'Optimization' does not mean 'versatile', because 'optimum' means best.
I would be very, very, very pleased for you to direct me to a conversation on the board where 'optimized' has to do with 'maximum versatility'
Uh.... have you ever heard of tier system???
Damage doesn't matter when you can cast a single spell and remove 10 enemies from the battle. Wizards are powerful because they can do Everything, not because they can deal damage. If it was, then cavalier, barbarians, and fighters would be considered the most powerful classes in the game.
The reason a lot of posts of "Optimize me" are about optimizing AC or DPS is because that's what people are asking for.
If you look at threads that say "help me make this character" or "which class matches this idea" you'll see a lot of people suggest classes that have more options. Barbs over fighters, bards/alch/investigators over rogues.
So when people ask, help me optimize my DPS, they get options that make them the best at DPS.
Personally I love my Investigator because he's super great at lots of things, and really good at most other things. Meaning with Mr. Middle I'd most likely do better than him in everything without needing to "change the build for the situation"
Which is where the GM comes in. Because while Sir Awesome, Sorcerer Supreme, and Pantheistic Jesus are all great (obviously), because they are who they are, by definition they can't be great at everything. This, in my opinion, is where the issue lies with people who tout DPS over 'yes, but do you sit here??'
I love system knowledge. I am fantastic with system knowledge ...
Indeed... System knowledge can allow Mr. Middling to be useful, or even thrive in that group: by finding a way to either make his party members more powerful (a bard is normally good for this; or possibly medium for the shared seance boon) or sidestepping the character's ability scores (druid or summoner are strong choices).
Or maybe, as much as some deride it, Mr. Middling is primarily along to deal with locks and traps while providing limited support otherwise. A crypt breaker alchemist, for example, can do some damage with bombs, some healing/status removal with infusions and wands, and some utility with other infusions and/or skills; he won't be the "star" outside of his specialty, but he won't be "dead weight," either.
Uh.... have you ever heard of tier system???
No; no, I hadn't. Thank you for bringing this into my line of sight.
"Yeah but hurr durr they need to plan their spells" is meaningless. A Wizard can solve any problem thrown at them with a little planning, and any ones they potentially can't they can solve with a single minute of downtime.
And even if they "lock themselves into a mindset" (which is by nature NOT OPTIMAL) they can change that "mindset" daily.
The first part - how can a wizard change spells (which is what I presume you mean by being able to solve problems, since that's their problem-solving tool) via 'a single minute of downtime'? I'm clearly unaware of this.
The second part ... well, I still don't get your point, because (at least in my mind) versatility requires a) near-infinite repeatability, b) immediate capability to execute, and c) no single-point-of-failure (which a mystic of every stripe has in spades, i.e. lack of magic). I guess my lack of system mastery is hurting me, here, but I ... admit to not thinking that that is totally true.
A person who is "3rd place" in 4 areas and middling in two more is still more optimal than someone who is 1st place in one area and middling to bad in the rest.
Which has been my point. Sorry if that didn't come across.
The first part - how can a wizard change spells (which is what I presume you mean by being able to solve problems, since that's their problem-solving tool) via 'a single minute of downtime'? I'm clearly unaware of this.
You can leave a few spell slots open when you prepare your spells, then when something comes up you can spend a minute to put whatever spell you need in that slot.
The second part ... well, I still don't get your point, because (at least in my mind) versatility requires a) near-infinite repeatability, b) immediate capability to execute, and c) no single-point-of-failure (which a mystic of every stripe has in spades, i.e. lack of magic). I guess my lack of system mastery is hurting me, here, but I ... admit to not thinking that that is totally true.
It doesn't necessarily need those, it simply needs those more than the other classes.
But basically 9th casters have ridiculously more versatility than the people who can only deal damage. Simple as that.
A wizard can leave his slots open and fill them in later. you can prep 1/4 your spells in 15 minutes.
Then you take fast study at lv5, which makes your full prep 15 minutes and minimum prep 1 minute.
Thus the "Optimized wizard" has a few good spells prepped and lots of open slots to fill in what's needed.
"Locking themselves into a mindset" is prepping all your spells in the morning. But you can prep different spells the next day if you wanted to.
'Optimization' does not mean 'versatile', because 'optimum' means best.
If people are talking about "being the best at Pathfinder", then they do mean the same thing, because of the wide variety of challenges a party will be likely to face. I direct people toward the Same Game Test as the closest thing to an objective comparison between classes or specific builds. Even then, I would include more Skill-based challenges than the author of that page did.
'Optimization' does not mean 'versatile', because 'optimum' means best.If people are talking about "being the best at Pathfinder", then they do mean the same thing, because of the wide variety of challenges a party will be likely to face. I direct people toward the Same Game Test as the closest thing to an objective comparison between classes or specific builds. Even then, I would include more Skill-based challenges than the author of that page did.
Exactly. A one-trick pony who becomes utterly useless whenever his one trick isn't applicable is not an optimal character by any stretch of the term.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The second part ... well, I still don't get your point, because (at least in my mind) versatility requires a) near-infinite repeatability, b) immediate capability to execute, and c) no single-point-of-failure (which a mystic of every stripe has in spades, i.e. lack of magic). I guess my lack of system mastery is hurting me, here, but I ... admit to not thinking that that is totally true.
None of which are actually required for versatility.
A character that is versatile is one capable of solving a number of problems. Someone who is optimized for that can do so quickly and relatively efficiently.
Basically think of the difference between climbing and fly.
The climb skill will let you scale vertical surfaces, provided you can make the check. It's limited by your base momvement speed and penalizes you greatly if you ahve to do things other than climb while doing it.
The fly spell costs a resource but it requires no checks to climb that wall, no permanent class choices (skill points can't be bottled and used), can be used on other characters, and can do other things like cross rivers, over lakes of lava, and other such hazards. IT allows a melee character to effectively fight other flying foes and for archers to effectively negate the best tactics of ground based melee threats.
Is it infinitely repeatable?
No, but a big point about class design in pathfinder is that nothing should be that's worthwhile. Eventually you have to rest, eventually resources run out. That's just a fact of the game.
People who focus exclusively on things like DPR, AC, or a single trick without many ways to pull it off are what I like to call bad optimizers.
It's worth noting that pathfinder definitely rewards specialization but it awards specialization much more regularly to those that specialize in a particularly versatile area.
For example consider the summon monster line of spells. Not all of those creatures will be suited to combat, but many will be suited to other tasks like spellcasting, feats of strength or simply as a means of quick transportation from one place to another before the duration runs out.
So, someone who is a summoner that specializes in summoning will solve more problems than someone specialized in spells that go boom.
Another fact to consider is that it is a team game, so a facet of optimization I try to emphasize is what the rest of the group does versus what you want to do. If you're in a group that deals tons of damage without your help, than it's worth specializing in a field other than that. If the group is great at holding enemies back or healing the group than maybe being a damage hurling boomstick is what the group needs.
The point being is that it's entirely possible to be optimized and versatile as both aren't nouns but adjectives to describe a thing and how it applies to that thing is determined entirely by the writer.
For example there are people who believe being an optimized cavalier is all about getting the most out of charges, and thus being completely negated by things like bushes or tree logs.
For me however being an optimized cavalier is being someone who can charge when the opportunity is there but is just as happy and effective being in the thick of things often and quite capable of dismounting and fighting alongside the mount for the best positional efficiency. Not only do I get all the damage a charging cavalier will get but I also remain pretty close to that effectiveness when my primary strategy has been denied me. Overall which character would you rather have in a group?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... Optimization simply means something along the lines of "raising/maximizing your effectiveness at something". But you can optimize your character build for anything and everything.
It can be something as simple and straight-forward as AC or as complex and all-encompassing as "solving problems".
In Pathfinder the optimal optimization is more often than not, "survival and problem solving". In Pathfinder, like in Magic The Gathering, fighting games and most other games around (as well as countless real-life situations)... OPTIONS ARE THE MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE YOU CAN HAVE. And by that I mean real, viable, effective options. Casters in general are considered powerful because they can easilt have access to many different effective solutions to their problems. Fighters are considered weak because their real options are often limited to "hit things with my pointy stick" and "fail".
But complexity is not versatility. If you have dozens of optionS but they all do more or less the same thing or if most of them aren't very good, you don't really have many options. That is where we fins the Core Rogue... Which should theoretically be a versatile class, but fails at a major aspect of the game (combat) and isn't very good at any of the rest either... The class has many options in the form of Rogue Talents, but they are false options. They are so ineffecitve that they don't really give the character any signficant advantage or versatility.
Even Bards and Inquisitors are powerful, as versatility is part of their class.
All 3/4 casters fall under this with the exception perhaps being the magus, who is only slightly less versatile than the rest, so hardly saying much.
I don't know... Magi have some pretty awesome spells... They use vancian prepared casting, which adds to versatility and are Int based, so they usually have good skill points.
Not to mention they have access to Wizard spells and Witch Hexes...
I don't know... Magi have some pretty awesome spells... They use vancian prepared casting, which adds to versatility and are Int based, so they usually have good skill points.
Not to mention they have access to Wizard spells and Witch Hexes...
Their spell list and abilities are more focused on certain area though and there's much less build variety than you would find in a warpriest or bard. The option to get wizard spells is really limited and not often desirable.
They're very good, don't get me wrong, but if we're talking about sheer versatility within the scope of the 3/4 bab, 3/4 caster line I'd put them near the bottom.
Which still puts them miles above the non casting martials.
They are exclusive. I was around when the term roll play first started being used, and a lot of people misuse it today. It is, as a poster said before. A person who plays to roll the dice only. Doesn't care about descriptions, character concepts, story, etc... It was not meant to characterize people who take optimal choices. It was meant to characterize people who only make decisions based on the rolls and do not care about other aspects of the game.
So, first of all, this. ^^
Somewhere along the line, people who like to optimize starting to take this as in insult. When they heard it, they felt like it was a slight on them, because they didn't make "non-optimal" choices, and just had to defend themselves against against this apparent insult, (even though it was never meant to characterize them) and thus the argument was born...
Really, to all the people invoking "Stormwind", who are you actually arguing against? I have been through this entire thread, and it is chocked full of people taking strong umbrage against anyone who might say, "Your mechanical system mastery means you're not a true roleplayer!"
What's notably absent, though... is anyone who is actually saying that.
I have sat at the table and across the computer screen from many players. Some players, whether because they are new, bored or disinterested, suffering from creative block, distracted, shy, lazy, or whatever, simply do not offer any quality or depth of character behind the actions they take. I have sat through an entire AP right beside one player, and at the end of the adventure, I honestly couldn't tell you one thing about "who" the character was. I could tell you his name and class. I could tell you what capabilities he had in combat or skill situations. But, that's all.
I have also seen some of these players struggle through these tough times and really work to improve the quality of "character" they bring to the game. I have known some excellent roleplayers who constantly work to improve the quality of their game. I have been truly fortunate to have been part of groups that work hard to build roleplaying quality off of one another, so that the depth of storytelling excellence just grows and grows through the course of the game(s).
It is a vast disservice to the players that have developed, are developing, and are consistently working to develop good roleplaying skills, to say it's all just the same thing.
"Roll Play" is the absence of "Roleplay". Yes, they are mutually exclusive.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Maybe people take 'strong umbrage' with the objectification of others for no good reason. If you want to call someone names, whoever they may be, just stop.
Maybe people take 'strong umbrage' with the objectification of others for no good reason. If you want to call someone names, whoever they may be, just stop.
I'm sure they would. But, if that's directed at me or my post, would you kindly quote any part of it in which I have objectified someone or called them a name?
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really, to all the people invoking "Stormwind", who are you actually arguing against? I have been through this entire thread, and it is chocked full of people taking strong umbrage against anyone who might say, "Your mechanical system mastery means you're not a true roleplayer!"
What's notably absent, though... is anyone who is actually saying that.
People who say nasty, toxic things tend to steer clear of threads that are looking at them. Just like how there was a thread a while back about the "I've been gaming 30 years, therefore I'm right and you're wrong" thing that happens sometimes, but nobody popped in to say "Yep, that's me!" (and in fact, some people who were guilty of it actually came into the thread for some casual discussion, but didn't make any such comments despite having histories of doing so).
Sometimes they don't do this knowingly. For example, someone who drives through an unfamiliar neighborhood, sees exclusively black pedestrians, and concludes that it's a "bad neighborhood" they'd rather avoid, might not realize they're being racist and if asked what was off-putting about that neighborhood might (with complete sincerity) answer that they "just got a bad vibe while there", and in a discussion of the topic of racism would enthusiastically speak out against it. In the same way, there are lots of gamers who have no idea how elitist they are about optimization and roleplay, and can go into one thread and denigrate someone for taking an optimal character option then click over into a topical discussion like this one and say "Yeah, it's not good to denigrate someone for taking an optimal character option," and never realize what they just did.
Other times, they really do embrace their condescension and avoid metadiscussions like this, because they see the title and think "Hmph, just a bunch of rollplayers patting each other on the back; SKIP!" and so you don't see them here.
But when they're not specifically being looked at? When the behavior in question isn't in the spotlight, and people are just behaving naturally? That is when the comments come out. Not long ago on the PFS boards, a multi-star GM attacked a VC who talked about having a character who is always up to fun/silly antics and also happens to have such-and-such an AC. The multi-star GM announced that that wasn't a CHARACTER, it was a SPREADSHEET, and anyone bringing such a monstrosity (i.e., a PC with an AC that high) would be booted from his table, VC or not.
For another example, in the discussion thread for the announcement of PFS's new CRB-only campaign, someone commented on how excited they were to have a refuge for ROLEplayers who wanted to get away from the ROLLplayers.
Elsewhere, someone actually said that optimization is a "juvenile phase" that players eventually need to "grow out of". Thankfully, that post got deleted.
The common-to-the-point-of-being-a-meme line of "this is a ROLEplaying game, not a ROLLplaying game" more or less always comes in response to someone discussing optimization in some way, such as discussing a good benchmark for frontliner AC, or advising someone on how to get an attack bonus that will let them hit level-appropriate targets, or some other such thing.
When "ROLE/ROLL" is used as a reply to someone making an optimal choice for their character, it no longer means what you say it used to mean. The only way it even makes any sense in context as a reply to the things it's used as a reply to is if it refers to prioritizing optimization over roleplay, as though the former somehow interfered with the latter and the latter were somehow morally superior. Add to this all the times that the same sentiment is expressed without the exact "ROLE/ROLL" verbiage, and the meaning is quite clear to anyone with eyes to see.
Distilling the entirety of a person or persons down to one word is like the defining quality of objectification. I wasn't necessarily calling you out specifically, just pointing out that the debates on this subject often miss the biggest issue with these terms.
What grinds my gears is when people directly link "roleplay" to certain charisma rolls , like diplomacy.
To a point where , either the player is a charismatic person him/herself or there are penalties...
While ofc nobody questions the fact a player is pretty much a door or a weakling , but his PC is a genius or similar to hulk.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
What grinds my gears is when people directly link "roleplay" to certain charisma rolls , like diplomacy.
To a point where , either the player is a charismatic person him/herself or there are penalties...
While ofc nobody questions the fact a player is pretty much a door or a weakling , but his PC is a genius or similar to hulk.
This relates to what I said on the first page: most folks who hold this "role/roll" belief don't actually know what roleplaying is, wrongly thinking it's corresponds directly to speaking in first-person.
I think the hardest part in this distinction is 'shutting off' what 'a player knows' and instead using 'what a character knows'.
Arguments abound about optimization and 'this class can be fluffed to this' or 'this feat path can do this', etc.
But in some circumstances, the logic leaps that a purely mechanical-based player makes is counter-intuitive to the logic behind the items in question.
At the same time, growing a character 'organically' in play is counter-intuitive development for someone who has all their characters carefully charted out from L1-20.
ie
"I took a dip into Oracle to get Charisma Dodge to AC" in the first case
VS
"I looked for insight and... got a bit more than I asked for."
Both styles have their detractors and their supporters, but oil and water mix better if you try to conflate the two.
And all it takes is a match to make a huge mess in that case.
Well this thread got ugly, who saw that coming?
On topic, the terminology used didn't really matter as it is the context of what's being said about roll vs role. In this particular circumstance, it is the same context which perpetuates our need to cite Stormwind.
Sure, there is a way to differentiate roll vs role without trying to offend anyone, but it has not been practiced in this thread.
The worst examples in either category might prompt a person to think they're mutually exclusive.
However, I suspect part of this is promoted in much the same way as certain legislative bodies prevent mutual discussion on topics to push agendas.
Either 'rollplay' or 'roleplay', being a gaming bully and not allowing anyone with a dissenting viewpoint to utter it, or completely shutting it down with angry tones and associations is a power-move, akin to the 'crusher' grip that was taught in some circles as the 'proper way to shake hands'.
Meeting in the middle isn't sexy. It usually isn't pretty. And it typically means 'giving up something' to 'get something'. A lot of folks chafe at the thought of having to 'give up something', but want to 'get something'.
Significantly, this destroys community, rather than building it, though the subsets that support one aspect over another may become more cohesive as a result. This masks the illusion that the community as a whole still functions, and lends itself to 'just us' versus 'justice'.
The worst examples in either category might prompt a person to think they're mutually exclusive.
However, I suspect part of this is promoted in much the same way as certain legislative bodies prevent mutual discussion on topics to push agendas.
Either 'rollplay' or 'roleplay', being a gaming bully and not allowing anyone with a dissenting viewpoint to utter it, or completely shutting it down with angry tones and associations is a power-move, akin to the 'crusher' grip that was taught in some circles as the 'proper way to shake hands'.
Meeting in the middle isn't sexy. It usually isn't pretty. And it typically means 'giving up something' to 'get something'. A lot of folks chafe at the thought of having to 'give up something', but want to 'get something'.
Significantly, this destroys community, rather than building it, though the subsets that support one aspect over another may become more cohesive as a result. This masks the illusion that the community as a whole still functions, and lends itself to 'just us' versus 'justice'.
I like to think that the majority of gamers nowadays (at least those who are forum users) are Stormwind perpetuators who understand the difference and respect the others.
Most forum advice comes in the form of "here's a really strong chassis to play an effective character, apply background story and character quirks as needed" knowing that the mechanical builds on their own do not represent a complete character, but do facilitate a player who already has a story.
Yes they are... because it's not about how a character is built, but when you see that everything about how the character is played is a clear example of mechanical advantage and manipulation over roleplay, that's when you've got rollplay.
....dude what?
Yes they are... because it's not about how a character is built, but when you see that everything about how the character is played is a clear example of mechanical advantage and manipulation over roleplay, that's when you've got rollplay.....dude what?
Not to speak for LazarX, but I think he's pointing out that the difference between roleplay and rollplay is in the playing of the character, rather than the build of it.
The word "rollplay" is a pejorative. Espousing its use or saying that it "just defines a group or style" is apologist speech for objectifying people and styles not liked by the person or people speaking. If you were not aware of that before you are now.
Just as we do not use negative or objectifying words for those who have developmental or learning disabilities, or those who do not share the same religion or ethnic group we should not use this word. This is the basic simple truth of being a decent human being. We should all try to understand each other without stereotyping or objectifying others.
Please everyone do so and stop using the word "rollplay".
If you do not agree with the above please take any "group word" that refers to people or behaviors that are not easily quantifiable and substitute it for "rollplay" or "rollplayer" and apply the same arguments. I would be surprised if it did not sound offensive.
Just try it with say Republican/Democrat and "Real American" and I believe you will see what I mean.
Lumping behavior or people together that is not the same as the speaker's behavior or people, and calling it with a pejorative name is something that we as a species need to get rid of, please try.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's an interesting experience to find a group of people who build strong characters and also roleplay them well, then have somebody stand in front of them and say "It's not that people like you can't roleplay your strong characters, it's that people like you usually don't."
The word "rollplay" is a pejorative. Espousing its use or saying that it "just defines a group or style" is apologist speech for objectifying people and styles not liked by the person or people speaking. If you were not aware of that before you are now.
Just as we do not use negative or objectifying words for those who have developmental or learning disabilities, or those who do not share the same religion or ethnic group we should not use this word. This is the basic simple truth of being a decent human being. We should all try to understand each other without stereotyping or objectifying others.
Just popped in to say that Chris Lambertz agrees with you BTW.
Rynjin, in our Community Guidelines we have a line that says "There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!" This line was written expressly because we do not want people using pejoratives like "munchkin" or "rollplayers" and terms like "Paizo Defense Force." If we missed posts that do this, let us know. We're human, and if we're not alerted to these posts via our flagging system, email, or our Website Feedback forum, we can't do anything about it. Accusing our team of censorship is uncalled for in this case, and if you have further issues, please take it to our community@paizo.com inbox, rather than debating our moderation policies in this thread.
So flag away whenever you see it.
The word "rollplay" is a pejorative. Espousing its use or saying that it "just defines a group or style" is apologist speech for objectifying people and styles not liked by the person or people speaking. If you were not aware of that before you are now.
Just as we do not use negative or objectifying words for those who have developmental or learning disabilities, or those who do not share the same religion or ethnic group we should not use this word. This is the basic simple truth of being a decent human being. We should all try to understand each other without stereotyping or objectifying others.
Just popped in to say that Chris Lambertz agrees with you BTW.
Rynjin, in our Community Guidelines we have a line that says "There are all kinds of gamers here on paizo.com. Use of derogatory labels for other gamers can be hurtful and isolate others who enjoy different styles of play. You may find yourself in a debate on our messageboards, and disagreements are bound to happen. Focus on challenging the idea, rather than the others in the conversation. Remember that there’s another person on the other side of the screen. Please help us keep it fun!" This line was written expressly because we do not want people using pejoratives like "munchkin" or "rollplayers" and terms like "Paizo Defense Force." If we missed posts that do this, let us know. We're human, and if we're not alerted to these posts via our flagging system, email, or our Website Feedback forum, we can't do anything about it. Accusing our team of censorship is uncalled for in this case, and if you have further issues, please take it to our community@paizo.com inbox, rather than debating our moderation policies in this thread.So flag away whenever you see it.
Thank you Rynjin.
I do not like censorship and am not trying to espouse such.
I am however hoping that people will see that using a pejorative for any group or behavior in any context is just not the humane thing to do.
I find the ideas being discussed here interesting and am mulling over a thread idea myself, I would just like to discuss this without using any "loaded" or negative "groupthink" words or assumptions.
So in short let us discuss and enjoy but without objectifying or attacking one another even unconsciously.
P.S. And, no I have not in this thread flagged anyone/thing said as it has been mostly ok, I am just tired of the casual use of a slur.
@LazarX
I get the impression that to you some one saying regarding an in game social situation "I roll a diplomacy of 35" is undesirable correct?