Character Optimization may have been with us from the beginning, but it didn't seem to start (at least for me) until RPGA play during the era of AD&D 2E. There seemed to be an arms race that concentrated on getting specific certificates of magic items from Raven's Bluff modules then.
Is that when it became prominent, or was it just starting then?
Quote from: jeff37923;563020Character Optimization may have been with us from the beginning, but it didn't seem to start (at least for me) until RPGA play during the era of AD&D 2E. There seemed to be an arms race that concentrated on getting specific certificates of magic items from Raven's Bluff modules then.
Is that when it became prominent, or was it just starting then?
I'd say blame Hero and GURPS. Point based character creation led to tweaking, which led to CharOp.
Melee and Wizard.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;563021I'd say blame Hero and GURPS. Point based character creation led to tweaking, which led to CharOp.
Is there really any way to CharOp in 2e? You pretty much get what you get. As characters advanced in level I'd say those with the potential to optimise (wizards and priests) did so.
Quote from: Panzerkraken;563021I'd say blame Hero and GURPS. Point based character creation led to tweaking, which led to CharOp.
Yeah, CharOp as we use the term is a feature of point-based systems. And after 3e, RAW D&D with its class levels, feats and wealth by level guidelines
is a point-based system.
There used to be people abusing the rules before that, though. People who "rolled" suspiciously many 18s, ran one of the character kits from
Mein Elf, or got their hands on +8 vorpal maces (actual story) and multiple wands of Orcus (also an actual story).
vorpal ... mace ...
does not compute
Quote from: The Traveller;563024Is there really any way to CharOp in 2e? You pretty much get what you get. As characters advanced in level I'd say those with the potential to optimise (wizards and priests) did so.
Those brown-cover "Complete [your class here] Handbook" titles allowed for considerable optimization. When the Complete Fighters Handbook came out, I started playing a swashbuckler, and the old-school plate & shield fighter was all like
WTF? because I had the same AC as him
wearing leather armor. Don't ask me how; my copy of that book is long gone. But yeah, it was possible. It really started getting ridiculous in 3E, IMHO. The last time I played 3.5, our Druid's stupidly over-optimized animal companion had better combat statistics than our (theoretically optimized) Fighter.
I also agree with the above poster who pointed out that point-buy systems make optimization easier. In a well-designed point-buy system, this should involve trade-offs to keep "optimized" characters' power levels in check. In practice, players obsessed with optimization usually find ways to "beat" such systems. As far as I'm concerned, this is a problem with certain players, rather than the games. Sure, I can design a 60-point spell for Fantasy Hero which lets me literally conjure up a mountain out of thin air and drop it on my foe from a great height: game over! Why I'd want to do that, I have no idea. But some players would, and I don't game with them.
Before the "Complete ... Handbooks" series it was the spells and equipment selections, the Monty Haul games where the characters walked around with golf bags full of different sorts of swords and stuff. CharOp is just a different spin on the whole idea that plays on the character build before play begins rather than just powergaming to game itself.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;563037I also agree with the above poster who pointed out that point-buy systems make optimization easier. In a well-designed point-buy system, this should involve trade-offs to keep "optimized" characters' power levels in check. In practice,
I don't see any reason that players should start out with suboptimal characters, which is why I find the D&D level system mildly ludicrous, I mean everyone wants to play a hero so why play as a zero, but yes a tradeoff is important for the more game wrecking optimisations (combat related).
The players option stuff in 2.5 was when it really became a big thing. Skills and Powers was so abusable it just wasn't funny. To a certain extent it's inevitable that more options = more variability in effectiveness between the options = more optimisation.
Quote from: The Traveller;563045I don't see any reason that players should start out with suboptimal characters, which is why I find the D&D level system mildly ludicrous, I mean everyone wants to play a hero so why play as a zero, but yes a tradeoff is important for the more game wrecking optimisations (combat related).
I'm going to start a seperate thread on this, if you do not mind.
I think that optimizers were always around in some form or another, but the Internet really made the play-style prominent. Message boards allowed gamers to share tips and tactics for character-building and encounter planning, and online guides for making optimized Clerics/Fighters/etc. were free and could easily reach a large audience.
The CharOp forums on Wizards of the Coast in the 3rd Edition era gave such players a haven. D&D's popularity, plus 3rd Edition's deliberate attempts to reward system mastery, made optimization pretty big.
Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;563037I also agree with the above poster who pointed out that point-buy systems make optimization easier. In a well-designed point-buy system, this should involve trade-offs to keep "optimized" characters' power levels in check.
The Traveling Salesman says this is really, really hard.
Quote from: soviet;563050The players option stuff in 2.5 was when it really became a big thing. Skills and Powers was so abusable it just wasn't funny. To a certain extent it's inevitable that more options = more variability in effectiveness between the options = more optimisation.
I never really saw much charop in D&D until Skills and Powers. Sure, there were people faking die rolls to get all 18s or whatever, but I call that "cheating" not using or abusing the rules to build the most powerful character you can. To be honest, I did not see it as a problem in 2e as it was pretty much confined to games that either used the Player's Option stuff (without a GM willing to say no) or were ran by/for munchkins. It only became acceptable within the general D&D play culture with 3.x -- and it probably would not have become so widespread if WOTC had not supported it with those charop boards.
Quote from: Roger the GS;563032vorpal ... mace ...
does not compute
That sounds awesome, it knocks some poor bastard's right off!
Quote from: daniel_ream;563070The Traveling Salesman says this is really, really hard.
Can you expand some more on that, by any chance?
Quote from: The Traveller;563024Is there really any way to CharOp in 2e? You pretty much get what you get.
Dart-specialist fighters come to mind.
When WoW players started crossing over into 3e.
Quote from: Fifth Element;563142Dart-specialist fighters come to mind.
Certainly an abuse of a poorly designed rule which may have gone back to 1E Unearthed Arcana.
You really can't put a definitive starting point. There were always players who looked to have the 'optimal' PC choice. Certainly from the introduction of variable weapon damage you had people choosing the 'best weapon'. Even before then you had people playing what they perceived to be mechanically the strongest class.
Likewise with the introduction of a rudimentary skills system you had people cherry picking the best ones. All you can really say is that there has progressively been more and more scope for charop since the start of the hobby.
I guess key stages in its expansion came with the following milestones:
- Supplements I - IV
- 1E
- Unearthed Arcana
- 2E with its skill subsystem amongst other things
- Complete Series
- 2.5E (skills and powers)
- 3E
- Every splat book under the sun
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;563141Can you expand some more on that, by any chance?
The Traveling Salesman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem) problem is a famous problem in optimization.
Don't read the Wikipedia page; I've studied graph theory and their description is so jargon heavy it makes my brain hurt.
In short, the time it takes to find the "best" set of choices in a point-buy system (each choice presumably contributing some arbitrary amount of "power" to the final character) increases exponentially with the number of those choices.
As a point-buy system gets more and more complex, the likelihood that any reasonable number of designers and playtesters will be able to find the magic combination(s) of choices that sum up to an "I win" button approaches zero. They'll find and squash some, but the only to ensure they get all of them is test all the possible combinations, which isn't feasible. Also, any changes they make to nerf the "I win" button changes the state of the graph, which means they really should go back and test all the possible optimization paths again.
So expecting designers to be able to balance an open-choice point-buy system with any real number of choices is a grave underestimation of just how hard and time-consuming this actually is.
If you can find a copy of the article, "Ogre and the Fuzzy-Wuzzy Fallacy" describes a real-world example of the customer base finding a major optimization path almost immediately in a published game that completely broke the gameplay.
Quote from: Fiasco;563150Certainly an abuse of a poorly designed rule
The essence of CharOp!
Quote from: Fiasco;563150All you can really say is that there has progressively been more and more scope for charop since the start of the hobby.
This is certainly fair; I would however say that 3E introduced more - and more mechanically important - fiddly bits, though, which gave that much more to optimize with. I'd say there was a big uptick there.
Since the early 80s when I won a AD&D 1st elimination contest by making a 7th level Druid with selected magic items.
I remember some of the 2E Character Kits had awesome attached, but it also had some serious restrictions at the same time (Wu Jen, I'm looking at you!).
They weren't always "fair and balanced", but that mattered more on play style IME, than anything mechanical.
Quote from: daniel_ream;563153The Traveling Salesman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_salesman_problem) problem is a famous problem in optimization.
Don't read the Wikipedia page; I've studied graph theory and their description is so jargon heavy it makes my brain hurt.
In short, the time it takes to find the "best" set of choices in a point-buy system (each choice presumably contributing some arbitrary amount of "power" to the final character) increases exponentially with the number of those choices.
As a point-buy system gets more and more complex, the likelihood that any reasonable number of designers and playtesters will be able to find the magic combination(s) of choices that sum up to an "I win" button approaches zero. They'll find and squash some, but the only to ensure they get all of them is test all the possible combinations, which isn't feasible. Also, any changes they make to nerf the "I win" button changes the state of the graph, which means they really should go back and test all the possible optimization paths again.
So expecting designers to be able to balance an open-choice point-buy system with any real number of choices is a grave underestimation of just how hard and time-consuming this actually is.
If you can find a copy of the article, "Ogre and the Fuzzy-Wuzzy Fallacy" describes a real-world example of the customer base finding a major optimization path almost immediately in a published game that completely broke the gameplay.
Thanks for clarifying. Hmm.
I'm wondering if some point-buy systems - such as skills & powers for 2E - where point-costs of abilities themselves could vary depending on other choices such as class and race - could be considered to be a variant of the 'Travelling Purchaser' problem even, rather than 'Travelling Salesman'.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;563178Thanks for clarifying. Hmm.
I'm wondering if some point-buy systems - such as skills & powers for 2E - where point-costs of abilities themselves could vary depending on other choices such as class and race - could be considered to be a variant of the 'Travelling Purchaser' problem even, rather than 'Travelling Salesman'.
Technically to be the TSP, you have to be able to model the problem as a graph where you move from point and point, and finish up where you start, visiting each point only once. Character build systems don't normally work like that; the TSP is mostly just a shorthand way of pointing out that problems that sound simple on paper ("what's the cheapest round trip around all these cities" "what's the cheapest set of skills & powers that will give me the most bonuses") are often computationally hard in practice.
TL;DR: balancing a point-buy system with more than a handful of choices is a lot harder than it sounds.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;563178Thanks for clarifying. Hmm.
I'm wondering if some point-buy systems - such as skills & powers for 2E - where point-costs of abilities themselves could vary depending on other choices such as class and race - could be considered to be a variant of the 'Travelling Purchaser' problem even, rather than 'Travelling Salesman'.
Both of these are concerned with the
most optimal path, however. There are many other CharOp combinations that are not the absolute optimal, but still cause massive problems at the table. I don't think it requires
solving either travelling problem to catch most of the worst abuses.
And even so, a modern personal computer can solve a 10,000 node Travelling Salesman Problem in a matter of minutes. Well, probably closer to 30mins. Regardless, there are no RPGs that have 10,000 nodes (decisions) when generating a character. It would take
far longer to decide on the weighting for the paths than to solve the (maybe) thousand nodes most games would have. Plus, there are a few tricks (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=case-traveling-salesman-unsolvable-limits-computation) that can speed up computation.
Quote from: daniel_ream;563153In short, the time it takes to find the "best" set of choices in a point-buy system (each choice presumably contributing some arbitrary amount of "power" to the final character) increases exponentially with the number of those choices.
As a point-buy system gets more and more complex, the likelihood that any reasonable number of designers and playtesters will be able to find the magic combination(s) of choices that sum up to an "I win" button approaches zero. They'll find and squash some, but the only to ensure they get all of them is test all the possible combinations, which isn't feasible. Also, any changes they make to nerf the "I win" button changes the state of the graph, which means they really should go back and test all the possible optimization paths again.
Yeah, this is the crux of the issue. Well put. Personally, I think the only really effective way to prevent CharOp-based rule abuse is through the social side of gaming.
As a piece of anecdotal evidence, when we started with 3.0 D&D in 2000, we allowed any formally legit character build into the game. This resulted in some game-breaking combinations, namely "I trip him" guy (he could trip anyone and anything, but little else), a multiclassed horror (Paladin/Monk/Sorcerer/Fighter/etc.; lousy combat ability but insanely high AC and saving throws), and a spiked chain specialist. After a while, it turned out this was causing problems, not to mention the characters were damn silly in play. The spiked chain guy had already retired on level 2, and the trip specialist was eaten by a purple worm on level 3 of Rappan Athuk (couldn't trip that, heh :D). I gave the remaining character an in-setting opportunity to convert to a straight Paladin, and he took it after we discussed the problems the build was causing).
After that, we just agreed we would be sticking to more sensible class combinations, and focus on playing characters instead of building them, and after that, we encountered no more problems. We could have turned the whole game into an escalation of system mastery, which would have sucked for the people who weren't into that (including me), but I think we made the sensible choice. One guy was slightly unhappy about losing all those character-building opportunities, but then settled into playing a gnome Wizard/Tech Smith (with a shotgun and a mechanical servant), and had fun with the character.
Quote from: Melan;563252Yeah, this is the crux of the issue. Well put. Personally, I think the only really effective way to prevent CharOp-based rule abuse is through the social side of gaming.
I concur with this, and with a reasonable explanation of the fact that the GM will be fair to the players, they can even ignore gaping exploitation opportunities.
I made a point based character creation system for CP2020, and one of the primary loopholes in the initial concept of it was that it would (obviously) cost less to raise your stat a single point than it would to raise all the skills governed by it during character creation. So, for those looking to make the best of the best, a '10' in REF, INT, EMP, and BOD were common.
I had two solutions to this, the first was to sit everyone down and explain to them that the point based system was designed to allow them to play characters that were conceptually what they wanted to play, since the baseline CP2020 characters felt like idiot savants within their given field, not to allow them to make those same IS's with higher numbers and even more specialization. They agreed, and made characters with a little more depth (for the most part...) For the first campaign this worked fine.
For the second campaign I adjusted the point costs so that they were on a sliding scale based on how high you wanted the stat to be... a 2 could be had for 1 point, but a 10 cost 40. This skewed stats towards the average from then on, and people were more likely to wind up with 7-9 in their specific area of focus and average stats in the others.
Munchkin-ry has been around from the start I imagine. Even AD&D was fairly optimizable, depending on the DM.
http://www.rogermwilcox.com/ADnD/IUDC1.html Some might find these stories amusing, or terribad.
CharOp has always been there
In 1e when that kid turned up with the 1/2 Orc Figther/assasin who wore a girlde of giant Strength was ambidextrous and weielded 2 magic short swords and used dust of disappearance that was CharOp. (suprise attack to assasinate or to minimally get a billion points of damage)
In fact you could argue the Druid, Ranger, Paladin were all CharOp.
In the end you could play a 'Paladin' using just he Fighter class but you get no magic powers.
Dragon, Behonder, White Dwarf all churned out munchkin classes. Fanzines were doing it for OD&D. The tale of the Vampire PC that inspired the Cleric is just a CharOp build.
An increase in options, growth in feats, skills etc and the Internet to discuss it all adds to it but a munchkin player is always a munchkin player.
MY cousins character Balthazar is a case in point.
1e - Start as a figther, get to 2nd level, dual class as a MU. Now you have 2d10 HP Now keep your head down but you rapidly catch the party becuase the XP levels are low so soon you are a 3rd level wizard and you can start using all your Figther skills again.
Now you are a 3rd level wizard with 2d10 + 3d4 HP, you can use swords, wear armour when you run out of spells etc etc .
When we went 2e he retrofitted the character to have double specialisation as a 1st level fighter and single weapon style spec which gives him an addtional AC bonus.
Quote from: StormBringer;563247Both of these are concerned with the most optimal path, however. There are many other CharOp combinations that are not the absolute optimal, but still cause massive problems at the table. I don't think it requires solving either travelling problem to catch most of the worst abuses.
Don't mind me, I was I think taking the idea too literally here - the salesman problem is I guess just a good illustration of the principle of how a increase a few options gives an explosion of possible 'builds'. (And sometimes how a couple of individually harmless powers combine into something really nasty, in the right circumstances).
I agree it doesn't need 'solving' mathematically. I would be very curious as to how it would even be possible to do that - it seems hard to do beyond just calculating average damages or % likelihood to win combats, which end up being fairly simplistic, and build assumptions into the model.
I've seen a couple of places (e.g. the JAGS blog, and some guys at Pinnacle were doing it for Savage Worlds) where guys were doing thousands of computer-simulated battles between test characters to try to determine a good point-costs for individual powers, but that's as far as I've seen anyone go in looking for good/bad builds, I think. At least for tabletop; I have no idea what MMO testing normally consists of.
Character Optimisation can only be done in an 'unbalanced' game system.
Players will eventually discover what is most effective.
Could be overpowered spells in 1E dnd like sleep, hold person, etc...
Could be cheating to get that 18/00 strength in 1E.
Could be an area of effect stun transfer in Hero.
The real issue is that only Roleplay can counter this.
I personally get angry when a player makes a power gamed character and then tailors the background around that. I call shenanigans!
I prefer to make a characater concept that is not from the planet Krypton, and tailor the stats to that flawed concept.
I also really dislike characters that have max min stats, like a warrior with an 8 INT, 8 CHA, 18 STR, 18 DEX
That guy would just die in a real world. "Me attack City Guards Now!! ARRGHDURR!!"
Generating characters rather than building them fixes the problem generally. If stats are randomly rolled and abilities and mechanical fiddly bits are baked into the classes rather than spread across multiple a la carte lists then charaop dies.
The remaining issue then just becomes one of cheating during generation which is easily dealt with.
IMHO this not only helps with optimization issues but also broader problems that plague new school games such as world/adventure focus. When a character becomes something akin to a remodeling project that is perpetually under construction the focus often becomes all about the components and the whole context (that this is an individual that is part of a fictional world) gets lost in the shuffle.
Everything becomes about the new building blocks that become available at the next level. Character focus becomes almost entirely introverted and the world/adventures fade into a scrolling 2D background that just serves as a backdrop to these construction projects instead of being the focus of play.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;563280Generating characters rather than building them fixes the problem generally. If stats are randomly rolled and abilities and mechanical fiddly bits are baked into the classes rather than spread across multiple a la carte lists then charaop dies.
Bingo!!
I basically quit playing D&D around '82 after Gygax reorganized everything to hit the 12-13 year old market. Playing with kids 10 years or more younger than myself was just no fun.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;563280Generating characters rather than building them fixes the problem generally. If stats are randomly rolled and abilities and mechanical fiddly bits are baked into the classes rather than spread across multiple a la carte lists then charaop dies.
The remaining issue then just becomes one of cheating during generation which is easily dealt with.
IMHO this not only helps with optimization issues but also broader problems that plague new school games such as world/adventure focus. When a character becomes something akin to a remodeling project that is perpetually under construction the focus often becomes all about the components and the whole context (that this is an individual that is part of a fictional world) gets lost in the shuffle.
Everything becomes about the new building blocks that become available at the next level. Character focus becomes almost entirely introverted and the world/adventures fade into a scrolling 2D background that just serves as a backdrop to these construction projects instead of being the focus of play.
That is true but like I posted the munchkins then just look to class options or racial ones.
Early D&D threw up slews of broken classes and the Munckins always brought them to the table. Oh I want to be a half-ogre, an anti-paladin, and archer, a Black Priest, a .... etc
Even if you remove that they work towards a magic item combo.
D&D is just like that. A munchkin unable to charop his stats/skills/feats will play an Elven Fighter/Magic User.
I think its human nature, well munchkin nature. A munchkin isn't going to create a Civilian in classic traveller, and as soon as you add the advanced chargen books they are all over them.
An interesting option woudl be for the DM to generate all PCs upto a decision point. After all you do not get to pick your race, strength, appearance, intelligence. Its like a random roll taken to the extreme, a bit like the Stormbringer Background table.
Quote from: jibbajibba;563284That is true but like I posted the munchkins then just look to class options or racial ones.
Early D&D threw up slews of broken classes and the Munckins always brought them to the table. Oh I want to be a half-ogre, an anti-paladin, and archer, a Black Priest, a .... etc
Even if you remove that they work towards a magic item combo.
D&D is just like that. A munchkin unable to charop his stats/skills/feats will play an Elven Fighter/Magic User.
I think its human nature, well munchkin nature. A munchkin isn't going to create a Civilian in classic traveller, and as soon as you add the advanced chargen books they are all over them.
An interesting option woudl be for the DM to generate all PCs upto a decision point. After all you do not get to pick your race, strength, appearance, intelligence. Its like a random roll taken to the extreme, a bit like the Stormbringer Background table.
The DM determines what races and classes are available in the campaign.
There is nothing wrong with the elven ftr/mu. Such a character is limited in levels in both classes and will advance much slower than his single classsed counterparts.
Likewise with magic items. Certain items may never appear in the campaign so planning on X items being there AND that they will be aquired is not charop. Optimization requires hard coded building blocks that eschews common sense for rules-first play.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;563287The DM determines what races and classes are available in the campaign.
There is nothing wrong with the elven ftr/mu. Such a character is limited in levels in both classes and will advance much slower than his single classsed counterparts.
Likewise with magic items. Certain items may never appear in the campaign so planning on X items being there AND that they will be aquired is not charop. Optimization requires hard coded building blocks that eschews common sense for rules-first play.
Well first off level limits are usually high enough not to matter in most games and much slower isn't true due to D&D xp progression if you are a 5th level figther I am a 4/4 F/MU because you basically double XP each level.
Most people don't play elves because they to try and experience the chance to play and alien race of nigh immortal nature kin, they play them for the +1 Dex, the immunity to sleep and Charm, the extra languages the +1 with Bows and Longswords, the beter perception etc etc .... That is just CharOp, sure its crude CharOp but meh....
Sure the DM decides what classes and races are available but most just take the default from the book without much thought.
You are mostly right on Magic Items. But of course the Munchkin player will work out how he knows about certain items and try and seek them out or try to cherry pick the items that do come up to play into their chosen CharOp 'build'.
If the demi-human races had genuine disabilites then they woudl be played less and in 3e they wouldn't have had to give the human an addtional feat.
Personally I like to see the working on races. You show be the 'pont buy toolkit ' the Designer used to build Elves, Dwarves, Humans and Hobbits and demonstrate how they are all equivalent and I'll buy it but if you think dwarves always have to have beards and Kender are kleptomaniacs are suitable modes of balance I will call you on it.
In Drohem's current 2e Red Steel campaign I selected Rakasta as my race because I thought it would be cool to play a cat guy. Having built my character I nearly changed my mind and made him Human because the race is far too tough and gains too many benefits for very little drawback. It's like a CharOp munchkin's dream race :) (Obviously no negative comentry on the game itself at all. :D )
Quote from: BillDowns;563283Bingo!!
I basically quit playing D&D around '82 after Gygax reorganized everything to hit the 12-13 year old market. Playing with kids 10 years or more younger than myself was just no fun.
Any 22 year old that enjoys playing with 12 year olds probably needs a restraining order :)
Only kidding.
But the default method for Stat generation in 79 was already Method 1 (4d6 drop one arrange) and that was the case until the end of 2e in 95 (or whenever).
I tend to be torn between favoring random pc generation and total customization.
Random nukes powergamers out of the water, but total customization gives you what you want.
I want my cake and eat it too!
QuoteGenerating characters rather than building them fixes the problem generally. If stats are randomly rolled and abilities and mechanical fiddly bits are baked into the classes rather than spread across multiple a la carte lists then charaop dies.
This is the crux of the issue.
The dominance of CharOp in D&D coincided with the game moving towards a hardcore gamer audience. Back in the day of its mass popularity, few D&D players owned books and took them home - and these few were known as "DMs". The notion that every player would go out and buy stacks of books in order to plan out a character to 20th level would have struck me and my friends as bizarre.
Furthermore, CharOp was the source of most of the worst aspects of 3.x D&D: PC invulnerability, rules mastery, CLs/ELs, and the pre-eminence of the rules as written over DM discretion.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;563270Don't mind me, I was I think taking the idea too literally here - the salesman problem is I guess just a good illustration of the principle of how a increase a few options gives an explosion of possible 'builds'. (And sometimes how a couple of individually harmless powers combine into something really nasty, in the right circumstances).
Before you go taking all the blame, I may have been focussing on the technical aspects rather than the general concept myself. That said, it's true that adding an option or two can increase the number of combinations dramatically, but most of them are harmless. Occasionally, there will be a collision of minor options that break the game or some portion of it, as you mention. Aside from the variable levels of emergent complexity, I think there is a more fundamental problem...
QuoteI agree it doesn't need 'solving' mathematically. I would be very curious as to how it would even be possible to do that - it seems hard to do beyond just calculating average damages or % likelihood to win combats, which end up being fairly simplistic, and build assumptions into the model.
I've seen a couple of places (e.g. the JAGS blog, and some guys at Pinnacle were doing it for Savage Worlds) where guys were doing thousands of computer-simulated battles between test characters to try to determine a good point-costs for individual powers, but that's as far as I've seen anyone go in looking for good/bad builds, I think. At least for tabletop; I have no idea what MMO testing normally consists of.
... namely, 'how does one weigh the various options?'
For example, is the ability to cast spells a good catch-all? Classes with limited spell use, like the Paladin and Ranger, might have some fractional weight added on. Perhaps each spell should be weighted separately. Now we have increased the 'nodes' dramatically, but it is spread out over 20-odd or 30 levels, so optimizing a 1st level spell caster is very much less computationally intensive than a 20th level caster; however, the decisions made at 1st level have an influence on the decisions available at 20th level. Further, are we strictly optimizing the character individually, or as part of a team? Obviously, certain early choices will constrain later choices, notably whether or not spells are even a concern.
Setting up the problem appears far more complicated than running the analysis on it, to me. Finding the path for 100,000 nodes is almost trivial, it seems, to the point mathematicians are playing games (http://www.tsp.gatech.edu/data/ml/monalisa.html) with it. Setting the 'correct' distance between
feather fall and a long sword seems like the near impossible part, to me.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;563280Generating characters rather than building them fixes the problem generally. If stats are randomly rolled and abilities and mechanical fiddly bits are baked into the classes rather than spread across multiple a la carte lists then charaop dies.
+1
This would require a fairly limited number of classes, or a much improved method of multi-classing. Prestige Classes are a fascinating idea and something of an improvement over kits, but they introduced at least as many problems as they solved.
Quote from: StormBringer;563324+1
This would require a fairly limited number of classes, or a much improved method of multi-classing. Prestige Classes are a fascinating idea and something of an improvement over kits, but they introduced at least as many problems as they solved.
From a CharOp perspective Prestigue classes are much worse than Kits.
Kits , well the first slew at least, were basically roleplay guff with some reaction modifiers and a free NWP. Their primary focus is to contextualise the character in the game world.
Prestige classes, whilst in theory are about an in game 'elite' group, in reality are just about giving the PC a bunch of additional mechanical bonuses and effects.
Quote from: jibbajibba;563329From a CharOp perspective Prestigue classes are much worse than Kits.
Kits , well the first slew at least, were basically roleplay guff with some reaction modifiers and a free NWP. Their primary focus is to contextualise the character in the game world.
Prestige classes, whilst in theory are about an in game 'elite' group, in reality are just about giving the PC a bunch of additional mechanical bonuses and effects.
Yup. Prestige classes are crap. Kits started out innocent enough but power creep is what sells supplements. Thats really the driving force of charop-the game company wanting to sell you the tools to be better than the guy sitting next to you even though its a cooperative effort.
Quote from: StormBringer;563320Before you go taking all the blame, I may have been focussing on the technical aspects rather than the general concept myself. [...] Finding the path for 100,000 nodes is almost trivial, it seems, to the point mathematicians are playing games (http://www.tsp.gatech.edu/data/ml/monalisa.html) with it.
You're pretty badly failing to understand the nature of the TSP and all the "solutions" you've linked to.
Finding
a path is trivial. Finding a
pretty good path is fairly easy. Finding the
best path,
and proving it's the best, is NP-hard.
None of which has much to do with gaming beyond the fact that, as I've said, balancing any kind of point buy system is so difficult that it's probably not worth trying. (cf.
Feng Shui).
CharOp isn't a problem if the inbalance between best and worst is relatively narrow. So that your 'optimized' character isn't 'gamebreaking'. For that reason I don't think random character generation is a real fix. You can't as easily 'optimize' a character but over the course of playing 4d6 drop the lowest and arrange at least every person at the table has played a munchkin's wet dream; add on things like Psionic wild talents, randomly generated treasure parcels, et cetera and you don't actually have any balancing mechanic.
Your character can still potentially be 'optimal' in a bad way even with randomness. All random generation removes is the choice to be overpowered, not the potential of it occurring. It doesn't eliminate the problem of actually having an overpowered character in the party.
Remember Psionic Wild Talent? You have like a 1% chance of having some gamebreaking power that most monsters don't have defenses against, or a level 1 teleport. Just because it is unlikely to occur doesn't mean it was ever a good idea to have put Dream Travel on the table of potential Wild Talent abilities. Likewise if a character having 18/00 Strength and a slew of other high stats is problematic to the games balance than getting it randomly doesn't actually help anyone.
Quote from: jibbajibba;563329From a CharOp perspective Prestigue classes are much worse than Kits.
Kits , well the first slew at least, were basically roleplay guff with some reaction modifiers and a free NWP. Their primary focus is to contextualise the character in the game world.
That is a good point, but kits got pretty out of control. I don't think a discussion of which is worse will prove fruitful, but I will agree that if they are both properly restrained, kits are probably better overall in regards to keeping power creep in check. Again, that is when the kits themselves aren't wildly out of whack.
QuotePrestige classes, whilst in theory are about an in game 'elite' group, in reality are just about giving the PC a bunch of additional mechanical bonuses and effects.
They work pretty well as the multi-class substitution. If you look at it in broad terms, the AD&D Ranger was essentially the 'template' for a Fighter that took Magic-User and Cleric levels. It is also a pretty good way to provide a kind of point buy functionality for a class and level system.
But again, the potential far outstrips the execution. First TSR and now WotC seem to have had that problem since at least mid- to late-2nd Edition.
Quote from: daniel_ream;563336You're pretty badly failing to understand the nature of the TSP and all the "solutions" you've linked to.
Finding a path is trivial. Finding a pretty good path is fairly easy. Finding the best path, and proving it's the best, is NP-hard.
Yes, but finding the
best path and proving it the best is still
irrelevant. It isn't the
absolute optimal path that breaks the game in new and surprising ways. More than a few of the 'pretty good' paths can also create problems that are simple to nearly impossible to fix. In fact, we haven't even established that the most optimal path
also creates the greatest problems. It could very well be that a
less optimal path creates wider or larger problems, so yelling about proving the solution to an n-node Travelling Salesman Problem is probably not even worth considering. Even if it is worth considering, the very first decision about what class to optimize delimits the number of choices severely. If we are talking about a Fighter, we don't need to consider spell choice. If we are talking about a Wizard, the weapon feats are off the table.
And it all could be moot anyway; quantum computers are almost workable now, so they could solve every TSP path and determine the shortest one simultaneously. It will probably take longer to print the results than calculate the paths.
Just because 'Character Optimization' shares a word with the concept behind the TSP, it doesn't automatically follow that they are the exact same problem, have the exact same solution, or even share some number of parameters. You already mentioned the biggest difference: CharOp doesn't have to end where it started. So right there, the linear nature of CharOp means there are significantly different parameters for a solution.
EDIT: If the point was to show how quickly options can get out of control, combinatorics is a much simpler idea to convey, and one most gamers are at least passingly familiar with.
QuoteNone of which has much to do with gaming beyond the fact that, as I've said, balancing any kind of point buy system is so difficult that it's probably not worth trying. (cf. Feng Shui).
Yeah, well, it seems your answer to any problem is 'it's impossible' instead of finding a workable solution and then improving from there.
Quote from: StormBringer;563416And it all could be moot anyway; quantum computers are almost workable now
You need to stop talking about computers now.
Quote from: daniel_ream;563448You need to stop talking about computers now.
Unless you are the re-incarnation of Alan Turing, I would suggest you are not the ultimate expert of all things computer science and acting so isn't helpful.
Science Daily: Quantum Computer News (http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/computers_math/quantum_computers/)
Researchers claim quantum computer breakthrough (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-04-26/super-computer/3972832)
IBM Says Practical Quantum Computers are Close (http://www.tomshardware.com/news/ibm-quantum-qubit-super-Computers,14832.html)
Research advances quantum computers (http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/stories/2012/research-advances-quantum-computers.html)
Outside the realm of quantum computers:
Computer turns into boardgame master of all it surveys (http://phys.org/news/2012-07-boardgame-master-surveys.html)
Princeton researchers working at forefront of 'exascale' supercomputing (http://phys.org/news/2012-07-princeton-forefront-exascale-supercomputing.html)
Neuroscience joins cryptography (http://phys.org/news/2012-07-neuroscience-cryptography.html)
Perhaps you should come out from behind your list of jobsworth excuses and remember that programmers aren't glorified stenographers; solving problems is the metric, not lines of code submitted. I will guarantee the people in the articles up there didn't start out with "It's pretty much impossible" and worry about how much code they would need to write.
Quote from: StormBringer;563462Unless you are the re-incarnation of Alan Turing, I would suggest you are not the ultimate expert of all things computer science and acting so isn't helpful.
I have a degree in computer science. One of my friends from university actively works in the field of quantum computing research.
Like Traveller on the "Mecha Because I Said So" thread, you're just pasting a bunch of links you found by Googling "quantum computing" without any real understanding of the engineering challenges involved. If this were fifteen years ago, you'd be insisting that gallium arsenide semiconductors were going to break the 3.0 GHz barrier ANY DAY NOW.
Quote from: daniel_ream;563471I have a degree in computer science. One of my friends from university actively works in the field of quantum computing research.
Uh huh. I assume that is a PhD in Computer Science? And your friend is the Head of Department in charge of Quantum Computing Research?
QuoteLike Traveller on the "Mecha Because I Said So" thread, you're just pasting a bunch of links you found by Googling "quantum computing" without any real understanding of the engineering challenges involved. If this were fifteen years ago, you'd be insisting that gallium arsenide semiconductors were going to break the 3.0 GHz barrier ANY DAY NOW.
I have several links because, you know, I read about it fairly regularly. I find it very odd that you think reading about a topic is not a good way to learn and understand more.
And I am quite aware of the engineering challenges involved. I am also quite aware that the engineers working on them aren't just throwing up their hands and saying "It's impossible!". They are actually working on the problems, you know, like engineers do. And making progress. Like the articles I linked describe.
I guess your method of giving up on ideas that don't immediately yield the exact results is probably better though.
Hey, lookit that, they found a use for gallium arsenide: Graphene -- the copy beats the original (http://phys.org/news167052354.html)
It's almost as if scientific progress requires a bit of perseverance despite early failures or disappointments.
One more vote for UA in 1e, when it became "officially sanctioned 'cuz the books said so" to roll 9d6 to 3d6 for your abilities, and specialized dart throwing fighters appeared.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;563335Yup. Prestige classes are crap. Kits started out innocent enough but power creep is what sells supplements. Thats really the driving force of charop-the game company wanting to sell you the tools to be better than the guy sitting next to you even though its a cooperative effort.
Wow look we totally agree on something :)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;563487One more vote for UA in 1e, when it became "officially sanctioned 'cuz the books said so" to roll 9d6 to 3d6 for your abilities, and specialized dart throwing fighters appeared.
Agreed. Although we took those charts and modified them so the 9d6 was 14+1d4, 8d6 was 12+1d6, and so on down to 3d6. I would call the new generation system more "sanctioned cheating" than "character optimization", though. :)
Specialized dart Fighters are gaming the system, however.
I did think about building a Handful of pebbles Specialist when I met a Dart thrower.
It was my cousin again :) Nascent CharOp moster that he was. However in his defence the character was awesome fun and the picture was fantastic as he is an artist.
Again with us Role play rules so Deke D'Valiere the Elf Dart specialist was a munchkin but a well played munchkin. He had a draw skill and a reasonable Int but dire Wis. So at one point where we were raiding an enemy camp he climbed a tree and drew a fantastic map of it so we could plan better tactics then he dot distracted and never showed it to anyone in the party :)
Quote from: StormBringer;563490Specialized dart Fighters are gaming the system, however.
That's what Char Op is, isn't it? At least in my experience. A method a player uses to squeak out every + he or she can, regardless if the character concept makes sense or fits with the story being built in the campaign.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;563496That's what Char Op is, isn't it? At least in my experience. A method a player uses to squeak out every + he or she can, regardless if the character concept makes sense or fits with the story being built in the campaign.
Certainly, I was in agreement. I guess the 'however' was somewhat misplaced in my post; I was referring to my own previous statement rather than your overall point.
I can tell you from memory and personal anecdote that the first time I actually saw people engaging in this kind of CharOp behaviour (as opposed to other bad habits like powergaming, rules lawyering, etc) was after the transition from 1st to 2nd edition AD&D.
The kits were part of it, but so was dual classing and multi-classing and proficiencies and non-weapon proficiencies; these are all things that predated 2e, I know, but somehow it seems like only when 2e came along did people around me start to think of using these things to make choices based on creating the optimal character rather than making the choices based on roleplaying or setting considerations.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Sacrosanct;563487One more vote for UA in 1e, when it became "officially sanctioned 'cuz the books said so" to roll 9d6 to 3d6 for your abilities, and specialized dart throwing fighters appeared.
UA was the first overpowered splatbook!
Quote from: Bill;563686UA was the first overpowered splatbook!
How about Greyhawk, with its 9th level spells and Paladins?
I think the only kit that was used in CharOp was the Bladesinger. Almost all the other kits only gave you minor bonuses. The aforementioned swashbuckler kit only gave you a +2 to AC when wearing light armor, a +2 reaction bonus, and not having to spend double NWP on rogue skills. That isn't that much, especially considering you're giving up a huge part of a benefit to being a fighter--being able to wear plate mail.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;563714I think the only kit that was used in CharOp was the Bladesinger. Almost all the other kits only gave you minor bonuses. The aforementioned swashbuckler kit only gave you a +2 to AC when wearing light armor, a +2 reaction bonus, and not having to spend double NWP on rogue skills. That isn't that much, especially considering you're giving up a huge part of a benefit to being a fighter--being able to wear plate mail.
True for Fighter, thief, wizard, priest (although a lot of Charop potential in the specialist faith section there) and Bard. But once you get to the Complete Ranger CharOp has taken over I think. The ridiculous 3 armed tree ranger being a case in point.
Quote from: Melan;563692How about Greyhawk, with its 9th level spells and Paladins?
Ok..second book :)
Quote from: jibbajibba;563734True for Fighter, thief, wizard, priest (although a lot of Charop potential in the specialist faith section there) and Bard. But once you get to the Complete Ranger CharOp has taken over I think. The ridiculous 3 armed tree ranger being a case in point.
Oh, I forgot about that one because he looked so dumb. I guess my gaming groups placed more importance on "is my character cool" rather than "woohoo! I'll look like an idiot but I get an extra attack!"
Quote from: Sacrosanct;563739Oh, I forgot about that one because he looked so dumb. I guess my gaming groups placed more importance on "is my character cool" rather than "woohoo! I'll look like an idiot but I get an extra attack!"
Indeed even CharOp mosters have to draw a line and being a 3 armed tree usually does it.
But even Rangers themselves with free 2 weapon style spec annoy the crap out of me. But I mentioned that one before....
Quote from: jibbajibba;563744Indeed even CharOp mosters have to draw a line and being a 3 armed tree usually does it.
But even Rangers themselves with free 2 weapon style spec annoy the crap out of me. But I mentioned that one before....
2E began the Drizzt cloning of the ranger which then morphed into the Drizzt/Legolas hybrid that it is now.
Quote from: Melan;563692How about Greyhawk, with its 9th level spells and Paladins?
Variable weapon damage? Pfffft.
Munchkins.
I would not go so far, but when I finally got my hands on my OD&D set, and realised spells only went up to 5th and 6th level (for Clerics and Magic-Users, respectively), something just clicked. There were the sensible boundaries of magical power.
Quote from: Melan;563692How about Greyhawk, with its 9th level spells and Paladins?
Br0ken!
Quote from: Melan;563798I would not go so far, but when I finally got my hands on my OD&D set, and realised spells only went up to 5th and 6th level (for Clerics and Magic-Users, respectively), something just clicked. There were the sensible boundaries of magical power.
That's a good point. In AD&D, 5th level is probably about the end of really practical Magic-User spells. Even the
wall spells are more or less quotidian. There are a smattering of 6th level spells that are 'adventuring' useful, like
stone to flesh or perhaps
globe of invulnerability, but most of them and pretty much all the higher level spells could be thought of in terms of 4e rituals. Sure,
phase door,
incendiary cloud,
power word, kill... These are more for defending your keep than clearing out a dungeon.
CharOp started way before D&D. I would play Cowboys and Indians with my older brother, and he's always play this cowboy with a freaking gun that unlimited ammo!
"I got you! I got you! I got you! You're dead!"
Quote from: Melan;563798I would not go so far, but when I finally got my hands on my OD&D set, and realised spells only went up to 5th and 6th level (for Clerics and Magic-Users, respectively), something just clicked. There were the sensible boundaries of magical power.
There's a reason why, after over 30 years of continuous AD&D gaming, 99% of our time spent is on levels 1-10 ;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;563874There's a reason why, after over 30 years of continuous AD&D gaming, 99% of our time spent is on levels 1-10 ;)
That's not the reason why at our gaming table. The real reason that 90+% of the game time is spent on levels 1-10 is because of the lethality of the game. If you don't fudge the dice or play it "emotionally safe" on the PCs, it's actually pretty hard to reach 5th level in the first place. It's a challenge. And 9th level means you *are* a high level character, for intents and purposes.
Quote from: Benoist;563881That's not the reason why at our gaming table. The real reason that 90+% of the game time is spent on levels 1-10 is because of the lethality of the game. If you don't fudge the dice or play it "emotionally safe" on the PCs, it's actually pretty hard to reach 5th level in the first place. It's a challenge. And 9th level means you *are* a high level character, for intents and purposes.
Well, that's a big reason too ;) But those times when characters start getting to level 11-14 or so? We're usually ready to play a different character type. And to be honest, it does feel a little too much power for my tastes anyway.
Quote from: Benoist;563881That's not the reason why at our gaming table. The real reason that 90+% of the game time is spent on levels 1-10 is because of the lethality of the game. If you don't fudge the dice or play it "emotionally safe" on the PCs, it's actually pretty hard to reach 5th level in the first place. It's a challenge. And 9th level means you *are* a high level character, for intents and purposes.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;563888Well, that's a big reason too ;) But those times when characters start getting to level 11-14 or so? We're usually ready to play a different character type. And to be honest, it does feel a little too much power for my tastes anyway.
I guess someone should start writing the E6 variant E10. :) I always though 6th was kind of an odd choice for a cut-off. I understand the reasoning as they present it, but it applies to 3.x, and based on the assessment by Ryan Dancey. Neither of which automatically discredits it, but I think they are more of an arbitrary decision than thoughtful analysis. I am not saying Mr Dancey is wrong, precisely, but it reads more like the need to find four chunks that fit with an existing theory. The 'tiers' could have just as easily been divided up into levels 1-3, 4-14, 15-25 and 26-36 based on extrapolating the Moldvay/Cook series. Apprentice, Journeyman, Master and Ruler, perhaps.
Quote from: StormBringer;563901The 'tiers' could have just as easily been divided up into levels 1-3, 4-14, 15-25 and 26-36 based on extrapolating the Moldvay/Cook series. Apprentice, Journeyman, Master and Ruler, perhaps.
In my AD&D games anyway, level 9-10 is ruler. Most PCs by that time have enough wealth and rep to build their own strongholds.
Quote from: Melan;563798I would not go so far, but when I finally got my hands on my OD&D set, and realised spells only went up to 5th and 6th level (for Clerics and Magic-Users, respectively), something just clicked. There were the sensible boundaries of magical power.
Yeah i always thought that when casters start getting 7th level and higher they start to overwhelm the rest of the party and make the fighter pretty useless :-)
Hoho......
Quote from: jibbajibba;563904Yeah i always thought that when casters start getting 7th level and higher they start to overwhelm the rest of the party and make the fighter pretty useless :-)
Hoho......
Only by players who forget that rule in AD&D that says, "In order to cast spells, the caster must remain virtually motionless, and does not get an AC bonus from Dexterity. Any disruption, even a bump, ruins the spell for good."
;)
Quote from: Sacrosanct;563903In my AD&D games anyway, level 9-10 is ruler. Most PCs by that time have enough wealth and rep to build their own strongholds.
That seems a bit early to me, but I won't say it's wrong. I would think those levels are for further power consolidation until about 12th, maybe. Of course, if we are talking about 20 levels, 9th or 10th is probably about right.
Which brings up another set of 'tiers': 1-12, 13-24, 25-36. 10th level being the high end of "Normal" would be a good place to finish up the 'temporal power' game and start moving into the 'planar power' part.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;563872CharOp started way before D&D. I would play Cowboys and Indians with my older brother, and he's always play this cowboy with a freaking gun that unlimited ammo!
"I got you! I got you! I got you! You're dead!"
I think one has to delineate a difference between "character optimization" and "powergaming". While similar, the latter has certainly been around since the start of the game, while the former only really became possible when an increasing number of options were presented that allowed people to fiddle with and tweak their characters for the sake of making them more "optimal" rather than any actual setting or in-character considerations.
RPGPundit