Optimization and optimizers...

[Umbran]

What can I say, I'm Deep.

Mod Note:
Assigning value to people based on their play preferences isn't Deep. It's kinda junior-high-school cliquishness.

How about we stop that, folks, please and thanks, before it gets even more insulting, hm? Thanks.

 

[Bae'zel]

Ideallly game designers would always make a point of playtesting their games at different "tiers" of PC power.

Especially their higher level magic items / wargear within the context of use of specialized combat characters.

It's not like optimizers or "power gamers" are particularly RARE in gaming circles.

If I was designing a game, I'd definitely get my munchkin gamer friend to try and "break" it.

That being said, there are always blind corners and game designers, even playtesters, are not perfect. Only human.

The attitude that I don't appreciate is when a player finds something in the game rules (eg a rule loophole, exploit or an obviously unintended synergy) and goes "bwah hah hah this will break the game woe to the DM this campaign". Have had that happen in a few groups and so I'm much more picky about who I play with and definitely set up expectations during session zero (the main one being: "I'm not an antagonist; I'm the director, doing surprise moves that stun me or grind the game to a halt will spoil my mood".

Some people LIKE to be surprised, enjoy the back and forth chess match between DM and player. But not me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

Yeah, again, that's really what I meant by "session zero". It's become a named, formalized thing, but every campaign I've ever played in since the early 80s had a first session where we all decided to what to play, rolled stats (where appropriate), filled out character sheets, described our characters, talked about what the campaign would be like, etc. As you say, just "who was playing what".

 

[Blue]

I would put -5 at not knowing how to play much at all. The first timer, or the guy that played with his brother a couple times or that classic guy that played a little back at school. Also that casual player that plays in a game every couple months.

-4 Are the players with no interest in the rules. They have been playing the game for years, and don't even know most of the basic rules. Casual Gamers and Social Gamers.

-3 Know a couple rules, but not too many. They just want to have random fun. They don't want to think to much about a "silly game".

-2 They know most of the rules players might need to know.....but they are all twisted and confused. Often from a past Buddy DM with very Easy Button house rules . That they think are official rules. And they don't understand most rules anyway, and get confused by big words and concepts.

-1 knows the rules slightly below average, but they are stubbornly 'stuck' on something. Often a race or class, but just as often a play style. They often like to take odd feats, classes, abilties or whatever as the "like them" , and they don't help the character.

Sorry, you can attempt to optimize -- be an optimizer -- even if you don't understand the rules well. You'd just not effective at it. I've seen it often when players move onto a new game or a new edition of a game.

Again, optimization as a work means making effective use of resource, opportunities, and situations. So anything negative means actively choosing ineffective ways of doing things.

The fact is optimizers must play in games zero or below to have fun. They must play in a game that has little to no optimization. And they need an Easy Buddy DM.

Please stop abusing posters like myself by making absolute claims on what we enjoy.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Again, optimization as a work means making effective use of resource, opportunities, and situations. So anything negative means actively choosing ineffective ways of doing things.

This is exactly what I've been thinking about the last few pages. In the RPGs I mostly play, optimization in chargen (and progression) has a minor effect compared to how the character is played.

Another, related conversation...and potentially one more interesting...would be purely about playstyle, not character creation. And I think that debate is pretty symmetric: every criticism that could be leveled against a player who always makes optimal tactical decisions applies equally to the player who never does. There's no right and wrong; it's purely a playstyle preference.

Please stop abusing posters like myself by making absolute claims on what we enjoy.

The statement you are responding to is the one where I realized that the poster's position was so extreme and unfounded that there was no point in even paying attention.

 

[prabe]

Another, related conversation...and potentially one more interesting...would be purely about playstyle, not character creation. And I think that debate is pretty symmetric: every criticism that could be leveled against a player who always makes optimal tactical decisions applies equally to the player who never does. There's no right and wrong; it's purely a playstyle preference.

The only quibble I'd have, here--and it's a minor quibble, I'm not looking for an argument--is that I think the distinction is the extent/frequency to which "optimal tactical decision" is a criterion: Someone who intentionally never makes the optimal tactical decision is probably optimizing for something, I think, whereas someone who never thinks about that A) isn't optimizing for anything that way and B) will probably stumble on a good tactical choice now and then. Obviously, either can work, though the player who's intentionally never making good tactical choices might have some 'splainin' to do at some tables.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The only quibble I'd have, here--and it's a minor quibble, I'm not looking for an argument--is that I think the distinction is the extent/frequency to which "optimal tactical decision" is a criterion: Someone who intentionally never makes the optimal tactical decision is probably optimizing for something, I think, whereas someone who never thinks about that A) isn't optimizing for anything that way and B) will probably stumble on a good tactical choice now and then. Obviously, either can work, though the player who's intentionally never making good tactical choices might have some 'splainin' to do at some tables.

Yeah I think the balance point of that spectrum is not halfway between good and bad decisions, it's "generally making reasonably effective decisions." So to compare disruptive behaviors, on the one hand I'd use the guy who tells other players what to do on their turns, and on the other the guy who griefs the party with the "it's what my character would do" b.s.

I don't want to play with either.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

An easy line to use when you get to define "reality".

 

[soviet]

An easy line to use when you get to define "reality".

You only ever respond with 'well ackshually' and pedantry. Please stop responding to me at all.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Guys, the Ignore List exists for a reason.