Look up the Stormwind Fallacy. Also look up "badwrongfun".
Many of the optomization/builds I see are not overly concerned with the character concept, just the character power.
To paraphrase what Zurai is referring to:
Creating a powerful character is neither a sin nor a virtue, just as creating a weak character is neither a sin nor a virtue. It's what you do with your character that matters.
Not of the mind that power gaming and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. Just find it interesting that many of the threads I see on the subject of "optimization/builds" have several people refuting it is power gaming.
Exalted is a prime example of power gaming and roleplaying not being mutually exclusive. Exalted is power gaming, that is the point of the setting and the base character creation (the solar exlated). But you can still have a lot of roleplaying and drama. Same with Armageddon fron Eden Studios...how can you play a titan, a serphim and a archmage and not be powergaming?
My point is more that many of these optiimzations/builds dont seem to have a character concept attached to them really. That is where they seem to lack roleplaying aspects to me.
Does everyone at the table have a good time? If yes, then why does it need to be a large concern?
Edit: cause it sounded more flamey than I intended.
|
Hm. That surprises me. Theoretical builds created to attempt to reach a silly goal (Chuck, the fastest man on earth! Outruns superman!) are rarely concerend overmuch with flavor or character, but I've seen most threads that involve helping someone create a character for actual play insist rather heavily that they understand what character the player in character envisions before the serious optimization can begin.
I'm an optimizer / min-maxer. I'm one of these strange people that loves combing through obscure rulesets for the perfect mechanic that describes exactly what I want my character to do. The planning of levels is half the fun for me - though usually as a campaign progresses I have to replan every couple of levels, as I change choices as the campaign and character develop.
I like to play protective fighter types. If it weren't for the problems paladins face with most DMs and catch 22s, the paladin would be my favorite class - I loved the Crusader from Tome of Battle because it was actually mechanically able to do what I most wanted my character to be able to do - protect other characters. Given those parameters, I build my character.
Sometimes a character optimization choice leads me to my character's essential personality - I was building a diviner wizard that wouldn't ever have to make attack rolls, and decided to make them a diviner. Looking at things in the Golarion, this of course suggested worship of Pharasma - which led to other character choices, and suddenly I have a "priest" of pharasma with arcane power, an abiding hatred of undead and ranks in Heal because of the midwife aspect of Pharasma. Optimized for what I wanted, with a lot of flavor built in.
Look up the Stormwind Fallacy. Also look up "badwrongfun".
You do realise the stormwind fallacy, as usually cited, is a strawman fallacy right?
All it shows is that power gaming is not always incapatiable with good roleplay.
It does not cover the fact that while good roleplay and power gaming is not always incompatiable, it often is.
It does not cover the fact that optimisation is the major cause of 'the arms race'
It does not cover the fact that optimisation drastically reduces the options availible for play.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And how would that apply, Zurai?
I ask this question because an emphasis on a priori customization, niches, and optimal builds on the part of a player does put some limitations on both the kinds of characters and the styles of gaming that result. It's a legitimate issue. (Jess's examples to the contrary; the process she describes looks for a pretty good build, not necessarily an ideal one.)
And you're not the only person I've seen, who tries to kill off that discussion with a one-sentence response that suggests that the querent is simply wrong to ask, has committed some universally-recognized "fallacy."
Most character optimizers whom I've spoken with have suggested that oddnesses like PunPun and other abuses of the game system are gedankenexperiments, not intended to be brought into a game. And they're useful for that purpose. Stormwind's original 2004 post allowed that there are optimizations that don't make sense around a gaming table, just as there are characters in campaigns who aren't designed for combat efficiency.
Weylin,
From my perspective, you've hit upon a trend that started in 2000, with the release of 3rd Edition. If you look at the pre-release articles in Dragon magazine from that time, you'll see that they were peppered with "power play" sidebars, about how a 1st level Dwarf Fighter with these feats and that skill maxed out, and a 20 in Constitution, could have a remarkable saving throw against poison! And so on.
One of the first things Wizards of the Coast did when setting up a new edition was to set up a production system with real developers, unlike TSR, who were using mostly editors to do that job. 3rd Edition was developed by teams who were used to looking at Magic: the Gathering cards and decks, and carried that philosophy over to feats and classes. In AD&D, players roll up PCs; in 3rd Edition, they build them.
In Magic, the expectation is that a player will build a deck, play it for a season or so, and then build something else. In AD&D, there was a great sense of pride in how long a player'd been playing a particular character, in terms of years. In 3rd Edition, with the presumption of 13.3 level-appropriate encounters per experience level, and the elimination of needing to find an NPC for weeks of training, PCs would steadily increase in level until retiring. Then the player would build something else.
First, this is not meant to be overly inflammatory. The subject is going to be inflammatory period. That is unavoidable.
I see a lot of threads on various boards about "character optimizing" and "builds". Am I the only one who sees this as a politically correct way of saying "power gaming/munchkinism"?
Many of the optomization/builds I see are not overly concerned with the character concept, just the character power. It seems more often to be about building a wrecking machine (in some aspect or another) character than what feats, class, race, traits would be used to build a character concept. In general, optimizing and builds threads often strike me as more something I would see on an MMORPG than a Pen and Paper Rpg board.
-Weylin
First of all I dont think there is anything wrong with having powerful characters. Assuming the dm is on board, it means the players can take on more dramatic challenges, can be stretched thinner longer, and it means theres at least a good chance the game session doesnt have to be scrapped if one player cant show. It works just fine when all the PC's are on a similar power level and you have mostly homebrew content from the dm. I think the problem is when one or two players in a group powergame/optimize/munchkin/are sinners. Then the dm has a difficult time challenging the players who are more powerfull characters without making things too deadly for the others. I play in a group where just about everyone optimizes and it usually works out fine. It really only breaks down when the dm wants to use published material straight out of the book, which i generally dont advocate anyway (most of the time encounters should be tailored to your pc's and what they can do).
That said I think there is a difference between optimization and power gaming. There is a difference between the player that liked turning into a big stompy with polymorph (circa 3.5) and the player who used it to become godlike. Wanting to plan your character so you get in the abilities you want is not some mortal sin, it just makes sense. Why? Because life is not like RPG's when you gain new skills it generally does not preclude others, but we game in a world of attack bonuses, pre-requisites and class features. The realistic world of RPing is far more subjective.
The abstraction of feats, class features and skills is very general. Just think of all the ways people have tried to stat out classic heroes? You could come up with 100 builds for batman and robin hood. And they all could be valid in one way or another. Because the 'real world'/role playing implications of character choices are pretty general.
A rogue doesnt have to worry alot if he wants to be good at lieing and stealing in an RP sense, chances are as long as he grabs some ranks in the relative skills (bluff, stealth, disable device, sleight of hand) he can do as he likes vs the vast majority of the people in a world filling his RP desires. However, if the rogue wants to be able to reliably disable the deadly trap hanging over the entrance to the BBEG's lair, while avoiding arrows being fired from arrow slits in the side of the room, (IE a combat/mechanical encounter) he has to invest alot more. And those investments are more specific. These considerations arent just not a bad thing, they are perfectly reasonable when playing a game. Its not fun when a character is too powerful and totally overshadows someone else, but it also isnt fun when the rogue blows an important trap, the Sword and Board Fighter is easily hit by the BBEG, or the enemies save against every spell cast by the Wizard.
I have also seen the oposite of optimization be just as problematic as any munchkin. I have seen players so caught up in their 'character concept' that they ignore deficiencies and weaknesses to the point where their character is more of a liability then an asset to the party. And while this can be enjoyable from a RP perspective, it causes just as many problems as the munchkin running around with the godlike power.
My point is more that many of these optiimzations/builds dont seem to have a character concept attached to them really. That is where they seem to lack roleplaying aspects to me.
I've seen lots of weak characters without much of a character concept attached to them as well.
First, this is not meant to be overly inflammatory. The subject is going to be inflammatory period. That is unavoidable.
I see a lot of threads on various boards about "character optimizing" and "builds". Am I the only one who sees this as a politically correct way of saying "power gaming/munchkinism"?
Many of the optomization/builds I see are not overly concerned with the character concept, just the character power. It seems more often to be about building a wrecking machine (in some aspect or another) character than what feats, class, race, traits would be used to build a character concept. In general, optimizing and builds threads often strike me as more something I would see on an MMORPG than a Pen and Paper Rpg board.
-Weylin
Funny, I was having the same discussion with one of my old RPG buddy yesterday...
In the end, I don't know what to think about this anymore. In a way, I can't help myself feeling a certain nostalgia about my 2E characters (one in particular) who developed into imperfect (read not-quite-optimized) characters since they grew organically with the campaign over several years. Since we adopted the Player's Options as soon as they came out and benefited from a solid library of books, it wasn't because we lack the material to min-max our characters... There was a certain pride about those characters that is rarely felt nowadays.
Yet, I would not be ready to go back to that; I too have moved with the time and got into a more focused character and faster game-play (not to the point of adopting 4E however).
Back to the OP, I have witnessed abuse. I have seen the race-to-arms between Living-Greyhawk characters vs. modules. I have been disgusted by NPCs builts that HAD to be like that to survive what the players would come-up with. I have seen players get bored of the game because they 'ran out of builts'.
I also have been playing with players having an (optimized) build organically following the character concept rather that the other way around (or worst, in absence of a character concept that goes beyond a 'built'). I have seen the best and the worst of what 3.5 could offer. The closest thing to a conclusion my friend and I agreed on was that it was a consequential reality that would come with a more customizable system.
'findel
Many of the optomization/builds I see are not overly concerned with the character concept, just the character power. It seems more often to be about building a wrecking machine (in some aspect or another) character than what feats, class, race, traits would be used to build a character concept. In general, optimizing and builds threads often strike me as more something I would see on an MMORPG than a Pen and Paper Rpg board.
I agree with you.
Everybody wants a powerful character, but I don't think that power should come at the expense of sacrificing the role playing element.
Pathfinder and D&D are role playing games after all, so I believe the role-playing element is the most important aspect of the game. But that's just my opinion and I'm sure other people have their opinions. Everybody plays their game differently.
There's nothing wrong with power gaming and min-maxing, I'm guilty of doing it myself from time to time. There is some satisfaction to be gained from number crunching and "beating" the system, but you have to be reasonable about it so that you don't "break" the game or ruin it for the other players.
If players boost their characters to ridiculous levels, the GM/DM will just increase the difficulty of the campaign, creating the whole "arms race" scenario. So after all that boosting, nobody's any better off than when they started.
If players create "weaker" characters that are more geared towards role play, the GM/DM will tone down the difficulty of the campaign to match the level of the players. So either way, the game is balanced. This is why I don't worry about min-maxing and power gaming too much.
There's a balance between battle and role playing. Personally, I like my game to be 65% role playing and 35% battle. If you only focus on optimizing your character for battle, you'll probably suck at role-playing, and vice-versa. I think it's important to have a well-rounded character so that you can be useful in any situation, even if it means not being the "best" at dealing damage.
I'm ok with not being the most powerful being in the universe as long as I'm having fun.
In general, optimizing and builds threads often strike me as more something I would see on an MMORPG than a Pen and Paper Rpg board.
It's been said but to reiterate, build is important if you want to have fun. In the Age of Worms game I played, the majority of the party played clerics (one of Pelor, one of Cuthbert, another of some Elven diety and a paladin of Cuthbert). One player however went rogue/mage to get into Arcane trickster and while he was good at what he did, he paled in comparison to the other characters because of his multiclassing meant he wasn't good at sneak attacking and couldn't cast high level spells... it wasn't so much that the rest of us were min-maxing either, just that the build wasn't optimal enough to be useful at high levels. (fireball vs. miracle for example.)
And that sucked for him because the spot light rarely had the opportunity to shine on him through no real fault of his own, as compared to if he'd just specialized in rogue or mage. (Having that many Clerics also tended to mean that we didn't need to worry about traps... send the pally in to set them off, we can heal him back if he doesn't save.)
I find this debate both interesting and amusing.
Each person has their own concept of what "powergaming" or "munchkinism" or "min/maxing" is.
I myself would more than likely be named all three just because I happen to be a bit of a bibleophile and D&D collector. I love books...and own all the WotC 3.5 D&D books. I read through all my "core" or "splat-books" often. Because I am constantly reading my game books this leaves me in the position of knowing quite a bit about the game (and forgetting allot). All this reading also tends to leave me discovering interesting mixtures of feats or bits of the rule-set.
No surprise... I am most often the DM.
Because of my knowledge, my players are often asking me questions on the fly about this or that when they are designing their characters. I always ask them "What do you want your PC to be able to do?" and then help give them options to accomplish their character goal.
I'll admit... I like taking a character concept "worlds fastest runner" and pushing what you can do with the rules to the max. But things like that are just thought exercises. They never get used in game because the character is inherently unbalanced and often no fun to play.
In my group (when I get the chance to play) I tend to most often play warrior types. I enjoy having a character than can slice and dice his enemies and do it well. Most of my warrior types tend to be "combat monsters".
I tend to use the terms "concept" or "build" interchangeably when I am creating a character. I decide what I want the character to be able to do... "Grappler" or "Archer" or "Master Swordsman" and then set about putting together whatever will allow the character to do that role well.
That said though... role-play is never far away. I often write a half a page or more of back story for my characters. I'll explain which master my fighter learned what technique from. What caused my character to become an adventurer. What goal he may currently have. I always add a "quirk" to each character for me to act out. I develop sort of a "filter" that I can look through to decide how and why my character would react to things during play.
At the end of the day... I just consider myself a gamer.
I guess just about everyone, optimizer or no, would consider themselves a role player. I don't see developing a powerful character based on the numbers as an obstacle to good role playing UNLESS a super-optimal character completely out-distances other players who may be less mathematically inclined. I've played with people who are way better at numbers than me (I have an English degree, so I'm obviously better at story than math), and it kind of stinks to have a character that can't do much because you couldn't see at level 1 that by level 15 the math guy would be way better than you (and the rest of the party).
That said, it's nice to have resources like this board, where you can put your idea forth and see if anyone else sees a glaring problem with it. I certainly think concept and power can go hand in hand, but some of us have more trouble with the idea than others.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The metaphor I've used compares a team of Navy SEALs versus people you'd expect to find on a city bus at 8:00 in the morning. Suddenly, the group meets a hostile pool of semi-intelligent jelly, about the size of a car, forming eyes and savage mouths seemingly at will over its entire surface.
If everybody on the team is a Navy SEAL, all well and good. The commander barks an order, and they lay down suppression fire. If everybody is a normal shlub, all well and good. Everybody panics.
If just about everybody on the team is a Navy SEAL, but one guy's an asthmatic carpenter who spent a couple of years in the Merchant Marine back in the '80's, and somebody else is a college student two semesters away from a degree in Civil Engineering, then we have a problem.
In general, optimizing and builds threads often strike me as more something I would see on an MMORPG than a Pen and Paper Rpg board.
I believe hack-n-slash is better served in the video game medium, but many people also enjoy the social aspect of their tactical war game.
On an unrelated note, I find it grating when folks refer to "builds", "mobs", and (my least favourite of all) "toons" when talking about character ideas, monsters and PCs. Ugh.
In general, optimizing and builds threads often strike me as more something I would see on an MMORPG than a Pen and Paper Rpg board.I believe hack-n-slash is better served in the video game medium, but many people also enjoy the social aspect of their tactical war game.
I hear this alot, and I wonder where it comes from? Sure it IS present in the video game medium, but what exactly prevents it from being an acceptable style of play in a game at the table? A dungeon crawl is just that, a series of encounters, often with limited roleplay opportunities, there may be some, but there is a reason why many sources site the original dungeon experience, kicking in a door, killing monsters and taking their stuff. Its not unique to a new generation of MMORPG players turned role playing gamers. After all the origins of dnd include tabletop wargames that were completely hack and slash, it is not a new invention.
If people have a goal in mind for a character and they plan in advance how they want it to go, that's all well and good. Call it a "build" or whatever you like. It's still a method of growing a character. I tend to not plan that in advance very much and chose skills or feats based on what I think my character would want or be interested in. But that's just how I play, and there are times when I've been completely ineffective in combat because of it. I had a 4th level sorceror whose most powerful offensive spell was Acid Splash, just because in my mind, he wasn't a warrior type, and so he wouldn't dedicate a lot of focus to offensive-type magic. Now, since we were going through a dungeon crawl with a load of undead, that was not particularly great for us, and when he barely made it to 5th, I took magic missile and Scorching Ray, since obviously he'd realize that having some magical oomph was a matter of survival.
An optimal build? No, probably not. But it was the way I played, and everyone's got their own style. It's just when people insist that their method is the only correct method that things stop being fun.
Actually I really would like to make a comment on this:
When someone comes on asking for help with a "build" I try to leave my opinions on how to play the character out of it. The reason for this is simple: It's their character. They know who this person is, how they got where they are, why they act like the do, and what their goals are.
I don't.
It's kind of like going to a career councilor and asking for advice on how to become a rocket scientist. They aren't going to go into the life style of a rocket scientist, who you should marry, what car to drive, or what you should eat. They will tell you of the education you will need, where you should apply, how you should dress, maybe what part of the world you'll probably be working in, and what sort of mental and physical preparation you might need, because that's what they know about in relation to your question.
Basically I don't want to tell someone how to play, I want to help them have the mechanics to enjoy what they play.
I have never prepared a character that didn't have some feature optimized. When it comes to optimizing or powergaming, I might be one of the worst offenders. I seldom see it as powergaming however.
I scour sourcebooks for feats that work well together and build a character around them. I do it with the intention of building a character that has some fantastic characteristic. Why do I like doing that sort of thing? For me, using these bizare combinations are a delightful exercise in creating a one-of-a-kind story. To roleplay the character, I have to know what events turned him into who he is and so explaining why my Monk is driven to take levels of Ardent gives me detailed narrative hooks that might be difficult to create if you were trying to fabricate them out of a blank slate.
I also ALWAYS make sure to inform my DM and players of precisely what exaggerated characteristics I'm going to have. I don't want to step on any toes and I don't want my abilities to always get me out of trouble. I want the challenge, but I like to occasionally find a situation where my skills let me shine too. Given that caveat, I am not inclined to see myself as a powergamer. I might use all the same tools, but my objectives are different. Its like that old Discovery Channel show "It Takes a Thief." The guys utilize the mindset and techniques of criminals to help people protect themseleves from crooks, but they aren't law-breakers when they're doing that.
It could be that others talk about optimization instead of powergaming for the same reasons. Of course, powergaming does tend to have negative connotations and they might just be trying to avoid that association by being politically correct like to OP alleges.
Monkey, I would not personally consider you a powergamer.
Thanks. It really does seem to be a matter of intention though. Even your organically developing method can be exploited. A player that was thrust into a developing campaign against the undead and decided to pick up feats or classes to help aid him against undead could be doing it simply for the power it affords in the expected combat or because the deprevation of the undead scourge against the living has kindled a hatred of the abominations. However unlikely it may be, a player could theoretically end up powergaming even when restricted to an organic character generation method. Part of it also depends on the personality of the character you're roleplaying. I tend to gravitate toward characters that are very driven and dedicated to a cause, so it takes some serious changes in circumstance for me to be inclined to radically alter a character's goals. With the right story though, it could be compelling to play something like a Paladin that learns their god is not what they had once thought and deal with the radical character advancement retooling that would come as a consequence.
And what happens when one of the middle ranking paladins has reason to suspect things are not as they appear but no solid evidence...either because of the influence of a good deity seeking to free the paladins from the lies or possibly even the meddling of another Prince of Hell just out to ruin their rivals plans.
Perhaps your attempt to cast Bless Water turns out to have cursed the water instead?
Brilliant!
|
just to chime in here...
I, for one, like to create characters. That was what originally attracted me to DnD (and Shadowrun, Mutants&Masterminds, etc...) and what keeps me coming back every week.
That, combined with the sort of personality that lends to DM'ing, and you have a good combination (except for that high level crap when I start to hate everything about all the PCs, but that's another issue entirely) for the group.
When I DO play, now, it's become customary for me to focus on 1 aspect of the group (for now, it's stealth combat & Infil/Exfil in Second Darkness) and leave the rest to the rest of the party. In the Savage Tide game that just wrapped up, I played a (admittedly twinked out) Divine-Metamagic Cleric, who was the primary, if not ONLY character that talked In Character, addressed the NPC's by name, and made In Game decisions.
I have seen both sides of the spectrum, from an Artificer who could kill pretty much anything in 1 round to a Paladin who couldn't hit anything and kept dying (same player, mind you); and have come to the realization that Character Optimization and Character Development are entirely different beasts. You can Optimize something to be untouchable in combat, but never say a word in character, just as much as you can play the Commoner (good luck) who can't actually DO anything in the game world besides die horribly, but who is still talked about as the most interesting PC to see the light of day.
-t
Not of the mind that power gaming and roleplaying are mutually exclusive. Just find it interesting that many of the threads I see on the subject of "optimization/builds" have several people refuting it is power gaming.
Exalted is a prime example of power gaming and roleplaying not being mutually exclusive. Exalted is power gaming, that is the point of the setting and the base character creation (the solar exlated). But you can still have a lot of roleplaying and drama. Same with Armageddon fron Eden Studios...how can you play a titan, a serphim and a archmage and not be powergaming?
My point is more that many of these optiimzations/builds dont seem to have a character concept attached to them really. That is where they seem to lack roleplaying aspects to me.
For the sake of argument lets say I come hear asking for advice on how to get high initiative for a TWF rogue. I may not post the back story, but that does not mean there is not one. Why make you waste you time reading my writing, when I can just say I need help with X and Y, and if I am posting a build for critiquing the members of the board dont need to know why I am took certain feats to judge if they will be effective or not.
Edit: I think have misunderstood your post.
I hear this alot, and I wonder where it comes from? Sure it IS present in the video game medium, but what exactly prevents it from being an acceptable style of play in a game at the table?
Topic Drift
For one thing, the graphics and sound is superior. Unless you have an amazing GM who has a roomful of miniatures and scenery, it is going to be hard to beat the visual appeal of a computer game. Also, unless your GM has an amazing music and sound collection and someone to queue up the soundtrack and/or sounds at the perfect moment, it is hard to beat a video game in the sound department.
Another bonus is there is no need for a GM. You do not need to worry about getting a group together and inviting a bunch of strangers with questionable social skills and personal hygiene habits into your home. Fire up your computer and kick in some doors. Whenever you want. In fact, the computer will not tell you to use deodorant should you be one of those with questionable hygiene habits.
You can min/max to your heart's desire without the GM nerfing you out of personal bias. Granted, the game company may patch exploits, so I guess this can still happen. I am sure it happens less than in table top role playing games though. No arguing about rules.
Speaking of rules, everything is handled nearly instantaneously. You do not have to look up rules. You do not have to wait for everyone to calculate the buffs. Everything is handled by the computer. You are freed up to get to the important killing of things.
To be sure, there are limitations to computer games. There is no social aspect of getting together with friends. Even with online role playing in groups, there is a sort of isolation. All video games are railroading. Games can only be programmed so much and with no human GM, they can not improvise.
Still, for all their limitations, it seems to me if you want to kill things and take their stuff, video games are superior.
Topic Drift** spoiler omitted **...
You've obviously killed things and taken their stuff with the wrong crowd. With the right group its endlessly entertaining and sometimes pee yourself funny.
From my perspective, you've hit upon a trend that started in 2000, with the release of 3rd Edition. If you look at the pre-release articles in Dragon magazine from that time, you'll see that they were peppered with "power play" sidebars, about how a 1st level Dwarf Fighter with these feats and that skill maxed out, and a 20 in Constitution, could have a remarkable saving throw against poison! And so on.
One of the first things Wizards of the Coast did when setting up a new edition was to set up a production system with real developers, unlike TSR, who were using mostly editors to do that job. 3rd Edition was developed by teams who were used to looking at Magic: the Gathering cards and decks, and carried that philosophy over to feats and classes. In AD&D, players roll up PCs; in 3rd Edition, they build them.
In Magic, the expectation is that a player will build a deck, play it for a season or so, and then build something else. In AD&D, there was a great sense of pride in how long a player'd been playing a particular character, in terms of years. In 3rd Edition, with the presumption of 13.3 level-appropriate encounters per experience level, and the elimination of needing to find an NPC for weeks of training, PCs would steadily increase in level until retiring. Then the player would build something else.
As usual you bring a fascinating perspective to light. Certainly something to ponder in this regards as I think your right but am unsure if it was really such a bad way of going about it all things considered.
You've obviously killed things and taken their stuff with the wrong crowd. With the right group its endlessly entertaining and sometimes pee yourself funny.
I concede that is entirely possible. I am just playing the odds. In my experience, it was the more narrative focused groups that were endlessly entertaining and pee yourself funny. The more gamist focused groups just felt like accounting. They delighted in adding up how much damage they did and…um…well…they really enjoyed adding up how much damage they did.
|
Some games (and styles) lend themselves to being more fun to one group of people than to another. Neither style is wrong.
I had zero fun going from Vampire to Werewolf, when it seemed that everyone at the table was raving about how they could do 23 aggravated damage in a single hit, and make 9 attacks a round (whereas, coming from Vampire, where the guy who is practically the *god* of Vampires is limited to a soak of 10 against these sorts of attacks, which means that he's insta-gibbed so hard that there's a decent chance that the vampire behind him *also* got killed, it just sounded ridiculous to me). But that game was clearly *very* fun for the people playing it, coming back week after week to tear through encounters full of vampires, fomori, etc. who couldn't survive a quarter of the damage they could inflict (and couldn't really hurt them, either).
Still, it was good clean power-fantasy, like playing Wesley from the Princess Bride, who just happens to be able to outwit the smartest man on the planet, wrestle into unconsciousness the strongest man on the planet, and out-fence the best swordsman on the planet. If that's the kind of thing they enjoyed over beer and pretzels, my inability to appreciate that style of play was *my problem,* not theirs. Heck, when I play superhero games, that's a deliberate design element, the 'feelgood encounter' where the superheroes mow through henchmen and get to show off their powers, with little fear of harm, before facing the actual supervillain threats that *do* challenge them.
But even with those outrageous examples aside, I see nothing wrong with playing the best fencer, or the strongest man, or the smartest man in the room, so long as you are teamed up with a group of like-minded people who are *also* good at something. If everyone has a niche in which they shine (or compensate by being kinda good at a little bit of everything, like a Factotum or Bard), then everyone should be capable of having a good time, so long as the DM works with them and makes sure that each gaming session includes an opportunity for each player's character to shine (and doesn't allow just one character to shine *the entire time*).
As for crazy-optimized characters, many of them seem end up being really good at one thing, at the cost of not being nearly so good at everything else. A seriously min/maxed character who can Diplomancy or Fear-Juggle or Chain-Gatling-Trip is utterly deadweight in an encounter that doesn't allow them to take advantage of their tricked-out pony, which brings the optimal player right back in the position of creating a character that is *generally useful* instead of a Jack of One Trade.
Optimization and role-playing can go hand in hand. Just because Inigo Montoya was the 'best swordsman in the land,' doesn't mean that he was a powergaming munchkin. That was his concept. Ditto the smart dude and the strong dude. Each fit nicely within their niche, and didn't steal the other's thunder.
In most D&D scenarios, you are kind of expected to be playing an adventurer, who has made the insane choice to leave a perfectly serviceable life as a barrel-maker, who will go on to marry the brewer's daughter, to instead pick up a pointy object and go out to beat up trolls and dragons to take their stuff. Unless you die, you are pretty much expected to become some sort of hero. It would be all kinds of bizarrely inappropriate (and perhaps evidence of some sort of psychological defect or death-wish on the part of the character) if the character *wasn't* particularly good at anything, and *didn't* make an effort to be the best he/she could be!
Unless you character concept is 'bumbling comic-relief sidekick,' the *adventurer* is going to be very 'in-character' to get good at doing what they do.
I do not see wanting to have a character that is good at something as disruptive or even min/maxing. I want to have a character that is good at something.
The problem I have is that in my experience, and this is only my experience, the hack-n-slashers and min/maxers are one and the same. The one thing they want their character to be good at is killing things. In groups like this, combat is over-emphasized and the only thing that really matters is your total damage output.
As a GM, if a player comes to me and says he wants to build a character who is the greatest swordsman in the world, cool. There is no need for him to scour through half a dozen books to find a build that can dish out 100 points of damage in a single round with a sword. His 'best in the world' needs to be within the context that the other players are equally good at something as well as I should find some enjoyment in challenging him. All of this also depends largely on the type of campaign I want to run. Do I even want characters to be the best in the world.
As a player, if I want to be the face man but my buddy is 100 Hit Points/ round man, I am pretty much useless in combat. And let's face it, even in 'balanced' campaigns, combat is at least 50% of the game. Depending on the GM, I am lucky if my face man can get the spotlight ¼ of the time. Of course 100HPR guy just wants less talking and more stabbing.
I concede that disruptive players are disruptive players regardless of their style. I am not trying to say that any one particular style is wrong. I am saying that my experience has seen certain styles as indicators. The disruptive players I have come in contact with have always been hack-n-slasher min/maxers. That does not mean every hack-n-slasher or min/maxer is a disruptive player. Then again, I am not willing to take the chance.
|
|
Kyrt, you bring up a valid point.
When dealing with an experienced group, and especially for one-shot adventures, I will typically take an "anything goes" attitude when it comes to char-op and the like. That means Frenzied Berserkers, Divine Metamagic, and the Tome of Battle can be referenced, just check with me beforehand.
When it comes to newbies, or when dealing with a pre-generated adventure (such as the Adventure Paths), I take a much more "hard-line" stance.
I also enforce the MAD rules (Mutually Assured Destruction)...if you use it for your PC, it becomes a fair tactic for MY NPC's. And I have a lot more of them if it comes down to it.
My group understands this, and I try to explain it to any new people, so it works out well.
-t
…you get experience by slaughtering monsters and defeating traps.
One of the reasons why I moved away from D&D.
You break the "I can conquer anything level appropriate" mindset…
So you taught them the 'right way' to play? That was meant sarcastically, by the way. Who are we to say story driving gaming is the 'right way'.
I am just saying I personally prefer it and that min/maxing and optimized characters are generally an indicator there may be a clash of play styles.