I hate optimization


Gamer Life General Discussion

151 to 200 of 656 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

Sara Marie wrote:
I've removed some more posts. Be excellent to each other..

Annnnddd this post wins the thread. Time to go home, folks.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:

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.

I've never put much stock into this fallacy. Tempest Stormwind coined this fallacy in response to one of my posts several years ago. He attempts to say that character optimization and roleplaying/character concept are completely separate with no affect on one another.

While that may be true for some players, I believe it is a minority. As such, it is not unfair to state that people that are concerned with building mechanically powerful characters often times don't make the best roleplayers.

We see this in different areas of character creation, leveling up, and general play. A player wants his character to be a sailor by trade, and be able to roleplay that. Good, but shouldn't they put at least 1 rank in Profession (Sailor) in order to reflect that background?

Some people say yes, other people say "But I only get x skill points per level, I don't want to use up any of the points on Profession (Sailor) because it means I won't be able to take the other skills I want."

Depending on your view, one way is the right way to do it, and the other way is the wrong way. I lean towards making the mechanics of the character and the storyline/history of the character match as best as possible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For myself, the two questions that need to be asked are 1) Why are you optimizing and 2) To what degree. For myself, optimization is simply a tool used to meet some particular goal. It is also not all or nothing. It is on a continuum. Furthermore, unless you are creating a character entirely randomly or randomly assigning things, you are engaging in some degree of optimization by assigning resources to meet your concept.

The issue to me is why are you optimizing? Is it for Butt-kicking? Power Gaming? To best represent a concept requiring compromise between several requirements (e.g, the farm boy that loved to race horses and hunt in the woods before enlisting as a military scout).

Butt-Kicking is one's focus on combat. It is an axis with a continuum separate from Optimization. Some people are more focused than others on combat, but playing with an interest for butt-kicking does not require an ability to optimize. Optimization is simply a tool employed by many people to increase efficiency in this area.

Power Gaming is focused on playing a powerful character and/or the mechanical benefits as defined/rewarded in the game (leveling, big numbers, feats, treasure, and/or spells). Again this is another axis and continuum and does not require knowing how to optimize. It is simply where someone's focus is. Many people play because they are interested in the carrot of bigger numbers and acquiring more powerful treasure or spells that help make them more powerful. This does not involve knowing how to optimize as it is motivational. Simply wanting to level to gain new skill points and skills, because characters grow would be low level power gaming as higher bonuses represent the growth mechanically which is done by higher numbers.
Optimizing for Power Gaming is optimizing to accumulate/emphasize power as defined/rewarded by the system.

Unlike Butt Kicking or Power Gaming which tend to be concerned with maximum efficiency. The third example is interested in a different form of optimization- compromise among several requirements to best represent the different aspects of the character mechanically. A character growing up on a farm would have certain skills. He or she would pick up different skills through hunting and additional skills as a military scout. For someone engaged in this type of optimization, all these different aspects need to be represented mechanically and to the appropriate degree (e.g., novice, expert, master). Furthermore, new skills acquired need to be accounted for as do skills that would have grown from use while those not used do not increase.

The other consideration in addition to why is the degree or optimization.

The problems that arise are conflicts arising from both the why and degree of optimization. The guy optimizing for combat and power is going to view the guy optimizing for the third reason to be non optimized for not optimizing to their focus. The third guy is going to be looking down on both the Butt-Kicker and Power Gamer, because they are not approaching from the character first. The Power gamer is going to look down not just on the third person, but the butt kicker, because focusing on combat and ignoring other things leaves holes to be exploited.
On top of the different focus, you have people with different tolerances for how far to carry the optimization. Butt Kickers and Power Gamers engaging in optimization tend to be more prone to look for benefits to squeeze out efficiency in order to achieve bigger bonuses. However, not everyone shares the same tolerance for degree. The threshold of what is appropriate is some arbitrary line of tolerance rather than some universal standard. When that arbitrary level is crossed, labels like Power Gamer, Munchkin, Min-Maxer (a more extreme form of Optimization) get applied.


master_marshmallow wrote:
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.

I've no doubt that it would have led there sooner than later, but not all discussions about competitive gaming are about roleplaying (or lack thereof, or feeling unable to roleplay for whatever reason).

If we accept, thanks to the Stormwind fallacy, that optimisation is distinct from roleplaying, we must also accept that some games can be too optimisation-heavy (or too free-handled) without talking about the roleplaying aspect of that game.

Please don't kill those discussions before they can happen.

@ OP, your OP-post was good, but your thread title invited war. I'd suggest trying something without the word "hate" in it next time.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

What too often happens is that some player takes a PC, optimizes it to heck and back, Min Maxes to the max, has no background, a name like “Tank # 42”, the character sheet has nothing but bare stats and DPR calculations- and yet if someone says maybe he’s optimizing too much for THAT table & group, a host of other similar type players will scream “STORMWIND FALLACY!!!”. Because somehow that’s a magic phrase that will make their complete lack of RPing perfectly OK for every table and every group.

Just because you can cite “STORMWIND FALLACY!" does not mean that your hyper-optimized set of numbers that purpose to be a PC is every really "roleplayed".

By and large, the STORMWIND FALLACY ain't.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have no idea what a Stormwind Fallacy is. My guess is that is has something to do with being right. In that case let me just say I Stormwind Fallacy early and often.

-MD


Short version: The Fallacy itself is the idea of all optimizers being poor roleplayers and all skilled roleplayers having poor grasp of mechanics. This is obviously untrue, the disagreement of course is to the degree to which it is untrue. Some people like Tormskull believe it is only slightly untrue, in that someone who is focusing on being a skilled roleplayer will do so to the detriment of their mechanical knowledge and that someone focused on mechanical optimization will necessarily be less focused on RP skill. Others such as myself take the opposite opinion that it's quite possible to be good at both.

To claim someone else is using the Stormwind Fallacy, or to invoke it, is saying that the other person is claiming a mechanically-sound player is a poor RPer and that the two are jointly connected, and vice versa.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

What too often happens is <a bunch of stuff that never happens>

Huh, I've never encountered anything remotely like that.

Have you considered the possibility that the tiny number of people you've personally played with don't represent the larger gaming community?

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Muad'Dib wrote:
I have no idea what a Stormwind Fallacy is. My guess is that is has something to do with being right. In that case let me just say I Stormwind Fallacy early and often.

In theory, there is no reason that an optimized ubermensch couldn't be the focus of satisfying roleplay encounters.

Unfortunately, the people who are quickest to shout "Stormwind Fallacy" are often the ones using absurdly warped logic to justify their character's bizarre combinations of classes, spells, feats, and equipment. "Why can't I roleplay an ice-elf ninja from the jungle lands?"

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
Because somehow that’s a magic phrase that will make their complete lack of RPing perfectly OK for every table and every group.

Nobody thinks that, you just like to argue that the Stormwind Fallacy doesn't exist.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

One of the characters I most loved to roleplay(*) was brutally optimized. I rebuilt him to reduce his power curve, as he was just too effective for the scenarios we encountered.

*Yes, he was a wierdo.


I must say, I am really disappointed in the definition of Stormwind Fallacy. I was expecting something either more epic or more graphic.

So I henceforth rescind my claim to doing it early and often and will instead boast that I Stormwind Fallacy slow and sloppy.

Sincerely,

-MD


2 people marked this as a favorite.

At the end of the day, the most important rule is: Don't be a jerk.

I didn't see this thread as being about rollplay versus roleplay, but about the problem of social pressure.

I'll always remember this one post I'd run into. It was about a guy who was a minmaxer/op guy, at a gaming table where a DM was trying to introduce the game to some new players.

The minmax guy would twitch and fidget, and kept wanting to correct these new players because their choices were "less effective." The DM made it clear that they should be let to learn the system, that ideas and clarification were fine but telling them how to play outright was not.

So he would twitch and fidget. He had a physical response to these players not playing "effectively." He even had some heated words with the DM.

When it would get to be too much, he'd get up from the table from time to time, walk for a while, then come back.

My guess is that the OP is referring to a mindset similar to that. It was great that the guy enjoyed the numbers. However, someone else had to step in to make sure that said behavior kept within the boundaries.

In the end, we're not talking about "ability." We're talking about a social issue.

I sometimes feel as though rollplay versus roleplay arises more because of how we express our preferences and respond to them than any actual underlying problem.

It really does come down to: don't be a jerk. Behavior and/or social issues can exist on both sides of the fence.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The one thing Stormwind fails to take into account, is that optimizing necessarily adjusts your ability scores in certain ways. Playing STR-based melee? Well, you are likely pretty dumb and socially awkward. Not that you'll actually play him that way, but that's where your stats are. INT-based caster? Then you're likely weak as a kitten and some combination of foolish and socially unappealing.

Often these things are ignored. Your character will be as erudite, sensible, and well-spoken as you want him to be, in spite of your stats.

Other times they'll be embraced. Big Stupid Fighter and Crazy/Arrogant Wizards are old, old tropes. But, even then, I wouldn't exactly call this excellent roleplaying.

Stormwind fails to acknowledge that optimizing, at best, pigeonholes you in a lot of ways. Yes, you can roleplay that out well. But, not nearly so well as if character were your primary concern.

(No, your original character concept did not have a 7 Wisdom. That was a mechanical choice and you know it!)


The Crusader wrote:

The one thing Stormwind fails to take into account, is that optimizing necessarily adjusts your ability scores in certain ways. Playing STR-based melee? Well, you are likely pretty dumb and socially awkward. Not that you'll actually play him that way, but that's where your stats are. INT-based caster? Then you're likely weak as a kitten and some combination of foolish and socially unappealing.

Often these things are ignored. Your character will be as erudite, sensible, and well-spoken as you want him to be, in spite of your stats.

Other times they'll be embraced. Big Stupid Fighter and Crazy/Arrogant Wizards are old, old tropes. But, even then, I wouldn't exactly call this excellent roleplaying.

Stormwind fails to acknowledge that optimizing, at best, pigeonholes you in a lot of ways. Yes, you can roleplay that out well. But, not nearly so well as if character were your primary concern.

(No, your original character concept did not have a 7 Wisdom. That was a mechanical choice and you know it!)

Usually when I run rp-heavy games I allow free ability score assignment: you pick 6 numbers between 3 and 18, then apply racial modifiers. Those are your ability scores. It eliminates the a lot of the sillyness of both rolling and point-buy.


I haven't had any issue RPing my characters' stats as written, and often have taken pains to get the stats where they need to be for the concept in mind. I usually do dice rolls though, so I don't have to deal with the headaches of making things fit into point-buy's limitations.

Also, my 7-Wis Paladin in the early, early days of PF was one of my favorite character concepts, and the ineptitude at certain things caused by that low score a source of much amusement (and a few groans) from the party.


Umbriere Moonwhisper wrote:
Noireve wrote:

Everytime I see someone complain about "Optimizers" it always seems to boil down to:

"I suck at the and cannot build a competent character on my own so everyone that is good at the game is horrible and making wrongbadfun characters and taking away my fun!"

Seriously?

Roleplaying does not mean HAVING to take all the terribad feats and the most rediculous things... that just means you suck. So no, a Kobold fighter wielding a Great Club is not a better "role playing character" than the Human fighter with a strength buff wielding a greatsword with power attack....

i can build a reasonably viable but not excessively powerful character. thing is, i can't keep up with the builds upon these forums, even with a 25-32 point buy, custom items, homebrew material, and unrestricted 3.5 material access.

most of it is because i cannot stand missing out on skill points and try too hard to make the dump stats fit the character

I would like to speak to this post specifically because I feel it is the core of the thread.

Specifically the bold parts.

The builds and guides on this forum generally are not meant to be taken as a, "do this or you suck!" statements.

Instead they are more akin to platonic ideals -- that is to say in a case where all you want is to be the 'perfect' form of a single thing then these are the ways to do it.

A character is more like plato's shadows, where they are distorted by the reality they are in.

As such there is usually going to be points where you will vary from the 'ideal' -- this is expected and accepted.

In general you should never really compare your character to those on the forum beyond a quick check, or if you have problems at the table.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

System Mastery is a game in and of itself. It is the game many of us play in our 'downtime' between games.

Developing system mastery is a good thing -- it can help you enjoy the game in the same way that being good at playing the piano helps you enjoy playing the piano. No one starts a hobby with the idea, "I want to suck at this." As such everyone that develops a hobby tends to attempt to get better at it.

It can be very frustrating when you associate with people that are a lot better at your hobby than you are. If you are just starting out or not as adept at martial arts, playing an instrument, building electronics and the like hanging out with people that are very good at those things can leave you frustrated at your own progress (or lack thereof).

What you do at that point is up to you though. You can either strive to improve, shrug and move on, or curse your fate and kick sand at your inability.


The Crusader wrote:
INT-based caster? Then you're likely weak as a kitten and some combination of foolish and socially unappealing.

Due to this trait and Int-based characters having lots of skill points to spend, it's really easy to avoid making a socially unappealing wizard.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:

The one thing Stormwind fails to take into account, is that optimizing necessarily adjusts your ability scores in certain ways. Playing STR-based melee? Well, you are likely pretty dumb and socially awkward. Not that you'll actually play him that way, but that's where your stats are. INT-based caster? Then you're likely weak as a kitten and some combination of foolish and socially unappealing.

Often these things are ignored. Your character will be as erudite, sensible, and well-spoken as you want him to be, in spite of your stats.

Other times they'll be embraced. Big Stupid Fighter and Crazy/Arrogant Wizards are old, old tropes. But, even then, I wouldn't exactly call this excellent roleplaying.

Stormwind fails to acknowledge that optimizing, at best, pigeonholes you in a lot of ways. Yes, you can roleplay that out well. But, not nearly so well as if character were your primary concern.

(No, your original character concept did not have a 7 Wisdom. That was a mechanical choice and you know it!)

It isn't addressed because it isn't required. You can play an effective character without having to maximize your stats in a such a way.

My wife played a 'strength based' fighter with a starting strength of 14 and did fine. I've played intelligence based casters before with an intelligence of 14 to start with, with 14s in my Con, Cha, and Wisdom as well and didn't have a problem.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Crusader wrote:
(No, your original character concept did not have a 7 Wisdom. That was a mechanical choice and you know it!)

Oh yeah, there's an easy solution to the problem of dumpstats: use a higher point buy. This also has the nice side effect of giving MAD characters a relative boost.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
The builds and guides on this forum generally are not meant to be taken as a, "do this or you suck!" statements...

I dunno about that. I mentioned a CB wielding Inquisitor in one thread and all the CB fanatics were quick to jump on such a horrible horrible thing that could never ever contribute or be worth playing as Crossbows are teh suxxor as Sean hates them and thinks they are the same as water balloons. It was pretty much stated "if you wield a CB you suck".

Go to any Advice thread where someone asks how to build a rogue and there will be post after post saying that "NO! Rouges are teh suxxor, don't play a rouge!!" (sic)

I was in another Advice thread where some newb wanted a Paladin build and several posters INSISTED he dump Wis and Int, as to do otherwise meant he'd suck. (And in fact he followed their advice and built a Paladin with dumped WIS and INT- but he sucked as he failed will saves, perc rolls, and Sense wisdom checks).

Optimizers are pretty darn loud and have made it VERY VERY clear that there's NO REASON AT ALL to ever play a Rogue (or a monk or a fighter) even when the OP makes it VERY clear that for RPing reasons that's exactly what he wants to play.

Don't get me wrong, I admire the guys who do theorycrafting. That's great and it's useful. But too many mistake Theory for reality. There's many a post/thread about a wizard with everything dumped into STR so he can cast Wish for free with Blood Money. Or a Snow-cone Wish machine, etc. And of course, they insist that since Paizo allows these things, that means the who game is broken and the devs don't know what they are doing.

Mind you, none of them have ever published anything themselves and many of them don't even play Pathfinder, but they know better...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
The Crusader wrote:
(No, your original character concept did not have a 7 Wisdom. That was a mechanical choice and you know it!)
Oh yeah, there's an easy solution to the problem of dumpstats: use a higher point buy. This also has the nice side effect of giving MAD characters a relative boost.

Yeah, so they still dump, but getting high Prime stats.

What I do is give a 20 or 25 pt buy but buying stats under 10 don't give back points.

Even better solution. heck, you can even have that 7 in Wis if you like... for roleplaying purposes.

Odd how no-one suggests dumping CON for Roleplaying purposes, despite Elric, Doc Holiday, etc. It's always a stat that has no real effect on game play. Hmmm..


1 person marked this as a favorite.

You think Wis has no real effect on gameplay?

Tell me that when your Barbarian is mowing through his own party.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

The one thing Stormwind fails to take into account, is that optimizing necessarily adjusts your ability scores in certain ways. Playing STR-based melee? Well, you are likely pretty dumb and socially awkward. Not that you'll actually play him that way, but that's where your stats are. INT-based caster? Then you're likely weak as a kitten and some combination of foolish and socially unappealing.

Often these things are ignored. Your character will be as erudite, sensible, and well-spoken as you want him to be, in spite of your stats.

Other times they'll be embraced. Big Stupid Fighter and Crazy/Arrogant Wizards are old, old tropes. But, even then, I wouldn't exactly call this excellent roleplaying.

Stormwind fails to acknowledge that optimizing, at best, pigeonholes you in a lot of ways. Yes, you can roleplay that out well. But, not nearly so well as if character were your primary concern.

(No, your original character concept did not have a 7 Wisdom. That was a mechanical choice and you know it!)

It isn't addressed because it isn't required. You can play an effective character without having to maximize your stats in a such a way.

My wife played a 'strength based' fighter with a starting strength of 14 and did fine. I've played intelligence based casters before with an intelligence of 14 to start with, with 14s in my Con, Cha, and Wisdom as well and didn't have a problem.

I'm kind of struggling to see how this refutes my point. A 14 Strength Fighter or a 14 Intelligence Wizard is not optimized. So, this doesn't apply to any discussion about Optimization, Min-Maxing, and the Stormwind Fallacy.

I'm also not saying that dump stats can't be effectively roleplayed or can't be fun. What I am saying is that any dozen optimized <insert class here> are going to look substantially the same. A Big Stupid Fighter is just... meh. And if his stats say he's a BSF, and you just decide not to play it that way, that's still not great roleplaying.

I don't completely disagree with the Stormwind Fallacy. I'm only saying Stormwind just doesn't make any concession for this fact.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Abraham spalding wrote:


Developing system mastery is a good thing -- it can help you enjoy the game in the same way that being good at playing the piano helps you enjoy playing the piano. No one starts a hobby with the idea, "I want to suck at this." As such everyone that develops a hobby tends to attempt to get better at it.

It depends on how you play the game. If you play PFS or you play APs where there is a strict ruleset and everything is supposed to go by the book, then I'm sure you're right.

I've never played in a campaign such as that. If you create a character that is much more powerful than the other PCs due to your extensive knowledge of the system, knowing exactly what things work best with one another, etc. expect that the GM will give the other PCs boosts in order to compensate.

For some players, this would be unacceptable. They would feel that they created a mechanically superior character, and thus they should be rewarded with being the most powerful. But that has never been the point of the game to me.

The point is to tell a collaborative story. If all of the PCs rolled terrible stats and picked sub-optimal character creation options, we can still create a great collaborative story.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:

Yeah, so they still dump, but getting high Prime stats.

What I do is give a 20 or 25 pt buy but buying stats under 10 don't give back points.

I just tried your point buy method with a tiefling witch I'm building. These are the stats I got (after racial mods):

20pts: S10 D14 C14 I19 W10 C8

25pts: S11 D14 C14 I20 W10 C8

Compare that to his actual stats (25 point buy):

S8 D16 C14 I20 W10 C8

Or at 20 point buy:

S8 D14 C14 I20 W10 C6

In any of these, I'm rocking a 19 or 20 Int. Since 20 is the max you can start with, higher point buy won't increase my witch's Int.

Disallowing dumping will hurt the MAD characters more than anyone. The classes that already have an advantage will see a greater relative advantage if you disallow dumping. Anyway, it's really hard to dump more than one stat on most characters, so it shouldn't be a big deal.


DrDeth wrote:

Even better solution. heck, you can even have that 7 in Wis if you like... for roleplaying purposes.

This, this, and more this.

I see the argument all the time that you dumped stats to RP some weakness to a character. Why not take the dump stat without the advantage of more points to pump your primary stats? Usually the people who min/max will make this argument without addressing the mechanical advantage they gained(and more than likely was the intent).

This is what I attempted arguing earlier only to be met by the tirade from people claiming they wanted a flaw to RP.


Khrysaor wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Even better solution. heck, you can even have that 7 in Wis if you like... for roleplaying purposes.

This, this, and more this.

I see the argument all the time that you dumped stats to RP some weakness to a character. Why not take the dump stat without the advantage of more points to pump your primary stats? Usually the people who min/max will make this argument without addressing the mechanical advantage they gained(and more than likely was the intent).

This is what I attempted arguing earlier only to be met by the tirade from people claiming they wanted a flaw to RP.

thing is, most highly multiple attribute dependant characters depend on the extra points gained by dumping. all removing the benefit for dumping does, is make rogues, ninja, cavaliers and monks suck even more and does nothing to penalize the pure casters.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tormsskull, I need to game with you more. You get it. It all boils down, to me, to a single phrase you've repeated, that succinctly collects the entire point (to me) of a role-playing game...

collaborative story.

This is what you are doing when you play any social RPG. don't believe me? Remember it next time one of your long time buddies brings up that one thing he did in that one session that made everyone bust out laughing, or that one encounter that almost TPK'ed your party because one of the players said something stupid in character and you smooth talked your way out with no dice rolls and the GM just went: "damn. that's good. I'll allow it."

A group of players and a GM exist to create memorable stories. there is no tangible reward for min-maxing; there is no leaderboard for highest DPR which awards cash prizes to the best optimizers every year (PFS notwithstanding; I've never participated, for reasons that should now be obvious.) the only thing anyone really gets out of this game, when all is really said and done, are fond memories. I don't know about you, but if the fondest memories I had of a game were nothing more than the totals on the die, I'd feel sad.

I put at least some effort into building a character sufficient to achieve something in game, but there's a lot to be said for building an imperfect character; not just for "roleplaying" purposes, but for the challenge. Anyone can win encounters when they're immune/resistant to the enemy's tactics and deal consistently amazing damage every round. Going that route feels like you've finished 'playing' the game long before the dice are actually rolled. Once you've discovered and proven the "optimal build," what's left to accomplish? It's a one shot deal, until new content is released, and then you end up in the same spot once you re-optimize, assuming it's even necessary with new splatbooks.

What do you do when you don't have max spells per day, or the entire line of weapon focus feats, or a khopesh? THAT's when the game gets interesting to me. It may be awe-inspiring to have a perfect Batman build, but always having the perfect answer prepared for everything can get contrived after a time. A MacGyver character, on the other hand, works with what he's got and responds to the situation. Cheesiness of either character notwithstanding, Batman has usually won before he meets the obstacle, which kind of leads to some weak plot devices; MacGyver sees the obstacle and finds a way to beat it, which can lead to some creative solutions and nail-biting tension in the meantime.

I'm of the mind that you really can have both, but not enough people try. My favorite kind of player is the one that can show me improvisation, natural responses to life-changing events, memorable personalities, struggle and conflict that we both fantasize about AND relate to. All too often, you see examples where the coin lands on optimization or immersion, and you find yourself disappointed.

But suppose you throw a coin enough times...


The Crusader wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
The Crusader wrote:

The one thing Stormwind fails to take into account, is that optimizing necessarily adjusts your ability scores in certain ways. Playing STR-based melee? Well, you are likely pretty dumb and socially awkward. Not that you'll actually play him that way, but that's where your stats are. INT-based caster? Then you're likely weak as a kitten and some combination of foolish and socially unappealing.

Often these things are ignored. Your character will be as erudite, sensible, and well-spoken as you want him to be, in spite of your stats.

Other times they'll be embraced. Big Stupid Fighter and Crazy/Arrogant Wizards are old, old tropes. But, even then, I wouldn't exactly call this excellent roleplaying.

Stormwind fails to acknowledge that optimizing, at best, pigeonholes you in a lot of ways. Yes, you can roleplay that out well. But, not nearly so well as if character were your primary concern.

(No, your original character concept did not have a 7 Wisdom. That was a mechanical choice and you know it!)

It isn't addressed because it isn't required. You can play an effective character without having to maximize your stats in a such a way.

My wife played a 'strength based' fighter with a starting strength of 14 and did fine. I've played intelligence based casters before with an intelligence of 14 to start with, with 14s in my Con, Cha, and Wisdom as well and didn't have a problem.

I'm kind of struggling to see how this refutes my point. A 14 Strength Fighter or a 14 Intelligence Wizard is not optimized. So, this doesn't apply to any discussion about Optimization, Min-Maxing, and the Stormwind Fallacy.

I'm also not saying that dump stats can't be effectively roleplayed or can't be fun. What I am saying is that any dozen optimized <insert class here> are going to look substantially the same. A Big Stupid Fighter is just... meh. And if his stats say he's a BSF, and you just decide not to play it that way, that's still not great...

Alright so how does your own point not refute your initial suggestion of failure?

It can be done, and can be done without impacting on role playing.

As such it doesn't need addressing since it's already covered by your own admission.

But my point would be the converse still works -- you can make sacrifices for character concept and still be an exceptionally effective character.

So adjusting for role playing reasons doesn't prevent you from having an optimized character.

This does of course mean that you must realize that optimization isn't simply a Boolean statement (meaning it isn't one or the other -- either you are optimized or you are not) -- it's a matter of degrees.


Tormsskull wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:


Developing system mastery is a good thing -- it can help you enjoy the game in the same way that being good at playing the piano helps you enjoy playing the piano. No one starts a hobby with the idea, "I want to suck at this." As such everyone that develops a hobby tends to attempt to get better at it.

It depends on how you play the game. If you play PFS or you play APs where there is a strict ruleset and everything is supposed to go by the book, then I'm sure you're right.

I've never played in a campaign such as that. If you create a character that is much more powerful than the other PCs due to your extensive knowledge of the system, knowing exactly what things work best with one another, etc. expect that the GM will give the other PCs boosts in order to compensate.

For some players, this would be unacceptable. They would feel that they created a mechanically superior character, and thus they should be rewarded with being the most powerful. But that has never been the point of the game to me.

The point is to tell a collaborative story. If all of the PCs rolled terrible stats and picked sub-optimal character creation options, we can still create a great collaborative story.

I don't understand how what you stated means developing system mastery is not a good thing.

If that's not what you mean then I don't understand how what you stated means people start hobbies and want to suck at them.

If that isn't what you mean then I don't understand how what you stated means people that have a hobby don't attempt to get better at it over time.

Do you handicap your friends when you are better at something than they are because they just started? Sure. Do you continue to handicap them when they actively and willfully choose to try and play pool with a golf club? No.

Now if you want to play a wacky game (or 'substandard' character) have fun and everyone play along -- nothing wrong with that.

But you can't do that then go up to other people in the same hobby and be upset they are better than you at the actual hobby when they don't play in the same way you do.


Effective =/= Optimized.

Your 14 STR Fighter might be effective. That is not the same as optimized. If you are making a sacrifice for character, then you are placing an emphasis on roleplaying over mechanics.

I'm not arguing one or the other. By and large, I agree with Stormwind. I'm only saying there is an inadequacy in the Stormwind argument.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I agree that Stormwind is not always the case. I don't find that to be an inadequacy.


DrDeth wrote:


Optimizers are pretty darn loud

I would say this is the crux of many issues in this and other threads.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Tormsskull wrote:
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.

probably because ignoring your later comment on not forcing people, the original comment implies that the person offering the suggestion didn't hear what was being said beyond the optimisable parts. Its kind of like how many people who have issues with word problems are encouraged to ignore some of the extraneous parts of the problem- names of people, objects and entire situations in order to answer the problem itself. Few people enjoy seeing another turn the character they have worked on into a math problem-and then quickly proclaim to them that they got the answer wrong. To put it in a relationship context, it'd be like one party wanting a specific cake for their birthday and the other party getting them a pound cake from another store on sale not necessarily because they were cheap, but because the only thing they heard in the birthday cake diatribe was the word "cake".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:


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.

If this was a cooking forum, and I asked for advice on making a veggie and glutton-free lasagna, would you pipe up with how Veggie lasagna is inferior to meat lasagna, and that really if your looking at using glutton free pasta in it, you might as well just not eat lasagna? Or would you do your best to help me make the best glutton-free veggie lasagna in the world?

There is a perfectly good reason why not. It isn't the feed back you were asked for, you have no idea why they are asking for such a thing, and your very likely wasting their time, while re-enforcing the erroneous concept that EVERY character has to be the best, when the truth is that ever character needs to be good enough for the group they will be playing in and the challenges they will be facing.

I know it is a weird concept, but it is entirely possible to have wrongbadfun, while playing characters who don't pack a huge punch.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't think that's a proper analogy at all.

If someone told me they wanted "A birthday cake" and then said maybe grab one from the Publix bakery or something, I would hope they wouldn't get mad at me if I told them I knew a great little bakery down the road that made the best chocolate cake I've ever eaten, and that maybe I could get the cake from there instead.

Optimizing is much the same way.

"I want a TWFing Elf Barbarian".

Okay.

"Half of his Feats are going to be Skill Focus, to represent his life in the wilderness."

I don't think I'm being a poor sport if I tell someone I think that's a bad idea, since TWFing takes a LOT of Feats to be effective.

"Okay, maybe you're right, but I really do want all those Skill Focuses."

My first response would probably be "Okay, are you flexible on the Elf thing? Because there's a Human variant that trades in his Bonus Feat for a bunch of free Skill Focuses."

Or alternately "Are you flexible on the TWFing thing?" and giving suggestions for other, less Feat intensive fighting styles.

If not, fine, but it's a small change in many cases (unless both race and skill bonuses are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the concept) that can make a big difference in effectiveness, melded with a concept that is mostly unchanged (you can even keep a backstory growing up in an Elf society, because Adopted is a thing).

Zombieneighbours wrote:


If this was a cooking forum, and I asked for advice on making a veggie and glutton-free lasagna, would you pipe up with how Veggie lasagna is inferior to meat lasagna, and that really if your looking at using glutton free pasta in it, you might as well just not eat lasagna? Or would you do your best to help me make the best glutton-free veggie lasagna in the world?

Again, poor analogy. Those factors are entirely subjective, character effectiveness isn't, for the most part.

Optimization IS about making the best "gluten free veggie lasagna" (which actually is quite good, I've had it around people who are gluten intolerant). You pick a concept, and you make it the best possible.

However, if you can't quite get it to taste right, telling someone that adding more oregano and thickening their sauce a bit might fix the problem isn't bad advice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I agree that Stormwind is not always the case. I don't find that to be an inadequacy.

The strict fallacy is either true or it is not.

And it is true.

But that means almost nothing ;), because it is a corner case argument, one that basically almost never applies.

Almost no one ever claims after all, that no character that is optimized, can be role-played well.

The wibbly-wobbly bit isn't the stormwind fallacy itself, but rather what most many optimizers use the stormwind fallacy to try to express and that is the idea that optimizations and character concepts/roleplaying do not interact, and that you can't be a weaker role-player because you optimize.

Now that, it a deeply questionable position, as it is entirely possible to make role-playing decision that negatively impact optimizations, and optimization decisions that significantly alter concept.


Rynjin wrote:

I don't think that's a proper analogy at all.

If someone told me they wanted "A birthday cake" and then said maybe grab one from the Publix bakery or something, I would hope they wouldn't get mad at me if I told them I knew a great little bakery down the road that made the best chocolate cake I've ever eaten, and that maybe I could get the cake from there instead.

Optimizing is much the same way.

"I want a TWFing Elf Barbarian".

Okay.

"Half of his Feats are going to be Skill Focus, to represent his life in the wilderness."

I don't think I'm being a poor sport if I tell someone I think that's a bad idea, since TWFing takes a LOT of Feats to be effective.

"Okay, maybe you're right, but I really do want all those Skill Focuses."

My first response would probably be "Okay, are you flexible on the Elf thing? Because there's a Human variant that trades in his Bonus Feat for a bunch of free Skill Focuses."

Or alternately "Are you flexible on the TWFing thing?" and giving suggestions for other, less Feat intensive fighting styles.

If not, fine, but it's a small change in many cases (unless both race and skill bonuses are ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to the concept) that can make a big difference in effectiveness, melded with a concept that is mostly unchanged (you can even keep a backstory growing up in an Elf society, because Adopted is a thing).

Zombieneighbours wrote:


If this was a cooking forum, and I asked for advice on making a veggie and glutton-free lasagna, would you pipe up with how Veggie lasagna is inferior to meat lasagna, and that really if your looking at using glutton free pasta in it, you might as well just not eat lasagna? Or would you do your best to help me make the best glutton-free veggie lasagna in the world?

Again, poor analogy. Those factors are entirely subjective, character effectiveness isn't, for the most part.

Optimization IS about making the best "gluten free veggie lasagna" (which actually is quite good, I've had it around people who are...

Character effectiveness is subjective.

Victory conditions vary.

A godly DPS character may be effective in an encounter dedicated to killing bad guys, but in an encounter where success is dependent upon fighting on a scree slop and not falling on your arse each turn, said DPS god my be straight out of luck.

Encounter difficulty and play style changes by table.

So it is entirely possible that what you consider an effective character, may at another table be a problem character, because it unbalances the encounter setup.

And that is before you start messing with the fact that what he as a player wants to play is a half elf, duel wielding barbarian. At the end of the day; that desire is the thing you should be supporting, because that desire to play a character, that we have envisioned and put time and effort into, whom we think is cool, is what this game is all about.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Almost no one ever claims after all, that no character that is optimized, can be role-played well.

We must read different forums.

Scarab Sages

My only issue with some of the things on this board said, I tend to agree with those sentiments of the optimization does not equal the only way to do things. I have had a lot of fun at Cons, gamedays, and homegays running with non -optimized builds. In fact, I think i have had more fun with them than the optimized ones i have played. Obviously Everyone Else's Milage may vary, But I feel for some of you that think Optimazation is the only way, The Halfing group we played with one time would have drove you nuts, though last time i checked they never even came close to failing on any Modules,or adventures they went on. Same thing with our Half orc fighter hitsquad ( i admit they were a little optimized, but a true optimizer would have been so mad at me for the 14 str and 14 int instead of a more power build back in 3rd ed) But someone had to be the smart negotiating fighter. but thats my take on it. I truly believe it all depends on the campaign type really, cause each style (or the variations of) have their times and places


TOZ wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
Almost no one ever claims after all, that no character that is optimized, can be role-played well.
We must read different forums.

Find me 5 examples from here at Paizo.com, that fit within the stormwind fallacy as strictly stated.

I am certain you will find comment (even from me), that state that Optimization can impede on roleplay, and vis versa.

I will be very surprised if you can find that many, who say that they are always incompatible.

If you satisfy me, I'll go so far as to buy you a pathfinder players companion pdf of your choice for christmas.

Edit: to qualify, they must originate from before this post was made, to avoid trolling ;)


Zombieneighbours wrote:

Character effectiveness is subjective.

Victory conditions vary.

A godly DPS character may be effective in an encounter dedicated to killing bad guys, but in an encounter where success is dependent upon fighting on a scree slop and not falling on your arse each turn, said DPS god my be straight out of luck.

However, that godly DPS character will be more effective ON AVERAGE than the character dedicated solely to keeping his footing in sliding scree, because combat comes up a hell of a lot more often (as does Diplomacy, trap disabling, and a number of other things that are also optimal to build around).

But, again, you can build an optimal scree balancer (because optimization is really about being the best X you can be, from damage dealing to Basket Weaving), but doing it as a 7 Dex character who takes a racial penalty on Acrobatics checks is not a good way to go about that either.

Zombieneighbours wrote:
And that is before you start messing with the fact that what he as a player wants to play is a half elf, dual wielding barbarian. At the end of the day; that desire is the thing you should be supporting, because that desire to play a character, that we have envisioned and put time and effort into, whom we think is cool, is what this game is all about.

It all depends on how attached someone is to that very specific concept, with NO possible variations. I find it's rare to find someone who wants a very specific thing and won't make any concessions to make it better all around.

Funnily enough, that's the same feeling I get from all of these "I banned something but my player refuses to back down" threads...where everyone seems PRO telling the player to change up his concept to fit better.

Odd.


I guess what I'm trying to get across a bit is that while I may not tell someone they need to change something or suck, I will tell them when they've made a non-optimal choice...which they can then choose to correct, or not.

Just be aware of it, I guess, is my point? It's always better to know how to make an optimal guy, and choose not to, than not know how at all.

I mean, I do it too (I have a guy who I sank 3 Feats into getting a pair of wings, even though it sets me back quite a few levels on Feats I need just because I thought it'd be cool), but I at least know I'm doing it, and I don't see anything wrong with NOT doing it.


Rynjin wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:

Character effectiveness is subjective.

Victory conditions vary.

A godly DPS character may be effective in an encounter dedicated to killing bad guys, but in an encounter where success is dependent upon fighting on a scree slop and not falling on your arse each turn, said DPS god my be straight out of luck.

However, that godly DPS character will be more effective ON AVERAGE than the character dedicated solely to keeping his footing in sliding scree, because combat comes up a hell of a lot more often (as does Diplomacy, trap disabling, and a number of other things that are also optimal to build around).

Sorry, but that is dependent upon the average encounter where :

- winning is doing the maximum damage possible
- in an internal room smaller than 60' across
- fought on only one level, with nothing underfoot
- against enemies that stand and fight, and cant fly, or move through wall, or do anything else interesting with movement
- and be in every other way, generic.

Or as we occasionally call it, Boring encounter design.

In a session where victory is defined differently in every encounter, from stopping assassins getting to an ally, through to translating a message during an unwinable horde combat, such a DPS god, is not necessarily anywhere near as godly as a reasonable generalist.


Rynjin wrote:
Zombieneighbours wrote:
And that is before you start messing with the fact that what he as a player wants to play is a half elf, dual wielding barbarian. At the end of the day; that desire is the thing you should be supporting, because that desire to play a character, that we have envisioned and put time and effort into, whom we think is cool, is what this game is all about.

It all depends on how attached someone is to that very specific concept, with NO possible variations. I find it's rare to find someone who wants a very specific thing and won't make any concessions to make it better all around.

Funnily enough, that's the same feeling I get from all of these "I banned something but my player refuses to back down" threads...where everyone seems PRO telling the player to change up his concept to fit better.

Odd.

There are good reasons to tell a player to change their character. One of the best is "It does not fit with the game the player has agreed to play in."

it is okay, because they have signed up to a social contract, which they are now in breach off, and because their fun does not trump the groups fun.


Rynjin wrote:

You think Wis has no real effect on gameplay?

Tell me that when your Barbarian is mowing through his own party.

I have made that exact same point, but Optimizers insist that Bbns with Superstition, etc and Paladins with their class abilities don't need Wis to make their Wills saves. And of course, as one pointed out "Well, if Dominated, then cool, I still get to roll dice and kill things".


Vivianne Laflamme wrote:
DrDeth wrote:

Yeah, so they still dump, but getting high Prime stats.

What I do is give a 20 or 25 pt buy but buying stats under 10 don't give back points.

I just tried your point buy method with a tiefling witch I'm building. These are the stats I got (after racial mods):

20pts: S10 D14 C14 I19 W10 C8

Or at 20 point buy:

S8 D14 C14 I20 W10 C6

In any of these, I'm rocking a 19 or 20 Int. Since 20 is the max you can start with, higher point buy won't increase my witch's Int.

Disallowing dumping will hurt the MAD characters more than anyone. The classes that already have an advantage will see a greater relative advantage if you disallow dumping. Anyway, it's really hard to dump more than one stat on most characters, so it shouldn't be a big deal.

Note Int 19 vs Int 20. So yes, the higher point buy does increase the Witches Int with 20 pts.

No, since as you pointed out, you can't buy more than a 18. And I have seen Fighters with three dumped stats, Paladins with two, wizards with two, etc.

In fact with your builds YOU dump two stats.


DrDeth wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

You think Wis has no real effect on gameplay?

Tell me that when your Barbarian is mowing through his own party.

I have made that exact same point, but Optimizers insist that Bbns with Superstition, etc and Paladins with their class abilities don't need Wis to make their Wills saves. And of course, as one pointed out "Well, if Dominated, then cool, I still get to roll dice and kill things".

Barbarians with Superstition and Paladins are semi-exceptions. They do just as well as their brethren who pump the opposite stat, but generally if a Pally is going to dump one ability score, he dumps Wis, because he can crank Cha through the roof and power a bunch of his other stuff in addition to his saves.

A Barbarian with Superstition and dumped Wis is about on par with a Barbarian without Superstition and okay Wis, which is fine I guess, but still not good.

My Barbarian has a 12 Wis just to be safe (well, a 14 but he's an Orc), but I feel like he could do okay with at most a 10 and I could afford to have not such a god awful Cha (though playing with a 5 is pretty darn fun, I must say) or at least a 12 Int so I end up with a 10 (have a bought 10 which ends up at 8 currently...make up for it by being hilariously well spoken through a buncha Linguistics ranks for shiggles) instead.

And I'll be honest with ya...I'd actually be kinda interested in seeing how I fare against my party. I've been Dominated twice so far (because I keep rolling 1s on the damn saves every time I get a Dominate tossed at me) but have just been told to sit out the fight because the caster never wants me to get a chance to re-save if he orders me to murder my friends.

151 to 200 of 656 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / I hate optimization All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.