Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

That's a fallacious argument... Certainly any given DM, with enough effort, can do what ever like with any game. That's not what I talking about. I'm talking about what the game is designed to do.

The rules of 4E, for example, have very explicit guidelines on what kinds of encounters a character of a particular can handle and how powerful that encounter should be. There is a chart that lays out the DCs of "easy", "moderate" and "hard" skill checks at each level. The same goes for monster defenses and attacks at each level. PCs are expected to have attacks and defenses and damage and skills at a certain typical value in order to be able to meet those encounter with the proper amount of challenge.

Also, take a look at the options available... You won't find a Shopkeep class. You won't find a Gourmand paragon path. You won't find a Watercolor Expertise feat. All of the occupation and hobby based skills are gone. The majority of the rules based around a wargame-style, tactical squad combat system.

An ambitious DM can modify D&D to suit a low-powered unlikely-heroes-rising-up-from-the-gutter sort of game, but that's not what the game what built for.

I think part of the problem in this thread is that people are saying "D&D" instead of "3E" or "4E," and are assuming everyone's on the same page they're on.

Some of the Grand Truths everyone is tossing around are edition-specific and do not carry over.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I think you and Umbran are taking the "hours" comment a little to the extreme. "Hours" can easily represent one hour, twice a week, or two hours once a week. I think the longest I've ever spent on one character is about four hours spread out over two weeks. That's hardly extreme.

... for you and your like-minded peers.

It's clearly extreme for the people you're playing with. Hence the thread.

 

[Gryph]

I'm noticing a few people saying "powergaming" and "min-maxing" as if they're different from optimising. I wonder where I fall in that mix. As I said, I don't spend much time on CO forums but I do go there just to check out what's what and see if there's anything interesting going on. What I find is that they have come to many of the same conclusions I have on my own. I still end up learning a trick or two, some of which I then use, but I balk at the cheesy builds that end up being some weird hybrid with bizarre mix of abilities that combine into a super-hulk.

Then again, the CharOppers don't like those builds either. That kind of thing isn't generally used in games other than to test them and see how badly they can break a game. They're not meant for regular consumption.

But on the other hand, if I build a thief, say, then I get Gritty Sergeant 'cause it just makes sense. I get Backstabber, 'cause it's a good combo. And I get the Mercenary theme, 'cause why not? And then I make a cool character backstory out of it and enjoy kicking arse with it.

Is that powergaming or optimising or min/maxing? I think it's just making good choices that suit the character's role and make it effective in combat and skill challenges. Now... the fact that by level 2, with the right magical items, I can do a 6d8+39+1d6 damage attack in one turn doesn't mean I broke the game, does it?

At 2nd level? yes it does.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Now... the fact that by level 2, with the right magical items, I can do a 6d8+39+1d6 damage attack in one turn doesn't mean I broke the game, does it?

Yes it does. A lot of things in game (and combos) shouldn't exist, or be able to exist. How many sources do you have to mine in order to pull that off?

(And your DM is allowing themes and backgrounds?)

 

[Elf Witch]

I think a big part of the issue is when it impacts the fun at the table.

I used to play with my son's group I stopped because of the powergamers, min maxers or what ever you want to call them.

They would spend hours building these optimized builds. The issue for me was if you wanted play say a straight sorcerer they would be all over you to take this prc or multiclass this way because a straight sorcerer was not the best way to optimize.

Even though my sorcerer was not a lame duck. Had an 18 in Chr. Played an elf so I could use a bow and specialized in a lot of ray spells so my feats worked with both. She couldn't keep up with the their builds. I was okay with that but they were not.

I think there is an issue when you build a character from a core class and you build it wisely and it still can't compete with a funky build with a lot of options from different classes and prcs.

Now since I was the one with the issue the only choice I felt I had was to just not play with them. They shouldn't have to change their playstyles to adjust to mine.

 

[Pbartender]

I think part of the problem in this thread is that people are saying "D&D" instead of "3E" or "4E," and are assuming everyone's on the same page they're on.

Some of the Grand Truths everyone is tossing around are edition-specific and do not carry over.

That wasn't exactly my intent... I was using 4E (and D&D in general to a much lesser extent) as an example of what I was trying to get at. Which is:

Every RPG is designed with a particular purpose... A genre it's meant to emulate or a play style it's meant to support, for example. A game can be forced out of its comfort zone, with enough time, effort and house rules, but it will never perform quite as well as a game that is designed for that purpose.

All this is to say not so much that Kzach is playing with the wrong people (although he might be -- at least for the moment, their play styles don't quite match), but that his group is probably playing the wrong game for the way they like to play the game.

They might consider playing something that's a little faster and looser with the rules, and/or something for which character success depends a little less on number-crunching optimization. I don't know if that would Kzach happier, but I'd wager the rest of the group might enjoy it a little more.

 

[Oryan77]

the fact that by level 2, with the right magical items, I can do a 6d8+39+1d6 damage attack in one turn doesn't mean I broke the game, does it?

Come on now. You have enough experience under your belt to know damn well that doing that kind of damage at level 2 is a problem. That's not an optimized PC, that's a powergamed PC.

All you have to do to figure out whether or not your PC is powergamed is to open up the monster manuals or a published adventure and compare what it can do to what any other monster/NPC of that CR can do.

You can even compare the build of an optimized PC to any similar CR in a monster manual and published adventure and figure out how much of an edge the PC has.

Doing that is second nature to an optimizer.

 

[Greg K]

I'm noticing a few people saying "powergaming" and "min-maxing" as if they're different from optimising

I try to define the terms when I use them, because different terminologies get used by region or groups. Here is how they are used by myself and the people that I know:

Powergaming: Playing with an emphasis on power and/or the accumulation/ attaining of power (however, power may be defined in the game). So in the former case, it can be characters must have a minimum x ability bonus, a minimum total of abillity bonuses, or some specific threshold of minimum competency or they suck are incompetent. Good examples would be
a. Hero means being the starting equivalent of special ops or it could be the level of demigods
b. It could be characters must have an 18 in their primary stat, because of the bonus or not having all ability scores above some minimum score and so the character sucks
c. playing for the leveling and bonus increases, etc. that accompany it.

And to note, power gaming is not all or nothing, there are degrees.
Since it is how much emphasis is placed on power or its accumulation, it is not necessary to know how to optimize to get it.

Optimizing: It is the conscious assignment of points, ability scores to, mechanically, meet a concept or build. How much time one spends or how far one takes it are just different degrees on an axis. It is a tool used by many powergamers and min-maxers to meet their goals, but that is just how the tool is utilized by them.
So unless people are creating characters entirely randomly or putting no concious thought about the assignment of ability scores, points or mechanical benefits, they are engaging in some level of optimization.

Min-maxing: An extreme form of optimizing that tries to maximize benefits and minimize areas of weakness. For example, treating ability scores as dump states or ignoring skills, because the player either thinks the DM will not place emphasis on them or they will rarely come up and using that to strengthen other areas that they consider important.

 

[Umbran]

Hell yeah it's casual.

Clearly, you are more dedicated to it and formal about it than your fellow players. That's all that really matters.

Besides which, 90% of the choices I make are exceedingly obvious.

To you, they are obvious.

18 minimum in a primary stat...

Nor does it necessarily create the character they want to play. If it doesn't, then there's not much point to the exercise, for them.

Again, it's really just about making logical and intelligent decisions in character creation. If you can't invest the time in doing so, then again, why are you playing a game that REQUIRES a pretty hefty investment of time?

Why not do it? Probably because it isn't fun for them, and perhaps because doing so doesn't pay off in benefits they care about further down the line.

What you're saying looks to be equivalent to, "If you aren't willing to be as hardcore about areas I care about as I want you to be, you shouldn't bother playing at all." As if everyone needs to have the same priorities in gaming as you do...

My wife cares a lot about the social aspects of gaming - not just role-playing, but the getting-together of friends to do something together. She also loves to cook. So, she regularly prepares meals for the entire group, at the cost of significant amounts of time. It is fun for her, and she personally feels good doing so, so she gets a payoff. She recognizes that this is specific to her, and does not expect anyone else (other than me, anyway) to invest similar time and effort into cookery for the game.

I occasionally play in live-action games. However, I don't have boatloads of money, and I can't sew very well. So, my costuming is sometimes a little weak. Meanwhile, in the same games, there are some folk who are award-winning costumers, others who are wealthy, and still others who are professional seamstresses. They enjoy the costuming and have greater ability - they don't generally expect me to go to the same lengths to costume as they do.

The same should go for your situation - going through the process of optimization is fun for you, and you see a payoff for yourself. That's great. However, it does not follow that others will find it fun, or see a payoff, so you should not expect them to behave the same as you do.

The reaction you may see may be as much a reaction to the suggestion that they ought to have the same tastes as you. It may also depend upon your delivery - if you come across as trying to "correct" their mistakes, or that they don't know what they are doing, or that you know the "right" way to play, well, you can easily look pretty condescending and that puts people right off.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I think a big part of the issue is when it impacts the fun at the table.

I used to play with my son's group I stopped because of the powergamers, min maxers or what ever you want to call them.

They would spend hours building these optimized builds. The issue for me was if you wanted play say a straight sorcerer they would be all over you to take this prc or multiclass this way because a straight sorcerer was not the best way to optimize.

Even though my sorcerer was not a lame duck. Had an 18 in Chr. Played an elf so I could use a bow and specialized in a lot of ray spells so my feats worked with both. She couldn't keep up with the their builds. I was okay with that but they were not.

Probably taking this thread a bit off-topic, but I had a similar issue in a game once.

The DM wanted to try Book of Nine Swords, but because of the level the DM was starting with, I wanted to try playing a thri-kreen PC. (ECL +4, you can't play at 1st-level for obvious reasons. I've never played one in 3.x before and had no idea if it was OP, UP or whatever.) And I knew this was basically my last chance at playing one, as no other campaign would have allowed them.

One of the "schools" in Bo9S has a power that gives you either a bonus to hit or to damage (I think the latter) based on your Jump result. Thri-kreen get a +30 bonus to Jump. When told about this power, I sad NO as that would be a blatantly broken combo, and clearly the writer of Bo9S intended the book to be used for regular characters, not a fringe niche race. You wouldn't believe the number of players who wanted me to try that combo. I still said no.

The campaign only lasted one session; while mechanical reasons played a role (one PC refusing to use heal, even though it was only a swift action for his Bo9S build) the main reason was the three players all being monsters.

The good news: In another campaign, I got to play a warlord-like character using Bo9S and it worked great. The bad news, I literally never got to play a thri-kreen again.

Come on now. You have enough experience under your belt to know damn well that doing that kind of damage at level 2 is a problem. That's not an optimized PC, that's a powergamed PC.

If a fellow player made a character like that, not only would I not try to match their optimization, I'd tell the DM what a problem that is too.