The "necessary optimization" argument

[Dausuul]

THe game doesn't do any such thing. The DM however might. The game does not determine what you will face on a week by week basis where the DM does. A DM can force optimization in D&D, GURPS, Savage Worlds, WoD, or any game they run.

It's not purely on the DM. If one player makes a strong (mechanically) character and another makes a weak one, then any situation which is a good challenge for the weak character is pathetically easy for the strong one, and a situation which challenges the strong character is far beyond the abilities of the weak one.

Nor is this always a question of deliberate optimization. If you've got a party of people who "build to the concept," and one person's concept is "I'm a [3E] wizard who doesn't like to kill people, so uses control and debuff magic instead of direct damage," while another person's concept is "I'm a monk who [the rest of this sentence does not matter]," you're likely to end up with a major power discrepancy, regardless of intentions.

Now, not all groups have a problem with power discrepancies. The monk player may be perfectly happy just doing the monk thing and letting the wizard do the heavy lifting, and the wizard player may be happy doing the heavy lifting. But if not everyone is happy in this situation, you've got a problem which cannot be addressed simply by the DM adjusting the challenge level.

 

[jedavis]

It's not purely on the DM. If one player makes a strong (mechanically) character and another makes a weak one, then any situation which is a good challenge for the weak character is pathetically easy for the strong one, and a situation which challenges the strong character is far beyond the abilities of the weak one.

This. Once upon a time in Traveller, I rolled battle dress on the retirement benefits table, and then used some of my starting cash to buy a small laser cannon. Anything that could threaten me could slay the rest of the party effortlessly, and anything that they could kill, I could kill in one shot. It was a bad time, but not really anybody's fault.

Also, I second the vote that WoD is at least as deadly as 3.X. We had some seriously close calls in a VtM game I played in once, and the usefulness in combat discrepancy was also huge (between, say, the Bruja and the Toreador).

 

[Crothian]

It's not purely on the DM. If one player makes a strong (mechanically) character and another makes a weak one, then any situation which is a good challenge for the weak character is pathetically easy for the strong one, and a situation which challenges the strong character is far beyond the abilities of the weak one.

It's always about the DM. If one player makes a weak character and another makes a strong one then it's the DM's job to recognize this before it is a problem. If the DM does have character of varying ability then she needs to be able to find ways to challenge all the characters. There is nothing wrong with an encounter that challenges one character and not the other though. Not everything has to be about all the characters all of the time. There are also ways to challenge groups that allow for mechanical variation to become less important or not matter at all.

DMing is a challenging but fun activity. A great one can solve many problems without the players even realizing there might have been an issue. A mediocre one can have problems that normally are not an issue.

 

[Croesus]

D&D doesn't have a buffer like that.

This was an important point made in the Trailblazer supplement. Basically, the authors concluded that the math in 3.x isn't too far off of what it should be, but every character eventually runs into a situation where the dice simply go against them and the system doesn't address that. Some mechanism such as Fate/Hero/Action points goes a long way toward avoiding such problems.

I can see the player's point of view to this extent: D&D games generally involve a lot combat, with a lot of die rolling (please, no comments about what D&D is "about"). The less optimized the character, the more risk that the dice will eventually kill him/her. Roll enough dice and even a one in a hundred chance comes up pretty often.

In addition, it's been pointed out numerous times that CR ratings tend to assume certain capabilities among the party. I know from experience that an optimized party can generally take on encounters that would TPK a non-optimized party. But as others have pointed out, the GM can address this simply by taking some care in designing challenges.

 

[Janx]

Dnd has lots of classes,feats, etc. That signals tome that you are supposed to be able to play a variety of charcters.

If the OP's argumentive friend is right, the extreme outcome is that all those choices are crap and there is only 1 optimum build that everyone must play or die.

That doesnt seem fun. That which is not fun is bad.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think you might fare well if you take a deep breath, and remind yourself that his position isn't one of logic, but one of emotion, and you can't argue emotion. Sure, it's a flawed argument, but it feels right, and that's all your friend cares about, at least with regards to this issue. For some reason, he's bound up his emotional baggage in the need for World of Darkness to be awesome. You can't fight that. Only your friend can choose to examine why that is, and given how eager people are to examine their own emotions (read: not very), you might just have to deal with the fact that your buddy needs World of Darkness to be the most awesome.

Optimization isn't necessary. Far from it, characters are very survivable, especially in PF and 4e.

But your friend probably ain't gonna listen to a logical argument about why not. So, y'know, you can be confident. And when he spouts off about how he's got a big boner for White Wolf, you can smile and say, "Yeah, World of Darkness is a pretty good game. Now roll initiative!"

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Wow. Just...wow. Usually it's the optimization advocates who use math to argue their point, and the casual players who say "Yeah but that's just math."

 

[HelloChristian]

I tell my players that an effective (optimized) character is far less useful to me than an interesting one. I don't run the kind of game where they must have just the right build or their character will die screaming after being vastly outclassed by adversaries. I do run the kind of game that rewards role-playing, creativity and lots of emphasis on non-combat encounters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He on the other hand insists that Pathfinder and all versions of D&D "force" players to build the most optimized characters as possible or else they'll certainly die.

He's a nutter.

What do you think of the whole necessary optimization thing?

You only need to optimize if 1) you really want to OR 2) if your DM is running a "Darwinian" game in which "lesser" PCs WILL die.

As for the power imbalance thing...well, I've played a LOT of games where balance wasn't a major concern, like RIFTS. Pretty much, if you're a DM in that game and you're facing a party of Glitterboys, Atlantean Undead Hunters, Ley Line Walkers, ex-Samas...and a Vagabond...the Vagabond is generally going to be out of his depth in most combats.

He will also not be a target, since he isn't a threat. If the player is OK with being generally ineffectual in combat, that's cool. That means he can go do other things- maybe...eavesdrop on opposing leaders or do a little sabotaging. After all, the underclass is everywhere, and who is going to stop a Vagabond from delivering a meal...or cleaning up in a hall? He's practically invisible.

But even in combat, the "weak" character can be an asset, since, even though a particular PC can kill any given target, he may not be able to kill them all right now. So that PC, discounted by all around, may be able to get into position to deliver a crucial blow...or prevent one from happening.

So really, while optimization is rewarded statistically, the game never forces you to optimize.

 

[prosfilaes]

As for the power imbalance thing...well, I've played a LOT of games where balance wasn't a major concern, like RIFTS. Pretty much, if you're a DM in that game and you're facing a party of Glitterboys, Atlantean Undead Hunters, Ley Line Walkers, ex-Samas...and a Vagabond...the Vagabond is generally going to be out of his depth in most combats.

He will also not be a target, since he isn't a threat.

I'm sure you can run it that way, but it's not necessarily true. Real life combat shows that civilians are not safe in a combat zone, not only from accidental fire, but because soldiers know that "that PC, discounted by all around, may be able to get into position to deliver a crucial blow".

In D&D unlike real life, arrows usually hit their targets; but fireballs hit everything 30' from the center of the party. Once you start getting into area effects, there's no way and no reason for enemies to separate the weak out from the strong.