Should optimization override fun?


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

It's weird that people can be bigoted without being aware of it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
It's weird that people can be bigoted without being aware of it.

Not at all, at least to me. I have studied a lot of psychology and find that it really makes a lot of sense. After all, no one likes to feel like the bad guy.


Nohwear wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
It's weird that people can be bigoted without being aware of it.
Not at all, at least to me. I have studied a lot of psychology and find that it really makes a lot of sense. After all, no one likes to feel like the bad guy.

Your probably right. Just makes me sad.


Trogdar wrote:
It's weird that people can be bigoted without being aware of it.

There's probably a generational difference as well. I run into the "everything is acceptable, the most important thing is that everyone is happy" mindset more with the younger crowd.


Tormsskull wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
It's weird that people can be bigoted without being aware of it.
There's probably a generational difference as well. I run into the "everything is acceptable, the most important thing is that everyone is happy" mindset more with the younger crowd.

It is true that there was a large period of history, at here in the States, where the overall societal mindset was to not make a scene and beware of your neighbors.


Younger generations do tend to divest themselves of the bad ideas of their parents.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...

actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.

Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a@&~!+@s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.

The commonality in all these relationships isn't that they optimize or build computers. It's that they're interacting with you

Coming online to claim that people who build computers are asses is not, after all, something people who are not themselves asses normally do.

I didn't claim that initially. The person I responded to did.

I made no claim. I said "One guy I know is an a#*&*$$ and also builds computers". And asked you what conclusion you would draw from that.

You responded with "well I think all people who build computers are a##!&@$s".

I may have led you to water, but I didn't make you drink from the well of hasty generalizations.


Sundakan wrote:
You responded with "well I think all people who build computers are a%$@+~+s".

If he said all people, then he is clearly wrong. I'm kind of surprised he would say all.

Generally there is nuance when people make these statements, and then other people miss the nuance and interpret them as blanket statements.

But if he said all, he's clearly wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "nuance" is more of an "exact words" thing.

Saying "Every one I've MET is an a%&#&!!, and a*~~~%%s and people who do this share common personality traits" may be SLIGHTLY better, but not by much.

The Exchange

Trogdar wrote:
Younger generations do tend to divest themselves of the bad ideas of their parents.

Problem is, they tend to divest themselves of the good ideas of their parents as well.


WormysQueue wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
Younger generations do tend to divest themselves of the bad ideas of their parents.
Problem is, they tend to divest themselves of the good ideas of their parents as well.

Sure, but it's not that surprising given the mountains of bad ones you have to sift through. I still argue with my mom about her bigoted views on Islam, but I can't be more right than the propaganda, sorry, news.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Damnit, I knew the old attempts at defining what "optimizer" means would be forgotten!

Edit: Not only is this a loaded question like OP said, it's also in the wrong forum by my reckoning. This looks more like Gamer Talk, or General Discussion.

The Exchange

Trogdar wrote:
Sure, but it's not that surprising given the mountains of bad ones you have to sift through. I still argue with my mom about her bigoted views on Islam, but I can't be more right than the propaganda, sorry, news.

Well, I won't derail this thread too much, but living in germany, there's a lot of bigoted views on Islam on both sides of the fence, and what you call propaganda has much to do with on which side of the fence you personally stand. The term "Lügenpresse" flies around a lot nowadays to state that the media is lying all the time. Ironically, most of the time it's exactly those people using this term that are lying.

Kinda like with this discussion (not the lying part, but the part with bigoted views; though personally I think it's less bigoted but more one-sided; when you've made up your mind about something it is quite difficult to correct your stance, especially if emotions are involved).

Apasrt from that, when I was younger, I also liked to think of myself as knowing everything better than my parents (and adults in general). In the meantime, I'm a parent myself and have learned over time that I often was wrong. A lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can see that in youth, but I don't think that period lasts as long as it once did. It's too hard to hold onto delusion in the the face of the internet.

I just wish argumentation and reason were part of the basic school curriculum. Arguing with people about an issue and getting nothing but emotional appeals back is tiresome.

Grand Lodge

I've stayed out of the conversation and at this point I'm not going to read it. But optimization is fun..

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
It's too hard to hold onto delusion in the the face of the internet.

Quite the contrary. The internet is the biggest source of misinformation ever existing, a dream come true for any propagandist. Compared to the mountains of bad ideas you claim to have inherited from your parents, that's a whole multiverse full of BS. There's a few points of light within, but they are harder to find than those in WotC's 4E setting.

Quote:
I just wish argumentation and reason were part of the basic school curriculum.

Yeah, me too. We kinda had it here with old latin and greek as part of said curriculum, but than someone decided that this just must be another bad idea of the ancestors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reading this thread makes me feel guilty for building my own comps and strong characters.

I didn't mean to hurt anyone, I'm sorry.


Right, so all the information in the world + critical thinking= bad ideas are easy to spot due to the obviously poor premises or even the lack of premises all together.

I can fact check any of the things people say in seconds on my phone by looking for primary sources... I mean, how can you think that a lie will survive well in that environment? This, of course, excludes those that take all sources as primary because that's short sighted.


What if I'm optimizing for fun?


Sundakan wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...

actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.

Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a@&~!+@s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.

The commonality in all these relationships isn't that they optimize or build computers. It's that they're interacting with you

Coming online to claim that people who build computers are asses is not, after all, something people who are not themselves asses normally do.

I didn't claim that initially. The person I responded to did.

I made no claim. I said "One guy I know is an a@@+&@* and also builds computers". And asked you what conclusion you would draw from that.

You responded with "well I think all people who build computers are a*&+%+#s".

I may have led you to water, but I didn't make you drink from the well of hasty generalizations.

no, you tried to set up an analogy and it didn't work in the way you thought it would. It's not a hasty generalization when it's a population we are both familiar with and have an opinion on. Try something more obscure next time. Also, I said, everyone I met, save for one. There are lots of people I haven't met yet.


Trogdar wrote:

Right, so all the information in the world + critical thinking= bad ideas are easy to spot due to the obviously poor premises or even the lack of premises all together.

I can fact check any of the things people say in seconds on my phone by looking for primary sources... I mean, how can you think that a lie will survive well in that environment? This, of course, excludes those that take all sources as primary because that's short sighted.

Which brings up the idea that we should be teaching internet research skills over memorizing fact.


Trogdar wrote:
Nohwear wrote:
Trogdar wrote:
It's weird that people can be bigoted without being aware of it.
Not at all, at least to me. I have studied a lot of psychology and find that it really makes a lot of sense. After all, no one likes to feel like the bad guy.
Your probably right. Just makes me sad.

one who holds their mouth open waiting for a perfectly roasted, deboned duck to fly directly in will be waiting a long time indeed.


Nohwear wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

Right, so all the information in the world + critical thinking= bad ideas are easy to spot due to the obviously poor premises or even the lack of premises all together.

I can fact check any of the things people say in seconds on my phone by looking for primary sources... I mean, how can you think that a lie will survive well in that environment? This, of course, excludes those that take all sources as primary because that's short sighted.

Which brings up the idea that we should be teaching internet research skills over memorizing fact.

the problem here is that original sources can and will be wrong- or outdated- sometimes.

It was one of the most heated debates I ever had in college. Glad it happened.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...

actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.

Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a@&~!+@s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.

The commonality in all these relationships isn't that they optimize or build computers. It's that they're interacting with you

Coming online to claim that people who build computers are asses is not, after all, something people who are not themselves asses normally do.

I didn't claim that initially. The person I responded to did.

I made no claim. I said "One guy I know is an a@@+&@* and also builds computers". And asked you what conclusion you would draw from that.

You responded with "well I think all people who build computers are a*&+%+#s".

I may have led you to water, but I didn't make you drink from the well of hasty generalizations.

no, you tried to set up an analogy and it didn't work in the way you thought it would. It's not a hasty generalization when it's a population we are both familiar with and have an opinion on. Try something more obscure next time.

It doesn't matter how obscure the population is, saying "people who have this hobby are a+#%&$&s" is at best incorrect.

Pick as obscure a hobby as you want, just because the one you meet happens to be an unsavory character doesn't mean they all are. A reclusive, dickish butterfly collector isn't a dick BECAUSE he's a butterfly collector.

Grand Lodge

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

I get to introduce a new group to Pathfinder tonight. It'll be interesting to see what preconceptions about optimization they bring from 2nd/3rd Edition.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
claudekennilol wrote:
I've stayed out of the conversation and at this point I'm not going to read it. But optimization is fun..

I too share your love and fun in optimization of characters. But I'm not going to throw a punch in this brawl cause it is getting tiresome.

Tempest Stormwind wrote:

Conclusion: D&D (Pathfinder), like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.

They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it.


Sundakan wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...

actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.

Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a@&~!+@s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.

The commonality in all these relationships isn't that they optimize or build computers. It's that they're interacting with you

Coming online to claim that people who build computers are asses is not, after all, something people who are not themselves asses normally do.

I didn't claim that initially. The person I responded to did.

I made no claim. I said "One guy I know is an a@@+&@* and also builds computers". And asked you what conclusion you would draw from that.

You responded with "well I think all people who build computers are a*&+%+#s".

I may have led you to water, but I didn't make you drink from the well of hasty generalizations.

no, you tried to set up an analogy and it didn't work in the way you thought it would. It's not a hasty generalization when it's a population we are both familiar with and have an opinion on. Try something more obscure next time.

It doesn't matter how obscure the population is, saying "people who have this hobby are a+#*!&*s" is at best incorrect.

Pick as obscure a hobby as you want, just because the one you meet happens to be an unsavory character doesn't mean they all are. A reclusive, dickish butterfly collector isn't a dick BECAUSE he's a butterfly collector.

no.

But I am not bigoted or wrong for saying "every butterfly collector I have met so far has been a dick." Maybe it's a sign I need to get out more, but it doesn't invalidate my previous experience.


Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...

actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.

Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a@&~!+@s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.

The commonality in all these relationships isn't that they optimize or build computers. It's that they're interacting with you

Coming online to claim that people who build computers are asses is not, after all, something people who are not themselves asses normally do.

I didn't claim that initially. The person I responded to did.

I made no claim. I said "One guy I know is an a@@+&@* and also builds computers". And asked you what conclusion you would draw from that.

You responded with "well I think all people who build computers are a*&+%+#s".

I may have led you to water, but I didn't make you drink from the well of hasty generalizations.

no, you tried to set up an analogy and it didn't work in the way you thought it would. It's not a hasty generalization when it's a population we are both familiar with and have an opinion on. Try something more obscure next time.

It doesn't matter how obscure the population is, saying "people who have this hobby are a+#*!&*s" is at best incorrect.

Pick as obscure a hobby as you want, just because the one you meet happens to be an unsavory character doesn't mean they all are. A reclusive, dickish butterfly collector isn't a dick BECAUSE he's a butterfly collector.

no.

But I am not bigoted or wrong for saying "every butterfly collector I have met so far has been a dick." Maybe it's a sign I need to get out more, but it doesn't invalidate my previous experience.

At least your including yourself. Unless you just throw numbers on a sheet and call it a character, which would make gaming with you challenging.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Trogdar wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
Freehold DM wrote:
Sundakan wrote:
Except the only people here saying there's only one right way to do things are you and the others in the "anti-optimizer" crowd...

actually, I never said anything about their being a right or wrong way to do things.

Just that optimizers were no fun to play with. And that people who built their own PCs(save one) were a@&~!+@s. Or more likely to be. Along with optimizers.

The commonality in all these relationships isn't that they optimize or build computers. It's that they're interacting with you

Coming online to claim that people who build computers are asses is not, after all, something people who are not themselves asses normally do.

I didn't claim that initially. The person I responded to did.

I made no claim. I said "One guy I know is an a@@+&@* and also builds computers". And asked you what conclusion you would draw from that.

You responded with "well I think all people who build computers are a*&+%+#s".

I may have led you to water, but I didn't make you drink from the well of hasty generalizations.

no, you tried to set up an analogy and it didn't work in the way you thought it would. It's not a hasty generalization when it's a population we are both familiar with and have an opinion on. Try something more obscure next time.

It doesn't matter how obscure the population is, saying "people who have this hobby are a+#*!&*s" is at best incorrect.

Pick as obscure a hobby as you want, just because the one you meet happens to be an unsavory character doesn't mean they all are. A reclusive, dickish butterfly collector isn't a dick BECAUSE he's a butterfly collector.

no.

But I am not bigoted or wrong for saying "every butterfly collector I have met so far has been a dick." Maybe it's a sign I need to get out more, but it doesn't invalidate my previous

...

just because I want pi for my stats doesn't mean I choose numbers at random. It means I like pi!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:


But I am not bigoted or wrong for saying "every butterfly collector I have met so far has been a dick." Maybe it's a sign I need to get out more, but it doesn't invalidate my previous experience.

just because I want pi for my stats doesn't mean I choose numbers at random. It means I like pi!

You're right saying that "every butterfly collector I have met so far has been a dick." Is not bigoted or wrong, it can be a simple factual statement. However, if you don't intend to generalize that to "Butterfly collectors are generally dicks" the entire statement is pointless, just like saying I've never died in a car crash is a pointless statement sure it's true but the anecdotal evidence can't be used to prove the general statement that car accidents don't kill people, just like it can't be used to prove that butterfly collectors are dicks, or that optimizers are a!%~$$@s.

If you had a sufficiently large sample size you could make the statement that there appears to be a correlation between people who are butterfly collectors and those who are dicks but given that your knowledge of people who satisfy these conditions likely amounts to less than a hundred out of a population of thousands if not millions I'd say you're nowhere near having a statistically relevant sample size.

As far as wanting your stats to be pi ... sure that's not random, that's idiocy.


Trogdar wrote:

I can see that in youth, but I don't think that period lasts as long as it once did. It's too hard to hold onto delusion in the the face of the internet.

This is actually not true...like at all. The internet actually curates toward what it thinks you want to hear, so what you actually have is a community of people holding wildly different delusions, reinforced because all the news sites and blogs presented to them via algorithm reinforce their world view.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
But I am not bigoted or wrong for saying "every butterfly collector I have met so far has been a dick."

This is true.

It is equally true that it is "bigoted and wrong" to say "Butterfly collectors are more likely to be dicks."


Ryan Freire wrote:
Trogdar wrote:

I can see that in youth, but I don't think that period lasts as long as it once did. It's too hard to hold onto delusion in the the face of the internet.

This is actually not true...like at all. The internet actually curates toward what it thinks you want to hear, so what you actually have is a community of people holding wildly different delusions, reinforced because all the news sites and blogs presented to them via algorithm reinforce their world view.

Like I said earlier, if you use your head and look at sources, the internet destroys bad ideas. If you can't research, then any information is going to be almost as much hindrance as help.

The research part was implicit, which obviously didn't help me in this case.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

Every generation thinks it's smarter than its parents and wiser than its children.

It's sad, but not surprising, to see that the thread has become bogged down in arguing semantics and definitions. Likewise to see accusations of bigotry being thrown around. Likewise to see that a post has been deleted (along with all its replies) because some people took offense to its tone.

To use the butterfly collector example, it may well be the case that that hobby is more likely to attract dickish people. Maybe it has something to do with the sort of personality who finds the idea of collecting and cataloging dead insects appealing. But I don't know the first thing about butterfly collecting, nor do I know any butterfly collectors. Likewise, it's plausible that many optimizers (whatever you want to call them) find it appealing because they want to make themselves feel better by being "better" than everyone else, or "beating" the DM. Maybe it's an extension of the correlation between the mathematically-inclined and the socially-abrasive. Not all of them, sure, but enough to give optimizers a bad name—Especially given that an optimizer who isn't a dick will often go unnoticed as an optimizer.

This is all, of course, irrelevant to the OP's question: Fun and optimization are not mutually exclusive, and the second (done right) can greatly enhance the first. I can't imagine anyone seriously saying that they'd have more fun if they missed more often, or spent more fights incapacitated due to failed saves, or required the DM to make things unreasonably easy for them (such as by making intelligent opposition behave stupidly, or by bailing them out constantly via Deus Ex Machina).


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Beopere wrote:

Reading this thread makes me feel guilty for building my own comps and strong characters.

I didn't mean to hurt anyone, I'm sorry.

It's a risk in our hobby, apparently.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Athaleon wrote:
Likewise, it's plausible that many optimizers (whatever you want to call them) find it appealing because they want to make themselves feel better by being "better" than everyone else, or "beating" the DM.

It is equally possible that many people who are good at spelling and grammar developed those skills because they want to make themselves feel better by being "better" than everyone else, or "beating" other writers.

Or that many couples who develop good enough communication and conflict resolution skills to help their marriages flourish are doing so because they want to make themselves feel better by being "better" than other couples.

Or it's possible that many photographers find it appealing because they want to make themselves feel better by being "better" than smartphone selfie-takers.

Take any endeavor (even noncompetitive ones) in which some element of skill is involved, and there will always be the possibility of someone investing in that skill "because they want to make themselves feel better by being 'better' than everyone else". And regardless of the field (whether optimizers, photographers, couples, or writers), there will indeed be some individuals who fit that profile.

But that doesn't make those individuals representative of those fields, or even suggest a correlation. To look at a group to which one does not belong, and ponder the plausibility of a correlation between being in that group and being an undesirable person, is to lay the foundations of prejudice in oneself.

And as much as we don't like to admit it, this idea of "but there COULD actually be something bad about many of the people in that group" is the same in these "badwrongfun" arguments as it is in politics, class rivalry, and racism.

The difference between speculating on trends among optimizers and speculating on trends among liberals/immigrants/blacks/gays is a difference of scale, not a difference of kind; and the sooner we as a community come to grips with that fact, the better.


Jiggy wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
Likewise, it's plausible that many optimizers (whatever you want to call them) find it appealing because they want to make themselves feel better by being "better" than everyone else, or "beating" the DM.

It is equally possible that many people who are good at spelling and grammar developed those skills because they want to make themselves feel better by being "better" than everyone else, or "beating" other writers.

Or that many couples who develop good enough communication and conflict resolution skills to help their marriages flourish are doing so because they want to make themselves feel better by being "better" than other couples.

Or it's possible that many photographers find it appealing because they want to make themselves feel better by being "better" than smartphone selfie-takers.

Take any endeavor (even noncompetitive ones) in which some element of skill is involved, and there will always be the possibility of someone investing in that skill "because they want to make themselves feel better by being 'better' than everyone else". And regardless of the field (whether optimizers, photographers, couples, or writers), there will indeed be some individuals who fit that profile.

But that doesn't make those individuals representative of those fields, or even suggest a correlation. To look at a group to which one does not belong, and ponder the plausibility of a correlation between being in that group and being an undesirable person, is to lay the foundations of prejudice in oneself.

And as much as we don't like to admit it, this idea of "but there COULD actually be something bad about many of the people in that group" is the same in these "badwrongfun" arguments as it is in politics, class rivalry, and racism.

The difference between speculating on trends among optimizers and speculating on trends among liberals/immigrants/blacks/gays is a difference of scale, not a difference of kind; and the sooner we as a community come to grips with that fact, the better.

the goal, however, has never been to be better than the other man, but to be better than your previous self.


If you don't think that applies to optimization, you are sorely mistaken. In a vacuum, that's all optimization is, how good can you make your character. It literally has nothing to do with anyone else. Just because some people turn it into a competition, which is strange in a noncompetitive game, doesn't change the nature of the process.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I get to introduce a new group to Pathfinder tonight. It'll be interesting to see what preconceptions about optimization they bring from 2nd/3rd Edition.

Let us know how it goes.

Grand Lodge

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

Sitting down to the character jam now.

The Exchange

Athaleon wrote:
I can't imagine anyone seriously saying that they'd have more fun if they missed more often, or spent more fights incapacitated due to failed saves, or required the DM to make things unreasonably easy for them (such as by making intelligent opposition behave stupidly, or by bailing them out constantly via Deus Ex Machina).

Depends a bit on how you look at it. I have more fun if the game is more challenging, more difficult, more deadly. So no, I don't want the DM to make the game unreasonably easy for the players but I also don't want the players to make it unnecessary difficult for the GM to run a challenging game.

I have more fun if there's a real risk of losing my PC involved. Not necessarily on a Tome of Horror level, but I already think that the Pathfinder APs err a bit too much on the side of easy. Now add to this optimizing and you probably see how that can ruin my fun (as a player and a GM).

Missing and Failing saves is part of the game and it should be in my opinion. It's not that those things are fun at the moment they happen(though depending on the situation, this can lead to hilarious moments) but that without them, the game gets boring very soon, because victory is meaningless when it's nearly guaranteed right from the start.


WormysQueue wrote:
Athaleon wrote:
I can't imagine anyone seriously saying that they'd have more fun if they missed more often, or spent more fights incapacitated due to failed saves, or required the DM to make things unreasonably easy for them (such as by making intelligent opposition behave stupidly, or by bailing them out constantly via Deus Ex Machina).

Depends a bit on how you look at it. I have more fun if the game is more challenging, more difficult, more deadly. So no, I don't want the DM to make the game unreasonably easy for the players but I also don't want the players to make it unnecessary difficult for the GM to run a challenging game.

I have more fun if there's a real risk of losing my PC involved. Not necessarily on a Tome of Horror level, but I already think that the Pathfinder APs err a bit too much on the side of easy. Now add to this optimizing and you probably see how that can ruin my fun (as a player and a GM).

Missing and Failing saves is part of the game and it should be in my opinion. It's not that those things are fun at the moment they happen(though depending on the situation, this can lead to hilarious moments) but that without them, the game gets boring very soon, because victory is meaningless when it's nearly guaranteed right from the start.

PCs die. It happens.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Freehold DM wrote:
the goal, however, has never been to be better than the other man, but to be better than your previous self.

Does this apply to optimization? Or only to endeavors you're personally comfortable with?

201 to 250 of 321 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Should optimization override fun? All Messageboards