Author Topic: Fun vs. Efficiency  (Read 6513 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lycanthromancer

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4003
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #40 on: February 28, 2011, 10:27:39 PM »
[spoiler]Masculine men like masculine things. Masculine men are masculine. Therefore, liking masculine men is masculine.

I dare anyone to find a hole in that logic.
______________________________________
[/spoiler]I'm a writer. These are my stories. Some are even SFW! (Warning: Mostly Gay.)
My awesome poster collection. (Warning, some are NSFW.)
Agita's awesome poster collection.
[spoiler]
+1 Lycanthromancer
Which book is Lycanthromancer in?
Lyca ... is in the book. Yes he is.
 :D
shit.. concerning psionics optimization, lycan IS the book
[/spoiler]

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #41 on: March 01, 2011, 03:06:16 AM »

Get a pail, you two.  Or take it to the theoretically existent Duel of Wits thingy.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Talore

  • That monkey with the orange ass cheeks
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
  • Viking Skald
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #42 on: March 01, 2011, 05:33:33 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
Backseat moderator (voice) -_-

Gods_Trick

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #43 on: March 01, 2011, 07:31:28 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.

Bester

  • Barbary Macaque at the Rock of Gibraltar
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #44 on: March 01, 2011, 07:49:55 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.

Littha

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2011, 07:55:53 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...

Endarire

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2171
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #46 on: March 01, 2011, 08:03:03 AM »
DM of the Rings

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."
Hood - My first answer to all your build questions; past, present, and future.

Speaking of which:
Don't even need TO for this.  Any decent Hood build, especially one with Celerity, one-rounds [Azathoth, the most powerful greater deity from d20 Cthulu].
Does it bug anyone else that we've reached the point where characters who can obliterate a greater deity in one round are considered "decent?"

Sinfire Titan

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5697
  • You've got one round to give a rat's ass.
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #47 on: March 01, 2011, 08:07:14 AM »
Who, who?

Goddamn owls, cluttering up the thread.

DM of the Rings

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.


[spoiler][/spoiler]

Gods_Trick

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2011, 10:23:34 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.


JaronK

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2011, 10:51:46 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

Rejakor

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2011, 09:06:28 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'.

Gods_Trick

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2011, 09:18:29 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.

Rejakor

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #52 on: March 01, 2011, 09:21:43 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.

Gods_Trick

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 787
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #53 on: March 01, 2011, 09:28:28 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.

Rejakor

  • Donkey Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 610
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #54 on: March 02, 2011, 06:07:27 PM »
By that metric 90% of the threads and a good 70% of the handbooks shouldn't be in this subforum.

keyes2k4

  • Ring-Tailed Lemur
  • **
  • Posts: 19
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #55 on: March 03, 2011, 05:18:09 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.


Littha

  • Man in Gorilla Suit
  • *****
  • Posts: 2155
    • Email
Re: Fun vs. Efficiency
« Reply #56 on: March 03, 2011, 08:18:58 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.