What ruins the spirit of a game?

[The Insanity]

This does not invalidate the point.

Did I say it does?

[Segev]

The way you quoted and responded made it seem like it was intended as a rebuttal. If not, my apologies; I have failed to grasp your intended meaning.

[DontEatRawHagis]

When the DM thinks that he's writing instead of acting.

[Coidzor]

The way you quoted and responded made it seem like it was intended as a rebuttal. If not, my apologies; I have failed to grasp your intended meaning.

Well, I suppose this demonstrates the occasional difficulties with communication even just talking about the games rather than being in them?

[eggynack]

The way you quoted and responded made it seem like it was intended as a rebuttal. If not, my apologies; I have failed to grasp your intended meaning.

I think it mostly depends on the original meaning of DontEatRawHagis' words. If he was being DM inclusive, then the post could be considered a clarification, and if he wasn't, then it was a correction. Either way, probably a good thing to mention, as it definitely wasn't clear from the post.

[jedipotter]

So what about rolling and being lucky enough to have several scores above 16, especially after racials? I would note that in many point buys, you would be hard pressed to have three 16's at all without tanking other stats. (EDIT: Specifically, a common 32 point buy permits three abilities at 16, one at 10, and two at 8. Many people play with less.)

Rolling and randomly is not the same as picking a number. If a player rolls six 18's that is fine. The player that picks an ability of 20 is not fine.

So a Wizard who is intelligent is bad. A rogue with generally good abilities, likely best at being nimble is bad. Strong barbarians are bad. Why is a character who is supposed to be good at something being good at that thing bad? What is wrong with the person who has poured over books and books of lore and magic for the majority of their self aware life up to this point to be a very, very smart guy? What is wrong with the guy who literally has such force of personality that the universe will bend to his will having the stats to back it up?

A player that ''must have'' high abilities is bad. A player that needs ''just one more plus'' is bad.

Why is playing effectively bad?

But note your saying that to be ''effective'' that you have to be far, far, far beyond superhuman. 12 is average, 15 would be ''just'' effective, but 18-20 is just beyond insane.

Sure, failure is needed. At the same time, players don't like to die.

It's not like if you don't have 100 hp's and more then 18 in each ability that your character will automatically die.

DC 14 what? Jump check? AC roll? Stealth check? And I'd say reliably hitting DC 14 at level 1 is always hard unless you're really laying on the cheese. For reference, if the DC of a check is 10 plus their skill modifier, it's not easy, it's a 50% chance of failure. And even then, 50% chance of failing a skill check is different than 50% of missing the enemy with a swing/shot/spell.

At level one a normal player could have at least a +4, from ability scores, ranks, items and so forth. So to make a DC of 10 they only need roll a 10 or higher.

Okay, define optimizer. I think you're using the word to mean minmaxing munchkins, rather than player who tries to not die.

The problem is that you can't tell the good from the bad. No ''minmaxing munchkins'' will say that is what they are...they will just say they are an ''optimizer''.

. What you seem to say is that all but one of these is the wrong way to play the game.

Never said that.

Why am I going on about this after just talking about tangents? That same optimizer also had some of the best RP scenes in the game, from leading a group of slaves in an escape from their drow captors to dealing with the nobility in the time leading up to the war, despite playing to win. Just in case you thought optimizing and good RP were mutually exclusive, they are not. They are two halves of the game, and you are getting very hung up on one half of the game.

Yes, you can roll a 20 on a 1d20. But this does not mean that every single person rolls a 20 every single time they roll a 1d20.

Jedipotter, I just want to ask you what you say to the player who, having sat with you to make his character and done everything you asked so that his character is not "min/maxed," "optimized," or "cheating," by whatever definitions you use...and he finds himself failing so often that he, the player, just doesn't see the point of his character bothering to try anymore. It costs too much and rewards too little.

Well, if the player did not like the character we could always make a new one. But if the player really had the superhuman obsession, I'd let them play a some what superhuman character to make them happy. Or suggest they try another game.

Alternatively, why WOULD a character who has 8 strength be a fighter? Or an 8 charisma be a sorcerer?

Because they want too? Or their parents want them too? It's not like everyone in the world has the perfect ability scores for their class.

I found myself hating playing the characters I built under that philosophy. It doesn't matter how good the role-play; when I cannot succeed even half the time, I find the game unfun. I don't get to actually play the game, because no matter how awesome my role-play, my actions don't matter in the end. Or, if they do, it's because I found a way to not bother having a meaningful character sheet at all.

Well, at least I got one person to admit they like to succeed most of the time.

@JediPotter: Terrible arguments aside, can you at least stop presenting them with terrible spelling/grammar?

No?

[eggynack]

Rolling and randomly is not the same as picking a number. If a player rolls six 18's that is fine. The player that picks an ability of 20 is not fine.

It's the exact same as far as actual game states are concerned. If a challenge of yours is difficult because of a certain DC, and your player just arbitrarily has six 18's, then you're going to run into the problem you cited yourself, only it'll happen all the frigging time.

But note your saying that to be ''effective'' that you have to be far, far, far beyond superhuman. 12 is average, 15 would be ''just'' effective, but 18-20 is just beyond insane.

Not really. Those scores are at the peak of human capability, rather than beyond insane. However, at the same time, the thing you really have to contend with is the fact that D&D 3.5 is pretty strongly leaning towards high effectiveness, just in the way it's designed. Another thing you have to contend with is what's noted above, which is that your desired system naturally produces results that are beyond insane. Perhaps they don't produce them as consistently, but y'know, that just makes it even worse. Better four superhumans than one superhuman and three piles o' crap.

Never said that.

Not sure how else to take, "The player that picks an ability of 20 is not fine."

[TheIronGolem]

But note your saying that to be ''effective'' that you have to be far, far, far beyond superhuman.

You are lying.

[Coidzor]

You are lying.

Decidedly inaccurate in defining superhuman as being somewhere below a level 1 character with a 20 in an ability score at least.

[eggynack]

Decidedly inaccurate in defining superhuman as being somewhere below a level 1 character with a 20 in an ability score at least.

Indeed. I tend to prefer "wrong" to "lying", under the general assumption that folks are being honest when they say they think the things they think. I've become a bit doubtful in this case though, owing to all of Jedipotter's internally contradictory claims, like, "Having an 18 and an 8 ruins the game because it narrows the number of applicable challenges, but all 18's is perfectly fine." It's a contradiction that can be partially reconciled, as the argument seems partially process driven rather than results driven for some reason, but that goes out the window somewhat when he talks about easy and difficult challenges.

[Esprit15]

You are lying.

Indeed. 18 is athlete in their prime/good marksman/marathon runner/genius/highly attentive/charismatic politician.

All of those exist. All of those are well within the bounds of human ability. All of those are gifted, but at the same time, can still be better. Before even reaching Epic, a character gets 4 ability boosts, plus the effects of aging in the case of mental attributes. An ability of 25 is within the realm of human ability, but not without putting a good deal of work into it. I would peg several great scientists in history, living and dead, at having mental scores in the low 20's.

A score of 18 isn't nothing. At the same time, it is nowhere near superhuman. Actually, let's look at that. World clean and jerk record: 581lbs. by Hossein Rezazadeh. Let's call that maximum weight. Between STR 22 and STR 23, with max weights of 520lbs and 600lbs respectively. Hossein Rezazadeh is at the peak of human ability (or is a barbarian). He is not superhuman, as that would make him not a human.

18 isn't superhuman. It's just very, very good at what you do.

[Zrak]

Take an assassin with 10's in everything, except a charisma of 15. How does he kill? He gets close to the target socially, and then poisons them or sets up an accident. The problem player is just killing like a brute with lots of damage...and cheating(oh, oh, DM I like look at everyone for three rounds so I can death kill everyone all the time).

How dare he use his class ability? The filthy cheater probably adds his BAB to his attack rolls, too.

All the way down to a 17 or 16? Wow, that is low....for a superhuman.

A character with a strength score of 17 can lift, in third edition, 260 pounds over his or her head. The current world record, for a human, is 579 pounds. Seventeen isn't just "low for a superhuman," it signifies being able to lift less than half of what a real life human athlete can lift.
EDIT: Huh, where'd you see 581? I thought his max was 263 kg?

A player that ''must have'' high abilities is bad. A player that needs ''just one more plus'' is bad.

What about somebody who wants to play a ranger or a paladin in AD&D? Both classes have several "must have" high abilities, not in the sense that the player wants high stats in order to be more powerful, but in the sense that you literally cannot be a Paladin without a charisma score of 17 and so on. A fighter, conversely, has no "must have" high stat, but is much easier to "min/max" because he can put his higher stats in more directly useful abilities with total impunity. The Paladin "must have" a very high charisma, but as a result is likely to have a lower strength/dex/con score even than a fighter who doesn't have a "must have" high ability.

[TheIronGolem]

Indeed. I tend to prefer "wrong" to "lying", under the general assumption that folks are being honest when they say they think the things they think..

Believe me, I generally prefer to make that same assumption, too. However, jedipotter has - on multiple occasions in this thread and others- distorted what his opponents have said so overtly and to such an extreme degree, that he has lost any entitlement to the benefit of the doubt. He knows that nobody is taking the extreme positions he's assigning them, he just prefers to knock over strawmen because that's so much easier than refuting what they really say.

I don't like to be so blunt, but I really hate it when people insist on taking part in a debate yet refuse to do so on honest terms.

[Esprit15]

Wikipedia (THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ALL) listed it as 581lb. It was 263kg and some decimals.

[Lord Raziere]

Rolling and randomly is not the same as picking a number. If a player rolls six 18's that is fine. The player that picks an ability of 20 is not fine.

So......using point buy to get one 18 is bad, but being granted all 18's so that while one player does great at everything while another has all 8's from rolls and does badly at everything....is perfectly fine? when that person will proceed to overshadow the second no matter what happens?

what about most of the group rolling bad but one person rolling all 18's anyways? its still just as unequal, that person will still be superhuman above the rest anyways, so you might as well be facing the same situation.

and what about the guy who picks NEITHER rolls or point buy, and goes with the Standard Array of scores: 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10? what if they all choose Standard Array? there is no way for them to be better than the other or choose the score, but neither is there any danger of them rolling absurdly high or low. the scores are fixed. and no you can't say "3.5 only" because this ain't the 3.5 forum. every rpg has its place here.

oh and what about RPG's like Mutants and Masterminds? where the ENTIRE RPG is point buy? as in character creation is nothing but you buying points? or say Fate, where your scores consist entirely of a pyramid of skills that you choose to be super-awesome at, slightly awesome at and only above average everyone else? and that is not even getting into Heroquest, which is pretty much just listing all the things your good at to solve problems, with no hard and fast list for how many skills you can have or what they can be. or Fate Accelerated Edition, which assumes that your awesome at things by default then asks HOW you are awesome.

and yes I know I myself warned against keeping up communication, but it just keeps pulling at me.

[eggynack]

When that person will proceed to overshadow the second no matter what happens?

Well, unless you optimize a bunch, anyway, but that's presumably equally verboten. For instance, I'd likely pick a dragonborn anthropomorphic bat druid, with 14 wisdom, 10 constitution, 8 intelligence, 6 dexterity and charisma, and 4 strength, over the all 18's fighter or monk at most levels.

[Oddman80]

Jedi - i'm still exhausted from the rudisplorking threads... how do you have the stamina to run these same arguments with everyone all over again... you must have an 18 CON, you superhuman freak

In all seriousness, though Jedipotter - I think I have realized something over the course of this last thread...

I hope you don't take offense, because my dirt farming commoner is about to be at your mercy....

I think your opinions on D&D are like a veteran sommelier's oppinion on wines. you have been playing D&D for a long time. You have probably grown weary of the trite stereotypical class archetypes, much as the wine steward no longer enjoys the bottle of Macaroni Grill Chianti... despite it being a crowd favorite.

You find yourself asking the forum, or a player at one of your games "Why max out Intelligence on a wizard build, the RP experience one has with a low INT wizard is so much more rewarding"

This is like the sommelier asking "Why would you want a chilled chardonay on a hot summer evening? You should be drinking a Assyrtiko - its chalky minerality and lemon tonalities linger on the palate in a most refreshing way... "

Now, if you respond the sommelier with "Oh, that sounds... interesting - but I think i'm just in the mood for a Chardonay" you would expect the sommelier to accept that that is your preference and allow you to drink your wine. You probably wouldn't come back to the restaurant if the wine steward told you you were being a problem customer and cheating at wine drinking by going with a selection that is more popular and one you know you will enjoy, rather than taking his suggestion...

You may very well enjoy complex, and atypical characters. You may very well enjoy low power characters for the added struggle, or even the added danger they face. You are not wrong to have those preferences. You aren't even wrong to say that those are the only types of characters that will be welcome in a game you are DMing. Where the breakdown has always come - is when you don't preface your opinions with such qualifiers when posting on these forums. The problem is when you just point blank say that other people are wrong for having certain preferences; Or even worse, calling the forum members cheaters for following the RAW, or the rules of their respective tables.

You post on here that "you can enjoy any character with any stats". When you post it, you are stating that anyone and everyone reading your post can do that thing. But the only thing you can know is that you, Jedipotter can enjoy any character with any stats, and many people you have come across (ther than the problem players that sent up enough red flags that you never let them into your games to begin with) can do so as well.

But a seasoned sommelier might hold that same opinion of Hejie Jiu - a chinese wine made from the carcass of a lizard and rice whiskey. But there is nothing wrong with not wanting to drink liquid lizard carcass... regardless of whether the locales say its delicious, and even if they say it can cure both arthritis and ulcers! If you can accept that lizard carcass wine isn't for everyone, is it really that difficult to get that low ability score characters are also just not for everybody? That when it comes to preferences, so long as you aren't hurting others, your preferences are just that... YOURS.

[Esprit15]

*bows before Oddman*

[Zrak]

Wikipedia (THE ULTIMATE SOURCE OF ALL) listed it as 581lb. It was 263kg and some decimals.

Ah, there you go, decimals'll do it. I must've looked at a rounded number.

[jedipotter]

That when it comes to preferences, so long as you aren't hurting others, your preferences are just that... YOURS.

It's a social game. You can't really just have a preference and sit in a corner. You will be at a table with other people. And I see optimization as a threat to the spirit of the game. Much like the OP example DM does.

It's bad enough that optimizers lean more towards role-playing then role-playing. After all, why go through all the time and effort to make an optimized build if your not going to use it?

It's worse when the optimization does not make them happy or have fun. They are always trying to get ''just one more plus''. Just one more thing, one more number or such and somehow it will make the game more fun.

But worst of all is the line the DM has to walk. The optimizer has the idea that as they made such a great character that they must over come any obstacle/challenge/road block with ease. And if the DM keeps the game at the ''by the book '' level, it's a cakewalk for the optimizer. But if the DM optimizes back, at even close to the same level as the player...that is where the fine line comes in. The DM can quite easily make things ''too much'' of a changeling for the optimizer. Then it can be like a ''normal game''. Except the player put a lot of time and effort into optimizing and they expect the pay off of an easy game. And when they don't get it, trouble starts.....

[eggynack]

It's a social game. You can't really just have a preference and sit in a corner. You will be at a table with other people. And I see optimization as a threat to the spirit of the game. Much like the OP example DM does.

You can't just have a preference and sit in a corner at your own table, because your preferences have a direct impact on the state of the game, and even if they match those of others at the table, that fact is relevant in the positive way. However, you can absolutely have a preference and sit in a corner at the table of the internet. You can just say, "I prefer games of this variety, and you guys prefer games of that other variety," but instead, you openly disparage and insult other people's gaming style. And that right there is a problematic thing.

[Kalmageddon]

Spoiler

Show

Jedi - i'm still exhausted from the rudisplorking threads... how do you have the stamina to run these same arguments with everyone all over again... you must have an 18 CON, you superhuman freak

In all seriousness, though Jedipotter - I think I have realized something over the course of this last thread...

I hope you don't take offense, because my dirt farming commoner is about to be at your mercy....

I think your opinions on D&D are like a veteran sommelier's oppinion on wines. you have been playing D&D for a long time. You have probably grown weary of the trite stereotypical class archetypes, much as the wine steward no longer enjoys the bottle of Macaroni Grill Chianti... despite it being a crowd favorite.

You find yourself asking the forum, or a player at one of your games "Why max out Intelligence on a wizard build, the RP experience one has with a low INT wizard is so much more rewarding"

This is like the sommelier asking "Why would you want a chilled chardonay on a hot summer evening? You should be drinking a Assyrtiko - its chalky minerality and lemon tonalities linger on the palate in a most refreshing way... "

Now, if you respond the sommelier with "Oh, that sounds... interesting - but I think i'm just in the mood for a Chardonay" you would expect the sommelier to accept that that is your preference and allow you to drink your wine. You probably wouldn't come back to the restaurant if the wine steward told you you were being a problem customer and cheating at wine drinking by going with a selection that is more popular and one you know you will enjoy, rather than taking his suggestion...

You may very well enjoy complex, and atypical characters. You may very well enjoy low power characters for the added struggle, or even the added danger they face. You are not wrong to have those preferences. You aren't even wrong to say that those are the only types of characters that will be welcome in a game you are DMing. Where the breakdown has always come - is when you don't preface your opinions with such qualifiers when posting on these forums. The problem is when you just point blank say that other people are wrong for having certain preferences; Or even worse, calling the forum members cheaters for following the RAW, or the rules of their respective tables.

You post on here that "you can enjoy any character with any stats". When you post it, you are stating that anyone and everyone reading your post can do that thing. But the only thing you can know is that you, Jedipotter can enjoy any character with any stats, and many people you have come across (ther than the problem players that sent up enough red flags that you never let them into your games to begin with) can do so as well.

But a seasoned sommelier might hold that same opinion of Hejie Jiu - a chinese wine made from the carcass of a lizard and rice whiskey. But there is nothing wrong with not wanting to drink liquid lizard carcass... regardless of whether the locales say its delicious, and even if they say it can cure both arthritis and ulcers! If you can accept that lizard carcass wine isn't for everyone, is it really that difficult to get that low ability score characters are also just not for everybody? That when it comes to preferences, so long as you aren't hurting others, your preferences are just that... YOURS.

I think you are giving this guy way too much credit.

[Lord Raziere]

It's a social game. You can't really just have a preference and sit in a corner. You will be at a table with other people. And I see optimization as a threat to the spirit of the game. Much like the OP example DM does.

It's bad enough that optimizers lean more towards roll-playing then role-playing. After all, why go through all the time and effort to make an optimized build if your not going to use it?

It's worse when the optimization does not make them happy or have fun. They are always trying to get ''just one more plus''. Just one more thing, one more number or such and somehow it will make the game more fun.

But worst of all is the line the DM has to walk. The optimizer has the idea that as they made such a great character that they must over come any obstacle/challenge/road block with ease. And if the DM keeps the game at the ''by the book '' level, it's a cakewalk for the optimizer. But if the DM optimizes back, at even close to the same level as the player...that is where the fine line comes in. The DM can quite easily make things ''too much'' of a changeling for the optimizer. Then it can be like a ''normal game''. Except the player put a lot of time and effort into optimizing and they expect the pay off of an easy game. And when they don't get it, trouble starts.....

*snicker* *chuckle* *loud laughing*

oh my god this is wrong on so many levels, I can't even take you seriously anymore. where do I even begin? this is like a feast of incorrectness and wrong. I'm gonna go full condescendingly smug here.

Ok first dude? its because that its a social game, that you have to acknowledge that this is all a preference. which you then -and I'm sure this is a radical idea- you then state to the group and try to work out a way that your preference can work with other peoples preferences. its called not forcing your way of viewing things down everyone's throats, its a thing we learn to do when we grow up and stop being a child who is appeased just so he can be quiet for a few minutes. or perhaps stop being some hard-headed person who won't listen to other people, same thing really.

And this is not even getting into how a munchkin is not the same as an optimizer, or how no sane optimizer will try to make Pun-Pun, or how all these high stats are pretty much vital to most of the character concepts out there in DnD, to most of the things people play, which are specialists who are good at their jobs, because of the quite basic fact that when the game sells you on say, oh being a powerful wizard that can shoot fireballs, or a clever rogue that whose silver tongue allows them to lie to anyone and get away with it, that you don't want to play a stupid false wizard who doesn't shoot or a fireball or a rogue that is bad at sneaking around, because thats not an interesting character concept, that is being a bad wizard or rogue, that sucks, that is not what anyone but you wants to play.

sure, in real life the 20 only comes once a while, sure. But, let me ask you something: what do you think this is? where do you think you are? do you think that a player, just walking in after dealing with all of life's bull, wants to sit down and play a game and deal with more real life bull? this is fantasy. we don't HAVE to be bound by those rules if we do not want to. not even the fighter. even the fighter can do things that no person in real life can. and the fighter, relatively speaking, sucks compared to all the reality bending stuff casters can pull off. you want to know what that spirit of the game is? its the superhuman capabilities your trying to suppress. the very thing your stomping down upon is, to me, to many the people, the spirit of the game, its the point in the first place: to not be bound by the limitations of the real world, at least for a while. Stop ruining it. Stop ruining the spirit of the game.

Oh, but we are just beginning. I may not have witnessed optimizers myself roleplay at all, but there people who have, and they say that they roleplay well, and not rollplay, that just because they're good at numbers doesn't mean they're bad at telling a story. and then there is the fact that Stormwind Fallacy basically says that your wrong, its a widely accepted fallacy in these kinds of circles, and lot of your posts are basically that, just different variations on the theme. in fact, I'd say that because they're good at optimizing that they can roleplay well- to write well, to create a character involves figuring out what makes them tick, putting them together from the inside out, motivation, fears, emotions, strategies, experiences, a character is made of a multitude of such things put together in a way that all functions believably as a person that you can relate to, that you can see in some ways, being real. To gather all those parts in those books, to figure out how all those mechanics, function together to make a functioning optimal character from all the options presented- is it really all that different?

Does not make them happy or have fun? Again, I'm not an optimizer. But these people, they have a passion for doing this. A passion that has driven them, made them do this for years and perfect what they're doing over time, to keep making more builds, to keep figuring out how stuff works, to keep trying them out in games to see how they work in play, to theorize what if this theoretical build happened and what not and so on, and while I do not share this passion, I as an artist, respect them for having something they can be passionate about and work on constantly and something that they can create new things through, something that with their creativity they can express something in their own way. An entire community of these people, enough to make sure 4e did not sell well because they did not like it- that sort of thing does not exist if people are not having fun with it, are not being passionate and sincere about what they have.

Just one more plus? You don't even realize what these people do with their builds do you? They're not just grabbing whatever +1 is in front of them, they take a look at the entire game first, they plan out the entire progression of their character mechanically, they make sure their character is optimal by their natural progression they have planned beforehand, these are not common video-game mmorpgers who just go "cool a new +1 sword" these are people who know which +1 to take for which build, to accomplish which goal, at the right time. They already have all the plusses, they just haven't gotten to the point where they can use them yet.

and then there is this piece of wrong. your concern is not with the rest of players being overshadowed, no, its about this one optimizing guy having it too easy or suddenly complaining having it normal to compensate. and guess what, these people? these optimizers? they don't think like that, at all. there are optimizers, who will optimize to support everyone around them to meet the challenges you throw at everyone. there are optimizers who when confronted with jerk DM's who rule with an iron fist, will go "bring it!" and optimize the heck out of their character to fight back, there are groups, DM and Player, who will all agree to optimize at a certain level so that everyone is playing on the same field, so that they all are using the appropriate strategies, including all Tier 1's doing ludicrous Tippyverse levels of silliness with the DM responding with more Tippyverse levels of silliness- and they have FUN doing it, no matter how much I don't understand it. These are people who share stories of Old Man Henderson and how he blew up Hastur using ice skating, a stadium full of explosives, and a backstory, and thus won Call of Cthulhu. To them, if it is statted, they can kill it. And they will. Just give them time.

What is the point of all this you ask? The point, is that to them, optimizing is a part of the spirit of the game, that the manipulation of the mechanics is half the fun to them. even if its not all that fun to me- I still have to respect that. I may play for the flavor, for the story, for the fluff rather than the crunch, but they do have a point: a mechanically sucky character is not a character I want to play at all. A character with bad scores in what I want high in is not being true to my character, its disrespecting my character, its not allowing the concept I want to play to do anything I want them to do. Einstein did not make great discoveries with strength. Hercules did not lift the world with wisdom. Alexander the Great did not lead with Constitution.

But I doubt any of this will go through to you. your wisdom score is like that of the arrogant monk example, and your Listen score is in the negatives. The point is, that all of this- all that you have stated- is not fact, its not shared by anyone here. You keep acting like it is, far past the point where its reasonable, far past the point where its apparent that your wrong and clinging to it without actually listening to anything we say. You act like you have the backing of fact, but here is the truth: you are alone in what you believe, what you prefer. At least in this community. This community is all about super-heroics and being awesome, and the other rpg communities I know of- they're not much different. Aside from the games of Dark Heresy or Paranoia, but you don't play those to be heroes anyways. You play them because its funny to watch a bunch of incompetent agents in an oppressive fascist dystopia screw up in spectacular ways, usually with explosives involved. Really, all this, all that we are saying here, all this is just an elaborate, well thought out way of saying these simple words, the words that you need to hear:

Thats just your opinion, man.

[eggynack]

Damn, that was pretty awesome. I think that post is deserving of, like, at least five internet points. Is five a lot of internet points? I've never been sure.

[Tengu_temp]

It's bad enough that optimizers lean more towards role-playing then role-playing.

Sounds logical to me!

[Segev]

Well, at least I got one person to admit they like to succeed most of the time.

This is an admission? Show me somebody who claims they like failing 50% or more of the time, and I'll show you a liar. Or a madman.

Not getting to actually do anything but sit there and let the game happen to your character because nothing you do matters, or worse, trying to do something makes things reliably go worse is depressing.


Seriously, do you think it is better role-play if the fighter can't hit the monsters and can't avoid being hit, and has to be dragged off the battlefield and healed after 3 rounds, every fight? Or, if you run a more lethal game, if the player of the fighter has to get him Raised every session or replace his character every session because every fighter has an 8 in Str. and Con. in order to avoid being "a bad role-player?"


Heck, you even comment that a character can have enough to make your "easy" rolls 50% of the time at level 1. Do you honestly think that every time a character tries to do something, he should fail half the time if it is an easy task? Do you crash your car on the way home or to work every day, because you have a 50/50 shot of crashing each time you drive somewhere and that's two trips per day? Driving a car is an "easy" task.

[Coidzor]

It's bad enough that optimizers lean more towards role-playing then role-playing.

Indeed, quite bad that people want to actually play the game. How dare they.

After all, why go through all the time and effort to make an optimized build if your not going to use it?

Yeah, unless you're playing in a game where you know you're going through character sheets like a person who just had mango-habanero hot wings goes through toilet paper and it's a system with quick character generation, just about everyone's going to be miffed if they don't actually get to use their character before it gets offed.

And if the character doesn't get offed but they still can't use it, that's even worse. At that point, why have players if they can't do anything, since one doesn't want a game, one wants a LiveJournal.

It's worse when the optimization does not make them happy or have fun.

Or, y'know, the game sucks.

They are always trying to get ''just one more plus''. Just one more thing, one more number or such and somehow it will make the game more fun.

That is a terrible bugbear that's completely irrelevant to all but a vanishingly small number of people and not generally applicable, yes.

The optimizer has the idea that as they made such a great character that they must over come any obstacle/challenge/road block with ease.

You know that thing where you use a word and yet don't know how to use it? You're doing it again here.

[jedipotter]

its called not forcing your way of viewing things down everyone's throats, its a thing we learn to do when we grow up and stop being a child who is appeased just so he can be quiet for a few minutes. or perhaps stop being some hard-headed person who won't listen to other people, same thing really.

Except that no DM should be forced to run a game they don't like. You want to be a first level uber awesome optimized character, you may do so in another game.

the very thing your stomping down upon is, to me, to many the people, the spirit of the game, its the point in the first place: to not be bound by the limitations of the real world, at least for a while. Stop ruining it. Stop ruining the spirit of the game.

Well sure it's the classic DM vs player thing #7. The player wants to start out as a demi god, and the DM wants the player to slowly grow into a demi god.

. and then there is the fact that Stormwind Fallacy basically says that your wrong, its a widely accepted fallacy in these kinds of circles,

Just because everyone that agrees with it thinks that it is true? And they think it is ''so'' true, that you can't even talk about it? Every optimizer is a spectacular role player...just because they say so? I can tell you the great role player and great optimizer are rare...like unicorn rare.

But I doubt any of this will go through to you. your wisdom score is like that of the arrogant monk example, and your Listen score is in the negatives. The point is, that all of this- all that you have stated- is not fact, its not shared by anyone here. You keep acting like it is, far past the point where its reasonable, far past the point where its apparent that your wrong and clinging to it without actually listening to anything we say. You act like you have the backing of fact, but here is the truth: you are alone in what you believe, what you prefer. At least in this community. This community is all about super-heroics and being awesome, and the other rpg communities I know of- they're not much different.

It's well established that nearly no one here shares my view. There are several threads to this fact. I have a different view. But just as I don't follow the group does not make me wrong.

Thats just your opinion, man.

But I'm not a man......

[eggynack]

Except that no DM should be forced to run a game they don't like. You want to be a first level uber awesome optimized character, you may do so in another game.

Except you constantly say that folks who optimize, or even folks who use point buy, are somehow problem players. It's an objective statement of fact, rather than a subjective statement of preference.

Well sure it's the classic DM vs player thing #7. The player wants to start out as a demi god, and the DM wants the player to slowly grow into a demi god.

I don't think that really reflects anything I've seen, though that's true of lots of things you say. From everything I've looked at in game design, people love it when they have a continual power growth rather than just starting out amazing. Look to the popularity of... just so many video games. So many. Also tabletop RPG's, because the level system derives from that desire as well.

Just because everyone that agrees with it thinks that it is true? And they think it is ''so'' true, that you can't even talk about it? Every optimizer is a spectacular role player...just because they say so? I can tell you the great role player and great optimizer are rare...like unicorn rare.

Every optimizer is not a spectacular role player. Some are, to an extent reasonably in keeping with the rest of the population, which is the point. I've known people who were only good at role playing, people who were only good at optimization (I tend towards this category a bit), and people who were good at both. There's not much of a correlative factor between the two abilities, though as some have noted, the fact that optimization requires investment into the game means that any correlation is likely a positive one.

It's well established that nearly no one here shares my view. There are several threads to this fact. I have a different view. But just as I don't follow the group does not make me wrong.

No, that alone does not make you wrong. The fact that your views are internally inconsistent and contradictory makes them wrong. The fact that they're actually just wrong without the contradictory part also makes them wrong, but we're heading into tautology territory there.

[Milodiah]

Ahhh, I love Internet posters who feel they have to defend their opinions no matter what, because stepping away from the keyboard when someone who disagrees with them's name is on the "last poster" column of the thread is a world-halting concession, even when it's obvious neither side is going to convince the other, and most readers already have expressed that they disagree with you as well (I disagree with you, to add my opinion).

All this even made me forget what I came here to originally say...