Results 91 to 120 of 188
Thread: The other kind of min-maxing
-
2010-07-12, 01:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
I'd see it rather as knowing there are certain ways to train with a specific weapon that are good (Weapon Mastery chain), certain ways that are subpar but easy (Weapon Focus). IC, a character likely knows which ways are good and which ways are poor, and knows which methods he can actually pursue and which ones they can't. A barbarian would know that Weapon Focus is subpar, something reserved for basic recruits, and Weapon Mastery is out of reach - but perhaps Three Mountains (putting the subpar weapon training to use) and Shock Trooper is something they can do instead.
Proudly without a signature for 5 years. Wait... crap.
-
2010-07-12, 01:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Hmm...
As someone who has both been a varsity fencer and has engaged in numerous boffer fights, I wonder. As a varsity fencer, I was not the best compared to the other fencers, but as a boffer fighter I was a lot better. Different fighting styles and all.
Again the captain of our fencing team, no matter which year I pick, I would lose if I fought with his weapon of choice (usually foil, fencing rules on point scoring). Give me a boffer broadsword and a different set of rules (mass combat, simulated wounding), I probably would have won.
Weapon Finesse? Sure. Dex bonus? Probably equal, I think I'm a little faster than most. BAB? Well, I think we would be the same, maybe give a little. Weapon Focus? For the captain, sure. So I'm thinking the team captain would have +2 BAB advantage over me. Now if the broadsword is -4 for lack of Procifiency, the captain would be at a -2 BAB disadvantage.
That doesn't feel right. It wasn't just the fencing captain. Most of the people on the fencing team weren't the type to pick up a boffer and have a go. Yet most of the fencing team were pretty dang good with their fencing weapon of choice. Me, I had to unlearn certain things, what I did, how I did. I've been using boffer weapons long before fencing. And even if they didn't pick up a boffer weapon, I would think they would have proficiency with it.
The major advantage they had is that they really knew their weapon, which seems like Weapon Focus. Giving it only a +1 seems pretty weak, because that just represents an "edge".
When I think Weapon Focus, I think Bladesmaster, someone who concentrates on a weapon at the exclusion of everything else. I can't take on Mariel Zagunis with a fencing saber, but I bet I could hold my own if we both went broadsword. If an Olympic 2-times Gold Medalist doesn't have Weapon Focus (fencing saber), I'll eat my hat.1. Have fun. It's only a game.
2. The GM has the final say. Everyone else is just a guest.
3. The game is for the players. A proper host entertains one's guests.
4. Everyone is allowed an opinion. Some games are not as cool as they seem.
-
2010-07-12, 01:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
-
2010-07-12, 01:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Now THAT is a good point. What is a hero?
Superman can do everything without breaking a sweat. Is he a hero?
Not really, because he can do everything without breaking a sweat, with no real risk to himself. To be a hero in our culture, you have to overcome some kind of internal adversity or inerrant flaw. Being perfect and saving the world doesn't make one great. Being imperfect and still saving the world; that's a hero.
Taking it back to the game slightly, what does the rest of Superman's superhero team feel about him. Are they in constant awe? Is he still one of the lads? Or do they feel superfluous. Ultimately, I don't in many ways see him as a character (from a story viewpoint) who would ever work well in a team, simply because his perfection makes it so hard for others to be on an equal footing. And let's face it: Anything that comes close to seriously threatening Superman (that isn't green) is going to make pate of the rest of the PCs.
Going back to gaming properly. Did anyone play d6 Starwars? Ever play it with a single Jedi in the group? Wasn't it great fun following around a Jedi, acting as their supporting cast, while they did everything better than you? Sure; it was great fun if you were that Jedi, but it often made a pretty uninspiring and somewhat lacklustre game for others.
tl;dr: Optimising doesn't make a great character. It's character that makes a great character.
I've been in several games that solve this with a simple houserule--everyone can get a couple free skill points/level for character-justified flavor stuff. A hobby, a profession, an extra language, etc. Nothing that has a huge effect on balance, but stuff what helps with concepts.
Weapon Finesse? Sure. Dex bonus? Probably equal, I think I'm a little faster than most.
-
2010-07-12, 02:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Superman can do everything without breaking a sweat. Is he a hero?
-
2010-07-12, 02:06 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
-
2010-07-12, 02:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- in the playground.
- Gender
-
2010-07-12, 02:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
While I do enjoy being called wise, I didn't say anything even remotely close to the bolded portion here. In fact, I said pretty much the opposite.
And no, I wasn't accused of strawmanning, (as you indicate in the underlined portion) in fact, I noted that Psyx's argument was one big strawman.
Just for clarity.
That said, my original point stands - good build or bad build, the build does not determine the RP, nor said RP's quality. Just because some people have had bad experiences with players who like to optimize does not mean the problem is with optimization. The problem, as is the case in any RP situation, lies with the player.
EDIT:
Ummm... so doesn't that mean that the corollary is also true, that optimizing doesn't make a poor character - it's character that makes a poor character?Last edited by Tyger; 2010-07-12 at 02:15 PM.
-
2010-07-12, 02:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- in the playground.
- Gender
-
2010-07-12, 02:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Eastern US
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
That is not what I said, nor what the post I was referring to said...
No player wrote that their PC became a conjurer rather than an illusionist. Rather, the point being made was that the PC really liked illusion and dislike conjuration, but became a conjurer because that school is more powerful.
The comment was addressing players who make decisions based only on the power of the choice rather than the flavor of the character. In no way was it meant to say every player who plays a conjurer rather than an illusionist is power-gaming.Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
Proud member of the "I Love Anyway" Club
Thank you, Ceika, so much for the avatar!
-
2010-07-12, 02:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Except the post you were referring to also didn't say that... it noted some power imbalances, and then noted that choosing the more powerful option in a particular set of contrived circumstances, was somehow bad. It failed to take into account option B - don't contrive circumstances.
-
2010-07-12, 02:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
The problem is...
The conjurer DON'T dislike conjuration, and prefer Illusion. That's just bad RP'ing. Unless you're going for the power vs preference vibe. Which can also be done.
IRL, for example, some people might like painting, but decides to become a doctor anyway, cause the money's better. It's in no way a bad RP.
-
2010-07-12, 02:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Midwest U.S.
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
My Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Rail Gun of Sweet Reason. Get yours!
Thanks to Cealocanth and PersonalSavior for my avatars!Spoiler
-
2010-07-12, 02:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
I say that you CAN dislike conjuration and specialize in it without bad RP.
Do you choose things just because you like them? Some people choose things they dislike, cause it gives more benefit.
Does everyone take up their dream job? Or do most of them pick up a practical, well earning job, rather than something they like, but isn't much use?Last edited by 2xMachina; 2010-07-12 at 02:20 PM.
-
2010-07-12, 02:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Uh, Superman regularly faces foes capable of killing him (and the known universe). A "Superman" character should face Superman-level enemies. No one's arguing your DM should pull punches when you start optimizing; in fact, I think most of us would agree that the DM and player levels of optimization should be roughly equal.
Again, Superman's teammates are some of the most powerful in the universe. The Martian Manhunter is basically Superman with bonuses (and a weakness to fire, but that varies in effectiveness), Wonder Woman can hold her own against most planet-wreckers, Flash can solve literally any problem if the writers are bad enough at math (one comic had him doing something that would require him to move thirteen times the speed of light), and Batman is, well, the goddamn Batman.
So, to continue with this analogy, a party with Superman should probably contain the Flash, Wonder Woman, the Martian Manhunter, and Batman. It shouldn't be filled with second-rate heroes. If your team has second-rate heroes in it, play one yourself.
I think all of us would agree that showing up your party is a jerk move. There are ways to optimize without doing this. Personally, I wouldn't advocate optimizing to a level higher than that of your party unless they're so weak that the challenges the DM is throwing at you are hard to overcome.
As Tyger pointed out, you're absolutely correct. Optimizing also doesn't ruin a great character. Poor character does.SpoilerOriginally Posted by JaronKOriginally Posted by TyndmyrOriginally Posted by Zaq
-
2010-07-12, 02:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Except, that PC likes illusion, and therefore is not a conjurer, but an illusionist. He's also not a PC. The PC is the wizard sitting next to that guy, who likes conjuration and is a conjurer, because the player wanted to be a conjurer. The first guy might be someone else's PC, someone who wanted to play an illusionist instead.
This isn't bad roleplaying, it's a situation that doesn't exist. Yet Psyx claims that THIS IS WHAT OPTIMIZERS ACTUALLY BELIEVE, as if optimizers go out of their way to write backstories that completely contradict their characters.Last edited by Caphi; 2010-07-12 at 02:28 PM.
Spoiler
<Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!
-
2010-07-12, 02:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Wow. Huh. I actually mixed up yours and Psyx's names while I was writing. Apologies, for that. Didn't mean to put words into your mouth. I sure feel pretty silly now.
Now, about your actual point, I don't think we're saying things that are that different. Speaking generally, I don't think that optimization has anything to do with a character's quality. I've even met people who were wonderful roleplayers, and who simply enjoyed seeing their character perform optimally in their respective duties. I do know, however, people who favor optimization so much that their roleplaying becomes minimal or inexistant. And those people tend to throw out the Stormwind fallacy when I try to talk to them all the while ignoring that they're creating a fallacy of their own. If optimization does not preclude roleplaying, that doesn't mean that it guarantees it either. I agree that the ''problem'', if you will, lies with individuals rather than optimization itself. The only difference is that I see this tendency being much more widespread than you apparently do.
-
2010-07-12, 02:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
-
2010-07-12, 02:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Groovy.
And no, I don't see that tendancy being widespread, but I do completely agree that optimization doesn't guarantee a good RP experience either. But I think what you are talking about are just poor RPers. They didn't get made poor by their optimizing tendancies, they were already bad at it. Seems they found a segment of the game that they like though - the mechanics - and its good they are enjoying themselves. Unless of course they are detracting from their fellow players' enjoyment, but as noted, there is a name for those folks too, and it isn't optimizer. It's jerk.
-
2010-07-12, 02:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Or you can just roll with it. I mean, some of my most interesting professors have been writing and philosophy, and most of my worst have been CS, but I've never used that as a basis to say "Hmm, I should just give up pursuing a career as a software developer and go into fiction."
None of this detracts from the point that Psyx' examples have absolutely no weight as an argument for... well, anything. They don't prove Stormwind, they don't say anything about optimizers or roleplayers or the people who are both or neither, and there are a ton of Colossal holes in them.
Spoiler
<Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!
-
2010-07-12, 02:41 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- in the playground.
- Gender
-
2010-07-12, 02:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
If you were never in danger, your heroic buff isn't as shiny.
Really, what's going on are three different definition of the word "hero" being used.
The first is the mechanical definition. A hero is 75-points base plus a maximum of 75 points in disadvantages.
The second is the emotional definition. You came in and saved the day. My hero!
The third is the literary (not the literal) definition. Despite the overwhelming pressure to do otherwise, I stood my ground to do the right thing.
Superman is not a hero in the mechanical definition (well, duh! He's a super-hero!). To all those people he saved, he is the second definition. But whether he is the third is debatable.
One of the greatest problems with Superman is that it is difficult to write a story about Superman that engages the audience. Why? Because it seems that everything comes so easily to him!
Bomb about to go off? Superman grabs it with super-speed and throws it super-far so that it explodes super-harmlessly!
Bridge gives out? Superman moves super-fast to super-build supports so the train doesn't wreck when it crosses the river.
Bad guy about to shoot Jimmy Olsen? Superman steps in the way and the bullets bounce off his super-tough body!
With all this power at his disposal, Superman can afford to put himself in harm's way in order to do what is right. Thinking of Superman as the "hero" in the literary sense only applies when you actually involve a threat so bad that even Superman is in danger (Doomsday, anyone?).
The trouble with stories that involve threats that actually make Superman hesitate is that we, as mere mortals, have trouble comprehending them. For example, the great strength of Doomsday is something horrible, something so artifical it is obvious that the writers wrote it with full-on comic-book physics and comic-book logic engaged. But if Superman is the hero of the story (oops! Fourth definition - protagonist, one we root for), then he had better survive so we can sell more Superman comics! But if he survives and is able to defeat Doomsday, who was the more horrible supervillain ever... then the only thing to do is make a supervillain who is even more horrible than Doomsday!
And yet, despite the power-creep (which only happens with uber-powerful characters like Superman, by the by), Superman still emerges victorious. How can we call him a "hero" in the literary definition if the writers keep on letting him win? What is he, the original Mary Sue???
Going back to the thread - optimization and min-maxing isn't like that. And just because you can optimize and min-max your 75-points + 75 in disadvantages to become an uber-killing machine does not make you a hero. Even if you are the author of your own PC's destiny.1. Have fun. It's only a game.
2. The GM has the final say. Everyone else is just a guest.
3. The game is for the players. A proper host entertains one's guests.
4. Everyone is allowed an opinion. Some games are not as cool as they seem.
-
2010-07-12, 02:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
"Hey, Frank, I thought you hated law."
"*sigh* I do."
"Then why you'd become a lawyer."
"...the money."
So, yes, there is a reason (sadly) for someone to go for a career path they don't like. Of course, in your example, that becomes...
"Hey, Francokillus, I thought you hated conjuring."
"*sigh* I do."
"Then why you'd become a conjurer."
"...the power."
What's dishonest is if they DON'T have an IC reason for taking conjuring, not that they have something against it.1. Have fun. It's only a game.
2. The GM has the final say. Everyone else is just a guest.
3. The game is for the players. A proper host entertains one's guests.
4. Everyone is allowed an opinion. Some games are not as cool as they seem.
-
2010-07-12, 02:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- Seattle, WA
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
-
2010-07-12, 03:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
A few objections.
1. Power creep happens to lots of heroes. In fact, Superman got to be the uber-powerful character he is today because of power creep from his original, much less uber power set! You know that "jump higher than a tall building in a single bound?" That used to be his way of getting around. Then animators decided he would look better flying, and hey, Superman can fly now!
The original hero really was a super man - way beyond normal endurance, but not so far beyond it that he was the juggernaut he is today. Lots of other heroes have gone through something similar; Wolverine used to be able to heal up pretty quickly, and now he can regenerate from a single atom. Hulk has gotten stronger and stronger as they keep writing it. Batman has gone from "world's greatest detective" to "world's greatest detective, incredibly good martial artist, and top-notch inventor capable of developing his own power suit that can go toe-to-toe with Superman."
2. Winning isn't what defines a Mary Sue. Winning in spite of all evidence to the contrary is a good warning sign.
3. Constantly winning doesn't make you not a hero, so long as you have setbacks along the way. Aragorn fails how many times during the Lord of the Rings - once, when the hobbits are captured? Every other battle, he's victorious. It still makes a compelling story, because even though we're pretty sure he's going to make it in the end, his struggles are legitimately difficult and his victory in-universe is never certain. Genre-savvy shouldn't make a fictional character less a hero.
That said, yeah, Superman's opponents do get pretty ridiculous. The funny thing is, he's not even the most absurd hero in DC - the Flash's speed is so high that, really, no one should pose a threat to him, and the Martian Manhunter is basically Superman-plus, but their powers are less well-known and so the writers often just push them aside.
I think it can still be heroic to do something even if there's no risk to yourself, though. Saving someone's life when you might die? Definitely heroic. Saving someone's life when you definitely won't die? Can still be pretty heroic, depending on the circumstances. I mean, Superman gives up nearly his entire life to helping others. That's heroic, even if he's unlikely to get hurt along the way. I think it's only when you stop helping people for the sake of helping people that your heroism can be called into question.SpoilerOriginally Posted by JaronKOriginally Posted by TyndmyrOriginally Posted by Zaq
-
2010-07-12, 03:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Midwest U.S.
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
My Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Rail Gun of Sweet Reason. Get yours!
Thanks to Cealocanth and PersonalSavior for my avatars!Spoiler
-
2010-07-12, 03:13 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Spoiler
<Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!
-
2010-07-12, 03:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Midwest U.S.
My Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Rail Gun of Sweet Reason. Get yours!
Thanks to Cealocanth and PersonalSavior for my avatars!Spoiler
-
2010-07-12, 03:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Israel
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
A wise monk trains both mind and body, but a smart monk is actually a swordsage.
-
2010-07-12, 03:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Gender