Any limits to Optimization?

[Desh-Rae-Halra]

Hi,

I have been wondering about the boundaries of character optimization. Now let me say first that I do like having a character that is good at doing at least something, if not a few things. But it dawned on me that there are certain limits to it. So my question is this. Do you have a self-set line/boundary regarding optimization?

I ask because I have noticed that optimized characters can unbalance a game (say 1 in a 4 person party that optimized for damage makes everyone else seem weak/virtually useless in comparison).

Or where the optimized character is so specialized (lets say again combat damage) that they are not useful in any other situation (social, stealth, investigation).

Does it throw off the encounters? If a DM starts upping the CR, then do other (non-optimized) players suffer?

Will you optimize a character until the GM says "No", or how do you see optimizations effect on your games.

Do optimizers tend to favor lots of crunchy mechanics over story?

Thanks,

Desh-Rae-Halra

 

[Neonchameleon]

OK. Firstly, I'm going to split Explorers off from Net Deckers - both are people lumped under the heading of optimisers. The difference is that a Net Decker wants to play a powerful character and will read through the guides, picking the "best" options. An Explorer wants to understand the game and the system and is likely to write some of those guides. (They are also likely to read the guides; it's always good to get other perspectives and see the signposts others have put up even if you think they head towards the swamp).

A Net Decker is likely to min-max in my experience and end up with a one trick pony.

An Explorer wants to engage with the system. They might well produce one trick ponies - but that's for the theory competitions. Breadth matters at least as much as focus because you can explore much more with breadth.

(This isn't to say that Explorers don't deliberately produce crippling weaknesses in their character - a fictional example of a character min-maxed by an Explorer appeared in a summer blockbuster this year. Min maxed to the point of only being able to say three words, and putting the points from that crippling disadvantage into other stuff. Those three words? "I am Groot!")

And where to stop? It depends entirely on the group and what you are exploring. And what the game is. Generally my line is "All else being equal, don't use blatant exploits". Until I know exactly what the group and GM are going for.

 

[gamerprinter]

My only comment is as long as everyone at the table is doing the same level of optimization, including the GM, it generally all works fine. Problems arise when only one or more, but not everyone is optimizing their characters. A group consisting of mixed optimizers generally leads to problems. At my table, I had one guy that has a very good mastery of the rules, with a table that is 2/3rds mostly new players - having never played an RPG before this. At low and mid levels it really wasn't a problem (though still noticeable), but once the class features and spell access began to pile up at higher levels the difference between the overly optimized and the barely optimized was huge and very noticeable in play - to the point that the non-optimizers felt like minions following one serious hero and the game fell apart. You don't even have to min/max to make non-optimizers to feel the difference once you get to higher levels.

As along as everyone is basically optimizing at a similar level, there should be no problems (at least not those kind of issues.)

And yes, if you up the challenge level to make optimized characters feel on equal footing, the under optimized characters will feel it, and perhaps their PCs will die because of it. Since asking players with under optimized characters to improve their system mastery is a much harder consideration than asking the system master to back down on optimization a bit. Either some level of consensus by all party members to work on the same level so the game will be more fun for all involved, or the system master needs to find another group that is more on par with his level optimization - as the only result seems that some players will not be having fun, and isn't having fun the purpose for participating in a game in the first place?

 

[steenan]

I avoid games that demand contradictory things from me. The most common case of such problematic games are games that expect me to play efficiently and tactically (combat is an important part of play and defeat is not interesting) but break when one approaches them this way and optimizes.


In games that are really designed for tactics and balanced with "playing to win" in mind, optimization is not a problem. It will make characters stronger, but not in a way that disrupts play and destroys fun for everyone.

In well designed games, optimizing for mechanical efficiency makes the play more interesting, not less. For example, in Fate, a character is more efficient if they have aspects that can be easily invoked (used for a bonus) and compelled (used to introduce a complication for a character and gain a fate point) - but the character is also more flavorful and fun in play.

There are well designed games that have no place for optimization, but they communicate it clearly. They are not about winning, they don't expect and assume that PCs will win and they make defeat interesting. If a game focuses on relations, values and hard choices, optimizing for winning conflicts directly contradicts the game's goals. You could "optimize" by pursuing conflicting values and having complicated relationships, to make sure that your character's life will be interesting.


For me, the limits of optimization are:
- Work within the rules of the game, where "rules" include its stated goals, intended style and play principles as much as dice rolls and character resources. Doing otherwise is cheating.
- Work within the fiction. Optimize in a way that can be coherently explained in the setting, without ignoring common sense and flavor of various game pieces. Doing otherwise is not playing an RPG.
- Work with a well-designed game. Doing otherwise is wasting your and your friends' time.

 

[GMMichael]

I ask because I have noticed that optimized characters can unbalance a game (say 1 in a 4 person party that optimized for damage makes everyone else seem weak/virtually useless in comparison).

There's a key phrase here. "Optimized for damage." A character can be specialized in several different ways, so it's important to know what that specialization is. Also, I'm going to treat "optimized" as a slightly-more-balanced version of minmaxed. The latter being a character who is poor at everything besides his One Thing.

Or where the optimized character is so specialized (lets say again combat damage) that they are not useful in any other situation (social, stealth, investigation).

See minmaxed.

Does it throw off the encounters? If a DM starts upping the CR, then do other (non-optimized) players suffer?

I'd say it can make encounters more interesting. A damage-optimized character will neatly handle the damage requirements of an encounter, but poorly handle the negotiation, gentle-persuasion, trap finding or avoiding, and many other possible resolution requirements. If no one else in the party is very good at dealing damage, they'll be happy to have this optimized character.

Upping the CR just makes your opponents more difficult. In what way should they be more difficult - that's the question you want to ask.

Will you optimize a character until the GM says "No", or how do you see optimizations effect on your games.

An optimized character has weaknesses. As long as he has to worry about those, his optimization isn't an issue.

It depends entirely on the group and what you are exploring. And what the game is. Generally my line is "All else being equal, don't use blatant exploits". Until I know exactly what the group and GM are going for.

Best answer. It all depends on the group, and the game.