Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Janx]

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

According to the thread I started "Is D&D a game" that is an incorrect assumption.

Bear in mind, I started it and was pretty much the ONLY guy who said it was NOT a game.

While your reasoning would have supported my case, the fact is, that is NOT the definition of a game.

Thus, while what you're saying changes the kind of game your playing, it is still a game, and you can't play the "not a game" card.

 

[Pilgrim]

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?

And I don't disagree. I can't speak for other players, but myself however, I want to play (or run) a game. If I wanted story, I'd read a book.

 

[Andor]

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.

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.

I think I see part of where you're coming from. However I'm inclined to feel that any GM who sets up a single pass/fail check capable of derailing his plot, without planning out at least a couple of ways around it is not much of a GM.

Yes, improvisization is a key GMing skill, but in my experience it is far more likely to be called for because the PCs have thought of an approach the GM never considered, rather than because they followed the plot-rail but failed to get past the turn-stile, and the GM had not planned for the results of his own setup.

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.

But... Your own example was that the GM was obliged to provide a sage the PCs could consult and thus get back to the plot line he had already setup. Thus negating the concequences of the earlier failure, and turning it into a mere illusion, rather than an actual failure point. Did I misunderstand?

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.

Your example is a result of a PC failure delaying the party from reaching their objective, and thus drawing out the course of this scenario as they try to make up for their failure.

A check the party succeeded on would allow them to finish the scenario and move on to the next job, or go back to town to celebrate, both of which provide new opprotunities for roleplaying.

I suppose, if in your experience, the GM only allows the party to diverge from the railroad when they experience failure, then your point of view is understandable. In my experience however the memorable moments come from when the PCs succeed at something the GM hadn't planned at all, like a diplomacy check to win the trust of the evil cultist, or picking the pocket of your new employer and thus finding he he's the one behind the smuggling ring.

 

[Kobold Boots]

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.

You're very welcome to your opinion regarding the play style, and I respect it.

From my perspective, characters still die, the group still evolves and players continue on. Sometimes they even die for random reasons, but there's always a cool outcome and the players are given something in exchange for their time commitment.

I'll thank you to keep your opinion to yourself about whether or not this makes me a "bad DM". Anyone not at my table has no right to make that assessment whatsoever based on the limited information presented in this thread.

 

[Kobold Boots]

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

That depends on why you play your game and what your definition of game is.

Because these sort of absolute, polarizing statements (including the one above by Pilgrim) are usually where threads go south for the winter; I'm going to respectfully bow out of the conversation.

Game well.
KB

 

[Pilgrim]

In my experience however the memorable moments come from when the PCs succeed at something the GM hadn't planned at all, like a diplomacy check to win the trust of the evil cultist, or picking the pocket of your new employer and thus finding he he's the one behind the smuggling ring.

All other stuff aside, this a very good, and valid, point. This is an example which I had yet to see anyone toss out, and one that I can agree with concerning an optimized player changing the course of the adventure through spontaneity.

I can see an instance where the DM expects the PCs to fight the cultist, only to have them parley instead. This would most definitely create an unexpected side venture with opportunity for further role-play.

Well played sir, good on ya.

 

[TheUltramark]

Wait, the ranger is the one you would kick out of your group? Seriously? It sounds like a competantly built striker, doing exactly what a sriker is supposed to do, deal a lot of damage.

If another player makes a poorly build character in the same role, and doesn't perform as well your solution is to fire the guy who knows what he's doing? Even though he's moving the game along and the other player is dancing around the table and getting upset that his nerf-bat wielding charcter is less effective than one that uses steel?

Personally I'd be more upset at the disruptive player. I'd also be inclined to keep my employee who performs his job effectively over the lazy whiner, and to pick Mike Tyson in a fight over Don Knotts. YMMV.

maybe I read it wrong, I thought the ranger WAS the disruptive player, throwing the fit be cause he wasnt the "high damage" guy in the encounter, or throwing fits over not getting good roles...basically, fit throwing should be kept to a minimum at our table, as a general rule of thumb

 

[TheUltramark]

No, professional murderers. Think about how many sentient beings most characters kill as they rise in level.... its crazy!

The theif class really is centered around spike damage though. Items that add to it are likely to be what both the player AND the thief would want to equip. Its quite in character to want something like a quick rapier or bracers of mighty striking.

I guess that is jsut my ignorance...I thought thieves were "centered" around thieving - - my bad

 

[Janx]

I guess that is jsut my ignorance...I thought thieves were "centered" around thieving - - my bad

I suspect it treads on the ground that 4e has different expectations in combat that prior editions.

This could trend to a discussion of 4e, which is not really the intent of this thread.

But yes, it does seem everybody gets big damage numbers.

 

[TheUltramark]

Why is that laughable?

I'm making the following (reasonable, I think)assumptions:

1. The character in question is in a party of 4-5(in my experience, the average party size is actually 6-7, due to the 'more players than DMs' effect, but I'm going with 4-5 here)

2. The hypothetical combat in which this is happening is an on-level encounter(at level 2, the hypothetical thief's level).

3. It is built in a fairly generic way, ie, a number of standard enemies equal to the number of characters in the party, and of the same level.

Given those fairly base assumptions, the Thief can drop one or maybe if he's really lucky, two of those enemies. Thus, 3-4 enemies left. The encounter has become easier due to his use of resources, but will still take some beating. That sounds about right to me.

Do you LMAO because you put out encounters weaker than that? If so, they're probably getting mopped up quickly anyway, so I'm not sure where the LMAO comes in.

Do you LMAO because you put out encounters harder than that? If so, they're going to still be a challenge, even after the player blows his resources(and hard encounters basically invite the blowing of resources anyway).

I'm really just trying to figure out what you're getting at here.

As an aside, I'm active in PbP on these boards. If you ever do want to DM for me sometime, I'm game.

I never use one standard per player...ever.
I use a lot of minions, so I can use some higher level foes sprinkled in.

as a quick/off the top of my head example: 5 2nd level partygoers target 625-750 xp: 1 wyrm priest, 1 slinger, 2 dragon shields, 8 minions = 12 kobolds

The character in question... a 2nd level half orc thief with "Gritty Seargant/ Mercanary" or whatever it was (I'll ask the OP about some other time) and the 3rd level magic items is still ,no matter if he gets 10000 d 8 damage is still only going to kill 2 kobolds, leaving 10 - and it would be hillarious if he were to kill - say 2 minions

in other news, I am building up the nerve to start a 4e PbP, I will look for you when the time comes.