Min-maxing & Preconceptions: An idea

[Nytemare3701]

Ever sat down at a table with a cleric that didn't heal? Or a ranger that didn't track, or a rogue that didn't pick locks and break traps?

Some roles, like 'tank' and 'face' already are separated from classes and races, but other roles like 'tracker,' 'scout,' and 'thief' have an unfortunate link to specific classes. Breaking that link bugs people.

But maybe, if you sit at a table and don't say 'cleric,' instead saying 'nomadic acolyte of Olidamara' you might not bug people when they find out that your cleric won't ever use a cure spell.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Your character isn't a "Rogue". That's exceedingly vague, and puts expectations of all manner of iconic abilities on your character. You could be a Trapper, an Infiltrator, a sniper, a backstabber. All of these things are "Rogue" but a Rogue isn't always all these things.

[nijineko]

Ever sat down at a table with a cleric that didn't heal? Or a ranger that didn't track, or a rogue that didn't pick locks and break traps?

Some roles, like 'tank' and 'face' already are separated from classes and races, but other roles like 'tracker,' 'scout,' and 'thief' have an unfortunate link to specific classes. Breaking that link bugs people.

But maybe, if you sit at a table and don't say 'cleric,' instead saying 'nomadic acolyte of Olidamara' you might not bug people when they find out that your cleric won't ever use a cure spell.

This is exactly what I'm getting at. Your character isn't a "Rogue". That's exceedingly vague, and puts expectations of all manner of iconic abilities on your character. You could be a Trapper, an Infiltrator, a sniper, a backstabber. All of these things are "Rogue" but a Rogue isn't always all these things.

That's when my character says stuff like, "Only the women call me a rogue." With a suitable leer and wink.

[Endarire]

Ultimately, it's a matter of what each person thinks the game is and should be.  There's a lot of preconceptions to overcome (or work with, sometimes advantageously) to bring people to a place of mutual understanding.

[Bribri]

I do get what you're getting at here but I think the concept is actually applied a little more broadly than you think. For the people against this sort of thing It's less about not playing the class 'The way the fluff intended' but more about playing the -game itself- in the 'right way'; That focusing on power too much (aka enough to be stronger then my PC. ^_~) is going against the spirit of the game, and this applies even in situations where the optimized choice DOES fit the fluff, going against it is at best adding insult to injury, or isn't even considered at all.  That any exploration of the most effective options is taking the magic away from the game, and completely missing the point:This is suppose to be a fantasy story of imagination! Not a contest to see who is strongest.

I mean I've seen people call the power gaming card over a ranger who was just your typical pathfinder-switch-hitter (A perfectly Iconic design) who was outperforming some poorly designed rogues.

[nijineko]

I do get what you're getting at here but I think the concept is actually applied a little more broadly than you think. For the people against this sort of thing It's less about not playing the class 'The way the fluff intended' but more about playing the -game itself- in the 'right way'; That focusing on power too much (aka enough to be stronger then my PC. ^_~) is going against the spirit of the game, and this applies even in situations where the optimized choice DOES fit the fluff, going against it is at best adding insult to injury, or isn't even considered at all.  That any exploration of the most effective options is taking the magic away from the game, and completely missing the point:This is suppose to be a fantasy story of imagination! Not a contest to see who is strongest.

I mean I've seen people call the power gaming card over a ranger who was just your typical pathfinder-switch-hitter (A perfectly Iconic design) who was outperforming some poorly designed rogues.

speaking of rogues... your character avatar has something that doesn't belong to them.... i think i see a certain blue haired individual running your way.... ^^

[LordBlades]

Another pair of preconceptions that I've encountered and IMO lead to the wrong attitude toward:

-Authority of game designers. These guys were professionals, paid for their work, their work sold well so it must be a quality game right? If Joe Nobody makes a healer (cleric) that fights better than the party fighter, it's much more likely that the blame resides with Joe Nobody than the professional game designers. Pretty much every single group of D&D I've been a part of has started under the assumption that the game was balanced (and if you broke it it was your damn fault) until shown irrefutable evidence of the contrary.

-Optimization takes effort,which many people are unwilling to dedicate to this facet of the game. It's easier to have the optimizer not optimize (Since it's perceived as taking no effort on his part) than have the other people take the time and effort to learn how to optimize. OF course, whether not optimizing is fun or not for the optimizers is often overlooked.

[Nytemare3701]

OF course, whether not optimizing is fun or not for the optimizers is often overlooked.

Don't I know it. 

[Frogman55]

-Optimization takes effort,which many people are unwilling to dedicate to this facet of the game. It's easier to have the optimizer not optimize (Since it's perceived as taking no effort on his part) than have the other people take the time and effort to learn how to optimize. OF course, whether not optimizing is fun or not for the optimizers is often overlooked.

On a similar note, has anyone else noticed that a character created by someone who always sits down with optimized builds gets treated better than someone who builds something powerful on accident?

I remember one time when a player who always played the stereotypical spoony bard stumbled into snowflake wardance on accident... my group (including DM) loved it. If I had sat down with the same I probably would have gotten it banned.

[phaedrusxy]

-Optimization takes effort,which many people are unwilling to dedicate to this facet of the game. It's easier to have the optimizer not optimize (Since it's perceived as taking no effort on his part) than have the other people take the time and effort to learn how to optimize. OF course, whether not optimizing is fun or not for the optimizers is often overlooked.

On a similar note, has anyone else noticed that a character created by someone who always sits down with optimized builds gets treated better than someone who builds something powerful on accident?

I remember one time when a player who always played the stereotypical spoony bard stumbled into snowflake wardance on accident... my group (including DM) loved it. If I had sat down with the same I probably would have gotten it banned.

lol, funny but no doubt true.

[Sunspear]

Ultimately I think people dislike optimizers for the simple reason that many optimizers are not considerate of what the rest of the party wants, and don't know when to reel it in.

If your party's Monk is doing 2d6+8 damage an attack, your Ranger is doing 4d10 with Manyshot, and your low-op Wizard's thing is tossing out 10d6 Fireballs, and you bust out your ubercharger build that does 2K damage per round, I think you're being selfish and kind of a dick. Because of your build, the other players contributions are no longer meaningful, and when that's the case they're not having any fun. It also becomes a nightmare for the GM, who has to balance for 3 non-optimized players and one super-optimized player.

Occasionally pulling out a trick you discovered that one-shots the encounter can be fun and entertaining for everyone. Using that same trick repeatedly rapidly loses its charm.

And if your group having fun means that you need to rein yourself in a bit, so be it. Save that ridiculous charge for when your party needs it, and otherwise go with less-optimal options. Maybe come up with a back story for why you don't just OP every fight away. You'll still have fun. Seriously.

[Sunspear]

Actually, I thought of a simpler way to put it.

When you optimize too far above the rest of the party, you are basically Pun-pun.

[linklord231]

Unfortunately, it's difficult to know how much to optimize.  Sure, I know with my usual group that doing more than 200 damage per round to a single target at level 10 is probably too much, and I know that same amount on a PBP on these boards is probably not enough, but what about a character that I'm playing for the first time at a pickup game down at the friendly local gaming store?  I've never met those people before, so I don't know what their optimization expectations are. 

[Frogman55]

Ultimately I think people dislike optimizers for the simple reason that many optimizers are not considerate of what the rest of the party wants, and don't know when to reel it in.

If your party's Monk is doing 2d6+8 damage an attack, your Ranger is doing 4d10 with Manyshot, and your low-op Wizard's thing is tossing out 10d6 Fireballs, and you bust out your ubercharger build that does 2K damage per round, I think you're being selfish and kind of a dick. Because of your build, the other players contributions are no longer meaningful, and when that's the case they're not having any fun. It also becomes a nightmare for the GM, who has to balance for 3 non-optimized players and one super-optimized player.

Occasionally pulling out a trick you discovered that one-shots the encounter can be fun and entertaining for everyone. Using that same trick repeatedly rapidly loses its charm.

And if your group having fun means that you need to rein yourself in a bit, so be it. Save that ridiculous charge for when your party needs it, and otherwise go with less-optimal options. Maybe come up with a back story for why you don't just OP every fight away. You'll still have fun. Seriously.

Absolutely. But...

This question isn't about why people don't like to play with the dicks. It's about why people have knee-jerk reactions against the cleric that isn't a heal-bot, or the guy who can do 10d6 damage with his sword to as many enemies in a day as that wizard could have fireballed, or... you get the idea.

The problem I have isn't players being angry with the jerks, its about the people who are angry about any improvement over a norm - because usually the norm that gets defended isn't a balanced norm based off of a class or concept, but a norm based off a specific spot. Look at Paizo's boards (mainly picked because they've got a large, active player base who are responding to new material)(I know we hate it, but bear with me) and look at the responses to Paizo's new classes. Notice how angry people are at the idea of a ranger/rogue hybrid that easily outdamages either class. Angry. Angry, angry, angry. Sure, its not nearly as crazy as a class that prepares spells like a wizard but casts like a sorcerer; or like a barbarian that gets magic that's cast-able while in a rage; or whatever else.

My theory is that people have preconceptions that let them easily except certain things, but not others. A wizard having an occasional 'win' button is fine. A fighter getting one causes people to freak out. Why? Preconceptions that date from the days of Gygax.

[LordBlades]

Ultimately I think people dislike optimizers for the simple reason that many optimizers are not considerate of what the rest of the party wants, and don't know when to reel it in.

If your party's Monk is doing 2d6+8 damage an attack, your Ranger is doing 4d10 with Manyshot, and your low-op Wizard's thing is tossing out 10d6 Fireballs, and you bust out your ubercharger build that does 2K damage per round, I think you're being selfish and kind of a dick. Because of your build, the other players contributions are no longer meaningful, and when that's the case they're not having any fun. It also becomes a nightmare for the GM, who has to balance for 3 non-optimized players and one super-optimized player.

Occasionally pulling out a trick you discovered that one-shots the encounter can be fun and entertaining for everyone. Using that same trick repeatedly rapidly loses its charm.

And if your group having fun means that you need to rein yourself in a bit, so be it. Save that ridiculous charge for when your party needs it, and otherwise go with less-optimal options. Maybe come up with a back story for why you don't just OP every fight away. You'll still have fun. Seriously.

Of course, the opposite is also true. If the whole party consists of characters that are actually good at what they're doing, you probably shouldn't come with a character that isn't, just because you have this awesome background idea for Bill the Village Baker who goes out to save the world despite the odds and his own incompetence at anything else than baking.

For some reason though, bringing a dead weight (that still gets an equal share of treasure and XP) into an optimized group gets a lot less flak than bringing an optimized character into an unoptimized group.

[Kajhera]

Likely because cupcakes and muffins without stealing anyone's shot at glory are always welcome. Bob, on the other hand, is likely going to get frustrated pretty quickly that he's not contributing usefully. See it from NPCs we drag along all the time, even. 

[Unbeliever]

...
For some reason though, bringing a dead weight (that still gets an equal share of treasure and XP) into an optimized group gets a lot less flak than bringing an optimized character into an unoptimized group.

Likely due to different social dynamics, which Kajhera touched on I think.  Setting aside assholes on either side for a minute -- an asshole who is pro-charopp and one who is anti-charopp are both, tautologically, assholes -- what's the response of a decent person who is into charopp when the "incompetent" character shows up?  Get together for beers or coffee and help them realize their concept better at the table.  Even if their concept is "baker who is inexplicably drawn into events and survives."  So, the problem ends up being very solvable.  Indeed, its solution is a kind of natural tendency of those who are into charopp.  This assumes a level of flexibility and decency on the part of the DM and the gaming table, but it's really a minimal thing. 

On the other hand, the only way to rein in the Mad Powergamer (tm) is to haul out the torches and pitchforks. 

Relatedly, on the roll20 forums I noticed someone who was posting that he was, from what he understood, an "old school gamer" but that he disliked that label b/c he found them overly combative and vitriolic.  Some of that, and the generally combative stance, may be bleeding through onto these discussions as well.  Likewise, it's harder to get exercised about how to optimized a given concept than it is about playing the game the way God (Gygax) intended it!

[Frogman55]

...awesome background idea for Bill the Village Baker who goes out to save the world despite the odds and his own incompetence at anything else than baking.

...What's the response of a decent person who is into charopp when the "incompetent" character shows up?  Get together for beers or coffee and help them realize their concept better at the table.  Even if their concept is "baker who is inexplicably drawn into events and survives."  So, the problem ends up being very solvable.  Indeed, its solution is a kind of natural tendency of those who are into charopp.  This assumes a level of flexibility and decency on the part of the DM and the gaming table, but it's really a minimal thing. 

If I remember correctly, isn't 'Pizza Golem' the answer to that particular concept?

But yes, I think the Grognard-style combative reaction to change is the real source of anti-optimization hostility, not spotlight stealing or campaign derailment.

[phaedrusxy]

IIRC, it was a Calzone Golem. 

[Sunspear]

Playing an unoptimized character in a high-op party is okay, because that guy isn't dictating the way the game goes for the other players and the DM. The DM can easily plan encounters according to the strength of the optimized set, while the unoptimized guy stands around and toss croissants or whacks people with a rolling pin. Everyone's happy.

Incidentally, that sounds like a pretty wicked character concept 

[CaptRory]

My dad's character once knocked out a possessed teammate with a rolling pin.