The Number Jerk Fallacy is the belief that guys who like to build powerful characters through excessive number-crunching are automatically inconsiderate selfish jerks out on an ego-trip, regardless of their relationships with the other gamers in the group.

This fallacy arose because many inconsiderate jerks playing D&D try to make powerful characters through number-crunching, but this is just a means to an end for them.  These people desire powerful characters so that he can get away with more stuff, such as fights against fellow party members and killing allies and innocent villagers "for their gold and experience."

When we label number-crunchers as inconsiderate jerks, we do a disservice to the groups with number-crunchers who are not adversely affected.  I once DMed an Age of Worms game where a large portion of the party was Min-Maxed around the later adventures.  The Sorcerer was dropping dudes with Save or Die spells while the Cleric was using Divine Metamagic to buff the party and take out big threats.  But they did not use their power to bully the other PCs or derail the adventure by killing allied patrons and NPCs.  It was a problem in that it was hard finding good ways to challenge the group, but the game session did not end in hurt feelings and player resentment.  We did make a Gentlemen's Agreement after the fact to tone things down after testing the limits of the system, especially in regards to Divine Metamagic.

It’s best to recognize character optimization not as an all-or-nothing affair, but something with different degrees and shades of grey.  Certain forms of optimization are disruptive to the game, but certain forms can also contribute to the strength and survivability of adventuring parties and benefit the entire group.

Helpful forms of optimization:

Party Synergy: your party is sorely lacking in some area, so you make a character to minimize the overall group weakness.  Maybe the Cleric’s not interested in preparing healing spells and wants to kick ass with combat buffs, so you make a Use Magic Device Rogue with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.  Or maybe your party has just two other characters and can’t handle large hordes of enemies well, so you make a Conjuration-focused Wizard/Malconvoker to even the playing field with summoned monsters.  Optimizing your character for the benefit of the group is positive, productive teamwork which makes the gaming experience better for all.  Every PC has limitations and weaknesses, and optimization is a helpful way of covering up the gaps to work as a team.

Tailored to the Campaign:  Sometimes it’s wise to hold back.  You don’t take a heat-seeking missile launcher to an archery contest, and you don’t take a Leap Attacking Ubercharger to a gaming session with a DM and players still learning the ropes.  Different groups have different levels of optimization, and consulting the DM ahead of time about your character build is the correct course of action, especially if you think that your normal method of play style may be too much for the group.

Harmful Forms of Optimization:

The Arms Race: Over the course of the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union created enough nuclear missiles to destroy civilization several times over.  Whenever one power made more nuclear weapons, the other side would create twice the amount.  The threat of mutually-assured destruction invalidated the concept of open warfare, meaning that the Communist and Capitalist superpowers relied on using poorer countries in Asia, South America, and elsewhere as chess pieces in their ideological battleground.  Many third-world nations had no choice but to rely on the massive power of one nation against protection from the other.

   History repeats itself a lot, and oftentimes a Dungeon Master will react to the party’s lone min-maxer by upping the challenge and difficulty of future encounters.  The min-maxer in this case has an overpowered PC capable of destroying relatively equivalent levels of opposition with little to no help.  This has the side-effect of creating challenges too difficult for the rest of the party to take on, making the min-maxer the star of the show.  In a truly hopeless situation, neither side will compromise and just keep upping the stakes; the only two outcomes are either the min-maxer destroying all opposition and becoming god-emperor of the campaign setting, or the party getting pancaked against an onslaught of Advanced Pit Fiend Archmages.  The Min-Maxer’s the Soviet Union, the Dungeon Master’s the United States, and the other PCs are nations whose cutting-edge military includes guys in jeeps with AK-47s.

Premise Breaking: Ever heard of infinite wealth loops, or summoning a named major villain using Gate and ordering him to make ground-up tacos for 19 rounds right before you coup de grace him?  Well, the player’s just fucking up the premise of the game and being a Grade-A Dick.

The Dreaded Pun-Pun/Infinite Power Trick: Infinite power loops and tricks which have no effective resistance are possible in D&D and other RPGs, but they’re so broken and cheesy that exploiting them in a game just makes the DM say “Do you want to play Dungeons and Dragons, or do you just want to fuck around?”  Unless you have the consent of the group beforehand, doing these tricks is guaranteed to make you look bad in front of all your friends 100% of the time.

In Over Your Head: Just because you can individually stat over 10 different NPCs in you Leadership army/Animated Undead Legion doesn’t mean you should.  Character builds which rely on multiple stat blocks and huge amounts of bookkeeping take a lot of time and effort to manage, making the system open to abuse with fatigued Dungeon Masters and devious players.  You also don’t want to slow the game’s pace to a crawl, either.

Like the late great Ben Parker said, “With great power comes great responsibility.”  Character optimization in and of itself is only a tool, and an optimizer can use his powers for good or evil.  So the next time you hear about a player talking about his Barbarian/Dragonsword PC which can deal 200+ damage and inflict a DC 30 Save or Die, don’t immediately think the worst of him.  And the next time you want to play your own Barbarian/Dragonsword PC which can deal 200+ damage and inflict a DC 30 Save or Die, make sure that your actions will contribute to the fun and enjoyment of the group instead of giving the players collective headaches.

Quote from: Libertad;577240The Number Jerk Fallacy is the belief that guys who like to build powerful characters through excessive number-crunching are automatically inconsiderate selfish jerks out on an ego-trip, regardless of their relationships with the other gamers in the group.

This fallacy arose because many inconsiderate jerks playing D&D try to make powerful characters through number-crunching, but this is just a means to an end for them.  These people desire powerful characters so that he can get away with more stuff, such as fights against fellow party members and killing allies and innocent villagers "for their gold and experience."

When we label number-crunchers as inconsiderate jerks, we do a disservice to the groups with number-crunchers who are not adversely affected.  I once DMed an Age of Worms game where a large portion of the party was Min-Maxed around the later adventures.  The Sorcerer was dropping dudes with Save or Die spells while the Cleric was using Divine Metamagic to buff the party and take out big threats.  But they did not use their power to bully the other PCs or derail the adventure by killing allied patrons and NPCs.  It was a problem in that it was hard finding good ways to challenge the group, but the game session did not end in hurt feelings and player resentment.  We did make a Gentlemen's Agreement after the fact to tone things down after testing the limits of the system, especially in regards to Divine Metamagic.

It's best to recognize character optimization not as an all-or-nothing affair, but something with different degrees and shades of grey.  Certain forms of optimization are disruptive to the game, but certain forms can also contribute to the strength and survivability of adventuring parties and benefit the entire group.

Helpful forms of optimization:

Party Synergy: your party is sorely lacking in some area, so you make a character to minimize the overall group weakness.  Maybe the Cleric's not interested in preparing healing spells and wants to kick ass with combat buffs, so you make a Use Magic Device Rogue with a Wand of Cure Light Wounds.  Or maybe your party has just two other characters and can't handle large hordes of enemies well, so you make a Conjuration-focused Wizard/Malconvoker to even the playing field with summoned monsters.  Optimizing your character for the benefit of the group is positive, productive teamwork which makes the gaming experience better for all.  Every PC has limitations and weaknesses, and optimization is a helpful way of covering up the gaps to work as a team.

Tailored to the Campaign:  Sometimes it's wise to hold back.  You don't take a heat-seeking missile launcher to an archery contest, and you don't take a Leap Attacking Ubercharger to a gaming session with a DM and players still learning the ropes.  Different groups have different levels of optimization, and consulting the DM ahead of time about your character build is the correct course of action, especially if you think that your normal method of play style may be too much for the group.

Harmful Forms of Optimization:

The Arms Race: Over the course of the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union created enough nuclear missiles to destroy civilization several times over.  Whenever one power made more nuclear weapons, the other side would create twice the amount.  The threat of mutually-assured destruction invalidated the concept of open warfare, meaning that the Communist and Capitalist superpowers relied on using poorer countries in Asia, South America, and elsewhere as chess pieces in their ideological battleground.  Many third-world nations had no choice but to rely on the massive power of one nation against protection from the other.

   History repeats itself a lot, and oftentimes a Dungeon Master will react to the party's lone min-maxer by upping the challenge and difficulty of future encounters.  The min-maxer in this case has an overpowered PC capable of destroying relatively equivalent levels of opposition with little to no help.  This has the side-effect of creating challenges too difficult for the rest of the party to take on, making the min-maxer the star of the show.  In a truly hopeless situation, neither side will compromise and just keep upping the stakes; the only two outcomes are either the min-maxer destroying all opposition and becoming god-emperor of the campaign setting, or the party getting pancaked against an onslaught of Advanced Pit Fiend Archmages.  The Min-Maxer's the Soviet Union, the Dungeon Master's the United States, and the other PCs are nations whose cutting-edge military includes guys in jeeps with AK-47s.

Premise Breaking: Ever infinite wealth loops, or summoning a named major villain using Gate and ordering him to make ground-up tacos for 19 rounds right before you coup de grace him?  Well, the player's just fucking up the premise of the game and being a Grade-A Dick.

The Dreaded Pun-Pun/Infinite Power Trick: Infinite power loops and tricks which have no effective resistance are possible in D&D and other RPGs, but they're so broken and cheesy that exploiting them in a game just makes the DM say "Do you want to play Dungeons and Dragons, or do you just want to fuck around?"  Unless you have the consent of the group beforehand, doing these tricks is guaranteed to make you look bad in front of all your friends 100% of the time.

In Over Your Head: Just because you can individually stat each over 10 different NPCs in you Leadership army/Animated Undead Legion doesn't mean you should.  Character builds which rely on multiple stat blocks and huge amounts of bookkeeping take a lot of time and effort to manage, making the system open to abuse with fatigued Dungeon Masters and devious players.  You also don't want to slow the game's pace to a crawl, either.

Like the late great Ben Parker said, "With great power comes great responsibility."  Character optimization in and of itself is only a tool, and an optimizer can use his powers for good or evil.  So the next time you hear about a player talking about his Barbarian/Dragonsword PC which can deal 200+ damage and inflict a DC 30 Save or Die, don't immediately think the worst of him.  And the next time you want to play your own Barbarian/Dragonsword PC which can deal 200+ damage and inflict a DC 30 Save or Die, make sure that your actions will contribute to the fun and enjoyment of the group instead of giving the players collective headaches.

I agree, and I am a person that detests negative optimization, and loves positive optimization. Its all about the goal of the optimizer.

Quote from: Bill;577242I agree, and I am a person that detests negative optimization, and loves positive optimization. Its all about the goal of the optimizer.

Swap that quote block for a *snip* please... it's just a peeve of mine when people quote massive blocks of text for a one-line response.

Otherwise, I also more or less agree with the OP. I've played Opped and otherwise, and the courteous thing to do for all involved is to either keep up or hold back depending on the nature of the group.

Just to give credit where credit's due, I got some help in constructing my argument from veekie of the Min Max Boards.  He provided several examples for the "Harmful Forms of Optimization" entry.  The comparison of Min-Maxing/DM Arms Races to the Cold War, however, was my own idea.

The Number Jerk Fallacy Fallacy, on the other hand, is the belief that anyone actually gives a crap about the moral character of number-crunchers, or that anyone thinks of number-crunchers as anything more than obsessive-compulsives who occasionally lose control in public.

Thanks for posting this, Libertad.  Almost all the gamers I know engage in at least some level of optimization - their characters are good at what they do, and the overall design "works" well. But there are very few I'd go so far as to call "jerks."

Some of my best characters, and the best campaigns I've played in, were optimized up to a point depending on what was deemed "acceptable" for that particular game. When some friends invited me play D&D and lamented "Both our fighters left and we're getting our butts kicked, so bring a combat monster who'll kill everything!" ...I did exactly that, and everyone was happy. The DM stopped worrying about TPK's, and the party had an awesome fighter. I don't usually take the optimization process that far, so it was an interesting experience.

Most of my other characters have been optimized to a lesser degree; I try to have both an interesting background and a "build" that works tolerably well, which usually means compromising somewhere. In my current D&D campaign I'm probably playing the least optimized character, but I'd hardly call the other players "jerks" in any way.

All this seems legit. I don't disagree with anything mentioned here. I will say that I don't like the arms race thing at all. I've had at least 2 times in my career where I was a player in a game with minmaxxing jerks who would do nothing but scoff and grumble about how a female friend I had brought along had a rogue that didn't have anything that made her blink on her character and that she wasn't a two handed rogue fighter. I had to openly (and as politely as I could) tell them to shut the fuck up and keep their comments to themselves.

I don't have any issue with people who try to make their characters as good as they can, as long it's in the realm of realistic expectations.  After all, we all do that to some extent.  I have a problem with people who look to eek out every bonus they can in spite of what makes sense from a role-playing perspective.

What I mean by this, is that if you're building your character to be a Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Cleric 6/Sorcerer 9 and planning this at character generation just because it gives you the maximum DPS?  I have a hard time viewing that as being in the spirit of what a role-playing game is.

If you're having fun, knock yourself out I guess.  But you're clearly telling me that you only care about maxing out stats and less about growing your character as part of the team and campaign world--reasons why I play rpgs.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577297I don't have any issue with people who try to make their characters as good as they can, as long it's in the realm of realistic expectations.  After all, we all do that to some extent.  I have a problem with people who look to eek out every bonus they can in spite of what makes sense from a role-playing perspective.

What I mean by this, is that if you're building your character to be a Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Cleric 6/Sorcerer 9 and planning this at character generation just because it gives you the maximum DPS?  I have a hard time viewing that as being in the spirit of what a role-playing game is.

If you're having fun, knock yourself out I guess.  But you're clearly telling me that you only care about maxing out stats and less about growing your character as part of the team and campaign world--reasons why I play rpgs.

In general I hate 'Builds'

But to play devil's advocate....

I am thinking back to all the characters I have created over 30 years of gaming. I played a few 'broken' dual classed 1E/2E characters. In 3X I might have made one character with three classess...maybe. I like multiclassed characters, but tend not to have three or more classes.

But, I can see a small window of plausibility for a character with many classes.

A Barbarian could pick up ranger, fighter, rogue, and a few prestige classes believably.

A magus in pathfinder might pick up fighter, mage, etc...and it would make sense.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577297If you're having fun, knock yourself out I guess.  But you're clearly telling me that you only care about maxing out stats and less about growing your character as part of the team and campaign world--reasons why I play rpgs.

This.  Further I take slight offense at the moral authority being leveraged to label an observation as a 'fallacy'.

Quote from: Libertad;577240The Number Jerk Fallacy is the belief that guys who like to build powerful characters through excessive number-crunching are automatically inconsiderate selfish jerks out on an ego-trip, regardless of their relationships with the other gamers in the group.

Notice the weasel words, 'excessive', 'automatically'.  There's redundancy as well, 'inconsiderate selfish'.  'Out on an ego-trip' is really restrictive, and the final qualifier 'regardless...' is easily obviated.  Observe:

Are they then jerks when the number crunching is merely moderate, and not excessive?

What if they are being considerate and generous with their number crunching, to the point of requiring everyone else at the table do so?

What if they aren't on an ego trip but merely enjoy dicking the GM around?

Finally, what if they behaving this way in full regard of the other players, or even explicitely because of their relationships with the other players?

It's all rhetorical.  I just get irritated when we start tossing logical constructs like 'fallacy' around all willy-nilly.

I'm not liking the trend of trying to discount entire arguments that one doesn't like by attempting to apply the scientific 'fallacy' to them.  To say that something that can, on rare occasion, have a beneficial purpose is therefore a fallacy is simply misnaming the Exception To The Rule, not creating a new fallacy.

"Serial Killers are evil people."
"Nuh-uh, this one dood saves someone's life once!  What you're arguing is a fallacy!"

I get that people can't stand the idea of generalization, but generalizations are useful whether people like them or not.  And the vast, vast majority of number-crunchers are not beneficial to the campaign in any way, shape, or form.  So what if a handful of them can contain it?  Ideally you are dealing with individuals on an individual basis, so the fact that a generalization exists is irrelevant except for in the discussion of generalized tendencies.  If Joe is a 'good numbercruncher' who doesn't use his powers for evil, great.  That won't make the reality of the vast majority any different, though.

Quote from: mcbobbo;577338This.  Further I take slight offense at the moral authority being leveraged to label an observation as a 'fallacy'.



Notice the weasel words, 'excessive', 'automatically'.  There's redundancy as well, 'inconsiderate selfish'.  'Out on an ego-trip' is really restrictive, and the final qualifier 'regardless...' is easily obviated.  Observe:

Are they then jerks when the number crunching is merely moderate, and not excessive?

What if they are being considerate and generous with their number crunching, to the point of requiring everyone else at the table do so?

What if they aren't on an ego trip but merely enjoy dicking the GM around?

Finally, what if they behaving this way in full regard of the other players, or even explicitely because of their relationships with the other players?

It's all rhetorical.  I just get irritated when we start tossing logical constructs like 'fallacy' around all willy-nilly.

The point is that it's wrongheaded for people to assume that the behavior is inherently counterproductive to a group's fun and enjoyment.  That's what I'm addressing.

Quote from: CerilianSeeming;577343I'm not liking the trend of trying to discount entire arguments that one doesn't like by attempting to apply the scientific 'fallacy' to them.  To say that something that can, on rare occasion, have a beneficial purpose is therefore a fallacy is simply misnaming the Exception To The Rule, not creating a new fallacy.

"Serial Killers are evil people."
"Nuh-uh, this one dood saves someone's life once!  What you're arguing is a fallacy!"

I get that people can't stand the idea of generalization, but generalizations are useful whether people like them or not.  And the vast, vast majority of number-crunchers are not beneficial to the campaign in any way, shape, or form.  So what if a handful of them can contain it?  Ideally you are dealing with individuals on an individual basis, so the fact that a generalization exists is irrelevant except for in the discussion of generalized tendencies.  If Joe is a 'good numbercruncher' who doesn't use his powers for evil, great.  That won't make the reality of the vast majority any different, though.

Every stereotype has a hint of truth, but it's folly to jump to the worst conclusions based on a play-style.  And posters on many boards I frequent do tend to lump in all optimizers as "jerk players" or not give them the time of day.  I've seriously seen a person describe a high Strength, low Intelligence Barbarian as a "munchkin character."  This labeling of such players as "problem gamers" is one of the reasons I created the thread, along with encouraging problematic optimizers to be more mindful of their fellow gamers.

Quote from: Bill;577328I am thinking back to all the characters I have created over 30 years of gaming. I played a few 'broken' dual classed 1E/2E characters. In 3X I might have made one character with three classess...maybe. I like multiclassed characters, but tend not to have three or more classes. .

I don't have a problem with someone multi or dual classing if the campaign sort of goes that way.  For example, a fighter/thief who grew up on the mean streets and needed to know how to fight as well as sneak away from trouble.  Or the fighter/Mu (the two most common multi-classes) who started as a fighter because that was what was expected and later decided to follow his true calling.  Also, in TSR D&D, multi-classing and especially dual classing had a lot tougher requirements just to do so.

What I have a problem with is someone pre-planning out their 20 levels in advance based on nothing more than "I need this feat so what class do I need to get there the fastest." and end up with a four or five class build in the process.

"So explain how your character went from a fighter, to a sorcerer, to a rogue, and then to a cleric again?"

That would be like me going from an infantryman in the army, to a computer programmer, to a English teacher, to a physician.  One or two might not be unusual, but all four?  And to preplan that out in advance?

I just don't buy it, that's all.

Quote from: Libertad;577348The point is that it's wrongheaded for people to assume that the behavior is inherently counterproductive to a group's fun and enjoyment.  That's what I'm addressing.

Min-maxing is not counterproductive to every group's fun and enjoyment. However, it is counterproductive to MY fun and enjoyment and since I am selective about what groups I play with, to the fun and enjoyment of nearly every group I've played D&D with since 1975.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577349I don't have a problem with someone multi or dual classing if the campaign sort of goes that way.  For example, a fighter/thief who grew up on the mean streets and needed to know how to fight as well as sneak away from trouble.  Or the fighter/Mu (the two most common multi-classes) who started as a fighter because that was what was expected and later decided to follow his true calling.  Also, in TSR D&D, multi-classing and especially dual classing had a lot tougher requirements just to do so.

What I have a problem with is someone pre-planning out their 20 levels in advance based on nothing more than "I need this feat so what class do I need to get there the fastest." and end up with a four or five class build in the process.

"So explain how your character went from a fighter, to a sorcerer, to a rogue, and then to a cleric again?"

That would be like me going from an infantryman in the army, to a computer programmer, to a English teacher, to a physician.  One or two might not be unusual, but all four?  And to preplan that out in advance?

I just don't buy it, that's all.

There's different degrees of optimization.  Creating a powerful character independent of the group is problematic.

In regards to excessive multi-classing, the spellcaster/noncaster "Fighters can't have nice things" trend in 3.X made it so that mult-classing is necessary for a lot of noncaster builds to compete or be effective.  A lot of the best things for spellcasters are right in the Core Books, while worthwhile options for Fighters and Monks are buried deep in the recesses of splatbooks.

Optimization isn't just excessive multi-classing, and a lot of effective builds can revolve around a minimal number of sourcebooks and classes.  A Conjurer/Malconvoker can easily hold his own with the Core Books and Complete Mage; so can a Duskblade with the Core Books and the Player's Handbook 2.