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

[Lanefan]

...And this empirical information comes from?

And the accuracy of it is checked by?

I mean, this ain't an online game. It's not every DM compiles a report and sends it to a database for later analysis by somebody with a degree.

Well, around here I compile the reports and do the analysis myself, based on data of characters played in our own games (over 1300 of 'em, over 30 years and about 20 campaigns/games). The only problem is, by the time there's enough data to show a disturbing pattern within a given campaign it's *far* too late to save that campaign by making changes; and as I tend to start new campaigns about once every decade or so... So, all I can do is look at old campaigns and tweak to suit, except by then peoples' tastes have changed and the old problem isn't a problem any more while a new unforeseen problem is busy rearing its ugly head.

Lan-"is the opposite of an optimizer a pessimizer?"-efan

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

It's not a trap if it's clearly labelled, which is my point. If everything in the world is saying that dwarves shouldn't be wizards, then only the player can be blamed for deliberately choosing that. Although you could go one step further, and simply declare that dwarves can't be wizards at all. It makes little difference, in practice.

The issue is when you have the usual mix of players. If there are people who are going to object to another player having a DPR 0.65 below optimal in a fairly balanced system, how do you think they will react when someone plays an interesting concept that the system itself has designed to be suboptimal.

Its not a question of it not being obvious that it would be a suboptimal combination. Its the risk of someone throwing a wobbly when another player accepts that their character is going to be less optimal as the price for playing the more interesting combination and does so anyway.

Unless the entire table is made up of min/maxers, disallowing certain race/class combinations is not going to be the same in practice as making them less optimal. Saying "In this system Dwarves can't be wizards." is not the same as saying "There aren't many Dwarven Wizards so we're going to punish you if you want to play one."

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Unless the entire table is made up of min/maxers, disallowing certain race/class combinations is not going to be the same in practice as making them less optimal. Saying "In this system Dwarves can't be wizards." is not the same as saying "There aren't many Dwarven Wizards so we're going to punish you if you want to play one."

It's not that you're punishing the player, though. It's simply saying that "There aren't many Dwarven Wizards in this world, because of the obvious reasons which you can see here reflected in the mechanics."

A character deliberately choosing to play a less-powerful character (for thematic reasons) is a decision that's roughly on par with a dwarf taking up wizardry even though dwarves don't like magic and aren't very good at it. The player is (roughly) making the same decision as their character, based on the same types of reasons, which is exactly what the rules of any RPG should promote.

Whether that's an appropriate character to play at any given table is going to depend on the nature of that table and its DM. Of the tables where that character wouldn't fly, because it would conflict with the tone of the campaign, there would be little difference between making the character mechanically ineffective and simply not allowing them in the first place. And of the tables where such a character would be accepted, I expect in many cases that the DM would waive the restriction and allow the character anyway. (I'm sure that exceptions exist, but I'm only sticking to generalities anyway.)

 

[Caliban]

...so you aren't an optimiser?

What exactly is your problem? You're obviously trying to "trap" Saelorn into committing to something you can judge them for with these "oh-so-subtle" leading questions.

If you have something to say, just say it instead of playing games. (And besides - being an optimizer doesn't preclude you from considering games on an aesthetic or artistic level as well as a mechanical level. It's not an either/or situation.)

 

[Caliban]

NotActuallyTim laughed with this post

Ah. You're just a troll. Nevermind then.

 

[jasper]

It's not that you're punishing the player, though. It's simply saying that "There aren't many Dwarven Wizards in this world, because of the obvious reasons which you can see here reflected in the mechanics."

A character deliberately choosing to play a less-powerful character (for thematic reasons) is a decision that's roughly on par with a dwarf taking up wizardry even though dwarves don't like magic and aren't very good at it. The player is (roughly) making the same decision as their character, based on the same types of reasons, which is exactly what the rules of any RPG should promote.

Whether that's an appropriate character to play at any given table is going to depend on the nature of that table and its DM. Of the tables where that character wouldn't fly, because it would conflict with the tone of the campaign, there would be little difference between making the character mechanically ineffective and simply not allowing them in the first place. And of the tables where such a character would be accepted, I expect in many cases that the DM would waive the restriction and allow the character anyway. (I'm sure that exceptions exist, but I'm only sticking to generalities anyway.)

To reverse what you been saying all thread....Of the tables where a power build character wouldn't fly, because it would conflict with the tone of the campaign, there would be little difference between making the character mechanically over powered and simply not allowing them in the first place..
Saelorn you whole argument boils down to "power gaming is the only way to game in a dark and gritty campaign. And if your pc is not within a 1 hit pt damage per round optimized, it and the player are losers. And harm the game." You have prettied up. And threw out lots and lots of boring arguments to support your view point. But I find it laughable that you think your way is the only way.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Saelorn you whole argument boils down to "power gaming is the only way to game in a dark and gritty campaign. And if your pc is not within a 1 hit pt damage per round optimized, it and the player are losers. And harm the game."

If that's what you think I'm saying, then you don't understand my message at all.

 

[Lanefan]

(And besides - being an optimizer doesn't preclude you from considering games on an aesthetic or artistic level as well as a mechanical level. It's not an either/or situation.)

Quite true; as with many things it's on a sliding scale of sorts.

However, the original question (paraphrased here) of the thread still remains: if one is - or thinks one is - heavily skewed toward the mechanical end of the spectrum, why is that? What motivates that preference?

Lan-"all parts falling off of this character are of the finest Lanefanian workmanship"-efan

 

[Caliban]

Quite true; as with many things it's on a sliding scale of sorts.

However, the original question (paraphrased here) of the thread still remains: if one is - or thinks one is - heavily skewed toward the mechanical end of the spectrum, why is that? What motivates that preference?

Lan-"all parts falling off of this character are of the finest Lanefanian workmanship"-efan

Already answered, in multiple posts. Why are you asking me again?

 

[steenan]

However, the original question (paraphrased here) of the thread still remains: if one is - or thinks one is - heavily skewed toward the mechanical end of the spectrum, why is that? What motivates that preference?

This question may be reversed:
If the mechanics are not there to be played with, why they are a part of this game? Why not just get rid of the rules instead of wasting paper in the books and time at the tables?
And if the rules are there to be played with then playing with them should increase the fun at the table instead of decreasing it.

Playing with the rules only detracts from the game in two cases:
1. When the rules are used against their authorial intent. This means either twisting words and interpreting them against a known spirit of given rule or not knowing the intent of given rule because it's not clearly communicated in the game text (which falls under the case 2).
2. When the rules are poorly designed and have no clear intent, don't support their design goals or the goals conflict between different rules. This requires house ruling by the group to fix the problem if it's minor of just discarding the game and using a different one if such problems permeate the whole ruleset.

A well designed game has rules that, when engaged, create fun for everybody involved. For example, in Burning Wheel a player needs to grab every advantage in fiction and use the rules that represent it - or they will fail. And the game is quite clear on that. In Fate, "abusing" the fate point economy by intentionally pushing your character into trouble is exactly what drives the game forward and supports its intended play style. And so on.

The "powergamer = problem player" issue is endemic to games where the rules are not clear in their intent and/or (usually "and") they don't fit the game style advertised.