TheRPGSite

It has been pointed out to me that I tend to optimize characters too much.  I did not realize this until I looked back at things, but it is true:

I am a compulsive character optimizer.

There.  I said it.

Any other hardcore CO'ers on this board who want to step forward?  Maybe we can begin a support group or something.  I know it's not that hard to do, but it is beginning to interfere with my ability to give other players character creation advice, something I was formerly good at.  I'm a good character concept guy, and good at bringing that concept to fruition through mechanics, but I fear now the mechanics are starting to overshadow the concept.

Any advice or snipes from the peanut gallery?

I too *sob* can sometimes *sob* fall into this catagory. I start off with a character concept *sob* then somewhere, *sob* somehow, in the course of the game *sob* i change it to make the character better *sob* and by the end of it all *sob* the character is nothing like what i intended it to be *break down uncontrollably*

I need help!!!!!!!

My name is Steve, and i am a character optimiser.

Hi Steve, and thanks for coming to the meeting.  Admission of the problem is the first step towards solving it.

What I meant in the first post was that I'm fantastic at making mechanically powerful characters, a skill which has been very useful in helping those less rules inclined hang with everyone at the table, and at making character concept and character playability match up.  What's become the issue, however, is that I find it hard for me to not optimize, and more disturbing to me is that I find the alternatives increasingly unfathomable.

To put it another way:

I'm the DM in a game that has only two real optimizers in it, and one of them is me.  I helped one of the other players make her character, and so I know for a fact that there are two very well optimized characters and two run by players in it for the storyline/dramatic progression who could give a shit about the mechanics.  My problem is that I find it difficult to give advice to these players without being ham-handed.  I want to give appropriate treasure awards, items the players will appreciate and actually use, but without forcing them down what I percieve to be the "best" path to mechanical power.

Not everyone wants those boots of striding and springing.  Some people want boots of the winterlands or a ring of sustenance instead.  That sort of stuff.  I wouldn't ever think of getting a ring of animal friendship over a ring of counterspelling, but that's exactly the sort of thing some of my players love and want.

It frustrates me that I can't think like a roleplayer very well anymore without simultaneously thinking like a number cruncher, because it means I can only really empathize with one of my players instead of all four, and I'm afraid it may result in me unfairly skewing the game towards his character by virtue of not really being in synch with what the other 3 want.

ROFLMAO :P .... Sorry guys... I have the exact opposite problem when I'm on the player side. I run my character advancement exclusively by concept and as per what the character would do ... which sometimes lead to under par power, reduced survivability, and lack of adaptation to the challenges offered (like, say, playing a specialist wizard with no skills outside lore instead of a more combat powerful sorcerer, and pursuing arcane might above all else rather than multiclassing) .

Fortunately when I'm on the Master side of the screen, I have some basic notions of optimisation, so my monsters and NPC's are not pushovers.

But yeah, I understand players wanting funny, folkesy equipment rather than more generic, purely combat utilitarian stuff. Those cute items allow you to handle sides of the character's life that go beyond the combat grid, and enhance the role playing experience... If, as a DM, you're a combat monster, I suggest a good long talk with your players and reevaluation of campaign focus, and possibly the XP award system.

Quote from: Radu the WandererIt frustrates me that I can't think like a roleplayer very well anymore without simultaneously thinking like a number cruncher, because it means I can only really empathize with one of my players instead of all four, and I'm afraid it may result in me unfairly skewing the game towards his character by virtue of not really being in synch with what the other 3 want.

I've got the opposite problem. There are two players in my current group who derive fun from the whole optimizing aspect of the game. I don't really dig the mechanical part of rpgs and the other five players are more interested in the roleplaying part.

I have always believed it's part of my job as a gm to see that all of the players are having fun.Sometimes in the rush of the game, I tend to forget that there is a small minority in the group who would like something more tangible for their characters other than a great storyline.

I'm always careful to include stuff in the adventures, be it treasure, opportunities to accumulate more xp/skill points whatever. I do this because I realize that unattended to, this problem has the potential to blow up into a major issue for these players.

Regards,
David R

QuoteHelp! I optimize too much!

:confused: I wasn't aware that this was possible?

Of course I can stop optimizing anytime I want to. No, really. :deviousgrin:

Come now, Blakkie.   You can do it!

Let's draw up a charter for our 3 members, shall we?  (Yes, I am making all optimizers de-facto members).

This is an open and supportive group of people who wish other people would give a shit about the fucking rules and goddamn learn them already instead of writing that novel of a character background.  Is it too much to ask for people to come to games PREPARED TO PLAY?  To all of these people, I say:

LEARN YOUR GODDAMN SPELLS IF YOU WANT TO PLAY A CASTER YOU LAZY FUCK!

 And you, Mr. "How do I trip again," would it kill you to read the combat chapter of the PHB every once in a while?  Oh, oops!  I mean you are safe here... no one will mock you unless you suggest that clerics or druids aren't ludicrously powerful or that the ranger is a character class 20 levels long or that multiclassing is cheesy and abberrant or that fighters are worth a damn past level 4 or that psionics are broken and needlessly complicated or...

:heh:  I am such a dick.  :  :ponder:  Maybe that can be our motto!

Quote from: Radu the WandererCome now, Blakkie.   You can do it!

Let's draw up a charter for our 3 members, shall we?  (Yes, I am making all optimizers de-facto members).

This is an open and supportive group of people who wish other people would give a shit about the fucking rules and goddamn learn them already instead of writing that novel of a character background. Is it too much to ask for people to come to games PREPARED TO PLAY?  To all of these people, I say:

LEARN YOUR GODDAMN SPELLS IF YOU WANT TO PLAY A CASTER YOU LAZY FUCK!

 And you, Mr. "How do I trip again," would it kill you to read the combat chapter of the PHB every once in a while?

Okay.   That I can get behind.

And as far as I'm concerned, when you are playing D&D (or any of it's multitude of variations), your characters are meant to be Professional Heroes and Adventurers. It's their job, and they should be good at it. Just like professionals in the Real World, they should be taking the most appropriate and specialized training, and purchasing the most useful and state-of-the-art equipment to allow them to do their job as best they can.

Oh God! I'm an optomiser,i don't know all the combat rules AND i'm not that up on all the spells. What kind of a monster am i?

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Silly question here... but I thought optimising needed an in depth knowledge of the rules... I mean, you can hardly come up with megapowerful killer combos if you don't know how the various parts work, individually and together... so just how can you be an optimiser if you don't know how things work?

Let me provide an example of a n00b to D&D not realizing what it meant to optimize a character.

He character was a sorceress. The first thing she noticed is that everybody in the party had more hit points than herself. So her Goal became to get more hit points, because, dammit, she didn't want to DIE or anything! So right then at first level, she took Toughness. Yay, with her Con, now she had SIX whole hit points! Her other feat was, by the way, Self Suffecient.

Now, I tried explaining many times that you want to increase what you're good at, not increase what you're bad at... but it never sunk in.

Anyway, as she leveled, she took a couple more useless feats. She didn't see the point in metamagic (most ARE pretty lame). But the worst part was her skill points - she ONLY put skill points in skills the checks for which she had failed in the last session. So, time after time, she was putting skill points in her lowest cross-class skills. After all, her Concentration, Spellcraft, and Knowledge Arcana were both "high enough" with bonuses of +6.

And her spell selection... good goddess, it was horrible. She wanted spells that sounded "neat." She hated spells that "just did hit point damage." Those spells were boring. Just use your imagination - I... I... I can't go on.

Then somebody introduced the concept of PrCs to her... and she read up on the ones that were available. She thought the Arcane Trickster sounded neat! Here come the rogue levels! With careful allocation of skill points, she was going to be able to take her first Arcane Trickster level at level 9 (I think). This was fun for her because, at that time, she was the only rogue of the party (though they were encountering 6th level traps and she was only a 1st level rogue with a Search bonus of +2).

Around this time she took a feat that allowed her familiar (an owl) to talk. I gave it a surfer dude personality, which she loves.

Another PC died and rolled up a Scout, and burned a couple feats getting Open Lock and Disable Device. Ms. Sorceress didn't like that he was butting in on her territory, doing all the roguey stuff, and being 10x better at it than she was.

Since, by this time, her character build was approaching hopeless, around 9th level I allowed her to re-spec her character to full sorceress, and reallocate her skill points. I let her drop Self-Suffecient and pick up a feat she'd actually USE instead.

I try very hard to make sure my players have fun, but to some, especially n00bs, the very concept of min-maxing and creating an effective character is totally alien. They just want to pick the next shiny, neat looking thing and move on.

I'm confused. Why is character optimization a problem?

Quote from: dereeOh God! I'm an optomiser,i don't know all the combat rules AND i'm not that up on all the spells. What kind of a monster am i?

An inept optimizer? :mischief:

It's not really a problem, just an observation I had that I can't NOT optimize anymore.

It's not so much that it's a problem, but more that I can't really relate to people who don't optimize anymore.  I really pissed off one of my players when I tried to help them with their character, a Ninja/Warlock hybrid.  I suggested a few tweaks here and there and they flew back with, "Well, now that you're creating my character, you want to play it for me, too?"

It was a little surprising, and inspired the first post.  I have since found the responses to be quite amusing, especially the story about the sorcerer who just wouldn't listen.  It reminds me of some of my early play experiences with 3rd ed, which I'm glad to have put behind me.  It is interesting to see this turn into a small scale sarcasm off between COers and Drama Queens--- Drama Queen being used instead of Roleplayer, as the idea that you can't optimize and rp at the same time is a complete and utter fallacy.  Hence, the term Drama Queen to refer to those who obstinately refuse to learn the rules or take mechanical advice, because "it's not in character."

I'm pretty goddamn sure if someone gave me a gun in a knife fight, I'd take it, but then again, that's "In Character" for me.

Quote from: Radu the Wanderer...as the idea that you can't optimize and rp at the same time is a complete and utter fallacy.

Quoted. For. Truth.

Quote from: Radu the WandererIt was a little surprising, and inspired the first post.  I have since found the responses to be quite amusing, especially the story about the sorcerer who just wouldn't listen.  It reminds me of some of my early play experiences with 3rd ed, which I'm glad to have put behind me.  

Trust me, it may sound amusing from the outside, but dealing with it from the inside... And still dealing with it... and still dealing with it.... Is just fucking annoying.

It's true that you can optimize AND role play.

But there are some concepts that it's just difficult to create a worthwhile build from.

Say I want to play a character who's a member of an obscure cultish group that lives in the wilderness. They emphasize wilderness skills, tracking, stealth, infiltration, snares and traps, and general survival. They train extensivly with bows, clubs, spears, and unarmed combat. They would use only leather or hide armor.

This is a fun character concept. But it's virtually impossible to build without also accumulating skills/abilities that are entirely out of place (why would they know how to use a sword or morningstar?). Using the core rules, I could attempt to create some sort of fighter/ranger hybrid, ignore skills/abilities that don't fit, and just do my best to role-play it.

But I guarantee you the two-bladed sword pure-fighter trip-monkey will outshine me in virtually every way, inside combat. And a pure rogue or ranger would outshine me in virtually every way, outside of combat. I could do my best to min/max him, and he'd be perfectly viable (I admit) in a party, but ANY player who decided to min/max first and role-play second would have a more effecient build. I'm sacrificing effeciency for role-playing goodness. This, by the way, is a trade-off I've willingly made before.

But should that be required? Should players who come up with a unique and interesting character concept be penalized because such a concept can't, by the rules, be min/maxed to as great a degree of effeciency as the guy whose whole concept is "my character is, like, really good with bows"?

You'll forgive me, Radu... but I'm leery about your saying that optimisation is not contradictory with rp ing. It's true, you can create character that will stay "in character" while making very rationalised and power oriented advancement choices. But I know from experience that many a character would not stay in character making such choices, and that "in character" choices involve making sub optimal decisions.

I can see your point, Svartalf, but I have to disagree.

Games are defined by their rules.  In fact, the rules ARE the game.  Everything else is just fluff.  Consider: you can have an RPG where you play stereotyped western movie archetypes.  You're in a saloon, playing a game of Texas Hold Em.  How do you do this?  Simple.  Play a game of Texas Hold Em and ham it up with a funny drawl or an exaggerated scowl.  Maybe wear a cowboy hat.  Fuck, go for broke and have tacky, out of tune piano music playing in the background and slam down tequila while you're at it.  But at the core, you know what's going on?

Not Roleplaying.  Not "Speghetti Western: The RPG."  Texas Hold Em.  That's right, you're playing poker.  Poker with theatrics, but poker nonetheless.  The mechanics of poker will create power imbalances between the players depending on who is more lucky and skillful than others and who knows the rules better.  If your character is supposed to be a poker wiz kid, you damn well better be one, because the ACTUAL game (poker) and CONCEPTUAL GAME (spheghetti western: the RPG) are totally different animals.

It's similar in DND: the ACTUAL game you're playing is rather boring-- roll the dice and track the numbers.  The CONCEPTUAL game is what keeps people coming back-- the thrill of the critical hit, the joys of completing a story arc, and the glee that comes from properly portraying your character.  The conceptual game is the soul of the game, but the actual game is the no bullshit meat and potatoes that allows the conceptual game to thrive.  Otherwise it's just improvised theatrics, and a whole different animal.

Character Optimization and Role Play are NOT mutually exclusive by any means.  They are in fact two facets of the same thing--- playing the goddamn game.  Character Optimizers play the ACTUAL game.  Role Players play the CONCEPTUAL game.  These are two aspects of the TOTAL GAME: mechanics and storyline immersion combined.

If the terms actual and conceptual game are offensive, then change them up-- they're my terms and my definitions, but the fact still remains that as I see it everything outside of bare bones mechanical nitty gritty shit is just window dressing.  It's what makes a Sci Fi RPG different from a Gothic Horror RPG.  You might strike someone in the 342nd neural cluster with a critical hit due to your ingrained anatomical charts in your digital-optic eye replacements or you might lash out in utter terror and the pure rush of your fear fills your body with a might and strength that you never thought possible, crushing your enemy's skull with a tire iron.  You know what happened "behind the scenes?"  You rolled a 20 and confirmed the hit.

You see how RP and CO aren't mutually exclusive?  They're different skill sets, that's all, and they relate to different facets of the game.  What frustrates me so much is when people will sabotage one in favor of the other-- IN EITHER DIRECTION.  A paper filled with stats is no fun to play, but neither is a paper tiger that's impressive as hell in concept but a pushover in actual play.  You need a balance of both for an enjoyable game.

This isn't an attack on roleplayers, it's a refutation of Power Gamers and Drama Queens.  Power Gamers need to add some life to their stat blocks, and Drama Queens need to give their avatars some backbone.  I'm sick of players who refuse to do one or the other.

Quote from: Radu the WandererThis isn't an attack on roleplayers, it's a refutation of Power Gamers and Drama Queens.  Power Gamers need to add some life to their stat blocks, and Drama Queens need to give their avatars some backbone.  I'm sick of players who refuse to do one or the other.

halleluja!

Quote from: Radu the WandererThis isn't an attack on roleplayers, it's a refutation of Power Gamers and Drama Queens.  Power Gamers need to add some life to their stat blocks, and Drama Queens need to give their avatars some backbone.

My daughter, Kate, agrees...  :heh:

Quote from: Radu the WandererI can see your point, Svartalf, but I have to disagree.

Games are defined by their rules.  In fact, the rules ARE the game.  Everything else is just fluff.  Consider: you can have an RPG where you play stereotyped western movie archetypes.  You're in a saloon, playing a game of Texas Hold Em.  How do you do this?  Simple.  Play a game of Texas Hold Em and ham it up with a funny drawl or an exaggerated scowl.  Maybe wear a cowboy hat.  Fuck, go for broke and have tacky, out of tune piano music playing in the background and slam down tequila while you're at it.  But at the core, you know what's going on?

Not Roleplaying.  Not "Speghetti Western: The RPG."  Texas Hold Em.  That's right, you're playing poker.  Poker with theatrics, but poker nonetheless.  The mechanics of poker will create power imbalances between the players depending on who is more lucky and skillful than others and who knows the rules better.  If your character is supposed to be a poker wiz kid, you damn well better be one, because the ACTUAL game (poker) and CONCEPTUAL GAME (spheghetti western: the RPG) are totally different animals.

It's similar in DND: the ACTUAL game you're playing is rather boring-- roll the dice and track the numbers.  The CONCEPTUAL game is what keeps people coming back-- the thrill of the critical hit, the joys of completing a story arc, and the glee that comes from properly portraying your character.  The conceptual game is the soul of the game, but the actual game is the no bullshit meat and potatoes that allows the conceptual game to thrive.  Otherwise it's just improvised theatrics, and a whole different animal.

Character Optimization and Role Play are NOT mutually exclusive by any means.  They are in fact two facets of the same thing--- playing the goddamn game.  Character Optimizers play the ACTUAL game.  Role Players play the CONCEPTUAL game.  These are two aspects of the TOTAL GAME: mechanics and storyline immersion combined.

If the terms actual and conceptual game are offensive, then change them up-- they're my terms and my definitions, but the fact still remains that as I see it everything outside of bare bones mechanical nitty gritty shit is just window dressing.  It's what makes a Sci Fi RPG different from a Gothic Horror RPG.  You might strike someone in the 342nd neural cluster with a critical hit due to your ingrained anatomical charts in your digital-optic eye replacements or you might lash out in utter terror and the pure rush of your fear fills your body with a might and strength that you never thought possible, crushing your enemy's skull with a tire iron.  You know what happened "behind the scenes?"  You rolled a 20 and confirmed the hit.

You see how RP and CO aren't mutually exclusive?  They're different skill sets, that's all, and they relate to different facets of the game.  What frustrates me so much is when people will sabotage one in favor of the other-- IN EITHER DIRECTION.  A paper filled with stats is no fun to play, but neither is a paper tiger that's impressive as hell in concept but a pushover in actual play.  You need a balance of both for an enjoyable game.

This isn't an attack on roleplayers, it's a refutation of Power Gamers and Drama Queens.  Power Gamers need to add some life to their stat blocks, and Drama Queens need to give their avatars some backbone.  I'm sick of players who refuse to do one or the other.

If there were rep, you'd have it.

Radu, I see your point and beg to continue disagreeing. a full blown optimisation will too often take the character into character and advancement choices he would not normally consider, especially when it requires combinations of skills and feats that are not logical, or intuitive, or that imply knowledge of game mechanics that he would not necessarily have. I have a test for this : just ask the player (or myself when it comes to it) to tell in character what he's doing and why he's doing it. If the answer requires metagame elements, or can't be told in character, because it tells of something the character would not normally do, or know about, then we have fair evidence that the advancement is out of character...

then again, if it's rules legit... there's no rule (not even my own house and table rules :p ) to force anybody to stay in character when it comes to doing game mechanics stuff.

I prefer in character development... but I've seen enough situations where cold, metagame rationality was necessary to ensure long term survival that I'm not yet ready to stone those heretical to my church ;).

Quote from: SvartalfRadu, I see your point and beg to continue disagreeing. a full blown optimisation will too often take the character into character and advancement choices he would not normally consider, especially when it requires combinations of skills and feats that are not logical, or intuitive, or that imply knowledge of game mechanics that he would not necessarily have.

Svart, you apparently fail to realize that Radu specifically condems this sort of behavior as well.  Read it again...

Quote from: Radu the WandererWhat frustrates me so much is when people will sabotage one in favor of the other-- IN EITHER DIRECTION. A paper filled with stats is no fun to play, but neither is a paper tiger that's impressive as hell in concept but a pushover in actual play. You need a balance of both for an enjoyable game.

This isn't an attack on roleplayers, it's a refutation of Power Gamers and Drama Queens. Power Gamers need to add some life to their stat blocks, and Drama Queens need to give their avatars some backbone.

:p maybe I misunderstood... but I used it to make my position ever more clear ... can't hurt I guess, and with luck it will push the discussion along

Quote from: SvartalfI prefer in character development... but I've seen enough situations where cold, metagame rationality was necessary to ensure long term survival that I'm not yet ready to stone those heretical to my church ;).

I see this as a problem with the person running the game not taking things to there logical conclusion.  If I want players to choose role playing over numbers, then encourage that by not having them fight opponents with a CR appropriate to there level when tweaked for combat.  

If you have level 12 characters with sub optimal builds, feats used on role playing aspects instead of combat, low number of magic items, etc... then you throw them against things that would challenge level 9 or weaker opponents.  If you are encouraging RP, or that is what you want, reward that by making it clear they don't have to twink for combat to survive.

Your other option is to set up situations where combat is a worse choice than something else the characters can do.

Quote from: Xavier LangI see this as a problem with the person running the game not taking things to there logical conclusion.  If I want players to choose role playing over numbers, then encourage that by not having them fight opponents with a CR appropriate to there level when tweaked for combat.

But more than that...  It's not so much making combats less important, as making the RP-based skills, feats and abilities more important.

What's the point of taking ranks in a skill, or choosing a feat based on your character's background, if you never get the chance to use it in play?  The GM, of course, should provide the occassional opportunity to highlight these abilities to encourage those choices.  But at the same time, the player can't let the GM do all the work.  He has to look around, and make his own opportunities to use those skills...  And then the GM should let him.

Quote from: Xavier LangIf you have level 12 characters with sub optimal builds, feats used on role playing aspects instead of combat...

I think this the crux of a problem of perception we have in the game...  

The fact that anything that makes your character less than perfectly effective in combat is considered "sub-optimal", and that any choice that's based on the character's background, personality or roleplaying must be "sub-optimal".

A lot of people on both sides of fence believe that.

And it's utter bull shit.

Quote from: CyclotronI think this the crux of a problem of perception we have in the game...  

The fact that anything that makes your character less than perfectly effective in combat is considered "sub-optimal", and that any choice that's based on the character's background, personality or roleplaying must be "sub-optimal".

A lot of people on both sides of fence believe that.

And it's utter bull shit.

As being myself guilty of using the phrase "sub optimal" to mean a character who's not 100% made up to be a combat monster, while personally advocating "in character advancement choice :footinmouth:

I have to say I agree 100% :win:

Quote from: ergeheilaltIf there were rep, you'd have it.

And if there were neg-reg you'ld have it. Why quote his whole post for that one "me too" line?

Feeling better about my "inept" optimizing. I suppose my crime is "optomizing" as opposed to "optimizing with intent".

Quote from: dereeFeeling better about my "inept" optimizing. I suppose my crime is "optomizing" as opposed to "optimizing with intent".

I didn't intend to be mean or anything. :bow:  I just think it isn't so much optimizing as it is twiddling. Optimizing, in my mind at least, is more about making the character more powerful within the game system or making it the most powerful in the game system for a given concept of character type. If you don't know the system inside-out it's pretty hard to understand how to make the character more dominating in mechanics terms.

Twiddling looks similar, and eats up similar amounts of time but it doesn't really have that goal in mind of working towards making the character dominating. I guess you could think of optimizing as sort of a subset of overall twiddling.  It can be fun in a similar way though.

Quote from: Name LipsIt's true that you can optimize AND role play.

But there are some concepts that it's just difficult to create a worthwhile build from.

This is a symptom of the game you are playing not matching the concept.  :p

And that isn't a hat of d02 thing, all games have certain assumptions about what kind of story they will create and how the players will approach it.  D&D presumes that the characters will all have diverse abilities and work as a team.  It presumes that each character will have skills and abilities that others lack, and that they will frequently engage in combat.  You can do other things with it, but if you go too far from that formula too much you will run into serious problems.  Exalted assumes that all the characters will have kickass martial arts skills.  Go ahead, make an exalt with no defensive charms, I dare you.  My beloved Buffy presumes that the characters will fight against the hidden supernatural threats around them.