| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
 Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 19:55:23
|
I was rolling around on the CharOp boards at WotC, which is something I almost never do, and I came across this term: frostcheese -
http://community.wizards.com/wiki/Frostcheese
Spending more time there, I realized that this kind of thing is about the last type of thing I usually think about when creating characters. Optimizing for damage, min-maxing, whatever the cool young kids call it these days, it's almost alien to me. It's also probably why I don't enjoy World of Warcraft as much as I used to, you practically have to read a manual on your class and constantly find the most optimized equipment and rotation, etc...
Anyway, back to D&D and FR, it's not that I don't take a lot of time when planning or thinking about characters, I really do. And I don't like playing classes that are gimped in some way (the Mystic Theurge comes to mind). But I spend maybe 80% of my time figuring out my characters' histories and looks, their style, all of that before I worry about "optimizing" as many people do nowadays. I just sort of take it as understood that a class is generally going to work if it's made it into print (in a sourcebook, anyway... I don't have such faith with Dragon magazine and such).
So I'm wondering, am I alone in this? Honestly, looking at those Character Optimization boards, it seems like the majority of players seem to concentrate on CharOp and not much on the "fluff" like I do.
...and does this mark me as some kind of oldster Philistine grognard who doesn't "really" know how to play? Or is it a girl thing? I do spend a lot of time RPing about town and shopping. 
I really do. 
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
Edited by - Therise on 27 Sep 2011 19:57:22
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 20:28:41
|
When rolling a new character (every 2-3 years...), I tell my new players to come up with a story first, classes second. This is not they way people usually do it, since it seems easier and stronger to find the class/prestige class you wanna play THEN come up with a story. It just more fun my way.
BUT, being powerful is part of the fun too, and we do look for good feats and spells, but when we find something too strong/cheap, we just dont use it. I say WE, because I follow the same rules for my NPCs. So nobody uses polymorph, nobody plays an archivist, not because they are forbidden, but because we dont want to.
2nd didn't have that problem, because there wasn't much in the character customization department (compared to 3.5). |
 |
|
|
Faraer
Great Reader
3308 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 20:46:13
|
Wizards and other companies started designing with mechanical character creation and advancement in mind as an enjoyable subgame in its own right, including it as part of the system mastery that the early 3E design process expressly set out to encourage. They accepted that min/maxing happened, and decided to acknowledge and sometimes embrace it rather than tut-tutting disapprovingly. 4E aimed to scale back on this element, but the idea of the character 'build' (amongst other less widespread jargon) had been well established.
RPGs in general place disproportionate emphasis on mechanics because of their wargame origins which began the feedback loop whereby they attract player bases who like it. 3E tightened this feedback loop: because lovers of source material were split between various campaign worlds, to TSR's well-known hurt, they produced books for the mechanics enthusiasts who made up the largest single existing group, filtering the market further in that direction.
It's often forgotten, but until the 1990s targeting RPG books at players rather than GMs was rare. Wizards had to find a way to make Hasbro-scale profits in a field, RPG publishing, that's practically oxymoronic because it's precisely the medium where you do it yourself rather than consume.
I can't say I've never thought that way at all -- for instance, playing a Shadowrun spellcaster I had to consider how to make the rules do something approaching what I wanted, effectively. But generally min-maxing doesn't appeal to me, and I suspect that it's an alien mentality to most potential roleplayers. |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 21:03:20
|
I should probably note that I don't have any desire to suggest that one way to play D&D is better than another, or that certain ways to play are right or wrong. It just struck me that when I approach D&D, perhaps because of the strong literary/living world experience I have with FR, I seem to have a rather different mind-set than many current players. It's not good or bad, but I do wonder if the two mindsets derived from very different places.
It wouldn't really be my first impulse to do much more than choose where to place my stats, and then go with a particular class. For me, the class is the build, and I don't go much into "optimizing" because I tend not to think that way. In 3E, I usually would choose secondary defining traits that played to the story of the character, not really ever the "best" thing optimally. Toughness is a good example. I understand now that toughness was mostly made for mages and the like, to offset low starting hit points. But I'd tend to think of toughness as something a fighter would take... am I making sense? Just a different mind-set.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Ashe Ravenheart
Great Reader
USA
3243 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 21:24:46
|
I do character optimization, but I think I do it wrong. I max abilities and skills and such to better fit the story for my character. In AD&D, I played a ranger. A ranger with a 17 Dexterity and a 13 Strength, because I envisioned him as being quick, but not strong. Led to him not doing much damage, but being fun to play.
That ranger's name was Ashe Ravenheart. |
I actually DO know everything. I just have a very poor index of my knowledge.
Ashe's Character Sheet
Alphabetized Index of Realms NPCs |
|
|
|
Alisttair
Great Reader
Canada
3054 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 21:35:28
|
| I do a bit but not much, only after I have chosen the character I want to play and then maybe how to maximize it (such as my Netherese Swordmage and how to optimize him for teleporting with Aegis of Assault even though Shielding is better overall, and making him on the path to being a Shade) or my Bladesinger with necrotic powers when its radiant that is clearly better in the grand scheme. |
Karsite Arcanar (Most Holy Servant of Karsus)
Anauria - Survivor State of Netheril as penned by me:
http://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/172023 |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 21:42:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I do character optimization, but I think I do it wrong. I max abilities and skills and such to better fit the story for my character. In AD&D, I played a ranger. A ranger with a 17 Dexterity and a 13 Strength, because I envisioned him as being quick, but not strong. Led to him not doing much damage, but being fun to play.
That ranger's name was Ashe Ravenheart.
Heh, I do very much the same thing. I build to the story/background of the character, rather than going "optimal".
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36804 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 22:20:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ashe Ravenheart
I do character optimization, but I think I do it wrong. I max abilities and skills and such to better fit the story for my character. In AD&D, I played a ranger. A ranger with a 17 Dexterity and a 13 Strength, because I envisioned him as being quick, but not strong. Led to him not doing much damage, but being fun to play.
That ranger's name was Ashe Ravenheart.
I've done the same thing. It's all about the concept, and making the mechanics fit that. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen! |
|
|
|
Seethyr
Master of Realmslore
USA
1151 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 23:03:46
|
I think it's so much easier to enjoy characters that aren't optimized in D&D than it is in MMORPGs so I've had the pleasure of playing characters completely based on their storybook background. I think it's one of the strengths of RPGs in general that I am really only competing as far as my DM wants me to. In MMORPGs like WOW (I preferred DAOC btw) you always had to compete with the min/maxers so to not become obsolete, you had to do the same yourself. It's kind of like everyone carrying a big gun.
|
Follow the Maztica (Aztec/Maya) and Anchorome (Indigenous North America) Campaigns on DMsGuild!
The Maztica Campaign
The Anchorome Campaign |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 27 Sep 2011 : 23:12:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
I think it's so much easier to enjoy characters that aren't optimized in D&D than it is in MMORPGs so I've had the pleasure of playing characters completely based on their storybook background. I think it's one of the strengths of RPGs in general that I am really only competing as far as my DM wants me to. In MMORPGs like WOW (I preferred DAOC btw) you always had to compete with the min/maxers so to not become obsolete, you had to do the same yourself. It's kind of like everyone carrying a big gun.
Exactly, that's totally true if you want to get in on end-game content in MMORPGs: if you're not min-maxing and constantly optimizing, some groups wouldn't even take you along.
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
The Sage
Procrastinator Most High
Australia
31774 Posts |
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 01:51:44
|
Actually I'm pretty proud to call myself a Min/Max'er. I do it, quite often, because I'm of the opinion that game mechanics don't necessarily have to reflect how I roleplay my character. I rarely, if ever, take feats for a thematic reason (like Skill Focus for v3.5) when there is a better feat that will help me fulfill my role in the party.
When I create a character (which is very often) I usually go for the route that he'll be most effective in combat. For clerics this usually means Divine Metamagic feats, for rogues it's optimizing sneak attack, for fighters....well lets say I'd never make a fighter to play without the Stand Still feat or without using Tome of Battle material. And while the mechanics side drives what he'll be best at for the combat side, I usually do a free-form for his character quirks. I invision him (never played a girl PC) in my head, get his looks and social disposition and go from there. There are cross-overs such as when a deity is involved and how that deity works with the mechanics. Followers of Kossuth and Tempus have a stronger military bent where as clerics of Lathander, Sune, and Tymora have a less military bent so I try to roleplay those characteristics too.
|
|
|
|
MalariaMoon
Learned Scribe
324 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 05:18:25
|
I'm proud to consider myself a Philistine grognard. Much as I love prestige classes and feats, I love them for their story value rather than the mechanics. The extent of my min/maxing is ensuring that a character can do everything he should be able to according to the rules. All this usually means is that I'll give a spellcaster a few extra ability points to ensure he can actually cast higher level spells.
I always use 4d6 and drop the lowest number for character creation - it's kinder than the old 3d6 days but even so it doesn't often give you standout ability scores. Like many of the other scribes here, I often create characters whose character sheets look quite inferior to their backstory.
I also tend to create fairly mundane characters. In my mind, the commonest adventurer in the Realms is a human fighter, yet most adventuring parties in game seem to be a bizarre cornucopia of different races and classes. Contradictory as it may seem to talk about realism in a fantasy setting, I like to create an 'average' PC to provide some balance to all the dragonborn assassin/beastmasters, shadowbred minotaur hexblades and pixie barbarian/dragonsong lyricists running around out there. |
|
|
|
perm
Acolyte
11 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 09:11:42
|
| I never have constitution over 12 as a wizard. Just doesn't seem right. |
|
|
|
Matt James
Forgotten Realms Game Designer
USA
918 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 11:37:39
|
I'm a big fan of the Stormwind Fallacy: http://www.loremaster.org/content.php/146-The-Stormwind-Fallacy
I have been told that if I make a mechanically superior character, that I have stopped being a roleplayer. That being said. I am also a big fan of rolling stats first, then picking your class after that. Most people tent to gravitate towards a profession they are naturally good at. If my Strength is crap, I am less likely to be a Fighter (etc...)
Step 1: Choose a Race
Step 2: Roll for Attributes
Step 3: Pick a Class |
|
|
|
Farrel
Learned Scribe
United Kingdom
239 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 17:26:54
|
I think it's down to the individual and whatever makes them happiest, when I first started roleplaying I tended to try and make the most efficient character that I was able to.
I played WoW for a long time and had alot of fun. I did find that to compete online you had to be very specific in your choices of equipment, and the talent trees (like feats i guess?) had certain optimal builds.
I thought it would have been nice to allow the player more freedom to make their characters different but if you deviated too much from optimal you would either be ridiculed, or playing on your lonesome. Some people love crunching the math to find the perfect setup if it exists, that's their choice and their right to play how they want, but it isn't for me.
I think my own character creation process has changed alot as i've matured and is now alot less about min/max and optimization than it ever was. It's now more about trying to create a believable (to a certain extent) personality that reflects what I want them to do ingame. I only play with one other person and we take turns DMing, our games feature alot of NPCs and I would say none are optimized, especially our own characters.
I say to each their own, if we were all the same it would be dull |
|
|
|
Therise
Master of Realmslore
1272 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 18:03:40
|
Wow, really interesting insights, everyone. I especially like the Stormwind Fallacy idea, that you can both optimize and story/RP. At the same time, Farrel makes an excellent point about "deviating from optimal" - that sometimes it's really fun to play the non-optimal. In fact, when you aren't optimized, it might encourage a player to be more creative.
Another thread here reminded me of the huge amount of fun it was when N4 Treasure Hunt originally came out, and we all played 0-level un-classed shipwreck victims, developing our personalities and class along the way. At the beginning, I remember we all had moderately clear ideas about who we wanted to become, but it was both fun and surprising how each of our characters played out. It really did force us to be creative and RP to the hilt.
I'm also wondering if perhaps it isn't the game/rules that push us toward optimizing or RP, but more our personal history of where we (as players) came from and how we originally got into D&D. My first boyfriend got me into D&D, and he was a BIG TIME miniatures/wargaming guy. I could never really get deep into that, but when D&D showed up it just resonated with me. I get to act in this game? Videogames like the Pool of Radiance and Baldur's Gate didn't come for me until much later. Yet for many new/recent D&D players, I think they're coming from the experience of having played MMORPGs where optimization is key. Particularly for things like PvP and end-game content. People from that generation are strongly ridiculed if they don't optimize, whereas people from my generation never really got that treatment unless we played tournaments (which I never did).
Anyway... interesting stuff! Maybe it's our job, as the older grognards, to teach these young whippersnappers that (sometimes) playing non-optimal PCs can be just as rewarding - but in a different way?
|
Female, 40-year DM of a homebrew-evolved 1E Realms, including a few added tidbits of 2E and 3E lore; played originally in AD&D, then in Rolemaster. Be a DM for your kids and grandkids, gaming is excellent for families! |
|
|
|
Grunker
Acolyte
Denmark
37 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 21:13:37
|
I'm probably at odds with most people here with regards to min-maxing. For me and my playgroup, character optimization and roleplaying are not each others antonyms; they can play together quite well. In my current Mulhorandi campaign, this is also the case. Each character is pretty optimized while still having a well-developed background and we don't skimp on roleplaying OR tactical combat.
A very important point here is that you don't necessarily have to run the flavour of classes as intended. For example, in my campaign, one of the players wanted to play a Wu-Jen/Psion Cerebremancer. This isn't exactly compatible flavour-wise with a Mulhorandi worshipper of Isis. So what did we do? well, we just adjusted the flavour: Wu-Jen is now a Mulhorandi wizardry profession that draws on the primal forces of nature and magic. The Psion is an ancient craft. The cerebremancer combines the two.
Just because a Ninja is called a Ninja in the sourcebook doesn't mean you have to call it a Ninja in your game.
I find that both are enjoyable. Half the fun of D&D is optimization. If I want roleplaying without optimization I usually run GURPS :)
BUT, Farrel's words ring true. There isn't such a thing as "illegitimate roleplaying". Whether you only play for tactical combat with complete focus on min-maxing (such as I do in a Cormyr campaign my friend is running) or with a complete focus on roleplaying (such as a campaign I recently played in in Icewind Dale) there are different strengths and weaknesses for both. I like the balanced approach, but I can appreciate different ways of playing the game. |
"And on the pedestal these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!" - Percy Shelley |
Edited by - Grunker on 28 Sep 2011 21:20:20 |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 21:18:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Grunker
For me and my playgroup, character optimization and roleplaying are not each others antonyms; they can play together quite well.
You are right of course. Optimization can be fun, as long as it doesn't steal the light of RP, or simply do not match the character, IMO. Senseless level dips comes to mind. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4689 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 21:36:32
|
I believe the closest i come to min/max is re-rolling the dice for a character concept. That is if have a Wizard Int. is not good /*wink* So re-roll required. This of course was roll in order.
With the more modern move dice rolls to desired stats, I worry about a few key scores and do what I can with the rest as best tends to suit the character concept. That is a fighter/thief have best rolls in Str. and Dex.
I do not re-roll in order to get 6 18s, however do like a character to have overall stats better then average. An 75 total often good enough, a 90 clearly better, in total sum of stats. Skills, Proficiencies selected to character concept not the best possible weapon. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
Grunker
Acolyte
Denmark
37 Posts |
Posted - 28 Sep 2011 : 21:39:44
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by Grunker
For me and my playgroup, character optimization and roleplaying are not each others antonyms; they can play together quite well.
You are right of course. Optimization can be fun, as long as it doesn't steal the light of RP, or simply do not match the character, IMO. Senseless level dips comes to mind.
"Senseless" level dips have their place I think. Even in campaigns that aren't necessarily JUST gamist. You have to, as I put it, adjust the flavour, and it's really not that hard. The real trick here is to seperate your character sheet from your character. Your character sheet is a list of mechanics. How much you want these mechanics to tie into your character - his background, his hopes, his dreams and his personality - is a matter of taste. In my mind, almost any mechanic can be adjusted to fit in with any flavour when it comes to the realms.
To me, the strength of D&D3.5 and one of the few reasons it's worth running over GURPS sometimes, is the great level of pick n' choose between millons of mechanics in hundreds of sourcebooks.
Of course, I still don't think your way of doing it is "wrong" - I'm just saying neither is mine. But I think the key keep having fun is to keep trying new things, and I for one have learned to love many ways of playing this game. |
"And on the pedestal these words appear: My name is Ozymandias, king of kings: Look on my works ye Mighty, and despair!" - Percy Shelley |
Edited by - Grunker on 28 Sep 2011 21:42:43 |
|
|
|
Varl
Learned Scribe
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 14:49:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Therise
quote:
Originally posted by Seethyr
I think it's so much easier to enjoy characters that aren't optimized in D&D than it is in MMORPGs so I've had the pleasure of playing characters completely based on their storybook background. I think it's one of the strengths of RPGs in general that I am really only competing as far as my DM wants me to. In MMORPGs like WOW (I preferred DAOC btw) you always had to compete with the min/maxers so to not become obsolete, you had to do the same yourself. It's kind of like everyone carrying a big gun.
Exactly, that's totally true if you want to get in on end-game content in MMORPGs: if you're not min-maxing and constantly optimizing, some groups wouldn't even take you along.
Isn't that the purpose of min-maxing, though, for TTRPGs? To get to the "end game content", or to make it easier to get to it? In today's MMOs, gear and item level is the computerized version of min-maxing imo. It's to give you the best possible character you can make in order to get to the top of the game. |
I'm on a permanent vacation to the soul. -Tash Sultana |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4441 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 15:54:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by Varl
Isn't that the purpose of min-maxing, though, for TTRPGs? To get to the "end game content", or to make it easier to get to it? In today's MMOs, gear and item level is the computerized version of min-maxing imo. It's to give you the best possible character you can make in order to get to the top of the game.
Not necessarily. I mean, there really is no "End Game" element in TTRPGs unless your doing an adventure from levels 1 to 20 and Min/Maxing really doesn't help you in so far as direct leveling. What it does is allow your character to take on stronger challenges which can give you more XP than normal. Min/Maxing is mostly used to make a character less independant on others to achieve a specific goal (unless your a cleric or someone who dishes out Buffs).
Also a Min/Max'er is much different than a Munchkin in terms of game play and power creep. A min/maxer uses the rules-as-written to achieve strong characters and also puts work into the story and RP elements of their characters (normally after the mechanics are worked out). A Munchkin, OTOH, generally tries to circumvent rules, break rules, or just plain make things up to facilitate strong chracters. They give little thought to character development or how their character interacts with the environment around them.
An example of a Min/Max'er would take a Wizard (possibly specialize in Abjuration OR Transmutation) class and progress up to 5th level. They'd also be from a region of the Realms that grants the Militia regional feat (for proficiency with all martial weapons). Then, they'd take 5 levels of War Weaver (Hereos of Battle) to get the best bang for their buck with buff spells. There's nothing that can compare to a Haste, Polymorph (black dragon), Invisibility, and Bull's Strength cast all at once on the entire group. After 5 levels of War Weaver, they go 5 more levels of Abjurant Champion (for the benefits to their already beefy buff spells) OR go a few levels in Knight of the Weave (Champions of Valor) for spontaneous spells then go into Ultimate Magus (Complete Mage) for having the best of both worlds. THIS is a Min/Max'ed character. |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 16:16:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
An example of a Min/Max'er would take a Wizard (possibly specialize in Abjuration OR Transmutation) class and progress up to 5th level. They'd also be from a region of the Realms that grants the Militia regional feat (for proficiency with all martial weapons). Then, they'd take 5 levels of War Weaver (Hereos of Battle) to get the best bang for their buck with buff spells. There's nothing that can compare to a Haste, Polymorph (black dragon), Invisibility, and Bull's Strength cast all at once on the entire group. After 5 levels of War Weaver, they go 5 more levels of Abjurant Champion (for the benefits to their already beefy buff spells) OR go a few levels in Knight of the Weave (Champions of Valor) for spontaneous spells then go into Ultimate Magus (Complete Mage) for having the best of both worlds. THIS is a Min/Max'ed character.
That ain't so bad, though I must say that I stay FAR from the War Weaver and the polymorph spells, which I think are too powerful. It's still better than single-level dips into cleric to gain divine metamagic, then in like 5 PrC than grants +1 CL, +1 BAB, good saves and class abilities at 1rst level. THAT is Min/Maxing IMO, the bad kind.
The same levels dips are very popular for rogues who seek to maximize sneak attacks, since many PrC grant +1d6 at level 1.
I think every PrC a character has should be an important part of RP, both in the way he acts and how he ended up in it. Also, PrC must be learned in my games, not just by meeting the requirements, but by meeting someone who could teach him. I never blocked or delayed entry to a PrC with that restriction, but it added flavor to the character. |
Edited by - Kilvan on 29 Sep 2011 16:17:23 |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 18:21:15
|
I personally prefer story over power-gaming, and run my campaigns that way. I did a lot of 'Monty-Hauling' back when I started out, and found it gets old fast. This means I frown upon players who min-max (but have never consciously penalized them for doing so).
I suppose one could surmise that DMs do not like power-players because it makes their job harder (which it does; it becomes a challenge creating a challenge), but I think - at least in my case - that its not a direct effect, but rather a secondary consequence of having to spend more time on the crunchy bits when designing an adventure, rather then the fluffy ones. A DMs time is limited, and he has a big responsibility to his players, so anything that can save him time is always a good thing (which is why I can't completely put-down prefab adventures - I use them as 'spring-boards'). Giving a DM more work because one or more players likes to optimize is unfair to other players who enjoy the storyline more (IMHO). Once you start crunching the numbers, you force your DM to as well, and the game begins looking more like CRPG then a P&P one.
I am NOT trying to tell others how to play - if your group is having fun beating-up gods and juggling planets, then that's the right way to play for you. Fun should never have to follow a strict set of rules, so do whatever you have good time doing. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
Posted - 29 Sep 2011 : 18:21:24
|
I like optimisation as a thought experiment, but in actual play I abhor characters that make no sense from a lore perspective. I don't like adjusting the fluff of a mechanic just because the mechanic is powerful for the character. Also making the argument that crunch is separate from fluff and should be divorced from eachother just to make a certain build more mechanicly better leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I like to work within the constraints laid out by the designers to give shape to a character. Most of the background and fluff needs to tie into the crunchy build I make and envision for the characters I play.
I also have a severe dislike for the attitude that permeates most optimisation discussions about martial characters and their uselessness. I've seen quite the opposite in all of the campaigns I have played in. Granted I don't usually play at near epic levels (when casters start getting ridiculous), preferring campaigns ranging from the 3th to 15th character levels. But most of the arguments why casters are so overpowered the optimisers bring forth require far too much forethought and planning to be practical in actual dungeoneering play.
The realms does have several very powerful player options but as a DM I usually find a way to limit their power through story arguments and as a player I tend to gravitate towards not creating characters that far outstrip my fellow party members in power, preferring 'low powered' martial builds. (We actually limited ourselves to core only campaigns nowadays to limit the clutter of books needed to run a session) |
My campaign sketches
Druidic Groves
Creature Feature: Giant Spiders |
Edited by - Bladewind on 29 Sep 2011 18:25:35 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2011 : 04:13:01
|
The Stormwind Fallacy (as explained in Tempest Stormwind's own words) asserts that generalizations cannot be assumed to be valid in every circumstance, yet is self-contradictory in that it asserts that the generalizations behind the Fallacy itself are exempt from this argument as it applies to all players. Perhaps this was a logical oversight, or perhaps it was the author's intent at the time of writing; regardless, the basic overview of the Fallacy seems fairly straightforward.
Also: that's an interesting piece of math, it even utilizes symbology unfamiliar to me ... what is it?
My answer to the OP question about why we do it? The answer seems simple: what Stormwind defines as role-players and roll-players both play a game, and though the objectives by which they "win" their games differ it can still be assumed that they play the game with the intent of winning. Simultaneously, both of those players (and playstyles) can still easily lose the game if their characters are too weak to survive; ie, they are killed by the rules of the game. It's immediately obvious that higher stats correlate with higher chances of survival, whether your character roles or rolls it's generally in your best interest to ensure it survives because the alternative is Game Over and Restart, a setback which increases distance from the "winning" objective. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11829 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2011 : 16:01:13
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kilvan
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
An example of a Min/Max'er would take a Wizard (possibly specialize in Abjuration OR Transmutation) class and progress up to 5th level. They'd also be from a region of the Realms that grants the Militia regional feat (for proficiency with all martial weapons). Then, they'd take 5 levels of War Weaver (Hereos of Battle) to get the best bang for their buck with buff spells. There's nothing that can compare to a Haste, Polymorph (black dragon), Invisibility, and Bull's Strength cast all at once on the entire group. After 5 levels of War Weaver, they go 5 more levels of Abjurant Champion (for the benefits to their already beefy buff spells) OR go a few levels in Knight of the Weave (Champions of Valor) for spontaneous spells then go into Ultimate Magus (Complete Mage) for having the best of both worlds. THIS is a Min/Max'ed character.
That ain't so bad, though I must say that I stay FAR from the War Weaver and the polymorph spells, which I think are too powerful. It's still better than single-level dips into cleric to gain divine metamagic, then in like 5 PrC than grants +1 CL, +1 BAB, good saves and class abilities at 1rst level. THAT is Min/Maxing IMO, the bad kind.
The same levels dips are very popular for rogues who seek to maximize sneak attacks, since many PrC grant +1d6 at level 1.
I think every PrC a character has should be an important part of RP, both in the way he acts and how he ended up in it. Also, PrC must be learned in my games, not just by meeting the requirements, but by meeting someone who could teach him. I never blocked or delayed entry to a PrC with that restriction, but it added flavor to the character.
Yeah, but the people that tend to go into multiple PrC to get all that +1d6 sneak attack lose out on Base attack, which means they attack less frequently and hit less often. Plus, their saves end up sucking.
I don't have a problem with min/maxing, and under the 3.5 rules they really improved on that problem of single level dips. I find too many people believe that just because you multi-class a lot you're cheating. Truthfully, you have to watch how much you multi-class or you'll seriously gimp your character in base stats. I also don't have a problem with role-playing, and every character I've ever made had a very intricate backstory. Now, are there some builds out there that need to be nipped in the bud? Yes, but that's usually because whatever prestige class it is was poorly designed (either not having stringent requirements to enter if you get good stuff up front, OR in the converse having an easy class to enter and putting all the good stuff at the beginning). |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 30 Sep 2011 : 16:35:49
|
Nobody said Min/Maxing or multiclassing was cheating, or that multiclassing is the key to all glory. It takes great analysis and planning skills, mathematic perception, intense research and reading over more than a hundred books... or the ability to make a google search.
Like I've said, Min/Maxing does not necessarily suppress RP possibilities. My problem is that if one of my player started seriously doing it, I think it would ruin, or at least reduce, the fun of everyone else. If everyone is ok with it at your table, please go ahead. |
|
|
|
Marc
Senior Scribe
658 Posts |
Posted - 02 Oct 2011 : 12:25:19
|
| As the DM at the moment I allow a ''min-maxing'' during the character creation as a part of the PC's history. but our rules are different, everything afterwards has to be learned through living and roleplaying. It's chaotic like life, you can set you goal to learn a particular spell or feat but who knows what will happen. |
. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Optimizing, min-maxing, do we FR fans do it?
