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

[Tony Vargas]

D&D is, as was mentioned earlier, a game that is all about establishing and meeting goals through cooperation and teamwork

A 'cooperative game,' even, yes.

The "reluctant" hero has to be dragged along to meet goals. The "greedy mercenary" does not play well with others, thus undermining the very cooperation and teamwork at the core of the game experience. ... D&D then, by default, does not really support these character archetypes.

Nod.

It's not a huge leap of logic to further define D&D's teamwork as based around specialized characters working in concert to overcome obstacles together.

The rewards for specialization and difficulties in being a generalist are many, yes. It's even a big part of how 5e balances - spotlight time, each PC is going to be better at some stuff than other stuff, so the DM puts stuff out there such that each gets to shine some of the time.

The athletic character dragging along the un-athletic one is a case of the former getting spotlight time, while a PC figuratively 'dragging along' the 'reluctant hero' trope isn't displaying his cool PC specialty and clocking spotlight time, he's just pulling with the current that the other PC insists on swimming against...

...well, unless his 'specialty' is leadership (not that the Inspiring Leader feat mechanically helps drag along a reluctant hero, but on the RP side, anyway) or otherwise getting allies to do stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. Then I suppose he could be the RP foil to help integrate the 'loner hero' or 'greedy mercenary' or whatever into the group, too.

And that's the heart of the issue, right? D&D has this reputation as "all things to all people" but the reality is it is not a universal system that supports all possible RPG playstyles equally.

5e's trying to overcome the reverse reputation, anyway, that D&D was 'only for Roll players' (90s) or strictly for RAW-abusing optimizers (oughts) or whatever someone had against D&D, personally, at the time they were ranting.

But, even so, 5e isn't trying to be all things to all people, just all D&Ds to everyone who's ever loved D&D.

So, no, it's not supporting all RPG styles equally, but it is at least trying to work up to supporting all styles of playing D&D that have worked in the past. Playing an odd-PC-out, like a loner or reluctant hero, or a good-at-everything-all-the-time paragon, arguably aren't among those styles.

It has a built-in framework (goals and teamwork) and from that framework springs a number of assumptions (such as combat as a universal obstacle,

Sure.

with other pillars typically handled by party specialists;

Not in every edition, exactly. In 4e, Skill Challenges kept everyone involved out of combat, and in 5e, Bounded Accuracy lets anyone take a shot at any out-of-combat check, even if they're not specialized in it (the gulf between the incompetent rube and the maxed-out Expert doesn't quite overwhelm the d20).

or that characters will be motivated to achieve goals and be motivated to work together to accomplish them). That's D&D as designed.

That seems like an assumption, anyway. Though, I suppose the way 5e often gets described as 'too easy' /could/ be because there was some wiggle-room left to keep less motivated/cooperative parties viable?

But to say that the system doesn't have its own personal preferences is a little disingenuous.

Heh. Obviously, a system doesn't have /personal/ preferences.

 

[Tony Vargas]

'Getting around it' can just mean being carried (literally & figuratively) by the guy that specialized in STR & Athletics - that's the "specialist's" time to shine, too - and that's hardly creative or outside the box...

Yeah. I even said as much, myself. Kinda the whole basis of the point I was making.

Exactly my point; that's the kind of problem solving and teamwork that D&D encourages.

Glad I could help!

 

[Corwin]

D&D is, as was mentioned earlier, a game that is all about establishing and meeting goals through cooperation and teamwork.

Let me be clearer as well (I hope). I agree. However, I am of the opinion that you are conflating player cooperation and teamwork with character cooperation and teamwork. As I believe is fostered by your next point:

The "reluctant" hero has to be dragged along to meet goals. The "greedy mercenary" does not play well with others, thus undermining the very cooperation and teamwork at the core of the game experience.

Unless you'd like to clarify who exactly is doing the "dragging"? And what you mean by "undermining"? Because right now it seems like you are doing as I suggest above. Confusing players with their characters.

Besides all that, its really just more personal playstyle and anecdotally-fueled opinion dressed up as generalizations and facts. Not good. I just hope you eventually see that you can't making sweeping, broad brush claims that the game requires/intends things be done a certain way WRT topics such as this. Your table is not indicative of all tables. Nor of what the game "wants".

 

[Gradine]

Let me be clearer as well (I hope). I agree. However, I am of the opinion that you are conflating player cooperation and teamwork with character cooperation and teamwork. As I believe is fostered by your next point:


Unless you'd like to clarify who exactly is doing the "dragging"? And what you mean by "undermining"? Because right now it seems like you are doing as I suggest above. Confusing players with their characters.

You're absolutely right, as [MENTION=17343]Tony_V[/MENTION]argas provided the primary example above:

...well, unless his 'specialty' is leadership (not that the Inspiring Leader feat mechanically helps drag along a reluctant hero, but on the RP side, anyway) or otherwise getting allies to do stuff they wouldn't otherwise be doing. Then I suppose he could be the RP foil to help integrate the 'loner hero' or 'greedy mercenary' or whatever into the group, too.

Yeah, it's perfectly possible to achieve "player cooperation" through developing a story involving a lack of "character cooperation".

Still, I would argue that D&D, as a system, encourages teamwork at both levels. If characters aren't cooperating they're not solving problems as a team. In addition, as was mentioned a little bit up-thread, trying to insert narrative causality into D&D can be difficult. I wouldn't go so far as to say impossible, but the system is isn't built to provide players those kinds of narrative tools the way, say, FATE is. Which brings me to my final point:

Besides all that, its really just more personal playstyle and anecdotally-fueled opinion dressed up as generalizations and facts. Not good. I just hope you eventually see that you can't making sweeping, broad brush claims that the game requires/intends things be done a certain way WRT topics such as this. Your table is not indicative of all tables. Nor of what the game "wants".

First off, I've never said what D&D or any other game "requires", simply what it intends and what it supports (and how well it supports it). I feel like I've made it pretty clear that D&D can handle a pretty wide range of playstyles, just that it supports some quite well and struggles to support others.

And that's just it. Personal playstyles and anecdotes aside, you simply cannot declare that D&D, or any other system, is completely neutral in terms of facilitating specific styles of play. I mean, you can declare it, but you'd be demonstrably wrong. D&D, just like any other system, makes core assumptions about how it's meant to be played, which support certain styles of play better than others. In well-designed RPG it's built into every mechanic. Paranoia does PVP better than D&D. FATE does shared narrative-building better than D&D. Of course, every system has different tones, genres, mechanics, etc. that apply better to certain playstyles over others. I would argue D&D's appeal is that is that it is broad enough in its design that it can handle a wider range of playstyles than most, but because of its core design intentions it still facilitates some playstyles better than it does others.

This is not broad sweeping generalizations based on my own personal preferences (which I've also already said don't always line up with D&D's assumptions that great either). This is pretty much objective fact. And it is true of every game system.

That doesn't de-legitimize anyone's personal playstyle, nor does it mean that if you're playing D&D contrary to its fairly clearly defined core assumptions you're doing something wrong, or that you'd be better off playing with a different RPG system (which might actually be true, but is immaterial to this conversation). All it means is that you're doing something different with the system than might have been intended. But if that's what you and table like, that's all the more awesome for you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I feel like I've made it pretty clear that D&D can handle a pretty wide range of playstyles, just that it supports some quite well and struggles to support others.

What even constitutes 'support' can be tricky to pin down.

you simply cannot declare that D&D, or any other system, is completely neutral in terms of facilitating specific styles of play. I mean, you can declare it, but you'd be demonstrably wrong.

Especially if you declare it on-line, as someone will immediately pop up and detail at least one playstyle that is somehow antithetical to the system in question. Mind you, I'm not saying "...that he just made up."

I'm not say'n it.

I would argue D&D's appeal is that is that it is broad enough in its design that it can handle a wider range of playstyles than most

It's been adapted to quite the range over the decades, certainly, and accused of 'not supporting' specific styles at times. It's also spawned the occasional OneTrueWay with adherents insisting it should (or even can) only be played that way. So kinda a mixed bag, there, really.

5e, of course, is trying to cover the same styles past editions have (assuming we even accept the premise that past editions supported distinct sets of styles, and not others), and hasn't managed all of 'em, just yet - but nothing about it's design seems to preclude it doing so, eventually.

5e also leans heavily on DM Empowerment, so a given DM, wanting to play in a given style, can add to or mod the game to create support for it.
FWIW.

Even so, it'd be decidedly difficult to adapt D&D to a party of loners, reluctant heroes, overweening paragons, selfish mercs, and stary-eyed sidekicks.
Though it'd sure be amusing to watch.

 

[OB1]

Sorry to jump in the middle of such a long thread. It's taken me nearly a week to catch up, and I have truly been inspired by much of the conversation. I think this is a fascinating topic, as it really gets to the heart of what I feel is one of the primary design decisions in 5e.

First, my definitions of optimizing and min-maxing.

Optimizing is the art of making the mechanics of your character match your character concept.

Min-Maxing is a type of optimization in which your character concept revolves around being very good in a narrow set of abilities at the exclusion of all else.

Typically, Min-Maxing refers to focusing on combat optimization, and because there is a limited set of options that will produce top level results, is necessarily limiting in the types of characters you create. This used to produce an interesting mini-game within the game, but with the advent of forums such as this, that game is no longer interesting, it's a riddle that you already have the answer for. So the designers of 5e stopped forcing you to play that mini-game by no longer assuming a min-maxed character in the baseline level of play.

Because 5e has a baseline that doesn't assume min-maxing, that means that choosing to do this trivializes the combat pillar of the game. In essence, it is like choosing to play in "narrative" or "easy" mode in a modern video game. If I have a player min-max in this way, it doesn't bother me, because it tells me that they want combat to be easy. If they don't want combat to be that easy, I encourage them to try different character concepts.

To reach "normal" difficulty in 5e combat, all that is required is that you have a +2 in your primary combat stat. Do less than that, and you are playing at "Hard" or "Legendary" difficulty, but the game is still playable. You just have to use your advantages in other areas to compensate.

Because of this, when Optimizing a character, there are now thousands of options available, from the combat specialist who was born to do her job with just the right genetic mix to the reluctant wizard who never had the smarts but went to wizarding school anyhow because that's where his mother went, to the devout and strong knight who wasn't born a natural leader but through his example and faith becomes one. The choices you make through your career are defined by the adventures you have, the lessons you learn and as you level up you work to constantly optimize your mechanics to the reality of the PC being played.

The designers of 5e, wishing to encourage experimentation with character design stopped the arms race and instead made player choice matter again.

In 5e, Min-Maxing for combat is the biggest trap option of all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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!"

I think more often you get someone that has a strong sense of how systems work, and uses it to fulfill their character concept, and people with a bias against "munchkins" see the number chrunching and don't notice anything else.

I've literally been called a munchkin for using feats and mcing to make...a less statistically powerful character that fulfills the concept with mechanical representation. Specifically, my 4e half-elf Cunning Bard swordsman, mc rogue and ranger, with the rogue feat to use longswords. Like...there are so many points that make him unoptimised. But bc my friend didn't really grok the system and what was optimal, he just saw me picking specific feats and combinations and went right to munchkin. The character literally had several features that sacrificed optimization in order to fullfil a roleplaying concept...and it's a munchkin build? Ooookay.

 

[Hussar]

I have to agree with [MENTION=6704184]doctorbadwolf[/MENTION] on this. As is quite often the case, the issue isn't necessarily someone being a munchkin, but, simply a misalignment of play expectations. Because of that misalignment, the symptom gets diagnosed as a disease. Player knows how to make a competent character and the observer sees only that. Your character can do that??? Oh, you must be a munchkin. It doesn't matter how well you role-play or how much effort you put into bringing your character to life, all the observer sees is that you made a character that deals more damage than another character (as an example).

OTOH, I can totally see what [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] is saying though. I've seen a great many characters that players bring to the table that have basically no role play at all. They aren't that interested in the theatrical side of the game. They don't want to deal with their backstory and personality and whatnot. Fair enough. That doesn't make them a munchkin. They just have a 10 in role-play and a 16 in number crunching.

I will admit to a certain degree of frustration with players like that. I do. I try my best to go with the flow and not try to force the issue, but, it does bug me. It particularly bugs me when it's done badly. Like characters created in a vacuum resulting in a group that is missing key elements. My current group, for example, has six PC's. Only one with a Passive Perception higher than 12.

They then complain about getting ambushed (twice now) by enemies. Again, I'll admit to a certain lack of sympathy here. They made these characters. The ambushes were perfectly reasonable situations and quite plausible. All it would take was a little bit of give and take between the players to have a few more characters who aren't blundering around with blindfolds on, and they would be in a much better position.

But, hey, they made the characters. AFAIC, it's up to them to deal with it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] IME, the distribution of stab-bots and murder hobos whose names the player can barely remember is entirely divorced from the distribution of mechanically well executed characters.

That is, they are just as likely to be made by a player with an 8 in optimization as one with a 16.

 

[Satyrn]

My current group, for example, has six PC's. Only one with a Passive Perception higher than 12.

They then complain about getting ambushed (twice now) by enemies. Again, I'll admit to a certain lack of sympathy here. They made these characters. The ambushes were perfectly reasonable situations and quite plausible. All it would take was a little bit of give and take between the players to have a few more characters who aren't blundering around with blindfolds on, and they would be in a much better position.

But, hey, they made the characters. AFAIC, it's up to them to deal with it.

Oh man. I'd love being a member of that party! Especially if my presence displaced the guy with the good Perception.

Ambushes are fun.

But seriously, one of my favorite parts of the game is getting nearly killed, and I'm totally fine with stumbling into danger. The only time my characters get a halfway decent Perception score is when I play a cleric.