Well, I can say that I'd much rather sit down at a BALANCED table of scruffy sub-optimals than share a party with nothing but 5 Platonically Ideal Strikers.
Alas, since many RPGA games are played in convention settings, with gloriously inconsistent DMs, wonderfully inept fellow players, and the occasional game-interrupting fire drill, there can really be no such thing as 'opitmization', except that which optimizes the likelihood you'll enjoy playing your character in just about any situation.
Personally, I don't really mind the 'optmize or die, n00b!' genus, because they usually travel alone, and if one ends up at my table, they may get a little cranky that I play out my Diplomacy check instead of just rolling, but knowing enough of them are out there and likely to show up in any given LFR game most of the time takes any potential pressure I might feel to sacrifice glorious, inefficent character-reinforcing Feats (Ilmater's Martyrdom!) and weapons (my efreet-tongue scimitar!) in favor of the soul-deadening grind of a pure numbers game. They've got that covered! Viva la difference!
-Lefty
Jim Crocker, Managing Partner Modern Myths, LLC Northampton, MA www.modern-myths.com
One thing I noticed at this most recent GenCon is that Optimized Characters really annoy RPGA DMs ... and I did around 90-100 points of damage on my first round they were simply ticked off at me.
This is hogwash, absolute rubbish. I apologize for the following rant, but this is something I feel pretty strongly about. Out of all the problems and complaints that people have griped about or discussed regarding this campaign, this here is without a doubt the thing that ticks me off the most. There is this stigma from some (not all) players and DMs regarding optimized characters, and I think it is a result of this completely erroneous assumption that everyone (and by extension everyone's character) is an equally specially little snow-flake, and that nobody should be "better" than anyone else. This is such bunk.
Players: D&D is a game. It's a cooperative game instead of a competative game, but it is still a game. Not every player in any game is going to be equal, and that's just a fact of life. I am sick and tired of seeing first hand, and hearing about, players who get punished because their characters are more "optimized" than other characters at their table. Don't get me wrong, I do not think that all characters should be cheesed out or optimized ... it is not a necisary ingredient for enjoying the game at all. If you want to play a character that is not optimized because of the concept you want to play, and you enjoy that character I say more power to you and have fun! But with that I feel you need to have the maturity to not pitch a hissy-fit if you feel like your character gets overshadowed by a more optimized character. Players of optimized characters need to stop whining about other characters being "weak," and players of non-optimized characters really really need to stop whining about optimized characters being "cheesey." Not all heroes are created equal after all, and one person's character concept of a Minotaur Tome Wizard who breaks against the mold and follows the hard path of magic despite the handicaps of his race is no more or less valid a concept than another player's Deva Orb Wizard prodigy who has dedicated himself to capatilizing on all of his strengths and striving to be the absolute best, most effective Wizard he can be.
DMs: Why do some DMs have such a problem dealing with players of various levels of skill, or characters of various levels of strength and effectiveness? Our job as DMs is to facilitate fun, facilitate the type of play the players are looking for. Our job is not to "beat" the players, and our job is absolutely not to enforce upon them what we think their idea of fun should be. If your players are wiping the floor with the monsters, get into it! Have fun! Allow them to revel in their triumphs, and revel right along with them! If you're the type of DM who would get angry and frustrated when your players waltz through the encounters, and respond by fudging rules or dice-rolls, or dropping extra challenges on them to "show them who's boss" then it is my opinion you should not be a DM.
Here's my philosophy: Use DME to personalize the story for the players, or to shore up holes or weakpoints in the plot and setting. Use DME to fix any obvious oversights or errors. I honestly feel however that you do not need to use DME to adjust the difficulty of the mods. The mods as they are written are generally fair, some are harder than others, but that's part of the appeal of the game.
Do not increase the difficulty of the encounters. If you increase the difficulty of the encounters because the PCs are getting lucky, playing smart, have impressively-built characters, or something along those lines than you are effectively negating their advantage, and punishing them for playing well. Not every adventure or every encounter needs to be challenging in the combat department either. As an example CORM 1-1 "Black Knight of Arabel" is an adventure with almost no challenge to it's combats - nearly any party and any group of players can walk through the fights. However, it's one of the adventures I have run the most, for the most different assortment of players. It was one of the first examples of an LFR module with a Skill Challenge that was actually engaging, well-thought out, and fun to play. When I run this mod, I use props, and I heavily focus on the story. The challenge (and the fun) in this mod is the story, and the decisions the players make, especially how they use the power and responsibilty they've been given without abusing it (and losing an awesome Story Award). I've never dropped any PC in this adventure, but I've also never had any player be bored when playing through it either.
Do not decrease the difficulty of the encounters. Like I said before, D&D is a game. Not only does that mean that not everyone is going to be as "good" at it as everyone else, but it wouldn't be a game if their wasn't aspects of success and failure. If your players are getting trounced, and you decrease the difficulty to ensure their survival and success, then you might as well just be mustering tables, telling the player's what the plot would've been, handing out rewards, and then waiting for the next slot. It's a game. The players are not going to win all the time. If you decrease the difficulty than you are effectively rewarding the players for being unlucky, playing poorly, or creating unoptimized characters.
I have been running LFR since it started. I've run adventures for all levels of play, and for countless groups of players - some die hard CharOpers, some who had never played an RPG or anything like it, and everything in between, and I have never changed the difficulty or the stats (aside from fixing some errors in skill challenges in the early mods). Even without adjusting the difficulty of the mods, I have still managed to challenge players, even ones playing super "cheesey" characters. Believe it or not, tactics and how smart you run any given encounter has more of an impact on how challenging that monster is than it's stats. I never fudge rolls or pull punches - I roll my dice infront of the screen since I am usually circling around the table anyway (the three most important tips to being an engaging storyteller/game master: 1. Get up. 2. Get up. 3. Get the &$@# up!) and let the dice roll where they may. If the party trounces the monsters handily, great! If the party gets annihilated, that kind of sucks, but it is a game after all - and the risk of "losing" is part of what defines playing a game.
Do not increase the difficulty of the encounters. If you increase the difficulty of the encounters because the PCs are getting lucky, playing smart, have impressively-built characters, or something along those lines than you are effectively negating their advantage, and punishing them for playing well ...
Do not decrease the difficulty of the encounters. Like I said before, D&D is a game. Not only does that mean that not everyone is going to be as "good" at it as everyone else, but it wouldn't be a game if their wasn't aspects of success and failure. If your players are getting trounced, and you decrease the difficulty to ensure their survival and success, then you might as well just be mustering tables, telling the player's what the plot would've been, handing out rewards, and then waiting for the next slot ...
I understand where you're coming from, but I do disagree with it. For a start, your assumption that if I am walking over encounters then I am being "punished" if you increase the difficulty level for me is, for me an players like me, totally wrong. I much prefer a challenging adventure, so for me, you will punish me by boring me if you DON'T make the change. My enjoyment of the game does not depend on how weak the opposition was, but how well I play my character. In combat, weak opposition is no fun. Beef it up and make it fun.
Personally, I like a risky game. I would like my characters to be in danger, so I tend to agree with you on the second option, for my characters. However, for many people, this is not the case. I would make an exception in cases where there are circumstances that seem to make this particularly unlucky for the players. for example, a party that is randomly mustered with no controllers who gets into a massive minion fest. Or, and this is a *very common* issue, a rule or module misreading that makes a combat just plain wrong. As a GM you might not see it, and therefore a strict "no making it easier" GM will wrongly punish players.
Do not increase the difficulty of the encounters. If you increase the difficulty of the encounters because the PCs are getting lucky, playing smart, have impressively-built characters, or something along those lines than you are effectively negating their advantage, and punishing them for playing well ...
Do not decrease the difficulty of the encounters. Like I said before, D&D is a game. Not only does that mean that not everyone is going to be as "good" at it as everyone else, but it wouldn't be a game if their wasn't aspects of success and failure. If your players are getting trounced, and you decrease the difficulty to ensure their survival and success, then you might as well just be mustering tables, telling the player's what the plot would've been, handing out rewards, and then waiting for the next slot ...
I have to comment on this. You seem to have gotten your rant on, and that's your prerogative, but not all players feel this way. I regularly get told by players that they wish that the modules would be more challenging. Only very recently, with some of the newest 1-4 mods, have I been in a situation where perhaps players wished I would lower challenges ... but I've never been asked to.
I try to manage changes (and by this I currently mean increases in challenge) to mods so that they'll be challenging, but fun. I don't always get there, and sometimes even without changing the mods, I get perhaps more challenge than folks would like. But mostly I try to make things fun.
So, I'll ask this question for you, since you stated it so plainly. If you don't like GMs to increase nor decrease the difficulty of encounters, how do you propose that we as DMs tweak encounters to be the most fun for everyone? If I were to run into a high optimized party, leaving the encounter as is, might (emphasis on "might") well result in TMK (Total Monster Kill) within a round ... or less. If I run into a high disorganized and non-optimized party, I might run into a TPK within the same amount of time. I, personally, don't see either of those outcomes as being particularly fun for either group of players. Would it be better if those outcomes occurred in 2 rounds? 3? I don't know. But I don't think the answers we're looking for are black and white.
Perhaps your credo should be, "Do not adjust encounters once the encounter has begun" ... at least then, once the "advantage" or "disadvantage" has been gained, the "game" continues the way it should (in your opinion). However, I think DMs always should assess where their players are, both in terms of skill and enjoyment, and adjust all aspects of the game (difficulty, story, RP, etc) so that it is fun for them. I agree with you that the DM shouldn't be "out to get" the players but in fact, DMs do play against the players, especially when rolling dice to hit. *shrug* that is the point of the DM.
Where I play LFR, the DM's gives the PC's a choice to either play the game up or down, but then the chips fall where they land.
One time the DM looked at the module, looked at the characters and said you all are playing this one down or you will be TPK'd. (it was a level 1-3 and we had 4 level 1's and a level 3). I am fine with the DM making that decision, but once the game is started-just run the game according to the module, Ian.
Some people build highly optimized PCs exactly because they want combat to be a breeze and spend more time on RPing and the story.
The fact is that there are a couple of gaming styles, and those people all want something different from the game. The job of the DM is to make the game as fun as possible within the constaints of the adventure and DME. Sometimes this means you need to increase the challenge of the fights, sometimes you need to keep it the same and sometimes you need to decrease it. I strongly advice DMs to read the DMG even if you think it is not necessary, especially the section on game styles is important in a discussion like this. The hardest job for the DM is to deal with these issues with a mixed group. It is difficult to please a hard core tinkerer, a slayer and a method actor in the same adventure
Of course, as a player you have a big influence on this as well. Simply tell your DM what you like.
Of course, we all the know the best way to deal with a method actor is:
Sorry WOTC, you lost me with Essentials. So where I used to buy every book that came out, now I will be very choosy about what I buy. Can we just get back to real 4e?
1. Wizards fight dirty. They hit their enemies in the NADs. -- Dragon9 2. A barbarian hits people with his axe. A warlord hits people with his barbarian. 3. Boo-freakin'-hoo, ya light-slingin' finger-wigglers. -- MrCelcius in response to the Cleric's Healer's Lore nerf
As both a player and a DM I prefer a challenge. This is not simply in combat encounters, but also in RP encounters.
I feel that a group should always come through by the skin of their teeth, as thats what makes your character feel heroic. I run games and always DME encounters to be challenging, so that at the end of the average adventure the players have only one or two surges left, if that, and no daily powers. I want them to feel like the finale is life or death.
I also take a similar approach to Skill Challenges and RP encounters, I want to make everyone feel like their roll/role is the deciding one. I make it so that in a Skill Challenge every check pushes things along, whether good or bad, I try to introduce a change of scene or something pertinent with every check, not simply waiting until the characters reach X Success or X Failures before determining what has happened. In an RP encounter I try to respond to everyone around the table ensuring they all feel like they are being engaged by the NPC(s). I try to ensure that everyone elicits some useful information, and leave various pieces of information only available to certain PCs.
I also expect the same thing to happen when I am playing in a game as well, I expect to be challenged.
So, I'll ask this question for you, since you stated it so plainly. If you don't like GMs to increase nor decrease the difficulty of encounters, how do you propose that we as DMs tweak encounters to be the most fun for everyone?
This is what I was trying to say, and I went off on my rant tangent and maybe I didn't get my point across. All a DM needs to do to challenge the PCs is not be lazy.
I've run most of the mods that we have available right now, and what I am saying is that probably about three quarters of them are strong enough, if run right, to at the very least challenge a group of hard-core, bleeding-edge, "broken" CharOp style characters, and possibly wipe a group that isn't Optimized, and all of this without adjusting any of the stats of the adventure.
I see a lot of people who say that the adventures are weak, but that just isn't the case.
Instead of running the monsters like passive and indesicive bags of HP, all DMs need to do is run the monsters the same way they would run a PC. On a player's turn, they generally think about how to get the most effect out of their actions. The PCs team up on monsters, avoid tactical hindrances, work as a team, focus-fire, take out the biggest threats, etc. What would happen to a party of PCs if they just sort of randomly wandered around and attacked, didn't understand their own powers, didn't work together, and (god-forbid) rolled a dice each turn to see which of the monsters they would attack? They'd get wiped, and this is what happens to the enemies when the DM runs them that way.
As an example, most DMs are afraid to "gang up" on the weakest or the most threatening PC, even though that is exactly what a party of well-played characters does. Well there is a whole Role of classes that exist just to try to keep the monsters from doing exactly that. So do it.
I could go on and on with DM tricks and tactics that I almost never see, but that's a whole 'nother conversation. The point is you don't need to tweak the stats to challenge even Opped PCs.
Tweaking monsters is so subjective, every DM is going to have their own idea of what to do, and what they think would be "balanced" ... since it varies so much, it's not exactly fair. But if you run the monsters by the book, just run them ruthlessly and smart, then it's definitely fair, and honestly I think it's whole worlds better than moving stats and numbers around.
If any DMs out there don't believe me, I challenge you to just try running your critters tactically and eficiently for an adventure or two. Really put some thought into it. Get to know the monsters and the combats before you run the mod. Imagine how they could use their powers and teamwork to the best effect. Look for synergies. Play them exactly the way a group of Players would play their party of Adventurers. Give it a shot, what have you got to lose? I'm not making this stuff up, it really does work. :P
Now that is a post I agree upon A DM has a huge influence on the challenge of an adventure just by the tactics he uses. More often then not, doing so will have a bigger influence then raising or lowering the level of a monster.
