TheRPGSite

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. :D

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.

Optimisation is fine, its liberal interpretations of the rules to gain serious advantages that grind my gears. I actually encourage players to make the best characters they can, and give them tips on how to push it, but when that runs into a rules lawyer looking for loopholes, well its not fun for the rest of the group.

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.

If the OP's premise is correct, then it would be more accurate to call it a misconception.

I agree that the generalization is unjustified, but any time you try to prove or disprove something like that you're on shaky ground regardless.

Quote from: beejazz;577420I agree that the generalization is unjustified, but any time you try to prove or disprove something like that you're on shaky ground regardless.

Exactly.  Whatever happened to starting with the general condition and working down to the specific?  All generalizations are wrong, clearly, but that is the best method we have discovered thus far for expanding knowledge.  You really can't shortcut the process and expect to get viable results.

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!"

Geeks love patterns and putting things in boxes. It's like TVTropes for debates. You know, why think about the work in your own thoughts, when you can label things "Face Heel Turn", "Magnificent Badass" and "Tsundere" and move on.

It's the same thing here. They see an argument, their mind immediately applies whatever hammer they have that looks to fit the least badly, and go all "NUH HUH OBERONI FALLACY".

It is fucking lazy and annoying but it's what passes for discourse these days.

(the word "fallacy" itself is a meta example)

Quote from: vytzka;577470Geeks love patterns and putting things in boxes. It's like TVTropes for debates. You know, why think about the work in your own thoughts, when you can label things "Face Heel Turn", "Magnificent Badass" and "Tsundere" and move on.

It's the same thing here. They see an argument, their mind immediately applies whatever hammer they have that looks to fit the least badly, and go all "NUH HUH OBERONI FALLACY".

It is fucking lazy and annoying but it's what passes for discourse these days.

(the word "fallacy" itself is a meta example)

You know this sounds very similar to the anti-logic people use whenever I start pointing out inconsistencies with anything people are emotionally attached to. While not a word for word photocopy of it I've had this same kind of thing mentioned whenever I talk to people about religion, government, emotions, psychology, etc. I wonder why people hate critical thinking so much that attempting to analyze patterns and such always (throughout history) draws the same sentiment.

Overreliance on patterns is the opposite of critical thinking. Patterns are not bad when used sensibly but geeks rarely understand that there can be too much of a good thing and run off a cliff with it.

Again, I present you TVTropes.

edit: if you want to see the REALLY BAD things you do with patterns, check out the This (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rITtv98aa68) Troper (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwSmB5_eaWc&feature=relmfu) videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yj3urJn7gE&feature=relmfu) on (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slO-QB8MEPo&feature=relmfu) Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhDYCv-ycT4) (episodes chosen at random).

Quote from: MGuy;577471You know this sounds very similar to the anti-logic people use whenever I start pointing out inconsistencies with anything people are emotionally attached to. While not a word for word photocopy of it I've had this same kind of thing mentioned whenever I talk to people about religion, government, emotions, psychology, etc. I wonder why people hate critical thinking so much that attempting to analyze patterns and such always (throughout history) draws the same sentiment.

I don't know.  Why do you hate critical thinking so much?  After all, you've resorted to more strawmen and red herrings than anyone else, so forgive me if this post struck me as a little...odd.

Now, I'm sure you'll use this post as a reason to say, "Look!  They are all being mean to me for no reason!"  I'm sorry, but that's not true.  You made your bed early on, and now you have to sleep in it.  Don't blame me for being mean to you when you make disingenuous arguments over and over, and then make a post saying how you can't understand why people are disingenuous.  That's going to get pointed out.

Quote from: vytzka;577470It's the same thing here. They see an argument, their mind immediately applies whatever hammer they have that looks to fit the least badly, and go all "NUH HUH OBERONI FALLACY".

It is fucking lazy and annoying but it's what passes for discourse these days.

In many ways it wasn't much better a decade or two ago. Meaningful discourse took a heavy beating when the Internet opened it up to everyone.

That's not to say that things haven't gotten worse. They have. There used to be fewer sites, and thus more variety of opinion in those sites. And there was more interest in different viewpoints. For example r.g.f.a first reaction to someone very different from themselves was questions about 'how did that work', the flamewar would come second (but it would still come).

Today there are many sites and each are niches with niches with their own group think and accepted practices- anything else is rejected be it by moderation or a mountain of abuse being heaped upon the offender.

To come here and speak to something not accepted by the board's group think, is not just to challenge the minds of various individuals- it is to challenge the very identity of the board as a whole.

In this, I think the 'denner' invasion has done better than one would have thought. I'm hoping they hang around and continue to bring different ideas to what has been a very static site.

Quote from: gleichman;577564To come here and speak to something not accepted by the board's group think, is not just to challenge the minds of various individuals- it is to challenge the very identity of the board as a whole.

Does four or five people who shout a lot constitute groupthink?

QuoteIn this, I think the 'denner' invasion has done better than one would have thought. I'm hoping they hang around and continue to bring different ideas to what has been a very static site.

Certainly has shaken things up in a good way, I'll agree with that much.

Quote from: beejazz;577577Does four or five people who shout a lot constitute groupthink?

Sadly yes. And there's a great injustice in that.

Basically a board has a 'voice', and that's created by volume (not quality) of posting. For most boards it's easy for four or five people (who are generally in agreement) to dominate that voice. This is especially true if one or more happened to be moderators (even the light moderators we have here).

There are in truth a number of cool posters here (which is wyy I read and visit the site now and there). They may even be the majority. But they are drowned out by pure volume, to say nothing of venom contained in that volume.

The 'denners' actually match numerically the four or five people who have created and sustained therpgsite's group think. And some of them match their venom. That's why their arrival has been so interesting.

Quote from: gleichman;577592Sadly yes. And there's a great injustice in that.

Basically a board has a 'voice', and that's created by volume (not quality) of posting. For most boards it's easy for four or five people (who are generally in agreement) to dominate that voice. This is especially true if one or more happened to be moderators (even the light moderators we have here).

This at least helps me understand what you mean, and with that qualification we do have groupthink. There are indeed four or five people who shout a lot.

That said, I see the majority as moderate and undeterred, certain threads as vitriol-low (rendering the "voice" irrelevant) and the existence of a few other similarly sized and similarly loud cliques (though one stays and the rest go in and out of rotation based on the flamewar of the week). Maybe I just filter things differently, but I see that as being as close to diversity as I'm interested in. I lurk other places with other voices and their own "invasions" following similar patterns whenever I want more. Mostly theCBG (which competes with here for my main haunt), the Den (mostly recently), and /tg/.

QuoteThe 'denners' actually match numerically the four or five people who have created and sustained therpgsite's group think. And some of them match their venom. That's why their arrival has been so interesting.

A second shouty clique doesn't do much for me honestly. These flamewars are fine diversions but they're not what I'm here for. My favorite bit though is the design and actual play they do. The 4e fans and storygamers did a lot less of that, and I certainly appreciate the increased traffic to (IMO) the cooler part of this site.

I'll try to inject by bringing in some examples.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577297What 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.

I don't see how this follows.  

I'd offer as one example my old 3rd ed Champions PC Volt.  I had designed him starting from the principle that I wanted a hugely-limited power as my first slot in an elemental control, and that it should have a huge END cost that pulls from a END.  This would lower the cost of all my other powers, and let them cheaply run of its END.  Which is to say - I started from the point of view of maxing out his stats.  From that, though, I came up with a fitting background about his cybernetic self and electrical power source which fit with the END battery and the other trappings.  

However, I don't see that this detracted at all from his being a part of the team and the campaign world.  He was hard-to-understand and tended to approach everything as an engineer, but tended to apply enormous power to the things he could cover.  At one point he went to ridiculous levels of power and retired, but then I had ideas about what he would do as a background NPC.  

Likewise, more recently when I played Burning Wheel, I started with the idea of creating a non-combat monster - aka "a lean, mean Duel-of-Wits machine".  So I pored through the lifepath options to see what I could get, and then came up with the story of my character as a mercantile widow known as a formidable woman that no one wanted to argue with.  Her Duel-of-Wits supremacy was a feature in the campaign that lead to lots of developments.  

With both of these, my starting point was maximizing stats - but their high stats didn't cause any problems with them being interesting characters that interacted with the world.  

I don't see anything wrong with playing a Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Cleric 6/Sorcerer 9.  I've played characters with that mix of skills - i.e. fighting, stealth, clerical investment, and magical ability.  I don't see why this wouldn't be fun and rewarding to role-play.

Quote from: jhkim;577610I'll try to inject by bringing in some examples.  


I don't see how this follows.  

I'd offer as one example my old 3rd ed Champions PC Volt.  I had designed him starting from the principle that I wanted a hugely-limited power as my first slot in an elemental control, and that it should have a huge END cost that pulls from a END.  This would lower the cost of all my other powers, and let them cheaply run of its END.  Which is to say - I started from the point of view of maxing out his stats.  From that, though, I came up with a fitting background about his cybernetic self and electrical power source which fit with the END battery and the other trappings.  

However, I don't see that this detracted at all from his being a part of the team and the campaign world.  He was hard-to-understand and tended to approach everything as an engineer, but tended to apply enormous power to the things he could cover.  At one point he went to ridiculous levels of power and retired, but then I had ideas about what he would do as a background NPC.  

Likewise, more recently when I played Burning Wheel, I started with the idea of creating a non-combat monster - aka "a lean, mean Duel-of-Wits machine".  So I pored through the lifepath options to see what I could get, and then came up with the story of my character as a mercantile widow known as a formidable woman that no one wanted to argue with.  Her Duel-of-Wits supremacy was a feature in the campaign that lead to lots of developments.  

With both of these, my starting point was maximizing stats - but their high stats didn't cause any problems with them being interesting characters that interacted with the world.  

I don't see anything wrong with playing a Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Cleric 6/Sorcerer 9.  I've played characters with that mix of skills - i.e. fighting, stealth, clerical investment, and magical ability.  I don't see why this wouldn't be fun and rewarding to role-play.

It can be fun and rewarding and great for a campaign.

Or it can be a disruptive powergamed buildwith no regard to roleplay.

I think its all about intent.

If you're changing class not based on anything actually happening in the campaign but instead, "well, now I got this feat, so I'm switching over to this completely unrelated class so I can get this other feat."?  That's a significant difference.  It completely divorces actual campaign character growth out of the advancement, and instead just makes your character a list of hand picked powers that might not even make any logical sense as to how you got there.

To continue my analogy above, who actually does the following:

I'm going to join the army until I learn how to break down and fire an M2.  Then I'm going to quit, regardless of where I'm at or my team is at and start learning brain surgery.  But I'm only going to learn up until the point where I can perform this specific type of surgery, and then quit immediately and start being a computer programmer.  Once I learn how to program in Java, I will quit again and become an artist until I learn how to do charcoal drawings.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577621If you're changing class not based on anything actually happening in the campaign but instead, "well, now I got this feat, so I'm switching over to this completely unrelated class so I can get this other feat."?  That's a significant difference.  It completely divorces actual campaign character growth out of the advancement, and instead just makes your character a list of hand picked powers that might not even make any logical sense as to how you got there.

To continue my analogy above, who actually does the following:

I'm going to join the army until I learn how to break down and fire an M2.  Then I'm going to quit, regardless of where I'm at or my team is at and start learning brain surgery.  But I'm only going to learn up until the point where I can perform this specific type of surgery, and then quit immediately and start being a computer programmer.  Once I learn how to program in Java, I will quit again and become an artist until I learn how to do charcoal drawings.

I tend to agree. But, in a group of characters that adventure together, I could see a fighter learning thief skills form his thief buddy, and taking up the faith of his cleric buddy, etc...

It's not impossible, but sadly, it is usually 'build first' with 'roleplay excuse tacked on'

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577621If you're changing class not based on anything actually happening in the campaign but instead, "well, now I got this feat, so I'm switching over to this completely unrelated class so I can get this other feat."?  That's a significant difference.  It completely divorces actual campaign character growth out of the advancement, and instead just makes your character a list of hand picked powers that might not even make any logical sense as to how you got there.

But this is true whether you're multiclassing or not.  In general, D&D doesn't actually link the powers gained to what's going on in role-play - like many if not most other RPGs.  So if I'm a 2nd level Barbarian and I level up, I get "Trap sense" regardless of whether I've actually been dealing with traps.  If I'm a 3rd level Ranger and level up, I get spell ability even if I haven't been doing magical study.  Likewise for every other ability.  

There are some systems that tie advancement to in-game stuff - like Call of Cthulhu / BRP where you advance the skills you use; or Traveller where you can only advance by programs of study.  However, D&D isn't one of them.  

I can see the argument that you'd prefer to only get abilities from in-character logic.  i.e. A paladin shouldn't just get a mount because she kills some monsters at 4th level.  There should be a quest or somesuch.  However, that doesn't happen in D&D - and it's not the player's fault.

Quote from: jhkim;577634But this is true whether you're multiclassing or not.  In general, D&D doesn't actually link the powers gained to what's going on in role-play - like many if not most other RPGs.  So if I'm a 2nd level Barbarian and I level up, I get "Trap sense" regardless of whether I've actually been dealing with traps.  If I'm a 3rd level Ranger and level up, I get spell ability even if I haven't been doing magical study.  Likewise for every other ability.  

There are some systems that tie advancement to in-game stuff - like Call of Cthulhu / BRP where you advance the skills you use; or Traveller where you can only advance by programs of study.  However, D&D isn't one of them.  

I can see the argument that you'd prefer to only get abilities from in-character logic.  i.e. A paladin shouldn't just get a mount because she kills some monsters at 4th level.  There should be a quest or somesuch.  However, that doesn't happen in D&D - and it's not the player's fault.

There is a difference between a class having abilities attached that you are stuck with, and willfully selecting a multiclass combination that makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Quote from: beejazz;577598Maybe I just filter things differently, but I see that as being as close to diversity as I'm interested in.

I'd like to see more interest in system design for major games other than D&D myself and that's something that's very thin on this site. I don't really expect it to change however.

Quote from: gleichman;577692I'd like to see more interest in system design for major games other than D&D myself and that's something that's very thin on this site. I don't really expect it to change however.

Hate to drag this further on the tangent, but are you referring more to homebrewing or houseruling?

I don't really care if a player optimizes there PC or not, it's his/her's in the game to play, if that's what they want to do so be it, it's just one character.  On the other hand as a GM I optimize all my NPC baddies...lol.

(http://cache.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/8/2011/04/medium_hackslash1agv4.jpg)
Optimized GM character vs. PC!

Quote from: beejazz;577693Hate to drag this further on the tangent, but are you referring more to homebrewing or houseruling?

Home-brewing isn't of much interest to me. All the examples I've seen have been basically the same, little more than the designing of a resolution mechanic that other than resolution- offers nothing.

System Analysis and House-ruling are more interesting. I hate to use it as an example, but my thread on Firearms and HERO System (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23609&highlight=HERO+Firearms) works.

Quote from: Bill;577677There is a difference between a class having abilities attached that you are stuck with, and willfully selecting a multiclass combination that makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Obviously there is a difference between single-class progression and multiclass progression.  However, I don't think that single-class progression is necessarily any more sensible -- and it definitely doesn't respond to the nuances of what is happening in the campaign any more.  Someone who plans a single-class progression is just as locked-in as someone who plans a multiclass progression.  

I find that the collection of capabilities in most multiclass progressions wouldn't be noteworthy in a skill-based game like Savage Worlds or GURPS.  The order they get them in is sometimes odd, but that's forced by the level and class system.  

For example, in my first game of D&D3.0, my GM gave me grief because my Sorcerer took one level of Fighter for his level-up.  He basically said that it didn't make sense for my Sorcerer to suddenly get a ton of weapon+armor proficiencies - and implied that I was munchkin for doing so.  Now, I did do so because of the benefit it gave me.  However, the idea of a sorcerer who can also fight is a perfectly reasonable fantasy trope, and I thought I role-played it fine.  The class-and-level system didn't let me smoothly get a mix of the different abilities.

Quote from: gleichman;577699Home-brewing isn't of much interest to me. All the examples I've seen have been basically the same, little more than the designing of a resolution mechanic that other than resolution- offers nothing.

In truth that's most of what people want out of a game: a way to make a character, a way to resolve typical actions, and a way to fight. Not sure what else you'd want besides more subsystems (like for domain management, stealthy stuff, chase scenes, etc), which I've also seen plenty of.

QuoteSystem Analysis and House-ruling are more interesting. I hate to use it as an example, but my thread on Firearms and HERO System (http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=23609&highlight=HERO+Firearms) works.

Would statistical analysis qualify? Was it beeber that was running the numbers on various editions of D&D? Tried looking it up and all I got was bieber-related results I'm afraid.

Quote from: Bill;577624I tend to agree. But, in a group of characters that adventure together, I could see a fighter learning thief skills form his thief buddy, and taking up the faith of his cleric buddy, etc...

It's not impossible, but sadly, it is usually 'build first' with 'roleplay excuse tacked on'

I just wanted to point out that not only can you do all of the above without changing your class, actually doing it would pretty much be the opposite of good party design.

This is kind of silly.  Literally any character concept that isn't covered by one of the D&D classes in any edition results in a 'build first' and 'roleplay excuse tacked on' situation.

I've never seen anything but a class in play from the PHB in 2e, and I'm sure 1e isn't much difference.  People certainly aren't rolling up CoC characters with perfectly average professions.  There is no D&D equivalent to Kinko's Supervisor that is represented by the skillset of any class.

If you are restricting yourself to the published classes you are by default tacking on roleplay excuses in order to fit within those boundaries.

Quote from: jhkim;577708The class-and-level system didn't let me smoothly get a mix of the different abilities.

I think this is the root of the problem right here.  There are tons of typical  character concepts from fantasy media that can't be done simply or at all with D&D class and level system.

At the end of the day I think multi-classing is itself a problem.  If you're going to have classes at all, either don't allow multi-classing or have some way of constructing classes that's somewhat balanced, and reserve that for the GM to cover holes in the campaign setting.

Quote from: beejazz;577714In truth that's most of what people want out of a game: a way to make a character, a way to resolve typical actions, and a way to fight. Not sure what else you'd want besides more subsystems (like for domain management, stealthy stuff, chase scenes, etc), which I've also seen plenty of.

This is difficult to explain, but let me try.

What I'm saying is that today most system design start at the resolution mechanic (typically just a dice mechanic) and mostly ends there. I'm interested in System Design that starts at the desired play result and works back to the game mechanics that allows you to attain it.

To use the D&D threads as an example, a designer may decide that he wants his players to be given choices in character creation that will be meaningful in play. From that desired goal you work backwards and decide upon feat selection. And really, that major element of D&D 3.x has nothing to do with the resolution mechanic.

Quote from: beejazz;577714Would statistical analysis qualify?

I would think so. For example (picking say a Shadowrun 4th edition) knowing the common disabling wound chances for the various Firearms (at various skill levels) against various armors would be useful information. Information that the system makes difficult to determine.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577621To continue my analogy above, who actually does the following:

I'm going to join the army until I learn how to break down and fire an M2.  Then I'm going to quit, regardless of where I'm at or my team is at and start learning brain surgery.  But I'm only going to learn up until the point where I can perform this specific type of surgery, and then quit immediately and start being a computer programmer.  Once I learn how to program in Java, I will quit again and become an artist until I learn how to do charcoal drawings.

Okay - it's a bad analogy, but I'll take a stab at it.  

It's decided that we're playing a modern game set in an alternate world after the Soviet Union invaded Western Europe.  A major portion of the campaign will be centered on a D-Day style invasion to reoccupy the NATO powers from the Soviet Union.  And of course, most characters are Americans (but that's not a requirement).  

An important part of the invasion is going to be related to propaganda.  I create a character that is primarily a combat-film maker.  Of course, I'm going to be expected to be in combat some of the time, but I'm going to qualify for basic proficiency and not much else.  Since I'm going to be holding a camera most of the time, I don't need to be the world's best sniper.  The art classes are to help me learn to frame shots, understand composition, and charcoal is a medium that I'm drawn to to show 'grittiness' in war.  Since I'm not primarily a front-liner, but I do want to contribute to my unit's success, I take some battlefield medic classes - again, we want the sniper to be hiding in a tree taking on targets, so we don't want him helping the wounded.  Basic triage allows me to contribute in a secondary role without interfering terribly with my primary role (because clearly, if we're getting shot to shit, it won't do to put that on the 6 o'clock news).  Since this is a roughly modern world (set in an alternate cold war with the Soviet Union still extant) being able to do a little coding might be helpful to upload my film to satellite.  

How's that?  

Basically, once you decide on a role for your character, you might have some pretty disparate skill needs to accomplish that character.  I wouldn't expect 'combat film-maker' to be a 'base class', but it's something that people might really do, so I see it as a valid character type.  Sure, it might look weird when you look at the mechanics behind it, but if you're doing it right, the character looks like a normal part of the world and fits right in.  

jhkim is right that the only time it REALLY seems strange is when you're taking your first level of a new class - you previously had no experience doing something and now you can do it.  When you're a Fighter and you take your first level of Sorcerer, it's hard to explain HOW you suddenly learned spells, since you BY DEFINITION could not cast them before.  

But let's take a look at the example thrown around:
Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Cleric 6/Sorcerer 9

For the same of argument, let's assume that we took one level in each class before we started advancing the rest of them so we got the 'basic' concept out of the way.  And because I'm thinking about this, let's say we took Rogue first.  What does this character say to me at 20th level?  

I'm saying this is a religious James Bond.  He probably only should have taken 8 levels of Sorcerer if the game is ending at 20th, but maybe he's planning on going Epic.  In any case, our levels of Rogue give us quite a lot of skill points (48 before Int bonus, and let's say we're human so that's another 6.  If Rogue was also our last level, we can max Hide and Move Silently to +23 ranks and +10 on Disguise.  We'll take Trickery as a domain so we'll bump that up some more later.  We have the ability to use basically every weapon we pick up (Fighter levels) and we're able to cast up to 4th level arcane spells (enhancing our ability to sneak, infiltrate, and escape).  We take spells that work with these abilities - dimension door, alter self, etc.  We don't take a lot of 'damage spells' or 'save or suck' - if it comes time to kill someone we're going to count on using weapon attacks (good weapon damage, +2d6 sneak, probably +2d6 or more for appropriate bonuses like holy or possibly elemental).  

Anyways, that seems like a pretty interesting concept, and I'd probably allow it.  I'd reduce the Sorcerer level by one and increase the Cleric level by one.  That would give me 4th level spells for both classes, which would give me Divine Power.  With that spell, if I need to fight, I can increase my BAB to +20 (instead of +2 Ftr, +2 Rogue, +5 Cleric, +4 Sorcerer = +13)

Now, do I know that it'd be an effective character?  Not sure.  It might be, it might not be.  But it has some thematic room if you do it right.  It's possible to envision an interesting character at high level, and if it would STILL be interesting at lower levels, it's not a problem to work towards it.  So I have my 'religious James Bond infiltrator/spy concept' and if I have fun with it at low levels and it's generally effective, it shouldn't matter that I planned ahead to avoid gimping myself and becoming completely useless at high levels.

Quote from: gleichman;577745What I'm saying is that today most system design start at the resolution mechanic (typically just a dice mechanic) and mostly ends there. I'm interested in System Design that starts at the desired play result and works back to the game mechanics that allows you to attain it.

The tail has been wagging the dog for quite some time on this, which is why this even has to be pointed out.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;577779Okay - it's a bad analogy, but I'll take a stab at it.  

It's decided that we're playing a modern game set in an alternate world after the Soviet Union invaded Western Europe.  A major portion of the campaign will be centered on a D-Day style invasion to reoccupy the NATO powers from the Soviet Union.  And of course, most characters are Americans (but that's not a requirement).  

An important part of the invasion is going to be related to propaganda.  I create a character that is primarily a combat-film maker.  Of course, I'm going to be expected to be in combat some of the time, but I'm going to qualify for basic proficiency and not much else.  Since I'm going to be holding a camera most of the time, I don't need to be the world's best sniper.  The art classes are to help me learn to frame shots, understand composition, and charcoal is a medium that I'm drawn to to show 'grittiness' in war.  Since I'm not primarily a front-liner, but I do want to contribute to my unit's success, I take some battlefield medic classes - again, we want the sniper to be hiding in a tree taking on targets, so we don't want him helping the wounded.  Basic triage allows me to contribute in a secondary role without interfering terribly with my primary role (because clearly, if we're getting shot to shit, it won't do to put that on the 6 o'clock news).  Since this is a roughly modern world (set in an alternate cold war with the Soviet Union still extant) being able to do a little coding might be helpful to upload my film to satellite.  

How's that?  
.

Honestly, not very good.  Here's why.  Everything above you just described is training before you actually do any real experience.  If you wanted the analogy to fit with how the D&D build goes, you start out as infantry.  You land on the beaches and build your experience up.  As soon as get the ability to be proficient with a bazooka, you quit infantry and start learning how to be a camera man on the fly.  You really don't get any better at fighting, but hell, you have your bazooka so you're ready to go.  After doing more missions, you can take macro shots.  So you quit being a cameraman and decide you want to be a medical corpsman.  Sure, what the hell!  You aren't going back to school for any of this stuff, and you are only getting marginally better at the bazooka and camera, but now you're starting to learn first aid.  As soon as you complete a few more missions and learn how to apply a tourniquet, you quite once again and decide to start learning how to code.

You didn't keep quitting your career because it made sense in the campaign world or how the missions went.  Most likely, your squad still needed you to get better with weapons, or at the very least stick with being a medic.  Nope, you kept quitting because you know that if you quit at very specific points, as soon as you reached the appropriate level of developing code, you could fire a bow in each hand and blow up tanks.

That makes no sense.

You trade the versatility of a point-buy system when you decide to go with the ease of a class system.

I can model James Bond a lot easier in WEG's d6 system. Everyone has a better idea of skill and power level when I say "Level 12 Rogue".

Bitching about the two is as useful as farting in the wind.

TL;DR version: Shut up and play!

Quote from: Novastar;577839You trade the versatility of a point-buy system when you decide to go with the ease of a class system.

There are open Class systems that provide a mix of the two approaches. Rolemaster for one if I'm remembering it correctly. Age of Heroes does this as well for what it's worth.

3rd Edition allows more versatility than 2nd Edition which allows more versatility than 1st Edition D&D. They're all still class-based games, no matter how many Feats, Talents, Kits or PrC's you stick in the game.

It's not a hard and fast, "There's only class-based, or point-buy systems!". There's a lot of shades of grey, with a lot of Class systems trying to add in greater diversity of player choices. Lot's of point-buy's also give examples of how to construct a typical build (HERO Fantasy comes to mind, which shows you how to spend points to get "Dwarf Thief" or "Elf Archer" , say...).

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577837That makes no sense.

It only makes no sense because you assume that all of your ability progression stops when you change classes, which it doesn't.  You are assuming that Fighters Fight and no one else Fights at all so to have the ability to Fight one must be a Fighter.  Your Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Cleric 6/Sorcerer 9 is much better at Fighting than a Fighter 2 despite "quitting" his Fighter "profession".

You also assume there is no practical barrier that would prevent one from improving their skills indefinitely, which isn't the case in real life, or in D&D.  You also assume that multiclassing represents "quitting" something, when it doesn't.

Most D&D characters have already "quit" their day jobs and are now professional adventurers instead.  Theoretically their skills should never improve, if you think that for them to improve they require active involvement in some organization that teaches those skills.

Instead the Thief, despite perhaps never being an active criminal again (or ever, in the first place) will get better at Thieving no matter what.

Quote from: Wolf, Richard;577859It only makes no sense because you assume that all of your ability progression stops when you change classes, which it doesn't.  You are assuming that Fighters Fight and no one else Fights at all so to have the ability to Fight one must be a Fighter.  Your Fighter 2/Rogue 3/Cleric 6/Sorcerer 9 is much better at Fighting than a Fighter 2 despite "quitting" his Fighter "profession".

You also assume there is no practical barrier that would prevent one from improving their skills indefinitely, which isn't the case in real life, or in D&D.  You also assume that multiclassing represents "quitting" something, when it doesn't.

Most D&D characters have already "quit" their day jobs and are now professional adventurers instead.  Theoretically their skills should never improve, if you think that for them to improve they require active involvement in some organization that teaches those skills.

Instead the Thief, despite perhaps never being an active criminal again (or ever, in the first place) will get better at Thieving no matter what.

Yeah, sorry, but no.

When you stop advancing as a cleric, you stop getting cleric spells.  When you stop advancing as a sorcerer, you stop getting sorcerer spells.  Etc.

Switching from class to class based on nothing but feat collection to reach an end game makes no logical sense from a campaign world character development standpoint.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577870Yeah, sorry, but no.

When you stop advancing as a cleric, you stop getting cleric spells.  When you stop advancing as a sorcerer, you stop getting sorcerer spells.  Etc.

Switching from class to class based on nothing but feat collection to reach an end game makes no logical sense from a campaign world character development standpoint.

By Thor you're either stupid or you are being willfully ignorant. When you stop being a cleric you still have cleric spells. You stop getting better cleric spells or more clerixc spells but you still get cleric spells unless you did something to piss your personal god off. If you were a sorcerer you still HAVE your spells you just stop getting new ones.

Now assuming what you mean to say is you don't get new ones there's nothing holding you back from going back to the cleric/sorcerer class later. Just like I can stop studying a science and pick it up later on. So you're wrong in every possible fashion.

You got a thief (rogue) decides to pick up two levels of fighter. The player does the class dip for the 2 extra feats/hit points/martial prof/fort etc. The character does it to pick up some fighting skills to help with his adventuring/bandit career. Makes total sense in and out of game. A Wizard aims to be an archmage. Player gains skills/feats necessary for the prestige class. Character is just furthering his studies in the way he knows other archmages have done.

I can come up with in game reasoning for almost any class/feat combination with just a little bit of imagination. If you weren't being willfully stupid you probably would realize how character building doesn't have to disconnect from the logic of the setting.

Quote from: MGuy;577874By Thor you're either stupid or you are being willfully ignorant. When you stop being a cleric you still have cleric spells. You stop getting better cleric spells or more clerixc spells but you still get cleric spells unless you did something to piss your personal god off. If you were a sorcerer you still HAVE your spells you just stop getting new ones.

That's what I was talking about idiot.  He was saying that even after stopping as a fighter, you keep getting better at fighting.  and I was pointing out that's not true in every case and used cleric and sorcerer as examples.  When you quit being a cleric, you stop getting better at cleric spells.

QuoteNow assuming what you mean to say is you don't get new ones there's nothing holding you back from going back to the cleric/sorcerer class later. Just like I can stop studying a science and pick it up later on. So you're wrong in every possible fashion.

Holy....what, do you play with level 40 characters often?  I'm beginning to think you don't actually play the game with anyone, but make up ultra powerful characters one after the other in your mom's basement.

QuoteYou got a thief (rogue) decides to pick up two levels of fighter. The player does the class dip for the 2 extra feats/hit points/martial prof/fort etc. The character does it to pick up some fighting skills to help with his adventuring/bandit career. Makes total sense in and out of game. A Wizard aims to be an archmage. Player gains skills/feats necessary for the prestige class. Character is just furthering his studies in the way he knows other archmages have done.

ONCE AGAIN, I'm not talking about a f/t or a f/m.  I'm talking about the f/t/m/s/c/r build.  Fuck you are dumb.

QuoteI can come up with in game reasoning for almost any class/feat combination with just a little bit of imagination. If you weren't being willfully stupid you probably would realize how character building doesn't have to disconnect from the logic of the setting.

So tell me how a character would reasonably, in the context of a typical campaign world and adventures that a character goes through, to end up as a f2/r3/c5/s10?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577881Stupid stuff plus a question:
So tell me how a character would reasonably, in the context of a typical campaign world and adventures that a character goes through, to end up as a f2/r3/c5/s10?

Depends, what is this build supposed to do?

Edit: There's something that's just so stupid I need to address it:

QuoteHoly....what, do you play with level 40 characters often?

This makes no fucking sense even in the context it was said. You say that you can't do cleric shit no more and that you don't get better at "being a cleric" yet there is no reason you cannot. There are prestige classes and even certain feats you can take to up your spell count or at least keep certain spells up and that's IF you don't take the class back up. If you CARE about being a better cleric at all nothing is stopping you from doing that and your response is garbage about 40th level characters? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577881When you quit being a cleric, you stop getting better at cleric spells.

You don't necessarily keep getting higher spell levels unless you have the requisite ability scores.  Unless your example has a 14+ Wisdom he's capped out at his potential on what he can do as a Cleric magically speaking.

Now in character that doesn't mean he spit on the altar, tore off his holy symbol and "quit" being a Cleric.  It just means he's not ever going to wind up being the guy his god chooses to work world-shattering miracles through (and he's still vastly more powerful magically speaking than most servants of any god, without the Sorcerer levels.)  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577881So tell me how a character would reasonably, in the context of a typical campaign world and adventures that a character goes through, to end up as a f2/r3/c5/s10?

This is pretty easy, because this is basically Elminster, except he's a Wizard instead of a Sorcerer (who require no training, because they are 'wild talents' basically).  

Of course once you throw the Cleric in there any character path explains itself potentially anyway.  Deus Vult.  Done.

Regardless, what gets written in the "class" field on the character sheet is more often than not meaningless, and doesn't actually represent any in-game institution, tradition, profession, et cetera.

So tell me how a character would reasonably, in the context of a typical campaign world and adventures that a character goes through, to end up as a Cleric 20?

Oh great, gamers throwing around another word when they don't know what the fuck it means.
:rolleyes:

First, the semi-literate starting using the word "broken", not to mean something well broken, but as a euphemism for something they don't like, but are too fucking stupid to explain why.

Now the word "fallacy" is being abused. The only fallacy I saw in Libertad's lengthy post was this strawman:

QuoteThe 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.

It's a strawman because he cites no examples of anyone making this assertion.

In the age of Google, there's no excuse for (mis)using terms like that.

Quote from: beejazz;577247Swap 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.

Did someone die, making you the chief of the quote tag police? No? Then fuck off!


In some cases, being a specialist who excels in a particular area will be more rewarding than being somewhat skilled in a variety areas. The opposite can also be true -even for the same PCs in the same campaign. The notion that one is inherently better than the other is moronic.

Quote from: Elfdart;577906Did someone die, making you the chief of the quote tag police? No? Then fuck off!

Says the man policing reasonable and politely phrased requests.

As for the cross-classing tangent, cross-classing favors martial dips. Casters shoot themselves in the foot by cross-classing. That said, having all the classes is stupid both in-game and rules-wise, but is it all that strange for Conan to also be a bit of a thief? For a guy deep into organized crime to want to train in bigger weapons? For a fighter to develop a connection with a deity (for paladin)? Somehow, none of this strikes me as any less reasonable than learning lockpicking when all you've done is fight monsters. Or hell, learning to fight on mostly RP XP as the case may be.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;577837Honestly, not very good.  Here's why.  Everything above you just described is training before you actually do any real experience.  If you wanted the analogy to fit with how the D&D build goes, you start out as infantry.  You land on the beaches and build your experience up.  As soon as get the ability to be proficient with a bazooka, you quit infantry and start learning how to be a camera man on the fly.  You really don't get any better at fighting, but hell, you have your bazooka so you're ready to go.  After doing more missions, you can take macro shots.  So you quit being a cameraman and decide you want to be a medical corpsman.  Sure, what the hell!  You aren't going back to school for any of this stuff, and you are only getting marginally better at the bazooka and camera, but now you're starting to learn first aid.  As soon as you complete a few more missions and learn how to apply a tourniquet, you quite once again and decide to start learning how to code.

That doesn't always follow.  If you're starting the game as an elite team (which is probably more fun than being one of 200 grunts) you're probably starting as higher than 1st level.  It's not unreasonable to expect someone to start with a background that describes their experiences.  

Now, since you posited the example as 'something so crazy that nobody would do' and I had to try to think what that example COULD mean, give me some credit.  I think we have a reasonably plausbile character given that you're just throwing random stuff together.  There's no clear indication that doing so would result in 'being able to blow tanks up with arrows'.  Nor is that always the purpose of mixing classes.  

Yes, a Ftr 2/Rogue 3/Cleric 7/Sorcerer 8 (notice I did change the levels just a bit) is more effective than a Ftr 20.  They probably aren't more effective than a Cleric 20.  And if someone shows up to a game with that idea in mind, that's not necessarily a problem.  If they totally suck until 20th level when they finally get the 'special ability' that their 'build' relies on to function, they've been hanging around not doing anything cool for 19 levels.  We have to presume both that the player has a reason for wanting to advance this way (ie, it makes him effective in the ways he wants to be effective) and that he's not rendering himself useless in order to achieve this build.  

The fact is, most 'builds' are pretty reasonable - especially if they're primarily martially focused.  You can have char-op without having polymorphing-arrow-clerics.

Quote from: MGuy;577895Depends, what is this build supposed to do?

Thanks for helping illustrate my point.  See, you don't care what happens in the campaign.  You're planning your build before the character even takes a first swing at an orc.  You're placing powers over actual game play.  Any time you've planned out 20 levels of character progression with the purpose of selecting a feat tree, you're completely pushing to the side how the actual game play in the game world happens.  It doesn't matter what actions your character takes, or what story he's following in the campaign, but you'll be damned if you aren't following your pre-planned build.  That's the part that doesn't make sense.

QuoteEdit: There's something that's just so stupid I need to address it:
 This makes no fucking sense even in the context it was said. You say that you can't do cleric shit no more and that you don't get better at "being a cleric" yet there is no reason you cannot. There are prestige classes and even certain feats you can take to up your spell count or at least keep certain spells up and that's IF you don't take the class back up. If you CARE about being a better cleric at all nothing is stopping you from doing that and your response is garbage about 40th level characters? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Again, context evades you.  We're talking about a character who is already level 20.  How often do you level up?  You made it sound like it's easy to keep gaining levels and switching back and forth.  That's why I made my comment.  Because for people who actually play the game, it's not like an MMO where you hit max level after a few months.  It took me almost 2 years to raise my fighter from level 15 to 16 in my original AD&D campaign (the highest level character I've ever had, btw, created in 1983). This is why I think you sit and make up level 20+ characters from scratch without actually playing them.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578002Thanks for helping illustrate my point.  See, you don't care what happens in the campaign.  You're planning your build before the character even takes a first swing at an orc.  You're placing powers over actual game play.  Any time you've planned out 20 levels of character progression with the purpose of selecting a feat tree, you're completely pushing to the side how the actual game play in the game world happens.  It doesn't matter what actions your character takes, or what story he's following in the campaign, but you'll be damned if you aren't following your pre-planned build.  That's the part that doesn't make sense.

No, you misunderstand.  When someone asks 'what is your build supposed to do', they're asking 'what is your vision for your character.  If you're not just assembling pieces together randomly, you should have some vision of what your character is and what he wants to be.  If you're making a 1st level wizard, even at that point, he should have apsirations.  Maybe he wants to become the most powerful wizard ever.  Maybe he wants to conquer the world.  Maybe he wants to avenge his murdered father.  But at that point, he probably has some ideas about how he wants to accomplish his goal.  Studying magic, enslaving the orc race, learning how to combine magic and tracking to locate the killers...  

Rather than 'make a Fighter', you can make a character inspired by something you've seen or read, or even just an idea that you think is cool.  Making 'Robin Hood' doesn't necessarily mean 'take levels of Fighter' or 'take levels of Ranger'.  I think this is a great example, so let's go ahead and follow this a little more - let's look at Disney's Robin Hood (you know, the one with the fox).  In that movie, Robin Hood shot an arrow that neatly split another arrow already lodged in the target.  He also fired an arrow at another arrow in flight, redirecting the first arrow to strike the target.  How does a Fighter or a Ranger represent those actions?  Just hoping to get lucky and roll a Natural 20?  That might work, but if you REALLY want to capture that feel, you can find other ways that represent it better.  True Strike is a good way to hit the target without relying on a Nat 20.  Some kind of seeking ability might represent redirecting an arrow in flight...  If they suit the 'feel' the player has for his character, they're appropriate choices.  

Now, if the player has an idea (like 'I want to play Robin Hood) but the game doesn't support it (we're playing a game set in an underwater Atlantis like setting) it would make sense to work that out BEFORE character creation.  Otherwise, the player has a sense of the type of things that he will be doing, and a type of character that is appropriate to the setting, and it's okay that he knows some of what he's getting into in advance, and has some plans about how to develop his character appropriately.  He can always change his mind if the setting doesn't support his planned choices, but there's no problem with planning ahead.  My wife had to plan for 10 years to get into her current occupation.  She had to expend resources developing particular talents (ie, getting educated) to gain entry into her chosen field.  That's a normal part of life, and it should be a normal part of gaming.  You shouldn't just say 'now I want to have super-powers' and get them - you should say 'I think this would be an effective way to develop my character, so I'm going to start working toward these goals'.  

That's what all 'empowered' players should do, and that's a good thing.  

Otherwise, the DM should just say 'you gain a level.  I've decided that this is the class you advance in and this is the feat you get.  I made these choices based on what your character did over the course of the last level.'

But I wouldn't play that game.  

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578002Again, context evades you.  We're talking about a character who is already level 20.  How often do you level up?  You made it sound like it's easy to keep gaining levels and switching back and forth.  That's why I made my comment.  Because for people who actually play the game, it's not like an MMO where you hit max level after a few months.  It took me almost 2 years to raise my fighter from level 15 to 16 in my original AD&D campaign (the highest level character I've ever had, btw, created in 1983). This is why I think you sit and make up level 20+ characters from scratch without actually playing them.

If the character is fun to play at 15th level, and the character is still fun to play at 16th level; and the character is generally effective at all levels of play, it doesn't really matter that you have a plan.  And gaining levels in 3.x is pretty easy - too easy, in my opinion.  But you can literally rise to 20th level in less than 6 months of game time.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578002Thanks for helping illustrate my point.  See, you don't care what happens in the campaign.  You're planning your build before the character even takes a first swing at an orc.  You're placing powers over actual game play.  Any time you've planned out 20 levels of character progression with the purpose of selecting a feat tree, you're completely pushing to the side how the actual game play in the game world happens.  It doesn't matter what actions your character takes, or what story he's following in the campaign, but you'll be damned if you aren't following your pre-planned build.  That's the part that doesn't make sense.

I don't think you addressed, though, that the same exact thing is true of single-class advancement.  If I plan to advance only as a paladin, then I am locking in powers I am going to get, regardless of what actually happens in the campaign.  When I get to 5th level, I'm going to get a special mount - regardless of what interest we've shown in horses or what terrain we're in.  I'll get spells at a particular level, regardless of what the party's need is or what scrolls I've studied.  etc.  Consider the following two cases:

1) I plan to advance just as a paladin.
2) I plan to advance as a fighter for 3 levels, then take a level of cleric.

In both these cases, it is locked in that I will start getting spells at 4th level, regardless of what is happening in the campaign.  

On the one hand, I can see that someone might want it different than this.  So you might like it if my character got a special mount at an appropriate time in the campaign rather than locked in at 5th level - like when she just performed a service to the desert nomads.  However, predefined progression isn't that terrible.  Just because it's predefined that I'll get a special mount at 5th level, that doesn't mean that my role-playing is ignoring the campaign events.  i.e. What powers I get is different from how I play the character.  

One possible difference here is that I don't treat the classes as in-character profession.  i.e. I would never have my character say "Hello.  I am Variel, a 3rd level Rogue."  As a result, if my character stops advancing as Rogue and starts taking some levels of Fighter, I don't conceive of that as Variel quitting his job and taking a different job.  I think of it as just improving in different skills.  

If I have a concept of a dedicated religious warrior, that could fit with either my #1 above or #2.  In the case of #1, she is immediately granted minor powers, but the god holds off on spells until level 4 and then sends a special mount at level 5.  This is locked-in and ignores campaign events, but can be consistent.  In the case of #2, she has no supernatural powers at first, but she gains a number of them at level 4.  Again, this is locked in and ignores campaign events, but can be consistent.

I think some people are confusing these two things:

Caring only how uber your build is

Planning out a reasonable build that fits the characters roleplay concept




Both of the above could possibly result in the same build, but the intent is very different.

Quote from: Elfdart;577906Now the word "fallacy" is being abused. The only fallacy I saw in Libertad's lengthy post was this strawman:



It's a strawman because he cites no examples of anyone making this assertion.

People confuse munchkins and min-maxers a lot. (http://www.d6online.com/forum/showthread.php?876-Do-you-struggle-with-munchkins-a-lot)

They conflate the two together.

A Munchkin is an aggressively competitive player who's selfish and doesn't care about other gamers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games))

Min-maxing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing) is simply the method of creating powerful characters by minimizing their weaknesses and maximizing their strengths, usually by investing in the most useful traits.  There's different degrees of min-maxing, so it doesn't always result in a Pun-Pun monstrosity.

Min-maxing can be used for the benefit of the group in D&D.  Example: one PC be a build optimized around "buffing" fellow PCs and himself with enhancement spells, a far cry from the selfish "Munchkin."

Do a lot of Munchkins min-max?  Yes.

Are all min-maxers Munchkins?  No.

Quote from: Bill;578123I think some people are confusing these two things:

Caring only how uber your build is

Planning out a reasonable build that fits the characters roleplay concept




Both of the above could possibly result in the same build, but the intent is very different.

What I don't get is how people on this forum feel that they can look over other peoples shoulders while they're leveling up or play their character for them.  For the love of Byakuren if someone brings a character to your table and they're not breaking your game then don't start up somekind of spanish inqusition over every instance of multiclassing. This sort of thing is only an issue if people make it one, and it's those people who are jerks.

Want to see an optimized "build"

Druid 20.

Want another

Conjurer 15/Archmage 5

Want a character actually made to fit a concept.

Fighter 1/Evoker 6/ Spellsword 1/ Abjurant Champion 5/ Eldritch Knight 7

Quote from: Libertad;578125People confuse munchkins and min-maxers a lot. (http://www.d6online.com/forum/showthread.php?876-Do-you-struggle-with-munchkins-a-lot)

They conflate the two together.

A Munchkin is an aggressively competitive player who's selfish and doesn't care about other gamers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games))

Min-maxing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing) is simply the method of creating powerful characters by minimizing their weaknesses and maximizing their strengths, usually by investing in the most useful traits.

It seems like this is a repeat of the OP for this thread, with added terminology...

Quote from: LibertadThe 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.

Quote from: jhkim;578151It seems like this is a repeat of the OP for this thread, with added terminology...

Elfdart asked for examples of the "number jerk" mindset among gamers, so I gave an example: the term "Munchkin" is used on number-crunchers all the time.

I realize now that I just repeated myself.

Quote from: Libertad;578155Elfdart asked for examples of the "number jerk" mindset among gamers, so I gave an example: the term "Munchkin" is used on number-crunchers all the time.

I realize now that I just repeated myself.

That's OK.  I just think what's missing is an agreed picture of the non-munchkin min-maxer.

Quote from: jhkim;578163That's OK.  I just think what's missing is an agreed picture of the non-munchkin min-maxer.

That would be any non-munchkin gamer who knows what the fuck he's doing. Seriously, nobody sits down with a Players Handbook and thinks:

"Hey I'm gonna design a really sub-optimal character today! I don't want him to be of any use whatsoever. Yeah, that'll be all kinds of fun. I'll put his lowest scores in key attributes, pick up a weapon that sucks, some armor so heavy I can't move, then sink a few points into skills I don't need, and buy some magic items I can't even use. This is gonna be great!"

But you don't do that, because you know what the fuck you're doing. You're doing the exact opposite of that, which means you're min/maxing on some level.
And you're not a munchkin, so chill.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;578002Thanks for helping illustrate my point.  See, you don't care what happens in the campaign.  You're planning your build before the character even takes a first swing at an orc.  You're placing powers over actual game play.  Any time you've planned out 20 levels of character progression with the purpose of selecting a feat tree, you're completely pushing to the side how the actual game play in the game world happens.  It doesn't matter what actions your character takes, or what story he's following in the campaign, but you'll be damned if you aren't following your pre-planned build.  That's the part that doesn't make sense.

Sacro do you actually play any actual RPG at all? Yes I need to know what the fuck you want these random classes to actually DO before I can give them an in, or even out of, game context. Hell I'd at least need to know what the PLAYER wants this shit to do before I can give you what the character might of been thinking. If you were being anything other than stupid you would realize that.

QuoteAgain, context evades you.  We're talking about a character who is already level 20.  How often do you level up?  You made it sound like it's easy to keep gaining levels and switching back and forth.  That's why I made my comment.  Because for people who actually play the game, it's not like an MMO where you hit max level after a few months.  It took me almost 2 years to raise my fighter from level 15 to 16 in my original AD&D campaign (the highest level character I've ever had, btw, created in 1983). This is why I think you sit and make up level 20+ characters from scratch without actually playing them.

Obviously I need to break this shit down for you. If you CARED about having more cleric shit you would have put more CLERIC into your build. If you WANT more cleric shit for your character there's no fucking rule keeping you from doing that. Since you did not that means you don't give a shit about having more cleric shit. To have built a character specifically to level 20 without more cleric levels and than whine about not having more cleric stuff is fucking STUPID.

Your comment about being level 40 is DOUBLY stupid because even after I fucking point this kind of shit out to you you stand by it as if it makes any sense. Not only are you not reading the conversation you are a part of but you seem incapable of comprehending what you are actually typing and what it actually means. No wonder you didn't understand the difference between Entitlement and Empowerment.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;578190That would be any non-munchkin gamer who knows what the fuck he's doing. Seriously, nobody sits down with a Players Handbook and thinks:

"Hey I'm gonna design a really sub-optimal character today! I don't want him to be of any use whatsoever. Yeah, that'll be all kinds of fun. I'll put his lowest scores in key attributes, pick up a weapon that sucks, some armor so heavy I can't move, then sink a few points into skills I don't need, and buy some magic items I can't even use. This is gonna be great!"

But you don't do that, because you know what the fuck you're doing. You're doing the exact opposite of that, which means you're min/maxing on some level.
And you're not a munchkin, so chill.

This all day.

Quote from: Libertad;578155Elfdart asked for examples of the "number jerk" mindset among gamers, so I gave an example: the term "Munchkin" is used on number-crunchers all the time.

I asked for an example of someone accusing those who "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".

You posted links to sites where people give their definitions of what "munchkins", "min maxers" etc are.

I have yet to see anyone claim that "excessive number-crunching" makes players "automatically inconsiderate selfish jerks out on an ego-trip". You're arguing against a case no one has made -in other words, a strawman.

The OP (and several others in the thread I linked to) conflated munchkins and min-maxers in one breath, not making any distinction before going on to discuss problem stories.  He also describes some people he knows as folk who will "do anything to find a loophole in the system," and then says that "there's way worse munchkins and min-maxers out there."

You don't think that this qualifies as conflating guys who like number-crunching with selfish problem gamers, even if indirectly?

Quote from: Libertad;578125People confuse munchkins and min-maxers a lot. (http://www.d6online.com/forum/showthread.php?876-Do-you-struggle-with-munchkins-a-lot)

They conflate the two together.

A Munchkin is an aggressively competitive player who's selfish and doesn't care about other gamers. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchkin_(role-playing_games))

Min-maxing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Min-maxing) is simply the method of creating powerful characters by minimizing their weaknesses and maximizing their strengths, usually by investing in the most useful traits.  There's different degrees of min-maxing, so it doesn't always result in a Pun-Pun monstrosity.

Min-maxing can be used for the benefit of the group in D&D.  Example: one PC be a build optimized around "buffing" fellow PCs and himself with enhancement spells, a far cry from the selfish "Munchkin."

Do a lot of Munchkins min-max?  Yes.

Are all min-maxers Munchkins?  No.

Does OED have definitions for Munchkins and Minmaxers? No? Just wikipedia articles? Then fuck off.

I think if we say that anyone trying to get the best out of their character concept is a min/maxer - the term becomes so broad that it loses all meaning.
 
I would regard someone as a "min/maxer" if they prioritize high stats over building to try to maintain some sort of character concept - if they started by thinking "hey Feat X/Class Y has just great bonuses, so I'm going to play one of those".
 
Do you hate snow elves? Are you going to play one anyway and create some contrived backstory about how your character trekked from the Arctic to my current campaign just so you can avoid the standard -2 Con penalty for elves and have a -2 to Charisma instead? Then you're probably a min/maxer.
 
There doesn't have to be actual game-breaking imbalance (of the sort you see with munchkins) - the problem is not with the numbers but with the fluff.
A min/maxed character may have a background and roleplaying built into it, but its added after the fact. If the rules were different, they'd play something else.
 
In an unbalanced system (like 3.5) once one person maximizes, everyone else has to start doing it to keep up, and finally the GM has to spend extra effort trying to construct things that can keep up with the PCs.
Hence min/maxing is by its nature either antisocial or pointless. The only really meaningful increase in power is an unbalanced increase in power - a gain in ability as compared to other PCs - other improvements just lead to an escalation in NPCs to match.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578303In an unbalanced system (like 3.5) once one person maximizes, everyone else has to start doing it to keep up, and finally the GM has to spend extra effort trying to construct things that can keep up with the PCs.
Hence min/maxing is by its nature either antisocial or pointless. The only really meaningful increase in power is an unbalanced increase in power - a gain in ability as compared to other PCs - other improvements just lead to an escalation in NPCs to match.

Precisely. Minmax is a stepping stone on the way to general numbers bloat. Instead of rolling a d20 and adding bonus of +1 or 2 to hit an AC of 15 (or thereabout) and rolling 1d6 for damage vs a creature with 20 hit points you end up with rolling a d20 +22 or 23 to hit an AC of 36 and rolling 2d8+15 damage vs a creature with 100 hit points.

Its all the same. If the world matches to keep pace with every gain then there is NO actual improvement taking place.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;578312Its all the same. If the world matches to keep pace with every gain then there is NO actual improvement taking place.

Bingo!  'Always fighting orcs'.

The Japanese yen (as of this post) is worth just over a penny.  So a Big Mac - with or without egg - costs 500￥or whatever.  Move the decimal over two places, and you don't have to pay 45,000￥ for your new PlayStation 3, you will be paying 450 quatloos, like everyone else in the world.  

Needless addition of zeros, in the case of currency, and needless numbers bloat in the case of gaming.  People complain about the handle time with subtraction or division, as though any sequence of numbers (regardless of length) added together is automatically easier than the shortest subtractions, but  "16+23+8+19" doesn't have an appreciably shorter handle time than "23-8".

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578303In an unbalanced system (like 3.5) once one person maximizes, everyone else has to start doing it to keep up, and finally the GM has to spend extra effort trying to construct things that can keep up with the PCs.
Hence min/maxing is by its nature either antisocial or pointless. The only really meaningful increase in power is an unbalanced increase in power - a gain in ability as compared to other PCs - other improvements just lead to an escalation in NPCs to match.

Actually, I've seen more of minmaxing used to close the gap than start a race. It's common to allow or expect minmaxing of martial characters while discouraging it in casters, for example. At least IME.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;578312Precisely. Minmax is a stepping stone on the way to general numbers bloat. Instead of rolling a d20 and adding bonus of +1 or 2 to hit an AC of 15 (or thereabout) and rolling 1d6 for damage vs a creature with 20 hit points you end up with rolling a d20 +22 or 23 to hit an AC of 36 and rolling 2d8+15 damage vs a creature with 100 hit points.

Its all the same. If the world matches to keep pace with every gain then there is NO actual improvement taking place.

Additionally, if the monsters don't have hp bloat, combat at higher levels can move a lot faster with minmaxed characters.

Minmaxing can actually be used to improve the game pretty significantly on either side of the screen.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;578312Precisely. Minmax is a stepping stone on the way to general numbers bloat. Instead of rolling a d20 and adding bonus of +1 or 2 to hit an AC of 15 (or thereabout) and rolling 1d6 for damage vs a creature with 20 hit points you end up with rolling a d20 +22 or 23 to hit an AC of 36 and rolling 2d8+15 damage vs a creature with 100 hit points.

Its all the same. If the world matches to keep pace with every gain then there is NO actual improvement taking place.

What? Is this a statement against minmaxxing or Level Treadmill? Based on the numbers you're actually talking about how its bad for a game to have a level treadmill where everything just gets bigger numbers. You realize that it's mostly the martial types that depend on getting bigger numbers while often times casters get the actual abilities that aren't just numbers (read illusions, divination, conjuration, etc) right? If you don't like playing the numbers game than the best solution is to have the game give you abilities that don't just pump up your numbers.

Quote from: MGuy;578348What? Is this a statement against minmaxxing or Level Treadmill? Based on the numbers you're actually talking about how its bad for a game to have a level treadmill where everything just gets bigger numbers. You realize that it's mostly the martial types that depend on getting bigger numbers while often times casters get the actual abilities that aren't just numbers (read illusions, divination, conjuration, etc) right? If you don't like playing the numbers game than the best solution is to have the game give you abilities that don't just pump up your numbers.

It all feeds in together. Having a lot of modifiers to minmax means that doing so inflates the numbers. Inflated numbers lead to the arms race and the level treadmill you are referring to.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578303I think if we say that anyone trying to get the best out of their character concept is a min/maxer - the term becomes so broad that it loses all meaning.
 
I would regard someone as a "min/maxer" if they prioritize high stats over building to try to maintain some sort of character concept - if they started by thinking "hey Feat X/Class Y has just great bonuses, so I'm going to play one of those".
 
Do you hate snow elves? Are you going to play one anyway and create some contrived backstory about how your character trekked from the Arctic to my current campaign just so you can avoid the standard -2 Con penalty for elves and have a -2 to Charisma instead? Then you're probably a min/maxer.

I mostly agree here.  Making an efficient character isn't inherently min-maxing.  In my two examples (my superhero PC Volt and my Burning Wheel character Judyn), both were cases where I started with the mechanics of how I wanted to optimize, and then later came up with a matching background.  I don't think that either of these had any worse character concepts than non-minmaxed PCs, though.  

I would note that this same sort of back-fitting generally happens with random-roll PCs.  i.e. You have a set of stats (and possibly other stuff), and you have to come up with details that flesh those out.  I find that having to stretch often makes me come up with interesting backstory that I wouldn't have come up with otherwise.  

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578303In an unbalanced system (like 3.5) once one person maximizes, everyone else has to start doing it to keep up, and finally the GM has to spend extra effort trying to construct things that can keep up with the PCs.

Hence min/maxing is by its nature either antisocial or pointless. The only really meaningful increase in power is an unbalanced increase in power - a gain in ability as compared to other PCs - other improvements just lead to an escalation in NPCs to match.

I don't buy that having to make tougher opponents is an undue burden on the GM.  Depending on the system, higher power levels can be more GM bookkeeping.  However, it's not an undue burden for a GM to run a level 9 adventure - whether it is for inefficiently-made level 9 characters or level 5 min-maxed characters.  

I also disagree that this is antisocial.  You're assuming that the social norm in not min-maxing, and that because someone makes a different character outside the norm, that therefore they're antisocial.  In a group of min-maxing players, though, the stubborn holdout who refuses to min-max is the "antisocial" one.  Making minmaxed characters can be very much social - just like any challenging gaming activity from poker to Pandemic.  People can give advice if someone needs help, or trade quips in friendly competition, compare strategies, and so forth.

Quote from: jhkim;577708Obviously there is a difference between single-class progression and multiclass progression.  However, I don't think that single-class progression is necessarily any more sensible -- and it definitely doesn't respond to the nuances of what is happening in the campaign any more.  Someone who plans a single-class progression is just as locked-in as someone who plans a multiclass progression.  

I find that the collection of capabilities in most multiclass progressions wouldn't be noteworthy in a skill-based game like Savage Worlds or GURPS.  The order they get them in is sometimes odd, but that's forced by the level and class system.  

For example, in my first game of D&D3.0, my GM gave me grief because my Sorcerer took one level of Fighter for his level-up.  He basically said that it didn't make sense for my Sorcerer to suddenly get a ton of weapon+armor proficiencies - and implied that I was munchkin for doing so.  Now, I did do so because of the benefit it gave me.  However, the idea of a sorcerer who can also fight is a perfectly reasonable fantasy trope, and I thought I role-played it fine.  The class-and-level system didn't let me smoothly get a mix of the different abilities.

The gm should have suported you, especially if you roleplayed the characters interest in martial skills.

Quote from: beejazz;578325Actually, I've seen more of minmaxing used to close the gap than start a race. It's common to allow or expect minmaxing of martial characters while discouraging it in casters, for example. At least IME.

Lucky you :) That would be about the most positive use you can get out of rules mastery, IMHO - as long as its used to try and patch a trap option or make a character work. I wouldn't have any issue with someone say trying to use multiple sourcebooks to make their character concept work, but I wouldn't actually call that "min/maxing", either.

QuoteAdditionally, if the monsters don't have hp bloat, combat at higher levels can move a lot faster with minmaxed characters.

Minmaxing can actually be used to improve the game pretty significantly on either side of the screen.

Certainly some bigger 3.5 monsters have silly numbers of HPs, but I think its as or more likely that the GM will be having to advance monsters or increase their HPs to keep them competitive

Quote from: jhkim;578365I mostly agree here.  Making an efficient character isn't inherently min-maxing.  In my two examples (my superhero PC Volt and my Burning Wheel character Judyn), both were cases where I started with the mechanics of how I wanted to optimize, and then later came up with a matching background.  I don't think that either of these had any worse character concepts than non-minmaxed PCs, though.  

Well, I've had this too, where a feat or something has actually sparked an idea - usually its still not super-mega-awesome, though. I've had probably the most fun playing 3.5 using lots of sourcebooks to build a character with interesting mechanics that isn't overpowered, when playing with people who aren't trying to abuse the system or who have no idea.

I suspect say HERO being purely effects-based isn't too bad, since there's less effort required to justify any fluff involved - the same power might be thrown daggers or energy blasts or whatever.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578449Lucky you :) That would be about the most positive use you can get out of rules mastery, IMHO - as long as its used to try and patch a trap option or make a character work. I wouldn't have any issue with someone say trying to use multiple sourcebooks to make their character concept work, but I wouldn't actually call that "min/maxing", either.

As they say at giantitp real optimizers play Samurai's

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;578449Lucky you :) That would be about the most positive use you can get out of rules mastery, IMHO - as long as its used to try and patch a trap option or make a character work. I wouldn't have any issue with someone say trying to use multiple sourcebooks to make their character concept work, but I wouldn't actually call that "min/maxing", either.

The min/max moniker gets thrown at people who go splat heavy to support a concept by people who think splat heavy is always looking for power. The warlock and warmage used to get banned at tables for this reason, even though they're less powerful than sorcs, wizards, druids, etc. So whatever distinctions we reasonable people make on the internet, DMs can't always discern motive within the subset of players who like character building.

QuoteCertainly some bigger 3.5 monsters have silly numbers of HPs, but I think its as or more likely that the GM will be having to advance monsters or increase their HPs to keep them competitive

When it comes to minmaxing on both sides of the screen, I've seen damage inflate (because damage piling is stupid easy) but not hp (because very few things improve hp on the player side and increasing HD ups CR). Again, works well for speeding up mid and high level games.

I run low level games and I still give lots of NPCs a rogue dip and use monsters with early incapacitation tactics. Speeds things up, encourages the party to flee every now and again, etc. I'm basically writing my game to run the way these tactics play without these hidden "patches."

Not all number-crunchers are "jerks".  But anyone who cares more about manipulating numbers than creating a character based on setting and role-playing considerations (ie. he picks a feat because it'll give him a +2 rather than because it makes any fucking sense) is someone who won't end up working well in any of my games.  Note that it'd be fine if: a) he isn't a jerk and b) he chooses a feat that will give him a +2 AND it makes fucking sense.

RPGPundit