I foresee a host of "in issue X of the newest AP, the NPC ally is broken because of bad_choice_of_feats", "this rule_element of the PFRPG is useless because it has no space in CharOp, and it means a noob can only waste resources with it", "you have your own board, stay the **** in it!", "CharOp is not a ghetto".
Flame on and on and on, ad nauseam.
This is what worries me too.
In a perfect world there would be a place to do kind of academic, theoretic CharOp and we would also have polite and respectful CharDev board where people keen on mechanistic point of view and socio-psychological point of view would work hand in hand to develop amazing character concepts each one so beautiful you would weep in joy. There would also be cookies and group hugs.In reality there would be a good chance of getting "if u take this feat instead of that u are the suck" messages and snarky responses those deserve. And no cookies and group hugs.
I DEMAND GROUP HUGS!
Cookies are optional.
|
Reading through all the obtrusive armchair experting, bitter arguments and trench fights how to play the game in the beta forums I really don't see how a char op board could make it worse.
"Your playtest is invalid 'cause you used a subpar build of this and that class."
Add slang as needed (broken, failure, made of suck/fail, etc.).
If this has already come up, sorry, but I'm staying out of the Beta boards as much as possible.
that doesn't mean that i can't have a 10 page backstory on how i got grey eyes and a scottish accent from my grandmother on my father's side since she raised me whan my parents died, etc.
You too?
Och I thocht I wis the only man wie that tale o woe...
I don't care what it's called. If a forum isn't created for CO, then I will continue to post what ever I see or think in a regular forum. It makes no difference, so long as I can speak with like minded people.
Name it whatever you want.
In reality there would be a good chance of getting "if u take this feat instead of that u are the suck" messages and snarky responses those deserve.
This seems eerily similar to the “If PCs make stupid decisions, they should die” line of reasoning.
This seems eerily similar to the “If PCs make stupid decisions, they should die” line of reasoning.
"If the PCs make stupid decisions they must live with the consequences."
Sound better?
Not really.
Overall, there is one function that CO boards perform well. In my opinion, the destructive mentality that comes with their presence overwhelms this, but here goes.
CO boards are VERY good at applying mathematics to games to cross-check good game design. As an example, consider the following...
Combat Casting (3.5 PHB) gives a +4 when casting defensively. Skill Focus Concentration gives a +3 to concentration at all times. When you stop and consider the wide variety of reasons that you made concentration checks, it becomes clear that Skill Focus is the better feat.
In a perfectly designed game, THIS SHOULDN"T HAPPEN. Players should be able to make choices based on character and story reasons, and not have to worry about which feats are strong and which feats are weak. In reality, some feats, spells, skills ARE better than others, and a player who isn't paying attention to game mechanics can create a less effective character.
That's not a problem if the power level of the campaign as a whole is adjusted, it's only a problem if everyone else is James Bond, and you take the small bus to spy skool. But if it makes the experience less fun for a player, it's worth knowing about.
Still, I don't think we need a board for them.
In a perfectly designed game, THIS SHOULDN"T HAPPEN. Players should be able to make choices based on character and story reasons, and not have to worry about which feats are strong and which feats are weak. In reality, some feats, spells, skills ARE better than others, and a player who isn't paying attention to game mechanics can create a less effective character.
4e did this. Sadly, the game is boring and flavorless, since everyone was the same.
Overall, there is one function that CO boards perform well. In my opinion, the destructive mentality that comes with their presence overwhelms this, but here goes.
CO boards are VERY good at applying mathematics to games to cross-check good game design. As an example, consider the following...
Combat Casting (3.5 PHB) gives a +4 when casting defensively. Skill Focus Concentration gives a +3 to concentration at all times. When you stop and consider the wide variety of reasons that you made concentration checks, it becomes clear that Skill Focus is the better feat.
In a perfectly designed game, THIS SHOULDN"T HAPPEN. Players should be able to make choices based on character and story reasons, and not have to worry about which feats are strong and which feats are weak. In reality, some feats, spells, skills ARE better than others, and a player who isn't paying attention to game mechanics can create a less effective character.
That's not a problem if the power level of the campaign as a whole is adjusted, it's only a problem if everyone else is James Bond, and you take the small bus to spy skool. But if it makes the experience less fun for a player, it's worth knowing about.
Still, I don't think we need a board for them.
Why does it matter that the character is less effective? I have real trouble with this as a mentality. I regularly play characters who are less powerful than they could be, because the concept of the character require them to be built a certain way. In real life, people don't often make the most optimial choices, so why should characters?
Why does it matter that the character is less effective? I have real trouble with this as a mentality. I regularly play characters who are less powerful than they could be, because the concept of the character require them to be built a certain way. In real life, people don't often make the most optimial choices, so why should characters?
1. D&D characters aren't built like people from RL.
2. Some people don't make optimal choices in RL, but some do.3. The characters can't possibly be intuitive of the mechanical details of their makeup. That is cosmically unfathomable.
4. Further, real life choices are not developed by human designers, who can make flaws and bad choices for you.
Please don't ocmpare real life to games. It never goes over well. Compare concepts to what you understand and build your character from there. Just because someone plays a wizard doesn't mean he has to be Wizard 20. See above the mechanics.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Please don't ocmpare real life to games. It never goes over well. Compare concepts to what you understand and build your character from there. Just because someone plays a wizard doesn't mean he has to be Wizard 20. See above the mechanics.
Which is precisely why actors never study the mindset and livestyle of their roles, and never get held to the realism of their portrayal, right? ;)
Seriously. Yes. Your character won't know his AC, and won't know his HP. But wildly changing career seven times, often in very counterintuitive paths is something most people in the world will wonder about.
I like some of the mental aspects of CO, but i find many of the people attracted to this kind of excercise just too disruptive of the communities that house them.
Which is precisely why actors never study the mindset and livestyle of their roles, and never get held to the realism of their portrayal, right? ;)
Seriously. Yes. Your character won't know his AC, and won't know his HP. But wildly changing career seven times, often in very counterintuitive paths is something most people in the world will wonder about.
I like some of the mental aspects of CO, but i find many of the people attracted to this kind of excercise just too disruptive of the communities that house them.
Perhaps I haven't met any truly outstanding role-players to be able to say the following, however, I don't account acting as comparable to role-playing. Two separate things, at least in the normal sense of the word.
Yes, ideally, role playing would have the person play his character as his character would like to be played, get in the mindset of the being. Unfortunately, that is rarely seen these days.
However, it's not due to optimizing. It's very exhausting to role-play in the ways an actor would. Look at how much they get paid, deservingly or not.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
Yes, ideally, role playing would have the person play his character as his character would like to be played, get in the mindset of the being. Unfortunately, that is rarely seen these days.
However, it's not due to optimizing. It's very exhausting to role-play in the ways an actor would. Look at how much they get paid, deservingly or not.
In my limited experience, the less than fully optimized characters usually offer more in the sense of personality, history and in-play interaction than the "best build" ones. Personal experience... if both players spend equal time in preparation, one just has it easier coming up with good material than the other.
As for actors and how much they get paid... Don't look at Hollywood. Look at your local theater, and think about the less than glamerous roles... :)
|
Role Playing has nothing to do with the numbers on a paper... It has to do with the ability of the player.
Which is why people get confused. If you spend all your time fretting about the numbers that make up your character, people start wondering what you are really concerned about and then start associating bad roleplaying with number-crunching.
I've seen optimizers, even munchkins, be decent or even good roleplayers. What it really comes down to is a selfish attitude (entitlement), which is becoming more common these days. Unfortunately, the advantages of optimization tend to attract people who already have a selfsih attitude.
It takes some self-reflection and social skill to be a roleplayer - being selfish while roleplaying is difficult because most personalities will realize their social event is being disrupted. Any thoughtful optimizer is perfectly capable of the skills necessary to be a good roleplayer.
It takes no self-reflection and no social skill to be an optimizer - a selfish person can sit by themselves and optimize and not care if their character disrupts the experience of their fellow gamers or friends. A good roleplayer cannot possess these traits: they invariably make them a bad roleplayer.
So a person with social skills and thoughtfulness can optimize, but a person with the skills to optimize does not necessarily possess the skills to roleplay. That's where the confusion comes from, and some of the merit of the argument.
Drama Queens are not good roleplayers, because they are selfish. But, like it or not, there are more munchkins than drama-queens. And it is a lot easier to deal with a drama-queen, because it does not involve the game mechanics. A drama-queen disrupts a game, but it doesn't ruin the game by invalidating the characters or ideas of the non-drama-queen-others.
|
|
Dungeon Masters...having problems with character optimisers...remember you have the biggest weapon in the gamers armoury at your disposal
and that is the phrase "Not in my game you don't"..thats right guys..just say No
Having said that I actually support the idea of a Char Op forum if only to provide a warning of what can be abused..it would in the end help us spot the uber builds before they disrupt our games too much.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Combat Casting (3.5 PHB) gives a +4 when casting defensively. Skill Focus Concentration gives a +3 to concentration at all times. When you stop and consider the wide variety of reasons that you made concentration checks, it becomes clear that Skill Focus is the better feat.
Do they stack?
--+--+--
Throughout this discussion, and the discussions on a couple of other threads, I'm reminded of one of George Carlin's most famous observations, paraphrased slightly. "Did you ever notice that everyone who plays a D&D character less optimized than yours is an idiot? And anybody who plays a D&D character more optimized than yours is a maniac! It's a miracle we get any adventuring done at all, with all the idiots and maniacs at our tables!"
Combat Casting (3.5 PHB) gives a +4 when casting defensively. Skill Focus Concentration gives a +3 to concentration at all times. When you stop and consider the wide variety of reasons that you made concentration checks, it becomes clear that Skill Focus is the better feat.Do they stack?
Yes, but Combat Casting is still a poor feat long-term. A spellcasting PC's concentration modifier will probably increase by 1 every level, whereas the DC to defensively cast a spell of the highest level available to them will increase by 1 every other level. Setting aside constitution modifiers and feats, a first-level wizard with max ranks in Concentration needs to roll a 12 to successfully defensively cast a 1st-level spell; nine levels later, that wizard now has 13 ranks in Concentration, and needs to roll a 7 to successfully defensively cast a 5th-level spell. Concentration checks he makes for other things will probably scale, but defensive casting will not, which means that every level he'll see less and less use out of Combat Casting. (Kind of like Toughness.)
Of course, I'm sure there's excellent roleplaying reasons why you'd want a character who was only good at concentrating on spells, so obviously this isn't an issue with the power curve of the game, and we shouldn't discuss ways it could be stabilized in a CharOp board, because that would violate the integrity of the game with wizards taking feats at first level that they wouldn't regret at fifteenth level!
Why does it matter that the character is less effective? I have real trouble with this as a mentality. I regularly play characters who are less powerful than they could be, because the concept of the character require them to be built a certain way. In real life, people don't often make the most optimial choices, so why should characters?1. D&D characters aren't built like people from RL.
2. Some people don't make optimal choices in RL, but some do.
3. The characters can't possibly be intuitive of the mechanical details of their makeup. That is cosmically unfathomable.
4. Further, real life choices are not developed by human designers, who can make flaws and bad choices for you.Please don't ocmpare real life to games. It never goes over well. Compare concepts to what you understand and build your character from there. Just because someone plays a wizard doesn't mean he has to be Wizard 20. See above the mechanics.
1, While DnD characters are difficult to create in a realistic manner, i do make a concerted effort to make a realistic character. The limited skill system of the game does hamper this, but with a little effort, it is more than possible to create something that is atleast ruffly accurate to concept.
2, Having studied a fair chunk of the subject of both animal and human behaviour, i can assure you that humans are fairly terrible at making 'optimial' choices. On need only compare human behaviour in game theory experiments to the mathimaticial best out come.
3.Exactly, characters make choices in their lifes, based entirely on there experiences, there for, the choices we have them make should reflect there experiences, not our knowledge and understanding of the game system.
4. We are all capable of making flawed and bad choices in the way that we approach our own lifes, i fail to see the relivance of this to an arguement against building a character in an organic manner.
Which is precisely why actors never study the mindset and livestyle of their roles, and never get held to the realism of their portrayal, right? ;)
Seriously. Yes. Your character won't know his AC, and won't know his HP. But wildly changing career seven times, often in very counterintuitive paths is something most people in the world will wonder about.
I like some of the mental aspects of CO, but i find many of the people attracted to this kind of excercise just too disruptive of the communities that house them.
Perhaps I haven't met any truly outstanding role-players to be able to say the following, however, I don't account acting as comparable to role-playing. Two separate things, at least in the normal sense of the word.
Yes, ideally, role playing would have the person play his character as his character would like to be played, get in the mindset of the being. Unfortunately, that is rarely seen these days.
However, it's not due to optimizing. It's very exhausting to role-play in the ways an actor would. Look at how much they get paid, deservingly or not.
Acting is a primary skill in roleplaying. It is up there with the ability to make internally consistant and appropreate choices about a characters actions.
As for this being rarely seen, this has been a consideration of all but one group i have ever been a part of, even at the age of seven when i first started playing and killing stuff and getting treasure was still a major consideration, internal character consistancy and playing the role of your character was an important consideration. While it is only anacdotal, i beleive that no, accurate portrail of characters is not a rare event, it is in fact a sacred cow of most groups and certainly a sacred cow of the second biggest publisher of roleplaying games(white wolf) as a publisher.
I would go further in fact, to say that, if you are not taking these considerations into account, you are no longer roleplaying, but instead playing a narrative skirmish game. Not that there is anything wrong with that, i enjoy necromunda, mordheim and inquisitor, which ligh within this mold of play, but they are not roleplaying games.
Role Playing has nothing to do with the numbers on a paper... It has to do with the ability of the player.
This statement is inaccurate. The numbers on a sheet, should influence your potrail of a character. For instance, a character with a low strength should not be played as though he is atlas, holding up the sky.
A character with low charisma should be played with annoying habits, or described as looking creepy, unapproachable and 'off', or maybe have hygene issues. The numbers on the sheet should inform how a character is played, and a system in forms how the character and Shared imagained space(sis) interact.
You know, you can't knock the guys who want to do character optimization. That's the way they like to play with the toys they've been given. What I guess I'm not seeing in the thread is why having the forum is bad for these boards.
Some have suggested it will kill the boards because the CharOp guys will somehow ruin the feel of the game.
I need this explained to me I guess.
And on a completely different note, I think a CharOp forum is premature until the final release August 2009.
Some have suggested it will kill the boards because the CharOp guys will somehow ruin the feel of the game. I need this explained to me I guess.
I think a lot of it stems not from CharOptimization itself, but from the tone that a certain minority of self-proclaimed CharOp "experts" insist on posting in: snide, condescending, passive-aggressive, and in general as annoying as humanly possible. Nobody wants that tone around here.
|
|
Some have suggested it will kill the boards because the CharOp guys will somehow ruin the feel of the game. I need this explained to me I guess.I think a lot of it stems not from CharOptimization itself, but from the tone that a certain minority of self-proclaimed CharOp "experts" insist on posting in: snide, condescending, passive-aggressive, and in general as annoying as humanly possible. Nobody wants that tone around here.
Exactly. most CharOps guys will do something along the lines of "feat X is broken due to" or "wiht this combination of stuff my character can" and then a discussion will ensue to try and fix the problems or disprove the statement. the problem comes from a minority who instead choose to post things like "well if you didn't take feat x or choice y, then you're stupid and your character deserves to die and your imput is invalid" and it's these people that give CharOps a bad name.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Some have suggested it will kill the boards because the CharOp guys will somehow ruin the feel of the game. I need this explained to me I guess.I think a lot of it stems not from CharOptimization itself, but from the tone that a certain minority of self-proclaimed CharOp "experts" insist on posting in: snide, condescending, passive-aggressive, and in general as annoying as humanly possible. Nobody wants that tone around here.
That seemed to calm down when people started responding with reasoned arguments, requests for clarification, and a few locked threads.
Those who want CharOps to be a place to stick those who bring that kind of attitude are in for a disappointment. A lot of that stuff wasn't CharOp but just more general gamer-fu.
I think that a CharOp focum is much more important beforehand, because we want to know what the loopholes are before the final release (so that some of them can be closed).
I'm all for closing loopholes, actually. One thing, though... I feel like a CharOp board would be really useful if it focused on builds under 20th level. I mean, a lot of campaigns dissolve after 15th or so, and no one starts at 20th and just plays at that level.
To my mind, the stuff that's broken at 3rd level needs to be addressed long before the obscure builds that aren't even possible until 17th.
|
Some have suggested it will kill the boards because the CharOp guys will somehow ruin the feel of the game. I need this explained to me I guess.I think a lot of it stems not from CharOptimization itself, but from the tone that a certain minority of self-proclaimed CharOp "experts" insist on posting in: snide, condescending, passive-aggressive, and in general as annoying as humanly possible. Nobody wants that tone around here.
Wait second!
I was a semi-regular over in the CharOp boards and I was helpful and courteous (I actively strove for it). I even put together some humongous reference threads that took up a LOT of time to make people's lives easier (a compiled list of "looking to mix X with Y? Then these prestige classes will be useful" and a thread that catalogued and rated substitution levels and alternate class features.) Not everybody who hung out there was nasty.
I think that a CharOp focum is much more important beforehand, because we want to know what the loopholes are before the final release (so that some of them can be closed).And on a completely different note, I think a CharOp forum is premature until the final release August 2009.
My whole point is that stuff like you're describing should go in the playtest forums, not a CharOp forum.
|
|
Some have suggested it will kill the boards because the CharOp guys will somehow ruin the feel of the game. I need this explained to me I guess.I think a lot of it stems not from CharOptimization itself, but from the tone that a certain minority of self-proclaimed CharOp "experts" insist on posting in: snide, condescending, passive-aggressive, and in general as annoying as humanly possible. Nobody wants that tone around here.Wait second!
I was a semi-regular over in the CharOp boards and I was helpful and courteous (I actively strove for it). I even put together some humongous reference threads that took up a LOT of time to make people's lives easier (a compiled list of "looking to mix X with Y? Then these prestige classes will be useful" and a thread that catalogued and rated substitution levels and alternate class features.) Not everybody who hung out there was nasty.
Then you obviously were not in the minority he was talking about. :)
|
|
Role Playing has nothing to do with the numbers on a paper... It has to do with the ability of the player.
What he said.
Some bigtime min-maxers are *amazing* role-players, but, in this particular case, the 'role' they wanted to play is 'best damn swordsman in the Middle Kingdoms.'
In my experience, the players who make the least effective characters *also* exagerrate the impact of these choices by making the least effective decisions during play.
real examples;
"Oh, we're under attack! I climb a tree, and I'll use my bow from up there!" Climb, climb, climb. Rest of party fights and wins. Rogue finally has bow ready, just in time to have to climb back down, and then is put out when the rest of the party agrees that he doesn't get a cut of the loot!
<A vampire is attacking our party camped out in the woods and is already grappling and biting one party member and has charmed another.> Barbarian player - "I spend this round setting my crossbow bolt on fire in the campfire, so it will do extra damage!"
|
|
Drama Queens are not good roleplayers, because they are selfish. But, like it or not, there are more munchkins than drama-queens.D&D lost most of it's drama-queen contingent when Vampire came out.
As someone who plays both games, it was kind of a mixed blessing, obviously.
So we need a game to trap the munchkins? :)
I was a semi-regular over in the CharOp boards and I was helpful and courteous (I actively strove for it). I even put together some humongous reference threads that took up a LOT of time to make people's lives easier (a compiled list of "looking to mix X with Y? Then these prestige classes will be useful" and a thread that catalogued and rated substitution levels and alternate class features.) Not everybody who hung out there was nasty.Then you obviously were not in the minority he was talking about. :)
Exactly. This is a prime example of a few bad dogs giving the entire breed a bad name. It's easily possible to talk about CharOp without sounding like "Comic Book Guy" from the Simpsons. Many people do so, including Timespike, Silver, et al. Some few of the others, though (many of whom seem to have been banned) just can't seem to reduce the setting on their pomposity meters to below 10.
|
|
My whole point is that stuff like you're describing should go in the playtest forums, not a CharOp forum.
So that every thread can turn into an argument about whether optimisers are good role-players? Surely the point of the suggestion is that some people might like reading what the optimisation discussions might produce without having to endure the same old arguments about the legitimacy of the endeavour again and again and again.
|
|
So that every thread can turn into an argument about whether optimisers are good role-players? Surely the point of the suggestion is that some people might like reading what the optimisation discussions might produce without having to endure the same old arguments about the legitimacy of the endeavour again and again and again.
My whole point is that stuff like you're describing should go in the playtest forums, not a CharOp forum.
I agree that C.O.s can be good role players. My biggest problem, like Kith, is that some C.O.s can't dial down the hubris level when they interact with the non optimizing public. For example, the now infamous, at least in my circles, comment about how the Paizo staff could not possibly be serious that a person who actually took the time to play the game could give better feedback than someone who applied a bunch of mathmatical formulas to the rules. My group considers me a great role-player, but they also come to me when they want serious optimizing done. I have gotten my ranger a 33 AC and he doesn't even wear armpr. But I would not call myself an optimizer because for me I enjoy role-playing over everything else.
I agree that C.O.s can be good role players.
But I would not call myself an optimizer because for me I enjoy role-playing over everything else.
|
|
I agree that C.O.s can be good role players.But I would not call myself an optimizer because for me I enjoy role-playing over everything else.
To clarify, as I understand it, an optimizer is someone who enjoys the challenge of creating an ubermensch character. I don't. I enjoy the role-playing side of the game, I only optimize when I have to. Again, I am not saying optimizers can't be good role-players and that role-players can't be good optimizers, I'm just saying that the outlook between a person who would call themselves an optimizer is different than the mindset of someone who would call themselves a role-player.
To clarify, as I understand it, an optimizer is someone who enjoys the challenge of creating an ubermensch character.
Munchkin is derogatory, whereas an optimizer is just someone who appreciates the math behind a character.
Munchkins will make impossible characters simply because they want to make it, prove it, or ruin it. They don't care about the game, only their character and their power.
An optimizer plays the game, but plays it well. This is a pretty broad group label, though, so it can't be brought down much more than someone who likes the mechanics, but not at the sake of fun and game.
|
|
I'd also like to see a Character Optimization Forum. I enjoy roleplaying, but I also enjoy fiddling around with character concepts and builds. I enjoy playing effective characters, but I'm not looking to break anyone's game.
Fortunately for me, my DM also loves to create interesting and effective characters. It's one of the things that make his encounters consistently challenging.
I suspect that many of the posters who are opposed to Character Optimization have had to deal with Munchkins in their game at some point. I'm not a Munchkin, and neither are most of the people I've talked to who like Character Optimization. I'm just a guy who probably spent too much time in his formative years playing with legos.
|
|
Since this thread was resurrected... I'll chime in saying that I think that having a Character optimization / rules board (possibly two separate places) would be a great idea, especially with the new rules coming out. I've checked out the Wizards one alot if only to get good ideas how to stat a character/NPC.
I'm really not a munchkin (it doesn't make the game fun), but I would like to see a confined place where players can talk about building characters effectively. Not to railroad it (we can make a new thread if needed) but this brings up the idea of other boards as well which would be useful, conversion boards, optimization, rules, etc. All based on the new PFRPG.
I'd like to see a character optimization board around here, and here's why:
Because while things like Pun-Pun and the Word get all of the attention, many of the threads I participated in over there went something like this:
I have a concept that is best served by X build. Is that viable in play, or am I going to be a liability to the rest of the party?
There were the system-crackers, to be sure, but oftentimes, it was just a good place to trot out interesting mechanical combinations and run them past the community before you realized they didn't work in actual play the hard way.
This. Lots of folks such as myself have never posted on a char/op thread. However i did see more than a few times that someone already had a character idea that was similar to something i was going to do and i decided not to. For some of us it is FUN to read these threads.
Understandably it gets a lot less fun when someone wanders in and wants to start the 900th incarnation of the lawful good thread because someone posted some build with a level or two of paladin in the mix.Some find implausible broken build discussions annoying, Some find endless discussions on how an alignment works annoying. Why not have a char op area so people don't step on each others toes. There is enough room in the games for both crowds. Really.
