Optimisation in PC building

[pemerton]

Here are some thoughts about the thread topic:

(1) Some RPGs use random PC generation; those RPGs don't really have optimisation in any meaningful sense. Maybe they allow gambling (eg in Classic Traveller you can keep trying for further terms of service, which can allow more skills and starting gear for your PC, but risk (i) stat loss due to aging, and (ii) PC death and having to start over due to a failed survival role), but gambling isn't optimisation.

(2) Some RPGs have very transparent PC build. For instance, in RuneQuest the way you get good at doing X is by having a high skill in X. PCs in these games can be more or less powerful, but there's not really optimisation.

(3) Building a PC to be able to do the things you (as a player) want to be able to do in the game isn't optimisation. Choosing to build a fighter in a D&D game, rather than a wizard, because you want to play a character whose good in hand-to-hand combat isn't optimisation. Some games have broken choices in this respect - eg there are non-obvious builds that end up being better at X-ing than the obvious ones - but that's a problem with broken build rules, not optimisation.

(4) Optimisation is about adjusting parameters so as to enhance performance. In RPG PC building, that means adjusting build components to achieve enhancement, normally via synergy/interaction between particular build components. This depends on the build rules having parameters that can be adjusted: 3E and subsequent versions of D&D exemplify this; so do points-buy games. There also needs to be a measure of performance that it makes sense to try and enhance.

(5) Once we're talking about enhancing measurable performance we're getting pretty close to a win condition for the game. So a RPG that has complex PC build rules with multiple interacting elements, and that has a win condition or something in that neighbourhood, is likely to foster optimisation in PC build. Conversely, a RPG that has simple and/or transparent PC build rules and that doesn't have a win condition is likely not to feature much optimisation in PC build.

 

[Manbearcat]

(5) Once we're talking about enhancing measurable performance we're getting pretty close to a win condition for the game. So a RPG that has complex PC build rules with multiple interacting elements, and that has a win condition or something in that neighbourhood, is likely to foster optimisation in PC build. Conversely, a RPG that has simple and/or transparent PC build rules and that doesn't have a win condition is likely not to feature much optimisation in PC build.

This is the clincher to me.

Ive long argued that D&D has a “Win Condition.” People have then argued against that, typically to the tune of some instantiation of “well, my campaign has no endpoint” or “the Win Con of D&D is fun!”

Yet those same people will lament optimizers and the optimization strategies they rode in on. That is a curious paradox (maintaining there is no Win Con in D&D yet lamenting optimization)!

There is clearly a Win Con in Classic D&D, it’s just a through-line rather than an endpoint (except the through-line may as well be an endpoint because it serves the same conceptual function):

Optimize loadout, optimize intra-PC and intraparty synergy, control Rest Cycle/resource Refresh thereby minimizing exposure and maximizing the group’s resource attrition: XP/treasure gained ratio.

 

[payn]

If a game has a conflict resolution mechanic, it has a win condition. As stated in the OP, some games you cant, some games you can optimize.

Are there any questions about the topic?

 

[Manbearcat]

If a game has a conflict resolution mechanic, it has a win condition. As stated in the OP, some games you cant, some games you can optimize.

Are there any questions about the topic?

You would be surprised.

The number of times I've encountered "there is no Win Con" in D&D over the years...its way up there. I'd say its majority opinion on this site (or at least the majority of those who choose to opine).

 

[Umbran]

(5) Once we're talking about enhancing measurable performance we're getting pretty close to a win condition for the game. So a RPG that has complex PC build rules with multiple interacting elements, and that has a win condition or something in that neighbourhood, is likely to foster optimisation in PC build. Conversely, a RPG that has simple and/or transparent PC build rules and that doesn't have a win condition is likely not to feature much optimisation in PC build.

A thing to note is that individuals can, and will, choose their own win conditions, whether or not the game defines them. Individuals have wants and goals separate from what the game defines.

Games with complex PC build rules enable people to choose a win condition, and build to meet it, and feel like they win, regardless the game's definition.

 

[prabe]

A thing to note is that individuals can, and will, choose their own win conditions, whether or not the game defines them. Individuals have wants and goals separate from what the game defines.

Games with complex PC build rules enable people to choose a win condition, and build to meet it, and feel like they win, regardless the game's definition.

I'd add that some people are less concerned with winning (or with defining/choosing win conditions) than with not-losing--where "losing" is IME usually either character-death or failing to accomplish character/campaign goals.

 

[prabe]

As a broader response to the thread, it seems as though you're saying something along the lines of "The more direct control over the character build the players have, the more likely at least some players are to treat chargen as a minigame, and the more likely they are to pick some form of optimization as a win condition." That seems near-enough to tautological that I feel I must be missing (or maiming) your point; if so, I apologize.

 

[aramis erak]

Here are some thoughts about the thread topic:

(1) Some RPGs use random PC generation; those RPGs don't really have optimisation in any meaningful sense. Maybe they allow gambling (eg in Classic Traveller you can keep trying for further terms of service, which can allow more skills and starting gear for your PC, but risk (i) stat loss due to aging, and (ii) PC death and having to start over due to a failed survival role), but gambling isn't optimisation.

The best known random roll game, D&D, has optimizations aplenty... at least prior to 3rd.

• Attribute trading at 2:1
• Picking race after rolling to optimize resultant attributes
• Picking class based upon rolled atts
• Proficiencies selection (weapon and non,, if used)
• Spell selection (Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Illusionist, Specialist wizard, Elf)

RuneQuest 1E/2E has optimizations, as starting experience is spent
RuneQuest 3E has little, as race is picked first, then background is picked, trained career is rolled and age is rolled, with the combination determining all starting skills.
MRQ/MRQII has a pool of points to spend and bases by background chosen. That's optimizable.
I can't speak to RQ after MRQ2.

WFRP 1E has very little; there are 4 decision points not made by the dice: Race, Class, which starting advance is taken, name. If you have the character pack, you can also eliminate name, if desired. But the exit choices allow insane levels of optimization and build direction.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

A thing to note is that individuals can, and will, choose their own win conditions, whether or not the game defines them. Individuals have wants and goals separate from what the game defines.

Games with complex PC build rules enable people to choose a win condition, and build to meet it, and feel like they win, regardless the game's definition.

Exactly right, and this is where I've seen the worst problems with optimization crop up.

@pemerton 's way of looking at optimization is interesting. I don't know if I agree 100% but for the purposes of this thread, I'll accept it. It does, interestingly, mean that RIFTS, a game much favoured by power gamers and optimizers, doesn't really have a whole lot of optimization going on, because about 90% of RIFTS optimizing is picking the right class and maybe a weapon or armour from a list for that class. Some have a bit more, like the Atlantean and their tattooes, but often not.

On that basis, the most problematic optimization I've actually seen has been from four sources:

1) Games that are transparent but then layer a much complex system on top of the transparent one.

I'm looking at you Cyberpunk 2020 and Shadowrun. Both of them have a pretty transparent/straightforward system wrt stats and skills. Cyberpunk 2020 then has extremely fiddle-able cyberware, armour and guns, which can transform a "makes sense" character into an OMGWTHBBQ full-on monstrosity. Shadowrun has Magic, Adept magic, and Cyberware at the very least. I've personally "broken the game" with Magic (I didn't really mean to, I mean I kind of wanted to see what would happen, but it was bad, and I was definitely "broken OP" in SR3E), and seen it done (or close to it) with Cyberware and particularly Adept magic.

2) Games where you get multiple actions.

Shadowrun is once again an offender here, and Champions/HERO and its many relatives are too. The ability to get extra actions, at least in the versions I've played, is drastically undercosted compared to other options. In almost every game I can think of where you can get extra actions at full effectiveness (i.e. not with a huge penalty), then the best thing to do is get extra actions, and if a player doesn't realize this, they're stuff, and literally none of these games are transparent about this, not even later editions of Shadowrun (which do at least sorta mention it being good).

3) Games where you can get a discount on a points cost.

GURPS Supers being the worst offender I've ever come across here - you could end up with like an 80% discount on power costs, which lead to one player, as happily admitted, basically building a "2000 point character" on 400 points (closer inspection suggested it was more like 1600 points because you couldn't get a discount on everything but sheesh). The disadvantage was that in theory his equipment could be stolen but due to the nature of his powers, good bloody luck with that!

4) Games full of "newbie traps" intentional or otherwise.

D&D 3.XE is one obvious example because it was intentional, but it also happens unintentionally, for example with Champions/HERO where, in the editions I played at least, the costings on powers were just tremendously off, with you being wildly overcharged for some stuff and undercharged for other bits and dodgy variable power rules and so on. A person who understands the system will do hugely better than one who falls for the pitfalls.

To return to @Umbran's point re: setting goals, Cyberpunk 2020 was where this really was the worst I saw in a group, we were all 15-17, and one of the players basically set his own win condition as "kill everyone I can, don't get killed" or as perhaps a more modern audience might put it "assert dominance". Pre-cyberware/guns/armour, he was a pretty basic Solo, but once that was all layered on him (all sadly rules-legal, though his humanity score was pushing it), he was basically immune to small-arms fire (even in the head/eyes!) without looking too obvious, and carried two modified ridiculous pistols which hit harder than assault rifles and had clips so large he'd never need to reload, which the game claimed were concealable (so the DM went along with it...), and also had assorted annoying cyberware to negate potential issues. He then spent the entire campaign just shooting NPCs he had agreed not to shoot. But he wasn't even a lunatic - he carefully avoided shooting anyone who might bring the law down directly on us (and wouldn't kill cops, not because the player cared, but because he knew it might get MAX-TAC on his ass and that would likely be his end). He just ruined plan after plan, negotiation after negotiation. He was genuinely the dreaded "munchkin", a person with a grotesquely OP character who wanted to "win the game" and didn't care how that made the other players feel. He got put in a coma by a vampire from a third-party supplement (I think written by Dream Pod 9 or some early version of them) in the end, but I couldn't laugh because my PC got wrecked in the same encounter.

Eventually the player grew out of it, thankfully. Also now don't tell him but he's just nowhere near as good at optimization as he used to be - plus we're playing more games where optimization isn't as much of an issue, or is a non-issue, like Dungeon World.

 

[pemerton]

Games with complex PC build rules enable people to choose a win condition, and build to meet it, and feel like they win, regardless the game's definition.

I see a number of posts/threads on these boards lamenting optimisation in D&D and its effect on play. That suggests that the win conditions aren't just about personal choice (eg my win condition is having the brightest red cloak of any PC in the game), but ramify into the play of the game.