Quote from: GeekEclectic;823611But you also can't be sub-optimal by Pundit's definition either. Too many points for that. You'll likely fall somewhere in that middle area.

I don't agree.

For one thing, I've yet to see a point-buy system -- although for all I know there are some out there -- that compels a player to spend all of his or her points.

For another, I've yet to see a point-buy system that didn't allow you to sink most of your points into anti-minimaxing options.  If I'm playing a 100-pt GURPS character and I sink 50 pts into HT and a few dozen into Appearance and Charisma, great: I'm a hardy fellow, and the bad guys are more likely to capture me than hack me down.  Doesn't mean I'm going to be a material asset to the group.

Quote from: Omega;823902In 5e's point buy you can get a spread of 13, 13, 13, 12, 12,12. Min is 8, Max is 15. With that you could have three 15s and three 8s before racial mods.

With that you could start off with a Fighter whos not very strong, agile or hearty. But is relatively smart, canny, and persuasive. Like a scholarly or courtly student who takes up arms. Plenty of room to grow the character, showing how through hard work they gradually improve physically.

An interesting example. Presumably this PC is worse at fighting than one focused on STR, DEX, and CON, but clearly this PC is better at banter, persuasion, assessing motivations, and other activities suitable to a courtly setting. Is the courtly version really suboptimal or are is the courtly version merely differently optimized than the combat version?

Quote from: Ravenswing;823916For one thing, I've yet to see a point-buy system -- although for all I know there are some out there -- that compels a player to spend all of his or her points.

But aren't GURPS games frequently arranged with set point numbers for all characters, e.g. 50-point heroes, 100 pt-heroes, etc. Not spending the points is the player intentionally not following through on the agreed level of play. I think we should ignore examples built on the player not playing the game they agreed to play.

QuoteFor another, I've yet to see a point-buy system that didn't allow you to sink most of your points into anti-minimaxing options.  If I'm playing a 100-pt GURPS character and I sink 50 pts into HT and a few dozen into Appearance and Charisma, great: I'm a hardy fellow, and the bad guys are more likely to capture me than hack me down.  Doesn't mean I'm going to be a material asset to the group.

Unless the system makes those stats noticeably less useful over all while charging the same cost in point buy, the tough, cute, and persuasive character is differently optimized not suboptimized. They may be a much better choice for a courtly setting where appearance and flair are important and poisoning is frequent - hence a high Health would be an advantage.

Serious question. I don't play GURPS, so I have to ask, does GURPS charge the same point cost for noticeably less useful (in every circumstance) stats? I would find that surprising given the longevity, popularity, and origins of GURPS, but as I said I don't play GURPS so I don't really know.

Saving your charg-gen freebie points in old WW Storyteller generally wasn't worth it. XP point-buy ended up being higher than Char-gen point-buy, as I recall. Rather compelling motivation, that.

In In Nomine saving char-gen points from point-buy generally was for saving up for spare vessels. Otherwise, you should've spent them all. That and buying up just 1 point in Skills ended up wiping out unskilled roll negatives, so GMs were recommended to keep an eye on "random Chem skill here, random Explosives skill there..." Sure, you're playing angels and demons, but if your game involves discreet infiltration in kindergartens or human resource depts. it is rather questionable to spread points to null unskilled penalties. Which would be a counter to the claim of anti-min/maxing.

And then in D&D 5e point-buy, you are compelled to spend all points, and there's really little to no bad choices (no real anti-min/maxing). You often just become well-rounded or well-focused.

Ravenswing, have you been keeping up with other point buy games besides GURPS? Nothing hostile, just curious.

Its rare to see a RPG with point buy where unspent points carried over into the gameplay.

As for deliberately not spending all the alotted points when they do not carry over? I could see someone foregoing any point spending in 5e and just going all 8s. I am not sure why you would want to? To be a millstone for the group?
A minorly crippled snowflake? For the challenge? For some character background reason? To recreate some character that you rolled really badly for but lived to immense power?

One of the interesting things about 5e is that you can play with stats that low and still be viable in some role. A druid who focuses on wildshapes for example. In fact that is a pretty interesting concept of this below average person who all but lives in their beast forms because that is when they are strong, fast, harder to kill, etc.

I personally love playing characters that are "sub-optimal".  The D&D character with low stats. The 1st-level guy with 1hp.  Hell, in RIFTS two of my most memorable players ever were a Vagabond and a Rogue Scholar.

But I have some players who absolutely despise it.  They can't stand having PCs who don't start out strong.

Quote from: RPGPundit;824579I personally love playing characters that are "sub-optimal".

But do you play and enjoy playing characters sub-optimally?

I think the fun in playing a sub-optimal character comes from succeeding in spite of the odds - your victories taste more sweet if they are hard won. Even if you're playing a truly stunted character, small victories can seem huge.

It's certainly not for everyone though, and for me, it's a time and place thing. It's fun to be the juggernaut every now and then too.

Quote from: Bren;824597But do you play and enjoy playing characters sub-optimally?

Depends what you mean by this; I want to include what makes them sub-optimal in the roleplay of their characters, yes.  But I want to see if they can succeed in spite of this.

Quote from: RPGPundit;824842Depends what you mean by this; I want to include what makes them sub-optimal in the roleplay of their characters, yes.  But I want to see if they can succeed in spite of this.

It sounds to me like you enjoy playing a character with below average or below expectation stats for the challenge of trying to succeed despite having lower stats. But in overcoming the challenge you will, to the best of your ability, make optimal decisions for the character, choose optimal tactics, make optimal selections of equipment, and have your character use optimal wording in speeches to influence or persuade others in the game world. Do I understand you correctly?

My take on suboptimal characters is a bit different. I explained what I meant here and here.

Quote from: Bren;824597But do you play and enjoy playing characters sub-optimally?

I do.  Its how most of the DMs I know who are also players play as well. They make so called "sub optimal" decisions based on what the character knows and would do. Rather than the oft vaster knowledge of the player.

I know a few who are the exact opposite and treat it as their god given right to act upon knowledge that their character should not have.

And everything in between or even further out on the edges.

As noted in a older simmilar discussion. As a DM though I just have the players roll some sort of lore equivalent check to see if they know of or have met some monster if its not a local common type.

No character is sub-optimal, unless your idea of the game is as an exercise in efficiency. The very idea of optimization assumes a "right" way to play. I'm not sure that's the point of the game. Is it?

I'll make suboptimal choices if it contributes to a concept I find interesting.

But within that concept, I like the character to be as competent as possible and get sort of vexed if external factors (e.g., GM house rulings, etc.) further nerf my self-gimped character.

Quote from: RPGPundit;822536Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever.  But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?

I play whatever is rolled. I don't play characters that are built.

Quote from: Bren;824903It sounds to me like you enjoy playing a character with below average or below expectation stats for the challenge of trying to succeed despite having lower stats. But in overcoming the challenge you will, to the best of your ability, make optimal decisions for the character, choose optimal tactics, make optimal selections of equipment, and have your character use optimal wording in speeches to influence or persuade others in the game world. Do I understand you correctly?

Optimal decisions based on what the CHARACTER would consider optimal, within his roleplaying context.

Quote from: RPGPundit;822536Most people I think are always hoping for that randomly-rolled D&D character that's all 16s and up or whatever.  But do any of you, like me, tend to actually enjoy the challenge of a low-stat character and find that these tend to be more memorable in the long term (if you can get them to survive and succeed) than the guys that start with all the PC-privilege?

NOPE. Given I'm already on leg braces and specialized crutches and unable to drive among other things in real life. Suboptimal anything in my rpgs and characters can take a flying leap in the Lake of Fire. I play rpgs to escape the physical prison life has dealt me.

Regardless and separate from that I play what's rolled or I'm given. My preferences aren't usually a factor, but like in life I usually roll low (which is awesome in roll under games like GURPS and many other D100 games) but detracts from my friends enjoyment in games like DnD or Shadowrun where you're supposed to be a bad ass motherfucker.