Optimization and optimizers...

[Thomas Shey]

Rich wanted Trinity and Scion to have the same core mechanics, but both games were in development at the same time, and Trinity had priority. So there were times where the Trinity team would send us changes to their core mechanics, and Neall had to rework whole sections to work with those changes. It caused a lot of mechanics to not quite jive with each other.

All the love to the Trinity team of course! But one game really should have finalized their core mechanics before the other started building around them (even including the original delays on Scion 2E before Neall came on).

The irony is, even though I doubt I'll ever use any of them, I own kind of a silly number of Storypath games including all the "They Came From..." line.

That said, I really do consider Scale an improvement over the old Epic and Mega attributes (especially the former). They're just not a panacea.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep. Optimizers make the game harder to run. If your goal is challenging the PCs, you have to work that much harder. If your goal is non-trivial fights, they make it that much harder.

Eh. As long as you've got somewhat consistent optimization its not that hard once you get used to what it needs. You may not like the need to do it, but that's different.

 

[prabe]

Eh. As long as you've got somewhat consistent optimization its not that hard once you get used to what it needs. You may not like the need to do it, but that's different.

My experience is that I end up adapting to the parties I'm running for; having an optimizer or three in the party isn't any different from having more players, as far as the mustering opposition part of GMing, anyway. But then, I make up stuff specifically for the parties I'm running for, based on their tacit and implicit interests, and fitting in with an established narrative. Different GMs do things differently.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yep. Optimizers make the game harder to run. If your goal is challenging the PCs, you have to work that much harder. If your goal is non-trivial fights, they make it that much harder.

I disagree. Smart play has a much bigger impact than optimization (at least, in the RPGs I play) so whether or not the characters are optimized is a relatively minor consideration.

 

[bloodtide]

I mean, non-optimizers benefit massively more from both of those changes than optimizers lol.

Optimzers will usually have PCs with higher HP and ones which are less likely to die anyway. If a DM does something like that, if optimizers make say, a 30% gain because they can maybe consider having a lower CON if that benefits them, non-optimizers make like a 100% gain, because they can just do whatever the heck they like and know the DM won't kill them. They don't even have to worry about it.

And if the PCs only take small amounts of damage sometimes and the DM makes sure no PCs die ever, it is a big boon.

The big point here is an optimizer can have the character take even extreme risks as they know the DM won't do anything.

"PCs always 'win' combats" describes easily 80-90% of campaigns in traditional RPGs (PtbA/BitD and other narrative stuff is a bit different, so we'll exclude it) run by pretty much everyone outside of the horror and OSR/NSR genres because in most RPGs, particularly D&D-derived ones, the only possible results of a combat are:

A) PCs 'win' (whether at great cost or little)

or

B) TPK (which the DM may mitigate by saying "actually you were all captured" or the like, but is still a TPK).

I agree this is the only two things that can happen in most game styles where the DM is a fan of the players/PC and is on the players/pcs side.

You're essentially saying that, say, 25m of the estimated 30m D&D players are "doing it wrong" lol. Which is bold. It's nothing to do with the "weak DM" point either - that's separate. This is just a playstyle choice, which might have a strong or weak DM behind it.

I would never say "wrong".

Optimizers thrive in games that are made easy for them, it is that simple. If that is how you want your game play it is all fine. The wrinkle is that the optimizer player disrupts things and your not willing to change anything to fix that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And if the PCs only take small amounts of damage sometimes and the DM makes sure no PCs die ever, it is a big boon.

The big point here is an optimizer can have the character take even extreme risks as they know the DM won't do anything.


I agree this is the only two things that can happen in most game styles where the DM is a fan of the players/PC and is on the players/pcs side.

I would never say "wrong".

Optimizers thrive in games that are made easy for them, it is that simple. If that is how you want your game play it is all fine. The wrinkle is that the optimizer player disrupts things and your not willing to change anything to fix that.

As usual, this is the opposite of my experience; optimizers are at their best in hard games, and in fact, are often bred by same. The only way a harder game doesn't favor that is if the GM shows no consistency, and talk about a cure worse than any possible disease.

 

[Retros_x]

Yep. Optimizers make the game harder to run. If your goal is challenging the PCs, you have to work that much harder. If your goal is non-trivial fights, they make it that much harder.

That is absolutely not true. You can just design harder fights. But designing more difficult fights is not more demanding for the DM, at least in game with encounter balance design guidelines. With your logic I could also say "Designing fights for bad gamers is harder for me, because I need to make them easier". Its vice-versa and thus not actually a issue. In D&D terms you just aim for higher or lower CR, depending on your players skill.

 

[Retros_x]

Optimizers thrive in games that are made easy for them, it is that simple. If that is how you want your game play it is all fine. The wrinkle is that the optimizer player disrupts things and your not willing to change anything to fix that.

Thats also utter nonsense. As I said in that other thread, I consider myself a power gamer and optimizer. Never was I told I disrupt things. I also don't enjoy easier games more, the opposite is the case. Give me hard battles and challenges, so my build and my creative use of the game systems can get tested. Also what do you mean with disrupt? Disrupt means in my world you prevent a process or system from working as planned - And you say a player being good at the game will always do that? I and many other players like to be good in the game, like to learn the system, like to build efficient characters who are good at what they are doing. We also like roleplay and a good story and in the parties I play I rarely am the one who hogs the spotlight or somehow "disrupt things" what ever ominous evil deed you mean by that.

Maybe its because I am a DM too, but IME lots of optimizers are enjoyable players to have at the table. You might have had a bad experience or even multiple ones, but inducting from your experience that it is the general rule that optimizers disrupt things is a fallacy.

 

[Distracted DM]

That is absolutely not true. You can just design harder fights. But designing more difficult fights is not more demanding for the DM, at least in game with encounter balance design guidelines. With your logic I could also say "Designing fights for bad gamers is harder for me, because I need to make them easier". Its vice-versa and thus not actually a issue. In D&D terms you just aim for higher or lower CR, depending on your players skill.

It can be a pain if you have a mixture of optimizer and non-optimizer players at the table.

 

[Retros_x]

It can be a pain if you have a mixture of optimizer and non-optimizer players at the table.

That is fair, but thats a general problem. Also if you just have "normal" players and bad ones at the table, or "normal" and optimizers, its not the optimizers fault per se, its just the problem of different niveau of player skill. In these cases I prefer games where being good at the crunchy part of a game is not that relevant and thus the difference is not as noticeable.