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 11153 times)

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #90 on: January 02, 2021, 11:56:55 PM »
The issue with optimisation isn't finding sufficient challenge for the PCs, that's trivial. The problem with optimisation is how bloody long players take trying to optimise it, and how it leads to shitty play - because they become insanely protective of their optimised character, and won't co-operate as well.

In the dice lie freedom.

Ehhh, I'd prefer to phrase it that optimization leads to players choosing to follow the numbers rather than the game.  While mechanics are important (though they can sometimes create a "reality" in the game that is different from our reality or the intended reality), when players reject the fiction of the game (the suspension of disbelief, if you will),that's when you really see the problem. When a player rejects something that, in world, would be a marvelous boon to them (as I talked about earlier, with the rejection of a magic weapon) because the numbers don't work with their build, then you have a problem.  No warrior would give up their blessed sword for another of lesser provenance (so not Excalibur for a simple named sword, or +3 for a +1 in mechanical terms [I feel it necessary to mention this because those on here that dumped Int and Wis are likely to argue I somehow stated the opposite]), but they would almost always give up their mundane sword for a blessed mace.  When the mechanics encourage the opposite, there is a problem with the mechanics.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #91 on: January 03, 2021, 12:04:25 AM »
The issue with optimisation isn't finding sufficient challenge for the PCs, that's trivial. The problem with optimisation is how bloody long players take trying to optimise it, and how it leads to shitty play - because they become insanely protective of their optimised character, and won't co-operate as well.

In the dice lie freedom.
Agreed on the shitty play, but disagree on how long it takes, because these days, the optimal path (and a few minor variations) are often easily found via internet search. And then your game picks up another alternate universe incarnation of character RaceXClassYSubclassZ with predictable Spells, Feats, etc.

HappyDaze

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • H
  • Posts: 5337
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #92 on: January 03, 2021, 12:06:53 AM »
The issue with optimisation isn't finding sufficient challenge for the PCs, that's trivial. The problem with optimisation is how bloody long players take trying to optimise it, and how it leads to shitty play - because they become insanely protective of their optimised character, and won't co-operate as well.

In the dice lie freedom.
It also severely curtails character options, because there's generally only a handful of ways to be really optimal.
That's a system issue. If the system is heavily focused on one aspect (usually combat in D&D-like games and many others) then this is where optimization will be heavily focused. If a game has real demands for characters to be more rounded or at least cover more bases, then optimization paths are going to be more open (with no one true optimal path).

Omega

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • O
  • Posts: 17093
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #93 on: January 03, 2021, 01:05:27 AM »
I think the problem is not really players that like to optimize their characters.

It is the idiots that try to squeeze every last iota of bonuses from the system for effectively a perceived "I WIN!" button. And either bend or cheat the rules to get that. Rules Lawyers go hand in hand with this. Or they throw a tantrum when it is not an "I WIN!" button.

And as others have noted. These types can take freaking forever to make a character.

Poor attitudes of some do not help either. I've seen a few who just came across as smug that they thought they had that "I WIN!" button. Or had bent the rules and pulled one over on the DM. Or the aforementioned fit throwing when such characters prove to be not as OP as they thought.

That said regular play can lead to some optimization simply due to the system. Most do not and D&D does not despite the incessant insistence of some who used to be here that it does.

This is one reason I liked BX as stats overall were not as potent as in AD&D and on. And those that did give bonuses were not huge ones as yet.
At best you might try to by the best weapon or armour you could. Or in one of my first groups as a player. We pooled coin to buy the fighter a good set of gear with what we had.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #94 on: January 03, 2021, 01:27:03 AM »
The issue with optimisation isn't finding sufficient challenge for the PCs, that's trivial. The problem with optimisation is how bloody long players take trying to optimise it, and how it leads to shitty play - because they become insanely protective of their optimised character, and won't co-operate as well.

In the dice lie freedom.
It also severely curtails character options, because there's generally only a handful of ways to be really optimal.
That's a system issue. If the system is heavily focused on one aspect (usually combat in D&D-like games and many others) then this is where optimization will be heavily focused. If a game has real demands for characters to be more rounded or at least cover more bases, then optimization paths are going to be more open (with no one true optimal path).
That runs into problems with character focus, then. If you're not focusing on a consistent set of things, when what's the game about, and how do you choose what matters? You end up with things like GURPS characters with high stats and 1 point (or 1/2 a point) in everything.

Shasarak

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4032
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #95 on: January 03, 2021, 03:52:35 AM »
The issue with optimisation isn't finding sufficient challenge for the PCs, that's trivial. The problem with optimisation is how bloody long players take trying to optimise it, and how it leads to shitty play - because they become insanely protective of their optimised character, and won't co-operate as well.

In the dice lie freedom.

Back in the days of Save or Die, players learned to take a bloody long time to check the door, check the floor, check the walls, check the ceiling, check the floor again, check the slope of the floor and then, and only then, they would be able to get out of bed to repeat the process to get to the privy.
Who da Drow?  U da drow! - hedgehobbit

There will be poor always,
pathetically struggling,
look at the good things you've got! -  Jesus

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #96 on: January 03, 2021, 06:24:42 AM »
If designers don't like optimization, then they shouldn't design trap options.

Just play an ultra rules light system like RISUS or something.
Excluded middle. RPGs aren't vital equipment where failure could mean the death of millions, they're games played by and adjudicated by humans. While it's good design to reduce the number of traps, writing a game to avoid any at all is overkill, and tends to lead to overwritten, overly conservative tomes that read like contracts. While reading well isn't that important to RPGs, the rigid, remorseless design and the stifling of creativity needed to account for all possible unexpected interactions is a powerful negative.

I don't think that designing an RPG that limits options that suck is such an impossible task or requires turning the game book into legalese. At the contrary, sometimes the most effective way to avoid trap options is to keep them simple, but useful. 5e, for example, managed to make feats that are more potent and less complicated than 3e's by simply making them more powerful--buffing up weaker feats with extra features to spice them up--and removing ridiculously long and convoluted feat-chains without turning the text into a legal document. If anything, 3e's feat lists are closer to legalese than 5e's.

This is one reason I liked BX as stats overall were not as potent as in AD&D and on. And those that did give bonuses were not huge ones as yet.

Depends on what you mean by "stats". Ability score modifiers at least tended to be higher in BX than AD&D, and more consistent as well, so you didn't have to reference the books to know what a score of 16 gave you (it was always +2). AD&D ability scores were a freaking mess. I can't count the number of times I thought of ditching AD&D scores during my 2e days to replace them with BX scores.

The issue with optimisation isn't finding sufficient challenge for the PCs, that's trivial. The problem with optimisation is how bloody long players take trying to optimise it, and how it leads to shitty play - because they become insanely protective of their optimised character, and won't co-operate as well.

In the dice lie freedom.

Back in the days of Save or Die, players learned to take a bloody long time to check the door, check the floor, check the walls, check the ceiling, check the floor again, check the slope of the floor and then, and only then, they would be able to get out of bed to repeat the process to get to the privy.

Yeah, but that's the goodrightfun type of play. Games that actually have OPTIONS, where characters aren't simply carbon copies of every single other character of the same class (and there's no real distinction between fighter A and fighter B, making wonder WTF is the point of EVER making or playing more than one) is where the badwrongfun starts.  ;)

Chris24601

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • C
  • Posts: 3324
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #97 on: January 03, 2021, 07:26:42 AM »
That's why I mostly baked increased combat ability into character level, split options into level-locked combat and non-combat silos (combat option every even level, non-combat every odd level; system caps at 15 for seven and seven) and most of those options are more about lateral growth (i.e. mostly new tools vs. better tools) and the improvement options are limited to about +1 to hit, +1 to armor and +4 to damage (where leveling alone will add +23 damage).

That makes a lot more choices be about what new tools you want and that will be very campaign dependent vs. a single universal best. If you're mostly exploring the Northern Wastes, then the cryomancy talent will be less useful but the fire spirit boon (which can grant cold resistance) could be invaluable. Neither would be particularly strong if the campaign is focused on the political skuldugery of the Riverhold Palace.

Now there probably IS a singular "best build" and trap options if the campaign is exclusively about one thing (if all you're fighting is undead then Poison Expert is a trap option... if all you're doing is court intrigue its probably a little strong).

Eirikrautha

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #98 on: January 03, 2021, 09:21:50 AM »
5e, for example, managed to make feats that are more potent and less complicated than 3e's by simply making them more powerful--buffing up weaker feats with extra features to spice them up--and removing ridiculously long and convoluted feat-chains without turning the text into a legal document. If anything, 3e's feat lists are closer to legalese than 5e's.

True.  Feat chains are one of the primary components of a "build" system, and 5e is better for not having them.  It didn't completely escape, however, because combining the effects of feats still can give an "optimal" path (Polearm Mastery + Sentinel + etc.) that encourages planned growth over organic growth.  But 5e is much better at this than 3e or PF.

Another thing I think 5e attempted to address (with some limited success) is the large range of modifiers that also leads to optimization issues.  The reality is that any system where novice and expert are separated by large numerical values, but increases in skill are small numerical values, players will be encouraged to chase small increases over time.  This was a significant issue in 3.5e (and PF), where both bonuses and targets rose to such large values that a character could go from competent in some skill (with a +10 to it) at low level to incompetent (with the same +10) at high level without lots of planning and character investment. 

It's also, sadly, a product of using a d20 for most task resolution.  A +1 represents very little progression in abilities (an increase of 5%), so, in order to feel like an expert, bonuses have to grow to a larger value (+10 or +15) to achieve that feel.  The advantage/disadvantage is a good attempt to moderate this problem, I think, and another of 5e's successes.  But 5e still does not really solve the underlying problem, which I think comes from the changed use of the d20 in D&D...

VisionStorm

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2184
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #99 on: January 03, 2021, 09:59:32 AM »
5e, for example, managed to make feats that are more potent and less complicated than 3e's by simply making them more powerful--buffing up weaker feats with extra features to spice them up--and removing ridiculously long and convoluted feat-chains without turning the text into a legal document. If anything, 3e's feat lists are closer to legalese than 5e's.

True.  Feat chains are one of the primary components of a "build" system, and 5e is better for not having them.  It didn't completely escape, however, because combining the effects of feats still can give an "optimal" path (Polearm Mastery + Sentinel + etc.) that encourages planned growth over organic growth.  But 5e is much better at this than 3e or PF.

Another thing I think 5e attempted to address (with some limited success) is the large range of modifiers that also leads to optimization issues.  The reality is that any system where novice and expert are separated by large numerical values, but increases in skill are small numerical values, players will be encouraged to chase small increases over time.  This was a significant issue in 3.5e (and PF), where both bonuses and targets rose to such large values that a character could go from competent in some skill (with a +10 to it) at low level to incompetent (with the same +10) at high level without lots of planning and character investment. 

It's also, sadly, a product of using a d20 for most task resolution.  A +1 represents very little progression in abilities (an increase of 5%), so, in order to feel like an expert, bonuses have to grow to a larger value (+10 or +15) to achieve that feel.  The advantage/disadvantage is a good attempt to moderate this problem, I think, and another of 5e's successes.  But 5e still does not really solve the underlying problem, which I think comes from the changed use of the d20 in D&D...

A lot of this is about tradeoffs. If you allow any degree of detail or specialization, with limited resources to get them, you're always gonna get people focusing on certain things and being better at them, while lagging (sometimes drastically) in others. I'm willing to accept that tradeoff because I like distinctiveness and some people are simply better at some things than others in real life.

The real issue becomes you have very wide disparities in ability ranges, like it happens with skills in 3e, where you can get modifier gaps of +10 or greater even at early levels (or as high as +20 or more at higher levels) between unskilled characters and those that throw everything into a single skill, making it impossible for unskilled or low skill characters to compete. Any gap greater than +10 in a d20 means you can be completely overpowered, which is why 5e ended up adding bounded accuracy to rein modifiers in (though, perhaps a bit ham fistedly). EDIT: So players need to get over their hangups and accept that low modifiers (like +1 or +2) and tight modifier ranges (not much higher than +10, maybe +15 tops) are the only thing that can work in a d20.

But true organic growth is impossible in a system with closed progression, like D&D, where you only get a limited amount of resources between levels to buy every ability you can ever get. In point-buy systems with open ended, freeform progressions that isn't as much of an issue, since organically branching out is only a factor of playing long enough and getting enough extra points to cover all those new abilities. But in D&D if you get polearm mastery (or some sort of equivalent, depending on edition) you're probably never gonna have enough feats to get shield mastery, or whatever.

Though, part of this is also tied to lack of weapon distinctions in D&D, beyond just higher damage for some than others. A specialized swordsman in real life might still pick up a military pick to fight against a heavily armored opponent with a metal helm, since picks can pierce through helms (and skulls) while swords are practically useless against armor, but in D&D weapon types vs armor don't matter.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 10:02:39 AM by VisionStorm »

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #100 on: January 03, 2021, 10:03:47 AM »
If designers don't like optimization, then they shouldn't design trap options.

Just play an ultra rules light system like RISUS or something.
Excluded middle. RPGs aren't vital equipment where failure could mean the death of millions, they're games played by and adjudicated by humans. While it's good design to reduce the number of traps, writing a game to avoid any at all is overkill, and tends to lead to overwritten, overly conservative tomes that read like contracts. While reading well isn't that important to RPGs, the rigid, remorseless design and the stifling of creativity needed to account for all possible unexpected interactions is a powerful negative.

I don't think that designing an RPG that limits options that suck is such an impossible task or requires turning the game book into legalese.
That's literally what I was arguing. BCT made an absolute statement, and I pointed out that attempting to avoid "traps" at any cost is a bad idea. You can minimize them, but blocking them entirely has some real negative effects (and is probably impossible in any moderately complex game anyway; see the abuses of v.3.5). That's why I said "excluded middle."

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #101 on: January 03, 2021, 10:41:53 AM »
A +1 represents very little progression in abilities (an increase of 5%), so, in order to feel like an expert, bonuses have to grow to a larger value (+10 or +15) to achieve that feel.  The advantage/disadvantage is a good attempt to moderate this problem, I think, and another of 5e's successes.  But 5e still does not really solve the underlying problem, which I think comes from the changed use of the d20 in D&D...
+1 on 1d20 = +5% is true, at least from a certain perspective. But while it's a popular way of looking at it, it's not a particularly useful one. Note this is more a general comment than anything else, using your post as a springboard. It's not really about your post, or even the d20 system.

Say you succeed on a 19+ on a d20. That means in two cases (19, 20) you succeed, and in 18 cases (1...18) you fail. How does a +1 affect that? A +1 has a minimal effect on your chances of failure, reducing it from 18/20 to 17/20. That works out out to a 5.56% reduction, which is pretty close to the +1 = 5%. But not the same, and that's because it's a very different way of looking at things. To show how different, consider the other end of the spectrum. With a +1, you now succeed on a 18, 19, or 20, not just on a 19 or 20. That +1 means your chance of success has increased by a whopping 50%.

The reverse happens when the chance of failure is low. If you succeed on a 3+, that means you fail on 1 or 2, and a -1 means your chance of failure increases by 50% (since you now fail on a 1, 2, or 3).

In most RPGs, there's usually a low chance of a very bad effects happening (classic D&D saves are an exception, at low levels), and a high chance of a most routine things happening. For example, your chance to hit tends to be clustered toward the top end of the scale, where a +1 matters a lot more than it does in the middle or the bottom of the scale. Conversely, if there's a low chance of something really bad happening, then a -1 matters a lot more because it greatly increases your odds of failure. In other words, a +1 tends to worth a lot more than 5% when it comes to things you're fairly competent in, and a penalty matters a lot more when there's a small chance of something bad happening.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 10:45:52 AM by Pat »

Zalman

  • RPG Evangelist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #102 on: January 03, 2021, 11:10:40 AM »
+1 on 1d20 = +5% is true, at least from a certain perspective. But while it's a popular way of looking at it, it's not a particularly useful one. Note this is more a general comment than anything else, using your post as a springboard. It's not really about your post, or even the d20 system.

Say you succeed on a 19+ on a d20. That means in two cases (19, 20) you succeed, and in 18 cases (1...18) you fail. How does a +1 affect that? A +1 has a minimal effect on your chances of failure, reducing it from 18/20 to 17/20. That works out out to a 5.56% reduction, which is pretty close to the +1 = 5%. But not the same, and that's because it's a very different way of looking at things. To show how different, consider the other end of the spectrum. With a +1, you now succeed on a 18, 19, or 20, not just on a 19 or 20. That +1 means your chance of success has increased by a whopping 50%.

The reverse happens when the chance of failure is low. If you succeed on a 3+, that means you fail on 1 or 2, and a -1 means your chance of failure increases by 50% (since you now fail on a 1, 2, or 3).

Hm, I disagree that it's more useful to look at the bonus relative to the chance of success or failure without bonus, rather than relative to the chance of success or failure overall. Because in the game, the only differences that matter are the ones that affect player decisions enough to alter them. For that, it's the absolute chance of success or failure that matters, not the relative one.

If I have a 15% chance to leap across a chasm without dying, that's a risk I'd avoid at all costs. I couldn't care less if 15 is "50%" more than 10, or that it's "200%" more than 5 (maybe I got a +2 even!), because the relative change isn't ever going to affect my ultimate decision as a player. The only thing I care about is that I still have an 85% chance of dying, and until that number is low enough (via 5% increments), I'm staying on this side of the chasm.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 11:18:04 AM by Zalman »
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."

Abraxus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2434
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #103 on: January 03, 2021, 11:16:04 AM »
I think the problem is not really players that like to optimize their characters.

It is the idiots that try to squeeze every last iota of bonuses from the system for effectively a perceived "I WIN!" button. And either bend or cheat the rules to get that. Rules Lawyers go hand in hand with this. Or they throw a tantrum when it is not an "I WIN!" button.

And as others have noted. These types can take freaking forever to make a character.

Poor attitudes of some do not help either. I've seen a few who just came across as smug that they thought they had that "I WIN!" button. Or had bent the rules and pulled one over on the DM. Or the aforementioned fit throwing when such characters prove to be not as OP as they thought.

That said regular play can lead to some optimization simply due to the system. Most do not and D&D does not despite the incessant insistence of some who used to be here that it does.

This is one reason I liked BX as stats overall were not as potent as in AD&D and on. And those that did give bonuses were not huge ones as yet.
At best you might try to by the best weapon or armour you could. Or in one of my first groups as a player. We pooled coin to buy the fighter a good set of gear with what we had.

Seconded.

On the end of the spectrum I have laso played and ran campaigns for those who went out of their way to make a subpar character while also ignoring and sometimes being rude to both players and dMs who try to point that out. Most optimizers know they will not be good at everything and acknowledge their weakness and try to work around the. The subpar mindset like the optimizers with the poor attitude want to have their cake and eat it too. Either expecting the players to cover their weaknesses which can only be done to a certain extent by everyone else or expect the DM to cut them slack. I'm not going to screw over another player as a DM who took a 14-16 in Int as a Wizard because player XYZ took a 10-12. The first players spells bypass SR and beat the npcs/monsters saves more often than XYZ.

Both types seems to want to blame everyone and anyone else for their bad builds and refuse to take responsibility for their poor decisions. The overly optimized tank who joined an AP which had many encounters that required Diplomacy who took no skills points in the skill while also being himself in character. The player was an Atheist who would go up to major and minor religious NPCs and claim religion on Golarion was for suckers than wondered why at least in many places he was barred from entering temples and churches. Or the Wizard with the 10 Int who spells at higher levels kept either bouncing off the enemies Spell Resistance or they made their saves. Who refused to put the extra attribute points into his casting stat and would love to buy magic items to boost it yet they were too expensive had his own wish list and expected the rest of the group to buy the Headband of Intellect.

Zalman

  • RPG Evangelist
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 996
Re: Is RPG Optimization Psychosis?
« Reply #104 on: January 03, 2021, 11:23:03 AM »
It is the idiots that try to squeeze every last iota of bonuses from the system for effectively a perceived "I WIN!" button.

I think this is the attitude that people are referring to when they allude to optimization being a "minigame". In my opinion, rolling stats randomly and finding a character in the gestalt of those stats is also a minigame that some people enjoy -- and I think both get conflated with the game in play, which for me is a different thing entirely. It's when people let the minigame get in the way of the game-as-played that I believe problems are created. This can be the aforementioned optimizer eschewing in-game benefits for "not fitting my build", as well as players who intentionally suicide their characters (often along with the rest of the party) for not fitting a desired gestalt.

The moral for me is: if you're looking to "win" outside of the game as played at the table, make sure everyone else wants to play that game as well, or make sure your personal game doesn't interfere with the game we've all decided to play.
« Last Edit: January 03, 2021, 11:24:44 AM by Zalman »
Old School? Back in my day we just called it "School."