I'm offended! Who do I complain to?! Quick, someone lock this thread before it becomes a flame war!
*torches the place*
One of the things that always surprises me on these sorts of threads is all the assertions that "roll-playing" has to be diligently addressed to make sure that a character is "survivable."
Listen, I played a TWF dagger-wielding spellthief in a campaign with no NPC spellcasters. I know about underpowered characters... Yet I never once thought my character was unsurvivable. I eventually decided to retire him and play a more powerful character just because as poor as the spellthief was to start, it just got worse level after level, and it just wasn't fun to play such an underpowered character.
But he wasn't significantly more likely to die than any other character I've played because I played him as cautious and careful.
I am generally more of a "role player" than a "roll player" and most of my characters are less than optimal by design. Yet I've not had a character die in a campaign in a long, long time except one gnome rogue that was part of a party wipe in a single session campaign. And that gnome rogue was by far the most survivable character in the party (and died last).
So I just don't buy the "you have to optimize to survive" argument. If that is the case, I think you should have a talk with your GM. If the goal of the party and GM as a group is to optimize and play a "to the max" campaign, then fine, but the game itself is not designed to be played that way. It is designed to be played by characters who are well rounded and capable, but not necessarily optimized. If you have an average strength party and are having trouble surviving encounters, your GM needs to ease up a bit.
Did someone mention bacon? Sounds good. Ima go make some breakfast.
.
.
.
.I think I'll skip the eggs though, just bacon with a side of bacon and maybe some bacon on top.
Hmm.... I might go for that if you added some bacon sauce.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So I just don't buy the "you have to optimize to survive" argument. If that is the case, I think you should have a talk with your GM. If the goal of the party and GM as a group is to optimize and play a "to the max" campaign, then fine, but the game itself is not designed to be played that way. It is designed to be played by characters who are well rounded and capable, but not necessarily optimized. If you have an average strength party and are having trouble surviving encounters, your GM needs to ease up a bit.
Given the different degrees to which a PC can be optimized, I don't think people are meaning that you have to be completely optimized "just to survive", but rather just that you have to pay at least a little attention to optimization.
For instance, when someone asks me for advice building their first PFS character, I tell them that - depending on their skill as a player - they only need somewhere between 60-80% combat optimization.
You don't need to be AM BARBARIAN to survive. You just need to be a competent adventurer.*
I've seen some pretty crappy builds die, and they could have been much stronger without interfering with the concept one bit.
I think all anybody means when they say you need to be "survivable" is just that - survivable. A melee guy with 8 CON (which I have encountered) is a bad idea, and in all likelihood the concept could have been just as easily accomplished with 10-12 CON.
Jiggy, I guess it boils down to what the word "optimization" means.
When I am building a character concept, I don't think about "survivability" much at all. Once I have the concept down and am working on the mechanical details, there are only a very few things that I worry about from a "survivability" perspective. Those things are:
1. Can the character achieve a reasonable AC on a regular basis, either with armor, spells, items or attributes?
2. Can the character take a hit, or if not, is the character able to avoid taking that hit in the first place?
3. Can the character contribute in some meaningful way during combat, both in melee and ranged situations?
4. Can the character provide enough party benefit and synergy that the rest of the party is invested in keeping the character alive?
That's about all I care about. The answer to each of these is different based on the role of the character. Melee characters need higher AC and supporting characters need more avoidability.
From that point how much I invest in "optimizing" for combat depends entirely on what the character's concept is.
I'd go for a healthy mix of both, even though I may look like I lean more to roll-play.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
In my mind, those are all optimization questions. Different levels of optimization will have different final numbers, but if you're trying to answer "yes" to all of those questions, then by definition you're doing at least some optimizing.
Meanwhile, I (and others, I presume) have seen people deliberately build their characters to have one or more of those answers be "no", and think that doing so made them a good roleplayer.
EDIT: Ninja'd. This was a reply to Adamantine Dragon.
Roleplay to me is getting into a character and trying to build a concept from a back story of your character and not going through and gather every single feat and point that maxes out your character. Characters with low stats can be just as fun as high ones. Why would someone want to play something where they can over take other characters stealing spotlight from others.
Off course Rollplay is basicly min-maxing every aspect of your character through out any concept of why your character even adventures. I notice that Min-Maxers like to show off and take the feats and such to ensure highest damage.
Is one form better than the other? How does the tabletop community feel about roll-playing.
What would you all suggest to do about keeping it back at roleplaying and preventing this in a game.
For me a good game requires both roleplaying and rollplaying to be successful. Its a delicate balance that brings out the most fun for me.
Now theres nothing wrong with either exclusively if thats what you're into. If you want to fully optimize a character by scrutanizing every source then thats fine but at the same time expecting other players to do that is bad. Optimization as its commonly called is a playstyle
On the flip side, exclusively roleplaying out ones characters is also an acceptable playstyle. If a group wants that then thats totally fine but they shouldnt be expecting others to conform to their style.
Now if you find optimization disruptive then I think the best course of action is the best course of action for every problem. Sit down and talk to the player about it. Make your concerns known in a friendly non-accusatory manner
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
It won't boost your survivability, just change the opposition.
Fair point. Though I think it's a reasonable courtesy to put yourself at a power level where the GM can build encounters easily instead of having to make everything from scratch. If you're POWERTOTHEMAX'd, then the GM has to feel out an appropriate level of buffing, which is extra work. If you're the guy with the 8 CON melee dude, then he has to figure out how to tone everything down, which is even more work.
It's all about balance.
You obviously want to build a character that will survive the adventures you intend to send him on; but you also want to make him interesting to play; and speaking for myself playing a game on "easy mode" can become boring rather quickly.
Generally speaking I try to build fairly balanced characters who are really good at one ability and average to above average in others. I don't think I've ever purposefully tanked a stat when point buying.
For character backgrounds I usually start out fairly non-specific and flesh out the details after the first session. I often find that my characters surprise me and behave differently than I thought they would once I see them in action.
In the end the only thing that matters is the people in a group are in line with eachother. A deliberately weak character rollplayed well in a group of optimizers is as disruptive as a munchkined character in a roleplay group.
Ask, and understand what your group mates (in theory your friends) want out of the game, and come to some kind of arrangement, compromise, agreement, or convention that can keep your group at peace. In the end either extreme is bad for most tables, and everyone should be somewhere in the middle. A character who is capable of contributing to the goals of the group (be they killing a monster, sweet talking a princess or researching an ancient cult or something else) AND is interesting to talk to and interact with. One should not exclude the other, and to do one at the expense of the other is fall into folly that need not be at any table.
Jiggy, just for the sake of definitions of terms, I have generally considered "optimization" to be steps that you take to bring a character well above the norm for a character in that character's role, without sacrificing other areas to do so. So if the role is a melee tank, then it's not optimizing to give that tank a high AC. That's part of the job description. Optimizing would be to take that AC to the next level to where the tank is significantly less likely to be hit than average.
"Min-Maxing," to me, is when that same tank is fully optimized, but the player is still not happy, so they start crippling some other aspect of the character's concept to raise AC even higher.
I'm not totally opposed to "min-maxing" although I don't like to see it done according to some obvious on-line template that has been done to death. And I don't like to see it done such that a character is truly unplayable in some area with their stats as stated. And I particularly dislike it when that player attempts to overcome the mechanical crippling by simply ignoring it and playing the character as if the crippling never occurred, and when called on it defends themselves by calling it "role playing."
|
|
"Min-Maxing," to me, is when that same tank is fully optimized, but the player is still not happy, so they start crippling some other aspect of the character's concept to raise AC even higher.
That doesn't make sense. 'Min-max' is short for 'minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths'. Crippling yourself is not minimizing that weakness.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Jiggy, just for the sake of definitions of terms, I have generally considered "optimization" to be steps that you take to bring a character well above the norm for a character in that character's role, without sacrificing other areas to do so. So if the role is a melee tank, then it's not optimizing to give that tank a high AC. That's part of the job description. Optimizing would be to take that AC to the next level to where the tank is significantly less likely to be hit than average.
Ah, okay. What I call "moderate optimization", you call "part of the job description". What I call "extreme optimization", you call "optimization". Out of curiosity, then, what would you call the thing I call "insufficient optimization" (i.e., failing to reach the minimum threshold of what you call "part of the job description")?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Jiggy, just for the sake of definitions of terms, I have generally considered "optimization" to be steps that you take to bring a character well above the norm for a character in that character's role, without sacrificing other areas to do so. So if the role is a melee tank, then it's not optimizing to give that tank a high AC. That's part of the job description. Optimizing would be to take that AC to the next level to where the tank is significantly less likely to be hit than average.Ah, okay. What I call "moderate optimization", you call "part of the job description". What I call "extreme optimization", you call "optimization". Out of curiosity, then, what would you call the thing I call "insufficient optimization" (i.e., failing to reach the minimum threshold of what you call "part of the job description")?
"incompetence"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"incompetence"Jiggy, just for the sake of definitions of terms, I have generally considered "optimization" to be steps that you take to bring a character well above the norm for a character in that character's role, without sacrificing other areas to do so. So if the role is a melee tank, then it's not optimizing to give that tank a high AC. That's part of the job description. Optimizing would be to take that AC to the next level to where the tank is significantly less likely to be hit than average.Ah, okay. What I call "moderate optimization", you call "part of the job description". What I call "extreme optimization", you call "optimization". Out of curiosity, then, what would you call the thing I call "insufficient optimization" (i.e., failing to reach the minimum threshold of what you call "part of the job description")?
Then to speak with your terminology, I've seen/heard from many players being deliberately incompetent because they believed that doing so proved their roleplaying ability.
So in threads like this one, when people are saying "you need to do at least a little optimization", they're probably mostly meaning (in your terms) "please be competent".
"Min-Maxing," to me, is when that same tank is fully optimized, but the player is still not happy, so they start crippling some other aspect of the character's concept to raise AC even higher.That doesn't make sense. 'Min-max' is short for 'minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths'. Crippling yourself is not minimizing that weakness.
It's all relative TOZ. What you call "minimizing weakness" another person might call "crippling". That's why there is a debate on the subject.
But he wasn't significantly more likely to die than any other character I've played because I played him as cautious and careful.
That either 1) makes the party more likely to die because you're hiding in the back or 2) there's no reason you can't take a more optimized character AND play them just as cautiously and carefully, leading to a higher chance of survival.
So I just don't buy the "you have to optimize to survive" argument.
It varies a lot by the DM and by the other players in your group. If you have a killer DM optimize or die might be the reality at that table. I think all DM's think they're in the "just right" goldilox position (thats why they're in that position)
If one has a CR appropriate DM they may either have to optimize because you're the only one capable of doing so, or you may be able to ride the optimizers coat tails to victory with a less than optimal character.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"incompetence"Jiggy, just for the sake of definitions of terms, I have generally considered "optimization" to be steps that you take to bring a character well above the norm for a character in that character's role, without sacrificing other areas to do so. So if the role is a melee tank, then it's not optimizing to give that tank a high AC. That's part of the job description. Optimizing would be to take that AC to the next level to where the tank is significantly less likely to be hit than average.Ah, okay. What I call "moderate optimization", you call "part of the job description". What I call "extreme optimization", you call "optimization". Out of curiosity, then, what would you call the thing I call "insufficient optimization" (i.e., failing to reach the minimum threshold of what you call "part of the job description")?
Then to speak with your terminology, I've seen/heard from many players being deliberately incompetent because they believed that doing so proved their roleplaying ability.
So in threads like this one, when people are saying "you need to do at least a little optimization", they're probably mostly meaning (in your terms) "please be competent".
Yeah, that's probably fair.
To me it's about the role. If you want to play a role in the party, you have to fulfill that role's basic needs, or you're not doing your job. In the real world, that means I'd probably fire you. In an adventuring group, I'd probably replace you. Not because you aren't a fascinating individual with a deep and rich life story. Because you have a job to do and I have to depend on that job being done competently.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's all relative TOZ. What you call "minimizing weakness" another person might call "crippling". That's why there is a debate on the subject."Min-Maxing," to me, is when that same tank is fully optimized, but the player is still not happy, so they start crippling some other aspect of the character's concept to raise AC even higher.That doesn't make sense. 'Min-max' is short for 'minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths'. Crippling yourself is not minimizing that weakness.
Actually, I think it might be that some people use TOZ's definition while others believe it's short for "minimizing nonessential stats to maximize essential ones". Which, of course, produces a wildly different character.
One of the things that always surprises me on these sorts of threads is all the assertions that "roll-playing" has to be diligently addressed to make sure that a character is "survivable."
Listen, I played a TWF dagger-wielding spellthief in a campaign with no NPC spellcasters. I know about underpowered characters... Yet I never once thought my character was unsurvivable. I eventually decided to retire him and play a more powerful character just because as poor as the spellthief was to start, it just got worse level after level, and it just wasn't fun to play such an underpowered character.
But he wasn't significantly more likely to die than any other character I've played because I played him as cautious and careful.
I am generally more of a "role player" than a "roll player" and most of my characters are less than optimal by design. Yet I've not had a character die in a campaign in a long, long time except one gnome rogue that was part of a party wipe in a single session campaign. And that gnome rogue was by far the most survivable character in the party (and died last).
So I just don't buy the "you have to optimize to survive" argument. If that is the case, I think you should have a talk with your GM. If the goal of the party and GM as a group is to optimize and play a "to the max" campaign, then fine, but the game itself is not designed to be played that way. It is designed to be played by characters who are well rounded and capable, but not necessarily optimized. If you have an average strength party and are having trouble surviving encounters, your GM needs to ease up a bit.
The boards assume the GM is not pulling punches either when such statements are made. Any build can survive if the GM is fudging dice and holding back, just like any build can die if the GM's fudges dice against the players are cheezes the CR system to use what should be a CR 19 encounter as a CR 13 encounter just because the monster advancement rules say it is a CR 13.
To be fair one should assume the NPC's are fighting to live, and at least decently made.
edit:I read one of your later post. I think we are on the same page then. We just had a different view of the work optimization. :)
So improving your weak points is 'crippling yourself' to some people? o.O
It's all relative TOZ. What you call "minimizing weakness" another person might call "crippling". That's why there is a debate on the subject.
TOZ, I find it hard to believe that you don't interpret the "min" part of "min/max" as reducing some attribute or ability and the "max" part as increasing some attribute or ability. I believe that is the normal interpretation of what the term means. The classic example is reducing charisma to increase strength in a point buy system.
So I fail to see how you are interpreting anything I have said as "improving a weak point" is crippling yourself.
If you are truly interpreting it this way, then we are so far apart that we're not merely not on the same page, we're not in the same library.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
So improving your weak points is 'crippling yourself' to some people? o.O
It's all relative TOZ. What you call "minimizing weakness" another person might call "crippling". That's why there is a debate on the subject.TOZ, I find it hard to believe that you don't interpret the "min" part of "min/max" as reducing some attribute or ability and the "max" part as increasing some attribute or ability. I believe that is the normal interpretation of what the term means. The classic example is reducing charisma to increase strength in a point buy system.
So I fail to see how you are interpreting anything I have said as "improving a weak point" is crippling yourself.
If you are truly interpreting it this way, then we are so far apart that we're not merely not on the same page, we're not in the same library.
TOZ's definition. Ironically, a given example seems to contradict the stated definition.
Adamantine Dragon's definition.
Perhaps that'll help.
Jiggy, even the link you gave for "TOZ's definition" doesn't "improve a weak point" any more than my definition does. It simply doesn't reduce one.
I tend to mix them. I create what I'd like to think are optimal characters (though this is always the case). And then write a compelling back story and play in a way that is consisten with the role I envision the character. As the campaign moves on the character changes with his experiences.
I will say that my backgrounds often pull my character toward certain professions or skills that are not always viewed as "optimal." It is just something I like to do to to flesh out the character though there are many times where that is not necessary. If I am a Barbarian whose role in the clan was a warrior, who makes his way by the sword, I am not going to delve into a lot of professions. But if I am playing a ranger who makes his living as a hunter I am going to spend a few ranks in leaterworking.
Raul Play.
Gnomez, my process sounds similar to yours. I am notorious for having skills and professions that raise the eyebrows of other players. A classic example was my ranger who had developed skill points in "profession:architecture". His backstory was that he was the son of a famous architect (modeled after Frank Lloyd Wright, of course) and had been educated and trained in the field before deciding he just couldn't resist the call for adventure.
The GM we had for that campaign was excellent and took care to look for opportunities to weave our backstories into the story as a whole. At one point my ranger's ability to recognize a particular kind of stone used for structural support allowed the group to find a weak point in a wall. Another time he used his architecture skill to decide if the walls of a room could conceal a hidden chamber.
My archer druid is highly skilled in making bows and arrows, with a hefty dose of "craft:bow" ranks. She has woven bow-making into her story and has even made a bit of cash making and selling bows in the game (using the craft skill guidelines). At one point the party was investigating the assassination of a local member of the royal family, and her skill and experience with making bows and interacting with the local bow and arrow making community allowed her to identify the arrow's maker, from where we were able to identify a likely suspect who had purchased the arrows from that maker.
Those are the things that really make the game fun and interesting to me. Sure I love just beating down monsters and NPCs, but it's the collaborative story telling that keeps me playing tabletop games instead of just spending all of my time on WoW.
Wait, what? I always thought that "min" in "Min/Maxing" stands for "minimizing weaknesses"...TOZ's definition. Ironically, a given example seems to contradict the stated definition.
Adamantine Dragon's definition.
Perhaps that'll help.
You must not read Goblins. ;-)
From the very first introduction of that term it has always meant, to me, "minimize one attribute or ability to maximize another attribute or ability."
Frankly I don't even see a need for a term that means "minimizing weakness and maximizing strength". That term already exists. It's "optimizing".
I've always considered the "maximizing effectiveness in one area (typically combat), even at the cost of ability in other areas" to be the definition of "minmaxing", but I've heard the "minimizing weaknesses" definition thrown out a significant number of times as well. I think that the former is a more useful definition; otherwise minmaxing is just "optimization" or "building a mechanically powerful character" or "maxing".
The "min" part of "min-maxing" is what makes it a practice that some people deplore.
It is the deliberate gimping of a character in one area to artificially boost an ability or attribute that is bothersome and which predicated a need to distinguish the practice from that of simple optimization.
If it's the same thing as optimization then the term is redundant.
I don't believe it is redundant. min-maxing is optimization which has gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Well, this is why I always try to bring every debate into a definition of terms. Because if you aren't even speaking the same language, then debate is just chaos.
Can we get back to talking about bacon instead? :)
That's the only way I've ever heard of it as well. Min/Max has always - to my knowledge - meant minimizing weaknesses and maximizing strengths. It started way back in the day. Putting your sole 18 in Strength as a Fighter in the editions of old, and putting your 9 in Intelligence was the quintessential aspect of min/maxing. Fighters received nothing for Intelligence, while they were not only better Fighters with the 18, but also gained bonus XP for having a better Strength; so in this case you were minimizing your weaknesses (putting your lower stat in something that wouldn't matter to your PC as much) and maximizing your strengths (in this case, Strength does lots for you, so you put more in it).
Adamantine Dragon's definition seems to imply solely minimizing other stats for the sake of one, regardless of weakness or ability; which produces some pretty gosh awful characters. For example, dumping your saving throws to raise AC means you are going to die a horrible, horrible death. Likewise, a wizard who drops his 18 in Strength after lowering his Con, Dex, and Intelligence to pay for it, is likewise kobold food.
That has never been min/maxing to me or anyone else I've ever known offline or online (and I used to hang out with a lot of 2E grognards on some old PBP forums). For example...
The "min" part of "min-maxing" is what makes it a practice that some people deplore.
It is the deliberate gimping of a character in one area to artificially boost an ability or attribute that is bothersome and which predicated a need to distinguish the practice from that of simple optimization.
This is just strait up wrong. Min/Maxing (or Optimization) is generally about not gimping your character by understanding priorities and how things work. Here's one that seems to ignite a fire under people's keisters on these boards.
Ranger: Str 15, Dex 15, Con 12, Int 7, Wis 15, Cha 7.
This seems to piss people off really bad, because they believe they know the "one true way", and claim this is gimping said character for combat, yadda yadda. The thing is, let's look at this for a moment. We have minimized weaknesses and maximized strengths. The ranger gets good HP, skill points, and is a martial character who benefits highly from both a solid strength, dexterity, and wisdom. We are assured 4 skill points per level (possibly up to 6, if human + favored class) so we won't be hurting for skills. Our HP is pretty fair. Our Strength and Dexterity are high enough that we can hit 30/28 in them by 20th; which is plenty for melee and archery, and will mean we get a high AC (+9 dex to AC + mithral celestial plate). We have decent saving throws (Wisdom will eventually reach 26, giving a +8 to will saves). For this overall usefulness, we have a -2 to Intelligence based checks (such as Knowledge Nature) and -2 to social checks (such as Diplomacy). We're alright with a -2, because while a weakness (and thus a well-rounded character) it doesn't make us "gimpy".
Good Min/Maxing : Minimizing your weaknesses and maximizing your strengths without disrupting the game.
Bad Min/Maxing : Crippling your character in one aspect in order to utterly dominate in some other aspect, then whining to the GM that it's 'metagaming' whenever you encounter something that exploits your crippled aspect. Also includes disrupting the game, or utterly obliterating the power curve of the other players. (Note all of this really equates to disrupting the game).
Good Roleplaying : Getting into your character's head, playing out his personality, making choices that your character (not you) would make.
Bad Roleplaying : Making a character who is self crippling and doesn't contribute because 'that is your concept', making choices that disrupt everyone else's game because 'that is your concept', which is often related to making your concept be at odds with everyone else's concpets. This also can be reduced to 'disrupting the game'.
There's nothing to say about bacon.
Yes there is.
ICK!
There's nothing to say about bacon.Yes there is.
ICK!
:O
This is just strait up wrong. Min/Maxing (or Optimization) is generally about not gimping your character by understanding priorities and how things work.The "min" part of "min-maxing" is what makes it a practice that some people deplore.
It is the deliberate gimping of a character in one area to artificially boost an ability or attribute that is bothersome and which predicated a need to distinguish the practice from that of simple optimization.
Ashiel, I guess you didn't bother to visit Jiggy's Wikipedia link which defines min/maxing precisely in the manner I and others have understood it to mean.
Perhaps there are two "common" definitions of the term. But note that I don't call your definition "flat out wrong".
It's two different definitions, both of which are used commonly. And that alone can sometimes add to the confusion.
Your definition of "min/maxing" is completely redundant with "optimizing" and is therefore totally unnecessary. However, there DOES need to be a term which describes what I am talking about and since "min/maxing" is redundant in your definition, I propose we adopt it universally to mean my definition. That way, at least, "optimization" and "min/maxing" won't mean the same thing.
Now the question is, do you use a character voice or just roll with you normal voice when playing?
My group will not repond to people with in-game info without the use of a character voice. It is pretty funny when one player says to the other speaking in their normal voice, 'I can't hear you, what was that?' Or a much less G rated version of that.
A min-maxer could disguise oneself very well by applying an in-game voice!
:OSeeing this, given your avatar, made me chuckle. :)
Hah, I just noticed it.