Optimization and optimizers...

[Gradine]

I will say, the one thing I don't get and probably never will is this idea that you shouldn't/can't have optimizers and non-optimizers in the same group. It all ties into this idea that every PC should be balanced... I just don't get it? It's not only okay but specifically designed to make some characters excel at the Social and Exploration pillars of the game above and beyond what other characters can (you can have a Ranger or Druid and you can have your party face) but the instant one character is better at the Combat pillar than others it ruins the fun for everyone? I've been the PC on both sides of that before, and I've DMed groups with that same divide as well, and I have absolutely never seen it.

It's the most normal thing in the world for a group to have one character who's really good at smashing goblins, and another character who's really good at smashing goblins, if you catch my drift

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

You can also have games where the gap is less pronounced because the character generation makes it difficult to produce a character that's really substandard, and where an optimized character isn't dramatically more potent than an average one. Both of those are generally true with PF2e (you normally really have to go out of your way to produce a substandard character).

 

[prabe]

I will say, the one thing I don't get and probably never will is this idea that you shouldn't/can't have optimizers and non-optimizers in the same group. It all ties into this idea that every PC should be balanced... I just don't get it? It's not only okay but specifically designed to make some characters excel at the Social and Exploration pillars of the game above and beyond what other characters can (you can have a Ranger or Druid and you can have your party face) but the instant one character is better at the Combat pillar than others it ruins the fun for everyone? I've been the PC on both sides of that before, and I've DMed groups with that same divide as well, and I have absolutely never seen it.

It's the most normal thing in the world for a group to have one character who's really good at smashing goblins, and another character who's really good at smashing goblins, if you catch my drift

My take--and this is just my take, I'm not speaking for anyone else, here--is that having people who are optimized to different extents can be a problem, and it's more likely to be a problem than if everyone is optimized to the same extent. This is especially the case if someone is kinda en passant stepping on someone else's niche-toes, while still rawking out at their primary thing. If the person who's optimizing the hardest is also a spotlight hawg, it's almost certainly going to be a problem.

In other words, it's personalities that are more likely to make disparity in optimization a problem than the disparity itself.

None of that is intended as prescriptive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

The PF2e games I've played in says you're wrong.

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.

And this is, at best, a gross overgeneralization. There are plenty of optimizers who are all about realizing the concept they have to the best degree the system will allow them to, and that concept includes being capable in their area. That's as far as it goes. There can be ones that are spotlight hogs, but that's just as true about people who are really super-focused on the roleplaying end, too.

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.

This is a narrow view of optimization, too. Not all of them are one-trick ponies, and I've seen ones that when they were problems, it was because they'd found ways to be too good in general.

So, as per usual, you've got your own little bubble of experience and are projecting it on the wider game world.

 

[Bill Zebub]

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.

I finally had to resort to the Ignore button to prevent myself from incurring the Wrath of Red Text, so I'm not going to directly address the post you are resopnding to. But as a general principle if one is going to start bringing motivations and psychology into the discussion it is best to stick with one's own, and not assume to know what makes other people tick. At most, describe specific situations you've witnessed, and how you have experienced it, but don't try to extrapolate/generalize what's going on in somebody else's head. I don't think I've ever seen the latter done in a positive, complimentary way.

 

[prabe]

I finally had to resort to the Ignore button to prevent myself from incurring the Wrath of Red Text, so I'm not going to directly address the post you are resopnding to. But as a general principle if one is going to start bringing motivations and psychology into the discussion it is best to stick with one's own, and not assume to know what makes other people tick. At most, describe specific situations you've witnessed, and how you have experienced it, but don't try to extrapolate/generalize what's going on in somebody else's head. I don't think I've ever seen the latter done in a positive, complimentary way.

Yeah. Talking about your own experiences/psychology is almost certainly fine, though probably not generalizable (and you should keep that part in mind). Talking about what you've observed directly can be fine, depending. Talking about something you've clearly never observed in any way you understood ... not a great look.

Also, if people describe their own experiences, maybe it's worth believing those descriptions--at least as subjectively honest, if not objectively true.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I will say, the one thing I don't get and probably never will is this idea that you shouldn't/can't have optimizers and non-optimizers in the same group. It all ties into this idea that every PC should be balanced... I just don't get it?

Well, its based on the fact that even people who aren't oriented toward optimization want to feel like they're contributing. If some people are clearly doing so too much more, that can feel like its not the case and, well, bad.

My own feeling is that the game has to have a bit too much of a gap and/or players who are either going out of their way to be jerks (at the optimizer end) or really sensitive to the differences (at the non-optimized end) for it to be a real problem, but various combinations of that can happen.

It's not only okay but specifically designed to make some characters excel at the Social and Exploration pillars of the game above and beyond what other characters can (you can have a Ranger or Druid and you can have your party face) but the instant one character is better at the Combat pillar than others it ruins the fun for everyone? I've been the PC on both sides of that before, and I've DMed groups with that same divide as well, and I have absolutely never seen it.

Part of it is that in a lot of games the combat elements takes up significantly more time (and is usually more survival-critical) than the other two. That means they aren't assessed the same.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

The person you are replying to is a self-confessed optimizer. He has also in this thread admitted to optimizing using homebrew (from the DM's chair no less - the combination of which puts him into the +5 range) and to setting out to making optimizers cry using the unlimited power of the DM.

He therefore knows that everything he says is completely true about one optimizer. He, after all, admits to being one so any general statement he makes includes himself and he is the one he knows best.

 

[prabe]

The person you are replying to is a self-confessed optimizer. He has also in this thread admitted to optimizing using homebrew (from the DM's chair no less - the combination of which puts him into the +5 range) and to setting out to making optimizers cry using the unlimited power of the DM.

He therefore knows that everything he says is completely true about one optimizer. He, after all, admits to being one so any general statement he makes includes himself and he is the one he knows best.

He does seem like a worst-case scenario in many ways, yes. Setting out to optimize hard as GM, then complaining when your players do, is ... pretty crap behavior, I think. While he seems personally impervious to explanation, I do think it's worth pushing back, because there's nothing about optimizing, or GMing, or GMing for optimizers that's inherent to his self-description/s.

I am endeavoring not to get too emotionally invested, of course. The return on that particular investment is approximately nil.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I will say, the one thing I don't get and probably never will is this idea that you shouldn't/can't have optimizers and non-optimizers in the same group.

It comes from games from the 00s and earlier which were truly terribly balanced and which you could accidentally become overwhelmingly better than everyone. Scion 2e has already been mentioned on this thread, but D&D 3.5 was a noted problem; the druid was better than the fighter at almost everything out of combat - and a Bear druid who could turn into a bear, had a bear companion, and could summon bears might not be better at fighting individually than a fighter but two of the bears probably would be.