Community

DarkFelEvilBadGuy wrote:

There are too many ways to absolutely define optimized, and it can refer to many different things to optimize as well. But for purposes of this post, optimizing essentially means making decisions (both in character build and tactical decisions) to intentionally improve your character's chance of success in encounters/adventures. For example, choosing a high score for your primary stat instead of a low score.

Optimization doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be good enough to provide the players with a reasonable chance of success in the encounter/adventure.

I think this was all your original post was missing. When you don't define what you consider optimizing, then the default is to assume the character optimization forum stance. DPR is god and you don't take anything that doesn't serve to further maximize your character.

I think you are only asking that each character brought to the table be effective. Know your role and build so that you can be successful in your role. A bow ranger with a 16 dex might be sub-optimal, but still functional. You won't kill as quickly and on the overall, the group will probably suffer a little more damage, but the character can still do their job. A bow ranger with a 12 dex using a shortbow and taking linguist as their first feat is actually a hindrance to the group, since his presence adds more monsters than his ability to kill them can compensate for. This is worse when the poorly built character is your defender or leader.

However, remember that as long as the character is rules legal, the player has every right to play that character. We may not like it, but all we can do is offer friendly advice on how to improve their character (if they are receptive) or grit our teeth, get through the module, and avoid tables with that player in the future (if they actively get agitated at your advice and/or refuse to learn how to play well.) If they are roleplaying an interesting character, I'll be a lot more forgiving than I would if they both suck stat-wise and sit there like a lump roleplay-wise.

The problem is when a player sincerely and genuinely creates a character that they love. They might be effective in a non-RPGA "free world", but might be ineffective in preset RPGA encounters/adventures. The DM would have to use DME to extremely accomodate for that character's lack of optimization.

And that DM should be prepared to do so. DME states that if the group is having a rough time of it, the DM should be prepared to tone things down. Fun is king. It's more important to adjust to compensate for an un-optimized player than it is to run the module as written. Just because most of us can and sometimes do build death machines, doesn't mean everyone should have to and it is the DMs job to adjust for that.

This is something I see way too little of in the RPGA. I've had many modules where we just walked all over the encounters without breaking a sweat. The DM should be adjusting, adding more monsters to the second encounter, beefing up some stats, etc, to make the fight a little more challenging. If the module is too hard and it looks like a TPK is in the offering, the DM needs to scale things back. This is not Living Greyhawk. The goal is not to weed out the unworthy and test the best players to their limits. The goal is to gather together a group of random players and have fun.

Unfortunately, I've seen way too many DMs that run the mod strictly as written. The only adjustment they do is the one listed for 4 or 6 players. They never tone the monsters down or ramp them up based on how well the party is doing. They can't cope with someone trying to use skills that are not listed in the skill challenge. If a player asks for some knowledge or lore that isn't part of the write-up, or ask the NPC a question to which no response is pregenerated, they just shrug. They insist the PCs start in the 2x3 kill box even in an open field. If a DC isn't given for something, you can't do it (even if the elven monk with the 15 athletics is just trying to jump on a tabletop in a tavern.) They are unable to adjust on the fly for the randomness that always comes with players, especially ones they are unfamiliar with.

My point is ... it is the player's job to build a character they will enjoy playing. If they love that character, then they should play the heck out of it, regardless of how optimal it is. They should do their best to be effective in their role, but it is the DMs job to make up for it if they are not. It is not our job to peer pressure everyone into optimizing. It is the DMs job to be prepared for everything else and be ready to wing it when something new comes up or when things are going south. If the DM can't handle it, they are the ones that need to be talked to, have advice given to, and learn to optimize their DM skills.

DarkFelEvilBadGuy wrote:

Optimization doesn't have to be perfect, but it should be good enough to provide the players with a reasonable chance of success in the encounter/adventure.

That is not optimizing. That is asking people to not make characters that intentionally suck.
There are a few players I avoided like the plague in LG because they made the worst decisions, built characters that didn't work, and totally didn't get the game at all. That has little to do with optimizing.
I don't optimize my PCs. I choose feats and powers that both fit my character concept and add to her effectiveness and versatility. I likely don't pick the most optimized feats, but they work.
My bard generally has the highest to hit in the group and can Bluff the Balckstaff out of his robes, my wizard was designed to be able to target any defense, and my paladin can give and take hits (and has the Tempus feat - she was a paladin of Tempus before the feat came out, but it seemed stupid not too take it).
The characters work. I do not consider them optimized though.

Gomez