RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The sad thing is that, for people who like stories, optimization is counter-productive.
Let me explain. In any situation approximating real life, there's a well-motivated reason for bettering yourself. In the Marines, recruits work out and develop more skills so they'll be better able to handle combat situations. The more training, the better your chances of coming home from a successful mission in one piece.
D&D isn't like that.
So, your group finds a couple of rules loopholes and designs a team of characters who are much more effective than, say, the iconic characters of the equivalent classes and level. And you head out the gates of the fort, looking for adventure.
Well, a good DM realizes that your combat threat is higher than your level would normally warrant, and throws trolls at you instead of ogres. Wondering whether to set a combat in terrain favorable to the party or not, he'll elect 'not'. He'll give the magic-slinging minion of Set some extra bodyguards, because he saw what you did to the last Evil High Priest he threw at you.
In other words, when D&D parties get stronger, they don't have better chances of coming back from a successful mission in one piece. They simply get tougher fights, over less advantageous conditions. Rising in level doesn't change the combat situation; it just introduces tougher foes and larger numbers of gold coins.
Your character has reasons for wanting to get stronger and more capable of casting powerful spells. As a player, you have much fewer reasons for wanting that.
And what about the parties that didn't worry so much about tactical efficiency? They prepared some spells 'cause they were fun, and took some skills to flesh out character backgrounds, or because they just looked interesting. Given a choice between the ring of protection +2 and the cloak of the mountebank they took the latter, because it was flashier.
And in combat? The DM does run them up against ogres, and gives them a good site for ambushing the thrallherd and her caravan, and sets the minion of Set up to be charged, because he knows that if he throws the same threats against this party that he throws against the Marine commando team, they'll all die.
And sometimes, when they win the fights, they do so because of some rube-goldberg idea that they manage to pull off. They do so because somebody thought to use the Craft (cooking) skill to fry up some bacon and coat the floor in grease. Robert Plamodon, in his book "Through Dungeons Deep" relates the story of conquering an enormous dragon single-handedly, with nothing more than an artist's smocks, a bad French accent, a good bluff, and a Mirror of Life Trapping.
And in the next dire encounter, they'll come up with something else. (If this were the commando team, somebody would have maxxed out her Craft (cook) skill, and it would have been All Bacon, All the Time.)
There are never quite so many stories told about the optimized parties. They charge and chain-trip (in those systems where such tactics are approved) and sneak attack, and add significant bonuses and do large numbers of damage, like clockwork. But next level, they'll do even more damage even more regularly, and so this level's victories will be overshadowed by next level's challenges.
But tricking a dragon into looking at its "portrait"? We're still talking about that 30 years later.
All Bacon, All the Time
This just kills a game for me. It is perfectly reasonable to continue using what works. However, in Cinema and Literature, the protagonist do not keep using the same trick over and over again. In fact, for some reason, they purposely seem to save their best tactic until last. With gamers, it is often the exact opposite.
with nothing more than an artist's smocks, a bad French accent, a good bluff, and a Mirror of Life Trapping.
That is a thing of beauty right there.
People are different, and therefore characters will be different, whether you main goal is to roleplay, or create a powerful niche character, etc. The important thing to remember is to respect everyones style of play, and enjoy the differences. A good DM can handle all styles of play, but as a group, no one should be afraid to talk with any other individual is something becomes disruptive.
I have seen optimized builds reak havoc, and I have seen specific roleplaying do the same.
Can't we all just get along ... ;)
Can't we all just get along ... ;)
Most game systems have some kind of relative balanced built into the system. Fighters are good at fighting. Wizards are good at wizarding. Optimizing Fighter A disrupts that balance, forcing Wizard B to optimize as well or be relatively less good at wizarding.
Optimization does not always stay within a concept's parameters, unless the game designer's concept matches yours.
I agree optimization has its downfalls, but that will often happen in a game with a lot of choices in regards to classes, powers, etc. That is where a DM has to step in to bring back some balance. The same could be stated for roleplaying, as it is obvious people have different tastes, and will not always play well together.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
To be clear, I don't think any level of optimization is either wrong, nor an impediment to a good game session. Anybody remember TSR's "Amazing Engine" universal game system?
In the Amazing Engines game "BugHunter", which was styled after the movie "Aliens", you better believe that your team is made up of military professionals, each with a job to do and each trained to support one another. That's a terrific game, and a lot of fun.
In the Amazing Engine game "For Queen and Faerie", a Victorian fantasy of manners, that kind of a character would be a boor. The society in which one moves in the latter game prizes a variety of graces and talents, and it would be not only difficult but rather base to design one's PC in order to gain some sort of maximal advantage over one's fellows. That, to, is a terrific game, and a different kind of fun.
Having said that, there are Paizo adventures which, if run as written, require a party that's pretty tightly focused on mission preparedness. Erik Mona has stated as much in an interview, that "Three Faces of Evil" (Age of Worms) has some encounters that are designed as wake-up calls to parties that aren't prepared for some real tactical challenges. The same should be said for some of the encounters in "Skinsaw Murders" and "Seven Swords of Sin". If a DM sees his players design something like Scooby Doo and his gang, and he doesn't want them to rebuild characters after a couple of overmatched fights, he'll have to soften up some of the published encounters quite a bit.
Sorry it took me so long to return to this thread. It got moved and I didn't notice.
First, let me define the two terms I used in my initial post.
Stormwind Fallacy: Put simply, the Stormwind Fallacy involves conflating optimization and munchkinism. The two are completely independent.
Badwrongfun: Put simply, badwrongfun is the concept that "I don't enjoy it, so it's bad".
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.
It isn't a straw man, because it isn't a distorted version of the position. I'm not twisting anyone's argument. The OP was nothing more than a "optimizing is badwrongfun" post.
There isn't a sliding scale of incompatibility. Power gaming and roleplaying are not incompatible. Period. Some people who optimize their characters don't roleplay, but the two are independent of each other. There are just as many people who do not optimize who also do not roleplay. Holding up optimizers as people who mostly don't roleplay is an actual straw man, because you're hiding the cause of the lack of roleplay behind a separate and unrelated but highly visible circumstance.
Optimization has nothing to do with "the arms race". 3.5 is a game of rocket tag in the higher levels even with unoptimized characters. He who strikes first, wins. It's been that way since 3.0, and it's still that way in 3.P. Lack of optimization doesn't change that at all. Thus, another straw man.
I'm curious how optimization reduces the options available for play? I'd actually argue the opposite: without optimization, there are some character concepts that simply cannot be played (Truenamer, I'm looking at you).
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.)
No, it doesn't. Optimization is a theoretical excersize. The majority of people who practice the theoretical excersize of optimization don't ever plan on actually using the theoretical characters they build. I guarantee that the creator of Pun-Pun never used him in a game. Don't conflate optimizers with munchkins. The two are completely separate. I've met munchkins who were proud of the fact that they didn't optimize and were far more disruptive than the optimizers in the same game. In point of fact, most optimizers do, indeed, take the "pretty good build" over the perfect 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."
I didn't try to kill it off so much as I tried to illustrate that this has been brought up many, many, many, many, many times before, and dealt with by people much more eloquent than I am. Referencing those people saves me a lot of time and effort.
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.
This is an excellent point. There's really no reason to discuss the detailed background of an optimized character on a message board. It's a lot of text that does nothing to affect the goal of the post, which is usually "how can I do this?" or "how can I do this better?". Thus, it's no surprise that you don't see a lot of in-depth character backgrounds on optimization posts.
The sad thing is that, for people who like stories, optimization is counter-productive.
<snip many, many examples, none of which have anything to do with story>
Oh, come on. There's nothing in what you said that had anything whatsoever to do with the story of the game. Every single one of the scenarios you presented had to do with mechanical decisions. You're also falling into the classic Stormwind of equating optimized characters with hack-n-slashers or powergaming munchkins. Nothing about having optimized characters prevents them from using "an artist's smocks, a bad French accent, a good bluff, and a Mirror of Life Trapping." (the mirror, by the way, is more than a little powergamer in and of itself) to defeat a dragon. This is nothing but a straw man.
Everything.
Yes.
|
Stormwind Fallacy: Put simply, the Stormwind Fallacy involves conflating optimization and munchkinism. The two are completely independent.
The thing the Stormwind Fallacy fails to recognise is that D&D (and RPG's in general) are a group not individual experience. Optimisation is not wrong or bad but can have a huge negative impact on a group if not all players are on the same optimising page as it were. I would strongly argue that someone who knows the rules well enough to make an over the top (within the rules) character could also make a character is the same relative "power" as the other players who know the rules less well. If the Stormwind Fallacy holds true then this lesser power character should also result in "fun". For me as a long time DM "badwrongfun" is the kind of fun that only effects a single player and leaves the others wondering "why are we here, oh that's right supporting cast".
S.
Stormwind Fallacy: Put simply, the Stormwind Fallacy involves conflating optimization and munchkinism. The two are completely independent.The thing the Stormwind Fallacy fails to recognise is that D&D (and RPG's in general) are a group not individual experience. Optimisation is not wrong or bad but can have a huge negative impact on a group if not all players are on the same optimising page as it were. I would strongly argue that someone who knows the rules well enough to make an over the top (within the rules) character could also make a character is the same relative "power" as the other players who know the rules less well. If the Stormwind Fallacy holds true then this lesser power character should also result in "fun". For me as a long time DM "badwrongfun" is the kind of fun that only effects a single player and leaves the others wondering "why are we here, oh that's right supporting cast".
S.
Again, you are equating optimization and munchkinism. The two concepts are entirely unrelated. The player who is intentionally overpowering his character relative to the rest of the party is a munchkin, regardless of whether he does it through optimizing his AC by taking six different prestige classes or simply because he knows that in 3.5 druids with Natural Spell kick butt.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Again, you are equating optimization and munchkinism. The two concepts are entirely unrelated.
Choosing Natural Spell because it kicks butt, because it's "optimal" for overpowering his character, is certainly "optimization".
Would you be so kind as to define your terms: optimization, munchkin, power gaming, min/maxing?
Stormwind Fallacy: Put simply, the Stormwind Fallacy involves conflating optimization and munchkinism. The two are completely independent.The thing the Stormwind Fallacy fails to recognise is that D&D (and RPG's in general) are a group not individual experience. Optimisation is not wrong or bad but can have a huge negative impact on a group if not all players are on the same optimising page as it were. I would strongly argue that someone who knows the rules well enough to make an over the top (within the rules) character could also make a character is the same relative "power" as the other players who know the rules less well. If the Stormwind Fallacy holds true then this lesser power character should also result in "fun". For me as a long time DM "badwrongfun" is the kind of fun that only effects a single player and leaves the others wondering "why are we here, oh that's right supporting cast".
S.
I agree. Though its possible to get the reverse as well. Nothing more annoying to the commando team then the guy that thinks that the fun part of the game is to have his wacky build run around bumbling into everything and trying to be funny.
If most of the players are trying to do covert ops and one guy makes a character who compulsively presses any and all buttons that appear in the adventure then that'll drive the rest of the players batty. Its almost as bad as having one pf the players create a Kender.
Choosing Natural Spell because it kicks butt, because it's "optimal" for overpowering his character, is certainly "optimization".
Again, you are equating optimization and munchkinism. The two concepts are entirely unrelated.
Incorrect. I'll explain how after I answer your question.
Would you be so kind as to define your terms: optimization, munchkin, power gaming, min/maxing?
First, "min/maxing" isn't a term I've used.
Optimization: Pushing one or more mechanical aspects of a character to its theoretical limits. Any character who is not maximized is not truly optimized. Optimization differs from Munchkinism in that Optimization isn't an attitude and isn't done at the expense of other players. It differs from Powergaming in that it's mainly theoretical exercise and that it is generally only used in reference to character mechanics.
Munchkinism: The attitude that your fun is more important than other peoples' fun. Your character is the most important character, what's happening to your character is more important than what's happening to anyone else's, etc. This usually manifests (in my at-the-table experience) as a tendency to be an attention hound, but that isn't exclusive. Munchkinism is different from Optimization in that Munchkinism is an overall attitude and approach to playing the game, and can be done with any character at all or even by the DM. Munchkinism is different from Powergaming in that the munchkin could be completely inept at the game (and in fact these are among the most annoying munchkins), while a powergamer will always be at least passable at whatever aspect of the game he's powergaming; another difference is that powergamers don't always seek the spotlight like munchkins do.
Powergaming: Powergaming is hard to describe. The best I can do is say that it's "turning it up to 11", where "it" is whatever the person is powergaming. You can easily be a powergamer roleplayer, who always speaks in character and acts confused when other players speak out of character. It's also possible to be a powergamer mechanics expert, who does indeed make overly-powerful character builds. Powergaming is different from Munchkinism in that powergamers aren't necessarily bad; if the entire group is made of powergamers of the same bent, it's likely that everyone will have tons of fun. Also, a powergamer doesn't necessarily set out to have fun at others' expense, like the munchkin does. Powergaming is different from Optimization in that it can apply to pretty much any aspect of gaming and is a generally applied concept rather than a theoretical one.
Now, those definitions being made, I'll return to the first section. The bog-standard Natural Spell wildshaping druid is NOT optimized because he's not even remotely maximized for anything. Just making a good choice with regards to power isn't optimizing. It's making a good choice with regards to power. An optimized wildshape druid would involve many other feats and prestige classes that expanded the array of wildshape options (vermin forms, magical beast forms, etc), increased the power level of wild shape (extra stat bonuses, immunities, etc, such as from Master of Many Forms), and so on.
On the other hand, it [b]is[b] powergaming munchkinism because the scenario specifically set the guy up as a powergaming munchkin. He intentionally created a combat monster (powergamer) and used that character to ruin the gameplay experience of the other players (munchkin). That's munchkinism regardless of whether it uses an optimized character or a non-optimized one. It's munchkinism even if the character is so intentionally underpowered that it ruins the experience of the other players.
The thing the Stormwind Fallacy fails to recognise is that D&D (and RPG's in general) are a group not individual experience.
The Stormwind Fallacy isn't about recognizing that. It says nothing about how much fun any given group should have based on optimizers vs. non-optimizers. It exists merely to correct the misperception that you cannot develop both mature character interaction and sophisticated mechanical concept at the same time.
|
|
Again, you are equating optimization and munchkinism. The two concepts are entirely unrelated. The player who is intentionally overpowering his character relative to the rest of the party is a munchkin, regardless of whether he does it through optimizing his AC by taking six different prestige classes or simply because he knows that in 3.5 druids with Natural Spell kick butt.
Optimisation is the mode under which munchkinism operates. Optimisation usually occurs because of "holes" or unforeseen "combos" in the rules. These are usually unattentional on the part of the game designer, hence only those who look over the rules line by line find them. So fail to see how you can say they are entirely unrelated?
My point was however the optimiser can in party of non-optimisers be seen as selfish. I just suggested that an optimiser has the knowledge and skills to make a character that "fits" with the rest of the party for the purpose of the game (i.e. group fun in an RPG individual fun at the expense of others IS badwrongfun). They are as much an unwanted disruption as a player who makes the "silly concept" as in the last post.
S.
|
|
The thing the Stormwind Fallacy fails to recognise is that D&D (and RPG's in general) are a group not individual experience.The Stormwind Fallacy isn't about recognizing that. It says nothing about how much fun any given group should have based on optimizers vs. non-optimizers. It exists merely to correct the misperception that you cannot develop both mature character interaction and sophisticated mechanical concept at the same time.
Which I completely agree with, I was just suggesting it was irrelevant in a "group game" setting in practise. Let's face it this "fallacy" states the obvious. It's intellectual value is right up there with me saying "I like Coke, but that doesn't mean I can't like Pepsi". Brilliant!
S.
Again, you are equating optimization and munchkinism. The two concepts are entirely unrelated. The player who is intentionally overpowering his character relative to the rest of the party is a munchkin, regardless of whether he does it through optimizing his AC by taking six different prestige classes or simply because he knows that in 3.5 druids with Natural Spell kick butt.Optimisation is the mode under which munchkinism operates. Optimisation usually occurs because of "holes" or unforeseen "combos" in the rules. These are usually unattentional on the part of the game designer, hence only those who look over the rules line by line find them. So fail to see how you can say they are entirely unrelated?
My point was however the optimiser can in party of non-optimisers be seen as selfish. I just suggested that an optimiser has the knowledge and skills to make a character that "fits" with the rest of the party for the purpose of the game (i.e. group fun in an RPG individual fun at the expense of others IS badwrongfun). They are as much an unwanted disruption as a player who makes the "silly concept" as in the last post.
The Stormwind Fallacy isn't about recognizing that. It says nothing about how much fun any given group should have based on optimizers vs. non-optimizers. It exists merely to correct the misperception that you cannot develop both mature character interaction and sophisticated mechanical concept at the same time.Which I completely agree with, I was just suggesting it was irrelevant in a "group game" setting in practise. Let's face it this "fallacy" states the obvious. It's intellectual value is right up there with me saying "I like Coke, but that doesn't mean I can't like Pepsi". Brilliant!
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
In the first post, you decry optimization as the equivalent to munchkinism.
In the second post, you state that only an idiot doesn't know that optimization and munchkinism are separate issues.
|
|
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
In the first post, you decry optimization as the equivalent to munchkinism.
In the second post, you state that only an idiot doesn't know that...
Try crying because I'm not with you. You started throwing around terms and then defining them. Perhaps under the Zurai dictionary of RPG terms I have committed a Faux Pas?
So I'm I right in saying then;
Powergaming = optimising a character and then playing it.
Optimising = optimising a character and then not playing it.
Munchkin = optimising (or not) a character and then playing it while making a spectacle of yourself.
I admit freely I attributed Munchkin with Powergaming in which case I stick to my statement. But after referring to your handy-dandy jargon reference guide I see now that I was in error by not specifying "Pawergaming Munchkin".
So I DO agree that optimisers, munchkins, and powergamers can in NO way be excluded from the "great roleplayers" catergory (see my Coke/Pepsi analogy - aka the statement of the obvious I was referring too). I do hold that munchkins and powergamers (as defined by you) are disruptive to a game. However, optimisers (as defined by you) aren't because it appears they don't actually inflict their characters on a party but rather present them at mathmatical proceedings and web forums only.
S.
Try crying because I'm not with you. You started throwing around terms and then defining them. Perhaps under the Zurai dictionary of RPG terms I have committed a Faux Pas?
Actually, my definitions are utterly irrelevant to this particular discussion. You yourself defined optimizers as munchkins and further as disruptive players in one post, then admitted that the two are independent circumstances in the very next post.
Again, you are equating optimization and munchkinism. The two concepts are entirely unrelated. The player who is intentionally overpowering his character relative to the rest of the party is a munchkin, regardless of whether he does it through optimizing his AC by taking six different prestige classes or simply because he knows that in 3.5 druids with Natural Spell kick butt.Optimisation is the mode under which munchkinism operates. Optimisation usually occurs because of "holes" or unforeseen "combos" in the rules. These are usually unattentional on the part of the game designer, hence only those who look over the rules line by line find them. So fail to see how you can say they are entirely unrelated?
No, optimization usually simply occurs when someone has a mechanical goal for their character and employs the full range of options available to best achieve that goal. There is nothing about optimization that requires loopholes; in fact, active abuse of loopholes is something that I'd describe as being indicative of munchkinism.
The thing the Stormwind Fallacy fails to recognise is that D&D (and RPG's in general) are a group not individual experience.The Stormwind Fallacy isn't about recognizing that. It says nothing about how much fun any given group should have based on optimizers vs. non-optimizers. It exists merely to correct the misperception that you cannot develop both mature character interaction and sophisticated mechanical concept at the same time.Which I completely agree with, I was just suggesting it was irrelevant in a "group game" setting in practise. Let's face it this "fallacy" states the obvious. It's intellectual value is right up there with me saying "I like Coke, but that doesn't mean I can't like Pepsi". Brilliant!
S.
It isn't irrelevant at all. I have encountered people who are willing to decry others for engaging in optimizing at the table because supposedly it means they won't be roleplaying.
And really, the fallacy wouldn't exist in any codified capacity if its existence weren't necessitated by the number of times the fallacy was encountered. It is clearly not obvious (or, if it is, it's clearly the target of willful ignorance), because if it were no one would run afoul of it.
|
|
Try crying because I'm not with you. You started throwing around terms and then defining them. Perhaps under the Zurai dictionary of RPG terms I have committed a Faux Pas?Actually, my definitions are utterly irrelevant to this particular discussion. You yourself defined optimizers as munchkins and further as disruptive players in one post, then admitted that the two are independent circumstances in the very next post.
Could you highlight the offending posts please, I might not be a sharpest knife in the drawer but I'm just not seeing it. I can't really comment until I see exactly what you mean. Not being a dick, seriously I'm just not 100% which posts you are referring too.
S.
Could you highlight the offending posts please ... Not being a dick, seriously I'm just not 100% which posts you are referring too.
S.
Sure. First post:
Optimisation is the mode under which munchkinism operates.
...
They are as much an unwanted disruption as a player who makes the "silly concept" as in the last post.
In this post, you set optimization as equal to munchkinism, then further define the conflated entity as being a disruptive influence at the table.
Second post:
The Stormwind Fallacy isn't about recognizing that. It says nothing about how much fun any given group should have based on optimizers vs. non-optimizers. It exists merely to correct the misperception that you cannot develop both mature character interaction and sophisticated mechanical concept at the same time.Which I completely agree with
In this post you state that you agree with the Stormwind Fallacy when it states that Optimizers are not by definition disruptive influences at the table.
|
|
It isn't irrelevant at all. I have encountered people who are willing to decry others for engaging in optimizing at the table because supposedly it means they won't be roleplaying.
Ok, clear something up for me - when does the use of the rules result in optimisation? This implies there is nothing better in terms of build or it is just better than 90%, 80% of builds in the gaming group? Where is the cut off point? When is a rule combination a loop-hole and when is it a design feature? These are sliding scales that depend on the group of people playing.
All the "fallacy" says is that Person A can engage in activities B and C and can be equally good at both - wow I'm stunned at the insight. This statement to me at least has little bearing on the impact during a gaming session. Are you suggesting that as defense of a player making an "optimised character" that causes other characters to have less use/function in a party that that optimising player can just say "Suck it up, Stormwind Fallacy guys - bite me"?
I've have had great roleplayers "hide" their optimising/powergaming under pages and pages of beautifully written background and solid roleplaying. Didn't remove the fact the characters caused disruption due to mechanical function unbalance in the party.
S.
I've have had great roleplayers "hide" their optimising/powergaming under pages and pages of beautifully written background and solid roleplaying. Didn't remove the fact the characters caused disruption due to mechanical function unbalance in the party.
Once more, the problem here is munchkinism, not optimization. It's the munchkin in them wanting to dominate the game. That they do it with mechanically sound characters has no bearing on the fact that they're munchkins and that the fact that they're munchkins is disrupting the game.
|
|
Could you highlight the offending posts please ... Not being a dick, seriously I'm just not 100% which posts you are referring too.
S.
Sure. First post:
Optimisation is the mode under which munchkinism operates.
...
They are as much an unwanted disruption as a player who makes the "silly concept" as in the last post.In this post, you set optimization as equal to munchkinism, then further define the conflated entity as being a disruptive influence at the table.
Second post:
In this post you state that you agree with the Stormwind Fallacy when it states that Optimizers are not by definition disruptive influences at the table.The Stormwind Fallacy isn't about recognizing that. It says nothing about how much fun any given group should have based on optimizers vs. non-optimizers. It exists merely to correct the misperception that you cannot develop both mature character interaction and sophisticated mechanical concept at the same time.Which I completely agree with
Cheers. Firstly I use the term "silly concept" rather than using munchkin for a reason. It covers a broader range of activities by players that derail a game. Also I was using munchkin originally as a term that you call powergamer. Thus a powergamer operates by optimising their character. Wasn't until I read your definitions I got more specific with my terminology to keep everyone on the same verbal page.
I don't think the Stormwind Fallacy says optimiser can't be or aren't disruptive? Rather it simply states that someone can have a great working knowledge of the rules and make optimised characters but this in no way precludes them from being excellent roleplayers (keeping in character etc).
Hope this clears my stance up,
S.
|
|
I've have had great roleplayers "hide" their optimising/powergaming under pages and pages of beautifully written background and solid roleplaying. Didn't remove the fact the characters caused disruption due to mechanical function unbalance in the party.Once more, the problem here is munchkinism, not optimization. It's the munchkin in them wanting to dominate the game. That they do it with mechanically sound characters has no bearing on the fact that they're munchkins and that the fact that they're munchkins is disrupting the game.
I see what you mean. But..
If optimised a character whether by design (Powergaming Munchkin) or just by fact of optimisation (Optimiser) - said character can have a mechanical influence on the game (i.e. +10 extra to hit compared to everyone else) that ends in the domination of that character in say combat (a large part of D&D). So any mechanically sound character by it's improved chance of doing X or Y can negatively impact the enjoyment of the other players. Unless they are happy as side-kicks.
Concept at the outset of character generation may be different but the impact at the gaming table remains the same.
S.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Stefan,
This fellow, code-named Stormwind, was active on the gleemax message boards in 2004, where there were indeed people who began with an attitude like:
"I put three skill ranks in my character's Craft (woodworking) because she was a carpenter before she became a rogue, that is, for background and role-playing purposes."
... and got cause and effect confused, saying things like:
"You put all of your character's skill ranks in skills that are immediately useful in combat. You choose weapons and spells and feats that are the most powerful options available to your character. Therefore, you must have chosen them because they are the most poerful options available, and that means you must not be role-playing."
... so he wrote a now-famous post arguing against that second position. He was careful in his post to make no claims about people who were interested in role-playing without making efficient characters, and he was careful to make no claims about people who were interested in stretching the game rules to create super-efficient characters (the infamous "Pun-Pun", for example) but not interested in playing them. (These people call their discussions "optimization forums", but Zurai's nomenclature would probably not use that term.)
So far as I know, nobody has been making claims like that in this thread.
--+--+--
"Inconceivable!"
"I do not think that word means what you think it does."
Zurai, as I suspected, a large part of the issue here is that we have been using the same terminology and meaning different things.
Using your terms, I've suggested that it's a good idea if a gaming group decides ahead of time just how far along the power-gaming axis they want to set their characters. And I've suggested that the kinds of PCs that come from a highly efficient, power-game group, are different from those who come from a less efficient, less-power-gamey group.
And in earlier posts, I've suggested that people who have a general idea about a character --"I want to play a warrior man-at-arms"-- will find that intense optimization will limit some of their choices. D&D 3.5 Fighters tend to be chain-trippers, chargers, frenzied two-weapons maniacs, etc. There aren't as many stolid sword-and-shield builds that work as well.
I say "intense optimization" because even within the context of your nomenclature, I think that "optimization" is a continuum. Some people aren't interested in efficient character builds at all. Other people are, but only to some extent.
So any mechanically sound character by it's improved chance of doing X or Y can negatively impact the enjoyment of the other players.
There are two potential sources of conflict here. Only one is the fault of the player with the "mechanically sound character" (and yes I do realize that's my wording, not faulting you for it).
First potential source: The party aside from the MSC is underpowered relative to the expected difficulty level of the campaign, while the MSC is at or above the power level intended for the campaign.
Second potential source: The party aside from the MSC is at the power level intended for the campaign, and the MSC is significantly higher than that level.
In the first case, I'd argue that the problem doesn't lie with the player of the mechanically sound character, but rather with the fact that the other players are either deliberately undermining their characters' strength (and I have seen people do this... the only reasoning I was ever able to get was the obviously stupid "It's not an optimized character so it's a better roleplaying character"), or that the other players simply don't know any better. That's not the fault of the MSC's player and he shouldn't be judged harshly because of it, at least as long as he's not intentionally perpetuating it. Most optimizers I've known (munchkin and not, for that matter) would happily help a new player make his character more effective without sacrificing the concept (although the munchkins would of course ensure that their character was better, still).
In the second case, if the MSC's player doesn't promptly detect that there's a significant problem and take steps to correct it, it's likely that you have a munchkin on your hands. About 80% of the optimizers I've known are more than happy to curtail their characters' power levels to reasonable limits to prevent other players feeling like they're just sidekicks. Most well-adjusted people who play tabletop RPGs are in it for the joy of playing a cooperative game, and realize that upstaging every other character is detrimental to that.
So, once more, it's not optimization that causes the conflict, it's the desire to upstage the other party members.
Stefan,
This fellow, code-named Stormwind, was active on the gleemax message boards in 2004...
No, he didn't. There were no Gleemax boards in 2004. He was almost entirely resident in Wizards of the Coast's Character Optimization board (which I'm not sure still exists; I stopped following the WotC boards when they became the Gleemax boards ... stupid-ass name). It's a minor point, though.
(These people call their discussions "optimization forums", but Zurai's nomenclature would probably not use that term.)
Actually, it was WotC that called them Character Optimization forums, and WotC that defined that term. They had separate boards for discussing non-optimization mechanical stuff. Anyway, I'm curious why you'd say that, because every serious CharOp board member I can remember treated the place as a theoretical mathematical playground. Including Tempest Stormwind. None of the posts with the "hey look what absurd things I can make the system do!" subjects were ever intended to be used in serious games. When other people would ask "what's the best way to get X?" or "how can I be better at doing Y?", they'd chime in with "Well, you can dip into a bunch of prestige classes to do it, but clear it with your DM". There were munchkins that hung out there, of course, just like there's munchkins that hang out here. But it was pretty easy to tell who the serious optimizers were and who were just in it as means of virtual masturbation.
And I've suggested that the kinds of PCs that come from a highly efficient, power-game group, are different from those who come from a less efficient, less-power-gamey group.
Mechanically, absolutely. I'll never debate that; it'd be beyond ludicrous to say otherwise.
In terms of roleplaying? Not a chance. Not inherently, anyway. My local game is full of powergamers (we play gestalt by default, which most people would decry as the spawn of the devil) and in our latest session we barely even did any fighting (killed two assassins and three speed bumps, I mean otyughs) in over five hours of gaming. All the rest was roleplay -- introducing two new characters to the group, doing research on one of the characters' history, some non-combat vigilantism, some shopping and haggling, checking in with contacts in the city, etc -- and we had probably more fun doing that than we did in the previous session, which was one long, drawn-out dungeon crawl with only one real opportunity for roleplaying.
Anecdotal, I know, but one example is all that's needed to disprove a negative.
And in earlier posts, I've suggested that people who have a general idea about a character --"I want to play a warrior man-at-arms"-- will find that intense optimization will limit some of their choices.
True in perhaps this specific circumstance (though I'd argue that even in 3.5 you can make a very nicely optimized sword-and-board character; in fact, I've seen such a build on the WotC CharOp boards), but not true in the general case. As I stated earlier, there are some concepts ("I want to affect the world by knowing the true names of things", is one example that is admittedly made easy by the uniqueness and ludicrously underpowered mechanics of the WotC Truenamer) that simply cannot exist at any reasonably effective level without optimization. (Seriously, just try playing a Truenamer without optimizing your Truespeech skill)
D&D 3.5 Fighters tend to be chain-trippers, chargers, frenzied two-weapons maniacs, etc. There aren't as many stolid sword-and-shield builds that work as well.
Honestly, this is really an unrelated issue. In 3.5, sword and board sucked even in Core. Even someone who wasn't remotely inclined towards optimization could upstage a sword-and-board fighter with any other fighter (except an Einhander build, natch). The fact that most CharOp fighters weren't sword and board isn't so much an indictment of optimization as it is of 3.5.
Even in Pathfinder, the only really good sword and board builds are really just two weapon fighting builds with a different paint job, which is a shame.
|
|
Zurai/Chris,
Nice posts guys, both peep into the heart of the matter. I like MSC by the way as a term, think it avoids the confusion of the other terms. Also MSC doesn't prempt any "type" of player - just saying the character has been made to be good at what the class says it should be.
Basing MSC on campaign "hardness" is something I can't comment on. I have DM'd for so long I don't use the canned CR/SR/or whatever to make an encounter and I rarely run encounters "as written". All I use as a guideline is if 4 out of 5 players are looking forward to the next combat so they can nip off for pizza while the MSC steps up to deal mighty death, there is a problem.
The issue would seem to be how to devise a system that rated characters realative to each other... The campaign can then be adjusted by the DM to suit.
Cheers guys, interesting discussion,
S.
I agree with Stefan I think the new term and new angles of discussion have added to the development of a better system.
All I use as a guideline is if 4 out of 5 players are looking forward to the next combat so they can nip off for pizza while the MSC steps up to deal mighty death, there is a problem.
Absolutely, it's a problem. It may even be a problem related in some fashion to optimization. Just because munchkins and optimizers aren't the same thing doesn't mean you can't have a munchkin optimizer.
A munchkin wields optimization like a sledgehammer, to pound his way to his goal; other optimizers wield optimization like Batman's tool belt, a source of "marvelous toys".
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There were no Gleemax boards in 2004. He was almost entirely resident in Wizards of the Coast's Character Optimization board (which I'm not sure still exists; I stopped following the WotC boards when they became the Gleemax boards ... stupid-ass name). It's a minor point, though.
I appreciate the correction.
By the ay, I've been trying to find an accurate mirror of that original post, but I can't seem to find one currently available. Any suggestions?
I'm curious why you'd say that [people trying to find loopholes in the system were posting on forums called 'character optimization'], because every serious CharOp board member I can remember treated the place as a theoretical mathematical playground. Including Tempest Stormwind. None of the posts with the "hey look what absurd things I can make the system do!" subjects were ever intended to be used in serious games. When other people would ask "what's the best way to get X?" or "how can I be better at doing Y?", they'd chime in with "Well, you can dip into a bunch of prestige classes to do it, but clear it with your DM".
That's close to my understanding, too. You forgot to add in the occasional dollop of snark and backbiting, though.
By the ay, I've been trying to find an accurate mirror of that original post, but I can't seem to find one currently available. Any suggestions?
Unfortunately, I've also come up short recently. The move to the Gleemax format lost a ton of very useful old posts, alas.
That's close to my understanding, too. You forgot to add in the occasional dollop of snark and backbiting, though.
Well, we are talking about the old WotC boards. I figured that went without saying ;)
It wasn't really all that bad, actually, unless you pressed one of the hotspot buttons (book of nine swords, divine metamagic, ur-priest, optimization vs roleplay, etc). The original Stormwind Fallacy post was a massive flamewar. It's hard to believe just how many people held rigidly to the idea that optimizers literally could not roleplay. It boggles my mind. And I mean that.
By the ay, I've been trying to find an accurate mirror of that original post, but I can't seem to find one currently available. Any suggestions?Unfortunately, I've also come up short recently. The move to the Gleemax format lost a ton of very useful old posts, alas.
They just redid their forums AGAIN into an even MORE user-unfriendly format back at the end of August. Good luck finding ANYTHING.
Off topic;
But why in the name of all 9 Hells is it called Gleemax?
S>
They're Glee Munchkins.
Off topic;
But why in the name of all 9 Hells is it called Gleemax?
S>
From here.
"Gleemax is the name for the mythical giant alien brain in a jar that secretly runs Magic: The Gathering R&D. It is an in-joke among the Magic: The Gathering staff of Wizards of the Coast."
...
"Gleemax is also the name of the website launched in June 2007 by Wizards of the Coast. It started as a viral marketing campaign involving plastic brains..."
|
|
Off topic;
But why in the name of all 9 Hells is it called Gleemax?
S>
From here.
"Gleemax is the name for the mythical giant alien brain in a jar that secretly runs Magic: The Gathering R&D. It is an in-joke among the Magic: The Gathering staff of Wizards of the Coast."
...
"Gleemax is also the name of the website launched in June 2007 by Wizards of the Coast. It started as a viral marketing campaign involving plastic brains..."
Right. It seems like one of those times when just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do thing...
Right. It seems like one of those times when just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do thing...
Most people realize that a funny inside joke won't mean squat to other people... most people.
Most people realize that a funny inside joke won't mean squat to other people... most people.
Right. It seems like one of those times when just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do thing...
Actually, their goal was to transform that inside joke into a brand icon - they had an only half-serious brand campaign leading up to the Gleemax launch involving the intelligence that was Gleemax interacting with the Wizards community. Had it worked, it would have been interesting. But make no mistake - calling the new community initiative 'Gleemax' wasn't the reason it failed.
|
|
Actually, their goal was to transform that inside joke into a brand icon - they had an only half-serious brand campaign leading up to the Gleemax launch involving the intelligence that was Gleemax interacting with the Wizards community. Had it worked, it would have been interesting. But make no mistake - calling the new community initiative 'Gleemax' wasn't the reason it failed.Most people realize that a funny inside joke won't mean squat to other people... most people.
Right. It seems like one of those times when just because you CAN do a thing, doesn't mean you SHOULD do thing...
Oh I agree, but let's face it having a bunch of people who thought "Gleemax" the inside joke was a cunning name wasn't a great leg up to success...