Has anyone got any flak for buildung a character that wasnt optimized?

[billd91]

Ahem... My reply to the bolden sentence.
Old grognards do not optimize as character attrition is very high in their games. And I mean very high. A players is expected to make about 2 to 3 characters (on average) before one survive past level 5. So optimization and careful building of a character is not something to link to grognards but to people that started to play around 3.xed.

Definitely not true. Optimization may have been based around fewer tools that were under a player's full control, but it definitely occurred. Ability Score Generation Method V in Unearthed Arcana, weapon specialization, being proficient in a long sword when 70% of all magic swords were long swords (DMG, 65% in UA), arranging stats to get that 10% XP bonus, even weapon vs armor tables could be used for optimization depending on your optimization goals.

 

[Mezuka]

Mmm... Hundreds of players and that behavior was easy to "correct" and "manage". Not happy? Bye bye! It was a rare bird that would "force" me to go for the expulsion way for that players. Most would immediately apologize and amend for their bad behavior.
And yes, kits in 2nd could lead to these optimizations but not to the extent of 3.xed could lead to. In OD&D or 1ed? It was more of a "capricious" tendency than true optimizations.

Hundreds of players in the early 80s? I think not. We were about 8 at our school. Didn't know anybody else who played. I was that or not DM. I chose to DM. Just made everything more difficult for them.

 

[Helldritch]

Definitely not true. Optimization may have been based around fewer tools that were under a player's full control, but it definitely occurred. Ability Score Generation Method V in Unearthed Arcana, weapon specialization, being proficient in a long sword when 70% of all magic swords were long swords (DMG, 65% in UA), arranging stats to get that 10% XP bonus, even weapon vs armor tables could be used for optimization depending on your optimization goals.

Are you telling me that I am a liar? Who in his right mind would ever use the UA rolling method? Not any DM that I have ever coached. 4d6 in order, drop lowest. Still the way to go today. Maxperson's method of 4d6 x3 and 3d6 x3 has merits and I am seriously thinking of using it.

Hundreds of players in the early 80s? I think not. We were about 8 at our school. Didn't know anybody else who played. I was that or not DM. I chose to DM. Just made everything more difficult for them.

Over the years. By the end of 1990, I had "introduced" into the hobby about 100 people. From coaching new DM to getting other people play and keep the hobby alive and having tournaments (preparing and organizing mainly), I was very active. In 10 years, it only took a dozen new players per year to get the ball rolling. And I often had more than 6 groups of 6 people (my absolute max was 10 groups or so). It all dropped when I got to college (before university) as the workload in college was a lot more than high school. And even then, I kept enough players for two groups and one group for the friday night dungeons/exhibitions (again, to encourage the recognition of the hobby).

 

[Mezuka]

Over the years. By the end of 1990, I had "introduced" into the hobby about 100 people. From coaching new DM to getting other people play and keep the hobby alive and having tournaments (preparing and organizing mainly), I was very active. In 10 years, it only took a dozen new players per year to get the ball rolling. And I often had more than 6 groups of 6 people (my absolute max was 10 groups or so). It all dropped when I got to college (before university) as the workload in college was a lot more than high school. And even then, I kept enough players for two groups and one group for the friday night dungeons/exhibitions (again, to encourage the recognition of the hobby).

Good for you! I see you are in Quebec, is that the city? Which high school? I was in the city during those years.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Are you telling me that I am a liar? Who in his right mind would ever use the UA rolling method? Not any DM that I have ever coached. 4d6 in order, drop lowest. Still the way to go today. Maxperson's method of 4d6 x3 and 3d6 x3 has merits and I am seriously thinking of using it.

My group all used the UA method. We used it to replace the roll 4d6, drop lowest, any order you liked method we had previously used. We did this so that, if a person wanted to play a paladin, or a ranger, or an effective wizard, they could. As did everyone I knew who played. I guess we're all crazy.

Oh, and by the way, Bill91 was telling you you're wrong. This is not the same as lying. So untwist your knickers.

 

[Helldritch]

Good for you! I see you are in Quebec, is that the city? Which high school? I was in the city during those years.

Lake St-John and Saguenay. Québec is just the province I am in.

My group all used the UA method. We used it to replace the roll 4d6, drop lowest, any order you liked method we had previously used. We did this so that, if a person wanted to play a paladin, or a ranger, or an effective wizard, they could. As did everyone I knew who played. I guess we're all crazy.

Oh, and by the way, Bill91 was telling you you're wrong. This is not the same as lying. So untwist your knickers.

Nah... Playing with the classes in the UA was a sure way to get optimizers and to go the Lawful Stupid way to make paladin less powerful and numerous. The less super classes you had, the more stable the game was. We tested the classes in the UA and quickly found that they were quite unbalanced. Not everything in the 1ed was good. Not everything, unfortunately.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep, that is why I said it was more a 3.xed than any other editions. Optimizers fully came to life during that era. I broke so many plans as the attrition rate in my games was still high (but less than early 5ed) that optimizing was not something that players would immediately jump on. When you do not know if your character will survive, you tend to play as things come along.

It didn't help that there was a fairly massive swing in quality of options in 3e in pools that were avowedly equal (classes, given levels of spell, feats), some of which were pretty much traps and were not obvious unless you were very familiar, and some approached "I win" buttons.

4e was much less prone to this (there were so-so choices and good choices, but even a haphazard built character was functional), as is, I gather, 5e to some extent, and the same applies mostly to PF2e. So while you can minmax in all three, there's less driving need.

 

[nevin]

3rd edition did have a lot of unbalanced stuff but the stated design goal of the developers was they were just throwing stuff out there and the DMs were expected to manage thier own games and it's balance. It wasn't until 4e and PF that this idea of the game balancing itself came into being

 

[nevin]

You'd think he'd be happy to outshine you in combat...

Oh no those kinds of players get upset that the suboptimal players are dragging them down

 

[nevin]

I wonder if it's because with the transition to D&D 5e and PF2, the people who like crunchy games and optimization self-selected for PF.

P.S. @billd91 is a NINJA

I think there is something to that thought. I think it also pulls a disproportionate number of control freaks who don't want the DM making decisions. You know the "can we let the rules decide" kind've player.