What does "optimization" mean to you?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

All the time on these boards and in my gaming experiences I've seen DMs who fit my above description of someone who's bad at this game. Just a few examples:

One or more characters has it in his power to prevent something from happening, or escape capture, or remove a Geas that was unfairly place on him, etc. The DM tells him that it doesn't work, the only reason being that his story requires something to happen a certain way. At this point the DM has removed the players' ability to affect the story, and he may as well just tell them what their characters are doing. The only interaction their characters are capable of is what he's planned for in his plot line, and anything they try to do outside of that automatically fails regardless of their characters' abilities. This is the most selfish form of DMing I've ever experienced, and due to his lack of being able to make his story work within the rules and within the characters' capabilities he is indeed "a waste of flesh and bone as a GM."

The PCs learn who their opponents are, how many there are, and what their capabilities are, through divination spells or gather information checks or knowledge skills or just good old-fashioned scouting. This is not metagame information, it was given to the characters by the DM as a result of their own capabilities and efforts. The PCs set up an ambush and proceed to mop the floor with the opponents. This is an encounter which the DM had intended to be extremely challenging based on the PCs' capabilities, but like so many times before they just danced over it with planning, tactics, and creativity. The DM, rather than admit that he's a poor tactician/gamer, comes to the conclusion that their victory was less legitimate than it otherwise would have been and severely penalizes their XP reward. This is extremely unfair, but it's exactly what I was talking about. As a game, there's always going to be someone who's better at it than you. You can admit that this is the case, or you can convince yourself that your play style is more pure than theirs, or that theirs is otherwise less legitimate than your own. This occurs quite often when the players are significantly better at the game portion than the DM is.

In one game I played a little over a year ago the DM had been into D&D since first edition. He'd been playing 3e since its release, converted to 3.5, and has probably been playing it for just as long as I have. Apparently there was some sort of magical debuff on our characters which we were unaware of, and we happened to set off an audible Alarm spell. I immediately cast an area-mode Dispel Magic, and told him what it did. He disagreed, convinced that it was only capable of dispelling a single effect per casting. He read the spell description a few times, and proceeded to houserule it on the spot, mid-session, mid-action. My character was a Battle Sorcerer, with a very limited number of spells known, and I told him that I probably wouldn't have even bothered learning it if that's how it was going to work (he'd made targeted dispel only dispel one thing as well). The game we were playing was mostly his rules instead of the rules, but that's no excuse to not even be familiar with one of the baseline spells of a game you've been playing regularly for six years. Making a house rule in the middle of a session, as a character is taking an action, is hardly a fair ruling for a DM to make. He may have been a good story teller, but he was a very poor arbitrator of the rules.

DMs who are bad at games will typically try to turn it from a game into a story. They'll penalize people for being good at the game, whether by restricting books or reducing XP rewards for good tactics or overriding actions. They'll treat people like cheaters for being better at the game than they are. Other people who are bad at games will support them, just like in the video I linked people who are bad at video games support bad video games. The people who are good at games are in the minority, so the majority uses their numbers to convince themselves of how right they are, and regard those who are good at games with hostility for making them look worse by comparison.

[Jolly]

What an interesting discussion, thanks everyone. :)

Warkitty's thread about optimization levels got me thinking about this topic, and the discussion has me reminiscing. I suppose I'm odd, but I've always tended to powergame/optimize non-combat abilities. As an example, one of my favorite characters (the Jolly I took my forum name from) was power gamed to be sneaky. Every feat, skill point, racial choice, item etc was chosen to enhance Hide and Move Silent. I even scammed my DM to get double racial bonuses I really shouldn't have gotten . So I wasn't as effective at combat mechanically, but I had Hide and Move Silent scores in the mid-thirties by the time I was level.... 5 or 6 I think? And I played the heck out of that character and made the best use of those skills that I could, and was still effective. But I wasn't overshadowing the rest of the group, so no one cared and it was a beloved character. And then there was my d20 Star Wars slicer who was great at computer checks and spent every combat doing nothing but throwing grenades... :D

[Umael]

That's pretty close to what I intended, actually.

Ah, got it. Mis-communication. 'Sokay.

Exaggerated example ahead*
"You have a choice. Your mother's life or a holy avenger."
"Eh, I never liked her much anyway."
*DM facepalms*

...you know, ironicly, I have a character concept that is kinda the polar opposite of this.

If I get this character concept approved, I will have a 1st-level PC running around with a holy avenger that functions like a MacGuffin (i.e., never to be used except as a plot point and character development). It sounds horrible, but I do actually have a legitimate set of reasons for this. I figure that when I have everything polished, my GM will allow it... and then suggest I seek therapy.

What does "optimization" mean to me?

Two Words: Breaking things.

I have a feeling this was meant only as a joke - but I have known people who, sadly, believe that it IS the definition of "optimization".

For me, optimization is making the most efficient rendering of your character concept, mechanics and non-mechanics alike.

[Greenish]

I have a feeling this was meant only as a joke - but I have known people who, sadly, believe that it IS the definition of "optimization".

Perhaps he meant that he always optimizes his characters to be good at breaking things? As in, Imp. Sunder, adamantine weapons, Eagle Claw Attack, Mountain Hammer line of maneuvers, Iaijutsu Focus, Dungeoncrasher fighter levels and the like.

[Umael]

Perhaps he meant that he always optimizes his characters to be good at breaking things? As in, Imp. Sunder, adamantine weapons, Eagle Claw Attack, Mountain Hammer line of maneuvers, Iaijutsu Focus, Dungeoncrasher fighter levels and the like.

Perhaps.

Or he could mean Pun-Pun.

And like I said, I know people who want to break the "game" (whatever game it happens to be). One bad ruling, one mistake in the interpretation, one loophole, and the game becomes "who gets the first shot off".

[Tyndmyr]

I've had similar experiences with a number of such DMs. It's incredibly annoying. My favorite example was one that made everything "epic" and thus, ignored all the rules. Looking at his DMPC, I had detect magic up. I apparently went blind from the light.

My character, knowing he would have to run in this guy repeatedly, purchased goggles that would grant him immunity to blinding, so I could at least look upon his greatness. After a long "adventure" in which another DMPC knocked him out, I decided to investigate him. Not only could I not get any information whatsoever from detect magic, I couldn't dispel ANYTHING from him(no rolls involved), nor could I even walk up and touch him. He was not a caster.

[Morithias]

Granted, if the character survives, he can keep thinking himself a powerful hero. His player isn't playing one, though.

And if you make a character that's useless and has to be baby-sat by other PCs, it's not good roleplaying, it's just being a jerk.

Well there is that little thing commonly called "magikarp power". The merchant prince is virtually worthless around level 6, but once he levels up a few you're getting almost everything 25% off, his swappable cohorts can make you items and get you almost any info you need, you have a free stay at the guildhouse eliminating the need for bargaining for a room at a stuffed inn, and once enough time goes by, he's bringing in more money a month than what most characters his level start with.

Sure he's a pain to defend early on, but later he's easily doubling your power with the items and stuff.

[dsmiles]

I'm not going to re-post all of that because it's too long.

None of those examples fit where I was going with my dislike of your statement. Those are examples of the part of your statement that I agreed with about ignoring the rules to override a PC's capabilities.

That first one is simply railroading. If the PC's deviate from the plot, improvise! If it's a time-sensitive plot, however, the world keeps on a-rollin'. This may force the PCs to advance the plot, and seem like railroading, but time waits for no man (or woman).

If you plan on scouting your enemies, don't expect them to not think of doing that too, but if you legitimately get the info, there is no reason to penalize the PCs. Planning and tactics are part of role-playing, if that's what the party, in-character, is capable of. A party where no one has an INT over 8 (because sometimes 4d6b3 doesn't work out so well)? They better play like they have low intelligence, planning and tactics are pretty much out.

I am not a rules-lawyer, nor should I have to be to be a DM. That's what houserules are for. If I disagree with RAW, on a previously undiscovered point of interest, I adjudicate it by RAW for that session, and make the houserule after. You are correct on that one, he shouldn't have done it mid-session, let alone mid-action. He also should have let you switch that spell out for another after the session.

I restrict books. I skim through all of the books, and if it does not fit the campaign setting I am using, it's out. Not all options are available in all campaign settings. Certain settings don't have Psionics, some don't have arcane magic, some don't have ninjas, some don't have swordsages, some don't have factotums. Just because it's in a book, doesn't mean that I am required to use it in may campaign setting.

So, on certain points, you are correct. But not all DMs who ignore "rules" are necessarily bad at "The Game." (Ignoring "teh rulez" is not an immediate indicator of a bad DM.)

(And yes, for those of you who just read this, you just lost The Game. )

[HamHam]

Optimization is that thing I do to make sure my character doesn't die.

[Tyndmyr]

I am not a rules-lawyer, nor should I have to be to be a DM. That's what houserules are for.

Nobody ever said you had to be.

But it's a game, and there are rules. If you don't play by the rules, you're not really playing that game. In any game more complex than candyland, there are typically variant rules that are wonderfully fine if everyone agrees to play by them beforehand. However, otherwise playing by rules not listed in the rulebook is generally described as cheating.

[dsmiles]

Nobody ever said you had to be.

But it's a game, and there are rules. If you don't play by the rules, you're not really playing that game. In any game more complex than candyland, there are typically variant rules that are wonderfully fine if everyone agrees to play by them beforehand. However, otherwise playing by rules not listed in the rulebook is generally described as cheating.

Actually, the poster I was replying to was implying that any DM who didn't know and abide by all 'teh rulez' was bad at the game. (And I believe that there are even variants on the Candyland rules. )

[Tyndmyr]

I went back and read Biff's posts. They seemed directed at those who are anti-optimization on principle, and those who don't stick to a consistant set of rules. They didn't claim superiority of any specific set of rules.

[Keld Denar]

*Shrug* I´ll have a great story teller with mediocre gaming ability over a mediocre story teller with great gaming ability any day. D&d has build in ignore mechanics and rules anyway, its called epic magic.

See, I don't see why they are mutually exclusive. People who are "good" at the game, the ones who are most interested in it, are generally the best roleplayers AND the best rollplayers. They love their hobby and invest time into it, and as such come up with better crafted characters, both story and plot-wise. Similarly, good DMs create strong stories AND challenging encounters. I wouldn't want to play in a game where every fight is a mop-up, simply because the DM doesn't understand the CR system, only to stumble into a TPK as a result of poor game knowledge.

On the other side, my group of "story oriented" older players still refer to each other as "the fighter", "the halfling", "the dwarf", and "the mage". This breaks character. I guess this is the crux of my disappointment. These grand roleplayers, so focused on their story, are bad all around, but mask it with a haughty air of superiority simply because they've been playing D&D since before I was born. Grrrrr.

I don't want a DM to limit my creativity because he can't adjust, especially when I give him advanced warning about what some of my abilities will be. Thats either laziness or irresponsibility. One or the other, they are both bad. If you take on the mantle of DMship, you should have a good enough grasp on the rules to know exactly what your players are doing, what their typical abilities are, what fields they excell at, and what fields they don't, so you can adequately challenge them, plot-wise and combat-wise. I don't mind a bit of cheating by doing things like increasing HP on the fly because you weren't expecting a certain amount of burst damage, but nonsensical blanket bans spawned out of paranoia that cover a blister with a bandaide while leaving the artery to gush is what I would consider "bad gaming".

Planning and tactics are part of role-playing, if that's what the party, in-character, is capable of. A party where no one has an INT over 8 (because sometimes 4d6b3 doesn't work out so well)? They better play like they have low intelligence, planning and tactics are pretty much out.

There is a difference between cunning and intelligence. Most animals have a minimal int score, yet you can't tell me that a wolf just runs at its prey with its mouth open, hoping that something falls in. Similarly, an adventurer, regardless of int score, should have some idea of tactics, and shouldn't just rush into every situation with his sword out, hoping something will run into it. Adventuring is DANGEROUS. Even the most reckless PC should treat his chosen profession with respect and make sure he's as prepared as possible for the challenges he may face. Otherwise he'll end up face down in a sewer somewhere watching his blood trickle slowly down the drain while the carrion crawler devours him alive.

[Emmerask]

See, I don't see why they are mutually exclusive.

Oh I never said that they are exclusive.
The poster I answered however gave the hypothetical restriction that at one trait a specific dm was not good.
And if I have to choose between both traits I can´t say " I want both"... well I could but it would have been no argument under the restriction

Ideally a dm is a great story teller and has great indepth knowledge of the rules and its application but that is not always on the menu

[Keld Denar]

And if I have to choose between both traits I can´t say " I want both"... well I could but it would have been no argument under the restriction

Why settle? Thats my question.

[dsmiles]

There is a difference between cunning and intelligence. Most animals have a minimal int score, yet you can't tell me that a wolf just runs at its prey with its mouth open, hoping that something falls in. Similarly, an adventurer, regardless of int score, should have some idea of tactics, and shouldn't just rush into every situation with his sword out, hoping something will run into it. Adventuring is DANGEROUS. Even the most reckless PC should treat his chosen profession with respect and make sure he's as prepared as possible for the challenges he may face. Otherwise he'll end up face down in a sewer somewhere watching his blood trickle slowly down the drain while the carrion crawler devours him alive.

Oh, I expect planning and tactics. Just not good planning and tactics. At least, not at the start. See, people (and I use the term loosely to include demihumans and semi-humans) aren't taught to be pack hunters, like, oh, let's say...wolves. Through generations of trial-and-error, wolves became pack hunters. Anything with an INT score can (in theory, anyways) learn. People with even an 8 INT have a better learning curve than animals with an INT of 2. They can learn to use tactics, but if they're out there at level 1, never having been taught tactics mind you, outflanking goblins that are waiting in ambush, and luring kobolds into deathtraps, there's something a little meta-gamey going on there, and the players aren't playing their ability scores.
I expect them to learn and grow, that's what XP is for. It's an abstract quantification of the characters learning new stuff.

[Ignition]

Why settle? Thats my question.

Because you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you might find you get what you need.

[The Big Dice]

DMs who are bad at games will typically try to turn it from a game into a story. They'll penalize people for being good at the game, whether by restricting books or reducing XP rewards for good tactics or overriding actions. They'll treat people like cheaters for being better at the game than they are. Other people who are bad at games will support them, just like in the video I linked people who are bad at video games support bad video games. The people who are good at games are in the minority, so the majority uses their numbers to convince themselves of how right they are, and regard those who are good at games with hostility for making them look worse by comparison.

I notice how it's almost always GMs that are getting the flak for being "bad at games" and other sundry accusations. It's never players that are bad at team sports or that have "Doesn't play well with others" written on their report card. It's always the GM getting accused of all kinds of things, never the player's fault for being overly competitive in a co-operative environment.

Is system mastery, rules lawyering, excessively self aggrandizing optimisation and ultra competitive behaviour being good at roleplaying games?

It might be fine for playing Gears of War over XBL. But in an RPG, it's not appropriate to act in a way that causes conflict and bad feeling between the people at the table.

If fact, I'd go as far as saying acting like that and then griping about the GM, especially without accepting responsibility for your own actions, is the diametric opposite of being good at roleplaying games.

But it's a game, and there are rules. If you don't play by the rules, you're not really playing that game. In any game more complex than candyland, there are typically variant rules that are wonderfully fine if everyone agrees to play by them beforehand. However, otherwise playing by rules not listed in the rulebook is generally described as cheating.

Here's a thing about being a GM: you cheat. You cheat outrageously. You fudge dice, change your mind about resources, hit point totals, numbers of opponents and amounts of charges in magic items all the time. You cheat in ways that in theory should be getting you thrown out of the game.

Except for the fact that you should be cheating in ways that improve the experience.

If the BBEG is about to go down in one round, you double his hit points without telling anyone. If the players are mtoring through minions too fast, you add more. Heck, zombies and skeletons don't get stronger they just get more of them.

The problem is, WotC have ruined the fun for GMs. A huge part of the fun used to be making rulings on the fly and making stuff up to cover situations that arose in play. Except the people who came up with 3rd ed D&D decided to copy the thought process behind Magic the Gathering.

That is, rules, rules and more rules. Every possible interaction between players, characters and game environment needs a rule. Sometimes more than one rule and often so many rules that nobody really bothers with that aspect of the game, as it takes too much effort to really get to grips with a complicated and cluttered rules construct. I'm looking at you, Grappling.

That changed the gaming aspect of the GM's role from arbitrator of actions and being the one interpreting the rules to simply being an umpire.

Then players started buying the DMG. Or worse, reasing the SRD. The'd be studying up on concepts that don't really belong in the player's area of the game. Things like Wealth by Level, Challenge Ratings and availability of items in a settlement of a given size.

And they assume they're entitled to them. Because it's in the book. And the book became The Book. ALL HAIL THE BOOK!

There's a piece of wisdom in Legend of the Five Rings. It says "Remember, what is written is not what is. It is only what is written." Rules in RPGs are like that. They aren't set in stone. Older games used to say things like "these rules are only guidelines." or "use or ignore these rules as you see fit." Now, the rules are The Rules and all must obey them!

That's a mindset that came along with the advent of WotC. The truth is, Paranoia is the only RPG that really printed the truth of RPGs. The players and the GM are really playing different games by different rules. Ironically, this was enshrined in early editions of D&D, from OD&D through BECMI and both editions of AD&D.

Now, people act like a GM should be an interface. Know the rules or be made of suck. And it's not like that. GMs make mistakes and they have to have a broader understanding of things than players. A player will always know the rules regarding their character better than the GM does.

But the GM always has the final word on how things work in his game.

[dsmiles]

ALL HAIL THE BOOK! ALL HAIL THE BOOK! ALL HAIL THE BOOK!


EDIT: I'm sorry, I thought that we were supposed to start chanting that in unison, and then THE BOOK would appear and grant us greater understanding of TEH RULEZ.

[HamHam]

[snip]

What you are overlooking is the advantages of that way of doing things. Players can have a reasonable expectations of the results of their actions, and their chance of success. These things are constant and thus fair. The DC to jump a wall is not 15 one week and 20 the next (obviously assuming the same or similar wall before anyone gets pedantic). The rules are what separate and RPG from playing cops and robbers and arguing about who did or did not get shot. And while arguments about rules can be bad, I think arguments about what seems reasonable to one person but not another would be worse.

[Keld Denar]

Oh, I expect planning and tactics. Just not good planning and tactics.

They I guess we agree to disagree. All sorts of people can come up with clever plans. An army private might say "why don't we just use the back door" even though the general told everyone to run in the front door. Is he smarter than the general? Probably not, but that doesn't mean he can't ever possibly notice something that the general overlooked. PCs who aren't perceptive and aware won't survive to level 2. It doesn't matter how amazing your backstory is if you have to write a new one every other gaming session.

[Jolly]

Sometimes more than one rule and often so many rules that nobody really bothers with that aspect of the game, as it takes too much effort to really get to grips with a complicated and cluttered rules construct. I'm looking at you, Grappling

Thank you! I hate any time a situation arises where a grapple check is needed as the complex rules ensure a lengthy break while the DM double checks things.

[Emmerask]

Why settle? Thats my question.

Why do we settle on anything?
There might be the perfect girlfriend/boyfriend husband/wife somewhere.
There might be the perfect job somewhere.
etc

When always chasing perfection and never settle on anything you miss out on life thats why

And to The Big Dice, very nicely said

[Greenish]

Why do we settle on anything?
There might be the perfect girlfriend/boyfriend husband/wife somewhere.
There might be the perfect job somewhere.
etc

When always chasing perfection and never settle on anything you miss out on life thats why

And if you always settle for mediocre you'll never get anything really great. Drawing the line, golden mean, blah blah…

[Jolly]

They I guess we agree to disagree. All sorts of people can come up with clever plans. An army private might say "why don't we just use the back door" even though the general told everyone to run in the front door. Is he smarter than the general? Probably not, but that doesn't mean he can't ever possibly notice something that the general overlooked. PCs who aren't perceptive and aware won't survive to level 2. It doesn't matter how amazing your backstory is if you have to write a new one every other gaming session.

Then what is the point of having scores for intellectual stats? If you roleplay your character with low Int and Wis scores in an intelligent and insightful way, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of those scores?

[Ignition]

Then what is the point of having scores for intellectual stats? If you roleplay your character with low Int and Wis scores in an intelligent and insightful way, doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of those scores?

Because your real life intelligence and wisdom don't determine your spell DCs, obviously

[Jolly]

Because your real life intelligence and wisdom don't determine your spell DCs, obviously

Right, but my point is that if you are an intelligent and charming person irl, you can easily "cheat" the fluffier aspects of the game by making intelligent decisions and non-check interactions far better than your characters stats should allow them to do.

[Caphi]

I notice how it's almost always GMs that are getting the flak for being "bad at games" and other sundry accusations. It's never players that are bad at team sports or that have "Doesn't play well with others" written on their report card. It's always the GM getting accused of all kinds of things, never the player's fault for being overly competitive in a co-operative environment.

Are you saying players need to deliberately not use smart ideas, good planning, and creative tactics, and if they do they aren't being a team player?

I'm seriously asking, because that's what it superficially sounds like, yet I don't think that's what you meant.

[Ignition]

Right, but my point is that if you are an intelligent and charming person irl, you can easily "cheat" the fluffier aspects of the game by making intelligent decisions and non-check interactions far better than your characters stats should allow them to do.

That's correct. Provided, of course, that you are using the best tool for the job of succeeding at whatever task your GM provides for you, rather than being concerned with your character's limitations. If that means your character's smarter than you are, then you can take a chance and roll Int checks to get help, more or less, coming up with plans. If you're smarter than your character, you can come up with the plans, and then roll Int to see if your character would also think of such a plan. If that's how you want to play, please, by all means. I play like that too, I don't see a problem with it.

Effective planning isn't always complex, either; low intelligence just means you think in simple ways, not that you can't think at all. Relatedly, I think the scale of "intelligence" in game and in-character is somewhat overplayed/overthought. People with Int lower than 18 can still come up with clever plans. People with Int lower than 8 aren't just stumbling around waiting to get eaten. For that matter, smart people do dumb things on occasion too - like get into arguments over alignments and character builds Doesn't make them any less smart, in the overall scheme of things, and it doesn't make a generally dumb person smart just because they figured out "hey, the back door is where no one else is, maybe I can go in there and not get shot".

There isn't enough 'reality' behind the Int stat to make it anything more than a mechanical concern, in my opinion.

[Jolly]

Yeah, it's just always bothered me when the level 1 barbarian with the 6 int has the same tactical acumen as the level 20 fighter with a 16.