Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[wedgeski]

I don't have a table of min-maxers but I do have six or seven players all with different amounts of stamina when it comes to optimisation. This ranges from "the default feats will be good enough" to "I have a character concept, and I'm prepared to sift through six-hundred feats to create it". Everyone likes an edge, but none of them spend too much time looking for it.

At such a table I have found the problem, if it is one, to be self-repairing. Comments like "Grom's beard, how the hell is your Reflex so low?" or "You hit with WHAT attack bonus?" or "How did one Healing Surge just bring you from nothing back to full?" tend to make everyone look more critically at their own builds. After a few levels, this combined with observing how your own PC performs levels-off most discrepancies at the table.

 

[S'mon]

Are you sure you're not making gamebreaking builds?

That said, I have a smidgin of sympathy. A DM seemed to think I was a munchkin for giving my barbarian PC a halberd.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Optimization isn't a bad thing. Nor is the opposite the case. Non-optimization and optimization are not bad things. It is all preference and playstyle.

 

[Kzach]

Are you sure you're not making gamebreaking builds?

Well, I'm not AIMING to, but as I said, I come to a lot of the same conclusions that charoppers do, simply because they're logical deductions based on casual analysis of the available system options, ie. I trawl through the character builder looking for things to either fit my concept of the character, or to fit a certain schtick, or just for synergies that I think will be fun to play.

But as I said, I also don't like a lot of the super-hulk charop builds. To me they're not only impractical but ugly and inelegant. Take the thief, for example, the charop guide recommends going a certain route to get Kulkor Arms Master. Now, I know why that is, and I can see the logic in it, but I don't freaking want Kulkor Arms Master because it means I have to wield a hammer, and my concept of my character doesn't suit wielding a freaking hammer.

On the flip-side, I'll also sometimes alter my character concepts to suit certain synergies. For instance, I really loved the idea of a half-orc thief with the Gritty Sergeant background and Mercenary theme: his name is Sarge. Now, I never would've thought of this character if it wasn't for the fact that I realised that the Rapier was the best choice for the thief (pretty obvious and logical deduction) and that the best way to get a Rapier proficiency is through that background.

For me, the process of building a character is... organic. There aren't steps to it. It evolves and grows as I build it. I usually don't think beyond mid-heroic so most of my characters only have concepts that take them that far, but I definitely engineer the mechanics around the concept, and the concept around the mechanics.

 

[Umbran]

Optimization isn't bad, in and of itself. But it is not appropriate for all groups. Just like *not* optimizing isn't appropriate for all groups - there are tables where, if you're not coming with a fairly tricked-out character, you shouldn't be there at all.

If there's a mismatch, in either direction, there will be difficulties.

I'll note, by the way, that despite what a couple of folks have said, "competent" is a relative term in gaming, not an absolute one. Competence is being able to handle day-to-day stuff - but what comes along day-to-day is GM dependent. So, if you don't know the table, you can build a character that *you* think is competent, but when you get there is either over- or under-powered.

Kzach, you have said you spend hours making up characters, that you "trawl" the character builder looking for options. You use the word "casual", but your words say that it somewhat more than that.

Not everyone has the time to do those things, or the inclination or talent to easily master large swaths of the rules. Your hours of trawling may not result in things that would impress on the CharOps boards, but that doesn't mean they aren't vastly more effective than other characters at the table.

Why do you have to be the one to "play down" to them? Why can't they "play up"? Well, as noted before, not everyone has the time or talent. Despite what some have said, it isn't just reading the rulebooks - you yourself spend several hours getting those results. Asking you to "play down" is asking the smallest number of folks to change how they play - biggest payoff for smallest investment, really.

 

[Pbartender]

I sympathize with you, Kzach, I'm often in a similar boat. I have a lot of fun building characters in which the statistical optimization and the background role playing motivations go hand in hand and inform each other.

At any rate, my take on the situation is this...

In D&D, we play character that are, effectively, professional heroes and adventurers of different sorts and specializations.

In the real world, professionals always prefer to take jobs (class!) in fields that they are talented for (ability scores!). And likewise, they will always prefer to take training (skills, feats and powers!) and use equipment (gear!) that will make them better at the job they work in. This, generally, because the more skilled you are at your specific job, the more likely you are complete its related tasks (combat, skill challenges, etc.!) successfully and efficiently, and the more likely you are to get raises (loot!) and promotions (levels!).

So, if you would do it in the real world, why shouldn't a professional adventurer in a fantasy world do the same?

 

[pming]

Hiya Kzach.

I think the "problem" may be that the other players aren't getting upset because you have an optimized character...they are getting upset because of the potential (inevitability?) of you getting annoyed because they have characters that aren't optomized.

Ask yourself a question: can they play a half-dozen sessions with your character and not be 'annoyed' when your character does something decidedly optomized? And the followup question...can you play through a half-dozen session with them and not be annoyed because their PC's are not optomized?

I played with a min-maxer/optimizer once, and my character was decidedly non-optomized. Good at ranged combat, but that was about it. Lots of fun playing, very colourful personality, and everyone loved him. However, it was annoying hearing the not-so-subtle groans, the muttered '...gawds...how sucky...', and whatnot. *That* was the reason we all jumped on him eventually and said "knock it off". He did, and while outside the game he did roll his eyes and whatnot when talking about certain non-op'ed characters, he didn't do it at the table any more.

So...I posit that this may be the problem. Of course, if you don't get annoyed with their non-op'ed characters and are quite happy to play with them and their characters...uh...I give up. I don't know.

One final thought and question. Can they have fun playing optomized characters, and can you have fun playing non-optomized ones? If either of those are "No"...then I'd suggest finding a new group, because your play style's are obviously too different, sorry to say.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[ExploderWizard]

Building a competent character is not in itself a bad thing. When system knowledge, and character building skills become as, or more important than decisions made during actual play there begins to be a divide between system masters and those who just want to casually play, including newer players.

Complex character design and rules bulk is one of the largest barriers to new player participation. This is not an easily solvable problem so long as success in the game being played depends more on whats on the character sheet than what comes from the player.

In some games the new player either effectively lets an experienced player design the character (through suggestion or outright) or just creates something that seems cool. Sometimes the most awesome character concepts are not well supported by the rules and the new player ends up with a "lame duck".

These build skills also feed back into the rest of the game resulting in optimizers being far more effective than normal characters of the same level. This means that challenges for optimizers need to be much tougher.

These factors all contribute to the divide that makes groups with both hardcore optimizers and casual players a nightmare to manage.

The importance of rules knowledge overall needs to decrease in a significant way in order for this problem to get any better.

 

[Umbran]

In the real world, professionals always prefer to take jobs (class!) in fields that they are talented for (ability scores!). And likewise, they will always prefer to take training (skills, feats and powers!) and use equipment (gear!) that will make them better at the job they work in.

...

So, if you would do it in the real world, why shouldn't a professional adventurer in a fantasy world do the same?

If I may...

In the real world, professionals went to school to prepare for jobs that they are talented for... but often wind up working in completely different fields. Events occur in life, such that many, if not most, wind up places they didn't expect, doing things they didn't plan, and trying to make the best of it.

If that happens in the real world, why shouldn't it happen to a professional adventurer?

Which is not to say that planning competence is bad, just that it isn't the only reasonable and realistic way of approaching things.

From a discussion elsewhere on the boards, I got an idea of where the "optimization = bad roleplay" gets some of its oomph. If you are playing a tactical wargame, for example, competence is key. If you are planning on creating a fiction, though, competence leads to easily resolved problems - which means competence tends to eliminate drama.

The reluctant hero, the hero who isn't really cut out for the job but has to manage and grow beyond their limitations, is among the more popular tropes in fiction. It is a position most people can identify with. Sitting next to a hero who is really designed and ready for the challenge makes the fiction rather difficult and awkward - if the real deal is here, why do you need the ill-prepared person?

 

[Meatboy]

I'm with Kzach on this one. When I play DnD I want to play a hero. Heroes do heroic things and honestly I end up screwing up mundane stuff often enough in RL that I don't want to have the same thing happen when I am playing my heroic fantasy emulator. My fighters should hit and hurt things, my wizards should sling spells and my rogues should sneaky and cunning.