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

[Ancalagon]

delayed double post

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But what if the were no large benefits (only small ones) and/or no obvious strategies? I guessing such a game wouldn't be as much fun for you, am I correct?

There are always obvious strategies. The things that a normal person does the first time they play the game? Those are the obvious strategies.

If there are no non-obvious strategies, then the game is too simple to be interesting. (E.g. Tic-Tac-Toe has no counterintuitive strategies.)

If there are no large benefits (only small ones) over the obvious strategies, then the game is akin to Rock Paper Scissors: there exist non-obvious strategies with a measurable benefit over the obvious strategies. But games like that don't hold my interest.

Fortunately 5E is not such a game. Even if you're playing entirely with pregen characters (so that chargen isn't an issue), there are still things you can do during play that make you more effective than someone playing straightforward obvious strategies. This is part of the appeal of RPGs in general: infinite resolution and a live DM means that if you can think of something that ought to work well in real life ("flood the cavern instead of fighting all the kobolds") it has a good chance of working in the game. In an RPG where lateral thinking and creative solutions had no chance of working (i.e. there are no non-obvious solutions that are much better than the obvious hack-and-slash ones, so you might as well just roll initiative and start making attack rolls)--I would not be interested in playing that RPG for longer than a day or so at most. More likely on the order of minutes.

So yeah, I wouldn't find that kind of game interesting--and I doubt you would either. That goes way beyond the scope of your original question though, since your original question was about chargen, and the question you're asking now includes not having meaningful choices even during play. I can have fun in a game with no complicated chargen; but I don't want a game with complicated-but-meaningless chargen.

 

[Sunseeker]

I guess I just haven't experienced that. In 25+ years of playing D&D I've only played with 2 groups and none of us have ever optimized a character for anything. We just pick what we want and play and have great time. That is why i'm trying to understand the power gamer and optimizer mindset. It is completely foreign to me.

Not optimizing is not the same as not knowing how to function. It's when you're being asked "which one do I roll to attack again?" after playing for 3 months of weekly sessions. When you're waiting 5-10 minutes for people to figure out their attack bonus and then they still need to roll damage. There's a certain degree of "being able to math" required for D&D which I think the better you are at the more you lean towards optimization. I think for a lot of people who optimize, it's less about winning and just being able to crunch the numbers. I think honestly a game where everything is 1+1=2 would get boring real fast.

 

[dave2008]

Not optimizing is not the same as not knowing how to function.

That is true.

I think honestly a game where everything is 1+1=2 would get boring real fast.

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

 

[dave2008]

There are always obvious strategies. The things that a normal person does the first time they play the game? Those are the obvious strategies.

But normal people see things differently. What is obvious to one is not obvious to another. I have first hand experience with that in life and D&D

So yeah, I wouldn't find that kind of game interesting--and I doubt you would either. That goes way beyond the scope of your original question though, since your original question was about chargen, and the question you're asking now includes not having meaningful choices even during play. I can have fun in a game with no complicated chargen; but I don't want a game with complicated-but-meaningless chargen.

That is what I thought; you could have just said yes , but I do appreciate your long thoughtful responses.

Yes, it was a follow up question (I think I said that), I feel like you have thoroughly responded to the OP, so I pushed a little deeper. Thank you again for your response.

I've come to realize that a lot of this discussion depends on what we view as meaningful, or interesting, or obvious.

 

[dave2008]

I was not speaking about a perfect game, just one that is easy to learn and digest based on consistent rules. With random dice roles and choices someone is always going to be better at any given time. However, with clear and consistent rules you hopefully temper the system mastery issues that always leads to better options across the board.

yes

 

[CapnZapp]

Would you enjoy playing a version of D&D where you had a lot of character creation and customization options; however, these options do not add up to any additional benefit. That is to say, all options are equally good from a mechanical, optimizing, power gaming point of view.

Basically, would the game be fun for you if you could only build a different character, but not a "better" character?

Really hard to say.

I mean, what does this even mean? How would your vision look and feel and play?

Lots of options than ultimately all boil down to the same thing are boring.

Lots of options that do wildly different things are essentially impossible to balance (exactly).

To a certain extent I'm in for different ways of obtaining, say, advantage. But I'm aware there are only so many ways you can build a unique character concept without the mechanics also being unique (or at least different).

If if I answer a cautious yes, don't take that as a go-ahead to adding more ways of doing what we can already do. Especially if the fluff is very different - I'm thinking of the recent UA articles which talked about how you talk to spirits, but when it came down to actual mechanics all that fluff amounted no nothing more than "aura 30 ft, grants advantage".

So the ideal way is for the game to offer many different paths to heroic power, but that all are equally welcome in a party, and that they all offer equal opportunity to shine.

Like most ideals, that is a statistical improbability.

 

[CapnZapp]

As a role-player who primarily plays competent character, which may come off as power-gaming to some, I would welcome a game with a lot of meaningful options that were of equal power. It's actually really hard to do that with a game.

The danger that most such games run into is that they don't include meaningful options. They basically go out of the way to ensure that your unlimited options are meaningless. To use an example, Gamma World 7E gives you meaningless options in terms of weapons and armor - you can use any sort of heavy melee weapon you want, from a zweihander to a stop sign, and it won't affect the efficacy of your attacks in any way.

You do have a point, but you might also put too low value on freedom of choice in itself.

I mean, being able to fight with a stop sign without hefty penalties is a definite plus, for the player that finds a stop sign wielding hero an awesome image. And indeed, in post-apocalyptic games the game can actively encourage you to use a stop sign by not weighing it down with realistic penalties!

I for one is happy uber-detailed weapon tables have fallen out of fashion in rpgs.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

Not contesting what you said, just noting that those mappings are essentially meaningless, and therefore the difference between fire and force is still interesting.

(You can have ten times as many enemies resistant to fire than frost, but if you only encounter frost resistant enemies in Bob's Icewind Dale campaign, what is the value of that statistic?)

In other words, in many cases it's relevant to calculate and discuss averages. This is not one of them.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

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.

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)

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.