know how to kick ass, and the needs of somebody who is shy about acting around others, and would like advice on how to come out of his shell. You start there, you work backward until you find how much breadth each topic can handle, then you divide accordingly.
There is no line between roleplaying and optimizing because they are differnet things. Thats like saying there is a line between learning salsa dancing and learning how to make shoes. You can talk about both together without interfering with eachother. And you can even learn to make shoes that are good for salsa dancing eventually.
You are also assuming that somehow people who need to know how to kick ass wont also be shy about acting around others and vice versa, which for a new player is usually not the case. In many cases the person would benefit from both.
Tommy just got the core rules for christmas. His dad is going to dm for him, but he has no experience with roleplaying games, maybe some video games but he needs help with his new fighter. He sees a section marked 'Advice'. His/Her face lights up, "I can definately ask for help there"
In the advice section, constant interactions has had a moderating effect on both optimizers and roleplayers (which I believe it has if you look at actual responses in these boards when compared to boards where optimization is separated from the rest of the boards)
Tommy asks "Hey I am just starting out with Pathfinder, my dad said I should try out the fighter first. I dont know what to do from here can someone help me out"?
Poster 1 responds
'hey it would be a good idea if your fighter had a good armor...
You make a lot of generalizations. Some of them might be true some of the time. Some of them are not. What you've said in no way disproves the value of what I have offered. There simply is a difference between the two questions of "how do I act in front of other people, what are some of the things I say and how do I say them?" and "what feat would make this build kill orcs better?"
Your experience may tell you that sometimes they blur or blend. So does mine. Now, it is up to you to prove beyond any doubt that there is no benefit in offering them separately, and that without fail, in every case, the blurring and blending has occurred in such as way as to negate any and all potential benefit.
You seem to like to write a lot and to argue over a pittance. I am asking you to go ahead and do so. Please. PROVE it.
I think the trick that a lot of "true roleplayers" tm overlook is to ask not what WOULD my character do in this situation but what MIGHT my character do in this situation. People are highly variable beings and don't always react the same way to the same situation. You make a list of possible reactions, and hopefully somewhere on that list is an option that won't cause a TPK or go completely against the group.
|
I think the trick that a lot of "true roleplayers" tm overlook is to ask not what WOULD my character do in this situation but what MIGHT my character do in this situation. People are highly variable beings and don't always react the same way to the same situation. You make a list of possible reactions, and hopefully somewhere on that list is an option that won't cause a TPK or go completely against the group.
I really like that idea. I think sometimes, "serious roleplayers" can get locked into this idea that in order to truly play their character, they have to act like some kind of an automaton that would always react the same way in a given situation. This actually is a lot less interesting and realistic than a character that has some range and makes interesting, maybe sometimes unexpected decisions.
Maybe that's the difference between a "serious roleplayer" and an actually good roleplayer. And a good DM can hopefully help the former gradually turn into the latter.
|
|
TL;DR: I like *reading* optimization threads, even though I don't like *playing* with optimized characters. They're two different things.
The thing is, I enjoy reading optimization threads sometimes, since I like getting creative with clever rules combinations and seeing what's possible. But when I actually *play* (as a DM), I'd rather not have to deal with crazy PC power levels, so I'd rather my players not worry about optimization much.
It's easy for me to adjust the difficulty level down to a weaker party, not so easy to make sure that things are fun for all the members of a party with wildly different power levels. Plus, I just find unusual flavor more fun in practice than running super-powered characters.
I find that I play other games the same way, like M:TG. I like reading about awesome tourney decks and crazy first-turn-win combos, but I'd much rather actually *play* with a weird deck that does something clever, even if it doesn't often win.
That's even more pronounced for me with Pathfinder, because I never treat it as a competitive game. It's a collaboration among a group of players and the DM, to maximize fun for all. Says so right in RAW. :)
That said, I've never really had to deal with a real optimizer in-game, since all my players in one group are new to RPGs and just learning how to play.
And the players in my other group are experienced, but they're my brothers who think like I do (and also tend to complain about anything they perceive as "overpowered," like...Pathfinder monks).
No amout of optimizing is going to save you from a Nat 1 in a critical situation. To me, it's not even worth to optimize.I don't know if there's ever been a better example of perfectionist fallacy.
I don't know about that, but I am sure that there is no better example for "can't be arsed".
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As I stroll through the forums where I give out my advice,
I took a look at General Discussion and realize it's full of vice,
And that's imperfect for a non-optimizer like me,
You know I shun things like super-optimality.At 8:30 in the morning I'm bashing trolls,
RavingDork is querying rules and TOZ lols, fool.
And I've been pimping bards for so long that
Even Evil Lincoln thinks my mind is gone.I'm a man of the game, I'm into cohesion,
Got a CRB in my hand, a neckbeard on my chin.
But if I finish all my advice, and you excuse my poor diction,
Then tonight we're going to party like PF outsold fourth edition.We've been spending most our forum-going time living in a MinMaxer's paradise,
I smack trolls once or twice, living in a MinMaxer's paradise,
It's hard work and sacrifice, giving advice in a MinMaxer's paradise,
We give sound advice for free, living in a MinMaxer's paradise.
Been having a s@%+ty couple of days and this post put a much needed smile on my face. Thanks.
If someone showed up in any game I have been a part of and started demanding that others optimize their characters he would definitely NOT be invited back... ever.
One of my regulars was an optimizer, he knew enough respect for fellow players to keep his builds to himself unless he was asked for help. If you can't be nice about playing side by side with role players or simply unoptimized PCs then go back to playing MMOs. No one has the right to say someone else isn't pulling enough weight. This isn't a reality show like "Top Shot" or "Survivor", it's a game for fun.
I actually have played a fighter with a 12 str and 16 cha... I didn't know any basket weaving, but I sure did have lots of fun insulting our enemies. It was a good game and we all had fun... They even found an effective role for my little wise mouth: Tank. They stuck me in the heaviest armor the group had and let me draw the ire of every enemy in earshot. You don't need a party of RageLancePouncers to have fun. You just need a good attitude.
@Pixel Cube
You just don't understand that your right to have fun stops where my right to have fun begins and of course in turn mine stops when yours begins.
I have characters died because of another player's stupidity and i have characters who have died (and some almost died) because some other PC couldn't pull his own weight and the only doing while in the group was to get a share of the loot.
You know such characters shouldn't be accepted into the ranks of a group of proffesional killers (adventuring party) but they are let in because they have PC engraved in their forehead.