Keeping it Core?

[JaronK]

So when you say you're "force feeding" optimisation and "bringing people up to speed," you're actually just talking about making people play the way you like to play. It's not educating them. It's not making them "better" players. It's a stylistic preference. Nothing more.

No, it's more like getting them to be balanced with the rest of the party.  See, it's not about wanting to be optimized... you can take it the other way and just nerf the casters if you want.  But you know what really sucks?  Making a sword and board Fighter and realizing that you're just dead weight on the battlefield, because the Cleric and Druid that you thought you were going to be protecting don't need you at all and in fact you can't protect anyone anyway.  That's not fun at all.

JaronK

[Sunic_Flames]

So when you say you're "force feeding" optimisation and "bringing people up to speed," you're actually just talking about making people play the way you like to play. It's not educating them. It's not making them "better" players. It's a stylistic preference. Nothing more.

No, it's more like getting them to be balanced with the rest of the party.  See, it's not about wanting to be optimized... you can take it the other way and just nerf the casters if you want.  But you know what really sucks?  Making a sword and board Fighter and realizing that you're just dead weight on the battlefield, because the Cleric and Druid that you thought you were going to be protecting don't need you at all and in fact you can't protect anyone anyway.  That's not fun at all.

JaronK

What this guy said.

[Runestar]

Let me just say that if someone wants to play a cleric as a healbot, I would rather that he opt to do it after making an informed decision (in that he knows that it is sub-par, but wants to try his hand at it nonetheless, for whatever reason remains his own), rather than because he mistakenly believes that it really is the best manner of running a cleric.

[JaronK]

That too.

JaronK

[Orion]

You're still assuming optimisation as the basic model of playing this game. That's simply not true for a lot, a lot, of players. Until you can break out of that narrow paradigm, you'll just never understand gamers who don't care for optimisation. I'm not saying that optimisation is bad. I'm just, once again, saying that it's merely one way to play the game.

[Sinfire Titan]

You're still assuming optimisation as the basic model of playing this game. That's simply not true for a lot, a lot, of players. Until you can break out of that narrow paradigm, you'll just never understand gamers who don't care for optimisation. I'm not saying that optimisation is bad. I'm just, once again, saying that it's merely one way to play the game.

Put those gamers up against a DM who thinks the only point to the game is to get a PC death every session and then tell me they don't care about optimization. Especially when they have to remake a character every fucking session.

Optimization is the way to keep a character alive and prevent you from wasting time. That scenario I just mentioned will change their paradigm quickly, and many players wouldn't even consider gimping themselves after such a DM.

To further prove how vital optimization is, look at the traffic on CO/Classes or the Min/Max forums. Over half of it is dedicated to helping people optimize their characters. And not all of them are dedicated optimizers (a number of them are new to CO or haven't posted there for help, but have been reading for some time).

Optimization is almost subconcious anyway. Every feat you take, every point you put into your ability scores, and every action you make in combat are determined by what the situation calls for. Everyone takes what they think is the best action they could have taken (or ignores the combat entirely, feeling that they are not needed). This is a form of optimization, it's called tactics. I've never seen a player take Alertness other than to meet a requirement or improve a class skill he has ranks in. You will never see a Fighter take the feat, as it does nothing for him whatsoever.

You may say that people will not optimize unless they have to. I say that people optimize on a near-subconcious level. Have you ever seen a Rogue take ranks in Knowledge (any one that isn't a class skill or a requirement for a PrC)? What about a Bard who never puts ranks in Preformance (any)? Or a Fighter who takes Improve Unarmed Strike and fights naked because the DM won't allow Monks? What about a Wizard wearing unmodified full plate?

People make descisions based on their instinct. CO teaches them what is and what isn't viable, and trains their mind to understand this on an instinctive level (thus preventing them from gimping themselves). It's more than a style of play, it's a method of survival.

[Runestar]

You're still assuming optimisation as the basic model of playing this game. That's simply not true for a lot, a lot, of players. Until you can break out of that narrow paradigm, you'll just never understand gamers who don't care for optimisation. I'm not saying that optimisation is bad. I'm just, once again, saying that it's merely one way to play the game.

Not quite true. We merely believe that it is an ideal which all players should try to strive towards.

Basically, we can classify players into one of 4 categories.

1) Can't roleplay or optimize for shit.
2) Can roleplay well/decently, but can't/won't optimize
3) Can optimize well/decently, but can't/won't roleplay
4) Can meld both roleplaying and optimization into a harmonious whole.

I expect that most players typically fall into category 2 or 3 (I consider myself somewhere in between, in that my roleplaying skills are average at best, IMO, and I only have a few splatbooks with optimization-worthy material). Rather than simply being content staying in that group, why not trying working on the deficient aspect and aim towards category4 instead?

Given all other things equal, I can't imagine how 4 would be inferior to 2 or 3 in any way.

[Midnight_v]

You're still assuming optimisation as the basic model of playing this game. That's simply not true for a lot, a lot, of players. Until you can break out of that narrow paradigm, you'll just never understand gamers who don't care for optimisation. I'm not saying that optimisation is bad. I'm just, once again, saying that it's merely one way to play the game.

No I only assume that people want to know what options are available. So they can make the character they want. Optimization may or may not enter the picture.
You want a knight in shining armor?
Well here are some options.
Want to add more detail?
more options.
I don't offer basic models I just offer information.
You can then play however you want.
Most people upon gaining knowledge start to make choices based on the available knowledge.

... wait... that might just be optimization...

[ZeroSum]

You're still assuming optimisation as the basic model of playing this game.

Put those gamers up against a DM who thinks the only point to the game is to get a PC death every session and then tell me they don't care about optimization. Especially when they have to remake a character every fucking session.

Which is an assumption of the former. If a DM just throws CR equivalent monsters at the PCs and just plays the monsters such that they bash like a Fighter, heal like a Cleric and blast like a Wizard they'll be level-appropriate for PCs that bash like a fighter, heal like a Cleric and blast like a Wizard.

Rather than simply being content staying in that group, why not trying working on the deficient aspect and aim towards category 4 instead?

Which is an assumption that optimization is something worth striving for. It's not that optimization is inferior, just that in some groups it will be unnecessary.

I think Midnight_V is most on point here and I think that there's a miscommunication going on. We can all assume that every player wants their characters to be "useful", no matter what that means.

We can also assume that there is a group of players who want their characters to have some set of predefined abilities, quirks, and settings, such as "I want to play a sneaky fighter" or "I want to play a bookish wizard".

So if optimization means taking that "sneaky fighter" idea and maybe turning it into a shadowpouncer or taking that "bookish wizard" and turning it into something that (ab)uses Knowledge Devotion. Maybe that's what the player wants, maybe he says, "No, I don't want to be nightcrawler" and has to give up some of that optimization to be something that sits in his idea then yes, optimization is good for everyone in the sense that it opens up opportunity for making something that's normally weak when unoptimized into something more powerful and thus more feasible.

But if someone says he wants to play a rapier-wielding fighter with a heavy shield then it's not merely optimization to say "That's weak; just play a shield basher" -- it's trampling on his idea to gain power in the guise of optimization and that's the impression people get when they hear "optimization".

So yeah, there are groups where you can play a core Barbarian with Endurance from level 1 to 20 and not only be not weak but outshine the Wizard and Cleric easily. These groups don't need optimization and won't benefit from you telling them that the Cleric should give up healing because it doesn't fix any of their problems because they don't have problems.

I think that's what Orion means.

[JaronK]

You're still assuming optimisation as the basic model of playing this game.

No, I'm not.  I'm assuming that balanced power levels in a party are important, and that the ability to make sure your character can actually do what your character concept said he could do is a good thing.  How much you use that is entirely your call.

I'm not saying you're wrong if you play a Commoner.  In fact, I've done it (sometimes an optimized commoner, sometimes not).  I am, however, saying you're wrong if you play a poorly made Sword and Board Fighter in a party with a Cleric and a Druid without realizing what's going to happen.  You're wrong because you're going to find out very quickly that you can't do what you thought you could and your character is not fun to play.  Now, if you knew how to optimize him and simply chose not to, and wanted to be the comic relief in the party... that's fine.  But if you thought you were going to be anything other than a paperweight, you're going to be disappointed and you're not going to have fun.

If you make an informed decision about your power level, that's good.  If you made an uninformed decision but still got what you wanted, that's good enough.  If you made an uninformed decision and got something that does not work for you, that sucks, even if the resulting character is too powerful.

A good optimizer is someone who knows how to get the power level he wants, and knows the power level of what he's playing.  That's never a bad thing.

JaronK

[Kaelik]

We can also assume that there is a group of players who want their characters to have some set of predefined abilities, quirks, and settings, such as "I want to play a sneaky fighter" or "I want to play a bookish wizard".

So if optimization means taking that "sneaky fighter" idea and maybe turning it into a shadowpouncer or taking that "bookish wizard" and turning it into something that (ab)uses Knowledge Devotion. Maybe that's what the player wants, maybe he says, "No, I don't want to be nightcrawler" and has to give up some of that optimization to be something that sits in his idea

Sneaky Fighter: Rogue 20 or Swordsage 20.

See. Look how easy that was to make a character that actually fits the concept instead of being a huge waste of space.

[Midnight_v]

We can also assume that there is a group of players who want their characters to have some set of predefined abilities, quirks, and settings, such as "I want to play a sneaky fighter" or "I want to play a bookish wizard".

So if optimization means taking that "sneaky fighter" idea and maybe turning it into a shadowpouncer or taking that "bookish wizard" and turning it into something that (ab)uses Knowledge Devotion. Maybe that's what the player wants, maybe he says, "No, I don't want to be nightcrawler" and has to give up some of that optimization to be something that sits in his idea

Sneaky Fighter: Rogue 20 or Swordsage 20.

See. Look how easy that was to make a character that actually fits the concept instead of being a huge waste of space.

RIght but of course the point is that people should be aware of those options, and be able to define what they mean when they say "Fighter" which "rogue 20 might not meet".
They should just be aware of the options available is all I'm saying.
Also to understand the POTENTIAL power gap is a part of that.

[JaronK]

Indeed, having people understand that "sneaky Fighter" can be all sorts of things, and knowing the various power level of all those things... that's important, as it lets you create a character that behaves the way you want and a group dynamic that's appropriate.  A sneaky fighter could be a shadow pouncer, it could be a rogue, it could be a swordsage, it could be a factotum, it could be a cloistered cleric, it could be a Rogue 1/Rokugan Ninja 1/Unarmed Varient Swordsage 18, or a wide variety of other options.

JaronK

[Kaelik]

it could be a factotum

I don't really think that one fits. Factotums and their abilities come with a lot of things, things which make any character with primarily factotum levels almost certainly defined in some other way then "sneaky fighter."

[Orion]

This is what I mean. Most of you are incapable of perceiving a game in which kill-count is not, in fact, the ultimate goal. I want to clarify, I'm not saying that tactic/strategy/uber-build games are bad, or even that they're not fun, just that that's one way of playing the game. It's not the ultimate thing to aspire to. "Winning" is not the goal of D&D for a lot of players. Being in-character is the goal. Or living out a particular fantasy hero. Or it's just an elaborate excuse to hang out with your friends, a nerdy version of poker. Now, you can play poker to win money, certainly, but that's not something you do with your friends. If you play with your friends, you play mostly just to play, and if you win money, it's a bonus. A lot, and I mean a lot of gamers play RPGs, just for the fun of it. They don't give a rat's ass about optimising their characters, and their GMs don't give a rat's ass about tossing uber-pumped NPCs at them. In that situation, everyone's happy.

The really important thing, and I say this after about 20 years of playing this game, is not to force a certain style of gaming onto people, but to figure out what kind of game everyone will enjoy. As a DM, if I'm designing a game for tacticians, I try to bring my A-game when it comes to builds and strategies. If I'm designing a game for role-players, then I emphasise story and character. Neither is superior, by which I mean that optimisation is not superior. If it's how you have your fun, then sweet Jebus, do not let me stop you! But don't sit there and tell me that everyone else ought to aspire to the way that you like to play the game.

[Omen of Peace]

Quoting myself (sorry ! ) :

I realise it's not the focus of this community, but y'all do realise that there are lots and lots of people who don't play RPGs just for the sake of optimisation, right?

I don't really know anyone who plays for the sake of optimization. CharOp is definitely a fun component of the game for us but it happens mostly at character creation time. After that, you have RP, tactics & simply the company you're in to keep you entertained.

Just because we don't talk much about RP & co doesn't mean it's absent from our games.

[Callix]

This is what I mean. Most of you are incapable of perceiving a game in which kill-count is not, in fact, the ultimate goal. I want to clarify, I'm not saying that tactic/strategy/uber-build games are bad, or even that they're not fun, just that that's one way of playing the game. It's not the ultimate thing to aspire to. "Winning" is not the goal of D&D for a lot of players. Being in-character is the goal. Or living out a particular fantasy hero. Or it's just an elaborate excuse to hang out with your friends, a nerdy version of poker. Now, you can play poker to win money, certainly, but that's not something you do with your friends. If you play with your friends, you play mostly just to play, and if you win money, it's a bonus. A lot, and I mean a lot of gamers play RPGs, just for the fun of it. They don't give a rat's ass about optimising their characters, and their GMs don't give a rat's ass about tossing uber-pumped NPCs at them. In that situation, everyone's happy.

The really important thing, and I say this after about 20 years of playing this game, is not to force a certain style of gaming onto people, but to figure out what kind of game everyone will enjoy. As a DM, if I'm designing a game for tacticians, I try to bring my A-game when it comes to builds and strategies. If I'm designing a game for role-players, then I emphasise story and character. Neither is superior, by which I mean that optimisation is not superior. If it's how you have your fun, then sweet Jebus, do not let me stop you! But don't sit there and tell me that everyone else ought to aspire to the way that you like to play the game.

I have been in a grand total of one game with a goal of kill-count: a tactical arena on the WotC boards that was, in fact core only. However, whenever I start a game, I spend a great deal of time optimising my character. Why? Because I like my characters, and want to spend time in their heads, playing the game. So I make characters that will survive fights and achieve goals. Certain systems (Vampire et al) aside, you can't RP a dead character, and every game system has its dragons and its closet trolls; default creatures that, with certain environmental factors, are much more difficult than the book suggests. To avoid these things killing me, I make my interesting character able to do unusual and powerful things. And from my experience, people who put a bit more time and thought into their characters' mechanical sides (not obsessively like myself, but a bit) have more fun at the game table because they *know* what their character can and can't do. They know when they should be scared, when they are given an opportunity, and when they should surrender, and this helps them RP.

I build a lot of characters around mechanics, but they aren't just a vehicle for mechanical power. They're adventurers, or whatnot, that are good at what they do. A Crusader I built to provide extra healing in a "no casters" D&D game wasn't just a heal-bot and tank. He was a young, idealistic soldier having his faith challenged by a church that saw him as expendable. He devoted himself to defending those that could not defend themselves, and then the organisation that he served made him into a spy. He still fought, and he was still good at fighting, but he wasn't just "the guy that's good at fighting". He was a paladin made into a double agent, his zeal turning from crusade to revolution, but first he had to navigate two armies that could crush him in a moment.

[Kaelik]

Being in-character is the goal. Or living out a particular fantasy hero.

And here your stupid anti-optimization pro "rolply guys!" attitude is making you a fool.

I suggested Swordsage or Rogue for a sneaky fighter. Did I suggest them because they are stronger then fighters? No. I put them forward because they represent characters who can both sneak and fight. Whereas the Fighter class, no matter how hard you try, will still represent a character that can fight but not sneak.

I want people to be able to live out conan, and the fact of the matter is that conan has hide/ms/sleight of hand as a class skill.

[Elennsar]

He is also a character with at least two starting 18s and probably a couple sixteens...I'm not familiar enough to guess his Int and Wis.

While "I want to be like Conan!" is a reasonable goal, a game where the player is Conan as he is relative to everyone else around him (including some people who might be PCs...Conan being solo is another issue entirely) is making the player overpowered for the setting.

Since this isn't "well, make things harder". That's not the point. Conan > a lot of what he faces. If you're Conan, you will trounce the best of Pictland to name one place.

He's a level +4 challenge for them, in other words.

So, Conan is not a character I would like to see people trying to play. His type, yes. Him personally, with the name and some personality edits for individuality, no.

Can't say that means Swordsage levels (if necessary) are unjustified, mind you. Just observing why "I want to play Conan!" is like saying "I want to play Lancelot!" or "I want to play Galahad!"

Once it becomes past "that kind of character" in a general way, it gets into "this individual is overpowered"

[spoiler] A write up of said barbarian that may or may not be worth a damn: http://www.enworld.org/Inzeladun/conan.htm [/spoiler]

[Runestar]

All I do know that if I had not bothered to optimize my PCs in the CoTSQ and RHOD modules, I would likely find myself rolling up new characters ever so often. Looking at the age of worms adventure (though I have not played it), I suspect that may be the case as well.

You can't roleplay if you are dead. And it is not the best roleplayed character which keeps you alive, but hard cold stats. It is just that straightforward to me.