Optimization and optimizers...

[Seramus]

But I have never in the history of ever heard someone asked to "optimise more".

I, too, have never seen (or heard of) anyone ever being asked to optimize more, for what's that's worth.

You see it a lot more in Streaming and Actual Play communities. For example, Ashley Johnson of Critical Role fame is a lovely person and wonderful role player. But fans have asked many a time, both politely and impolitely, for her to learn her character better.

 

[prabe]

You see it a lot more in Streaming and Actual Play communities. For example, Ashley Johnson of Critical Role fame is a lovely person and wonderful role player. But fans have asked many a time, both politely and impolitely, for her to learn her character better.

See, "knowing your character" doesn't seem like "optimizing" to me. I mean, maybe "use your character better, tactically" is close, or at least pointing in the direction of a kind of optimizing. Just knowing the rules that apply to your character, though--that just seems like knowing how to play the game; maybe there are players for whom the rules of the game aren't really important, and maybe there are tables made up of those players, but game/fiction preferences again don't seem all that optimization-centered to me.

 

[Greg K]

I'll not that not only does Stan Long expect optimization, he even put guidelines and breakpoints in the Hero System Rules 4e and 5e rules.

I think you mean Steve Long. He wrote the rules for 5th and 6th editions not 4th (although he did write some 4e supplements).
The writers of 4e were George MacDonald and Steve Peterson along with Rob Bell (the editor of Champions 4e and the Hero System rulebook for 4e).
As for the cost breaks, they go back to pre-4e Champions and originated with Goodman's Tips by the late Steve Goodman, an original Champions player. They appeared in at least of the Champions books (or supplements) and were advice on how to build characters more efficiently and, allegedly, originated with one of Steve's friends whom was good at looking at rules and seeing how to squeeze the most out of them.

 

[Seramus]

See, "knowing your character" doesn't seem like "optimizing" to me. I mean, maybe "use your character better, tactically" is close, or at least pointing in the direction of a kind of optimizing. Just knowing the rules that apply to your character, though--that just seems like knowing how to play the game; maybe there are players for whom the rules of the game aren't really important, and maybe there are tables made up of those players, but game/fiction preferences again don't seem all that optimization-centered to me.

It's a good question. What does "-5" look like, on the -5/+5 scale someone proposed a while back? Is it strictly having very low stats? Taking trap feats? Is it having abilities on your sheet that would be great in certain circumstances and not using them? Is optimization restricted to character building, or does it include the choices you make in the game? Is it eating 4 opportunity attacks not because it was the best narrative decision at the time, but simply because you forgot opportunity attacks exist?

I personally feel like you can optimize play. You want to accomplish your quest and have as few people die as possible, so you try to optimize a route to maximize your chance of success and minimize your casualties. That's probably operating at +0 (or higher), but what does -5 look like as a metric of play?

 

[prabe]

It's a good question. What does "-5" look like, on the -5/+5 scale someone proposed a while back? Is it strictly having very low stats? Taking trap feats? Is it having abilities on your sheet that would be great in certain circumstances and not using them? Is optimization restricted to character building, or does it include the choices you make in the game? Is it eating 4 opportunity attacks not because it was the best narrative decision at the time, but simply because you forgot opportunity attacks exist?

I personally feel like you can optimize play. You want to accomplish your quest and have as few people die as possible, so you try to optimize a route to maximize your chance of success and minimize your casualties. That's probably operating at +0 (or higher), but what does -5 look like as a metric of play?

My inclination is that as you move negative on the axis, you aren't making intentionally bad choices--making an intentionally bad character is, after all, arguably a form of optimization; it seems to me you'd just be putting less thought into the mechanics of your choices: picking abilities because the names sound cool, or purely because they fit a narrative thing you want for your character. I'm not sure what that looks like, the closest I've ever seen at a table was someone who pretty routinely built characters that weren't online right away (and which were kinda a drag on play until they were online).

 

[bloodtide]

When you're talking being an optimizer, and when you're a DM about making 'homebrew far outside the rules', it sounds like you are the type of optimizer that you were calling out -- looking to disrupt or wreck a game.

Are you sure your stance about optimizers isn't just projection?

I'm sure. As a DM you don't toss around your Ego making your character "super duper" to ruin the fun of others and "win the game" in your mind.

Respectfully disagree, It isn't about badwrongfun or that some people are very skilled with the system/character rules in an RPG. Speaking from experience, it comes down to having a player in a group, especially if they join a pre-existing group, who wants to do the +3 to +5 on the optimization when everyone else at the table prefers 0 to +1 (using the scale discussed earlier). If that group is happy with that basic level of optimisation but the other player ruins the experience at the table, then it causes problems. In my experience, that optimising player won't come down to their level but expects the other players to up their game to theirs. It isn't badwrongfun but it does breach the unwritten (but hopefully spoken) social contract of the gaming group.

As a +10 game type DM I can say this is not exactly true, as there is more to it.

Optimizers MUST play in low games, like zero, in order to get their ego rush. Optimizers hunt for the zero type games. Offer them a powerful game and they will come up with some reason not to play. Even a game at an equal level to the optimizer player is too much for them.

You can watch an optimizer break even after just missing a foe three times....the players fragile ego comes crashing down as now suddenly their character is not "super duper". And you can heighten this by never, ever telling the players anything OOC: optimizers hate this.

And then you go past combat to role playing(the acting kind), problem solving and slice of life sort of stuff.....and the poor optimizer is not so "special super duper".

 

[Laurefindel]

I play RPGs to have fun and be creative. If I were ever playing with players or a GM who were out to break things or people, and not just enjoy themselves, I would get out of that situation. And I think that's why you hear of people optimizing characters as a bad thing: it removes the fun element for the entire experience with the group.

But players out to break things and ruin everybody’s fun are not just optimizers; they’re jerks who use optimisation to ruin everybody’s fun. They’re are many ways of being disruptive around the table; this is but one of them.

As in all things, accidental jerkiness happens, and perhaps they’re just in the wrong group. Only the worst offenders are ruining everybody’s fun deliberately.

As for creativity, optimisation is one of my preferred creative outlet. It’s a mini-game, a puzzle to solve, and not one that is limited to your own character. Leaving your teammates in the dust is not optimal.

The idea that creativity, enthusiasm in roleplaying, team work, and whimsy are all opposed to or mutually-exclusive with optimisation is bullcrap.

[edit] but aggressive optimisation can undeniably be a form of disruption, and I too would probably leave a table where nothing matters but weird hyper-specialized cheese.

 

[prabe]

I'm sure. As a DM you don't toss around your Ego making your character "super duper" to ruin the fun of others and "win the game" in your mind.

You're correct. The GM doesn't work for their own ego at all, their own fun. They work to make the game fun for everyone at the table. I'm sure this is your top priority, anyone who's read your posts knows it to be true.

 

[Seramus]

Optimizers MUST play in low games, like zero, in order to get their ego rush. Optimizers hunt for the zero type games. Offer them a powerful game and they will come up with some reason not to play. Even a game at an equal level to the optimizer player is too much for them.

You can watch an optimizer break even after just missing a foe three times....the players fragile ego comes crashing down as now suddenly their character is not "super duper". And you can heighten this by never, ever telling the players anything OOC: optimizers hate this.

And then you go past combat to role playing(the acting kind), problem solving and slice of life sort of stuff.....and the poor optimizer is not so "special super duper".

This feels way too far off the deep end in an otherwise polite conversation.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You see it a lot more in Streaming and Actual Play communities. For example, Ashley Johnson of Critical Role fame is a lovely person and wonderful role player. But fans have asked many a time, both politely and impolitely, for her to learn her character better.

Learning your character so your lack of knowledge of what you have chosen to play doesn't cause slowdown at the table as we all have to wait for you is not an optimisation issue. It's a good manners issue - and there are some optimisers who also have this type of bad manners (generally because they've fitted together abilities that come from a range of sources and are more than they can keep in their head at once).