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

Researchers claim quantum computer breakthrough

IBM Says Practical Quantum Computers are Close

Research advances quantum computers

Outside the realm of quantum computers:
Computer turns into boardgame master of all it surveys

Princeton researchers working at forefront of 'exascale' supercomputing

Neuroscience joins cryptography

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

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!