He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache.


Gamer Life General Discussion

551 to 585 of 585 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Quote:
Well halle-frickin'-lujah for finally ceding the point.

Look up. Its not the first time i've said that.

Quote:
Like I said, putting words into my mouth.

I didn't say that you said it. I was trying to give you an example of when your argument would be a valid one. You know.. helping "your" side of things. Rather than suggest that weapons NEVER define a character, or say that weapons always define a character, i was trying to provide an example of when i thought weapons DID help define a character.

Quote:
Or, you know, a signature weapon could be a reflection or symbol of their personality. Like, you know, Han's blaster. It's characterization through prop.

Its possible that happens, but its not automatic. Blaster pistol is a little too ubiquitous in the star wars universe for it to be much of a message.

While we see light sabers often, they're specifically called out as being rarer and more refined and old fashioned than blasters.

Quote:
Amazing how you managed to jump all up my business about how mechanics and concept are separate when the basic point I was making was how mechanics can play a role in characterization.

Because i think you've got them linked in a case where they don't belong linked, and if you follow that pattern you will always have them linked when they can be quite separate.

I'm not trying to split a hare i'm trying to split a hare and a fox.

Quote:
Based upon your opinion that dual wielding does not suit a grim, borderline sociopathic halfling, backed by the suggestion to optimize to fit a theme I did not even personally mention. To wit,

An important distinction here. I did not say that dual wielding does not suit a grim sociopathic halfling. I said that dual wielding does not suit a grim sociopathic halfling especially well.

Sword and shield= the shield says "i want to live" Detrimental to the concept

Giant sword= i want you dead! fits the concept

Two weapons= i want you dead! fits the concept

Big honking mace with lots of spikes= PAIN! fits the concept

Spiked chain= i want you dead and i want it to hurt= fits the concept

rapier= Light and mobile. Its too three musketeers and foppish for me to think of as the weapon of a killer.

Giant axe: they call it axe crazy for a reason. Usually suggests a rural /wilderness background.

mechanically better eastern weapon= I've been somewhere weird. Sort of detracts attention away from the concept.

Ranged weapon= Kill from a distance. Could be a cold, methodical business like approach to death. May or may not fit the concept depending on whether you want the sociopath to run hot or cold.

That is to say, dual wielding does not hurt your concept. But because dual wielding doesn't HELP your character concept of a grim halfling either then its not a part of the character concept.

Quote:
Do you think Belkar is a crappy, nonsensical character?

See above about dual wielding help/hurt.

Part of the humor of belkar is how horribly unoptimized he is. Not dual wielding would change him because dual wielding was (for a long time) the only indication at all that he's a ranger.

He's a small melee character, ranger without any wilderness skills, wild empathy, or ability to track.

Now if your concept IS belkar then yes, you have to dual wield the daggers.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:


As i see it, Dual wielding adds NOTHING to do with the concept. Nothing, nadda, zip, zero NOTHING. It adds nothing to the character, it says nothing about him, it does nothing for him as a person. It is a mechanical concept, not a character one. It is as much a part of the concept as whether or not the halfling has a mustache.

"Hey, I want to play a drow that wields two scimitars!"

Is this just a mechanical concept, or are you thinking of a certain character now?

Who could it beeeeeeeeee


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Let me be clear (because the next section depends on this). I don't like Dual wielding (two weapon fighting). On paper its a feat investment to bring you up to the level of some guy with a greatsword. In practice i find it is far, far worse because setting up full attacks is a pain in the rear and everyone is moving around far too often for it to be reliable.

This

This is what makes a split between the conceptionalists and the optimizers. People want to play up a certain concept even if it means they can't be as powerful as the optimizer's characters. They don't even have to be actively seeking to gimp their character, they just want to focus on a particular style.

This has nothing to do with roleplaying as someone could have an optimized two handed fighter and still be a strong role player or someone could be dual wielding halfling and just like to get into fights and stab things. Roleplaying has nothing to do with optimization. It's concept and optimization that clash. You can roleplay anything but you can't build everything.

The real issue is the rules are not always in support of the portraying the concept you really want. If the rules made it so that hair color was determined by your alignment and there was no way to dye your hair color, making it so that red was evil, brown was neutral, and blonde was good, suddenly a lot of concepts have to be modified to fit into the world and having a evil guy who hides among the good guys or vice versa becomes very difficult if not impossible. Or suppose in those rules that you could chose a different hair color but you had to take penalties to your stats to chose them. You suddenly have to chose between having your sleek black hair or optimizing your sword fighting ability.


Ion Raven wrote:


This is what makes a split between the conceptionalists and the optimizers. People want to play up a certain concept even if it means they can't be as powerful as the optimizer's characters.

First, I would point out that "conceptionalist" and "optimizers" being presented as mutually exclusive groups in opposition is absurd.

You point out that if the concept includes using a mechanically inferior option, an optimizer may change the concept to pick a better mechanical option.

(This of course is an unsupported assumption, BNW wasn't condoning changing concepts to be better mechanically, he was saying that in the example, "dual weapon fighting" wasn't a concept at all. In that regard, I believe he was correct. "Dual weapon fighting" by itself is not a concept. Certain concepts may require certain weapons/race or other mechanical options, but the mechanical options themselves aren't concepts.)

On the other hand, if the concept includes the character being really good at what he does (which is undoubtedly a conceptual point), then the best "conceptiionalist" (shouldn't that be "conceptualizer"?) MUST be an optimizer, or the concept will be betrayed.


Quote:

This

This is what makes a split between the conceptionalists and the optimizers

So let me get this strait.

My characters have no concept because I DON"T rely on a rules set to come up with the concept, and thus can pick the concept I want and the best rules?


Treantmonk wrote:
First, I would point out that "conceptionalist" and "optimizers" being presented as mutually exclusive groups in opposition is absurd. [...] On the other hand, if the concept includes the character being really good at what he does (which is undoubtedly a conceptual point), then the best "conceptiionalist" (shouldn't that be "conceptualizer"?) MUST be an optimizer, or the concept will be betrayed.

I think what's at the heart of the matter here is that not all mechanics are created equal.

As BNW (rightly) pointed out, TWF is mechanically inferior to THF, requiring a heavy feat investment (heavier than can be born without bonus feats) just to bring it to rough damage parity with THF with one feat alone. If I remember my numbers and feat progression right offhand.

That creates an odd situation in which players who are, for lack of a better term, "conceptualizers" have to optimize more to bring themselves to rough parity with other mechanical concepts. That, in turn makes the mechanically-inferior concepts less attractive (as I see it) to players who would otherwise diversify feats, stats, skills, race, or class for the sake of characterization. That's a pretty nasty catch-22, in my opinion: do I make a two-handed fighter for the sake of freedom to play what I really want to play, or make a cookie cutter dual wielder just for the sake of viable two-weapon fighting?

Just as one example that's been a constant through the last couple pages. Which is I think where a lot of this miscommunication is originating: for what it takes to be a two-weapon fighter on rough parity with other potential character builds, it really is in a way a concept of itself.

Which is pretty much exactly what you're talking about in terms of different sets of players not being mutually exclusive, and conceptualizers being indirectly forced to be optimizers.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Its possible that happens, but its not automatic. Blaster pistol is a little too ubiquitous in the star wars universe for it to be much of a message. [...] Now if your concept IS belkar then yes, you have to dual wield the daggers.

I think we're finally starting to find common ground, here.

"Two weapon fighting = I want you dead! = fits the concept."

That's really all I was getting at. It fits the concept. Which, combined with what I mentioned earlier in this post regarding two-weapon fighting being a heavy commitment, is something that must be planned for from the earliest steps of character generation and doesn't even come to fruition until the end of mid-levels.

Which goes back to my original point: mechanics and characterization are not always, absolutely mutually exclusive during conceptualization. They can be (and usually are, when done properly) used in conjunction to create a final concept. The race, class, stats, feats and skills have to match up with the characterization, and to do that one must cross-reference them and build together. That's all I was trying to say.


Treantmonk wrote:
Ion Raven wrote:


This is what makes a split between the conceptionalists and the optimizers. People want to play up a certain concept even if it means they can't be as powerful as the optimizer's characters.

First, I would point out that "conceptionalist" and "optimizers" being presented as mutually exclusive groups in opposition is absurd.

I'm not saying that they're mutually exclusive, but there are times where one must decide between optimizing and portraying a concept. Take a monk who has vowed to give up all earthly goods and all magic. Or take a Barbarian who fears all magic and magic items. This concept is clearly inferior to one who will pick up and use magical items unless there are actually mechanical rules to make that character on par (or sometimes more powerful) than those who would take every magical item they could and use them. Building a concept requires game mastery and rules that support it (such as the new archetype Spell Breaker).

Treantmonk wrote:


You point out that if the concept includes using a mechanically inferior option, an optimizer may change the concept to pick a better mechanical option.

(This of course is an unsupported assumption, BNW wasn't condoning changing concepts to be better mechanically, he was saying that in the example, "dual weapon fighting" wasn't a concept at all. In that regard, I believe he was correct. "Dual weapon fighting" by itself is not a concept. Certain concepts may require certain weapons/race or other mechanical options, but the mechanical options themselves aren't concepts.)

Race by itself isn't a concept either until the setting applies flavor. In a setting where all halflings are grim and dangerous, grim doesn't say much about a halfling. I guess 'dual weapon' doesn't really say much (two weapon fighting with what? Daggers? Scimitars?), but let us go with Daggers because the obvious reference to Belkar, does halfling really say much either? Or what about grimness? With no reason to be grim, or description of how this halfling shows his grimness, how can you really say that's any part of the concept? Or we could be reasonable adults and look into the deeper and implied meaning behind the descriptions. Someone who wants to play the grim halfling that wields two daggers might like to build the concept of someone who is small and completely alien to their nature and likes to get in close and stab his enemies without having to say all that and give specific details to everything.

If 'mechanical' options aren't concepts, then I suppose race isn't part of concept either, so clearly the only concept is grim. Orcs are grim, why don't we make it an ork? If Half-Orcs had bonuses for being grim, the concept would clearly lead someone to play a half-orc, yes?

Treantmonk wrote:


On the other hand, if the concept includes the character being really good at what he does (which is undoubtedly a conceptual point), then the best "conceptiionalist" (shouldn't that be "conceptualizer"?) MUST be an optimizer, or the concept will be betrayed.

If being good at what a character does is part of the concept. Then yes, that concept is being betrayed. The problem is that not all choices are balanced. Not all concepts are attainable via the rules. The more detailed the concept the more difficult it becomes for rules to support them.

Why have the option to even dual wield if it's always going to be inferior? I can tell you for certain that not everyone who played a dual wielding was a good roleplayer or even strived to be one. And as you and BNW said, there's clearly more optimal weapon choices. So if optimization isn't driving them, what is driving them to chose dual wielding?

Also, I have no clue what to call someone who prefers loyalty to their 'concept'(You say it's not concept, but I don't know what to call it to appease you) over optimization.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

So let me get this strait.

My character have no concept because I DON"T rely on a rules set to come up with the concept, and thus can pick the concept I want and the best rules?

It seems to go further than that.

Consider the example given before, the grumpy halfling who is a dual-weapon fighter.

First off, since dual-weapon fighting isn't a concept, let's give it a leg up, and say the concept is that the halfling's nickname is "blades" because he flashes two deadly blades when upset. Now dual weapon fighting is actually part of the concept.

If you suck at optimizing, you now make this halfling, and there is nothing "deadly" about these blades. He sucks. The nickname doesn't even make sense, unless it's sarcastic, as in: Halfling attacks round after round with no significant damage caused...Nice job "Blades"! *snicker*

An optimizer of course can make the blades deadly, and thus the name makes sense and the concept is actually brought to life mechanically.

Now what this poster appears to be saying is that the first example represents better concept building, not worse, because there is no "split" priorities between concept and optimizing.

Here's the real breakdown:

No concept is invalidated by optimization

Some concepts are invalidated by lack of optimization

Therefore the best "Conceptionalist" is necessarily an optimizer.


Treantmonk wrote:
Now what this poster appears to be saying is that the first example represents better concept building, not worse, because there is no "split" priorities between concept and optimizing.

Yeah, that's where I was going with that before people got up my butt because I summarized the concept in a single sentence and didn't elaborate by providing a full backstory with character motivation, nicknames, age, hair color, blood type and date he lost his virginity for a throwaway example. [/sarcasm]

Though, to be honest I had in my head more the idea of a sadistic little sucker that likes to climb all over his opponents stabbing the stuffing out of them like a three-foot-tall, pipe-smoking, six-meals-a-day eating Kratos. Unfortunately, that's not terribly well-represented mechanically and wouldn't be a very viable character thanks to lack of mechanical representation (there's no combat maneuver for "climb on their back and stab them in the kidneys until it stops being funny"). So, simple TWF it was.

At least it's a cool, highly amusing, mental image (to me).

Except, as I mentioned before, some mechanics must necessarily be integrated into concept due to the sheer weight of commitment that mechanic takes. No character can be a viable TWF'er with a spare feat here and there; it's something that has to be deliberately planned straight from levels 1-11 or so across stat generation, class, and feat selection.


Quote:

"Two weapon fighting = I want you dead! = fits the concept."

That's really all I was getting at. It fits the concept. Which, combined with what I mentioned earlier in this post regarding two-weapon fighting being a heavy commitment, is something that must be planned for from the earliest steps of character generation and doesn't even come to fruition until the end of mid-levels.

Your character concept is a grim halfling.

You make a grim halfling with dual wielding. You have the character you want and a sub optimal mechanical build. -optimization +role playing

vs

You make a grim halfling with a sword and shield. The build is good for tanking, but says I want to live! a little too much. + optimization, -role playing.

vs

You make a grim halfling with an axe. +optimization +role playing.

You want the optimization to work with the concept but if you imbed the mechanics into the concept that may not happen.

Quote:
Which goes back to my original point: mechanics and characterization are not always, absolutely mutually exclusive during conceptualization. They can be (and usually are, when done properly) used in conjunction to create a final concept.

Thats how it SHOULD work, but if you insist on making a sub optimal mechanical choices as PART of your concept (ie your concept includes dual wielding) this can't happen. If someone's idea of a concept is a dilettante and dabbler rogue/bard/alchemist/wizard/sorcerer then that "concept" is never going to be viable. (dual wielding is not THIS bad, it just makes the dissonance pop out a bit more)

Quote:
The race, class, stats, feats and skills have to match up with the characterization, and to do that one must cross-reference them and build together. That's all I was trying to say.

They have to match, but all I"M saying is don't stick them together until they have to go together, and pay attention to the BREADTH of options that fit the character. Some work just as well conceptually AND have better mechanics. If tab A can fit into slots B C and D see which slot is best before fitting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eacaraxe wrote:
people got up my butt

HELP! GET ME OUT OF HERE! THE HUMANITY!

edit: What's that gerbil doing here?


Quote:
Though, to be honest I had in my head more the idea of a sadistic little sucker that likes to climb all over his opponents stabbing the stuffing out of them like a three-foot-tall, pipe-smoking, six-meals-a-day eating Kratos. Unfortunately, that's not terribly well-represented mechanically and wouldn't be a very viable character thanks to lack of mechanical representation (there's no combat maneuver for "climb on their back and stab them in the kidneys until it stops being funny"). So, simple TWF it was

Hey, I'm psychO, not psychIC. I can only react to whats on the screen not whats in your head.

For now...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
You want the optimization to work with the concept but if you imbed the mechanics into the concept that may not happen. [...] Thats how it SHOULD work, but if you insist on making a sub optimal mechanical choices as PART of your concept (ie your concept includes dual wielding) this can't happen.

Well, that's the thing, here. There'll only ever be one mechanical design that's king of the hill. That's really the endgame of optimization/min-maxing, no matter how equivalent different mechanical designs are, there'll always be one just that much better. That's not a value judgment on optimization or the nature of the game, just a simple statement.

The goal here is to make a decision to play something, then work within that constraint to full effect. If I've chosen TWF, then I've made a conscious decision with the knowledge TWF is mechanically inferior to other potential mechanical concepts and it's on my shoulders to build the character well. The question isn't (and IMO, shouldn't be) "what is the best mechanical concept?" but rather "how do I make the mechanical concept I've chosen the best it can be?". Likewise, if I elect to play a rogue, the question is "how do I make my rogue the best it can be?" not "should I have chosen a ninja instead?".

Otherwise, you end up on a slippery slope. Take the halfling TWF'er for example. If TWF is suboptimal and I should go THF'ing for optimization's sake, then perhaps I should reconsider playing a halfling because they have a strength penalty and two bonuses I won't need, small size that causes less damage and a to-hit and AC modifier I no longer need. I want a race with a strength bonus and racials that lend themselves well to melee combat, so half-elf is a natural choice because I can wield an elven curve blade. Since he's a fighter I don't need the high dex any more, so I can drop that down to 12-14 no prob and put that into con and wis, to raise HP and will save. ...and so on and so forth, until I end up with a mechanically homogenized, cookie cutter character that's completely alien to my original idea.

I don't want to play a half-elf THF'er. So, at some point I have to make a conscious decision to stop optimizing for the sake of characterization and just work within the constraint of what I want to do, to get it doing the best job I can. That's a decision that, unless someone plays the most stereotypical, numerically advantageous and cookie cutter of characters and only those, everyone must make. It really doesn't matter on what level that decision is made, so long as the player can build the character to be on rough parity with the other characters in the party.

If a player can do that, they have a viable design and from there it's the GM's job to plan for the overall party power level. If everyone's horribly sub-optimal, then the GM can plan for that; same thing applies for everyone in the party being optimized through the teeth. All the PC's in the party must be on equivalent levels in terms of power for the GM to be able to really take over, though (and it's also the GM's responsibility to guide players as to what level of optimization is preferable).

Treantmonk wrote:
edit: What's that gerbil doing here?

That's one of my brood. See if you can find the other seven eidolons while you're up there will ya?

Don't ask about the one that looks like Gary Busey.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

An iconic weapon becomes iconic because the character uses it. Drizzt dual wields because 2e rangers could dual wield. The mechanical concept lead to the character concept, not the other way around.

Except that Drizzt first saw publication before 2e was published. His story, as it is further expounded upon in the second Drizzt trilogy, makes it clear that his unusual fighting style is an integral part of the character concept.


Treantmonk wrote:


An astute observer would note that a gunslinger can use either a pistol or a rifle and he's still a gunslinger.

I think an even more astute observer would note that a stereotypical gunslinger probably relies on his pistol in scenes more than his rifle. A rifle may be a useful tool, but it is the pistol that is iconic to the concept. I'd even go so far as to say that a cowboy TV show that focused on a cowboy using a rifle went so far as to call him the Rifleman rather than rely on gunslinger to describe him.


Quote:
Well, that's the thing, here. There'll only ever be one mechanical design that's king of the hill.

Well, there's two problems with this.

The first (short one) is the idea that you're either at the top of the heap or nothing. You can decide to aim "high enough" for your table.

The second is that there is one be all and end all build. This simply isn't the case. its like saying that there is one best car or best animal. Sure,the Hennessey Venom GT is fast, but if you live in say, rural Alaska its going to be less useful for getting around than a dog sled and if you need to get back and forth to work on the cheap you're out of luck.

Likewise, whats the "best" animal? It completely depends on what the game is. If its "fight to the death in the arena" you get a different answer than "get to the top of the mountain". Each animal is good (or at least better than its neighbors) in its niche in the environment. What roll do you play in the environment is important.

The natural environment of the PC is in a party of adventurers in adventures being run by the DM. Each character fulfills a niche in the party. God wizard might be the "best" build, but if your party of 4 has 4 of them those low levels are going to be kind of rough with no healing and no meat shield. One high rolling fireball out of the dark in a surprise round and your party is toast, social encounters will be rough, and you'll have a harder time (especially at low levels) if the day starts getting longer than usual.

Between party composition, house rules/interpretations, level, actual wealth by level, the tone of the campaign, the skill of your fellow players etc: there are a lot variables that make the "best" build a very subjective multiple choice option. For example, bards get better the larger a party gets, and rogues get better if the DM is running kobold deathtraps and the other players are good at tactics.

Most people don't like vital strike. I do. Why? Because i almost never wind up seeing a full attack anyway. I move up, hit something and if its not dead the kill stealing cheese monkeys i play with will headhunt it for its last 5 hit points.

There's more than enough variability for barbarian two handed damage fiends, trip monkeys, buffers, archers, wild shaping druids, god wizards, blaster wizards to shine in their place and time.

Quote:
The question isn't (and IMO, shouldn't be) "what is the best mechanical concept?" but rather "how do I make the mechanical concept I've chosen the best it can be?"

I can't see a reason to make that call. Why take a suboptimal mechanical concept at all? There's a way to make the vast majority of character concepts work if you break it down to essentials and ditch the dross.

Quote:
Likewise, if I elect to play a rogue, the question is "how do I make my rogue the best it can be?" not "should I have chosen a ninja instead?".

I think that is the question. You can file the serial numbers off the ninja if you don't like the flavor. I've made a Scarlet pimpernel/daring dragoon type character with one. (hopefully he will see action soon)

Quote:
Otherwise, you end up on a slippery slope.

Literal slippery slope fallacy :) . You can slam the breaks on any time you want, preferably at the exact second it takes away from your character concept.

Quote:
If a player can do that, they have a viable design and from there it's the GM's job to plan for the overall party power level.

Which can be rough if player A can optimize a character in their sleep and character B can't play an optimal wizard. The DM needs to banhammer someone, even if the optimization makes sense for their characters.


Quote:
Except that Drizzt first saw publication before 2e was published. His story, as it is further expounded upon in the second Drizzt trilogy, makes it clear that his unusual fighting style is an integral part of the character concept.

Looking into this some more, Drizzt fought that way because it was a drow thing. In 1st edition your Dex modifier took off some of the penalty for 2 weapon fighting and drow have high dexterity.

I'm not sure where the ranger took shape, though I know it wasn't an imposition because of Drizzt. (Frankly, I've never read more than bits of the Drizzt series.) It was more to make them distinct and it fit with the style and image.

zeb
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=26912&start= 120

Although it is commonly thought that the ranger character Drizzt Do'Urden may also have influenced the development of the class, particularly with regard to the second edition inclusion of the ability to fight with two weapons, this notion has been rejected by the lead designer of that rule set, David "Zeb" Cook, and the lack of provision for players to be able to emulate Drizzt using the ranger class as it appears in the PHB seems to support his assertion.[4]. More likely, the Drizzt character was influenced by Unearthed Arcana, which introduced the drow as a player character race and contained somewhat ambiguous wording that allowed them to use a secondary weapon not normally permitted in AD&D.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranger_%28Dungeons_%26_Dragons%29


Eacaraxe wrote:
The question isn't (and IMO, shouldn't be) "what is the best mechanical concept?" but rather "how do I make the mechanical concept I've chosen the best it can be?". Likewise, if I elect to play a rogue, the question is "how do I make my rogue the best it can be?" not "should I have chosen a ninja instead?".

You again seem to confuse mechanics and concept. I thought we were on the same page for a moment when you explained your TWF concept (by explaining a concept that would require those particular mechanics) but this last post makes me think we still are not.

The question isn't (and IMO, shouldn't be) "how do I make the mechanical concept I've chose the best it can be?" but rather "how do I make this concept the best it can be mechanically?". Likewise, if I elect to play a sneaky street thug, the question is "does ninja or rogue work mechanically better for this concept?" not "is the concept a rogue?"

Concept decisions are not mechanical ones. They can affect the mechanical decisions you make, but by themselves, they are not mechanical.

When "rogue" is a concept, then we aren't necessarily talking about the "rogue class", the class decision has yet to be made.

Here's an example: Drizzt was brought up earlier. In the books, Drizzt is described as a Ranger (and in earlier editions, likely that was also his class). However, when 3E FR came out, he was mechanically statted with only a dip into Ranger and had primarily fighter levels instead.

Yet Drizzt concept is "Ranger" not "Fighter", however, the fighter class served mechanically to better fit the overall concept, so that's how they statted him. That's how concept and mechanics are separated. The concept comes first, then the mechanics follow.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Except that Drizzt first saw publication before 2e was published. His story, as it is further expounded upon in the second Drizzt trilogy, makes it clear that his unusual fighting style is an integral part of the character concept.

Looking into this some more, Drizzt fought that way because it was a drow thing. In 1st edition your Dex modifier took off some of the penalty for 2 weapon fighting and drow have high dexterity.

Though, again, in the 2nd Trilogy, Drizzt's two-weapon fighting style is described as being distinctive and unusual for Drow. That suggests that the two-weapon style was definitely part of the distinctive concept of the character.

The way Drizzt was developed over the years, I don't think you can claim that his fighting style isn't an integral part of his concept.


Quote:
The first (short one) is the idea that you're either at the top of the heap or nothing. You can decide to aim "high enough" for your table. [...] There's more than enough variability for barbarian two handed damage fiends, trip monkeys, buffers, archers, wild shaping druids, god wizards, blaster wizards to shine in their place and time.

Well, my commentary was in the context of "straightforward, no-frills physical melee DPR" here, since we're discussing the merits of THF versus TWF. In those cases (apples to apples comparisons) broken down, there'll always be one way of mechanically constructing a character that's innately superior to comparable builds. Maybe that difference is as big as THF versus TWF, or maybe that difference is as topically small as falchion vs. elven curve blade (a damage die step or one extra critical threat, yes I'm aware that difference is in fact bigger than that but I'm discussing face value).

Quote:
I can't see a reason to make that call. Why take a suboptimal mechanical concept at all? There's a way to make the vast majority of character concepts work if you break it down to essentials and ditch the dross.

You've just answered your own rhetorical question:

Quote:
Literal slippery slope fallacy :). You can slam the breaks on any time you want, preferably at the exact second it takes away from your character concept.

If you want to make a TWF character, then you've tacitly accepted you're not winning the DPR olympics until after level 11, with a proper build. You can make it work, and you can optimize within the context of TWF; though, at the end of the day it's still suboptimal, so why even waste time with it at all?

The only resolution to that conflict in which TWF has a place is if TWF is a part of your character concept. Which is what the previous argument had at heart, whether TWF actually is or can be a part of a character concept at all. Which, I think we're agreed on the can be part of that; if it is then you've elected for a suboptimal set of mechanics for the sake of concept and already "slammed on the brakes" as you put it.

Sparing that, there's absolutely no point to ever pursue TWF. As you just put it, why use suboptimal mechanics at all?

Quote:
Looking into this some more, Drizzt fought that way because it was a drow thing. In 1st edition your Dex modifier took off some of the penalty for 2 weapon fighting and drow have high dexterity.

IIRC, this is correct. The drow have, with the exception of newer editions and releases, always been characterized as loving their dual wielding. 'Course back in the day TWF wasn't nearly as remotely mechanically punishing, since it just required proficiency points to build up opposed to any and every feat you could suck up for the first ten levels of growth.

Treantmonk wrote:
You again seem to confuse mechanics and concept. I thought we were on the same page for a moment when you explained your TWF concept (by explaining a concept that would require those particular mechanics) but this last post makes me think we still are not.

No, we're on the same page in terms of ideas, just not language. I'll just capitalize mechanics for the sake of clarification from now on. To wit,

Quote:
Likewise, if I elect to play a Rogue (class), the question is "how do I make my Rogue (class) the best it can be?" not "should I have chosen a Ninja (class) instead?".

Clearer? The concept presupposes I'm playing a character (without elaborating upon that concept for the sake of brevity and relevance) for whom Rogue is an appropriate class choice (the mechanics). Ergo, the question then posed is the one I mentioned earlier, pertinent to mechanics.

In regards to Drizzt, I think we'll have to agree to disagree. IMO, his concept is "annoying Mary Sue". :)


Bill Dunn wrote:
Though, again, in the 2nd Trilogy, Drizzt's two-weapon fighting style is described as being distinctive and unusual for Drow. That suggests that the two-weapon style was definitely part of the distinctive concept of the character.

Welcome to the world of Forgotten Realms retcons for the purpose of making signature characters super-special.


IMO, the choice of weapon and/or fighting style can be part of a concept (note that I say can, but it doesn't have to be).

Between the knight in armor and the eastern monk/ninja, there is a definite conceptual shift in fighting style. Beyond the single, specific signature weapon, fighting styles are not inevitably detached from the character's concept.

Many characters have been characterized by their choice of weapon. Some of these we're simply an aesthetic/cosmetic aspect that became popular, but some were intentional. I do believe that Jango Fett was made into a dual pistol fighter on purpose to differentiate him from the rifle using Boba for example. Does that influence its personality? Not really, but I'm convinced this choice was made on a conceptual level. I don't think Legolas and its bow / Gimly with its axe were accidental either; both were meant to be representative of their races and 'conceptually' wield the favored weapon of their respectful cultures.

The choice of weapon and fighting style appears mechanical to us because weapons and fighting styles have a mechanical representation in the game system, while grimness and other personality traits aren't mechanically represented. but even if they were, they'd still be part of a character's concept.

Concept is pretty broad and can encompass many things, but I agree with Treantmonk (and I think BigNorseWolf thinks among the same lines) that the concept must first be elaborated without to much heed to the rules and only then, we find the most appropriate rules to convey the said concept.

In the defense of the other posters, it becomes hard at one point to detach yourself from the rules when drafting the original concept. And while some labels can be bent (a fighter doesn't need to be a Fighter), some things are set by the rules and cannot be re-skinned without DM's intervention (you can't re-skin a battle axe as a longsword the same way you could re-skin a bard as an aristocrat for example).

'findel


Eacaraxe wrote:
if I elect to play a rogue, the question is "how do I make my rogue the best it can be?" not "should I have chosen a ninja instead?".

followed by clarification

Eacaraxe wrote:
The concept presupposes I'm playing a character (without elaborating upon that concept for the sake of brevity and relevance) for whom Rogue is an appropriate class choice (the mechanics). Ergo, the question then posed is the one I mentioned earlier, pertinent to mechanics.

I don't have UM, so let's change the example to a decision between a rogue and a fighter so I'm not guessing about the mechanical differences.

If "rogue" isn't the concept, but instead, the concept requires that you choose a rogue class (I assume because there is something about the mechanics of the rogue integral to the concept. Maybe you envision someone who is sneaky.), then an optimizer isn't asking "should I have chosen a Fighter instead?"

If optimizers always chose the more powerful class option (or any mechanical option) regardless of whether it was true to the original concept, then there would only be one optimization guide, and it would have a ready made character sheet of the best mechanical options for you to print, fill out the name, and play.

Optimizers don't do that. Instead, we pick the best mechanical options within the parameters of the concept.

I'm an optimizer. There is no doubt of that. Here's how I would approach the situation you give (with the small change I made earlier), I'll give 2 situations:

1) I create a character concept. The character is a rogue. He's a scoundrel, dishonest, with little regard for authority or law, and is called "blades" because of his deadly twin blades he uses in battle.

With this concept I'm in no way obligated to take the rogue class, though TWF is going to be a must, but it will need to be effective as possible to justify the nickname concept. I'll compare the various classes that can fill out this concept. Fighter, rogue and ranger are the most obvious choices. I'll determine which mechanics make the character as effective as possible and that will be my choice. I may multiclass, or pure class, I may dip another class entirely if necessary. One way or the other, the concept stated above won't be compromised.

2) I create a character concept. The character is a rogue. He's a scoundrel, dishonest, with little regard for authority or law, and is called "blades" because of his deadly twin blades he slips between your ribs when your back is turned.

With this concept, I'm going to need sneak attack, since the nickname's concept requires a sneak attack like strike. To be true to my concept, I will need at least some levels of rogue. However, I may or may not be a pure rogue. I may multiclass with fighter or ranger if it is mechanically advantageous. The sneak attack ability alone satisfies the concept. I'll make the most effective character possible within those parameters.

So in neither case does your question "should I have made a Ninja instead?" make any point about concept vs optimization. From an optimizers point of view, if Ninja fulfills the concept, and is the best mechanical option, I'm going to be a ninja, even if my character refers to himself as a rogue. If Ninja does not fulfill the concept, then it's not a question I'm going to ask any more than "should I have made a Wizard?"


Treantmonk wrote:
[Emphasis mine] I don't have UM, so let's change the example to a decision between a rogue and a fighter so I'm not guessing about the mechanical differences. [...] Optimizers don't do that. Instead, we pick the best mechanical options within the parameters of the concept. [...] If Ninja does not fulfill the concept, then it's not a question I'm going to ask any more than "should I have made a Wizard?"

Oh yeah, we're absolutely on the same page then. I agree.

My (mechanical) axe to grind with TWF spawns purely from the super-heavy feat investment just to bring it to rough parity with other melee options (my "catch-22" comments earlier in the thread). It's such a commitment across the board (stats, class and feats) the decision to TWF has to be made at the conceptualization phase, at least in my opinion.


Eacaraxe wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:
[Emphasis mine] I don't have UM, so let's change the example to a decision between a rogue and a fighter so I'm not guessing about the mechanical differences. [...] Optimizers don't do that. Instead, we pick the best mechanical options within the parameters of the concept. [...] If Ninja does not fulfill the concept, then it's not a question I'm going to ask any more than "should I have made a Wizard?"
Oh yeah, we're absolutely on the same page then. I agree.

I find myself in total agreement with Treantmonk as well.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

It seems to be I should repost what I said earlier: the problem is not with the concept, the problem isn't with some sorta divide between ROLEPLAYERS AN ROLLPLAYERS, the problem is with thesystem that makes some options mechanically bad for the reasons of uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.

Oh wait, "because ROLEPLAYING" is the excuse used around here. Which of course is hilarious because doing so harms roleplaying.


Quote:
Though, again, in the 2nd Trilogy, Drizzt's two-weapon fighting style is described as being distinctive and unusual for Drow.

He learned it from his dad (zaknafen?)

It is through Zaknafein's tutelage that Drizzt developed the dual-wielding fighting style common among the drow, and that allowed Drizzt to become known as one of the greatest swordsmen in Faerun.

http://forgottenrealms.wikia.com/wiki/Zaknafein_Do%27Urden

Quote:
That suggests that the two-weapon style was definitely part of the distinctive concept of the character.

Because it says "drow" because that's how drow fight.

Anything exotic, unusual, and finessey would have done it.

Quote:
The way Drizzt was developed over the years, I don't think you can claim that his fighting style isn't an integral part of his concept.

It wasn't when he was conceived, it is now, for reasons i've gone into ad nauseum.


Quote:
Well, my commentary was in the context of "straightforward, no-frills physical melee DPR" here, since we're discussing the merits of THF versus TWF. In those cases (apples to apples comparisons) broken down, there'll always be one way of mechanically constructing a character that's innately superior to comparable builds.

Nope. Take vital strike for example. If you hold still and swing at hoards of onrushing baddies it sucks. If you have to run around the battle mat move attack move attack wash rinse repeat then its good. If your dm tosses hoards of mooks at you cleave rocks. If you get one big bad it blows chunks. If you fight casters iron will is king. If its arena battle in the pit its useless.

Quote:
Maybe that difference is as big as THF versus TWF, or maybe that difference is as topically small as falchion vs. elven curve blade (a damage die step or one extra critical threat, yes I'm aware that difference is in fact bigger than that but I'm discussing face value).

Even then the goal is to get through the adventure alive, not get high score on DPR. If you have a lot of low HD foes the x3 damage modifier is nothing but overkill. If you're in a party that spams save or dies it doesn't matter how many HP of damage you do, if you don't one shot your enemy you're useless- get the scythe.

Quote:
You've just answered your own rhetorical question:

ONLY if you consider weapon style integral to the character at the get go, which i don't.

Quote:
If you want to make a TWF character, then you've tacitly accepted you're not winning the DPR olympics until after level 11, with a proper build. You can make it work, and you can optimize within the context of TWF; though, at the end of the day it's still suboptimal, so why even waste time with it at all?

No. Stop when it takes away from the PERSON. Grim halfling is an inversion. You can't take away the halfling part without without loosing that, so that's where you stop.

Quote:
The only resolution to that conflict in which TWF has a place is if TWF is a part of your character concept. Which is what the previous argument had at heart, whether TWF actually is or can be a part of a character concept at all. Which, I think we're agreed on the can be part of that; if it is...

Two weapon fighting just doesn't connect to anything that i see. I don't see how it can be part of the concept unless you're emulating a two weapon fighter.


Interesting thread (and, yes, I've really read this far)
Points:
1. Characters can't exist outside of context. Grim Halflings are much different for Middle Earth than for Dark Sun. (Actor/writer trope.)

2. Concepts aren't necessarily in word form. Splitting the TWF from the Grim Halfling may not work depending on concept's origin.

IMC, I suggest players with difficulty creating a character try to envision a fantasy character they'd like to play. It's a picture, that then we try to capture statistically. If a dour-faced Halfling with a pair of bloody daggers appears, one can very well say TWF is more concept than mechanic. (Or that he's been reading OotS a lot.)
Who hasn't seen an awesome drawing of some fantasy hero and thought "I wonder if I could create and run that character..."? And then maybe used the picture to determine your choices...
(raising hand) Guilty.
It's like the gladiator PC-player early in the thread, who people tried to talk out of having a double flail warrior turned king because it was ineffective/MAD/feat-skill starved. They didn't get it. The PC in the guy's mental picture had that weapon and that potential future, and that's who he wanted to play. Changing the weapon made it a different concept, to him at least.

One could also hear your character instead of see. Many authors don't 'find' a character until they hear their voice. Try it, it can do wonders for your roleplaying.

3. Sometimes you HAVE TO mechanically optimize concept PCs just to survive. I'm not talking about min/max campaigns geared toward pure mechanics & mayhem, but normal or purchased campaigns where you have a less effective, but fun, concept that needs to rise to the occasion.
(You are an adventurer and/or hero after all, in a plot with obstacles and such, aren't you?)
Which puts me in Treantmonk's camp I believe, of forming a concept first and then legitimizing it with sound build choices.

Example: For years I've wanted to play a PC who fights with a quarterstaff. The concept of a guy (or gal) who walks with a staff that he defends himself with just seemed cool, but mechanically I could never overcome its lack of contribution to a party. There was no reason to inflict that inferior contributor upon other players. It was too easy to be much better with only slight changes. I didn't want to play a character with changes. I wanted a staff. Concept fail.
So I went with other concepts (also fun) that could contribute/function in this dangerous game, making more room to RP because, ya know, he and his party will actually survive to drive more plots, which will also be dangerous.

Note: There are now builds (at least 3, more if you get weird) that allow for solid (but still imperfect) 'staff warrior' builds, but even these are a bit MAD and min-maxy. I look forward to playing one sometime. I expect the reactions of my fellow players will tell me which end of the continuum they play on.

4. As suggested a few pages back, it'd be nice to forge a new phrase that embraces 'maximizing the potential of a concept-driven PC' to avoid the conflict between 'optimizers who aren't min-maxers' and 'role players who don't sub-optimize' and blend them into the overlapping group that they are.
Quick brainstorm: "Role Optimizers" "RP Optimizers" "Concept Optimizers" "Role Potentialists" (don't know where that came from)
Hmm...kinda like it though. "I'm a Potentialist, seeking to fulfill my PC's fullest potential through role-playing and game mechanics mastery."

Anyway, I'm starting to slur my own thoughts I'm so tired, so adios.
Would like to know what y'all think.


Castilliano wrote:
Would like to know what y'all think.

Good, I like to tell people what I think. ;)

Castilliano wrote:
It's like the gladiator PC-player early in the thread, who people tried to talk out of having a double flail warrior turned king because it was ineffective/MAD/feat-skill starved.

Yes. Specifically, he had envisioned a character who "smashes and trips everyone around him", he figured he would go with a Dire Flail.

It was pointed out to him (including by me) that he had a choice to make. If he went with a Dire Flail, he would not be smashing and tripping everyone around him, because he didn't have the feats to invest to make that happen.

At the table, his vision of his character would end up different from the reality. I've been there, it's disappointing when that happens.

I eventually recommended he consider going with a heavy flail, which was a similar weapon, but less feat intensive so that he could have the character work the way he envisioned.

Quote:
They didn't get it.

I didn't? I was pretty sure I did.

Did you get it?

He said (and I quote), "I LOVE the idea of a gladiator tripping and smashing everyone around him"

He even capitalized for emphasis. I figured that part of his concept was important. Don't you?

Quote:
The PC in the guy's mental picture had that weapon and that potential future, and that's who he wanted to play.

Here's where I think we are on different pages...

Yes, his mental picture included a dire flail, it also included tripping and smashing everyone around him.

You seem to suggest his mental picture did not include what the character could do, but he was quite descriptive, smashing and tripping everyone around him was important to the concept.

Quote:
Changing the weapon made it a different concept, to him at least.

Here was the situation: something wasn't going to happen. I wish I was such a great optimizer I could figure out a way he could have mixed his vision of weapon, with his vision of what he could do with that weapon. I'm either not, or it's simply not possible within the rules.

You've made a judgment for him, that the weapon was more important to the concept than what he could do with that weapon. I just read his post again, and I disagree.

It doesn't matter which of us is right though, because it is not for either of us to say. I merely gave him the truth (that he wasn't going to have it both ways), and presented one possible solution for him to consider.

Would you have had me do differently, and if so why?

Quote:
Who hasn't seen an awesome drawing of some fantasy hero and thought "I wonder if I could create and run that character..."?

I have, but sometimes the answer is "no" the rules only allow for so much.


Castilliano wrote:
Would like to know what y'all think.

Back for more

Quote:
As suggested a few pages back, it'd be nice to forge a new phrase that embraces 'maximizing the potential of a concept-driven PC'

What's wrong with the one we have? (Optimizer)

Quote:
to avoid the conflict between 'optimizers who aren't min-maxers' and 'role players who don't sub-optimize' and blend them into the overlapping group that they are.

Oh, I'm a min-maxer, at least by definition (I see to maximize my character's effectiveness and minimize his weaknesses mechanically within the rules)

I realize "min-maxer" has been given a negative connotation, but in actuality, min-max and optimize are synonymous.

I realize you are suggesting min-max somehow implies no concept (or the concept is secondary). I don't buy that.

There are min-maxers who have difficulty coming up with decent concepts (or abandon them for the more powerful option), and there min-maxers who seek to take a good concept and minimize the weaknesses and maximize the effectiveness.

As well there are non-min-maxers who have difficulty coming up with decent concepts (or butcher them because the can't make it mechanically work properly), and then there are non-min-maxers who take a good concept and contribute to both atmosphere and challenges with that concept.

There is as much connection between good concept and optimizing as there is a connection between good concept and.... mustaches.


I agree with treatmonk on this matter. When developing a concept you have to prioritize which aspects you want the most. The poster seemed more interested in the style of the character's fighting.

Sometimes your concept just isn't viable until a much higher level. Sometimes your concept just isn't viable in the setting. If you want to play up Superman's powers (flying, laser vision, super speed, and super strength), you can get you can probably get pretty close going the way of the Sorcerer / Barbarian. If you want Superior Dominance over the majority of the world and being indestructible unless exposed to green rocks, well that's pretty setting independent. You can't have everything, well unless your GM decides you can. Those types of games are not what I enjoy, so sometimes I'd rather play a different character than force a concept that will end up unfaithful to my vision.


Treantmonk wrote:


Quote:
As suggested a few pages back, it'd be nice to forge a new phrase that embraces 'maximizing the potential of a concept-driven PC'

What's wrong with the one we have? (Optimizer)

I dunno, maybe because for some reason a lot of people can't/don't/won't differentiate between a cookie-cutter optimizer and a concept optimizer...

Treantmonk wrote:


Quote:
to avoid the conflict between 'optimizers who aren't min-maxers' and 'role players who don't sub-optimize' and blend them into the overlapping group that they are.

Oh, I'm a min-maxer, at least by definition (I see to maximize my character's effectiveness and minimize his weaknesses mechanically within the rules)

I realize "min-maxer" has been given a negative connotation, but in actuality, min-max and optimize are synonymous.

As I see it, min-maxer and optimizer are pretty synonymous, though the former has a much more negative as it relates closer to the cookie-cutters.

Cookie-cutter is pretty vague, because at one point the concept that was taken to be copied was an original concept. But being done to death, it is no longer original. Cue BNW's 'I Think I'm a Clone Now' Link.


Treantmonk wrote:
There is as much connection between good concept and optimizing as there is a connection between good concept and.... mustaches.

Except that some concepts (and, I'm sure, some mustaches) lend themselves better to the exercise of optimisation or at the least, are easier to make into a combat-effective result when faced with pre-generated encounters and adventures.

Prof Cirno would say that this is the system's fault rather than the concept's, but the resulting situation remains the same.

'findel


Treantmonk wrote:


Castilliano wrote:
It's like the gladiator PC-player early in the thread, who people tried to talk out of having a double flail warrior turned king because it was ineffective/MAD/feat-skill starved.

...

At the table, his vision of his character would end up different from the reality. I've been there, it's disappointing when that happens.

I eventually recommended he consider going with a heavy flail, which was a similar weapon, but less feat intensive so that he could have the character work the way he envisioned.

Quote:
They didn't get it.

I didn't? I was pretty sure I did.

Did you get it?

He said (and I quote), "I LOVE the idea of a gladiator tripping and smashing everyone around him"

He even capitalized for emphasis. I figured that part of his concept was important. Don't you?

Quote:
The PC in the guy's mental picture had that weapon and that potential future, and that's who he wanted to play.

Here's where I think we are on different pages...

Yes, his mental picture included a dire flail, it also included tripping and smashing everyone around him.

You seem to suggest his mental picture did not include what the character could do, but he was quite descriptive, smashing and tripping everyone around him was important to the concept.

I didn't suggest that. Both were important, and so were his 'kingly' abilities, making for a MAD+more mix.

As for 'getting it', he balked strongly at changing the weapon, though he seemed to understand he'd have difficulties both 'tripping & smashing' effectively until later (if ever). So yea', I think I got it. Though I'm unsure what he ultimately chose, he seemed willing to place the Dire Flail over the immediate effectiveness of the Heavy Flail.
(I wouldn't have, seeing my version of his 'grunting & bloody gladiator' able use either weapon, perhaps holding off TWF until later instead.)
Quote:


Quote:
Changing the weapon made it a different concept, to him at least.
Here was the situation: something wasn't going to happen. I wish I was such a great optimizer I could figure out a way he could have mixed his vision of...

You paint it impossible. I paint it tough. He paints it possible.

In a tough campaign, inadvisable, I lean toward your view. From what I've heard, Kingmaker isn't hard. (Secondhand knowledge) And APs take you to high levels, so it could EVENTUALLY happen. He may not be the 1st level juggernaut he wants to be, but for 1/3-1/2 of the AP he might be.
Whether that's enough, or early enough, is his call.
And the monsters' call. :)
Don't kill the dream, man! (Being silly)


Treantmonk wrote:


Quote:
As suggested a few pages back, it'd be nice to forge a new phrase that embraces 'maximizing the potential of a concept-driven PC'

What's wrong with the one we have? (Optimizer)

Quote:
to avoid the conflict between 'optimizers who aren't min-maxers' and 'role players who don't sub-optimize' and blend them into the overlapping group that they are.

Oh, I'm a min-maxer, at least by definition (I see to maximize my character's effectiveness and minimize his weaknesses mechanically within the rules)

I realize "min-maxer" has been given a negative connotation, but in actuality, min-max and optimize are synonymous.

I realize you are suggesting min-max somehow implies no concept (or the concept is secondary). I don't buy that.

Many people do buy that. The implication is there, even if not the reality. But I think our disconnection is based around the lack of objective definitions in this debate, not actual disagreement. From what I can tell, we approach builds similarly.

Above, you define 'min-maxer' within the context of a character who has a concept. Others may argue (and have) that 'min-maxers' sacrifice concept for power, or neglect concept fully. Webster's hasn't stepped in to clarify, so neither camp comes to agreement except after extremely long threads where one can fully express their view...
It shouldn't take that long, especially when people agree on so much.

'Min-maxer' and 'optimizer' are synonymous like 'scrawny', 'skinny', 'slim', & 'svelte' are synonymous. Same denotation, different connotations along a continuum. "What's wrong with that?" is that having subjective definitions leads to unfruitful discourse.
I think we need new terminology or a reboot of old terms because 'min-maxer' is a negative connotation/synonym of optimizer. (IMO) Instead of bandying about undefined words, we could (with time and acceptance) have clearer debates.
For example: how about a player who does sacrifice concept for mechanics, what term would you use to distinguish them from you? 'Powergamer'?
Flip that and try to distinguish you (and me) from them with a new term that incorporates 'concept developer/optimizer' into one. If you stick to the old terms, and how they're viewed/used, you'll get the same baggage of the negative connotations of 'min-maxer' and repeat your arguments endlessly. (Not that you won't have to anyway, as I've seen many threads go down this road to no avail.) (Crossing fingers.)

Quote:


There are min-maxers who have difficulty coming up with decent concepts (or abandon them for the more powerful option), and there min-maxers who seek to take a good concept and minimize the weaknesses and maximize the effectiveness.

As well there are non-min-maxers who have difficulty coming up with decent concepts (or butcher them because the can't make it mechanically work properly), and then there are non-min-maxers who take a good concept and contribute to both atmosphere and challenges with that concept.

There is as much connection between good concept and optimizing as there is a connection between good concept and.... mustaches.

And here, we see an example of a repeated argument, one I've seen you post A LOT. And it's not so much an argument as a clarification of A. Obvious player types and B. Your definition of 'min-maxer' as it relates to those player types.

How about we break down these different camps by using different terms for each?

Quoting Ion Raven:

Quote:


I dunno, maybe because for some reason a lot of people can't/don't/won't differentiate between a cookie-cutter optimizer and a concept optimizer...

You're right, they don't differentiate because they (and we) are using the same terms for different playing styles.

"Concept optimizer" Good one. I could go with that.

Suggestions:
"Optimizer": A player who develops PCs to be as effective as possible.
"Powergamer": Optimizer who focuses on combat/mechanical prowess to detriment of concept.
"Concept Optimizer": Optimizer who aims for fulfillment of concept.
"Min-maxer": Approaches effectiveness of PC from a mechanical view. (Neutral enough?)
"???": Approaches effectiveness of PC from a conceptual view.
"???": (counterpoint to optimizer?)
Others?

Anyway, good talking with you, TM, IR, & L...
Again looking forward to your replies/opinions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Generally, when I hear min-maxer it brings up an image of a player using point buy to make a character, that goes with a SAD class(es) and maximizes his main attribute(s) and minimizes his other attributes.


Just saw this thread:
Optimiser, Min-maxer, Roleplayer, Rollplayer - how to define?
(Sorry, bad at linking)
I'll have to read up on that one too, I suppose.

551 to 585 of 585 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion