Author Topic: The "teamwork invalidates optimization," or "Suck Like Me" Fallacy  (Read 18731 times)

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Let's create a new fallacy!

In discussions and debates about character optimization in D&D, one side tends to associate optimization with its most extreme form: that of a character who effortlessly wipes out all challenges without the help of other PCs.

Their argument against optimization is that D&D is a cooperative, teamwork-based game, and that trying to "compete" to be the most powerful character is against the spirit of the game.  This is not a bad idea in and of itself, but it's often used as justification against making powerful characters on any scale at all.  At worst, the speaker contradicts himself and says that incredibly gimped characters are more in tune with a cooperative game because other players can fill in for the flaws.  A gimped character who cannot do anything competently can be more detrimental to a party than an overpowered character because the party's chances of survival decrease, and everyone else needs to use resources to ensure his survival.

But why is it viewed this way?  Is it because full casters can step on the toes of noncasters so often that they're encouraged to "reign it in" for the fun of others?  Is it because the original munchkins were powergamers who screwed over other PCs?  Is it because people associate "optimization and min-maxing" with its greatest extremes of overpowered cheese?

Example story:

Several years ago, I used to have this mindset.  One of the players in my games often played min-maxed characters.  There were times when he went "overboard," but many times his character wasn't all-powerful.  I once got into an argument with him, and I pretty much presented the points above relating to "teamwork and cooperation."

He argued that an effective character (a sorcerer with Save or Suck spells, in his case) was an effective team player: the longer a dangerous monster or opponent remained on the battlefield, the higher the chance it would kill a PC.  Reviving a PC cost money, which cut into the group's gp and into the wealth-by-level guidelines.  He also pointed out that he only dropped Save or Lose spells on opponents which were giving the party Barbarian/Rogue/noncaster a hard time.  He was gauging the threat assessment of encounters and planning accordingly by reserving powerful spells for difficult opponents.

Granted, he was a sorcerer and most of his spells were combat-focused, so he didn't step on the toes of the skill-users.  And the melee guys didn't mind because he hung back until things got really bad to break out the big guns.  This saved the party's bacon several times.

These points got me thinking, and I realized that my preconceived notions of optimization and cooperative playing were wrong.  Although his spells often made a cakewalk of powerful opponents, he was not doing it in a competitive manner, putting his own needs above the group, or otherwise acting like a grognard's view of a "powergaming, rollplaying munchkin."

P.S. Similar points were addressed in the Munchkinmaxer Fallacy thread, but this conversation is meant to be a discussion covering why some gamers view optimization and and teamwork as mutually exclusive.
« Last Edit: February 06, 2012, 12:56:13 AM by Libertad »

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #1 on: January 30, 2012, 07:33:14 PM »
Because some gamers still do not differentiate between someone who min/maxes and someone who outright cheats, even though the former is, if he's cooperative, doing his best to make the game as epic as possible, while the latter ultimately ruins the fun for everyone else (even himself when he gets booted from the group).

Offline CaptRory

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
  • Could Get Lost in a Straight Hallway
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #2 on: January 30, 2012, 07:42:31 PM »
Well, I think we can all agree that the point of any game is to have fun.

So if one character removes the usefulness of another character, the player of that character isn't having fun anymore.

Let's say you have a thief in the party with a wizard or sorceror who insists on detecting all the traps, opening all the locks with Knock, using magic to make the party invisible and silent, etc. The thief character isn't getting to be a thief.

The idea behind a Party is that everyone has their role to fill, and if there is duplication than the role can be divided into specialties.

If being the world's best sorceror means you don't need the rest of the party, then there might be an issue. A better way of dealing with it would be to help the other characters do better to have more parity with the parties strongest member instead of cutting the Sorceror down to size.


Really what this is, I think, is a difference of goals between Players and poor communication about those goals.

If Player A wants the strongest character possible, while Player B wants a less powerful more roleplay oriented character (who may be overshadowed by the rest of the group, but especially by Player A who is the most optimized and min/maxed) I think you need to sit down with everyone and figure out who wants what out of the game.

Going back to my first example, if the Sorceror/Wizard-cum-Rogue wanted to create a character that was taking essentially the rogue slot of the group but using magic to do it, but didn't tell anyone, then that's a problem of poor communication not one of optimization.

If the ultra-powerful Sorceror is so strong, he might get delegated to do the heavy lifting and let the rest fo the party help with other things. Have him fight the Archliche while the party tosses the room looking for the phylactery. His role transcends Magic and becomes that of "Tough Guy we throw at really hard things".



More problems are created by players and GMs that do not communicate than the rest combined.

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #3 on: January 30, 2012, 09:16:30 PM »
Well really, the sorcerer spamming Knock is not optimized, or at least is not being played optimally.  He's wasting spell slots on something that another party member could handle without spending any resources.  Dumb.
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #4 on: January 30, 2012, 09:27:11 PM »
Actually, I think this argument: 
...
Several years ago, I used to have this mindset.  One of the players in my games often played min-maxed characters.  There were times when he went "overboard," but many times his character wasn't all-powerful.  I once got into an argument with him, and I pretty much presented the points above relating to "teamwork and cooperation."

He argued that an effective character (a sorcerer with Save or Suck spells, in his case) was an effective team player: the longer a dangerous monster or opponent remained on the battlefield, the higher the chance it would kill a PC.  Reviving a PC cost money, which cut into the group's gp and into the wealth-by-level guidelines.  He also pointed out that he only dropped Save or Lose spells on opponents which were giving the party Barbarian/Rogue/noncaster a hard time.  He was gauging the threat assessment of encounters and planning accordingly by reserving powerful spells for difficult opponents.

Granted, he was a sorcerer and most of his spells were combat-focused, so he didn't step on the toes of the skill-users.  And the melee guys didn't mind because he hung back until things got really bad to break out the big guns.  This saved the party's bacon several times.
does a disservice to character optimizers in this context.  Let me try and explain why I believe this.

I think the big issue, which the OP touches upon, in a game like D&D with some sense of character roles (as opposed to Vampire the Masquerade, Mutants and Masterminds, or Star Wars, which has less role definition in play) is stepping on other people's toes.  Niche protection.  So, when the optimized character can do everything better than anyone else, then that's going to be an issue. 

This is exacerbated b/c the game focuses really on one thing, mechanically-speaking:  combat.  Even the iconic rogue who disarms all the traps and opens the doors will want to participate in the fights, it's pretty much the centerpiece of D&D adventuring.  And, it's the thing that optimized characters tend to be the best at. 

The problem with the quoted argument -- which is essentially "my awesomeness helps you and us in all sorts of ways" -- is that it does nothing to protect other characters' niches or make them relevant.  Sure, it helps out the team in some evolutionary sense and in the sense of "winning" the encounters.  But, it does not ensure that they will be important in critical senses. 

Executive Summary:  the important thing is that everyone around the table be equally important, at least most of the time.  D&D revolves combat, though, so everyone needs to contribute equally, or nearly so, in that endeavor.  But, optimized characters tend to blow past everyone else, leaving a "why am I here again?" feeling.  This is why for a troupe-based game some level of intra-party parity is important.  And, maybe not TOO much optimization, i.e., not to the level of one-shotting all the opponents.

Offline sirpercival

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 10855
  • you can't escape the miles
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #5 on: January 30, 2012, 09:38:59 PM »
The thing is, though, that while a super-optimized character amidst non-optimized characters may be able to do anything better than the other party members, the fact remains that they can't do everything at once (at least, as long as the encounters are designed correctly).  So it's still a matter of resource management, and if the high-op char is being played correctly, they won't waste resources on duplicating someone else's abilities when they have other things to worry about.

Unless character A is completely useless, the only reason character B would be making char A superfluous is if player B is being a dick.  And then the DM should show player B exactly why that's a bad idea (by sending along things that need both character A and B operating at their potential).
I am the assassin of productivity

(member in good standing of the troll-feeders guild)

It's begun — my things have overgrown the previous sig.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #6 on: January 30, 2012, 10:04:25 PM »
I would support that argument.  That's why I think Beatsticks should prioritize Constitution over Strength and pick up Polymorph from somewhere (probably the party Wizard).

Offline Libertad

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3618
    • View Profile
    • My Fantasy and Gaming Blog
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #7 on: January 30, 2012, 11:47:40 PM »
I think the big issue, which the OP touches upon, in a game like D&D with some sense of character roles (as opposed to Vampire the Masquerade, Mutants and Masterminds, or Star Wars, which has less role definition in play) is stepping on other people's toes.  Niche protection.  So, when the optimized character can do everything better than anyone else, then that's going to be an issue. 

This is exacerbated b/c the game focuses really on one thing, mechanically-speaking:  combat.  Even the iconic rogue who disarms all the traps and opens the doors will want to participate in the fights, it's pretty much the centerpiece of D&D adventuring.  And, it's the thing that optimized characters tend to be the best at. 

The problem with the quoted argument -- which is essentially "my awesomeness helps you and us in all sorts of ways" -- is that it does nothing to protect other characters' niches or make them relevant.  Sure, it helps out the team in some evolutionary sense and in the sense of "winning" the encounters.  But, it does not ensure that they will be important in critical senses. 

Executive Summary:  the important thing is that everyone around the table be equally important, at least most of the time.  D&D revolves combat, though, so everyone needs to contribute equally, or nearly so, in that endeavor.  But, optimized characters tend to blow past everyone else, leaving a "why am I here again?" feeling.  This is why for a troupe-based game some level of intra-party parity is important.  And, maybe not TOO much optimization, i.e., not to the level of one-shotting all the opponents.

I understood that his character was very powerful, yet is was not obscenely so.  I realize the problem of caster supremacy and how it makes other characters feel useless, but the point of my argument was how not all optimizers are competing against the other players.

In fact, I think that caster supremacy exacerbated this problem.  It's so much easier to powergame a Druid than a Fighter that it leads to system dissatisfaction or accusations of powergaming.  I've heard stories of irate DMs who accuse players of gaming the system or cheating because they used PHB spells like Color Spray and Fog Cloud. :(
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 11:53:51 PM by Libertad »

Offline Unbeliever

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2288
  • gentleman gamer
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2012, 12:12:38 AM »
I understood that his character was very powerful, yet is was not obscenely so.  I realize the problem of caster supremacy and how it makes other characters feel useless, but the point of my argument was how not all optimizers are competing against the other players.
^this is obviously true. 

But, I think the "I'm helping out the team by being so awesome" argument that you cited does not actually respond to the concern. 

Offline SneeR

  • Legendary Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1531
  • Sneering
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #9 on: January 31, 2012, 01:38:37 AM »
I think this also falls into the same category as "I can be gimped to roleplay," but takes it to the next (il)logical step.
"We're all here to cover each others' backs. How dare you be more flexible/able/prepared than the rest of us!"

It stems perhaps from an inferiority complex. I am definitely not one to throw around accusations of such a thing, but consider it:
X feels bad because Y's character rocks. X has no idea how to make his character rock. Thinking with the mindset quoted directly above, X might think that Y makes everyone else look like they are not carrying their weight in the party, particularly X!

"You are accomplishing things I cannot hope to. I feel like I am playing well enough. You must be doing something wrong."
A smile from ear to ear
3.5 is disappointingly flawed.

Offline Tiltowait

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Werdna advances!
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #10 on: January 31, 2012, 08:35:33 AM »
In 1st edition, what class you were allowed to play was a function of your stats. Pure luck determined whether you got to play a strong class, or were stuck with something weak. It was around this time the whole "flavor justifies poor stats" thing came about, to make people feel better about being stuck with a weak character because it was somehow better in some other intangible way.

That mindset has persisted ever since. The someone else can do my character's job thing is merely a different manifestation of that same mindset.

This is D&D we're talking about though. Try to shuffle the problem under the rug and the rug will likely eat you.

Particularly since the same people that insist the strong person should do all the work while they do nothing also insist the strong person should be nerfed to their own level, resulting in an entire team that can't accomplish anything. A team might be greater than the sum of its parts but if you add a bunch of 0s together you're still not going to get much out of it.

In order to show teamwork you have to add something to the team. Adding something to the team is almost always a function of optimization and when it isn't that's because you took something naturally strong which in their minds at least is optimization anyways.

Along those same lines, optimized characters are the best capable of working together. If the game is easy they won't need to, but if it isn't...

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2012, 06:59:26 AM »
Teamwork and optimization aren't mutually exclusive at all. Even when playing something very optimized you will benefit by having some friends at your side, even if it's for action economy reasons alone (until you reach infinite actions per round, 4xfinite number of things done this round always trumps 1xfinite number of things done this round). In addition, more optimized doesn't always equal more versatile (see ubercharger or Mailman for example).

What does shoot teamwork in the foot is having characters with vastly different levels of power and/or optimization in the same party, double so if they (can) fill very similar roles.


Offline Tiltowait

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 214
  • Werdna advances!
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2012, 05:12:43 PM »
The main thing though is that the people that invoke this fallacy don't realize you have to contribute to a team to be a part of it.

Said people are using it to try and get away with deliberately making their characters as weak as possible. This is the opposite of teamwork.

Offline pelzak

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2012, 05:28:23 PM »
Hi,

I'm playing cleric with DDM cheese (bunch of nightsticks) but I'm only focusing on buffing other party members.
During the fight rest of the party is fighting while I, with persisted sanctuary only watch and heal/buff if required (I think that so far my character didn't killed anyone), but on the other side I'm shining during diplomacy/social situations while rest of the party sucks.
I think that this is great teamwork because it gives other players opportunity to shine during combat while I waits and in social situations I can speak while rest is trying not to ruin my efforts (rest is playing melee low Cha characters).

So I think that teamwork is not excluded by min/maxing or even cheese.

Best regards,
Pelzak

Offline caelic

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 517
  • fnord
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2012, 06:29:44 PM »
There's a fundamental difference in goals here: individual optimization, with an eye to being entirely self-sufficient, and group optimization, where a character is designed to optimally fulfill a role within a group.

I personally enjoy the latter; while both can lead to powerful groups, I find the well-oiled machine more compelling and more fun than a group of six CoDzillas.

Offline X-Codes

  • DnD Handbook Writer
  • ****
  • Posts: 2001
  • White, Fuzzy, Sniper Rifle.
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #15 on: February 01, 2012, 07:39:37 PM »
There's a fundamental difference in goals here: individual optimization, with an eye to being entirely self-sufficient, and group optimization, where a character is designed to optimally fulfill a role within a group.

I personally enjoy the latter; while both can lead to powerful groups, I find the well-oiled machine more compelling and more fun than a group of six CoDzillas.
Reminds me of a webcomic where a DM was astonished when his group came forward and everyone had rolled Dwarf Clerics...

Offline CaptRory

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 541
  • Could Get Lost in a Straight Hallway
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #16 on: February 01, 2012, 07:42:36 PM »
That's Another Gaming Comic. They worked out Dwarven Clerics were the strongest Race/Class combination and using different Domains they covered every role in the group.

Offline SolEiji

  • Epic Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 3045
  • I am 120% Eiji.
    • View Profile
    • D&D Wiki.org, not .com
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #17 on: February 01, 2012, 10:14:55 PM »
That's Another Gaming Comic. They worked out Dwarven Clerics were the strongest Race/Class combination and using different Domains they covered every role in the group.

Sweet mercy!  That's not a comic, it's a novel!  It's like Bum Tickley's "words words words" in overdrive!  My eyes!
Mudada.

Offline dipolartech

  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 345
  • Handy Haversack anyone?
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #18 on: February 02, 2012, 09:28:14 PM »
Hey Roy and Sol,


Automatic Listening check pass:: You hear words echoing from deep within the cavernous vaults of the  stone edifice you have entered. "DAAAAAMMMMMNNN YOUUU ARCHIVE BIIIIINNNNNNNNNGGGGGGEEEEE!!!"
A glance and a smirk is shared between the two of you.  ;)

Anywho, I found the comic they explain how much they like the dwarf though I haven't found the comic they made the characters in though it may only be 20 or so before this one.

http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=252
« Last Edit: February 03, 2012, 09:25:21 AM by dipolartech »

Offline LordBlades

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
  • I'm new!
    • View Profile
Re: The "teamwork invalidates optimization" fallacy
« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2012, 01:33:34 AM »
The main thing though is that the people that invoke this fallacy don't realize you have to contribute to a team to be a part of it.

Said people are using it to try and get away with deliberately making their characters as weak as possible. This is the opposite of teamwork.

I think they do, and that's what's bothering them.

If they didn't mind not contributing and just wanted to hang around, then they wouldn't mind if some other character was doing their job better.

The issue is with guys that want to make a contribution, but are too lazy/ignorant of game mechanics to make a character that's really able to do so in the context of a given game. So they find it easier to bitch until everyone gets down to their level of (in)competence