So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
You missed the point entirely.
He makes things that makes all of us better and makes the game more fun for everyone.
Because that is what good players do.
No, *You* comically missed the point, because as we've said above making the game fun for everyone has nothing to do with optimization. So you agree with us as far as I can tell that people who complain about optimizers make the game less fun for everyone. (Or you hate "that guy" in your group which would be awkward... does he know?)
Fair enough... so perhaps you could dial back the comments about non-optimized characters being "weak," "stooges," and "incapable of handling a challenge," hmmm?
That's the thing.
In a tactical combat game, they are all those things.In a non-combat beer-n-pretzels game, they're not.
Compared to Tiger Woods, I'm a duffer, a klutz, a useless bumbling idiot on the golf course. I have no business trying to play in the PGA tour. The other players would be right to use demeaning expletives in my case.
If I'm playing a round of mini-golf with my nephew, they don't.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
You missed the point entirely.
He makes things that makes all of us better and makes the game more fun for everyone.
Because that is what good players do.
Apparently, many posters cannot accept that an optimizer/munchkin/powergamer can be a good player too. They put a label on the guy and they only see the label (and their own prejudice) and stop considering the person.
|
|
No, *You* comically missed the point, because as we've said above making the game fun for everyone has nothing to do with optimization. So you agree with us as far as I can tell that people who complain about optimizers make the game less fun for everyone.So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
You missed the point entirely.
He makes things that makes all of us better and makes the game more fun for everyone.
Because that is what good players do.
I missed the point I was making? So at this point it is the other person's fault if they are insulted and you know the point the other person is making more clearly than the person making it...interesting.
You doing lots of things is not the same as making everyone in the party better at what they do.
Do you really not see the distinction? Honest question.
Apparently, many posters cannot accept that an optimizer/munchkin/powergamer can be a good player too. They put a label on the guy and they only see the label (and their own prejudice) and stop considering the person.So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
You missed the point entirely.
He makes things that makes all of us better and makes the game more fun for everyone.
Because that is what good players do.
Plus... freaking one.
It really bugs me that the anti-optimization crowd seems to just slap labels around and ignore the conversation, while the optimizers seem cool with letting people play what that want.
|
|
Fair enough... so perhaps you could dial back the comments about non-optimized characters being "weak," "stooges," and "incapable of handling a challenge," hmmm?That's the thing.
In a tactical combat game, they are all those things.
In a non-combat beer-n-pretzels game, they're not.
And this is what I'm talking about Jiggy.
The attacks come from both sides of the argument. That you think "Munchkin" is more of a moral slight than "weak" is more a function of your position in the debate.
No, *You* comically missed the point, because as we've said above making the game fun for everyone has nothing to do with optimization. So you agree with us as far as I can tell that people who complain about optimizers make the game less fun for everyone.So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
You missed the point entirely.
He makes things that makes all of us better and makes the game more fun for everyone.
Because that is what good players do.
I missed the point I was making? So at this point it is the other person's fault if they are insulted and you know the point the other person is making more clearly than the person making it...interesting.
You doing lots of things is not the same as making everyone in the party better at what they do.
Do you really not see the distinction? Honest question.
You being better at what you do make the team better. I want my Goalie to be the best goalie possible, I want my strikers to be good at scoring, I want defenders to defend. Do you think a bad goalie makes the team better? Or complaining about how good your goalie is? Honest questions.
If Michael Jordan in his prime is playing basketball with me, my kid brother, and the paraplegic kid from down the street, he's going to need to tone it WAY down, or essentially he'll be playing by himself. One optimizer in a group of stooges is no good.
If I'm made center for the Celtics tomorrow, the games are going to suck, because the other team will walk all over us. The rest of my team won't be able to make up the difference. Someone unoptimized for basketball has no place in an NBA lineup, and will ruin the playoffs.
Optimization isn't bad. Lack of optimization isn't bad. The problem is when one person does one and the other people do the other, and no one thinks to try and bridge the gap.
I think im jelous, i used a basket ball analogy earlier and no one seemed to notice. Really, i think alot of people dont understand things like group paradigm. Most conflicts of opimization are probably an issue of communication as one person cannot figure out why their square peg wont fit in a round hole.
I think though that the boards give an inflated view of the amount extreme damage or 'push the games power paradigm to the limit' optimization that happens in real games.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, many posters cannot accept that an optimizer/munchkin/powergamer can be a good player too. They put a label on the guy and they only see the label (and their own prejudice) and stop considering the person.
If you aren't making the game more fun, but are making it less fun for the rest of the table, you are failing at the only goal of the game.
If your actions make the game less fun for the rest of the party, you have failed at the only goal of the game.
To have a good time with your friends.
If you can optimize and everyone enjoys it. Great. If you can optimize in a way that you don't make everyone at the table feel like aquaman, great.
If you can't, and the other people at the table are having less fun because you are present, you have failed.
I think though that the boards give an inflated view of the amount extreme damage or 'push the games power paradigm to the limit' optimization that happens in real games.
Depends on the group. Check out some of the adventure logs over at The Gaming Den, and you'll see that the most optimization-happy Paizo people have never even come close to the level they consider to be a baseline.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Fair enough... so perhaps you could dial back the comments about non-optimized characters being "weak," "stooges," and "incapable of handling a challenge," hmmm?That's the thing.
In a tactical combat game, they are all those things.
In a non-combat beer-n-pretzels game, they're not.Compared to Tiger Woods, I'm a duffer, a klutz, a useless bumbling idiot on the golf course. I have no business trying to play in the PGA tour. The other player would be right to use demeaning expletives in my case.
If I'm playing a round of mini-golf with my nephew, they don't.
I still don't think you're quite grasping the point, because you still sound like you consider non-optimized players as somehow bush-league.
Try it this way: Combat is not the only thing that requires skill. Clear enough? Skilled roleplayers can take on a HUGELY complex and challenging scenario that would leave combat-optimized characters lost and helpless... and yet it would not necessarily be a 'beer-and-pretzels for the handicapped' game.
Why? Because a different skillset is involved. Roleplayers are not 'amateurs'--they're specialists in a different type of game than tactical wargaming. Looking down on them and sneering "Go play in the carebear sandbox" is going to generate resentment and hostility--and rightly so. Because navigating a roleplaying challenge requires just as much mastery as fighting tarrasque. You're not playing a "tougher" or "more professional level" game than the rest of us... just a different style.
Until the optimizers can accept that and get over their casual contempt, there will be complaint threads like this one.
Why are you assuming he meant only combat? You can optimize for social skills, versatility, and really just about anything.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
I think the attack is not on optimization but on people who try to outshine the group.
Those posts/threads certainly also exist, but that's outside the scope of the comment of mine that you originally replied to.
What I was trying to say was that there exists a set of threads/posts where someone attacks a group of people because of their optimization level; some because it's (in their eyes) too high, and some because it's (in their eyes) too low.
The claim that you responded to was that in my experience attacks (not just commentary, but actual attacks) based on "your optimization is too high" are vastly more frequent than attacks (again, actual attacks against people) based on "your optimization is too low".
Since your first couple of replies were that "too low" non-attacks counted as attacks, then that "too high" attacks weren't attacks, I certainly thought that you had understood me just fine, but perhaps not.
In any case, perhaps the combination of your observation and my point would be that a lot of folks fail to differentiate between "optimize" and "use optimization to outshine others".
I've seen enough posts where a GM announced that if someone announced a given build during character introductions (i.e., before it's even possible for them to have outshone anyone yet), that the GM would tell them to leave right then and there, no questions asked. So certainly there exists a set of posts where the attack is against optimization regardless of behavior; it is, however, possible that those making said attacks have had bad experiences with behavior and associated it with optimization - which is of course an error of its own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skilled roleplayers can take on a HUGELY complex and challenging scenario that would leave combat-optimized characters lost and helpless...
Stormwind there. Many optimizers are skilled roleplayers, and the best optimize to avoid needless combat by obvating the need. But they do so by speccing out their characters in accordance with the game rules. They do not do it by intentionally making characters that aren't actually good at anything.
Never dump CON.Odd, but that’s the example I give when the optimizers try to claim they are ONLY dumping for Roleplaying reasons. Elric, Doc Holiday, etc, we have heroes who are sickly with low CONs. So, if the dump is for RP flavor, why is it never CON?
(PS, I did dump CON once, and yes, he died quickly.)
This might be a good example of places where RP wants conflict with mechanics realities. The mechanics almost demand a CON of no lower than 12. 14 is better.
You can play with a low CON. For good RP reasons. However, sooner or later the person healing you will resent the WASTE of spell slots to keep your butt alive.
A person who is sickly wouldn't make it long as an adventurer, and expecting others to take them in and cover forthem is ridiculous.
See Kirth's basketball example.
You being better at what you do make the team better. I want my Goalie to be the best goalie possible, I want my strikers to be good at scoring, I want defenders to defend. Do you think a bad goalie makes the team...No, *You* comically missed the point, because as we've said above making the game fun for everyone has nothing to do with optimization. So you agree with us as far as I can tell that people who complain about optimizers make the game less fun for everyone.So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
You missed the point entirely.
He makes things that makes all of us better and makes the game more fun for everyone.
Because that is what good players do.
I missed the point I was making? So at this point it is the other person's fault if they are insulted and you know the point the other person is making more clearly than the person making it...interesting.
You doing lots of things is not the same as making everyone in the party better at what they do.
Do you really not see the distinction? Honest question.
Well, to overwork the metaphor in RPG terms, what if your goalie is so good that the opposing team's striker kills one of your defenders, who happens to be in the way, with a slap shot? (I'm sorry, I live in New England but I don't know hockey; hope I got some of those right.)
|
|
I think the attack is not on optimization but on people who try to outshine the group.Those posts/threads certainly also exist, but that's outside the scope of the comment of mine that you originally replied to.
What I was trying to say was that there exists a set of threads/posts where someone attacks a group of people because of their optimization level; some because it's (in their eyes) too high, and some because it's (in their eyes) too low.
The claim that you responded to was that in my experience attacks (not just commentary, but actual attacks) based on "your optimization is too high" are vastly more frequent than attacks (again, actual attacks against people) based on "your optimization is too low".
Since your first couple of replies were that "too low" non-attacks counted as attacks, then that "too high" attacks weren't attacks, I certainly thought that you had understood me just fine, but perhaps not.
In any case, perhaps the combination of your observation and my point would be that a lot of folks fail to differentiate between "optimize" and "use optimization to outshine others".
I've seen enough posts where a GM announced that if someone announced a given build during character introductions (i.e., before it's even possible for them to have outshone anyone yet), that the GM would tell them to leave right then and there, no questions asked. So certainly there exists a set of posts where the attack is against optimization regardless of behavior; it is, however, possible that those making said attacks have had bad experiences with behavior and associated it with optimization - which is of course an error of its own.
And I am arguing they aren't attacking the level of optimization, but the style of optimization and how that impacts the game as played..
Again, no one seems to complain that the bard is buffing us all too much or the wizard is funneling/debuffing the enemies to well.
It's the scale of the reaction that I worry about. "You wearing blue is offensive to me! But you just had to go and wear jeans, and you told me to suck it up, and now you have the gall to lie there and ask why I shot you in the knee? Some people!
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
That you think "Munchkin" is more of a moral slight than "weak" is more a function of your position in the debate.
I never once said that "munchkin" was a moral slight at all.
I said that "you're ruining the game" and "you need to grow up" and "you're obnoxious" are moral slights.
Please stop misrepresenting me.
...You being better at what you do make the team better. I want my Goalie to be the best goalie possible, I want my strikers to be good at scoring, I want defenders to defend. Do you think a badNo, *You* comically missed the point, because as we've said above making the game fun for everyone has nothing to do with optimization. So you agree with us as far as I can tell that people who complain about optimizers make the game less fun for everyone.So you agree with us then that anti-optimization complainers are the problem? Cause that seems to be what your saying, unless you think it would be cool for people in your group to rag on "that guy". And if you are cool with that well.., that is quite an odd dynamic.Unless every character you play has the same stats regardless of class you have a problem with the LEVEL of optimization, not optimization itself.Or more specifically how that interacts with the rest of the group's enjoyment.
We have a guy who digs every thing out of the books he can and always goes for the optimal build. But he makes sure he is making things that make everyone else better as well, rather than stealing spotlight.
He's a munchkin, but he's our munchkin. He doesn't endzone dance and he is just as worried about making us look good as making himself look good.
You missed the point entirely.
He makes things that makes all of us better and makes the game more fun for everyone.
Because that is what good players do.
I missed the point I was making? So at this point it is the other person's fault if they are insulted and you know the point the other person is making more clearly than the person making it...interesting.
You doing lots of things is not the same as making everyone in the party better at what they do.
Do you really not see the distinction? Honest question.
I'm actually using Soccer here, but for your analogy, when people play sports you are generally consenting to potential injury as part of playing the game, so if you got killed by their strikers shot, you assumed that risk as part of playing the game so it's no one's fault really (luckily, you can just make a new striker in PF though).
It's the scale of the reaction that I worry about. "You wearing blue is offensive to me! But you just had to go and wear jeans, and you told me to suck it up, and now you have the gall to lie there and ask why I shot you in the knee? Some people!
Ciretose's avatar is drinking! That offends me! It's all his fault! He should switch his avatar, because it less fun for the group to post in a thread with a drinking avatar (Sorry Kirth!)
|
|
Try it this way: Combat is not the only thing that requires skill. Clear enough? Skilled roleplayers can take on a HUGELY complex and challenging scenario that would leave combat-optimized characters lost and helpless... and yet it would not necessarily be a 'beer-and-pretzels for the handicapped' game.
Once again there is this nonsensical opposition of combat-optimized characters vs skilled roleplayers. The former is a character, while the latter is a player, so you can obviously not put them in opposition or compare them in any way.
In fact, a skilled roleplayer can also be a powergamer at the extreme and have built a supremely combat-optimized character who will IN ADDITION take on "a HUGELY complex and challenging scenario".
Why? Because a different skillset is involved. Roleplayers are not 'amateurs'--they're specialists in a different type of game than tactical wargaming. Looking down on them and sneering "Go play in the carebear sandbox" is going to generate resentment and hostility--and rightly so. Because navigating a roleplaying challenge requires just as much mastery as fighting a tarrasque. This is not raiders vs. casuals. You're not playing a "tougher" or "more professional level" game than the rest of us... just a different style.
Well, if I play a character that can both navigate a roleplaying challenge AND fight a tarrasque, then I just might feel superior to someone who can only do one of these things, and even more to one who can do NONE of these things ;-)
Until the optimizers can accept that and get over their casual contempt, there will be complaint threads like this one.
Once again you are talking about "the optimizers" as if all people who optimize were the same condescending jerks you described. I am sorry that you met such people, but that is no reason to take your anger out on us "optimizers".
LOL
Everyone wants the party healer (goalie) to be an optimizer.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about how awesome their party cleric, oracle, druid, etc. is.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And I am arguing they aren't attacking the level of optimization, but the style of optimization and how that impacts the game as played..I think the attack is not on optimization but on people who try to outshine the group.Those posts/threads certainly also exist, but that's outside the scope of the comment of mine that you originally replied to.
What I was trying to say was that there exists a set of threads/posts where someone attacks a group of people because of their optimization level; some because it's (in their eyes) too high, and some because it's (in their eyes) too low.
So... you're just repeating yourself? Or are you saying that ALL seemingly anti-optimization attacks are actually just attacking the practice of outshining the group/impacting the game as played, i.e., that there are no posts at all which attack optimizers just for optimizing?
@Calybos1: you are mixing optimization with min-maxing.
Optimization is using a kukri instead of a dagger because it does a few points more damage.
Min-maxing is having 7 starting CHA for your dwarf barbarian.
We agreed that for purposes of this discussion that by “optimization” we mean over-optimized or “hyper- optimized” Otherwise there’s just too much debate on what “optimization’ means.
Fr example, I would not call that one choice of a weapon= ‘optimization”. It when you do dual wielding kukris, with all feats towards DPR and all stats towards DPR that you’re really “optimized” to me. Other might disagree, so let's stick with that sort of "hyper-optimization" not just making a single better choice.
The GM does ;-)LOL
Everyone wants the party healer (goalie) to be an optimizer.
I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about how awesome their party cleric, oracle, druid, etc. is.
I think it would be equally weird for the Goalie to get mad that the strikers score to many goals, or that the defenders being good at their job makes him work less.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Apparently, many posters cannot accept that an optimizer/munchkin/powergamer can be a good player too. They put a label on the guy and they only see the label (and their own prejudice) and stop considering the person.
You’re right. When a Player dumps three stats down to 7 and dumps all feats etc just for increased DPR, so he’s a complete liability in any & all sitrep that doesn’t involve DPR- or that involves making a will save, for example, then yes, he’s not a ‘good player”. esp when he then complains about the rest of the party being a 'waste of air".... except when he's begging for a dispel magic when he's charmed, of course....
|
|
Apparently, many posters cannot accept that an optimizer/munchkin/powergamer can be a good player too. They put a label on the guy and they only see the label (and their own prejudice) and stop considering the person.You’re right. When a Player dumps three stats down to 7 and dumps all feats etc just for increased DPR, so he’s a complete liability in any & all sitrep that doesn’t involve DPR- or that involves making a will save, for example, then yes, he’s not a ‘good player”. esp when he then complains about the rest of the party being a 'waste of air".... except when he's begging for a dispel magic when he's charmed, of course....
I think you will find out that many (likely all) posters here agree on this, including the diehard "optimizers" ;-)
BTW, talking about "charmed", I would guess that the noob paladin you mentioned earlier dumped his WIS from 12 to 7, so 3 points difference for the modifier. This will make him fail a Will save 15% more often, that is one every 6/7 Will save. Not that much of a difference, right ;-)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't consider hyper-specialization to be "optimization," unless another team member is intentionally covering in another area. In other words, I'd look at party optimization. Is your team maximally equipped to handle anything within the rules? Then they're optimized. If not, they're not.
"Optimation = DPR" doesn't make any sense at all to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skilled roleplayers can take on a HUGELY complex and challenging scenario that would leave combat-optimized characters lost and helpless...Stormwind there. Many optimizers are skilled roleplayers, and the best optimize to avoid needless combat by obvating the need. But they do so by speccing out their characters in accordance with the game rules. They do not do it by intentionally making characters that aren't actually good at anything.
It’s not stormwind at all. “combat-optimized characters “ not combat-optimized players". Once you dump CHA, int & wis to 7 and have no social or knowledge skill ranks, it’s almost impossible to succeed in a social or puzzle solving encounter that doesn’t include ‘killing it deaderer”. Or if your DM lets you get away with RPing a bright, smooth-talking, perceptive individual with those numbers just becuase the PLAYER is good at it, that's poor DMing.
“Combat-optimized characters" are only good in combat, by definition.
Sure, a player who runs a “combat-optimized character" can be a good roelplayer, but there's some challenges there.
It was soccer, not hockey.
See, I should have known that one, I was even on the soccer team junior high. My position? Benchwarmer. Look whatever, it gets really cold in the fall here in New England, the Benchwarmer is a necessary member of the team!
My point was, the level dependent bonuses don't bridge the optimized/non-optimized gap in Pathfinder. There comes a certain point where what's challenging for an optimized character is auto-kill for a non-optimized character, and what's challenging for a non-optimized harmless-unto-boring for an optimized character. Neither of these are right or wrong so much as incompatible.
I will however gladly second Kirth's point about optimization =/= DPR. Personally I think optimization = overspecialization, which I why I mentioned DM collusion in my first post.
PEOPLE SHOULD GET THIS THROUGH THEIR SKULLS. NO GOOD OPTIMIZER WILL EVER DUMP THEIR WILL SAVE. Seriously unless you are permanently controlled by a caster on your team you do not dump will save. Period.
Wow. Have you checked out the handbooks yet? Dumping WIS is common, and I almost never see any feats or traits added to get it back.
Are we doing the “no true Scotsman” thing, then? Because I see those "dumped WIS with no Will feats", etc builds all the time, and by those who claim they are expert optimizers. I suppose by your defintion they are not a "good optimizer" but THEY claim they are, folks link to their handbook, and agree with the build, etc etc. It's pretty common.
“Combat-optimized characters" are only good in combat, by definition.
Sure, we can agree with that statement on the face of things, but with the following caveats: (1) I'm talking about "optimized adventuring parties," and (2) you're saying "combat-optimized characters," and (3) you're talking about "DPR specialists" who otherwise suck at both combat and everything else in the game. I agree we need to clarify terms, but again, your definition "optimization = DPR specialist" doesn't make any sense at all to me.
|
This really isn't a new phenomena and am not sure what your exposure is to a lot of different kinds of players but this has been around since I started playing RPGs and from what some of my older friends tell me pretty much since the beginning of table top RPGs. I don’t think video games or MMOs have anything to do with it.
It just happens that a lot of people optimize for combat. I've seen bards and rogues who literally run the show outside of combat (or are so awesome at skills they can avoid combat entirely) which can be aggregating for a lot of people who have spent equal time optimizing for combat.
Actually I don't see anything wrong with playing whatever you want as long as it doesn't suck. I think a lot of people make a "good themed/RP/concept character" and an "optimized character" into two separate things and that isn't the case.
This conversation came up not too long ago amongst my local PFS chapter when someone wanted to use a racial boon to build a mismatched character and a lot of people including myself responded with basically a "WTF?!?! Don't do that!!" response INITIALLY. However, after the voice of reason chimed in a lot of us changed our tone.
For me it has to be functional (and I don't mean has basic equipment and player has a core rule book and dice). I mean it should function and work pretty well at what it is designed to do. If you make a combat maneuver monk then IMO he should be a tripping and grappling monster that is a constant thorn in the enemies’ side...not someone you just nerfed into not dealing decent damage.
When I design a character I tend to come up with a concept for a cool character (see also; character concept is something completely different then four page back story) and then design or build him off of that concept. I tend to optimize for that concept even if it makes me worse in other areas. I have a blight druid who spends a lot of time in wild shape and summoning things or blasting things. He does this well. He does this very well. I wanted a “some people just want to watch the world burn” type character that was a twist on something traditional. Could I have built a better druid that was a little scarier on the battle field? Yes, but I didn’t need to. I have a weapon master who uses a trident and net. He entangles, trips, disarms and stabs a little, eventually he will force attacks of opportunity against the enemy he is messing with. Character concept is that I wanted a gladiator who had combat be a show or spectacle and semi-humiliating for his enemies rather than just do massive damage. He is functional and awesome and does what I designed him to do very well….to me this is optimizing.
However, in defense of power gamers everywhere… Most people don’t know how to build good characters. They don’t want to be told that or have people point it out because it is “rude” or “not true” or whatever the F but in reality, when you really look at it, when you take away the rose colored glasses, when you stop holding someone’s hand…they just simply don’t know how to make a good character and then hide behind “it’s a concept character and was built to be fun”…..Really? because I never found getting my teeth kicked in to be fun. So I’m not saying you personally are terrible at building a character but that some people who are viewed as “power gamers” or “hyper-optimizers” are actually just capable of building a good character.
As far as home designed monsters or NPC enemies go, well most people don’t know how to run combat or utilize the abilities of the “monsters” that the party is facing. I have seen both a novice GM run a monster that should have dropped the party straight into the ground and cry because “somehow the party is too powerful” and I have seen novice players get curb stomped by monsters they should have been able to handle because the GM knew what they were doing and didn’t pull any punches. The issues are not optimizing or power gaming. The issue is the GM knowing their party and compensating accordingly while knowing the rules enough to run an encounter the way it was meant to be run. Also I think it is the player’s responsibility to know how to play their character.
I still get some rules wrong (well I say the 3.5 rule perfectly and forget that the specific rule for the situation at hand is different in Pathfinder) but I think it is absurd how many people don’t know the rules at all beyond the basic attack/damage/skill check. I can’t play PFS for ten minutes without people asking about a rule when the Core Rule book is literally sitting in their lap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
“Combat-optimized characters" are only good in combat, by definition.Yeah except (1) I'm talking about "optimized adventuring parties," and (2) you're saying "combat-optimized characters," and (3) you're talking about "DPR specialists" who otherwise suck at both combat and everything else in the game. I agree we need to clarify terms, but again, your definition "optimization = DPR specialist" doesn't make any sense at all to me.
You replied to his post and he used the term "Combat-optimized characters".
If we’re going to say “optimization” = “decent built” then this debate is meaningless. Few have any issue with a fighter who chooses a greatsword over a longsword. I expect a fighter to have a higher STR than Int, I have no problems with that. Wise choices are not “optimization”.
So, if you are going to define ‘optimized’ as “making a better choice or two’ then no one is arguing. The issue is about HYPER-optimized characters. I am not complaining if a FTR has a str of 18 (after racial+2) or a wiz has a int of 18. I do complain if they dump three other stats to make that 18 a 20. 16+2, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 is a little optimized, but it's a OK build. Myself, I'd try to finangle a 12 in wis & int, but I can see where they're coming from, and heck, I might even bring down the cha to 8 to help.
18+2,16,14, 7,7,7, is hyper-optimized and I think is a problem build. This is the issue. OK? It doesn't really matter what *YOU* call "optimized', it's what folks here are complaining about. And they are not complaining about the 16+2, 14, 14, 10, 10, 10 they are compaining about the 18+2,16,14, 7,7,7- ESPECIALLY when that player then complains about the rest of the party being "useless".
And, altho I have seen a couple of hyper-optimized builds for stuff other than combat (I have a optimized Diplomacy bard myself, but she’s not quite “hyper-optimized”), it’s almost always combat, and usually DPR. In fact that’s constantly the argument here why ‘that suxx!” because it falls behind on DPR. You want to optimize for saves? Then the Monk is your man. But how many threads are there saying "teh munk is teh suxxor' becuase the DPR falls behind?
So yeah, some degree of optimization is good, and a little more is OK. And, as you said, it depends on the group a lot, too. And sure, you can optimize for stuff other than combat and DPR.
But those are not the common board issues with "optimization". The issue is hyper-optimization, and mostly in combat and mostly as measured by DPR.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I (hopefully) made it clear earlier that I don't have problems with optimizers, only with people that walk into my RP-heavy game and try and force a different playstyle onto the rest of the players.
I've played with optimizers that were quite happy optimizing their character and letting the rest of the table play non-optimized. I've also encountered optimizers that decided my game just wasn't for them.
I'm having more of a problem with people who just seem to think all optimizers are going to act like jerks, because all that's succeeding in doing is creating a rift between people that probably have no issues with one another, and causing "RPer hate" from some of those on the other side of the argument that are feeling the need to strike back (which I can't blame them for, having seen some of the things aimed at them :-S) It really isn't helping anyone to over-generalize and attack an entire playstyle just for the actions of a few people someone has personally encountered.
It seems the main issue appears to stem from PFS play, which really doesn't surprise me. Throwing half a dozen players with different styles together isn't something I'd normally approach without a full suit of powered armor. I don't really know what the solution is in that case (especially for those for whom PFS is their only real option), but I do know that using PFS to gauge the whole player base isn't going to yield accurate results.