Why is it a bad thing to optimise?
- Thread starter Kzach
- Start date
Pentius
First Post
I agree with this paragraph, but not the thrust of the post I cut it from. Sure enough, I don't like being criticized for my choices at character creation or advancement, either. It's just that the thrust of this post assumes one player criticizing another for making a character that is weaker is the norm, and this thread(which mirrors many experiences I have had), is about those with weaker characters criticizing those who have stronger ones.
As long as RPGs are designed around probability to accomplish something there will be characters that are better than other characters at doing certain things.
If a campaign is going to be combat heavy, it stands to reason that characters should be good at combat. If the entire group isn't, they will TPK. If one person's character out of the entire group isn't, the party might TPK and that's what annoys players in such ways as to suggest improvements.
The same can be said of a role-play heavy campaign and possible need to be skils focused.
Ultimately though, it's a shared problem, because if a player makes a character that isn't in the vein of the game being played then it's partially the DMs fault for not managing expectations/balancing the challenges, and partially the player's fault for not being aware of what other players are doing or knowing the rules well.
It's not a game design fault. A game design flaw would be not being flexible enough to have this problem. I don't know any version of AD&D that hand held people.
If a campaign is going to be combat heavy, it stands to reason that characters should be good at combat. If the entire group isn't, they will TPK. If one person's character out of the entire group isn't, the party might TPK and that's what annoys players in such ways as to suggest improvements.
The same can be said of a role-play heavy campaign and possible need to be skils focused.
Ultimately though, it's a shared problem, because if a player makes a character that isn't in the vein of the game being played then it's partially the DMs fault for not managing expectations/balancing the challenges, and partially the player's fault for not being aware of what other players are doing or knowing the rules well.
It's not a game design fault. A game design flaw would be not being flexible enough to have this problem. I don't know any version of AD&D that hand held people.
Unfortunately it looks as if you've run out of original ideas for contributing to the discussion, and instead, devolved into the stereotypical "it's time to try and twist his own words against him to win the argument on the internet" scenario.
Which is fine, it happens, and I've seen it enough to recognize it.
So I'll just say this in a manner that is less confusing for you; there are generally two instances within a game session where PC encounters, of any sort, take place. There are the DM planned encounters, which follow a progressive track, as the PCs do what is necessary to follow the adventure as the DM has it laid out, and there are the encounters that are spur of the moment, off the cuff, DM winging it because it was not part of what was planned.
In the first encounter type, the DM knows what he wants the PCs to do, knows what the PCs are capable of (ie. how optimized the PCs are), and tailors the adventure to do so. Lets call this the straight path. It moves from point A to point B.
If the PCs make all their skill checks, (lets assume because they are all optimized to the fullest extent and never fail checks) find all the clues, defeat all the monsters, this is the path they follow from start to finish. They encounter everything the DM has planned prior to the game session, it's pretty cut and dry.
In the second encounter type, the PC start following the straight path as planned out by the DM, except in this case, the PCs who are not optimized don't make all their checks, lets say that they can't collectively pass a knowledge or Arcana check needed to decrypt writing in an ancient tomb above a door that is sealed with no visible method for getting it open. Even though the PCs need to get through the door to continue down the straight path, they aren't optimized and so their skill checks fail.
The DM asks the players what they would like to do now. The PCs, realizing that they can't solve it on their own, retreat back to town in hopes of finding someone with a better understanding of the strange writing. The DM didn't plan for this, but as the PCs begin exploring the local town, the DM whips up a local NPC sage which the PCs can ask for advice. From there the DM can be as simplistic or elaborate in the encounter with the sage as preferred. He could simply get the PCs back on the straight path, or use the opportunity to throw something completely random into the mix before they get back to the task at hand.
This shortfall on part of the PCs was unexpected but provides the DM with a chance to change the path from straight to winding. Ultimately the PCs reach the end goal, but along the way there are more spontaneous encounters not originally included or planned for in the adventure.
So, at this point I'll say, yes, "suckage" CAN provide more of an opportunity for adventure within a game session than optimized characters. You might not like it, you might not agree, but sorry to say, there it is. The only way in which optimization (ie. passing a check) would support spontaneous encounters is if the PCs are suppose to fail a check and pass instead, which makes little sense.
tl:dr - Less optimized PCs can provide the DM with more opportunity for unplanned encounters, role-play and whatever else than optimized characters do.
And I say that's just blatantly untrue and is part of the problem of people having this attitude towards well-made characters.
Which of course means we've come full-circle in this discussion, twice. I think that means it's time for me to bow out. It's been a good run. Cyas.
Since I can't give you anymore XP, I have to make a post to say: pwned!
No, but he's about to be....
And I'm guessing politeness and working things through with people is not really one of your goals. You could have pointed out, "Hey, these things don't seem consistent, could you please explain?" But no, you had to get personal.
This, when just a couple pages back, I warned folks not to get personal. And I'm still clearly active in the thread, so you're pretty assured I'm going to see you do it....
Does this seem bright to you? 'Cause it doesn't seem at all wise to me. How about you don't do that again, Andor. Thanks.
ExploderWizard
Hero
I'm not so sure about this.
Adventuring parties were at one time groups of competent individuals who banded together for mutual benefit. Fighting men, clerics, magic users, & thieves all had different things they were good at. The fighting man excelled at combat. At range or up close, this was the go to guy for violence.
Enter, weapon specialization. Suddenly the fighter was considered really good only with whatever weapon got a specialization bonus. A fighter that had double spec. in the longsword was suddenly useless in ranged combat despite not losing any abilities in that area (aside from possibly being non-proficient of course).
Now you could have fighters who specialized in ranged and melee in the same party. If the adventure featured lots of close quarters battle in tight caves the bow specialist got to sulk and play Robin to the melee fighter's Batman. During wilderness encounters where engagements might begin hundreds of yards apart the bow specialist would shine and the melee fighter got to feel barely adequate.
Eventually this kind of specialization became available to all classes and character types. These days an adventuring party more closely resembles a colony of highly specialized insects. Each drone has thier own thing at which they excel. The divide between the one narrow aspect of expertise and anything else is so huge so as to make attempting actions outside the chosen aspect mathematically laughable.
A character has become a member of a team of one trick ponies. This is combined by an ever increasing sense of player entitlement. After all, if the rules support building a (insert specialization here) monster then why shouldn't a player expect to use that ability to full potential in most if not all situations?
This design concept and implementation sucks donkey balls.
1. The meaning of specialization implies that there is some detriment to specializing as the opposite of specialization is generalist.
2. Allowing players to specialize does not mean they have to specialize. Those that do should expect to be weak in other areas. Balance doesn't go away because someone is better at one thing.
3. This is not an example of a game design flaw. A game design flaw would be to allow players to specialize their characters, and still allow those characters to be good at everything else.
The flaw in parties where everyone is specialized is that sometimes you need a basic set of tools to get something done and what you have is a party that has the tools to get some nuclear basketweaving done. This works well only when nuclear basketweaving.
Now depending on what you think good game design is, we may be at odds, but I find good game design forces players to make choices for their characters and be ok with not being the star of the show all the time if they make a choice to be a superstar in one area.
Thanks,
KB
ExploderWizard
Hero
In general I agree with these points. Specialization should have benefits and drawbacks. That is the nature of balance.
Again I agree with the theory but as we have seen, actual game design does not adhere to these ideals. Anything that would deprive a PC of superstardom such as not having access to specific toys that provide the best bonuses have been branded as wrong by the tyranny of fun.
Also, challenges have been sliding toward being geared for specialists. If the assumption is that specialization is the norm and the difficulty of the tasks consider this to be the case, what place does a generalist have?
Limitations and restrictions have been tossed aside specifically so that specialists can do thier thing all the time. The design supports this and at the same time makes being a generalist a pointless pursuit.
There's a difference between game design and content development. Design usually is the result of a recognized need to improve sales on a product line, course correct a product line to be more in demand and correct issues perceived with a previous product. Design will usually result in a new edition and for the most part that edition will be re-balanced. Yes, there's some content development in design, but it's built with the design focus on balance. Playtesting is usually more in depth.
Content development's purpose is to add options to the game. Usually this content is in response to player feedback but it may also be due to a need to fill in a missing piece from a previous edition. Depending on what it is, it might be balanced or not balanced against the original game and playtesting is often not deep enough to catch all the nuances.
Ironically, post launch content development is probably the number one reason why new editions need to be designed and developed, sales issues notwithstanding.
This is a chicken/egg scenario. Are challenges sliding towards specialists because everyone is specializing or are people specializing because of challenges?
Note I'm not an advocate of generalists or specialists. I'm just saying that both need to be on a team to ensure that the party has the best chances of survival when a DM mixes up the punch bowl. Too much of either creates risk.
I will call you on attempting a circular argument. If that point were completely true, the posts leading to this conversation would not have happened. Specialists can not do everything well, and generalists aren't as good as specialists at what they do. Whether being a generalist is pointless has much to do with the individual player's preferences.
KB
