|
2 years ago ::
Sep 09, 2011 - 9:50PM
#261
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
The trick there is to optimize for survivability. Which, by the way, is exactly why Wil (the stupid DPR avenger) is the weakest of my 3 power PCs, despite having the best CharOp anti-tofu numbers by a mile.
If you're durable (to silly durable), you'll have plenty of time to realize that you need to pull out your cheese. If you're a glass canon, you've already shattered by the time you realize it'll be hard.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2011 - 1:12AM
#262
|
Date Joined:
Oct 28, 2010
|
Many times the rest of the mod has already happened. In time sensitive environments the DM has to be very mindful of pacing.
This is particularly true with most LFR adventures. The RP happens in Encounters 1 and 2 - with maybe a skill challenge - and then there are a string of combats once "the table has been set."
Slightly off-topic:
I've had good luck with immediately starting the first combat (which is inevitable in most mods) to get the juices flowing, then 'flashing back" to the roleplaying encounters that led up to it (i.e. "in medias res")
That, I'd try to avoid. The illusion of PC agency in LFR is fragile at best, and taking away the chance to actually decide if you want the mission (even though we all know you'll say yes, because otherwise you'll go home) is a powerful way to annoy some players. In the mods which have offered me that option as a DM, I have flipped the first two encounters around.
Actually starting in medias res on the other hand (as with Curse of the Queen of Thorns) works well to establish the urgent tenor of the adventure, and let you know what's going on in a practical manner.
Long story short, Queen of Thorns does in medias res and early combats well. ELTU 3-5 shoots for it, and misses slightly as written.
Usually the intro time to the adventure doesn't get in the way of the first fight too much. It's the intro time plus the 2 hours of investigation which starts me eyerolling when we begin play at 7:30 or 8, and don't start the first of 3 combats til 10:30 or 11.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2011 - 8:30AM
#263
|
|
|
Kilpatds - I have to say that you are the first person I have "met" that makes optimized characters so combats are quicker and you can RP more.
Technically, that's one of the big reasons I do it too. I have limits on it (I don't believe in the CharOp solo nova option, frex), but I much prefer a reasonable level of damage and minimal level of hard control, so everyone (PCs and monsters) gets a couple turns to strut their stuff, then you wrap up the combat and move to the next encounter.
You said "so everyone (PCs and monsters) gets a couple turns to strut their stuff" - I don't consider that uber-optimized. With the extremely optimized characters/parties I'm talking about, the combat is over (or essentially over) half-way through the first round. As in, some PCs don't even get a turn (or a meaningful turn) because they only had a 38 initiative. I play with you - I would not consider your PCs to be brokenly optimized. I like playing powerful characters too, just not ones that are so powerful they completely break mods in half.
Like you said, you have limits on it. "True" optimizers, the ones I really hate playing with, don't believe in limits. If they can build a character that can automatically kill 10 Orcuses in one turn, they will build that character and they will play them that way regardless of whether they're in a fight against 30 Orcuses or a group of cuddly kittens.
Lori Anderson
WotC Freelancer, LFR author
@LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author)
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author)
CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author)
QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author)
EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author)
TotalCon: http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2011 - 8:45AM
#264
|
|
|
Problem (well depends on your outlook) is that some people do not like tactical combat and 4e allows you to "stun everything, save at -15" and avoid having to worry about tactics completely. While I would usually consider it a cop-out move, I will be damn happy to have that option hit the table if things go horribly wrong  . There is just never ever a need to lead off with it.
I totally believe the people who say they overoptimize in favor of more RP, I have come across the type enough. To me that just proves the point that overoptimizers are essentially building so they can dictate their preference to the rest of the table. When done to have the option it can be hilarious, cool and lifesaving. In a group of like-minded individuals it can certainly get you some extra RP time and fun. The problems start when people are not in sync with the other players and/or DM.
Its really nothing new. We have probably all seen this go horribly wrong and amusingly right (examples a plenty in the thread of both).
I know I am repeating myself, but I don't have a problem with overoptimisation. I just have a problem with people that are being d*cks. Someone with a cheesy +insaneamount initiative and that -15 stun that goes first and disables the entire room without a care for the other players wishes, the DM or wether the situation warrants it. That person is just simply breaking Wheaton's law.
Oh and to be sure, as a player.. I've done it. And I felt awesome for a while and then I didn't (and then I did and then I didn't.. its weird like that ). In the end it always comes back to the same cliche. There are 7 people at a full table, and it helps if everyone tries to let everyone have fun..
(again with the new agey crud.. maybe I am growing soft.. I may have to consider trying to write intro mods )
Hmmm... I had never thought about over-optimizing being a way to dictate playstyle preferences on the rest of the table. I don't mind people having powerful options in their back pocket to use in emergencies. What bugs me is when people use their extremely broken stuff all the time, just for the sake of using it. Even when the situation does not call for it and even when it ruins the fun of others at the table.
I've won initiative and alpha-struck a BBEG before. (There were some mooks, but the encounter was basically over.) It was awesome for about 30 seconds and then it wasn't, because I realized I had ruined the encounter and made the game less enjoyable for everyone at the table (myself included). Now, even if I have a character that can easily obliterate a combat in the first round, I choose not to do that. For example, I rarely use my action point in the first round or lead off with powerful dailies. It's generally not necessary and it usually just makes the game less fun, so I avoid it.
Lori Anderson
WotC Freelancer, LFR author
@LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author)
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author)
CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author)
QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author)
EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author)
TotalCon: http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 10, 2011 - 2:29PM
#265
|
Date Joined:
May 29, 2001
|
Skimming the thread, I see a lot of people saying, "Overoptimized PCs kill our fun" without addressing the counterpoint. When you start a combat and the PCs are all bloodied, stunned, dominated, or outright killed (yes, I've seen it happen) by the end of round 1, you begin to understand why these overoptimized PCs exist.
So you're saying what some of us are calling 'overoptimized' characters come from the desire to take those one-round TPKs and ram them down the DM's throat?
Sounds like
a) someone needs to alert the DM that those kind of 'death box' combats aren't fun, and
b) you're proving my point for me.
--
Pauper
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 11, 2011 - 8:14AM
#266
|
Date Joined:
Mar 15, 2001
|
So you're saying what some of us are calling 'overoptimized' characters come from the desire to take those one-round TPKs and ram them down the DM's throat?
Actually, it comes from the desire to PREVENT A TPK.
Sounds like
a) someone needs to alert the DM that those kind of 'death box' combats aren't fun, and
b) you're proving my point for me.
a) We alert the local DMs about 'death box' combats - but beggers can't be choosers. We're having a severe problem in the local area getting enough DMs for the game days, so we take what we can get. Some DMs simply have the mindset that the module should be run as written, no matter how insane the fight is. In their eyes, if they DME the challenge level, the characters end up getting rewards they are not entitled to receive. I understand that mindset, though I think many carry that too far.
b) Nothing we do is going to change the modules that have already been playtested, approved, and released for general play. The best that can happen is that the writers see our comments, and take them into account when writing future modules. Thus, if the modules can't change to accomodate the characters, then the characters have to change to be able to handle the modules.
It IS possible to write a module that gives enough guidance so even a run-it-as-written DM will be able to match the difficulty level to fit the characters. However, the majority rely on the boilerplate about DME, and leave it at that. Such an approach works with veteran DMs who are flexible, but doesn't work as well with novice or rigid DMs.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 11, 2011 - 1:32PM
#267
|
Date Joined:
Aug 17, 2007
|
So, essentially (no pun intended) if some of the energy that goes into creating I Win buttons for PCs that allow people to not have to bother with combat (tactical or otherwise) went into improving the quality of DMs through better guidance instead, overoptimizers would go away?
I doubt it as I do not really buy the premise that it is mostly a reaction to (near) TPK's, but it might provide a more useful avenue for arms-race avoidance?
To DME, or not to DME: that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer The slings and arrows of outrageous powergaming, Or to take arms against a sea of Munchkins, And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;No more;
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 11, 2011 - 3:40PM
#268
|
|
|
I have seen many, many more combats ruined by overoptimizers than by bad "kill box" encounters run by bad DMs.
In order to have an unfun experience with a "kill box" encounter you need (1) a bad encounter, (2) a bad DM, and (3) bad luck (such as everyone losing initiative). Having all three of those things happen at the same time is pretty rare. (And even when they do happen - how frequently does it actually end in a TPK? And really, TPKs are pretty mild in LFR/4e anyway.) On the other hand, the only ingredient you need to ruin an encounter (any encounter) is a single over-optimized PC.
So..., if over-optimization is a reaction to a few badly written/run encounters...., it's a pretty big over-reaction.
Lori Anderson
WotC Freelancer, LFR author
@LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author)
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author)
CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author)
QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author)
EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author)
TotalCon: http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 11, 2011 - 3:55PM
#269
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
I have seen many, many more combats ruined by overoptimizers than by bad "kill box" encounters run by bad DMs.
And, of course, I've seen the exact opposite.
In order to have an unfun experience with a "kill box" encounter you need (1) a bad encounter, (2) a bad DM, and (3) bad luck (such as everyone losing initiative).
Actually, Non-Dex characters can frequently just be assumed to lose init in paragon. (Monsters: 1+X+3/4 Level, basically. PCs: 2+1/2 Level, basically.)
And even when they do happen - how frequently does it actually end in a TPK?
Really, just don't ask.
So..., if over-optimization is a reaction to a few badly written/run encounters...., it's a pretty big over-reaction.
See above.
Just like you were telling me I shouldn't assume jerk over-optimizers just because I've managed to accidentally avoid all of them, don't assume that crap DMs don't exist just because you've managed to avoid most of them.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
Sep 11, 2011 - 6:55PM
#270
|
|
|
Just like you were telling me I shouldn't assume jerk over-optimizers just because I've managed to accidentally avoid all of them, don't assume that crap DMs don't exist just because you've managed to avoid most of them.
Oh, I'm well aware that crap DMs exist and I have suffered through my fair share of them. Trust me, I have plenty of horror stories about horrendous DMs.
But... A crap DM is a crap DM. They're going to provide a miserable experience no matter what. Do you really think that over-optimizing PCs to extremes makes a crappy DM all that much easier to bear?
Heck, the really crappy DMs often get much worse when the players have uber-optimized characters. If the DM views the game as "me vs. them" already (a mentality many bad DMs share), when the players stomp over every encounter..., antagonistic DMs get pissy. Then the game typically becomes a very unpleasant, antagonistic DM vs. players atmosphere. I've seen a DM basically throw a temper tantrum and storm out of a convention in reaction to uber-optimized characters. It certainly wasn't appropriate for the DM to do that, but over-optimization doesn't make you immune to crappy DMs (and might actually make you Vulnerable 5 Bad-DM).
Many times crappy DMs don't let PC's "I win" buttons work anyway. They just flat out refuse to let your stuff work the way it's supposed to work (or the way you think it works). They're stubbon and won't listen to reason or look at the rule even if it's clear that they're wrong. For example, I once had a DM tell me that every square of a slide had to be further away from me. It didn't matter what the rules said or that everyone at the table was telling him he was wrong. We even showed him the rule in the book. But no, he believed that slides had to be further away so in that game all of our slides had to move the target further away. I mean, there's a reason we call these DMs crappy....
TL;DR: Installing "I win" buttons on all your characters doesn't make you immune to crappy DMs.
Lori Anderson
WotC Freelancer, LFR author
@LittleLorika
CALI3-3 The Agony of Almraiven (co-author)
NETH4-1 Containing Shadow (co-author)
CALI4-1 Plain of Stone Spiders (author)
QUES4-1 Liberation (co-author)
EPIC5-1 Plaguewrought Prism (co-author)
TotalCon: http://www.totalcon.com/RolePlaying.html
|
|
|
