Optimization and optimizers...

[Neonchameleon]

I'd argue that's only true with systems that permit few or no meaningful choices during character generation. Otherwise there's pretty much always the possibility to optimize toward an intended result instead of just going up the middle.

I'm simply going to laugh at the idea that Apocalypse world has few meaningful choices during character generation. And then try to work out what "just going up the middle" would even be in that game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Session Zero is a surprisingly new thing in the history of RPGs...

All true. And yet, there has always been a first session to every campaign, which is really what I meant.

 

[Seramus]

The problem is they also don't expect to just be spear carriers. Water finds its own level, but when one player essentially grabs limelight with their capability (and I'm assuming it still in practice matters to some extent or the game system isn't really relevant at all) its still annoying.

Niche protection comes up a lot in those kind of comparisons, too. Many groups (but not all) are okay when the combat specialist does his thing, similarly when the social specialist does her thing, etc. But when two people occupy a similar niche, like both being melee attackers or both being a persuasive charmer, then the players can start eyeballing each other if one is doing MARKEDLY better than the other.

It can get more pronounced when the "toe stepping" comes from an unexpected place / triggers mental dissonance, like a Fighter comparing themselves to a Sorcerer going nova in D&D. Or when they have parity in one category (say, damage), but one of them has oodles of additional tools like being able to fly around, open portals to other planes, etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Niche protection comes up a lot in those kind of comparisons, too. Many groups (but not all) are okay when the combat specialist does his thing, similarly when the social specialist does her thing, etc. But when two people occupy a similar niche, like both being melee attackers or both being a persuasive charmer, then the players can start eyeballing each other if one is doing MARKEDLY better than the other.

It can get more pronounced when the "toe stepping" comes from an unexpected place / triggers mental dissonance, like a Fighter comparing themselves to a Sorcerer going nova in D&D. Or when they have parity in one category (say, damage), but one of them has oodles of additional tools like being able to fly around, open portals to other planes, etc.

It can even be worse when the person doing better is avowedly not in the same niche, but is still outcompeting someone in that niche. Getting out of the D&D sphere, when the group's avowed vehicle guy is a better ground combatant than the guy built as a ground combatant, that can lead to some sour feelings.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm simply going to laugh at the idea that Apocalypse world has few meaningful choices during character generation. And then try to work out what "just going up the middle" would even be in that game.

I can't speak of AW specifically, but I'll outright say I do consider the two PbtA games I have to land in that category outside picking your playbook in the first place. My standards here don't have to match yours.

 

[aco175]

If you can "break" the game by making good decisions instead of bad ones, the game is bad, and you should play something else.

It isn't the job of the players to avoid good options. It is the job of the designers who are being paid to produce a functional product to create a game that still functions when the players make good decisions.

If there exists an option or subset of options such that if picked, they trivialize some part of the game - well then, why did the designer write those rules, instead of not writing them, or writing different ones? they certainly had the choice.

if the excuse is a lack of play testing, too bad. if you are unable or unwilling to test your product sufficiently before releasing it, then don't create a product.

Unfortunately the primary goal of the designers is to sell games for money. The rest is secondary.

I would also add that using multiple designers only adds to the problem. Each brings some level of compatibility or ideas on how things fit with the other products. A couple years down the road and we now have splat books that sounded cool, but has one feat that was made for one thing, buy also seems to work with something else that was not foreseen. It becomes like MagicTG cards and so many sets where you allow anything and people make decks that kill you round 1 or you limit games to certain sets in order to make it more fair or have more fun. Sell more cards if you run blind draws.

 

[soviet]

I'd argue that's only true with systems that permit few or no meaningful choices during character generation. Otherwise there's pretty much always the possibility to optimize toward an intended result instead of just going up the middle.

That's why I said degenerate.

'Fighters should have high strength, weapon specialisation, and maybe throw darts' is optimisation but it's benign and it doesn't distort the game.

 

[soviet]

Unfortunately the primary goal of the designers is to sell games for money. The rest is secondary.

Rubbish

 

[soviet]

I can't speak of AW specifically, but I'll outright say I do consider the two PbtA games I have to land in that category outside picking your playbook in the first place. My standards here don't have to match yours.

But if they don't even match reality it's hard to have a discussion

 

[DragonLancer]

Also, I have never experienced a session 0 where players asked around to establish, "Hey, how much are we optimizing here?" My groups are always a mix of optimizers and total non-optimizers, and a few who vary.

Until the Daggerheart playtest last year, the idea of a session zero never even existed to my group. People would chat on our FB messenger and just say what they wanted to play in the next campaign. No mention of optimisation, just who was playing what.

There's something I don't understand here: if the table is "happy with that basic level of optimization" it means they aren't emphasizing being mechanically powerful, right?

So why should it bother them if one character is relatively more powerful? Haven't they already established that being powerful isn't important to them?

I'll try and explain it better, although I do find it is hard to do in a written format. In the campaign in question, I had 4-5 players who did the basic optimisation for their characters (let's say 0 or +2 on the scale at best), while the newcomer to the group was most definately a +4 bordering +5. The majority didn't plan more than a level ahead in character progression and liked combat encounters to be challenging but with a sense that they could lose someone... and that was the level of optimisation on both sides of the screen that they liked. They were not fans of over-optimising because for them it took a lot of the fun out of the game. Along came the new guy and his approach was if the rules let me do it, then I'm doing it. He liked to be the superhero build really. He didn't want that challenge, he wanted something more but everyone else didn't. He didn't push them to get good, but he did confide to me that he felt everyone else's characters were **** and he wasn't willing to bring himself down to their level.

Ultimately it was just a case of two play styles that were never going to get along.