Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So, at this point I'll say, yes, "suckage" CAN provide more of an opportunity for adventure within a game session than optimized characters.

First, you are moving the goal posts. The premise you are refuting was based on the claim that "suckage" provides more of an opportunity to roleplay with NPCs. The counter-argument is that there are ways the DM can still provide roleplying with those NPCs through a different avenue.

Second, your premise that "'suckage' can provide more of an opportunity for adventure within a game session than optimized characters" is not entirely accurate IMO, either. There is no barrier to further adventure for optimized characters. There is a barrier to one particular trope, but it can open others. NPCs seeking the "Arcana Man's" aid could become a side adventure the DM hadn't orignally planned on. It could also be a way the player wants his character to shine by seeking out NPCs to aid with his expertise. Besides, there is very little chance, even in 4E, for an entire party to be optimized in everything. So, if you enjoy the trope of the characters seeking an NPCs aid, try to find another venue for it. If they're maxed out in Knowledges? Put a hard-to-scale mountain in their way. Then they would have to seek out a skilled mountaineer instead of a sage. Fill in the blank with Negotiator, Interrogator, etc. and you still have the trope somewhere if you really crave it.

Third, your distinction between "planned" and "unplanned" weakens when you consider that it was the DM that made the script above the tomb door too difficult to read in the first place. He may not have anticipated visiting a sage, but if he knows the party well enough, he probably should have anticipated the encounter with the sage.

 

[Pilgrim]

Third, your distinction between "planned" and "unplanned" weakens when you consider that it was the DM that made the script above the tomb door too difficult to read in the first place. He may not have anticipated visiting a sage, but if he knows the party well enough, he probably should have anticipated the encounter with the sage.

So, if I'm reading this right, you're saying that A.) the PCs should be able to resolve an encounter given to them, B.) if for any reason they don't succeed, then it's obvious that the DM made the encounter too difficult? And in doing so should probably already plan for the PCs to need the help of an NPC?

That would be pointless and very poor DMing in any case.

So, ultimately, this would equate to the the DM making sure that the PCs always succeed at every encounter placed before them, with no risk of failure.

Not to mention that you didn't take into account something the game is based around, random die rolls. Random rolls being the determining factor between success and failure.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's suppose to work. Without risk of failure the game would devolve into something resembling a poorly implemented interactive story.

As a player who has played in every edition of the game to date, I know just how poorly dice can roll, in every encounter, within a single session, regardless of how easy or hard the encounter is designed.

I'm sorry but I just can't follow that line of reasoning, it just seems too far off the mark.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's suppose to work. Without risk of failure the game would devolve into something resembling a poorly implemented interactive story.

The game is not about the players having an absolute chance or risk of failure. The game is about the players perceiving that they have the ability to fail, thus increasing story and game tension.

Two entirely different things and it's the sign of a great DM that he or she is able to ensure that the players have success while experiencing enough loss that they don't yawn through the game session.

 

[Pilgrim]

The game is not about the players having an absolute chance or risk of failure. The game is about the players perceiving that they have the ability to fail, thus increasing story and game tension.

Two entirely different things and it's the sign of a great DM that he or she is able to ensure that the players have success while experiencing enough loss that they don't yawn through the game session.

Perhaps at your table that is acceptable and even praised as good DMing, but at mine, we consider it quite the opposite. If failure is just an illusion, then we would never want to play under that DM. In our case, without the risk of genuine failure, playing game would be a snooze fest.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

So, if I'm reading this right, you're saying that A.) the PCs should be able to resolve an encounter given to them,

Nope, never said that.

B.) if for any reason they don't succeed, then it's obvious that the DM made the encounter too difficult?

You should know the characters your players are playing. If you know that the highest Arcana check in the group is +10, then making the DC to decipher the script 40 should obviously tell you that you intend for the group not to be able to deal with their challenge on their skill alone. Even if you make it DC 20, you should be prepared for them to need assistance 45% of the time. The distinction is that, as DM, you get to set the difficulty at a level that determines whether the challenge is able to be accomplished with the direct skill of the characters. This is just as planned as if you make the DC a 10 when "Arcana Guy" has a +30 Arcana check.

And in doing so should probably already plan for the PCs to need the help of an NPC?

Depends on how much a DM prefers to prep ahead. If he likes winging the Sage encounter, that's fine. But calling the encounter "unplanned" when it is actually "unprepared" is the difference.

That would be pointless and very poor DMing in any case.

Pre-planning reasonable courses of action the players might take is pointless and bad DMing? I beg to differ. I don't have to prep the Sage encounter, but I may well want to keep that eventuality in mind as a common thing one might do when unable to resolve the issue themselves.

So, ultimately, this would equate to the the DM making sure that the PCs always succeed at every encounter placed before them, with no risk of failure.

I never said this either.

Not to mention that you didn't take into account something the game is based around, random die rolls. Random rolls being the determining factor between success and failure.

I took it into account, I just didn't mention it since it is a basic premise of the game. But a DM can also make those random die rolls irrelevant by placing the DC too high or too low for a level-appropriate challenge.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's suppose to work. Without risk of failure the game would devolve into something resembling a poorly implemented interactive story.

You're not wrong about no risk of failure. But I never built my premise around 'no risk of failure.'

As a player who has played in every edition of the game to date, I know just how poorly dice can roll, in every encounter, within a single session, regardless of how easy or hard the encounter is designed.

Yes, dice are fickle and some days I set aside the new pretty dice and pull out the worn out 30-year-old crayon-filled dice. Welcome to the grognard club.

But, the dice can be as fickle as they want to be when it comes to skill checks. Without the auto-fail and auto-hit feature that attack rolls have a character with a +10 Arcana can never fail an encounter requiring an Arcana check of 11 or less and can never succeed at one requiring a 31 or more. So it is not as 'regardless' as you claim.

I'm sorry but I just can't follow that line of reasoning, it just seems too far off the mark.

I'll go so far as to say that Good DMs do anticipate courses of action their players may take and give some thought to non-mandatory encounters. Ad-libbing an encounter does not automatically make it worse, some people are good at that. But pre-planning can improve anyone's ability to provide a more interesting encounter.

Open up a copy of Keep on the Borderlands and look at the NPCs the author prepared for use when the PCs came looking for their aid.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Perhaps at your table that is acceptable and even praised as good DMing, but at mine, we consider it quite the opposite. If failure is just an illusion, then we would never want to play under that DM. In our case, without the risk of genuine failure, playing game would be a snooze fest.

You missed my point or chose to make your own at the expense of it.

If the illusion of failure is successful your players have no reference point to be bored by and a heightened chance of having the kind of game they want to be a part of.

 

[ExploderWizard]

You missed my point or chose to make your own at the expense of it.

If the illusion of failure is successful your players have no reference point to be bored by and a heightened chance of having the kind of game they want to be a part of.

If failure is present in illusory form only, then you might still have roleplaying but you no longer have a game.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

ok, I am quoteing you, but it is to a bunch of you saying the same idea...

Background: we started in sept the first year of 4e...we had phb1 and frpg, and av1 to start. and we all kinda didn't know what we were doing... 3 of the 5 of us caught on faster, 2 slower... and becuse it was our first 4e try some of it was pretty bad. We ran the H1-e3... the player of the ranger started as a fighter, but died in h2 and had to bring in a new character...now having the edge of understanding and the opt board, and martial power + a few books and starting higher level he came in better.

the rouge was useing a rapier (cost feat) was the str build (from phb1 can't rmeember name of build) he was multi into cleric at low level, and he wanted a good Con and Int too, so he was spread thin.

The ranger on the other hand went 20 dex and a good wis, and almost nothing else.

The rouge wanted holy symbols, and spent a feat on lingustics. The ranger took focus and got the great bow asap,

the tanger had archery bracers

the rouge had bracers that aloud him to use an at will on a charge.

the ranger increased his dex and wis every 4 levels
the rouge split his stat ups to str, dex, wis, and Int...

no matter what item I droped if it had a higher + the ranger player would ask for it to be transfered to his bow...so he always had atleast tied for the highest +.

It sounds like the ranger is pretty much following the baseline, and the rogue is *seriously* underpowered. When you want a weak concept character, and dont want to mechanically fix it, you should at least own it. Either you care about mechanics, or you dont. But you dont get to completely disregard them for your character and then gripe about performance.

If everyone designed weak characters, I GUESS its possible for the ranger to outdamage several of them. Again though, its their conscious choice to build underpowered characters, so complaining when Joe Average ranger shows up hardly seems fair. For me, I too would have a hard time running for them, but mainly because I'd be afraid of killing the other guys. I think a few minor fixes would help even the playing field, by bringing them up some, and potentially the ranger down a peg. Give everyone expertise/focus for free, and ask the ranger to take 2 fluff-esque feats instead with the freed slots. Toss the rogue free proficiency with rapier (thieves get it free anyways) and holy symbols (which I thought came with the multiclass feat anyways). I'd let him sneak attack with any cleric powers too, to help the concept work out better. Hey, the Raven Queen likes Shadar Kai anyways.

If the ranger still needs a nerf, I'd consider removing the damage rolls on some of the out of turn attacks, to steer him towards the more balanced standard action ones. Removing focus and the bracers might work a little short term, but I think ultimately taking away a few bonuses to damage will just slightly delay the same issue from cropping up again in a couple of levels. The core problem is adding all those mods a ton of times each round. Its my opinion that you should pay a damage premium for getting extra/out of turn actions, not get a huge net bonus.

 

[Pilgrim]

You missed my point or chose to make your own at the expense of it.

If the illusion of failure is successful your players have no reference point to be bored by and a heightened chance of having the kind of game they want to be a part of.

No, I quite get your point. I understand that PCs playing under a DM using the illusion of failure will be none the wiser and think nothing of it. They'll think that they scraped by, by the skin of their teeth and had some close calls. I get it.

If a DM is using illusion of failure to run his game, then he has already planned an outline of how the game will run. He knows that the PCs will eventually succeed during the adventure or campaign, regardless of "how close" they came to failing. The DM has already made the conscious decision to railroad the PCs to the end of the adventure, to tell the story, to let them win the game, with "close calls" and "wow we almost failed, but didn't" scenarios.

And I still find it to be bad DMing. As a player, I find it to be rather insulting.

 

[ExploderWizard]

No, I quite get your point. I understand that PCs playing under a DM using the illusion of failure will be none the wiser and think nothing of it. They'll think that they scraped by, by the skin of their teeth and had some close calls. I get it.

If a DM is using illusion of failure to run his game, then he has already planned an outline of how the game will run. He knows that the PCs will eventually succeed during the adventure or campaign, regardless of "how close" they came to failing. The DM has already made the conscious decision to railroad the PCs to the end of the adventure, to tell the story, to let them win the game, with "close calls" and "wow we almost failed, but didn't" scenarios.

And I still find it to be bad DMing. As a player, I find it to be rather insulting.

I don't see this as badwrongfun or anything if the group is having a good time with it. It all depends on what the participants want. Do you want to play a game or tell stories?