Optimizers, oh my!

[CroBob]

(Emphasis mine)

OTOH, language like this is also unhelpful & inflammatory. When I design a PC, I strive to model his essence as best the mechanics allow me to match the concept in my head: what you see as "horribly ineffective" may be exactly what I was aiming for, and thus, 100% optimized at modeling the concept.

Yes, but if the character wouldn't survive if the DM didn't take special care not to kill him due to your silly desire to play that character in a setting you knew he wouldn't fit in, I suggest the DM doesn't and you reap the reward for all your hard work.

 

[Loonook]

Optimization is completely neutral where breaking the game is concerned. If a player chooses to gimp himself by playing a horribly ineffective character that the DM has to go out of his way to keep in his story (or even alive), then that breaks the game just as surely as somebody abusing infinite Wish loops.
Optimization just helps to see how you can build a character that fulfills your vision. You can optimize a Gnome Sorcerer who specializes in mounted archery. If you don't optimize, this character concept is next to unplayable. But with a bit of system knowledge and the right combination of feats and spells, you might pull it off so your character is not a wild, way out there laughing-stock, but makes a memorable and lasting impression.

If one specifically focuses on breaking the accepted gameplay of a table, it is a breaking strain. Just like every other individual choice you make at the table regarding your character, you need to be in sync with the group. While the definition of 'ineffective' is vague but within a specific realm, the definition of its opposite has a lot of range.

3e, and of course any system really, has an operative range that varies depending on outside influence. Personally, for our table? We choose to use a more narrative approach to character creation and advancement (training, some spells may not have ever been invented/be the result of an adventure of finding the right path). Now that is our way of providing balance in a specific area to keep the range of optimization under control for us. It is also fun to have the desert shah's pet sorcerer whipping out some interesting spells that may not be available without having to actually best him/trade stories/take on a mission... And that barbarian princeling who wields the staff of his ancestors may have access to bloodline magics you could never reach. . . Oh, and polymorphing takes knowledge of the beast, owning a skin, or other means.

Does it work for everyone? I know it wouldn't. But those little things keep a lot of the spell/convoluted feat/class/PrC combinations at bay for our group. If your group is cool with full access pedal to the metal? Works for you.

Oh, and I've definitely seen anecdotal evidence from dozens of DMs over my time of distracted 'rollplayers' optimizers. I've seen them myself. Those who become completely obsessed with their numbers are just like any other tweaking obsessive who squeezes that last tenth of a second from their engine or last drop of efficiency out of their toys.

Some just strictly focus on that. If you find that sweet spot where you can get optimized players who bring good roleplaying to the table? Oh it can be sweet.

But just don't break the game. It's not fun for anyone but the breakers.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I think the perceived correlation comes from situations such as [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION] describes. I've had many intelligent players under my DMing wing, and they know how to work a system and get the most out of it. The trouble arises when I ask them not to use a particular optimization, or suggest that they follow a different path based on what they have told me about their character. This can manifest sometimes as 'I'd rather you not specialize so heavily on fire magic' for instance, which makes my preparation more difficult if I had challenges ahead that wouldn't be suitable for them, or sometimes as 'you describe your character as having travelled all over the known world, and I know you'll expect this to have some advantage for future knowledge checks, so could you take this feat to accompany that concept - no, I want this combat ability instead', which will lead to trouble when knowledge of other locations comes up because they still expect a bonus.

Whether you DM with an iron fist or by negotiation, optimizers in my experience often do so by exploiting the metagame, which means many of them aren't acting or thinking in character at all. In the fire example, they know I can't make them useless for every combat if they are an important member of the party, so I adapt to their expectations. In the traveller example, I can put my foot down, but they'll still ask every time about local knowledge because I didn't read through their background where they visited every major city, or something.

So, whilst I believe roleplaying and optimization exist on two axes, I think that we mostly ignore good-roleplayers-bad-optimizers because they are a lot of fun, we ignore good-roleplayers-good-optimizers because you can use their good roleplaying to prevent abuse of the system. Bad-roleplayers-bad-optimizers cause no harm, but we try to help them do better at both. Bad-roleplayers-good-optimizers are the most disruptive of all these groups, and hence they are the most prominent, and along with good-roleplayers-bad-optimizers we project the two traits onto a single axis: fun.

 

[CroBob]

You can travel the world without caring about or picking up any meaningful information about where you've been.

If you showed the average soldier who has been to Iraq a map of the middle east without any labels, do you suppose they could point Iraq out?

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

You can travel the world without caring about or picking up any meaningful information about where you've been.

If you showed the average soldier who has been to Iraq a map of the middle east without any labels, do you suppose they could point Iraq out?

It was just a flippant example from my past, and you're right, that's what I tell them, but the question always arises.

As an aside, yes I think soldiers who've been to Iraq know where it is. I think they know some of the layout of Baghdad. I think they speak some basic arabic phrases relevant to soldiering.

 

[delericho]

Hence the difference in term, though. Optimizers simply attempt to optimize their character, not break the game. Hell, a visit to the CharOp boards show that, while people have designed utterly broken optimizations, they also don't play them, and suggest that nobody else does.

Whether they play those characters or not, they're still shining a spotlight on the broken parts of the system. Nor are they particularly quiet about it - twice in the last few weeks I've found myself stuck in argument on the topic.

Either way, your very first point is my confusion on the topic. Yes, two axis... so why say "optimizers" instead of specifying the specific kind of optimizers?

I did.

"My objection to the obsessive optimisers is this:"

Statements such as this, [MENTION=22424]delericho[/MENTION], are a huge problem if you want a serious take on optimization and its potential problems:
"For the optimisers, though, the entire goal is to eke out as much from the system as they possibly can. That means pushing the system to its limits - they're deliberately going for those areas of the system that are problematic. Effectively, they take a huge spotlight, and shine it brightly on the bits of the game are broken."

First off, there is no "the optimizers". You let it sound as if there's optimizers, and non-optimizers, which is not the case. You're playing a fighter with good Str? You're already optimizing. And you're doing it to achieve an honorable goal: to be better able to fill your self-assigned role in the party (tactical and character role, btw).

See above. I'll assume you missed the point where I spelled out who I was talking about, rather than that you're deliberately misreading me.

Optimization is completely neutral where breaking the game is concerned. If a player chooses to gimp himself by playing a horribly ineffective character that the DM has to go out of his way to keep in his story (or even alive), then that breaks the game just as surely as somebody abusing infinite Wish loops.

Funnily enough, there aren't online discussion boards where people spend hours discussing the finer points of how to gimp their characters. Besides, when confronted with such a gimp PC, the DM really should just let the problem self-correct. If he goes into contortions just to keep the character alive, he really deserves what he gets.

 

[Loonook]

Yes, but if the character wouldn't survive if the DM didn't take special care not to kill him due to your silly desire to play that character in a setting you knew he wouldn't fit in, I suggest the DM doesn't and you reap the reward for all your hard work.

Yes. It is a silly desire to play your concept.

No, the problem is where a player like DA specifically places a lot of work and background, justifies his feat choices, is functional...

But just to provide something beyond a one-shot-and-done challenge you're building 6-8 CR above the current level for a specific individual/couple. Now you could go Chinese Poker on it and provide for DA's specific focus to provide a similar 'kick' or less effect when he is attacked. Perhaps you can shift their damage potentials to percentages or some such.

But now I'm having to alter the whole metagame framework to keep all of the players on the same keel through the actions of two different types of players. A group deals best with all optimizers or an optimizer who can actually play well with others.

You can travel the world without caring about or picking up any meaningful information about where you've been.

If you showed the average soldier who has been to Iraq a map of the middle east without any labels, do you suppose they could point Iraq out?

Most soldiers I know know their war's location very, very intimately. Try hanging out with a few. You'll gain an interesting outlook.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yes, but if the character wouldn't survive if the DM didn't take special care not to kill him due to your silly desire to play that character in a setting you knew he wouldn't fit in, I suggest the DM doesn't and you reap the reward for all your hard work.

Again with needlessly inflammatory language?

You're not helping your case.

 

[CroBob]

It was just a flippant example from my past, and you're right, that's what I tell them, but the question always arises.

As an aside, yes I think soldiers who've been to Iraq know where it is. I think they know some of the layout of Baghdad. I think they speak some basic arabic phrases relevant to soldiering.

Honestly, I couldn't say if soldiers could or could not find Iraq in my example. I asked the question more to see what you'd say than because I actually had an opinion about it. Speaking basic Arabic phrases, though... I'm not so sure. Layout of Baghdad, definitely... if they spent time driving/marching through it. Do you suppose that's most of them? Again, I don't really know. But even if some don't know this stuff, then it shows travel can be done without picking up information about those places.

 

[CroBob]

Whether they play those characters or not, they're still shining a spotlight on the broken parts of the system. Nor are they particularly quiet about it - twice in the last few weeks I've found myself stuck in argument on the topic.

So?

I did.

"My objection to the obsessive optimisers is this:"

I'm sorry, that's my fault. I specified your quote, but was asking a generalized question about it. I should have chosen my words better.

A group deals best with all optimizers or an optimizer who can actually play well with others.

I'd go so far as to avoid the first thing and stick with the second, assuming you're talking about two exclusive groups. the group could be any number of them where it's an option

Most soldiers I know know their war's location very, very intimately. Try hanging out with a few. You'll gain an interesting outlook.

I actually am a soldier. But here's the thing, even if most soldiers know where their war is, do they all? Okay, the character who traveled the world and didn't pick up anything useful is realistic after all. Even if it's not realistic, neither is a whole lot of other stuff about this game.

Also, I'm sorry if I insulted you at all. That was not my intention. I hadn't considered that I'd feel bad if people got insulted. As I said above, I was half curious what people would answer with, hence the misleading wording. I guess that makes me kind of a jerk, but sometimes I get curious how people react to things.

Again with needlessly inflammatory language?

Designing a character that is so poorly balanced against the game's mechanics that the DM has to put effort into making him not die is silly, unless you want to play someone who's going to die. It's not an insult, it's an accurate descriptor. You're doing the same thing munchkins do, just in reverse.