• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Dealing with optimizers at the table

ccs

41st lv DM
And yes, I've tried the standard "why don't you try talking to your players" routine. Doesn't help. The optimizers just keep doing it. They literally refuse to stop. This makes the non-optimizers have no fun because they either stop playing the way that's fun for them or stop playing entirely. So I basically have to choose. Which group of players will I run the game for. I don't have time for both. I don't want to exclude either group from my table, but they simply do not mesh.

TL;DR: optimizers ruin the fun for everyone but themselves at my table. Help.
You run two games. On the same night, just alternating weeks. If needed you recruit additional players of the appropriate types to fill out the groups.
Week #1: Non-optimizers
Week #2: Optimizers
Week #3: Non-optimizers
Week #4.....

If the optimizers complain that they aren't playing with the others? Explain why. Bluntly.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

iserith

Magic Wordsmith
Optimization is a cause for concern when they steal spotlight from other PCs. Otherwise, you got a thousand-thousand dragons as DM. Use those to increase the difficulty of your challenges.

If they are stealing spotlight from the other PCs, you can direct the optimizer's knowledge to the less optimal PCs to help them be the best they can be even with their suboptimal builds. But really, given the way D&D 5e is designed, I haven't seen a ton of variance between optimal PCs and suboptimal ones. I regularly play a beast master ranger, for example, and nobody would say that I don't bring anything to the table.
 

Quickleaf

Legend
In my experience, optimizers relish the thrill of the hunt away-from-the-table and want to show off their finds at the table. The trouble is being a DM at a table with optimizers. There seems to be one of four possible approaches to dealing with an optimized character and an optimizing player. First, you outright ban optimization. Second, you ramp up the combat challenges to such a degree that the optimized character is properly challenged...which will almost guarantee the non-optimized characters die regularly. Third, just never feature combat. Fourth, do nothing and let the optimized characters constantly walk all over any and all combat challenges.

None of these solutions are particularly great. Banning optimization cuts out a chunk of fun for an apparently significant segment of the gaming population. Ramping up combat challenges grinds through the non-optimized characters and basically forces them to optimize or die. This is an especially bad solution given that a not insignificant segment of the gaming population does not care to optimize, so essentially forcing them to is bad. Never having combat kinda defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats. And letting the optimized characters always trivially defeat any combat challenges also defeats a major part of the fun of D&D...having tense combats.
I'll share my approach, which is very much coming from the "we can all get along and have fun together, despite our differences" school of thought. Of course, I don't know your group, so YMMV.

1. Selectively Banning of Things in Advance
If you're sufficiently familiar with the rules and know the sort of campaign you want to run, you can have conversations with your group in advance about what specifically is banned for your campaign.

For instance. I'm running a game based on ancient Egypt with overland travel being a significant challenge. Leomund's Tiny Hut is not available in this game (in fact none of the traditionally "named" D&D spells are available), and when a player wanted to use a Genie Warlock (which was off my list of allowed subclasses), I read through it and said everything was fine except for the 10th Sanctuary Vessel allowing the party to have an extradimensional resting space not unlike tiny hut. We agreed that if he got to 10th level as a warlock we'd swap that feature out.

2. Compartmentalized Escalation of Combat Difficulty
There's this idea about combat – perhaps reinforced by our tendency to fall into "boardgame think" when using maps/minis/VTTs – that the players line up their guys, the DM lines up the monsters, initiative is rolled, and things proceed in an orderly manner with no surprises until one side or the other hits 0 hit points. The more you break out of that model, IME, the more satisfying and engaging combat becomes.... and the more you break out of that model, the easier it becomes to present multi-layered challenges designed for optimizers and non-optimizers alike.

Here's an example (I hate working with hypotheticals, but I don't have an example springing to mind from my own games recently): Your optimizers are a ranger and a warlock who favor stealth ranged attacks, preferably with an alpha strike. Your other 3 PCs are non-optimizers who feel left behind when combat breaks out. The encounter hobgoblins in a canyon. To challenge both optimizers & non-optimizers, you might include the following elements to the encounter:
  • The hobgoblin caravan is transporting prisoners, one of whom is a high-value official with info the PCs need, but the official cannot be positively ID'ed from far away. This is a task for the non-optimized PCs.
  • The hobgoblin caravan has outriders – scouts mounted on draft horses with blood hawks bonded to them via beast sense. If a bloodhawk screeches or an outrider sounds a horn, the hobgoblins go on high alert and some of the prisoners could be threatened. This is a complication both groups of PCs will need to cooperate to workaround/evade.
  • There is an awesome ledge for sniper PCs to perch on up ahead, where a bugbear wielding a crossbow and poisoned bolts had positioned itself. This is a challenge for the warlock & ranger optimizers that can then turn into an opportunity.

3. Challenge Their Non-Combat Abilities/Strategy/Teamwork/Creative Thinking
So much fun in a D&D session can come from thinking laterally, thinking outside the box, and otherwise resolving situations that may have nothing to do with combat. Chases, investigations, moral dilemmas, court cases, masquerade ball intrigues, infiltration scenarios, etc. It's not about going to the extreme of "never having combat" (as you implied), but providing a diversity of challenges besides just combat.

For instance, there was an (optional) tomb my party was exploring which had been recently delved. There were a few traps and at the end a few mummies, but the real challenge was figuring out the story of what transpired in the tomb when a party of NPCs delved within. It was essentially an investigation mixed with some navigational problem-solving and a hieroglyph puzzle. One thing that stood out was a fallen stone block with a narrow crack/fissure running through it – a trap triggered when the NPC party left the tomb. PCs sent a cat familiar through and a PC with misty step, narrowly surviving a trap on the other side which revealed a leverage point in a hidden chamber above, then the dwarf PC identified there was a slight downgrade slope, PCs poured water and oil (there were channels in the walls which held lamp oil as a form of ancient light source) to lubricate the stone block's contact with floor, and then a lot of elbow grease got it moving. All my players stayed engaged, including the optimizer.

4. Let the Optimizers Shine - Judiciously "Do Nothing"
Again, you seem to be leaning toward extremes. Just as I've included dramatic secret meetings with a dowager queen for an Actor Player running a Bard PC, when I have an Optimizer Player I want to deliberately provide moments in the game that speak to their play style, spotlight them showing off their cool combos, and let them kick butt and take names.

There can be a formulaic approach to planning D&D combat that actually becomes the enemy of holistic design appealing to multiple play styles. Not every combat should be designed the same way. Sometimes it's great fun to trounce a lone monster in one turn. Sometimes it's fun to have a big multi-layered set piece encounter firing on all cylinders. Sometimes it's fun to shake up expectations and either hard or soft counter specific PC abilities to require creative thinking.
 
Last edited:

Yes, you have to choose, and you should choose to play with people who share your gaming priorities. To do that, you need to ascertain what those are.
I like this. It reminds me of Matt Colville's advice that he's come around to realize there are no Bad Players - they're just Good Players for another table. A table full of min-maxers would probably be super happy to game together, for example.
 

I'm going to second that some actual specific examples would be helpful because...

First, you outright ban optimization.

I mean what does that even mean? Conceptualizing it as a thing that can plausibly be banned seems to indicate it is a more narrow behavior than I conceptualize it as.

I get that you see a generalized problem and maybe don't want to get bogged down with a bunch of advice about specifics, but "combos that break the game" is too vague and undefined to really address.
 
Last edited:

Greg K

Legend
And yes, I've tried the standard "why don't you try talking to your players" routine. Doesn't help. The optimizers just keep doing it. They literally refuse to stop. This makes the non-optimizers have no fun because they either stop playing the way that's fun for them or stop playing entirely. So I basically have to choose. Which group of players will I run the game for. I don't have time for both. I don't want to exclude either group from my table, but they simply do not mesh.

TL;DR: optimizers ruin the fun for everyone but themselves at my table. Help.
Which type of player better fits the game you want to run? If the optimizers are ruining the fun for everyone (you included), don't run for them or find a level optimization level with which you are comfortable and enforce it (optimization is a continuum not all or nothing). If the issue is that it is ruining the non-optimizers, but you have no issue with optimization, split the group and run separately.
 


jgsugden

Legend
...
And “letting them have the win” is basically option four I described above. Let all the tension evaporate from combat.
Is all of your combat about "can the party survive"?

If so, I suggest considering ways to look at combat that are not about "kill or be killed". If the tension is around other win criteria, and the assumption is that the PCs will survive, then it undercuts the optimizers quite a bit as most optimizers focus on things like DPR or AC. Look at Superman comics - or really comics in general. You know the hero is going to survive 99.9% of the fights. Where does the drama come from in those fights? It comes from what will happen if the bad guys can complete their plan.
 

Shiroiken

Legend
I want to start by pointing out that while there is optimization in 5E, the amount of available optimization really isn't as bad as it's been. A normal character is usually only slightly sub-optimal to full MinMax, leaving them viable within the same game. The only time I've seen this not the case is either with abused houserules or where a DM has misunderstood something. Some things make individuals better at specific things, but unlike 3E, no single character can come close to doing everything themselves.
I make a distinction between tactics in character building and tactics in play. Optimizers seem to want to win a game that can’t be won (D&D) by building the optimized character and steamrolling combat in game. There’s basically zero in-game tactics used other than “use optimized character as designed”.
The solution is to look at what they're "abusing" and at least periodically shift the situation to completely negate it. A PAM GWM Paladin may be amazing... until the party faces a flying dragon that stays out of melee, relying on breath weapon and possibly spells. The same character would also have a lot of difficulty dealing with mobs of low HP enemies they kill with a single hit. Super high AC characters still have to roll saving throws. You get the idea.

I like this. It reminds me of Matt Colville's advice that he's come around to realize there are no Bad Players - they're just Good Players for another table. A table full of min-maxers would probably be super happy to game together, for example.
I disagree with the overall sentiment (a group of ^$*#$&#@ players don't play well together either), but in the case of MinMax, they often get along quite well as a group.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Who you have at the table may be optimizer, but there's a far worse name I'd call them if they didn't adjust after you talked to them. And I would drop them from the table for that name - and absolutely nothing to do with being an optimizer. People who steal the spotlight and won't change even after you try to address the issue with them bring down the whole table.

But please, stop conflating the method they use to do so with the unsavoriness of what they are doing. If they talked over other players, belittled their plans and ignored them, or other ways tried to dominate the table they are just as wrong - the method they used doesn't matter. There are plenty of players who are good at building optimized characters but use that knowledge to make interesting characters around the same power level as the rest of the party in actual play, Tarring them all with the same brush as those who disrupt your table isn't right.

But any player who detracts from the total fun of the table, and continues it after you speak to them, drop them like a hot potato.
 

Remove ads

Top