Spreading the Optimization Gospel

[juton]

If you are like me then you game with some people who think Fireball is the best 3rd level spell and think that Monks offer about as much as Wizards. This buffonery can be merely annoying at lower levels, but can potentially lead to TPKs at higher ones. So I ask Min/Max, how do I spread the optimization gospel?

I try and play right, I try to show the Stormwind fallacy is just that, a fallacy. You can RP and not suck in combat. I try and explain things in a simple if rhetorical way. Like what can a Monk do against a Wizard with Foresight up and Celerity memorized? When that fails I get practical, I show builds or calculations. But some people don't get it. Some people don't seem to want to get it.

Has anyone here found salient words to tear through the veils of ignorance and show our bumbling brethen to the glorious light of optimization?

[SixthDeclension]

You can always give character advice, ever so subtle, so they don't know you're doing it. Also, TPKs give a nice hint. All but you TPKs.

[Risada]

My last group was exactly like that... said stuff like "Cleave is awesome" and "Can't wait to get that Meteor Swarm!"

I showed them the power of ToB and they said it was overpowered (I showed the a Crusader 1 that was keeping up with 3 skeletons and a TWF Fighter/Warblade that used Dancing Mongoose and landed 5 (out of 10) hits on a monster).

But, sadly I couldn't make them understand...

Oh well...

[Bozwevial]

To groups like that, pretty much everything gets a kneejerk "OP" response. Psionics, ToB, what have you--it's all the same to them, because most new players start with only the core rulebooks to base expectations from. You have to understand their point of view--when you're dealing ZOMGdWTF damage with your ToB character and they're piddling along with 1d8+6 (maybe), they're going to be somewhat envious.

...What would be nice is teaching new players about optimization, and getting them accustomed to the proper power level from the start. But we have to deal with the old dogs.

[mans0011]

To groups like that, pretty much everything gets a kneejerk "OP" response. Psionics, ToB, what have you--it's all the same to them, because most new players start with only the core rulebooks to base expectations from. You have to understand their point of view--when you're dealing ZOMGdWTF damage with your ToB character and they're piddling along with 1d8+6 (maybe), they're going to be somewhat envious.

...What would be nice is teaching new players about optimization, and getting them accustomed to the proper power level from the start. But we have to deal with the old dogs.

But they just don't understand that 3.5 core rule books are the most overpowered, unbalanced books out there. The Player's Handbook has the Monk and the Druid in the same book.... No one will understand until you show them just how broken magic users can be.

[Solo]

So I ask Min/Max, how do I spread the optimization gospel?

Like this.

[Lycanthromancer]

Think about it like this: A ToB character can do 1d12+15 damage to one enemy per round.

But the wizard can instakill entire groups at once, or completely take them out of the battle for a considerable amount of time.

...Which is more powerful, again?

[Akalsaris]

Well, to them the ToB character IS overpowered, because it's unfamiliar and they are basing it off the monk, not the druid as we do.  In the same vein, some of my friends will focus on the wrong parts of the build to look for the power - like an illumian conjurer where they assume the brokenness is from being an illumian, or suggesting that my builds be limited to core+completes when the build is already core+completes.  My favorite was my friend with a solid druid character who took the PHB II alternate class feature so he wouldn't need to deal with so much paperwork - where limiting him to core+completes as one player suggested would only make the character stronger.

As for getting friends interested in char op, I generally spread the "gospel" by showing my friends the funnier optimized characters (Trouserfang Dwarf, my crocodile-tossing hulking hurler, etc), and by suggesting alternate classes and feats for specific roles that they are interested in playing ("Oh!  You want to play the trap-finder?  Have you ever heard of the beguiler from PHB II?").  I've been trying to steer them away from damage-based optimizing, and more towards thinking of how they can best fill a specific role in the party.

But generally it's not something I really try too hard to do - it's something that will either happen or it won't.  I didn't get into it until I decided that to become a better DM I should learn the rules well, and then from there I started reading class handbooks, then making a character based on the advice, and then reading another handbook.  And the less optimized the players are, the easier my job as a DM often is

[The_Mad_Linguist]

I give players new to the game a mildly cheesey but easy-to-play build.  Like a hellfire warlock/binder. 

[Prime32]

I tried to get my friends into D&D a while back, but the game fell apart. I think I got them viewing optimisation as a natural part of the rules though. ("Yeah, there's this class called the beguiler which would be perfect for that, but we're keeping things Core only for simplicity. Now, if you guys had more experience with the game, I wouldn't dream of Core only - the earlier you go, the worse the balance gets. That druid class is just insane.")

I pointed out to the cleric player (*sigh* "I guess I'll play the healer") that clerics had the potential to be extremely powerful in melee, healing isn't all that useful, etc. but I think it just confused her. Oh, and she RPed a cleric of Heironeous more like a cleric of Rao.

Basically I don't think they could differentiate between my instructions on "how to play" and "how to play well".

[Autopsibiofeeder]

A few of my fellow players are like that and it indeed has led to a situation where either I dm, or the others think my character (whatever it is) is overpowered. I am not even 'that bad', we play a pretty 'light' power game where full magic and all is present, but where any form of sillyness is banned by mutual agreement (e.g. No polymorph 'exploits', no wraithstrike (ab)use, no gate/timestop-Godmode wizardry). I do optimize and enjoy the creative process of making my abilities as effective as possible (by virtue of technical build and in-game strategy).

I optimized characters for my fellow players, listening to their wishes and pointing them to good combo's and effective strategies. However, the gap between me and the others hardly lessens. Optimization, in my opinion, at the core does not happen on the sheet but in your head. I build an illusionist wizard just for fun in my spare time, just to see how I would build it, what tactics he would use and how his role in a group would be. When I am riding my bike to the train station I ponder upon what creative uses there are for Hallucinatory terrain. A picture in the paper triggers my imagination, leading to some character concept I then start building in my head and finish when I reach pen and paper or a PC.
As such I play any character handed to me a lot more effective than the others do: I retrieve my actions from a huge 'database', where a lot of actions, options and reactions are processed, stored and ready for use. My fellow players don't do that. They do other stuff when they ride bikes and see pictures in papers, which is good for them and just as fine. Everyone has his own streaks and knacks.

I pretty much gave up on them optimizing like I do. Instead, I deliberately power down my characters just a bit, so they enjoy it more. Then, I like to choose a character that is good at 'enabling' others. This has been, for me, the most effective way to shorten the gap between me and others while all can enjoy the game, playing it their style. I optimize and satisfy my creative needs, while they do their non-optimal stuff yet then a bit more effective.

[Alastar]

I try to do my little part by running, sometimes, what i call ''newb games''

For those of you who are familiar with my harren'daen'kar setting, I'm gonna be running pretty soon a D&D game set into the Keysackran (wizard's country) part of the world.  This will be a newb game.

This is my way to initiate new players or begining players to a little bit of optimising.  I limit the books to those who fit thematically (expanded psionics, complete mage, spell compendium, phb 2, core, complete arcane, complete divine, open for some more stuff if they find out about it and wanna try)  but my real work here is telling them little suggestions that fit thematically.

They play a group that has just finished their first year of college, and are about to start the two year military service in the Keysackran army, where they will be thaught battle and conrol spells, they are level 1.

You tell me: i'd like to play a fighter
I answer: well, a more themathic build would be a duskblade, it's like a fighter, but with MAGIC!!!!  (insert barney stinson)

You tell me: I'd like to play a rogue
I tell you: Well, that's nice, but this is a magical place, i'd suggest a beguiler, it's like a rogue, but with MAGIC!!! (insert barney stinson)

You tell me: I'd like to play a monk!
I tell you: .... that class is just banned man, no monks in my campaign, i don't allow my friends to do monks.... (kidding, but you get the point)

I find that in doing so i open up their view a bit, and show them how to think differently.  I show them that optimisation is about having a character that does EXACTLY what you want, WHEN you want it.  You wanna play a rogue mage, no more waiting 3 levels to get you arcane trickster class.  You wanna play a fighter mage, no more 2 caster level loss to get eldritch knight.

It helps that my players are all university students, and are thus accustomed to quick learning and basic maths.  I'm planning on writing a DM diary of that game, cause i run it parallell to my 2 other games in that world.

As the DM, you have the most influence and that is how i choose to help, as a player, maybe I'll add something else later.

[mans0011]

I try to do my little part by running, sometimes, what i call ''newb games''

For those of you who are familiar with my harren'daen'kar setting, I'm gonna be running pretty soon a D&D game set into the Keysackran (wizard's country) part of the world.  This will be a newb game.

This is my way to initiate new players or begining players to a little bit of optimising.  I limit the books to those who fit thematically (expanded psionics, complete mage, spell compendium, phb 2, core, complete arcane, complete divine, open for some more stuff if they find out about it and wanna try)  but my real work here is telling them little suggestions that fit thematically.

They play a group that has just finished their first year of college, and are about to start the two year military service in the Keysackran army, where they will be thaught battle and conrol spells, they are level 1.

You tell me: i'd like to play a fighter
I answer: well, a more themathic build would be a duskblade, it's like a fighter, but with MAGIC!!!!  (insert barney stinson)

You tell me: I'd like to play a rogue
I tell you: Well, that's nice, but this is a magical place, i'd suggest a beguiler, it's like a rogue, but with MAGIC!!! (insert barney stinson)

You tell me: I'd like to play a monk!
I tell you: .... that class is just banned man, no monks in my campaign, i don't allow my friends to do monks.... (kidding, but you get the point)

I find that in doing so i open up their view a bit, and show them how to think differently.  I show them that optimisation is about having a character that does EXACTLY what you want, WHEN you want it.  You wanna play a rogue mage, no more waiting 3 levels to get you arcane trickster class.  You wanna play a fighter mage, no more 2 caster level loss to get eldritch knight.

It helps that my players are all university students, and are thus accustomed to quick learning and basic maths.  I'm planning on writing a DM diary of that game, cause i run it parallell to my 2 other games in that world.

As the DM, you have the most influence and that is how i choose to help, as a player, maybe I'll add something else later.

I'm excited to read this diary. ^_^

[McPoyo]

I've a thread around here somewhere (the game ended after the last posted session, due to them finally getting the point) titled something akin to "Co Diary: The Unoptimized" iirc. Just run them against modules and don't dumb them down, my players used to use the "Your games are too hard and have too high of expectations" excuse until they realized that modules they thought were awesome stomped them into the ground when they were "stronger" than what the module recommended. I've since been able to teach them some things about effective mechanics to building a character, and they've actually managed to improve some now.

It's a gradual thing, remember: You can lead a kobold to power, but you can't make it pun-pun or the DM will hit you with the Folding Chair of Truth, Steve.

[Generic_PC]

All but you TPKs.

I've done this. Everyone but my flying, mirror imaged wizard (No, let me buff you before we run in...) got hit by some crazy earthquake. Then, the boss guy came out, and I had a 4 round long battle. 2 rounds were used countering spells, then I polymorphed when the BBEG tried to start summoning. It was pretty good. I got like 3700 xp ahead of my party. At 7th.

The next campaign, everyone was playing a spellcaster, cept me. Displays like this, where you absolutely own without taking damage, etc. Are the best way, in my opinion.

[Midnight_v]

I try to do my little part by running, sometimes, what i call ''newb games''

For those of you who are familiar with my harren'daen'kar setting, I'm gonna be running pretty soon a D&D game set into the Keysackran (wizard's country) part of the world.  This will be a newb game.

This is my way to initiate new players or begining players to a little bit of optimising.  I limit the books to those who fit thematically (expanded psionics, complete mage, spell compendium, phb 2, core, complete arcane, complete divine, open for some more stuff if they find out about it and wanna try)  but my real work here is telling them little suggestions that fit thematically.

They play a group that has just finished their first year of college, and are about to start the two year military service in the Keysackran army, where they will be thaught battle and conrol spells, they are level 1.

You tell me: i'd like to play a fighter
I answer: well, a more themathic build would be a duskblade, it's like a fighter, but with MAGIC!!!!  (insert barney stinson)

You tell me: I'd like to play a rogue
I tell you: Well, that's nice, but this is a magical place, i'd suggest a beguiler, it's like a rogue, but with MAGIC!!! (insert barney stinson)

You tell me: I'd like to play a monk!
I tell you: .... that class is just banned man, no monks in my campaign, i don't allow my friends to do monks.... (kidding, but you get the point)

I find that in doing so i open up their view a bit, and show them how to think differently.  I show them that optimisation is about having a character that does EXACTLY what you want, WHEN you want it.  You wanna play a rogue mage, no more waiting 3 levels to get you arcane trickster class.  You wanna play a fighter mage, no more 2 caster level loss to get eldritch knight.

It helps that my players are all university students, and are thus accustomed to quick learning and basic maths.  I'm planning on writing a DM diary of that game, cause i run it parallell to my 2 other games in that world.

As the DM, you have the most influence and that is how i choose to help, as a player, maybe I'll add something else later.

Wow... Alstar... thats brilliant! I'm gonna run a campaign like that next time.
The endless trouble that I've suffered trying to help people optimizes  I just stopped after a while, waited till someone got completlely owned and they ask for my help.
The hardest part is mentioned above though... people who read the phb and don't get it or WORSE bring the 2nd edition expectations of "how things should work" and related baggage with them into play.
I don't know why I never thought of that. "You are from a magical kingdom.... here are the magical classes."
Still gotta find an answer to "monk" hopefully "SS" but ostensibly a duskblades with the UAStrike progression would work as well...

[Takanaki]

http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=4277.msg141699#msg141699

Rather than Gospel I need one of those damn pens they use in Men In Black, aka: wand of mind rape.

[Midnight_v]

Wow... that just  -unreal. . .

[Unbeliever]

A few brief comments before I get back to studying: 

1)  I think DMing is the way to spread the gospel.  As DM you get a lot of autonomy, and won't run into the fairly common issue of having the combos and interesting things (classes, feats, etc.) you propose seeming threatening.  You can also demonstrate important facts like that there's a way to do optimization w/out it becoming an arm's race between the PCs and the DM and that it's perfectly easy and, indeed, enjoyable to construct encounter/challenges for reasonably optimized PCs.  As a DM/GM/whatever the kids are calling it these days I actually prefer pretty optimized PCs:  then I don't feel bad about playing the elder demon as reasonably intelligent and using his cool abilities and combos or setting the encounter in an interesting funky environment, etc. -- all things that make DMing enjoyable to me.

2)  A big question that's gone, I think undiscussed and is also in evidence in Takanaki's troubles, is what the point of optimization is.  In part, it's just a fun aspect of the game -- it is a game after all.  But, IMHO, the "real" point is that it lets you realize interesting characters who do whatever it is they're supposed to do well.  D&D is a heroic game, and as heroes everyone should have at least a little bit of awesome, whether that's being the greatest swordsman ever (Lancelot), incorruptible (I can't quite recall, Percival maybe?  Frodo), enduring (Boromir, Leonidas, any number of dwarves), a canny negotiator, inhumanly charming, or so forth.  Whatever it is that you're cool fantasy character is supposed to do he or she should be pretty good at it. 

Cast in that way, I can't see how anybody could have an issue w/ optimization.  Maybe there are some people who don't want their character to be good at anything, and to that I am comfortable telling them that D&D is not the game for them (frankly, I don't know what game would be) -- it's a heroic genre, and you're supposed to be the heroes, broadly-defined.  It'd be hard to imagine Star Wars or Indiana Jones being all that compelling if the protagonists had no talents or abilities going for them.  I'm curious if people have tried to explain it that way, and whether it's succeeded.  There's of course a limit to this, which I tend to view as a "gentleman's agreement:"  I'm not going to ban polymorph, but I'm going to expect my players (and myself) to use some discretion and not subject me to persistent draconic polymorphed war trolls w/ greater invisibility -- at least w/out talking it over w/ me first. 

Which, brings me to the main reason why I lurk on these boards (well, besides procrastinating), and a sincere thanks to all of you who post:  the optimization tools that are put on these boards allow you to make a wider variety of unique and interesting characters.  So, when a friend says "I'd like to play a soulknife," which is at least in concept a cool class, I can have a better option than just saying "no, you don't want to do that."  We can either find a trick to make it viable, or find a class akin to it or to layer onto it (e.g., Kensai) to make the whole thing work.  That, quite frankly, is wonderful.  Other examples are making fighters really viable.  It's nice to be able to give people real options when they don't want to play a wizard or CoDzilla. 

Actually, now that I think about it, probably the real problem is that the rulebooks lie.  Someone pages through the PHB and they find Monk or Ranger and they say "that's the kind of character I want to play."  Then, you have to explain to them that the writers are liars, or that those classes aren't very well thought out -- I am more than happy to say "friends don't let friends play monks" -- and then to suggest different ways to realize those character concepts. 

That's my rant.  I'm blessed w/ a few consistent gaming groups w/ good friends, so we rarely disagree on these issues, and often seek each other's advice.  Like, I'll ask "is this too powerful?  What if I toned it down like this?" and stuff like that.  I am curious how anyone could be annoyed w/ optimization when it's put that way.  Maybe they take things like "rangers suck" personally?  Beats me.  The one time recently it did come up there was a person who seemed willfully against optimizing, even though he didn't say it.  I didn't game w/ him for very long (for a number of reasons), but it just struck me as a disaster waiting to happen b/c he was going to have what he thought were neat abilities, but that would never work b/c of the way he had constructed them (this was M&M), which I expect would just lead to disappointment. 

[Midnight_v]

Actually, now that I think about it, probably the real problem is that the rulebooks lie.  Someone pages through the PHB and they find Monk or Ranger and they say "that's the kind of character I want to play."  Then, you have to explain to them that the writers are liars, or that those classes aren't very well thought out -- I am more than happy to say "friends don't let friends play monks" -- and then to suggest different ways to realize those character concepts. 

   

You're ranting skills are awesome. +1 gameology to you.