There are a few posts on the boards discussing which choices make various classes optimized. I assume optimized in most cases means optimized to kill monsters or to gain EXP.
And while I love the idea of optimizing in most games, I can't really get motivated to spend energy optimizing in Pathfinder. Why?
Because it is not a competition. Don't most parties win every single battle? In many cases, EXP is shared and split up evenly. Are there scores posted on the boards indicating the high scores for various modules?
So I guess I have two questions.
1 - is there some form of competition many groups participate in that our group is missing?
2 - if there is no competition, what motivates you to optimize in a no lose game?
It seems there would be more motivation to enjoy the company and to create a story.
Thanks for the comments.
Once more into the breach my friends!
First, define "Optimization"
If you mean, squeeze the blood from the stone and make your character terrify the GM, then it is probably bad.
If you mean make a Barbarian with a good Strength and Con, then it is probably good.
If you mean run from making a competent and capable PC, that is proabbly bad, too.
The point is that "optimization" is entirely subjective. What is optimized in one game may only be passable in the next, and vice versa.
Also, you can't really argue, or critique a character background, or a bit of narration about how the game last night went. You *can* argue numbers, options, odds and abilities.
GNOME
Well, three things:
1) Cranked-to-the-nines optimization is mostly a theoretical exercise. It's good for messageboard discussion because everyone starts with the same rulebook, even though other circumstances of their games vary wildly. Just because I can see what build throws the most damage per round on average at level 10 doesn't mean I'd ever play that character in a game. I think most people feel similarly.
2) Optimization as a theoretical exercise does expose some underlying truths/math of the game. If we're looking at 'most damage per round' builds and there are a half dozen fairly different level 10 barbarian builds scoring over 100 damage a round vs AC X on average, but no one can come up with a bard build that cracks 60, that shows you something. (Which isn't "bards suck", but might still be useful.)
3) Some level of practical optimization (or let's say, the whole party having a similar level of practical optimization, even if that level is 'low') is actually more important in a team game than in a competitive one.
I'm playing in a game now in which one of the characters is a sword-and-board fighter. He has the worst armor class in the party, despite AC, in theory, being one of the strongest points of that kind of build. That makes the game less fun for all the players -- this character isn't good at the thing he wanted to be good at (in the sense that all the other characters in the party are better) or especially good at anything else, either. If Pathfinder was a football's offensive lineup, some people would want to be the quarterback, others might want to be a running back or wide receiver, and still others might want to be a lineman -- but no one wants to be the waterboy for long. (And/or, it's not fun to have a waterboy on your team when what you really need is another lineman.)
There are groups where surviving any given encounter is not a foregone conclusion. To suggest otherwise takes away from the game for them as the conflict becomes illusionary.
1 - is there some form of competition many groups participate in that our group is missing?2 - if there is no competition, what motivates you to optimize in a no lose game?
1) Sometimes. Some players thrive in a more 'wargame' like environment. It is really dependent on the players and how they interact with the GM. I have found that a trusted (implicitly) GM tends to see a lot fewer 'optimized' PCs.
2) There may be no competition, but a STR10, DEX10, CON10, INT18, WIS14, CHA10 Fighter will not be much fun to play. Why not? Because in his/her *chosen* area of expertise they are always going to struggle. In that PCs case, he has a hard time hitting, hard time doing significant damage, his AC is going to be poor (he can't carry much weight, so can't carry much armor!), his HP will be poor, too. So, it's not a *WIN* it's a *SUCCESS* that PCs should be pursuing. How fun would it be to constantly roll up exciting, intersting characters that never succeed? Save the Princess by opening this lock. "Oh, I don't do locks!"
2a) Having said that, lots of different PC concepts work fine in most games. For example, the Falchion Fighter may be the *best* (arguable, verifiable with numbers and rules!) the Duelist oriented Fencer can still be successful. So long as the PC is not *BAD* at their role, they should do fine. :)
In any event, you are not doing it Wrong; if you are enjoying your game, you are doing it *RIGHT*
GNOME
Once more into the breach my friends!
GNOME
Thanks for responding.
OK - sounds like this is an often debated topic.
I guess I was assuming that optimization meant making your character do his one thing as effeciently as possible - if you have an acrobatic rogue, maximize all things acrobatic. Maybe a bad example, but hopefully you get my meaning.
Since there are so many detailed posts on this topic, I am guessing it is a little more complicated than making a Barbarian with good Strenght and Con.
But my question is why be concerned - don't most Game Masters allow the party to pretty much live through all encounters? Are there many situations where players are competing against each other?
I am just wondering what motivates people.
There are groups where surviving any given encounter is not a foregone conclusion. To suggest otherwise takes away from the game for them as the conflict becomes illusionary.
This makes sense then - I wish our campaign had more of this element of danger. In our group, we have never failed - so I am a little bored with it. There is no challenge.
Well, three things:
1) Cranked-to-the-nines optimization is mostly a theoretical exercise. It's good for messageboard discussion because everyone starts with the same rulebook, even though other circumstances of their games vary wildly. Just because I can see what build throws the most damage per round on average at level 10 doesn't mean I'd ever play that character in a game. I think most people feel similarly.
2) Optimization as a theoretical exercise does expose some underlying truths/math of the game. If we're looking at 'most damage per round' builds and there are a half dozen fairly different level 10 barbarian builds scoring over 100 damage a round vs AC X on average, but no one can come up with a bard build that cracks 60, that shows you something. (Which isn't "bards suck", but might still be useful.)
3) Some level of practical optimization (or let's say, the whole party having a similar level of practical optimization, even if that level is 'low') is actually more important in a team game than in a competitive one.
I'm playing in a game now in which one of the characters is a sword-and-board fighter. He has the worst armor class in the party, despite AC, in theory, being one of the strongest points of that kind of build. That makes the game less fun for all the players -- this character isn't good at the thing he wanted to be good at (in the sense that all the other characters in the party are better) or especially good at anything else, either. If Pathfinder was a football's offensive lineup, some people would want to be the quarterback, others might want to be a running back or wide receiver, and still others might want to be a lineman -- but no one wants to be the waterboy for long. (And/or, it's not fun to have a waterboy on your team when what you really need is another lineman.)
Insightful post - you stated some ideas I have never thought of before. especially the idea that you want all members of the party to be of relatively equal strenght.
In my group, I am the weakest guy. I created a rogue and put energy into Bluff, Oratory ando ther skills that are not combat related. But I find very little use for these other skills based on the way our campaign is being run and based on the desires of the other party members.
So I am a little frustrated that all we do is fight. And I am a little frustrated that I am the weakest fighter.
But my question is why be concerned - don't most Game Masters allow the party to pretty much live through all encounters? Are there many situations where players are competing against each other?
I am just wondering what motivates people.
*grin* It's all good :)
As a GM I do not give my PCs autowins. If the PCs are foolish, or foolhardy, the badguys will inform them of their poor decisions. For example, the Shadowdancer that got waylaid, knocked out (dying!) and then robbed by one of the rogues! (he got away with both of her magical Kukris!). The dice speak for themselves, and though I don't play to win, neither do I play to lose :)
Players competing against each other? In a 'in-character' "No! I am the best warrior of the group-see the enemies I have vanquished?" Or, in a Player-vs-Player format (ie, trying to kill/defeat one another)? In character rivalries can add spice, but PvP play needs to stay in WoW. (this is both as a player and a GM)
GNOME
Sounds like you need to have a chat with your GM. If you're not really enjoying the way the game is playing, then you should raise the point with them. Perhaps he could throw a little more social interaction in, or you could switch in a new character who is more combat focussed.
I think most people like to optimise a little just because it's no fun to play as a character who keeps missing, or is constantly failing to do anything. Unless that's what you're going for, of course.
In my group, I am the weakest guy. I created a rogue and put energy into Bluff, Oratory ando ther skills that are not combat related. But I find very little use for these other skills based on the way our campaign is being run and based on the desires of the other party members.
So I am a little frustrated that all we do is fight. And I am a little frustrated that I am the weakest fighter.
Ah! The meat and potatoes! Frustration at making a dedicated RP character and then 'dungeon crawling'
Some players just want to beat monsters, collect loot, and count XP.
Try talking with the GM and encouraging him to get good RP sessions for the future sessions. Every player deserves a chance to shine and the party face sould be brilliant! :D
Years ago, one of the guys volunteered to run a game, "lots of intrigue and courtly politics" he promised. So I made Jacob-an adopted son of one of the senior inquisitors, and a spy extrodinaire! First thing we get is get shanghaied off to the new world to hang out in the Jungle. Sure glad I maxed out Knowledge (Local), Diplomacy, Bluff... I played two sessions and decided paint peeling would be better.
GNOME
Sounds like you need to have a chat with your GM. If you're not really enjoying the way the game is playing, then you should raise the point with them. Perhaps he could throw a little more social interaction in, or you could switch in a new character who is more combat focussed.
I think most people like to optimise a little just because it's no fun to play as a character who keeps missing, or is constantly failing to do anything. Unless that's what you're going for, of course.
I would like to have more social interactions in our game - but I think I am in the minority.
I did take your advice on the other suggestion though, I asked if I could re-build my rogue since all we seem to do is fight.
Since I am new to RPG, I am not sure how a more social RPG game would actually go. I am not sure if I would enjoy that or not. So I am a little reluctant to push for that, especially since the GM may not be comfortable with that style of play.
In my group, I am the weakest guy. I created a rogue and put energy into Bluff, Oratory ando ther skills that are not combat related. But I find very little use for these other skills based on the way our campaign is being run and based on the desires of the other party members.
So I am a little frustrated that all we do is fight. And I am a little frustrated that I am the weakest fighter.
Ah! The meat and potatoes! Frustration at making a dedicated RP character and then 'dungeon crawling'
GNOME
You see right through me Gnome. Good observation.
Yes, I am really craving a game with more interaction, more political intrigue, but since I have never played in a game like that, I am not positive that I would enjoy it. I think my GM is most comfortable with just fighting.
I have requested to run a game. I think I could prepare enough for it to be successful, but I am not really aware of the pitfalls or challenges of playing in a game where there is less fighting and more other stuff.
We are in the 3rd module of Council of Thieves and only meet once per month. So we have a ways to go.
Like DM above stated, optimization allows people to look at inconsistencies within the ruleset. In many cases it's very theoretical because most characters grow organically rather than have the best class, feat, skill, spell and magic item selection at any given point in their career.
Further many of the ultra-high end Char Op builds require an exceptional level of rules lawyering, generally taking and contorting various badly defined game concepts until the fabric of reality breaks ;) In theory this would lead to errata so that the exploit is patched.
Finally, a certain level of practical optimization is desirable in that each character can be expected to handle his role effectively and efficiently. Most people don't like playing mechanically inferior characters and most people don't like the game getting harder because someone else decided to play a mechanically inferior character.
|
Optimization does not preclude social interaction and roleplaying. My group consists of powergamers, but the only combat action in yesterdays session consisted of firing an arrow on a deer while hunting.
They even bribed a bunch of kobolds with part of their reward money instead of fighting them. The whole situation required some additional roleplaying because none of the characters spoke draconic.
If players aren't interested in social situations it's not because they are optimizers, it's because they aren't interested in social situations.
Years ago, one of the guys volunteered to run a game, "lots of intrigue and courtly politics" he promised.
I wish I had a penny for every GM that told me his campaign was a balance of combat and role play only to find it out was another dungeon crawl.
|
<snip>
1 - is there some form of competition many groups participate in that our group is missing?2 - if there is no competition, what motivates you to optimize in a no lose game?
It seems there would be more motivation to enjoy the company and to create a story.
Thanks for the comments.
Yes, this is a hot-button topic 'round these parts. Not that that's a bad thing, just something to keep in mind.
GNOME answered pretty much as I would, but to add:
1: If there is no risk, there is no reward. Having a difficult encounter turned by the proper application of some feat/spell/tactical decision, or knowing that you need to roll an 18 or better for the team to survive makes the difference between a "ho-hum" game and one you'll talk about for years to come.
Thus, the Party "competes" against The World, with the DM providing challenging encounters and memorable NPCs.
2: Several motivations come into play, such as "desire for system mastery," "perception of effectiveness," or such disruptive ideas as "Gotta be the Best" or "High Numbers Are Better." Remember, not everyone views the game from the same perspective. Some tables prefer a Tactical Wargame style environment, where combat effectiveness and the roll of the dice rule supreme.
Still others prefer a Narrative Story game, where mechanics be darned if they get in the way of the plot.
Most groups (in my experience) fall somewhere in the middle, with out-of-character jokes, in-game dialogue, tactical positioning, and character development all sharing some amount of table-time.
Finally, note that "Optimized" means:
"make optimal; get the most out of; use best" Source:Clicky
and "Optimal" means:
"A condition of being most integrated, beneficial or desirable. Optimisation is arranging a system for the most desirable outcomes. To optimise is often not the same as to maximise. Source: clicky
So, without a goal to optimize towards, the process falls apart. Once you set a benchmark (as the various Damage Per Round "DPR" and other optimization exercise threads do), you have standards by which to judge relative values. For example, DPR allows one to calculate an expected outcome of one character, as compared to another, within the stated parameters (Level, Gear, CR appropriate enemies, etc).
Many people will use such calculations to determine just what feat to take, or how to account for a particularly desired character trait. With that information, you can make an effective "Melee Rogue" or "Longspear Druidm" or "Shapechanging Sorcerer," with confidence the math behind your decisions will pan out over a campaign.
/edit
You see right through me Gnome. Good observation.
Yes, I am really craving a game with more interaction, more political intrigue, but since I have never played in a game like that, I am not positive that I would enjoy it. I think my GM is most comfortable with just fighting.
I have requested to run a game. I think I could prepare enough for it to be successful, but I am not really aware of the pitfalls or challenges of playing in a game where there is less fighting and more other stuff.
We are in the 3rd module of Council of Thieves and only meet once per month. So we have a ways to go.
It might be worth your while trying to create a little more social interaction by stepping away from the obvious solution in your games and exploring the wider world of Westcrown. The difficulty there is making your voice heard if the party is all for killing their way to success, but stepping outside the realms of pure combat and attempting to forge aliances with NPCs might be a good way to give everyone a taste of the more social side of things. Just a thought, easier said than done.
I don't mind optimization and min-maxing, as long as people are willing to play the characters they've created. If you dump your Int and Cha so you can get your Str to "OVER NINE THOUSAAAAAAAND!", that's fine by me, but I expect you to play a dumb brute and will not stand weaseling around your dump stats with "roleplaying".
That said, we tend to generate stats by rolling 3d6+6 and dropping the lowest dice, so I don't expect blatant min-maxing to come up too often in my games.
|
Optimization can be done on meny levels. To some it's a art form to others it's a math problem. In order to make a good character you have to do some optimization. Your character needs work in the area you chose for them. You can make a character take on multiple rolls. This requires more optimization. Or understanding how good you will be at your secondary rolls. You realy have to look at the character to understand where your going. If your character hase no clear defined path to power. If not you have just made a character that my or my not work the way you want. More often then not it fails.
Also optimization is not always for combat, you can optmize a rogue (for exemple) to be a master thief, or to be a master in bluff and diplomacy.
I guess I was assuming that optimization meant making your character do his one thing as effeciently as possible - if you have an acrobatic rogue, maximize all things acrobatic. Maybe a bad example, but hopefully you get my meaning.
That is what I consider optimization. The bad rep it gets is because the one thing most people want their characters to be good at is killing stuff.
And I agree with H.T.J. On the dungeon, ask the group to keep one goblin alive so you can interrogate him about hidden treasure or other monsters that live in the dungeon. If you get into town use your skills to sell the loot for a better price and to buy equipmant with a discount for a start, if the group has to talk to someone step up, say to the other players "I have the best bluff let me speak with the king okay?" After the rogue on my group started doing that our sorcerer started putting points into diplomacy and my barbarian started investing in intimidate so we could play "good cop, bad cop" on interrogations.
There are a few posts on the boards discussing which choices make various classes optimized. I assume optimized in most cases means optimized to kill monsters or to gain EXP.
And while I love the idea of optimizing in most games, I can't really get motivated to spend energy optimizing in Pathfinder. Why?
Because it is not a competition. Don't most parties win every single battle? In many cases, EXP is shared and split up evenly. Are there scores posted on the boards indicating the high scores for various modules?
So I guess I have two questions.
1 - is there some form of competition many groups participate in that our group is missing?
2 - if there is no competition, what motivates you to optimize in a no lose game?
It seems there would be more motivation to enjoy the company and to create a story.
Thanks for the comments.
People optimize for a number of reasons. First of all, some like myself like the feeling of accomplishment when things fall into place and your character does well. I like understanding how things work together in a complex system. Pathfinder is a complex system, and optimizing my character lets me express my understanding of it. For me thats pretty darn fun in and of itself.
Another reason is survival. Some dms place very difficult challenges in front of the party because either they want a tough challenging adventure, or its a matter of 'thats what is there and I am not going to adjust my world according to CR'. Both are reasonable styles of play, but require a high level of effectiveness to avoid constant death in the party. In this case, there is a possibility to lose. Unless it is at a pivotal moment(where a death can add alot if done right) in the story, losing a character is a blow to the story. All their interactions, their subplots, etc are wiped out. And the player is likely picking up a new character which now needs to be shoehorned into the story somehow. Aragorn shouldn't go down to random orc number 2.
You can also optimize because your character to be badass. We all play for many reasons, one of those is escapism. Your hero of choice might be spiderman who gets kicked around a lot, or it might be Superman who has all the cheat codes on. It can be fun as a person to express your desire to be superman for a couple hours a week with your friends. And as long as everyones on board, it can be a lot of fun. The key is to have similar levels of optimization across the board in the group. Then the dm can adjust to the relative strength of the group. For me this mentaliry is only a problem if some people do it and others dont. Then you have cyclopse fighting alongside superman and the green lantern, and cyclopse feels redundant.
The last reason I can think of is to follow a concept. You can optimize many different ways (though most revolve around combat you can optimize for skills for instance). If you are playing a character who is striving to become the best swordsman the world has ever seen, well then he isnt going to pick alertness, skill focus knowledge nature, and have 9 str and 8 dex is he?
Edit:
And though I am sure someone has said it, there is no conflict between enjoying the story or the company and optimization (again so long as its equal). My group splits fairly evenly between roleplaying and rollplaying, but we all optimize. Doesn't mean we cant tell interesting stories or have fun with eachother at the table.
There are groups where surviving any given encounter is not a foregone conclusion. To suggest otherwise takes away from the game for them as the conflict becomes illusionary.
While I agree with this I would also make a sidenote that barely surviving precisely because you didn't do the best you could also makes it more illusionary.
This isn't to say, "optimize or you're a fake!" -- just that the lack of optimization so that things are a "threat" isn't 'more real' than optimizing and things not being a threat.
This is due to the fact that the very term 'threat' is entirely subjective.
There are groups where surviving any given encounter is not a foregone conclusion. To suggest otherwise takes away from the game for them as the conflict becomes illusionary.While I agree with this I would also make a sidenote that barely surviving precisely because you didn't do the best you could also makes it more illusionary.
This isn't to say, "optimize or you're a fake!" -- just that the lack of optimization so that things are a "threat" isn't 'more real' than optimizing and things not being a threat.
This is due to the fact that the very term 'threat' is entirely subjective.
Its not only subjective, its relative. Thats why its important for an entire group to be on the same relative level of optimization. A good dm can adjust the challenge up or down to meet his style. The DM may want modest challenges where the players are heroic superheroes, or they may want to kick them around and make defeat an ever present threat. As long as everyone is on that same level in terms of power, it can be low or it can be over 9000, the dm can adjust. But if one player is playing Joe Everyman, and another is playing Superman, you cant adjust your challenges for that.
I want to have fun playing my character if he is not good at his choosen profession he should of just stayed working in his little village and never became an adventurer
But if one player is playing Joe Everyman, and another is playing Superman, you cant adjust your challenges for that.
Generally a good point but this bit is not entirely true. It's certainly more difficult, but if you strike it just right you can work it out. For example: in my group I have one particularly guy to whom optimising is second nature. He's not a munchkin (I would have eaten him if he were), being probably one of the most keen and confident roleplayers in the group but when he makes a character he enjoys making it as best as he can. Not so much the rest of the group, who will sacrifice more optimal builds for character fluff reasons. If I'm not careful, he tends to dominate combats, making all the other guys feel a bit left out. If I build encounters with the total party's strengths and weaknesses in mind, then this doesn't happen and everyone gets to feel awesome. I don't always get it right, but it can be done either way around.
But if one player is playing Joe Everyman, and another is playing Superman, you cant adjust your challenges for that.Generally a good point but this bit is not entirely true. It's certainly more difficult, but if you strike it just right you can work it out. For example: in my group I have one particularly guy to whom optimising is second nature. He's not a munchkin (I would have eaten him if he were), being probably one of the most keen and confident roleplayers in the group but when he makes a character he enjoys making it as best as he can. Not so much the rest of the group, who will sacrifice more optimal builds for character fluff reasons. If I'm not careful, he tends to dominate combats, making all the other guys feel a bit left out. If I build encounters with the total party's strengths and weaknesses in mind, then this doesn't happen and everyone gets to feel awesome. I don't always get it right, but it can be done either way around.
Well you are right, cant is probably the wrong word, it is just rather difficult and time consuming for the dm. Divergence from the group is difficult in both directions. A heavy optimizer in a group of non-optimizers is just as challenging as a person who deliberately takes bad choices in a group that optimizes.
This isn't to say, "optimize or you're a fake!" -- just that the lack of optimization so that things are a "threat" isn't 'more real' than optimizing and things not being a threat.
I am not sure what you mean here by 'more real'.
If you tell me I need to optimize more to 'carry my weight', how is that any different than me telling you that you need to role play instead of roll play more?
It really comes down to what everyone at your particular table wants. In my own personal opinion, it is easier for an optimizer to force the hand of the GM to increase the threat and thereby force everyone else at the table to adopt his style of play or else become sidekicks.
This isn't to say, "optimize or you're a fake!" -- just that the lack of optimization so that things are a "threat" isn't 'more real' than optimizing and things not being a threat.I am not sure what you mean here by 'more real'.
If you tell me I need to optimize more to 'carry my weight', how is that any different than me telling you that you need to role play instead of roll play more?
It really comes down to what everyone at your particular table wants. In my own personal opinion, it is easier for an optimizer to force the hand of the GM to increase the threat and thereby force everyone else at the table to adopt his style of play or else become sidekicks.
I didn't say what I meant to --
What I was trying to say is that if I can play a 'mechanically strong' character then for me playing a 'mechanically weak' character is just as false as having a 'foregone conclusion' in a fight -- because even though the fight was 'difficult' it shouldn't have been. After all the average goblin shouldn't be difficult for say, a level 9 character, if the average goblin is -- then something is wrong.
If I'm playing an 'elite' sort for the campaign world then I expect that 'average' level problems should have a foregone conclusion where I win -- after all I'm much more than 'average'.
If my party is having a hard time simply because one player insists on playing the gimp then I as a player am going to be frustrated, and my character likely will be as well -- after all this isn't the GM challenging me it's another player causing me more problems on top of what the GM is giving me -- which isn't something anyone in any world with any sense or 'realism' is going to put up with for long.
Are you going to put up with someone that is blind insisting to drive you around town while taking Oxycontin? No, by the same logic my wizard isn't going to rely on a fighter that hides behind the wizard in every fight and doesn't do anything but sing loudly, and insists that anytime he's taken as much as 5 hit points of damage (when he has 150 hp) that he must withdraw and heal before continuing to fight -- it's suicide.
Now we all know that role playing and roll playing have nothing to do with each other -- and I would never suggest otherwise -- however to some extent I do expect the other players to be able to develop characters that contribute just as I expect them to know their character's names and the follow what's going on at minimum.
|
|
How exactly is allowing people of questionable competence to follow you into dangerous situations good roleplaying? Neutral should have little interest in such companions because they are a liability, good characters should not want to endanger the weak.
Allowing useless party members just because they are player characters is pretty metagamey and a rather good example of 'roleplaying'.
I didn't say what I meant to --
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
|
|
I can tell you as a DM. I don't go easy on the players when the game starts. If they made a character that can not keap up with the other players at the table it's not my problem. Same gose with when I get a chance to play. If you make a character that dose not work well don't say well it's better for RP. Saying RP is a reason to not make the very best character you can. Is like saying just becous I use optimized character I can't RP. There are not the same thing and they can be done at the same time.
My curent character hase 1 page history. I have done more in the past. Dose this make him less optimized no. Optimization and RP are not the same thing.
Can optimization make a good character back ground better? Yes it lets you back up the story where your good at doing what ever it is you do.
I didn't say what I meant to --Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Not at all, like I said I didn't say it right -- now we are on the same page.
I fully agree it all comes down to the group you are with -- but if I was with a group that was well below my acceptable 'grade' of optimization I would speak up and see what was going on, and if I needed to move along. I would rather find a new group and have no hard feelings with anyone than to stay with a group and have people grow frustrated with me and each other.
1 - is there some form of competition many groups participate in that our group is missing?
Why optimize?
A) Because its not fun getting your rear kicked
B) Because if you want to have fun playing a theme: a tripper, an enchanter, or just someone that lops peoples heads off, you need to do it well.
Because it is not a competition. Don't most parties win every single battle?
That's going to depend a lot on your dm: what they put you up against, how tactical they are, how willing they are to make you run away with your tail between your legs.
|
|
I think lots of people already answered your initial questions. It sucks to feel useless, so making a better character should in theory make the character more useful when mechanics come into play.
Also note that as players get more experienced in these types of games, their desire changes as well. Players might find they enjoy more/less combat as time goes. I dislike combat in my games because it interferes with the story. It exists, and I must deal with it, so I do. Others might find themselves really enjoying DPR, so they make more powerful fighting types.
When a make a character, I ALWAYS make sure it doesn't suck mechanically. I under if the character sucks mechanically, I won't get to those fun RP sessions, or those cool story moments.
|
I think the biggest reason people optimize their combat stats and skills so much is because they feel they don't need to optimize their social stats and skills.
A lot of players feel they can just have witty dialogue to overcome their low social skills in game. Some GMs even give roll-playing bonuses for good role-playing.
That just makes the problem worse because then there is no incentive for the player to make a well rounded character.
If you have a player who can properly demonstrate good technique with a sword, do you give him a bonus on his roll to hit next round?
Should be the same way with your social stuff. If you have a Charisma of 8, I don't care how you phrase the dialogue, you will not get a bonus to bluff your way into town. Especially if the only reason your charisma is that low is because you had to sacrifice something to get to 20 strength.
Heck with optimization! If I choose to make a character who is actually good at what he is supposed to do, then I'm not properly ROLEplaying, dammit. So no matter what point buy we use I always make sure that I have no stat over a 13 or under 11. I'm also sure to only use my skill ranks in ROLEplaying skills like Bluff and Sense Motive because maxxing out stuff like Perception is akin to outright cheating.
This has the added benefit of making it so that it doesn't matter at all whatsoever which class I choose to play because I am going to be awesomely average at whatever I pick! But none of that matters as long as I can write up a fifty-page character background and deliver all of my lines with a great accent!
I think the biggest reason people optimize their combat stats and skills so much is because they feel they don't need to optimize their social stats and skills.
People play the game differently.
Some people like to crunch numbers. Some people like to roleplay a fun concept.
It can be really fun to play a fighter with an 8 STR using a greatsword, if you're interested in that. It's a huge hurdle to overcome, and you can make up all kinds of backstories/reasons for the character. His dad was a great fighter, and he followed in his footsteps, even though he is not built for it, etc.
It can also be really fun to play a barbarian/sorcerer mix with moment of clarity and power attack and whatever else. Squeezing every single number you can out of every buff from every splatbook you can convince your GM to allow.
Some people don't give a crap about their stats at all, and just want to play the game.
Some people just want to hit the dragon as hard as they can.
Everybody is playing the same game. It allows for both kinds of people to play, and a mix of them at a table can be a very good thing indeed.
I'm a numbers guy. I write solid backstories and I like roleplaying my character, but at the end of the day, I want to hit that dragon hard. I want to have my spells have the best chance for success. I want to win.
I play with some people who are the other side, and barely even remember their stats or abilities without looking at the sheet. They have a good time of it.
And we rub off on each other. My DM has said that I have "ruined" one of the other players, making him a powergamer. But the other people in the group have made me roleplay better, and more often. Even as a numbers guy, I can have a good time trying to convince a King to let us serve as official palace guards, or whatever.
It's all fun. It's a game. Enjoy it.
If you don't want to optimize, don't.
Never let anyone else tell you how to play your game.
I'm a numbers guy. I write solid backstories and I like roleplaying my character, but at the end of the day, I want to hit that dragon hard. I want to have my spells have the best chance for success. I want to win.
So what does win mean? In my game, we never lose an encounter - I guess by lose I mean nobody ever dies in our party, we always get the objective.
So what challenge are you over-coming to win?
I am just asking, because in the games I play in right now, I am bored because I feel there is no challenges for me to solve. There is no creature we have to figure out how to beat.
I'm a numbers guy. I write solid backstories and I like roleplaying my character, but at the end of the day, I want to hit that dragon hard. I want to have my spells have the best chance for success. I want to win.So what does win mean? In my game, we never lose an encounter - I guess by lose I mean nobody ever dies in our party, we always get the objective.
So what challenge are you over-coming to win?
I am just asking, because in the games I play in right now, I am bored because I feel there is no challenges for me to solve. There is no creature we have to figure out how to beat.
Sorry, had to do it.
So what does win mean? In my game, we never lose an encounter - I guess by lose I mean nobody ever dies in our party, we always get the objective.
So what challenge are you over-coming to win?
I am just asking, because in the games I play in right now, I am bored because I feel there is no challenges for me to solve. There is no creature we have to figure out how to beat.
That's a problem. You're a group of armored and armed men and women encountering monsters, evil, and other armed and armored men and women. How the heck can you feel safe from death?!?!?! That should almost never be the case. Should you guys be confident in your abilities? Sure. Should things be a foregone conclusion? No way. That's just bad DMing....and to be honest it IS boring.
Crank up the challenge. Get your DM to run one of the older Adventure Paths....like Rise of the Runelords. Play it the way it's written (with slight changes to convert from 3.5 to PFRPG...it's not too much work at all). That'll give ya some some challenge and put some fear of death into the players.
So what does win mean? In my game, we never lose an encounter - I guess by lose I mean nobody ever dies in our party, we always get the objective.
So what challenge are you over-coming to win?
I am just asking, because in the games I play in right now, I am bored because I feel there is no challenges for me to solve. There is no creature we have to figure out how to beat.
That's a problem. You're a group of armored and armed men and women encountering monsters, evil, and other armed and armored men and women. How the heck can you feel safe from death?!?!?! That should almost never be the case. Should you guys be confident in your abilities? Sure. Should things be a foregone conclusion? No way. That's just bad DMing....and to be honest it IS boring.
Crank up the challenge. Get your DM to run one of the older Adventure Paths....like Rise of the Runelords. Play it the way it's written (with slight changes to convert from 3.5 to PFRPG...it's not too much work at all). That'll give ya some some challenge and put some fear of death into the players.
Unless one is taught what to do with success after getting it, achievement of it must inevitably leave him prey to boredom.
There are a few posts on the boards discussing which choices make various classes optimized. I assume optimized in most cases means optimized to kill monsters or to gain EXP.
And while I love the idea of optimizing in most games, I can't really get motivated to spend energy optimizing in Pathfinder. Why?
Because it is not a competition. Don't most parties win every single battle? In many cases, EXP is shared and split up evenly. Are there scores posted on the boards indicating the high scores for various modules?
So I guess I have two questions.
1 - is there some form of competition many groups participate in that our group is missing?
2 - if there is no competition, what motivates you to optimize in a no lose game?
It seems there would be more motivation to enjoy the company and to create a story.
Thanks for the comments.
1. Nope
2. You can lose in the sense that if you can't complete the quest the mission is a failure. Surviving is also a good reason. Some GM's are much more lethal with tactics than others.
But my question is why be concerned - don't most Game Masters allow the party to pretty much live through all encounters? Are there many situations where players are competing against each other?
I am just wondering what motivates people.
Hells naw, not foe me anyway.
There are many different group types. Some DM's never kill anyone. These are mostly narrative DM's. Some DM's let the dice fall where they may. Some fall somewhere in between the two.As much smack as I talk I do help the players out every once in a while, but most of the time if they end up in a situation where they will die they die.
As a player I don't want anyone allowing me to live. I personally see no point in showing up and rolling the dice if I already know the result, and many people can tell when the DM is allowing them to live. I do know my style is not for everyone. I would not do well in a completely narrative group.
I guess I was assuming that optimization meant making your character do his one thing as effeciently as possible - if you have an acrobatic rogue, maximize all things acrobatic. Maybe a bad example, but hopefully you get my meaning.I am just wondering what motivates people.
I think the question to ask is: Character Optimization: Why Not?
I always start with an idea for a character and build from there. My current character is a bookish wizard who discovers his love of "science" outweighs his own sense of self preservation and decides to travel on the road to assemble a beastiary. He encounters monsters, tries to charm them, take samples, study them, etc.
What ever the case I then roll my stats and I try to pick characteristics, traits and feats that make sense for a wizard who is obsessed with nature, Magic, monsters, and their magical abilities. Is that optimization?
If I just threw stats up there all willy-nilly he wouldn't be the character I had in my head. I want him to be good at what he does perhaps the best and in order to do that I need to select those feats, skills, stats that accomplish that.
I had a final thought:
Many of those that do the forum character optimization stuff are also those that like to tinker with the system and could easily be considered (at minimum) amateur designers -- most of whom would like to be professional in some form in the future. As such they need to know what the numbers in the system allow, and where the practical, and theoretical limits of the system are. It allows them to better design and plan for what is possible in the game hopefully making their work better.
As most of the system and rules are open sourced many of these people also open source their research and look over what others offer in such matters too. As an aside to their primary task they happen to help other players develop their system mastery when asked as well. After all it only takes a few seconds and can help other enjoy the game better as well.