D&D 5E A simple questions for Power Gamers, Optimizers, and Min-Maxers.

I think another way to look at [MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION]'s question would be something like this:

Would you as a powergamer/optimizer be happy with designing and playing a PC that was optimized, but with one or two things required of it (say perhaps due to fluff or story reasons) that were not?

So for instance... creating the best / most optimized Bard of the College of Valor?

In this particular case... if we go under the assumption for the sake of argument that it's generally accepted that Valor is the less powerful of the two bardic colleges, would you as a powergamer/optimizer be okay with building and playing one? You could still optimize to your heart's content by creating the most powerful or strategically built College of Valor Bard possible... but on the macro scale of the totality of "bards"... the bard would not be considered the most powerful overall Bard build.

Is that okay? Can you be happy designing and playing the most-tricked out PC of a lesser-build? Or would you only be happy designing and playing the best overall build for a particular class? As Dave put it, do you feel as though you have to be the best overall?

Over the years I've heard self-identified powergamers on both sides of the tracks. Some want to create the uber-build for a particular class... while others enjoy creating the best possible PC from a less optimal circumstance (so for example they decide they're going to play a dual-wield barbarian, but will design and build the best damn dual-wielding barbarian they can.) Which side you'd fall on is indeed an interesting question delving into the minds of those for whom this is truly important.

Do I optimize yes but not like you always think; my favorite part of D&D has always been about putting out damage but I always have caveats I am not a pure caster type in fact if you handed me a pregen wizard even a evocation I probably try to get my character killed while they can be fun classes it just not appeal to me playing the character full time as a player I am do not mind part caster because I treat it more as a skill or power but I really need unarmed, swords, axes bows etc as part of the theme.

I take a concept and I try to maximize the damage I can do with that concept in other words I do not have to have the highest damaging build but what ever concept I pick I am going to maximize the damage potential around that build. Like I am working on a whip build going Duelist GFB EK fighter with a mix of ranger for colossus slayer and spell sniper. The build is not even going to have a shield and I am not taking an optimal race because it does not fit the theme but we do rolled stats so no big deal but I am maximizing my damage around my concept.

CapnZapp said:

Hmm.. I see your question now, Dave.

Unfortunately, what you seem to really be asking is: Do optimizers need to be able to optimize?

Stated that way, your discussion becomes an oxymoron.

Of course players defined as "having fun when they do better than others" need the ability to become better than others in order to have fun.

Click to expand...

There is some distinction though. One respondent pointed out that they prefer a group that is all equally optimized. Such a person doesn't want to be better than someone else, but wants to really rock at playing the game. I have also been provided with one persons distinction between an optimizer (which they didn't like) and a power gamer (which they did). Some people noted in this tread that they power gamer (or optimize) because it just natural to them, but they can enjoy playing the game when they are not optimizing or power gaming.

So i don't think an optimizer or power gamer is defined by "having fun when they do better than others," based on the responses in this tread.

CapnZapp said:

So I'm afraid the question you really should be asking is:

Do YOU have fun even without ways to optimize the game?

(Because if the answer is "no", you're by definition not an optimized, and you don't need the game to offer optimization)

Click to expand...

I'm sorry I am not following you here. i see how wording the question that way may have gotten more precise responses, but I was also trying to see if optimization required being "better" or if some of it was just having options to craft the character that you want. The part in parenthesis as my confused though.

CapnZapp said:

But it really gets worse. I know I enjoy doing well. Even if all characters are exact copies of each other, one party can still do much better than another. You can still use more or less effective sequences and combinations of your collective abilities.

So in the end: yes, I'm an optimizer in the sense that I want to play a game I can do well in (and therefore also less well in). But here's the kicker: we all are.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is another interesting question. Can the skill of play trump the skill of creation? Is one more important to you (the global you - not you personally) than the other. Do you need both?

DEFCON 1 said:

Over the years I've heard self-identified powergamers on both sides of the tracks. Some want to create the uber-build for a particular class... while others enjoy creating the best possible PC from a less optimal circumstance (so for example they decide they're going to play a dual-wield barbarian, but will design and build the best damn dual-wielding barbarian they can.) Which side you'd fall on is indeed an interesting question delving into the minds of those for whom this is truly important.

Click to expand...

Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but my character builds are to optimize concepts, not to make the most powerful concept overall. Like I might try to make a heavily armored wizard, or a character with only 1 level in each class, or a monk archer. So I'd certainly use a College of Valor bard if it fit my concept better. In general, I wouldn't be trying to make the best College of Valor bard possible, I'd be using the Valor bard to make my concept as strong as possible.

dave2008 said:

That is why it is not just a game of adding numbers.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. Everything is a number. How useful cold vs fire damage is, rolling 2d6s instead of 1d12. In a game where "all options are equal" assuming it is hypothetically possible to make such a game then everything would essentially be a "1" (or a 5, but all the same number regardless). Things might be subjectively better because one appeals to the player more than another but that would happen even if there were good and bad options. A game where "all options are equal" sounds better suited for a heavy RP focus game, not a numbers game like D&D.

shidaku said:

Sure it is. Everything is a number.

Click to expand...

I disagree, no one I play with looks at it that way (of course that is only 12 people over 25+ years). Regardless, this is not the point of this thread.

dave2008 said:

Yes, that is another interesting question. Can the skill of play trump the skill of creation? Is one more important to you (the global you - not you personally) than the other. Do you need both?

Click to expand...

Can I say, parenthetically: of the two types of skill, skill at play is the one I enjoy far more.

I'd have more fun as a Champion 20 in a Combat As War game than a highly-tuned Paladin of Devotion 9/Wild Sorcerer 9/Cthulock 2 in a Combat As Sport campaign where monsters appear in your midst 5-7 times a day, because the Combat As War campaign has more interesting decisions to make during play. It's a deeper game.

dave2008 said:

I disagree, no one I play with looks at it that way (of course that is only 12 people over 25+ years). Regardless, this is not the point of this thread.

Click to expand...

RP considerations aside, I look at 5E characters as essentially points within a complex multidimensional capability-space. (Probably 30 dimensions or so.) It would be simplistic to call that a "number", but not entirely incorrect.

Hemlock said:

Can I say, parenthetically: of the two types of skill, skill at play is the one I enjoy far more.

Click to expand...

Me too i guess, as that is the only type I have

dave2008 said:

So i don't think an optimizer or power gamer is defined by "having fun when they do better than others," based on the responses in this tread.

Click to expand...

I wonder if the question wasn't slightly loaded or slanted? I wonder because I'm seeing a pattern in the responses you get. When you get a 'yes,' it's mostly pretty clear. When you get a 'no' it's often to a re-phrased or re-interpreted version of your question, and/or comes with a lot of justification.

Somehow, 'no' is looking like an uncomfortable answer.

dave2008 said:

I disagree, no one I play with looks at it that way (of course that is only 12 people over 25+ years). Regardless, this is not the point of this thread.

Click to expand...

Well, that quite possibly explains why you don't understand the optimizer perspective.

Arguing if D&D is a game of numbers? No. But you can't talk about optimization without talking about numbers, because that's what optimization boils down to. Even you have addressed this point earlier in your thread by suggesting that an "equal" game would provide only very small benefits from taking any option.

I suppose whatever the case is, to answer your original question: I wouldn't enjoy playing D&D where all options were "equal". I would likely enjoy a "every option is equal" game in some other system that was much less numbers focused. I think RP often suffers at the hands of the math, and the math often suffers at the hands of the RP. It's nice to play games where math isn't even a question. I tell you what ability I have and what I want to do with it we role-play the results.

dave2008 said:

Yes, that is another interesting question. Can the skill of play trump the skill of creation? Is one more important to you (the global you - not you personally) than the other. Do you need both?

Click to expand...

Anyway, I wanted to go back to this question for a moment because I feel it's probably one of the better questions asked so far. Yes, skilled play can most certainly trump skilled character creation. For me, even as someone who enjoys optimizing, the end result is to have fun, and that fun is usually predicated on overcoming challenges in-game and having a good social experience at the table. So obviously for me, optimizing is not my only route to "fun" in D&D. I will always enjoy a game more with people who are good players. For this context I shall define a "good player" as someone who is creative, spirited, personable and generally quick on their toes on their turn. I'm much less likely to notice or even care about badly build characters if I'm having a good social experience.