In my experience, good roleplayers and bad ones tend to be good or bad regardless of what the numbers on their character sheets are.Yes, and average roleplayers, which includes most people, are often greatly affected by them.
[citation needed]
Stormwind called, he wants his fallacy back.Try reading for content next time rather than posting tired one-liners. I never said that optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive; they clearly are not. What I said is that a bit of de-optimization can be a good thing for roleplaying - can spur players to try concepts they otherwise wouldn't have played.
I think one problem in this conversation is that younger players are often accustomed to building statistically optimal characters, and then completely ignoring those statistics and just playing the PCs however they want. People coming from this paradigm probably don't see any real connection between PC stats and roleplaying, whereas it was just the opposite in OD&D, where the dice were tyrants, and the little numbers they popped out for stats left a deep imprint on character identity before the player had any input, at all.
I am not suggesting anyone go back to the bad old days of straight 3d6, drive on soldier...but I do think there was something good in that style of play which has been lost in the era of "as you wish"-style gaming.
I can literally build 20 Warriors with the exact same ability scores and still turn them into completely different characters.
There are so many choices that go into the process of character creation and development (race, feats, class, traits, spell selection, skill points, alignment, PERSONALITY, etc), that in the end, attributes matter very little to whether or not a character feels "samey". They are a drop in a bucket.
And that drop doesn't matter any bit more just because it was a random roll of dice that decided its shape.
In fact... A problem I see with many players is an over-attachment of numbers and fluff text to character personality. They think they can't be deft and clever unless they are playing a Rogue, they can't be dumb and strong unless they're playing a Fighter, they can't be frail and brilliant unless they are playing a Wizard and so on...
This problem is a particularly common among veteran players who have been playing since 1e, as they tend to see the old rules with thick nostalgia glasses.
Stormwind called, he wants his fallacy back.Try reading for content next time rather than posting tired one-liners. I never said that optimization and roleplaying are mutually exclusive; they clearly are not. What I said is that a bit of de-optimization can be a good thing for roleplaying - can spur players to try concepts they otherwise wouldn't have played.
I think one problem in this conversation is that younger players are often accustomed to building statistically optimal characters, and then completely ignoring those statistics and just playing the PCs however they want. People coming from this paradigm probably don't see any real connection between PC stats and roleplaying, whereas it was just the opposite in OD&D, where the dice were tyrants, and the little numbers they popped out for stats left a deep imprint on character identity before the player had any input, at all.
I am not suggesting anyone go back to the bad old days of straight 3d6, drive on soldier...but I do think there was something good in that style of play which has been lost in the era of "as you wish"-style gaming.
You may not have said it, but you definitely implied it. Since 'it' refers to optimization.
If you mean that it won't stop people from being crappy roleplayers...
What you are saying in this post is radically different than what you have been saying in this thread.
[citation needed]In my experience, good roleplayers and bad ones tend to be good or bad regardless of what the numbers on their character sheets are.Yes, and average roleplayers, which includes most people, are often greatly affected by them.
Seconded. Average roleplayers aren't going to magically gain/lose roleplaying ability because their character has a +1 to charisma instead of a -1. What makes average roleplayers develop their skills is gaining roleplaying experience, not changing some random numbers on a page.
Honestly, most of the time I see someone define their characters by their stats, it's resulted in either bad roleplaying (My guy has low Wis, so I'll play him as an annoying idiot who causes problems for the party) or players mistaking being "quirky" for good roleplaying (Low Charisma? I'll give him a weird voice that definitely won't get annoying for everyone around the table).
For every modern Buffy and Vampire Diary and Anita Blake bodice-ripper treatment of seductive vampires and primally buff werewolves, there's ancient tales of just how deadly and horrible such creatures are, predators hiding behind human facades to prey on those closest to them.And...? It isn't any less valid because it wasn't created in olden times... Specially not in a game that includes shotguns, chainsaws, androids, etc. None of those are present in ancient mythology.
And some people just don't like the idea of 'nice' vampires and werewolves. Seriously, truly don't. To find them the object of romance novels is, like, complete betrayal of the trope.So what? Just don't add them to your game. There is literally nothing to gain from making it so those who like it will never have official support for their games.
And that's not the point anyway, just one specific example.
I could just as well have said "All Sorcerers are descendant from genies". The point stands.
And my response is "If you want them, add them to YOUR game. Just keep them out of the default."
As for bloodlines, I never bought in Dragons Only anyways. Historically, bloodlines in humans were always DIVINE things, you were descended from spirits or gods or something. 'Dragons' is just a filler. Nephalem go back 4000 years. So, 'Dragons-only' was BUCKING tradition, and so I never bought into it, anyways, and it never got a pervasive following.
==Aelryinth
And my response is "If you want them, add them to YOUR game. Just keep them out of the default."
The problem with that is that only one group receives official support. If you allow those things in the core rules, anyone can remove whatever they want without taking away official support from the other group, who will never see published material that fits their taste simply because someone else dislikes it.
That's the difference between the official rules adding or removing an arbitrary flavor option: adding one doesn't hurt anyone, but removing it hurts those who would like to see material for it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know, I thought vampires and werewolves have always been a subtle euphemism for sex?
Neck biting is pretty intimate, plus the focus of blood, then there are werewolves and the whole "once-a-full-moon" aggression and whatever else have
...
NO.
The original stories of vampires is that vampires are bloodsucking corpses returned from beyond the grave, like super ghouls. You actually had to go to the graveyard, dig up their coffins, stake them, cut off their head, burn them and scatter the ashes, they were that hard to kill. Or they came back for you, starting with friends, family and neighbors, and made you into one of them!
And people were convinced they existed when they opened up some coffins and the corpses had hair and nails grown out, etc.
Werewolves were evil beasts that preyed on human victims, 'hiding' in their human forms, often as beautiful women, to try and deflect attention and blame. It was about deceit and slaughter and untrustworthiness of creatures motivated by predatory urges, NOT buff sex with half-animals. They weren't 'humans with animal powers', they were murderous beasts that could still look like humans.
"Dracula" did start a wave of changing all that by adding domination of the opposite sex to the mix, and taking away the ugliness. 'Eternal life', forbidden pleasures, sex forever, etc and so forth. But in the end Dracula is a domineering leech who wants to be your slavemaster forever, he just hides it behind good manners and nice background scenery.
The original reason vampires didn't reflect in mirrors? They had no souls, giving them up for their unlife. They were a blasphemy against the living, the dead, and God.
Nope, just not into 'hot sex vamps and werewolves.'
==Aelryinth
And my response is "If you want them, add them to YOUR game. Just keep them out of the default."The problem with that is that only one group receives official support. If you allow those things in the core rules, anyone can remove whatever they want without taking away official support from the other group, who will never see published material that fits their taste simply because someone else dislikes it.
That's the difference between the official rules adding or removing an arbitrary flavor option: adding one doesn't hurt anyone, but removing it hurts those who would like to see material for it.
Which is pretty much why you have 3p publishers, and alternate rules and worlds.
Different rules for different peoples. Without restrictions, you have flavorless stuff that is so generic, why bother to follow it at all?
It's not like the idea that 'not all undead are evil' is even UNIQUE or SPECIAL anymore. It's just another set of rules, and in truth it removes one of the very unique and powerful subsets of restraints on being undead...you want to be undead, you're going to be an evil bastard, and there's no getting around it, tyvm. As a matter of fact, the rule is so absolute, it can corrupt demi-gods!
That's how powerful a rule it is.
Or, you know, you can just play World of Warcraft, where being undead is no different then being alive, except you molder the plants and wear a different style of clothing. It's just a kitzy shell at that point.
==Aelryinth
Which is pretty much why you have 3p publishers, and alternate rules and worlds.
Different rules for different peoples. Without restrictions, you have flavorless stuff that is so generic, why bother to follow it at all?
==Aelryinth
Again... Why should 3pp be necessary just so players with a taste different from yours can have official support as well? That's pretty selfish, considering it takes literally NOTHING away from you. You don't need to add "X is ALWAYS/NEVER like this" to have flavor.
And those restrictions make much more sense on a setting-by-setting basis than as part of the rules. Hell! I'm even in favor of the first-party publisher even has a setting to do whatever restrictions they want! But, IMO, the game would be much better and attract more players if the core rules avoided arbitrary flavor restrictions.
and we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
Game restrictions add far more flavor then they take away. No restrictions is generic blandness, like playing WoW, where there's no such restrictions on being a walking corpse.
Meh. It's easy enough to house rule away that it won't disrupt much, but it adds such vital flavor that keeping it really helps define how 'this setting is THIS WAY.'
Because that's what 'absolute' bounds do...they set limits. Limits add flavor. Calling them 'arbitrary' is just adding an element of hostile judgementalness to them that is in itself just another opinion.
==Aelryinth
"arbitrary" is an accurate descriptions, though. I don't think those restrictions are necessary to make the game more flavorful.
But, whatever... Agree to disagree.
Arbitrary is accurate from 'your' end, because it doesn't agree with 'your' opinion of what the rules should be.
From the other end, it's a flavor statement. 'This will be the flavor of our world.'
So, just realize it's a hostile, judgmental word you're heaping on it, because they aren't doing what you want them to do. It is neither unreasonable nor imposed randomly. It's what they want their world to BE.
==Aelryinth
Are the core rules of the game not supposed to be setting agnostic?
Are the core rules of the game not supposed to be setting agnostic?
I thought so, I mean otherwise RPG-Line and Campaign-Line would be the same. Though, now it's rather screwed up with occult adventures giving eight pages of golarion fluff.
Arbitrary is accurate from 'your' end, because it doesn't agree with 'your' opinion of what the rules should be.
Nope it's accurate because there is literally no reason for it to be so other than someone's taste.
I'm not saying it's bad (well, I do think the restrictions are bad, but in this case, not because they are arbitrary), only that they are arbitrary.
But, whatever, Ael... This discussion will take nowhere.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's arbitary since it isn't a balance or mechanically influenced decision, but a setting specific decision that's been decided to be a rule despite being in setting agnostic books.
Are the core rules of the game not supposed to be setting agnostic?
I think they are intended to be mostly setting agnostic. I didn't get the impression that's a set-in-stone kind of thing, though. (Certainly the deities are an obvious instance of bleed between the two).
As far as skills go and over reliance on Intelligence to get skill points, what if classes worked like the expert in terms of picking their class skills? With combat focused classes being able to pick 4 or 6 class skills, and more skill focused ones upwards to 10?
From there, rather than a +3 bonus, class skills automatically gain a skill point on level up, and you can use the number of skill points per level you gain as the class (So 2 for Fighters and wizards, 6 for rangers, etc) to put into non-class skills?
This would do away completely with adding your Int mod to the number of skill points you gain.
[citation needed]In my experience, good roleplayers and bad ones tend to be good or bad regardless of what the numbers on their character sheets are.Yes, and average roleplayers, which includes most people, are often greatly affected by them.
It's interesting that you think I have the burden of proof here...as though his statement is somehow less a matter of opinion than mine.
I'm a little shocked at how personally offended some of you seem to be about the suggestion that complete optimization can have drawbacks for roleplaying. I know many optimizers who are also excellent roleplayers (optimization correlates with system mastery, not with roleplaying, imo), and I actually like my players to optimize within the bounds of the rules because that is what intelligent and driven characters would generally do. I'm not trying to push some "optimizers are teh sux" grognard agenda. Hell, I optimize, myself...as much as the rules will let me.
My assertion is not that optimizer = bad roleplayer, but that a system of rules in which the players have too much agency in defining their characters (and I add Ye Olde Magyk Item Emporium to the list of offenders here) often leads to a loss in player character diversity (everybody's gotta have the big 6!) rather than a gain.
Having to make due with the cards you're dealt is part of life, and I find that PCs who must deal with this to a certain extent feel more authentic, and are ultimately more satisfying.
*Pokes head out of gopher hole*
I do think Secret Fire is right about this much—when someone is unwilling to take, say, an archetype (Titan Fighter, for instance, but I'm sure you can think of other examples)* because it's a "trap", it's a sign that optimization is getting too extreme. Optimization should be used to encourage build diversity, not quash it.
*Archetypes, feats, weapons, actual classes...Weirdly, races seem to mostly avoid this condemnation. Maybe because they're seen as the "platform"?
I don't know, I thought vampires and werewolves have always been a subtle euphemism for sex?
Neck biting is pretty intimate, plus the focus of blood, then there are werewolves and the whole "once-a-full-moon" aggression and whatever else have
...NO.
The original stories of vampires is that vampires are bloodsucking corpses returned from beyond the grave, like super ghouls. You actually had to go to the graveyard, dig up their coffins, stake them, cut off their head, burn them and scatter the ashes, they were that hard to kill. Or they came back for you, starting with friends, family and neighbors, and made you into one of them!
And people were convinced they existed when they opened up some coffins and the corpses had hair and nails grown out, etc.
I thought it was because some people were buried alive because medicine was kind of terrible back then, and people realized after opening those coffins up that the "corpse" had been trying to claw its way out?
You can optimize a Titan Fighter because you can optimize anything. You're just making the most of what you have.
But if you're trying to optimize a Fighter, Titan Fighter is not a good idea.
If I'm not mistaken, all Titan Fighter allows you to do that a normal fighter can't do is use an oversized weapon? It also removes the other two defining Fighter Class features.
Armor training becomes essentially: You can wield a 2 handed big weapon better
Weapon training becomes you can do combat maneuvers better.
Since they errata'd Titan Mauler Barbarian to actually use Large weapons, wouldn't it actually assist someone's realization of their character concept to use the Titan Mauler Barbarian? I mean you'd do everything the Titan Fighter can do, except you'd have 2 more skill points and a bit more HP.
Oh, they errata'd that? Awesome! Nobody told me! ;D
And yes, if the optimizer is willing to take a "nerf" from the get-go by taking a weak archetype, class, feat, spell selection or weapon, you're fine. But there are also optimizers who absolutely will not do that. Too much optimization is not a good thing. I'm sure you guys agree, though, so I may be wasting our time.
So why dont you try and play a CROSSBOW FIGHTER...
There are trap options...
And they are bad (old prone shooter before fix)
EDIT: bolt ace is good. I like it lol
"Non-halfling sling fighter" is an example of a rather trappy concept. "Animal companion class with a non-saurian/feline animal companion" is another.
I've always wanted to play a human druid pack lord who wields a "shepherd's bow" (that is a sling) and keeps a flock of attack rams.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Waterballoons, you say?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You wound me, sir.
The thing is, it's not just that concept that's bad. Every individual component in it is terrible. The sling is terrible. The pack lord is terrible. The rams are holy hell how did you even get in here.
I've also wanted to play a halfling pack lord with a bunch of big angry mastiffs. I'm somewhat more hopeful about that. Wonderfully enough, double shields can actually get pretty bonkers good. And aside from alignment discrepancies, barbarian + paladin is a fairly linear combination. And technically, a Titan Mauler/swashbuckler can actually make a Dex-based chainsaw build work relatively okay! So things are looking up.
But I like my Wolfy animal companion.....
Optimization is extreme degree is lot of times more hazardous than just playing a "normal" character.
Lot of GMs are bad encounter designers, but still feel obligated to keep fights challenging. And there is always real danger that he overblows it and characters start dropping and OH surely it was his fault.
Cue pissed players because the GM was obviously out to get them, while in truth both parties were doing that. Monsters WANT to kill heroes. Heroes WANT to kill monsters.
I'm going to paraphrase something I heard on the forums recently
"The game doesn't get easier just because you picked a trap option."
So why dont you try and play a CROSSBOW FIGHTER...
There are trap options...
And they are bad (old prone shooter before fix)
Obviously dominant options are also a problem. I mean...in a straight RAW setting with no limitations, what percentage of PCs start life with the Reactionary trait? 50%? More?
Optimization is mainly a problem of collective insanity - of the group being dumber than any individual. It's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: players assume that others will optimize, and so do it themselves as a means of keeping up. I've said that playing optimized characters who can do the same basic things over and over is boring and trite, and I think that's true, but playing characters who can't do anything useful is even worse. Optimization is basically a rational approach to the game.
But therein lies the rub...because real people aren't "built" rationally - not completely, at least. There is a certain amount of randomness that goes into life which the game models poorly when we are allowed to make rational decisions about every single damn aspect of our characters. Basic structural imbalances in the game push rational players towards dominant strategies...and cookie-cutterism is what emerges.
The real problem here is not with players who optimize (in my experience, nearly all do once they understand the system), but in game design which is at the same time grossly imbalanced and overly customizeable.
I'm going to paraphrase something I heard on the forums recently
"The game doesn't get easier just because you picked a trap option."
Perhaps the paraphrasing robbed this of some meaning—what's your point?
I'd remove most the attribute reliance. No INT to increase skill points per level, no attributes tied to skills, saves not tied to attributes, spells not dependent on attribute to cast (and no bonus spells)... Class abilities and feats are bad enough without causing fighters to be MAD.
So you'd effectively remove ability scores from the game... -.-
Reducing their significance would hardly be a disaster. There's nothing sacred about the 3e/PF/4e/5e version, and it delivers much larger bonuses than earlier versions of D&D managed with. There's no reason to think that reducing their significance would harm the game.
It probably would be a disaster if PF had those changes, 4e got a ridiculously bad reptuation because of how much it defied the core of D&D. Another game would be fine to do it, but PF not so much.
Either way, removing ability bonuses to skills or saves doesn't make any sense at all. And doing those changes isn't just reducing the significance, it's removing all mental ability scores from the game.
So why dont you try and play a CROSSBOW FIGHTER...
There are trap options...
And they are bad (old prone shooter before fix)
Obviously dominant options are also a problem. I mean...in a straight RAW setting with no limitations, what percentage of PCs start life with the Reactionary trait? 50%? More?
Optimization is mainly a problem of collective insanity - of the group being dumber than any individual. It's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: players assume that others will optimize, and so do it themselves as a means of keeping up. I've said that playing optimized characters who can do the same basic things over and over is boring and trite, and I think that's true, but playing characters who can't do anything useful is even worse. Optimization is basically a rational approach to the game.
But therein lies the rub...because real people aren't "built" rationally - not completely, at least. There is a certain amount of randomness that goes into life which the game models poorly when we are allowed to make rational decisions about every single damn aspect of our characters. Basic structural imbalances in the game push rational players towards dominant strategies...and cookie-cutterism is what emerges.
The real problem here is not with players who optimize (in my experience, nearly all do once they understand the system), but in game design which is at the same time grossly imbalanced and overly customizeable.
Nicely put.
I find that you can 'optimize' with 25-50% of the build and still have room for 'fluff' choices (in my group at least).
I have played in groups that dedicate 100% of the build to being scary, and that has resulted in some very focused face-smashers with no social skills...
But however you play, if it's fun, you are doing it right.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a few ways you can go with attributes, but what we currently have is sort of a "worst of both worlds" scenario.
(1) Attributes are very meaningful - they have a direct impact on your effectiveness - but are determined independent of class selection. This works if and only if all attributes are more or less equally valuable. For example, some fighters are strong-willed (and can use that to ignore conditions, etc.), some are easily dominated; others use their Intelligence to come up with brilliant tactical plans that meaningfully impact play, while still others are morons; etc. In short, if you treat the mental stats as part of the same roll/buy system as the physical ones, then make them equally valuable.
(2) Attributes are meaningful, but unequal: As is currently the case, you have a bizarro world in which some attributes mean something, and others mean absolutely nothing, and it's not even the same ones for different people, but we pretend like they're all equal for everyone. This is a steaming pile of inconsistency-riddled mess.
(3) Attributes are meaningful, and are dependent on class. Kind of like how Paizo made Concentration a simple function of class level, rather than a skill: fighters would all get 16-18 Str, Dex, and Con, for example, but would roll for the mental stats, which would still all be very important. This means that all fighters are physically capable, but some are strong-willed, etc.
(4) Attributes are meaningless. This is how Lemmy treats Charisma for fighters (7 = 18, functionally), because that's how the game currently treats it. But I'd suggest that, if you want to go that route, just get rid of attributes entirely. If all wizards need 18 Int for spells and save DCs, don't even record that; just set the class baselines accordingly. If all fighters need high Str, just bake those bonuses into the class. If stats don't matter, don't present them in the rules as if they're meaningful. That's just seems fundamentally dishonest to me.
I thought it was because some people were buried alive because medicine was kind of terrible back then, and people realized after opening those coffins up that the "corpse" had been trying to claw its way out?I don't know, I thought vampires and werewolves have always been a subtle euphemism for sex?
Neck biting is pretty intimate, plus the focus of blood, then there are werewolves and the whole "once-a-full-moon" aggression and whatever else have
...NO.
The original stories of vampires is that vampires are bloodsucking corpses returned from beyond the grave, like super ghouls. You actually had to go to the graveyard, dig up their coffins, stake them, cut off their head, burn them and scatter the ashes, they were that hard to kill. Or they came back for you, starting with friends, family and neighbors, and made you into one of them!
And people were convinced they existed when they opened up some coffins and the corpses had hair and nails grown out, etc.
That probably happened sometimes, too, because of drunken binges. Hence, the custom of the 'wake'...so someone could actually wake up from a stupefying coma before they buried him.
But the whole 'clawing' thing was mostly because after you die your nails and hair keep growing out, looking like you were buried alive.
==Aelryinth
So why dont you try and play a CROSSBOW FIGHTER...
There are trap options...
And they are bad (old prone shooter before fix)
Obviously dominant options are also a problem. I mean...in a straight RAW setting with no limitations, what percentage of PCs start life with the Reactionary trait? 50%? More?
Optimization is mainly a problem of collective insanity - of the group being dumber than any individual. It's a bit like the Prisoners' Dilemma: players assume that others will optimize, and so do it themselves as a means of keeping up. I've said that playing optimized characters who can do the same basic things over and over is boring and trite, and I think that's true, but playing characters who can't do anything useful is even worse. Optimization is basically a rational approach to the game.
But therein lies the rub...because real people aren't "built" rationally - not completely, at least. There is a certain amount of randomness that goes into life which the game models poorly when we are allowed to make rational decisions about every single damn aspect of our characters. Basic structural imbalances in the game push rational players towards dominant strategies...and cookie-cutterism is what emerges.
The real problem here is not with players who optimize (in my experience, nearly all do once they understand the system), but in game design which is at the same time grossly imbalanced and overly customizeable.
Nicely put.
I find that you can 'optimize' with 25-50% of the build and still have room for 'fluff' choices (in my group at least).
I have played in groups that dedicate 100% of the build to being scary, and that has resulted in some very focused face-smashers with no social skills...
But however you play, if it's fun, you are doing it right.
Just bake in some options that you choose later in play, so if you do need social skills, you can drop them in later.
Optimization tends to start at very low levels and finish in the mediums, with 1-2 higher level things that need to be taken. Then you sit back and coast on magic items.
==Aelryinth
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was because some people were buried alive because medicine was kind of terrible back then, and people realized after opening those coffins up that the "corpse" had been trying to claw its way out?I don't know, I thought vampires and werewolves have always been a subtle euphemism for sex?
Neck biting is pretty intimate, plus the focus of blood, then there are werewolves and the whole "once-a-full-moon" aggression and whatever else have
...NO.
The original stories of vampires is that vampires are bloodsucking corpses returned from beyond the grave, like super ghouls. You actually had to go to the graveyard, dig up their coffins, stake them, cut off their head, burn them and scatter the ashes, they were that hard to kill. Or they came back for you, starting with friends, family and neighbors, and made you into one of them!
And people were convinced they existed when they opened up some coffins and the corpses had hair and nails grown out, etc.
That probably happened sometimes, too, because of drunken binges. Hence, the custom of the 'wake'...so someone could actually wake up from a stupefying coma before they buried him.
But the whole 'clawing' thing was mostly because after you die your nails and hair keep growing out, looking like you were buried alive.
==Aelryinth
Eh, not true except in a most technical sense... They cells don't continue to divide, the skin dries and pulls back, making them look longer...
Lol, "Core D&D" is more like what I said than 3.5 is.
EDIT
AD&D was a lot less attribute dependent, and having a low ability score didn't ruin your character for the most part. 3e brought in a lot of baggage that people are now considering much more important than it is.
The other alternative is to have items with ability score dependance to depend on multiple ability scores or have a different ability score it could use. Like 5e giving ranged and melee attacks to both STR and DEX, or how BRP skills use two stats for the base value.
It was?
The AD&D I remember was pretty attribute intensive.
Didn't roll at least an 11 for Con? Can't be a dwarf then. You needed 10 for Halfling, 8 for gnome.
Want to be a Pally? Well better pony up a 17 cha, 12 str, 9 con, 13 wisdom. Druids and Bards both needed 15 cha. Rangers need 14 con and 14 wis.
then you needed to make sure you had the prime requisites for your class if you wanted that 10% bonus exp.
Wizards got pretty crazy too with needing 15 Wis, Con, Cha or Dex depending on which school you wanted to go into.
Then there was kits. Like if you wanted to be a swashbuckler thief, you needed 13 in str, dex, int and cha.
Don't forget you really didn't have skills either, Sometimes you had non weapon proficiencies, sometimes you just rolled an attribute. It was highly dependent on the GM there. But at least from the games I played, you had to roll under your stat. So if you had a 10 in something, you only had a 50% of succeeding.
The real problem here is not with players who optimize (in my experience, nearly all do once they understand the system), but in game design which is at the same time grossly imbalanced and overly customizeable.
Have to agree with that. Part of the problem with optimization is that an optimized build character can just be so much better than one built by someone with no idea what they're doing. It's far too easy to make a character who just cannot keep up.
It reminds me of how a lot of MMORPGs have a massive gap between the players with all endgame/special event gear who are pumped up to max power versus the new-ish players who have to make do with the stuff that can be gotten through normal gameplay.