Author Topic: Spreading the Optimization Gospel  (Read 8609 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Prime32

  • Administrator
  • Organ Grinder
  • *
  • Posts: 7534
  • Modding since 03/12/10
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #40 on: May 06, 2009, 04:12:09 PM »
My work
The tier system in a nutshell:
[spoiler]Tier 6: A cartographer.
Tier 5: An expert cartographer or a decent marksman.
Tier 4: An expert marksman.
Tier 3: An expert marksman, cartographer and chef who can tie strong knots and is trained in hostage negotiation or a marksman so good he can shoot down every bullet fired by a minigun while armed with a rusted single-shot pistol that veers to the left.
Tier 2: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything, or the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.
Tier 1: Someone with teleportation, mind control, time manipulation, intangibility, the ability to turn into an exact duplicate of anything and the ability to see into the future with perfect accuracy.[/spoiler]

Operation Shoestring

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 937
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    • Email

Bohemond

  • Monkey bussiness
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #42 on: May 06, 2009, 07:21:00 PM »
Some people don't enjoy building optimised characters because it's too much work, and they're playing the game to have fun. Others prefer to optimise for concept or coolness rather than power.

Sure, different players have different goals.  The problem is when a competitive subtext emerges.  I once ran a game with a bunch of old high school friends.  Among them one of them was outrageously funny and one was a skillful optimizer.  One of my old pals, alas, was not as funny as K nor as clever as M.  So he set up his own goals somewhat contrarily.  If he could not play the funniest or the most optimal character, he would play the most gimped and unpleasant one.

He played a peg-legged teenaged catamite.  Yes, you heard me correctly.

I rolled with it as the GM, but it certainly was difficult.  He doggedly refuesd to optimize because he did not want M to design his character for him.  So his goal in the game was to tap into the bizarre and push boundaries.  In that he was quite successful. 

Some players believe for whatever reason that CO is just a dicksizing competition and take a contrarian position.  We have managed to mitigate this completely in my current group, but we happen to be very fortunate in our composition of players and GMs.  It is very difficult to convince a doubter that CO is not just an exercise in optimization Onanism or that optimizers do it for any other reason than showing off.

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #43 on: May 07, 2009, 12:31:16 AM »
Stupid finals -- keeping me from doing something truly important, like posting on BG.

@Midnight_v:  thanks for the kind words -- I try. 

I wanted to post since a bunch of things I've been mulling over the years have come up on this thread and b/c it mentioned the tvtropes wiki, one my other favorite methods of wasting time (after here, the Atomic Thinktank, and the NYT).  Also, Bohemond is a good friend.  And, no, I didn't play the catamite -- I've played peg-legs and I've played prostitutes, but never both simultaneously -- although I did heartily enjoy a krrf-addicted misogynist mercenary, although probably a character to be played w/ friends lest you develop an unsavory reputation.

I think Caelic has, as usual, the right of it.  It's very important that people be "w/in tolerance" of each other.  I take it that's what all the tier ranking stuff is supposed to help w/, although I'm skeptical of its ability and tend to look at overall build strength.  This takes some finesse, but on those occasions where I play w/ other people I just ask what sort of power level we're playing at and I also try to be as clear about what my character can do as possible and then rely on the DM, or, more frequently my own discretion, to rein things in.  But, Midnight_v is right too:  D&D is a very "crunch" heavy game.  It's organized around action and combat, a group more RP and less rules/gaminess oriented would probably be better served by a more storytelling oriented game.  Although I'd be at a loss as to what to suggest to them.  I'm an old-school White Wolf player and they're pretty awful, combining opacity, complete lack of balance, and obscure rules into a perfect storm of headaches.  That, and I'd rather do actual litigation work than engage in Talmudic debates on rules w/ some WW players -- but I digress.

As Bohemond alludes to, it is good if everyone is on the same page as to what the goals and orientation of the campaign is, and maybe that's all that needs to be done.  It also might be worth just suggesting a straightforward baseline -- say a druid w/ PHB and Spell Compendium spells and the Natural Spell feat -- and measuring your character against that.  It's ultra-core, so if someone's concerned about your Warblade being overpowered you have a nice agreed upon baseline.  As a bonus, it's one that is really permissive, too -- not many Warblades (or whatever) are going to outpace the gold standard, even a pretty naively built one.

I do want to add that I totally get that a lot of people don't enjoy running around and trying out different build ideas or combos.  Some people just aren't into that aspect of the game, and I can respect that, along w/ a desire for simplicity in character design and gameplay.  But, for what it's worth, I say that's an argument for allowing rather than banning books.  E.g., I'm sure if I put my nose to the grindstone I could build a competent monk-type character, but it'd be complicated and a pain in the ass.  But, an unarmed swordsage does it beautifully w/ no muss -- it's simple to make and it's simple to play (I have the testimonials to prove it!).  That would probably involve a radical shift in the way people think about game balance, away from banning books and crap like that, which IMO is just dumb on a number of fronts, and taking a more holistic gloss on character creation crunch.  But, here's to hoping ...

juton

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 809
  • Jack of all trades, master of nothing.
    • Email
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #44 on: May 07, 2009, 03:28:19 PM »
I guess I'm not alone in playing with a group with wildly different levels of optimization-fu. When I think optimization I don't think of just make a character more powerful, I think of making characters Better. What inspired me to start this topic was two players who I desperately want to help get better at playing D&D. Having an uneven party causes a lot of accusations of munch, TPKs and other assorted head-aches.

The two problem players just don't get it, but at least one of them understands they don't get it. They've been playing for years, they've played with Quasi-God Wizards, Artificers and Druids but neither of them changes. It all comes down to understanding, not just simple things like a Druid being stronger than a Monk but why a Druid is stronger than a Monk. If they could get to that point I think it will click, but they're almost being intentionally dense.

I was hoping for a magic bullet to solve this with one shot, now I think it will just take even more work. I'm going to start with trying to show them why Monks suck SO much compared to everything else.

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #45 on: May 07, 2009, 03:36:06 PM »
Could just build a fighter 20 with Superior Unarmed Strike. That more or less does it.

Hell, Fighter 19/Sorcerer 1 picking up Feather Fall to replicate Slow Fall. Does it better :P
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

Unbeliever

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 766
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #46 on: May 08, 2009, 12:24:50 AM »
Having an uneven party causes a lot of accusations of munch, TPKs and other assorted head-aches.
...
, but they're almost being intentionally dense.

I was hoping for a magic bullet to solve this with one shot, now I think it will just take even more work. I'm going to start with trying to show them why Monks suck SO much compared to everything else.

I don't mean to be a dick (this time) but it does sound to me that they might be willfully dense.  And, this might be a problem particularly w/ people who have been playing for a long time.  The last time it fell upon me to spread the Good Word it was w/ 2 complete newbs and they were quite receptive b/c they wanted to make sure their characters could do the things they wanted them to.

I think this was alluded to some pages back, and I'm not sure if this is what you're planning anyway, but running the game is probably your best bet for spreading the Word.  That, and you could march through character creation/building w/ them (if you were running like an 8th level game this would work pretty well).  So, rather than making a blanket statement like "monks suck," which is true, but perhaps opaque.  You can open up a conversation (sorry to get all touchy-feely here) along the lines of:

Player:  I wanted to play an agile fighter who darts all over the battlefield leaving his enemies huffing to catch up and who was also generally athletic.  So, I was going to make a monk.
Juton:  Well, the problem is that non of the monk's class abilities really work towards that end.  You can't move and flurry and so on.  Maybe a dip would be worth it for fast movement, skills, and feats, though ...

I sincerely hope that helps as I feel your pain.  On a pessimistic note, though, I know people who I've been gaming w/ for ages who seem metaphysically incapable of making characters on their own, though at least they are very open to build help. 

Brainpiercing

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1475
  • Thread Killer
    • Email
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #47 on: May 08, 2009, 05:20:29 AM »
Quote
"monks suck,"

Hey, monks rock!

For 2 levels.

And THAT is even harder to understand for those people who go "Ew" as soon as someone starts multiclassing.

Which is another argument FOR allowing books, I guess, so that you can make thematically and mechanically strong single-classed builds.

BowenSilverclaw

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5337
  • Walking that fine line between genius and insanity
    • Email
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #48 on: May 08, 2009, 08:13:35 AM »
Quote
"monks suck,"

Hey, monks rock!

For 2 levels.

And THAT is even harder to understand for those people who go "Ew" as soon as someone starts multiclassing.

Which is another argument FOR allowing books, I guess, so that you can make thematically and mechanically strong single-classed builds.
Martial Monk 1 or 2 can be a nice dip :)
"Weakness? Come test thy mettle against me, hairless ape, and we shall know who is weak!"

Quote from: J0lt
You caught a fish.  It was awesome.   :lol

Emy

  • Bi-Curious George
  • ****
  • Posts: 489
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #49 on: May 08, 2009, 09:39:15 AM »
Quote
"monks suck,"

Hey, monks rock!

For 2 levels.

And THAT is even harder to understand for those people who go "Ew" as soon as someone starts multiclassing.

Which is another argument FOR allowing books, I guess, so that you can make thematically and mechanically strong single-classed builds.
Martial Monk 1 or 2 can be a nice dip :)

Since you're using dragon mag variants anyway, with martial monk, combine it with chaos monk too. That way you can still dip lion totem barbarian for pounce.

Bohemond

  • Monkey bussiness
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #50 on: May 08, 2009, 03:46:41 PM »
I know it seems like an obvious point, but it helps to convince people to look at the class abilities somewhat abstractly.  You don't find the class whose flavor matches the style you are looking to create, you find the crunch that best fits your style.  That this distinction must be made in D&D is both perverse and deeply satisfying.  It is great fun for me to carve out a perfect niche for myself among unlikely build combinations.  It would be a lot less fun to be handed a standard package of abilities that are as cool as Aragorn's in Hunt For Gollum. 

You have to be able to sustain a great deal of cognitive dissonance to not play a ranger when you want to play a Ranger.  For optimizers, this dissonance is very natural and is part of the fun.  For everyone else, I think it makes no sense to them or at least seems somewhat retarded.  They just don't get the fact that if you take 20 levels of ranger, you will be like one of the goblins whom Rangers effortlessly slaughter.

If you get get a player to accept that a class really is nothing more than the sum of its parts on the table, then you hare 95% of the way there to conversion.

This cognitive dissonance obviously does not apply to all classes.  If you want to play a Monk, the obvious choice is ToB.  But if a non-optimizing player self-consciously wants to play a Wizard, well, it is very useful that the class itself actually delivers.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #51 on: May 08, 2009, 03:55:32 PM »
I know it seems like an obvious point, but it helps to convince people to look at the class abilities somewhat abstractly.  You don't find the class whose flavor matches the style you are looking to create, you find the crunch that best fits your style.  That this distinction must be made in D&D is both perverse and deeply satisfying.  It is great fun for me to carve out a perfect niche for myself among unlikely build combinations.  It would be a lot less fun to be handed a standard package of abilities that are as cool as Aragorn's in Hunt For Gollum. 

You have to be able to sustain a great deal of cognitive dissonance to not play a ranger when you want to play a Ranger.  For optimizers, this dissonance is very natural and is part of the fun.  For everyone else, I think it makes no sense to them or at least seems somewhat retarded.  They just don't get the fact that if you take 20 levels of ranger, you will be like one of the goblins whom Rangers effortlessly slaughter.

If you get get a player to accept that a class really is nothing more than the sum of its parts on the table, then you hare 95% of the way there to conversion.

This cognitive dissonance obviously does not apply to all classes.  If you want to play a Monk, the obvious choice is ToB.  But if a non-optimizing player self-consciously wants to play a Wizard, well, it is very useful that the class itself actually delivers.
Wow... that's very interesting. So you suggest that many people lack dissonance and can't see past the word ranger written at the top of the page. I can see that... I have seen people look blank faced at me when I play a "Ninja" and its a Rouge, or a Psiwar, or a Ranger.... or a druid.
 All thats well and good too... I just want to figure out a way to bridge said gap, so they can get over it.
I'm sure it's very frustrating for all involved (I've heard stories...)
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

Alastar

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1028
    • Email
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #52 on: May 08, 2009, 04:06:42 PM »
You should have seen the look on the face of a non-optimiser when i told him: You want to play a samurai?  I recommend a factotum.

Priceless ^^

Bohemond

  • Monkey bussiness
  • *
  • Posts: 9
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #53 on: May 08, 2009, 04:14:35 PM »
Wow... that's very interesting. So you suggest that many people lack dissonance and can't see past the word ranger written at the top of the page. I can see that... I have seen people look blank faced at me when I play a "Ninja" and its a Rouge, or a Psiwar, or a Ranger.... or a druid.
 All thats well and good too... I just want to figure out a way to bridge said gap, so they can get over it.
I'm sure it's very frustrating for all involved (I've heard stories...)

I think so, honestly.  Like Unbeliever (with whom I play at every opportunity) says, rulebooks lie.  So the rulebook tells you that a ranger is a cloaked woodsman who befriends animals, tracks down evil, uses a bow, and protects hobbits and such in Bree. 

Non-optimizers sometimes do not realize that all of the above can be better accomplished playing, say, a psychic warrior or even a wizard.  The unspoken assumption here is that the class is just a logical extension of the flavor.  To put it another way, you just can't play a cloaked woodsman if you aren't a ranger.  Heroic archetypes do not automatically translate to D&D classes, even though the writers try to pretend that they do.  When people have this insight, great things can happen.

BowenSilverclaw

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 5337
  • Walking that fine line between genius and insanity
    • Email
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #54 on: May 08, 2009, 04:39:55 PM »
I know it seems like an obvious point, but it helps to convince people to look at the class abilities somewhat abstractly.  You don't find the class whose flavor matches the style you are looking to create, you find the crunch that best fits your style.  That this distinction must be made in D&D is both perverse and deeply satisfying.  It is great fun for me to carve out a perfect niche for myself among unlikely build combinations.  It would be a lot less fun to be handed a standard package of abilities that are as cool as Aragorn's in Hunt For Gollum. 

You have to be able to sustain a great deal of cognitive dissonance to not play a ranger when you want to play a Ranger.  For optimizers, this dissonance is very natural and is part of the fun.  For everyone else, I think it makes no sense to them or at least seems somewhat retarded.  They just don't get the fact that if you take 20 levels of ranger, you will be like one of the goblins whom Rangers effortlessly slaughter.

If you get get a player to accept that a class really is nothing more than the sum of its parts on the table, then you hare 95% of the way there to conversion.

This cognitive dissonance obviously does not apply to all classes.  If you want to play a Monk, the obvious choice is ToB.  But if a non-optimizing player self-consciously wants to play a Wizard, well, it is very useful that the class itself actually delivers.
Wow... that's very interesting. So you suggest that many people lack dissonance and can't see past the word ranger written at the top of the page. I can see that... I have seen people look blank faced at me when I play a "Ninja" and its a Rouge, or a Psiwar, or a Ranger.... or a druid.
 All thats well and good too... I just want to figure out a way to bridge said gap, so they can get over it.
I'm sure it's very frustrating for all involved (I've heard stories...)

I think so, honestly.  Like Unbeliever (with whom I play at every opportunity) says, rulebooks lie.  So the rulebook tells you that a ranger is a cloaked woodsman who befriends animals, tracks down evil, uses a bow, and protects hobbits and such in Bree. 

Non-optimizers sometimes do not realize that all of the above can be better accomplished playing, say, a psychic warrior or even a wizard.  The unspoken assumption here is that the class is just a logical extension of the flavor.  To put it another way, you just can't play a cloaked woodsman if you aren't a ranger.  Heroic archetypes do not automatically translate to D&D classes, even though the writers try to pretend that they do.  When people have this insight, great things can happen.

These two points *points up*

True words, Bohemond, true words. These are really an extension or complementary position to the 'flavor is mutable' position, but just like is the case with flavor is mutable, there are still a lot of people who don't (or just stubbornly refuse to) understand this.

Kudos for putting it so clearly :)
"Weakness? Come test thy mettle against me, hairless ape, and we shall know who is weak!"

Quote from: J0lt
You caught a fish.  It was awesome.   :lol

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #55 on: May 08, 2009, 04:49:25 PM »
Bravo...
I inivte you to check out our "Rebalancing Copendium" there's an elaborate backstory to why all the things changes are the way they are... but...
"The rulebooks lied, here are the classes they advertise" should become our new motto on some small scale, or at least this is a lesson we should all keep in mind.
Thank you.
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #56 on: May 08, 2009, 06:40:10 PM »
"The rulebooks lied, here are the classes they advertise" should become our new motto on some small scale, or at least this is a lesson we should all keep in mind.

There's a reason I 'made' the
Priest of the Unseen Host
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.

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #57 on: May 08, 2009, 06:48:58 PM »
"The rulebooks lied, here are the classes they advertise" should become our new motto on some small scale, or at least this is a lesson we should all keep in mind.

There's a reason I 'made' the
Priest of the Unseen Host
Hmm.... link please?  ???
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"

McPoyo

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 3783
    • Email
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #58 on: May 08, 2009, 06:56:14 PM »
The quote information is the link.
[Spoiler]
A gygaxian dungeon is like the world's most messed up game show.

Behind door number one: INSTANT DEATH!
Behind door number 2: A magic crown!
Behind door number 3: 4d6 giant bees, and THREE HUNDRED POUNDS OF HONEY!
They don't/haven't, was the point. 3.5 is as dead as people not liking nice tits.

Sometimes, their tits (3.5) get enhancements (houserules), but that doesn't mean people don't like nice tits.

Though sometimes, the surgeon (DM) botches them pretty bad...
Best metaphor I have seen in a long time.  I give you much fu.
Three Errata for the Mage-kings under the sky,
Seven for the Barbarian-lords in their halls of stone,
Nine for Mortal Monks doomed to die,
One for the Wizard on his dark throne
In the Land of Charop where the Shadows lie.
[/spoiler]

Midnight_v

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2660
  • Dulce et decorum est pro alea mori.
Re: Spreading the Optimization Gospel
« Reply #59 on: May 08, 2009, 07:19:03 PM »
Fuckin weird.
Awesome though! I do remeber that now. Gave fu for it and everything.
Someone should be making sure the rulebooks aren't slowing fingering 13 year old purchasers
into thinking shit like being a Fighter is about being a totally hardcore badass dude with a sword like in the movies/anime when in practice it absolutely is not.

Edit: No come to think of it. Not just the young, but the stupid people should be directed away from that type of thing.  It will actually make our lives easier. I'm going to figure out a related trope for this phenomenon
« Last Edit: May 08, 2009, 07:20:49 PM by Midnight_v »
\\\"Disentegrate.\\\" \\\"Gust of wind.\\\" \\\"Now Can we PLEASE resume saving the world?\\\"