Char-op Box

[Saeviomagy]

Is it even possible for someone to decide to do that who isn't purposefully trying to make some kind of point that they can break the system in the other direction?

Probably. If I want a bookish nerd then it's not unreasonable to prioritise intelligence to the utmost and put every other attribute at a uniform low. The game says that roles are important, so for blasting people I want to be a striker.

An arcane striker (or even just a striker who uses magic) leaves me as either a sorceror or warlock, neither of which use intelligence to any serious degree.

So - it's entirely possible to follow the tenets of the system (descriptions of stats, descriptions of roles) and try to produce a common archetype and end up with a pile of crud. I mean sure I ignored the suggestions for stats in my class, but that's optimization advice, right?

I don't see that as being a realistic threat in 4E, and if it's a real problem, I'd assume that it's the players who are doing that, and not the system.

With the core material, it's pretty hard to make a mistake like this, but the later expansions tend to associate stats with classes according to some sort of "what stat did the designer think was neglected" system, rather than what makes sense.

 

[Mengu]

I'm trying to ask enworld posters if they think the very idea of there being specific things you need to do to make a "good character" is something mechanically required due to the game by design, or if it is entirely originating from the community.

Yes to the first and no to the second.

One part is simple game theory. Given two choices where one choice leads to better results than the other, a game player will gravitate toward the choice that's more beneficial.

These days, we call this optimization. It's really just part of any game and game design.

Designers know this. The balance of the game is wrapped around it. There is nothing in the system stopping a player from playing a fighter with 8 strength wielding a kukri he is not proficient with (sorry it's hard not to get into specifics, but examples make life easier). It is assumed you won't do this, because you are playing a game and (theoretically) want a functional character. The more "functional" a character is, the more "optimized" we say they are, but really, it's just looking at the choices, and picking the ones that provide you with the best tactical options.

Introducing community into game design, things start to get fuzzy between people who have a predetermined expectation of what they want to play, and try to realize that image, and people who simply examine their options and choose something to play from those options. The former group is often more adamant about not caring for rules benefits, if it means they can play a shapechanging warden who doesn't wear armor on his tattoo covered body and uses a pair of tomahawks. The latter group is more impressed by how they can build a defender who can take fifty bullets from an Uzi and not go down.

So I believe it's actually community that drives the game *away* from optimization. The books give us the mechanics. If we're playing a game (with no foreknowledge of community preferences), we will build characters who make "good" game choices. As it stands, there is a lot of history behind roleplaying games, and for lack of a better phrase, "gamer pressure" that tells us we should play a concept, and shouldn't play the rule system.

In conclusion, the system asks for and expects optimization because it is a game. Part of the community responds favorably to that demand (we call them many things, "optimizers", "min-maxers", "power gamers", etc). Part of the community cries out in pain (we call them many things, "hard core roleplayer", "old school", "grognard", etc). And another part finds a mid-point where they can continue to enjoy the experience with the tools that are given to us (I'll call them "players").

 

[N0Man]

You almost understand my topic. I want to talk about this fallacy and whether or not WotC encourages it, or is it completely from the community and specifically powergamers.

I think it's been said over and over again already (at least in a round about way), that WotC isn't encouraging it and have attempted to balance for the assumption that it will happen (and it does happen in practically every game), but yet tried to make enough interesting options that can still appeal to optimizers too while keeping them in check.

In 4E, WotC tries to stay neutral as far as how to tell you how to play. At least that's how I feel when I read the DMG. They recognize there are different play styles and give guidance on how to help keep everyone happy and entertained. It's a practical and wise outlook.

If I had to say what WotC encourages is to play the game to have fun, whether you are an optimizer, explorer, DM, player, roleplayer, diplomat, tactician or spelunker. Not everyone agrees on how effectively they've done that, but I truly believe they are at least trying to give enough flexibility to bend the game to your style.

In a nutshell...

Designed to encourage optimization? Yes, a little, but not it was also designed to encourage roleplay, action, adventure, strategy, and fun.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Wow, ok lets see if I can't fix this thread.

The specifics on what you actually need to do to make a "good character" is irrelevant to the topic I'm attempting to discuss.

I'm trying to ask enworld posters if they think the very idea of there being specific things you need to do to make a "good character" is something mechanically required due to the game by design, or if it is entirely originating from the community.

I'm not really interested in discussing the specifics of it, but more about the mentality in general.

Well, I can say that the degree of optimization that seems to be expected by some people is entirely community generated.

I am running a 4-player party through the WotC adventures H1-H3. One of the players is a Dwarven Orb Wizard. He doesn't seem ineffective or useless. Quite the contrary. He is not really in the optimization box you mention, he is not particularly optimized for his "shtick". He doesn't abuse the Orb feature. He doesn't use the obvious "power-gamer's choice" of powers. But he knows how to use his abilities to the benefit of the party very well. In that regard, he is an "optimizer".

The party as a whole works very well.

So yes, overall, I think it's community-generated. The game WotC created and the adventures they create for it don't require the degree of optimization some seem to desire. That doesn't mean optimization is uselss or impossible. But the play works fine outside the Char-op box.

 

[Dan'L]

I think it's a little of both, actually.

First, it is largely community generated. There will always be players that want to play your character for you, tell you you're doing it wrong, etc.

Where this becomes a particular issue with 4e is because, as N0Man pointed out, WotC has given us a system where they've stayed somewhat neutral on the subject of how to get the most fun out of the game. So where one player or group gets fun out of character building optimization for combat, the game supports that with options that shine; and where another player or group gets fun by playing wonky or off-combat concepts, the system makes that playable too.

So, what can end up happening -- particularly in things like LFR events at your FLGS, where random players with different ideas of how to have fun with the game are thrown together -- is you have more opportunity for people to voice how their way of fun is the only way.

So as I see it, it's basically human nature, i.e. "community generated," fueled by a system that lets both sides be "right."

-Dan'L

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Characters want to survive and achieve goals. To that end, they will hone their skills and refine their abilities. Yes, there will be characters who take the Linguist feat twice because that meshes with their goals. But there will be many more who take Weapon Focus or similar feats because they know that each time they enter a tournament or fight a duel or get ambushed in an alley or delve into a dungeon they will be fighting for survival.

From the point of view of the character, acquiring the skills to survive and achieve ones goals against all odds is not CharOp, it's life. Thus to role-play many (if not most) characters -- those who don't have a Martyr Complex -- optimization is part of role-playing.

 

[mkill]

You almost understand my topic. I want to talk about this fallacy and whether or not WotC encourages it, or is it completely from the community and specifically powergamers.

The 4th edition rules set is heavily gamist. It's focused very much on making combat interesting and making sure that all options you can choose are balanced to each other within a certain margin of error (and player skill).

If you ask me, that is a good thing, because rules are in the game to organize the challenge part. I don't need rules for acting out my character, I just do it.

However, when you read some of the Wizard's how-to-play commentary, they are somewhat anti-actor, at least when it comes to people who put their character concept over everything, hog the spotlight and start to act anti-social. But I see that more as encouraging sane behaviour at the gaming table, rather than discouraging in-character acting.

All in all, I wouldn't say that they promote a fallacy, rather a certain area on the challenge/acting chart that I proposed, which is high on the challenge but moderate on the acting.