D&D 5E Where does optimizing end and min-maxing begin? And is min-maxing a bad thing?

[Gradine]

This is yet another reminder that it's entirely possible (I would go so far to say likely) that an RPG table can accommodate both optimizers and non-optimizers without any sort of friction or tension or any kind of problems at all. Different players are playing for different reasons; a player who doesn't care about optimization is probably not going to care that they're being shown up in combat by the team min-maxer, who in turn may very well be grateful for the party face in handling the social encounters.

It can be a source of friction, obviously. That has never really borne out in my own experiences however.

 

[Gradine]

I'm surprised the optimizers didn't take that person under their wing and help.

It's a great way to show off system knowledge - 'take this class, multi class into this one next level, and choose this domain and Goodberry heals 40 points!'

Yeah, "Let me tell you how to build your character/see, what you're doing wrong is..." surprisingly does not go over super great.

 

[Caliban]

Yeah, "Let me tell you how to build your character/see, what you're doing wrong is..." surprisingly does not go over super great.

Or: "Here's some ways to do neat things with your character, if that's what you want."

Depends on how it's presented. Telling them how to build their character as opposed to showing them what is possible and helping them make the character they actually want.

 

[TwoSix]

I've seen the 'stormwind fallacy' *thing* rattled out over and over again, on here, on reddit, etc, and each time someone says something akin to the above.

Sorry, but in my experience of playing with a variety of groups, those players who tend to focus heavily on the numbers/bonuses DO tend to be less invested in the RP, the backstories, and the plot in general. They DO tend to be the ones who just want to bash a lot of skulls and roll a lot of dice. The strong RPers at my tables might be decent number crunchers too, but they manage to hide it all behind the story and the flavour of their characters, and if they optimise it tends towards 'optimal flavour, suboptimal mechanics'.

Sure, but people who tend to be good at both number-crunching AND character flavor are relatively rare. The Stormwind Fallacy is just pointing out that desire/ability to play in different areas of the game are distributed like random rolls, not point buy. Finding someone who has a 16 in character building but a 10 in roleplaying is common, as is the reverse. People with 16s in both are simply not super common. But it's not like you have to sacrifice ability in one to be good at the other, it's simply a matter of natural aptitude and temperament. There simply aren't many people out there thinking "Hmm, I have this really interesting concept for a character, but screw it, I'm borrowing this build from the Internet that does super damage instead!"

 

[Gradine]

Or: "Here's some ways to do neat things with your character, if that's what you want."

Depends on how it's presented. Telling them how to build their character as opposed to showing them what is possible and helping them make the character they actually want.

Oh of course. I just think that sometimes there's an assumption made that a character is sub-optimal because the player isn't making their character "right", when it's entirely likely the player knows what they're doing and has made the choices they've made for a very good reason.

 

[JonnyP71]

It can be a source of friction, obviously. That has never really borne out in my own experiences however.

One of my groups recently had issues with a player who became a problem for precisely this reason....he joined our campaign when it had already been running for a couple of months. He knew he was causing issues at the table, and talked about that fact with another player, but made no effort to adapt. When our DM sent him a very polite e-mail asking him if could adjust his style of play a little to fit better with the existing group he never bothered replying, instead moaned to the shop-owner that we were 'kicking him out'.

He constantly talked (and complained) about his stats - despite his character being the strongest in the party by a long way. He talked over people, derailed plans - because he 'got bored when he wasn't rolling dice', interrupted roleplaying - he basically had zero interest in social interaction, combat was all he cared about.

...and the rest of us had spent the previous few months doing all we could to avoid combat! (playing BECMI - those who have experienced it will understand!!!)

 

[clearstream]

This is known as 'The Stormwind Fallacy'; the idea that 'optimising' and 'role-playing' are mutually exclusive.

Strictly speaking the "Stormwind Fallacy" deals with the idea that optimising and roleplaying are not necessarily mutually exclusive: entailing that they will in fact be mutually exclusive sometimes. (That can be demonstrated by working through some subsets and their intersections, or lack thereof.) SF really just resists jumping to conclusions on that score.

Would the 'players that are more interested in the narrative and being able to contribute to the evolution of the story meaningfully' suddenly be unable to do so if their PC's stats were changed to three 16s and three 8s?

I suspect that this line of argumentation amounts to a red-herring. If I have an RP concept that doesn't fit that stat array then "Yes" if I am forced to take it I am very likely to be jolted out of the story. On the other hand, if I have an RP concept that does fit that stat array then all may be well. Logically, we can consider the set of all possible 5ed characters. By definition, not all of those characters are optimised. And for a given player, not all of those characters may be RP-able. Thus for some player, there may be found some subset of OP characters that are not RP-able.

There is 'character creation and optimisation'. There is 'gameplay and role-playing'. An individual player may be more or less interested in both, one, or neither. There is no inverse correlation between the former and the latter. Wanting to optimise in no way interferes with wanting to role-play well, or vice-versa.

Wanting to optimise i.e. minimax can sometimes interfere with wanting to roleplay. The important point of the Stormwind Fallacy is that it doesn't necessarily do so. A given player may be able to meld their RP and OP due to their specific choices on each axis, but for another player there may be RP-able characters that are not OP-able. I think where RPers and OPers often run into misunderstanding is on which they prioritise: whether they bend their fiction to fit their stats, or their stats to fit their fiction. For an RPer, doing the former jolts them out of suspension of disbelief so they find it difficult to endorse. Both camps can make the mistake of dissing the thing the other enjoys.

This is well-worn ground. When I first read the OP and his "Tempest" cleric, I thought he was trolling (Tempest Stormwind, geddit!) If so, that's fine with me. It's an interesting subject

 

[Corwin]

If I have an RP concept that doesn't fit that stat array then "Yes" if I am forced to take it I am very likely to be jolted out of the story.

Like what? What kind of RP concept doesn't fit the stat array?

 

[Caliban]

Like what? What kind of RP concept doesn't fit the stat array?

Based on some rolled stat characters I've seen - an RP concept that absolutely requires that no stat be lower than 16. Because your character is a hero out of legend, even at level 1. Purely for RP purposes, of course.

Conversely, if you want to RP as the Legendary Hero's sidekick, you may want to have no stat higher than a 14 and most of them at 10 or below. Can't do that with the stat array either.

Point buy puts all the PC's on the same level, stat-wise. Some people find that un-fun, because it's hard to be special when you don't have better stats than everyone else. (Yes, I know there are other, possibly more valid, reasons people don't like stat arrays. But I'm ignoring them to make myself feel superior.)

 

[nswanson27]

Strictly speaking the "Stormwind Fallacy" deals with the idea that optimising and roleplaying are not necessarily mutually exclusive: entailing that they will in fact be mutually exclusive sometimes. (That can be demonstrated by working through some subsets and their intersections, or lack thereof.) SF really just resists jumping to conclusions on that score.


I suspect that this line of argumentation amounts to a red-herring. If I have an RP concept that doesn't fit that stat array then "Yes" if I am forced to take it I am very likely to be jolted out of the story. On the other hand, if I have an RP concept that does fit that stat array then all may be well. Logically, we can consider the set of all possible 5ed characters. By definition, not all of those characters are optimised. And for a given player, not all of those characters may be RP-able. Thus for some player, there may be found some subset of OP characters that are not RP-able.


Wanting to optimise i.e. minimax can sometimes interfere with wanting to roleplay. The important point of the Stormwind Fallacy is that it doesn't necessarily do so. A given player may be able to meld their RP and OP due to their specific choices on each axis, but for another player there may be RP-able characters that are not OP-able. I think where RPers and OPers often run into misunderstanding is on which they prioritise: whether they bend their fiction to fit their stats, or their stats to fit their fiction. For an RPer, doing the former jolts them out of suspension of disbelief so they find it difficult to endorse. Both camps can make the mistake of dissing the thing the other enjoys.

This is well-worn ground. When I first read the OP and his "Tempest" cleric, I thought he was trolling (Tempest Stormwind, geddit!) If so, that's fine with me. It's an interesting subject

The fiction and the stats SHOULD be bent together - they are apart of the same reality. The only question should be is if they are ever out of step with one another. Whether you bend one or the other fixes the problem equally. Assuming one is more "right" than the other (to me) itself breaks the suspension of disbelief more than anything else.