Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 skaevthos Apr 07, 2009 16:29:44	I've noticed over the years, though this has been prevalent in any form of gaming, that people seem to be taking D&D too seriously. There seems to be a train of thought that system mastery in a noncompetitive platform is the norm these days, when it wasn't so or even isn't. D&D has always been about enjoying a shared experience with your friends and family, about enjoying a relaxing time pretending to exsist in a fantasy setting, while striving to beat the Big Bad Evil Guy/Gal/Thing at the end of it all. Lately I've been reading blogs, websites, forums and there seems to be a shift away from traditional roleplaying and more in the route of powergaming or optimizing, similar to many current day MMORPGs. I just don't understand this. When did D&D shift into the realm of personal achievement over team achievement? When did exalting the PC into a one-trick pony for "the sake of the group", give way to the original character design which required synergy with the group? Are people taking D&D to seriously, or is the game evolving beyond the Team Player concept of It's original design function? Note: This isn't a bash at powergamers or optimizers either, so don't take it as such.
#2 toastedamphibian Apr 07, 2009 16:37:17	It's a diffrent kind of fun. They are not necessarilly taking it more seriously than you, they are just enjoying it in a diffrent fashion.
#3 terronus Apr 07, 2009 16:42:33	Monte Cook (I believe) had an article a few years ago that addressed this directly. Players are rewarded for feat/class/spell choices. He mentioned that at a gaming convention, toughness can be a sound feat for a one-time session... but not for a regular gaming group character. System mastery is part of the allure of D&D. I (personally) enjoy playing the best of a class, and not simply the class.
#4 skaevthos Apr 07, 2009 16:46:48	It's a different kind of fun. They are not necessarily taking it more seriously than you, they are just enjoying it in a different fashion. That's a reasonable response. I say everyone should enjoy D&D the way they believe gives them the most enjoyment, I just find it hard to wrap my head around this concept of competitively gameplay in a system that neither rewards or encourages this kind of play. I compare it to chess: You can choose to play chess in a completely different fashion from the established quota, but no matter how many times you play or "win", you don't actually gain anything because you're not playing by the established structure. This seriousness in powergaming or optimizing for the sake of the individual over the needs of the team is a foreign concept to me. I build reasonably optimized builds myself, but not to the extent I've witnessed online builds from different people. These builds are one-two-trick ponies, sometimes they have a subset, but otherwise don't add anything past the individual gain of the Player, over the gain of the Team. I'm simply trying to understand where this outbreak of seriousness in competitive personal gamemastery, in a system that doesn't give you anything for doing so. If you win because your one-trick pony came in handy, but everyone else around you failed, did you actually gain anything? This overseriousness creates a friction (I have found), that enforces a mindset of personalized gain through optimization (best DPR, best NADs, best AC, ect.), while neglecting the focus on the team synergy through character design, not simple mechanics. I'm interested in a light hearted discussion on the matter. I know how cranky powergamers and optimizers get if you think you're slandering them. Which I am not, btw.
#5 EscherEnigma Apr 07, 2009 16:56:52	That's a rather... limited... view of optimization. The fact is that yes, you can optimize a build to be a one trick pony. You can also optimize to be a great team supporter, a diplomacy monkey, or any number of things. If you're talking about things you've seen over at the optimization forum, then you're probably chafing at the theoretical builds which can get a bit silly. Notice that when people are talking about a build they actually expect to see use they tend to tone down the specialization and add more versatility and team work tools.1 Mostly though, optimization can be fun in getting a truely fantastic result. The trick (for a playable build) is to make it versatile and well-rounded enough that when the situation doesn't favor your fantastic success, you don't do dismally. That, and sometimes it's just plain fun to play with the math and numbers of the game to make a character that should never have seen the light of day2. Though for that I use 3.X, as 4.0 isn't nearly customizable enough. --- 1These comments are mostly regarding my own experiences with the optimization forum, which are admittedly out-of-date. They may have changed since I was a regular lurker there. 2Making a level 2 character that has three attacks (at a good attack bonus), can deal con damage, and effectively rip most appropriately leveled enemies into enemy-shaped chunks was very... satisfying. Sure, if anything hit him he was paste, but if they didn't hit him they were lunch. Literally. He had a bite attack.
#6 toastedamphibian Apr 07, 2009 17:18:41	A bard/sublimechord/warweaver can be an optomised build that is absolutly a one trick pony but is all about team buffing. Beign a one trick pony does not mean you are not usefull to the team. It means your usefull in yuour element. If the whole team specs the same way, well thats a problem.
#7 pigknight Apr 07, 2009 17:23:06	<(>o<)> Piggy angry! If people keep taking the Edition War seriously I'm going to put it on hiatus.
#8 fenrir7139 Apr 07, 2009 17:27:20	I have to agree with most of the guys here; just because someone's "optimizing" doesn't mean they are only optimizing things that increase their personal glory.
#9 skaevthos Apr 07, 2009 17:34:56	Oh I agree with the assessment that optimization doesn't preclude rolelplaying or negatively impacting the game. I refer to those specific instances where certain people seem to be under the impression that optimization is the only form to play the game, or that anyone who doesn't optimize a "certain way" is harming the game. Not everyone thinks this way or course, but it's a growing trend. I took a look over at the Optimization board just now too see what the fuss was about. There are a lot of really great ideas in there, some good builds you could really work with and still be effective. Some of them though, I'd wager about 3/4's from the small selection I was able to find, would fit into the "one-trick pony" category. Which (for the Optimization Forum anyway), seems to have a large focus on DPR, even for character's who generally Leader's or Defenders. While any class take take on another role with easy, I'm not sure when DPR became the equivalent to the DPS in MMOPRGs. I'm still browsing the Opboard, so maybe I'll find a build that is more then just one idea optimized to the max. It would be nice to find a generalized, though optimized Fighter build, or Rogue. I'll look further into it. Also, I appreciate all the comments so far, it's be a good read. I also commend everyone for taking it as a light hearted discussion and not some bashing attempt, which I get a lot at other forums. *coughenworldcough*
#10 toastedamphibian Apr 07, 2009 17:39:18	For the most part, the people who make thoes builds are not playing them. Only munchkins show up to an actual game with a character like that. They are playign a diffrent game. They are competing with eacother for records, for fun. Atleast, that is how it was in the 3.5 version. Theoretical optomization, as opposed to Practical optomization.
#11 skaevthos Apr 07, 2009 17:42:11	That's a good point. I'd like to see some practical optimization myself. Maybe a subset of Optimization forums? As I say, I'm still looking at the Opboard; and the majority of those builds tend to fit into the theoretical camp. Maybe I'll get a lucky dice roll and find a +3 practical optimized character. You never know with the fate of the dice. ;)
#12 toastedamphibian Apr 07, 2009 17:44:36	Stop looking at Builds then. The practical optomization threads dont tend to work that way. Make a thread, tell them about your character concept, what you want to make, and what youve come up with. Then, if yoru nice, people will give you advice on makeing it better, without ruining your original idea.
#13 skaevthos Apr 07, 2009 17:54:50	Stop looking at Builds then. The practical optomization threads dont tend to work that way. Make a thread, tell them about your character concept, what you want to make, and what youve come up with. Then, if yoru nice, people will give you advice on makeing it better, without ruining your original idea. You misunderstand me, which is my fault, I apologize. I'm not looking for help optimization, I know how to do that well enough on my own without someone else questioning my work, or pointing out something that's not completely optimal for character reasons. I don't require help with that, and if I did, I'd bounce the ideas of the people in my group first before online strangers. I look at builds at the Opboard for a comparison model. If I say I find it a startling trend that pure optimization (theoretical kind) is becoming more and more prevalent, then those are the concepts I look at first over all others. The Opboards are a good example of this trend: There are more over-the-top optimized builds then optimized concept builds, which strikes me as odd. If theoretical builds are just that, theoretical, then why bother even posting them? Online recognition within the roleplaying community perhaps? "Bragging rights" for bending or breaking the game in a way no one else thought up first? Those seem like pretty weak reasons to take time to build such characters, when D&D is primarily a noncompetitive platform. I'd like to see more concept builds that work with optimization, without being theoretically ridiculous about it. And I'm not implying these boards, I'm implying every online board that discusses D&D in one form or another. As I say, I'm still browsing the Opboard, so maybe I'll find some better examples of the practical builds over the more predominate theoretical builds.
#14 toastedamphibian Apr 07, 2009 17:58:02	If theoretical builds are just that, theoretical, then why bother even posting them? Online recognition within the roleplaying community perhaps? "Bragging rights" for bending or breaking the game in a way no one else thought up first? Those seem like pretty weak reasons to take time to build such characters, when D&D is primarily a noncompetitive platform. Yes. This exactly this. Dosn't seem worthwhile to you, but that is exactly why they do it. To see what they can get away with within the confines of the rules set and have fun comparing their monsters to others. That is the point of all of it. If you want to see actual characters intended for pl;ay, then look at the thread where people are asking for help, and examine the end result. Or the "Guide" threads.
#15 skaevthos Apr 07, 2009 18:00:53	I'll take a look at the guide books, though if they're anything like most of the "guides" I've seen on other sites, I shan't get my hopes up to soon or too much. ;)
#16 Touchfuzzy Apr 07, 2009 18:38:11	In all honesty, the reason they share them... Who wouldn't want to tell everyone how they can make their character into a sandwich? (seriously, that was one of the most hilarious builds ever.)
#17 RUMPLESTIX Apr 07, 2009 19:07:22	About this: If theoretical builds are just that, theoretical, then why bother even posting them? Online recognition within the roleplaying community perhaps? "Bragging rights" for bending or breaking the game in a way no one else thought up first? Those seem like pretty weak reasons to take time to build such characters, when D&D is primarily a noncompetitive platform. I agree with TA and Tf. Basically, juggling the numbers can be a lot of fun. Also, there is competition. There is an unofficial but most certainly existing competition to come up with the highest dpr (damage per round) build. This relates to the comparing monsters/ideas bit mentioned above.
#18 Mad_Jack Apr 07, 2009 22:14:23	I agree with TA and Tf. Basically, juggling the numbers can be a lot of fun. Also, there is competition. There is an unofficial but most certainly existing competition to come up with the highest dpr (damage per round) build. This relates to the comparing monsters/ideas bit mentioned above. As others have stated, theoretical optimization really has nothing to do with playing D&D, it's all about the mental excercise and the challenge of juggling the numbers. And, just like any other form of juggling, it's nice to know that you've got an audience who appreciates your juggling skill. Give the CO boys any other set of rules for something and they'd have just as much fun tweaking those numbers. Actual playable characters that come off the optimization boards are generally much more well-rounded, optimized toward a specific character concept rather than "how much damage can I do in one round?"... You can optimize toward almost any end, and a dedicated diplomancer will require a much different approach than a damage-monster or a stealth-ninja. It's all about having your character be the best they can be at their chosen role and function within the party. Since 4th Ed. is lighter on non-combat rules, you'll tend to see combat abilities getting a slightly heavier weight within those optimizations than in previous editions. For me, part of the fun of playing is getting into the head of my character and saying "how would they build themselves if they were filling in their stats?"... For example, I had a 3.5 rogue who used a spiked chain and had a couple swashbuckler and fighter levels for the simple reason that he was an intelligent and tatical-minded finesse fighter, and those levels/weapons/feats simply best represented the particular fighting style of a character otherwise tricked out as a skillmonkey.