tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post2167785201848044553..comments2024-03-19T15:22:48.093+08:00Comments on Monsters and Manuals: False Optimization? Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-23837384550382052722013-05-15T22:54:00.792+08:002013-05-15T22:54:00.792+08:00You're also assuming that STR is the most impo...<i>You're also assuming that STR is the most important stat for fighters, which sort of begs the question. I don't think it's the most important stat for fighters - I don't think warfare has ever been decided by which side had the most physically strong fighters (except insofar as you need to be reasonably strong to wield a melee weapon or wear armour).</i><br /><br />I dunno, isn't that looking at the forest instead of the trees? Warfare is usually decided by overall manpower, logistics, communications, and supply moreso than (or at least as much as) any qualities in their fighters. But personal, man-to-man combat IS decided on strength, athleticism, training, courage, and various other factors...and physical strength is a pretty big one.<br /><br />Instead of looking at how armies fared against each other, look at how men fared against each other, and the strength scores of those men. Guys like Heracles, Achilles, Bohemond, Conan of Cimmeria, and many others were kind of noted for their muscle. Even Odysseus, who was most famous for his wits, was such a strong dude that no one else could bend his bow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-6398943550447328022013-04-17T05:53:11.121+08:002013-04-17T05:53:11.121+08:00As one trained in the law to another, I expect and...As one trained in the law to another, I expect and demand the blandest, most exact prose possible. Any deviation, any "exaggeration for effect" will be met with unfeigned outrage and scorn.<br /><br />I also note that this post is as trollish as the OP. A "barge pole"? Is the reader honestly expected to believe that noisms carries such a device around with him? Or that he uses it to determine his proximity to indefensible statements of fact? Absurd! At barge-pole distance, how can one possibly determine whether a statement is objectively defensible in order to decide whether to get closer to it or not? It beggars belief even for documents with generously-sized typefaces. Your readership is entitled to answers, sir! And that's without even addressing how offensive your statement is to thousands of punting enthusiasts worldwide. <br /><br />(More seriously, maybe chalk this one up to the inability of language to convey true meaning, or Poe's law or something. Sometimes it's hard to tell when people are being a little flourishy for effect, and when they're just being dicks. Having read this blog for many years, I find that you are a good, creative, persuasive writer. For my part, however, there is a tendency to over-the-top harsh dismissiveness of "the other side" that is off-putting. Then again, you're the one creating reams of content while I snipe from the sidelines, so I'm not really in a position to criticize)Ivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923725063649465366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-39422886708361873942013-04-12T06:15:51.448+08:002013-04-12T06:15:51.448+08:00One of my favorite characters was a 2nd Edition Th...One of my favorite characters was a 2nd Edition Thief who had an 17 STR and a 13 DEX. I figured that he was "muscle", the thief who's brought along on capers in case you needed to overpower a guard or the like. So he carried a battle axe and a iron-bound cudgel rather than a dagger. His name may have even been "Muscles", due to my rather unimaginative naming schemes at the time.Thomas M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/13248298143309606444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-82206194201247306382013-04-11T20:28:37.368+08:002013-04-11T20:28:37.368+08:00I think there's definitely false optimisation ...I think there's definitely false optimisation at least in pre-4e D&D, because as you say the 'prime' stat is often not really all that important. <br />I've just started playing a Pathfinder Beginner Box Cleric with STR 18 and WIS 13, using a feat to wield a greatsword - she's basically a Paladin in a game that does not have a Paladin class. The high STR means I can fill the Fighter role just fine, better than many actual Fighters, and the lowish WIS has almost no negative effect - I'll be short one 2nd level spell at 3rd level, is the only significant one I can find. I won't be casting many attack spells so the save DC will rarely come up.<br />Likewise there are editions where INT has very little effect on Magic-User effectiveness, they benefit far more from CON and DEX.<br />Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01173759805310975320noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-971146076524796602013-04-09T03:26:01.990+08:002013-04-09T03:26:01.990+08:00The error, here, I think, is conflating fun with w...The error, here, I think, is conflating <i>fun</i> with <i>winning</i>. The assumption is, if I'm winning (fights, conflicts, the level-up race, the my-character-can-beat-up-your-character contests, etc.) then I'm having fun, and if I'm not, then I'm not having fun.<br /><br />(You can see this on a group level as well. If your character is not "pulling their weight" then the group might lose, and then the group as a whole won't be having fun.)<br /><br />To me, this is a rather bizarre way to play a game. It says that you can't know if a game is fun until you reach the end. Is fighting the Lernean Ogre fun? We won't be able to tell you until the fight is over.<br /><br />Which is patently silly. Obviously, you can lose a fight and have a great time at it. And, perhaps more obviously, a long, dragged-out combat in which victory is a forgone conclusion can be dull as dishwater. <br /><br />It reminds me a bit of a discussion Levi K. had a while back on the idea that spotlight time = fun. Under that assumption, handicaps like blindness should <i>cost</i> you character build points, since they make even simple actions like walking across a room fraught with peril and drama (and, thus, spotlight time). <br /><br />Which is true, so long as spotlight time = fun. But I'm sure we could poke holes in that assumption prettily easily (social anxiety anyone?) as well. <br /><br />What's fun for you? How can your choices in character creation lead to more fun? Build accordingly.<br /><br />- Briantrollsmythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01895349218958093151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-41755374388069084532013-04-08T02:33:35.511+08:002013-04-08T02:33:35.511+08:00Whoops. I didn't literally mean a barge pole. ...Whoops. I didn't literally mean a barge pole. I meant, I wouldn't want to come close to making that sort of statement.noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-78217282060464132642013-04-08T02:32:52.523+08:002013-04-08T02:32:52.523+08:00Okay, Ivan, for your benefit in future I will ende...Okay, Ivan, for your benefit in future I will endeavour not to engage in any sort of rhetorical flourish - be it exaggeration, hyperbole for effect, emphasis, metaphor, simile or, indeed, stylised use of English - whatsoever, and write only in dull, flavourless technical terms, so that there is no possible misconception at all about what I mean. I wouldn't want to approach with a barge pole a statement which could not be <i>objectively defended</i>.noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-50493441488638275052013-04-08T01:07:59.377+08:002013-04-08T01:07:59.377+08:00Very well -- "Overreaching to the extent that...Very well -- "Overreaching to the extent that I was skeptical that the statement was made in good faith, and my suspicion was that it was instead made for the purposes of generating angry replies."<br /><br />Though I see from your reply to Brendan that perhaps you honestly do not see any dissonance between dismissing Pathfinder as "discredited" at least partially on the basis that you don't know anyone who plays it personally, and the objective fact that thousands upon thousands of people (likely more than every other system combined) play Pathfinder and 4E.<br /><br />Even if the hobby is moving in a different direction, it is bizarre to describe a style of playing a game that is enjoyed by so many people as "discredited" or "utter madness." <br /><br />If you meant that you perceive that the hobby is developing away from power gaming(and thus away from PF and 4E), that might be something worth saying, and something that could be objectively defended. But that's not what you said.<br /><br />It reminds me of a conservative politician railing against the "utter madness" of "now discredited" social safety-net programs. When someone points out that, in fact, such programs remain in effect and are extremely popular, he responds that "I don't know anyone who is in favor of welfare, and all the economic thinkers who 'mean anything nowadays' are against it, and look at the recent austerity measures put into place [that limit welfare availability to some extent]." It's total nonsense. Even if a country *is* developing in a conservative direction, that does not mean that liberal policies are discredited. Ivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923725063649465366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-11173023366685939422013-04-07T23:26:47.145+08:002013-04-07T23:26:47.145+08:00Ugh, had a long reply and it got deleted. The gis...Ugh, had a long reply and it got deleted. The gist of it was that the OD&D reference was brought up in part as an answer to your question in the original post on the origins of class assignment based on prime reqs, since you'd get comparable benefits from Dex/Con/Cha regardless of class, but bonus XP only from prime req. Perhaps Strength as "mental suitability for a fighting class", since its only effect in OD&D is mental (+XP)? It's a pragmatic definition, based on the idea that 'the whole of a thing is in its sensible effects', with the point being that we needn't take the word Strength to mean anything physical or even measurable in the game-world.jedavishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08586249502818922886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-52428232344927521532013-04-07T23:19:01.426+08:002013-04-07T23:19:01.426+08:00We address player preferences like this by trading...We address player preferences like this by trading ability score sets almost as currency; "Hey, I'll swap you this crappy thief set for that good cleric set, and then I owe you another decent set later." As far as we're concerned, rolling stats creates a being in the gameworld with those stats, but doesn't bind it to a particular player.jedavishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08586249502818922886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-71018685184693683872013-04-07T16:34:47.327+08:002013-04-07T16:34:47.327+08:00It's in the average band - you knew what I mea...It's in the average band - you knew what I meant. <br /><br />It begs the question because the very point at issue is whether having a high STR is optimal for a fighter. I'm arguing it doesn't hurt, but other stats - particularly DEX, CHR and CON - might be more useful. <br /><br />I don't buy the argument that Strength is a shorthand for "suitability for a fighting career", for the simple reason that being quick and agile (having high Dexterity) and being tough and fit (having high Constitution) are also very important for a fighting career. Again, it's begging the question. Sometimes I think people place too much importance on what OD&D says. It may simply be the case that Gygax and Arneson didn't really think things through very much and the stats don't make much sense if you think about them too hard.<br /><br />All that leads me back to is looking at the actual mechanics and the real world. Setting OD&D aside, other stats have mechanical benefits to fighters than Strength which may be even more useful. And in the real world, Strength is not the only reason for fighting success and is certainly not the main reason for a given martial family being more successful than others. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-37965241134026095132013-04-07T16:31:48.690+08:002013-04-07T16:31:48.690+08:00Player: "15WIS, I guess I'll be a cleric....Player: "15WIS, I guess I'll be a cleric."<br />Me: "But you hate playing clerics"<br />Player: "But 15WIS!"<br /><br />Exactly. It's something no player I've ever met really gets. Maybe us DM types are just crazy or something.Gavin Normanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12362875699031245377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-48761679994264752562013-04-06T23:59:42.049+08:002013-04-06T23:59:42.049+08:00Not quite correct to say that 9 is average; 10.5 i...Not quite correct to say that 9 is average; 10.5 is average on 3d6, with 62.5% of individuals having a strength of greater than 9, 11.5% having Str 9, and 26% having a strength of less than 9. In a four-man party, you'd expect to see (on average) one guy with Str of less than 9, one with 9 or 10, one with 11 or 12, and one with greater than 12. This is a measure relative to the setting, and therefore avoids the comparison across eras problem (which encumbrance values nicely illustrate).<br /><br />I'm not clear on how this begs the question. If we interpret Strength as OD&D does, as shorthand for "suitability for a fighting career", then everything makes perfect sense. It becomes an abstraction for general fighting spirit, reach, good muscle memory, and any number of other relatively intangible factors which contribute significantly to victory in hand-to-hand combat, rather than its more modern usage as "raw physical power". In this sense there is a problem in the naming and in the understanding of the meaning of the score (likewise, I prefer to interpret Intelligence as "natural aptitude for magic and memorization" rather than "raw brainpower across all areas", and Wisdom as "piety / belovedness by the gods" rather than "weird mix of piety, strength of will, enlightenment, and sensory powers" that it is in 3.x). <br /><br />It really all depends on what you (and your system of choice) take the scores to mean. As I said before, the thief ruined everything by taking a non-prime-req stat and using it as a prime req, which then forced later editions to start assigning universal bonuses (like +damage and +saves) to prime-req stats, which eventually stripped them of their implicit, fuzzy meanings of "Fighting / Priest / Mage Aptitude Score" and replaced them with more concrete interpretations.jedavishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08586249502818922886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-22221778012454678162013-04-06T15:50:42.460+08:002013-04-06T15:50:42.460+08:00I'm inferring it based on the fact WotC are cl...I'm inferring it based on the fact WotC are clearly scaling back on the optimisation for D&D 5th edition. I also think Pathfinder is a red herring - it may be the most popular rpg by sales, but that's in a very fractured marketplace, and it's catering to the people who loved 3.X, who I have little doubt are a large demographic but say nothing much about the way the hobby is developing. Saying something is discredited is not the same as saying "nobody plays it".<br /><br />Also, to be frank, I don't know anybody who plays Pathfinder and I'm not aware of anybody of any significance in the industry who really even talks about it. It's totally off my radar. All game design that means anything nowadays is moving in the opposite direction. Be it story games, OSR, whatever.<br /><br />Also, Ivan, the use of the world "trollish" pisses me off. I might have said something you disagree with but do yourself a favour and don't use that expression. It cheapens debate and reflects the sad state of public discourse which exists on the internet, and is used far, far too often.noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-90003413699950315822013-04-06T15:35:11.112+08:002013-04-06T15:35:11.112+08:00Well, we're getting into a more complex area n...Well, we're getting into a more complex area now, but don't forget that 9 STR is still that of an average human. And in a world in which everybody is physically fit and used to performing manual labour from cradle to grave, that average of 9 STR is likely to be higher than an average 9 STR in the 21st Century in relative terms.<br /><br />You're also assuming that STR is the most important stat for fighters, which sort of begs the question. I don't think it's the most important stat for fighters - I don't think warfare has ever been decided by which side had the most physically strong fighters (except insofar as you need to be reasonably strong to wield a melee weapon or wear armour).noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-46181849960148945202013-04-06T07:39:43.327+08:002013-04-06T07:39:43.327+08:00Overreaching to the extent of being trollish I wou...Overreaching to the extent of being trollish I would say. Ivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08923725063649465366noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-82948348800567377692013-04-06T06:38:01.241+08:002013-04-06T06:38:01.241+08:00That way lies the utter, and now discredited, madn...<i>That way lies the utter, and now discredited, madness of 4th edition (which is linked to the equally mad and equally discredited character optimalisation mayhem that can be found on 3rd edition fora online)</i><br /><br />That is significantly overreaching.<br /><br />Let's not forget that Pathfinder is the most popular RPG on the planet. Also, I'm not sure how much we can infer about player preferences from WotC's business decision to wind down 4E. Anecdotally, I think optimization based on character builds is still pretty popular.<br /><br />That said, I agree with you, as a matter of preference, that optimization-based play is not very interesting.Necropraxishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12716340801054739658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-44454953626311412632013-04-06T00:49:09.636+08:002013-04-06T00:49:09.636+08:00But on the level we're talking about here, at ...But on the level we're talking about here, at choosing a class to match your stats, how often does it come down to "We won <i>because of</i> our good stats" ? Even if the ability score bonuses are significant, they tend to be outweighed by player skill over the long haul in old-school systems; your +2 to hit and damage from high strength might win you this fight, but if you're stupid and wind up on the receiving end of a poisoned needle or going up against a nonmagic-weapon immune creature without the proper preparation, your stats won't save you. I don't mind stats winning tactical victories, just like I don't mind <i>sleep</i> winning tactical victories, because over the long haul, you have to play smart to survive.<br /><br />And Random Wizard, I've done that! In Traveller, we applied negative Social Status as a bonus to Streetwise checks. It was a neat perk for low-Soc characters.jedavishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08586249502818922886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-55014974923354703602013-04-05T23:58:08.812+08:002013-04-05T23:58:08.812+08:00But if we start to get into matters of family, bot...But if we start to get into matters of family, both genetics and acculturation begin to come into play. Coming from a traditionally military family, I can definitely say that there was a huge focus on fitness in my upbringing; even if I was not expected to join up, I was expected to be able to serve if called. I can only imagine that a real martial family, one where every son is expected from birth to fight for his land, family, and life, would put even more emphasis on attributes crucial to their station and survival. When you start wearing plate and swinging a sword at age 10, you're sure to develop a bit of musculature by the time you're 18 (the issue of starting ages in D&D being another matter entirely...). And sure, every family has its embarrassments... but those are outliers rather than the norm. Too many embarrassments and you end up short a castle and a bloodline.<br /><br />So for me, the family argument holds little water. It's really a question of how dangerous your world is, on some level - can a weak warrior house retain its status while breeding Str 9 heirs, or will such a house be regarded as easy prey and be forced to make territorial concessions to its neighbors, who will then use their increased tax revenue to breed and feed more of their strong and vital children?jedavishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08586249502818922886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-69895010681472735892013-04-05T23:27:53.070+08:002013-04-05T23:27:53.070+08:00Intelligence is not only the prime requisite for m...<i>Intelligence is not only the prime requisite for magical types but it also delineates how many spells they can and may know and learn</i><br />Supplement I: Greyhawkporphyre77https://www.blogger.com/profile/07620350717226228078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-48972894164260829462013-04-05T19:02:39.199+08:002013-04-05T19:02:39.199+08:00Well, we're all talking about opinion here, bu...Well, we're all talking about opinion here, but I don't agree that being mechanically effective and winning is fun - at least not for very long. I agree that winning is fun, but being able to win just because you have high scores is no challenge and gets dull very quickly. Winning because you have <i>played well</i> is something else.noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-75481695440832875602013-04-05T19:01:00.907+08:002013-04-05T19:01:00.907+08:00Generally speaking I don't run games that way....Generally speaking I don't run games that way. As a DM I view my role as being to set up the world in a neutral manner. The drama and tension comes from the PCs and their interactions with the world, not from me. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-50033127577849302032013-04-05T18:56:22.508+08:002013-04-05T18:56:22.508+08:00That's one way of doing it, but I don't li...That's one way of doing it, but I don't like to GM that way, personally. I try to run games in which good play gets rewarded, so if players can strategise and play to their strengths, I don't want to discourage that behaviour by rigging things so they get hit in their weak points. <br /><br />But your point about skill-based games is well taken. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-83838315234436867482013-04-05T18:54:32.091+08:002013-04-05T18:54:32.091+08:00I think therein lay the problem with 3.X, really.I think therein lay the problem with 3.X, really.noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2513019539869706574.post-60535488534130119732013-04-05T18:53:56.806+08:002013-04-05T18:53:56.806+08:00That's an interesting point, but a very 21st-C...That's an interesting point, but a very 21st-Century view of things. In medieval societies, most jobs were inherited - you did what your father did. And meritocracy did not exist in anything like the sense we understand it today. I think it's entirely believable, and probably more realistic, to have magic-users of low intelligence who just happen to have been born into the right family, warriors who are not very strong but are from the traditional knightly caste, etc. noismshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09933436762608669966noreply@blogger.com