Optimizers, oh my!

[Elf Witch]

I think there are several different types of optimizers.

I have played with one who just like an effective character in their class they have chosen. My roommate is like this she hates any stat that does have at least +1 there are rimes she drives me nuts with it because she really does not like the idea of any weakness. She is an excellent role player and does not go around telling other people how to play.

Then there is the optimizer who makes sure his character is the best as what he does and is better than anyone else at the table makes choices that clearly step on other PCs feet. He knows how ti make sure at level 3 his character is the equivalent a character several levels higher in power.

This type may be a good role player or he may not be but he can be a nightmare at the table for the DM who has to plan encounters that challenge him without killing off the rest of the PCs or just cake walking through encounters to the point the rest of the PCs start feel like glorified henchmen.

There is nothing wrong with wanting your character to be good at what he does but you can take it to far being good does not mean that you will never fail or face a challenge that your character is not at its best to handle.

What drives me crazy with these kind of players is the shear amount of fighting with them when you say no to a feat or to a multiclass that either does not fit your game or you think is broken. Or the excess whiny behavior when they face a couple of session designed to let someone else shine.

And the ones that can't accept that not everyone feels the need to play like this but want to may be make some role playing decisions on their character build as well as system mastery choices.


That is not the same as a lame duck I have a lot of issues with them as well. The ones who say they are going to play the party wizard but put a 10 in intelligence because their concept is the wizard who was not very bright but saves the day with his well placed cantrips and first level spells at tenth level. And he has invested into his higher stats in strength so he is a good with his quarterstaff and runs straight into melee. This may make a great character in a story where you have total control of the narrative but in a game this character is a liability to the party as it gets higher level.

And they get upset if you actually suggest the idea that okay you can do this but maybe you want to think about multi classing with fighter so that you can run into melee with a weapon and have enough hit points to actually live through it.

But I don't think this is what Danny is describing as wanting to play an non optimized PC.

I had to deal with a another gamer over my choice to multi class sorcerer with wizard. Yes I knew that it was not the best combo that it does not give you as many cookies that you usually get when multi classing. But it was a role playing choice that fit the game world. A world where being a sorcerer was punishable by death and all wizards were required to belong to a guild. My PC hid her sorcery by being an active wizard. She was not a lame duck she was able to hold her own and help the party in combat as well as do other things.

The DM finally had to step in and tell the other player to shut up about my choices.

I have also played a pacifist cleric who ended up exalted. There are so many ways to play this without hurting the party or being a drain. Besides the healing and the buffing there are spells that allow you to subdue instead of kill.

Not every character concept works in every game and that is something else to remember. If you know that the game you have agreed to play in his 95% combat this is not the game for an experiment with a combat light character.

It comes down to this, is the person being a selfish jerk. And that goes beyond being an optimizer or a lame duck.

 

[Sunseeker]

It comes down to this, is the person being a selfish jerk. And that goes beyond being an optimizer or a lame duck.

Word. This is the crux of it folks. It doesn't matter how many numbers a person likes to crunch or if they like fluff or sparkle-dragon people. If a person's primary mode of play is to be a jerk, that's the problem.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I hate games like this. To me, D&D is defined by relying on other people. Back when I started it was impossible for one character to do everything. In 2e with only the PHB, if you were a fighter, there was no way you were healing yourself, there was no way you could apply any sort of status effect on enemies. You couldn't choose any options except which weapon you used. Your only choice was your background, personality and appearance really. If you were hurt, you had to rely on the DM to give you healing potions or the Cleric to heal you. If there were too many enemies to take on by yourself, you had to rely on the Wizard to take out the extra enemies with fireballs.

I'm not saying every PC needs to be made like a Swiss Army Knife. I'm just saying don't depend on others for your well being. Boy Scouts Motto: "Be Prepared"

I mean, when the 13th level character who is only a 2nd level cleric casts a Cure Light on you for 1d8+2 and you have 10/140 hp, you COULD say "Thank you for healing me" and just be grateful that you got anything from that guy who normally keeps all his healing for himself. But it's much more likely that you'd think "Why do we keep this guy around instead of a single class cleric would could have healed me to full with one spell?"

Funny you should mention that... See my next answer.

I suppose that's something. Though having ran that adventure with a group of super power gamed characters, I can tell you that they didn't need any divination spells to "avoid trouble". They simply walked from room to room being so much more powerful than every enemy in the complex that they barely took damage in most encounters.

I've discussed this campaign with Hussar more than once- that group consisted of my PC, a single-classed Wizard, a single class Fighter, and everyone else was some form of multiclassed warrior or arcane caster. A couple had a smattering of divine levels.

For the first few levels, we had 1 guy who was running a Favored Soul. He moved away. His PC was replaced by a guy who ran a Druid. He, too, left the campaign after a while. That's when I retired the SpellSword and made the Geomancer.

In both cases, before my Geomancer, healing was hard to come by...though we probably did have a lot of HP in the party from all those warrior class levels. So we DID have to avoid trouble with the Diviner's spells. And until my new PC was made, we were thankful for the guys with the Clw spells, LoH and a collection of Potions because that was all we had, and nobody waned to retire their PC to boost the party's healing.

I did so without being asked. And I did so, in part, because I found a nifty and unusual- and surprisingly effective- way to do the healing. Of course, my method means we weren't turning undead too well...but we weren't doing that before, either.

As for ranks in swim. Yeah, they ran into that situation as well. One of the PCs did have to jump in and save someone else. Still, better to have a character with fighting strength AND ranks in swim than one who just has ranks in swim.

The other PCs were "optimized" yet had done so in a way that left them vulnerable to some very simple hazards. My Diviner was less optimized, but had abilities covering a broader base, and over the course of the campaign, he stepped in as a front line fighter, a thief, a scout...well, almost everything but a healer.

If you show up with a character who can heal 50 points of damage a day vs the 600 or so points a Cleric of your level is doing, we're going to ask someone else to play a Cleric, and if they don't want to, you're going to be stuck as one.

Friends don't make friends play PCs they don't want to play.

If your party is short on PCs to do healing, find another way to play that boosts healing or obviates its need. This is challenging, yes, but it isn't impossible. Don't forget some of the people at the dawn of this hobby ran campaigns in which everyone was a wizard!

Part of your duty as a player at the table is to help all of us. All for one and one for all.

Nope. My sole duty is to play the PC in front of me as he is designed to be played. If I am playing a rat bastard, he should be played as a rat bastard. If he is a saint, he should be played as a saint.

My last rat bastard was a "2Ed style" 3.5Ed NE Ftr/Thief, a thug mostly out for himself. He even bullied the party mage. And because I played him well, he was popular.

There ARE all sorts of stories that do this. None of which work as a *D&D* story. I do think that to survive every D&D group DOES need to be Seal Team 6.

your experience and mine differ VASTLY, then.

It used to be my favorite game back when I was 17. I started up at least 6 different campaigns, almost all of them ended with everyone having no fun. All for the same reason: The difference in power level between the characters ended up making the game no fun.

I had it cast an area of effect fire spell at them during the first round of combat.....and 2 of the 5 PCs died. because they didn't have ANY MDC protection at all.

The first rule of RIFTS campaigning is don't stand next to MDC targets if you don't have MDC.

When you run the game with people who understand that rule, they do just fine.

In our games, we'd have no problem with someone like that. But we'd want them to make a good Wizard.

No danger there, this guy is a math whiz who has been playing essentially the same PC since 1985. And he is as optimized a wizard as I've seen on the boards. Boring, but effective.

He also loves to play his wizards as "jealous guardians of secrets". I pointed out to him that if his Wiz and my Diviner crossed-copied our spell books, the party would have more firepower, more flexibility, and an insurance policy should one of us be deprived of our spell books.

He said no- and, unusually for him, cited the meta reason that he wasn't going to help me boost my suboptimal PC. I had no beef with that. I just kept doing my thing, like disarming casters of their wands & staves...

 

[CroBob]

This is not a very scientific way to respond to contradictory evidence.

I already have enough evidence to determine that optimizing does not require you to be a jerk or otherwise a bad player. I'm not trying to determine what the ratio of good players to bad players is, or something. I understand that optimizers can be irritating or jerky players, and those guys aren't fun to play with. Just like any other kind of game jerk.

You don't see any relationship between strong mechanical play and munchkinism, other people do. Who's right?

No, there's definitely a strong relationship between those two things, because optimizers optimize, while munchkins also optimize. The difference is that munchkins are selfish and care more about their own fun than the whole group's fun. It'd be like determining if there's a relationship between rifle owners and RNA members. Of course there's a coloration! Both groups have something in common and therefore have overlap, except you don't need to own a rifle to join the NRA, while munchkins do need to optimize in order to be munchkins! My point is only that optimizing doesn't cause munchkinism, but rather the opposite.

Personally I tend to think it's mostly a system issue. The problem is that people want a system with unlimited character flexibility, whether their motives are for powergaming or for roleplaying. I think character flexibility is really overrated. The way I look at it, if the game "needs" fun character creation, then it's because the play itself is not fun enough. I consider fiddling around with character builds to be basically the player's equivalent of the DM toiling away on setting details that will never be important for play. It's the sort of pointless, not-really-playing time-waster that I don't think the game should encourage. Character creation is not the main course of D&D, it's just an appetizer. There's way too much design/discussion spent on it IMO.

RPGs are fun, and plenty of players have character ideas really frequently. It's not like they sit back and say to themselves "Woah, fella, I'm not playing right now, so there's no need for imagining what kind of character would be fun to play!". Yeah, maybe it's a waste of time, but so what? Most hobbies are a waste of time, excepting that people find them fun. This whole hobby is a waste of time. So what? It's fun.

Sure, I don't see why the game should encourage either considering character options you're not actually using or campaign details that will never see any game time, but I also don't think there's anything wrong with those things or that they should be discouraged. I don't think discouraging being imaginative or thinking about your hobbies when you're not actively taking part in them should ever be done.

 

[Sunseeker]

Friends don't make friends play PCs they don't want to play.

If your party is short on PCs to do healing, find another way to play that boosts healing or obviates its need. This is challenging, yes, but it isn't impossible. Don't forget some of the people at the dawn of this hobby ran campaigns in which everyone was a wizard!

Whenever I start and run a campaign, I always create a couple heavy-melee "tank" style NPCs and a couple "healbot" NPCs that could join my party should absolutely NOBODY want to play those roles(and due to the way people built, feel they need them). I agree that the quickest way to not have fun, is to be forced to play something you don't want to play, in a way you don't want to play.

Nope. My sole duty is to play the PC in front of me as he is designed to be played. If I am playing a rat bastard, he should be played as a rat bastard. If he is a saint, he should be played as a saint.

My last rat bastard was a "2Ed style" 3.5Ed NE Ftr/Thief, a thug mostly out for himself. He even bullied the party mage. And because I played him well, he was popular.

I agree, and disagree. Tension between party members can be fun to RP, but there's a reasonable level of this. If your PC is constantly thwarting the goals and drives of the rest of the party, you, and by extension your character, will become a target.

Being "out for yourself" doesn't mean you still don't contribute to a positive group dynamic.

your experience and mine differ VASTLY, then.

And mine. I play with a bunch of highly creative people, and I tailor my games appropriately. Every game SHOULD bend to some degree to the desires and playstyles of the party. Some games require specific levels of power and skill to accomplish, other's don't, and then those weird, creative characters with +8 situational bonuses to diplomacy when talking to Lich Kings about the price of tea in China really shine, and that's a lot of fun.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Being "out for yourself" doesn't mean you still don't contribute to a positive group dynamic.

I agree. Johnny Bones was out for himself, but as you can imagine, as a Ftr/Thief, h inhumed his fair share of foes. And while abrasive and abusive, his killing and thieving skills contributed enough that the others put up with him...

...though I'm sure that, at some point down the road, the Wizard was going to have him skinned for his revenge.

 

[hamstertamer]

I think there are several different types of optimizers.

If the term "optimizer" has different definitions, as many claim it does (for whatever reason or agenda). Then the point of the thread is now gone and there is no point in posting about it.

It was my understanding that optimizer was just a synonym for power-gamer, min-maxer, & power-builder.

It has been my experience that creating a character with a core class and core race has always been effective. I never had to optimize anything for it to be effective. So claiming that someone needs to optimize to be effective sounds dubious to me. People don't power-optimize (this is the term I'll have to use now) to be effective they do it to be more effective than normal.

The sad thing about power-optimization is just how pointless it really is in a RPG. Most DMs just power-optimize their combat encounters and world in reaction to it. I just create situations and combat scenarios where it never comes up that often.

And yes, power-optimizers tend not to be good role players and have bad decision making at that organic level.

 

[Elf Witch]

Whenever I start and run a campaign, I always create a couple heavy-melee "tank" style NPCs and a couple "healbot" NPCs that could join my party should absolutely NOBODY want to play those roles(and due to the way people built, feel they need them). I agree that the quickest way to not have fun, is to be forced to play something you don't want to play, in a way you don't want to play.

I agree, and disagree. Tension between party members can be fun to RP, but there's a reasonable level of this. If your PC is constantly thwarting the goals and drives of the rest of the party, you, and by extension your character, will become a target.

Being "out for yourself" doesn't mean you still don't contribute to a positive group dynamic.

And mine. I play with a bunch of highly creative people, and I tailor my games appropriately. Every game SHOULD bend to some degree to the desires and playstyles of the party. Some games require specific levels of power and skill to accomplish, other's don't, and then those weird, creative characters with +8 situational bonuses to diplomacy when talking to Lich Kings about the price of tea in China really shine, and that's a lot of fun.

When I DM I tell the players to make what they want to play and let me worry about shortages. If the party is lacking something it really needs then I have several fixes I can do from using NPCs to magic items or how O deasign encounters.

Nobody should have to play a class they don't want to just because the party needs it. And nobody should be forced to design a class on other players say so.

That is a problem I see with clerics especially when it has been designed not to be the bulk of the party healing. In my one campaign the cleric is the tank of the party and is main purpose is not to heal. I help by giving the party access to wands for healing.

I don't mind some party conflict I do mind when it gets in the way of advancing the game. If you want to play a selfish PC fine but make it work. It is up to the player to give the PC a reason to work with the party. I also won't allow a player whose main goal is to thwart the party. I saw a lot more of that back in 1E where a player would bring in a character whose only goal was the destruction of the party and usually this was with DM approval. So many groups self destructed over that. The bad blood would start to follow in game after game with people wanting revenge.


But I also dislike the artificial you have to do this because you are a member of the party like forcing the paladin or lawful good clerics to look the other way over and over because the rest of the party starts doing a lot of morally questionable tactics. Then getting angry when the the player playing the good character does not want to heal you and you get the whine but it is your job you have to to.

I never had the happen as a DM but seen it as a player to many times. As a DM I would help out by saying you try ad heal and it does not work you feel some kind of resistance.

 

[Sunseeker]

If the term "optimizer" has different definitions, as many claim it does (for whatever reason or agenda). Then the point of the thread is now gone and there is no point in posting about it.

If that's how you feel, you misread the OP, who was asking about peoples experiences with optimizing players.

It was my understanding that optimizer was just a synonym for power-gamer, min-maxer, & power-builder.

And what does that mean exactly? You can power-build for a lot more than just hitting things with a big sword.

It has been my experience that creating a character with a core class and core race has always been effective. I never had to optimize anything for it to be effective. So claiming that someone needs to optimize to be effective sounds dubious to me. People don't power-optimize (this is the term I'll have to use now) to be effective they do it to be more effective than normal.

Yes, its hard to screw up a fighter with a longsword. Or a barbarian with a greatsword. But what about a dual-flail-wielding fighter? Optimizing isn't just about power building, its also about knowing how to avoid traps and what you should take in order to even be equal to a "core" build.

The sad thing about power-optimization is just how pointless it really is in a RPG. Most DMs just power-optimize their combat encounters and world in reaction to it. I just create situations and combat scenarios where it never comes up that often.

So, to prevent optimization, you basically make your game unplayable for optimizers. That sounds rather drastic.

And yes, power-optimizers tend not to be good role players and have bad decision making at that organic level.

At least, in your opinion. There have been q dozen posts so far from folks saying the opposite, so if that is your experience, that is sad, but hardly the general sentiment.

 

[hamstertamer]

If that's how you feel, you misread the OP, who was asking about peoples experiences with optimizing players.

And what does that mean exactly? You can power-build for a lot more than just hitting things with a big sword.

You sure you can.

Yes, its hard to screw up a fighter with a longsword. Or a barbarian with a greatsword. But what about a dual-flail-wielding fighter? Optimizing isn't just about power building, its also about knowing how to avoid traps and what you should take in order to even be equal to a "core" build.

Ah no, power-optimizers are about being better than core, better than average, better better better. A dual-flail-wielding fighter would work out fine in my game. Disarming with one attack than attacking with another doesn't sound bad at all. I once had a female barbarian who liked to use a whip and shield, or whip and weapon combo. Worked out fine and it was an interesting character overall. I actually like it when characters have interesting ideas. So I guess I haven't ran into any "traps" that needs to power-optimized away. To make it clear again, power-optimization is about being better, squeezing out more power, not about maintaining the status quo (that's one thing it is differently not about). The status quo is met by NOT power-optimizing any characters unless everyone power-optimizes including the creatures and enemies of the game world.

So, to prevent optimization, you basically make your game unplayable for optimizers. That sounds rather drastic.

No again, the game is completely playable by a power-optimizers they just expect something different. It's just my style of DMing. I'm not penalizing them deliberately or need to. They soon realize after a few sessions that power-optimizing was pointless.

At least, in your opinion. There have been q dozen posts so far from folks saying the opposite, so if that is your experience, that is sad, but hardly the general sentiment.

It's not sad, It's just my experienced opinion. The problem seems to be that people don't want the definition of optimizer to be objective. I, on the other hand, do and so I talk about the power-optimizer only.