Why are there so many gamers out there who are against even the slightest amount of optimization? Ironically by being so against optimization they're setting their players up for cookie cutter stats and just stupidly weak and boring characters. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing with playing a weak character or low powered setting, but some of these nerds take it to the next level of retarded.
Examples would help, I've never really run into this.
>>47872977
I've met DM's and players who are against something as simple as a rogue optimized for backstabbing. You know. Taking thug, rogue, that one class from the book of weeaboo magic, and some others to really crank it up. Which story wise could still work. They just get a wild hair up their ass for no reason, which is funny considering a core wizard could destroy them by mid level.
This isn't a thing that has ever happened to anyone, OP.
>>47872860
Two reasons
1) paranoid DMs that have had bad experience with powergamees
2) when they get conjured up by said powergamers as a strawman to knock down.
People that bring up the stormwind fallacy also need summary execution. It's the most painful example of stating the fucking obvious to defeat an argument that anyone who has actually played a game would already know is retarded.
>>47873079
>stormwind fallacy
The what now?
>>47873123
You can either be a powergamer or a roleplayer.
>>47873123
The fallacy that, just because you make a powerful character you should somehow be less good at role playing that character.
I had a GM that had an "absolutely no optimizing rule" for a few session before I bounced. I am not sure what all of his limits were because life's too short to put up with that shit, but in 3E he disallowed anyone from using paired weapons because "You can spend one feat for weapon focus and have it apply to both weapons". He also went into too many details about how he had sex with three asian women (at different times).
I have no rules against optimization.
I do have rules against people who design an "optimized" character and then refuse to play anything else, even when said character would be absolutely useless.
Like when our group decided on a game focusing almost completely on undead and the guy who has a stroke when not playing his special rogue pouted the entire game because their was no one to sneak attack. Even when I homebrewed feats to allow him to for undead he had fought before, he refused to take it because he had already made up his mind on the feat slot.
Now I forbid repeat classes when running dnd. Not a perfect rule but I like to think it saves me some grief later on.
>>47872860
>complaining about your paranoid delusions which have no basis in real life
Classic /tg/
>>47872860
I've run a few games with optimized characters that basically threw off the balance of the game to the point where the one character does literally everything for the party and the rest just dick around on their laptops because why bother? My fault for not looking at the character build, but oh well. Live and learn.
I don't have a problem with it until it ruins the game for the other players. It's just a matter of working out what everyone wants to do prior to the game though, shouldn't be that hard for people to get along.
>>47872860
>against even the slightest amount of optimization?
Because the world is full of shitty people, and they're just as bad as the players who optimize for a certain trait/feature.
>You know. Taking thug, rogue, that one class from the book of weeaboo magic, and some others to really crank it up.
Wow. Taking a broken class and "others to really crank it up". Oh, goodness me. What a slight amount of optimization you've taken. So slight. Hardly even anything to worry about. Much small.
Did you min-max this post to shove as much hyperbole as you could in there?
Listen, talk to your DM, for some groups, everyone is going to want to be on the same power level:
http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=5293
That can be high or low or whatever. An optimized rogue can play with an unoptimized wizard just fine... sometimes.
>>47872860
What exactly counts as optimization with these types of people? If I'm a fighty dude and I put a 20 in my fighty stat, is that optimization? If I want to be good with a broadsword and take perks for it, is that optimization? Where's the line?
>>47873842
If you have fun it means you have optimized and have to get the fuck out.
>>47873842
My GM was really chill and for him it meant no infinite combos.
>>47873351
As if two-weapon fighters aren't screwed enough.
>Think up a character
>Use the rules to build stats and abilities that represent that character
Anyone who cares beyond that either way is a fag.
If your character is a good fighter, make him good at fighting.
>>47873619
I know a group that's exactly like that.
>>47873984
The guy literally considered the most powerful build for 3E to be a fighter that took toughness for all of his feats.
Do you mean players who would do things like stat dump to be 18/18/18 ?
I'd make my players use the standard stat array.
>>47872860
Because your class is already optimized.
rogue - disarm traps, backstab, stealth
fighter - highest attack of all classes, highest hit points.
wizard - spells, knowledge skills,
ranger - track, area knowledge, flora and fauna knowledge
etc etc
When you decide to further put yourself into an already established niche and then bitch about when GM gives challenges you can't approach because you put everything in one branch... then it is your fault. It isn't my kind of fun when rogue does 10d6 up to 6 times in a round.
Also it is funny how I can kill higher level characters with simple stuff. No ranger... they die of starvation, get lost. Nobody invests into ability to escape ropes or chains, all feats put into one specific weapon. Disarm him and watch him being useless.
D&D isn't my kind of game. Especially higher level ones. You can enjoy it if you want but don't expect everyone to have same opinion as yours and thinking their opinion doesn't have foundations.
>>47872860
My DM does this whenever he plays a character. He makes his character obnoxious, weak and generally a detriment to the party.
I asked him to make a good character. He makes a black orc who casually discusses eating elf babies. He would hiss at elves. This wasnt canonical to the setting, it was just his character being retarded. His interpretation. He also did it despite my telling him that doesnt work within the setting.
Another time he made a cleric of love. Again, specifically a good campaign, he convinced the rogue to murder another adventurer for his rapier, and committed the coup de grace with a cause critical wounds. Why? "My character was specifically about the harmful sides of love, the destructive and manipulative side"
He considers assigning all of your creation points as min-maxing and being good at something is the sign of a bad character.
Its to the point I refuse to play with him if he isnt GM'ing. Because he is an awful player to play beside, and to DM for.
>>47872860
The strangest part is most of the anti-optimizers I've met or heard about are almost always set off by something that does nothing but give martials bigger numbers in 3.5 while they completely ignore the insane shenanigans that even semi-competently played spell casters can get up to.
There is a serious powergamer in our group, but not only is he an excellent roleplayer, but our GM constantly finds ways around his powergaming. He's really good with his gun? Enemies take note and begin trying to engage him in melee, bosses may attempt to disarm him in melee range.
He's really tanky with his armor? Good thing a sunder check exists.
His magic is off the charts? Null magic, magic resistance, blocking the flow of arcane.
A clever GM and a realistic opposing force (in-game) with any semblance of intelligence would find ways to counter your most effective strategies, forcing you to mix up your strats.
I'm fine with an optimized character, if anything it makes it more fun. However, the optimization should be for a reason, and not just 8 different multiclass dips for maximal powergame benefits that do nothing for your backstory.
>>47874276
I kind of know this feeling. I had a wizard in my party who focused entirely on spells for knocking people out, charming them, etc. And then he got mad the one time that we went up against a pair of golems, because he didn't have any useful way to fight against them aside from one very weak spell.
I personally found it fun, since it was the one time I got to go up against an enemy that wasn't unconcious for the first three turns I was hitting it, but the wizard was very unhappy and the bard didn't enjoy plinking with a crossbow.
It can be a real problem if some players start treating the game as if it was a competitive game, rather than a cooperative one. Ideally you want to have fluff first, instead of focusing on an arbitrary ruleset. >>47874085
Sums it up better than I ever could.
>>47874276
>I can arbitrarily screw my players for petty bullshit reasons.
>Because I'm a douchebag.
>>47874894
> I put all my skill points into 4 skills
> I put all feats into one skill tree
> We step outside the city and nobody has tracking skill
> We are on a boat and somebody fells over. He has no ranks in swim.
> Try to haggle. Has no skills and store owner rips him off
> Expects to ride the horse like a mongol when he has no skills
> Call a GM a douchebag
Here is your reply
Only had one gm like this, who thought "Muh numbers" was the be all, end all of Pathfinder. So he was incredibly pissy and paranoid about the martial characters of the party breaking his game(which was everyone else because he not so subtly told us we should play martial characters).
Meanwhile I'm a Wizard wizarding it up and he basically let me run rampant all over his game because he was so focused on making sure the martials couldn't do anything.
I got thrown out of the group by the DM when I dropped a Hold Person on the BBEG, who showed up at our camp in the middle of the night to kill a PC or two to "show his superiority to us." And yes, the DM was planning on killing a PC or two, as said by him before the fight even started. Said BBEG also had a bunch of bullshit magic items that made him basically invincible against straight damage.
He got thrown out of the store a few weeks later when another new guy broke an encounter using magic, and the DM responded by screaming throwing a rulebook at said player. He missed and almost hit the store owner, who took it about as well as you'd expect, and now the DM is basically blacklisted from every game store in the area.
>>47874276
>fighter - highest attack of all classes, highest hit points.
That's not even correct, you dolt. Barbarian and Paladon have the same base attack bonus, and Barbarian has a bigger hit die.
What Fighters actually have are a stupid amount of feats - in theory giving them lots of versatility in combat, but in practice not all that useful when a Wizard can just toss down Enervation and ruin an encounter (nevermind metamagic fuckery).
>>47875045
That's some shitty optimization; how can you call yourself optimized if you can't survive basic adventuring scenarios?
In my experience, that's a lot closer to what you see from those overly-dedicated roleplayer types (the other extreme of the Stormwind Fallacy). "My character is a sheltered type who really doesn't *do* adventures, time to drag down everyone else's fun by making a mechanically incompetent character centered on a character concept inappropriate for 95% of D&D campaigns."
I have no clue what causes people to think a fat merchant with gout and an overdeveloped sense of self-preservation has room in a game about going into dungeons to kill dragons and loot their hoard. Same for GMs that okay that stuff then get huffy when said fat merchant doesn't want to adventure.
>>47874085
>>47874791
>If your character is a good fighter, make him good at fighting.
But that specifically justifies optimizing
>>47874276
That's not optimization, that's specialization.
>>47875878
>Character optimization is the concept of making characters most efficient at a task or for the game as possible.
so it is other term for specialization
>>47875045
>Decide I want my character to be good at something
>GM kills him off because lawl fuck you for trying to be good at something
Come on now.
This only happens and has only ever happened in D&D, specifically 3.P. Never have I ever even heard of something like this happening in another game system.
>>47873011
As a dm, I can say that some of it is based off memory and control logistics, I've run into dozens of people whose greatest joy is "winning" d&d and wod, and they tend to multiclass to such a degree that they outshine everything else, or they'll exploit vague class rules to cheat their way to victory. Such a relationship is cancerous to the game, and it's easier to disallow such practices at character creation than to solve it mid session when they're looking to exploit the situation at everyone's frustration.
>>47876129
are you playing to be stupid? rpg classes are made with specific areas they should excel at. Fighter never has shit health, armor, weapon skills. Rogue always has rogue skills.
You trying to put every resource into one thing so you can punch thing even harder when system gives you ability to punch things hard and then bitching that it is GMs fault...
>>47876083
No. I can optimize a character so he is good at literally everything, or good at such a broad range of subjects that generally does not encounter things he can't solve.
>>47876344
Except if a fighter does not spend feats on hitting things then he is garbage at hitting things. The game's math assumes you invest in it.
>>47872860
>Why are there so many gamers out there who are against even the slightest amount of optimization?
A gimpy character can be a mascot or 'useful hobbit' type. Maybe just a specialised tool, or even fodder for an acceptable story death. It's much easier to buff a specific character than nerf them.
A character who throws more than a little shade on a teammate is universally hard to take seriously.
Thus, most players and DMs are warier of players ahead of the curve than those lagging behind.
>mfw I optimize support characters
>mfw anti-optimizationfags blame everyone else for min maxing
I love DMs that punish min-maxing, they're usually too stupid to tell when I am trolling them.
There is no inherent problem in trying to make a PC mechanically more effective at what he does. A warrior wants to be a better warrior, a mage wants to be a better mage, etc.
>The problem is when optimization and mechanics take priority over the story and the character.
When the player only thinks in terms of rules and numbers, and fluff becomes almost irrelevant to him. He is not trying to make stats for a character, he is just trying to find the best combination of stats.
The powergaming problem is not a problem about what the player does or doesn't, we can all roleplay and optimize our PCs a bit. THe problem is how priorities are ordered.
>>47876414
*hard to accept
Bloody autocorrect.
>My character is a warrior who strives to achieve perfection in battle prowess, especially *thing*
>So he does everything to excel at *thing*, to the point of being obnoxious about it
Here's fluff for powergamer
>>47872860
Ugh, this shit's so obnoxious. I know some douche at our game store who gets pissy if you're playing any race that gives you a boost to that class's needed stats.
"Of course the half-orc player picks barbarian."
"Playing an elf? I bet you're playing a ranger or rogue too aren't you?"
"You minmaxers are gonna break the game! Why can't you guys play (insert unoptimized shitty build here) like me?! You're so unoriginal!"
>Later down the line...
"God damn it. Everyone elses character is so much stronger/better at something than my character. You minmaxers ruin everything!"
>>47876657
Then, you can roleplay a deconstruction of a though guy.
He has no social skill, no empathy, people fear him. He has no knowledge about religion, history, politics or even basic general culture, people think he is stupid, he can easly be decieved. He has no wisdom, no mental strenght of any kind. If you take his sword from him, he is helpless and his enemies soon realize this.
>>47876867
>He has no wisdom
A highly skilled fighter should have very sharp senses though
>>47874085
>Think up a character
>Use the rules to build stats and abilities that represent that character
>Fight breaks out
>Character dies
Good work.
>>47872860
Because it's easier for a DM who doesn't know too much about optimization and can't or won't put in the time to learn. It's playing to the lowest common denominator.
The alternative is often just as bad. Having just one player being optimized usually means he's hogging the spotlight - the other players get bored, fiddle around on their mobile/laptop and stop showing up to gaming night.
He's also breaking all of the DMs encounters, removing any challenge. If the DM makes the encounters harder all the unoptimized players die.
There are exceptions of course. Someone mentioned optimizing for support, and there are optimizers who will tune their build to the level of the party instead of going all out every time.
But given that DMs are people too and /tg/ people are often not the most socially competent you get misunderstandings, overdoing it, exaggarations and stuff like that.
>>47876867
>Getting the right feats and class abilities requires you to dump literally every stat and not spend your skill points.
I think an issue in this thread is that people are using a bunch of words interchangably i.e. optimizer, minmaxer, and powergamer. I've always taken those words to be degrees on the same scale: you've got the optimizers that want their character to be good at the things their character is supposed to be good at -- fighters fight, rogues rogue, etc.; then you have the minmaxer, who is really really good at a chosen aspect of their class at the expense of other aspects, such as fighters that can fight really really well with a spiked chain, but is less than impressive without it, or rogues that focus on the silver-tongued aspect and ignore stealth, traps, or rifling through pockets; and lastly you have the powergamers that exploit a VERY SPECIFIC build to have ultimate power usually but not always at the expense of story and logic, such as a fighter that is cross-trained in Elven Jiujitsu and Orcish Polefighting and just happened to hail from the distant land of not!Japan because that's the only way they can have a character that deals +800 damage on a charge.
Whether you agree where I've put the lines in the sand or what the cutoff point is or which name goes to which class of player, it's important to recognize middle grounds between Godking Punpun and Urist McMudfarmer: Incomptent Adventurer and Local Dissapointment.
>>47876867
Every fighter I've played has had decent wisdom/willpower/whatever and had no problems mixing it up with either archery or hand to hand fighting as well as his sword. Get on my level, scrub.
I think the big thing is that a lot of times, optimization is mixed up with people who want to play obscure, exotic fantasy races or a confusing mixture of different classes that are contradictory thematically or story wise for the purposes of getting some weird power or effect. Playing the race or class as a character is often irrelevant to these people, as long as they have the cool power.
Personally, I'm fine with people optimizing to be good at their role, playing more weird classes or races, whatever, as long as they play their character to the best of their ability and try to make some sense in the world. The only people I have issues with are those that treat their characters entirely as a sack of stats or who build specifically for the purpose of invalidating other characters or trying to be the protagonist of the whole story.
>>47872860
>Why are there so many gamers out there who are against even the slightest amount of optimization?
Because I play role-playing games, not video games.
>>47877295
Ahh, elitism. That's actually a very good reason. You're so much more superior that anyone that pays more attention to numbers than you do.
>>47874354
Especially "solving every problem with a spell"
How is that not THE WORST kind of powergaming - making others worthless?
I mean it's a cooperative game.
>>47872860
Becasue classes aren't equal.
>>47875045
From what I can tell you're simply arguing the point that your players don't seem to understand the purpose of the various skills, and you need to educate them.
You could also have a hard-on for making players feel useless as opposed to challenged.
>>47877295
this desu
Me and my group are here to enjoy a story with our characters.
If we wanted to do a dungeon crawl then we would do that and we have.
>>47877660
To me the biggest problem is when people just pick what they think is better rather than what they want to play, I have a friend in my party who picked Cleric and now he's bitching about his decision all the time and trying to get his character killed, he should just have picked the rogue which he was obviously more interested to play as but no, he wanted to be MVP
>>47872860
> Gamers
What a fucking faggot term.
Also ttrpgs that allow builds, unbalanced archetypes, powergaming, metagaming are cancer and babby-tier.
Just do some proper pen and paper.
>>47873812
Did you really just say that Swordsage is broken?
>>47876344
If you're going to use this argument then please, don't use one of the most crunchiest games for your argument.
No seriously, the game assumes that your character is optimized and doesn't give you a lot of wiggle room to be anything else but optimized unless you're a mage.
I mean fuck, even if you wanted a character with proficiencies in swimming, haggling, tracking, etc. you only get like 3-4 + INT skill points and even then, you only get so good with certain skills if it's not on your class list.
>>47872860
It's a question of degree. The Stormwind Fallacy is a fallacy alright, but too much optimization /can/ hurt roleplaying. Such as mashing a hundred different obscure races, templates and prestige classes into a barely recognizable, retarded mess with no flavor just to get some broken powers (just look into any Giant in the Playground optimization threads). Or throwing a downright fit whenever the GM bans some third party material you wanted to use, or limits your character mechanically even for a good reason.
I guess some people just blow it out of proportion. Like how 4chan does with most things, you know?
I hate it when people take options that are heavily associated with certain fluff points but don't actually try to play out the fluff. If a class or special ability is a secret held by a specific faction, then you better fucking be a member of that faction or have a really good explanation to learn it.
>>47875045
>Build a Diplomancer
>Refuse to ever leave the city
>Convince others to do the campaigning for me.
>Get rich, fuck hos
You want to not play a game? Sure, let's not play the game.
>>47878855
The 3.5 GitP forums are pretty fun in their insanity and usually mention that TO doesnt have a place in a real game
The 5E board is full of autistic retards that refuse to believe the Bladelock or Champion fighter are weaker than other options bitching about rules and whining about optimization like an old AD&D grognard even though they started with 4E
>>47872860
If 4meme taught me anything it is this;
The only way to play TTRPGs correctly is by not playing.
>>47874397
That's why I love one of my DM's. He always finds a way to counter me and keeps me on my toes.
I've only been able to play a caster class once with him and it was like a game of chess. The restrictions were so fun. Everything by the book, every special use of a spell requiring studying the spell.
By around level 16 I had managed to set up a large empire based around using undead as unskilled labor and selling the items. Eventually I started to crash the local market and economy, so I began to set up trade agreements with the local guilds.
To the Smiths I sold a variety of processed metals. To the traveling merchants I sold clean water, alcohol, and salt. With the Thieves guild, I acted as a fence, taking in stolen goods and giving them raw materials, semi finished goods, or gold. I also acted as a way to launder money, since I had the time to smelt the gold, restamp it for different kingdoms, and then handle it or turn it in a tumbler to wear it down.
>supporting ivory tower game design.
Literally the only way for "optimization" to exist in a system is trap options.
>>47881250
Yes, but it exists in 99% of systems because essentially every system with options has not all options equal.
FFS.
Have
You
Tried
Not
Playing
D&D?
>>47881354
Optimization is a thing in most systems. Not just D&D.
>>47881354
>>47881361
Have you tried playing TSR D&D?
>>47881388
Again things that don't even stem from D&D have this issue.
>>47872860
You can't play Variant Human. You can't multiclass without a story reason. You must roll your stats. Stop crying about it, you fucking faggot.
>>47881354
It's way, way easier to powergame oWoD than D&D.
Max willpower with FBP
Take generation 5
Max out your dex
Invest heavily in dodge and a combat skill
Now make the rest of your build; whatever you want.
>>47876304
This.
There is a difference between being good at the thing you want to be good at, and exploiting rules gaps and shady words to be BETTER than other people, or try to "win" at pnp games.
>>47877295
Oh yeah, why would you ever make your mighty warrior mighty? I mean Conan, Aragon, Seigfried, Beowulf, the Gray Mouser, Sinbad and other heroes of the fantasy literature and myths that most games are supposedly emulateing were all such weaklings and had no great skill compared to the nameless mooks they fought afterall
>>47881458
shh... don't confuse them with facts, without their strawman to guide the way they'll get lost on the yellow brick road
>>47872860
>still playing 3.PF
>>47873580
Isn't that, like, the opposite of optimization?
>>47873619
The problem is that some people have paranoid delusions about optimization, too. Like, you design a character to be really good at something and nothing else, and that something is really critical for the group and no one else can or wants to do it, but the GM has a hissy fit anyways.
>>47882288
Cry more.
>>47883098
I've got nothing to cry about. I don't play shitty games where you must optimize to make a suitable character.
>>47873637
Most games are like this, with the exception of combat. I do try to make sure everyone is useful in combat and that no one outshines the rest, but other than that, In my experience, only 1 person specializes in each party role anyways. Only the party face specializes in talking to people. Only the party tank specializes in taking damage for other people. Only the party healer specializes in healing. Etc etc. Because of this, optimization just means they're good at these roles and strengthen the party instead of dragging it down.
I rarely see jacks of all trades, and I usually actively discourage them because I always see the player regret their decision later. Being slightly above mediocre in a lot of areas is very rarely satisfying to play.
>>47872860
OP, I think you have confused "Optimized", "Min/Maxed" and "Munchkin" in your skull meat there. The difference is narrow, but important.
An Optimized character is one who exists not only to do something well, but also to support their team and cover for the weaknesses of the other players. Any role in a party can be optimised. An Optimized character is one who, under normal circumstances, can be reliably expected to "do the thing" that their character has been built to do, and, under abnormal circumstances, still function as a party member.
A Min/Maxed character is one who has attempted to transcend mere optimization and become "the thing" that a normal character would merely do. A Min/Maxed character is one who has chosen to minimize their weaknesses, often by piling them all into one area, and maximize their output in another, by stacking as many bonuses as they are able into that one thing. This character is rarely able to cope if they are in a situation where they cannot do "their thing", and equally unable to provide any coverage for other party members if they need an extra hand doing something unrelated to "the thing".
Finally, the munchkins, blight that they are... they build their characters to do everything better than anyone else. If a game system includes an exploitable option, they will use it to such a degree that it is no longer recognizable. Munchkins either claim to have no weaknesses, or actually are invincible because of the very specific wording that is in an obscure bit of the rules. They are a blight on the gaming table who are only interested in themselves.
>>47882288
>3.5 is the only game where people minmax
guess I'll try WoD then since playing any other game will sove the problem
>>47881692
oh look, you're a retard.
>>47878719
Fuck that whole book. It's essentially half-a-food into 4th edition and I just don't like the flavor. The power issues are beside the point.
>>47872860
Sometimes, you wanna play a commoner.
But the thing is, to actually PLAY a commoner/other Sub-T3 build/class in a way that you don't suck eggs, you need to practically pull off a perfect play, at which point you're optimising yourself towards a specific playstyle.
>>47872860
I won't go into great detail, but the only "anti-optimization" I've encountered is from players so deadset on making novel character concepts that it hamstrings their ability to play well in a team. Not That Guy material or anything, but it could be a little exasperating.
The current example I'm playing with is a "support" Sorceror. Cute concept, but playing a Bard would get most of the same mileage and requires similar enough attributes. He didn't want to compromise his vision with bard songs, wizard spellbooks, etc.
Ironically, I think if he took more creative liberties with how his character concept worked with class abilities, he'd have a more useful, focused character with minimal changes to his RP.
>>47876351
Specialization is picking a task to be good at. Optimization is choosing the best stats/gear/class/whatever that gives you the optimal performance for that task. In good system, the difference between most optimal and the next most optimal is small enough that people can use both builds without sacrificing much if the like the fluff of the second build more.
Being good at everything (or a wide array of things that are not closely related to each other) is not optimization, that's powergaming/munchkinism.
>>47877999
I am as well, I just happen happen to enjoy stories better when playing from the viewpoint of a character that's good at his supposed profession.
>>47881629
The basic human in 5e is the blandest shit ever
but underpowered characters is my fetish. i also always choose hardest mode when presented with a hoice
>>47885499
The game is as hard as the DM wants it to be regardless of your choices. Choosing "hard mode" is thinking like it's a videogame
>>47877421
Yes, I am an elitist and you are beneath me. Nice argument.
>>47882000
Because I'm not a child who needs the biggest stick? My character's strength is entirely derived from MY narrative, not "muh 20 str on muh character sheet".
well i play 5e and I feel like crazy 3.x optimization isn't necessary at all, and as a player and a DM i get annoyed by the guy who does a dozen stupid things in combat just to maximize muh deeps because??
optimization and shit is a videogame/3.x mindest. It really doesn't have a place in 5e.
>>47876846
This is just goddamn confusing.
Why would you complain about powergamers
when you could just use a system where powergaming is redundant or futile?
Eliminating and disallowing arbitrary elements of a rules/features-dense system is a very crude and biased method. Can one truly believe they're making the game "powergamer"-proof?
>>47886218
I would love to have you as a player in one of my games so you can narratively fail your attacks and die.
>>47886218
Don't flatter yourself faggot, your narrative is likely garbage just like you, and you only think it's strong because in comparison to the distilled garbage your group(s) present, the odor of yours is heavier.
Absolutely nothing wrong with optimization, especially when it's coupled with good rping. I pity roody poos like you who don't know the joy of actually being good at things mechanically, while still being able to rp solutions to half your encounters without ever rolling the dice.
>>47872860
Probably negative past experiences. For example, I optimize everything I play, to generally the groups benefit even if it is damage. My bud once had this grand idea and turned it into straight powergaming. One temporary rule misunderstanding later (I know the fucker wanted it to be his way, otherwise he'd not wanna do his shit, and when we did the rule right he quite the PC) the DM had to make separate health bars for the enemy just for him. We'd have the pool for me and the other PC, and one for him. First to fill got the enemy killed. And shit akin to that plus interchanging of words has lead to great disdain for optimizer and optimization in general.
But seriously, I outta tell the DM how good his save was, I didn't even know until he spilled his work around.
>>47887048
>When a feat would be very useful to your character concept right down to being one of the main descriptors you might use for them, but it's well known as one of the strongest in the game and you scrap the character because you don't want to appear to be taking advantage of it
>>47883508
The only explanation that made any sense to me.
It's simple, people who GM and DM should be inherently intelligent, unbiased and profecient in a basic ground level of human psychology. There are so many different factors that can present a challenge to the party besides raw numbers alone, but what nearly every single DM fails to realize is that the objective is not to throw walls alone at the players, but instead design a creative very well thought out story that optimizes the growth and development of the characters themselves THROUGH the use of adversity, in-party intrigue and the exemplification on their background, strengths and weaknesses of those said characters.
You are telling a story and the players are the actors, not the victims.
>>47872860
>>47872860
Threads like this reminds me why D&D is cancer
When I DM, it's for friends, and I DM to give them all a good time. They can do whatever the hell they want to do with their characters. My job is deliver them something cool, and I genuinely like having that role.
That said, I feel really bad if a player seems to derive most of their fun from their "build" and poring over splatbooks to find the perfect multiclass combo and feat progression, as if they're in it just to play for their own victory, through good numbers.
I always felt like the primary fun of the game is found in immersion and storytelling, with some curveballs where the players or even the DM ends up dealing with shit they didn't expect would happen. I like it when we're all improvising all sorts of crazy shit, because we end up remembering it and talking about it later. I think that's where a lot of roleplaying magic happens.
I put a lot of effort into making the game fun from open angles that invite this sort of experience, because I think it makes for the most fun. This sort of enjoyment doesn't need character planning from levels 1 to 20 with weird subraces or obscure feats or whatever; all you need to do is get into character and do what you think is cool. If builds make a player happy, by all means, I'll let them do what they like. But, I hope they are still interested as I am as to have a good time with friends above all else, because that's what really matters.
I don't see it as optimization, as much as I want a competent character that won't die in the first session. It has been my experience that ant-optimization GM's are either incompetent, sadistic, petty, or all three. These are the GM's that will gleefully kill of a party because we have not declared our characters eating, and going to the bathroom. Or they don't understand power levels, and keep on setting up encounters where we have to flee, or die.
I play in games to have fun. Optimization is part of it. I understand if he/she does not want us to be using abusive splatbookd, but when I am given guff for making a rogue with a high dexterity, that is my sign to find a better group.
>>47887445
thats not optimization, that's just taking a feat that fits your character.
optimization would be taking a feat for no reason besides it works well mechanically. like a fighter whose never touched a drip of magic suddenly taking magic initiate at level 6+ because he realizes he could pick find familiar and get free advantage on attacks occassionally
>>47888045
What if his character realized that "Hey, having a familiar do my bidding is actually sometimes a huge advantage, maybe I should learn spells"?
I mean, the rules in D&D describe on some level the way the world works. This means that someone who is optimizing can be roleplayed as merely being a character who does his best to be competent in his field, even if this means taking esoteric abilities that aren't part of the standard "kit" for his type of people.
>>47876903
You seem to have a shit DM if their only consideration for a reasonable fight is the textbook challenge rating. If characters are constantly dying your DM is fucking up. By all means there should be risk but if you're forced to optimise to survive then that's lame.
>>47888672
This.
Optimisation seems retarded to me, the second you realise your players are walking over their challenges, be that combat or otherwise, you should be upping the difficulty.
Relatively speaking, the challenge a "sub-optimal" party has to deal with is equal to the challenge an "optimal" party has to anyway.
Typically the issue comes in with 1 player optimising and the others not, but if you can't easily rein that in with a bit of planning, you shouldn't be DMing
>>47872860
It's actually very simple. It's easier, and more fun, to roleplay a character having a difficult time and succeeding despite it, then playing a godlike character and just whistling through the story.
Why do you try to play video games on harder modes instead of just playing easy mode?
>>47888672
When there's a party consisting of characters that are mechanically good and characters that are mechanically bad combat can only ever be challenging for one of the two. It's not the GM's fault, it's the fault of the game designers. Optimization, however, could help set a bar in cases like those. It's much easier to create an appropriate challenge when everyone's at their best than it is when everyone's gimped by various degrees of severity.
>>47889856
That's not at all comparable.
The GM sets the difficulty level, playing shitty characters on purpose is like playing a video game but refusing to use anything but the starting pistol.
>>47889882
Yep. There are people that like to try to get through games with starting pistols, or just a bolt pistol and combat knife. And when they are done, they have a story that not many others can compare to. They have accomplished something far more fun and memorable.
But as you can't see the comparison, you obviously will never understand. Having less then a 100 IQ tends to do that.
>>47889974
That's real nice faggot, but the vast majority of people don't WANT to play novelty challenge runs, they want a challenging experience while making full use of the tools available.
Believe it or not, most people would rather do a 200 meter sprint normally than a 100 meter sprint with a broken leg.
I don't personally care that much about optimization- as a GM. I generally disallow splatbooks when running D20 that aren't specific to whatever setting I am running, just to avoid headaches because of D20. But no, it is easy to tailor a challenge to a party, so that at no point is a fight so hard that everyone gets cheese-killed or so easy that they just walk all over it.
The real killer with players who go all-in optimization is when you have a mixed party of some who do and some who don't. Because many systems will leave you with situations where, if one or two party members are going that route, any encounter that reasonably challenges them will contain things that can effortlessly slaughter anyone else in the party who did not do this. Now, as a GM I can just say "Well, ok, Giant Fuck You Guy doesn't target player Y (un optimized) over player X (optimized)", but there are limits on that which will start to strain credulity and mess with the flow of the game to an ever increasing degree, finally reaching a point where in every fight it feels like only the optimized ones are actually participating.
It should be noted though that I think there is a BIG line between optimization and power gaming: There is a gulf of difference between "I want to make the most effective possible defensive Paladin, how do I do that?" and "I want to make an utterly invulnerable Paladin, let me read through 80 small-press splatbooks to find a perfect combination of things that renders me utterly impossible to kill". Intent is a mother fucker.
>>47873812
>optimized sneak attack
>worse than optimized CoDzilla
You suck
>>47889872
So it's the fault of the car designer if one person wants to drive the car normally and another wants to enter it into drag races? He is supposed to make it work in all situations for all people?
Goddamn how stupid can humanity be?
It's not the designer or the builder, it's almost always the user. Unless the thing doesn't work at ALL, it is the user that fucked it up. Get into I.T. work, and perhaps you may learn a thing or two. Assuming you can.
>>47883652
There are no power issues you stupid faggot
All The Book of Weeaboo Fightan' Magic does is make it so that martials can ALMOST compete with caster classes instead of getting completely trampled into the dirt.
If anything the book fixes the power issues that are already there.
>>47890039
>comparing cars to roleplaying games
>>47890039
You do know that the lead designer of the system you're defending literally thinks you're wrong right?
The game is poorly designed, not because it doesn't work, but because it COMPLETELY refuses to explain how you should use it, it attempts to trap the player by laying out shitty options and then punishing them if they pick them.
This isn't a fucking card game and it shouldn't have been designed like one.
>>47890039
>So it's the fault of the car designer if one person wants to drive the car normally and another wants to enter it into drag races?
Yes, because the designer didn't properly communicate the purpose of the car, implying/pretending that it would be equally viable in both settings.
If you were sold a car with the name "DRAG RACER" and then it would be only mediocre at drag racing, wouldn't you feel a bit cheated?
>>47888672
You seem to be suffering from pussyache.
>>47883508
And the question is answered.
Now to promptly ignore it in favour of masturbatory factionalism.
>>47885942
i mean im the type to choose hard on video games. Obviously the dm is gonna set the difficulty for dnd, but i can also tweak my characters capacity for hbdling difficulty with a non minmaxed character
>>47881354
White Wolf has the same if not worse issues
>>47890524
I'm okay with amending that to "have you tried not playing D&D or WoD?"
They are both pretty terrible.
>>47889808
How do you balance a game around a guy who can walk all over challenges by turn 2 when the rest of the pary need 5 turns to pull off the same stunt?
It's easy to say "oh, you're fucking trash, don't DM" but in practice, it's practically impossible because either the optimizer is walking all over the encounters balanced around the rest of the party or the party is left in the lurch because the optimizer is the only one capable of dealing with the encounter balanced around him.
And if you make it too hard, then you'll end up in a TPK.
>>47889974
Listen, even if there are a subset of gamers who prefer to go through the game with starting gear, the vast majority of gamers will, nine out of ten times, want to play through the game while experimenting with the bulk of their options.
Even then, the people doing starting gear runs are people who understand the game so well that they can beat it with only a pistol just to make things harder for themselves.
I mean, there are people who do blind-folded runs of games but it doesn't mean that the average player doesn't like the ability to fucking see.
>>47890524
>>47890625
As someone who plays Changeling the Lost and loves it to death, WoD as a whole is fairly small time.
I mean, how many people do you think have heard of WoD in comparison to D&D?
The reason why the default is "have you tried not playing D&D" is because it's where most people start and what most people complain about.
>>47872860
I know I stay the fuck away from external information when playing Dark Souls to not make it too easy. And I like how it feels. Obviously for PvE, not PvP.
>>47876899
THIS meme again
>>47890887
From some one thats pretty much only played WoD and DnD, what else is there?
Because I play with a guy that just walks into every fight and finishes it that turn. Its fucked as a player and as a GM to deal with that.
Its gotten to the point where I feel like getting him to roll at a disadvantage all the time, just so it feels balanced.
Oh did I mention how he always gets stupid good rolls too, so not only does his character already over shadow the party, he gets stupid rolls to boot.
Its not a very good experience.
>>47872860
It's just frustrating when a player optimizes their character for combat, and then just sits there on their phone during actual role playing, you know, the point of the game.
It's not that I want them to have a weak character, it's just that when they take all the time making a build, all they ever want to do in game is use the build, they're just waiting for the next combat to start up.
>>47891029
>From some one thats pretty much only played WoD and DnD, what else is there?
There are plenty of games out there to play, it's just a question of what you're looking for and what sort of game you're planning to run.
>>47891029
Don't worry about the system.
Despite what Forgefaggots mentally masturbated over for years, system doesn't matter
>>47878576
You sound like an uneducated twat... Desu.
>>47891175
Yes, technically there are hundreds of different games. Actually getting players to try them out is another matter entirely.
I can tell my friends how cool Unknown Armies is or how Call of Cthulhu might make for a interesting change of pace, they'll nod their heads and ask if I can run it in Pathfinder, or worse pull out d20 CoC.
Pretty sure the OP was in response to my game.
The reason I kicked you out of the group was because you dump statted 3 stats on a 15 point-buy game where I said many many times that its low-fantasy and realistic. The fact you were happy to play a retarded fool that looked like cancer proves you weren't into the heavy RP element I explicitly said at the game advert.
Also I spent 2 days trying to explain to you that you being able to one-shot level 3 encounters when everyone else was significantly weaker than you and didn't stat-dump would completely ruin any and all fun for them as I'd have to make encounters more difficult was picked up by you.
tl;dr didn't listen and I kicked you
>>47891616
>Playing low fantasy "realistic" games in fucking 3.PF, or d20 in general.
Are you fucking retarded?
>>47891808
>>STOP HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY
>>47891808
mud autism
>>47891866
You can do whatever you want I suppose.
You can also demand that the restaurant serve you soup in a flat plate, but you really shouldn't be surprised when the waiter gawks or asks if you wouldn't rather have a bowl.
>>47891905
Are you suggesting that calling somebody fucking retarded is equivalent to a waiter asking"hey are you sure?"
Your analogy falls a bit flat.
>>47891935
The waiter wouldn't call you fucking retarded because they're currently working.
But they would sure as fuck think it, and they wouldn't be wrong.
>>47872860
It's not that I'm against optimization, but I'd rather play an interesting but flawed character than a character based on a cookie cutter build who is effortlessly the best at everything he does.
I don't have a problem with those who do, but if you have that one guy going crazy with optimization in a group of people playing casually it tends to throw things out of whack most of the time.
It's the whole roleplaying vs rollplaying debate thing.
>>47891946
15 point buy is in the actual rule book, meaning it's at the very least, a consideration by the developers of the system. Playing a game with an offered ruleset is not making 'demands' on anything or any one. Especially since it's the GM's choice, it isn't a player trying to force the GM to use 15 points.
Equating it to making a ridiculous order at a restaurant is, in your words, "fucking retarded"
Let me do your work for you: "Running 15 point buy in PF and then wondering why everybody keeps dying and having no fun is like running a restaurant that serves soup on a plate and wonders why customers complain and spill soup everywhere."
Yes I'm rustled by your piss-poor analogies. Get at me.
>>47892042
>developers of the system
>taking their word seriously
>taking the word of ivory tower dwelling mouse cord bumbling mongoloids seriously
You're actually retarded.
>>47892097
>>arguing on the internet with somebody you think is actually retarded
>>getting this mad over somebody with a different opinion that doesn't affect you in any way
>>47892042
>15 point buy is in the actual rule book, meaning it's at the very least, a consideration by the developers of the system
You can kinda sorta do low POWERED games in 3.PF (it should be noted that doing so is also dumb and practically never any fun), you can even do Low Fantasy games, though again, you're doing away with almost all of the strengths of the system in order to intentionally focus on it's weaknesses.
What you cannot do in 3.PF is "Realistic" games.
Nothing about the system lends itself to this purpose, it's more like eating soup straight off of the surface of a table than out of a plate. It is IMPOSSIBLE for the 3.PF system to provide enough simulationist elements to be called even remotely realistic, it cannot be done.
>bluh bluh muh flawed analogies
Oh what ever.
>>47892242
See, there you go, you made an actual point without just saying "OMG RETARD"
You have to realize that I don't really care one way or another about how people should play their own games on whatever system. And I'm not arguing for or against whatever type of game people should run. Because, ultimately, I can choose to play or not play with those people. You can sit on /tg/ and tell people they're doing it wrong until your fingers fall off, but those people give exactly zero fucks about you and your opinion.
Learn to speak to people like they're humans instead of just a bunch of shitposting memers and leave your garbage analogies at the door.
>>47874220
>Be fighter
>Have 5 gazillion HP
>All saves are still terrible, so literally die to save or die
>Literally disabled by Grease or any other spell
>>47874276
>highest attack of all classes, highest hit points.
It has neither.
A cleric with 3/4 BAB only loses +1 hit per 4 levels. At level 20 thats +5 to hit, which is drowned in the buffs to +hit you can get. Or just get a fucking War Diety if you want to hit anything.
Or play as Barbarian or Paladin, for a lot more to hit.
>>47874276
>Because your class is already optimized.
Is this shit supposed to be some kind of fucking joke?
>>47887379
You = Triggered
>>47892042
>15 point buy is in the actual rule book, meaning it's at the very least, a consideration by the developers of the system.
It also doesn't really work and favors spellcasters, who only need to fuck with a single stat and everything else is gravy, while making classes like Paladin and Monk even worse than they were in the first place. Big surprise that people think you're retarded for doing it.
>>47892042
>play Summoner or Druid
>run around with eidolon/animal companion with higher physical stats than the party martials even without optimizing them
>>47891905
Not even comparable.
>>47893116
>You = Triggered
>Implying
>>47891616
>15PB
Easy, lets go with the following stats:
Str: 10
Dex: 10
Con: 11
Int: 14
Wis: 14
Cha: 18
Easy peasy. Not a dump stat in sight. What is EVEN the problem.
>>47893700
That's 28 PB, retard.
>>47893700
Or another 15PB Array:
Str: 9
Dex: 10
Con: 10
Int: 18
Wis: 14
Cha: 18
Unless 9 is a "dump stat".
>>47893740
No, that's after racial & age modifiers in PF buddy. Step it up Senpai.
>>47893762
Need a 20? Go with this:
Str: 10
Dex: 10
Con: 10
Int: 20
Wis: 10
Cha: 14
Or
Str: 10
Dex: 12
Con: 12
Int: 10
Wis: 10
Cha: 20
Basically what I am saying is 15PB doesn't need dump stats to be made extremely strong.
>getting triggered by negative stat mods
>>47872860
Optimization isn't generally a problem because in most games you cannot be optimized, since most games are multifaceted and there is no "optimal" kind of mechanical advantage. Characters are either built to do one thing well at a disadvantage to all other things, or are pretty decent at a lot of stuff.
Take a look at this GURPS character I made for a game a while back - very specialized in a few areas, but nearly impossible to call "optimal" in any sense of the word. I wanted to make a scientist who could do genetic engineering, so I made that, and that's what I got. The question of balance doesn't even factor in, as it won't with most games, because most games don't care about balance.
The issue with optimization, powergaming, and the rest of that gamist wankery comes about from D&D, pretty much exclusively. People "build" themselves to kill, as best as they can, because there's nothing else to the game. I understand why a lot of GMs are opposed to that kind of practice, but they need to realize that they're playing the wrong game. If they want to roleplay - if they want their players to roleplay - D&D is the worst way to go about it.
>>47893984
>Optimization isn't generally a problem because in most games you cannot be optimized, since most games are multifaceted and there is no "optimal" kind of mechanical advantage
This is just blatantly untrue. The vast majority of games have mechanical advantageous and disadvantageous builds.
Shadowrun, every 40k game, every D&D derivative, the statwars RPGs, oWoD/NWoD just off the top of my head.
>>47894001
>have mechanical advantageous and disadvantageous builds
For particular situations, usually meaning combat, yes.
But combat isn't the core component of nearly any RPG that isn't based on D&D.
>>47883508
Best post in the thread ignored. Typical.
>>47894041
Again this is just bold face falsehood. Multiple statements you just made are simply wrong, and you didn't make many statements.
>>47893700
He didn't do that. He had three stats at 7.
Thats a triple dump-stat to the minimum amount in the rules possible.
In a heavy RP game, he was literally, a retarded fool who was a cancer to look at.
WIS, INT and CHA were all 7.
>>47894850
I would allow that if he was an orc and has 5 in every mental stat and acted as such. That shit is hilarious to RP.
>>47894001
If the gm is doing their job properly, an 'optimised' Shadowrunner is a liability, if by optimised you mean hyper-specialist.
>>47894895
He was a Human.
>>47894702
Well I guess if you just say I'm wrong, then shit, fuck me, that's the end of the discussion.
>>47893795
on what planet is this 15 point buy? What ridiculous 3rd party race and/or rules are you using
>>47896092
>Need a 20? Go with this:
>Need a 20? Go with this:
>>47896142
>>need a 20 (IN A STAT) go with this
>>47896092
Aasimar and one age category m8.
>>47896142
Even if he meant a 20 point buy, which would be odd because the entire conversation leading up to that was about 15 point buy, I was questioning all of the arrays he listed, not just the last one. I should have tagged all of the posts.
>>47893795
>>47893762
>>47893700
>>47896092
It's entirely core.
>>47896283
Aasimar are 15 RP bro. Thats significantly better than Humans.
No wonder you got those stats.
>>47896301
Want me to do it as a bunch of humans? Because I can get essentially as good. Give me a race and I'll give you good stat arrays. Half orcs are probably the strongest at low PB, them and humans. Aasimar are for better stats, but humans and half orcs excel past them for actual play.
>>47896372
Human, DEX focus 15 point-buy young.
I'm actually curious at this point.
>>47896430
Physical stats are MUCH harder to optimize (actually impossible to game the system) at low point buy than mental, so your stats will simply be lower.
Str: 12
Dex: 18
Con: 12
Int: 12
Wis: 10
Cha: 9
>>47896467
As a goblin you could instead have:
Str: 8
Dex: 18
Con: 10
Int: 14
Wis: 14
Cha: 10
>>47896467
Yeah I see what you did there.
Thats pretty much standard my player didn't do that at all.
My player did this (this was after I convinced him to stop meta-gaming AS much) he didn't compromise anymore past this.
Strength 15
Dexterity 18
Constitution 11
Intelligence 14
Wisdom 7
Charisma 7
Your way actually makes sense because of how you didn't completely dump other stats.
>>47882978
It's optimization in a general sense, basically he's assuming that undead, constructs, elementals, incorporeal foes, and higher-level Rogue and Barbarian enemies will be pretty rare.
True optimization takes into account the sorts of challenges you're actually going to face, in which case he should have just taken the damn feat, but he may have figured the undead enemies would disappear relatively soon into the storyline (or he could make them disappear by pouting at the DM long enough), or he may have felt that he'd be even less useful without whichever other feat he was planning on taking.
That said, Rogues tend to be pretty feat-starved, so making it a feat tax to use his main class feature is kinda dickish. This is assuming, of course, that he didn't have fair warning that it would be an undead-centric storyline, in which case he should have just picked Cleric or something.
>>47873637
Really it comes down to having a group that's competent enough at the game and reasonable enough people to make sure they don't completely step on someone else's toes (and to take steps to fix things when they realize they've accidentally done so).
Everyone needs to either be approximately on par with each other, or have some kind of niche the DM can throw their way every now and then, or something so they can feel useful, and with games like 3.X that takes deliberate effort to make it happen.
>>47893984
Jesus Christ, what is that fucking mess?
Why are there values measured to hundredths?
>>47883599
Dex and high dodge is the best value you can get both in terms of winning fights and surviving fights.
>>47896819
By to the hundreths you are reffering to the weight, right? That barely cames up in any game, much like D&D's own weight limit measurements.
>>47872860
I once had a dm that considered having an 18 in your primary stat to be too optimized.
>>47893984
Late, but how does GURPS handle being a genetic scientist among other things? Do you just roll a check every time you want to put something in a test tube, or is there more to it? I entirely agree with your sentiment, D&D espeically just focuses too much on beating people up first and other fun things later.
>>47901875
Most sciences/engineering things are a multi-stage process with several different roles. Usually it goes concept -> planning -> execution -> assessment -> production -> post production. Non-science rolls may also be invoked if, for instance, you're managing a lab (Administration) or getting grant money (Politics).
>>47894084
Eh, it's not really that great. The problem is, the line between being reasonably optimized vs. being an overstepping munchkin is a bit of a moving target. An SRD druid can basically roll out of the bed in the morning, select Natural Spell and end up waaaay more versatile and powerful than a monk build that dumpster dives through multiple source books in a desperate attempt to quit sucking. That's why I am generally more frustrated with the rules themselves than with my players. Most people want to get along but if you're just a newbie who hasn't bothered to read your buddy's character sheet you may not immediately realize that you're showing them up every you spontaneously cast a bear. That's an easy situation to work out among friends but can be kind of a pain in the ass if you're doing a pick up game at uni or a con.
>min/maxing piece of shit
>rolls DMM spell happy cleric
>pours over splatbooks for 3.5
>Shares knowledge w/ other players to power up their class playstyle.
>purposely avoid game breaking spells & glass cannon the shit out of myself to make combat challenging
>Everyone is having fun beating the shit out of things and roleplaying.
>Having fun, because no one ever died on my watch.
>>47882978
It's minmaxing.
He maxed something out.
The problem is that he maxed something useless.
Like pumping all skillpoints into sailing in Dark Sun.
>>47889872
It's not the DM's problem if somebody makes a clerk, archeologist or otherwise less proficient character and subsequently isn't as useful in combat as the bouncer or soldier.
In fact, it's supposed this way and players expect it to be this way if they aren't retarded.
Games usually involve more than just combat. Even if you are mostly adventuring around and exploring ruins and caves there can be a space for somebody good at negotiating or with expansive knowledge of cultures or science. Look at Disney's Atlantis, for example. It's natural that it's the combat character's time to shine in combat and the noncombat one has to try to survive, get by and get creative to contribute and support the actual competent combatants.
All of this also requires the players to not be retarded, though. Players should still create characters that fit the tone of the game or willingly suffer the consequences, and they should be mature enough to not get assmad when somebody else gets the spotlight for a while because they are good at the required task.
If you get instantly killed with no way out the second combat starts, either your System or DM is complete dogshit.
If your character is specialized in such a way your ranged attacks deal monstruous damage but you're dogshit at melee and die from being sneezed on, that's fine.
If you can punch a mountain but are helpless against someone who can stay away, that's fine.
You're just specializing in such a way the other players can still fill the other niches.
Wjat I'm not happy about though, is when a player try to do EVERYTHING. In that case, you can fuck right off.
>>47905409
So playing as an Expert with 12 in all stats is right out, then?
>>47872860
My group plays to win. That means I'm free to play a standard character and cast fun spells. I resent the implication that I am not 'pulling my weight' by not optimizing and just taking the default options. I am not playing poorly, just not building my character for the maximum possible potential as I do not enjoy that. I am anti-optimization in that I feel that a philosophy that Might is Right narrows an otherwise interesting game space restrictively.
>>47886218
>My character's strength is entirely derived from MY narrative, not "muh 20 str on muh character sheet".
"I lift the portcullis."
"Sorry, you aren't strong enough."
"Bu-but, MY BACKSTORY says that he's the strongest man ever!"
>>47874301
>He considers assigning all of your creation points as min-maxing and being good at something is the sign of a bad character.
I will never understand why people like to play with people like this...
