Great weapon fighter is a "trap"? Forked Thread: I don't optimize.

I don't have a problem with "optimizing" (as we call it these days) per se. I really don't. I, myself, am an oldschool powergamer and rules lawyer who has always loved to really dig into the mechanics and figure out how to construct highly combat-effective characters.

However, I'm a roleplayer before that. My friends and I back in the day had a slogan about character creation, "Build 'em like a powergamer, but play 'em like a roleplayer." The premise which I've always embodied in my gaming career is that you can create a fairly min/maxed character and still imbue that character with plenty of background, personality, and other RP goodness.

What I do have a problem with is the level, amount, and tone of the communication about the subject by the hardcore "optimizer" crowd. Partially, I blame the massive growth and popularization of the Internet, online communities, and vast amounts of forum discourse on every possible subject for this. But mostly, I blame the rise of MMORPGs, especially the elements of intense competitive PvP and extremely challenging raid content. I think that these factors engendered a change in the entire set of expectations, presuppositions, and ways of communicating about RP gaming.

It comes down to what I'm going to call "powergaming proselytization". (New term coined, right here and now!) It's no longer enough for the min/maxers to quietly go about making their uber character, not announcing the fact, not showing off their optimized build, and not presuming for a moment to tell anyone else how to make their own character. Now, the powergamers feel compelled to widely trumpet their ideas and formulae for the "ultimate" character, for maximal "efficiency" and so forth. Worse, they very often decide that it's their duty to "inform" any other gamer who is not so "optimal", to tell them how to build their character, to criticize and deride the "subpar" choices that their fellows have made, and to essentially browbeat everyone else into playing in whatever they feel is the "right" way.

They're proselytizers, beating the gospel of powergaming truth into the thick skulls of the ignorant heathens who still just want to make a fun, if mediocre, character that they'll enjoy playing. They want to convert everyone else who plays with them, or who they discuss the game with, into fellow min/maxers, and they can be downright pushy, even rude. The problem is that newer gamers, or more casual ones, or more roleplay-focused ones, get bombarded with all of this stentorian advice (and ridicule if that advice isn't heeded), so that either sets their own perceptions of how they "should" be playing, or it makes them uncomfortable playing alongside someone who can't help but suggest (repeatedly) that they're a bad player, or a useless character, or what have you.

This is dragging down the hobby as a whole, causing a lot of arguments, a lot of conflict, a lot of misinformation, and a lot of corruption of newer players' baseline views of the game and what it's ultimately about. I can tell you that the next time I'm running a game for a new group and Mr. Optimizer looks over Ms. Newgirl's character sheet and starts rattling off all of the things which are "wrong" and "useless" and telling her how she SHOULD build her character, and suppressing her natural creative inclinations under the fallacious pretense that she "needs" to play a certain way, and make her character as "efficient" as possible . . . the next time I see that happening, I'll be putting the kibosh on that right away.

I don't want people to abandon "optimizing" if that's how they like to play. But I do want them to stop shoving it down everyone else's throat. I do want them to quiet down about their ultimate gems of min/maxing wisdom a little bit, and stop shouting down every other player with their intimidating claims about what is absolutely "right", "best", "necessary" or "viable" - in their personal opinion.

I just want to see less powergaming proselytization going on, and more friendly, respectful, open-minded gameplay, cooperation, and discussion.

That's all.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Why do people keep drawing analogies between roleplaying and numbers on a sheet of paper? Roleplaying has very little to do with those numbers. And 4th edition pretty much made sure of that.

The numbers are used to resolve conflicts.

Everything else is roleplaying.

One does not negate the other.

So, if you want to be effective in combat, you work around a concept and pick the powers you think will work nicely. Call it min-maxing, power gaming, munchkinizing, optimization, or common sense, it doesn't matter. It will not affect how your character interacts with the world once you put the dice down.

People *should* listen to character building advice. The reason they are asking is because they have an idea, but aren't quite sure how to make it work within the rules framework. It is not helpful to tell them "play what you want." Encounters are designed to be balanced for reasonably built characters. They're not designed to work for a bunch of ignorant clowns.

However, once you get the numbers down, if it suits your campaign, there is nothing to stop you from acting like a clown as you fight, twisting your opponent's nose for 13 points of damage, or blowing raspberries at them when you miss with a Reaping Strike for 3 points of damage.

Roleplaying and optimization can (and do) exist in the same game.
 

Agreed, the only time optimization and roleplaying conflict is when there is a conflict between the most efficient choice, and the choice that is most apropriate for your character. Though in most cases it's reasonable to assume that your character wants to do everything he can to maximixe his chance of winning (given that the consequences of failure for him are far more severe then for the player).

The only time your likely to have an efficiency conflict in 4e is when you have a character theme you want to stick to no matter what (ie ice mage). A character theme is not the same thing as roleplaying (in fact taken to extreme, it's often poor roleplaying). But it is still important and fun to some people, and shouldn't be discouraged too much.
 

It comes down to what I'm going to call "powergaming proselytization". (New term coined, right here and now!) It's no longer enough for the min/maxers to quietly go about making their uber character, not announcing the fact, not showing off their optimized build, and not presuming for a moment to tell anyone else how to make their own character. Now, the powergamers feel compelled to widely trumpet their ideas and formulae for the "ultimate" character, for maximal "efficiency" and so forth. Worse, they very often decide that it's their duty to "inform" any other gamer who is not so "optimal", to tell them how to build their character, to criticize and deride the "subpar" choices that their fellows have made, and to essentially browbeat everyone else into playing in whatever they feel is the "right" way.
There is a great deal of irony in this post, considering how much negativity is displayed against powergamers.
 

I don't have a problem with "optimizing" (as we call it these days) per se. I really don't. I, myself, am an oldschool powergamer and rules lawyer who has always loved to really dig into the mechanics and figure out how to construct highly combat-effective characters.

However, I'm a roleplayer before that. My friends and I back in the day had a slogan about character creation, "Build 'em like a powergamer, but play 'em like a roleplayer." The premise which I've always embodied in my gaming career is that you can create a fairly min/maxed character and still imbue that character with plenty of background, personality, and other RP goodness.


Nicely stated. I have an mantra in our group "I'm a reformed power-gamer" - and what I mean by that was the exact thing you mentioned. I love system mastery and building really effective characters, but they are played as characters, which great deal of personality.
Sigging the slogan - in multiple boards. :)
 

Nicely stated. I have an mantra in our group "I'm a reformed power-gamer" - and what I mean by that was the exact thing you mentioned. I love system mastery and building really effective characters, but they are played as characters, which great deal of personality.
This is what I call Stage 3, back when I wrote this. (Note that it was written during 3.5e; I need to update it for 4e compatibility.)

- - -

Stage 1: Naive -- player exhibits ignorance of mechanical implications, and makes choices that are mechanically poor -- "My character is tough, so I will take Toughness!"

Stage 2: System Mastery -- player understands the system's mechanics, and makes character choices tailored to exploit mechanical advantages -- "I'm a spiked-chain trip master. Oh, you meant my character's name? Uh..."

Stage 3: Character Mastery -- player understands the system's mechanics, and uses the mechanics to make the character he wants, and to make his concept effective -- "You have chosen the wrong opponent, knave! For I am Ser Reginald Ulsterworthy, and it is no idle boast to say I am the paramount master of the rapier in His Blessed Majesty's dominion!"

Summary:
Stage 1 -- concept, no mechanics.
Stage 2 -- mechanics drive concept.
Stage 3 -- mechanics serve concept.

Cheers, -- N
 

Talking from a perspective of an optimizer and roleplayer (yeah, I multiclassed early), the problem isn't players punishing other players for choosing the characters they want. I've never seen that done for optimization reasons; the only time I've seen that done was a jerk who had a personal mad-on for elves and would constantly rag on anyone who wanted to play an elf or half-elf.

The problem is when people say "Oh, I'm a roleplayer, I won't optimize or ask for advice" and the system punishes them. I've seen a lot of these people end up frustrated because, D&D being designed as it was in 3.x, the beguiler 3/warlock 1 ends up being able to do all of nothing against the encounters in the module. It's not fun for him, and it doesn't make him an inherently better roleplayer than the people whose builds actually work. "Play What You Want To Play" is fine as far as it goes, but as it happens sometimes what you want to play isn't what looks like the thing you want to play on your first glance over the rulebooks. (e.g. "I want to play a big strong tough guy! I should take Toughness and Great Fortitude!")
 

OP here. Thanks everyone for chiming in on the thread, although it's gone off on a little bit of a tangent.

My concern in this thread wasn't because I feel the need to optimize, but more that I don't want to be ineffective. Maybe I still have the 3.5 mindset, but I've had several bad experiences where I've chosen "concept" over "effectiveness", and those times have always resulted in me sitting around twiddling my thumbs because I can't contribute anything meaningful to the group.

My original concept was a "canon" Dragonborn (i.e. proud, honrable, military bent), who was using what amounted to a "Weapon of Legacy" (this part requires DM approval, of course); a glaive used by an illustrious ancestor centuries ago at the fall of Arkhosia, the Dragonborn Empire. The optimization part of it was largely picking feats/abilities that meshed well with the concept, not optimization like you'd find on the Wizards CO boards (that sort of optimization appals me, truth me told).

After giving it some thought (and yes, I admit it's partly because I read that using a 2H weapon is "a trap"), I'm considering a sword & board character for two main reasons (one being flavor, one being rules):

#1: AC is better than damage, since I know that the party has a Dwarf Cleric (Leader), Eladrin Ranger (Striker), Eladrin Rogue (Striker) and Eladrin Wizard (Controller), but not a defender in sight (There was a Dwarf Fighter, but the player dropped out). Also, except for myself, the DM and another player who is the Eladrin Rogue, the other three are completely new to D&D and roleplaying. This means that I can't bank on much teamwork and cooperation, simply because it might be new to them and they're learning the rules. Therefore, as a defender I think being "sticky" might be the better choice to better work with the group, to help foster teamwork.

#2: The way magic items work in 4E, I would need to get the DM to do some kind of weird house rule in order for my concept to work, since he's using his ancestor's glaive and would never, ever get rid of it in favor of another item. 4E seems to assume that you'll pick up/discard weapons as better ones come along. While I'm sure that it wouldn't be a problem to house rule, and would'nt be unbalanced (I would still pay the gold to enchant the item, just it would be the same item, instead of a new one), I am only just joining the group so I don't want to seem too imposing or look like a "spotlight hog" by demanding special rules for my character.
 

My concern in this thread wasn't because I feel the need to optimize, but more that I don't want to be ineffective.

I don't think you have that worry in 4e yet. It may be that some ultra-optimisers would consider a two handed fighter to be ineffective, but for the vast majority of players I think that it will probably remain an interesting and fun option which isn't ineffective.

Cheers
 

Remove ads

Top