Why Optimization Isn't Bad (The Stormwind Fallacy)

[RDM42]

memorax wrote:

N. Jolly wrote:

Cool, we're calling minmaxers children now, totally helpful to the conversation. Got any more negative terms you'd like to throw in there, really make sure you're hitting all the squares on 'high horse bingo?'

Min maxers look at the lego set of a game we've been given and realize certain pieces don't fit together, as though these pieces were poorly designed. And then we get someone coming in saying 'those pieces are fine, you're playing wrong because when I played with them they were fine!', not realizing that it's okay to say 'yeah, those pieces don't work, maybe we can do something about this.'

Can you still have fun with the lego set even without those pieces? Sure, no one's saying you can't. But for some reason or another, some pieces don't work. I still have fun with the pieces that work, but I recognize that not all of it does, and I like to work on ways to fix those non functioning parts instead of closing my eyes and saying everything's fine, as seems to be the mantra of some.

There's this desperate desire to ignore all problems with this system and insult those who actually point them out as though doing so will make the problems go away, and it's really not helpful to the discussion at all.

This isn't even PF exclusive, I've had fun min maxing in other games too, shadowrun is SUPER fun to min max due to all the fiddly bits in there that just call out to be optimized.

Although if you want you can dismiss this since as you said, I am the small child here.

It's a classic response to the flaws of PF if not any rpg. It's not the rpg it's the players styles and/or DM running the game. Without fail. Next no flaws in any rpg as long as players come to a greement to underplay their characters.

Conversely 'it's not much of a problem as long as people don't intentionally set out to break and abuse the system.'

[knightnday]

houstonderek wrote:

thejeff wrote:

system mastery "doesn't need to be a design goal"

Unfortunately, according to Monte Cook, it WAS a design goal (complete with "trap" options in feats and the like), as in, it's built into the system. Paizo has done nothing to change that, and, to be honest, 3x would have to be completely redesigned to take that out of the system.

I guess my issue here is that there are SERIOUS flaws in the 3x system, and no amount of houseruling or limiting options is going to change the fact that 3x is a flawed system. Same issue I have in the C/MD threads: just because you can handwave some stuff, play opponents on "easy mode", or ban a bunch of stuff doesn't change the math in the actual game, the actual game is still flawed.

Yes, that keeps getting said. My response is "And?"

I'm never positive if this revelation is supposed to mean that we all nod sagely and never play the game again because we've been told that it is so flawed, or that we all look at each other, then to the person that told us this, and wait patiently for the rest of the information.

Players here, and I'd wager a lot of those not on the forums here or elsewhere, understand that the system is flawed. Most, if not all systems are flawed. You either accept that and fix what you can, ignore or play around other issues, and try to have fun with the system or you move to another.

But repeating the same old same old about the system being broken and not repairable does .. what? Drive players from the game so that the devs will hear the calls that it is broken? They've heard. Some things they are fixing and some things they do not agree on being a problem.

So yes, it's been heard and answered, by players and staff, the game engine is flawed. Is there anything else to add or should we go back to fixing and playing?

[thegreenteagamer]

If you can find a system that is perfect, you'll have found the first.

[captain yesterday]

I like the Pathfinder RPG personally.

[thegreenteagamer]

I like it for what it is. It isn't my favorite, but it's probably my third after Savage Worlds and nWoD.

[Cavall]

I have had a lot of loves. Earth dawn had a great setting, shadow run was cool and fun, spirit of the century was zany, savage world's was brutal and aptly named...changeling the dreaming made me fast friends and helped me meet my wife.

I think I love the setting of pathfinder, and appreciate the work to fix 3.5 they put into it rather than abandon the game to 4th ed.

[captain yesterday]

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I like it for what it is. It isn't my favorite, but it's probably my third after Savage Worlds and nWoD.

so what is the latter, nWoD. I'm really not sure which way to take the joke.

[thegreenteagamer]

captain yesterday wrote:

thegreenteagamer wrote:

I like it for what it is. It isn't my favorite, but it's probably my third after Savage Worlds and nWoD.

so what is the latter, nWoD. I'm really not sure which way to take the joke.

Not a joke. New World of Darkness. The system, specifically, not so much the world, which is okay but not even in my top 10.

[captain yesterday]

I meant I didn't quite know which direction to take my joke with the abbreviations.

I still got nothing!

[Ryan Freire]

CWheezy wrote:

It actually means the game is bad if you pick the strongest options and ruin it.

If the game was more fair you could pick the strongest options and have the fame still be playable

I'm actually pretty interested in these games where you can pick the strongest options and not have a swarm of internet people claim you "ruined" it or were being cheesy. 30+ years of gaming across nearly all formats and I've yet to encounter this game.

Does that mean all games are bad?