Char-op Box

[DracoSuave]

If it was a community creation, I would expect it to be rare or non-existent among the large number of players who are not part of that community.

In my experience, it certainly isn't a rarity among players who never visit D&D sites.

This would imply that it stems from the WotC products themselves, which seems to be a reasonable conclusion. There are certainly other RPGs out there in which the concept of character optimization is alien at best.


I hope that answers your question.



Cheers,
Roger

Counter argument.

If this is a product of WoTC game-design, then how come it happened and was common when I was playing second edition, and Dark Sun had just come out?

Why is there a term for it that predates WoTC, called 'Munchkin'? The term 'MinMaxer' being mentioned in books that not only predate WoTC's aquisition of TSR, but WoTC's publishing of collectable cards that you use as game pieces?

I'm sorry, you cannot blame the concept of MinMaxing (what CharOp has traditionally been called) on a company that is younger than the concept itself.

It's always been a part of D&D, and MinMaxers are a group WoTC has decided to throw some bones to, on purpose. But to claim it's a WoTC problem, or that other games don't have it? That's just ignorant.

 

[mneme]

Char-op is a natural result of a system that both rewards it and has enough distinctions for Char-op to be, well, interesting. It's not (obviously) Wizards or D&D's "fault" -- but all versions of D&D have had, to greater or lesser degrees, systems that rewarded optimization, and at this point, doing so is a choice.

D&D4, in particular, is -designed- to be optimized. The system is designed not only not to be broken with optimization, but with the idea that optimization will be part of play (to a greater or lesser extent, but still). This idea is a modern concept (compare to the Hero System or GURPS or even D&D3, all of which tended to destablize the game when players optimized, but which all were systems that attracted optimization), and a useful one--games that both reward optimization and are designed such that optimization are functional (particularly if they can -also- function with lower values of optimization). Of course, D&D4 still has some bugs in this regard, but Wizards have shown that they're actively trying to fix them, which is kinda neat.

There are, of course, also systems that are antithetical to optimization -- where it's not good play, and isn't particularly interesting -- for example, Amber, Nobilis, or Over the Edge. In those systems, the power of the GM is broad enough, and the system as a whole flat enough that while the system can create interesting characters, real optimization -- making an Amber character powerful enough to shrug off a huge wad of Bad Stuff, a Noble with an overwhelmingly powerful Gift, or an Everway character with a pointless Flaw or an trait that ammounts to "do anything: 4d6" neither presents an interesting challenge nor is likely to be allowed by a GM.

By contrast, character creation in 4e (any version of D&D, really, but 4e the most conciously), character creation is all about synergy and tradeoffs -- that is, optimization.

 

[Storminator]

The most important optimization in 4e is at the table. I don't care how many pluses you racked up during PC creation, if you botch the play on game day, you will die, and maybe bring the party down with you.

I'd much rather see an average PC played well at my table, than an optimal PC played weakly.

 

[Nytmare]

I'm sorry, you cannot blame the concept of MinMaxing (what CharOp has traditionally been called) on a company that is younger than the concept itself.

I don't think he's blaming them for the concept of min-maxing. I think he's only blaming them for making an environment that has hefty min-maxing choices in it.

I also think that I might be completely wrong.

 

[mneme]

The most important optimization in 4e is at the table.

Of course. Just as 4e's nature as a tactical roleplaying game rewards charop, it also rewards good tactical (and even generally good) play.

 

[Roger]

Counter argument.

If this is a product of WoTC game-design, then how come it happened and was common when I was playing second edition, and Dark Sun had just come out?

I wasn't trying to suggest it was unique to WotC products. I probably could have been a lot clearer on that point; sorry about that.

That the phenomenon existed well before any sort of "community" as we generally recognize it today is good evidence that the cause lies elsewhere.

But to claim it's a WoTC problem, or that other games don't have it? That's just ignorant.

I wasn't trying to make the first claim, so I'm more than happy to yield on it.

As for the second -- that some games don't inspire this phenomenon -- I'm inclined to think that that is, in fact, the case.

By way of example: Primetime Adventures and first-edition Gamma World, off the top of my head. I imagine there's others.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Victim]

There are, of course, also systems that are antithetical to optimization -- where it's not good play, and isn't particularly interesting -- for example, Amber, Nobilis, or Over the Edge. In those systems, the power of the GM is broad enough, and the system as a whole flat enough that while the system can create interesting characters, real optimization -- making an Amber character powerful enough to shrug off a huge wad of Bad Stuff, a Noble with an overwhelmingly powerful Gift, or an Everway character with a pointless Flaw or an trait that ammounts to "do anything: 4d6" neither presents an interesting challenge nor is likely to be allowed by a GM.

Or you could say that optimization in that context is about gaming the GM by playing into their preferences for characters, abilities, and story ideas.

Character Optimization apparently effects dice rolls. I'm screwed.


Do I get combat advantage? I'm happy either way.

Well, no it doesn't effect die rolls (except in terms of reroll abilities and the like). However, it does change what the rolls mean. Rolling a bunch of 5s in a row might lead to a player bemoaning his bad luck. Unless those 5s are hitting.

And the way the defender operates will impact how readily your rogue gets combat advantage, and the cost of doing so. Fighters punish movement heavily, with the ability to stop on OAs and punish shifts. Once the rogue gets into a flanking position, he usually won't have too much trouble maintaining it, since neither the monster nor the fighter will probably be moving a lot. The target the fighter is attacking will be marked, so the rogue will have some protection. And the duo naturally tend towards focusing fire which drops enemies quickly.

OTOH, a swordmage tends to move around a lot with teleportation abilities and is usually best served by kiting with his Aegis. If the swordmage is moving around, it's harder for the rogue to maintain flanking. Also, the monsters can move away from flanks more readily. The rogue is also at more risk if the target of the pair isn't marked.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Wizards definitely designed the races to focus on certain classes. I consider it a design flaw of sorts. The positive being that this sort of design ensures a large variety in races being played in 4E as a whole. The negative being that I could never see myself taking Gnome, or Eladrin, Half-elf, Halfling etc for the above fighter build due to the current design.

Though I've never implemented it, I like the house rule of using one of the two Ability boost options per race as a mandatory, and allowing anything else as its secondary. Thus opening up a lot more options to the players to choose from without sacrificing their vision of 'optimization'.

See, I don't really agree with that at all. We could further increase the versatility of class+race combos by just eliminating stat boosts entirely (or giving +2 to any two stats you want), but then what's the point of even picking a race?

Yes, a Dwarf wouldn't make a good Mage, and a Gnome wouldn't make a good Fighter (have to disagree with you on Eladrin and Halfling though...there's a LOT of options there, you just need to do careful planning for feats and Paragon Paths), but isn't that part of the point?

What makes a "Dwarf" a "Dwarf" anyway? Is it just their height, or is it that they're known as a wise and stalwart people fond of living a hard life underground? If it's the former, then Halfings and Gnomes are the same, and therefore we can combine them into one race (yes, I realize Dwarves are technically M size, but they are kinda short). If it's the latter, then how does a Dwarven Wizard fit into that? They're not a natural fit for Dwarves, and they shouldn't be! They're a much better for races like the Deva (who could've spent lifetimes studying magical tomes) or Eladrin (who come from another plane).

Now, you can still make a Dwarven Wizard, you just need to be creative. For one, I would probably just try to live with the fact that you've got a 16 starting Int, and not waste the points on the 18. If, on the other hand, you decide to go for broke, you're not totally out of the running. CON and WIS are both useful secondary stats for Wizards, namely Summoning (Staffs too) and Orb Wizards respectively. He won't be as good as the Eladrin Wizard, but he could multiclass into something like Invoker or Cleric for some extra power.

Point is, some race+class combos work better than others, and that's partially a design choice. Dargonborn have an ancient connection to Dragons, which makes them natural Dragon Soul Sorcerers (mechnically shown with a +2 to STR and +2 to CHA). They're also a very large and imposing race with a long martial tradition (mechanically shown with a +2 to STR, which is great for Fighters, Rangers and Warlords) and their fierce personality makes them natural leaders (mechanically show with a +2 to CHA, which is good for some Warlord builds). This by no means indicates that you MUST be a Dragonborn to be a Sorcerer or a Fighter. It just means that some race+class combos have a natural synergy, whereas others don't. Just as some people have a natural affinity for English or Math, but not necessarily both.

 

[Nifft]

See, I don't really agree with that at all. We could further increase the versatility of class+race combos by just eliminating stat boosts entirely (or giving +2 to any two stats you want), but then what's the point of even picking a race?

Feat access & racial powers, basically, plus things like speed and skill modifiers.

Instead of the "strong" races getting +2 Str, they could get +1 melee damage. Instead of the "tough" races getting +2 Con, they could get +1 healing surge, and +1 to surge value; and so on for the other ability scores.

There would still be synergy, but there might be more interesting & creative ways to use that synergy than picking a class/race that plays to the bonuses of your race/class.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Flipguarder]

okay so I've let this topic stew for a while, now I'll attempt to clarify parts of my post that seem to confuse people.

I feel there is a mentality among many 4e players (and of many RPG players in general) that if you build a character without the list in the OP as a guide (or various other lists of important things you must do when making a character), you are not making a "good" character".

The question I am trying to pose is this: Do you believe 4e in paticular is an rpg where optimization is mechanically (hitting ac of recommended-level monsters a reasonable % of the time) necessary to a point that they support this mentality? Or do you believe that the idea that a non-optimized character is "not good" is entirely community originated?