| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's even assuming the first tool in the bag the party reaches for isn't "Chaaaarge and slay" by default. You can have the most interesting encounter planned out in the world. One where it's going to require dancing skill checks, musical capability, acrobatics, and generally be a fun and novel way to defeat the threat. But if the party's only tactic is to behead everything with their 70 points of average damage per swing, it was all for naught.
And when the group keeps turning court intrigue adventures into "Behead the noble who annoys me and every royal guard, town guard, and sheriff that tries to apprehend me" adventures... Well, you stop trying such adventures.
I actually like it when I get players who favor roleplay over rollplay. Sure, they may not have the most optimized characters. There may not be any combat monsters or skill monsters. But they're easier to challenge, and actually engage in role playing. Thus telling a story greater then "you see monsters, you cut monsters into itty bitty chunks" becomes possible.
The trouble is none of this sounds like a problem with an optimized group but players who simply do not want to play the way you want. And you've been at a loss on how to make that happen.
|
It's been my experience that when someone overly optimizes their character, they often suffer from Hammer syndrome. When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
This then can be a negative impact on the campaign. Get an entire party who does this, and the entire campaign can quickly becomes nothing more then a random dungeon crawl slaughter. Which honestly becomes boring rather quickly when that's ALL you can run. When the only ways you can challenge the party is either throw stuff at them with enough hit points to survive a couple rounds 1 on 1 or throw Save or Suck effects every single fight (and hope the caster isn't killed in the surprise round) the campaign quickly becomes stale too.
At high levels, most campaigns start dealing with more political issues since the party is so powerful by that point they can breeze through most combat encounters. I've then seen a party of min-maxers who go (and one person literally said) "Ew, intrigue sucks" then proceed to kill the perceived bad guy without any investigation at all. Then kill the castle guards trying to arrest them for murder. And the town guard who tried arresting them for murder. And so forth.
Then had the audacity to complain when they kept being attacked by high level bounty hunters who could keep up with them.
But then, that's just been my experience in the past with entire parties of min/maxing players.
The interesting thing about having an entire party of highly optimized combat characters is that combat actually becomes more deadly for the characters. Honestly, anything that makes combat more deadly is worse for the players because their characters will see so many combats in their playing career.And if the entire party is overly optimized... Well, that's actually kind of detrimental to the campaign IMO. The GM has to work extra hard to challenge the players. And published adventures become a snooze fest.God forbid a GM has to work to challenge my group when we're utilizing our best tools rather than our worst.
Not like I want to actually think and pay attention to the fight or anything. Or want my GM to up his game and give us smarter, tougher enemies that feel threatening.
How?
But then, that's just been my experience in the past with entire parties of min/maxing players.
Well, if that's what they have fun with who are you to get upset?
If that's not the game you want to run then talk to them.
The challenging players thing is a question of experience and knowledge.
The other part is a question of expectations. You want intrigue and roleplay. They don't. Neither is wrong.
None of which actually matters when the entire party can reliably splatter anything without at least 150 HP in a round or two, without using up any significant resources.If you think the best way to neutralize monsters is via hit point attrition, that reflects more about you as a tactician than about the game. And the same applies the other way -- a well-played set of monsters doesn't simply do a toe-to-toe slugfest with the opposition.
Google for "Tucker's kobolds" if you want to see a famous example of how to challenge the party.
Tucker's Kobolds is something entirely different.
1) Players were playing fantasy Vietnam (as usual at that time) and searching just for loot.2) So they ignore the kobolds to fight the tough but good loot demons.
3) The demons are tough but also simple (why were the kobolds plated smart, but demons as stupid?)
4) So they came to fear the smart played kobolds. And ran rather than fight when they had the first chance.
5) If they had optimized, buff fire resist/etc they would be fine. Kobolds threw fire bottles.
|
The interesting thing about having an entire party of highly optimized combat characters is that combat actually becomes more deadly for the characters. Honestly, anything that makes combat more deadly is worse for the players because their characters will see so many combats in their playing career.And if the entire party is overly optimized... Well, that's actually kind of detrimental to the campaign IMO. The GM has to work extra hard to challenge the players. And published adventures become a snooze fest.God forbid a GM has to work to challenge my group when we're utilizing our best tools rather than our worst.
Not like I want to actually think and pay attention to the fight or anything. Or want my GM to up his game and give us smarter, tougher enemies that feel threatening.
That's only true if the characters are only optimized for offense. (admittedly - it's surprisingly common) If they're optimized to be well-rounded with both solid offense & defenses, this doesn't apply at all.
And that's even assuming the first tool in the bag the party reaches for isn't "Chaaaarge and slay" by default.
Er,... that's their problem, not yours. Or rather, if that's their first tool, then all you really need to do to make a challenging encounter is do something where "Chaaaaarge" puts them at a tactical disadvantage. Unless they have true seeing or something, then simply having the bad guys put a pit in a concealed location (or behind an illusion spell) will both negate the charge and open a line of fire to the squishies in the back row.
|
|
And that's even assuming the first tool in the bag the party reaches for isn't "Chaaaarge and slay" by default.Er,... that's their problem, not yours. Or rather, if that's their first tool, then all you really need to do to make a challenging encounter is do something where "Chaaaaarge" puts them at a tactical disadvantage. Unless they have true seeing or something, then simply having the bad guys put a pit in a concealed location (or behind an illusion spell) will both negate the charge and open a line of fire to the squishies in the back row.
I think the boss in Rise of the Goblin guild did that. It's one of the reasons that I think it's a great module for totally new players - it mixes in traps & baddies together to make for interesting encounters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How?
The interesting thing about having an entire party of highly optimized combat characters is that combat actually becomes more deadly for the characters. Honestly, anything that makes combat more deadly is worse for the players because their characters will see so many combats in their playing career.Simple, really.
If you make an encounter that is tailored to a highly optimized party, that encounter must also be optimized, one way or another. Either the encounter has environmental circumstances that favor the enemy, the enemies are optimized characters themselves, the DM uses stronger tactics, or whatever; you can't run the same type of encounter for an optimized party that you would for a sub-optimal party and expect the optimized party to experience the same degree of challenge.
Anything that you do to optimize the encounter makes that encounter more deadly for the party. Extrapolate this over the large number of combats that the party will see over their adventuring career, and this increased danger grows exponentially, unless the DM pulls punches.
This has been the case for the 30+ years I have been a GM/DM. Anything that makes combat more dangerous slants against the party.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. I'm sure you didn't mean to write "anything that makes combat more dangerous makes combat more dangerous," but that's pretty much how your last sentence reads.
A well-optimized party can typically handle more encounters or more difficult encounters (or both) than an unoptimized one -- this means that an encounter that would be ordinary for an unoptimized party will be trivial for an optimized one, and an encounter that would be challenging for an optimized party will be probably-fatal for an unoptimized one. But this is just another way of saying that more dangerous encounters are more dangerous.
The issue as I have experienced it is not that encounters are more dangerous, but that the GM's job of designing encounters is more challenging, especially if the players are optimizers but not particularly good ones. For example, if one person optimizes for defense because he wants to play a tank/cockroach, anything that has a chance of hitting him will probably overpower the glass cannons behind him. Result: TPK. If the party has too great a variation in capacities (e.g. Sir Loin of Beef has survivability 10, offense 3, while Archie McBlastsALot has survivability 2, offense 10) there's a lot less room for mistakes or bad luck. (Oh, Sir Loin rolled a 1 twice in a row on his Fort save? That's going to be bad for everyone....)
I've noticed that there are a lot of threads discussing how to optimise a character. Many of these seem to focus on how to maximise one or two aspects for level 20 characters. I'm wondering whether doing this actually means the character is sub-optimal for the majority of their playing career.
Is a character following a design path for an optimal level 20 character actually suboptimal at level 15 compared to a character optimised for level 15? What about levels 5 and 10? Would a character actually be better for more of the game by picking a feat etc that was actually suboptimal in the long term but is a better choice through the middle of the game?
I concure with you.
Can we please compare Level 5, or if you want a longer shot, level 10 builds.
Because Level 10 is a level that can be expected to be reached, and still be played.
Level 20 is a pure hypothetical comparison, with my experience, no relevance to anything whatsoever, as even if you reach it (which about 95% of all campaigns simply dont), its mostly for one or two fights before the campaign ends then.
Level 10 is what you can aspire to, and expect to get some mileage out.
But a build needs to have come together at level 5, and feel like you are playing yor build, and not a proto-caterpillar that will someday hatch into your prefered build.
Level 20 theoretical aircastle calculations have no informational value about how a build will actually perform in play!
|
|
Oh, I can and have dealt with power gamers. And can design adventures to challenge them. It's just harder to do so. And takes longer as you have to optimize Every Single encounter. And you do so just to bring things back in line with the normal difficulty curve of encounters. But have fewer types of enemies you can actually use in your combat encounters without having stupidly high numbers of orcs on the battle field.
But hey, at least Great Cleave no longer lets you chop through an entire army in one round. That got stupidly silly fast at higher levels.
Or in other words... Take away Hal Jorden's ring and he's rather helpless. Take away Batman's utility belt and gadgets, and he's still the freaking Batman. Hell, take away his ability to walk... and he's STILL the freaking Batman, he's going to kick your butt.
Optimization can lean heavily on your party too. My low Str investigator doesn't get a great boost from beast shaping, but give the invulnerable rager a beast shape 2 extract and turn him into a pouncing , raging , DR 9/- sabretooth tiger with 5 attacks and most enemies start backpedaling quickly.
I feel for GMs when they try to create tension with hostile monsters, but well playing players just get the big numbers and slaughter the hostile monsters.
Awesome, we once again crushed the opposition. Makes you wonder why nobody else ever did this too since it feels so easy for just random murderhobos.
|
|
I have no problem with someone making a good character. Or reducing their weaknesses. It's only when people take it to the extremes that it becomes a problem. If you just aren't happy unless at level one you have a +7 to hit and can deal 20 damage, minimum... You're probably going to cause disruptions without meaning to. Anything that could challenge your beastly character, would probably chew the rest of the party up.
But I can handle it. You'll probably develop quite the reputation and become primary target by most sentient foes you face. Especially as you go up in levels and your reputation begins to proceed you. And I'll have to start throwing more stuff at the party that can quickly turn nasty.
Entire party consists of such monsters? Okay, I may ask the players to reroll and make more reasonable characters if it's not PFS. I've dealt with that headache before, and would rather not do so again if I don't have to.
If such a group shows up to a table I'm GMing for PFS, they had better not start complaining about everything being too easy. They're the ones who decided they simply must be able to one shot everything they're likely to encounter.
|
|
Entire party consists of such monsters? Okay, I may ask the players to reroll and make more reasonable characters if it's not PFS. I've dealt with that headache before, and would rather not do so again if I don't have to.
Actually - I've found it much easier if the whole group makes effective characters than if one or two make well built characters and the other characters are much weaker.
|
|
There's a difference between "well built" and "min/max power build" That difference is in the extremes the player reaches for. It's the min/max power builds that give me the biggest headaches dealing with. Especially when things don't go their way. They can be difficult to balance encounters around, and when they can't achieve their absolute maximum output for any reason, many I've gamed with in the past tended to throw a hissy fit.
Or they complain because everything's too easy because I have to keep things within reason for the rest of the party too.
Or they get mad because they got charmed/dominated. Wait, no, scratch that. It's usually the OTHER players that get upset because the power gamer got charmed/dominated. The power gamer in my experience often took glee in proving just how superior he was to the other players, by willingly playing along and attacking the other party members.
Granted, barbarians getting mind controlled is a bad situation for their party to begin with. But most players apologize, not cackle in glee as they dice their companions into itty bitty pieces.
I'll freely admit the quality of such players in my area over the years has probably created a bias.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Or they get mad because they got charmed/dominated. Wait, no, scratch that. It's usually the OTHER players that get upset because the power gamer got charmed/dominated. The power gamer in my experience often took glee in proving just how superior he was to the other players, by willingly playing along and attacking the other party members.
Granted, barbarians getting mind controlled is a bad situation for their party to begin with. But most players apologize, not cackle in glee as they dice their companions into itty bitty pieces.
Yeah, this tells me right here that you're not actually dealing with optimized characters. Truly optimized Barbarians don't get dominated, they sunder the domination that another party member is affected by.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a difference between "well built" and "min/max power build" That difference is in the extremes the player reaches for. It's the min/max power builds that give me the biggest headaches dealing with. Especially when things don't go their way. They can be difficult to balance encounters around, and when they can't achieve their absolute maximum output for any reason, many I've gamed with in the past tended to throw a hissy fit.
Or they complain because everything's too easy because I have to keep things within reason for the rest of the party too.
Or they get mad because they got charmed/dominated. Wait, no, scratch that. It's usually the OTHER players that get upset because the power gamer got charmed/dominated. The power gamer in my experience often took glee in proving just how superior he was to the other players, by willingly playing along and attacking the other party members.
Granted, barbarians getting mind controlled is a bad situation for their party to begin with. But most players apologize, not cackle in glee as they dice their companions into itty bitty pieces.
I'll freely admit the quality of such players in my area over the years has probably created a bias.
It sounds like you have a problem with bad players, not optimization.
|
|
There's a difference between "well built" and "min/max power build" That difference is in the extremes the player reaches for. It's the min/max power builds that give me the biggest headaches dealing with. Especially when things don't go their way. They can be difficult to balance encounters around, and when they can't achieve their absolute maximum output for any reason, many I've gamed with in the past tended to throw a hissy fit.
Min/max =/= optimized
Min/max focuses on a single character aspect and sacrifices everything else in order to max it out.
Optimization focuses on making the character better overall, and this includes being well rounded and having at least decent defenses against both physical and magical attacks.
The former are often glass cannons who do tend to be a bit annoying to play with.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
The most important thing the Paizo forums have taught me about optimization is that most of the community doesn't actually know what that word means.
Amen. XD
I agree that mooks shouldn't cause much danger aside from the super early levels. Bosses however should have risk of PC death if they use poor tactics. Also there are nets in the form of hero points at some tables.
I agree that mooks shouldn't cause much danger aside from the super early levels. Bosses however should have risk of PC death if they use poor tactics. Also there are nets in the form of hero points at some tables.
I think most reasonable players would be fine with dying in a boss fight where they made mistakes that could be pointed out and learned from. I certainly don't hesitate to make my players suffer the consequences of massive, obvious mistakes they should've known better than to make.
Most of the things I and other GMs seem wary of are player deaths that born purely from bad luck. One of the PC deaths I felt worst about was when I two-shotted the party's fighter in RotRL because one of the Ogres with a x3 crit Ogre Hook rolled two Power Attack Critical hits in a row.
That fighter got killed by a mook. Not because he did anything wrong, but because my dice rolled insanely well. Two natural 20s to threaten, and two rolls of 16+ to confirm. He didn't make a glaring error or have a bad build, he just got really unlucky. I wound up adding a random scroll of Resurrection to the loot pile to get him back to life ASAP.
Min/max =/= optimized
Min/max focuses on a single character aspect and sacrifices everything else in order to max it out.
Optimization focuses on making the character better overall, and this includes being well rounded and having at least decent defenses against both physical and magical attacks.
Lol. This debate is so pointless. As we are arguing semantics. And the line between acceptable and annoying behavior is personal and going to vary widely from table to table. But I would define those terms very differently.
I see Min/Max as putting the minimum investment to get the maximum return.
I see Optimization as making improvements in order to be the best possible at doing whatever task you are optimizing for.
In character terms I see the min/max character being more balanced. He defines goals and invests the minimum possible to achieve that goal so he has the more resources to invest in the rest of his character.
The optimizer says I want to be absolute best at doing X task. He says things like... I want to be the strongest; or I want to be the fastest; or I want have the biggest damage per hit/round. And if something isn't improving your ability to do task X, then investing in it is optimizing for it.
And of course this ignores the person I least want to see at the table. The I don't want to be a Min/Max, Optimizing, munchkin... so I make all my choices totally at random without any rhyme or reason.
Min/Max is one of those terms whose meaning has shifted over time. It used to mean exactly what you said: either Minimum investment for Maximized gain, or Minimizing weakness and Maximizing strength.
Over time, Min/Max pretty much been stigmatized due to the exact same issues that cause people to go after the term optimization now. A combination of lots of people claiming they're optimizing when they're making one trick ponies, glass canons, or similarly flawed builds, plus the constant push from the folks who are irrationally enraged by any focus on the game's mechanical side to redefine the term in the most negative light possible.
I've noticed that there are a lot of threads discussing how to optimise a character. Many of these seem to focus on how to maximise one or two aspects for level 20 characters. I'm wondering whether doing this actually means the character is sub-optimal for the majority of their playing career.
Is a character following a design path for an optimal level 20 character actually suboptimal at level 15 compared to a character optimised for level 15? What about levels 5 and 10? Would a character actually be better for more of the game by picking a feat etc that was actually suboptimal in the long term but is a better choice through the middle of the game?
I am going to assume that we are all working with the definition listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimization_(role-playing_games)
To make any use of this definition we need to know what the specific goal is because you can optimise for anything. It can be a narrow goal requiring a high level of specialisation or it could be a broad goal requiring a more rounded character. For example if the goal is quite narrow such as to have the most powerful character at level 20 it seems logical that the same character would be less powerful (and therefore suboptimal) at 19th level relative to a character specifically optimised for level 19. At best they are identical builds, but that seems unlikely based on the complexity of the game. If the goal of optimisation is more broad, for instance to have the best integrated character within a particular campaign, or be the most fun to play, then it may well be possible to have one character that is optimal at every level. Or to state it another way, the optimal solution is independent of level.
My optimisation goal for every new character is a three way balance between:
#1 What I think will be fun to play.
#2 What fits best into the campaign world and will progress the story.
#3 What mechanically will help my character survive.
What I have found in practice is that if you get #1 and #2 right then #3 becomes self evident.
There's a difference between "well built" and "min/max power build" That difference is in the extremes the player reaches for. It's the min/max power builds that give me the biggest headaches dealing with. Especially when things don't go their way. They can be difficult to balance encounters around, and when they can't achieve their absolute maximum output for any reason, many I've gamed with in the past tended to throw a hissy fit.Min/max =/= optimized
Min/max focuses on a single character aspect and sacrifices everything else in order to max it out.
Optimization focuses on making the character better overall, and this includes being well rounded and having at least decent defenses against both physical and magical attacks.
The former are often glass cannons who do tend to be a bit annoying to play with.
This is so true.
I optimize my character. I do not min/max. I strive to be strong in many scenarios, but am rarely "the best" at any single scenario. I can nearly always make a meaningful contribution, but bow out graciously to those who are better at a specific task.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has it ever occurred to anyone here that maybe their players are optimizing because their fantasy doesn't involve the protagonist dieing ignominiously to some inconsequential mook?
There's all this implicit "the players must be in danger" crap, but there are no save states and people aren't going to replay from the start if they wipe unless they do so very early. If the GM "wins" he really loses unless he's just doing one shots or ad libbing the whole campaign because his planned campaign is now good for nothing but kindling. Even Gygax was reportedly only a killer DM at conventions.
There's a disgusting amount of elitism in gaming, but most people playing computer games are not after a soul crushing challenge. The tabletop community has no reason to be different and playing tabletop is operating without a net.
Yes, I remember playing a early 3.5 monk and we fought 3 ogres ( can't remember) at level 5-6 I think. Beat him down to dead.
Wish I knew optimization back then. They didn't even crit it was just regular attacks.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I feel for GMs when they try to create tension with hostile monster.
So do I, but possibly not in the sense you mean. I largely feel pity for them, because that's not how you create tension. Goodness, any film director knows that. If you're going to copy film tropes (which I don't recommend), at least copy them intelligently.
Monsters don't create tension, and monsters with big numbers don't create tension. Neither does pointless risk create tension. Tension is created when you've got a situation where the protagonist can't afford to lose and therefore needs to find a way -- ideally an exciting way -- to deal with an obstacle. Tension is not fighting six ogres at level 1 -- tension is fighting a kobold, knowing that if the kobold gets a lucky hit on you, not only will you be seriously hurt, but the entire fate of the Kingdom of Arcadia will be altered for the worse. Tension comes from story arcs and pacing, not from monster selection.
Tension comes from my character choosing to do something other than the safe and sensible course, because the safe and sensible course is (for some reason) unacceptable. Tension is my going out in an X-wing fighter against a battle station the size of a moon, when a sensible person would just cut and run. Tension is my standing on a narrow bridge screaming at the invading army "come and get a piece if you think you're hard enough" because that's the only way everyone else will survive. Tension is my walking alone into the room where the Philosopher's Stone is kept instead of waiting until Dumbledore gets back from London. Tension is my marching up to the gates of Mordor because that's the only way to keep Sauron's eye away from Mount Doom.
And tension, by extension, is what gives me a reason to do something other than just fly Eagle Express into Mordor and drop the damn hobbits in.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And tension, by extension, is what gives me a reason to do something other than just fly Eagle Express into Mordor and drop the damn hobbits in.
Well, that and the fact eagle express would get derailed by a bunch of towers with archers on them.
And tension, by extension, is what gives me a reason to do something other than just fly Eagle Express into Mordor and drop the damn hobbits in.Well, that and the fact eagle express would get derailed by a bunch of towers with archers on them.
I thought it was because the Eagles are very easily corrupted by the ring and wouldn't manage the journey.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't think it's ever explained why the eagles aren't an acceptable method of transportation. My favorite theory is the one where Gandalf intended to go by eagle but died before he could get to the meeting spot (thus the "fly, you fools" line as a failed attempt to communicate what his secret plan was to the rest of the fellowship).
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought it was because the Eagles are very easily corrupted by the ring and wouldn't manage the journey.And tension, by extension, is what gives me a reason to do something other than just fly Eagle Express into Mordor and drop the damn hobbits in.Well, that and the fact eagle express would get derailed by a bunch of towers with archers on them.
I always thought it was because of the ring wraiths and their flying mounts etc. They'd been taken out by the destruction of the ring before they crossed into Mordor.
(That - and Tolkien was a fan of Deus Ex Machina :P)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The eagles need to work out more. Maybe buy a gym membership.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All of those answers seem like pretty plausible reasons that "eagle bombing" would be a poor idea in an RPG-version of LotR.
Giant eagles have poor AC and no cover vs ranged attacks while flying.
Giant eagles have poor will saves and are thus weak vs the Ego of the magic ring.
Giant eagles may be confronted with bigger, badder, flying foes such as ringwraiths mounted on wyverns or something.
We could probably come up with more if we put our GM-caps on. :P
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All of those answers seem like pretty plausible reasons that "eagle bombing" would be a poor idea in an RPG-version of LotR.
Giant eagles have poor AC and no cover vs ranged attacks while flying.
Giant eagles have poor will saves and are thus weak vs the Ego of the magic ring.
Giant eagles may be confronted with bigger, badder, flying foes such as ringwraiths mounted on wyverns or something.
We could probably come up with more if we put our GM-caps on. :P
Eagles are like "one does not simply fly into mordor"
Eagles are like "one does not simply fly into mordor"All of those answers seem like pretty plausible reasons that "eagle bombing" would be a poor idea in an RPG-version of LotR.
Giant eagles have poor AC and no cover vs ranged attacks while flying.
Giant eagles have poor will saves and are thus weak vs the Ego of the magic ring.
Giant eagles may be confronted with bigger, badder, flying foes such as ringwraiths mounted on wyverns or something.
We could probably come up with more if we put our GM-caps on. :P
Haha, nice. XD
The question is where do you start with your build. I come up with an ideal and then start at level one and build the character level by level until it is a few levels higher than I am likely to play. Next step is to move key powers and abilities to as early a level as possible, where I will get the most run out of it. Stat out the character at levels 4, 8, 12, and 16.
As for the problem of needing a given magic item. You can fix that problem in one of two ways. The first is to in clued the needed crafting feats in your build. The second is have any NEEDED ability come not form the gear, but from your class or feats.
So to answer the OP if you build from the bottom up it should not be a problem for your build at early levels. If you are building from the top down it is a problem to keep an eye out for.
In the end, all that is important is that everyone has fun.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
optimizing is kinda waste of time.
if you make your character OP your gm has to waste time trying to challenge him instead to prepare his story.
if you are more optimized than the rest of the party, they will kick you out.
Everyone optimizes, and being optmizing does not have to lead to being OP for our table.
Don't confuse optimizing, with hyperspecialization, or trying to "win the game".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
As for the OP you might want to define what "you" mean by optimization.
For me it is when someone has a good all around character, but it still good in the area of specialization.
Barbarians I have seen:
Great hit point damage <check>
Good AC <check>
Decent to High saves across the board <check>
Some problem solving abilities such as ending spells and spell effects <check>
Bad optimization:
Great hit point damage <2 checks>, but I didn't buy a ranged weapon because reasons
Good AC <nope>
Decent to High saves across the board <who needs saves>
Some problem solving abilities such as ending spells and spell effects <I dont even know what this is.>
As for the OP you might want to define what "you" mean by optimization.
For me it is when someone has a good all around character, but it still good in the area of specialization.
Barbarians I have seen:
Great hit point damage <check>
Good AC <check>
Decent to High saves across the board <check>
Some problem solving abilities such as ending spells and spell effects <check>Bad optimization:
Great hit point damage <2 checks>, but I didn't buy a ranged weapon because reasons
Good AC <nope>
Decent to High saves across the board <who needs saves>
Some problem solving abilities such as ending spells and spell effects <I dont even know what this is.>
I think it is safe to say he means the Wikipedia definition with the intended purpose being to produce the most powerful character:
Optimisation, in computer and table-top role-playing games, is a term intended to describe a play style or set of play styles alternately referred to by the terms munchkin gaming, powergaming, min-maxing, "roll-playing", or twinking, but without the pejorative connotation of those terms. The core idea of optimization as a play style is that of deriving enjoyment from choosing and benefiting from the game mechanical options that best optimize one's character's performance for some specific purpose—most commonly, speed of power or wealth accumulation. Players who primarily enjoy this play style are called optimizers. This reflects, at least in large part, an effort by game developers and operators to recognize and validate this style of play, and to be able to discuss it and the players who enjoy it without resorting to the traditional, pejorative terms.
As for the OP you might want to define what "you" mean by optimization.
For me it is when someone has a good all around character, but it still good in the area of specialization.
Barbarians I have seen:
Great hit point damage <check>
Good AC <check>
Decent to High saves across the board <check>
Some problem solving abilities such as ending spells and spell effects <check>Bad optimization:
Great hit point damage <2 checks>, but I didn't buy a ranged weapon because reasons
Good AC <nope>
Decent to High saves across the board <who needs saves>
Some problem solving abilities such as ending spells and spell effects <I dont even know what this is.>
I think it is safe to say he means the Wikipedia definition with the intended purpose being to produce the most powerful character:
Optimisation, in computer and table-top role-playing games, is a term intended to describe a play style or set of play styles alternately referred to by the terms munchkin gaming, powergaming, min-maxing, "roll-playing", or twinking, but without the pejorative connotation of those terms. The core idea of optimization as a play style is that of deriving enjoyment from choosing and benefiting from the game mechanical options that best optimize one's character's performance for some specific purpose—most commonly, speed of power or wealth accumulation. Players who primarily enjoy this play style are called optimizers. This reflects, at least in large part, an effort by game developers and operators to recognize and validate this style of play, and to be able to discuss it and the players who enjoy it without resorting to the traditional, pejorative terms.
Wikipedia does not define the terms on this board. Also anyone including myself can log into wikipedia right now and change that entry. It is nothing, but info put forth by volunteers. While it is useful, it is only as valid as the sources it cites, and the cited source is just some random guy.
So until the OP speaks for himself we dont know what he means. Even then he will have to define what is counsts as "too much".
From that article--> "This article does not cite any sources."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<wraithstrike has a worked example, Boomerang quotes Wikipedia, wraithstrike wants my definition
I think the Wikipedia quote is a more than reasonable summary of the meaning of optimisation. It does mean different things to different people but ultimately it is to get a mechanical advantage in the game rules.
As I said in my OP I've noted that there are a lot of threads that discuss optimisation, which seem to have a focus of how can I get the best x or help me build the best y. Invariably these seem to concentrate on maximising a particular attribute, aspect or capability for level 20. My question was, really is this sensible and the consensus appears to be no but there are a number of different views on what actually constitutes optimisation.
To my mind, optimisation should be about building the party to be the most effective team and as I tend to GM rather than play I absolutely encourage that. I think that if all the players over-specialise independently then the team is likely to suffer and have huge holes in their capability. Similarly, if all the players over-generalise then the group is not maximising its potential.
An effective team should be able to handle any level appropriate thing thrown at it. A group of independently created highly optimised PCs are likely to find certain types of threat very easy and others fatally difficult.