Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[JamesonCourage]

Just thought I'd chime in on my feelings here. I definitely agree with S'mon here, in that I don't tailor anything to my PCs, though I am acutely aware of their abilities. Sometimes I internally wince when they make a decision I know isn't good for them, but I don't stop it, either, nor do I change the setting to accommodate them.

Also, I don't have a story in mind. I react to the PCs actions, and evolve the setting naturally (military movements, NPCs getting married / giving birth / getting injured or sick / dying, rebellions, festivals, slavers or bandits or pirates making raids, etc.). This means that there is no story that I'm advocating for or against, and I can fulfill the role as arbiter pretty well. This leads to extremely low prep time for me, as well, which is a nice benefit.

To this end, I do see the game as "about" the PCs, in that the focus in entirely on them. They are not "the ones empowered to make the most significant changes to the story" and they are not "pawns to those in the game world that can advance the story." They do not feel like they're the gods' gift to the setting, and they feel anything but worthless or helpless. I do not see them as anything particularly special within the setting, other than from mindset. That is, they aren't inherently better at anything than NPCs are. In fact, starting out at hit die 1 would be less capable than most NPCs. NPCs are built with the same system PCs are, and average around hit die 4. That's a lot of adversity to overcome in terms of power. On top of that, I don't give them plot protection: no fudging rolls, no fudging tactics, no fudging the setting to make up for bad decisions (or good ones), no fudging NPC statistics. If the PCs win, it's because they earned it. Smart play really helps in the early hit die if you're combat focused (which the game strongly supports, but does not mandate at all... you can be hit die 20 with 3 hit points and no weapon proficiencies).

Where the PCs differ, really, is in mindset: they tend to have a drive that only certain NPCs match; they will fight for their lives until the last breath; they will fight for what they uphold even against great odds; they will do everything within their power to advance their vision of the world, rather than settle down; they will take risks that lesser beings will not. Truly, this is what separates them from most NPCs of any hit die (since you don't need to ever get into a fight in your life to advance in my game, NPCs can be higher hit die without being in a combat role).

Then again, the game I made (and the game we play) is much grittier than a lot of other games, so my tastes seem to depart from a lot of other people. As always, play what you like

 

[CuRoi]

Well, I don't run a game with a pre-written story, it's up to the players to create a story - but really "story" is never something I think about at all as a GM, so "they simply become pawns to those in the game world that can advance the story" doesn't really make a lot of sense to me in terms of how I see the game.

I'd love to read some game session logs if you have any because it would be interesting to see how one accomplishes a detailed, involved campaign setting if there are no stories scripted by yourself that are going on outside the immediate vicinity of the players. Is it a collaborative story telling where everyone just sort of makes up the world and events as they go along? Fascinating concept.

EDIT - Dice 4 Hire was correct on the following portion being "putting words in someones mouth" so I'm just putting in note and leaving to avoid any confusion if I erased it, heh. Totally misread something. Still stickin' by the rest

So never when playing the role of GM/Storteller whatever you may refer to it, do you ever consider the abilities of the party at hand when thinking up, completely on the fly as it were, their adversaries and the ongoing storyline? DnD's level system alone makes it pretty tough to just completely ignore party capability.

Not to say my PCs haven't stumbled into things which they can't at the time overcome, but I've at least considered that fact and offered alternatives so as to not steamroll them with some encounter they aren't at all prepared for or capable of dealing with. Otherwise, I'd be running a game much akin to another thread where the DM felt it fine to TPK a party for what sounded like lack of area knowledge (from the one-sided info I received anyway).

It's just not my style. Especially since I want players to invest time in their PCs and not think of their PC as just "the next one to die". I suppose they call it "gritty" when a player can open the door to the kobold fortress they invaded and find the Cloud Giant / Sorcerer leader on the other side. Again, just not my style.

Of course, if they chose to knowingly square off against a Cloud Giant at level one, well, gloves are off on that one...but I'm not going to just drop something like that on them to prove "I don't script". I've done things similar to that before but generally it is proceeded by some warning and some helpful hints scattered about. Unless they can handle it. Then I'll nuke them from orbit and let them scramble to sort it out.

END EDIT

So, while I also rarely "script" adventures, I find it necessary to at least consider the party abilities/skills/level etc. in most scenarios that arise (whether it comes as part of player sandboxing or the "meta plot", which I do script but which is sometimes altered through player action.) I also find that players truly enjoy encountering problems their PCs can solve and use their specialties on. So while I'm winging it (or not, as the situation demands), throwing in a bone that they particularly like to gnaw on just seems good form. Again, to each his own.

while regularly optimised/powergamed builds typically require cherry-picking sources in 4e - in 3.5e it was more about caster vs non-caster.

Frankly, I'd call 4e and 3.5e the same in these respects - I'd never volunteer to GM a game in 3.5 with completely open sources. Cherry-picking there was pretty bad. I think it happens with any system as they expand (assuming expanions means "more rules to fiddle with" and not "more story/fluff".)

 

[Dice4Hire]

I'd love to read some game session logs if you have any because it would be interesting to see how one accomplishes a detailed, involved campaign setting if there are no stories scripted by yourself that are going on outside the immediate vicinity of the players. Is it a collaborative story telling where everyone just sort of makes up the world and events as they go along? Fascinating concept.

Wow, talk about putting words in someone's mouth.

A whole lot of words.

 

[CuRoi]

Also, I don't have a story in mind. I react to the PCs actions, and evolve the setting naturally (military movements, NPCs getting married / giving birth / getting injured or sick / dying, rebellions, festivals, slavers or bandits or pirates making raids, etc.). This means that there is no story that I'm advocating for or against, and I can fulfill the role as arbiter pretty well. This leads to extremely low prep time for me, as well, which is a nice benefit.

To this end, I do see the game as "about" the PCs, in that the focus in entirely on them. They are not "the ones empowered to make the most significant changes to the story" and they are not "pawns to those in the game world that can advance the story." They do not feel like they're the gods' gift to the setting, and they feel anything but worthless or helpless. I do not see them as anything particularly special within the setting, other than from mindset. That is, they aren't inherently better at anything than NPCs are. In fact, starting out at hit die 1 would be less capable than most NPCs. NPCs are built with the same system PCs are, and average around hit die 4. That's a lot of adversity to overcome in terms of power. On top of that, I don't give them plot protection: no fudging rolls, no fudging tactics, no fudging the setting to make up for bad decisions (or good ones), no fudging NPC statistics. If the PCs win, it's because they earned it. Smart play really helps in the early hit die if you're combat focused (which the game strongly supports, but does not mandate at all... you can be hit die 20 with 3 hit points and no weapon proficiencies).

Where the PCs differ, really, is in mindset: they tend to have a drive that only certain NPCs match; they will fight for their lives until the last breath; they will fight for what they uphold even against great odds; they will do everything within their power to advance their vision of the world, rather than settle down; they will take risks that lesser beings will not. Truly, this is what separates them from most NPCs of any hit die (since you don't need to ever get into a fight in your life to advance in my game, NPCs can be higher hit die without being in a combat role).

Then again, the game I made (and the game we play) is much grittier than a lot of other games, so my tastes seem to depart from a lot of other people. As always, play what you like

We're getting off topic so sorry I started the move - but I'm really fascinated by this "I am the GM and I provide zero story direction" concept. I just don't quite get it.

I, as GM for my games spend hours putting together a detailed campaign world and let the players explore it. As they move around, there are any number of factions that are living breathing entities that will pursue whatever ends they wish REGARDLESS whether the PCs decide to stay home and bake cookies or whether they involve themselves in some sort of external "plot". This is the external story. How the players approach it is up to them, but I am constantly aware of what it entails.

Many times, I'll throw in things which I did not have in this world design based on perhaps their characters interests/skills/abilities or even based on their ideas.

So, that's where my incredulity starts here - a GM that just sits down with some players and says "ok, you are a human cleric, a human fighter and an elf mage...ummm what next?" Seems like an interesting concept. Sort of a round robin story creation thing?

Cleric says "We're in a tavern!" Fighter says "I order a beer!" Elf says "There's a dungeon nearby, lets go explore it!"

What exactly is the GMs job if you aren't providing a living, breathing world for them to explore? And if you are providing that world you are in fact providing the story space they move in. Given you created the world, there must be some semblance of YOU telling them the story. Given that, it seems only in the itnerest of fun to give the players htings to encounter every now and then that will highlight the players abilities and give them interesting things to do with the PC they put a lot of thought into.

I think the most boring story you could ever read would be one where the main characters never find ways to show off their skills. Of course, if you are letting the players create all the scenarios on the fly, I suppsoe you get aorund this issue.

Usually, at my table, the players want to know say, what tavern they are in, what city they are in, who else is in the tavern etc. I'm providing a good deal of the background and things which may (or may not) motivate players ot act. I am pretty much a driving force in the "story" department as it unfolds.

I suppose what you guys are describing is an entirely collaborative effort where players just make some characters and then proceed to describe the world around them and al of their motivations for engagement in that world? Interesting!

 

[CuRoi]

Wow, talk about putting words in someone's mouth.

A whole lot of words.

Sorry - being concise isn't my strong point. It sounds a bit aggressive as I re-read but I am sincerely interested in seeing game session logs (of any DM really) especially if the style is presumably so different from my own.

Letting the players have some seriously expanded control of the "story" does solve the OP problem - with that level of control, optimized or not their PC can make all make a substantial difference in any given story/scene/encounter what have you and perhaps those players that get rankled at sharing a table with an "optimizer" wouldn't care as much?

 

[JamesonCourage]

We're getting off topic so sorry I started the move - but I'm really fascinated by this "I am the GM and I provide zero story direction" concept. I just don't quite get it.

I, as GM for my games spend hours putting together a detailed campaign world and let the players explore it. As they move around, there are any number of factions that are living breathing entities that will pursue whatever ends they wish REGARDLESS whether the PCs decide to stay home and bake cookies or whether they involve themselves in some sort of external "plot". This is the external story. How the players approach it is up to them, but I am constantly aware of what it entails.

We're using words differently, I think. What you call "story" I call "setting". You say stuff happens whether or not "they involve themselves in some sort of external "plot"." I say:

... nor do I change the setting to accommodate them.

Also, I don't have a story in mind. I react to the PCs actions, and evolve the setting naturally (military movements, NPCs getting married / giving birth / getting injured or sick / dying, rebellions, festivals, slavers or bandits or pirates making raids, etc.). This means that there is no story that I'm advocating for or against, and I can fulfill the role as arbiter pretty well. This leads to extremely low prep time for me, as well, which is a nice benefit.

The above, to me, is setting, not story. If a country declares war on another country and mobilizes its troops, I call that an "evolving setting" not "story." Story implies a certain amount of plot, or outline, or somesuch that I don't partake in. An "evolving setting" implies a setting (countries with armies, in this case) that evolves over time (two countries going to war).

Many times, I'll throw in things which I did not have in this world design based on perhaps their characters interests/skills/abilities or even based on their ideas.

So, that's where my incredulity starts here - a GM that just sits down with some players and says "ok, you are a human cleric, a human fighter and an elf mage...ummm what next?" Seems like an interesting concept. Sort of a round robin story creation thing?

Cleric says "We're in a tavern!" Fighter says "I order a beer!" Elf says "There's a dungeon nearby, lets go explore it!"

What exactly is the GMs job if you aren't providing a living, breathing world for them to explore? And if you are providing that world you are in fact providing the story space they move in. Given you created the world, there must be some semblance of YOU telling them the story. Given that, it seems only in the itnerest of fun to give the players htings to encounter every now and then that will highlight the players abilities and give them interesting things to do with the PC they put a lot of thought into.

In another thread I replied to recently, I wrote the following:

I think it has more to do with protecting the players from consequences at any level, rather than specifically on life or death matters. If a PC's life is on the line (such as in combat), you don't fudge to save them (or fudge to kill them). If a PC's pride is on the line, you don't fudge to help it (or to hurt it). If a PC is attempting to do something (no matter what it is), you don't fudge to help them, or to hurt them. You don't really try to fudge results. You don't offer them protection from the big bad things in the world, but you don't arbitrarily throw them at the party.

With that in mind, I definitely have a defined setting with things for them to explore. They can go to the frozen wastes of the continent of Hyal and explore the Great Ruins there. They can travel from the elven nation of Nissalli through the hostile troll nation of Salik and into the Theyline Forest, hoping to make it to the Gates of Neecro where the Everlasting Song resides (the source of immortality for all the immortal races). They can take a short ferry ride led by preamesh (merfolk) from the coast to Drensara's abandoned keep, to see if they can find a lead on the pirates that visit it, or speak to the undead pniephrim (cat-like race) that inhabits it. They can go to Mount Malinthus during the three-way war between Voltonaire, the Empire of Jordana, and Sumein, and attempt to sell their sword to the highest bidder (probably the Empire of Jordana, but Sumein is less strict and the money is close). They can go off of the Mortal Realm to Sayreshi to take the fight to the demons (who are hurting after recently being driven off the Mortal Realm).

There are any number of places for them to explore. I definitely have a setting. Depending on events, I let it evolve naturally. I have no end goal in mind, nor any outline. Like you, I proving "a living, breathing world for them to explore." What I don't call it is a story, I call it an evolving setting (definition of "evolving": "Develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form"; definition of "setting": "The place or type of surroundings where something is positioned or where an event takes place"). I don't like calling it a "story" because of the implication that it has a destination in mind ("story" second definition: "A plot or story line").

I think the most boring story you could ever read would be one where the main characters never find ways to show off their skills. Of course, if you are letting the players create all the scenarios on the fly, I suppsoe you get aorund this issue.

Usually, at my table, the players want to know say, what tavern they are in, what city they are in, who else is in the tavern etc. I'm providing a good deal of the background and things which may (or may not) motivate players ot act. I am pretty much a driving force in the "story" department as it unfolds.

I suppose what you guys are describing is an entirely collaborative effort where players just make some characters and then proceed to describe the world around them and al of their motivations for engagement in that world? Interesting!

I'm very much not a "narrative" GM. I strongly dislike that style of game for the fantasy genre. I don't like "collaborative storytelling" and I dislike the term "storyteller" for the GM. But, that's my personal preference. I think, really, that we're just using words differently.

As always, play what you like

 

[S'mon]

I'd love to read some game session logs if you have any because it would be interesting to see how one accomplishes a detailed, involved campaign setting if there are no stories scripted by yourself that are going on outside the immediate vicinity of the players. Is it a collaborative story telling where everyone just sort of makes up the world and events as they go along? Fascinating concept.

Um, well I'd say "stuff happens" not "story happens". Factions are in conflict, various things are going on, but traditionally I'd be more likely to resolve stuff by random die roll than by pre-scripting. And really I don't know whether my games would be "detailed involved campaign settings" by your criteria, though my players seem to enjoy them and normally I enjoy world-building. I don't much go for "collaborative story telling", though I may solicit ideas from players, use elements of PC backstory, etc.

To repeat, I really have trouble relating to what you're talking about, because 'story' just isn't a concept that features at all in my normal GMing style. I did try for a bit of a campaign arc in my last 3.5e campaign, which was interesting but I didn't feel was widely successful compared to my normal sandboxy approach.

 

[S'mon]

I'd love to read some game session logs if you have any because it would be interesting to see how one accomplishes a detailed, involved campaign setting if there are no stories scripted by yourself that are going on outside the immediate vicinity of the players.

You can check out logs for some online chatroom Wilderlands games I ran at Dragonsfoot here (may be some R-rated stuff in there though we always used 'fade to black'):

Dragonsfoot • View topic - Wilderlands-CSIO NEXT GAME 14th March, 1pm UK time

There was certainly a lot of stuff going on outside the vicinity of the PCs, not sure how much that comes across in play.

 

[S'mon]

So never when playing the role of GM/Storteller whatever you may refer to it, do you ever consider the abilities of the party at hand when thinking up, completely on the fly as it were, their adversaries and the ongoing storyline? DnD's level system alone makes it pretty tough to just completely ignore party capability.

Like I said, I may build encounters to an EL - eg last night I knew I'd have around 6 4th level PCs and the encounter was intended to be challenging for that number of PCs as a single spike encounter (3200 XP vs 4th level 4e PCs, monsters get 1/2 hp), but it wasn't tailored to particular PCs. Actually had 7 players show up.

More commonly I'll create (or purchase) a sandboxy environment suited to a particular range of levels, the PCs start towards the bottom of that range, and are dropped in it.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Like I said, I may build encounters to an EL - eg last night I knew I'd have around 6 4th level PCs and the encounter was intended to be challenging for that number of PCs as a single spike encounter (3200 XP vs 4th level 4e PCs, monsters get 1/2 hp), but it wasn't tailored to particular PCs. Actually had 7 players show up.

More commonly I'll create (or purchase) a sandboxy environment suited to a particular range of levels, the PCs start towards the bottom of that range, and are dropped in it.

..and at its heart we have a GM that is probably very good at sandbox style play in yourself, and a bunch of us that are more plot or script driven that allow the players to change stuff but aren't as sandbox based. GMs will choose a style based on the needs of themselves and their players' preferences.

Both approaches are good, but if we're going to get into debate about what at its core is a GM approach issue, it's better to just accept that there are two good ways of doing things and stop elaborating just to see the post count go up

KB