D&D 3E/3.5 Thoughts of a 3E/4E powergamer on starting to play 5E

[Sunseeker]

I don't read comics, but I watch cartoons. They all have their strengths and areas they specialize, but in a fight they all contribute. You don't see one of the Avengers or Justice League sitting by the sideline during a fight.
Oracle is a fun character to read in the comics, but she's not fun to play in a game.

No, she's not fun to play in combat. Oracle has great mental stats and is a completely unassuming person. Okay she needs a little assistance getting around, big deal! She could easily fill the role of the party Wizard, Bard, Cleric or any other mental-stat reliant character. Heck, you could make her a witch-themed character who is reliant on a magical broom to get around! Off the broom she has a movement speed of zero; treat the broom like a mount and use her first feat (she's a human after all!) to take Mounted Combat. Boom, Oracle! (I'll stat up a sheet if you want, I think I'll run her next time I play, talking it over with the DM of course.)

That's blaming the victim.' "If you didn't want to be left behind, you should have optimized!" That's mandating optimization, which just leads to power creep and the optimizer/DM arms race where both sides have to keep ramping things up to provide a challenge.

Oh please. If you optimize for social skills don't complain when you fail to succeed at combat. And vicey-versa.

Seriously, shift that sentence and argument around to apply to any other type of disruptive behaviour. Is that still a cool argument to make.

Oh give me a friggen break. Optimizing for combat is no superior or inferior to optimizing for anything else. It's NOT CHEATING. No rules were broken, nothing was done without permission, nothing was fudged, cheated or anything else off the sort. Comparing powergaming to CHEATING is nothing by lying hyperbole. You KNOW darn well it's a false comparison.

"If 4/5 members of a group don't fudge dice rolls for combat, but still want to engage in it on a regular basis, don't berate the one guy who did."

Lolwut? How is this even a comparison? You have players who WANT to cheat, but don't, and then Bob goes ahead and cheats? You're comparing apples to airplanes. The fact that they start with the same letter doesn't mean they have anything in common.
-This comparison is hereby disregarded as bumpkis.

"If 4/5 members of a group don't metagame for combat, but still want to engage in it on a regular basis, don't berate the one guy who did."

Metagaming is a table rule, not a book rule. The book even talks about people coordinating out of character as part of normal play. Since power gamers use only the rules available to them, this statement is hereby: disregarded!

"If 4/5 members of a group don't memorize the Monster Manual for combat, but still want to engage in it on a regular basis, don't berate the one guy who did."

And why should they? Bob probably spent a lot of time and effort memorizing all that stuff. There's no rule against reading the MM. You may have table rules against reading the MM while at the table, but you're not Bob's lord and master. If he wants to go home and read the MM, it is his right that you have no say over to stop him. Any DM who told me what I could or could not read in my free time would never see my dice at his table, that's just a creepy level of control-freak I don't need in my life. If the DM asks me not to read the MM, okay fine, I may not, but at the same time, I may have read it long before he came around. The best the DM can ask is to not use out-of-game knowledge in the game, if your character doesn't know it, he doesn't know it.

"If 4/5 members of a group don't like off colour jokes during combat, but still want to engage in it on a regular basis, don't berate the one guy who does."

What? How is this even a comparison? At best the PHB makes some light mention on being respectful to everyone, but typically what sort of conversation goes on at a table is a table rule Power gamers don't break rules, they take advantage of them to the best of their ability.

Power gaming is JUST as disruptive. Potentially more so. But it's not *technically* cheating and some people find it fun, so it gets a free pass. It gets excused, if not encouraged.

Oh grow up. Making best use of the rules is NOT CHEATING. Dear lord I can't even fathom how you could consider using the rules to your best advantage to be CHEATING. Crickent in a can I don't even know what to think about that. You have honest to goodness blown my mind to claim that following the rules, making the best use of them possible, is CHEATING. Just wow.

Yes. I've seen that in play.
"I convince him to help me. I got a 31 on my Diplomacy check." Wheee. Will the nonstop rollercoaster of fun ever end?

And I'm certain Captain Charming performs poorly in other areas of the game. Just like the Justice League. The Flash is terrible at social skills. Batman can make a great argument but is a charismatic deadzone. Everyone LOVES Superman but he isn't the brightest bulb in tool shed. Wonder Woman could punch through a bear, have a smokin bod, and still have all of the diplomatic tact of a rabid dog and have no idea how to go on a date.

But together, Batman can make a persuasive argument. Superman can charm the crowd. Flash can pass out the flyers. Wonder Woman can recite ancient history like it was yesterday and fight a bear.

Strengths AND weaknesses. So Bob wins all the charisma checks. All that means is that the moment you put him in a situation that doesn't rely on charisma, Bob will now have to rely on his team instead of his tongue.

Then you need to play at a table with other people of your skill, or who want to learn to play at your skill level.

No, you need to play with people who seek the same outcomes as everyone else. Noone is ever going to be a completely equally skilled group, it's impossible. Beyond that, I may be skilled with building Paladins and Fighters, but I couldn't build a Bard to save my neck. But who cares? If the goal is to beat up monsters, then we'll all just build what we're best at. If the goal is to charm the people and claim the throne through back room deals, diplomacy and persuasion, we'll also build what we're best at for that outcome.

D&D is a cooperative team game with a social contract. When playing board games with your parents, kids, and casual friends you don't get cutthroat and break out the advanced tactics. That's a HUGE dick move. Same damn thing. It's basic social niceties in a game setting to match the skill level of the people you're playing with. Yes, if everyone else at the table is an optimizer then you need to ask help, read forums, and step up your game. But if you're the best play you hold back, otherwise you're the jerk who just crushed grandma at RISK, shrugged, and said "Sorry Grangran, you suck. Don't pick Australia and play an offensive game."

No. You don't get to ask people to "play badly" because the other people are unable or worse unwilling to play well. That is victim shaming. You're not a victim if you choose to play less than optimally. You chose that. That was 100% ON YOU. I honestly can't even what sort of groups you run. I'm picturing a bunch of people who all know how to build good characters all building bad characters because they're terrified someone (likely you) is going to be triggered.

Strategic play =/= fun play. It's the best strategy for the BBEG to send just its elite minions to crush every threat, attacking at night during camps, and generally obeying the Evil Overlord list.

Then you're being hypocritical. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Do you want your BBEGs to show off their cool abilities that you spent a lot of time working on? Then play them smart so they can. This comment needs no response here. You either play your characters in a manner so that they get to show off their cool powers, or you accept the risk that they won't get to do that.

Going after weaknesses sometimes is fun for a change of pace. Hitting Superman with Kryptonite in the occasional story is fun. But when ever story involves Kryptonite, and Superman no longer feels super since every villain is exploiting his weakness, things get less fun.

Tough beans! And while you're at it. Make up your mind! Is it fun to always win or isn't it? Is losing means less fun for you then power-game! If you're okay with losing then don't worry about it!

If you have to constantly hit an optimized character in their weak area to remotely challenge them, then it gets boring for them since they don't feel awesome (and will usually find a way to strengthen that weakness) and it feels cheap as a DM.

Yeah so, as I mentioned in practically every response here: find the balance. Don't tell people to play poorly because you can't figure it out.

These comments always mystify me. It's almost as it someone says they use Netflix, and someone says, "Well, you still torrent movies, you just pay for them through an official and authorized provider of same."

Why do people keep comparing power-gaming to cheating? THAT is what mystifies me. Limit the rules all you want. Restrict the available options to the bare minimum. I'll still work the best thing I can with whatever is left over. That's not cheating. Cheating is defined by breaking the rules. Table rules against power-gaming aside, I can't possibly fathom why people have this twisted idea that following the rules and using them to the best advantage is cheating.

There is no wrong way to play D&D, so long as the table is having fun. If you have a table filled with min/max players, then that's great! What often doesn't work is when min/max players play with RPers and beer & pretzel players - not that it can't work, but usually someone ends up feeling that the other people aren't playing it right.

When playing with a mixed group, what people need to do is step out of themselves for a moment. You're part of a group, you're part of a team. Succeed where you want to succeed! Don't worry about where others are succeeding! It's a group effort.

But getting to the comment I'm responding to, it's annoying because, to a certain extent beyond beginners and young children, everyone is aware of the rules. Few people create fighters that fight one-handed with a dagger only, wearing no armor. What comments like this fail to realize is that there is a large category of players that do not optimize - either because they don't bother (beer and pretzels) or because they are aware of it and choose not to (RPers, for instance). They are not optimizing with different goals, they are specifically taking sub-optimal selections. Because it's interesting to them.

Optimizing for creativity. Optimizing for combat. Yes, it is optimization, you just have to step out of the idea and realize that the goals are exactly the same: success in your chosen area! If your "chosen area" is to be a greatly role-played character with amazing chest hair then don't be ashamed to optimize for that.

Now, if you want to expand the definition of optimization to uselessness (everyone is just optimizing for fun!) then I can't help you. Because I've met gamers that are most definitely not optimizing for fun.

Did you use the rules to leverage the best possible outcome towards the goal you set for yourself?
Yes? Mazel tov you're an optimizer.
No?

Sure. Some people optimize with the goal of being a jerk. Not gonna deny that. Those people are typically jerks from the get-go, they want to step in, crush heads and have everyone praise them. That's a Grade-AA sign of jerkishness. We should all be working hard to filter out the jerks to make for the best play environment possible, for everyone. But we shouldn't start assuming that because a person likes to play a certain way, they must be a jerk. Always give people the benefit of the doubt. If they prove themselves a jerk, don't let that make you cold to other people with similarities.

Let each person succeed or fail at being a positive addition to not just your table, but tabletop gaming as a whole on their own merits.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I strongly disagree. 3E was the biggest tent D&D ever had, and I'd argue that 1E/2E was a bigger tent than 5E as well.

5E has more broad appeal. I will happily play or run 5E. While I would still play in a 3 or 4E game if there is no way I would run one.

I don't see how my optimizing necessarily ruins anyone else's fun, and have to wonder if for people that have their fun ruined by me being effective if it isn't a problem with them, not me.

My point is, with 5E it doesn't. The gap between your optimized character and Joe's beer & pretzels character is noticeable but not wide enough so that Joe feels like he can't contribute. If you can't see how being THAT much more effective could impact someone else's fun then go play in a 3E game using a fighter with only PHB options while everyone else can play whatever they want and get back to me.

These are contradictory. @thecasualoblivion Said he wants to be able to know what he can do, when he can do it and how he goes about doing it without having to ask for the DM's permission to do the things the rules enable him to do. Noone wants to play "mother may I". I don't see how that doesn't qualify as "being free to make decisions for your character as you see fit". My decision is that, in the middle of town, I'm going to attack the nobleman who's been a royal jerk to those kids. The rules say I have the ability to attack people. If there are in-game consequences for that, so be it. But I shouldn't have to ask the DM if I may attack him. What's to stop me besides the DM saying "no" for no reason whatsoever. That's not rules lawyering.

If the DM is whimsically claiming I can't attack the noble when there in no in-game reason I couldn't that's the antithesis of player agency. That's the DM determining if you can or can not play you character in the manner they were designed based on the actions you choose for them.

Yes thats precisely what I'm talking about. Unless something in the game is physically preventing you from doing so, you should be able to attack the noble if you decide to do so. You do not have to ask permission from anyone. That is exactly what player agency is all about.

The bolded part. Exactly that. I want to know in advance what I can do, or my rough chances of success so I can play tactically. Tactical play is difficult to impossible when it's subject to the DM's unknowable whim.

You do know in advance what you can do. 5E did not remove character abilities. What you may NOT know is how effective a given choice is before you try it. Thats simply the interaction of character abilities with the game world which can vary from situation to situation. Assuming you have done something in the past with X chance of success and the next situation isn't meaningfully different in any way then you should be able to achieve similar results.

If the situation changes or there is information you do have yet, then an ability might not have the effect or impact you were hoping for. Player agency entitles the player to attempt anything, it does not entitle them to expected outcomes. Players often need to interact with game world to gain information and achieve results. Engaging strictly with mechanics only won't get you very far.

You have to base any tactics employed on what you know. Sometimes the best tactic is to find out more information before just trying to kick ass.

 

[Sunseeker]

Yes thats precisely what I'm talking about. Unless something in the game is physically preventing you from doing so, you should be able to attack the noble if you decide to do so. You do not have to ask permission from anyone. That is exactly what player agency is all about.

Then why did you claim it wasn't player agency when [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] said exactly the same thing I just said, and instead chose to call it rules lawyering?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Then why did you claim it wasn't player agency when [MENTION=59096]thecasualoblivion[/MENTION] said exactly the same thing I just said, and instead chose to call it rules lawyering?

He wasn't saying the same thing. He was referring to the expectation of outcomes equating to player agency. Not the same at all.

 

[Sunseeker]

He wasn't saying the same thing. He was referring to the expectation of outcomes equating to player agency. Not the same at all.

Yes, he was. He even quoted me in response to say that was exactly what he was saying.

 

[Jester David]

Why do people keep comparing power-gaming to cheating? THAT is what mystifies me. Limit the rules all you want. Restrict the available options to the bare minimum. I'll still work the best thing I can with whatever is left over. That's not cheating. Cheating is defined by breaking the rules. Table rules against power-gaming aside, I can't possibly fathom why people have this twisted idea that following the rules and using them to the best advantage is cheating.

I'm not saying it's cheating. I'm saying it's a disruptive behavior that impacts the fun of other people at the table. And one of the best comparisons in terms of disruptive behaviors is cheating.
And the best defense you can make about a behavior is that it's not explicitly against the rules. That's robbing the bank in Monopoly. "It's not cheating because the rules don't say you can't rob the bank."



If you can't play nice with other people at the table you're violating the social contract of the game, plain and simple. If it's not fun to play with someone you stop playing with that person. It doesn't matter if they played by the rules or not.

If you're doing something that isn't fun for everyone at the table you're putting your fun ahead of the fun of other people. At best that's just plain selfish.

 

[Mathilda]

It does - because the characters are all utterly sub-optimal (Half Elf champion with AC 14, no con bonus, and less than 40hp at 7th level who will run headlong at any enemy which dares confront him?). We also spend more time roleplaying than in combat. So if you were to add a player to the table whose main priority was to create a powerful character, they would probably get frustrated with the anarchy the group descends into when a combat does occur.

That just means more than likely the burden is on you as DM to ensure that party succeeds overall.... the could be fudging dice rolls, using lame tactics or no tactics at all and just selling out your monsters as bags of experience that you as DM distribute out. This is assuming combat is the main component of acquiring experience in your game. If not, then carry on.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I'm not saying it's cheating. I'm saying it's a disruptive behavior that impacts the fun of other people at the table. And one of the best comparisons in terms of disruptive behaviors is cheating.
And the best defense you can make about a behavior is that it's not explicitly against the rules. That's robbing the bank in Monopoly. "It's not cheating because the rules don't say you can't rob the bank."

View attachment 75855

If you can't play nice with other people at the table you're violating the social contract of the game, plain and simple. If it's not fun to play with someone you stop playing with that person. It doesn't matter if they played by the rules or not.

If you're doing something that isn't fun for everyone at the table you're putting your fun ahead of the fun of other people. At best that's just plain selfish.

You and other people in this thread presume a lot about other people's tables. What of organized play? The game I was talking about joining in the OP is an organized table. Where does that fit into your worldview?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes, he was. He even quoted me in response to say that was exactly what he was saying.

It didn't appear to be the same thing based on post # 105, but if it was,then yes we are on the same page no worries.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*