D&D 5E The "Powergamers (Min/maxer)" vs "Alpha Gamers" vs "Role Play Gamers" vs "GM" balance mismatch "problem(s)"

[Tony Vargas]

Their are at least 7 roles healer/scout/crowd control caster/tank/face/skill junky/Primary Damage (single target) and a possibly 9 if you count Ranged Damage and AoE Damage as separate categories.

There aren't formal roles like in 4e, but there are many possible contributions, and most classes can make several of them...

But more to the point duplicating jobs is 99% of the time a problem, to be clear that's not the same class that causes the problem. In my experiance the happens mostly when player and the GM say "just build what you want" with no coordination with the group. So you build a character for a role... and someone has it already. Then they get annoyed because your the new guy duplicating there job. When that happens your are exactly correct and its horrible. Generally the only fix it for someone to re-roll. Which means even if you started together one character becomes the "new guy" for the game. Its just not good.

It's only horrible if they're badly imbalanced. If two players come to the table with 'Primary Damage' builds and one is far better than the other, who brings nothing else in particular to the table, that's a potential issue. Conversely, if two players bring 'healers' to the party and one's life cleric is a better healer than the other's Bard, well, there's still other things the bard can use his slots for, and even superior healing is a finite resource...

 

[Sunseeker]

That is a black and white view on a gray topic. What I mean is the GM does effect and control almost everything. At the same time a GMs job is to ALLOW the player to do something to kill himself. But your point is the same as Lanefan's that a GMs power to interfere and control everything doesn't mean he should, also never means he can't. So in a case of player vs player combat if GM intervenes he is stopping free will and invading on the choices of the players. At the same time he could have a guard run into the middle of the fight and get shot... that would not be. What I am talking about is that if a group is going to TPK because events the GM controls its his fault. If he allows one party member to die based on his decisions and dice roles that one thing but a TPK pretty much means the GM went too far unless all the players decided to jump of a cliff. If for some reason they thought they were going to get a free wish if they jumped the GM should add some saves or something so hopefully at least one player lives. ...A thought the story of the time the party all died trying to make a wish would likely not be one they forgot.

I agree strongly with this.

The DM is in charge of what the players could do.
The players are in charge of what they choose to do.

But in order to make a meaningful decision on the subject the players have to have a rough idea of the possible outcome.

Lets say the players are trapped in a featureless room. There are 4 levers in this room.

From this information, the players cannot make any meaningful decisions. They have no idea what outcome of pulling any lever could be. The DM is in complete control here. No matter which level the players pick, the DM controls the outcome. Therefore, in this situation, if the players were to pick Lever 1, and they all die, the DM is completely at fault here. Insufficient information was communicated to the players on the possible outcomes of pulling a lever. The players could choose not to play the game ie: sit still and do nothing until they die, or they could essentially let the DM choose their fate.

Lets look at another situation: The players have been exploring the Cube. A series of featureless rooms with levers. Each of the levers is color coded. Red, Blue, Green, and White. The players have pulled enough levers to find that Red has a 90% of Bad Things. Blue has a 50% chance of Random Monsters, Green has a 25% chance of healing the whole party to full, and White always opens a door to another featureless room. All of the levers have at least once opened a door to a new color-matching room.

Here, the players have agency over their decision. The DM has pre-defined what each lever may do, and the players have a reasonable expectation of what potential outcomes they may experience. In this situation, if the players pick the Red Lever and die, they understood that was a possible outcome. If the players pick the Blue Lever and are attacked by monsters, they knew that was a potential outcome. Therefore, it is their fault they died.

If for example, the players pulled the Green Lever and they were attacked by monsters, or pulled the White Lever and were instantly killed, the DM would have denied the agency he had granted the players and would once again be at fault for their death.

But more realistically, what usually happens is the party is wandering through The Woodlands and encounters Dangerous Monsters. The choice to engage the Dangerous Monsters may be on the players, Player 1: "Hey! Lets go kill the monster!", who hasn't heard players say that?. The choice to engage the Dangerous Monsters may be on the DM. DM: "They wandering dragon spots you and takes exception to your haircut." Player 2: "But, I'm wearing a helmet?" DM: "Exacty." Often, it's a mix (players failing sneak checks, random rolls to determine the monsters disposition, etc...). Once combat is engaged everyone rolls to see how they do, and there is a known possibility of death if things go poorly for the party or well for the monster. There is some degree of agency upon the players here and some degree of angey on the DM to determine the endgame. Like most of D&D, the outcome is cooperative. The DM may be responsible for placing a too-dangerous encounter, the players may be responsible for playing dumb (the most common cause of TPK's IMO).

As long as players are able to make a meaningful decision, they have agency and therefore share some of the responsibility. If the players are denied agency, then they likewise are freed from responsibility.

 

[ClaytonCross]

I agree strongly with this.

The DM is in charge of what the players could do.
The players are in charge of what they choose to do.

But in order to make a meaningful decision on the subject the players have to have a rough idea of the possible outcome.

Lets say the players are trapped in a featureless room. There are 4 levers in this room.

From this information, the players cannot make any meaningful decisions. They have no idea what outcome of pulling any lever could be. The DM is in complete control here. No matter which level the players pick, the DM controls the outcome. Therefore, in this situation, if the players were to pick Lever 1, and they all die, the DM is completely at fault here. Insufficient information was communicated to the players on the possible outcomes of pulling a lever. The players could choose not to play the game ie: sit still and do nothing until they die, or they could essentially let the DM choose their fate.

Lets look at another situation: The players have been exploring the Cube. A series of featureless rooms with levers. Each of the levers is color coded. Red, Blue, Green, and White. The players have pulled enough levers to find that Red has a 90% of Bad Things. Blue has a 50% chance of Random Monsters, Green has a 25% chance of healing the whole party to full, and White always opens a door to another featureless room. All of the levers have at least once opened a door to a new color-matching room.

Here, the players have agency over their decision. The DM has pre-defined what each lever may do, and the players have a reasonable expectation of what potential outcomes they may experience. In this situation, if the players pick the Red Lever and die, they understood that was a possible outcome. If the players pick the Blue Lever and are attacked by monsters, they knew that was a potential outcome. Therefore, it is their fault they died.

If for example, the players pulled the Green Lever and they were attacked by monsters, or pulled the White Lever and were instantly killed, the DM would have denied the agency he had granted the players and would once again be at fault for their death.

But more realistically, what usually happens is the party is wandering through The Woodlands and encounters Dangerous Monsters. The choice to engage the Dangerous Monsters may be on the players, Player 1: "Hey! Lets go kill the monster!", who hasn't heard players say that?. The choice to engage the Dangerous Monsters may be on the DM. DM: "They wandering dragon spots you and takes exception to your haircut." Player 2: "But, I'm wearing a helmet?" DM: "Exacty." Often, it's a mix (players failing sneak checks, random rolls to determine the monsters disposition, etc...). Once combat is engaged everyone rolls to see how they do, and there is a known possibility of death if things go poorly for the party or well for the monster. There is some degree of agency upon the players here and some degree of angey on the DM to determine the endgame. Like most of D&D, the outcome is cooperative. The DM may be responsible for placing a too-dangerous encounter, the players may be responsible for playing dumb (the most common cause of TPK's IMO).

As long as players are able to make a meaningful decision, they have agency and therefore share some of the responsibility. If the players are denied agency, then they likewise are freed from responsibility.

But also in the case of your wandering dragon. If the GM says you see a dragon as described, the players have killed a young dragon recently, the impression is that the GM wants them to fight another dragon. So they fight it. The GM lead the group to the fight by putting it in front of them. If that dragon turns out to be ancient and TPKs the group the players were mislead. Also, the players may be told they should have or were supposed to run... but rightfully believed they could not out run dragon that flys faster then they walk. This means, the GM set them up to die, even if he thought they could take it. As a result the GM should realize this and be flexible to provide a real escape to prevent from causing the TPK.

 

[pemerton]

I agree on all of these points. I was just stating that (assuming the table is playing the same way) that the exercise of optimization is pointless in terms of challenge. It doesn't matter. The unoptimized table will have the exact same level of challenge.

I think of mechanical optimisation being more like solving crosswords. For those who enjoy it, it's an end in itself.

Though there's a related thing in build-heavy games (which I think modern D&D counts as), where "optimisation" means something more like (i) finding ways to give your character the mechanical capacity to play in some envisaged fashion, while (ii) not rendering your character somewhat ineffective in relation to the standard goals and challenges of play. Eg I want to play a knife-fighter (or martial artist, or augury reader, or . . .) and I want my character to be able to do the job that a warrior (or whatever) is expected to do in this game.

 

[ClaytonCross]

It's not pointless to optimize for the simple reason that many powergamers absolutely love to optimize. The process of optimizing a character is deeply enjoyable to them. Even if the challenges they face within the game are going to be raised or lowered to their level of mechanical performance, many powergamers feel great personal satisfaction learning the rules, combining them into neat combinations, and then watching those combinations happen in game.

And that's okay! It's just another way to enjoy the game.

The problems only start when other players feel overshadowed, and that gets into the importance of communication, sharing the spotlight, and choosing not to be a jerk.

I think of mechanical optimisation being more like solving crosswords. For those who enjoy it, it's an end in itself.

Though there's a related thing in build-heavy games (which I think modern D&D counts as), where "optimisation" means something more like (i) finding ways to give your character the mechanical capacity to play in some envisaged fashion, while (ii) not rendering your character somewhat ineffective in relation to the standard goals and challenges of play. Eg I want to play a knife-fighter (or martial artist, or augury reader, or . . .) and I want my character to be able to do the job that a warrior (or whatever) is expected to do in this game.

I think these too posts explain why have about 30 characters created that I never intend to play and might not even if I was offered to. To me Theory craft is just as much fun as actually playing D&D. When I do build a character for a game I don't go to my stash of 30 characters and growing... I always build a new character that suites a role the group needs, fits in the world the GM has built as I understand it, and has something weird and unique about the character that somehow makes them a surprise and stand out. I also usually write some level of background and fill in the character traits where the 30+ i just built for fun I only typically add Deities to more as piece of how the character would come together than as a background element for story. Of course the more I play a character the background I tend to write... unfortunately when the background gets really detailed that's generally right before the character dies a horrible death in a campaign so I don't tend to fill in the back story up front so that I don't get attached just for them to die in their first session.

 

[Sunseeker]

But also in the case of your wandering dragon. If the GM says you see a dragon as described, the players have killed a young dragon recently, the impression is that the GM wants them to fight another dragon. So they fight it. The GM lead the group to the fight by putting it in front of them. If that dragon turns out to be ancient and TPKs the group the players were mislead. Also, the players may be told they should have or were supposed to run... but rightfully believed they could not out run dragon that flys faster then they walk. This means, the GM set them up to die, even if he thought they could take it. As a result the GM should realize this and be flexible to provide a real escape to prevent from causing the TPK.

If the players aren't physically limited by terrain, I would argue its not the DM's fault for them not running away. Players rarely think retreat is an option. I think by providing the encounter in "The Woodlands" as I wrote above, and not explicitly stating it is an enclosed space, the players should understand that retreat is an option. I don't think the players were necessarily misled regardless of the age of the dragon, I think that's something that will be noticed right off the bat, so unless the dragon TPKs the party in one round, that's knowledge the players should be reasonably able to understand from the start of the encounter. "This dragon is not like the last one you fought, it is easily 10 times larger!"

The DM certainly needs to communicate that of course, but understanding there's a power difference between a Raptor, a T-Rex and Godzilla should be something rational players are capable of.

 

[ClaytonCross]

If the players aren't physically limited by terrain, I would argue its not the DM's fault for them not running away. Players rarely think retreat is an option. I think by providing the encounter in "The Woodlands" as I wrote above, and not explicitly stating it is an enclosed space, the players should understand that retreat is an option. I don't think the players were necessarily misled regardless of the age of the dragon, I think that's something that will be noticed right off the bat, so unless the dragon TPKs the party in one round, that's knowledge the players should be reasonably able to understand from the start of the encounter. "This dragon is not like the last one you fought, it is easily 10 times larger!"

The DM certainly needs to communicate that of course, but understanding there's a power difference between a Raptor, a T-Rex and Godzilla should be something rational players are capable of.

If I am not mistaken, all Dragons have a flight speed of 80ft, meaning if they take the dash action they can move 160ft in a round so there is no way players are out running them even in the woodlands, Ancient Dragons all have Perception of at least +16 so they are not likely to manage to stealth away, They have blind sight of 60ft and dark vision of 120ft so darkness is not likely to help them much. REALLY short of a long range teleportation spell they are pretty screwed unless they are actually of level to fight one or ... the GM gives them an out because they ran. Giving them an out is exactly what I am talking about a GM doing when the GM realizes he went to far Instead of just letting the dice land where they may and killing them all.

Though I do understand your expecting players to sense danger. At the same time we are talking about a game where you fight massive horrible monsters. If the GM built up there confidence I could defiantly see a group biting off more than they can chew. My point is Saying the dragon is "10 times as large as the last one you fought" is a good red flag but if one player does pick up on that and shoots an arrow, then the GM needs a blatant out for the players. If they ignore the out and try to fight to the death... Then ya its on them.

Also, from a players perspective if a GM gives and out... err .... you should probable take that.... or your about to TPK. Though I could see a GM throughout a red herring. You see a single goblin step to the top of the hill staring down at you from the top of the hill, what do you do? We shoot an arrow at it. You miss... sudden a druid runs out of the woods and creates a portal in a tree yelling "come with me if you want to live!" ...players look at each other and rush there characters through the portal. When they get to the other side the GM describes the numerous bodies have eaten on the floor between the roots of a giant tree. The Druid steps through the tree behind them... turns into a T-Rex and licks his lips....

 

[pemerton]

Saying the dragon is "10 times as large as the last one you fought" is a good red flag but if one player does pick up on that and shoots an arrow, then the GM needs a blatant out for the players. If they ignore the out and try to fight to the death... Then ya its on them.

Also, from a players perspective if a GM gives and out... err .... you should probable take that.... or your about to TPK.

I've never understood the point of this.

I mean, as a GM, why am I (i) framing the PCs into a scene with a massive dragon, then (ii) implying, or outright telling the players, that their only hope to avoid TPK is to flee? That seems like the GM just reading a story to the players - "You met a dragon, then you ran away." How does it make for good RPGing?

 

[Caliban]

I've never understood the point of this.

I mean, as a GM, why am I (i) framing the PCs into a scene with a massive dragon, then (ii) implying, or outright telling the players, that their only hope to avoid TPK is to flee? That seems like the GM just reading a story to the players - "You met a dragon, then you ran away." How does it make for good RPGing?

To give them a sense of the scope of the world and their current place in it?
To give them a goal to strive for later? (Dragons have treasure hoards!)
To lend a sense of verisimilitude to the game, as not all enemies will be carefully calibrated to the PC's levels, so they should open to other options than pure combat for every encounter?
To lay the groundwork for a climactic battle with the dragon in a few levels (maybe it's the current big bad, maybe it's under control of the big bad).

Because Dave ate the last slice if pizza and bragged about how easy the last boss encounter was so you just need to see the expression on his face when he realizes his precious paladin might not be able to smite his way out this encounter? I mean, it's not like DAVE ever DM's! ...Er, or something.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I've never understood the point of this.

I mean, as a GM, why am I (i) framing the PCs into a scene with a massive dragon, then (ii) implying, or outright telling the players, that their only hope to avoid TPK is to flee? That seems like the GM just reading a story to the players - "You met a dragon, then you ran away." How does it make for good RPGing?

1) Because sometimes it's ok for the DM to "read a story" as a transition or foreshadowing.
2) Maybe they have to make some decisions and possibly some dice rolls in order to flee successfully.