# Why is it a bad thing to optimise?



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2011)

Firstly I'd like to state that there are all sorts of optimisations. I am not talking about the gamebreaking builds that you see on charop boards, I'm simply talking about making intelligent decisions about your character's choices.

I don't actually spend much time at CO boards or even in CO discussions. 99% of the characters I build, I do so myself, sitting at the Character Builder for hours, scouring through options and finding fun combinations. This is my hobby. I like making characters and I like making them effective and fun. I find fun to be synergies in character abilities. Simple things like having the background "Adventurer's Scion" which allows you to reroll monster knowledge checks, and synergising that with a mage that has all the monster knowledge skills trained.

And yet I constantly find that I'm penalised and punished for this behaviour. Not only this, but I also constantly encounter the Stormwind Fallacy, whereby people believe that just because I bring a well-made character into the game, that I can't roleplay or that I won't have an interesting character history.

I'm the type of person who can write a twenty page essay on my characters histories. And not only that, but I am a damn good roleplayer. I know this because I get told it everytime I DM and people comment on how cool my NPC's are because I roleplayed them so well.

But as a player, people can't seem to see past the stats. It's bizarre. Why should I be penalised for making intelligent choices in character creation? Why should someone who makes dumb or illogical decisions in character creation be elevated on some imaginary pedestal of roleplaying brilliance?

Roleplaying and optimising are not enemies. I consider a person to have both abilities to be two of the five hallmarks of a good player.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 9, 2011)

If you aren't a one legged, one eyed peasant with a spork, you aren't a "real" roleplayer.  

Yeah, it bugs the crap out of me too.  As if somehow the ability to, oh, I don't know, READ THE MANUAL was somehow too bourgeois for roleplayers.  Grr.


----------



## OnlineDM (Aug 9, 2011)

My take: Balanced power parties are ideal.

If you have a party that's all similarly optimized, there's no problem at all. I imagine if you're playing in a competitive game like a convention delve or the upcoming Lair Assault program for 4e, no one will complain about any level of optimization because the goal is to be as optimized as possible for the task at hand.

But if you're playing with a party of PCs that are more "average" in power level, put together by players who DON'T spend hours with the Character Builder and find all of the cool combinations, your character is going to outshine theirs. That leads to a less-fun game where either the challenges are trivially easy thanks to the optimized characters, or the challenges are reasonable for the optimized characters while the non-optimized characters either die or flee or take cover.

A party with an imbalanced power level (at least in 4e, which is the game I know best by far) is going to be less fun than one where the PCs all have a reasonably similar ability to contribute to the party's success.

Edit: To be clear, nowhere did I say anything about the ability of optimizers versus non-optimizers to roleplay. I was trying to answer the question in the thread title. I don't assume that optimizers can't roleplay any more than I assume that non-optimizers can.


----------



## Herschel (Aug 9, 2011)

It's because D&D isn't about combat. ;-)


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Firstly I'd like to state that there are all sorts of optimisations. I am not talking about the gamebreaking builds that you see on charop boards, I'm simply talking about making intelligent decisions about your character's choices.




Leave out RP for the moment. That's nothing to do with stats.

A DM's job is hard. Balancing is hard. The classes are mostly balanced, but not completely. Player skill is not balanced with each other, neither tactical nor build. (In my own campaign, all the players use the Character Builder, which I hate as DM because it makes it nearly impossible to keep out material. I'm not even talking about unbalanced material, but unfamiliar material. You don't need to buy the book; the powers are there already, so the old DM tactic of not using book they don't have doesn't really work.)

So it sounds like your PC is not balanced with the other characters. It isn't fair to get your character nerfed, but you need to see it from the DM's point of view - if you're stronger than the other PCs, then the campaign has a balance issue.

I would suggest helping the other players optimize, and tell the DM to use more vicious monsters/tactics.

TLDR: What Online DM said.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 9, 2011)

OnlineDM said:


> My take: Balanced power parties are ideal.
> 
> If you have a party that's all similarly optimized, there's no problem at all. I imagine if you're playing in a competitive game like a convention delve or the upcoming Lair Assault program for 4e, no one will complain about any level of optimization because the goal is to be as optimized as possible for the task at hand.
> 
> ...




But that's not the issue here though.  He's not talking about making some insane monstrocity that breaks game balance.  He's talking about making a mechanically _competent_ character.

Why should a player who is mechanically competent be forced to play down to the level of players who cannot be bothered to spend even a minor amount of time making a character which is baseline?

In our current 4e campaign, we have a paladin whose character is barely competent.  He's sunk all his resources into strength, barely any defense, no Con and absolutely no ranged or area capabilites whatsoever.  Granted, it's a paladin, so, I'm not expecting miracles here.  But, having had to play his character for the past couple of sessions, I've realized just how incredibly weak this character is.

Now, I'm also playing a defender, a fighter.  I'm quite easily dealing almost twice as much damage per round as he is, simply because I've built a competent character.  Note, not insane, I'm not that mechanically minded.  Just competent.  

But, you and (Psi)SeveredHead seem to advocating that I roll back my character, make him less effective, so that I don't overshadow his character.

Why?


----------



## OnlineDM (Aug 9, 2011)

No, I'm advocating that parties be of a similar power level. If the one outlier is someone who's way underpowered, that PC should be brought UP to the level of the rest of the party.

If the outlier is on the high end, then yes, they should voluntarily move back onto the rest of the party's power curve.

If it's half and half, the DM needs to do some thinking and talking with the players to figure out how to get things more or less even.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> I would suggest helping the other players optimize, and tell the DM to use more vicious monsters/tactics.




I would be totally fine with this but IME even hinting at this gets other players all up in arms. The amount of times I've made innocuous suggestions like maybe upping a fighter's strength (in 4e) to 18 instead of 14 might help the player who is constantly missing with his attacks or that maybe using a +3 proficiency weapon instead of a +2 or maybe taking Expertise, and then been utterly mauled by player and DM alike for it, is one of the reasons I made this thread.

Heck, if I could build everyone's PC's and control their actions in the game, everything would be perfect!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 9, 2011)

I can see that OnlineDM.  My only beef is generally that I've seen far too much of the "well, I'm a _real_ roleplayer, so I don't need to know the rules" attitude.  It tends to get my back up in a hurry.


----------



## Tuft (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> And yet I constantly find that I'm penalised and punished for this behaviour. Not only this, but I also constantly encounter the Stormwind Fallacy, whereby people believe that just because I bring a well-made character into the game, that I can't roleplay or that I won't have an interesting character history.





IMHO, its not "Stormwind", but "Goldilock" and the "Red Queen".


Let's assume that the GM runs "Goldilock" encounters, i.e."Neither too hard, nor too easy, but just right",  a k a "balanced encounters". After all, too easy encounters are boring, and too hard ones are disruptive, right?

In that case, if player capabilities rises, then monster capabilities _will_ be raised by the DM to match, to keep the encounters at comfortable Goldilocks temperature. This brings in the Red Queen from "Alice through the Looking Glass", who had to run as hard as she could to stay in place; you expend a lot of resources,but the net effect is that the situation is unchanged. 

It can be enough with one character to start a Red Queen race. Now, the others know that the race is meaningless, but they have to participate anyway, since it is the one falls behind in the race that is eaten by the wolves, not the one that started it. 

Thus, bringing in a "too good" character is not altruistic, as it does _not_ help the party, but selfish, as the consequence is that some other poor bastard will bite it. Thus, the resentment.  

Now, assume that the "DM" does _not_ Goldilock his encounters, but keeps at a pre-set difficulty level. No matter what, come hell and high water, he wont budge from it.  Well, then too optimized characters will make those encounters too easy, and thus boring.


Edit: OnlineDM beat me to it.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 9, 2011)

There is nothing wrong with playing a competent character. I would like to see the role playing issue taken out of these conversations. It drives me crazy that some people think a competent character can't role play and a lame duck is some how a better role player. 

I will say that there can be issues for the DM if the players have to much a variety in power levels. There are several ways to handle this one is to bring up the other players power level or bring down the one player's level. 

I am more for the former then the latter in most cases. I will never forget the first time back in 2E I rolled two 18s for stats and the others didn't roll as well and the DM made me drop them to 16s. 

In another game I played in we had a player that rolled what in point buy would be a 56 point buy. The rest of us ranged from around 31 to 42. What the DM did was give us extra feats. The ones on the lower level got two and the higher got 1 and the highest got none. Everybody was cool with it and it worked out.

Now there are some builds that are legal and yet they step all over another character's concept when that happens then the DM needs to step in and fix it. 

A lot of issue could be avoided if everyone played with these two simple rules 1 don't be a dick and 2 the responsibility of every one having fun belongs to everyone at the table.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Tuft said:


> IMHO, its not "Stormwind", but "Goldilock" and the "Red Queen".



Where the hell are these descriptors coming from?


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Aug 9, 2011)

I think the people who have issue with "competent" characters are the people who have had to run games for those who manage to make characters that are nigh invincible. When they see someone doing an even similar action they flip out because it's one step on the slippery slope of power gaming, which I hold to be worse than murder.

So it's not the fact that you want to be competent, it's instances where someone totally ruined the fun by being _too_ good at their job that you're reminding them of.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 9, 2011)

Tuft said:
			
		

> Now, assume that the "DM" does not Goldilock his encounters, but keeps at a pre-set difficulty level. No matter what, come hell and high water, he wont budge from it. Well, then too optimized characters will make those encounters too easy, and thus boring.




So, because the DM is inflexible and unwilling to take players into account, I, again, have to self nerf?  

I'd say that a DM so inflexible that he cannot adapt to a competently played character should be taking some remedial DMing classes.

Again, like Elf Witch, I'm presuming no one at the table is being a jerk and no one is intentionally stepping on other people's toes.  But being told that a perfectly reasonable character is "too good" and that I'm a "powergamer" because my character isn't some weak sauce collection of weaknesses is annoying as all get out.

If people can tell me to rein myself in, why can't I tell them to grow a pair?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 9, 2011)

To some people playing RPGs, it's not about the rules at all.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Aug 9, 2011)

> If people can tell me to rein myself in, why can't I tell them to grow a pair?




Because then people start a troll war at the table. Because sometimes people can't handle the fact that you want to play a character well (assuming, as you said, that you're not being a jerk about it, and making a totally invincible character.)

Either that or because you might have to leave the group, because people have their comfort zones and how _dare_ you push them out of it.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2011)

Tuft said:


> Thus, bringing in a "too good" character is not altruistic, as it does _not_ help the party, but selfish, as the consequence is that some other poor bastard will bite it. Thus, the resentment.




Why isn't the onus on other people to bring more optimised characters instead? I find it far more annoying to struggle through skill challenges 'cause the guy with the high Charisma and low Strength chose all Strength-based skills. I find it frustrating when combats run overly long because one dude can't hit the side of a barn and so whether striker, defender, leader or controller, isn't fulfilling his role in the party.

Isn't it equally as selfish to not bother to create a decently made character? Why should I carry their weight?



Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> Where the hell are these descriptors coming from?



I got the Stormwind Fallacy name from the Stormwind Fallacy thread on the CharOp forum on the WotC boards: Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible



SpydersWebbing said:


> So it's not the fact that you want to be competent, it's instances where someone totally ruined the fun by being _too_ good at their job that you're reminding them of.



But I get enjoyment out of making a character that can do cool stuff in the game. And when I do that cool stuff, this is somehow ruining other people's fun? How about they pick up THEIR game? I'm more than happy to offer advice or help in building characters. If they're not enjoying the game because their character sucks and fails at everything that I succeed it, how is that my fault?


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Could it also be possible, Kzach, that your DM is reacting to other people and you're just suffering his response to them?

I know that every time I read a "hey, I figured out how to exploit an obvious loophole" thread or a "help me create a character with six prestige classes and an insane ability to do X at level 20" build thread, I cringe a little, since the results don't look anything like what I'd call a "character," especially since I cling to the notion that prestige classes are meant to represent inclusion in a group or the achievement of some honor, and not just as a grab-bag of not-particularly-balanced abilities.

That said, if you could come to the table and make a Frankenstein's monster of abilities and feats into a recognizable and intriguing _character_* all that would go away, but I confess I would have an eyebrow raised when you sat down, for a level 1 game, with a carefully designed build all the way through epic levels, without any idea of what's going to happen in the campaign.

* By "character," I mean that you should be able to convert to another system, or go systemless entirely, and the meat of who the character is should remain recognizable. We're likely to convert from 3E to C&C in my campaign next year, and the bard/human paragon/mountebank will probably be converted into a bard/illusionist/rogue or something similar -- but he'll be the same guy, no question. _Who_ a character is should always trump _how he's built_ for some players and DMs. It's not a more right (or more wrong) way to play; it may just be a clash of expectations and playstyles.


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Aug 9, 2011)

> But I get enjoyment out of making a character that can do cool stuff in the game. And when I do that cool stuff, this is somehow ruining other people's fun? How about they pick up THEIR game? I'm more than happy to offer advice or help in building characters. If they're not enjoying the game because their character sucks and fails at everything that I succeed it, how is that my fault?




It isn't. It's all in the perception of what's going on, and to be able to recognize that something is not from the past but is in the present requires the m-word: maturity.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I got the Stormwind Fallacy name from the Stormwind Fallacy thread on the CharOp forum on the WotC boards



I wonder why "Stormwind" got attached to it. The name makes me think it's a World of Warcraft reference, but I'm not sure how optimization vs. roleplay has anything to do with the city of Stormwind in WoW.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Heck, if I could build everyone's PC's and control their actions in the game, everything would be perfect!




Good point. You could start your own forum and post exclusively yourself, too? 

Or start a restaurant and be chef, waiter and customer.

Or a hotel,

Or ... the list goes on. 

Give it a shot


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Aug 9, 2011)

It's true balanced parties are nicer to dm. However, if I have to choose what is worse character, it's one that is underpowered. And if one or two players can't make effective characters and refuse help to make them, I let them play that way, and I don't listen if they whine that other players have "overpowered characters"=normal effective. I've actually met two people who like not only "one handed peasant stuff" and demand that other players would create equal losers, or it's unfair.

And nothing is worse than underpowered party, especially if you are running some adventure path. They just don't survive it as it is, and downgrading all encounters is much harder work, than adding something for challenge. 

Mind you most people who prefer to play underpowered "roleplaying characters" also tend to hate playing as adventurers.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Why isn't the onus on other people to bring more optimised characters instead? I find it far more annoying to struggle through skill challenges 'cause the guy with the high Charisma and low Strength chose all Strength-based skills. I find it frustrating when combats run overly long because one dude can't hit the side of a barn and so whether striker, defender, leader or controller, isn't fulfilling his role in the party.
> 
> Isn't it equally as selfish to not bother to create a decently made character? Why should I carry their weight?
> 
> ...




I get irritated with lame ducks. I used to play with a guy who loved making them because he loved the idea of playing a fighter with an 8 strength or a wizard with an intelligence of 10 who would ever only throw cantrips.

It made the rest of the party have to carry his lame butt and made our jobs harder. I love role playing but we are still playing a game and while in fiction a lame butt wizard might be a good read because he has author immunity it does not translate to a game. So I consider lame ducks to be selfish only thinking of their own enjoyment. 

On the other hand I have seen some powergamers make these incredible builds that just blow everyone else way at the table. Even other characters who are made really well. 

What tends to happen in this situation is the DM ends up making the challenges harder to deal with the powergamer and the rest of the party gets their butts kicked all the time. Or things become a cake walk and the game becomes watching powergamer play blow through the encounters and the rest start to feel like henchmen.

My number one rule here about not being a dick comes to play. If your character build is so much more powerful then everyone else and they have not made lame ducks and have decently optimized characters then yes I think the powergamer may need to work with the DM to bring his power level done a little. It is kind of selfish not to. 

There is not a one size fits all here to this solution.


----------



## GSHamster (Aug 9, 2011)

In my experience (mostly from an MMO point of view) most people who are against optimizing aren't really against optimizing _per se_. Rather, they are against _other_ people optimizing for them. If they were the ones to come up with the "optimal" build and reveal it to the world, then they would be happy.

But it just doesn't work that way. My rule of thumb is to assume that there are people who are ten times better at this game than I am. And there are people who are ten times worse. The better people are going to come up with optimizations faster than I will. The worse people will not see what I see, and just perform at a much lower level, making grouping with them destined to failure.

Here are a couple of posts I wrote on my blog on optimality (WoW perspective, so doesn't entirely match D&D, but you may find it interesting to look at a different game with similar problems):

Blessing of Kings: Optimality

Blessing of Kings: Optimizing and Fun


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 9, 2011)

Strange that you brought this topic up at this time. I know I'm blabbering here, but I just recently dealt with this exact issue and I figured I'd give an explanation from my perspective.

I just started a new campaign with half of the group being new to the group. After the first session, I parted ways with a player for this exact thing.

I agree that just because a person knows how to build a good character doesn't mean he can't also roleplay it.

I find nothing wrong with min-maxing to make an optimized PC. If that is what interests you, and you aren't making some insanely unfair & godlike PC (aka powergaming), then it's the smart thing to do. The thing is, I'm just tired of dealing with players that *do* make optimized PCs. Powergamers are simply not allowed in my game. But after DMing for 12 years, I'm pretty exhausted when it comes to managing a game. I now don't even want to deal with an optimized PC in the game anymore. 

I'm to the point where I realize that in order for me to enjoy DMing, I want it to be pretty laid back. I don't want to have to tweak encounters to deal with a PCs "trick" or the fact that he is tweaked out enough that he can thwart most any threat that I throw his way. I also don't want to hear other players going, "Dang man, how are you able to do all of that?" when they are only level 1.

In this recent case, this player was a min-maxer, but I thought he was also a good roleplayer. He didn't seem like a problem player at all. In fact, he had a moment where he began to metagame and when I pointed it out, he handled the situation just fine. 

He picked a class known to be considered more powerful than core classes. I was fine with that since I didn't think the power increase was much different. But in the first session, at level 1, I'm already hearing other players balking at all the "crazy" things he is already doing at level 1. Then I realize that the power level is made a bit more strong by the player choosing a good mix of options. Basically, at level 1, being able to heal himself, gain DR, gain additional weapon damage, gain reroll chances, etc etc and being limited to doing this only per encounter rather than per day. Nothing wrong with that, but it does stand out more compared to players that stuck mostly to standard PHB options or options that were more roleplaying choices than optimization choices.

It didn't really bother me until I'm told after the game that he admits that this class is more powerful at early levels, but it gets weaker at higher levels. So to compensate at higher levels, he'll be dipping into other classes to keep up with his power level. To top it off, he also wants to use a certain weapon known to give quite an advantage (and bogs down combat) and he will get to use it by dipping into these other classes.

I understand there is nothing wrong with this. He wasn't powergaming at all. But he was definitely making choices that go far and beyond what the other players will be doing. These choices are going to cause me more work as a DM both during the game and outside of the game if I want encounters that will be challenging to him & his "tricks". I've DMed long enough and dealt with enough of this sort of thing to recognize what I will be up against. A basic encounter from a published adventure (even a lot of BBEG encounters) is not going to hold its own against an optimized PC. Like it or not, an optimized PC changes the groups CR even if the PC is of the same level as the other PCs. I no longer want to gauge what the parties actual CR is because of a single PC.

After stating my displeasure of hearing about this future build, I'm pretty sure he was annoyed with me. I don't think he understood where I was coming from though. I think he felt more like I was saying his optimized build was a powergamey build (which isn't what I was saying). Going our separate ways was for the best. I'm sorry I couldn't have catered to his gaming preference, but I'm just not interested in dealing with that type of PC anymore. 

This preference was enforced even more after I played as a player in a new group the following week with a DM that was extremely easy going and low-key, along with several players that were just as easy going and low key. None of them were hardcore anything. No optimizers, no powergamers, no extreme roleplayers, no rules lawyers, no tacticians, and no whiners. I want what that DM has, a low maintenance group.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2011)

Oryan77 said:


> I want what that DM has, a low maintenance group.




There's no such thing. What you experienced was a fever-dream brought on by high-expectations and the stress and pressure of your completely normal group not only not meeting those expectations, but by failing them dismally, like all groups do


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2011)

I'm noticing a few people saying "powergaming" and "min-maxing" as if they're different from optimising. I wonder where I fall in that mix. As I said, I don't spend much time on CO forums but I do go there just to check out what's what and see if there's anything interesting going on. What I find is that they have come to many of the same conclusions I have on my own. I still end up learning a trick or two, some of which I then use, but I balk at the cheesy builds that end up being some weird hybrid with bizarre mix of abilities that combine into a super-hulk.

Then again, the CharOppers don't like those builds either. That kind of thing isn't generally used in games other than to test them and see how badly they can break a game. They're not meant for regular consumption.

But on the other hand, if I build a thief, say, then I get Gritty Sergeant 'cause it just makes sense. I get Backstabber, 'cause it's a good combo. And I get the Mercenary theme, 'cause why not? And then I make a cool character backstory out of it and enjoy kicking arse with it.

Is that powergaming or optimising or min/maxing? I think it's just making good choices that suit the character's role and make it effective in combat and skill challenges. Now... the fact that by level 2, with the right magical items, I can do a 6d8+39+1d6 damage attack in one turn doesn't mean I broke the game, does it?


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 9, 2011)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I wonder why "Stormwind" got attached to it. The name makes me think it's a World of Warcraft reference, but I'm not sure how optimization vs. roleplay has anything to do with the city of Stormwind in WoW.




Stormwind was the name of a poster at the WotC boards who pointed out that a player's ability to roleplay has no effect on his ability to make a powerful character.  

The Stormwind Fallacy is basically saying that "if your character is powerful, you're not a real roleplayer" is a false dilemma.


----------



## Mailanka (Aug 9, 2011)

I'm relatively new to the EN World forums (Hello!), and it's interesting how different the culture of the boards here are.  When the OP discusses an optimized character, people immediately launch into a discussion of how mechanical balance is important.  Given the amount of D&D I see around here, I suppose that's not surprising: D&D is often about a team of heroes working together, with careful balance required for the pre-fabbed encounters to work properly (it is possible to balance an encounter for wildly different power levels, but it requires careful customization rather than grabbing one of those intricately designed monsters from the monster's manual.  No surprise then that you see more people, for example, advocating wildly different power levels on the SJGames boards than here).

But I think this discussion has missed something vital in the OP's post:



Kzach said:


> Firstly I'd like to state that there are all sorts of optimisations. I am not talking about the gamebreaking builds that you see on charop boards, I'm simply talking about making intelligent decisions about your character's choices.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> And yet I constantly find that I'm penalised and punished for this behaviour. Not only this, but I also constantly encounter the Stormwind Fallacy, whereby *people believe that just because I bring a well-made character into the game, that I can't roleplay or that I won't have an interesting character history.*




The problem here isn't that his character is "too powerful" for the group.  The problem is that he has people looking down on him, essentially, for "roll-playing rather than role-playing" or some such nonsense.

Here's why I personally think this happens: Early RPGs (and many RPGs today) had... problems.  The mechanics of the game often didn't match up to the fluff of the description.  A great example of this is Conscience from Vampire: the Masquerade.  Vampire is all about waxing angsty whenever you accidentally killed someone and seeking redemption, and according to the fluff, a character with lots of Conscience really values his Humanity.  However, mechanically, Conscience prevents Humanity loss whenever, say, murdering little old grannies, and sufficient loss of Humanity results in loss of character, therefore, logically, if we wanted to play a character who murdered lots of little old grannies, we'd need a high Conscience (and likewise, if we played a character who really clung to his Humanity and never violated its tenets, then you can get away with a very low Conscience).

You have, broadly speaking, two sorts of people that'll play a game like that.  The first sort will see that, according to the fluff, his angsty vampire who values Humanity should have a high Conscience, or that a jerk vampire would have a low Conscience, and stats his character accordingly.  He's using his stats to describe his character.  Another player, someone like the OP, would look at the logical consequences of what the stats actually do, how the rules actually work, irregardless of what they say they do, and will stat his character according to that logic: A humane vampire with low Conscience and a vicious vampire with high Conscience.

I can list a litany of games that have these problems, from 7th Sea that actively punished you for taking anything that gave you character or let you buy into the setting, or Scion, which punished you for buying anything other than Legend.

The problem with the latter player, the smart player, in the eyes of the former, the descriptive player, is that he's carefully outlining just how broken and screwed up their system of choice is, which is a pretty unforgivable sin.  When you show the Vampire ST just how messed up Conscience really is, especially if he hasn't figured this out on his own, he may react by shooting the messenger.  If he already knows, this might result in a second sin: The players might realize that this game is totally broken, but have a sort of unspoken agreement not to push the system.  They'll build their characters according to the fluff, nobody will build them in such a way that they exploit the huge, gaping flaws in the system, and everyone gets a long great, right up until someone bulls in and tears up the delicate, tissue-paper thin bandaging they've placed over the system.

There's a lot of games where this isn't a problem (and those tend to be my systems of choice), games that reward you for emulating the genre the game is trying to create, and veterans of those games might not realize that there's an entire swathe of players out there that enjoy evocative-yet-broken systems (like Scion, 7th Sea or Vampire: the Masquerade) despite their dysfunction, and accidentally cross lines they didn't know existed.  And even if you're not playing a game like that, there's a strong chance that you're playing with a group that has come to resent characters who are built with mechanical competence in mind simply as a knee-jerk reaction from their days of playing such messy systems.

Or so has been my experience.


----------



## Asmo (Aug 9, 2011)

My solution to players that just want to have fun and doesn´t care about optimizing and reading books are pre-made characters.
When we level we check together what the player wants and roll with that.
Been running Crypt of the Everflame with the pregens and all are lvl 4 and having a blast.

Asmo


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 9, 2011)

I don't have a table of min-maxers but I do have six or seven players all with different amounts of stamina when it comes to optimisation. This ranges from "the default feats will be good enough" to "I have a character concept, and I'm prepared to sift through six-hundred feats to create it". Everyone likes an edge, but none of them spend too much time looking for it.

At such a table I have found the problem, if it is one, to be self-repairing. Comments like "Grom's beard, how the hell is your Reflex so low?" or "You hit with WHAT attack bonus?" or "How did one Healing Surge just bring you from nothing back to full?" tend to make everyone look more critically at their own builds. After a few levels, this combined with observing how your own PC performs levels-off most discrepancies at the table.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2011)

Are you sure you're not making gamebreaking builds?

That said, I have a smidgin of sympathy.  A DM seemed to think I was a munchkin for giving my barbarian PC a halberd.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Aug 9, 2011)

Optimization isn't a bad thing. Nor is the opposite the case. Non-optimization and optimization are not bad things. It is all preference and playstyle.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Are you sure you're not making gamebreaking builds?




Well, I'm not AIMING to, but as I said, I come to a lot of the same conclusions that charoppers do, simply because they're logical deductions based on casual analysis of the available system options, ie. I trawl through the character builder looking for things to either fit my concept of the character, or to fit a certain schtick, or just for synergies that I think will be fun to play.

But as I said, I also don't like a lot of the super-hulk charop builds. To me they're not only impractical but ugly and inelegant. Take the thief, for example, the charop guide recommends going a certain route to get Kulkor Arms Master. Now, I know why that is, and I can see the logic in it, but I don't freaking want Kulkor Arms Master because it means I have to wield a hammer, and my concept of my character doesn't suit wielding a freaking hammer.

On the flip-side, I'll also sometimes alter my character concepts to suit certain synergies. For instance, I really loved the idea of a half-orc thief with the Gritty Sergeant background and Mercenary theme: his name is Sarge. Now, I never would've thought of this character if it wasn't for the fact that I realised that the Rapier was the best choice for the thief (pretty obvious and logical deduction) and that the best way to get a Rapier proficiency is through that background.

For me, the process of building a character is... organic. There aren't steps to it. It evolves and grows as I build it. I usually don't think beyond mid-heroic so most of my characters only have concepts that take them that far, but I definitely engineer the mechanics around the concept, and the concept around the mechanics.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2011)

Optimization isn't bad, in and of itself.  But it is not appropriate for all groups.  Just like *not* optimizing isn't appropriate for all groups - there are tables where, if you're not coming with a fairly tricked-out character, you shouldn't be there at all.

If there's a mismatch, in either direction, there will be difficulties.  

I'll note, by the way, that despite what a couple of folks have said, "competent" is a relative term in gaming, not an absolute one.  Competence is being able to handle day-to-day stuff - but what comes along day-to-day is GM dependent.  So, if you don't know the table, you can build a character that *you* think is competent, but when you get there is either over- or under-powered.

Kzach, you have said you spend hours making up characters, that you "trawl" the character builder looking for options.  You use the word "casual", but your words say that it somewhat more than that.

Not everyone has the time to do those things, or the inclination or talent to easily master large swaths of the rules.  Your hours of trawling may not result in things that would impress on the CharOps boards, but that doesn't mean they aren't vastly more effective than other characters at the table.

Why do you have to be the one to "play down" to them?  Why can't they "play up"?  Well, as noted before, not everyone has the time or talent.  Despite what some have said, it isn't just reading the rulebooks - you yourself spend several hours getting those results.  Asking you to "play down" is asking the smallest number of folks to change how they play - biggest payoff for smallest investment, really.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 9, 2011)

I sympathize with you, Kzach, I'm often in a similar boat.  I have a lot of fun building characters in which the statistical optimization and the background role playing motivations go hand in hand and inform each other.

At any rate, my take on the situation is this...

In D&D, we play character that are, effectively, professional heroes and adventurers of different sorts and specializations.  

In the real world, professionals always prefer to take jobs (class!) in fields that they are talented for (ability scores!).  And likewise, they will always prefer to take training (skills, feats and powers!) and use equipment (gear!) that will make them better at the job they work in.  This, generally, because the more skilled you are at your specific job, the more likely you are complete its related tasks (combat, skill challenges, etc.!) successfully and efficiently, and the more likely you are to get raises (loot!) and promotions (levels!).

So, if you would do it in the real world, why shouldn't a professional adventurer in a fantasy world do the same?


----------



## pming (Aug 9, 2011)

Hiya Kzach.

I think the "problem" may be that the other players aren't getting upset because you have an optimized character...they are getting upset because of the potential (inevitability?) of you getting annoyed because they have characters that _aren't_ optomized.

Ask yourself a question: can they play a half-dozen sessions with your character and not be 'annoyed' when your character does something decidedly optomized? And the followup question...can you play through a half-dozen session with them and not be annoyed because their PC's are not optomized?

I played with a min-maxer/optimizer once, and my character was decidedly non-optomized. Good at ranged combat, but that was about it. Lots of fun playing, very colourful personality, and everyone loved him. However, it was annoying hearing the not-so-subtle groans, the muttered '...gawds...how sucky...', and whatnot. *That* was the reason we all jumped on him eventually and said "knock it off". He did, and while outside the game he did roll his eyes and whatnot when talking about certain non-op'ed characters, he didn't do it at the table any more. 

So...I posit that this may be the problem. Of course, if you don't get annoyed with their non-op'ed characters and are quite happy to play with them and their characters...uh...I give up. I don't know. 

  One final thought and question. Can they have fun playing optomized characters, and can you have fun playing non-optomized ones? If either of those are "No"...then I'd suggest finding a new group, because your play style's are obviously too different, sorry to say.

^_^

Paul L. Ming


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 9, 2011)

Building a competent character is not in itself a bad thing. When system knowledge, and character building skills become as, or more important than decisions made during actual play there begins to be a divide between system masters and those who just want to casually play, including newer players. 

Complex character design and rules bulk is one of the largest barriers to new player participation. This is not an easily solvable problem so long as success in the game being played depends more on whats on the character sheet than what comes from the player. 

In some games the new player either effectively lets an experienced player design the character (through suggestion or outright) or just creates something that seems cool. Sometimes the most awesome character concepts are not well supported by the rules and the new player ends up with a "lame duck". 

These build skills also feed back into the rest of the game resulting in optimizers being far more effective than normal characters of the same level. This means that challenges for optimizers need to be much tougher. 

These factors all contribute to the divide that makes groups with both hardcore optimizers and casual players a nightmare to manage. 

The importance of rules knowledge overall needs to decrease in a significant way in order for this problem to get any better.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2011)

Pbartender said:


> In the real world, professionals always prefer to take jobs (class!) in fields that they are talented for (ability scores!).  And likewise, they will always prefer to take training (skills, feats and powers!) and use equipment (gear!) that will make them better at the job they work in.
> 
> ...
> 
> So, if you would do it in the real world, why shouldn't a professional adventurer in a fantasy world do the same?




If I may...

In the real world, professionals went to school to prepare for jobs that they are talented for... but often wind up working in completely different fields.  Events occur in life, such that many, if not most, wind up places they didn't expect, doing things they didn't plan, and trying to make the best of it.

If that happens in the real world, why shouldn't it happen to a professional adventurer?

Which is not to say that planning competence is bad, just that it isn't the only reasonable and realistic way of approaching things.

From a discussion elsewhere on the boards, I got an idea of where the "optimization = bad roleplay" gets some of its oomph.  If you are playing a tactical wargame, for example, competence is key.  If you are planning on creating a fiction, though, competence leads to easily resolved problems - which means competence tends to eliminate drama.  

The reluctant hero, the hero who isn't really cut out for the job but has to manage and grow beyond their limitations, is among the more popular tropes in fiction.  It is a position most people can identify with.  Sitting next to a hero who is really designed and ready for the challenge makes the fiction rather difficult and awkward - if the real deal is here, why do you need the ill-prepared person?


----------



## Meatboy (Aug 9, 2011)

I'm with Kzach on this one. When I play DnD I want to play a hero. Heroes do heroic things and honestly I end up screwing up mundane stuff often enough in RL that I don't want to have the same thing happen when I am playing my heroic fantasy emulator. My fighters should hit and hurt things, my wizards should sling spells and my rogues should sneaky and cunning.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Meatboy said:


> I'm with Kzach on this one. When I play DnD I want to play a hero. Heroes do heroic things and honestly I end up screwing up mundane stuff often enough in RL that I don't want to have the same thing happen when I am playing my heroic fantasy emulator. My fighters should hit and hurt things, my wizards should sling spells and my rogues should sneaky and cunning.



If it takes hours of creating multiple characters, as Kzach said he did, just to be able to "hit and hurt things" with your character, your DM needs to back it down a notch or two.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> If I may...
> 
> In the real world, professionals went to school to prepare for jobs that they are talented for... but often wind up working in completely different fields.  Events occur in life, such that many, if not most, wind up places they didn't expect, doing things they didn't plan, and trying to make the best of it.
> 
> If that happens in the real world, why shouldn't it happen to a professional adventurer?




Sure...  but he same applies.  If you intend on staying in that completely new field, you begin to train and retrain (multi-classing and retraining!) so you can excel in that field instead of your old one.  You may hang onto a few of your old skills that provide an unexpected benefit, but much of your previous education may fall away, unused and forgotten, to make room for fresh knowledge.  

In the long run, you end up in pretty much the same place...  A character statistically optimized to be a professional adventurer and hero, but with, perhaps just a little odd but still useful baggage on the side.  

Think about it this way...  The penalty for failing at heroic adventuring (whether voluntarily or reluctantly) is very often death.  Why would any one caught up in adventuring for any length of time not strive to improve their odds of surviving by improving the skill and abilities that are best suited their particular adventuring role?



Umbran said:


> The reluctant hero, the hero who isn't really cut out for the job but has to manage and grow beyond their limitations, is among the more popular tropes in fiction. It is a position most people can identify with. Sitting next to a hero who is really designed and ready for the challenge makes the fiction rather difficult and awkward - if the real deal is here, why do you need the ill-prepared person?




The problem with that premise is that many RPGs, and certainly most modern main-stream RPGs, presume that the characters are heroes to start with, even at their weakest and lowest levels.  They aren't designed to handle that trope.

It's truly difficult to build a character that represents the "the reluctant hero, the hero who isn't really cut out for the job but has to manage and grow beyond their limitations" in most games.  It's a popular trope in fiction, because the author has sole and complete control over the outcome of the story.  It's a less viable trope in RPGs, where the character has to deal with the other characters, NPCs, monsters and the campaign world in general, which are all outside the control of the reluctant hero's player.

Unless, a DM has geared his game toward handling reluctant, unprepared heroes, such characters will tend to die quick, painful and unlamented deaths.

That's why each ensuing edition of D&D has given players slightly more powerful characters at 1st level...  It's because no one is clamoring to be less skillful and die more often at lower levels.


----------



## Meatboy (Aug 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> ...The reluctant hero, the hero who isn't really cut out for the job but has to manage and grow beyond their limitations, is among the more popular tropes in fiction...




Though I agree with you that the reluctant hero trope is very wide spread I am not sure that DnD even nods it head in that direction. I feel DnD doesn't try recreate that particular experience but instead helps you to realize the more heroic type heroes like Conan, Aragorn, Vlad Taltos and the like. I would be hard pressed to describe these characters as reluctant or sub-optimal.


----------



## billd91 (Aug 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Again, like Elf Witch, I'm presuming no one at the table is being a jerk and no one is intentionally stepping on other people's toes.  But being told that a perfectly reasonable character is "too good" and that I'm a "powergamer" because my character isn't some weak sauce collection of weaknesses is annoying as all get out.
> 
> If people can tell me to rein myself in, why can't I tell them to grow a pair?




It depends on who, if anybody, is the outlier. If it's you, then you don't get to tell them to grow a pair. You should harmonize to the group's standard either by build or by play (or both).

You're not going to get anywhere fighting a play style battle when you're a faction of 1.


----------



## Meatboy (Aug 9, 2011)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> If it takes hours of creating multiple characters, as Kzach said he did, just to be able to "hit and hurt things" with your character, your DM needs to back it down a notch or two.




True, but he also said that he makes multiple characters and spends hours with the Character Builder just for fun. I know I have whiled away an hour or two trying figure out how best to make a particular character do his thing. One character I had I wanted to dual wield katanas ( bastard swords) and there was little I could do to make him effective. -4 for each hit is a tough penalty to overcome


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Meatboy said:


> Though I agree with you that the reluctant hero trope is very wide spread I am not sure that DnD even nods it head in that direction.



It depends on the edition. 4E explicitly does not, as part of their design goals; it's the equivalent of starting at fourth level or so in 3E.

But earlier versions, and derivatives, definitely do. I'd argue that 3E, for instance, with its additive multi-classing, is especially suited for this, as it represents the passage of time with stacking on new class levels, and not locking people into the class they began with (which was how multiclassing worked prior to 3E, with very rare exceptions).

And some derivatives, like the forthcoming Dungeon Crawl Classics (which isn't a form of D&D, but wouldn't exist in a world without it) explicitly start characters off as level 0 peasantry. (Over the years, I've tried to think of ways to start off a 3E campaign with all the characters taking one level as an NPC class, but the system's just not designed to handle that elegantly, unfortunately.)

More importantly, even if you don't think the game is well-suited to it -- whichever edition you're playing -- it's worth remembering that a lot of tables are going to play it that way anyway.

Again, it's all about everyone's expectations matching up. You're not going to convince everyone at the table that they're playing it wrong, and they should switch to your way. If the situation is that intractable, _find another group_.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

billd91 said:


> It depends on who, if anybody, is the outlier. If it's you, then you don't get to tell them to grow a pair. You should harmonize to the group's standard either by build or by play (or both).
> 
> You're not going to get anywhere fighting a play style battle when you're a faction of 1.



I am unable to give you more XP right now, but you deserve it for this post.



Meatboy said:


> True, but he also said that he makes multiple characters and spends hours with the Character Builder just for fun. I know I have whiled away an hour or two trying figure out how best to make a particular character do his thing.



And again, this is why you guys may not be the best fit for the table described by the OP. Matching playstyles and expectations is crucial.

I've got a four year old, a demanding job (at a company that's just been sold and in a department where my boss is moving onto another company) and I wouldn't have time to spend hours optimizing a character if you paid me to do so. If I ended up at a table where everyone else had put in six or more hours to build a character, I'd either ask someone to help me, or I'd play with a different, more casual group.


----------



## Agamon (Aug 9, 2011)

It's threads like this one that make me long even more for games like HMA or DCC.  No optimzation problems there! 

I'm making a PC for a PF game right now, and while it _looks_ like there's a lot of options, in reality, not so much.  Conform or die, amiright?


----------



## Meatboy (Aug 9, 2011)

[MENTION=11760]Whizbang Dustyboots[/MENTION]
I concede your point. Mismatched play styles are definitely something that I have seen tear apart more gaming groups than anything. (except maybe real world commitments... spouses can be so demanding sometimes...) 

But as you say if you sat down at a table like that you might ask someone for help. Kzach seemed to say that if he even hinted at helping others with their builds they jumped all over him.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2011)

pming said:


> So...I posit that this may be the problem. Of course, if you don't get annoyed with their non-op'ed characters and are quite happy to play with them and their characters...uh...I give up. I don't know.




Sorry, you'll have to give up.

My reaction is to other people complaining about my characters being too well-made. Although I will offer suggestions and advice if I see major flaws in a character, I never push it past the point of the offer. And if I see that the first offer isn't taken very well (which it normally isn't, which is another reason why I'm posting), then I don't offer any more suggestions. I don't roll my eyes at people or make comments about their characters and if they're happy to play their characters next to mine, I'm just as happy to play mine next to theirs.

But that doesn't mean internally I'm not frustrated when the 20 int mage with 8 strength chooses all strength-based skills and we fail at skill challenges constantly because of him, or when the 12 strength fighter never hits anything so our strikers, leaders and controllers are always dying and fights take twice as long as they have to, or our controllers specialise in single-target attacks and their rider bonuses are from their dump stat, or any other trillion situations which make the game run slower and be more frustrating for everyone at the table.



Umbran said:


> Kzach, you have said you spend hours making up characters, that you "trawl" the character builder looking for options.  You use the word "casual", but your words say that it somewhat more than that.



Hell yeah it's casual. I'm sure there are people out there who don't have a couple of hours to spare once a week to make up a character, but then if they can't spare that much time, how they are playing D&D in the first place? In addition, I offer my time and experience freely and almost universally it's rejected because of this attitude that optimising is badwrongfun, or that I'm stepping on precious toes by even making the offer.

Besides which, 90% of the choices I make are exceedingly obvious. 18 minimum in a primary stat, choose skills with a good ability bonus on them and with racial synergies, choose a background that offers a synergy on a skill you want to excel at, make sure your power choices have riders associated with an ability bonus, choose feats that enhance your role or compensate for weaknesses. That really isn't hard to do and nor does it take boat-loads of time with the Character Builder and Compendium. And truly, if you can't entwine your imagination with the mechanics, then I have to ask why are you playing a game of the imagination?

Again, it's really just about making logical and intelligent decisions in character creation. If you can't invest the time in doing so, then again, why are you playing a game that REQUIRES a pretty hefty investment of time?

One of the ironies of the reactions I experience is that a lot of it comes from groups who don't even roleplay. I was in a group over a month ago in a gaming store and every time I tried to roleplay anything, it was shut-down almost immediately by the actions and demands of other players. And so the end result was that we only really played a miniatures skirmish game. Yet even here I did a couple of things and people went, "How did you do that? Can I have a look at your character sheet? OMG! It's so min-maxed!"

What's even more ironic is that I don't generally min-max that much. I tend to specialise in one area, usually leaving one or even two glaring holes in the character, which is the exact opposite of min/maxing.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Aug 9, 2011)

Hussar said:


> But that's not the issue here though. He's not talking about making some insane monstrocity that breaks game balance. He's talking about making a mechanically _competent_ character.



There's a difference between mere competence and excelling at specific, key tasks.  I don't think most people have an issue with competence.  It's when characters are developed to skew well beyond mere competence that hackles are raised.



> Why should a player who is mechanically competent be forced to play down to the level of players who cannot be bothered to spend even a minor amount of time making a character which is baseline?



Whose baseline?  The DM?  The individual player?  The rest of the players at the table?  Why should players at the table be required to to "play up" to the level of time and effort to create a character when they don't NEED to or want to?  This sort of argument does work both ways and comes down largely to differing preferences in style of play.



> But, you and (Psi)SeveredHead seem to advocating that I roll back my character, make him less effective, so that I don't overshadow his character.



I'd say that even in the simplest versions of D&D a certain amount of optimization is normal because it IS a game, and not JUST a roleplaying exercise.

The DM is the one who has to arrange all the challenges for any given group of characters.  The closer the characters are to "average" competence or even INcompetence the easier his job is.  The higher the degree of optimization the more difficult his job is so it's natural for a DM to fight against that to one degree or another.  It also naturally focuses not just the DM's attention but the point of the game upon mechanics.  For a DM and/or other players who do NOT wish to obsess about mechanics and for whom a completely unoptimized character can get them what THEY want from the game it can _feel_ like an impostion even if it isn't.

The Stormwind Fallacy is that NEITHER focus (roleplaying versus optimization) is necessarily exclusive of the other.  Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because someone illogically believes that your highly optimized character is a bad thing that their LESS optimized character is in turn a bad thing.  Granted they may not mix well in the same party where players clearly have different focuses upon what THEY want from the game, but no matter how much better you think the party/game will work if everybody put more effort into optimizing their characters that is still a choice they are ALLOWED for their character unless the DM has set some other prerequisites for participation.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2011)

Pbartender said:


> The problem with that premise is that many RPGs, and certainly most modern main-stream RPGs, presume that the characters are heroes to start with, even at their weakest and lowest levels.  They aren't designed to handle that trope.






Meatboy said:


> Though I agree with you that the reluctant hero trope is very wide spread I am not sure that DnD even nods it head in that direction.




Guys, how do you reconcile the idea that the OP talks about spending *hours* going through the process of optimizing , and coming up with characters that are better than those at the table, and the idea that somehow the system isn't built to do sub-optimal characters?  

The idea that the system doesn't support this, or doesn't even nod to this being possible, flies in the face that system mastery, time, work, and analysis is required to optimize.   It is *easier* to make a sub-optimal character than an optimal one.   

The class system means there's a lower limit to how badly you can shoot yourself in the foot, but look at how high the system allows you to build beyond that bare minimum.

Don't pick your stats to maximally support your role (like, don't use a dump stat!), don't plan out how your feats synergize with skills other feats, or class powers.  Voila!  One sub-optimal character.  Easy-peasy.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 9, 2011)

Man in the Funny Hat said:


> The DM is the one who has to arrange all the challenges for any given group of characters.  The closer the characters are to "average" competence or even INcompetence the easier his job is.  The higher the degree of optimization the more difficult his job is so it's natural for a DM to fight against that to one degree or another.




I only half agree with this here. It's less an issue of how powerful the group is (it's easy to adjust for that) than how powerful the PCs are _too each other_. If they're all weak, it's easy. If they're all average, it's easy, and if they're all powerful (but the same amount of power) it's also easy.



Kzach said:


> But that doesn't mean internally I'm not frustrated when the 20 int mage with 8 strength chooses all strength-based skills and we fail at skill challenges constantly because of him, or when the 12 strength fighter never hits anything so our strikers, leaders and controllers are always dying and fights take twice as long as they have to, or our controllers specialise in single-target attacks and their rider bonuses are from their dump stat, or any other trillion situations which make the game run slower and be more frustrating for everyone at the table.




Sounds like those other players don't want to learn the system. You need to a new group; it'd be too frustrating to sink to their level.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> But I get enjoyment out of making a character that can do cool stuff in the game. And when I do that cool stuff, this is somehow ruining other people's fun? How about they pick up THEIR game? I'm more than happy to offer advice or help in building characters. If they're not enjoying the game because their character sucks and fails at everything that I succeed it, how is that my fault?




You want a minimum set level of power to be happy. This is power gaming (as opposed to min/maxing or optimizing). This is a play style issue if it is  conflicting with the rest of the group. People play for different reasons.  If your preferences are clashing, it is up to you to either conform to their preferred style or find another group.It is not up to the group to "up THEIR game" and  conform to your play style if you are the outlier. You are not the special snowflake that everyone else revolves around.  
And that you think the group should conform to your style rather than the other way around is an being selfish as mentioned by another poster.


----------



## MrMyth (Aug 9, 2011)

Hmm. A few of my thoughts on the various downsides... speaking as someone who tends to optimize and run for highly-optimized parties. 

1) You mention not talking about 'char-op' builds and gamebreaking stuff, but it can be hard to draw the line. Is the very effective ranger - who at epic levels fires 10 shots a round, doing three times the damage of other strikers in the party - too optimized? Should he be punished for choosing multi-attack powers and useful damage boosting feats and items? Should he be forced to choose a different Paragon Path other than Punisher of the Gods? How far is too far is a very tough question.

2) I'm a fan of 'optimizing the character you want to build' rather than 'building a character to be optimized'. Which is to say - first, settle on concept. Say you want to be a powerful storm-mage. Then feel free to build the best one you can. That tends to be much better than trying to fit a bunch of disparate mechanics together in order to create an optimized character, and then figuring out a background that makes sense. 

Seriously, I've seen some characters like this, and it can get pretty silly. "I am a humble dwarf, raised by drow in the underdark, who apprenticed me out to an elven artificer, who trained me in the ancient heritage of skymagic, and then orcs killed my community, so I pledged myself to the dragon god of vengeance and manifested a powerful dragonmark and..."

I mean, some stuff can make for a good story. But the more you choose feats for power alone, and then try to figure out a reason why your character has such things... it can get to be a bit much.

3) As others have mentioned, party disparity is the tough part. Because there is really no good answer - do you intentionally cripple yourself in order to let others shine? An ideal system would let you be as capable as you want without overshadowing everyone else. But without that, asking players to self-monitor... can be frustrating. 

Conclusion: I don't think optimizing is bad in-and-of-itself. It may not be as appropriate for every game, and one should be willing to acknowledge and adapt in situations where that may be the case. I tend to recommend trying to optimize within an existing concept, rather than force your concept to fit your optimization, but I recognize not everyone feels the same.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Guys, how do you reconcile the idea that the OP talks about spending *hours* going through the process of optimizing , and coming up with characters that are better than those at the table, and the idea that somehow the system isn't built to do sub-optimal characters?




I don't see him as a casual gamer. I see him both as a power gamer (to what degree I don't know other than he claims not to carry it to the extremes of WOTC's CharOPs) and an optimizer. Optimization is his tool to power game. He expects characters to  have at least 18 in the prime stat for the bonuses (I have seen others say a 16 is just fine). He looks for racial synergies to class. And , then he spends hours looking for more synergies.  He expects others to do the same.This is not casual. It is also setting a minimum acceptable level of power for him to have fun which flies against what others have said is necessary for the game to work (hence the power gaming).


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Guys, how do you reconcile the idea that the OP talks about spending *hours* going through the process of optimizing , and coming up with characters that are better than those at the table, and the idea that somehow the system isn't built to do sub-optimal characters?




Because there is a difference between a "sub-optimal character" and the "reluctant, unprepared hero trope".   While a character can be both, one doesn't necessarily have to be the other and vice versa.

Saying that D&D is not designed to handle the reluctant hero trope, does not mean that sub-optimal characters are not possible... in fact they can be all too easy to make, because of the necessary system mastery.

Also, just because sub-optimal characters are possible does not mean that the system was designed for them, nor does it mean that the system handles them well.

My point was simply that, if you look at all the choices available for characters in D&D -- classes, feats, powers, equipment, etc. -- and you look at the challenges that those characters will face, it becomes obvious that the game was specifically designed with high-powered, high-action, high-fantasy heroics in mind.  

It was not designed to simulate an assistant pig-farmer and his attendant band of bumbling misfits taking on the Evil Sorcerer and his hordes of undead soldiers.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2011)

MrMyth said:


> Seriously, I've seen some characters like this, and it can get pretty silly. "I am a humble dwarf, raised by drow in the underdark, who apprenticed me out to an elven artificer, who trained me in the ancient heritage of skymagic, and then orcs killed my community, so I pledged myself to the dragon god of vengeance and manifested a powerful dragonmark and...




I concede that I'd definitely draw the line at chimera characters like that, even as a DM I hate seeing poor character histories thinly justifying bizarre min/maxing like that.

A lot of the game-breaking charop builds are chimeras. Haphazard combinations that only meld because of mechanical synergies. I'm definitely not a fan of those sorts of characters. I do think there's a line that is crossed in optimisation, I just don't feel that I cross it. What I think is really happening is that people lump me in with people who do break the system, when in reality my characters simply have some nice synergies that suit its personality and backstory.

As much as I don't like to play a character that doesn't have some nice synergies going on, I equally dislike playing a character that I just can't gel with on an emotional level. I have a lot of favourite PC's I've built since 1e, but yet don't quite 'work' in other editions either mechanically or thematically, and I don't play them because of that. In fact, until recently one of my favourite characters just didn't work stat-wise with any class. Along came the Essentials Knight and it is such a perfect fit that I now play him whenever possible. Point being is that I wasn't willing to sacrifice the integrity of the character's character just to force him into a min/maxed or powergaming niche.

Perhaps there needs to be a new term? Someone who balances between optimisation and personality?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Perhaps there needs to be a new term? Someone who balances between optimisation and personality?




I don't think that's necessary. The two have little to do with each other. Spend enough time and you could justify any sort of chimera, whether they be superpowerful, incredibly weak or somewhere in between. It could also recreate the Stormwind Fallacy. "You're not an X, I think you're leaning toward powergaming and not RP" as if there's a sliding scale between them, when there isn't.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 9, 2011)

Greg K said:


> And , then he spends hours looking for more synergies.  He expects others to do the same. This is not casual.




I think you and Umbran are taking the "hours" comment a little to the extreme. "Hours" can easily represent one hour, twice a week, or two hours once a week. I think the longest I've ever spent on one character is about four hours spread out over two weeks. That's hardly extreme.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 9, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Spend enough time and you could justify any sort of chimera, whether they be superpowerful, incredibly weak or somewhere in between. It could also recreate the Stormwind Fallacy. "You're not an X, I think you're leaning toward powergaming and not RP" as if there's a sliding scale between them, when there isn't.




Yep. Powergaming and and RP are on different sliding scales.


----------



## nightwyrm (Aug 9, 2011)

Personally, I'm not a big fan of "chimera" characters either (but mostly due to the need to browse through a bunch of books and not necessarily due to flavour issues), but one should remember that the most powerful characters in 3.x are Druid 20, Cleric 20 and Wizard 20.  You can mix in some prestige classes but 20 pure levels of the big three are perfectly optimized just by their lonesome.  It's the melee and odd concept characters who needs extensive op-fu and multiclassing in order to _play catch up_ with the standards set by the tier 1 casters.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 9, 2011)

Pbartender said:


> B
> My point was simply that, if you look at all the choices available for characters in D&D -- classes, feats, powers, equipment, etc. -- and you look at the challenges that those characters will face, it becomes obvious that the game was specifically designed with high-powered, high-action, high-fantasy heroics in mind.




However, you don't know the challenges that the PC will face.  Those are determined by the DM and/or the actions of the party depending upon how the game is played at the table (unless the group just uses random modules).

With some groups, it is pure dungeon crawling. Other groups, never enter dungeons or they do so, maybe, once or twice.

Some groups are all about combats. Other groups may go sessions without combat.

The presence of a DM capable of adapting and players not stuck to a program allows a lot of leeway into how the game is played.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 9, 2011)

nightwyrm said:


> Personally, I'm not a big fan of "chimera" characters either (but mostly due to the need to browse through a bunch of books and not necessarily due to flavour issues),




One of the upsides _and_ downsides of the Character Builder.



> but one should remember that the most powerful characters in 3.x are Druid 20, Cleric 20 and Wizard 20.  You can mix in some prestige classes but 20 pure levels of the big three are perfectly optimized just by their lonesome.  It's the melee and odd concept characters who needs extensive op-fu and multiclassing in order to _play catch up_ with the standards set by the tier 1 casters.




Yes... and no.

For starters, a cleric 10/PrC 10 could still be more powerful, and some PrCs are more powerful than others. There's always an avenue for a powergamer.

It is also possible to not be an optimized cleric, especially if you lack system mastery, based on such things as picking good spells, picking feats, using decent tactics, knowing which stats to buy up and which ones not too, etc. About six years ago, in a 3.5 campaign that had reached 13th-level, our group had two clerics in it. The difference was like light and day - one player seemed to pick good spells, but could not wrap his head around the concept that just because three buff spells all stack doesn't mean they should. (Translation: He would waste three rounds buffing, by which time the battle would be over, the enemies dead, and at least one PC was screaming for healing right now.)

I agree that the other classes were less powerful, but you could still optimize _within_ those classes, too. Like the difference between a rogue who takes Weapon Finesse and one where the player of an elf rogue refuses to use any weapon but a longsword.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I think you and Umbran are taking the "hours" comment a little to the extreme. "Hours" can easily represent one hour, twice a week, or two hours once a week. I think the longest I've ever spent on one character is about four hours spread out over two weeks. That's hardly extreme.




It is still more time than required unless you are not familiar with the material or creating a character above first level.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 9, 2011)

Greg K said:


> However, you don't know the challenges that the PC will face.  Those are determined by the DM and/or the actions of the party depending upon how the game is played at the table (unless the group just uses random modules).




That's a fallacious argument...  Certainly any given DM, with enough effort, can do what ever like with any game.  That's not what I talking about.  I'm talking about what the game is _designed_ to do.

The rules of 4E, for example, have very explicit guidelines on what kinds of encounters a character of a particular can handle and how powerful that encounter should be.  There is a chart that lays out the DCs of "easy", "moderate" and "hard" skill checks at each level.  The same goes for monster defenses and attacks at each level.  PCs are expected to have attacks and defenses and damage and skills at a certain typical value in order to be able to meet those encounter with the proper amount of challenge.

Also, take a look at the options available...  You won't find a Shopkeep class.  You won't find a Gourmand paragon path.  You won't find a Watercolor Expertise feat.  All of the occupation and hobby based skills are gone.  The majority of the rules based around a wargame-style, tactical squad combat system.

An ambitious DM can modify D&D to suit a low-powered unlikely-heroes-rising-up-from-the-gutter sort of game, but that's not what the game what built for.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Again, it's really just about making logical and intelligent decisions in character creation. If you can't invest the time in doing so, then again, why are you playing a game that REQUIRES a pretty hefty investment of time?




I think this right here gets to the very heart of the problem.

The fact is... many people just _aren't_ "logical".  And no amount of explanation on the part of the "logical" person will make the "non-logical" person see or feel things differently.

So while it seems like such a "well, DUH!" concept to you that game about imagination should ask its players to use their imagination to create characters and a game that requires an investment of time to actually play should ipso facto also require some time to _prepare_ to play... many people just don't accede to those ideas.  Regardless of how "obvious" it seems.

So Kzach... what you're stuck with is playing with a group that is not thinking or experiencing the game the same way you are, and who seem as though will NEVER think or experience it that way, despite how many attempts you might make to "up their game".  Because so-called "logical" thinking is just not as universal as you might think or hope.  There's a reason why us human beings aren't ALL scientists, you know.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 9, 2011)

Synergistic optimization is perfectly fine with me. Exploiting loopholes is not. One method I truly abhorred was 3E cherry-picking. A mish-mosh of (pr)classes just grinds at my enjoyment of the game.

I also dislike players that purposefully de-optimize. I can agree with Kzach over many of his "obvious" choices. Like choosing training in skills that you have the stat or racial bonuses to support. I disagree over the 18 in your primary stat, unless you mean after racial adjustments.

What I dislike is when one player uses synergistic optimization and another merely makes the right choices to not de-optimize and the power gap is still too wide. But, in that case, I no longer blame the players, I blame the system. I like a wide array of options in the games I run and play, but 3E cherry-picking ruined that as more options came out for me. I find the power gap between the two moderate ends of the spectrum to be closer in 4E, even as we see more and more supplements.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Perhaps there needs to be a new term? Someone who balances between optimisation and personality?



More jargon never solved anything.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 9, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> , but 3E cherry-picking ruined that as more options came out for me. I find the power gap between the two moderate ends of the spectrum to be closer in 4E, even as we see more and more supplements.



The problem with 3e multi-classing was players are assumed by default to have access to trainers, equipment, etc.  The DMG section on training addresses this, but with variants when, in my opinion, they should have been the default


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Pbartender said:


> That's a fallacious argument...  Certainly any given DM, with enough effort, can do what ever like with any game.  That's not what I talking about.  I'm talking about what the game is _designed_ to do.
> 
> The rules of 4E, for example, have very explicit guidelines on what kinds of encounters a character of a particular can handle and how powerful that encounter should be.  There is a chart that lays out the DCs of "easy", "moderate" and "hard" skill checks at each level.  The same goes for monster defenses and attacks at each level.  PCs are expected to have attacks and defenses and damage and skills at a certain typical value in order to be able to meet those encounter with the proper amount of challenge.
> 
> ...



I think part of the problem in this thread is that people are saying "D&D" instead of "3E" or "4E," and are assuming everyone's on the same page they're on.

Some of the Grand Truths everyone is tossing around are edition-specific and do not carry over.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I think you and Umbran are taking the "hours" comment a little to the extreme. "Hours" can easily represent one hour, twice a week, or two hours once a week. I think the longest I've ever spent on one character is about four hours spread out over two weeks. That's hardly extreme.



... for you and your like-minded peers.

It's clearly extreme for the people you're playing with. Hence the thread.


----------



## Gryph (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I'm noticing a few people saying "powergaming" and "min-maxing" as if they're different from optimising. I wonder where I fall in that mix. As I said, I don't spend much time on CO forums but I do go there just to check out what's what and see if there's anything interesting going on. What I find is that they have come to many of the same conclusions I have on my own. I still end up learning a trick or two, some of which I then use, but I balk at the cheesy builds that end up being some weird hybrid with bizarre mix of abilities that combine into a super-hulk.
> 
> Then again, the CharOppers don't like those builds either. That kind of thing isn't generally used in games other than to test them and see how badly they can break a game. They're not meant for regular consumption.
> 
> ...




At 2nd level? yes it does.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:
			
		

> Now... the fact that by level 2, with the right magical items, I can do a 6d8+39+1d6 damage attack in one turn doesn't mean I broke the game, does it?




Yes it does. A lot of things in game (and combos) shouldn't exist, or be able to exist. How many sources do you have to mine in order to pull that off?

(And your DM is allowing themes _and_ backgrounds?)


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 9, 2011)

I think a big part of the issue is when it impacts the fun at the table.

I used to play with my son's group I stopped because of the powergamers, min maxers or what ever you want to call them.

They would spend hours building these optimized builds. The issue for me was if you wanted play say a straight sorcerer they would be all over you to take this prc or multiclass this way because a straight sorcerer was not the best way to optimize. 

Even though my sorcerer was not a lame duck. Had an 18 in Chr. Played an elf so I could use a bow and specialized in a lot of ray spells so my feats worked with both. She couldn't keep up with the their builds. I was okay with that but they were not.

I think there is an issue when you build a character from a core class and you build it wisely and it still can't compete with a funky build with a lot of options from different classes and prcs.

Now since I was the one with the issue the only choice I felt I had was to just not play with them. They shouldn't have to change their playstyles to adjust to mine.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 9, 2011)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> I think part of the problem in this thread is that people are saying "D&D" instead of "3E" or "4E," and are assuming everyone's on the same page they're on.
> 
> Some of the Grand Truths everyone is tossing around are edition-specific and do not carry over.




That wasn't exactly my intent...  I was using 4E (and D&D in general to a much lesser extent) as an example of what I was trying to get at.  Which is:

Every RPG is designed with a particular purpose...  A genre it's meant to emulate or a play style it's meant to support, for example.  A game can be forced out of its comfort zone, with enough time, effort and house rules, but it will never perform quite as well as a game that is designed for that purpose.

All this is to say not so much that Kzach is playing with the wrong people (although he might be -- at least for the moment, their play styles don't quite match), but that his group is probably playing the wrong game for the way they like to play the game.

They might consider playing something that's a little faster and looser with the rules, and/or something for which character success depends a little less on number-crunching optimization.  I don't know if that would Kzach happier, but I'd wager the rest of the group might enjoy it a little more.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> the fact that by level 2, with the right magical items, I can do a 6d8+39+1d6 damage attack in one turn doesn't mean I broke the game, does it?




Come on now. You have enough experience under your belt to know damn well that doing that kind of damage at level 2 is a problem. That's not an optimized PC, that's a powergamed PC.

All you have to do to figure out whether or not your PC is powergamed is to open up the monster manuals or a published adventure and compare what it can do to what any other monster/NPC of that CR can do.

You can even compare the build of an optimized PC to any similar CR in a monster manual and published adventure and figure out how much of an edge the PC has.

Doing that is second nature to an optimizer.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I'm noticing a few people saying "powergaming" and "min-maxing" as if they're different from optimising




I try to define the terms when I use them, because different terminologies get used by region or groups.   Here is how they are used by myself and the people that I know:

Powergaming:  Playing with an emphasis on power and/or the accumulation/ attaining of power (however, power may be defined in the game).  So in the former case, it can be characters must have a minimum x ability bonus, a minimum total of abillity bonuses, or some specific threshold of minimum competency or they suck are incompetent. Good examples would be 
a. Hero means being the starting equivalent of special ops or it could be the level of demigods
b. It could be characters must have an 18 in their primary stat, because of the bonus or not having all ability scores above  some minimum score and so the character sucks
c. playing for the leveling and bonus increases, etc. that accompany it.

And to note, power gaming is not all or nothing, there are degrees.
Since it is how much emphasis is placed on power or its accumulation, it is not necessary to know how to optimize to get it.

Optimizing: It is the conscious assignment of points, ability scores to, mechanically, meet a concept or build. How much time one spends or how far one takes it are just different degrees on an axis.  It is a tool used by many powergamers and min-maxers to meet their goals, but that is just how the tool is utilized by them.
So unless people are creating characters entirely randomly or putting no concious thought about the assignment of ability scores, points or mechanical benefits, they are engaging in some level of optimization.

Min-maxing: An extreme form of optimizing that tries to maximize benefits and minimize areas of weakness.  For example, treating ability scores as dump states or ignoring skills, because the player either thinks the DM will not place emphasis on them or they will rarely come up and using that to strengthen other areas that they consider important.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Hell yeah it's casual.




Clearly, you are more dedicated to it and formal about it than your fellow players.  That's all that really matters.



> Besides which, 90% of the choices I make are exceedingly obvious.




To you, they are obvious.



> 18 minimum in a primary stat...




Nor does it necessarily create the character they want to play.  If it doesn't, then there's not much point to the exercise, for them.



> Again, it's really just about making logical and intelligent decisions in character creation. If you can't invest the time in doing so, then again, why are you playing a game that REQUIRES a pretty hefty investment of time?




Why not do it?  Probably because it isn't fun for them, and perhaps because doing so doesn't pay off in benefits they care about further down the line.

What you're saying looks to be equivalent to, "If you aren't willing to be as hardcore about areas I care about as I want you to be, you shouldn't bother playing at all."  As if everyone needs to have the same priorities in gaming as you do...

My wife cares a lot about the social aspects of gaming - not just role-playing, but the getting-together of friends to do something together.  She also loves to cook.  So, she regularly prepares meals for the entire group, at the cost of significant amounts of time.  It is fun for her, and she personally feels good doing so, so she gets a payoff.  She recognizes that this is specific to her, and does not expect anyone else (other than me, anyway) to invest similar time and effort into cookery for the game.

I occasionally play in live-action games.  However, I don't have boatloads of money, and I can't sew very well.  So, my costuming is sometimes a little weak.  Meanwhile, in the same games, there are some folk who are award-winning costumers, others who are wealthy, and still others who are professional seamstresses.  They enjoy the costuming and have greater ability - they don't generally expect me to go to the same lengths to costume as they do.

The same should go for your situation - going through the process of optimization is fun for you, and you see a payoff for yourself.  That's great.  However, it does not follow that others will find it fun, or see a payoff, so you should not expect them to behave the same as you do.

The reaction you may see may be as much a reaction to the suggestion that they ought to have the same tastes as you.  It may also depend upon your delivery - if you come across as trying to "correct" their mistakes, or that they don't know what they are doing, or that you know the "right" way to play, well, you can easily look pretty condescending and that puts people right off.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 9, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I think a big part of the issue is when it impacts the fun at the table.
> 
> I used to play with my son's group I stopped because of the powergamers, min maxers or what ever you want to call them.
> 
> ...




Probably taking this thread a bit off-topic, but I had a similar issue in a game once.

The DM wanted to try Book of Nine Swords, but because of the level the DM was starting with, I wanted to try playing a thri-kreen PC. (ECL +4, you can't play at 1st-level for obvious reasons. I've never played one in 3.x before and had no idea if it was OP, UP or whatever.) And I knew this was basically my last chance at playing one, as no other campaign would have allowed them.

One of the "schools" in Bo9S has a power that gives you either a bonus to hit or to damage (I think the latter) based on your Jump result. Thri-kreen get a +30 bonus to Jump. When told about this power, I sad *NO* as that would be a *blatantly* broken combo, and clearly the writer of Bo9S intended the book to be used for regular characters, not a fringe niche race. You wouldn't believe the number of players who wanted me to try that combo. I still said no.

The campaign only lasted one session; while mechanical reasons played a role (one PC refusing to use heal, even though it was only a swift action for his Bo9S build) the main reason was the three players all being monsters.

The good news: In another campaign, I got to play a warlord-like character using Bo9S and it worked great. The bad news, I literally never got to play a thri-kreen again.



			
				Oryan said:
			
		

> Come on now. You have enough experience under your belt to know damn well that doing that kind of damage at level 2 is a problem. That's not an optimized PC, that's a powergamed PC.




If a fellow player made a character like that, not only would I not try to match their optimization, I'd tell the DM what a problem that is too.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2011)

Pbartender said:


> That's a fallacious argument...  Certainly any given DM, with enough effort, can do what ever like with any game.  That's not what I talking about.  I'm talking about what the game is _designed_ to do.




I dunno about you, think the game is designed, explicitly and intentionally, to accommodate a pretty wide range of character effectiveness.  



> The rules of 4E, for example, have very explicit guidelines on what kinds of encounters a character of a particular can handle and how powerful that encounter should be.  There is a chart that lays out the DCs of "easy", "moderate" and "hard" skill checks at each level.  The same goes for monster defenses and attacks at each level.  PCs are expected to have attacks and defenses and damage and skills at a certain typical value in order to be able to meet those encounter with the proper amount of challenge.




And, there are guidelines on what to do if they're above *or below* those guidelines.  

I haven't run enough 4e to speak to it, but my experience with 3.x is that the guidelines are set pretty low - folks who spend effort on optimization regularly find the guideline encounters to be cakewalks.  But that's just my experience.

Really, dude, you're making it sound like it is rocket science to softball a little bit for underpowered characters.  You and I both know rocket science - this ain't it


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Aug 9, 2011)

Whoops!


----------



## Spatula (Aug 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Guys, how do you reconcile the idea that the OP talks about spending *hours* going through the process of optimizing , and coming up with characters that are better than those at the table, and the idea that somehow the system isn't built to do sub-optimal characters?
> 
> The idea that the system doesn't support this, or doesn't even nod to this being possible, flies in the face that system mastery, time, work, and analysis is required to optimize.



There's a difference between "possible" and "supported," I think. D&D has never really supported the "hero (reluctant or otherwise) who isn't really cut out for the job" archetype, as every level 1 PC is automatically cut out for the job at hand. Every level 1 PC is a skilled soldier, wizard, warrior-priest, etc. possessing martial and/or magical skills that require years of training.* Your typical peasant farmer doesn't know how to wear plate armor or how to effectively swing a sword. But Jeremiah the level 1 fighter does, and (post-UA) is probably a sword master to boot. His player can say that Jeremiah is fresh off the farm and has never swung a sword before, but a simple examination of the character sheet vs an average NPC (a level 0 1d4 HP nobody in AD&D, or a level 1 commoner in 3e) shows that that can't be the case. Or that Jeremiah is an exceptional individual, one clearly cut out for a life of swordplay and danger.

* with the possible exception of the AD&D thief.

Now, a player could intentionally gimp their character in any number of ways, and the DM can alter the game to suit that, but I think it's fair to say that you're playing against the game's expectations at that point. It can be done, but the game design, which devotes most of its attention to dangerous activities and doesn't have much to say about situations that aren't life threatening, is largely being ignored in that case.


----------



## Pbartender (Aug 9, 2011)

Umbran said:


> I dunno about you, think the game is designed, explicitly and intentionally, to accommodate a pretty wide range of character effectiveness.




In regards to 4E, "range", I'd agree with...   "Wide range" I'm less certain of, depending on your definition of "wide".

But yes, D&D (and especially 4E) is a game that expects the PCs' abilities to be within a certain range for a particular level.  If their stats deviate wildly (in either direction) outside range, problems can occur, unless you make significant (not necessarily difficult, but significant) adjustments to the game in general.



Umbran said:


> Really, dude, you're making it sound like it is rocket science to softball a little bit for underpowered characters.  You and I both know rocket science - this ain't it




A little bit of futzing to make up for a few missing bonuses isn't a problem...  I won't argue with that.  It's a lot more troublesome, though, when you're running a game that's designed for Conan the Barbarian, but you've got someone playing a character like Fflewddur Fflam (or vice versa, for that matter).

I'm saying that having a game that contradicts the play style of the players can be just as much of a problem as having players that contract each other's play styles.


----------



## Jimlock (Aug 10, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I think this right here gets to the very heart of the problem.
> 
> The fact is... many people just _aren't_ "logical".  And no amount of explanation on the part of the "logical" person will make the "non-logical" person see or feel things differently.
> 
> ...




ok, to me this is one of the most offending and wrong conclusions I've ever read in this forum.

Optimization = logic ?

Non optimization = non logic?

you 've got to be kidding me....


----------



## Kzach (Aug 10, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Yes it does. A lot of things in game (and combos) shouldn't exist, or be able to exist. How many sources do you have to mine in order to pull that off?



Normal Attack + Quick Rapier (daily power) + Furious Assault (half-orc racial) + Takedown Strike (Mercenary theme) + Backstabber (feat) + Sneak Attack + Backstab (thief class ability) + Action Point + Bracers of Mighty Striking.

It takes three successful hits against a target in one turn to pull off (normal attack + quick weapon daily + action point).

Again, none of this is particularly hard to find or even illogical to take. Mercenary is a pretty obviously good choice for a rogue. Backstabber is an almost standard rogue feat choice. Bracers of Mighty Striking and a Quick Weapon again are quite obvious choices for a melee striker to take if they can get them.

As for saying that people don't understand the same 'logic' as I do and that we aren't all 'scientists', well, I'm sorry, but this isn't science and it's especially has nothing to do with rockets. You're a striker, so what do you want? You want to attack a lot, you want to hit a lot, and you want to do lots of damage. Choosing items and feats and powers that let you do all that isn't brain surgery. Does any of that really require an IQ above 90 to figure out?



(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> (And your DM is allowing themes _and_ backgrounds?)



Sure, why not? Both are standard rules for characters in the Character Builder.



Umbran said:


> They enjoy the costuming and have greater ability - they don't generally expect me to go to the same lengths to costume as they do.




You missed one of my posts where I addressed this. Get it? AdDRESSED?

Like I said in that post, I play side-by-side with people who play lame-ducks and don't complain or whine about their characters, but they most certainly complain and whine about my characters. Hence one of the reasons I'm tired of it and posted this thread.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Normal Attack + Quick Rapier (daily power) + Furious Assault (half-orc racial) + Takedown Strike (Mercenary theme) + Backstabber (feat) + Sneak Attack + Backstab (thief class ability) + Action Point + Bracers of Mighty Striking.




I want to also point out something about this particular combination.

It occurred to me whilst I was making a character for a game where I had mistakenly read that I was allowed a 3rd-level magical item and a 2nd-level magical item and we were to make 2nd-level characters. It turned out that the 2nd-level item was my misread because I was half asleep at the time of reading (and half asleep during the character creation).

Now, although I had already thought that the concept of a half-orc with the Gritty Sergeant background and Mercenary theme would make for a cool thief character, I hadn't actually made one up until this point.

From making it up from scratch, choosing the two magical items, and determining that combo above, took all of ten minutes for me. I'd never heard of Bracers of Mighty Striking or the Quick Weapon before this, so I found them simply by using the Character Builder search engine and limiting my choices to 3rd-level.

So all this talk of being 'hardcore' and taking 'hours' and somehow being a character building genius is nonsense. If I can do it in ten minutes, whilst on the verge of collapsing from sheer exhaustion and bone-weary tiredness, why can't anyone else? I assure you, I'm not a genius.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Normal Attack + Quick Rapier (daily power) + Furious Assault (half-orc racial) + Takedown Strike (Mercenary theme) + Backstabber (feat) + Sneak Attack + Backstab (thief class ability) + Action Point + Bracers of Mighty Striking.




I don't recognize half this stuff.

Thieves don't get daily powers, so I don't even know where Quick Rapier came from. You can't use Bracers of Mighty Striking with Backstab, Takedown Strike or Quick Rapier, as it only works with basic attacks. (Let me know if Backstab just adds damage to a basic attack - but there's no way that works with Quick Rapier or Takedown Strike.)



> Again, none of this is particularly hard to find or even illogical to take. Mercenary is a pretty obviously good choice for a rogue. Backstabber is an almost standard rogue feat choice. Bracers of Mighty Striking and a Quick Weapon again are quite obvious choices for a melee striker to take if they can get them.




You can't use some of that combo. Where is Quick Rapier from? Is that compatible with Essentials?

A lot of what you said earlier made sense. Having an 18 makes sense - or at least a 16 if you're, say, an elven fighter (you couldn't have a Strength 18 without gimping yourself elsewhere) - I once saw a thread on this forum about a dwarven fighter PC with a Strength of *THIRTEEN* - but some of your points do seem odd. Crawling through the character builder for hours looking for options from numerous sources ... I don't think the CB even works properly, if it's letting you use those Bracers with non-basic attacks. The CB lets you access stuff from the Sword & Fist of 4e.



> Sure, why not? Both are standard rules for characters in the Character Builder.




That's not necessarily standard. Both are more powerful options that you would need to clear with your DM. Although I assume you did, and your main points were about something else entirely. But I have to wonder why you thought that was "standard". I'm not seeing that in the PH1 (or any PH) or in HoFK (the first one).



> Like I said in that post, I play side-by-side with people who play lame-ducks and don't complain or whine about their characters, but they most certainly complain and whine about my characters. Hence one of the reasons I'm tired of it and posted this thread.




You've got people who can't figure out how to optimize on one side and people who might be breaking the rules (I'm sure not deliberately) on the other. You've got people who can't distinguish between numbers and RP attacking you in your own group.

Find a new group. You don't fit in with them.

Clarify with your new DM what is "standard".

Learn about your new players; get them to optimize as much as you, and/or cut back on your own. You might not realize this, but crawling through the CB for hours and then building a character who can deal MASSIVE damage in one round is not "standard", even if it's possible or even legal.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 10, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Thieves don't get daily powers, so I don't even know where Quick Rapier came from. You can't use Bracers of Mighty Striking with Backstab, Takedown Strike or Quick Rapier, as it only works with basic attacks. (Let me know if Backstab just adds damage to a basic attack - but there's no way that works with Quick Rapier or Takedown Strike.)



Thieves only use melee basic attacks, modified by... whatever they're called... stances? See, I can't even remember that! Some system genius I am.

Quick Rapier is a 3rd-level magical weapon type with a daily power. The daily power gives you a free action melee attack against any target after you've successfully hit a target already in the turn. It's from Adventurer's Vault (I just looked it up on Compendium).

Takedown strike is no action, again triggered by hitting someone and just adds damage and a prone.

Backstab just adds damage to any attack. So... yah, they all stack.


(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Clarify with your new DM what is "standard".



Well, I consider anything in the character builder (aside from setting specific stuff) to be standard, as do a lot of people I encounter and play games with. For the record, the DM said anything in the character builder was fine and these are both big green buttons in the Character Builder.



(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Learn about your new players; get them to optimize as much as you, and/or cut back on your own. You might not realize this, but crawling through the CB for hours and then building a character who can deal MASSIVE damage in one round is not "standard", even if it's possible or even legal.



Hard to do when you have to bring characters to a game either online or before the game starts, like at a game store where you don't know who or even how many people will be playing. In a home game, ok, you might discuss these things before playing, but even then it depends on who you're playing with and how well you know each other.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Well, I'm not AIMING to, but as I said, I come to a lot of the same conclusions that charoppers do, simply because they're logical deductions based on casual analysis of the available system options, ie. I trawl through the character builder looking for things to either fit my concept of the character, or to fit a certain schtick, or just for synergies that I think will be fun to play.
> 
> But as I said, I also don't like a lot of the super-hulk charop builds. To me they're not only impractical but ugly and inelegant. Take the thief, for example, the charop guide recommends going a certain route to get Kulkor Arms Master. Now, I know why that is, and I can see the logic in it, but I don't freaking want Kulkor Arms Master because it means I have to wield a hammer, and my concept of my character doesn't suit wielding a freaking hammer.
> 
> ...




Im late to this party, so forgive me if this is old hat.
I don't have a problem the way anyone plays d&D, aside from the 7 folks sitting around the same table as me, and even then, as long as we are all having fun I could care less what style someone uses.
That said, let me interject one thought here.  I have found that "optimizers" may claim their creation is all about the concept, but when played it is clear that concept is damage per round, and in my opinion this lacks as an actual concept for a character.  
Now don't pull away just yet, I have no idea about you, your style of play, the games you sit in on, or your characters, so I want to make sure nobody thinks I am accusing anyone of "power-gaming" or anything else like that.
I also want to add that it seems power-gamers (for lack of a better term) are just as quick to get mad at other players at the table for ..."not pulling their weight" by not power-gaming. Isn't this just as destructive to the table dynamic?

I say if making Uber killers is your thing, and you have fun, thats one thing, but make sure the entire table is cool with it too, that way you don't have a "Teen Wolf" situation on your hands.  If they are cool with it, then drive it til the walls fall off...if the table thinks it sucks you kill everything, either nerf up or find a new table....right?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Quick Rapier is a 3rd-level magical weapon type with a daily power. The daily power gives you a free action melee attack against any target after you've successfully hit a target already in the turn. It's from Adventurer's Vault (I just looked it up on Compendium).
> 
> Takedown strike is no action, again triggered by hitting someone and just adds damage and a prone.
> 
> Backstab just adds damage to any attack. So... yah, they all stack.




It's all legal.

Wow. You've just described why I hate the Character Builder. It's so hard to "throttle sources" (that's something I ranted about once). One of these days, soon, I'm going to post my little rant on the CB, and I'm going to quote you as one of my examples. I don't think anyone playtested all that stuff together. I can picture whoever playtested the Rapier of Quickness might have used it with a thief, or the mercenary background the same, but I'm reasonably sure they weren't all playtested together.

Actually, I have been a WotC playtester before (just once, and did some third party stuff too) and there's no way that stuff was all playtested together.



> Hard to do when you have to bring characters to a game either online or before the game starts, like at a game store where you don't know who or even how many people will be playing. In a home game, ok, you might discuss these things before playing, but even then it depends on who you're playing with and how well you know each other.




Seems like you have to try.

I used to assume everyone would play DnD the same way, a view I developed with 18 years RPG experience, and got frustrated when some players decided to build wealth rather than build adventurers (as one example). I was "forced" to explain this before my current Dark Sun campaign. I haven't had such problems since, but it really felt like I suddenly realized these DnD players I'd known for years playing RPGs for years had grown up on other planets.

You really need to talk to them. Even if it's just by IM.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 10, 2011)

Jimlock said:


> ok, to me this is one of the most offending and wrong conclusions I've ever read in this forum.




It appears to me that the only wrong conclusion was the one you took from what I said and the very specific part of Kzach's post that I quoted.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 10, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> Actually, I have been a WotC playtester before (just once, and did some third party stuff too) and there's no way that stuff was all playtested together.




I'd have to disagree. A quick weapon seems squarely aimed at strikers. Sure, everyone can benefit from getting an extra attack in a turn, but it's pretty obvious that a striker benefits most from it. When I was searching, it immediately popped out at me as a choice to review because "quick" is synonymous with thieves.

The same for the Mercenary theme. I mean, no-one can convince me that a casual read through of that screams, "I can do more damage and tack on a prone as a freebie? Awesome!"

One of the things I'd probably agree is broken and seriously needs to be addressed in the system is items like Bracers of Mighty Striking. Flat bonuses to damage are the real problem with big damage characters. It's the primary reason why Twin Strike is so powerful. The two attacks are pretty meaningless without all the static, stackable bonuses.

Take my thief as an example. 6d8+1d6 is impressive, no doubt, but it only amounts to an average of 30.5 points of damage. This is most definitely NOT outside the realm of most strikers who use an action point and a daily item power and rely on three successful hits. When you put it into that perspective, it's actually pretty reasonable when compared to even an average-built striker.

Where the REAL problem comes in, is all the stackable bonus damage. Takedown Strike = 5 (from a Dexterity of 20), Acrobat's Trick = 2, Weapon Finesse (thief core ability) = 2, Bracers of Mighty Striking = 2, Dexterity (Weapon Finesse) = 5. Across three attacks that's 33 damage plus another 5 for Takedown Strike. So just through stacked damage on the three attacks, I've doubled the damage output, putting it into the realm of overpowered.

And yet again I argue that this isn't powergaming. Again, I didn't know about Bracers of Mighty Striking. It took me a minute or two to find them and think, "Gee, they're good for me, I'll take those!" The same for the Quick Weapon. If I'm a powergamer simply because I looked at the options and thought, "Hey, that's good and suits my character, I'll use that," then... I guess I'm a powergamer. But then if I can do all that in ten minutes, what's stopping everyone else?

When I spend hours creating a character, it's always for a very particular concept that requires that I search high and low to suit it. The irony here is that I'm looking for things that suit the CHARACTER CONCEPT. So I spend less time optimising than I do focusing on the character's character. Hell, I wrote up a character history for that thief above and it took about half an hour. That's three times the amount of time I devoted to creating him in the first place.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> To some people playing RPGs, it's not about the rules at all.




And I totally get that.  I really do.  I've played with those kinds of players for years and it's fine.

But, don't then turn around and bitch about the fact that you can't hit anything, can't succeed at anything you try and your character is a complete failure while the guy sitting beside you can function quite nicely.


----------



## Pentius (Aug 10, 2011)

Yeah, that nova round for your Thief sounds alot more impressive before you factor in that it uses an action point, a daily power, three encounter powers and then relies on three attacks hitting.



Greg K said:


> I don't see him as a casual gamer. I see him both as a power gamer (to what degree I don't know other than he claims not to carry it to the extremes of WOTC's CharOPs) and an optimizer. Optimization is his tool to power game. He expects characters to  have at least 18 in the prime stat for the bonuses (I have seen others say a 16 is just fine). He looks for racial synergies to class. And , then he spends hours looking for more synergies.  He expects others to do the same.This is not casual. It is also setting a minimum acceptable level of power for him to have fun which flies against what others have said is necessary for the game to work (hence the power gaming).




While a 16 in one's primary stat works just fine, expecting an 18 is not terribly optimize-y.  The 22-pt point buy method easily allows for a pre-racial 16 and the standard array includes one as well.  I'd call it common sense to have your primary stat as your highest, so if you have a racial bonus to it, there's your 18.  A pre-racial 18 is a sometimes used method, but also not always worth it.  As for race synergies, those often tend to be obvious and thematic.  For example, Elves make great Archer Rangers and Druids, in part because they have stat bumps to the most used stats of those classes.  As for spending hours going through looking for synergies, it's not necessarily that non-casual.  The character builder makes it easy, and if you have a fairly lax schedule, you can end up tinkering with a couple character ideas in it for awhile.  I've done it.  Heck, I'm pretty sure I've spent an hour or so, on at least one occasion, just reading through different rituals.

Obviously Kzach isn't a casual gamer, in the sense of the type of player who just shows up to hang out, but he's also not a terribly gung-ho power gamer, at least from what I've seen of him.


----------



## Greg K (Aug 10, 2011)

Pentius said:


> Obviously Kzach isn't a casual gamer, in the sense of the type of player who just shows up to hang out, but he's also not a terribly gung-ho power gamer, at least from what I've seen of him.




Which is why I mentioned that that degree of power gaming is on a continuum and he does not seem to be at the extreme far end.  However, the impression that I get from his posts  is that he rates much further to the  right than me.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I'd have to disagree. A quick weapon seems squarely aimed at strikers. Sure, everyone can benefit from getting an extra attack in a turn, but it's pretty obvious that a striker benefits most from it. When I was searching, it immediately popped out at me as a choice to review because "quick" is synonymous with thieves.
> 
> The same for the Mercenary theme. I mean, no-one can convince me that a casual read through of that screams, "I can do more damage and tack on a prone as a freebie? Awesome!"




I mean I doubt anyone playtested a thief with both that theme _and_ the weapon, as they come from different products.



> One of the things I'd probably agree is broken and seriously needs to be addressed in the system is items like Bracers of Mighty Striking.




If it's broken, why use it? You admitted it yourself, so why take something you yourself feel is broken?



> And yet again I argue that this isn't powergaming. Again, I didn't know about Bracers of Mighty Striking. It took me a minute or two to find them and think, "Gee, they're good for me, I'll take those!" The same for the Quick Weapon. If I'm a powergamer simply because I looked at the options and thought, "Hey, that's good and suits my character, I'll use that," then... I guess I'm a powergamer.




You figured the math, and you had to know that's a lot of damage. Simply picking something that suits your character isn't broken, but picking several powers/items from different sources that let you break the action economy (with a broken item) is.



> But then if I can do all that in ten minutes, what's stopping everyone else?




Haven't I repeatedly said I hate the Character Builder? Maybe for my next campaign I'll ban it, or say PH1 or Essentials book 1 only.

I wish I could remember a thread I participated in a year or some ago about why DMs ban non-core products. The CB only exacerbates the problem.



> When I spend hours creating a character, it's always for a very particular concept that requires that I search high and low to suit it. The irony here is that I'm looking for things that suit the CHARACTER CONCEPT. So I spend less time optimising than I do focusing on the character's character. Hell, I wrote up a character history for that thief above and it took about half an hour. That's three times the amount of time I devoted to creating him in the first place.




Like I said before, I'm not talking about RP at all. That's another issue. It seems to me the CB makes it too easy to power-game though. That kind of thing used to take hours and hours of crawling through multiple products, and (hopefully) asking the DM about each of them, then (hopefully) being flexible about taking stuff away if the DM changes his mind after seeing the combo in play.

This is on top of having other players who won't even do "standard" optimization. I wonder if that group that contributed to all those Sultans of Smack thread is still around, and if they do 4e?


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 10, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> I mean I doubt anyone playtested a thief with both that theme _and_ the weapon, as they come from different products.



Unless the products came out at the same time and nobody saw all the products at the same time, how could that combo be missed? Is it a wizards policy that each book should be reviewed in isolation or something? It's a pretty straightforward combination of thematically appropriate elements.

The damage he's pumped out isn't that big: it is, after all, a daily, a weapon daily, a couple of encounter powers and an action point. You can get pretty close to that level of damage with a PHB build using just a daily and an at-will (and a little tactical play).

YOU see a powergamed character with ludicrous damage output. I see a damage level that's not significantly bigger than what I can get from skimming through the PHB.

But that's not even what Kzach's issue is. I'm sure he doesn't mind you being amazed by the numbers at all. He's even willing to help YOU hit those numbers. The problem comes when you try to make out that Kzach is some kind of bad person for hitting those numbers, and his help or advice will somehow taint you and make you a bad person too.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 10, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> Unless the products came out at the same time and nobody saw all the products at the same time, how could that combo be missed? Is it a wizards policy that each book should be reviewed in isolation or something? It's a pretty straightforward combination of thematically appropriate elements.
> 
> The damage he's pumped out isn't that big: it is, after all, a daily, a weapon daily, a couple of encounter powers and an action point. You can get pretty close to that level of damage with a PHB build using just a daily and an at-will (and a little tactical play).
> 
> ...




Apparently I have to spread more XP around before giving it to Saeviomagy again. Darnit. He's spot on.


----------



## Nightson (Aug 10, 2011)

I think generally, problems with optimization come not from the players but from the game.

First to prevent boring sameness, there needs to be multiple paths of optimization.  Aka, you don't want every single player to be wearing the same armbands that give +2 damage on every hit.  Having multiple paths of optimization allows stuff to fit in more closely with the character archetype.  You could have one item give a small bonus to damage while flanking, one that gives a medium bonus when charging and one that gives a really big bonus on the first hit in a combat.  All of them can be balanced to give the same average damage per round, but the different expressions of that makes for fun choices.

The second is a lack of flavor protection.  Things should cost based on their usefulness.  When "+1 to hit with all attacks" and "You can reroll an atheletics check" cost the same thing then you have a problem.  The game could simple silo off the different options, and give you a certain number of points for combat effectiveness and a certain number for things that help fit or round out the character concept but aren't very useful.  Say, training in the Heal skill for you fighter even though you have a bad wisdom and there's a cleric, it's not a useful option, you'll probably never roll it, but it fits a lot better for a lot of characters who might have been treating battle injuries.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 10, 2011)

I agree with Oryan77, powergaming/optimising/min-maxing (I regard them all as the same thing) adds nothing of value to the game and creates more work for the GM. As a GM I want it to be easy to challenge the PCs. I don't want to have to build challenges like intricate puzzle boxes, taking account of the fact that the PCs will all be flying, invisible and never enter the dungeon because they use their 50 mile range telekinesis or summoned minions to deal with everything. I want to be able to use archetypal foes, I want big brute Tarrasque-style monsters to be a threat. I want to spend my time creating quality content - good names, flavorful NPCs, semi-original ideas, variety of situation.

Even if all the players powergame to an equal degree it can still cause a number of problems. Character options become more limited because only the most powerful feats, powers and abilities are viable. Certain archetypal characters - knights with no ability to deal with a flying ranged attacker, The Thing-like bricks in superhero games - types that are really fundamental to genre and should be supported, become unplayable.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 10, 2011)

Pentius said:


> Yeah, that nova round for your Thief sounds alot more impressive before you factor in that it uses an action point, a daily power, three encounter powers and then relies on three attacks hitting.




Did Kzach apply Sneak Attack (w Backstabber) bonus more than once?  You only get it once per Turn - so +2d8, not +6d8.  Then the Backstab Encounter Power adds +1d6, or +1d8 if your kind DM lets it count as Sneak Attack damage. 

Apart from that, the only issue I can see is with the Rapier - Essentials PCs are not designed to work with free purchase of Adventurers Vault magic items; they're supposed to be restricted to a limited list of Common items, which would not include anything with a Daily power.  An E-PC should only be getting that kind of things as treasure from the DM, not a purchase.

All that said, my own 3rd level E-Thief's nova damage output is not that vastly less than Kzach's, and I'm using a +2 dagger of distance, no UA stuff, no Themes.  Plus I get to throw it from range, whereas Kzach's build requires his rather squishy Thief PC to get up close & personal.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 10, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And I totally get that. I really do. I've played with those kinds of players for years and it's fine.
> 
> But, don't then turn around and bitch about the fact that you can't hit anything, can't succeed at anything you try and your character is a complete failure while the guy sitting beside you can function quite nicely.




I no longer bother with games if success is based on decisions primarily made away from the situation at hand. If not having the right benchmark numbers = fail then I will seek a more sensible game. 



Doug McCrae said:


> I agree with Oryan77, powergaming/optimising/min-maxing (I regard them all as the same thing) adds nothing of value to the game and creates more work for the GM. As a GM I want it to be easy to challenge the PCs. I don't want to have to build challenges like intricate puzzle boxes, taking account of the fact that the PCs will all be flying, invisible and never enter the dungeon because they use their 50 mile range telekinesis or summoned minions to deal with everything. I want to be able to use archetypal foes, I want big brute Tarrasque-style monsters to be a threat. I want to spend my time creating quality content - good names, flavorful NPCs, semi-original ideas, variety of situation.
> 
> Even if all the players powergame to an equal degree it can still cause a number of problems. Character options become more limited because only the most powerful feats, powers and abilities are viable. Certain archetypal characters - knights with no ability to deal with a flying ranged attacker, The Thing-like bricks and superhero games - types that are really fundamental to genre and should be supported, become unplayable.




Aye. I want to play an enjoyable game not participate in some rules driven arms race.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> Unless the products came out at the same time and nobody saw all the products at the same time, how could that combo be missed? Is it a wizards policy that each book should be reviewed in isolation or something? It's a pretty straightforward combination of thematically appropriate elements.




It's not a policy, it's the amount of time you get to playtest a product. You don't get told by WotC (at least not in 3.x - that's when I got to playtest) to only playtest just one class, but rather, a whole book.

If you're playtesting the thief, for instance, you should playtest multiple builds with different races over all levels (for instance, try Tactical Trick, Ambush Trick, etc... I don't think you can get them both - that's what I mean by build, as opposed to Charismatic vs Brutal Scoundrel). The playtesters don't necessarily have access to all of the products either. The same playtesters are then playtesting the other classes in the books (three builds for the mage, for instance), which takes even more time, and they're supposed to playtest every power, every feat, etc that's in the one book.

By the time you're done, you haven't been able to playtest the thief with every thief-usable power/feat/item *in every previously published book*. There's just not enough time. And the issue just escalates as more products are released. WotC publishes a cool new feat, but it turns out it's broken if you're playing a bugbear Slayer charging build who has taken this Dragon Magazine item and that Heroes of Shadow feat along with the Retired Dungeoneerer background and Primal Guardian theme and has multiclassed with Vampire ... I guess the feat wasn't adequately playtested because none of the playtesters saw that "obvious" combo coming.

The playtesters aren't necessarily CharOp experts. It'd be nice if they were, as they've got a _lot_ of system mastery. In 3.x, anytime something broken came out, the CharOp experts immediately noted it, and people would wonder why they weren't consulted.


----------



## jasper (Aug 10, 2011)

Pbartender said:


> ...Which is:
> 
> Every RPG is designed with a particular purpose...  A genre it's meant to emulate or a play style it's meant to support, for example.  A game can be forced out of its comfort zone, with enough time, effort and house rules, but it will never perform quite as well as a game that is designed for that purpose.
> 
> .....




Pour me another shot PB. Over the years from all the editions, I have see the company(ies) produce sources which force the game away the original comfort zone. No need for house rules to get into the mix.
but generally this is not a bad thing. As long as everyone at the table wants to play "Teeny Tiny Teen Titans Twiddwinks" Or "Cursed Conan Clones Cut Cuthlu" it is okay. But when a poor DM opens the door to both sources and allow cross bulids or player wants mine specfic builds from any source. Then there is trouble at the table.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 10, 2011)

Spatula said:


> There's a difference between "possible" and "supported," I think. D&D has never really supported the "hero (reluctant or otherwise) who isn't really cut out for the job" archetype, as every level 1 PC is automatically cut out for the job at hand.




Apparently not, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. If non-optimized characters performed were really ready, and thus performed well enough, then there'd be no clash between the optimizers vs the non-optimizers, now would there?

I am not talking about someone who has 8s for all his stats.  I'm talking about the character who hasn't got a 17 or 18 in his prime, and who hasn't specifically chosen feats and powers and skills that stack together.  Apparently, these perform poorly enough to cause frustration, and therefore, in some sense, aren't cut out for the job.


----------



## jasper (Aug 10, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> It's all legal.
> 
> ..I don't think anyone playtested all that stuff together. ..., but I'm reasonably sure they weren't all playtested together.
> 
> ...




HOUSTON WE HAVE LAUNCH! And that is problem I found with games which have any source goes.  Especially when everyone is 1st level. Bill is happy with CLW potion, the mage is happy with a magic missle scroll. Bob is unhappy I didn't allow His Purple Paladin of Panama keep his +5 holy avenger. And whines about not being over powered compare to rest of group. The +5 holy avenger happen at my table.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> You missed one of my posts where I addressed this. Get it? AdDRESSED?
> 
> Like I said in that post, I play side-by-side with people who play lame-ducks and don't complain or whine about their characters, but they most certainly complain and whine about my characters. Hence one of the reasons I'm tired of it and posted this thread.




You probably want to avoid taking the snotty tone like that, when you seem to have missed the paragraph in the very post you quoted, where I addressed this.  Get it?  Ad_DRESSED_?

To wit:



			
				me said:
			
		

> The reaction you may see may be as much a reaction to the suggestion that they ought to have the same tastes as you. It may also depend upon your delivery - if you come across as trying to "correct" their mistakes, or that they don't know what they are doing, or that you know the "right" way to play, well, you can easily look pretty condescending and that puts people right off.




Now, I wasn't at the table when you approached them, but if you talk to them like you talk to us, I am completely unsurprised that they rejected your suggestions.  Similarly, based on the example here, I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't nearly so good at covering your frustration with their lack of optimization as you claim, which wouldn't be helping matters.

Maybe this has less to do with the clash between optimizer and non-optimizer, and a bit more with interaction style.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 10, 2011)

Umbran said:


> You probably want to avoid taking the snotty tone like that, when you seem to have missed the paragraph in the very post you quoted, where I addressed this.  Get it?  Ad_DRESSED_?




Snotty? Are you for real? You're seriously taking offence to what I posted?

Over-reaction much? Thin-skin much? It's pretty obvious I'm joking around and being light-hearted and yet you come back with a flame. You need to start moderating yourself, dude.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 10, 2011)

Doug McCrae said:


> I agree with Oryan77, powergaming/optimising/min-maxing (I regard them all as the same thing) adds nothing of value to the game and creates more work for the GM. As a GM I want it to be easy to challenge the PCs. I don't want to have to build challenges like intricate puzzle boxes, taking account of the fact that the PCs will all be flying, invisible and never enter the dungeon because they use their 50 mile range telekinesis or summoned minions to deal with everything. I want to be able to use archetypal foes, I want big brute Tarrasque-style monsters to be a threat. I want to spend my time creating quality content - good names, flavorful NPCs, semi-original ideas, variety of situation.



Ok, I think we all agree that permanent invisibility, flying minion-summoning demigods are not likely to be much fun in a game that's trying to simulate what most people see as medieval fantasy fiction.

I'm not sure what your second paragraph is trying to say: knights without any ranged effectiveness aren't a staple of the genre, and the lack of ranged effectiveness in D&D is a pure product of lack of preparation. Supers with one and only one thing they do well ARE a staple of the genre (that's why the thing is a member of a team, and not a solo act, after all), and I've not yet found a supers game that stops you from doing that. Or that is easy to DM for...


----------



## Saeviomagy (Aug 10, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> I
> The playtesters aren't necessarily CharOp experts. It'd be nice if they were, as they've got a _lot_ of system mastery. In 3.x, anytime something broken came out, the CharOp experts immediately noted it, and people would wonder why they weren't consulted.




Yeah, I agree. What IS the system used to select playtesters? I've only ever been a playtester on a single shadowrun book, and the process for how we got selected was extremely opaque.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> Yeah, I agree. What IS the system used to select playtesters? I've only ever been a playtester on a single shadowrun book, and the process for how we got selected was extremely opaque.




I critiqued a product after it came out. The author was impressed. In addition for writing for Malhavoc, he works for WotC, so...

I've got the sort of detail-oriented mind that makes me a good playtester (yes, I'm tooting my own horn - that let me write a long critique) but I'm well aware that I have limits. I'm a natural playtester, but not a particularly gifted one.

I'm not going to contribute to any CharOp articles anytime soon - clearly there are people out there who known 3.x and 4e rules and combos better than me - and I would have been happier if there were some such people specifically recruited into the playtesting process as well. 

But I think my analysis of playtesting combos is correct. Short of buying and memorizing every WotC product (Dragon Magazine, Encounters, etc), and gaining several dozen points of IQ, there is no way I could playtest every combo for a new class, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to be able to do that. Even with the CB.


----------



## Janx (Aug 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I'm definitely not a fan of those sorts of characters. I do think there's a line that is crossed in optimisation, I just don't feel that I cross it.




I think the line should be: a PC should not exist that is more powerful than what you can build from the players handbook.

That's the baseline.  Because in just about every edition, the combos that could be built from the PH are usually balanced.

When you can go shopping through all the add-ons for parts, thats where you find testing was weak, and opportunity for imbalance.

I play 3x, so a lot of the stuff Kzach is talking about isn't available.  But the concept still applies.

If you build a fighter and don't put your best stat in STR, and all your skills rely on your worst stat, that's goes against most common wisdom since the inception of the game.  sure, there's the exception (like using DEX and feats that make it so your DEX bonus is used in melee).  But the principle remains that you put your stats where your class needs it, and you generally buy skills that use your best stats.

Let's call that another baseline assumption.

Pre 3e. that was the only choices to make.  Pretty hard to screw up OR to make a better fighter than the fighter I made.

Post 3e, feats, PrCs, and all the other stuff (4e has new stuff I'm not familiar with) put in so many extra variables that you need lots of time, or a program to make it easy to test and swap what your stats look like.

But I think it still comes down to with those, if you can build something extremely better than what the PH allows, then it violated the design specification.  That is the design standard for balance  because it is the first product that sets the scale for what is possible in the game.

Table cultural is the last leg of the problem.  Most of the people I game with build their PC 30 minutes before the game (or the night before) on a piece of paper.  When we level up, we flip open the PH and find what new feat/skills we want.  We don't plan these things out, barring occasions where there's a higher level thing we want that has pre-requisites.  But you won't see a 20 level build plan.

Hopefully, our PCs don't totally suck, but anybody who puts in more time on planning out, and using more books than the PH could probably find more powerful combinations.  However, if it violates the first baseline, thats a sign of imbalance and exploiting that imbalance.


----------



## Janx (Aug 10, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Now, I wasn't at the table when you approached them, but if you talk to them like you talk to us, I am completely unsurprised that they rejected your suggestions.  Similarly, based on the example here, I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't nearly so good at covering your frustration with their lack of optimization as you claim, which wouldn't be helping matters.
> 
> Maybe this has less to do with the clash between optimizer and non-optimizer, and a bit more with interaction style.





 Kzach, yes the first part where umbran copied your style was probably less than the normally polite umbran usually delivers.

However, the part I quoted has relevance.  In just about all of your threads, I see a manner of speaking that isn't diplomatic. 

 At some point, the pattern becomes common enough that it is probably the way you always communicate.  And since a number of your threads are about problems your having, I suspect that the way you comminicate, if its like on these threads, is part of the problem.

I say this, as somebody who also talks bluntly and is often times less polite than umbran on this forum (excluding the rare instance).


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2011)

Janx said:


> I think the line should be: a PC should not exist that is more powerful than what you can build from the players handbook.
> 
> That's the baseline.  Because in just about every edition, the combos that could be built from the PH are usually balanced.




And if they weren't (there's always something broken in a PH1) it's reasonable that the DM would be familiar enough with the PH1 to account for it, ban it, nerf it, or otherwise deal with it.

I don't think it's reasonable for a DM to be familiar with "every book", however, or the entire Character Builder.

So I'm supporting your point, just adding a little bit that the DM can easily fix balance problems with the PH1.



> When you can go shopping through all the add-ons for parts, thats where you find testing was weak, and opportunity for imbalance.




On that note, unlesss WotC has updated their testing practices, core books get playtested a lot longer than "splats".

Dragon Magazine used to come out once a month. No surprise the material was often less balanced.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I'd have to disagree. A quick weapon seems squarely aimed at strikers. Sure, everyone can benefit from getting an extra attack in a turn, but it's pretty obvious that a striker benefits most from it. When I was searching, it immediately popped out at me as a choice to review because "quick" is synonymous with thieves.
> 
> The same for the Mercenary theme. I mean, no-one can convince me that a casual read through of that screams, "I can do more damage and tack on a prone as a freebie? Awesome!"
> 
> ...




again, this is not an indictment on you or your style of play, but when you say "this item seems good for me" what you really mean is "this item does killer damage."  You took the "quick item" because to paraphrase you : quick = thief ... you took the mighty item because.............mighty = more damage.

my next question for you - and this is 100% off topic - after doing 60+ damage in round 1, what do you do in round 2?


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 10, 2011)

Kzach said:


> It's pretty obvious I'm joking around and being light-hearted and yet you come back with a flame. You need to start moderating yourself, dude.




Guess what, Kzach?  It ISN'T obvious.  At least, not to the level you seem to think.  And it's basically the same thing where you think there are obvious choices in character creation to create what _you_ think to be middle-of-the-road, good-but-not-powergamed characters (but which many other people here consider to be 'optimized'... and optimized enough that you _could_ be considered powergaming.)

The problem you're having is that what you're seeing _is not_ what other people are (both in your attitude and in what the game itself is presenting).  So long as you keep believing and acting as though what is 'common sense' to you is 'common sense' to everybody... the more you're going to continue to have these problems dealing with your situation.


----------



## Janx (Aug 10, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> But I think my analysis of playtesting combos is correct. Short of buying and memorizing every WotC product (Dragon Magazine, Encounters, etc), and gaining several dozen points of IQ, there is no way I could playtest every combo for a new class, and I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to be able to do that. Even with the CB.




If play testing ran through the QA process that hardware/software goes through in a big company, they'd have made huge matrices to list out all the build combinations, and testets would be working through those combinations (or at least random points).

They also probably would have been automated.  it is pretty simple to say that a 1st level PC should be able to do 1d8+6 damage, and then have the computer build all the classes in the CharBuilder and flag out which combinations yield higher values as possible problems.

I'm using damage as an example, but generally, that's what gets attention as imbalance is To-Hit#s and damage output greater than the standard expectation.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 10, 2011)

DEFCON 1 said:


> Guess what, Kzach?  It ISN'T obvious.




I understood Kzach was joking and was not trying to be snotty at all. I would say that I was surprised that someone else took offense to it, but it isn't surprising to me.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 10, 2011)

I think averaging 69.5 damage in a turn for a 2nd level character is broken.  It's just my opinion, of course.

Normally, I agree with most of your posts Kzach, but I believe that spending 4 hours tweaking a single 1st level character over two weeks is much more than casual.

In my 4e table, I have two powergamer types, two "normal", knowledgeable players and two casual gamers.  It is very hard to manage, build and/or convert encounters for them because the characters are of such a wide range of effectiveness.  And they are all legally using the CB to build their characters. 

The powergamers both have DDI accounts and like to spend their off time making characters for fun.  One even build all his characters at level 30 and then makes his 1st level character from that build.*  

The casual gamers don't have DDI accounts and when it comes time to level their PCs, they simply use my laptop and spend 5 minutes leveling them up.  They don't look at then next level or two for build optimizations, but they will retrain out of sub-optimal choices.

The guys in the middle, well, they are in the middle. 

* It makes me crazy.  How does he even KNOW what he is going to be at 25th level when his PC hasn't experienced anything in the game world?  This is one of the things about powergaming that really bugs me the most.

When I am building my character, I might have some ideas about what I might want a couple of levels ahead, to help support a concept, but when I level up, I make sure that (for the most part) the feats or powers or retraining I do reflects what my PC experienced in play.  I don't retrain out of heal for arcana if I DIDN'T do any arcane study.  I don't choose a particular paragon path if my PC didn't experience any of the things reflective in the path.  Yet I see this kind of behavior a lot among powergamers.


----------



## Mallus (Aug 10, 2011)

I'll echo what some people have been saying: there's nothing wrong with optimization per se, but there is a problem with groups that have wide power disparities between PCs.

And it's a pretty big problem: it makes the game harder to run for (most) DMs.

The guiding principle in PC design should be: build a character that fits into your specific group. The best PCs are the ones who work well with others, not necessarily the ones with the maximized chances of survival. 

I've been thinking a bit about optimization w/r/t different systems lately...

I might join a Pathfinder group soon. Since it's a 3e-framework game, a certain level of optimization is practically required. There are a lot of options, a lot of synergies, a fair number of traps, and by deciding _not to_ spend a little time on the mechanical implementation of your PC, you miss out on one best features of the system.

We've also played Savage Worlds recently. I have no idea how to optimize a SW character. But it is fun to play around with the character build options, since the system gives you, for a compact rules set, a lot of interesting mechanical dials to twiddle, though they seem more geared to character modeling, and not so prone to "killer builds".

Then there's our AD&D campaign, where character optimization amounts to the magic-user acquiring Sleep and Web, the fighter double-specializing in a sword, and everyone buying 10' poles, war dogs, and as much flame oil as they can carry !


----------



## Umbran (Aug 10, 2011)

I say what follows in an attempt to help you see some things that you apparently don't.  I'm sorry it is not flattering, but I hope it is helpful.



Kzach said:


> Snotty? Are you for real? You're seriously taking offence to what I posted?




Hardly.  I've been a moderator for years - it takes a whole lot to offend me, personally.  I'm telling you it came across as a snotty tone, and there's a purpose in my saying so...



> Over-reaction much? Thin-skin much? It's pretty obvious I'm joking around and being light-hearted and yet you come back with a flame. You need to start moderating yourself, dude.




Here it is in a nutshell - it is my considered opinion (and, in this, as a moderator you probably should consider me a "trained observer") that it was in *not* obvious that you were joking.  To use the vernacular, there was squat-all in that to indicate you were being light-hearted.  It read like something would have been reported for rudeness, had you said it to someone else.

And, on top of that, your response was to actively and publicly try to lay the entire blame for the misunderstanding on faults in me, rather than take it to be simple misunderstanding, take some of the blame for yourself, or even (*gasp*, perish the thought) apologize for giving offense.  

Which brings me to what I said before.  Many folks interact very differently in-person than they do online.  But, right here, and from other threads I've seen you in, it looks like communication style is an issue for you.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 10, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> again, this is not an indictment on you or your style of play, but when you say "this item seems good for me" what you really mean is "this item does killer damage." You took the "quick item" because to paraphrase you : quick = thief ... you took the mighty item because.............mighty = more damage.




I'm not seeing anything about those items that would make the theif not think "these are good for me". Some might only want items that summon biscuits of tea enjoyment +1 or fancy hats or whatever, but normally professional murderers (aka adventurers) are at least somewhat interested in things that increase their killing power. Similarly, those min-maxed real life firefighters often use equipment that protects themselves from flames...

None of this equipment is that crazy (damage boosting arms are weapon users default slot, the weapon is an uncommon). The background doesnt add much, and its not like the theme power is a damage roll or minor action attack (so no extra static mods from it). 

Given the character used 2 encounters, an action point and a daily, the damage doesnt seem that absurd, when you realize he's tapped for the rest of the encounter. The thief is designed partly around spike damage. Our paladin puts out similar damage with Blood of the Mighty and Righteous Rage.


----------



## Spatula (Aug 10, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Apparently not, or we wouldn't be having this conversation. If non-optimized characters performed were really ready, and thus performed well enough, then there'd be no clash between the optimizers vs the non-optimizers, now would there?



I wasn't addressing the optimization argument, but rather the game design tangent. As I was trying to say in my post, the classes come equipped with the abilities that a competent PC needs, but the players can always choose to hurt their effectiveness in various ways. And the game design generally assumes that the players aren't doing that. Which doesn't mean that it can't be done, but it's not exactly supported by the game.



Umbran said:


> I am not talking about someone who has 8s for all his stats.  I'm talking about the character who hasn't got a 17 or 18 in his prime, and who hasn't specifically chosen feats and powers and skills that stack together.  Apparently, these perform poorly enough to cause frustration, and therefore, in some sense, aren't cut out for the job.



Yeah. When 3e came out I loved all the character customization possibilities. 10 years later I realized that it was more of a problem than a boon for some players. The lack of customization in AD&D turned out to be a good thing after all, when playing with a mixed group anyway.

When 4e came out, I thought that they had mostly solved that problem. But then the PC math didn't work, and WotC released new feats to fix that, and then those feats became mandatory to those who knew the system, and anyone who didn't take them _obviously_ didn't know what they were doing... And then there's the ridiculous synergies that resulted from the explosion of options... And we're right back where we started.


----------



## Wild Gazebo (Aug 10, 2011)

This is a strange thread.  I've never witnessed ridicule or scorn from moderate optimization...and I'm in the 30+ club for role-playing experience.  

I guess managing to find your own way to enjoy the game without proselytizing it as being correct allows everyone a smoother platform toward enjoyment.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2011)

Janx said:


> If play testing ran through the QA process that hardware/software goes through in a big company, they'd have made huge matrices to list out all the build combinations, and testets would be working through those combinations (or at least random points).




That would be a help. It wouldn't stop Pun-Pun (not that any DM would allow it), but it might control the ridiculousness of the Monster Vault owlbear.

Level 8 elite brute:

At-Will: Double Attack. Each attack does an average of 20 damage and can grab a target. Then follow up (by spending an AP) Beak Snap, which only targets grabbed opponents and deals an average of 40 damage. That's 80 damage against a single opponent in one round!

And apparently perfectly legal by the monster math, though I suspect beak snap should be doing an average of 30 damage.

I wonder if WotC even realizes the problem? I get the impression once they're done with something, they don't really look at it again. I wasn't a playtester often, and have no *informed* opinion on the matter.


----------



## Pentius (Aug 10, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> I think averaging 69.5 damage in a turn for a 2nd level character is broken.  It's just my opinion, of course.



I don't.  If that were every turn, then yeah, but for a an AP, a Daily, and three encounter powers, that's fine.  It also wouldn't be that much average damage.  That much average damage assumes that all three attacks hit.  With that selection of magic items, that level, blowing all my resources in a turn and with the assumption that all attacks hit before calculating average damage, I'm going to bet that a number of characters can hit in that ballpark.



TheUltramark said:


> again, this is not an indictment on you or your style of play, but when you say "this item seems good for me" what you really mean is "this item does killer damage."  You took the "quick item" because to paraphrase you : quick = thief ... you took the mighty item because.............mighty = more damage.



I might be missing something here.  How is this an issue?  



> my next question for you - and this is 100% off topic - after doing 60+ damage in round 1, what do you do in round 2?



You turn and face the three to four remaining standard enemies in the fight.


----------



## Gryph (Aug 10, 2011)

Pentius said:


> I don't. If that were every turn, then yeah, but for a an AP, a Daily, and three encounter powers, that's fine. It also wouldn't be that much average damage. That much average damage assumes that all three attacks hit. With that selection of magic items, that level, blowing all my resources in a turn and with the assumption that all attacks hit before calculating average damage, I'm going to bet that a number of characters can hit in that ballpark.
> 
> I might be missing something here. How is this an issue?
> 
> ...




You're right. It isn't broken amounts of damage for the complete use of all encounter/daily powers a 2nd level Thief has (and AP).

I think there is a system hole that allows that character build to trigger 2 encounter and 1 daily power from a single successful attack role, though.

Honestly, though, that is a rules issue and tends to be the hardest to deal with for Essentials strikers for the reasons that Kzach eventually pointed out. To make up for the lack of a class daily they have even more (and earlier) static damage bonuses than AEDU builds.

I can get a PHB1 Rogue to 7d8 on a nova round that uses a daily, AP, encounter combo but I don't really know anyway to approach the +39 static damage. I stall around +20 and Thief is usually more accurate than Rogue builds (Backstabber in Kzach's example adds +3 to the hit roll on top of the +2 for CA he needed to use it. Added to the expected +12 base attack I think he would have at 2nd level he can only miss with that first attack on a 1 against standard same level monsters).

I build for accuracy and haven't managed that high a bonus for a PHB Rogue build.


----------



## Janx (Aug 10, 2011)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:


> targets grabbed opponents and deals an average of 40 damage. That's 80 damage against a single opponent in one round!





Judging by the words used and the damage levels cited, does 4e have a higher damage ammount in general?

Has there been a damage inflation in the game?

I've gotten big numbers for damage in 3e.  On my >15th minotaur fighter with a great axe and 24str (belt of giant strength) and improved crit and rolling max damage.  And yes, that was awesome.

but that was a maxed out crit.  And those same characters wouldn't last 2 rounds taking 80/a round in return.

Once upon a time, 12 damage from a big weapon + strength + 1 was the most a 1st level PC could pretty much do.

And HP couldn't keep up if the enemy swung that, so it sounds like 4e gave PCs more HP.  And then in return, made monsters hand out more damage to eat those HP faster.

It sounds like the game additions and charops behaviors have created an arms race.


----------



## Pentius (Aug 10, 2011)

Gryph said:


> You're right. It isn't broken amounts of damage for the complete use of all encounter/daily powers a 2nd level Thief has (and AP).
> 
> I think there is a system hole that allows that character build to trigger 2 encounter and 1 daily power from a single successful attack role, though.




It's actually weaker that way than with multiattacks.  If he just had three consecutive attacks, it'd be stronger, because he could use the rest of the combo even if the first attack failed.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Aug 10, 2011)

Janx said:


> Judging by the words used and the damage levels cited, does 4e have a higher damage ammount in general?
> 
> Has there been a damage inflation in the game?




Yes.

A 1st-level PC has a lot more hp than in previous editions, but a 1st-level monster has more hp as well. Damage at 1st-level is about the same though. As a result, a 1st-level character has about an equal chance of killing a kobold by themself as in 3rd Edition, _but_ neither can kill each other in one hit. (One-hit-kills in 4e are pretty much banned, and there's no sudden death spells either.)

MM3 and onward, monster damage actually scales properly with level. The owlbear is sort of an "outside" example as it first has to use an AP (only elites and solos, plus a few rare templates, get these) and then it's doing +10 damage on top of that. (Brutes do a _lot_ of damage, and the owlbear and other brutes can do pretty much nothing _except_ damage.)



> I've gotten big numbers for damage in 3e.  On my >15th minotaur fighter with a great axe and 24str (belt of giant strength) and improved crit and rolling max damage.  And yes, that was awesome.
> 
> but that was a maxed out crit.  And those same characters wouldn't last 2 rounds taking 80/a round in return.




The owlbear could only do the 80 damage combo once. Afterward, it could cheerfully inflict 40 damage a round. That's actually right on the ball for an 8th-level elite brute. A typical monster does 8 damage + 1/level per hit, double that if elite, +25% if brute, more with encounter powers, and less with AoE and/or strong control powers.

I once built a horrid NPC in 3.x - a were dire bear barbarian. PCs could only escape its grapple if they rolled a "20", and were still a few points short. And no, I didn't deliberately do that, it's just that 3.x math was a lot fiddlier. (You couldn't assign damage, you just had to built.) And said NPC could probably deal 80 damage a round with a claw/claw/bite routine. (I've lost said NPC, but I recall the CR being only 15.)



> Once upon a time, 12 damage from a big weapon + strength + 1 was the most a 1st level PC could pretty much do.




A 1st-level PC in 4e can do more with encounter and daily powers, but note 1st-level monsters generally have 26 hp at minimum (1st-level monster that isn't artillery or lurker and Con 10; most have a few more).



> And HP couldn't keep up if the enemy swung that, so it sounds like 4e gave PCs more HP.  And then in return, made monsters hand out more damage to eat those HP faster.




No, 4e doesn't give out more hp like that. You get more at 1st-level (I think the minimum is 12 plus Constitution _score_) but after that you only get 5 or so hp per level. You start with more but the math is "flatter".



> It sounds like the game additions and charops behaviors have created an arms race.




I wouldn't call it a race. Once the MM3 was shipped, NPC/monster damage stopped increasing, and WotC doesn't deliberately create broken combos.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 11, 2011)

Janx said:


> However, the part I quoted has relevance.  In just about all of your threads, I see a manner of speaking that isn't diplomatic.



Sure, I get antsy sometimes and retaliate with forceful words, but 90% of the time I think it comes down to perception of the reader, not intent of the writer.

Try reading what I write whilst imagining me with a big (possibly wry) smile on my face INSTEAD of a grimacing snarl, and I'll bet you come away with a different impression of my intent than you may currently.

Contrary to possible popular belief, I'm actually a pretty laid-back kinda guy and quite congenial in polite company. I'm also very good at customer service and sales. That shocks most people I meet after they've known me online. Then again, I'm also a raging bull if I feel you do something to me or a friend that is unjust or unfair or simply immoral 

Anyway, back to your regular programming.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 11, 2011)

Umbran said:


> And, on top of that, your response was to actively and publicly try to lay the entire blame for the misunderstanding on faults in me, rather than take it to be simple misunderstanding, take some of the blame for yourself, or even (*gasp*, perish the thought) apologize for giving offense.




I didn't give offence, you took it.

Before you take the moral high-ground, have you ever checked out Circus Maximus?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I no longer bother with games if success is based on decisions primarily made away from the situation at hand. If not having the right benchmark numbers = fail then I will seek a more sensible game.
> 
> 
> 
> Aye. I want to play an enjoyable game not participate in some rules driven arms race.




So, because you cannot be bothered to make a competent character, everyone else has to carry you along?  It's bad that another player makes a character that is effective, but, it's perfectly fine that you make a character that is sub-par to the point of being ineffective?  Why?

To be fair though, let's not get too far into hyperbole.  Playing a 3.5 D&D bard might put you bit down on the scale for power, but you shouldn't be totally ineffective.    Bards just tend to be a bit less capable in some situations.  That's fine.  Nobody is talking about that.

However, playing your bard with a 7 Cha because "well, it's a challenge" is just as bad as the powergamer.  IMO.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, because you cannot be bothered to make a competent character, everyone else has to carry you along? It's bad that another player makes a character that is effective, but, it's perfectly fine that you make a character that is sub-par to the point of being ineffective? Why?




I have no trouble creating competent characters and don't go out of my way to make incompetent ones. If making a competent character means wading through stacks of bloat supplements then yeah I suppose I can't be bothered. I can make a nice fighter or wizard character right out of the PHB with intelligent stat, skill, and feat choices that I would be comfortable calling competent. 



Hussar said:


> However, playing your bard with a 7 Cha because "well, it's a challenge" is just as bad as the powergamer. IMO.




That is sheer pigheadedness and such a situation falls under Wheaton's law.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 11, 2011)

When I sit down as a player in an RPG session, I don't come to the table with the mindset of wanting to win. I don't look at RPGs as being a competition or confrontational where the DM/GM is concerned.

As a DM/GM I don't run my games with the intent of beating the PCs or winning the game against the players. As a DM/GM I'm simply the moderator between the players and the game world, no more, no less.

When I think of optimization in gaming, I think of situations in which one side of something is trying to gain an advantage, be the best, or simply beat the other. For me, and more or less my group where RPGs are concerned, this simply shouldn't be an aspect of playing.

Board games, miniatures, CCGs, etc., these are all games in which optimization is not only a good idea, but pretty much expected. You want to build and play to the best of your ability, priming everything to gain every advantage and win.

Personally, I find players too often sacrifice creativity to their character when their only pursuit is to optimize, especially if it is always combat oriented, and that's something I can do without.


----------



## Connallmac (Aug 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> However, playing your bard with a 7 Cha because "well, it's a challenge" is just as bad as the powergamer.  IMO.




I disagree, neither style is badwrongfun. Both are equally valid approaches to RPGs, just be mature enough to realize that perhaps the two sides shouldn't play together, or perhaps they should find a different game that everyone in the group can enjoy.

I used to play 3.5 with a group that had one serious powergamer, the rest of us were drifting into Call of Cthulhu and World of Darkness and the like. The powergamer brought in several new players who were also powergamers, which eventually caused the the group to split. The powergamers went off and did their thing with 3.5, and the rest of us went towards more character and story driven games. No hard feelings or name calling, just a recognition of different interests.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I have no trouble creating competent characters and don't go out of my way to make incompetent ones. If making a competent character means wading through stacks of bloat supplements then yeah I suppose I can't be bothered. I can make a nice fighter or wizard character right out of the PHB with intelligent stat, skill, and feat choices that I would be comfortable calling competent.
> 
> 
> 
> That is sheer pigheadedness and such a situation falls under Wheaton's law.




I'd agree with that.  I actually generally only make my characters using the PHB, mostly because, like you, I just can't be asked to spend that much time on things.  



Connallmac said:


> I disagree, neither style is badwrongfun. Both are equally valid approaches to RPGs, just be mature enough to realize that perhaps the two sides shouldn't play together, or perhaps they should find a different game that everyone in the group can enjoy.
> 
> I used to play 3.5 with a group that had one serious powergamer, the rest of us were drifting into Call of Cthulhu and World of Darkness and the like. The powergamer brought in several new players who were also powergamers, which eventually caused the the group to split. The powergamers went off and did their thing with 3.5, and the rest of us went towards more character and story driven games. No hard feelings or name calling, just a recognition of different interests.




I would say that it's badwrongfun when taken to extremes.  Like I said, being on the weaker end of the spectrum is fine, as is perhaps being on the stronger side.  It's the guy who makes a character that is outright useless and then expects to be carried along by the rest of the group that's just as much of a problem as the combat wombat.

I've seen more than a few times someone claim that they cannot be bothered learning the rules, that they're just here to "roleplay" and then start bitching and whining because the guy sitting beside him can actually succeed more than a quarter of the time because he actually took the time to spend more than ten seconds creating his character.

Yes, it's great when a player wants to hand me a six page backstory on their character.  Wonderful.  Joyous.  But, if you spend two hours creating your backstory on a character that's an albatross hung around the neck of the group, then the time is not well spent.

Just as the powermonkey is about stealing spotlight, the one legged peasant is just as much about stealing spotlight.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 11, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> When I sit down as a player in an RPG session, I don't come to the table with the mindset of wanting to win. I don't look at RPGs as being a competition or confrontational where the DM/GM is concerned.



I'm not confrontational with the DM either. I often encounter different or plain wrong interpretations of rules in groups I play with but most of the time I just shrug it off and keep going. I don't sit there arguing to win even if it nixes something about my character.

Sometimes I'll ask for a clarification and sometimes I'll go so far as to mention that I understood it differently. And if a particular interpretation is something I feel is unfair to the group, I might bring it up for discussion, but at the end of the day if the DM says no, I'll play on.

The same goes for players. I'm not creating my character to beat them, I'm creating my character to be fun, and squishing things and taking their loot is fun. Dying and running for my life (all the time) gets kinda old pretty fast.



Pilgrim said:


> When I think of optimization in gaming, I think of situations in which one side of something is trying to gain an advantage, be the best, or simply beat the other. For me, and more or less my group where RPGs are concerned, this simply shouldn't be an aspect of playing.



What's wrong with being the best at something?

One of my wizard builds focuses heavily on Arcana. He can't fail average rolls has a good chance of succeeding at very difficult checks. I love that! He's the Arcana guy. When you need something Arcanery answered, you ask him. I call that fun, why shouldn't it be an aspect of playing?


----------



## MichaelSomething (Aug 11, 2011)

Hussar said:


> It's the guy who makes a character that is outright useless and then expects to be carried along by the rest of the group that's just as much of a problem as the combat wombat.




You would think those two types would cancel each other out!


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 11, 2011)

Kzach: (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) I have some examples I want your thoughts on, it may help with where the problem is.


example 1 (The tale of 2 strikers) we had a rouge and a ranger, the rouge was a shadar kai multi into cleric worshiper of the ravon queen, the ranger was an archer elf. around lev 13 or 14 there wa a LARGE diffrence int he character, the ranger had +4 or 5 to hit on the rouge, and was doing much more damage. This exploded the encounter that the rouge ran up, launched a daily, crit, then action pointed droped a second daily and did awsome damage... about 130 total... The player did a dance aroudnt he table, and write down on his sheet the details... the ranger player the next round used an encounter, and killed something giving him a free action point that he spent, then twin striked a diffrent target...then got pissed,he rolled low dmaage...I pointed out he did over 100 damage on 'low non crits' and look at kurt...
    As bad as that was, it built to a head a few levels later when the ranger ended 3 encounters in a row on his own... I asked him to trade out his weapon expertise, his weapon focus, and take off his archery bracers... loseing him 2pts to hit and 4 to damage...was I in the wrong?


example 2 (the gladius and the kurkr) I am playing a rome style gladiator...the DM wanted his gladius to feel diffrent from short swords, so he made then kurkri. So I took my first level feat as prof in a +2 prof 1d6 brutal 1 weapon, my 2nd and 4th feats were two weap fight and def becuse during play the ranger and I traded styles...
      Another player who does not play in this game, pointed out if I took a longsword, and light shield, and traded those 3 feats for weapon focus and expertise and fill in the blank with any feat I would be way better.


example 3 (the crit fisher) We were all sitting down to a game we all were going all out for...I played an avenger multi into ranger, paragon mult and half elf verstile... my 3 at wills where twin strike, the barbarian whirling one, and an avenger one I never used... I had 2 jagged kopeshes and deadly axe.
in 5 encounters each lasting less then 4 rounds I crit atleast twice in each.
      one of the other players asked if he could play a similar character in my game, I informed him it would not be welcome at my ongoing game. When he asked why I tried to explain that there are less powerful characters there, and a regular avenger with a greatsword would be more on par.


Example 4 (Joe...oh joe) We have a player who does not have DDI, he often plays out of only 1 book. So his battlemind took almost all stuff from psionic power, his warden was almost all phb2...
      he does not want to go through books looking for new options, and his wish lists as a PC always look like this: Cool axe with a nice extra damage daily, scale armor with restance property, boots to make me faster, something to give me more surges or surge value.
    he never spends mony on magic items... he will buy a round at a bar, pay for info from a snich, buy land, donate to a church, or even loan to another PC, but in 10 years of 3 and 4e he has less times then you have fingers on one hand bought magic items.

In example 1 and 3 was I right for limiting power to keep the party more on par? in example 2 is my warlord not 'up to par' becuse I followed the story of the world, then how game went? and in example 4 how do you act when a player like joe is the norm in a group? can you play at joes level?


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 11, 2011)

Kzach said:


> What's wrong with being the best at something?
> 
> One of my wizard builds focuses heavily on Arcana. He can't fail average rolls has a good chance of succeeding at very difficult checks. I love that! He's the Arcana guy. When you need something Arcanery answered, you ask him. I call that fun, why shouldn't it be an aspect of playing?




Simply put, at our table, we don't place as much emphasis on personal character gains as other groups might. For you, being able to make an Arcana roll is fun. I can understand that and good on ye, if you do. But for us, if one of the players doesn't have the proper skill, knowledge or ability to figure something out, then we look for a solution outside the characters. This usually entails hunting down an NPC, or sometimes possibly item to help out with solving the problem. This act gives the DM/GM options to add to the adventure; usually more opportunity for exploration, investigation, encounters, role-play, and whatever else. We would rather interact more with the DM/GM through this method, than simply consulting the die roll off a character sheet, it's just more fun for us that way. 

A lot of players like 4th edition (and Pathfinder/3.5 to a lesser degree), and I've played it for a couple years and I can understand why. 4E tailors to a specific type of play style, but not the sort of style I think benefits RPGs. The reason I say this is because it facilitates optimization, especially where combat is concerned, and this really detracts from the style of play our group really enjoys. Too often I've seen players online or at the table criticize another player or someone's character for not being as optimized as they "should be", because the player didn't have the right scores, pick the right feats, use the right weapons, etc., so that when combat takes places, they can maximize their combat potential.

Now, in my opinion, it is just bad design for an RPG if more often than not, it allows one group of players to criticize another group of players because of the choices they make during character creation or advancement. To me, RPGs should be about sitting down and just having a fun time with friends or family, not worrying whether or not characters are good enough to be played at the table.

This isn't to say that all groups do this, I'm sure most probably don't, but it happens often enough, that it seems to be an issue.

And 4th Edition isn't the only game that does this, though I've seen it happen a lot more where I see this system being discussed. I take similar issues with both 3.5 and Pathfinder, both systems also place a heavy hand on optimizing one's character to gain a great deal of advantages while playing. There are a lot of players out there that like this sort of play style because of the freedoms and options they have, but for myself and my group, we actually find it more restrictive and less creative.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 11, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Simply put, at our table, we don't place as much emphasis on personal character gains as other groups might. For you, being able to make an Arcana roll is fun. I can understand that and good on ye, if you do. But for us, if one of the players doesn't have the proper skill, knowledge or ability to figure something out, then we look for a solution outside the characters. This usually entails hunting down an NPC, or sometimes possibly item to help out with solving the problem. This act gives the DM/GM options to add to the adventure; usually more opportunity for exploration, investigation, encounters, role-play, and whatever else. We would rather interact more with the DM/GM through this method, than simply consulting the die roll off a character sheet, it's just more fun for us that way.




Don't you see what you're saying here? This is the exact kind of attitude I was talking about in my OP. That somehow just because I have an optimised character, I don't or can't roleplay and somehow I'm the destroyer of fun and roleplaying at the table.

All of the above can be done with my characters just as well. Nothing in an optimised character precludes doing any of what you said, other than the attitudes of the people at the table.

What's more, you then go on to say that somehow this all ties in to not being friendly or social and, as if having an optimised character somehow destroys even that!

The problem isn't optimising, it's people's attitudes.


----------



## jasper (Aug 11, 2011)

Kzach said:


> ...The problem isn't optimising, it's people's attitudes.




very very true. so every one posting here if they having a problem at table need think. Is other people's attitudes or your own.

And Kzach, I have notice generally peoples online attitudes generally default in the way they act at the table after a bad day at work.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 11, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Don't you see what you're saying here? This is the exact kind of attitude I was talking about in my OP. That somehow just because I have an optimised character, I don't or can't roleplay and somehow I'm the destroyer of fun and roleplaying at the table.
> 
> All of the above can be done with my characters just as well. Nothing in an optimised character precludes doing any of what you said, other than the attitudes of the people at the table.
> 
> ...




He didn't say that; either you're being wilfully obnoxious or you need to read much more carefully.

What he was saying is that if PCs can solve all problems by themselves, they never need to interact with friendly/non-hostile NPCs.  They never need to go consult the Sage, or hire experts, or seek Clerical or Wizardly assistance (Raise Dead, Legend Lore et al).  And this cuts off an avenue of interaction with the milieu that a lot of people find enjoyable, and that was a mainstay of older editions.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 11, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> I'm not seeing anything about those items that would make the theif not think "these are good for me". Some might only want items that summon biscuits of tea enjoyment +1 or fancy hats or whatever, but normally professional murderers (aka adventurers) are at least somewhat interested in things that increase their killing power. Similarly, those min-maxed real life firefighters often use equipment that protects themselves from flames...
> 
> None of this equipment is that crazy (damage boosting arms are weapon users default slot, the weapon is an uncommon). The background doesnt add much, and its not like the theme power is a damage roll or minor action attack (so no extra static mods from it).
> 
> Given the character used 2 encounters, an action point and a daily, the damage doesnt seem that absurd, when you realize he's tapped for the rest of the encounter. The thief is designed partly around spike damage. Our paladin puts out similar damage with Blood of the Mighty and Righteous Rage.




So all thieves are assassins? - I guess I missed that memo



Pentius said:


> I don't.  If that were every turn, then yeah, but for a an AP, a Daily, and three encounter powers, that's fine.  It also wouldn't be that much average damage.  That much average damage assumes that all three attacks hit.  With that selection of magic items, that level, blowing all my resources in a turn and with the assumption that all attacks hit before calculating average damage, I'm going to bet that a number of characters can hit in that ballpark.
> 
> I might be missing something here.  How is this an issue?
> 
> ...



LMAO - 3 or 4 standards left? I'd love to DM for you sometime


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 11, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Kzach: (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) I have some examples I want your thoughts on, it may help with where the problem is.
> 
> 
> example 1 (The tale of 2 strikers) we had a rouge and a ranger, the rouge was a shadar kai multi into cleric worshiper of the ravon queen, the ranger was an archer elf. around lev 13 or 14 there wa a LARGE diffrence int he character, the ranger had +4 or 5 to hit on the rouge, and was doing much more damage. This exploded the encounter that the rouge ran up, launched a daily, crit, then action pointed droped a second daily and did awsome damage... about 130 total... The player did a dance aroudnt he table, and write down on his sheet the details... the ranger player the next round used an encounter, and killed something giving him a free action point that he spent, then twin striked a diffrent target...then got pissed,he rolled low dmaage...I pointed out he did over 100 damage on 'low non crits' and look at kurt...
> As bad as that was, it built to a head a few levels later when the ranger ended 3 encounters in a row on his own... I asked him to trade out his weapon expertise, his weapon focus, and take off his archery bracers... loseing him 2pts to hit and 4 to damage...was I in the wrong?



The ranger would not be invited back to our table, assuming of course this behavior is typical, which it wounds like it is...life is too short to put with this type of player.



GMforPowergamers said:


> example 2 (the gladius and the kurkr) I am playing a rome style gladiator...the DM wanted his gladius to feel diffrent from short swords, so he made then kurkri. So I took my first level feat as prof in a +2 prof 1d6 brutal 1 weapon, my 2nd and 4th feats were two weap fight and def becuse during play the ranger and I traded styles...
> Another player who does not play in this game, pointed out if I took a longsword, and light shield, and traded those 3 feats for weapon focus and expertise and fill in the blank with any feat I would be way better.



It comes off as you had a lot of fun paying your gladiator, and interacting with the ranger - thats awesome, and what the game is all about



GMforPowergamers said:


> example 3 (the crit fisher) We were all sitting down to a game we all were going all out for...I played an avenger multi into ranger, paragon mult and half elf verstile... my 3 at wills where twin strike, the barbarian whirling one, and an avenger one I never used... I had 2 jagged kopeshes and deadly axe.
> in 5 encounters each lasting less then 4 rounds I crit atleast twice in each.
> one of the other players asked if he could play a similar character in my game, I informed him it would not be welcome at my ongoing game. When he asked why I tried to explain that there are less powerful characters there, and a regular avenger with a greatsword would be more on par.



As a dm you have the right to limit the entire world in any and all ways you see fit.



GMforPowergamers said:


> Example 4 (Joe...oh joe) We have a player who does not have DDI, he often plays out of only 1 book. So his battlemind took almost all stuff from psionic power, his warden was almost all phb2...
> he does not want to go through books looking for new options, and his wish lists as a PC always look like this: Cool axe with a nice extra damage daily, scale armor with restance property, boots to make me faster, something to give me more surges or surge value.
> he never spends mony on magic items... he will buy a round at a bar, pay for info from a snich, buy land, donate to a church, or even loan to another PC, but in 10 years of 3 and 4e he has less times then you have fingers on one hand bought magic items.



Does this make you angry? The fact he won't buy magic is a personal choice, now, the only thing I would argue about it is having the same character quirks in every character...thats boring to me, but that might just be me.  Also, does Joe get mad that everyone else is "ahead" of him, or does he accept it? if he is ok with it, maybe you should try to be too.


----------



## Andor (Aug 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> The ranger would not be invited back to our table, assuming of course this behavior is typical, which it wounds like it is...life is too short to put with this type of player.




Wait, the _ranger_ is the one you would kick out of your group? Seriously? It sounds like a competantly built striker, doing exactly what a sriker is supposed to do, deal a lot of damage.

If another player makes a poorly build character in the same role, and doesn't perform as well your solution is to fire the guy who knows what he's doing? Even though he's moving the game along and the other player is dancing around the table and getting upset that his nerf-bat wielding charcter is less effective than one that uses steel?

Personally I'd be more upset at the disruptive player. I'd also be inclined to keep my employee who performs his job effectively over the lazy whiner, and to pick Mike Tyson in a fight over Don Knotts. YMMV.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 11, 2011)

S'mon said:


> What he was saying is that if PCs can solve all problems by themselves, they never need to interact with friendly/non-hostile NPCs.  They never need to go consult the Sage, or hire experts, or seek Clerical or Wizardly assistance (Raise Dead, Legend Lore et al).  And this cuts off an avenue of interaction with the milieu that a lot of people find enjoyable, and that was a mainstay of older editions.




You're getting into strawman territory here. Again I say, none of those things are excluded from the game simply because I bring an optimised character to the table. If YOU can't see that, then you're the one being wilfully ignorant.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 11, 2011)

Kzach said:


> You're getting into strawman territory here. Again I say, none of those things are excluded from the game simply because I bring an optimised character to the table. If YOU can't see that, then you're the one being wilfully ignorant.



And no one, aside from yourself, made any accusations that those aspects were excluded from the game. I never stated that you couldn't encounter NPCs, explore, or role-play because you have an optimized character. I stated, that by relying on your own character, or more specifically, their optimized skills, you have a greater chance to avoid those interactions, than someone with a lesser chance. You even back this up by your own quote, concerning your wizard character.



> One of my wizard builds focuses heavily on Arcana. *He can't fail average  rolls has a good chance of succeeding at very difficult checks.* I love  that! He's the Arcana guy. When you need something Arcanery answered,  you ask him. I call that fun, why shouldn't it be an aspect of playing?



This means that you're going to make your rolls the majority of the time, and by doing so, you avoid any opportunity for the DM/GM to spur a side venture where assistance from an NPC will be required, unless he has already planned out such directions for the game to take.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 11, 2011)

Kzach said:


> You're getting into strawman territory here. Again I say, none of those things are excluded from the game simply because I bring an optimised character to the table. If YOU can't see that, then you're the one being wilfully ignorant.




*shrug*


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 11, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> This means that you're going to make your rolls the majority of the time, and by doing so, you avoid any opportunity for the DM/GM to spur a side venture where assistance from an NPC will be required, unless he has already planned out such directions for the game to take.




I'm with Kzach on this one. There are other ways the DM can introduce the NPC. If a DM is unwilling to seek these other avenues, then he is most likely trying to railroad the players. Even sticking with the original premise, the NPC could own a bit of 'lost lore,' something the PC would have little to no opportunity to know (high or impossible DC). An ancient unique tome in his possession, etc.

I'm not going to call games where the PCs always rely on NPCs badwrongfun, but there have been many a thread about DMPCs and this gets pretty close to it if the characters always have to rely on someone else to achieve anything.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 11, 2011)

Janx said:


> Judging by the words used and the damage levels cited, does 4e have a higher damage ammount in general?




Kinda/sorta/not really.

You begin with more HP in 4th edition, but gain less per level. Same with monsters.  Damage doesnt see the massive highs of 3rd edition either, but the low end is up a bit. Damage is less spikey overall. In 3rd edition, we'd routinely see huge amounts of damage from a power attacking barbarian's 2 handed crit, rogues landing multiple big dice sneak attacks or ray spells.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 11, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> So all thieves are assassins? - I guess I missed that memo




No, professional murderers. Think about how many sentient beings most characters kill as they rise in level.... its crazy!

The theif class really is centered around spike damage though. Items that add to it are likely to be what both the player AND the thief would want to equip. Its quite in character to want something like a quick rapier or bracers of mighty striking.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Aug 11, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Sure, I get antsy sometimes and retaliate with forceful words, but 90% of the time I think it comes down to perception of the reader, not intent of the writer.




Guess what, Kzach?  If the reader isn't getting your intent, that means as a writer YOU FAILED.

If you want us to understand what you're saying and what you mean... that's ON YOU.  YOU have to write clearly so that we get it.  And if we don't get it... you didn't do your job as a communicator.  YOU bear that responsibility, and you can't turn around and then blame us for not getting it.


----------



## Janx (Aug 11, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I'm with Kzach on this one. There are other ways the DM can introduce the NPC. If a DM is unwilling to seek these other avenues, then he is most likely trying to railroad the players. Even sticking with the original premise, the NPC could own a bit of 'lost lore,' something the PC would have little to no opportunity to know (high or impossible DC). An ancient unique tome in his possession, etc.
> 
> I'm not going to call games where the PCs always rely on NPCs badwrongfun, but there have been many a thread about DMPCs and this gets pretty close to it if the characters always have to rely on someone else to achieve anything.




I think that's awhol nother avenue of problem, not what the orignal writer was talking about.

If PCs could truly do everything, they'd never talk to blacksmiths to make something for them, sages to google up answers from the gods, or other subject matter experts.  that is basically what the initial concern was.

However, I doubt a PC made by Kzach is going to have ranks in every skill to cause this sort of problem.  Odds are good his PC is good at killing, and good at whatever his highest stat favors for skills.  So there's a buttload of things he still needs from others.

As such, i think that concern is a non-issue.

I think the matter is really simple.  When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
If Kzach shows up to the table, and all the other PCs suck, he should not build a PC that super-outshines them.

As from some other post in here I pointed out there is a minimum baseline of making a decent PC (focusing on skills that use your best attributes), as kzach indicated they don't even do that.  but making build plans out, and that kind of behavior, don't do it.

If the party all has the similar power-level, odds are good the DM scales combat to support that.  So a party of sucky PCs does not suck.  They only suck when 1 player shows up with SuperMan.

As to why the rest of the group might object?  Because they don't play that way.  True Story: Its like playing basketball during lunch with your friends, and then having guys from the basketball team show up wanting to join.  

Without the jocks, you all had fun.  because nobody was better at blocking than anybody was at shooting, baskets were made by just about everybody in equal measure.  The moment jocks show up, even if you split them across the 2 teams, suddenly, they are the ones making ALL the shots, and blocking YOUR shots.

Now the jocks just wanted to play ball. And you could argue that we should have improved our game.  But to Jocks, basketball was something they dedicated time to improve their game on.  Everybody was having fun until that point.  Because nobody WANTED to devote that kind of effort to it, but still wanted to spend some time together doing something.

I've seen the same thing in Halo when doing Live Parties.  i get all my friends into a 8 man party, and we have a great time doing 4v4 team games.  We take it to the wide internet, and we get scrambled up with strangers, and most of the strangers are kids who focussed on getting good at Halo.  The result, we sucked, and we did not have fun.

So a mismath in skill/power-level often reduces the fun.   So knock it off.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 11, 2011)

S'mon said:


> either you're being wilfully obnoxious or you need to read much more carefully.






Kzach said:


> If YOU can't see that, then you're the one being wilfully ignorant.




Hey, guys - arguments of the form, "either you agree with me or there is a fault in your person," are rhetorically weak, and rude on top of it.

Stop getting personal.  Address the content of the post, not the person of the poster, please and thank you.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 11, 2011)

Andor said:


> Wait, the _ranger_ is the one you would kick out of your group? Seriously? It sounds like a competantly built striker, doing exactly what a sriker is supposed to do, deal a lot of damage.




ok maybe I did not type it clear, or maybe you miss read it... he could with out fail out damage the other 4 players (one being a rouge, and one being a fighter) added togather. He ended multi encounters in a row on his own, by going first, and killing the entire encounter. He could do more in an encounters then others with dailys.




> If another player makes a poorly build character in the same role, and doesn't perform as well your solution is to fire the guy who knows what he's doing?



 my solustion was to ask the guy way far a head to come back to were the others were... I don't want one person so far ahead that everyone else says "Why should we be here"




> Even though he's moving the game along and the other player is dancing around the table and getting upset that his nerf-bat wielding charcter is less effective than one that uses steel?




ok, when Kurt was happy and danced around becuse for the first time in levels he felt good about his character I loved it, and so did the other players (minus 1 guess who) we all gave him high fives too.

 we also celebrate crits once in a blue moon when our unlucy player rolls them...it is part of the game to us.



> Personally I'd be more upset at the disruptive player. I'd also be inclined to keep my employee who performs his job effectively over the lazy whiner,



well this is not work...it is supose to be fun..



> and to pick Mike Tyson in a fight over Don Knotts.




in a fight yea, but what about to hang out with and share some laughs? or you know to play a fun game that you all enjoy? I would choose Don Knotts then.

If I am in a real life fire fight I want the best...when playing a game I want fun... and being a one man show stoper is not fun


----------



## S'mon (Aug 11, 2011)

Janx said:


> So a mismath in skill/power-level often reduces the fun.   So knock it off.




With 4e I find it's only a problem intra-role.  In the campaign I play in my Thief is probably the most optimised as I think the other players are all new to 4e, though the Fighter is close.  It doesn't matter if I outshine the Fighter, the Cleric, the Warlord or the Wizard in single-target damage, because that's my role.  It does matter if I outshine the Ranger, because he's also a Striker.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 11, 2011)

S'mon said:


> With 4e I find it's only a problem intra-role.




I agree if the warlord optimizes and oaths best leader ever he does not outshine the battlemind with little to no optimization  in fact thesameayer as our only defender or leader has been fine but when we double up or striker in general he still causes some problems


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 11, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Kzach: (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) I have some examples I want your thoughts on, it may help with where the problem is.
> 
> 
> example 1 (The tale of 2 strikers) we had a rouge and a ranger, the rouge was a shadar kai multi into cleric worshiper of the ravon queen, the ranger was an archer elf. around lev 13 or 14 there wa a LARGE diffrence int he character, the ranger had +4 or 5 to hit on the rouge, and was doing much more damage. This exploded the encounter that the rouge ran up, launched a daily, crit, then action pointed droped a second daily and did awsome damage... about 130 total... The player did a dance aroudnt he table, and write down on his sheet the details... the ranger player the next round used an encounter, and killed something giving him a free action point that he spent, then twin striked a diffrent target...then got pissed,he rolled low dmaage...I pointed out he did over 100 damage on 'low non crits' and look at kurt...
> As bad as that was, it built to a head a few levels later when the ranger ended 3 encounters in a row on his own... I asked him to trade out his weapon expertise, his weapon focus, and take off his archery bracers... loseing him 2pts to hit and 4 to damage...was I in the wrong?




I'd say so. The rogue makes an intentionally weak combo, since cleric and rogue dont really share the same main stats. If he's actively spending feats to get powers (again, terrible feats), he's further behind. The character could probably be fluffed into an avenger or something if he really wanted the lightly armored dextrous religious guy angle, keeping the same fluff but increased mechanical effectiveness. That or homebrew him some feats/powers/theme or something to get him up to par. While twin strike could use a bit of a nerf, the rogue is a perfectly cromulent striker and shouldnt be too far behind. I have no idea how the hell the ranger has +4 to +5 to hit on the rogue. Our rogue one time hit on a 1. They have more accurate weapons, talents to boost accuracy, nearly constant combat advantage, and feats to boost accuracy. Again, if he's missing, its because he wanted to make a concept character with no mechanical support behind it. Ideally, the DM will help even that out. 

If the rogue doesnt want better house rules support/gear/feats/powers or whatever to help him out, he should at least recognize what he's doing. The guy, who intentionally made aless combat oriented/optimized character, then gets upset  because someone else is better at killing things? Thats like the dude who spends all his time at the buffet bitching because his buddy who works out is losing more weight. IMO, if you make the choice to ignore your own effectiveness, you really shouldnt complain about someone else's.

Particularly when it doesnt sound like the ranger is a grotesque abomination of min-maxing. He's not melee, so he doesnt get to abuse prime punisher. Expertise, focus and bracers are not some kind of crazy optimization, any mroe than a 1st edition fighter specializing in longsword. Its pretty routine... I think the character builder even suggests this sort of stuff. If the rogue doesnt have something similar, its through his own choice to take NON-optimized gear/feats. 

The ranger popped 2 dailies and and 2 action points, rolled lucky and did a victory dance. Big deal. If your players arent throwing high fives or drinking a toast to crits or groaning over bad ones, that's a game I dont want to be in. 








> example 2 (the gladius and the kurkr) I am playing a rome style gladiator...the DM wanted his gladius to feel diffrent from short swords, so he made then kurkri. So I took my first level feat as prof in a +2 prof 1d6 brutal 1 weapon, my 2nd and 4th feats were two weap fight and def becuse during play the ranger and I traded styles...
> Another player who does not play in this game, pointed out if I took a longsword, and light shield, and traded those 3 feats for weapon focus and expertise and fill in the blank with any feat I would be way better.




I personally wouldnt have accepted the mandated kukri thing, as its pretty much nothing but a DM mandated nerf for flavor purposes. Its a terribly designed weapon that loses 1 from accuracy for a middling upgrade in damage at the cost of a feat. I'm not even sure if its worth using as a standard weapon. You're definately flushed 3 feats down the drain from an effectiveness perspective. There's nothing preventing you from calling your longsword a gladius and your shield a scutum, or using 2 short swords if you are the tempest fighting style. At the end of it though, if you're fine with your character, who cares? The trouble arises when you have a self/dm made weak character, and then want to bring everyone else down to your level. 





> example 3 (the crit fisher) We were all sitting down to a game we all were going all out for...I played an avenger multi into ranger, paragon mult and half elf verstile... my 3 at wills where twin strike, the barbarian whirling one, and an avenger one I never used... I had 2 jagged kopeshes and deadly axe.
> in 5 encounters each lasting less then 4 rounds I crit atleast twice in each.
> one of the other players asked if he could play a similar character in my game, I informed him it would not be welcome at my ongoing game. When he asked why I tried to explain that there are less powerful characters there, and a regular avenger with a greatsword would be more on par.




Again, a twin strike problem, more than anything else. This is more in line with approaching higher tier optimization, certainly mroeso than the ranger which took basic stuff like "hit more" and "hit harder".



> Example 4 (Joe...oh joe) We have a player who does not have DDI, he often plays out of only 1 book. So his battlemind took almost all stuff from psionic power, his warden was almost all phb2...
> he does not want to go through books looking for new options, and his wish lists as a PC always look like this: Cool axe with a nice extra damage daily, scale armor with restance property, boots to make me faster, something to give me more surges or surge value.
> he never spends mony on magic items... he will buy a round at a bar, pay for info from a snich, buy land, donate to a church, or even loan to another PC, but in 10 years of 3 and 4e he has less times then you have fingers on one hand bought magic items.




Aside from a few potions of healing, your weapon, armor and neck slots cover most of what it takes to do the job. Not every copper needs to be spent on the next +1. Is he even worried about underperforming? If you're DM'ing, throw him an extra item or something if he needs it. If you're a player, have everyone pitch in and buy/commission something for his character. Or better yet, go on a quest for something for him. 



> In example 1 and 3 was I right for limiting power to keep the party more on par? in example 2 is my warlord not 'up to par' becuse I followed the story of the world, then how game went? and in example 4 how do you act when a player like joe is the norm in a group? can you play at joes level?




1 no, 3 maybe. 2. Ugh, you're playing a warlord? Yeah, he's probably not up to par and your DM hosed you. That's like saying "no one can wear armor, because we're running a pirate game. Enjoy your suck AC!" 4. See above.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 11, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> I'd say so. The rogue makes an intentionally weak combo, since cleric and rogue dont really share the same main stats. The character could probably be fluffed into an avenger or something if he really wanted the lightly armored dextrous religious guy angle, keeping the same fluff but increased mechanical effectiveness.



  to be fair he made the character for H1 and phb2 was not out intil we were on to h3...so the multi class was like the only choice, and by the time phb 2 did come out he was pretty set on playing the cleric angle.




> If the rogue doesnt want better gear/feats/powers or whatever to help him out,  he should at least recognize what he's doing. The guy, who intentionally made a weaker character, then whines because someone else is better at killing things?



 but he did not make a weak character, if the ranger was not there, he was the striker out single target dmaageing all others, al be it by about 10-15 pts per round...




> Thats like the dude who spends all his time at the buffet bitching because his buddy who works out is losing more weight. IMO, if you make the choice to ignore your own effectiveness, you really shouldnt complain about someone else's.




what about when you and your 3 dorky friends play two on two, and you are pretty good, and win 60+% of the time, then one day mike jordan comes along and joins... I think that is just out classed



> Expertise, focus and bracers are not some kind of crazy optimization, any mroe than a 1st edition fighter specializing in longsword. Its pretty routine. If the rogue doesnt have something similar, its through his own choice to take NON-optimized gear/feats.



  again it was more then that...infact at the time he was the exact build fromt he opt board as best striker...those three I asked him to take away to lessen it. He had out of turn and high number of attack roll attacks, and a high to hit, and a high pluse to damage... and was at range so taking less hits



> The ranger popped 2 dailies and and 2 action points, rolled lucky and did a victory dance. Big deal. If your players arent throwing high fives  or drinking a toast to crits or groaning over bad ones, that's a game I dont want to be in.




I agree this has been how we played for 16 years now... but when one play celebrates X then a min later another player is pissed he only did X becuse X is crap... that gets to be boarder line insulting... but even that was not the last straw...

  he ended multi encounters with his combo of attack with 3 or 4 attack ranged encounter power, drop a target, spend his action point use twin strike then use his power from his paragon path to spend a 2nd action point (goten from the killing of a non minnon) to gire 3 or 4 more shots...8-10 shots needing single digits to hit and dealing massive damage... dropping the whole fight.

    he had a higher plus to hit then any player by multi points, he had more attacks in a round then any 2 players added togather, he had a better to damage bonus then anyone  by 5 or 6 pts to the next highest... and he had a tie with the fighter for best AC, and a tie with the wizard for best ref and will... he had the second best fort.

       he braged about being a one man party... 




> I personally wouldnt have accepted the mandated kukri thing, as its pretty much nothing but a DM mandated nerf for flavor purposes. Its a terribly designed weapon that loses 1 from accuracy for a middling upgrade in damage at the cost of a feat. I'm not even sure if its worth using as a standard weapon.



I agree infact I said I might train back to reg short sword...but then the game was just soo much fun


> You're definately flushed 3 feats down the drain from an effectiveness perspective. There's nothing preventing you from calling your longsword a gladius and your shield a scutum, or using 2 short swords if you are the tempest fighting style. At the end of it though, if you're fine with your character, who cares? The trouble arises when you have a self/dm made weak character, and then want to bring everyone else down to your level.




well too be honnest I was still kick but, The slayer and ranger were as much weapons as anything in my hands... I was probly the most opt in the game









> Aside from a few potions of healing, your weapon, armor and neck slots cover most of what it takes to do the job. Not every copper needs to be spent on the next +1. Is he even worried about underperforming? If you're DM'ing, throw him an extra item or something if he needs it. If you're a player, have everyone pitch in and buy/commission something for his character.  Or better yet, go on a quest for something for him.



 even if he is a little down, he is fun and always laughing... even if he is missing. We rarely notice until the DM asks "What are you useing for your sword? or What is your neck slot item?" MY fav answer was at high paragon getting ready to pic our epic destinies... he still had a +1 axe, + 2 yadd yadd leather armor, and no neck slot item... 





> That's like saying "no one can wear armor, because we're running a pirate game Enjoy your suck AC!"



  see I have no problem with that idea... except that it woudl go like this:

DM Pirate game, so make characters accordingly
Player 1: Ok I will be a theif
Player 2: I want to be a fighter
Player 3: Wizard
then we wuld get to game and have player 2 describe his scale armor, and excution axe...


----------



## Gryph (Aug 11, 2011)

Pentius said:


> It's actually weaker that way than with multiattacks. If he just had three consecutive attacks, it'd be stronger, because he could use the rest of the combo even if the first attack failed.





A bit. Since Backstab has to have CA before you can elect to use it and grants an additional +3 to hit, it's going to hit 95% of the time against a same level npc.

The free attack trigger is at normal CA to hit levels that's true, but it's a very accurate build so it doesn't lose much expected damage from the extra roles. And has higher expected damage than a PHB build using Encounter/AP/Daily for a nova, both raw and adjusted for hit percentage.


All that aside, the ability to nova every non-at-will attack/damage boost into 1 round is the real issue I have. It feels like it takes the typical action economy of 4e combat and bends it over a barrel. <shrug> YMMV and all that, though.


----------



## Andor (Aug 11, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> This means that you're going to make your rolls the majority of the time, and by doing so, you avoid any opportunity for the DM/GM to spur a side venture where assistance from an NPC will be required, unless he has already planned out such directions for the game to take.




You're also _providing_ the GM the opportunity to have an NPC coming to you for your expertise, since you are clearly a world-renowned expert. 

The GM giveth and the GM taketh away. Opportunities for roleplaying do not only come from suckage.


----------



## Andor (Aug 12, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok maybe I did not type it clear, or maybe you miss read it... he could with out fail out damage the other 4 players (one being a rouge, and one being a fighter) added togather.




Okay, I did not get that from your post. That degree of outshining does warrant steps. Although taking his level of kickassitude into account in your encounter design and simply doubleing the number of monsters would probably take care of it, since it doesn't sound like he can pull off that kind of cheese twice in one fight. They he can drop all the way down to 'normal' and the other players can get a chance to roll dice.



GMforPowergamers said:


> he braged about being a one man party...




That is prickish. Being effective is fine, asking the other PCs to hold your beer while you take care of buisiness is not.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 12, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok maybe I did not type it clear, or maybe you miss read it... he could with out fail out damage the other 4 players (one being a rouge, and one being a fighter) added togather. He ended multi encounters in a row on his own, by going first, and killing the entire encounter. He could do more in an encounters then others with dailys.




That seems really off somehow. I mean, rangers are pretty much top dog for damage, but they shoudlnt be THAT much higher without some kind of schenanigans. Is he just using all off action/minor action attacks, with frost cheese or something weird? Are the other guys just that under par (in which case, even level fights would be kind of hard). Granted, I dont have the whole numbers, but it seems like something is being factored incorrectly. If not, then yeah, I gotta side with you.  



> my solustion was to ask the guy way far a head to come back to were the others were... I don't want one person so far ahead that everyone else says "Why should we be here"




This is why it seems off somehow. If 4 damage (focus and bracers) are the difference between outdamaging the entire party combined at paragon, it seems weird to me.   



> ok, when Kurt was happy and danced around becuse for the first time in levels he felt good about his character I loved it, and so did the other players (minus 1 guess who) we all gave him high fives too.




Oh, I misread that. It was the rogue victory danging and the ranger being pissy? Yeah, that does suck.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> Kzach: (and anyone else who feels like chiming in) I have some examples I want your thoughts on, it may help with where the problem is.
> 
> 
> example 1 (The tale of 2 strikers) /snip:




First off, it sounds like there needs to be some math auditing going on here just to make sure that everyone is actually adding things up the way they're supposed to.  IME, this is often the first culprit whenever there's a huge disparity in power in the group.

But, if it actually is accurate, then yeah, the ranger needs to be toned down.  The rogue is competent (at least based on what you just said) so the Ranger is powergaming and exploiting loop-holes.  That's not groovy.  



> example 2 (the gladius and the kurkr) /snip




Well, it's always annoying when someone tells you how to build your character, particularly when they're right.    But, again, is your character competent?  Have you noticed any particular deficiencies - he's missing all the time, the damage he's doing is piddly, that sort of thing.

Heck, I'm currently playing a PHB 1 only fighter with a war pick.  This is not optimised.  But, it's a vicious warpick and I use a lot of the fighter burst powers to gain more attacks, and thus more crits.  Sure I'm not a power house, but, I'm holding my own.



> example 3 (the crit fisher) /snip




Totally groovy.  Setting the baseline is part and parcel to character generation.  When I ran The World's Largest Dungeon, I said anything goes because I wasn't going to be pulling any punches.  I wanted people to bring combat monstrosities to the game because that's the kind of game it was going to be.  OTOH, when I ran Savage Tide AP, we reined it in, took fairly reasonable point builds and everyone was on board with the idea of it being a different baseline.


> Example 4 (Joe...oh joe)




Again, a few questions.  Is Joe's choice to not buy any magic items affecting the party negatively?  Is he lagging so far behind the rest of the group that he's ineffective?  Or, is he picking up enough goodies in game to keep him in the game?  And as was mentioned, is he bitching about it?  Is anyone else at the table bitching about it?

It's one thing to make these decisions for yourself, but, when Bob's character gets killed because Joe's character is virtually useless, Bob tends to get a bit antsy.

When I have a Joe in the group, as a DM, I tend to just make sure that there's some goodies in the treasure that I know he'll grab onto and will keep him up with the joneses.  He's a fighter that never buys anything?  Well, ok, there's some magic armor and there just happens to be his specialized weapon in the treasure of the next few encounters.  That sort of thing.  Usually not a big deal.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

Hi all - 

If a DM knows his players and it's a reasonably good group of friends who hang out together regardless of gaming (yes, I know, what a qualifier) then I suggest one remedy.

DM creates the level one characters after the players write up a short backstory clearly answering three questions: 

1. What is cool (strengths) about being your character?
2. What is less than wonderful (weaknesses) about being your character.
3. What is your character's life goal (either professionally or personally).

The first level character is what life threw at the character.

Then when it's time to level a character - do it at the table with the group making suggestions.  The optimizers will suggest the "best" build.  Those less inclined will make some interesting suggestions and the DM can answer questions about legalities.

As stated earlier this doesn't work with occasional groups or (some) casual groups but it probably will for long-standing friendly types.  

The problem at its core is not optimization, but interpretation and building characters in a vacuum.

2c.
KB


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:
			
		

> The problem at its core is not optimization, but interpretation and building characters in a vacuum.




Now this is something I do agree with.  There is a tendency in many groups for people to treat their characters in a vacuum and not pay any attention to the group or the larger campaign.  Particularly at chargen.  

This is not to say that chargen should be done as groupthink and you get no control over your character.  That's obviously taking things too far.  But, stepping back, just a little bit and trying to envision your character as part of the group generally helps ameliorate a lot of the more egregious behavior.

However, that being said, KB, are you saying that the DM should make everyone's character for them?


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2011)

Andor said:


> You're also _providing_ the GM the opportunity to have an NPC coming to you for your expertise, since you are clearly a world-renowned expert.
> 
> The GM giveth and the GM taketh away. Opportunities for roleplaying do not only come from suckage.



No, not quite. Sure, you "could" but that's really a far stretch, and probably an instance that would only take place from discussion in a thread such as this. At the table, unless the GM has already planned such an encounter, say for a plot hook, there would be little to no reason for a GM to declare that an NPC is seeking them out.

In the case of the PCs seeking an NPC, they're doing so because the characters have failed to resolve an issue based off of the group's collective skills, so they seek help from an outside source.

The first instance is the product of planning, the second is a product of spontaneity. There is a difference.

Besides, NPCs have been hitting up PCs for help since, well level one, so in the grand scheme of things, having an "optimized" character really means jack. If the GM needs to get the characters involved in something, they'll do so regardless of how optimized they are.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 12, 2011)

I would also second, or fifteenth the suggestion to audit the ranger. +4 or _5 on top of a Rogue? Only if the rogue is using a +2 proficiency non-dagger. In my game now, our 3rd level rogue has a bonus 2 above anyone else nd is targeting reflex nearly every round. He hits more than anyone else.  

Rogues are the to-hit kings of 4E.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> However, that being said, KB, are you saying that the DM should make everyone's character for them?




Hi Hussar - 

I think the word "should" is a bit strong and implies that it's the preferable way of doing things universally.  I think that's not the case.

But what I am a proponent of is the role of DM as a resource manager, player mentor, facilitator of the story and protector/guarantor of the enjoyment value the players receive.  I've found in general that people play games for a few reasons: 

1. To hang with friends and be or look cool 
2. To hang with friends and take part in the story of the game, whatever it is.
3. To hang with friends and be useful to those friends, either as an opponent or an ally.
4. To hang with friends and eat lots of bad food at the game site 

So considering the philosophy above (and my apologies for the long, borderline soapbox post.. no preaching intended) 

If there's a real risk that my players are going to damage the game for each other without intending to, and I've seen it happen with other games with the same players I very well may create their initial characters for them after doing a short session of character history and mad lib with the group.

I certainly wouldn't do it without player input and I would build in that mad lib history development into the leveling process to both prevent the game from devolving into combat after combat and remind people what's important to the campaign  (again provided that I'm actually running a story first game).

Best, 
KB


----------



## Hussar (Aug 12, 2011)

Hrm.  Kobold Boots...

I'm not sure I'd want to do that as a DM.  A player's character is the only thing that they actually own in the game.  It's _their's_.  I can see what you're doing and since it's being done with a lot of input from the player, it could work.  I'm just not sure I'd be comfortable statting up someone else's character.

Then again, I suck at mechanics by and large, so, I suppose everyone would suck equally.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Hrm.  Kobold Boots...
> 
> I'm not sure I'd want to do that as a DM.  A player's character is the only thing that they actually own in the game.  It's _their's_.  I can see what you're doing and since it's being done with a lot of input from the player, it could work.  I'm just not sure I'd be comfortable statting up someone else's character.
> 
> Then again, I suck at mechanics by and large, so, I suppose everyone would suck equally.




Completely respect your point of view.  It requires a lot of trust and a good amount of work on the part of the DM and group.  I'm also the type to approach things from the "be awesome equally" perspective 

I think what I've found in the one instance I've done this is that while there's a lot of decision making being done by the DM at first level, the player ends up getting what they asked for and has carte blanche over his character from that point forward with the benefit of having the rest of the group involved as he or she advances.

It also tended to leverage the skills of the two people in the party that optimized everything for the benefit of the entire group but I freely admit as stated in the first paragraph above that this isn't for everyone.  It's one solution.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Aug 12, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> he ended multi encounters with his combo of attack with 3 or 4 attack ranged encounter power, drop a target, spend his action point use twin strike then use his power from his paragon path to spend a 2nd action point (goten from the killing of a non minnon) to gire 3 or 4 more shots...8-10 shots needing single digits to hit and dealing massive damage... dropping the whole fight.
> 
> he had a higher plus to hit then any player by multi points, he had more attacks in a round then any 2 players added togather, he had a better to damage bonus then anyone  by 5 or 6 pts to the next highest... and he had a tie with the fighter for best AC, and a tie with the wizard for best ref and will... he had the second best fort.
> 
> he braged about being a one man party...




Be sure to check math.

I really don't see how he's doing all that much more damage than the rogue, unless the rogue's really been built awfully.  I don't recall many high-[W] ranger bow powers, which might suggest he's using his Quarry dice too often, though if he's able to drop one non-minion/round, that still could be an awful lot of quarrying.

OTOH, how on earth is he killing all these non-minions by himself?  I mean, really?  Are y'all using a lot of lower-level monsters instead of near-level?

Brad


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 12, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> I would also second, or fifteenth the suggestion to audit the ranger. +4 or _5 on top of a Rogue? Only if the rogue is using a +2 proficiency non-dagger. In my game now, our 3rd level rogue has a bonus 2 above anyone else nd is targeting reflex nearly every round. He hits more than anyone else.
> 
> Rogues are the to-hit kings of 4E.




ok, I am quoteing you, but it is to a bunch of you saying the same idea...

Background: we started in sept the first year of 4e...we had phb1 and frpg, and av1 to start. and we all kinda didn't know what we were doing... 3 of the 5 of us caught on faster, 2 slower... and becuse it was our first 4e try some of it was pretty bad. We ran the H1-e3... the player of the ranger started as a fighter, but died in h2 and had to bring in a new character...now having the edge of understanding and the opt board, and martial power + a few books and starting higher level he came in better.

the rouge was useing a rapier (cost feat) was the str build (from phb1 can't rmeember name of build) he was multi into cleric at low level, and he wanted a good Con and Int too, so he was spread thin.

The ranger on the other hand went 20 dex and a good wis, and almost nothing else. 

The rouge wanted holy symbols, and spent a feat on lingustics. The ranger took focus and got the great bow asap, 

the tanger had archery bracers

the rouge had bracers that aloud him to use an at will on a charge.

the ranger increased his dex and wis every 4 levels
the rouge split his stat ups to str, dex, wis, and Int...

no matter what item I droped if it had a higher + the ranger player would ask for it to be transfered to his bow...so he always had atleast tied for the highest +.


----------



## Andor (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Besides, NPCs have been hitting up PCs for help since, well level one, so in the grand scheme of things, having an "optimized" character really means jack. If the GM needs to get the characters involved in something, they'll do so regardless of how optimized they are.




So...  what was the problem again?


----------



## Janx (Aug 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now this is something I do agree with.  There is a tendency in many groups for people to treat their characters in a vacuum and not pay any attention to the group or the larger campaign.  Particularly at chargen.
> 
> This is not to say that chargen should be done as groupthink and you get no control over your character.  That's obviously taking things too far.  But, stepping back, just a little bit and trying to envision your character as part of the group generally helps ameliorate a lot of the more egregious behavior.




In the spirit of that, I generally think groups should have a house rule that all PCs must be built/backstoried such that the party would have an inherent reason to trust and accept this person into their party.

Simply because, the players are socially forced to let the new PC join the party because he controlled by a player.  Therefore it should not be acceptable for a PC to violate that meta-game principle that got him into the party.

It would seem an extension of that is, don't build PCs to outshine the rest of the party.


----------



## Mark CMG (Aug 12, 2011)

Players that optimize to the setting and the group are generally not problematic.  Players that optimize to a fault are generally those who ignore the setting and the group and exploit the rules in ways the system may not have foreseen.  The latter need the GM to step in during chargen and explain why this might not be a fun pursuit if the whole group is not on board.  Beware the player who asks no questions about setting and the group before presenting you with their character.  Also, if they haven't named their character when they claim to have finished, keep your eyes open.  If their entire background consists of them saying. "I'm a (insert class/profession here)," this might be a warning sign that the player doesn't know the difference between creating a roleplaying character and statting up a battlebot.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 12, 2011)

cignus_pfaccari said:


> Be sure to check math.
> 
> I really don't see how he's doing all that much more damage than the rogue, unless the rogue's really been built awfully.  I don't recall many high-[W] ranger bow powers, which might suggest he's using his Quarry dice too often, though if he's able to drop one non-minion/round, that still could be an awful lot of quarrying.
> 
> ...




we were useing the mods, and he was only quarry once + once for action point he was useing D12's and most of those attacks were at 1w or 2w but he (and I know I am not really doing all of this) +x stat +2 focus +4 armbands +3 or 4 enchantment

so a 2w 3 attacks does 2d12+17, his quarry is +2d8 if all 3 hit that is 51+6d12+2d8 then follow it up with a 3 attack 1w,  witch if all hit is 3d12+2d8+51.

that is already impressive, but add in the warlord +4 damage (from action point and the feat (we did do that wrong and add it to every att)) so avrage just ove 200hp


edit; I was told to add brutal accuracy, and hunter advantage, but I dont have time to look them up...


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2011)

Andor said:


> So...  what was the problem again?



That your statement was wrong and needed to be corrected.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> This is not to say that chargen should be done as groupthink and you get no control over your character.  That's obviously taking things too far.




Obviously?

Later in the fall, I'm playing in a weekend-long live-action game.  This is a game I paid to play, will have to drive for about 8 hours to reach, and pay for hotel, costuming, and props so this is no small investment for me.

I didn't make my own character.  I didn't even choose my character.  I filled out a questionnaire that gave the GMs a vague idea of what kinds of characters I might like to play, and they cast me with a character that is totally written by them - my stats, my basic personality, my basic goals for the weekend, all determined for me.  This is true for all 60+ players in the game, and is not at all unusual for weekend-long theater style larps.

So, while I wouldn't say that this is how things should be for all players of all games.  But it is not at all obvious that it shouldn't ever be, either.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Obviously?
> 
> Later in the fall, I'm playing in a weekend-long live-action game.  This is a game I paid to play, will have to drive for about 8 hours to reach, and pay for hotel, costuming, and props so this is no small investment for me.
> 
> ...




1. Kudos on being a larper and a reasonably hard core one from the description.  Many of the things I do at the table were inspired by being a part of LARPs so I do get where you're coming from.

2. I think that within context both of your positions are defensible.  I happen to agree with Hussar that at least in terms of those who have played D&D but are not used to other styles of rp, total DM control is taking things a bit far and may result in a degree of "WTF?"

3. (Cheap plug) if you're ever looking for a decent table group that's straddling LARP theory (without costumes of course) drop me a line.

KB


----------



## Kzach (Aug 12, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Now this is something I do agree with.  There is a tendency in many groups for people to treat their characters in a vacuum and not pay any attention to the group or the larger campaign.  Particularly at chargen.




I think the reason I'm experiencing this problem so often is simply the fact that I play in a lot of Encounters, LFR games both online and at several game stores. In these situations there's little group coherence or discussion. People rock up with whatever they built last night or five minutes before sitting down to play.

If this was a regular, stable, long-term gaming group amongst peers, I highly doubt this would be a problem at all.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Aug 12, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I think the reason I'm experiencing this problem so often is simply the fact that I play in a lot of Encounters, LFR games both online and at several game stores. In these situations there's little group coherence or discussion. People rock up with whatever they built last night or five minutes before sitting down to play.
> 
> If this was a regular, stable, long-term gaming group amongst peers, I highly doubt this would be a problem at all.




have you ever considered adapting to the game...come with 2 or 3 characters with diffrent levels of optimazation... then play the one that fits


----------



## Kzach (Aug 12, 2011)

gmforpowergamers said:


> have you ever considered adapting to the game...come with 2 or 3 characters with diffrent levels of optimazation... Then play the one that fits




*Nein!*


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Aug 12, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Obviously?




For a campaign?  Yeah, probably.

For a one-off (such as you are describing)?  Absolutely not.

Also, I *love* that style of LARP, though I haven't been able to do it since college.


----------



## Pentius (Aug 12, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> LMAO - 3 or 4 standards left? I'd love to DM for you sometime




Why is that laughable?  

I'm making the following (reasonable, I think)assumptions:

1. The character in question is in a party of 4-5(in my experience, the average party size is actually 6-7, due to the 'more players than DMs' effect, but I'm going with 4-5 here)

2. The hypothetical combat in which this is happening is an on-level encounter(at level 2, the hypothetical thief's level).  

3. It is built in a fairly generic way, ie, a number of standard enemies equal to the number of characters in the party, and of the same level.

Given those fairly base assumptions, the Thief can drop one or maybe if he's really lucky, two of those enemies.  Thus, 3-4 enemies left.  The encounter has become easier due to his use of resources, but will still take some beating.  That sounds about right to me.

Do you LMAO because you put out encounters weaker than that?  If so, they're probably getting mopped up quickly anyway, so I'm not sure where the LMAO comes in.

Do you LMAO because you put out encounters harder than that?  If so, they're going to still be a challenge, even after the player blows his resources(and hard encounters basically invite the blowing of resources anyway).

I'm really just trying to figure out what you're getting at here.  

As an aside, I'm active in PbP on these boards.  If you ever do want to DM for me sometime, I'm game.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 12, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> edit; I was told to add brutal accuracy, and hunter advantage, but I dont have time to look them up...




Wanna start another thread in 4e forum and post the character builder text files so we can have a proper look?


----------



## Andor (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> This means that you're going to make your rolls the majority of the time, and by doing so, you avoid any opportunity for the DM/GM to spur a side venture where assistance from an NPC will be required, unless he has already planned out such directions for the game to take.






Pilgrim said:


> Besides, NPCs have been hitting up PCs for help since, well level one, so in the grand scheme of things, having an "optimized" character really means jack. If the GM needs to get the characters involved in something, they'll do so regardless of how optimized they are.






Pilgrim said:


> That your statement was wrong and needed to be corrected.




I'm guessing internal consistency is not really one of your goals.


----------



## Kzach (Aug 12, 2011)

Andor said:


> I'm guessing internal consistency is not really one of your goals.




Since I can't give you anymore XP, I have to make a post to say: pwned!


----------



## Pentius (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Now, in my opinion, it is just bad design for an RPG if more often than not, it allows one group of players to criticize another group of players because of the choices they make during character creation or advancement. To me, RPGs should be about sitting down and just having a fun time with friends or family, not worrying whether or not characters are good enough to be played at the table.
> 
> This isn't to say that all groups do this, I'm sure most probably don't, but it happens often enough, that it seems to be an issue.




I agree with this paragraph, but not the thrust of the post I cut it from.  Sure enough, I don't like being criticized for my choices at character creation or advancement, either.  It's just that the thrust of this post assumes one player criticizing another for making a character that is weaker is the norm, and this thread(which mirrors many experiences I have had), is about those with weaker characters criticizing those who have stronger ones.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

As long as RPGs are designed around probability to accomplish something there will be characters that are better than other characters at doing certain things.

If a campaign is going to be combat heavy, it stands to reason that characters should be good at combat.  If the entire group isn't, they will TPK.  If one person's character out of the entire group isn't, the party might TPK and that's what annoys players in such ways as to suggest improvements.

The same can be said of a role-play heavy campaign and possible need to be skils focused.  

Ultimately though, it's a shared problem, because if a player makes a character that isn't in the vein of the game being played then it's partially the DMs fault for not managing expectations/balancing the challenges, and partially the player's fault for not being aware of what other players are doing or knowing the rules well.

It's not a game design fault.  A game design flaw would be not being flexible enough to have this problem.  I don't know any version of AD&D that hand held people.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2011)

Andor said:


> I'm guessing internal consistency is not really one of your goals.



Unfortunately it looks as if you've run out of original ideas for contributing to the discussion, and instead, devolved into the stereotypical "it's time to try and twist his own words against him to win the argument on the internet" scenario.

Which is fine, it happens, and I've seen it enough to recognize it.

So I'll just say this in a manner that is less confusing for you; there are generally two instances within a game session where PC encounters, of any sort, take place. There are the DM planned encounters, which follow a progressive track, as the PCs do what is necessary to follow the adventure as the DM has it laid out, and there are the encounters that are spur of the moment, off the cuff, DM winging it because it was not part of what was planned.

In the first encounter type, the DM knows what he wants the PCs to do, knows what the PCs are capable of (ie. how optimized the PCs are), and tailors the adventure to do so. Lets call this the straight path. It moves from point A to point B. 

If the PCs make all their skill checks, (lets assume because they are all optimized to the fullest extent and never fail checks) find all the clues, defeat all the monsters, this is the path they follow from start to finish. They encounter everything the DM has planned prior to the game session, it's pretty cut and dry.

In the second encounter type, the PC start following the straight path as planned out by the DM, except in this case, the PCs who are not optimized don't make all their checks, lets say that they can't collectively pass a knowledge or Arcana check needed to decrypt writing in an ancient tomb above a door that is sealed with no visible method for getting it open. Even though the PCs need to get through the door to continue down the straight path, they aren't optimized and so their skill checks fail. 

The DM asks the players what they would like to do now. The PCs, realizing that they can't solve it on their own, retreat back to town in hopes of finding someone with a better understanding of the strange writing. The DM didn't plan for this, but as the PCs begin exploring the local town, the DM whips up a local NPC sage which the PCs can ask for advice. From there the DM can be as simplistic or elaborate in the encounter with the sage as preferred. He could simply get the PCs back on the straight path, or use the opportunity to throw something completely random into the mix before they get back to the task at hand.

This shortfall on part of the PCs was unexpected but provides the DM with a chance to change the path from straight to winding. Ultimately the PCs reach the end goal, but along the way there are more spontaneous encounters not originally included or planned for in the adventure. 

So, at this point I'll say, yes, "suckage" CAN provide more of an opportunity for adventure within a game session than optimized characters. You might not like it, you might not agree, but sorry to say, there it is. The only way in which optimization (ie. passing a check) would support spontaneous encounters is if the PCs are suppose to fail a check and pass instead, which makes little sense.
_
tl:dr - Less optimized PCs can provide the DM with more opportunity for unplanned encounters, role-play and whatever else than optimized characters do._


----------



## Kzach (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> _tl:dr - Less optimized PCs can provide the DM with more opportunity for unplanned encounters, role-play and whatever else than optimized characters do._




And I say that's just blatantly untrue and is part of the problem of people having this attitude towards well-made characters.

Which of course means we've come full-circle in this discussion, twice. I think that means it's time for me to bow out. It's been a good run. Cyas.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Since I can't give you anymore XP, I have to make a post to say: pwned!





No, but he's about to be....



Andor said:


> I'm guessing internal consistency is not really one of your goals.





And I'm guessing politeness and working things through with people is not really one of your goals.  You could have pointed out, "Hey, these things don't seem consistent, could you please explain?"  But no, you had to get personal.

This, when just a couple pages back, I warned folks not to get personal.  And I'm still clearly active in the thread, so you're pretty assured I'm going to see you do it....

Does this seem bright to you?  'Cause it doesn't seem at all wise to me.  How about you don't do that again, Andor.  Thanks.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 12, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> It's not a game design fault. A game design flaw would be not being flexible enough to have this problem. I don't know any version of AD&D that hand held people.




I'm not so sure about this. 

Adventuring parties were at one time groups of competent individuals who banded together for mutual benefit. Fighting men, clerics, magic users, & thieves all had different things they were good at. The fighting man excelled at combat. At range or up close, this was the go to guy for violence. 

Enter, weapon specialization. Suddenly the fighter was considered really good only with whatever weapon got a specialization bonus. A fighter that had double spec. in the longsword was suddenly useless in ranged combat despite not losing any abilities in that area (aside from possibly being non-proficient of course). 

Now you could have fighters who specialized in ranged and melee in the same party. If the adventure featured lots of close quarters battle in tight caves the bow specialist got to sulk and play Robin to the melee fighter's Batman. During wilderness encounters where engagements might begin hundreds of yards apart the bow specialist would shine and the melee fighter got to feel barely adequate. 

Eventually this kind of specialization became available to all classes and character types. These days an adventuring party more closely resembles a colony of highly specialized insects. Each drone has thier own thing at which they excel. The divide between the one narrow aspect of expertise and anything else is so huge so as to make attempting actions outside the chosen aspect mathematically laughable. 

A character has become a member of a team of one trick ponies. This is combined by an ever increasing sense of player entitlement. After all, if the rules support building a (insert specialization here) monster then why shouldn't a player expect to use that ability to full potential in most if not all situations? 

This design concept and implementation sucks donkey balls.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not so sure about this.
> 
> Adventuring parties were at one time groups of competent individuals who banded together for mutual benefit. Fighting men, clerics, magic users, & thieves all had different things they were good at. The fighting man excelled at combat. At range or up close, this was the go to guy for violence.
> 
> ...





1. The meaning of specialization implies that there is some detriment to specializing as the opposite of specialization is generalist.

2. Allowing players to specialize does not mean they have to specialize.  Those that do should expect to be weak in other areas.  Balance doesn't go away because someone is better at one thing.

3. This is not an example of a game design flaw.  A game design flaw would be to allow players to specialize their characters, and still allow those characters to be good at everything else.

The flaw in parties where everyone is specialized is that sometimes you need a basic set of tools to get something done and what you have is a party that has the tools to get some nuclear basketweaving done.  This works well only when nuclear basketweaving.

Now depending on what you think good game design is, we may be at odds, but I find good game design forces players to make choices for their characters and be ok with not being the star of the show all the time if they make a choice to be a superstar in one area.

Thanks,
KB


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 12, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> 1. The meaning of specialization implies that there is some detriment to specializing as the opposite of specialization is generalist.
> 
> 2. Allowing players to specialize does not mean they have to specialize. Those that do should expect to be weak in other areas. Balance doesn't go away because someone is better at one thing.
> 
> 3. This is not an example of a game design flaw. A game design flaw would be to allow players to specialize their characters, and still allow those characters to be good at everything else.




In general I agree with these points. Specialization should have benefits and drawbacks. That is the nature of balance. 




Kobold Boots said:


> Now depending on what you think good game design is, we may be at odds, but I find good game design forces players to make choices for their characters and be ok with not being the star of the show all the time if they make a choice to be a superstar in one area.
> 
> Thanks,
> KB




Again I agree with the theory but as we have seen, actual game design does not adhere to these ideals. Anything that would deprive a PC of superstardom such as not having access to specific toys that provide the best bonuses have been branded as wrong by the tyranny of fun. 

Also, challenges have been sliding toward being geared for specialists. If the assumption is that specialization is the norm and the difficulty of the tasks consider this to be the case, what place does a generalist have? 

Limitations and restrictions have been tossed aside specifically so that specialists _can _do thier thing all the time. The design supports this and at the same time makes being a generalist a pointless pursuit.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Again I agree with the theory but as we have seen, actual game design does not adhere to these ideals. Anything that would deprive a PC of superstardom such as not having access to specific toys that provide the best bonuses have been branded as wrong by the tyranny of fun.




There's a difference between game design and content development.  Design usually is the result of a recognized need to improve sales on a product line, course correct a product line to be more in demand and correct issues perceived with a previous product.  Design will usually result in a new edition and for the most part that edition will be re-balanced.  Yes, there's some content development in design, but it's built with the design focus on balance.  Playtesting is usually more in depth.

Content development's purpose is to add options to the game.  Usually this content is in response to player feedback but it may also be due to a need to fill in a missing piece from a previous edition.  Depending on what it is, it might be balanced or not balanced against the original game and playtesting is often not deep enough to catch all the nuances.

Ironically, post launch content development is probably the number one reason why new editions need to be designed and developed, sales issues notwithstanding.



> Also, challenges have been sliding toward being geared for specialists. If the assumption is that specialization is the norm and the difficulty of the tasks consider this to be the case, what place does a generalist have?




This is a chicken/egg scenario.  Are challenges sliding towards specialists because everyone is specializing or are people specializing because of challenges?

Note I'm not an advocate of generalists or specialists.  I'm just saying that both need to be on a team to ensure that the party has the best chances of survival when a DM mixes up the punch bowl.  Too much of either creates risk.



> Limitations and restrictions have been tossed aside specifically so that specialists _can _do thier thing all the time. The design supports this and at the same time makes being a generalist a pointless pursuit.




I will call you on attempting a circular argument. If that point were completely true, the posts leading to this conversation would not have happened.  Specialists can not do everything well, and generalists aren't as good as specialists at what they do.  Whether being a generalist is pointless has much to do with the individual player's preferences.

KB


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> So, at this point I'll say, yes, "suckage" CAN provide more of an opportunity for adventure within a game session than optimized characters.




First, you are moving the goal posts. The premise you are refuting was based on the claim that "suckage" provides more of an opportunity to roleplay with NPCs. The counter-argument is that there are ways the DM can still provide roleplying with those NPCs through a different avenue.

Second, your premise that "'suckage' can provide more of an opportunity for adventure within a game session than optimized characters" is not entirely accurate IMO, either. There is no barrier to further adventure for optimized characters. There is a barrier to one particular trope, but it can open others. NPCs seeking the "Arcana Man's" aid could become a side adventure the DM hadn't orignally planned on. It could also be a way the player wants his character to shine by seeking out NPCs to aid with his expertise. Besides, there is very little chance, even in 4E, for an entire party to be optimized in everything. So, if you enjoy the trope of the characters seeking an NPCs aid, try to find another venue for it. If they're maxed out in Knowledges? Put a hard-to-scale mountain in their way. Then they would have to seek out a skilled mountaineer instead of a sage. Fill in the blank with Negotiator, Interrogator, etc. and you still have the trope somewhere if you really crave it.

Third, your distinction between "planned" and "unplanned" weakens when you consider that it was the DM that made the script above the tomb door too difficult to read in the first place. He may not have anticipated visiting a sage, but if he knows the party well enough, he probably should have anticipated the encounter with the sage.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Third, your distinction between "planned" and "unplanned" weakens when you consider that it was the DM that made the script above the tomb door too difficult to read in the first place. He may not have anticipated visiting a sage, but if he knows the party well enough, he probably should have anticipated the encounter with the sage.



So, if I'm reading this right, you're saying that A.) the PCs should be able to resolve an encounter given to them, B.) if for any reason they don't succeed, then it's obvious that the DM made the encounter too difficult? And in doing so should probably already plan for the PCs to need the help of an NPC?

That would be pointless and very poor DMing in any case.

So, ultimately, this would equate to the the DM making sure that the PCs always succeed at every encounter placed before them, with no risk of failure.

Not to mention that you didn't take into account something the game is based around, random die rolls. Random rolls being the determining factor between success and failure.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's suppose to work.  Without risk of failure the game would devolve into something resembling  a poorly implemented interactive story.

As a player who has played in every edition of the game to date, I know just how poorly dice can roll, in every encounter, within a single session, regardless of how easy or hard the encounter is designed.

I'm sorry but I just can't follow that line of reasoning, it just seems too far off the mark.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's suppose to work. Without risk of failure the game would devolve into something resembling a poorly implemented interactive story.




The game is not about the players having an absolute chance or risk of failure.  The game is about the players perceiving that they have the ability to fail, thus increasing story and game tension.

Two entirely different things and it's the sign of a great DM that he or she is able to ensure that the players have success while experiencing enough loss that they don't yawn through the game session.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> The game is not about the players having an absolute chance or risk of failure.  The game is about the players perceiving that they have the ability to fail, thus increasing story and game tension.
> 
> Two entirely different things and it's the sign of a great DM that he or she is able to ensure that the players have success while experiencing enough loss that they don't yawn through the game session.



Perhaps at your table that is acceptable and even praised as good DMing, but at mine, we consider it quite the opposite. If failure is just an illusion, then we would never want to play under that DM. In our case, without the risk of genuine failure, playing game would be a snooze fest.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> So, if I'm reading this right, you're saying that A.) the PCs should be able to resolve an encounter given to them,




Nope, never said that.



Pilgrim said:


> B.) if for any reason they don't succeed, then it's obvious that the DM made the encounter too difficult?




You should know the characters your players are playing. If you know that the highest Arcana check in the group is +10, then making the DC to decipher the script 40 should obviously tell you that you intend for the group not to be able to deal with their challenge on their skill alone. Even if you make it DC 20, you should be prepared for them to need assistance 45% of the time. The distinction is that, as DM, you get to set the difficulty at a level that determines whether the challenge is able to be accomplished with the direct skill of the characters. This is just as planned as if you make the DC a 10 when "Arcana Guy" has a +30 Arcana check.



Pilgrim said:


> And in doing so should probably already plan for the PCs to need the help of an NPC?




Depends on how much a DM prefers to prep ahead. If he likes winging the Sage encounter, that's fine. But calling the encounter "unplanned" when it is actually "unprepared" is the difference.



Pilgrim said:


> That would be pointless and very poor DMing in any case.




Pre-planning reasonable courses of action the players might take is pointless and bad DMing? I beg to differ. I don't have to prep the Sage encounter, but I may well want to keep that eventuality in mind as a common thing one might do when unable to resolve the issue themselves.



Pilgrim said:


> So, ultimately, this would equate to the the DM making sure that the PCs always succeed at every encounter placed before them, with no risk of failure.




I never said this either.



Pilgrim said:


> Not to mention that you didn't take into account something the game is based around, random die rolls. Random rolls being the determining factor between success and failure.




I took it into account, I just didn't mention it since it is a basic premise of the game. But a DM can also make those random die rolls irrelevant by placing the DC too high or too low for a level-appropriate challenge.



Pilgrim said:


> Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that's how it's suppose to work. Without risk of failure the game would devolve into something resembling a poorly implemented interactive story.




You're not wrong about no risk of failure. But I never built my premise around 'no risk of failure.'



Pilgrim said:


> As a player who has played in every edition of the game to date, I know just how poorly dice can roll, in every encounter, within a single session, regardless of how easy or hard the encounter is designed.




Yes, dice are fickle and some days I set aside the new pretty dice and pull out the worn out 30-year-old crayon-filled dice. Welcome to the grognard club.

But, the dice can be as fickle as they want to be when it comes to skill checks. Without the auto-fail and auto-hit feature that attack rolls have a character with a +10 Arcana can never fail an encounter requiring an Arcana check of 11 or less and can never succeed at one requiring a 31 or more. So it is not as 'regardless' as you claim.



Pilgrim said:


> I'm sorry but I just can't follow that line of reasoning, it just seems too far off the mark.




I'll go so far as to say that Good DMs *do* anticipate courses of action their players may take and give some thought to non-mandatory encounters. Ad-libbing an encounter does not automatically make it worse, some people are good at that. But pre-planning can improve anyone's ability to provide a more interesting encounter.

Open up a copy of Keep on the Borderlands and look at the NPCs the author prepared for use when the PCs came looking for their aid.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> Perhaps at your table that is acceptable and even praised as good DMing, but at mine, we consider it quite the opposite. If failure is just an illusion, then we would never want to play under that DM. In our case, without the risk of genuine failure, playing game would be a snooze fest.




You missed my point or chose to make your own at the expense of it.  

If the illusion of failure is successful your players have no reference point to be bored by and a heightened chance of having the kind of game they want to be a part of.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 12, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> You missed my point or chose to make your own at the expense of it.
> 
> If the illusion of failure is successful your players have no reference point to be bored by and a heightened chance of having the kind of game they want to be a part of.




If failure is present in illusory form only, then you might still have roleplaying but you no longer have a game.


----------



## ehren37 (Aug 12, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> ok, I am quoteing you, but it is to a bunch of you saying the same idea...
> 
> Background: we started in sept the first year of 4e...we had phb1 and frpg, and av1 to start. and we all kinda didn't know what we were doing... 3 of the 5 of us caught on faster, 2 slower... and becuse it was our first 4e try some of it was pretty bad. We ran the H1-e3... the player of the ranger started as a fighter, but died in h2 and had to bring in a new character...now having the edge of understanding and the opt board, and martial power + a few books and starting higher level he came in better.
> 
> ...




It sounds like the ranger is pretty much following the baseline, and the rogue is *seriously* underpowered. When you want a weak concept character, and dont want to mechanically fix it, you should at least own it. Either you care about mechanics, or you dont. But you dont get to completely disregard them for your character and then gripe about performance. 

If everyone designed weak characters, I GUESS its possible for the ranger to outdamage several of them. Again though, its their conscious choice to build underpowered characters, so complaining when Joe Average ranger shows up hardly seems fair. For me, I too would have a hard time running for them, but mainly because I'd be afraid of killing the other guys. I think a few minor fixes would help even the playing field, by bringing them up some, and potentially the ranger down a peg. Give everyone expertise/focus for free, and ask the ranger to take 2 fluff-esque feats instead with the freed slots. Toss the rogue free proficiency with rapier (thieves get it free anyways) and holy symbols (which I thought came with the multiclass feat anyways). I'd let him sneak attack with any cleric powers too, to help the concept work out better. Hey, the Raven Queen likes Shadar Kai anyways. 

If the ranger still needs a nerf, I'd consider removing the damage rolls on some of the out of turn attacks, to steer him towards the more balanced standard action ones. Removing focus and the bracers might work a little short term, but I think ultimately taking away a few bonuses to damage will just slightly delay the same issue from cropping up again in a couple of levels. The core problem is adding all those mods a ton of times each round. Its my opinion that you should pay a damage premium for getting extra/out of turn actions, not get a huge net bonus.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> You missed my point or chose to make your own at the expense of it.
> 
> If the illusion of failure is successful your players have no reference point to be bored by and a heightened chance of having the kind of game they want to be a part of.



No, I quite get your point. I understand that PCs playing under a DM using the illusion of failure will be none the wiser and think nothing of it. They'll think that they scraped by, by the skin of their teeth and had some close calls. I get it.

If a DM is using illusion of failure to run his game, then he has already planned an outline of how the game will run. He knows that the PCs will eventually succeed during the adventure or campaign, regardless of "how close" they came to failing. The DM has already made the conscious decision to railroad the PCs to the end of the adventure, to tell the story, to let them win the game, with "close calls" and "wow we almost failed, but didn't" scenarios.

And I still find it to be bad DMing. As a player, I find it to be rather insulting.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> No, I quite get your point. I understand that PCs playing under a DM using the illusion of failure will be none the wiser and think nothing of it. They'll think that they scraped by, by the skin of their teeth and had some close calls. I get it.
> 
> If a DM is using illusion of failure to run his game, then he has already planned an outline of how the game will run. He knows that the PCs will eventually succeed during the adventure or campaign, regardless of "how close" they came to failing. The DM has already made the conscious decision to railroad the PCs to the end of the adventure, to tell the story, to let them win the game, with "close calls" and "wow we almost failed, but didn't" scenarios.
> 
> And I still find it to be bad DMing. As a player, I find it to be rather insulting.




I don't see this as badwrongfun or anything if the group is having a good time with it. It all depends on what the participants want. Do you want to play a game or tell stories?


----------



## Janx (Aug 12, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> If failure is present in illusory form only, then you might still have roleplaying but you no longer have a game.




According to the thread I started "Is D&D a game" that is an incorrect assumption.

Bear in mind, I started it and was pretty much the ONLY guy who said it was NOT a game.  

While your reasoning would have supported my case, the fact is, that is NOT the definition of a game.  

Thus, while what you're saying changes the kind of game your playing, it is still a game, and you can't play the "not a game" card.


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I don't see this as badwrongfun or anything if the group is having a good time with it. It all depends on what the participants want. Do you want to play a game or tell stories?



And I don't disagree. I can't speak for other players, but myself however, I want to play (or run) a game. If I wanted story, I'd read a book.


----------



## Andor (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> In the first encounter type, the DM knows what he wants the PCs to do, knows what the PCs are capable of (ie. how optimized the PCs are), and tailors the adventure to do so. Lets call this the straight path. It moves from point A to point B.
> 
> If the PCs make all their skill checks, (lets assume because they are all optimized to the fullest extent and never fail checks) find all the clues, defeat all the monsters, this is the path they follow from start to finish. They encounter everything the DM has planned prior to the game session, it's pretty cut and dry.
> 
> ...




I think I see part of where you're coming from. However I'm inclined to feel that any GM who sets up a single pass/fail check capable of derailing his plot, without planning out at least a couple of ways around it is not much of a GM. 

Yes, improvisization is a key GMing skill, but in my experience it is far more likely to be called for because the PCs have thought of an approach the GM never considered, rather than because they followed the plot-rail but failed to get past the turn-stile, and the GM had not planned for the results of his own setup. 



Pilgrim said:


> Perhaps at your table that is acceptable and even praised as good DMing, but at mine, we consider it quite the opposite. If failure is just an illusion, then we would never want to play under that DM. In our case, without the risk of genuine failure, playing game would be a snooze fest.




But... Your own example was that the GM was obliged to provide a sage the PCs could consult and thus get back to the plot line he had already setup. Thus negating the concequences of the earlier failure, and turning it into a mere illusion, rather than an actual failure point. Did I misunderstand?



Pilgrim said:


> So, at this point I'll say, yes, "suckage" CAN provide more of an opportunity for adventure within a game session than optimized characters. You might not like it, you might not agree, but sorry to say, there it is. The only way in which optimization (ie. passing a check) would support spontaneous encounters is if the PCs are suppose to fail a check and pass instead, which makes little sense.





Your example is a result of a PC failure delaying the party from reaching their objective, and thus drawing out the course of this scenario as they try to make up for their failure. 

A check the party succeeded on would allow them to finish the scenario and move on to the next job, or go back to town to celebrate, both of which provide new opprotunities for roleplaying. 

I suppose, if in your experience, the GM only allows the party to diverge from the railroad when they experience failure, then your point of view is understandable. In my experience however the memorable moments come from when the PCs succeed at something the GM hadn't planned at all, like a diplomacy check to win the trust of the evil cultist, or picking the pocket of your new employer and thus finding he he's the one behind the smuggling ring.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> No, I quite get your point. I understand that PCs playing under a DM using the illusion of failure will be none the wiser and think nothing of it. They'll think that they scraped by, by the skin of their teeth and had some close calls. I get it.
> 
> If a DM is using illusion of failure to run his game, then he has already planned an outline of how the game will run. He knows that the PCs will eventually succeed during the adventure or campaign, regardless of "how close" they came to failing. The DM has already made the conscious decision to railroad the PCs to the end of the adventure, to tell the story, to let them win the game, with "close calls" and "wow we almost failed, but didn't" scenarios.
> 
> And I still find it to be bad DMing. As a player, I find it to be rather insulting.




You're very welcome to your opinion regarding the play style, and I respect it.

From my perspective, characters still die, the group still evolves and players continue on.  Sometimes they even die for random reasons, but there's always a cool outcome and the players are given something in exchange for their time commitment.

I'll thank you to keep your opinion to yourself about whether or not this makes me a "bad DM".  Anyone not at my table has no right to make that assessment whatsoever based on the limited information presented in this thread.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> If failure is present in illusory form only, then you might still have roleplaying but you no longer have a game.




That depends on why you play your game and what your definition of game is.

Because these sort of absolute, polarizing statements (including the one above by Pilgrim) are usually where threads go south for the winter; I'm going to respectfully bow out of the conversation.

Game well.
KB


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 12, 2011)

Andor said:


> In my experience however the memorable moments come from when the PCs succeed at something the GM hadn't planned at all, like a diplomacy check to win the trust of the evil cultist, or picking the pocket of your new employer and thus finding he he's the one behind the smuggling ring.



All other stuff aside, this a very good, and valid, point. This is an example which I had yet to see anyone toss out, and one that I can agree with concerning an optimized player changing the course of the adventure through spontaneity.

I can see an instance where the DM expects the PCs to fight the cultist, only to have them parley instead. This would most definitely create an unexpected side venture with opportunity for further role-play.

Well played sir, good on ya.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 12, 2011)

Andor said:


> Wait, the _ranger_ is the one you would kick out of your group? Seriously? It sounds like a competantly built striker, doing exactly what a sriker is supposed to do, deal a lot of damage.
> 
> If another player makes a poorly build character in the same role, and doesn't perform as well your solution is to fire the guy who knows what he's doing? Even though he's moving the game along and the other player is dancing around the table and getting upset that his nerf-bat wielding charcter is less effective than one that uses steel?
> 
> Personally I'd be more upset at the disruptive player. I'd also be inclined to keep my employee who performs his job effectively over the lazy whiner, and to pick Mike Tyson in a fight over Don Knotts. YMMV.




maybe I read it wrong, I thought the ranger WAS the disruptive player, throwing the fit be cause he wasnt the "high damage" guy in the encounter, or throwing fits over not getting good roles...basically, fit throwing should be kept to a minimum at our table, as a general rule of thumb


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 12, 2011)

ehren37 said:


> No, professional murderers. Think about how many sentient beings most characters kill as they rise in level.... its crazy!
> 
> The theif class really is centered around spike damage though. Items that add to it are likely to be what both the player AND the thief would want to equip. Its quite in character to want something like a quick rapier or bracers of mighty striking.



I guess that is jsut my ignorance...I thought thieves were "centered" around thieving - - my bad


----------



## Janx (Aug 12, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> I guess that is jsut my ignorance...I thought thieves were "centered" around thieving - - my bad




I suspect it treads on the ground that 4e has different expectations in combat that prior editions.

This could trend to a discussion of 4e, which is not really the intent of this thread.

But yes, it does seem everybody gets big damage numbers.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 12, 2011)

Pentius said:


> Why is that laughable?
> 
> I'm making the following (reasonable, I think)assumptions:
> 
> ...




I never use one standard per player...ever.
I use a lot of minions, so I can use some higher level foes sprinkled in.

as a quick/off the top of my head example: 5 2nd level partygoers target 625-750 xp:  1 wyrm priest, 1 slinger, 2 dragon shields, 8 minions = 12 kobolds

The character in question... a 2nd level half orc thief with "Gritty Seargant/ Mercanary" or whatever it was (I'll ask the OP about some other time) and the 3rd level magic items is still ,no matter if he gets 10000 d 8 damage is still only going to kill 2 kobolds, leaving 10 - and it would be hillarious if he were to kill - say 2 minions

in other news, I am building up the nerve to start a 4e PbP, I will look for you when the time comes.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 12, 2011)

Janx said:


> I suspect it treads on the ground that 4e has different expectations in combat that prior editions.
> 
> This could trend to a discussion of 4e, which is not really the intent of this thread.
> 
> But yes, it does seem everybody gets big damage numbers.




there is still more to the game than combat, even in 4e....isn't there???


----------



## S'mon (Aug 12, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> The game is not about the players having an absolute chance or risk of failure.  The game is about the players perceiving that they have the ability to fail, thus increasing story and game tension.
> 
> Two entirely different things and it's the sign of a great DM that he or she is able to ensure that the players have success while experiencing enough loss that they don't yawn through the game session.




This seems like a hardcore 'Illusionist' approach.  In my games the players "perceive that they have the ability to fail, thus increasing story and game tension", *because they have the ability to fail*.  I'm pretty sure that's the standard approach, even if I'm a bit more of a killer DM than most.


----------



## Janx (Aug 12, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> there is still more to the game than combat, even in 4e....isn't there???




I don't want to bash 4e.  I've only played 1 encounters worth that a friend was demoing, and I certainly never read any of its materials.  As such, what I think is based on poorly informed opinion.

pre-launch 4e hype advocated a lot of ideas I agreed with.  Including making sure everybody had fun stuff to do in combat.

Once it shipped, it seems every class had a combat orientation, with less emphasis on other aspects.  As on friend lamented from a 3x all-rogue one weekend-long one shot, he didn't think they could have pulled that off in 4e.

However, the Stormwind fallacy probably applies.  Just because you all kick butt in combat does not mean you can't role-play or be social or steally, sneaky, etc.

Thats just my impression, which has no basis in direct experience, and in no way denegrates 4e.  People have fun with it, and people play a variety of campaign styles with it.  Therefore, as a game system, that's alright.

I think the OP could have the same problems in 3e, so I don't see this thread as needing an Edition debate.  Yes, the terms and numbers freak me out.  But that's because I'm not familiar with that ruleset.  But the gist is, Kzach can make some pretty powerful PCs, and his fellow players apparently can't.

Thats not a new problem.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 12, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> You should know the characters your players are playing. If you know that the highest Arcana check in the group is +10, then.




Personally I dislike this approach, I don't think the DM should be designing around the precise abilities of my PC.  As DM I prefer *not* to know what individual PCs are capable of.  If I tailor, it's to a general encounter level, not to individual PCs.  I find the game a lot more satisfying that way - the world feels more real, the challenge feels more genuine.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 12, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> You missed my point or chose to make your own at the expense of it.
> 
> If the illusion of failure is successful your players have no reference point to be bored by and a heightened chance of having the kind of game they want to be a part of.




Players only have to spot your Illusionism once in umpteen adventures (or read you writing this on a message board), and trust is gone.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 12, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Players only have to spot your Illusionism once in umpteen adventures (or read you writing this on a message board), and trust is gone.




Perhaps.  This is how it really went down.



> Player: "I don't like that I don't feel we can fail."
> 
> Me: "I don't like it when you bitch about losing your characters after spending 10 hours optimizing it for the perfect 30 level build."
> 
> ...




Long story short the person known as player one eventually left the table and we got a new person in the chair.  It resulted in a better vibe for the group overall.  People who have absolute views about what they must have in a gaming group often times don't do well as players and are better off running their own games.

Last, anyone who's ever been in my group knows I love them to death, even those who are no longer active.  I just shoot straight and that engenders trust even if I do not necessarily let my player groups TPK for the sake of being random and simulationist.  (If any of us wanted that, we don't need to be role-playing at all.)


----------



## Pentius (Aug 12, 2011)

Pilgrim said:


> So, if I'm reading this right, you're saying that A.) the PCs should be able to resolve an encounter given to them, B.) if for any reason they don't succeed, then it's obvious that the DM made the encounter too difficult? And in doing so should probably already plan for the PCs to need the help of an NPC?
> 
> That would be pointless and very poor DMing in any case.



This was touched on, but I'm doing it anyway.  When the Dm places the arch, he should be knowledgeable of roughly how likely the party is to be able to read it(he sets the DC and has access to their sheets), which is a bit off from A.  And if B, the party fails to read it, and the DM knows that could happen, since he decided how difficult the arch was to read, he should at least have considered the idea that the PCs might not give up on ever knowing what was written there.



TheUltramark said:


> I never use one standard per player...ever.
> I use a lot of minions, so I can use some higher level foes sprinkled in.
> 
> as a quick/off the top of my head example: 5 2nd level partygoers target 625-750 xp:  1 wyrm priest, 1 slinger, 2 dragon shields, 8 minions = 12 kobolds
> ...



I get you now.  We're kinda on the same page, then.  If the Thief goes nova on round 1, plenty is left to do on round 2.  That was my point.  Shoot me a PM when the time comes.



TheUltramark said:


> there is still more to the game than combat, even in 4e....isn't there???



Of course.  Many of the rules(any edition) deal with combat, but there is still more than combat.  4e gets flak for this, imo, because the designers took a lean toward "rules are for combat resolution" and thus cut a lot of rules that weren't closely tied to conflict resolution.  Combat is a primary means of combat resolution, so there are still lots of combat rules.  



S'mon said:


> Personally I dislike this approach, I don't think the DM should be designing around the precise abilities of my PC.  As DM I prefer *not* to know what individual PCs are capable of.  If I tailor, it's to a general encounter level, not to individual PCs.  I find the game a lot more satisfying that way - the world feels more real, the challenge feels more genuine.



Always interesting to hear your style, S'mon.  As DM, I have a strictly kept rule that I must always have access to an up to date version of every PC's sheet(easy, with CB).  Started it after a really bad campaign in 3.5 where this rule would've cleared things up quick.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Aug 13, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> there is still more to the game than combat, even in 4e....isn't there???




Isn't that the question that's been repeatedly asked about every edition of D&D for the last 30 years?

For what it's worth, over the last two years of the 4E game I've been in, we've done a lot of non-combat activity, from exploration, to negotiating a truce between elves and hobgoblins.

We've basically done as much, if not more non-combat roleplaying as any other D&D campaign I've been in. Anecdotal information true, but that's still enough to disprove an absolute.



Janx said:


> Once it shipped, it seems every class had a combat orientation, with less emphasis on other aspects.  As on friend lamented from a 3x all-rogue one weekend-long one shot, he didn't think they could have pulled that off in 4e.
> 
> However, the Stormwind fallacy probably applies.  Just because you all kick butt in combat does not mean you can't role-play or be social or steally, sneaky, etc.




I'd say it definitely applies, because the game gives more support for non-combat activity than AD&D, and about the same level as 3.x.

I think what throws people off is the fact that the powers are strongly combat oriented (though even there there's quite a few utility powers that are useful for non-combat situations). But that's only part of the situation; there are skills, and there are feats, both of which have combat applications.

Granted, 4E doesn't give as much support tip purely non-combat games as say, GURPS or FATE, but then again, no D&D does. I'd say that 4E gives enough support for non-combat activities, except for problematic ones such as crafting.


----------



## CuRoi (Aug 13, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Personally I dislike this approach, I don't think the DM should be designing around the precise abilities of my PC. As DM I prefer *not* to know what individual PCs are capable of. If I tailor, it's to a general encounter level, not to individual PCs. I find the game a lot more satisfying that way - the world feels more real, the challenge feels more genuine.




While I see what you are saying about not tailoring everything to a player's precise ability, I do want to point out you can't just ignore their abilities. I think that is what is at the heart of the OP issues.

The players are the protagonists of our story (well, usually) and they need to feel that they are the ones empowered to make the most significant changes to the story. If you don't create spotlight moments for them based on their specialized abilities, they simply become pawns to those in the game world that can advance the story. And that may be what this all boils down to - a DM not providing the "non-optimizers" a means to shine and get involved in the story at the same level.

As for the OP - I find that players who are really focused on optimizing tend to get bored with story centric games and vice versa so this is often a problem that resolves itself.

I have managed to run a middle of the road sort of game that has supported RPers and powergamers alike. I definitely have had trouble balancing encounters before when a player shows up with a "more optimized" build, but I control the source material enough that it has never been bad enough to break a game or draw complaints. I've never asked a player to neuter a build, though I have altered rules before based on feeling they were a bit broken with the group's play style (both for the benefit of the PCs and their detriment and always with their input.) I've also never seen a perfect optimized character with zero weakness. Usually when someone sits down at my table with a "perfect" PC it is highly focused and something of a one-trick pony. The player usually gets bored with it and moves on.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 13, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> While I see what you are saying about not tailoring everything to a player's precise ability, I do want to point out you can't just ignore their abilities. I think that is what is at the heart of the OP issues.
> 
> The players are the protagonists of our story (well, usually) and they need to feel that they are the ones empowered to make the most significant changes to the story. If you don't create spotlight moments for them based on their specialized abilities, they simply become pawns to those in the game world that can advance the story. And that may be what this all boils down to - a DM not providing the "non-optimizers" a means to shine and get involved in the story at the same level.




Well, I don't run a game with a pre-written story, it's up to the players to create a story - but really "story" is never something I think about at all as a GM, so "they simply become pawns to those in the game world that can advance the story" doesn't really make a lot of sense to me in terms of how I see the game.

That said, as GM if I notice a particular PC is significantly underperforming in combat relative to the others I may well offer to help rebuild them to get up to speed.  I won't normally ban/nerf uber PCs per se, but I'm happy to ban/nerf certain powers - those that trivialise encounters *without* ending them, like Moment of Glory and pre-errata Visions of Avarice, because IMO they are no fun for anyone.  And I now (in 4e) limit sources, which greatly helps to limit power disparity between PCs; munchkin builds almost always rely on a wide variety of sources and synergies unforeseen by the designers; while regularly optimised/powergamed builds typically require cherry-picking sources in 4e - in 3.5e it was more about caster vs non-caster.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Aug 13, 2011)

Just thought I'd chime in on my feelings here. I definitely agree with S'mon here, in that I don't tailor anything to my PCs, though I am acutely aware of their abilities. Sometimes I internally wince when they make a decision I know isn't good for them, but I don't stop it, either, nor do I change the setting to accommodate them.

Also, I don't have a story in mind. I react to the PCs actions, and evolve the setting naturally (military movements, NPCs getting married / giving birth / getting injured or sick / dying, rebellions, festivals, slavers or bandits or pirates making raids, etc.). This means that there is no story that I'm advocating for or against, and I can fulfill the role as arbiter pretty well. This leads to extremely low prep time for me, as well, which is a nice benefit.

To this end, I do see the game as "about" the PCs, in that the focus in entirely on them. They are not "the ones empowered to make the most significant changes to the story" and they are not "pawns to those in the game world that can advance the story." They do not feel like they're the gods' gift to the setting, and they feel anything but worthless or helpless. I do not see them as anything particularly special within the setting, other than from mindset. That is, they aren't inherently better at anything than NPCs are. In fact, starting out at hit die 1 would be less capable than most NPCs. NPCs are built with the same system PCs are, and average around hit die 4. That's a lot of adversity to overcome in terms of power. On top of that, I don't give them plot protection: no fudging rolls, no fudging tactics, no fudging the setting to make up for bad decisions (or good ones), no fudging NPC statistics. If the PCs win, it's because they earned it. Smart play really helps in the early hit die if you're combat focused (which the game strongly supports, but does not mandate at all... you can be hit die 20 with 3 hit points and no weapon proficiencies).

Where the PCs differ, really, is in mindset: they tend to have a drive that only certain NPCs match; they will fight for their lives until the last breath; they will fight for what they uphold even against great odds; they will do everything within their power to advance their vision of the world, rather than settle down; they will take risks that lesser beings will not. Truly, this is what separates them from most NPCs of any hit die (since you don't need to ever get into a fight in your life to advance in my game, NPCs can be higher hit die without being in a combat role).

Then again, the game I made (and the game we play) is much grittier than a lot of other games, so my tastes seem to depart from a lot of other people. As always, play what you like


----------



## CuRoi (Aug 14, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Well, I don't run a game with a pre-written story, it's up to the players to create a story - but really "story" is never something I think about at all as a GM, so "they simply become pawns to those in the game world that can advance the story" doesn't really make a lot of sense to me in terms of how I see the game.




I'd love to read some game session logs if you have any because it would be interesting to see how one accomplishes a detailed, involved campaign setting if there are no stories scripted by yourself that are going on outside the immediate vicinity of the players. Is it a collaborative story telling where everyone just sort of makes up the world and events as they go along? Fascinating concept.

*EDIT - Dice 4 Hire was correct on the following portion being "putting words in someones mouth" so I'm just putting in note and leaving to avoid any confusion if I erased it, heh. Totally misread something. Still stickin' by the rest*

So never when playing the role of GM/Storteller whatever you may refer to it, do you _ever_ consider the abilities of the party at hand when thinking up, completely on the fly as it were, their adversaries and the ongoing storyline? DnD's level system alone makes it pretty tough to just completely ignore party capability.

Not to say my PCs haven't stumbled into things which they can't at the time overcome, but I've at least considered that fact and offered alternatives so as to not steamroll them with some encounter they aren't at all prepared for or capable of dealing with. Otherwise, I'd be running a game much akin to another thread where the DM felt it fine to TPK a party for what sounded like lack of area knowledge (from the one-sided info I received anyway). 

It's just not my style. Especially since I want players to invest time in their PCs and not think of their PC as just "the next one to die". I suppose they call it "gritty" when a player can open the door to the kobold fortress they invaded and find the Cloud Giant / Sorcerer leader on the other side. Again, just not my style. 

Of course, if they chose to knowingly square off against a Cloud Giant at level one, well, gloves are off on that one...but I'm not going to just drop something like that on them to prove "I don't script". I've done things _similar_ to that before but generally it is proceeded by some warning and some helpful hints scattered about. Unless they can handle it. Then I'll nuke them from orbit and let them scramble to sort it out.

*END EDIT *

So, while I also rarely "script" adventures, I find it necessary to at least consider the party abilities/skills/level etc. in most scenarios that arise (whether it comes as part of player sandboxing or the "meta plot", which I do script but which is sometimes altered through player action.) _I also find that players truly enjoy encountering problems their PCs can solve and use their specialties on. So while I'm winging it (or not, as the situation demands), throwing in a bone that they particularly like to gnaw on just seems good form. Again, to each his own._



S'mon said:


> while regularly optimised/powergamed builds typically require cherry-picking sources in 4e - in 3.5e it was more about caster vs non-caster.




Frankly, I'd call 4e and 3.5e the same in these respects - I'd never volunteer to GM a game in 3.5 with completely open sources. Cherry-picking there was pretty bad. I think it happens with any system as they expand (assuming expanions means "more rules to fiddle with" and not "more story/fluff".)


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 14, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> I'd love to read some game session logs if you have any because it would be interesting to see how one accomplishes a detailed, involved campaign setting if there are no stories scripted by yourself that are going on outside the immediate vicinity of the players. Is it a collaborative story telling where everyone just sort of makes up the world and events as they go along?  Fascinating concept.




Wow, talk about putting words in someone's mouth. 

A whole lot of words.


----------



## CuRoi (Aug 14, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Also, I don't have a story in mind. I react to the PCs actions, and evolve the setting naturally (military movements, NPCs getting married / giving birth / getting injured or sick / dying, rebellions, festivals, slavers or bandits or pirates making raids, etc.). This means that there is no story that I'm advocating for or against, and I can fulfill the role as arbiter pretty well. This leads to extremely low prep time for me, as well, which is a nice benefit.
> 
> To this end, I do see the game as "about" the PCs, in that the focus in entirely on them. They are not "the ones empowered to make the most significant changes to the story" and they are not "pawns to those in the game world that can advance the story." They do not feel like they're the gods' gift to the setting, and they feel anything but worthless or helpless. I do not see them as anything particularly special within the setting, other than from mindset. That is, they aren't inherently better at anything than NPCs are. In fact, starting out at hit die 1 would be less capable than most NPCs. NPCs are built with the same system PCs are, and average around hit die 4. That's a lot of adversity to overcome in terms of power. On top of that, I don't give them plot protection: no fudging rolls, no fudging tactics, no fudging the setting to make up for bad decisions (or good ones), no fudging NPC statistics. If the PCs win, it's because they earned it. Smart play really helps in the early hit die if you're combat focused (which the game strongly supports, but does not mandate at all... you can be hit die 20 with 3 hit points and no weapon proficiencies).
> 
> ...




We're getting off topic so sorry I started the move - but I'm really fascinated by this "I am the GM and I provide zero story direction" concept. I just don't quite get it.

I, as GM for my games spend hours putting together a detailed campaign world and let the players explore it. As they move around, there are any number of factions that are living breathing entities that will pursue whatever ends they wish REGARDLESS whether the PCs decide to stay home and bake cookies or whether they involve themselves in some sort of external "plot". This is the external story. How the players approach it is up to them, but I am constantly aware of what it entails.

Many times, I'll throw in things which I did not have in this world design based on perhaps their characters interests/skills/abilities or even based on their ideas. 

So, that's where my incredulity starts here - a GM that just sits down with some players and says "ok, you are a human cleric, a human fighter and an elf mage...ummm what next?" Seems like an interesting concept. Sort of a round robin story creation thing?

Cleric says "We're in a tavern!" Fighter says "I order a beer!" Elf says "There's a dungeon nearby, lets go explore it!" 

What exactly is the GMs job if you aren't providing a living, breathing world for them to explore? And if you are providing that world you are in fact providing the story space they move in. Given you created the world, there must be some semblance of YOU telling them the story. Given that, it seems only in the itnerest of fun to give the players htings to encounter every now and then that will highlight the players abilities and give them interesting things to do with the PC they put a lot of thought into.

I think the most boring story you could ever read would be one where the main characters never find ways to show off their skills. Of course, if you are letting the players create all the scenarios on the fly, I suppsoe you get aorund this issue.

Usually, at my table, the players want to know say, what tavern they are in, what city they are in, who else is in the tavern etc. I'm providing a good deal of the background and things which may (or may not) motivate players ot act. I am pretty much a driving force in the "story" department as it unfolds. 

I suppose what you guys are describing is an entirely collaborative effort where players just make some characters and then proceed to describe the world around them and al of their motivations for engagement in that world? Interesting!


----------



## CuRoi (Aug 14, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> Wow, talk about putting words in someone's mouth.
> 
> A whole lot of words.




Sorry - being concise isn't my strong point.  It sounds a bit aggressive as I re-read but I am sincerely interested in seeing game session logs (of any DM really) especially if the style is presumably so different from my own. 

Letting the players have some seriously expanded control of the "story" does solve the OP problem - with that level of control, optimized or not their PC can make all make a substantial difference in any given story/scene/encounter what have you and perhaps those players that get rankled at sharing a table with an "optimizer" wouldn't care as much?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Aug 14, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> We're getting off topic so sorry I started the move - but I'm really fascinated by this "I am the GM and I provide zero story direction" concept. I just don't quite get it.
> 
> I, as GM for my games spend hours putting together a detailed campaign world and let the players explore it. As they move around, there are any number of factions that are living breathing entities that will pursue whatever ends they wish REGARDLESS whether the PCs decide to stay home and bake cookies or whether they involve themselves in some sort of external "plot". This is the external story. How the players approach it is up to them, but I am constantly aware of what it entails.




We're using words differently, I think. What you call "story" I call "setting". You say stuff happens whether or not "they involve themselves in some sort of external "plot"." I say:


JamesonCourage said:


> ... nor do I change the setting to accommodate them.
> 
> Also, I don't have a story in mind. I react to the PCs actions, and evolve the setting naturally (military movements, NPCs getting married / giving birth / getting injured or sick / dying, rebellions, festivals, slavers or bandits or pirates making raids, etc.). This means that there is no story that I'm advocating for or against, and I can fulfill the role as arbiter pretty well. This leads to extremely low prep time for me, as well, which is a nice benefit.




The above, to me, is setting, not story. If a country declares war on another country and mobilizes its troops, I call that an "evolving setting" not "story." Story implies a certain amount of plot, or outline, or somesuch that I don't partake in. An "evolving setting" implies a setting (countries with armies, in this case) that evolves over time (two countries going to war).



CuRoi said:


> Many times, I'll throw in things which I did not have in this world design based on perhaps their characters interests/skills/abilities or even based on their ideas.
> 
> So, that's where my incredulity starts here - a GM that just sits down with some players and says "ok, you are a human cleric, a human fighter and an elf mage...ummm what next?" Seems like an interesting concept. Sort of a round robin story creation thing?
> 
> ...



In another thread I replied to recently, I wrote the following:


JamesonCourage said:


> I think it has more to do with protecting the players from consequences at any level, rather than specifically on life or death matters. If a PC's life is on the line (such as in combat), you don't fudge to save them (or fudge to kill them). If a PC's pride is on the line, you don't fudge to help it (or to hurt it). If a PC is attempting to do something (no matter what it is), you don't fudge to help them, or to hurt them. You don't really try to fudge results. You don't offer them protection from the big bad things in the world, but you don't arbitrarily throw them at the party.



With that in mind, I definitely have a defined setting with things for them to explore. They can go to the frozen wastes of the continent of Hyal and explore the Great Ruins there. They can travel from the elven nation of Nissalli through the hostile troll nation of Salik and into the Theyline Forest, hoping to make it to the Gates of Neecro where the Everlasting Song resides (the source of immortality for all the immortal races). They can take a short ferry ride led by preamesh (merfolk) from the coast to Drensara's abandoned keep, to see if they can find a lead on the pirates that visit it, or speak to the undead pniephrim (cat-like race) that inhabits it. They can go to Mount Malinthus during the three-way war between Voltonaire, the Empire of Jordana, and Sumein, and attempt to sell their sword to the highest bidder (probably the Empire of Jordana, but Sumein is less strict and the money is close). They can go off of the Mortal Realm to Sayreshi to take the fight to the demons (who are hurting after recently being driven off the Mortal Realm).

There are any number of places for them to explore. I definitely have a setting. Depending on events, I let it evolve naturally. I have no end goal in mind, nor any outline. Like you, I proving "a living, breathing world for them to explore." What I don't call it is a story, I call it an evolving setting (definition of "evolving": "Develop gradually, esp. from a simple to a more complex form"; definition of "setting": "The place or type of surroundings where something is positioned or where an event takes place"). I don't like calling it a "story" because of the implication that it has a destination in mind ("story" second definition: "A plot or story line").



CuRoi said:


> I think the most boring story you could ever read would be one where the main characters never find ways to show off their skills. Of course, if you are letting the players create all the scenarios on the fly, I suppsoe you get aorund this issue.
> 
> Usually, at my table, the players want to know say, what tavern they are in, what city they are in, who else is in the tavern etc. I'm providing a good deal of the background and things which may (or may not) motivate players ot act. I am pretty much a driving force in the "story" department as it unfolds.
> 
> I suppose what you guys are describing is an entirely collaborative effort where players just make some characters and then proceed to describe the world around them and al of their motivations for engagement in that world? Interesting!




I'm very much not a "narrative" GM. I strongly dislike that style of game for the fantasy genre. I don't like "collaborative storytelling" and I dislike the term "storyteller" for the GM. But, that's my personal preference. I think, really, that we're just using words differently.

As always, play what you like


----------



## S'mon (Aug 14, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> I'd love to read some game session logs if you have any because it would be interesting to see how one accomplishes a detailed, involved campaign setting if there are no stories scripted by yourself that are going on outside the immediate vicinity of the players. Is it a collaborative story telling where everyone just sort of makes up the world and events as they go along? Fascinating concept.




Um, well I'd say "stuff happens" not "story happens".  Factions are in conflict, various things are going on, but traditionally I'd be more likely to resolve stuff by random die roll than by pre-scripting.  And really I don't know whether my games would be "detailed involved campaign settings" by your criteria, though my players seem to enjoy them and normally I enjoy world-building.  I don't much go for "collaborative story telling", though I may solicit ideas from players, use elements of PC backstory, etc.

To repeat, I really have trouble relating to what you're talking about, because 'story' just isn't a concept that features at all in my normal GMing style.  I did try for a bit of a campaign arc in my last 3.5e campaign, which was interesting but I didn't feel was widely successful compared to my normal sandboxy approach.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 14, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> I'd love to read some game session logs if you have any because it would be interesting to see how one accomplishes a detailed, involved campaign setting if there are no stories scripted by yourself that are going on outside the immediate vicinity of the players.




You can check out logs for some online chatroom Wilderlands games I ran at Dragonsfoot here (may be some R-rated stuff in there though we always used 'fade to black'):  

Dragonsfoot • View topic - Wilderlands-CSIO NEXT GAME 14th March, 1pm UK time

There was certainly a lot of stuff going on outside the vicinity of the PCs, not sure how much that comes across in play.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 14, 2011)

CuRoi said:


> So never when playing the role of GM/Storteller whatever you may refer to it, do you _ever_ consider the abilities of the party at hand when thinking up, completely on the fly as it were, their adversaries and the ongoing storyline? DnD's level system alone makes it pretty tough to just completely ignore party capability.




Like I said, I may build encounters to an EL - eg last night I knew I'd have around 6 4th level PCs and the encounter was intended to be challenging for that number of PCs as a single spike encounter (3200 XP vs 4th level 4e PCs, monsters get 1/2 hp), but it wasn't tailored to particular PCs.  Actually had 7 players show up.

More commonly I'll create (or purchase) a sandboxy environment suited to a particular range of levels, the PCs start towards the bottom of that range, and are dropped in it.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 14, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Like I said, I may build encounters to an EL - eg last night I knew I'd have around 6 4th level PCs and the encounter was intended to be challenging for that number of PCs as a single spike encounter (3200 XP vs 4th level 4e PCs, monsters get 1/2 hp), but it wasn't tailored to particular PCs.  Actually had 7 players show up.
> 
> More commonly I'll create (or purchase) a sandboxy environment suited to a particular range of levels, the PCs start towards the bottom of that range, and are dropped in it.




..and at its heart we have a GM that is probably very good at sandbox style play in yourself, and a bunch of us that are more plot or script driven that allow the players to change stuff but aren't as sandbox based.  GMs will choose a style based on the needs of themselves and their players' preferences.

Both approaches are good, but if we're going to get into debate about what at its core is a GM approach issue, it's better to just accept that there are two good ways of doing things and stop elaborating just to see the post count go up 

KB


----------



## Greg K (Aug 14, 2011)

On the setting vs. story

I agree with JamesonCourage, creating a detailed world with background events happening is just setting. It is a place for which the characters to interact.

In my opinon, story is
1. What happens as or after the players engage with the setting and a particular adventure or campaign ends; and/or

2. Some campaign plot/outline the GM puts upon the players.  For instance, back when I larped, the Storyteller had a specific story in mind and gave us the illusion of choice.  

The illusion broke when my character killed his Big Bad Villainess.   After notifying the main Storyteller, the Assistant Storyteller returned to tell me he just had a big argument with the Storyteller, who was retconning the event. The Storyteller was letting her get away, because it would deny everyone else the big ending he later had planned for the campaign (Unfortunately, this also led to a falling out between the Storyteller and the Assistant, who had been good friends).

Later in the campaign, the Storyteller, completely, de-powered another character at the very end with a retcon to showcase his big ending with the big bad.  (The funny thing was the player of this character had just talked me into returning, after several months, stating that the Storyteller had stopped this behavior).


----------



## Greg K (Aug 14, 2011)

On the issue of tailored vs. status quo, I prefer to have a mix.

When I create the setting, I create a lot of status quo encounters- Major NPCs, Unique Monsters, tribes of monsters, etc., a dungeon or two (I don't use many dungeons)

However, I also use tailored encounters.  When I create the initial scenario for the campaign, I draw off of the PC backgrounds.  I take into account their level so they have some chance of success and I give them opportunities to use their abilities.  I don't, however, guarantee them success.

Following the initial adventure, the campaign is based on where the players choose to go and my having the world "respond" to the actions of the characters. If the players choose to go to a status quo encounter/area, I am not changing it whether it is too easy or too hard. 

On the other hand, I will use a tailored encounter if they return to character X's homeland where an encounter is waiting with the character's rival and his friends. I will, also throw in some status quo encounters/challenges if they make sense (e.g., the king's guards, the entry to the court wizard's lab).


----------



## Hussar (Aug 15, 2011)

Greg K said:


> On the setting vs. story
> 
> I agree with JamesonCourage, creating a detailed world with background events happening is just setting. It is a place for which the characters to interact.
> 
> ...




So, essentially, we have either sandbox or railroad?  I've never really bought that comparison.  For one, it's ridiculously easy to railroad in a sandbox, but, for another, saying that events that occur outside of the player's current view is setting is a really strange definition of "setting".

Orcs are raiding a caravan.  The call goes out for heroes.  Setting or Story?

While the PC's are doing something else, Baron Von Badass goes into their home and steals their Lucky Charms.  Setting or Story?

A demon prince hatches a plan which will result in massive destruction across Greyhawk.  Setting or Story?

I try to use setting in the meaning the word typically has - the location where the PC's exist.  It's like a geography or social studies class.  Sure, there might be some historical context there, there has to be, but, that's generally not going to have any immediate impact.  

Anything that has any sort of impact on the PC's is story or plot.  Plot or story answers why the PC's are adventuring.  And anything to do with that why is part and parcel to story.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I try to use setting in the meaning the word typically has - the location where the PC's exist. It's like a geography or social studies class. Sure, there might be some historical context there, there has to be, but, that's generally not going to have any immediate impact.




The PCs are travelling down a mountain trail. While on the trail a rockslide starts that might crush the entire party. I would say the setting could have a large impact in this case. 



Hussar said:


> Anything that has any sort of impact on the PC's is story or plot. Plot or story answers why the PC's are adventuring. And anything to do with that why is part and parcel to story.




The PCs answer why the PCs are adventuring. Plots there may be all over the place but each of them are tied to elements of the setting. 
If you happen to find one that isn't, pluck it like a weed.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Aug 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> So, essentially, we have either sandbox or railroad?



Did this one get ignored?


Greg K said:


> In my opinon, story is
> 1. What happens as or after the players engage with the setting and a particular adventure or campaign ends; and/or



By this definition, story seems more like retelling events. I don't see how that makes it "either sandbox or railroad".


----------



## Hussar (Aug 15, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> The PCs are travelling down a mountain trail. While on the trail a rockslide starts that might crush the entire party. I would say the setting could have a large impact in this case.




Why did the rockslide occur?  Random encounter?  Trap?  Something to knock off a couple of hit points before a larger encounter?

It would be extremely rare for that event to have occured in a complete vacuum.  




> The PCs answer why the PCs are adventuring. Plots there may be all over the place but each of them are tied to elements of the setting.
> If you happen to find one that isn't, pluck it like a weed.




That's a bit glib.  The PC's are in location X resolving Y because of the setting?  Because the players decided that Y will need resolving without any input from the DM?  

Of course plot is tied to the setting.  That's the definition of setting after all - the location where the plots occur.  Change the setting, change the plot.  

I am arguing against Greg K's point that all of these elements are wrapped up in setting and plot only occurs after the PC's are involved.


----------



## Janx (Aug 15, 2011)

Greg K said:


> The illusion broke when my character killed his Big Bad Villainess.   After notifying the main Storyteller, the Assistant Storyteller returned to tell me he just had a big argument with the Storyteller, who was retconning the event. The Storyteller was letting her get away, because it would deny everyone else the big ending he later had planned for the campaign (Unfortunately, this also led to a falling out between the Storyteller and the Assistant, who had been good friends).
> 
> Later in the campaign, the Storyteller, completely, de-powered another character at the very end with a retcon to showcase his big ending with the big bad.  (The funny thing was the player of this character had just talked me into returning, after several months, stating that the Storyteller had stopped this behavior).






Greg K said:


> The illusion broke when my character killed his Big Bad Villainess.   After notifying the main Storyteller, the Assistant Storyteller returned to tell me he just had a big argument with the Storyteller, who was retconning the event. The Storyteller was letting her get away, because it would deny everyone else the big ending he later had planned for the campaign (Unfortunately, this also led to a falling out between the Storyteller and the Assistant, who had been good friends).
> 
> Later in the campaign, the Storyteller, completely, de-powered another character at the very end with a retcon to showcase his big ending with the big bad.  (The funny thing was the player of this character had just talked me into returning, after several months, stating that the Storyteller had stopped this behavior).




That would be crappy GMing.  The GMs got caught in a dependency trap, and since there was a chain of command and presumably a lot of pre-planned stuff at a LARP, he was stuck in his rut.

In a regular game, I would have avoided your encounter if I thought you were to encounter her to soon, or assuming you were that motivated, then she gets whacked, and I move on to the material I wrote for "the BBEG is dead what happens next.

At a LARP, the GMs should have let her die, but then reveal it was an impostor, or some such, just to retain their plotted storyline (they are stuck in a bigger rut, because of having so many people and heavy scripting).  Thus, your victory would reveal some new info (she's got doubles), yet retain some of their original plans.

At a game table, i think a GM should be nimble enough to adapt to surprising outcomes, and decide if its a game ender, a setback/complication, or a new direction.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Why did the rockslide occur? Random encounter? Trap? Something to knock off a couple of hit points before a larger encounter?




It might have happened because these things just happen in that environment sometimes. No sinister intent. 



Hussar said:


> It would be extremely rare for that event to have occured in a complete vacuum.




Yes. The event was assuming normal gravity and atmosphere. 




Hussar said:


> That's a bit glib. The PC's are in location X resolving Y because of the setting? Because the players decided that Y will need resolving without any input from the DM?




Not because of the setting, because of themselves. Have you never had players undertake adventures for reasons of thier own?




Hussar said:


> I am arguing against Greg K's point that all of these elements are wrapped up in setting and plot only occurs after the PC's are involved.




It depends on the plot. If Baron Badass hatches a plot to destroy the PCs then logically that plot can't exist without the PCs. If the Overlord of Ultimate Suffering devises a scheme to control weather and water flow in an area and demand ransom to relieve the drought, then he can set his plot into motion with or without the PCs becoming involved. In this case the villain might be a bit happier if the PC's _didn't _get involved.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 15, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> at its heart we have a GM that is probably very good at sandbox style play in yourself, and a bunch of us that are more plot or script driven that allow the players to change stuff but aren't as sandbox based.  GMs will choose a style based on the needs of themselves and their players' preferences.
> 
> Both approaches are good



These are not the only two approaches to running an RPG. There is also the approach that is particularly identified with indie games like Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel etc, but is not limited to them (and in my view and experience existed as a playstyle well before those games were published.)

In this approach, the GM is responsible for framing situations which (i) tie into the interests/concerns of the players as expressed via their PCs, and (ii) which, when the PCs engage them, will produce consequences which (iii) are reflective of the players' interests/concerns, and which (iv) lead to new situations being framed. Rinse and repeat until the game is done.

Unlike a sandbox, in this sort of the game it is the GM and not the players who has the greatest degree of authority over scene-framing. Unlike a "scripted" game, it is the players as much as the GM who have control over the way that scenes are resolved (excatly how this is achieved goes to the heart of action resolution in this sort of game).

It is crucial to this sort of game that the GM not predetermine the outcome of scenes, because this would vitiate (iii) above, and thereby vitiate (i) above.



Greg K said:


> In my opinon, story is
> 1. What happens as or after the players engage with the setting and a particular adventure or campaign ends; and/or
> 
> 2. Some campaign plot/outline the GM puts upon the players.



I think this omits a third possibility, namely, that story is what the players and GM jointly create in the course of playing the game - the GM by framing scenes, the players by engaging them via their PCs. There are a lot of games written to achieve exactly this sort of play - I've mentioned some of them above - and a lot of other games can be played, with more or less difficulty depending on the details of their mechanics, in this fashion. (In my own experience, 4e is extremely easy to play this way. In fact, it is almost as if it were written for it. Playing AD&D or Rolemaster like this is in my experience harder, due to various mechanical features, but by no means absurdly so.)



Hussar said:


> So, essentially, we have either sandbox or railroad?  I've never really bought that comparison.



I'm not 100% sure what you have in mind as the third way, but I had a similar sort of response. My third way (which is really a very common third way) is described above in this post.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 15, 2011)

EW said:
			
		

> Not because of the setting, because of themselves. Have you never had players undertake adventures for reasons of thier own?




Sure.  But, without any DM input?  That would be difficult, but not impossible, to do.  By and large, even if the PC's have some goal in mind, it's the DM who's creating the adventure, including having a rockslide occur while the PC's are traveling from A to B.  

That rockslide occurs for a reason.  Every single time.   That reason might be to add verisimilitude, to add excitement, to whittle away character resources, or any number of other reasons.  But, it will always have a reason for occurring.

And, since it has a reason for happening at this point in time to these people, it's plot, not setting.

The Overlord of Ultimate Suffering devises a scheme to do something?  That's plot.  That, right there, is plot, not setting.  

I know people seem to think that plot is a bad four letter word, but, that's only because people equate plot with railroad.  Any time you have events in your game that occur with the idea that maybe your players will want to engage in those events, that's plot.

WHERE those things happen is setting.  A sandbox without plot is just a travel guide.  Might make an interesting read, but, it's about as interesting as watching paint dry to actually play.  A good sandbox has plots.  It has oodles of plots.  It has all sorts of things happening.

Where those things happen is setting.  Why, how and when those things happen?  That's plot.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And, since it has a reason for happening at this point in time to these people, it's plot, not setting.




A roll of "landslide" on the d% 'Mountain Random Encounters Table' is _plot_?


----------



## Pilgrim (Aug 15, 2011)

S'mon said:


> A roll of "landslide" on the d% 'Mountain Random Encounters Table' is _plot_?



Agreed.

Plot, IMO, is the reason behind the PCs traveling to or through the mountainous region. If they're seeking the hermit living at the top of a summit, or looking for the entrance to the dwarven stronghold, those are the plot. A randomly rolled landslide on an encounters table, that is just a random encounter that in the end becomes a part of the story, but not the plot.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 15, 2011)

pemerton said:


> These are not the only two approaches to running an RPG.




1. Never said they were, but thank you for elaborating.

On your other methods, burning wheel etc.

2. Games need new gimmicks to differentiate themselves from D&D and they need to do it in a very direct way to be noted.  There's no real difference in my mind between framing a scene and letting the players determine the outcome and what could happen in a sandbox or less sandbox-y game.

So while I completely understand your point and accept it at the level of granularity you're coming at it from; I was operating at a higher abstraction level for the purpose of my post.

Best, 
KB


----------



## Hussar (Aug 15, 2011)

S'mon said:


> A roll of "landslide" on the d% 'Mountain Random Encounters Table' is _plot_?




Yes, absolutely.

Why is that on the Mountain Random Encounter Table?  Why are the PC's IN the mountains in the first place?  

The mountains?  Those are setting.  That's where the action takes place.  Several tons of falling rocks slamming in the party, killing their horses, sweeping them off the cliff face, forcing them to get lost - how is that not plot?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> The Overlord of Ultimate Suffering devises a scheme to do something? That's plot. That, right there, is plot, not setting.
> 
> I know people seem to think that plot is a bad four letter word, but, that's only because people equate plot with railroad. Any time you have events in your game that occur with the idea that maybe your players will want to engage in those events, that's plot.




Plots are not bad and are kind of required if there is anyone at all in the campaign world with any goals or motivations. My point about the Overlord's plot was that it does not require the involvement of the PCs at all to remain a valid plot. 

Plots only become bad things when the DM tries to use them to usurp free agency. If a plot involves "having the players visit X" or "having the players do X" from a DM/authorial standpoint then the plot belongs in a novel not a game.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 15, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Plots are not bad and are kind of required if there is anyone at all in the campaign world with any goals or motivations. My point about the Overlord's plot was that it does not require the involvement of the PCs at all to remain a valid plot.
> 
> Plots only become bad things when the DM tries to use them to usurp free agency. If a plot involves "having the players visit X" or "having the players do X" from a DM/authorial standpoint then the plot belongs in a novel not a game.




Oh, totally agree.  Although, to be fair, your first example, "Have the players visit X" isn't always such a bad thing.  Often it's a fairly predictable result of play.  The players choose to go to town X.  It's a sandbox game and something they're likely going to need at some point (such as resurrection magic) is in town Y.  Having events keyed off of them visiting town Y isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Unless, of course, the DM deliberately whacks one PC just to force them to go to town Y.  But, again, it's all about degree.  Having something useful in Town Y is not railroading.  Nor is it really railroading to have the Macguffin in Town Y.  Not necessarily.  Linear yes, railroading no.

This is where I get bogged down in the whole sandbox vs railroading thing.  I can railroad every bit as easily as in any other style of game.  The other side of the fence from sandbox is linear, not railroad.  

A linear adventure is not a railroad, any more than it is impossible to railroad in a sandbox.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 15, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Personally I dislike this approach, I don't think the DM should be designing around the precise abilities of my PC.  As DM I prefer *not* to know what individual PCs are capable of.  If I tailor, it's to a general encounter level, not to individual PCs.  I find the game a lot more satisfying that way - the world feels more real, the challenge feels more genuine.




I think I didn't elaborate enough and you misunderstood me. I'm not saying a DM should tailor around precise abilities of the PCs necessarily. You should use whatever method you wish to set the DCs of specific tasks. You could have predetermined in your setting that deciphering that particular ancient script was a DC 30 task. When the time comes and you decide to use that script and you see that the best Arcana in the group is +10, then you should be aware that there is a 95% chance the characters will fail and be at least mentally prepared for common courses of action they may consider taking at that point.



S'mon said:


> Well, I don't run a game with a pre-written story, it's up to the players to create a story.




I have to agree with others. I think we're crossing hairs with the terms "setting" and "story." I think we'd find that our styles of play are much more similar than it seems in this discussion. You make it sound like you plop down the setting map in front of your players and ask "Now what do you do?" I'm sure you don't actually do that. I'm sure you present your players with events occurring around them and then ask "Now what do you do?"

While it seems you think others sit down with a Paizo AP and force the players to follow the tracks all the way to the end. I've run APs before and it starts much the same as I imagine your campaigns do. I present the players with what is going on around them and ask "Now what do you do?" Usually, as a group, we've already expressed interest in the AP before play began and it would be very unlikely for the players at that point to change their mind and not take the hook. But if they didn't I would let events unfold around them based on their actions.



S'mon said:


> Um, well I'd say "stuff happens" not "story happens".  Factions are in conflict, various things are going on, but traditionally I'd be more likely to resolve stuff by random die roll than by pre-scripting.




My point is that "random die roll" is just as scripted as "pre-scripting." Even if you use tables from a published book or those of your own creation, you are scripting possible events in your campaign world with an element of randomness thrown in. It still boils down to the DM deciding how events unfold in his world.



ExploderWizard said:


> It might have happened because these things just happen in that environment sometimes. No sinister intent.




I don't think anyone is implying sinister intent. I believe Hussar is merely trying to point out what I said above. That rockslide occurred because of DM input, whether planned to occur 100% of the time or as a random mountain occurance on "environmental table M." It didn't happen because the players made their own story.



ExploderWizard said:


> Not because of the setting, because of themselves. Have you never had players undertake adventures for reasons of thier own?




For *reasons* of their own? Yes. But there usually has to be some thing or event or location in the seting that the party sets their sights on. Without some kind of cue from the DM, the players are in the vaccuum that Hussar mentioned.



S'mon said:


> A roll of "landslide" on the d% 'Mountain Random Encounters Table' is _plot_?




I wouldn't say plot. But it is story. Story only made possible by the DM choosing to use the d% 'Mountain Random Encounters Table' or another method of his choice.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I know people seem to think that plot is a bad four letter word, but, that's only because people equate plot with railroad.  Any time you have events in your game that occur with the idea that maybe your players will want to engage in those events, that's plot.



It might seem to be a minor point, but I think it is helpful to distinguish _the GM's influence over situation_ - that is, events occurring with the idea that maybe the players will want to engage with them - and what, for lack of a better phrase, I'll call _the GM's influence over plot_ - what happens as a result of the players' engagement with those situations.

The reason I think it is helpful to distinguish these things is not for any sort of fundamental reason to do with literary theory, but a more practical reason to do with satisfactory RPGing: where they are not distinguished, the game can have a tendency to degenerate into GM-controlled railroading (in my view 2nd ed AD&D has a lot of rules text, and many modules, that tend in this direction).

So "The PCs are struck by a landslide as they climb the Mountains of Doom" is, in this terminology, not _plot_, but _situation_. It gives rise to the question, "What do they do?" Answers might range from "Take shelter under an overhang and rope themselves together" to "Sacrifice a mule to the god of the earth in supplication!" In my experience, it is when GMs try to take control of the answer - or to thwart those groups of players who do not select the GM's preferred answer - that concerns about "pre-scripting" or railroading arise.

Furthermore, once the GM allows the players to choose how to respond to the situation, then the parameters for framing the next scene change. Perhaps the PCs no longer have a mule. Or, having roped themselves together, perhaps they are all swept down the mountainside! Another cause of railroading is GMs not being prepared to deal with the (potentially wide-ranging) consequences of player choices in engaging situations. GMs who assert control over these consequences (eg by suspending or ignoring the action resolution mechanics), in order to maintain some pre-determined sequences of situations and their parameters, give rise to concerns about pre-scripted plotting.

From my point of view, I want to ask: if the sequence of situations, and the general parameters of their outcomes, have been predetermined by the GM, _then what are the players contributing to the fiction in the course of play_? Not much more than a bit of colour and some details of narration ("I use my sword" or "I use my bow"), as far as I can see.



Kobold Boots said:


> There's no real difference in my mind between framing a scene and letting the players determine the outcome and what could happen in a sandbox or less sandbox-y game.



I wonder, are you saying this based on play experience, or on the basis of theoretical speculation?

My own view and experience is that there is a significant difference between a sandbox, in which the _players_ exercise authority over the situation, and the style of play in which the GM exercises authority over the situation. To put it crudely, in a sandbox, players have to seek out trouble for their PCs (as [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] points out with his example of the evil overlord's scheming going on independently of the PCs). In the approach that I described, the GM frames scenes so that trouble _comes to_ the PCs.

And the tools needed by each approach are quite different. A sandbox needs world-buidling, for example - whether in the literal sense, or random tables and charts that "encode" a world (like random landslide charts). [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] has lots of interesting ideas about how this can be done.

Whereas the sort of approach that I am talking about doesn't need world building or random landslide charts. Whether or not a landslide takes place won't be determined by a random chart - it will occur either because the GM deliberately chooses to frame such a scene (for the reason that it will engage the players in some fashion), or as a _consequence_ of action resolution, in which case it won't be determined by a random landslide chart, but rather by something more like failure on a skill check or skill challenge.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I wouldn't say plot. But it is story. Story only made possible by the DM choosing to use the d% 'Mountain Random Encounters Table' or another method of his choice.




It might become part of some story later but story has no meaning during the event in actual play. The PC's are not participating in a story about a rockslide, they are experiencing one.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 15, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> It might become part of some story later but story has no meaning during the event in actual play. The PC's are not participating in a story about a rockslide, they are experiencing one.




Sorry, but the PC's never experience anything.  Ever.  They are fictional creations.

OTOH, the players are most certainly participating in a story about a rockslide.

Unless your games have a much higher mortality rate among players, none of your players is actually experiencing a rock slide.  They are pretending to experience that.  And, as such, they're creating a story about a fictional character being in a landslide.

And, that landslide is still plot.



			
				Pemerton said:
			
		

> It might seem to be a minor point, but I think it is helpful to distinguish the GM's influence over situation - that is, events occurring with the idea that maybe the players will want to engage with them - and what, for lack of a better phrase, I'll call the GM's influence over plot - what happens as a result of the players' engagement with those situations.




I don't want to split things quite that far to be honest.  What is a "situation" if it's not a plot?  Plot is quite simply the events that occur in a story.  In an RPG, the outcome of those events are not pre-determined, but, they are still events that occur in the ongoing story.

Whether the players engage with a given idea or not, it's still plot.  Or, at the very least, it's not setting.

I really don't see the need to cloud the issue when plot is a perfectly serviceable word here.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 15, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> It might become part of some story later but story has no meaning during the event in actual play. The PC's are not participating in a story about a rockslide, they are experiencing one.






Hussar said:


> Sorry, but the PC's never experience anything.  Ever.  They are fictional creations. OTOH, the players are most certainly participating in a story about a rockslide.




I agree with Hussar here and I think EW is picking at nits. 




Hussar said:


> And, that landslide is still plot.






			
				American Heritage Cultural Dictionary said:
			
		

> *plot* (noun) - The organization of events in a work of fiction.




What each side of this debate is focusing upon may be where we split in opinion, yet actually mean the same thing. 

What I (and I think Hussar) call plot are "events in a work of fiction." As Hussar pointed out, the rockslide is a 'work of fiction.' My point is that whether the fiction was determined directy by the DM or his choice to use a random table does not make it any more or less a work of fiction. Thus, the rockslide, as a work of fiction, is plot.

What I think EW, S'mon and others are focusing on is "organization of events" as if plot necessarily dictates organizing plot points as an author would in a novel. I disagree with this premise. The organization is what I refer to when I say the DM can choose to have the event occur because he believes that would be an occurance to happen during mountain travel or because he chose to use a random chart. To me each DM is organizing via his own preferred method, events of plot in his fictional world.

Another possibility is that some are linking to another definition of plot. The meaning of the verb plot, as in plotting the future course of the campaign before player input. I'm not calling for that to be clear and I presume neither is Hussar.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Sorry, but the PC's never experience anything. Ever. They are fictional creations.
> 
> OTOH, the players are most certainly participating in a story about a rockslide.




This is the difference between roleplaying and storytelling.

 When roleplaying you are (through the perspective of the character) experiencing a rockslide. 

When storytelling you are participating in a story about a rockslide.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I don't want to split things quite that far to be honest.  What is a "situation" if it's not a plot?



Well, generally - in a novel or a movie, say - the plot would be _what happens when the protagonist engages with the situation_.



Hussar said:


> Plot is quite simply the events that occur in a story.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I really don't see the need to cloud the issue when plot is a perfectly serviceable word here.



For me, the need to "cloud the issue" results from a desire to be clear about which participant in the game has authority over what sorts of events.

Because there a distinct group of participants - the non-GM players - who have a special sort of control over the protagonists, I think it is helpful to distinguish _those events in the story which create a context for protagonism_ and _those events in the story which are the expression of protagonism_.

Drawing this distinction has relevance for practical techniques of play, too, as well as for avoiding railroading. In a sandbox, for example, the events that provide the context for protagonism might be determined by rolling on random tables, or by decisions made in the course of world building ("status quo" encounters). Whereas in my personally preferred approach to play they are determined by deliberate choices on the part of the GM having regard to the particular players at hand, and the particular PCs that they are playing.

(This also shows the significance of the difference between "setting" and "plot". A sandbox game relies upon a setting, whether predetermined or encoded in random tables. A BW-style situation-driven game doesn't need a setting in the same way. I get frustrated when world-building sandboxers misunderstand, or ignore, how a situation-driven game is played. But I think it is equally mistaken to ignore the distinct role that "setting" plays in a sandbox.)



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> What I (and I think Hussar) call plot are "events in a work of fiction." As Hussar pointed out, the rockslide is a 'work of fiction.' My point is that whether the fiction was determined directy by the DM or his choice to use a random table does not make it any more or less a work of fiction. Thus, the rockslide, as a work of fiction, is plot.



The definition you cited did refer to "the organisation of events in a work of fiction". Very crudely, this is "what happens next". Deciding who, in an RPG, gets to decide what happens next, is not a small thing. It's one of the most fundamental issues of RPG play. 



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The organization is what I refer to when I say the DM can choose to have the event occur because he believes that would be an occurance to happen during mountain travel or because he chose to use a random chart. To me each DM is organizing via his own preferred method, events of plot in his fictional world.



There are no doubts that a GM can adopt different approaches to framing situations. As I've indicated above, these different approaches can suit different broader playstyles.

What is key, in my view, is _who gets to decide what happens next_. Once the GM has decided that a rockslide is occurring, who gets to decide how the PCs respond? And to what extent must that response be taken seriously in framing future situations?

Classic D&D doesn't use this sort of language, but it clearly cares about the issues. If the players decide that their PCs consume certain resources in dealing with the situation, for instance, then those resources are not available for future use, and the GM must frame future scenes having regard for that - for example, if the PCs decide to shelter under an overhang while leaving their mule to its fate, then the GM is precluded from beginning the next bit of play by saying "As your mule continues up the mountainside, . . ."

In the Burning Wheel, if the players succeed at a check in the course of dealing with a particular event, then the results of that check stand. The GM can't just override it, either by fiat, or by calling for recheck after recheck until a check is failed. (Likewise for a failed check - a player can't check-monger for success, but must find a new way forward for her/his PC.)

Because, as a general rule, the GM cannot know what resources will be deployed and consumed, what checks attempted, and of any checks attempted whether they will succeed or fail, the GM cannot, as a general rule, know what the upshot of any given event in the fiction will be. And therefore cannot know what will come next. This is at the heart of the way in which both classic D&D, and a modern game like BW, avoid railroading (although in other respects they are oviously very different games supporting very different playstyles).

Conversely, a GM who has _already_ decided what will come next, and who ignores the upshot of the action resolution mechanics, or who introduces new elements into the fiction in order to render those upshots irrelevant (eg the PCs lose their mule on the mountainside, but the GM's predetermined plot calls fro the PCs to have a mule, and so a fresh mule is discovered wandering aimlessly on the very next ledge), is in my view tending to render the players' choices irrelevant. Those choices are contributing colour ("Yep, Muley the trusty mule was swept away by a rockfall - but here's Muley the Second!") but not much else.

I am happy to accept that this can be a matter of degree - for example, if the GM is adopting a Roads-to-Rome approach, but the manner in which the players' choices bring their PCs to Rome has a significant impact on how the climax in Rome plays out - not just epiphenomenal colour, for example, but colour that goes to the thematic heart of play; or, perhaps, prior decisions about resource consumption that affect the mechanical parameters for the climactic encounter - then player protagonism might be maintained. But _something_ still has to be left up to the players, in my view, to get satisfactory RPGing. If it's all predetermined - sequence of events, thematic signicance, resources available for meeting the situation, outcome (except perhaps for the final, climactic challenge) - then what is the role of the players? To "experience the story" and make some local tactical decisions (which ultimately won't matter in any event)?

In the end, I don't think I disagree with you (VB) or Hussar that their are events in, or elements of, the fiction over which the GM exercises significant control. But I think by calling it all "plot" you are eliding some issues that are at the heart of satisfactory RPGing, and which different approaches to play - sandboxing, situation-driven play, adventure-path play - handle in very different ways.


----------



## SlyDoubt (Aug 15, 2011)

Accidentally hit back and got rid of the whole post. Argh.

I think optimization is associated with people more concerned with rules than playing and the experience around the table with friends or like-minded people. In most groups I think the optimizer is one of those outlying personalities. Like the guy who just wants to roleplay and doesn't have much interest in combat. They both throw the balance off and give the DM and most likely the players more work to deal with.

It's not the optimization itself. It's everything that comes along with that kind of player (9/10 times).

How do you get around these problems? Build characters as a group with the DM. My group of 10+ years has always done this for a number of reasons. 

DM (me) can make sure everyone is making what they want and can find useful information easily.

Players can discuss what they want with each other and make sure their bases are reasonably covered. 

So really it's just communication. The more character creation is a group effort, the better for everyone imho. Then the optimizer can make suggestions and explain rules and the more roleplaying type can tell the optimizer the cool ideas he imagined for the optimizer's character. As long as your players are comfortable with each other, play usually figures itself out no matter how unbalanced things may seem.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Aug 15, 2011)

"Plot" is not a good word for me because of the connotations:


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> plot
> 1.
> a. A small piece of ground, generally used for a specific purpose: a garden plot.
> b. A measured area of land; a lot.
> ...



All of the above are relevant to this discussion, and all of them imply a certain amount of secret guidance to the narrative, or that there is a featured narrative or "main story" (beyond "what do you do now?"). There's one definition that talks about "arrange the action and incidents" which could be useful, but it's not framing the incidents, it's actually the arranging the actions and incidents.

With setting, it's entirely different:


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> setting
> *1. the surroundings in which something is set; scene*
> *2. (Performing Arts / Theatre) (Performing Arts) the scenery, properties, or background, used to create the location for a stage play, film, etc.
> *3. (Music, other) Music a composition consisting of a certain text and music provided or arranged for it
> ...



The first two quotes of setting are relevant, and instead of carrying the connotation of guidance, carry one of scenery. Setting is the framing of situations, not necessarily with an ending or progression in mind. The second definition even includes all background, such as scenery (landmarks) and properties (social setting, creatures, etc.) of the setting.

While "plot" has connotations of "guidance" or "main story", setting has connotations of "game world" with no such story in mind. I like using the phrase "evolving setting" because of the connotations of each word. Here's evolving:


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> e·volve
> v. e·volved, e·volv·ing, e·volves
> 1.
> *a. To develop or achieve gradually: evolve a style of one's own.*
> ...



"Evolving" has a connotation of gradual, natural change to it, though it could be applied to plot, setting, science, or anything. By combining the "natural change" connotation of "evolving" with the "game world background" connotation of "setting, you get a phrase that basically means, "a naturally changing game world, independent of any main story". Thus, I like the phrase "evolving setting".

At any rate, just my thoughts on it. I think the there's a very different implication when someone uses the world "plot" as compared to the word "setting". As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Aug 15, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> This is the difference between roleplaying and storytelling.
> 
> When roleplaying you are (through the perspective of the character) experiencing a rockslide.
> 
> When storytelling you are participating in a story about a rockslide.



Sorry, but I'm not sure this makes sense.

What does it mean to experience something through the perspective of a character? The only sense I can make of that is that I imagine someone else experiencing something - that is, I imagine a story/fiction - and then I identify myself in some fashion with that imaginary person.

It is the identification with the protagonist that (in my view) tends to be characteristic of roleplaying.

Here is Vincent Baker on the issue of fiction in roleplaying:

Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players and GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not.

So you're sitting at the table and one player says, "[let's imagine that] an orc jumps out of the underbrush!"

What has to happen before the group agrees that, indeed, an orc jumps out of the underbrush?

1. Sometimes, not much at all. The right participant said it, at an appropriate moment, and everybody else just incorporates it smoothly into their imaginary picture of the situation. "An orc! Yikes! Battlestations!" This is how it usually is for participants with high ownership of whatever they're talking about: GMs describing the weather or the noncombat actions of NPCs, players saying what their characters are wearing or thinking.

2. Sometimes, a little bit more. "Really? An orc?" "Yeppers." "Huh, an orc. Well, okay." Sometimes the suggesting participant has to defend the suggestion: "Really, an orc this far into Elfland?" "Yeah, cuz this thing about her tribe..." "Okay, I guess that makes sense."

3. Sometimes, mechanics. "An orc? Only if you make your having-an-orc-show-up roll. Throw down!" "Rawk! 57!" "Dude, orc it is!" The thing to notice here is that the mechanics serve the exact same purpose as the explanation about this thing about her tribe in point 2, which is to establish your credibility wrt the orc in question.

4. And sometimes, lots of mechanics and negotiation. Debate the likelihood of a lone orc in the underbrush way out here, make a having-an-orc-show-up roll, a having-an-orc-hide-in-the-underbrush roll, a having-the-orc-jump-out roll, argue about the modifiers for each of the rolls, get into a philosophical thing about the rules' modeling of orc-jump-out likelihood... all to establish one little thing. Wave a stick in a game store and every game you knock of the shelves will have a combat system that works like this.

(Plenty of suggestions at the game table don't get picked up by the group, or get revised and modified by the group before being accepted, all with the same range of time and attention spent negotiating.)

So look, you! Mechanics might model the stuff of the game world, that's another topic, but they don't exist to do so. They exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.​
What is at stake, in the contrast between playstyles, is not whether we are "roleplaying" or "storytelling", but how we distribute authority in respect of the fiction across various participants in the game, and what variety of tools are used to help achieve this distribution of authority, and make it work.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 15, 2011)

pemerton said:
			
		

> I wonder, are you saying this based on play experience, or on the basis of theoretical speculation?
> 
> My own view and experience is that there is a significant difference between a sandbox, in which the _players_ exercise authority over the situation, and the style of play in which the GM exercises authority over the situation. To put it crudely, in a sandbox, players have to seek out trouble for their PCs (as [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] points out with his example of the evil overlord's scheming going on independently of the PCs). In the approach that I described, the GM frames scenes so that trouble _comes to_ the PCs.
> 
> ...





I'm stating this based on experience.

My players and I undertake an active world-building and character-building exercise at the beginning of any campaign that allows them to influence what the campaign world is and what their characters are across any number of possible categories.  This is more sandboxy.

It's then my responsibility to get them through however many levels of play they want to play through and that's part of the group's social contract.  The one I'm currently running is set for 30 levels of 4e and they're at level 9ish right now after about a year and a half of regular play.

My responsibility is to then provide them with the type of experience they want, which in the case of my players is a combination of them creating trouble and me giving them something to do.  I run an adventure path agreed upon by the group with the understanding that I'm folding in the results of the world building exercise into the path.  This prevents the path from being something a player could read and completely ruin.

Additionally, it's understood that they could tangent off into other plot hooks or threads and depart from the path at any time, to do whatever they wish, but that the path will still be going on in the background and they'll likely have to deal with it at some point.  Of course, whether it's the path as written or not by the time they get to it, or they're cleaning up the mess someone else failed on.. 

So in doing this I keep track of the plot players create, and the plot the game world has going on.  It's not railroading, but it's not sandbox either.

The reason why I'm abstracting on the topic is because I think most people's games have elements of story and sandbox and the arguments posted here assuming some campaigns exist with an absolute polarity towards one or the other may be true, but certainly not the majority.

2c.
KB


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 15, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Well, generally - in a novel or a movie, say - the plot would be _what happens when the protagonist engages with the situation_.




I think this is an apt description of plot in an RPG as well. Sometimes, as with the rockslide, engagement may be thrust upon the protagonists.



pemerton said:


> For me, the need to "cloud the issue" results from a desire to be clear about which participant in the game has authority over what sorts of events.
> 
> Because there a distinct group of participants - the non-GM players - who have a special sort of control over the protagonists, I think it is helpful to distinguish _those events in the story which create a context for protagonism_ and _those events in the story which are the expression of protagonism_.
> 
> ...




If I'm reading you right I generally agree with you. Except I think the term "sandbox" has muddied the waters with reactions from elitism to derision and varied meanings across that sceptrum. A sandbox at its core should be a setting with events that the players react to. Do we agree? If so, then what would you call a campaign that starts in a Paizo AP setting and the initial events of the AP unfold? My players react to the events and decide how they will deal with them. They are not forced to follow any path and may in fact decide to go raise sheep instead. Yet they choose to follow the cause of adventure and often follow a path quite similar to what the AP's author anticipated. AP are often derided for their "railroadish" nature. So which is it really?



pemerton said:


> The definition you cited did refer to "the organisation of events in a work of fiction". Very crudely, this is "what happens next". Deciding who, in an RPG, gets to decide what happens next, is not a small thing. It's one of the most fundamental issues of RPG play.
> 
> There are no doubts that a GM can adopt different approaches to framing situations. As I've indicated above, these different approaches can suit different broader playstyles.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 15, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> My players and I undertake an active world-building and character-building exercise at the beginning of any campaign that allows them to influence what the campaign world is and what their characters are across any number of possible categories.  This is more sandboxy.



That doesn't sound "sandboxy" to me.

In a sandbox setting, players explore the world. They don't create it.

In my experience, opinion, mileage, and all that.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Aug 15, 2011)

Vyvyan, thanks for the civil response. Know that I reply to this with nothing but goodwill in mind.


Vyvyan Basterd said:


> It's not secretive, though. The DM is and has always been know to have certain controls over what happens in the game world. That's his job. In a good game, the players have controls over the elements involving the choices their characters make. There are no hostile or illegal intents here. There is no scheme to force a course of action in a good game.



Again, plot:


			
				plot said:
			
		

> 4. The pattern of events or main story in a narrative or drama.



The problem with this is that plot assumes a "main story in a narrative" which setting does not assume. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.


			
				plot said:
			
		

> 5. A secret plan to accomplish a hostile or illegal purpose; a scheme.



This definition has the condition of a secret plan. The big part here is having a plan at all. With setting, there is no base assumption of a plan. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.


			
				plot said:
			
		

> 3. To conceive and arrange the action and incidents of:



This definition mentions arranging the action and incidents ("I began plotting novels at about the time I learned to read"). This carries the connotation not just of framing conditions, but also of resolving them through action. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.


			
				plot said:
			
		

> 4. To form a plot for; prearrange secretly or deviously



This first half of the definition only helps if we used other definitions of plot (which carry the connotations mentioned above). The second is fairly acceptable on its own, but since it is coupled with the first half (which relies on other definitions of plot to define itself), the connotations remain the same. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.



> Setting is important to the game. But once the characters decide to interact with the setting it becomes plot. Even if you decide on the spot as DM what the characters encounter when they move to interact with the setting, you've just created plot.



Based on the above, I disagree with your definitions, but I think we agree on the sentiment (which is the real meat of the discussion). To me, plot carries the connotation of "main story in a narrative" that setting does not, and that makes it less appropriate in my mind to explain the style of play I'm commenting on.



> At any rate it all boils down to words. The only reason I share my interpretations of the words I'm using here is so I can communicate my feeling to all of you. I can't let "plot" settle at your definition as it would not allow me to express my view. And it seems that view is much the same between our games despite the fact that I say "plot" and you say "evolving setting."



Yep, I think we actually agree in sentiment, if not our definitions. And, like most people I find myself disagreeing with, I could probably play at your table without any huge problems. As always play what you like


----------



## pemerton (Aug 15, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think the term "sandbox" has muddied the waters with reactions from elitism to derision and varied meanings across that sceptrum. A sandbox at its core should be a setting with events that the players react to. Do we agree? If so, then what would you call a campaign that starts in a Paizo AP setting and the initial events of the AP unfold? My players react to the events and decide how they will deal with them. They are not forced to follow any path and may in fact decide to go raise sheep instead. Yet they choose to follow the cause of adventure and often follow a path quite similar to what the AP's author anticipated. AP are often derided for their "railroadish" nature. So which is it really?
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think our games would all run very similarly and the only differences we are arriving at are disputes of language.



To be honest, I don't know if our games would run similarly or not.

I know, for example, that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has posted in the past that when he wants to run a game that is driven by player engagement with thematic material, he doesn't use D&D. Whereas that is how my D&D game plays. Which makes me think that Hussar's D&D games are at least somewhat different from mine. (Some of this came out on the recent Is D&D About Combat? thread.)

You say that your game is based around an adventure path, which the players choose to follow rather than "going to raise sheep" instead. As I understand it, an adventure path has a more-or-less predetermined villain, and a more-or-less predetermined series of scenes that the PCs will proceed through before confronting that villain. When the players choose to engage the adventure path, as best I understand it, they are choosing to pick up on hooks that the module authors have built into the path. They follow the module author's leads as far as importance and theme are concerned.

If my understanding of adventure path play is correct, this is quite different from how I run my game. My game is based on framing situations that engage the players in virtue of the details (backstory, previous actions, thematic concerns that they express, etc) of the players' PCs. The key thematic ideas of the campaign are emergent from play, not settled in advance.

And I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION]'s game plays diffferently again. He uses a combination of detailed setting notes and random tables that "encode" the setting and genre to support his players engaging in genre-reflective exploration of and engagement with early modern France.

I agree that some sandboxers talk in elitist terms, as if the only alternative to a sandbox is a railroad. I don't agree with that at all. But I'm hesitant to therefore conclue that our games are all very similar. The distribution of situational and plot authority across players and GM, and the mechanical and other tools used to achieve this and build on it, make a difference. That is why (for example) playing classic AD&D is a different experience to playing Dragonlance, or playing Burning Wheel!

EDIT:



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> The DM is and has always been know to have certain controls over what happens in the game world.



It makes a huge difference to play, though, what sort of control the GM has.

For example, is the GM obliged to respect the players' decisions about resource use? About PC backstory? About thematic significance? Contrast the rules text on these issues found in (say) The Burning Wheel with the text on these issues found in (say) 2nd ed AD&D. Or whether or not a game even supports the notion of "sidequest" (AD&D 2nd ed does; BW doesn't).

To just lump this all under "GM control" is to elide all the differences that are in play in the range of mainstream approaches to playing and GMing an RPG.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 15, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> That doesn't sound "sandboxy" to me.
> 
> In a sandbox setting, players explore the world. They don't create it.
> 
> In my experience, opinion, mileage, and all that.




Explaining why it is sandbox would require me to: 

1. Define sandbox for the purposes of my post, which will result in another thread in this post with a dictionary definition and at least three more telling me why my definition doesn't suit someone else's definition.  Not worth it.

2. Elaborate on my process, which would require a lengthy post and attachments that I don't have on my laptop at the moment, taking this thread further off topic.  Not necessary.

I'll try something simple instead: 

It's sandbox because my players are exploring their likes and dislikes as a unit before they start playing together.  They're helping with the frame of the box and are thus outside the box.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 15, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Yes, absolutely.
> 
> Why is that on the Mountain Random Encounter Table?  Why are the PC's IN the mountains in the first place?
> 
> The mountains?  Those are setting.  That's where the action takes place.  Several tons of falling rocks slamming in the party, killing their horses, sweeping them off the cliff face, forcing them to get lost - how is that not plot?




So to you, anything that happens in the game is 'plot'?  I think you have a very broad definition of the word.

To me, a plot would be pre-scripted stuff like "Lady Marcombe will murder the Earl of Dulwich in the Tea Room".  Random encounter with orcs or landslides is not plot, even if it TPKs the PCs.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I have to agree with others. I think we're crossing hairs with the terms "setting" and "story." I think we'd find that our styles of play are much more similar than it seems in this discussion. You make it sound like you plop down the setting map in front of your players and ask "Now what do you do?" I'm sure you don't actually do that. I'm sure you present your players with events occurring around them and then ask "Now what do you do?"




Yes, that's right - I'll typically have a bunch of stuff happening and see how the PCs react.  I like to have more than one idea of how a campaign could go, as well as relatively unforeseen events such as PCs TPK'd, PCs murder employer, PCs join with bad guys etc.  My current Loudwater game feels like a kind of branching path setup, it's interesting looking at some of the paths the PCs have not taken.

In more sandboxy stuff (eg Lost City of Barakus, Vault of Larin Karr) I will have a keyed map with lots of stuff on it & expect a pro-active approach to  exploration, perhaps with a default campaign goal.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I think I didn't elaborate enough and you misunderstood me. I'm not saying a DM should tailor around precise abilities of the PCs necessarily. You should use whatever method you wish to set the DCs of specific tasks. You could have predetermined in your setting that deciphering that particular ancient script was a DC 30 task. When the time comes and you decide to use that script and you see that the best Arcana in the group is +10, then you should be aware that there is a 95% chance the characters will fail and be at least mentally prepared for common courses of action they may consider taking at that point.




Why do I need to be mentally prepared for failure?  Failure has the same result as no-attempt.  The only thing I might want to prepare here is the content of the script, should they succeed in deciphering it.

I do tend to be pretty good at winging stuff - better than I am at running published adventures, maybe - so maybe preparation is less necessary for me to worry about; I don't know.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I really don't see the need to cloud the issue when plot is a perfectly serviceable word here.




I think it's a highly obfuscatory word here.

When I _plot_, I intend that events will unfold _according to my desire_.  Guy Fawkes plotted to blow up Parliament.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 16, 2011)

S'mon said:


> So to you, anything that happens in the game is 'plot'?  I think you have a very broad definition of the word.
> 
> To me, a plot would be pre-scripted stuff like "Lady Marcombe will murder the Earl of Dulwich in the Tea Room".  Random encounter with orcs or landslides is not plot, even if it TPKs the PCs.




Again, how is this not plot?  Plot=events or situations (to use Pemerton's term).  The keyed encounters in a dungeon are plot.  The random encounter table is also plot.  These are events that occur during the game that must be resolved.

I think you're conflating plot with scripted.  Plots do not need to be scripted.



S'mon said:


> I think it's a highly obfuscatory word here.
> 
> When I _plot_, I intend that events will unfold _according to my desire_.  Guy Fawkes plotted to blow up Parliament.




Now this is just plain wrong.  You've changed from using plot as a noun, which it's been clear all the way along that by Vyvyan Basterd and myself have been using it as a noun to using it as a verb, which has a different meaning.

However, even using your definition, unless your game is a string of completely unrelated random encounters, you have events that will unfold according to your desire.  Any adventure or scenario will chain events together in a (hopefully) logical fashion.  The DM (generally) will determine what follows next.  

The PC's survive the rockslide but do not have their mule or supplies.  The DM now presents the situation of trying to cross the mountains without their climbing gear.  What do the PC's do?  

That, right there, is still plot.

It's most certainly not setting.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Again, how is this not plot?  Plot=events or situations (to use Pemerton's term).  The keyed encounters in a dungeon are plot.  The random encounter table is also plot.  These are events that occur during the game that must be resolved.




Presumably you'd agree that events in the real world are not plot?

Presumably though you'd say that whatever happens in a computer game of Neverwinter Nights is plot.  Then, what happens in a game of Nethack is plot, because somebody inputted the algorithmns to randomly generate the dungeons?  

Then, is what happens in a game of Space Invaders plot?  In that case, a game of (real life) tennis must be plot? 

I think your definition of 'plot' as 'stuff happening in the game' is worthless.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 16, 2011)

Just adding a thought.

Looking at the responses, this is what I mean by plot being a bad four letter word.  I have no idea why.  I mean, "Evolving setting"?  Really?  Just step up and say plot.  It's exactly what you mean.  Event A occurs.  For whatever reason, could be DM framed, could be player driven, could be randomly generated, doesn't matter.  Event B chains off of Event A because none of us play in a purely abstract game where consequence has no meaning.

Event B might be linear, it might not.  Depends on the campaign and what, exactly, Event A was.  But, Event B will be tied to Event A.  

And, since we're talking about a series of events in a fictional construct, that's plot.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Just adding a thought.
> 
> Looking at the responses, this is what I mean by plot being a bad four letter word.  I have no idea why.  I mean, "Evolving setting"?  Really?  Just step up and say plot.  It's exactly what you mean.




It's really not what I mean at all. Don't say what I mean when you're wrong, please.

As always, play what you like


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Again, how is this not plot? Plot=events or situations (to use Pemerton's term). The keyed encounters in a dungeon are plot. The random encounter table is also plot. These are events that occur during the game that must be resolved.




What? 

An orc sitting in a dungeon room is not plot. If I remember correctly one of the biggest complaints about early dungeon modules ( you know those dungeon maps with keyed encounter areas and random tables) was a _lack of plot._ The modules contained only threats and treasures without any plot. 

So now all of sudden these classic adventures are brimming with plot content?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> It's really not what I mean at all. Don't say what I mean when you're wrong, please.
> 
> As always, play what you like




Really?



			
				JC said:
			
		

> The first two quotes of setting are relevant, and instead of carrying the connotation of guidance, carry one of scenery. Setting is the framing of situations, not necessarily with an ending or progression in mind. The second definition even includes all background, such as scenery (landmarks) and properties (social setting, creatures, etc.) of the setting.
> 
> While "plot" has connotations of "guidance" or "main story", setting has connotations of "game world" with no such story in mind. I like using the phrase "evolving setting" because of the connotations of each word. Here's evolving:




Sorry, not seeing the difference here.  Setting is not the "framing of situations".  That's not what the word means.  Setting=location.  Full stop.  As soon as you add situation, then it's not longer setting.  And, like it or not, every DM guides the game.  

There's a reason setting does not have any connotations of story.  That's because setting has nothing to do with the events in the story, beyond supplying the stage and the background scenary.

And, still, no one has answered why a randomly generated landslide is not plot.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> I mean, "Evolving setting"?  Really?  Just step up and say plot.  It's exactly what you mean.  Event A occurs.  For whatever reason, could be DM framed, could be player driven, could be randomly generated, doesn't matter.  Event B chains off of Event A because none of us play in a purely abstract game where consequence has no meaning.
> 
> Event B might be linear, it might not.  Depends on the campaign and what, exactly, Event A was.  But, Event B will be tied to Event A.
> 
> And, since we're talking about a series of events in a fictional construct, that's plot.



Hussar, I don't disagree with this. But I think all the action, as far as understanding RPGing is concerned, is in the way that Event A is framed, the way that it progesses to Event B, the way that B in turn leads to C, and so on.

Different systems, and different groups, distribute authority for establishing these starting points, and these connections, in different ways. If these differences are ignored, confusion in discussion and comparison will be the result. If attention is paid to these differences, some insight into different playstyles, and the tools that can help them or hinder them, may emerge.

I feel like a bit of a killjoy in saying so, but VB's suggestion that "we're all playing more-or-less the same" I think tends to towards the same sort of obscurity rather than clarity.


----------



## Andor (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And, still, no one has answered why a randomly generated landslide is not plot.






			
				Dictionary.com said:
			
		

> plot   /plɒt/  Show Spelled [plot]  Show IPA noun, verb, plot·ted, plot·ting.
> noun
> 1. a secret plan or scheme to accomplish some purpose, especially a hostile, unlawful, or evil purpose: a plot to overthrow the government.
> 2. Also called storyline.  the plan, scheme, or main story of a literary or dramatic work, as a play, novel, or short story.
> ...




If you are using plot as a noun, as you insist, then only definition number 2 suits the discussion. 

Is the theme of the campaign surviving landslides? If not, then the landslide is not plot. 

Unless it buries someone, then it's definition number 3.

Or they sell the landslide to an interested party, then it's definition number 4.

Otherwise? Plot requires deliberation, as all of the active uses will show you. 

A story without a plot is mere noise. 

In a sandbox game, the GM does not provide the story, he provides the setting in which the players tell their own story about their characters.

In a normal campaign, the GM provides the story: For example 'The defense of the town of blargh against the invading giants of Zim.' The players take on the role of the main characters in that story, but if they decide to go farm sheep instead the game is de-railed and the campaign ends. In this sort of game a landslide that impacts the story of the defense against the giants is plot, one that does not is mere dressing, or perhaps a sub-plot if it furthers a different goal.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 16, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> It's sandbox because my players are exploring their likes and dislikes . . . .



Stop there.

Unless your setting is called the Wilderlands of Likes and Dislikes, this is not a sandbox.


My opinion, your mileage, _et cetera_.


----------



## The Shaman (Aug 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> A sandbox at its core should be a setting with events that the players react to. Do we agree?



It depends on how you're using "event."

If opening a tomb and encountering animated skeletons qualifies as an "event that the players react to," then perhaps. If not, then no, we don't agree.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Really?



Yes, I really don't want you misrepresenting my view.



> Sorry, not seeing the difference here.



You not seeing the difference still doesn't make it okay in my mind for you to tell me what I mean. Because, it's not what I mean. Don't tell me to "step up" and say something the way you think is right, simply because you don't see the difference. The difference is clear to me.



> Setting is not the "framing of situations". That's not what the word means.  Setting=location.  Full stop.



First, I strongly disagree with you cutting off the actual definition in this discussion. It can mean location, but it can include other aspects, as well. I even linked the definition to clear that up.


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> setting
> 1. the surroundings in which something is set; scene



You can see in the first definition, it's includes "scene", as well as "the surroundings in which something is set". This does not stop at location, according to the definition. The setting might be, "a train station, with 4 thugs surrounding a frightened couple. The thugs are brandishing weapons, and are looking to get into a fight." 


			
				thefreedictionary.com said:
			
		

> setting
> 2. (Performing Arts / Theatre) (Performing Arts) the scenery, properties, or background, used to create the location for a stage play, film, etc.



This definition clearly supports the same. In creating the location, you also give scenery (trash cans, litter, etc.), properties (oddities, etc.), and background (thugs surrounding the couple, king of the country mobilizing troops, etc.).

Both definitions include framing a scene, which extends to "framing of situations" such as the thugs and the couple at the train station. The fact that you disagree does in no way give you the right to tell me what I mean. Please don't do that.

The connotation of the word "setting" and that of the word "plot" is clear to me. The former involves framing a scene, while the latter involves guiding it along a narrative path. You don't have to agree. Don't say what I mean.



> As soon as you add situation, then it's not longer setting.  And, like it or not, every DM guides the game.



Again, you may not be able to see why I disagree. That's fine. Again, please don't tell me what I think, or tell me to "step up" and phrase something the way you want me to because you don't see it, or don't agree with it.



> There's a reason setting does not have any connotations of story.  That's because setting has nothing to do with the events in the story, beyond supplying the stage and the background scenary.



Basically true, yep. Framing the scene (and the situation the couple finds themselves in), as it were.



> And, still, no one has answered why a randomly generated landslide is not plot.



This really depends on its implementation. Added for "story element" as compared to, say, random chance. One is framing a scene (setting), while the other is progressing a story (plot).

As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Aug 16, 2011)

Andor said:
			
		

> In a sandbox game, the GM does not provide the story, he provides the setting in which the players tell their own story about their characters.




Ballocks.  This is simply not true.

The DM, even in a sandbox game, has total control over everything that is not the PC's right?  Unless the DM is doing nothing but reacting to the PC's, he has plots in his game.  

And, since when does player generated mean that it's no longer a plot?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 16, 2011)

Yeah JC, we're not going to agree on this.

Four thugs threatening an old couple is not setting, that's plot.  It's an event that's meant to be interacted with.

But, having engaged in more than enough silly buggers dueling dictionaries, I'm going to be smart enough to bow out here.


----------



## Paradox (Aug 16, 2011)

Optimizing isn't bad. Telling other people how they should optimized thier own character, is.

A friend of mine wanted me to optimize my fighter by taking some levels in ranger. (3e). I wanted just a plain fighter, but because fighters don't get anything at level 5, somehow, this is wrong.

Well, he kept insisting I take some ranger levels, so to keep group harmony, I did. The thing is, I NEVER used any of my ranger abilities. So in the end, the optimizer totally unoptimized my character.  

In a later 4e game, I had a warlock. Warlocks have pacts, but you don't HAVE to take powers associated with your pact. For a while, my star pact warlock had an infernal pact power- because I wanted something with fire.

While it's true that the star pact for that level would be "better", I didn't want it. 

At some point I changed the infernal power out for a star pact power only because I started to wonder just how many warlocks would I get to play over the years. I may never play one again and I wanted to check out as many powers as I could.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 16, 2011)

The Shaman said:


> Stop there.
> 
> Unless your setting is called the Wilderlands of Likes and Dislikes, this is not a sandbox.
> 
> ...




Noted and agreed in regards to opinion and mileage.  I just like setting my sandbox with parameters defined by all the people who are going to be spending a crap load of time running around in it instead of just me.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 16, 2011)

My brain hurts from reading some of this thread.

1. There is DM proactive and DM reactive plot.
2. There is player proactive and player reactive plot.

If there is a story that has more than one person interacting with it, and it's an ongoing part of the game it's plot.  Any number of plots can be a story.

If the DM is reactive we seem to agree that it's a sandbox game.
If the DM is proactive we seem to agree that it's not a sandbox game.

There is absolutely no campaign that I have ever been a part of that has been all one or the other and I'd be willing to take a risk to my reputation to say that there is no game that is all one or the other over a long period of time.  Why?

1. Because DMs occasionally think something is cool and will put that cool thing in play.
2. Because players will suggest that they want to do something and the DM will allow it if he or she wants players.

Entire thread beyond the optimization answers is a bit dense but we're all to blame for it, self included.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And, still, no one has answered why a randomly generated landslide is not plot.




Whose plot would it be? A plot needs to originate from someone or something in the gameworld. Who masterminded this random event?


----------



## JamesonCourage (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Yeah JC, we're not going to agree on this.



Agreeing to disagree, then. No hard feelings.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar (Aug 16, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Whose plot would it be? A plot needs to originate from someone or something in the gameworld. Who masterminded this random event?




Only if you insist on a specific, non-literary definition of plot - as in some sort of plan.

OTOH, if you accept that the definition of plot, in this sense, is simply events that occur in a narrative, then no mastermind is required.

But, this pretty much highlights why these conversations never go anywhere.  Insisting on a specific interpretation to a word in order to prove why that word is wrong, instead of using the rather obvious definition that fits the situation.

Yeah, no longer interested in silly bugger semantic games.


----------



## GSHamster (Aug 16, 2011)

I can kind of see both sides.  I think it makes more sense if you consider the existence of "subplots".

If subplots can exist, then events can exist which are not part of the main plot.  If the avalanche does not materially change the main plot, then we can say that it is not part of the main plot.

Though to be honest, the word "plot" is starting to look funny to me.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> having engaged in more than enough silly buggers dueling dictionaries, I'm going to be smart enough to bow out here.



I agree that the dictionary stuff is a bit of a distraction. But there's still stuff I want to talk with you about, so don't bow out (please)!



Hussar said:


> Four thugs threatening an old couple is not setting, that's plot.



In this example, do you think it makes a different whether or not any of those 6 people is a protagonist?

I've got in mind this sort of example: I open up my new Spiderman comic. The first page is a splash page, with four thugs threatening an old couple. And on a wall, not yet noticed by the thugs but visible to the reader, is the looming shadow of Spidey.

Is this plot? I certainly agree its situation. But arguably, that's because it's setting - four thugs mugging some people who are not in any real sense characters in the drama (at least, not yet) - meets protagonist.

The plot would then be, Spidey beats up the thugs. Or, forgetting that with great power comes great responsibility, swings on by, feeling tired at the end of a long day.

To bring it back to an RPG example - it was not uncommon, in the good old dungeon-crawling days, and perhaps still is not uncommon, to have rooms which were described in terms of some ongoing or imminent action. For example, as the PCs approach the torture chamber they hear loud screams and a low chuckle, and when they open the door to it they see a hulking torturer persecuting a helpless halfling.

Is this setting? I'm not sure what I think, because I'm not sure what's at stake in that description. Once the PCs come onto the scene, it's fairly clear to me that it's situation. Once the PCs start doing things - fighting the torturer, freeing the halfling, grabbing some red hot tongs and joining in proceedings - then there is clearly plot.

Is the landslide situation, or plot? To me, it depends on where it comes from in the course of play, what is motivating the GM, how it interacts with the expectations of the players, etc. If everyone at the table has agreed that the PCs are moving out of town up into the foothills, and the GM is giving some general description of the steep inclines, the rugged terrain, etc, and then says "As you make your way up a particularly steep slope, a landslide starts! What do you do?" - I think we have situation, and the beginnings of plot, but the _real_ narrative action - the stuff that the participants actually care about - is yet to happen.

On the other hand - the PCs are moving through the foothills looking for their nemesis. High up on a ledge they notice a cave entrance (as the GM explains to the players). What the GM has in mind is that this is a nice foreshadowing of the ultimate fight location - but first, thinks the GM, the PCs'll have to deal with the orcs waiting to ambush them in the box canyon!

What the GM has forgotten about is the wizard's levitation spell. The PCs decide to investigate the cave, the wizard using levitation to get up to it, and then dropping a rope down so that the others can climb or be pulled up. The GM, worrying that the sequence of events is going wrong, suddenly says "As the fighter starts to climb up the rope, there is a sudden landslide! The cave mouth is blocked, and the fighter knocked to the ground - take 6d6 damage. Sorry, guys, it looks like you'll have to find another avenue of exploration."

This is definitely a case of the GM introducing a plot element to shut down a situation in a way that is thwarting the choices of the players. It's illusionism at best, railroading at worst (depending on how clever the GM is in concealing the use of fiat to shut down the situation, and depending on how much the players care about such things). I personally regard it as bad GMing, or, at least, GMing of a sort that personally I wouldn't want to experience.

So - is the landslide setting? situation? plot? I don't think this can be decided in isolation. It depends upon how it fits into the unfolding events of play, the interests of the players in the protagonism of their PCs, etc. You can't tell what's going on, and how much GM force is being used, and whether it is the GM or the players or both who have a given degree of control over the plot, just by noticing that the GM has announced that a landslide occurs.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 16, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> If the DM is reactive we seem to agree that it's a sandbox game.
> If the DM is proactive we seem to agree that it's not a sandbox game.



This is true as far as it goes, but "not a sandbox" covers a pretty broad range of approache.

Adventure path play, where the theme, the enemy, and the course of the key events is generally pre-detemined, is one species of non-sandbox play.

Situation-driven play (of the HW/Q, BW etc variety), where the theme, the enemy, and the course of key events is determined primarily by the players (who seed, and then respond to, the GM's proactivity), is another species of non-sandbox play.

But adventure path play and BW-style play are about as different as it gets. I mean, arguably the whole raison d'etre of The Forge and the modern indie RPG movement is to create a story-laden but player-driven alternative to adventure path play.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 16, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Whose plot would it be? A plot needs to originate from someone or something in the gameworld. Who masterminded this random event?





Hussar said:


> Only if you insist on a specific, non-literary definition of plot - as in some sort of plan.



Hussar is right here. When people talk about whether or not a game has a plot, whether or not that plot is predetermined, who has authority in respect of it, etc, they are not talking about the imaginary plots of imaginary people in a fictional world. They are talking about an actually existing fiction - an actually existing sequence of imagined events.

And they are wondering who has control over the sequence - who decides "what comes next", and how?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Just adding a thought.
> 
> Looking at the responses, this is what I mean by plot being a bad four letter word.  I have no idea why.  I mean, "Evolving setting"?  Really?  Just step up and say plot.  It's exactly what you mean.  Event A occurs.  For whatever reason, could be DM framed, could be player driven, could be randomly generated, doesn't matter.  Event B chains off of Event A because none of us play in a purely abstract game where consequence has no meaning.
> 
> ...




You do have a talent to be really annoying, Hussar.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> And, still, no one has answered why a randomly generated landslide is not plot.




Playing a game is not plot.  D&D is a game.  You can deliberately choose to add plot to a game - a murder-mystery game likely has plot, unless it's random like 'Clue(do)' - but by default *games have no plot*.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Only if you insist on a specific, non-literary definition of plot - as in some sort of plan.
> 
> OTOH, if you accept that the definition of plot, in this sense, is simply events that occur in a narrative, then no mastermind is required.




I understand the meaning of plot in both instances. The definition associated with narrative has no place in any campaign in which there is an actual game taking place and the decisions of the players have meaning. 

Therefore when speaking of plot as it applies to gaming, a plan or scheme is the only definition I bother thinking about. If you want to discuss story or novel crafting, the other sort of plot is certainly desired.


----------



## jasper (Aug 16, 2011)

Hussar said:


> ...
> And, still, no one has answered why a randomly generated landslide is not plot.




because most of us have taken off our left shoe and sock and using our left foot to scratch behind right ear to TRY to figure out how :
Roll D6 on random table equals plot.
As the Spainard said, " I don't think that word means what you think it means."
Setting Greyhawk ortown of slapout in the state of alabama, in the country of US on the World called DIRT.
Plot. Piratecat will murder Morrus at midnight at Gaming table 13 at Genecon. Can the pcs stop him.
Atmosphere. It raining outside and the ac is broke.
Random Flavor/Scene. Roll a D6 every turn. On 1 the Ghost of Gary appears in the corner of one of the pc eyes.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 16, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> The definition associated with narrative has no place in any campaign in which there is an actual game taking place and the decisions of the players have meaning.




Maybe you don't want it in your games.  That's fine.

But as a generalization?  Sorry, no.  You don't get to determine what does or does not have a place in someone else's game.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 16, 2011)

Hey guys?  Personally, I don't care if you call it plot or story or events or sandbox or railroad. 

I think the topic is about optimized PCs in the same party as non-optimized PCs and how the players react to each other because of it.

Can we get back on topic?


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 16, 2011)

Umbran said:


> Maybe you don't want it in your games. That's fine.
> 
> But as a generalization? Sorry, no. You don't get to determine what does or does not have a place in someone else's game.




True. There may be many campaigns taking place that do not fit that description and the participants have every right to enjoy them.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 16, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> True. There may be many campaigns taking place that do not fit that description and the participants have every right to enjoy them.




Not only that, though.  Among some folks, there seems such an adverse reaction to the term "plot" that it appears to get in the way of listening to what's going on in the game.  

I see this primarily in the idea that having plot somehow means that the decisions of the PCs don't matter.  It apparently doesn't matter how many folks say they feel they have stuff that reasonably can be called plot, but that the PC's decisions do matter in their games - the idea persists.

I'm all about food analogies today.  I have a friend who says he doesn't like cheese in any form.  It isn't a health issue, he just finds it esthetically unpleasing, and he won't eat it.  One time, at my home, we were serving a semi-potluck dinner.  We'd taken his personal tastes into account, and there was plenty for him to eat that didn't have cheese in it.

He was on his third helping of one dish that he said he really enjoyed when he asked for the recipe - there was a lot of cheese in it.  Upon hearing that, his opinion of the dish abruptly changed.  How it tasted a few minutes before didn't matter, now he hated it.

These conversations look like that, from where I sit.  If I describe my game, folks have no problem with it.  Same game, but if I use the word "plot", people stick their tongues out and blow raspberries at it as badwrongfun.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 16, 2011)

JamesonCourage said:


> Vyvyan, thanks for the civil response.




Your welcome.



JamesonCourage said:


> The problem with this is that plot assumes a "main story in a narrative" which setting does not assume. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.




I disagree. A purely site-based sandbox may just have a setting that the players explore. But I would guess most D&D games (sorry to all who bring up BW, etc; I was only speaking towards D&D and make no assumptions of other games) have NPCs and organizations with goals and personalities to create events that occur with or without player input. "Events in a fictional work" are plot, not setting, IMO.



JamesonCourage said:


> This definition mentions arranging the action and incidents ("I began plotting novels at about the time I learned to read"). This carries the connotation not just of framing conditions, but also of resolving them through action. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.
> 
> This first half of the definition only helps if we used other definitions of plot (which carry the connotations mentioned above). The second is fairly acceptable on its own, but since it is coupled with the first half (which relies on other definitions of plot to define itself), the connotations remain the same. Thus, the different connotation plot carries with it.




Like I said, when I say plot I'm referring to the noun form (thus have never referred to what I do as DM as 'plotted' or 'plotting') and don't attach the meanings of any of the verb definitions because, to me, they are out of context when referring to RPGs. The connotations you and others draw is the most likely reason 'plot' is the 4-letter word it has become in regards to RPGs.



pemerton said:


> To be honest, I don't know if our games would run similarly or not.




I didn't mean to imply that I think our games are similar. I just think they run _more_ similar than it seems. This thread makes it seem like each of our games is alien to the next.



pemerton said:


> You say that your game is based around an adventure path,




Clarification: _Some_ of my campaigns have been APs, others have not.



pemerton said:


> which the players choose to follow rather than "going to raise sheep" instead.




I see how my glibness makes it seem like the choices are follow the AP hooks or retire to sheep herding. What I meant was that the players still have full range of choice to do whatever they want in the campaign world. If their decisions divert from the AP, then they divert from the AP. In our case, since it is the players that expressed interest in the AP before the campaign started, it is unlikely for them to stray far from their goal.



pemerton said:


> As I understand it, an adventure path has a more-or-less predetermined villain,




Yes.



pemerton said:


> and a more-or-less predetermined series of scenes that the PCs will proceed through before confronting that villain.




A DM could look at it that way but, IMO, he would be doing a disservice to his players if he didn't remain flexible when the players find a different way to tackle their goals. A well-written AP lays down the setting and gives the DM the villain's goals and motivations. It can anticipate how the PCs achieve their goals, but should also advise the DM on how to handle unexpected turns.



pemerton said:


> When the players choose to engage the adventure path, as best I understand it, they are choosing to pick up on hooks that the module authors have built into the path. They follow the module author's leads as far as importance and theme are concerned.




I can answer best by asking a question first. In a sandbox campaign, are there hooks for the characters to follow? IME, yes. The hook could be the spooky abandoned castle on the hill, an evil organization with tyrannical dominance, etc. There could be three hooks or 100 hooks. An AP focuses on a limited number of hooks. But players could ignore those few hooks, just like they could ignore all 100 hooks you've laid out for a sandbox campaign. Maybe it's just a matter of number of options for the group?



pemerton said:


> If my understanding of adventure path play is correct, this is quite different from how I run my game. My game is based on framing situations that engage the players in virtue of the details (backstory, previous actions, thematic concerns that they express, etc) of the players' PCs. The key thematic ideas of the campaign are emergent from play, not settled in advance.




Whether a DM plans hooks in advance or on the spot during the game, the process seems much the same to me. Where the DM mines the hooks from is certainly important to the feel of the game, but I don't feel this makes it any less a plot element than the hooks in an AP.



pemerton said:


> And I'm pretty confident that [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION]'s game plays diffferently again. He uses a combination of detailed setting notes and random tables that "encode" the setting and genre to support his players engaging in genre-reflective exploration of and engagement with early modern France.




Different method, similar results. I would think that the random aspects hide in the background, otherwise it would pull players out of the game world and into dice rolls.



pemerton said:


> I agree that some sandboxers talk in elitist terms, as if the only alternative to a sandbox is a railroad. I don't agree with that at all. But I'm hesitant to therefore conclue that our games are all very similar. The distribution of situational and plot authority across players and GM, and the mechanical and other tools used to achieve this and build on it, make a difference. That is why (for example) playing classic AD&D is a different experience to playing Dragonlance, or playing Burning Wheel!




I'm sure all of our games do feel different. Heck, each of my campaigns should feel different from one to the next as I usually change things up here or there. The similarity I see between all of our games is at the core. We've each chosen or created a game world to provide a setting. We've each chosen a method to present 'events in the fictional world' (plot). I agree that the specifics beyond that core similarity make our games unique. I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's game by equating it to everyone else's. What I'm trying to say is that, despite the differences, we can all run a game that brings core elements together in a way that our players enjoy. And, barring any poor DMing skills (hopefully not my own  ), I think each of us would enjoy sitting down to play at the others' tables even though each of us would be unhappy running a game the way another does.



pemerton said:


> It makes a huge difference to play, though, what sort of control the GM has.




Agreed.



pemerton said:


> For example, is the GM obliged to respect the players' decisions about resource use? About PC backstory? About thematic significance? Contrast the rules text on these issues found in (say) The Burning Wheel with the text on these issues found in (say) 2nd ed AD&D. Or whether or not a game even supports the notion of "sidequest" (AD&D 2nd ed does; BW doesn't). To just lump this all under "GM control" is to elide all the differences that are in play in the range of mainstream approaches to playing and GMing an RPG.




Like I said above, I can only speak for D&D in this regard. I've played other games, but they have similar philosophies on general game play. I've yet to experience newer systems that change these assumptions.



S'mon said:


> Yes, that's right - I'll typically have a bunch of stuff happening and see how the PCs react.  I like to have more than one idea of how a campaign could go, as well as relatively unforeseen events such as PCs TPK'd, PCs murder employer, PCs join with bad guys etc.  My current Loudwater game feels like a kind of branching path setup, it's interesting looking at some of the paths the PCs have not taken.




Sounds similar to campaigns I've run, even when we've decided to play an AP.



S'mon said:


> Why do I need to be mentally prepared for failure?  Failure has the same result as no-attempt.  The only thing I might want to prepare here is the content of the script, should they succeed in deciphering it.




You don't have to be prepared, but it can't hurt.



S'mon said:


> I do tend to be pretty good at winging stuff - better than I am at running published adventures, maybe - so maybe preparation is less necessary for me to worry about; I don't know.




I believe that people like you who are great at winging it are actually mentally prepared for a wide range of possibilities. This is a good quality to possess. What I was trying to get at about being mentally prepared for failure is that no DM should assume that the characters will succeed.



S'mon said:


> Presumably you'd agree that events in the real world are not plot?




No. Because plot in the sense I'm using it is only relative to fiction. Presumably you'd agree that events in the campaign world are not real?



S'mon said:


> Presumably though you'd say that whatever happens in a computer game of Neverwinter Nights is plot.  Then, what happens in a game of Nethack is plot, because somebody inputted the algorithmns to randomly generate the dungeons?




Yes. Engaging, interesting plot? Depends on what floats one's boat.



S'mon said:


> Then, is what happens in a game of Space Invaders plot?




Of course! Fictional aliens are invading. Not a very deep plot, but plot nonetheless.



S'mon said:


> In that case, a game of (real life) tennis must be plot?




Nope, because again, not fictional. Replace tennis with por-wrestling? Yes. [Before someone threathens to layeth the smackdown, I'm a fan.]



S'mon said:


> I think your definition of 'plot' as 'stuff happening in the game' is worthless.




Feel as you like, but presumably because you continue to respond you wish to communicate. And Hussar and I explaining what we mean by terms we use is not 'wothless.'



pemerton said:


> Different systems, and different groups, distribute authority for establishing these starting points, and these connections, in different ways. If these differences are ignored, confusion in discussion and comparison will be the result. If attention is paid to these differences, some insight into different playstyles, and the tools that can help them or hinder them, may emerge.
> 
> I feel like a bit of a killjoy in saying so, but VB's suggestion that "we're all playing more-or-less the same" I think tends to towards the same sort of obscurity rather than clarity.




I'd rather start from the common ground of "we're all playing more-or-less the same" and then discuss how we achieve a good game in discussing the differences in the ways we play. My intent is not meant as a challenge to any kind of "DM cred."



Andor said:


> If you are using plot as a noun, as you insist, then only definition number 2 suits the discussion.
> 
> Is the theme of the campaign surviving landslides? If not, then the landslide is not plot.




The common usage of the term 'plot' does not require it to tie to the main theme.



Andor said:


> Otherwise? Plot requires deliberation, as all of the active uses will show you.




Active uses would be the verb forms, which I've already agreed do not apply.



Andor said:


> A story without a plot is mere noise.




Disagree. A story with a (subjectively) bad plot is mere noise. You cannot have a story at all without plot.



Andor said:


> In a sandbox game, the GM does not provide the story, he provides the setting in which the players tell their own story about their characters.




Setting, plot. Potato, potahto. I'm not saying you should start using the term 'plot' and I'm not going to use 'setting' in the way you do, but we mean the same thing.



Andor said:


> In a normal campaign, the GM provides the story: For example 'The defense of the town of blargh against the invading giants of Zim.' The players take on the role of the main characters in that story, but if they decide to go farm sheep instead the game is de-railed and the campaign ends.




Not necessarily. Yes, I'll go out on a limb, sheep farming would make for a terribly boring game. But if the players decide to explore the abandoned dwarven mines instead of defending the town, the campaign need not end. The town will suffer whatever fate the DM decides is appropriate while the characters are away exploring the mine.



The Shaman said:


> It depends on how you're using "event."
> 
> If opening a tomb and encountering animated skeletons qualifies as an "event that the players react to," then perhaps. If not, then no, we don't agree.




How about "the Bloodfang Orcs are making raids on the Grimspire Mountain border towns?"



Kobold Boots said:


> If the DM is reactive we seem to agree that it's a sandbox game.
> If the DM is proactive we seem to agree that it's not a sandbox game.




To me, reactive and proactive are means to a similar end.



S'mon said:


> Playing a game is not plot.  D&D is a game.  You can deliberately choose to add plot to a game - a murder-mystery game likely has plot, unless it's random like 'Clue(do)' - but by default *games have no plot*.




Every game I've played, whether an AP or a sandbox, has had something deliberately added to it. Whether you place locations or events. Games may have no plot, arguably. But every RPG I've played does. It may be a matter of degree of depth, but it is there, IMO. 



ExploderWizard said:


> I understand the meaning of plot in both instances. The definition associated with narrative has no place in any campaign in which there is an actual game taking place and the decisions of the players have meaning.






Umbran said:


> Maybe you don't want it in your games.  That's fine.
> 
> But as a generalization?  Sorry, no.  You don't get to determine what does or does not have a place in someone else's game.




QFT. Narrative associations are most certainly apt. You may limit your definition of narrative to an author sitting down to write alone, but I believe RPGs and the stories that develop *in play* are a developing narrative of their own accord and terms such as plot can be used to describe the events within that narrative.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> QFT. Narrative associations are most certainly apt. You may limit your definition of narrative to an author sitting down to write alone, but I believe RPGs and the stories that develop *in play* are a developing narrative of their own accord and terms such as plot can be used to describe the events within that narrative.




That's a pretty apt way of putting it.  

And, while stories do develop in play, everyone at the table, GM and player alike, may have some plans, ideas of what they will include as their part of the narrative - and the GM's set of things may well include stuff that could also reasonably be called "plots".  

This does not say these things are writ in stone, inflexible, or otherwise not responsive to what happens in play.  The valuable part of a plan isn't that it determines where you will be, no matter what happens.  The value of the plan is in the thought process that created it, and the organized information that allows you to adapt to changing events and conditions.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 16, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Playing a game is not plot.  D&D is a game.  You can deliberately choose to add plot to a game - a murder-mystery game likely has plot, unless it's random like 'Clue(do)' - but by default *games have no plot*.




I disagree with this. RPGs are more than just a game. It is a hybrid of a game and interactive theater. I heard the argument that you can role play playing monopoly.  But monopoly rules are not set up to encourage role playing. RPGs are.

I have been following this discussion on plot and I have to agree with Umbran that people have a knee jerk reaction to the word. To so many the word plot means railroading.

In my homebrew there is metaplot. The metaplot is the  battle between Bahmut and Tiamat. Things happen in the world because of this. I started the game by having the PCs called by Bahmut to aid on the side of good. 

But how they do this is up to them. They can do what they want. They can help Bahmut ,change sides help Tiamat, become neutral like Switzerland , run and hide or what ever their fertile minds come up with.

The plot is the war between the dragons and the forces of good VS evil. 

The setting is my world of Vanderhelm.

The story is how the PCs choose to live in the world and what they do.

The game is the rolling of dice , making builds, cracking Monty Python jokes and eating junk food.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 16, 2011)

Elf Witch said:


> I disagree with this. RPGs are more than just a game. It is a hybrid of a game and interactive theater. I heard the argument that you can role play playing monopoly. But monopoly rules are not set up to encourage role playing. RPGs are.
> 
> I have been following this discussion on plot and I have to agree with Umbran that people have a knee jerk reaction to the word. To so many the word plot means railroading.
> 
> ...




Cool setup. 

The "plot" in your campaign is driven by the maneuverings of two powerful entities in the campaign world. 

This plot exists and develops with or without influence from the PCs (based on the description). I didn't notice anything in your plot that directly mentions PC involvement much less involvement of a specific nature. 

When the PCs do meddle in the affairs of these entities on thier own terms it seems like they are interacting with the plots of Bahamut and Tiamat rather than  THE plot.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> Nope, because again, not fictional. Replace tennis with por-wrestling? Yes. [Before someone threathens to layeth the smackdown, I'm a fan.]




I agree that pro-wrestling has plot, because it's scripted.  If Space Invaders has plot, then presumably Chess has a plot?  

If the events in play of Space Invaders or Chess are plot, then I think our fundamental difference is semantic: whatever we think about D&D, you & Hussar are using 'plot' in a way completely different to me.  It feels like talking to someone who speaks a foreign language.  So there doesn't seem to be a common frame of reference with which to discuss plot in RPGs.

I guess it's good to have that cleared up, anyway.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 16, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> When the PCs do meddle in the affairs of these entities on thier own terms it seems like they are interacting with the plots of Bahamut and Tiamat rather than  THE plot.




How does this differ from the Age of Worms AP where the PCs interact with the plots (different definition - meaning 'schemes') of a god and his minions?

Is plot a bad word just because in some campaigns it seems singular? Is an AP considered a railroad just because a single major plotline exists (each I've played also has subplots)?

This is what I'm talkig about when I say the different approaches to define one's game seem to come to similar ends with differences arising based on type of preparation and segregation of plot authority.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I believe that people like you who are great at winging it are actually mentally prepared for a wide range of possibilities. This is a good quality to possess. What I was trying to get at about being mentally prepared for failure is that no DM should assume that the characters will succeed.




I agree - the DM should not set an obstacle in the PCs' path if he can't deal with the consequences of the PCs failing to overcome that obstacle.  While that failure may occasionally be a legitimate campaign-ender, more commonly it should be a cause for things to go in a new, possibly more exciting, direction.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 16, 2011)

S'mon said:


> I agree that pro-wrestling has plot, because it's scripted.  If Space Invaders has plot, then presumably Chess has a plot?




Space Invaders has a story. Aliens are invading. It's a very monotonous story with a very thin plot. Same with chess, although that's even harder to see because modern players don't see the backstory to chess anymore. The story is about two warring kings. Why are they at war? How do they reach their goal? Bare-bones and paper-thin plot, but still there.  



S'mon said:


> If the events in play of Space Invaders or Chess are plot, then I think our fundamental difference is semantic:




I definitely agree.



S'mon said:


> whatever we think about D&D, you & Hussar are using 'plot' in a way completely different to me.  It feels like talking to someone who speaks a foreign language.  So there doesn't seem to be a common frame of reference with which to discuss plot in RPGs.




That's why I have been trying to explain what constitutes plot to me. So we can continue our discussion from that point. I can accept the term "Evolving Setting" from someone else as long as they've taken the time to explain what they mean. The poster who used the term did just that. I call it "plot" he calls it "evolving setting" now we an discuss. More like a different dialect of the same language to me than something foreign.



S'mon said:


> I guess it's good to have that cleared up, anyway.




Agreed.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 16, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> How does this differ from the Age of Worms AP where the PCs interact with the plots (different definition - meaning 'schemes') of a god and his minions?
> 
> Is plot a bad word just because in some campaigns it seems singular? Is an AP considered a railroad just because a single major plotline exists (each I've played also has subplots)?
> 
> This is what I'm talkig about when I say the different approaches to define one's game seem to come to similar ends with differences arising based on type of preparation and segregation of plot authority.




I'm not that familliar with APs. A major plotline especially as an outline of what someone/something has planned is not in itself terrible. Once the players have contact with that plotline gameplay can go in so many directions that I just don't see how pre-planning things that far in advance can be worth doing IF the decisions and actions of the players have real meaning. 

Plot authority?  [sniff..]  Smells like storytelling not gameplay.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 16, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not that familliar with APs. A major plotline especially as an outline of what someone/something has planned is not in itself terrible. Once the players have contact with that plotline gameplay can go in so many directions that I just don't see how pre-planning things that far in advance can be worth doing IF the decisions and actions of the players have real meaning.




APs assume the party will continue towards the overarching goal. If your players do not buy into the premise before the campaign starts, then the AP is quite useless. Overwise an AP gives you mainly a series of sites for the characters to explore and villainous schemes to unveil as time passes in the campaign. The written campaign tries to anticipate common actions the party will take in achieving the goal. It is up to the DM to modify these sites and events if the players take an uncommon approach.



ExploderWizard said:


> Plot authority?  [sniff..]  Smells like storytelling not gameplay.




You have to filter it through my context to understand me. You don't have to agree with my use of 'plot' but misrepresenting what I've defined isn't very productive. Replace 'plot authority' with 'decision control' and maybe it will jibe with your vernacular.


----------



## Pentius (Aug 16, 2011)

Okay, guys, if we are going to continue this discussion about setting vs plot, we need a coherent definition for each, instead of each poster using his own.  I propose the following.

Plot: 
1.
a. A small piece of ground, generally used for a specific purpose: a garden plot.
b. A measured area of land; a lot.

Setting:
1. A mounting, as for a jewel.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 16, 2011)

Pentius said:


> Okay, guys, if we are going to continue this discussion about setting vs plot, we need a coherent definition for each, instead of each poster using his own.  I propose the following.
> 
> Plot:
> 1.
> ...




Agreed.  Everyone must submit to the definitions above, or they are badwrongpoopyheads.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 17, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Playing a game is not plot.  D&D is a game.  You can deliberately choose to add plot to a game - a murder-mystery game likely has plot, unless it's random like 'Clue(do)' - but by default *games have no plot*.



Well, it's true that by default chess has no plot.

But a game that is about a sequence of fictional events, occuring to a group of protagonists in a fictional world, looks like it is apt to _generate_ a plot in the course of play.



ExploderWizard said:


> The definition associated with narrative has no place in any campaign in which there is an actual game taking place and the decisions of the players have meaning.
> 
> Therefore when speaking of plot as it applies to gaming, a plan or scheme is the only definition I bother thinking about. If you want to discuss story or novel crafting, the other sort of plot is certainly desired.



In addition to my reply to S'mon - if you think that an RPG can't _both_ allow for meaninful decisions by players, and ensure that the play of the game will generate a substantive plot, then I think you need to look at some exampls of modern RPG design - HeroWars/Quest, Burning Wheel, Maelstrom Storytelling, My Life With Master, and - dare I say it - even 4e!

The basic feature of this sort of design is (i) to have mechanics ensure that players can enject thematically and narratively central (rather than peripheral) material into the fiction, and (ii) to have rules that require the GM to respect this material, and have regard to it, when framing scenes and adjudicating their resolution.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I didn't mean to imply that I think our games are similar. I just think they run _more_ similar than it seems.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I never thought for a minute you were challenging anyone's cred. In fact, your posts are (especially by the standards of these boards) incredibly generous and civil!

But still, I think that you're running together things that are different. For example, in some games (including mine) the _players_ provide key elements of setting (in building their PCs and writing up their backstories, and then bringing those backstories into play). This is not a trivial difference from strong GM control over setting, in my view, because it has a major impact in play.

And when you talk about methods of "presenting events in the fictional world" - well, yes, every RPG involves that - that's part of what makes it an RPG - but the different ways of doing this (does the GM do it, or the players, or sometimes one and sometimes the other) make a huge difference to the experience of play. I tried to make this point in my last response to Hussar - whether the landslide is (mere) situation or (potentially railroady) plot depends on a whole lot of factors, including the expectations of the players, the play activity leading up to it, etc.

Another example. The GM says "You walk into the throne room. The king falls over, dead. You see the assassin, bloodied knife in hand, darting out through a window." Is this mere situation, or full-blooded plot? If the players have all agreed to play a game focused on intrigue and skullduggery at the royal court, and have built their PCs as courtiers, court wizards, etc, and this is the opening narration of the campaign, then we have situation. The GM has delivered on the promise to run a court intrigue game, and kicked things off in a dramatic fashion. Classic situation!

But suppose a different context: the players have spent the last few sessions identifying the threat to the king's life, puzzling out who the assassin might be, working out how they can get close enough to the king to thwart the assassination, etc. And having worked it all out, they've just finished explaining how their PCs are making it into the throne room just in time to stop the assassination! And the GM narrates the above, without even permitting the playes to make some sort of die roll to try and influence the unfolding course of events. In my view, that's about as heavy-handed as GM exercise of plot authority gets.

Same words, describing the same event in game, but hugely different experiences at the table. That's because plot - both in a novel, and in an RPG - is _not_ something that exists independent of the fictional location and orientation of the protagonists. And in an RPG, protagonism is something that is distinctively important to the _players_.



Vyvyan Basterd said:


> In a sandbox campaign, are there hooks for the characters to follow? IME, yes.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Whether a DM plans hooks in advance or on the spot during the game, the process seems much the same to me. Where the DM mines the hooks from is certainly important to the feel of the game, but I don't feel this makes it any less a plot element than the hooks in an AP.



I can't speak for a sandbox game, but in the sort of game I run the GM does not hook the players. Rather, the players hook the GM.

That is, the players - through the backstory and build of their PCs, and then building on those things over the course of play - signal clear goals and thematic concerns, and as GM I design encounters and scenarios that speak to those goals and thematic concerns. In 4e terms, you could think of this as player-designed quests.

Which is why, like I said upthread, "sidequests" make no sense here. "Sidequests" imply that there is a main, GM-dominated, quest, and that player-initiated activity is peripheral. That's not how I prefer to approach the game.

Although obviously I have my preferences, I recognise that others have theirs. Various exchanges I've had on these boards, and also the evidence provided by sales of commercial RPG products, show that many RPGers don't like the sort of "player authorship" that my preferred approach involves - they prefer, as players, to "experience the story" or "explore the world" rather than to jointly craft the story and thereby jointly build the world. Which, as goes without saying, is fine. But which also requires different sorts of tools and techniques from the tools and techniques that I need to run my game.

And one of those points of difference is - different techniques for distributing situational, content and plot authority, and different tools (encounter design guidelines, action resolution mechanics, etc) for underpinning those techniques.

Which is why I think it is more helpful - if we're all going to better understand our games, and get better at running them the way we want to run them - to recognise rather than elide over differences! Which is not at all to say that any of us is doing it wrong - of course we're still all playing RPGs!


----------



## Pentius (Aug 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Which is why, like I said upthread, "sidequests" make no sense here. "Sidequests" imply that there is a main, GM-dominated, quest, and that player-initiated activity is peripheral. That's not how I prefer to approach the game.




Minor point of discussion:

I would say "sidequest" does definitely imply the existence of a "main quest", but in a game where quests can be partially, or even entirely player-driven, I don't see why the main quest couldn't be player-driven as well.  The existence of a quest of lesser importance next to one of greater importance does not mandate who is behind either one.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 17, 2011)

ExploderWizard said:


> Cool setup.
> 
> The "plot" in your campaign is driven by the maneuverings of two powerful entities in the campaign world.
> 
> ...




Well the players asked me to run a heroic style campaign where they made a difference. So I came up with this I also wanted to run a dragon centric campaign after getting Races of Dragons.

So I started the game with them getting the call from Bahmut in their dreams and then they ended up meeting up at his abandoned  temple and they were the only ones who enter through the warded door.

I had several hooks set up and we went from there. I kept a campaign record with the hooks and ideas with what happens next. The PCs actions often changed things. 

I never had a plan for how things would end. And yes when they meddled in things they were interacting with Bahmut and Tiamats plots. 

My players loved it. They never felt they were railroaded or had no choice. 

You can run a game with an overall plot and not railroad. I have played in them and I have run them. I usually prefer them to sandbox games.


----------



## Elf Witch (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> How does this differ from the Age of Worms AP where the PCs interact with the plots (different definition - meaning 'schemes') of a god and his minions?
> 
> Is plot a bad word just because in some campaigns it seems singular? Is an AP considered a railroad just because a single major plotline exists (each I've played also has subplots)?
> 
> This is what I'm talkig about when I say the different approaches to define one's game seem to come to similar ends with differences arising based on type of preparation and segregation of plot authority.




I play in an Age of Worms campaign. And yes there is an element of railroading because there is a linear path. It is both the same as my homebrew campaign and also different.

It is the same as there is an over all plot mine is the dragon war  AOW is the bad guys trying to bring about the Age of Worms. 

The difference is in my homebrew there are a lot more choices on what to do. AOW not so much. If you deviate from the adventure path to much then it because harder for the DM to continue. Now if the DM is fine on this and loves winging it then fine. But if the DM does not want to wing it as much and is using an AP because it is easier for them then you can't do it without derailing the game.

We players knew we would be playing an AP so we have the mindset to look for the next plot hook. I view it as the contract between player and DM. We the players agreed to play in the AP so we need to do that and not make the DMs job to hard.

Now how we handle each plot hook is up to us. We can fight, negotiate, but we can't really run away because we need the clues and items to be able to continue.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 17, 2011)

It seems the vampiric mouse has been wallflowering this conversation:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/310139-plot-not-four-letter-word.html

  Needless to say, I agree with pretty much all his points except one - the continuum is not sandbox <---> railroad, it's sandbox <---> linear.  Again, it's ridiculously easy to railroad in a sandbox campaign.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 17, 2011)

S'mon said:


> Agreed.  Everyone must submit to the definitions above, or they are badwrongpoopyheads.




If we are not talking about grave plots then I am taking my ball and going home.


----------



## Evenglare (Aug 17, 2011)

Yeah, im not reading 22 pages of things. So just by answering the topic. It's not bad to optimize assuming you have some sort of meaningful drawback relevant to the game or else your character is 1 dimensional and contributes nothing to the narrative.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 17, 2011)

Unfortunately, the topic has taken a long and winding divergence.  I asked moderators to take this back on topic and it hasn't happened.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 17, 2011)

double post.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> It seems the vampiric mouse has been wallflowering this conversation



Thanks for the heads up.



Mouseferatu said:


> a DM's _motive_ plays into the question, as well as his actions. Consequences that make sense in the larger campaign might not equate to a railroad, while consequences put in place solely to force the PCs back on script do--even if the consequences, on the surface, look the same.



I agree with this. It was the point I made upthread about the landslide - we can't tell what is going on their without context -  how does it fit into the expectations of everyone at the table, their understanding of what has come before, their understanding of what might follow?



Mouseferatu said:


> A skilled DM runs a plot flexibly, in reaction to what the PCs do.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> ...



I'm generally sympathetic to this, although I think it puts a bit too much emphasis on the _GM_ generating the plot - suggesting some sort of high concept simulationism - rather than on the _players_ generating the plot by engaging meaningful situations - which is my own preference for play.



Mouseferatu said:


> "sandbox" and "railroad" aren't binary terms. They're a continuum, and only become problematic at either extreme.



I don't agree with this. It is a continuum that only makes sense within the confines of exploration-focused play: in a sandbox, exploration is of the setting (and situation is mostly in the hands of the players), whereas in a railroad exploration is of the situation (and everything but colour and some modest narration pertaining to the PCs is in the hands of the GM). 

But once you step out of simulationist play into other ways of playing - such as the afore-mentioned player-driven approach - then there can be play that is neither sandbox, nor railroad, nor halfway between. Namely, play that invovles GM authority over situation, shared authority over content/backstory (players have their PCs, GM has most of the rest, some points of overlap plus details that are more colour than meaty content are negotiated), and plot as the result of all participants engaging the action resolution mechanics.

Why are we still talking about plot in RPGs as if nothing has changed since White Wolf and AD&D 2nd ed?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 17, 2011)

pemerton said:


> That is, the players - through the backstory and build of their PCs, and then building on those things over the course of play - signal clear goals and thematic concerns, and as GM I design encounters and scenarios that speak to those goals and thematic concerns. In 4e terms, you could think of this as player-designed quests.




While I like this approach very much in principle, in practice I find that these days (gaming with adults with jobs & families) the problem of unreliable player attendance puts a huge spanner in the works of a game based around individual PC backstories and goals.  I've been burned too many times building stuff around a particular PC and then they either miss the session or even drop the campaign.  I've been the unreliable player too, not long ago my Savage Worlds GM designed a bunch of stuff to let my PC shine, I got sick and couldn't make the game.  

I've tried the "not running game if player is away" approach and it's disastrous too, you end up never running the game, huge gaps, everyone forgets, the game is unreliable so no one prioritises it.  Better IME to always run a game for whoever turns up - but that means not building much stuff around the concerns of particular PCs.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 17, 2011)

Hussar said:


> It seems the vampiric mouse has been wallflowering this conversation:
> 
> http://www.enworld.org/forum/columns/310139-plot-not-four-letter-word.html
> 
> Needless to say, I agree with pretty much all his points except one - the continuum is not sandbox <---> railroad, it's sandbox <---> linear.  Again, it's ridiculously easy to railroad in a sandbox campaign.




I agree of course - APs are typically fairly linear in construction, whether the GM railroads in them to keep the PCs on track or force a particular outcome is a different question.  And in sandboxes there can be railroading especially around the edges of the box - unbeatable giants to the north, impassable desert to the south, impassable ocean to the east, unscalable mountains to the west.  Or just a bright 'you can't go there' line.  

Within the sandbox there would need to be choice of where to go or it's not a sandbox, and having a range of desirability in threat/reward ratios within different sandbox areas does not constitute railroading, I may differ from Hussar there.  The traditional megadungeon allows players to go where they want and make their own judgement about likely threat level, how much risk they want to undertake - more risk for likely higher reward - etc.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 17, 2011)

[MENTION=463]S'mon[/MENTION] - we have a "quorom" rule - at least 3 of the 5 players (other PCs are then played by the table as NPCs, and where it is feasible for them to slip into the background they do so).

My solution to the problem is to build situations that speak to multiple players/PCs: the *hobgoblin* mage who is guarding the *captured villagers* has an *imp* familiar. The dwarf and wizard hate goblins. The paladin want to rescue villagers. The imp will taunt the chaos sorcerer with promises of techniques to "master the chaos".

Or: the *hag exiles from the Feywild* live in the *ruined manor of a former archmage* which has *spider-filled pits and tunnels* beneath it. The drow sorcerer is obsessed by the Feywild (and hates spiders). The wizard wants to learn about the archmage, and also wants to be cured of slavering canker. The dwarf is wondering whether he is cut out to be a pit fighter (as it turns out, he wasn't - he's now a warpriest of Moradin instead).

The principal villain in the current scenario also ticks multiple boxes: he is a *wizard cultist of Vecna* who is also a *leader of goblin and hobgoblin armies* which *capture villagers and enslave them*, knows *secrets of the ancient minotaur empire that was overthrown by non-fallen Nerath*, and has done a deal with the aforementioned hags to gain access to their  *world-crossing tower*. The PC wizard is also an invoker of Ioun, Erathis and Vecna, who want to restore Nerath. The dwarf hates goblins and hobgoblins - ancient enemies of the dwarves - and has an ambiguous relationship to the minotaurs, having discovered that the dwarves served a long period of tutelage under them. The paladin (of the Raven Queen) wants to save the villagers, stop the marauding armies, and defeat Vecna. As a tiefling, he also has a passing interest in fallen empires. The drow chaos sorcerer wants to make his way to the Feywild via the world-crossing tower, to pursue his goal of reuniting the sundered elves. This will probably require learning some secrets of the ancient days.

I find it's all about interweaving things into a complex mess, such that multiple players have something at stake in every situation, and all have something at stake in the overarching scenario.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 17, 2011)

S'mon said:


> While I like this approach very much in principle, in practice I find that these days (gaming with adults with jobs & families) the problem of unreliable player attendance puts a huge spanner in the works of a game based around individual PC backstories and goals. I've been burned too many times building stuff around a particular PC and then they either miss the session or even drop the campaign. I've been the unreliable player too, not long ago my Savage Worlds GM designed a bunch of stuff to let my PC shine, I got sick and couldn't make the game.
> 
> I've tried the "not running game if player is away" approach and it's disastrous too, you end up never running the game, huge gaps, everyone forgets, the game is unreliable so no one prioritises it. Better IME to always run a game for whoever turns up - but that means not building much stuff around the concerns of particular PCs.




Oh so true. For a while I only had a 4 player group which meant that if one or two couldn't make the game, it got postponed. Since we we only play this game twice a month, several cancellations in a row just killed the momentum of the campaign. 

I got tired of all the missed sessions and recruited some more players from the FLGS (after meeting with them there of course). I now have 8 players. 

I'm running Dragon Age so the system is light enough to handle it. The best part is even if half of the group can't make it, we still have a game. I'm also not bothering to work in a lot of backstory stuff because I don't know which players will be there from session to session.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 17, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> Unfortunately, the topic has taken a long and winding divergence.  I asked moderators to take this back on topic and it hasn't happened.




While I do think this discussion has evolved organically from the OT, I will oblige catsclaw's reasonable request to the new "Plot is not a 4-letter word" thread.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> While I do think this discussion has evolved organically from the OT, I will oblige catsclaw's whiny (j/k) reasonable request to the new "Plot is not a 4-letter word" thread.



Thank you.

But you could have done it without the whiny comment. Crossing it out and putting a (j/k) just makes it more inappropriate.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 17, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> Thank you.
> 
> But you could have done it without the whiny comment. Crossing it out and putting a (j/k) just makes it more inappropriate.




I really was just kidding with very friendly intent. I sincerely apologize if I offended you.

Edit: (j/k) does mean "just kidding," right? I'd hate to think I misinterpreted an internet shorthand and said something too harsh. Even EW's experience comment mentioned the (j/k) being harsh.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> So, if I'm reading this correctly, it would have been *more* appropriate to just say "whiny?" I'll keep that in mind for next time.




No.  A more appropriate sentence would have been:

"While I do think this discussion has evolved organically from the OT, I will oblige catsclaw's request to the new "Plot is not a 4-letter word" thread. "




Vyvyan Basterd said:


> I really was just kidding with very friendly intent. I sincerely apologize if I offended you.
> 
> Edit: (j/k) does mean "just kidding," right? I'd hate to think I misinterpreted an internet shorthand and said something too harsh. Even EW's experience comment mentioned the (j/k) being harsh.




Typically, if someone throws out an insult online and then adds a wink or a (j/k) it means that they really _weren't_ just kidding, nor being silly. More often than not, they just want others to think they were joking.  What was the intent of the "whiny" comment anyway?

Throwing out an insult on the internet is never a good idea unless you know the other poster well, even in jest.  I don't know you at all and if you had made that comment to me in person, you would likely have a bloody nose.

Yes, I am having a bad day, but even if I was my usual cheery self, it would still rub me wrong.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 17, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> Typically, if someone throws out an insult online and then adds a wink or a (j/k) it means that they really _weren't_ just kidding, nor being silly. More often than not, they just want others to think they were joking.  What was the intent of the "whiny" comment anyway?




My intent was a friendly ribbing. Although we don't know each other personally, we've both been around ENWorld a long time and some days, especially when I'm having a good day and in a good mood, I feel like we are friends in a shared community. I sincerely did not know that "(j/k)" was commonly interpreted as "they really _weren't_ just kidding, nor being silly."


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 17, 2011)

catsclaw227 said:


> No.  A more appropriate sentence would have been:
> 
> "While I do think this discussion has evolved organically from the OT, I will oblige catsclaw's request to the new "Plot is not a 4-letter word" thread. "




"...Even though he was being whiny about it".



> Throwing out an insult on the internet is never a good idea unless you know the other poster well, even in jest.




It wasn't an insult; it was criticism. 



> I don't know you at all and if you had made that comment to me in person, you would likely have a bloody nose.




So should he have just punched you in the nose? Or is it okay just for you to criticize what people say by physical attacks?


----------



## catsclaw227 (Aug 17, 2011)

Vyvyan Basterd said:


> If I get in a jokey, chummy mood next time would it be appropriate to say? "Come on guys, Momma catsclaw is kicking us out. "




Apparently, you don't know when to stop.




prosfilaes said:


> "...Even though he was being whiny about it".



What are the quotes for?



prosfilaes said:


> It wasn't an insult; it was criticism.



I was criticized for asking if we could stay on topic?  And you think that's OK? How nice.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 17, 2011)

OP :
Is it bad to optimise?

answer: I'd say its better than arguing for 6 pages over the definition of plot


----------



## Plane Sailing (Aug 17, 2011)

catsclaw227, Vyvyan Basterd (and anyone else) - let's just say that there were some misunderstandings, draw a line under it and get on with the topic in question.

OK?

Thanks


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 17, 2011)

Personally, I always find the demands of optimization to be a big part of building a character. I've felt a couple times in my gaming career that my character was ineffectual and want to avoid that. I'm a bit stressed about taking a catfolk favored soul instead of a human cleric in my current campaign, even though I know I should in theory be able to outclass many other characters, like the half-giant samurai. Conveniently for me, it's unlikely anyone will discuss my character as long as I'm sitting next to the wizard player who persists in ignoring the ECL on his race and other cheating.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 18, 2011)

TheUltramark said:


> OP :
> Is it bad to optimise?
> 
> answer: I'd say its better than arguing for 6 pages over the definition of plot




If you don't define the plot, how can it be optimized?


----------



## Hussar (Aug 18, 2011)

I think I gave this answer a while ago, but, I've never really had a problem with repeating myself.  

The hyper-optimized, one dimensional character is a problem.  It's no different than a Mary Sue in fiction - it' s the character that can do everything, and do it better than everyone else.  It's a spotlight hog and in a game which does revolve quite a bit around the group, this is a problem.

OTOH, the one armed peasant with a spork is every bit as much of a problem.  While a Rinsewind (if you're a Pratchett fan) is funny in fiction, in the game it's just as much of a spotlight hog as the John Carter.  For one, it doesn't fit into the game particularly well because it doesn't fit into the group.  Why is the group dragging around this dead weight?  Generally the only reason is because the dead weight has the glowing PC halo floating above his head.

One of the biggest problems I see though, is when people who don't have a strong grasp on the mechanics start criticising other players for being "overpowered".  I mean, that one shot character from several pages back that had to burn a daily, a couple of other powers and succeed on three attacks in order to do gobs of damage got called a powergamer. 

Until you start looking at the math.

Sure, about 1 in 8 attempts (given a 50:50 chance of success) he's going to beat the living crap out of something.  But, he can only try this once per adventuring day.  So, on average, he's going to pull this off about once per eight adventuring days.  Heck, the way we play, that's about once per level.

Step over to my minotaur fighter for a second.  +2 vicious war pick (and no one is going to claim that THAT's optimised) does 8+d8+2d12+5 (str)=30 points on average on a crit.  How many times per adventuring day does he crit?  Even if it's only once, he's still doing over 200 points of damage to the "overpowered" character's 90 (on average).

Suddenly, the "overpowered" character isn't really all that big of a deal anymore.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Aug 18, 2011)

My main problem with the 'overpowered' characters is not just what they do, but what they except the rest of the party to do. A lot of times their trick or nova requires specific actions on the part of the other party members, and boy do they get annoyed when the party does not play along. Very annoyed. 

Followed right along with the DM being annoyed.

It gets even better when the player is weak on the rules.


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 18, 2011)

Kzach said:


> But as a player, people can't seem to see past the stats. It's bizarre. Why should I be penalised for making intelligent choices in character creation? Why should someone who makes dumb or illogical decisions in character creation be elevated on some imaginary pedestal of roleplaying brilliance?




Firstly I haven't read this entire discussion because it's on 18 pages and I don't have the time to go through it all. So forgive me if I've missed something important.

I have had the same problem in the past (some ENWorlder's may remember it though it's a few years ago) but from the opposite side. My regular players and I prefer a game where a certain level of optimisation is fine but not too far. We had a player who wouldn't play to our level and ruined games by constantly over-optimising his characters. He couldn't see why we didn't play to his level and he refused to play at the level the group majority did. It ended badly.

The problem is that this sort of issue swings both ways. You want the rest of the group to come up to your level but they don't want to, and I assume, want you to play down to theirs. 

My opinion is that you play the group majority or look for/start another group.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Aug 18, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> My main problem with the 'overpowered' characters is not just what they do, but what they except the rest of the party to do. A lot of times their trick or nova requires specific actions on the part of the other party members, and boy do they get annoyed when the party does not play along. Very annoyed.
> 
> Followed right along with the DM being annoyed.
> 
> It gets even better when the player is weak on the rules.




That's quite a wide generalization to make. This describes one of the two powergamers in my group. But when he's asked to tone down his frustration, he obliges. The other powergamer in our group is laid back and never gets annoyed at the actions of any other player at the table.


----------



## Paradox (Aug 19, 2011)

I don't optimize so much now, but back in the day, and especially/specifically with the computer games, I'd click the "re-roll" button for my stats until I had at least 2 18's, or something that was "acceptable". (I.E. No low scores.)

It became a sort of mini game in itself. Imagine the following happening very fast. 

Click.
Click. Scores too low.
Click.
Click.
Click. (Hm... 18 Str, but 6 Con... )
Click.
Click. (WOW! 4 18's! And the other scores above 14!)
Click. (ARGH!)
Click.
Click.
Click.... ETC.


----------



## Wiseblood (Aug 19, 2011)

IMO it's not optimizing that's bad. It's how certain people optimize. Sadly this method that is irksome is highly subjective. Sometimes broad sometimes narrow. While we may find someone that agrees with us it's a matter of personal taste. 

My personal beef is with race optimisers. People who select a character race based solely on it's benefit to a specific class that they want to play. Without regard to really anything else. They may role play it to the hilt  and it still may be fun but at first blush any race that isn't an iconic PC race (or race class combo) it grates on my nerves.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 19, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> My personal beef is with race optimisers. People who select a character race based solely on it's benefit to a specific class that they want to play. Without regard to really anything else. They may role play it to the hilt  and it still may be fun but at first blush any race that isn't an iconic PC race (or race class combo) it grates on my nerves.




So dwarf wizards are right out? I have no experience in 4e, but in 3e, with a few exceptions, optimizers find their races in the PHB. Your complaint seems less about optimizers then people who play unusual races or race class combos.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Aug 19, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> IMO it's not optimizing that's bad. It's how certain people optimize. Sadly this method that is irksome is highly subjective. Sometimes broad sometimes narrow. While we may find someone that agrees with us it's a matter of personal taste.




I'll agree with this in one instance.  If a group decides to uniformly optimize such that the entire group is very hard to take down while the individual characters are fallible, then I have no issue with it.  It's the "I must break the game" solo optimizers that annoy me.



> My personal beef is with race optimisers. People who select a character race based solely on it's benefit to a specific class that they want to play. Without regard to really anything else. They may role play it to the hilt  and it still may be fun but at first blush any race that isn't an iconic PC race (or race class combo) it grates on my nerves.




That's fair, we all have our pet peeves.  I think you've chosen a very frustrating one indeed as the books even point at preferred classes for races.  Though if you're talking about people playing minotaurs and stuff like that.. yes I agree.


----------



## Wiseblood (Aug 19, 2011)

[MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] yep dwarf wizards would ping on my radar.

[MENTION=92239]Kobold Boots[/MENTION] minotaur also has me in turmoil. 

I must admit I've played a minotaur once. Not sure he was optimized he seemed like it but a crit had me bleeding out. (circa 2E severed leg)

My deaths tend to be memorable.


----------



## Pentius (Aug 19, 2011)

Wiseblood said:


> My personal beef is with race optimisers. People who select a character race based solely on it's benefit to a specific class that they want to play. Without regard to really anything else. They may role play it to the hilt  and it still may be fun but at first blush any race that isn't an iconic PC race (or race class combo) it grates on my nerves.




This one is a tad confusing to me, probably because I've gotten very used to the mechanically optimal choices generally also being the thematically iconic choices.  So, the dwarf wizard would not(in any circumstance I can think of) be the Optimizer's choice, but would come up because someone thought it would be cool.

Also, I played a Minotaur once, too.  But it was in 4e, and minotaurs in 4e aren't really noticeably over or underpowered.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> I'll agree with this in one instance.  If a group decides to uniformly optimize such that the entire group is very hard to take down while the individual characters are fallible, then I have no issue with it.  It's the "I must break the game" solo optimizers that annoy me.
> 
> 
> 
> That's fair, we all have our pet peeves.  I think you've chosen a very frustrating one indeed as the books even point at preferred classes for races.  Though if you're talking about people playing minotaurs and stuff like that.. yes I agree.




OY!  I'm playing a minotaur right now.  Why did I pick minotaur?  Well, I'd been reading the Malazan books and there's this character who's just an incredibly kick ass warrior who was enslaved (Karsa Orlong for those who've read the books) and I started with this as a base.  I wanted something big and strong that was enslaved in a mine.

Minotaur jumped out at me.  Gave him a war pick, the very pickaxe he used to free himself with and went from there.  Big, not terribly bright, fighter type.  

Could have made him human, but, then, when we invaded the mouse kingdom, I wouldn't have eaten the king while he was still alive.  

Jadrak One Horn - "Mouse king... Needs ketchup."

This was a trend that started a long time ago for me.  It's been almost since the very early days of 1e since I played in a group that had all standard races.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 19, 2011)

Re race/class - personally I always pick them based on what I want to play, not what's optimal; but I may get annoyed if something thematically appropriate seems mechanically very inferior; eg Tiefling Warlocks pre-Essentials AIR; Dwarf warrior types also were a bit marginal due to lack of STR bonus AIR.  I can also get annoyed if a player picks a weird race purely for mechanical advantages, with no effort to roleplay it.  As DM I'll only allow races I'm comfy with though.

Dwarf Wizards don't annoy me though; before Tolkien dwarves were associated with magic.  I tend to think 'Alberich', so I like sinister Modsogner type dwarf wizards best.  4e encourages Dwarf Warlocks; I'm currently running Menace of the Icy Spire set in a dwarf infernal warlock's tower, I'm having some fun with that and tying it in to Goodman Game's Mountain King & his evil dwarves.


----------



## Pentius (Aug 19, 2011)

Tiefling Infernal Warlocks were at an initial disadvantage, due to lacking the Con bonus, oddly, they excelled at Fey Pact.  Whether Dwarves made marginal warrior types due to the lack of Strength was arguable, at best.  Dwarven Weapon Training and the Second Wind as a minor action go a long, long way.


----------



## pemerton (Aug 19, 2011)

Pentius said:


> Dwarven Weapon Training and the Second Wind as a minor action go a long, long way.



Oddly enough, the dwarf fighter in my game has DWT, wields a superior defensive halberd (a houseruled weapon, an ordinary halberd with brutal 2) and wears a cloak of the walking wounded.


----------



## Pentius (Aug 19, 2011)

pemerton said:


> Oddly enough, the dwarf fighter in my game has DWT, wields a superior defensive halberd (a houseruled weapon, an ordinary halberd with brutal 2) and wears a cloak of the walking wounded.




DWT is good at any level, and brutal in low heroic.  I'd be more surprised to hear of a weapon wielding Dwarf without it than one with it.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 19, 2011)

S'mon - yeah, I'd agree with that.  It does bug me when someone takes a race and then just plays it as a straight up human.

Funnily enough, I had one player some time ago play a kobold bard.  Short, charismatic, liked to talk, the whole bit.  After a bit of play I turned to her and asked why she didn't make the character a gnome - after all it seemed pretty gnomish to me. 

Her reaction was one of pretty much blank surprise.  It had never actually occured to her to make the character a gnome.  Totally not on her radar.  Had nothing to do with power gaming or anything else (it's a bloody kobold BARD!  That's about as far from power gaming as you can get) it was just that gnomes didn't even register as an option.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Aug 19, 2011)

Pentius said:


> This one is a tad confusing to me, probably because I've gotten very used to the mechanically optimal choices generally also being the thematically iconic choices.  So, the dwarf wizard would not(in any circumstance I can think of) be the Optimizer's choice, but would come up because someone thought it would be cool.




It really depends on the edition. In Third Edition, which is the true optimizer's playground, dwarves were the second best choice as wizards; bonus to one of the most important stats? Minus to a dump stat? Darkvision? Yes please! Elves on t the other hand, for all that they had a reputation for magical ability made lousy mages, due to the Con hit. The best race old cleese for casters was gnomes, due to the con bonus and small size. And since nobody who was properly optimized would play a non-spellcaster, you would in effect get parties consisting of three gnomes and a dwarven cleric. After the third or fourth identical party, it gets kind of old.


----------



## prosfilaes (Aug 19, 2011)

Eric Tolle said:


> And since nobody who was properly optimized would play a non-spellcaster, you would in effect get parties consisting of three gnomes and a dwarven cleric. After the third or fourth identical party, it gets kind of old.




So people played two classes* exclusively in your games, despite the fact it was getting old? That's not much like any game I've played it; the Meetup notice for my current 3.5 game even specified that we'd have to play casters, since there were none in the current group.

* A current poll here even put arcane casters and divine casters, 2nd and 4th out of fighters, arcane, divine and rogues. So not even the favorite classes of half the players.


----------



## TheUltramark (Aug 19, 2011)

here is another issue that I have found with "optimizers" (like its a bad word, we're all power-gamer-biggots)

but, if one guy does 5X the rest of the group's damage in the first round of a fight, and the monster (s) focus in on that one guy, and then he whines "why are they (it) pickin on me/singling meout???

really?

I don't get that one


----------

