when is to much.........well to much

[Samloyal23]

Here you go. Basically, the argument "min/maxing, character optimization, or generally any attempt at finding mechanically superior solutions to in-game problems detracts from 'good roleplaying'" pretty much sums up the Stormwind fallacy. It is a fallacy because mechanical system knowledge and roleplaying are not inherently mutually exclusive, and may in fact promote each other in some cases. Quite a few cases, in my experience.

Everytime I hear "powergamer no good roleplayer" or "rollplayer =/= roleplayer", I want to kick something until my toe hurts.

I would not go so far as to say they are mutually exclusive, but if you put all your creative effort into gaming the rules instead of creating a rich character I think you're short-changing yourself...

 

[RUMBLETiGER]

... Oh.

Sure, one could do both. If it's balanced with the other players, and the DM.

I was thinking more along the lines of the character builds that can run around the planet a few times per round, or the damage dealers that can suckerpunch the gods, or punpun.

 

[Greenfield]

One note I'd like to add: While it's true that, so long as everybody is on the same page as far as min-maxing is concerned then there's no real problem with it, you will find a problem if you ever try to take that character, or that attitude into another game.

 

[Empirate]

I would not go so far as to say they are mutually exclusive, but if you put all your creative effort into gaming the rules instead of creating a rich character I think you're short-changing yourself...

I like to use both halves of my brain...

 

[Empirate]

I don't think that optimization/min-maxing is inherently bad, or good. Not for the game, not for role-playing.

What I find though is that characters who can power through challenges tend to do exactly that, and other problem solving skills/abilities atrophy.

There is also the question of balance. Not "game balance" as such, but balance around the table. If one player has an unstoppable battle monster and nobody else does, then the DM has very few choices. He/she can either challenge the combat monster and slaughter everyone else, challenge the bulk of the party and let the combat monster run roughshod over everything on the field, or come up with some reason why the mega-cannon only seems to aim at one character, ever.

None of these solutions seem to advance the role-playing side of things, and none of them would sit very comfortably with me.

Powering up the group also means that the DM has to power up the opposition as well. The CR system in the game, flawed as it may be, is still a good guideline for most DMs. Min-maxing pretty much forces DMs to toss it out, and in fact to toss out most of the monster manual. There's bloody little in there that can pose a real challenge to a tricked out Hulking Hurler who can throw a planet, or the charge monster mentioned in the OP. And absolutely nothing there at the character's level/CR can survive the onslaught of even one such character.

My point exactly. Would like to XP, but Greenfield posts way too much intelligent stuff on this board.

 

[Celebrim]

Celebrim's First Law of Roleplaying is, "Thou shalt not be good at everything."

Character optimization breaks the first law directly by allowing builds that are good at everything, or indirectly, by allowing a player to be so good at one thing - say swinging a hammer - that every problem can be treated like a special case of hitting a nail. An optimized fighter that can slay any monster in a single round is an example of breaking the first law.

However, since the first law is also superior to the rules of any particular system, any rules system that allows you to be good at everything is also a bad system (at least in that respect, it might be worth salvaging though). In fact, arguably the entire point of any role playing system is to obey the first law. Stock 3.X played with most of the supplements and without modification fails this critical test.

"...combat brute, pounce, and with a valorous weapon, haste and a brilliant energy weapon or just wraithstrike cast upon"

I'd note that none of the above mentioned abilties or items exist in my game.

"add shock trooper, leap attack, frenzied berserker and a belt of battle!!!"

None of those either.

There are comparitively few ways to break melee in the core rules. If you expand on the core rules by making available poorly play tested supplements pushed out primarily with the intention of pocketing your money and with little attention to its actual impact on your game, whether those supplements are from a WotC or a third party, then on your own head be it. In my opinion, it falls on the DM to ensure that the game is balanced. This requires the DM to not allow every option that someone has published in to the game blindly and requires the DM to set out what is available and what isn't. I think it is a mistake for the DM to leave it up to a social contract an understanding of what is 'fair' to build. The temptation to shine, to succeed, and to at the least not die is too strong and too perfectly understandable to ask of the player to sit in a room full of goodies and refrain from partaking of them. Power will creep into your game in the long haul as one player pushes the limits, and the rest of the players - feeling deprived of spotlight - begin pushing the limits as well.

One example of that very tension will be a refrain that's either already in this thread, or would be shortly. Some one is sure to say (or have said, I didn't look): "Yeah, but there are far more broken builds than that." or "The most broken thing in core is a single classed wizard" or "You just think that fighters shouldn't get good stuff" or "As long as there are CoDzillas, then I need to do this."

By the time your game gets to that point, it's already got big problems. Sure, you can sorta get by skirting the edge of the first law by a table agreement that lets everyone be good at everything ("If everyone is special, the no one is.") but in the long run even that doesn't work out.

 

[kitcik]

Some one is sure to say (or have said, I didn't look): "Yeah, but there are far more broken builds than that." or "The most broken thing in core is a single classed wizard" or "You just think that fighters shouldn't get good stuff" or "As long as there are CoDzillas, then I need to do this."

That's a first: Ninja'd by the OP.

 

[xigbar]

I don't think that optimization/min-maxing is inherently bad, or good. Not for the game, not for role-playing.

What I find though is that characters who can power through challenges tend to do exactly that, and other problem solving skills/abilities atrophy.

I disagree. I think the very essence of min-maxing is problem solving. The whole point of min-maxing is "well, if we have this problem, how do we solve it?"

There is also the question of balance. Not "game balance" as such, but balance around the table. If one player has an unstoppable battle monster and nobody else does, then the DM has very few choices. He/she can either challenge the combat monster and slaughter everyone else, challenge the bulk of the party and let the combat monster run roughshod over everything on the field, or come up with some reason why the mega-cannon only seems to aim at one character, ever.

None of these solutions seem to advance the role-playing side of things, and none of them would sit very comfortably with me.

Well, a part of the problem is that so many players jump in to games without even a remedial understanding of the rules. People often confuse "competency" with "min-maxing." In all honesty, I don't think run of the mill 20th level characters are actually made for CR20 creatures, as flawed (mentioned below) as the CR system is. DMs should work with players more often to help them understand the game, because if a player knew that they could make their character as possible as the concept they have in their head, they would. Which is where min-maxing and roleplaying can in fact be inclusive.

Powering up the group also means that the DM has to power up the opposition as well. The CR system in the game, flawed as it may be, is still a good guideline for most DMs. Min-maxing pretty much forces DMs to toss it out, and in fact to toss out most of the monster manual. There's bloody little in there that can pose a real challenge to a tricked out Hulking Hurler who can throw a planet, or the charge monster mentioned in the OP. And absolutely nothing there at the character's level/CR can survive the onslaught of even one such character.

This, to me, sounds like a DM who isn't as willing to put work in to his game as the players are. If he has passionate players who worked hard on their character, both thematically and mechanically, then he should up the ante on his end as well. Why be so lazy as to send stock and generic enemies against heroes who aren't stock and generic.



Now, I'm not saying that some players aren't just flexing their ego, but the notion that you can't a dedicated player who loves both the personality of his character and how if functions with the rules is preposterous. Maybe it's because I studied game design theory on my spare time, but I think a well functioning set of rules, and well functioning knowledge of them, is a beautiful thing. Why downplay creativity with the rules when you don't downplay creativity with writing and roleplaying?

 

[xigbar]

Celebrim's First Law of Roleplaying is, "Thou shalt not be good at everything."

And why not? If I can meet someone in the real world who seems to be good at everything they do, then surely, someone in a world with magic would be good at everything, right? I'm using basic logic here. And we're not talking about your everyday "gifted" person. We're talking about adventures, heroes, the guys with the guts to go out their and tackle the challenge. If your logic were applied to other situations, the "number one player" of any sports team shouldn't be allowed to play the game that they worked hard to become good at, because they're too good at everything.

 

[Greenfield]

I disagree. I think the very essence of min-maxing is problem solving. The whole point of min-maxing is "well, if we have this problem, how do we solve it?"

Yes and no. The difference between strategic and tactical problem solving. The combat monster design solves the problem of "How do I kill everything I meet?". This tends to convert all tactical solutions to, "I'll just kill this guy."

Well, a part of the problem is that so many players jump in to games without even a remedial understanding of the rules. People often confuse "competency" with "min-maxing." In all honesty, I don't think run of the mill 20th level characters are actually made for CR20 creatures, as flawed (mentioned below) as the CR system is...

The question that leaps to mind is, what sort of players "jump in" to a new system at level 20?

DMs should work with players more often to help them understand the game, because if a player knew that they could make their character as possible as the concept they have in their head, they would. Which is where min-maxing and roleplaying can in fact be inclusive.

Remember that, in many cases, the DM is about 3 days more experienced than his players. That is, he bought the books first and they're all learning together. In many ways, this is the game group that the creatures in the MM are scaled for.

This, to me, sounds like a DM who isn't as willing to put work in to his game as the players are. If he has passionate players who worked hard on their character, both thematically and mechanically, then he should up the ante on his end as well. Why be so lazy as to send stock and generic enemies against heroes who aren't stock and generic.

The DM routinely has to put in much more work than any of his players, probably more than all of them combined.

If he has to custom build every opponent to match an assortment of min-maxed characters, well, I've seen DMs burn out. The fact is that the creatures in the MM are already scaled to face heroes. Just not the Kryptonian All-Stars.

Now, I'm not saying that some players aren't just flexing their ego, but the notion that you can't a dedicated player who loves both the personality of his character and how if functions with the rules is preposterous. Maybe it's because I studied game design theory on my spare time, but I think a well functioning set of rules, and well functioning knowledge of them, is a beautiful thing. Why downplay creativity with the rules when you don't downplay creativity with writing and roleplaying?

A good DM can make any system work. A bad DM can't make any system work. What we need are game systems for all the DMs between those two extremes.