Results 61 to 90 of 188
Thread: The other kind of min-maxing
-
2010-07-12, 08:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
what about wizards? you are a super genious at a college... do you:
1. randomly take courses
2. randomly select a degree, then take courses that it requires in a random order.
3. plan out your education, deciding what is a good career path, selecting a degree that optimizes your capabilities for said career path, and select class that optimize your ability to finish said degree?
Well, if you are sufficiently intelligent then the answer is 3.
BTW. Even playing a straight fighter 20 is in a way god modding, "ha, I take 30 sword stabs to kill, sucker!". So the same argument against a very high powered party can be made against playing any party in which you can go above RHD.I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman!
the glass is always 100% full. Approximately 50% of its volume is full of dihydrogen monoxide and some dissolved solutes, and approx 50% a mixture of gasses known as "air" which contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases.
-
2010-07-12, 09:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
No it's not, as I said indicative. Indicative is a not a defining a cast-iron relationship between the two.
Races of the Dragon did things to kobold fluff, too, made them something other than low level speedbumbs.
There's a difference between thinking about the numbers too and playing a skirmish wargame. What has that to do with anything? Just because you play a high-strength barbarian or a bard without racial charisma penalty doesn't mean you're trying to be better than everyone else.
You're right: It's not even really playing a skirmish wargame; it's like trying to win a skirmish wargame by having a semi-broken army list.
You're a professional soldier. You probably have at least some concept of good training versus bad training...
So you become a kobold? So you become a Summoner regardless of the fact that your summoning teacher was boring and you much preferred illusion at school? So despite the fact that when you were a young adventurer struggling to survive, you ignored swordplay thinking 'Never mind that I have a much higher chance of dying in the next year than I would if I spent a while learning how to do 'un-optimal thing X'; when I'm the best magic user in the kingdom, I'll be better than the best warrior in the kingdom?'
So you spurned the religions of your people and culture because that god could make your spells last longer? Or you redefined your entire moral code because then X mystical PrC would let you in? So you never bothered learning anything useful or interesting in life, in favour of spending all your time learning skills that would best benefit you for the 2 minutes a week that you fight?
Trying to defend extremes of optimisation as 'in character' doesn't really hold much water. Trying to defend a mild version is viable; but not the extremes.
Remember also that players have access to a wealth of knowledge that's not known to a character. A starting character probably wouldn't know about the PrCs and specifications that the player is grooming them for.
-
2010-07-12, 09:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Duitsland
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
I think you mean theoretical optimization, the kind that's not meant to be played. Yes, it wouldn't make sense in a real game because that isn't it's purpose.
Not exactly. In-character you think "Oh, if I want to join X group, I'll need to do Y, Z and C!", while on the sheet you get skills and spells/feats/whatever necessary for the PrC.
You can have goals. If, say, John wants to be a Fireman when he gets older(let's say he needs to take the Fireman PrC, which requires A, B and C), so he pursues A, then C and then B. To an outsider this is odd, but him, it's getting ready to be a Fireman.Last edited by PersonMan; 2010-07-12 at 09:20 AM.
-
2010-07-12, 09:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
The above examples are, quite frankly, lacking in any semblance of realism...
If you want to play a kobold, you do. If you don't want to play a kobold... you don't. I have never seen any player starting out with a character concept (say a human bard), only to suddenly lament their inability to do so, having seen the kobold's stats.
Your Illusion teacher was more interesting than the Conjuration teacher? Great! Now we know why you are an illusionist. The question remaining is why are are a lousy illusionist (i.e. non-optimized) rather than a great illusionist (optimized).
And yes, that young adventurer could have learned to wield a sword - an un-optimized choice for many classes - or could have honed their existing skills. Now, if they are already a sword wielder, then yes, they should be honing those skills, regardless of the fact that the most powerful beings on the planet are those that cast spells rather than swing swords... its what they do!
Why are you spurning the gods of your people? If you want to play a cleric with worship of a particular god (for Domains presumably) why are you not a cleric of the people who worship that god???
Now changing your moral stance to qualify for a PrCoptimization - this one is bad RP in my opinion as well. If a PrC doesn't fit your character concept and you can't find a way to make it work that doesn't destroy the continuity of the character, then yes, I'll agree with you on this one. That said, rationalization is the one thing that human beings excel at... I can find almost any excuse for a character of any moral grounding to do damned near anything - and stay consistent with the character's beliefs and morals at the same time.
And who said anything about spending all your skill points on things that are only useful in combat? *looking around, seeing no hands up*
tl;dr version: Your arguments are commonly referred to, as you have already been informed, the Stormwind Fallacy.
There is ZERO causal connection between Role-playing and Roll-playing. A weak character is not better for RP. An optimized character is not worse (or better) for RP. A good RPer will take any character and RP it well. A bad RPer will RP the weakest and the most powerful builds equally bad - but at least that bad RPer will be able to meaningfully contribute with the more powerful build.
-
2010-07-12, 09:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2010
- Location
- in the playground.
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Originally Posted by Hans
-
2010-07-12, 09:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2005
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
My advice to the OP: the group is having fun already. Wizards aren't overpowered in their group (probably because no one's using them in overpowered ways) and that's a good thing... no sense introducing what they can do and creating a power arms race. You might as well just play characters in their power band and enjoy it. You don't need high numbers to have fun, nor do you need world shattering power to roleplay decent party dynamics and all that. Would it really improve the game to raise armies of intelligent undead and consume the world? That doesn't sound like the kind of game your group wants to play.
JaronK
-
2010-07-12, 10:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Not exactly. In-character you think "Oh, if I want to join X group, I'll need to do Y, Z and C!", while on the sheet you get skills and spells/feats/whatever necessary for the PrC.
You should be thankful that RoD made such a concept viable. What does that say about "rollplaying", when it actually increases the variety of character archetypes available.
I'd like to cite some of her previously stellar work for the prosecution!
If you want to play a cleric with worship of a particular god (for Domains presumably) why are you not a cleric of the people who worship that god???
There is ZERO causal connection between Role-playing and Roll-playing.
I actually played a Kobold PC once, with all the **** stats and all. It was quite fun.
I think you mean theoretical optimization, the kind that's not meant to be played. Yes, it wouldn't make sense in a real game because that isn't it's purpose.
I look at numbers, you look at numbers. It doesn't preclude roleplaying. But please don't tell me with a straight face that the majority of people jumping through creative hoops and fielding fully optimised T1 characters are doing it for roleplay reasons. Because we know that to be a fiction. I really like Wee Jas as a deity, but I have too much respect for my co-players and GMs to turn up at the table with a RKV; let alone trying to blag RKV PrC for some other deity (...one with -say- Planning and Luck, maybe) for 'roleplay reasons'
-
2010-07-12, 10:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2006
- Location
- Eastern US
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
You're reading the post wrong. All of the comments are from an IC point of view.
In this case, the PC in question started out as human (say), but decided to become a kobold for the stats.
Your Illusion teacher was more interesting than the Conjuration teacher? Great! Now we know why you are an illusionist.
Why are you spurning the gods of your people?Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.
-
2010-07-12, 10:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- R'lyeh
- Gender
-
2010-07-12, 10:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
- Location
- Israel
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
That has nothing to do with optimization, but people being jerks.
And still, most of the advice they get is practical optimization that won't ruin the fun of the rest of the players.
Except why would the PC say that his conjurer learned under a boring conjuration teacher while the illusion teacher was awesome? He wouldn't write that in his background. That type of input can only be made by the DM who has no rights to do it randomly.A wise monk trains both mind and body, but a smart monk is actually a swordsage.
-
2010-07-12, 10:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
-
2010-07-12, 11:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Originally Posted by Psyx
Originally Posted by Psyx
Originally Posted by Psyx
Or you redefined your entire moral code because then X mystical PrC would let you in?
So you never bothered learning anything useful or interesting in life, in favour of spending all your time learning skills that would best benefit you for the 2 minutes a week that you fight?
Spoiler
<Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!
-
2010-07-12, 11:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Don't get me wrong, I understand that point of view, but every so often I want to play one of my character concepts that I really want to play. Not because the character is game-breaking or uses some really cool mechanics, but because the character seems like an interesting concept, has this wonderful backstory developed for it, or just gives me a chance to cut loose.
As an analogy, imagine that you are involved with a great bunch of friends (or not so great, everyone has their flaws) with whom you D&D - and everyone insists on playing Lawful Good.
And they cover the gambit of Lawful Good. I'm talking Miko Lawful Good, CSI Lawful Good, Star Trek Lawful Good, Roy Lawful Good, X-Files Lawful Good... you get the idea. Wouldn't it be nice, just once, to cut loose with someone who is a little more morally grey?
I admit things aren't that bad, and there is a big difference between playing within a restricted field and being forbidden from playing within the opposing restricted field (i.e., "You must go North!" vs. "You can go anywhere BUT South!"). Furthermore, I've got plenty of character concepts, so it's not like I get one shot down and it was my sole soldier I deployed. Heck, it's not even the champion of my ranks. But I did spend 160,000 gp putting it through fighter school...
(As a sidenote, I've had character concepts nixed on account on both game mechanics ("No, you cannot take this, that is not what the book says. No, I don't care about your interpretation, you cannot do that.") and for flavor reasons (redneck ranger with the spell Animal Friendship with Benefits). I also stress that I know I can be a pain to my friends from time to time, and just as much they can be a pain back.)1. Have fun. It's only a game.
2. The GM has the final say. Everyone else is just a guest.
3. The game is for the players. A proper host entertains one's guests.
4. Everyone is allowed an opinion. Some games are not as cool as they seem.
-
2010-07-12, 11:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2007
- Location
- Tampa, FL
- Gender
-
2010-07-12, 11:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2008
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Your problem is, 'unfortunately', that you understand how to use the materials given to players 'better' than they do.
If you want to play "the magic guy", you play a Wizard (or a Sorcerer if you want to blow stuff up, probably). If you want to play "the priest guy", you play a Cleric. Similarly, if you want to play "the guy who fights", you play a Fighter, and you better believe he fights like no one else!
It's as simple as that for them, I think--well, it's probably a bit more complicated, but my point is that classes are characters to them, where as most of the people on these forums think characters are classes.Last edited by Zovc; 2010-07-12 at 11:40 AM.
-
2010-07-12, 11:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
They do differ. I've found no such correlation. Instead, I've found a correlation between people insisting on "roleplay, not rollplay" and people who constantly need me to save their ass because they managed to build a flavorful, utterly useless character.
EDIT: And as pointed out, you've described someone who is primarily a jerk who happens to optimize at the same time.Last edited by lsfreak; 2010-07-12 at 11:46 AM.
Proudly without a signature for 5 years. Wait... crap.
-
2010-07-12, 12:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
This thread is strating to treat of something that's been bothering me for a while now. Let me start out by saying that I have nothing against the desitre to optimize itself. As many of you have stated, it only makes perfect sense for a character to be good at what he does. Plus, it is way more fun to be good at what you actually do than to be innefective. Just as the Stromwind Fallacy states, optimization does not inherently preclude roleplaying.
However, I am becoming quite aggravated at how some people seem to hide behind it. It's almost gotten to the point that whenever someone says something marginally bad about the relationship between optimization and roleplaying, the Stormwind fallacy gets thrown out without any consideration about whether it actually applies to the argument. Fact is, optimization can be a good thing. But it is definitely possible to have too much of a good thing. As Optimistyk said, saying that optimization is detrimental to roleplaying is like saying that ''peeling a banana is not a good way to drive''. While that is cetrainly true, if one gets so obsessed with peeling that banana, they won't be able to drive. Tyger wisely pointed out that optimization, amongst other things, leads people to play builds, instead of characters. He has since then been accused of gross strawmanning. However, I can speak from experience when I say he is right. In the group I play with, we have several optimizers, and it is becoming a recurring theme for them to do exactly this. Without being too specific, they will freely and spontaneously change alignment, make up ludicrous backstories and come up with incredibly convoluted reasons that will allow them to play the latest build that caught their eyes. Quite simply, they don't play characters. They play builds with characters superficially tacked on to them. And the thing is that they actually are good roleplayers. Except that they have recently become so interested in optimization that they stopped playing roles and started playing builds instead.
But that kind of thing really isn't restricted to my group. Why, you can see it in this very thread (along with at least another of its kind every week). People aren't asking ''Hey, I want to play this character. How can i make it work?''. They're asking ''I want to play this class and optimize the hell out of it. Help me do that''. And every time someone starts a thread asking how he could make his paladin viable, and gets told to play a DMM cleric instead, or a blaster mage gets told to play a control mage instead, this is exactly what is happening. People aren't making their characters mechanically effective, but they're changing their character in order to be more powerful. That is, in my opinion, when optimization becomes detrimental to roleplay. It should be an aid to a good character, not a character onto itself.
There are other things that I dislike about a heavy level of optimization, like the fact that it breeds a heavy and somewhat unhealthy spirit of competition, that it makes the job so much harder on the DM (which I often was), and that the power ramp often turns the game into an elaborate game of rocket-tag. Due to these reasons, I no longer DM 3.5. But I digress. My point is that, while optimization does not inherently preclude roleplay, it is possible for one to become so taken by optimizing that they roleplay less and less. And, contrary to what people seem to affirm, that is an occurence that I witness whenever I sit at a gaming table, and most of the time I read D&D forums.
-
2010-07-12, 12:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Hmm... the old 'I'm justified by playing a killing machine, because my character background is vat-grown ninja killing machine' thing.
You know what: You're right, if it matters so much.
Fully optimised characters without so much as a single skill point [let alone a feat or character level! Heretic!] wasted on anything vaguely characterful are always created for purely solid, characterful roleplaying reasons, rather than eany other grubby reason. As you say: Me proposing anything else is stupid.
I know it's what I do IRL. I like being good at my job, so I never bothered learning to play cards, fix my car or train my dog, and I'd certainly never watch TV or generally fill my head with anything outside my optimal career.
Personally; I don't think that it's at all 'optimal' to build characters like that in most games. It's usually short sighted in the extreme, because at the end of the day there's one thing and one thing only that decides if the character lives or dies, and that's the GM. And by playing fully optimised characters who are grossly out of kilter with the rest of the party the player is pretty much kissing any sympathetic dice-fudging or lucky breaks goodbye. I -personally- also don't like annoying my friends by making them feel that their characters are worthless and solving every encounter effectively single-handed, but that might just be me.
people who constantly need me to save their ass because they managed to build a flavorful, utterly useless character.
-
2010-07-12, 12:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Strawman.
You know what: You're right, if it matters so much.
Fully optimised characters without so much as a single skill point [let alone a feat or character level! Heretic!] wasted on anything vaguely characterful are always created for purely solid, characterful roleplaying reasons, rather than eany other grubby reason. As you say: Me proposing anything else is stupid.
I know it's what I do IRL. I like being good at my job, so I never bothered learning to play cards, fix my car or train my dog, and I'd certainly never watch TV or generally fill my head with anything outside my optimal career.
Personally; I don't think that it's at all 'optimal' to build characters like that in most games. It's usually short sighted in the extreme, because at the end of the day there's one thing and one thing only that decides if the character lives or dies, and that's the GM. And by playing fully optimised characters who are grossly out of kilter with the rest of the party the player is pretty much kissing any sympathetic dice-fudging or lucky breaks goodbye. I -personally- also don't like annoying my friends by making them feel that their characters are worthless and solving every encounter effectively single-handed, but that might just be me.
I'm sure they are having just as much fun playing a flavourful character as you are being their Superman. It's clearly a symbiotic relationship.
Spoiler
<Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!
-
2010-07-12, 12:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
However, I am becoming quite aggravated at how some people seem to hide behind it.
I'd quote more, but it smacks of wasted page-space. Ok...except I have to quote this bit:
they will freely and spontaneously change alignment, make up ludicrous backstories and come up with incredibly convoluted reasons that will allow them to play the latest build that caught their eyes. Quite simply, they don't play characters. They play builds with characters superficially tacked on to them.
-
2010-07-12, 12:22 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Spoiler
<Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!
-
2010-07-12, 12:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
I am actually allowed to make comments that aren't based on quoting others. You are aware of that, right? I don't actually need to respond to your every point, or to address them. This thread doesn't have to constantly recycle either itself or tediously tired old tropes such as calling everything a strawman or rolling out Stormwind.
Strawman
-
2010-07-12, 12:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Spoiler
<Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!
-
2010-07-12, 12:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Duitsland
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Skill point are said to represent real, full training in a skill. In a modern world, unless you can professionally train dogs, fix cars or play cards, you don't have skill points in those.
The other problem is that if you want to build a character who can do what they do well, for example a frontline melee-type who can guard(spot/listen), be stealthy(move silently, hide), scare enemies(intimidate) and ride a horse(ride). The end result is having no skill points to spend on, say, Craft(flutes) or the like, something that you would have due to hobbies, but can't get without giving up something more important to the concept. It's like having to take parts off of a car. Will you take off the things on the outside that you like, but don't need? Or will you get rid of the parts that are fairly important, but not really necessary?
-
2010-07-12, 12:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
-
2010-07-12, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Hmm... the old 'I'm justified by playing a killing machine, because my character background is vat-grown ninja killing machine' thing.
he end result is having no skill points to spend on, say, Craft(flutes) or the like, something that you would have due to hobbies, but can't get without giving up something more important to the concept.Last edited by Esser-Z; 2010-07-12 at 12:38 PM.
-
2010-07-12, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Caphi: I really can't be bothered to involve myself in any confrontation with you. Go back and read how you waded into this discussion. Yelling 'strawman' et cetera is rude, and not something that I really care to address.
-
2010-07-12, 12:46 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
Homebrew:
-
2010-07-12, 12:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
- Location
- Duitsland
- Gender
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
-
2010-07-12, 12:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
Re: The other kind of min-maxing
I waded in because you used a set of examples you created to be deliberately as opposed in build and character as you could make them to argue against optimization. That is almost the definition of a strawman argument - you set up a weak argument that is superficially, but not truly, like your opposition's position, and then you tear it down and congratulate yourself.
Spoiler
<Flickerdart> So theoretically the master vampire can control three bonused dire weasels, who in turn each control five sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> The sub-weasels can each control two other sub-weasels
<Flickerdart> It's like a pyramid scheme, except the payoff is bleeding to death!