This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Author Topic: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?  (Read 11175 times)

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #60 on: January 02, 2021, 10:54:14 AM »
No one has to like Optimization. I am not a fan of too much of it. I'm also not a fan of sub-par character creation either. Yet out of the two I rather have the first at my table as I can handle them easier and they can usually get the job done. The second tends to want be as good as the first yet blame everyone else when they can't do much or little at the game table.

It just seems like many perhaps too many have this romanticized view of the hobby where before 3E not hegative every happened imo. CharOps never happened. Monty Haul style campaigns can happen with any an all editions of D&D as it's more of a DM thing than the actual rules nah never happened. Unfortunately for them it did it was the pre-internet days and unlike now where one can see it on CharOps forums it all happened behind closed doors at gamers home games. To act like somehow 3E and later version of D&D made it easier don't piss on my leg and tell me it's not raining.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #61 on: January 02, 2021, 11:00:46 AM »
No one has to like Optimization. I am not a fan of too much of it. I'm also not a fan of sub-par character creation either. Yet out of the two I rather have the first at my table as I can handle them easier and they can usually get the job done. The second tends to want be as good as the first yet blame everyone else when they can't do much or little at the game table.

It just seems like many perhaps too many have this romanticized view of the hobby where before 3E not hegative every happened imo. CharOps never happened. Monty Haul style campaigns can happen with any an all editions of D&D as it's more of a DM thing than the actual rules nah never happened. Unfortunately for them it did it was the pre-internet days and unlike now where one can see it on CharOps forums it all happened behind closed doors at gamers home games. To act like somehow 3E and later version of D&D made it easier don't piss on my leg and tell me it's not raining.
Monty Haul as a term describing a type of campaign dates back to at least the early 1980s. Read the preface for Supplement IV: Gods, Demi-Gods & Heroes (1976), where Tim Kask rants about power gamers whose characters have reached absurd levels (40th). Read the letter in Dragon about using push to kill Thor and then take Mjolnir, or the even more notorious Waldorf.

Literally nobody in the history of the hobby has ever made the arguments you're so angry about.

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #62 on: January 02, 2021, 11:24:52 AM »
Nah, let them babble.  The fact that I play 5e far more than OSR wouldn't even phase them.  They are what they accuse others of being: cultists, but they don't even have the slight redeeming quality of being cultists for something, just cultists against something.

The Pot called and it wants it's kettle back. You come here make blanket and wrong statements about pre-3E versions of D&SD while also ignoring the flaws of older editions because you favor them. I am no cultist yet don't try and con gamers into thinking older editions never had optimization it did have it. Simply because it's a favored edition of D&D. If you don't want or expect pushback don't post on a gaming forum. Your not getting an echo chamber.

Show me where I said that I favor older editions (in fact, I said the opposite above, I play more 5e than 1e).  Show me where I said older editions had no flaws (in fact, I said that the issues with mechanics started in 1e).  Show me where I said older editions had no optimization.  I said they had much less optimization and of a different kind (no "builds").

The only echo chamber here is between your ears, since you obviously can't hear a single thing anyone else is saying.

Well, I recognize that editions like 3.5 and PF have such broken mechanics that your characters can have +20 to skills and to hit by the time they are in their mid to late teens.  But, in AD&D you could easily have a character whose primary stat gave them a +1 to hit for the entire career of the character (that 17 you rolled didn't increase outside of very rare magic items).  So a +1 effectively doubled your attribute bonus.  But I recognize that's a foreign land to many of you.  Making fun of a +1 magic item in OD&D or AD&D shows how little you know what you are talking about (not everyone played in Monty Haul campaigns all the time)...

Here is a little secret even in older editions players once they received +1 weapons were looking to upgrade them to better weapons. As eventually the weapon became useless against anything with a +2 or better to hit. o either you lucked out with DMs who went out of their way to go easy on you and the rest of the players as that +1 weapon at higher levels stops being effective for the most part. That creature that has +2 or better to hit is not going to be effected by that +1 sword of yours. It's been going on since 1E With 3.5/PF and Damage Resistance a +1 weapon in those so called editions that you call broken actually made a +1 weapon last longer. With DR one can still hit a creature that requires magic weapons the +1 Sword for example does less damage and one should still upgrade it yet one can get more mileage out of a +1 weapon. I actually carry a +1 weapon as a backup when I play a melee character. So I wonder if you actually played 3.5/Pathfinder or going off the wrong secondhand information.S.

But hey we don't know what we are talking about and all Monty haulers so what we know.

What the hell does your screed above have to do with my point, which is that AD&D had much fewer and smaller bonuses, and that (in 1e as we played it, usually without UE) most players didn't look down their nose at a magic weapon when all they had were mundane weapons?  Oh, wait, it has nothing to do with it.  Of course players were looking for better items; they just didn't define "better" as "fits the build I decided upon six levels ago and took all my feats for," since that didn't exist.  Dude, I'm done with you.  You can't have a conversation with someone that isn't even listening...

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #63 on: January 02, 2021, 11:27:50 AM »
The fact that I play 5e far more than OSR wouldn't even phase them.
Either that or try a more forgiving game like 5e or something.

Dude...reading is fundamental...

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #64 on: January 02, 2021, 11:31:26 AM »
Literally nobody in the history of the hobby has ever made the arguments you're so angry about.

Not angry at all.

First my arguments are Strawmen now no one has ever made similar arguments.

Keep up the good fight sad disingenuous clown you make me laugh.

Dude, I'm done with you.  You can't have a conversation with someone that isn't even listening...

You come here guns a blazing with your posts and when posters dare to criticize or push-back against your posts you get all pissy  and angry. Maybe look in the mirror and not engage in the same behavior you accuse others of. From what I can see of your posts it's all about carefully constructed personal narratives. Anything and everything that goes against sad narrative does not exist

I'm done also engaging with you and Path at least on this thread. Join Pat as a member of the sad disingenuous clown club, you both make me laugh

« Last Edit: January 02, 2021, 12:47:18 PM by sureshot »

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #65 on: January 02, 2021, 12:44:28 PM »
P.S., as an example of this conflict.  In 1e, could you imagine a fighter who found a magic hammer turning it down (unless they already had a far superior magic weapon)?  But from 3e to PF to 5e, I've had players that eschewed a magic weapon for a non-magical on, because the magic weapon conflicted with their build.  "I'm not going to use a +1 longsword... my whole build is based around using Polearm Master and Sentinel!"  Yeah, not what I ever experienced in older editions...

Weapon Specialisation is a thing going back to Unearthed Arcana.

Sure I will take less attacks per round just to use your +1 magic hammer - said no one.
That's one of the reasons why some grognards draw the line before UA was released. And much as I love BECMI's weapon mastery, it's worse. Five feat-equivalents in, and you're not switching.

But Pat its a +1 magic hammer

A +1!

Well, I recognize that editions like 3.5 and PF have such broken mechanics that your characters can have +20 to skills and to hit by the time they are in their mid to late teens.  But, in AD&D you could easily have a character whose primary stat gave them a +1 to hit for the entire career of the character (that 17 you rolled didn't increase outside of very rare magic items).  So a +1 effectively doubled your attribute bonus.  But I recognize that's a foreign land to many of you.  Making fun of a +1 magic item in OD&D or AD&D shows how little you know what you are talking about (not everyone played in Monty Haul campaigns all the time)...

Show me where I said that I favor 3.5 and PF.  Show me where I said 3.5 and PF editions have no flaws. Show me where I said ability score or (specially) skill bonuses in later editions weren't too high. I said that optimization in old D&D was still a thing and old D&D still had builds (technically, I didn't mention that specifically, but you could make a high AC "DEX" fighter or focus on STR or CON instead even in old D&D).

The only echo chamber here is between your ears, since you obviously can't hear a single thing anyone else is saying.

Nah, let them babble.  The fact that I play 5e far more than OSR wouldn't even phase them.  They are what they accuse others of being: cultists, but they don't even have the slight redeeming quality of being cultists for something, just cultists against something.

The Pot called and it wants it's kettle back. You come here make blanket and wrong statements about pre-3E versions of D&SD while also ignoring the flaws of older editions because you favor them. I am no cultist yet don't try and con gamers into thinking older editions never had optimization it did have it. Simply because it's a favored edition of D&D. If you don't want or expect pushback don't post on a gaming forum. Your not getting an echo chamber.

Show me where I said that I favor older editions (in fact, I said the opposite above, I play more 5e than 1e).  Show me where I said older editions had no flaws (in fact, I said that the issues with mechanics started in 1e).  Show me where I said older editions had no optimization.  I said they had much less optimization and of a different kind (no "builds").

The only echo chamber here is between your ears, since you obviously can't hear a single thing anyone else is saying.

Two can play that game  :P

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #66 on: January 02, 2021, 01:06:01 PM »
Literally nobody in the history of the hobby has ever made the arguments you're so angry about.

Not angry at all.

First my arguments are Strawmen now no one has ever made similar arguments.

Keep up the good fight sad disingenuous clown you make me laugh.
Strawmen are fictitious arguments that no one makes. That you can't even recognize a synonym isn't laughworthy, it's just sad.

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3326
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #67 on: January 02, 2021, 01:25:07 PM »
We either roll in front of each other - in the first session, or for online games we use an online roller. So there's no real way to cheat other than using loaded dice.
Sure there is; suicide the character you don't like by doing stupidly dangerous things. Repeat until you get a result you like. Takes longer, sure, but you'll get what you're looking for eventually... you'll just annoy the rest of the group if you keep doing it too much.

Which is why the notion of Point Buy and Arrays are so popular in modern systems. It saves a lot of time and frustration by just letting the players start out with a PC they actually want to use while also preventing other forms of cheating (because the GM can easily do a "check sum" of the scores and they don't have to break from the rest of the PCs to watch them roll in the middle of a session because their last character died to make sure they aren't massaging the results).

I know random stats is a huge part of the OSR experience... and that's just one of many reasons I'm NOT an OSR fan. In my three and a half decades of experience the only thing random stat rolls are good for is stories of funny PC deaths as those who rolled crap run through PCs in ridiculous ways until they get one that doesn't suck (and the occasional even funnier story of a crap PC that a player keeps trying to suicide and fails because the dice keep saving them).

Personally, I prefer to skip that step and just get on with an actual campaign where we're playing real characters and not collections of stats we haven't even named yet because we're not sure they'll survive their first session. If I wanted THAT I'd play a more in-depth board game; same tactical decisions, no pretenses that they're actual characters with drives and goals making in-universe decisions instead of cardboard cutouts you're waiting to see if its worth even slapping a name onto.

Hell, EVEN Palladium Books; godfather of never changing core mechanics; has acknowledged how nonsense completely random stats are in RPGs. Their second edition Robotech RPG (the one with The Shadow Chronicles as part of it) actually lets you choose one of eight arrays (based on which stat you want to be highest) where the variance is, for example; Fast Reflexes and High Dexterity: I.Q. 1D4+10, M.E. 1D6+9, M.A. 1D6+8, P.S. 1D6+9, P.P. 1D6+19, P.E. 1D6+9, P.B. 1D6+10, Spd 1D6+17.

So the absolute WORST you can possibly do with that is; IQ 11, ME 10, MA 9, PS 10, PP 20 (+3 to strike/parry/dodge), PE 10, PB 11, Spd 18.

The absolute best is (remember 15 or less is no bonus); IQ 14, ME 15, MA 14, PS 15, PP 25 (+5 to strike/parry/dodge), PE 15, PB 16 (30% charm/impress), Spd 23.

Basically, the clamp on best/worst is now +2 to strike/parry/dodge (or about +/-5% from the average result) if you decide on that build.

If even Palladium Books is abandoning completely random rolls for an almost pre-determined result (it's Palladium, they can only bend so far), that just about says it all.

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #68 on: January 02, 2021, 01:50:36 PM »
What actually happened was that one player decided he didn't like his rolls and just flat out threw it away and rolled another. The second wasn't significantly better than the first and the rest of us mocked him for doing it. He's not tried it again.

It's not cheating as such: just exposing your immaturity as a player to the rest of your group.

If I roll bad stats (and I do, a lot) it's disappointing, but you make do with what you get. That's the game.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #69 on: January 02, 2021, 02:02:51 PM »
What actually happened was that one player decided he didn't like his rolls and just flat out threw it away and rolled another. The second wasn't significantly better than the first and the rest of us mocked him for doing it. He's not tried it again.

It's not cheating as such: just exposing your immaturity as a player to the rest of your group.

If I roll bad stats (and I do, a lot) it's disappointing, but you make do with what you get. That's the game.
IIRC, there's no written rule that you have to play any character you generate (whether by a random or non-random method).

mightybrain

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 454
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #70 on: January 02, 2021, 02:09:38 PM »
IIRC, there's no written rule that you have to play any character you generate (whether by a random or non-random method).

I have the Mentzer Red Box Player's Manual to hand:
Quote
Now find your highest Ability Score.
If it is less than 9, you should roll all the
Scores again. You may keep the character
if you wish, but he or she probably
won't be suitable for dangerous adventuring!
However, before you discard the
character, ask your Dungeon Master
what to do. Your DM might prefer that
you play the character you rolled, especially
if you are an experienced player.
If two or more Ability Scores are less
than 6, the character may have problems
later on. This type of character should
also be discarded, unless the DM says
otherwise.
You can adjust the' Ability Scores in
step 3 (Exchange Ability Points), but first
you must decide what Class your character
will be.
« Last Edit: January 02, 2021, 02:16:18 PM by mightybrain »

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #71 on: January 02, 2021, 02:13:39 PM »
P.S., as an example of this conflict.  In 1e, could you imagine a fighter who found a magic hammer turning it down (unless they already had a far superior magic weapon)?  But from 3e to PF to 5e, I've had players that eschewed a magic weapon for a non-magical on, because the magic weapon conflicted with their build.  "I'm not going to use a +1 longsword... my whole build is based around using Polearm Master and Sentinel!"  Yeah, not what I ever experienced in older editions...

Weapon Specialisation is a thing going back to Unearthed Arcana.

Sure I will take less attacks per round just to use your +1 magic hammer - said no one.
That's one of the reasons why some grognards draw the line before UA was released. And much as I love BECMI's weapon mastery, it's worse. Five feat-equivalents in, and you're not switching.

But Pat its a +1 magic hammer

A +1!

Well, I recognize that editions like 3.5 and PF have such broken mechanics that your characters can have +20 to skills and to hit by the time they are in their mid to late teens.  But, in AD&D you could easily have a character whose primary stat gave them a +1 to hit for the entire career of the character (that 17 you rolled didn't increase outside of very rare magic items).  So a +1 effectively doubled your attribute bonus.  But I recognize that's a foreign land to many of you.  Making fun of a +1 magic item in OD&D or AD&D shows how little you know what you are talking about (not everyone played in Monty Haul campaigns all the time)...

Show me where I said that I favor 3.5 and PF.  Show me where I said 3.5 and PF editions have no flaws. Show me where I said ability score or (specially) skill bonuses in later editions weren't too high. I said that optimization in old D&D was still a thing and old D&D still had builds (technically, I didn't mention that specifically, but you could make a high AC "DEX" fighter or focus on STR or CON instead even in old D&D).

The only echo chamber here is between your ears, since you obviously can't hear a single thing anyone else is saying.

Nah, let them babble.  The fact that I play 5e far more than OSR wouldn't even phase them.  They are what they accuse others of being: cultists, but they don't even have the slight redeeming quality of being cultists for something, just cultists against something.

The Pot called and it wants it's kettle back. You come here make blanket and wrong statements about pre-3E versions of D&SD while also ignoring the flaws of older editions because you favor them. I am no cultist yet don't try and con gamers into thinking older editions never had optimization it did have it. Simply because it's a favored edition of D&D. If you don't want or expect pushback don't post on a gaming forum. Your not getting an echo chamber.

Show me where I said that I favor older editions (in fact, I said the opposite above, I play more 5e than 1e).  Show me where I said older editions had no flaws (in fact, I said that the issues with mechanics started in 1e).  Show me where I said older editions had no optimization.  I said they had much less optimization and of a different kind (no "builds").

The only echo chamber here is between your ears, since you obviously can't hear a single thing anyone else is saying.

Two can play that game  :P
Well, considering that wasn't talking to you, nor do I care what you've said... whatever...

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2435
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #72 on: January 02, 2021, 02:21:45 PM »
Literally nobody in the history of the hobby has ever made the arguments you're so angry about.

Not angry at all.

First my arguments are Strawmen now no one has ever made similar arguments.

Keep up the good fight sad disingenuous clown you make me laugh.
Strawmen are fictitious arguments that no one makes. That you can't even recognize a synonym isn't laughworthy, it's just sad.

Dance Sad Disingenuous Clown Dance. Here have rusty dented tin cup and a wooden nickels from me for your efforts.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #73 on: January 02, 2021, 02:24:25 PM »
Literally nobody in the history of the hobby has ever made the arguments you're so angry about.

Not angry at all.

First my arguments are Strawmen now no one has ever made similar arguments.

Keep up the good fight sad disingenuous clown you make me laugh.
Strawmen are fictitious arguments that no one makes. That you can't even recognize a synonym isn't laughworthy, it's just sad.

Dance Sad Disingenuous Clown Dance. Here have rusty dented tin cup and a wooden nickels from me for your efforts.
So just insults on top of insults on top of insults.

Good argument.

Blink_Dog

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 63
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #74 on: January 02, 2021, 02:36:33 PM »
He is full of shit overall, but I can see his point when it comes to more modern rpg's. If you play an OSR style game, 3D6 in order with old school HD rules you avoid optimization 90% of the time.