The other kind of min-maxing

[Psyx]

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.

Actually, they don't. 'I had to bail the party out again' is slightly more subtle that 'I saved the day, because I'm great', but the intention can be the same. Easily. Remember that the person is now communicating to others. Using a disparaging turn of phrase is normally a slight of frustration, but there can easily be an element of pride/ego in there as well, as the author is aware that the 'I'm great' is considered rude.

Break it down.

'I' - centres sentence on author

'had to' - it's his 'job', his duty. They other members of the party are seen as his responsibility for one of a variety of reasons.

'save' - It's a very strong word. Not 'help', 'aid' 'assist', but 'save'. Me. I did that.

'The party' - not 'us'. Separation of themselves from their comrades. They are 'different' there is a gap there.

'Again'. Reinforcement of the fact that this is their job. It happens a lot. the reader is being told to understand that.

It certainly can point to frustration (which is telling others how they 'should' be playing the game, or at least dictating an opinion on the matter), but it can be narcissistic as well. Neither answer is cast-iron 'right' without more to back it up.

I digress. We're onto NLP.

within a party there has to be some harmony of playstyle.

And is the minority optimised player the one who should dictate that, or the majority who do not optimise? If the shoe was on the other foot and someone was insisting on excessively roleplaying a team skirmish wargame, whose responsibility would it be to harmonise things?

Could you give an example?

Err. I don't need one. We've acknowledge that they exist. It's not moving the conversation anywhere interesting. If I did cite 100 examples, then what? Would it matter? Would you say 'oh yeah, you're right' and drastically change opinion? No.

Do you have a problem with optimization? With powergaming? With munchkinism? With disregard for roleplay? What?

In general terms?

Optimisation: Excessively and to the detriment of the game, yes. If it giving one player a massive advantage over others and causing disruption: Yes. If it results in people feeling left out, or their characters repeatedly being turned to pate because they can't 'keep up': Yes. At the expense of good roleplay and characterisation: Yes. But getting your character to be competent to an acceptable and reasonable level: No. To use the rules in order to create a decent character: No. I do it all the while. I have some great characters. I love maths and have a reasonably encyclopaedic knowledge of most game systems that I play.

Powergaming: If people want to go and get their kicks from playing god, they can. But I don't want to game with them. It's not my style of play and I don't personally like it, or find it fulfilling in any way. It lends itself to a personality type that I don't find overly desirable in my friends. I like better adjusted, more internally balanced people who are less frustrated with the world.

Munkinism: Another step down the ladder. I am genuinely annoyed sometimes when I attend larger games and have to share a game universe with such players, because they are often about an inch away from outright cheating. I don't like it, no. It's selfish and not fun.

Disregard for Roleplay: I don't tend to bother roleplaying wargames because they are wargames. Disregard for roleplay in an RPG though is annoying and defeats the purpose. There are plenty of computer games that people could invest time on instead. Some people treat 3.5/4 like a skirmish wargame, but that doesn't interest me, because there are better skirmish wargames out there. D&D -to me- has always been an RPG. Sure: There have been times when roleplay annoys me when it is actually to the detriment of the game (picking at the scabs and cracks in the game world, or an insistence on micro-gaming day-to-day tedium for 4 play sessions in a row instead of getting out and getting on with things), but too much roleplay is better than too little.

[Math_Mage]

Which leaves me wondering where the point of disagreement is with the rest of the people on the thread, unless it be 'optimization at the expense of roleplaying', which some would take exception to.

[Psyx]

Indeed: I don't like optimisation at the expense of characterisation. and we can safely agree that it does happen at times. And when it does happen, then it's often a pivotal character who can be more powerful than everyone else put together who is screwing the game up for others.

Frankly, it often doesn't matter so much if the guy who took Toughness for his Fighter can't roleplay, as it does if the guy who is playing something horrific doesn't want to roleplay, because he's in the position of having more influence on the game.

I also don't like adventuring with the same characters time and time again. Another vat-grown ninja you say? Thrilling.
A venerable kobold, you say? Spellscale bard perhaps? Oh: A battlefield control summoner? Sure, they can duct-tape a different personality onto them but (depending on the game) they've often had to jump through so many hoops to qualify for the blag that they want that it's restricted the background and even partially dictated personality. And then when certain powerful builds crop up a lot, you tend to sometimes feel that you're sitting next to a clone of a character from another game. RP and characterisation aside, it's also sometimes tactically boring when you see the same spells and 'tricks' coming out time after time because they're 'best' and 'optimal'. FFS: chuck a fireball once in a while!

I think that's another frustration: The unwillingness of some players to play a game of cards with a duff hand once in a while. If you want to show us how clever you are, play from a disadvantage. Rise to the challenge and get out of the comfort zone. Don't rely on being a honed machine. We gain satisfaction from overcoming obstacles. If you lower the bar and make easier things more challenging, then it's possible to sometimes have a much better time. 'Winning' when your best is far less fun than winning when you're worst.

[Keld Denar]

If you want to show us how clever you are, play from a disadvantage. Rise to the challenge and get out of the comfort zone. Don't rely on being a honed machine. We gain satisfaction from overcoming obstacles.

I'm mentioned this a couple times within this very thread. One of the joys of optimization is doing it within a given set of constraints. This leads to a lot of "Oh, I could totally do that....nah, that book is banned" or "My DM won't let me polymorph...what else can I do?" or "How do I make the most powerful Green Star Adept, or Warchanter, or other funky PrC." Some times the fun is taking something BAD and turning it into something GOOD through the application of various combinations of classes, feats, abilities, and alt class features. Take a look at the Iron Optimization challenge for a good example. That's a perfect example of self-constrained optimization because its based on appealing to critera, several of which will get marked down dramatically if you use something that is "cookiecutter" or slides too heavily on the TO side of the tracks.

Also, while I know its not THE best model for it, I happen to REALLY enjoy D&D tactical movement and combat. There is something satisfying about laying out your AoE disable in exactly the right spot, 5'ing in just the right spot that allows you to flank one foe, cleave into another foe, and still block the charge lane between a big angry charger and your caster friend.

As I said earlier, maybe D&D isn't the game for you, but it is the game for me, and for what its worth, I enjoy ALL aspects of it, from RP to CharOp to combat. Everything.

[Umael]

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.

The game was Vampire: the Masquerade (which is oWoD).

From a mechanical aspect, my (N)PC did not suffer too much. Nature: Pacifist means that my character can only regain Willpower Points if he solves a conflict or potential conflict through peaceful means. However, playing my character counter to his nature WOULD forego earning extra experience points through role-playing (i.e., I am encouraged to solve my problems outside of violence, despite my ability to fight).

As I saw it, Sheila was a pacifist warrior, someone who didn't like to fight, but knew how to fight and when it was necessary to fight - and it showed.

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.

*nod*

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.

...you know, all he had to do was just change the backstory to something that DIDN'T involve wizards. That or he should have had a major, major dislike for wizards and anything related to them.

(Which is to say, yes, I can see a character concept like that... but from the way you describe it, he didn't think it all the way through.

[Gametime]

Pun Pun backstory;
*snip*

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.

Your mileage may vary. I don't like that backstory, personally; not because there's anything wrong with it, but it doesn't explain away the most grating part of Pun-Pun's ascendance: the Candle.

In a world where high-level adventurers operate, gold is peanuts. Crafters just make gold less valuable peanuts. How, in a world with Candle of Invocation, has someone not done something world-shattering with it already? I mean, it's not like knowing about Pazuzu is a difficult check. You don't need to justify rolling up wizard #4,701, but rolling up Mr. God-to-be? I dunno. As a DM, I'd expect some reasons why no one else has tried it first.

Basically, if it's easy for Pun-Pun, it's easy for anyone. Why is your character the first to do this? Is the Candle a recently-invented magical item? Has Pazuzu only become active recently? Does no one else in the world have Knowledge: Religion?

The fact that Pun-Pun can time travel only makes things worse, because then you get into this whole paradox where no one ever gets to become Pun-Pun because other people became Pun-Pun later and then traveled back in time and HEAD A-SPLODE.*

I think, personally, that Pun-Pun's existence hinges on verisimilitude-breaking mechanics. Again, your mileage may vary.

*Of course, this depends on whether you think time in D&D is closed-circle or flowing-river. Either interpretation has issues.

"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.

Angst is sort of the punching-bag of the internet community at the moment, but I object to its use as a pejorative blanket term for any sort of emotional distress. Dwelling on angst can often be detrimental to the character, but like everything else in literature it's very subjective, and even the angstiest angster can be pulled of beautifully. Tropes are tools, and all that. There is at least one extremely popular franchise that centers around an insufferable Mary Sue, for example.

Having not read the Superman story in question, I am unable to comment on well the angst is handled in it. Watchmen, though, is a book with more than a little angsting, and it's usually considered pretty darn good. Done right, the angst contributes to the story instead of detracting from it.

You're right, though, that it's the first resource of talentless hacks. It's just a shame the hacks have ruined the public perception of what can be a very effective tool.

[Tiki Snakes]

I think, personally, that Pun-Pun's existence hinges on verisimilitude-breaking mechanics. Again, your mileage may vary.

As far as I understand it, this is the entire point of Pun-Pun.

Also, as some people have hinted, I don't believe even the candle is necessary, (someone mentioned a ring of three wishes being used in some of the more recent low level versions).

I just find that although the existence of Pun Pun is unlikely when RAI is considered, or if a DM is involved at all even, when starting from the premise that there IS a Pun Pun, there can quite easily be an interesting and cohesive backstory. If that makes any sense, anyway.

[Gametime]

As far as I understand it, this is the entire point of Pun-Pun.

Also, as some people have hinted, I don't believe even the candle is necessary, (someone mentioned a ring of three wishes being used in some of the more recent low level versions).

I just find that although the existence of Pun Pun is unlikely when RAI is considered, or if a DM is involved at all even, when starting from the premise that there IS a Pun Pun, there can quite easily be an interesting and cohesive backstory. If that makes any sense, anyway.

I think I know what you mean. At least, if what you mean is "Pun-Pun exists" makes more sense than "My character can ascend to become Pun-Pun." If that's the case, I agree; I think a universe in which Pun-Pun is possible but does not already exist is bizarrely improbable, whereas a universe in which Pun-Pun has, through various reality-warping methods, instituted himself now and forever into the fabric of the cosmos is more internally consistent.

But yeah, since Pun-Pun's whole schtick is telling physics not only to sit down and shut up, but to make him a sandwich at the same time, I just think his existence presupposes a universe which doesn't make any sense. (Well, even less sense than normal D&D-verse, anyway.)