I'm having difficulty discerning what exactly counts as cheese. As I have it figured, it's being a munchkin/minmaxer. To me, this implies one who determines his or her character based almost entirely on gameplay mechanics, and maximizing the abilities based on these rules. For example, I noticed a thread today about using fabrication, high intellect and craft gemcutting with a question on cheese. Many things are seen as potential cheese, it seems, but I find a good degree of hypocrissy in this.
For example, many caster builds suggest summons that also cast spells, which essentially gives you several free spells for the price of one.I also see the Metamagic feat Toppling spell combined with Magic Missiles, which uses the magic missile not for damage, but for ranged trip attacks. These take into more the mechanics of being prone than the intent of the spell itself, seeing a prone opponent as a tactically good thing, as prone enemies take penalties on AC, and take AoO when standing up. These are considered "optimized" builds. To me, they look far cheesier than, say, a wizard who knows he can use magic to improve gems, and then makes gems to improve.
Also, for example, we have the AM BARBARIAN build, and ragelancepounce.
So when is cheese cheese? When is it "optimization"?
I would like to make the vague supposition that cheese is cheese when it is something a real life character wouldn't do. Would your half-orc barbarian be able to figure out that he is the most statistically effective when he is on the back of a gryphon using an otherwise unweildy lance, but only when he can also communicate with it so he can gain the power of it's better eyesight to line up a target from 480 feet away?
Is your metaphysical student of the arcane arts concerned primarily with summoning outsiders so he can use their nukes instead of his, or does he actually KNOW that magic missile has no save and always hits and is therefore most suited to use as a carrier for CMB effects?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
CHEESE AM SUBJECTIVE TERM USED BY PEOPLE FOR THINGS AM NOT FAN OF.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
CHEESE AM SUBJECTIVE TERM USED BY PEOPLE FOR THINGS AM NOT FAN OF.
Basically this.
My personal definition of cheese contains:
1. To use a rule or rules for something other than their intended purpose.
2. To use, in tandem, two or more rules or pieces of content (such as feats or classes) that were not meant to be combined. The conflict might be thematic, mechanical or both. Most often the result of using rules from multiple sources that were each made without knowledge and/or consideration of one or more of the other sources.
3. To use a rule or rules in such a way as to make the world seem less "real" (for some agreed-upon definition of real; this agreement is often implicit).
4. To deliberately misconstrue the meaning of a rule, most often by taking advantage of vague or otherwise weak portions of its wording.
Point 3 is where most of the subjective pieces come in, though all 4 have some potential for subjectivity. Point 3 is the "you got bacon in my cornflakes" type of rule that makes people call using a gun in a fantasy setting cheesy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Add Bacon and I'll do whatever you want.
|
|
Yeah, talk about casters that dump Con and start with 20 in the main spellcasting stat for the "I'm gonna be a lich, yo"...
That's just classic min/maxing, IMO. No need to fuse the terms.
Besides, if they can manage to get to that level without dying horribly, and can deal with being a couple levels behind in spellcasting, that's not that big of a deal. When you're always one attack away from death as you level, the chances of you getting to high levels aren't very good.
I believe Avenger's concern was starting out at high levels.
I'm having difficulty discerning what exactly counts as cheese. As I have it figured, it's being a munchkin/minmaxer. To me, this implies one who determines his or her character based almost entirely on gameplay mechanics, and maximizing the abilities based on these rules. For example, I noticed a thread today about using fabrication, high intellect and craft gemcutting with a question on cheese. Many things are seen as potential cheese, it seems, but I find a good degree of hypocrissy in this.
For example, many caster builds suggest summons that also cast spells, which essentially gives you several free spells for the price of one.I also see the Metamagic feat Toppling spell combined with Magic Missiles, which uses the magic missile not for damage, but for ranged trip attacks. These take into more the mechanics of being prone than the intent of the spell itself, seeing a prone opponent as a tactically good thing, as prone enemies take penalties on AC, and take AoO when standing up. These are considered "optimized" builds. To me, they look far cheesier than, say, a wizard who knows he can use magic to improve gems, and then makes gems to improve.
Also, for example, we have the AM BARBARIAN build, and ragelancepounce.
So when is cheese cheese? When is it "optimization"?
I would like to make the vague supposition that cheese is cheese when it is something a real life character wouldn't do. Would your half-orc barbarian be able to figure out that he is the most statistically effective when he is on the back of a gryphon using an otherwise unweildy lance, but only when he can also communicate with it so he can gain the power of it's better eyesight to line up a target from 480 feet away?
Is your metaphysical student of the arcane arts concerned primarily with summoning outsiders so he can use their nukes instead of his, or does he actually KNOW that magic missile has no save and always hits and is therefore most suited to use as a carrier for CMB effects?
What is cheese is subjective for the most part.
The only time I call something cheese is when someone is being deliberately obtuse and/or using a loophole so powerful that most GM's will say no.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Something is usually "cheese" because someone has used the rules to combine/twist/misinterpret to create an effect that is usually vastly superior to things that it should have equivalency to. This can also happen because a writer doesn't do a good job or a developer fails to anticipate certain consequences. But since the rules as written don't specifically forbid the use people take it as a carte blance for all sorts of abuse and call it optimization (until an author or dev comes along and puts the kibosh on it which, even when everyone agrees an interpretation is borked as hell, sometimes never happens or happens really slowly).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thanks for defending my dwarven gem'omancer build idea, Shah Jahan the King of Kings.
Cheese, for me, is an attempt at using the rules in a manner that is (1) grossly beneficial to the perpetrator, and (2) that was not necessarily intended for by the game developers. If it has the potential to ruin others' fun (such as by stealing the spotlight) than it is extra cheese.
EDIT: Is it bad that everything accused of being cheesy in this thread so far (gemomancer, low-con lich, etc.) are things that I have come up with and shared on these boards? :P
|
|
I think min/maxing and cheese are related, but different terms.
Min/maxing, as well all know, is simply trying to be optimal. However, you can do this within the bounds of normalcy by working with the DM and the rest of the party to make characters that seem sensible and follow the rules as best as you can.
Cheese is the lack of sensibility in some fashion, whether that is rules manipulation or something that just doesn't make sense in the game world. It results in characters or rules interpretations that make you raise an eyebrow. It's *usually* done in an attempt to min/max, but can be done on accident.
Munchkinism, IMO, combines min/maxing with cheese. The willingness to do whatever it takes, within the bounds of the rules or outside of them, to gain a game advantage.
The low-con lich thing is subjectively cheesy (very cheesy if you create your character in that state, not so much if you have to level up from level 1 that way). It is DEFINITELY a min/max. If you create the character in that state, I would say it is cheesy (and thus munchkinism).
The low-con lich thing is subjectively cheesy (very cheesy if you create your character in that state, not so much if you have to level up from level 1 that way). It is DEFINITELY a min/max. If you create the character in that state, I would say it is cheesy (and thus munchkinism).
*laughs* I survived from level one to level ten on only 30 hit points with just such a character.
I was ultimately betrayed by my own party (who feared my growing power) and was cast out into a desert to wonder for years, lost to the sands of time.
(I ultimately decided to retire the character due to play style differences.)
During her time I brought down whole nations and was well on my way to bringing peace to the world under my rule...on less than thirty hit points. Thirty hit points!
And. They. Feared. Me.
My witch Hama will likely be my most memorable character for years to come. It's amazing what you can accomplish with a high charisma, the appearance of innocence and good will, and magic jar.
The low-con lich thing is subjectively cheesy (very cheesy if you create your character in that state, not so much if you have to level up from level 1 that way). It is DEFINITELY a min/max. If you create the character in that state, I would say it is cheesy (and thus munchkinism).*laughs* I survived from level one to level ten on only 30 hit points with just such a character.
I was ultimately betrayed by my own party (who feared my growing power) and cast out into a desert to wonder for years, lost to the sands of time.
I brought down whole nations and was well on my way to bringing peace to the world under my rule...on less than thirty hit points. Thirty hit points! And. They. Feared. Me.
I remember that thread. I am assuming this is the same caster who survived by trying to look like she was harmless.
|
|
The low-con lich thing is subjectively cheesy (very cheesy if you create your character in that state, not so much if you have to level up from level 1 that way). It is DEFINITELY a min/max. If you create the character in that state, I would say it is cheesy (and thus munchkinism).*laughs* I survived from level one to level ten on only 30 hit points with just such a character.
I was ultimately betrayed by my own party (who feared my growing power) and cast out into a desert to wonder for years, lost to the sands of time.
And this is basically my point: If you have to survive it, s*+@ like the above happens. If you don't, then you try to "assume" that something of that form didn't happen, which is exceedingly unlikely and thus does not seem sensible, which is my definition of "cheese".
Agreeing with Stabbity: That lich would not have survived according to most of the people who responded if RD was in their games. The fact that you are traveling with powerful people makes you a target. Looking old and frail does not keep you out of danger. The logic as to why they would not ignore the frail person is better explained in the thread.
I'm buying RD one of those foam cheese hats and carving it into a crown.
I do it for the community and to better the game. :D
EDIT: Is it bad that everything accused of being cheesy in this thread so far (gemomancer, low-con lich, etc.) are things that I have come up with and shared on these boards? :P
Yes. But it doesn't make you a bad person. Just a person with a natural tendency (in the relative safety of an RPG scenario) to grasp and clutch and loophole for every possible fragment of an advantage that you can envision.
It's important to note that the term "cheese" did not originate with roleplayers, but with wargamers. To a wargamer the term is much less negative. It indicates a hidden benefit from certain combinations of rules/builds, and wargames being what they are, might not always be completely unintentional by a game's designers.
In other words, a mouse goes hunting for cheese, and is happy when he finds it. However, it also maintains its double meaning, of a thing that is maybe a bit too exaggerated.
Because wargames are not cooperative games, cheese is much less a problem, and is more open to debate than in an RPG. Your goal, after all, is to defeat the other guy, not help him find treasure, and there is no GM struggling to make sure the two of you remain on a compatible level. More than likely, there is cheese to be found in every army, and so it becomes more incumbent upon the player without cheese, to search out potential cheese in his faction, rather than make an out-and-out complaint over "min-maxing."
On rare occasions, both with wargames and with card games, a build will be found to be unintentionally too overpowered, and in those cases, will be barred from tournament play. But in my experience, most borderline cheese is fairly appreciated in the wargaming community.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People will talk about "cheese" as though it meant "an overpowered build/option based on dubious interpretations of vague rules, and it's probably not actually legal".
But mostly, people slap the label of "cheese" onto anything that defies their preferred image of what a game should be like. Sometimes simply employing a single Core rule gets labeled as cheese because the reader has been doing it wrong all along and the way the rule actually works is more powerful than what he's gotten used to.
I'd have to lean toward the side of twisting various rules trying to achieve results greater than they actually mean. Also, I'd consider 'cheese' being a character who is so greatly optimized for one thing they suck at everything else.
|
|
Everyone has their own definition for cheese and most of these overlap with existing terms, which seems redundant and a waste of a perfectly good term.
I generally put forth that "cheese" should be defined as "Using or attempting to use a rule in a way that does not seem sensible or otherwise runs counter to its intended purpose." In other words, if it seems like they're twisting what is normal, reasonable and/or intended, it's cheese. However, under this definition it doesn't have to be done for an advantage to be considered cheese.
Many people use cheese to denote optimization (as Buri seems to). But this already has a term: Minmax. If the minmax build also pushes rules in ways that do not seem sensible, then that is instead munchkinism. (In other words, Munchkin = Min/Max + Cheese.)
As Jiggy states, people unfortunately like to accuse anything they don't like of being "cheese."
So to answer the OP: Optimization does not attempt to push the rules beyond their intended scope, and simply uses them in ways that people either already agree with or are more than willing to allow because they seem sensible and fair (such as taking Power Attack instead of Profession [Hairdresser]). Cheese is when they use rules in ways that people do not agree with to do things that seem unrealistic or imbalanced.
Please avoid calling everything you disagree with "Cheese." That amounts to little more than name-calling.
Is this the second discussion in two days about this topic? Or am I missing something?
Poth posts are from 425 pm, so it was a double post, I guess.
In my mind, cheese is using Rules as Written to any end that is violently and obviously against Rules as Intended.
For instance, the Peasant Railgun isn't actually powerful. It's just cheesy.
I merged the threads on this topic.
It's important to note that the term "cheese" did not originate with roleplayers, but with wargamers. To a wargamer the term is much less negative. It indicates a hidden benefit from certain combinations of rules/builds, and wargames being what they are, might not always be completely unintentional by a game's designers.
In other words, a mouse goes hunting for cheese, and is happy when he finds it. However, it also maintains its double meaning, of a thing that is maybe a bit too exaggerated.
Because wargames are not cooperative games, cheese is much less a problem, and is more open to debate than in an RPG. Your goal, after all, is to defeat the other guy, not help him find treasure, and there is no GM struggling to make sure the two of you remain on a compatible level. More than likely, there is cheese to be found in every army, and so it becomes more incumbent upon the player without cheese, to search out potential cheese in his faction, rather than make an out-and-out complaint over "min-maxing."
On rare occasions, both with wargames and with card games, a build will be found to be unintentionally too overpowered, and in those cases, will be barred from tournament play. But in my experience, most borderline cheese is fairly appreciated in the wargaming community.
I wouldn't say it was appreciated. In wargamming, cheese tends to be a matter of "sure, it is legal, but don't expect me to play you for fun" Cheesy armies are prefectly legal and can be beat, but they are not a whole lot of fun to play against. The guy with a reputation for building cheesy armies tends to be the guy standing off to the side watching everyone else play while he talks about how awesome/cool his armies are. I know, I used to be that guy.
In PF, cheese is mainly about ruining everyone elses fun. It can be the guy that pushes or breaks the limit of every rule. It can be the guy who brings a hyper-optimized character to a casual pickup game, and as a result steals the spotlight from everyone else. It can be the guy who wastes 2 hours every session with some sidetrack caper when everyone else just wants to get back to hunting down the bad guy. It can be the guy who turns every inter-party interaction into an excuse to PVP with players who really are not into that playstyle. It really doesn't matter exactly what or how, but if you are ruining the fun for everyone else, then it is cheese.
Something is usually "cheese" because someone has used the rules to combine/twist/misinterpret to create an effect that is usually vastly superior to things that it should have equivalency to. This can also happen because a writer doesn't do a good job or a developer fails to anticipate certain consequences. But since the rules as written don't specifically forbid the use people take it as a carte blance for all sorts of abuse and call it optimization (until an author or dev comes along and puts the kibosh on it which, even when everyone agrees an interpretation is borked as hell, sometimes never happens or happens really slowly).
This is an excellent summation of what most people consider 'cheese'. An example of this that's floating around the board right now is the Sohei Archer. Most everyone who posts about it, points out that the Zen Archer restricts the use of Rapid Shot and Manyshot - but the Sohei neglects this restriction on it's use of Flurry.
So while, RAI, Sohei's Flurry should work exactly like the Zen Archer's Flurry, RAW - and the cheesy interpretation that is often quoted - says you can combine Flurry, Ki, Rapid Shot and Manyshot all together.
I generally attribute cheese to the type of players who would try to play decks designed by Zvi Mowshowitz.
I have no problem with players who come up with odd combos that work exceptionally well. I have a problem with people who read about it somewhere and try to emulate it. The first person would have done it as a more organic thing. The copycat is using it for mechanics only.
I thought this was a discussion about cheese actually in the game. I had a bard in a solo campaign (a friend was teaching me how to dm). The poor guy got tricked by a cute girl who was actually a half orc with a hat of disguise. He was left for dead with absolutely no money. He found som wierd orcish sword and some rags. With what little he had at this point was basically a hobo. After celling what little crap I brought back to town. The only food I could afford was a wheel of cheese. I put the cheese in a sack and set out after the orc.