Why a desire to play an especially low-op game?

[Endarire]

I've heard accounts of games where people played very low op and were very insistent in their low-op ways.  (Purposely ignoring advice from their more experienced brethren, or belittling anything that didn't fit their vision of the game.)

I can understand if the group is simply ignorant of their options, and Casters Uber Alles can be discovered unintentionally.

Still, why this insistence on staying very low op and generally feeling super proud about it?

[FlaminCows]

Optimisation has gotten a bad name in the gaming industry due to the common tendency to try to optimise for a certain mechanical goal rather than a character one.
Additionally, some optimisers argue with their group over RAW rulings that obviously don't make sense, and since optimisers in general are the only ones who particularly care about the RAW at all there is a perception that all optimisers are like the ones that try to torture the English language with wording interpretation.

Basically, because of the actions of an admittedly large portion of the optimisation community there is a perception that all optimisers are either what we would call "rules lawyers", or make poor characters (in terms of consistency with the game setting and flavour and groundedness), or both.

[veekie]

One very simple reason.

The game just works better that way for the most part. The designers do not significantly account for optimization, the more you optimize the less the game is designed to cope with you. True, there are certain cases where things are so below par(see Monk) that they need optimization to work at all, but most don't actually do so horribly badly.

[Waazraath]

Veekie +1

I played both very high op as wel as low op games. It doesn't really matter that much in 'fun' in my experience, as long as you have a good DM that is able to fit the challenges to the level of optimization of the players, and as long as players are more or less on the same level of power.

A thing in favor of low op campaigns as a DM: it takes much, much less time to design a good adventure for a party that has very few options then for a party with hundreds of options.

Another thing in favour of low-op campaigns: removing the rocket tag (save or dies, save or sucks, ubercharging, which is a way of making the game more low-op) leads to longer fights (duh), which sometimes gives a more epic feel. A fight that is drawn out over three hours and has ups and downs is generally more exiting then a fight that ends after a few rounds with a save or die or 2500 points of melee damage in one hit.

A thing in favor of the high op games is imo that sometimes it is nice to use the powers in the game to the max.

[zioth]

In addition to making things easier for the DM, it makes things easier for inexperienced or less mathematically-minded players. Even a monk or straight fighter can feel useful in a game where the wizard is casting spells like Fireball, and the DM creates encounters designed for the party.

[Unbeliever]

Another thing in favour of low-op campaigns: removing the rocket tag (save or dies, save or sucks, ubercharging, which is a way of making the game more low-op) leads to longer fights (duh), which sometimes gives a more epic feel. A fight that is drawn out over three hours and has ups and downs is generally more exiting then a fight that ends after a few rounds with a save or die or 2500 points of melee damage in one hit.

Small disagreement: using regular D&D monsters there is still a fair amount of rocket tag floating around.  Beholders, et al. have plenty of save or dies.  Although it might happen at a higher level than in high OP and it might be more on side of the screen than the other. 

[Captnq]

Because maybe they are Op-ing for something you don't think is Op.

For example, Someone else was annoyed at getting killed by his party members for his equipment. I suggested making an Op for Destroying magic items. A Sunder Op, if you will. Now, no sane player would play with someone who's main skill was to destroy treasure, but for the player in question, destroying all the treasure makes a point that maybe you can take greed too far.

That reminds me. What would I have to do to get a dire rust monster as a mount for a paladin?

[Waazraath]

Another thing in favour of low-op campaigns: removing the rocket tag (save or dies, save or sucks, ubercharging, which is a way of making the game more low-op) leads to longer fights (duh), which sometimes gives a more epic feel. A fight that is drawn out over three hours and has ups and downs is generally more exiting then a fight that ends after a few rounds with a save or die or 2500 points of melee damage in one hit.

Small disagreement: using regular D&D monsters there is still a fair amount of rocket tag floating around.  Beholders, et al. have plenty of save or dies.  Although it might happen at a higher level than in high OP and it might be more on side of the screen than the other.

Correct, but a DM is also part of the gaming group. If a group decides to be low op and to avoid rocked tag, that obvious should for the DM as well. A DM as literally uncountable ways to create level apropriate challenges, so it's no problem to avoid beholders, bodaks, cockatrices, basilisks, etc. etc.

[littha]

Another thing in favour of low-op campaigns: removing the rocket tag (save or dies, save or sucks, ubercharging, which is a way of making the game more low-op) leads to longer fights (duh), which sometimes gives a more epic feel. A fight that is drawn out over three hours and has ups and downs is generally more exiting then a fight that ends after a few rounds with a save or die or 2500 points of melee damage in one hit.

Small disagreement: using regular D&D monsters there is still a fair amount of rocket tag floating around.  Beholders, et al. have plenty of save or dies.  Although it might happen at a higher level than in high OP and it might be more on side of the screen than the other.

Correct, but a DM is also part of the gaming group. If a group decides to be low op and to avoid rocked tag, that obvious should for the DM as well. A DM as literally uncountable ways to create level apropriate challenges, so it's no problem to avoid beholders, bodaks, cockatrices, basilisks, etc. etc.

Don't forget things like dragons, other than their spellcasting they are often quite capable of killing a character in a full attack due to their multitude of natural weapons and high Str mod.

[veekie]

Another thing in favour of low-op campaigns: removing the rocket tag (save or dies, save or sucks, ubercharging, which is a way of making the game more low-op) leads to longer fights (duh), which sometimes gives a more epic feel. A fight that is drawn out over three hours and has ups and downs is generally more exiting then a fight that ends after a few rounds with a save or die or 2500 points of melee damage in one hit.

Small disagreement: using regular D&D monsters there is still a fair amount of rocket tag floating around.  Beholders, et al. have plenty of save or dies.  Although it might happen at a higher level than in high OP and it might be more on side of the screen than the other.

Correct, but a DM is also part of the gaming group. If a group decides to be low op and to avoid rocked tag, that obvious should for the DM as well. A DM as literally uncountable ways to create level apropriate challenges, so it's no problem to avoid beholders, bodaks, cockatrices, basilisks, etc. etc.

Don't forget things like dragons, other than their spellcasting they are often quite capable of killing a character in a full attack due to their multitude of natural weapons and high Str mod.

Most of these have a conceptual space in setting as 'boss' encounters though, which is fine. Day-to-day encounters deal with more common creatures like animals, etc, with proportionately less rocket tag. In such cases, then, rocket tag may be a design feature for boss monsters simply because they're supposed to be scary.

Other monsters just plain need to be dumbed down a bit. Dragons and beholders need to spread their pain out across the party, or be really really lethal in a hurry, etc. Still, it gives more room for game space, because there are a lot more weak monsters than strong ones and they fit more easily into most settings.

[littha]

The thing is even "mook" enemies can be rather letal at certain points. Shadows and Wights are hardly what I would call boss encounters but their energy draining attacks can lead to a rather abrupt conclusion to a campaign.

The same can also be said of creatures with Con damage poison or upper level spell like abilites.

[veekie]

Usually, yes, but they are also not that common relative to say, dire animals or high HD zombies/skeletons, so it's less restrictive to have a low op group(in that dire animals and stuff like aggressive but slow plants remain relevant). Easier to do without Shadows and Wights than to do without wild animals.

[littha]

Unless all you are going to run is dire animals or skeletons/zombies you might suffer from a rather shallow pool of enemies. Especially at higher levels

[Unbeliever]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with the posts after my initial one.  My main point was just that rocket tag (tm) does not exist solely as the purview of high-op or high-level.  That, I think, is uncontentious.

Semi-corollary to that statement:  rocket tag can sneak up on you.  As a DM, it's liberally sprinkled through monsters, sometimes sort of randomly.  Setting aside the silliness that is Monster Manual II, you still find it in surprising monsters, especially when it is buried in their spell-like abilities section.  The good thing about beholders, wights, and dragons, at least, is that they are well-known to have rockets.  That's part of their charm, imho. 

As a player, even if you were playing a totally "classic" caster, like you were only using iconic D&D spells, you would still end up with rocket tag after a while what with your Fingers of Death and so on.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

+1 to Veekie , with a minor exception.

Lo-Po games run into BBEGs that even if the DM
is playing it like a cupcake, will totally destroy the
lo-po PCs ... like forever ... like tortured on the 7th
level of the hells, as practice sport for devils, for
a minimum of 1000+ years for each and every
devil that exists on that 7th level of hell.

But maybe that IS their heart's desire ... 

[Endarire]

One thing low op can't pull off well or at all is the Superman Switch.  When things are going badly for the group, the Clark Kent who was holding back can suddenly become Superman and save the day.

Also, there's less ability to buff weaker characters up to the level of stronger ones.  (I call it Exalting Your Teammates or Group Exaltation.)  A Commoner in a party with a Wizard/Incantatrix is probably dead weight (arbitrary amount of chickens aside), but the Wizard can use polymorph so Commoner Bob isn't so common anymore, nor so Bob anymore.

[FlaminCows]

One thing low op can't pull off well or at all is the Superman Switch.  When things are going badly for the group, the Clark Kent who was holding back can suddenly become Superman and save the day.

Also, there's less ability to buff weaker characters up to the level of stronger ones. A Commoner in a party with a Wizard/Incantatrix is probably dead weight, but the Wizard can use polymorph so Commoner Bob isn't so common anymore, nor so Bob anymore.

Deliberately holding back during the game isn't very fun, and nobody likes to know that their abilities are completely dependant on another character. Additionally, there is the story aspect: suddenly becoming more powerful gives a Deus Ex Machina feel, and that is not a good feel at all. For that matter, a party with Incantrix and a Commoner is not high-op, it is a poorly built party. The op level indicates how optimised most of the party is, not how optimised a single character is.

The real strength of a high-op game isn't the op level. Rather, it is that to have a properly high-op game you have to have people who are familiar with a lot of the rules. The benefit of this is that everybody knows which rules have a detrimental effect on the campaign and avoid them. Or, in other words: The ability to break a campaign is worthless, but the ability to not break the campaign accidentally is divine.

In very good high-op games, each player is a sort of mini-DM: they veto like a DM, they try to make the game fun for the whole group, they are alert to the other players' characters and build around each other, and they might even help shape the campaign around them. It is a lot easier for an optimised character to trim down to the party's level than for an unoptimised character to build up.

[Unbeliever]

...
The real strength of a high-op game isn't the op level. Rather, it is that to have a properly high-op game you have to have people who are familiar with a lot of the rules. The benefit of this is that everybody knows which rules have a detrimental effect on the campaign and avoid them. Or, in other words: The ability to break a campaign is worthless, but the ability to not break the campaign accidentally is divine.

In very good high-op games, each player is a sort of mini-DM: they veto like a DM, they try to make the game fun for the whole group, they are alert to the other players' characters and build around each other, and they might even help shape the campaign around them. It is a lot easier for an optimised character to trim down to the party's level than for an unoptimised character to build up.

I'd call this "standard operating procedure."  Although players differ in their attentiveness to the rules.

I don't think the Superman Switch is a good thing at all, for pretty much the reasons FlaminCows described.

[veekie]

Deliberately holding back during the game isn't very fun, and nobody likes to know that their abilities are completely dependant on another character. Additionally, there is the story aspect: suddenly becoming more powerful gives a Deus Ex Machina feel, and that is not a good feel at all. For that matter, a party with Incantrix and a Commoner is not high-op, it is a poorly built party. The op level indicates how optimised most of the party is, not how optimised a single character is.

The real strength of a high-op game isn't the op level. Rather, it is that to have a properly high-op game you have to have people who are familiar with a lot of the rules. The benefit of this is that everybody knows which rules have a detrimental effect on the campaign and avoid them. Or, in other words: The ability to break a campaign is worthless, but the ability to not break the campaign accidentally is divine.

In very good high-op games, each player is a sort of mini-DM: they veto like a DM, they try to make the game fun for the whole group, they are alert to the other players' characters and build around each other, and they might even help shape the campaign around them. It is a lot easier for an optimised character to trim down to the party's level than for an unoptimised character to build up.

Agreed on all counts. But heres the thing.

High op games require a much higher level of player skill across the board as an assumption. Everyone must both be good at optimization AND not a dick. I have had a total of 0 groups in my gaming career so far where this is true of more than half the group. The rest will struggle to keep up and stay fun.

[FlaminCows]

Agreed on all counts. But heres the thing.

High op games require a much higher level of player skill across the board as an assumption. Everyone must both be good at optimization AND not a dick. I have had a total of 0 groups in my gaming career so far where this is true of more than half the group. The rest will struggle to keep up and stay fun.

That's pretty much the usual problem. Our hobby is very small, and although on the internet the usual response to any game complain is "find a different group", the truth is that there are very few groups to choose from, and that's if there are any at all, and in the end you can't group people by play styles or skill levels or anything because in the end a group will have to be assembled from whoever shows up.

Groups where everybody is good at optimisation do exist, though. Around here, for example, even the newbies pick it up pretty quickly. However, if it isn't one problem it is another. You've never had a group where everybody is good at optimisation and not a dick. I've never had a group where everybody shows a bare minimum of commitment. It is part of the reason I got into character optimisation: it makes character creation a fun challenge, and character creation is pretty much the only part of the campaign that has a good chance of happening before the group breaks apart.

In short: Savvy, Considerate, Dependable. Pick two (at most). If the person were all three, he would have found a more productive way to spend time than playing RPGs.