| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most often problem I see with GM's and encounter design is a lack of getting or even not knowing the rules. You can still challenge optimized characters, it just takes an understanding of the ruleset.
Translation: It takes more work on the part of the person who's doing the most work of all trying to keep the game running. He's in a competitive "rules eating" contest with someone who DOESN'T have to write up the NPC motivations, make sure that every character gets a chance to grab some spotlight time, and do all the prep needed to make combat worthwhile.
Sure, it's possible - but the optimizer is making things harder for the GM, and that's, at the very least, inconsiderate.
Calling fluff or RP to challenge them is just bull crap. I also think that the perception of a player who is good within the ruleset is skewed, it doesn't make them bad RPers, hell knowing the rules is a huge time investment.
My experience is that people who spend time devouring rulebooks might be good roleplayers - but they usually tend to be a poor audience member when it isn't their turn to shine; they b#!!% about all the "wasted time" while the gnome alchemist talked the NPC around when, clearly, the party could've just stomped him into gnome mush.
Maybe its just my group, but the ones I have trouble with in RP are the same one the aren't up on the rules. The ones that make bad feat selections do so because they don't understand, not flavor.
Because this hobby should be held for people who have time to absorb three college textbooks on how to play it?
Mechanics don't make your character unique. Your character's motives and personality make your character unique. Because of the premium that Pathfinder puts on optimization, there's a lot of emphasis on "builds" over "character."
Roleplaying is what happens when you play with other people. We all have terms for what happens when you play with yourself, and your favorite spreadsheet/Hero Labs modules.
Really, how many ways can you hash out a story of why your orc barbarian has an 18 str and 5 charisma?I don't think many optimizers are likely to repeatedly play the same character class, race and stats.
But here are some barbarians with high strength and low charisma:
Julbo is an orc, kicked out of his village as a child for being too meek. He was raised by a pair of kindly halflings who raised him to be incredibly polite so that people will realize he's not like other orcs. He's very shy, and reluctant to ask anyone to do anything they might not want to do. In battle, his suppressed rage takes over, and he becomes a whirlwind of death.
Hellgha was a nice middle-class girl who saw her family murdered in front of her. She escaped, physically unharmed, and learned to survive alone in the wilderness. She calls herself Princess Hellgha of the Deathskull clan, a tribe she entirely invented. She deliberately scars herself to make herself less attractive. She is obnoxious to everyone because she doesn't want to form any close bonds, to lessen the pain when her companions die.
Simoon is a human, treated as a village idiot for most of his life until his incredible strength became apparent. He's a simpleton who always blurts out whatever is in his mind without concern for the consequences.
That's actually great examples, and really highlights the fact that optimizers are usually the ones with the best ideas. Like I said, it is a huge time investment to be up on the rules, and takes more than one go through, those people are heavily invested in the material and more likely to make the most of it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most often problem I see with GM's and encounter design is a lack of getting or even not knowing the rules. You can still challenge optimized characters, it just takes an understanding of the ruleset.Translation: It takes more work on the part of the person who's doing the most work of all trying to keep the game running. He's in a competitive "rules eating" contest with someone who DOESN'T have to write up the NPC motivations, make sure that every character gets a chance to grab some spotlight time, and do all the prep needed to make combat worthwhile.
Sure, it's possible - but the optimizer is making things harder for the GM, and that's, at the very least, inconsiderate.
Calling fluff or RP to challenge them is just bull crap. I also think that the perception of a player who is good within the ruleset is skewed, it doesn't make them bad RPers, hell knowing the rules is a huge time investment.My experience is that people who spend time devouring rulebooks might be good roleplayers - but they usually tend to be a poor audience member when it isn't their turn to shine; they b@~#& about all the "wasted time" while the gnome alchemist talked the NPC around when, clearly, the party could've just stomped him into gnome mush.
Maybe its just my group, but the ones I have trouble with in RP are the same one the aren't up on the rules. The ones that make bad feat selections do so because they don't understand, not flavor.Because this hobby should be held for people who have time to absorb three college textbooks on how to play it?
Mechanics don't make your character unique. Your character's motives and personality make your character unique. Because of the premium that Pathfinder puts on optimization, there's a lot of emphasis on "builds" over "character."
Roleplaying is what happens when you play with other people. We all have terms for what happens when you play with yourself, and your favorite spreadsheet/Hero...
For the most part, I GM for my group, so me favoring optimization isn't inconsiderate at all. I've never had one problem with players who know the rules, they get the unenviable position of carrying the others in the group to make things less hard for me. I delegate rules lawyers in my game so I don't always have to check sheets and etc, so in that regard they're an added boon. Also when I play, I never compete, argue, rules lawyer, if I don't like their style I don't return to their game, I try to help in any way possible, keeping init tracked, taking extensive notes, even optimizers can be boon companions if you give them the opportunity. Also to the audience remark, how does knowing the rules make one a poor audience? My style of characters usually aren't the DPR guys, they're usually whatever the party needs most. Being a spotlight hog is something completely separate from optimizing, and if you encounter these people, I suggest talking to them privately; again this isn't a real mark against "roll-players", as a matter of fact, the spotlight hogs are usually the "face" types, and RP players usually cry about others taking the spotlight. Yes the rules are a massive beast to read, but credit where credit is due, bro; I don't understand how knowing the rules is a mark against you in your view. A lot of your perception of optimizers is patently false, your reasoning is fallacious. You gave examples of separate problems and just titled them optimizers, even though what you described isn't an optimizer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, how many ways can you hash out a story of why your orc barbarian has an 18 str and 5 charisma?I don't think many optimizers are likely to repeatedly play the same character class, race and stats.
But here are some barbarians with high strength and low charisma
I want to play too! I pretty much have two Barbarians with the exact same build going right now but at different levels in different games (3 and 13), both with high strength and low charisma.
First we have Oswald (level 3, Int 7, Cha 5) the enslaved goblin who was put through intensive and cruel training to serve as a "trained goblin battle butler" for the fabulously rich with a sense of humor. He knows everything these is to know about the quiet dignity and skill involved with serving people of quality, but when taken out of that element has absolutely no idea about anything and regresses to the state of a fearful and possibly violent child who just needs his master to tell him what he should be doing.
On the other hand there's Zurich (level 13, Cha 7), the merciful, redeemer "paladin" of Pelor. He was born into an orc tribe and became a bandit, but after a botched attempt to rob a helpless looking man who turned out to be a high priest of Pelor, he started on his "path from darkness" and the prest became like a father to him. Later after his surrogate father's death, he became disillusioned with the church of Pelor, seeing the new leadership as decadent and corrupt, caring more about themselves than the people who needed Pelor's light. As such he renounced all earthly possessions besides his blade and walks the earth protecting and helping people in Pelor's name, though he always tries to avoid violence.
Imagination is fun :D. I particularly like Zurich because I walk around with AC 5 and DR 20: "When you walk in the light you need fear no evil."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the perception issue might be a hard-to-resolve difference in perspective. One of the things I've been noticing (incidentally: please don't take offense at this post, I've gotten an hour and a half of sleep and I really am just trying to talk without putting anyone down) is claims like, "You never see an optimizer make a barbarian with X or a fighter with Y". And to me that seems really weird, because 'barbarian' or 'fighter' are not character concepts, but rather metagame constructs that contain a package of abilities.
The reason you'd never see me make a 10 str character with nothing but levels in the barbarian class is because it'd be terrible. But you might see me create a 10 str character who comes from a savage, hardy background that emphasizes personal strength, cunning, valor in battle, & ancient traditions. Yes, they're probably a druid (or summoner, or cleric, or...) in mechanical terms. But for me the important part is where they're from and how that makes them behave and think, not the exact number of moving parts needed to start up their ripshred chainsaw.
Extending this further, you'll see an idea known as optimizing for a concept. It's pretty simple - you have an idea in mind, and you try to fulfill it as efficiently and potently as possible. This can range from something almost purely mechanical, like 'thrown weapons master', to complex fluff background that require specific abilities which you then go out and find. In my experience, this right here tends to be the most common type of optimization. It's certainly why I personally got into optimizing, starting with the moment that I realized that the 3.5 paladin was too weak and wretched to actually fight evil. I started looking for other ways to make a holy warrior and the rest, as they say, is history.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Here's another point about knowing the rules, it's not like they came out yesterday. Pathfinder is a minor reworking of 3.5 which was a reworking of 3rd ed, we've been playing these games for years, if that's your main hobby over the last 10-15 years, it's not asking a lot to be familiar with the system. I have a group of about ten players, broke up over four games, one I play, one I run. I only allow the people I know I want in my game in mine, which is about five; and that's the best five players in my opinion. Some are too unfamiliar with the game, some are personalities I don't wish to spend hours around, some are just derps. But this "group" has been together for around six years, in that time they should have enough experience with the rules to at least make legal characters choices and know enough to be able to play; that's not asking too much. Like I said, the players I had the problems with, in roleplay and rollplay, were the ones who can't be bothered with the time it takes to be good. They put minimal effort into character creation, make retarded tactical decisions, can't RP, and it all boils down to the rules and knowing what they could do.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think part of the perception issue might be a hard-to-resolve difference in perspective. One of the things I've been noticing (incidentally: please don't take offense at this post, I've gotten an hour and a half of sleep and I really am just trying to talk without putting anyone down) is claims like, "You never see an optimizer make a barbarian with X or a fighter with Y". And to me that seems really weird, because 'barbarian' or 'fighter' are not character concepts, but rather metagame constructs that contain a package of abilities.
The reason you'd never see me make a 10 str character with nothing but levels in the barbarian class is because it'd be terrible. But you might see me create a 10 str character who comes from a savage, hardy background that emphasizes personal strength, cunning, valor in battle, & ancient traditions. Yes, they're probably a druid (or summoner, or cleric, or...) in mechanical terms. But for me the important part is where they're from and how that makes them behave and think, not the exact number of moving parts needed to start up their ripshred chainsaw.
Extending this further, you'll see an idea known as optimizing for a concept. It's pretty simple - you have an idea in mind, and you try to fulfill it as efficiently and potently as possible. This can range from something almost purely mechanical, like 'thrown weapons master', to complex fluff background that require specific abilities which you then go out and find. In my experience, this right here tends to be the most common type of optimization. It's certainly why I personally got into optimizing, starting with the moment that I realized that the 3.5 paladin was too weak and wretched to actually fight evil. I started looking for other ways to make a holy warrior and the rest, as they say, is history.
Quoted for emphasis, because this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why I am genuinely puzzled by the 10 Strength Barbarian. He can have the exact same character - personality, background, motivation, et al - without forcing a square-peg statline into a round-hole class. It's almost optimization in reverse: Going out of your way to make a mechanically inferior character in order to show that you're not one of the munchkins, you're a real roleplayer who won't be constrained by your rules, man.
Quoted for emphasis, because this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why I am genuinely puzzled by the 10 Strength Barbarian. He can have the exact same character -...I think part of the perception issue might be a hard-to-resolve difference in perspective. One of the things I've been noticing (incidentally: please don't take offense at this post, I've gotten an hour and a half of sleep and I really am just trying to talk without putting anyone down) is claims like, "You never see an optimizer make a barbarian with X or a fighter with Y". And to me that seems really weird, because 'barbarian' or 'fighter' are not character concepts, but rather metagame constructs that contain a package of abilities.
The reason you'd never see me make a 10 str character with nothing but levels in the barbarian class is because it'd be terrible. But you might see me create a 10 str character who comes from a savage, hardy background that emphasizes personal strength, cunning, valor in battle, & ancient traditions. Yes, they're probably a druid (or summoner, or cleric, or...) in mechanical terms. But for me the important part is where they're from and how that makes them behave and think, not the exact number of moving parts needed to start up their ripshred chainsaw.
Extending this further, you'll see an idea known as optimizing for a concept. It's pretty simple - you have an idea in mind, and you try to fulfill it as efficiently and potently as possible. This can range from something almost purely mechanical, like 'thrown weapons master', to complex fluff background that require specific abilities which you then go out and find. In my experience, this right here tends to be the most common type of optimization. It's certainly why I personally got into optimizing, starting with the moment that I realized that the 3.5 paladin was too weak and wretched to actually fight evil. I started looking for other ways to make a holy warrior and the rest, as they say, is history.
It's the hipsters of Pathfinder, plain and simple.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I thought the Hipsters of Pathfinder were playing the PF setting before it was it's own game, man.
Oh you use the mainstream PF setting? My group only uses our own in-depth homebrew setting. It's really the only way to go if you're a real roleplayer. Not like you ever heard of it though.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Others have said it already, put my main problem with the Stormwind Fallacy, isn't that it is untrue, but basically that it is too simplistic to be of much use. As a generel statement "Role-playing and optimization isn't mutually exclusive" is correct, and furthermore "Role-playing and optimization is not different ends on the same scale" is important as well.
That said, it is commonly misused in defense of optimization as a statement of: "Optimization does not affect role-playing". This is less true, as our approach to the game, most certainly affects the type of game we are going to play.
The whole discussion becomes rather moot without having a consideration of "What is RP?", or more specifically what play style or creative agenda do we strive for. When we do delve into this, it becomes quite clear that mechanical optimization has an effect on the game we play.
Ron Edward's GNS Theory is a pretty great point of reference, despite disagreement on his Big Model as a basis for game design.
Mechanical optimization strongly promotes a Gamist creative agenda, as it focused on being efficient at overcoming challenges. On these boards we fairly often heard the comment "If the GM can't challenge optimized characters, he is doing something wrong". This statement pretty directly defines the game as Step On Up, where the primary task of the GM is to create a game that can challenge the mechanics of the character (often with combat encounters as a significant component).
On the other hand, optimization tend to clash with the other creative agendas, whether it is the game created by the GM, and/or wanted by the other players.
As the main focus in a Narrativist creative agenda, is the conflict itself and difficult choices made by the characters, rather than moving toward an end goal, the efficiency of the optimized character is counter-productive as it focus on an entirely different aspect of the game. Going further down this line to a Story Now game, where the story happens at the table without being pre-planned or even having a plot, optimization has no place (Although, this is not a kind of game that PFRPG is good at, or supposed to be).
With a simulationist creative agenda, there is a more aesthetic focus on the genre, character, and world we currently play. Players focus on making credible characters, and how these characters react to the world around them. Here optimization can be seen as problematic, because it might not 'theme' (as seen by one or more) or fit aesthetics of the game world. Playing an optimized character who covers all his weaknesses, might not work well in a game that is about "heroes struggling to survive". Sure, the GM can up the challenge to create a struggle, but then we moves the focus of the game to the gamist agenda.
And here we have arrived at the cause of friction, which underlines the whole "role-playing vs. roll-playing"-debacle. And now is a good time for disclaimer that the creative agendas can be used to different degrees, and combined to some point, but I'll deal with extremes as example.
The simulationist player and the gamist player focus on different aspects of the game in the creation of their characters, and in adressing the game. And both of them calls out to the other "You are going it wrong" (As we see so often on these boards).
Ultimately none of them are wrong, but they are trying to pull the game in different directions, that might not be able to co-exist.
As for myself, I can enjoy all the types of game (as well as board games or card games), but it starts to ruin the fun, when this conflict arises.
For example, in our current Call of Cthulhu game, I want to play "how does an FBI agent respond to seeing supernatural phenomena and getting psychic powers herself", while another player wants to play "How do I enhance my new-found magical abilities, so we more efficiently can deal with the unknown threats around us".
The Stormwind Fallacy falls short, because it fails to address that optimization supports one kind of roleplaying, conflicts with another, and is largely incompatible with a third. Even more so, as it simply become a defensive position for one side in (mostly) unnuanced discussion.
A bit more text here than intended, but I guess I couldn't keep it down to two cents.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I remember Tempest Stormwind on the WotC boards. He made/was associated with a lot of homebrew. I really liked his stuff. I always felt it was a shame he went with 4th edition.
I feel optimization sometimes gets a bad rap. Some people look at optimization as bringing a chain gun to a knife fight. I suppose that's possible, but I usually see optimization as using a screw driver to insert a screw, or better yet, a power drill, as opposed to pounding it in with a hammer. I have always felt RP and Optimization are not mutually exclusive.
. . . The Stormwind Fallacy falls short, because it fails to address that optimization supports one kind of roleplaying, conflicts with another, and is largely incompatible with a third. Even more so, as it simply become a defensive position for one side in (mostly) unnuanced discussion. . . .
I'd say not, because the only thing it pushes is that the two activities are not mutually exclusive.
I am socially awkward. I'm not witty, and sometimes I am timid. I tried theater in high school and some debate. It wasn't my strong suit, but I grew a little. I have had the experience where RPers made things unfun right before they said that's what my character would do. I have had just as much trouble from a guy who was a rules lawyer, but I really can't blame his knowledge of the game. He was just a horrible person. His brother, also a rules lawyer, was a nicer guy, and fun to game with.
Remember. People ruin everything. In my limited experience, it's not been either the optimization or the rp that is a problem, but the person who sits down for a collaborative social activity and they wanted a stage to monologue.
And I've had GMs who were just as guilty.
. . . in the campaigns I run, the story DOES happen at the table without being pre-planned or having a written plot of any kind.
More or less, agreed. I have a big event. It's about 15%. The other 85% is pulled from the aether as the players' characters Do Things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In my experience of the boards, the people who decry the Stormwind Fallacy always end up saying that optimizers are jerks and roleplayers are not (or even that roleplayers are the victims of optimizers). And obviously, they think of themselves as roleplayers ;-)
This sums it all up nicely I think.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@HaraldKlak:
I strongly disagree. The same attitude that leads to optimization as an end-goal in and of itself leads to a Gamist creative agenda, but nothing about the process of optimization has anything to do with an particular attitude towards gaming (narrativist, gamist, or simulationist).
A player putting his character priorities above the nature and aesthetics of the game is always a problem, and because of the attitude mentioned above certainly one that can occur when serious optimizers who aren't used to other styles of play try to participate in a narrativist or simulationist game, but the same can easily happen when a player who focuses entirely on narrative tries to play in a simulationist game or vice versa.
Note: For the rest of this, I'm going to be assuming a simlationist game interested in realism and accurately portraying a world where X, Y, and Z are true, not because that's the only kind of simulationism, but because it's a simple way to explain what I'm talking about.
Let me give you an example: Will the PCs arrive just in time to stop the sacrifice because that's what the plot says, or will the sacrifice occur at midnight when the moon is full regardless of where the PCs are then? A person used to a narativist game will assume the first, a person used to a simulationist game will assume the second...and if either of them is in the wrong type of game they're (Warning: TVTropes Link) wrong genre savvy, and can cause a lot of problems (The simulationist gamer in a narrativist game: "No, we can't stop to advance this subplot, we don't know when the sacrifice is, so we need to get there now or it might occur before we can get there!" only usually phrased as "We don't have time for this." while the other players look at them strangely).
This also applies to character generation, where in a simulationist game involving, say, the PCs being natives of a very specific area, some races may not be appropriate, while in a more narrativist game it would depend on how cool the backstory is, and a more gamist one whether the race was mechanically balanced. Or in a narrativist game focusing on the PCs all being members of a particular religion or noble house for plot reasons one player demands to play something else, for either mechanical or realism-based reasons.
And none of those situations forbid or even impact optimization per se. They limit character choices, certainly, but that's not quite the same thing. The problem isn't players wanting to optimize, it's players wanting to make characters in a way that doesn't fit with the game they're playing. This is a problem for the GM to deal with by discussing it with his or her players.
Now, in Pathfinder specifically, uneven levels of optimization can also create a second, very real, problem for the GM in how to arrange challenges to the PCs...but that's largely because Pathfinder is such a gamist system at heart, with high levels of system mastery inherently rewarded. But this is an entirely separate problem from the guy who just wants to kill things in a political intrigue game. Many other games lack this second problem, or at least have it to a much lesser degree, but none lack the first.
Prince of Knives discusses (beautifully) the idea of optimizing for concept, and that's definitely a more narrativist or simulationist version of optimization than pure "How can I do the most damage?" optimization.
But...Pathfinder is a very gamist system and because of that mechanical optimization in a 'most damage' sort of way is highly rewarded by the system, regardless of what kind of game you're trying to run, and since even most people playing in a simulation or narrative focused fashion like to succeed, there's a lot of tendency for all styles of play to optimize to some extent, simply so that they can succeed at whatever goals they're interested in. Gamists tend to be more focused on it, since they have no other goals, but everyone does it, and someone less gamist but with better optimization skills can make a non-optimal concept that's actually better than a worse optimizer's 'optimal' build.
The problem isn't really optimizing, or any particular gaming style, it's the two problems of people in one group having widely divergent levels of optimization, and people wanting to play very different varieties of game.
This runs so far contradictory to my own experiences I'm starting to wonder if we're playing the same game.
Optimization (at least in my experience) is done before the game, while interacting with the creative agenda and making those difficult choices in character is done during the game.
The efficiency of an optimized character doesn't mean jack. A character can be optimized- or not- but they still go through the same story.
Maybe we play different games, but I guess that reinforces my point ;)
That said, it doesn't seem that different. It is important to restate, that I do not claim optimization as anathema to roleplaying, or submerging one self in a character.
Of course optimized characters can face dilemmas, hard choices, or exist in a character driven story. But optimization in itself is not about this aspect of the game, it is about overcoming mechanical challenges.
Ordinarily this pushes for a GM to adjust encounters to challenge the players, just as a GM making a mechanically difficult create the need for players to optimize. This is at its core the gamist aspect of the game, where balancing characters to be efficient enought to overcome the challenges is important.
I disagree, that the characters go through the same story whether or not they are optimized. As far as the mechanical challenges go (which there is a fair share of in Pathfinder), an optimized party will blaze through a game that a non-optimized will struggle at or face a TPK. Thus it is two wholly different stories told, despite them going through the same.
My point is that you can succesfully combine different creative agendas (or elements thereof) in a single game, but if you have forces moving in different directions, you'll end up with friction.
Furthermore, in the campaigns I run, the story DOES happen at the table without being pre-planned or having a written plot of any kind.
If you can run a free-form Pathfinder game, without pre-planned encounters, statted out enemies, or a written plot, then I am impressed.
Pathfinder is too mechanics-heavy, especially at higher levels, for me to be able to make up somewhat balanced encounters on the spot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the most often problem I see with GM's and encounter design is a lack of getting or even not knowing the rules. You can still challenge optimized characters, it just takes an understanding of the ruleset. Calling fluff or RP to challenge them is just bull crap. I also think that the perception of a player who is good within the ruleset is skewed, it doesn't make them bad RPers, hell knowing the rules is a huge time investment. In my encounters with players who optimize, they're the RP backbone of the group, staying in character, coming up with real solutions, not just ones that appeal to the GM's sense of what's "creative enough" benchmark. Maybe its just my group, but the ones I have trouble with in RP are the same one the aren't up on the rules. The ones that make bad feat selections do so because they don't understand, not flavor.
I have to admit, the only experiences I've had as a player in dealing with optimizers have been bad. One went so far as to cuss the DM/GM out. Big Jerk.
However, as a GM, I'd dealt with a player that optimizes and I'd have to agree in some ways. I think it goes more than understanding the ruleset, I think it also deals with being imaginative and innovative enough so that you can make the game appealing to everyone in the group whether they optimize or not.
The Optimizer was not the RP backbone necessarily, and as per MY PLAYSTYLE, I'd say if you are allowing the Optimizer to be the backbone...something is terribly wrong and skewed towards one person of a group. I want everyone to have equal representation and opportunity in the group.
Though I agree in a way with your premise at the start, with some modification in regards to the DM, I disagree with your final statement. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of PF will make decent feat choices. The problem is with the GM getting so caught up with one or the other type of playstyle that they forget about the others. Instead of catering to the group, they end up catering to one person or another.
I think it's possible to cater to both (I mean, I dislike the optimization game myself, I've powergamed and munchkined to show a Rogue COULD do over 700 damage in one round under the right conditions..just to make a point in one game and to show I could actually powergame and munchkin if I wanted...but I actually CHOOOSE to go with concepts and play simply for fun in a different way), and it's possible to have both to have fun while in the same group.
I had one player that did on average 30 points of damage while another was only doing around 7. Obviously this is a disparate amount between the two, but you can take into account the type of weapons they were using (creating more types of certain undead encounters as one used slicing and the other blunt), what weaknesses they have, how they interact and their general tendencies, what alignment they are (pretty important, if they are GOOD, it's actually pretty easy to create a situation where they can be needed for party support, as they would be concerned with their companions falling and such and trying to keep companions alive whilst being under assault themselves).
I think it's not a matter of whether all in the party are equal in combat power (and face it, when talking about optimizers, typically (not always) that's what people are discussing), but on GM ability to cater to all the players in the group.
Really, how many ways can you hash out a story of why your orc barbarian has an 18 str and 5 charisma?I don't think many optimizers are likely to repeatedly play the same character class, race and stats.
But here are some barbarians with high strength and low charisma
I want to play too! I pretty much have two Barbarians with the exact same build going right now but at different levels in different games (3 and 13), both with high strength and low charisma.
First we have Oswald (level 3, Int 7, Cha 5) the enslaved goblin who was put through intensive and cruel training to serve as a "trained goblin battle butler" for the fabulously rich with a sense of humor. He knows everything these is to know about the quiet dignity and skill involved with serving people of quality, but when taken out of that element has absolutely no idea about anything and regresses to the state of a fearful and possibly violent child who just needs his master to tell him what he should be doing.
On the other hand there's Zurich (level 13, Cha 7), the merciful, redeemer "paladin" of Pelor. He was born into an orc tribe and became a bandit, but after a botched attempt to rob a helpless looking man who turned out to be a high priest of Pelor, he started on his "path from darkness" and the prest became like a father to him. Later after his surrogate father's death, he became disillusioned with the church of Pelor, seeing the new leadership as decadent and corrupt, caring more about themselves than the people who needed Pelor's light. As such he renounced all earthly possessions besides his blade and walks the earth protecting and helping people in Pelor's name, though he always tries to avoid violence.
Imagination is fun :D. I particularly like Zurich because I walk around with AC 5 and DR 20: "When you walk in the light you need fear no evil."
Although I think I might be able to dominate your group...I don't think I'd ever want to play in it. I don't want to be the only player to be catered to, nor do I want to be the one to "carry" the group...per se.
Also, it is just as much a fallacy to say the optimizer will be the RP geniuses as it is to say those that do not optimize will be the RP geniuses...if we are dealing with trying to say one or the other is a fallacy.
I'd want to reiterate, as I stated previously, the problem we have on the boards is one of transference.
I've played and I've GM'd. As a player, my only experience was with a Jerk who was the optimizer. All they wanted to do was be the glory hog. They wanted to have all the attention on them. They finally cussed out the GM because the GM didn't cater to them.
It's very easy to say...in my experience all optimizers are jerks and transfer that experience into those who optimize on the boards.
I WOULD SAY that those who try to say everyone has to optimize or try to justify that way of thinking MIGHT tend to be those that fall into what I'd call the jerk area...the area where one person wants to be the one who gets all the DM's attention (maybe they didn't get enough love at home?), and this is something that annoys the other players.
HOWEVER...as a GM I've also had a person who optimized in my group. As a joke, I actually showed that a Rogue (commonly considered the weakest of the "tiers" and classes, something else I really don't agree with) could do ~700 damage per round with the right equipment and feat choices and the right conditions. I personally hate playing that way...but it apparently took that other player by storm. They were not a jerk, in fact quite the opposite. They were a close family member, and I enjoy playing with them quite a bit.
What it DID take, was being able to be creative on my part for things that let ALL the players shine and participate. Instead of focusing solely on that player's abilities, it was to focus on things which the entire party could enjoy.
Most optimizers DO optimize, but if they are solely what one calls powergamers...they tend to optimize in one direction. This also means they have weaknesses...just like the others in the group...and these are areas where the other players can have a chance to shine and do what they do.
If you have an optimizer and non-optimizers in the group and you are only allowing one to flourish...I'd say that's actually more a problem with the GM than the player.
IMO of course.
What I think is that there are those that have had bad experiences with certain roleplay types on the board, and hence transference occurs, or that they generalize that everyone who plays in that fashion also is like the jerk (what seems to be the common Optimizer relation from how I've heard optimizers talked about) or non-involved (what I've heard optimizers refer to non-optimizers) that they played with. It's not necessarily or even remotely true, but due to their experiences, it's a transference effect.
The other problem is in what people are seeking out. I personally have no interest in discussing optimization and powergaming, and normally want to discuss more in regards to the roleplaying aspects. I can max out things if I so wish (not that it's important, but as I said, a Rogue doing ~700 DPR is not insignificant, and I haven't seen many of those on the boards coming close to this number...but I use and abuse rules in a twisted fashion to get there, and really don't ENJOY doing that myself), and have no desire to discuss that here.
Also, since 99% of my players play in a different style than optimization (and in my experiences, optimizers/powergamers are pretty rare...which is ALSO a generalization on my part which I was corrected recently, I simply have only seen two or three of them...as compared to the others I've played with...I mean, most optimize to a degree...but they don't make that their sole focus in playing which is what I'd call an optimizer) I really have no interest in most optimization topics and would rather discuss OTHER things.
It can sometimes seem VERY hard to find other people who want to discuss the game (minus)-power gaming aspects, especially on some boards. That can occasionally make those who don't WANT to really focus on powergaming or that playstyle...wonder if there are others who don't solely powergame to be found on these boards.
This also probably results in some of the pushback you see. It also doesn't help that there are many that are insultive that say...hey...if you aren't powergaming (only one type of playstyle) you are bad/wrong/not doing it right/bringing the group down/forcing others to take up the slack....etc....etc...etc. which only builds up the problem to be a worse one.
Although I think I might be able to dominate your group...I don't think I'd ever want to play in it.
I have no idea what you mean by that. Why do you think you might be able to dominate this group based on this limited information? Dominate it physically, magically, verbally...?
I think the phrase has been thrown around so much it has lost its meaning/impact.
For me PC generation is concept first then I will "optimize" the hell out of it. However I will RP it to the hilt as nothing annoys me as a player and a GM when people don't...eg I wanna RP a sickly PC with a CON of 14 as mentioned or elves which are little more than a human with stick on Spock ears...
To me my biggest gripe is players playing a mechanical benefit first and either totally forgetting the RP side or playing it as a secondary thought.
I have played PCs which can totally dominate at my table because the rest of the group don't optimize (they have poor "system mastery"...god I hate that phrase...) however I hold back so everyone can shine and only go uber if a TPK is going to happen.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have one particular objection to Stormwind:
Optimizing a character necessarily affects your character's stats in a specific way.
How do you determine your ability scores? It doesn't matter, because the optimal way to make your wizard is INT>DEX>CON>WIS/CHA/STR. What happens as a result, is character building becomes somewhat formulaic and cookie cutter. Show me one optimized level 1 Anything and I can probably show you dozens, nay hundreds of others that look identical. Depending on the level of optimization, these similarities climb up into much higher levels.
Now, does that prevent you from being a good roleplayer? Absolutely not. But, when every Monk has the same stat array, should we still consider it a good starting point for really great roleplaying?
The short answer, IMHO, is that there is probably a very ill-defined threshold, at which point the character has become so formulaic that effectively playing him becomes formulaic as well.
And if you are not effectively accounting for his stat array (CHA 7, you say?), that shouldn't be considered great roleplaying.
Yes, but as has been demonstrated, characters with the same stat array can be incredibly varied.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Quoted for emphasis, because this is exactly what I'm talking about. This is why I am genuinely puzzled by the 10 Strength Barbarian. He can have the exact same character -...
Expression. That's why.
I swear, this article should be required reading for anyone wanting to post on an RPG forum (myself included!): http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/
90% of these threads are nothing but back-and-forth over the subjective definitions of fun. Seriously...give it a read if you haven't. Back on the quoted post, from the article...
When 4E came out, one of the touted features was a reduced and simplified skill list. Many skills were dropped from the game altogether, including crafting and professional skills. Some members of the gaming community went berserk. Do you know why? Right. An apparent reduction of expression.
The thing is, you can say that your character is a blacksmith or a tailor or whatever in any edition. You don’t need rules or skills to back you up, right? So who cares. It is not as if anyone actually used those skills. So what was the harm. Well, the thing that expression seekers understand is that anyone can say anything, but when you choose to expend resources on something, that makes a much stronger statement. That says “this is important, this is central.” When you give up a useful skill like Diplomacy or Athletics in favor of a skill you might never use like Tailoring, that sacrifice says something about what you think is important about your character. It is a strong expression. And people who value the the ability to make those strong statements were upset that that ability had been reduced.
Even though this statement is about skills, it all comes down to the same thing. It's no different than the person who wants to play a 'charismatic character' putting a 16 in CHA instead of merely dumping skill points into Diplomacy and Bluff. It's a statement. It's central. Expression. Either it matters to you or it doesn't, and neither one is wrong. Just like most of the back and forth in this thread, and even the usage of the SF itself.
Yes, but as has been demonstrated, characters with the same stat array can be incredibly varied.
True. But, it's not merely stat array. How many Paladins are Fey Foundlings? How many Clerics have the Travel Domain? How many Wizards have either Foresight, Conjuration, or Teleportation School? How many Superstitious Barbarians are out there?
It's not absolute. Like I said, there is probably an ill-defined threshold. Are you optimizing or are you min-maxing? Who's to say? Everyone will have an opinion on that.
I'm not anti-Stormwind. I'm not advocating the view that any optimization opposes roleplay. I am merely pointing out that I believe there is a deficiency in Stormwind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Optimizing creates power differentials in the part of the game that the game developers think is most important: Combat.
Imagine if Diplomacy were feat-taxed the way, oh, Improved Bull Rush is, rather than being The Second Most Useful Skill In The Game.
Optimizing can turn into a horrible arms race between the GM and the optimizer trying to make scenarios "interesting." This is particularly bad when the other players aren't optimizers.
My experience is that the optimizing players get more fun out of fantasy shopping for super powers than they do out of playing the game. They want to see if their new cool winning combo works.
Much of my experience with optimizers comes from playing PFS, where I play with no real control over who sits down at the table to play (when I GM) or who's joining the table (when I play).
You get the RPG at the intersection of three circles in a Venn diagram:
1) What the system rewards
2) What the GM rewards
3) What the other players reward.
I prefer those three circles to be roughly equal in size. In Pathfinder, it's item 1 dominating.
Yes, but as has been demonstrated, characters with the same stat array can be incredibly varied.True. But, it's not merely stat array. How many Paladins are Fey Foundlings? How many Clerics have the Travel Domain? How many Wizards have either Foresight, Conjuration, or Teleportation School? How many Superstitious Barbarians are out there?
It's not absolute. Like I said, there is probably an ill-defined threshold. Are you optimizing or are you min-maxing? Who's to say? Everyone will have an opinion on that.
I'm not anti-Stormwind. I'm not advocating the view that any optimization opposes roleplay. I am merely pointing out that I believe there is a deficiency in Stormwind.
If I might try rephrasing to see if I get where you're coming from?
The complaint you have is not that optimization is a problem that hurts roleplaying (Stormwind territory) but rather that optimization attitudes reduce the mechanical variety you see at your table?
|
|
I have one particular objection to Stormwind:
Optimizing a character necessarily affects your character's stats in a specific way.
How do you determine your ability scores? It doesn't matter, because the optimal way to make your wizard is INT>DEX>CON>WIS/CHA/STR. What happens as a result, is character building becomes somewhat formulaic and cookie cutter. Show me one optimized level 1 Anything and I can probably show you dozens, nay hundreds of others that look identical. Depending on the level of optimization, these similarities climb up into much higher levels.
Firstly, being perfectly optimized and optimizing some are not the same thing, and it's the first that results in this, not the second.
Secondly, a good optimizer can decide what stats they want and then make a character that is good (potentially very good) with those stats. I've certainly done so.
Although I think I might be able to dominate your group...I don't think I'd ever want to play in it.I have no idea what you mean by that. Why do you think you might be able to dominate this group based on this limited information? Dominate it physically, magically, verbally...?
It's very easy to make broken characters (or powergamed characters as one wants to put it) if one really focuses on it. If a GM is focused on the most optimized character to carry the group and if everyone isn't as powerful...well...I CAN optimize if I want to and if that's the GM's focus....
But be the one the GM is focusing on because the others can't optimize (read munchkin) as well or have to carry the group because of it...
If I wanted to play that way I'd just play solo...by myself...
How many Paladins are Fey Foundlings?
If I'm GMing? I would allow one fey foundling. Then no others until we'd worked through all the other possible optimized characters, which would probably never happen. I'd be more generous with less specific character abilities like Travel Domain. Orc/draconic cross-blooded sorcerer, I probably wouldn't allow even once.
If every other group in the world has a Fey Foundling paladin, that doesn't affect me in the slightest. An original character doesn't have to be the first of its kind in the world, it just has to be novel within our world.(In my fairly limited experience, there is no particular correlation between optimizing and role-playing in either direction.)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Much of my experience with optimizers comes from playing PFS, where I play with no real control over who sits down at the table to play (when I GM) or who's joining the table (when I play).
You get the RPG at the intersection of three circles in a Venn diagram:
1) What the system rewards
2) What the GM rewards
3) What the other players reward.I prefer those three circles to be roughly equal in size. In Pathfinder, it's item 1 dominating.
Wait. Think this through. If playing PFS with people they don't know, then definitionally they can't count on being rewarded by #2 and #3...and thus have to rely on #1. This is how organized play for any game will inevitably work...so the idea that Pathfinder is that different from other games in that respect based on PFS has some problems.
That said, I think Pathfinder as a system does reward certain mechanical things more than many other games do, but it's up to the individual group and GM to make #2 and #3 equal #1 in any game, regardless of which system is being used.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, but as has been demonstrated, characters with the same stat array can be incredibly varied.True. But, it's not merely stat array. How many Paladins are Fey Foundlings? How many Clerics have the Travel Domain? How many Wizards have either Foresight, Conjuration, or Teleportation School? How many Superstitious Barbarians are out there?
It's not absolute. Like I said, there is probably an ill-defined threshold. Are you optimizing or are you min-maxing? Who's to say? Everyone will have an opinion on that.
I'm not anti-Stormwind. I'm not advocating the view that any optimization opposes roleplay. I am merely pointing out that I believe there is a deficiency in Stormwind.
If I might try rephrasing to see if I get where you're coming from?
The complaint you have is not that optimization is a problem that hurts roleplaying (Stormwind territory) but rather that optimization attitudes reduce the mechanical variety you see at your table?
Mechanics and Roleplay are necessarily intertwined. Where you start from is a difficult decision, but they must build one upon the other. I would say mechanics is the most likely starting point, since I would guess most people choose a class first, and then build from there. (Whether they stat first or backstory first from that point is another thread's topic.)
Your mechanics have to reflect your character has to reflect your mechanics have to reflect your character has to reflect your mechanics...
Table variety isn't so much an issue. Matthew Downie makes an excellent point:
If every other group in the world has a Fey Foundling paladin, that doesn't affect me in the slightest. An original character doesn't have to be the first of its kind in the world, it just has to be novel within our world.
I'm just pointing out a deficiency that I see in Stormwind's argument. Namely, that mechanics do affect roleplay, and optimization affects mechanics. There is a point where the intensity of optimization will limit mechanical choices. If optimization becomes a limiting factor to mechanics, it is negatively affecting mechanical choices. If something is negatively affecting mechanical choices, then it is negatively affecting roleplay.
You get the RPG at the intersection of three circles in a Venn diagram:
1) What the system rewards
2) What the GM rewards
3) What the other players reward.I prefer those three circles to be roughly equal in size. In Pathfinder, it's item 1 dominating.
Well, duh. Numbers 2 and 3 require the addition of the idiosyncrasies of people rather than just the game rules so there's no way the PF game, itself, can reflect those. That doesn't mean that for most regular and stable game tables that circles 2 and 3 aren't the same size as #1. PFS is hampered with instability in circles 2 and 3 unless you're always playing with the same group.
There comes a point where you have to ask, "If this character is really so sickly and weak or foolish and headstrong or 'whatever other quality that would very easily lead to the quick death of an adventurer', why are they still alive and adventuring?" You can only de-optimize a character to the point where it becomes unlikely to the point of unbelievability that they've actually survived this long in the dangerous and intense profession of "murder-hobo". So to say, "I'm purposely de-optimizing my character to achieve a roleplay purpose," isn't a blank check for a limitless account; there comes a point where the de-optimization coupled with an adventuring lifestyle is the bad roleplay.
Usually that comes with said character being somewhat reluctant/forced to adventure. Sometimes the unwilling commoner that really ought to be at home reading a good book is the character concept (and once again, for anyone that missed it earlier, I wouldn't ever recommend doing that in a Pathfinder game without checking with the group they're okay with you doing that.)
Sometimes they'll die early. Sometimes the other players enjoy the challenge of having someone to escort (which could work especially well if that person has a much-needed skill for later on), as if that person was an NPC rather than a PC (in fact, it could be better to think of such characters as being extra NPCs played by an assistant GM rather than PCs.)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If everybody at the table is optimized except one player, I see two options:
1. Everyone at the table changes their character to suit the single player.
2. The player makes a new character or rebuilds his old one, perhaps getting help from the other players or the GM to make sure his character can keep up if he really doesn't enjoy the statbuilding process.
In my opinion, #2 is the best option. I would say the same thing in reverse if the optimizers were in the minority.
Alternatively, if optimizing really bugs that player so much, he leaves the group and finds another.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on how you're defining genius. If you mean high Int? Not very often, because the system doesn't give Fighters enough incentive to have a high intelligence. If you mean a brilliant tactician? Not only have I seen a few, I've played a few myself.
Just out of curiosity, how do you play a brilliant tactician with a low Int? What stat makes the fighter a brilliant tactician, and how high does it need to be? What skill(s) do you need and how many ranks in it?
The main reason I ask is that I see a whole lot of highly optimized characters who don't seem to have any negative effects from their 7 Int or 7 Wis and 5 charisma. Because low mental stats don't have defined mechanical penalties, a lot of players just tank their mental stats without any consequences.
Now, I have seen some players embrace their tanked stats, derive memorable personalities for these characters, and play them brilliantly. But these players are few and far between.
Yeah, letting a 7 Int Fighter be a tactical genius sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If you want him to be smart, give him a 12-14 Intelligence or Wisdom. I can buy a tactical genius who's at least above average on the statblock. 7 Intelligence? That's pushing it. Just dumb Charisma and call it a day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, letting a 7 Int Fighter be a tactical genius sounds like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. If you want him to be smart, give him a 12-14 Intelligence or Wisdom. I can buy a tactical genius who's at least above average on the statblock. 7 Intelligence? That's pushing it. Just dumb Charisma and call it a day.
Isn't that what Profession: Soldier is for?
He's a savant. He's ain't got no fancy book larnin', but he knows one thing well, and that's tactics. He can lead armies like nobody's bizniss.
Works perfectly as far as the Mass Combat rules are concerned, and fits thematically as well.