| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's incredibly silly to imply that because someone doesn't like to game with optimizers that they're a bad person.
Everyone has their preference of who they like to game with, what style of game they like to play, etc.
Saying that optimizers have ruined actual game sessions and campaigns I've been apart of is simply a statement of fact.
Not in the "they were jerks that also happened to be optimizers" way, but in the "they viewed the game entirely different than the rest of the group, which caused a lot drama" sort of way.
If those optimizers were with other gamers who viewed the game the way they do, they'd probably all have a blast trying to make better characters than one another.
Doesn't change the fact that I don't want to game with them, or that I am going to discourage the behaviors I associate with optimizers.
Trying to elevate this to a hate crime is absurd.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am all with you, Tormsskull, but that doesn't change the fact, that even to me, Freehold DM comes across as very hostile against optimizers and he hasn't done anything to clear up, that he doesn't consider all (or at least most) optimizers to be jerks. He could have done that in one single sentence, but instead he dances around the fire just like someone with the intention to add fuel to it.
And in case he doesn't do this intentionally, he needs to know that that's the effect his words on this topic have. Which is as detrimental to this discussion as any optimizer thinking he knows better than any non-optimzer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am all with you, Tormsskull, but that doesn't change the fact, that even to me, Freehold DM comes across as very hostile against optimizers and he hasn't done anything to clear up, that he doesn't consider all (or at least most) optimizers to be jerks.
Well, I'm obviously biased, but what I am seeing is that anytime someone says that optimizers have caused a problem, the response is "Then they weren't optimizers."
This sets up a dichotomy where "good optimizers" are optimizers and "bad optimizers" aren't allowed to be called optimizers.
I completely reject that definition.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's incredibly silly to imply that because someone doesn't like to game with optimizers that they're a bad person.
Man, it's almost like making value judgments on someone's character based on their gaming preferences is stupid.
I am all with you, Tormsskull, but that doesn't change the fact, that even to me, Freehold DM comes across as very hostile against optimizers and he hasn't done anything to clear up, that he doesn't consider all (or at least most) optimizers to be jerks.Well, I'm obviously biased, but what I am seeing is that anytime someone says that optimizers have caused a problem, the response is "Then they weren't optimizers."
This sets up a dichotomy where "good optimizers" are optimizers and "bad optimizers" aren't allowed to be called optimizers.
I completely reject that definition.
well said. Could not have put it better myself.
It's incredibly silly to imply that because someone doesn't like to game with optimizers that they're a bad person.Man, it's almost like making value judgments on someone's character based on their gaming preferences is stupid.
...Unless they enjoy SAW-style games. :P
I'm pretty sure the response has been "there's good optimizing and bad optimizing, you have only noticed the bad". Not only have you only noticed the bad, you only noticed the bad and then used it to extrapolate that an entire group were all identical and all a&!+!!~s.
That is why you are getting a strong reaction, because you are wrong and your logic is non-existent.
when good optimizers do nothing to call out the bad ones save for the most diminished admonishment, it doesn't help the cause.
It would be good if some people took a few steps away from the keyboard. Come back when they are no longer angry.
It would also be good if people could talk about the less extreme cases. There is a lot of difference between someone that creates an ineffective character by mistake or ignorance and someone who takes a 9 or less Int on a pure Wizard. There is also a large gap between a person that is careful that their character stays within an effective range and someone that thinks everyone must put a 20 in their prime attribute or the character is too weak.
I'm pretty sure the response has been "there's good optimizing and bad optimizing, you have only noticed the bad".
Perhaps it would be helpful for you to provide examples of what you consider to be good optimizing and what you consider to be bad optimizing.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
well said. Could not have put it better myself.I am all with you, Tormsskull, but that doesn't change the fact, that even to me, Freehold DM comes across as very hostile against optimizers and he hasn't done anything to clear up, that he doesn't consider all (or at least most) optimizers to be jerks.Well, I'm obviously biased, but what I am seeing is that anytime someone says that optimizers have caused a problem, the response is "Then they weren't optimizers."
This sets up a dichotomy where "good optimizers" are optimizers and "bad optimizers" aren't allowed to be called optimizers.
I completely reject that definition.
I think there's been some misunderstanding on this point due to a sloppy post or two, so let me see if I can clear it up a little.
The idea is NOT that the optimizers-who-were-jerks are not actually optimizers. That is apparently what came across, but that's not quite it.
Instead, the idea is that the person being an optimizer and the person being a jerk are two separate things, in the same way that being a liberal and being judgmental are two separate things.
So imagine we were having a discussion on politics instead of playstyles, and I talked about an experience I had where a liberal was very judgmental toward me (which has happened). If I tried to attribute that behavior to the fact that they were a liberal, you might reply with something like "That's not a story about a liberal, that's a story about a jerk."
Now, such a reply could easily be taken to mean "the bad liberals aren't truly liberals", just like you've gotten the impression that folks are saying "the bad optimizers aren't really optimizers". But what's actually meant is that "the objectionable element of the person/experience had nothing to do with being a liberal", and in the same way, the sentiment that folks are trying to get across to you is that the objectionable element of the "bad optimizers" has nothing to do with being optimizers.
So again, the message is NOT that the bad optimizers aren't really optimizers, the message is that the badness of the bad optimizers has nothing to do with being optimizers.
Make a little more sense?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
when good optimizers do nothing to call out the bad ones save for the most diminished admonishment, it doesn't help the cause.
This is true. This fact does not in any way absolve you of responsibility for your own prejudicial speech.
Make a little more sense?
And my point would be that the objectionable element of optimizers is that they seek to optimize their characters, which in my experience is detrimental to the gaming atmosphere I seek to foster.
IME, optimizers tend to focus so much on the accumulation of mechanical power that they detract from the enjoyment of the rest of the players at the table.
Thus, my experience has led me to be wary of any player that claims to be an optimizer, or exhibits the behaviors I typically associate with optimizers.
So much so that every time I advertise for a game I am GMing, I always make sure to add a clause that says something to the effect of "the focus of this campaign is on the storyline and the character's stories. Those individuals that derive their enjoyment mostly from the mechanical side of the game will likely not enjoy this campaign."
While I would not make a statement like "All optimizers are troublemakers," I can empathize with those that do because I've likely had similar experiences as those making the statements.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
Make a little more sense?And my point would be that the objectionable element of optimizers is that they seek to optimize their characters, which in my experience is detrimental to the gaming atmosphere I seek to foster.
IME, optimizers tend to focus so much on the accumulation of mechanical power that they detract from the enjoyment of the rest of the players at the table.
Thus, my experience has led me to be wary of any player that claims to be an optimizer, or exhibits the behaviors I typically associate with optimizers.
So much so that every time I advertise for a game I am GMing, I always make sure to add a clause that says something to the effect of "the focus of this campaign is on the storyline and the character's stories. Those individuals that derive their enjoyment mostly from the mechanical side of the game will likely not enjoy this campaign."
None of this really relates to the post on which you hit the "Reply" button.
That post of mine was trying to deal with a valid criticism of the "bad optimizers aren't really optimizers" message by explaining that I don't think that's the message people were trying to communicate in the first place.
Your explanation of your feelings about optimization is not a reply to that. So why did you frame it as one?
Some people's bar for what constitutes an optimizer is pretty darn low and/or weird - I once sat down at a PFS table and my neighbor called me a powergamer for bringing a high-Dex elf cleric of Desna.
Oh, and he was playing a halfling summoner riding his eidolon.
a good point.
Next time I'll go into greater detail. The line is in different places for everyone. Maybe I overreacted.
Some people's bar for what constitutes an optimizer is pretty darn low and/or weird - I once sat down at a PFS table and my neighbor called me a powergamer for bringing a high-Dex elf cleric of Desna.
I played an elf cleric of Desna from level 1-11 in Jade Reagent. Really fun character, but I was sad when I was no longer able to be effective with a bow. Augment summoning feat, and luck and travel domains were a blast however.
EDIT: Here is a funny exchange about powering up a clerics archery.Not trying to pick on Adamantine Dragon, but I think that back and forth is a great illustration of the subjectivity of optimizing
My belt struck again.
IME, optimizers tend to focus so much on the accumulation of mechanical power that they detract from the enjoyment of the rest of the players at the table.
Thus, my experience has led me to be wary of any player that claims to be an optimizer, or exhibits the behaviors I typically associate with optimizers.
So much so that every time I advertise for a game I am GMing, I always make sure to add a clause that says something to the effect of "the focus of this campaign is on the storyline and the character's stories. Those individuals that derive their enjoyment mostly from the mechanical side of the game will likely not enjoy this campaign."
While I would not make a statement like "All optimizers are troublemakers," I can empathize with those that do because I've likely had similar experiences as those making the statements.
It sounds to me like you may have isolated yourself such that you are unlikely to meet someone who is an optimizer that doesn't hurt the storyline.
I enjoy the story element of RPGs. I really am not looking for games with that killer scenario or killer GM -- I had enough of that back when Tomb of Horrors was first released. That said, I also try to make sure my character isn't too weak. Your statement would have prevented me from applying to one of your games.
You are likely still going to get jerks applying. They don't care about "Stay Out!" notices. Some of those jerks are likely to over-optimize. This can easily re-enforce your attitude.
The problem may be that you've chased away all the moderates so all you have left are those who already agree with you and the jerks -- what people refer to as the echo-chamber effect.
The problem may be that you've chased away all the moderates so all you have left are those who already agree with you and the jerks -- what people refer to as the echo-chamber effect.
Perhaps, but if I end up with a group of people that already agree with me on the issue, then the ad was successful.
Haven't had any problems with an accepted player that was a jerk. Applicants, sure, but after selecting the best of the applicants, all have turned out to be good players.
Maybe I've just been lucky.
The problem may be that you've chased away all the moderates so all you have left are those who already agree with you and the jerks -- what people refer to as the echo-chamber effect.
This is an excellent observation.
Screening players for your home group is a must, regardless of your stance on optimization.
yup.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying it isn't appropriate to screen people for home games. I'm saying that his method is likely tilting the results and that may be why his experiences are so one-sided.
And my point would be that the objectionable element of optimizers is that they seek to optimize their characters, which in my experience is detrimental to the gaming atmosphere I seek to foster.
This makes even less sense. Everyone optimizes to some extent. Unless you purposefully make bad choices that don't make sense for your character, or you're thick as a brick, the longer you play a game the better you will get at it, and the more game knowledge you will have.
That game knowledge will make your characters better.
I'd be willing to bet that YOUR characters are quite optimized, to some extent. You seem like someone who's played the game for awhile, and you don't seem unintelligent, so there will be some tricks you've picked up over the years.
If you've ever played an Elf Wizard (or any other race that has a matching stat boost to your class), you optimized race and class choice.
If you've ever chosen the Feats that make a certain fighting style better (Point Blank/Precise Shot and the like for archers, Two-Weapon Fighting for dual wielders, Power Attack for 2H users, Improved Trip for trippers, etc.), then you have optimized.
The problem with using "optimizer" as a pejorative is the two degrees of separation from the truth. First, it implies that this is something only a small sub-set of the people who play DO, and then it implies that this is something BAD.
This makes even less sense. Everyone optimizes to some extent.
We're just going in circles at this point.
The crux is that we disagree on what the words optimization and optimizer mean as it relates to TTRPGs.
You seem to want me to adopt the definition you prefer, and I choose not to.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And my point would be that the objectionable element of optimizers is that they seek to optimize their characters, which in my experience is detrimental to the gaming atmosphere I seek to foster.
This makes even less sense. Everyone optimizes to some extent. Unless you purposefully make bad choices that don't make sense for your character, or you're thick as a brick, the longer you play a game the better you will get at it, and the more game knowledge you will have.
That game knowledge will make your characters better.
I'd be willing to bet that YOUR characters are quite optimized, to some extent. You seem like someone who's played the game for awhile, and you don't seem unintelligent, so there will be some tricks you've picked up over the years.
If you've ever played an Elf Wizard (or any other race that has a matching stat boost to your class), you optimized race and class choice.
If you've ever chosen the Feats that make a certain fighting style better (Point Blank/Precise Shot and the like for archers, Two-Weapon Fighting for dual wielders, Power Attack for 2H users, Improved Trip for trippers, etc.), then you have optimized.
The problem with using "optimizer" as a pejorative is the two degrees of separation from the truth. First, it implies that this is something only a small sub-set of the people who play DO, and then it implies that this is something BAD.
Any game with rules has some degree of "Optimizing". This Entire thread can be summed up in the Stormwind Fallacy.
I still stand by the argument that this is a fundamental difference between old school (basic D&D: 1 race/class, AD&D: very limted multi-classing) vrs new school (I buy a book and there is a class in their and I want it gimmie gimmie). The trend I see is old school = roleplayers, new school = optomizers.
Note to New school people: Don't listen to what you hear, you aren't a dork if you roleplay. It is ok to indulge in what D&D is all about, roleplay. If you try it and have a good DM, I guarantee you'll have a blast and won't care so much about optomizing. Okay, that's it.
I'm hereby proposing a new logical fallacy. It's not a new idea, but maybe with a catchy name (like the Oberoni Fallacy) it will catch on.
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa.
Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game.
Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse roleplayer if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically roleplayed better than an optimized one, and vice versa.
(I admit that there are some diehards on both sides -- the RP fanatics who refuse to optimize as if strong characters were the mark of the Devil and the min/max munchkins who couldn't RP their way out of a paper bag without setting it on fire -- though I see these as extreme examples. The vast majority of people are in between, and thus the generalizations hold. The key word is 'automatically')
Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's gameplay. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Roleplaying deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other.
Claiming that an optimizer cannot roleplay (or is participating in a playstyle that isn't supportive of roleplaying) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
How does this impact "builds"? Simple.
In one extreme (say, Pun-Pun), they are thought experiments. Optimization tests that are not intended to see actual gameplay. Because they do not see gameplay, they do not commit the fallacy.
In the other extreme, you get the drama queens. They could care less about the rules, and are, essentially, playing free-form RP. Because the game is not necessary to this particular character, it doesn't fall into the fallacy.
By playing D&D, you opt in to an agreement of sorts -- the rules describe the world you live in, including yourself. To get the most out of those rules, in the same way you would get the most out of yourself, you must optimize in some respect (and don't look at me funny; you do it already, you just don't like to admit it. You don't need multiclassing or splatbooks to optimize). However, because it is a role-playing game, you also agree to play a role. This is dependent completely on you, and is independent of the rules.
And no, this isn't dependent on edition, or even what roleplaying game you're doing. If you are playing a roleplaying game with any form of rules or regulation, this fallacy can apply. The only difference is the nature of the optimization (based on the rules of that game; Tri-Stat optimizes differently than d20) or the flavor of the roleplay (based on the setting; Exalted feels different from Cthulu).
Conclusion: D&D, like it or not, has elements of both optimization AND roleplay in it. Any game that involves rules has optimization, and any role-playing game has roleplay. These are inherent to the game.
They go hand-in-hand in this sort of game. Deal with it. And in the name of all that is good and holy, stop committing the Stormwind Fallacy in the meantime.
I'm saying that his method is likely tilting the results and that may be why his experiences are so one-sided.
It usually does. This is why many of these types of people say the games I DM or Play in. Where I have screened people to play the way I believe is right and proper. What I have ruled as Power gaming, Over powered, or too optimized.
Many a time the I is a very close minded person who thinks themselves always right.
This makes even less sense. Everyone optimizes to some extent.We're just going in circles at this point.
The crux is that we disagree on what the words optimization and optimizer mean as it relates to TTRPGs.
You seem to want me to adopt the definition you prefer, and I choose not to.
And I disagree on what the word "define" means.
But as the rest of the planet disagrees with me, that puts me in the wrong.
Normally I'm all for agreeing to disagree but the definition of a word is not a good place for that. I don't accept your definition because it's too narrow a circumstance. It can basically be summed up as "Someone I don't want to play with", near as I can tell.
Feel free to not adopt the definition everyone else is using, but that just means willful ignorance on your part for some purpose I can't ascertain.
But as the rest of the planet disagrees with me, that puts me in the wrong.
Are you sure you're not exaggerating just a bit? Seems a popular tactic in this thread.
Well I'm PRETTY sure the rest of the planet disagrees with me on what "define" means. At least I HOPE they disagree with my hypothetical self. There's a definition for that. It's in the dictionary.
As it applies to this thread, I'm fairly certain everybody but you and Freehold is using one definition of the word, while you two are using another.
Most people here seem to recognize optimization is a sliding scale. Things can be more and less optimized.
To you two, optimization is only the very very upper end of the scale...which everyone else also seems to understand is where the term "powergamer" is generally used instead.
Further discussion is really meaningless if you insist on using an entirely different definition for the term, as you have adamantly said.
Further discussion is really meaningless if you insist on using an entirely different definition for the term, as you have adamantly said.
Agreed.
So is the problem:
Concept: "Elven Wizard"; that's ok because you chose Elf in your concept. The fact they get INT Bonuses is not optimizing.
Concept: "Wizard"; I choose Elf because of the bonus to INT. <- Optimizer?
Further discussion is really meaningless if you insist on using an entirely different definition for the term, as you have adamantly said.Agreed.
Well...bye then!
*Waves awkwardly as the thread doesn't end in a big flamewar*
*Knock on wood*
Well...bye then!
*Tips hat*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't really win Pathfinder by merely ... winning in it.
"You beat the villain without any single injury or a problem! Congratulations! Achievement unlocked!"
Think of it like arm wrestling. While winning instantly makes you feel more macho, winning through a struggle makes a better story.
Both player and GM are responsible for finding that balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This thread is a lesson in human nature more than anything else.
If I invented a new word that defined someone as a skilled player who understands the game, then the new word would very shortly be adopted as a pejorative by people who hate mechanics. It's just a no win situation for the mechanically adept.
You can't contain people's hate with word craft unfortunately.