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

[RobbyPants]

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?

Why do some people like mushrooms on their pizza?

[Unbeliever]

...
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 does make for a challenge.  And, I'll take committed to their character and willing to know the stuff relevant to their character (such as through cribsheets, something my girlfriend really got me into doing) over op-fu any day of the week. 

Please tell me what you guys think about the following proposition, though:  optimization is essentially a public good.  Well, let me correct that, up to reasonably high levels of optimization, considerably lower than the top levels of game effectiveness but still pretty high, it's a public good.  In my groups the more optimization heavy of us tend to help out the others with their characters.  It's something that I've done a lot as I've gotten good at giving people options of translating what they want to do into their various mechanical options in D&D and the other games we occasionally play.  And, we also run characters by each other -- it helps us build better characters and makes sure that we're all the same page (e.g., "is this DC too high?" or "what's the ballpark damage you expect to be doing at this level?"). 

At a certain point, in the land of Celerity rocket tag wizards, this probably wouldn't work out.  But, I can help others make streamlined, effective realizations of their concepts,* or even just minor optimization tweaks to their current builds, that make them reasonably high-op.  I'd say up to my usual measuring stick, which is a straightforward Druid. 

Now, if people weren't comfortable with that kind of collective approach to character creation -- and seriously the emails fly fast and furious when we create characters, both on concepts, settings, and mechanics, and I'm led to believe that's pretty idiosyncratic -- then I'd certainly advocate for low-op games for the reasons already stated.  As an optimizer myself, it's fairly easy for me to pick a fairly "weak" character (e.g., Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Rogue).  Although I'd be curious how this would work out in practice:  most of the low-op ads I see for games are based on the Tiers system, and that doesn't seem to hit the right note.  If you restrict everyone to weak classes, then you still keep the difference between the optimizers and non-optimizers.  You'd need, instead, I think a sense of "your character cannot be taller than this" and then have people build accordingly. 


*One of my biggest annoyances with D&D, and why I'd love a small revision to 3.5 is how un-streamlined the game is, especially at higher levels. 

[Arturick]

There are several reasons that I can discern for playing a particularly low-op game, and I think it revolves around one or more of the following concepts:

1.  Magic is Magical! - One of the complaints I see on a regular basis from lower op players is that, in 3.X, magic isn't "special."  Wealth by Level guidelines, specifically designed to represent the amount magical swag a player has, makes some guys seriously itch.  But, D&D has always had a "Must Be This Tall to Ride" bestiary, filled with monsters that you NEED a +1 sword to hit.  My critical digression aside, a high-op party is not only going to have insane magical powers that they use to defeat EVERY situation they encounter, they will probably manufacture more (and better) magical weapons/items than they find in dungeons.  If your party can't handle anything but orcs, Stormtroopers, and the occasional Large, Quasi-Magical Animal Boss Battle anyway, it doesn't matter if the party is constantly broke and never gets more powerful items than a +1 sword.

2.  Lack of Rules Knowledge = Immersion - If your party consists of a Fighter, a Monk, a Rogue, and a Cleric who blows all resources on healing, then you are playing a different game than a Duskblade, Factotum, Druid, and Conjurer party with high op.  The low-op party has no mechanical control over the game, so everything they do takes the form of story-telling mundane activities.  It's a big deal when the low-op group successfully builds a campfire in the middle of winter.  It's a big deal when the high-op group blasts a dragon into the Negative Material Plane during a surprise round.  The sword and board fighter gives a dramatic tale about how he's attacking an orc, and the anti-rules DM rolls his 1d8+2 damage for him and describes their 412th epic battle against CR1 creatures.  The high-op player almost necessarily has to cite actual rules text to explain his actions, thus breaking the precious immersion.

3.  The Words Between The Numbers Matter - I was explaining to a fellow gamer once that an unarmed Swordsage, or an Improved Unarmed Combat/Improved Feint Rogue, blows a core 3.5 Monk out of the water.  He acknowledged my statements, and replied by saying that he wouldn't have FUN with those character concepts.  He wanted to play a "Monk," and would not have FUN unless allowed to play a Monk.  Essentially, he did not feel empowered to roleplay outside the flavor text for his class.  A LOT OF PEOPLE FEEL THIS WAY AND IT MAKES NO DAMN SENSE TO OPTIMIZERS!  This is the mentality behind "How do you justify a one level dip in Mindbender?"  and "How do you justify multiclassing into Rogue?"  For the optimizer, you may as well be asking a Wizard player, "How do you justify being able to cast Solid Fog at seventh level?" or "How does your Fighter justify having one more point of BAB after levelling?"  This mindset makes people honestly believe that you have betrayed the game if you don't follow every word of flavor text for your character's class, feats, race, etc.

Generally, people who hold some combination of these ideas are the most likely to hold up low-op as "THE ONE TRUE WAY!"

[InnaBinder]

Turn it on its head: Why a desire to play an especially high-op game?  If every character is running around with the equivalent of blue pajamas, red cape, & a big ol' "S" emblazoned across the chest, what's the challenge, where's the threat of personal danger come from, and how are they to interact with the rest of the game world?

[Unbeliever]

Turn it on its head: Why a desire to play an especially high-op game?  If every character is running around with the equivalent of blue pajamas, red cape, a big ol' "S" emblazoned across the chest, what's the challenge, where's the threat of personal danger come from, and how are they to interact with the rest of the game world?

That's fair, though I think we might have to ask what counts as high-OP at that point.  Is a straightforward Wizard, Cleric, or Druid considered high-OP?  If so, then the low-op game is quite restrictive on character concepts.  And, since it's pruning available character concepts and builds, it bears the burden of justification.

If, instead, the statement is "don't play Pun-Pun" or "don't play the Twice Betrayer of Shar or Cheater of Mystra," then fine.  Although those could easily be summed up by "please don't break my game into tiny little pieces." 

[LordBlades]

Turn it on its head: Why a desire to play an especially high-op game?  If every character is running around with the equivalent of blue pajamas, red cape, a big ol' "S" emblazoned across the chest, what's the challenge, where's the threat of personal danger come from, and how are they to interact with the rest of the game world?

For me it's options and having a say in spotlight allocation.

I 'grew up' spoiled on casters and now I can't really imagine playing a character that can only 5ft. step and full attack over and over and over. I've tried several times and no char lasted more than a couple of sessions before begging the DM to let me reroll. I like having multiple things to do, solutions to various problems and the ability to affect the world in various ways.

As for the second issue (having a say in spotlight allocation), most low-op characters tend to be quite specialized (regardless of how (in)competent they are in their area of expertise, they're utterly incompetent outside it). Take a fighter for example taking part in tracking down somebody hiding in a city. No matter how much the player would want his character to contribute, he's got no relevant skills (spot, listen, gather information), the relevant stats are probably 10 at most, so he gets left out, with no choice about it. A versatile character however usually has something to do in most situations.

[veekie]

You have a bit more leeway than that. For wizards, blaster wizards with a bag of tricks they can pull, for clerics straight out healbot-bashbot combos, for druids...well theres really not much you can do about druids since they're pretty damned good out of the box. Played naive, it's not quite high OP, but some classes start good enough that simply taking up BFC or extensive buffing as a key strategy would suffice. This is by the way, only weakly related to Tier.

[InnaBinder]

Turn it on its head: Why a desire to play an especially high-op game?  If every character is running around with the equivalent of blue pajamas, red cape, a big ol' "S" emblazoned across the chest, what's the challenge, where's the threat of personal danger come from, and how are they to interact with the rest of the game world?

That's fair, though I think we might have to ask what counts as high-OP at that point.  Is a straightforward Wizard, Cleric, or Druid considered high-OP?  If so, then the low-op game is quite restrictive on character concepts.  And, since it's pruning available character concepts and builds, it bears the burden of justification.

If, instead, the statement is "don't play Pun-Pun" or "don't play the Twice Betrayer of Shar or Cheater of Mystra," then fine.  Although those could easily be summed up by "please don't break my game into tiny little pieces."

I would say that, as a contrast to Endarire's original question about low-op, a straightforward Wizard, Cleric, Druid or other [insert caster/manifester class with 9ths here] qualifies as high-op, with possible exceptions for straight Warmage or straight Shugenja (for reasons related to their relative Tiers and abilities without multiclassing).  DN can still screw up the action economy all too easily, and a Beguiler can still bypass/short circuit too many intended encounters unless the DM is specifically working to counter that fact.

EDIT:  I'll wager that, for some fans of low-op play, the inclusion of any of those classes excluded above in this post would limit viable character concepts, requiring justification as well.  Consider it the "I'd like to play a ranger, but why would a party of a druid, a conjurer, and a shaper psion need a ranger tagging along?" concern, expressed by the ranger player, and not the high-op guys.

[Arturick]

Consider it the "I'd like to play a ranger, but why would a party of a druid, a conjurer, and a shaper psion need a ranger tagging along?" concern, expressed by the ranger player, and not the high-op guys.

At low level, the Ranger is there to scout without burning divinations and PP's, and to eat damage.  At high level, the Ranger really doesn't serve a huge purpose, except as a buff sink if the casters want to make a Magic Tank.  I've seen a Ranger get buffed over by a Wizard and an Artificer, then proceed to lay down 200+ damage per round.

Isn't trying to synergize your character with the party a sort of optimization anyway?

[InnaBinder]

Consider it the "I'd like to play a ranger, but why would a party of a druid, a conjurer, and a shaper psion need a ranger tagging along?" concern, expressed by the ranger player, and not the high-op guys.

At low level, the Ranger is there to scout without burning divinations and PP's, and to eat damage.  At high level, the Ranger really doesn't serve a huge purpose, except as a buff sink if the casters want to make a Magic Tank.  I've seen a Ranger get buffed over by a Wizard and an Artificer, then proceed to lay down 200+ damage per round.

Isn't trying to synergize your character with the party a sort of optimization anyway?

The portion I have bolded runs contrary to the idea of an especially low-op game OR an especially high-op game, by my reading, and Endarire's original question about playing an especially low-op game already includes the conceit that the group will by trying to achieve a certain amount of inter-party synergy.  It would be disingenuous to have that expectation in the low-op example, and not the high-op one.

[LordBlades]

EDIT:  I'll wager that, for some fans of low-op play, the inclusion of any of those classes excluded above in this post would limit viable character concepts, requiring justification as well.  Consider it the "I'd like to play a ranger, but why would a party of a druid, a conjurer, and a shaper psion need a ranger tagging along?" concern, expressed by the ranger player, and not the high-op guys.

This is a problem at all op levels IMO. Every time you take a group of let's say 3 characters decently balanced against each other regardless of their absolute power level(be it cleric/druid/wizard, or factotum/warblade/beguiler, or even fighter/rogue/healer) there's a quite narrow subset of balanced options for the fourth slot. A decent amount of possible builds would fall wide of the mark either being too strong or too weak. Why this is most prevalent in the 'low tier char in high tier party' form is mainly because it's quite easy to dumb down a wizard to fighter level(and many decent gamers put in such a situation would), but it's completely impossible to 'wise up' a fighter to wizard level.

[InnaBinder]

EDIT:  I'll wager that, for some fans of low-op play, the inclusion of any of those classes excluded above in this post would limit viable character concepts, requiring justification as well.  Consider it the "I'd like to play a ranger, but why would a party of a druid, a conjurer, and a shaper psion need a ranger tagging along?" concern, expressed by the ranger player, and not the high-op guys.

This is a problem at all op levels IMO. Every time you take a group of let's say 3 characters decently balanced against each other regardless of their absolute power level(be it cleric/druid/wizard, or factotum/warblade/beguiler, or even fighter/rogue/healer) there's a quite narrow subset of balanced options for the fourth slot. A decent amount of possible builds would fall wide of the mark either being too strong or too weak. Why this is most prevalent in the 'low tier char in high tier party' form is mainly because it's quite easy to dumb down a wizard to fighter level(and many decent gamers put in such a situation would), but it's completely impossible to 'wise up' a fighter to wizard level.

Why would it be desirable to "dumb down a wizard to fighter level," exactly?  If it's "because I want to play a wizard," then that same rationale should apply to folks who "want to play [insert low-tier class]," shouldn't it?  If it shouldn't apply in both directions, can you explain why that is? 

If it's "because I want to have the power available to use," then I'd think that either you're not actually desiring to play a low-op game (which is the conceit of the OP), or you're desiring to play one, and you don't trust the DM to uphold his end of the bargain and run a low-op game (which is a problem for out-of-game, not in-game).

[FlaminCows]

Why would it be desirable to "dumb down a wizard to fighter level," exactly?  If it's "because I want to play a wizard," then that same rationale should apply to folks who "want to play [insert low-tier class]," shouldn't it?  If it shouldn't apply in both directions, can you explain why that is? 

You misunderstood. It is not that it shouldn't work in both directions, it is that it doesn't. In the ideal world you would be able to adjust the Power Level to any group's preferences while still keeping all popular concepts available. However in a sufficiently high-op D&D game, there is no way to build a fighter that would measure up. In a low-op game, however, you could still play a wizard.

[InnaBinder]

Why would it be desirable to "dumb down a wizard to fighter level," exactly?  If it's "because I want to play a wizard," then that same rationale should apply to folks who "want to play [insert low-tier class]," shouldn't it?  If it shouldn't apply in both directions, can you explain why that is? 

You misunderstood. It is not that it shouldn't work in both directions, it is that it doesn't. In the ideal world you would be able to adjust the Power Level to any group's preferences while still keeping all popular concepts available. However in a sufficiently high-op D&D game, there is no way to build a fighter that would measure up. In a low-op game, however, you could still play a wizard.

In a low-op game, you're not playing a wizard.  You're playing a warmage with the word "wizard" written across the top of your character sheet.  That, or you're playing a buffbot for the party's melee-type, and why are you putting your resources toward someone who can't contribute without your help, again, when you could have used them for someone who can pull his own weight otherwise in the party (or at least is less hassle to replace, like an Animal Companion)?  Alternately, you're Angel Summoner, shrugging your shoulders and going along with BMX Bandit's convoluted plans while ignoring your own abilities in order to make BMX Bandit feel like a special snowflake.

I'm not sure I'd call any of those "keeping a [wizard] concept viable," myself.

[zioth]

In a low-op game, you're not playing a wizard.  You're playing a warmage with the word "wizard" written across the top of your character sheet.  That, or you're playing a buffbot for the party's melee-type, and why are you putting your resources toward someone who can't contribute without your help, again, when you could have used them for someone who can pull his own weight otherwise in the party (or at least is less hassle to replace, like an Animal Companion)?  Alternately, you're Angel Summoner, shrugging your shoulders and going along with BMX Bandit's convoluted plans while ignoring your own abilities in order to make BMX Bandit feel like a special snowflake.

I'm not sure I'd call any of those "keeping a [wizard] concept viable," myself.

You're taking a high-op approach to a low-op game. A wizard who likes casting fireballs is not a warmage, even if warmage happens to be another class which does the same thing (a class, by the way, which is not available to the majority of players, who are stuck with the PHB). Nor is a wizard who casts a lot of enchantments a bard. There are many different viable wizard concepts, which are enjoyable to many different players. Some people like buffing the party, not to make anyone feel like a "special snowflake," but because they actually enjoy playing a supporting role.

In my experience, there are a lot more people who create blaster wizards than "smart" wizards, and they have plenty of fun, without completely overshadowing the melee classes. Now, someone used to playing wizards to their full potential will find it difficult to create and play a wizard of any other sort, but that doesn't prevent regular old players from playing low-op games.

[InnaBinder]

In a low-op game, you're not playing a wizard.  You're playing a warmage with the word "wizard" written across the top of your character sheet.  That, or you're playing a buffbot for the party's melee-type, and why are you putting your resources toward someone who can't contribute without your help, again, when you could have used them for someone who can pull his own weight otherwise in the party (or at least is less hassle to replace, like an Animal Companion)?  Alternately, you're Angel Summoner, shrugging your shoulders and going along with BMX Bandit's convoluted plans while ignoring your own abilities in order to make BMX Bandit feel like a special snowflake.

I'm not sure I'd call any of those "keeping a [wizard] concept viable," myself.

You're taking a high-op approach to a low-op game. A wizard who likes casting fireballs is not a warmage, even if warmage happens to be another class which does the same thing (a class, by the way, which is not available to the majority of players, who are stuck with the PHB). Nor is a wizard who casts a lot of enchantments a bard. There are many different viable wizard concepts, which are enjoyable to many different players. Some people like buffing the party, not to make anyone feel like a "special snowflake," but because they actually enjoy playing a supporting role.

In my experience, there are a lot more people who create blaster wizards than "smart" wizards, and they have plenty of fun, without completely overshadowing the melee classes. Now, someone used to playing wizards to their full potential will find it difficult to create and play a wizard of any other sort, but that doesn't prevent regular old players from playing low-op games.

The entire thread, by my reading, is predicated on the notion of "a high-op approach to a low-op game."  Were I to do otherwise, I'd be concerned that folks would say I was moving the goalposts set out by Endarire.

[Unbeliever]

EDIT:  I'll wager that, for some fans of low-op play, the inclusion of any of those classes excluded above in this post would limit viable character concepts, requiring justification as well.  Consider it the "I'd like to play a ranger, but why would a party of a druid, a conjurer, and a shaper psion need a ranger tagging along?" concern, expressed by the ranger player, and not the high-op guys.

Ranger is a concept as well as a class.  I can make a character who does all the things a Ranger should be able to do -- meaning all the things it says that does but doesn't happen to be able to do -- who can totally keep up with, if not exceed, your Druids, Conjurers, Summoners, etc.  At least for any practical level of optimization (i.e., setting aside TO type stuff or the most ridiculously optimized builds). 

So, the limitation you point out is chimerical. 

Now, is it possible to play a classic D&D Wizard in a low OP way?  Can you play someone who summons things or casts Solid Fog and still be low OP?  If so, then I'll withdraw the objection.  Pathfinder's Summoner might be an attempt that sort of thing, maybe? 

That being said, I think there is a cost that only goes in one direction.  Telling someone they can't play the Ranger class -- note the class, not the concept -- b/c that class fails at all the things it says it's supposed to be good at.  That is, the player will not be the Aragorn expy he wants, but instead will fail at all the things he's good at, comes at very little cost.  You're sparing them sadness and disappointment.  Telling a player there's a whole set of concepts off-limits, that no, he can't play that Raistlin expy he desires, or he can't play that Cleric of Kossuth, is much worse/more costly. 

Again, if there's a low OP option, even just a way of building a low OP Wizard, then that problem is a lot less severe.  And, I will freely admit that the lack of an obvious one may be due to a certian breed of myopia or selection effect -- this is a charopp forum after all.


P.S.:  I think there's a lot of slippage between Tier and OP.  I could be mistaken, but I believe the above post is equating them, reading low-OP as low-Tier, and high-OP as high-Tier.  I don't think that's the right approach, though.  If I play the most OP Factotum or Duskblade or Warblade I can make, (or more controversially but possibly true, Rogue or Monk) it's still going to be "high OP." 


P.P.S.:  on a personal note, I had only given this a little bit of thought prior to participating in this thread.  But, I don't have much against a low OP campaign, and would be happy to participate in one.  My only requirements are that it'd have to be made clear at the outset -- that way I don't get invested in a character or concept that then gets determined to be "off limits."  I'd probably also prefer the optimization to be totally determined by the Tiers system, which while it has its uses I don't think is necessarily the best measure of these things. 

[InnaBinder]

P.S.:  I think there's a lot of slippage between Tier and OP.  I could be mistaken, but I believe the above post is equating them, reading low-OP as low-Tier, and high-OP as high-Tier.  I don't think that's the right approach, though.  If I play the most OP Factotum or Duskblade or Warblade I can make, (or more controversially but possibly true, Rogue or Monk) it's still going to be "high OP."

The space between them is nebulous, but for my part, I've been trying to maintain a distinction between "low Tier" and "low-OP."  I've tried to do so without changing the rubric that Endarire initially set forth as I understand it, where characters that are not capable of a multitude of world-changing, game-breaking actions are the focus; it just so happens that I find most of those are either "low-Tier," or played as such (the "warmage with wizard written on the character sheet" example).

[zioth]

The entire thread, by my reading, is predicated on the notion of "a high-op approach to a low-op game."  Were I to do otherwise, I'd be concerned that folks would say I was moving the goalposts set out by Endarire.

The thread is concerned with why someone would want to play a low-op game. My answer, and my response to your earlier post, is that there are many ways to have fun in D&D. If I decide that my wizard is going to specialize in Fireball and Cone of Cold, I have not created a warmage. I've created the wizard I want to play. I might decide to focus on illusions without trying to create 180% real shades. I might focus on enchantment without making a bard or trying to skyrocket my spell DCs. None of these options are optimized, and all of them are fun. More importantly, my illusionist doesn't prevent the rogue or the monk from taking the spotlight once in a while.

If you don't enjoy playing a specialized wizard, or a PHB-only wizard, or some other type that makes you grumble things like, "this is really a warmage with wizard written on the character sheet," then you probably should not play a wizard in a low-op game, but that doesn't prevent other people from enjoying it.

[Arturick]

If you don't enjoy playing a specialized wizard, or a PHB-only wizard, or some other type that makes you grumble things like, "this is really a warmage with wizard written on the character sheet," then you probably should not play a wizard in a low-op game, but that doesn't prevent other people from enjoying it.

A Core-Only wizard is not necessarily low-op.  A Core-Only Evoker is low-op, and still has potential for more utility than a Warmage.

I don't know that anyone is saying that playing a low-op character can't be entertaining.  The OP seemed mystified (and I share this bewilderment) by people who seem to think it is, if not THE ONE TRUE WAY, somehow morally superior/more "authentic"/more immersive.

I don't suppose that many people would rush specifically to the defense of low-op gaming in the sense of saying, "Yeah!  There's nothing better than having a character who repeatedly fails to fulfill both the role and theme I wanted!"  Generally, it seems like the low-op mindset is more, "I have a sword and board fighter, and having a shield is awesome because I, like, never get hit (and I don't attribute this "awesomeness" to the fact that we've been fighting nothing but orcs and dire rats well into 6th level and the DM let's me "tank" without actually having a mechanical ability to intercept movement or pull aggro)."