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


Gamer Life General Discussion

201 to 250 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Dorje Sylas wrote:
However you are still making choices that optimize your chosen style(s) and make them functional.

You completely missed my point. Yes, optimization of a sort happens, but the primary concern is "what would the character want/do?" It is not "what works best in the game?"

The former places in-character concerns over out-of-character concerns, and the latter does the opposite. It's a question of emphasis, and it's a continuum rather than a binary system.

Dorje Sylas wrote:
This is what I call Optimzing, what you are suggesting as the "optimal" cleric is Power Gaming. Do you see the difference now?

I saw it long before you posted. We're talking past one another. The OP suggested that the distinction of optimizer versus roleplayer was completely invalid. I disagree, but not strongly.

ETA: Perhaps it would help to note that "optimizer" doesn't mean "over-the-top munchkin power gamer" in exactly the way that "roleplayer" doesn't mean "a person who plays completely ineffective characters".


Pixel Cube wrote:

My two coppers.

I don't personally find optimizing to be mutually exclusive with roleplaying. I find it, however, to be mind-bogglingly boring and ultimately pointless. In my experience, optimizers play "builds", rather than characters, because they start to build their PCs stat first, adding the concept later. I find this to be backwards and I'd never do that, but they seem to have fun nonetheless (and a good roleplayer will play an interesting character even if it was conceived as a bunch of numbers) and who am I to say that their fun is "wrong".

Nevertheless, the idea of going through all the manuals, picking only the options that are meant to be powerful, and leaving all the non-powerful ones (even if they fit your character concept perfectly) and then do a lot of math doesn't appeal to me. I'm fine if someone else in my group does it, but it really gets on my nerves if the same person then starts to whine that "your character isn't effective enough, you are holding us down". This is very, very, very annoying.

I agree completely even though I come from the function-first camp, but how would you respond to a sort of inverted version of the scenario you describe? We have a couple of players in our troupe that are the "true" roleplayer types (they make characters that are mechanical gimps), but then they get frustrated and whiny when things like combat take longer to resolve than they would like... even though they're contributing next to nothing towards ending the fight.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I love that this is in the 'advice' section.

I imagine the advice a new player would take from would be to pick his group carefully to avoid deliberately adversarial and provocative people.

Apparently, the game attracts a few.


GeraintElberion wrote:

I love that this is in the 'advice' section.

I imagine the advice a new player would take from would be to pick his group carefully to avoid deliberately adversarial and provocative people.

Apparently, the game attracts a few.

Which is VERY good advice, and makes this thread COMPLETLY worthwhile!! ;)

Honestly, I've been gaming for 15+ years with life-long friends... It never even occured to me that gaming groups like this existed ;)


Treantmonk wrote:
JustABill wrote:


You can min-max a character to the point that all he is is a series of numbers and a royal pain to play with.

I don't understand - character sheets are always just a set of mechanics, numbers and stats. Roleplaying doesn't occur on the character sheet, but min-maxing does exclusively.

Quote:
You can also role play a really neat character concept that just doesn't work and because your not pulling your weight the party gets TPK'ed

You understand that the problem isn't necessarily the concept right? When you have a concept for a character (but before you start statting out that character), you have a mental image of how that character will perform.

The goal of optimizing is to make that image a mechanical reality.

Many great concepts end up disappointing specifically because of the lack of optimizing.

Quote:

The key is to find the balance that works with your group. If your group really likes combat and your party is constantly fighting above its weight class (CR), you'd better have a character who can hold his own.

If your DM really likes "role playing" and the rest of the party has detailed backgrounds and social interactions are at a premium, you should focus more on the social skills and your character background.

You place these as separate concepts. Why wouldn't you just do both? My first Pathfinder character was a Bard, that was decent support in combat, could buff, could cast, and had lots of knowledge/social skills and able to schmooze well.

This of course is all optimization. Having social skills and a detailed background isn't roleplaying. That is all done before ever coming to the table.

Quote:
I have also heard some complain that all optimized PCs look the same.

Me too...it's a myth. I've now played many, many Pathfinder characters and every one was optimized, yet none were alike.

The myth is that optimization means starting your character concept with the question "what build is the most powerful?"...

Let me rephrase into your language. If you optimize a character to an extreme amount for combat, you risk becoming "The Lump", where as if you get so fixated on a character concept that the rules just don't support, you become "The Waste of Space".

Are obtimization and role playing always in conflict, no, but as has been pointed out earlier there is only so much time most of us can devote to the game and that time can either be spent developing interesting backstory or figuring out what combinations of abilities/skills/feats work well together. There are also times when the optimal choice for the character conflicts with the characters experiences. For example, Some time ago, I was playing a Scout/Ranger/Dervish build. A large part of this build revolved around the skirmish ability, getting precision damage bonus after moving. A major weakness of this build was against creatures immune to precision damage. There was a feat that allowed me to get skirmish damage agaisnt any favored enemy even if it was immune to precision damage. From the start, I had intended to pick my favored enemies things immune to precision damage (undead, constructs, plants, ect). In my character backstory, I wrote in a reason to pick undead as my first favored enemy. By the time I got to the level when I could pick a second favored enemy, I had not encountered any of the creatures that I wanted to make my 2nd favored enemy. I could either continue with my plan and pick a creature I had never seen as favored enemy, or pick a creature that I have fought a lot of in my first few levels and would have reason to select as favored enemy, even though that is a sub-optimal choice...

As far as all characters looking alike, this is probably more of an issue with those who use the various guides, and not so much those who make the guides. A fair number of people, don't think too much about how to make a decent character and just latch on to a guide for the class they want and you have a cookie cutter character. Mostly the problem is laziness, and its probably better that they have a cookie cutter character than a waste of space, but you still end up with a cookie cutter character. I am pretty sure that the last time I saw a fighter with 10 or better in int and chr was when we used to roll stats.


JustABill wrote:
Let me rephrase into your language. If you optimize a character to an extreme amount for combat, you risk becoming "The Lump", where as if you get so fixated on a character concept that the rules just don't support, you become "The Waste of Space".

In both examples we are talking about problems with character concept, not problems with role playing or optimization.

Picking a character concept that is combat-based isn't optimization. Picking a character concept that isn't combat-based isn't role playing. Neither role playing nor optimization deal with creating your character concept.

Making the concept a mechanical reality is optimization.

Bringing the concept to life in an interesting way at the gaming table is role playing.

Your examples don't tell us anything more about the issues with being "too optimization focused" or "too roleplaying focused", than they do "too mustache focused"

Quote:
as has been pointed out earlier there is only so much time most of us can devote to the game and that time can either be spent developing interesting backstory or figuring out what combinations of abilities/skills/feats work well together

So the conflict isn't role playing vs optimization. It is a time issue between concept development and concept mechanics (optimization)?

Quote:
For example...

Your example tells me ONLY mechanics. Your character could be completely lifeless from what you've told me.

If you are attempting to describe good roleplaying, your example shouldn't have been describing the mechanics of the character, they should have been describing your character's personality and traits, and how you brought those to life at the gaming table.

That's what role playing is, not picking a character concept that is completely centered on game mechanics.

I wonder if anyone ever asked Tolkien to describe the character of Aragorn, and he replied, "He uses a sword, and can use flaming branches effectively, he's capable in light or heavy armor, and balances combat ability with social skills."

Probably not.


My example was simply a case where the most obtimal choice made no sence from a RP perspective, and the most logical RP choice, (picking something like goblins, which we have fought lots of, but the bonus against them was all but useless) was sub-optimal

Liberty's Edge

Quote:
I don't understand why a person who understands the rules and is able to make their character mechanically able to achieve what they envision is less likely to develop their characters personality and then play that personality at the table.

Hear, hear.

-- I optimize up the yin/yang, but my first rule of character design is to conceptualize something I haven't seen at a table before, then ad-lib myself in-character to develop the personality. (Then I start monkeying with the numbers in the character-generators.)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record I can't optimize my mustache.

I'm a deep crow.


phantom1592 wrote:
GeraintElberion wrote:

I love that this is in the 'advice' section.

I imagine the advice a new player would take from would be to pick his group carefully to avoid deliberately adversarial and provocative people.

Apparently, the game attracts a few.

Which is VERY good advice, and makes this thread COMPLETLY worthwhile!! ;)

Honestly, I've been gaming for 15+ years with life-long friends... It never even occured to me that gaming groups like this existed ;)

Same here.


GeraintElberion wrote:

I love that this is in the 'advice' section.

I imagine the advice a new player would take from would be to pick his group carefully to avoid deliberately adversarial and provocative people.

Apparently, the game attracts a few.

Well yes.

We have a good group put together, which is actually the product of two groups that have shed the undesirable players down and ended with a group set on having lots of challenges to overcome, rich and detailed campaign settings, and a blend of grit with a little bit of Hollywood.

You want the players to feel good at the end, but you want them to feel they earned it.

The good news is that if you accidentally pick up adversarial players who want to rules lawyer everything and act like munchkins and argue with the GM then you can punt them out no worries - there will be a new player in the room before taht seat cools.

There is no shortage of players, but there's one heck of a shortage of GM's.


Quote:
Let me rephrase into your language. If you optimize a character to an extreme amount for combat, you risk becoming "The Lump", where as if you get so fixated on a character concept that the rules just don't support, you become "The Waste of Space".

This is a completely false dichotomy. There is no reason, none, nadda, zip zero ZILCH reason why the whirling dervish of bladed death can't be role played better than useless the bard. The PLAYER needs social skills to pull it off, not the character.

Quote:
Are obtimization and role playing always in conflict, no, but as has been pointed out earlier there is only so much time most of us can devote to the game and that time can either be spent developing interesting backstory or figuring out what combinations of abilities/skills/feats work well together.

How long does either take really? It should be far less than the DM spends prepping in between adventures. Besides, what else do you think about while at work?

Quote:
I could either continue with my plan and pick a creature I had never seen as favored enemy, or pick a creature that I have fought a lot of in my first few levels and would have reason to select as favored enemy, even though that is a sub-optimal choice...

or you could

ask the DM to throw some of X at you
Work X into your backrgound

Quote:
I am pretty sure that the last time I saw a fighter with 10 or better in int and chr was when we used to roll stats.

There's no mechanical reason for a fighter to have 10's in charisma. The only fighters that need int are the maneuver types.

As for having a bad CHA, its not detrimental to the group. For 99.9% of campaigns, solving a social problem is like picking a lock. One person does it. The paladin's dex, armor check penalties, and lack of skill points have nothing to do with the rogues ability to open the lock. Likewise the dwarven druid picking his nose has nothing to do with the halfling bard trying to talk the king into getting them some troops on the western front.

There is no reason you cannot have fun RPing a low charisma character with no social skills even in a social situation. In fact, a low CHA is easier to play than a mediocre one.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Likewise the dwarven druid picking his nose has nothing to do with the halfling bard trying to talk the king into getting...

Unless the King has no interest in talking to a Bard, let alone a Halfling one, about the disposition of troops and matters of strategy - he expects to talk to a 'Fighter'.

Not META, its just how things go...

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:


This is a completely false dichotomy. There is no reason, none, nadda, zip zero ZILCH reason why the whirling dervish of bladed death can't be role played better than useless the bard. The PLAYER needs social skills to pull it off, not the character.

I mean it isn't like Charisma reflects ability to lead or personal magnetism or anything like that.

I mean, if it did then of course it would be relevant for a GM to consider when deciding how an NPC perceives a character.

But that isn't what it governs at all, so it's cool. Hand wave man, they think my Dwarf is cool because I'm acting in a way that the GM decides is cool.

Not meta at all...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
I mean it isn't like Charisma reflects ability to lead or personal magnetism or anything like that.

Your ability to respond to things that are not there is simply astounding.


Not META, its just how things go...

Then how come the foppier bard wasn't the one being tossed out the window?


BigNorseWolf wrote:


Not META, its just how things go...

Then how come the foppier bard wasn't the one being tossed out the window?

NPC prince.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:


Quote:
I mean it isn't like Charisma reflects ability to lead or personal magnetism or anything like that.

Your ability to respond to things that are not there is simply astounding.

"Charisma measures a character's personality, personal magnetism, ability to lead, and appearance."

The players social skills aren't relevant to the way the delivery of those skills are perceived.

If Freddie Mercury and I were on stage, performing the same song, my greater knowledge of the lyrics wouldn't really help much in the reception we receive from the audience.

Similarly, you saying something cool in real life doesn't mean it is received as cool when delivered by a low charisma characters.

On the other hand, actions are actions. So if your low charisma character saves a little girl's puppy, the little girl will like him, while she will not like a charismatic bard who kills her puppy.

You are not your character.


NPC Prince got bashed up shortly thereafter.

He took CHA as a dumpstat and got pwned by the King for being a numpty.


Shifty wrote:

NPC Prince got bashed up shortly thereafter.

He took CHA as a dumpstat and got pwned by the King for being a numpty.

From his (brief) time on screen it would seem that the Advisor was exactly who you think the king would like to hear from. He said he was skilled in the arts of war , and had a decent Cha.

Now, if he had maxed out his strength instead he'd still be alive :)

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shifty wrote:

NPC Prince got bashed up shortly thereafter.

He took CHA as a dumpstat and got pwned by the King for being a numpty.

From his (brief) time on screen it would seem that the Advisor was exactly who you think the king would like to hear from. He said he was skilled in the arts of war , and had a decent Cha.

Now, if he had maxed out his strength instead he'd still be alive :)

He was also fairly obviously buggering the King's son, so circumstance overrules Charisma.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Shifty wrote:

NPC Prince got bashed up shortly thereafter.

He took CHA as a dumpstat and got pwned by the King for being a numpty.

From his (brief) time on screen it would seem that the Advisor was exactly who you think the king would like to hear from. He said he was skilled in the arts of war , and had a decent Cha.

Now, if he had maxed out his strength instead he'd still be alive :)

Actually he failed a diplomacy check against an unfriendly NPC turning him hostile.


Not only does circumstance over rule CHA, but simply put, the Kings view is that the person is simply not qualified to prffer any opinion. Schooled as he may be in the 'arts of war', he isn't a warrior and straight away his credibility is under question.

It's not always about JUST the Charisma, you may find that no one wants to hear the Bards opinion on matters of War and State any more than I want to sit there and hear Bono of U2 cr*p on about politics on stage. Play or get off.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JustABill wrote:

My example was simply a case where the most obtimal choice made no sence from a RP perspective, and the most logical RP choice, (picking something like goblins, which we have fought lots of, but the bonus against them was all but useless) was sub-optimal

Once again, the choice you made was not a roleplaying choice, it was a mechanical choice.

You are correct that is was probably the sub-optimal choice, but it wasn't "good roleplaying", nor is it "bad roleplaying", it isn't roleplaying at all.

You made the sub-optimal choice because you apparently seem to think that good roleplaying occurs when you do the math of levelling up your character.

Picking goblins as a favored enemy isn't roleplaying. How your character reacts and deals with goblins is.

Your character could hate (HATE HATE HATE) goblins without goblins being a favored enemy. Favored enemy is just a mechanic, it doesn't need to define the personality and experiences of your character. You get to do that.

Maybe your character goes nuts every time he sees a goblin, and goes out of his way to hunt and kill goblins, and his voice gets shaky and his face goes red when talking about them.

Maybe your character has derogatory terms he uses in regards to goblins, or uses the term "goblin" as a derogatory term. "You stink like a goblin Bob.", or the more violent, "Bob, when you don't bathe, it makes me want to gut you like a goblin!"

Whatever attitude your character has towards goblins, that's roleplaying.

Getting +2 to hit and damage against goblins is absolutely not roleplaying.

In addition, getting +2 to hit and damage against golems when you've never fought a golem isn't bad roleplaying either. Maybe it's just an affinity, nothing wrong or unrealistic about natural affinity. It's no different than a Ranger's Ref save going up, even if he's never made a Ref save before, it's just mechanics.


Quote:
If Freddie Mercury and I were on stage, performing the same song, my greater knowledge of the lyrics wouldn't really help much in the reception we receive from the audience.

And i didn't say that you would. What i said was that the player playing you and the player playing Fredie Mercury could equally have fun.


Shifty wrote:

Not only does circumstance over rule CHA, but simply put, the Kings view is that the person is simply not qualified to prffer any opinion. Schooled as he may be in the 'arts of war', he isn't a warrior and straight away his credibility is under question.

It's not always about JUST the Charisma, you may find that no one wants to hear the Bards opinion on matters of War and State any more than I want to sit there and hear Bono of U2 cr*p on about politics on stage. Play or get off.

Hence the massive penalties to the roll.

Also bonking his son and losing the entirety of the northern army to a bunch of smelly inbred scotsman.


TarkXT wrote:

Also bonking his son and losing the entirety of the northern army to a bunch of smelly inbred scotsman.

Well to be fair, Talking Fancy Bard man with the awesome CHA and Knowledge:Warfare didn't lose the Army, so he doesn't get that modifier... and being a big Nancy back then was sort of ho-hum, but yeah the King started as Unfriendly and ended up Hostile.

I still reckon he took the big penalty mod for being a Bard though.

The son on the other hand...!


Shifty wrote:
Not only does circumstance over rule CHA, but simply put, the Kings view is that the person is simply not qualified to prffer any opinion. Schooled as he may be in the 'arts of war', he isn't a warrior and straight away his credibility is under question.

If his CHA is high enough, he could very likely convince the king he is the greatest warrior in the realm.

I remember an example given in the old D&D players handbook of a high CHA character and a high INT character addressing a crowd, and that high INT character was smarter, but the high CHA character would COME OFF as smarter to the crowd.


Shifty wrote:


Well to be fair, Talking Fancy Bard man with the awesome CHA and Knowledge:Warfare didn't lose the Army, so he doesn't get that modifier...

He was pointed out by the son to be his military adviser. So while it was not directly his fault he essentially took that responsibility on that self and said "Why yes, yes I did f*%$ you over good king would you kindly defenestrate me?"


Treantmonk wrote:
If his CHA is high enough, he could very likely convince the king he is the greatest warrior in the realm.

What I am getting at is that it's not just the straight CHA that we are relying on. The example was that why would a Fighter worry about CHA when they Halfling Bard could just go and talk to the King about getting more troops.

The thing that people aren't considering is that there is often more to the situation than just the Cha and Skills of the person, and indeed there may be a few other situational reasons the King won't have a bar of that persons opinion. They might not be correctly attired, they might not be of the right birth rank, they could be a woman in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, they could be Michael Moore at a CEO conference... the list goes on.


TarkXT wrote:
defenestrate

I love that word :)

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
If Freddie Mercury and I were on stage, performing the same song, my greater knowledge of the lyrics wouldn't really help much in the reception we receive from the audience.
And i didn't say that you would. What i said was that the player playing you and the player playing Fredie Mercury could equally have fun.

Yes, but they couldn't expect equal outcomes in social situations.


It's fair to presume that kings and the like have knowledge of things the PCs and NPCs don't. Kings who don't know the score would get tossed out the windows, rather than their sons' boyfriends.

Liberty's Edge

Treantmonk wrote:


If his CHA is high enough, he could very likely convince the king he is the greatest warrior in the realm.

I remember an example given in the old D&D players handbook of a high CHA character and a high INT character addressing a crowd, and that high INT character was smarter, but the high CHA character would COME OFF as smarter to the crowd.

Rick Perry :)


ciretose wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


If his CHA is high enough, he could very likely convince the king he is the greatest warrior in the realm.

I remember an example given in the old D&D players handbook of a high CHA character and a high INT character addressing a crowd, and that high INT character was smarter, but the high CHA character would COME OFF as smarter to the crowd.

Rick Perry :)

He comes off as smart? Where? LOL


Quote:
Yes, but they couldn't expect equal outcomes in social situations.

-And I did not say, hint, or imply that they would. To spell this out again, you are replying to something I didn't say (a strawman). I said the player could use his ability to have fun, not make his character succeed at the task.


*lands on Benicio's face*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


If his CHA is high enough, he could very likely convince the king he is the greatest warrior in the realm.

I remember an example given in the old D&D players handbook of a high CHA character and a high INT character addressing a crowd, and that high INT character was smarter, but the high CHA character would COME OFF as smarter to the crowd.

Rick Perry :)

Only if the crowd has low WIS.

WILL save vs Perry or pray for rain.


Spectral Mustache wrote:
*lands on Benicio's face*

Ah, NOW I get it! He's got my vote! I LOVE AMERICA! Death to all who oppose tha Rick! They're all commies!


Kthulhu wrote:
ciretose wrote:

You disagree with him. You are therefore wrong.

Don't you get it?

My reasoning: I can't imagine anyone playing with him ever having ANY fun.

I think the only fun with playing with cartigan is having the whole party pvp agianst him and win but that would be a dick move. Why sink down to his level. Then keep telling him to shut up becuase he is dead.

201 to 250 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 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.