I listen to a number of YouTube video commentators. I play, run and enjoy Pathfinder 2e. This month I have seen there have been a number of videos devoted to the idea of "optimized" character builds and their effect on play with a particular emphasis on the Patherfinder system (which if you aren't familiar with, is a derivative of 3.5 developed by Paizo using the OGL).
Optimization of the player character has its earliest roots in the ability scores used in the world's first role-playing game. Supplement I: Greyhawk (released the year following that of the original game) makes those ability score values more important than they seemed at first by assigning bonuses (and penalties) to extreme score values. The Advanced game furthered this ability score optimizing trend, the author even suggesting various methods of rolling the (still randomly generated) ability scores using 4 dice, dropping the lowest and thereby increasing the odds of having a character with higher ability scores. He even suggests that in order to be viable, a starting character should have a minimum of two ability score values at 15 or higher.
The WotC era of D&D introduces even more reliance on ability scores and adds point buy options to character generation thereby introducing "min-maxing" of scores and allowing for players to customize their character to produce the PC they desired (rather than adjust expectations to what the random dice delivered). Feats and other customization mechanics further expanded the idea of building a character with certain combinations producing an optimized effect. This was all probably a reaction to what competing systems had marketed as "play the character you want to play". Role-playing games including GURPS and the HERO system are built specifically around the point-buy/ custom design a character concept.
The goal of optimization is usually combat effectiveness. Optimizing a character often produces a PC that is unusually good at one thing, utilizing various combinations of options to achieve mechanical advantages over other combinations. The optimized character is often less proficient when tasked with anything other than their specific specialty. Thus the ranged specialist is not nearly as good up close in melee. The PC optimized for two-handed melee combat has little to contribute to ranged combat, social encounters or sneaking about and scouting.
As a proponent of the original edition of the world's most popular role-playing game - the one with perhaps the least specialized characters - I have found there is near infinite freedom when the mechanics don't dictate how to "best" play one's character. The fighting man, cleric and magic user all start with the same chance to hit and nearly the same hit points as rolled on a six-sided die. The starting level 1 magic user has a single magic spell. Once this spell is cast, what will the player of said magic user do for the rest of the game session?
The apogee of optimizing PCs (at least among the d20 systems) seems to be found in the 3.5/Pathfinder 1e system. When all the additional books are included, each of these games offers a near endless ability to make choices and combinations individualizing characters. Not all choices and combinations of abilities, classes and feats are equal however and there are some "bargains" which produce better mechanical odds of success than others. Thus there are certain character builds which seem "optimal".
I have experimented with this philosophy of gaming and found a level of enjoyment in the clever assembly of options that leads to a mechanical "monster character". Doing so provides a certain power fantasy fulfillment. I have also found that I am ultimately bored with such characters. They seem two-dimensional and lacking in real "challenge" to play. They are very good at what they do well, and usually not very interesting when doing anything else. Hence playing them I tend to look exclusively for problems and situations to which I can apply the abilities my character is good at, to the exclusion of all other possibilities. I find such optimized characters very "limiting".
Returning to our level 1 magic user who has cast their single spell for the day..."Be Creative!" Not every situation demands a combat solution (in fact early edition experience is not based on killing monsters). Our level 1 magic user can scout about, can engage in discourse with encountered creatures, can work toward setting up an ambush, perhaps leading to the capture of a creature that can be interrogated for useful information. There are a number of items that can be employed to effect the encounter area without using a magic spell. Oil, smoke, and caltrops instantly come to mind. The lack of "specialized" skills in the early editions of the world's most popular role-playing game offers a level playing field for each character (and their player) to be creative - in other words, to try something other than what is written down on the character sheet. I find the freedom that this lack of mechanical specialization of characters offers is invigorating and inspiring and is one of the reasons I enjoy the older style of play.
So "What differentiates one magic user from the next in such a system?" you may ask. ROLEPLAYING
With very little in terms of mechanical differences each player is encouraged to add to their PC through how they play the character. The phrase "play to find out" applies to characters as well as plot/story in old school games. Let the character's "personality" emerge through play. Discover how the character will respond to various situations as they are encountered and very soon a unique "character" may emerge.
So in the spirit of fun, I offer the following character "optimizations". These are all characters that I personally played (and enjoyed playing) for a number of years using Pathfinder 1e. All but one were played into levels in the teens.
a genocidal ranger
a love-struck cleric of dirt (soil)
a pole dancing bard
a dark elf seeking oblivion
No comments:
Post a Comment