Brilliant Gameologists Forum

The Thinktank => Min/Max It! => : Endarire February 26, 2011, 05:38:19 AM

: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Endarire February 26, 2011, 05:38:19 AM
One of my friends thrives on spontaneity.  He doesn't know much about the rules, despite playing for years, and measures his fun in the silliness he can do and the chaos he can wreak.

I'm an optimizer at heart.  It's in my family.  I've been studying third edition's rules since 3.0 was hot off the presses at GenCon 2000.  I view optimization for efficiency as fun and necessary.  I hate making suboptimal choices, and my self-scorn is far more than any other's when it comes to optimization.

My friend views fun and efficiency as competing factors.  I had considered this before, but never seriously.  I occasionally lamented that an interesting ability wasn't mechanically viable, or that I was stuck spamming efficient effects in place of variety.

This doesn't consider the amount of system knowledge needed to make many concepts mechanically viable in 3.5.

How compatible are fun and efficiency in tabletop games?  What are your experiences?  What can GMs and game makers do to merge these more?
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Bloody Initiate February 26, 2011, 05:44:39 AM
Ima do the lazy thing and pull my response from another thread:

If you enjoy playing, then you would probably prefer to live.

My reason for getting good at games where you can spend time "dead" was always that I wanted to play them, not sit out, and you can only play if you're alive. So you want to die as little as possible specifically so you can play as much as possible.

It's the same reason you want to have a positive kill/death spread in a competitive FPS. Sure it means your stats are good, but what it really means is you spent as little time as possible staring at the respawn screen. I enjoy rolling the dice to kill things more than I enjoy making characters (Which holds little fascination for me if I know I won't get to play them, character creation is only fun for me if I can convince myself I will play the character). So I build characters that can survive, because that is more fun than not surviving for me.

I know what you mean about just playing because it's fun, I play with friends so enjoy their company. However I spent most of this evening's session unconscious, which was a lot less fun than spending it killing things.


If you want to have fun, you must win. Otherwise you'll be having your "fun" making new characters over and over again.

Also, just so we're clear, the definition of being "good" at a game is the ability to have your will be done. You are good at a game when you can make your wish your own command; when what you want can be demonstrated by your in-game avatar rather than your statements.

Powerful beings frequently do horrible things to less-powerful beings because to them it is fun, and they can do it because they are powerful. You want to have "fun?" Become powerful enough to make sport of whatever you want.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Risada February 26, 2011, 06:10:36 AM
Ima do the lazy thing and pull my response from another thread:

If you enjoy playing, then you would probably prefer to live.

My reason for getting good at games where you can spend time "dead" was always that I wanted to play them, not sit out, and you can only play if you're alive. So you want to die as little as possible specifically so you can play as much as possible.

It's the same reason you want to have a positive kill/death spread in a competitive FPS. Sure it means your stats are good, but what it really means is you spent as little time as possible staring at the respawn screen. I enjoy rolling the dice to kill things more than I enjoy making characters (Which holds little fascination for me if I know I won't get to play them, character creation is only fun for me if I can convince myself I will play the character). So I build characters that can survive, because that is more fun than not surviving for me.

I know what you mean about just playing because it's fun, I play with friends so enjoy their company. However I spent most of this evening's session unconscious, which was a lot less fun than spending it killing things.


If you want to have fun, you must win. Otherwise you'll be having your "fun" making new characters over and over again.

Also, just so we're clear, the definition of being "good" at a game is the ability to have your will be done. You are good at a game when you can make your wish your own command; when what you want can be demonstrated by your in-game avatar rather than your statements.

Powerful beings frequently do horrible things to less-powerful beings because to them it is fun, and they can do it because they are powerful. You want to have "fun?" Become powerful enough to make sport of whatever you want.

Plus fucking one.

I saw 2 players who were playing only for fun get out of a game because their BSFs did nothing but get hit in the face... and these guys didn't even know what their PCs could do...
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: JaronK February 26, 2011, 06:15:39 AM
It is, however, quite easy to go too far in the other direction.  I've definitely hit that point before, where you're so optimized it's not fun at all anymore.  When every problem can be solved by a spell, there's no creativity left... nothing can challenge you.  The fun is in getting around the restrictions... if there are none from the outset, then who cares?  Playing in god mode is only fun for a short while.  Eventually you want to be challenged again.

There's a good reason I stopped playing Archivist/Binder/Anima Mages and Shadowcraft Mages, and moved back down towards Factotums and Swordsages.  When you have enough abilities to be creative it's fun... but when you have enough abilities to completely shatter the campaign instantly, it's boring.

After all, Lord of the Rings would have been a really stupid series if Gandalf had just said "so, this ring could destroy us all.  I'm just gonna fly over on this eagle and destroy it.  After that, who wants lunch?"

JaronK
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Bloody Initiate February 26, 2011, 06:20:17 AM
Well, in my recent post (Not the one I quoted) I used the word "sport."

For me, sportsmanship has to do with seeking a challenge. There's is nothing sporting about god mode. I enjoy sport.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Barbarossa February 26, 2011, 06:38:38 AM
How compatible are fun and efficiency in tabletop games?  What are your experiences?  What can GMs and game makers do to merge these more?
I always play for fun. I always encourage my players to play for fun. As long as they don't go full-out loony, it's fine by me. After all, as a DM my job is to make a balanced but challenging adventure for the players, and if they're having fun while doing it then I get to have fun too. If I have to stat up sixteen White Slaads for one random encounter just to put up some resistance, it's not fun.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Nytemare3701 February 26, 2011, 06:55:04 AM
How compatible are fun and efficiency in tabletop games?  What are your experiences?

They CAN be compatible, if you have the right mindset. I use extremely efficient characters to make subpar actions viable. (pacifist Shadowcraft Mage, only shadow spells for the chosen spells. SO. MUCH. FUN.)

I guess I efficiently perform inefficient actions, averaging in fun for all. 100% efficiency breaks D&D. Being totally inefficient kills you. Both are unfun. Bending the game to your will in order to play the game you want to play...THAT is fun.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: veekie February 26, 2011, 06:57:29 AM
It is, however, quite easy to go too far in the other direction.  I've definitely hit that point before, where you're so optimized it's not fun at all anymore.  When every problem can be solved by a spell, there's no creativity left... nothing can challenge you.  The fun is in getting around the restrictions... if there are none from the outset, then who cares?  Playing in god mode is only fun for a short while.  Eventually you want to be challenged again.
+1

The answer lies in moderation.
For casters this is easy, battlefield control spells ARE generally what I consider fun, and even AoE direct damage sometimes make a good showing. All you need to do is choose not to make the more trivializing stuff like divinations, planar binding and dungeon bypasses and you're in good stead. If you have skilled types in the party, let them do their thing over stealing the show. So for a caster, its just using a little restraint, or at the least, playing one with a fixed spell list(spontaneous types for example) rather than one that changes dramatically to fit the situation(goddamned divine prepared casters).

For everyone else, this is a headache. Effective melee strategies are often all or nothing. Sure, Ubercharging kills practically anything it rams into, but when you're not doing it, or when it lives, you're screwed, and it rather limits what you can do to be effective. D&D just isn't very good at cinematic melee combat, even with ToB.

For DMs, its complicated. Any decently optimised party will chew holes in encounters in a hurry, unless you make use of lots of moderately challenging foes over singular 'boss' types. Solo enemies die and fast, unless they go first and then probably some of your players do that instead.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Bloody Initiate February 26, 2011, 09:55:05 AM
I'm all for moderation but sometimes it seems moderation itself is a common extreme.
-Andrew Bird, "Lull"
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Sunic_Flames February 26, 2011, 10:11:37 AM
Ima do the lazy thing and pull my response from another thread:

If you enjoy playing, then you would probably prefer to live.

My reason for getting good at games where you can spend time "dead" was always that I wanted to play them, not sit out, and you can only play if you're alive. So you want to die as little as possible specifically so you can play as much as possible.

It's the same reason you want to have a positive kill/death spread in a competitive FPS. Sure it means your stats are good, but what it really means is you spent as little time as possible staring at the respawn screen. I enjoy rolling the dice to kill things more than I enjoy making characters (Which holds little fascination for me if I know I won't get to play them, character creation is only fun for me if I can convince myself I will play the character). So I build characters that can survive, because that is more fun than not surviving for me.

I know what you mean about just playing because it's fun, I play with friends so enjoy their company. However I spent most of this evening's session unconscious, which was a lot less fun than spending it killing things.


If you want to have fun, you must win. Otherwise you'll be having your "fun" making new characters over and over again.

Also, just so we're clear, the definition of being "good" at a game is the ability to have your will be done. You are good at a game when you can make your wish your own command; when what you want can be demonstrated by your in-game avatar rather than your statements.

Powerful beings frequently do horrible things to less-powerful beings because to them it is fun, and they can do it because they are powerful. You want to have "fun?" Become powerful enough to make sport of whatever you want.

Plus Fucking One.

Fun is efficiency, and efficiency is how you get to keep having fun.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Kajhera February 26, 2011, 10:19:06 AM
Part of what makes magic powerful is it allows for powerful options limited only by your creativity.

See: Silent Image, Polymorph-line, Minor Creation, Miracle...

Plenty of ways to win doing something entirely ridiculous.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Sunic_Flames February 26, 2011, 02:16:40 PM
Yes, having actual options certainly helps.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: SeekingKnight February 26, 2011, 02:39:39 PM
Fun is also keeping things rolling and not letting people become bored.  In low/no optimized games I know I will get bored because the options are taken away.  Yes god mode is boring but so it dying over and over and over again.  It takes practice to get good at something.  Does it really matter if one is "good" at table top games?  Honestly no considering that the majority of the public sees the table top community as dead in the water.  Just as much as imagination is gone because of everything people have seen.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Shadowhunter February 26, 2011, 02:48:02 PM
Endarire, why are you continuously posting these threads in the Min/Max forum?
Shouldn't they be in the D&D Deliberations forum?

To answer the question:
I don't play DnD nearly as much as I DM it. Unfortunately.
But when I play, I do not have fun playing inefficient characters.

That's all I'm going to say on the subject. Given that this topic will derail into a 30+ page "debate", I prefer to not get marked as a target by either side.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Bester February 26, 2011, 03:03:13 PM
Yes, having actual options certainly helps.

For some people, the bookkeeping aspect of having options is not worth it.  Any class that can actually do something either requires a ton of paperwork, or just gives one a headache(Factorum).

This is why my group is full of melees.  However, I wouldn't be caught dead not playing a caster at this point because I can do the bookkeeping, and enjoy the options it gives me.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Kajhera February 26, 2011, 03:16:30 PM
Yes, having actual options certainly helps.

For some people, the bookkeeping aspect of having options is not worth it.  Any class that can actually do something either requires a ton of paperwork, or just gives one a headache(Factorum).

This is why my group is full of melees.  However, I wouldn't be caught dead not playing a caster at this point because I can do the bookkeeping, and enjoy the options it gives me.

I love psions for this reason. Not a ton of book-keeping compared to a Vancian caster, but I can get as creative with my Astral Construct forms or whatnot as I want.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Littha February 26, 2011, 03:19:49 PM
Yes, having actual options certainly helps.

For some people, the bookkeeping aspect of having options is not worth it.  Any class that can actually do something either requires a ton of paperwork, or just gives one a headache(Factorum).

This is why my group is full of melees.  However, I wouldn't be caught dead not playing a caster at this point because I can do the bookkeeping, and enjoy the options it gives me.

I love psions for this reason. Not a ton of book-keeping compared to a Vancian caster, but I can get as creative with my Astral Construct forms or whatnot as I want.

My favourite class is artificer... god of book keeping.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: SeekingKnight February 26, 2011, 03:28:00 PM
Sorry for the negative post before.  I think that if one is efficient then things tend to go smoother in battle, which is what the majority of 3.x consists of.  Options are wonderful and a needed evil in this type of game. 
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Bester February 26, 2011, 03:37:18 PM
Love for book-keeping seems to be an "Always DM, never a Player" trait.  If I slave hours over an adventure, I will slave hours over my character.  Or at least brainstorm the character before the first session.

Honestly, how many players do you know that do that?
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: SeekingKnight February 26, 2011, 03:39:34 PM
I do Bester.  I do so with both background and optimization.  When DM fiat takes over in a game or house rules become wonky then I feel I wasted my time.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Sunic_Flames February 26, 2011, 03:45:39 PM
Yes, having actual options certainly helps.

For some people, the bookkeeping aspect of having options is not worth it.  Any class that can actually do something either requires a ton of paperwork, or just gives one a headache(Factorum).

This is why my group is full of melees.  However, I wouldn't be caught dead not playing a caster at this point because I can do the bookkeeping, and enjoy the options it gives me.

Factorum gives headaches for a different reason. But just because the simple minded can't handle it doesn't make it bad, quite the opposite.

And in response to your other question: Me and some others.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Unbeliever February 26, 2011, 04:07:41 PM
Endarire, why are you continuously posting these threads in the Min/Max forum?
Shouldn't they be in the D&D Deliberations forum?
+1, Endrarie, you have posted a number of these metaphysical questions here already.  For a game that's been out as long as this one has, I find it hard to imagine that you and your group have not given these sufficient thought.

Onto the actual question:  what do we mean by "efficiency" here?  Based on reading through the thread, it seems you mean "build efficiency," i.e., having all your feats match up and synergize, picking the "right" spells, stuff like that.  I wonder if that's what the chaos-loving friend really has in mind.  If so, then this is kind of a silly question b/c one has nothing to do w/ the other other, really.  Once you get to the table, you can play your god wizard chaotically or you can play your BSF chaotically, within their relative lifespans or what have you.

I think the trade-off the mysterious friend might have in mind is efficiency at the level of gameplay.  Meaning, how much should we expect one to deliberate about their choices for every round, what spell they are going to cast, etc.  Ideally, I like to not have to worry all that much about that sort of thing, or to worry just as much as I feel like it w/ that particular characters (some of my characters are more tactically-minded than others, some more impulsive).  To that end, I put a lot of effort into making my character sheets easy to read, putting everything I need on them, that sort of thing. 

I've currently been on a kick to reduce the amount of bookkeeping needed at the table, since D&D characters seem to require an awful lot of it.  Some of this has been a shift to "per encounter" abilities, or just paying for them to be at will and other considerations.  It's still a work in progress.  Another thing to do is tone down the power of games so that one needs to pay less attention to having the "right" counter to every ability and that sort of thing, but that requires a commitment on the part of everyone involved. 
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Lycanthromancer February 26, 2011, 06:26:21 PM
It is, however, quite easy to go too far in the other direction.  I've definitely hit that point before, where you're so optimized it's not fun at all anymore.  When every problem can be solved by a spell, there's no creativity left... nothing can challenge you.  The fun is in getting around the restrictions... if there are none from the outset, then who cares?  Playing in god mode is only fun for a short while.  Eventually you want to be challenged again.

There's a good reason I stopped playing Archivist/Binder/Anima Mages and Shadowcraft Mages, and moved back down towards Factotums and Swordsages.  When you have enough abilities to be creative it's fun... but when you have enough abilities to completely shatter the campaign instantly, it's boring.
JaronK, you would LOVE playing a shaper psion/constructor character. This is the kind of stuff I eat up, and optimizing on-the-fly using your excessively flexible powers is amazingly refreshing.

When I optimize a character I aim for both flexibility and stamina (which is remarkably easy, so I branch out to other sources for even more). Then I use my creativity in-game to solve whatever problem I can. Like illusionists, shapers become incredible when you're good at thinking outside the box.

Who knew living in an amber hamster ball could be so much fun?

After all, Lord of the Rings would have been a really stupid series if Gandalf had just said "so, this ring could destroy us all.  I'm just gonna fly over on this eagle and destroy it.  After that, who wants lunch?"

JaronK
I'm sure Frodo and Sam in particular would've appreciated it.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Anarchy_Kanya February 26, 2011, 07:05:02 PM
How compatible are fun and efficiency in tabletop games?  What are your experiences?  What can GMs and game makers do to merge these more?
I always play for fun. I always encourage my players to play for fun. As long as they don't go full-out loony, it's fine by me. After all, as a DM my job is to make a balanced but challenging adventure for the players, and if they're having fun while doing it then I get to have fun too. If I have to stat up sixteen White Slaads for one random encounter just to put up some resistance, it's not fun.
This. +1
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Tshern February 26, 2011, 10:02:49 PM
After all, Lord of the Rings would have been a really stupid series if Gandalf had just said "so, this ring could destroy us all.  I'm just gonna fly over on this eagle and destroy it.  After that, who wants lunch?"

JaronK
Not to mention the books and the movies were mediocre at best.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Rejakor February 27, 2011, 02:31:36 PM
When you always win without particularly caring or trying, that's boring.

When you always lose no matter how hard you try, that's boring.

If you lose even 75% of the time you won't survive a campaign.

Roy is still wrong, though.

Most games don't run at the difficulty level his games run at.  Highly optimized top-of-their-CR mooks are not the norm.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Sunic_Flames February 27, 2011, 03:04:01 PM
When you always win without particularly caring or trying, that's boring.

When you always lose no matter how hard you try, that's boring.

If you lose even 75% of the time you won't survive a campaign.

Roy is still wrong, though.

Most games don't run at the difficulty level his games run at.  Highly optimized top-of-their-CR mooks are not the norm.

Hi Welcome

Despite your randomly dragging me into this, you still fail, and are still wrong in every count. Especially the mook bit. Who said they were mooks?
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Kajhera February 27, 2011, 03:10:41 PM
When you always win without particularly caring or trying, that's boring.

When you always lose no matter how hard you try, that's boring.

If you lose even 75% of the time you won't survive a campaign.

Roy is still wrong, though.

Most games don't run at the difficulty level his games run at.  Highly optimized top-of-their-CR mooks are not the norm.

When you play smart and creatively and consistently triumph over difficult situations as a reward, that's fun.

Just IMHO.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Anarchy_Kanya February 28, 2011, 04:04:47 AM
Who the hell is Roy? O_o

When you always win without particularly caring or trying, that's boring.

When you always lose no matter how hard you try, that's boring.

If you lose even 75% of the time you won't survive a campaign.

Roy is still wrong, though.

Most games don't run at the difficulty level his games run at.  Highly optimized top-of-their-CR mooks are not the norm.

When you play smart and creatively and consistently triumph over difficult situations as a reward, that's fun.

Just IMHO.
Exactly. But the difficult situations must firstly be possible to overcome. ;)
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Rejakor February 28, 2011, 04:09:44 AM
I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Sunic_Flames February 28, 2011, 09:39:48 AM
I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.

Paizil Fallacy. Also, don't feed the trolls.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Anarchy_Kanya February 28, 2011, 09:52:30 AM
I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.

Paizil Fallacy. Also, don't feed the trolls.
But then you will starve to death and I won't have anyone to laugh at. :(
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Sunic_Flames February 28, 2011, 09:53:46 AM
I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.

Paizil Fallacy. Also, don't feed the trolls.
But then you will starve to death and I won't have anyone to laugh at. :(

No, bad Jarona. No stealing my lines.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Kajhera February 28, 2011, 09:57:36 AM
I meant Sunic.

When you state an opinion enough times, it becomes a standard by which other things can be measured.

Also, i'm eternally confused as to whether Roy and Sunic are the same person or not.  I swear to god once Roy said he wasn't Sunic, but they are the same person.

Paizil Fallacy. Also, don't feed the trolls.
But then you will starve to death and I won't have anyone to laugh at. :(

No, bad Jarona. No stealing my lines.
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: veekie February 28, 2011, 10:14:22 AM
Hate is so like love. Its a force of attraction.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Solo February 28, 2011, 10:16:11 AM
Endarire, why are you continuously posting these threads in the Min/Max forum?
Shouldn't they be in the D&D Deliberations forum?
+1, Endrarie, you have posted a number of these metaphysical questions here already.  For a game that's been out as long as this one has, I find it hard to imagine that you and your group have not given these sufficient thought.
But what is sufficient thought?
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: dark_samuari February 28, 2011, 02:43:23 PM
You folks talking about fun in here?

I like fun.

You like fun?
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: RobbyPants February 28, 2011, 03:55:37 PM
I like fun.

(http://chztotsandgiggles.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/0ad2560b-dbb7-450a-a037-bef7051c82cb.jpg)

Some people here seem to think that you can only have fun one way, though. :p
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Lycanthromancer February 28, 2011, 05:15:57 PM
I like fun.

Some people here seem to think that you can only have fun one way, though. :p
There are at least two.

In and Out.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Anarchy_Kanya February 28, 2011, 05:24:12 PM
Who, who?
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Lycanthromancer February 28, 2011, 05:27:39 PM
Who, who?
Huh?
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: The_Mad_Linguist February 28, 2011, 10:06:16 PM
(http://a3.twimg.com/profile_images/1127922683/kismesis.png)
Get a pail, you two.  Or take it to the theoretically existent Duel of Wits thingy.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Talore March 01, 2011, 12:33:33 AM
After all, Lord of the Rings would have been a really stupid series if Gandalf had just said "so, this ring could destroy us all.  I'm just gonna fly over on this eagle and destroy it.  After that, who wants lunch?"

JaronK
Not to mention the books and the movies were mediocre at best.
Watch it.  :chairhit
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Gods_Trick March 01, 2011, 02:31:28 AM
After all, Lord of the Rings would have been a really stupid series if Gandalf had just said "so, this ring could destroy us all.  I'm just gonna fly over on this eagle and destroy it.  After that, who wants lunch?"

JaronK
Not to mention the books and the movies were mediocre at best.
Watch it.  :chairhit

Do IMOs count? Books are exceptional in that they're seminal. Movies are fun but misses the point a lot. Or at least JRRs points.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Bester March 01, 2011, 02:49:55 AM
Do IMOs count? Books are exceptional in that they're seminal. Movies are fun but misses the point a lot. Or at least JRRs points.

The man invented the DMpc.  Tom Bombadil.  I frequently include such a character in my games.  For some reason the pcs want him dead.  All in due time.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Littha March 01, 2011, 02:55:53 AM
Do IMOs count? Books are exceptional in that they're seminal. Movies are fun but misses the point a lot. Or at least JRRs points.

The man invented the DMpc.  Tom Bombadil.  I frequently include such a character in my games.  For some reason the pcs want him dead.  All in due time.

I remember a webcomic in which Gandalf was a dmpc and everyone hated him...
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Endarire March 01, 2011, 03:03:03 AM
DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612)

The player in question lamented- possibly in jest- the need for efficient builds to do anything noteworthy in D&D.

When I posted this, I recall thinking, "If it's a problem, they'll move it to D&DD."
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Sinfire Titan March 01, 2011, 03:07:14 AM
Who, who?

Goddamn owls, cluttering up the thread.

DM of the Rings (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=612)

The player in question lamented- possibly in jest- the need for efficient builds to do anything noteworthy in D&D.

When I posted this, I recall thinking, "If it's a problem, they'll move it to D&DD."

See, the problem with this is that our Mods are not from GiantITP. So the only way to get a thread moved is to report it, wait 24 hours, and pray one of the Gameologists reads it.

Do remember that Endarire, as we do not have dedicated moderators with sticks up their respective assess.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Gods_Trick March 01, 2011, 05:23:34 AM
Do IMOs count? Books are exceptional in that they're seminal. Movies are fun but misses the point a lot. Or at least JRRs points.

The man invented the DMpc.  Tom Bombadil.  I frequently include such a character in my games.  For some reason the pcs want him dead.  All in due time.

Let me rephrase that. Exceptional only in that they are seminal; infancy is rarely pretty. In DM'ed of the Rings  proves LotR would make a terrible campaign.

Back to Fun vs. Efficient, theres a sweet spot we all know, where your build by itself doesn't guarantee a win. Theres the possibility of defeat; which gives weight to the narrative. Its not a crapshoot but its not a shoo in either.

And theres that Goddamn Awesome Spot where you will DIE unless you do something awesome. Either be smart or roll crits. Thats where I aim when I GM. Its hard to get there.

The problem to with hitting the Goddamn Awesome Spot or even the sweet spot are the folk that play way below-average builds that require crits, smart play or a GM cuddle against a CR appropriate challenge just to survive.

: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: JaronK March 01, 2011, 05:51:46 AM
I always assumed Gandalf was a DMPC.  There's a reason everyone got tired of him and ditched him to fight that Balor.  And then the darn bastard popped up again with even more powers and everyone got really annoyed.

JaronK
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Rejakor March 01, 2011, 04:06:28 PM
If you have fun playing intelligently, playing the most min-maxed character you can (party of solars) will mean you'll nuke CR out of the water.  Thus my point.  Winning all the time without trying is not fun.  Losing all the time without a chance isn't fun.

There's a sweet spot.  GM should be aiming monsters at the group sweet spot, group should have characters in similar spot.  Tier system blah blah blah.

Efficiency IS fun.  But it's not fun if you have too much of it.  If you have too much of it, it gets boring, because you are not being challenged.  GM can mitigate in both directions.  Making encounters harder for optimizers and making them easier for not-so-optimizers.

Essentially your efficiency should be suited to the challenges you face.  And that will create 'the fun'.


Endarire is creating discussion threads about min/maxing philosophy.  I don't know why this wouldn't go in the min/max board.


I have a word for DMPC.  It's 'NPC'.  Also, 'trap-fodder'.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Gods_Trick March 01, 2011, 04:18:29 PM

There's a sweet spot.  GM should be aiming monsters at the group sweet spot, group should have characters in similar spot.  Tier system blah blah blah.

Essentially your efficiency should be suited to the challenges you face.  And that will create 'the fun'.

Agreed.

Endarire is creating discussion threads about min/maxing philosophy.  I don't know why this wouldn't go in the min/max board.

Because we have a D&D Deliberations board, which is intended for such purposes?

I have a word for DMPC.  It's 'NPC'.  Also, 'trap-fodder'.

If only. Most GMs I know fetishize 'their' PC.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Rejakor March 01, 2011, 04:21:43 PM

Endarire is creating discussion threads about min/maxing philosophy.  I don't know why this wouldn't go in the min/max board.

Because we have a D&D Deliberations board, which is intended for such purposes?

They're not general DnD deliberations, though.  They're specifically, at least the ones i've seen, about min/max related topics.  I hereby invoke specific trumping general, and declare the collected endarire(tm) discussions' home to be in min/max.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Gods_Trick March 01, 2011, 04:28:28 PM
 

Endarire is creating discussion threads about min/maxing philosophy.  I don't know why this wouldn't go in the min/max board.

Because we have a D&D Deliberations board, which is intended for such purposes?

They're not general DnD deliberations, though.  They're specifically, at least the ones i've seen, about min/max related topics.  I hereby invoke specific trumping general, and declare the collected endarire(tm) discussions' home to be in min/max.

I will now put up my Min/Maxed food/exercise plan!

 :lmao Or not. But seriously, I haven't mentioned it, because I suspect he just wants to grab the greater traffic on the Min/Max boards, but its unecessary. Endarire's threads get plenty of replies. Its not what is CO and its socratic tone isn't minmax, its a 'think about it'.

Minmax needs a concrete way of testing out builds, without solid numbers is opinion-wank.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Rejakor March 02, 2011, 01:07:27 PM
By that metric 90% of the threads and a good 70% of the handbooks shouldn't be in this subforum.
: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: keyes2k4 March 03, 2011, 12:18:09 PM
When I play I use a mix of optimization and flavor.  If I over-optimize and don't work on my character's personality and quirks before the campaign I always find myself being a one-trick pony.  Either I will simply try to solve everything with my spells or class abilities, completely disregarding ingenuity which may have been utilized in absence of those abilities, or look toward the other characters for the same solutions.

If a character is under-optimized, I try to use my characters skills and a abilities to compensate for their lacking in other areas.  For instance, if I play a rogue with a high intelligence score, naturally I will rock at a number of different skills, but this may cause the rogue to lack in other areas, like combat, because I had to use a large stat (a 16 or 18) in Intelligence instead of str, dex, or con which I would have used for combat.  If I play a rogue with a lower int score but a ton of strength or dex, I may be flippier and better at dealing combat damage, but I just gave up probably all of my social skills (bluff intimidate diplomacy) so I'm more min-maxed in that I will just do damage.  I really think we lose a lot of flavor on combat focus, although it makes us more effective in combat when we have to kill stuff, it takes away so much of the interaction you may be sharing with NPC's and other characters, basically it neuters the intrigue.

Of course you could probably say just the opposite, a character with multiple focuses (combat, Intrigue, Stealth) is totally possible within the system.  One of my favorite classes is the incarnate.  capable of filling nearly any role with a switch in melds, the incarnate is ultimately versatile.  The same versatility can be found in the binder, factotum, wizard, druid, and many other classes to some extent.  The only real restriction I have from playing these classes exclusively is the small headache I get when I have to pour over all of the available abilities and pick-and-choose which ones I'll need today.

: Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
: Littha March 03, 2011, 03:18:58 PM
When I play I use a mix of optimization and flavor.  If I over-optimize and don't work on my character's personality and quirks before the campaign I always find myself being a one-trick pony.  Either I will simply try to solve everything with my spells or class abilities, completely disregarding ingenuity which may have been utilized in absence of those abilities, or look toward the other characters for the same solutions.

If a character is under-optimized, I try to use my characters skills and a abilities to compensate for their lacking in other areas.  For instance, if I play a rogue with a high intelligence score, naturally I will rock at a number of different skills, but this may cause the rogue to lack in other areas, like combat, because I had to use a large stat (a 16 or 18) in Intelligence instead of str, dex, or con which I would have used for combat.  If I play a rogue with a lower int score but a ton of strength or dex, I may be flippier and better at dealing combat damage, but I just gave up probably all of my social skills (bluff intimidate diplomacy) so I'm more min-maxed in that I will just do damage.  I really think we lose a lot of flavor on combat focus, although it makes us more effective in combat when we have to kill stuff, it takes away so much of the interaction you may be sharing with NPC's and other characters, basically it neuters the intrigue.

Of course you could probably say just the opposite, a character with multiple focuses (combat, Intrigue, Stealth) is totally possible within the system.  One of my favorite classes is the incarnate.  capable of filling nearly any role with a switch in melds, the incarnate is ultimately versatile.  The same versatility can be found in the binder, factotum, wizard, druid, and many other classes to some extent.  The only real restriction I have from playing these classes exclusively is the small headache I get when I have to pour over all of the available abilities and pick-and-choose which ones I'll need today.



It is possible to optimise for skills, that is what putting a high stat in Int does. Its not all combat.

That said skills are ridiculously easy to optimise into insane bonuses.