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

[dave2008]

Ok fair enough. This might be a devils in the details kind of thing. Which kinds of customizations were you thinking of? I mean, would the base stats (assuming point buying) for a character be exactly this? Also, I think things get tricky once you have more than one dimension of customization to consider (ie. stats + race choice). I think it's the players choosing a bad mix of these more fundamental mechanics that makes them a "suboptimal" character, not because of any one of these mechanics in isolation.

I am not really interested in how to construct such a game or what it would look like. I am interested if power gamers and optimizers need their characters to be "better" or can they have fun if their character is equally as effective?

 

[Lanliss]

To clarify this tread is not about if such a game is possible, but what do people want. Do optimizers, power gamers, etec. need to be "better" or could the accept being as effective as everyone else. That is the question.

In such a game, you would still be able to optimize through party composition. I know, not helpful towards the current subject, but just a thought I had. If everyone can be different, but equally good, optimization would lie in making sure all/most of the important bases are covered, rather than have overlapping focuses.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

To clarify this tread is not about if such a game is possible, but what do people want. Do optimizers, power gamers, etec. need to be "better" or could the accept being as effective as everyone else. That is the question.

My point is that your question is too far removed from reality to be possible to answer.

 

[Lanliss]

My point is that your question is too far removed from reality to be possible to answer.

It's really not. Simple question for powergamers. "When you optimize, is it to be better than the average adventurer, or simply to explore different options? If all options were equally optimized, would you still have fun, or would you be bored by not being the best?"

 

[Uchawi]

You can't separate the power gamer from the roleplayer or vice versa. You can talk preferences and which one drives the players decisions, but even that is fluid from one game session to another. I believe if you want to equalize the field then we need to start discussing consistency of rules and how they are applied. The hope is everything would be more transparent to determine what is overpowered. If you just mash a bunch of sub-systems together, it makes it more challenging.

 

[dave2008]

In such a game, you would still be able to optimize through party composition. I know, not helpful towards the current subject, but just a thought I had. If everyone can be different, but equally good, optimization would lie in making sure all/most of the important bases are covered, rather than have overlapping focuses.

Yes, that is true.

 

[dave2008]

My point is that your question is too far removed from reality to be possible to answer.

I disagree as the real question is not about the game, but about what people want.

 

[dave2008]

You can't separate the power gamer from the roleplayer or vice versa. You can talk preferences and which one drives the players decisions, but even that is fluid from one game session to another. I believe if you want to equalize the field then we need to start discussing consistency of rules and how they are applied. The hope is everything would be more transparent to determine what is overpowered. If you just mash a bunch of sub-systems together, it makes it more challenging.

Sure, but I am not trying to figure out the perfect game. I am just curious if people can accept being equals or do they need to feel "better." If a power gamer will only enjoy having a character that is "better" than everyone else or better than the game expects then there is no point for a "balanced" game for them.

The question is simple: Does a power gamer need to power game to have fun?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Unless it isn't ... which is what we see in 5e, where people have mapped out the different types of damage, what monsters resistant/vulnerable, and what types of damage is best (hint- force then radiant IIRC). But if the game is perfectly balanced, then it doesn't matter! And it's just flavor- literally, you could re-skin one thing as another.

That might be true in theory - there might theoretically be a "best" damage type in 5E - but in practice it's going to depend a lot on what monsters you happen to come across. In the game I ran, the warlock was perfectly happy with his combination of eldritch blast and fireball, until they had an encounter with some Helmed Horrors who were immune to every attack he had except for his dagger. I'm not saying that the DM should specifically target the weaknesses of the PCs in order to contrive some balance in the damage types - the game shouldn't need the DM to resort to such measures - but you never really know what you're going to come across. It doesn't matter if half of the monsters in the manual are resistant to fire damage, if that half never shows up in the game. And if you are also fire resistant, then maybe you don't really care about fire-type enemies as much, since they aren't as much of a threat to you.

The second distinction is more interesting. Sort of the old 1e class system. Now, I'm not saying that 1e classes were balanced, but they were distinct. A thief wasn't balanced against a fighter per se, but a fighter absolutely couldn't roll on the thief ability tables. NO CLIMB WALLS FOR YOU! Balance through differentiation, where you can't necessarily put numbers to that differentiation. Of course, that's harder to ... uh ... quantify.

That's pretty much why class-based systems are interesting. Even if there was only one single best fighter build for every situation, the best fighter will always be different from the best thief and the best wizard, so there will always be that one single choice that is incredibly meaningful throughout the entire game.

The problem with class-based systems is that they're fundamentally opposed to customization. The more choices you have to make, the less weight is carried by each individual choice, and the lines of distinction begin to get blurry. A fighter may be a defender while a ranger is a striker, but if you give that fighter a big sword instead of a shield, then it starts to look a lot more like a striker than a defender; and your choice to play a defender class rather than a striker class is relatively less meaningful.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*