Not Everyone is Interested in Powergaming [merged]

[Nyaricus]

He was optimised for saving throws. As a dwarf, he gets +2 to many (probably most) saves ha has to make, his con helps, and the class with its rage ability is also good for this. Finally, he used feats to get even better saves.

I would say you're using the D&D usage of optimized out of context here, however.

The dwarf barbarian did have good saves, but with his 7 levels of barbarian, he was not optimized in the role he took - which was to dish out tons of damage. An optimized dwarven barbarian would have PA and Cleave, and something else. He was not an optimized character - but he was an effective character by virtue of his saving throws, which kept him in the game longer with the ability to make tons of saves.

JMHO, and all.

cheers,
--N

 

[Nyaricus]

I can say a lot of things

I bet he did have decent scores in those stats, and if not, he was moderately optimised. Moptimised, so to say.

Well, by dictionary definition, "moderately optimized" really just means the same thing as "effective"

effective: 1. producing result: causing a result, especially the desired or intended result.

optimize: 1. enhance effectiveness of something: to make something function at its best or most effective, or use something to its best advantage.

The definition even uses "effective" in it; in D&D terminology while an effective character can fulfil his role to a degree, he is not always going to keep up his end. An optimized character, OTOH, will be as effective as possible and use every trick in the book(s).

cheers,
--N

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Well, by dictionary definition, "moderately optimized" really just means the same thing as "effective"

I'd like to see the dictionary that has "moderately optimised" in it

 

[shurai]

So, would you say that a human paragon/wizard/loremaster is effective or optimized or both or neither?

Goodness me, I have no idea. Remember my first post? I've purchased exactly two D&D books since 3.5 came out: The Eberron Campaign Setting, and a PHB. I don't know what the Paragobbledygook is or how it works, thankfully. : ]

It's a character designed by careful intent to be useful to his adventuring party, but the very point of the careful intent is making him useful in more ways than he would be if designed the "obvious" way (straight wizard), even if that means he is a bit less useful in his primary role.

In that case, he's clearly both optimized and effective. Why not? My definitions posit no exclusivity; in fact the title of the post implies that there is none. Optimization isn't the Only Road to Effectiveness, I said. Anyway these definitions aren't meant to be mathematically accurate. I'm sure there are all sorts of exceptions and special corner cases.

And another question: is the "optimized" label about the process or the result?

Both. If you look at the definition, it's clear: "designed by careful intent" is the process, and "usefulness to the party" is the result.

If you bend over backwards to make the best halfling barbarian/bard you can, he'll probably end up less effective than a casually built half-orc barbarian. Which of these is (more) optimized?

Well, duh, the half-orc. The halfling isn't optimized at all, because it's not intended to approach maximum usefulness. Maximum silliness, perhaps, which I heartily endorse, but not usefulness. : ]

To me it seems this is just pointless quibbling over semantics. Optimized is the new minmaxed is the new munchkin: the term you use to note your disapproval of the power level of a character, with the threshold varying wildly even for the same person depending on their opinions of the character concept, the other player's personality, the way they think the game should be played...

I've said again and again that I have no hostility towards optimization or powergaming or minmaxing or any of that (notice I voluntarily default to "optimization" which is by far the least derogatory term). I do it myself, when I have the mind. The gripe I continue to have is that it is wanted and needed far less often than a seemingly large number of people think. I'm not talking about how the game should be played, I'm talking about a misunderstanding of how most people want to play the game.

This isn't some kind of philosophical debate with no concrete significance. I've seen the automatic assumption of optimization actually harm a beginner's experience with the game several times. Kelson himself seems to be doing fine (he already made a character after his DM rejected the DMM solution, by the way; evidently he went with a Cleric/Combat Medic), which is great, but the problem itself persists.

 

[Doodle]

The biggest fallacy of all is insisting that everyone can get along in the same game, despite varying play-styles. Powergaming can and does get in the way of roleplaying for many people, and people have a right to say that if that is their preference. It's not a fallacy, it's a fact in many cases.

Exactly. It's easy for a powergamer to say "of course I can roleplay", but roleplaying is a complex issue, as are most play-styles. I mean, I could say the same for roleplaying-centric styles- maybe I can do them fine "roleplaying" in a game with a bunch of powergamers, but what if I'm using some kind of dramatic editing system that renders their builds moot? That is likewise, disruptive of their play style and the fun they're trying to have.

Except...

This is a game based on rules and mechanics. The person who enjoys powergaming tends to focus on the combat oriented rules and mechanics, but that does not mean there are not social rules and mechanics (and there are optimized characters for this too).

What I believe makes roleplay complex in this game is the interaction between your imagination and those rules and mechanics. Telling me that you are playing a suave, dashing, and debonair swashbuckler does not tell me that you are a good roleplayer. Telling me all of that, PLUS backing it up with a high charisma, high BAB, feat appropriate build is good roleplaying.

In that sense, being a good roleplayer almost requires that you are a good powergamer. You must have the technical skill to create a "build" that fulfills your character concept. For example, I would never award "roleplay XP" (if I happen to be playing a campaign that way) to someone roleplaying the above swashbuckler but who had an 8 charisma and no ranks in diplomacy, bluff, etc.

I consider myself a good powergamer and honestly what some people put forward as good powergaming (the bard example posted earlier about taking dodge instead of SF: perform) are frankly not optimal choices (said bard is actually much better with the SF feat for their fascinate ability). Given that, I honestly believe that what some people are putting forward as good roleplaying (and I emphasize some not all) is probably not - the play of the individual does not in anyway reflect what is written on their character sheet.

Me.

 

[I'm Cleo]

By the way, isn't the halfling wizard actually "max/minned", rather than "min/minned", since "min/max" stands for "minimizing one's weaknesses while maximizing one's strengths"?

I also think it's a little problematic to refer to extraordinarily specialized characters as "optimized", since they're rather sub-optimal in nearly any situation other than the one for which they were designed. What's really meant seems to be "characters making use of the game-breaking, goofy rules loopholes that people on the WotC Character Optimization boards discover". Those aren't so much "optimized" as they're just one-trick ponies.

As a prophylactic measure, I'd point out that I love the CharOp boards, I'm an avid min/maxer myself, and I would never actually play something like a Hulking Hurler (taken to its extreme, at least), Pun-Pun, or the Wish or the Word. But I appreciate the artistry of the well-designed builds one sees on that forum (E.g., Snow's Chain Tripper, the Killer Gnome, the King of Smack, &c.) as products of efficient rules combination -- recreational mathematics, essentially.

I'm Cleo!

 

[jasin]

In that case, he's clearly both optimized and effective. Why not?

Because your definition of optimized included "maximization of usefulness in a small number of ways or one specific way", while this character reduced usefulness in one specific way to increase usefulness in several other ways, with any "overall usefulness" being so hard to measure in an objective manner as to be meaningless.

Both. If you look at the definition, it's clear: "designed by careful intent" is the process, and "usefulness to the party" is the result.

What if only one is present? For example, a wuxia swordsman carefully designed using core rules only is likely to be less useful to the party than a core-only cleric designed casually.

Is it optimization if you put a great deal of effort into making something inherently weak as powereful as it can be? Is it optimization if you just casually pick stuff and it turns out to be powerful?

Well, duh, the half-orc.

Not much careful intent there. Barbarian is pretty much the most obvious route to go if you start with a half-orc, even if you care nothing for mechanical effectiveness.

The halfling isn't optimized at all, because it's not intended to approach maximum usefulness. Maximum silliness, perhaps, which I heartily endorse, but not usefulness. : ]

With a careful choice of feats and spells and such, the halfling could be built to approach maximum usefulness within the preset constraints ("halfling barbarian/bard"). Does the fact that his usefulness doesn't match that of a half-orc barbarian make it not-optimizing?

What if the player manages to actually match or exceed the obvious-choice half-orc barbarian (Power Attack, Cleave, greataxe, stuff like that) in usefulness? Is it optimizing then?

I've said again and again that I have no hostility towards optimization or powergaming or minmaxing or any of that (notice I voluntarily default to "optimization" which is by far the least derogatory term).

Yeah, for now, until it gets used and misused so many times that people get edgy the moment they see it, then we'll start calling it "usefulness enhancement" or "effectiveness prioritizing".

The gripe I continue to have is that it is wanted and needed far less often than a seemingly large number of people think. I'm not talking about how the game should be played, I'm talking about a misunderstanding of how most people want to play the game.

Oh, I would argue that many (perhaps not most, but many) people do want to optimize, and that the clash of play styles with the many people who don't want to (be required to) do so, and with the people who do want to do so but aren't as good at it, is what's fueling these debates.

If it really were just a few people that wanted to optimize, it wouldn't be such an issue.

This isn't some kind of philosophical debate with no concrete significance.

That was a bit how it seemed to me, yes.

I've seen the automatic assumption of optimization actually harm a beginner's experience with the game several times.

What do you mean by "assumption of optimization"? The assumption that PCs would be optimized on part of the DM? The assumption that other PCs would be optimized on part of the players?

Kelson himself seems to be doing fine

Kelson?

 

[shurai]

Jasin, is there a goal to all these questions about the definitions? I'd be happy to answer, but in the interests of time I feel compelled to refrain. Like I said, I'm not going to defend those definitions like mathematical laws, because I didn't write them that way.

Anyway, on to the other stuff:

Oh, I would argue that many (perhaps not most, but many) people do want to optimize, and that the clash of play styles with the many people who don't want to (be required to) do so, and with the people who do want to do so but aren't as good at it, is what's fueling these debates.

It might be that you're right. I wouldn't've brought it up if I hadn't felt it was an issue, though. We may have to agree to disagree about the relative ratios; I think the prevailing opinion on enworld could be seen to blow either way.

What do you mean by "assumption of optimization"? The assumption that PCs would be optimized on part of the DM? The assumption that other PCs would be optimized on part of the players?

I mean that I've seen people show up to a game (or these forums) assuming everyone should optimize and ruin people's fun and cause misunderstandings because of it.

Kelson?

See the thread linked at the first post.

 

[jasin]

Jasin, is there a goal to all these questions about the definitions?

To show the ways in which I think they're lacking.

And using lacking definitions obfuscates the discussion, since it makes it more likely for other people to read your words differently than you intended. Especially when you explicitly define words everyone in the discussion are already quite familiar with: it makes people expect some sort of new insight, or a definition different than the norm.

If your point was really just that effective means useful, and optimized means designed carefully to be useful, and than you can be useful without designing carefully, all I can say is "well, duh!"