What does "optimization" mean to you?

[liquid150]

2 words...Planar Binding.

1 spell, and your options are limitless. Oh, and guess what book its in? Right...the PHB, the most blatently overpowered book in the game. Tell me again what a GURPS wizard can do that this one spell can't?

I'm not advocating the abuse of this spell, just that things aren't exactly as you seem to think they are. Wizards in D&D are all about action/option advantage. They take as many actions as possible, and take away as many as possible.

Well, 300 points of damage to everything in the universe every second...that's not something easily acquired with Planar Binding.

[HamHam]

GURPS is in a different league when it comes to subtle but powerful magic. D&D blows stuff up great. GURPS lets you be broken in ways that have nothing to do with killing stuff. But really, it's comparing apples and golf clubs, the two games are so radically different from each other.

As for why you'd want to use knowledge as a weapon instead of using magic as a blunt instrument, read this. Then read the Wizard's Rules. Particularly the first. Then put those ideas into action

. As a Scorpion character of mine in an L5R game once said, sometimes it's not what you do. It's what the other guy thinks you'll do that matters. And overt uses of magic don't often serve a purpose. At least not in games where experience isn't directly tied to killing things.

DnD wizards can do all sorts ridiculous stuff that have nothing to do with killing if they want to.

But unnecessary subtlety is something that should be on the evil overlord list as a DO NOT DO. No point messing around with manipulation and such when you can just make people do what you want. Or make reality do what you want for that matter.

Well, 300 points of damage to everything in the universe every second...that's not something easily acquired with Planar Binding.

Locate City Bomb.

[Yukitsu]

Well, 300 points of damage to everything in the universe every second...that's not something easily acquired with Planar Binding.

Just keep summoning demons with fireball and you'll eventually get there.

[Boci]

Gamers have infamously bad social skills, but it's a social game. Part of the social contract is to ensure that everybody has a good time, and my Guide to Responsible Optimization up there goes a LONG way toward ensuring that. Ignore it at your peril.

Do you really have such little faith in gamers that you cannot imagine the following situation:

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: "I dunno, it looks pretty powerful."
PC: "Well lets see how well it works during this session abd discuss if we need anything changed."

[Swordguy]

Do you really have such little faith in gamers that you cannot imagine the following situation:

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: "I dunno, it looks pretty powerful."
PC: "Well lets see how well it works during this session abd discuss if we need anything changed."

I can see that happening. You know what else I can see (and, in fact HAVE seen)?

(Examples somewhat truncated for space.)

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: *looks at sheet* "Dude, this is gonna break my game wide open. I'm not set up for a character this powerful. Can you rework it so you're not auto-succeeding on skills X, Y, and Z, being a better fighter than our fighter, AND having 9th level spells at mid-level?"
PC: "Hey! It's rules-legal. I just want to make my character the best he can be, and this is how to do it. If it's by the rules, you have to allow it - that's why the rules exist. If you have such a problem with the rules, maybe you should be running a different game instead of interfering with MY fun!"

...and a violent confrontation ensues.

Or here's an easier one:

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: *looks at sheet* "Dude, I said no non-spontaneous arcane casters. They don't fit in my game world where casters do their thing through force of will and personality. You were told this during the campaign intro session, and I put it in the handouts for players. And yet...you've got levels of Wizard in here. So, no - go make another build. See if yo can make it work with Sorcerer levels."
PC: "Well, I have to have the levels of Wizard to make the build work, and they're in the book, so I get to use them. You can't stop me from doing that if it's in the book. You're not allowed."

...and a violent confrontation ensues.

Or an even EASIER one:

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: *looks at sheet* "Dude, I specifically said before the campaign started, and we ALL agreed...no Tome of Battle! A) I don't like the flavor and don't want to have to refluff everything, B) I don't want to have to learn the new mechanics, and C) I'm running the game and I just don't like it."
PC: "But the ToB is so much more POWERFUL. It's unfair for me to not have access to the most powerful tools for the job! Why would I even choose to go out to adventure while being a Fighter!"
DM: "Cause you chose roll one up and go adventuring? You know, during our character creation session?"
PC:"You're a bad GM for not allowing me to be as powerful as I want to be."

...and a violent confrontation ensues.


So, Boci, do you really believe that every optimizer is such a perfect person that discussions like these never happen? Even knowing that these are first-person accounts?

It's discussions like these that I remember when I hear somebody talking about optimizing. If they can honor the social contract and behave like the guy in your example...great! No issues! But far more often in my experience, and the experience of every long-term GM I know personally, "optimizers" behave like the guys in my examples, and that's not so great.

[Yukitsu]

Optimizers follow rules. Not just book rules. Evidently, your players are munchkins.

[Emmerask]

Huh? Seriously though, it is fun taking a weaker class or race or whatever and making it work. And I am talking normal kobold, not venerable dragonwrought kobold.

Indeed, I would even say that for me it is the most fun I can have optimizing.
Everyone and their mother can take a tier 1 or 2 class and make it powerful.
Making an asset for the group out of tier 4 and 5´s is where it becomes fun and you can be proud if you achieve your goal.

Depends on the tier I'm playing too. The higher tier my class is compared to the rest of my group, the more I sacrifice. The lower tier my class is compared to my group, the more I optimize. In this case I'd say I'm 1-2 tiers ahead of the group to start with.

exactly how I try to balance my characters power with the groups powerlevel too

[HamHam]

[snip]

The first of those is impossible.

The second and third are just not very good DMing. Refluffing something is incredibly easy. Wizards can cast by the power of willpower as well as anyone else with absolutely no mechanical change. And Warblade was the exact same flavor as Fighter so unless you banned Fighters you are simply wrong.

So a more fair reading of that last one is:

PC: I want to play a melee fighter that is actually useful!
DM: No! Play fighter and like it!
PC: I guess I'll just play a caster... again...

[Boci]

I can see that happening. You know what else I can see (and, in fact HAVE seen)?

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: *looks at sheet* "Dude, this is gonna break my game wide open. I'm not set up for a character this powerful. Can you rework it so you're not auto-succeeding on skills X, Y, and Z, being a better fighter than our fighter, AND having 9th level spells at mid-level?"
PC: "Hey! It's rules-legal. I just want to make my character the best he can be, and this is how to do it. If it's by the rules, you have to allow it - that's why the rules exist. If you have such a problem with the rules, maybe you should be running a different game instead of interfering with MY fun!"

DM: Thank you for making whether or not you should stay in this group an easy choice. Better luck in your next group.

Or here's an easier one:

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: *looks at sheet* "Dude, I said no non-spontaneous arcane casters. They don't fit in my game world where casters do their thing through force of will and personality. You were told this during the campaign intro session, and I put it in the handouts for players. And yet...you've got levels of Wizard in here. So, no - go make another build. See if yo can make it work with Sorcerer levels."
PC: "Well, I have to have the levels of Wizard to make the build work, and they're in the book, so I get to use them. You can't stop me from doing that if it's in the book. You're not allowed."

DM: Yes I am it is called rule 0 I am invoking it because your character does not fir the fluff of my game. If you want to make your character compatible with my fluff then try, otherwise play something else or find a new group.

Or an even EASIER one:

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: *looks at sheet* "Dude, I specifically said before the campaign started, and we ALL agreed...no Tome of Battle! A) I don't like the flavor and don't want to have to refluff everything,

PC: Then I'll do the refluffing for you. Take the fighter's fluff and apply it to the warblade. Take the monk's fluff and apply it to the swordsage. Take the paladin's fluff and apply it to the crusader. Done.

B) I don't want to have to learn the new mechanics,

PC: It's fine, I'll explain things for you.

and C) I'm running the game and I just don't like it."

PC: But I do want to play it. You don't have to, but will me playing it really ruin your fun that much?

So, Boci, do you really believe that every optimizer is such a perfect person that discussions like these never happen?

I don't have much faith in humanity, but I believe such cases would be the exception.

Also I find your test for determining whether or not someone is perfect to be...lacking.

Even knowing that these are first-person accounts?

I'm assuming you've included a healthy amount of hyperbole. Besides, you just seem to live in an area with a lot of jerks. Sorry to hear that.

But far more often in my experience, and the experience of every long-term GM I know personally, "optimizers" behave like the guys in my examples, and that's not so great.

How old are the people you play with? Besides, such players get blacklisted. Where's the problem?

[dsmiles]

I can see that happening. You know what else I can see (and, in fact HAVE seen)?

(Examples somewhat truncated for space.)

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: *looks at sheet* "Dude, this is gonna break my game wide open. I'm not set up for a character this powerful. Can you rework it so you're not auto-succeeding on skills X, Y, and Z, being a better fighter than our fighter, AND having 9th level spells at mid-level?"
PC: "Hey! It's rules-legal. I just want to make my character the best he can be, and this is how to do it. If it's by the rules, you have to allow it - that's why the rules exist. If you have such a problem with the rules, maybe you should be running a different game instead of interfering with MY fun!"

...and a violent confrontation ensues.

Or here's an easier one:

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: *looks at sheet* "Dude, I said no non-spontaneous arcane casters. They don't fit in my game world where casters do their thing through force of will and personality. You were told this during the campaign intro session, and I put it in the handouts for players. And yet...you've got levels of Wizard in here. So, no - go make another build. See if yo can make it work with Sorcerer levels."
PC: "Well, I have to have the levels of Wizard to make the build work, and they're in the book, so I get to use them. You can't stop me from doing that if it's in the book. You're not allowed."

...and a violent confrontation ensues.

Or an even EASIER one:

PC: "Hey, remember that character concept I had. I got a build for it here."
DM: *looks at sheet* "Dude, I specifically said before the campaign started, and we ALL agreed...no Tome of Battle! A) I don't like the flavor and don't want to have to refluff everything, B) I don't want to have to learn the new mechanics, and C) I'm running the game and I just don't like it."
PC: "But the ToB is so much more POWERFUL. It's unfair for me to not have access to the most powerful tools for the job! Why would I even choose to go out to adventure while being a Fighter!"
DM: "Cause you chose roll one up and go adventuring? You know, during our character creation session?"
PC:"You're a bad GM for not allowing me to be as powerful as I want to be."

...and a violent confrontation ensues.


So, Boci, do you really believe that every optimizer is such a perfect person that discussions like these never happen? Even knowing that these are first-person accounts?

It's discussions like these that I remember when I hear somebody talking about optimizing. If they can honor the social contract and behave like the guy in your example...great! No issues! But far more often in my experience, and the experience of every long-term GM I know personally, "optimizers" behave like the guys in my examples, and that's not so great.

This is why I'm afraid of recruiting a new gaming group. My friends all had to move (we're all military, and that's a hazard of the job), and as much as I'd like us to get together with OpenRPG, it hasn't happened as yet (and I'm fiendin' for a game fix). I don't want to even take the chance that somebody is going to be like those examples. If they say, "can we try it for this session, and see how it goes?" I'm likely to say yes, unless it was something specifically outlawed in the campaign introduction. My group never "intentionally gimped" a character to "role-play better." We basically all worked together on each others' characters to make sure we were all on the same page when it came to power levels and story elements.
It's not optimization that worries me, it's people who take it too far. And I'm sorry if I offend anyone when I say this, but if you can one-shot Cthulhu at 3rd level, that's taking it too far.

EDIT: @HamHam: So by your definition, all options must exist in all campaign settings? Not trying to be inflammatory, just want to clarify.

[Swordguy]

Two things:

and C) I'm running the game and I just don't like it."

PC: But I do want to play it. You don't have to, but will me playing it really ruin your fun that much?

Yes. It will. My table, my house, my campaign, my rules. No ToB. I run very "Medieval Europe+light magic"-style games, NOT dungeonpunk or Eberron "magic=tech" games, and everyone is told that up-front. Deal with it, or find another group.

How old are the people you play with? Besides, such players get blacklisted. Where's the problem?

Anywhere from low-20's to mid-50's. I'll take on a teenager every now and again if they come with a reference from another area GM I trust.

Every player listed described himself as an "optimizer". Thus, I get...twitchy...when people talk about it. While optimizer =/= munchkin, there's a MUCH higher correlation between optimizers and munchkins than there are between the "high-drama, don't-care-about-mechanics roleplayers" and munchkins.

Therefore, I've found it safer and less stressful to treat EVERY "optimizer" as a munchkin unless they prove differently. The people who aren't munchkins don't mind the restrictions anyway.

[Greenish]

Let us not go into ToB/refluffing tangent here. Those have had (and will have) many, many threads already.

if you can one-shot Cthulhu at 3rd level, that's taking it too far.

Depends. If you have a boat, it's okay.

[dsmiles]

Depends. If you have a boat, it's okay.

Only if you can make the Profession: Sailor DC to ram it into his head.

I was specifically talking about walking up to Cthulhu, giving him the finger, and poking him in the eye with something pointy and him keeling over and dying. (If you poke him in the eye with a boat: 1. I'd allow it due to rule 0, and 2. it's not exactly pointy.)

[HamHam]

Yes. It will. My table, my house, my campaign, my rules. No ToB. I run very "Medieval Europe+light magic"-style games, NOT dungeonpunk or Eberron "magic=tech" games, and everyone is told that up-front. Deal with it, or find another group.

So you're problem is not with optimization, but with people who don't agree with your preconceived notions about things you don't understand?

[Boci]

Yes. It will. My table, my house, my campaign, my rules. No ToB. I run very "Medieval Europe+light magic"-style games, NOT dungeonpunk or Eberron "magic=tech" games, and everyone is told that up-front. Deal with it, or find another group.

Okay I am not going to ask you why you think ToB fits better into the latter because thats for another thread. This is just different play styles. For me, since D&D is about fun, the DM needs a better reason than "I do not like it" to disallow something in his game.

Anywhere from low-20's to mid-50's. I'll take on a teenager every now and again if they come with a reference from another area GM I trust.

Every player listed described himself as an "optimizer". Thus, I get...twitchy...when people talk about it. While optimizer =/= munchkin, there's a MUCH higher correlation between optimizers and munchkins than there are between the "high-drama, don't-care-about-mechanics roleplayers" and munchkins.

Therefore, I've found it safer and less stressful to treat EVERY "optimizer" as a munchkin unless they prove differently. The people who aren't munchkins don't mind the restrictions anyway.

Well then the only rational conclusion I can make is that there are far more jerks in your area than mine. Shrug.

Only if you can make the Profession: Sailor DC to ram it into his head.

I was specifically talking about walking up to Cthulhu, giving him the finger, and poking him in the eye with something pointy and him keeling over and dying. (If you poke him in the eye with a boat: 1. I'd allow it due to rule 0, and 2. it's not exactly pointy.)

What if I shrink it, have my fighter throw it into his eye, and ready an action to dismiss my spell?

[Greenish]

Therefore, I've found it safer and less stressful to treat EVERY "optimizer" as a munchkin unless they prove differently. The people who aren't munchkins don't mind the restrictions anyway.

Assuming guilt until proven otherwise.

Well, I guess it depends on how you treat muchkins, but getting unwarranted hostility from the DM may provoke some people. That said, the three examples of yours were clearly being uncooperative jerks.

So you're problem is not with optimization, but with people who don't agree with your preconceived notions about things you don't understand?

Now now, I don't agree with his opinions on ToB, but lets try to keep civil (and on topic).

[Swordguy]

So you're problem is not with optimization, but with people who don't agree with your preconceived notions about things you don't understand?

No. It is not. Way to totally focus on a side topic and extrapolate that out as though it has something to do with the issue of the thread. Please lay off the attacks (and considering I've gotten an Infraction for an almost identical wording...) or I'll report the post.

My issue related to THIS topic is very much with the correlation between optimizers and munchkins. Specifically, more optimizers than non-optimizers have proven themselves to be munchkins in my experience. A LOT more. Therefore, they get treated as though they ARE munchkins until they can prove they aren't. That is all.

Assuming guilt until proven otherwise.

I'd prefer not to, but I'm just so tired of people mucking up campaigns so their PC can be more awesome, and wasting the time, investment, and experiences of not just myself, but everyone else in the group. This way sucks for the munchkin, is probably mildly annoying for the optimizer, and everybody else doesn't even notice.

[Emmerask]

So you're problem is not with optimization, but with people who don't agree with your preconceived notions about things you don't understand?

I don´t quite see the need for slightly veiled attempts to insult him

And yes as a dm you have every right to ban things that don´t fit the campaign setting, if it´s because of fluff the player may rewrite the fluff and then it may be approved, if its because of powerlevel then you can´t do much about it.

[Boci]

My issue related to THIS topic is very much with the correlation between optimizers and munchkins. Specifically, more optimizers than non-optimizers have proven themselves to be munchkins in my experience. A LOT more. Therefore, they get treated as though they ARE munchkins until they can prove they aren't. That is all.

As greenish said, some people can act as jerks due to the frustration at the whole guilty until proven innocent attitude they get.

[Yukitsu]

No. It is not. Way to totally focus on a side topic and extrapolate that out as though it has something to do with the issue of the thread. Please lay off the attacks (and considering I've gotten an Infraction for an almost identical wording...) or I'll report the post.

My issue related to THIS topic is very much with the correlation between optimizers and munchkins. Specifically, more optimizers than non-optimizers have proven themselves to be munchkins in my experience. A LOT more. Therefore, they get treated as though they ARE munchkins until they can prove they aren't. That is all.

This is more an issue of people saying that they are one thing, not that they are something. You generally aren't both, you're kind of one or the other. I agree you shouldn't take a self expressed optimizer as an optimizer until he shows it kind of like how you don't listen to that internet guy who says he's got an int of 20 until he proves it.

Now, if they don't say they are something, and later prove to be, or if you explicitly ask, then you don't really have any grounds to go gnabbing your torch and pitchfork.

[WarKitty]

Two things:



Yes. It will. My table, my house, my campaign, my rules. No ToB. I run very "Medieval Europe+light magic"-style games, NOT dungeonpunk or Eberron "magic=tech" games, and everyone is told that up-front. Deal with it, or find another group.




Anywhere from low-20's to mid-50's. I'll take on a teenager every now and again if they come with a reference from another area GM I trust.

Every player listed described himself as an "optimizer". Thus, I get...twitchy...when people talk about it. While optimizer =/= munchkin, there's a MUCH higher correlation between optimizers and munchkins than there are between the "high-drama, don't-care-about-mechanics roleplayers" and munchkins.

Therefore, I've found it safer and less stressful to treat EVERY "optimizer" as a munchkin unless they prove differently. The people who aren't munchkins don't mind the restrictions anyway.

Seems to vary a lot with who you get. I get twitchy when someone says they don't optimize...because I've had to deal with several characters that were too ineffective to live.

[dsmiles]

Seems to vary a lot with who you get. I get twitchy when someone says they don't optimize...because I've had to deal with several characters that were too ineffective to live.

Honestly, I still remember picking up the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook and reading that no character was unplayable. Whatever happened to that mentality in gamers?

[Boci]

Honestly, I still remember picking up the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook and reading that no character was unplayable. Whatever happened to that mentality in gamers?

Its still true, but not every character is apropiate in every group.

[WarKitty]

Honestly, I still remember picking up the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook and reading that no character was unplayable. Whatever happened to that mentality in gamers?

Meh. Depends on what you mean by "unplayable." The non-optimizers I've had to deal with tend to be the too-dumb-to-live type anyways.

Do I think that you can take any concept and make it into a workable character? Yes. Do I think a character that hasn't had any effort invested into making it workable is playable? No, not without really annoying the rest of the party.

[Greenish]

Honestly, I still remember picking up the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Players Handbook and reading that no character was unplayable.

Well, given enough resurrection magic, it holds true.

Seriously though, no character is unplayable, but some builds don't fit to some campaigns.

Say, there's this kobold paladin that rarely fits into even the most optimized games...

[Swordguy]

As greenish said, some people can act as jerks due to the frustration at the whole guilty until proven innocent attitude they get.

Well, then, it sucks to be them. I'm sorry, but I don't really care anymore. The friends whom I normally play with aren't optimizers, and I'm fairly clear to new players that I have a fairly authoritarian table. Agreeing to abide my my restrictions is part of you being allowed to play at my game.

If people are high-strung enough that the anti-munchkin measures I take will put their back up, then they can leave, and I won't care. They were either munchkins or too uptight for my group anyway.

Frankly, between being a Demo Agent for BattleTech, and Leviathans, playing in a Pathfinder game, getting a Shadowrun game off the ground, and running a Dark Heresy short-campaign over September and October (same group as Pathfinder), as well as doing an immense amount of work for my local boffer LARP (that would be me on the front page there)...I don't lack for players, so I must be doing something right. If I put off one or two, well, can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs and all that. If my GMing style is all that off-putting, then my local meta definitely loves "off-putting".

[Boci]

Well, then, it sucks to be them. I'm sorry, but I don't really care anymore. The friends whom I normally play with aren't optimizers, and I'm fairly clear to new players that I have a fairly authoritarian table. Agreeing to abide my my restrictions is part of you being allowed to play at my game.

As I said, different play styles, but try imagining going to a new group, saying you do not care about optimizing, and immediatly being labelled a troubelsome one whose logic is fraught with the stormwind fallacy, until you prove otherwise.

My main problem with an authoritive DM is that humans tend to make mistakes, and ignoring feedback from your players is not always the best aproach, but whatever works for your group.

[WarKitty]

If people are high-strung enough that the anti-munchkin measures I take will put their back up, then they can leave, and I won't care. They were either munchkins or too uptight for my group anyway.

This. How you run your group is fine, but please don't imply there's something wrong with those of us that find it odd. I would be extremely put off by your play style because it tends from my experience to produce characters that are plain incompetent.

[Swordguy]

My main problem with an authoritive DM is that humans tend to make mistakes, and ignoring feedback from your players is not always the best aproach, but whatever works for your group.

Those two things are not necessarily automatically hand-in-glove. Just so you know.

And you've invoked Stormwind incorrectly. Nowhere have I (or, glancing back over the thread, has anyone else) alluded to someone's ability to roleplay, whether linked to someone's proclivity to optimize or not. That's all Stormwind is about. Sorry - you don't get to win the thread simply because you can quote somebody else's internet law.

This. How you run your group is fine, but please don't imply there's something wrong with those of us that find it odd. I would be extremely put off by your play style because it tends from my experience to produce characters that are plain incompetent.

There is nothing, nothing, wrong with how you run your own games. These are my opinions, regarding how I run my games vis a vis optimizers, and why I have an issue with people who describe themselves as such. The fact that so much of GiTP describes themselves as optimizers, juxtaposed with what I've said here, should help clue folks in as to why I don't post much anymore.

[Greenish]

Agreeing to abide my restrictions is part of you being allowed to play at my game.

Yeah, I agree that DM can set his/her restrictions and houserules prior to the game, and if you agree to them, you're supposed to follow them (instead of trying to do something that has been explicitly forbidden). I should have thought it a basic assumption, but maybe I've just been lucky.

Something which might be skewing the view even farther is that being an optimizer might simply not come up, unless you're the type of jerk to brag on how powerful your character is.