Brilliant Gameologists Forum
Show Stuff => Show Talk => : Meg June 07, 2008, 11:59:34 PM
-
In this episode we cover the brighter side of life with min/maxing. We open with what gaming, day-to-day life, and god would be like if non min-maxed and then go into why it is advantageous to have a min/maxer as a fellow player, to have one as a player when you are GM'ing, and to be one yourself. We have an enlightening PSA from Josh and then finish with the 12 (or 4 or 20) different types of min/maxers.
-
I'm interested in what people have to say about the "why min-maxing is good" half of the episode. I hope we changed some minds and sparked some debate.
-
I preemptively apologize for much of the episode. I had consumed of the funny juice prior to recording.
I'm very interested to see what you all think of the sound quality too-- I turned the gain down a little on this recording and hope that some of the "warble" that our sound engineer heard was reduced. There are also sound affects, though I hope they aren't over the top.
-
I thought the sound effects were great, and the analogy accompanying them very easy to understand. Nearly fell out of my chair with laughter in parts, loved Gabriel's phone conversation.
I guess I'm not the best judge though, I was already on the side of the gameologists for this one. I await the no-doubt interesting arguments that will be put forward by those opposed though.
-
I'd like to point out that josh wrote that on a sheet of computer paper about 15 minutes before we recorded. That man is money.
-
First off, I loved this episode. I also really enjoyed the reasonings and need to have some of my players (actually, all of them) listen to this episode. I may just play it before my next DMing session... Anyways, to answer Zeke's question, it really hits home with the "why min-maxing is good." As a player, I've noticed that everyone more or less turns to me, because I min-max, and I know all the rules. They ask for strategic points on about a million things. In some ways, that's good, because our team work comes out better when we're all on the same page about things. However, as a counter point, sometimes people ask so much of me, that it basically amounts to "make my character for me, and make it awesome." Which sucks. I want to make my character and have fun with it, I don't want to make the whole party. Especially because if I make it good at something and then the person doesn't do that, it's a bit frustrating.
On the flip side of the table, as a GM, my players aren't really min-maxers, and I feel like life would be so much easier if they were. With the help of another min-maxer here on BG, we helped my players make more min-maxed players last night.When I ran an introductory session, combat flew through much faster than usual. You're right, when people know they are good at certain things, they can relax and combat flows easier. On the flip side, there were a couple parts where, because they weren't sure about all the rules, that they slowed things down... But that was more because they had min-maxed characters and didn't know everything they could do, which I kindly suggested they read up on. I.e. one of my PCs has Hide in Plain Sight (D&D 3.5) so I suggested he look up those rules and all the ways he can gain Sneak Attack.
The sound quality was great, Meg. The episode as a whole was hilarious and well done. The sound effects aren't over the top, but I actually found them a bit distracting. I felt like what was being said at those few intervals didn't need effects and it seemed to distract me from the episode at a point. It wasn't bad, just minorly distracting.
Zeke, while Josh may be money, I have to tell you that you are the funniest one on the show. Everyone on the show is funny, but you definitely take the cake, so to speak. On a 1-10 scale where Meg and Josh are 8s, you're definitely an 11 or so. :clap
-
Zeke, while Josh may be money, I have to tell you that you are the funniest one on the show. Everyone on the show is funny, but you definitely take the cake, so to speak. On a 1-10 scale where Meg and Josh are 8s, you're definitely an 11 or so. :clap
Quoted For Motherfuckin' Truth. The best is though that Zeke does NO prep-- everything he says that is hilarious is exactly how he talks. All the time. The banter the 3 of us have in all of our conversations was one of the big reasons we started podcasting in the first place.
-
this was the first of the pod casts i have listened to.
very nice, i'll have to go back and listen to the others now...
however, i have a beef with the episode...
around the 40 minute mark, Meg dissed familiars. "useless" she/you said... not very min/max... :)
-
Hehe, yeah Meg, for all your time on the CO boards, you should really check out Dictum Mortuum's Handbook on Familiars ;)
-
Yeah, I did read that Handbook. I still think though that overall they just aren't very great.
-
Yeah, I did read that Handbook. I still think though that overall they just aren't very great.
+1. The kind of time and effort I personally would have to put into learning how to optimally utilize a familiar is overshadowed by the usefulness of familiar replacing alternate class features.
-
I think it's like anything else. If you optimize that aspect of your character, it will be really cool, but without it, it's mediocre.
-
Also, I totally want to see the stats on the Tubby and subraces :P
-
the LA on dark tubbies makes them sub optimal..
-
The real gem of the Tubby set is the Iron Gut Tubby who get a + 5 racial bonus to saving throws made versus posions and toxis and + 2 Natural Armor.
-
The real gem of the Tubby set is the Iron Gut Tubby who get a + 5 racial bonus to saving throws made versus poisons and toxis and + 2 Natural Armor.
Only if you're a ROLL-player. ROLE-players stick with Telletubbies for greater character depth
*nodwink*
-
The real gem of the Tubby set is the Iron Gut Tubby who get a + 5 racial bonus to saving throws made versus poisons and toxis and + 2 Natural Armor.
Only if you're a ROLL-player. ROLE-players stick with Telletubbies for greater character depth
*nodwink*
That and the fascinate effect that their telly produces.
-
The real gem of the Tubby set is the Iron Gut Tubby who get a + 5 racial bonus to saving throws made versus poisons and toxis and + 2 Natural Armor.
Only if you're a ROLL-player. ROLE-players stick with Telletubbies for greater character depth
*nodwink*
Oh no, you Di'nt.
-
This is a topic I really want to comment on! Here comes my block of text...
First I want to notify that this whole text is about D&D 3.5 minmaxing, so it might be pointless to compare it to other game engines. Then again, it might be the most worthwhile thing in the world, but you have been warned and I am handing the responsibility to you now.
For everyone reading Wizards of the Coast's Character Optimization board or the Min/Max It! board here knows I am a minmaxer, optimizer or whatever you want to call me. The only reason not to optimize I have ever seen as even slightly valid is peer pressure. There are groups that don't really enjoy minmaxers and no-one likes roleplaying vs rollplaying debates. Especially not the ones who agree with the Stormwind Fallacy (essentially it states that roleplaying and optimizing are not mutually exclusive). However, I do not play, nor do I ever intend to do so, in a group where this debate has been a major issue.
Optimizing itself opens a plethora of options. In D&D your character is the hero at least in some sense of the word. To the player his character is the center of that very world, no matter what the level, social position or task of the character is. The character is there for the player to channel his thoughts, feelings and artistic talents through and being the hero he must have some exceptional powers that can be used to channel the aforementioned qualities. The game system of D&D alone proves this to be true. Player classes are by definition stronger that NPC classes (let us leave Fighter vs Adept debates out of this) and thus players are expected to be more powerful than the common folk in the game. As you might imagine, the great prodigy of the local monastery will come out on top from a fight against a dairy farmer.
Now I have established that players should be stronger than standard NPCs. But why should you choose to be optimized instead of making 'roleplaying choices' if you are already powerful by default? Because that is what people do in real life. Feats are a scarce resource and instead of using them to create flavour with an extremely small benefit is not smart. Instead of picking Investigator to your Wizard take some cross class skill ranks and roleplay your background out and choose a metamagic feat instead. Your flavour remains the same, but mechanically you are a lot better off. Would you not do this in real life? There was a choice between two limited resources and the lesser ones were used to acquire a smaller benefit, while the greater ones helped you to get more power.
At this point some probably are concerned about party's inner balance. An experienced minmaxer with a bunch of roleplayers. This is easily solved by reserving more time for character creation so that the optimizer can help the others or at least guide them to an appropriate web site. Should the players be receptive to this idea the game will become a lot more enjoyable as the characters have more options in the game and they can things they never thought was possible. After all, fighting against seemingly impossible odds and winning is one of the best feelings D&D can ever offer.
Non-abusive minmaxers tend to know the rules very well or at least they have an idea where to find them and are adept at interpreting them. DMs do a great deal of work for the game and at least I like to see my creations in action rather than have the game degrade from Expedition to the Demonweb Pits into Journey to the Grappling Rules. Keeping the game rolling is the benefit of both players and the DM. No-one wants to sit on the couch while the DM searches for a bunch of rulings because someone forgot how Freezing fog works. This doesn't mean you have to know everything by heart, but knowing sources for the material your character uses is a must, but yet forgetting a source every now and then happens, which is when the friendly neighbourhood minmaxer steps in and saves the session.
Too bad there are abusive minmaxers too. Those people who refuse to help others, make sure they get the spotlight every time and maybe even bend rules intentionally. That's not the kind of optimization I am talking about here. Every basket has a bad apple and the huge basket of D&D players naturally has plenty of those rotten fruits. This can be used as an argument against the art of minmaxing, but the credibility of that argument is way too low to change my opinion.
Comments on this?
-
You need a poll in this thread for the types of minmaxers - I'd say I'm a system-head/researcher.
-
I think I fall into a few of the categories. Mainly, I want to be the guy that people turn to for solutions (whether that be a teleport across the continent, the removal of a serious affliction, or just plain jack-of-all-trades-ness). So I guess that makes me a boyscout/swiss army knife. I enjoy clerics, wizards and bards for this reason.
-
You need a "Batman" category for your min-maxers. Their the Boy Scout, Swiss Army Man, Research, and System-Head all rolled into one. They know everything there is, always have an answer for everything, and the infuriating part is they are ALWAYS RIGHT.
-
You need a "Batman" category for your min-maxers. Their the Boy Scout, Swiss Army Man, Research, and System-Head all rolled into one. They know everything there is, always have an answer for everything, and the infuriating part is they are ALWAYS RIGHT.
Me! Me!
Just started listening to the show...
-
Brilliant Idea for listing the types and making a poll! I'd have to listen to it again to get them all-- Tshern, if you're listening, could you list them out and put them here so I could make a poll?
I'll definitely make it so you can vote for more than 1-- I fall into at least 3 of the categories myself.
-
At what point are the types mentioned approximately? I've gone through the 4 mins.
-
At what point are the types mentioned approximately? I've gone through the 4 mins.
They are at about 1/2 way through- a couple before the PSA and then the rest after. It's after the "why it's good to have/be a min/maxer at the table"
-
Sure, I'll try to keep my concentration up until that. How many classifications am I facing here?
-
After you started joking about how many there were, I felt the need to write them down. Yes, I don't trust you guys.
System Head
Strategist
Tactician
Tricky Dick
Swiss Army Man
Researcher
Themest
Bob the Builder
Crazy Guy
Mash-Up
Synergy
Record Breaker
Powergamer
I'm glad you guys hit upon why it's better as a GM to have min/maxing players. On the WotC boards, "OMG! POWERGAMERZ ARE RUINING MY GAME!!!" was always so much louder.
-
After you started joking about how many there were, I felt the need to write them down. Yes, I don't trust you guys.
:evillaugh :clap
Excellent.
-
So I don't need to pick them up?
-
As you are listening, just check the list. There are 13 on that list and I thought there really were only 12.
-
I see, we have a traitor in our midst! (I'd insert a smiley there if I didn't fight against them)
Btw, great show so far.
Edit: LOL! I just used grapple rules as an example in the rant I wrote here and you used it too. Way cool.
-
I think I recall the Mash-Up and Synergy being related or something. You used the gish as examples for both.
The other other way it could've gone would be if Powergamer was really one of them or if it was just more of a "C'mon, sometimes you just want to" type thing.
I'd have to re-listen to be sure. Not that I won't be re-listening anyway.
-
:o I'll never look or pet a unicorn again. I thought they were supposed to be good :pout.
I like the episode, definatly had some good points, i'll probably have some of my freinds hear this wednesday.
-
Where exactly have you pet a unicorn in the first place?
-
As you are listening, just check the list. There are 13 on that list and I thought there really were only 12.
"Powergamer" was the "forbidden" 13th category.
-
I think I recall the Mash-Up and Synergy being related or something. You used the gish as examples for both.
Mash-Up was where you fill more than one role. Synergy was where you took advantage of your higher BAB by using more spells which required attack rolls.
-
I'd like to note that calling familiars useless in a podcast that Dictum Mortuum might listen can be very dangerous.
Apart from that yellerSumner's list is correct. As noted Powergamer was a 'forbidden' category.
-
I think I recall the Mash-Up and Synergy being related or something. You used the gish as examples for both.
Mash-Up was where you fill more than one role. Synergy was where you took advantage of your higher BAB by using more spells which required attack rolls.
Yeah, that was just trying to account for Meg's memory only recalling 12.
-
I wonder if anyone is still listening for the other 7 that were promised :P
-
Ok, so I'm re-listening to this piece of the show and specifically the familiar comment.
I completely stand by it. Especially when you consider the context.
I said Familiars were useless in the "Bob the Builder" section. That section said that a type of optimizer who can take something that doesn't normally work and makes it work. As it stands, familiars don't work. You've got to be a Bob the Builder to make it work.
I am to a certain extent, and I tried with familiars. I did. But it just wasn't worth it for me.
-
Listened to the 'sode, and made my comments here as I listened.
Personally, I think the "World without Min-Maxing" was too over-the-top, but I suspect it was meant to be so...
Hahaha: the call from Gabriel was indeed awesome.
The Monopoly anology was just a little bit stretched, but the follow up with the stillborn comment was pretty good. ;)
The Humdrum Fallacy: as soon as I heard it, I knew you guys would be able to tear it a new one, and you guys nailed it.
"Combat goes a lot faster": OH GOD YES! :evillaugh There's so much truth to this. I know the rules decently well for 3.5 (I actually know the grappling rules by heart), and when I DM a game, the players tend to question what you can and can't do in a specific situation. This slows down games SO MUCH that it takes 3 times as long as you plan for, and things carry over into other sessions. I can go on, but... :blah
"Well built character": I agree most with the being invested in the character. I find that people that don't care about their character are most likely to make the Stormwind Fallacy.
Having all of the characters that can fill a niche is quite nice, but it's even better if they fill different roles. And as I typed this, you guys covered it...
Being afraid of being overshadowed is another thing that you guys didn't note that may cut down on player fun at the table, and that's also solved by having all min-maxers.
Near TPKs have been a recurring problem at my table... :'( You guys make me want more min-maxers :plot
:bigeye I will be assimilated :bigeye :lol
System Heads: O0 I know a few of these, but I don't switch systems all too frequently.
Strategist: :plotting I think I fall here. You have chalk... I have flour Also, now I'm going to have to get Nail Polish Remover
Tactician: :plot Not that different from strategist, but more than Strategist, I identify with this group
Tricky Dick: :idea :sh My best friend loves bards and clerics, and he fall here without doubt.
Swiss Army Man: I personally think that this also falls under Strategist to a large extent, but I know a guy like this too.
Researcher: :study Doesn't everyone do this?!
Themist: :angel :mozilla The best whatever you're going to do... Falls under Swiss Army Man easily, but this clarifies a common subgroup.
meh, I kinda got bored with commenting on all of them, but the above classify most of the min-maxers I know.
The clarification on types of character min-maxing was useful for people who don't know.
All in all, I suppose that this episode was talking more at the people who don't min-max, but it gave me a lot of ideas to support myself should I get in another discussion about it.
I liked the show, and the comedy was great all-around. I honestly listen just as much (if not a little more) for the geeky humor as for the advice and thoughts.
Sorry for the shotgun blast of thoughts. If anything isn't clear, you can just ask... :blush
-
I really enjoyed this podcast! Good show! :clap
I found myself relating to the "Boy Scout" even though I can tell you that a real Boy Scout is never prepared. I should know. Overall, analogies were great and made sense for the most part, lots of laughs, and only vaguely NSFW when necessary. ;)
Soundwise, when I was listening on my PSP, there seemed to be some feedback towards the end, but I dont know if that is just me. I'll try it with a few of the others.
-
For everyone reading Wizards of the Coast's Character Optimization board or the Min/Max It! board here knows I am a minmaxer, optimizer or whatever you want to call me. The only reason not to optimize I have ever seen as even slightly valid is peer pressure. There are groups that don't really enjoy minmaxers and no-one likes roleplaying vs rollplaying debates. Especially not the ones who agree with the Stormwind Fallacy (essentially it states that roleplaying and optimizing are not mutually exclusive). However, I do not play, nor do I ever intend to do so, in a group where this debate has been a major issue.
Two important points of note:
1) Optimizer is a term invented to placate the moronic. On the WotC board the moron contingent was so agitated with the term Min/Max that the board had to have its name changed to stop the riots.
2) Stormwind shamelessly stole his fallacy and all of his ideas from older members of the CO community and to my knowledge is himself not much of a min/maxer. However it gives him too much credit to complain.
That's why we say min/max and never say Stormwind Fallacy. To my way of thinking I am not WotC and thus not interested in placating the stupid. Also Stormwind is the worst kind of douche who took credit for something that someone else came up with just to try to look cool. He and a few other douchey CO members were responsible for driving away the last of the CO old guard.
So all that said...
Now I have established that players should be stronger than standard NPCs. But why should you choose to be optimized instead of making 'roleplaying choices' if you are already powerful by default? Because that is what people do in real life. Feats are a scarce resource and instead of using them to create flavour with an extremely small benefit is not smart. Instead of picking Investigator to your Wizard take some cross class skill ranks and roleplay your background out and choose a metamagic feat instead. Your flavour remains the same, but mechanically you are a lot better off. Would you not do this in real life? There was a choice between two limited resources and the lesser ones were used to acquire a smaller benefit, while the greater ones helped you to get more power.
Here's the thing, do you need investigator? The problem is that DnD is an AA game. Investigator never should have been part of the rules without changing the system around.
Too bad there are abusive minmaxers too. Those people who refuse to help others, make sure they get the spotlight every time and maybe even bend rules intentionally. That's not the kind of optimization I am talking about here. Every basket has a bad apple and the huge basket of D&D players naturally has plenty of those rotten fruits. This can be used as an argument against the art of minmaxing, but the credibility of that argument is way too low to change my opinion.
These people are known as douchebags. And they act this way regardless of min/maxing or not. I have seen people act this way who can't min/max at all. In fact, more of the people who are like this could not min/max their way out of a paper bag than can. I also usually see a decrease in this behavior as min/maxing skills increase. So the two are not related, or if they are, min/maxing reduces douchebaggery.
-
Ok, so I'm re-listening to this piece of the show and specifically the familiar comment.
I completely stand by it. Especially when you consider the context.
Agreed. I just re-listened to the cast and I have to agree with. In the context used, it fits.
-
Ok, so I'm re-listening to this piece of the show and specifically the familiar comment.
I completely stand by it. Especially when you consider the context.
Agreed. I just re-listened to the cast and I have to agree with. In the context used, it fits.
I think this is a good example of proving the type.
-
1) Optimizer is a term invented to placate the moronic. On the WotC board the moron contingent was so agitated with the term Min/Max that the board had to have its name changed to stop the riots.
Using it interchangeably with minmaxer was a literary device. English my third language, so I have limited vocabulary, but I still try to avoid using the same word every time...
2) Stormwind shamelessly stole his fallacy and all of his ideas from older members of the CO community and to my knowledge is himself not much of a min/maxer. However it gives him too much credit to complain.
Okay then. Does this somehow affect the content of my post? Thanks for telling me all this though, didn't know this before.
These people are known as douchebags. And they act this way regardless of min/maxing or not.
I know they are, but nevertheless, they exist. Just thought to mention them to avoid being completely one-sided.
-
1) Optimizer is a term invented to placate the moronic. On the WotC board the moron contingent was so agitated with the term Min/Max that the board had to have its name changed to stop the riots.
Using it interchangeably with minmaxer was a literary device. English my third language, so I have limited vocabulary, but I still try to avoid using the same word every time...
2) Stormwind shamelessly stole his fallacy and all of his ideas from older members of the CO community and to my knowledge is himself not much of a min/maxer. However it gives him too much credit to complain.
Okay then. Does this somehow affect the content of my post? Thanks for telling me all this though, didn't know this before.
I sometimes get a little hot under the collar at those two terms, obviously not your fault. I invent a concept and share it on a message board, some guy comes along and (by his own admission) reads it and then to look cool, names the concept after himself and starts promoting the name. It really, really soured me to the whole WotC board. And when confronted he admitted it, was a complete douchebag and kept doing it.
His defense was, if I didn't want someone to steal it, I should have named it myself.
These people are known as douchebags. And they act this way regardless of min/maxing or not.
I know they are, but nevertheless, they exist. Just thought to mention them to avoid being completely one-sided.
I forget exactly which logical fallacy this falls under but the basic concept is “correlation does not imply causality.”
Just because someone min/maxes and is a douche does not mean that douchebaggery was caused by min/maxing.
-
cum hoc ergo procter hoc I think...
-
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc
I wonder what someone is thinking about? :P
-
The sound effects were great and their volume was on point. Good music volume too.
The podcast was probably your best yet, or at least tied for first place. It was very interesting listening to the types of min/maxers and checking off on the list (good idea, btw, to who brought it up) which categories I fell into.
Zeke, while Josh may be money, I have to tell you that you are the funniest one on the show. Everyone on the show is funny, but you definitely take the cake, so to speak. On a 1-10 scale where Meg and Josh are 8s, you're definitely an 11 or so. :clap
Quoted For Motherfuckin' Truth. The best is though that Zeke does NO prep-- everything he says that is hilarious is exactly how he talks. All the time. The banter the 3 of us have in all of our conversations was one of the big reasons we started podcasting in the first place.
From my experiences with them at Gen Con, all three of the gameologists are wickedly funny. And the way they talk on the show is incredibly similar to how they talk in real life...there's just less talking at the same time on the podcast.
-
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc
I wonder what someone is thinking about? :P
Actually, that implies causality linked by chronology, not by association... :(
-
Post hoc ergo proctor hoc
I wonder what someone is thinking about? :P
Actually, that implies causality linked by chronology, not by association... :(
Very close though:
Post hoc ergo propter hoc -> after this, therefore because (on account) of this
Meaning: Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one
-
I'm about halfway through the episode, and wanted to hit pause and quibble. So here I am. Who knows, maybe you'll address this later, or maybe not.
Anyway, I think you're making a straw man argument against the anti-minmaxers. Anti-minmaxers aren't just random-choice people. There are definitely people who think point buy for stats is weaksauce, and you should just roll 3d6 for everything. I think, however, that the plurality of gamers kind of fall in the middle. They decide they want to be an archer, so they play a ranger, even using point buy for stats. But they don't go scouring the books, they don't read the swift hunter's handbook, they don't Optimize the archer. They just kind of play the ranger. They don't even consider whether a fighter might make a better archer (more feats). They generally don't go for more than one PrC, and really don't multiclass much at all. They even play half-elves.
A common cry of the anti-minmaxer is when they complain that your "wizard" is actually a Wizard/Mindbender/Master Specialist/Incantatrix, or something like that. Many anti-minmaxers are opposed to dipping, multiclassing, and PrCing on principle (this is a 3.5 thing mainly). I had a DM in a PbP group tell me that my Druid1/Monk1 was a power problem and that I was clearly powergaming. I quit his group right away.
They also like to "keep it simple". There's a player in my D&D group who plays a druid who used the UA rules to trade wildshape for some monk abilities, which is a clearly bad idea in terms of power (just wear a monk's belt!), but he just doesn't want to mess around with wildshape rules. The ranger in my party has a level of rogue that I told him a few times wasn't really going to help him, but he doesn't care (since he's ranged and doesn't work to get it, he almost never gets to actually use that sneak attack die). The ranger doesn't particularly care about being optimal, or at least he doesn't care enough to read all the splats and stuff, and he's not interested in advice from me or the other optimizer in the group.
The problem is that both of these non-optimized guys will bust my balls when I bring my more-optimized PCs to the table. We're friends, so it's not like we're getting into fights over it, but they clearly think I'm a munchkin, as well as my other optimizing friend. The table is pretty split between two optimizers and two non-optimizers. It's very strange. Last session, I brought in my new character (the party needed an arcane caster): a malconvoker. The non-optimizing BSF (big stupid fighter) took a look at my fiendish crocodiles that I was summoning in pairs and told me: "You've just summoned something that's got better stats than me." Actually, I summoned two of them. He's changing his character now (to the non-wildshaping druid I mentioned).
Okay, so I've established that there are all kinds of ways people minmax and optimize. And some people like doing it more than others. Here's where I turn it all upside-down. We're all optimizers.
We just optimize different things. This is actually why I'm (quietly) agitating for the near dissolution of CharOpt over on gleemax. Discussion of Rogues should take place in Character Building: Strikers. Why? Because everyone optimizes their character, everyone. They just optimize with different utility functions. Some people value being able to do tip-top damage in certain situations. Other people value the way you can just kind of toss a rogue together (in any edition) and make a relatively decent character with little investment. Other people relish the "challenge" of playing a fighter with a 10 str/dex/con. No matter how you slice it, though: minmaxing (or optimizing) is a gray area, a slippery slope. On the one end, you've got total randomosity, drawing stats, classes, and number of arms (and breast size) out of a bag. On the other end, you've got the God Algorithm: for the given scenario, what combination of class, race, features has the highest probability of completing successfully.
Most people are in the middle, and add things like Effort and Splatbook Cost and Ease of Backstory Writing to the overall utility function when they're optimizing the overall character. Me, I don't assign too much of a negative value to Effort (actually at times, Effort is a positive thing - when I'm riding the bus or otherwise bored, I like making characters in my head). Others do. Others value simplicity. Others value randomness. But we're all optimizing.
-
My initial thoughts on the show (I'm still listening to it):
Good sound quality!
Meg - talkin' dirty I find funny. Like her sense of humor. [Edit: In retrospect, I think it's because I've had a lot of female friends who were very much like that]. I really enjoy all of the speakers. Hope to get you all on more HC stuff. Maybe get you into a skype game some time. It would be an interesting experience...
Min-Maxing as a whole. To me, if you have a game system that you can exploit (not necessarily talking about min-maxing but 'inappropriately min-maxing' as some people are quick to point out) then you are (IMO) using the *wrong system*.
In HC, I encourage players to choose the kind of character they want. The system is set up so that people with average stats can actually do better than people who are very specialized in their stats. In 8 years (+?) of playing it, I have yet to find a way to break the system.
Now, D&D OTOH...
Edit: The 'humdrum point buy' argument. If the players keep choosing the same thing with point buy it means that the GM is running the same kind of modules all the time. GM fault. (A point which wasn't brought up.) To expand on this - most folks games just revolve around combat. (OK- over 80% of the games I've ever sat in on in the last thirty years with hundreds of GM's - your mileage may vary.) Killing stuff (in those games) is always the ultimate solution. (Disclaimer - yes, I may have just had a run of hundreds of combat oriented GM's but over half of those GM's had previously claimed 'but my game is different' blah blah blah.)
If you ever start to get guest speakers via skype, let me know - you guys are fun.
-
I found myself relating to the "Boy Scout" even though I can tell you that a real Boy Scout is never prepared. I should know. Overall, analogies were great and made sense for the most part, lots of laughs, and only vaguely NSFW when necessary. ;)
Boy Scout also steal wallets...bastards stole two of mine...F*ckin scout camp.
-
Josh and I are both former inmates of scout camp.
-
Anyway, I think you're making a straw man argument against the anti-minmaxers.
Sure, except without the argument. We are discussing the hyperbolic for humor.
I was waiting to see if someone would bring up the straw man, we chose this because most anti-min/maxing arguments are based on the straw man. A meta commentary if you will.
Most people are in the middle, and add things like Effort and Splatbook Cost and Ease of Backstory Writing to the overall utility function when they're optimizing the overall character. Me, I don't assign too much of a negative value to Effort (actually at times, Effort is a positive thing - when I'm riding the bus or otherwise bored, I like making characters in my head). Others do. Others value simplicity. Others value randomness. But we're all optimizing.
It will come up later that I despise the generalized concept of “write a backstory” so I will cover that another time.
But as for your effort argument, it is possible to optimize with the same effort as not and people still dislike it.
-
Still going through it, but I'd like to say:
Screw you, that centaur sounds fucking AWESOME! :D
-
Screw you, that centaur sounds fucking AWESOME! :D
It was sort of cool. However, random systems like that always end up crazy and stupid
It's like a demented five year old playing with a bucket of Legos from every imaginable Lego genre and having the space ships with pirate sails piloted by soccer players.
-
It was sort of cool. However, random systems like that always end up crazy and stupid
It's like a demented five year old playing with a bucket of Legos from every imaginable Lego genre and having the space ships with pirate sails piloted by soccer players.
Random character generation is what originally killed my desire to play Paladium games. Getting stuck playing a Wolfen Druid while your friend is some sort of super psi-mage sucks. Having a friend stuck with the underwater telepathy superpower while I can transform my body into superheated plasma from the center of a star which deals MDC in an SDC world is also kind of dumb.