The question popped into my head after reading 'haters gonna hate' in another post in regards to people talking smack about optimizers.
To me that would insinuate those who can't complain about those who can, but it also brings to mind that some people don't wish to optimize, so as to prevent lop sided encounters.
This is not for argument, just for posting the whys and why nots. We all know if this gets out of hand then the thread will get locked, so please, be civil.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why or why not optimize?
For me, optimization is instinct. The system has rules, I see the rules, my brain does some work and synergistic builds just kind of start building themselves in my head.
I don't actually put any particular effort into optimizing, it's just like the natural way I have always built characters.
To my brain, it's just the "right" way to do it. I'm not saying that makes it objectively right, it's just the way my brain works.
And that applies to any game I play. Victory is my goal, hence I use tactics and builds that will lead to victory.
Of course, I've been almost exclusively a DM for the entire 17ish years I've gamed, so my optimization skills have actually been a good thing for my table.
I can agree. If they weren't 'optimized' then they probably wouldn't be adventuring. Unless, of course, the story line calls for unoptimized characters. (ie: peasants, farmers etc...)
From what I've seen, as a player and DM in a number of groups over the past 30 years...
Some players enjoy mastering the rules. Part of (perhaps even most of) the fun of the game, for them, is figuring out how to create the most effective character they can. These are optimizers.
Some players just don't enjoy this. They play the game for other reasons (socializing with friends, enjoyment of taking on a role, storytelling, etc.). For many of them, they learn just enough of the rules of the game they're playing to function in the game. (And, in some games, the amount of rules knowledge needed to be an effective optimizer is pretty high.) They likely recognize that their characters aren't as effective in the game as the optimizers' characters are, and while some may resent that difference, it's unlikely that it's enough to lead them to delve into the minutiae of the rules to become optimizers.
You also get a few corner-cases, mostly serious role-players who enjoy playing a flawed (i.e., intentionally less-than-optimized) character.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If they weren't 'optimized' then they probably wouldn't be adventuring. Unless, of course, the story line calls for unoptimized characters. (ie: peasants, farmers etc...)
In the games I run, characters start out as "regular Joes", and through adventure become heroes, as opposed to starting out as heroes, and becoming superheroes...
I optimize to the same level that my GM does, it is expected of me. When I GM I optimize the encounters to the same level the players do, as that is expected of me as well.
If all GMs and players would just agree beforehand as to what sort of game they will be playing and the power level they are shooting for, the whole optimization argument becomes a non-issue. It really is not that difficult.
So far what I am seeing is there is nothing to have a dispute over. Those who are not optimizers seem to be people who have not fully learned the ever expanding rules (such is bloat) and when they encounter optimizers they study up.
On top of that Digitalelf backed up my statement on people running less than optimized characters for sake of the campaign.
An interesting thing I should mention, at least about my own campaign:
All my monsters are custom built, my guards have PC class levels and elite stat arrays.
Basically, my entire world is optimized, and I know a lot of DMs who do this, so sometimes one has to optimize simply to survive.
|
I usually unconsciously optimize. But when i notice that my characters are far more effective then characters of my fellow gamers in the group, i usualy start picking effective but sub-par choices to help them shine when needed. I do not feel less because of that. I help my friends have fun. Fun is the most important part of the game.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Everyone optimizes. If you put something higher than 10 in your casting stat when you had the option of a 10 or less, you just optimized. It's only a question of degree.
So when someone criticizes optimization, they're actually criticizing optimization that surpasses their own.
The question, then, is this: What leads someone to the belief that "anyone whose PCs are more optimized than mine is doing something wrong"?
Understand that, and you understand the biggest problem with the RPG subculture.
I usually unconsciously optimize. But when i notice that my characters are far more effective then characters of my fellow gamers in the group, i usualy start picking effective but sub-par choices to help them shine when needed. I do not feel less because of that. I help my friends have fun. Fun is the most important part of the game.
I have done the same thing on several occasions, to include the weekend before last.
My character is a stout fighter who only uses his bare hands and a shield. Due to Equipment trick feats I was able to take out baddies fairly easy. It was obvious to everyone. What wasn't obvious was what they could do, so...when we were traveling back to town (start point) we were ambushed and an NPC was taken into the woods. Everyone else ran in to save him and found a ritual was in progress. While they were handling that encounter, my character was guarding the wagon and the items we had gone on the adventure for.They took out a small company and I got to fight one person at the wagon.
Still, a great time had by all!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The question, then, is this: What leads someone to the belief that "anyone whose PCs are more optimized than mine is doing something wrong"?
Understand that, and you understand the biggest problem with the RPG subculture.
The same human tendency that makes drivers think, "Anyone who drives more slowly than I want is a moron, and anyone driving faster than me is a maniac." ;)
Or "Anyone who plays less than me is casual, anyone who plays more than me is a neckbeard, I am hardcore."
I enjoy making somewhat optimized characters.
I am sure you do. lol As do we all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimization is a fallacy.
It begins with a false premise, and is built from a perspective that is delusional.
Optimization is done from the perspective of, “I know what my character will be challenged by, and therefore I will build my character to be optimized to succeed at those challenges.”
If you do not see the fallacy in this perspective, I feel badly for you.
So, a fighter never knows that tripping or disarming opponents is a good idea? And after a few levels, he has no concept of DR? He doesn't know that hitting people harder kills them faster? He doesn't know that getting hit less is a good thing?
It seems like there might be a flaw in your 'logic'.
Optimization is a fallacy.
It begins with a false premise, and is built from a perspective that is delusional.
Optimization is done from the perspective of, “I know what my character will be challenged by, and therefore I will build my character to be optimized to succeed at those challenges.”
If you do not see the fallacy in this perspective, I feel badly for you.
That's not what I think when I optomized. As I already said, I don't put conscious thought into optimization.
See a class or archetype, my brain starts flying through lists of feats and I basically create an optimized character because that's how my brain works.
If two feats work really well together, I'm gonna take those two feats.
Like when I made my girlfriend a Breaker Barbarian that killed her GM's BBEG in 1 charge, I didn't spend time coming up with this build.
It's like filling out your class tree in an MMO. Some people need guides, others just naturally know what a good build is.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The hate in these conversations is always misplaced. Yet no matter how many times we have them nobody ever gets anywhere. So haters gonna hate. The real culprit is incompatible play styles. Game gets derailed groups implode on each other and people start putting up flags. "This is the way you play TTRPGs!!!" The internets have only thrown gas on the fight by allowing folks to bolster one camp or another.
Truth is role play and optimization are two entirely different scales. Its quite possible to find differing combinations at any table. Some groups will work out the differences. Others fall apart because the differences are irreconcilable. Don't get hard feelings about it move on. Life is too short for bad gaming and hating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, in 17 years, I've never witnessed this argument at a real life table.
I've only seen this kind of stuff online.
I've walked into several of those old D&D gamedays with quite powerful characters and all it's ever done in real life is have people asking me how to build their character.
I've never seen someone set out to create a weak character.
Optimization is a fallacy.
It begins with a false premise, and is built from a perspective that is delusional.
Optimization is done from the perspective of, “I know what my character will be challenged by, and therefore I will build my character to be optimized to succeed at those challenges.”
If you do not see the fallacy in this perspective, I feel badly for you.
So, a fighter never knows that tripping or disarming opponents is a good idea? And after a few levels, he has no concept of DR? He doesn't know that hitting people harder kills them faster? He doesn't know that getting hit less is a good thing?
It seems like there might be a flaw in your 'logic'.
I am unconvinced that real people behave in that fashion.
Real people, and more importantly, interesting fictional characters are rarely as focused as optimised characters in roleplaying games.
Characters are made interesting by their weaknesses, and their illogical decisions as much as by their strengths.
That is my issue with Optimisation, as a character design philosophy, as opposed to optimisation as a game skill. It is a mind set that,in my experience, encourages individuals to remove complications from ones character for the sake of efficacy, rather than sacrifice efficacy for the sake of narrative. Optimisations says don't do X, because it is sub-optimal, while optimisations says here is how to do X as well as possible.
This is compounded by the fact that trying to make a 'stronger characters' in a red queen's race with the GM. It should be the GMs job to always push the party to the very edge, while avoiding pushing them over, or giving them challenges that provide a decent challenge. All an Optimised character is, is a request to raise the over all difficulty of the encounters so that the adventure will continue pushing the characters right to the edge. They should not make victories any easier.
Optimizing is the math and numbers side of gaming. It is a skill level. Some people in real life invest a higher number of skill points in the optimizer skill than others. They may have a variety of reasons. Two such reasons I have seen are: That they get their fun from the role play side instead of the optimizing side of the game and so they invest as little points as needed into optimizing, Or that they have prioritized interests outside the game and are investing skill points in skills outside the game hence they buy only a few ranks in either optimizing and/or role play.
That still makes it sound like we put some kind of effort into becoming good at optimization.
I know I didn't.
Just through learning the system the optimized builds stand out really boldly.
The feats and skills pretty naturally fit together without much need for thinking about it.
Using my earlier Breaker example:
I pick an archetype good at sundering.
So I should take feats that make me ever better at sundering.
And then I should take rage powers built around sundering.
Then I likely have a weakness, low will, so I use traits or spare feats to make that weakness not so bad.
That flows in my head as naturally as A B C, there's no thought process there.
Yes the real conflict arises when there is a mix of play styles. In those groups the optimizers dominate combat almost single handedly winning fights. Since most (not all) optimizers have only spent a few ranks in the role play side of the game they do things in game to avoid having to deal with all the talking and drama. You know like attack the cultists the party face is trying to negotiate with. This enrages the negotiator PCs who were about to reach an agreement with the cultists. Since you can't interrupt combat with talking it leads to situations where the role players are not getting any fun. So it is important in mixed groups to come to some sort of understanding, either by limiting the optimizers or reaching an agreement between players or often both.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I used to optimize when I sat among other optimizers... you need to constantly study the rule books just like history class. So that you know about all the options available for your character not just now but also in 20 levels. Rinse and repeat frequently and you will suddenly notice synergies you didn't see before. When your skill at optimizing gets high you start to be able to do this effortlessly.
I am unconvinced that real people behave in that fashion.So, a fighter never knows that tripping or disarming opponents is a good idea? And after a few levels, he has no concept of DR? He doesn't know that hitting people harder kills them faster? He doesn't know that getting hit less is a good thing?
It seems like there might be a flaw in your 'logic'.
... what??
... what??I am unconvinced that real people behave in that fashion.So, a fighter never knows that tripping or disarming opponents is a good idea? And after a few levels, he has no concept of DR? He doesn't know that hitting people harder kills them faster? He doesn't know that getting hit less is a good thing?
It seems like there might be a flaw in your 'logic'.
People are, for the most part very bad at decision making.
From equipment choice through to placing bets, people rarely act rationally.
People will continue to use equipment that is demostrably worse, because they prefer it.
People will bet on the team most likely to loose, because 'they have a good feeling about it'.
See Cognative Biases
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That still makes it sound like we put some kind of effort into becoming good at optimization.
I know I didn't.
Just through learning the system the optimized builds stand out really boldly.
The feats and skills pretty naturally fit together without much need for thinking about it.
Using my earlier Breaker example:
I pick an archetype good at sundering.
So I should take feats that make me ever better at sundering.
And then I should take rage powers built around sundering.Then I likely have a weakness, low will, so I use traits or spare feats to make that weakness not so bad.
That flows in my head as naturally as A B C, there's no thought process there.
See I know some gamers who don't even know what Sunder means. let alone what feats are great to utilize to be a good sunder artist. If they did think that sounds cool imma try that. They wouldn't think of things like, "what happens when the GM throws a monster with natural attacks and nothing to sunder? Uh oh left my will save low that's a weakness to shore up. Hard to believe but many people overlook these things.
Just because you didn't have a hard time becoming a system master doesn't make it easy for everyone. Some people have no desire and trust me they exist. Nobody sets out to make a weak character but some people place more importance on personality and skills that wont end up making them a tactical paragon. Just because you have not had any table disagreements on play style or optimization doesn't make it just an internets thing.
... what??I am unconvinced that real people behave in that fashion.So, a fighter never knows that tripping or disarming opponents is a good idea? And after a few levels, he has no concept of DR? He doesn't know that hitting people harder kills them faster? He doesn't know that getting hit less is a good thing?
It seems like there might be a flaw in your 'logic'.
People are, for the most part very bad at decision making.
From equipment choice through to placing bets, people rarely act rationally.
People will continue to use equipment that is demostrably worse, because they prefer it.
People will bet on the team most likely to loose, because 'they have a good feeling about it'.
See Cognative Biases
Okay so you are as pessimistic as me, got that.
I just like to have my fantasy worlds full of people who are smarter than most of the people in the real world, personally. I have to deal enough with idiots out-of-game, I'd rather not have to deal with them in-game as well. So yeah, seasoned adventurers it makes perfect sense for them to be capable of learning from their mistakes, adapting, and overcoming cognitive bias.
The ones that didn't are monster fodder. As they should be. And as 99% of people IRL would be if fantasy suddenly became reality.
Those who are not optimizers seem to be people who have not fully learned the ever expanding rules (such is bloat) and when they encounter optimizers they study up.
That's not necessarily the case at all.
Some non-optimizers may well say, "hey, let me see how I can do that", and seek out to learn more about the rules minutiae.
But, as I noted earlier, there's a lot of RPGers out there who simply don't care to play in that way. It's not how they enjoy the game, they don't want to (or don't have the time to) become intimately familiar with the rules and build strategies, etc. Even so, they may still resent when they're seated in the same game with an optimizer who seems to hog the limelight in the mechanical portions of the game.
I can understand that perspective, as well. The people I deal with range from those who have no idea of what they are doing to those who min/max, but for the most part they all get along and allow others to shine when they can.
I say min/maxer because 'these' people push the envelope to the breaking point.
I've never been great at optimizing martial characters; I just don't play classes with a high enough BAB to make most of the options worthwhile... I end up spending Feats on spell and skill buffs
I'm gearing up to run a short campaign for my group, and as a result have been building characters outside my "play box." It's been something of a revelation, really. I like thinking that my system mastery is expanding, and the martial NPCs I'm making are game-worthy.
At least my group is full of other old grognards; don't have TOO much competition for build spiffiness. :) (One of my buddies asked me to essentially build his character, since all his expertise is in 2E...)
More on topic... I've seen a lot of play over the years; usually, any group that plays for more than a season learns to adapt to each other. And I've seen every portion of the role/roll player spectrum, and I've seen people scattered all over it have fun together.
I have some strong opinions about the "best" way to spend Feats, etc., and I do try to advise people when they're wondering "what next?" But I've seen builds I wouldn't have made (too-complicated, too-niche, whatever) play very well, so I always try to deliver my advice with a grain of Lot's wife.
TL;DR: The only issue, in my opinion, with varying levels of optimization is whether everyone playing is engaged and entertained. As long as everyone at the table is happy with their character and play experience, different approaches to the build process aren't substantive.