|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone worked with their players to encourage them to not over-optimize?
To clarify, I'm not looking to apply the "advanced template" to every encounter to provide a challenge. Rather, it's my observation that optimized characters are...dull. Optimized characters tend to be mechanical, so much so that there are "guides" to creating the superior combat engine whose sole goal is to ensure the enemy is not just beaten but shellacked.
Anyone have gentle ideas to nudge characters away from the notion that they must optimize to survive, that they must take the Reactionary trait, that certain spells should never be learned because they are 24% less effective than another, that if you don't take Pounce as a barbarian you're a fool? I'll never impose straight-jackets (play how I want you to play), but I'd like to encourage players that it's ok if they take an archetype or make a build that is only 82% as effective as another.
|
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you're the GM, just tell your players that you'll design the challenges around what they can handle, so they don't have to go the most optimized route to be effective. Let them know that they aren't going to get creamed if they go with a flavorful, creative option that isn't as effective as the optimized choices.
Also, maybe prevent dump stats or set a maximum starting stat, to encourage more balanced stats, instead of min-maxing.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're the GM, just tell your players that you'll design the challenges around what they can handle, so they don't have to go the most optimized route to be effective. Let them know that they aren't going to get creamed if they go with a flavorful, creative option that isn't as effective as the optimized choices.
THIS !!!
I realized a few months ago that my compulsive minmaxing came from a lack of confidence in my GMs' ability to make the game fun for me with an underoptimized character.
Strive to gain your players' trust about this and the sky is the limit.
Note however that this is likely to give you A LOT of work finetuning the encounters (both combat and non-combat) so that EVERY player can enjoy himself through the results of his character's actions.
In other words, you have to convince them through the adventures and encounters you run that there are goals other than DPR both enjoyable and that they can actually reach.
To clarify, I'm not looking to apply the "advanced template" to every encounter to provide a challenge. Rather, it's my observation that optimized characters are...dull. Optimized characters tend to be mechanical, so much so that there are "guides" to creating the superior combat engine whose sole goal is to ensure the enemy is not just beaten but shellacked.Anyone have gentle ideas to nudge characters away from the notion that they must optimize to survive, that they must take the Reactionary trait, that certain spells should never be learned because they are 24% less effective than another, that if you don't take Pounce as a barbarian you're a fool? I'll never impose straight-jackets (play how I want you to play), but I'd like to encourage players that it's ok if they take an archetype or make a build that is only 82% as effective as another.
This seems to come from either a lack of personal optimization skill (using only guides) or lack of creativity in general. I as a player generally try to come up with a concept first and then optimize to make that concept as good as possible. Then as a GM I tend to either hand out "no-brainer" options for free or ban them outright so they don't get in the way of a character's actual concept. For instance I tend to give out some method of pouncing for free to melee characters to avoid all of them beelining for one of the 3 of 4 ways to full attack while moving and improved initiative tends to be banned. Then this also comes from playing AD&D for a long time where attacking multiple times after moving was the norm and in no way overpowered.
Hopefully this starts a trend. I'm going to begin a new campaign soon and told my players to chill out on the builds so we can just get back to enjoying the game itself. I been trying to keep the communication open durring character creation so the can be useful AND flavorful without breaking the game. Simply put I told them that there is a limit on my prep time and I can spend it writing a fun adventure or looking for work arounds to tame the cheese, it's their choice. Though I wasn't going to bother to run a game if they chose optimizing.
I've tried many times to convince players that there is no need to max out everything, or to plan out your character twelve levels in advance, as you (the player) just don't know where and in what situation your character will be in a few games. What if the adventure asks for the group to go on a ship at sea, wouldn't some nautical skills come in handy then?
Some folks just feel cheated if they don't have the maximum potential of their character.
Me... I tend to go with the flow.
:)
Ultradan
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with all the advice given here. If the players super-optimize then the GM has to as well. This just creates a zero-sum benefit but everyone had to do more math.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
Optimized characters tend to be mechanical, so much so that there are "guides" to creating the superior combat engine whose sole goal is to ensure the enemy is not just beaten but shellacked.
Can I just clarify that what you're talking about is not what I'd call optimization?
Optimizing, to me, refers to deciding on a concept and then making that concept not suck. For example, you optimize a guy who wants to fight with pots and pans. You don't optimize an archer--archers are already great.
Following a guide is not optimizing. Building a purely mechanical super powered character based on optimizer's suggestions is not unlike turning nuclear power into a bomb.
Optimization is intended to help conceptual builds. It is not the fault of us optimizers if some people want to use our input for evil.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do the opposite. Many of my players are new to the game, just learning the basics of the rules. When they request help, suggestions, or advice, I tend to point them in the direction of effective or useful combinations, tactics that improve the party's chances to survive, or obscure or unfamiliar classes, feats, or spells that fit their "theme" or mental image of what their character should be able to do. My questions usually start with "What do you want to be able to do?" then take that desire and try to shape it into a fitting and effective mechanical representation.
Half appear to be learning well and starting to figure these things out on their own. The other half are still working on getting the basic rules down.
I wish I had more optimized players... in my current game I'm having to hold back the enemies significantly compared to my older games with more experienced players. I'm hoping that'll change as they get more familiar with the game. I like being able to up the ante a bit, and I don't mind rebuilding encounters - I'm going to do that anyway.
EDIT: Yes to everything mplindustries said.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to concur with mplindustries. I and many other players find the investigation of how character components fit together fun in and of themselves, in particular when it allows us to build up a concept that is very different from the norm or normally considered unviable. Suppose for instance I find a way to combine bard and summoner to effectively make a coked out Doomrider Esq character riding on his demon motorcycle into glory. Is it bad that I had to meticulously plan out the levels and feats so that it didn't end up far behind the other players in effectiveness when they were all monoclass standard builds?
The reason people think concepts suck is because GM's super optimize their encounters as they think the players will do the same with their characters. So a concept only sucks when the rules don't allow it it to be super-optimized. If you take away the need for super-optimization then less concepts will suck (and you'll have less math to do to boot) since you don't need to go hog wild nuts with the build.
All that super optimizing just makes fewer builds viable and takes longer and more effort to get the ones that do to work. There's no need to go to the hassle of nuclear power when steam works perfectly well.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with all the advice given here. If the players super-optimize then the GM has to as well. This just creates a zero-sum benefit but everyone had to do more math.
So, let me offer an alternative suggestion. Now, I've never applied this to a challenge based RPG like D&D, but in many other systems--White Wolf for example--it's been spot on.
When people make extreme combat machines able to rip through normal encounters, which do you think is more likely:
1) They are telling you they want to enter an arms race and see which of you can beat the other
2) They are telling you they want to do awesome in fights and win easily
Hint: it's #2. If someone makes their character capable of winning normal fights in 1 round, it's because they enjoy winning fights in 1 round. You don't need to escalate to match for them to have fun. They will have lots of fun stomping the fights to mud. That's the entire point of what they did, after all.
Real world example:
I optimize concepts. I don't take abusive stuff or twist rules, etc. One game of 3.5--the only one I PCed, rather than GMing--my goal was not getting hit. I didn't care if I ever hit or killed anything, as long as I didn't get hit. I took a number of classes and abilities (and had serious story reasons for them all, too--optimizing backstory is just as important as optimizing numbers), and ended up with like 50+ AC, lots of permanent mischance, essentially undispellable buffs (I hade a caster level nearly twice my actual level), etc.
The GM told me this was ok, but then apparently took it as a challenge. He escalated the enemies in an attempt to hit me. He almost managed it once, but I used Wings of Cover to block the crit. Unfortunately, his enemies designed to hit me just ended up wiping the floor with everyone else. Because he simply couldn't sit by and let me do what I wanted (i.e. not get hit), he screwed over all the other players to "get me" (and it didn't work anyway).
So, the message is: don't enter arms races with your players unless they tell you that is what they want. Chances are, if they made their characters unstoppable killing machines, it's because they didn't want their killing to be stopped.
This gets into the whole discussion of what "optimize" means.
I think the OP is talking about players who build "power" characters who are mechanically optimized.
I optimize every character I create, but I try to optimize their concept, which sometimes means deliberately not optimizing their mechanics.
I usually tell my players that my campaigns will be as difficult as they need to be to provide the group a challenge, and that it is best if the entire group has a similar vision of how "powerful" each character should be. So long as the PC party isn't seriously unbalanced and everyone can participate, everything is cool. So my advice is rarely about how powerful they should make their characters, but is instead more directed at having the group come to a consensus on what power level the party should be, then building characters to suit that goal.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Make the adventures themselves not centered around combat. Make them story-driven or even character-driven. Involve the characters' background, beliefs, goals, drives, quirks, connections, etc. Reward players with interesting characters by giving them more story hooks, instead of rewarding mechanically optimzed characters with combat awesomeness.
Make whatever they can do relevant, but also make the stuff they can't do relevant. Create situations where it's not just the face that has to make a Cha check, but everybody does. The check doesn't have to be hard, but the person who always fails it for having dumped it should feel the suck. Then again, maybe the wizard has to use Str at some point.
I also feel that this approach works better with the old-school "roll below the stat" system. It emphasizes stat differences. Dumping a stat hurts more.
I also find it kind of strange that adventures can roam around town in full combat gear with weapons out, without running into trouble with the city guards. This includes that large pet companion/summoned creatures.This would propel Monks to tier 1 in any urban adventure ;-P
Nothing wrong with that. It's the one thing that class has.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with all the advice given here. If the players super-optimize then the GM has to as well. This just creates a zero-sum benefit but everyone had to do more math.So, let me offer an alternative suggestion. Now, I've never applied this to a challenge based RPG like D&D, but in many other systems--White Wolf for example--it's been spot on.
When people make extreme combat machines able to rip through normal encounters, which do you think is more likely:
1) They are telling you they want to enter an arms race and see which of you can beat the other
2) They are telling you they want to do awesome in fights and win easily
Hint: it's #2. If someone makes their character capable of winning normal fights in 1 round, it's because they enjoy winning fights in 1 round. You don't need to escalate to match for them to have fun. They will have lots of fun stomping the fights to mud. That's the entire point of what they did, after all.
Real world example:
I optimize concepts. I don't take abusive stuff or twist rules, etc. One game of 3.5--the only one I PCed, rather than GMing--my goal was not getting hit. I didn't care if I ever hit or killed anything, as long as I didn't get hit. I took a number of classes and abilities (and had serious story reasons for them all, too--optimizing backstory is just as important as optimizing numbers), and ended up with like 50+ AC, lots of permanent mischance, essentially undispellable buffs (I hade a caster level nearly twice my actual level), etc.The GM told me this was ok, but then apparently took it as a challenge. He escalated the enemies in an attempt to hit me. He almost managed it once, but I used Wings of Cover to block the crit. Unfortunately, his enemies designed to hit me just ended up wiping the floor with everyone else. Because he simply couldn't sit by and let me do what I wanted (i.e. not get hit), he screwed over all the other players to "get me" (and it didn't work anyway).
So, the message is:...
Someone in there though, you have to remember there is a GM who wants to see his game viewed as fun, challenging, and rewarding.
If I had a player or group of players tell me "Look. We are building to be combat machines. We will likely kill every encounter in 2 rounds. Don't arms race though, we like winning without any real risk to us"
I'd probably reply with something like.. "Okay. Well, here's a copy of Gauntlet Legends. All 4 of you can play, you are incredibly more powerful than the hordes of bad guys, and I can do something else with my time."
It can be difficult to control the optimization urges, after all the whole system is built for optimization. Giving the players choices leads to optimization. To control these urges the DM needs to have a firm set of rules of what he/she will allow in their world.
I would recommend one or some the following ideas:
1.) Do not allow your players to multiclass.
2.) Make each player choose a different class than what his fellow players have already chosen.
3.) If you do allow a player to take a multiclass then it should be story driven. (i.e., player seeks out a mentor to train them to use a new class. Mentor should be have challenges or fees to offer their services of training.)
4.) Impose a limit on the number of multiclasses a player can take (2 for starters + a prestige class).
5.) DM creates the characters and allows the players to play them. As the characters level, the DM makes the choices on what feats they take.
These types of restrictions can get difficult as time goes on. Players love having an active role in the destiny of their characters, and being told what they can or can't have per level can get restrictive to their overall happiness with the character development. After all, its the players that give life to the characters while the DM gives life to the world.
I would never say "don't optimize", but I have in the past gently discouraged a player who said something like "I'm planning to have my PC do XYZ", where I thought XYZ was really dumb (like the pre-errata Antagonize feat).
I'm not trying to GM a video game. I don't think players are entitled to a "god mode" just because they can't handle the occassional loss or need to run away. I think there are far better outlets for that than a tabletop rpg. In my opinion, I don't think its the role of the GM to play court jester handing out mechanical benefits like candy to players who can't seem to envisualize a concept without them. The GM is playing the game as well and is entitled to as much fun as the players. Being the clown for the players amusement doesn't strike me as fun. If that's how you enjoy the game though then knock yourself out but I think most GM's would get bored with 1-round encounters all the time.
Ninja'd by Thunderfrog.
...
If GMs shouldn't let PCs win then PCs shouldn't have to gimp themselves.
When people make extreme combat machines able to rip through normal encounters, which do you think is more likely:
1) They are telling you they want to enter an arms race and see which of you can beat the other
2) They are telling you they want to do awesome in fights and win easily
Hint: it's #2. If someone makes their character capable of winning normal fights in 1 round, it's because they enjoy winning fights in 1 round. You don't need to escalate to match for them to have fun. They will have lots of fun stomping the fights to mud. That's the entire point of what they did, after all.
That's not true for all groups.
I play in a group that wants a challenge at the table, but not necessarily a killer GM. They VERY much do it for your #1 point, not for the later.
|
|
Some people just want to god-mode, mix/max and power-game. I have my share of players who do this and Ive wanted to ring their necks on several occasions. Try as you may there is sometimes just no cure for this and power-Dming only encourages them because your challenging them.
Explaining to them that they don't need to be so powerful is a good step, but be warned it may not work. Some people hear "you won't need to optimize for my game" and think "That means if I do I will be able to kill everything like an untouchable epic slaughter-machine". So be prepared that it may not stick unless you take an active role in limiting people.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder what experiences you have had, Touc, that make you worry about this. Because as this thread demonstrates, people have different ideas about what optimizing is or does. If you have a specific experience that is making you ask this question, it might be helpful to address that particular issue and look at what might have caused it.
For general advice though, I wouldn't worry about banning anything for fear of brokenness.
Just do your best to run a varied campaign with a variety of challenges. People who build characters for damage output think that or have played games where the primary goal for playing has been always to kill an opponent dead as quickly as possible.
In a campaign where there are various opportunities for skill and puzzle and roleplaying challenges, as well as less straightforward fights where there may be different goals (e.g., keeping a monster engaged to buy someone time, or setting out to capture rather than kill an opponent, or in one case we had to play through in a game, chase away a monster without doing lasting damage to it), damage-optimized characters who have no well-roundedness to them at all tend to lose out. Of course there should be a balance--sometimes it is fun just to kick ass and take names and let the brawn-based characters shine--but the point is a varied campaign forces people to make sure they have a well rounded party who plays creatively. (And such a character might even be called "optimized" but it's not what you are talking about, I don't think.)
Also, you don't necessarily have to beef up monsters or tactics because someone seems extra good in combat. If someone's built a character around a specific combination of abilities and use it constantly to deal massive amounts of damage, the issue may be less the combo and more that tactics during combat aren't being varied enough. It is hard to be GM, and varying tactics and kinds of combat is very difficult--something I myself am not good at--but is essential for a good game to go off successfully.
Although, all that said, following this advice may create a monster. I can handle a damage dealing one trick pony all day. The creative players who may on paper have an unoptimized character but come up with all kinds of ways to tackle problems that you never imagine... they're the REAL challenge, but a challenge I always look forward to meeting. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Someone in there though, you have to remember there is a GM who wants to see his game viewed as fun, challenging, and rewarding.
If I had a player or group of players tell me "Look. We are building to be combat machines. We will likely kill every encounter in 2 rounds. Don't arms race though, we like winning without any real risk to us"
I'd probably reply with something like.. "Okay. Well, here's a copy of Gauntlet Legends. All 4 of you can play, you are incredibly more powerful than the hordes of bad guys, and I can do something else with my time."
Congratulations! By talking to your players about it, you've solved the problem!
I'm not saying the GM shouldn't have fun. I'm just explaining what the players are looking for, so if you don't enjoy that, talk to them. Just don't enter an arms race unless they ask for one.
That's not true for all groups.I play in a group that wants a challenge at the table, but not necessarily a killer GM. They VERY much do it for your #1 point, not for the later.
Then good have the GM play smart to counter them. Don't "arms race" them into a someone who meets them on their terms. Countering a RAGEPOUNCE barbarian with an enemy who just has higher attack and damage is not playing smart. Most non-caster death machine builds can be very easily countered with smart play. Have the rage pouncer run into an enemy tripper with a reach weapon, then combat becomes a strategy of how to eliminate the person that prevents your damage dealer from making contact. Next combat have the terrain contain a lot of pillars that block charging lines. Never make it impossible to use the build but make it difficult and encourage diversity even in situations their build is used for.
As for casters you need to either trust your players not to be dicks, homebrew fix the spell-list, or start banning stuff.
One of my favorite characters of all time is a bard, who I had a concept for as a party buff, summoner, ranged guy.
So of course, I "optimized" him for that. When we started the game, my DM handed me a sheet that had a modification to my back story, and a "special" rapier (eventually turned out the rapier was a legendary item of his own devising) that I got in a mysterious way that I knew nothing about.
First few adventures, I was doing the old buff, ranged attack, summon monster stuff, when I ended up having to attack something with the rapier, which of course did some cool things.
So as I went up levels, I all but abandoned ranges, and my ranged feats, and started focusing on the rapier. By 9th I was not optimized at all in my original concept, nor was I optimized in Rapier Melee combat, but I have moved from Ranged to the Melee/Buff/Summoning choosing feat more akin to the the Rapier combat, than the bow combat.
One of the best campaigns, my fellows ever played, and this was 3.5, which really nerfed the Bard ability to pick up a new feat chain compared to PF.
So maybe that is a thought, have them get their concepts down, and then tweak them before the first game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's one solution - at the start of the game, be forthright in saying:
I want you to explore the most interesting concept you can think of without worrying about its power or combat effectiveness. If you are outshining the party and/or completely wrecking all the monsters, I will limit the amount of treasure your character gets (while giving full treasure to the rest of the party.) I reserve the right to steal your magic sword. However, if your character is flavorful but mechanically weak, I will drop bonus treasure specifically for you to make up the difference.
This way, your PCs can play the most fun character they can think of, without having to worry about having no fun in battle. And because you were upfront about your system and the motivations behind it, the PCs can't complain if you have to nerf their munchkin by handicapping WBL.
...If GMs shouldn't let PCs win then PCs shouldn't have to gimp themselves.
Then I guess it's a good thing we will never share a table?
It doesn't have to be all or nothing and honestly the tone of the campaign is as much on the players as on the GM.
If they all come to me with killing machines full of the "best" feats and spells, it's going to be countered by full HP monsters with extra abilities and templates or better built npc enemies to keep the challenge the same.
If they all tell me that that's unfair because they took murder builds and expect to murder and I shouldnt be escalating, then there's no reason for us to continue even having encounters is there?
Here's one solution - at the start of the game, be forthright in saying:
I want you to explore the most interesting concept you can think of without worrying about its power or combat effectiveness. If you are outshining the party and/or completely wrecking all the monsters, I will limit the amount of treasure your character gets (while giving full treasure to the rest of the party.) I reserve the right to steal your magic sword. However, if your character is flavorful but mechanically weak, I will drop bonus treasure specifically for you to make up the difference.This way, your PCs can play the most fun character they can think of, without having to worry about having no fun in battle. And because you were upfront about your system and the motivations behind it, the PCs can't complain if you have to nerf their munchkin.
I think the problem with this is it takes away a large part of the fun had by players who enjoy working the mechanics. It also seems that it comes from lack of trust in the players and expecting players to no trust the GM.
If you trusted the players you could just assume they will use an interesting concept and make it work as best they can.
If the players trusted the GM they could talk about mechanical homebrews to make some archtypes more or less powerful, and if the homebrew doesn't work to hotfix it during the game.
...If GMs shouldn't let PCs win then PCs shouldn't have to gimp themselves.Then I guess it's a good thing we will never share a table?
It doesn't have to be all or nothing and honestly the tone of the campaign is as much on the players as on the GM.
If they all come to me with killing machines full of the "best" feats and spells, it's going to be countered by full HP monsters with extra abilities and templates or better built npc enemies to keep the challenge the same.
If they all tell me that that's unfair because they took murder builds and expect to murder and I shouldnt be escalating, then there's no reason for us to continue even having encounters is there?
That's rather silly you are making their strength inconsequential and thus eliminating any effort they put into it and any fun they were trying to get out of it. If you were instead to target their weaknesses while allowing their strengths to work when their weaknesses didn't get in the way you would end up with more engaging and entertaining combat. Their strengths in build are still valid but the struggle is bringing them to bear so that actual strategy can be used besides "I'm so powerful I destroy everything in the game" or "I am handed everything by the GM due to my s%!$ build".
Someone in there though, you have to remember there is a GM who wants to see his game viewed as fun, challenging, and rewarding.
If I had a player or group of players tell me "Look. We are building to be combat machines. We will likely kill every encounter in 2 rounds. Don't arms race though, we like winning without any real risk to us"
I'd probably reply with something like.. "Okay. Well, here's a copy of Gauntlet Legends. All 4 of you can play, you are incredibly more powerful than the hordes of bad guys, and I can do something else with my time."
Congratulations! By talking to your players about it, you've solved the problem!
I'm not saying the GM shouldn't have fun. I'm just explaining what the players are looking for, so if you don't enjoy that, talk to them. Just don't enter an arms race unless they ask for one.
+1 and favorited. I couldn't agree more. I also usually throw in a clause like RumpinRufus's.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some context.
I am currently running a campaign that I had specifically set up as a "Palace Intrigue" sort of campaign, and had many conversations with the players about that before starting it. I told them that social skills would be effective ways to deal with issues and that combat would not be the only way to succeed.
As a result, half of the party focused on charisma based builds (we have a gnome sorcerer and a human bard).
One of the players decided to optimize a tank, and created a character with an insane AC that is virtually impossible to hit in combat.
So what do I do as a GM?
In most battles I have one or two "badass" monsters multi-attack and whale away on him so that he gets to bask in the glory of his unhittable-ness. That doesn't really interfere with my abilities to engage the rest of the party. From a tactical perspective I can usually find ways to get around the unhittable tank dude, either with ranged weapons, skirmisher type opponents, spells or even traps. And with all the multi-attacks on the "unhittable" dude, I end up with enough natural 20s to give him reasons to get worried.
Usually the way the fight ends up is the rest of the party takes down the rest of the encounter, and then they gang up on the ones who are trying to take the tank down.
In the end everyone wins and the unhittable guy gets to enjoy his character concept while feeling like he is protecting the rest of the party. He generally does not participate in the social stuff so those party members get to shine then.
It can be difficult to control the optimization urges, after all the whole system is built for optimization. Giving the players choices leads to optimization. To control these urges the DM needs to have a firm set of rules of what he/she will allow in their world.
I would recommend one or some the following ideas:
1.) Do not allow your players to multiclass.
2.) Make each player choose a different class than what his fellow players have already chosen.
3.) If you do allow a player to take a multiclass then it should be story driven. (i.e., player seeks out a mentor to train them to use a new class. Mentor should be have challenges or fees to offer their services of training.)
4.) Impose a limit on the number of multiclasses a player can take (2 for starters + a prestige class).
5.) DM creates the characters and allows the players to play them. As the characters level, the DM makes the choices on what feats they take.These types of restrictions can get difficult as time goes on. Players love having an active role in the destiny of their characters, and being told what they can or can't have per level can get restrictive to their overall happiness with the character development. After all, its the players that give life to the characters while the DM gives life to the world.
1) How does affect Optimization?
2) How does that affect it?3) What does that have to do with it?
4) Again, that does little as Wizards need not multiclass to be all powerful. This just weakens the others.
5) That plain sucks and does little for Optimization: they will just optimized with the character through gear.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
By over-optimization I mean there's no room or purpose for anything that isn't coded "red" (or blue or whatever is in a guide as the best choice). If one player over-optimizes to build the superior character, then the other three players generally feel they must follow suit in order to contribute. Pretty soon, everyone's combing the feat books in an arms race that is not between GM and Player (because I haven't started one) but rather instigated, unintentionally, between Player and Player. To show an example where 3/4 players weren't optimized (Pathfinder had just come out):
I understand I'll be talking to the players at some point, just finding the diplomatic way to reach them.
That's rather silly you are making their strength inconsequential and thus eliminating any effort they put into it and any fun they were trying to get out of it. If you were instead to target their weaknesses while allowing their strengths to work when their weaknesses didn't get in the way you would end up with more engaging and entertaining combat. Their strengths in build are still valid but the struggle is bringing them to bear so that actual strategy can be used besides "I'm so powerful I destroy everything in the game" or "I am handed everything by the GM due to my s@@@ build"....If GMs shouldn't let PCs win then PCs shouldn't have to gimp themselves.......
If they all tell me that that's unfair because they took murder builds and expect to murder and I shouldnt be escalating, then there's no reason for us to continue even having encounters is there?
You misunderstand. Above the point was made that "Hey. Our fun comes from killing everything in 2 rounds." My counter was that "Okay. I despise that. Let's do something else." .. to which Mplindustires gave a perfect response.
YOUR quip about players vs GM's indicates a lack of trust, that if you step away from taking the same leaping barbarian feat-line every game, somehow your GM will fail to adjust and murder you because your build has 2 less attacks and 2 less +hit modifiers. Where I can scale up, I can scale down, and would love to do that more often. Most campaigns I run are 10 point buys anyways, with a few things banned as you suggested. Most players grumble at first, but it makes it way easier to give out nifty treasure and they all enjoy the campaign more than a 25 point buy power-orgy by the time we get going.
There's so much less pressure on a GM against a party who only has few to no weaknesses, and it keeps encounters from getting stale when every meaningful encounter has the same anti-party tactics just to be able to pose a threat.
"Out from the fog emerges yet another roving band of chaotic evil trip-masters! Rawr!"
|
Can I just clarify that what you're talking about is not what I'd call optimization?
Optimizing, to me, refers to deciding on a concept and then making that concept not suck. For example, you optimize a guy who wants to fight with pots and pans. You don't optimize an archer--archers are already great.
Following a guide is not optimizing. Building a purely mechanical super powered character based on optimizer's suggestions is not unlike turning nuclear power into a bomb.
Optimization is intended to help conceptual builds. It is not the fault of us optimizers if some people want to use our input for evil.
This.
Optimization is about starting with a concept and making it work. It is not about creating a character with an "I Win" button.
Set up situations where everyone has to make different skill checks. Chase scenes can be good for this as they can use both physical and social skills.
I also find it kind of strange that adventures can roam around town in full combat gear with weapons out, without running into trouble with the city guards. This includes that large pet companion/summoned creatures.
In my games I don't allow player to go marching into town in full gear with exotic companions and mounts. They do get hassled a lot by the guards. Of course a time comes when the guards can't stop he characters.
Well, getting back to the OP, rather than a discussion of what is Optimization or if it’s bad:
Here are a few things:
1. No points for buying a stat under 10. But do give them a 20 pt buy.
2. No Summoners.
3. Tiers- balance among the players. The players can pick for themselves but no more than one Tier 1, one T2, and if that PC dies that player can’t choose another T1 or 2 until the other players get a rotation.
4. No “Ye Olde Magic Shoppe”. Let there be scads of loot, but no easy way for the players to kit out their Christmas tree. Make it hard to sell that really cool item, just to buy each PC an add’l +1 to a Christmas tree item. Sure potions, wands, and other disposable items would be available.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I have to agree with Thunderfrog.
If I'm GMing a game, I want to have fun, just as much, if not more, than my players. If I want a 'skin of your teeth victory' game, and the players want a "Kill everything in round 1, wash, rince, repeat" game, we've an issue.
It's not just combat though. I like RPing, so if I have players who's response to my speech is "I roll 37 on Bluff, does he fall for it?" I'm going to point them to Gauntlet as well.
Co-operative experience means give and take on both sides.
Quick semi-related note: I think if I were running a campaign, I would give every player Skill Focus as a bonus feat at level 1 (with the limitation that they cannot take it in Perception or in any skill that another player has Skill Focus in.) This will give the builds a dash of added flavor, and provide all the PCs a chance to shine out of combat, without forcing them to sacrifice battle acumen for skill points.
Do your players play for story, or for combat?
Why not both? I enjoy the story, the roleplay, and the combat. That's why I play Pathfinder. I like to build faces/skill monkeys, but I don't like having to say "I don't have any actions this turn... delay."
Here's one solution - at the start of the game, be forthright in saying:
I want you to explore the most interesting concept you can think of without worrying about its power or combat effectiveness. If you are outshining the party and/or completely wrecking all the monsters, I will limit the amount of treasure your character gets (while giving full treasure to the rest of the party.) I reserve the right to steal your magic sword. However, if your character is flavorful but mechanically weak, I will drop bonus treasure specifically for you to make up the difference.
It's not very fun to have stuff taken away. I'd rather have a power limited with conditions to release (a trope I quite enjoy) than to be robbed.
As for OP: You'll find it everywhere that some things are just stronger than others. Usually it's the most generic flat bonuses, like Reactionary's +2 initiative, because the conditional stuff comes up so infrequently and the bonus isn't high enough to be worthwhile for the small amount of time it does appear for. You could remove flat bonus things, you could grant them to everyone so they can spend their options on weaker ones as well, or you can try to improve everything else to make it as appealing (much more time consuming and difficult to get right).
|
|
Reiterating a few things said by others: The first step is talk to your players. See what they want out of the game. This makes it much easier to determine your next step. Maybe they want to be in "god mode" all the time. Maybe they want you to challenge their well built characters. Ask! Maybe you'll find you are on the same page all along.
Another thought - use the carrot approach. Give "non-optimized" character choices bonuses. Someone makes a dwarven bard? Give him a free masterwork instrument. Or an extra trait. Something to say, "thanks for making an interesting (or at least different) character."
I don't much care if my players optimize. I even give them advice on how to improve their builds and strategies.
However, I do tell them to not be an ass. If you want to play an all-powerful wizard, there is no problem with that. Have fun. But don't use your godly power to make the Rogue feel useless.
|
|
Role-playing/non-combat opportunities are fine; that's 50% of play for us and everyone gets a chance to shine, whether it be in guile, politics, or games. Then there's the other 50%, combat.
The most poignant example is a newer player debating what feat to take as a starting archer. Far Shot "sounded cool" but he was advised he needed to take Point Blank Shot followed by Precise Shot followed by Rapid Shot followed by Weapon Focus followed by Weapon Specialization followed by Point Blank Master followed by Manyshot followed by Clustered Shots followed by Deadly Aim... It made sense after it was explained he'd maximize his damage output. There's no mechanical gain to take a feat that "sounds cool." Also don't spend any gold on any magic items except those boosting ability scores and saves.
To the newer guy, now it's obvious building an archer any other way is to build an inferior combat archer.
Another player who isn't building the cookie-cutter 100% optimized build soon finds she's lagging far behind his damage. Most things are dead before she can reach them in melee. She's not contributing; his archer is fully optimized for maximum damage while she's not. She complains to the GM, then begins an arms race, spending all her funds to craft the ultimate melee weapon. She's a 1-trick pony with an inferior AC and mediocre saves, but it's the only way she (as a melee combatant, feels relevant).
Edit: I'll add a comment from an over-optimized player after some CR appropriate combats - "well that wasn't very challenging." No, it's not because players can create characters-of-mass-destruction. But I don't feel compelled to engage in the aforementioned arms race to solve the issue and make life more difficult for players who don't make the perfect character (and are doing just fine).
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ok lets talk about the 100lb dire ape in the room..
PF punishes off builds, every class based system does.
If the system was class-less then we would see more players growing into their characters instead of planing it out over 10 levels.
Threats are designed to face characters with Y capabilities by X level, it's right there in the math.
If feats possessed less requirements (maybe 1 or so) you would see more "off builds" you would see more switch-hitters, dabblers, and so on.
the system it self demands a specific level of optimization, its the nature of the beast.