This is a terrible analogy.Please explain how it is "abusing" the system. It's an option that the system explicitly allows. I just don't see it - is driving 55mph in the 55mph zone "abusing the system"?Min/maxing is just the most extreme form of optimization. Dumping metal stats to 7 on your warrior to max out the physical is munchkin and cheesy. This doesn't mean people in real life couldn't have similar stats. Just that it's entirely abusing the system.
Well I ask because I want to learn, not because I want my analogies gratuitously insulted. I thought it was apt. APT!
Seriously, I'm all open to an explication of your position if you care to provide one.
Please explain how it is "abusing" the system. It's an option that the system explicitly allows. I just don't see it - is driving 55mph in the 55mph zone "abusing the system"?Min/maxing is just the most extreme form of optimization. Dumping metal stats to 7 on your warrior to max out the physical is munchkin and cheesy. This doesn't mean people in real life couldn't have similar stats. Just that it's entirely abusing the system.
This is a terrible analogy.
If you can't see it as munchkin behavior you never will. You've accepted this as common practice and probably dump stats on your characters consistently.
All the power to you.
drawbacks can help define a character just much as their advantages can. a character with no glaring flaws feels kind of dull to me. a stat of 7 or even 5, counts as a sufficiently glaring flaw to me.
A DC 22 save at level 10 is a wizard with 24 intelligence casting a 5th level spell. Entirely within the limits for that level. I think what OP means is that the save IS within the boundaries and PCs laughing at the save is disappointing. Making that save for a level 10, depending on class obviously, will require a 10-15. I don't think a 25-50% success rate is nothing. Min/maxing stats can make this more laughable.In case the OP is still around and not scared away by people using Stormwind and Rollplaying (srsly?) for internet arguments, I think this post of yours from the first page says quite a lot about your problem:
I don't mind the game's definition of balance. I quite like the average statistics of a given CR across all its members. I don't like when PCs throw off this curve and treat DC 22 saves at level 10 as nothing.Are you sure you like the game's balance? Because a DC 22 save at level 10 is nothing - at least nothing outside the boundaries of what the game considers level-appropriate challenges for characters this advanced. Speaking of which, are you talking about characters using overpowered effects, or characters being able to withstand such effects very well? Because that is not quite the same.
My point exactly, though I wasn't sure if this is what the OP actually meant. It seems that a lot of people have a problem with the chapter-progression of d20 games - what scared you at 5th level, is most likely just a nuisance at 10th. Since there are always more dangerous monsters to be found, I never quite understood this, but E6 is popular for a reason I guess?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't suggest one stat dumped. I said ALL mental stats dumped so you could max out physical stats. I like all the inferences though. Speaks volumes about stat arrays.
Dumping a stat to create a flaw is perfectly fine. Dumping all stats deemed unnecessary to a class to max out the stats your class requires is the realm of munchkins.
Except...that is the exact opposite of optimization. It creates a horribly underpowered, overspecialized, nigh-useless mess. A character like that would be completely useless outside of combat, and would be vulnerable IN combat due to a terrible will save than any antagonist with half a brain would target. Outside of combat? Even worse.
If that's your conception of munckinry, you are apparently working from a totally different definition than the rest of the world.
Don't worry 137ben, Fighters never need to make knowledge checks, social skill checks, or even Will saves. That's why it's so abusive to allow them to drop some stats and raise others. The fact that the stats they choose to raise are the very ones they find most useful is what galls me the most! GRRR
Although I must say this whole exchange kinda confirms for me my notion that anti-optimizers are often failed optimizers. "I'll just lower all the stats I don't need to boost the ones I do! It's so simple!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't suggest one stat dumped. I said ALL mental stats dumped so you could max out physical stats. I like all the inferences though. Speaks volumes about stat arrays.
Dumping a stat to create a flaw is perfectly fine. Dumping all stats deemed unnecessary to a class to max out the stats your class requires is the realm of munchkins.
Except...that is the exact opposite of optimization. It creates a horribly underpowered, overspecialized, nigh-useless mess. A character like that would be completely useless outside of combat, and would be vulnerable IN combat due to a terrible will save than any antagonist with half a brain would target. Outside of combat? Even worse.
If that's your conception of munckinry, you are apparently working from a totally different definition than the rest of the world.
i played a bard with 5 strength and 7 constitution with 19 intelligence and 18 charisma, alongside a 14 dexterity and wisdom. she used a homebrew half-nymph race
she was effective at skills, but couldn't fight her way out of a paper bag without coughing up blood. her main contribution was skills, buffs, and limited battlefield control.
she wasn't optimized to be without weakness
she was modded to be a support character whom couldn't fight very well at all due to her illness, which was her intent.
there are many definitions of optimization for different concepts. she was designed to win the diplomacy game, not the combat game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
See: Stormwind fallacy.
Master_Marshmellow
A. Where did he make the A stormwind fallacy?
B. The stormwind fallacy is almost always invoked as a strawman.
Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
All though I suppose someone somewhere has said that role-playing a character and making an optimized character, are always mutually exclusive, I have certainly never actually seen the claim made.
There are plenty of more defensible positions such as
"Character Concept and the urge to optimize a character are in most cases to some extent mutually exclusive, and that there comes a point where continued optimization almost always forces concept drift."
"Optimization and naturalistic characters are very close to being mutually exclusive, the vast majority of real people(even exceptional real people) are not even nearly as focused as your average heavily optimized character. The drive to highest possible efficacy makes mechanically narrow and one dimensional characters. This tends to lead to a situation where anything you may role-play, other than that focus, are not real, so far is the game itself is concerned."
"Heavy optimization is not appropriate in all games, especially where the DM has set out a game concept aimed at less god like and focused characters, in which you have agreed to play"
"Character design driven by optimization is very poor at making characters which mimic the genre conventions of fantasy literature."
By the way, I don't think optimization is bad, in and off itself.
There are concepts that NEED high level optimization.
The optimizer mindset however can be a problem, as it can seriously damage verisimilitude, and can trigger "the arms race".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The game wasn't designed to be balanced. So classes are all over the place in power. The game offers you bad choices (by design). And in general you can easily be awful if you go with a concept the game doesn't support well -- and some of those bad concepts come from official archetypes and the like.
This is why some people find balance to be very critical in a game. Because it means people like the OP don't have to worry about how to optimize stuff. It takes a lot of headache out of play. Sure, things are never perfect, but it can be a lot more fun when your choices are more about concept and playstyle than deciding whether to forgo a fun non-mix-max ability verses the one that will make you more effective.
Also, I prefer the make-or-break decisions to happen IN-GAME not during level-up or character creation.
That's my opinion anyhow. The Devs do not agree.
The character is not "awful", it is just suitable for a different power-level of game.
If everyone at the table builds a character at roughly that power-level, and the DM makes an appropriate set of challenges and story for such characters, they can be every bit as fun, as "godmage and choppy the barbarian".
All though I suppose someone somewhere has said that role-playing a character and making an optimized character, are always mutually exclusive, I have certainly never actually seen the claim made.
While a person can make a superior mechanical character and also be an amazing roleplayer, there is definitely a connection between trying to build the best character mechanically and poor roleplaying.
Is that not pretty close, Zombieneighbours? Implying that while it's not impossible to have both, there is definitely an inverse correlation between the two?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The difference between always mutually exclusive and often clash, is pretty substantial.
Ofcause, tormsskull's post isn't nearly as defensible a position as those I put forward as examples, but it is certainly not covered by the Stormwind fallacy as written.
It is even a position that anecdotally, i am inclined to agree with.
Without exception, every gamer I have played with, who has put optimization as their foremost concern in character creation, has failed to meet any of my commonly used definitions of a good roleplayer. More over, because I have tended to play in mid to low optimization groups through much of my gaming experience, such players have usually stomped all over the fun of the group.
Edit: I have yet to find an experience within the hobby, quite so disheartening as having played through several sessions of a campaign, with a new character you love, that has been designed to fit well with setting and concept, and who has felt like a big damn hero, because the game has been set to the power level of the party, only to have a new player join and tear through every encounter like a hot knife through butter.
Having a character go from feeling like an interesting multi-dimensional hero, to a scrub, in half an hour, sucks.
The difference between always mutually exclusive, often clash, is pretty substantial.
Ofcause, tormsskull's post isn't nearly as defensible a position as those I put forward as examples, but it is certainly not covered by the Stormwind fallacy as written.
It is even a position that anecdotally, i am inclined to agree with.
Without exception, every gamer I have played with, who has put optimization as their foremost concern in character creation, has failed to meet any of my commonly used definitions of a good roleplayer. More over, because I have tended to play in mid to low optimization groups through much of my gaming experience, such players have usually stomped all over the fun of the group.
I'm not disagreeing with your personal experience but looking at the whole post in which Stormwind first proposed the "fallacy" in context, you'll see that it's a lot less black and white than it's often made out to be. I think the underlying point still stands :
Standard caveats: Of course some people have differing priorities and play styles. I find the GNS model to be more useful than the Role/Roll model, personally. And you, specifically, who are reading this are of course the exception to every rule and don't fit neatly into any category and incorporate the best of every style, and so on and so on and la de da de da.
I wish I had a fallacy or something named after me. How about "Sarcasmancer's Entreaty" : "Try to explain your position without using the words 'munchkin'."
i try to combine role play and roll play. they both have their aspects and both are intended to be used together, though many groups have a variety of things. Weekly William's Group and some of my other IRL groups are all about guild construction and the accomplishments of the crew and it's representatives rather than a few mythic heroes. think like etrian oddyssey with a bit of fallout, skyrim, and other major RPG games.
The difference between always mutually exclusive, often clash, is pretty substantial.
Ofcause, tormsskull's post isn't nearly as defensible a position as those I put forward as examples, but it is certainly not covered by the Stormwind fallacy as written.
It is even a position that anecdotally, i am inclined to agree with.
Without exception, every gamer I have played with, who has put optimization as their foremost concern in character creation, has failed to meet any of my commonly used definitions of a good roleplayer. More over, because I have tended to play in mid to low optimization groups through much of my gaming experience, such players have usually stomped all over the fun of the group.
I'm not disagreeing with your personal experience but looking at the whole post in which Stormwind first proposed the "fallacy" in context, you'll see that it's a lot less black and white than it's often made out to be. I think the underlying point still stands :
Standard caveats: Of course some people have differing priorities and play styles. I find the GNS model to be more useful than the Role/Roll model, personally. And you, specifically, who are reading this are of course the exception to every rule and don't fit neatly into any category and incorporate the best of every style, and so on and so on and la de da de da.
I've read the post, and am aware of the broader argument tempest was making, but the fact remains that the strict logical fallacy is
"Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa."
Tempest isn't right about everything,
For instance, it is actually possible for roleplaying choice(cleaving to concept) to impede on an optimization choice, and vice versa.
They don't have too, but they can.
Example:
"This magus would have a higher damage output if he was using a scimitar, but I kind of imagined him with a long sword. I guess I'll just eat the damage loss."
Tempus even goes so far as to point out that the key to what he is talking about, is the matter of one always being a problem to the other.
The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically'
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bear in mind there are people that could technically get and hold down high-paid jobs but do lower-paid ones because they find them more fun or less stressful. The same is true of spending a bunch of points on skills that match character flavor while not being particularly effective in game terms.It depends on what your (or your character's) goals are. Most people tend to have other goals outside of (or even instead of) being the best at a particular task.
Oh, I dig that. But, say you give up being a computer programmer to become a children's theatre manager. You're not making as much money, but that's comparing one job to another and assuming there is only a single definition of success or optimal. When you become the children's theatre manager aren't you going to make choices that will be designed to make you a succesful children's theatre manager? You probably won't try to put on full blown psycho version of A Clockwork Orange. You'll choose stuff kids will want to see. You'll choose things parent would be willing to bring their kids to. You'll try to make optimum choices in regards to being a good children's theatre manager.
Absolutely - but it's also possible you'll have some baggage from your previous experiences. There's a difference between making choices today and how you spent your time training your abilities in the past. That children's theatre manager may well have shoved some points into C++ programming during their previous experiences, for example.
When I design a character, I tend to include those baggage skills and choices from the things they learned how to do before they decided on the adventuring life, so they're not necessarily the most optimized adventurer possible. There's also the matter of flavor choices in their adventuring options - they're not necessarily going to have the metagame knowledge of which weapon/feat combos are the most effective to learn, and might just focus on learning things that seem cool to them at the time (especially apt if your concept of a L1 character is one that hasn't been doing the adventuring thing much until now.)
There's a fair bit of a grey area for me between optimized and ineffective, which is where I tend to build my characters. Far enough below 100% optimized to feel like a real person rather than someone built from the ground up for adventuring, but effective enough that it is logical they realized they were suited for an adventuring life (although it's still entirely possible to be much closer to either, and I've done both on rare occasions such as a character that trained from an early age to be a great warrior or a character that never planned for an adventuring life but was forced into one)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The trick to having fun is finding folks that are on your level and gaming with them.
So very much this. There's no right or wrong way to play RPGs, there's just groups that are right or wrong for you.
Really? Wow, I guess I just imagined the four different points buy levels.
oh and the situational classes which change in power according to narrative, and the vast array of feats that change in efficacy according to play style.
The fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard in a 15 point build; with each sticking to their genre rolls, with a similar degree of optimisation ARE on a pre set level. while that is a default assuption, the game allows vasfly moee variety than that.
i do a lot of Matt Thompsons practices to varying extents. especially with 1st level characters.
and some of the buddies i associate with, are nice people. and a lot of them, really know a lot more about optimization than i do.
in fact, when i play with my Buddy Kyrt, i try not to duplicate the primary contributions he covers, because i know he will cover them so well that i can afford to slack off on that role and cover something else.
Kyrt, in my experience, is really good at making powerful martial characters out of a series of synergistic dips that together, like the gears of a clock individually, make something greater than the sum of their parts individually.
now, i can handle duplicating a secondary role he covers or a role the party neglects, but when Kyrt rolls up a dedicated beatstick, i try to avoid making a beatstick myself because i see no point when we don't have a lot of contact and his beatsticks are so powerful, we don't often need a second.
i like building beatsticks too, but i don't know much about building them without access to 3.5 material because many 3.5 feats and alternate class features can be used to make a beatstick especially nasty. and even then, what i build with 3,5 material can't keep up with what Kyrt or Seth can build with the same book.
|
People could always just intentionally build characters that are good at everything, thereby making the rest of the party feel as if they barely even qualify as necessary. :P At least the guy with a 7 CHA and no knowledge on how to fix that with a single inexpensive item sucks at SOMETHING. Meanwhile you've got the guy that drops his WIS to a 5 for some odd reason. I don't know why anyone would do that, but I love it, as a GM, when they do. You can bet a dominate person is headed their way. Especially if it's me am smash barbarian with an INT, WIS, and CHA of 5 but STR and CON of 30 and a bunch of cleave feats. Party don't like them so well after great cleave drops them all to dead or unconscious in one round.
The other fun thing is a crossblooded blaster sorcerer with a low WIS. Drop dominate monster on'em for great justice. There's just something oh-so-fun about hitting the entire party with a 15d6+45 empowered fireball from a sorcerer whose single-good-stat build has the DC at fricking 35 or something. Extra points if you empowered disintegrate any of the survivors for 60d6+90. Because LAWL sorcerers.
I don't mind the game's definition of balance. I quite like the average statistics of a given CR across all its members. I don't like when PCs throw off this curve and treat DC 22 saves at level 10 as nothing.
The average CR 10 monster forces a save of 19 so reliably not have an APL=CR monster cripple you then you need to be able to have a good chance not failing that save.
People could always just intentionally build characters that are good at everything, thereby making the rest of the party feel as if they barely even qualify as necessary. :P At least the guy with a 7 CHA and no knowledge on how to fix that with a single inexpensive item sucks at SOMETHING. Meanwhile you've got the guy that drops his WIS to a 5 for some odd reason. I don't know why anyone would do that, but I love it, as a GM, when they do. You can bet a dominate person is headed their way. Especially if it's me am smash barbarian with an INT, WIS, and CHA of 5 but STR and CON of 30 and a bunch of cleave feats. Party don't like them so well after great cleave drops them all to dead or unconscious in one round.
Step 1: Do so, in full knowledge that the GM will try it.
Step 2: Take Superstition.
Step 3: Take Eater of Magic.
Step 4: Get a Courageous Weapon.
Step 5: Laugh, and enjoy your Temporary HP.
Take Iron Will and Improved Iron Will to taste. ;)
|
|
Step 1: Do so, in full knowledge that the GM will try it.
Step 2: Take Superstition.
Step 3: Take Eater of Magic.
Step 4: Get a Courageous Weapon.
Step 5: Laugh, and enjoy your Temporary HP.
Take Iron Will and Improved Iron Will to taste. ;)
Step 6: Fall under the spell's effect anyway after the mob either A.) casts it on you while you aren't raging or B.) it winds up not mattering all that much because your wisdom score is a 5, so superstition + courageous weapon + iron will is still leaving you with an enormous chance to fail the save. :P Extra points if the GM is sufficiently knowledgeable about spellcasters to know the loophole that turns all of your bonuses to will into negatives in one of the turns before having cast the spell in the first place.
... 'Course it'd be easier to just have one of their minions use one of a handful of touch abilities in the game that will shut rage off since there's no save associated with most of'em. Then your rage is gone, you're fatigued, and you're staggered because that critter touching you is probably an aeon or one of about six other outsiders that do that by touching you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Step 6: Fall under the spell's effect anyway after the mob either A.) casts it on you while you aren't raging
or B.) it winds up not mattering all that much because your wisdom score is a 5, so superstition + courageous weapon + iron will is still leaving you with an enormous chance to fail the save.
A 5 Wis is a -3 penalty, not all that insurmountable if you build around your weakness.
You'll have a +0 base at level 10, and be carrying a solid +6 at least from Superstition and another +2 from Iron Will for a +8. As good as a Barbarian with a decent Wis who doesn't have Iron Will and Superstition is likely to have while Raging.
You also get to roll twice on a failed save, or even 3 times, increasing your chances significantly.
:P Extra points if the GM is sufficiently knowledgeable about spellcasters to know the loophole that turns all of your bonuses to will into negatives in one of the turns before having cast the spell in the first place.
I dunno what that is, but even if there is such a thing it's not a good example for something here. You can just as easily do that to ANY character. Do it to the Monk, the Cleric, the Wizard, etc. They'll fail even WORSE since their bonuses are higher to begin with.
... 'Course it'd be easier to just have one of their minions use one of a handful of touch abilities in the game that will shut rage off since there's no save associated with most of'em. Then your rage is gone, you're fatigued, and you're staggered because that critter touching you is probably an aeon or one of about six other outsiders that do that by touching you.
Actually, being Fatigued doesn't stop you from Raging. You may not ENTER a Rage while your Fatigued, but once in it being Fatigued doesn't send you out of it.
All this said, it's just a silly example of shoring up a weakness pretty significantly with class features unique to the Barbarian alone. It is also most certainly NOT OPTIMAL since he is expending lots of resources shoring up weaknesses instead of boosting his strengths. Having at least a 10 Wis goes a long way for very little cost, and will even out to a much better character in the long run since you can (and should) take at least Superstition, and will therefore have at least an extra +3 on the saves over the other guy.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is that not pretty close, Zombieneighbours? Implying that while it's not impossible to have both, there is definitely an inverse correlation between the two?
We can all only talk from our experience. From my experience of playing table top games since Basic D&D, there is a connection between the two. Maybe your experience is different.
Part of the problem here is that we all seem to have different definitions of optimization, role-playing, etc. And to what degree.
To me someone I would label an optimizer is someone who is very concerned about their character's mechanical power to the point that they will spend hours researching the best feat/skill/dip class to take in order to maximize their character's mechanical power. They will create a character "build" and follow it to a T. They will not allow anything in the campaign world to affect their "build" in anyway.
That is not the kind of player I want to play with. I don't care about your "build". As the GM, I will not ensure that you get the exact magic items you need for your "build". I will not ensure that you get the exact pre-req requirements for whatever prestige class you may want to get in.
To me, the point of table-top RPGs is to tell a cooperative story. Each person has their role in the story, and in fact the players create the vast majority of the story by their actions. Anything that detracts from the story or the integrity of the characters is a Bad Thing.
If you create an amazingly powerful mechanical character and you're also an amazing roleplayer - great! I'd probably even ask you if you wouldn't mind to help out the other players who may need assistance in creating their characters. You know the rules well, you can help them bring the concept of their character to life.
But, if character concept is not important to you, then no, not interested in gaming with you. If a new player tells you they want to play an elf barbarian that got separated from his people as a child and learned to survive in the savage lands, fighting with a weapon in each hand - and your immediate answer is "Actually, go 2-hander, it works better with Power Attack, and elves get a penalty to con, so you should be a human" - then you're an optimizer.
If a new player tells you they want to play an elf barbarian that got separated from his people as a child and learned to survive in the savage lands, fighting with a weapon in each hand - and your immediate answer is "Actually, go 2-hander, it works better with Power Attack, and elves get a penalty to con, so you should be a human" - then you're an optimizer.
Poorly worded as a command rather than a suggestion, perhaps, but so what?
You say it as if I should be ashamed of being an optimizer.
I don't see why I should be. Yes, I will give people suggestions on what might be a mechanically superior option (Usually worded as a genuine question. "What do you want to be able to do?" and then giving them the best mechanical route to follow I can think of to make that concept work), but why do you consider that a bad thing?
I'm certainly not forcing anyone to change their character, I'm just telling them what could be a more powerful route to take if they hadn't thought of it, especially in the case of options like TWFing which have a tendency to draw people towards them because of the Rule of Cool...but perhaps without them considering mechanical pitfalls they don't want to deal with.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You say it as if I should be ashamed of being an optimizer.
Nope - its just that your playstyle and my playstyle would not mesh, so I would not want to play with you. You can have a blast playing your way, and I can have a blast playing my way.
"What do you want to be able to do?" and then giving them the best mechanical route to follow I can think of to make that concept work), but why do you consider that a bad thing?
I consider it a bad thing because to me the character concept is the most important, not the mechanics. If the player wants to play a TWF elf barbarian, let them play it. Don't try to discourage them because it is not as good as some other choice.
I'm certainly not forcing anyone to change their character, I'm just telling them what could be a more powerful route to take if they hadn't thought of it, especially in the case of options like TWFing which have a tendency to draw people towards them because of the Rule of Cool...but perhaps without them considering mechanical pitfalls they don't want to deal with.
I understand that, and I understand that in some games, getting a powerful character is the point. I enjoy creating characters and seeing what kind of weird combinations of feats/skills/etc I can come up with as well. But I don't use those characters for play, they're just thought experiments.
When I sit down to make a character for play, I get campaign information from the GM. I see where our characters will start in the world, what the world is like, how the races get along, what is the local thought on religion, magic, etc. After learning some of this basic information, I create a character that I think will be fun in that campaign world.
When I GM, I also want players to follow this same character creation methodology. If your character can be lifted from one campaign to another, without any modifications to character sheet, personality, history, etc., then you're not really creating a character for the campaign. You're just creating a generic character.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a new player tells you they want to play an elf barbarian that got separated from his people as a child and learned to survive in the savage lands, fighting with a weapon in each hand - and your immediate answer is "Actually, go 2-hander, it works better with Power Attack, and elves get a penalty to con, so you should be a human" - then you're an optimizer.Poorly worded as a command rather than a suggestion, perhaps, but so what?
You say it as if I should be ashamed of being an optimizer.
I don't see why I should be. Yes, I will give people suggestions on what might be a mechanically superior option (Usually worded as a genuine question. "What do you want to be able to do?" and then giving them the best mechanical route to follow I can think of to make that concept work), but why do you consider that a bad thing?
I'm certainly not forcing anyone to change their character, I'm just telling them what could be a more powerful route to take if they hadn't thought of it, especially in the case of options like TWFing which have a tendency to draw people towards them because of the Rule of Cool...but perhaps without them considering mechanical pitfalls they don't want to deal with.
There is useful optimisation and oppressive optimisation.
The player has set out their concept, why not simply help them make the concept work as well as it can?
See: Stormwind fallacy.
This tread evolved (or degenerated?) into a Stormind Fallacy thread, but the OP was not.
All I read from the OP was "I'm tired to feel the pressured to be competitive all the time"; it had not mentioned anything about roleplaying yet.
I'm not sure if I ever felt that pressured myself; my gaming groups have always been moderate in their optimisation and we pretty much avoided anything above 15-16th level.
I wonder how I would react in a hard-core optimisation game and whether I would feel it overwhelming. But being consistently pressured in making the best character and taking the best decisions all the time would ruin it for me, regardless of the "level" of roleplaying.
There is useful optimisation and oppressive optimisation.
The player has set out their concept, why not simply help them make the concept work as well as it can?
While I might word it differently, +1 to this. I also find it vitally important to echo what Tormsskull said about shooting down a player's character concept because it doesn't do what it's supposed to do well enough. If you tell a player, "you can't do that," because their concept doesn't match some mathematical paragon that you've seen for a given class, you've taken optimization and turned it into a sudoku. If a player has a clear biographical concept of a character, a great "optimizer" should be able to help them eke every last drop of mechanical potential out of their concept.
I will, however, add one small caveat to this. If the character concept they have is so damaged that their character cannot fulfill the designed role, within the group, of the class they have picked, it might be important for the GM to point out that the class they picked is supposed to be able to do certain things to support the other players within the mechanical system.
There is useful optimisation and oppressive optimisation.
The player has set out their concept, why not simply help them make the concept work as well as it can?
While I might word it differently, +1 to this. I also find it vitally important to echo what Tormsskull said about shooting down a player's character concept because it doesn't do what it's supposed to do well enough. If you tell a player, "you can't do that," because their concept doesn't match some mathematical paragon that you've seen for a given class, you've taken optimization and turned it into a sudoku. If a player has a clear biographical concept of a character, a great "optimizer" should be able to help them eke every last drop of mechanical potential out of their concept.
I will, however, add one small caveat to this. If the character concept they have is so damaged that their character cannot fulfill the designed role, within the group, of the class they have picked, it might be important for the GM to point out that the class they picked is supposed to be able to do certain things to support the other players within the mechanical system.
I agree so long as what you mean by "fulfill its roll" is be fun for everyone at the table. ;)
There is a responsibility for a player to realize when the character they have built is not a good fit for the campaign being proposed.
The difference between always mutually exclusive, often clash, is pretty substantial.
Ofcause, tormsskull's post isn't nearly as defensible a position as those I put forward as examples, but it is certainly not covered by the Stormwind fallacy as written.
It is even a position that anecdotally, i am inclined to agree with.
Without exception, every gamer I have played with, who has put optimization as their foremost concern in character creation, has failed to meet any of my commonly used definitions of a good roleplayer. More over, because I have tended to play in mid to low optimization groups through much of my gaming experience, such players have usually stomped all over the fun of the group.
I'm not disagreeing with your personal experience but looking at the whole post in which Stormwind first proposed the "fallacy" in context, you'll see that it's a lot less black and white than it's often made out to be. I think the underlying point still stands :
The point is- sure, you CAN be a super roleplayer and also be a super optimizer, even if min/maxed combat optimized. the key word is "CAN". Because few succeed. As Zombie sez "Without exception, every gamer I have played with, who has put optimization as their foremost concern in character creation, has failed to meet any of my commonly used definitions of a good roleplayer."
So, we all agree it's theoretically possible. But the Stormwind "fallacy" isn't a fallacy as almost no-one succeeds at both. The point is Zombieneighbours is giving his personal observations that "every gamer I have played with", thus despite the fact that it's POSSIBLE to be good at both, there's no "fallacy" in his statement, unless of course, you have also gamed with his groups and can state the opposite.
Fallacies do NOT apply to personal observations and experiences. Even if I say "Every Scotsman I personally know loves single malt." you can't say "NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!!!!" as indeed, that is my personal observation. If I say "Every Scotsman loves single malt" then I am getting into Fallacy-dom.
And yes, I know a couple of powergamers who are great roleplayers. But, in every single case, they have done something which Combat Min/max optimizers would sneer at, such as a dip or feat or trait for purely RP reasons. They sometimes make choices which makes sense thematically rather than power-wise.
There is useful optimisation and oppressive optimisation.The player has set out their concept, why not simply help them make the concept work as well as it can?
No reason why not, which is what I do once they're sure they're set on a specific build route, but no harm in pointing out possible drawbacks to a fighting style and making sure they do want to deal with those.
To the original poster...I 100% agree. And to those that think there's a difference between min/maxing and optimization...um...no.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To those that think there's a difference between min/maxing and optimization...um...no.
Care to explain your position on how two words that mean entirely different things are now somehow the same?
Me three.
Customer Service Dire Care Bear Manager
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've removed some more posts. Be excellent to each other..
|
|
Actually, being Fatigued doesn't stop you from Raging. You may not ENTER a Rage while your Fatigued, but once in it being Fatigued doesn't send you out of it.
All this said, it's just a silly example of shoring...
Nah. I meant that there are some abilities monsters have (and a spell accessible to PCs) that will force a barbarian out of their rage. It's a pretty dirty trick to pull on one, but you gotta admit you'd love to see their expression when you told'em their character just had its rage turned off against its will. All kidding aside, I wouldn't advise for any GM to be going out of one's way to resort to such extreme measures as were listed a few posts up unless you're running for a party comfortable with having all the stops pulled out.
Well, back to the topic at hand I reckon. If people wanna optimize, let'em. It's completely possible to build a middle of the road character that is perfectly functional. If someone in your party has an optimal build, just look at it as having a reliable ally. It isn't an arms race, though some people might like to make it into one. Bards, just as an example, normally aren't able to hand out ridiculous numbers (a certain janky ability + ninja levels aside), but they provide an invaluable service on the battlefield. They are equally functionally in both social and intellectual situations.
Nah. I meant that there are some abilities monsters have (and a spell accessible to PCs) that will force a barbarian out of their rage. It's a pretty dirty trick to pull on one, but you gotta admit you'd love to see their expression when you told'em their character just had its rage turned off against its will. All kidding aside, I wouldn't advise for any GM to be going out of one's way to resort to such extreme measures as were listed a few posts up unless you're running for a party comfortable with having all the stops pulled out.
What abilities are these? I'm pretty sure I know the spell (Calm Emotions?) but I don't know of any monster abilities that replicate a similar effect, at least not from monsters that are likely to be adversarial to the party.
I've removed some more posts. Be excellent to each other..
Wow...that avatar... :)
|
I've removed some more posts. Be excellent to each other..
And here I am, falling in love with a person just because they have a great sense of humor...
See: Stormwind fallacy.This tread evolved (or degenerated?) into a Stormind Fallacy thread, but the OP was not.
All I read from the OP was "I'm tired to feel the pressured to be competitive all the time"; it had not mentioned anything about roleplaying yet.
I'm not sure if I ever felt that pressured myself; my gaming groups have always been moderate in their optimisation and we pretty much avoided anything above 15-16th level.
I wonder how I would react in a hard-core optimisation game and whether I would feel it overwhelming. But being consistently pressured in making the best character and taking the best decisions all the time would ruin it for me, regardless of the "level" of roleplaying.
At the end of the day, all of these arguments end up in the same place, and I figured it would be best to not kill 3-4 pages of bandwidth before it got brought up.
On either end you have extremes where you have players who really don't care about their characters having personalities and want to play (dare I say it): "WOW on paper" and on the other you have players who don't even want to bother filling out a character sheet beyond writing down the name, age, and race of their character because they are there to do silly voices and pretend their personal life never existed. That all players must fall into one of these camps is the very foundation of the Stormwind, and that enjoying even a little bit of one must also mean you have sworn off the other is a fallacy all on its own (not really).
To the OP: sure, you may not feel like your games are engaging the side of fun that you want more of. My advice, try another group, look online for others who play less of a crunch game.
I could preach about the 'ideal' game and how it finds a perfect balance between role and roll, but it's an utter farce, as I have already made my thesis.