Optimization and optimizers...

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah. And it’s worth noting this doesn’t have to be an active thing the optimizer does. Simply having an optimized character in a game with non-optimized characters can make the non-optimizers feel bad about their character choices. Being constantly outshined sucks.

You do realise you just reversed the statement you were replying to. That they talked about optimizers trying to make people feel bad and you are claiming that optimizers make you feel bad whether they are trying to or not. This sounds more like a you problem

Complaining that you feel useless because of your own choice (+1) to make a character that fails to meet reasonable expectations for effectiveness (+3) and someone met or even slightly exceeded them (+4) feels like common behaviour for anti-optimizers however.

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.

If you are running an open table in my experience the reverse is true. You don't know what is turning up so you prepare for +3s - people who have made obviously sensible choices (highest stat in their primary stat, decent Con, either ASIs in primary stat or relevant feats, solid spells). My second worst experience running open table in the 2014 era was when two of the four players were an anti-optimised barbarian and a newbie playing a 2014 monk. (My worst I had to kick someone mid game).

And unless the anti-optimiser is truly terrible I still have to account for them when planning for a closed table. Given that teamwork and synergy are more important than builds they don't make things easier.

 

[aiouh]

If optimizing wasn't encouraged behavior by default the game shouldn't make optimizing good.

Case in point: Swords & Wizardry Complete Revised

Does having high dex matter? Yes. Does it matter all that much above a 14? Also no.

Here's 5e

Do higher ability scores matter? Yes. Do they ever stop mattering? No.

Getting mad at people for optimizing at 5e/PF2e style games (when no other style of play is agreed upon) is kind of like getting mad at people for shooting goals at soccer instead of enjoying the scenery. The games are character builder fantasies.

The important part is that everyone needs to be on the same page. Either everyone goes heavy RP and unoptimized or everyone is optimized to their build. I agree that they don't mix.

 

[soviet]

If optimizing wasn't encouraged behavior by default the game shouldn't make optimizing good.

Case in point: Swords & Wizardry Complete Revised
View attachment 410180

Does having high dex matter? Yes. Does it matter all that much above a 14? Also no.

Here's 5e

View attachment 410181

Do higher ability scores matter? Yes. Do they ever stop mattering? No.

Getting mad at people for optimizing at 5e/PF2e style games (when no other style of play is agreed upon) is kind of like getting mad at people for shooting goals at soccer instead of enjoying the scenery. The games are character builder fantasies.

The important part is that everyone needs to be on the same page. Either everyone goes heavy RP and unoptimized or everyone is optimized to their build. I agree that they don't mix.

Agreed. This is what I was trying to get at earlier in terms of this being a game design/game choice problem. It is not an unavoidable choice for RPG characters to be built from a large menu of bespoke rules packets.

However, if you have a game like this, it is unavoidable that some of them will be better than others. And if you have a game like this that was designed badly, as almost all of them are, it is unavoidable that some of them will be drastically better than others, thus distorting the kinds of characters that can be effective and are likely to be made.

Building a game like this and saying 'oh noes, everyone wants to play an elf and no-one wants to play a dwarf' is a failure of game design.

Choosing to run a game like this and saying 'oh noes, everyone wants to play an elf and no-one wants to play a dwarf' is a failure of GMing and game selection.

 

[prabe]

If optimizing wasn't encouraged behavior by default the game shouldn't make optimizing good.

Getting mad at people for optimizing at 5e/PF2e style games (when no other style of play is agreed upon) is kind of like getting mad at people for shooting goals at soccer instead of enjoying the scenery. The games are character builder fantasies.

The important part is that everyone needs to be on the same page. Either everyone goes heavy RP and unoptimized or everyone is optimized to their build. I agree that they don't mix.

I think the last sentence is the important thing, though there is a large middle space between your two options, and there's nothing inherent to optimization and/or roleplaying that makes them mutually exclusive. Not a major disagreement, just a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think the last sentence is the important thing, though there is a large middle space between your two options, and there's nothing inherent to optimization and/or roleplaying that makes them mutually exclusive. Not a major disagreement, just a bit of a pet peeve of mine.

Yes, agreed. Let's face it: there are different approaches to RPGing, different playstyles, different values, different aesthetic preferences. So many threads try to paint other approaches as objectively bad, usually by extrapolating jerky behavior as being indicative of the approach.

In my opinion, jerks will always be jerks, despite an arms race of rules trying to force them to play a certain way. The answer is to not play with jerks, and try to play with non-jerks who share your preferences.

If you choose to play with people who don't share your preferences, and they aren't jerks about it, and it still bothers you....you might be the problem.

 

[prabe]

If you choose to play with people who don't share your preferences, and they aren't jerks about it, and it still bothers you....you might be the problem.

I've left tables when everyone else was clearly enjoying the play but it was driving me kinda nuts (in a bad way). I have persistently said, I think, that I was the problem at those tables, not everyone else.

 

[Gradine]

If optimizing wasn't encouraged behavior by default the game shouldn't make optimizing good.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

I just about never find this to be the case. Put the optimizer in any game except an easy game and they won't have fun.

A big part of optimization for a lot of players is the spotlight and the fandom. They want to do some amazing game mechanisms in front of an audience. They want all the praise and high fives. It is all about them.

This can only happen in an easy game with an appropriate DM.

After all there is nothing about optimization that makes a person a better player in any way. They just have a character with a trick or two. Give the player anything that can't be solved by their optimized game mechanics and they will most often be stumped.

Easy example:

The Buddy DM has all 12 goblins run towards the character. The oprimized character just blasts them all with an optimized Fireball and the player dances around the table.

Even just an Average DM (rare now-a-days) will have the goblins attacking from four sides in groups of three. So the optimizare can only blast one group. What does the player do? Blast one group and then get attacked by the other nine goblins. I have seen this happen many times.....

 

[prabe]

I just about never find this to be the case. Put the optimizer in any game except an easy game and they won't have fun.

A big part of optimization for a lot of players is the spotlight and the fandom. They want to do some amazing game mechanisms in front of an audience. They want all the praise and high fives. It is all about them.

This can only happen in an easy game with an appropriate DM.

After all there is nothing about optimization that makes a person a better player in any way. They just have a character with a trick or two. Give the player anything that can't be solved by their optimized game mechanics and they will most often be stumped.

Easy example:

The Buddy DM has all 12 goblins run towards the character. The oprimized character just blasts them all with an optimized Fireball and the player dances around the table.

Even just an Average DM (rare now-a-days) will have the goblins attacking from four sides in groups of three. So the optimizare can only blast one group. What does the player do? Blast one group and then get attacked by the other nine goblins. I have seen this happen many times.....

Once again your experience is functionally the opposite of just about everyone else's--and you are conflating "spotlight hog" with "optimizer," when they're not inherently the same. If people say their experience of optimizers is that they A) don't necessarily hog the spotlight and B) thrive on a more difficult game (because they're about Challenge ...) then maybe you should believe them.

Speaking for myself, part of the reason I like PCs that are at least somewhat optimized is that I can push them harder as GM.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In my opinion, jerks will always be jerks, despite an arms race of rules trying to force them to play a certain way. The answer is to not play with jerks, and try to play with non-jerks who share your preferences.

In my experience some people are jerks, but most people want to follow the social rules. An actively bad game is one in which you are encouraged to be a jerk without this being explicitly part of the game (such as in Cards Against Humanity).

And games with complex mechanics encourage optimisation. If there is a large gap between the effectiveness of +4 characters and +1 (or worse +4 and +3) which leads to a negative play experience then this is down to poor design by the game designer. The level you can optimise to is part of game design.

Trying to stop people from optimising b ly default to a reasonable degree (+3/+4) might as well be screaming at the tide to turn back.