|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So after watching James Jacobs basically get chased out of the rules forum, is there any chance we could get a new forum for optimization and power gaming discussion?
At it's best, the rules forum is a good place for new players to get basic if confusing questions answered by the community at large or for those with more in-depth concerns to solicit interpretation from the developers.
Unfortunately the rules forum is also the place for "this ability sucks because of x" and "why would you want to do that? This completely different thing is so much better!" Since I started playing Pathfinder half a year ago, the number of Paizo employees posting on the rules forum has dwindled to Sean and James, with the frequency steadily declining. And now it looks like no more James.
So how about that optimization forum? Maybe we can get some more interaction with devs in the rules forum, and give those who love to compare various builds a place to call home.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
If I'm reading the descriptions right, it sounds like the Rules forum is for clarification and understanding of how a rule works.
The Advice forum seems like the place to take about optimization--a place to give advice about how to play the game.
I don't think an optimization forum makes sense since that isn't a goal of the standard Pathfinder ruleset. Paizo would be encouraging a style of play that they frankly aren't pursuing which would be really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice.
Posting in the Advice forum, on the other hand, allows power gamers a chance to share opinions and discuss without confusing new players looking for basic answers in the rules forums. And since it is advice, it comes across as a way of playing that some gamers would really like to see more of, without forcing a discussion of whether the official rules need to be changed to support that playstyle.
|
If I'm reading the descriptions right, it sounds like the Rules forum is for clarification and understanding of how a rule works.
The Advice forum seems like the place to take about optimization--a place to give advice about how to play the game.
I don't think an optimization forum makes sense since that isn't a goal of the standard Pathfinder ruleset. Paizo would be encouraging a style of play that they frankly aren't pursuing which would be really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice.
Posting in the Advice forum, on the other hand, allows power gamers a chance to share opinions and discuss without confusing new players looking for basic answers in the rules forums. And since it is advice, it comes across as a way of playing that some gamers would really like to see more of, without forcing a discussion of whether the official rules need to be changed to support that playstyle.
Agreed.
|
|
I don't think an optimization forum makes sense since that isn't a goal of the standard Pathfinder ruleset. Paizo would be encouraging a style of play that they frankly aren't pursuing which would be really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice.
I think you may have missed the point that the rules forum has become the place where optimization players post a lot. Rules interactions tend to lead to powergaming. And we all love to share opinions. It's gotten to where even the most basic questions - "what do I add to my attack roll when flanking?" tends to get met by "+2, but you should really take the outflank feat because..."
And I am not innocent in this, it's difficult to stick to the subject a lot of times.
My suggestion was catalyzed by James Jacobs stating that he was going to avoid the rules forum in the future. Ideally you are correct, but it's just not working out that way. My hope would be that an optimization forum would move those interested in this away from the rules forum. Other suggestions that would achieve the same goals would be equally as good.
|
|
I like James a lot, and for his sanity I agree that he should avoid the Rules Forums. The way he is treated there, though, pales in comparison to the way Sean gets treated. Sometimes I wish SRM got more involed in those threads, because (after having met him at PCon, it seems to me like) he really honestly and truly doesn't give a **** what you think about him personally, and that's the only kind of person that I think could thrive in the atmosphere down there.
I like James a lot, and for his sanity I agree that he should avoid the Rules Forums. The way he is treated there, though, pales in comparison to the way Sean gets treated. Sometimes I wish SRM got more involed in those threads, because (after having met him at PCon, it seems to me like) he really honestly and truly doesn't give a **** what you think about him personally, and that's the only kind of person that I think could thrive in the atmosphere down there.
Agreed. I think we have a lot of internet tough guys who definnitely wouldnt step to people in real space the way that they do on the boards. The sad thing is there are a few posters who I really CANT STAND becasue of thier posting style but who actually make some half decent points when theyre not being jerks.
If you post in a civil manner I think people are more likely listen to what you have to say with more of an open mind. On the otherhand with internet jerks I have a harder time listening to thier points no matter how valid they might be.
<materialises in flash and cloud of sulphurous smoke>
We do not have an official political forum yet, where great Asmodeus may be properly worshipped. It seems unlikely to me that Paizo will create a forum for the worship of those buffoons Gorum, Nethys and Rovagug.
<attempts to dematerialise and fails>
Bah! Head office appears to have restricted my teleportation budget this week. These cut-backs...
<stalks out of thread, glowering in a saturnine manner>
Senior Software Developer
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
You want the advice forum.
Edit: OK, I guess I could be a little more specific. If you want to discuss "how to make a build moar awesome", post to the advice forum. If you want to suggest an awesome build, post it to the advice forum. If you want to ask "why does this thing suck because I hate it so much", post it to your blog.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest i'd prefer developers not to come in and answer rules questions. I feel thats what the FAQ system is for.
As a knock on effect, now theres an trend towards people on the forums insisting on a developer response and calling them out in thread titles. It just doesn't sit well with me personally.
If you want to ask "why does this thing suck because I hate it so much", post it to your blog.
You're lucky I don't know how to blog otherwise I would take you up on that and complain about everything!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest i'd prefer developers not to come in and answer rules questions. I feel thats what the FAQ system is for.
As a knock on effect, now theres an trend towards people on the forums insisting on a developer response and calling them out in thread titles. It just doesn't sit well with me personally.
Which is why I don't give rules responses to "Developer response needed!" threads.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is why I don't give rules responses to "Developer response needed!" threads.To be honest i'd prefer developers not to come in and answer rules questions. I feel thats what the FAQ system is for.
As a knock on effect, now theres an trend towards people on the forums insisting on a developer response and calling them out in thread titles. It just doesn't sit well with me personally.
DEVELOPER RESPONSE REQUIRED: Sean, does your hair grow back or are you bald for life?
Unfortunately the rules forum is also the place for "this ability sucks because of x" and "why would you want to do that? This completely different thing is so much better!"
These threads don't belong in the rules forum. Please flag them as "Thread is in wrong forum."
|
|
Unfortunately the rules forum is also the place for "this ability sucks because of x" and "why would you want to do that? This completely different thing is so much better!"These threads don't belong in the rules forum. Please flag them as "Thread is in wrong forum."
I think the problem in these cases is that a thread started with a valid rules question is being given a advice answer and things are rolling from there...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem in these cases is that a thread started with a valid rules question is being given a advice answer and things are rolling from there...Unfortunately the rules forum is also the place for "this ability sucks because of x" and "why would you want to do that? This completely different thing is so much better!"These threads don't belong in the rules forum. Please flag them as "Thread is in wrong forum."
Then flag the off-topic posts, please.
I for one appreciate whenever James or Sean or Jason pops into a discussion and adds insight. I think there are plenty of legitimate threads in the Rules Questions area where players are simply curious how peculiar interactions should be resolved.
One of the great strengths of this game is how easy it is to tailor to taste. Monte Cook helped create 3rd edition and he still wrote a book of experimental rules (2 if you count Arcana Evolved) to expand on it. There's room enough in Pathfinder for all of us to enjoy.
James: I for one like the way you play Pathfinder and almost always agree with your suggestions.
|
|
So after watching James Jacobs basically get chased out of the rules forum, is there any chance we could get a new forum for optimization and power gaming discussion?
At it's best, the rules forum is a good place for new players to get basic if confusing questions answered by the community at large or for those with more in-depth concerns to solicit interpretation from the developers.
Unfortunately the rules forum is also the place for "this ability sucks because of x" and "why would you want to do that? This completely different thing is so much better!" Since I started playing Pathfinder half a year ago, the number of Paizo employees posting on the rules forum has dwindled to Sean and James, with the frequency steadily declining. And now it looks like no more James.
So how about that optimization forum? Maybe we can get some more interaction with devs in the rules forum, and give those who love to compare various builds a place to call home.
I am old 3.0/3.5 min/max guy. I miss wizards opt. Boards. I would love to see one started for PF getting the most out of a.character is a fun challenge for me and I like to see other peoples ideas.
|
Senior Software Developer
|
I am old 3.0/3.5 min/max guy. I miss wizards opt. Boards. I would love to see one started for PF getting the most out of a.character is a fun challenge for me and I like to see other peoples ideas.
That's what the Advice forum is for.
Which flag should we be using for an off-topic response to a rules question?
"Thread is in wrong forum" and "breaks other guidelines" both work.
Paizo would be encouraging a style of play that they frankly aren't pursuing which would be really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice.I completely agree with this statement! Mixing Char Op discussions in with Advice is a bad idea as it makes it more confusing for new players looking for simple and declarative clarifications.
I don't think an optimization forum makes sense since that isn't a goal of the standard Pathfinder ruleset.
I categorically disagree with this sentiment as I don't believe that Pathfinder has "goals" in any definite sense.
I would bet that Paizo will never make an official statement declaiming any style of play. I suspect that Paizo is happy for its customers to enjoy Pathfinder however they please. I think the number of people who think there is a 'wrong way' to play Pathfinder is probably really small in general, and probably vanishingly small at Paizo in particular.
I love char-op in Pathfinder, and would really appreciate a dedicated forum for it.
Paizo would be encouraging a style of play that they frankly aren't pursuing which would be really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice.
I completely agree with this statement! Mixing Char Op discussions in with Advice is a bad idea as it makes it more confusing for new players looking for simple and declarative clarifications.
I really don't see how it is a problem. When jumping into a thread in the advice area, read what the original poster is asking for advice on.
If he asks: "How do I make my dwarven ranger better?" feel free to give him optimization advice.
If he asks: "Which hat would look cooler on my elven rogue?" Give him fashion tips or move on to the next thread.
Seems simple enough to me.
|
Senior Software Developer
|
Frankly I'm not impressed with the kinds of discussion that end up happening in dedicated char-op forums. Too much staff time wasted cleaning up the "no ur wrong and stupid and epic fail" crap.
If you have a question about how a rule works, post to the rules forum. If you want to discuss why a rule is the way it is, that's the general discussion forum. If you are requesting advice on a build, or making suggestions on the best way to build a character, that's what the advice forum is for.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would bet that Paizo will never make an official statement declaiming any style of play. I suspect that Paizo is happy for its customers to enjoy Pathfinder however they please. I think the number of people who think there is a 'wrong way' to play Pathfinder is probably really small in general, and probably vanishingly small at Paizo in particular.
How very insightful.
|
|
Frankly I'm not impressed with the kinds of discussion that end up happening in dedicated char-op forums. Too much staff time wasted cleaning up the "no ur wrong and stupid and epic fail" crap.
That's kind of the point. Some people are only having fun when they are playing/discussing characters on the cutting edge of optimization. Anything less is a waste of their time for reasons X, Y, and Z.
I'd rather people that are into that kind of thing all be in one place so that those of us that want to have a civil discussion with James/Sean/whoever can do so without being told Vital Strike is horrible, Beast Totem was the 'fix' for barbarians, and anything less than a full attack somehow shatters the CR system.
I really don't see how it is a problem. When jumping into a thread in the advice area, read what the original poster is asking for advice on.
Your example goes a long way to showing how improbable that would be - no-one is going to give you optimization advice when you ask about hat color... or at least, I haven't seen that happen.
What I have seen happen is people who are new to a game and are still trying to pick up the basic play mechanics stumble into a Char-Op thread and find themselves confronted with a lot more rules than they need to worry about. I have seen people turned-off of games because they mistakenly think that they need to learn all that before they can play.
When someone wants to know how to build a character, they don't need to read a thread on how to build an optimized character, but if one puts both threads in the same Advice section, one makes that more likely.
I really don't see how it is a problem. When jumping into a thread in the advice area, read what the original poster is asking for advice on.Your example goes a long way to showing how improbable that would be - no-one is going to give you optimization advice when you ask about hat color... or at least, I haven't seen that happen.
What I have seen happen is people who are new to a game and are still trying to pick up the basic play mechanics stumble into a Char-Op thread and find themselves confronted with a lot more rules than they need to worry about. I have seen people turned-off of games because they mistakenly think that they need to learn all that before they can play.
When someone wants to know how to build a character, they don't need to read a thread on how to build an optimized character, but if one puts both threads in the same Advice section, one makes that more likely.
It is true I exaggerated to make a point. On the other hand the Vital Strike thread that sparked this wasn't about optimization. James pointed out a number of ways to make a mobile fighting character. Too many others responded with "that is sub-optimal". It doesn't matter which category the thread was in, some optimizers will jump in uninvited anyway.
Anyone who thinks an optimization section of the boards is going to quarantine the problem is deluding themselves. I suspect a lot of posters don't even pay attention to which section threads are in. I know I peak in on topics that have recent responses all the time. It is easy to not notice which section of the boards it is actually in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem is even if you create a char-op forum, the optimization trolls are still going to be hitting the normal rules and advice threads and baiting the devs no matter what you do. (And ninja'd!)
Which brings the whole thing back to: "flag and ignore."
I feel a song coming on (if you can determine what this is based on, I will give you a fish):
Flag and ignore
Flag and ignore
Cleanse your life
of a babbling bore
Or troll in the thread
Just pretend they're dead
If the thread breaks down
Or starts to annoy
Or flames when they post
And gives you no joy
Cos they've scared away James
Or don't understand games
Told you that's wrong fun
Made you wish you're a nun
Let me get to the point
Just flag and be done
Flag it for Paizo; they give a fig!
They'll edit the post and then dance a jig!
(It's not as lyrical as "go stick your head in a pig," but that just sounded rude.)
|
Senior Software Developer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Flag it for Paizo; they give a fig!
They'll edit the post and then dance a jig!
Just a note that we do not ever edit people's posts, except to occasionally redact personal information in a customer service thread or fix BBCode tags. Problematic posts get removed rather than edited by Paizo staff.
Edit: We do however do a little end-zone-type dance when we lock a thread.
Anyone who thinks an optimization section of the boards is going to quarantine the problem is deluding themselves.If there is no Char-Op board, there is a 100% chance that all Char-Op posts will be on non-Char-Op boards.
I think the problem is even if you create a char-op forum, the optimization trolls are still going to be hitting the normal rules and advice threads and baiting the devs no matter what you do. (And ninja'd!)
Thanks for the song! I think you're talking about a separate problem though - I think you're talking about the problem of trolls. Unless you believe that all people who discuss char-op are trolls?
I'll agree that trolls won't go away no matter how many boards you make for them.
On the other hand, if there was a Char-Op board, I believe there will be less Char-Op posts that aren't on the Char-Op board.
Just a note that we do not ever edit people's posts, except to occasionally redact personal information in a customer service thread or fix BBCode tags. Problematic posts get removed rather than edited by Paizo staff.
Yes but "they'll remove problematic posts and redact personal information" didn't scan into the song properly. :) (In seriousness, no intent to express inaccurate information. I'm just apparently bad at having a sense of humor on messageboards. I'll go back to being a stick in the mud from now on.)
Anyone who thinks an optimization section of the boards is going to quarantine the problem is deluding themselves.If there is no Char-Op board, there is a 100% chance that all Char-Op posts will be on non-Char-Op boards.I think the problem is even if you create a char-op forum, the optimization trolls are still going to be hitting the normal rules and advice threads and baiting the devs no matter what you do. (And ninja'd!)Thanks for the song! I think you're talking about a separate problem though - I think you're talking about the problem of trolls. Unless you believe that all people who discuss char-op are trolls?
No, but I think the people who use optimization as an excuse to troll people will be disabled a bit.
The reason I point this out is goes back to the OP, which pointed to a thread where James Jacobs fled the rules forums scene, not because of an optimization discussion, per se, but because posters were arguing with his assertions for being "sub-optimal" in a somewhat rude way. The discussion itself could have been fine and dandy--it's the "right way to play" attitude that I think is trollish, and that attitude comes from certain kinds of optimizers.
In other words, the problem isn't optimization discussions themselves--because those can and do happen civilly without a separate forum. The problem is people dipping their "optimization is the only way to play" chocolate into an "innocent rules/advice question" peanut butter and less than delicious things occurring as a result.
On the other hand, if there was a Char-Op board, I believe there will be less Char-Op posts that aren't on the Char-Op board.
But the problematic post cited was not in fact a char-op post, it was a post about clarifying feat use and how to use it best (which isn't necessarily char op). There are rules and advice posts invaded by people who think optimization belongs in every discussion, and I feel very confident in saying they will not go away just because a char-op forum is made for them.
People intent on being uncivil because someone doesn't play the way they do are the root of the problem, and not all the subforums in the world will make them disappear--unless people don't give them the satisfaction of a response. Which is unlikely, but still the best option.
it's the "right way to play" attitude that I think is trollish, and that attitude comes from certain kinds of optimizers.I agree - telling people that there is a right way to play is trollish, and it does come from certain kinds of optimizers; it also comes from certain kinds of anti-optimizers as well. Its rude whomever does it, and I think you and I are on the same page that its the rudeness itself which is the problem.
I feel very confident in saying they will not go away just because a char-op forum is made for them.
If by they will not "go away" you mean there will still be occasional char-op posts outside of a char-op board, then I agree with you. I don't think there is anything wrong with that - and I suspect you don't either.
If instead you mean 'there will be no reduction in char-op posts outside the char-op board', then I disagree with you. Neither of us can see the future (right? :)), so barring the creation of a Char-Op board, I don't think we'll know which of us is correct.
People intent on being uncivil because someone doesn't play the way they do are the root of the problem, and not all the subforums in the world will make them disappear
I agree completely - and just reiterate one more time that the root of the problem has nothing to do with char-op, and rears its ugly head in people who are anti-char-op and people who don't have opinions about char-op as well.
The root of the problem is the authoritarian inclination to tell others how best to have fun. You can find it in a person of any temperament.
it's the "right way to play" attitude that I think is trollish, and that attitude comes from certain kinds of optimizers.I agree - telling people that there is a right way to play is trollish, and it does come from certain kinds of optimizers; it also comes from certain kinds of anti-optimizers as well. Its rude whomever does it, and I think you and I are on the same page that its the rudeness itself which is the problem
Agreed on all counts.
If by they will not "go away" you mean there will still be occasional char-op posts outside of a char-op board, then I agree with you. If instead you mean 'there will be no reduction in char-op posts outside the char-op board', then I disagree with you.
The thing is, you can have a civil char-op post in "Advice" and it won't cause any problem or distraction, without the necessity of segregating it away from other threads.
And you can have an uncivil optimization (or anti-optimization, as you fairly point out) post on a non-char-op thread, and the existence of a char-op board won't help this situation.
In other words, if the problem comes down to people just being rude about optimization (regardless of their stance on the issue), no matter what kind of thread they post in, how is a char-op board actually going to help things, beyond cluttering up the board with more subforums? I fully acknowledge I may be missing something here.
In other words, if the problem comes down to people just being rude about optimization (regardless of their stance on the issue), no matter what kind of thread they post in, how is a char-op board actually going to help things, beyond cluttering up the board with more subforums? I fully acknowledge I may be missing something here.
I see two benefits to a char-op board; first, like Charles Dunwoody said, char-op can be "really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice." I really think new players should try and get into the game and just play - I know the plural of anecdote isn't data, but I've seen a lot of people turned off by d20 systems because of all the rules. They seem to mistakenly think that you need to familiarize yourself with all the supplements and rules before you can start playing. In my experience, the best way to learn how to play Pathfinder is to just start playing and pick up rules as you go.
When someone goes into the Advice forum and wants to make an elven archer, I want them to find a thread geared towards new players - not one geared towards squeezing every last damage-per-round out of a build, filled with the sort of acronyms, nicknames, and jargon that char-op discussions use. I think that char-op behavior is just point-blank unpalatable to some sorts of people, and is an objectively bad way for new people to be introduced to the game.
Second - as a long-time poster at the WotC char-op forums years ago, we built up a number of "libraries", dozens of threads with hundreds of posts detailing the minutia of different archetypes and sourcetexts. You really got to know individual posters and could expect a certain insight from them. I believe that a mutually-supportive "char-op community" is unlikely to form without a char-op board.
|
|
I'll agree that trolls won't go away no matter how many boards you make for them.On the other hand, if there was a Char-Op board, I believe there will be less Char-Op posts that aren't on the Char-Op board.
And this was my original thinking in requesting such a forum. Consider a computer help message board. If you have a forum labeled "software support" and one labeled "hardware," people are going to post about device drivers in both. And it takes a special breed of person to get excited about device drivers. Someone who wants to know how to hook up an extra monitor is going to get frustrated and annoyed when the thread turns into an argument over kernel-mode vs user mode. (See, you're annoyed already.) Add a forum labeled "device driver streamlining" and things get better. Not perfect but now you've got a place to point the next kernel-mode disciple towards when he jumps onto a thread about your malfunctioning DVD drive.
Of course this isn't the only possible solution. Would it have helped in the James Jacobs thread? Probably not, that was just the catalyst. But it might have helped in some of the other threads that built into his decision to avoid the rules forum. I was just looking for a low-cost, low-effort way to Lower the spillover, not to eliminate it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can we have an "Only Rational Discourse" board instead? ;)
I don't think an optimization forum makes sense since that isn't a goal of the standard Pathfinder ruleset. Paizo would be encouraging a style of play that they frankly aren't pursuing which would be really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice.
Sorry, man, but I just don't see that being the case. With the APG, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat books, the race and region splat books, and APs designed to be very lethal, I see no evidence that optimization is not a central part of the Pathfinder experience. When you have tons of character classes, feats, spells, and items, optimization is a way to make sense of the system and its synergies. The designers may not want optimization, but they've nurtured complexity carefully in all of their products to date. The economic incentives of gaming publishing have made optimization a central part of the Pathfinder experience.
Maybe there are good reasons for not having a clearly labeled optimization board, but optimization not meshing with the game is not something I can see.
I don't think an optimization forum makes sense since that isn't a goal of the standard Pathfinder ruleset. Paizo would be encouraging a style of play that they frankly aren't pursuing which would be really confusing to new players just looking for rule advice.Sorry, man, but I just don't see that being the case. With the APG, Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat books, the race and region splat books, and APs designed to be very lethal, I see no evidence that optimization is not a central part of the Pathfinder experience. When you have tons of character classes, feats, spells, and items, optimization is a way to make sense of the system and its synergies. The designers may not want optimization, but they've nurtured complexity carefully in all of their products to date. The economic incentives of gaming publishing have made optimization a central part of the Pathfinder experience.
Maybe there are good reasons for not having a clearly labeled optimization board, but optimization not meshing with the game is not something I can see.
I'd say the goal is options, not optimization. Complexity gives options. Optimization can be done in any system, no matter how simple or complex.
*edit* As for "lethal" APs that gave me a chuckle, but "lethal" is relative. Nothing in 3.x / PF is all that lethal in comparison to earlier editions. Compared to other 3.5 / PF adventures, they may be. I don't have the means for comparison.
|
|
it's the "right way to play" attitude that I think is trollish, and that attitude comes from certain kinds of optimizers.I agree - telling people that there is a right way to play is trollish, and it does come from certain kinds of optimizers; it also comes from certain kinds of anti-optimizers as well. Its rude whomever does it, and I think you and I are on the same page that its the rudeness itself which is the problem
Doubly frustrating whenever you find yourself dealing with both at the same time.
The more complex a system, the more intellectually appealing the puzzle of optimization is. Optimization is essentially about developing and sharing system mastery.
I've played every edition, too. System mastery of the earliest editions consisted of finding the rules buried in the book in odd places. The complexity of character building was pretty minimal.
As for lethality, many of the early modules were lethal in ways that were unfair, especially the impossible to detect and illogical traps. (Slavers modules, I'm looking at you!) Lethality in modern systems is meant to test your player's ability to build party synergies in an internally consisten but tough world. In the old systems, if you died, it was less your fault due to GM-PC competition written into the adventures and less of a time cost, given how quick it was to roll up a new character without feats or skills.
In short, options-rich character building design leads to increased optimization. Paizo can either encourage it on a single board to contain it or devote man-hours to keeping the peace. The advice board's a place where both role-playing questions and optimizing questions get raised; conflict is thus encouraged. That may not be what they want, but that's what they'll get.
The more complex a system, the more intellectually appealing the puzzle of optimization is. Optimization is essentially about developing and sharing system mastery.
Intellectually appealing and designers intent are two different things. Role playing is intellectually appealing. Optimization is entirely optional. Optimization is about mastering the system for some, beating it for others. The latter group giving a bad name to the rest.
I've played every edition, too. System mastery of the earliest editions consisted of finding the rules buried in the book in odd places. The complexity of character building was pretty minimal.
Pretty much. Still, spell choice alone was "optimization" in a sense. Being allowed to place the attributes is too. Simpler systems minimized it but it was always there with some players.
As for lethality, many of the early modules were lethal in ways that were unfair, especially the impossible to detect and illogical traps. (Slavers modules, I'm looking at you!) Lethality in modern systems is meant to test your player's ability to build party synergies in an internally consisten but tough world. In the old systems, if you died, it was less your fault due to GM-PC competition written into the adventures and less of a time cost, given how quick it was to roll up a new character without feats or skills.
The game was more lethal. Not just those early modules. I started in 1974 and we didn't have any modules. Characters died at a fairly good clip at low levels. Less so as you made it to mid levels and up. It was faster to generate characters which made it easier to get back into the game.
In short, options-rich character building design leads to increased optimization. Paizo can either encourage it on a single board to contain it or devote man-hours to keeping the peace. The advice board's a place where both role-playing questions and optimizing questions get raised; conflict is thus encouraged. That may not be what they want, but that's what they'll get.
Here, we disagree. I have any number of players who build characters without optimizing beyond the minimum (what class do I want to be, where do the abilities go, etc.). Optimization is strictly optional. Some enjoy it. Others play to experience another world and have fun. Paizo seems set against a char ops board and given what I've seen on others I understand why. It's unfortunate for those who just want to mess around with character generation (which I remember fondly as almost a seperate game in Traveller) but some of the more zealous people have messed that up.
Which is why I don't give rules responses to "Developer response needed!" threads.To be honest i'd prefer developers not to come in and answer rules questions. I feel thats what the FAQ system is for.
As a knock on effect, now theres an trend towards people on the forums insisting on a developer response and calling them out in thread titles. It just doesn't sit well with me personally.
+1. I can't stand threads that start like that.
So after watching James Jacobs basically get chased out of the rules forum, is there any chance we could get a new forum for optimization and power gaming discussion?
At it's best, the rules forum is a good place for new players to get basic if confusing questions answered by the community at large or for those with more in-depth concerns to solicit interpretation from the developers.
Unfortunately the rules forum is also the place for "this ability sucks because of x" and "why would you want to do that? This completely different thing is so much better!" Since I started playing Pathfinder half a year ago, the number of Paizo employees posting on the rules forum has dwindled to Sean and James, with the frequency steadily declining. And now it looks like no more James.
So how about that optimization forum? Maybe we can get some more interaction with devs in the rules forum, and give those who love to compare various builds a place to call home.
Here is how I see it,
People need things to focus on. Pathfinder, like all other things of this nature, has found it's base market which is comprised of a dynamic group of people with each and every one of them having a different opinion about an equally dynamic and nuanced subject mater. Eventually this will hit a precipice point where the appeal of that subject mater becomes something else.
Since the inception of 3x d&d this invariably comes down to two schools of interest, with a few weary souls walking the hazardous line in between, and those schools of interest are: 'role playing', and 'optimization'.
At this point a character optimization thread seems entirely reasonable for providing certain information to certain players, as long as two caveats are provided:
1) That this is not the only way to enjoy the game.
and...
2) That in many instances 'x' feat or ability or spell is not the only way to get 'y' job done effectively at the table.
*As this is the case, arguing the validity of your opinion about something being superior or inferior, while occasionally productive if the parties involved in the discussion remain civil; instead, often leads to a futile thread war, deleted posts, and banned posting privileges.*
Put these suggestion at the top of thread and let these certain fans have their cake. Yes it might eat up some moderator time regulating petty behavior from a few bad posters, but the rest of these 'optimizers' are a significant part of the paying fan-base.
