New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 188
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    AssassinGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Merk View Post
    I'd agree, but I don't think this is reflected in the game all too well. For example, it would make sense IC that training with a weapon (Weapon Focus) is a good thing, but it's a relatively poor OOC choice.
    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.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by PersonMan View Post
    Not really. Training can be seen as proficiency. Training even more is Weapon Focus. Or BAB, it can be either.
    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.

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    Terazul's Avatar

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK View Post
    My advice to the OP: the group is having fun already. Wizards aren't overpowered in their group (probably because no one's using them in overpowered ways) and that's a good thing... no sense introducing what they can do and creating a power arms race. You might as well just play characters in their power band and enjoy it. You don't need high numbers to have fun, nor do you need world shattering power to roleplay decent party dynamics and all that. Would it really improve the game to raise armies of intelligent undead and consume the world? That doesn't sound like the kind of game your group wants to play.

    JaronK
    Wasn't the problem that he wanted to play something in their power band but they actually believe it's far and away above it? It sounds like he just wants to be able to play a MT without getting yelled at, not transform the world into the tippyverse.

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by esrz22 View Post
    I justify playing a killing machine by saying "my character is an exceptional--heroic, even--swordsman". Because, y'know, PCs tend to be heroes.
    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.
    A big problem with D&D is that 'hobby' skills and less useful skills cost exactly the same as (say) UMD. It might be realistic in some ways, but it makes for one dimensional characters.


    Weapon Finesse? Sure. Dex bonus? Probably equal, I think I'm a little faster than most.
    D&D is a poor simulation, consumed by the masses: The McDonalds of the RPG world. Your skill as a fencer bears no relation to a foe's ability to hit you, according to the rules. The balance between a good simulation and a good game system is fine, but D&D is very special in that it doesn't really manage either. I was wandering home the other day thinking about E6. I'd also personally change armour AC bonus to DR. That drops DR drastically, but then instead, you'd get to use BAB as an AC bonus. At least that way the character's skill stops reflects their defence instead of offence. I digress...

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Superman can do everything without breaking a sweat. Is he a hero?
    HOLD IT I'm not playing Superman. Superman bores me--he's too powerful, as you say. I'm playing, uh... Robin Hood or Samuel Vimes or the Dread Pirate Roberts.

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Banned
     
    Optimystik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    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.
    Tell that to the people whose lives he just saved.

    You've lost me completely here. So if I'm up against a dragon, and I prepare all kinds of anti-dragon countermeasures and kick his scaly posterior, thus saving the village he's been terrorizing, am I suddenly not a hero?

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    in the playground.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimystik View Post
    Tell that to the people whose lives he just saved.

    You've lost me completely here. So if I'm up against a dragon, and I prepare all kinds of anti-dragon countermeasures and kick his scaly posterior, thus saving the village he's been terrorizing, am I suddenly not a hero?
    No, he's merely saying if you can kill the dragon, the evil necromancer, the evil god, and etc. That it's not much fun. If nothing can ever stop you but DM fiat it makes it not fun for everyone else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans
    Not again...

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tyger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by White_North View Post
    Tyger wisely pointed out that optimization, amongst other things, leads people to play builds, instead of characters. He has since then been accused of gross strawmanning. However, I can speak from experience when I say he is right. In the group I play with, we have several optimizers, and it is becoming a recurring theme for them to do exactly this. Without being too specific, they will freely and spontaneously change alignment, make up ludicrous backstories and come up with incredibly convoluted reasons that will allow them to play the latest build that caught their eyes. Quite simply, they don't play characters. They play builds with characters superficially tacked on to them. And the thing is that they actually are good roleplayers. Except that they have recently become so interested in optimization that they stopped playing roles and started playing builds instead.
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    tl;dr: Optimising doesn't make a great character. It's character that makes a great character.

    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.
    Thanks The Neoclassic for my avatar!

    Stark Raving Dad - a blog about life.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by theos911 View Post
    Fighter: I can kill a guy in one turn.
    Cleric: I can kill a guy in half a turn.
    Wizard: I can kill a guy before my turn!
    Bard: I can get 12 idiots to go kill guys for me
    Quote Originally Posted by grarrrg View Post
    Oh, and Person-Man's real name is a little something called "SKYNET"

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    in the playground.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
    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.
    Yep, unfortunately way too many players full into the clutches of this problem.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans
    Not again...

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Kesnit's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Eastern US
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Sliver View Post
    Except why would the PC say that his conjurer learned under a boring conjuration teacher while the illusion teacher was awesome? He wouldn't write that in his background. That type of input can only be made by the DM who has no rights to do it randomly.
    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!

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tyger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Kesnit View Post
    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.
    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.
    Thanks The Neoclassic for my avatar!

    Stark Raving Dad - a blog about life.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by theos911 View Post
    Fighter: I can kill a guy in one turn.
    Cleric: I can kill a guy in half a turn.
    Wizard: I can kill a guy before my turn!
    Bard: I can get 12 idiots to go kill guys for me
    Quote Originally Posted by grarrrg View Post
    Oh, and Person-Man's real name is a little something called "SKYNET"

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Kesnit View Post
    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.
    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.

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Sucrose's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Midwest U.S.

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Kesnit View Post
    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.
    Well, that example is dishonest. Someone who wanted to play a conjurer would not have it in their backstory that the conjuration class was boring to their character. That would be against the flavor, not for it.
    My Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Rail Gun of Sweet Reason. Get yours!

    Thanks to Cealocanth and PersonalSavior for my avatars!
    Spoiler
    Show



  14. - Top - End - #104
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default 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.

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Psyx View Post
    tl;dr: Optimising doesn't make a great character. It's character that makes a great character.
    As Tyger pointed out, you're absolutely correct. Optimizing also doesn't ruin a great character. Poor character does.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK
    Why on earth would there be superstition in a world where you can just ask the gods stuff? "Hey, I hear throwing salt over your shoulder prevents bad luck." "Oh yeah? I'll ask the god of luck, brb."
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
    Hey, it could be worse. It could be monks. One day, someone will start a thread titled "4E monks, more morally justified than 3.5 wizards!", and the world will end.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaq
    Now, of course, what is a ninja? (A miserable little pile of shuriken!)

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by 2xMachina View Post
    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.
    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
    Show

    <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!

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2010

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
    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.
    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.

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2009

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Caphi View Post
    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.
    Even if it does exist, it can be roleplayed well . That's my point.
    Last edited by 2xMachina; 2010-07-12 at 02:33 PM.

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Tyger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by White_North View Post
    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.
    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.
    Thanks The Neoclassic for my avatar!

    Stark Raving Dad - a blog about life.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by theos911 View Post
    Fighter: I can kill a guy in one turn.
    Cleric: I can kill a guy in half a turn.
    Wizard: I can kill a guy before my turn!
    Bard: I can get 12 idiots to go kill guys for me
    Quote Originally Posted by grarrrg View Post
    Oh, and Person-Man's real name is a little something called "SKYNET"

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by 2xMachina View Post
    You can write that and roleplay it well also. It's not as if taking up a rewarding job you don't like is unheard of.
    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
    Show

    <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!

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Beholder

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    in the playground.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyger View Post
    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.
    I completely agree.

    Some people have all the fun in making the numbers add up, but that doesn't really matter unless it's detrimental to the other players.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hans
    Not again...

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Optimystik View Post
    Tell that to the people whose lives he just saved.

    You've lost me completely here. So if I'm up against a dragon, and I prepare all kinds of anti-dragon countermeasures and kick his scaly posterior, thus saving the village he's been terrorizing, am I suddenly not a hero?
    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.

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Sucrose View Post
    Well, that example is dishonest. Someone who wanted to play a conjurer would not have it in their backstory that the conjuration class was boring to their character. That would be against the flavor, not for it.
    "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.

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Keld Denar's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Caphi View Post
    there are a ton of Colossal holes in them.
    Be careful...Colossal holes have 25' natural reach. Best tumble around them to avoid Attacks of Opportunity.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fax Celestis View Post
    AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY! AILHAY THULUCAY!
    _________________________________
    A beholder’s favorite foods include small live mammals, exotic mushrooms and other fungi, gnomes, beef, pork, colorful leafy vegetables, leaves, flower petals, insects, and birds.

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    OrcBarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Umael View Post

    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???
    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.
    Spoiler
    Show
    Quote Originally Posted by JaronK
    Why on earth would there be superstition in a world where you can just ask the gods stuff? "Hey, I hear throwing salt over your shoulder prevents bad luck." "Oh yeah? I'll ask the god of luck, brb."
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyndmyr
    Hey, it could be worse. It could be monks. One day, someone will start a thread titled "4E monks, more morally justified than 3.5 wizards!", and the world will end.
    Quote Originally Posted by Zaq
    Now, of course, what is a ninja? (A miserable little pile of shuriken!)

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Sucrose's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Midwest U.S.

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Umael View Post
    "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.
    Fair point. However, the example that I'm arguing against essentially stated that players would create a backstory for their character, then willfully ignore it in order to make a more powerful set of numbers. That just isn't the way that optimization works.
    My Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Rail Gun of Sweet Reason. Get yours!

    Thanks to Cealocanth and PersonalSavior for my avatars!
    Spoiler
    Show



  27. - Top - End - #117
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2008

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Sucrose View Post
    Fair point. However, the example that I'm arguing against essentially stated that players would create a backstory for their character, then willfully ignore it in order to make a more powerful set of numbers. That just isn't the way that optimization works.
    I decided not to take luminous armor for a sorceror. It sort of hurt, but she's a soldier for druids (long-ish story), so exalted (Sanctified, even!) spells would be a little weird.

    Then I remembered I already had mirror image. That made me feel better.



    Spoiler
    Show

    <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!

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Sucrose's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Midwest U.S.

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Caphi View Post
    I decided not to take luminous armor for a sorceror. It sort of hurt, but she's a soldier for druids (long-ish story), so exalted (Sanctified, even!) spells would be a little weird.

    Then I remembered I already had mirror image. That made me feel better.
    Yes....?
    My Unitarian Jihad name is Brother Rail Gun of Sweet Reason. Get yours!

    Thanks to Cealocanth and PersonalSavior for my avatars!
    Spoiler
    Show



  29. - Top - End - #119
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Israel
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Caphi View Post
    I decided not to take luminous armor for a sorceror. It sort of hurt, but she's a soldier for druids (long-ish story), so exalted (Sanctified, even!) spells would be a little weird.

    Then I remembered I already had mirror image. That made me feel better.
    Was your background focused at one point about luminous armor and how awesome your character thought it was but then ignored it? Otherwise... I have to go with this:

    Quote Originally Posted by Sucrose View Post
    Yes....?
    A wise monk trains both mind and body, but a smart monk is actually a swordsage.

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Barbarian in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: The other kind of min-maxing

    Quote Originally Posted by Keld Denar View Post
    Be careful...Colossal holes have 25' natural reach. Best tumble around them to avoid Attacks of Opportunity.
    Stop telling my players the statistics of the monsters I plan to use !

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •