|
As the title suggests, I am interested in the general feel of the community here. Some people are quite obviously hard-core optimizers, both for PC and DM duty, expecting everyone else to do the same or "fail" at D&D.
Others must be more casual players, relying on *gasp* pre-generated monsters/NPC's and NOT tweaking each and every number/bonus/skill rank to its ultimate potential.
Myself, as DM, I will optimize to an extent, switching out spells/skills/feats for monsters/NPC's, mostly since our common party size is 6 with at least 1 cohort or companion/mount/etc. My usual players split about 50/50 on the optimization fence, and no one really gets too crazy about it.
As a PC, unless it's a one-shot or I know we're going to be going against wicked-tweaked opponents, I will generally build a character to a theme, rather than trying to maximize each and every ability to the extreme. When the gloves come off, though (like the 19th lvl start / anything goes / save the world adventure) out comes the crazy persistent divine cleric of doom (or it's equivalent).
So, how would you characterize your D&D table? Optimizers through and through, casual players not interested in that side, some of each? Sound off!
-t
Most of my players enjoy building for characterization rather than optimization. I tend to give them bonuses when running Paizo stuff so that I don't crush them all right off the bat. If I ran the scenarios for a more optimization-prone group I'd probably adopt a different style.
When my friends and I had time to write all our own adventures, we were able to be mega-casual; I played a dwarf bard/rogue/fighter who couldn't carry a tune, for example -- hardly what you'd call "optimized."
As careers began to eat up more and more time and we turned to prewritten scenarios, we were all forced to become better optimizers: I ran "Age of Worms" and was killing parties left and right, even giving them free action points, and after learning harsh lessons with that, for "Savage Tide" we ended up with a super-optmized group (well, except for the Fochlucan Lyrist) that was just right for that level of difficulty. The sad truth was, as Jal Dorak is fond of saying, "it's hard to role-play a dead guy."
It depends what you mean by "optimized". I generally don't try to create a character who will be able to take out the bad guys in one shot, but I have no qualms about giving my character a high Con score or even ability scores if we're using a point-buy system.
I've played with a few guys whose TWF rogue or ranger (it's almost always rangers or rogues) would have point buy stats of:
Str 11, Dex 17, Con 11, Int 15, Wis 13, Cha 15 (say)
That just breaks my heart to see. :~(
|
My group consist of half and half.
A few are number crunchers and will spend half the game reviewing books to crank out that extra +1 to something. They also tend to have character names like Cleric, Sorcerer, or the very original The Rogue.
The others want to try a character and find the class that works for that character. They tend to have nice sounding names and elaborate backstories.
The casual gamer, as you put it, tends to like the social encounters the most, figuring out plots and puzzles. The optimizers tend to like combat and ignore the other parts of the game.
At least, that is the way it is at my table.
So, how would you characterize your D&D table? Optimizers through and through, casual players not interested in that side, some of each? Sound off!-t
I like to give my monsters backstory and an existence within the world. As a result, it does often mean that what might be a trivial encounter within RAW, will often work out to be somewhat more difficult. With that said, there aren't often plain ordinary monsters within my games. My monsters tend to be templated and/or characters in their own right, like a manticore with class levels, or a dwarven wight with cleric levels with his ogre wight sidekicks. As a result, it does encourage the folks that I game with to squeeze every advantage they can out of their characters. Somehow, a burrowing, insectile bugbear with tremorsense is more of a challenge than its' CR would indicate, and when every single monster is an individual (except for those who specifically aren't, like the formians, or human commoners), it requires some counter optimization for when anomalies crop up.
While I enjoy reading about "optimized play" I find I rather enjoy "casual" gaming best. When the melee guys are slightly tweaked and are keeping the show going even past level 5 when "melee" should technically suck, I'm usually having a good time.
I also enjoy *gasp* evokers. Even if they mechanically suck compared to SoD'ers. I did the SOD thing with a sorc once, and being a 1 trick pony- even if it's a neat trick- sucks. I much prefer the utility mage with Lightning spells to SOD'ing everything in sight.
-S
|
I DM weekly for a group of 5. I would say that most of the group are optimizers, but I limit the books to core + "by-permission-only" additions. This keeps everyone at about the same power base except Wizards/Druids/Clerics of course. With these classes, sometimes they fall to a person that is very casual (so they are self balancing) and in cases where an optimizer lands one of these classes, I work with them to keep them from taking the game in a direction we don't want it to go. By this, I mean: I ask all the players at the table: "Do you want scry/die to be in the game, do you want to face ulta-optimized wizards and clerics? Any tactic you use is fair game to be used against you - you decide the type of game you want to play." In eight years, I have always been able to reach an accord with the players, sometimes playing an optimized version of the game, sometimes taking things more casually. It balances out in the end when the party's enemies use the same tactics they use. My group enjoys it either way, but since they mostly decide as a group to leave the extreme stuff behind, we lean toward casual play.
I think Kirth raised a great point about APs though. They can be brutal for casual players, so I am very vigilant when running these games to be sure they represent a fair challenge for the party. I am also more free with splat additions in such games, since the players usually need all the help they can get.
|
My players are all beginners. They have a hard time making effective use of their 1st level characters' abilities, let alone optimizing. I am running RotR now, and I am worried about them surviving some of the encounters. So far they have done well, but only faced goblins. Erylium's going to be tough.
Owner - Johnny Scott Comics and Games
|
In our group of 6, only one player is an optimizer. The rest of the group tends to build their characters around themes - myself included. I enjoy thematic builds much better than optimized builds. It helps my characters stand out a bit more.
When I DM, I also remain a more casual gamer, however, I will customize monsters to better suit the makeup of the party. For example, if there is more than one Cleric in the party, I may increase the number of undead in an encounter, or buff the abilities of the BBEG to compensate.
|
|
i dunno, i guess i'm kinda "middle of the road". i do roleplay my characters, and i do try and tweak them to make them more effective, but i also don't use point buys (4d6, drop the lowest), so i'm occasionally "stuck" with a character that isn't all that great, so i'll roleplay the heck out of him to make up for the statistical shortcomings.
(seriously, ask Kirth about my recently deceased cleric...)
(of course, my new "twinked and tweaked" rogue almost became a one round kill for a mountain lion, so, you know, six of one...)
(of course, my new "twinked and tweaked" rogue almost became a one round kill for a mountain lion, so, you know, six of one...)
Speaking of which, I hope my new dwarf rogue Rodriguo fares better in your game on Sunday...
|
|
(of course, my new "twinked and tweaked" rogue almost became a one round kill for a mountain lion, so, you know, six of one...)Speaking of which, I hope my new dwarf rogue Rodriguo fares better in your game on Sunday...
Well, you get to play with J.J.'s sorcerer and China's druid so far (i don't know what Jerry is playing yet, either a fighter or a cleric - but you know he'll be "tweaked" either way...).
I may have to supress my "naturalist" leanings and drop a CLW wand in SD someplace...
To the O.P.: my Sunday game consists of two new-to-rpgs players, Kirth (old school), myself (old school) and a couple of guys who've only experienced 3x, so it's kind of a blend of styles i guess, but nothing's really clashed as of yet.
|
|
My group and I always play more casually. We may have the comments like "such-and-such combo is brutal" but nobody really ever attempts to optimise. One group I played with had a player who tried to optimise but failed at it miserably, we teased him a bit but it was just in good fun.
I've never really cared to pound through lots of books (not to mention lack of funds preventing me having lots of books) looking for another +1. I just get a character idea and go with it (that being said lots of my group's characters have their "that's brutal!" moments).
|
So, how would you characterize your D&D table? Optimizers through and through, casual players not interested in that side, some of each? Sound off!
Casual/RP-based.
For us'ns, role play gaming is a social event, not a competitive event. At my table we use (3.5 era games) PHB, DMG, MM. Oh, Expanded Psionics too.
Yup. That's it. Generally speaking, most of us don't even multiclass! For us the game isn't about "winning" against the monsters moreso than the monsters are there to provide challenge.
Now - you take the same set of players and throw down some 'clix, or MtG and it's a different story.
We're still tickling the surface of the water with 4E, but I think we'll still remain pretty much casual/rp in that one. I think the base classes have a lot of strength and I am just not interested in Orcus Killer builds. I'm glad there are folk out there that are to keep the game clean, but I'm not one of them.
Depends on the system. My 3.5 game is highly optimized and very lethal. the 4E one much much more casual.
A big part of it so far has been the differences in power of the the varous builds. Its so hard in 4E to be really good at kicking but and taking names that its not really worth the trouble. in 3.5 if a few players are making tricked out builds the DM responds which makes the encounters a lot tougher this works as a kind of arms race where if you don't optimize your risking becoming very dead so the rest of the players up their game and again the encounters become much easier so the DM ups the difficulty in a kind of spiralling circle.
In 4E being optimized means you might be slightly better then a more casual build but the difference is so minimal (so far at our table anyway) that its just not a big deal. The players that read every article of Dragon and search through every spalt book have so far just been able to juice the system for, as an example, an extra +1 to hit and +1 AC when compared the guys that are building their characters on the basis of 'that looks cool' or 'that sounds neat'. Those little +1's might be something but they are not enough to be effecting the DMs behaviour so their is no (so far) arms race cycle thats forcing everyone to optimize their characters or end up as a grease spot.
At this point the difference is so minor from my perspective that I'm tacking some feats and powers that I know perfectly well are a tad sub optimal just because I think they make for better role playing. For example being a cleric of the Raven Queen is all kinds of cool from a role playing perspective but her divine feat, while OK, is definitly not quite as good as some of the other Gods divine feat.
Most of my players build their characters around an idea/theme. But then they try to optimize that theme. It makes for very interesting characters who are very specialized.
As a DM I optimize some encounters and sometimes I make NPC's around a character idea/theme. It depends on the encounter.
I play in derek's game on Sunday's. I tend to go more for the back story style of play, I suppose you could call it casual table play. I am one of the ones he mentioned that has only experienced 3.x. I began playing right at the end of 2nd, and so the transition to 3.x was not that difficult for me. I have DMed a few session over the past few years adn still require a back story of my players. I am still learning about the tweaking of PC's. I had a player once who wanted to play a Half-Dragon. I had no experience with them so I said "Why not?" I'll never do that again.
Anyway getting back to the subject at hand, I try to let the players pick how they want to play their characters, but personally, I tend to enjoy casual table play more.
BTW Kirth, I'll be playing a Half-orc Fighter using an Orc Double Axe. So I hope derek allows us to find a wand of CLW.
|
I have to say that like Kirth (thanks for the shout-out buddy!) in that I am divided by the game I am playing.
I basically have three modes of play and DM style:
1) Ultra-mega-mega-casual. This is when I am running a homebrew game improvising the adventure from loose campaign sketches, or playing with a friendly DM. I go nuts with experimental characters like clerics with 8 Con or taking the Magical Aptitude feat because it fits my backstory. Frequently these games are more free-form, treasure distribution is liberal at best, and doing something hilarious or creative often results in secretive +infinity bonuses on checks.
2) Casual-hardline. This is where I most often sit. In homebrew, published, or improvised adventures I tend to drift here more often than not. Here the players can expect the dice to fall as they may. I come up with roleplaying concepts and then build a character that fits. As a DM this includes swapping out spells and feats and even levels. My players know that death is always a battle away, but at the same time I provide rewards for creativity and roleplay. These include: XP, free starting magic items, action points. I still tend to be forgiving with XP and treasure - if the PCs find it they earn it. Just because the fighter had 200% of his WBL and the wizard is 1 level higher than he should be, I don't ramp up the encounters. They earned those rewards so they should get the chance to beat on some hapless shmucks.
3) Hardline. This is reserved for when I play with those who lean towards optimization. If the DM is compensating, I go with them. If one of my players is twinking out his character with Bo9S, I grab the Draconomicon and go for a TPK whenever possible. I hardly wind up here, but I am capable of it. Like Kirth said, if the AP is calling for it I make it known to my players.
Typically, when a campaign/adventure begins my players expect one of three announcements:
1) I want you to have fun, so don't worry about what you pick for your characters. We can choose stats however you collectively want.
2) I want this to be more realistic. We're doing a 28 point buy, and we are using action points. You can choose any splatbook you want to use for your character, and anything out of Unearthed Arcana. No free magic items this time, but maybe next one.
3) This is pretty hard. Play something tough, we need a cleric and a spellcaster in this adventure. Action points, max starting gold, you can roll or use 32 point buy.
We have one guy in our group who cant help but optimize. When we play without him everyones characters are more casual. When he is there others optimize a bit more so as not to be left behind.