| 24 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it would be appropriate to create an "Optimization" subforum. Many other gaming site do that, and it tends to reduce the endless rehash of pro-optimization vs. anti-optimization arguments.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it would be appropriate to create an "Optimization" subforum. Many other gaming site do that, and it tends to reduce the endless rehash of pro-optimization vs. anti-optimization arguments.
+1
|
Fun Fact: CharOp forums breed people who think that if your PC can't do 70 damage per round at 3rd level you should never been born. They proceed to walk around and throw that crap everywhere they go. Anybody remember CoDzilla?
Those people are around with or without a CO subforum, having one would just mean the rest of us don't need to see those kinds of discussions if we don't want to.
General Discussion is a MinMaxers paradise and this would seem to detract form having fun and role-playing. Is this a bad or good thing? Lol
Why would it seem to detract from roleplaying?
There are always vocal minorities on internet messageboards. Of the dozen Pathfinder players I know, I am the only one who pays any attention to this place. The vast majority of players just play the game, and when they're not playing they don't dwell on it.
I like to think we have an inclusive community here. That is, we have a core of frequent posters who reject the false dichotomy of "Mechanics vs. story" players. You can have one without the other, but I prefer to have a little of both.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I think Gorbacz stumbled onto the problem of it.
It's not that Min Maxers (only) breed in a Char Op forum, they breed anywhere. It's people (not just min-maxers) who argue that their way is the 'one true way' of gaming.
It's kind of along the lines I started the Whom do you write for thread. When there is no 'one true way' of gaming, how do you write?
I mean I don't take all 'bad' feats, but I do take some that are less than optimal at times (EWP Katana for a Magus, EWP Bastard Sword for a tiefling sorcerer, etc.) because of the 'coolness' factor. As long as the player, and the group, are having fun, it's not wrong. It doesn't matter if it's a party of AMY, AM BARBARIAN, AM HELLKNIGHT, and Mister E, or if it's a party of Fighters who all took skill focus dozens of times.
So let me play my Taldoran noble magus who has a rank in perform dance (so he's not completely awkward at social gatherings) Knowlege (nobility) (since he is one) and craft (painting) (so I can make day job rolls) and uses a katana instead of a scimitar, and we're all good :-)
| 41 people marked this as a favorite. |
As I stroll through the forums where I give out my advice,
I took a look at General Discussion and realize it's full of vice,
And that's imperfect for a non-optimizer like me,
You know I shun things like super-optimality.
At 8:30 in the morning I'm bashing trolls,
RavingDork is querying rules and TOZ lols, fool.
And I've been pimping bards for so long that
Even Evil Lincoln thinks my mind is gone.
I'm a man of the game, I'm into cohesion,
Got a CRB in my hand, a neckbeard on my chin.
But if I finish all my advice, and you excuse my poor diction,
Then tonight we're going to party like PF outsold fourth edition.
We've been spending most our forum-going time living in a MinMaxer's paradise,
I smack trolls once or twice, living in a MinMaxer's paradise,
It's hard work and sacrifice, giving advice in a MinMaxer's paradise,
We give sound advice for free, living in a MinMaxer's paradise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
General Discussion is a MinMaxers paradise and this would seem to detract form having fun and role-playing. Is this a bad or good thing? Lol
That's because it's an internet forum, and it's interesting to talk about what does and doesn't work, mechanically, whereas nobody wants to hear about your campaign and how your half-elf rogue became a god by bluffing the forces of the universe.
Mechanical RAW is one of a very few things that's pretty campaign agnostic.
I think it is because it's hard to quantify "fun", and so can be hard to discuss it; I'm not saying it's impossible, not in any way, but since tastes vary so much, it often leads nowhere. When people want to discuss flavor, which varies by group, they discuss with their group and other people in their surroundings.
Mechanics are easier to quantify and thus easier to evaluate, which means people go to places where there's lots of people good at evaluating the mechanics, like a forum.
I don't have any issue with a thread that goes like this:
TS: I want to create a human healing cleric of Saranrae, I've got a good background together, this is my build thought so far: "X Y Z".
Reply1: Well, X could be better excanged for another Y, to further enhance Z.
Reply2: Have you considered a life oracle? They're really good at healing, and you could still worship Saraenrae with a little reflavouring of the class.
Reply3: You might want to broaden your repertoir a little, because you can't always heal; it's good to be able to do different things, and often, healing won't do that much good.
I DO have an issue with these kinds of threads:
TS: I want to create a human healing cleric of Saranrae, I've got a good background together, this is my build thought so far: "X Y Z".
Reply1: LOL healing suxx go battle oracle or wizard
Reply2: LOL party should always be wiz wiz wiz druid
Reply3: LOL healign suxx and you suck you should play something else
Now, the first one is more common, but the second does exist - often though, it's a mix between the two.
I think optimization within your role and character idea is a good thing. I don't think choosing your role and character idea solely on optimization is a bad thing and hurts roleplay. That said, before building a gnome wizard/barbarian that dual-wields hand crossbows, you might really want to reconsider, no matter how good your background is.
That's because it's an internet forum, and it's interesting to talk about what does and doesn't work, mechanically, whereas nobody wants to hear about your campaign and how your half-elf rogue became a god by bluffing the forces of the universe.
While that is true to SOME extent, there are many good, interesting threads that rely heavily on non-mechanical aspects. For example, the thread on monster orphanages are one of the best threads I've ever seen on this forum.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do think it would be appropriate to create an "Optimization" subforum. Many other gaming site do that, and it tends to reduce the endless rehash of pro-optimization vs. anti-optimization arguments.
I don't know. The Giant in the Playground forum has the same problem. New players are asking for advice on how to learn riding a bike and 80% of the replies are instructions about doing backflips through flaming hoops over the grand canyon while playing accordeon.
I do think it would be appropriate to create an "Optimization" subforum. Many other gaming site do that, and it tends to reduce the endless rehash of pro-optimization vs. anti-optimization arguments.I don't know. The Giant in the Playground forum has the same problem. New players are asking for advice on how to learn riding a bike and 80% of the replies are instructions about doing backflips through flaming hoops over the grand canyon while playing accordeon.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW!
It can however DISCOURAGE roleplaying options that don't yield maximum "WIN" results. At the very least, a group overly focused on min-maxing tends to have very little variety in it's characters, generaly turning out a string of cookie cutter characters according to a mechanics oriented methodolgy.
In that sense the oft-quoted "Stormwind Fallacy" isn't that much a fallacy after all.
Well there are grey areas. There are parallels. Just because you optimize doesn't mean you don't RP and just because you RP doesn't mean you don't optimize. You can do both.
Ive often seen some very interesting RP characters turned out from some odd optimization build. Just saying. Its why this argument goes on and on. Everyone thinks there is a black and white when in truth I think most people fall somewhere in the middle.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ugh -.- Why must people continually bring this up? You have horribly RP a totally unoptimized character. And you can do the most amazing RP ever with the most min/maxed character you can think of.
|
|
Roleplaying skills and optimization are separate. You will see messages on "help me flesh out this concept". But optimizing makes for far more interesting discussion; as it lets people run numbers and show options for a particular field. Quantitative arguments are just easier to get involved in.
And honestly, most people who don't optimize also seem to be the poor role-players; it's like they want a concept to work, and when they can't recreate a specific movie/anime character they go into a funk and fail to roleplay as well.
But optimizing makes for far more interesting discussion; as it lets people run numbers and show options for a particular field. Quantitative arguments are just easier to get involved in.
And honestly, most people who don't optimize also seem to be the poor role-players; it's like they want a concept to work, and when they can't recreate a specific movie/anime character they go into a funk and fail to roleplay as well.
The first point is subjective. I don't take any interest in dry statistical analysis whatsoever. Personally I'd rather talk about great plots, wacky NPCs, unforeseen circumstances, brilliant pieces of improvisation and unconventional BBEGs. I think such qualitative stuff makes for much richer discussions. I would guess that's probably true of a lot of people who play Pathfinder.
Your second point just isn't correct. In one of the best 3.5 campaign I've run, none of the players had any system mastery whatsoever, but they were all outstanding role-players (particularly the elf rogue whose highest skill was her overloaded Perform (Sing)). Unless they all fell outside of the parameters of 'most people....'
I optimize my characters. I like having a character that is good at whatever it is I want them to do. Succeeding is often fun, and succeeding often is also fun. I also put effort into my character's personality and interaction with the game world. I sat down and worked out a 5 typed page constitution with my dm and a couple of our players in kingmaker. My magus has become a literal boogeyman of our kingdom, enforcing law and order.
I used to think a 'optimization' section in the forums is a good idea, but lately, I disagree. I dont think isolation is the answer. I think we all need to learn to accept and tollerate eachothers views on the game we all share. I certainly feel like the discussions I've had here have opened me up to new and interesting ideas in gaming (not in some revelation from any individual comment, but more as an evolution of my own ideas by discussing them with people who disagree with me).
I am actually glad that there is no Great Divide in our community, because that is what we are, a community. Optimizers, Munchkins, Roleplaysnobs, and everyone in between (or outside of that) we can all learn from eachother's ideas and enhance our games, even if it is just a matter of using them as an example of what to avoid.
How do you min max? The only spot I can see where you really can is with point buy stats. After that you have optimal and sub optimal choices but you don't have the ability min max. You can't drop one class feature to boost another. At best you could mix and match archetypes but you get the package deal. So really it that choice and is that choice optimal or sub optimal.
How do you min max? The only spot I can see where you really can is with point buy stats. After that you have optimal and sub optimal choices but you don't have the ability min max. You can't drop one class feature to boost another. At best you could mix and match archetypes but you get the package deal. So really it that choice and is that choice optimal or sub optimal.
Minmaxing is kind of an outdated term, and really has been for a while. You can no longer do like the character Minmax from the Goblins web comic and give up your ability to rhyme intentionally for a bonus feat (though that was something of a hyperbole from the start). That said, common usage puts Minmaxer, Optimizer, and Munchkin in similar subjective space that is blurred by prejudice, past experience, and people being wrong on the internet.
I remember there was once an attempt to create a definition for each, but the chance of there being a consensus there isnt very likely.
I don't know. The Giant in the Playground forum has the same problem. New players are asking for advice on how to learn riding a bike and 80% of the replies are instructions about doing backflips through flaming hoops over the grand canyon while playing accordeon.
For this, I'm not really understanding the problem. Usually the very first reply is "what is it you want too make?"
Then any optimisers will attempt to help make a effective build within those boundarys. People use optimising like it's a dirty word, but except in certain rare cases I'm fairly certain most "Over the top" builds start with a concept that when refined turned out to be very strong. I mean, look at AM, he was hardly intended.
And yes, I'm aware some people will inevitably reply with "That sucks, do this.", but I've never seen it forced to the point of being a problem.
For this, I'm not really understanding the problem. Usually the very first reply is "what is it you want too make?"
Then any optimisers will attempt to help make a effective build within those boundarys. People use optimising like it's a dirty word, but except in certain rare cases I'm fairly certain most "Over the top" builds start with a concept that when refined turned out to be very strong. I mean, look at AM, he was hardly intended.
And yes, I'm aware some people will inevitably reply with "That sucks, do this.", but I've never seen it forced to the point of being a problem.
Part of this comes from being forced to interact. People are sensative to the fact that they are not certain, what a person is actually looking for, and thus actually asks. A lack of certainty usually helps people arrive at better conclusions.
campaign agnostic.
That sounds like the religion for me.
You know, if I *liked* religion, or wanted one.
wrong on the internet.
-- Paladin of the intarwebz
I do think it would be appropriate to create an "Optimization" subforum. Many other gaming site do that, and it tends to reduce the endless rehash of pro-optimization vs. anti-optimization arguments.
Isn't that what the advice forum is for?
As of writing this post, these are the top 10 (in terms of order of aperance, not necessarily post count) threads in this forum:
Paizo Blog: Unflinching Evil--Tzitzimitl CR 19 - A discussion on a preview of a new monster based on Aztec Mythology
Your Ideal PC Party: Class & Level - An opinion thread where people give their input as to what their most fun level & Party composition is
GD is a MinMaxers paradise - This thread
Why can't barbarians be lawful? - An alignment thread
Your favorite classes! - An opinion piece asking for your favorite three classes
What is RAGELANCEPOUNCE? - Self explanitory, a player wants to know what the Barbarian combo is
Divine Defender and Divine Bond, why +3, error? - Player wanting to know if the Divine Defender alternate class feature was a printing error or not, and why it's capped at +3
Ah, Crane Technique - Praise for the Crane Combat Style
Detect Magic-Spellcraft-Identify, Magic Item Properties: Breaking the fourth wall whether you like it or not. - A flavor piece, where a player is trying to find a way to describe magic weapons and armor.
Witch Hex Cards - Dude posting up some Hex cards he drafted up.
Min-Maxers paradise indeed.
I wouldn't necessarily say that's true. The thing is, not all options are created equal. If you have two people choosing options for fun without understanding the powerlevel thereof, you can get people of VASTLY differing power levels. That is generally viewed as 'unacceptable.'
You would be surprised to note that a great deal of us do not give a damn about optimization. I think it's cool as all hell, but it's not why I play or GM.
I do not view having vastly different power levels in a group as being unacceptable. I do not view having encounters that fluctuate wildly from the group's ECL (is that even still the term?) as a bad thing, either. The type of campaign world I enjoy does not scale in difficulty proportionately to the group's power level. I routinely throw stuff at the group that is far beyond their capability to fight fairly. They either have to come up with some genius guerilla tactics, or run like hell so they stay alive.There is no right answer to the OP's question, and in fact, it is flawed because it is biased vs "optimization". Caring and not caring about that facet of the game are both valid approaches.
|
As I stroll through the forums where I give out my advice,
I took a look at General Discussion and realize it's full of vice,
And that's imperfect for a non-optimizer like me,
You know I shun things like super-optimality.At 8:30 in the morning I'm bashing trolls,
RavingDork is querying rules and TOZ lols, fool.
And I've been pimping bards for so long that
Even Evil Lincoln thinks my mind is gone.I'm a man of the game, I'm into cohesion,
Got a CRB in my hand, a neckbeard on my chin.
But if I finish all my advice, and you excuse my poor diction,
Then tonight we're going to party like PF outsold fourth edition.We've been spending most our forum-going time living in a MinMaxer's paradise,
I smack trolls once or twice, living in a MinMaxer's paradise,
It's hard work and sacrifice, giving advice in a MinMaxer's paradise,
We give sound advice for free, living in a MinMaxer's paradise.
did cheapy really just omish paradise us? WTF im tellin cooli-o AND weird al!!
You know, one of my favorite characters from comics is Minmax from Goblins. He's supposed to be the epitome of optimization for mechanic's sake, but we all love him because he's actually played the way he's created: a big, stupid strong guy with a streak of nobility.
I'm currently DMing a guy who puts out so much damage per round he's fun to play with in combat. The only problem is when he started getting a feeling of entitlement to his superiority and getting mad when he wasn't getting items to scale him higher in damage fast enough.
What I try to do is make a concept for a character, then find the best mechanical way to bring them about. For me that works the best: I love doing the best I can mechanically and have a character I like being for the evening. After all, it's not like you can 'beat' the game against the DM, he can just scale the game up or down for you. As long as you're all having fun together you're doing it right after all.
I wouldn't necessarily say that's true. The thing is, not all options are created equal. If you have two people choosing options for fun without understanding the powerlevel thereof, you can get people of VASTLY differing power levels. That is generally viewed as 'unacceptable.'You would be surprised to note that a great deal of us do not give a damn about optimization. I think it's cool as all hell, but it's not why I play or GM.
I do not view having vastly different power levels in a group as being unacceptable. I do not view having encounters that fluctuate wildly from the group's ECL (is that even still the term?) as a bad thing, either. The type of campaign world I enjoy does not scale in difficulty proportionately to the group's power level. I routinely throw stuff at the group that is far beyond their capability to fight fairly. They either have to come up with some genius guerilla tactics, or run like hell so they stay alive.
There is no right answer to the OP's question, and in fact, it is flawed because it is biased vs "optimization". Caring and not caring about that facet of the game are both valid approaches.
That's the way I run games too. For me it's just that the game's more fun when you have to think your way out, and my groups are pretty good at that.
|
|
What I try to do is make a concept for a character, then find the best mechanical way to bring them about. For me that works the best: I love doing the best I can mechanically and have a character I like being for the evening. After all, it's not like you can 'beat' the game against the DM, he can just scale the game up or down for you. As long as you're all having fun together you're doing it right after all.
this is exactly what i do. i pick a concept that i want to RP then i optimize within that concept. i dont play broken for the sake of broken, i play the most broken version of what i want to play as i can. i love pouring over the books looking for every feat combination and choosing which fits best with what im trying to RP.
this is exactly what i do. i pick a concept that i want to RP then i optimize within that concept. i dont play broken for the sake of broken, i play the most broken version of what i want to play as i can. i love pouring over the books looking for every feat combination and choosing which fits best with what im trying to RP.
What I try to do is make a concept for a character, then find the best mechanical way to bring them about. For me that works the best: I love doing the best I can mechanically and have a character I like being for the evening. After all, it's not like you can 'beat' the game against the DM, he can just scale the game up or down for you. As long as you're all having fun together you're doing it right after all.
That's actually my biggest problem lately. I want to make a dual-dagger weilding Fey Sorcerer who specializes in enchantments, but Pathfinder doesn't really have a way to do that...
I wish every single gaming forum would have stickies to the oft-sited definitive works on well-beaten dead horses.
Stormwind fallacy being the one that springs to mind at the moment.
In that sense the oft-quoted "Stormwind Fallacy" isn't that much a fallacy after all.
The stormwind fallacy is that you CANNOT effectively roleplay a mechanically optimized character. If you believe that is not false, then you believe it is impossible to roleplay a mechanically optimized character.
As to the OP, I heartily agree. Bring on the CharOp boards! Heck, bring on RP forums where you have to RP in character to some extent.
I wish every single gaming forum would have stickies to the oft-sited definitive works on well-beaten dead horses.
Stormwind fallacy being the one that springs to mind at the moment.
All that would bring about is even more attempts to bolster incoherant arguments by accusing the other guy of "x fallacy" or "y argument".
Rhetorical labels are for studying argument, they are not cards to be played during argument. That only makes you seem like an overenthusiastic amateur rhetorician.
Or, you know, Teter's Razor.*
I wish every single gaming forum would have stickies to the oft-sited definitive works on well-beaten dead horses.
Stormwind fallacy being the one that springs to mind at the moment.
All that would bring about is even more attempts to bolster incoherant arguments by accusing the other guy of "x fallacy" or "y argument".
Rhetorical labels are for studying argument, they are not cards to be played during argument. That only makes you seem like an overenthusiastic amateur rhetorician.
Or, you know, Teter's Razor.*
** spoiler omitted **
So Teter's Razor is specifically designed to destroy logic robots incapable of handling paradoxes?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A character can be
1) Optimized but not role played
2) Role played but not optimized
3) Optimized AND role played
4) NEITHER role played nor optimized.
One has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the other.
Secondly, how would you break up the advice forum? Whats the line between making a character work, optimizing it, and min maxing it? Its a very blurry continuum at best.
