I don't optimize. Forked Thread: Dragon Magazine #365's Character Concepts

[Goumindong]

I really dislike when people say that they don't optimize. Because not doing so is beyond retarded. Its retarded from a player point of view, and its retarded from a character point of view. Think of this from a characters perspective. They are a "hero", but they suck at it... and they know it... and they still try and be a hero...

At the heart of it, when someone is not optimizing they are saying that the character they are playing is a complete retard. "Hay guys, my high int fighter is totally awesome!" No, he is not, the high int fighter should be smart enough to realize that he is an idiot for being a fighter if he is not strong enough to make it stick. Since 8 is the lowest int we have available to us, and 8 is slightly below average and even people of intelligence slightly below average will have realized that lots of charisma does not help them hit a monster in the face with an axe(or a monster is trying to hit them in the face with an axe) there are no rational combinations where a hero can pursue a career that does not mesh with his abilities.

That is not to say that there are not acceptable levels, since some concepts simply are not as strong as others. For instance if you want to play an elvish warlord, go right ahead, you will be 5% behind the other races warlords but at the end of the day that 5% is not going to kill you.

But it is to say that every character from both a logically consistent player point of view and character point of view should be optimized. If you don't you're a terrible player and a terrible roleplayer.

I'd recommend that you check out ENworld's rules. You should have plenty of time to do so when you're not posting in this thread.

- Xath

 

[Ginnel]

No. Optimization is simply letting your character be the best he can be, within the limits set by your own campaign. There is nothing dirty about the O word.

Nope there is nothing dirty about the word Optimisation, but people use that word because it is apparently imploite/not correct/not done to call people Power Gamers/Munchkins anymore, which is what at the very least I am talking about.

Its not about making various concepts valid, its about making your character as powerful as you can so s/he is mechanically so s/he can have an easier time than the average character at whatever s/he wants to do.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I do optimize, usually with regards to a general character concept I have in mind. On Niffts (?) categorization, I think I fall more into Stage 2 then Stage 3 yet, though admittedly that is mostly because we're pretty story-light. If we focused more on character background, I'd probably make more efforts to become a Stage 3 optimizer.

To avoid stupid choices in 4E, I'd like re-introducing "minimum ability score" requirements for each class (like the Paladin of earlier editions). You just can't become a Fighter if you don't have at least a Strength of 13 (or 15). You're just too weak to be accepted to Fighter college. No sane wizard would take an apprentice with a mere Intelligence of 10!

Of course, this isn't really necessary. If someone reads through the class description and still doesn't want to pick a sensible ability score, he just doesn't care, and maybe it also doesn't matter in his game.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Nope there is nothing dirty about the word Optimisation, but people use that word because it is apparently imploite/not correct/not done to call people Power Gamers/Munchkins anymore, which is what at the very least I am talking about.

There are various definitions of Optimization, Power-gaming and Munchkins.
I like this one:
Powergaming is optimization as I do it.
Muchkins are optimizers I don't like.

Alternatively:
Powergamers follow the rules to gain optimized characters.
Muchkins bend them (possibly deliberately misreading them hoping that no one notices it.)

Of course, this would make players of pun-pun (not that they exist, but theoretically) Power-Gamers in the second definition. Therefore I prefer the first one.

 

[Runestar]

On another note, one argument I often see against optimizing is that it disadvantages the player who did not optimize. Every time there is a disparity in terms of "power level" between the different players, it is somehow always the optimized PC's fault for apparently "spoiling the market", so to speak, and that the solution is obviously to dumb down his build to keep it in line with that of the weakest PC, so that everyone can be equally challenged.

My question now is - why should it not be the other way around? Could I not argue that it is in fact the other player's fault for not optimizing that is preventing my own character from unleashing his full potential and being all that he can be (within reasonable limits, of course)? It would be like saying "I don't want to optimize, so no one else should optimize either". Or at least, find a suitable middle ground where the "too strong" players revise their builds downwards, and those with crappy character builds revise their own builds upwards?

Given a choice, why would everyone opt to be equally weak, as compared to being equally strong? After all, if a DM can adjust his strategy to cater to sub-optimal parties, logic follows that he can naturally revise his strategy to accommodate "stronger" parties as well.

Nope there is nothing dirty about the word Optimisation, but people use that word because it is apparently imploite/not correct/not done to call people Power Gamers/Munchkins anymore, which is what at the very least I am talking about.

Problem is - the way it gets flung around here, its meaning more or less appears synonymous with powergaming/munckinism. Nothing can be further from the truth! The purpose of optimization is not to wreck a campaign, but to help players create the characters they want to make, who are as efficient in their roles as possible (and capable of fulfilling all the roles they feel their characters ought to be capable of).

Or am I missing something?

 

[Ginnel]

My question now is - why should it not be the other way around? Could I not argue that it is in fact the other player's fault for not optimizing that is preventing my own character from unleashing his full potential and being all that he can be (within reasonable limits, of course)? It would be like saying "I don't want to optimize, so no one else should optimize either". Or at least, find a suitable middle ground where the "too strong" players revise their builds downwards, and those with crappy character builds revise their own builds upwards?

Given a choice, why would everyone opt to be equally weak, as compared to being equally strong? After all, if a DM can adjust his strategy to cater to sub-optimal parties, logic follows that he can naturally revise his strategy to accommodate "stronger" parties as well.

I believe it doesn't work this way as generally with optimising there is an optimal way to build that concept which would lead to the cookie cutter example.

Problem is - the way it gets flung around here, its meaning more or less appears synonymous with powergaming/munckinism. Nothing can be further from the truth! The purpose of optimization is not to wreck a campaign, but to help players create the characters they want to make, who are as efficient in their roles as possible (and capable of fulfilling all the roles they feel their characters ought to be capable of).

Or am I missing something?

Yes, yes you are, you are talking about making viable builds, not power gaming/munchkining, to my mind they are two different things.

A viable build is something which can perform as expected against equal level challenges.
A powergamer is something which can perform above par against equal level challenges.

In trying to not insult people by using powergaming and munchkining as words we've diluted/muddied the word Optimising.

 

[Runestar]

I believe it doesn't work this way as generally with optimising there is an optimal way to build that concept which would lead to the cookie cutter example.

What is wrong with the cookie cutter build example? I mean, just because say, 1000 other people have already tried the same build before you should not dilute your own enjoyment of the build, since it would be the first time you are trying out the character concept for yourself, so it should still be a novel gaming experience for most part. It is not as though you are playing the same character for the second or umpteenth time or something.

Likewise, in all my time on gleemax, I have never seen a case of people just blindly copying a build off the CO boards to play in their campaign. More often than not, special provisions have to be made for various extenuating factors, such as the player in question not owning a particular splatbook, his DM not allowing certain material or choosing to interpret a key rule in a manner not in the favour of said build, or the existing build simply not being to the player's liking. The end result is typically a build which follows the core underlying fundamental principles/concepts of the original build, but is rarely ever just another carbon copy. It can, in fact, suffice in passing off as its own build in its own right.

Or at times, the request is to help with designing a unique character concept which has not yet been covered (such as the aforementioned werebear/succubus offspring PC). In such cases, the advice and insight offered by peers as knowledgable, if not more than you can only be a boon.

Is this "cookie-cutter copycat" syndrone actually evidenced anywhere, or just a another fallacy aimed at sullying optimization's good name? Because as mentioned above, I have never seen anything like it!

 

[Danceofmasks]

Let me just put it this way:
My fighter is happy to take hits for the party.
Sure, it's dumb, but if it's what it takes to win the day, so be it.

Now, if some fool gets knocked unconscious 2nd round every single fight 'cos for some reason they're trying to melee with an AC 5 points under what the system reckons is rational ...
1st day, I'm going to chalk it up as a bad day.
2nd day, I'm going to start getting disgruntled.
3rd day, I'm going to coup de grace them when they drop.

After all, if the cure serious wounds has to go towards the pink ninja every day, we are all going to die.

 

[PallidPatience]

I didn't go to college to become a doctor because I thought being a fast-food worker would be a more interesting character concept.

So no one else should have advanced medical skills, either.

 

[Runestar]

It's true. Sarcasm does translate very poorly over the net.