Character Optimization...

General questions, debates, and rants about RPGs

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Character Optimization...

Post by fbmf »

This is a rant about why all races should be balanced, collected from Nifty:

Frank, I think. Could have been Oberoni wrote:
P1) Different people want to play different things,
and that's OK. My character conception is not the same
as yours, and there is no reason why it should be.

P2) People should not be punished for having different
character conceptions. There is no "right way" to play
D&D. Thus, by failing to play a certain way we
shouldn't automatically be playing the "wrong way".

P3) This is a collaborative game. What one player does
or does not do effects the entire story for all the
players. Everything from character creation to
personal speech patterns to battle tactics has a
direct tangible effect on the story and on every other
player character in that story.

P4) Part of this game is adversarial. There are
monsters that are trying to eat all of the player
characters. The players do not want their characters
to be eaten. The rules mediate between those two
pressures on the story and give the game an element of
risk and uncertainty.

C) If a character's conception makes them inherently
less "powerful", they are less able to contribute to
the party, and thus less able to keep the monsters
from eating the characters of the other players.

Or to put it another way: If you want to play an Ogre,
you want to play an Ogre, not an Orcish Barbarian/
Rogue/ Assassin character who happens to be able to do
just as much damage in combat. It doesn't matter to
you if your Ogre character is two levels weaker than
the other characters, because the story you want to
tell involves an Ogre, and nothing else will do.

However, the story I want to tell with my character
includes my character living, and being able to
complete whatever goals I have for him or her. It's a
cooperative story and I'm willing to shape my
character to some degree to fit in with your
character, just as you are going to have to shape your
character to fit mine. I'm OK with you being an Ogre,
and I'm OK with ou being a Knight in Shining Armor,
basically I just need your character to be a because
you said you had that taken care of so I brought in a
Wizard or something.

If you play an ineffective , you are trampling on my
story because you are making it more likely for the
monsters to eat my character. This is not different
from you being disruptive during important character
defining moments or changing the subject when I try to
form a plan for dealing with the dark fortress of
Jhokstorh.

If the game mechanics of your race make your character
ineffective, it means that your character is being
made worse because of your character conception. It
also means that your character conception is being
used as an excuse to trample on my story.

That's why it's not OK. When the DM allows some races
to be "worse" than others he is forcing players to
choose between the story they want to tell and the
story their friends want to tell. And this is a
cooperative story telling game where everyone should
be able to tell their story.


I copied it and emailed it to some folks that I game with. There responses are below.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by User3 »

Being the roleplaying chick in the group, this last sentence just
pushed
all my buttons:


And this is a cooperative story telling game where everyone should
be able to tell their story.


It may not be the player's story anymore if DM has required excessive
min/maxing. I
know I have a concept for my fighter in my head and if I can do more damage
by wildshaping her into an octopus, you know what? I'm NOT FREAKING
DOING IT. Because my fighter is not going to turn into an octopus. But I
should. Because that'd give her the ability to inflict more damage. So
I'm sorry, guys, that I'm handicapping our party by not turning into a
cephalopod.

If you take individual min/maxing to its logical conclusion, the best
thing for the party would be for every one of us to be playing the best
character in terms of stats/classes/levels/equipment/accoutrements.
Wizards would publish (or more likely, some message board would
generate) a single character sheet for every "type" of player, i.e.
melee damage generator, healer, magic user, etc. You'd just pick your
hair color and be off. I love the creativity of min/maxing and the idea
of outsmarting the system, but I dislike the uniformity of its ultimate
conclusion.

From my personal perspective, guys, as long as your character is
sufficient to keep the rest of us alive with monsters of an appropriate
challenge rating for our party level, you're doing your part. I'm not
really interested in building the ultimate party and racking up XP by
killing monsters that Wizards says we shouldn't be good enough to kill
for five more levels just to say we did it. I'm here to play. I enjoy
your company. Each and every one of you. That's why I game. Just keep
me
alive. That's all I ask. :)
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by User3 »

At heart I'm a D&D "purist"...

This means that I believe that D&D should go back to the basics on
many,
many things. I thought class balance was pretty good under First
Edition rules. However, TSR and later Wizards are in this to make
money
and bend to the will of its customers in order to keep the profit
margins in good order. What has resulted is a rash of character
classes
that highlight the weak professions and the strong professions. This
has encouraged min/maxing as people want the most powerful class
available to them. Set against this camp are people who decline to
min/max because they portray their character as their "fantasy"
dictates. They are disinclined to corrupt their conception of their
character because they want to role-play their character as dictated by
their imagination...

I think that if someone is purposefully holding back from using the
traits or abilities of a character, due to it not "gel-ing" with their
storyline, then that leaves in interesting question. Why did the
person
choose that race or class in the first place if they don't intend to
use
it to its potential? Let's say I create a Drow Elf character whom ran
away from his people and abhors his own race and therefore doesn't use
any of his powers, as it reminds him of his race. I'm role-playing the
guy as I envision...yet I'm hurting the party by not using that
Darkness
spell or whatever. Why roleplay the character in the first place?
It's good for a character to have some kinda inner-conflcit...most
heroes do (i.e. Elric and Stormbringer). But gimping your character
because it makes YOU happy would make me wonder whether you're more
interested in appeasing your own fantasy at the risk of your teammate's
fantasy. What if this fictitious Drow were partied with another player
character that was a paladin and the Drow refused to do some action
(say
interact with another Drow (who is evil) to obtain some information)
that would help this other player character's paladin on some quest for
his god? Now one person's fantasy (the paladin) is getting downplayed
at the expense of the Drow guy.



User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by User3 »

The first and fatal mistake is having "my story to tell". There is no such thing. There is the world in which our characters live and they deal with the stories that are sent their way. They have personalities that we give them, but we are being placed in stories that already exist and it is through our actions that the stories evolve and outcomes perhaps change, but to be upset that you are not experiencing the story that you wish to "tell" is like living in real life blaming others for your unaccomplished goals and failed outcomes.

However, I do agree, that sometimes a person plays a charicter in such a way as to be harmful if not just annoying, to the rest of the party. In real life, we call these people "Asses", and we avoid them and ridicule them behind their backs. In D&D it can be at two levels - the PC's can allow your character to DIE and the real people can ask you to no longer come to gaming sessions. But, this really just goes back to the first mistake - putting yourself and the selfish need to "have your own personal story" rather than be part of a team, a party and a group of friends.

User avatar
fbmf
The Great Fence Builder
Posts: 2590
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by fbmf »


I'm not really interested in building the ultimate party and racking up XP by killing monsters that Wizards says we shouldn't be good enough to kill for five more levels just to say we did it.


Nor am I.

However (and this is a problem) there are some
character builds which SEEM to be good but which are
crappy, so much so that you will fall behind your
fellows and WILL NOT BE CONTRIBUTING YOUR SHARE to the
parties survival. Straight levels (more than 4 or 5)
of fighter, bard, psy warrior(as we found out over the
course of two campaigns) or pretty much anything
except druid, rogue, and maybe (MAYBE) wizard are
hurting your party. It's not that you won't be the
ULTIMATE BIG BAD DOG (tm), it's that you won't be able
to keep up with your own Challenge Rating.

Game On,
fbmf
User avatar
Maj
Prince
Posts: 4705
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Location: Shelton, Washington, USA

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Maj »

I do believe that every character has a story - or else you wouldn't have any reason for behaving a certain way given whatever conditions your DM throws at you. So long as a character continues to have a role in the party (ie: you're useful), its presence is fine. When that character needs more in order to keep up with everyone else, you have to look at why, and when the character's use is outweighed by how much it takes to keep that character viable, either the character needs to go, or it needs to be reworked.

But I also firmly believe that D&D cannot be made to be a game that is fair to everyone.

Ever.

So long as people are different and continue to think differently, you will have some people who are better at putting a character together than other people. D&D is designed to have differences in the classes, the races, and the worlds, and so long as that is true, equality will not exist - it's inherent to the game design.

My son makes me laugh. Maybe he'll make you laugh, too.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Username17 »

Yeah, the original rant is by me.

I thought class balance was pretty good under First
Edition rules.


What, were you like twelve when you were playing 1st edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons?

The classes weren't balanced. They weren't even intended to be balanced. Fighter was a class which was handed out as a punishment for having insufficient ability scores to qualify for "real" classes. The intention was that it was inferior to the other classes - and to be perfectly honest, it was.

The Fighter Class gained levels quickly early in the game - with the idea being that a Fighter was to act as the "meat shield" that the other characters needed to survive while their own characters ramped up on the power curve. Then, when Wizards started gaining more benefit from their levels (around seventh level) - the Wizards also went linear instead of exponential on their XP requirements. Meaning that it actually took less total XP to be an 8th level Wizard than it did to be an 8th level Fighter. Despite the fact that 8th level Wizards were explicitly expected to be more powerful and useful to the party than were the Fighters of their own level.

In the bad old days, several of the classes were designed to be expendable - that characters would take them under the certain knowledge that they would become completely obsolete and useless eventually but that the character would be unlikely to live that long. This made more sense when characters were in general much more expendable, and the XP system was presented in such a manner as to allow low level characters to attain mid level quickly by following in the baggage train of a party already of mid level (in the time it took a 7th level Fighter to achieve 8th level, a brand new 1st level Fighter could and would achieve 7th level if they managed to survive those adventures). It also made more sense when the low-level causalty rate was so high that characters did not even get last names until they got to fourth level.

But that kind of power dispartiy is the enemy when people are wanting to play the same character throughout the whole of the campaign.

-Username17
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Yeah, after all, min maxing isn't roleplaying. That's why you see the line of sickly geniuses outside the army recruitment office. Image

-serious reply here-

I can understand not wanting to go to ludicrous extremes for power, but the thing is, if you are not qualified in some way for your class that you are playing, then you aren't roleplaying.

So, I would go out on a limb and say the exact opposite. If you aren't min-maxing, you aren't roleplaying, regardless of the effort you put into the character, because why would this person become a wizard, or cleric, or whatever if he just wasn't good at it?
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
DracoNova
NPC
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by DracoNova »

Count wrote:So, I would go out on a limb and say the exact opposite. If you aren't min-maxing, you aren't roleplaying, regardless of the effort you put into the character, because why would this person become a wizard, or cleric, or whatever if he just wasn't good at it?


Here I'd agree...and in general, a character who isn't terribly good at what he does won't be fun to play. After all, who wants to play a fighter whose swordplay inspires more laughter than fear, or a wizard who can't even master the simplest spells?

The big issue is that there's a huge gap between min-maxing for ultimate power and the kind of weak, useless characters "role-players" are generally accused of championing, and most characters fall into this category. This is where it really starts boiling down to individual campaign styles, and of course where the argument gets a little fuzzy (granted, it was vague to begin with, but still...). Most campaigns I've played in and run are built for those who min-max to keep up with their CR, and generally I prefer that. Now, in Medesha's online game, we went for ultimate power, and were taking on epic-level challenges before way before level 20...and that was cool, too. Sometimes it's nice to play supermen.

The problem comes when your group is mixed -- some people work toward maintaining their CR, some max for godhood, and others are unlucky enough not to be good at either. As a DM, I personally try to work towards creating a campaign in which all of my players can both contribute (through combat, role-play, or any other possible method of participation) and can tell their story, regardless of which of the three categories they fall into. I've always thought of it as my job to make sure everyone enjoys the campaign.
Oberoni
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Oberoni »

The opening quote from FBMF did not, in fact, come from yours truly, to clarify. But I agree that huge power disparities are bad mojo.
Ramnza
Associate Fence Builder
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Ramnza »

Are we then opposed to saying that if a person in a party is not interested in maxing out their character and decides to follow what wizards has published from 1st lvl all the way to 20th that they are not doing their job as roleplayers?
I'm very new to this maxing out buisness and well, new to the game (3 years and counting) but their was a time when all I cared about was being able to create a story for a character I had not played before.
It's fun to try and figure out the best kind of cheese. Do you ever feel like that's what it boils down to: The cheese you have and not the essence of the character? Do you guys ever feel like cheesing has taken over and do you forget about everything else until you find a way to make the cheese work for you?
I don't think there's anything wrong with either, as long as I'm alive at the end of the day.
da_chicken
Journeyman
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by da_chicken »

I think they're trying to say "take note of other people's play styles and try to let them have fun, too". If the game is hack-n-slash, don't make a 4 Con Cleric for the healer. If the game is RP, don't make the 4 Int, 4 Cha Barbarian. Be aware that if you choose a character that meshes poorly with everyone else, it's possible that nobody will have any fun.
Oberoni
Knight
Posts: 386
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Oberoni »

Ramnza at [unixtime wrote:1074143164[/unixtime]]Are we then opposed to saying that if a person in a party is not interested in maxing out their character and decides to follow what wizards has published from 1st lvl all the way to 20th that they are not doing their job as roleplayers?
I'm very new to this maxing out buisness and well, new to the game (3 years and counting) but their was a time when all I cared about was being able to create a story for a character I had not played before.
It's fun to try and figure out the best kind of cheese. Do you ever feel like that's what it boils down to: The cheese you have and not the essence of the character? Do you guys ever feel like cheesing has taken over and do you forget about everything else until you find a way to make the cheese work for you?
I don't think there's anything wrong with either, as long as I'm alive at the end of the day.


When it comes to designing a character, I break it down into two areas:

1. Personality
2. Mechanics

Quite simply, I put time and effort into both. I work on the mechanics first--but that's mainly because I'm much pickier in deciding what my character can do than how he acts.

I wouldn't design a character with no personality--likewise, I wouldn't design a character that couldn't at least pull his own weight in a party.
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Ramnza:

I'm not saying that the entire group needs to be cheese happy, permanantyl polymorphed and enlarged, giving out hundred of wishes a day through wildshaping into elemental genies, slaughter kings.

I'm not even saying that you should have to have every D&D book known to man, and search them out for the best combos.

I'm just saying that if the character has a intellegence of 12, then having him become a wizard is bad roleplaying, since a person with an int of 12 wouldn't become one, he''d become something that fits his natural talents better. (Unless, of course, you're playing in a commoner level game, but I generally don't consider thse types, because I have yet to see one that didn't trun into the DM giving his NPCs uber high stats and kicking the crap out of his defenceless players. Regardless of wt those people say, that is not roleplaying if you get slaughtered in three seconds by insormountable odds. But, I digress.)

Despite what everyon thinks, no one becomes good at anything if they didn't have some sort of ability to do so, practice makes you better, but no matter how much I work on increasing my agility, I will never become a olympic medal winning gymnist.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by User3 »

I undersand. But what if you start with a wizard that does have an Int of 12? That doesn't mean there aren't things that will help boost it up. You get stat bumps, and magic items, even spells. So what's wrong with that? He doesn't have to be the best, but he has to be effective. Right?

-Ramnza
Jack_Lurch
Apprentice
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Jack_Lurch »

But if you wanted to play a wizard, why not put his highest stat in intelligence? Intelligence boosting items/spells/bumps are great, but they are even better if you start out with a 17 or 18.

If you play a wizard and your highest stat is not that stat which determines your spellcasting ability, you had better have a damn fine explanation for it if you expect to sit at my table.

True, the old 2nd Edition "prime requisites" do not have to be followed explicitly. A rogue with an intelligence a point or two higher than his dexterity is not a bad thing, but that's because rogue's depend on skill points and intelligence is how you get them.

-Jack
User avatar
Count Arioch the 28th
King
Posts: 6172
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Count Arioch the 28th »

Guest (Unregistered) at [unixtime wrote:1074197071[/unixtime]]I undersand. But what if you start with a wizard that does have an Int of 12? That doesn't mean there aren't things that will help boost it up. You get stat bumps, and magic items, even spells. So what's wrong with that? He doesn't have to be the best, but he has to be effective. Right?

-Ramnza


Number 1: A wizard with an int of 12 is NOT effective. He's not a character, he's a meat snack. The only reason why you would start with a wizard with an int of 12 is basically you saying that you're superior roleplaying ability makes the other party have to work harder to keep you alive, and have to cover your dead weight. No one minds helping other people's weak points, that's what forming a party is all about. But the person needs a strong point to balance it out. The big tough fighter doesn't mind playing bodyguard to a frail wizard if the wizard pulls his weight, but when the frail wizard is stupider than the fighter in most cases, then there's a problem.

Number 2: Why would someone like that become a wizard when he sucks at it? Big fat japanese guys don't become ballet dancers, boney little princesses don't become sumo wrestlers.
In this moment, I am Ur-phoric. Not because of any phony god’s blessing. But because, I am enlightened by my int score.
Username17
Serious Badass
Posts: 29894
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Username17 »

But what if you start with a wizard that does have an Int of 12?


Then you are ruining the game for other players. Yes. Really.

In many stories there is the archetype of the character who is a general klutz who doesn't seem to be good at things who pulls through with the big toys at the end and saves the day. The idea of someone who doesn't seem like they show promise who goes on to great things is a popular story element, and lots of people want to play that character.

It happens in every fantasy genre, from the Arabian Nights (Aladdin) to Anime (Sailor Moon). And it's totally reasonable to want to play one of those people as your character.

But in D&D you do not represent that by starting with an Intelligence of twelve! If you have an Intelligence of twelve as a Wizard you not only seem to have no potential - you actually have no potential. At the end you are not going to pull through with the big magic and save everyone, you are going to fail, the quest is going to fail, and it's going to be your fault!

You represent these characters in the game by starting them at low level. They still suck, on account of being low level and not really being able to do anything - but eventually they are going to become high level and save the day when they use their powerful new abilities.

I don't represent my knight's lance on my character sheet by purchasing and swinging a chicken - I get a lance. I don't make these initially inept protagonists by assigning them stats and feats that will keep them from ever achieving effectiveness. I use the tools within the game to represent the story I want to tell as accurately as possible. And "letting down all my friends with my lack of ambition and general ineptitude" is not a story that I would ever want to represent. And I am totally positive that my friends would be pretty pissed off if I tried - and justifiably so.

-Username17
Incarnadine
1st Level
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Incarnadine »

Ze Count wrote:He's not a character, he's a meat snack.


Wizard: The Other White Meat.

:biggrin:
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by User3 »

Well put, and there is the split between reality and rollplaying. In real life none of us really even know what our ability ratings really are, and for the most part we over estimate what numbers we'd receive if we were indeed trying to rate ourselves. Some of my most successful friends say the secret to their success was the fact that they were too stupid to know they should have failed and too stuborn to give up. So, yes, although most of us have a S of 9, Int of 8 and Ch that we won't even mention, we have so many factors of "reality" including "rational ignorance" and "persistance". Rollplaying has numbers and min/max rules so there is a frame work from which our imaginations can spring, without it getting to out of hand. And as many have said before, it is about gaming and friendship, not about ego-centric story telling at the expense of the "group". Go play by yourself, go write a novel, if you want to tell your own "story" of the stupid wizard who overcame his lack of magical powers to become a great lord of magic. In D&D we roll the dice and follow them where they lead us. In real life, the dice are rolled for us, and many times we aren't even sure what numbers we got - we take our chances. Our characters have the advantage of knowing the numbers and we have a responsibility to take that advantage in the name of fun and adventure. Roll 'em!!!
Ramnza
Associate Fence Builder
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Ramnza »

I completely agree. Be intelligent with your stats and put them where they will be most effective.
User3
Prince
Posts: 3974
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 1970 12:00 am

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by User3 »

Here's what puzzles me. Just HOW MUCH POWER IN YOUR PANTS do you need to accomplish your goals so that you're not being the grim weight on your party that everyone wants to accomplish their goals?

If there was a choice between playing the standard level 20 druid and a level 20 drowess--and the level 20 drowess had every single class feature and ability and whatever of the druid only they got a +10 to every ability score while wildshaped and d12 hit points, everyone would pick the drowess, of course. But it also comes at the cost that to play a drowess, you are required to be excessively vampish, wear tawdry yet revealing clothing, and insult your party members at every turn while acting like a stereotypical Gorean female.

The druid isn't bad at his job, but the drowess accomplishes almost every single one of her goals BETTER, and thus the party's. But I don't want to be some Greenwoodian cariacture!

Note that everyone is faced with this dilemmia if we pare down the gap in who your character is to you and what they are in the mathematical construct. However, if you have an attack bonus of +9 at level one, it doesn't mean that you're a useless fighter or a let-down to the party, even though one combination (which calls for you to be an elven stripper ninja from the Vane magic empire) gives you a +13. If you were a sword based character with an attack bonus of +2, sure. But having to load up your character with power to the point where your character isn't how you envisioned it?

So what gives?
Jack_Lurch
Apprentice
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Jack_Lurch »

Ramnza wrote:
I completely agree. Be intelligent with your stats and put them where they will be most effective.


Ramnza, a few posts before wrote:
I undersand. But what if you start with a wizard that does have an Int of 12?


:wtf:

-Jack

Jack_Lurch
Apprentice
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Jack_Lurch »

Lago wrote:
Here's what puzzles me. Just HOW MUCH POWER IN YOUR PANTS do you need to accomplish your goals so that you're not being the grim weight on your party that everyone wants to accomplish their goals?


As has been said, if you can't at least contribute meaningfully to an encounter of your CR, then your party is better off without you, even if they don't replace you.

-Jack
Lago_AM3P
Duke
Posts: 1268
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

Re: Character Optimization...

Post by Lago_AM3P »

That's pretty harsh, but I'll buy that.
Post Reply