The other kind of min-maxing

[TheMeMan]

It's rather indicative of a bunch of people playing a bunch of numbers, rather than a roleplaying game, isn't it? Before the idiocy that is Races of the Dragon came out, what proportion of players were keen to play a hundred year old geriatric kobold? I can't remember anyone ever asking to play one.

If it counts, I chose to play a 15 year-old Kobold Spirit Shaman, with no Races of the Dragons add-ons, etc. Not strong, but incredibly fun to play. So... eh? The concept of the character was to good for me to pass up, and it is one of the funnest characters I've made.

[Kylarra]

If it counts, I chose to play a 15 year-old Kobold Spirit Shaman, with no Races of the Dragons add-ons, etc. Not strong, but incredibly fun to play. So... eh? The concept of the character was to good for me to pass up, and it is one of the funnest characters I've made.

I think the key part there is geriatric. Without cheese, generally, playing a venerable character from level 1 is significantly less than optimal.

[TheMeMan]

I think the key part there is geriatric. Without cheese, generally, playing a venerable character from level 1 is significantly less than optimal.

Ah, didn't think of the penalties involved....

However... it does sound like a fun idea... at least for a one-shot quest...

(incase you couldn't tell, my characters tend to border on the ridiculous).

That all said, I'm not sure what I said. So yep.

[Math_Mage]

But that's the massive characterisation trap with optimising: It encourages and rewards reverse engineering. The player wants to play X uber character, and then reverse engineers the entire character process -right down to region of birth in FR games- in order to fit the optimised 1-20 character build. That's completely the opposite of the way that 95% of games tell you to build characters, and leads to those awful, awful contrived backgrounds that are seen with startling regularity. And I will go out on a limb here and say that the most optimised characters do often tend towards the most unlikely and absurd backstories (if they have one at all), whereas a character designed character-first, numbers later tends towards a more 'realistic' and often better thought out background.

I'll put my hand up here and say that I cheerfully min-max. But I do it in order to crowbar my character concept and back-story into the framework of the rules: The maths comes after the character is designed, because D&D is a constrained game and you have to beat the rules with a stick to make some concepts work.

*sigh*

People who make awful, awful contrived backgrounds for optimized characters would make shallow, uninteresting, flat backgrounds for unoptimized characters. They're not interested in roleplaying to begin with.

Also, I think you may need a refresher on optimization terminology.
Optimizer: Someone who works to develop the mechanical power of his character in a specific direction. Ex: "I want to make a good S&B fighter."
Min-Maxer: Someone who seeks to trade disadvantages that don't mean anything mechanically for advantages that do mean something mechanically. Ex: Taking the maximum number of available flaws in a 3.5 game.
Powergamer: Someone who isn't satisfied with anything less than an 'uber' character in terms of mechanical power. Ex: Playing a White Dragonspawn Loredrake Dragonwrought Kobold Sorcerer for the extra CL, or throwing around Nightsticks.
Munchkin: Yeah, yeah, we all know who this is.

The terms are not mutually exclusive; in particular, powergamers are usually optimizers, and min-maxing is a routine activity of both optimizers and powergamers. But you should be able to see how an optimizer might take offense at being argued at as if he were a powergamer. One large difference between the two is that an optimizer generally develops his character concept concurrently with his character sheet; a powergamer will use whatever gives the most pluses and contrive an explanation for it later.

Yet half a dozen times in the last two dozen threads I've read is something like 'I have to keep bailing them out' or 'None of the other players are optimisers', or utterly rabid offences yelling tired old tropes arguing against even the possibility that optimisation can lead to poor characterisation. Maybe advice on optimisation 'help me' threads should come with a public safety warning: Doing this can make you a complete jerk.

'I have to keep bailing them out': Sounds like AtwasAwamps, no? The guy who tries to avoid showing up his group, but pulls out the stops when the group comes in danger of TPK through consistent failure to adhere to basic tactics, never mind build optimization tenets? The guy who, if it matters, is perfectly capable of building consistent, believable, and powerful characters? Because you're not really making the 'that guy's a jerk' case very well if that's your standard.

'None of the other players are optimizers': usually leads to complaints like 'gives fellow players poor advice in complete confidence' (AtwasAwamps again) or 'imposes arbitrary restrictions on build concepts because of their ignorance of optimization' (Umael, in the OP). Again, it's not about showing up the group.

(And maybe you should consider your words carefully before making statements implying that most of the people you're talking to, who regularly post on 'help me' threads, are or could be complete jerks.)

Wow. Can we possibly converse without there being some kind of line in the sand that one has to stand one side of ? "CITE CITE CITE PROVE IT" is not a conversation; it's an argument, and a poor one at that.

Discussions generally involve making supportable claims and supporting them when necessary.

I sit here genuinely amazed that you aren't familiar with the concept of gamers who gen up superman then crowbar any old background into place afterwards, in order to fit the bill and meet all the regional feat/whatever requirements.

And I sit here genuinely amazed that you would implicate optimizers for the actions of people who are plainly:
(a) powergamers; and
(b) not interested in roleplaying to begin with.

Now that we've gotten all that genuine amazement out of the way, let's get back to the topic at hand, instead of discussing a straw man.

[Putting my shrink hat on for a second: Powergaming/competitive gaming/oneupmanship in RPGs CAN (before you jump on it - not always) be indicative of an ingrained need to win/compete/narcissistic personality traits, and Optimisation is an essential tool for that style of gaming. So I'd postulate that the side of the floor defending the legitimacy of optimisation would hypothetically, given a large enough sample size include such players, who would be unwilling to concede even small points in favour of an opposing argument, or be subject to a reinforcing cognitive bias. That would then lead to a statistical bias in the given evidence. I digress]

You should consider which side of the discussion is resorting to fallacies and complaints about requests for evidence in order to avoid conceding 'points'.

[Esser-Z]

I think the key part there is geriatric. Without cheese, generally, playing a venerable character from level 1 is significantly less than optimal.

Works well for Wizards!

[Kylarra]

Works well for Wizards!

Occasionally. They're one of the better ones at obviating the penalties, especially at higher levels, but in practical play, not so much.

[Caphi]

Works well for Wizards!

Not before they get alter self and mirror image, it doesn't. And it doesn't really become a sure bet until fly.

[Keld Denar]

Tales of a hero preparing for a combat that they then sail through don't make the best seller list. Saga-wise, tales of heroes obtaining items to defeat a foe are themselves laced with oodles of risk.

Rocky...Karate Kid...pretty much any sport movie ever. Also, pretty much any courtroom thriller. 2/3 of the movie is about the preperation, training, and lessons learned prior to the "main event". Its about the character's growth during those periods. Then, finally, during the climax, the character uses this well developed toolbox of lessons in a way to beat the competition, either resoundingly or by a narrow margin, depending on the story.

Just sayin...

[Kylarra]

Even with the training montage movies though, they generally struggle up until the very last second where they have a revelation and win.


Not saying that epic planning/training isn't an epic story in its own right, I'm just sayin' ...

[Sliver]

I feel compelled to point out that the connection between "I play a strong character" and "I roleplay my character poorly" is not "I play a strong character, thus I roleplay it poorly" but "I don't care about the roleplaying aspect, only about the power of my character, thus I play a strong character." You can play a strong character and you can roleplay it just fine if you aren't hell bent on thinking that you can't.

And I don't get what is wrong with deciding what you want to play mechanically before fluffing it out. Those aspects complement and support each other. If you can't make it work, you aren't trying hard enough. If you are going to think about an exaggerated example just to show that it doesn't work all the time, pet yourself on the back for being so close minded.

Although sometimes I get the feeling from arguments like these that the opposing side is arguing because "I don't like this since I can't pull it off" and not because no one can pull it off well enough,

If you have a personal experience with someone who focused on power and didn't roleplay, it does not mean that optimizers are poor role players, or that caring about your power means your character probably has poor fluff or w/e. It means that the someone you know didn't care about roleplaying or was a poor roleplayer, nothing else.

[Gametime]

And I will go out on a limb here and say that the most optimised characters do often tend towards the most unlikely and absurd backstories (if they have one at all), whereas a character designed character-first, numbers later tends towards a more 'realistic' and often better thought out background.

There is, I think, an event horizon of optimization beyond which good backstory and coherent storytelling becomes more difficult. I think it's at a far higher level than most people credit; Pun-Pun, in most of his forms, is hard to write a good backstory for, for instance. (A Paladin who summons a demon prince so that he can be become omnipotent, and understands the relatively complex steps necessary to do so? ...Sure, why not!)

Even once you're well into theoretical optimization, though, it's possible to make good backstories. A properly built Hulking Hurler can kill just amount anything that can be damaged, but there's nothing inherent in it that makes it impossible to tell a story about.

Yet half a dozen times in the last two dozen threads I've read is something like 'I have to keep bailing them out' or 'None of the other players are optimisers', or utterly rabid offences yelling tired old tropes arguing against even the possibility that optimisation can lead to poor characterisation. Maybe advice on optimisation 'help me' threads should come with a public safety warning: Doing this can make you a complete jerk.

Well...a couple of things.

First, I'm not willing to bet that there is not a single optimizer who is also a jerk. (I haven't seen many on these forums, which I find tend to be populated with quite lovely people, but I'm sure they're out there.)

Second, I am willing to bet that optimizing jerks have jerky behavior predating optimizing. I don't think it's fair to blame the jerkiness on the optimizing, even if optimization can be manifested in a jerky way.

Third, I don't think bailing your party out is you showing them up; I would say that's the DM showing them up. If the encounter is too difficult (and you aren't the sort of group to flee, or the DM didn't give you any indication it would be too difficult so you didn't think you'd have to, or something), then I think doing whatever you can to prevent a TPK is the right choice. I'm talking about showing them up in normal encounters, when you are doing it just to prove your superiority.

Basically, you start showing them up when you start using overkill, but it's not overkill unless you could have succeeded just as easily with less firepower. If the DM is throwing unbalanced challenges at you, that's an issue to be fixed on his end.

Simply winning does not - from the point of view of culture - make a hero. It makes for a dull, dull, dull story. 'The wizard prepared his buffs in advance, strode in and killed a dragon at no personal risk' makes a duller story and a far smaller hero than a bloke with one leg saving a dog from the river.

You aren't the first one to say this, so I apologize if it seems like I'm singling you out, but where did this idea that there is only one cultural concept of heroism come from? Not only are there a multitude of cultures, ideals of heroism are hardly uniform even within a culture.

Also, just because one person is more heroic than another does not mean that the other is not heroic. The bloke with one leg might be a greater hero, but the wizard is at least an excellent samaritan and very likely a hero in his own right, based on his selfless action (assuming he was killing the dragon to aid others, and not just for the sweet, sweet experience and loot).

At least, I think so. Again, heroism is hardly a well-defined concept.

Heroes have to have flaws and be real people.

lolwut?

Worse than that. Thirteen TRILLION times the speed of light.

You know, that's what I thought it was at first, but then I figured I must have exaggerated it because the writers couldn't possibly think the Flash should be that fast. Good times.

[Lhurgyof]

Indeed, optimization isn't powergaming.

I had a character idea, Mr. Bumblebux, who was an umberhulk bureaucrat wearing a suit and tie. So I took the umberhulk class and made him decently powerful (not super optimized, but able to hold himself quite well in a fight). Now, is there anything truly wrong with that?
I also like playing not so strong characters as well, I'd rather play a strong character, but hey. Who cares?
I wouldn't let optimization get in the way of making a fun to play and roleplay character, that's when it becomes powergaming. When you're in a group of venerable kobolds from Faerun and fighters using spiked chains.

EDIT: Oh, and my old DM used the GURPS books to give our characters traits and flaws, if we so wished, it made for some good characters.
I remember Dillon's spiked armor, spiked gauntlet, and spiked shield charging ball of spikes had a peg leg, lol.

[Quietus]

"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.

And now, I want to play this character. It seems that it could be made compelling, if played well.

[Caphi]

And now, I want to play this character. It seems that it could be made compelling, if played well.

Maybe his dad pushed him into conjuration! All he ever wanted to do was entertain the kids with shadow plays (with real shadows - er, quasi-real shadows), but...

[Umael]

Heh.

Sometimes it is fun to create an uber-powerful character... and then throw something into the works that makes it completely different and entertaining in a new light.

I had a starting Brujah (who ended up being an NPC, but I didn't assign any more points to him) who at first glance seemed to scream combat-monster-powergaming.

Worked as a bouncer in a biker bar, wore leather (counts as armor), had several weapons hidden all over his body (my favorite was the pool cue that was broken in half - one half was the club, the other the stake).

Physicals Primary - Strength 5, Dexterity 3, Stamina 4. Celerity 2 Potence 1. Huge. Permanent fangs. Clan enmity: Ventrue. 8th Generation. Melee 5. Intimidation 3. Demeanor Bravo.

Nature Pacifist.

Suddenly, everything took on a new light. Here was someone who looked totally designed for combat... with a pacifist nature.

But it worked!

Having someone 7' 6" looming over you and saying (through tight lips), "I think you better go now," to someone who was trying to pick a fight... was actually effective, and kept the character concept three-dimensional.

His name was also Sheila.

[Tiki Snakes]

Pun Pun backstory;

Spoiler

Show

'Monty' was always an idealist. When he was young, and being taught the racial myths of his people, he never really empathised with Kurtulmak, even during the tale of Garl Glittergold and the collapsing of the first Great Mine.

He empathised with the common Kobold, and to an extent, all such people. (He grew to believe that it was both common Kobolds and common Gnomes who were the victims in that tale, because due to the squabbling of their racial gods, a lot of kobolds died, and a lot of gnomes would come to die in the following ages due to this.)

He grew to venerate the pantheon of Gods that most represented this general world-view, dedicating himself to the concept of doing what must be done to alleviate the suffering and injustices of the common people. His chosen God / Gods espoused the end-goal of an enlightened and compasionate world, and Monty dearly wanted to see it one day.

But life as a Kobold is hard, and when his tribe were wiped out by a Necromancer seeking a new lair, he got a close-up view of just how badly broken the world could be.

Monty lost a little faith in the Pantheon of shiny fluffy niceness just then, because he reasoned that if he adhered to their rules as they stood, he could never hope to live to see their ideal world created.
He saught to use his keen mind and his now iron will to find a way to truly make a change. Working feverishly, the holy warrior eventually found a way to do just that, and all it took was a single gamble on the whim of a Demonlord too arrogant to consider what could be done with one wish in exchange for a small existential cost.

Monty spoke the name three times, and wished for a Candle. He would need more than one wish to do what must be done, but he needed only deal with the Demonlord once... A small price to pay, in exchange for the kind of earth-shattering power that could truly begin to fix the broken world.

Seems simple enough to me. For a character that explicitely should never be used, it's really quite a simple, elegant and obvious backstory/motivation.

[Icewraith]

You changed your character concept in order to optimize your character's role in the party. You went from combat god to intimimancer, (I'm not sure how much of a mechanical penalty you take if you slug someone as I'm not conversant in the system you're using, but even if it's pretty harsh you've optimized your intimidate-equivalent skill quite well with the leather, body, visible weapons, etc) and it sounds like you did a fairly good job of it. It's a fairly tame example, but I think it illustrates the sort of back and forth that should go into creating a truly well-put-together character:

The concept should affect the mechanics AND the mechanics should affect the concept.

Here's my anti-optimization horror story/counterexample:

One of my friends played a rogue and decided he would forego disable device and focus on opening locks, to differ his rogue from past rogues who always had disable device. His backstory was that his character had been imprisoned by a wizard and he escaped by learning to pick the locks in the wizard's dungeon.

...

I will maintain to this day that no matter how good in other areas his character turned out to be, that his backstory made no sense for his character and it should in fact still be rotting in this dungeon unless someone else busted him out and showed him how to bypass and or/disable the magical TRAPS the wizard would have had his dungeon covered in. Wizards know all about the knock spell. "Take use magic device and disable device, it works for magic traps and fits your concept perfectly!"

Hoo boy he wasn't having any of it. Fortunately our DM didn't punish the party too much, but he also might have been tailoring the encounters to the party and so not installed any traps that did more than shoot people with evocations.

[Bodkins Odds]

Pun Pun backstory;

Spoiler

Show

'Monty' was always an idealist. When he was young, and being taught the racial myths of his people, he never really empathised with Kurtulmak, even during the tale of Garl Glittergold and the collapsing of the first Great Mine.

He empathised with the common Kobold, and to an extent, all such people. (He grew to believe that it was both common Kobolds and common Gnomes who were the victims in that tale, because due to the squabbling of their racial gods, a lot of kobolds died, and a lot of gnomes would come to die in the following ages due to this.)

He grew to venerate the pantheon of Gods that most represented this general world-view, dedicating himself to the concept of doing what must be done to alleviate the suffering and injustices of the common people. His chosen God / Gods espoused the end-goal of an enlightened and compasionate world, and Monty dearly wanted to see it one day.

But life as a Kobold is hard, and when his tribe were wiped out by a Necromancer seeking a new lair, he got a close-up view of just how badly broken the world could be.

Monty lost a little faith in the Pantheon of shiny fluffy niceness just then, because he reasoned that if he adhered to their rules as they stood, he could never hope to live to see their ideal world created.
He saught to use his keen mind and his now iron will to find a way to truly make a change. Working feverishly, the holy warrior eventually found a way to do just that, and all it took was a single gamble on the whim of a Demonlord too arrogant to consider what could be done with one wish in exchange for a small existential cost.

Monty spoke the name three times, and wished for a Candle. He would need more than one wish to do what must be done, but he needed only deal with the Demonlord once... A small price to pay, in exchange for the kind of earth-shattering power that could truly begin to fix the broken world.

Seems simple enough to me. For a character that explicitely should never be used, it's really quite a simple, elegant and obvious backstory/motivation.

Yeah, haven't people learned by now not to ask for valid backstories for characters that must not be played? It tends to be taken as a challenge.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Re: Stormwind, optimizing, anecdotal correlation/causation

If P(Bad Roleplayer | Optimizer) = P(Bad Roleplayer)*
Then P(Optimizer | Bad Roleplayer) = P(Optimizer)

*I'll call this Strong Stormwind Independence, or SSI. It's basically saying that if optimization holds no predictive power over bad roleplaying, then the visa versa is true.

Suppose...

1. We have an initial roleplaying pool where SSI holds. (I know, some of you are shaking your heads already).
2. The total pool of bad roleplayers > the total pool of good roleplayers.
3. Bad roleplayers who do not know the game very well (and hence do not optimize) are more likely to drop out of the initial roleplaying pool than those in other groups.

If one took a reliable survey of such a population after drop-outs, all those anecdotes about poor roleplayers who make killing-machine characters seem to gain their statistical redemption. But even though (in this setup) optimization predicts poor roleplaying, there is no direct causal link. All the 'cause' is in assumption 3, the dropout bias.

I posit that, naturally, optimization and roleplaying are SSI, but that those who are bad at all aspects of an RPG generally tend to drop out/stop playing that RPG more often than those who are good at at least one aspect (setting aside the relative importance of different aspects). This leads to observed link between optimizing and bad roleplaying that some incorrectly conclude is causal.

[Keld Denar]

What about the population that is both a good roleplayer and a good optimizer? Those are the people with the highest interest in the game (from both aspects) and are therefore least likely to drop out of the hobby. NEEDZ MOAR MATHZ PLZ!

[Twilight Jack]

Re: Stormwind, optimizing, anecdotal correlation/causation

If P(Bad Roleplayer | Optimizer) = P(Bad Roleplayer)*
Then P(Optimizer | Bad Roleplayer) = P(Optimizer)

*I'll call this Strong Stormwind Independence, or SSI. It's basically saying that if optimization holds no predictive power over bad roleplaying, then the visa versa is true.

Suppose...

1. We have an initial roleplaying pool where SSI holds. (I know, some of you are shaking your heads already).
2. The total pool of bad roleplayers > the total pool of good roleplayers.
3. Bad roleplayers who do not know the game very well (and hence do not optimize) are more likely to drop out of the initial roleplaying pool than those in other groups.

If one took a reliable survey of such a population after drop-outs, all those anecdotes about poor roleplayers who make killing-machine characters seem to gain their statistical redemption. But even though (in this setup) optimization predicts poor roleplaying, there is no direct causal link. All the 'cause' is in assumption 3, the dropout bias.

I posit that, naturally, optimization and roleplaying are SSI, but that those who are bad at all aspects of an RPG generally tend to drop out/stop playing that RPG more often than those who are good at at least one aspect (setting aside the relative importance of different aspects). This leads to observed link between optimizing and bad roleplaying that some incorrectly conclude is causal.

Elegant. Have an internet.

[Math_Mage]

Re: Stormwind, optimizing, anecdotal correlation/causation

If P(Bad Roleplayer | Optimizer) = P(Bad Roleplayer)*
Then P(Optimizer | Bad Roleplayer) = P(Optimizer)

I did a little happy dance inside when I read this. The rest of the comment is good too, of course.

[Psyx]

Rocky...Karate Kid...pretty much any sport movie ever.
Just sayin...

I'll disagree.
There's still danger and tension in the final conflict. Lots of it. Courtroom dramas hinge on the final tension even more than sporting tales. And Rocky and the Karate Kid did NOT sail through at the end: They got the TRIPE kicked out of them, and had to come back from being in a worse position than they were in when the fight started. Rocky in particular focuses on this, as the character ALWAYS gets knocked around the ring for most of the fight, then 'heroically' comes back. He most certainly does not step into the ring and fell his foe with one punch.

Second, I am willing to bet that optimizing jerks have jerky behavior predating optimizing. I don't think it's fair to blame the jerkiness on the optimizing, even if optimization can be manifested in a jerky way.

Sure. No disagreement there. This was never a 'optimisers are jerks/all powergamers' thing.

Third, I don't think bailing your party out is you showing them up; I would say that's the DM showing them up. ....I'm talking about showing them up in normal encounters, when you are doing it just to prove your superiority.

Remember that we're talking about the perspective of the person doing the talking, rather than the actual facts. NLP and all that. It's reported on this board as 'I had to bail my lame party out again'. That may bear no relation to the facts, and is inherently tainted with limited and biased perspective. What kind of person comes on a board and says 'I had to bail out my lame friends'? Often someone who feels that need to win, someone that feels the need to share that perspective and gain attention, or be seen as a competent person. Most people might bail out their party on a regular basis, but never need to come and tell the world about it.

but where did this idea that there is only one cultural concept of heroism come from?

I believe that I said culturally early in the thread. I stopped using the word each time. But you are right. However; in my culture that's the way of things: Success is measured on how 'far' an individual has improved, rather than just a 'win' [cf: Eddie Edwards]. The US likes its heroes to be a little bit more Superman (as evidenced by... nevermind. You get it) but still likes to cheer for the underdog. Japan loves it's heroes to be complete mental wrecks. As a species though, we do tend to move from tales of perfection to more human heroes. Early opic tales form the walls of tombs have 'uber' heroes, but by the time we get to our literary staples from a few hundred years ago, things have really changed.

lolwut?

They have to be identifiable characters, with traits that invoke some form of empathy. GDFSGBH the blob of force that floats around saying nothing, teleporting around the world randomly killing terrorists is not a hero. Even 'non human' heroes have human traits. Basic literary premise dictates that people need to identify with characters to really get behind them.

[Bodkins Odds]

Rocky doesn't even win the fight either. The point was he went the distance.

But then came Rocky II...

[Psyx]

Do you know... I've never seriously sat and watched any of them all the way through.

I love the way that we're citing Rocky and Batman as literary examples though.


"I get the feeling from arguments like these that the opposing side is arguing because "I don't like this since I can't pull it off" "

I think that's a little petulant. 'You're just jealous because you can't do it'?

It's not rocket science. There isn't really any vast skill in having an encyclopaedic knowledge of a system (And yes; I can cheerfully build grim characters, too). And frankly; anyone who can find this forum and write the words 'help needed druid build' has covered their bases adequately. Being able to optimise does not make anyone more than averagely bright.
How about we turn that on its head and say 'I get the feeling on the pro-optimisation side of the conversation are arguing because they can't pull good characterisation and roleplay off'? That's patiently ridiculous and absurd.
Have a negative cookie.


"Which means he can hear every…single…crime happening not just in his city, but halfway across the continent. But he knows that he can’t stop them all."

*headdesk* Angst... step two in poor character development. Dull, dull, dull.
Basically, Angst is the next stop for characters that are slightly more literately mature than the 'I'm godlike and perfect' characters. The author has realised that perfection is dull and that some humanity needs to be injected, so piles on a big, steaming heap of angst and woe. If we think about it, I'm sure we can all remember seeing it or even experiencing it ourselves in gamers who moved on from playing uber killing machines, to uber killing machines with a heaping of angst.

qv: Drizzt, Elric, Bad vampire novels. And now Superman you say? My opinion of Superman has dropped more. Even more than it did when he took 6 bullets to the chest and then ducked the pistol that was thrown at him.

[Math_Mage]

Remember that we're talking about the perspective of the person doing the talking, rather than the actual facts. NLP and all that. It's reported on this board as 'I had to bail my lame party out again'. That may bear no relation to the facts, and is inherently tainted with limited and biased perspective. What kind of person comes on a board and says 'I had to bail out my lame friends'? Often someone who feels that need to win, someone that feels the need to share that perspective and gain attention, or be seen as a competent person. Most people might bail out their party on a regular basis, but never need to come and tell the world about it.

What kind of person talks about how they 'had to bail the party out'? The kind that's frustrated with his group's low optimization level--and, therefore, not someone who derives a lot of pleasure from constantly showing up the group. We can speculate about the sort of attention seeker who might skew circumstances to win Internet sympathy, but I find that no more credible than Sliver's speculation about anti-optimizers not being able to optimize. Again, I point you to AtwasAwamps, who is easily the most regular ranter on the subject.

For someone who claims to be avoiding the tack that optimizers are jerks, you seem peculiarly attached to this image of self-satisfied showoffs displaying their competence under the guise of complaints about their group.

[Psyx]

What kind of person talks about how they 'had to bail the party out'? The kind that's frustrated with his group's low optimization level--and, therefore, not someone who derives a lot of pleasure from constantly showing up the group.

And the first case is the only type of person that would talk like that? Realistically?

'I had to bail the party out', rather than 'The party was in serious trouble' is fairly indicative, placing the writer at the centre of the story - a separation of themselves from their team.

The second case for using the term of phrase is just as viable a reason as the first. If you sympathise heavily with the first view though, that will -to you- eclipse the possibility that it might be the second reason.
(ie you are an optimiser, not a narcissist - good for you)


'I had to bail the party out' might be a frustration with non-optimisers, but... we've already waved the 'players are entitled to game how they like and there's nothing wrong with that' flag on the pro-optimisation side, so what exactly are the grounds for an optimiser getting on the Internet and being frustrated at others for not optimising? None; really, if we use the 'people can play how they want' line of reasoning.

If the party are in trouble, then it's generally because the GM want the party to be in trouble. Referring to that situation as the 'fault' of other players and insisting that 'I' saved the day does speak for the writer and his emotions. Many other people would state 'The GM put us in a fight that was way too difficult', or 'We nearly got TPKed' in exactly the same situation, but with a different personality or emotions guiding them.

[Psyx]

For someone who claims to be avoiding the tack that optimizers are jerks, you seem peculiarly attached to this image of self-satisfied showoffs displaying their competence under the guise of complaints about their group.

A proportion of optimisers are precisely that. It's undeniably true. And a proportion are great roleplayers. And a proportion of them like vanilla icecream, while some prefer bagels. I'm not really dwelling on the point, but if I keep getting grilled about that opinion and countered on it a disproportionately large amount of the time, it's going to seem that I think that a greater proportion are that kind of jerk than like bagels.

[Math_Mage]

And the first case is the only type of person that would talk like that? Realistically?

The language you use runs counter to the persona you think is using it. The sort of person who derives satisfaction from bailing the party out of situations is not the sort of person who complains about having to bail the party. The two sentiments contradict each other.

'I had to bail the party out' might be a frustration with non-optimisers, but... we've already waved the 'players are entitled to game how they like and there's nothing wrong with that' flag on the pro-optimisation side, so what exactly are the grounds for an optimiser getting on the Internet and being frustrated at others for not optimising? None; really, if we use the 'people can play how they want' line of reasoning.

That is extending the line of reasoning past where it is meant to apply. Two groups can game completely differently and justify it because people can play how they want, but within a party there has to be some harmony of playstyle.

If the party are in trouble, then it's generally because the GM want the party to be in trouble. Referring to that situation as the 'fault' of other players and insisting that 'I' saved the day does speak for the writer and his emotions. Many other people would state 'The GM put us in a fight that was way too difficult', or 'We nearly got TPKed' in exactly the same situation, but with a different personality or emotions guiding them.

According to AtwasAwamps, his DM was crying tears of joy when he took over an absent player's character for a day and employed basic tactics in combat (not even talking about build op). [/repeating myself]

Obviously there's somebody out there who is thwarting the DM's attempts to present an appropriate challenge to the party by over-optimizing, and then being smug about it on the Internet afterwards. Could you give an example? Don't think I could.

But then, you say this isn't what your problem is to begin with. In which case, I must confess to be missing something. Do you have a problem with optimization? With powergaming? With munchkinism? With disregard for roleplay? What?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

What about the population that is both a good roleplayer and a good optimizer? Those are the people with the highest interest in the game (from both aspects) and are therefore least likely to drop out of the hobby. NEEDZ MOAR MATHZ PLZ!

My little model, like all models, can be very easily complicated. In order for my dropout bias to do the same thing in principle, you'd need stronger conditions about dropout rates, or to put it another way, effective population sizes. While (whoops) I didn't need assumption 2 in the original setup, I'd probably need something like it taking what you're saying into account. Basically the selection bias of the good roleplayer optimizers would have to be relatively less than the selection bias of the bad roleplaying non-optimizers.