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

[Gardens & Goblins]

I can spend hours customizing a character, typically in a computer game, but also in D&D. Barbi-mode, I call it.

Drives my friends nuts. But really, what shade of feather says, 'Dashing yet reluctant to commit to long term goals, with a dash of wanderlust?' -.o

Would be fine with simply tinkering combinations that would lead to an equal 'power level' of character. For me it's all about creating an interesting character that I can get into the head of - believable motivations that I can roleplay, while having a unique flourish that sets them apart (in terms of style/execution rather than game mechanics). For me, roleplaying is someplace between the DM asking you, 'Whatcha gonna do?' and the result/outcome. So hey, if everyone has the same saves, combat modifiers, ability options? Fine by me.

As they say in Planescape - it's not what you do, it's how you do it.

To be clear, I find choices the develop a character to be meaningful, and the difference between my character and the next is how the engage with they world around them. I find D&D maths easy, as I'm sure many do - but building and playing a believable character? Yeah that's a real challenge. That's my min-max/powergame right there.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There is no meaningful difference between "every weapon does d8 damage" and "every weapon does d8 or d10 damage, but the d10 weapons hit 18% fewer times".

Assuming the math holds true there, it's still a meaningful difference - the d10 weapon has a substantially higher chance of killing an enemy with 9 or 10 hit points, and a substantially lower chance of killing an enemy with 1 hit point left. When the goblin runs past you to tackle the wizard off a cliff, your choice of weapon may very well determine whether it succeed or fails in its task.

 

[jaelis]

If a choice is meaningful then it has an impact. If it has an impact then it can be optimized.

For instance, in the weapon example: An optimizer with a high-damage/low-accuracy weapon would seek ways to maximize accuracy bonuses, and focus attacks on low-AC opponents. An optimizer with a low-damage/high accuracy weapon would seek ways to maximize damage bonuses, focus attacks on high-AC opponents. (Presumably the optimum strategy would be to switch between weapons based on the opponent's AC.) The optimizer's character will then do more damage than another player, who always uses the high-damage weapon and only tries to accumulate damage bonuses.

If you prevent that optimization, say by denying all bonuses and making all opponents have the same AC, then the weapon choice is no longer a meaningful one.

 

[matskralc]

The hypothetical game is just an example to prompt the question. If you are a power gamer, would you be willing to play a game where everyone is different, but equal? Or, as a power gamer, do you refuse to play a game where you can't be better than others?

I know. Your phrasing of the question is much more effective, though.

Hemlock responded that he would not enjoy this game because the choices he'd be making wouldn't be meaningful. dave2008 tried to explain that the choices could be made meaningful. Complex decisions that take time and effort to understand aren't meaningful if the effect is the same as the person that didn't bother studying possibilities. In that case, the decision was no more than an expression of personal preference, akin to choosing a shirt color or ice cream flavor.

 

[jaelis]

I want to understand is the "fun" in building a character out of many options or is it only "fun" if that character is actually better than everyone else (or at least the assumptions of the game).

It seems like a better way to ask that might be to see if a optimizer has more fun playing with players who are better optimizers, or with players who are worse optimizers?

 

[matskralc]

Assuming the math holds true there, it's still a meaningful difference - the d10 weapon has a substantially higher chance of killing an enemy with 9 or 10 hit points, and a substantially lower chance of killing an enemy with 1 hit point left. When the goblin runs past you to tackle the wizard off a cliff, your choice of weapon may very well determine whether it succeed or fails in its task.

Sure. This is just disproving dave2008's theory of the perfectly balanced game, though, and isn't my point.

I was accepting, for the sake of argument, his statement that characters' effectiveness could be equivalent in order to state that complicating a decision doesn't make it meaningful. I wasn't really making a rigid mathematical argument about which particular complex decision would have impact and which one wouldn't.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The hypothetical game is just an example to prompt the question. If you are a power gamer, would you be willing to play a game where everyone is different, but equal? Or, as a power gamer, do you refuse to play a game where you can't be better than others?

No, I don't refuse.

As a power gamer, I would prefer to bring everyone up to my level so we can all have fun learning from each other. I'll settle for taking a back seat and/or handicapping myself so that my optimization problem is harder than theirs but produces a similar output. But I don't want a meaningless optimization problem where tradeoffs are unknowable or arbitrary.

 

[ccs]

You can't separate the power gamer from the roleplayer or vice versa.

You clearly haven't met the one guy I play PF with....
He has an extremely effective killing machine he calls his character. Virtually everything on his sheet is geared towards either hitting things, or damaging them once they've been hit. He can reliably punch most things for 200-500 pts of damage.
Yes, technically the character has a name, is listed as being male, & is known to have a sister. And that's IT as far as the RP goes for this player. Trust me when I tell you that the PG & RP are separate in this player.

 

[Rod Staffwand]

I'm not a powergamer. I had a Pathfinder character I couldn't be bothered to level up for like 3 straight levels because, man, does Pathfinder have a ton of feats. Way too many to actually read through. Leveling in PF is as much fun as doing your tax returns.

I can see the appeal of power-building PCs as a mental exercise, but I like to play Dungeons & Dragons, not Splatbooks and Spreadsheets.

All system mastery does is force newbie players to Google "5e superdeath munchkin kickass build optimization".

I am happiest as a player wherein my build choices are primarily flavorful with similar mechanical weight. Slight variations in power level are fine. I dislike character systems with power-stacking (features --> feats --> spells) that boost core competency. I'd prefer one that encouraged diversification.

 

[Blue]

It seems like a better way to ask that might be to see if a optimizer has more fun playing with players who are better optimizers, or with players who are worse optimizers?

I have the most fun when everyone else is at the same level. Because I can pretty much hit a level of mechanical effectiveness that matches a party*, but when some striker-types are doing 50+ points of damage and others need a crit to get to 20, I have no idea what level to tune my characters to play at.

On the flip side, optimization is often a theoretical-only solo exercise. It's lots of fun coming up with whatever combo, figuring out how the synergy between X and Y with a dash of Z becomes really cool. But mostly it's like sudoku and won't hit an actual table.

* Okay, if I'm not going for a support/buff character, I will often build characters to match party output but be a bit more together on the defense. On the other hand in 3.0 I played the CON 8 Elven Wizard (rolling d4-1 for HPs) who liked to go into melee with his longsword. (Early on we got attacked by ghouls and eventually everyone but him was paralyzed and I was out of spells (this was before cantrips). So I used the sword and survived, and it became a thing with him.)