Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Elf Witch]

There is nothing wrong with playing a competent character. I would like to see the role playing issue taken out of these conversations. It drives me crazy that some people think a competent character can't role play and a lame duck is some how a better role player.

I will say that there can be issues for the DM if the players have to much a variety in power levels. There are several ways to handle this one is to bring up the other players power level or bring down the one player's level.

I am more for the former then the latter in most cases. I will never forget the first time back in 2E I rolled two 18s for stats and the others didn't roll as well and the DM made me drop them to 16s.

In another game I played in we had a player that rolled what in point buy would be a 56 point buy. The rest of us ranged from around 31 to 42. What the DM did was give us extra feats. The ones on the lower level got two and the higher got 1 and the highest got none. Everybody was cool with it and it worked out.

Now there are some builds that are legal and yet they step all over another character's concept when that happens then the DM needs to step in and fix it.

A lot of issue could be avoided if everyone played with these two simple rules 1 don't be a dick and 2 the responsibility of every one having fun belongs to everyone at the table.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

IMHO, its not "Stormwind", but "Goldilock" and the "Red Queen".

Where the hell are these descriptors coming from?

 

[SpydersWebbing]

I think the people who have issue with "competent" characters are the people who have had to run games for those who manage to make characters that are nigh invincible. When they see someone doing an even similar action they flip out because it's one step on the slippery slope of power gaming, which I hold to be worse than murder.

So it's not the fact that you want to be competent, it's instances where someone totally ruined the fun by being too good at their job that you're reminding them of.

 

[Hussar]

Now, assume that the "DM" does not Goldilock his encounters, but keeps at a pre-set difficulty level. No matter what, come hell and high water, he wont budge from it. Well, then too optimized characters will make those encounters too easy, and thus boring.

So, because the DM is inflexible and unwilling to take players into account, I, again, have to self nerf?

I'd say that a DM so inflexible that he cannot adapt to a competently played character should be taking some remedial DMing classes.

Again, like Elf Witch, I'm presuming no one at the table is being a jerk and no one is intentionally stepping on other people's toes. But being told that a perfectly reasonable character is "too good" and that I'm a "powergamer" because my character isn't some weak sauce collection of weaknesses is annoying as all get out.

If people can tell me to rein myself in, why can't I tell them to grow a pair?

 

[MichaelSomething]

To some people playing RPGs, it's not about the rules at all.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

If people can tell me to rein myself in, why can't I tell them to grow a pair?

Because then people start a troll war at the table. Because sometimes people can't handle the fact that you want to play a character well (assuming, as you said, that you're not being a jerk about it, and making a totally invincible character.)

Either that or because you might have to leave the group, because people have their comfort zones and how dare you push them out of it.

 

[Kzach]

Thus, bringing in a "too good" character is not altruistic, as it does not help the party, but selfish, as the consequence is that some other poor bastard will bite it. Thus, the resentment.

Why isn't the onus on other people to bring more optimised characters instead? I find it far more annoying to struggle through skill challenges 'cause the guy with the high Charisma and low Strength chose all Strength-based skills. I find it frustrating when combats run overly long because one dude can't hit the side of a barn and so whether striker, defender, leader or controller, isn't fulfilling his role in the party.

Isn't it equally as selfish to not bother to create a decently made character? Why should I carry their weight?

Where the hell are these descriptors coming from?

I got the Stormwind Fallacy name from the Stormwind Fallacy thread on the CharOp forum on the WotC boards: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible

So it's not the fact that you want to be competent, it's instances where someone totally ruined the fun by being too good at their job that you're reminding them of.

But I get enjoyment out of making a character that can do cool stuff in the game. And when I do that cool stuff, this is somehow ruining other people's fun? How about they pick up THEIR game? I'm more than happy to offer advice or help in building characters. If they're not enjoying the game because their character sucks and fails at everything that I succeed it, how is that my fault?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Could it also be possible, Kzach, that your DM is reacting to other people and you're just suffering his response to them?

I know that every time I read a "hey, I figured out how to exploit an obvious loophole" thread or a "help me create a character with six prestige classes and an insane ability to do X at level 20" build thread, I cringe a little, since the results don't look anything like what I'd call a "character," especially since I cling to the notion that prestige classes are meant to represent inclusion in a group or the achievement of some honor, and not just as a grab-bag of not-particularly-balanced abilities.

That said, if you could come to the table and make a Frankenstein's monster of abilities and feats into a recognizable and intriguing character* all that would go away, but I confess I would have an eyebrow raised when you sat down, for a level 1 game, with a carefully designed build all the way through epic levels, without any idea of what's going to happen in the campaign.

* By "character," I mean that you should be able to convert to another system, or go systemless entirely, and the meat of who the character is should remain recognizable. We're likely to convert from 3E to C&C in my campaign next year, and the bard/human paragon/mountebank will probably be converted into a bard/illusionist/rogue or something similar -- but he'll be the same guy, no question. Who a character is should always trump how he's built for some players and DMs. It's not a more right (or more wrong) way to play; it may just be a clash of expectations and playstyles.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

But I get enjoyment out of making a character that can do cool stuff in the game. And when I do that cool stuff, this is somehow ruining other people's fun? How about they pick up THEIR game? I'm more than happy to offer advice or help in building characters. If they're not enjoying the game because their character sucks and fails at everything that I succeed it, how is that my fault?

It isn't. It's all in the perception of what's going on, and to be able to recognize that something is not from the past but is in the present requires the m-word: maturity.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I got the Stormwind Fallacy name from the Stormwind Fallacy thread on the CharOp forum on the WotC boards

I wonder why "Stormwind" got attached to it. The name makes me think it's a World of Warcraft reference, but I'm not sure how optimization vs. roleplay has anything to do with the city of Stormwind in WoW.