Daggerheart General Thread [+]

[Reynard]

CharOp is not necessarily about spotlight hogging. It's about seeing what works and exploring the limits of the system, often to build an offbeat character.

No one was bringing Pun-Pun to the table. And the people bringing the broken characters generally were "net decking"

So we are just going to assume optimizers are going to play nice? Sorry, I don't buy it. It is exceedingly rare for people to optimize their character and then not Hog the spotlight, but I will concede that it does exist.

But in the end, in a narrative game charop just doesn't make any.sensr.

 

[Vael]

So we are just going to assume optimizers are going to play nice? Sorry, I don't buy it. It is exceedingly rare for people to optimize their character and then not Hog the spotlight, but I will concede that it does exist.

But in the end, in a narrative game charop just doesn't make any.sensr.

In a word ... YES. TTRPGs are a social game, part of that is following Wheaton's Law. "Don't be a dick." And tbh, I dislike the blanket assumption that optimizers are inherently out to ruin games.

You’ll need to explain the jargon.

Pun-Pun dates back to 3.5 DnD and was a theoretical build of ... IIRC, a Kobold Wizard that could by 5th level attain unlimited spells, stats and even ascend to godhood. It demonstrated how easy it was to break the game.

 

[overgeeked]

In a word ... YES. TTRPGs are a social game, part of that is following Wheaton's Law. "Don't be a dick." And tbh, I dislike the blanket assumption that optimizers are inherently out to ruin games.

In my experience that's exactly what happens. The optimizer gets it in their head that the atrocious and mangled reading of the rules that allows them infinite power is somehow a good-faith interpretation and gets really bent out of shape when disabused of that notion when such characters are presented at an actual table.

Wheaton's Law, aka don't be a dick, precludes that kind of intentional game destroying nonsense. It also precludes the kind of mentality that's stuck on the notion of "winning" an RPG.

And to drag this kicking and screaming back to Daggerheart, this is explicitly called out in the book.

"As a narrative-focused game, Daggerheart is not a place where technical, out-of-context interpretations of the rules are encouraged. Everything should flow back to the fiction, and the GM has the authority and responsibility to make rulings about how rules are applied to underscore that fiction."

Pun-Pun dates back to 3.5 DnD and was a theoretical build of ... IIRC, a Kobold Wizard that could by 5th level attain unlimited spells, stats and even ascend to godhood. It demonstrated how easy it was to break the game.

Yes, I'm aware of Pun-Pun. It's that other bit of nonsense jargon I've never seen before. "Net deck" or whatever silliness that is.

 

[Vael]

In my experience that's exactly what happens. The optimizer gets it in their head that the atrocious and mangled reading of the rules that allows them infinite power is somehow a good-faith interpretation and gets really bent out of shape when disabused of that notion when such characters are presented at an actual table.

... Now you'll have to define your terms because to me, an optimizer is someone who works within the rules, I don't recognize this as the same thing you're describing.

Wheaton's Law, aka don't be a dick, precludes that kind of intentional game destroying nonsense. It also precludes the kind of mentality that's stuck on the notion of "winning" an RPG.

And to drag this kicking and screaming back to Daggerheart, this is explicitly called out in the book.

"As a narrative-focused game, Daggerheart is not a place where technical, out-of-context interpretations of the rules are encouraged. Everything should flow back to the fiction, and the GM has the authority and responsibility to make rulings about how rules are applied to underscore that fiction."

So then what's the problem?

Yes, I'm aware of Pun-Pun. It's that other bit of nonsense jargon I've never seen before. "Net deck" or whatever silliness that is.

Net deck is primarily an MTG term, but it implies bringing a character (or in MTG a deck) that wasn't the player's own creation, but something they found online.

 

[overgeeked]

... Now you'll have to define your terms because to me, an optimizer is someone who works within the rules, I don't recognize this as the same thing you're describing.

That's not my experience at all. Someone picking up the core book and giving it a good-faith reading and figuring out that it's a good idea to put your best stat in your class's primary ability score, etc isn't an optimizer. The kind of math-focused gamers who're out to win the game in character creation are optimizers. The people who will intentionally use an utterly broken build to wreck games, that's an optimizer.

I'm all for white-room theorycrafting busted builds. Knock yourselves out. It can be fun as hell. It's only a problem when those builds are inflicted on referees at actual tables. And the player inevitably gets mad when told no.

So then what's the problem?

Referees for Daggerheart will have to bounce a lot of players bringing that kind of toxic mindset from D&D to Daggerheart.

Net deck is primarily an MTG term, but it implies bringing a character (or in MTG a deck) that wasn't the player's own creation, but something they found online.

Ah. Gotcha. Yeah, most of my experience with optimizers is people copy & pasting some ridiculously broken build from the net based on the worst kind of tortured logic and misreading of the rules.

This is a tangent on a tangent on a tangent now. Getting back to Daggerheart...

 

[Seramus]

The social contract among a lot of optimizers is to always try and share the spotlight and generally not be a big jerk. At least, this is true among any of us with a little empathy, which is thankfully most of us. We've all run across bad apples, just like we've all run across bad apple DMs who are far more interested in control than everyone having a good experience. But thankfully, those are becoming the minority these days. Vetting is still important, but most people are average joes not intentionally trying to cause any issues.

The DM can always ramp up the difficulty to match whatever they are doing, so there isn't much point to "Winning". So you optimize for the love of the mechanics, the joy of finding neat synergies and gimmicks. The actual threat is accidentally overshadowing your friends at the table. And thankfully, most optimizers are willing to make adjustments if you talk to them like people with feelings.

 

[Retros_x]

So we are just going to assume optimizers are going to play nice? Sorry, I don't buy it. It is exceedingly rare for people to optimize their character and then not Hog the spotlight, but I will concede that it does exist.

I personally am a optimizer and power player. Although I don't use exploits and interactions, that were clearly not RAI. But I like to play efficient characters.

I also enjoy deep roleplay and give my characters flawed and complex personalities and in general I am more on the reserved side as a player, I usually have at least 1-2 players in my group that are way more often in the spotlight than me. I don't enjoy playing the face of the group so usually the dynamic is that in social scenes I am rarely in the spotlight.

IMO powerplay and good roleplay is not mutually exclusive.

 

[overgeeked]

Here's a dedicated thread for this side conversation.

Thread 'Optimization and optimizers...'

18 minutes ago

To prevent the topic from consuming another thread, here's a dedicated thread for this topic.

• overgeeked
• Replies: 0
• Forum: *TTRPGs General