Why is it a bad thing to optimise?

[GMforPowergamers]

Kzach: (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) I have some examples I want your thoughts on, it may help with where the problem is.


example 1 (The tale of 2 strikers) we had a rouge and a ranger, the rouge was a shadar kai multi into cleric worshiper of the ravon queen, the ranger was an archer elf. around lev 13 or 14 there wa a LARGE diffrence int he character, the ranger had +4 or 5 to hit on the rouge, and was doing much more damage. This exploded the encounter that the rouge ran up, launched a daily, crit, then action pointed droped a second daily and did awsome damage... about 130 total... The player did a dance aroudnt he table, and write down on his sheet the details... the ranger player the next round used an encounter, and killed something giving him a free action point that he spent, then twin striked a diffrent target...then got pissed,he rolled low dmaage...I pointed out he did over 100 damage on 'low non crits' and look at kurt...
As bad as that was, it built to a head a few levels later when the ranger ended 3 encounters in a row on his own... I asked him to trade out his weapon expertise, his weapon focus, and take off his archery bracers... loseing him 2pts to hit and 4 to damage...was I in the wrong?


example 2 (the gladius and the kurkr) I am playing a rome style gladiator...the DM wanted his gladius to feel diffrent from short swords, so he made then kurkri. So I took my first level feat as prof in a +2 prof 1d6 brutal 1 weapon, my 2nd and 4th feats were two weap fight and def becuse during play the ranger and I traded styles...
Another player who does not play in this game, pointed out if I took a longsword, and light shield, and traded those 3 feats for weapon focus and expertise and fill in the blank with any feat I would be way better.


example 3 (the crit fisher) We were all sitting down to a game we all were going all out for...I played an avenger multi into ranger, paragon mult and half elf verstile... my 3 at wills where twin strike, the barbarian whirling one, and an avenger one I never used... I had 2 jagged kopeshes and deadly axe.
in 5 encounters each lasting less then 4 rounds I crit atleast twice in each.
one of the other players asked if he could play a similar character in my game, I informed him it would not be welcome at my ongoing game. When he asked why I tried to explain that there are less powerful characters there, and a regular avenger with a greatsword would be more on par.


Example 4 (Joe...oh joe) We have a player who does not have DDI, he often plays out of only 1 book. So his battlemind took almost all stuff from psionic power, his warden was almost all phb2...
he does not want to go through books looking for new options, and his wish lists as a PC always look like this: Cool axe with a nice extra damage daily, scale armor with restance property, boots to make me faster, something to give me more surges or surge value.
he never spends mony on magic items... he will buy a round at a bar, pay for info from a snich, buy land, donate to a church, or even loan to another PC, but in 10 years of 3 and 4e he has less times then you have fingers on one hand bought magic items.

In example 1 and 3 was I right for limiting power to keep the party more on par? in example 2 is my warlord not 'up to par' becuse I followed the story of the world, then how game went? and in example 4 how do you act when a player like joe is the norm in a group? can you play at joes level?

 

[Pilgrim]

What's wrong with being the best at something?

One of my wizard builds focuses heavily on Arcana. He can't fail average rolls has a good chance of succeeding at very difficult checks. I love that! He's the Arcana guy. When you need something Arcanery answered, you ask him. I call that fun, why shouldn't it be an aspect of playing?

Simply put, at our table, we don't place as much emphasis on personal character gains as other groups might. For you, being able to make an Arcana roll is fun. I can understand that and good on ye, if you do. But for us, if one of the players doesn't have the proper skill, knowledge or ability to figure something out, then we look for a solution outside the characters. This usually entails hunting down an NPC, or sometimes possibly item to help out with solving the problem. This act gives the DM/GM options to add to the adventure; usually more opportunity for exploration, investigation, encounters, role-play, and whatever else. We would rather interact more with the DM/GM through this method, than simply consulting the die roll off a character sheet, it's just more fun for us that way.

A lot of players like 4th edition (and Pathfinder/3.5 to a lesser degree), and I've played it for a couple years and I can understand why. 4E tailors to a specific type of play style, but not the sort of style I think benefits RPGs. The reason I say this is because it facilitates optimization, especially where combat is concerned, and this really detracts from the style of play our group really enjoys. Too often I've seen players online or at the table criticize another player or someone's character for not being as optimized as they "should be", because the player didn't have the right scores, pick the right feats, use the right weapons, etc., so that when combat takes places, they can maximize their combat potential.

Now, in my opinion, it is just bad design for an RPG if more often than not, it allows one group of players to criticize another group of players because of the choices they make during character creation or advancement. To me, RPGs should be about sitting down and just having a fun time with friends or family, not worrying whether or not characters are good enough to be played at the table.

This isn't to say that all groups do this, I'm sure most probably don't, but it happens often enough, that it seems to be an issue.

And 4th Edition isn't the only game that does this, though I've seen it happen a lot more where I see this system being discussed. I take similar issues with both 3.5 and Pathfinder, both systems also place a heavy hand on optimizing one's character to gain a great deal of advantages while playing. There are a lot of players out there that like this sort of play style because of the freedoms and options they have, but for myself and my group, we actually find it more restrictive and less creative.

 

[Kzach]

Simply put, at our table, we don't place as much emphasis on personal character gains as other groups might. For you, being able to make an Arcana roll is fun. I can understand that and good on ye, if you do. But for us, if one of the players doesn't have the proper skill, knowledge or ability to figure something out, then we look for a solution outside the characters. This usually entails hunting down an NPC, or sometimes possibly item to help out with solving the problem. This act gives the DM/GM options to add to the adventure; usually more opportunity for exploration, investigation, encounters, role-play, and whatever else. We would rather interact more with the DM/GM through this method, than simply consulting the die roll off a character sheet, it's just more fun for us that way.

Don't you see what you're saying here? This is the exact kind of attitude I was talking about in my OP. That somehow just because I have an optimised character, I don't or can't roleplay and somehow I'm the destroyer of fun and roleplaying at the table.

All of the above can be done with my characters just as well. Nothing in an optimised character precludes doing any of what you said, other than the attitudes of the people at the table.

What's more, you then go on to say that somehow this all ties in to not being friendly or social and, as if having an optimised character somehow destroys even that!

The problem isn't optimising, it's people's attitudes.

 

[jasper]

...The problem isn't optimising, it's people's attitudes.

very very true. so every one posting here if they having a problem at table need think. Is other people's attitudes or your own.

And Kzach, I have notice generally peoples online attitudes generally default in the way they act at the table after a bad day at work.

 

[S'mon]

Don't you see what you're saying here? This is the exact kind of attitude I was talking about in my OP. That somehow just because I have an optimised character, I don't or can't roleplay and somehow I'm the destroyer of fun and roleplaying at the table.

All of the above can be done with my characters just as well. Nothing in an optimised character precludes doing any of what you said, other than the attitudes of the people at the table.

What's more, you then go on to say that somehow this all ties in to not being friendly or social and, as if having an optimised character somehow destroys even that!

The problem isn't optimising, it's people's attitudes.

He didn't say that; either you're being wilfully obnoxious or you need to read much more carefully.

What he was saying is that if PCs can solve all problems by themselves, they never need to interact with friendly/non-hostile NPCs. They never need to go consult the Sage, or hire experts, or seek Clerical or Wizardly assistance (Raise Dead, Legend Lore et al). And this cuts off an avenue of interaction with the milieu that a lot of people find enjoyable, and that was a mainstay of older editions.

 

[TheUltramark]

I'm not seeing anything about those items that would make the theif not think "these are good for me". Some might only want items that summon biscuits of tea enjoyment +1 or fancy hats or whatever, but normally professional murderers (aka adventurers) are at least somewhat interested in things that increase their killing power. Similarly, those min-maxed real life firefighters often use equipment that protects themselves from flames...

None of this equipment is that crazy (damage boosting arms are weapon users default slot, the weapon is an uncommon). The background doesnt add much, and its not like the theme power is a damage roll or minor action attack (so no extra static mods from it).

Given the character used 2 encounters, an action point and a daily, the damage doesnt seem that absurd, when you realize he's tapped for the rest of the encounter. The thief is designed partly around spike damage. Our paladin puts out similar damage with Blood of the Mighty and Righteous Rage.

So all thieves are assassins? - I guess I missed that memo

I don't. If that were every turn, then yeah, but for a an AP, a Daily, and three encounter powers, that's fine. It also wouldn't be that much average damage. That much average damage assumes that all three attacks hit. With that selection of magic items, that level, blowing all my resources in a turn and with the assumption that all attacks hit before calculating average damage, I'm going to bet that a number of characters can hit in that ballpark.

I might be missing something here. How is this an issue?


You turn and face the three to four remaining standard enemies in the fight.

LMAO - 3 or 4 standards left? I'd love to DM for you sometime

 

[TheUltramark]

Kzach: (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) I have some examples I want your thoughts on, it may help with where the problem is.


example 1 (The tale of 2 strikers) we had a rouge and a ranger, the rouge was a shadar kai multi into cleric worshiper of the ravon queen, the ranger was an archer elf. around lev 13 or 14 there wa a LARGE diffrence int he character, the ranger had +4 or 5 to hit on the rouge, and was doing much more damage. This exploded the encounter that the rouge ran up, launched a daily, crit, then action pointed droped a second daily and did awsome damage... about 130 total... The player did a dance aroudnt he table, and write down on his sheet the details... the ranger player the next round used an encounter, and killed something giving him a free action point that he spent, then twin striked a diffrent target...then got pissed,he rolled low dmaage...I pointed out he did over 100 damage on 'low non crits' and look at kurt...
As bad as that was, it built to a head a few levels later when the ranger ended 3 encounters in a row on his own... I asked him to trade out his weapon expertise, his weapon focus, and take off his archery bracers... loseing him 2pts to hit and 4 to damage...was I in the wrong?

The ranger would not be invited back to our table, assuming of course this behavior is typical, which it wounds like it is...life is too short to put with this type of player.

example 2 (the gladius and the kurkr) I am playing a rome style gladiator...the DM wanted his gladius to feel diffrent from short swords, so he made then kurkri. So I took my first level feat as prof in a +2 prof 1d6 brutal 1 weapon, my 2nd and 4th feats were two weap fight and def becuse during play the ranger and I traded styles...
Another player who does not play in this game, pointed out if I took a longsword, and light shield, and traded those 3 feats for weapon focus and expertise and fill in the blank with any feat I would be way better.

It comes off as you had a lot of fun paying your gladiator, and interacting with the ranger - thats awesome, and what the game is all about

example 3 (the crit fisher) We were all sitting down to a game we all were going all out for...I played an avenger multi into ranger, paragon mult and half elf verstile... my 3 at wills where twin strike, the barbarian whirling one, and an avenger one I never used... I had 2 jagged kopeshes and deadly axe.
in 5 encounters each lasting less then 4 rounds I crit atleast twice in each.
one of the other players asked if he could play a similar character in my game, I informed him it would not be welcome at my ongoing game. When he asked why I tried to explain that there are less powerful characters there, and a regular avenger with a greatsword would be more on par.

As a dm you have the right to limit the entire world in any and all ways you see fit.

Example 4 (Joe...oh joe) We have a player who does not have DDI, he often plays out of only 1 book. So his battlemind took almost all stuff from psionic power, his warden was almost all phb2...
he does not want to go through books looking for new options, and his wish lists as a PC always look like this: Cool axe with a nice extra damage daily, scale armor with restance property, boots to make me faster, something to give me more surges or surge value.
he never spends mony on magic items... he will buy a round at a bar, pay for info from a snich, buy land, donate to a church, or even loan to another PC, but in 10 years of 3 and 4e he has less times then you have fingers on one hand bought magic items.

Does this make you angry? The fact he won't buy magic is a personal choice, now, the only thing I would argue about it is having the same character quirks in every character...thats boring to me, but that might just be me. Also, does Joe get mad that everyone else is "ahead" of him, or does he accept it? if he is ok with it, maybe you should try to be too.

 

[Andor]

The ranger would not be invited back to our table, assuming of course this behavior is typical, which it wounds like it is...life is too short to put with this type of player.

Wait, the ranger is the one you would kick out of your group? Seriously? It sounds like a competantly built striker, doing exactly what a sriker is supposed to do, deal a lot of damage.

If another player makes a poorly build character in the same role, and doesn't perform as well your solution is to fire the guy who knows what he's doing? Even though he's moving the game along and the other player is dancing around the table and getting upset that his nerf-bat wielding charcter is less effective than one that uses steel?

Personally I'd be more upset at the disruptive player. I'd also be inclined to keep my employee who performs his job effectively over the lazy whiner, and to pick Mike Tyson in a fight over Don Knotts. YMMV.

 

[Kzach]

What he was saying is that if PCs can solve all problems by themselves, they never need to interact with friendly/non-hostile NPCs. They never need to go consult the Sage, or hire experts, or seek Clerical or Wizardly assistance (Raise Dead, Legend Lore et al). And this cuts off an avenue of interaction with the milieu that a lot of people find enjoyable, and that was a mainstay of older editions.

You're getting into strawman territory here. Again I say, none of those things are excluded from the game simply because I bring an optimised character to the table. If YOU can't see that, then you're the one being wilfully ignorant.

 

[Pilgrim]

You're getting into strawman territory here. Again I say, none of those things are excluded from the game simply because I bring an optimised character to the table. If YOU can't see that, then you're the one being wilfully ignorant.

And no one, aside from yourself, made any accusations that those aspects were excluded from the game. I never stated that you couldn't encounter NPCs, explore, or role-play because you have an optimized character. I stated, that by relying on your own character, or more specifically, their optimized skills, you have a greater chance to avoid those interactions, than someone with a lesser chance. You even back this up by your own quote, concerning your wizard character.

One of my wizard builds focuses heavily on Arcana. He can't fail average rolls has a good chance of succeeding at very difficult checks. I love that! He's the Arcana guy. When you need something Arcanery answered, you ask him. I call that fun, why shouldn't it be an aspect of playing?

This means that you're going to make your rolls the majority of the time, and by doing so, you avoid any opportunity for the DM/GM to spur a side venture where assistance from an NPC will be required, unless he has already planned out such directions for the game to take.