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

[LordBlades]

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.

It's still a lot more than the fighter can do to adapt to a game of wizards and clerics.

I don't say I agree with bringing high power classes in a low powered game and then dumbing them down to the game's power level, because I don't. For me, a guy that constantly tries to get in harm's way but doesn't try to be the best <insert concept here> he can, simply doesn't feel like a realistic character. But I've seen people do it and enjoy it, so all I'm saying is that it's possible, whereas the other way around it's not.

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)."

+1
Most often, I've seen the superiority of low-power gaming described or implied by something along the lines of 'high-powered characters are constrained by the rules, low-powered characters are not'. Wen you're playing a high power, competent character,you have a lot of mechanics supporting the fact that you can do a lot of stuff. When you're playing a low power character however, by the rules you would fail at most stuff and, since nobody likes their character to be a failure, they find ways to be awesome outside the rules. Most low op games tend to be a lot more rules-light and permissive as a result.

[InnaBinder]

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.

My counterpoint is that folks who enjoy low-op are equally mystified by the high-op folks who seem to think that High OP, all-casters-all-the-time, go super-optimized or go home is "THE ONE TRUE WAY, somehow morally superior/more "authentic"/more immersive" way to play.  I think both points of view are rooted in the opposite ends of the same error in thinking, and that both are wrong as absolutes.  I think that the OP's post tends toward the latter bias, and I think that many of the folks who have been rebutting my responses have shown a similar tendency in those rebuttal attempts.

[Unbeliever]

Either extreme leads to a certain amount of pain in the assitude for the DM:  coddling on the one end and counter-optimizing on the other.  Both of which work against one of D&D's great strengths, how it's easy to throw something together b/c of extensive and reasonably engaging monster manuals. 

I tried to articulate what I thought was the strongest argument against low OP -- restriction of character concepts -- which is my all-purpose RPG measuring stick anyway.  If a low OP game can manage that, and I'm not positive it can but I don't necessarily think it's impossible, then I can't see why it's weird.  Unless it's unarticulated, but again that's an issue for a high OP game, too. 

Although I'd probably chop of the tails on either end of the distribution for my comments.  Such a low OP game where the Fighters might as well be using wet noodles -- which Arturick articulated in a more entertaining fashion than I can -- is probably no fun b/c there's not much of a game there or a sense of progression, etc.  But, that's a crazy extreme, which I hope isn't realistic, just like I hope people aren't playing that many Pun-Puns. 

[Captnq]

Here's my $0.02.

I've run for hundreds of players. They fall into two groups.

1. I'm here to win. This is your typical optimizer. He/She/It wants to play X to the best that X can be played.

2. I'm here to Roleplay. The fun comes from being a cool character. Lets face facts, aging isn't that useful in combat if all you have is, "I'm gonna live for centuries!" Games don't last for centuries. Yet, I know of a few players who exclusively play elves for THAT REASON ALONE.

The first player enjoys the idea of beating what ever challenge the DM has. The second would be happy creating a new breed of horse and RPing being a horse breeder.

So, I guess it's like The Sims vs World of Warcraft. Both involve an Icon running around the screen. One has more swords.

But in the end, as they play, and the longer they play, the more they OP, just not in ways the other one understands. Finding a way to create the ultimate Magic Missile caster, when Shield cancels the spell in one shot isn't very useful for "winning", but can be fun to Role play as "master of Missiles."

Everyone OPs, it's just what are they OPing towards. I've never seen a player cripple his PC and make him worse in every regard. There was ALWAYS a reason. It just might not make sense. They might suck at the rules.

Tell me this, when was the last time you handed out a metal to a PC? You know, purple heart? Silver Star? Metal of Honor? What do you give the PCs if the NPCs are grateful? Gold and magic. Had an adventure where a kid's kitten wandered into a portal in Waterdeep and was lost in Undermountain. The kid wanted to hire adventures for all her money 1 silver, 4 copper. In the end, after expending WAY more resources then they got from the monsters, they rescued the kitten and turned down the reward. They got cookies the next day.

Now, I just have to say, "hey, remember the kitten adventure?" And they do. When I say, "Hey, remember the orc adventure?" They go, "Which one?"


Some players want a bigger boom stick. Some players want cookies. That's all there is to it.

[ImperatorK]

Medal, not metal.

[Unbeliever]

In my humble experience, Captnq's above post and distinction is extremely simplistic. 

I use optimization to realize a given character goal.  D&D (and many of the games I play) are adventure, combat-driven games.  So, adventuring and combat are important parts and characters should be oriented towards doing so.  You should have a reason to do the things that the game entails, otherwise you need a different game or a different character. 

So, if your character is hardy, the greatest archer in the land, you need stuff on your sheet that supports it.  Otherwise things break down -- Legolas will miss seemingly easy shots, Gimli will constantly have the sniffles.  And, doing cool stuff is cool. 

I can fully understand and appreciate wanting to play an immortal elf "b/c you want to."  Hopefully, that comes at minimal cost.  If it comes at more of a cost, then that's bad game design, which is part of why I have a hate on for favored classes. 

So, umm ...

Some players want a bigger boom stick. Some players want cookies. That's all there is to it.

no.  Good players, I think, are very much a blend of 1 and 2.  If they aren't, then they are missing something important about RPGs. 

And, in 3 out of 4 of the last campaigns we played we received non-tangible honors.  Not medals b/c those don't fit the settings.  But, we have been:  honored by our Thane, recognized by other Thanes as fair-minded judges and mediators, become factors of House Tokai (one of us becoming a budding merchant princess/viceroy thing).  The hurricane has disrupted our Crusades game, but I think I'm going to try and become Lord of Acre if the option comes up.  None of these rewards really had a game effect, I think the most significant one was the House Tokai thing which has a light mace +2 (which the party of psions and a soulknife are going to use a lot) as a symbol of authority.

The only one where these things haven't really come up was Savage Tides.  Which isn't to bust on that campaign, as I've been almost uniformly impressed by it. 

[veekie]

I use optimization to realize a given character goal.  D&D (and many of the games I play) are adventure, combat-driven games.  So, adventuring and combat are important parts and characters should be oriented towards doing so.  You should have a reason to do the things that the game entails, otherwise you need a different game or a different character.

So, if your character is hardy, the greatest archer in the land, you need stuff on your sheet that supports it.  Otherwise things break down -- Legolas will miss seemingly easy shots, Gimli will constantly have the sniffles.  And, doing cool stuff is cool. 

The threshold is as always, somewhere in the middle. It is good to be great at archery.

It is not good for the game to kill anything level appropriate in one round with said archery. When you start crushing level +3 things with the same grace something has gone wrong, intended or not.

[Unbeliever]

I use optimization to realize a given character goal.  D&D (and many of the games I play) are adventure, combat-driven games.  So, adventuring and combat are important parts and characters should be oriented towards doing so.  You should have a reason to do the things that the game entails, otherwise you need a different game or a different character.

So, if your character is hardy, the greatest archer in the land, you need stuff on your sheet that supports it.  Otherwise things break down -- Legolas will miss seemingly easy shots, Gimli will constantly have the sniffles.  And, doing cool stuff is cool. 

The threshold is as always, somewhere in the middle. It is good to be great at archery.

It is not good for the game to kill anything level appropriate in one round with said archery. When you start crushing level +3 things with the same grace something has gone wrong, intended or not.

Sure, but is that controversial at all?  That's all about judgment and gentleman's agreements and so on. 

EDIT:  And, to connect it back to the OP, if the game is explicitly low-OP then that scale will probably be tilted more towards the less scale.  Although some fighting styles (e.g., archery, fencing, sword and board) in D&D unfortunately require a fair bit of optimization even to reach par.  That's a failing of the system and, perhaps, something that a low-OP helps cure, as others have noted.

My point, which I don't take you to be disagreeing with, is that's a far, far cry from the dichotomy that was described. 

[veekie]

Conditional agreement really, since where "par" is varies by personal perception. It is quite clear that amongst published creatures, the perception of "par" is very much different from ours.

[Unbeliever]

Conditional agreement really, since where "par" is varies by personal perception. It is quite clear that amongst published creatures, the perception of "par" is very much different from ours.

Fair enough.  I can see a reasonable interpretation of par being either (1) parity between PCs or (2) parity with CR-appropriate encounters. 

I think there is a natural tendency to gravitate towards (1) on these forums and in charopp.  And, that's not exactly crazy.  In order to set the record straight, I was thinking of (2).  That is, when I think of a Ranger sucking at Rangery things I think about how it stacks up against a CR-appropriate counter and performs in its stated wheelhouse.  For example, how a straightforward 9th level elven ranger with twf fighting style and two scimitars manages in melee combat against a Hill Giant. 

I'm not really committed to any real statement about Rangers, et al.  I just wanted to be clear what kind of par I was gesturing towards in my comments.  And, given the structure of D&D and its (admittedly flawed but still better than nothing, cf. Rifts or White Wolf) CR system, there is something "objective" there.  The game makes certain assumptions about what your characters are capable of.  These can be modified to taste, but it should be noted that you're changing some of the (again, admittedly flawed) underlying structure. 

[veekie]

Then yes, agreed. There is a certain minimal competency, but it's not THAT hard to achieve. Low op fights tend to take more rounds, and have more damage taken in the process.

Still, do keep in mind that a solo PC is expected to be dealing with CR-2. A solo PC dealing with an enemy of the same CR is expected to be a tossup(which it isn't, any serious optimization would kill said opponent in one round)

[LordBlades]

Some players want a bigger boom stick. Some players want cookies. That's all there is to it.

no.  Good players, I think, are very much a blend of 1 and 2.  If they aren't, then they are missing something important about RPGs. 

So good players want....bigger boom cookies? 

Fair enough.  I can see a reasonable interpretation of par being either (1) parity between PCs or (2) parity with CR-appropriate encounters. 

I think there is a natural tendency to gravitate towards (1) on these forums and in charopp.  And, that's not exactly crazy.  In order to set the record straight, I was thinking of (2).  That is, when I think of a Ranger sucking at Rangery things I think about how it stacks up against a CR-appropriate counter and performs in its stated wheelhouse.  For example, how a straightforward 9th level elven ranger with twf fighting style and two scimitars manages in melee combat against a Hill Giant. 

1 is also a lot easier to adjudicate than 2. When measuring your character against fellow PCs you're dealing with 3-5 well defined builds, and it's quite easy to draw a conclusion. When measuring about level-appropriate encounters you're dealing with thousands of possibilities, with power levels varying wildly so reaching an accurate conclusion is quite hard, except the most extreme cases. What's on par with let's say a frost giant (CR 9) will probably not even come close to mildly inconveniencing a red ethergaunt(also CR 9) or a CR 9 dragon. And what's on par with these two probably eats frost giants for breakfast.

[veekie]

Some players want a bigger boom stick. Some players want cookies. That's all there is to it.

no.  Good players, I think, are very much a blend of 1 and 2.  If they aren't, then they are missing something important about RPGs. 

So good players want....bigger boom cookies? 

More like, good players recognize that you need to have more than hot air in the cookies.

Optimization IS fairly restrictive, the more so when the system supports it poorly. Take any given non-caster build. The build requires a specific and large array of feats to make it good(or even work at all), such that any 10 optimized melee characters are likely to share 70% of their feats(whereas 70% of feats never get taken because they don't help particular  styles anyway). Conversely, it takes skill to know where you can sacrifice, when you have achieved enough dakka to cope with situations without crushing them. Striking a balance is the hard part. What can you sacrifice of your build's components for variety because you are good enough already.

[Unbeliever]

^ +1 to all this.  And, I support cookie-based metaphors. 

Especially, this comment: 

Optimization IS fairly restrictive, the more so when the system supports it poorly.

[Endarire]

Shadowcraft Cookies for the win!

And the comments about high op being bound by the rules and low op being bound by imagination rings true for my group.  I know the rules, but their verdict (especially the logical extreme of their use, like Pun Pun or Circle Magic) usually isn't what my group desires.  They're in it for the stories and characterizations more than the rules... but I'm curious why they want to use 3.5 when it's so rules-heavy.

Also, in any field, those who are unfamiliar with things are bound by imagination while the experts in a field are bound by the rules.  Real life children are bound by imagination, and since they almost never can fulfill their dreams (while still being a child, anyway) of being a superhero, or a cowboy, or an astronaut, or a Carnegie Hall ballerina... they learn what it takes to succeed ('the rules') and therefore do it.  Adults have so much wonder taken out of them because they've learned the harshness of life and expect things to go tolerably or poorly.  Teens rebel because they're caught between the wonder of childhood and the sufferings of adulthood.

[Shadowknight12]

The problem with D&D is that it got popular. Yes, I know it sounds quite hipsterian, but bear with me. Let's get some axioms out of the way: Everybody's different. We may have things in common, but no two people are identical. The more people gather around a product, the less likely it will be that the product will satisfy its consumer base (because more people means more diversity, and more diversity means more conflicting desires from your audience). The more people gather around a product, the more likely it is that rifts will be formed as our animalistic tribal instincts take over and we snap into the "us versus them" mentality that has been largely responsible for both our survival as a species and most of the atrocities in human history.

With that out of the way, we can understand why there are such discrepancies in the consumer base, because the game has grown from its roots and everyone approaches the game to satisfy one or various of their needs or wants. And people who prefer low op are getting different needs or wants satisfied than those who prefer high op. But even then, both are getting at least one need satisfied in common, which is the need to be entertained or have fun.

Personally, I think it's silly to gripe about low op people this and high op people that. We're all gamers who like D&D and we all satisfy at least one common need through it. Who cares if some people like to optimise? Who cares if some people hate optimisation? Becoming divided and fragmented hampers our ability to form a solid consumer base and pass on our preferences to the industry. Instead of squabbling over personal tastes, we should strive to acknowledge that we have differences and that the games we consume (D&D or otherwise) ought to be modular to allow for everyone to put in what they enjoy and take out what they don't.

The only way anything constructive is going to come out of this is if we all band together to tell the industry that the only way they're going to make us all happy (and secure all our sales) is to aim for freedom, choice, flexibility and modularity.

[linklord231]

The problem with D&D is that it got popular. Yes, I know it sounds quite hipsterian, but bear with me. Let's get some axioms out of the way: Everybody's different. We may have things in common, but no two people are identical. The more people gather around a product, the less likely it will be that the product will satisfy its consumer base (because more people means more diversity, and more diversity means more conflicting desires from your audience). The more people gather around a product, the more likely it is that rifts will be formed as our animalistic tribal instincts take over and we snap into the "us versus them" mentality that has been largely responsible for both our survival as a species and most of the atrocities in human history.

With that out of the way, we can understand why there are such discrepancies in the consumer base, because the game has grown from its roots and everyone approaches the game to satisfy one or various of their needs or wants. And people who prefer low op are getting different needs or wants satisfied than those who prefer high op. But even then, both are getting at least one need satisfied in common, which is the need to be entertained or have fun.

Personally, I think it's silly to gripe about low op people this and high op people that. We're all gamers who like D&D and we all satisfy at least one common need through it. Who cares if some people like to optimise? Who cares if some people hate optimisation? Becoming divided and fragmented hampers our ability to form a solid consumer base and pass on our preferences to the industry. Instead of squabbling over personal tastes, we should strive to acknowledge that we have differences and that the games we consume (D&D or otherwise) ought to be modular to allow for everyone to put in what they enjoy and take out what they don't.

The only way anything constructive is going to come out of this is if we all band together to tell the industry that the only way they're going to make us all happy (and secure all our sales) is to aim for freedom, choice, flexibility and modularity.

This article does a pretty decent job of explaining why optimizers and non-optimizers have different needs in RPGs, and how those needs are by nature incompatible. 

[Unbeliever]

This article does a pretty decent job of explaining why optimizers and non-optimizers have different needs in RPGs, and how those needs are by nature incompatible.

And, again, this just strikes me as dead wrong.  And, maybe even pernicious.

I am a dyed in the wool optimizer.  But, I have no desire to "win" at D&D.  Do I want to play a character who is awesome?  Yes.  Although "awesome" often takes on very different values, driven by the kind of game and the concept.  Do I want to play an invincible god that stomps all over every challenge?  Absolutely not.  And, I recognize that it is often easier, practically speaking, for the players to be less optimized rather than asking the poor DM (often me) to customize every encounter. 

Linking optimization with competition (e.g., "scoring in RPGs) is a mistake.  It's a mistake that, maybe, many optimizers make, but it's still a mistake.  Optimization in an RPG (note, different than in other, more competitive games) is a tool, a means to an end.  That end, for me, is making the game work and being able to play character concepts that do what the concept is supposed to do and mechanically-interesting.  I don't see how anyone could possibly have a problem with that goal.

[Shadowknight12]

This article does a pretty decent job of explaining why optimizers and non-optimizers have different needs in RPGs, and how those needs are by nature incompatible.

And? That's exactly what I said. That our individual needs may well be utterly incompatible, but we do have at least one need in common (having fun and being entertained) and that means that we should be working together to get all our incompatible needs satisfied simultaneously, instead of squabbling over who gets to have their needs satisfied at the expense of everyone else's.

Just because two needs are incompatible doesn't mean that a product is incapable of satisfying both at once. Like I said before, what it takes is flexibility, choice, freedom and modularity. Let the players decide what they want to put into the game and what they want to take out. Let the optimisers play with certain mechanics and let the non-optimisers play without them. Or viceversa.

Does it take work on the part of the designers? Yes. Is that an excuse not to do it? Absolutely not.

[Captnq]

Well, yes. I over-simplified.

I'm talking about the DESIRE to play. I'm not talking about what happens in a game.

Look, for me, I used to let anyone bring whatever they wanted. I've started campaigns and one-shots at every level. I don't anymore. I start at level 1. Why?

Because if your PC has to join and quit three different religions, change alignment twice, and die at least once before even starting play, your concept sucks. I don't care if the rules allow it. Your concept sucks.

BUT, if you start out at first level, play through joining those three religions, change your alignment twice, and die at least once, then that's okay.

Why? Because I saw you do it. You did the research. You Roleplayed the alignment change. You surivived the assassination attempts, you paid for the raise dead, you might have failed, but you took a risk and actually pulled it off. That's fine.

I guess all my campaigns are low-op, because I require people to start off that way. After that, it's go with your bad self.